Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll have to obsessively keep watching, though, because I'm curious as to whether Arnold can accomplish anything given the makeup of the other branches.

It will be difficult. The only real chance he has is to do like Reagan and go over the politicians/media's heads and straight to the people. If he can continue that relationship which he has already begun to build, he has a chance. Otherwise, there will be more gridlock in Sacramento than LA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll have to obsessively keep watching, though, because I'm curious as to whether Arnold can accomplish anything given the makeup of the other branches.

That would be other "branch." The state Supreme Court has six justices nominated by GOP governors, and one nominated by a Democratic governor.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll have to obsessively keep watching, though, because I'm curious as to whether Arnold can accomplish anything given the makeup of the other branches.

October 7, 2003, 8:01 p.m. PDT: Arnold inherits structural state budget deficit* of $8 billion.

November 2003: Arnold is sworn in and immediately fulfills one of only two concrete campaign promises by rescinding car tax, pushing structural state deficit to $12 billion.

January 10, 2004, 10:00 a.m.: Arnold releases proposed budget, compelled by law to be balanced; announces that comprehensive audit of state books shows situation is "more dire" than ever previously known by man. Proposed budget cuts schools (in violation of other concrete campaign promise) and raises "user fees," most of which GOP candidates have been calling taxes in all campaigns since the 1970s. Balance of gap is covered by completely bullshit projections of cost savings by transferring public functions to private contractors, including outlays to private prison operators and projected savings from rescinding contracts with government employees' unions.

January 10, 2004 10:01 a.m.: Sen. Minority Leader Jim Brulte rescinds 2003 promise personally to campaign in the primary against any GOP legislator who votes for budget that increases taxes or user fees.

Summer 2004: Legislature passes budget (late) by narrow 2/3 vote only after forcing Arnold to increase taxes and fees further than January proposal.

Fall 2004: Suffering massive disappointments in legislature on business deregulation, losses which he blames on "outdated partisan politics of the past," Arnold begins grass-roots campaign to amend state constitution to permit budget to pass on simple majority vote.

What happens after that is anyone's guess, but mark my words: Arnold will raise taxes, just as Reagan and Wilson did before him, all while claiming surprise that budget deficit can't be covered through spending cuts alone. Somehow, the California GOP never gets around to actually crunching these numbers until after the gubernatorial election.

*Structural deficit = budget deficit that cannot possibly be remediated by even optimistic economic growth projections.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What happens after that is anyone's guess . . .

The only thing you forgot was Arnold delivering California's electoral votes to the Democrat candidate for president, 2004.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
The only thing you forgot was Arnold delivering California's electoral votes to the Democrat candidate for president, 2004.

The dems have already lost any race where California is in play. Gore took it by 12% in the last election, and its moved into the solidly Dem column at this point.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
. . . and its moved into the solidly Dem column at this point.

I know my reasons for saying that this election will result in a Dem win in the pres election, and they're all based on future happenings. You're saying (I think) that the results themselves, in which the Repubs got over 60% of the vote, shows a shift to Dems?

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
The only thing you forgot was Arnold delivering California's electoral votes to the Democrat candidate for president, 2004.

You give the GOP National far too much credit. Even if the recall was defeated, Bush wasn't going to carry Cali.

S4E

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
S4E

Did you get married or something?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You give the GOP National far too much credit. Even if the recall was defeated, Bush wasn't going to carry Cali.

I think everyone's in agreement on that. The question has always been whether the state GOP could do anything to force the Dems to spend money in California in Decision 2004. The GOP pundits are saying that the recall election should force the national Dems to direct resources here to keep it. I don't think that's true by a long shot. The Dems should focus on red states that might be in play if voter registration goes up and the economy stays down, like Kentucky.

sgtclub is right that this was a referendum on Gray Davis. I would add it was also a rather petulant way for the GOP to capture a statewide office in a manner that its own procedures (i.e., a primary system that consistently nominates a hard-right, unelectable candidate) wouldn't allow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
sgtclub is right that this was a referendum on Gray Davis. I would add it was also a rather petulant way for the GOP to capture a statewide office in a manner that its own procedures (i.e., a primary system that consistently nominates a hard-right, unelectable candidate) wouldn't allow.

As George Will points out this morning (thanks, sgtclub), the state GOP had to swallow hard to go with Schwarzenegger, who rejects a great many of the party's positions. The joke's going to be on them -- Arnold is much more interested in himself than he is in the state GOP. Why anyone would think that Arnold would be able to turn people out to vote for Bush is beyond me. And he'd pay a political price -- he was elected even though he's a Republican, not because of it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I would add it was also a rather petulant way for the GOP to capture a statewide office in a manner that its own procedures (i.e., a primary system that consistently nominates a hard-right, unelectable candidate) wouldn't allow.

I would vote for "opportunistic" over "petulant".

(E.T.A.) - No, make that "cynically opportunistic."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I would vote for "opportunistic" over "petulant".

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. If a party with 35% registration statewide is banging its head against a wall because its 35% is so entrenched with hard-core true believers that it never presents candidates that the general electorate can stomache, it should do something more about it other than take the one opportunity in a hundred years to do an end-run around its base.

[SOURGRAPES]Electing a pro-choice, anti-NRA, platformless quasi-Republican to ride the sinking ship and thereafter render the GOP ineligible for all statewide offices for the next three election cycles qualifies as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.[/SOURGRAPES]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. If a party with 35% registration statewide is banging its head against a wall because its 35% is so entrenched with hard-core true believers that it never presents candidates that the general electorate can stomache, it should do something more about it other than take the one opportunity in a hundred years to do an end-run around its base.

[SOURGRAPES]Electing a pro-choice, anti-NRA, platformless quasi-Republican to ride the sinking ship and thereafter render the GOP ineligible for all statewide offices for the next three election cycles qualifies as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.[/SOURGRAPES]

Why is this a sinking ship - I assume you are not taking the attitude that the DEMS can't fix it so it can't be fixed. Are you one who believes the initiative constraints don't allow enough room for solutions?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If a party with 35% registration statewide is banging its head against a wall because its 35% is so entrenched with hard-core true believers that it never presents candidates that the general electorate can stomache, it should do something more about it other than take the one opportunity in a hundred years to do an end-run around its base.

Granted. But, if offered the never-to-be-repeated chance to have "GOP" on the nameplate on the Guv's door, they'd be stoopid to say no.

(Unless, as I hold, it is guaranteed to leave the voters even more anti-GOP in 2004.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
As George Will points out this morning (thanks, sgtclub), the state GOP had to swallow hard to go with Schwarzenegger, who rejects a great many of the party's positions. The joke's going to be on them -- Arnold is much more interested in himself than he is in the state GOP. Why anyone would think that Arnold would be able to turn people out to vote for Bush is beyond me. And he'd pay a political price -- he was elected even though he's a Republican, not because of it.

So an important question for the Bilmores of the world (and fear for those of us on this side of sanity) is whether the new sitting Republican governor can remake the party in his image?

Lessons from Massachusetts: Sitting Governors Weld and Cellucci did indeed successfully unwind the far-right wing Massachusetts party and replace it with a more moderate one. Net result: dramatic decline in Republican legislative seats as conservative Dems beat moderate Republicans. Lesson: sometimes those far right politics play in limited areas, and before you alienate them, you have to have a viable strategy to win other seats. In Mass., they were unable to move in on other seats, because any moderate candidate they'd choose would rather run as a Democratic in those areas.