Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Howard Dean was in the Bay Area yesterday, urging people to vote "no" on the four propositions that Gov. Arnold is backing. His reasoning was largely that making these propositions fail would be a black eye for Arnold and republicans in general. That's the sort of nonsensical partisan approach to things that drive me up a wall. I don't think I'll be supporting all four ( a couple of them yes), but my reasons have nothing to do with who endorses them or who is against them. >>Moreover, this page will continue to support campaign financing proposals that help cleanse the political system, including more public financing of elections.<< I'm with them on that. But while this measure focuses on union money, there really, REALLY needs to be more brakes applied to PACs, corporate dollars, etc. cmpaley's point that corporate interests have far too much influence on what happens in Sacramento and Washington is 100% correct.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Well, there goes the theory that the LA Times is biased to the left. Their endorsement for 75 shows that they are actually right-wing.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^ Proposition 75 is neither right wing or left wing, it is a change in California Law to require union members to give permission to the Union before they collect union dues for use in specific political campaigning. Let me quote the LA Times... >>But the tactical political repercussions here are not so easily discerned. Democrats may become more popular among voters if they are seen as less beholden to special interests.<<
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Proposition 75 is neither right wing or left wing, it is a change in California Law to require union members to give permission to the Union before they collect union dues for use in specific political campaigning.<< Uh huh. That's why only right-wing extremists and corporate special interests are funding it. I wish Schwarzenegger's supporters would just be HONEST for once!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I wish Schwarzenegger's supporters would just be HONEST for once!<< I think there's something to that. I mean, I can accept that this is a right-wing inspired initiative, and still set that aside and take a look at this initiative objectively and decide one way or the other. Pretending this is totally unbiased is insulting, and it really isn't fooling anyone. That unwillingness to be honest about the hoped-for goals of this initiative, giving it a phony name and such, might be the one thing that would drive me to not support it. Also, it's dumb politically, because it makes the initiative either pro- or anti-Arnold, rather than living or dying on its own merits.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Why are over half the union membership (based on pools) supporting Prop 75??? <a href="http://www2.dailynews.com/news/ci_3087346" target="_blank">http://www2.dailynews.com/news /ci_3087346</a> >>But union workers involved in the pro-75 campaign argue that it is about standing up for their rights against union bosses who keep a tight control on their organizations. Jim Prunty, a state employee and union member in the Department of Food and Agriculture's Van Nuys office, said he supports the measure because he would rather see his union focus more on collective bargaining and workers' issues, rather than spending his dues on political causes. "I'm pretty confident expressing my own First Amendment rights," Prunty, a member of the California State Employees Association, said in an interview arranged by the pro-75 campaign. "I don't need the union to do that for me. It's kind of a goofy presumption that they should be taking my money and speaking out on political and social issues that have little or nothing to do with negotiating the contract." <<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why are over half the union membership (based on pools) supporting Prop 75???<< Over half? Really? (And I'm refraining from tellig a pool joke here).
Originally Posted By Darkbeer You know, it is the folks who are campaign for no on 74, 75, 76 and 77 and trying to roll them all into one big "Anti-Schwarzenegger" campaign, and rather not talk about the actual merits of the campaign. Look at all the union money that was spent to make Schwarzenegger look bad starting early this year, and now try and tie him to the Props in their ads.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>and now try and tie him to the Props in their ads.<< Are you kidding? He IS campaigning for these four propositions, that's really no secret. When the man stands at a podium with the numbers of four propositions on them, how can anyone not connect him with them? But I agree each one should be considered or dumped on its own merits. It's why I hate the phony names the authors of these things come up with -- Paycheck protection? Come on.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The Los Angeles Daily News? Now there's a good, unbiased source for news. :-\ First, the generic term "union member" doesn't mean anything. The question isn't whether members of unions, in general, support this, the question is whether PUBLIC EMPLOYEES support it. Second, if you were to go to the San Fernando Valley (a notoriously right-wing part of LA that the Los Angeles Daily News services), South Orange County or San Diego County (all rabid right-wing areas) and ask about anything tied to Schwarzenegger, you'd find people who unquestionably support him and everything he stands for. I'm called a left-wing moonbat because I dare question a man who says he doesn't need special interest money and immediately turns around to the REAL special interests and sticks out his empty hand. I dare question a man whose entire economic program was put together by corporate and anti-working person interests. For that I'm called a wacko. What-ev-er!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>You know, it is the folks who are campaign for no on 74, 75, 76 and 77 and trying to roll them all into one big "Anti-Schwarzenegger" campaign, and rather not talk about the actual merits of the campaign. Look at all the union money that was spent to make Schwarzenegger look bad starting early this year, and now try and tie him to the Props in their ads.<< Hmmm...I don't see anything untrue being said, though. Schwarzenegger talked so much about how he was going to be different. He was going to be bipartisan and actually work with the legislature to get things done for the people. Instead, he's done everything he can to remove rights from working people and give all kinds of benefits to corporate donors. Those are the facts that the union ads have been bringing to the fore. The California press won't bring his hypocracy to light because they're starstruck with him. Second, 74, 75, 76, and 77 (the Funky Four) are all Schwarzenegger's propositions. He's the one that called for the Special Interest Election. He the one who announced them as "his reform package." Of course, now that his numbers are in the toilet (because he's been exposed for the corporate shill he is), the campaigns are asking him to kinda lie low so the people don't see the real connection (funny how they never asked him to stop selling vetoes, sorry, I mean asking for campaign contributions). The anti-funky-four ads are properly pointing out that these are Schwarzenegger's "reform" package. He thought he could use his star power to sell them. He was wrong. I for one couldn't be happier. I don't mind movie star politicians. I DO mind hypocritical ones who are doing everything they can to make life a living hell for working people.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I DO mind hypocritical ones who are doing everything they can to make life a living hell for working people." This is where your hyperbole rushes into the ridiculous and you lose people in a hurry. While many of us may not agree with all things Schwarzenegger, no rational person is going to buy for a second that he gets up every morning thinking up ways "to make a living hell for working people."
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>This is where your hyperbole rushes into the ridiculous and you lose people in a hurry. While many of us may not agree with all things Schwarzenegger, no rational person is going to buy for a second that he gets up every morning thinking up ways "to make a living hell for working people."<< I don't think he does that...exactly. I do think he thinks that big business and ONLY big business should have any benefit from the functions of the government and the everyone be damned.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I do think he thinks that big business and ONLY big business should have any benefit from the functions of the government and the everyone be damned." I know you the read the part I wrote about rationality.....
Originally Posted By cmpaley The let me put the question to you, STPH. Please name for me one, single, specific thing that Schwarzenegger has done that is good for the common person but not adversely affected the State. Please, don't give me something about something that benefits corporations will theoretically trickle down to the common person. I can't think of a single thing that is a net positive for the common person. On the other hand, I can think of a LOT of things he's done that are beneficial to corporations and adverse to common people.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-governor16oct16" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo cal/la-me-governor16oct16</a>,1,7310259.story >>Schwarzenegger wants to focus on health insurance for children, homelessness and big building projects that have been the hallmark of some Democratic governors, administration officials and others said — an effort to craft a less confrontational agenda than this year's. And the governor wants to revive a plan that Democrats torpedoed last year to install solar panels on 1 million roofs — traditionally an issue they would embrace — after being lobbied by electrical workers unions concerned about protecting jobs. Schwarzenegger is scheduled to begin promoting the solar plan publicly next week. He could implement some of it through the state Public Utilities Commission, but much of it requires the Legislature's approval.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-laws9oct09" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo cal/la-me-laws9oct09</a>,0,986451.story?coll=la-home-local >>Though Schwarzenegger signed a number of union-sponsored measures — in some cases, against the wishes of his business allies — labor's achievements were light years away from the heady days when Schwarzenegger's predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis, routinely approved ambitious union requests. He broke with the Chamber of Commerce and the state's manufacturers and technology lobby in extending the statute of limitations by giving people more time to sue for employment discrimination suffered when they were teenagers. Schwarzenegger approved a bill sponsored by the Service Employees International Union — one of his main opponents in the coming election — that requires the state to do more extensive vetting of prospective hospital owners. He authorized California's Employment Training Panel to award contracts to projects that train workers in seasonal industries, even though manufacturing and business groups complained that would divert money from industries that offered permanent jobs. For a politician who has been pummeled by accusations that he has become a corporate lackey, Schwarzenegger offered a number of surprises as he signed bills by some of the most liberal lawmakers while routinely ignoring the Legislature's far more conservative Republican caucus. "He might have done a little bit of a swivel, but that is what an open-minded governor is supposed to do," said Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). Schwarzenegger signed many of her bills. Schwarzenegger approved six of the 10 measures identified by Sierra Club California as most important to the environment. Those included banning experimental pesticides in schools and making California the first state to require cosmetics manufacturers to identify potentially carcinogenic ingredients. The chemical and cosmetics industries had strongly opposed the latter measure. He rebuffed the movie and software industries by outlawing violent video games from being sold to minors. Even as he vetoed what would have been the nation's first gay marriage law enacted without a court order, Schwarzenegger approved legislation protecting gays from housing and employment discrimination and making it easier for homosexual partners to transfer property and retirement benefits to each other.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12689147.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld /mercurynews/news/politics/12689147.htm</a> >>The governor's three other goals are, at best, works in progress. They included: A fundraising ban during budget season, which typically stretches from January until summer or later; a push for better disclosure of campaign contributions and stiffer penalties for violators; and a vow not to sign bills that are rushed through without full legislative hearings -- an attempt to end a common legislative practice of slipping in controversial items with scant notice. The governor has twice tried to pass a bill that would designate certain times of the year black-out times for fundraising, but the Legislature has balked. The governor has previously criticized end-of-legislative-session fundraisers, but held them this year as he tries to raise $50 million for the special election. Until a ban affecting all lawmakers is passed, ``there's no reason to unilaterally disarm,'' said Schwarzenegger Press Secretary Margita Thompson. Last month, Schwarzenegger said he would try again next year to enact a fundraising blackout. ``I'm going to make sure that it will be introduced again. . . . And I know the legislators don't like it, but I will keep pushing.'' An attempt to change disclosure rules for campaign contributions and increase penalties also withered for lack of support. ``Despite the Legislature's failure to take action on political reform, the governor remains committed to it,'' said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Katherine McLane. Twice, Schwarzenegger has endorsed an effort to crack down on political consultants who are also lobbyists. This would affect both Democratic consultants and some of his own top advisers. Twice, the effort has died. He has opened up his calendar for public review. And he has set his own rules on acceptable contributors -- albeit an evolving one. The governor dropped a self-imposed ban on accepting donations from single-interest trade groups, such as the California Restaurant Association and the California Grocers Association, which have taken part in recent fundraisers. But he has held firm against accepting donations from Indian tribes and public employee unions, with which his office negotiates. The governor's fundraising committees disclose more information than the law requires, said his chief fundraiser, Marty Wilson.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/13698590p-14541313c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ opinion/story/13698590p-14541313c.html</a> >>On labor, business and fiscal issues, the governor tilts right. On the environment, he leans left. On social issues, his instincts go left but are tempered by the legal and political realities he confronts. He is not so much a consistent centrist as a mix of conservative and liberal positions, an eclectic combination of views that makes him a bad fit for either the Republican or Democratic parties in this state, at least as they are currently defined by their elites. Beyond these measures, Schwarzenegger also signed hundreds of other Democrat-sponsored bills of lesser import, though none of them, of course, were considered unimportant by the legislators who authored them. Taken together, his actions are about what you would expect from a fiscally conservative, pro-entrepreneur, environmentally liberal, socially moderate governor of a Democrat-leaning state.<<
