Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The End of Arnie's Days

By Dean Kuipers, LA CityBeat. Posted November 7, 2005.


Longtime Los Angeles politico Jackie Goldberg discusses Schwarzenegger's suicide strategy for Election Day and the corporate takeover of California.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Dean Kuipers

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

At Arnold Schwarzenegger's "victory" party on Election Night 2004, the governor stood onstage and basked in ballot proposal wins for Propositions 68 and 70, both about Indian gaming, and against 66, which would have changed the Three Strikes Law. But Republicans got nothing else out of him -- not one seat in the Assembly, not one seat in the Senate, no new congressional offices. One year later, it's no surprise he's again pushing his agenda via special election. But Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) says this particular slate of propositions is more than just another end-run around the state's elected legislators. She calls it the "corporate takeover of California."

This time, she argues, the issues on the ballot are carefully linked together and designed -- using corporate money -- to advance conservative interests and to keep Democrats away from the polls. She claims the governor even said as much in an e-mail to supporters. If he succeeds, she says, it's a "catastrophe," creating a governorship that no longer needs a legislature: "They're saying, 'Heck with this notion of democracy. It's so burdensome. It's so time-consuming. It gets in the way.'" She calls it a short-sighted act of political sabotage. Is Arnold set on a course to cripple the government?

Why do you call these propositions the "corporate takeover of California"?

Jackie Goldberg: If you take a look at who's paying for all of this, it's really extraordinarily large businesses. And they're not even all California corporations - the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent a quarter of a million dollars on one of them. That's in addition to the California Chamber, which tends to represent the largest corporations. You've got all the major pharmaceutical companies spending a fortune confusing the people about Propositions 78 and 79. You've got huge amounts of pharmaceutical money in Proposition 75. In fact, there is not a single one of these that isn't being financed by the largest corporations and the biggest players -- not just in California. The governor has fund-raised in New York, in New Jersey, in Florida. They're after a Tom DeLay-kinda takeover like he did in Texas.

How does Proposition 76 turn Schwarzenegger into a king?

Right now, it takes a two-thirds vote of the legislature and the governor to do a budget. If this were to pass, that's no longer going to be true. Because if eight Republicans refuse to vote for the budget, which they're willing to do if they've got a Republican governor, then the budget won't be on time and then the governor gets to decide what to put in and what to take out. Well, can you imagine a Republican assemblyperson or senator voting for a budget again, as long as there was a Republican governor? No! And if the reverse were true, the Democrats wouldn't either. This isn't partisan. This is about making any governor king.

Is the governor showing his true colors with this slate?

I have no idea who the guy is. I thought he was fiscally conservative and moderate to -- God forbid -- maybe even the L-word [liberal] on some of the social issues. But he's been singularly reactionary on all of them. I don't know if that's who he is, or if it's what his advisors tell him to do. But he's alienated all the Democrats and most of the independents.

This is a losing strategy for them. They've never been able to win a single statewide election unless they can attract large numbers of independents and about 20 percent of the Democrats. So, when you do this, you're saying, "I don't want to be governor again." Or, "My fame as an actor will carry me anyway." I don't think so. I don't mean to be nasty about this. This is sort of like Bush saying, "I'm going to do as much damage to the social programs and to the safety net and everything else that we right-wingers are trying to get rid of, as I can. I'll put in place things that will make it impossible for anyone to govern."


Digg!

Dean Kuipers is editor of LA CityBeat.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Big Issues
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 7, 2005 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For decades the American people were afraid of a Communist takeover. That is past. Now we should be afraid of a corporate takeover. It would have been no worse to be taken over by "godless" Communists than by "godless" corporations. People should control both the government and corporations. The first order of business should be to stop corporations and every other "special interst" group from bribing candidates with campaign contributions. The second should be to bring corporations under control. All corporations should be licensed for a limited time. The license would not be renewed if the corporation doesn't serve the public interest. The broadcasting companies work under these rules and are very profitable. The middle class better rise up and take control of the government or there will soon be no middle class. Join the revolution! click on a new idea

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Issues Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Big Issues Posted by: Lincoln fan
Arnold sure knows how to continue turning CA into another KS
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 7, 2005 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I'll give the blame to Davis and the Democrats for caving in to the right and/or using the same short term narrow vision strategies as the cons use rather than take a long term progressive view. And as Tim Kaine in my state would say against Jerry Kilgore's plan to place economic decisions on ballot initiatives "They didn't work in CA and they won't work in VA." No question that win or lose, Republican governors including Arnold have found ways to rig the voting results or override the people's choice if they didn't like what they got. A lesson for Democrats: Be bold, think long term, and don't engage in schenfreude too much or you'll continue to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And to the CA Democrats, take some lessons from most MT Democrats
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 7, 2005 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'll find yourself to be a truly better party than you would imagined otherwise. Don't focus too much on social issues but instead make the economy priority number one. That way, you won't be playing on the GOP turf so often.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

faith-based arnie
Posted by: menckenman on Nov 7, 2005 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arnie said he doesn't know where his contributions come from, so they can't be special interests. Just coincidence he's getting hundreds of thousands from, ah shucks, who cares? Trust him, he's made a few mistakes, but his heart is in the right place.

The corporate and christian repugs seem to think that soap opera reform politics mixed with a dash (not too much) christian moralism will do the trick. Arnie's in the title role, a kind of reactionary spawn from the movie industry-muscle building cesspool now evolving into a goofy populist.

Will the booboisie swallow all of Arnie?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No More Corporate Interest
Posted by: cstriker on Nov 7, 2005 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. government and all the subsequent state governments are supposed to be here for the people. We have allowed corporate lobbying, corporate funding of elections, corporate financed propaganda. Where does it end? We have to stop allowing any kind of corporate money to flow anywhere near our governments. Taxes should be the only money we get from corporations. Lobbying should be banned and any contributions that can be linked back to business should be ended. Government financing should come from taxes. Period!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prop 74
Posted by: oaklandis on Nov 7, 2005 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prop 74 has a delightful little clause that would allow a teacher to be fired for being a member of the Communist Party. What freakin' year is this, anyway?

http://www.yourpoliticalfriend.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apathy, Laziness, Ego or Stupidity?
Posted by: roseelyse on Nov 7, 2005 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard so many democrats, liberals, third-party folks say that they are not voting as a "protest". A protest of what? Newsflash, you not voting does nothing to improve the initiative process. The only thing it does is prove to the right that motivating its base to vote by putting "bait" on the ballot (like Prop 73), means they will win their elections. It's just too frightening to think that, if what the right's strategists are saying is true (that Prop 73 will bring 500,000 conservatives to the polls), the State of California's future will be in the hands of corporations or worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prop 74 correction!
Posted by: jobloe on Nov 7, 2005 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know its out of line to post outside the thread. But this should be read.

Proposition 74 does NOT have a clause in it that allows a teacher to be fired for being a memeber of the communist party.

The bill CLEARLY states that the items in italics are the parts of the already existing bill that are to be ammended. In order to show where these ammendments fall, the whole section is written out, in this case section 44932. Again, only items in italics are the proposed ammendments. In this case, that is section 11(c). The 'communist' section you refer to is section 10, and not in italics. All others remain unchanged.

This is not a rational argument to vote against this proposition. Find another one.

So, to answer your question, this is the year 2005. In this year we do not react, we read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bye Bye Arnie & Corps.
Posted by: SanFranDuke on Nov 9, 2005 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The voters spoke with a defening roar,NO! They also spoke in VA & NJ.

Now we have ought six to worry about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]