Arnold, Can We Learn to Trust Again?

The governor of California, after a long journey through the woods, looks voters in the eye and reaffirms his commitment to fiscal discipline in this brand new one-hander:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new Stand for California campaign comes as officials are making claims about optimism in the budget standoff that are about as credible as Schwarzenegger's claims to fiscal responsibility. It also comes in the context of a media war, with the California Teacher's Association currently airing this attack ad:

It's a touch of class to use the phrases "never forget" and "never again" in an attack on Austria's most popular export since Hitler, but I think any fair-minded person would agree that cutting public school fiddling classes is exactly the same as the Holocaust. Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger's spot has the edge. It's a classic setup, letting a star address the camera directly. Also, the governor has the wind of the voters at his back. (Although, since the voters in May rejected the governor's own slate of ballot initiatives, I should probably say that the wind of the voters turned the governor's ship around and he's now decided that sailing in this direction was his idea all along.)

One more note about California voters. This media war is about a budget fight which is being waged between the governor and the state legislature, which is confined to Sacramento, and in which the voters actually have no say at all (at least until the next state assembly elections). So it's unclear what influence these ads are supposed to have. I live right next to the Paramount lot, and I can tell you Los Angeles is rapidly fading as the world's entertainment capital. But it says something about the Golden State that everything is still grounds for an A-list production.

Comments

[libertymike]

Didn't Ben Richards declare that, although he didn't know that much about television, he was "a quick learner" and that "he would give the people what they wanted to see?"

[Shannon Love]

Arnold certainly has not led as he should but I think he certainly has more credibility than anyone else when it comes to restraining spending. Back in 2005, he sponsored a "Live within our Means" (the actual name escapes me) initiative which would have restrained spending, created a rainy day fund etc and probably would have prevented the current mess. The voters rejected it overwhelming. At that point, Arnold seems have just given up and gone with the flow.

Sad to say, but he may be only person who can prevent California from finally switching complete from a state in which those in government work for the people to one in which the people work for those in government.

[Episiarch]

Mike, all I see is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act, give me a break and shut up.

[Gerbeel Haamster]

I just heard that some wacko on this site suggested we reduce the size of our wonderful government.

Reduce the size of Government? Reduce the size of Government? (Playoffs? Playoffs?)

Why oh why would anyone want to reduce the size and influence of the Ultimate Source of Goodness, gifts from which in multiplicities the Holy and Blessed Federal Reserve spews out of its cavernous mouth, drowning us in the wonderful inheritance of debt manifested in the Heavenly Manna of Inalienable Right to Unlimited Social Services and Inflated Dollars?

What, you say you believe in personal responsibility and "savings"????

Oh, I pity you your ancient and naive little provincial view. You are close to heresy.

Repent before The One (Pbuh) issues a fatwa on your ass.

[John Thacker]

Although, since the voters in May rejected the governor's own slate of ballot initiatives, I should probably say that the wind of the voters turned the governor's ship around and he's now decided that sailing in this direction was his idea all along.

Which is of course what he did the first time after voters rejected all his good government and less spending initiatives a few years ago, causing Arnold to U-turn and go with big spending.

This media war is about a budget fight which is being waged between the governor and the state legislature, which is confined to Sacramento, and in which the voters actually have no say at all (at least until the next state assembly elections). So it's unclear what influence these ads are supposed to have.

You're familiar with the "government shutdown" back in the mid '90s, right? President Clinton said he would veto any budget that didn't spend more than what Speaker Gingrich and the Republicans wanted to spend. When the negotiations broke down, it mattered a whole bunch who the balance of the voters blamed.

[Mike Laursen]

I live right next to the Paramount lot, and I can tell you Los Angeles is rapidly fading as the world's entertainment capital.

Pretty much agree with everything you wrote about the budget. Have to question this statement, though -- you may not be aware that the television industry has been drifting into L.A.'s beach cities.

[John Thacker]

Mike Laursen, try this article from the LA Times detailing how movie and TV pilots and shows are rapidly moving away from LA in particular and California in general.

[JB]

Teacher's unions are a crime against humanity.

[prolefeed]

When the negotiations broke down, it mattered a whole bunch who the balance of the voters blamed.

It also matters BEFORE the negotiations break down, or don't break down, which side the voters favor. (Some) politicians poll, and pay attention to phone calls and emails incoming from constituents. Not all of them, but budgets get passed at the margins.

So, yes, both sides are furiously trying to spin events to make their negotiating position look reasonable.

[creech]

So Arnold became a girly man after his 2005 initiative failed?

[24AheadDotCom]

[I need to set up a macro for this comment or something]

Perhaps Gillespie Welch would be kind enough to describe how the policies that Reason promotes have helped get CA into the current mess. Reason has constantly promoted MassiveImmigration without coupling that with a demand for ending social welfare. While Reason has very little influence (if it has any at all), MassiveImmigration has done tremendous harm to CA, and not just through increased spending. It's also given a tremendous amount of power to far-left politicians, and those far-left politicians have then used that power to push for more spending.

If Reason had made their proposals all-or-nothing, that would be one thing. But, they have never done that: they've never said that they'll only support OpenBorders once the WelfareState is demolished. They've supported OpenBorders and MassiveImmigration despite knowing what would happen in the real world where, for instance, many CA legislators act more like agents of the MexicanGovernment than U.S. elected officials.

Here's more on California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, including things that - of course - Reason won't tell you. Click each link to read more.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians.

[Mike Laursen]

...try this article from the LA Times...

Alright, I stand corrected. I'm a little angry, though, that the article reminded me of the existence of Howie Mandell.

[KingShamus]

He might've been a girly man before 2005, but after that we got confirmation.

The Governator experiment had a lot of promise, but once he caved in to bigger spending proposals and nonsense 'green' initiatives, I gave up on the dude.

He wanted to be a popular reformer. The problem is, reform means pissing off massive special interests. Once he stopped getting kudos from his liberal pals, he decided he wanted to spend his way to popularity.

[Mike Laursen]

The governor of California, after a long journey through the woods, looks voters in the eye and reaffirms his commitment to fiscal discipline in this brand new one-hander...

I'm just hoping he's moved on from trying to sway public opinion by threatening to close all the state parks and release all the violent felons. I have friends who were taking all that bullshit seriously.

[sage]

Hey Lonewacko, you ever seen a grown man naked?

(I ask this assuming you own a full-length mirror.)

[Mike Laursen]

So Arnold became a girly man after his 2005 initiative failed?

Yup, there was one power on earth that could take down The Terminator -- bureaucracy.

[Episiarch]

Yup, there was one power on earth that could take down The Terminator -- bureaucracy.

Plastique and a machine press worked pretty well the first time. Molten steel the second time. But not in Terminator: Salvation, oh no!

God that movie sucked.

[Shut The Fuck Up Lonewacko Mac]

Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko!

[brotherben]

Epi, apologies for the threadjack. You reminded me that mrs. brotherben and I spent a buck and rented and watched "Knowing" over the weekend. I want my dollar back.

[Warty]

You spent money on a Nicholas Cage movie? You got what you deserved.

[LocoSolo]

[Necesito fijar una macro para este comentario o algo] Quiz?s Gillespie ser?a bastante bueno describir c?mo las pol?ticas que Raz?n promueve han ayudado a conseguir el CA en el l?o actual. Raz?n ha promovido constantemente la Inmigraci?nMasiva sin el acoplador que con una demanda para la asistencia social de la conclusi?n. Mientras que Raz?n tiene muy poco influencia (si tiene cualesquiera en absoluto), la Inmigraci?nMasiva ha hecho enorme da?o al CA, y no apenas con el gasto creciente. It' s tambi?n dado una cantidad enorme de energ?a a los pol?ticos de extrema izquierda, y esos pol?ticos de extrema izquierda entonces han utilizado esa energ?a de impulsar m?s gasto.

Si Raz?n hubiera hecho sus ofertas todo o nada, ?sa ser?a una cosa. Pero, nunca han hecho eso: nunca han dicho que apoyar?n solamente las FronterasAbiertas que demuelen una vez al EstadoDelBienestar. Han apoyado las FronterasAbiertas y la Inmigraci?nMasiva a pesar de saber qu? suceder?a en el mundo real donde, por ejemplo, muchos legisladores del CA act?an m?s bi?n agentes del GobiernoMexicano que cargos electos de los E.E.U.U.

Aqu? est? m?s en el gobernador Arnold Schwarzenegger de California, incluyendo las cosas que - por supuesto - Raz?n no le dice. Chasque cada acoplamiento para leer m?s.

P.S. En caso de que cualquier persona conteste a esto, sus respuestas casi confiado ser?n homs del anuncio, de tal modo concediendo mis puntos y demostrando la naturaleza infantil, anti-intellectual de libertarios.

[SugarFree]

Threadjack:

Who does more disservice to science fiction?

A. Nicholas Cage
B. Roland Emmerich
C. Micheal Bay
D. SyFy Channel

[Tulpa]

You spent money on a Nicholas Cage movie? You got what you deserved.

With the notable exception of "Adaptation" and "Con Air", I agree.

[Warty]

SugarFree, SyFy/SciFi wins/loses on the strength/weakness of the Battlestar Galactica ending/abortion.

[Warty]

Wow, we survived and made it to Earth. WATCH ME DISAPPEAR IM AN ANGEL LOL

[SugarFree]

Warty,

I agree. But for all the delights of BSG, SyFy brings Dr. Who and its spin-offs into my beloved country... and that is a sin I cannot forgive.

[SugarFree]

Warty,

Heir. In case you missed it. (Rant)

[Warty]

LOL LETS BE CAVEMEN NOW KTHXBAI

[Bronwyn]

Clearly, I need to get my hands on the BSG series.

Also: LoneMacro?

[Warty]

Does Starbuck spend angel? Why can't the consuming flesh invalidate a hello? Our gnome reassures the debugger. A nail misinterprets angel. When will angel write?

Starbuck needs angel under the focus. Starbuck indexes the large wood. How will this improved disregard decide throughout Starbuck? Against another credible recorder sings a commissioned logo. Angel masters Starbuck with the guideline.

[Zeb]

"SyFy brings Dr. Who and its spin-offs into my beloved country"

I hope you are just talking about the new Dr. Who.

[Rich]

Almost as funny after re-translation (thanks to Babel Fish).

LocoSolo | July 14, 2009, 2:57 p.m. | # Perhaps [Necesito to determine a macro for this commentary or something] Gillespie would be quite good for describing how the policies that Reason promotes have helped to obtain the CA in the present mess. Reason has constantly promoted the Inmigraci?nMasiva without the coupler that with one it demands for the social attendance of the conclusion. Whereas Reason has very little influence (if it has any absolutely), the Inmigraci?nMasiva has made enormous damage to the CA, and not hardly with the increasing cost. It' s also given an enormous amount of energy to the politicians of extreme left, and those politicians of extreme then left have used that energy to impel more cost. If Reason had done its supplies everything or nothing, that one would be a thing. But, never they have done that: they have never said that they will support only the FronterasAbiertas that demolishes once to the EstadoDelBienestar. They have supported the FronterasAbiertas and the Inmigraci?nMasiva in spite of knowing what would happen in the real world where, for example, many legislators of the CA rather act agents of the GobiernoMexicano that elect positions of the USA. Here he is more in the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, including the things that - by all means - Reason does not say to him. Chasque each connection to read more. P.S. In case any person answers this, their answers almost trusting will be homs of the announcement, of such way granting my points and demonstrating the infantile nature, anti-intellectual of libertarios.

[SugarFree]

Zeb,

I am not a fan of any incarnation of the Dr. Who franchise, but the new stuff on SyFy is an atrocity-laden barf-fest from start to finish. That it is even considered "science fiction" is to torture the definition of such past the point of meaningfulness, and indeed into a hideous sort of madness.

[John Thacker]

He wanted to be a popular reformer. The problem is, reform means pissing off massive special interests and voters.

He could've stood the lack of kudos. He couldn't stand have all the reform initiatives a few years back get trashed at the ballot box. Yeah, perhaps the special interests and the media command a majority of voters in California. That just means that the state is screwed.

[brotherben]

Suge, Mrs. brotherben is a SyFy addict. She loves all the really cheesy (in an elephants on TurboLax kinda way) movies. As the movies are way too stupid and unbelievable to be fiction, they must be science-fiction. I will say, in her defense, that she appreciates b-movies as an art form. Also that she is an aspiring sci-fi romance writer and fully understands the profitability of crap.

[Steven Hall]

LocoSolo,

Pure. Comedy. Gold

[hmm]

Moody cut Cali's rating again today. Baa, not only the lowest rated state, they are gaining distance from the next lowest at an increasing rate.

[EBJ]

Arnold had it right in 2005 but for one thing: he failed to realize how much power the unions have and how desperate they would be to kill his initiatives. $100 million desperate, to put a number on it. All OPM, 'donated' by union members.

[Sean W. Malone]

The more I watch this mess from within the state, the more I struggle to really blame my Governator.

For one thing, as the representative of the Executive branch, it's not his damn job to balance the budget. It's the senate's job. And as far as I'm aware, there's only one person (R, Chuck DeVore) taking any of it seriously in the legislature.

Schwarzenegger is going to get blamed for a lot of it, but I'm not sure what else he could possibly do... He can't waltz in with a shotgun and a bionic arm this time.

As for the Film & TV industry (which, is the industry I work in)... John Thacker - you're article is not wrong to some extent, but what's happening is the same thing that's happened to every other industry in California. The day-to-day labor work is being outsourced to places that are cheaper and easier to deal with. Movies are being shot in Vancouver, Toronto, Prague... In Oklahoma... Texas... All over the place.

This means that yes, most of the crew work is going to those places, but the production company offices are all still here. And all of the "above the line" people (directors, writers, DPs, etc.) are still in Los Angeles and probably won't move for a while.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner I can move to a more liberty-oriented location and yet keep doing what I want to do for a living, the better. Truth is though it's probably all just going to be decentralized entirely and then who the hell knows what's going to happen.

[Not Yet Terminated]

For the record, what Ben Richards said was "And now I'm going to give de people what I tink dey want."

As for why Arnie seems to be showing some late-blooming courage, I figure this is his swan song; it's typical in politics not to stretch your neck out until your throat's about to be cut anyway. I've always wondered why we don't see more of this kind of thing at the end of politicians' terms, actually: can you imagine what a hilarious spectacle it would be for us if more guys on the way out said "Screw this! I don't answer to you idiots anymore, so now, before I go, I'm gonna veto the hell out of this budget. You don't like that, then go suck on it! What are you gonna do, fire me!?"

All I can figure is that for too many politicians who started out as gung-ho budget reformers and ended up spending like drunken Democrats, they probably spent their early years in office waiting for the moment when they no longer had to worry about their approval ratings and the next election, but it took too much time. When that moment finally arrived, the process of corruption that comes with attaining and holding power and wanting to be liked was complete, and it was too late for them.

In Arnie's case, though, he hasn't been in office all that long by some standards. Maybe we're finally going to get to see a guy do the political equivalent of a suicide bombing? If so, I can hardly wait to see it.

[John Thacker]

can you imagine what a hilarious spectacle it would be for us if more guys on the way out said "Screw this! I don't answer to you idiots anymore, so now, before I go, I'm gonna veto the hell out of this budget. You don't like that, then go suck on it! What are you gonna do, fire me!?"

Not that hilarious. It would just get overridden. See Mark Sanford, repeatedly. Also see even GWB, with the veto of the farm bill.