Yes, I know, Ah-nuld Schwarzenegger is a - gasp! - Republican. And I know he's said some dumb things about nurses and "girlie-men." But, with a few caveats, Ah-nuld is MY kind of Republican, the kind I used to be back in the late 1970s, before the right-wing wackos took over the GOP. The kind that is pro-choice and supportive of family planning. The kind that believes in balancing the budget and slashing waste, fraud and abuse in government. The kind that supports domestic partnerships, aka "civil unions," for gay people. The kind that supports the Second Amendment but also backs commonsense measures like safety locks on guns and closing loopholes in current gun laws. The kind that supports embryonic stem cell research. Sure, Ah-nuld has his faults. But all in all, California's governor is a moderate, reasonable, sane Republican. What a concept!
Why, you ask, am I prattling on, all of a sudden, about how much I love Ah-nuld? Because today, Gov. Schwarzenegger reached a landmark deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions in California. That's right; in a bipartisan deal (also, WHAT A CONCEPT!) with California's Democratic legislature, Gov. Schwarzenegger agreed to cut California's emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a whopping 25% by 2020.
This is an enormously important deal, considering what a catastrophic problem global warming is, and also considering that California as a state is the 12th largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world. Just as importantly, California's action sets the model for action by other states as well. According to the LA Times:
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, the co-author of the bill, predicted that creation of a pioneering program in California would be followed by similar initiatives in other states and in Washington."We're the first to step up to the plate in a real way," he said.
Great stuff, and it deserves all the accolades it's getting:
Environmentalists praised the agreement with the governor for providing the state with a range of tools for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Regulators will be able to enforce limits with financial penalties as well as provide market-based incentives to industry. The bill creates a new market that would allow industries that reduce emissions to below their limits to sell credits to other companies that need to exceed their caps.
Again, California's example on global warming deserves to be followed by other states, including Virginia, as soon as possible. Here in the Commonwealth, global warming poses a grave threat to the Chesapeake Bay, with the EPA writing:
An accelerated sea level rise could eliminate most of Chesapeake Bay's marshes and beaches, especially if shores are armored to prevent their landward migration. The loss of these habitats in turn would affect birds, fish, terrapins, and other wildlife. The future Chesapeake Bay might lose some of its charm for the thousands of kayakers, boaters, anglers, windsurfers, and birders who spend time on and around the bay each year.
So what are we waiting for? Action by George Bush and George Allen in Washington? Forget about that; the planet will have to be fried and half the country under water before those guys take any action. No, it's time for the states to get moving on this. In addition, it's time to elect people to Congress - and to the White House - who understand the grave threat posed by global warming and are prepared to do something about it. Obviously, that means "terminating" the political careers of people like George Allen, who don't get it, don't care, and don't intend to do a damn thing about it. In 69 days, we'll have our first shot at doing just that.
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
Let's hope this is one of them.
Hats off to Governor Schwarzeneggar and the California legislature for doing the right thing.
It may be a nod to the Republican base - and California has some mighty far right Republicans, which is why they are such a minority party lately there. But Ahnold has even blamed high wages, generous benefits, including pension benefits, and disability insurance for California's economic problems.
In an age when nobody bats an eyelash at huge executives' profits, it's popular among Republicans to win votes by driving a wedge between middle class workers by sparking resentment of middle class taxpayers towards other middle class workers.
Ahnold is very in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. If that leads to a deficit in the state budget, rather than say that everybody should pay their fair share, it's easier to blame the budget problems on the few workers who have decent wages and benefits.
It's the old Republican game of inspiring jealousy, rewarding greed, and dividing and conquering.
The real moderates you knew in Connecticut (who probably weren't very different from the Jake Javits-Rockefeller Republicans in New York) were not like that. They had a genuine spirit of public service.
Schwarzenneger, however, isn't a moderate; he's a liberatarian conservative. Liberal on social issues, very conservative on economic issues.
Don't want to harp on it. But there is a subset of suburban Republicans who are very good on some issues such as pro-choice, pro-civil unions but really bad on other issues that are actual bread and butter Democratic party strengths.
Don't forget, Rudy Giuliani is also very good on pro-choice and nobody has been more supportive of gay rights than him. He has marched in the gay St. Patrick's Day Parade in NYC, when gays were banned from the traditional St. Pat's Day Parade. When Giuliani's wife, Donna Hanover, threw him out of Gracie Mansion (don't ask), he even went to live temporarily with a gay couple who were close friends of his.
And I admire him for the way he handled the 9/11 disaster.
But his law firm still busts unions. And he is still more likely to cut taxes for the rich than help create better economic conditions for ordinary middle class workers.
And intentional or not (and I think it was unintentional) all his harsh zero tolerance talk toward lawbreaking in his early years led to some terrible acts by New York's police including the police rape of a man in custody and the shooting of an innocent man (Bruce Springsteen did a song about it that I think was called "44 Bullets").
I know Giuliani isn't Schwarzenegger but they are cut out of the same mold of supposedly moderate Republican tough guys who some liberals admire.
Just saying, I'll be the loyal opposition here. I don't agree.
I think Arnie was definitely good in passing this, but he still plays for the team that supports (and he has supported) some seriosly deadly & screwed up philosophies/policies.
He really should switch teams otherwise he will still be lumped in with some real stinch.
(It's hard for Albert Speer to look good after hanging out and supporting Herr Adolph.)
-------------------------
I certainly don't wish to imply anyone living resembles Adolph, but I do want to illustrate the old addage, "You are the company you keep."
When Tony Blair visited California to cut a deal to work with the state on climate change issues -- circumventing the brain-dead Bush administration -- it reminded me of when our government visits backwards countries run by tin-pot dictators and makes a special point to meet with opposition leaders to "send a message."
It's sad that we've come to that point, but thank heaven we have some energetic state and local leaders -- Elliot Spitzer and Richard Daley are two of my favorites -- who are willing to implement essential, cutting edge policies regardless of paralysis and stonewalling at the national level.
It's like they want Arnold to win.
But riddle me this: how is this post any different from the sort of things Markos and Jerome criticized in Crashing the Gate? Didn't they point out that NARAL endorsing Chafee just enables Frist to lead and Alito to sit on the court?
Isn't any support of Schwarzenegger just enabling Republicans to have a say in the running of California, enabling another big-name Republican to come and do fundraisers for other candidates, another attention-grabbing speech at convention, another governor stumping for the presidential candidate of George Allen's party - no, no, no, a thousand times no, we don't need that!
As Jon Henke at QandO put it, the future of the Republican Party is a question of whether the "Left Alone" or "Left Behind" conservatives will win.
If the "Left Alone" conservatives win that fight, the Democratic Party will never recover. A "Left Alone" Republican Party is a national party that can kick our ass. John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate dooms any Democrat, even Warner (so we have to make sure he loses the nomination). If we want to win, if we want to actually make decisions and turn this country around, take it back, then we have to make sure that the "Left Alone" conservatives do not win.
WE have to be the "Left Alone" party, not the Republicans. That means, as hard as this is for me to type, we have to make sure the "Left Behind" crowd wins control of the Republican party. Promoting Schwarzenegger is not the way to do that.
The difference in dynamics between supporting a Senator whose most important vote is for the leader of the floor, and a Governor who can shape their own policy free of partisan contraints is vast.
You are many more times more likely to have a Democrat who will work on all these issues rather than you are to have a Republican. Even a Republican like Schwarzenegger. Even when his opponent is Angelides. Why hasn't the "netroots" jumped into California? It's obvious Schwarzenegger is just reading the polls and tacking left to win the election; other than that and stem cells, he's waged war on teachers and hasn't done much to improve California. Plus, he's got as shady a history as Allen. If we're serious about beating Republicans, we have to do that.
I've expanded my thoughts here at VAYD.org
Those are all issues I want to work on. I don't give a shit if a Republican does it or a Democrat. A Democrat is much more likely, but if a Republican does it in an honest way that is not for political gain (see NCLB), then have at it. We are not Democrats so we can win elections and throw victory parties, we are Democrats because we care about issues.
We can't win every race. I'd like to see Angelides win, but every indication says that he's not. There's a tradeoff to be considered here. Would you rather have Arnold as Governor of California or McConnel as your new majority leader? I would rather we have neither, but you have to place priorities.
The netroots are very limited in their influence, and a target like Arnold is way too big to take down and frankly isn't worth taking down. The two candidates who have been most embraced by the netroots - Lamont and Webb - squeaked out primary victories, and we're doing our best to make those victories in the general. What the hell makes you think that we can take down Arnold or really give a shit about doing so?
Taking down teachers? Really? Thats your rallying cry? I highly value education and my sister is getting certified right now to become a teacher, but if beating up teachers unions is your biggest gripe then you need to get in the back of the line. Unjust and illogical wars, excessive spending, violations of constitutional rights, demonizing political opponents; those are big issues. Arnold could put snakes in every teacher's car and it wouldn't be in the same universe as those issues.
I'm dead serious about beating Republicans. But I haven't drunk the party kool-aid that says that every Republican everywhere is so full of evil that we have to root them out and beat them. I want Democrats to win every election, but until we find a way to win everytime, I'll focus on the races that are the most important and the most winnable.
In the meantime, California has plenty of Democrats to take down Arnold on their own. That's one place the netroots should not have to wander into. If you're mad that not enough attention is being paid to beating Arnold, start by going to California and stop wasting your time here.
No, you're a LIBERAL because you care about issues. You freakin' join a party because you want to have that party's candidates win! I didn't join the Democratic Party until 2003 - before then, I was an issues person, but once the Republicans ran a steamroller over the Dems in 2002 over the war, and Chambliss trashed Cleland's character, I knew I had to join the Democrats to stop the Republican Fascists (yes, they're the true fascists, not petty terrorists) from taking over. And the surest way to do that is to beat them all, everywhere.
You're right that having the netroots focus on Schwarzenegger is maybe too much to bite off, but do we have to praise him? Ignore him!
In the valley, Democrats have to run against Republicans and away from Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, because Republicans lump all Democrats together. So why, in a year when Democrats can win big everywhere, aren't we tying Schwarzenegger to Bush? Ignore the Blair meeting, ignore the deals with Dems, and highlight their joint appearances! Highlight his convention speech supporting the war! Same with McCain, same with Giuliani. A Republican = Bush, Allen, Delay. BAD for America. See? It's easy!
But for heavens sake, don't praise him! Don't say that all Republicans are not alike, because they don't do that for us. Feed them the thin gruel they've ladled into our bowls for 12 years, and see how they like it!
I'm hoping in your run up to exaggeration that you meant to call only a select group of Republicans fascists and not the party as a whole; this would seperate your comment from being either over the top or the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog.
Democrats have to run against Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton because those are unpopular liberal lions. Something tells me when a Democrat is popular enough on his own even in a conservative district or he takes stances that shows he's an individual - RICK BOUCHER - it doesn't matter what label they tie, it won't stick. We could try and tie Arnold to Delay and Bush, but I don't think his issues stances line up with theirs that well.
We can call Arnold a Bush Republican, but pro-choice pro gay rights pro stem cell, and a willingness to work with Democrats show that he's not. Yeah I'm pissed about his speech at the RNC convention, but that's a convention for you. That's when you're feared 'hand-holding' certainly does not occur.
Once again, your paranoia with what a blog in Virginia has to do with a Governor's race in California frankly scares me. If Lowell and Josh had that type of power, well, who knows what would happen...
OK, fine. Suit yourself.
And if you don't read beyond that quote, then you're just out of touch. I would gladly sell the party up the river if we got universal health insurance, a rise in the minimum wage, a real national energy policy, universal access to a college education, the 9/11 commision's reccomendations implemented, and focus on reducing carbon emissions. Is this likley to transpire under Republicans? Of course not. Am I going to write off all Republicans and play stupid Rove politics with them instead of trying to find solutions to problems? No, because I care more about my country than I do about my party. I've yet to hear you say that you do too.
Warner, Kaine, now Webb, all strong Democrats all focusing on applying good ideas, not calling Republicans fascists.
I'm not saying I would vote for Arnold (haven't gotten to that point), but I admire his progressive efforts regarding stem-cell research and global warming. (At least he acknowledges that global warming exists).