Arnold Schwarzenegger

Dan Weintraub has a very good column in the Sacramento Bee providing context on Schwarzenegger's recent announcement that he is opposed to a ballot measure reaffirming California's ban on gay marriage. Weintraub is right that Schwarzenegger has essentially made his position on the issue no position: the governor has said he wouldn't mind if the courts or the voters legalized same-sex marriage.

In my own interviews with Schwarzenegger while reporting on him for the LA Times and for a 2006 book (and UPDATE: take a look at this excellent Kate Folmar piece on the subject), I found him more elusive on this subject than any other. In Weintraub's column, a prominent social conservative is quoted as saying the governor has "flip flopped" from his supposed position of believing marriage should be "between a man and a woman." I don't know how anyone can say Schwarzenegger flip flopped when he never flipped in the first place. In fact, Schwarzenegger has already receited the "a man and a woman" line more as a legal fact -- California voters did that by approving Prop. 22 in 2000 -- rather than his view of how things should be. And during the recall, his statement on the subject was, "gay marriage is between a man and a woman." An all-time classic malaprop, it seemed at the time. Now, a small part of me wonders whether it was a clever dodge.

This blog item -- and the angry responses to it -- are worth reading if you want to understand California and its labor politics. Those who remember the 2005 special election, where the state's leading unions achieved enough unity to deal a crushing defeat to Gov. Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives, will recognize the players. The blog post is by Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who works for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and helped run the campaign against Schwarzenegger's measures. And the responses come from Shum Preston and Chuck Idelson of the California Nurses Assn., which showed an incredible talent for organizing its members to confront the governor at appearances around the state. As a journalist, I've had extensive dealings with all three men, and have found all three to be knowledgable, thoughtful, and professional.

Here's my look at how Schwarzenegger's proposed budget cuts, especially on education, are getting in the way of his push for budget reform and a redistricting ballot initiative that appears headed for the November ballot in California.

It's being treated as news that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a tax increase. (In private, two Republican sources tell me, he is starting to engage Republican legislators on the question of tax increases). But this is no surprise. During his more than four years as governor, Schwarzenegger has maintained a public anti-tax stance even as he frequently has considered raising taxes. In the spring of 2004, according to internal polling and other documents I turned up while researching a 2006 book on Schwarzenegger, he considered a temporary sales tax increase and polled on possible tax options that would sell with the public. The polling showed the public supported tax increases -- but would nevertheless be unhappy at Schwarzenegger for breaking his word and supporting them. So he didn't back tax increases then. But his health care proposal last year included fee increases, which certainly can feel like taxes to those who are paying them. And in a larger sense, the governor's main prescription for the state's budget and infrastructure troubles -- a major general obligation bond in 2004, and a 2006 infrastructure bond -- are tax increases by another name.

Julie Soderlund, press whiz and top-notch consultant for the California Dream Team, Governor Schwarzenegger's political committee, has been sending out newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial endorsing the governor's latest effort to take reapportionment out of the hands of the California legislature.

Reapportionment reform is a good idea, sure. Legislators drawing their own districts is a conflict of interest, and a lack of political competition -- exacerbated by a bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 -- is a significant factor in California's legislative gridlock. And most of the editorials make strong points. But they don't make much difference.

In 2005, Schwarzenegger backed Proposition 77, another reapportionment reform initiative. And he had the endorsements of every significant newspaper in the state. Of the 36 largest papers in California, Prop. 77 was endorsed by... 36.

Papers of every ideological stripe backed it. It lost anyway. Voters either didn't understand the issue, or didn't care. Democrats argued it was a right-wing power grab. Look for apathy (recession and budget revenues will outweigh redistricting in voters' minds) and partisan objections to sink this measure too. It's become almost an iron law of California politics: reapportionment measures fail.