The San Francisco Chronicle's David Lazarus has no clue what Arnold Schwarzenegger's policies would be were he to become governor of California. And neither does anybody else. This makes Lazarus very uneasy--he thinks that voting for Schwarzenegger is a foolish thing to do, and that Warren Buffett and George Shultz have made a mistake in signing up for the Schwarzenegger team:
Schwarzenegger offers few specifics in plans for economy / Long on economic advisers, short on specifics: For Arnold Schwarzenegger, this isn't an election. It's a hostile takeover. He won't get into specifics because he's now in a quiet period, performing due diligence for his acquisition of state office. Facts and figures? Forget it. "The public doesn't care about facts and figures," Schwarzenegger told a gathering of several hundred reporters after the inaugural meeting of his "Economic Recovery Council," a group of 19 business leaders headed by Warren Buffett and George Shultz. "They've heard figures for the past five years," the bodybuilder- turned-actor-turned-candidate said. "What the people want to know is if you're tough enough to clean house."...
He made his remarks with Buffett and Shultz flanking him at the podium. The two looked on quietly, and perhaps a little uncomfortably, as the man each says is best qualified to lead California revealed precious little about how he'd do the job. For his part, Buffett lamented that California is now seen by banks and other institutions as a huge credit risk. "A change is needed," he said. "That change is going to require someone who is credible to the investment world." Schwarzenegger, who has no track record on Wall Street, smiled broadly....
Shultz said he watched Schwarzenegger during the meeting. "He listened in an active way," Shultz observed. "He interacted. I saw him do that. I saw him making his mind up. I like what I hear those decisions being." How's that for a ringing vote of confidence?
When he's elected -- he's careful to always say when, not if -- he plans to bring in a team of outside auditors to review California's books. Only then, he said, will he know which programs can be cut and which will require additional funding. Shareholders -- that is, voters -- will just have to trust that management is up to the job....
"Everyone agrees the economy is one of the most pressing issues facing California," Schwarzenegger said. "How do we turn California's economy back to a powerful, job-creating machine?" How indeed. The candidate isn't saying, or doesn't know, or hasn't yet decided. "We have to get rid of the hostile environment for businesses," he said. "I'd like to get into a situation with no unemployment," he said. "I want to bring jobs back to California," he said. Considering that Schwarzenegger had just spent two hours discussing such matters with some of the most prominent business leaders in the state, it's not exactly encouraging that this was the best he could come up with.
But in a hostile takeover, you never want to tip your hand too quickly. Rather, you want to quietly put all your pieces into play and then reveal yourself only when the deal is done. "You can't pull wool over people's eyes," Schwarzenegger said as reporters made no secret of their frustration with his non-answers...
UPDATE: The Sacramento Bee's right-wing Daniel Weintraub is even harsher in his assessment:
Posted by DeLong at August 21, 2003 07:34 AM | TrackBackI asked [Schwarzenegger] which programs he would cut, which I think people do care about, and he brushed off the question, saying that perhaps as the campaign moves on he will offer some details. But don’t count on it.... Californians, if they want Arnold to be their governor, are going to have to take a leap of faith, to buy into his leadership abilities, his charisma, his communication skills, all of which are considerable, and accept his vision that the budget can be balanced without new taxes or cuts in education even as he repeals the recent increase in the car tax. That’s not a reasonable proposition...
If I were Arnold I would tell the reporters: I will try to give honest answers to you call me by my name rather than referring to me as 'terminator', Conan, and all the other ridiculous monikers.
How can these clowns call themselves "reporters" anyway.
Posted by: claude tessier on August 21, 2003 08:18 AMhttp://www.calpundit.com/archives/001962.html
This morning, Arnold revved up his "Economic Recovery Council" and suggested that he would solve the budget problem through spending cuts alone:
Cuts are necessary, Schwarzenegger said, but only because money is not being spent wisely — and he reiterated his commitment to education, saying that it would not be on the table for these cuts.
Good luck! Once you remove education, there's about $50-60 billion left in the budget, and it needs to be cut about $25 billion or so to get into balance. Even the Terminator can't pull that off.
Still, here in the land of make believe it's the politically expedient thing to say, and he should have stuck with it. But he didn't....
Posted by: lise on August 21, 2003 08:25 AMTwo points:
1. Arnold is using his cachet, derived entirely from Terminator and Conan, as a springboard into public office, so one should not be surprised to hear reporters use these "monikers"--if, in fact, they are doing so.
2. There is no issue of honesty when there are no answers given in the first place. Once AS actually begins to respond to *questions* with *answers*, the honesty of those answers, or lack thereof, can be judged.
Posted by: SavageView on August 21, 2003 08:31 AMArnold is discovering that the art of electoral politics is speaking all day without saying anything. So much for being an "outsider"!
Posted by: General Glut on August 21, 2003 08:36 AM"No new taxes" is always popular. More spending for education is also popular especially in California. Saying there is waste that can be cut is always easy talk - but come on. If Arnold cannot cite a single program that can be cut, he has no clue now. And he'll have no clue if we elect him governor. What a fraud.
Posted by: Hal McClure on August 21, 2003 08:49 AM"No new taxes" is always popular. More spending for education is also popular especially in California. Saying there is waste that can be cut is always easy talk - but come on. If Arnold cannot cite a single program that can be cut, he has no clue now. And he'll have no clue if we elect him governor. What a fraud.
Posted by: Hal McClure on August 21, 2003 08:49 AM"No new taxes" is always popular. More spending for education is also popular especially in California. Saying there is waste that can be cut is always easy talk - but come on. If Arnold cannot cite a single program that can be cut, he has no clue now. And he'll have no clue if we elect him governor. What a fraud.
Posted by: Hal McClure on August 21, 2003 08:52 AMThe Anglo press could not be more fawning and deferential to Arnold. The question is whether there will be even a semblance of such coverage for Cruz Bustamante. The Spanish Press has covered both candidates extensively, and there is considerable Latino commentary that is most disapproving and rightfully so of Arnold.
Viva Cruz.
Posted by: Ari on August 21, 2003 09:19 AMThe entire budget gap can be closed by cutting unnecessary spending? Of course, it can! Ronald Reagan did it at the national level as president. California must have just as much waste, fraud and abuse now as a share of spending as the US did in in Reagan's day. Simple. Odd, though, that in the same press conference that Swartzy said he can close the gap by cutting spending, he also said he'd need a professional, outside audit done to determine where to cut. Now, if you don't know the answer to the micro question, how can you be so confident of the answer to macro question?
Lise,
Surely, waste, fraud and abuse are rampant in a large, left-coast education system like California's. Why would we want to look for spending cuts exclusively outside education? After all, I bet Swartzy's kids don't go to public school.
Posted by: K Harris on August 21, 2003 09:38 AMGarrison Keillor has some interesting observations based on the MN experience with Jesse Ventura
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030825-476293,00.html
"After four years of an action-hero Governor, it's a relief to go back to politics as usual, where soft-spoken people with ordinary chest sizes sit down and do the work. Mr. Ventura was replaced by a cheerful, well-spoken, nonfamous Republican, and everyone felt a sense of relief. An action hero works well within a simple story structure, but politics isn't a story; it's a process. It's not about confrontation and threat and revenge and triumph. It's mostly about civility, starting with the driver's license bureau of the Commissariat of Motor Vehicles and on up to the folks in the black robes. Most men and women in politics are there because they genuinely like people and want to do good things on their behalf. It's hard work, and fury isn't the best motivation. You have to sit through the meetings, listen to other people and say your piece and be civil about it. Anger and loathing are losing hands in politics. " - Garrison Keillor
Posted by: bakho on August 21, 2003 09:39 AM>Garrison Keillor
That is beautifully said. Mr. K. is a national treasure.
Posted by: Joe Willingham on August 21, 2003 10:33 AM"The entire budget gap can be closed by cutting unnecessary spending? Of course, it can! Ronald Reagan did it at the national level as president."
Just checking here: you did mean this as a surrealistic piece of humor, yes?
Posted by: Tom on August 21, 2003 11:04 AM"Californians, if they want Arnold to be their governor, are going to have to take a leap of faith, to buy into his leadership abilities, his charisma, his communication skills, all of which are considerable..."
What nonsense. Leadership abilities? None on record. Charisma? I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder, but the man's best role was playing a cyborg. Communciation skills? Maybe if you count crass one-liners and bad jokes.
The only basis for voting for Arnold: (1) a career as a bodybuilder and action hero; (2) some sporadic political activism on behalf of education issues; and (3) some impressive folks joining his campaign, for reasons I do not comprehend.
Arnold's candidacy is much worse than Weintraub makes out.
Posted by: nameless on August 21, 2003 03:37 PMhow about that stallone clip on cnbc. Prophetic?, or is the rule that you have to be born us american to be president?
Posted by: big al on August 21, 2003 06:57 PMhow about that stallone clip on cnbc. Prophetic?, or is the rule that you have to be born us american to be president?
Posted by: big al on August 21, 2003 07:00 PM"is the rule that you have to be born us american to be president?"
The constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," which appears to rule out Arnold, Gov. Granholm of Michigan, and any clones who might be thinking of running . . .
Posted by: rea on August 22, 2003 04:29 AM"The public doesn't care about facts and figures,"
About which, he is correct. And this is democracy, as I have pointed out on many occasions.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on August 22, 2003 08:11 AMJudging by every american election I've ever witnessed, it sounds like he's a winner.
Posted by: bryan on August 23, 2003 10:05 AM