The Comeback Kid

Right after California's special election last November, Arnold Schwarzenegger looked doomed. All of his agenda items were defeated by the voters. He had to come out in a press conference and admit to being incredibly wrong. He tacked very hard to the center, hiring Gray Davis' former chief of staff and trying to buy votes by pressing an historic bond program to fund improvements to California's sagging infrastructure.

I am afraid that it appears to be working. Some of it is fortuitous: an unexpected increase in tax revenue (and a lot of that must be credited to gubenatorial candidate and current State Controller Steve Westly, who's been prety diligent in making sure corporate taxes were paid) allowed Arnold to settle his disagreement with California teachers by giving back the $3 billion dollars he borrowed from the public schools without planning to give it back. This was one of the top lines of attack against Arnold for the past year: every candidate and campaign talked about "fully funding education." That's not as strong a line anymore.

Then, Arnold allocated the rest of the tax windfall in what I must describe as a somewhat responsible way.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a $131.1-billion revised budget plan Friday that would reduce the state's debt, increase school funding, launch new healthcare and law enforcement programs and build the biggest reserve in nearly a generation.

But the proposed $2.2-billion rainy-day fund — the largest in California since 1978 — may be at least partly illusory: A large chunk of it would be immediately swallowed up by pay boosts for tens of thousands of state employees, more than half of whom are preparing to strike after working without a contract for nearly a year.

The spending blueprint includes no raises for about 153,000 state workers — janitors, prison guards, Department of Motor Vehicles clerks and others — whose contracts end this year. The last pay increase state workers received, in the 2004-05 budget year, averaged 5%. Granting such a raise again would cost the state $600 million this year. Some union leaders say their rank and file are due even more.

The governor's proposals would dip into state coffers flush from a surge in tax revenue to give hospitals and public health agencies a one-time infusion of $400 million to provide medicine, equipment, special staff and thousands of emergency beds. The money — far more than any other state allocates — would help prepare California for an outbreak of avian flu or a natural disaster.

The budget includes money to strengthen the state's levees — $500 million to begin repairing decades-old ones immediately and "help protect the people of California from a Katrina-style disaster."

Obviously this opens up a new line of attack, that Arnold is taking for granted state workers. But if the state workers walk off the job next month (which has been floated) public opinion might go against the rank and file, playing into the Governor's hands. And putting money into levee repair and emergency funds is responsible.

Then there was the deal reached on the infrastructure bonds, the result of a compromise between Schwarzenegger and the Democrats that control the legislature. There are conflicting reports about how involved he was in the deal (some reports say that only after Arnold backed out of the negotiations did anything get done), but certainly it looked like a symbolic victory. That's especially true after State Assembly and State Senate Democrats started flying around the state with the governor promoting the bond measure, which must be approved by voters. Of course, this gaffe didn't help matters:

ov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislative leaders stood in the middle of Highway 24 during the morning commute Tuesday to sign legislation for a nearly $20 billion bond measure to combat congestion.

Although they weren't standing in traffic, the 10:20 a.m. signing ceremony on a stony spit of land between the approaches to the north and center bores of the Caldecott Tunnel slowed westbound traffic and extended the morning slog toward the tunnel.

Three California Highway Patrol officers stood beside the freeway lanes, waving motorists past the site, but many of them still braked to sneak a peek at the movie star governor, who stood behind a lectern bearing the state seal. Some drivers honked their horns, others waved and called out "Arnold," and some shouted insults.

Way to stop congestion, guys.

If you add all of these small victories, it seems that Arnold's had a pretty good year, however. And unlike in 2005, he's getting something of a free pass so far from labor unions and Democratic groups, who are presumably holding their fire for the election campaign. I think that's a mistake; they could be out there defining the governor right now. The Democratic primary between Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly is simply getting no traction. This LA Times editorial is the conventional wisdom:

THIS SHOULD BE a golden time for California Democrats. They control both chambers of the Legislature. The state's Republican governor has low (though improving) performance ratings. And they have two gubernatorial candidates with the resources to mount a substantial challenge in the fall.But there is no gold. There are only the leaden front-runners, state Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly — two rich men who spend so much time raising more money and clawing at each other that it's hard to tell them apart. [...]

Either of the two ought to pose a formidable challenge to Schwarzenegger. But Angelides and Westly are colorless and uninspiring, not because they aren't movie action heroes but because they are unable to connect with the average nonmillionaire Californian.

It's almost a good thing that nobody's paying attention to their primary battle. It's grown increasingly nasty in recent weeks, since they have nothing to debate but character. All the voters will know come June is that somebody they haven't heard of won a primary election and isn't Arnold. But that might not be enough. Arnold has gotten enough of a free ride that he's nudging back to respectability in his favorable/unfavorable ratings. Democrats have a line of attack regarding his chameleon-like ability to run to any position to satisfy voters, his complete lack of a central governing philosophy. He started as a conciliator, then went right to curry favor with his base, then swung all the way back in the election year. His flip-flops would fit the feet of a giant.

But he's got a very good wind at his back, he'll have tons of money, and of course he was in "Last Action Hero," so I'm concerned about Angelides or Westly's chances. It seems like the 1996 Presidential election to me: the challenger is a loyal soldier who quietly moved up through the ranks, a placeholder whose time has come but who doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Dan Schnur sums it up here.

In addition to the desultory nature of the primary campaign, there is a growing suspicion that the combination of the governor's infrastructure bond and billions of dollars in new education spending is going to make it very difficult for either candidate to knock off the incumbent this year. All of which results in a Democratic primary campaign that is almost unprecedented in the level of disengagement and disinterest it has produced.

By contrast, California Democratic voters already are kicking the tires of the 2010 models, watching (LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and (SF Mayor Gavin) Newsom as the bookend mayors demonstrate a real knack for drumming up excitement, not only among their respective constituents but Democratic voters in other parts of the state as well. Both received much more enthusiastic responses than Westly or Angelides at their state party convention this spring, and, more importantly, both seem to be making the early moves that signal an interest in a campaign for statewide office in the not-too-distant future.

I think he's right. Democrats are not putting their best feet forward to win the top post in the state. And this is a year when national politics will sag all Republicans who are running. Angelides and Westly are good men, competent, right on the issues. But they're climbing a rarefied mountain to topple a star, one who was bruised last year but has emerged unscathed.