Schwarzenegger Wants Presidential Candidates in California to be Specific and Answer Tough Questions

There was a big deal made in June, right after the primary, that we would see a "new Arnold." He got on his newly painted bus and toured around the state, and even took a few questions from ordinary folk and reporters alike, until he said he might endorse a Democrat for some offices. He was then whisked back on the bus while his advisers explained Arnold's comments and tried to fuzz them up a bit. There was speculation that he might endorse Dianne Feinstein, one of the most popular Democrats then running far ahead in her bid for re-election to the Senate. He never did endorse a Democrat, and he was a bit more elusive after that brief open season.

Not that it is uncommon for a politician to be a bit opaque in public comments (even if he is known for being pretty acerbic at times in private). But Arnold was supposed to be different.

The Sacramento Bee picked up on the Governor's lack of specificity on the campaign trail in an editorial: "There's a big risk, Governor, in playing it safe". They said he risked becoming "a karma chameleon politician." They noted:

"Schwarzenegger stands a strong chance of winning re-election by playing it safe, and that is the irony. He originally ran as an antidote to the entrenched forces. Now he could end up joining them."

As for that Iraq issue, this is certainly the most important question on the minds of California Democrats as we choose between those who campaign here and aspire to the White House. We'll want specific answers. Schwarzenegger didn't talk much about Iraq when he ran last year and his advisers and spokespeople scoffed at Phil Angelides bringing it up as an issue. What little Schwarzenegger said was in the mode of distancing himself from Bush on the war, which is extremely unpopular here in polling and just sticking a finger to the wind. Since the election, Arnold has taken a different tack and is a proponent of "the surge."

Yesterday, Schwarzenegger brought up some specific issues he wanted addressed here in California, among them immigration:

On immigration, for example, how many times have you heard a politician say: "We should be firm but compassionate?" But what does that mean? What will you do with the 12 million undocumented immigrants already here? And what about those who have children here legally? Will you send them back home?

Will you build a fence on the border? Should illegals have a path to citizenship? Would you make them leave the country first? How would you accomplish that? And how will you make sure agriculture and other industries have enough workers to get the job done?

Look what's happening in Colorado. They passed tough laws on hiring undocumented workers and now they're stuck with rotten crops costing millions of dollars.

How will you reimburse California the $700 to $800 million for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants?

Now remember, he was all over the lot on this one--from supporting the Minutemen and wanting to close the border to being kinder and more compassionate on immigration. Dan Weintraub wrote about this in the Sacramento Bee in an article: "Big issue, big governor, big mystery":

If there ever was a time for clarity, this is it. Instead, the governor is trying to be too cute, endeavoring to sound tough on the issue without actually taking positions on the details that are crucial to a debate that will decide national immigration policy for a decade or more into the future.

Then there's health care:

On health care, how many times have you heard a candidate say: "Every child must be insured?" Or: "It's a travesty that the richest nation in the world has 45 million people uninsured."

Again we want to hear the details. OK. Do you propose mandatory coverage? Where will the money come from? Do you want a government-run system or a strictly market system? How will you solve the emergency room crisis? What do we do with those in poverty?

Of course, during last year's election, after vetoing the health plan passed by the legislature, SB 840 by Senator Sheila Kuehl, and never engaging on this issue, all Arnold Schwarzenegger would tell us is that he would have a plan coming out in the new year. No details--and it's still not in bill form--and he's open to all ideas, Republicans and Democrats.

Here is the remainder of what the Governor said about issues in the Presidential primary:

What is their plan on climate change? How many times have you heard a candidate say: "We have to leave this world a better place than we found it." "Our children deserve clean air clean water." "We have to fight global warming." OK. Tell us how. America isn't even in the game on global warming. It's embarrassing. What's your specific plan to roll back greenhouse gas emissions?

Do you favor a cap and trade system? How will you make us less dependent on oil? What is your belief about off shore oil drilling? What's your energy policy? How will you promote alternative fuels? What kind of example will you set for the rest of the world so we can make global progress on climate change?

I could go on and on. Every politician in America talks about "We have to give our kids the education they need to compete in a global economy." What about no child being left behind.

But what are your specific plans? How do you intend to get more dollars in the classroom? How will you attract and keep the best teachers? How will you get rid of bad teachers? How will you increase accountability? How will you get information about schools in every state on the Internet so parents can find the best place to send their kids?

How will you expand vocational education programs? What about after school programs? What about pre-school programs. What about early childhood development? Now that California is in a position to have influence in the presidential primaries we need to ask these tough questions.

And we need to make sure we hear real answers. Answers about the candidates' vision for America in 2020, their vision for America in 2050 and how they intend to get us there.

We are going to make sure that the $60 million we spend on this primary election means billions of dollars for our state. That is a return on investment that will benefit all of California. And if we get our questions answered it may be the greatest contribution California can make toward picking the next president. Thank you very much.

I'd like to see answers to these and see us get our money's worth.

Now mind you, in this "Post Partisan" era, our Governor has already announced that he will be endorsing a Republican candidate for President, after the convention. No matter what the Republican nominee says, he will get Arnold's support.

So, for all you candidates out there coming to California, answer the questions, please--for the rest of us.