Thursday, August 07, 2003

Governor Schwarzenegger.

OK, I guess it doesn't sound too bad. And hell, it kind of sounds better to me than "Governor Pataki". (Pataki hasn't been a disaster of Gray Davis proportions -- hell, he hasn't really been that bad, really. I'm not terribly impressed with his record in WNY, which basically consists of showing up for photo-ops every time some big project that never actually gets built is announced. I'm just being snarky today.)

I didn't watch the entire Jay Leno thing, but I'm guessing that the interview wasn't particularly big on specifics, as in just what Schwarzenegger's ideas on resolving the California budget crunch might be. I did see the usual bit of "I won't be beholden to special interests" folderol, which is always nonsense; it's generally more accurate to say, "I won't be beholden to my opponent's special interests", but this is almost a required claim for people running for office these days. I also laughed when he said, "I'm rich, I've got lots of money, so I can't be bought." This was quite the applause line, but I was thinking, "Yeah, because none of the filthy rich people in Congress or any other elective office have ever been bought."

Some people are snarking a bit about if he's "qualified" to be Governor. I've never really been one to get hung up on who is and who is not "qualified" to hold high office, because there have been "well-qualified" persons who were disastrous when they got into high office, and we've had distinguished Presidents and such who were not that experienced when they ascended. If Schwarzenegger has ideas that appeal to Californians, fine. The only thing that worries me is that he'll get elected on some kind of hip, celebrity, out-of-left-field appeal instead of his ideas, rather like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in 1998. But then, Ventura also had the "third-party" thing going on, the "I'm going to tell both parties to stick it!" attitude that seems to be occasionally growing in appeal these days, whereas Schwarzenegger is a true-believing Republican.

I'm still a bit fuzzy on the whole recall thing in the first place. My view tends to be, "You voted Davis in, so you live with it until he comes up again." I'm a bit wary of the precedent being set, where we can recall any official at any time merely because some bumps in the road come along. On the flip side of that -- "You voted the guy in, you've got to live with him until his term's up" -- NPR's Talk of the Nation did a show on the recall yesterday, and one commentator made an interesting point: she suggested that people who didn't bother to vote in 2002 should not be allowed to participate in any recall. That makes a bit of sense to me.

No comments: