On Saturday at Ontario Mills Mall, Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his frustration at the overdue California State Budget by characterizing his opponents as “girlie men”.

Legislators, he said, are “part of a bureaucracy that is out of shape, that is out of date, that is out of touch and that is definitely out of control in Sacramento.”

He went on to add “They cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say ‘I don’t want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trade lawyers’…I call them girlie men. They should get back to the table, and they should finish the budget.”

He gave an ultimatum to his opponents to pass the budget, and urged voters to “terminate” them in November if they didn’t. (Quotes from article in 7/18/04 LA Times)

He used the “girlie men” reference twice in a 16 minute speech to a group selected by Schwarzenegger’s camp.

Some of the issues being fought over:


The remarks have sparked anger by his legislator opponents (naturally) and groups as diverse as the Senate's Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus and Feminist Majority. The remarks have been characterized as "third-grade insults", "sexist", "homophobic" and divisive.

The comments are interesting also because of Schwarzenegger's previously positive comments about the same people he is criticizing now that he isn't getting his way.

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?

Is Schwarzenegger just politicking, as he is accusing his opponents of doing?

Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)?

Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?

Dems are probably as fed up with labels as Reps.

Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)?

Getting pelted by an egg and asking for bacon was a quick comeback, I thought. Epileptic SNL flashbacks notwithstanding, the crack was funny. Not saying it should be tolerated in the political arena, just saying the lapse in judgment makes him human. Maybe the only type of humor that no one has a problem with is self-depreciating. Bush is very apt at it. It's almost necessary considering his too cute by half Bushisms.

Back to Arnold, chances are his label will backfire. Instead of bringing legislatures to the table he has clicked with the public on a basic level at the cost of alienated the people that will determine the fiscal outcome, his colleagues.

Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

He may possibly try to bring the public to his court, but as far as allegations that legislatures are out of touch Ahhnold can flex his incredible gludious maximus und clench his teeth until the cows come home if the bogette helps consevative special intrests, yah.

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?

I think they have a decent argument, and really if anyone but Arnold had said that (let's say Gray Davis said it), I guarantee that there would be plenty of people wanting to string him up for it.

Arnold seems to be allowed some license because of his former career, but when you really get down to it, it isn't an appropriate way for a governor to speak.

Is Schwarzenegger just politicking, as he is accusing his opponents of doing?

Yes, Schwarzenegger is politicking. He is trying to play on his popularity as an actor (by saying a typically Arnold thing) in order to put pressure on his opponents about the budget. This isn't the most effective way to get people back to the table to hash out the budget though.


Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)?

I don't think that it is, and we all know that if anyone else had said that everyone would be calling for their resignation right now.

Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

Yes, he is resorting to popularity tricks and telling people to "put pressure on their reps to pass the budget" instead of really sitting down and hashing the budget out with the legislature. I think that it is pretty safe to say that everyone in California knows we need to make some cuts, but it is important to determine what things should be cut and which ones shouldn't.

As a voter, I personally don't accept Schwarzenegger saying "I know what is best, pressure your rep to pass this budget". If he wants to sell me on that I need to see numbers and know what is getting cut. I would be highly disappointed if my reps weren't thinking the same way. I kind of see this as his first big mistake, he is trying to use his popularity against the legislature instead of using it to work with them.

I think that the terminology used by the Gov. of California displays his complete lack of political maturity.

"Girle-Men" or "Cry babies" resort to name calling when they don't get thier way. (Insert Ironic Smiley here)

I sit in the comfort of California II (also known as Oregon) and what can I say, I can only laugh. The guy was a joke when running for the spot, and is turning out to be a bigger joke now that he is in office.

Keep it up Cali voters.....your neigbors to the north are getting a kick out of it.

Personally I think this "controversy" is a laugh-and-a-half!

Arnold was joking, but we all knew that didn't we?

The California Democrat's objections are pure politics, grasping at straws by decrying the (not exactly harsh) language rather than concentrating on the substance of the charge.

Completely appropriate on the Governor's part, using his popularity is a legitimate and smart political move.

I was offended by Cheney's language, this couldn't offend the average twelve year-old.

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?

They are being girlie men and they're not taking a stand at all. They're just whining and crying that they got called on what they do in Sacramento. That's what girlie men do.


Is Schwarzenegger just politicking, as he is accusing his opponents of doing?

He's using his popularity as Governor to attempt to get our bought and paid for legislature off their collective rear-ends and pass a responsible budget. He was elected to office to do just that. Arnold is being a leader and a governor.

Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)?

You bet it is, it's called leading and if that means you have to slap a few girlie men around to do it, so be it. California is a mess and we're still in trouble. Arnold took his case to the people this spring and we passed what he asked us to pass and he promised that if we kept our end of the bargain, he'd keep his. Well, he's doing that and if he needs our help further to do that, we're there. It's about time that someone told the truth about what the California state legistlature is really all about.

Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

Arnold was elected Governor of the great State of California by the people of California. His margin of victory was huge by political standards- over 17 points over his nearest opponent. That is a mandate to clean things up in California and that's exactly what he's doing. Now, he may well have won the election in part because he is a famous actor, but now he's our governor and he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do. He's up in Sacramento kicking butt and taking names and making his case before the people. So, while girlie man John Burton runs around and whines and acts all offended about someone finally telling the truth about him, Arnold is continuing to lead California. And yeah, he's taking his case to the people. This is OUR state, not John Burton's.

So you're telling me that you wouldn't be trying to string Gray Davis up by his political heels if he said something like that while in office? Or that you wouldn't be harping on Kerry for saying something like that about Bush?

Edited to Add: I seem to remember several people stringing Davis up for his "kal-e-fornia" comments too. I guess that wasn't "just a joke"



I didn't vote for Arnold -- mostly because I don't support the idea of a recall -- but in general I have been supportive of him and have given him the benefit of the doubt. I do think he has started to fumble the ball a bit on this budget thing, the blame can't be placed solely on the Democrats.

However, I would hardly call his election a mandate from the people Aquilla (and certainly not in northern california since Arnold overwhelmingly lost in that area). What other qualified candidates were running in that circus of an election? Should we have elected Gary Coleman (the has-been child actor), Larry Flynt (the porn mogul) or perhaps we should have elected Mary Carey (the porn star -- web cams in every room of the mansion to get us out of debt; works for me!)? Arnold had the most name recognition and was the only one with even a vague plan (out of 180 plus candidates). However most of that plan wasn't fleshed out until he got into office. He was elected for three reasons -- people were fed up with Davis, Arnold was the most popular and he said he would repeal the car tax (which people despised). It had absolutely nothing to do with his views on things, the time before the election wasn't even long enough for people to get a sense of what they were. There was maybe one debate if I remember correctly and it was more like an episode of Hollywood squares than a debate.

If I might interject my answer, I'd say that it is a question of context . Coming from Arnold, with his body-building and muscle-bound action movie past, the joke is obvious.

Coming from Kerry, who, despite commendable service in the Navy, does not have the same, almost absurdly masculine image, if may sound like less of a joke.

That is the only difference, as I see it.

It's still not offensive in the least.

Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)?

Ironically, Schwarzenegger is referencing SNL characters who were making fun of him. This type of self-referential humor can be very confusing . This is a trivial thing and..um...way too big of a deal is being made of it.

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?

The Democrats are perfectly within their rights to take a stand with or without ad hominem attacks. And yes it is politicking but perhaps not just.

Is Schwarzenegger just politicking, as he is accusing his opponents of doing?

Of course, Schwarzenegger is politicking....but "just"?

Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

Schwarzenegger is popularist. He feels no reservations using this popularism as the "big hammer" to get his way. He was elected at least in part because he is/was an actor; that's what people wanted and that's what they got. However, I do not see Schwarzenegger being substantially different from Davis in terms of policy. He's just a much, much better showman and has...um...like...charisma.

Never said it was offensive, heck I even thought it was a little funny. However, I am curious why the double standard is being applied. Why does Arnold's past excuse him?

No double standard. I was talking about perception of the comment. It's easy to see such a comment is a joke coming from Arnold. From Kerry, who is less a caricature of physical manhood, it may be mistaken for a serious insult.

I would blame neither however and if Kerry picks up the comment and turns it around on the administration he might gain a couple of brownie points.

So why do you think such a joke is inappropriate?

Maybe Ah-nold used the term and it "pumped" his opponents "up."

As a non-Californian, I found it a funny, silly comment, but not knowing the problems Californians face, I don't know how bad the problems are and why the opposition would take so much umbrage. It sounds like something my "little" brother would say (he's in his forties).

Who expected this guy to be P.C. anyway? He already apologized publicly for the years of groping and fondling women on movie sets.

Gotta remember too that this man is widely known as the Governator. That is hardly dignifying. The whole California experience appears surreal to a Michigander, and this enhances that perception.

Of course Schwarzeneggar is using his popularity as a celebrity. But I agree with Lesly's assessment and, as my old Murphy's Law poster used to read, Friends come and friends go, but enemies accumulate.

Arnold is Arnold and one of the many reasons I voted for him and heartily endorsed him is because he's not your typical politician. He doesn't equivocate on things and use "pretty language" when it comes to dealing with the corrupt politicians in Sacramento. He tells it like it is and he doesn't mince words doing that. The last person we had in the Governor's office in California that was like that was another actor - Ronald Reagan. I'm not saying that Arnold is another Reagan, he's got a whole long way to go to even enter that arena, but he is bringing leadership to the office which is long overdue. While liberals whine and complain about cuts to the budget and no tax increases, Arnold keeps cutting away all the fat they've grown over the past several years in the California budget. That's what he promised to do if we elected him as governor and that's what he's doing. Now, I can understand why some of the Democrats in this state take exception to that since they seem to promise the voters one thing and deliver yet another to their special interests and that's exactly what Arnold was talking about. They don't lead, they whine like a bunch of political cowards afraid to stand up for what is right. They are girlie men.

California needs leadership in our government, not girlie men, and Arnold provides that. Maybe if he takes his case to the people as he's done and scares the girlie men in the legislature enough to where they stop listening to the lobbyists and start listening to the people, California will recover from the pathetic lack of leadership we've suffered here for the past few years.

I, for one, am embarrassed to have the "Gropinator" as governor of my state. Didn't we get enough ridicule about electing actors after Ronald Reagan? Argh. The governorship is not a popularity contest. But try telling that to some of the sheep in California who have stars in their eyes.

Wow, I'm glad you're not in public office. Is this how your workplace operates? Someone says something you don't like, you call them names and rally the troops to beat 'em up and boot 'em out? I'll bet that really improves morale and gets things done. <shakes head>
Yes, it's a minor issue, but is it a symptom of a larger problem? Keep in mind, Arnie was all for eliminating "partisanship" and was all kumbaya with his opponents for quite a while...until a few of them took a stand and balked at some of his suggestions...then the gloves came off.

The whole freakin' recall election was a joke. Don't blame all of us!!

The term 'girlie-men' is sexist. It implies that 'girls/women' are weak and would not do things appropriately, or in the way 'real men' (or boys) would, making girls/women/less 'macho' men weaker or less than. I would suppose that women (in government especially) would take offense to the remark but people are seeing this more as homophobic than an outright insult to the female gender, which it is. It assumes women(girls) are not strong and are ineffectual in the overall picture and men who act like 'girls' similar, an insult. To clarify, he did not say they were being childish, or acting like little boys, he said 'girlie'.

It also assumes by default that there are no women in the government mix-up in Calif. To say, in effect 'youre acting like a girl' is grade schools playground talk. It's should not be an insult to real men, but it is an insult to women to say such a thing in a negative tone.
What is wrong with having womens attributes or womens way of doing things?

This was not self deprecating humor. This was Swartzenegger believing his own macho movies, as in...only real muscle bound men can get this job done, like me. It was a play on his own press. It was an insult to lawmakers of both genders in its tone. It was petty name calling as well.

I dont think he knew he was doing this, because he wouldnt really have a clue considering his past. After all, noone would want to act like a 'girl' in his mind.

Its not becomming of a governor, but not something that cant be forgiven if someone points out to him that there are now female legislators, doctors, lawyers and other female professionals and that a 'girls' point of view may be different but not necesarily wrong.

If that is your position it would be nice if you'd provide a few sources supporting your position that these "whining liberals" are doing nothing but catering to special interests and doing the opposite of what voters were promised instead of offering ad hominem attacks.

From what I have seen and read, these are unsubstantiated claims. The legislature and Arnold have been working together on the budget for the past few months. Arnold is now complaining because they aren't going to meet their deadline. So what? I fail to see how that equates to whining liberals or catering to special interests. I have yet to see anything stating that the Democrats don't feel budget cuts are necessary and taxes are (I think that is pretty much universal). However, where it appears they disagree with Arnold is on what should be cut.

From what little I have read Arnold is considering things like making shelters euthanize animals earlier which he claims will save millions of dollars (which I think is total garbage -- there is no way it saves millions, hundreds of thousands maybe). I haven't seen the proposals from the dems, but my question is why are the big elephants in the room being ignored. There are certainly things that could make a greater impact than going after stuff like this.

California has some big budget problems, would you prefer to find the best solution or put things on a deadline and get less than optimal results?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to simply take Arnold's word that his plan is the best when I haven't seen what the plan is for either group. I'm sure the answer still lies somewhere in the middle, but believing that Arnold has all the answers and the "whining liberals" don't know what they are talking about isn't a very convincing argument and frankly Aquilla you usually do much better than that.

The state legislators in California don't work for the Governor, Daffygrl, they work for the same people he does, the people of California. The Governor promised the people, his employers, a responsible budget on time and their other employees, the legislature hasn't delivered it. It's about time someone called them on it, way past time actually. Arnold it just telling his employers why the job hasn't been done.




Oh puleeeese...... It means political cowardice for not standing up to the lobbyists who have been lining their pockets.




You want to go back and debate the recall again, CJ? Your side lost that one, deal with it already. Sheesh! Next thing you know you'll be whining about Florida....

There was only ONE single politician recalled in California last year and that was Gray Davis. He took the fall, but every one of those state legislators had a hand in it. California was in a mess, our budget was a nightmare and the people took drastic action because they had to. And, it wasn't even close. They selected Arnold to be Governor because he promised them he would change things and that's what he's trying to do. If the legislature doesn't want to go along with that and instead maintain the status quo, fine, we'll vote their butts out of office too in November and they can get a real job. It sure seems to me that with the Democratic Party "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation" means doing it their way. I think Arnold has a different idea about that.

Really? I think not. Saying that politicians are cowards for not standing up to lobbyists lining their pockets is civilized and coherant political talk. Calling people 'Girlie-men' is sexist and inappropriate and means nothing, explains nothing and does not have the interpretation you give it across society. Since when is girlie-men a political term, (meaning cowardice?) Are girls cowardly? Is that what is meant? I am sorry if I dont understand Arnolds doublespeak.

Dictionary: Girlie-men: Adjective. Political cowardice for not standing up to lobbyists.

Dont think so. More like,

Dictionary: Girlie-men: Adjective . Men who act like girls.

How do girls act? They dont stand up? or are weak? Dont do the right thing? Puuleese yourself. Explain it to your daughter, that trying to insult men by calling them girls is ok. After all noone would want to act like a girl, the worst thing in life!

What if he said they are acting like mama's boys? That would be the outrage.
Got the picture here? Or is it still ok to say that girls are weaker and less than big muscle bound (and in this case muscle headed) boys, and men who act like girls are wimps? Is he governor of Calif. or a dodgeball coach, saying the girlie faction is not tough enough? Macho does not cut it, it takes a brain to run the government.
(I think, but on second thought I am proved widely mistaken time after time)
It was a childish and stupid remark, sexist in its very nature and meant to offend, which it rightly did, not to his benefit.

Artemise, despite what you may have heard, Arnold is hardly a sexist. One of the very first people he brought into California government to straighten out the budget mess was a woman. She came here "on loan" from Florida and previous to that she straightened out the state budget in Michigan (I think). Now Arnold was elected governor for one reason and one reason only - California was going bankrupt. The people of California were sick and tired of business as usual in Sacramento and rose up and did something that they have only done once in history. They fired their governor mid-term and hired a new one. It was all about our budget and economy. So who does Arnold bring in to help fix that and meet his mandate? A woman! She's hardly a "token", not for the issue that got him elected in the first place.

So no, Arnold isn't sexist and his girlie man comment wasn't sexist.

Was Arnold's comment sexist or offensive? Perhaps. But you know what? When you're in the red by 38 billion dollars, you cant afford to be nice.

As for using his star power... he had every right to. He used that comment to rally people to put pressure on lawmakers who have been draggin there butts for sometime.

The Dems should be not worried about what Arnold called them and start worrying about the state's damn future.

Short and sweet.

Just politicking? It's all about politicking. This is politics. Arnold gave the Demos an opening. They're taking it.



See above. Yep, it's all politics.



Reminds me of Jesse Ventura. It's about as effective as JV's yammerings.



Yep, and it's a mistake. What worked during election time won't work during negotiation time. Arnold S. needs to sober up and take things seriously. California has some pretty serious problems. Right now he's drunk on his misperceptions of popularity. Someone needs to take him aside (his wife?) and give him a little lecture on how things work as a governor, not a candidate.

But then, I don't think AS is any more skilled at this than JV was. Arnold has a lot of growing up to do and not much time in which to do it. He's a smart man, but smarts don't substitute for experience.

Overall, this looks like the first major gaff. I'd not be surprised if the girlie men hog tie him politically and throw him in the cellar with duct tape wrapped around his big mouth. Or maybe that'll be the Repubs doing it? Just be quiet and take the orders, Arnold. Yep, I can see that as a possibility.

Yet another thing that can happen is that the RNC starts encouraging this sort of talk. That would be political suicide. Trying to gain cooperation by calling people names (or commanding self-gratification) never works.

Finally a voice of reason. I keep wondering how long the starry-eyed public will continue to hold "The Terminator" up as the savior of California and realize he's just another Hollywood bimbo.

So, who's really the so-called "girlie-man"?

Citing an op-ed piece from Steve Lopez who is in reality a pop culture columnist is probably not a wise thing to do. I don't know where he gets his budget numbers, but according to this chart from the California Department of Finance, the 2004-2005 budget has shrunk by around 2 billion dollars and is at it's lowest point since FY 1999-2000. The whole prison guard thing is a mess created by Gray Davis when he "negotiated" a sweet deal with the prison guard's union who just happened to be one of his biggest campaign contributors and it's now left to Arnold to try to undo that deal.

It's really interesting how people can come here and deride Arnold as some stupid actor and those who support him as "star struck" groupies and that's ok. But let Arnold refer to the political cowards, bought and paid for by special interests in the California legislature as girlie men and all hell breaks loose.

So, I guess the US District judge is full of hooey for condemning AS's deal with prison guards.

My side? I said a few posts back that I didn't vote for Arnold, but that I generally supported what he was doing so far. I opposed the recall in principle, not because I liked Davis.

Now as to the rest of the post, I'm still waiting for those sources to back up accusations that the "whining liberals" are doing nothing but catering to special interests. Sources stating they are doing nothing about the budget would be nice too, maybe you have been watching some news programs I haven't seen.

At any rate, I think it was quite clear to everyone at recall time that the budget was a serious problem. I see no evidence that everyone has not been actively working on that problem since then. If you have evidence contrary to that please feel free to present it.

I also have not seen Arnold's plan for this new budget in full -- have you? Why would you support something you haven't even seen and have no information on? Why would I believe it is solely the Democrats causing the problem when Arnold calls them "girlie-men"? Sounds rather foolish to me.

I thought this was funny! It's all true too! Democrats in California are pandering to special interests and it is not getting ANYTHING done. Arnold, using this "girlie men" comment, got the nation's attention on it (very good job i might add).

This federal judge has been ripping the California Prison system since 1995 for the way it's run. Arnold wasn't governor in 1995 and he wasn't governor when the sweetheart contract between the state and the prison guard union was negotiated. Now, he is governor and he does have to deal with the mess that Gray Davis left him. He's tried to negotiate with them and work something out, but at some point he may have to pull a Reagan v PATCO and start all over again.

Edited to add this from the LA Times....

Ok so in the abcense of any evidence backing up the claim that CA Democrats are "whining liberals" I'll assume that you are going to retract that remark. I'll also go ahead and present the following: Democratic Budget Fails, Governor Softens Criticism





A whole three obstacles, wow looks like some serious special interests are being catered to here. One of them I really don't like -- they are talking about taking money from cities in order to bail the state out. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is not a good policy. But even the Democrats are ready to cave on this, must be the special interests.


So, it looks like the Democrats are working with the governor but the Republicans are holding things up and complaining.

Based on this article, it appears that the Governor was clearly politicking with his "girlie-man" comment and I'm still searching for that evidence that the "whining liberals" are holding things up by catering to special interests. If anyone happens to find anything to support that do let me know.

Are the Democrats right in taking a stand, or are they just politicking?
Is Schwarzenegger just politicking, as he is accusing his opponents of doing?

I don't know; the whole thing seems like typical politics to me. Who is "right" and who is "wrong" often just depends on who you side with here.

Is this proper behavior/language for a governor (regardless of his previous acting career)? Is Schwarzenegger using his popularity as an actor rather than as a governor to use the people of California to put pressure on his opponents?

I don't think we'd all be able to agree on a universal definition of what is "proper" behavior for a governor so I can't really answer that either. I think Schwarzenegger was definitely playing up the "girlie man" act based on his prior reputation as an actor and the infamous SNL skits that popularized that act, and that he intended it to be insulting and funny, without actually really believing in what he was saying; in other words, I don't think he was really challenging individual democrats to some sort of macho contest. Schwarzenegger was partly poking fun at himself while also trying primarily to redicule Democrats and prompt a reaction. Does anyone really believe he was serious, and thinks senior California Democrat lawmakers are "girlie men?" At the same time, if you don't think its funny, it doesn't come across as very professional. And I think we should acknowledge Artemise's point about whether or not using the insult "girlie man!" is really free of sexist bias - if you're a man and you don't see any reason to be offended, fine, but why then summarily dismiss a woman's viewpoint that it sends the message that women are inferior? It does send that message, whether you think it's significant or not. Of course, Schwarzenegger probably didn't even think about that for a microsecond, and no doubt burst into a brief acting role for the part. It is what he knows best, and history has yet to show what he ends up being remembered for, as a better actor than a governor or a better governor than an actor.

For me, political parties really have nothing to do with this. If Schwarzenegger was a Democrat and the California House was dominated by Republicans, I don't think much would have happened differently had there been another "girlie man!" stunt. I admit I'm not a California native and I don't know much about California politics. In general, I like Schwarzenegger; he did come to Kuwait in July 2003 just to put on a show for the troops.

Ok, let's start with your favorite source, the San Francisco Chronicle. From this article we get the following.....



There is an entire agency CAL-OSHA in the state government to protect workers from dangerous working conditions. What the Democrats are really attempting to protect here are the trial attorneys, one of the main contributors to their party. You start placing limits on their lawsuits and they might start having to drive their BMWs for more than a year. I know I know, that's a terrible sacrifice, but hey, these are difficult times in California.

From the San Diego Union-Tribune we get the following.....



Perhaps some wouldn't see a labor union as a "special interest", but I do and the Democrats in California are in their pocket.

Or maybe... they are standing up for this because it is the right thing to do. OSHA is a completely worthless and ineffective agency, and it is even more so in California. If Arnold wants to make some budget cuts lets get rid of OSHA because they have really failed in their mission.

The main problem with OSHA is that they are hardly ever able to prosecute due to all the restrictions placed on them and the deck being stacked in favor of the employer - OSHA Employer Defenses. The following is one example, the entire page is worth a read:


If you want to get a little more information about how worthless OSHA is, you might consider reading Fast Food Nation, and specifically the few chapters dealing with working conditions in slaughterhouses.

So, I agree that employees should be able to file lawsuits on their own against employers, OSHA certainly isn't helping them out. I don't think the Democrats have gone far enough though, they need to disband OSHA because it is a waste of government funds. Furthermore, I fail to see how allowing lawsuits has any relevance whatsoever to the budget. It does throw a bone to Arnold's special interests though -- large businesses.

As to your second point about the buses, the article is less than descriptive about the issue, it is mostly a he said she said article. However, I did find this article, which describes it a little better:


So your article is just a little misleading and incomplete Aquilla, the Democrats want to ensure that bus drivers (and public employees in general) are paid a living wage. Let's stop right there for a second. I can't possibly see how that is a bad thing. Isn't it already bad enough that the middle and lower class folks have to live up to 2 hours away from their jobs just to afford housing? I know that people drive from places like Stockton and even suburbs of Sacramento to work in San Francisco and Oakland. I'm sure that you are aware people drive from the eastern most parts of the inland empire to work in LA. So by opposing this law I guess you advocate just leaving those people hanging in the wind then? And the conservatives aren't anti-poor?

Another thing to notice is that it doesn't say bussing can't be contracted out, it simply sets a minimum wage for bus drivers.

Ok, now on to the rest of the article. The law is opposed by a large bus company (which is foreign owned) because they might lose money by treating their employees to a decent wage -- stop the presses while I shed a few tears. I know that this is probably something important to Republicans (big business and all), but the less fortunate in California deserve a chance to earn a decent living too. No one benefits if people have to live in abject poverty just so a few businesses can shave a few dollars off their bottom line and as you put it "buy a new BMW each year".

To your point about Democrats getting campaign contributions from the California School Employees Association, I say so what. Let's look at who Arnold is getting campaign contributions from. Politicians get contributions from the people they represent, that isn't a novel concept nor is it unique to California.

Again this law has absolutely nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with politics -- politics shared by Arnold and his Republican supporters. I refuse to believe that cutting bus driver's salaries (and giving big businesses -- foreign owned big businesses -- a bone) is in the best interest of the state.

When you actually look at the issues and put the politics aside, it is pretty clear who is in the right, and there is a reason why the Democrats have a large majority in the legislature. Given their position on issues I think they are in no danger of losing that majority.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

First off, they aren't taking a stand, they're calling him a "bully" and "homophobe", they're proving Arnie very very right. And yes this "stand taking" is just politicking because what Arnie said, while not very professional, or political, is no big deal.

Nope, he's speaking his mind

I'll use a liberal trick here, how do you define proper, isn't that subjective? At the time Arnie thought that his opponents were cowards for "standing up for special interests" and not telling the people of their intentions to do so, though he didn't use the word cowardly, he got his point across.

To some extent, but he is attempting to get significant things done, and I commend him for that.

CP

I think this article handily wraps up this debate and along with my other points proves that this whole thing was just a political move orchestrated by Schwarzenegger and had nothing to do with the "whining liberals".




Sounds like a good compromise to me, but "frivolous" seems to me to be very hard to define. I'm glad the Democrats stuck to their guns here and allowed labor to have some recourse against corporations.


How gracious of them to not try and pull money out of the pockets of lower-middle class Californians in order to increase the bottom line of large, foreign owned corporations.


I think that pretty much sums things up, the Democrats have a good history thus far of working with the governor and have generally been excited to be a part of the changes. Arnold's populist attacks were highly unecessary and really just clouded the waters.