[NYTr] Calif: Gubernator Likely to Veto Anti-war Measure

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by rick kissell


LA Times - Aug 30, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap30aug30,1,4581622.column?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true 


Antiwar measure faces grim prospects

by George Skelton
Capitol Journal

SACRAMENTO --- The state Senate today is expected to send Gov. Arnold 
Schwarzenegger a bill that would allow Californians to sound off about 
the Iraq war and call for its immediate end. He can place the measure on 
the ballot or in the trash.

Bet on the trash.

Specifically, the measure asks voters whether President Bush should "end 
the United States occupation of Iraq and achieve the immediate, 
complete, safe and orderly withdrawal of United States forces?" It would 
go on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot and make California the 
first state to vote on the war.

Sponsored by Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland), the bill (SB 924) 
passed the Assembly on Monday on a virtual party-line vote, 43-32, after 
a two-hour passionate debate. It was returned to its original house, the 
Senate, for concurrence with Assembly amendments.

After it lands on his desk, Schwarzenegger will have 12 days to sign or 
veto the measure. So far he hasn't taken a position.

But signing it would be a surprise. There's not much reason to, from his 
standpoint. The only thing in it for him is a big headache.

Schwarzenegger's signature on the measure merely would tick off 
Republican legislators even more than they already are because of his 
history of ignoring them. If the governor has any lingering hope of 
achieving some semblance of healthcare reform this year, he can't 
further strain relations with Republicans. Not one GOP lawmaker has 
voted for the antiwar bill in either legislative house.

Schwarzenegger also has policy reasons to veto the measure.

It's just a nonbinding resolution that advises. The governor is on 
record opposing such toothless creatures. In a speech to the National 
Press Club in February, while Congress was debating Iraq, he asked: 
"What is the point of stirring up bitterness over nonbinding 
resolutions? . . . . All this energy being spent on bitterness."

Moreover, the Perata bill calls for an "immediate" troop pullout. That 
conflicts with the governor's position. Whenever asked, he advocates a 
"timetable" for withdrawal, but also asserts the need to emerge from 
Iraq victorious.

Of course, Schwarzenegger fashions himself as a "people's governor" who 
welcomes citizens' input. But he can point out that the Iraq war is 
hardly a Sacramento issue.

Listening to the Assembly debate, different thoughts evolved.

The first was cynical. There's no doubt in my mind that this ballot 
measure was the brainchild of some Democratic consultant trying to tilt 
the Feb. 5 electorate to the left. If liberals could be drawn to the 
polls to vote against the war, the theory goes, perhaps they also could 
be enticed to support a Democratic-sponsored measure relaxing term limits.

The term limits initiative hasn't quite qualified for the ballot. More 
than enough voters' signatures have been collected, but they still 
haven't been verified by elections officials.

"This really is not about the war," Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia 
(R-Cathedral City) declared during the debate. "This really is about 
politics and shame on us."

Later, in an interview, Garcia said that attracting liberal voters to 
the polls by offering them an antiwar resolution was the equivalent of 
"giving them free tacos and T-shirts."

My second thought was that there were a lot of wannabe members of 
Congress out there on the Assembly floor pontificating about foreign 
policy. Shouldn't they be debating California healthcare or political 
reform or water storage?

"This is not proper for the Legislature," insisted Assemblyman George 
Plescia (R-San Diego). "If we don't like what's going on [in Iraq], run 
for Congress."

"I don't want to run for Congress," replied Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los 
Angeles), the Assembly floor jockey for the bill. "I like it here. But 
one thing I don't like is not being able to tell President Bush what I 
don't like about his policies."

As the intensity increased, it occurred to me that this debate -- even 
if held in a state legislative chamber -- was practically inevitable. 
The bill, although born of cynicism, actually reflected heartfelt public 
divisions on the most important American issue of the decade -- a war 
that has cost more than 3,700 U.S. military lives, including roughly 400 
from California, plus hundreds of billions in tax dollars.

A recent statewide survey by the Field Poll found that 58% of voters 
favor setting a spring 2008 deadline to begin withdrawing troops. But 
the electorate is polarized politically -- 75% of Democrats and 68% of 
independents support a deadline; only 30% of Republicans do.

"This is the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime," said 
Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles). "The best way to 
support the troops is to bring them home immediately."

Republicans talked a lot about supporting the troops. They warned that 
passing the ballot measure would "demoralize" American soldiers and 
"embolden" the enemy.

If so, I thought, that's the price of free speech in a democracy -- 
where the military doesn't dictate policy, civilians do; civilians who 
answer to voters.

And it's the consequence of a failed war policy contrived by an inept 
commander-in-chief.

Support the troops? How about supporting them with something besides 
rhetoric and car decals? Something like a surtax to pay for better 
equipment, more fighting help and decent medical care?

Instead, Bush cut taxes, mainly for the wealthy.

Where's the national sacrifice in support of the troops?

There's a lot to debate. Too bad this probably won't go to the February 
ballot. Californians should be allowed to sound off at the polls. Beats 
rioting in the streets -- strapping on tear-gas masks, hurling rocks -- 
as an earlier generation did to protest a war that's now being compared 
to this one by our president.

The issue is unavoidable. It will be on the ballot next year -- in 
November, when we elect a new commander.