After all the back-and-forth between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush on sending California National Guard troops to augment the role of the Border Patrol in the so far fruitless attempt to secure California’s border against illegal immigration from Mexico, there is some rare good news. Major General William Wade, commander of the California National Guard, says that the deployment of troops is “well ahead of schedule.”
Wade says he will soon have 750 troops in place of the 1,000 ultimately being sent to assist the Border Patrol by performing support functions allowing agents to work in the field. As of yesterday, there were 722 National Guard troops on orders for Southwest Border duty. Of those, 384 had reported for training. They expect to have 900 troops on orders by Friday. The goal, set by the National Guard Bureau, was to have 500 on orders by Friday, so that is already exceeded.
Meanwhile, there is a certain level of confusion in some press and political circles, both about the nature of Schwarzenegger’s refusal of a request for more troops from Bush and about the likelihood that the refusal was a political ploy.
A number of media outlets, especially on cable TV, have been confusing the issue. Schwarzenegger didn’t refuse to send more troops to the California border, he refused to send more troops to other states, namely Arizona and New Mexico.
General Wade, a highly decorated infantry officer, and others say California was called on by the Bush Administration because only a few other states were prepared enough to send troops and California was already in the process of gearing up for border duty.
Schwarzenegger and Wade’s deployment plan, which focuses on volunteers, differs from the original Bush plan, which called for putting Guardsmen on border duty instead of performing their annual two to three-week training exercises. Schwarzenegger said that arrangement would have created major problems in logistics and morale.
Some Democrats, perhaps frustrated by Schwarzenegger’s refusal to fall into the hoped for partisan stereotype of being a Bush acolyte in mostly blue state California, are saying that Schwarzenegger’s refusal of the president’s request is a put-up job, a political play hatched with the White House and the nefarious mastermind Karl Rove to make the governor look more independent than he really is. Phil Angelides for Governor senior advisor Bob Mulholland sent a missive to reporters saying as much.
Wade says that Washington requested California National Guard troops because they had a higher level of readiness than most other states, pointing to the relatively swift deployment that is underway now. Why not help out the other Southwestern states with California Guard members?
“I may have to send troops to Nevada to help with the fires there,” Wade says. “We could easily have crises here. We can’t afford to be deploying our troops to Arizona and New Mexico.”
Mulholland and some others say Bush knew Schwarzenegger would refuse, which is why he made the request. Politicians are certainly not above such kabuki plays.
However, there’s never been much warmth between this governor and this White House. Schwarzenegger was quite friendly with the first President Bush, who appointed him chairman of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness. But the spark of friendship has never flared with the current President Bush. And the governor’s relationship with Rove has seemed frosty.
Indeed, Rove favored not Schwarzenegger as the Republican gubernatorial hopeful in California, but Condi Rice, the longtime Bush foreign policy advisor and former Stanford provost who is now Bush’s secretary of state. In 2000, Rove moved to block Schwarzenegger from a substantial speaking slot at the Republican National Convention, pushing him for a celebrity role instead.
When Schwarzenegger ran for governor in the 2003 recall, he made a point of naming liberal investment icon Warren Buffett as his chief economic advisor on the eve of a Bush visit to California. The move not so subtly differentiated Schwarzenegger from Bush. But it backfired when Buffett famously mused to the Wall Street Journal on what he saw as the need to rework Proposition 13.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
24 Comments
Dan Nguyen:A well-known attack strategy that Angelides has is to link Schwarzenegger with Bush. Angelides hopes that this strategy will get him more votes in the 2006 election.
Californians needs to know that protecting our border against illegal immigrants is only a part of the bigger strategy. The grand strategy here is to fight terrorism. There are thousands of illegal entries into California every day. Osama bin Laden knows this weakness and, there is no doubt, is planning his attacks. Remember it took only 8 terrorists to destroy our economy during 911 in New York. Terrorists can do the same in California.
When Angelides and our media could not convince people, they confuse them. Wake up America….
Jun 29, 2006 - 7:06 am Jonathan Hemlock:This does seem to be the entirety of Mr. Angelides’ plan: raise taxes and attack Bush. We most probably do need to raise taxes. But how would he do it?
Jun 29, 2006 - 7:12 am Hap Hazard:No discernable crime program, credential or even interest in discussing the subject, now antagonism toward Arnold because of his efforts to secure the border looks like a 35% solution.
Jun 29, 2006 - 7:32 am Paul:AS is raising taxes as well when he proposes a $37 + billion dollar bond proposition. Who do you think ultimately pays for that? Regarding the President, many Californians are extremely disenchanted with this Federal administration, and to the extent that November sentiment becomes about “cleaning house” it could very well provide a groundswell of votes for the incumbents competition.
Jun 29, 2006 - 7:37 am Bill Bradley:Er … not so.
The state’s revenues regularly rise without a tax increase, due to greater economic activity.
Jun 29, 2006 - 7:43 am Hap Hazard:Paul, I think that folks who are counting on a housecleaning in the Congress in November are in for a very disappointing winter, particularly if the strategy is to run against Bush. Running against the congressional majority might have legs, but it seems like the strategy of the partisan democrats is to win by being the anti-Bush. Hey, this sounds vaguely familiar ! I think it will be a big loser, here in California and throughout the nation come November. For one thing, Bush is much more popular here in the state than you might believe. Secondly, and I think more importantly, many people are simply put off by bitterness and negativity. To me, it seems to me to be a rather unusual way to try to attract folks to your side.
Jun 29, 2006 - 8:07 am Paul:“Bush is much more popular here in the state than you might believe”
Hap, are you kidding? His job performance ratings and approvals are lower in Calif than any other state in the union. He conjures up negative feelings in probably close to 70% of the public. Even if he only moved things a few points, that could make the difference. Those out there who keep posting that linking AS to Bush won’t have any impact are expressing wishful thinking, not reality.
Jun 29, 2006 - 8:34 am Vladimir Bierko:In the last Field Poll, rush-hour traffic had a higher approval rating than Bush. Arnold was tied with melted ice cream, an improvement from his earlier standing below chicken pox.
Jun 29, 2006 - 8:45 am Bill Bradley:If people BELIEVE Schwarzenegger = Bush, it could have an impact.
Jun 29, 2006 - 8:47 am Hap Hazard:And your positive, inspiring alternative policies to those of Bush, or of AS, that looks to the future, not the past (meaning, 1968-76), is . . . . By the way, what do you make of the CALIFORNIA 50th Congresional Disrict outcome this past June? You know, the one that was going to be the harbinger of dire consequences for the Congress and majority leadership for Nancy the dim bulb Pelosi? Who’s not in the reality-based community?
Jun 29, 2006 - 8:47 am Vladimir Bierko:Bill’s right about “If people BELIEVE Schwarzenegger = Bush, it could have an impact.”
Otherwise, why would his state and campaign offices take such pains to distance themselves from the President?
Does anyone have any footage from George and Arnold walking together? Just reverse it, slow it down perp-walk style, put it black and white and there’s an ad you can run all summer long.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:03 am Hap Hazard:I would agree that it could have some negative impact on AS to be linked to Bush, but my guess is that it is not nearly as much as some would believe, particularly in the statewide general election where the swing voters and the Central Valley (other than Sacramento County) voters usually make the difference. All Central Valley counties were red counties in 2000 and 2004.
More importantly, I think that is very difficult to lead with a message that AS=GWB, and then have “whatever-he-is-for-I’m-against” as the supposed Sunday punch. I just don’t think people are attracted to negativity.
I also think that the “reality” is that Bush has already bottomed out, and can go nowhere but higher in the polls.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:25 am Bill Bradley:Okey dokey, Gospodin Bierko, now I know you are really for Arnold.
Great advice …
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:28 am tim:bill, thanks for the interesting analysis - very informative. This whole NG issue is quite complex - for example, in Southeastern states, i’ve recently read stories about the dis-inclination of governors to use their NG troops as Washington wants, because of the worry that the state NG troops might be needed for home-state duty later this summer during hurricane season…
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:34 am Bill Bradley:You know, Bush has turned the National Guard into frontline troops. A disproportionate share of the casualties in Iraq come from the Guard and reserves rather than regulars.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:38 am Paul:“I also think that the “reality” is that Bush has already bottomed out, and can go nowhere but higher in the polls.”
Or stay where he is in the mid to low 30’s. Contra Costa is usually the harbinger county in Calif statewide elections. The 50th congressional district was a solid Repub district, and yet look how much money had to be spent so they could hold onto it for a few more months, and yet Bilbray only won it by a small margin.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:47 am tim:Paul - on the Cal. 50th, that’s sort of a glass half-full, half-empty argument. yes, you can say the Reps. had to spend a lot of $ and energy to hold it, but on the flip side, the Dems. and their supporters put in a lot of $ and energy from THEIR side and Busby ended up about where she began in the primary - mid 40s - and where Kerry eneded up 2004, so for all the $ and energy, there was really no change in the end.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:59 am Vladimir Bierko:Hap wrote: “I also think that the ‘reality’ is that Bush has already bottomed out, and can go nowhere but higher in the polls.”
Yes, that’s what all the Gray Davisites thought about his numbers too.
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:59 am Bill Bradley:That San Diego congressional race ended up the way I thought it would, which is why I paid little attention to it.
Looked like a great opportunity for a takeover with Republicans there supposedly demoralized by the Duke Cunningham scandal, running a former Washington lobbyist to replace him …
Jun 29, 2006 - 10:21 am carole w:A friend of mine ran for that seat… Nice guy, a law enforcement candidate. I think that election was finished before it started…big bucks area desired a high dollar rep.
Jun 29, 2006 - 10:56 am Jonathan Hemlock:The Democrats achieved a great big bust in CD 50.
Jun 29, 2006 - 3:32 pm larry:What the District 50 election proved is the difficulty of ungerrymandering a gerrymandered district. Cunningham was (politically) dead and gone. Republican voters had no reason to vote to decrease the number of Republicans in Congress.
Jun 29, 2006 - 5:21 pm AthlonGuy:Not only is Cunningham politically dead and gone, he is in prison. What that CA-50 election proves is that the “unlimited benefits, money, SSN, voting, licenses and stuff for illegal immigrants from OTHER countries” platform tends to be a loser strategy. There really have not been many commercials on Cable TV convincing normal US-Voters this is ok. With an appropriate campaign that addresses what people are thinking about, who knows?
Jun 29, 2006 - 9:23 pm Bill Bradley:Perhaps.
Jun 29, 2006 - 10:04 pm