Today I’m reading this regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante. The article isn’t really about them, but contains an interesting quote:

Schwarzenegger also responded to criticism from Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante that he is anti-immigrant, saying the fact he is Austrian-born makes him “the poster child for immigrants.”

“I don’t need to get a lesson from anyone else about immigration because I’ve been there,” he told the AP. “Whereas other candidates are maybe sons of immigrants, but I’m the true immigrant, OK? So let’s just make that clear.”

This illustrates one of the many things I hate about Bustamante, and one of the many things I like about Arnold.

Arnold is well-documented as being opposed to allowing illegal aliens to have benefits that are properly reserved to citizens and legal residents. This includes things like unemployment insurance and healthcare, fighting document forgery (i.e. Prop 187, which was approved by California voters and then scuttled by the court system and the direct intervention of Gray Davis), driver’s licenses (thanks to Gray Davis’ intention to sign “Driver’s Licenses for Illegals” SB 60 today), and accommodating non-English-speakers in government venues.

This, of course, somehow makes him anti-immigrant in the minds of people like Bustamante, La Raza, La Voz de Aztlan, and other activist groups. The charge is, obviously, stupid. Arnold was born in Austria and came to the United States in 1968, when he was 21 years old. He wasn’t fleeing from something. He was seeking opportunity in the world of professional bodybuilding, and the United States was the place to do that.

But Bustamante’s accusation brings up something that has been apparent to me for a while now, which is the tendency (and the deliberate attempt, I think), to make the world “immigrant” equal the word “Mexican”. Perhaps that was what Bustamante was really thinking, and Arnold was impolite enough to interpret the word “immigrant” correctly, rather than as Bustamante intended.

Possibly this is a California phenomenon — I don’t know. But the “immigrant” = “Mexican” equation is very prevalent, I think on a subconscious level in most cases. People who express opposition to various preferential treatment for illegal immigrants are labeled “racist”, even though immigrants can come from anywhere, and could indeed be Caucasian (duh).

The news article contains another interesting exchange:

Thursday, Davis attacked Schwarzenegger’s claim in a new TV ad that California spends $29 million more each day than it is taking in. State officials say that under the new budget, which includes heavy borrowing, the state is bringing in about $6 million more each day than it spends.

“Arnold needs to take a refresher course in math,” Davis said at the town hall.

Asked about that claim, Schwarzenegger said he “looked at the numbers very carefully” before approving the ad.

“The reality is that they play games with the numbers,” he said.

This is absolutely correct. One has only to see the phrase “includes heavy borrowing” to understand that this is not real income. Arnold has the temerity to state the obvious, and to call things what they are. He is blunt and plain-spoken, directing everyone’s attention to the Emperor’s lack of clothes.

Arnold’s interview in Oui magazine in 1977 has received some commentary lately, due to the inclusion of coarse language and a casual attitude toward sex and marijuana. I was able to read the entire article on Smoking Gun before it was apparently yanked (presumably because it is copyrighted material), and the thing that really leaps off the page is not the talk of sex and drugs, but the blinding, articulate intelligence of the man.

He’s smart, and considerably shrewder than he’s given credit for. People think he’s dumb because he’s musclebound, speaks with a strong accent, and is an actor. But the reality is that he’s sharp as a razor. Californians who have paid even a modest amount of attention to him over the years are aware of this. If you watch him live on a talk-show, or somesuch, he’s clearly a very bright man.

But the bigger picture is that I think Arnold is the right man for the job. Gray Davis and Bustamante talk about how they have “experience”. Yeah, and look what they’ve done to California. Davis has been in California politics so long that he’s got graft and favors coming out of his ass. Since 1972 he has served in such capacities as finance director for Tom Bradley mayoral campaign & mayor’s special assistant (1972-74); chief of staff for Governor Jerry Brown Jr. (1975-82); California Assembly member (1983-86); California controller (1987-94); California lieutenant governor under Pete Wilson (1995-98); California governor, 1999-present.

I don’t want that kind of “experience” in my government.

5 Responses to “Why I Like Arnold”
  1. Macker says:

    So! Gray-Out worked for Jerry Brown as his chief of staff. Interesting…did he arrange any trysts between Moonbeam and Linda Ronstadt (lucky dog!)?

    GO ARNOLD!

  2. TTK Ciar says:

    Thank you for that very well thought-out article.

    If immigrants were required to pay for the administrative effort to provide them with driving licenses, and to also pay for their use of roads (in light of their nonpayment of taxes), would you still be adverse to them having the opportunity to get a California driving license?

    It seems to me that it would only make them more productive members of our society, ultimately to the benefit of everyone.

    Most of the debate over this issue which is available online is shallow and formulaic. If you could expound on your views, I would be interested in reading them.

       – TTK

    BTW, I recently posted perspectives on Camejo and Huffington on my blog on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/~TTK+Ciar/journal/ .. They aren’t as well-written as the one you presented here, but I submit them to whomever is interested.

  3. Anne Haight says:

    TTK, maybe I’m just dumb but I can’t figure out how to leave a comment on your blog entry on Slashdot. :)

    But regarding Camejo, this quote you cited caught my attention:

    “Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except for those used for hunting”

    Is that literally what he said? Because I have to wonder if he understands that a “semi-automatic gun” includes everything that isn’t a revolver or a bolt-action rifle. ;)

  4. TTK Ciar says:

    | I can’t figure out how to leave a comment on your blog entry on Slashdot

    They did make it annoyingly obscure .. you need to click on the “Comments” link near the top of the entry, to the right of the timestamp. That allows you to read comments and write your own. Actually .. isn’t that how leftist.org’s blog works too? HEY! ;-)

    | Is that literally what he said? Because I have to wonder if he understands that a
    | “semi-automatic gun” includes everything that isn’t a revolver or a bolt-action rifle

    I have never heard him verbally utter it, but that is his stated position, verbatim, under the “Guns” link in his web page’s “issues” list, qv:

    http://www.votecamejo.org/issues/guns.php

    And no, I don’t believe he understands what a “semi-automatic gun” is. Most people think it’s something that keeps firing as long as you hold down its trigger.

    I’m guessing he either didn’t research gun issues (qv his perpetuation of the “gun show loophole” myth as another point of congruence with this explanation), or perhaps he knows better but is willing to adopt the tried and true verbiage for assuaging voters. People know this language, and probably expect to see it coming from any viable candidate. In any case, unless more information comes to light, it’s all speculation — the page at that link is unusually sparse.

    Here’s an interesting relevent piece from a Sacramento Bee article, in which he suggests a marginally more enlightened attitude:
    http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/7345034p-8289079c.html

    – TTK

  5. Clifford says:

    Strange…I still don’t get what you mean, maybe I should translate it =.=

Leave a Reply