The De-Greening of Arnold's Reputation

It is official, the controversy over the California Air Resources Board has damaged Arnold's international environmentalist reputation, or so says the New York Times. Really, by printing this story they made it come true. It is about time. Those of us who have been paying close attention all a long know that Arnold often will backtrack on his green promises in an effort to protect the corporate interests that bankroll his massive political apparatus. The Times gives us a recitation of his recent magazine covers and big green bus re-election bus, and then gets into the territory we have been covering for the last week here:

But the Governator’s eco-friendly reputation may have taken a dent over the last week in a messy battle over the leadership of the California Air Resources Board, a science-geared agency that has traditionally operated with considerable autonomy, even though its 11 members are political appointees. Its most visible mandate is the nuts and bolts of putting the emissions law, known as AB 32, into effect.

The conflict, which resulted in the top two officials leaving the board, raised some environmental eyebrows, especially among those who have admired Mr. Schwarzenegger’s strong-willed approach.

Messy is the perfect word to describe what has been going on. The discord has become a bigger issue than the particulars of the disagreement. It is more about process than actual policy, though there is a definite difference between the two sides in their approaches. However, that has been significantly muddled. The Times has a good explanation for the lack of clarity.

“We have schizophrenia here,” said James Marston, a lobbyist for Environmental Defense who worked on passing the emissions law. “Even while we were doing AB 32, the Schwarzenegger administration was a little schizophrenic.”

“We’ve got Schwarzenegger and Maria and a few other folks who are very pro-environment,” Mr. Marston said, referring to Maria Shriver, the governor’s wife. “Then we have some folks that are more traditional Republicans in the sense that they see themselves as defenders of the business interests.”

V. John White, the executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, echoed that point. “The moves of last week caused damage to the brand of Arnold,” Mr. White said.

That sounds about right. The Schwarzenegger administration has generally done a good job keeping these sorts of disagreements behind closed doors. This was a rare event where the internal squabbling made national news. The media often jokes about Arnold's difficulty in expressing a clear opinion on certain issues. It is most evident in his statements on Iraq. He has been literally all over the map. Pick out any two comments on the subject and more than likely they will be in direct opposition to each other. It is fairly easy to chalk it all up to Arnold being still a political neophyte. He does not have decades of experience being relentlessly "on message", let alone practice defining that message.

The striking contrasts between Arnold's ideological approaches, from 2005 to now indicates that he can be significantly swayed by the perspectives of those around him. He has a wide spectrum of influential advisors (including his wife) on the environment and that seems to have lead to a bit of confusion over his green approach.

One one issue he has been very clear: Arnold supports a cap and trade system. While, many of the other issues with the CARB have been muddled that has always been at the heart of this controversy. Indeed it is one of the biggest reasons why Nunez is pushing his investigation so hard. Contra Costa Times:

Assembly Democrats said they may need to subpoena two of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's aides, who are expected to rebuff an invitation to testify at an oversight hearing today on why two officials were forced from the state's air resources board.

Berkeley Assemblywoman Loni Hancock sent letters to Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, and Cabinet Secretary Dan Dunmoyer, asking them to testify at the Natural Resources hearing she heads. Her committee is looking into accusations that the administration interfered with the board's implementation of AB 32, the landmark law to curb greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020.

"If we don't get the answers we hope and expect, the committee will explore the option of a subpoena," said Steve Maviglio, deputy chief of staff for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It's pretty much the same dispute that the President is having with Congress. They are a bit farther along in the process of resolving the power of oversight that the legislative branch can have over the executive branch than we are right now. However, we could end up with a major constitutional dispute.

The committee did not get the answer they were hoping for. Susan Kennedy and Dan Dunmoyer are refusing to appear at the hearing today. The governor did promise to send an unnamed representative. I am sure they will have a lot to say about this at the hearing. Issuing a subpoena would certainly raise the stakes on this issue. How much does Nunez want to make of this, considering how much he has riding on the governor's cooperation, from the budget, to health care, to his term limits initiative? Note that he was only leaving open the option of a subpoena, not promising one.

Just in case, Nunez does persue this tact, let's look at what Arnold is using to defend the non-compliance of his staff to the legislature's request. Walters writes:

Later, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Aaron McLear, said such an appearance "would be unprecedented," which doesn't square with the historical facts. Kennedy, who was then a high-ranking aide to Schwarzenegger's predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis, testified before a legislative committee delving into a scandal involving a software contract with Oracle Corp. five years ago. In fact, the circumstances were somewhat similar, with critics alleging that Kennedy had interceded with a state agency for political reasons.

dday, pretty much said what I was thinking:

A press flack calling appearances before legislative committees "unprecedented" when the same person sought to testify has HERSELF appeared in the past? Knock me over with a feather.

Let's see how this plays out today and next week. The longer it lasts the more damage it does to Arnold's green reputation.