Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

In our Thursday edition, we will editorialize against the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association’s recall
targeting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The union portrays this as a response to
Schwarzenegger’s ineffectiveness, citing the state budget standoff. They don’t
mention that they’re at impasse in contract talks, and Schwarzenegger doesn’t take
their enormous campaign contributions, which proved so effective in shaking
down previous governors (both Democrat Gray Davis and Republican Pete Wilson).

Joe Matthews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation,
makes an interesting case for a different approach in a commentary published Tuesday in
the Los Angeles Times. We may publish this later this week, but here’s a
thumbnail version: Matthews says Schwarzenegger ought to adopt the recall and
help get it on the ballot, then treat it like the snap elections called
by parliamentary-style governments such as those in Canada
and Europe. He reasons that if Schwarzenegger
loses, gridlock in Sacramento
becomes someone else’s headache. But if he wins, Schwarzenegger can claim a
mandate for his compromise proposals that have been bogged down in the
Legislature.

Here’s a link to the Matthews’ column.

What do you think?

— Jim Sweeney