Political Camps Gird for War, er, Special Election

So the Nov. 8 special state election is a certainty -- sure to further polarize politics and alienate citizens from government in California. And cost a ton.

Cost taxpayers about $54 million they shouldn’t have to spend, especially when the governor says the state cannot afford, for example, $3 million to treat low-income men for prostate cancer.

Cost special interests -- a rough guess -- $100 million, mainly to pester TV viewers with mendacious ads. Yes, this is a special interest war -- business against labor, anti-tax groups against public employee unions -- as much as it is a Republican-Democrat clash.

It’s a nasty war that our political leaders didn’t have the leadership skills to avoid.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger started the war in January, swayed more by his competitive zeal to lead a “peoples’ ” crusade for “reform” than his good-government promise to bring legislators together for bipartisan compromise. Even if he did try to negotiate -- and he did occasionally -- the fracas veered out of control.

The Republican governor and Democratic legislative leaders were tugged from the right and the left by ideological militants who, as one Capitol insider put it, were itching to “go to the mattresses.” Conservatives envisioned victories in a small-turnout special election they could never win in a regular election, let alone in the Legislature. Liberals considered the “reforms” beatable and saw a chance to finish off the wounded governor.

And don’t underestimate the influence of the political-industrial complex, the arms merchants: the strategists, ad-makers, pollsters and lawyers getting even richer off combat.

“All these campaign consultants are a little bit like fight promoters,” Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) told reporters last week. “No fight, you don’t make any money. So the ones walking around here smiling are not those who just had a child. They’re the ones who have signed a contract for the special election.”

Having called the election, Schwarzenegger felt he’d look weak if he canceled it, as many of us had urged. Besides, he’s eager to get a budget cap in place. Clear the decks and move on.

The governor and legislative leaders officially gave up negotiating Thursday night. Their goal had been to craft alternatives to the governor’s reforms and place them on the ballot.

But only two people really had been bargaining: Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles). Perata had opted out, and so had the Senate Republican leader, Dick Ackerman of Irvine.

Ackerman says he and Perata agreed a week ago that it was too late to write proposals and “fully vet them.... There were too many moving parts. We were philosophically too far apart.”

That’s the reality.

But there was a final charade for the news media, ostensibly one last negotiating effort between the governor and legislative leaders. The real purpose was to convey the message that Schwarzenegger had done everything possible to compromise.

Nunez and Perata weren’t even in town. They participated by phone. The only leaders sitting with the governor were Republicans. The lone subject discussed was whether the deadline truly had expired for placing new proposals on the ballot. Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson insisted, by phone, that it had -- that night.

So everybody could proceed to the battlefield.

In his post-meeting comments to reporters, Schwarzenegger sounded like he was in denial -- or was being disingenuous.

“Everyone has tried very hard,” he said, “and we [were] very close, very close. As a matter of fact, if we would have had another two, three days, we could have done it.”

They’d had two, three days for eight months. Legislators had just spent four weeks in recess. Schwarzenegger also had gone on vacation. Fine, but don’t rationalize failure by blaming the lack of two extra days.

Continued negotiation wouldn’t have fit on the governor’s calendar anyway. He was slated for political fundraising trips the next day to Lake Tahoe, on Saturday to New Jersey and on Sunday to Boston at a Rolling Stones concert.

Very close to agreement? Maybe within shouting distance.

The main hang-ups, according to sources close to the talks:

* Proposition 76, the spending cap: Nunez and Schwarzenegger might have compromised on a provision reducing school funding guarantees. But Nunez wanted to exempt school funding from midyear emergency cuts when the state faced a deficit. Schwarzenegger refused. Democrats complained the governor was grabbing budget power from the Legislature. He wouldn’t give much. And Democrats balked at a gubernatorial proposal to commit to $2 billion in budget cuts next year.

* Proposition 77, putting retired judges, rather than the Legislature, in charge of political redistricting: This could have been altered slightly. But the trade-off for Democrats was more flexible term limits, allowing legislators to spend all their allotted time in one house. Lawmakers couldn’t agree on whether the clock should be restarted for current members. And there were doubts voters would pass it anyway.

* Proposition 75, making it tougher for public employee unions to spend members’ dues on politics: This was the linchpin for any grand compromise. Schwarzenegger offered to stay neutral in exchange for other agreements. But Democrats insisted he help them kill the measure. The governor couldn’t do that politically. Nor could he practically. He lacks the muscle.

So now the heavily armed political camps are headed into all-out war. Schwarzenegger is promising “to be courteous, try to be above all the big fighting.” Remember that promise.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.