Words Are Unclear; Intent to Win Isn’t

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he is recruiting an army to wage “a great battle” against “evil.”

He doesn’t say exactly what the evil is, but presumably it is everything in Sacramento except fellow Republican moderates and his own “special interests” -- the business lobbies and big donors to his political ventures. Particularly evil, apparently, are Democratic politicians and their patrons -- the teachers and public employees unions.

But we can’t really be sure about the enemy or the shape of the battle. That’s because Schwarzenegger is not a politician of whom you can flatly proclaim: He says what he means and means what he says.

This hasn’t hurt his popularity, so far, but Schwarzenegger often says two different things. Or he says one thing and does another. The most common example of the latter: “Living within our means” while borrowing billions to make ends meet.

He may say two things to keep adversaries off balance. Or he may be purposely shifting positions. Or he may be having a language problem. After all, English is his second language.

A small example of the language barrier, I suspect, was heard on KFI radio’s “John and Ken Show” last week. The governor was asked whether he thought Proposition 98 -- the minimum funding guarantee for schools -- “ought to be rewritten.” He instantly replied, “No,” even though his proposed budget-control reform would partially rewrite it.

After Schwarzenegger had completed his convoluted answer, one of the hosts pressed again: “I’m wondering if Prop. 98 is flawed in the way it’s written.”

“Exactly,” the governor answered, and proceeded to outline how he was trying to rewrite it.

“There are times when I see the second-language issue manifest itself,” says Schwarzenegger’s communications director, Rob Stutzman.

An example of saying two different things came during an extemporaneous speech at a Republican state convention last Friday in Sacramento. Noting that Democratic legislators had not offered counterproposals to his reforms, Schwarzenegger declared:

“They can go ahead and do whatever they want. The train has left the station. And there are three things they can do. One is, they can join and jump on the train. No. 2, they can go and stay behind and just wave.... Or, No. 3, they get in front of the train. And you know what happens then.” (Cheers.)

Reporters perked up. The governor seemed to be making news: He had decided to fight it out in November at a special election and not even try to compromise with Democrats on reforms. He was declaring war.

But then he quickly added: “It is my preference to go and work with the legislators. This is my No. 1 preference; you should know that.”

Schwarzenegger must have suddenly realized he was sounding uncooperative. That was supposed to be the Democrats’ image.

The most popular parlor game in Sacramento these days is guessing what Schwarzenegger is really up to.

Is the governor’s main goal to maneuver Democrats into negotiating with him so he can offer a package of bipartisan reforms to voters in November? Is all this stumping and belittling -- “those poor little guys” -- merely his way of pressuring Democrats, as he did on workers’ compensation reform last year?

Or has he already committed himself to a ballot brawl and is just feigning interest in compromise? Is he determined to win a tough, but historic battle, one that will establish his legacy as a reformer and make him an even bigger political star nationally?

He seems to be giving up on the former and turning toward the latter.

Schwarzenegger certainly is recruiting an army. Rare for a governor, he spent much of Friday afternoon at the GOP convention, schmoozing delegates and pitching his reforms.

“It helped make people feel that he cares and is not just operating from on-high,” says Linda Boyd of Glendora, the Los Angeles County Republican chairwoman. She predicts an army of 4,200 L.A. volunteers for the governor’s special election.

Schwarzenegger, first and foremost, is a competitor who’s focused on winning. And he’s quick on his feet to move away from a vulnerable position.

The latest example: He apparently intends to abandon his controversial budget-control proposal, one devised by new Finance Director Tom Campbell. Under that plan, if there was a budget hole and the Legislature couldn’t fix it, spending would be cut across-the-board. This lacks both controls and flexibility.

The governor is looking at a stronger, more workable plan offered as an initiative by two business leaders: Bill Hauck, president of the Business Roundtable, and Allan Zaremberg, president of the state Chamber of Commerce. They’re also longtime students of government.

Under this proposal, spending could increase modestly, but not wildly, even in boom times. Spending could climb only as fast as the three-year average growth of state revenues. If the Legislature couldn’t pass a budget on time, the previous spending plan would continue in effect. If a deficit remained unresolved, the governor could cut spending any way he chose.

This seems like potential fodder for compromise.

Schwarzenegger is demanding legislative action by March 1. Democrats dismiss the idea.

“I don’t think he has much appreciation for the deliberative process,” says Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland).

Perata is right. But Schwarzenegger does have much appreciation for the communications process and the art of persuading voters. Although we can’t always be certain exactly what the governor means, Democrats should understand that for them, he means danger.

They should hop aboard his train and negotiate the route and destination. Schwarzenegger does mean this: He’s bound for someplace he can call “Reform.”

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