Published: January 24, 2008
Transcript of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Remarks
Transcript of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Remarks at the California Newspaper Publishers Association 2008 Annual Governmental Affairs Day
One publicist I will never hire, and that's you. (Laughter) But anyway, it's nice to be here today with all the newspaper publishers of California. And when I was asked to come by here and to talk to you I said to myself, "This is really great, because I love kind of off-the-record conversations like that." (Laughter)
So, here I am. But anyway, I've been asked to make just some opening remarks, and then we'll sit down, and we're going to do kind of an interview, or a discussion, whatever you call it. And I just want to start out by just talking a little bit about health care, because health care reform is right now being debated in the Senate, and it's going through all kinds of lively debates. And I'm very optimistic that after they're through with their debates that they're going to pass it. Because we have been working on this for a long time; for a year and a half we have been working on health care reform. I think it is something that this state needs.
And of course when you're governor of a state like this one of the most important things is, and what I try to do, is to take on issues that are very complicated issues, very controversial issues, and issues that people have attempted to try to solve but they couldn't. As a matter of fact, health care -- even Earl Warren, I think it was 1948, he tried to create universal health care and he was not able to do it; he lost it by one vote.
And so we are back. We are trying to do something that the rest of the country has not been able to do. I think that the rest of the country and presidential candidates have been talking about this for almost 100 years. Teddy Roosevelt has talked about universal health care in 1912 -- which was the year when the Titanic went down, so it just shows you how far back that goes -- and they were not able to do it.
And so I think that we are able to do it in this state. We have been able to accomplish a lot since I have come into office, and I think that we have a good momentum going. And we were very smart in bringing everyone together, all the stakeholders, so you don't experience those big attacks that we have seen in the past. That doesn't mean we don't have resistance and we don't have people that are against it, but the fact is there are more people for it than against it, and I think that's what will put it over the top in the end.
And the reason why health care is so important is because we have a disastrous health care system. We have 6.7 million people that are uninsured right now in California, and we have hospitals, emergency rooms closing down; we have closed 30 in the last 10 years. We see hospitals getting stuck with millions of dollars of bills, of unpaid bills. As a matter of fact, one hospital I visited in Los Angeles got stuck with 60 million dollars of unpaid bills just this past year.
Now, you multiply that with the amount of hospitals we have in California, we're talking about billions of dollars of unpaid bills, which in the end, again, the people that are insured have to pay for, which is a big problem, because the people that are insured are paying 20 percent, approximately, of a hidden tax, which has been really very unfair to the people that have their own insurance.
We also want to stop, really, the madness of people having to live in fear. There are just too many people that their insurance policies get cancelled when they have an illness. I have mentioned one of those examples, of this guy by the name of Todd, in my State of the State Address, that had cancer. And then the insurance came in and combed through his policy very carefully and found that he didn't have the right body weight that he had given when he signed up for the policy that he had now. But in the meantime, now he has cancer, so of course he doesn't have the same body weight now that he had then.
But anyway, so there are a lot of things like that, where people really have to live in fear that they'll lose their insurance, or those that have no insurance have to live under the fear that one long hospital stay and they'll have to file for personal bankruptcy, which is of course the number one reason for filing for personal bankruptcy is medical bills. So all of those things can be eliminated. And also, we can have prevention as a big part of our health care system, which now is not a big part. As a matter of fact, no one pays you for anything that has to do with prevention. So those are a lot of the problems. It's a chaotic system, it's unfair, and it ought to be changed, and so this is why I have been behind that 100 percent, to create those changes. But we can talk more about that.
I hope that it passes in the Senate so that we can move on and put the funding mechanism on the ballot in November, and then go and campaign for that. And I'm sure the California voters have made it very clear, over and over, that more than 70 percent of the Californian people have said that our health care system is broken and it needs to be fixed. So here is a great opportunity to fix it. So anyway, that's what I wanted to say.
The other thing I just wanted to mention briefly is, as you know, the economy is not going our way, meaning that really we're having major problems because of the housing market, because of the subprime mortgage crisis, and that has spilled over into other areas. And now it has spilled over overseas. Last Monday there was a huge frantic kind of thing going on worldwide with the stock market, and that had an effect also yesterday on our stock market. Luckily, now it's coming back again.
But the key thing here is, as those things happen -- which is not the first time that it's happened -- that we react very quickly, and that we are proactive, if it is Washington -- and I'm very happy that the President has already talked about a tax rebate and other issues that he wants to address to help people get back to work, and we on our state level do the same thing.
We have had yesterday a very important meeting here in our Capitol with Democratic leaders and Republicans where we sat with the building industry, with the contractors, with labor leaders, to take those 29 billion dollars that is unappropriated funds that people have approved through our 37 billion dollar infrastructure bonds, or what we call the Strategic Growth Plan. Out of that, 8 billion have already been appropriated in less than a year after the people have voted for it, so it was a very speedy appropriation.
And now there are 29 billion dollars left. Instead of doing that, appropriating that over a period of 10 years, we want to appropriate that and shorten that time and push out as much money as we can handle, to push out now and to create the jobs now. All we have to do is strip away some of those kind of obstacles that are there, and regulations that are there, make those changes, and then we can push out that money. Everyone was for it. The Democrats are for that, the Republicans are for that.
So I think again here is one issue where we can come together very quickly and react very quickly in order to put those people back to work, which is so important, because when you put people to work they again have money for their families and for their children, and education and all those things. But also it stimulates the economy, because they all are spending money again. So this is what we want to do in order to stimulate the economy. And in the meantime, that also has an effect, of course, on the budget, but that's something that we will address in our question and answer period.
In the meantime, let me just say thank you very much, and now let's sit down and do a little bit of talking, if you don't mind. Right? Good. Okay, good. (Applause)
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS WITH JIM NEWTON:
QUESTION: Well, I can assure you, Governor, if it's difficult for a politician to appear before a group of journalists, it's no less difficult for a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times to appear before a group of publishers, so bear with me.
Let me start with going back in time a little bit, with the recall of Governor Davis. At the time, Governor Davis faced some problems not so unlike what you face here; a soft economy, a large budget gap, some political paralysis. You accused him of failing the state of California. As you look back on it, do you think you were too hard on him?
GOVERNOR: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, you should know that Governor Gray Davis and I became very good friends, and we have been working together on a lot of things. As a matter of fact, there was never -- I never felt shy about picking up the phone and asking him for advice, or with a question. I think that the way the state was going in 2003 was going in the wrong direction, and a lot of decisions that needed to be made were not made, and there were just Democrats and Republicans were fighting so much.
I remember that I went to a funeral for a firefighter during the transition period, after I won. And I asked the father of that firefighter that has passed away, "If there's anything I can do for you, let me know." And he said to me -- he didn't even hesitate. He looked me in the eye and he said to me, he said, "There is one thing you can do for me in honor of my son, and that is bring Democrats and Republicans together, because they cannot get along in Sacramento. It destroys our state, and it's very important you go in there and bring them together and start making decisions together to move the state forward."
And I will always remember that, because that was the biggest problem that we had. If it has to do with budget issues, with health care issues, with education issues, with economic issues, it made no difference what it was, they could not come to an agreement on anything. And I think that has really changed since then. Now they're sitting together and now they are making decisions and moving the state forward.
QUESTION: And is that, on issues such as health care, for instance -- or water, the budget last year, probably the budget this year -- a significant partisan divide, and how do you approach it? Do you have the sense that Republicans and Democrats are working together, and what's the evidence of that?
GOVERNOR: No, I think that the difference is that the today Democrats and Republicans recognize that we have a major problem with our budget system. Everyone agrees that the economy here is not the villain. Because when you talk about the economy, because of the economic slowdown we have 4.6 billion dollars less this year coming in in our revenues as anticipated. But our problem really for next year is 14.5 billion dollars, and that amount can increase. So really what the problem is, is not the economy. It contributes to the problem, but the problem really is that this state has not yet gotten it's act together when it comes to the actual budget system. The system that we have right now I would not wish on any family, or on any business anywhere in California, that I can guarantee you.
Because every time that we have a surge in revenues we take all of that money and we spend it, hoping and praying that the following year we have the same kind of revenues or more. And so then when we have a downturn, or revenues flatten out like it is this year, we don't have any money there to supplement the downturn. And so that is a disaster, and so therefore you have to continuously take vulnerable citizens and children and education, higher education, the prison system, and all of those things, on this roller coaster ride.
So what I'm suggesting is, let us fix the system. Let us create a steady line, a kind of an even line where we bring revenues and spending together in one line, because it always goes up. When I came into office we had revenues of 76 billion dollars. Now we have 96 billion dollars. So they always go up, the revenues. But the problem is they go up like this. What we want to do is create an even line so we never, ever have to suspend Proposition 98, we never have to take money away from education or from higher education, never have to take money away from vulnerable citizens, from in-home services, or from prisons, or law enforcement, or anything like that. That is the worst thing that we are doing. And this year we have to do it. We have to make a cut 10 percent across the board because we are running out of money. We are actually running out of cash. So we don't have a printing system here where we print our own money, or where we can stretch the dollar, so you have two choices; one is to raise taxes, or to fix the system itself.
Raising taxes is out of the question, because you can't tax your way out of this problem. This problem is existing. Every five years we have this bump where the economy goes down, where revenues go down, and where we don't have money for a rainy day fund set aside for those situations. So if we would increase taxes every time we have a bump in the road economically, or with the budget system, we would be up at 100 percent right now. It doesn't make any sense, because if you look back -- I mean, Pat Brown had these budget problems, Ronald Reagan had these budget problems, Jerry Brown had these budget problems, Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, everyone. Each time if you raise taxes, you wouldn't tax your way out of it. This is something that you cannot tax your way out of. This is why I say let us fix the system. Fix the system that is wrong.
QUESTION: And the two fixes you're proposing, to be clear -- most of these people already know it -- but it's the rainy day fund, and secondarily these automatic triggers?
GOVERNOR: That's right, you're absolutely correct. We first want to put the rainy day fund aside, so when we have increases -- let's say like it was in 1999, where we had a surge of revenues by 8, 9 billion dollars. Take 4.5 of that increase, 4.5 billion dollars, put it in a rainy day fund, so then when the economy goes down, or when the revenues go down, we can now supplement, we have money available for that.
And the same thing is that if cuts need to be made because we are running out of money, then they should be predetermined what those cuts are. Make a decision ahead of time. Here are the programs that maybe mean the least -- even though important programs -- but mean the least to the state of California or to the legislators and the governor. And then here's the second. If it goes further down, the revenues, here we cut those programs. And if it goes even further down, you cut those programs. That's what other states are doing, that's what Arkansas is doing -- that's why I call it the Arkansas method -- because it's predetermined.
And then you don't sit there for months and months and months and argue over which programs to cut, which we are doing now. Every time there's a budget negotiation we are sitting there and we are debating over it for months, and nothing else gets done in the meantime. So you take three months out of the year, one-quarter out of the year, where they can't do anything else. Rather than talking about education reform, or how to provide better higher education, or how to improve our prison system, or how to work with health care. All of those important issues are then pushed aside, because everyone is just focused on and is frozen, and is just focusing on the budget situation.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask you more about the triggering, these cuts you're talking about. You mentioned Arkansas when you came the other day and talked to the editorial board at the Times. Arkansas has a budget smaller than the city of Los Angeles. It has a part-time legislature. And moreover, you have talked a lot about accountability in government. How does it encourage accountability by elected officials to take these decisions out of their hands and turn it over to an automatic mechanism? Aren't you, in effect, relieving them of responsibility, and therefore removing them from accountability?
GOVERNOR: No, you still have the responsibility of making the decision, which means that now they should be sitting down and talking about this, not waiting until July 1, which they normally do, and then it drags the budget into August and September, and then people don't get paid. All of that is chaotic. We can do it. No, we don't want to relieve them of responsibility at all. We want to say let's do it now, under normal circumstances, where there is no deadline or anything like this. Let us sit down and discuss those things while we do the rest of the business.
But when it comes to the budget time, everything freezes because everyone is so worried about that you're doing horse trading, that you say "Okay, look. I also want to talk about prisons, and I want to talk about law enforcement." Then they say, "Oh, that's what you like the most? Well, then, here's the deal we'll make. You give me a little break here with the budget, I'll give you a little break with the prison situation that you like." So it becomes a trading, which we want to avoid. And that's why everyone is worried, and that's why nothing else gets done during that budget time.
QUESTION: And so when would you like the legislators to enact these two proposals that you've put forward?
GOVERNOR: Well, the first thing we want to do is make the mid-year cuts. Through Proposition 58 we have now declared a fiscal emergency where they have 45 days to make the decision, to make the mid-year cuts, and it's very important to do that right away.
And then after that, the second challenge is to really make decisions over the next year's budget. And those decisions ought to be made as quickly as possible also, because when you talk about making cuts it always takes a month for those cuts to take effect. So in order to really start the year, the fiscal year of 2008-2009, I think we ought to make those decisions within the next month or two on that budget.
And then the third thing is to talk about the actual budget system reform.
QUESTION: Structure.
GOVERNOR: Yeah.
QUESTION: Education: You had hoped to make 2008 your year of education. That comes now at a time when you're facing a very large budget shortfall. Can it still be a year of education in the way you had envisioned? And then what can we expect that the year of education will mean?
GOVERNOR: I think that we have to continue working on education. I think that when we talk about it, because of the budget problem, that we can't do maybe all the things that we wanted to do. It's just simply because we won't have the money available. And it is very hard to negotiate and to sit down with the education coalition and to say, "Here is what we want you to do; here are the 20 things we want you to do, but we're going to take 3.5, 4 billion dollars away from you." So that doesn't make any sense. So what we want to do is move ahead with the things that don't cost any additional money, like for instance, accountability.
Or if you talk about putting information on the website, which is something that we started two years ago. We are very well on our way of getting there. There is just so much information that needs to be on the website. We want parents to be able to go on the website, or you, the media, or anybody that is interested in that to get on the website and find out which schools are the best schools, have all the information available. If it is the whole budget, if it is your financial sheet, we want to know each school. Right now what you get is information about the school district, but not of each individual school. So we want to know, how is this school spending the money? How successful are they with the after school programs? How much money goes into the classroom? How successful are they with their dropout rates versus graduation rate? Do they have a preschool program? Do they have physical education, arts, music, and so on? And what is the turnover of the teachers? And on and on and on, all of those things.
Just like you go shopping now for a car, and you see that this one company is offering all these colors, and this is the horsepower, this is the price, this is the warranty policy and all of those things. All this information you can get. In education we can't get all of that information that is necessary.
So we are working on that. That's very important, because what that provides is choice, so that parents can go on the website and say I want to take my kid out of this school here and put my kid into this school, because this school provides the best service, the best education, the best after school program, all of those things that I need. And not have to get a signature from the school principal of this school, to take your child out of this school to put in this school. So, all of those things go on now. We've got to stop all of this. So that's number one.
Number two, we've got to continue on making progress on career-tech education, which has been a love of mine. I've gone through career-tech education in Austria. We've got to continue promoting career-tech education, because there are so many kids that are not interested in going on to university, or going on to become a doctor, or a lawyer, something like this. They want to become a mechanic, they want to become a chef, they want to become a computer technician. So for that you need to go through career-tech education, and I think we in California are not providing enough of that education, and enough opportunities. So we've got to continue pushing on that.
So those are the kind of things that we can do. And continue, for instance, building our classrooms. You know that the people have approved bonds for over 10 billion dollars for building more classrooms, to expand our university system, to build career-tech educational facilities. We have in this budget again an additional 12 billion dollars to build additional classrooms. So we've got to move forward on all of those things in education, and the other things we will then continue next year.
And there is one other important fact, and that is there are 98 school districts that have not made the level of the No Child Left Behind Act, and so they have been falling short for five years in a row. So it's very important that we are now in the negotiations with the education coalition, with everyone, with the CTA and everyone involved, to go and to move forward with that, and to really take over those schools and improve the education, because it's not fair to those children, and it's not fair to all of us. And also, we will get cut, we will lose the federal funding for those school districts.
QUESTION: Let's go back to the data collection for a moment. It sounds like something that would, if the state could implement it, would give us a better sense of which schools are failing and which ones are succeeding. Would it make any single child in California better educated at this time next year than they are this year, though? Or is merely a matter of a diagnostic technique, to figure out how bad the problem is?
GOVERNOR: No, no. First of all, you have to find out what the problem is, and then you can act on it. But if you are not given the chance to find out what the problem is and how good your school is compared to another school, then you have no chance really to help your child. So what we want to do is -- I think that a lot of parents are making a real effort to be partners with the teachers and with the school principal, and with the child, and to work together. We have seen it over and over. And I think there is in certain areas great improvement in education. So it's not like the state of California is in a disastrous situation. We have seen great improvements in some areas.
But what we want to do is, we want to make sure that, especially the inner-city schools and some of the minority schools, don't fall behind, because every child ought to have the opportunity to have the same education. And that's why we settled the Williams lawsuit, to get every child the same amount of books, the same kind of books, and to get the same kind of facilities, and the same education and all of those things. We always want to look for equality. And when you look at those 98 school districts, it's usually minority schools that fall in this category. That is not fair. That's why we have certain people being left behind, and are not being able to be as competitive, because we are not paying as much attention to that. So we have to take over those schools, and we have to help those children.
QUESTION: Let me ask about water. I know our time is running out here. But outside of Sacramento it's hard to imagine an issue that would be less subject to partisan disagreement than water, whether it's conveyance or dams. And yet there is a distinctly different approach by Republicans and Democrats as to how to protect the Delta, how to secure the water supply, how to provide for the future. Why shouldn't the voters be appalled by the fact that Republicans and Democrats cannot even agree on how to secure the state's water supply?
GOVERNOR: Well, I think that the people ought to be appalled by that.
QUESTION: Are you?
GOVERNOR: I think that it is sad. But you have to put it on a different level, kind of, and say that we have, in this state, had a problem to make a commitment on infrastructure in general. If you think about it, that for four decades this state really didn't build the kind of schools that we needed, expand the university system the way it's needed, to build the kind of roads that we need, the tunnels, the bridges, to fix our levees and to build enough affordable housing, and all of those things were left behind, including water and including the prisons, our prisons. So finally we've got now, like I said, the foot in the door to have the people commit 37 billion dollars in infrastructure.
We did not get prisons, and we did not get the water during those negotiations. Well, last spring we were successful to get also an agreement between Democrats and Republicans on prisons, which was again great, great progress. Everyone in the media said that they would never go and agree to that, and they finally did come together, because there is much more post-partisanship today than there ever was right here in Sacramento. And still they're fighting about issues, but they get along, as I said, much better. And this is why I have great hope that water will be done eventually.
But it's inexcusable that we have a water system right now in California that is for 18 million people, and in the meantime we are 37 million people. And we also know that it will take, if we start building today the kind of infrastructure that we need, it will take approximately 15 to 20 years to finish it. By that time the state of California will be 45 to 50 million people, so we need a water system right now to build for 45 to 50 million people. And part of that water infrastructure is exactly what you said, is to have above and below the ground water storage and to go and build more water delivery systems, and to fix the Delta and its ecosystem. Those things need to be done. And there is in there something for environmentalists, there's something in there for the Democrats, there's something in there for the Republicans. Everyone will be happy when that is done.
And we were very close, and we are very close to an agreement. The only thing is that the language still is not 100 percent there, and the language meaning that yes, it says that we can build dams. But the way the language is written is that still the appropriation is up to the legislators, then, in the end. So even the people can approve, let's say, the 12 billion dollar package. Then it's up to the legislators to approve the appropriation for building the dams. And oops, there could be another problem where no dam ever will get built. So therefore the language has to be written in such a way that in fact there will be the construction of dams, and we will get water storage, because it's absolutely necessary.
Because right now it can rain all it wants, and we have more snow this year, and when the snow melts, if there's a warm season and it melts, all of this water will go out into the ocean again. And we will have floods and all of those things, but it will not be captured. The rainy fund we talked about earlier, we need it also in water. It needs to be captured so that when we have drought that we have enough water available.
Right now we don't have enough water. Right now we're in a situation where they're raising the water price, where we have problems with delivering enough water to the people. And businesses in California that want to expand right now, and want to build right now, cannot get the building permits, because they cannot guarantee where the water comes from. So that slows down our economy, and it loses jobs for the state of California. So therefore it is absolutely crucial that the legislators, Democrats and Republicans, come to an agreement as quickly as possible, fix that language, and then put it on the ballot.
QUESTION: You expect it on the November ballot?
GOVERNOR: I hope they can get it together so we can put it on the November ballot, yes.
QUESTION: A quick one on term limits. You said last week you had initially had been a supporter of term limits, have come to see that they did a fair amount of damage as well. You've come out for Prop 93, which would change term limits, but obviously leave them in place. Why not move to get rid of them altogether if they are causing the damage that you have talked about?
GOVERNOR: No, I think that I like term limits, but I'd like to change it. Every so often when the legislators, or when the people pass something, you have to go back and you have to fix something, you have to make some adjustments. It happens all the time. And I think that one of the things we have seen is that right now, six years in the Assembly is not enough time for someone to become an expert in anything. And so what happens is -- and I see it firsthand with the negotiations -- that the special interests and the lobbyists have more knowledge and are more skilled than the legislators are. And so, therefore, they are representing their special interests better than our elected officials are representing the people. The elected officials today do not have the chance to represent the people as well as the special interests are, and the lobbyists are, in representing their special interests. So that is a sad story, and I've seen that firsthand.
And this is why I have said that even though I believed, before I became governor, in the term limits, the way it was written, that when I got into office I realized that that actually it was written the wrong way, that we can make an adjustment. That means that we shorten the term limits, but we extend the amount of time that people can serve in the Assembly or in the Senate. That's what the change is that's needed, and this is why I endorse the change in the term limits.
QUESTION: I'm getting a signal that we're about done, which is too bad, because we didn't get to talk about your gun collection, but we'll do that next time.
GOVERNOR: Who is giving you the signal, my guys?
QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought (Inaudible). I'm sorry. Maybe we have a little more time. Well, let me ask you this. Go back to the recall again for a moment. In the recall you ran an ad that famously said, "Here's how it works. Money goes in, favors go out, the people lose." Is that still true?
GOVERNOR: Absolutely. I think that we have to continuously find ways to stop that madness that is existing where money goes in and favors go out. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't go and do fundraising. I think the politicians can raise as much money as they want. But don't sell out. Take your money and say you're buying in because of my philosophy. You are supporting my philosophy. I'm not supporting your philosophy. We may be, by coincidence, are having the same philosophy. But you can't sell out, that is the important thing. And we have to do everything -- and you know, they have been trying very hard to fix all of the campaign finances reforms, to do the reforms and to do all this, rewrite the laws and all this. But in the end I think it comes down to the will of the individual. I think that you have to be so committed to the people of California that no matter how much anyone gives you in money that you always represent the people, because as I've always said, in the end we are public servants, which means that we have to serve the people of California, not the special interests, and not our party. That is the important message.
QUESTION: And how do we, as voters, or as journalists, know that you're receiving money with that understanding, that you have that firmness and conviction, where a Gray Davis or someone in your view might not? How do we --
GOVERNOR: I think it's the same thing as saying how do we know when Obama talks about bringing both parties together and working together with everyone, how do you know when Hillary Clinton says something? How do you know when McCain talks about the environment? How do you know? Yeah, you can check some of the things about their background, what action have they taken. But then in the end it's all about looking people in the eyes and trusting them or not trusting them. And this is why, when you look at the campaigns, when you are through with a debate, with any, a Democratic debate or a Republican debate, the people that are watching cannot repeat what they have said, but in the end they will always be able to say, "I trust this guy, I trust this woman, I trust this person, I trust this person." And they will not really be able to explain entirely what it is, but it's a trust issue.
And so I think that now, with television and with the cameras, those cameras go very close. And you can tell, a lot of times, if someone is fibbing and if someone is trying to pull wool over your eyes, as much as it is on a screen in the movies. When they make a close-up of your eyes they can see if someone really is believable of what he's saying, or if it's just dialogue that comes out of the mouth, and it doesn't come from your gut and it doesn't come from your heart. And I think that we can see this in those debates.
So that's how you know. You really never know 100 percent. There is no system that has ever been designed. So, it's all about trust.
QUESTION: You mentioned the election. You've decided not to endorse in the primary. Why not? Why not tell us who most appeals to you? All of us are going to have to choose. How about you?
GOVERNOR: Well, absolutely we all have to choose. Well, I'll tell you one thing. I will go as far -- now, this is all off the record. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Good luck to you there.
GOVERNOR: I will go as far as saying that anyone, any candidate that writes a 14.5 billion dollar check to the state of California, I would endorse. (Laughter) It's as simple as that. Anyone, Democrat or Republican alike. (Applause)
QUESTION: With that we're done. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause)
QUESTION: Thank you, Governor, and I apologize. When I introduced you I forgot to say that you used to be an actor.
GOVERNOR: What about a bodybuilder?
QUESTION: Well, that too, that too.
GOVERNOR: Come on, guys.
QUESTION: Well, I thought that was obvious. And the other thing that I didn't say, but I didn't think I needed to, and I probably don't need to say it now, is that you were, when you came on the scene, and you remain today regardless of one's politics, the most exciting and most promising political figure in America.
GOVERNOR: Thank you very much. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. (Applause)
Search News
