And this time, the battered, cigar-chomping, ex-actor won't "be back."
In his column, Skelton writes:
It's essentially a wrap for Arnold Schwarzenegger's role as governor. I'll give his Sacramento performance 2-1/2 stars.Skelton conceded that Ah-nold did provide some “entertainment value.” He awarded him a half star for that.
That's a little better than the reviews for most of his movies, although in Sacramento — except for some exciting early scenes — the "action hero" part he tried to play fell flat.
Placing the state on a sound fiscal footing — "we must live within our means" — was his most important task, after all. It's the principal reason he was elected and Davis was recalled. And Schwarzenegger failed. Staring into a perpetual deficit hole — currently $25 billion for the next 19 months — the state isn't living within its means today any more than it was under Davis. Maybe less so.
Schwarzenegger was miscast as governor. He should have been a potentate who could bark orders without being pestered by a Legislature. The most common description of his reign is "disappointing." But that's partly because he himself set an impossibly high bar and didn't have a clue at first how to approach it.
Why my fellow Californians voted the Terminator into office remains a mystery to me. This could only end one way: disastrously, like a Hollywood B-movie. Schwarzenegger is a good guy and well-intentioned. But he was unqualified to be governor, especially at a time of economic stress.
Though I’m not holding my breath, one hopes the Governator example reminds voters that intellect, experience-based knowledge, wisdom, judgment, competence and the ability to persuade are the basic traits they should seek in political leaders. The higher the office, the more important these traits become.
Beauty, star-power, charisma and "entertainment value" are nice. But they alone never get the job done. Too bad California had to re-learn that the hard way.
As for Schwarzenegger, hasta la vista, baby.
No comments:
Post a Comment