This morning’s Field Poll focuses, in part, on the questions raised by some of my reporting earlier this week: whether Governor Schwarzenegger can fairly claim to have reformed the worst of politics as usual.

(Click here for the earlier posting, and for listening to Monday’s in-depth report on the issue.)

Field asked voters whether they think Schwarzenegger has followed through on his 2003 campaign promise to reduce the power of “special interests.” 51% of those surveyed think he has either done little– or nothing at all– on this pledge. Not surprisingly, a lot of Democrats (70%) agree with that thought; but almost a third of Republicans also think he’s fallen short.

Additionally, the poll asked voters whether they think Schwarzenegger has followed through on his pledge to change the way state government is run. Two years ago, 54% thought that he had; today, it’s 49%.

And finally, what may be the most interesting new stat: only 41% of voters surveyed by Field think that the governor is more likely to do what he believes is right, rather than what is popular.

And the subset of voters whose feelings about that have grown the most since Field first asked the question more than two years ago?

His fellow Republicans. Only 10% thought Schwarzenegger was motivated by what’s popular in 2004. Now, after numerous stories of conservatives unhappy with moderate or liberal decisions by Schwarzenegger, 31% of surveyed GOP members think that he’s motivated by what’s popular.

Field’s full poll on perceptions of Governor Schwarzenegger is here.

In the race for governor, the running dialogue among many political watchers is all about the efficacy of what the candidates are choosing to talk about… or not talk about.

And new poll numbers seem to validate what a lot of insiders are saying: the candidates are talking about the wrong things.

The complete poll from the Public Policy Institute of California is now out. In it, there’s some interesting evidence that neither Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Phil Angelides are talking about the things that voters care about.

When asked whether they’re satisfied with how much the candidates are focusing on “the issues most important to you,” 54% of all likely voters said they are dissatisfied.

58% of independent voters are dissatisfied with what’s being talked about– that’s something Schwarzenegger might consider, given how crucial independent voters are to his chances. And 59% of Democrats are dissatisfied with what’s being talked about– which probably should worry Angelides, who’s still struggling to get Democrats to rally around his campaign.

And it’s not like voters are clueless. 74% of those surveyed say they’re following news about the race either very closely or fairly closely. And some 81% say they’ve seen some of the TV ads, which have largely focused on taxes (Arnold says Phil will raise them) and President George W. Bush (Phil says Arnold’s too cozy with him).

So why are taxes and Bush such popular topics? The PPIC survey has info on that, too. Voters are pretty split about raising taxes for more services (44% yes/47% no)… a likely reason that Team Arnold thinks they have a winning strategy. And the poll also finds President Bush’s approval ratings at 33% overall, and 28% for his handling of the war in Iraq… which probably fuels Team Angelides’ desire to wrap the GOP governor up in the image of the GOP president.

Fair enough. But if the voters don’t want to hear those things… then who knows where they’ll eventually land come November 7.

The full poll will be online here tomorrow.

[update 3:15pm- Well, not so fast. Aides now say the governor is delaying the signing of the bill, apparently because Sen. Perata wasn’t able to make it to today’s signing ceremonies. However, they say Schwarzenegger still intends to sign it into law. Meantime, the folks at the Independent Energy Producers say they support Perata’s bill and believe its goals are attainable.]

You’re going to hear an awful lot today about Assembly Bill 32. But in my mind, the real story is elsewhere.

We’ve known for weeks that Governor Schwarzenegger was going to sign AB 32, the landmark global warming bill authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) and Assemblymember Fran Pavley (D-LA) which was crafted largely through a series of intense negotiations at the end of the legislative session.

The legislation, designed to reduce carbon emissions, has been in the center of an international media spotlight for months. And it will get the star treatment today, too… with not one, but two bill signing events… one on San Francisco’s Treasure Island, and one in Malibu. (One wonders how the governor will sign the bill twice; might he sign his first name in SF and his last name in SoCal?)

But yesterday afternoon, it became known that Schwarzenegger will also sign into law SB 1368 by Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland). This legislation will require that all electricity provided to California must be generated from plants that meet the state’s greenhouse gas standards– even if the power is generated outside of California and is imported.

Because some 20% of the energy used here is generated from coal-fired power plants outside the state lines, and is purchased by utility companies in the state under long-term contracts, critics say SB 1368 will end up raising power prices. They also argue it could limit supplies, given that some non-California plants might not be able to continue to sell their power to utilities in the state.

In a letter to legislators this month, a consortium of business groups argued that Perata’s bill will “result in higher costs and electricity prices across the board, eventually reaching the pocketbooks of all Californians. This increase in energy costs will make California less attractive to business, having an adverse effect on the state’s economy.”

Environmentalists disagree with the business community, as they do on many issues. But these business organizations have long been the foundation of Schwarzenegger’s political base. And they have openly wondered how the governor will square his often stated interest in protecting the state’s economy with this new law.

All of this makes makes SB 1368 the more interesting story of the day, in my mind. Environmentalists love it, businesses largely hate it… and the governor is taking what some might think the more politically risky road by signing it.

Ask anyone who’s either involved in politics or watches it for a living, and sooner or later you’ll hear them use this equation.

And the two polls out this morning are probably going to hammer home this same idea when it comes to the November 7 contest featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Phil Angelides.

In fact, the echo chamber of politics will loudly proclaim this race all but over– so loudly, in fact, that folks at Angelides’ campaign HQ will be scrambling for the earplugs.

Today’s Field Poll gives Schwarzenegger a 10 point lead. Today’s Public Policy Institute of California poll (not fully released until tonight) pegs it at a 17 point lead.

Field’s polling the past seven months has shown that the only thing more tepid than support for Schwarzenegger has been the support for Angelides. In February, the governor was at 39%… and so was Angelides. But now, Schwarzenegger is drawing 44% of the surveyed likely voters while Angelides actually fell to 34%.

PPIC has the overall percentages at 48%-31%.

Now, all this having been said, the details– at least in the Field Poll– show that Angelides’ hopes should not be completely dashed. First, there are still a lot of undecideds… 15% of all likely voters are a tossup. So are 17% of coastal voters (where most votes are in California), and a full 20% of Latino voters. The governor’s only solid support is among older, white, inland voters.

But again, the equation that began this posting is paramount. Field’s new poll even asked it as a question of the voters surveyed: who do you think will win the race?

67% of all likely voters say it will be… well, you can fill in the rest.

The TV ads being released today by the group of labor unions that roughed up Arnold Schwarzenegger last year seem to raise two important political points on this day– exactly six weeks from the November 7 election.

Point #1: Even though they are (by definition) an independent expenditure, they nonetheless provide a long-awaited financial boost for the media campaign of Democratic challenger Phil Angelides.

Point #2: They mark the return of the only campaign theme with a proven chance of putting a dent into the armor of the incumbent Schwarzenegger… the notion that he’s not turned out to be the guy voters thought they were getting in 2003.

The first point these ads, from the union groups known as the Alliance for a Better California, make is a big one. Even though campaigns tire of political reporters writing about fundraising, the reality is that getting one’s message out means having enough money for that message to be heard. And a quick check of official records shows that since June 30, Angelides’ campaign has raised a little more than $5.5 million, compared to almost $10.7 million raised in the same period of time by the governor’s campaign. The ABC effort, combined with ads paid for by the Democratic party, may give Angelides a chance to begin a new dialogue with voters about Schwarzenegger’s record.

On the second point, there’s a lot of chatter in political circles about the effectiveness of the Angelides media strategy so far– a strategy that’s largely been about trying to link Schwarzenegger to President George W. Bush. Is it working? The conventional wisdom among many is that it is not. However, we’re likely to get some fresh data on this later this week in a new statewide poll.

But the new ABC ads go directly back at the strategy that left Schwarzenegger batting .000 after the 2005 special election.

The new ads are on the group’s website (they are the first two ads found here). They attack go after everything from Schwarzenegger’s fundraising to his infamous comments in 2004 about “kicking their butts” that became a rallying cry for the protesters he was referring to at the time, members of the California Nurses Association.

(Interestingly enough, the 2006 edition of the event where that comment was made got underway this morning in Los Angeles.)

In fact, one of these ads is almost a carbon copy of one of the early 2005 ads (click here to see it). While the governor has resolved some of the issues debated last year, including the much disputed borrowing of money from K-12 education, the union strategy is clearly an effort to convince voters that Schwarzenegger’s mea culpa doesn’t erase what happened.

“We had to sue [Schwarzenegger] to get the [school] funding back,” says teacher Carlos Rico in one of the new ads.

And if there’s real money behind these ads, i.e. a statewide blitz that runs several weeks, things could get interesting.

“The people of this state do not trust their government. They feel it is corrupted by dirty money, closed doors, and back room dealings.”

That was candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of the most policy-specific speeches he delivered during the 2003 recall campaign. Sensing the anger of California voters over politics as usual, Schwarzenegger promised to change the culture under the Capitol dome in Sacramento.

But has he?

As part of our special coverage of the race for governor, this morning on The California Report we examined Arnold Schwarzenegger’s record on the issue of government reform. While efforts have been made on some issues (most notably, redistricting), many of those 2003 promises remain unfulfilled. That list includes a ban on campaign fundraising during the budget season, and rejection of any legislation that has not had a full public hearing.

Schwarzenegger’s government reform platform was outlined in a September 2003 speech at the California State Railroad Museum. The locale was chosen to link the candidate with the state’s best-known reform governor, the late Hiram Johnson. The event was Schwarzenegger’s first appearance before the state’s political press corps, and one where he went to great lengths to distance himself from incumbent elected officials.

Consider his comments that day about why campaign fundraising is such a problem during the first few months of every year:

“It doesn’t work, if you’re supposed to be representing the people, and you’re making important budget decisions in those six months, let’s say between January and the summer. And while that is going on, you have all those lobbyists in there, trying to offer you money, and having fundraisers for you and all those things.

“Who’re you going to represent when that happens? Is it going to be the lobbyists and special interests? Or is it going to be the people? I think that’s the reason why the people have a problem. That’s why when you ask them, “What is your feeling about government, or about our politicians?,’ they so many times have a negative opinion. That’s why we have a recall in the first place.”

But as governor, Schwarzenegger has raised a total of more than $43.5 million in the last three budget seasons. That’s actually 40% more money raised than in the final three budget seasons under recalled Governor Gray Davis.

For more on his record of government reform, listen to this morning’s story online here.

Steve Bing digs alternative energy sources.

Or so it seems, as the folks working to pass Proposition 87 have announced that the reclusive and wealthy Hollywood producer handed over another $13.5 million to the campaign today.

Bing’s contributions in support of Prop 87 so far: about $40 million. The campaign’s total fundraising so far: about $45.5 million.

For the time being, Bing’s bucks appear to have given the Yes on 87 folks the fundraising lead over the initiative’s opponents, who have raised about $41 million so far. Much of the No on 87 money has come from oil companies opposed to the drilling tax that Prop 87 would impose to fund the alternative energy research.

Meantime, a more newsy piece of info about Prop 87: the initiative was endorsed this morning in New York City by former President Bill Clinton, who called the proposal “a big deal” in terms of future global energy challenges.

No major news in today’s annual report from State Auditor Elaine Howle on investigations her office has conducted as part of California’s Whistleblower Protection Act.

Rather, a piece of advice for state workers: if you miss work due to the death of a loved one, you might have to produce the body.

The report chronicles the case of an employee for the Department of Industrial Relations, who told her bosses that she needed to be away from work for two days after the death of her aunt.

Well, not really. Howle’s report says it best.

“However, public records show that the employee was incarcerated in a Los Angeles County jail for those two days. By charging bereavement leave for hours she missed due to her incarceration, the employee improperly claimed and received $282 for 16 hours she did not work, a violation of state law.”

It reminds me of an infamous line delivered by George Costanza from an old Seinfeld episode, when he was caught in a different workplace no-no:

“Should I have not done that? I tell you, I’ve got to to plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon…”

Democratic operatives are eager to point out the connections between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush. But their latest effort is somewhat undercut… by one of their own.

This afternoon, the California Democratic Party sent out a memo accusing Schwarzenegger of flip-flopping about whether he really cared if Bush or John Kerry won the White House two years ago.

Democrats sent a link to a Tuesday night news report from KCRA-TV political reporter Kevin Riggs. In it, Schwarzenegger is shown in archival footage from April, telling Riggs that “it makes no difference if one is a Democratic president or a Republican president.”

That seems fair game for the Democrats to take a swing at; clearly it did matter to Schwarzenegger, or else he wouldn’t have gone to Ohio in the final days of the 2004 race to help Bush.

But I was more struck by a different sound bite in Riggs’ story… one from someone who disagrees with the effort by Democrats to link Schwarzenegger with Bush. And as we know, that effort has been a hallmark of the campaign run by Democratic nominee Phil Angelides.

“He’s not the same [as Bush],” says the interviewee. “And that’s where it [the strategy] kind of breaks down. There are so many philosophical differences between Bush and Schwarzenegger.”

Who said it?

None other than Bill Lockyer, California’s attorney general and the Democratic nominee for Angelides’ current job as state treasurer this November. Ouch.

Of course, Lockyer was also widely quoted just after the 2003 recall as admitting that he had voted for Schwarzenegger. But this sound bite seems just as interesting, if not more, than the one uttered by Schwarzenegger in the story.

You can see it yourself by clicking here.

Attendees at today’s Sacramento Press Club luncheon were treated to a feisty exchange of political viewpoints in a friendly forum featuring GOP Chairman Duf Sundheim and Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres.

A lot was talked about, but the award for ‘Most Impassioned Debate Point’ probably goes to Torres, who thumped his finger on the table as he argued why it’s appropriate to link the governor to President George W. Bush– a strategy that has been the most visible symbol of the Phil Angelides for Governor campaign.

Describing Schwarzenegger’s late October 2005 campaign trip to Ohio for Bush, Torres said: “He made the difference of 118,000 votes [in Ohio], he made the difference. He is responsible for George Bush being in the White House. Solely responsible, in my opinion.”

To which Sundheim responded, in part: “What does that have to do with the future of the state of California?”