Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not had much luck in trying to usher in an era of what he calls "postpartisanship" in Sacramento. But it appears that at least on one issue he has brought Californians of all political stripes together: their assessment of his job performance.

In a new poll released tonight, the Public Policy Institute of California reveals that Schwarzenegger's job performance has dropped to 32 percent -- down 5 points from a year ago and 16 points from April 2007.

What's remarkable about the assessment is that it crosses party lines. The opinions of Democrats, Republicans and independents are within a 5 percentage-point band.

Percentages that approve: Democrats, 33 percent; Republicans, 38 percent; independents, 34 percent.

Percentages that disapprove: Democrats, 57 percent; Republicans, 54 percent; independents, 52 percent.

The poll results help explain why partisanship is alive and well in American politics. Those who try to straddle the line usually end up alienating both sides, while those who appeal to one ideology or the other at least build strong support within that group.

A variation on that forumula is working for President Obama. The poll shows that the president enjoys a 70 percent approval rating in California. His support among Republicans is not that different from Schwarzenegger's -- 38 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove. But among Democrats, 91 percent approve of the job Obama is doing.

The statewide liberal group called the Courage Campaign today issued its recommendations for the ballot measures on the May 19 special election ballot -- and its position is identical to that of the conservative cabal that voted on the California Republican Party endorsements:

No on everything.

It's official: The people on the far ends of the political spectrum don't like compromise of any sort. Both sides believe, against all odds, that they'll somehow get a better deal if they blow up a compromise.

Meanwhile, California Forward, the blue-ribbon bipartisan group created by leading state foundations with the charge of championing reforms to improve state government, has also issued its recommendations: Yes on everything.

FROM THE STATE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN SACRAMENTO --

Turning stuff into chicken salad: Both Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, top contenders for governor, inserted material into their speeches to the convention today that acknowledged -- and made fun of -- potential liabilities.

As many Californians will recall, Newsom's image was used to devastating effect in Yes on Proposition 8 ads last year that featured a clip of him defiantly saying that same-sex marriage was coming "whether you like it or not." Newsom opened by saying he appreciated the introduction given him by party Chairman Art Torres "a lot more than the introduction I got in a few of those TV ads last fall."

And then he introduced himself: "Well, whether they like it or not, my name's Gavin Newsom, and I'm here to get things started."

Brown acknowledged that some critics say he's been around politics for too long. "It is true," he said. "I've run for more offices than any other candidate who's still around."

On the AG trail: At times it seems there are more Democratic candidates for attorney general than there are delegates. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is here, with an entourage. Ditto for Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. Assemblyman Ted Lieu of Los Angeles has a booth. Assemblyman Alberto Torrico personally passed out press kits to reporters. Ventura County Assemblyman Pedro Nava has been busy handing out endorsement cards.

I asked Nava last night whether he had a booth or intended to host a reception. "No," he said, "I'm putting all my resources on the ground."

Torn between two lovers: Ventura County Democrats seem distraught at the possibility of a bruising primary race in the 35th Assembly District next year, in the campaign to replace the termed-out Nava.

Both likely candidates -- at least, at this point in time they say they are definitely going to run -- are here: Susan Jordan, the coastal environmental activist and Nava's wife, and Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams.

Privately, most county Democrats say they are distraught at the prospect of having two relative heavyweights run against each other, potentially creating friction in the trenches. Third-party interventions have been made to try to persuade Williams to back out, since he had originally said he intended to endorse and support Jordan. Publicly, however, party activists will only say, as Carmen Ramirez of Oxnard told me last night, "We have two excellent candidates."

The modern news conference: Not to sound like an ink-in-the-blood old fogey from the mainstream media, but I found some things disturbing about U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's news conference at the convention today.

About half the two dozen or media people in attendance were liberal bloggers who asked Boxer such questions as how come other Democratic senators don't have the guts that she has to stand up the banking industry, and what can progressive senators like herself do to prevent moderate Democrats from leveraging their position by threatening to vote with Republicans on certain issues.

These are perfectly legitimate questions to be discussed in the liberal blogoshpere, and Boxer should be commended for providing personal access to the bloggers. But the questions detracted from the usual, somewhat adversarial atmosphere of news conferences, designed to try to probe information out of the speaker.

The softball questions alone would have been OK, but when the bloggers applauded as Boxer left the room -- well, that seemd a little unseemly from the perspective of a traditional newsman like myself who subscribes to that old adage among sports reporters: No cheering in the press box.

As state Democrats gather in Sacramento beginning tomorrow for their annual convention, a top Democratic pollster has issued a fresh poll assessing the candidates who may seek the party's nomination for governor next year.

The results: Attorney General Jerry Brown has a sizable lead, but is favored by only 31 percent of those who have a preference. Brown polls well among older voters (the over 50 crowd, who know, at least, that he was governor once before) but not so well among the younger crowd.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who formally declared his candidacy yesterday with a visit to Facebook headquarters, checks in at 16 percent and fares well among younger Democrats and those in the Bay Area.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa registers at 12 percent, but only slightly carries his expected base vote, Latinos. Villaraigosa garnered 29 percent of Latino voters polled, only slightly better than Brown, who has always been popular among Latinos.

Lt. Governor John Garamendi picks up 11 percent -- but those voters will apparently have to find another candidate, as Garamendi yesterday switched course and announced he would run in a special election for Congress. Garamendi's strength is in Sacramento, which is good news for ...

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, who registers at just 6 percent. O'Connell is strongest in the Sacramento region, and presumably could benefit from Garamendi's departure from the field. The former Oxnard legislator has said he is assessing the race and will get in only if he believes he will have enough resources to be competitive.

Perhaps some donors might be more intrigued with O'Connell's chances with Garamendi out. The three leading contenders each have different bases of support, and each has potential liabilities in a general election: Brown is seen by some as too old and someone who has already had is chance; Newsom is burdened by being from very liberal San Francisco and also by his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in his city; and Villaraigosa continues to be haunted by revelations about his personal life.

All four will have their opportunities to speak to Democratic convention delegates on Saturday morning.

Can O'Connell sell himself as the most electable Democrat in a general election -- and as someone who could conceivably prevail in a four-way primary by faring well in the Central Valley and in the Southern California suburban counties while the top-tier candidates divide up the Democratic strongholds of Los Angeles County and the Bay Area?

Pollster Ben Tulchin's take on the race is that the dynamics are shaping up as a potential reprise of the national Democratic primaries in 2008 -- an old guard vs. the up-and-comer scenario, with Brown playing the role of Hillary Clinton and Newsom the role of Barack Obama.

My e-mail inbox today has been overflowing with missives from California officials telling me what they did for Earth Day.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger visited a Sam's Club with newly installed solar panels on the roof. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass laid out her plans to convert California's Capitol into a more environmentally friendly place. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner let me know I could upgrade my homeowner's insurance policy so that it would pay for green upgrades after a loss.

But my favorite political Earth Day plan in Sacramento remains that of Simi Valley Assemblyman Cameron Smyth. He wants to declare a sales-tax holiday every April 24 (which always fall during Earth Day week) for the purchase of energy-saving appliances. The bill, sponsored by Home Depot, is being held in suspense in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.

Life is different for legislators in the minority party than it is for those in the majority who have actual responsibility. It's a fundamental rule of politics.

I recall talking to Rep. Brad Sherman in early 2007, just after Democrats had regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2006 midterm elections. I asked Sherman how he was adjusting to life in the majority, and he acknowledged that it required changing his mindset. Now when he wrote a bill, Sherman deadpanned, he had to pay attention to what was actually in it. "Before, I thought a bill was just an attachment to a press release," he joked.

Those words came to mind today when a reader sent along a letter from Sen. Tony Strickland in response to a constituent who complained about cuts to education included in this year's state budget. Strickland was one of 11 stalwart Republican senators who held out against the budget deal because it included some temporary tax increases.

But because he was in the minority party, Strickland had the luxury of opposing both the tax increases and the budget cuts. He voted against the budget that included the tax increases, and he voted against the bill the implemented the tax increases. And when the trailer bill came along that implemented the cuts in education funding, he voted against that, too.

"Please be assured I will continue to oppose cuts to education because the state's greatest asset - our children - will be the future workforce essential in reviving our economy," Strickland wrote.

Perhaps if Strickland is ever in the majority party, he will explain how it's possible to sustain funding to education, avoid tax increases and also keep the state budget in balance all at the same time.

Life is different for legislators in the minority party than it is for those in the majority who have actual responsibility. It's a fundamental rule of politics.

I recall talking to Rep. Brad Sherman in early 2007, just after Democrats had regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2006 midterm elections. I asked Sherman how he was adjusting to life in the majority, and he acknowledged that it required changing his mindset. Now when he wrote a bill, Sherman deadpanned, he had to pay attention to what was actually in it. "Before, I thought a bill was just an attachment to a press release," he joked.

Those words came to mind today when a reader sent along a letter from Sen. Tony Strickland in response to a constituent who complained about cuts to education included in this year's state budget. Strickland was one of 11 stalwart Republican senators who held out against the budget deal because it included some temporary tax increases.

But because he was in the minority party, Strickland had the luxury of opposing both the tax increases and the budget cuts. He voted against the budget that included the tax increases, and he voted against the bill the implemented the tax increases. And when the trailer bill came along that implemented the cuts in education funding, he voted against that, too.

"Please be assured I will continue to oppose cuts to education because the state's greatest asset - our children - will be the future workforce essential in reviving our economy," Strickland wrote.

Perhaps if Strickland is ever in the majority party, he will explain how it's possible to sustain funding to education, avoid tax increases and also keep the state budget in balance all at the same time.

Say this about the leadership of the California Republican Party: They're nothing if not pure.

The party's executive board met over the weekend to take positions on the May 19 special election ballot measures. The meeting came amid a chorus of conservative criticism of Proposition 1A, the state spending restraint that would also, if passed, extend the duration of temporary tax increases approved by the Legislature in February.

As expected, the party came out against Prop. 1A, and also Prop. 1B, the measure that would assure the schools of $9 billion in back payments for money they were shorted under the school-spending guarantee during recent lean years.

But then the party kept going. Not only did they oppose the portions of the budget compromise that Democrats initiated, they also came out against portions of the deal that were, from the outset, ideas that were advocated by and broadly supported by Republicans.

The state party is now against Proposition 1D, which would divert money from county First 5 commissions -- the same commisions that Republicans have criticized for hoarding and, in many cases, misspending tax money. The party is also against Proposition 1E, which would divert money from mental health programs. GOP leaders in the Legislature sought these measures as a way to close the state budget gap without having to resort to tax increases.

Finally, the party is now on record against Proposition 1F, which would prohibit legislators and other state elected officials from receiving salary increases during years in which the state budget is in deficit. Polling shows that more than 80 percent of California voters support that idea.

The party leaders' rationale is that they just plain don't like the February budget -- and they apparently dislike it so much that they want to toss out the provisions most of them wanted in the first place just because they are now tainted by having become part of a compromise.

The Schwarzenegger administration misses no chance these days to call attention to newly authorized infrastructure spending. Today, it issued a detailed press release about actions approved by the California Transportation Commission. Many of them were significant, big-ticket highway items, including some funded by Proposition 1B and some with money from the federal stimulus package.

Way down on the list of 81 projects was the single allocation for anything in Ventura County, an environmental enhancement projects. The commission allocated $350,000 to the Ventura County Transportation Commission to plant oak trees at various interchanges along the 118 Freeway. The plantings are designed to make up for the number of mature trees that were removed as part of the recent Highway 23 widening project.

The first phase of the tree planting will be along the Yosemite Avenue interchange.

Now that the blue-ribbon tax commission appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders has completed its series of expert briefings on various tax issues, the real work of determining what to recommend will begin.

Discussion among commissioners today indicated that internal sentiments were all over the map. Chairman Gerald Parsky clearly has work ahead if he hopes to form a consensus so that the commission can present policymakers in Sacramento with a united front.

Commissioner Fred Keeley, the former Santa Cruz assemblyman, told me afterward that if the panel is to reach a consensus, one recommendation will have to be the creation of a carbon tax that would be levied at the refinery level on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. A tax based on the amount of tons of greenhouse gases the fuels will emit when burned would generate an estimated $5 billion a year. Keeley, who has championed the idea, said a majority of commissioners now supports it.

It could become the basis for tradeoffs for such items sought by the business community as a reduction in capital gains taxes and the elimination of sales taxes on manufacturing equipment.

The idea does have the advantage of being tailored to the commission's charge, which is to update the state tax system to meet the demands of the 21st century economy. That is, after all, why it's called the Commission on the 21st Century Economy.

Expect some resistance from the environmental community, however. It's not that they don't like the idea; it's that they'd prefer to see revenue from a carbon tax used to promote development of renewable energy and other green initiatives. If it's included in the commission's package, the recommendation would be revenue-neutral -- which means any revenue from it would simply be used to offset reductions in other taxes.

Now that the blue-ribbon tax commission appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders has completed its series of expert briefings on various tax issues, the real work of determining what to recommend will begin.

Discussion among commissioners today indicated that internal sentiments were all over the map. Chairman Gerald Parsky clearly has work ahead if he hopes to form a consensus so that the commission can present policymakers in Sacramento with a united front.

Commissioner Fred Keeley, the former Santa Cruz assemblyman, told me afterward that if the panel is to reach a consensus, one recommendation will have to be the creation of a carbon tax that would be levied at the refinery level on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. A tax based on the amount of tons of greenhouse gases the fuels will emit when burned would generate an estimated $5 billion a year. Keeley, who has championed the idea, said a majority of commissioners now supports it.

It could become the basis for tradeoffs for such items sought by the business community as a reduction in capital gains taxes and the elimination of sales taxes on manufacturing equipment.

The idea does have the advantage of being tailored to the commission's charge, which is to update the state tax system to meet the demands of the 21st century economy. That is, after all, why it's called the Commission on the 21st Century Economy.

Expect some resistance from the environmental community, however. It's not that they don't like the idea; it's that they'd prefer to see revenue from a carbon tax used to promote development of renewable energy and other green initiatives. If it's included in the commission's package, the recommendation would be revenue-neutral -- which means any revenue from it would simply be used to offset reductions in other taxes.

Assemblywoman Audra Strickland told me today she is "exploring the possibility" of running for secretary of state in 2010.

Props to fellow Star blogger Brian Dennert for reporting on Strickland forming a campaign committee earlier this year. The mere creation of a committee, however, is not necessarily an indication of intent. Often, lawmakers who are about to be termed out create campaign committees for offices for which they are qualified to run simply to create an account in which they can park campaign funds for future use.

Strickland, R-Moorpark, says in her case, the creation of the committee is a sincere first step toward a possible run for statewide office next year. She said she is aware of no other Republican who has thus far expressed serious interest in becoming the GOP nominee to challenge incumbent Democratic Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

If Strickland pursues this race, it will mark the continuation of a longtime tradition of Ventura County legislators running for statewide office -- although their success rate is very slim.

Former Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, before moving to Northern California to become a congressman, lost three times in bids for state office. Strickland's husband, Tony, lost a race for controller in 2006. Former Assemblyman Keith Richman was defeated in the Republican primary for treasurer in 2006. Former Sen. Cathie Wright of Simi Valley lost a bid for lieutenant governor. And, long before all that, former Sen. Omer Rains was foiled in his dream of becoming attorney general. The only one-time county lawmaker who has succeeded statewide is former Sen. Jack O'Connell, now in his second term as superintendent of public instruction.

Assemblyman Pedro Nava, who represents Ventura and parts of Oxnard, also has his eyes on statewide office next year: He is one of a large field of Democrats contemplating a run for attorney general, on the assumption that incumbent Jerry Brown will step down to run for governor.

It seems that whatever local legislators lack in terms of widespread name recognition and a fundraising base, they more than make up for with ambition.