Is Shwarzenegger Really a Republican?



(image via gothamist)

Ab initio we were hugely skeptical about the political durability of one: Arnold Shwarzenegger. He reeks, to be sure, of obnoxious MittelEuropean aggression -- the experimental use of steroids, the gaudy Man-ring and, of course, the buffonish "action" movies of the 1980s(Exaggerated cough suggesting feigned detachment). Clearly, Michael Bloomberg, who may or may not be involved in electoral college intrigues all his own, would like to cultivate the beefsweaty Governor of California into his nascent "post-partisan" political movement. Which brings up the question: What is Ah-nuld anyhoo? Genus-wise, he is something akin to Homo-Erectus, perhaps a kissing cousin to the Missing Link? He is not a Democrat, species-wise; nor is he, all-in-all Republican. Our favorite Dickensian villain (the penchant for three-piece suits, the Spaniel-like fidelity to the notion of a capital gains tax cut), Robert Novak asks the question: is Shwarzenegger really a Republican? From NYPost:

"The Republican Party's condition in the nation's most populous state is desperate, with Schwarzenegger its only visible asset. Yet, a redistricting helping the GOP immeasurably is considered outside the frame of reference for the Republican governor, who remembers the issue as one of the ballot propositions he lost in the disastrous election of 2005. His current national priority is preaching the menace of global warming, and his state mission is practicing the 'post-partisanship' of governing across party lines.

"Is Schwarzenegger really a Republican?"

His wife and his in-laws most certainly are not of the Grand Ole Party. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Bloomberg -- and his astonishingly smart circle of courtiers -- assemble some moderates, like Colin Powell, Shwazenegger, Chuck Hagel, Warren Rudman, Danforth and others into his new coalition to grab as many electoral college votes in 2008, and force some compromises from the major parties, a la Patrick healy's Week in Review article in the Times:

"Mr. Bloomberg’s aides say he has no plans to be a kingmaker. Yet suppose an independent candidate with unlimited means carried New York in the general election on Nov. 5, 2008, winning a sharply divided vote among three home-state politicians (with Mrs. Clinton as the Democratic nominee and Rudolph W. Giuliani as the Republican). And suppose the Democratic and Republican nominees split the other 49 states and the District of Columbia in a way that left both just shy of an Electoral College majority (270 votes) without New York’s 31 votes.

"With his king-making bloc of votes, an independent candidate could broker a deal with one of the candidates, European- or Israeli-style. Cabinet posts could be divvied up (say, Senator Chuck Hagel as defense secretary). Specific policies and spending commitments would be agreed to (say, plans for immigration and health care, two top national priorities for the mayor)."



(NYPost)

(NYTimes)