Well, probably not. Schwarzenegger lost a lot of points for me when he allowed himself to be used as the facade the Republicans put up at their convention in September. (If nothing else, the fact that the Republicans felt the need to portray their party as a centrist one shows that there is no huge conservative mandate, but I digress.) But there have been a couple of things that Schwarzenegger supports that I support, against the wishes of many Democrats. What sparked this entry was an article in the Chronicle by John Wildermuth regarding the Constitutional amendment some are proposing to citizens who weren't "natural born" to be President. This would amend Article 2, Section 1 which reads in part:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This is primarily designed to help Schwarzenegger. Some pull in Madeleine Albright and Michigan governor Jen Granholm, but it is obvious from the website of the group pushing the amendment, Amend for Arnold&Jen, that Schwarzenegger is the primary motivation. Aside from the name of the group (mentioning Jen Granholm), I can find no mention of anyone aside from Schwarzenegger. One of the prominent links is "Join Arnold's Team." Regardless of the motivations for the amendment, and who will truly benefit from it, the constitutional requirement seems simply archaic to me. Ultimately, the voters should decide if someone is qualified to be President--including deciding if he or she is loyal enough. If some new Citizen is a member of a club that wants to give control over the United States to the French, then the people will find out about that. I don't even favor a time requirement, though some think the amendment should require a person to have been a citizen for at least 20 years. People will be naturally suspicious of someone who became a citizen just a few years ago, so it is unlikely that person would be able to win the White House. When in doubt, let the voters decide. (Trust me, it is hard to say that after the last election, but that feeling is just superficial agitation; when I take a step back and think about what makes this country great, one of the things is that the voice of the people ultimately does control things--even if there are some bumps along the way.) Another big thing that Schwarzenegger is pushing is to move redistricting in California to a nonpartisan group. From the Schwarzenegger's "official website":

Fair Redistricting – To get politicians out of the process of drawing legislative district boundaries, Schwarzenegger’s proposal includes a constitutional amendment that would direct the Judicial Council – the administrative arm of California’s court system – to select three retired judges by lottery to serve as “Special Masters” who would draw district boundaries. “Reapportionment of state Assembly and state Senate seats should be done fairly, so that no political party uses the process to distort democracy,” Schwarzenegger said. “Electoral districts should be drawn for the benefit of voters, not political intrigue and advantage.”

Right now, the incumbents in the Assembly and State Senate create the districts that control not only the state legislature but also representation in Congress. They create districts that are "safe" for the incumbent or incumbent party. This leads to something of an entitlement culture, where whoever wins the primary for the dominant party in a district wins the general election. This currently gives the Democrats an advantage, so I would be inclined to support the status quo. But I've become pissed off. In this last election campaign, the Democratic primary for State Assembly in my district was particularly nasty because the Democrat who won knew that he or she would easily win the seat. In the general election, I was researching to find who I should support between the Democrat and the Green. When I went to the "issues page" of the Democrat (Joe Coto), I found a bland paragraph with no real discussion of any issues. He was so confident he would win, he did not have to bother campaigning. I was (and am) disgusted. I ended up voting for the Green, the first time in my life I have done that. The dangers of this type of political gerrymandering was most evident in the recent redistricting that happened in Texas. Once the Republicans got control of the legislature there, they performed what some considered to be an illegal mid-census redistricting that heavily favored Republicans, engineered by Tom Delay. The result: in the last election, the balance went from 17-15 with the Democrats in the majority to 22-10 with the Republicans in control. The entire gain of the Republicans in the US House can be accounted for by this redistricting. (So the Republican mandate that came in part from gaining seats in the House is bull.) I could be a "realist" and say that "well, if they play dirty in Texas, we should play dirty in California." But I won't. I don't believe districts should be drawn to keep people safe. There is little incentive for representatives to actually represent if they know they are going to win. Would I be happier if every state went to non-partisan redistricting? Absolutely. But I think it is healthier for democracy in California to no longer gerrymander these districts. So on these two issues, I'm on Schwarzenegger's side. Does that make me a Schwarzenegger Democrat? Of course not. I'd be worried about myself if I just parroted the Democratic party line on all issues. I like to think of myself as a "Democratic-leaning independent," though I'm sure none of my friends would describe me that way. The recall made me angry. I didn't care too much for Davis, but he'd won the previous election. It seemed like a disgusting example of how money can twist supposedly democratic tools to serve a particular end (just like the Clinton impeachment). I couldn't believe that a majority of those who voted for any candidate in the second question of the recall voted for Schwarzenegger. But once he became governor, I gave him a chance. I don't disagree with things he proposes just to be contrary. Fortunately he knows that he can't be far-right in California, so his positions are mostly moderate. And that means that I find myself supporting him more often that I would have though possible--and much more often than I support Bush.