Politics: California, Schwarzenegger and Bush

When I was a kid, one of the first political columnists I read was a guy named Gene Collier, in the Pittsburgh Press. The Press went by the wayside when Pittsburgh transitioned to one-paper rule because of the costs of supporting two points of view. Collier still writes for the successor publication, the previously afternoon-only Post-Gazette, and his insights are sharp as ever, especially in today's column on the mess in California. Read the whole thing, but I'll give away the ending, because it's that good:

This week's polling indicates that Davis will lose handily in October and that Arnold will be his successor, and while all of that will represent a victory for foolishness over reasoned public policy, one thing Republicans can't afford to do is distance themselves from Arnold on the matter of his qualifications.

On qualifications alone, the notion of Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California is certainly no more preposterous than that of George Bush being president of the United States. On qualifications alone, which is more offensive, Arnold in the governor's mansion or Bush in a flight suit?

Karl Rove sat George Bush down and literally taught him how the government works, taught him what public image (Texas gunslinger) best suits him politically, taught him which issues are winners and which are losers. The same could be done for Arnold, and it might not take as long.

The sad part is, California Democrats will devise a strategy to defeat Arnold that will rely heavily on making him talk particulars on the issues so that his unsteadiness on the complexities of public policy, indeed his lack of knowledge on pressing public issues, will be exposed. Isn't that the same thing they did nationally against Bush in 2000? He still got 50 million votes.

And it says a lot more about us than it does about him.