Arnold Schwarzenegger's capture of California's governorship creates the possibility that the GOP in the nation's most populous state could finally be wrestled free of the religious right's stranglehold. After all, social conservatives such as the Traditional Values Coalition spent big bucks trying to defeat Arnold (one TVC press release was titled "Schwarzenegger Candidacy Would 'Terminate'' Moral Leadership in California"). And Schwarzennegger was endorsed by the California Log Cabin Republicans, who noted the Terminator is on record supporting domestic partnerships and gay adoptions.
Incumbent Democrat Gray Davis came to be viewed as a politician who put liberal special interests groups -- government employee unions, the trial lawyers lobby, eco-extremists, minorities who want the rules everyone else follows bent in their favor (as in drivers licenses for illegal aliens) -- above the common good. As California spent itself into near bankruptcy on megagovernment, Davis kept signing into law burdensome new mandates and regulations on businesses, stalling economic growth and new job creation as the rest of the nation began to recover from the post-bubble recession.
Yet gay liberals gave their enthusiastic support to Davis, who
signed pro-gay legislation -- including an expansion of domestic
partners rights (probably more encompassing than a bill
Schwarzenegger might have backed). Yet in the end, does it benefit
gays to be seen as just one more group of special interest pleaders
in the liberal-left's coalition? Could it be that a fiscally
responsible centrist who is 80 percent behind our issues is
ultimately better than an out-of-the-mainstream liberal who
supports 95 percent of our agenda? These are long-term strategic
questions that ought to be considered.