EDITORIAL - Having lost the governorship of California, Democrats are trying to make the best of their defeat by welcoming Republican governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger into the liberal fold. And admittedly, there is some degree of validity behind their efforts. Schwarzenegger is certainly no right-winger.

Typical of their approach is today?s column (Oct 29th) by liberal Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson who writes that in California, Schwarzenegger is viewed as the Republicans? Great White Hope because in the recent recall election he won a significant share of the Democratic vote. They intimate strongly that this ?crossover appeal? came about largely because Schwarzenegger proclaimed himself to be pro-choice, for some kinds of gun control and for homosexual rights.

This sort of appeal, Myerson snidely says, hasn?t been seen in California ?since Ronald Reagan invented the Reagan Democrats.?

In reading on, it turns out that the column really is a blunt effort to create a split between Schwarzenegger and the Bush-controlled national Republican party on the issue of gay marriage, which Republicans in general oppose and plan to make an issue of in the upcoming presidential election.

Meyerson, though he doesn?t flat out say so, would have us believe that Schwarzenegger, like himself, is strongly in favor of gay marriage and should take on his party and his president on the issue.

He suggests that Schwarzenegger need not stay silent ?while his party embarks on a campaign of stirring ancient hatreds. Instead he should condemn it for (and here he broadens his attack) ?their manipulatation of xenophobic, homophobic and racist fears.?

Somehow he fails to mention that Schwarzenegger also should oppose the Republican propensity to abuse little children and kick dogs.

Meyerson, who clearly is speaking for the left wing of his party, apparently has hopes that Schwarzenegger can be lured into the ranks of the GOP?s own left wing, currently occupied by the likes of Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter and Olympia Snow.

In Meyerson?s eyes this would be a real coup since Schwarzenegger ?is arguably the second most prominent Republican in the land.? By ?prominent? he apparently means well-known.

The chances of Schwarzenegger falling into the Democrats? trap are pretty small, however. He has a state about which to worry, a state whose troubles, now compounded by a series of disastrous brush and forest fires, are legion. If he is serious about righting the state of the ship he will not take and does not have the time to create or join an intraparty squabble on the demand by homosexuals that they should have the same marriage rights/rites as heterosexual couples.

He needs not to divide his support in his own state by taking on his party?s president on an issue where the liberals are clearly in the minority across the country and including California.

What Myerson either doesn?t understand or refuses to recognize is that Schwarzenegger was not so much elected as Gov. Gray Davis was defeated. Yes, Schwarzenegger beat a gaggle of other candidates including one highly qualified conservative, State Senator Tom McClintock. But McClintock had no charisma and no money whereas Schwarzenegger had both as well as the support of the state?s Republican establishment which saw him as the only candidate who could beat Davis.

They probably were wrong--Davis was so thoroughly hated--but they, across the party?s political spectrum, were not willing to take that chance.

But just because Scharzenegger was elected does not mean he can carry his party with him if he chooses to move leftward or tries to make it adopt his positions on abortion, homosexual rights and gun control.

While California Republicans have become more moderate as a party in recent years conservatives are still a major factor. The Ronald Reagan wing and heritage still exist as Schwarzenegger will find out if he does attempt to take it leftward or take on President Bush on such issues as gay marriage.

One final point. Reagan did not invent Reagan Democrats. They flocked to him in great numbers because his kind of idealistic conservatism, not their own party?s liberalism, represented their beliefs and hopes and dreams.

Schwarzenegger would do well to keep this in mind.