What about him makes him a republican other than the R after his name on the ballot?
(What, I only get one response to my last post? The time before that, I got two-for-one!)
The short answer to your question is, he views the role of government, especially its taxing, spending and regulatory functions, as properly being much more narrow, more limited, than do Democrats. He's no McClintock, but clearly he is more conservative on these issues by a good sight than Davis or Bustamante.
Since you mentioned Bloomberg: Okay, true, he's disappointed conservatives by hiking taxes. No bones about that. But would you prefer that Bloomberg's Democrat opponent had won? How much would taxes have been jacked up in that event?
It's noble that you are so pure ideologically that someone like Schwarzenegger, who isn't so pure, is to be persona non grata, even in a state in which Republican wins, particularly by conservative Republicans, are quite rare. Noble, but unlikely to result in very many wins at the ballot box.
The bottom line for me is that, although I'd ideologically prefer McClintock, I believe that he only has about a 40-50% of winning (and that's in a Schwarzenegger- and Feinstein-free recall). Tempting, but I'm risk-averse by nature, and I personally would rather take what I see as a 67% chance of Schwarzenegger's winning. Yes, there's a big trade-off.
But I think you're underestimating Arnold both as a candidate and as a fiscal conservative. (And no, I don't mean "fiscal conservative" in the sense that Howard Dean is somehow being portrayed as one.) As one of the state's leading political columnists has pointed out,
people are prone to underestimate Schwarzenegger.
And
here is the same writer's column explaining Why Arnold Will Win If He Runs.
Schwarzenegger has a degree in business from U. of Wisconsin and invested successfully in real estate with what little money he got from appearing in "Pumping Iron." He was so astute at identifying, investing in, and improving the value of distressed real estate in the Santa Monica area that he was a millionaire before he became truly famous in "Conan."
And, yes, he has some very annoying liberal views on social policy questions.
I wish that he could forge some sort of alliance with McClintock, assuring that McClintock were to be "on the team" in attacking fiscal reforms aggressively, while Arnold focuses, like Reagan could, on "retail politics."
You're entitled to pursue the pure-conservative-or-nothing approach. It might work better. I don't think it will, though. So please refrain from dissing people who, although no less conservative than you, want to try a different strategy, a more gradualist strategy, in seeking to turn California around. (I certainly am not one to diss purist conservatives as always "costing us elections," etc., which some GOP folks in CA do. It'd be nice to get the same respect back.)