If you were a governor, what kind of governor would you be? That, in essence, is the question that Californians are posing to the 135 self-nominated successors should Gov. Gray Davis -- as now appears likely -- be ousted from office on Oct. 7.

The candidates, who range from far left to far right in ideological orientation, would probably agree on one response: "Not like Gray Davis." But such self-definition is particularly difficult for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who is publicly urging voters to retain Davis while voting for himself as the successor should the governor be recalled.

While Bustamante is bound to follow the Democratic Party line on retaining Davis, he also must put some distance between himself and the governor to avoid being tainted. That's why, one supposes, Bustamante publicly complained that Davis aides had been pressuring potential campaign contributors not to give money to Bustamante. It was his way of emphasizing that while the two men have Capitol offices just a few feet apart, there had been almost no cooperative relationship and, sometimes, overt hostility.

Davis, ironically, is not making Bustamante's delicate task any easier. The governor is now more or less embracing Bustamante, who is obviously the more popular of the two, saying that he hopes having Bustamante on the ballot will encourage Latinos to turn out in the election and vote against the recall. He's even uttered such words as "good friend" to describe his relationship with Bustamante.

As Davis aligns himself with Bustamante, of course, it plays into the Republican strategy of portraying the two as twins joined at the hip, no matter how much that picture may distort reality. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the leading Republican candidate, has been echoing a Republican strategist's fanciful description of Bustamante as "Gray Davis with a receding hairline and a moustache."

All of the campaign propaganda and spin notwithstanding, how would Bustamante or Schwarzenegger, by far the two leaders in the succession sweepstakes, actually govern the state? That's supposedly what this is all about. Could either deal with an ideologically polarized Legislature and a cynical, consensus-bereft public and make some headway against the state's seemingly intractable political problems, not the least of which is a monumentally, perhaps permanently, imbalanced state budget?

Schwarzenegger's celebrity would be both his strongest tool and his greatest impediment. He would get huge amounts of media attention as governor, but at the same time, it would be difficult for him to engage in the offstage give-and-take of politics because his every move would be subjected to intense scrutiny -- every word parsed for meaning, every misstep magnified. He confided to an acquaintance recently that he would cajole lawmakers into cooperating with such techniques as offering to make appearances in their districts or to headline fund-raising events. And that could be quite effective, even with reluctant liberals -- the polar opposite of Davis' icy, arm's-length relationships with other politicians. But Schwarzenegger, like his mentor, former Gov. Pete Wilson, would probably find himself clashing with the Republican right, and Democratic leaders would do everything they could to prevent him from becoming effective enough to win re-election in 2006.

Bustamante's weak reign as speaker of the state Assembly does not bode well for the strong, take-charge governorship that California needs after years of directionless drifting. His universal reputation among politicians, lobbyists and others who have dealt with him is of being a get-along, go-along sort who defers to others. It's difficult to envision Bustamante taking on the major Democratic Party interest groups, especially the unions, or marshaling public support for tough decisions. It's easy to envision his following others with stronger personalities -- which is why, one suspects, union leaders and other party elders wanted him to be their hedge against a Davis recall. And he would get no cooperation at all from Republicans, who would want him to be vulnerable in 2006.

Neither man, in brief, is a sure-fire bet to effectively govern a state that many have concluded is ungovernable because of its complexity.