I apologize for the gloom ahead. But I’ve watched one exciting conservative after another fall badly in this state.

The thing is, I’m not sure that if this election turned on marriage, that DeVore could win. If the exit polls are even remotely accurate, Proposition 8′s win was driven by new Obama voters. I’m not so sure those voters will continue the habit in less ‘historic’ elections, as Boxer is only historic in her mental faculties (challenging the Ohio electors anyone?).

Prop. 8 won because it ran basically even in LA County. Without the leading source of left-wing votes behind it, the No on 8 coast couldn’t beat the Yes on 8 inland regions. But do we think people who voted for Maxine Waters will vote for Chuck DeVore?

Unfortunately I don’t see marriage being able to turn this election anyway. Garry South has written the Democratic playbook on making elections about abortion, especially when the Democrat is uncontested and a ‘moderate’ Republican runs against the race’s leading conservative.

The first play becomes to run ads on the ‘moderate’ explaining how that moderate is pro-abort, inflaming Republicans and killing his chances.

Then, once Republicans are all riled up on abortion, in the general the next play is to run ads on how the Democrat is for “a woman’s right to choose,” which will be more effective to the squishy left in this state coming from Boxer than it was coming from Davis.

Can she be beaten? Certainly. This isn’t Massachusetts. This is a state with large numbers of conservative Republicans. If something happens, we could take this seat the same way the Democrats took the seat soon to be vacated by Barack Obama.

So it’s great to have a legislator like DeVore running, and I’m sure he’d be a fine candidate to support in the general.

I’m a pro-life social conservative, and would encourage candidates like Devore in every House district where the GOP is competitive.

There has not been a pro-life California senator since, I really don’t know when-certainly not since Roe v. Wade

We need someone who has statewide potential-Meg Whitman or Bill Simon (both happen to be pro-life btw). And frankly, as much as I dislike many of his positions, if Arnold is the only pol who has a realistic chance of beating Boxer, I prefer a Senate vote for us 60% of the time over a Boxer 100% opposition.

Picking obscure under-funded nominees is no way to take on the Democrats in deep blue states.

We need to Knock Out Boxer!!!

…a strong, principled guy who has steadfastly stood up to the Democrat majority (and our former Republican governor) on spending and taxes.

Boxer is saved from being the country’s dimmest Senator only by Jay Rockefeller, but she has been untouched because the CA Republican party has dissolved into obscurity and withers in the face of the almighty public labor unions.

DeVore faces a huge uphill battle to build name recognition – he’s been effectively playing the local talk radio circuit this year, but still remains unknown to much of Orange County, let alone California.

And, full disclosure: I was briefly his press secretary, and I’m helping his campaign on a volunteer basis now. Suffice it to say that I’m 100% enthusiastic about his potential.

The points raised in this thread are all fair: there’s no question that Barbara Boxer would much rather blare warnings about the transformation of California into a Handmaid’s Tale-style nightmare under Republican rule, than engage on substantive issues. And there’s no question that the left-wing base in California will respond to this, as they always do.

But….

Chuck’s appeal goes far, far beyond the social issues. On energy, in particular, he’s done a great job of peeling off union support from local Democrats. That’s a big deal in California, and I believe it can be done statewide. To oversimplify a bit: if we make the campaign about things like that, we win. If we let Boxer control the messaging, we lose.

And, if I may say so, we also lose if, in the primary season, we focus on selecting someone whom we think is “winnable,” rather than whom we think is best. California Republicans know this all too well — and I think much of the national party, after November 4th, grasps this too.

Thanks to Erick and RS for putting the word out about Chuck Devore!

The problem with Californian Conservatives is that they have allowed the one note Boxer to get away with her diatribe. I have one sentence that would end her Roe V Wade rant. California didn’t need Roe V Wade, California already had legalized abortion 3-4 years before Roe V Wade. I am living proof that Roe V Wade is moot. You know how that is? I was able to receive a legal, paid for by the government abortion in 1971 (I was 16). Roe V Wade would not exist until 1973.

She has been running on the Pro-Choice platform for how many years here in California and not one time did some one tell her she was stupid? That California did not need Roe V Wade!? That Roe V Wade is moot in California!? That Roe V Wade could be turned over and it would not impact California 1 second, we get to go on having our abortion mills running full time non-stop.

Instead of going into the Republican talking points which are based on the Democrat talking points, we Californian Republicans need to start thinking out-side-of the box, please for once! California was one of the first states to have legalized abortion. Roe V Wade happened because the dim wit didn’t want to go to another state to have one, she wanted to force her state to make it legal. In order to do that, she had to go through the Supreme Court because it would not make it through the legislature.

1969 is the year California State’s Constitution was amended. As a matter of fact, abortion was legal in California if life threatening to the mother back in the 1872! It went through modifications during the 50′s and in 1969 the Constitution was amended in California.

California Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion under the state Constitution. (People v. Belous (1969) 80 Cal 2d 354).

You will be hearing me beat this drum loud and long during the next two years so get used to it.

While I am not a Palin ’12 kind of a guy (I’m more of a Fred ’12 or Jindal ’12 guy), I think that Palin can be a cash cow for a multitude of GOP candidates.

There are a lot of Republicans who would like to hear her speak and will pony up money as soon as possible.

So get those coffers set up legally for the positions that people are going to run for and get her scheduled to come in.

Make it a California GOP / Devore / Orange Country GOP fundraiser and spread the wealth.

Do it early and do it often and let’s help incent some people to part with their case for the good of the GOP.

All of the referundums which liberal interest groups have presented in the past two election cycles have failed in CA. In the 2006 election only one referendum passed and that was for infrastructure. This time the global warming proposal requiring utilities to get 40% of their energy from renewable sources was soundly defeated. What this says is that the state is not as liberal as Boxer and co. After the ’06 election a columnist wrote an article in the WSJ stating that CA is trending more independent because all of the growth is taking place in the interior and these voters, as new home owners, have different priorities than they had when they were renters in San Francisco. The Republican Party needs to seize this opportunity to grab these voters and frame the Democrats as out of touch liberal activists beholden to unions, environmentalists and other special interest groups. The future of California lies in places like Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca and the Hwy 99 corridor in the North and Riverside County in the South. Also, during the recall election, the only counties which Gray Davis carried were those on the coast. so when you look at the map, those counties are really the true partisan Democrat strongholds and the others might be open to considering a Republican. Perhaps Chuck Devore can capitalize on these changes in the state.