Remember when Obama/Clinton got nasty, and McCain cruised to victory?

In his often combative bid for the GOP Presidential nomination in ’76? Possibly, but considering Ford’s negatives and his lackluster campaigning, I’d say that the bid was not a primary factor in his defeat. (I wish that Bush had faced a similarly strong challenge from conservatives in ’04, but I digress.) Granted, California isn’t quite a national run, but considering its large and politically variant population, perhaps such a comparison isn’t without merit. I would also point out that having a strongly defined candidate emerging from the primary, even if he (or she, God forbid ) is defined negatively by Republicans, might not be such a bad thing: Boxer has a history of crushing Republican opposition by defining them early in the race to her advantage. Let’s say, for instance, that Fiorina emerges the winner as the wishy-washy moderate who was a failure at HP (not my narrative). That would still be a superior outcome to having Boxer define her as some nut, as she did with previous candidates.

then, for her attacking Campbell as being anti-Israel and soft on Terror. Hold her accountable for starting the fight.

Start thinking about what sauce will go best.

“Any neophyte knows that negative attacks have an affect (sic) on both the sponsor and target.”

The effect in question, backed up by years of actual hard data, is pretty clear: they work. The effect, if done properly, is to drive down the target a lot, and raise the attacker a bit. Any neophyte knows this.

As for the topic of the debate and the fact that we’ve been discussing foreign policy of late: the United States Senate has a pretty significant foreign-policy role as denoted by the Constitution. It’s absolutely appropriate to discuss it here: especially with two of the three Republicans having highly problematic histories on that front.

Now, if you think we’ve been discussing nothing else, nor focusing on the number-one issue of this cycle — the economy and governmental spending — with respect, you’ve not been paying attention.

Finally, a note on your attacks on Ms Packard. She and her family do what they do independent of the Chuck DeVore campaign. Contrary to Fiorina-campaign paranoia, she’s engaged on her own, and she’s entitled to her views. Your strange vitriol against her is, to be blunt, disgraceful. She is lending public and material support to a candidate and cause you also support — and your reaction is to viciously attack her for it? This is a perverse logic.

I do not ask that you like Ms Packard. I do suggest that if you are the political realist you claim to be, you ought to welcome her to this fight as did the father of the prodigal son — rather than excoriate her for what you perceive as insufficiently pure motives. If you’re in this fight to assemble a stainless army of pure people, you’re not in the same fight we’re in.

We just want to beat Barbara Boxer.

A hypothetical exercise for you:

Three assumptions:

1) Assume one was a member of a liberal majority on a foundation board.
2) Assume further that a member of the conservative minority on one’s board publicly supported a conservative candidate.
3) Assume that as a result of that support, another supporter of that conservative candidate attacked the foundation, the board of which one serves on.

How is one likely to respond?

There are two likely courses of action, and they are not mutually exclusive:

1) Shut down one’s board colleague’s support for the conservative candidate.
2) Donate to the conservative candidate’s opposition in a show of public evenhandedness.

Now, two caveats:

1) I have no evidence this is actually happening.
2) I have no direct insights into the minds of the Packards or their foundation.

All I have is a tremendous amount of experience with these entities. I know how they think, and I know what they seek.

Chris, the bottom line is this: Make dead sure you’re comfortable with the possibility that you just might shut down some support for Chuck DeVore, and put money in Barbara Boxer’s pocket.

Maybe you feel okay about that.

I don’t. And I’ll bet no one else here would either.

You’re getting pretty nasty in the comments for somebody having a hissy fit about an energetic primary.

Get. Over. Yourself.