Feel free to show me a winning coalition that can beat Boxer without the pro-life and pro-marriage movements. Let alone the anti-spending and anti-tax movements.

In the US House, Campbell consistently voted against the conservative alternative budget which lowered spending. He also consistently voted against Constitutional amendments to require a supermajority to raise taxes.

It seems unlikely he registered to vote for one party, then switched to another, in the space of a couple of months. And wouldn’t say much about him if he did.

And if Campbell isn’t the best candidate against Boxer, why does he poll best against her? And why does DeVore poll the worst?

Bottom line for me: I want Barbara Boxer out of the Senate. She is both evil and stupid. She’s the worst member of the Senate. I’d vote for Hillary Clinton if I had to in order to get her out. I have yet to see one plausable piece of evidence that DeVore has the best chance of getting her out of the Senate. If you have one beyond some silly “the base will turn out for him” nonsense, please provide it. I’d honestly like to hear it.

I actually set my up before I realized Neil had set one up. And I set it up to credit RedState. I prefer to be in the shadows.

I haven’t seen this much gloom and doom since Nov. 2008.

California is out of money again. Democrat policies are failing everywhere.

A conservative policy-talking Republican just won Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Howard Dean was short-sighted. I see a Republican 57-State strategy for 2010. Chuck DeVore is clearly the conservative in this race. It seems to me this is well worth the effort.

*Literally* laughed out loud on this one, MBecker!

James, you might want to use the RedState search bar up at the top, and just type in “Fiorina”…and pour yourself a glass of your favorite beverage, because there’s going to be a fair amount of reading out there for you.

Neil Stevens (and other RedState bloggers) have been writing for months on the deep problems with Ms. Fiorina’s credentials as even a moderate Republican. Here are links to a few choice articles:

On her thoughts on lacking government controls and what they have wrought:

On her comments after being caught lauding Jesse Jackson, Rainbow Push, and Equal-Rights-Amendment-style goals:

On her “pro-life” stance (which seems to have evolved since early 2008):

I was thrilled when she ascended to her role at HP, but since then, Ms. Fiorina has not lived up to my hopes, and I truly hope Chuck Devore is able to do better than she will try to do.

I hope these links help you find the answers you seek!

I mean for you to imply that in comparison with Fiorina, McCain has a “pleasing personality or rock solid principals” is sentencing Fiorina to the greatest depth of political damnation.

I can’t image a worse political insult coming from you. For that matter, I’m still not sure I should trust my eyes here.

I tend to think a moderate (or pro-abort or whatever you want to call it) would stand a better chance beating Boxer in the Fall.

However, there is a caveat, if you nominate a crappy Martha Coakley-like candidate, meaning in temperament not on issues, you lose no matter what. Fiorina can’t be taken seriously. She totally screwed up at HP and her whole “Carly-fornia Dreaming” launch was simply terrible.

Also the whole, she can self fund seems to be a farce. She has put something like a million or two into her campaign. Which is small potatoes, especially when Meg Whitman is giving her own gubernatorial bid something like 20 million. She may have the money, but she appears to be unwilling to spend it.

So if you think a conservative can win in CA vote Devore. If not vote for Campbell. Either one stands a better chance of winning the general against Boxer than Fiorina, polls be damned.

Haha, OK, she doesn’t look so good in some of those articles. From what I’d read about her she seemed preferable to Campbell, but I hadn’t studied her record extensively and I haven’t been on redstate regularly enough to see your articles Neil. Certainly DeVore looks better.