Maggie's Farm

Enough said that incumbent Barbara Boxer is one of if not the most liberal among US Senators.  That hasn’t stopped her election before.

Still, in this election season of voter revolt against more of the same, and greater agreement with the Republican theme of more government restraint, the early polls are encouraging to Republican chances.

The latest Rasmussen poll has Boxer leading the three Republican viers, Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore, by four or five points. Seen as more important than Boxer’s narrow lead is that she is seen as weak, unable to break at or above 50% support in repeated polls.

Credible polling analysts, though Democrat, Nate Silver and Mark Blumenthal examine the worth of depending on that 50% early polling threshold for winning. Silver, looking at the early polls and actual election results for Democrats and Republicans, finds that incumbents usually go on to win even if their early polls are between 45-50%, as are Boxer’s.  Blumenthal backs Silver’s analysis.

Re: the points above, Boxer is widely disliked, but she is an avid and able campaigner and able to rely upon a much larger Democrat registration base.  There’s no reason to doubt she will garner the many tens of $millions needed for a California campaign, nor should any ignore the willingness of unions to add many tens of $millions more. Money counts, well over 90% of the top-spenders winning elections, though there are other factors at play. Boxer has not been tainted by utter financial corruption.

That leaves the sorry state of the economy, the most powerful predictor of election results, as tilting against her.

That requires the Republican challenger to be deemed as the viable alternative, not distracted by side issues nor burdened by an offsetting credibility issue.

Out of the blocks, all three qualify.  But, they’re all stumbling around the first curve.

DeVore, a state legislator, is knowledgeable, personable, and a reliable conservative.  He, however, is in the deep shadow of the better known and well-financed Fiorina and Campbell.  His only chance for the nomination is if Fiorina and Campbell destroy themselves or each other.  However, the last such challenger to Boxer, former California Secretary of State Bill Jones, was beaten 58-38% in 2004, a wider margin than John Kerry’s 54-44% California win over President Bush.  Although Scott Brown won the US Senate seat on January 19, 2010 in liberal Massachusetts by 52-47%, he was not viewed so much as a reliable conservative as a center-right alternative to an inept non-incumbent Democrat.  Having the same national issues at work, DeVore is not as strong or appealing to centrists nor facing as weak a Democrat.

Fiorina so far largely relies upon her own money, and she or Campbell may be able to come closer to Boxer’s resources in the general election if seen as real contenders.  Fiorina’s political worth is dubious, however.  Her self-vaunted tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard actually ended in her being fired for not producing adequate results.  Her foray into politics as one of John McCain’s advisors in 2008, ironically saying on MSNBC that “I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation,” resulted in “Carly will now disappear.” Fiorina issues foreign policy pieties, but a quibble of her practice is her furthering of H-P’s loophole sales to Iran.

All that Fiorina has managed to do is show herself as able to be nasty, as she did in the demon sheep attack ad against Tom Campbell, accusing him of being a fiscal conservative in name only. Boxer is, also, a nasty campaigner.  Democrats will side with their nasty above Fiorina’s nasty.  There is little reason to believe that Fiorina being nasty will appeal to independents who are swayed by accomplishments and civility.

Campbell actually is rated a strong and knowledgeable fiscal conservative, a social issues moderate, and firm on national security, plus speaks in civil tones, with the long record to demonstrate it.  These strengths should be and are appealing in current California.

He has also, however, strayed in a few instances, which is being highlighted by Fiorina (DeVore echoing) and other foes. Although Campbell has been characteristically forthright, has defenses or has admitted fault, that has not persuaded those who demand more.  That demand for purity is belaboring his campaign, and would be used against him in a general election.

In 2009, Campbell – who served as California’s finance director --  supported some temporary tax increases along with permanent spending limits and a rainy-day fund in California.  Most Republicans were opposed, as not dealing more with California government’s virtual bankruptcy and avoidance of sterner cuts to its unaffordable social programs.

As a Congressman, Campbell twice sought to slice a relatively small amount of  economic aid to Israel,  overwhelmingly rejected.  Campbell believed, and still does, that the small amount of the US foreign economic aid budget should not be subtracted from financially needier nations. He supported and supports full military aid, as well as backing Israel should it try to take out Iran’s nuclear capacities. Campbell cites current and past Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu as similarly seeing less need for economic aid, and believes that sanctions on Iran are now an inadequate remedy.

As a civil libertarian, and legal academic, Campbell was caught up in defending a later convicted terrorist-supporting professor in Florida.  It is pointed out that he could have known better.  Campbell admits that he was wrong.

The Los Angeles Times sums up the pro and con arguments regarding Campbell and Israel.  That isn’t enough for firmer Israel supporter Jennifer Rubin, at Commentary’s Contentions blog.  Although respected former Secretary of State George Schultz says Campbell’s support for Israel is “unwavering,” respected Rubin is correct that Campbell’s record is not crispy clean nor will those lapses go away, at least among firm supporters of Israel.  Campbell points out that firm supporter of Israel President Bush had some similar lapses.

I asked Campbell direct questions about how he would vote on current and future support of Israel, and he replied unequivocally in support of Israel.

In my observation, Campbell is sometimes excessively swayed by academic concerns over the bottom-line practicalities.  Compared to other Republicans, he is no worse and usually better, not to mention better than almost all Democrat politicians on the issues that matter, including Israel.

In particular, it might also be pointed out that Barbara Boxer, Jewish and strong on Israel, has also strayed with proven anti-Israel conspirers CAIR, in 2006, which she admitted was wrong, and more recently in 2008 which she hasn’t responded about.  Further, though a strong direct supporter of Israel, Boxer has been opposed to most other US security actions that work in Israel’s favor.

Long story short, the way the Republican primary race is running, and its delighted exploitation by Democrats, is detracting from what should, instead, be greater use of the prime economic issues and the many negatives in Boxer’s record and personality.  Indeed, it’s worth emphasizing that it is among Boxer’s Democrats that support for Israel is much weaker than among Republicans or Independents, as Gallup’s latest poll reports: 85% of Republicans favor Israel, 60% of Independents, 48% of Democrats.  A US Senator supporting President Obama’s dangerous foreign policy delusions of engaging, or kowtowing to, rather than denouncing and defanging sworn enemies is rightfully tarred with the same brush.

It’s time for the Republican candidates to focus on Boxer. Those who see a greater advantage in retiring Boxer need to as well.  Otherwise, the election will be served up to Boxer.