Which is not their endorsement of her - then again, an endorsement of the Republican candidate for Senate by the San Francisco Chronicle would be about as likely as my being able to get to the Moon by jumping up and down on the ground hard enough. What they did instead was to give as strong a statement about Carly's technical campaign skills as possible...
In past elections, Boxer has had the good fortune of having Republican opponents who were inept, underfunded, on the fringe right - or combinations thereof. Her opponent this time, Fiorina, is proving to be articulate, well-funded and formidable.
...then helpfully noting Carly's (actually mostly mainstream) conservative positions...
...The list only begins with her openness to offshore oil drilling, her opposition to the Roe vs. Wade abortion rights ruling and her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal "no fly list."
One might argue, as Fiorina does, that the latter are settled issues and thus should not be determinant in an election that should be laser-focused on jobs. But efforts to expand health care and take action against climate change - issues with both moral and economic consequences for future generations - are very much in play, especially if Republicans gain control of the Senate. Fiorina has said she would vote to repeal the landmark health care bill, and her support for a state initiative that would halt definitive action on climate change until unemployment reaches 5.5 percent shows a disdain for science and a disregard for this state's potential to take the lead in an emerging green economy. She is similarly unrealistic in her insistence that immigration reform must wait until the U.S.-Mexico border is absolutely secure.
...then (and this is the shocking thing) the Chronicle explicitly makes it clear that none of the above is enough of a reason for the paper to back Sen. Boxer anyway. They call Boxer "an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support" - which is perfectly true, but Senator Ma'am has long counted on the ability of liberal/Democratic-leaning groups to hold their nose and still vote for her, because the alternative would be one of them. The Chronicle can't make itself do it this time.
Via Hot Air, which also has some fairly scornful things to say about pollsters who keep insisting that the 2010 electorate is going to be even more enthusiastically Democratic in Kentucky and California than they were in 2008.
Moe Lane (Crosspost)