“If civility and bipartisanship really are important to voters . . .”
I really don’t see what’s so “civil” about supporting partial-birth abortion, in which a full-term baby is partially delivered and then killed right before the entire body makes it out.
And as for “bipartisan,” it seems to me that Campbell’s support for same-sex marriage and opposition to the ban on partial-birth abortion are far from bipartisan, since they are positions held by a slight majority of Democrats and a miniscule percentage of Republicans and independents; if Campbell wanted to be bipartisan he should support traditional marriage and the partial-birth abortion ban. Same goes for Campbell’s anti-Zionist views and support for Islamist extremists—it is *opposition* to Campbell’s position that is truly bipartisan (unless the two party’s involved are Fattah and Hamas).
If California Republicans want a moderate that can defeat Boxer, they should support Carly Fiorina (who actually appears to be more conservative than people originally thought—she’s actually pro-life, a position that no Senator from California has taken since Roe v. Wade). Tom Campbell, on the other hand, is a liberal that can’t beat Boxer.
If no Republican would be stupid enough to nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger for the Senate because he’d be too liberal to win, why would they even think of nominating someone like Campbell that is more liberal than Arnold?