While Democrats have freaked out about Jerry Brown’s chances against Meg Whitman, there hasn’t been such concern about Senator Barbara Boxer’s re-election.  And while she should prevail in November, who wins the GOP primary in June could make a difference.  Perception in politics can become reality – and if Tom Campbell wins the nomination, there will be “news analysis” in papers across the state that Republicans “learned their lesson” by picking a “moderate.”  Some will remind readers that what “saved” Boxer in 1992 was Campbell losing the GOP primary, so she faced a right-wing conservative in November.  Campbell’s “maverick” stance on gay marriage, Israel and marijuana (the latter will be on the November ballot) may confuse voters into thinking he is to the left of Boxer.  But on the vast majority of issues, Campbell is as conservative as the Party of No in Washington – progressives cannot let the media define the race in terms favorable to him.

I’m going to start off by stating the obvious when it comes to Barbara Boxer’s chances.

If Carly Fiorina wins the primary, it’s over.  Fiorina has made such a fool of herself with online ads about blimps and demon sheep that her candidacy has quickly become the butt of jokes on late-night comedy.  Apparently, her consultants fail to understand that there is such a thing as bad press.  At this point, for Democrats to attack Fiorina is counter-productive – it could just make her lose in June.

As for Chuck DeVore, he’s just another right-wing Teabagger who might be electable in states like Alabama – but not California.  He would suffer the fate of Bruce Herschensohn.

Meanwhile, Campbell is getting away with being a “sane” and “moderate” Republican – one of those who is “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal.”  California Republicans may be a right-wing bunch, but their party has finally come to its senses and opened their primary to “decline-to-state” voters – a practice Democrats have done for years.  With both Democratic primaries for Governor and Senate a foregone conclusion, independent voters are likely to pick a GOP ballot in June – and therefore, Campbell could win.

But look at where Campbell stands on the issues, and it’s clear that he would be another voice in the chorus of Republican obstructionists on Capitol Hill – should he beat Boxer.

Campbell would have voted against the federal stimulus.  He told the Chronicle’s Andy Ross he opposed its child tax credits for the working poor, extended unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid help. “They may be good, compassionate things, but nobody is going to hire on that basis,” he said.  Would he have supported Senator Jim Bunning’s reckless filibuster of unemployment payments?

Like most Republicans, Tom Campbell wants to repeal the universal health care bill.  On his website, he warns about a “creeping public option” that he calls an inevitable consequence of the legislation (if only!), and urges us not to “destroy the system of private health care and health insurance” that has apparently worked so well.

Campbell’s platform on immigration are identical to the most right-wing Republicans.  He supports building a wall, and criticizes moderate Republicans who won’t crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers.  In a YouTube video on his website, he brags to have been an advocate for the harsh elements of Proposition 187 long before Pete Wilson did.  For a state like California that has moved so far, voters need to know where he stands on this.

Climate change?  In his position paper on the environment, Campbell starts by attacking the 2007 Climate Change Report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  “There is still a lot to be learned about the subject of climate change, especially as it relates to its rate and possible solutions,” he writes.  He strongly opposes “cap-and-trade.”  Boxer is a leader on global warming and chairs the Environment Committee – so the difference is stark.

In her speech at the California Democratic Convention this weekend, Boxer criticized Campbell for having been Schwarzenegger’s chief economic adviser.  It’s clear that her campaign is hoping to tie Campbell to Arnold’s spectacular failure as Governor – where there is a ton of ammunition.  But a critical question for voters in this election will be how the next Senator votes on issues in Washington – and what issues are likely to dominate next year.

We can mention Campbell’s pro-choice stance, that he opposed Proposition 8 (but did not support the federal lawsuit challenging it), or that he’s likely to endorse the marijuana initiative on the November ballot.  Boxer will have her own set of problems if she faces Campbell, because she has never officially come out in support of marriage equality – and in fact has opposed the November initiative to de-criminalize marijuana.

But those are all peripheral issues that should not be relevant in the U.S. Senate race.  An emboldened Republican Congress would want to repeal health care reform – Campbell is wrong on that issue.  When Republicans try to block further unemployment assistance in this brutal recession, Campbell will be right there with them.  As President Obama and the Congress push for comprehensive immigration reform and a climate change bill, we can expect Senator Tom Campbell to amplify the “Party of No” message in Washington.

Is Campbell more moderate than Carly Fiorina – or Chuck DeVore?  Of course, but only because they are so far to the right that the media can’t even pretend they are moderates.  It reminds me of what playwright Tony Kushner told Mother Jones Magazine back in July 1995: “What used to be called liberal is now called radical, what used to be called radical is now called insane, what used to be called reactionary is now called moderate, and what used to be called insane is now called solid conservative thinking.”

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.