We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, January 29. 2010
Health care may contribute to the defeat of Senator Barbara Boxer next November, or it may work in her favor.
There are some legitimate arguments to be made (low Democrat turnout and many of the Democrats voting for Brown being confused about health care or actually wanting a more radical plan than in Congress) that ObamaCare was less decisive in Massachusetts than conservatives think. So, there may be some reason to believe the issue will play out a bit less positively for Republicans in
My last post spoke to why Senator Barbara Boxer will be a tougher political opponent than Coaxley in Massachusetts: demographics are more amenable to Boxer (e.g., almost 5 times larger percentage of Hispanics in California; Boxer hasn’t alienated the influential overwhelmingly liberal Jewish vote in California, whereas leading Republican Campbell is negative toward Israel’s security needs); and her likely Republican opponents are not the able campaigners that Brown was in Massachusetts. I, also, posited that tempers against Obama and his Washington Democrats are likely to cool some between now and November, as some Democrats chill on their extremism. To the last point, that really does remain to be seen, and hollow words are less likely to be given credence by Independent voters now than in 2008. Further, Boxer’s extreme liberal stances are not likely to either change much or be hidable by her. (Note: a stat aficionado journalist corrects me on another point. There is a higher proportion of Democrat congressmen in
On the other hand, although early polls are poor indicators, Boxer does currently lead prospective Republican candidates: 45% Boxer, 41%
Senator Barbara Boxer is a firm supporter of ObamaCare. Single-payer is a more extreme and direct takeover of health care. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the same prior two attempts by the Democrat legislators, and would do so again, if passed before November. The leading Democrat contender for governor, former governor Jerry Brown, spoke in favor in 1992 but is “stonewalling” about it now. The leading Republican contenders are opposed. This sets up an issue to be debated in the 2010 governor race.
Boxer will be affected or drawn in to the health care debate. Tom Campbell opposed ObamaCare. So do the other Republican contenders. Thus, it should be expected to be a factor in the Senate race. A legislator and oral surgeon dismembers the California Democrats' bill. Another commenter calls it all “political kabuki”:
The latest California Field poll displays the core liberal-lean among
Long story short, unseating Boxer will depend upon her,
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
--ht instapundit (he called it ''must read'' earlier today) this report of the numbers involved in the cost of California's public employee unions is absolutely flabbergasting:
what's so sickening is that this is being done to 'civilian' Californians by their friends and neighbors, by the teachers, law enforcement officers, firemen --the good guys.
If we have the hormones to organize a campaign to monitor, and organize a clean election then of course Boxer could be beat!
I greatly fear that CA's financial meltdown means that its more liberal voters will keep doubling down - even as its productive citizens flee the state. And at present, that state still has an enormous number of electoral votes and congressmen. Some of the highest population states have been the hardest hit, and may have the muscle to force us all to pay.
Sadly, I believe that this assessment is correct; despite our best efforts to make responsible personal and governmental decisions, the Left will make us pay in every way.
The title of this post is great-many of us believe that even if Barbara Boxer can't be defeated, she most certainly deserves to be beaten. (in a constructive manner, of course)
I think the biggest difference between here and Mass is that we won't have the surprise factor Brown did. He was completely under the radar for the most part.
Boxer campaigns horribly. I think she could be easily defeated. There are more Conservatives here than outsiders realize, and people are very, very angry now.
Tom Cambell is the one most likely able to beat her, and he is a RINO to the nth degree, but the pshycological victory of flipping another Liberal state will make that blue pill much easier to swallow.
I'm the first to admit this is not a very good idea...and still say it just might help: Boxer is another simpleminded global warmer. Surely the scientific facts can be summarized briefly, and used against her. Back up the attack with some URLs and quotes from real scientists, and those who take any interest in the subject and look into it at all will find the attack based on credible documentation. It might change a few voters' minds. Certainly ignoring the issue would not be of any help at all.
In time, I hope to see "My opponent believes (or believed) in global warming" become an effective charge. Eventual targets in California: Pelosi, Waxman.
Conventional wisdom has it that any time an incumbent is polling less than 50% they are in trouble.
"Boxer hasn’t alienated the influential overwhelmingly liberal Jewish vote in California, whereas leading Republican Campbell is negative toward Israel’s security needs);"
The fact that Obama is an obvious pebble in Israel's shoe didn't seem to hurt him with the Jewish vote. Are you saying there's a double standard?
No, not double. Perhaps one and one-half.
Obama's fecklessness toward Israel and security issues in general has lost him some Jewish support and wide criticism in the Jewish community. But, most will dtill vote for him versus a Republican. As to Campbell, he won't escape fuller criticism, deserved, because he is a Republican.
Babs Boxer... where does one start... Something that will forever remain seared, I say, seared in my brain is this: in the run up to Gulf War I, Boxer addressed the House and listed all the reasons she didn't think Saddam's actions deserved a military response. She believed he was just misunderstood. She went on the quote one of Bette Midler's songs of that era... "From a Distance"... "from a distance, you look like a friend of mine... from a distance..."
One of the young pages was heard to ask of no one in particular: "don't ya just want to slap her?"
"Obama's fecklessness toward Israel and security issues in general has lost him some Jewish support and wide criticism in the Jewish community. But, most will still vote for him versus a Republican."
And that's a shame. One day - hopefully - Jews will wise-up. Given Obama's friends, associates and mentors, one didn't have to be a member of Mensa to recognize a virulent strain of anti-semitism at his core.