Barbara Boxer, a democrat representing California for 16 years, is facing challenger Carly Fiorina in a tight race in this blue state. Latest poll shows that she is leading 51% vs 43% (LA Times.) Want to let others send her back to the senate for another 6 years?
This is an important race because there are only 100 senators in the whole senate which makes important laws for the land, like the healthcare law, immigration, cap and trade, tax rate, etc.
Does her voting record match your own ideals?
Approval rating 41%, Disapproval 52 %
July 2010, Survey USA sponsored by KABC LA , KFSM Fresno, KGTV San Diego, KPIX San Francisco.
She is an advocate for embryonic stem cell research. Voted to pass Healthcare bill. Strong advocate of abortion rights. Supports marriage equality (2010).
Voted against oil drilling in ANWR. Voted against DOMA, defense of marriage act.
( A very good indicator of groups and ideology she is associated with, implication is significant. See my notes below)
Project Vote Smart provides the following results from congressional scorecards.
• American Civil Liberties Union (1) – 83% for 2005–2006
• Americans for Democratic Action – 95% for 2006
• American Land Rights Association – 11% for 2006
• Americans for Tax Reform – 5% for 2006
• AFL-CIO –(2) 100% in 2006
• Campaign for America’s Future (3)– 100% for 2005–2006
• Conservative Index-John Birch Society – 20% for Fall 2004
• Children’s Defense Fund – 100% for 2006
• Drum Major Institute – 100% for 2005
• Family Research Council (4) – 0% for 2006
• FreedomWorks – 17% for 2006
• Gun Owners of America – 0% for 2006
• Humane Society of the United States – 100% for 2005–2006
• League of Conservation Voters – 100% for 2006
• NARAL Pro-Choice America – 100% for 2006
• National Association of Wheat Growers – 0% for 2005
• National Education Association – 100% for 2005–2006
• National Federation of Independent Business – 0% for 2005–2006
• National Journal – Composite liberal score of 95% for 2006
• National Organization for Women – 96% for 2005–2006
• National Rifle Association – F for 2006
• National Right to Life Committee – 0% for 2005–2006
• National Taxpayers Union – 11% for 2006
• Population Connection – 100% for 2006
• Republican Liberty Caucus – 10% for 2005
• Secular Coalition for America – 90% on 2006 scorecards
• United States Chamber of Commerce (5) – 25% for 2006
These are my notes:
(1) ACLU is most famous for its opposition and lawsuits against Christian practices eg. against Boy Scouts for not using homosexual scout leaders, no school prayers, removal of symbols such as crosses, nativity scene from public squares, etc.
(2) AFL-CIO unions that overtly support Obama and democrats, using union members dues.
(3) Campaign for America’s Future is a very progressive organization headed by John Podeska, funded by Soros and the liberals. These are the people from the left who are not happy with Obama because his program is not liberal enough.
(4) FRC is a Christian organization headed by Tony Perkins.
(5) Small businesses, back bone of free enterprises
Public image, political reception and controversy
As a liberal and also a feminist, Boxer has often been described as a tenacious fighter for what she thinks is right, both by herself and in news accounts.
In 2009, Boxer was criticized for berating a general for calling her “ma’am.” Brigadier General Michael Walsh was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and answered Boxer’s query with “ma’am” when Boxer interrupted him. “Do me a favor,” Boxer said. “can you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?'” “Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected. “It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Thank you,” she said. The Army’s guide to protocol instructs service members to call members of the U.S. Senate “sir,” “ma’am” or “senator.” Boxer’s adversary in the 2010 Senate election, Carly Fiorina, has used this incident prominently in campaign ads.
Barbara Boxer is NOT ENDORSED by the San Francisco Chronicle, a liberal newspaper
Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year. The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. The challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina,has campaigned with a vigor and directness that suggests she could be effective in Washington – but for an agenda that would undermine this nation’s need to move forward on addressing serious issues such as climate change, health care and immigration.
It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.
Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.
For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.
Boxer’s campaign, playing to resentment over Fiorina’s wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.
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.
Unfortunately for Californians who are eager for change, Fiorina has firmly staked out positions that are outside of the state’s mainstream values and even its economic interest. 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.
It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose. Neither merits our endorsement for the U.S. Senate.
This article appeared on page M – 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/26/EDCL1F4PRK.DTL#ixzz10rcrL5MR