Brown Victory Alters the Playing Field in California GOP Senate Primary
Scott Brown’s earthshaking Senate victory in Massachusetts last week sent observers across the political universe into heart palpitations. Democrats were simply shocked that the seat held by Edward Kennedy since 1962 would fall to a GOP state senator with little name recognition or machine power in the “bluest of blue states.” Republicans (and especially conservatives) saw their dreams come true in the “Massachusetts miracle.”
This was an electoral triumph recalling a political “shot heard ’round the world.” For the establishment media and other commentators, the Bay State shocker was most quickly framed as holding grave implications for the Obama administration’s health care agenda in Congress. With Senator-elect Brown about to become the GOP’s 41st vote in the upper chamber, many analysts have concluded that it’s do-over time for the Democrats.
But also front and center has been speculation on the prospects of Brown’s “Massachusetts model” for this year’s midterm congressional elections. For example, an analysis from Michael Barone predicts extremely favorable electoral conditions for GOP House candidates this year. Barone suggests that Republicans — should they run as strongly as Scott Brown on January 19 — have a shot at winning in the 332 districts that “voted 63% or less for Obama” in the 2008 presidential election. On the Senate side, congressional handicapper Charlie Cook, writing prior to January 19, said that Republicans were likely to pick up four to six seats in the upper chamber, and that the vulnerable Democrats have a “total of nine seats in play.”
Among those nine “most endangered” seats (listed last) is Barbara Boxer’s in California. And as Cook notes at the entry:
Boxer’s vulnerability depends more on whether former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina turns out to be a sure-footed challenger. There’s no question that if Fiorina chooses to outspend Boxer, it wouldn’t be hard.
Cook’s essay is dated January 12. Since then, of course, we’ve seen Brown’s election to the Senate. In a follow-up article dated January 23, Cook argued that Brown’s campaign was ” like watching a world-class surfer catch the wave of a lifetime.”
Well, the surf’s still churning, especially in California. And there’s been another development as well, captured in this title from the Los Angeles Times on January 13: “Senate Race to Unseat Boxer Takes Unexpected Turn.” It turns out that former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell has abandoned his campaign for the governorship and has shifted his sights on Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat.
A moderate, Campbell is pro-choice and campaigned in 2008 against passage of Proposition 8 (California’s initiative banning same-sex marriage). Initial polls show him leading both Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Orange County. For example, the prestigious California Field Poll found Campbell favored by 30 percent among likely voters for the GOP nomination in June. Fiorina trails at 25 percent, and DeVore follows at 6 percent (with 39 percent undecided). Campbell’s own internal campaign polling shows him with higher favorables (name recognition) than both Fiorina and DeVore.
Basically, we need to unite all patriotic, pro-American, pro-Western movements for the November 2010 elections.
While I would like to think otherwise, the chances of a rock-ribbed conservative Republican defeating Boxer in 2010 are about the same sort of number as the square root of negative one. Imaginary.
Before we rush out and get ahead of ourselves, let’s wait a week or two and see what happens to polling with Campbell in the mix. A good performance by DeVore would be great; it is not likely.
I believe Boxer will lose, but I’ll not get my hopes up that it will help them (CA) or the country. Time will tell.
This is an interesting, if misguided article. The Scott Brown victory in Mass. may be important in some ways, and Boxer may lose to whichever Republican runs against her, but real conservatives aren’t going to go anywhere in California, not in a statewide election. What everyone misses now is that Schwarzenegger, who the left demonized as a knuckle-dragging conservative, is actually pretty progressive for a Republican. Remember, he’s elected to a Kennedy. No less an authority than Martin Sheen opined before Arnold was elected that “he’s not really a Republican.”
This article misconstrues the dimensions (near as I can tell) of the Scott Brown election in Mass. He’s a pro-choice Republican, and I’ve read that he’ll be in the leftward 10% of the Republican contingent in the Senate. He’s fiscally conservative, but socially much more moderate. My guess is that whoever gets elected to the Senate, if someone defeats Boxer, will be someone similar: fiscally conservative, but socially much more moderate.
The real problem isn’t at the level of the State’s Congressional delegation: it’s the state’s legislature. They spend and spend and spend, and then the Assembly speaker complains because they can’t get a tax increase passed because Republican members won’t vote for “revenue enhancement” which was her euphemism du jour for a tax increase. The state is bleeding businesses and wage-earners at a prodigious rate, and the only thing the legislature can think of to do is try and chase more people out, by raising taxes and increasing regulations. No one up there seems to care what they’re doing to the next generation of California taxpayers. The chief problem is that anyone who proposes any cuts in the State’s payroll, or even a mild decrease in the increase, is immediate buried under an avalanche of union money shouting them down. Just after Schwarzenegger got elected, he proposed a series of reforms that would have resulted in very mild cuts in the State’s overall payroll. The public employee unions spent the next year running advertising attacking the Governor–literally you saw ads every day, often six or ten times. All told the budget for this onslaught was upwards of $100 million. The result was the defeat of all of the referendums the Governor proposed, and his slow slide to the left (he wanted to be reelected). He next proposed a tax increase, also defeated, and ta daaa, we’re where we are.
Until either we change the constitution of the State legislature, or they figure out they can’t just spend money they don’t have endlessly, we’re going to continue to buy our way further into the hole. No one over there seems interested in giving in, or changing their way of thinking. They seem to think that the banks are somehow to blame for all of our problems, as if the economic downturn we’ve experienced the last couple of years is the *sole* cause of their problems. Since the downturn was solely caused by the banks (remember they exonerate their friends in Washington, who helped things along a great deal by regulating the banks into their current difficulties, and then blaming them for the results. The fun thing is that since they can blame the banks for their difficulties, they seem to think that this essentially allows them to *not change* their policies, even though it’s obvious they *should* change. Until they figure out they need to, or they leave and get replaced by people who understand better what’s going on, we’re screwed.
Let me add my two cents worth – the sooner, and the harder, the Dems and their sidekick RINO’s fall, the better off the US Republic will be. After all, the farther to the left the nation is dragged, the more it has in common with Europe and its failed socialist policies, and that is certainly NOT a recipe for American strength and prosperity.
Campbell is NOT what is needed in the GOP- we already have way too many , like Inglis, Snowe, Graham, etc. . .No more RINOs!!
I’m a Virginian that contributed to the Scott Brown campaign, and have already contributed to Carly. Cook obviously is a liberal, and as such, cannot be trusted!
Sure it’s a great opportunity to get a real loser out of the Senate. But, it only means something if the California Republicans don’t f%&# it up!!
In California, EVERYONE is politically correct and wants to be loved for being a superior person. Let’s not to nominate the wrong person!
This is part of a phenomenon I call “Beam Me Up, Too, Scotty.”
Not only are conservatives encouraged by Brown’s win, but Democrats who were being frogmarched to Pelosi’s tune now can say “Well, Speaker, there is no real reason for me to get beat in November because of bills that are not going to pass, anyway, is there?”
No less remarkable than Scotty Brown’s win is how fast The One Way fell apart afterwards. They were looking for any excuse to bail out on the Left and the Brown victory gave it to them.
Campbell and Fiorina are just the type of RINO Republicans that have almost destroyed the Republican party in California. Why vote for a “Democrat Lite” when you can vote for the real thing. If Massachusetts is any indicator, Republicans win by staying focused on national security, low taxes, limited government, business opportunity and jobs creation.
“I’m a Virginian that contributed to the Scott Brown campaign, and have already contributed to Carly. Cook obviously is a liberal, and as such, cannot be trusted!”
If Fiorina is the candidate, how will the wire tapping incident play with Californians once the Democrats use it on the campaign.
I live in California, close to Boxer. I would love to see her get beat. My guess is Campbell or Fiorina will have an easier time winning than Devore. P.S I have seen Boxer at the super market check out. She had a bodyguard with her in a union jacket. I guarantee you the dude was carrying. So typical…
Anything that would help remove “maam” (Senator) from her position would certainly be an improvement. I hope that Boxer is not the only democrat that get replaced hopefully with a true conservative and definitely not a Democrat!
This informative piece taps into a recurring theme, the TEA partiers as king makers in the primaries that are to come. The left has been dismissive and derisive regarding the Taxed Enough Already movement. Those folks are in for a surprise, as are the McCain types who are going to push the Crists and Fiorinas on the primary ballot.
The moderates may get traction in some races, but primary races are becoming more national in character, especially when it comes to fund raising. Brown was raising almost a million dollars a day towards the end of his campaign. Devore has the same opportunity. Conservatives are sick and tired of the moderates who act Democrat lite. My bet is as the race heats up Devore is likely to do very well in fund raising, with lots of economic support coming from outside of California.
Conservatives need to zero in on economic challenges and fiscal responsibility. Those issues are going to resonate loudly with independents in the primaries and the coming mid term elections. The current Congress and President Obama have made an enemy out of the private sector. That treatment is not going over well with independents and conservatives. Both groups will have a significant say as to who the candidate will be come November.
California already has a Rino in the governors mansion. The don’t need to elect another one (Campbell) to the senate.
The Tea Party will never get behind Fiorina or Campbell. Why should they? If DeVore can make a reasonable showing with less money then the TP will come to his aid. Money alone will not get him elected though. Someone above said “Why vote for a Dem lite”.
While I would like to think otherwise, the chances of a rock-ribbed conservative Republican defeating Boxer in 2010 are about the same sort of number as the square root of negative one. Imaginary
Once you mulitiply this probability by 2 PI and use the result for an exponential on E: E ** (2*PI*I) the result is… 1. That is a sure win.
I, too, am from California and have listened to Chuck DeVore speak at an invited event. My husband and I left unimpressed. He talked about his conservative bona fides but barely talked about principles or policy. All he could talk about was his strategy for beating Boxer. By the time he bragged about his copyright fights with some songwriters on Youtube, we were already completely turned off.
As for RINOs, please let’s be clear about what that actually means. Tom Campbell, Fiorina and DeVore are all fiscal conservatives, as far as I know, and for now that’s all that really matters. Scott Brown is pro-choice and he still won. Why are we tarring Campbell as a RINO for being pro-choice as well?
Personally, I don’t give a whit about social conservatism. As far as I’m concerned, there is not much of a difference between progressives and social conservatives in that both want to tell me how to live my life. I want the government to butt out of my pocketbook as well as my bedroom. One reason I’m turning away from the Republican Party is this insane insistence that somehow they know better than I do what is good for me. How does that make them think they’re any better than the Democrats?
If the Republicans make the mistake of playing up abortion or other social issues in this election, they will lose. For now, I’m leaning towards voting for Campbell.
Simply amazing. Your true identities as Republican operatives revealed. NOT ONE STORY ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT CASE LAST WEEK FREEING CORPORATIONS TO SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT! Hypocrites. Even the dumbest tea bagger will see through this.
#10 quesnay: “Campbell and Fiorina are just the type of RINO Republicans who have almost destroyed the Republican party in California.” Funny how we have the exact opposite here in Colorado. Under the inept & heavy handed leadership of social conservatives, our party since 2004 has lost the governorship, both houses of the legislature, a Senate seat, and two House seats. The sooner we can get rid of these far right wingnuts, the sooner the real Republicans can get down to real business of sound economic & fiscal policy.
#18 A.E. “Personally I don’t give a whit about social conservatism….” Also funny how the self proclaimed “social conservatives” are all for limited government until it’s time to use big government to impose their particular religious ideology on all of society. Barry Goldwater had it right when he said abortion is not a conservative issue.
A.E.: “I want toe government to butt out of my pocketbook as well as my bedroom….” I could not have said it better.
Hey Blovis…what’s a “tea bagger?” I’m a “Tea Party”-ier, myself, you know: Low Taxes, smaller government, personal liberty, dedication to the principles of the US Constitution. I keep hearing this “tea-bagger” term thrown around, usually by angry, bitter people…libs usually.
Care to enlighten us?
And as for the decision striking down the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold, why are you so angry that corporations are now able to spend as much as Labor Unions are?
A.E., you sound like you have voted in a number of elections. When you cast your ballot, did you have a clear picture
of what the government would have been facing until the next election? In that case, principles are necessary in order for the voter to see what course would be taken, regardless of the scenario. For, I too have voted more than once, and frankly I had only a partial picture as to what government would tackle.
A socially conservative message can be articulated. For instance, the pro-life stance establishes one standard for all, because everyone has gone through various stages of life, and the initial stages took place before birth. When it comes to the homosexual agenda, I know this: men and women are different. Heterosexuality does a better job than homosexuality in showing what is the aftermath of showing confidence that men and women are different. Homosexuality does a better job than heterosexuality in showing what happens when the differences between men and women are taken
for granted too many times.
20. Social conservatives realize that the role of government is to protect people and their property from violence. That means it is the government’s duty to stop abortion. The entire reason for the government’s existence is to deter, prosecute and punish murder. Everything else is based off of this foundation.
While the choice is not good. Republicans do not have the votes to elect a strong conservative in CA. Sad but true. We are talking about Barbara Boxer here are we not. Which of these people running do you not think would be better than having Boxer return to Washington? If one checks out Scott Brown, you will find someone who could get elected in the bluest of blue states. Well this one (CA) is pretty blue. We have not had a long list of Republican senators from this state. Boxer is especially foul. I would rather have a rino who is electable than a staunch conservative who fails to win, in this particular case. But then you purests who cannot compromise will surely vote for someone in the primary who will not win in the general. Whoever must be someone the independent voters in CA can get behind.
What this author (and most of you posting here) fail to recognize in promoting your “Tea-Party endorsed” candidate (and I know…there really is not such thing, but we all know what it means) and bashing ANY whiff of a so-called “RINO” (no matter HOW fiscally conservative they may be) is two important things…especially when you pin your “hopes” for an “altered playing field” in California:
1. California is NOT Massachusetts, or for that matter, New Jersey, or like any other state. There is NO 51%+ “independent” or unenrolled voters here!
2. Brown would have fallen into that “RINO” catagory with Fiorina and Campbell under your definition! And who knows…he may still actually end up being one…so WHY does that translate here to DeVORE???
But let’s keep the blinders on for a minute while we look at California.
I am also a native Californian, and totally in A.E.’s corner on this one!
My guess (and it’s not that hard to imagine) is that the Boxer campaign is only HOPING and PRAYING that Chuck DeVore is nominated through some kind of “grass-roots” Tea-Party movement!
Leaving aside the fact (which this author glosses over) that she would simply CRUSH him with her well-funded campaign war-chest…it would be heaven-sent for her to have to face a socially-consevative candidate here.
Yes, we passed Prop. 8 (under attack, of course!) but other than a few particular areas of some counties here in SoCal…it would be easy sailing for Boxer in the rest of the state if she faced DeVore!
As much as it pains me to say it (because I am in agreement with those who trumpet the importance of “socially” conservative causes) unless a Californian with INSTANT name-recognition in NO CAL (and I mean north of Fresno) can attract those Reagan Democrats and center-left voters in the North…it’s political suicide to nominate a conservative from Orange County! Dumb, dumb, DUMB!
Why Brown’s win in MA means a socially-conservative canditate has a chance in California is a mystery to me…because of NATIONWIDE Tea-Parties?
It’s apples and oranges!
Talk about people “drinking the kool-aid”…this is it!
Please…all you “tea-partiers” outside of California…don’t interfer with the nominating process! Let us nominate our OWN “SCOTT BROWN” and then you can contribute over the internet to their campaign and pray for the coming:
CALIFORNIA MIRACLE!
(Oh…and let’s not forget about Pelosi, but that’s probably hoping for too much!)
As with Brown and Northeast. The Palin/T-partist movement is not acceptable on the the west coast either. The only hope the Republican party has in California is to find a candidate with common sense. If they are smart they would find a popular Democrat (like Reagan was) and convert him/her to the party. Recent political history shows that ex-democrats make the best Republican candidates/leaders, specially on the both left coasts. Alternatively, find another RINO within Arnie’s Army, plenty of talent there eh? Good Luck in ’10
It is true that the grassroot movers will not get behind the RINOS. The election will have the same level of enthusiasm as McCain for President. It’s their choice. I am referring to the Republican leadership—you know, the guys who were wrong about Scazzafoza (sp. whatever) and Scott Brown.
Doug, you’ve got it backwards. The disgust for Obama’s huge deficit spending, his daily prays to Saul Alinsky, his exhuberance and hubris for spending money on lawyers to defend terrorists in NYC instead of on weapons systems to kill them before they kill us is the reason California
sees Obama as death warmed over.
This has nothing to do with Massachusetts or Scot Brown except as an example of what happens when a President loves socialism
and hates the freedom of America, while accumulating enough Frequent Liar Miles along the way to travel to hell and back.
Poor Citizen and Dave II,
I recognize your points about the liberal nature of CA and would accept a true fiscal conservative. Scott Brown appears to be that man, we’ll see how he votes.
CA is in deep trouble because it’s government is way too large and it is spending far too much money as revenue sources drop away. It is further damaged by excesive regulation and an anti business bias. If a social moderate can fix those problems, I will support that candidate. However, Devore can definitely support solutions to those challenges; Boxer has so little understanding of economics there is no hope that she can support pro private enterprise policies. CA won’t turn the corner until it befriends private business and makes that a cornerstone of government policy. Any candidate will need to focus on business and economics. Devore can do that as well as Campbell and Fiorina.
Casey #27
It is true that the grassroot movers will not get behind the RINOS.
While I understand that Mark Kirk has a commanding lead over his nearest competitor, there is something like 35% of likely voters who will vote Republican in next week’s Illinois primary who are “undecided.” Kirk has the money but this voter won’t be voting for him. Patrick Hughs is a very attractive conservative. Unfortunately little name recognition and even less money. Kirk supports Cap and Trade and is pro-abortion. Should he be the RINO candidate in November, I’m not at all sure I could vote for him.
2. spinoneone: the square root of negative one = Brown
19. blovis: you should read the Supreme transcripts before parroting the MSM’s talking point. The reason the decision was made was because of Kindle. They said the campaign finance laws empowered them to regulate communications, and transmissions over the air waves. Then Roberts asked (paraphrasing): Does it mean they can ban Kindle too? The answer was a smug “yes”, at certain time during the campaign season. They gave themselves powers to ban books. The Supremes’ reaction was “hell, you don’t.”
The CA Senate race is another major race that conservatives all across America need to get involved with. We need to give time and money to unseat her. I mean, Ma’am.
After reading the comments on this subject. I went to Chuck Devore’s site and donated to his campaign again. During Bush’s term I made the decision that I would never again support someone who does not represent me.
Caveat, I will support just about anybody running agains Pelosi. I even plan on trucking down to Marin County to knock on doors. She is a disgusting creature.
I dropped a small contribution on the Campbell Campaign,
hoping that might cause them to actually read a suggestion
from a voter: Instead of looking for ways to squeeze more
taxes out of industry, remove as many as possible of the
barriers to Hi-Tech innovation in the capital manufacturing
economy; Start with Polywell fusion power.
If the rest of the world is given reason to hope for the
creation of new wealth by the US, that may change our
future for the better.
4. DavidN: – a very accurate story-line echoed by friends and relatives who’ve jettisoned (most regrettably) Cali since the GoVenATOR played Total Recall on Gray Davis. It’s a story also reinforced by refugees that have chose AZ over NV, UT, or Colorado as a more inviting home state to start anew.
Arnold took a huge risk that cost him when immediately taking on the Unions. HE WAS TOTALLY RIGHT, but it hasn’t shown up in the electorate to date. He is a shell of the man who once wanted to try and transform California. He had the right conservative ideas – but – he’s fallen so far as to becoming an Obama Sychophant – echoing the ‘One’s’ own A- grade – and why not – as Gov he has to. Without the implicit ‘too big to fail’ state status thus far granted by Washington – California would totally collapse.
The entire state is reminiscent of NYC under Lindsey in the 70′s – a complete mess. It was necessary for NYC to basically default on all it’s obligations – and during the latter Ford Admin – suffer national abandonmnent. It was pretty ugly for the roughly fifteen years before Giuliani brought back fiscal sainity and made it a great world city again.
Evidently it’s going to take the same shock treatment before Sacramento comes back to earth. Populism today is focused on the banks as a scapegoat – back during the rolling blackouts & Davis it was all Enron & sport energy market speculation (and hense Texas and by extension later Bush).
California’s long been the existential european representitives extroidinair in our national body politic; The Academic-Environmental-Extortionist-Public Union cabal having long ago displaced the Military Industrial Complex. Victor D. Hanson among others have been writing about this indepth for many years.
In a warped way it would be most apropo for Gerry Brown to win – which would certainly accelerate the inevitable collapse. After all he helped entrench the silliness in his heyday – as the hipster with a rock star girlfriend at the state house.
But as an interested southwesterner in AZ I reluctantly agree with 18. A.E.: & 25. Dave II: – To defeat as disgusting a beast as Boxer is always a great idea – and I do believe that in the new NATIONAL political enviornment – where regular folks from anywhere can help raise funds for a Chuck Devore as they did for Scott Brown – thus arming them to make a fight – it’s possible.
But it’s not going to change much there or the effect California’s disfunction has when infecting us in the west and the rest of us nationally.
Here in AZ the Napolitano reign of terror was a fraternal progressive insurgency drawn directly from Cali – the DNA of which extended far beyond her having graduated with honors from Clairmont College. She accumulated the networking from the time she was a Clinton appointee as a US Attorney (as reward for her job well done during the Clarence Thomas hearings).
She left AZ in a Gray Davis-esque state of disarray – where our 3 billion deficit is already requiring police & fireman layoffs in cities like Tempe. People are only now waking up to just how drastically she enlarged the welfare state – from illegal immigration to head start like all-day Kindergarden – to all mannor of wanna be immitations of Arnold (Regional climate change initiatives and playing ‘ambassador’ to Senora & Mexico City).
The woman was a disaster. And now she is displaying such ‘talent’ as H.S. capo de capo. At least she’s fluent in espanol!
Were the article and it’s author is right on is that Devore is just one of many emboldened candidates that will heat up the upcoming primary season. (J.D. Hayworth is doing the same here by taking on McCain.) Would Campbell have thrown in on the Senate race if Fiorina was running strong? Or if Boxer really wasn’t vulnerable?
Who a scant year ago would have dreamed the 2010 mid-terms would be so interesting?
22. David W. Lincoln:
Homosexuality does a better job than heterosexuality in showing what happens when the differences between men and women are taken for granted too many times.
Let’s legislate it! All people must not take for granted the differences between men and women or go to jail! The cops arrive at your door tomorrow to see how things are going around the house.
I think Republicans are making too much of the Brown victory. As near as I can tell from the limited data available it was less a Brown victory than a Coakley defeat. She lost because of her poor showing among working class voters who are normally safe Democrats. I think this is because a lot of Catholics despise her for her role in bashing the Church during the priest scandals of the early ’00s. This came up as Father Shanley’s appeal was decided by the Court earlier this month just when her polls plummeted. I know that people who read PJM and other political sites like to think that elections are decided by policies and issues but most people vote on gut instinct.
” I know that people who read PJM and other political sites like to think that elections are decided by policies and issues but most people vote on gut instinct.”
Their gut is telling them now that BO is a fraud, the emptiest suit ever.
Unfortunately, I think all three candidates are flawed and that Boxer will squeeze out yet another undeserved victory. The California Republican party is glaringly lacking in attractive candidates, be they RINO or true-blue con.
California has run up a State Government size and bill that cannot be supported. When the government changes automatic withholding rates to get more weekly cash from working individuals, you have the presumption that the money is earned to be taxed for the State, not earned by the individual who then gives their taxed portion to the State to run the common services of government. CA once had thriving industry and agriculture, now companies flee the State due to high taxation for mediocre or sub-par services. TX spends less per child on schooling and does better, with lower taxes and a business friendly climate. If CA is a ‘leader’ then the rest of the Nation can take a look at it and decide if the nearing insolvency of the State is worth following. And the people in CA will need to ask them if all that government that they can’t pay for is actually spending their money wisely and to the best of purposes.
We cannot determine who will win or lose at this distance from the election. What can be said is that CA citizens, in fewer numbers year by year, are supporting a massive government that leaves the individual with less cash, mediocre services, a huge State payroll, and a retirement system for State Employees that has made troubling investments and is facing its own crisis. No amount of taxation will remove those problems. No government program will suddenly make it all right and reverse the trends of lowering population and fleeing businesses. Like other States (NY, IL, MI, MA) CA is facing a brick wall of debt and finances incurred for more government that does more with less competence and capability. What happens when a State goes bankrupt? CA voters will decide that, but whatever comes out in a decade will look very little like what went in. Running from fiscal responsibility has consequences, and more of the same just doesn’t work. And decisions in DC have consequences for your fiscal viability as individuals and a State.
37. arhooley:
22. David W. Lincoln:
Homosexuality does a better job than heterosexuality in showing what happens when the differences between men and women are taken for granted too many times.
Let’s legislate it! All people must not take for granted the differences between men and women or go to jail! The cops arrive at your door tomorrow to see how things are going around the house.
Arhooley, then why not legislate the sun is forbidden to shine between sunset and sunrise?
Like it or not, there is stuff that happens which the political arena does not affect. For instance, which foot did you put a sock on first, when you
clothed yourself this morning. This act did not affect the political arena,
and there are other examples like this which are independent of the political arena.
Furthermore, why should the laws be changed to provide cover for those who too often take for granted the reality that men and women are different.
After all, get around this: government governs best when it governs least.
Let people stew in the mess they made when they have a mobile standard of truth, instead of it being forever.
The ONLY reason that Campbell leads in the polling is name recognition. He’s a stale rehash having run in state-wide contests several times before. His market positioning has been good before but in the GOP primary he’ll have to show nearly certain victory over Boxer to get many Republican votes.
Fiorina is definitely a RINO. People here in Silicon Valley still spit at the mention of her name given her mismanagement of Hewlett-Packard, that icon of the tech industry.
The real question is how attentive are California voters and are they willing to switch over to voting for a conservative? In MA, they did that but I haven’t seen the turnout numbers yet. Boxer’s base has increasingly isolated itself from the general voters. People are getting to understand the unions’ abuses and are tired of environmentalist extremism. She still has the feminists but fewer women answer to that call since they realize that has lead to increased spinsterhood for many sisters.
I’ve cast my lot with DeVore. He has taken his show on the road early and we can expect increased seasoning in the process. He is smart and he is tough. All he really needs is cash.
Still the future remains difficult to predict. I would note that conservatives are better at that than leftists.
Just saw a statement from Granholm, governor (D) of Michigan, starting jobs conference.. “my only topic, jobs jobs jobs, item 1 and item 20 on agenda, all jobs”
She sounds like Obama. Bankrupt the state with tax-n-spend politics and then pretend to be concerned about that colossal job losses that are A RESULT OF YOUR OWN POLICIES.
I have advice for Granholm– if you want business to settle in your state, implement deep and permanent cuts in spending and taxation. If you cut it, they will come… only don’t be waiting at the Michigan border with a hammer to hit ‘em on the head and filch their wallets!!!
This conservative stuff isn’t complicated.
California is not ripe for a revolution. We hear of tea parties and frustration, but most people are not fed up yet. The only way to oust Boxer is with a moderate republican. DeVore doesn’t have the name recognition like Campbell/Fiorina; he’s only known in So-Cal. Campbell entering the race has pretty much pushed him out of the running.
Who ever wins, can they please help the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley of California. The water was turned off to protect a fish, a smelt. Last time I heard, their farms and livelihoods were drying up, from lack of water.It’s a crying shame. Can someone please help?