Yesterday, my gal for the race to unseat Ma’am Boxer, Carly Fiorina, took to the pixels of BigGovernment.com to take on Obamacare, calling it a “fiscal albatross for our already ballooning federal budget deficit“:

This proposal will cost taxpayers up to $2.5 trillion, create a massive new entitlement, raise taxes, add to the federal deficit and fail to solve our nation’s health care crisis.  It is the kind of big government answer that we have come to expect from Democrats, particularly my opponent, Barbara Boxer. It is the same answer that has proven to fail this country time and time again.

When it comes to big government follies, this businesswoman doesn’t mince her words.

Knowing the media challenges facing critics of big government, Carly Fiorina understands the importance of blogs in getting her message out.  Since she announced her Senate bid earlier this month, she has already communicated directly with your humble correspondent on two occasions, once on a conference call (with other bloggers) and the second time in a one-on-one telephone interview.

In that conversation, when I asked her how she planned on dealing with a hostile media and Boxer’s politics of the gutter, she replied “that’s why you and your colleagues are so important; you’re changing the course of political discourse.”  She intends to use technology “aggressively” to get her message out.  As to Ma’am’s attacks, well, Carly told me she is not unused to “hostile media.”

It’s nice to have a Republican candidate who recognizes the importance of new media.  Carly Fiorina has learned from past GOP defeats.  In the past, her Democratic opponent, Barbara Boxer has been dependent on the mainstream media from keeping her record under wraps.  In her 1998 campaign, for example, she didn’t suffer for limiting her access to the press to avoid questions about her daughter’s then marriage to the then-President Bill Clinton’s ethically challenged brother-in-law.

But, Boxer has never faced an election, with a fully operational blogosphere, eager to raise questions about her voting record and the distance she has kept from her constituents.  According to her office, she does hold townhalls for Californians, but only for those who “come to Washington every week that the Senate is in session.” So, during this recession, when one in eight Californians are out of work and others scraping to get buy, a citizen of the Golden State has to buy a ticket for a transcontinental flight just to talk to our junior Senator. (more…)

We’ve fixed a location for our brunch this coming Saturday in San Francisco. Drop me a line if you’d like to attend.

Well, at least, Howard Dean, Rachel Maddow’s guest host on her eponymous MSNBC show, reported that the death of Bill Sparkman was rule a suicide.  He noted only that the show has reported the story, without referencing the hysterical assumptions Miss Maddow made.  Wonder if she, when she returns from her Thanksgiving break, will apologize for breathlessly linking his death to anti-government protesters of the tea party variety.

So eager to besmirch conservatives are that that once these left-wingers learned about his death, they rushed to judgment asserting that right-wingers created the climate of hate which led to his murder, for murder they presumed it to be.  One prominent left-wing blogger quickly ruled out suicide, writing

on September 26, “No Suicide: That’s the one thing we know for certain now in the case of the Kentucky lynching”…

Lynching?  Lynching?  Wonder if he’ll apologize for such overheated rhetoric now that an investigation has revealed the truth.

But, as we learned from the experience of the dishonest Joe Wilson, investigations don’t mean much to leftists when they don’t yield the result they want.

Well, at least we have one more piece of evidence of the hysteria of the left–and their readiness to slime conservatives even if the only “evidence” they have to back up their case is their own prejudice.

Sister Toldjah took the words right out of my mouth.  Discussing coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post (home base of the Democratic gusher Sally Quinn) of President Obama’s first state dinner last night, she writes, “Both pieces go in depth as to how ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ and ’stylish’ President Obama’s first state dinner was, and how marvelous the First Lady looked – implying a ‘departure’ of sorts for First Ladies in terms of style.”

Look, I didn’t find anything particularly extraordinary about the First Lady’s dress and the President looked a tad uncomfortable in his tux.  James Bond he ain’t.  But, then, neither did either look like the equivalent of Björk at the 2001 Oscars.  Both looked fine and handled the public portions of the dinner quite well in a manner similar to that of their predecessors as host and hostess-in-chief.  (They just had more cronies and “corruptocats” at their dinner.)  The folks in the MSM, Ms. Quinn especially, seem to have created this narrative of the Obama’s style out of whole cloth, wanting so much for this era to be a new Camelot.

But, I don’t think many people outside the deep blue pockets in the deep blue islands on our nation’s coasts are paying much attention.  Michelle Obama is not the fashion icon that Jackie O was (before she was O).  And her husband may decorate the covers of various fashion magazines, but that’s an editorial choice and no longer a response to a popular demand.

When I first heard Carly Fiorina’s name batted around as a potential candidate to replace our state’s ineffective junior Senator, I was optimistic about her bid.  I believe we need more people from the private sector in government, those who know what it is like to keep an enterprise afloat in an ever-changing marketplace, those who know the cost of innovation and the burdens of government interference, regulations which can stymie that innovation and delay, if not prevent, job-creating expansion.

When I got to talk to her on Monday, I asked her to build on the point she made in her conversation with Greta van Susteren about job creation. In her answer, she offered broad principles for streamlining regulations in order to let small businesses grow and thus help us meet the most pressing need facing the Golden State, where one in eight adults is out of work, create jobs.  Unlike the woman she seeks to replace, Carly opposes vast federal schemes to increase government control over the marketplace and over our lives, knowing such regulation will make it increasingly difficult for businesses to grow while increasing the chances they’ll have to lay off employees just to stay afloat.

She talked about how various government departments have their own sets of regulation, meaning that an entrepreneur has to go through “multiple steps” just to set up a new business.  She wants to simplify this process.

To that end, she wants to review environmental regulations to make sure they’re accomplishing the goals of those who crafted them.  The second area of review would be employer mandates where she finds “lots of overlap.”  Finally, she wants to reduce the tax burden on businesses, fearing that in the current climate in Washington, there are “more [taxes] to come.”

It is Carly’s understanding of the burdens on business that makes me an enthusiastic supporter of her candiacy.   It is entrepreneurs who built the Golden State and entrepreneurs who can bring it back from the brink.   And it is they who, when their energies are unleashed, can expand existing enterprises and create new ones, thus creating the jobs we so desperately need in this one-time land of promise.