So, Ma’am, is it the lack of your supporters’ enthusiasm that keeps you from further debates with Carly?
Last night, I had a choice, try to see if I could find the Fiorina-Boxer debate on a cable channel in Colorado or go out to dinner with my Dad for his birthday. And much as I wanted to see Carly take the career politician to the cleaners (as I understand she did), this choice was easy. Sorry, Carly, family first.
Well, it looks like my gal’s supporters in the San Fernando Valley didn’t have similar conflicts; they were a bit significantly more enthusiastic than those backing the three-term incumbent:
Seeking her fourth term, Boxer holds a substantial fundraising advantage over her challenger, but is still seen as facing a tough battle because the economy has left voters in an anti-incumbent mood.
The crowd at the Valley Democratic viewing party was obviously partisan, but its numbers – perhaps three dozen when the debate began – paled in comparison to the 200 or so who gathered at the local Republican bash held at Galpin Ford in North Hills.
WIth that fundraising advantage, Mrs. Boxer is sure to try to deflect attention away from her lackluster record in the Senate and the dismal state of the economy in the (once-)Golden State despite her promises of a speedy recovery once Congress passed the big-spending initiatives she supported.
Clearly, the Democrat wants to make the campaign turn on her opponent’s flaws and not on her own failures.
Maybe that’s why she’s so reluctant to face Carly in further debates.
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Wow, GayPatriot, I am so sorry that I didn’t watch this debate. I am a native Californian and I could have made it easily to these watching ceremonies.
I wish I could get involved, but the thing is that the Republicans, even in California, are still so hostile to gays. I think we need a 3rd party. But I am donating to Carly and Meg and hope both women win. If Jerry Brown wins I’m going to get Palm Springs to secede and become a city state.
Comment by Coco — September 2, 2010 @ 1:53 pm - September 2, 2010
I watched parts, I have it on my DVR so I can watch it later if I have time but all the parts I did see were only attacks by Boxer. She is floundering and panicking…
She even justified her “Ma’am” moment by saying she spoke to the general later and there were no hard feelings or some such thing.
Boxer needs to go and go NOW.
Comment by Stone K — September 2, 2010 @ 2:02 pm - September 2, 2010
I was on the fence regarding Fiorina, not that I would consider voting for Boxer, but I just didn’t know much about Fiorina’s positions on a lot of issues. The debate last night covered a lot of ground and I was impressed with her answers all the way through. She seems to be a true conservative, worthy of Tea Party support even, but she is okay with the gay thing, supporting civil unions and repeal of DADT. I am now a Carly fan!!
Comment by Eddie — September 2, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - September 2, 2010
I might add, I found the journalists and the moderator to be very one-sided last night…did anyone else get that vibe? And there were NO questions on Obamacare….shocking!!!
Comment by Eddie — September 2, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - September 2, 2010
The one thing that disappointed me was Carly’s answer when asked about Prop 23. I hate people who won’t take a position.
Comment by Chris H — September 2, 2010 @ 2:45 pm - September 2, 2010
#1: “I wish I could get involved, but the thing is that the Republicans, even in California, are still so hostile to gays.”
Ummm…..what?
Comment by Sean A — September 2, 2010 @ 3:35 pm - September 2, 2010
Agreed, Chris, when I read a summary of the debate, that seemed to be the only Boxer attack which hit. There are issues where politicians can (and should) be neutral, but, it doesn’t look good.
Eddie, I have long known she was for civil unions and against DADT. Did she say that in the debate last night?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 2, 2010 @ 5:41 pm - September 2, 2010
How did Boxer flounder? Her “ma’am” retort was weak; we only have her word she apologized; therefore, I don’t believe her. However, Boxer now realizes too late the “ma’am” hubris really hurt her. She deserves the political stoning she’s getting; it’s her come uppance for her corruption & arrogance. She can see that she could lose her Senate seat & she’s scared. Boxer’s humility is temporary & more a facade than anything else. I would love to watch the debate, but I don’t live in California.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — September 2, 2010 @ 5:42 pm - September 2, 2010
At least in Meg Whitman the GOP has a successful businesswoman as a nominee. Boxer may be a partisan hack, but Carly was an utter failure at her biggest gig. What was the GOP thinking in voting for her?
Comment by BenD — September 2, 2010 @ 6:47 pm - September 2, 2010
When Boxer was critical of Fiorina’s culling excess workers I was cheering.
That’s EXACTLY what kind of leader CA needs right now.
The unions have judges in their pockets, so they will not take pay cuts or day’s off.
The only way is to FIRE them!
Carly has shown her ability to make that move!
Go, Carly.
Comment by Nan G — September 2, 2010 @ 8:14 pm - September 2, 2010
I read the Gross (that’s the author’s name) article on Sarah Palin which appears in Vanity Fair and wondered whether Michelle, Hillary and/or Boxer would get the same treatment.
If you have an interest in what peeing in the sandbox and then throwing the sand is like ….. here is the link:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/sarah-palin-201010?currentPage=all
Comment by heliotrope — September 2, 2010 @ 9:48 pm - September 2, 2010