While I have long been most critical of my current home state’s junior Senator for her lock-step liberalism and ineffective legislating, I do commend her for her staunch support for Israel, event as support for the Jewish State has lost favor in the left-wing circles in which she travels.

Three years ago, she “rescinded an award given to a California resident because of his position with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)“.  ”Boxer and her staff cited concerns about CAIR’s positions on terrorist groups, contending that CAIR had refused to label Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.“

Well, given the Administration’s recent attacks on Israel, blogger Bruce Kesler wonders if Mrs. Boxer, who often puts partisanship over principle is boxed in by Obama:

California Senator Barbara Boxer, although advocating the most extreme liberal views undermining national security, has been a firm supporter of Israel.

Now, Boxer faces the American Jewish dilemma.  She and over 75% of American Jews supported the election of President Obama.  Obama’s, can’t call it anything else, attacks on Israel has gotten roundly criticized by leading Jewish organizations (AIPAC and ADL) and by Republican leaders (here, here and here).

Where is Boxer?  Nothing has been heard from her.

Is she waiting for marching, or parroting, orders from the White House?

My sense is that she’ll be silent and cross her fingers, hoping that Tom Campbell, with his anti-Israel voting record and double-talking about his associations with terrorist apologists prevails in the contest to run against her on the Republican ticket.  Then, she won’t need address Obama’s attitude toward Israel as the focus will be on Campbell’s record.

Should, however, Carly Fiorina prevail, then Ma’am’s gonna face a big dilemma, whether to take issue with her president or stand up for Israel, particularly given the substantial Jewish population in her jurisdiction.

She does have a record of preferring partisanship.  While she once championed women allegedly victimized by sexual harassment, she was silent when a Democratic president was accused of such harassment.  Seems, for Mrs. Boxer, partisanship trumps all.

Only once is my life have I voted in a Democratic primary.  I did that back in 1994, largely because I realized that if the Democrat I backed had won his primary, I would have voted for him in the general.  That year, while leaving in Charlottesville, Virginia, I (quite literally) pulled the level for Virgil Goode (then a Democrat) challenging Chuck Robb for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.  I balked at supporting the GOP nominee Oliver North (against whom I had voted at the state GOP convention).

When I learned that blogger Mickey Kaus was tossing his hat into the ring against California’s ineffective and hyperpartisan junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, in their party’s primary, I briefly thought of changing my registration so I could vote for this laconic liberal.  I appreciate his terse and and witty blog posts and have enjoyed chatting with him at various blogger shindigs in LA.

Were Kaus to win the Democratic primary, he would retire a big-spending, mean-spirited embarrassment from the Senate.  And he would make a far better Senator than she.  Even given her absence of accomplishment, she still would be the favorite should she win her party’s nomination–given Democrats’ registration edge in the Golden State.  A vote for Mickey would thus secure the end of her career.

All that said, I won’t be changing my registration.  It would only be honorable to do so if I were certain to vote for Mickey in the fall.  And while I like him, I disagree with him on too many issues to be able to support him against a Ronald Reagan conservative like Carly Fiorina (though if Mickey were up against Tom Campbell, I’d probably vote Democratic given that former California State Finance Director’s record on Israel and his big-spending ways in state government).

That said, the only reason you should vote in the opposing party’s primary is if you’re certain to support that candidate in the general.  And since I’m not certain I’d be voting for Mickey Kaus should he prevail in June, I’ll keep my Republican registration.

But, I’ll still be rooting for him–and won’t rule out supporting him come November if he emerges victorious this June.

If J.D. Hayworth weren’t such a pontificating blowhard, I might be more sympathetic of his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Now, I certainly agree with him that it’s not for courts to define marriage and that while intimacy is a major part of a serious marriage, it is not its defining aspect.  So, now, we’ve got him saying that if state courts deciding marriage, it could lead to people marrying their horses:

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”

“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.

“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”

Yeah, I know what he’s getting at.  Trying to show the slippery slop onto which such court decisions put us.  So, why not simply remove marriage from the jurisdiction of courts and make it instead (as it should be) the province of legislatures?  Instead, he wants the constitution to define marriage via a federal marriage amendment.

This pompous man’s pontificating shows he’s more interesting in getting attention than making a serious argument on a serious issue.  If he were serious about the slippery slope, he would favor a less draconian solution than the federal marriage amendment he backs.

Sometimes I think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats are so hell-bent on passing health care is that they just want to prevent the GOP and Republicans from being able to gloat.

They’re so focused on being able to pass this “historic” bill.  But, just because the left has wanted a major health care overhaul for sixty some odd years doesn’t mean the American people want it.  And it’s too bad the Democrats confuse their own wishes–and their party’s long dreams with popular will.

I know there’s more to it than this, but when you look at how they’ve gamed the numbers, how they’ve bought off wavering Senators, how they’re using procedural gimmicks to pass this, it just seems that the goal of passing this has superseded all else.

Like the junkie selling all his possessions for a fix.

Delivering the GOP response to the president’s radio address, the man who succeeded John Kerry as the junior Senator from Massachusetts–after that latter had served a record 25 years in the position, Scott Brown, called Obama out for not keeping his promises, you know to focus on what he was elected to do and not keeping pushing health care.

The delivery may note be great, but the message is clear: President Obama is not keeping his campaign promises by pushing a massive health care overhaul crafted behind closed doors when people are still losing their jobs:

Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar health care legislation.

So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the President still hasn’t gotten the message.

Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.

And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.

They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a health care bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals– and that’’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

Ed Morrissey calls this a “scathing assessment of the Democratic machinations to pass ObamaCare.” I agree.

(H/t for video: Gateway Pundit)

Really, Governor Crist?  This is what you’ve sunk to?

Florida Governor Charlie Crist was on with Greta Van Susteren on Monday March 8. During the interview he accused Marco Rubio of going to salons and getting a back wax.

Sounds pretty gay, doesn’t it?  Speaking of gay Governor Crist…. is this really a topic you want to play around with?  You know there are a lot of rumors about you in the Florida gay community.

Chortling about back waxes might lead your political opponents (gay liberals) to bring up those rumors in the General Election.

So, Gov. Crist…. is this REALLY a wise move?

Republican Primary voters will be the ultimate judges…. but they should tread lightly.  We know what happens when gay liberals come after Republicans with gay rumors swirling around them.

UPDATE: Erick Erickson at RedState.com suggests we all pitch in and send Charlie Crist some back wax from Amazon.com.  PatriotPartner suggests Oompa-Loompa back wax, perhaps?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Your Senate Majority Leader has wisdom beyond words that has no bounds.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.

Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.

“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Why? Men don’t have jobs.”

Reid said that the effects of joblessness on domestic violence were especially pronounced among men, because, Reid said, women tend to be less abusive.

“Women don’t have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time,” he said.

Photo courtesy of GP Reader StrayMRG:

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

RING, RING.

ME: Hello?

INTRUDER BY PHONE: “Hi, first I want to thank you for your previous contributions to Senator John McCain and for being such a strong supporter.”

ME:  HAHAHAHA.  Um, what?  I am NOT a supporter.

IBP: Oh, I sense frustrations, may I ask why you…

ME: IMMIGRATION!  DUH!

IBP:  Well, you will be happy to know that Senator McCain is working to…

ME:  DON’T CALL ME AGAIN.

CLICK.

Marco is coming on in a few minutes and is now being introduced by the esteemed conservative US Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina (also known as PatriotMom’s Senator).

Stay tuned….

Rubio: “The blizzard may be the best thing to happen to the American economy in 12 months!”

Rubio is now articulating the fundamentals of America — First Principles.  “The only country where it doesn’t matter who your parents were.  Which country would you trade places with?”

“Those with a worldview that were elected in 2008 are now using the economic downturn, not to fix America, but to change America.  This growth in our government is being funded by foreign money.”

“The good news is that it didn’t take Americans a long time to figure this out.  Leaders at the highest levels are trying to redefine the American government and economic system.  But Americans have figured it out.”

“This is the single greatest political pushback in American history.  2010 is a referendum on the very identity of our nation.”

AWESOME: “The US Senate already has one Arlen Specter in it.”  [referring to Charlie Crist]

Rubio is now articulating coherent pro-growth, pro-free enterprise policies that most Americans would believe in.

Rubio: “These [Islamic] terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because we offended them.  They are trying to impose their view of the world on us and America is standing in the way.”

Rubio: “What makes America great is that there are dreams that are impossible everywhere else, but are possible here.  Why is that?  Most other countries chose government to run their lives.  The problem is that when govt controls the economy, those who can influence the govt always win — and everyone else stays the same.  In other nations, the employee can never become the employer.”

“Americans chose individual liberty instead of excessive government.”

“Everything I’ve accomplished, I owe to my parents, my God and to the United States of America.”  Marcoooooo!

“Let us ensure that history’s record of this time is clear.  Like those Americans who came before us, we rose to face the challenges of our time.  Let us make the right choices so that the American miracle can live on.”

About my choice in the California gubernatorial primary, I wrote last week, “I always thought I’d just wait until a few days before the primary and vote for whoever was polling better against Moonbeam Brown.”  If the latest polls are any indication, that’ll be Meg Whitman: “The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely California voters finds Republican hopeful Whitman and Brown tied with 43% each.”  Her chief rival for the GOP nomination runs a full 12 points behind the state’s former Democratic Governor.

Considering that career politician Brown is a “known quantity to California voters, having served as secretary of state, two terms as governor, state Democratic party chairman, mayor of Oakland, and state attorney general“, he would have to be counted as the incumbent in this race, which means undecided voters are likely to break against him.

Looking less and less likely like he’ll have another turn as the Golden State’s chief executive.

(H/t:  Jim Geraghty.)

So now it seems President Obama, so helpful in delivering victories in New Jersey and Virginia last year, and coming off the landslide success he helped bring Democrats in Massachusetts last month is heading West to help ailing Senators in my neck of the woods.

If I could speak on behalf of the challengers to Senators Bennet in Colorado and Reid in Nevada: “Thank God!”

Also, since all my Leftist friends always seem so eager to tout the importance of intelligence in elected officials (who better, of course, to run every aspect of our lives than the elite brainiacs), might I say that, with the recent track-record of President Obama “helping” Democrats in their quest for office, anybody foolish enough to feel he’s the answer to a win likely doesn’t fall into the category of super-smart anyway, so perhaps it all does work out in the end.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

A friend alerted me to the latest Rasmussen poll of Golden State voters, a survey  referenced in a previous post.  And, Ma’am, they sure don’t look good for you:

The fact that [Barbara] Boxer’s support has been stuck in the mid-40s for several surveys no matter which Republican she is matched against continues to suggest that the race for now is about her rather than about those who are running against her.

Now, get this, while the state’s junior Senate polls no better than 47% against the three Republicans vying for the chance to replace her, leading my gal Carly and her more serious rival Tom Campbell by four points (46-42) and (45-41) respectively, she runs more than 10 points behind President Obama’s approval rate in the Golden State.  Here, despite a sour economy with an unemployment rate topping 12%, one of the highest in the nation, the President’s approval stands at 58%, one of the highest in the nation.

Should that fall, as is likely if the economy here doesn’t pick up steam, Mrs. Boxer will assuredly go down with him.  And remember this, two weeks before voters in Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the United States Senate, Rasmussen had him down by nine.  He won by five.  That’s a fourteen-point shift.

With the Republican base enthused and Americans in an anti-incumbent mood, we could expect a similar turnaround out here.  The more Republicans can focus on Mrs. Boxer’s record, reminding Californians of her support for high taxes and job-killing and land-parching regulation, the more they’ll want new representation.  Indeed, they’re already unhappy with the incumbent.  Without any negative ads being run against her (and with a state media largely oblivious to her blunders and partisanship), voters don’t much cotton to the 28-year Washington veteran:   “Twenty-six percent (26%) of California voters share a very favorable opinion of Boxer, but 33% view the senator very unfavorably.” (more…)

While eating a late dinner, I heard Dick Morris say this about Evan Bayh’s decision to retire from the Senate:  ”When they start getting bad poll numbers, they start wanting to spend more time with their families.”

Well, that is, presuming this fundraiser takes place in the Golden State, but given Mrs. Boxer’s travel schedule, unless she’s hawking her book, she’s probably in Washington, D.C. a place she seems to prefer to the jurisdiction she ostensibly represents.  With Ma’am unable to muster more than 50% in the polls in a state where Obama topped 60%, she’s looking for some outside help:

To help with the warmth of money, Boxer will have Al Gore headline a fundraiser for her next weekend.

Clever use  of the word, “warmth,” Mr. Malcolm (who wrote the words above).  Seems that wherever global warmist Al Gore gives a speech, record cold weather comes with him.

Well, so now we know where he’s going to emerge from hibernation.  And while his pet cause is taking on water faster than the Titanic after hitting an iceberg, he probably still has some credibility among the global warming dead-enders in the Golden State.

Do wonder how environmental zealotry will help Mrs. Boxer outside the circles where she’ll do well no matter what.  But, beyond those deep blue enclaves in the Hollywood and Bay Areas, most people in this state are more concerned with other issues.

More on the polls mentioned in the article above anon.  Had seen the survey results earlier in the day, then Instapundit linked the article above and well that line quoted above inspired a post.

Evan Bayh to retire.

At the beginning of the year, his seat was considered safe for the Democrats. Given the demographics of the state, you have to move this one from lean Democrat to lean Republican.

UPDATE: Barone weighs in:

Going into this cycle, [Bayh] looked like a sure bet for reelection.

Where does this leave Democrats in the 2010 Senate contests? Not in very good shape. The North Dakota seat held by Democrat Byron Dorgan seems sure to go to Republican John Hoeven. The Delaware seat held by Ted Kaufman (appointed to replace Joe Biden) seems very, very likely to go to Republican Mike Castle. The Indiana seat held by Bayh seems now very likely to go to a Republican.

Read the whole thing!

UPDATE FROM BRUCE (GayPatriot): Word is coming from Maryland that US Sen. Barbara Mikulski is also going to retire in the next few days.  Tsunami.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan): Let’s hope Michael Steele runs for the open seat.

Let’s explore the law of unintended consequences.  The monstrous Obamacare National Healthcare Takeover wasn’t the only casualty of US Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) election.  The dropping out of Patrick Kennedy is another obvious one, sure.  And I’m also positive there will be many Democrats running into the arms of retirement who would not have before Brown’s election.

But think about this one:  Scott Brown may have saved New York City from having the 9/11 KSM Show Trial held in their backyard.  Why?  Well, before Brown’s election, there were only scant peeps — mostly Republicans — opposing the Obama-Holder plan to showcase KSM & Co. in Manhattan.

SINCE Scott Brown’s election, the roar of disapproval about the 9/11 trials has become so loud that Obama himself has capped Holder at the knees.  Media reports now say a military trial is likely, perhaps even held at GITMO.

Elections have consequences, my friends.  Sen. Scott Brown’s is the gift that keeps on giving back to America every single day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s senior health care advisor has told Congress Daily that congressional Democratic leaders have settled on a strategy” to pass the health care overhaul without securing the 60 votes they need in the Senate to stop a filibuster, all but guaranteeing that Republicans will win back both Houses of Congress in less than nine months time.

Wendell Primus, aforementioned advisor

. . .  admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate’s pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

“Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“’The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,’ Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

(Emphasis added.) Should this “trick” work, it will do double damage to the Democrats, first, voters will punish them for passing an unpopular bill. Second, having thrown Republicans out for their legislative shenanigans, they’re sure to do the same to Democrats, especially given that people are paying more attention now to the legislative process. (more…)

Perhaps unwittingly, Ezra Klein last week got at why Democrats are unlikely to pass their health care overhaul:  they lack the will to do so:

If 51 Democratic senators and 218 Democratic congresspeople are dead-serious about passing a bill, they can, and will, pass a bill. . . .  If that many Democrats were committed to this project, the other chamber won’t fear their colleagues leaving them hanging out to dry. It’s a fairly straightforward path to passage, and they’d begin walking down it. That they haven’t moved is evidence that will is missing, not that the rules are too complex.

And methinks that in the wake of Scott Brown’s election last month, there is even less will to enact health care reform than there was when the House passed its version of Obamacare last November, with 219 Democrats and 1 Republican voting in favor.

Over at Redstate, Moe Lane does a rundown of the votes Obamacare proponents have lost since November.  And how many of those remaining in the chamber who voted “yeah” are getting cold feet now as the 2010 campaign heats up, with polls showing ever-growing opposition to the president’s plans?

The White House, various liberal and left-wing pundits as well as the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate may have the will to push through this health care overhaul, but I would dare say such will is lacking among members of their party’s rank and file.  They may indeed favor such an overhaul, but given the electoral landscape at present, would rather not bring it up for a vote.

While I have made clear my choice in the Republican primary for the United States Senate seat from the Golden State, I have yet to weigh in on the contest for Governor.  Up until recently, I had been equally impressed by both candidates, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.  

This is not to say that I find either an ideal candidate.  I have concerns about both.  It’s just that they would both be better than the likely Democratic candidate former Governor Jerry Moonbeam Medfly Brown.  Given the red ink our state faces, we can’t afford to have Brown back in the Governor’s chair.

I wanted to follow the gubernatorial campaign to see which Republican could better take on an out-of-control state legislature all but controlled by the public employee unions.  From their record in the private sector, it’s clear the Republicans knows how to meet a payroll and how to hold the line on expenses.

I always thought I’d just wait until a few days before the primary and vote for whoever was polling better against Moonbeam Brown.  But, some of Poizner’s action in recent days have caused me to question his strength of character.  When Mike Murphy, a political consultant working for Whitman, tried to persuade Poizner to withdraw from the race (he trails Whitman by as much as 30 points in polls), the Golden State Insurance Commissioner announced he’d asked law enforcement to “investigate improper conduct” that “threatens the integrity of the electoral process.”

Improper conduct to do what rivals regularly do in contested primaries?

Not the way to respond to such an offer.  Doesn’t really show much strength or confidence  your campaign.  A more secure candidate would have brushed the offer off, saying once the campaign heated up, he’d surge ahead.  A candidate who doesn’t have the fortitude to stand up to an offer from a rival Republican likely wouldn’t have the fortitude to stand up to a Democratic legislators used to pushing the Governor around. (more…)

Yesterday, when I saw an e-mail from “Equality California” (EqCA) entitled “Prop. 8 supporter’s TV ads start today” in my inbox, I thought the missive’s text might provide fodder for a post allowing me to agree with that left-wing gay group. I mean, why would a Prop 8 supporter run ads for an initiative that voters have long since approved?

The body of the e-mail, however, had nothing to do with Proposition 8. You see, Geoff Kors, Executive Director of EqCA is upset that Meg Whitman, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of this great state has, in his words,

. . . launched a multi-million dollar media blitz. She is trying to buy the governor’s office with ads that fail to tell the true story about who she really is – an anti-equality candidate who has fought to eliminate the rights of LGBT people in an attempt to drum up conservative support to win an election.

In other words, this accomplished CEO has started running ads promoting her candidacy and she’s not talking about gay marriage.  And while that may get Mr. Kors panties in a bundle, well, I think it’s a good thing.  I don’t think candidates for Governor should make opposition to gay marriage the focus of their campaigns.  Instead, she’s talking about the state’s problems and putting forward her ideas on how to make California golden once again.

Yeah, Meg Whitman supported Prop 8.  And while I like much of what she’s been saying, I’m not ready to endorse her, remaining undecided in the gubernatorial contest.  Before I make up my mind, I want to hear her stand on the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.  I’d be more likely to support her if she addressed that program as Scott Brown addressed gay marriage in his state:  calling it “settled law.” (more…)