Boxer Swings Through Town

For all my disagreements with Barbara Boxer,Fiorina was a disaster at HP, and would be a terrible Senator. There's really no-one on our side.

"Gun Control: The incumbent supports California’s ban on assault weapons; Fiorina opposes it and almost any restrictions on the right to bear arms, including restrictions against buying guns imposed on those on federal terrorism watch lists."

Here is a quote from Senator Barbara Boxer's autobiography "Strangers in The Senate."

On page 179, Boxer writes "Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the 'Public Health and Safety Act,' and that's an appropriate name." For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes "Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee's approach will lead to a better America."

So there it is: her *real* feelings about the 2nd Amendment.

Barbara "call me Senator" Boxer is an embarassment on the same scale as Capps, and seems primarily concerned about her position, title, and how she is addressed. She blindly follows the lead of the Demoleaders, does nothing of any merit, and claims great accomplishments. Her position on the 2nd amendment is typical of the CA coastal voters, but not of 2/3 of the country. She represents a waste of a Senate seat. Just as some people called for "anyone but Bush", I call for "anyone but Boxer".

Boxer has a plan to save our economy? Three years late and dooming us to a depression.

Since the donks have taken over congress in 2007 the federal government has increased by 40% and the budget deficit has gone from $127 billion to 1,456 billion. Babs, you can't spend yourself out of bankruptcy.

Time to get someone that has actually run a business and not a career populist that thinks of nothing but telling us how to live our lives ans take our money.

The economy was killed during the last eight years of Bush - remember the bailout happened at the end of Bush's term. By all predictions, the economy should have collapsed but has not, thanks to the Obama admin. The federal government INCREASED under Bush, and they were anything but fiscal conservatives. Here are some graphs that tell the true story, not the hyperbole of the bashers:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerp...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerp...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerp...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerp...

And Fiorini, helped contribute to the mess by shipping American jobs out of the country, and hurting HP to the point where she has been called one of the worst CEOs in the US.

I should have included the link to all of the graphs:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerp...

They tell the story more succinctly than any multi-word article.

You know what is great idea to create jobs?

A huge energy tax...Yeah that's the ticket.

There is absolutely no way to respond to a comment like that because it says nothing about pros, cons, and alternatives. After reading it, one thinks, "So? please continue."

Also, try reading this article for a discussion of what has happened between the two recessions:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/14746...

Tabatha, you might like to know that it is congress's job to make budgets...which the donk congress of 2010 did not do. My guess is because it will be yet another 1,400 billion deficit or worse.

I thought my comment was self explanatory. If you think increasing the cost of energy will not increase costs, prices, make our products less competitive, and reduce employment you are of the ilk that believes 1+1=blue.

I have a small business. know why I am not hiring and have let 75% of my employees go? Taxes, regulations, and an uncertainty about how my employee costs and regulations will changes. This is common among business people. We are not spending money because taxes and employee costs are skyrocketing. In the manufacturing area, kalifornia regulations add and additional 35% to COGS. Bigger business is not buying from me. I have had zero RFQs for over a year. Prior to seeing the complete incompetence of running the economy at least I got those. Unemployment will continue to skyrocket under policies that punish success.

The world's highest corporate taxes and personal income taxes. Business moves off shore because of those reasons. Lowering actual employee wages is so low it is not even considered. The best thing? In six months the USA will see the highest tax increase in our country's existence. Yet another great idea to spur business from the economic illiterates of the Obama Administration.

"jukin," you may know your industry within your personal experience, but actual tax rates paid by US companies is not the highest in the world, despite a persistent effort by many business-at-any-cost gain-sayers:

http://doingbusiness.org/documents/Pa...

I point out in particular Figure 2.7; but the entire report is eye-opening. Pay particular attention to the distinction between statutory and effective rates.

And US citizens are very far removed from the top rung, a much more widely known comparison:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/t...

And unless you are in the fortunate top 5% of US citizens, please remember federal taxes went DOWN in 2009.

The fact that the economic misery, bank failures, etc. began under Bush is true but has nothing to do with Obama, Boxer, etc. except that Boxer did nothing to prevent the Bush excesses. Let's not forget to blame the Financial Accounting Standards Board geniuses for their regulatory missteps (requiring mark-to-market and retracting the short sale uptick rule), the SEC bureaucrats for their regulatory failures as well (unregulated derivatives market), and the Federal Reserve for keeping interest rates low and money plentifulto fund all those junk mortgages for people that couldn't afford them (please spare me from any whining about the poor souls not knowing any better). Also, please do not forget that encouraging subprime mortgage lending to increase home ownership in the U.S. predates both Bushes and Clinton. Blaming Bush for everything is still popular among some lefties, but the truth is much more complex. Obama has rightfully printed lots of money to help the economy out of recession, but he better learn that creating private, not government, jobs is the only real solution to restoring the economy to long term health.

BTW, anyone notice that Obama's immigration plan is the same as Bush's and that Obama praised Bush for the plan?

So Barbara Boxer's single vote should cancel out those of a Republican Majority?

And Bush was the king of deregulation. Sure, it happened under Clinton, where the Phil Gramm deregulation bill was not vetoed by Clinton, and also under Reagan. But Bush was on steroids in comparison to them , and for the six years of the Republican majority, it could not be stopped.

Per liberal media mogul and commentator Mort Zuckerman in January:

"He's Done Everything Wrong - Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-an...

This week in Aspen, Zuckman has said this:

The real problem we have,” Mort Zuckerman said, “are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-an...

General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt (and long time Obama supporter) said this about the current U.S. economic policy as repeated in the Globe and Mail:

"Mr. Immelt also had harsh words for U.S. President Barack Obama, lamenting what he called a “terrible” national mood and expressing concern that over-regulation in response to the global financial crisis would damp a “tepid” U.S. economic recovery.

Business did not like the U.S. president, and the president did not like business, he said...“We [the U.S.] are a pathetic exporter… we have to become an industrial powerhouse again but you don’t do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in synch.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report...

So it appears that high profile Democratic Party supporters and contributors have recognized that the policies put forth by the current congress and administration are counter productive to the business growth and development of this country.

This says a lot more to me than a bunch of charts and graphs.

This guy David+Driver in the comments section gets it too:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/artic...

"...It was not the banks or the markets or the financial institutions that created the housing bubble that burst. The housing bubble was created by Congress to make home ownership more affordable for people who could not afford to own a home. To do that, they enforced a lowering of the standards of traditional rules for lending, that had been in place for decades...

And when those people begin to default on loans - loans that were made because the government coerced the banks into making faulty loans by establishing quotas based on qualifications (like color, or gender or neighborhood), other than financial, and then penalizing those banks who failed to make the quotas the Fed set - then the market quickly gets flooded with houses for sale, for short-sale and houses in foreclosure...

The government created this...in the name of "equality" in lending. Now that all sounds very nice and altruistic - but people are not equal when it comes to their ability to repay loans...lowering the standards and subsidizing failure, is not a very ethical, practical or fiscally responsible way to increase home ownership!

Giving away housing to those who cannot afford it is a great way to get re-elected of course! But the people who ultimately have to pay for it are the worse off for their misplaced philanthropy!

The numbers for those who care:

The percentage increase in home ownership during the boom, went from 64% to 69%. Just 5pts. Five percent of out a population of 300-million is 15-million people. Guess how many jobs were lost in the crash? That's right! 15-million.

So, 5% of the population lost their jobs, so another 5% could buy a home they couldn't afford to keep.

Nobody got a home, and we're all worse off for it!

"The housing bubble was created by Congress to make home ownership more affordable for people who could not afford to own a home."

I remember Bush talking about the "ownership society". Did his administration do this?

Oh, and by the way, the banks did not need any encouragement ---

"It's now a matter of public record that Washington Mutual, which most people call WaMu, was a central player in the housing bubble Longbrake describes. It lent money to a lot of people to buy homes they just couldn't afford. It might seem self-serving of Longbrake to say he recognized the bubble for what it was so far back.

But in off-the-record coversations, former WaMu board members agreed with Longbrake's account. They say he did warn them that the housing market was becoming too risky and that WaMu shouldn't be so heavily involved.

Management just didn't listen. It was making too much money.

'When you're in good times and things are going up, everyone tends to be optimistic and straight-line that out to forever," Longbrake says. People raising red flags don't get attention, he adds.'"

So, it looks as though the private sector did the damage, not the government. I would be interested to see any supporting documentation for the claim that the Feds penalized sellers for not meting quotas. I cannot believe that is valid. Sounds like utter BS. After all, the Bush admin supported free market principles.

Did you read the whole article, Disturber? At the end of the article it states:

In a statement, GE said some of Mr. Immelt’s remarks had been taken out of context and contested the accuracy of the reporting.

“Mr. Immelt’s comments at a private dinner focused on the relationship between business and government in general and did not single out President Obama. Mr. Immelt also discussed the attractiveness and importance of China as a market for GE during a discussion on the complexities of doing business globally.”

"BTW, anyone notice that Obama's immigration plan is the same as Bush's and that Obama praised Bush for the plan?"
-John_Locke
July 8, 2010 at 1:40 p.m-

I certainly have. The working-classes in both countries get it on the end of the chin while racial tensions among these people rise.

As the old line from "Won't Get Fooled Again" goes: "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Also John, (or anyone else) can you elaborate on how NAFTA has impacted the farmers of Mexico? (And how just about every mainline politician in this country supported NAFTA)

By the way, since nobody will dare talk about this: As for the nasty comments Boxer's opponent made about her hair, my only comment is that the color looks terrible. Boxer looked good with her God-given dark hair, and there is nothing wrong with going gray. If she must dye her hair, it should be her natural color. (Hint ladies: dying your hair blond when you're brunette is like balding guys doing comb-overs)

I know you all feel much relieved since I mentioned that.

Tabatha: You're not nit picking, are you?

Not only did I read the article, I actually understood it and presented his remarks accurately and in context.

The focus of the private dinner "was the relationship between business and government in general!" - But It was Immelt who singled out President Obama!

Per the Financial Times, “Mr Immelt also had harsh words for Barack Obama.”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opi...

Perhaps you didn't read all of Mr. Immelt's comments on China very carefully...From the London based Financial Times July 1 2010:

"Jeffery Immelt, General Electric's chief executive, has launched a rare broadside against the Chinese government, which he accused of being increasingly hostile to foreign multinationals. He warned that the world's largest manufacturing company was exploring better prospects elsewhere in resource-rich countries, which did not want to be "colonised" by Chinese investors. "I really worry about China ," Mr. Immelt told an audiance of top Italian executives in Rome, accusing the Chinese government of becoming increasingly protectionist. " I am not sure that in the end they want any of us to win, or any of us to be successful."

This is a very different view of China than the one you are ascribing to Immelt.

Do you also want to fault me for not mentioning that Immelt praised Germany's Chancellor Merkel for standing up to Obama for his failing financial policies and defending German Industry at the recent G20 summit? Because I left that out too.

Merkel refutes Obama on G20 fiscal policy:

http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20100...

Photo caption: "hey hey...over here! I'm over here!"

Tabitha:

Re: President Bush and the ownership society -

Are you making the claim that George W is smart enough to recognize the diffence between the housing bubble and a soap bubble? Most liberals aren't generous enough to give W that much credit, but good for you, you're very brave.

Per Catherine Austin Fitts (Assistant Secretary of Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner, Bush I)

http://solari.com/blog/?p=2293

"My company served as lead financial advisor to the Federal Housing Administration between 1994 and 1997," - which the Disturber would humbly like to remind you was during the William Clinton era. But I digress...

"I watched both the Administration and the Federal Reserve aggressively implement the policies that engineered the housing bubble. These are described at my website and in my on-line book,Dillon Read & the Aristocracy of Stock Profits (http://www.dunwalke.com)."

One story, for example, is the following:
“In 1995, a senior Clinton Administration official shared with me the Administration’s targets for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage volumes in low- and moderate-income communities. We had recently reviewed the Administration’s plans to increase government mortgage guarantees — most of these mortgages would also be pooled and sold as securities to investors. Even in 1995, I could see that these plans would create unserviceable debt loads in communities struggling with the falling incomes expected from globalization..."

Let me pause there so that sinks in. By globalization she means NAFTA and GATT which were enacted under the Clinton administration.

"...Homeowners would default on mortgages while losses on mortgage-backed securities would drain retirement savings from 401(k)s and pension plans. Taxpayers would ultimately be hit with a large bill . . . but insiders would make a bundle. I looked at the official and said that the Administration was planning on issuing more mortgages than there were houses or residents. “Shut up, this is none of your business,” the official snapped back.”

Well, Tabatha, the Federal Reserve is the private banking corporation that prints all of the Federal Reserve notes; ie "dollars," that you pass around in exchange for goods and services.

So yes, you are correct when you blame the bubble on private banking interests, but you are correct for entirely the wrong reasons.

But Fitts adds more gas to the fire:

"One of the dirty little secrets behind the housing bubble is the long standing partnership of narcotics trafficking and mortgage fraud and the use of the two in combination to target and destroy minority and poor communities with highly profitable economic warfare...Of all the actions that the Federal Reserve took to engineer this housing bubble, the one that I would note is Mr. Greenspan’s efforts to pacify Congresswoman Waters regarding allegations of government sponsored narcotics trafficking at a time when open Congressional hearings would have contributed to an important discussion of the operations engaging in mortgage fraud in minority communities. See, “Financial Coup d’Etat,” Chapter 16, Dillon Read & the Aristocracy of Stock Profits which was written in 2005 and published in April 2006, drawing from an article I first published in May 1999.

“On December 18, 1997, the CIA Inspector General delivered Volume I of their report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding charges that the CIA was complicit in narcotics trafficking in South Central Los Angeles. Washington, D.C. ’s response was compatible with attracting the continued flow of an estimated $500 billion–$1 trillion a year of money laundering into the U.S. financial system. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in January 1998 visited Los Angeles with Congresswoman Maxine Waters — who had been a vocal critic of the government’s involvement in narcotics trafficking — with news reports that he had pledged billions to come to her district. In February Al Gore announced that Water’s district in Los Angeles had been awarded Empowerment Zone status by HUD (under Secretary Cuomo’s leadership) and made eligible for $300 million in federal grants and tax benefits.”

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/bus...

Tabatha:

So what if the rich are the biggest defaulters?

Let me reiterate -

Fitts is alledging Criminal fraud and conspiracy amongst the Federal Reserve, members of Congress and the Clinton administration!

"Even in 1995, I could see that these plans would create unserviceable debt loads in communities struggling with the falling incomes expected from globalization..."

"...I looked at the official and said that the Administration was planning on issuing more mortgages than there were houses or residents.“

Tabatha:

What the article in the NY Times failed to mention is how the the cheap credit pushed by the Federal Reserve and the Clinton administration pushed 15 million additional home buyers into the market, thus artificially increasing demand and "inflating" prices - thus causing a bubble.

The wealthy are walking away from overpriced homes that will never see the same prices again in our lifetime. Would you continue to pour millions into a home that has lost half of its mortagaged value?

Does it matter that they are wealthy? Isn't it enough that they are Americans?

LeBron James Heads To Miami Heat.

Tabitha, the donks were in charge since 2006.

On another note, yesterday our national debt ratcheted up over 165 billion dollars...IN A SINGLE DAY. The last budget under republican control was a year total of 127 billion dollars.

Also the donks had control of the senate from 2001-2003.

History is hard for leftists.

Evidently history remains difficult for you as well, mr. "jukin."

"Tabitha, the donks were in charge since 2006,"

The elections were in 2006; the change in control switched in 2007.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgove...

As you well know, "jukin" the Constitution (20th Amendment, Sections 1 and 2) mandates that a new Congress convene at noon on January 3.

Nice catch Chester. Your erudite comment that I should have said end of 2006 completely destroys the points that I made.

It is so easy to win an argument with a lib when they have such smashing retorts.

At the event Senator Boxer said that assuming her husband's name was a good choice given her history to take on others.

I agree. I offer the suggestion that her new nickname be: "Firecracker."

I have had enough of the rageaholic scare tactics of the sling wing of the Republican Party dominating the news. Time to send them home. (Where are the Robert Tafts, Everett Dirksens, Barry Goldwaters and Dwight Eisenhowers? Even William F. Buckley kicked out the John Birch Society. Civil conservatives.)

My choice is Senator Boxer for 6 more years.

I have read the article and comments with interest. Quite a lively debate you folks have going on here!!

But I confess, it leaves me with some problems. If I look beyond the overheated rhetoric and sarcasm, I get how some folks here don't like President Obama, or Senator Boxer, or the stimulus, or healthcare reform, or climate change, or a multitude of other things. After all, these are difficult times we live in.

In my view, we had eight or more years of leadership prior to President Obama's election, the net result of which was a disaster, to put it kindly. We are paying the price now, and probably will for some time to come. However, it doesn't necessarily follow for me that the entire conservative philosophy upon which that bad leadership was based is wrong.

So, here's my problem: I understand what the conservatives here are against, but I don't hear what they are for that is different from the previous era. Why would what sounds like the same solutions give a different result? In my work, if I take a problem to my manager, I also bring potential solutions that are different from those tried before. So, to the conservative folks here, what are you proposing that is different? Explain why conservative solutions will yield results different from before. Something more than "anyone but Boxer" or "socialism" or other retort.

Rageaholic? Forgotten the behavior of the Dems during the Bush years, have we?

Dear John,

Your response is disappointing. I was simply asking you to explain conservative positions going forward. I'm not a died-in-the-wool ideologue, and I found your reply sarcastic and meaningless. Like I said before, I understand what you don't like. You've made that clear. In the context of the Senate race, explain what you are for, how it is different from failed solutions tried in the past, and why you think your ideas are better. Be clear, concise, and pragmatic. Be a grownup here. You clearly have strong ideas. Articulate them.

GoletaEngineer, your criteria is likely too severe.

I was simply objecting to the use of the term "rageaholic" to refer to the Reps. Not long ago it was the Dems. Shows the ridiculousness of name calling and the short memories of certain bloggers.

As to positions, unlike Thomas Jefferson, who called 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' inalienable rights, I prefer the view of my namesake - 'life, liberty, and property'.

What do I want? I want people to take responsibility for themselves instead of looking to the government to solve all problems (see today's News Press for examples adnauseum of folks looking for gov handouts). I want the AFLCIO to revert to its pre-millenium view that unions have no place in government and I want unions out of government. I want a Council, Board of Supes, Legislature, and Congress filled with statesmen/women who reject polarization and understand compromise, who look out for the welfare of the country instead of themselves and their position and power.

Solutions? In California, raise taxes a very small amount on the middle class - taxing the rich is a failed strategy - and thereby fix the budget problem. And fix the system that allows nearly half to pay no tax at all. Reduce taxes on business if they use the reductions to create jobs. Change the tax law to recognize capital gains as distinct from ordinary income, as does practically every other state in the country. Allow drilling offshore with rigidly enforced standards. Eliminate the stranglehold that CEQA has on practically everything in the state. Fix Prop 13 so that people cannot pass their homes to their children at their old tax basis. Eliminate business property from the protection of Prop 13 or limit increases in business rents in the same manner as property taxes increases are limited. Eliminate collective bargaining by government employees.

There's a modest start. Your turn.

Now we're talking! Thank you JohnLocke for a civil and well-thought out answer. To me, if forms the basis for a serious discussion about how to move forward.

As to my turn, well I think we have some room for compromise here. I completely agree with your views regarding Prop. 13. It is clear that as time has gone on that it needs modification. No legislation is ever perfect. Like engineering, iteration and evolution are sometimes required. Also, regarding our current state of legislative affairs, compromise and pragmatism are critical if we are to get things done. It can't always be "my way or the highway". So we see eye-to-eye there as well. We differ somewhat regarding the tax burden, at least in our current economic circumstances. But I appreciate your open mind when it comes to what it will take to get to a balanced budget, and fixing its structural flaws. Carefully controlling costs and revenue increases are both likely required at the end of the day if we are to get our budgets on a sustainable path.

Regarding unions, historically they have done some good for this country. But they need to see the greater good, in addition to their own, and be willing to compromise when necessary. For example, we have all had to accept cuts in our health insurance. If unions can't see this, their time has past. I think when unions bring up some of the egregious examples of executive compensation that have been in the news, they have a point.

I am indeed big on personal responsibility. That said, if it were not for Pell Grants and government loans, I don't know if I could have made it through college. Interestingly, I have not needed government assistance in any form since then (good roads, police, fire, water, sanitation, etc., notwithstanding). So, from a societal burden point-of-view, I think I was a good investment. I'm not unique.

I could go on, but to bring it back home, I guess I was trying to make a couple of points; (1) disagreeing with a point-of-view does not mean disrespect is called for, and (2) when we evaluate our elected representatives, we should listen to their positions, but also look at the other qualities that you and I are showing. Respect, pragmatism, and the ability to get things done even if it means compromise or modifying a point-of-view. Does Senator Boxer have these qualities? Does Carly Fiorina? Political affiliation is a label, and has become too narrow for most of our problems today. Or so it seems to me.

Nice reponse. To me education grants are one of the few things that goverment does that can be characterized as an investment instead of an expense. Cutting education (i.e. the educating part, not the admin part) is foolish economy, I think. Having said that, I think the teachers' unions are a fundamental cause of continually declining quality in education. Just look at how the CA teachers' unions fought against being 'graded' and thereby gave up hundres of $millions in federal aid to CA schools. And did you read about the school superintent in LA that turned down a free makeover (as in the TV show) because he didn't want the world to see how bad the school in question was? Progressive, eh what!

Unions had their day. They surely corrected some truly egregious behavior in coporations in the early 20th century. But the sweetheart deals between the government employee unions and many of the elected officials in CA are bringing the state to its knees.

Fiorina got rather a bad rap at HP - it was, after all, her strategy to buy Compaq that is now being hailed as a masterful move. Needless to say, she's getting no credit. Did she export jobs? Sure. Just like CA should do in its prison system - export the care of prisoners to lower cost states where the Legislature is not owned by the Prison Guards union. Can Fiorina accomplish anything in the Senate? Can anyone? Don't know, but Boxer had 3 strikes (i.e. 18 years) and failed miserably, IMO. But she WILL be called Senator Boxer...perfect example of focussing on the wrong things.

JohnLocke,

Fiorina is a mixed bag for me. I work in Palo Alto very close to HP headquarters (and Goleta too) and how shall I say this... she is not viewed kindly in many quarters, including many on Page Mill Hill. She was eventually fired by the HP board as I'm sure you know, although I think a kinder word was used when it was announced. HP's stock price fell by half during her tenure as CEO, so HP shareholders were probably not too happy during that time. I'm not sure how she'd do in the Senate, based on her record at HP. But I do appreciate how she worked herself up the corporate ladder; not an easy thing to do! On Senator Boxer's end of the slate, I often find myself wishing she were not so combative, because I think it gets in the way of her not getting more done. On substance many of her positions are OK with me, but not on all by a long shot. Neither are quite right for me, so to some extent, I feel like I have a Hobson's choice. By the way, just as I call her Senator Boxer, if Fiorina gets elected, I'll be calling her Senator Fiorina. I believe it shows respect for the office.

Regardless, thanks for sharing your points-of-view. At least you'll be voting, I'm sure of that. The more, the better!

I was in hitech for years, worked with HP as a large consumer of their stuff and knew many people there. Your comments about Carly are charitable. Not only did she destroy half HP's market value, she's credited with pretty much destroying the HP Way as well, although I see nothing that indicates her successor has done anything to restore it. Although I'm reluctant to take the "anyone but..." stance (my usual reponse to those who do is: really? anyone? Hitler? Stalin? Michael Moore?), I'm probably more against Boxer than for Fiorina and think someone other than Boxer should take a whack at it. But I repeat myself. Nice chatting!

Oh. One more thing. In the 13 years I've lived here, California has become such a wreck both politically and financially that I'm inclined to vote against any and all incumbents, local and state.

A good boxer doesn't swing, a good boxer jabs.

Boxer is not a boxer, so your point is?

Fiorina and Whitman are ripe for public humiliation on a grand scale.

Nearly at the end of extra time period, Spain beats Netherlands 1-0 for World Cup title of football or soccer.

Boxer has done more to lower standards of living in the USA than thirty republican senators out together.

Boxer sponsors the largest tax hike in history over a proven hoax.

Anybody but boxer!!