Our "Senator" Boxer

[RanchHQ]

I wonder how often this stuff happens:



Video - Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district

YouTube - Rep. Massa Addresses Netroots: I will vote against the interests of my district

YouTube - Rep. Massa Addresses Netroots: I will vote against the interests of my district

Representative Eric Massa (D- NY) addressed an intimate group of Netroots activists during their annual Netroots Nation gathering in Pittsburgh this weekend. Mr. Massa reiterated his support for a single payer health care bill. He discussed the risks he takes for wanting to support such a measure in his "right wing Republican district."
According to Swing State Project, Mr. Massa won his 2008 race by two percentage points. The district's voting pattern index (PVI) is a Republican +5 seat. The National Republican Congressional Committee has the upstate New York congressman in their sights for 2010 along with 69 other House Democrats as reported by Politico. The transcript is below, and check out the corresponding video above.

MASSA: I’m not going to vote for 3200 as it’s currently written. Step one, I will vote for a single payer option or a bill that does have a medicare coupled public option, which we don’t have right now. If my town hall meetings turn into the same media frenzies and ridiculousness, because every time that happens we lose. We lose another three million people in America. They see that happening and negate us.
PARTICIPANT: It changes America.
MASSA: Every time that occurs. So what happens in my town hall meetings frankly is important, because I am in one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country, and I’m not asking you guys to go back to wherever and send people to me. This is a generic statement of what can I do? Well that’s one thing we can do.
PARTICIPANT: So if we got your meetings to sixty forty, you’d vote…and there was single payer in a bill you would vote for it?
MASSA: Oh absolutely I would vote for single payer.
PARTICIPANT: If there was sixty forty sentiment in the room?
MASSA: Listen, I tell every audience I’m in favor of single payer.
PARTICIPANT: If there was eighty twenty in the room?
MASSA: If there was a single payer bill?
PARTICIPANT: And there was a single payer….
MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.
PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
(inaudible participants' comments regarding the "interests" of the district statement from Mr. Massa)
Massa: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.

LINK: Video - Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district - Water Cooler - Washington Times

[RanchHQ]

Boxer could face re-election fight of her career against Fiorina

By Mike Zapler

mzapler@mercurynews.com

Posted: 08/17/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT
Updated: 08/17/2009 01:48:07 PM PDT

Democrat Barbara Boxer's quest for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate may give Californians a chance to pass judgment on Washington in the Obama era: Do voters approve of the early performance of the Democratic president and Congress? Or is it time to restore more power to Republicans, in this case to a controversial former Silicon Valley CEO making her first run for elective office?

What looks increasingly likely is that Boxer will be in for the re-election fight of her career. While she has yet to announce her candidacy, all signs point to a run by Republican Carly Fiorina, the charismatic ex-chief of Hewlett-Packard who was ousted from her job in 2005 and last year served as a top surrogate for John McCain's presidential campaign.

Fiorina would bring a combination of traits to the race never faced before by Boxer: She is a woman with the wherewithal to pump millions of her own dollars into her candidacy and probably raise millions more from others. And historically, the election after a president first takes office has not been kind to the party in charge at the White House. Exhibit A is 1994, when Democrats lost control of Congress halfway into President Bill Clinton's first term.

In this case, analysts say, the 2010 California Senate election is expected to be at least partly a referendum on the policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress — from health care to immigration to climate change. And as chairman of the Senate committee shaping global warming legislation in the coming months, Boxer will have little distance from the president — for better or worse.


As Obama's fortunes go over the next 14 months, in other words, so might Boxer's.

"Like almost any Democrat, she carries the burden of the party that controls the White House and Congress and the voters' pleasure, or lack thereof, in what the Democratic majority produces," said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "And as the Senate takes up climate change, Boxer is in something of a hot seat as chairman of the committee. That could be a blessing and a curse."

Those uncertainties notwithstanding, Boxer enters the race a solid favorite, Duffy and others say. With three terms under her belt in the Senate — going on 18 years — Boxer, 68, is both a known quantity and a staunch Democrat in a state with a growing Democratic voter edge.
She is also known as an aggressive fundraiser and campaigner and will no doubt take the fight to Fiorina, 54, whose business career and personal background have never been subjected to the scrutiny of a statewide political campaign.

During last year's presidential race, Fiorina remarked that she is personally anti-abortion and defended companies, including H-P, that sent jobs overseas to take advantage of lower taxes. She was also forced to answer questions about the severance package she received — worth tens of millions of dollars — when she was ousted at H-P in 2005 after a stormy six-year run at the iconic Silicon Valley company.

Fiorina can expect questions about those issues, and many others, to rise to a crescendo if she jumps in the race. Boxer's camp already is characterizing Fiorina's views as "right wing."

"I've heard Carly Fiorina described as a moderate, but on a woman's right to choose, (she) is out of step with most California voters," said Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer's campaign consultant.

An aide to Fiorina declined to comment on anything related to a possible campaign other than to say that the former HP chief is seriously considering running, as she has been for months. Fiorina has put off a decision as she receives treatment for breast cancer, with which she was diagnosed earlier this year. She is reportedly recovering well.

Boxer is not without her own question marks. A staunch liberal, she appeals mainly to the Democratic base — rarely have her approval ratings topped 50 percent since she was first elected senator in 1993, according to the California Field Poll.

Other factors do not bode well for Boxer. A fierce critic of George W. Bush, she won't have the former president to kick around anymore. On the flip side, Obama will not be atop the ticket to boost Democratic turnout. And the type of bare-knuckle campaigning Boxer has embraced in the past against male opponents may be trickier to pull off against Fiorina.

(Republican state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has already entered the Senate race but likely would be overwhelmed by Fiorina's fundraising advantage.)

At a more fundamental level, political analysts say Fiorina almost certainly would be a more formidable challenger than Boxer has faced before.

The senator "has been somewhat fortunate in the past in drawing candidates who are ... often too conservative" for California's left-of-center electorate, said Bruce Cain, director of the UC Washington Center. "That has allowed her to win her races without a great deal of trouble."

[RanchHQ]

Senator Barbara Boxer(D-CA) held a Committee Hearing today on The Boxer-Kerry(D-MA) Climate Change Bill:

YouTube - Alone

YouTube - Alone

[RanchHQ]

FROM: Why is Barbara Boxer Screwing California? - BrianFaughnan’s blog - RedState

Why is Barbara Boxer Screwing California?


Has She Forgotten She's Supposed to Represent Her State's Interests?

By now everyone is well aware of the sweetheart deal that Ben Nelson extracted from Harry Reid for the taxpayers of Nebraska. In exchange for his vote in favor of Obamacare, Nelson made sure that all of America’s taxpayers pick up the cost of the mandatory Medicaid expansion in the bill - and not those of Nebraska. Nelson’s deal is unethical, unfair, and some argue that it’s unconstitutional. But at least it’s understandable. Nelson opposes the Medicaid mandate, and recognizes that it will force the state to raise taxes in tough economic times. It’s not hard to understand why he fought to spread the pain among all American taxpayers, rather than those of Nebraska, only.

What is harder to understand is the motivation of other Democrat Senators - particularly those who support the Medicaid mandate, support the health care overhaul, and did not care about the damage it would do to struggling state budgets. I’m looking at you, Barbara Boxer.

Just this week, California’s liberal Governor took aim at the Reid-Pelosi health care overhaul. His strong language must have stung the Californians who played such a large part in crafting the bill: Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and others. Even Governor Schwarzenegger had the good sense to leave his ideology at the door when he realized the bill would bankrupt the state; not so with Boxer. Even when her antidiluvian liberalism obviously conflicts with the state’s interests, she’d rather tell the voters of her state to pound sand than give up on a government takeover of health care.

If you’re wondering why Barbara Boxer cannot break 50% in polls of her Senate race, it’s likely because even the voters of deep-blue California recognize that Boxer is too extreme.

California is currently facing an extraordinarily awful budget crisis, brought on by out-of-control spending by virtue of things like the 2005-06 budget, which raised general fund expenditures by 10% in just one budget cycle. Not only is Boxer unconcerned about the damage Obamacare will do to health care quality and reliability, she’s also unconcerned about the impact on California’s budget. Boxer’s opponents by contrast, recognize the problems (for example, here).

Beyond her slavish devotion to statism, Boxer is ineffective as a legislator. In three terms in the Senate, she’s gotten 3 bills enacted into law. Is this more due to her own laziness, or her colleagues’ recognition that she’s extreme? You be the judge of that one.

And instead of actually educating herself on issues of importance to her constituents and her state, Boxer prefers to substitute ideology for facts. Despite the central role that the Medicaid expansion occupies in the health care debate, and its impact on the finances of the state she represents, Boxer has been forced to resort to faking her way through discussions about the proposal - as she recently did on the Ed Schultz show:

YouTube- ... Medicaid Expansion

YouTube- ... Medicaid Expansion

It’s sort of old hat to observe that Boxer is ineffective and lazy, and far more concerned with the endless expansion of the federal government than with tending to the needs of her state. But it is true. And it’s reason enough for the voters of California to boot her from the Senate this year. And if she continues so obviously to ignore the concerns of those voters, they might even do it.

[RanchHQ]

$100,000 per hour cost

FROM: Obama Raises Money For Boxer - Again - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

May 25, 2010 6:46 PM
Obama Raises Money For Boxer - Again

Posted by Mark Knoller

Even for a political pro like President Obama, doing three fundraisers in one evening is demanding duty.


President Barack Obama hugs Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., at a
fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee and Sen. Barbara Boxer,
D-Calif., at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, Monday, April 19, 2010.


In San Francisco tonight, the three events will raise $600,000 for the re-election campaign of Sen. Barbara Boxer, this year facing the toughest challenge of her political career. The events will also add $1.1 million to the war chest of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which funds the campaigns of other Senate Democrats.


Three in one night is unusual, but not unprecedented for Mr. Obama. In fact, he did three for Sen. Boxer just last month on April 19th in Los Angeles. That night's political trilogy raised an estimated $3.5-million for the Boxer campaign and the Democratic National Committee.


At this level of political fund-raising, the candidate has her hand out to several levels of contributors. The first event goes for $250 a ticket, the second event for $2,000 per and a private dinner event will cost a donor $17,600.


Tonight's three events bring Mr. Obama's fund-raising total for the year to 19. His count since taking office will hit 47. His fund-raising total since day one now amounts to $46.5 million.


At the same point in his presidency, George W. Bush had done fewer fundraisers, 32 - but had raised more money, over $110 million. The reason? New limits on so-called "soft money" contributions had not yet kicked it.


Under FEC regulations, the Boxer campaign and the DSCC will have to share some of the costs of flying Mr. Obama from Washington to San Francisco for tonight's political events. But as a share of the actual $100,000 per hour cost of flying Air Force One, the amount the campaign committees must reimburse the government amounts to only a small fraction. It's a tremendous political advantage enjoyed by presidents of both parties.


But the expense to Boxer and the DSCC is further amortized by the fact that the president will be doing a policy event tomorrow morning on solar energy, which means taxpayers will bear most of the cost of flying him home to Washington.


That's why if you examine the political fund-raising schedules of Mr. Obama and all his predecessors, you'll find they almost always coordinate official events as part of the same trip with fundraisers. It means taxpayers pick up a larger share of the cost of what is principally political travel.

[Maximus]

Barbara Boxer represents everything bad that is happening in our country. She has done little for Californians, and has historically had little clout in Washington DC. She is seen as a fringe Senator, even left of Dianne Feinstein, and she NEEDS TO GO NOW.

[Martha]

I left that bubble blank.

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Martha

I left that bubble blank.

Yeah Martha, that about says it all: Boxer is a blank bubble.

[Maximus]

Can anybody name a Barbara Boxer legislative accomplishment? (Sounds like the discussion we had about Obama's lack of leadership experience, which is now sorely evident.)

From American Spectator:

"Her honest job description might be, "To pass the most annoying, burdensome legislation possible." … However, it's hard to argue with the lady's results. Her resolute leadership has torpedoed two major climate bills -- so far. While we continue to disagree with Boxer vehemently, her record of unmitigated failure is a "platform" around which we can rally."


http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/08/our-hero-barbara-boxer

[RanchHQ]

$186,000.00/Job.

I am sure somewhere, someone is thanking Senator Boxer(D-SF).

Boxer grabs the Plouffe playbook, runs on the stimulus
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
06/09/10 4:50 PM EDT

With the California primary out of the way, it’s time for Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to begin her campaign in earnest against Republican challenger Carly Fiorina. With stagnant general election numbers in the mid-40s, and facing a well-funded opponent, Boxer is now operating out of the David Plouffe playbook, running on the stimulus package.

This is from the email she sent earlier today:

I am proud of my record of fighting to create jobs for California. I have met construction workers, law enforcement officers, teachers, scientists, and many other hard-working Californians who are working because of the Recovery Act — a bill that has saved or created 150,000 California jobs. Yet Carly Fiorina…opposed that critical bill…

According to Recovery.gov, the stimulus has already sent $27.7 billion to California. So if you take Boxer’s number at face value, that translates to $186,000 per job. That’s more than Boxer makes annually as a senator. In fact, $27.7 billion would have been enough to hire 750,000 new staff assistants for her office. (Just imagine the constituent service you’d get!)


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Boxer grabs the Plouffe playbook, runs on the stimulus | Washington Examiner