Barbara Boxer

[2952-0-0]

She said in January that since 48% of Americans voted for Kerry they deserve a say in politics even though they are far left. Is it possible she could run? She would be a bit more serious than, say, Kucinich, but could she run?

[dazzleman]

I wish the Democrats would nominate her, but I don't think she will.  She's the absolute caricature of the ultra-liberal New York-born hag, and she'd lose in a landslide.

Plus, it's not accurate to say that all 48% of the Kerry voters were ultra-liberal the way Boxer is.  Many are not that liberal, but just had certain reasons for not liking Bush.  Neither are all the Bush voters ultra-conservative.

[opebo]

...even though they are far left.

Plus, it's not accurate to say that all 48% of the Kerry voters were ultra-liberal the way Boxer is.  Many are not that liberal, but just had certain reasons for not liking Bush.  Neither are all the Bush voters ultra-conservative.

dazzleman is right about Democrat voters - very few are 'far left'.  Certainly the party itself is a Center-Right party.  As for Bush voters, while not all are ultra-conservative, I think a far larger proportion are 'extremists' than Kerry voters.

Kerry was an extremely moderate candidate.

[Notre Dame rules!]

...even though they are far left.

Plus, it's not accurate to say that all 48% of the Kerry voters were ultra-liberal the way Boxer is.  Many are not that liberal, but just had certain reasons for not liking Bush.  Neither are all the Bush voters ultra-conservative.

dazzleman is right about Democrat voters - very few are 'far left'. Certainly the party itself is a Center-Right party. As for Bush voters, while not all are ultra-conservative, I think a far larger proportion are 'extremists' than Kerry voters.

Kerry was an extremely moderate candidate.

Hmmm...that's ridiculous!

[TheresNoMoney]

I think she'll continue to do her job in the Senate and won't run for president.

[Moooooo]

I like Boxer. She has more balls than 95% of the male Democrats, but she is NOT presidential material.

[Joe Republic]

I like Boxer. She has more balls than 95% of the male Democrats, but she is NOT presidential material.

And she knows it.  I highly doubt she'd even try for the nomination, because she probably knows she could never win.  She may be lots of things, but stupid she ain't.

[MODU]

She said in January that since 48% of Americans voted for Kerry they deserve a say in politics even though they are far left.

Uh . . . they did have a say in politics.  They voted for Kerry.  Unfortunately for them, he lost.  However, how did the other candidates they voted for (House, Senate, state level, etc) fair? 

I think she needs to go back and review how elections work.

[TheresNoMoney]

Uh . . . they did have a say in politics.  They voted for Kerry. 

That doesn't mean that Senate Democrats should roll over and play dead.

[MODU]

Uh . . . they did have a say in politics.  They voted for Kerry. 

That doesn't mean that Senate Democrats should roll over and play dead.

No, it shouldn't.  However, sitting back and refusing to comprimise (this goes for both Democrats and Republican's alike) isn't a option either.  The role of the House and the Senate is to work for the betterment of the nation, not the betterment of themselves or their parties.  This is why nothing gets done while our debt rises and Social Security goes bankrupt.

[TheresNoMoney]

[This is why nothing gets done while our debt rises and Social Security goes bankrupt.

Republicans control the House and the Senate and thus, get to control the agenda. Democrats don't even get to have their legislation be debated on the Senate floor. Senators like Boxer opposing the truly bad legislation and nominees is a good thing.

If stuff isn't getting done, it's the Republicans fault. Their social security privatization plan does nothing to fix the problem. Why should Democrats support it? The American public hates it and it's a bad idea.

As for the national debt, huge tax cuts and increased spending is agian the fault of Republicans.

[MODU]

[This is why nothing gets done while our debt rises and Social Security goes bankrupt.

Republicans control the House and the Senate and thus, get to control the agenda. Democrats don't even get to have their legislation be debated on the Senate floor. Senators like Boxer opposing the truly bad legislation and nominees is a good thing.

If stuff isn't getting done, it's the Republicans fault. Their social security privatization plan does nothing to fix the problem. Why should Democrats support it? The American public hates it and it's a bad idea.

As for the national debt, huge tax cuts and increased spending is agian the fault of Republicans.

That's the downfall of a two-party dominated system.  Unless there is a supermajority, things get stalled in Congress.  This goes back to my basis that Congress fails the nation since they put themselves and their party first rather than the public whom they are elected to represent. 

No one is saying they have to support privatization of Social security.  However, they have not offered up any other ideas to save it.  And why should they?  They are not effected by SS if it fails, since they have their own plan.  Outside of raising taxes or the eligibility age, or decreasing benefit dollars, no other real plan has surfaced other than privatization.  They've had 20 years to figure this out and have done nothing. 

Of course, the old saying holds true:  If pro = good, and con = bad. then what is the opposite of Progress?  Congress.    *grumbles*

[The Vorlon]

Boxer has the IQ of a grapefruit.

My cat has a deeper understanding of economics than she does.

While being braindead is, unfortunately, not an automatic disqualification from the Presidency, - it should be.

Sorry, but Boxer is just not of the right stuff.

Her senate partner, Diane Feinstein, at least is quite smart and while just as liberal,at least discards as utter non-sense the really whacky far left soundbite stuff Boxer has memorized as a replacement for actual thought and understanding about the issues.

[Keystone Phil]

If there is a situation where Bayh, Warner and Richardson are running and no one else is a candidate, I could see her giving it serious consideration. Neither of those three would carry the liberal cause and I'm sure that would irritate her. But if she wants to run anyway, that's fine by me! 

[dazzleman]

...even though they are far left.

Plus, it's not accurate to say that all 48% of the Kerry voters were ultra-liberal the way Boxer is.  Many are not that liberal, but just had certain reasons for not liking Bush.  Neither are all the Bush voters ultra-conservative.

dazzleman is right about Democrat voters - very few are 'far left'.  Certainly the party itself is a Center-Right party.  As for Bush voters, while not all are ultra-conservative, I think a far larger proportion are 'extremists' than Kerry voters.

Kerry was an extremely moderate candidate.

I didn't say "very few" Democratic voters are far left.  I said "not all" are far left.  I think the Democratic base is far left.

I think Kerry was a liberal candidate who unsuccessfully masqueraded as a moderate.  I'm not sure moderate is a compliment for him coming from you, considering your views on some other issues.  If you considered him far right, then maybe he'd be a moderate.  But if you call him a moderate, it's a pretty safe bet that he's far left.

[dazzleman]

Boxer has the IQ of a grapefruit.

^^^^

[A18]

No, Kerry was extremely successful in casting himself as a moderate. That's how the biggest liberal in the Senate got 48% of the vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, Kerry was extremely successful in casting himself as a moderate. That's how the biggest liberal in the Senate got 48% of the vote.

Are you trying to tell me that Boxer and Feingold are both more conservative than Kerry?

[A18]

On foreign policy and taxes, yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On foreign policy and taxes, yes.

So that's why they strongly opposed the war (along with 20 or so other Senators) that Bush voted for?

As for taxes, how are their voting records differently? Boxer, Feingold, along with Kerry and probably 40 other Senators voted against every Bush tax cut.

[A18]

I'm pretty sure Bush was not a senator. Could be wrong.

Kerry voted for it, but then he turned around and starting bashing it. Plus, he opposed Gulf War I. I question his sanity over that vote.

Boxer is nutty, but her ideology isn't any farther left than Kerry.

John Kerry supports giving violent felons the right to vote in federal elections, and I believe is cosponsoring a bill for de facto DC statehood.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm pretty sure Bush was not a senator. Could be wrong.

Kerry voted for it, but then he turned around and starting bashing it. Plus, he opposed Gulf War I. I question his sanity over that vote.

Boxer is nutty, but her ideology isn't any farther left than Kerry.

John Kerry supports giving violent felons the right to vote in federal elections, and I believe is cosponsoring a bill for de facto DC statehood.

I meant Kerry not Bush. Boxer was the only one to contest the election. Feingold was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act.

[A18]

I totally agree that Boxer is more nutty, but not more liberal.

I don't consider voting against the Patriot Act liberal. Just a little paranoid.

[dazzleman]

No, Kerry was extremely successful in casting himself as a moderate. That's how the biggest liberal in the Senate got 48% of the vote.

He had some degree of success, but not enough to win, and that's what counts.  So he was unsuccessful.

[opebo]

I'm not sure moderate is a compliment for him coming from you, considering your views on some other issues.  If you considered him far right, then maybe he'd be a moderate.  But if you call him a moderate, it's a pretty safe bet that he's far left.

Mainstream establishment liberalism is the moderate political position.