home

Fight For Barbara Boxer

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections
Posted on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:49:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

At daily kos, Barbara Boxer's campaign is passing the hat. I'll be giving to the Boxer campaign and I urge that you do too.

She fights for progressive issues. Progressives should fight for her.

Speaking for me only

< Not The Bold Leadership We've Been Waiting For | When Is The Bottom? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Fight For Barbara Boxer | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "She fights for progressive issues" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CMike on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    It's a wonder she has so much energy left after defending her close incumbent friends like Joe "take a cab" Lieberman. Go Bibi!

    BTW

    Tonight's debate between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina runs from 7 to 8 p.m. at St. Mary's College in Moraga. It will be broadcast live on KTVU (Ch. 2) and KQED-FM radio and streamed live on SFGate.com, KTVU.com and KQEDnews.org.

    Not me (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by mjames on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    As a "progressive," among other things, she backed and campaigned for Lieberman after Lamont won the primary. And badmouthed in a very nasty manner anyone who dared support the primary winner. Also, she did not fight for women's reproductive rights - at all. I no longer vote the lesser of two evils. I'll be voting for a liberal if I can find one. Otherwise, I'll be staying home. Boxer did not earn my vote. Period.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:21:42 AM EST
    That "progressive" strategy you "pragmatists" are applying is going swimmingly.

    You've done bang up jobs on the economy, health care, ending the war, restoring habeaus..........oh wait, I forgot to give you credit for moving the ball 2mm down a freakin' 100 yd playing field.

    Perhaps the pragmatists ought to give it a rest for awhile with so many accomplishments under their belt. (tongue firmly in cheek)

    Sorry Barb, I'm standing up for you like you stood up for me on health care.

    Translation: Your on your own.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    and some of us also remember what a wonderful congress and president the "idealist" strategy got us in 2000.... oh wait.  2mm down the field is better than 50 m back.  You know "destroying the economy, health care, entering a war, and destroying habeus".

    It's not like we're talking about Ben Nelson here.

    Parent

    Um, just as a reminder, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    Ben Nelson's vote wasn't needed in the end for the health insurance bill.

    But why let facts get in the way of good campaign spin, right?

    Parent

    not everyone (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    thinks hcr is the only bill to ever pass congress.

    And Ben Nelson sure helped make it worse.

    Campaign spin?  I don't think I mentioned the health insurance bill once in my post.  You just aren't willing to address what I actually wrote.

    idealism got us G.W.B.

    I'll take Boxer over that any day of the week.

    Parent

    This thread mentioned (none / 0) (#26)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    the health insurance bill, so that is why I brought it up.  And to repeat, Nelson's vote wasn't needed.  

    Idealism got us Obama too.  And look what a failure he has turned out to be.  And who's talking about idealism anyway?  I'm talking about expecting the a progressive legislator will cast votes that move us to the left, not to the right.

    Parent

    i responded (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    to a specific comment decrying pragmatism.

    You responded with a general rant against hcr that had not a lot to do with my comment.

    My mention of Ben Nelson had little to do with that.

    If it was idealism that got us Obama - where have the pragmatists failed again???

    I was talking about Idealism as the opposite (maybe?) to pragmatism which the previous commenter was complaining about.

    Good luck getting anyone in office who will cast more votes that move us to the left than boxer.  Really, good luck.  It would be great.  I don't see it.  Certainly not in this race.

    Parent

    Well, I see that (none / 0) (#28)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    Boxer cast votes that moved us to the right this session (see health insurance reform).  That was the point of the initial comment in the thread.  Sorry the thread didn't go the way you wanted it to.

    Again, the point of the entire post was to make a claim that Boxer is fighting for progressive values.  Votes that move the country to the right don't, IMO at least, have that impact.  Vote for Boxer, don't vote for Boxer.  I don't think in terms of policy it will make much difference.  I'd love for a liberal in there who will do more than talk the talk, but I agree it's not going to happen in this cycle.

    But the real issue is to see who benefits.  So far it has been the corporate bosses of both parties.  I know that both parties work hard at election season to cover that up, but it is what it is.

    Parent

    Idealism? (none / 0) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:57:24 PM EST
    I sure hope you're joking or the progressives are doomed.

    In the primary, your "ideal candidate" was against universal health care. In the primary, your "ideal candidate" said Reagan was transformational and surrounded himself with free market folks like Goolsbee. He touted the idea of sending everyone a check and derided the individual who wanted to spend money on infrastructure. Your "ideal candidate" voted present for political cover on choice. He stood on the stage with someone calling gay a disease.

    His redeeming quality was that Republicans wouldn't hate him as much as they hate Clinton. That ain't idealism by any stretch. That's pragmatism, my friend.

    Parent

    No no, (none / 0) (#37)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    what I meant was that many of Obamas biggest fans (not the corporations who were his biggest supporters and knew what he was really about, but the fans) were idealists.  They convinced themselves (and/or let Obama and the MSM convince them) that Obama was The One.  

    Parent
    Idealism got us Barack Obama? (none / 0) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    Since when is he'll be easier to get elected an idealistic argument?

    Nope, pragmatism got us Barack Obama. That and the idea that it just wouldn't be a good idea to force two candidates to fight it out on the floor because it would give Speaker Pelosi the vapors.

    Is it any wonder that the people who you all put your faith in don't know how to fight? Heck, they've been telling you from the get go that they don't have it in em'.

    Parent

    You could just as easily say... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    Al Gore & Liberman gave us G-Dub by campaigning as G-Dub lite...they really gave the "idealists""liberals""progressives""people of conscience""whatever you wanna call 'em" no choice but to turn to Nader.

    I can't get down with blaming the people who voted for the candidate most closely aligned with their views...I, for one, won't stop voting for the best candidate just to try and avoid the worst candidate...cuz when you do that, the best you can hope for is slightly less sh*tty...aka the modern Democratic party.  When the last 2 years is the best we can hope for by doing the lesser of two evils dance...well, it doesn't say much for the lesser of two evils theory.

    I even have half a mind to say let the Repubs win every race...at least we'll hit rock bottom faster and get the rehab we desperately need.  Dem leadership is like purgatory.

    Parent

    Remind me again? (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    Which party is Ben Nelson part of? Oh that's right the DEMOCRATIC party I must vote for or the fabric of the country unravels. LOL

    Oh and 2mm doesn't do bumpkiss if you can't get the friggin' ball to the end zone before you hit 4th down. Will that be happening? Heh. I think not.

    If Barb wanted my time or money she might have fought harder for values like choice, privacy, freedom. I don't have time for people who can't effectively utilize their majority status to move the ball down the court effectively. Being a Democrat is no longer enough. If the country is going to go to pot then it might as well be the Republicans who get the credit for it.

    Parent

    Remind me again Part 2 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    which country is Nebraska part of? To insure against the effects of Ben Nelson, the logical thing to do is elect more Martha Coakleys and Barbara Boxers, not Scott Browns and Carly Fiorinas.
    It is possible that you understand all that but are completely cynical. You may be hoping for the country to completely unravel so that conditions get ripe for your "revolution". Even if the country completely unravels, your revolution may never materialize; this is my view. When economic situations unravel in nations, fascism usually raise its ugly head before anything else does. Populist backlashes initiated by the ideological right normally emerge against public sector unions, immigrants, the old, sick and unskilled (who are all labelled "lazy and unproductive" with a sweeping brush). Republicans have won many elections in the past by convincing the beleagured unemployed and middle class workers employed in the private sector that public sector unions and immigrants are the cause of all their problems, that taxes raised to provide job security to public sector union employees and services to immigrants is casting a pall over the economy. Many in the middle class have internalized this argument. This is not going to change irrespective of how bad things get, it is likely more scapegoating will occur.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 03:32:55 PM EST
    It is extraordinary how so many conservative Democrats and Independents who were campaigning here at TL, have become Radicals, Socialists, Anarchists, Marxists, ever since Hillary lost...

    Mind boggling...

    Parent

    In some cases becoming (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    Marxists and socialists, while paradoxically, becoming staunch defenders of Sarah Palin's honor and good name..

    Parent
    Mind boggling, indeed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    Like watching a kindergartner in a word association exercise.

    Cold > "Ice Cream!"

    Food > "Ice Cream!"

    Animals > "Ice Cream!"

    Only, in your case ...

    ... the answer is always "Hillary!"

    Parent

    Yep, and other stuff too. I can't stand her. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 03:57:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, she is too liberal for you (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 06:49:12 PM EST
    For those progressives who say Boxer is not progressive enough: Boxer is as good as it gets, and if you can't vote for her, politics may not be the place for you.....

    Parent
    Good thing I'm not a progressive (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    I'm a card carrying liberal. My motto is not "don't let the perfect be the enemy of this is the best we can do or the Republicans will call us horrible and mean names."

    Parent
    once more with feeling (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:04:16 PM EST
    Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
        John Kenneth Galbraith


    Parent
    Heh, Carly fits both ;) (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:05:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    it's not like this is a race between CF and say Sen Blanche Lincoln . . . or Ben Nelson.

    Parent
    Boxer is outstanding on the issues (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 06:52:26 PM EST
    To take one or two things out of proportion to decades of work for the environment, unions, working families and, yes, women, and then withdraw support is just plain crazy imo.....Conservatives will be laughing.

    And lesser of two evils, and Boxer is clearly better than that, does mean something when you consider the alternative....

    Parent

    Maybe (3.50 / 2) (#15)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 09:44:26 PM EST
    the one you address actually has no interest in Democrats. Period. Either that, or he/she is fantasizing. As in, if I just stay home (or hide under the bed) they will all come to see how wrong they were after hurting so much etc. etc.  

    Parent
    Perhaps you are right (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Rojas on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:12:46 AM EST
    Like so many of those "liberal Democrats" from the Clinton era. Boxer has historically supported every draconian federal crime bill including the Patriot Act. And, if you were not hiding under the bed the last couple of decades, you would know her as an integral member of those core Democrats who had a particular talent of out flanking the right wing on the right. Democratic interest indeed....
    But hey, when you look around and try to figure out how we got here just keep telling yourself it was Bush and all those mean nasty Republicans. By all means keep sending Boxer cash and expect a different result.


    Parent
    Then, the obvious question (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    really does become: Who would you send to the Senate in her place? And, the second question: Will you as a responsible progressive take responsibility for the acts of her successor (in the name of integrity, of course?)

    Also: While I do understand what you are saying because I am living it too, and not hiding under the bed or anywhere else, squaring ourselves with the give & take of life & politics, I am always curious to see what the better US Senators look like, in your estimation or in the view of those who find this Senator does not meet expectations. Please name them. (BTW: I must confess to one area of bias in this regard. That is, since so much always depends on Supreme Court interpretation and that its members often sit for well over a generation, I look strongly at a Senator's record in that regard. One who many consider a forthright liberal, Russ Feingold, has been disappointing in the past with his stated acquiescence approach during AG confirmation hearings--see Ashcroft, e.g.--and, during Bush' earlier SCt nominee hearings)  Continuring in that vein: What are your views about which Democrats in the House deserve re-election? As to the House, I'd be particularly interested in how you measure your support for those in swing districts (the 49-5l % range)?

    Parent

    Ah, here we go, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    changing the subject again.  The point of the post is to talk about who is actually fighting for progressive values.  I know that issues aren't important to you in election season (you mentioned that the other day), but just because others disagree doesn't mean they lack integrity.  

    Also, just wanted to point out that if you, indeed, are only focussed on electing candidates, and not the issues, perhaps you might want to think about the fact that insulting and questioning the integrity of people is not the best way to persuade people to vote for the candidates you want to win.  Just a thought.

    Parent

    The "who" doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    The "what" does matter, as in what basic principles will the "who" unbendingly support. Pols will be pols.. . and they get worse when they are not held accountable.
      There are pols, and then there are POLS is also true. Boxer has bent, not on "just some" small matter, but on basic principle.That now moves into the POLS category.
       And your "responsibility" concept is a false choice dichotomy. In spite of Obama's "bipartisan offensive", I'm not responsible for what republicans do. I am responsible for holding Dems accountable. If I don't, democratic politicians never will stand on principle, and will continue there rightward drift. But you confuse the rightward drift with moving left. . .

    Parent
    Ah guys, but the "who" does matter (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    And, you know and understand that full well.

    A simple little thing that life teaches a lot of us: When you complain, have an alternative. When you don't like the way one person handles something, propose an alternative individual. Elsewise, it is considered whining. (Not changing the subject.)

    Parent

    The thing is, you're (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by dk on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    not offering an alternative either.  Both parties are owned by the same corporations.  The proof is in the rightward shift of the Democratic party and the laws that are being passed by congress and signed by this president.

    Again, we all are living lives, and those lives are teaching all of us things.  I know it may be difficult for you to believe, that you don't have a lock on life lessons.

    Parent

    You are funny (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    It is quite a knack...to have to jab and then contend someone else is insulting you, hmmm.... But, on the subject: Of course, I'm not offering an alternative because I either agree with or accept individuals such as Sen. Boxer. It was you that took her to task, but suggested nothing (no person) that would be better. What is the phrase? The artful dodger? A name, please....

    Parent
    The principle matters (none / 0) (#32)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:59:04 PM EST
    much more than any politician. The alternative is fight for the principle, and support those who stand  with it. What life teaches is where we are. How are we more liberal than 30 years ago? Drifting, drifting, ever rightward. That's all you got. Pfft to that.

    Parent
    Principles do matter (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:07:14 PM EST
    And, in this system we elect people. It is not a parliamentary system. We elect/select the person and not the party. (I guess, by this point, we both are taking our pot-shots. Too bad. I don't like games either.)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    I have my alternative.

    My resources will not be spent on a single person that has brought us to where we are today.

    That includes Barbara.

    If she wanted me to fight for her; she should have fought harder for me.

    You, of course, are welcome to throw your time and resources into a party, and the pols who represent it, that have proven to be ineffective even while in majority status on everything from war to health reform.

    Parent

    Your direct honesty is appreciated cawaltz (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:08:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Another one of life's lessons (none / 0) (#42)
    by Rojas on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    Rational people do not do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
    Simply offering up an alternate definition, Boxer is a Dem ergo she is a progressive despite her clear record to the contrary on civil rights issues, wont move the party or the nation back on a rational course.

    Parent
    I think the obvious question is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Rojas on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 07:21:10 AM EST
    do words mean things? When it comes to governance are there any objective standards at all?
    If being a major player in one of the most regressive periods in our nations history is worthy of progressive's cash then the movement, if there is one, is doomed.

    Parent
    done (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    and done

    I can't believe (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    they are neck and neck in the polls. I'll be out there fighting for her . . .

    me not so much (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    she is a better opponent that she has had to face in the past.

    she has run a pretty smart campaign.  unlike some of Barbaras other rivals.


    Parent

    I haven't seen anything from CF (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    in my neck of the woods. Overloaded on Whitman though. She even has a steady booth at my farmer's market {sigh}

    Parent
    definitely the best campaign (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    money can buy.  those two races will be a pretty good national bellwether.
    if CA elects a republican to either of those jobs its going to be bad.


    Parent
    I have campaigned for Boxer several times (none / 0) (#16)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:00:44 AM EST
    There seems to be a vague response of "I don't like her, I don't know why I just don't" toward Barbara.  She hasn't done anything terrible, just the fact that she is outspoken and votes to the left.  I don't know why Barbara and Hillary get that kind of response.  It may have something to do with the fact that they are both intelligent, and capable.  They aren't the conservatives idea of a good political woman.
    "

    Fight For Barbara Boxer | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment