Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calif. GOP looks to 2010 races for gov., US Senate

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calif. GOP looks to 2010 races for gov., US Senate

    Calif. GOP looks to 2010 races for gov., US Senate


    By JULIET WILLIAMS

    The Associated Press

    INDIAN WELLS

    The Republican race to challenge liberal stalwart Barbara Boxer for her U.S. Senate seat next year is shaping up as a likely contest between a socially conservative state lawmaker and a former Silicon Valley chief executive whose views are barely known to GOP voters in the state.

    Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive and John McCain confidante, is not yet an official candidate, but she has registered a campaign committee, "Carly for California," and her team had a strong presence at this weekend's statewide party convention at a desert resort near Palm Spring.

    Fiorina, who is in the final stages of treatment for breast cancer, did not attend.

    Her GOP rival, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, a military officer and businessman who has already spent months working to secure the party's base, told delegates Sunday that he is eager to have the competition, but now is not the time to go with a political neophyte.

    "We don't know where she stands on a lot of issues," said DeVore, 47. "We do know: She supported the bailout; I didn't. She supported aspects of the stimulus. I have been vociferously opposed to it."

    "Now is the time to go with principle, now is the time to go with tested," he said.

    Still, DeVore's critique was relatively gentle. He said recent polls show them virtually even in a theoretical matchup against Boxer.

    Republicans have long targeted the liberal senator and hope the seat is more vulnerable this year as they seek to capitalize on anti-tax protests and growing national conservative anger over President Barack Obama's health care proposals in 2010.

    Boxer, a Democrat who has been a leading voice on women's issues, is in her third term in the Senate and easily won re-election in 1998 and 2004, but has never faced a female opponent in the general election.

    Fiorina also brings a big bank account and wealthy Silicon Valley friends, although it is unclear how much of her own money she intends to spend.

    "There's one thing all Republicans are united behind, and that's getting rid of Barbara Boxer," said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for Fiorina. "Barbara Boxer is a menace and needs to go. She is not good for California."

    Miller said Fiorina, 54, has no timeline for an official announcement.

    Fiorina's campaign was mocked for a Web site unveiled ahead of the convention featuring the slogan, "Carlyfornia Dreamin.'" It showed images of cats and dogs, but did not include a biography of the would-be candidate. There was a link for donors to contribute.

    Miller said the site was intended as a brief introduction to Fiorina and to draw traffic to the site which it did.

    A spokeswoman for Boxer, Rose Kapolczynski, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Sunday. Boxer, 68, told Democrats at their party convention in the spring that she will be ready for what could be her toughest race yet.

    The Senate race was just one of several 2010 contests the Republicans contemplated during their three-day meeting.

    Most of the attention was on the three GOP gubernatorial candidates: former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former five-term congressman Tom Campbell.

    Whitman tried to deflect attention away from her spotty voting record, after The Sacramento Bee reported that there was no evidence she had ever registered to vote before 2002 and that she had not registered as a Republican until 2007.

    The billionaire former CEO repeatedly refused to answer questions about her voting record during a heated exchange with reporters Saturday, instead repeating a previously released apology in which she said there were no excuses for her failure to vote.

    Fiorina also has been criticized for failing to vote several times. Miller said she regrets not voting, but she has always been a registered Republican.

    Delegates also voted Sunday to oppose an open primary measure on the June 2010 ballot, in which the top two vote-getters proceed to a runoff, regardless of party affiliation. The measure is unpopular with both the leading political parties, because it is seen as potentially diminishing their influence. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to campaign on behalf of the initiative.

  • #2
    What a shallow bunch our media is.

    I have no fondness for Whitman, but the media obsession over whether or not she registered to vote is somehow more important than what she brings to the table. No doubt they will find someone who says they smoked pot with her just once thirty years ago or someone who claims they saw her having sex in a back seat of a car when she was 16 years old. Then that will be all of what media "coverage" of her will be.

    Palin has her pregnant teenage daughter standing in front of her, Bill Clinton will forever have that semen stained blue dress draped over his shoulder, and if John Kennedy was around today he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election for Dogcatcher.

    And the thing I don't understand about it all, is that in Kennedy's time, We didn't have sex as the national preoccupation either for or against. We didn't have pre teen girls dressing and acting like whores, we didn't have a fraction of the teen age pregnancy rates, and no one became a registered sex offender by peeing in the bushes.

    What the hell has happened to us?
    Last edited by ilbegone; 09-27-2009, 02:11 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it's fair to present her voting record. After all, we will be expecting her to be active in the vetos area of executive privilidge. You want someone who felt strongly about the process, right?

      Comment


      • #4
        I registered to vote when I was eighteen years old and voted on issue and candidates I had no understanding of.

        And I only voted that one time until I passed 40 years old and registered again.

        Does that negate my criticism of one track nit-pickers who distract from the issues, or make anything less of Whitman's platform?

        Has anyone delved into Schwartzenegger's voting record? I haven't seen any depiction of Schwartenegger's political activity, and the only qualifications for political office I ever saw was an Austrian immigrant who happened to not only be a professional weight lifter and musclebound movie star, but also having the Kennedy clan in the background.
        Last edited by ilbegone; 09-27-2009, 02:40 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          While some of the other issues you mentioned are a little off the path for candiates, voting records are not. I don't remember exactly, but I think it may have only come up recently that you could research a candidates votin record

          Comment


          • #6
            I think you may have to read this article which goes a bit more into details about her participation in the process



            She has shown little to no record of involvement as a citizen. Not just voting, but participation. Self government is a tedious job. It's like raising kids. Most parents who've made the investment from birth through high school tend to take umbrage when some childless executive say they know what's best for your kids, and where you went wrong. She may bring some experience to the table, but it will be in business. If we keep letting business people run our government we will be a business instead of an electorate and a community. She would be a great appointee for a governor, but not the governor. She has no experience as a peon trying to make changes in their government at the lower levels, so she won't have a clue how the rest of us feel.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AyatollahGondola
              I think you may have to read this article which goes a bit more into details about her participation in the process



              She has shown little to no record of involvement as a citizen. Not just voting, but participation. Self government is a tedious job. It's like raising kids. Most parents who've made the investment from birth through high school tend to take umbrage when some childless executive say they know what's best for your kids, and where you went wrong. She may bring some experience to the table, but it will be in business. If we keep letting business people run our government we will be a business instead of an electorate and a community. She would be a great appointee for a governor, but not the governor. She has no experience as a peon trying to make changes in their government at the lower levels, so she won't have a clue how the rest of us feel.

              http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2205364.html
              You have some valid points, and it would be great if the media would address those points.

              However, this is the way it has gone down:

              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.
              You didn't register to vote. No I didn't.

              Then there has to be a time to talk to the hand:

              You didn't register to vote. Moving on...

              You didn't register to vote.
              You didn't register to vote.
              You didn't register to vote.
              You didn't register to vote.

              Ad naseum.
              Last edited by ilbegone; 09-27-2009, 07:33 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I can sort of relate it to a discussion concerning illegal immigration where the discussion is all on your part.

                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"
                You: "We need to enforce immigration law".
                They: "Racist!"

                Or a discussion where everyone needs to play nice, but the subject is diverted from illegal migration to weapons allegedly smuggled into Mexico.

                Same thing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Politics is a different animal. You vote based not on what they say, but their past record. Her record tells me that she was too busy making money to be bothered with petty government and civic issues, and that she doesn't want to talk about why that might bother some of us voters.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What sort of political record was Schwartzenegger voted in on?

                    He was voted in precisely on the fact that he had none.

                    On the scale of least of all available evil's at election time, where does Arnold actually stand then and now?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ilbegone
                      What sort of political record was Schwartzenegger voted in on?

                      He was voted in precisely on the fact that he had none.

                      On the scale of least of all available evil's at election time, where does Arnold actually stand then and now?
                      Arnold is not running now, Thankfully. I don't know if the press went looking for Arnolds voter participation records back then, but I've never considered Arnold much of a Republican, and maybe they didn't either, so they may have given him a pass. Arnold got in because he was very well recognized, and had some powerful support. Those supporters can't use him again. They were afraid that McClintock would actually be a statesman in office, thus not giving in to their influence. Arnold had it all over the democrats running, so really he was very much an evil. He was the malleable face that was not only influenceable, but very believeable in person. Had he not run, we would have had a much closer, real horse race. however, we may have ended up with a democrat that was not pro business. where it would have placed us in comparison to now is not too hard to speculate on. the spending would have increased, and the budget meltdown would have happened sooner. That may have been for the best however

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There were a lot of years I didn't pay attention (and need to go back and learn about), but I believe this mess is directly related to (or descended from) the desire to be rid of Willie Brown's political machine in Sacramento.

                        We ran off people who could actually sit down, talk, and compromise on both sides.

                        We might as well not have a state government as it is now. It's like Alice in Wonderland now, with the Mad Hatter and all the rest of the lunatics in charge of the Sacramento parallel dimension insane asylum.

                        God, I just had a visual of clowns and a backfiring old jalopy running across the front lawn at the Capitol building.

                        If only there was a way of opening up Hunting Season in Sacramento.

                        I just now got a flashback from my childhood, perhaps the way it would turn out as everything else does in the Capitol now...

                        "Duck season!"

                        "Rabbit Season!"

                        "Duck Season!"

                        "Rabbit Season!"

                        "Rabbit Season!"

                        "Duck Season! Fire!"

                        BANG!!!

                        Then Daffy's got to turn his beak back around to the front...
                        Last edited by ilbegone; 09-27-2009, 09:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Will Calif. Vote for a Non-Voter?

                          Will Calif. Vote for a Non-Voter? Part 1


                          Sunday, September 27, 2009
                          Meg Whitman owes the voters of California more than an apology.

                          The successful former CEO of eBay is a Republican candidate for governor in 2010. She is running as someone who will bring the skills of the boardroom to the serious economic problems afflicting her adopted home state. Because of her success in the business world and the personal fortune she's prepared to invest in the race, she is one of the leading candidates to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).

                          But the formal launch of her candidacy last week was disrupted by a damaging report in the Sacramento Bee. Though Whitman seeks to lead one of the biggest and most troubled governments in the world, when it comes to politics, she has been -- to put it kindly -- an absentee citizen for much of her adult life.

                          The Bee article examined Whitman's voting record in California and in the other states where she has lived since becoming eligible to vote. The Bee said that Whitman had voted infrequently in the past half-dozen years and that it could find no evidence she was even registered to vote before 2002.

                          Whitman disputed that last finding, saying she had been registered before 2002. Rather than producing the evidence, she challenged the paper to find it. Whether county voting records dating back 10, 15 or 20 years are complete enough or accurate enough to resolve that dispute isn't clear. Nor is it really a necessary question, for there is no doubting that Whitman has a poor record as a voter.

                          In recent years, as she has made the transition from business executive to politician, Whitman has become a more consistent voter. On her campaign Web site, she declares that "we all love California too much to let it fail." But for unexplained reasons, she took a pass from participating in two of the most important elections that have shaped California's politics this decade.

                          In 2003, she skipped the recall election that ousted Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and installed Schwarzenegger. Few elections in the state's history have attracted as much attention, with about 9 million people voting. Not Whitman.

                          She also did not vote in the 2005 special election in which Schwarzenegger was badly defeated in his attempt to win approval for initiatives designed to reform the political and governing process, including one that would have given the governor more power to constrain state spending.

                          Though she did not bother to participate in that election, she has said that, if elected, she would actively use the initiative process to try to fix a state that has become almost ungovernable. What did she learn from Schwarzenegger's experience with the initiative process?

                          Whitman also pledges to cut at least $15 billion in spending, though without some of the powers Schwarzenegger was seeking. Would she seek similar powers as those the incumbent sought, and if not, how would she deal with a Democratic-controlled legislature that often has other priorities?

                          Certainly not every citizen has a perfect record of voting in national, state and local elections. Nor do some people who have sought election to office. Schwarzenegger did not vote in the 1996 and 2000 presidential primary or general elections. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a prospective Republican candidate for Senate in California next year, skipped the presidential primaries in 2000 and 2004 and the primary and general elections in 2006.

                          Failure to vote from time to time is understandable and has rarely been seen as disqualifying for those seeking public office. But Whitman's record appears to go beyond occasional absences. Setting aside the question of whether she was registered before 2002, her slender record is striking for its apparent indifference to the political process.
                          Last edited by ilbegone; 09-29-2009, 12:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Will Calif. Vote for a Non-Voter? part 2

                            Will Calif. Vote for a Non-Voter?
                            part 2



                            Given the state of the state, the California governor's race will be among the most important in the country next year. Whitman has two rivals for the GOP nomination: state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former congressman Tom Campbell. The Democratic nomination is likely to be a fight between Attorney General (or former governor) Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

                            Poizner has aggressively attacked Whitman over her voting record. His advisers, not surprisingly, have tried to stoke media interest in the story.

                            Whitman has apologized more than once. The latest came in a statement issued by her campaign on Thursday. "Voting is a precious right that all Americans should exercise," she said. "I have repeatedly said that my voting record is inexcusable. I failed to register and vote on numerous occasions throughout my life. That is simply wrong and I have taken responsibility for my mistake."

                            Those words may be heartfelt, but they also have the sound of a committee-packaged response designed to deflect, but not deal directly with her political history. Did she think she was simply too busy to vote most of the time? Did she find politics repellent? Did she truly not vote in many of the presidential elections dating back three decades? Does she believe that one vote does not make a difference?

                            She has offered regrets, but so far nothing that would provide voters with a better understanding of why she acted as she did and how she since has decided to make the transition to public service in one of the most high-profile and challenging political jobs in the country. Is politics a newfound interest or a lifelong avocation that simply did not include voting?

                            It's clear that her campaign has decided to stick to a barebones apology. When asked in a telephone interview why she had such a poor record, spokesman Tucker Bounds replied, but not on point.

                            "Meg Whitman is an outsider candidate who is not making excuses," he said. "It was a mistake that she didn't vote and she readily admits it. Our belief is that California voters will come to understand that she is uniquely equipped and qualified to answer to the taxpayers' bottom line in a way that career politicians in Sacramento have failed to do."

                            Adopting the stance of an outsider is a long-practiced strategy, particularly for those making the shift from the corporate world to politics. Attacking career politicians is also a familiar game. But the voters of California may continue to have questions about whether someone who has declined to participate in the voting process has the interest, skills and patience to navigate through the political process in Sacramento.
                            Last edited by ilbegone; 09-29-2009, 12:45 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X
                            😀
                            🥰
                            🤢
                            😎
                            😡
                            👍
                            👎