Thread: Mickey Kaus Is Voting For Barbara Boxer

For those of you who don't know, Kaus is an indefatigable campaigner for immigration control and enforcement, and the application of a much more rational, sane immigration policy on a national basis. He ran against Senator Barbara Boxer in the Democratic primary, but because of his responsible views he was met with indifference by the open borders caucus that constitutes the California Dem. Party.

I just learned, via Twitter, that he intends to vote for his former opponent. He doesn't trust Fiorina on immigration. Neither do I, but I do think she's a lot better than Boxer-compare her support for SB 1070 with Boxer's unstinting support for amnesty.

What do you all think about this surprising revelation?

I think my home state of CA is screwed no matter who wins! But I would vote for the town drunk if he/she were running against Boxer, as this queen has been in power for almost 30 years! I ask you, has illegal immigration in CA gotten better or worse over Boxer’s 30 year reign? A career politician who is the epitome of everything that's wrong in Washington and California!

It's past time to take out the trash in CA this election!

I think that it is horrible that Boxer and Fiorina combined are depriving the population of our largest state of a choice on the matter since both support Amnesty for illegals.

W

Go for the better of the two. At least you have a chance then.
And Cali has gotten worse over the years and even after the citizens have stood up to pass legislation to stop or curtail the invasion of illegals. But only to have courts rule it unconstitutional. That just blows my mind coming up with decisions like that.

So it is OK to BREAK OUR LAWS!

I have to wonder why Sarah Palin came to my state of California and campaigned AGAINST the conseratives and Chuck DeVore, in favor of Carly Fiorina. Chuck is totally against any form of 'comprehensive immigration,' unlike Fiorina. I guess the answer is, because Sarah Palin is for 'comprehensive immigration' amnesty.

http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/70/?p=arti ... &id=206424
[...]
“Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is leading California’s fight against illegal immigration,â€

Originally Posted by uniteasone

Go for the better of the two. At least you have a chance then.
And Cali has gotten worse over the years and even after the citizens have stood up to pass legislation to stop or curtail the invasion of illegals. But only to have courts rule it unconstitutional. That just blows my mind coming up with decisions like that.

So it is OK to BREAK OUR LAWS!

I agree with this sentiment. I don't like Fiorina-and supported DeVore in the primary-but I think you have to take into consideration her support for SB 1070. Maybe you could accuse her of political expediency, if she weren't sincere she could have qualified her statement, which she didn't. Perhaps she's only marginally better than Boxer, but I don't think you can say they're identical on the issue of illegals.

In this case you are not voting for either Boxer or Fiorina, you are voting for either Jeff Sessions(R) or Patrick Leahy (D) to be in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as this race could decide which party controls the Senate.

Strategic voting should also be taken into consideration, but I honestly don't think Republicans will retake control of the U.S. Senate, even if some deep blue states flip to the GOP in that chamber. Even so, I think you could make an argument that voting against Fiorina would be the best option if she were as bad on this issue as Meg Whitman. But she's not! That's the point.

Fiorina supports SB 1070, and I believe supports Proposition 187. Even though the latter has been a moot point since its nullification by a federal judge over a decade ago, I still think it indicates a willingness on her part to depart from conventional wisdom, and resist the temptation to throw her lot in with the open-borders-at-all-costs crowd.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Strategic voting should also be taken into consideration, but I honestly don't think Republicans will retake control of the U.S. Senate,

Attention Democrats! The Senate is now in play.


http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston ... ow-in-play

I do think it's in play, but it's still a long shot. They would would have to pick up almost every competitive open seat and beat every Dem. incumbent in a tight race. Some are locks, e.g. AK, North Dakota and Indiana, while others look good, e.g. W. Va., Penn., and Wisconsin, but you still need five more in order to get to a majority. That means, the GOP would have win in California, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, and Connecticut, which is a bit of a stretch.