Posted on 10/31/2010 9:09:22 AM PDT by GOPinCa
Real Clear Politics just moved the California senate race from 'leans Democrat' to 'toss up.' Please help GOTV for Carly Fiorina. We can win this!!
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
In blue states people lie to poll takers, it’s like the Bradley affect. They tell the pollster they’re undecided or voting for Boxer, but in the booth they mark Fiorina. Boxer can’t get to 50 and I think she will lose.
Why ignore abortion and guns?
Carly Fiorina is running a series of strong pro-life ads, and we all remember her taking a strong pro-gun rights stand in her debates.
That's a fair question I've addressed with respect to Carly before, but since you haven't seen it...
Got a case in the docket capable of forcing the SCOTUS to dump Roe? Think that's going to happen with the current court? Think Obama is going to nominate anybody who would overturn it? Then Carly is irrelevant on abortion for at least one third of her term. By the next election under the current trend, the conservative we'd damned well better have replacing Obama will have a far more friendly Senate than Bush ever saw.
On guns, I'm afraid the O-bot will have done all the necessary damage by signing treaty and Carly knows it. If you think ratification is necessary for Obama to start enforcing the UN Convention on Trading in Small Arms, well, I have bad news for you. Hence her support of liberalizing gun laws is equally irrelevant.
I’m with you! Why is hell would we want one more minute with Boxer? She’s a liberal hack!
They never learn. They always live and respond to fear, and will swallow any imposter with sweet-sounding political cliches.
Charlie Brown indeed.
So, you prefer Barbra Boxer?
Is that your sanctimonious message?
If you’re going to spout stupidities, don’t post to me.
Shove it toots! I’ve had it with Barbara Boxer.
“I’ve had it with Barbara Boxer.”
Me too!
Two non-responses.
Carly Fiorina is running on a pro-life campaign, which is bold in California, and it means that she is selling the pro-life message to the people here, which is an important part of, and purpose of, political campaigns, her bold stance on guns was the same thing.
Sending Barbara Boxer back to the Senate, is not beneficial in any way.
I take it you're dreaming of the day you'll have "had it" with Fiorina? It'll come, but there won't be a damned thing you'll be able to do about it because she'll be an incumbent Republican. Think about it (for a change).
Oh, and BTW, I've investigated your posting history, and it is wretched by FreeRepublic standards. So, regarding this pathetic example of probity: Please check out the people to whom you issue such epithets, CCC has done more to organize conservative activism in the Bay Area than any other FReeper I know, which you would know if you had spent any time DOING anything on the California board. He puts his time and energy where his heart is, unlike many another here, including you.
Have a lovely day!
Refute the content of the arguments chump, a hand-wave like that will get you nowhere.
Thank you. I'm headed out to load up another truckload of firewood. It's beautiful here.
Whatever...Please take your time. Those of us with poor posting histories really could use a break. :p
I don’t need to refute someone that is trying to claim that it doesn’t matter if Senators are pro-life, and pro-gun.
Re-electing Barbara Boxer is not a strategy.
Look at the examples I gave muleskinner in post 30 on cap-and-trade and illegal immigration. She had him convinced she was against both, just like she has you convinced she's meaningfully pro-life and pro-self-defense. She cares not a whit about either; she's just feeding meaningless pabulum to gullible dupes, like you.
I didn’t intend for this to deteriorate into a name-calling exercise as you have done by calling me “shallow, lazy, and arrogant” when I just asked you to be realistic.
Just answer the question:
“Assuming one of these two will be your next Senator from California, which one would you choose:
Boxer ________
Fiorina _______
If you choose to NOT vote for Fiorina (as a vote against Boxer) our of so-called principle, well, then you’re allowing someone much worse to win (Boxer).
What’s so hard to understand about this?
I’m not being arrogant or lazy in this analysis. This is the cold reality.
Then notion that somehow if you vote for a non-RINO as a “protest vote,” yet that non-RINO has zero chance of winning in California, you do the right thing and that is to vote for the RINO over the Marxist.
Perhaps this is an issue of stubborn pride (in your case), but in life and in business, we have to make practical choices, given the realities at hand.
I can only assume from your suggestion that people don’t vote for Fiorina is that you wouldn’t mind having Boxer do another term. Or you find that LESS objectionable than Fiorina.
That’s sad, dude, because that kind of stubbornness (the so-called “protest vote”) is partly what helped allow the usurper, President Narcissus in the WH.
Meant to say:
“The notion that somehow if you vote for a non-RINO as a “protest vote,” yet that non-RINO has zero chance of winning in California is totally flawed.
Instead, you do the right thing and that is to vote for the RINO over the Marxist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.