Our local paper, the Oakland Tribune, came out with its endorsement for California Senate today.
Generally, a three-term senator who has a leadership position in the majority party should be a relatively easy endorsement, especially if the opponent has never run for office before. However, that is not the case this year.
Boxer has been in the Senate for 18 years, yet her influence has been embarrassingly weak, particularly when compared to that of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
California needs a senator who can work across party lines, a skill that will become even more important if the GOP makes significant gains in the Senate. Boxer has demonstrated time and again that she does not work well with those who disagree with her.
We are troubled by Boxer's negativity. The nation does not need even more polarization, especially on critical issues that need bipartisan cooperation for success.
We agree with many of Fiorina's positions on economic policy
So who does the Tribune support, albeit "reluctantly"?
You guessed it - Barbara Boxer.
Why is this the case? Well the paper does spend a a few sentences criticizing Carly's record:
Fiorina's rise to the top at HP is impressive, but her controversial record and dismissal are not. Fiorina touts her business acumen as a major reason to vote for her to help the nation solve its economic woes. But the HP-Compaq merger she pushed was not a success, and HP's stock value was cut in half under her leadership.
However, their true colors come out in the last two paragraphs, including an earlier quote above in its entirety:
While we agree with many of Fiorina's positions on economic policy, we have problems with her backward positions on social issues... If Boxer were opposed by a more moderate Republican, such as Tom Campbell, whom Fiorina defeated in the June primary, we would have an easier choice. Unfortunately, that is not what voters face, forcing us to reluctantly recommend Boxer's re-election.
Translation: Gay marriage and abortion trumps all, given that the most polar difference between Carly and Tom Campbell was on these two issues: Campbell is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage; Carly is pro-life and pro-family.
That is, it doesn't matter that Barbara Boxer and her Democratic colleague want government to control and interfere every other aspect of our lives and drive our economy into the dumpster; it doesn't matter that the editors agree with a candidate on important issues like the economy: the only thing that matters in the end is "social issues" - which is code for a two-issue litmus test as to whether a candidate's has "backward positions" on gay marriage and abortion.
This folks is monomania. And California is infested with it.
The only silver lining here is that even in Barbara Boxer's home turf - the Bay Area-she could only garner a "reluctant" endorsement from her hometown (Oakland) paper- while across the Bay, the San Francisco Chronicle issued an "extremely rare" (in their own words) no-endorsement on the race. If Boxer is so weak in her prirmary stronghold, this indicates that Carly does have a real shot.
But Carly's main obstacle remains that sizable segment of voters with monomania californiensis on "social issues".
The final irony: when the totalitarian left comes to power, the bedroom is one of the first objects of its control.
Amos 5:19 comes to mind here:
It will be as though a man fled from a lion and a bear met him! or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!
There is none so blind as those who will not see...