I found this line of their editorial decision to vote “present” in the primaries interesting:
On the Democratic side, we find that we’re no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer. She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could.
Why do they say this? What possesses them to imagine that she’s capable of any better? She is haughty and arrogant, with much to be modest about. And the following sentences were interesting as well:
We appreciate the challenge brought by Robert “Mickey” Kaus, even though he’s not a realistic contender, because he asks pertinent questions about Boxer’s “lockstep liberalism” on labor, immigration and other matters. But we can’t endorse him, because he gives no indication that he would step up to the job and away from his Democratic-gadfly persona.
So they’re saying that if he’d taken his campaign more seriously, acted like he was actually trying to win, and wanted to go to Washington, they would have endorsed him? After everything he’s said about them? I wonder if that’s really true.
Any regrets, Mickey?
If I were still an inmate in Califoronia, I’d change my registration to demoncrat and vote for Kaus in the primary…. Because Boxer is that stupid and that evil. HERE THAT, Ma’am?
As for him actually getting elected? I might vote for Kaus if Fiorina were the Republican nominee…she’s certainly not conservative and her track record at HP/Compaq doesn’t make me think she’d do the Senate proud.
“HERE THAT, Ma’am?”
I hear she likes to be called senator, not ma’am. She worked really hard to get that title you know…
That’s Doctor Evil… I didn’t go through six years of Evil Medical School to be called “Mister.”
I might vote for Kaus if Fiorina were the Republican nominee…she’s certainly not conservative
There isn’t going to be a conservative elected senator in California for some time, if ever again. What’s needed is enough Republican senators who will stand with the others when it comes time to over turn a Democratic fillibuster over repealing the healthcare bill. If the Republicans could get Snow to stand firm, they can do it with Fiorina.
My apologies, that should have been ‘HEAR’. And Snow isn’t exactly standing firm…how many times has she rolled over for the dems?
At any rate, I think Kaus would at least be an honest dem…like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I may have disagreed with him on many issues, but at least I felt that he had America’s best interests at heart. Which is not something I could say about Mrs. Boxer, Ma’am.
I’m going to enjoy pulling the lever for Mickey in June, and I would love to see the LAT have to eat those words.
John wrote:
At any rate, I think Kaus would at least be an honest dem…like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
So? He would still caucus with the Democrats on matters of Senate leadership, committee and subcommittee chairman, and Senate rules (including for Harry Reid if he were to win re-election in Nevada). He would have to. If he didn’t, he would not get any committee or subcommittee assignments and would be all but a lame duck starting on day one.
Mike
Moynihan was a stooge and a party hack with a totally undeserved reputation. He may have talked pretty out on the lecture circuit, but when it came time to cast a vote in committee and on the floor, he could always, ALWAYS, be counted on to vote the Dem party line. “Bipartisanship” of the Snowe variety only exists on the GOP side.