In what has to be one of the most definitive signs of the growing disgust that people have for Congress today (and, in particular, Barbara Boxer), the San Francisco Chronicle has refused to endorse her for re-election! Yes, you read that correctly: one of the most liberal newspapers in one of the most liberal cities in the country has refused to endorse the liberal candidate for the Senate?  Why?  Get this: because she was too liberal!!!

Granted, they don’t have many nice things to say about her Republican opponent, Carly Fiorina, but they have even fewer nice things to say about Boxer!

You have to read this SF Chronicle editorial to believe it:

Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year. The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. The challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina, has campaigned with a vigor and directness that suggests she could be effective in Washington – but for an agenda that would undermine this nation’s need to move forward on addressing serious issues such as climate change, health care and immigration.

It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

Boxer’s campaign, playing to resentment over Fiorina’s wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.

In past elections, Boxer has had the good fortune of having Republican opponents who were inept, underfunded, on the fringe right – or combinations thereof. Her opponent this time, Fiorina, is proving to be articulate, well-funded and formidable.

Unfortunately for Californians who are eager for change, Fiorina has firmly staked out positions that are outside of the state’s mainstream values and even its economic interest. The list only begins with her openness to offshore oil drilling, her opposition to the Roe vs. Wade abortion rights ruling and her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly list.”

One might argue, as Fiorina does, that the latter are settled issues and thus should not be determinant in an election that should be laser-focused on jobs. But efforts to expand health care and take action against climate change – issues with both moral and economic consequences for future generations – are very much in play, especially if Republicans gain control of the Senate. Fiorina has said she would vote to repeal the landmark health care bill, and her support for a state initiative that would halt definitive action on climate change until unemployment reaches 5.5 percent shows a disdain for science and a disregard for this state’s potential to take the lead in an emerging green economy. She is similarly unrealistic in her insistence that immigration reform must wait until the U.S.-Mexico border is absolutely secure.

It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose. Neither merits our endorsement for the U.S. Senate.

The quick rollout of the Democrats fear machine against legitimate protests taking place across the nation in astounding numbers is not something to take lightly or underestimate. This new scare tactic of the Democrats in trying to paint those opposed to their rush job on health care as part of “an angry mob” and people “carrying swastikas” is an extremely devious way of first dehumanizing concerned citizens, then trivializing their legitimate concerns, and finally stripping them of their liberties and their rights to protest and speak out against government policies with which they do not agree.

This new scare tactic of the Democrats in trying to paint those opposed to their rush job on health care as part of “an angry mob” and people “carrying swastikas” is an extremely devious way of first dehumanizing concerned citizens, then trivializing their legitimate concerns, and finally stripping them of their liberties and their rights to protest and speak out against government policies with which they do not agree.

This is not just one or two fringe liberals in the Democrat party doing this. This is an obviously concerted effort straight from the top, as even Obama has gotten into the act by urging citizens to report to the government when they see their fellow citizens engaging in these protests. I am not making that up. The White House posted this on its web site:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Perhaps the email address should have been kgb@whitehouse.gov, because this outrageous request by the government asking citizens to rat out this sort of “subversive activity” is unprecedented and reminiscent of Communist Russia.

Starting at the top and working its way down, you can clearly see this organized scare tactic response to the public outrage over Congress’s legislative impudence.

In addition to the White House’s rat-out-your-neighbor KGB hotline, Obama himself sent out the following scare tactic email, as reported by Politico:

In an unusual e-mail appeal, President Barack Obama is asking millions of his campaign supporters to commit to attending at least one community event on health care this month.

Obama writes that opponents of his health care plan are “filling the airwaves and the Internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change.”

“And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous,” he warns. “So we’ve got to get out there, fight lies with truth and set the record straight.”

The e-mail shows up as being from “President Barack Obama,” with the subject line: “This is the moment.”

Continuing on down the line, you see it employed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she had this exchange:

Reporter: Do you think there’s a legitimate grassroots movement going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re AstroTurf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.

You also see it employed by prominent Democrat senators, such as Idiot Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who had this to say on MSNBC’s “Hardball”:

I saw some of the clips of people storming these town hall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida when they were recounting the ballots, and I was confronted with the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling, “Go back to California,” “Get out of here,” and all the rest of it–until I finally looked at them and I said, “You know what? Your hero Ronald Reagan is from California. You should show a little respect.” And then they quieted down.

So this is just all organized. Just go up on the Web site, Chris. You in the media have to take a look at what’s going on here. This is all planned. It’s to hurt our president, and it’s to change the Congress.

And, of course, you see it employed right in the belly of the beast, the DNC, who put out a television ad with the following script:

Narrator: The right-wing extremist Republican base is back.

Birther crackpot at town meeting: He is not an American citizen!

Narrator: They lost the election. They lost on the Recovery Act, the budget and children’s health care. They’ve lost the confidence of the American people after eight years of failed policies that ruined our economy and cost millions of jobs.

Now, desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs, just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama, and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November.

Unidentified voice of Sen. Jim DeMint: It will break him.

Unidentified voice of Rush Limbaugh: I hope he fails.

Narrator: This mob activity is straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they’ve called out the mob.

Same birther crackpot at same town meeting: And I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?

Narrator, as phone number of GOP Washington headquarters appears onscreen: Call the Republican Party. Tell them you’ve had enough of the mob.

As James Taranto, of the WSJ’s Best of the Web Today points out:

The ad does not identify the congressman whose town meeting was disrupted by the birther crackpot. It was Rep. Michael Castle of Delaware, a Republican. So the DNC expects us to believe that the RNC has “called out the mob” against its own members! Oh, and in fairness to the crackpot, we should note that she holds a tiny American flag and does not appear to display any swastikas or “symbols like that.”

Taranto sums it up nicely when he writes:

So, let’s review the arguments:

• Republicans are bad, they lost the last election, and they have partisan motives for wanting to stop ObamaCare.
• People who are angry about this are crackpots who display swastikas and other invidious symbols. Also, their anger is insincere, and they are shills of the RNC. They wear nice clothes, and this is not to their credit.
• Some of the arguments against ObamaCare are false, according to Obama.
• If ObamaCare is defeated, Obama would be hurt.

Is there any argument for ObamaCare? In all the material we reviewed for this item, only this, from the Obama email:

Every day we don’t act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

In other words, the “crisis” is so urgent that any thoughtful deliberation would entail intolerable delay. This is the same old argument that has already failed.

If this is the best the president can do, he deserves to lose resoundingly. If that hurts him, there’s always aspirin.

This is just hilarious!

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gets ripped by Harry Alford, the National Black Chamber of Commerce President & CEO, who slams her for being “condescending” and for “being racial” and “getting to a path that’s going to explode”.

If it weren’t for the Sotomayor hearings going on this week, I’d say that this is probably the most entertaining six minutes of any Senate panel all week long. In fact, even with the Sotomayor hearings, I’d say this is probably still the most entertaining.

UPDATE
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal picked up this story today and looked at it from an interesting perspective. His contention is that even though Boxer deserved what she got based on her condescending tone and her obvious race-influenced actions, Alford still is being somewhat hypocritical by getting all offended by Barbara’s spotlighting his race, when his organization–being the National Black Chamber of Commerce–itself relies upon that very spotlight for its existence!

Taranto writes:

We watched the video, and we can see Alford’s point. Boxer does come across as condescending, and, weirdly, she doesn’t even seem to understand why he would find it offensive for her to rebut his argument not on the merits but via a racially specific appeal to authority.

Yet Alford, by speaking on behalf the National Black Chamber of Commerce, is himself relying on just such a racially specific appeal to authority. We tend to agree with Alford and disagree with Boxer on the subject they were discussing, but the rule of etiquette he invoked–blacks may claim authority on account of their race, but whites may not seek to undermine that authority–put her at an unfair disadvantage, one that was particularly unwarranted given that the topic at hand had nothing to do with race.

There’s always quite a lot not to like about Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), but she is always looking to add icing to that cake, and she did a good job of it recently.

I realize I’m a little late on weighing in on this, and that’s because I initially thought it too stupid to even warrant a comment. However, after hearing it talked about over the last day or so, I can’t help but realize just how much it bothers me.

For those still in the dark: during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Boxer, the chairwoman of the committee, rudely and abruptly interrupted Army Corps of Engineers division leader, Brigadier General Michael Walsh, to instruct him to address her as “senator” and not “maam”, stating that she worked hard to get that title.

First, there is of course the obvious fact that “maam” is a term of respect, the female equivalent of “sir”.  And, it would be impossible to even count the number of times “yes, sir” and “no, sir” was addressed to countless senators in countless hearings over the years. And in all that time, not one of them had the arrogance and conceit to interrupt them to demand “senator” instead of “sir”.  So, just who does she think she is?  Does she think she’s better than every other senator who came before her?

And, speaking of respect, it’s not like she’s talking to some average joe off the street.  This is a general we’re talking about.  And, if you ask me, a general typically works much harder at earning his title than any senator.  If anyone is owed any respect, it’s him. For her to chide him like a schoolboy is disgusting and unprecedented.

If you ask me, she doesn’t even deserve the title of “Ms.” at this point.  I used “Idiot” in the title of this post, but I can think of some choice titles that would fit much better…

Here’s the video: