<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Barbara Boxer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/barbara-boxer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>In Radio They Called it Payola…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/in-radio-they-called-it-payola%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/in-radio-they-called-it-payola%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[endorsement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[good-way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-surprised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perfectly-legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-endorsement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-political]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/in-radio-they-called-it-payola%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8230; and it is a good way to be investigated and lose a public airways license. Yet paying for endorsements is perfectly legal in the political game? Why am I not surprised> &#8211; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/in-radio-they-called-it-payola%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barbara Boxer (D-Shady) “Paid” Crooked Dem Maxine Waters For Political Endorsements in 2010, 2004…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/barbara-boxer-d-shady-%e2%80%9cpaid%e2%80%9d-crooked-dem-maxine-waters-for-political-endorsements-in-2010-2004%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/barbara-boxer-d-shady-%e2%80%9cpaid%e2%80%9d-crooked-dem-maxine-waters-for-political-endorsements-in-2010-2004%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:46:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[achilles-heel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[south-central]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[widely-reported]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/barbara-boxer-d-shady-%e2%80%9cpaid%e2%80%9d-crooked-dem-maxine-waters-for-political-endorsements-in-2010-2004%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Drain the swamp&#8230; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members. According to the  Washington Times , Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.” &#8230;.Critics charge that Boxer has actively aided and abetted this scheme, both in the context of her 2004 and 2010 re-election campaigns. In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for Waters’ endorsement.  But ahead of this year’s California primary—in which Boxer faced no serious competition– and when it was well-known that Waters was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee , Boxer paid Waters $5,000 for her backing. It is this later payment that those monitoring Waters’ ethical woes say could act as an anchor tied to Boxer’s ankle, as she heads towards November. “The amount is lower than what Boxer paid in 2004, yes,” said one Republican operative with whom we spoke.  “But the Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee paying for an endorsement of an official under investigation for ethics infractions connected to her using her standing to benefit her family when that fact has been widely reported presents a major optics problem, to say the least.  Ethics are already something of a surprise Achilles Heel for Boxer.  Her committee let Chris Dodd off the hook, and she’s been criticized for using her repeat candidacies for the financial benefit of her family, too.”  Added that operative,  “This is an attack ad waiting to happen.” Read it all&#8230; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/barbara-boxer-d-shady-%e2%80%9cpaid%e2%80%9d-crooked-dem-maxine-waters-for-political-endorsements-in-2010-2004%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding Carly Fiorina</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/understanding-carly-fiorina/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/understanding-carly-fiorina/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carly fiorina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[past]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/understanding-carly-fiorina/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We endorsed Chuck DeVore in the GOP California Senate primary over Carly Fiorina. We did so because of DeVore&#8217;s proven record of staunch conservatism &#8212; which he continues fighting for now, having just helped kill a California open-carry ban &#8212; but also because we didn&#8217;t really trust or know anything about Fiorina. Carly&#8217;s conservative record was thin to nonexistent, and there were many troubling signs that she held liberal views. From her praise of Jesse Jackson , to her playing the race and gender cards against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts , to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus , to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration , to her support for Sonia Sotomayor , to her Master&#8217;s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education , to her past support for weakening California&#8217;s Proposition 13 , to her statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that Roe v. Wade is &#8220; a decided issue ,&#8221; Carly Fiorina&#8217;s oft-repeated claim to be a &#8220; lifelong conservative&#8221; was only plausible in the universe of NRSC staffers who recruited her in the first place. During the primary, Fiorina aggressively positioned herself to the right, aided by millions in self-funding and the support of a DC-based network more interested in her money and her connections than in any conservative principles. In addition to the NRSC&#8217;s unashamed support, Fiorina received the endorsement of major DC &#8220;pro-life&#8221; groups like the Susan B. Anthony List and the National Right to Life Committee &#8212; and got the backing of Gov. Sarah Palin and a host of DC Republicans, from Lindsey Graham to John McCain. All these groups, and our supposed betters in the party establishment, fed us several lines on Carly: that no matter what her actual record said she was &#8220;one of us&#8221;; that she would hold to her conservatism in the general election and in the Senate; that she had a better chance of beating Barbara Boxer than Chuck Devore; and that even if she wasn&#8217;t conservative, she was still better than Barbara Boxer. Whether the latter two are true or not, and I think for certain that Carly Fiorinia will be demonstrably better than Barbara Boxer, everything is hypothetical now except that those of us who knew better understood that in the general election, the great lurch left of center would begin. Let&#8217;s not abandon Carly Fiorina, but lest you be under some impression that she&#8217;ll be solidly and forthrightly with us in the Senate, understand what you are getting. The moment the great lurch left began came this past Wednesday, September 1st, in the televised debate between Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer . In the debate, which was dominated &#8212; as I told you repeatedly during the primary that it would be &#8212; by Boxer going on offense over Fiorina&#8217;s time as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina let loose three bombshells on conservatives: She endorsed Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for &#8220;extra&#8221; embyros . She endorsed the California DREAM Act , which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. She refused to endorse California&#8217;s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law. On that last, Barbara Boxer was swift to respond: &#8220;If you can&#8217;t take a stand on Proposition 23, I don&#8217;t know what you will take a stand on.&#8221; Which brings us to the only time in the history of RedState we&#8217;ll agree with her. On September 3rd, her campaign sent out an e-mail saying she supports Prop 23 &#8212; not quite 48 hours after refusing to take a position in the televised debate with Boxer. To restate all this, Carly Fiorina abandoned pro-lifers, immigration conservatives, and every Californian who can&#8217;t find work because of their state&#8217;s eco-radical legislation (she did try about 48 hours later to get that group back). Here&#8217;s the kicker: none of this is a surprise. At least, none of it is a surprise if you paid attention to Carly&#8217;s actual record, instead of her campaign claims. So what now? Do we abandon Carly Fiorina? Polls show that she&#8217;s got an even shot at becoming the next Senator from California, which is better than any Boxer opponent has managed since 1992. Now that she&#8217;s shed any pretense of being a full-on conservative &#8212; and now that she&#8217;s apparently decided she doesn&#8217;t need her own party&#8217;s base &#8212; where does that leave us? Sure, she&#8217;s still better than Boxer. So is my dog, at least my hypothetical dog I intend to get and name Max once I have a house and yard big enough to accommodate a Chesapeake Bay Retriever. Here&#8217;s what we need to understand from this: A candidate&#8217;s record always means more than the candidate&#8217;s rhetoric. Always. A liberal masquerading as a conservative is a feature, not a bug, of the NRSC and its allies. Many DC advocacy groups are more interested in the &#8220;DC&#8221; than the &#8220;advocacy&#8221; part (not to mention their win-loss record). Celebrity candidates don&#8217;t need you as much as they tell you. Your best guides to candidate selection are the Club for Growth and Senator Jim DeMint&#8217;s Senate Conservatives Fund . If you&#8217;re in California, absolutely and willingly vote for Carly Fiorina . But do so understanding who Carly Fiorina actually is. The mask is off, and there&#8217;s a squishy moderate underneath. In the Golden State, the sad truth is that our best hope is to replace a radical with a RINO. Considering the choice we could have had, that&#8217;s a shame. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/understanding-carly-fiorina/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom and the Battle of 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lyrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ At last. Summer ending, autumn looms. The 2010 election is at hand. Let's rock and roll. The other week, Sir Paul McCartney of Beatles fame caused a dust-up while visiting the White House. Accepting the Gershwin Award for Popular Song, McCartney made a distinctly un-classy mention of former President George W. Bush and an alleged (if decidedly not true) aversion to books. But there was another McCartney visit to America that was received with nothing but respect and affection -- this one nine years ago. On October 20, 2001, barely a month after 9/11, McCartney stepped up to the plate to organize "The Concert for New York City." Featuring a veritable platoon of famous musicians including Elton John, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, The Who, Billy Joel, James Taylor , Bon Jovi and on and on. The concert was a benefit for the members and families of the New York police and fire departments as well as other rescuers. The Concert went on even as the NYPD and NYFD were mourning the loss of colleagues and still pulling bodies out of the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Towards the end of the Concert, McCartney stepped forward, got the huge Madison Square Garden audience clapping rhythmically through their tears and sang a brand new song he had written for the occasion. It was called Freedom . Said Sir Paul: "It's about freedom. That's one thing these people don't understand. That's worth fighting for… to me it's a We Shall Overcome ... That's sort of how I wrote it. It's like, 'Hey, I've got freedom, I'm an immigrant coming to America, give me your huddled masses.' And that's what it means to me, is, 'Don't mess with my rights, buddy. Because I'm now free.'" McCartney, liberal that he apparently is, stopped performing the song after the liberation of Iraq. (One might ask why freedom is OK for Paul from Liverpool but not Aziz from Baghdad, but I digress.) The point here: the lyrics that Sir Paul once found so suitable in the aftermath of a vivid attack on freedom and then so unsuitable at a later time and place. Feel free to sing along. Here they are: This is my right, a right given by God To live a free life, to live in Freedom talkin' about Freedom I'm Talkin' bout Freedom I will fight, for the right To live in Freedom Anyone, who tries to take it away Will have to answer, Cause this is my right I'm talkin' about Freedom I'm Talkin' bout Freedom I will fight, for the right To live in Freedom, yeah oh There's more , but you get the point. Ronald Reagan couldn't have done better. Unintentionally, the McCartney lyrics serve as a potent anthem as millions of Americans gear up to fight what they feel has gone so wildly off-track in America in the 2010 political concert currently playing with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid No Freedom Band. To begin, the lyrics draw attention to the assumption -- the correct assumption -- that the demand for freedom has been around in one form or another for centuries. In fact, the 2010 election is but the next chapter in one of the greatest ongoing dramas in history, American or otherwise. It is a story that has gained force across the centuries, filled with heroes and villains, good and evil. A riveting drama of the life and times of legendary people and millions unknown whose ranks began to swell as they understood over time their instinct for freedom and the very basic human need to have it eventually rising to the very top of the list of fundamental human rights. Whether it was the English Magna Carta in 1215 that forced King John to grant a charter of liberties and rights to his subjects or the Declaration of Independence in the Philadelphia of 1776 that addressed the abuses of another British monarch, George the Third, freedom has been the cri de coeur of mankind. Sometimes desperately, as with the Jews in 20th century Nazi Germany or the Russians of the Gulags. Sometimes proudly, as with African-Americans in the 1960's or supporters of the pro-life movement today . But always, always the demand has come insistently -- the sentiments of that Paul McCartney song expressing but a solitary if eloquent hymn to one of the most basic of human demands:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reaping What the Greens Sow</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/reaping-what-the-greens-sow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/reaping-what-the-greens-sow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cnn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/reaping-what-the-greens-sow/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ My former colleague Richard Morrison articulates matters very well elsewhere on AmSpec, here , but in the wake of yesterday's terrorism outside Washington, DC by Discovery-network hostage-taker James J. Lee, let's consider the position articulated by, say, radio host Glenn Beck to not attribute responsibility to Al Gore's eco-ranting. The latter is of course larded with assurances of a certain eco- catastrophe brought about by dark forces impeding salvation, and disturbing utterances like "the tide in this battle will turn only when the majority of people in the world become sufficiently aroused by a shared sense of urgent danger to join in an all-out effort." (Earth in the Balance, p. 269) Any sane person knows that such exhortations for an all-out effort to stop urgent danger are merely calls to get involved , say with direct mail campaigns and bake sales. Now, both Fox News and CNN have reported that Lee attributed his radicalism to the writings of two men -- Daniel Quinn and Al Gore. The Washington Post carried a fairly lengthy article exploring the former, who dismisses any connection. That piece and the main news feature are both silent on the deceased's giving equal credit to Gore (although a pop-up ad for China's solar industry does accompany one of them). This is true of the Wall Street Journal's coverage, among others. Beck's (somewhat backhanded, I understand) rationale for exculpating Gore of partial responsibility is that the terrorist was sick. Yep. But the two -- culpability by Gore and other radical green imams, and acting out by mentally unstable members of their targeted demographic -- aren't mutually exclusive. We know that individuals bear responsibility for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions, both the instigator and the instigated. One might not like the connection, what with environmentalism being as chic as a Che Guevara handbag, but you can't deny it. Take the quiz, " Did Al Gore say it? Or was it the Unabomber? ". I dare you to score better than 50%. That should make you uncomfortable. Then read Lee's manifesto , and really squirm at the similarities. This isn't Jody Foster somehow recklessly taunting John Hinkley. Al Gore dressed up quite nicely to stand on a stage and...show a near-term swamping of much of America, with massive loss of life, unless people are stopped. He vows there is no disagreement of this "truth" except for a few crazies and those in the pay of the oil industry causing the planetary crisis, what Gore calls "the most serious threat that we have ever faced,"[ (EITB, p. 40). Gosh. What could possibly go wrong? I made the connection on Washington, DC's WMAL morning radio show this morning, to the distress of one of the hosts who responded with the obvious counter that, erm, the Tea Party used the word "target" in their rhetoric accompanied by a scope-sight in graphics showing targeted races . Ah. I suppose that reasonable minds can differ whether assassination is a logical or reasonably foreseeable consequence of this repetition of the long-standing use of "target" in the political context. No rash of actions has borne this out, however. But yesterday's hostage-taking is just the latest "isolated incident" of eco-nuts engaging in "all-out efforts" that "we must make the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." (Gore, EITB) And it is the logical, foreseeable consequence of the green movement's perspective and rhetoric. In my first book " The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) ", I serially lay out quotes by establishment greens reflecting Lee's eco-driven revulsion at population (as always, the peril of this mostly white, middle class movement is other people being born, other people building homes, other people getting wealthy, etc.), and a whatever-means-necessary attitude. These remarks are too numerous to cherry-pick one or two. In short, environmentalists think people are pollution. And they must be stopped. Just like Lee writes in his manifesto. Also difficult to ignore are the examples cited backing up the title of my second book, " Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed ": attempts and threats on the lives of those who...dare disagree, and oppose the eco-agenda. There is a reason an astrophysicist who oddly suggested the sun might have a somewhat larger ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/reaping-what-the-greens-sow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tech at Night: Net Neutrality DOOM</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/tech-at-night-net-neutrality-doom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/tech-at-night-net-neutrality-doom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delayed-further]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house-democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[know-the-longer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[principle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech-at-night]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/tech-at-night-net-neutrality-doom/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Good evening. I&#8217;ve been hung up today and unfortunately could not do my usually full range of reading for tonight, but I have a few Net Neutrality points to make tonight, so here we go. First, AT&#038;T has apparently come out against the Verizon-Google Net Neutrality proposal , writing to the FCC in favor of paid prioritization of Internet traffic. So much for this proposal being a huge benefit for big, wireless-heavy firms, eh? Of course, there&#8217;s some political scheming already going on with Net Neutrality, too, beyond the corporate posturing going on. Carly Fiorina, whom I&#8217;m told mopped the floor with Babs Boxer in a debate tonight, has come out against FCC/Free Press Net Neutrality . She got it in one in this quote via BigGovernment.com: “The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.” Meanhile Boxer is too afraid to comment, calling it &#8216;premature&#8217; to do so. The whole FCC is running scared, now having delayed further action until after the election , which has all the socialist groups like Free Press furious . They know the longer it takes, the stronger the opposition will get, and most importantly, Republican gains in November will hurt their cause even further (not that all House Democrats back them anyway, far from it). ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/tech-at-night-net-neutrality-doom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Senate Debate: Fiorina vs. Boxer</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/california-senate-debate-fiorina-vs-boxer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/california-senate-debate-fiorina-vs-boxer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barbara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carly fiorina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chronicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiorina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gizmo-plays]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate-debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[watch-it-below]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/california-senate-debate-fiorina-vs-boxer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ At 7pm Pacific, Carly Fiorina will face Barbara Boxer for a 60-minute televised debate. If you&#8217;re interested, it will be on C-SPAN, the Chronicle&#8217;s website, or watch it below the fold (assuming this gizmo plays when the debate starts). I&#8217;ll&#8230; Continue reading here: California Senate Debate: Fiorina vs. Boxer ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/california-senate-debate-fiorina-vs-boxer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Fantasyland) Goes Into Painstaking Detail About a Conversation With Condi Rice That Never Happened…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/sen-barbara-boxer-d-fantasyland-goes-into-painstaking-detail-about-a-conversation-with-condi-rice-that-never-happened%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/sen-barbara-boxer-d-fantasyland-goes-into-painstaking-detail-about-a-conversation-with-condi-rice-that-never-happened%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chronicle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grandchild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-families]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel woo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/sen-barbara-boxer-d-fantasyland-goes-into-painstaking-detail-about-a-conversation-with-condi-rice-that-never-happened%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Pretty sad state of affairs when you could confuse a United States Senator for an escaped mental patient&#8230; (San Fran Chronicle) - Sen. Barbara Boxer came to the Chronicle editorial board today, and I asked her about some  controversial remarks she made about then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not paying &#8220;a personal price&#8221; in terms of the war in Iraq. She told me: “ I asked her how many people had died and she did not know the answer to that question. And since we had lost a lot of Californians, I was concerned. And I said, you and I don’t have, we haven’t paid a person price, I said, you and I, I said, myself, my grandkids are too young, my husband too old, and as far as I know you don’t have anybody in the war. So I tried to use it to bring us together, but the right-wing press said that I questioned, that I turned on her because she wasn’t married which was a little silly.” Boxer also said: &#8220;I was criticizing the fact that she didn&#8217;t know how many people died in Iraq. Absolutely I was.&#8221; There&#8217;s just one problem. Boxer never asked Rice how many U.S. troops had died in Iraq when she began her &#8220;personal price&#8221; remarks. In fact, Boxer had not asked Rice a single question. She was engaged in her usual filibustering: Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I&#8217;m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You&#8217;re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact. H/T:Franky ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/sen-barbara-boxer-d-fantasyland-goes-into-painstaking-detail-about-a-conversation-with-condi-rice-that-never-happened%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina Trade Barbs in First California Senate Debate</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/barbara-boxer-and-carly-fiorina-trade-barbs-in-first-california-senate-debate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/barbara-boxer-and-carly-fiorina-trade-barbs-in-first-california-senate-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 senate elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 senate races]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bring-jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california senate races]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friend-via]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jpeg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/barbara-boxer-and-carly-fiorina-trade-barbs-in-first-california-senate-debate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Filed under: Senate , Debates , 2010 Elections , Congress Each candidate promised to bring jobs to California, while characterizing the other as out of touch with voters. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/barbara-boxer-and-carly-fiorina-trade-barbs-in-first-california-senate-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rasmussen on California: Whitman and Boxer up</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/rasmussen-on-california-whitman-and-boxer-up/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/rasmussen-on-california-whitman-and-boxer-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jerry brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rasmussen reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whitman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/rasmussen-on-california-whitman-and-boxer-up/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Rasmussen Reports has two new polls out: one on the race for Governor between Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman, and the other on the Senate race between Democrat Barbara Boxer and Republican Carly Fiorina. I don&#8217;t think the results they show are compatible. If one is right, I think the other is wrong. When Rasmussen showed Boxer ahead of Fiorina by 5 with leaners, 49-44 (which isn&#8217;t a deterioration for Fiorina because without leaners she&#8217;s as close as she&#8217;s been in the Rasmussen poll, 44-43), Margin of Error 4, I wasn&#8217;t surprised. It still gives the Republican a one in four chance of being ahead per my calculations, but I don&#8217;t expect Fiorina to make any moves until later. But after seeing that poll for Senate, the poll for Governor did surprise me. Whitman up 8 with and without leaners? Ahead 51-43 with? That&#8217;s not what I expected. While I show a 26% chance for Fiorina, I only find 16% for the former two-term Governor Brown Jr. I&#8217;m not surprised that Whitman leads, though. I&#8217;m surprised because Whitman and Fiorina are showing such a wide swing between their results. I have a hard time buying that there will be a 13 point swing between them when the votes are counted in November. Despite the fact that they do hold opposing positions on abortion, they&#8217;re synchronized on key issues of the day such as the economy and marriage. I just can&#8217;t believe that so many California voters will vote for Meg Whitman and then vote for Barbara Boxer. I suppose it is possible, particularly if abortion carries the day, but with unemployment where it is, I can&#8217;t imagine California&#8217;s election will turn on that issue. From Unlikely Voter ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/rasmussen-on-california-whitman-and-boxer-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
