Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Why would you want a life-long politician like Boxer over a succesful business-woman like Fiorina? I don't get it.
When this country was orginally founded, serving in office was something that a person would do to give back to society. It made sense the way things were done back then. They would take the wisest and most succesful people and elect them to office. If they were going to elect a mayor, they would try to get the wisest and most respected man in the town to be the mayor. I think that is much better than what they often times do nowadays. Nowadays they often times elect a career politician that never accomplished anything in the real world.
|
because like the majority of californians, i'm pro-choice and fiorina isn't.
and because fiorina doesn't believe people on the "no fly" list should be restricted from buying guns.
those are 2 actual difference's that would keep me from voting from her.
not that i'm in love with boxer.
but i might have been tempted by a pro-choice, "i can't believe what i'm hearing" (during the debate when fiorina wouldn't oppose gun right's for people on the "no fly" list) tom campbell.
her story includes being fired by hewlett packard. and shipping jobs to china beforehand. there are plenty of campaign issues.
this is more political handicapping than endorsing the incumbent. i think the republican party in california is more aligned with public opinion in s. carolina than it is with public opinion in california. hell, i think the palin endorsement of fiorina helps boxer more than fiorina in this state.
i could be wrong. but i'd lay odds the national republican party puts no significant money in this race.