Hat tip to Real Clear Politics
This week, Barbara Boxer was interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Here is the transcript of the interview. I have put part of it in bold.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/14/interview_with_senator_barbara_boxer_107596.html
BLITZER: The president and Michelle Obama are planning a one-two punch to try to help Senator Barbara Boxer get reelected. They are scheduled to make campaign appearances for the California Democrat this month. Senator Boxer is facing a tough challenge from Republican businesswoman Carly Fiorina.
The latest Reuters poll, by the way, shows Senator Boxer leading by only 4 points. I spoke with Carly Fiorina earlier in the week, let's speak to Senator Boxer right now, she is joining us from California.
Thanks very much, Senator, for coming in.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: Thanks for the invitation, Wolf.
BLITZER: Some Democrats don't want the president to come into their states or districts to campaign for them, but you want the president there, right?
BOXER: The president and the first lady are very popular in California. Californians understand this president inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. They are rooting for us all to get this country back on track.
BLITZER: Is there any issue that comes to mind that you disagree with the president on right now?
BOXER: Yes. In Afghanistan, I am supportive of legislation that would say, let's get an exit strategy in writing so that we know we are really moving to bring those troops home. You know, I do believe in nation-helping, not nation-building. We have to rebuild our own nation. So I think on that, there's a bit of a difference.
BLITZER: What about on domestic issues like economic issues, job creation, health care, do you disagree with him on any of those things?
BOXER: Well, I did push hard when we did the economic recovery act for some more infrastructure dollars. So, I pushed very hard for that and we did compromise on that. I would have liked to have seen more of that.
But I think the president is right when he says, let's stop giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas, give them to companies that create jobs here at home. So, there's a lot of agreement and a few places of disagreement.
BLITZER: Your opponent, and I interviewed her earlier, Carly Fiorina, she says basically this charge about you, you have heard it from her directly, that you're simply a career politician who has no experience in the real world creating jobs.
I will play this little clip, what she told me.
BOXER: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARLY FIORINA (R), CALIFORNIA SENATE CANDIDATE: Where has Barbara Boxer been? For the last six years, the last 12 years, the last 18 years, the last 28 years that she has been in Washington, D.C., where has is she been? Where she has been is voting for more taxes, voting for more borrowing and spending.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right. Your chance to respond to her.
BOXER: Well, she is just wrong on that. I voted for over $2 trillion of tax cuts, the largest one was in the stimulus bill.
But I have to say, she talks about 12 years. Look, I was there in 1992 and I supported Bill Clinton. And we know that in that period of time, those budgets that I voted for and those economic policies created 23 million jobs, the best in modern history. That's the fact. And we not only balanced the budget, we created surpluses.
Then you had George W. come in -- Bush, George W. Bush come in, and in about, you know, a few minutes, it felt like, we saw those surpluses disappear. We saw a horrible record of job creation, the worse since the Great Depression, only a million new jobs. And at the end of the Bush term, 700,000 jobs a month bleeding.
So she is just wrong. And you know, she acts as if I didn't get --
BLITZER: When you say --
BOXER: -- elected -- I got elected.
BLITZER: Excuse me for interrupting.
BOXER: Wolf, I got elected all of those times, and I'm hoping to get elected this time.
BLITZER: But when you say you supported $2 trillion in tax cuts during the stimulus --
BOXER: Tax cuts. Yes, I have --
BLITZER: Tax cuts?
BOXER: During my career.
BLITZER: Oh, during your career. I thought you just said during the --
BOXER: Yes.
BLITZER: -- stimulus. When you said you supported $2 trillion --
BOXER: No, no, no, 1.2 -- 1.2 trillion with the stimulus.
BLITZER: There was $1.2 trillion in tax cuts in the stimulus?
BOXER: There was a lot. About -- well, I will put it this way, over time, that's what it will be, when you figure all of the tax cuts over time. And what we did for the -- for the senior citizens, giving them back those refunds. So there was a lot. Actually, a third of the stim was direct tax cuts. That I can tell you.
BLITZER: Yes, but that would be maybe $200 million or $300 million. We're not talking about a trillion.
BOXER: So let me say this, a third of the stim and over my time -- let me correct it, you are right, thank you -- 2.2 trillion I voted in tax cuts, 1.2 trillion of which became law. A third of the stim was tax cuts and it was considered the biggest tax cut in history over a couple of year period.
BLITZER: All right. Let's get into some other issues, including the issue of abortion rights for women.
In this same interview I had with Carly Fiorina, she made this point about you. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FIORINA: Well, I personally am pro-life. And I know that not all women agree with me, but it is Barbara Boxer who is extreme in her views here. She supports partial-birth abortions. She says that babies don't have rights until they leave hospitals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Is that true?
BOXER: No, it is not true. Here's the thing that's so interesting. Wolf, Roe v. Wade, which decriminalized abortion in the early stages of a pregnancy, that passed the Supreme Court in 1973. My opponent wants to overturn Roe V. Wade, making women and doctors criminals.
She raised the issue. She already has the right to life group in here sending mailers against me. She has got the Susan B. Anthony group doing that. She has distorted my position. I voted for the Feinstein Amendment, which would say no late-term abortions whatsoever except for the health of the mother.
I'm a mother, I'm a grandma. Listen, I have got to say, she has raised the issue by being so extreme that we went back to look at every senator who ever represented the state of California, Republican or Democratic, and for decades everyone has been pro-choice.
She would -- she would come in there saying she wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. It's an extraordinary difference between the two of us.
BLITZER: On the issue of gay marriage, you support gay marriage, right?
BOXER: Yes. I do.
BLITZER: She supports civil unions. On the issue of legalizing marijuana, that is a big issue in California right now, it's on the ballot, where do you stand?
BOXER: I support California's current law. I do not support legalizing the marijuana, so I'm against that initiative.
BLITZER: But you do support the current law in the sense that for medical purposes, people can get prescriptions to use marijuana?
BOXER: I do. I do.
BLITZER: What's your biggest --
BOXER: I do. And that was voted -- and I might say that was voted on by the people.
BLITZER: What is your biggest problem with Carly Fiorina? What is the single biggest difference that you have with her on a substantive issue?
BOXER: She's running on her record at Hewlett-Packard. She doesn't tell people she was fired from that job. She doesn't tell people she laid off 30,000 workers and she shipped American jobs abroad to China, to India. She was proud to stamp "made in China," Made in India." And I want to see the words "made in America" again.
BLITZER: She makes --
BOXER: And I think that's really --
BLITZER: -- the point -- I'll just -- I'll just --
BOXER: I think that's really the biggest difference.
BLITZER: I'll just tell you what she told me the other day. She says that the six years she was the head of Hewlett-Packard, when she came in, there was X-number of jobs, there were more jobs that she he created when she left, even though there was a down period during the dot-com bubble and she had to lay off some people. But more people were working there when she left than when she started.
BOXER: She created jobs in China instead of Chino and Chico. She created jobs in India instead of Indio, California. She created jobs, but not in America. And she said she would do it all over again. And she said there's no God-given right to a job in America anymore.
And she doesn't have the heart for these times we are going through, so I think that is the biggest difference, but there are lots of others too.
BLITZER: And this campaign will continue for another two-and-a- half weeks.
BOXER: Yes. Senator Boxer, thanks very much for coming in.
BOXER: Thanks, Wolf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Boxer voted for 2 trillion in tax cuts. She then clarified that 1.2 trillion of that was in the stimulus package. The stimulus package was 787 billion dollars-over time, of course.
Was that the same stimulus package where hundres of thousands were sent to dead people and live prtison inmates?
Again:
BLITZER: There was $1.2 trillion in tax cuts in the stimulus?
BOXER: There was a lot. About -- well, I will put it this way, over time, that's what it will be, when you figure all of the tax cuts over time. And what we did for the -- for the senior citizens, giving them back those refunds. So there was a lot. Actually, a third of the stim was direct tax cuts. That I can tell you.
13 comments:
Let us be clear! Boxer has her head in a place the Sun does not shine. Is that clear?!
Squid
Thanks for giving the complete transcript Gary, not just the narrow point you chortle about. On balance, I'd say Boxer won that debate hands down. She did clearly acknowledge that all the tax cuts she's voted for were not part of the $800 billion economic recovery bill, although she was stumbling a bit about that. On the whole, she was direct, honest, and laid out a much better sense of priorities than Fiorina.
New blood is good, but just because she ran a business doesn't mean she knows ANYTHING about good government. Boxer correctly highlighted that her record at H-P was an abysmal failure, a sound reason to send her packing.
I do hope in six years that
a) Boxer will retire,
b) a 21st century Democrat will challenge her in the primary,
c) the Republicans will have a challenger for her worth maybe putting into office,
d) all of the above.
Siarlys,
Even the SF Chronicle, not exactly a conservative paper, has refused to endorse Boxer, saying her terms have been marked with no legislative accomplishment-only partisan bickering.
I'd like the composition of the congress and the executive arm to be made up more of ordinary citizens and not career politicians. If we can get accomplished and competent ones, it would be even better.
As it is now, only a few in the Obama adminstration has ever been in business. They only theorize about things that motivate businessmen and stimulate the economy.
The more businessmen and other professionals we have in congress the better it will be. Boxer has been a career political hack and should be replaced by a proven accomplished person in the real world.
.
As you said about Sharon Angle, Barbara Boxer will generally vote the way I would prefer, and that's what senators are for, to vote. I was in California when she first ran, and I wasn't in the least impressed. I was even less impressed with her Republican opponent, whichever forgettable character that was.
Early in her career, Boxer told a joke about how women's conscience is clear on the savings and loan scandal, "but I wonder how men feel when they walk into a bank and see signs reading 'substantial penalties for early withdrawal'." Not a high standard of discourse.
Tom Lehrer once introduced a humorous song about nuclear disarmament at a night club in San Francisco. He reviewed some recent events, then observed "All this happened during the baseball season, so the Chronicle may not have covered it." That pretty well sums up the value of their editorial pronouncements.
As we both have to acknowledge, although with different hopes, the alternative to Boxer has come down to ... Carly Fiorina? One more failed business executive with a golden parachute who thinks starting at the top in politics would be a nice hobby for their retirement years.
I only wish I could "fail" like Carly Fiorina. Anyone who has been in the executive suite knows what a cut throat hostile environment it can be. I don't hold her departure against her as I'm sure she has her side of the story.
The "why they do it" is another mystery. We know or assume that professional politicians do it for the power and significance they get along with the usual graft that comes with the job. I don't know that you can attribute worse motives to the business people running for office just because they really don't need all that.
.
.
Power and vanity Miggie, that's all it takes to explain the Whitman-Fiorina-Johnson-WrestlingQueen phenomenon. (I don't watch her shows, so I never could keep her name straight).
A career politician is fine with me, as long as they stand for what I want done in the legislative branch. It takes an "ordinary person" six years to learn the ropes, and during that time, they tend to be led around like they have a ring in their nose by those who "have been there and learned how to get things done."
Personally, I don't like the things the legislators have done recently. Fiorina is no "ordinary person" and neither is Whitman. They are both accomplished, competent, people who are not likely to be led around by their noses by anyone.
To expand on my point: We would be better off with fewer entrenched bureaucracies. I love my freedom. I don't like the government intrusion in my life all the time. I believe competition cures a lot of the excesses in the marketplace over time a lot better than legislative efforts.
As you can tell, I am a believer in more business as you seem to be a believer in more government. I submit that we became the super power we are from business and competition and not by government and legislation.
.
Business has been one of the great enemies of freedom in the history of the United States. Businessmen are always ready to trample on the freedoms of citizens, starting with Cornelius Vanderbilt's brutally honest exclamation "Law? Who cares about law? Hain't I got the power?"
Incidentally, Fiorina oversaw a 52% drop in share prices and the firing of 33.000 workers, before getting herself a comfy $42 million golden parachute on her way out the door. So this is the woman who knows how to "create jobs" and reduce the deficit?
"Business has been one of the great enemies of freedom in the history of the United States."
That's right, Siarlys. Just think what a great country this would have been without business.
Again you go way back into the past to find bad things. This is one of the most ridiculous comments you have made.
Everything has a beginning Gary. Commerce has its place. The basic role of government is police and fire protection, good roads, and delivering the mail. When business is operating on a scale large enough to dominate the individual citizen, then it must be chained, leashed, muzzled, controlled. Then, the trick is to arranged regulation so that beneficial functions can flow freely, and harmful effects are prevented or punished.
There is nothing about business, as such that makes it a paragon of liberty for anyone, except, of course, the owners and managers. Liberty is for people. People who make an honest living providing things for other people while buying what other people provide to make an honest living for themselves, is cool. People making a living off of taking advantage of everyone else, and then whining about "too much regulation" are enemies of freedom.
Siarlys, It seems that the hostiliy you have for business must be personal as I don't see how you can make these statements. In a free society like ours large scale business does not "dominate" the people. We can always refuse to buy their product or go to a competitor. We don't have to work for any company. Yet major companies, employing tens of millions of us have built the most formidable industrial power house in history. Everyone outside of government government employees owns, operates, or works for businesses. The government, on the other hand, produces nothing. In fact, government depends on the taxes paid by businesses and employees.
I agree government has an important role. It should provide for the common defense, regulate commerce with anti-monopoly, fair trade, FDA, Federal Reserve, things like that. Local and state governments have additional functions like licensing, zoning, schools, etc. Obviously, these are not complete lists so for God's sake let's not quibble over them.
My point is that the country is better off, and all the citizens within from top to bottom when commerce is enabled, not shackled. It has it's good times and painful correction periods but overall capitalism works better than any other system. It is not a good idea to lash the goose that lays the golden eggs.
:
I agree that government
Siarlys,
Who do you go to when you want a job?
Post a Comment