Debate Watcher’s Guide to Babs and Hurricane Carly
As the U.S. Senate candidates prepare to debate Wednesday evening, Republican Carly Fiorina and Democrat Barbara Boxer face two, very different challenges:
Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, wants to make the case that Boxer is a left-wing extremist who should be tossed out of Congress and that she would make a solid replacement for her rival.
First elected in 1992, Boxer has to demonstrate that she has been, and can continue to be, effective in the Senate. It’s an added bonus if she can portray Fiorina as a right-wing whack job.
Look for Fiorina to move aggressively to steer the conversation to jobs, portray the economic stimulus bill as a prime example of excessive government spending and mock Boxer’s record of achievement (or lack thereof) in the Senate.
Watch for Boxer to argue that the stimulus saved many thousands of jobs in California, and to try to focus on a woman’s right to choose, climate change, offshore oil drilling and Fiorina’s record of achievement (or lack thereof) at Hewlett-Packard.
Throw down a shot every time Fiorina mentions Boxer’s 28 years in office and another when Boxer mentions HP and “You’ll be pretty toasted at the end of that game,” says Julie Soderlund, Fiorina’s spokeswoman.
Boxer is a big supporter of President Barack Obama and the stimulus. So Fiorina will home in on the sense that the president’s policies have failed to restore economic security. But every time Fiorina mentions the economy, she will open herself up to attacks about laying off thousands of HP employees, shipping jobs abroad and mismanaging the company, from which she was fired.
Both will have much to say about extending the Bush tax cuts: Fiorina likes them and Boxer argues they benefit only the rich. Both have strong views on immigration: Fiorina accuses Boxer of favoring amnesty and being soft on illegals; Boxer can’t understand why Fiorina is opposed to a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.
Listen for how many times either candidate refers to “green jobs,” policy proposals that posit California can combine economic growth with environmental protection by building up wind, solar and battery industries to cushion the shock of tough regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Note how many times the two reference agriculture and – heaven help us – “family farming.” Is one of them for getting water to the Central Valley and the other opposed? Would one of them drain the Delta in order to flood parched farmland?
The issue of abortion rights is perhaps the brightest line difference between the two.
Boxer knows that Fiorina’s anti-abortion stance differs from mainstream views of most California voters, including the independents who tilt the balance in statewide elections. She also knows, however, that Fiorina has a personal narrative to explain her position – she and her husband, Frank, were unable to have children, while his mother recalls that she was urged to abort him for health reasons – so Boxer must handle it carefully.
While voters may hope the candidates will keep the debate focused on issues, some personal, snarky moments are all but guaranteed – the targets are just too tempting.
Will Fiorina refer to Boxer as “ma’am,” to remind viewers of her notorious confrontation over titles with a top general at a committee hearing? Will Boxer, as one of her advisers suggested, mention Fiorina’s yacht trips with her grandchildren? Will either offer a reminder of Fiorina’s dis of Boxer’s way-yesterday hairdo early in the campaign?
How about term limits, Barbara? Carly’s for them and has even pledged to serve only 12 years in the Senate. Is this just a cheap rhetorical trick or are you planning to lead a nationwide drive to get approval for a constitutional amendment, Carly?
Carly, are you for tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, like you did at HP? Barbara, do you want to raise business taxes to make it even harder for companies to hire workers when California’s unemployment rate is pushing 13 percent?
As they prepare for the debate, both sides are talking up how skilled the other is at public speaking and argument, part of the raise-expectations game.
But there are some expectations that viewers can rightfully bring to the debate-watching experience. Boxer, who often stands on a box to look taller, has to maintain the dignity and decorum of a United States senator, even if she takes shots at her challenger. Fiorina has to look and sound like a United States senator and not Suze Orman on steroids.
Viewers might want to put a couple of columns on a piece of paper: Junk Yard Dog and Dignified Public Servant. Every time either candidate sounds like one of these, mark her name in the appropriate column. Total them up at the end.
The results will have absolutely nothing to do with who actually wins the election.
This article, without clever Calbuzz art, appeared originally in the Sacramento Bee on Sunday, 8/29/10.
Fiorina & Whitman rarely voted, made millions as CEOs, laid off employees, to send the jobs overseas, pushed people over (literally), backed Bush Jr’s economic policies leading to a net loss of 700,000 private sector jobs over 8 years and are Republicans in California, a state that voted for candidate Obama by 24.1 points.
Shouldn’t we move that final photo of the piece into Bob’s avatar spot?
I have yet to understand what the “problem” with undocumented immigrants is. I suppose it’s a problem that they are undocumented, but beyond that I’m a bit lost. I’ve heard that they are criminals. The evidence says they are less likely to be criminals than the general population. I’ve heard that they don’t pay taxes. My SO is an enrolled agent and has prepared many returns for undocumented individuals, both her experience and the more scientific evidence support the claim that they do in fact pay taxes and the delinquency rate is identical to the general population (there was a specific study of this in CA). Then there is the claim that they suppress wages. Unless the anti-immigrant crowd has come to Jesus regarding unions, the last time I checked it was not workers who set wages in the types of jobs where wages get suppressed, it is the employers. So what are we left with? One thing: “scary brown people”. Fiorina and the rest of the anti-immigrant crowd are pandering to racial fears and nothing else since anything else they might come up with just does not withstand closer scrutiny (of the scientific variety).