Matt Lewis
Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching.Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching. Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching.Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching. Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching.Political pundits have long considered California’s junior Senator, Barbara Boxer, safe in her seat.  One of the more reliably and dogmatically liberal members of Congress’ upper chamber, she represents a dark blue state that President Obama won by more than 20 points last year. 

All that being said, she may well face a tough re-election campaign next year.  As I recently wrote, Boxer has been incapable, thus far, of garnering more than 50% support for her re-election in major polls.  The two main figures vying for a chance to replace her, ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, have been doing plenty to put a dent in Boxer’s odds of winning a fourth term.  But ironically, they may not be the biggest threat to Boxer’s chances in this race.  It turns out that Boxer is pretty adept at raising Californians’ eyebrows all on her own, and creating circumstances that must make them wonder why they elected her in the first place.

Yesterday, The Hill reported thatBoxer does not consider the primary issue arising out of the climate-gate scandal to be the possible manipulation of data relating to global warming for the purposes of increasing alarm about it (or, depending on who you believe, the possible outright fabrication of a case for global warming). 

Her primary concern rather is the origin of important information that was, admittedly, leaked. 

Said Boxer, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate.’”  [# More #]

She further indicated that if her Environment and Public Works Committee were to hold hearings on the matter, "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.”  A spokeswoman for Carly Fiorina offered this thought on the matter last night: “Ironically, in 2008 she was very interested in leaked information about climate change when it helped support her own views and demanded at the time that all the facts become known – without regard for the process by which they came out.” 

To many of Boxer’s constituents, however, the issue will be one not just of hypocrisy, but also of her just not “getting it” and looking ready to cast blame on those “tattling” on the University of East Anglia researchers—presumably because what they leaked conflicts directly with liberal orthodoxy that underpins the cap-and-trade bill that she and John Kerry are currently struggling to move through the Senate (despite California’s already high 12.5% unemployment).

Boxer’s bad day didn’t end there, though.  Fox News also dinged her for suggesting, in her response to President Obama’s speech on Tuesday night in which she outlined her opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, that there are only 100 terrorists in the country.  According to Fox, “[intelligence] officials called any suggestion that the surge is meant to fight 100 terrorist operatives irresponsible.”

Then, yesterday evening, Boxer took to the airwaves of Ed Schultz’s show to defend Democratic efforts on health care reform and wound up tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid.  (Here is the relevant clip).

Here’s the problem, as The American Spectator’s Phil Klein pointed out: Separate to the bad optics of her looking off camera and coming off as thoroughly confused, “anybody with an inkling of understanding of the Senate bill knows that the entire bill only covers 31 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. The expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP accounts for 15 million of that.”  That certainly seems like the kind of thing that Boxer ought to know—not only is she a three-term Senator, but she’s also a major Obamacare advocate.

In sum, it was a pretty bad day for Boxer.  More of these could make the California Senate race one worth watching.

Matt Lewis

Matt Lewis is conservative writer and blogger based in Alexandria, VA.

Be the first to read Matt Lewis' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.