Abusegate: 10 Reasons why Barbara Boxer will soon be Toast

This coming Tuesday there will be five, California, Republican candidates running against each other in the June primary for the right to face Boxer in the fall. They are, as listed on the Official Sample Ballot: Al Ramirez, Chuck DeVore, Tom Campbell, Tim Kalemkarian, and Carly Fiorina.

I'd like to know where the candidate running against Boxer will stand on the issue of domestic violence law's discrimination against men before I support him/her.

Has RADAR given any consideration to the possibility that the candidates (mostly Republican), running for those seats they listed, may be no better on the issue of domestic violence law's discrimination against men than the incumbents (mostly Democrat)?

The field of candidates for the November election will be much clearer after this coming Tuesday, but where they stand on domestic violence law's discrimination against men may not be.

For the moment I don't think that the views of Barbara Boxer's opponents are relevant. I see two goals:
1. Boot Barbara Boxer out of office.
2. Make sure that our role in booting Barbara Boxer out of office is publicly known -- at least in political circles.

Once politicians see themselves as vulnerable to men, they'll start caring about what we think.

You're "not sure her oppenent's stand on Men's issues are relevant" is one of the most absurd statements I"ve ever read. Her oppenent's stand on men's issues is most certainly relevant and it'll be a cold day in L.A. before I waste a second of my time, or a penny of my money on a candidate that's anti-male. You (or Abusegate Bob) are actually asking us to support her opposition and apparently, as far as you're concerned, she/he could be as bad or worse on men's issues as Boxer. God help us. We definitely need a different strategy such as suggesting a write-in candidate as a protest vote.

I can tell you from experience that most Democrats support gender feminist issues such as VAWA and most Republicans acquiesce to gender feminist issues such as VAWA - not wanting to offend the women's vote.

When I have a chance to ask a question of the Republican candidate who will face up against Boxer, I will simply ask, "What is your stand on the federal Violence Against Women Act (law) that Barabara Boxer says she originally introduced in the House in 1990, when she was a representative there?"

Perhaps "you" should be thinking of a name that MRA's and FRA's can write in on their ballots, since it is highly unlikely that any opposition candidate in Boxer's Senate race will take a stand against the misandrist abuses of VAWA. Or are we too afraid to show how few in numbers we really are when the votes are counted? Please respond.

In this Carly Fiorina campaign ad, Demon Sheep, the speaker is not shy to use the term "MEN" twice in a tone of voice that makes it sound like a pejorative. You don't have to watch the whole ad, because it all happens in the first half-minute of the ad. I'm not sure Fiorina is leading in the polls, but I know she is running strong. Would you want us to support this candidate against Boxer?

I agree that we should find some anti misandric polititions. In fact some reform to men's issues is important enough to me that I'd vote on either side to get them in.

hell... the import economic situation, which is on people's mind, is a men's issue. It shouldn't be that hard to show that men have been shafted because they are men. The direction is jobless and educationless men without support or direction. The "mansession" involved the picturesque hard working (NOT lazy) men, such as the construction industry, losing out to the economy then receiving disproportionately low attention by the government. Now seems like a good time to get some representation.

"At this point we have to find the best of a bad lot..."

No we don't. That's just another form of throwing your vote away, only it's supporting the misandric status quo while doing it, IMO. I'd rather draw the line in the sand and if they want my vote let them "change" and provide equal rights for all regardless of sex.

I see your point but you are wanting politicians to bet on the idea that you would vote and you would vote on men's issues, after not voting. Sometimes you do need to say fuck that and demand more but if I were a politician i'd wonder if you (and ur block) do actually vote and even if you declared you'd vote on men's issue would you accept a half way MR or just end up calling him a traitor for comprising.

So far to me it seems its a better strategy to vote out boxer (we know why), and make the intention behind your vote known, than to not vote. I would personally need a more drawn out plan to not vote when Boxer is running.

"So far to me it seems its a better strategy to vote out boxer (we know why), and make the intention behind your vote known, than to not vote."

'''or protest vote.

I guess the bottom line is that citizens need to be more involved than just voting. Getting our views heard by the politicians is a significant part of the process. Perhaps we all need to become better community organizers and citizen lobbyists regarding men's and father's issues.