Boxer-Fiorina debate: A clash over energy
Carly Fiorina tried to dodge questions about if global warming existed and rolling back green energy policies.
Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 02:13 PM
DODGEBALL: Carly Fiorina (right) didn't offer much when energy policy came up in her U.S. Senate debate with Barbara Boxer (left). (Photo: Jeff Chiu/AP)
The Barbara Boxer-Carly Fiorina Senate debate on Wednesday night featured some sparring over California’s energy policy.
It began when a moderator asked Fiorina if she believed in global warming. The question was in reference to an over-the-top commercial that compared worrying about global warming to worrying about the weather.
The moderator also asked Fiorina if she supported rolling back California’s landmark environmental protection laws, by supporting what is known as Proposition 23. Prop 23 would suspend many of California’s energy regulations until the state’s unemployment level dropped below 5.5 percent. According to reports, California’s unemployment rate has been below 5.5 percent only for four consecutive quarters three times since 1980.
When Fiorina dodged the question by saying she supported “every source of energy we have,” another moderator called her on it. “Time is up but you didn’t answer the question. Do you support prop 23, which would suspend A.B. 32?”
Fiorina continued playing her game of political dodgeball.
“My focus is on a national energy policy.”
“Yes or no?” The moderator interrupted.
“I have not taken it up,” Fiorina appeared to say before drifting into more sound bites.
In her rebuttal to Fiorina’s waffling, incumbent Boxer took her shot. "If you can't take a stand on Proposition 23, I don't know what you will take a stand on," Boxer said.
Boxer then said that rolling back the environmental regulations would hurt California’s renewable industry and kill jobs. Boxer added that Fiorina has a history of that from her time as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. "My opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in China and other places," Boxer jabbed.
Here's a link to this portion of the debate. The audio is a bit off, but you can get the idea: