I thought it was helpful during the election earlier this year how we all shared ideas about the election, which actually was the inspiration for this blog in the first place. I'll start with my take on the candidates and ballot measures, but appreciate anyones feedback. Some issues I am on the fence about and can't decide really either way. Feel free to leave comments, no matter what your views. If your not an author you can still post comments.
I am voting in the La Jolla/UTC area of California, so much of this won't apply to all of you, but you are encouraged to post about your own candidates.
Federal and State offices
Presidential candidate: Posibbly the biggest close pin vote I’ve ever done, but I think that McCain/Palin is better than the alternative. I considered doing a write in, but that is even more useless then voting third party. Who would even read them? Votes are counted electronically. Reasons why I think McCain is better than Obama are discussed elsewhere by me on this blog.
US Rep: I’m the 53rd district, but I encourage others to talk about their own for other readers in your same district. As for me, Susan Davis is bad news. She is the only member of congress from San Diego that voted twice for the bailout package. I told her at the time if she did it she would loose my vote, and I’m sticking to it. She also backs NO on props 4 and 8. Michael Crimmins is my vote.
State senate 39th district: Senator Kehoe co authored SB 777, and was behind the Supreme Court decision to strike prop 22 as invalid, both of which are big steps in bringing homosexuality into our public schools. I favor Jeff Perwin.
State assembly 75th district: I don’t know much about them, but I think that Nathan Fletcher will be more likely to stop people like Kehoe.
San Diego Schools:
District B (community college): I found a good article that talks about a lot of the the school board members in the running: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080927/news_1cz27sdcoll.html
I favor John Edwards.
District D (community college): Dwayne Crenshaw
District A (San Diego Unified): Mitz Lee
District D (SD Unified): doesn’t matter. There is one person running. If your itching to do the useless write in, this would be a good spot.
District E (SD Unified): I favor Xeng X. Yang. I didn’t research this one too much, but Shelia Jackson seems a little fishy. For one thing, she is backed by the Queer Democrats organization.
San Diego City Attorney: I favor Jan Goldsmith, but am open to advice. I don’t know too much about them. Jan Goldsmith is backed by the Republican Party.
City Council District 1: Definitely Phil Thalheimer. Lightner wants San Diego to be a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and is very liberal on moral issues as well.
State Initiatives:
Prop 1A: This was a tough one, but I’m leaning toward NO. It’s just too much money that our state doesn’t have. California is having trouble selling bonds for its regular budget how it is.
Prop 2: I do think it would be nice if factory farm animals could be treated a little more humane. The Libertarian in me bids that I vote NO. Often when government mandates something like this, it just becomes a mess. This is something that needs to come from either consumers, or ethical business practices.
Prop 3: I’m leaning towards YES on this one. Maybe I’m just a sucker for the “It’s for the children!” line, but I think the children’s hospitals are a really good cause, and should get the funding they need.
Prop 4: YES. Who can best decide what is best for kids? Parents. They should be given the power. That is why we have a legal age for adulthood. In cases of abusive parents… well that is what CPS is for. Hopefully they can deal with those cases. In any case I think a lot more teens will be helped by this by having to confront their problems and deal with them like an adult than the few that may be hurt by backroom abortions.
Prop 5: NO. I usually favor stricter penalties for crime to serve as a deterrent for committing the crime in the first place. I am a bit surprised that I agree with Diane Feinstein about a proposition though.
Prop 6: NO. It seems a bit odd for petition signers to control the budget this much. It could lead to bigger problems.
Prop 7: NO. Prop 7 and 10 are backed too much by small independent green energy companies that want to make it the law to make them grow big. It’s a lot of money that we don’t have and I think its the wrong way to face the global warming issue. A lot is said about global warming elsewhere on the blog for details. See “Global Warming: an Inconvenient Rebuttal” posted Feb 2008 by Sparrow.
Prop 8: YES (as seen on my cool widget). For my rational, see comments on “I don’t care how California defines marriage” posted by Sparrow, May, 2008. There was a really good discussion on the issue. I do have more to say on it, which I may post later this week. As with anything else, other perspectives are always welcomed.
Prop 9: YES. Not to sure on this one. It makes sense to hold criminals more responsible towards the victims of their crimes.
Prop 10: NO. See prop 7.
Prop 11: I’m definitely leaning to YES. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against this one, but there may be one.
Prop 12: NO. Too much money and I’m not convinced that our veterans aren’t already taken care of adequately.
San Diego Initiatives
Prop A: YES. I hate taxes as much as the next, but fires to San Diego is a real big problem, and we are not prepared enough for them.
Prop B: NO. I’m not sure. To be honest I’m following Rodger Hedgecock on this one. I think for the most part he is right on about San Diego issues.
Prop C: NO. Why not use the money for other things if needed?
Prop D: YES: I told the Libertarian devil in my head to go away on this one. I’m not convinced that yes is the right vote.
Prop S: NO. Too much money. We have the money already, it just isn’t being allocated like it should be. We can’t just keep throwing money at problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Yeah the presidential candidate vote is tough. Jared and I were just talking about it last night and we both feel somewhat torn whether to vote for McCain or Ron Paul. McCain would be the lesser of two evils but Ron Paul would be like a vote for Obama... conscience vs. consensus voting I guess it what it boils down to. Another factor is that I'm quite unimpressed with Palin. It seems like McCain picked her JUST because she is a women, she has VERY little experience, especially in foreign affairs. It seems like McCain was just trying to compete with the fact that Obama is black (a minority).
So would you write in Ron Paul? I may have considered voting for Ron Paul if we was on the Libertarian Ticket, but honestly I kind of respect the fact that he didn't. I still think writing someone in is completely worthless, especially since votes are counted electronically. The fact of the matter is the one of the two candidates... McCain or Obama is better.
I'm glad that you brought up Palin. But more on that later... I have a midterm tomorrow :)
Just wanted to encourage everyone to support Prop 8, even those of us, like me, who are outside of CA. If this Prop 8 fails (which it might - the polls are running pretty close), then it will have a ripple effect on the entire country, and we will likely see same sex marriage become universal across the country. CA is a trend-setter and a "bellweather" state for the rest of the country. Hollywood and their rich friends are tipping the scales through huge donations, and it might fail if they don't get more financial support. So please let your friends know about this and encourage them to support it. Even small donations, if there are enough of them, can help tip the scales back in favor of it passing. Here is a good article on how the opposition is misleading the public on this issue:
http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html
The CA teachers union contributed more than 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign, and most of Hollywood has also done this, so the "no on 8" campaign is getting alot of support from big donors, while the "yes on 8" campaign gets most of its money from the "grass roots" people like us.
Religious freedom in our country will suffer in the long term if Prop 8 fails, and we will have to deal with our children being taught that same sex relations and marriage are just as valid as heterosexual relations and marriage, even without our consent, and likely even in spite of our lack of consent. It's a pandora's box that should never be opened.
I actually like Sarah Palin, at least from what I've read about her and seen or her speeches so far. The pro-Obama biased media sure has it in for her, which is to her favor actually. Regarding experience, she has as much or more than Obama, and at least she has some "executive" experience, which Obama doesn't. Also, she's in the VP spot while Obama isn't, so it's more important of an issue for him. We really don't know much about her though, so that is a bit scary, such as wondering what her foreign policy might be.
Regarding the presidential vote, unquestionably I will vote for McCain (Holly and Bonnie also said they will), though definitely not whole-heartedly. We see it as a lesser of 2 evils, which the McCain "evil" being much less than the Obama "evil". I see voting for a 3rd party candidate, no matter how good they are, as throwing the election to Obama, since McCain is running so low in the polls right now that he can use all the help he can get. The negative side of Obama getting elected is just too much to be gambling on right how. Here are my main reasons for this:
1) Liberal activist judges vs. constitution-preserving ones. I have no doubt that we will see more judges like Ginsberg and also the ones who started this whole same-sex marriage business. Not just at the supreme court level but at the lower levels as well, which the president can appoint, and congress can approve.
2) Fiscal conservatism. Though neither candidate will do very well in this regard, I see McCain as being far better than Obama. Obama is best friend of groups like ACORN, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. McCain is also more for free market and less government intervention, and more pro-small business.
3) Abortion, same-sex marriage, and other important social issues. Obama is not courageous enough to say what he really thinks about same-sex marriage because he's afraid of losing moderate voters. Joe Biden has donated to the "no on Prop 8" crowd, as has their DNC (democratic party), along with Pelosi and other democrats. McCain has come out strongly against same-sex marriage and I believe him (he's no Schwarzenegger).
4) Foreign Policy: This is where some of us don't see eye to eye. I believe that our country needs to intervene in the affairs of other countries in some circumstances, such as when the rest of the world is put at risk of great loss of life, or other such over-arching risk. It is hard to draw a definitive line here sometimes, but I trust McCain more than I do Obama, in that I think Obama will wind up being more like Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and will only encourage our enemies to take advantage of us and take the upper hand, somewhat like how Hitler took advantage of the rest of Europe (and the US) in the events leading up to WW2. Foreign policy however can be a very tricky thing. Often it's seems to be a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. I see a great risk in either becoming too isolationist or in being too interventionist. I do think our country should try to remain neutral as much as possible when there are disputes between 2 countries, but that also gets tricky when you have a treaty with another country (such as in NATO), and a fellow member country is attacked, then you really need to stick up for the fellow country. We have other allies, such as Israel, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and others, which fit into that category also. Obama just has too many friends from earlier in his career who are of a Marxist bent, with the attitude that America is wrong and bad and that countries like Cuba and Venezuela have the right idea. He has tried to distance himself from them, but I'm not sure that I trust his reliability of becoming more moderate, as he says he has. McCain worries me sometimes that he might be too much of an interventionist, but that will be tempered by a public wearied with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and a congress which would fight him every step of the way if he tried to get involved in another conflict, which might be a questionable one.
Some good votes there, although we differ on the exercising chickens and District A.
Don't we have animal cruelty laws against hurting animals? So why do the fat cats get away with these dirty practices? We shouldn't allow it.
As far as District A, Mitz is a weak board member. She even voted for a policy that wouldn't allow them to disagree with the superintendent in public! Craziness.
Anyways, good ballot. Way to exercise your rights.
I agree with you, Uncle Phil and Hyrum, about voting for McCain. That is probably who I will end up voting for.
Something sickening I just read about Obama, four times he voted AGAINST putting babies on life support that survived abortion. And yet he claims to care about people with his (more) universal health care plan and more regulations on the death penalty?? It just makes no sense.
It's also scary to think about Obama in the White House because we may well also have a Democratic super-majority in the Senate; Republicans wouldn't even be able to filibuster.
The other reason why I think McCain picked Palin is because she is a totally new face, since no one knows anything about her she has no enemies, which in general tends to make people like her, just because she's a fresh face. That's what I think anyway. I also think that's partly why Obama won over Hillary - Hillary has been around so long and has lots of enemies whereas Obama is new.
Phil, great comments! Palin is solid evidence that we have an incredibly biased media. By the way, according to a recent poll, 7/10 Americans believe that the media is biased toward Obama, Democrats and Republicans alike, so it's not just Rush Limbaugh. I heard the report on NPR. I think the poll was done by Gallup.
She came out of the Republican Convention on fire. Millions were energized by her, and McCain took the lead in the polls for the first time. I had been following Palin before her VP announcement because of a research project I was doing in school. I was happy with the VP pick because I knew she was an honest, down to earth, no-nonsense politician, which is what most people saw.
So what happened? The media saw that the Republicans might have found their Obama (crowd pleaser, energizer), and attacked. Her image was quickly reduced to an inexperienced, over the top busy body, that is annoying, stupid and even an unfit parent. Even now, Halloween displays have her hanging from a noose on peoples front porch. Couldn't most of the things being said of her be said of Obama? On every major issue, you'll notice: he stays quiet, looks around, waits to see what McCain and other experienced people say, and then mimics them. That doesn't work when your the guy in charge. And he is the presidential candidate! Relatively, the VP does nothing.
Wasn't it all about feminist power when Hillary was running? What happened?
I admit her lack of experience would make me nervous if McCain died, but I think she would make an awesome VP.
The crude defamation of her character is unfortunate, because in a society where women are already disrespected by men and each other, their societal image may have just been unfairly tarnished further.
Yes, Tina Fey impersonating Palin on SNL is funny, and I am probably hypocritical saying this: but sometimes I think we sell our integrity as a people for a good laugh. Nothing is sacred anymore.
I love the Libertarian in you!
My issue with Palin is her seeming lack of intelligence. I'll be honest here, I am an elitist when it comes to education. I want my leaders to be intellectual. Of all of the candidates, Palin has the worst record when it comes to her education, she skipped around between, I believe, about five colleges. That doesn't scream commitment to me. McCain also has a pretty weak academic background. I believe a good, solid experience with higher education is important in our leaders as it helps develop essential skills.
Hyrum, your thoughts about animal cruelty were interesting (you and I have had some fun conversations about stuff like this in the past). I probably would be likely to vote for the bill, as I'm sure comes as no surprise. But I also liked what you said about using the market and consumers to make the change. Ryan and I recently made the change to free range eggs as well as free range/humanely raised meat. We also follow those guidelines in our dairy (as well as no growth hormones). I have to say, it tastes much better! It also costs more, but we decided it was a sacrifice we were willing to make.
Thanks for the informative post Hyrum. You saved me a lot of time because now I don’t have to study the issues out myself (jk). I really liked Phil’s analysis of the reasons to vote McCain.
I pretty much agree with Hyrum on everything except for No on Prop 5. Right now our jails are overcrowded with non-violent offenders; it makes sense to let them out early so we can make room for the violent criminals since we don’t have enough state resources to build jails for everyone who should be there.
I am definitely in favor of Prop 9. I think the safety of potential victims should be taken into consideration before a criminal is freed.
It annoys me that prop 12 will probably pass. For some reason most people believe that serving in the military automatically entitles one to benefits above and beyond what motivated them to sign up in the first place of their own free will.
Also does anyone know of a site where I can read up on the local San Diego initiatives, otherwise I’ll just have to take Hyrum’s word for them. The last time I took Hyrum’s word on something I ended up with a horrible rash.
Thanks for pointing me to your blog, Hyrum. I'm not sure if i'm able to post as an author on your blog, so I'll leave my thoughts about Prop 8 as a comment:
My support for the proposition is based in part on my belief that men and women are inherently different in at least one important way. As a man, I can neither give birth nor nourish an infant. I can, however, provide for my wife and children. Marriage sanctioned by God and administered by a government as a covenant between complementing, but different, genders allows society at its most basic element to capture the benefits of male-female differences. Whether differences are inherent (pregnancy and testosterone levels) or learned (some would say my affinity for football and my wife's enjoyment of sewing), a successful, unified fulfillment of the marriage compact demonstrates how society more generally might pair males and females together for increased mutual benefit.
The current law governing marriage in California does not incorporate gender as part of the marriage contract. As such, maleness and femaleness are not relevant to forming a family, the fundamental unit of society. This reinforces a message that differences between men and women are irrelevant. Childbirth and motherhood along with complementary fatherhood - which are gender specific roles in a family based on the pairing of a husband and wife - are absent as family institutions. Instead, these are individual choices and self-assumed titles. Society is then fundamentally composed of individuals making self-interested decisions, not families fulfilling their covenant responsibilities. I believe fatherhood is an agreement between a man, his wife, and God, not a personal choice I have made to be a primary influence on a child's development.
When a government does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, individuals are not able to make covenants supported (and enforced) by the government to enter into a family relationship centered on the complementary pairing of the two sexes. Rather, the government supports exclusively genderless contracts between consenting individuals. I believe a government dignifies men and women and acknowledges the mutual benefit of their differences by maintaining the definition of marriage as the life-long covenant binding of a man and a woman. This definition is implemented at the expense of the agenda of genderless individualism. It is impossible for marriage to be both a covenant between a man and a woman and a contract between any consenting parties. When a government makes marriage available as one, it precludes the offering of the other.
Proposition 8 allows the people of California to decide which of these definitions governs marriage in California. Please join me in the effort to restore the legal definition of my marriage as an agreement between a man and a woman.
Sam
-San Diego, CA
Hyrum,
Thanks for creating this blog for collaboration on the election issues. I have a few general guidelines for voting:
1. Vote for more decentralized power because power, by nature, tends to concentrate into the hands of government.
2. Vote no on bonds. Debt is a mismanagement of public funds.
I agree with all of your proposition pics with the following comments:
I am voting no on 3. They are merely using children as a facade.
I am voting no on 5 also. Tom McClintock, who I trust on these issues, states: "The fatal flaw in this otherwise decent measure would allow criminals to use their drug offense for leniency for other non-drug-related crimes."
Prop 6 is a tough one. It is a mixed bag. It has a provision prohibiting the release on bail of illegals aliens charged with violent crimes which is good. But it "auto pilots" a portion state money to local law enforcement which should be funded on a local level. I am still not sure on this one.
Prop 9 is a yes for me. The justice system has neglected victims rights for a long time.
Prop 11 is a definite yes. Redistriciting needs to be taken from the hands of the legislature as much as possible.
Prop 12 - I think that I will vote no on this however, it is a self-liquidating bond which means the participating veterens will pay of it, not the taxpayers.
On a presidential level, most of you know that my favorite candidate, Ron Paul, is not running. Chuck Baldwin, my second favorite, is not on the ballot in CA. My third favorite is Alan Keyes and then Bob Barr. I keep thinking of what John Adams said, Duty is Ours and Results are God's." I am still pondering what to do. My guideline is to seek the constitutional candidate and vote by conscience, not by polls.
Thanks Rachey, I like my libertarian side too. It's actually not so much libertarian as much as just a love for the constitution the way that it was written in the first place by our founding fathers: To have all government as small as absolutely possible so that people will have the responsibility to be self governing. The constitution now has become a relic, a thing of the past. A good example of this is the fact that the constitution lists specific powers that congress has, and explicitly leaves everything else to the state or local governments. Needless to say, congress has long since overstepped those limitations and does whatever it feels like.
No politician that I have ever heard of even wants to uphold the constitution (except Ron Paul), because that would mean limiting their own power. Instead they use the constitution in a general sense as it fits their needs. Referring to the "right to privacy" that the constitution guarantees is a common one. Never mind the fact that it cannot be found in the text. While voters should be electing people that uphold the constitution, we tend to elect people that will manipulate the constitution to get us what we want, or validate our passion for whatever current political issue.
So limiting government is referred to now as libertarian, but I thought it was important to clarify the reasoning behind much of my "libertarian" opinions.
Still, we're stuck in a system that doesn't care about the constitution. Phil did an excellent job summarizing the reasons why I think a vote for McCain is the best choice, but he is still not a constitutional candidate.
BTW Rachey, out of curiosity, about how much more do you pay for free ranged chickens and humanly treated meat? Even ethical issues aside, it has to be a lot more healthy.
Hyrum, the price difference between the meat is pretty insignificant, I'll look into it for you to get a solid number.
It is definitely healthier.
Post a Comment