Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Monday, October 4, 2010

Election Recommendations .... Kinda

*(Explanation for Lady Gaga, who wants you to vote, at bottom)


Camp Connell, CA -- You know those post cards you get in the mail every election eve, indicating the "approved slate?"
Well, this is my version of the "LaMont Approved Slate," telling you why I will and won't vote for certain things and people in November.
You are not required to pay any attention to this, but please do not assume any party affiliation or political leanings based on my history as a journalist. I have been one of those "failure to declare" people for over 30 years.
I never picketed or carried a protest sign, though I should have. I served in the Army, went to church, and owned a gun or two. And I voted in every election since I was 21.
The candidates I voted for over the years include every conceivable party and non-party to get onto a ballot. My great-grandfather ran a Whig newspaper, but I am not a Whig.

And, I did NOT charge anyone to buy space on my election recommendations the way the post card people do.

I WILL vote for candidates that demonstrate they have these characteristics:
-- Honesty.
I know. I know. Nobody's perfect. But I think a candidate for public office should have demonstrated throughout his or her history consistent acquaintance with the truth, and a willingness to state it when necessary. I understand that everyone sees things through different eyes and experience, and I do not object to honest criticisms of opponents or issues. But a liar does not deserve to be elected;
-- Experience that will help in making public decisions about public money and policy.
My choices tend to be people who have some government experience at a lower level if they are trying to move up. Running a company is not the same thing, nor is owning a business, large or small. I was once an executive and have been a manager, so you should trust me I when I say that does not qualify me for public office;
-- I prefer candidates who have actually worked for a living. This pretty much excludes people who inherit money, made it in the stock market or banking business, or were otherwise subsidized by the federal or state governments(most doctors and lawyers) unless they admit it and paid back their student loans;
-- Knowledge of the government office which they seek.
I do not mean someone who took a class or read a position paper. I mean the kind of people who have attended those endless boring but necessary meetings that help government at all levels function. I hated those meetings as a newspaper reporter, but always understood that is how government really gets something done. It takes research and study to gain real knowledge;
-- I prefer someone intelligent, but I'd rather elect an honest average person than a sharp crook.

I will NOT vote for a candidate who does the following:
-- Runs against President Obama when running for county commission. It's not the same, folks;
-- An incumbent who claims he "led the fight" if he did not lead the fight, the fight was unsuccessful or unworthy in the first place, or if -- as is usually the case -- the result made no difference;
-- Attacks his or her opponent as a KoolAid drinker, liberal, Neanderthal, pinko. socialist, right-wing fanatic, Palin clone, Obama-ite, progressive, FDR lover or Beck sympathizer, words used to hide the speaker's lack of knowledge. I can handle someone calling an opponent an idiot because there are some out there running for office, but they had better be prepared to prove it;
-- Wants a return to the "Good Old Days," meaning the Reagan era. You know, the era that gave us inflation, deregulation of the oil drillers, polluters and Wall Street con men, and the subsequent destruction of my stock market account and 401k, but made rich people a whole lot richer;
-- Always allows a "highly paid spokesperson" to speak for them, answer questions for them or write meaningless position papers. Candidates need to face the public and the press in open forums, not hide;
-- Redirects criticism away from him or her self by blaming the media, the opponent, colleagues, friends, or best of all -- unidentified conspirators;
-- Refuses to answer questions about experience, events in the past, or ideas for making this a better world;
-- Claims global warming is hokum;
-- Uses the terms "envirofreaks" or "tree huggers" to avoid discussing serious issues. I am one, seriously;
-- Claims to have God on their side;
-- Offers only criticism of the other person or party, and has no suggestions for improvement.

My "for" and "against" list on ballot propositions is somewhat shorter.

I will NOT vote for a proposition if:

-- It was put on the ballot by big oil companies, auto manufacturers, the Koch brothers, or any corporation or political party who tries to hide their motives. Corporations are not our friends, and neither are the filthy rich;
-- The name of the ballot issue is an obvious false front, such as "The Good Government Incentive Act" which really gives lobbyist what they wanted but could not sneak through the legislature by bribing people;
-- It makes the lives of the poor and true middle class more difficult;
-- It makes the lives of the rich and corporations easier. Geeze, they already own the legislature and Congress, what more do they want?
-- The proposition is poorly written, which many are, and does nothing to reform California's broken government.

I WILL vote for a proposition if it:

-- Reduces the power of lobbyists, special interests, my Congressman, corporations, and the very wealthy;
-- Forces disclosure of every dollar, and every minute of every day of every elected official;
-- Fixes a real problem the legislature can't fix;
-- Punishes bad guys, like polluters and people who rip off the poor and underrepresented;
-- Protects natural resources from the exploiters;
-- Saves our state parks from a legislature unable to do anything meaningful. They can't even supply toilet paper for the public rears.

These lists are far too short, but i just realized I may have to vote "none of the above" in most elections if I stick to this. You don't really expect me to be that consistent do you?

* The New York Times reported that if a website or blog mentions Lady Gaga the number of hits will soar. Buy her records. Check her website. Lady Gaga wants you to vote.

Friday, February 1, 2008

Election 2008 - Revolution or Revolting?

Camp Connell, Ca.-- Thomas Paine recommended a revolution every generation or so, and Thomas Jefferson thought that was an idea with merit.
Maybe 2008 is the year in which their dreams will be realized.
The presidential election of 2008 is already one of the most fascinating in the past 50 years, and it isn’t even decided (at the point I am writing this) who the candidates will be.
But we’re pretty sure it will not be Ron Paul, whoever he is, and he will not be able to pull a Ralph Nader and influence the final outcome. That’s encouraging.

Parties losing clout

And the political parties today seem to be less significant than in any election in recent memory. The party faithful are a shrinking minority in America, as more and more people declare their independence from partisan politics and look to candidates for answers to the questions we have not faced: war, health care, the influence of the rich, and foreign policy that breeds enemies among our friends and terrorists among our enemies.
No matter who the political parties select at their nominating conventions this year, three of the top four candidates today are serious people whom America has never given serious consideration to before:
-- Mitt Romney, the current favorite of the GOP right wing, is a Mormon. While America has always pretended religion doesn’t matter in politics, it always has mattered in the past. If he should revive his campaign and manage to survive the selection process, he will present a real test of American’s tolerance of religious freedom. No one talks about it publicly, but a some voters worry that the beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints is a little too weird for them. The anti-Catholic sentiments did not defeat John F. Kennedy, but it cost him votes. Ultimately, it is not Romney's religion that seems to turn people away, but his conservative positions that are not in synch with most middle-of-the-road voters.
-- Hillary Clinton, if you haven’t noticed, is a woman. She is taken seriously by almost everyone involved: Democrats because some see her as the best hope for victory and Republicans because they see her as the easiest to run against. The anti-Clinton and antifeminist sentiments will certainly cost her votes, but she has shown political savvy that could carry the day. Never underestimate Ms. Clinton, nor the right wing’s hatred of her.
-- Barack Obama, most Americans concede, is an African-American. He is taken seriously by supporters and opponents, though critics will nit-pick the details of his background and a few remaining racial troglodytes will never vote for any person of color. Most of us don’t care what he looks like, so long as he is a decent and intelligent person.
The fourth serious candidate at this writing is John McCain, a bona fide war hero and the likeliest GOP nominee after a near miraculous revival, who supports an extremely unpopular and expensive war. McCain seems to survive because voters believe he is sincere even when they disagree with many of his positions on issues. He doesn't represent change, but he could turn out to be the stealth candidate just because he seems likable. Remember, we liked Ike a few generations ago even when he promised not to do much.

Times, they are changing...

No matter who eventually wins the nominations and this election, America is headed for significant change at the top. None of the top candidates seem to admire George W. Bush's style or friends, and most are running as the anti-Bush.

Anything can happen in a presidential campaign, but the odds are that a Democrat will be the next president simply based on the “anybody-but-Bush-and-Republicans” voters, who seem to grow in numbers daily as jobs disappear, the stock market stays in the tank, and the body bags keep coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
With record deficits, long-term denial of global warming dangers, and padding the pockets of the mega-rich oil barons and others, the GOP has an uphill battle not unlike that of the Herbert Hoover supporters who tried to assure our parents the great Depression wasn’t really so bad, and if we’d just give the industrialists more leeway everything would trickle down to our benefit. Yeah, right.

But even entrenched GOP party folk recognize the country is ready for change, and they are eager to look like the instruments of that change.

The great thing about this Democracy is that no one knows what will happen, except that the majority will rule. Probably.

Then there is always the possibility of a modern American revolution.


(Sanders LaMont is a retired journalist, former editor of three daily newspapers, and persistent voter in all elections, except primaries. He has been registered as an independent for 30 years, and regards most politicians and their parties with distrust. It’s the American way.)