Sunday, November 05, 2006

Election Endorsements

I had to take a deep breath after my last post to calm down a little. Since I've been asked by several people now my prefrences for this election, here goes:

  • Governor: Angelides all the way. He may look like a nerd, but he has his stuff together. He's bright and knows more about the details of the issues than Schwarzenegger ever will. He's one of the best state Treasures--if not thebest--of my lifetime. I really believe he'd be the best governor of my young lifetime (which includes Bill Clinton). Any policy wonk would love this guy, even if the media has already made love to Schwarzenegger.

  • Congress (14th CD, Senate): I love Anna Eshoo as a Rep. and am proud to be in her district. She's a great person, good on the issues and a forceful advocate. She rocks. Feinstein should romp her opponent and I'm happy to vote for her.

  • Lt. Gov: Garemendi. This is not really very hard. McClintock is a constant candidate that's just way too extreme. Garemendi has a good resume and is needed to counter a possible reelection of Schwarzenegger. (I'm not sure if will have candidate "bipartisan" Schwarzenegger or the "quit being economic girlie men" Schwarzenegger who we got when he wasn't facing election.)

  • Treasure, Sec. State, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner: Bill Lockyear (he was a close second for me in terms of governor, but didn't run); Debra Bowen will be a leader in making sure our state is a leader in fair and audited elections, no question about this one; Jerry Brown has experience and is generally OK; Chiang for controller to replace Westly; Bustamante for IC--Poizner is a billionaire conservative Republican trying to buy himself into the governors mansion however he can. He'll be out of a job (which seems to be running for office after office) if prop. 89 gets passed since his money won't mean as much.


  • 1A-E: It looks like Schwarzenegger may win. Since Schwarzenegger (and the Dem. legislature) don't know how to pay-as-you-go, this is the only way the state will pay for important infrastructure. I hate governing using credit cards but with Republican executives, that seems like the only way. I had to bite my tongue to vote yes--some of the stuff is needed--but I wouldn't be upset if people voted it down. It would force Schwarzenegger to make tough decisions--something the press seems unwilling to do, even though these decisions will have to be made sooner or later.

  • Prop 84: I think this is one of the least offensive measures on the ballot.

  • Prop. 85: I place more value on women's lives than for cells, I have no problem admitting that. This was on the ballot last year and lost--and for a reason. If you need the government to parent for you, then you probably shouldn't be parenting. This won't affect good parents, but will put young women and girls in abusive families in danger. Bad idea last year. Bad idea this year. Bad idea when they try again next year.

  • Prop. 86: I don't smoke, but I'd pay more for a bottle of wine if it went to treat alcoholism and it's affects. When big tobacco is the major source of funding for the anti-86 ads, it means we are probably onto something good. This is onto something good.

  • Prop. 89: Yes, yes, yes, and yes! This is greatly needed. Money in politics is a cancer on the system. Money prevents good candidates and public servants from running for office. I find that a shame. For me, this is much more about promoting candidates than removing special interests. The founders wanted to make our government accessible to everyone so we don't end up with an aristocracy running the country. Most Senators are millionaires and you have to be a millionaire just to be competetive. Governors races are becoming the same (The top three: Schwarzenegger, Westly, and Angelides are all wealthy.) Two years ago Steve Poizner spent over $7 million for a state assembly race. If that's what it takes, then we have an aristocracy. It's time to end this insanity.

  • Prop. 90: NO! This is horrible and goes way beyond answering Kelo. It's one of the worst props that have been on the ballot since I've been in california. Bad, bad, bad.

  • Props. 83, 87, 88: I don't advocate either way on these. Prop. 83 is great in concept, but probably too restrictive and poorly constructed--there are strong arguments for and against this. I also think 87 is poorly constructed, but good in concept. I'm generally against parcel taxes but for school funding so 88 is a tough one.


At November 06, 2006 1:00 PM, Blogger ChasingMoksha said...

I so do not understand the no on 90. I am getting a headache trying to figure it out. It says Government Acquistion, regulatuon of private property, initiatve constututional amendment. Okay that alone I would vote no. But then it says Bars state/local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Isn't that what happened in CT? Then it goes on to say "Limits goverment's authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/regulatuons.

I just think they should not take someone's land.

At November 06, 2006 1:18 PM, Blogger Gilbert Martinez said...

I'm pro-Kelo for a number of reasons, but this goes way beyond Kelo. A corporation could sue the state if the state decides to build a road a mile away from the property. You can disagree with Kelo, but still be strongly against this initiative. Also, it will mean states adopting pollution statutes will have to pay corporations. If you agree with that, then I probably have no reason to try to persuade you. No offense, but people I know who adopt that extreme position are not usually open to other people's views.

At November 06, 2006 1:31 PM, Blogger ChasingMoksha said...

I don't want anything that will help corporations. You say "a corporation could sue the state if the state decides to build a road a mile away from the property." What property? I am missing something.

At November 06, 2006 1:32 PM, Blogger ChasingMoksha said...

Wait are you saying if a corporation builds somewhere (whether the land was seized or not) the state has to build a road to accomadate them?

At November 06, 2006 1:33 PM, Blogger ChasingMoksha said...

BTW, if you say you are a democrat and you say no I will trust that before I will be willing to leave it blank. I just want to understand it.

At November 06, 2006 2:29 PM, Blogger Gilbert Martinez said...

If the state decides to build a road next door or a mile away, for example, a corporation can sue the state for money if they feel they are harmed. I'm not anti-coporation--and probably more pro business than most Dems I know--but this initiative is absurd. This is a diabolical scam that we'll pay dearly for if passed.

At November 06, 2006 2:39 PM, Blogger ChasingMoksha said...

Yes I found something that explained it well, called it a taxpayer's trap. I am voting no.

At March 10, 2007 1:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

state of florida


Post a Comment

<< Home