My 2006 Picks for California’s Mid-Term Elections

This year I have to vote early because I’m going to be out of town on Election Day. I’ll be schlepping down to the Beverly Hills Courthouse to experience touch-screen voting. I imagine I’ll end up being responsible for 5000 votes for George Bush in Ohio. In practical terms this means I’m working without my usual references for endorsements, the Los Angeles Times and the LA Weekly. I had to do a lot more googling than I usually do and I came across a few interesting things as a result.

 

As always I remain open to new facts and insights if anyone cares to offer them prior to my own Election Day which I figure will be Friday November 3^rd at the latest.

 

All that being said, here are is the first draft of my picks along with some explanation.

 

I’m voting for Phil Angelides even though he’s going to lose to Arnold. It’s the right thing to do even though Angelides is far from a perfect candidate. I’ll restrain myself here and say only that a lot of people are going to feel very stupid November 8^th once Arnold feels safe being a Republican again.

 

John Garamendi. He’s a Dem. So am I. Unless a Republican cures cancer or his Dem opponent is Al Sharpton, I vote Dem.

 

Debra Bowen. See above.

 

John Chiang. He actually picked up an early LA Times endorsement this morning so that’s reassuring.

 

Bill Lockyer. Former Attorney General and Gov candidate term-limited out of his old job. A Dem who knows the state. Could be worse.

 

Jerry Brown. THE Jerry Brown. I like him, always have. And his opponent is a nut who believes private citizens should own rifles that can shoot down airliners.

 

Cruz Bustamante. Current Lieutenant Governor being term-limited out. I have to admit party loyalty is tested here. Taking away the party names Republican Steve Poizner sounds good. He’s refused to take money from insurers and has put millions of his own money into his campaign. But then so did Katherine Harris and Daryl Issa… I’m voting Bustamante to be safe.

 

Judy Chu. Her Republican opponent wants to abolish the inheritance tax which is just what we need to plunge the state deeper into bankruptcy and create the next generation of Paris Hiltons. Voting Judy Chu with enthusiasm.

 

Dianne Feinstein. Here I’d vote Green just to send a message, but you can never be too careful. Her Republican opponent is an “Immigration Control Consultant.” Oh my…

 

Henry Waxman. Every election I get prouder to vote for this man. He kicks Bush’s backside every chance he gets. I wish he was President.

 

Mike Feurer. He’s not a Republican or a “Screenwriter/Libertarian.” That’s about it.

 

JUDICIAL NOMINEES 80-123 are straight “Yes or No” votes.

They are not opposed by other candidates and will all presumably be in office unless they get caught doing unkind things to a goat.

I googled all of them to see if any of them came up as obvious Scalias or worse yet, Thomases.

Many were first appointed by previous Republican Governors Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian. Others were appointed by Gray Davis and Nora Manella even got appointed by Bill Clinton.

Most of them have top tier law school pedigrees (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkley, UCLA) and they are all rated “Qualified” or better.

So truly we have no Clarence Thomases among them in terms of being too lightweight for the job. Ideally they would all be “flaming liberals” as Laurie Zelon and Madeline Flier were described by one blogger.

But we need judges and I’m willing to gamble that if any of these people were members of The Council of Conservative Citizens or some other far-right whack-job organization it would have come out by now.

I’m crossing the aisle on some of these and voting “Yes” on all unless someone can cite specific instances of any of them showing political favoritism to The Dark Side.

P.S. Justice Arthur Gilbert has a nice blog.

 

This is an actual person-against-person series of races. I googled each of them and made the following choices.

 

Deborah L. Sanchez. Her opponent Bob Henry is strongly pro-death penalty which I am not. Sanchez may very well send a few people to The Needle but she does not appear as blood-thirsty as Mr. Henry.

 

Daviann L. Mitchell. She’s an ex-cop and has picked up an early LA Times endorsement. Okay.

 

George C. Montgomery. Kind of a toss-up here. Both candidates sound similar in philosophy and Montgomery’s opponent Hayden Zacky has a far superior website. That said, Mr. Montgomery used to be dirt-poor and in these times I think that perspective is much needed among those in power.

 

Bobbi Tillmon.

The only one of these candidates running unopposed. Okey-doke.

 

Janis Levart Barquist.

Described by Los Angeles Magazine as a “Super Lawyer” and “Well-Qualified.” I tend to think women in power are more inclined to protect things like Roe v. Wade, Concerned Women for America notwithstanding. Anyway Ms. Barquist got a lot more glowing reviews online than did her opponent David Stuart so I’m leaning her way.

 

Okay, many of these rightly ought to be handled by our elected law-makers but since they’re too busy arguing about gay marriage and flag burning it falls to We The People. Most involve spending money on stuff so they’ll likely face an uphill battle in the face of people who don’t think government should spend money unless it’s doling it out to Halliburton.

I think it’s the job of government to maintain our infrastructure, provide security, and otherwise promote the general welfare so right now I’m favoring most of this stuff with one very notable exception.

Here we go.

 

Keeps funding for transportation devoted to (DUH!) transportation. Voting YES.

 

A bond act for fixing our roads and securing our ports. Wish we could just raise taxes to cover this but we’re too broke thanks to previous tax cuts. Voting YES.

 

A bond act to provide housing to battered women, military vets, the elderly and others we should have been taking care of in the first place. God bless Ronald Reagan and his whole supply-side, bootstrap, “The homeless want to live like that” philosophy. It made America great again. It restored our pride. If there’s a hell I hope that greasy-haired bastard is burning there. In the meantime I’m voting YES.

 

A bond act to repair schools and relieve over-crowding. Because I hate freedom and love the EVIL-lutionists I’m voting YES.

 

A post-Katrina bond act to repair levees which prevent some California citizens from drowning. Voting YES.

 

Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. Boy, I had to think hard on this. Voting YES.

 

A bond act to protect our parks and drinking water. Voting YES.

 

THIS IS THE BAD ONE!!! Requires parental notification of minors seeking abortion. A sleazy, contemptible piece of feel-good garbage masquerading as something to protect kids and help families. It is sponsored by all the usual anti-choice maniacs and will guarantee an increase in live babies being tossed in dumpsters and girls mutilating themselves with do-it-yourself, back-alley abortions. If you’re in favor of 12-year old girls having to ask the permission of the father figures who raped them in order to obtain an abortion then by all means vote YES. I’m voting NO. I will also take the unusual step of asking anyone who reads this to vote NO as well. This one is Pure Evil. VOTE NO ON 85.

 

A tax on cigarettes.   I love anything that makes tobacco less desirable, especially if it helps fund children’s health coverage. Voting YES! YES! YES!   With a big smile.

 

A tax on oil companies to fund alternative energy use. Forget the scary commercials. The oil companies are the richest, most profitable corporations in the history of the world. They can easily afford it and alternative energy is a necessary thing. Voting YES.

 

A fifty dollar tax on “real property parcels”, exempting the elderly and disabled, to fund K-12 schools. It should be more. I’m voting YES.

 

A corporate tax increase to create public campaign funds. A step in the right direction in the uphill battle for campaign finance reform, i.e. leveling the financial playing field and eliminating the need of candidates to whore themselves out to Big Money to have a chance of being elected. It’s a 0.2 percent tax. Easily affordable. Voting YES.

 

Bars government from asserting “Eminent Domain” in order to turn your house or business into a Starbucks for the increased tax revenue. Oddly enough I’m siding with conservative Republicans on this one. If you want my place to build a school or hospital I’ll eat that. If you want a football stadium, eat Measure 90. Voting YES.

 

 

A local version of State Measure 1-C, a bond issue to provide housing for battered women and kids, veterans, elderly and disabled, members of SAG, as well as assisting first-time homebuyers in this insane market. Voting YES.

 

Allows more flexibility in fire station construction. It’s a micro-management at the ballot box thing but I’m inclined to vote YES.

 

Increases local term limits from two terms to three. Since I prefer elected officials who actually know what they’re doing I oppose the real world side-effects of term limits at all. That said this is a step in the right direction and is accompanied by new restrictions on lobbying which I like. Voting YES.

 

Okay. That’s all I’m allowed to vote for this year. If anyone has a compelling case for changing any of these choices let me know. Except on the Evil Anti-Choice Measure 85. I am absolutely right on that one, beyond any shred of doubt. And the cigarette tax. I love cigarette taxes like smokers love the taste of burning poop.

 

God Bless America!