NYS 23rd Congressional district

So, along with the Presidential election coming up, one can't forget the other races. I announced after the bailout bill and John McHugh voting for both versions that he had lost my vote. Well, it seems I have the following options, all of which, to me, are not options:

1) Vote against John McHugh, ie vote for Mike Oot

After having a look around his website (which, on a side note, gave me a headache to navigate) and reading what I could find on him, I'm hesitant to vote for him. First of all, he says that he would have supported the initially bailout bill, but is angry about the second. Well, I suppose thats better than McHugh, who voted for both versions, but not much. Also, one of the main issues he mentions on his home page is "quality, affordable health care" and on his (poorly designed) issues page "The availability of adequate healthcare for every American should be a National Priority. I am for Universal Healthcare"

Oh, and he's endorsed by WF(Working Families) which, in and of itself makes me think twice before voting for this guy, protest vote against McHugh or not

Also, I'm surprised (maybe I just couldn't find it, did i mention his website was designed by a poorly trained monkey?) that, him being from Munnsville, NY (practically my nieghbor) in a heavily rural area, makes almost no mention of farms, agriculture, or Upstate NY getting the short end of the economic stick. Actually, his site gives me the impression that he's running on healthcare (not a national concern) and the Iraq war, with the bailout as an afterthought.

I see no good reason to vote for this guy, except perhaps to spite McHugh, but It's not good enough, I'll pass on option 1.

2)Vote for McHugh anyways.

This options annoys me to no end. McHugh has held the seat for a while now, and hasn't done much that I've seen. Actually, I don't think he much cares about anything outside of Jefferson County, frankly, it is my impression that he's gotten overconfident and comfortable, seeing as every election has been a cakewalk, easily crushing any opposition, the district has been solid GOP since the 1800's, and he's the GOP man, who's gonna challenge him?
I'll pass on option 2, he lost my vote when he sold the American taxpayer down the river on both Bailout votes

3)Don't vote
not gonna happen

4)Write in
Apparently my only option, and, seeing as I've voted libertarian in every presidential election I could vote in, I'm kinda resighned to my vote being nothing more than a protest vote. The problem is, who to write in? Should I go for the classic sarcastic mickey mouse or donald duck? Perhaps write in Golisano just for giggles? I couldn't find any, but are any third party candidates running who perhaps haven't discovered the internet? I've basically decided, as both candidates on the ballot suck, to vote for niether, but that only shows if I vote for someone else, if I don't vote, it accomplishes nothing, not even a protest vote. So, fellow Upstate NY'ers, for whom shall I vote?

Obama the Socialist

I find it distressingly amusing how the mainstream media goes after Sarah Palin's husband for his ties to a seperationist party in Alaska, but are blatantly ignoring Obama starting his career as a member of the NP (New Party) in Illinois. Most evidence of this has been scrubbed, and Obama denies his affiliation, but heres the wonder of the internet, nothing goes away. Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can see the truth.

"Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)." October 1996 NP Update archived link, emphasis added

From the Progessive Populist, 11/96:
"New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. "


From the Chicago DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), July-August 1996

"New Party Update

by Bruce Bentley

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

The Chicago NP will hire a second organizer and an intern, preferably Spanish speaking, to work in the 35th Ward. Upcoming events include a 70's Retro Dance Party on Friday, July 12th, and Post Labor Day Picnic on September 7th." (Emphasis added)


So, who is Obama really? We hear all about Sarah Palin's husbands ties to the Alaskan Independence Party, but strangely nothing about Obama's roots. I wonder why the media is sweeping this information about the "Chosen One" away from public scrutiny?

Who is Sarah Palin?

It's the question everyone is still trying to answer, who is this dark horse McCain picked for his VP? I watched her speech at the GOP convention, and my immediate reaction was "Can I vote for her without McCain?" So, I've decided to do some digging about, and found plenty of this and that, some of it reliable, some of it nothing more than small town rumors.

The Basic Facts:

Wasilla, Alaska City Counsil, 1992-96
Mayor of Wasilla, 96-2002
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner, 2003-06
Governor of Alaska, 06-present

Her Record:

Staunchly Pro-Life

believes “marriage should only be between a man and a woman.”

Lifetime member of the NRA, supports gun safety programs for "Alaska's youth"

"Bridge to Nowhere" initially supported the idea, now against it

more info on where she stands, no reason for me to reinvent the wheel:
ontheissues.org


Controversy:
One of the biggest questions surrounding Palin is the abuse of power investigation. It seems that Palin's sisters ex husband is a moron and, also went through a rather nasty divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister. Now, the scandal here isn't over the stupidity of the trooper in question, seems everyone, including himself, agrees he's a bit of an idiot. No, the scandal here is whether Palin and friends pressured then Public Safety Commissioner Monegan to fire the state trooper in question. Monegan refused, and was canned himself, hence the investigation

Getting Real About Palin


Theres a few others, her 17 year old daughter being pregnant for instance, that I frankly don't understand why they are at all a public issue, sure I guess if you wanted to you could take from it arguments over abortion and sex ed, but only if you're a dirtbag who doesn't mind using a teenager for political hay, so other than that opinionated statement, I'm going to leave the family "scandal" alone, if you want to delve into that one, theres always Google...

Now, since lots have been asking me, what do I think?

I think that, on the surface, I like Palin, she gave an excellent speech at the convention, she comes off as a small town/rural person, hardcore conservative. I like that. But, she supports John McCain, I don't like that. I'm still not voting for McCain, her speech swayed me a little, but I'm still gonna be a good political cynic and vote 3rd party. The abuse of power allegations also give me pause, I've seen enough of that from Bush-Cheney.

She seems all to eager to toss about how she told congress "thanks but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere, but doesnt mention that she was one of the ones who pushed for it, and then when she realized it wasn't politically feasable, decided to oppose it, but kept the money for other things, boy, thats just stellar, She's looking more and more like a run of the mill GOPper

She has no, repeat no foriegn policy experience at all, but she seems to be parroting McCain's stance on Iraq and Iran, now, I will admit, things are looking alot better in Iraq, but I would argue thats due mostly in part to the Iraqi government finally growing a pair than anything else, and if we would just stop poking Iran with a stick everynow and then...well, the only thing the Iranian people hate more than thier current government is US, so, if we'd just ignore them, they would literally go away, we need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, not threaten more countries

The last thing that worries me is her strong stance on abortion and gay marriage. Some of you are scratching your heads and going "wha-?" If she can keep her views out of federal policy, great, but if she decides to champion any sort of federal legislation regarding either, she's in violation of the 10th amendment, and gets added to the list of politicians who think the constitution is just a piece of paper

So, to sum up my thoughts, of the 4 figures on the "main" national stage, I dislike her the least, and if McCain wasn't on the ticket, I might even consider voting for her, with 1 or 2 strong reservations, but there are some questions that need to be answered, and McCain is on the ticket, so, although she made my mind go "hmmm" she hasn't changed it, the Republicans are still not getting my vote this election

Obama and the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

I'm not going to go into deep detail here on my views on abortion, thats another blog for another time, so I'll simply say this: I'm personally and morally opposed to abortion, but I believe that constituionally it is a state issue the federal government has no place in. However, this specific bill was 1) a state bill when Obama was a state Senator and 2) a bill to ensure that aborted infants that survived the "procedure" (born alive..) recieved care rather than being tossed away, ie, being treated as humans...whether you believe life begins at conception or first breath or sometime in between, in any view, these are living, human babies, and Obama voted and argued against a bill protecting them...at the risk of blatantly showing my bias (which, for any newcomers, is unashamedly against both Obama and McCain, once again, another post for another time..) Now, I know that I often argue that I generally ignore the abortion issue on a federal level, as any action in any direction regarding abortion on a federal level is a violation of the 10th amendment, and as such, unconstitutional and illegal, this matter goes beyond that. This is not abortion, this is not an argument over whether it's a living baby or a "fetus" these are (were?) babies, that lived despite the efforts of thier mothers and abortionists, took thier first breath, only to be discarded as unwanted trash. This is a character issue, a moral issue, and a legal issue. Inarguably, no matter your stance on abortion, once a baby is born and breathing, it is alive, it is human, and to kill it is murder, neglecting and refusing proper care to the living baby is essentially the same thing, and in my mind, heartless. To oppose such a bill because it may "inconvience doctors" is utterly despicable, and is something one must consider when considering Obama as the "savior of America" sure, he charmingly promises change, but, is it change you can accept? Know who you're hiring for the next president

McCain and Wikipedia

So, apparently McCain is using the interweb now, as his campaign decided to show off thier web prowess by... directly quoting Wikipedia in a statement on the Georgia Russia blowup..I know I'm a few days behind the pitch on this one, but I can't let it go, I mean, basically this means our two "major" options for president are a guy who uses Wikipedia for information on a foriegn affair (couldn't they have been a little classier at least in choosing someone to plagerize and used..say, the CIA factbook? wouldn't that be ironic...) and a guy who doesn't even know we have 50 states...really? Isn't there at least a GED requirement for this job?

Why the Ron Paul movement stumbled

Whether you liked him or not, the Ron Paul campaign made a splash in the GOP primary, but why only a splash and not a tidal wave? He had a large, vocal, supportive base. He raised record amounts of campaign funding, and he had a solid message, reduce the bloated federal government, reduce federal spending, and return to the constitution. He supported gun rights, he was pro life, he opposed government spying on it's own citizens. So, what happened?

As someone who vocally supported Ron Paul, I'll give you my perspective, the 9/11 "truth" movement.
These nutjobs, yes, nutjobs, sidelined the libertarians and constitutionalists such as myself supporting Ron Paul's message of reduced federal government, reduced spending, and returning power to the people, and used the Ron Paul campaign as a bullhorn to further spout their misguided rantings. They, in turn, associated Ron Paul's campaign with their silly notions. I've watched their "truth" videos, read the articles, and am only convinced that, while perhaps mistakes were made, the greatest mistake is giving "truthers" any sort of attention.

They turned the Ron Paul campaign from a viable movement protesting an overgrown and overreaching big brother government into a CT mockery. It got to the point where anyone I attempted to talk to about Ron Paul who didn't already understand his positions immediately associated him with the tin hat crowd and wanted nothing to do with him.

Ron Paul never encouraged the "truthers" message, in fact, his position outright defied it "blowback anyone?" but they kept screaming on, refusing to cloud the issue with facts, and turned off people such as myself, their quest for "truth" in spite of facts derailed a message of actual truth, and now we are, once more, stuck with politics as usual, with a democrat and a republican who are both worthless, both advocating increased government, or voting third party.

The Ron Paul message of freedom was hijacked and sidelined by the "prison planet" extremist crowd, and I believe our nation is worse off for it.

I haven't decided yet if I'm voting for Bob Barr (L), Chuck Baldwin (C), writing in Ron Paul, or maybe I'll vote for mickey mouse, but I know this, the 9/11 "truth" movement has weakened my belief in the intelligence of the individual

Bob Barr, Libertarian for president

June 06 interview with Glenn Beck



Bob Barr for president campaign site

Bob Barr, Civil Libertarian

British Satire, a welcome breath of fresh air from obamaphiles

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

I don't care where on the political spectrum you call home, you must admit, thats funny stuff

Obama defaces Judiasm's holiest site with campaign ads?

Obama camp plasters posters at Western Wall

I'd like to say I'm shocked by his arrogance, but this is really nothing more than more of his rockstar "look at how awesome I am" attitude. Furthermore, he shows up in a yamika? Ok, I guess I can understand perhaps trying to respect where he's at, but he rather failed that attempt when his campaign plastered his face all over...when are the media and people in general going to stop fawning over how awesome this guy appears to be and dig beneath the pretty speeches about change and hope and look at who he really is?

Dobson's political shift

So, it seems Dobson has flip flopped rethought his position on John McCain: Dobson shifts

This is a big 180 from his statement in February that if McCain is the GOP nominee against Obama (or the other possibility at the time, Clinton) he would "not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life"

Now, here's where I take issue, besides the complete change despite any apparent change from McCain. Both times, Dobson implies, in the latest statement outright states, that besides the Democrats and Republicans, there are no alternatives. I realize third parties are a bit of a long shot, but I've been saying since I was old enough to be into politics that third parties are a long shot not because people don't agree with, or want to vote for a parties candidate more than a so called "major" candidate, but because they don't want to "waste their vote".

I am a registered Republican, I have been since I was old enough to vote, but only for local politics. Nationally, I have never voted major party, not for president, not for senate, the national GOP has become no better than the democrats. Do I waste my vote? Some would say yes, but let me ask you this:

Should you vote on the basis of fearing "the alternative" or agreeing with what you vote for? The "lesser of two evils" argument has grown old to me, as far as I see it, you're still voting for an "evil"

Dobson willfully adds to the political ignorance of the American public, and to the impression that all of the conservative "religious right" are a fickle, fearful bunch blindly following the GOP to protect them from the boogeyman. I don't like Obama at all, but I also dislike McCain. So, logically, being a sane person, I will pick a choice I do like, rather than hiding my head under the blankets and hoping that the monsters don't get me, as Dobson is apparently doing