The People's Exhibit A (davidology) wrote,
The People's Exhibit A
davidology

  • Mood:
  • Music:

The Litmus Test

Election Day is tomorrow, and I've already spent a couple hours researching candidate positions, and I'm only up to the second position on the ballot: the nominee for U.S. Senator. Although I don't like choosing candidates based upon one issue, the idea of amending our Constitution to codify prejudice is far too important. So enter my litmus test.

In researching the candidates, I quickly became disgusted. The first site I visited: Kaloogian. Well, his opinion on immigration surely comes in loud and clear. From reading his website and a couple news clips, I get the impression if he could legally round up illegal immigrants in the center of town and shoot them, he would. He's equally clear on his position on abortion rights and gay marriage. His isolationist agenda, among other things, make it pretty clear he's from the Pat Buchanan School of Conservativism. I also found this quote:
"Kaloogian was one of many at the [Republican] convention who lashed out at SF Mayor Gavin Newsom.... Kaloogian also questioned the sexual orientation of Atty. Gen Bill Lockyer, a married Democrat, as he joked about whether Lockyer was committed to court action to block gay marriage. 'I don't know where the attorney general stands on this,' he said. 'Perhaps he stands in line. I'm not quite sure.'"
ha ha! Bigotry is funny.

I then learned Bill Jones is considered the front-runner, so I ran over to his site to find his position on gay marriage noticeably absent. A bit of searching later, I came across a listing for a press release on his site on the issue. The page had been oddly deleted. Fortunately, Yahoo! had a copy of the offending page in its cache, where Mr. Jones goes on to profess his support for Prop 22 — the hateful and divisive "Knight Initiative" put forth by renowned Bigot Pete Knight several years ago.

Then I found Rosario Marin. Now, here was a light at the end of the tunnel. I managed to Google up a couple of articles that spoke of her courageous stand for women's rights and reproductive freedom. Unfortunately, her concern for freedom seemed to end when it didn't effect her. She left no question when she said she fully supported President Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment.

Then there was this guy:

Dude, all I have to say is, you have to click. You can't run for Congress, build your own website, and expect to be taken seriously. I couldn't vote for him based on his poor use of HTML alone. You don't just use hyperlinks for emphasis!

So as I ponder my selection for the Senate, I'm left with really two choices. I could vote for Toni Casey. She's a businesswoman who prides herself on being the future of the Republican Party — i.e., a return to the principles on which the party was founded instead of the political arm of a religious minority gone mad with power. My other choice would be a more strategic one. The election appears to be between Jones and Marin, but several pundits seem to think that in the general election, Jones is unelectable. Marin, on the other hand, as a pro-choice Hispanic woman is considered to be the only candidate who could beat Boxer. Although I'm sure I exagerate the weight of my one, solitary vote, but I would feel better knowing it went towards sabotaging the election and helping Boxer gets reelected. I don't agree with Senator Boxer on a lot, but I certainly feel safer with her in office. And according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, safety trumps most everything else. I guess this is one I'll decide in the morning.

Fortunately, the rest of this went much more quickly:

County D.A. - Anyone but Steve Cooley. As District Attorney, Cooley refused to file hate crime against Trev Broudy's assailants in that brutal attack.

Party Central Committee - I have no idea who any of these ass clowns are. PASS

55 - NO. I don't think now is the time to take out any more bonds.

56 - NO! Give the state legislature the right to raise taxes with only a simple majority? Why don't I just sign my paycheck over to them?

57 - Not sure on this one. Ahhhhnold wants it, but I still don't think taking out more bonds is the answer to every problem.

58 - No. If they had to suspend the rules in order to give the proposition a warm and fuzzy title instead of one that follows the law, then they're obviously trying to hide something. NO.

R - You sank my battle ship. No. Enough with the bonds already.

Ok, my civic duty over, I'm off to bed. And just remember, no matter what happens: NO on 56!
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 8 comments