It’s primary election season again, and that means it’s time for me to make my endorsements again. You may scoff, but remember: if you’d listened to me, you wouldn’t have elected Noguez as County Assessor! Where possible, I provide endorsements for all parties.
(Also, if you’re thinking of voting Democratic, or simply live in the Bay Area, I highly recommend reading Auros’s thorough endorsements, which are close to mine but not identical.)
Democratic — Barack Obama
You dance with the horse what brung ya.
Republican — Buddy Roemer
When I look for someone to endorse in any position, but especially for President of the United States, I look for someone with an internally-consistent and mutually-reinforcing set of positions. For instance, Obamacare is the centerpiece of an interlocking set of policies that are designed not just to reform healthcare but also to deal with long-term budget issues and enhance business productivity, which will speed the economy and help with long-term budget issues. You may disagree with the idea, but you have to agree that, in theory, the system is consistent.
That’s been a problem with GOP candidates lately. You may not believe in climate change, but opposing alternative energy growth means that we are signing on for large ongoing military expenditures to safeguard our conventional energy sources, which are quite far away; that contradicts a pro-balanced-budget position. If you don’t want to allow immigrants from Latin America, that’s fine, but don’t complain about inflation, because you’re increasing the cost of labor and that contributes to inflation.
Buddy Roemer has a system of policies that appear to be internally-consistent and well-thought-out. That’s why I endorse him here.
Green — Roseanne Barr
American Independent – Mad Max Rieske
So long as your candidate won’t be elected, you might as well vote for Roseanne (yes, that Roseanne) or someone named “Mad Max.” Depressingly enough, nobody outside the Green party lists a Web site or an e-mail address at their own domain, which means that none of these other candidates are smart enough to figure out that it takes about $5 to have your own e-mail address for a year.
Democratic — Dianne Feinstein
It is difficult to think of a lineup of candidates that could make me endorse Feinstein, but apparently this is it. Feinstein is a lapdog for George W. Bush and big business, and I certainly plan to vote Republican in the fall so that I can at least know that I’m getting such a lapdog on purpose, but I suppose that you might as well vote Feinstein here.
Republican — Elizabeth Emken
The only real choice here is between Emken and Orly Taitz. I’m tempted to endorse Taitz on the “dance with the horse what brung ya” principle that I used to endorse Obama above, but she’s clearly too much of a nutjob to actually apply herself to legislating once elected.
US Representative, 37th District
Bass, who is running unopposed, has fortunately been a good rep for this district.
State Assembly, 54th District
Mitchell has been effective in her freshman term in Sacramento — actually introducing and passing bills — and sees the 54th as a center of green business, which is both laudable and realistic. I do however doubt her ability to vote for the cuts in state spending that we so clearly need (to go with the new taxes we also so clearly need).
Lacey is running against Carmen Trutanich, who’s done a nice job as City Attorney. However, “Nuch’s” skills seem to be most as a courtroom presence and effective administrator, which is what the retiring Steve Cooley brought to the office. When Cooley was elected, we needed someone to stabilize things and make the office work; Cooley succeeded at that and now we need to move forward. Lacey seems to have the kind of vision we’d need for that. She’s been central to the establishment of a number of alternative courts in the LA area, an advancement that should help better deliver justice; cut costs; and speed the criminal process.
County Supervisor, 2nd District
Ridley-Thomas is running unopposed. County Supervisors rarely seem to be opposed. Strange, that.
California Measure 28
Term limits have been disastrous in Sacramento, creating a set of politicians who are best-served not by finding a way to move policy forward but by making extreme pronouncements and blocking all progress. We’d be best off repealing them, but at least Measure 28 is a small improvement, creating some incentive for some subset of legislators to actually invest in legislating, not pontificating, by allowing them to stay in one office just a little longer.
California Measure 29
I’m all for an increase in the cigarette tax — it is proven to decrease smoking, which is good; it raises revenue, which we need desperately; and our cigarette taxes are low compared to other states. But this is a silly bill. There’s a tradition in California, it seems, of passing a law creating new revenue and also saying directly how that revenue will be spent. Seems a nice idea, but some estimates have us setting 70% of our budget by mandate, which is just stupid and makes it hard to fix our current budget mess (or future ones). Let’s not make another law like that.
LA County Measures H
LA County Measure L
Both of these simply continue existing taxes. With all the County’s financial troubles, now is no time to go cutting revenues; and it’s not as if hotels in, say, Marina del Rey are made uncompetitive by this tax.
So go forth and vote on the 5th! On to victory!