Finally, I got time to blog on last week's Hawaii election results
1) Honolulu Mayor's election
This was where I felt the most disappointment this election.
Kirk Caldwell (55%) defeated Ben Cayetano (45%)
The main issue was the proposed rail system.
For too long, pretty much every establishment politicians supported the rail project, even though we don't even have enough money to maintain our infrastructure (ie. parks, sewers, buses, water mains, roads) as it is!
And the main guy running on an anti-rail platform in the past few elections was Panos Prevedorous -- an engineering professor who was originally from Greece. Unfortunately, many voters won't vote for someone they can't relate to, and not many people in Hawaii could relate to a Greek professor that they haven't heard of.
So Ben Cayetano was the best hope to stop rail. He was local, of Filipino ancestry, and he was already a long-time legislator and a 2-term governor. If anyone could stop rail, it was Cayetano.
While Cayetano got way more votes than Prevedorous ever could (compare 45% to 18%), it still wasn't enough.
This was because most of the population growth is now in West Oahu, where the demand for rail is very high. Their votes pretty much cancel out votes from areas rail was never going to reach (ie. North Shore, Windward Oahu, East Honolulu)
However, most West Oahu rail supporters aren't likely to give up their cars, their mentality is "rail will get rid of OTHER cars off the road." With thousands with that mentality, don't expect much traffic reduction from West Oahu.
Anyways, to learn more about why I oppose the rail project, and the reductions in bus service to make way for rail, check out the following links
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/cayetano-and-rail.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/bus-service-cuts-hurt-disabled.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/05/bus-route-insanity.html
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/city-council-meeting.html
2) Hawaii's Democratic majority --- not going away anytime soon!
Hawaii has been pretty much pro-Democrat!
However, a decade ago, it was predicted that the Republicans will rise in Hawaii, especially since Linda Lingle won the governor's election in 2002!
But since then ................ nothing! Nothing from the Republicans.
Linda Lingle tried running for US Senate! She lost to Mazie Hirono, who she beat for governor back in 2002.
Too many people still remember Linda Lingle for "Furlough Fridays" when the school days got reduced due to budget shortages. That cost her Lt Gov Duke Aiona to lose the gubernatorial election 2 years ago, and that cost Lingle her senate campaign this year.
Lingle's time has pretty much passed her by! Even though many positives occurred early in her time as governor (ie. improved economy, better business climate), the Furlough Friday was too powerful an issue that people will never forget for a long time.
If Lingle wants a comeback, she would be best advised to wait another decade, when most people's anger of Furlough Fridays would fade.
------------
In other news...........
For US House District 1 ---- Charles Djou (45%) lost to Colleen Hanabusa (55%)
US House District 2 ---- Kawika Crowley (19%) lost to new liberal star Tulsi Gabbard (81%)
Hawaii state senate only will have 1 Republican senator (Sam Slom). Republican legend Fred Hemmings tried to come out of retirement this year, but lost.
In the state House, there will be 44 Democrats and 7 Republicans (1 less than before)
---------
Chances are the Republicans would have a hard time rising in Hawaii anytime soon.
The Republican brand is poison to many Hawaii voters.
You can tell by the way Lingle and Djou kept emphasizing being "bipartisan" instead of being "Republican"
You can tell by anti-Cayetano brochures kept posting pictures of Cayetano alongside Mitt Romney and Linda Lingle, nevermind that Ben Cayetano was a long-time Democrat and is still a Democrat! But the brochures' points were "Cayetano is no longer one of us, he's with those right-wingers now"
Yep, being merely accused of "siding with Republicans" is now considered poison to your reputation!
And with the national Republican Party being even more dependent on white, ultra-conservative Christian Southern voters than before, the Republican brand is becoming even less appealing to the Hawaii voter. Good luck getting the youth vote now!
And the tragedy is, with a Democrat monopoly on power, there will be a stagnation when it comes to coming up with new ideas to push the state forward.
But that's the problem with a 2-party system. It's "you either with the Democrats or the crazy right-wingers" NEVERMIND that there are more political viewpoints than that!
The only way we can reduce the Democrat monopoly is to make all state elections non-partisan.
[Honolulu city & county elections are non-partisan :) ]
Instead of candidates hiding behing the (D) on the ballot, make them defend their points to a wide audience. Let there more competition than just "liberal Democrats vs right-wing crazies". Let the moderates, libertarians, etc have more of a voice in our system.
That way, someone like Ben Cayetano can oppose the rail project without being smeared as a "Romney Republican"!
And in general, let ANYONE oppose any Democrat initiatives without being slandered as a "right-wing Republican!"
Making all elections non-partisan will be the only way forward!
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
coming soon
I already written a blog post analyzing the national election results.
I still haven't started the one analyzing Hawaii's election results.
Though it won't be as long as the national analysis, I still haven't found the time to start working on it.
I'll get it up ASAP!
I still haven't started the one analyzing Hawaii's election results.
Though it won't be as long as the national analysis, I still haven't found the time to start working on it.
I'll get it up ASAP!
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Election Analysis (national edition)
The 2012 elections came and went and the people have spoken.
Barack Obama won with 332 electoral votes and 50.5% of the popular vote
Mitt Romney got 206 electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote.
As for the lesser known candidates
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) 0.95%
Jill Stein (Green) 0.33%
Virgil Goode (Constitution) 0.09%
Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom) 0.04%
Rocky Anderson (Justice) 0.03%
Others 0.13%
( data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 retrieved on 11/8/2012)
---------------
And it wasn't just the president being chosen this past Tuesday.
The US Senate now got a Democratic majority, the US House got a Republican majority.
One can easily saw that we got an almost evenly divided country where no one party dominates.
However, one can still make some bold, sweeping analysis of the results
#1 ) Liberal Morality Up,
Conservative Correctness Down
This isn't just based on Barack Obama winning re-election. This is also based on some voter initiatives on the state level, as well as polarizing politicians losing in swing states.
-----
One major issue was same-sex marriage.
For a while, some polls have showed that a majority of people now support same-sex marriage. But those opinion polls didn't matter. Only elections matter.
For a while, conservative activists love to flaunt the fact that everytime the issue has been voted on by the general public, same-sex marriage lost!
Until this year, that is!
Maine, Maryland and Washington state have all gotten same-sex marriage approved directly by the voting public.
The voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Getting same-sex marriage legalized requires extra steps though.
Other states have already legalized same-sex marriage but they were always done via the legislature (ie. New York) or via the courts (ie. Iowa).
But now that 3 states have voter-approved same-sex marriage, the issue WILL gain momentum.
Already, the younger generation is more approving of same-sex marriage. And more people are waking up to the reality that homophobia is wrong.
That trend has been proven by the decreasing majority of voters against same-sex marriage in California when comparing voter initiatives of 2000 and 2008.
In 2000, 61% voted against same-sex marriage!
In 2008, 53% voted against same-sex marriage.
So in 8 years , the opposition against same-sex marriage in California went from 61% to 53%.
Chances are, if California voters vote on the issue again in 8 years, the opposition to same-sex marriage will decline AGAIN, but that time to be less than 50%.
Same will likely to be true in many other states too!
For example, in Hawaii, the people voted against same-sex marriage in 1998. But since then, the people who were born between 1981 and 1994 have become eligible to vote. What will happen when those people and those born between 1995 and 2000 vote on this issue in 2018 (just picking a year to make an example)? Chances are really high that the new majority will vote to approve same-sex marriage.
A whole new generation has come up learning from a young age that homophobia is wrong! A whole new generation has come up learning from a young age that sexual orientation is an inborn trait! A whole new generation has come up looking to pop icons who are gay rights activists. In fact, even the jocks and rappers are supporting the gay rights movement.
The politicians have paid attention to this new trend. Obama/Biden knew it was time to "evolve". They got rewarded!
-------------------
Another issue that has gotten increasing support is legalizing marijuana!
For decades, marijuana has been banned by the feds.
But for the last 2 decades, several states (including but not limited to Hawaii, California, Oregon, Nevada, Michigan, New Mexico) have allowed for the medical use of marijuana, with medical permits required for use.
However, the federal government have cracked down on that. Even Barack Obama (who has broken his promise for more leniency on this issue) has allowed for more crackdowns.
But you know what?
The people's movement towards more leniency on medical marijuana has grown stronger.
This year, the voters Massachusetts have approved legalized medical marijuana.
But what's special about this year is that 2 states (Washington and Colorado) have gone a step further!
In both states, the voters have chosen to legalize marijuana for non-medical uses too!
Sure, there will still be regulations just like we still regulate alcohol and tobacco.
But the voters of Washington and Colorado have given the big middle finger towards the drug prohibitionists.
Don't expect those states to be the last ones to do so.
Whereas many in the older generation have portrayed marijuana to be as dangerous as cocaine, heroin or crystal meth, many in the younger generation have actually smoked marijuana at some point in their life, and they KNOW the scary side effects have been exaggerated by the prohibitionists.
In fact, alcohol is already legal and has WORSE side effects than marijuana.
from a doctor with experience in drug rehab
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703414504575001192775584982.html
This is obvious to many younger voters.
The movement to legalize marijuana has already gained critical mass in 2 states. It will definitely reach critical mass in other states soon.
It is time for Barack Obama to evolve. It is time for Obama say that he'll end federal regulations on marijuana and let each state decide.
Sure, he'll get scrutiny from screaming pundits like Bill O'Reilly.! Let them scream, they're on the losing side of the issue anyways.
----
As for abortion, while there are no state voter initiatives on this issue this year, it still became a hot topic.
The issue was "what about women who have raped, can't we just allow them to get an abortion?"
Well, 2 Republicans running for US Senate had cocky answers to that.
Todd Akin (R- Missouri) said that that if the woman really got raped, her body's chemistry will stop her from getting pregnant.
I wrote on the topic at http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/08/rape-and-pregnancy.html
Richard Mourdock (R- Indiana) that a fetus conceived from a rape is a "gift from God". So much for him believing in a loving God.
Another abortion-related issue is cases where the mother has an abortion to save her life.
Well, 1 Republican running for US House of Representative had a cocky answer to that.
Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) said “With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance,” he said. “… There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
Walsh can't find one instance? Here's two!
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/what_health_of_the_mother_means/
Akin, Mourdock and Walsh are all conservative correctness warriors. Conservative correctness activists love to push the stereotype of "only sluts have abortions". But as mentioned, many abortions are the result of rape and/or life-threatening illness.
Akin, Mourdock, and Walsh thought they will get away with their heartlessness! THEY WERE WRONG!
All 3 politicians got punished this election
Akin and Mourdock ran in swing states with conservative tendencies. They were supposed to be able to beat their Democrat opponents. But they lost to their Democrat opponents.
Walsh lost in a moderate Illinois suburb to his Democrat opponent.
This tells us one major thing --- even in conservative-leaning states, people are getting tired of conservative correctness when it comes to abortion.
They are tired of conservative correctness bullies who mock real life victims of rape and real life pregnant victims of life-threatening illnesses.
#2) Republicans losing the minority vote!
Sure, the whites tend to vote Republican, non-whites tend to vote Democrat!
But the gap has increased in a MAJOR WAY this election.
Mitt Romney got only 27% of the Latino vote. Yet, Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got 45 % of the Latino vote when they got re-elected.
That 18% gap between 27 and 45? That made a HUGE difference in swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and even Virginia!
So why the decline in Latino votes for Republicans?
Reagan and Bush fought for more lenient immigration policies. They got rewarded by higher-than-average Latino vote for Republicans.
Yet, other Republicans (ie. Pete Wilson, Janet Brewer, Tom Tancredo, etc) view poor Mexicans as "invaders threatening our Anglo way of life"
Those anti-immigration activists make lots of noise and loves to scream slogans like "what part of illegal don't you understand?"
Mitt Romney, being the flip-flopper that he is, was intimidated by those noise-makers, and started to advocate for more stricter immigration policies when running in the Republican primaries.
However, when it came closer to general election time, Romney spoken a more moderate tone on immigration.
It was too late!
People know Romney is a flip-flopper, and that he is likely to flip-flop on the issue again.
So more Latinos voted for Obama this year than in 2008.
----
Traditionally, the Asian-American vote is a swing vote.
Sure, in Hawaii, they tend to be Democrats, being that it is part of the labor tradition from the sugar plantation days.
But on the continent, Asians once were more sympathetic to Republicans on law-and-order, business policy, and (in the case of many refugees) anti-communism issues.
But the Cold War ended 2 decades ago, so anti-communism lost its relevance in national politics.
Also, whereas the older generation of Asian-Americans tend to be more conservative, the younger generation is much more liberal.
And this anti-immigration stuff (and Romney's flip-flopping on the issue) irritated many Asian-Americans to the point where 73% of Asian-Americans voted for Obama!
(compare that with Bill Clinton who only got 31% of the Asian-American vote in 1992) http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-overwhelmingly-won-asian-american-vote-20121108
This made major impact in swing states with fast growing Asian-American populations like Nevada and Virginia.
----
What does mean for the Republican Party?
The Republican Party BETTER WAKE UP because the Latino and Asian population in the US is growing! And they're spreading to states in which they were once rare!
The American-born offspring of Latin/Asian immigrants are either of voting-age or about to become voting age. They WILL PUNISH any politician who wants more stricter immigration laws.
And you know what? Even many European-American youngsters have classmates of non-white heritage. So yeah, you're not going to tell a white kid to "fear the immigrant" if his school buddies are immigrant (or child of immigrants).
The Republican politicians who want to win need to start ignoring the anti-immigration fanatics already.
Start getting rid of the red-tape that makes legal immigration inconvenient! Stop the quota limitations!
And stop punishing young adults who were brought here illegally by their parents. (After all, 6-yr olds don't chose to change homes. So why punish them at 18, if their parents decided to move illegally 12 years earlier).
#3 ) Obama-Hatred doesn't work
If you spend all your time listening to right-wing talk radio and only reading right-wing websites, you would hear all this stuff like ........................ "Obama apologizes for America", "Obama is making our nation weak on purpose", "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is not born in the US", "Obama is an elitist snob"..........blah, blah, blah.
If that's all you hear, you'd think America just can't wait to get rid of Obama.
That is why right-wing pundits like Dick Morris was sooooooooooooooooooo confident that Mitt Romney would easily defeat Barack Obama!
WAKE UP TO REALITY!
Obama maybe a flawed leader, but he is an icon to millions who are happy to finally have a minority president, after centuries of slavery, segregation, and racial profiling.
People were willing to give him another chance, even though the economy didn't improve nor did our deficits get reduced.
Plus, it's hard to believe this nonsense of "Obama apologizes for America" if the real Barack Obama sent more troops to fight Al Quaida in Afghanistan, sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden, used US military jets to bomb targets in Libya, and increased drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen.
While think some of Obama's economic policies are flawed (and I really believed Obama mishandled the health care issue with a 2,000+ page law), a lot of people believed that Obama inherited a recession from Bush, and therefore not willing to blame Obama for anything.
So yeah, so much for "Romney's landslide victory!
#5) Demonizing the 47% doesn't help
At a speech in Florida, Mitt Romney expressed the challenges he faced in this election with this
The stuff I highlighted in red is where Romney lost a lot of people's respect, especially since he grew up in a wealthy family and already have a hard-time relating to those who are struggling to climb the economic ladder.
Look, I do understand that there are people out there who take advantage of our welfare system, people who are irresponsible and make stupid decisions. I spent the 1st 14 years of my life in a public housing complex, I grew up around such people in the hood. I grew up with kids who don't respect the available educational opportunities. Some of my high school classmates have done time behind bars, and some are still there. And some of the students I've taught as a substitute teacher came from dysfunctional homes with irresponsible parents
But to say "the 47% who pay no income tax" all fit those stereotypes is just wrong!
Even worse, when Romney, when defending himself against accusations of taking too much advantage of tax loopholes, emphasized that he follows the law and pays all the taxes that he legally owes.
So did many of "the 47%" that he was talking about!
And like Jade Moon said, many of "the 47%" are taking responsibility for their life so that they can eventually join the 53% who make enough money to owe income taxes.
http://www.midweek.com/the-hard-days-as-a-47-percenter/
In that article, Jade Moon mentions about the time she fled an abusive relationship and tried to balance school and work without much money. She emphasized that she needed government assistance while attending college.
Afterwards, she become a well-known news reporter, and became well-off enough to owe money in income tax.
She emphasized this about her time as a so-called "47%"
What Jade Moon experienced has been experienced by millions of us, even those who have since joined "the 53% club".
To say that millions of us trying to work hard, balance school/family/work, and still don't make enough to officially owe income taxes are "victims", "who don't believe they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" is insulting. Many of us are trying our best.
Ronald Reagan and the 2 Bushes showed the lower/middle income voters more respect. They won presidential elections. Romney didn't. Draw your own conclusions
-----
You can argue all day about how much social services should be provided by the government and how much should just be handled by private charities.
After all, government can't solve all our problems.
And some things can be handled better by private agencies rather than government bureaucracies.
Some government agencies might be better off being totally privatized (Especially stuff like PBS, NPR, National Endowment for the Arts)
But "the 47%" stuff is insulting, and only alienates voters from ides promoting smaller government.
#6) So what next?
Even with such stinging indictment of this election against the conservative correctness cause, some right-wing pundits think that the GOP will win with a more right-wing candidate.
LIVE IN REALITY PEOPLE!
There isn't much more right-wing conservative white votes to mine!
People are more likely to vote for more same-sex marriage, more legalized marijuana. People voted against those insensitive towards those who got an abortion.
The minorities have voted even more Democrat than before!
THOSE ARE NOT OPINIONS, THOSE ARE FACTS!
People don't want someone more right-wing than Mitt Romney! Those who did could have voted for the Constitutional Party (Virgil Goode), but they were outnumbered by those who voted Green (Jill Stein) and Libertarian (Gary Johnson)
THOSE ARE NOT OPINIONS, THOSE ARE FACTS!
Even more crazy, conservative correctness pundit Joe Farrah (of World Net Daily) was angry that Republican campaign veteran Karl Rove should have stood behind Todd Akin after his rape/abortion comment.
What Farrah doesn't understand was that Karl Rove was trying to Protect the Republican Brand!
After all, Micheal Vick lost endorsements when he got in trouble, right? His former sponsors were trying to Protect Their Brand when they cut ties with Vick!
Well, people like Todd Akin are poison! Anti-immigration fanatics are poison. Aggressive homophobes are poison! Those who look down on the poor are poison!
That's a lot of poison that the Republican candidate for 2016 will have to get away.
As for the Democrats, they shouldn't act as if a one-party monopoly is inevitable!
If the economy doesn't improve enough in 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
If the deficits don't turn into surplus by 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
If too many business feel that they are faced with too much bureaucratic headaches in 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
And if the Republicans finally find someone sane to run for 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
Barack Obama won with 332 electoral votes and 50.5% of the popular vote
Mitt Romney got 206 electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote.
As for the lesser known candidates
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) 0.95%
Jill Stein (Green) 0.33%
Virgil Goode (Constitution) 0.09%
Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom) 0.04%
Rocky Anderson (Justice) 0.03%
Others 0.13%
( data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 retrieved on 11/8/2012)
---------------
And it wasn't just the president being chosen this past Tuesday.
The US Senate now got a Democratic majority, the US House got a Republican majority.
One can easily saw that we got an almost evenly divided country where no one party dominates.
However, one can still make some bold, sweeping analysis of the results
#1 ) Liberal Morality Up,
Conservative Correctness Down
This isn't just based on Barack Obama winning re-election. This is also based on some voter initiatives on the state level, as well as polarizing politicians losing in swing states.
-----
One major issue was same-sex marriage.
For a while, some polls have showed that a majority of people now support same-sex marriage. But those opinion polls didn't matter. Only elections matter.
For a while, conservative activists love to flaunt the fact that everytime the issue has been voted on by the general public, same-sex marriage lost!
Until this year, that is!
Maine, Maryland and Washington state have all gotten same-sex marriage approved directly by the voting public.
The voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Getting same-sex marriage legalized requires extra steps though.
Other states have already legalized same-sex marriage but they were always done via the legislature (ie. New York) or via the courts (ie. Iowa).
But now that 3 states have voter-approved same-sex marriage, the issue WILL gain momentum.
Already, the younger generation is more approving of same-sex marriage. And more people are waking up to the reality that homophobia is wrong.
That trend has been proven by the decreasing majority of voters against same-sex marriage in California when comparing voter initiatives of 2000 and 2008.
In 2000, 61% voted against same-sex marriage!
In 2008, 53% voted against same-sex marriage.
So in 8 years , the opposition against same-sex marriage in California went from 61% to 53%.
Chances are, if California voters vote on the issue again in 8 years, the opposition to same-sex marriage will decline AGAIN, but that time to be less than 50%.
Same will likely to be true in many other states too!
For example, in Hawaii, the people voted against same-sex marriage in 1998. But since then, the people who were born between 1981 and 1994 have become eligible to vote. What will happen when those people and those born between 1995 and 2000 vote on this issue in 2018 (just picking a year to make an example)? Chances are really high that the new majority will vote to approve same-sex marriage.
A whole new generation has come up learning from a young age that homophobia is wrong! A whole new generation has come up learning from a young age that sexual orientation is an inborn trait! A whole new generation has come up looking to pop icons who are gay rights activists. In fact, even the jocks and rappers are supporting the gay rights movement.
The politicians have paid attention to this new trend. Obama/Biden knew it was time to "evolve". They got rewarded!
-------------------
Another issue that has gotten increasing support is legalizing marijuana!
For decades, marijuana has been banned by the feds.
But for the last 2 decades, several states (including but not limited to Hawaii, California, Oregon, Nevada, Michigan, New Mexico) have allowed for the medical use of marijuana, with medical permits required for use.
However, the federal government have cracked down on that. Even Barack Obama (who has broken his promise for more leniency on this issue) has allowed for more crackdowns.
But you know what?
The people's movement towards more leniency on medical marijuana has grown stronger.
This year, the voters Massachusetts have approved legalized medical marijuana.
But what's special about this year is that 2 states (Washington and Colorado) have gone a step further!
In both states, the voters have chosen to legalize marijuana for non-medical uses too!
Sure, there will still be regulations just like we still regulate alcohol and tobacco.
But the voters of Washington and Colorado have given the big middle finger towards the drug prohibitionists.
Don't expect those states to be the last ones to do so.
Whereas many in the older generation have portrayed marijuana to be as dangerous as cocaine, heroin or crystal meth, many in the younger generation have actually smoked marijuana at some point in their life, and they KNOW the scary side effects have been exaggerated by the prohibitionists.
In fact, alcohol is already legal and has WORSE side effects than marijuana.
from a doctor with experience in drug rehab
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703414504575001192775584982.html
In most of my substance-abuse patients, I am far more concerned about their consumption of booze than pot. Alcohol frequently induces violent or dangerous behavior and often-irreversible physiological dependence; marijuana does neither. Chronic use of cannabis raises the risk of lung cancer, weight gain, and lingering cognitive changes—but chronic use of alcohol can cause pancreatitis, cirrhosis and permanent dementia. In healthy but reckless teens and young adults, it is frighteningly easy to consume a lethal dose of alcohol, but it is almost impossible to do so with marijuana. Further, compared with cannabis, alcohol can cause severe impairment of judgment, which results in greater concurrent use of hard drugs.
This is obvious to many younger voters.
The movement to legalize marijuana has already gained critical mass in 2 states. It will definitely reach critical mass in other states soon.
It is time for Barack Obama to evolve. It is time for Obama say that he'll end federal regulations on marijuana and let each state decide.
Sure, he'll get scrutiny from screaming pundits like Bill O'Reilly.! Let them scream, they're on the losing side of the issue anyways.
----
As for abortion, while there are no state voter initiatives on this issue this year, it still became a hot topic.
The issue was "what about women who have raped, can't we just allow them to get an abortion?"
Well, 2 Republicans running for US Senate had cocky answers to that.
Todd Akin (R- Missouri) said that that if the woman really got raped, her body's chemistry will stop her from getting pregnant.
I wrote on the topic at http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/08/rape-and-pregnancy.html
Richard Mourdock (R- Indiana) that a fetus conceived from a rape is a "gift from God". So much for him believing in a loving God.
Another abortion-related issue is cases where the mother has an abortion to save her life.
Well, 1 Republican running for US House of Representative had a cocky answer to that.
Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) said “With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance,” he said. “… There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
Walsh can't find one instance? Here's two!
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/what_health_of_the_mother_means/
Akin, Mourdock and Walsh are all conservative correctness warriors. Conservative correctness activists love to push the stereotype of "only sluts have abortions". But as mentioned, many abortions are the result of rape and/or life-threatening illness.
Akin, Mourdock, and Walsh thought they will get away with their heartlessness! THEY WERE WRONG!
All 3 politicians got punished this election
Akin and Mourdock ran in swing states with conservative tendencies. They were supposed to be able to beat their Democrat opponents. But they lost to their Democrat opponents.
Walsh lost in a moderate Illinois suburb to his Democrat opponent.
This tells us one major thing --- even in conservative-leaning states, people are getting tired of conservative correctness when it comes to abortion.
They are tired of conservative correctness bullies who mock real life victims of rape and real life pregnant victims of life-threatening illnesses.
#2) Republicans losing the minority vote!
Sure, the whites tend to vote Republican, non-whites tend to vote Democrat!
But the gap has increased in a MAJOR WAY this election.
Mitt Romney got only 27% of the Latino vote. Yet, Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got 45 % of the Latino vote when they got re-elected.
That 18% gap between 27 and 45? That made a HUGE difference in swing states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida and even Virginia!
So why the decline in Latino votes for Republicans?
Reagan and Bush fought for more lenient immigration policies. They got rewarded by higher-than-average Latino vote for Republicans.
Yet, other Republicans (ie. Pete Wilson, Janet Brewer, Tom Tancredo, etc) view poor Mexicans as "invaders threatening our Anglo way of life"
Those anti-immigration activists make lots of noise and loves to scream slogans like "what part of illegal don't you understand?"
Mitt Romney, being the flip-flopper that he is, was intimidated by those noise-makers, and started to advocate for more stricter immigration policies when running in the Republican primaries.
However, when it came closer to general election time, Romney spoken a more moderate tone on immigration.
It was too late!
People know Romney is a flip-flopper, and that he is likely to flip-flop on the issue again.
So more Latinos voted for Obama this year than in 2008.
----
Traditionally, the Asian-American vote is a swing vote.
Sure, in Hawaii, they tend to be Democrats, being that it is part of the labor tradition from the sugar plantation days.
But on the continent, Asians once were more sympathetic to Republicans on law-and-order, business policy, and (in the case of many refugees) anti-communism issues.
But the Cold War ended 2 decades ago, so anti-communism lost its relevance in national politics.
Also, whereas the older generation of Asian-Americans tend to be more conservative, the younger generation is much more liberal.
And this anti-immigration stuff (and Romney's flip-flopping on the issue) irritated many Asian-Americans to the point where 73% of Asian-Americans voted for Obama!
(compare that with Bill Clinton who only got 31% of the Asian-American vote in 1992) http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-overwhelmingly-won-asian-american-vote-20121108
This made major impact in swing states with fast growing Asian-American populations like Nevada and Virginia.
----
What does mean for the Republican Party?
The Republican Party BETTER WAKE UP because the Latino and Asian population in the US is growing! And they're spreading to states in which they were once rare!
The American-born offspring of Latin/Asian immigrants are either of voting-age or about to become voting age. They WILL PUNISH any politician who wants more stricter immigration laws.
And you know what? Even many European-American youngsters have classmates of non-white heritage. So yeah, you're not going to tell a white kid to "fear the immigrant" if his school buddies are immigrant (or child of immigrants).
The Republican politicians who want to win need to start ignoring the anti-immigration fanatics already.
Start getting rid of the red-tape that makes legal immigration inconvenient! Stop the quota limitations!
And stop punishing young adults who were brought here illegally by their parents. (After all, 6-yr olds don't chose to change homes. So why punish them at 18, if their parents decided to move illegally 12 years earlier).
#3 ) Obama-Hatred doesn't work
If you spend all your time listening to right-wing talk radio and only reading right-wing websites, you would hear all this stuff like ........................ "Obama apologizes for America", "Obama is making our nation weak on purpose", "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is not born in the US", "Obama is an elitist snob"..........blah, blah, blah.
If that's all you hear, you'd think America just can't wait to get rid of Obama.
That is why right-wing pundits like Dick Morris was sooooooooooooooooooo confident that Mitt Romney would easily defeat Barack Obama!
WAKE UP TO REALITY!
Obama maybe a flawed leader, but he is an icon to millions who are happy to finally have a minority president, after centuries of slavery, segregation, and racial profiling.
People were willing to give him another chance, even though the economy didn't improve nor did our deficits get reduced.
Plus, it's hard to believe this nonsense of "Obama apologizes for America" if the real Barack Obama sent more troops to fight Al Quaida in Afghanistan, sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden, used US military jets to bomb targets in Libya, and increased drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen.
While think some of Obama's economic policies are flawed (and I really believed Obama mishandled the health care issue with a 2,000+ page law), a lot of people believed that Obama inherited a recession from Bush, and therefore not willing to blame Obama for anything.
So yeah, so much for "Romney's landslide victory!
#5) Demonizing the 47% doesn't help
At a speech in Florida, Mitt Romney expressed the challenges he faced in this election with this
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
The stuff I highlighted in red is where Romney lost a lot of people's respect, especially since he grew up in a wealthy family and already have a hard-time relating to those who are struggling to climb the economic ladder.
Look, I do understand that there are people out there who take advantage of our welfare system, people who are irresponsible and make stupid decisions. I spent the 1st 14 years of my life in a public housing complex, I grew up around such people in the hood. I grew up with kids who don't respect the available educational opportunities. Some of my high school classmates have done time behind bars, and some are still there. And some of the students I've taught as a substitute teacher came from dysfunctional homes with irresponsible parents
But to say "the 47% who pay no income tax" all fit those stereotypes is just wrong!
Even worse, when Romney, when defending himself against accusations of taking too much advantage of tax loopholes, emphasized that he follows the law and pays all the taxes that he legally owes.
So did many of "the 47%" that he was talking about!
And like Jade Moon said, many of "the 47%" are taking responsibility for their life so that they can eventually join the 53% who make enough money to owe income taxes.
http://www.midweek.com/the-hard-days-as-a-47-percenter/
In that article, Jade Moon mentions about the time she fled an abusive relationship and tried to balance school and work without much money. She emphasized that she needed government assistance while attending college.
Afterwards, she become a well-known news reporter, and became well-off enough to owe money in income tax.
She emphasized this about her time as a so-called "47%"
Did I enjoy being poor? Did I squeal with glee at having evaded the taxman and taking free tuition money from the government.
Hell no. Not for one bleeping second
And did I consider myself a victim? And not just a victim, but one who refused to take personal responsibility for my life?
What do you think? The truth is I hated being poor. I was ashamed. I wanted out of what I saw was a potentially hopeless life path. I took responsibility in all the ways I could, and that included government assistance.
When people say the poor should pull them selves up by their bootstraps, where do they think those bootstraps come from? The help I received – from both the government and from people who cared about me – were my bootstraps. I grabbed them and hung on and used them to climb up, and I have never, ever stopped being grateful.
And after I graduated and finally found work that paid enough so that I could file federal income tax … well, I celebrated.
Hallelujah! Bring on the forms – I was officially not poor anymore!
What Jade Moon experienced has been experienced by millions of us, even those who have since joined "the 53% club".
To say that millions of us trying to work hard, balance school/family/work, and still don't make enough to officially owe income taxes are "victims", "who don't believe they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives" is insulting. Many of us are trying our best.
Ronald Reagan and the 2 Bushes showed the lower/middle income voters more respect. They won presidential elections. Romney didn't. Draw your own conclusions
-----
You can argue all day about how much social services should be provided by the government and how much should just be handled by private charities.
After all, government can't solve all our problems.
And some things can be handled better by private agencies rather than government bureaucracies.
Some government agencies might be better off being totally privatized (Especially stuff like PBS, NPR, National Endowment for the Arts)
But "the 47%" stuff is insulting, and only alienates voters from ides promoting smaller government.
#6) So what next?
Even with such stinging indictment of this election against the conservative correctness cause, some right-wing pundits think that the GOP will win with a more right-wing candidate.
LIVE IN REALITY PEOPLE!
There isn't much more right-wing conservative white votes to mine!
People are more likely to vote for more same-sex marriage, more legalized marijuana. People voted against those insensitive towards those who got an abortion.
The minorities have voted even more Democrat than before!
THOSE ARE NOT OPINIONS, THOSE ARE FACTS!
People don't want someone more right-wing than Mitt Romney! Those who did could have voted for the Constitutional Party (Virgil Goode), but they were outnumbered by those who voted Green (Jill Stein) and Libertarian (Gary Johnson)
THOSE ARE NOT OPINIONS, THOSE ARE FACTS!
Even more crazy, conservative correctness pundit Joe Farrah (of World Net Daily) was angry that Republican campaign veteran Karl Rove should have stood behind Todd Akin after his rape/abortion comment.
What Farrah doesn't understand was that Karl Rove was trying to Protect the Republican Brand!
After all, Micheal Vick lost endorsements when he got in trouble, right? His former sponsors were trying to Protect Their Brand when they cut ties with Vick!
Well, people like Todd Akin are poison! Anti-immigration fanatics are poison. Aggressive homophobes are poison! Those who look down on the poor are poison!
That's a lot of poison that the Republican candidate for 2016 will have to get away.
As for the Democrats, they shouldn't act as if a one-party monopoly is inevitable!
If the economy doesn't improve enough in 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
If the deficits don't turn into surplus by 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
If too many business feel that they are faced with too much bureaucratic headaches in 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
And if the Republicans finally find someone sane to run for 2016, the Democrats are in trouble!
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Libertarian Movement gaining maturity
It's almost election time!
While all the attention has been on Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party has the most exciting and most credible candidate in a long time in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson's credibility came from being a 2-term governor of New Mexico. Back then, he was officially a member of the Republican Party, but he was definitely not your average Republican. He already had libertarian ideas, but he decided to join the Republican Party with the hopes of reforming the party from within.
Whereas other Republicans talk a big game on "reducing government" and "reducing deficits", Johnson actually eliminated the state's deficit and vetoed plenty of spending bills. He also defied other Republicans by advocating libertarian ideas like marijuana legalization. Johnson was also pro-choice, pro-immigration and even considered legalizing prostitution.
Johnson was hoping to do the same thing on the national level, and tried to run for President from within the Republican Party. However, he was overshadowed by religious fanatics (Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann), corporate flip-floppers (Mitt Romney), eccentric business conservatives (Herman Cain), Texas governor (Rick Perry), scandalized politicians aiming for redemption (Newt Gingrich), and someone who already represented a version of libertarianism within the US Congress (Ron Paul).
Pretty hard for someone like Gary Johnson to compete those guys within a very conservative national party.
Time to go where Gary Johnson truly fits --- the Libertarian Party! The party maybe small, but it is a much better fit. Plus, he no longer had to compete with national political celebrities for attention here.
1) So why do I think Gary Johnson symbolize the maturity of the libertarian movement?
For one thing, Gary Johnson has actual experience as a government executive.
He has experience running a state government.
He has experience dealing with state emergencies such as wildfires.
He also has experience dealing with a legislative branch filled with those with opposing ideas.
In that environment, you learn to pick your battles wisely!
If you fight all battles that exist around you, you'll become too exhausted for battles that really matter. So you have to pick and chose which battles you will fight, and which ones you just walk away from!
For too long, too many libertarians can't even pick their battles wisely!
For too many libertarians, any type of compromise is wrong.
You can be right in so many different issues, but if you allow at least 1 government program to continue to exist, you get demonized as a "sellout" by many libertarian purists.
But sometimes, you just have to allow some government programs to continue BECAUSE you have other more important battles to fight, battles you have a better chance of winning,, battles that are more critical.
--------------
For example, in 2004, Micheal Badnarik was running as the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Badnarik was the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of NOT choosing his battles wisely!
Of all the major issues out there, ranging from foreign policy, drug policy, economics, what did Badnarik get the most publicity about?
Answer: Badnarik doesn't believe in driver's licenses. He believe they "infringe in our freedom".
That is so Picking STUPID Battles! If that's all you're known for, NOBODY WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!
------------
Another example is when Rand Paul said that he thinks anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of businesses.
Paul did try to reassure people that he wouldn't allow the government to discriminate on race, but thinks businesses should decide the issue on their own.
AGAIN, picking a STUPID battle!
With millions of those in the older generation with memories of being expelled from stores because they were "the wrong color", Rand Paul's comments will NEVER attract a multi-cultural audience for libertarianism!
If that's a person's first contact with a "libertarian message", you'll lose that person FOREVER!
Plus, allow businesses to discriminate IS allowing them to call the police to violently remove anyone from a store/restaurant/etc. just because they're the wrong color.
So much for "reducing government oppression"
---------------
Same thing with libertarian activists who say "Abraham Lincoln actually expanded slavery by forcing an income tax on us"
THAT IS SO STUPID!
Sure, taxes are taken by force. Sure, income tax is an inconvenience with all that paperwork and audits. Plus, many of us had plans with the money taken by taxes.
But taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as being physically beaten and whipped on the plantations. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having your cherished loved ones sold to another slave owner, and you'll never see that cherished love one again. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having to run for your life and worry that you'll be captured and forced back to the same plantation where the owner will violently retaliate against you. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as getting raped by the plantation owner, enduring a forced pregnancy and still being forced to work the fields while being pregnant with your rapist's child.
So yeah, I rather pay income taxes, than to put up with all that crap that I just mentioned.
And yeah, Abraham Lincoln was a hero in eventually ending REAL slavery in the South!
--------------
While I don't believe that the US should continue to be the world's policeman, the 2000 presidential candidate Harry Browne picked stupid battles after 9/11 happened!
While most Americans (myself included) wanted the US to send the military to go inside Afghanistan to fight against Osama bin Laden, Harry Browne said that 9/11 was America's fault and that the US should just accept it and not bother fighting back! Screw that!
It's one thing to criticize our foreign policy, but to even advocate that we not put up a real fight against Osama bin Laden and his Al Quaida? Screw that!
I was no longer a Harry Browne fan after that!
-------------
Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk show host, is very angry about high taxation.
Nothing wrong with that!
However, he picks stupid battles by demonizing the poor who would turn to any organization (including the government) for help.!
http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2012/09/05/the_risk_of_being_poor/page/full/
Boortz did list ways people hurt themselves economically, then he really picked a stupid battle by mentioning this
That statement is WORSE than Mitt Romney complaining about the "47% who don't pay taxes", "considers themselves victims" and "refuse to take responsibility for their lives".
You could do all the right things (ie. work hard, follow the law, etc.) but if you have to take care of a sick relative, and therefore can no longer work a full-time job and you can now only afford to live in the ghetto, you would understand why Boortz's statement is so insulting!
Sure, some former ghetto residents might have entrepreneurial talents (ie. Percy Miller aka Master P, Sean Carter aka Jay-Z), athletic talents (ie. Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Micheal Vick), musical talents (ie. Mary J Blige, Lil Wayne) that can move them up to the " richest 1%"
But you can't realistically expect everyone with a ghetto past to have such lucrative talents.
Despite the stereotypes, many other ghetto residents do work hard and follow the rules. But because many don't have multi-million dollar talents, and because many can't afford to hire a nanny, that will make it harder to move up the economic ladder.
And with the high gas prices (plus car insurance, maintenance costs, etc), Boortz's statement of "you have a car. There’s rest areas on the expressways. Load it and use it" is even more stupid than Mitt Romney telling future college students "just borrow money from your parents".
Like Julian Castro (no relation to the Cuban dictator) once said in a mocking tone "Why didn't I think of that?"
This isn't just "left-wing propaganda", this is real life! Yes, I know the taxes are too high. Yes, I know there is too much bureaucratic red-tape and too much counter-productive regulations hurting our economic potential. Yes, private organizations can be a more viable way to help the less fortunate. You can EASILY say such things without being as insulting and crude as Boortz!
But saying what Boortz said about the poor in high-crime communities is NOT ONLY picking stupid battles, it's basically giving the Radical Left weapons and ammunition!
2) Libertarian's past desperation
Another part of picking your battles wisely is choosing the best allies.
You don't just align yourself with just anybody.
But because the Libertarian Party (and the movement itself) is so small, they're desperate for more people to join in.
The worst are what we call paleo-libertarians.
Paleo-libertarians , while generally libertarian on economics and foreign policy, are extremely NON-libertarian on many other issues.
I consider paleo-libertarians to be very poisonous to the libertarian movement, because many are anti-immigration, anti-abortion, and are just plain stupid in picking their battles wisely.
Rand Paul (who I mentioned earlier) is one example.
Eevn worse is his father Ron Paul.
Ron Paul first got major attention by being the only Republican in the 2008 primary debates to object to an interventionist foreign policy. That got many young people tired of the Iraq war to be like "cool, there's a Republican I can support".
But there is absolutely NOTHING COOL about his racist newsletters. There are many anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant stereotypes in those newsletters published in Ron Paul's name.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/
If someone tried to write a newsletter (or a blog, magazine, whatevers) in my name with racist commentary, I WOULD BE PUBLICLY in FULL RAGE MODE! I'd be ready to file slander/defamation suits and would be demanding more information about who is writing that crap while hiding behind my name.
But that's not how Ron Paul reacted. He was just like "I don't read all my newsletters, someone else in my staff did, and please stop asking questions about it, it's old news".
Notice that he's only angry that's being questioned about those racist newsletters, he showed ZERO ANGER about someone writing such racist crap while hiding behind his name! That's because NOBODY was hiding behind his name, he knew what was in his newsletters, he approved of them, and now he's evading responsibility for them.
Had Ron Paul even attempted a real apology for those insensitive comments, he would've gotten more respect from those who were offended by his newsletter.
--------
As for Ron Paul's ally
Another example of the Libertarians being too eager to embrace a paleo-libertarian occurred in 2008.
In 2008, the Libertarian Party wanted some star power. They found someone who was once a member of Congress, and was a former Republican.
Problem was .......... that person is Bob Barr?
EWWWWWWW!
Barr had spent most of his career in alliance with right-wing religious fanatics, speaking to segregationist groups, and (to severely insult many libertarians) demonize anyone who believed in a more lenient policy on marijuana!
After Barr had conflicts with other Republicans, he joined the Libertarians who were desperate for attention.
There was NO WAY IN HELL i would EVER vote for Bob Barr!
I ended up voting for 1 of the 2 major party candidates in 2008!
3) Screw the paleo-libertarians, support the Cool Libertarians instead!
Now that I already went over the paleo-libertarians, what are the cool libertarians?
Paleo-conservatives are the old cranks described above!
Whereas the paleo-libertarians are just a bunch of disgruntled right-wing nutcases in disguise, the Cool Libertarians are the ones truly about real freedom.
Whereas paleo-libertarians only define freedom as "low taxes, and the right to offend liberals"
Cool Libertarians (while still defending low taxes and free speech) are about embracing the future, embracing pop culture, and embracing the freedoms that many ultra-conservatives fear (ie. banned substances, porn, prostitution, gambling and other so-called "sins")
Whereas paleo-libertarians desire a greater alliance with right-wing activists, Cool Libertarians say HELL NO to such alliances!
In other words, the Cool Libertarians are the REAL LIBERTARIANS!
4) Conclusion on the Maturing Libertarian Movement
so yes, in 2012, the Libertarian Party nominated a Cool Libertarian in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson has real experience in an executive position that required knowing what battles to fight, and when to just compromise.
If the Libertarians want any real success in reducing government power, they need to know when to go all out and when to just let it go!
This is why Gary Johnson isn't out to eliminate every single government program, even if he does generally believes that privatization would work best.
He just picks the major priorities like .......... reducing foreign military adventures, ending the militarized drug war, lowering corporate taxes, gaining a more lenient immigration policy.
Notice that (unlike Neal Boortz), Johnson doesn't demonize those who are currently reliant on government programs. Johnson does believe in privatizing services, but he also understands that demonizing lower-income people who turn to government for help will only alienate them from the larger message of private charities serving us better than government bureaucracies.
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Badnarik) doesn't spend much time complaining about "driver's licenses restricting freedom" nor does he say "income tax is like slavery"
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Rand Paul) doesn't consider anti-discrimination laws a "restriction on business". In fact, Gary Johnson not only supports the Civil Rights Act, he wants to expand that protection to sexual orientations.
Gary Johnson knows how to pick his battles.
He might not be able to overcome the severe advantages of Romney or Obama this coming Tuesday, but he is setting an example for future Libertarian leaders.
While all the attention has been on Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party has the most exciting and most credible candidate in a long time in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson's credibility came from being a 2-term governor of New Mexico. Back then, he was officially a member of the Republican Party, but he was definitely not your average Republican. He already had libertarian ideas, but he decided to join the Republican Party with the hopes of reforming the party from within.
Whereas other Republicans talk a big game on "reducing government" and "reducing deficits", Johnson actually eliminated the state's deficit and vetoed plenty of spending bills. He also defied other Republicans by advocating libertarian ideas like marijuana legalization. Johnson was also pro-choice, pro-immigration and even considered legalizing prostitution.
Johnson was hoping to do the same thing on the national level, and tried to run for President from within the Republican Party. However, he was overshadowed by religious fanatics (Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann), corporate flip-floppers (Mitt Romney), eccentric business conservatives (Herman Cain), Texas governor (Rick Perry), scandalized politicians aiming for redemption (Newt Gingrich), and someone who already represented a version of libertarianism within the US Congress (Ron Paul).
Pretty hard for someone like Gary Johnson to compete those guys within a very conservative national party.
Time to go where Gary Johnson truly fits --- the Libertarian Party! The party maybe small, but it is a much better fit. Plus, he no longer had to compete with national political celebrities for attention here.
1) So why do I think Gary Johnson symbolize the maturity of the libertarian movement?
For one thing, Gary Johnson has actual experience as a government executive.
He has experience running a state government.
He has experience dealing with state emergencies such as wildfires.
He also has experience dealing with a legislative branch filled with those with opposing ideas.
In that environment, you learn to pick your battles wisely!
If you fight all battles that exist around you, you'll become too exhausted for battles that really matter. So you have to pick and chose which battles you will fight, and which ones you just walk away from!
For too long, too many libertarians can't even pick their battles wisely!
For too many libertarians, any type of compromise is wrong.
You can be right in so many different issues, but if you allow at least 1 government program to continue to exist, you get demonized as a "sellout" by many libertarian purists.
But sometimes, you just have to allow some government programs to continue BECAUSE you have other more important battles to fight, battles you have a better chance of winning,, battles that are more critical.
--------------
For example, in 2004, Micheal Badnarik was running as the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Badnarik was the ULTIMATE EXAMPLE of NOT choosing his battles wisely!
Of all the major issues out there, ranging from foreign policy, drug policy, economics, what did Badnarik get the most publicity about?
Answer: Badnarik doesn't believe in driver's licenses. He believe they "infringe in our freedom".
That is so Picking STUPID Battles! If that's all you're known for, NOBODY WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!
------------
Another example is when Rand Paul said that he thinks anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of businesses.
Paul did try to reassure people that he wouldn't allow the government to discriminate on race, but thinks businesses should decide the issue on their own.
AGAIN, picking a STUPID battle!
With millions of those in the older generation with memories of being expelled from stores because they were "the wrong color", Rand Paul's comments will NEVER attract a multi-cultural audience for libertarianism!
If that's a person's first contact with a "libertarian message", you'll lose that person FOREVER!
Plus, allow businesses to discriminate IS allowing them to call the police to violently remove anyone from a store/restaurant/etc. just because they're the wrong color.
So much for "reducing government oppression"
---------------
Same thing with libertarian activists who say "Abraham Lincoln actually expanded slavery by forcing an income tax on us"
THAT IS SO STUPID!
Sure, taxes are taken by force. Sure, income tax is an inconvenience with all that paperwork and audits. Plus, many of us had plans with the money taken by taxes.
But taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as being physically beaten and whipped on the plantations. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having your cherished loved ones sold to another slave owner, and you'll never see that cherished love one again. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as having to run for your life and worry that you'll be captured and forced back to the same plantation where the owner will violently retaliate against you. Taxes are nowhere as inconvenient as getting raped by the plantation owner, enduring a forced pregnancy and still being forced to work the fields while being pregnant with your rapist's child.
So yeah, I rather pay income taxes, than to put up with all that crap that I just mentioned.
And yeah, Abraham Lincoln was a hero in eventually ending REAL slavery in the South!
--------------
While I don't believe that the US should continue to be the world's policeman, the 2000 presidential candidate Harry Browne picked stupid battles after 9/11 happened!
While most Americans (myself included) wanted the US to send the military to go inside Afghanistan to fight against Osama bin Laden, Harry Browne said that 9/11 was America's fault and that the US should just accept it and not bother fighting back! Screw that!
It's one thing to criticize our foreign policy, but to even advocate that we not put up a real fight against Osama bin Laden and his Al Quaida? Screw that!
I was no longer a Harry Browne fan after that!
-------------
Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk show host, is very angry about high taxation.
Nothing wrong with that!
However, he picks stupid battles by demonizing the poor who would turn to any organization (including the government) for help.!
http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2012/09/05/the_risk_of_being_poor/page/full/
Boortz did list ways people hurt themselves economically, then he really picked a stupid battle by mentioning this
Refusing to move out of a crime-ridden inner city environment and relocating, by whatever means necessary, to an area with better schools, less drugs and crime, and some basic job opportunities … that’s risky. And don’t give me this “can’t afford it” crap. Our ancestors did that walking alongside covered wagons with a few tables and chairs and maybe a bed inside. They had to dig holes in the ground to drop a deuce along the way. You have a car. There’s rest areas on the expressways. Load it and use it.
That statement is WORSE than Mitt Romney complaining about the "47% who don't pay taxes", "considers themselves victims" and "refuse to take responsibility for their lives".
You could do all the right things (ie. work hard, follow the law, etc.) but if you have to take care of a sick relative, and therefore can no longer work a full-time job and you can now only afford to live in the ghetto, you would understand why Boortz's statement is so insulting!
Sure, some former ghetto residents might have entrepreneurial talents (ie. Percy Miller aka Master P, Sean Carter aka Jay-Z), athletic talents (ie. Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, Micheal Vick), musical talents (ie. Mary J Blige, Lil Wayne) that can move them up to the " richest 1%"
But you can't realistically expect everyone with a ghetto past to have such lucrative talents.
Despite the stereotypes, many other ghetto residents do work hard and follow the rules. But because many don't have multi-million dollar talents, and because many can't afford to hire a nanny, that will make it harder to move up the economic ladder.
And with the high gas prices (plus car insurance, maintenance costs, etc), Boortz's statement of "you have a car. There’s rest areas on the expressways. Load it and use it" is even more stupid than Mitt Romney telling future college students "just borrow money from your parents".
Like Julian Castro (no relation to the Cuban dictator) once said in a mocking tone "Why didn't I think of that?"
This isn't just "left-wing propaganda", this is real life! Yes, I know the taxes are too high. Yes, I know there is too much bureaucratic red-tape and too much counter-productive regulations hurting our economic potential. Yes, private organizations can be a more viable way to help the less fortunate. You can EASILY say such things without being as insulting and crude as Boortz!
But saying what Boortz said about the poor in high-crime communities is NOT ONLY picking stupid battles, it's basically giving the Radical Left weapons and ammunition!
2) Libertarian's past desperation
Another part of picking your battles wisely is choosing the best allies.
You don't just align yourself with just anybody.
But because the Libertarian Party (and the movement itself) is so small, they're desperate for more people to join in.
The worst are what we call paleo-libertarians.
Paleo-libertarians , while generally libertarian on economics and foreign policy, are extremely NON-libertarian on many other issues.
I consider paleo-libertarians to be very poisonous to the libertarian movement, because many are anti-immigration, anti-abortion, and are just plain stupid in picking their battles wisely.
Rand Paul (who I mentioned earlier) is one example.
Eevn worse is his father Ron Paul.
Ron Paul first got major attention by being the only Republican in the 2008 primary debates to object to an interventionist foreign policy. That got many young people tired of the Iraq war to be like "cool, there's a Republican I can support".
But there is absolutely NOTHING COOL about his racist newsletters. There are many anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-immigrant stereotypes in those newsletters published in Ron Paul's name.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/
The fact is, Paul has lied like a very old-fashioned sort of politician about these newsletters, and he has been lying for years. He has gone through the motions of public regret about their contents, but has never acknowledged knowing who wrote the offensive material or even being aware that offensive material went out under his name. That’s bullshit. Now he ducks questions on the subject entirely (and his supporters complain that it’s “old news,” because they have no serious defense of the comments or Paul’s responsibility for them).
If someone tried to write a newsletter (or a blog, magazine, whatevers) in my name with racist commentary, I WOULD BE PUBLICLY in FULL RAGE MODE! I'd be ready to file slander/defamation suits and would be demanding more information about who is writing that crap while hiding behind my name.
But that's not how Ron Paul reacted. He was just like "I don't read all my newsletters, someone else in my staff did, and please stop asking questions about it, it's old news".
Notice that he's only angry that's being questioned about those racist newsletters, he showed ZERO ANGER about someone writing such racist crap while hiding behind his name! That's because NOBODY was hiding behind his name, he knew what was in his newsletters, he approved of them, and now he's evading responsibility for them.
Had Ron Paul even attempted a real apology for those insensitive comments, he would've gotten more respect from those who were offended by his newsletter.
--------
As for Ron Paul's ally
Another example of the Libertarians being too eager to embrace a paleo-libertarian occurred in 2008.
In 2008, the Libertarian Party wanted some star power. They found someone who was once a member of Congress, and was a former Republican.
Problem was .......... that person is Bob Barr?
EWWWWWWW!
Barr had spent most of his career in alliance with right-wing religious fanatics, speaking to segregationist groups, and (to severely insult many libertarians) demonize anyone who believed in a more lenient policy on marijuana!
After Barr had conflicts with other Republicans, he joined the Libertarians who were desperate for attention.
There was NO WAY IN HELL i would EVER vote for Bob Barr!
I ended up voting for 1 of the 2 major party candidates in 2008!
3) Screw the paleo-libertarians, support the Cool Libertarians instead!
Now that I already went over the paleo-libertarians, what are the cool libertarians?
There are, broadly, two different versions of American libertarianism: There’s Reason Magazine and Cato Institute libertarianism — “cool” libertarianism — and there’s Mises Institute/Lew Rockwell libertarianism — old crank libertarianism. Ron Paul is a Mises Institute libertarian. (Gary Johnson, more of a cool libertarian.)
Paleo-conservatives are the old cranks described above!
Whereas the paleo-libertarians are just a bunch of disgruntled right-wing nutcases in disguise, the Cool Libertarians are the ones truly about real freedom.
Whereas paleo-libertarians only define freedom as "low taxes, and the right to offend liberals"
Cool Libertarians (while still defending low taxes and free speech) are about embracing the future, embracing pop culture, and embracing the freedoms that many ultra-conservatives fear (ie. banned substances, porn, prostitution, gambling and other so-called "sins")
Whereas paleo-libertarians desire a greater alliance with right-wing activists, Cool Libertarians say HELL NO to such alliances!
In other words, the Cool Libertarians are the REAL LIBERTARIANS!
4) Conclusion on the Maturing Libertarian Movement
so yes, in 2012, the Libertarian Party nominated a Cool Libertarian in Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson has real experience in an executive position that required knowing what battles to fight, and when to just compromise.
If the Libertarians want any real success in reducing government power, they need to know when to go all out and when to just let it go!
This is why Gary Johnson isn't out to eliminate every single government program, even if he does generally believes that privatization would work best.
He just picks the major priorities like .......... reducing foreign military adventures, ending the militarized drug war, lowering corporate taxes, gaining a more lenient immigration policy.
Notice that (unlike Neal Boortz), Johnson doesn't demonize those who are currently reliant on government programs. Johnson does believe in privatizing services, but he also understands that demonizing lower-income people who turn to government for help will only alienate them from the larger message of private charities serving us better than government bureaucracies.
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Badnarik) doesn't spend much time complaining about "driver's licenses restricting freedom" nor does he say "income tax is like slavery"
Notice that Gary Johnson (unlike Rand Paul) doesn't consider anti-discrimination laws a "restriction on business". In fact, Gary Johnson not only supports the Civil Rights Act, he wants to expand that protection to sexual orientations.
Gary Johnson knows how to pick his battles.
He might not be able to overcome the severe advantages of Romney or Obama this coming Tuesday, but he is setting an example for future Libertarian leaders.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Halloween Thoughts
It's that day of the year!
People wearing costumes, kids going trick-or-treat for candy, young adults walking the streets looking for attention, and late night parties.
Traditional Halloween symbols emphasize scariness, with characters like the ghosts, goblins, witches, and monsters.
Within the last few decades, popular Halloween characters include serial killers, and horror movie characters like Freddy Kruger, "Jason", and other scary folks.
Others prefer less scary characters ranging from superheros, M&M candies, Disney characters, presidents, etc.
For many women (and some men), it's that time of year to show their wild and sexy side, with revealing costumes.
--------
For me, I'm not into the scary stuff. I'm not into horror movies and have no interest in glorifying serial killers, devils or other monsters.
But I LOVE the fun side of Halloween. I love the funny costumes, I love the crazy looking characters, and off course, the ladies in the sexy costumes.
I did paint my face a few times in the past. For a few years, I was Vili the Warrior, the former UH mascot some might find scary, but I find him to be an entertaining character!
-----------------------
For my high school reunion year (2009), I painted my face in with tiger stripes!
---------------------
I died my hair the last few years.
And now I got the clown wig!
--------
Here in Hawaii, Waikiki is where the action is every Halloween night. People walk around in different costumes, as seeing all of them is a major entertainment activity.
I have seen people becoming Sarah Palin, John McCain, Lady Gaga, Eazy-E, LL Cool J and I even remember one guy wearing the #7 Atlanta Falcons jersey and a chain choking a few dogs. Yep, that guy was the white version of Micheal Vick! (note: I'm not endorsing that costume, I'm just noting what I have seen!)
There was supposed to be a Halloween block party in Chinatown last Saturday. Problem was ........the tsunami warning! YIKES! I was on the way there when the sirens sounded. By the time I got off the bus, people were talking about evacuations. While the tsunami never came, it was better to be safe than sorry.
Tonight, I will walk around somewhere, but I can't stay up too late. After all, this Halloween falls in the middle of the week :(
People wearing costumes, kids going trick-or-treat for candy, young adults walking the streets looking for attention, and late night parties.
Traditional Halloween symbols emphasize scariness, with characters like the ghosts, goblins, witches, and monsters.
Within the last few decades, popular Halloween characters include serial killers, and horror movie characters like Freddy Kruger, "Jason", and other scary folks.
Others prefer less scary characters ranging from superheros, M&M candies, Disney characters, presidents, etc.
For many women (and some men), it's that time of year to show their wild and sexy side, with revealing costumes.
--------
For me, I'm not into the scary stuff. I'm not into horror movies and have no interest in glorifying serial killers, devils or other monsters.
But I LOVE the fun side of Halloween. I love the funny costumes, I love the crazy looking characters, and off course, the ladies in the sexy costumes.
I did paint my face a few times in the past. For a few years, I was Vili the Warrior, the former UH mascot some might find scary, but I find him to be an entertaining character!
2005 @ Ala Wai Elementary School
2006 @ Palama Settlement
-----------------------
For my high school reunion year (2009), I painted my face in with tiger stripes!
2009 @ Waikiki
---------------------
I died my hair the last few years.
10/29/10 @ Niu Valley Middle School
(Halloween was Sunday that year, so we did Halloween stuff on Friday)
2011 @ Ala Moana Macy's
(it's hard to see, but I sprayed my hair green. It was already fading by the time this photo was taken)
And now I got the clown wig!
today :)
--------
Here in Hawaii, Waikiki is where the action is every Halloween night. People walk around in different costumes, as seeing all of them is a major entertainment activity.
I have seen people becoming Sarah Palin, John McCain, Lady Gaga, Eazy-E, LL Cool J and I even remember one guy wearing the #7 Atlanta Falcons jersey and a chain choking a few dogs. Yep, that guy was the white version of Micheal Vick! (note: I'm not endorsing that costume, I'm just noting what I have seen!)
There was supposed to be a Halloween block party in Chinatown last Saturday. Problem was ........the tsunami warning! YIKES! I was on the way there when the sirens sounded. By the time I got off the bus, people were talking about evacuations. While the tsunami never came, it was better to be safe than sorry.
Tonight, I will walk around somewhere, but I can't stay up too late. After all, this Halloween falls in the middle of the week :(
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Presidential Profiles the Media is Hiding from You
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, there are more than 2 people running for US President.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-and-romney-not-only-ones-running.html
Yeah, I know, our media act as if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the only ones running for president.
But there's more.
Here are the 3 lesser known candidates that I am familiar with
1) Jill Stein ( Green Party)
The Green Party is more left-wing than the Democratic Party.
On foreign policy, Stein and the Green Party are angry that Obama has been to slow to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. They are disappointed that Obama has kept Guantanamo, military tribunals, warrantless spying and drone warfare all in tact.
On domestic issues, they feel that Obama's health care doesn't do enough to insure all Americans. In fact, they feel that his health plan is a more about propping up private insurance companies than about helping the poor. Instead, they want the government to totally take over the health care system.
In pretty much everything, Jill Stein and the Green Party believe in MORE entitlements than Obama is willing to offer. Those entitlements range from tuition-free college education and a dramatically increased minimum wage. Stein also promises to halt all evictions and foreclosures.
Whereas Obama bragged about increased fossil fuel production, Stein wants to dramatically halt all fossil fuel production in an effort to transition to renewable energy.
Whereas Obama bailed out the big banks, Stein is totally against that.
Also, whereas Obama continued the militarized anti-drug policy, Stein plans to end all that, and transition to treating drug abuse as a health problem instead of a law enforcement issue.
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.jillstein.org/issues
2) Virgil Goode (Consitution Party)
The Constitution Party is more right-wing than the Republican Party.
Goode and the Constitution Party feel that Romney and other mainstream Republicans are too soft on immigration. Goode wants a militarized US-Mexico with a fence and tons of troops, just like the border between North and South Korea.
Also, whereas Mitt Romney promised a green card to any foreign student who got their degree, Goode wants a moratorium on immigrant until unemployment has dramatically decreased.
Whereas the Republicans (Romney included) have been influenced by the neo-cons who favor a more aggressive foreign policy, Goode aligned with the paleo-cons who believe in withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, as well as withdrawing US troops from foreign bases as well.
Goode also feels that Mitt Romney doesn't go far enough to reduce the federal budget. The Romney budget plan promises to gradually reduce the deficit over a span of decades. Goode demands an end to the federal deficit now. That means the elimination of National Endowment for the Arts, No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants and other programs that Romney promised not to eliminate
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html
3) Gary Johnson (the Libertarian Party)
The Libertarian Party is about reducing government interference in both economics and civil liberties.
Whereas Republicans have promised less government interference in economics, and the Democrats have promised less government interference in civil liberties, NEITHER PARTY has even come close to keeping those promises when they have taken power the last few decades.
Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico is tired of all that! He tried influencing the Republican party from within, but screw it, he was being ignored.
So, now it's on to the Libertarian Party.
Johnson wants to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan immediately, and wants to end drone warfare in other nations as well.
Johnson wants to end the militarized war on drug policy (which Obama promised and BROKE his promise) and wants legalization of marijuana.
Johnson feels that Obama also broke his promise on civil liberties, especially when it comes to warantless spying, indefinite detention, and military tribunals.
When it comes to economic issues like health care, Johnson believes that privatization works best. More competition and less regulations are what Johnson believes will make the health care industry more flexible and more costumer friendly.
Johnson believes that education should be a state issue, which he believes will make the education system more flexible and more attuned to local needs.
Unlike the Republicans, Johnson doesn't believe in bailing out the big banks or other forms of corporate welfare.
And for immigration, Johnson (who as I mentioned, was a governor of New Mexico), believes in making the legal immigration process a lot more easier and a lot less bureaucratic. He also believe in giving a grace period to illegal immigrants to gain work visas and to go through the legalization process.
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
4) Who do I support?
I mentioned the 3 lesser-known presidential candidates and their positions.
You already know about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
So who will I vote for ?
----------------------
I won't support Barack Obama. He has broken plenty of promises. He promised to reduce the deficit, restore the economy in one-term, a less militarized drug policy, an end to the civil liberty violations, and "if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it".
Let's face it, wouldn't you want to ditch someone who broken promises over 4 years?
Yeah,yeah, yeah, ...... 1st minority president,............1st Hawaii-born president........ ..........blah, blah, blah!
Nothing wrong with be a minority from Hawaii. After all, that describes me too!
Obama's presidency showed that race is no longer a barrier to success that it used to be. That in itself will be a great thing for racial minority children out there. Now, there's no excuse for not striving to achieve the best you can!
But it is NOT enough to just be satisfied with "yay, we got a minority president" After all, didn't Martin Luther King tell us to "judge someone not by the color of the skin, but by the content of their character"?
I'm not going to vote for someone with so many broken promises. I'm not going to vote for someone who mishandled the health care debate with a 2,000+ page law. I'm not going to vote for someone who still allowed for a militarized drug policy, when he promised to end it. I'm not going to vote for someone who tried to confuse the public over how his administration mishandled the Benghazi consulate incident.
--------------------
I won't support Mitt Romney. If you think Obama was a "promise breaker", Romney is a flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped his opinions on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, health care and other issues.
While all of us have changed our opinions on various issues, Romney's timing in his "opinion changes" has MORE to do with what will help him get elected.
He tried to go more liberal while running for office in Massachusetts, then more conservative while running for the Republican nomination for US President.
Now, he is trying to be more moderate for the general election. Whereas he promoted a "tough on illegal immigration, tough on foreign policy" persona for the Republican primary, all of a sudden, now he's promising a more lenient immigration policy and a humble foreign policy.
Those are warning signs that Mitt Romney WILL "change" his political opinions AGAIN during his time as president.
On the few issues that Romney hasn't flip-flopped (yet), Romney promises to continue a militarized war on drugs, warantless spying, and indefinite detention. All issues I disagree with.
As for foreign policy, Romney promised a tougher foreign policy, promised more US interference in foreign affairs, and thinks Obama is "too soft" and "apologizes for America", even though Obama bombed Libya, expanded drone warfare and got Osama bin Laden killed.
This attitude shows that Mitt Romney is a "video game hero", which is almost the same thing as a "studio gangsta".
At least John McCain could back up his aggressive foreign policy beliefs, since he put his life on the line for real in Vietnam.
-------------
I think Jill Stein is too far to the left and overly idealistic in her beliefs that more government interference in the economy would bring magic (ie. economic prosperity).
We're already in a deficit, the government can't be spending more than it already spends, even for "worthy causes".
And this "make the minimum wage a living wage" stuff is pure idealistic fantasy. Raise the minimum wage from (for example) $7 to $10 WILL increase prices. Prices keep going up, and therefore a minimum wage will NEVER be a "living wage".
------------------
I think Virgil Goode is too far to the right.
Virgil Goode is an anti-immigration fanatic. His anti-immigration policies could only be enforced with racial profiling, warantless spying and more excessive regulations for citizens and businesses.
Also, he supports the same militarized anti-drug policy supported by Obama and Romney. This militarized drug policy could only be enforced with warantless spying, massive raids on private homes, and belligerent police profiling.
Whereas Romney flip-flops on abortion, Goode is a true anti-choice fanatic. He wants to ban abortion, which again, could only be enforced by warantless spying, and militarized tactics.
-----------
I want a president who respects civil liberties.
I want a president that defends America first, instead of having military bases in countries that can afford to defend themselves.
I want a president that believes in allowing for free, flexible markets instead of centralized planning.
I want a president that believes that states should be flexible when it comes to health, drug, and education. That means less federal interference on those issues.
I want a president that treats drug issues as a public health issue, instead of an issue to be dealt with by militarized police actions.
I want a president who believes that federal civil rights shall expand to sexual orientation.
I want a president who will make our immigration policy easier for those who want to come legally, instead of our current mega-red-tape process we got now.
I want a president who believes in legalized abortion.
I want a president who believe in the citizen's right to own a gun.
I want a president who will lower USA's corporate tax rates, which is higher than "socialist" Europe or "socialist" Canada.
I want a president who doesn't have a long track record of broken promises nor a long track record of flip-flopping.
The presidential candidate who best fits all of that is Gary Johnson!
Would I agree with every little thing that Gary Johnson does. Probably not, but based on what I've read, I'm in at least 85% agreement with him.
That's way more than I would agree with Obama, Romney, Stein or Goode.
5) "waste my vote"?
Some say voting for a lesser-known candidate is "wasting my vote"
They say "vote for a candidate who can win"
This "chose for who can win" is more appropriate for betting on the Super Bowl.
Elections are about choosing the best leader.
And the best leader is not Obama or Romney. I refuse to endorse them, their broken promises or their flip-flopping! I would not waste a vote for those two.
I'm not going to tell you who you should vote for. Don't just take my word for it. Do your own investigations. Do your own research. Vote for whoever you think is the best.
If you don't think Gary Johnson is the best choice, then vote for someone you think is a better choice.
But please don't tell me I'm "wasting my vote" just because I don't vote as if this was a popularity contest.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-and-romney-not-only-ones-running.html
Yeah, I know, our media act as if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the only ones running for president.
But there's more.
Here are the 3 lesser known candidates that I am familiar with
1) Jill Stein ( Green Party)
The Green Party is more left-wing than the Democratic Party.
On foreign policy, Stein and the Green Party are angry that Obama has been to slow to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. They are disappointed that Obama has kept Guantanamo, military tribunals, warrantless spying and drone warfare all in tact.
On domestic issues, they feel that Obama's health care doesn't do enough to insure all Americans. In fact, they feel that his health plan is a more about propping up private insurance companies than about helping the poor. Instead, they want the government to totally take over the health care system.
In pretty much everything, Jill Stein and the Green Party believe in MORE entitlements than Obama is willing to offer. Those entitlements range from tuition-free college education and a dramatically increased minimum wage. Stein also promises to halt all evictions and foreclosures.
Whereas Obama bragged about increased fossil fuel production, Stein wants to dramatically halt all fossil fuel production in an effort to transition to renewable energy.
Whereas Obama bailed out the big banks, Stein is totally against that.
Also, whereas Obama continued the militarized anti-drug policy, Stein plans to end all that, and transition to treating drug abuse as a health problem instead of a law enforcement issue.
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.jillstein.org/issues
2) Virgil Goode (Consitution Party)
The Constitution Party is more right-wing than the Republican Party.
Goode and the Constitution Party feel that Romney and other mainstream Republicans are too soft on immigration. Goode wants a militarized US-Mexico with a fence and tons of troops, just like the border between North and South Korea.
Also, whereas Mitt Romney promised a green card to any foreign student who got their degree, Goode wants a moratorium on immigrant until unemployment has dramatically decreased.
Whereas the Republicans (Romney included) have been influenced by the neo-cons who favor a more aggressive foreign policy, Goode aligned with the paleo-cons who believe in withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, as well as withdrawing US troops from foreign bases as well.
Goode also feels that Mitt Romney doesn't go far enough to reduce the federal budget. The Romney budget plan promises to gradually reduce the deficit over a span of decades. Goode demands an end to the federal deficit now. That means the elimination of National Endowment for the Arts, No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants and other programs that Romney promised not to eliminate
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html
3) Gary Johnson (the Libertarian Party)
The Libertarian Party is about reducing government interference in both economics and civil liberties.
Whereas Republicans have promised less government interference in economics, and the Democrats have promised less government interference in civil liberties, NEITHER PARTY has even come close to keeping those promises when they have taken power the last few decades.
Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico is tired of all that! He tried influencing the Republican party from within, but screw it, he was being ignored.
So, now it's on to the Libertarian Party.
Johnson wants to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan immediately, and wants to end drone warfare in other nations as well.
Johnson wants to end the militarized war on drug policy (which Obama promised and BROKE his promise) and wants legalization of marijuana.
Johnson feels that Obama also broke his promise on civil liberties, especially when it comes to warantless spying, indefinite detention, and military tribunals.
When it comes to economic issues like health care, Johnson believes that privatization works best. More competition and less regulations are what Johnson believes will make the health care industry more flexible and more costumer friendly.
Johnson believes that education should be a state issue, which he believes will make the education system more flexible and more attuned to local needs.
Unlike the Republicans, Johnson doesn't believe in bailing out the big banks or other forms of corporate welfare.
And for immigration, Johnson (who as I mentioned, was a governor of New Mexico), believes in making the legal immigration process a lot more easier and a lot less bureaucratic. He also believe in giving a grace period to illegal immigrants to gain work visas and to go through the legalization process.
Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
4) Who do I support?
I mentioned the 3 lesser-known presidential candidates and their positions.
You already know about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
So who will I vote for ?
----------------------
I won't support Barack Obama. He has broken plenty of promises. He promised to reduce the deficit, restore the economy in one-term, a less militarized drug policy, an end to the civil liberty violations, and "if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it".
Let's face it, wouldn't you want to ditch someone who broken promises over 4 years?
Yeah,yeah, yeah, ...... 1st minority president,............1st Hawaii-born president........ ..........blah, blah, blah!
Nothing wrong with be a minority from Hawaii. After all, that describes me too!
Obama's presidency showed that race is no longer a barrier to success that it used to be. That in itself will be a great thing for racial minority children out there. Now, there's no excuse for not striving to achieve the best you can!
But it is NOT enough to just be satisfied with "yay, we got a minority president" After all, didn't Martin Luther King tell us to "judge someone not by the color of the skin, but by the content of their character"?
I'm not going to vote for someone with so many broken promises. I'm not going to vote for someone who mishandled the health care debate with a 2,000+ page law. I'm not going to vote for someone who still allowed for a militarized drug policy, when he promised to end it. I'm not going to vote for someone who tried to confuse the public over how his administration mishandled the Benghazi consulate incident.
--------------------
I won't support Mitt Romney. If you think Obama was a "promise breaker", Romney is a flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped his opinions on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, health care and other issues.
While all of us have changed our opinions on various issues, Romney's timing in his "opinion changes" has MORE to do with what will help him get elected.
He tried to go more liberal while running for office in Massachusetts, then more conservative while running for the Republican nomination for US President.
Now, he is trying to be more moderate for the general election. Whereas he promoted a "tough on illegal immigration, tough on foreign policy" persona for the Republican primary, all of a sudden, now he's promising a more lenient immigration policy and a humble foreign policy.
Those are warning signs that Mitt Romney WILL "change" his political opinions AGAIN during his time as president.
On the few issues that Romney hasn't flip-flopped (yet), Romney promises to continue a militarized war on drugs, warantless spying, and indefinite detention. All issues I disagree with.
As for foreign policy, Romney promised a tougher foreign policy, promised more US interference in foreign affairs, and thinks Obama is "too soft" and "apologizes for America", even though Obama bombed Libya, expanded drone warfare and got Osama bin Laden killed.
This attitude shows that Mitt Romney is a "video game hero", which is almost the same thing as a "studio gangsta".
At least John McCain could back up his aggressive foreign policy beliefs, since he put his life on the line for real in Vietnam.
-------------
I think Jill Stein is too far to the left and overly idealistic in her beliefs that more government interference in the economy would bring magic (ie. economic prosperity).
We're already in a deficit, the government can't be spending more than it already spends, even for "worthy causes".
And this "make the minimum wage a living wage" stuff is pure idealistic fantasy. Raise the minimum wage from (for example) $7 to $10 WILL increase prices. Prices keep going up, and therefore a minimum wage will NEVER be a "living wage".
------------------
I think Virgil Goode is too far to the right.
Virgil Goode is an anti-immigration fanatic. His anti-immigration policies could only be enforced with racial profiling, warantless spying and more excessive regulations for citizens and businesses.
Also, he supports the same militarized anti-drug policy supported by Obama and Romney. This militarized drug policy could only be enforced with warantless spying, massive raids on private homes, and belligerent police profiling.
Whereas Romney flip-flops on abortion, Goode is a true anti-choice fanatic. He wants to ban abortion, which again, could only be enforced by warantless spying, and militarized tactics.
-----------
I want a president who respects civil liberties.
I want a president that defends America first, instead of having military bases in countries that can afford to defend themselves.
I want a president that believes in allowing for free, flexible markets instead of centralized planning.
I want a president that believes that states should be flexible when it comes to health, drug, and education. That means less federal interference on those issues.
I want a president that treats drug issues as a public health issue, instead of an issue to be dealt with by militarized police actions.
I want a president who believes that federal civil rights shall expand to sexual orientation.
I want a president who will make our immigration policy easier for those who want to come legally, instead of our current mega-red-tape process we got now.
I want a president who believes in legalized abortion.
I want a president who believe in the citizen's right to own a gun.
I want a president who will lower USA's corporate tax rates, which is higher than "socialist" Europe or "socialist" Canada.
I want a president who doesn't have a long track record of broken promises nor a long track record of flip-flopping.
The presidential candidate who best fits all of that is Gary Johnson!
I'm voting for this guy!
Would I agree with every little thing that Gary Johnson does. Probably not, but based on what I've read, I'm in at least 85% agreement with him.
That's way more than I would agree with Obama, Romney, Stein or Goode.
5) "waste my vote"?
Some say voting for a lesser-known candidate is "wasting my vote"
They say "vote for a candidate who can win"
This "chose for who can win" is more appropriate for betting on the Super Bowl.
Elections are about choosing the best leader.
And the best leader is not Obama or Romney. I refuse to endorse them, their broken promises or their flip-flopping! I would not waste a vote for those two.
I'm not going to tell you who you should vote for. Don't just take my word for it. Do your own investigations. Do your own research. Vote for whoever you think is the best.
If you don't think Gary Johnson is the best choice, then vote for someone you think is a better choice.
But please don't tell me I'm "wasting my vote" just because I don't vote as if this was a popularity contest.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
coming soon
My blog post evaluating the lesser known presidential candidates.
And I'm endorsing one of the lesser known candidates for president.
Those familiar with my political leanings might already know.
Either way, I'll try to get that blog post up as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the week!
And I'm endorsing one of the lesser known candidates for president.
Those familiar with my political leanings might already know.
Either way, I'll try to get that blog post up as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)