Election Day Endorsements!

Because Anya's not old enough to vote, she decided this was the next best thing! Detailed endorsements for my home state of California and my adopted home state of Massachusetts, and for everything else, you can assume I'm supporting the Democrat =P.

California: Governor - Jerry Brown. Senate - Barbara Boxer. Lieutenant Governor - Gavin Newsom. Secretary of State - Debra Bowen. Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones. State Controller - John Chiang. Treasurer - Debra Reiger.

Massachusetts: Governor - Deval Patrick. Lieutenant Governor - Tim Murray. Secretary of State - William Galvin. Treasurer - Steven Grossman. Auditor - Suzanne Bump.

Vote smart and vote blue,
Anya

Nevada Senate Debate Recap

(Was there any hope of me getting any calculus done with CSPAN on? Of course not! On that note: can you be addicted to CSPAN? I have a feeling I'm well on my way. Anyway.)

Harry Reid was a train wreck.  And I'm saying this as a diehard liberal who has appreciated Reid's work in the Senate for years and who thinks Angle is a bit of a nutcase.  Reid was full of traditional Senate-speak (Dude, if you're going to mention the CBO three times in as many minutes, at least do the non-political-junkies in the audience a favor and explain that it means 'Congressional Budget Office'), dated himself constantly (people don't want to be reminded that he's a Washington creature), and missed beautiful golden opportunities to attack Angle on education and Social Security.  And don't even get me started on his weird description of colonoscopies (EW!) or his painful 'watch me fumble for my notes and then rush through a few talking points' closing statement.

Sharron Angle, on the other hand, benefitted from the incredibly low expectations everyone had for her. She only had to come across as mildly competent for her to be able to chalk this up as a win.  Is anyone else appalled at the low standard we have set for the lady who's likely to be our next senator from Nevada?  Most of her answers were very obviously canned one-liners (I literally fell out of my chair when she brought out the "man up, Harry Reid!"), which makes it even more pathetic that she basically trounced Reid on many questions.

Overall, I don't think either Reid or Angle clearly won the debate.  Which, in this case, means that Angle won.  Normally in debates with no clear winner I'd award the debate to the incumbent, but this is a special occasion.  Voters, after all, are looking for an excuse to get rid of Reid (which is why a large part of Angle's campaign has been to say 'Whatever Reid did, I won't do).  They don't really care about Angle's Social Security flip-flopping, or her bizarre ideas about getting rid of the Department of Education and the EPA.

So, what does this mean for the election?  I don't know that either candidate did well enough to sway a significant number of voters -- or even really any voters -- to their side.  Actually, I think that if any candidate benefitted from the debate, it's that quirky, special-to-Nevada "none of the above".  Heck, if I had the chance (read: if I lived in Nevada instead of Massachusetts and was old enough to legally vote) I'd pick "none of the above".  I do think though that if Democrats manage to retain control of the Senate they'll think twice before keeping Reid as majority leader.

Drinking game buzzwords (I was drinking tea, y'all, get your minds out of the gutter ;D): Reid -- "Extreme", and all its variations.  Angle -- "Obamacare", "Ronald Reagan", "Unconstitutional"

Why Democrats Will Lose in November

To start off, let me just say that I hope I'm massively wrong about this.  I'm a Democrat and a committed progressive, and I die a little bit inside as poll after poll comes out shifting more House and Senate races towards the Republicans.  And not just the Olympia Snowe Republicans, the "yeah, it sucks that they usually vote party line, but at least they can be counted on to have common sense" Republicans.  No, these races are shifting to Rand "The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional" Paul, Christine "I use campaign donations to pay for my house" O'Donnell, Sharron "let's allow preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit" Angle, Jim "Single mothers and gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools" DeMint, and Joe "Social Security has stolen all my money from me" Miller.  Scared yet?  That's how they want you to feel.

Now, pop quiz: How many Democratic candidates have such easily recognizable positions?  They don't even have to be as far out as these ones, just . . . recognizable.  If you answered "none", sad to say, I'm right there with you.  Democratic candidates are unwilling to embrace with such fervor their positions and programs that they've worked on these past two years.  Why?  Because the Republicans have succeeded in spinning programs like TARP (which wasn't even an Obama program), the bailout, and the healthcare bill as evils.   People who say "TARP worked!" or "The healthcare bill is going to help bring about better lives for us and our children" aren't heard, because that's not what the public wants to hear.  It doesn't make good stories.  The airwaves are a battlefield, TV ads are skirmishes, and oftentimes I feel like Democrats have surrendered before even trying to fight.

If Democrats lose badly in November, it won't just be because the party who hold the presidency usually loses in midterms.  It will be because they have been unwilling to embrace their successes.  It will be because they have let the Republicans take their accomplishments and spin them into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves.  Republicans laugh off climate change, refuse to accept equality for gays and lesbians, paint TARP and the bailouts as failures, and flat-out lie about some of the most important issues  facing America.  And, somehow, all the Democrats can come up with is "Things are awful now, but they'll be worse with the Republicans in charge"?  Well, guess what, people should have a very clear picture of what America would be like with the Republicans in charge just based on their ads.  We don't need all the Democratic ads to be saying that.

We need Democrats to be out there counter-spinning the Republicans.  We need them to be a voice for truth, for justice.  We don't need all of their negative ads that just repeat "so-and-so outsourced jobs, so-and-so's a birther" because we already know that from said candidate's own statements.  What the Democrats should be doing is talking about their achievements.  We need Barbara Boxer talking about her environmental protection legislational achievements, Harry Reid to talk about why healthcare is good, Kirsten Gillibrand to talk about her leadership on repealing DADT.  Democrats don't need to show why Republicans are worse, they need to show why they are better.  And yes, those are two very different things.  Let the Christine O'Donnell's self-immolate on their own pyres of ludicrousness.  You don't need to do their jobs for them.

If Democrats lose in November, it won't be because the Republicans have more mainstream appeal, or better ideas on how to fix the country.  It will be because they lost the media/PR war.

Republicans Running Against Boxer: Brief Synopsis

I would like to briefly talk about the Republican candidates running against Barbra Boxer for the Senatorial election in California. I have decided to talk about their views on the economy as well as their history and will post the links to their campaign pages so you can learn more about these qualified candidates.

Tom Campbell: He was a Congressman, state budget director, law school professor, economist and the nominee in 2000. He believes in reducing our spending so we don’t cause inflation, which may hit after there are more jobs and people start spending more money. He was one of six Republicans to vote against the bill that reversed the Glass-Stengel act because he feared the merger of investment and commercial banks would create too-big-to-fail institutions that the government would have to bail out if there was failure (guess he was right).
Website: http://www.campbell.org/ideas.

Chuck DeVore: He is a state assemblyman and was an Irvine city commissioner and aerospace executive. He follows the basic platform of the Republican Party and believes the government should let businesses create jobs and not heavily tax them. He is a member of the Tea Party (who believes in small government and lower taxes) and seems the most “Republican” out of all the Republican candidates, which doesn’t seem to be helping him in the polls.
Website: http://chuckdevore.com/n/issues/.

Carly Fiorina: She was CEO of Hewlett Packard and the 2008 McCain Campaign adviser. She proposes focusing on small businesses and on cutting their taxes to help create jobs and fix the economy. She also wants to address the debt. She is endorsed by Sarah Palin which might be a plus to the more grassroots Republicans but a big minus to the more liberal Republicans (which seems to be a lot of the Republicans in California) and she seems to me, politically, the least qualified out of the three.
Website: http://www.carlyforcalifornia.com/

I think I would endorse DeVore because even though he is too conservative for my taste his economic ideals match up with mine, he’s experienced, and he seems like the best out of the three. I feel like he could be the next Reagan of California (or at least that’s what people are calling him. . .)

On a side note: I am encouraging all of the people of voting age to please register and get involved in picking the people who hold power and who change our lives. I know this sounds cheesy, but your votes really DO count. To make it really easy for you: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic. Please Vote!

AND . . . the other candidates for this election and others: http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm

Barbara Boxer: Profile of a Senator

Elections are coming up, and in California, we have one Senatorial election coming up in November. Barbara Boxer, the state's junior senator, is up for re-election for her fourth term. As a Democrat, a woman, and a Californian, I support Ms. Boxer's re-election efforts, and I hope I can convince you to as well.

First, her background. Barbara Boxer was elected to public office in 1976 when she ran for a position of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She served there for six years and was the first woman to be the president of the board. She was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and served for five terms. She won the open seat (vacated by Democrat Alan Cranston) in the 1992 elections for US Senate. Before going into politics, she worked as a stockbroker (her degree is in Economics) and a journalist.

Currently, Senator Boxer is the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as well as a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Foreign Relations. She is also a member of numerous subcommittees as well as the Democratic Chief Deputy Whip.

I will not repeat every single one of Boxer's accomplishments in the Senate, because that would take forever and a day (and my AP Calculus homework is reminding me none too gently that that is time I just don't quite have!). Instead, I will focus on her broad legislative record and a few of her most important initiatives. For more detailed information, I refer you to her re-election website, http://www.barbaraboxer.com/issues.

Economy: Senator Boxer supports California's high-tech, entertainment, and biotech industries. She is also dedicated to preventing military base closures (thereby keeping jobs and increasing the stability of communities) and to convincing the Pentagon to allow disused bases to be refurbished into a community asset. She also recognizes that a good economy today means little if there is no future; to that end, she has fought for an increased use of technology in the classroom, wrote legislation that provided for tax deductions for companies who donated new or almost-new computers to schools, and supported an increased tax deduction to offset the cost of college. These initiatives are especially important to us young voters and almost-future-voters. Finally, and most importantly, she voted for President Obama's stimulus bill, which preserved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Environment: Senator Boxer has fought for legislation that would keep all of the Arctic and many parts of California protected wilderness areas. She is also a leader in the fight against damaging offshore drilling on the California coast. She has worked on many bills to improve the quality of drinking water and set safe standards at levels that would make the water safe for children and the elderly, not just healthy adult men. She also supports California's laws on reducing tailpipe emissions, and has stopped the EPA from testing pesticides on women and children.

Healthcare: Senator Boxer is determined to expand healthcare coverage and reduce costs. She introduced legislation to create a tax deduction to help pay for the cost of insurance premiums and supports giving all Americans access to the same type of healthcare that members of Congress receive. She has consistently supported and authored legislation to promote research into many life-threatening diseases, as well as legislation to crack down on insurance company abuses. She also voted for the healthcare bill that passed Congress earlier this year.

Women's/Children's Rights: Senator Boxer has worked to expand children's access to healthcare and education. She has been involved in legislation to improve school safety and increase prosecution for people who commit crimes against children. She has also continuously fought to protect a woman's right to choose and right to reproductive healthcare. In her role as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, she is in a position to fight for women's rights all over the world.

Senator Boxer has been a consistent voice for equality and progressive issues. Her policies are not just good for Democrats. They are good for Californians, and for Americans. While she faces no serious primary challenger, she has three potential Republican challengers (the Republican primary has yet to be held). When deciding who to vote for this November, I hope you will support Barbara Boxer.

Logo by me.  I am, unfortunately, in no way affiliated with the Barbara Boxer Senate campaign, I just think she's awesome & you should vote for her :)