My Ballot
Senate: Jim Talent(R,incumbent) vs. Claire McCaskill
Not a fan of the way things are going in Washington, but I don't think replacing Jim Talent with Claire McCaskill is the answer. I haven't really seen her make a case for what she'd do in the Senate, besides not be Jim Talent. The campaign has been "nationalized;" e.g. the parties (especially Democrats recently) have poured a ton of. They've been trying to portray him as one more corrupt Washington Republican, and I'm not buying it.
One thing McCaskill has done, is demoagogue on the stem cell issue, with the Michael J. Fox ad, which did come from her campaign, not the national party. I had better have damn good reason to vote for someone (a fellow Catholic, mind you!) who not only disagrees with me on this important issue, but makes it a focus of hger campaign, And McCaskill hasn't given me any,
Talent
House
The incumbent Republican Todd Akin is running unopposed in a solid Republican distrinct
Akin
Amemdment 2 -- Stem Cell Research And Cures And Ice Cream For Everyone Initiative
No
Amemdment 3 -- Cigarrette Tax
The Missouri Right To Life groups has come out against this in the type of move that I think gives pro-lifers a bad names. Yes, I suppose it's possible the money could clear all the legal hurdles and help pay for some abortions, but I don't think that funding abortions is an ulterior motive for the amendment.
Yes
Proposition B -- Minimum Wage Increase
Yes
Predictions
Dems take the House; GOP keeps the Senate (and Talent wins).
Ads
None really stick out as great.
There was the one that made me yell at the TV, and (as I mentioned is my update) the one it is in response to isn't so hot either.
I have been generally disappointed in how we've responded to Amendment 2, as I touched on here. It's trure that the 2000 word amendment is deceptive, it's true that it authorizes "cloning" (but not implanatation), but absent those problems it would still be problematic, so there's something a bit dishonest about arguing against it on those grounds. Those tactics may (but probably won't) work in defeating Amendment 2, but they won't work in the long run.
Like most people, I dislike the fear-mongering "They want to kill US" ads for maintaining our present disastrous course in the War on Terror.
For the candidates there was one anti-Talent ad that I found particularly insulting -- it attacked Jim Talent for voting against the minumum wage while taking a $165,000 salary for himself. First, it doesn't say that Sen. Talent voted for a salary increase, just that he accepted the salary. Was he supposed to refuse it? Second, "voted against" arguments are almost always somewhat deceptive, since generally there are other things attached to those bills, but that's an old game that both sides play. Third, as noted above, I approve of a minimum wage increase, but don't deny that it has an impact on businesses and families, including mine. Now, what is the impact to me for Jim Talent's $165,000 salary, or more appriately, the difference between $165,000 and what might be considered more reasonable?
Ok, I'm done for now.
9 comments:
Senate: Ted Kennedy (D,incumbent) vs. Ken Chase (R)
This is a tough call for me. If it were the me of a decade ago, Chase would have been my perfect candidate. For investment into energy R&D and against big-time social spending. (I'm softly pro-immigration, but it's in part because I can afford to be. Chase evidently is for tighter borders.)
Kennedy is one of the more outspoken critics of the administration in teh Senate, and a leader there (duh). On the other hand, he filibustered for social security, and let habeas corpus slide, and I'm rather pissed about that.
Kennedy is also against the Cape Wind project which would develop wind turbines in Nantucket sound. Can you guess why? I have a suspicion that's what Ken Chase is really on about.
I'll probably go anti-incumbent on Kennedy's ass. If I thought my vote was likely to put another Republican in the Senate, I might reconsider.
House: Olver vs. Szych
John Olver is a mild-mannered perennial congressman. Last time around, I voted for him because he was one of the few who had the sack to oppose the Iraq War resolution. Plus, rural Western Mass isn't a particularly fubarred place (though it's got horrible excuses for urban centers), and status quo is okily dokily as far as I'm concerned.
His opponent, Billy Szych, lays on teh veteran-worship pretty thick, is the guy who's strong on everything, for a flag burning amendment, etc. He's that ranting elderly asshole in the bar that no one really listens to, but pretend to out of politeness. Can't go there.
Governor: Healey (R) vs. Patrick (D) vs. Mihos (I) vs. Ross (G)
Kerry Healey is the current lieutenant governor, a former criminologist. On her website she states her positions (cracking down on everything, tough education requirements, tax rollbacks). I've skimmed only, but it seems mostly unworkably or philosophically antithetical. Also, her ads are contentless attacks on the Dem candidate, for basically doing his job as a Defender. Sorry Kerry.
Deval Patrick is a former Clinton civil rights attorney. He's got some real charisma, but, at least judging from his debate performance, he is peddling a lot of unworkable bullshit too. Furthermore, he's a Democrat, and Massachusetts is Democrat-land, and a united government will have a chance of Getting Things Done. That's the last thing I need. I'd probably vote for him under other circumstances.
Christy Mihos is a fine sideshow, and his bullshit-calling snipes during the debates have been entertaining. He seems to be a one-issue guy, however, namely "local aid". (Massachusetts redistributes tax receipts to the various communities. I'm ambivalent about this in principle, and in practice, it causes property taxes to accomodate the slack anyway.)
I will probably vote for the Greenie, Grace Ross. Partly, it's a spite vote. She's got good retorts as well, and has the added advantage of appearing intelligent in their delivery.
I don't agree with her that the fundamental purpose of government is to help people (Deval actually answered that one right), and I'm not sure if her tax plan will be good for attracting business (she'd pull some corporate gimmes), but at least she's got a sane perspective on taxation, and she does support corporate growth. She's for universal health care, which I support more than I used to. And pro-environment has always been cool with me.
Ballot question 1 -- Sell wine in grocery stores?
There's a huge campaign from both sides here. Grocery stores want a chunk of that booze biz, and liquor stores are fighting tooth and nail to keep it exclusive. It's hilarious because it's a vote to repeal some retarded Puritanical blue law that's about 250 years past it's prime. Who the hell isn't going to vote yes on this?
Question 2 -- Can a candidate be nominated for the same office by more than one political party?
This is so people who want to vote party line won't be confused. In practice, it's so Democrats can filch Green voters when there's no candidate (or vice versa, I suppose). I'm voting no.
Question 3 -- Can authorized child care providers in private homes under the state's subsidized child care system join unions?
Yeah sure, why not.
What have you got against ice cream for everyone?
Can we hang on to the heavy preditions for a little longer? The polls don't even close here for another three hours or so.
That pesky Left Coast. Remember? ;)
I doubt it. It's the rural areas that are flooding, and the very very blue cities are doing fine. This place is distressingly blue in national matters, but about half and half in local. It's the initiatives that are going to be the fun ones to call.
I was more just trying not to drive myself nuts between now and when the polls close.
I'd so have a drink with you guys. It's build night though, so I wont even get out of the office until 9pm Pacific. By that time all the good stuff should pretty much be by the wayside.
I voted absentee so my part in all this was over a month ago. Now I just have to watch, like being present at a train wreck. ;)
I'm back, and I'm not counting any chickens. I was thinking high turnout would tend toward a "Yes" on the stem cell cures and daily rainbows initiative, because those opposed are like me and highly motivated to vote, while many of those in favor are less strongly so.
I suppose it could have backfired -- McCaskill reminded everybody which side she's on in the cuture war, which may have woken some sleeping dogs.
Our polls still aren't closed. ;)
38% in; still 6 point leads for Talent and "No" on Amendment 2.
If Amendment 2 fails, it would probably top the Cards winning the Series for me.
Well, it'd be a good victory, buta bit empty. An attempt to amend the constitution to protect something I find abhorrent may be narrowly defeated.
But I am somewhat happy because one gets the sense that this was the pro-ESCR crowd's best shot. Those for the amendment outspent those oppposed by about $30 million 2 $2 million. They probably wouldn't mount a similar campaign again.
They put all their eggs (excuse the pun) in this basket, and may lose. I'd like that.
Could be people realize the stakes are higher, and don't want to turn a moment's protest into 6 years of being stuck with a Senator you don't like.
Post a Comment