Monday, November 1, 2010

If You Want To Vote For Something A Little Different Tomorrow, We Have Some Candidates For You To Check Out

Unlike the other news venues in town, The Tattler will not presume to tell you who you should vote for this year. There are plenty of other places that have assumed that role, and most of them aren't worth the dead trees they are printed on. Besides, this is a local politics site, and the things that have brought us together here do not always translate beyond the Michillinda Curtain. And let's face it, the issues that consume the national cable news miasma would fracture our delicate Sierra Madre coalition into small warring factions were we to try and inject them into our local condition.

Only in Sierra Madre can the most doctrinaire Obama Democrat stand next to a Tea Party Republican and declare common cause in saving this town from the powerful outside interests and their local hires who want to take it down. This is one of the things that makes our community unique, and my respect is immense. Those who would wish to reduce politics here to what is seen everywhere else are no real friend to Sierra Madre.

There are also people like myself who have come to pretty much abhor politics as it is practiced in this state. California is not just one of the worst governed political entities in the United States, but perhaps in the entire Western Hemisphere as well. Record deficits and debt, woefully inept elected officials, among the worst schools in the nation, crumbling infrastructure, and a state legislature that approximates the corruption of a Third World Republic. What exactly is there to be happy about? Not a whole lot as far as I can tell.

So after fevered editorial discussions here at Tattler World News Headquarters it was decided that we would look elsewhere for candidates this year. Not to say that there aren't large party candidates that Sir Eric won't be voting for, because he does find some appealing. Or at least they piss off all the right people, which perhaps is the best that can be hoped for in these troubled times.

But the candidates we are listing here have interesting, if not at times eccentric, viewpoints. Certainly not the kinds of things you hear too widely discussed down at City Hall, or on the highly cautious Sierra Madre Patch. But are they any more daft than what you're hearing from the brand name candidates? That is for you to decide. I might or might not vote for any of them, but they at least do have something to say. Which is refreshing when compared to the focus group tested jargon and personality driven "issues" brought to us by the so-called major parties and their candidates. And at a considerable expense.

So here is what we found:

A Different Candidate for Governor - Chelene Nightingale (American Independent Party): "Although California is considered the 7th largest economy in the world, the state's population is experiencing the ill effects from the economic depression. Nearly 1,000 restaurants closed in Southern California alone due to both massive entertainment industry layoffs and lower tourism rates. In order for California to be economically restored, it will take a constitutional-minded leader to adhere to limited government, sound money, and free market principles."

A Different Candidate for Lt. Governor - Jimi Castillo (Green Party): "Jimi Castillo is the first Native American to run for the office of Lt. Governor in California. His tribal ancestry is Tongva, the original people of the Greater Los Angeles Area. Chief among his priorities are to establish a more affordable and accessible education system, reform the criminal justice system, assure California residents have access to clean, safe supply, of drinking water and that our groundwater is protected from pollution, preserve our oceans with their enormous diversity of life and functions, create a greater awareness of the rights of all indigenous peoples worldwide and promote full self-awareness on all Indian reservations, advocate children's rights, and set a standard of excellence in public land management to ensure we maintain a healthy environment in the future."

A Different Candidate for Secretary of State - Marylou Cabral (Peace and Freedom Party): "Marylou Cabral, 22, is the Peace and Freedom's Party's candidate for Secretary of State. Cabral is a student at California State University, Long Beach, where she is studying to be a public school art teacher. Cabral is the daughter of immigrants from Zacatecas and Sinoloa, Mexico. She has promoted the immigrant rights cause for years. She is adamantly against the corporate owners, ruling-class politicians and the racism, sexism, anti-LGBT bigotry and exploitation they promote. Cabral is a candidate struggling to build class unity in everything she does."

A Different Candidate for State Controller - Andrew "Andy" Favor (Libertarian Party): "California has one of the nation's highest unemployment rates and businesses continue to flee the state. Nobody in state government tracks why businesses are leaving California. Since the state controller is independent of the legislature and therefore is objective, it is my belief that the controller should track why businesses are leaving and report on what the state can do about it. Clearly California has seen competition from lower cost states such as Nevada, Texas, Idaho, etc. But that competition is nothing compared to the competition we face from other nations. As we go into the election season, voters need to realize that we cannot continue to keep going down the same path. We need radical reform of our schools, health care system, prisons and entitlements."

A Different Candidate for State Treasurer - Charles "Kit" Crittendon (Green Party): "The US military has grown to an immense size, much larger than the armed forces of any other country., with over 800 bases throughout the world. The "defense" (defense against what?) budget rises every year with practically no serious opposition in Congress. When there is no occupation, wealthy interests are served when "neo-liberal" economic policies benefitting transnational corporations are imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These strengthen the wealthy elites of these countries by eliminating social services and weakening worker and environmental protections."

A Different Candidate for Attorney General - Bob Evans (Peace and Freedom Party): "Bob Evans of Alameda County running for Attorney General under the slogan 'Justice for California.' He believes that we need an Attorney General who will protect workers' rights, send corporate criminals to jail, and prosecute police crime. He would bring to the Attorney General's office the same determination to defend our civil liberties that he has shown over the last 37 years as a member of the Peace and Freedom Party. One clear way he differs from the Democratic and Republican nominees is that he has the courage to oppose the death penalty, despite polls purporting to show public support for it."

A Different Candidate for State Board of Equalization - Shawn Hoffman (American Independent Party): "There are some politicians, like Chuck DeVore, who leave no doubt that they are ardent supporters of the right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self defense. Some candidates will say they support the right but never seem to find time in their busy schedules to actually show up and defend the right. Recently, the police cheif for the City of Manhattan Beach and the President of the Hometown Fair had threatened arrests of those persons who lawfully attended the Fair openly carrying firearms. One candidate for office in California showed up carrying a sidearm to defend our right, Shawn Hoffman."

A Different Candidate for United States Senate - Marsha Feinland (Peace and Freedom Party): "I served as a Rent Board Commissioner in Berkeley and worked to pass the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance in Oakland. Housing is a necessity which we must provide for all. We must protect people who live in foreclosed properties instead of bailing out the banks. We need to place strict limits on all pollution now, to safeguard health and prevent climate disaster. The Senate Democrats promote a "cap and trade policy" which lets corporations buy and sell the right to pollute. Our right is to breathe and the future of our planet require(s) real regulation. We have enough wealth to provide quality housing, health care and education to everyone in California."

A Different Candidate for United States Representative - Randall Weissbuch (Libertarian Party): "Weissbuch, a Libertarian who compares his political beliefs to those of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, touted a platform of limited government. 'What it boils down to is to get the government out of our boardrooms, out of our bedrooms, and out of our wallet.'"

A Different Candidate for State Assembly - Robert Gosney (American Independent Party): "(Robert Gosney would like to...) balance our State Budget; Stop the water madness for Central California; Reduce government burdens on business to enable the creation of new jobs; Protect our border; Have our schools move from "Worst" to "First" in the nation; Improve our highways and infrastructure; Fight against any and all tax increases; Reduce the size of government and its expense; Reduce Workers Compensation costs and benefits; Immediate freeze state hiring, and salary increases for 5 years; Reduce the legislature to "part time" status, Celebration of traditional family values, Fight any effort by the state to raid the bank accounts of local cities and counties, (and) Protect Californians's 2nd Amendment Rights to bear arms."

Well, there you go. Some options should you decide to step outside the line and cast a protest vote this election. Polls show that 55% of all likely voters are unhappy with their choices this year, with the figure among independents at a whopping 68%. Maybe this is the year to show the powers that be you are tired of the way things are going, and next time you're hoping for something a little more inspiring?

Good luck to you in your voting selections. You're probably going to need it.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

64 comments:

  1. I'm going to hold my nose and vote my party for the governors race since The Eagle isn't an official write-in candidate, but have chosen several from the alternative list for other offices. This will be an interesting year, that's for sure. Only definate in the props. Yes 23, yes 20 and no 27.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fevered Tattler Editorial Board's most doctrinaire Obama DemocratOctober 31, 2010 at 9:22 PM

    Let me tell you I'm voting a straight democratic ticket and whatever else my door hanger from the Democratic Party tells me to do. I'm ignoring the robo calls that have flooded my answering machine this weekend. And I'm still walking in the pure light of Jon Stewart's and Steven Colbert's hugely big Sanity Rally. Sanity rules!

    ReplyDelete
  3. an ex all of the aboveOctober 31, 2010 at 9:47 PM

    I am voting a real mix because I try to vote for the people with integrity,
    and that is not a quality that's associated with any one party.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 9:22......welll...ummm....no it doesn't ....not just yet!
    Let's not get to flippant with that word, it's all we got left!

    ReplyDelete
  5. So which is the scarier, Halloween or Election Day?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:22, how can you say that Sanity Rules, with our horrid choices? I'm usually afraid my candidates won't win. This year I'm afraid of the election period! Thanks for the suggestions, John. Wouldn't it be awesome if a third party candidate won one of the offices? As of right now I'm only sure of Yes on 23 and 20.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A protetst vote for the great people named in the article above is also a vote for the person you dislike the most.

    YES ON 23.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's the problem with casting protest votes for third party candidates. It helps the greater of two evils win. Which is why we been stuck with choosing between evils for our entire lives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Get real--most candidates who have never held office have no idea how they will perform because they have never done it before. Therefore all you really have to go on is the platform and hope they are truthful and follow the principles that party platform expouses. That is also why you vote for or against an incumbent. You saw what they did and either liked it or said "never again!" It is not the individual--no matter that my mother crossed party lines and voted for a guy from the state she was born in once--not a bad guy just not the policies she actually believed in--and she was truely sorry and never did that again.

    Oh, by the way, the social issues that were on the Socialist Party Platform in the 1920's are in place, in some form or other, today.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Loved the opening line about the Obama Democrat and the Tea Party Republican--thought you were talking about me but another Obama Democrat replied above. I know that there are more people out there voting NO on 23 (and 26) as when someone blogged about that the other day the responses did not go balistic. Your readership is all encompassing as it should be!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:22 PM
    This Independent voter is canceling out all your votes except Yes on 23.
    Tim Donnelly for State Assembly and Yes on 23!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You must come up with a symbolic device for the of GREENPeace (and Freedom) LIBERTARIAN!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Polls are showing that a surprising amount of Republicans are voting against prop 23 as well. People are total suckers for the green thing. It will take a few years before they realize what they've been sold under that brand.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Try registering as an independed and see what bombardment you get.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my overflowing mailbox to a home with two life-long Dems and one young Independent--Meg's mailers (addressed to the Independent) all have NO on 23. That came as an exasperating revelation to a Tea Party friend of mine who is of the viewpoint of blogger at 8:06.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This shouldn't surprise you 8:06
    Half of the Calfornia Republican members of State Senate and State Assembly voted for SB375 and AB32. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT....you can bet your life that Mosca and Buchanan, Moran and Walsh are voting NO on 23. They go lock step with the Democrat platform.
    Only about 25% of Conservative Republicans in the State Senate and Assembly voted against these disasterous bills.
    California is probably one of the most corrupt states in the union.
    New York and California will vote Democratic, and Obama will be faced with a real problem...California and New York are insolvent.
    Their economy will bust without a FED BAILOUT.
    Something the rest of the country is not going to be favorable for.
    Obama will have to bail these 2 corrupt states out with our tax dollars or face losing California and New York to the Republicans in 2012.
    You're right about people in California being SUCKERS AND CHUMPS. Look what happened in the last election last April.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why even vote? It only encourages them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I vote because men and women in every generation in my family since 1776 have fought and died for freedom in every major war the United States of American has engaged in. I vote to honor their service, their bravery, and their hopes for a better America. That's why I vote.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Re-think that one, Mikahil.
    That's what the crooked politicians want you to do.
    Again, look what all the registered voters who did NOT vote in Sierra Madre's last election did.
    They voted in the worst city council we have ever had in the history of Sierra Madre.

    Please everyone, go vote. Vote whoever your common sense and intuition tells you to. But please, please go vote!
    To do otherwise is to play into the hands of the politicians who wish to control you, wish to tax the hell out of you, and many, such as Mosca and Buchanan, hold you in contempt and refuse to even listen to your concerns.

    VOTE, Sierra Madre, make up for your lack of civic duty you displayed last April.
    We're all paying for it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 9:02!

    Thank you for posting. Your reasons are even better than mine!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not sure how electing the likes of Arnold Schwarzenneger or Jerry Brown does honor to those who died in wars. But maybe I am just skeptical of politics in genral.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The honor goes to the brave men and women who served so that I can choose to exercise my right to vote, not to the politicians. They also served so that twits like you can choose not to exercise that right.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If the Twits united they would be the dominant political force in America today.

    There is the idea for a proposition. If less than 50% of the eligible voters cast votes in any givern election, then that election is declared invalid and has to be conducted all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The liberal faith and science coalitions are against overturning AB 32, flawed as we know it is (rigged in favor of development).

    I tried to get AIACC to go against Prop 23 to no avail, even though I linked them to my posting about SB 375 on the Tattler board, among other things. The industry is trying to clean itself up but can't go up against the construction and labor interests, which are actually making a concerted effort to reform its wasteful carbon dump practices, since many regs now target that; they're on notice.

    I would propose an initiative that takes down SB 375 from a coalition of cities, land use activists, concerned scientists, faith communities, ecologists, and so forth. Once the "green industry" starts to take hold (Yes, under AB 32), a critical path will emerge to remove the old polluting industries and implement clean tech, which provides the jobs and supports the balance of trade in favor of US product supply. We've outsourced everything except cheap labor in this country, that's got to change.

    There's no point in supporting the banking, mortgage and housing sectors that have no buyers and have triggered a worldwide financial collapse; that was all about fiscal product, period. Everybody made buckets of money based on nothing but tulips. California learned this the hard way, and will have a hard climb out of this one, hopefully by abandoning a "build for no reason but profit" strategy that's found in SB 375. It has proven to be a massive waste and a fraud generator as it devours limited resources.

    If you look at the 2030 Challenge, you'll see that it makes a clear statement that buildings consume more energy than any other sector, so this can't go unaddressed in California.
    http://www.architecture2030.org/

    Sustainable industries could be a good strategy, and steers clear of unjustifiable fiscal shenanigans and demands actual productive results from investment.

    The New Normal. Used to be common sense.

    Laurie Barlow, AIA

    ReplyDelete
  25. Voting a straight party line is worse than not voting at all. Be an informed voter,learn how your vote effects you and your community. There are hundreds of laws on the books to prevent pollution. AB32 goes far beyond the pale to say it prevents pollution but will not do more than laws do now. But will hurt small business owners from tree trimmers to light manufacturing. It only enables the green religion to gain tax free advantages to manufacturing items in China then sell them to you at an inflated price.


    prop 25 is another issue that sounds like a no brainer, but pass it and you and I as taxpayers will have no, zilch, none, zero say either by voting out a tax and spend legislator or by protesting gigantic spending programs. The majority in Sacramento are out of control and giving them a simple majority vote will set them loose to spend as much as they like.

    Think about it and vote with your brains, not by party.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Laurie, if you were to ask what AB32 and SB 375 are, most people won't know what you are talking about, let alone what 23 is, and what it's effect on Sierra Madre will be.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Laurie
    I agree with you that SB375 is a fraud being perpetrated for over development interests. Voting yes for 23 will insure it's success to the detriment of California

    ReplyDelete
  28. Franklin D. RooseveltNovember 1, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting."

    ReplyDelete
  29. The average understand on the AB 32/ SB 375 issue can be listed as follows:

    1) Green is good.
    2) Oil companies are bad.

    You can't help but wonder if we haven't reached a point in this country's history where the general understanding of the voting populace is no longer enough to sustain democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Terry Miller has posted some bizarre
    hallucinations about Sierra Madre over
    on a Monrovia website called "The Sierra
    Madre Weekly." Apparently the whole
    town (except Joe) is now a member of the
    Tea Party. I think the purpose of this
    sweaty exercise on Tintype Terry's part
    is to claim that Joe is the victim of a
    "vast right wing conspiracy" here rather
    than an elected official whose inept
    performance as this city's Mayor has
    caused widespread buyer's remorse.

    Makes you wonder what Terry did back
    in the hippy days...

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/JohnandKen.html?feed=387620&article=7652164

    Please go to John and Ken's website. They explain Prop.23 and why we should all vote YES.

    Check out their voter guide. Please!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I counted the Sierra Madreans on the Pasadena Patriot's site, 16. No surprises either. So 1:36 pm I think you're trying to rabble rouse.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 2:33 - please reread. Methinks you misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did anyone else read the argument against Prop 22 in the Voter's Guide? p. 37 reads "Finally, Proposition 22 has another hidden provision-it locks protections for redevelopment agencies into the State Constitution forever. These agencies have the power to take your property away with eminent domain. They skim off billions in local property taxes, with much of that money ending up in the hands of local developers. And they do so with no direct voter oversight."

    I'm not wild about wild about the State borrowing or taking anymore money, but I don't want to give any more power to the redevelopment agency in town, either. I'm abstaining from voting on this one. It's no win.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anybody notice Terry Miller at the City Council special meeting on water bonds? He has gained a lot of weight. Do you think his new job has made him a nervous eater?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Terry Miller and the sierramadreweekly.com aren't worth wasting eyesight on. It's torture to read his bloated hyperbole ridden accounts of Sierra Madre politics written by cutting and pasting from other media sites and I swear he uses old Downtown Dirt editorials when all else fails. Joe? Joe who? Joe Mosca is fast melting into a puddle of water rate indebtedness mire. Pass an increase? Don't pass an increase? Either way we're screwed -- pass/pay the bond, but don't do the infrastructure; don't pass/default on the bond; lose the matching grant opportunity. The citizens now know how badly the bond indebtedness was handled, how the citizenry was bamboozled, and how he and Buchanan are trying to sell even more bonds in the near future. Let Terry Miller try to suck up to Mosca; it won't do a thing to change my mind about either of them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Link above to the Planning Report gives some straight talk about what happens around transit stops. First the stop, then the density has to rise around it to support its ridership. OK for urban downtown, extremely problematic for suburban locations. But SB 375 doesn't allow for those distinctions.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 7:36, sorry to say, you posted my own experience exactly:
    "That's the problem with casting protest votes for third party candidates. It helps the greater of two evils win. Which is why we been stuck with choosing between evils for our entire lives."

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have made my choices for tomorrow by consulting:

    The Tattler
    John and Ken
    Mother Jones
    Howard Jarvis Association
    Democratic Party
    Republican Party
    Uncle Phil in Oregon

    and a Ouija board

    ReplyDelete
  40. There was one time in my voting life that I truly wanted a candidate to win, Ross Perot.
    Go ahead and laugh, but I think he came the closest any third party person ever has.
    There were about 20 million people who voted for Mr. Perot's common sense.
    Mr. Nadar on the other hand, got just enough votes to make Bush win.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It is hard to figure out where the truth lies. One thing is for sure: both of the large parties have plenty of corruption, so voting party line is a very risky thing. Some of my fears about the whole system are tempered by that brilliant, even revelatory, document that set the foundation of our government, the Constitution.
    So any candidate who proves themselves to be ignorant of it, has to be excluded from the process.
    Gotta hold on to the principles of the Constitution.....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ross Perot was right on a lot of issues. But especially on the exporting of American jobs. The irony here is all those so-called green jobs are now going overseas as well. The only thing we'll see here in California is installer jobs for Chinese manufactured solar panels.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I made my choices for tomorrow when I drove past John Buchanan's house. Whoever the signs say he supports, I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Buchanan's affiliation with the Democratic Party hurts the party about as much as Joe's affiliation does, as in here's the party for hypocrites, poseurs and smear campaigners.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Democrats in California have been completely corrupted. We've become a one party state, which means the corporate lobbyists now only have to buy one party.

    Very economical!

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The deleted post contained a very bad word.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thank you Mod.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Given voter apathy and politician chicanery, it's hard to be positive. But I do love to vote, and am grateful for the right..

    ReplyDelete
  50. It is nice to throw the bums out
    once in a while. Hopefully we toss
    a few tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am sorry to see political "stuff" make it to the Tattler Blog. I had hoped that we would use this venue for intelligent discourse about Sierra Madre, its present and future, and how to make it better, and protect its charm and setting. But we are now delving into "stuff" that will polarize and diminish the discussion. Too bad it was great while it lasted.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Well 6:11 you should get your blog and make it into whatever you think is classy enough to qualify as "intelligent discourse". This is Sir Eric's blog which he very graciously shares with the community and everyday it veers into interesting and unknown depths. I like it just the way it is. I think what I don't like is you and your dislike of "stuff".

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's good to have a conversation about political stuff as long as it's constructive. When someone goes too far as Terry Miller has done, and Hail Hamilton and Susan Henderson have done then it's no longer a conversation, but more character assassination. Hooray for conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I didn't pick up on any great divisiveness in this discussion, any polarizing adamancy. Just opinion sharing. This small community is voting tomorrow. Seems like an OK idea to talk about it. And the Tattler has had lots of articles on matters that relate to the propositions.
    Was it the Ross Perot entry?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Perhaps, 6:11, you'd like to make a list of what is and is not acceptable here? There is an election tomorrow. Should it have not been acknowledged?

    ReplyDelete
  56. So far I've had calls from Leonardo DiCaprio and Susan Sarandon, as well as from 30 other people. Can somebody please splain why the do-not-call list, registered with the gubmint, does not apply to politics?
    Decline to State means you get hit mercilessly from all sides.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sierra Madre isn't a planet. It is a small town in a big old world. Despite
    what some might think, that must be acknowledged once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 6:35 You win I loose.....maybe

    ReplyDelete
  59. Not sure that there is anything to "loose." Things just kind
    of continue going on as they have before with only minor
    changes.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I believe there is a difference between a party platform and "party line." The latter is used as a derrogative by the opposition to indicate some blind adherance to a non-thought out position. The platform is the principals that are put forward for the type of government that a political party supports. I am a life-long Democrat and NEVER voted for John Buchanan or Bart Doyle. Voted only once for Joe and never again, and Tonya--can't remember if I voted for Enid or not. As far as the other two elected bobbleheads in our last election--no mention need be made. Locally, it matters not one wit if a candidate for City Council is a registered this or that (even if they do the skunky thing and take a national party endosement) and I have supported candidates for City Council more often than not who were not of my national party. In the past I did not even come into the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Party line should never come into discussion about our non-partision city council election. Either you like the persons platform or not regardless of party affiliation.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I believe the do not call does not apply to charity and political activities. Check it out. There is probably a reason for the common good as to why this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The RIGHT to vote for the person of your choice (once in this country you only had white male candidates and that described the voter, too) as a personal and private decision is at the core of our democracy although it did take us a while to get the list of who could run and who could vote straightened out, didn't it?

    ReplyDelete