Tag: politics

President Obama while in China – November 16, 2009:

But I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. (emphasis mine)

Hillary Clinton – January 1, 2010:

[President Obama] spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

Hillary Clinton about WikiLeaks – November 29, 2010:

It is an attack on the international community…

Sarah Palin about Julian Assange – November 30, 2010:

Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?

Senator Joe Lieberman – December 7, 2010:

It sure looks to me that Assange and WikiLeaks have violated the Espionage Act.

Philip Crowley (State Department Spokesman) – December 7, 2010:

What WikiLeaks has done is a crime under US law.

So much for Freedom of the Press and holding our own governments accountable. Also, as much as people are clamoring to charge Assange with a crime there’s the small problem of him not being a U.S. citizen. Seems rather extraordinary to charge someone with a crime under a law in a country in which they neither live nor have citizenship. But Palin apparently has the answer to that, just call him a terrorist and kill him where he stands.

Regardless of how you feel about the leaked information WikiLeaks needs to be protected the same way any other news organization would be, including the New York Times which collaborated with WikiLeaks in processing the documents and deciding what to publish.

There is no voluntary spending limit for U.S. Senate seats, so I can’t use that as an easy way to rule out candidates, however the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test still applies and thus the Democratic, Republican, and American Independent candidates are tossed for not bothering to state their positions.

The remaining candidates include:

Marsha Feinland (Peace and Freedom) – I find myself agreeing with many of her positions. Though I have a problem with her support for eliminating funding for intelligence operations within the defense budget. When we do successfully stop terrorist plots it’s through the efforts of intelligence operations (evidence). Eliminating all funding for intelligence gathering would most likely actually increase our risk of being attacked (returning airport security checks to pre-9/11/01 levels would be just fine though). She also opposes nuclear energy, which is unfortunate.

Gail Lightfoot (Libertarian) – Sorry, not going to be voting for this one. She supports eliminating all federal funding for agriculture, arts, education, environment, international aid, medical research, scientific research, and welfare. She believes privatizing each of those areas would be better. She does, however support nuclear energy, but lives in a fantasy world where the private sector will build these facilities without government backing or indemnity.

Duane Roberts (Green) – I like the vast majority of his stated positions. Unfortunately, he doesn’t support nuclear power; but I can live with that and the other issues I don’t entirely agree on.

I’ll probably be voting for Roberts.

I’ve decided it’s time to start taking stands on issues that I’m concerned about and stop playing the games of who’s “electable”. To that end I’ve decided the amount of money spent on political campaigns is obscene. With that in mind I’ve decided I’ll only be supporting candidates who have agreed to the voluntary spending limits. In the gubernatorial race this eliminates the Democrat and Republican candidates as neither agreed to the voluntary spending limits, with Whitman (R) spending over $140 million of her personal fortune (the voluntary limit is just under $13 million). I’m tired of politicians that simply buy their way in to office by out-spending the opposition. Politics should be about policy not wealth.

Also on this subject, I’ve decided I’m only going to vote for candidates with the guts to fill out the VoteSmart.org Political Courage Test. It’s an unbiased (as much as possible) questionnaire designed to elicit direct responses of positions on important issues. If you won’t answer a non-partisan survey about your political positions I will assume it is because you want to play political games and tell different groups different things based on what they want to hear.

So let’s look at the candidates that still remain in my race.
Carlos Alvarez (Peace and Freedom) – I disagree with his plans to increase spending on pretty much everything but also reducing taxes on pretty much everything. There’s just no rational way that this works. You get increased funding or decreased taxes, not both. He’s against merit-based pay for teachers which I’m in favor of (I get evaluated on my job performance, shouldn’t teachers?). However he does support putting money into infrastructure upgrades, which I agree with.

Chelene Nightingale (American Independent) – Goal is to decrease all taxes and eliminate all income taxes. I don’t see this as remotely rational. However, some of her responses actually show thought and consideration. Unfortunately, she also seems to believe the government shouldn’t enact any regulations (environmental in particular) over businesses, and I think that would lead to epic abuses.

Dale F. Ogden (Libertarian) – Well, I can at least say he couples his slashing of funding with slashing of taxes as well. However, “greatly reducing” funding of K-12 education is not a step in the right direction in my opinion. He also believes that SWAT teams shouldn’t exist. Now, you can argue all day about if SWAT teams are over-used, but I think their existence is necessary (sadly). He also seems to believe that the government shouldn’t be regulating industries (environmentally in particular) and I’ve already responded to that in Nightingale’s writeup.

So, those are the primary-winning candidates who agreed to voluntary spending limits and filled out the Political Courage Test. And this is what annoys me about politics, it always seems to be about trying to pick the person who will cause the least amount of damage (in one’s own opinion, of course) than picking the person who could do the most good.

I don’t know who I’ll vote for in this race. I will probably end up purposefully not voting for anyone.