Voting

Here I go again, breaking one of my blog rules by talking politics. But it's election time. Long and boring alert.


Keeping in mind that the Republicans have already made their bed -- in short, they abandoned their good qualities, competent defence and frugality -- I'm upset at the Democrats. All they can do is say they won't be Republicans.

I want to know how, exactly, in detail, they plan to solve the Iraq problem. I want to know down to the nitty gritty, how they plan to reform FEMA to prevent another failed disaster response. What is their plan? I want to read at least the summary of what it is they're going to do (I'd like to hear the same from Repubs as well, but all we get there is "stay the course", though I notice in the last day Bush has moved away from that).

Instead I found this. You couldn't have summed up the problem with the overall Democratic strategy any better: we don't suck as bad as Republicans. Hell, it's probably true, but you can't run on that. No way am I going to reward that. It's not fair to base your vote on one poster from the internet, but parsing from my deluge of NPR, I sense this as the prevailing message coming from Dems.

"See the war? We didn't do that, except when we voted for it," is not a platform from which to woo skeptics.

Now I have to vote for the Libertarians again, you morons. You only had to climb a curb an inch high, to explain your ideas for solving all these problems you rightly attribute to poor leadership on the Repub's part. I can be forgiven for suspecting you don't have a plan other than taking power.

When it comes to the major parties in national offices, I refuse to vote against a party or candidate, I will only vote for one. Otherwise I protest vote, which isn't much better than abstaining. I don't have a default party, so I have to protest vote, again. I do this every time it seems. The last major party candidate I voted for was Al Gore, and it barely felt right then, because I was half voting against Dubya.

I don't particularly love the Libertarians, though I am a subscriber to Reason. I don't think the Libertarian Party proper ought to run any office higher than county or state house/senate. But since I know they won't win, at least the winner will see that a certain, hopefully non-trivial, percentage of his/her constituents lean libertarian enough to vote for them. That ought to help shape their policy.

For the record, because their actions of late have been so atrocious, I'm not voting for any Dem in any State of Washington office for the forseeable future. I doubt any of them really care, but that's what they get for blatantly throwing an election. I wouldn't vote Repub in Florida either. I've struggled with whether democracy exists in Washington, and if I should bother voting. Obviously, I've decided to vote, but I expect them to throw any close races to the Dems [editor's note: after voting, there were only a few cases where this came up, and I voted for the liberals anyway].

But I'm not adverse to voting for Dems on the national level. I'll give the Dems points for not pretending like they're going to reform the government. The Repubs took both houses with the promise of extensive reform, one which they obviously felched on. Funny how having money and influence increases one's appetite for such (there are tons of examples I don't feel like looking up).

But those aren't really the kind of points you want to rack up. That's basically saying, well they told us they were going to keep fleecing us, so it's our fault for voting them in anyway. Not exactly the feeling you want your voters to have, but slightly better than telling your voters you're going to stamp out corruption and then taking to it with enthusiasm. Is it any wonder I despise both parties? My options are thieving liars, versus thieves. Great.

I just realized I was wrong about the last major party candidate I voted for. I recall, I voted for Barak Obama for Senator from Illinois in the last election before I left. Now there's a Democrat I can follow. Why isn't he plastered all over the place? He's openly considering a 2008 presidential run. He should do it.

Charisma, stage presence, oratorical skills, call it what you will, but one thing undeniable from both sides is that one of Bush's key drawbacks is his mangling of the english language. And that hunched over cackling thing he does, that Jon Stewart hilariously mocks him for (worksafe video). Whether it's fair to go after Bush for his poor speaking skills or not, no leader of the free world ought to open himself up to such ridicule as this (worksafe video).

It's so baldfaced obvious that I can't believe I'm even saying this, but a real leader speaks his own language masterfully. How else are we going to win back the affection of the westernized democracies of the world (I would argue that we don't want the affection of the governments of the Irans, Sudans, and North Koreas)? You can't tell me that all the Iraq nonsense wasn't much more palatable coming from Blair's or Powell's lips than Bush's.

We need a leader who acts like one. Yes it's a form of comfortable window dressing rather than substance, but I'm confident that I can find someone with both substance and charisma. Reagan: heavy on charisma, light on substance. Bill Clinton: heavy on charisma, and moderate on substance (I say that because Clinton was a centrist who didn't over-delegate, but he didn't stick his neck out much either, your mileage may vary). Note that I'm just trying to show how you can assess a leader's qualities somewhat easily.

Clinton edges Reagan out in this one, I think, though it's impossible to really gauge, and that's not my point anyway. What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't have to vote on charisma, but we do. Comparing two great leaders such as these forces you to come down to issues, and that's as it should be. I'm confident in saying Reagan was right for his time, and Clinton was right for his.

But let's look at charisma some more. Compare John Kerry to oh, Howard Dean. Kerry is about as inspiring as my coffee table. Dean at least made you shout at the TV, whether you loved him or hated him (go ahead and get your Yeeeaaarrrggghhh! jokes in so we can continue). How about W Bush and Rudy Giuliani? These are no brainers.

Joe Lieberman or Barak Obama. Dennis Kucinich or Hillary Clinton. These are so obvious, I don't know why I even have to say it. Why do obvious losers, like Kerry or Dole, keep getting nominated? It's because in the absence of a charismatic leader, voters settle on the least offensive candidate (plus in Kerry's case, most people thought his competition was weak, but that's not an excuse).

Good leaders: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton. Bad leaders: Nixon, Carter, W Bush. Note that I'm not going by policy here, but inspiration.

Roosevelt only led America from regional power to superpower, and saved the free world in the process, from a wheelchair. Despite his misguided New Deal, he was so popular we had to change the Constitution. Kennedy called the Soviet's bluff and got the missiles out of Cuba. He started the Apollo Program and founded the Peace Corps. He openly cheated on his wife with a celebrity and still was considered a great man in his own time, a nearly impossible feat.

Reagan held the country in his hand. He could plunge the country into debt, move medium range nukes into Europe, stare the Soviets down, smack the table and shout Nyet!, and the country loved him for it. He's an American hero, an actor! Bill Clinton could tell you he felt your pain while ending the welfare state, and you'd believe him. He could seduce your sister and break up her marriage, and you'd still love him. Even feminists like him.

Nixon couldn't sweat his way out of a paper bag (I think history will be kinder to him than we are, and you know I have a thing for centrists -- he did found the EPA and OSHA -- but there's no debate about his lack of charisma). Jimmy Carter seems like a nice guy, but you don't go on national TV and say the country has a crisis of confidence, especially when you're the frickin' President. Lead, you dumbass. Dubya? Just read the news.

There's a salesman's adage that goes, if everyone likes it, it won't be a hit. The products/entertainment that succeed are loved by some and hated by others. Take for example: Hummers, Project Runway, and Rush.

I think there's an analogy to politics. No one is inspired by a flip flopper, by someone who tries to make everyone happy. That's one of the only things I'll give W; he sticks to his guns and isn't afraid to piss slightly less than half the country off, bad as his policy can be. That he pisses off considerably more, if polls are to be trusted, is a consequence of the reality of his policy decisions taking form.


And if I may get a couple years ahead of myself and be so bold/stupid as to make predictions: I know Hillary is going to run for President anyway, but please, please, Democrats, don't nominate her. She won't win. She's a loony right lightning rod. She's the equivalent of a mecha-Dubya with a Cheney-Rove-hybrid-clone on steroids at the controls.

The literal demonizing is so advanced, she's more or less satan. I'm not saying I would loathe a Hillary presidency, but she's not a winner. She may prove me wrong, however. Her ambition is unmatched. I like centrists and she's (IMO) wisely hewing to the Clinton Doctrine. I don't find her inspiring, but she would make a good VP.

You Dems need a Rove. Play the frickin' game already. I'm tired of one party winning just because it's better organized, though I don't find that in itself a negative quality. Let's level that playing field.

Why isn't Oliver Willis on your strategy team? I don't much go for his brand of gotcha politics, but you must see that he thinks strategically and acts out of love for his country.

He's playing the game, and he's good at it. I hope you at least read him, all you high level Dem campaigners who I'm sure are reading this (James Carville is calling his office as we speak).

Granted that I have zero zilch experience with running any campaign more complicated than a high school student council run for prez, here's what I would do with Hillary. I would let her run, make her look like the winner, let the right expend all its energy going after her, and then slide some Obama/somebody combination in there at the second to last minute that no one could refuse (Gore? McCain?).

I personally don't think Barak is a veep. I think he's a natural leader and needs to be up top. But I would vote for Gore/Obama. That's a winner. McCain, Lieberman, or Giuliani with Obama would be a slam dunk obvious winner, but none of those would make it past the primaries, assuming they could form a team anyway.

Lieberman is justifiably disliked by Dems for being disloyal, but he's more or less a centrist, and centrists win national elections. Center-right is better than hard-left. He doesn't have the charisma to pull it off though, hence Obama. The others wouldn't make it because they're pro-war.

I want to break my other rule and talk about the war for just a second. It's far too early to tell of course, but I don't think a dove can win the Presidency (aka "cut and run"). The candidate who wins will be someone who can get us out of Iraq and make it look like a glorious victory.

Well, either that or actually, ya know, winning the war, which I suppose isn't entirely hopeless. But I don't think the American people will stand for the sort of measures that would be necessary to take control at this point, i.e. a doubling or so of the troops there. So much for Rumsfeld's minimalism.

How could you pull either one off, pulling out or clamping down? Eloquence. Charisma. McCain could do that. Obama could do that. Kerry? Nope. Gore? Possibly. Dubya? Please.

You probably think I'm crazy for mixing Repubs and Dems, but I don't see much difference at all between them (discounting the fringes), and I see a combined ticket as the ultimate centrist. It's more or less arbitrary which party wins the White House, as long as no one party controls all the levers in Washington. Compared to the divisive politics in other countries, our major parties are almost identical.

You may think I'm putting too much emphasis on charisma, at the expense of policy. Reagan is one of the most loved of all the Presidents, and also may have been the least qualified for the post. Even W had more credentials (aka grooming). But that doesn't mean he wasn't effective. A charismatic ideologue can go a long way (er, so can an uncharismatic ideologue, but we're not going there).

Like his legacy or not, Reagan was a leader. He got shit done, and the majority of Americans felt good about it. That's about as good a job description for "President" as I can think of. Same with Clinton, though he wasn't quite as forceful on the world stage (which is neither here nor there). You can't ask for much more than that.

I'm not discounting the importance of issues: the war, the environment, the war, civil liberties, the war, taxes, the war, etc. Perhaps I'm naively assuming that any leader who is inspiring will have plausible solutions to these problems, so I don't care much which party this magical candidate comes from. I can dream.

What I want to see is the Legislative and Executive branches split between the parties, and right now that means voting for Democrats. It doesn't matter much which party controls which, so long as the power is divided and the President is an inspiring leader domestically and globally, someone who can make America's case on the world stage while making us feel good about it. Like it or not, we lead a large portion of the world, and that has to be taken into account now more than ever.



Wow, I almost talked myself into voting Democratic. Well, I'm putting my ballot in the mail tomorrow, so I'll let you know what I decide.


UPDATE: Not really an update since I haven't published this post yet, but whatever.

I voted for the Libertarian for Senator. Cantwell (Dem) has the race locked up by about 10 points, so I didn't see the harm. I also voted for an Independent for the House seat. There's no chance of the Dem losing considering that my district is basically Seattle, but there was no way I was voting for a guy who visited Saddam Hussein in 2002. Oppose the war, fine, but that's going way over the line. Jerk.

There were a bunch of common sense ballot measures that I voted for, like forcing any for-profit sports team to fairly compensate the city for services, etc. There was a bizarre measure to basically shut down strip clubs that I voted against.

There were a bunch of judges and whatnot running unopposed that I abstained from. I'm not going to bother looking them up if they're going to win anyway, but I'm also not going to vote for them. If someone runs a successful write-in campaign for city council position 8 or whatever, I'm not going to stand in their way.

I raised an eyebrow at the few measures that put in place emergency measures in case of a disaster. They're good ideas and I voted for them, but it was a bit disconcerting to see contingencies for what to do if several city council members are killed, or what to do if city hall is destroyed.


I also voted against evey tax increase and for every decrease, though I doubt it matters much. If I thought for a second the sales tax increase was really for what they claim it is, and that it was temporary, then maybe I'd vote for it.

But sales tax in Seattle is already a usuress 8.8% (yes, I know actual usury is higher, it's 12% in Washington, I'm using a rhetorical trick called "hyperbole"). That's why you'll never see me grocery shopping in Seattle, but in one of our close neighbors. Could Seattle's economy absorb another 0.1% drain? Yeah, probably. But I'm not going to vote for it.

There was also a measure to eliminate the estate tax (aka "death" tax) in the state, which I voted for (not to be confused with the federal estate tax, which is another matter). I was conflicted about this one, but I went with my instincts.

Most people see this as benefiting the Bill Gates of the world, because the tax only applies to estates of $1.5 million or more, but I disagree. Gates et al have hordes of lawyers who have squirreled his fortune away into so many trust funds and shelters that his heirs and benefactors will see almost all of it. He can afford that kind of protection.

It's the middle class who pays this tax the most, because most don't even realize they could set up a trust that doesn't "die" when the principle trustee actually dies. The funds or properties or whatever it is, is owned by the trust, not a person. So when the rich person dies, the trust continues, and can continue to distribute its funds as the main trustee sees fit, thereby avoiding the estate or "death" tax. All it needs is to have a mechanism for electing a new main trustee (the proper terms are escaping me right now), and you can hand that money down in perpetuity.

I'm harping on this because this is one of the main ways the medium guy gets screwed in America. You might think $1.5 million is so high it doesn't apply to you, but look again. That's not as much money as you may think it is. Add up all your parents' properties and stuff plus the nestegg they probably didn't tell you about, and you'd be surprised.

Anyone with a good paying job should have saved up at least that much over the course of their life anyway. You are putting money into your retirement, aren't you? Don't make me come over there and smack you.

I'm not going to list numbers, but I was able to sock away a year's salary in about 4 years. Let's say I made 50k a year (not true, but close enough). That means in 30 years I would have $1.5 million, assuming no raises and not counting for appreciation which you can expect to be about 5-10%, unless you do something stupid like put too much money in one stock. Knowing all four of my readers, I know you guys are going to make more than that, so a $1.5 million estate isn't implausible at all.

This is hardly rigorous, but I think it serves well as a back-of-the-napkin calculation. I'm still wondering if I did the right thing here, but I think it's more defensible than voting to keep the estate tax. I look forward to the input of my lawyer and semi-lawyer readers.

Obviously Washington and Seattle need to get revenue from somewhere, and since Washington lacks an income tax, it makes sense they'd make up for it in sales, property, or estate tax. But there's no way I'm voting for an increase. That's like voting for a ban on mini-skirts (or for smaller dicks, from the women's perspective). It just doesn't make any sense.

If the various levels of government want to re-allocate funds or [gasp!] be more efficient, then go ahead, but they have enough net as it is. I expect the results to be opposite of how I voted, however.


I hope the fact that I kind of ripped up the envelope and taped it back together doesn't invalidate my vote. I would assume my ballot would be invalidated if either the Senate or House race somehow became close. But I didn't vote for the Repub, so it will probably still count.

I'm surprised that we have to pay postage on absentee ballots. Isn't that a form of poll tax? It's only 63 cents, and you can drop them off for free at any polling place, but still. File that one next to "Why isn't election day a holiday?"

I always sign up for absentee ballots. That way I can sit at home and peruse the internet for information while I vote. Plus I actually won't be in Seattle on election day anyway, though I didn't know that when I requested an absentee ballot. I don't know why everyone doesn't do it this way, like the entire State of Oregon.


Thoughts? Please continue the discussion.