
President / Vice-President:
Barack Obama / Joe Biden
(why I’m voting this way at the end of the piece)
U.S. Congressional Races, San Diego County:
49th District - Robert Hamilton (Darrel Issa, incumbent)
50th District - Nick Leibham (Brian Bilbray, incumbent)
Nick Leibham wants to make medical care of returning military vets a priority, and worked in the U.S. Attorney’s office before becoming a city of San Diego Criminal prosecutor. Leibham is also actively selling himself as pro-environment, an absolute rarity for any Congressional candidate in these parts. Incumbent Brian Bilbray is a career politician who, while mayor of Imperial Beach in the 1980s, tried to stem the flow of the Tijuana River from Mexico by literally bulldozing it closed. Cute stunt, but utterly indicative of his environmental stands. Bilbray also wanted to build a yacht marina in the Tijuana Estuary and a 1.5 mile breakwater off Imperial Beach, which was soundly opposed and eventually defeated with the help of the then-fledgling Surfrider organization.
51st District - Bob Filner (incumbent)
52nd District - Mike Lumpkin (open seat; Duncan Hunter Sr. retiring)
Mike Lumpkin is a retired Navy SEAL Commander and Iraq War veteran, and at one time was the commander of all U.S. Special Forces in Iraq. A self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, Lumpkin is running against retiring Congressman Duncan Hunter’s son, Duncan D. Hunter, also an Iraq War vet and retired U.S. Marine. Lumpkin, if for no other reason, marks an opportunity for the 52nd District to have someone without the name Hunter as their Congressman for the first time since 1980, but the former Navy SEAL also offers the district the same pro-military focus the elder Hunter provided, but from a slightly more worldly and experienced 43 years instead of Duncan D. Hunter’s 31 years. Lumpkin is also less likely to howl about building border walls and the culture wars, and instead, focus on concrete issues. A firearms owner, Lumpkin isn’t interested in taking anyone’s weapons or ORVs away, but the 52nd District is far more diverse than one might suspect with portions of Mission Valley, La Mesa, and Tierrasanta within its borders as well.
53rd District - Susan Davis (incumbent)
City of San Diego, City Attorney:
Mike Aguirre (incumbent)
I admit, I’ve been a fan of Aguirre’s since he arrived in office, if for no other reason than his willingness to buck what I see as an overly-business friendly Mayor at the expense of regular San Diegans who have neither closure on the pension crisis or even leaders with mature, non-growth related approaches to water-use issues. Aguirre can be occasionally messianic, but he’s never been inaccurate in his charges as far as I can tell, and he’s been subject to some extremely unfounded criticism by Mayor Sanders, as well as the man vying for Aguirre’s seat, Superior Court Judge Jan Goldsmith (who has the worst toupee in all of Southern California and not one friend decent enough to tell him so). Along with Sanders, Judge Goldsmith claimed Aguirre called for a mass evacuation of the city of San Diego during the 2007 fires. It’s strange for Goldsmith and Mayor Sanders to criticize Aguirre for this, since…that’s what happened. As much as the folks Downtown and along the coast might forget about inland communities, Rancho Bernardo, 4S Ranch, Carmel Mountain Ranch, and sizable pieces of Rancho Penasquitos were evacuated, with a nervous Tierrasanta primed and ready to go. These are all city of San Diego neighborhoods. Have Mayor Sanders and Superior Court Judge Goldsmith forgotten about last year already, or are they just annoyed City Attorney Mike Aguirre was on top of the problem and gave an honest appraisal. No leader should ever be criticized simply for suggesting an idea…even one which the city eventually enacted. Seriously, re-elect City Attorney Mike Aguirre. There’s no one else in City Hall looking out for the little guy, regular joe, and average San Diego city taxpayer the way Aguirre does.
California State Assembly:
73rd District - Judy Jones (open seat)
74th District - Brett Maxfield (Martin Garrick, incumbent)
75th District - Darren Kasai
76th District - Lori Saldaña (incumbent)
77th District - Raymond Lutz (Joel Anderson, incumbent)
78th District - Marty Block (open seat)
Yes, the guy with the cool, UPS-like TV ads. Vote for Marty Block if you’re in the 78th.
79th District - Mary Salas (incumbent)
80th District - Manuel Perez (open seat)
San Diego City Council:
District 1 - Sherri Lightner (open seat; Scott Peters retiring)
District 3 - Todd Gloria (open seat; Toni Atkins retiring)
District 7 - Marti Emerald (open seat; Jim Madaffer retiring)
California State Propositions:
Prop 1A - NO
I love the novelty of building a high-speed bullet train up and down the length of the San Joaquin Valley, and I might even take the train if it could get me to San Jose as fast as a cheap Southwest flight. The reality is, freight would be a more likely user of these rail lines, and with the money the project is projected to cost by 2020, we could have four additional lanes added to the far-too-few four current lanes of I-5 through the San Joaquin Valley, or add additional lanes to I-5 and SR 99, and we’d get those lanes much, much sooner. I do sincerely like the idea of high-speed rail; if anything it will be infinitely less polluting than the current traffic through the Big Valley. I just think private companies should flip the bill for this, and the public money should be spent fixing and enhancing our infrastructure, which needs a very serious makeover and overhaul. If anything, CalTrans should rebuild the I-405/101 bottleneck interchange in Sherman Oaks. If this passes I’ll live, I don’t hate it but I’m voting no on 1A. Let’s get our house in order first before we add a long-term addition, and besides if you really want high-speed rail, how about some more local light and/or high-speed rail between San Diego and L.A.? Perhaps within existing freeway footprints?
Prop 2 - YES
Yes, yes, yes. There’s no excuse, ever, for cruelty to animals and inhuman capitivity, even if you’re going to eat them. All this initiative will do is make it the law for California factory farmers to house pregnant sows, egg-laying hens, and calves bred for veal in such a way so they’ll be able to lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs, instead of being suspended within or jammed into cages. Here’s another good opportunity for California to be in the lead on something decent and humane, and believe me, your food will taste better and be better for you when it comes from less-stressed animals.
Prop 3 - NO
Here’s where the fiscal conservative in me comes out. I have no problem funding hospitals, but it would bother me a little less if hospitals just admitted what we were really paying for (care for those without insurance), and would instead get behind a real push for across-the-board health coverage for all Americans. Furthermore, area hospitals received voter approval for $750 million dollars in a similar initiative in 2004, and that money is only about half-spent. I know new toys are nice and we need functioning hospitals able to meet the needs of the community, but in an era where we’re running deficits on everything, we’re not out of line getting our house in order first before building more stuff…instead, spend some of this money to further retrofit existing hospitals before the next earthquake.
Prop 4 - NO
In a perfect world, a young woman will go to her parents if she finds herself pregnant, the family will talk it over, and come to the best solution. Unfortunately, the perfect world scenario seldom applies. No on Proposition Four.
Prop 5 - YES
I’m a fan of the Los Angeles Times, but they got this one wrong. Two-thirds of the people who enter the criminal justice system in this state are addicted to drugs or have serious drug and dependency issues to begin with. This proposition simply expands the definition of who is eligible for treatment, because at the end of the day, treatment costs far less to the state than incarceration, and the current program may be the first time many of these criminals even have some kind of drug-habit intervention. As the San Diego City Beat wrote, “if the crime isn’t drug-related, but drugs are the root cause, and the crime doesn’t involve harming another person, a judge can give an individual the option of treatment rather than incarceration.” It may not be perfect, but I don’t think “isolating and treating” is a waste of money
Prop 6 - NO
This is an anti-gang measure, courtesy of far-right couple who’s known for bankrolling these types of measures. The proposition creates $100 million dollars for gang suppression, but doesn’t pony up anything for direct intervention. The proposal will also make it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults, and would weirdly require the state to pay for lifetime GPS monitoring of all sex offenders, gang members, and violent felons. Sounds like nice idea, but I’m still not sure whose job it’s going to be to monitor all this GPS information, and how long before ex-cons figure out how detach the ankle bracelets they’ll be shackled to even years after completing their sentence. I’m all in favor of punishing criminals, but I’m not down with this proposal, nor the short-sighted band-aid measures it proposes. No on six.
Prop 7 - NO
I had a listener ask me about this, and the short answer for me is every environmental group I pay any attention to, from the Sierra Club on down, is not interested in this, and this includes people and organizations particularly passionate and excited about renewable energy. In fact, the coalition against Proposition Seven is so broad it tells me something’s up. Seriously, if this can’t pass muster with any major California newspaper’s editorial board, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund, and at least a dozen solar industry outfits in California, I’m voting no.
Prop 8 - NO
I don’t care what you think about the whole concept of gay marriage ~ which right-wing bedwetters think is going to somehow harm their children ~ but here’s the deal: it doesn’t matter what you think about gay marriage. This proposition is less about gay marriage, and more about the willingness of people in the state of California to write into their own state’s constitution that some people have more rights than others. That’s what this is about. It implies some people are better than others and more deserving of basic rights, and reeks more of the Nuremburg Laws than some kind of hyper-Christian right-wing wet dream. How would you possibly justify voting yes on this to Jesus Christ? How would you possibly justify voting yes on this to St. Peter? How do you possibly justify voting yes on this to the Founding Fathers? Writing intolerance into the state constitution is not just un-American, it turns the notion of democracy on it’s ear. If a county in the state wants to abstain from extending the benefits of gay marriage, let their voters decide and write it into law, but not the state freaking constitution. There’s a huge difference, and that’s just what the folks who put this proposition on the ballot intend. This is a tacky, tasteless initiative to force on a state as diverse as California, and says more about a desire for control and willingness to write intolerance into law than protecting someone’s family. Please. Vote no on eight. America is not about writing intolerance into our most basic, founding documents from which all our laws are derived. You don’t want a gay marriage? Fine, don’t get one. You may not be able handle evolution, but your kids can certainly handle a diverse California.
Prop 9 - NO
Ironically, the guy who put this initiative forward happens to be under indictment on felony drug-conspiracy and securities-fraud charges. Nice. No on nine. Courtrooms are meant to be places where emotion is kept in check and facts are supposed to speak over someone seeing red and committing crimes of passion. Let’s keep our courtrooms as the Founding Fathers intended: free of the understandable histrionics and sadness crime causes. If we divorce emotion from cold, hard reason in any segment of our society, it must be in our courtrooms where sobriety and low passion holds away. Victims have innumerable ways to relate their anger to those who wronged them on the record and off. Outside of sworn testimony, the courtroom is one place where that does not belong.
Prop 10 - NO
San Diego City Beat said it best a few weeks ago when its editors wrote “Like with Proposition Seven, [this] might sound good, but its critics charge it’s little more than a way to funnel taxpayer money into Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens’ pocket. [It] just so happens he owns a company that supplies natural gas for natural-gas-powered vehicles. The most reputable environmental organizations are against it.” That’s enough for me, plus I don’t take energy advice from anyone from Texas.
Prop 11 - YES (with reluctance)
I’m voting for this against my gut reaction. This is a redistricting proposal, and the claim is always to throw the control for this new gerrymander back to the citizens. But who are the citizens who’ll do the picking? How much influence will they have in the private sector, and since these names are ultimately picked by politicians, who’s to say someone isn’t doing someone a favor down the line? I smell something, but I’ll vote yes, even though the method for selecting citizens to be on the redistricting board sounds more medieval and confusing than the instructions for building a tank engine. Really, only a government could come up with a scheme this cumbersome for citizens’ group. A reluctant yes.
Prop 12 - YES
A no-brainer if there ever was one. Since the U.S. under President Bush sees fit to thanklessly stick it to veterans every chance it gets, this provides a bond of $900,000 million dollars to provide farm and home aid for California veterans. If you ask me, it’s not enough, but it’s got my vote.
County and City Propositions:
Prop A - NO
I’ve been cautioned by several firefighting professionals this is a bad move, with half of the money set aside going into some mythical slush fund which the County Board of Supervisors ultimately has control over, coupled with bad ideas involving backcountry prescribed burns (where it won’t do any good except make it look like something is being done for TV cameras). If you’re going to clear brush appropriately and sanely around neighborhoods, okay, this might not be a bad idea, but why clear brush out in the backcountry? I know the Fire Chief of San Diego is behind this, probably because she thinks this is the best that can be done in the most tax-averse county in the state. She’s a professional and I respect her opinion, I’m just thinking we need to do better. This county is going to need at least an annual budget of $20 million dollars to effectively fight fires. Orange County coughs up that amount every year, and in L.A. County it’s $200 million. Why do we lag behind? Could it be because we’re still not willing to pay for the infrastructure we NEED to live in this corner of the United States?
Prop B - NO
Really, this is one proposal you need to spend some extra time on coloring in your no bubble. This is just a wretchedly stupid idea. Let’s see…put a giant roof for commercial development over a working port. You know, with ships and cranes. How many ways can I slap the developer’s evil little hand away and tell them to leave it alone (there’s my conservative side coming out, folks). Everyone’s lined up against this from the port of San Diego Board of Commissioners to the San Diego City Council (an entity not exactly known from showing restraint in the face of developers), unions, environmentalists, you name it. Vote a hearty NO on Proposition B.
Prop C - YES
This is a great idea which will enhance the city’s parks, starting with Mission Bay, which would receive about a third of the love, with other regional parks getting the other quarter in the future. City Council members Donna Frye and Kevin Faulconer are behind this (Faulconer, naturally, since he used to essentially run Mission Bay Park), and while this dips into money from the general fund, not even Mayor Jerry Sanders is against it. There’s not even a ballot argument against it. Easy. Yes on C.
Prop D - YES
Here’s where I get into some trouble with civil libertarians. I’m not opposed to people drinking or having fun, but I’m opposed to public intoxication on city property: it’s the law. So if it’s illegal to be drunk in public, why should it be legal to drink ~ as in the present tense of getting drunk ~ in public? Because of the novelty of being on the beach? What’s that got to do with it? If you’re allowed to drink and get wasted on the beach in P.B., why shouldn’t I be allowed to get wasted and pee all over Balboa Park? Or Mission Trails? What makes those parks different from the beach? Because one is at the place where the ocean meets the land? I like beaches to be quiet places, but not without joy or fun…and families and singles can find joy and fun and relaxation at the beach without alcohol. There are a zillion places to drink when you’re at the beach without having to drink physically ON the beach. The litany social annoyances, loud, drunken profanity, waste, pollution, and bad vibes which come as a result of mass alcohol consumption is not conducive to a clean, safe, and pleasant community. If you want to go to the beach drunk, fine, drink at home or at the bar and then go down to the beach, just don’t drink ON the beach. The increased pleasantness on the city’s beaches today ~ for residents of beach communities and visitors ~ are directly the result of saying no to drinking on the beach, and if you really think San Diego is losing tourist dollars because some douchebag from Arizona can’t get his drink on in P.B., I’ve got a long line of beach-area residents who are more than happy to tell you it’s money they’re happy not to receive. The peace of mind makes up for it, and I’ve got news for you, people are going to come to San Diego’s beaches whether they can drink on them or not. Please vote yes on D.
President / Vice-President Revisited:
John McCain is a hero and brings a lot to the table, so much so that there once was a time when I voted for him: in 2000 in the Washington state primary when I took a G.O.P. ballot. Not only did it give me the opportunity to vote against George W. Bush twice in one year, it also enabled me to endorse what I saw as McCain’s genuine attempts to buck the party line and legislate from the center. I was proven right: by 2004 McCain was one of the first lawmakers to cry foul about the crimes being committed at Guantanamo; McCain was one of the first G.O.P. lawmakers to not only actively embrace climate change but offer sensible solutions; McCain was one of the first legislators to address campaign finance reform. McCain was the de facto leader of the “Gang of 12″ G.O.P. Senators who voiced moderation and good sense. All of these good marks for John McCain, however, didn’t necessarily mean I wanted him for President, and his curling up to the Bush crowd in 2004 ~ the same people who vilified him in the eyes of South Carolina voters in 2000 ~ truly amazed me.
Around this time McCain began to change and grow more erratic in position, siding with the G.O.P. mainstream when he felt he had to, even though it was clearly going against his instincts. He was no longer the Happy Warrior. He grew agitated, bitter at the thought of making peace with the same Christian hard-liners he once rightly summarized as “Agents of Intolerance.” The selling out of John McCain began around this time when he had to begin sucking up to G.O.P. bigwigs for money to fuel his lagging primary campaign, and despite his amazing comeback, McCain 2.0 reached its nadir with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate in late August.
Palin represents the kind of religiously-motivated warrior a guy like McCain ordinarily would’ve eschewed if not outright mocked, a Governor he barely spent any time with who, along with the financial crisis, will now likely cost him in the election. When John McCain was finally given an opportunity to exercise Presidential-level judgement, he blew it, and he knows it. Picking Sarah Palin gave a guy like me who at least respected John McCain a reason to now vote AGAINST him, and thats something I never saw coming. The gutteral, sewer-ready bile which has come out of McCain’s mouth and his campaign surrogates since the selection of Palin has forever tarnished his image and his alleged affinity for the kind of clean campaigning he imagined his mentor Barry Goldwater would’ve acted on if he’d been able to campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1964, a man Goldwater respected enormously. I think McCain was hoping for a similarly imagined, idyllic campaign against Hillary Clinton, but like Goldwater, he didn’t get it.
The reasons for why I like Obama and why I endorse him are simple: I trust his judgement. I appreciate him temperament. I’m confident he will be curious enough to ask the right questions, and listen to the responses he gets. I’m confident he will evaluate all the information which comes his way, and at the end of the day, I know the environment is going to be in better hands with a guy like Barack Obama, to say nothing of Supreme Court selections (if Obama wins expect John Paul Stevens to retire within the year), and the possibility of really moving forward on health care reform, instead of just pushing the whole thing out into the private sector, which McCain wants to do. My first choice in the Democratic race was Joe Biden, ironically, and then Chris Dodd and then Bill Richardson. I always liked and admired Obama ~ who couldn’t appreciate Obama’s soaring, inspiring oratory after all the years of Bush babbling on like as asshole loose at the mic during a wedding ~ but until last year I always felt he needed to be aged a little more. It certainly woudn’t have done him any harm, but this campaign has surely aged and humbled the man, and he’s grown into a Presidential-like figure by virtue of the toughness of this race, and he’s kept it together and made us proud.
Obama is not just a better campaigner now, he’s surely a better leader; the rigors of this campaign have consistently brought out the best in him. He’s got a lot riding on his promise of hope, change, and belief, but I’m more than confident Barack Obama is the right choice for President in 2008 as a defining, watershed moment in history, and as a purely pragmatic choice. We break walls and barriers this year, and we get the best man for the job. Just the way America’s supposed to work, and Obama managed to do it by not being ceaselessly negative, which seems to be all the Republicans have been capable of for the last 20 years. A far cry from John McCain’s longing for a statesmanlike exchange of ideas.
