Inland Utopia

I wish both sides on the political aisle were able to work together an amicable compromise to be results oriented in helping to change the political culture in Sacramento. I wish Republican legislators could give up their quest to promote social values nanny state governance and Democrats give up their dreams of economic nanny state governance. We need to lay off the nanny and leave it to the individual to help in economic recovery in California. If Republicans were not so adversarial against gay people and other minority groups and Democrats start developing fiscal restraint and did not add bills that would drive up the cost of goods and services maybe we could get somewhere in helping to make Sacramento work for all of us.

We need to bring forth industry and entrepreneurs in our state to restore the tax base so we can provide opportunity to our people. If we are not able to do this, I do not want our state to become a failed one. Making sure that our state is business friendly, while keeping regulations to make sure the environment and workers do not get exploited should be the highest priority.

Both political parties need to understand that the way that the game is played right now is not going to do one difference. There are people who support most of what the Republican Party stands for, but believes they wage war against people instead of helping to solve the problems that face us today such as unemployment. However the Democratic Party is known to stand up for the little guy, and does recognize that government is helpful most of the time. However government cannot always grow each year Keynesian economics has not shown a difference with the trillions the Obama administration has spent. People do support improving our schools and making sure teachers are employed, but money has to be accounted for and spent appropriately for the public services we value most.

Do you live in a district where there was only one candidate running for office in your political party? For me, there are two Republicans I would not dare vote for so I decided to make some alternative choices in this June primary.

Congress District 43, California   – Fred Karger

State Senate District 32 – Matthew Munson

If you dont like the choices write in your choice until Proposition 14 gets unfortunately passed. We are not going to have the choice of the write in vote in November 2012.

Mickey Mouse, Bill Postmus, Rush Limbaugh it is your choice.

Welcome to Campbell or No Deal. I am usually open to voting for the far right candidates at times, I voted for Richard Mountjoy in 2006 as an example. However the DeVore or No Deal movement is going to kill the enthusiasm for Republicans of the centrist and liberal perspective to consider voting for another DeVore or McClintock in a future election.

Here is the criteria, if Tom gets 10% less of the vote as compared to the Governor Nominee in November if Tom is our nominee and loses, but could of won if those missing voters supported him. Then we all vote a straight Libertarian Party ticket in 2012 from State Assembly to President.

If we all vote Libertarian in 2012, maybe it could show all the lost voters who left the Republican Party for an election.

Honestly, I will still vote for Carly or Chuck in the general election if Tom is not going to win the nomination. However I am going to be yelling SEE I TOLD YOU SO, if Boxer wins another term.

This election I encourage the voters of the 4^th Supervisorial District of San Bernardino County to vote for Ron Wall for Supervisor. If you are tired of the status quo of incumbent Gary Ovitt, Ron Wall will be a refreshing choice to be your representative. Ron’s platform is very simple, bring forth ethnics reform, create an ethics commission and introduce campaign finance limits so campaigns would not be bought off by the usual developers in our county.

The residents of the fourth district need someone who is not part of the establishment in county politics so we can get someone who is not part of the system. We do need to throw the bums out so we can finally clean out San Bernardino County and make it better for the people. We need to bring forth integrity back to the Board of Supervisors so we can have a government we can be proud of.

continue reading…

Privately some of us did not vote straight ticket for various campaigns, but yes I am worried about the DeVore or No Deal movement. However if Campbell can run without the Conservative establishment and win, maybe we can change the party for the better.

This is a scary reminder of the 2000 Campbell campaign where people refused to vote for him and instead either voted for Feinstein or third party. Where we saw less people voting for Campbell 3,886,853 as compared to Bush 4,567,429 in the 2000 election. Voting for Boxer would be like cutting your nose off for no apparent reason.

Working the San Bernardino County Republican Party GOTV effort in 2000, I even had people say I refuse to carry any of the flyers because Tom is pro-choice and not toeing the line of the NRA. And the executive director sent all his fliers to the recyclers because most of the volunteers were far of the right wing of him.

I bet social liberal/fiscal conservatives in our party could play the same game too and that would be rather counterproductive. I wish we could learn how to hold our noses and just simply vote for the individuals. I may have not liked John McCain and Sarah Palin’s positions on LGBT equality, but I knew President Obama’s vision for America would be way more dangerous for our nation.

Just as how Assemblyman DeVore said he would do his best if Tom Campbell or Carly Fiorina became our nominee for U.S Senate, I will do the same if Chuck or Carly will be our nominee. However if I see the same situation happen in 2010 to Tom, I will likely just vote a straight Libertarian Party ticket in 2012 whenever possible (as long as Proposition 14 does not pass).

We are in a two party system, and we have to learn how to make sacrifices whenever possible. No party will be exactly perfect to an individual’s beliefs. Ask the pro-life big government Latino, or the pro-gay rights limited government homocon on how tough their voting choice can be.

These are my choices for contested races and ballot measures.

Governor – Steve Poizner
Lt.Governor – Sam Aannestad
Secretary of State – Damon Dunn
State Controller- David Evans
Attorney General – Steve Cooley
Insurance Commissioner – Brian Fitzgerald
Board of Equalization District 2 – George Runner
US Senator – Tom Campbell
San Bernardino County Judge Office 11 – James Hosking
State Superintendent for Public Instruction – Gloria Romero
San Bernardino County School Superintendent – Gary Thomas
4^th District Board of Supervisors San Bernardino – Ron Wall
San Bernardino County Sheriff – Mark Averbeck
San Bernardino County Assessor – Albert Palazzo
San Bernardino County Auditor – Ensen Mason
San Bernardino County District Attorney – Frank Guzman
Propositions
13 – YES
14 – NO
15 – NO
16 – NO
17 – NO

School projects, the money pit of public education. Ever since teaching standards have changed projects have became more grandiose ever since I left the K-12 system as a student thirteen years ago. Due to the declining state of public education, schools have been demanding more out of the parents when even the parent’s pocket book is just as barren or strained as the school district budget.

When school districts are so strained where they ask parents to bring tissues and toilet paper you know something is wrong. Budgets are so constrained that both parents and teachers are expected to pay what was not funded. I remember back in the mid 80s when I was in first grade that crayons, paper and other needed materials were provided and all we had to do was come as we were to class.

Where is this missing money?

Also, teachers should be required to provide options to parents for school projects so parents do not need to feel compelled to spend forty to one hundred dollars on a school project. Parents are also fiscally strained as the teachers who feel compelled to spend ten percent or more of their salary for the school supplies that students come in unequipped and to furnish their classrooms so they would be welcoming spaces.

continue reading…

Being a high propensity voter and a registered Republican, I got targeted on the Yes on 16 the “Taxpayers Right to Vote” mailing list. However the proposition is very deceptive and is merely an attempt for PG&E and other investor owned utilities to protect their monopolies from public power agencies that would run cheaper, competitive and efficient energy production.

Pacific Gas and Electric, the utility that runs from the Oregon border to Bakersfield is the chief proponent financing much of the 35 million that is being used to run this campaign. PG&E is fed up of local cities shutting down their relationships with their company and they want to protect their bottom line even though their service is expensive and inefficient. PG&E also has 6 billion in rate hikes pending in the public utilities commission in California pending so when voters get misled on Proposition 16, voters will end up paying the price in not researching what they voted on. Then if Proposition 16 wins, cities will be constrained with the 2/3rds requirement which prevents them from expanding, upgrading or implementing a public utility system competing against PG&E or even Southern California Edison.

If public utility agencies are mismanaging their budgets and misappropriating their resources there is accountability, we vote out our city officials and demand action. We do not need PG&E to do our job for us.

Read the ballot pamphlet that is mailed to you or visit the Secretary of State’s website before you vote. I bet if businesses in Riverside or Sacramento were under the auspices of PG&E and Southern California Edison I bet they would cry uncle at their high rates compared the rates charged via their public utility. If you like outages and high prices vote yes on 16. If you like choice in who should be your energy provider and reasonable rates, vote NO on 16.

As published in iepolitics.com

Endorsements, candidates go for them like a kid at a candy store. Voters look for them as indicators that candidates are for or against policy positions. However when organizations are inconsistent with their mission statements it clouds the meaning of an endorsement in an election.

There are two endorsements I would like to call into question in California’s 2010 elections, endorsement of Mary Bono by the Log Cabin Republicans and the endorsement of Chris Lancaster by the California Republican Assembly.

I know as a queer conservative, I am not going to earn any brownie points for going after the Log Cabin Republicans, but I have to openly speak out and demonstrate their absurdity by being absurd. Just as how Log Cabin California endorsed candidates who were “good on Republican issues and not good on LGBT issues” they looked like fools on the Flash Report, Red County, Queerty and other websites in the 2008 primary.

However Log Cabin California may have improved in 2010 with the endorsement of Tom Campbell for the US Senate, but they may have faltered with the endorsement of Congresswoman Mary Bono-Mack of Palm Springs.  Mary Bono-Mack is in the political fight for her life in the 2010 November election with the popular openly gay mayor of Palm Springs Steve Poughnet. Even though Steve Poughnet may not be as effective as a public official where he is struggling to maintain public safety first responders in a budget crisis, we should not give Steve the edge because Mary refuses to repeal Don’t ask Don’t Tell or co-sponsor the trans inclusive Employment Non Discrimination Act.  When many of your constituents in the biggest cities of your district are in the LGBT community giving them a reason to support your opponent would be a very bad idea.

Voters do not want fair weather friends, voters want politicians that deliver for the causes they believe in.  Compared to those living in Utah or Florida we are fortunate to live in California where you cannot be fired because of your sexuality or gender expression.  It is great that Mary Bono-Mack is friendlier than her prior husband Sonny who was congressman for a few terms, but people want results not sweet talk just as how President Obama is shafting the supporters who helped lead him into office.

Now I am going to discuss the other endorsement controversy. This one deals with the California Republican Assembly, the conservative organization that is traditionally pro-traditional values and pro-fiscal conservatism.  The 59^th Assembly District is facing a competitive primary in the Republican Party and with over six candidates competing for the chance to be nearly guaranteed the office after the primary.  The CRA endorsed newspaper executive Chris Lancaster as their choice for the 59^th Assembly District.  Even though Chris Lancaster may be excellent on social conservative and traditional values issues, his prior history as a city council member in Covina shows that he is the next incarnation of retiring Assemblyman Anthony Adams due to him being recalled in 1993 for raising the utility tax. So when we see the CRA scorecard for Mr.Lancaster expect him to receive low marks not for supporting gay rights legislation, but for tax increases and being very cozy to the public employee unions which helped lead to this pension liability crisis our state and local governments are currently experiencing, which explains why Chris Lancaster was endorsed by the California Labor Federation in his 2006 effort running for State Assembly.  It is ironic that the CRA attacks someone like Palmdale mayor James Ledford where he has similar economic positions as Chris Lancaster, but the CRA should have endorsed someone like Ken Hunter who would be both conservative on social issues and economics as well. Maybe the CRA is listening to my advice in a Los Angeles Times letter to the editor saying that Mike Spence and friends should maybe go for the Latino vote who is pro-traditional values and pro-big government.

Perhaps if organizations endorsed candidates who are consistent with their mission statements then there would be more credibility to the value of their endorsements in future elections.

Originally at iepolitics.com

Recently the Riverside County Republican Party decided to play to their fringe by slamming one of the candidates with a very tasteless accusation which helped get a liberal Democratic Party member Scott Hines elected.

Yes, Rancho Mirage may be conservative in nature, but the Coachella Valley has a sizable lesbian and gay population. Upsetting the gay and lesbian population and their straight allies can be very dangerous in an age where each vote counts. Assembly District 80 could have been won for example if the Republican Party nominated a socially inclusive candidate as an example.  Perhaps the individual who was only 71 votes ahead of Scott Hines on Election Day would have still won if the party’s tasteless advertising campaign was never done.

Yes, the Riverside County Republican Party and its affiliates were right to call him a fiscal liberal, but there was a key word that led to the Republicans losing this election with the slogan “Don’t let Palm Springs politics infect Rancho Mirage.” Where the word infects was in red letters and italicized where it alluded to HIV. Gay baiting has no place in a political campaign, in particular in a constituency with a sizable gay population.

Even though gay baiting Riverside Community College Trustee Mark Takano may have won an election for Congressman Calvert in 1994, it will no longer win elections for the Riverside County Republican Party.

Republicans are going through a period of declining voter registration, and if we alienate more demographic groups who might be receptive to the party message then this will lead towards a longer dominance by the Democratic Party.