Ethics has been an important issue that has dominated the political debate since the 2006 election. We deserve to have representatives that conduct themselves professionally in their public and private lives. Congressman Miller does have a right to earn a profit outside of congress, but the way he has conducted his transactions for the land for his developments has caused scrutiny.

There is a reason why the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Los Angeles Times have published stories about the congressman’s real estate dealings. Congressman Miller manipulates the system by making cities buy out his properties under eminent domain where he avoids paying capital gains taxes. Congressman Miller also has done what defeated Congressman Pombo of Northern California was rightfully criticized for by writing earmarks to benefit properties that he owns such as the Diamond Bar Village.

Unfortunately due to California’s abhorrent redistricting the voters of the 42nd Congressional District are stuck with him until we have new legislative maps in 2012. One should be celebrated for making money by playing by the rules, and rightfully criticized for not following the rule of law.

Who would you support for president in the 2008 GOP Primary. This is a straw poll of Republican related blogs from the  left, right and center.

The California Republican Party is 4.6 million dollars in debt and a new team of leaders is being elected today in Sacramento. We have lost our incumbent Secretary of State, one congressional seat
and made no progress towards gaining new seats in the state legislature. Problem is the California Republican Party is irrelevant to today’s California.

Tom McClintock may have the right views on the infrastructure, immigration and the economy compared to Governor Schwarzenegger. However the Democratic party rightfully attacked McClintock on his social issues. McClintock is outside the mainstream on social issues and the Democratic party rightfully told the voters how wrong he was on abortion and other contentious issues.

Californians do find McClintock and the Republican message as a very positive message, but California is turning increasingly blue. Perhaps the state party does not want to compromise to attain political power in the state legislature. If our party fails to gain ground in 2008 perhaps the Pete Wilson, California Republican League and Log Cabin Republicans deserve a chance to lead the party in 2010.

I am happy to support Rudolph Gulliani at this present time for president. Not that many Republicans in my county will support him right now, but I am not afraid to be a trend setter for the future. Governor Schwarzenegger proved that you do not have to totally fit the party mold to be elected as a Republican and I personally did better in the polls than the last two candidates running for State Assembly in my district.

Rudy is winning over people by reaching out to people from the base who have clout in determining who becomes nominated in the general election. Gulliani wants to make sure states not the federal government have influence on issues like abortion. Perhaps the reason why Gulliani is leading in the polls currently is because he has leadership skills that will help us navigate the problems we face today.

Naturally its going to be rare that we will agree on all the political issues of the day. We can not afford to alienate people because we disagree on one or two key issues. That was one of my faults in the 2002 election. We have to build colliations in order to attain success. You do not need to fake being what you are not to be successful.

As long as Gulliani does not capitulate to the Democratic party, but instead offers pragmatic solutions to America’s problems we will be in good hands.

Three cheers to the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance for showing what Rush Limbaugh defines as: demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. In the Washington State Supreme Court they claimed a “legitimate state interest” that allowed the court to limit marriage to couples able to have and raise children together. So the group has decided to place three initiatives on the ballot to raise discussion on the ruling.

First: Procreation would be a requirement for legal marriage.
Second: Divorce or legal separation would be prohibited when there are children.
and lastly, if a couple has a child together it would be a legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadlow stated precisely that, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”

In California the Campaign for Children and Families is proposing an initiative to strip all partnership benefits for California couples. Perhaps we need these initiatives established in California to demonstrate the absurdity of the social conservatives. If you can not procreate then you do not deserve marriage.

Perhaps marriage is still a sacred term no matter if you are going to procreate or not. My generation does support partnership rights for homosexual couples. However the ‘gay marriage’ campaign was executed horribly. I believe a majority of Americans would support parallel institutions instead. We may hear cries from the homosexual rights campaigners about “seperate , but unequal”, but in California most of the rights and priviledges are already awarded.

Maybe we do need an impass on this segment of the culture war. The “pro-family” campaigners should stop making the lives of homosexual couples miserable, while the homosexual campaigners should relent and stay within a Civil Unions type of system.

I think we need to start this in off-year elections for school boards in San Bernardino County.

As already reported voting difficulties continue to frustrate voters in another decisive election, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden renewed his proposal to simplify the way Americans vote. Wyden has introduced legislation to provide funds to help states adopt Vote by Mail election systems, such as Oregon’s.

“The great Yogi Berra said it best: ‘It’s Déjà vu all over again.’  Except instead of the boys of October, we’re talking about the long lines and broken machines of November.” Wyden said. “Allegations of election fraud and voter suppression were once rarities, today they’re business as usual for the American voter. It’s time to stop throwing taxpayer dollars at a broken system. Oregonians have a solution–Vote by Mail.”

For more than a decade Oregonians have been successfully voting by mail. Up to three weeks before Election Day, ballots are sent to all registered voters, giving busy families time to research their votes and carefully mark their ballots, which are then either dropped in the mailbox or delivered to secure drop boxes at libraries, county offices and other convenient locations. Trained election officials then match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter’s registration card, before processing the vote.  

The transparency of Vote by Mail eliminates virtually all fraud, while addressing many traditional voting challenges:

• Vote by Mail eliminates poll problems–there are no long lines, polls to open late or even confusion about where to vote.
• Vote by Mail eliminates voter roll issues and the need for provisional ballots–ballots are mailed only to registered voters at their official address. Those who do not receive a ballot have ample time to resolve the issue with election officials.
• Vote by Mail virtually eliminates voter fraud–no vote is processed or counted until a trained election official is satisfied that the signature on the ballot matches the signature on the voter’s registration card.
• Vote by Mail reduces the risk of voter intimidation–a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that groups–like the elderly–who are most vulnerable to coercion prefer Vote by Mail.
• Vote by Mail creates a paper trail.
• Vote by Mail increases voter turnout–by eliminating the need to stand in line at the polling place, voting becomes convenient for hourly wage employees and other working families. Oregon’s consistently ranks among the top five states in voter participation.
• Vote by Mail encourages educated voters–receiving ballots weeks in advance, gives voters an opportunity to research issues and deliberate in a way that is not possible in a voting booth.

·

• Vote by Mail saves taxpayer dollars–because there is no longer a need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers, Oregon has reduced its election-related costs by 30 percent since implementing Vote by Mail.

In September of this year, building on the success of Vote by Mail in his own state, Wyden teamed up with Senators John Kerry and Barack Obama to sponsor legislation to help other states implement their own version of VBM. Wyden’s bill creates a $110 million, three-year grant program to provide funds to states to help offset the cost of adopting VBM election systems. States have the option of adopting VBM statewide, within a group of selected counties (or municipalities in states where elections are overseen at this level), or even in a single county or municipality.

“Vote by Mail works. This legislation gives states funds they can use to make the transition away from traditional voting methods that have led to so many problems, so many concerns and so little confidence in the American election system.,”  Wyden said.