The 2010 Vote: "FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR"
Deep down I am a romantic when it comes to voting. Though I question its effectiveness in an age of political and corporate collusion, I still believe my single ballot, marked according to my persuasions and principles, is counted and registered along with everyone else’s. To me, voting is a civic liberty and duty, and that conviction, coupled with my somewhat naïve romanticism, is reason enough for me to cast my vote November 2 in the 2010 general election.
But before voting I need to educate myself about my choices, or lack thereof. So I have downloaded the sample ballot for my polling location and have decided to mull over each in order. And by “mull over” I mean write about.
Unfortunately, as a registered Green (yes, I did it) I have no fellow party members to vote for. No Greens are running as alternatives to the Republicrats and Libertarians in my federal and state races. Why? I have no clue. The Iowa Green Party website is silent on endorsements, which, I take it, means the Greens are unapproving of everyone on the ballot. So am I, at first glance, but I do want to do my research and fill in some bubbles (Johnson County is still deep in the throes of a Scantron love affair).
Appearing first on the ballot is “FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR” followed by the candidates: Roxanne Conlin (Democrat), Chuck Grassley (Republican), and John Heiderscheit (Libertarian). (Scheit!) There is also space for a write-in.
The Republicrats are out. Ensconced on Capital Hill and in the board rooms on K Street, Republicans and Democrats will never initiate real change at the federal level, so I feel voting for them is futile and backwards.
Typical for a Democrat, Conlin’s website presents a sensibly progressive agenda with few blueprints of true substance. She believes something needs to be done to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, talks shit about what Grassley has done, and writes, “I would, under no circumstances, support cutting benefit payments to seniors or increasing taxes on hardworking families.” All right, then what do you propose? [Crickets.] She believes the federal government can provide funds to help school districts raise salaries and offer tuition reimbursement to attract young teachers. Cool, but can we afford that in light of your plans to hike taxes for the wealthy, cut taxes for the middle class, and provide oodles of tax credits for businesses? [Crickets.] I want concrete plans and proposals, not spineless position statements.
Though he seems like the kind of nice old man you wouldn’t mind having for a neighbor, Grassley is a career dinosaur. The man was first elected to the Senate in 1980, so sentences like this from his website fall flat:
Compared to Conlin’s website, Grassley’s reads like a corporate brochure presented to potential investors. He believes in this, did this, will do this, all with his hand over his heart, Old Glory whipping in the wind behind him, and the F-16s zooming overhead. Based on his official online presence, it appears Grassley’s main focus is his own job security; he willingly brings nothing new to the table. He promises the same ol’ schtick, exactly what enrages me.
If the Tea Party movement accomplishes anything (good, at least), I hope it instills a deep resentment for career politicians like ol’ Chuck.
That leaves me with Libertarian John Heiderscheit (Scheit!) and the write-in space.
Heiderscheit’s motto is “Big Name, Small Government.” His platform is stereotypically libertarian (duh) and extremely vague, offering only a few quick hits on Tea Party hot button issues: social security, health care reform, and wasteful government spending. He seems to believe the federal deficit problem can be solved by slashing government salaries, including a 50 percent pay cut for Senators “until the budget is balanced.” (The current yearly salary for members of the House and Senate is $174,000, so half would be $87,000. That’s still more than my parents make combined.)
A “[l]awyer and business person” who spent nine years in the Army, Heiderscheit also offers three personal promises: he will accept no campaign contributions more than $100 from anyone, serve only two terms, and employee only two assistants, one in Washington and another in Iowa, bucking the trend of “imperial” staffs of 60 or more.
Though I applaud Heiderscheit’s effort, I am always skeptical of election vows. I am also distrustful of lawyers and business/sales people in general. Though there are ethical and selfless individuals in those trades, most are egoistic, greedy, and power hungry — characteristics I do not want in any of my government representatives. Lawyers and businesspeople, it seems, already hold a majority of public seats, and we are all witnesses to their excellent work. Worse are the staunch, laissez-faire Libertarians who pledge complete faith in the free-market to regulate itself. Heiderscheit’s belief in “market solutions” for our medical system brings to mind a sentiment Bobblehead has about libertarian economics: self-regulation through competition becomes a romantic theory with nation-sized corporations controlling markets.
Heiderscheit, though, appeals to me as a third party rebel. He has no chance of winning the race and I consider him a safe vote for more players on the national stage. However, according to the Johnson County Auditor website, “The Code of Iowa defines a ‘political party’ as a party which, at the last preceding general election, won at least two percent of the total vote for president or governor.” So despite the fact Heiderscheit is running for a federal seat, the Libertarians will not attain “political party” status in Iowa if he receives two percent of the vote. Shameful. In my opinion, any party with a certain number of state-wide members should be given “party” status. (The Greens gained full party status after the 2000 election when Nader carried 2.23 percent of the state’s presidential vote, but lost that standing after 2002 when Jay Robinson took 1.1 percent of the gubernatorial ballots.)
Perhaps inevitably, I have decided none of the named candidates “FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR” will get my vote. Skipping the box is an option, but I want to vote for someone and have settled on a write-in I know and trust. My hero and idol, he is a strong, caring, and hard working family man who has common sense and doesn’t take shit from anyone. It is a no brainer: I have decided to vote for my dad.
But before voting I need to educate myself about my choices, or lack thereof. So I have downloaded the sample ballot for my polling location and have decided to mull over each in order. And by “mull over” I mean write about.
Unfortunately, as a registered Green (yes, I did it) I have no fellow party members to vote for. No Greens are running as alternatives to the Republicrats and Libertarians in my federal and state races. Why? I have no clue. The Iowa Green Party website is silent on endorsements, which, I take it, means the Greens are unapproving of everyone on the ballot. So am I, at first glance, but I do want to do my research and fill in some bubbles (Johnson County is still deep in the throes of a Scantron love affair).
Appearing first on the ballot is “FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR” followed by the candidates: Roxanne Conlin (Democrat), Chuck Grassley (Republican), and John Heiderscheit (Libertarian). (Scheit!) There is also space for a write-in.
The Republicrats are out. Ensconced on Capital Hill and in the board rooms on K Street, Republicans and Democrats will never initiate real change at the federal level, so I feel voting for them is futile and backwards.
Typical for a Democrat, Conlin’s website presents a sensibly progressive agenda with few blueprints of true substance. She believes something needs to be done to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, talks shit about what Grassley has done, and writes, “I would, under no circumstances, support cutting benefit payments to seniors or increasing taxes on hardworking families.” All right, then what do you propose? [Crickets.] She believes the federal government can provide funds to help school districts raise salaries and offer tuition reimbursement to attract young teachers. Cool, but can we afford that in light of your plans to hike taxes for the wealthy, cut taxes for the middle class, and provide oodles of tax credits for businesses? [Crickets.] I want concrete plans and proposals, not spineless position statements.
Though he seems like the kind of nice old man you wouldn’t mind having for a neighbor, Grassley is a career dinosaur. The man was first elected to the Senate in 1980, so sentences like this from his website fall flat:
As a grandfather of nine, he worries the endless stream of deficit spending will bankrupt the next generation by taxing too much, spending too much and borrowing too much.
Compared to Conlin’s website, Grassley’s reads like a corporate brochure presented to potential investors. He believes in this, did this, will do this, all with his hand over his heart, Old Glory whipping in the wind behind him, and the F-16s zooming overhead. Based on his official online presence, it appears Grassley’s main focus is his own job security; he willingly brings nothing new to the table. He promises the same ol’ schtick, exactly what enrages me.
If the Tea Party movement accomplishes anything (good, at least), I hope it instills a deep resentment for career politicians like ol’ Chuck.
That leaves me with Libertarian John Heiderscheit (Scheit!) and the write-in space.
Heiderscheit’s motto is “Big Name, Small Government.” His platform is stereotypically libertarian (duh) and extremely vague, offering only a few quick hits on Tea Party hot button issues: social security, health care reform, and wasteful government spending. He seems to believe the federal deficit problem can be solved by slashing government salaries, including a 50 percent pay cut for Senators “until the budget is balanced.” (The current yearly salary for members of the House and Senate is $174,000, so half would be $87,000. That’s still more than my parents make combined.)
A “[l]awyer and business person” who spent nine years in the Army, Heiderscheit also offers three personal promises: he will accept no campaign contributions more than $100 from anyone, serve only two terms, and employee only two assistants, one in Washington and another in Iowa, bucking the trend of “imperial” staffs of 60 or more.
Though I applaud Heiderscheit’s effort, I am always skeptical of election vows. I am also distrustful of lawyers and business/sales people in general. Though there are ethical and selfless individuals in those trades, most are egoistic, greedy, and power hungry — characteristics I do not want in any of my government representatives. Lawyers and businesspeople, it seems, already hold a majority of public seats, and we are all witnesses to their excellent work. Worse are the staunch, laissez-faire Libertarians who pledge complete faith in the free-market to regulate itself. Heiderscheit’s belief in “market solutions” for our medical system brings to mind a sentiment Bobblehead has about libertarian economics: self-regulation through competition becomes a romantic theory with nation-sized corporations controlling markets.
Heiderscheit, though, appeals to me as a third party rebel. He has no chance of winning the race and I consider him a safe vote for more players on the national stage. However, according to the Johnson County Auditor website, “The Code of Iowa defines a ‘political party’ as a party which, at the last preceding general election, won at least two percent of the total vote for president or governor.” So despite the fact Heiderscheit is running for a federal seat, the Libertarians will not attain “political party” status in Iowa if he receives two percent of the vote. Shameful. In my opinion, any party with a certain number of state-wide members should be given “party” status. (The Greens gained full party status after the 2000 election when Nader carried 2.23 percent of the state’s presidential vote, but lost that standing after 2002 when Jay Robinson took 1.1 percent of the gubernatorial ballots.)
Perhaps inevitably, I have decided none of the named candidates “FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR” will get my vote. Skipping the box is an option, but I want to vote for someone and have settled on a write-in I know and trust. My hero and idol, he is a strong, caring, and hard working family man who has common sense and doesn’t take shit from anyone. It is a no brainer: I have decided to vote for my dad.
Comments
Post a Comment