The 2010 Vote: "FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: 2ND DISTRICT"
The second box on my polling site sample ballot is “FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE.” Here in Iowa’s 2nd US Congressional District the candidates are, in order of appearance: Dave Loebsack (Democrat), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Republican), Jon Tack (Constitution Party), and Gary Sicard (Libertarian). There is also space for a write-in, and that, frankly, seems like my best bet.
Iowa is one of only two states to have never elected a woman to federal office or the governorship. It is shameful and embarrassing, especially considering our company in this woeful league: Mississippi. Miller-Meeks may break the glass ceiling a week from today, but she won’t be doing it with my vote.
On the main page of her website, Miller-Meeks states, “I believe we must cut government spending, cut taxes on individuals and businesses, and get government out of the way so businesses can create jobs.” Basically, she wants to continue gutting public services, dismantle regulations, cater to businesses and the free-market, and not fix a damn thing.
On stem cell research she doesn’t have the balls to take a stance. “I am not in favor of any measure that allows life to be created only to have it destroyed,” she states, but goes on to say, “I am however encouraged and supportive of the medical advances in stem cell research that could bring about life-saving medicines for some of the world's most crippling diseases.”
Miller-Meeks has a “Burn, baby, burn!” mentality on energy and believes the Duane Arnold Energy Center should bring a second nuclear plant on-line. Not cool.
Economically, Miller-Meeks is a Reaganite marionette for big business. She says,
Hmm… Where have we heard that before? I mean, that’s basically been the US’ economic track since 1981, and look what it’s gotten us.
Also, she states, “It is imperative that we as a nation secure all four of our borders…” Wait. Four borders? I’m not really sure where the two other borders are unless she’s referring to the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines, which are not technically borders.
Miller-Meeks does support a balanced budget amendment, and has some good ideas about health care reform, but there is no way I’m voting for her.
I am also not voting for Dave Loebsack.
Though endorsed by the CRG, DMR and P-C, Loebsack seems typically hypocritical to me. On health care he says, “I believe in a health care system that puts patients before insurance company profits. I voted for health care reform…” Whoa. Patients before profits, eh? That’s why you voted for a federal mandate requiring every American to have privatized health coverage? Awesome.
Loebsack touts his childhood growing up in poverty, saying he knows “what it's like to sit around the kitchen table and figure out the family budget.” (The same line is repeated three or four times on one page.) He believes government should work the same way and return to “pay-go” rules. Frankly, there has not been much “pay-go” in the country’s history, especially recently, and I don’t see much “pay-go” fiscal discipline being exercised on either side of the Senate or House.
Economically, Loebsack seems to be a hybrid Reaganite and Keynesian, basically advocating welfare for the rich and entrepreneurial.
Other than that, there really is not much substance about Dave Loebsack. Like Roxanne Conlin’s website, Loebsack’s is an outline of progressive ideas containing no plans. And just like Charles Grassley, Loebsack is content to talk about what he has done as oppose to what he will do.
Gary Sicard is “an Eagle Scout that grew up in Southern California and graduated from high school in Riverside.” (Riverside, Iowa, or Riverside, California?) He is a staunch advocate of states’ rights and a free-market purist. He wants to abolish the Department of Education, privatize the Food and Drug Administration, and believes “[w]e must secure our boarders [sic] first and then worry about the world at large.”
Boarders, eh? Dictionary time, people. Courtesy of my MacBook dictionary, “boarder” is defined as “1) A person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. 2) A person who boards a ship during or after an attack. 3) A person who takes part in a sport using a board, such as surfing or snowboarding.”
There are borders and there are boarders, and Sicard and his staff apparently don’t know the somewhat ironic difference.
Sicard seems a little misguided and uninformed. For example, he says, “more money is being funneled into public schools and universities than ever before with a continued drop in quality.” Really? My tuition in college doubled between my freshman year and graduation due to cuts in state funding. According to the Iowa Department of Education, Chet Culver’s 10-percent across-the-board budget cuts last October reduced funding “$238.5 million to Iowa schools, $15.9 million ... to Iowa community colleges, and approximately $800,000 to the Iowa Department of Education.”
Sicard’s interpretation of constitutional powers entitled to federal and state governments is interesting, but he seems like another egoistic shill for big business. The dream world laid out by Libertarians is, in my opinion, just as far fetched as the THC induced “peace and love” idealism of hardcore hippies. However, pass me that joint anyway.
Jon Tack is such a nutcase he deserves his own Quiet Man post. In fact, I almost wrote one when I discovered his candidacy and website. However, though he has to share space with his 2nd District opponents here, he stands out like none of the others.
Running under the Constitution Party banner, and with absolutely no economic plan, Tack is a constitutional fundamentalist and originalist. He uses the Constitution, Webster’s 1828 dictionary, and the writings of the founding fathers to form stances on all the social hot-button issues: abortion, guns, borders (not “boarders”), health care, marriage, pornography, religion, and taxes. Whatever the Constitution or founding fathers do not cover or explicitly define he defers to “natural law, God’s law.” Tack dedicates an entire webpage to his opinions and reasoning based on this limited authority.
I cannot vouch or refute the soundness of his interpretations because I am no legal or constitutional scholar. But neither is Tack, and that punches a huge hole in his credibility. Based on his website bio, he has spent most of his adult life as a technician in the military. He writes nothing about his education or where he currently lives, though his contact address is a PO Box in Hiawatha. Our Constitution is often esoteric, vague, and complex — even Supreme Court justices disagree on its intentions — and the thought of Tack, a narrow-minded fundamentalist with no legal or scholarly understanding, interpreting it for the sake of all Americans scares me.
Based on his issues page, though, I’m unsure if Tack is even interpreting the Constitution. He cites passages, but declares something unconstitutional without explaining why. The only justifications he offers are personal opinions and apparent assumptions on the Framers’ intent.
Tack believes most current government programs are unconstitutional, but doesn’t explain why. He says, “The person who pays their taxes are having their assests [sic] taken from them and given to someone else.” He believes, “The American people are forced to give their hard earned money to the government for a socialist, wealth distribution program.” And the only economic ideology I can find on his site is this: “When we remove this oppressive tax burden from the American people, each person and each family will be able to afford the things they need.” It’s almost naïve enough to be cute.
Needless to say, I am leaving Tack’s bubble blank.
To tell you the truth, I may leave every bubble in the “FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE” box blank. My named choices are so depressing I don’t even know who to write-in.
Iowa is one of only two states to have never elected a woman to federal office or the governorship. It is shameful and embarrassing, especially considering our company in this woeful league: Mississippi. Miller-Meeks may break the glass ceiling a week from today, but she won’t be doing it with my vote.
On the main page of her website, Miller-Meeks states, “I believe we must cut government spending, cut taxes on individuals and businesses, and get government out of the way so businesses can create jobs.” Basically, she wants to continue gutting public services, dismantle regulations, cater to businesses and the free-market, and not fix a damn thing.
On stem cell research she doesn’t have the balls to take a stance. “I am not in favor of any measure that allows life to be created only to have it destroyed,” she states, but goes on to say, “I am however encouraged and supportive of the medical advances in stem cell research that could bring about life-saving medicines for some of the world's most crippling diseases.”
Miller-Meeks has a “Burn, baby, burn!” mentality on energy and believes the Duane Arnold Energy Center should bring a second nuclear plant on-line. Not cool.
Economically, Miller-Meeks is a Reaganite marionette for big business. She says,
“Cutting the tax rate from 35% to 20% will unleash a tidal wave of new economic activity, resulting in millions of new good paying jobs and fantastic technological innovations that put us on a strong path to a brighter economic future.”
Hmm… Where have we heard that before? I mean, that’s basically been the US’ economic track since 1981, and look what it’s gotten us.
Also, she states, “It is imperative that we as a nation secure all four of our borders…” Wait. Four borders? I’m not really sure where the two other borders are unless she’s referring to the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines, which are not technically borders.
Miller-Meeks does support a balanced budget amendment, and has some good ideas about health care reform, but there is no way I’m voting for her.
I am also not voting for Dave Loebsack.
Though endorsed by the CRG, DMR and P-C, Loebsack seems typically hypocritical to me. On health care he says, “I believe in a health care system that puts patients before insurance company profits. I voted for health care reform…” Whoa. Patients before profits, eh? That’s why you voted for a federal mandate requiring every American to have privatized health coverage? Awesome.
Loebsack touts his childhood growing up in poverty, saying he knows “what it's like to sit around the kitchen table and figure out the family budget.” (The same line is repeated three or four times on one page.) He believes government should work the same way and return to “pay-go” rules. Frankly, there has not been much “pay-go” in the country’s history, especially recently, and I don’t see much “pay-go” fiscal discipline being exercised on either side of the Senate or House.
Economically, Loebsack seems to be a hybrid Reaganite and Keynesian, basically advocating welfare for the rich and entrepreneurial.
Other than that, there really is not much substance about Dave Loebsack. Like Roxanne Conlin’s website, Loebsack’s is an outline of progressive ideas containing no plans. And just like Charles Grassley, Loebsack is content to talk about what he has done as oppose to what he will do.
Gary Sicard is “an Eagle Scout that grew up in Southern California and graduated from high school in Riverside.” (Riverside, Iowa, or Riverside, California?) He is a staunch advocate of states’ rights and a free-market purist. He wants to abolish the Department of Education, privatize the Food and Drug Administration, and believes “[w]e must secure our boarders [sic] first and then worry about the world at large.”
Boarders, eh? Dictionary time, people. Courtesy of my MacBook dictionary, “boarder” is defined as “1) A person who receives regular meals when staying somewhere, in return for payment or services. 2) A person who boards a ship during or after an attack. 3) A person who takes part in a sport using a board, such as surfing or snowboarding.”
There are borders and there are boarders, and Sicard and his staff apparently don’t know the somewhat ironic difference.
Sicard seems a little misguided and uninformed. For example, he says, “more money is being funneled into public schools and universities than ever before with a continued drop in quality.” Really? My tuition in college doubled between my freshman year and graduation due to cuts in state funding. According to the Iowa Department of Education, Chet Culver’s 10-percent across-the-board budget cuts last October reduced funding “$238.5 million to Iowa schools, $15.9 million ... to Iowa community colleges, and approximately $800,000 to the Iowa Department of Education.”
Sicard’s interpretation of constitutional powers entitled to federal and state governments is interesting, but he seems like another egoistic shill for big business. The dream world laid out by Libertarians is, in my opinion, just as far fetched as the THC induced “peace and love” idealism of hardcore hippies. However, pass me that joint anyway.
Jon Tack is such a nutcase he deserves his own Quiet Man post. In fact, I almost wrote one when I discovered his candidacy and website. However, though he has to share space with his 2nd District opponents here, he stands out like none of the others.
Running under the Constitution Party banner, and with absolutely no economic plan, Tack is a constitutional fundamentalist and originalist. He uses the Constitution, Webster’s 1828 dictionary, and the writings of the founding fathers to form stances on all the social hot-button issues: abortion, guns, borders (not “boarders”), health care, marriage, pornography, religion, and taxes. Whatever the Constitution or founding fathers do not cover or explicitly define he defers to “natural law, God’s law.” Tack dedicates an entire webpage to his opinions and reasoning based on this limited authority.
I cannot vouch or refute the soundness of his interpretations because I am no legal or constitutional scholar. But neither is Tack, and that punches a huge hole in his credibility. Based on his website bio, he has spent most of his adult life as a technician in the military. He writes nothing about his education or where he currently lives, though his contact address is a PO Box in Hiawatha. Our Constitution is often esoteric, vague, and complex — even Supreme Court justices disagree on its intentions — and the thought of Tack, a narrow-minded fundamentalist with no legal or scholarly understanding, interpreting it for the sake of all Americans scares me.
Based on his issues page, though, I’m unsure if Tack is even interpreting the Constitution. He cites passages, but declares something unconstitutional without explaining why. The only justifications he offers are personal opinions and apparent assumptions on the Framers’ intent.
Tack believes most current government programs are unconstitutional, but doesn’t explain why. He says, “The person who pays their taxes are having their assests [sic] taken from them and given to someone else.” He believes, “The American people are forced to give their hard earned money to the government for a socialist, wealth distribution program.” And the only economic ideology I can find on his site is this: “When we remove this oppressive tax burden from the American people, each person and each family will be able to afford the things they need.” It’s almost naïve enough to be cute.
Needless to say, I am leaving Tack’s bubble blank.
To tell you the truth, I may leave every bubble in the “FOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE” box blank. My named choices are so depressing I don’t even know who to write-in.
Comments
Post a Comment