This is not 2000; Jill Stein is not Ralph Nader

The short version: 

1. I'm a former Democrat, former Green, now unaligned, left-of-center, independent. 
2. It was Bill Clinton's first term that chased me out of the Democratic Party. 
3. I proudly supported Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy in both 1996 and 2000, and have no regrets (Gore lost all by himself, get over it). 
4. I have been a fan of Bernie Sanders since he became Mayor of Burlington, VT 35 years ago and was thrilled to be able to give him my vote for President earlier this year. 
5. I have had serious reservations about Hillary Clinton (and have taken heat about expressing these opinions on Daily Kos). 
6. Nevertheless, I believe that a vote for Jill Stein (or Gary Johnson) is a foolish, unproductive, and dangerous act, and I urge all Greens and left-leaning independents to join me in supporting Hillary Clinton.

The long version: 

I don't need to get into much detail on #1 and #2 above; I've told the story many times before. With the election of Bill Clinton, the "third way" of the Democratic Leadership Council had officially replaced the progressive liberalism of the Democratic Party I grew up in. That, and the arrogance of my local Democratic State Assembly member, telling me he didn't care what I think because "Who else are you going to vote for?" made me realize that I did have other choices to explore.

For me, Ralph Nader entered the Presidential electoral arena at just the right time. Here was somebody who I had considered a hero since my 1960's childhood. In '96 I volunteered for the campaign. Going to hear him speak when he visited Sacramento (where we lived at the time) was an experience unlike any other political event I've ever been to. Here was truly one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people to ever seek office, speaking for hours without a single sentence that could be considered pandering for votes.

(Read the rest at Daily Kos)

A Few Election Stats

One more post-election wrap-up here, now that Florida is officially in the blue column. This gives the President re-election with 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. The popular vote also went to the President with 62.1 million votes (51%) to Romney's 58.8 million (48%), a 3.4 million vote advantage.

I'd say this is a clear mandate, but is this a landslide? Let's look at how the Republican pundits described what they would consider a "landslide" before the election:

• George Will predicts "321-217 Romney landslide"
• Glenn Beck, "landslide for Romney, electoral college 300+ R"
• Michael Barone predicts "Romney trounces Obama in electoral college 315-223"
• Larry Kudlow "predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide" (for Romney)
• And let's not even get started on Karl Rove...

So, clearly the Republican pundits agree that 332 electoral college votes is a "landslide" - but I'll stick with clear mandate. Or was it?

When all the dust is settled, there will still be 40% of eligible voters (about 78 million) who chose not to participate last Tuesday. And, that figure includes about 13 million voters who participated in 2008, but couldn't be bothered with it again only four years later. More analysis will need to be done to determine how much of that drop-off in voting was due to voters displaced by Hurricane Sandy, and how much due to apathy, but I'm betting on apathy to beat Sandy in a landslide.

You know from my last post that I have some ideas for fighting voter apathy. I'll have some more to say about that later. But for now, here's an interesting info-graphic about who did (and didn't) vote this year (also shows how much more effective the Obama campaign was at using social media).

Five Brave Republicans

By now you've all read the news that the Veterans Job Corp bill failed to pass the US Senate yesterday by only two votes. You've probably also heard that this was a surprise, as it was purposely crafted to be bi-partisan and non-political, with input from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Whether the Republican change of heart was due, as they claim, to the bill's costs, or whether, as many believe, it was because they felt putting anybody to work (veteran or not) just before the election would help President Obama's re-election efforts, is not the point of this post.

While every other liberal bloggers is shaming the Republicans who contributed to the bill, only to vote against it, I'd like to take a few moments to thank the five Republican Senators who actually voted their conscience, and chose to help our veterans, and our country, and put policy above politics for at least this one issue.

They are: Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, each of Maine, Dean Heller of Nevada, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Of course, some might say, it's easy to be brave if you're not running for re-election this year. Olympia Snowe is retiring from her Senate seat, so this may be one of her last votes ever, but she has many times demonstrated her independence from the Republican leadership. In fact, her frustration with the current Republican mind-set of destroying Obama before fixing America may be part of her decision to not seek re-election. I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her service to our country.

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are each in safe seats this year, so this vote may or may not come back to haunt them later. Even so, there are many more Republican Senators in safe seats (Senators face re-election every six years), why are there only two willing to vote for jobs for veterans? Safe or not, it takes courage to cross party lines these days.

Scott Brown and Dean Heller are each facing re-election this year, which makes their votes even more important. Brown is running in traditionally liberal Massachusetts against the nationally known (and funded) Elizabeth Warren. Some might dismiss this move as just playing to local biases, but considering that when Brown first entered the Senate (filling Ted Kennedy's old seat) it was feared he'd be the furthest right tea-bagger of them all, he still deserves to be thanked for this vote.

I know less about Heller, other than that he's a recent appointee now running for the first time to continue in the Senate. For a "new guy," who probably needs the help of the National RNC in his election, to buck the tide and go against the party is, to me, a positive sign of independence.

Okay, enough positivity and praising of Republicans. I will use this one paragraph to point out those who voted against this bill. Or, rather, one Republican Senator in particular. I find it dishonorable and disgusting (but not surprising) that "the mother of all mavericks," John McCain, is not on this list of those who put veterans above party. Shame on you, Senator McCain.

Propositions "R" Us

There will be nine statewide propositions on Californian's ballots on November 2nd, including one I'm very excited about. In fact, back in May of 2009 I called it my "Fantasy Proposition: Majority Rule!" On November 2, I get my fantasy with Proposition 25, "Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority." What I wrote then was that:

"California is one of only a handful of states that requires a super-majority (2/3 vote) to pass its annual budget. This allows a minority of legislators (34%) to hold the majority hostage... The stalemate has to end, and the way to do it is with a simple majority rule, like we imagined a democracy would be. If the minority party wants to have a say, they've got to come to the table to work, not just be obstructionist babies."

The budget stalemates, and resulting partial shut-downs, have cost our state billions in interest and other costs. These political theatrics don't just hurt state workers, but effects our entire state economy as it punishes small businesses who rely on state spending (such as food vendors to state prisons) when they aren't paid on time. I believe Prop 25 to be one of the most important reforms Californians could possibly pass, and I urge a strong "YES" vote.

I'm also voting a strong "YES" on Proposition 22, "Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services," and I'm appalled at the Democratic Party and other "progressives" who are recommending a "no" vote. Yes, I'm fully aware of the state's budget problems and the tough choices to be made. But the state's habit of fixing its problems by raiding other funds has been a disaster for local services and needs to stop. Now. And while I'm shaming the Democratic Party, here's also a bit of scolding for the California Teachers Association, who rightly screamed bloody murder when the Governor raided education dollars, but now aren't willing to help the cities and counties in the same fight.

My strongest "NO" vote recommendation is on Proposition 23, "Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level." This has nothing to do with "saving jobs" ... at least, not California jobs. This is simply a couple of Texas oil companies who don't want to comply with our new pollution standards.

I will probably vote for Proposition 19, "Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed," but it's largely symbolic as this does nothing to change Federal law. An interesting note is that some of the Medical Marijuana advocates are recommending "no" votes here, as current Medical Marijuana law allows for larger "private gardens" than does Prop 19.

On the two redistricting propositions, I'm torn. Proposition 20 adds Congressional districts to the responsibility of the State Commission on Redistricting, while Proposition 27 eliminates the Commission completely, and turns that power back to the State Legislature. The Democrats, who are in the majority, are for Prop 27 and against Prop 20. But I'm leaning toward Power to the People and going against the "official liberal" grain on this pair of conflicting propositions.

If you would like to see a great master list of who has endorsed "YES" or "NO" on each of the propositions (includes groups from all across the political spectrum), see the California Choices website (californiachoices.org). Meanwhile, here's a quick list with my choices (subject to change without notice):

19 - Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed - soft "yes"
20 - Redistricting of Congressional Districts - "yes"
21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs - "YES"
22 - Prohibits the State From Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services - "YES!"
23 - Suspends Air Pollution Control Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level - "HELL NO!"
24 - Repeals Legislation That Allow Businesses to Lower Taxable Income - "yes"
25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget From 2/3 to a Simple Majority - "PLEASE YES!!!"
26 - Requires Certain State and Local Fees to Be Approved by 2/3 Majority - "NO"
27 - Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority - "yes"