Posting Towards Gomorrah

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
To my fellow Republicans:

Please follow my example and vote Republican this November:

The November general election is always a simple exercise for me. In the primary I research the candidates, but in the general election, at least for partisan office, the choice is always simple. I just pick the person with an R next to their name. People always say to me; “shouldn't you research the candidates?” “How can an educated guy like you be so dogmatic about how you vote?” However, to me it makes perfect sense. The party affiliation one chooses says everything I need to know about their candidacy. There is a basic philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats that I believe out weighs any other considerations.

This philosophical difference is no where more distinct than in education policy. In the Los Angeles School District they have what is called the "Dance of the Lemons". A principle is kept at a school until the parents complain so much that he or she has to be moved. Once the complaints get overwhelming the district simply transfers the incompetent principle to another school, and then replaces him or her with an incompetent principle that has just been pushed out of another school. The incompetent principles just keep getting transferred from school to school indefinitely. The result of this policy is what they call the "Dance of the Lemons". When you hear examples of such incompetence, you know that no Republican, if they could make the call, would ever create such a system. Only Democrats could concoct such a system.

A Republican instinctively wants a system of education that focuses on educating children. A Democrat views our education system as an opportunity to provide a job corp. program for teachers and bureaucrats. The tenure system has got to be one of the dumbest ideas every invented. Why on earth would we ever have a system that allows incompetent teachers to stay employed? Most Republicans think we should support teachers and pay them well, but that is only the teachers that are competent. Would a Republican ever come up with a system that protects incompetent teachers? Of course not. Every time a proposal is put forward to either figure out which teachers are doing their job, by testing, or ways to get rid of the bad apples, the California Teachers Association, and hence the Democrats oppose it.

Democrats also see the education system as an opportunity for indoctrinating students in ways they view as beneficial, as opposed to simply teaching them how to read, write and do basic math. Republicans instinctively understand that you only promote or graduate students that have learned something. However, the California Teachers Association and the Democrats always defend social promotion. In other words, keep moving the students up through the grades even if they aren't learning anything. Only a Democrat could endorse such a ludicrous idea.

I hear all the time; “well you disagree with the Republican candidate on so many issues, how can you vote for them?” No candidate is ever going to agree with me on one hundred percent of the issues. The only person that I will ever find that agrees with me 100% on all the issues is me. The important question is which candidate shares similar policy goals with me on most of the important issues, and the answer is, always the Republican.

A refrain I often here from Republicans is; “well I generally vote Republican but I have met my local State Senator (or Assemblyman) and they are so nice and seem competent so I am going to vote for him or her.” When I hear statements like that it is like hearing fingernails being scraped on a chalk board. Your representative may be competent and smart, but when it comes to the legislature the most important vote they will cast in their term is who they will vote for to be majority leader. No matter how nice or competent your local legislator seems, if they are a Democrat, they will vote for a majority leader that will tolerate and even promote policies that will create a "Dance of the Lemons" and social promotion type education policies.

So the issue is do you want a legislator that is nice to you and sends you Christmas cards, or one that will vote in a majority leader that will try and fix our screwed up educational system? I don't care how nice or amiable my local legislator is, or how familiar he or she is with issues, or whether or not I am related to them, I just want one that will support a majority leader who pushes for competent governance. When viewed from that perspective, the only choice is the Republican.

I also often hear from Republicans, “well I voted for Schwarzenegger, but I also vote for the Democrat State Senator or Assemblyman because he or she is so competent or seems like a good person.” That constant refrain also burns me up. That is like pushing Arnold into the ring but tying both of his hands behind his back. If you really want to help Arnold turn the state around you need to elect a legislator that will support him. If you vote for a Democrat legislator you are simply undermining the man you think you are supporting.

I may have significant policy differences with many Republican candidates, but in the end, I know that the Republicans hold to the same central core values that I do. If you want to see education reformed for the better in this state, vote Republican. If you want to see Arnold accomplish what he wants to accomplish, vote Republican. It is that simple.

I find this kind of creepy, and I don't think it's just because I almost never (but not never) vote R. It seems like an example of total partisan bullshit. Especially if you are talking federal as well as state gov't. Which you must be, if you are addressing this to Hank and Bilmore and other non-Calis.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I find this kind of creepy, and I don't think it's just because I almost never (but not never) vote R. It seems like an example of total partisan bullshit. Especially if you are talking federal as well as state gov't. Which you must be, if you are addressing this to Hank and Bilmore and other non-Calis.

If we elected representatives who were less partisan it wouldn't make as much difference who the majority leader is.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I will not be voting Republican this November. I will not be voting Democtatic either. I may not vote at all.

Very few politicians hold any "central core values." They simply want to be elected/re-elected for another term. Take, for example, the Republican mantra over the last 40 years of fiscal responsibility/limited government. Where has that core value gone? Unless you think that presiding over the greatest expansion in the federal government since the Great Society represents adherence to this principal? I think not.

The only way in which, as a true believer in those principals, you can effect change is to vote them out of office. Otherwise, you are nothing more than an enabler.

I frequently write in whoever I think would do the best job for the office. I don't harbor any illusion that my single writ-in vote will actually have an effect on the current broken, corrupt, morally bankrupt circus that we call our political sphere. But at least I get to feel good about having exercised my franchise with a sense of principle.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If we elected representatives who were less partisan it wouldn't make as much difference who the majority leader is.

2. Christ, I may even vote -- though, given where I live, it's not going to matter on any level, I don't think.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I find this kind of creepy, and I don't think it's just because I almost never (but not never) vote R. It seems like an example of total partisan bullshit. Especially if you are talking federal as well as state gov't. Which you must be, if you are addressing this to Hank and Bilmore and other non-Calis.

I'm pretty sure he copied it from somewhere. I didn't read it close, but I didn't see any typos. I'm going to say it's a cut and paste.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I frequently write in whoever I think would do the best job for the office. I don't harbor any illusion that my single writ-in vote will actually have an effect on the current broken, corrupt, morally bankrupt circus that we call our political sphere. But at least I get to feel good about having exercised my franchise with a sense of principle.

If you mean for local office, I will remind you once again, even if elected I will not relocate to Chicago.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I will not be voting Republican this November. I will not be voting Democtatic either. I may not vote at all.

Very few politicians hold any "central core values." They simply want to be elected/re-elected for another term. Take, for example, the Republican mantra over the last 40 years of fiscal responsibility/limited government. Where has that core value gone? Unless you think that presiding over the greatest expansion in the federal government since the Great Society represents adherence to this principal? I think not.

The only way in which, as a true believer in those principals, you can effect change is to vote them out of office. Otherwise, you are nothing more than an enabler.

I think you are focusing too much on Federal issues. Do you really think our state would not change for the better if the Repubs took over the Assembly and State Senate and the Teachers Union loss influence?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If we elected representatives who were less partisan it wouldn't make as much difference who the majority leader is.

Because of the Gerrymander (which you supported because of your partisanship - unless I am wrong and you supported the Governors initiative, which I am pretty sure you didn't) they are all very partisan and that won't change until something is done about the Gerrymander.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm pretty sure he copied it from somewhere. I didn't read it close, but I didn't see any typos. I'm going to say it's a cut and paste.

Oh, definitely, but he didn't have any disclaimer on it saying "I agree in part" or anything.

ETA I might go for some Cali Rs, since many are probably to the left of Texas Ds.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I frequently write in whoever I think would do the best job for the office. I don't harbor any illusion that my single writ-in vote will actually have an effect on the current broken, corrupt, morally bankrupt circus that we call our political sphere. But at least I get to feel good about having exercised my franchise with a sense of principle.

It comforts me to no end that you nullify the influence of your own vote. I wish more people with your political persuasion did the same (however, thankfully, many of you did in 2000 giving us GWB in the White House).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Because of the Gerrymander (which you supported because of your partisanship - unless I am wrong and you supported the Governors initiative, which I am pretty sure you didn't) they are all very partisan and that won't change until something is done about the Gerrymander.

I am anti-gerrymandering. I think the best way to resolve the problem would be to assign supercomputers every ten years (based on the most recent census data) to redistrict to a map generated with the shortest possible district boundaries (i.e., the most compact possible districts), keeping precincts together. I'm pretty sure this would have the refreshing effect of radically changing districts every ten years, keeping everyone on their toes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm pretty sure he copied it from somewhere. I didn't read it close, but I didn't see any typos. I'm going to say it's a cut and paste.

Actually - I wrote it. But am using it somewhere else. Just thought I would post it here also.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am anti-gerrymandering. I think the best way to resolve the problem would be to assign supercomputers every ten years (based on the most recent census data) to redistrict to a map generated with the shortest possible district boundaries (i.e., the most compact possible districts), keeping precincts together.

2. Do we need to redo precincts?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
2. Do we need to redo precincts?

I was thinking that you gots to stop somewhere, but OK.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was thinking that you gots to stop somewhere, but OK.

Maybe 1st time around, do it keeping exisgting precincts whole.

There is an actual problem with not having minority representation this way, but I guess we would see how it panned out.