Thursday, April 24, 2008

Indiana Primary Dilemma

OK, so it's no dilemma for those who refrain from participating in Primary Elections on the basis of these elections essentially being the private business of the political parties, and not a genuine public function. The basis for this position in some areas?

All Indiana primaries are closed primaries. This means you have to choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot. For instance, there is no Libertarian ballot. There is no independent or non-partisan ballot. The "offices" being voted on include Precinct Committeeman and Delegate to the Party Convention. Primary info from the Secretary of State's office.

But, some areas will have non-partisan school board races, and fewer still will have local issues. If you object to our Primaries on the basis of it being publicly funded private function, be certain that these two items are not on your ballot before resolutely staying home. If these are on your ballot, and you don't care to vote in the D or R Primary, ask for "a school board ballot".

Normally, my primary voting goes like this: I walk into the polling place. I find my precinct station. I ask the volunteer if there is a Libertarian ballot knowing full well that there isn't. When the volunteer advises me that there is only a Democratic or Republican ballot, I say 'thank you,' I sign the book, and I leave. The volunteer says, 'Don't you want to vote?' and I reply, 'I just did in the only way I can that represents my views'.

Some Libertarians will face a different dilemma this year, because they want to cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to representing our views. A problem arises for those who take the letter of the law seriously. The law reads:
IC 3-10-1-6Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6.

There is great temptation for many Libertarians to vote in the Republican Primary. It isn't because they are eager to cast votes for a slate of Republicans in the November General Election. It is so they can cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to our views.

Chances are great that the partisan Libertarians don't qualify to take a partisan D or R Primary Ballot, for either or both of the clauses found in the law above.

Come November, most Libertarians are going to want to cast votes for as many Libertarians as are on the ballot, perhaps one or two Democrats, one or two Republicans, and more likely, have a whole bunch of blanks because you can't vote None Of The Above.

As for me, I will not cross over and take a Republican ballot. I did support Ron Paul's campaign and wish him well, but the coronation of McCain is complete, and my one vote in favor of Paul has no meaning. In fact, it would be worse. It would signal a willingness to vote Republican, which I am utterly unwilling to do. With the marginalization of Paul, the Republican Party has further reinforced its disinterest in general liberty and limited government, so I'm not going to give them my vote, only because I think Democrats are slightly worse. I'll vote as I always have- go in, sign the book, leave.

Side note: Did you know that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are still on the Indiana Primary Ballot? It's true. Link.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Double Negative

The Kole household received two mailings today- one from Hillary Clinton, one from Barack Obama. Let's break them down.

Obama: I was briefly fooled by this one. The cover shows Hillary Clinton smiling, with a microphone. I thought it was a Clinton piece, until I read the text: "When the chips are down and we need her most, can we really count on Hillary Clinton to stand up for Indiana jobs?"

You see where this is headed. "We can't trust Hillary Clinton to protect Indiana jobs." The proof? A cover of Fortune Magazine, with her face on it and the proclamation "Business Loves Hillary!"

You know, (sarcasm alert) I hate that in a President. I want a President who is hated, no, SCORNED, by business. (sarcasm alert) No good can come from that prosperity nonsense.

What kind of stupidity is Obama trying to sell here? That tried and true stupidity that appeals to losers- protectionism. And worse, it's an attack ad. The campaign could have touted something Obama is for, but his campaign felt the need to promote being against someone instead.

Clinton: Instead of her face (or Obama's) on the cover, Clinton's ad has a multi-cultural group standing beneath the question, "Which of These People Don't Deserve Health Care?"

Normally, I expect this rhetoric from someone playing the race card, so it's curious when offered in opposition to Obama. All the more curious when you consider that you can't tell who doesn't deserve health care by looking at them, as any non-racist should know. You have to know whether or not they've planned and invested properly to manage such costs to cast such judgment.

This is, of course, also an attack ad. In fact, this one doesn't have Clinton's face on it at all, but does have a small smiling picture of Barack Obama. Again, you know who to vote against- not so much who to vote for.

I'm sure these campaigns know what they're doing. They wouldn't go negative if they didn't think it worked. I find such negative advertising perfectly repellent.

I find it a worse mark on Obama, though. I expect negativity and attack from Clinton. Obama had been working so hard to give the imagery, the feeling of positivism. When the chips are down, it comes back to negativity.

I declare them both correct. Niether of their primary opponents are worth voting for. Where does that leave us?

Monday, April 21, 2008

Mitch Daniels Shows True Colors

When defending their party against challenges of fiscal mayhem or outlandish government growth, most Republicans I know quickly slip into their "Party of Reagan" mantra. I can't wait to ask them how they feel to know that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has rebuked Reagan... in favor of John McCain! From the Chicago Examiner:
The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.
I get the desire to be present and beyond nostolgia. Maybe Daniels has just served the wake-up call that those who wanted limited government really are under the wrong tent if they are voting Republican. Elected Republicans have done nothing but grow govenment at every level, post haste, since 1994. It's only self-deception that keeps limited government supporters voting for and contributing to Republicans.

Probably, Daniels told us that for him, the most important thing is that his team wins, regardless of style of play. Forget about substance! Wear that elephant uniform, and win one for the... er...

Update: Rush Limbaugh smacks Daniels down as a 'country club, blue-blood, Rockefeller Republican'. I love the cognitive dissonance this must be causing across our state. From Limbaugh:
Hey, Mitch? Governor? Governor Daniels? Should we get over Lincoln, too? He's in the past. We just gotta go over Lincoln. This is so contrary to conservative thought. For me, on the wrong day, this could be tough to take. We're supposed to learn from our past. We are supposed to build on that which works. This is part of conservative thought! I'll tell you what. Let's just get over the founders. The founders of the country are in the past, too. Let's get over them.

Couldn't have said it better. I'll be happier when Daniels is in the past.