I generally send out an email explaining my votes in California to my less politically astute friends and family. I forgot this election, but a case of insomnia had me up ready to send out the blast in time. Here are my simplified recommendations with my explanations below the flip:
Governor: PHIL ANGELIDAS
US Senator: COLLEN FERNALD
Lt. Governor: JOHN GARAMENDI
Secretary of State: DEBRA BOWEN
Controller: JOE DUNN
Treasurer: BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General: JERRY BROWN
Insurance Commissioner: JOHN KRAFT
Board of Equalization (4th District): JUDY CHU
Superintendent of Public Instruction: NO VOTE
Prop 81: NO
Prop 82: NO
House races I can't vote in:
CA-36: MARCY WINOGRAD
CA-11: JERRY MCNEARNEY
Explanations....
Governor:
PHIL ANGELIDAS
Westly lost me early on when he attacked Angelidas for being a "big-spending liberal." What the fuck? Is this Alabama or California? If anywhere, California should be the state where progressives are ENCOURAGED to run for statewide office as proud progressives. They shouldn't be attacked using Republican talking-points like "big-spending liberal" by candidates running as moderates in the Democratic Party primary. I'll gladly vote for Angelidas, who isn't afraid to call himself a progressive, who is an aggressive politician lead by conviction (he really was the only guy standing up to Arnold when he was popular) in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY primary in CALIFORNIA! Additionally, Angelidas is more competent. He understands the state budget better than any candidate for governor in a while and has the detailed policy proposals to get the job done. Finally, Phil is due some love. As chairman of the California Democratic Party in the early `90s, he was the driving force in California's conversion from a Republican stronghold (Pete Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, etc.) to its current state as strongly pro-Democratic. Don't pay attention to that negative campaign ad by Westly accusing Angelidas of being bad on the environment...its B.S. Angelidas is a great environmentalist and pro-smart growth.
U.S. Senator: COLLEEN FERNALD
I don't even know where to begin to explain why I would never vote for Diane Feinstein. There's her vote for the Iraq War, the Bush tax cuts, her support for the chief wiretapper, her opposition to of a fair earned-citizenship...there's so much and she so continually disappoints me that I read her name and expect to be backstabbed.
Colleen Fernald is not a major candidate, but her platform is admirable and a message needs to be sent to politicians like Feinstein, who represent progressive states but seem to go out of their way to say flip-off progressives. Feinstein hasn't done a thing to earn my vote. To do that she'd need to start acting more like California's other Senator, Barbara Boxer. To bad a serious candidate didn't step up to oppose Feinstein.
Lt. Governor: JOHN GARAMENDI
A hard choice. Both Garamendi and Speier are great progressive politicians. Both will run for governor one day. Both have an impressive list of endorsements from progressive organizations. So I've reduced this to asking myself the question, who would be a more formidable candidate against Tom McClintock (the popular super-conservative Republican candidate for Lt. Governor). I think Garamendi has the name-recognition, support, and the resume to wage a better campaign. Also, while I understand the politics of endorsements and their purpose, Speier's frequent use of the fact that Feinstein endorsed her hurt rather than helped her candidacy, at least in my case.
Secretary of State: DEBRA BOWEN
Unlike Ortiz, Debra Bowen has actually devoted her career to strengthening voting rights. (The primary job of the Secretary of State is to administer elections). She'd actually use the office, as she's used her chair of the State Senate Elections Commission to unapologetically and aggressively strengthen voting rights throughout the state. Ortiz is just looking for a title bump.
Controller: JOE DUNN
Both candidates are equally qualified. But Dunn is more passionate progressive with a very bright future.
Treasurer: BILL LOCKYER
He's running unopposed.
Attorney General: JERRY BROWN
Duh!
Insurance Commissioner: JOHN KRAFT
I don't know anything about John Kraft. I know he's not going to win this primary and he'd never win the general election, but Cruz Bustamante is such an inept crooked prick and he has made a joke of his campaign for insurance commissioner, so for the first time in my life I'm going to vote for "the other guy." Just read the Bustamante's written statement where he jokes about his campaign being the impetus for losing weight. But the more egregious offense is the over $100,000 in contributions from insurance companies. That's right, a candidate for INSURANCE COMMISSIONER - the state official in charge of regulating of the industry - taking money from the industry!!! That's to "George Bushian" for me. Initially, I was just going to leave this race blank, but I realized that wouldn't send as big a "FUCK YOU" to Bustamante as actually casting a vote for "the other guy." The Green candidate will get my vote in November.
Board of Equalization (4th District): JUDY CHU
Chu is a qualified, serious candidate, while Horton is a sad politician whose vote is too often up for sale to the highest bidder.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: NO VOTE
Jack O'Connell has done an admirable job, but he's a proud supporter of the high school exit exam. That's enough to not vote for him, but not enough to vote against him.
Prop. 81: NO
First, I'm generally anti-California propositions and anti-unnecessary bonds. Bonds are like loans that have to be paid back, a burden that is going to fall on people like us - the youth who will be around decades from now watching our tax burden increase. They should only be issued when it's absolutely necessary, like when L.A. faces a classroom-overcrowding crisis requiring the LAUSD to build a lot of schools really quickly without bankrupting the city. But now bonds are administered like candy because our current crop of politicians lack the balls or the concern for the future of our state's economy to ask to the citizenry to actually pay for infrastructure improvements they want through tax increases. This proposition exhibits is a perfect example. First the dollar amount: $600 million. We're going to issue a bond for $600 million that's going to cost $1.2 billion to payback, instead of finding $600 million in our existing state budget of $180 billion? That's crazy. Then there's the text of the proposition, which states that the money can only be "matched." This means a city has to first have the money to build a library before it can use any of the bond funds. Basically this means this proposition helps build libraries in affluent and middle class cities, not in the areas where libraries and other extracurricular activities are need most - the poor cities with at-risk children.
Prop. 82: N0
I'm a big supporter of universal preschool, but this proposition finances it by only taxing incomes over $400K (0.06% of the state population). An entire program financed solely by just one terribly small income bracket? That's not smart fiscal policy. If it were a financing proposal no bank would approve the loan. Programs this big and this important need a more diverse and/or larger revenue source, so that it isn't so vulnerable to changes in the economy. The authors of the proposition admit as much, that's why there's a provision that allows the state to impose a "parent tax" in the event of a financial shortfall (when there's not enough money to run the pre-schools).
Then there is the requirement that forces all pre-school teachers to have four-year degree. We can't even find enough college graduates willing to teach K-12, and the cost of obtaining a degree is only getting higher! A better solution would be a well-designed A.A. program (where classes are affordable) in addition to a strict certification exam/program. Most of the rest of the proposition is extremely good, but these bad aspects make it completely unworkable in my opinion. Come back to me with a much more sustainable universal pre-school program.
OTHER IMPORTANT LOCAL RACES:
United State Represenative 36: MARCY WINOGRAD
Current Congresswoman Jane Harman represents a heavily Democratic district (San Pedro to El Segundo), yet she proudly labels herself "Republican's favorite Democrat," aligns herself with the coalition of conservative Democrats, takes loads of corporate money mainly from the defense industry, expressed no reservations about Bush's wiretapping program, and was one of the few members of Congress privy to the flawed intelligence that got us into Iraq, but voted for the war anyway...and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Again, what the fuck? Harman like Feinstein is exactly why America lacks an aggressive Democratic Party to oppose George Bush, his corporate donors and his fake-Christian preacher pimps. The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party begins in districts like these where the Democratic Party must put forward proud progressive voices to be the driving force in a movement for change...for free universal health care...free college...for a fair tax system...for smart foreign policy. Jane Harman and Dianne Feinstein, who represent voters that would easily vote for far more progressive politicians, are barriers not friends to this movement.
Marcy Winograd is a longtime progressive activist who has quickly put together a winning organization. If you live in this district she needs your support.
United States Representative 11: JERRY MCNEARNEY
Jerry McNearney is a proud progressive, experienced campaigner and wind energy expert. His opponent for the Democratic Party nomination literally just changed his registration from Republican to run in the Democratic Party and has spent too much of his campaign bashing progressives. This is a district that leans Democratic yet has a corrupt corporate Republican representing it, Rep. Pombo. McNearney has the organization and the money to take down Pombo. If you live in this district, he needs your vote.