Hello.
Yet again I have done my civic duty and have voted. This time I thought I would do something a
bit different and post how I voted and why I voted the way I did. Now I am not going to reveal EVERY vote,
since most are minor and just frankly are boring as all get out (West Electoral
District Judge Position No. 1 anyone?).
So Let's begin.
-President of the United States: Michael Scott Robinson (write-in)
For me a no-brainer.
I am personally not a big fan of either candidate. As people I have no problem with them, I just
find them to be same sides of the same coin- both Party men. And because of the Electoral College my
choice is not a big deal in the state I live in. You see, Washington State
has not gone Republican for a President since 1984. So if I liked the Republican candidate, my
vote would be lost. And if I liked the
Democrat running, I would just be part of the normal Blue deluge. So I decided that if I am going to 'throw
away my vote', why not to someone I completely trust?
-United
States Senator: Maria Cantwell
Unlike her fellow Senator Patty Murray, Maria has not really
done anything boneheaded during her time in office. I am sure Maria's competition is a fine
politician, in this case I prefer the Devil I know.
-U.S.
Representative Congressional District No. 7:
Ron Bemis
I can not stand Jim McDermott. He is an embarrassment of a politician, but
that's not the reason I refuse to vote for him.
The reason I won't will probably not make much sense to those who have
never been in the military.
To his credit, Jim DID serve in the military during the
60s-70s. So he served while the Vietnam
war was going on. The problem is he has
been caught NUMEROUS times claiming he served IN the Vietnam War, inferring
that he served overseas there. He got no
further than California. This act is one of the biggest acts of
disrespect a veteran can do to another.
It's like me saying I served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I did not.
I was active during that time and I did serve during it, but I never got
further than Virginia. If I said differently, it would be a slap in
the face of those who did go over there and fought, bled, and died there. McDermott is like the one private that was in
my Guard unit when I came back to Washington. Technically I could have added the Desert
Shield/Desert Storm ribbon to my Class A uniform, but I wouldn't. The other private did. He was shunned by everyone for that act,
since he was the only one in our unit who did.
-Governor: Rob
McKenna
The funny thing? If
Rob lived just about ANYWHERE else than the West Coast, he would be considered
a Democrat. Even his joining the lawsuit
against 'Obamacare' was because of the possibly unconstitutionality of the
'fine' that would be levied for those without health insurance. You notice he now more or less agrees with it
when the Supreme Court deemed that the only way the 'fine' could be
constitutional was if it was actually a 'tax'?
My impression is of a man who wants what's best for the people of our
state, unlike his opponent, who throughout his career has pretty much just
seeking power.
Jay Inslee is EVERYTHING I hate about politicians. He puts the Party over the People, and just
wants the power and prestige that comes from higher office. I wish the Youtube video was still available
where, during a debate with his opponent 2 years ago, was asked point blank if
he would be running for Governor, since Gregoire has said she would not seek a
third term. Now if you followed the
history of Jay Inslee, you knew the answer.
He failed to get the nomination in the past (he lost to Gary Locke) and
everything he had done since that defeat was to get the position. So how did he answer? He lied.
He told his constituents he was going to give his all as their
congressman and that running for Governor was the LAST thing on his mind. Cut to a year later...
For the rest of the state offices, I basically alternated
between the two Parties, putting the Party I thought would be a better fit for
the office. For example, I voted to have
Brad Owens back as Lieutenant Governor and James Wilkins as State Auditor- a
Democrat and a Republican respectively.
Initiative 1185: Yes
This is the 2/3 approval for tax increases provision. I believe that if the state truly needs a tax
increase, you should easily be able to gather 2/3 of the votes needed to pass
it. The last time we DIDN'T have this
law in place, the State went crazy with tax hikes, and then as insult to injury
slapped EVERY one with an 'emergency' clause, making it so they couldn't go to
a referendum vote of the People. (Thank
you, Gregoire...)
Initiative 1240: Yes
The charter schools initiative. My reason for approving this falls directly
at the feet of the WEA. While I believe
most teachers are good and care about the students, the WEA does not.
EVERY year one of our school districts goes on strike,
officially because it's 'for the children'. Yet even if they are given everything they
ask for except the money, unless the pay hike is include, they say no. For the children indeed. Also, on a slight tangent, they are the ONLY
industry that can strike and not suffer for it.
They still get their full pay, since the government won't shorten the
school year.
This initiative will add something desperately needed: competition.
If the WEA realizes they are no longer the game in town, they might
actually start working harder for the kids to prove they are worth the cash we
always seem to throw at them.
Initiative 502: yes.
Ah, the pot initiative.
A no-brainer to me. Legalize it,
tax it, and reap the benefits.
Legalizing it helps eliminate one of the biggest drains on the economies
of ALL levels of Government: The War on
Drugs. You legalize it, it becomes
cheaper to purchase and the drug trafficking will greatly diminish. Do I realize this is mostly symbolic? Yes, I know Federal law will still trump
State laws. But it is like the next vote
I made: if enough states follow suit
eventually the nation will come around.
Referendum 74: yes.
Gay marriage. A hot
topic at the moment. While I would
prefer that the Government would choose my idea of how to solve this problem
(I.E. get the Government to stop issuing Marriage licenses and instead issue
everyone Civil Union licenses. If a
person wants marriage, they can go to the religious institution of their choice
to do so, but that is not recognized by the Government. People currently married are grandfathered
in. This idea also removes the
potentially sticky subject of the First Amendment conflict of the separation of
Church and State (Although I know that is not what the First Amendment ACTUALLY
says, it fits.).) this will work. While
I understand the concerns of the people of religious backgrounds, I think it is
time to let this happen.
So there you go. If
you want to let me know what you feel about my choices, let me know. But I will give you 2 warnings:
1. Keep it
civil. This IS my site and my
thoughts. I like being challenged, but
not insulted. And if you ARE going to
challenge me then-
2: Party talking
points are NOT tolerated. NO 'War on Women', NO 'Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve', NO 'Tax the Rich', NO 'Death Panels' etc. Think for
yourself, people. You are better than
what the Parties think of you...
