Gary Tutin for Assembly


Election Rundown
Vote With Care

by Gary Tutin


My father turned 90 years old in September. In the past, when I've gotten excited about an upcoming election, he said something wise. It won't matter. "Nothing will change."

Dad based that observation on surviving numerous elections and their results. He was right, if you subscribe to the view below ["TWO ARE ONE"] that the two parties are nearly identical. You can make the case that they differ, but that requires more creativity than intellectual honesty. So, if the Republicans have a resounding victory on Tuesday, it will be a condemnation of the last two years in Washington that will change little.

Politicians never change. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD & Chairman of the DCCC) on "Fox News Sunday" would not concede that his party is about to be trounced, reiterating their latest talking points:

  • voters are having second thoughts about returning Republicans with their "special interests"
    governance and "secret" campaign contributions.

  • they won't return the party that got us into this mess.
While polls indicate otherwise, both arguments are prima facie fantasy. Sure Republicans helped special-interest contributors, which makes them just like Democrats. Saying Republicans created the financial mess is one of those statements that demagogues believe will become true if they keep repeating it. Again, Republicans bear responsibility, but so do Democrats in Congress, notably Barney Frank, who said he wanted to "roll the dice" on Fannie and Freddie. Here he is in 2005 assuring America that there is no problem with the housing market.

It's nothing like the "Dot.Com bubble," right Barney?!

The Sunday San Mateo newspaper, or what's left of it, leads 31 November with an editorial supporting Jerry Brown again. It's "obvious." Papers around the state display their diversity: L.A. Daily News, the "only choice"; Merced Sun-Star, "clear choice"; Oakland Tribune, "Better choice."

I like Jerry Brown, thought he was a good governor back in the disco era. But his father was governor, Jerry has been in politics all his life and is now 72. Should we expect him to be equal to Jerry Brown at 42? I guess if you believed Barrack Obama would change Washington, you can believe anything. Whitman is only 54. Not sure how old Dale Ogden is, but Libertarians are ageless.

Don Bachardy drawing of a younger Jerry Brown

Here's a surprise, they support Boxer for Senate. Again. Barbara Boxer is fighting for her job because at 69 she'll be unemployable if she loses, or be forced to write another novel. I'm kidding. She will get a judgeship or something. In France, she would retire. In France, she'd fit right in with their politicians.

The paper mentions Carly Fiorina, whose "positions are so far right they make Boxer look moderate." The writer got so carried away, he forgot that makes Boxer sound like a radical leftist, which she is. Fiorina was an advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign. How far right could she be? They ignore Gail Lightfoot, the Libertarian.

Cailfornia papers, many of which are owned by the same company, follow the Democratic Party line. As I've mentioned, they do not even run letters describing with opposing views. Or maybe I'm the only one who disagrees [see: "Say No to Speier"] with them.

One thing the anti-incumbents have going for them is anger. Americans are pissed off at how the ruling party have driven the country and the state into the ground. Those are the likeliest voters. Clueless persons have no reason to go out of their way to vote, and you must be clueless to keep electing failed politicians because of their party affiliation. Or maybe Californians are accustomed to disaster (earthquakes, floods, mudslides, explosions), so they take Sacramento in stride. [Prediction: After the election, PG&E will make amends (campaign contributions) for the San Bruno disaster and it will be forgotten by the Democrats.]

The Economist for Halloween got it right on their cover: Angry America. I subscribe to this newspaper because of their worldwide view. I've discovered that they are also rabidly liberal. Americans are angry with Obama's policy and his administration. We like him, we hate what he's done to the country.

"To centrists [?] who backed him, including this newspaper, he has been a disappointment, his skills as a president falling far short of his genius as a campaigner." The problem they almost finger is that Obama is only effective speaking in generalities. He tried for months to sell his health entitlement legislation, yet the more he spoke the more unpopular it became. Now it is hard to ignore his public loathing of opponents and his promotion of racial and divisive politics.

The Economist call the rage directed at the President "overdone." After all, they argue, he deserves credit for preventing a worse financial disaster than occurred. Americans are not buying that, maybe because they have no credit. Throwing money at a bad economy did not work for George W Bush. Neither did it work for Obama. As predicted, because it never does.

Stimulus Bill Fact:

72,000 checks went to dead people. If you are alive, you're probably wondering where your check is.
In the mail, I'm sure.

They say Obama got some things right, like trying to "deal with a dreadful system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without access to health cover." Too bad his solution was worse than the problem. Costs are not controlled, millions still have no coverage and, despite assurances to the contrary, many Americans will not get to keep their present coverage or doctor. Oops.

They like his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't. Those who approve of the wars do not like the president's constant belittling of the United States all over the world.

They attribute his refusal to invite the Republicans into the legislative process to inexperience. In the USA, it is obvious Obama has only paid lip-service to including Republicans. He did not need them, so he ignored them, just as he ignored the Tea Parties and anyone pointing out the shortcomings of his imperial plans. The Economist describe "a health bill that imposes onerous requirements on business and a stimulus bill larded with pro-union giveaways." And they support him!

They conclude by saying America "still has a talented president who can surely do better than he has thus far." True enough, but that is not a challenging goal.

Obama ran on "change," yet the only change that seems attractive now is a return to the old failed policies.

tutin button 2010 Gary Tutin, 10/31/10



The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.

Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.

— Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

NY supports GT

LEFT ARROW - return to home page Vote Libertarian or regret it later.