Endorsements

Tomorrow, my wife and I are planning to get and cast our absentee ballots for the November election.  Although Connecticut is stuck in the 19th century and restricts legal access to absentee status, we are eligible as I will be out of town on business on election day, and my wife is disabled.

On a whim, I popped over to the Connecticut Secretary of State’s official candidate list…and I noticed that there are only three pairs of names to choose from:  McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden, and Nader/Gonzales.  Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney didn’t qualify.

Apparently this is actually old news which I missed during a “fun” September at the office.  Some discussion at Ballot Access News provides a bit of the backstory (which also fuels my disappointment with the Libertarian Party of Connecticut), and there is apparently a lawsuit ongoing to get Barr onto the ballot at the last minute.  (BAN story here).

But that effort is too late for us absentee voters.

So, for the Presidential race, that leaves me with an interesting decision:

• Barring major scandal, Connecticut will strongly go for Obama; my vote is unlikely to impact the outcome.
   
• In a vacuum, I actually do prefer Obama to McCain.  If it’s real, Obama’s optimism and his call for personal responsibility in addition to government change appeal to me more than McCain’s maverickness.  However…
   
• I strongly dislike the notion of one party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, especially when one party could pass the magic 60-seat threshold in the Senate.   I don’t dislike McCain or Palin enough to not believe that they could be acceptable foils to Congressional Dems.  Heck, when he isn’t pandering the the religious-conservative wing of the GOP, McCain can be an effective foil of Congressional Republicans!  The President doesn’t operate in a vacuum; the responsibilities of acting as a check and balance on the Legislative Branch are in my mind the most important duties of the President.
   
• Previously, I’ve said that when a race isn’t close, I will generally vote for the leading third party candidate.  That would argue for a Nader vote.  But…
   
• This time around (and last time, as well) Nader strikes me as more nut than reformer, and I feel I ought to make an exception to my third party rule due to the nuttiness.
   
• When all else fails, I could leave the Presidential line blank, as a proxy for the missing “none of the above” option.

I think I’ll have to break out the die-rolling software on my iPhone to make the decision – roll a d4, 1=Obama, 2=McCain, 3=Nader, 4=Blank.   After all, this vote won’t impact the outcome, and there are good reasons for/against any choice I would make.  When all else fails, use of a random number generator is appropriate.

I would have voted for Barr if he were on the ballot…or Bloomberg if he had run.

For the other races on the ballot, my vote will be easier to cast:

• Connecticut 1st Congressional District: Fournier (Green), as a third-party/throw-the-bums-out protest vote.  Larson (D) is the incumbent and will win handily, however.
   
• 61st Connecticut State House District: Conway (D/WFP), on the WFP line, partly for third party support, and partly because he actually did stop by the house while campaigning.  He may end up being part of a veto-proof majority at the Capitol, but door-to-door campaigning is to be rewarded, I think.   (Fahrbach (R), the incumbent, is not running for re-election.)
   
• 7th Connecticut State Senate District: Kissel (R/WFP), on the WFP line.  Yes, he’s an incumbent, but I’ll vote for him to support a third party and against the D veto-proof majority.  
   
• Bidecadal Constitutional Convention question: YES.  True, most of the folks campaigning for a ConCon call are seeking to ban gay marriage by creating a ballot initiative process, and that’s not a motive I support.  However, on principle I support the notion of taking a measured look at the law of the land periodically.  Nothing says that a ConCon would pass a ballot initiative, and presumably other tweaks could be suggested and discussed.

Oh, and lest anyone get the wrong impression from the above – no, I’m not a Green or a Working Families Party supporter.  I disagree with their positions more often than not.  However, given the lack of a viable libertarian or centrist party in the state, and my general dislike of both the major parties, these should be considered strategic protest votes.

With the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday, I thought I’d go ahead and make my endorsements for the primaries. (I’ll apologize for my brevity here, since I’m writing this just before making an evening visit to check on our dog at the animal hospital.

Republicans

1. Ron Paul gets my nod, if only because it would be hypocritical for me to not put him at the top of my list, when I’m planning to vote for him in February. I disagree with many of his views, or find them just plain nutty, but the fundamental concept of practicing fiscal responsibility with government funds while protecting individuals’ liberties is a combination that is sadly too lacking among today’s leaders. I’d like to see Dr. Paul continue to attract some media attention if only to remind others that it’s OK to want the government to manage its books better while leaving us the heck alone. Thus, I’ll do my part to help his poll numbers along.
    
2. My second-choice among the GOPers would almost have to be determined by rolling a die. I think most of them are likely to be able administrators and many of them would likely be adequate foils against the excesses of a Democratic congress. I appreciate McCain’s willingness to stick to his guns even when they’re unpopular. I’m still somewhat enamored by the idea of having someone with a “nice guy” image in the White House, even though my prior fondness for Huckabee has come back to reality. And, I appreciate some of the fiscal discipline exercised by Romney in Massachusetts even if he reeks so badly of spoiled politician. So, if you can’t bring yourself to cast a protest vote for Paul…well, I think the die roll method will probably be not much better or worse than selecting any one of the other candidates.

Democrats

1. Among the Dems, Chris Dodd is the candidate I’m most inclined to like, for the balance of seeming realistic (at least about things other than his own candidacy), his experience, and his stances on privacy and technology issues. He does, however, also suffer from the stink that seems common among many politicians. And, given his lack of support, he’s probably not a viable nominee for President. However, unlike the GOP field, among the Dems I do find a reasonable second choice.
    
2. Barak Obama is my clear second choice among the Dems. I worry about his inexperience, and I wonder how much of his “crossing the aisle” spiel is act rather than reality…but among the viable candidates, he is clearly the least of the evils from my viewpoint. I can’t support Edwards for his campaign tactic of demonizing the insurance industry (not to mention his being a trial lawyer). And Hillary…although she’s an impressive candidate, whom I suspect would be a more able administrator than her husband was…I can’t get over the fact that I think it’s dangerous to throw support to Hillary because we liked the world her husband reigned in, given that some analogous thinking is how we we got saddled with Bush 43.

So, I don’t know if any of this that I’ve written will influence an Iowa caucus-goer or a New Hampshire voter…but on the off chance you fall into either category, perhaps those comments will provide some food for thought.