A Stitch in Haste

First, some disclaimers:

--I always "vote," in the sense that I always show up at my polling place, voter registration card in hand. I sign in, go into a booth, draw the curtain, admire the democratic process, maybe flip some levers, and walk out.

--I live in a Blue State. In fact, I live in the bluest borough of the bluest city in one of the bluest states in the country. So I'm extremely comfortable in voting my conscience (i.e., if anybody's vote doesn't count, it's mine).

--I only ever vote for President, Senator, Governor and Mayor, and on bond issues and referenda. Never for lesser offices (including the House), and also never for judges.

The candidates:

First, I dismissed John Kerry's campaign for president yesterday (twice, in fact). He would be Carter II, both in economics and foreign policy. Everything good about the Bush Administration would be slowed or stopped; little if anything bad about the Bush Administration would be changed. His total brain-death on the Social Security crisis, his hostility toward business and the successful, his presumptuous apathy toward gay marriage, and even his dingbat wife and his worse-than-Quayle running mate, all honestly make me question -- seriously question -- the competence of anyone who would vote for him. Stay at home if you must, but please do not vote for this man.

(SIDEBAR: Notice I didn't use the V-word. That's how it should have been all along. I give him neither credit for his record nor demerits for the questions surrounding it. I just don't care.)

Next, Badnarik. I have only word for him: nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

Now, as for President Bush:

The President has done many things right. He has been absolutely 100% correct on the War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan and the (entirely proper and justified) invasion of Iraq. To the extent he is able to implement any part of his "Ownership Society," and especially any move toward individual Social Security accounts in a second term, so much the better.

Bush has, however, been less than successful in other areas: the reconstruction of Iraq is a borderline failure and is worsening. I also have ongoing concerns about civil liberties, the PATRIOT Act, free speech zones, etc., in a second Bush term.

I am deeply concerned about his potential to nominate at least one, probably three, and perhaps even more Supreme Court justices. He will almost certainly appoint the next Chief Justice. And yes, I do have some minor concerns about his overall intellectual ability, which I used to discount by turning to the competency of his senior advisors. The only problem is that now I'm having concerns about their intellectual ability too. Hopefully there will be some resignations and realignments in the next term (this is not a president who fires people -- he's not even a president who vetoes anything).

All the above are essentially a wash, so I must now turn to the President's naked failures:

1. Protectionism -- Bad enough on its face, but when it's done as a brazen boondoggle to buy votes in key states, it's all the more shameful. Steel, shrimp, socks, etc. Just plain wrong.

2. Budgetary Drunken Sailor Syndrome -- Who needs Hillarycare when you have President Bush? Just the notion of a prescription drug benefit under Medicare would be enough to issue a major ding to Bush's report card, but there was so much more.

SIDEBAR: The deficit, by itself, is of little concern to me. Yes I'd like to see a balanced budget, but not by the burden of higher taxes. In that sense I'm a Greenspanian (and a true libertarian) -- the best of all possible worlds is one with low taxes, low spending and balanced budgets. The President of course did the right thing by cutting taxes. If spending had been kept in check, with increased deficits the result, I would not have been very upset. But the total lack of interest in even discussing keeping federal spending in check will set a regrettable precedent for the future. This is 21st Century Republicanism? If so, then I want no part of it.

3. Federal Marriage Amendment -- You don't advocate naked bigotry just to issue a hat-tip to part of your base. I have little more to say on the issue that I have not already said before.

So, netting it all out: I could forgive the President for any one of those three major failures (yes, probably even FMA). Given the apocalyptic potential of a Kerry administration, I might even be able to forgive #1 and #2 (but not #3 coupled with with either #1 or #2). But all three?

Mr. President, you once owned a baseball team: that's three strikes...and you're out.

Some might argue that I'm scoring the election "Bush 0, Kerry -1" and ask how that's different from "Bush 1, Kerry 0" (i.e., a vote for Bush). And in a sense it isn't different, except for the "mandate" factor (i.e., one less vote for Bush to invoke). And of course there's always the question of my conscience, which is the only reason one really votes anyway.

Yes, I might prefer Bush over Kerry, in the same way I might "prefer" being deaf to being blind. But that doesn't mean I have to shove an awl in my ear.


New York State Senate Race:

As for the Senate race, I would have much preferred the very libertarian-sounding Michael Benjamin as the Republican candidate (I hope we see more of him in the future). Why is this man not the Libertarian candidate for President? Why is he not even a large-L Libertarian? (Answer: Probably for the same reason I'm not.)

Still, I feel comfortable endorsing the winner of the Republican machine's back-room processes -- Howard Mills. He says all the libertarian things one used to expect from Republicans, including fiscal restraint. Although he opposes gay marriage, he supports civil unions and opposed FMA (opting for the "it's a state-by-state issue" cop-out) -- unfortunate perhaps, but better than Bush.

Other sorry excuses candidates include a 74-year-old Libertarian math professor who's running solely on drug decriminalization, a mentally unstable crook, a communist, an ex-socialist who has been demoted to the Green Party, and a female Pat Buchanan. In other words: ick, yuk, blech, barf, and gimme-a-break.

Now can we please get this over with so I can focus on the 2005 Mayor's race?

MAYOR, NEW YORK CITY:

Since the two leading candidates for Mayor of New York are both lifelong liberal Democrats who have no inspiring vision of the city and no agenda except to raise taxes, raise spending, raise entitlements, raise municipal employment, pander to every union within earshot and huff-and-puff about the public school system while doing nothing substantial about it, there's really no basis for preferring one over the other. No endorsement.

A sampling of my past posts about Mayor Bloomberg here.

There is a Big-L Libertarian running for mayor. Her major claim to fame, however, is the very un-libertarian advocacy of "smokers' rights." There is, of course, no such thing as "smokers' rights," only property rights -- see this related post.

If anything, I'd be more inclined to give a protest vote for the candidate from -- I am not making this up -- the Rent is Too Damn High Party. When in a socialist dystopia, do as the dystopian socialists do.

PUBLIC ADVOCATE, NEW YORK CITY:

I only ever vote, if I vote at all, for President, Senator, Governor and Mayor. But of all the unimportant local hack politician jobs out there, none is hackier than New York City's Public Advocate. The Public Advocate has no power whatsoever, and her primary duty is to make speeches and hold press conferences (and to collect a $150,000 annual salary in the process). No endorsement.

I only mention the race at all because another Big-L Libertarian is running for the office. Which just goes to show how pathetic and decrepit the Big-L Libertarian Party has become. Since when do "libertarians" run for what may be the most-unlibertarian political office in the country?

(FUN FACT: Bernie Goetz -- yes, that Bernie Goetz, is also running for Public Advocate.)

PROPOSITION ONE (NEW YORK STATE):

Politically literate residents of New York State know that Albany is essentially a sort of quasi-imperial triumvirate, with all power concentrated in three people: the Governor, the State Assembly Speaker and the Majority Leader of the State Senate. New Yorkers also know that the Gang of Three has not been able to agree on a state budget before the mandated deadline in 20 of the past 21 years.

Proposition One proposes to "fix" this problem by cutting the Governor out of the budget loop whenever the budget deadline is missed, thereby turning the triumvirate into a diarchy. For supporters of this bizarre proposition, the answer to excessively concentrated power is apparently to concentrate it even further. Brilliant.

The only sane option is to vote "NO" on the atrocious and absurd proposition, if for no other reason than to have more confidence in gridlock than in politicians.

PROPOSITION TWO (NEW YORK STATE):

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, coming off an "unexpected" billion-dollar surplus, now wants to borrow, together with the Department of Transportation, an additional $2.9 billion for "infrastructure improvements."

In theory, capital projects should indeed be financed by long-term borrowing and such a bond issue would be no big deal.

But this is New York, the most heavily indebted state in the country and fifth-highest on a per-capita basis, at about $2,600 for every man, woman and child in the state.

The bond issue will NOT guarantee a Second Avenue Subway or a "JFK to Grand Central" rail link. It will, however, be a "mini-me" version of the recent embarrassingly pork-laden federal transportation spending bill, with plenty of handouts for gobbledygook like "bicycle trails" and "pedestrian pathways."

Fifty billion dollars in state debt is enough. The correct vote is of course "NO".

[No position on Proposition Three.]

PROPOSITION FOUR (NEW YORK CITY):

After the New York City fiscal crisis of 1974-75, the City was subjected to a state law that essentially requires it to have a balanced budget. That state law is set to expire in 2008. Proposition Four would amend the City Charter to impose the same balanced-budget requirement after the state law expires. This is obviously a good idea, one that at least slows down the runaway tax-and-spend mania gripping the city's hack politicians. The correct vote is of course "YES."

As in years past I am not endorsing any candidates for any offices.

I will, however, make two anti-endorsements:

1. Vote for anyone — anyone — other than Hillary Clinton, who not only has sold out gays at every turn but is also a carpetbagger who refuses to serve out a full term.

2. Vote for anyone — anyone — other than Alan Hevesi, who is just too contemptible, even by New York politician standards.

---

All I need to be content tomorrow night (or whenever) will be three things:

1. The defeat of Rick Santorum.

2. The defeat of George Allen.

3. The defeat of one bigot amendment. Just one.

So far the odds are looking good that I will be content.

---

Regarding the notion of "Don't vote for Democrats — vote for gridlock!" I think that it is a perfectly rational choice for libertarian voters to make. Just be careful what you wish for: If the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate, and then a Democrat is elected president in 2008, then there goes your gridlock right out the window. I am instead hoping for a Democratic House coupled with with my previously hypothesized 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, but with three of the 52 Republicans being the incumbent New England liberals, which would still kill the radical social conservative agenda without the risk of a unified Democratic Washington down the road.

---

"All politics is local."

If that was ever really true, it certainly isn't now. Given the abundance of rubber-stamp incumbent Republicans in Congress, it is wholly legitimate to regard this election — at least in the several races where the incumbent has a 90% or more "vote with Bush" record — as a referendum on President Bush and the Iraq War — which incidentally is now at 2,836 American soldiers dead and $340 billion in taxes and debt.