Part-Time Pundit: Elections Archives

August 16, 2006

Wictory Wednesday Presents Tom Kean for US Senate

This week, Wictory Wednesday present Thomas Kean for the US Senate for the state of New Jersey. Tom is a known conservative supporting sound economic and political policies that will keep America going in the right direction.

Much has been said about the "culture of corruption" that permeates both parties nationally as well as in New Jersey. Recently, the New Jersey Attorney General resigned over ethical violations. Kean is no stranger to the destruction a corrupt government causes and is committed to the cause of reform to clean up not only corrupt politicans, but wasteful bureaucratic spending and expansive government agencies.

Kean understands that funding education is essential but that it must come with accountability. Projects and organizations that are achieving results should be funded and expanded. Bureaucracies and programs that are failing students and parents should be defunded and discarded. Throwing money at a problem without taking the time to ensure results just wastes money and condemns American youth to second-class status in the global economy.

As a supporter of lower taxes, Kean understands that this must come with lower spending. While the economy is growing and reducing the impact that the budget deficit has on the economy, much greater gains would be made if wasteful spending never took place to begin with. Ending absurd taxes such as the marriage penalty and the ever-expansive alternative minumum tax would not shackle the middle class. The best way to create jobs is to keep the cost of running and expanding businesses economical.

Kean would be a solid voice for conservative values in the United States Senate where it seems to be needed the most. Please consider contributing to the Kean campaign.

This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:

Posted by John Bambenek at 9:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 3, 2006

A Case of Double Standards

Compare and contrast these two cases:

The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.

The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.

What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.

The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.

Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.

So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.

In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.

It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.

Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.

Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2006

Wictory Wednesday: Doug Lamborn for Congress

This week Wictory Wednesday presents Doug Lamborn for Congress for the 5th District of Colorado.

Doug Lamborn is a solid conservative with a history of fiscal restraint. He supports reforming education to give more choices to parents instead of dumping more money into a bloated bureaucracy. He believes there should be little to no federal role in education as those decision should be best left up to local areas to determine their own needs. Education is the absolute key to continued economic development and sustainability and it is clear that school choice will once again produce schools and students who are representative of the greatness of this nation.

Senator Lamborn understands that the problem with health care in the United States is not because the government isn't in charge, but because the government has skewed the incentive system away from consumers. The solution isn't to remove the consumer even farther from the equation, but to put the consumer square in the middle and allow them to make flexible choices for their own health care.

The use of eminent domain to take property from the disenfranchised and give it to the enfranchised has left those on all parts of the political spectrum a sense of fear. It was only a matter of time when the Court gave local governments the right to kick people out of their homes that those governments would stop paying fair market value for the properties they seized. Senator Lamborn understands private property rights as a foundational aspect of our society, government, and nation. Our freedoms are not something granted by the government out if its magnimity, but these are rights inherent in our society that the government is not free to intrude upon.

Senator Lamborn has won endorsements from the NRA, the National Pro-Life Alliance, and the Club for Growth as well as many other conservative endorsements. Please consider helping Doug Lamborn win in November by contributing or volunteering for his campaign.

Posted by John Bambenek at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2006

DI Column Up: How to End Catch-22 Voting

My latest column is up over at the DI. Basically on why Illinois needs an open primary system.

Column: How to end Catch-22 voting
John Bambenek
Posted: 7/21/06
Is anyone truly happy with their parties' candidate for governor this year? Both Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have approval ratings that rival the president's for the gutter. How these unpopular candidates got on the ballot deserves a good look. What's more disturbing is that the only difference between the candidates is the letter after their name. They are almost identical when it comes to policy and they are both just about as transparently corrupt.

One of the biggest reasons that low quality candidates end up on the ballot is because of the low turnout for primaries. Primary elections require voters to pick what party they belong to, then vote for which candidate should represent their party during the November elections. The problem is that most voters don't consider themselves as belonging to a political party.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that once you declare which party you are voting for, that fact becomes a public record. Some people do not vote in primaries for fear of public reprisal for picking up a ballot for an unpopular party. Others don't want to be harassed by that party for donations. The principle of private voting is violated by the primary system.

The result is that only the party-faithful vote in large enough numbers to matter during a primary, which generally means the party ends up anointing the victor before the election even takes place. Most Republicans despise Topinka, but her victory was a forgone conclusion, so they didn't bother.

The second problem is that there are only two parties to choice from. While third parties can get on the ballot, the system makes it much harder for them to do so. Many Democrats aren't fond of Blagojevich (or Governor Smith if you prefer) but they feared if they split ranks with him, they'd lose control in 2006. Party over principle.

While Topinka may be despised, she was viewed as the only "electable" candidate. As a result, the parties held their nose and picked those candidates, and now the voters get to choose between corrupt candidate A or corrupt candidate B.

Some view the solution as having a viable third party. The result, in a state that has brought political corruption to an art form, would likely be having three despised candidates to choose from. Having easy ballot access for third parties and independents is nevertheless a good step.

The solution begins with an open primary where voters can pick from the entire field of candidates regardless of party. This would keep what happens in the ballot box private and alleviate the concerns of those who don't want to show their political cards. Political party membership had relevancy about 50 years ago. It has no real practical implications anymore.

An open primary would allow candidates to have relatively free access to the ballot and with increased participation that would likely follow, two truly representative candidates would be chosen to compete against each other in November. Voters should never have to face the choice between bad and worse in general elections.

Posted by John Bambenek at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 26, 2006

Wictory Wednesday has Returned!!

Wictory Wednesday has returned! It is a once-a-week event where hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to support a Republican candidate by donating to their campaign (or at least blogging about them). After over a year break, I've taken the initiative to set it back up and put it together again. 2006 is a big election year and now is the time to assert the influence of the grass roots (or the "connected" will assert it for us).

Each Wednesday, I will send out the "default" candidate to support for that week. Since we aren't Democrats or liberals, you are free to change the candidate and support someone else of your own choice. We like free-thinkers here. All we ask is that you support some candidate on Wednesday and help advance the ideas we hold dear.

If you wish to participate in Wictory Wednesday which will begin on May 31st, 2006 (incidently my birthday), please send an e-mail to jcb.blog (at) gmail.com with your blog name, blog URL, and add the following blogroll code to your site (optional). If you don't post the full blogroll, a link to this post with some advertisement for Wictory Wednesday is appreciated.