Recently in elections Category

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for. 

In the wake of an election that some people have been anticipating for 8 years, I am accepting the fact that I'm sitting this election out. 

Not voluntarily.

I am currently living in Chicago, Illinois, and requested my absentee ballot way back in September.  In fact, my father even put in an additional request about a month ago.  They received their ballots, and I never received mine.

I called the supervisor of elections in Hillsborough County, Florida, last week.  Which, apparently, was just too late.  They stated that they sent out the ballot a long time ago, and it must be the post office's fault, thank you very much. She informed me that they've been getting a lot of these calls.

She said that she would issue a new ballot.  It is Monday, and I have yet to receive the ballot in the mail.  The mail doesn't come until about 3.  I would have to rapidly fill out my ballot, rush to the post office, and send it overnight.  Since, as the woman told me, the ballot has to be physically in their office on November 4th.

So even if I manage to get home in time from the library, where I am currently working on job and grad school applications, and get to the post office before it closes, it will cost me 16 dollars to theoretically get my ballot into the voting office.

This doesn't even answer the question: what happened to my original ballot that was mailed out by the Supervisor of Elections?  Let's say that someone got this ballot and used it to vote, and sent it in.  What happens when my 16 dollar ballot comes in, and they say, "Well, this person can't vote twice?" Do they throw out both of these ballots? 

I want to know who stole my ballot!  It's not fair.  It's not fair that I might have to pay 16 dollars (when I'm so broke and unemployed) to vote in this election.  It's not my fault that I didn't recieve my ballot.  Why does it have to be in on November 4th? 

Apparently Florida has had one of the largest problems with missing absentee ballots in the country.  I feel robbed of my right to vote.  I might be bitter about this one for years.  I can't believe that people choose not to vote.

I'll never get this vote back.  For the next two, four, eight years, when I am upset about a politician, I won't even be able to say, "I voted for the other guy."  I have become involuntarily apathetic.

Everything...if your name is Senator John McCain. On the 4th of July, while many families were out barbequing and enjoying fireworks and their families, Senator McCain was on the campaign trail... err well...visiting Colombia extoling his support for the US passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and the so-called "benefits" of free trade.

McCain spent time with the Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, playing up his undying support for the dormant Colombia deal, a NAFTA style trade deal that would not only follow in the foot steps of other failed trade deals but also turn a blind eye to a country who carries the title as the union murder capital of the world.  McCain's visit to Colombia came just three weeks after two more Colombian union members were found murdered. Over 2500 union members have been assasinated in Colombia since 1991.

During his visit, McCain poured ridiculous amounts of milk and honey praise for Colombia's drug erradication program Plan Colombia. (McCain must have missed the news in all his hubub in international campaigning)...as his visit came just days after the $5 billion dollar, US-backed program became the epicenter of scrutiny (for once...in corporate media) after a UN report showed that despite the multibillion dollar decade-long effort to eliminate drug production in Colombia, coca crops had increased by 27% in 2007. 

McCain's focus on trade and Colombia isn't too surprising... after undertaking a quick google search on his campaign staff and larger contributers' long time connections in the country. The New York Times reported that McCain's closest confidant, Charlie Black, earned more than $1.8 million representing Occidental Petroleum Corportation, Colombia's leading foreign producer of gas and oil. 

And, as the Huffington Post recently reported, the co-host of one of McCain's top fundraiser's recently plead guilty to paying approximately $1.7 million to a Colombian Paramilitary group -- a designated terrorist group in Colombia, "described by George Washington University's National Security Archive as an "illegal right-wing anti-geurilla group tied to many of the country's most notorious civilian massacres."  

Meanwhile, the list linking McCain's campaign and Colombia trade honestly goes on.... McCain's fundraiser, Kristen Chadwick worked under the Bush Administration working directly on trade issues, promoting the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). She lobbies with the firm of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, whose 2007 revenues were $7.4 million.

The Obama Campaign took no time to reproach McCain's Colombia trip, using it to draw out their ideological differences in trade and the US economy stating,  "Unlike John McCain and George Bush, Obama does not believe that free trade is not the goal in and of itself. The goal is to help Americans prosper and compete in the global market. Barack Obama believes that trade should work for American families. He'll fight for fair trade to help working people prosper." 

Other recent news on this subject:

On Free Trade, Big Differences Between McCain, Obama....
By Sean Mussenden, Media General News Service ....
July 09, 2008 ....
WASHINGTON-Recent international trade deals have given Americans easy access to cheap clothes and DVD players while sending manufacturing jobs in ..North Carolina.., ..Ohio.. and ....Michigan.... overseas.

Free-Trade Era May Be Nearing End Amid Food, Growth Concerns
By Matthew Benjamin and Mark Drajem....
(Bloomberg) -- After six decades of ever-expanding international commerce, the high tide of free trade is ebbing...
....

And for you uber trade junkies: You get a gold star for getting this far down my blog...and below is more of the latest news on Colombia regarding union murders and the failed drug war: 

Colombia's coca crop booms despite US-backed crackdown
Guardian.co.uk, UK - ....

Colombia's coca crop increased by 27% last year, a surge which has shocked the United Nations and raised fresh questions about Bogotá's US-backed "war" on drugs.......

Colombia coca farming is up, UN says....
Los Angeles Times, CA -
As the US Congress puts the Colombia free trade agreement on the back burner for next year, another form of trade in the country appears to be booming: Coca.......

Coca Cultivation Up In Colombia
Washington Post, United States - ..Jun 18, 2008..
By Juan Forero BOGOTA, Colombia, June 18 -- The amount of land devoted to production of coca, the leaf used to make cocaine, has grown at a dramatic pace...

Colombia: Two More Trade Unionists Assassinated
Colombia - ..Jun 24, 2008..
"These crimes are a further example of repression against the Colombian trade union movement," stated ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.......

Colombian House clashes with government over victim reparation fund
Colombia Reports, Colombia - ..Jun 19, 2008..
... the fund was used to repair not only the victims of violence by leftist guerrillas or paramilitary groups, but also by Colombia's own armed forces....

Trade deal with Colombia ignores union murders
National Union of Public and General Employees, Canada - ..Jun 9, 2008..
... are appalled to learn that trade union lives are being treated as tradable commodities in Canada's on-going negotiations with the Colombian government...