Election 2010 Survey: The Teabag... er... Republicans Strike Back

          Here we are, two days in advance of the November 2, 2010 elections, and I realize I have not posted a whit about it. That’s understandable, perhaps, as the Democrats appear to be on the verge of getting their butts handed to them; the Democratic Party is generally my “team,” though I don’t belong to it.  They’re my team by default, really—until there is a party that is socially liberal and economically moderate, I’ll live with a little bit more government spending and regulation over legislating morality and proposing crazy shit like repealing the 14th amendment or doing away with Social Security.  But enough about me!  Here are the more interesting tidbits of this year’s election, at least to me (and apologies in advance for the Georgia focus of some of these to my non-Georgia resident friends):

          1.     What’s the Deal? Proving that some people will truly vote for anyone, it appears that the serially corrupt, bankrupt multi-celled organism mascarading as the Republican candidate for governor here in Georgia, Nathan Deal, will prevail over former Governor Roy Barnes.  Mr. Deal’s ethical challenges have been detailed at length.  Here they are in a nutshell for those that missed the story(ies) or have been listening to talk radio: (1) He intervened in a state program to halt changes that would have cost his auto salvaging company $300,000 or so a year; (2) He used state campaign funds to pay for defense of ethics claims brought against him in Congress, a big no-no (which he subsequently dodged by resigning); (3) He failed to file proper disclosures relating to his financial status while in Congress; and (4) He failed to file proper disclosures relating to his financial status during his campaign for governor.  Incidentally, when the truth DID finally come out about his financial status, we saw why he didn’t want to reveal anything: the guy is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.  Now, do I think that someone having financial problems necessarily means that he’s a bad person?  Absolutely not!  But would I want a person on the verge of bankruptcy who has a proven record of intervening in state programs for his own personal gain to be elected to the highest office in the state???  All right, that’s a massive rhetorical question, but I want to write this down: NO!  NO!  NO!  C’mon, people!!!!

          2.     The Case for Funding Public Radio. This is not really an election issue, but it’s been in the news quite a bit.  There’s been a lot made of the whole Juan Williams firing, and conservatives who have attacked public radio for years have used it to justify terminating public funding for National Public Radio (NPR).  I don’t have a lot to say about Mr. Williams’ firing other than this: he’d been reprimanded a couple of times before for straying from his role as an analyst, so NPR’s jettisoning of him was perhaps not as hasty as it’s been characterized.  (I also personally never got a lot out of his analysis; he wasn’t bad, just not really insightful to me, so I’m not sorry to see him go).  There is a strong case to be made for public funding of a national news source, however.  Let’s think about it by comparison to the funding sources for “regular” news broadcasters.  Most of the revenue from companies like ABC, CBS, Fox, etc. come from advertisers, which are large corporations.  Funding for NPR comes from the public; us, the individual citizens of this country.  I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that influence on content cannot be completely separated from the identity of the financial supporters of the distributors of the news.  Which would you trust?  Also, I think there is a strong public interest in ensuring that the citizens of this country are informed about news in an objective manner.  Without full, unbiased information, it is difficult for a democracy to work, because the people would be making (voting) decisions on imperfect or incomplete information.  So, to those who claim that the government should not be funding things like information and news reporting, I challenge that assertion.  I think it’s just about as important as public campaign financing (whoa boy, and there’s another big problem).

          3.     The Tea Party Moves to Congress. One thing is clear according to the polls I have seen (Nate Silver’s work at fivethirtyeight.com being the best out there); we’re going to be getting some pretty entertaining characters in D.C. next year.  (I would say nut jobs, but hey, trying to keep the tone down a little. Whoops, guess I accidentally let one slip).  With Sharon Angle and Rand Paul, we’re going to be getting some doozies!  Too bad it appears Christine “I’m not a Witch” O’Donnell appears to be on a losing track.  That would have made a great trio.  Still, we’ll have at least six years of Angle, Rand, and possibly Joe Miller (from AK) to keep us entertained and hopefully their states reminded of their voting folly of 2010.

          4.     Vote “No” On Amendment 1. Yes, another Georgia-centric issue here.   (I do live here, you know.)  Amendment 1 would allow non-competition agreements to be enforced with greater vigor here in Georgia.  While normally I would just be mildly opposed to that concept, I’m frankly disgusted with how the drafters of Amendment 1 have decided to put it to the voters.  For those of you who haven’t seen it, here’s the text: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”  Does that sound like something that someone who has no idea what it’s about could reasonably punch “No” on the ballot?  (No! I think Georgia should be less competitive, by God!)  I believe that fundamental changes to the Constitution of Georgia should be stated upfront and in black and white.  It should have read something like “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to allow employers to prevent departing employees from competing with their business by either starting a new business or getting a job with a competitor?”  What do you think most people would say to that?    Right, I thought so.  So did the proponents of Amendment 1.  Hence, the intellectually dishonest language.

          Well, are you ready?  Are you ready for Sad Tuesday?  I suppose I am.  Finally, GO VOTE, PEOPLE. (Unless you intend to vote for Deal, even after reading this blog.  You, sir or madam, stay home and watch Dancing With the Stars reruns or something—or whatever strikes your fancy).