Sunday, November 2, 2008

Drive-by voting in Orange County

My ballot is already in, but I must say I am amazed at how widespread early voting has become. Here at the university the student center has allowed Hawaii voters to cast their ballot for some two weeks now. 

On-campus voting could lead to much higher turnout, especially among younger voters, who are more likely to support Obama. Early voting centers outside university campuses could help the perpetually busy to vote—which might include working moms and dads vote—as well as those in poor neighborhoods where voting machines are often out of order in short supply, which would be a boost to the Democrats. 

In reddest of the red Orange County, early voting has taken a new twist, with voting centers set up in malls and the airport. But what really got my attention was the drive-thru voting center. 

Can I get fries and a Coke™ with my children's hospital bond initiative?

Drive-up voting... why not? After all, Orange County is the home to the world famous Crystal Cathedral, which itself started as a drive-in church. Hey, if Californians are going to glue their ass to their car seat, this may be the only way to reach some of them. 

And while looking for a link to Orange County being the "most Republican county in America," I found this nifty 2004 AP story scanned onto someone's computer (click on the file for greater detail):

3 comments:

  1. If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:

    1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
    2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
    3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
    4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
    5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
    6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
    7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
    8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.

    Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.

    Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.

    So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.

    Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?

    Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.

    What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.

    So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?

    Now for those of you who blame President Bush for everything, consider this: George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

    A little over one year ago:
    1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high.
    2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.
    3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
    4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
    5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!

    But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!

    So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.

    In the PAST YEAR:

    1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
    2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
    3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
    4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
    5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
    6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

    YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ...

    REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

    AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

    JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, glen m, that's a long comment. I agree with some points but I think other points are misleading or irrelevant.

    I would take time out of my busy Sunday to write a thoughtful response, but since I can see through Google that you robo-posted the same long comment in at least several other places, I guess you won't be coming back here looking for my thoughtful response.

    I think there is too much money in campaigns in general, and that we should scrap the current system in favor of one that relies heavily on free airtime (we the people own the airwaves, not the networks who make money off them) instead, plus volunteers. I think Obama set a bad (and potentially dangerous) precedent by all the money he spent.

    But it should be noted that so many people were willing to pay a bit of money here or a bit of money there to help him get elected. This was a popular campaign.

    So why isn't he ahead? Well, the average poll has him up by 6.4 points as of this morning and it looks like he's headed for an electoral victory landslide.

    This despite the vicious and bigoted smear campaign depicting him as a terrorist, a closeted Arab or Muslim, and worse. The whole "B. Hussein Obama" label was an appeal to bigotry that, sadly, resonated with too many people.

    Maybe that is the reason that he's not ahead by 10 or 15 points despite all the money he has spent. It just costs way too much to fight against smears and innuendo.

    As for ACORN, I think that's problematic, but it is clear that the excessive registrations were the result of paid-per-registration employees trying to pad their wallets, not people trying to vote multiple times. What kind of identification would you use to go into the polling place and try to vote as Mickey Mouse?

    Besides, the Democratic side is not the only one engaging in dirty tricks. I'm from Orange County, and I recall the en-Español scare tactics used to frighten Spanish-speakers from the polling places by making them fear INS investigations if they voted. Again this year, we have evil people trying to suppress voter numbers by posting up and passing out fliers in certain neighborhoods advising local residents that due to the high numbers of voters expected, they can vote on November 5 (the day after the election) instead.

    As for your specious claim that everything fell apart after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006, that is a very selective way of looking at things. The problems you mention had been started and/or brewing since the time when the Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

    Funny how Bush supporters claim that Dubya can't be held responsible for 9/11 because everything (including him ignoring threats while on vacation) was the fault of his predecessor, but suddenly the Dems barely in control of the House and Senate are suddenly responsible for everything that happens, regardless of when the problem started).

    But you do have a point about the two legislative houses and the executive branch all controlled by the same party. The first 3/4 of the Bush years has shown what an unmitigated disaster that can be.

    But there are checks and balances. Even if the Dems were to get a filibuster-proof majority (60 or higher) that doesn't mean they will all be lock step with each other. Bill Clinton came to town trying to pass a health care plan and allow gays to openly serve in the military (instead of serving their country in a closeted fashion, only to be booted out when they were "discovered" just months before they were to retire and their pensions would kick in). But members of his own party blocked him on these.

    Besides, you're forgetting the most potent form of checks and balances written into the Constitution: the next election. If the American people don't like what an Obama White House does with a Democratic-dominated House and Senate, they can change the numbers in 2010, just as they did in 1996 and 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crap! It turns out I did take time out of my busy Sunday to write a thoughtful response. And a long one at that.

    Kushibo does not stand for brevity.

    ReplyDelete

Share your thoughts, but please be kind and respectful. My mom reads this blog.