Jersey Politics
My home state's primary is next week, and I feel like writing up a comparison of the various candidates. This is likely only of interest to me and DH, but some of the other locals might be curious, too.
Republicans for US Senate:
Joe Pennacchio - "Jersey Joe" seems to be a fairly standard republican and the preferred choice of the party. He's a dentist, he was borh in Bensonhurt, Brooklyn, Italian-American, I oughta like this guy. He's got some good points on "homeland security" (a phrase I detest for the fascist overtones), health care, etc. He makes the point that Iraqis need to take on a greater role (which actually means he's not aware that they ARE already...), he wants to lower taxes (always good), and his immigration plan - like everyone else's - never mentions the beuracratic nightmare that makes coming here illegally easier than coming here legally. I could go with him, except for his "Statement on Traditional Values". It starts off awesomely, "I believe in the US Constitution, in its entirety, including the 2nd Amendment." Then, he goes on about how he's pro-life...umm...I"m a fan of legal but rare at this point, and that's not compatible with the traditional pro-life stance. Worse, he supports a "Marriage Amendment". No go. See, I'll put up with that crap from a president, because for all the focus on the presidency, the president Does Not Make Laws. He/She may approve or veto them, but it's congress where the legislative power comes from. With that in mind, I would rather not have more pro-life, anti-gay folks in Congress, kthxbye. Conclusion? Nope, not voting here, and possibly enough reasons to vote against in a primary. The pro-2A is tempting, though.
Dick Zimmer - "Regular Republican" - This Jersey born & bred lawyer is a heavy fiscal conservative who served as a representative for 3 terms. It looks like he sees everything in terms of finaces (why didn't he go into accounting?), even pointing out that the Iraqi govt should be spending more oil revenues on its own national security (not a bad point). Apparently, he was heavily involved in the federal version of "Megan's Law," which I'm actually not thrilled with. Either these folks are still dangerous - in which case, they should be IN JAIL - or they've served their time and that's that. He doesn't say anything about the social issues otherwise, although his opponent Joe was complaining that he rolled over for some gun control bills. Opposing ads aren't exactly trustworthy, though. Conclusion? On the fence and not exciting enough to show up at a primary, I think.
Murray Sabrin - "Constitutional Republicans Protecting the Liberty Platform" - A finance profressor with a PhD in economic geography, he was apparently the Libertarian candidate in the governer's race in 1997. He's a fence builder, which I still think is a dumb idea and a waste of money. On the other hand, he's a tax cutter, so that's good. Ok, let's see...he wants to repeal both McCain-Feingold and the Brady Bill. yeah, I'll have some of that. Of course, he wants to ban partial birth abortions and cimiinalize harming a fetus during a crime. I guess I should be glad he's not talking about rolling back Roe v Wade *wry*. Oh, foun his Iraw statement. He pledges that he'll resign/not run for re-election if all US combat troops aren't out of Iraq by Sept 2010. Stupid. Don't give your enemies a date. Then, they just need to hang on till then. Conclusion? Appealing on some things, but no better than the rest of the slate of Reblicans, worse in some ways.
Democrats for US Senate:
Rob Andrews - "Democrats for Change" - A NJ native, a lawyer, and then a US Congressman (not sure what district, south NJ, I think), he is, of course, pushing hard against Frank Lautenberg, the party choice. Lautenberg has been a senator for a LONG time, and I really thought he wasn't going to run again. I can't say I wouldn't like to see someone else in the spot. Huh. He commutes by train daily to DC rather than keep a home there. I wonder if that's cheaper or more expensive? Ok, issues. He says we should have been out of Iraq by now, but I'm not sure I'll find a Democrat who won't say that. He wants to greatly expand SCHIP and force employers to cover their employees. Great idea, but who pays for it? Employees who see their salaries shrink/stagnate? End users who see their prices ride? A patient's bill of rights sounds like a good idea though. He does talk about "helping small business grow," although there's no specifics. Also, it says "He'll invest in clean energy, small businesses, roads, and schools to create jobs here in NJ." Isn't he running for federal office? Could just keep our money home. Ah well, I'll never be a democrat, I suppose. Conclusion? Not bad, but not enough shared interests, issues, I think.
Frank Lautenberg - Democratic party choice - As I said, Frank's been one of our senators for a long time. I'm not going to get into his issues much. He has a gun control bill named after him, so that's enough for me to not vote for him. I am occasionally a one issue voter.
Donald Cresitello - "Democrat for Jobs, Healthcare, Secure Borders" - Mayor of Morristown and owner of a construction company, he looks vaguely familiar to me, not sure why. He does talk about needing "strong borders" but has a immigration plan that would allow a legal non-citizenship method. It's a bit complicated to get into, but here it is, "The pathway to legalization would require that all illegal immigrants register and agree to pay a reasonable fine, undergo a background check and enter the immigration system through their home country just as every other immigrant is required to do. In exchange, they would be granted the right to work and stay in the U.S. for a three-year period. At the end of the three-year period they could apply for an extension of their legalization card. The legislation would also require that anyone who did not register or cross the border without proper documents in the future would be charged as a criminal felon. Additionally, the law would charge anyone that employs an undocumented worker as a criminal felon." It's not bad, it could be better. He also says we need more job creation, which I'm always a fan of. He also talks about a simpler tax structure, although not necessarily a smaller tax burden. Conclusion? Not bad. I would like more details if he makes it to the general election. I'm not sure I'm enthusiastic enough to go to the primaries for him.
Republicans for US House of Representatives, District 7:
Martin Marks - "The Conservative Republican" - Another dentist and a mayor, he's an all-around conservative republican. Conservative on social issues and on firearms. I hate that i can't get one (firearms) without the other (pro-life, anti-gay marriage). Pretty standard: conservive financially, strong military, lower taxes, enforce illegal immigration laws - no mention of legal immigrants, of course. Talks about "balancing" the environment & business needs. Again, his pro-2A stance is tempting, but I would rather not have more social conservatives. Conclusion? Probably not.
Tom Roughneen - "Army Veteran to Rock the Congress" - An Army veteran and a lawyer, one of the first items on his front page (of a fairly cheesy website design) talks about how he supports the "fair tax". That's the universal sales tax concept - you pay everything in sales tax, with a rebate ("prebate) for low/middle income folks. That rebate will probably make this as convulated as the tax code is now, at least eventually. Other than that, he is, of course, strong on national security. Heh. He refers to McCain as "our next president." He's also strong on the second amendment. Can't have it all....he's pro-life in ALL cases, no exceptions, and wants to spend money ("It demands resources") for the purposes of counseling and adoption networks. I contend that unless you're going to shell out to also pay for a woman's loss of pay, her medical bills, etc, etc, you can't require she carry an unwanted pregnancy. At least he's consistent, though - he's also against the death peanlty. Oh, and he favors the school voucher program - that'll win over the NJEA, not! :) Conclusion? Again, probably not.
Leornard Lance - "Republican" - A state senator and lawyer, it looks like he's stressing conservative finances, lower taxes, and less spending. Another border fence supporter (that might be a waste of money, I suspect...) who also doesn't mention our legal immigration problem. On the other hand, he does suppoert some tax incentives for renewable energy sources, something I think is a good idea. And, he plans to heavily use his veto, preferring line item veto (eh, not so sure about that; I just haven't thought it through yet). Nothing on the social things one way or the other. Conclusion? Seems to be a neutral choice. Even if he's a social conservative, it doesn't seem to be a strong issue to him. Nothing exciting, nothing horribly bad.
Darren Young - "Constitutional Republicans Protecting the Liberty Platform" - A software programmer with a degree in math makes him the first "geek" so far. :) He's a fiscal conservative who wants to abolish the Dept of Education. Good luck with that! He's also an opponent of the War in Iraq, but he's a strong 2A proponent and will abstain from abortion-related matters beyond not using federal tax dollars for pro or anti-abortion anything. Very much a classic Libertarian; I'm not sure why he's running as a Republican other than that it's more visible. Conclusion? Tempting other than the War in Iraq.
P Kelly Hatfield - Republican party choice - She's a mayor and council member for Summit, NJ with a PhD in Microbiology. Looks like she's a researcher and professor at NYU. National Security - no mention of a fence, but money for military equipment and veterens and "secure our borders & ports by using new inspection technology." That's a good idea, if the tech exists. Lower taxes and "cut the bureaucratic red tape that hinders small businesses." She wants line item veto for earmarks and such (but of course, that could be used for EVERYTHING; could be good, could be bad). She also wants medical insurance tort reform as part of a selection of stuff to keep health care costs down. For once, someone mentions why amnesty is bad - it's disrespectful to those are waiting in line legally. Then she mentions the toll hike thing, which is unique to NJ and not at all the province of a member of the *US* House of Reps. Weird. Nothing on her social policy stances. If that means they're not a big issue to her, that's fine, I guess. Conclusion? Standard Republican that I could go for, I think.
A.D. Amar - "It's the Economy - No Politics" - I couldn't find his website via google, but I found his page at Seton Hall University, where he's a business professor. His site is also the first to have a problem in Opera and the first to put google ads up. No new taxes, business incentives, and a generally fiscal conservative policy...and a socially conservative one. Not much different than the other Republicans except in his personal background. Conclusion? Eh.
Kate Whitman - "Union County Conservative Republican" - yes, this is Gov. Whitman's daughter. She's apparently been in politics pretty steadily, and also is owner of a public relations firm and a licensed realtor. She supports line item veto, a 10% pay cut for Congress (! *snort* That'll never pass), eliminate earmarks & duplicate programs, etc. She uses 10% as a number to cut everything by, and while it's nice to hear concrete numbers, it could be bad if she can't meet them. She also wants more tax cuts, repeal the death tax, etc. Her immigration policy talks about the usual fence, but also she wants to create an "employment, housing, and banking verification database," which makes the libertarian in me want more details, at least. She wants term limits for congress - 6 for the House and 2 for the Senate, and they should get the same benes we give our veterans. No wonder the core party doesn't like her. There's one last thing, her policy on Women's Health & Stem Cell Resarch, "I support parental notification laws to protect minors. I oppose using taxpayer dollars and strongly oppose partial-birth abortion. We must promote adult stem cell research, but must also prevent human cloning and never create life simply to destroy it. I support a women’s right to choose, with restrictions." Interesting. I'm not sure she can accomplish everything she's described, but I'd sort of like to see her try. Conclusion? Could be interesting.
The Democrats don't have any options for Representative other than the incumbent, Linda Stender. I didn't vote for her last election, don't ask me to on this one.
Basically, I can't win. I support most of the Republican platform, but not the social aspects. Heck, I can't even say that I support the social aspects of the Democrat platform, because they don't match either. While the majority of Democrats are pro-choice, the party line right now favors civil unions instead of gay marriages. Those are a step, but they sure aren't equal. Anyway, I'll likely sit out the primary on Tuesday, after all that. No one's so interesting that I feel the need to declare party affiliation. And this is why us independents can't find anyone in the middle to vote for come general election time.