Monday, October 29, 2012

Pride Goeth Before A Fall; Elections Arrive During Them

     Dispirited though I am by the "choices" (and by the lack of coverage the few real choices receive -- Rupert Boneham exempted), it would be unfair (or at least unsporting) to pass by the poor ol' dead windmill without tilting at it a little.

     My favorite contest is a de-selection of State Supreme Court Justices.  Two of them are on the bubble and there's a way to send a very clear message: Justice Robert Rucker wrote a strong dissent to the dreadful majority decision that claimed a police "right" to enter your home on any grounds -- or none at all -- and denied your right to resist.  Conversely, Justice Steven H. David wrote the decision itself, and defended it by saying you could always sue for redress.  Justice Rucker should be retained; Justice David should be sent home.  With a note from the electorate explaining that he has been a Very Bad Boy.

     Then there are the other contests -- for Governor, the current front-runner is the urbane $DEITY-botherer Mike Pence who, sly nods and winks to his fellow-worshippers aside, is reasonably good when it comes to minding the till.  If he can manage to avoid the temptation to get into spats over wanting to redecorate the promenade deck in Social-Conservative purple and instead focus on keeping the Titani- er, Indiana afloat, he can do very well.  His folksy-college-president Democat opponent, John "Walrus" Gregg, seems to have been put on the ticket to fail gracefully; he's actually not a bad fellow but his running mate is a classic Carrie Nation, pinch-faced with certainty that she knows what's best for you and brooking no refusal to comply; she should be kept as far away from public office as possible, if you ask me.  In third place and with his own sort of grace is the forementioned Rupert Boneham, 1860s beard and all.  He's my sentimental favorite.

     Elsewhere, there's the nationally-famous Mourdock/Donnelly race.  For all the unfavorable attention Mourdock has received, Mr. Donnelly has an actual pro-life voting record.  Both men (and Libertarian stalwart Andrew Horning) are actually decent enough, all of them look good on Bill of Rights issues...and one of them is sure vote against throwing out the Federal health care mess, which is why I'm not voting for Joe Donnelly.  Mr. Mourdock seems to have a positively Agnewtonian gift for foot-in-mouth and any reporter covering the political beat ought to be rooting for him as a steady source of easy stories.

     Then we have Representative Andre Carson, a bit worried now his district has been moved slightly south.  A very personable man who dislikes me 'cos I am pale and blue-eyed, and he's a bonafide member of the hereditary ruling class.  He's up against Republican Carlos May; Carlos may but it is unlikely.  I no longer get to throw my vote away here; I've got a new wastebasket, the Scott Reske (D)/Susan Brooks (R)/Chard Reid (LP) set-to.  That's a Marine vs. a U.S. Attorney vs. a Libertarian.  The NRA -- shock, horror! -- likes Mr. Reske.

     In Indiana, the .gov wants you to have a cribsheet (or scorecard).  If you're wondering who you can vote against -- or, unlikely though it may be, for -- all you have to do is use the handy "Who's On Your Ballot?" website.


Turk Turon said...

Or Spiroesque?

Roberta X said...

Spirocetian? --Or is that taken? Alas, he lack Spiro's gift for the rolling phrase; no "nattering nabobs of negativity" to be found. But nobody's perfect.

JohninMd(help!) said...

Yo'. miz Bobbi, I luv reading you an' Tam's stuff, but I jes' GOTS ta ask; what's going on with all the angst 'bout Christian peepul? And when did abortion/birth control become sacrements? Roe V Wade isn't going to be over-turned any time soon, and I don't see where BC can't be purchased anywhere in the country. Yeah, health care in the U.S. needs fixin, but we know .gov ain't the answer. just wonderin'.....Your obediant servant, JiM(h!)

Roberta X said...

I have no angst with Christian people -- with some (hardly all) Christian politicians, it looks as if they'd like to make the rules of their faith the law of the land, and that does fret me. Most religions have a set of rules and notions that are about 80% sane...and twenty percent balderdash. And even within Christianity, no two sects cover the same 80/20 split. We're not the UK; this country has rarely come close to having one denomination in the majority. The State must remain mum on such matters.

As for Roe v. Wade and various Federal proposals, please show me where in the Constitution as amended that the Feds have any jurisdiction at all over such matters. It is at most a 10th-Amendment issue, and IMO, more rightly covered by the 9th.

FWIW, I'm opposed to abortion; I would not advise any expectant mother to have one unless her life was in danger. I just don't think it should be matter of law.

The freedom to use birth control is a "sacrament" in that is a human right; mind you, like drinking alcohol or eating pork, it is something your religion or personal beliefs might bid you to not do; but the law should not stand in the way.

Anonymous said...

"...sly nods and winks to his fellow-worshippers aside, is reasonably good when it comes to minding the till."

A lot of people don't realize that much of the fiscal conservatism out there that actually gets practiced is fueled at least as much by concern over the morality (or lack thereof) of robbing Peter to pay Paul, as by awareness that eventually you must run out of other people's money.