Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Speaking of Voting...
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, November 07, 2006

In case anyone is interested, here's how I voted today.

State Propositions:
Prop 1A: Y
Prop 1B: N
Prop 1C: N
Prop 1D: N
Prop 1E: N
Prop 83: N
Prop 84: N
Prop 85: Y
Prop 86: N
Prop 87: N
Prop 88: Y
Prop 89: N
Prop 90: Y

Local Propositions:

Prop A: N
Prop M: N

Elective Offices:

Governor: Art Olivier (L)
Lt. Governor: Lynnette Shaw (L)
Sec State: Gail K. Lightfoot (L)
Controller: Donna Tello (L)
Treasurer: Marian Smithson (L)
Attorney General: Kenneth A. Weissman (L)
Insurance Commissioner: Dale F. Ogden (L)
Senator: Michael S. Metti (L)
US Representative: Paul King (L)
State Senator: Brian A. Klea (L)
State Assembly: Martin Garrick (R)
Board of Equalization: Michelle Steel (R)
Mayor: Lori Holt Pfeiler (R)

Yes, I voted for some Republicans. But, only in races where there was no Libertarian Candidate.

So, whatever happens in the next couple of years, don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Why’d you vote against McClintock?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Hey, a WoW gold spammer. Don’t see too many of those get through QandO’s filters...
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Why’d you vote against McClintock?
I voted straight Libertarian. I had no intention of voting for any Republican and certainly not for any Democrat.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Prop 88: Y
What are you smoking? A statewide parcel tax that bypasses the 2/3 protection on homeowners afforded by Prop 13? The Same tax for a desert lot with a broken down motorhome and an outhouse as a $7,000,000 home on the beach?

Let’s keep property taxes local.

This measure is going down big with 38.2% of the precints in.

88 N Educ. Fund/Prop. Tax 645,082 21.7% 2,326,906 78.3%


Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Dale -

Ah. No Republicans at all? Even those who stack up pretty darn close to your side on ideology and even on specific votes (you mostly lined up on the propositions)? Shouldn’t we reward individual major party candidates who fight for rather libertarian principles? I mean, this is the guy who says, "If you can find it in the phone book, government shouldn’t be doing it."
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Ah. No Republicans at all?
No.
Shouldn’t we reward individual major party candidates who fight for rather libertarian principles?
Maybe. Or we can vote for libertarians who fight for real libertarian principles. Like I did.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
What was prop A? Was that the mirimar airport thing? If so, I’m surprised you didn’t vote regarding props b or c then, unless A was county-wide instead of just citywide.

Do bond measures need 2/3 of the vote to pass?
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
So, whatever happens in the next couple of years, don’t blame me. I voted Libertarian.
Translation: whatever happens in the next couple years because a decidedly anti-libertarian Democrat edged out a semi-libertarian Republican, blame Dale. He threw away his vote.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Dale was fortunate to have a choice of candidates.

No vote is a thrown away vote, Xrlp.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com
Sure it is. A vote for Mickey Mouse, Kinky Friedman, the Libertarian Party candidate, or anyone else who has no chance of winning is a vote thrown away. It may make sense to do that as a protest vote if you really think there is no significant difference between the two real candidates, but any Libertarian who can’t tell the difference between a quasi-libertarian like Tom McClintock and a quasi-socialist like John Garamendi is not playing with a full deck.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Yeah, I’m not sure what constructive message that Libertarian vote is supposed to send to Republican candidates. "Even if you line up with me on virtually every single issue, I’ll vote against you because of the letter next to your name"? Say what? The pragmatic thing to do—which is what Dale styles neolibertarianism to be all about—is to help a candidate who was polling *very* close to the Democrat if that candidate happens to be a refreshingly libertarian Republican.

I mean, what wasn’t liberty-friendly enough about McClintock? Xrlq is right:
Translation: whatever happens in the next couple years because a decidedly anti-libertarian Democrat edged out a semi-libertarian Republican, blame Dale. He threw away his vote.
I can understand voting for a number of those Libertarians where the Republican candidate was nowhere near the libertarian ballpark—heck, I did it in a number of races, including the Governor seat. But McClintock?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Sure it is. A vote for Mickey Mouse, Kinky Friedman, the Libertarian Party candidate, or anyone else who has no chance of winning is a vote thrown away. It may make sense to do that as a protest vote if you really think there is no significant difference between the two real candidates, but any Libertarian who can’t tell the difference between a quasi-libertarian like Tom McClintock and a quasi-socialist like John Garamendi is not playing with a full deck.
Wonderful ... the "tastes great, less filling" argument. It ranks right up there with the "chickenhawk" rant.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ -

The real question with any vote (unless it comes down to your vote winning or losing the election, which is just absurdly rare) is what message you’re trying to send. If you’re voting for a Libertarian candidate when the Republican candidate has a clear record of being pro-liberty, what are you really saying? As I see it, a libertarian’s vote against McClintock says one of two things:

* THE LP WAY: "You’re not doctrinaire enough for me."
* GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: "Sorry, I wasn’t even looking at your record. I was looking at your party ID. So it doesn’t matter how you vote, I’m not going to reward Republicans who behave in a markedly more libertarian manner. I’m going to treat you exactly the same way I’m treating Schwarzeneggar."

And what the hell do either of those accomplish for the cause of liberty? How are either of those pragmatic positions?

If you go the LP way, you’re kicking everyone you can out of the "club," which I thought neolibertarians were against. If you go the "guilt by association" route, you’re discouraging the major parties from tending towards liberty. Right now California Republican politicians are looking at the results and thinking, "Well, Arnold won and McClintock was left out in the cold. Clearly the votes just aren’t there for someone who stands for principle and against government regulation and onerous taxation. The votes are there for borrowers and spenders, and the fiscal conservatives and libertarians won’t turn out in enough numbers to make standing for principle worth the while—hell, a number of them are STILL voting for the LP. How do you think I’m going to behave in the future?"
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
The real question with any vote (unless it comes down to your vote winning or losing the election, which is just absurdly rare) is what message you’re trying to send. If you’re voting for a Libertarian candidate when the Republican candidate has a clear record of being pro-liberty, what are you really saying?
You’re saying you prefer the Libertarian even over a "pro-liberty" Republican given the recent record of other self-declared "pro-liberty" Republicans.

Seems a reasonable vote considering what "Republican" has come to mean in CA.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well, I think McClintock’s long record of standing on principle speaks for itself, if you’re familiar with it at all. You can safely say pro-liberty without the scare quotes.

And consiering Dale’s response, "I had no intention of voting for any Republican," seems to speak to something other than disappointment at Tom’s insufficiently pro-liberty stance.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
On that last sentence... Typo + bad grammar = in a rush. Sorry.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Well, I think McClintock’s long record of standing on principle speaks for itself, if you’re familiar with it at all. You can safely say pro-liberty without the scare quotes.
And I think that’s a personal choice to be made by the voter, don’t you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Maybe. Or we can vote for libertarians who fight for real libertarian principles. Like I did.
A "Y" on 88 has nothing to do with libertarian principles.
Seems a reasonable vote considering what "Republican" has come to mean in CA.
McClintock is a good Republican with libertarian principles. By contrast, many CA Libertarians are borderline nutcases. Many CA R’s are RINOs, but McClintock isn’t ne of them.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
By contrast, here is some of Tom McClintock’s ideas:

Eminent Domain:

http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=53&start=0&category_id=10&parent_id=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=

Min wage:

http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=73&start=0&category_id=5&parent_id=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=

Arnold’s budget:

http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=54&start=0&category_id=5&parent_id=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Sorry, McQ, but I’m not following your argument at all. What, precisely, does throwing one’s vote away on an unelectable joke candidate to help an anti-libertarian Democrat beat a mostly-libertarian Republican have to do with watery beer, chickens or hawks?
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
xrlq,

I think McQ is saying that it’s better to vote for a Libertarian, even one with dubious libertarian beliefs, than it is to vote for a Republican with solid libertarian beliefs. Even if the Republican is critical of another Republican’s budget.

http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=54&start=0&category_id=5&parent_id=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=

After all, the Republican might win and screw up. The Libertarian can’t win, consequently can never screw up.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
By the way, did any Libertarians for ferrit rights or any porn star Libertarians run this time?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Sorry, McQ, but I’m not following your argument at all.
Amazingly that doesn’t surprise me at all.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think McQ is saying that it’s better to vote for a Libertarian, even one with dubious libertarian beliefs, than it is to vote for a Republican with solid libertarian beliefs. Even if the Republican is critical of another Republican’s budget.
Actually what I’m saying is it was Dale’s call and he made it.

BTW, would McClintock have won if Dale voted for him?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
BTW, would McClintock have won if Dale voted for him?
I don’t know the delta in votes, but I suspect if Tom lost by only one they would still be counting. But Tom had a better chance than Shaw, back when the vote tally was unknown.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If all those people who stayed away from the polls had voted for Mickey Mouse; he might have been elected governer, senator or a representative. Next, Goofy for president!
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com
The difference was more than one vote, of course, but I’m genuinely curious as to what the neolibertarian logic behind that vote was. Are we pragmatic libertarians not, as a rule of thumb, interested in promoting people like McClintock in the major parties? What message does it send to vote for someone else, particularly a candidate as un-serious as the one the LP put up?

Your vote is very rarely good for anything except feedback. But its role as feedback tells future candidates what they need to do to win your vote. And I want to know: what was Dale trying to tell future Republicans and Libertarians?

To the LP: that no matter how screwy their candidate, we’ll toss him a vote even when a rather pro-liberty, serious candidate exists who has a much better record of winning elections and actually affecting policy over the last few decades?

To the Republicans: that no matter how principled and pro-liberty their candidate is, that we won’t support him? Even if only to encourage other Republicans to emulate him?

I don’t think it speaks to stupidity on my part to be confused about just what Dale was trying to say with his vote. I am usually at least partly sympathetic to the views on this blog; but on this occasion, I am left wondering. What exactly is the difference between a neolibertarian and the doctrinaire crazies running the LP, and how is this reflecting that?
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
the doctrinaire crazies running the LP
Shaw isn’t one. Doctrinare, that is (crazy might be another thing).

That’s what makes this odd; in terms of actual beliefs, Tom appears to be closer to a libertarian than the actual Libertarian.

Of course, here in CA oppose marajuana laws = Libertarian in many eyes.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Then again, a vote for Shaw does show the politicians what libertarians really think is important. Weed, man, legalize weed.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The difference was more than one vote, of course, but I’m genuinely curious as to what the neolibertarian logic behind that vote was. Are we pragmatic libertarians not, as a rule of thumb, interested in promoting people like McClintock in the major parties? What message does it send to vote for someone else, particularly a candidate as un-serious as the one the LP put up?
Well I’m not sure how "unserious" someone is that takes the time and effort to run. However I understand your point. And I don’t disagree. I’ll just admit to be functioning on too little sleep, too much coffee and having a chip on my shoulder for some untold reason and ask your forgiveness for being snippy and short.

That goes for you too Xlrq.

And yes, you’re right, although I’m not sure if Dale even knew of McClintock’s record, so it may have been nothing more than not being informed in that particular election about that particular candidate (and assuming with the "R" by his name he was a CA Republican, which in most cases would be a valid assumption).
I don’t think it speaks to stupidity on my part to be confused about just what Dale was trying to say with his vote. I am usually at least partly sympathetic to the views on this blog; but on this occasion, I am left wondering. What exactly is the difference between a neolibertarian and the doctrinaire crazies running the LP, and how is this reflecting that?
I don’t think so either so I’ll leave it to Dale to do so if he chooses too. I’d simply say that given a normal CA Rep and someone from the LP, I’d most likely opt for the LP candidate as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Fair enough, McQ. Thanks for your response.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
And yes, you’re right, although I’m not sure if Dale even knew of McClintock’s record, so it may have been nothing more than not being informed in that particular election about that particular candidate
McClintock ran in the special election to replace Gray Davis as gov. Of course, Arnold won, but McClintock was the best candidate. That was clear in the debates.

I remember the debate that featured Arnold, McClintock, Bustamante, Arianna, and Camejo.

That election was interesting, in that a Democrat could in effect vote to retain Davis and also vote to select Bustamante as his replacement, in effect voting for two different people.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Actually what I’m saying is it was Dale’s call and he made it.
That was the first of his two calls. The second, and the one I was responding to, was to boast about having done so, and to have the chutzpah to lecture his readers about not blaming him for the direct, foreseeable and in fact inevitable results of his own actions.
BTW, would McClintock have won if Dale voted for him?
No, but by that logic he might just as well have cast his vote for Garamendi himself, or written in Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Lenin, Hugo Chavez, Dale himself, or whoever. Or he could have sat out the vote entirely and said "So, whatever happens in the next couple of years, don’t blame me. I didn’t vote." It would have made exactly the same amount of sense as what he did write.

In this particular case, aggregating the vote for McClintock with the Libertarian vote (Shaw) and the arch-conservative AIP vote (King) would not have been enough to put McClintock over the top. In other cases, it does, and almost always to the detriment of the very agenda the third party was intended to promote. It’s fine to throw away your vote in protest when you know the cause is lost anyway, but it wasn’t possible to know that going in, not for this particular race anyway.
And yes, you’re right, although I’m not sure if Dale even knew of McClintock’s record, so it may have been nothing more than not being informed in that particular election about that particular candidate (and assuming with the "R" by his name he was a CA Republican, which in most cases would be a valid assumption).
I don’t fault you, McQ, for not being familiar with McClintock, who is very well-known in California (he was a potential spoiler in the 2003 recall election, for example) but virtually unheard-of everywhere else. For a Californian not to know about him is unusual, however; in fact, I’d go as far as to say that any Californian who doesn’t know who Tom McClintock is or have a decent working knowledge of his record is too clueless to have any business voting in California elections at all. I don’t think Dale is that ignorant; I’m quite sure he knew what he was doing.

As to your statements about California Republicans generally, it sounds like you’re arguing that they aren’t serious conservatives. If indeed that is your position, then you are sadly mistaken. California’s a loony-left state, all right, but that’s because there are too few Republicans in power there, not because the few that are in power are any less conservative than the rest.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Sure it is. A vote for Mickey Mouse, Kinky Friedman, the Libertarian Party candidate, or anyone else who has no chance of winning is a vote thrown away.
Yeah. If I was a Republican, I’d probably think so, too.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
By the way, wanna get really pissed off? The Lovely Christine takes my little voting sheet into the booth and replicates it. So, my vote is actually two.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Great. My mom and brother make my vote three. But I’m still genuinely curious about the choice you made... not pissed off.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider