<img attachment="lawnsign-web.jpg" align="left" class="frame" caption="Howie Hawkins for Senate">The mid-term elections are real; the United States will do its best to keep up the pretense of democracy this fall, if only to satisfy the UN inspectors and to show the world we still know how it's done. We're 0-2 (keep messing up the clean landing) in the last two and our much-(self)-vaunted efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to impress. The midterms are so called because they come in the middle of a presidential term and offer only senators and congressmen instead of the big kahuna. For most, the list of names on mid-term ballots is a confusing combination of biblical first names mixed with Mayflower last names; they make about as much sense as the list of district court judges that fill out the presidential ballots. It is because of this that mid-term elections have notoriously low voter turnout in a country already notorious for low voter participation rates. Only England---where Blair was elected by about 20% of eligible voters in the last election---comes even close in this democratic limbo contest. That's about what is expected for these elections as well and, honestly, who can blame the American people? Granted, they're mostly disinterested in national politics anyway, but, in this case, they've chosen wisely. As <a href="http://earthli.com/news/view_article.php?id=1381" source="earthli.com">discussed elsewhere</a>, gerrymandering has taken the democracy out of most congressional races, with many incumbents running unopposed---or practically unopposed, as their only competition is either someone's cat or is otherwise too disorganized or out-of-touch to even have a web page. The US media is trying hard to make this an election for the ages, sticking to the issues that really interest people---like Foley's sexual harassment or Hastert's obesity---to pump up interest. Exactly the kind of make-or-break issues we've come to expect from our fourth estate---ones that help make real differences in people's lives, unlike health insurance or better wages. In fact, there is talk that the Republicans are sure to lose the half-dozen or so seats needed to cede control of the house and senate to the Democrats. This would indeed be a watershed moment in US history, as the current democratic party is such a lean, mean, organized and on-message machine that it would take that majority at <i>least</i> an extra ten minutes of debate before they rubber-stamped whichever issue the President had nosed across their desks. Six of one, a half dozen of the other? Honestly, why even get out of bed on that Tuesday? <h>The Vote in New York State</h> Out-of-state voters get their absentee ballots early and the New York state ballot has two entries on it: one for the Senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton and the other occupied by unopposed congressman, Gregory W. Meeks<fn>. Against Hillary is arrayed a whole flotilla of Senate hopefuls, none of whom really stand a chance. According to <a href="http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Sen_graphs/new-york.html" source="Electoral Vote">the latest polls</a><fn>, she has a commanding 53% of the vote, with Republican John Spencer garnering only 28%. Regardless of rumor, reputation or anything else, every voter should spend at least a little time trying to find out what the different candidates stand for---or don't. The internet makes this type of basic research a snap; often it takes only minutes to determine whether a candidate's platform lines up at all with one's own. Let's play that game with the New York State Senate race, shall we? <h level="4">John Spencer</h> First off, browse to <a href="http://www.spencerforsenate.com/">John Spencer's</a> (R) home page, which weighs in at almost 2MB, making it easily accessible to the poor with their government-subsidized high-speed broadband connections. From there, hover over <i>John Spencer</i> on the left, then choose <i>Issues</i> from the menu. The issues list is a little sparse, but takes a stand on the following: <ul> He's anti-abortion. Being <iq>against partial birth abortion</iq> is Republican code-speak for "I want to eliminate abortion". He is against gay marriage. He was in the military for <i>one whole year almost 40 years ago</i> and is just proud as hell about it. It made the top six of things he wants to tell you about himself. He thinks that getting elected to public office comprises a philosophy. This interesting take occupied slot <i>one</i> of the six things he thought you should know about him. </ul> Scrolling below the fold reveals an exposé of Senator Clinton's <iq>votes to delay and weaken the Patriot Act</iq>, which indicate that Spencer is a staunch supporter of said act and all of its ramifications.<fn> He toes the republican line on immigration, and has paragraphs of text supporting the second amendment and banning abortion.<fn> Selecting <i>Compare & Decide</i> from the <i>John Spencer</i> menu reveals another short list detailing the inner workings of John Spencer, the man: he's anti-immigrant<fn>, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-flag-burning. You can determine for yourselves whether he's representing the issues that matter to you. <h level="4">Hillary Clinton</h> On to the next! <a href="http://www.hillaryclinton.com/">Hillary for Senate</a> is the one-stop shopping center for all things Hillary. On the left side is a menu with <i>On the Issues</i> under <i>Stay Informed</i>. Hillary's list of issues is a good deal longer than Spencer's, with summaries and links to further information for all of them. Typical democrat---nothing but boring facts. Quickly scanning the list reveals the word "security" three times, "safe" three times, "terrorism" but once and Iraq not at all. Hard to believe she doesn't mention how pro-war she is and how she's a staunch defender of "seeing it through". Under the heading, <i>Securing our Civil and Constitutional Rights</i>, there is no mention of the Patriot Act---perhaps because she voted for it in <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313">2001</a> and <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029">2006</a>.<fn> Likewise, the topic <i>Women's Rights are Human Rights</i> manages to avoid using the words <i>pro-choice</i> entirely (because she isn't), though she mentions that she thinks that abortion <iq>should be safe, legal and rare</iq>. Briefly, here are some other issues: <ul> She wants to maintain status quo on Social Security, acknowledging that it works just fine the way it is. Pro-farming, including increases of subsidies, which go under the name of <iq>market loss assistance</iq>. Immigration needs reform, but not to get harsher, since there is <iq>the reality that too many employers are using undocumented workers today</iq>. It's relatively clear that her obligations are to the businesses that depend on cheap labor. Champion of the environment, although her response to the EPA/9/11 debacle was lukewarm, at best. </ul> All in all, Hillary's presence online is incredibly <i>managed</i> and bespeaks huge investment. She's funded like almost no other senator, which means lots and lots of special interests, which shines through on every page of her issues list. There are a lot of important issues that are either not mentioned or just blend in with the wall of pol-speak that makes up the majority of the site. Read any of the issues and watch in amazement as she cancels out simultaneously held, directly opposing opinions in a nihilistic implosion. <h level="4">Howie Hawkins</h> And last, but not least, is <a href="http://www.hawkinsforsenate.org/">Howie Hawkins for U.S. Senate</a>, the Green candidate. At the top of the menu to the left is a link to his <i>Issues</i>, which, though much longer and more detailed than either of his opponents, is also far more digestible. It's much easier to be concise when you're not trying to fool people into thinking you hold two opposing opinions at once (I'm looking at you, Hillary). Below is a summary of his positions: <h level="5">Domestic</h> <ul> Universal medial care<fn> Abolish the electoral college and adopt instant run-off voting End death penalty Fully supports woman's right to choose<fn> Raise the minimum wage Improve mass transportation and increase incentives for smaller personal vehicles Repeal the Patriot Act Fix the tax system to <iq>[m]ake corporations and the rich pay their fair share</iq> Competitive bidding on Medicare drugs<fn> End funding for the missile defense shield Public financing of elections (for campaigns that reject private funding) Redistricting done by <iq>proportional representation in legislative bodies</iq> to undo gerrymandering </ul> <h level="5">International</h> <ul> Stop occupation of Iraq Stop supporting Israel <iq>Legalize, regulate, and tax drugs</iq> Fix the tax system to <iq>[m]ake corporations and the rich pay their fair share</iq> Reform the UN; abdicate veto power for all nations Repeal NAFTA, withdraw from WTO Sign the Kyoto agreement, sign the ICC (International Criminal Court) </ul> He's endorsed by Ralph Nader (big surprise there) and has a whole slew of <a href="http://hawkinsforsenate.net/press/position.php">position papers</a> on a wide range of issues as well as <a href="http://hawkinsforsenate.net/press/pr.php">press statement</a> and <a href="http://hawkinsforsenate.net/questionnaires/index.php">questionnaires</a> with a lot more detail on his positions.<fn> It's honestly a crying shame that, of these three candidates, Howie Hawkins is the one who has no chance whatsoever at gaining office. The two-party system---with one-party's worth of policies between them---has a headlock on the voting public. At this point, the best we can do is to just vote for the person that best matches our own opinions and hope for the best. For now, you'll be <iq>throwing your vote away</iq> (as Kodos or Kang from the Simpsons famously noted), but what other choice is there? If Clinton or Spencer really speaks to your ideals, then by all means vote for them; if you find Hawkins meets your needs better, don't be afraid of voting for him. What have you got to lose? <hr> <ft>This editor admits that, despite having filled in the oval for the man, his name had already slipped the surly bonds of memory and had to be retrieved with the help of web browser history.</ft> <ft>Brought to you by Electoral Vote, which stood us in such good stead during the 2004 elections.</ft> <ft>Since he fails to elaborate which provisions he supports, we are free to assume it's all of the bad ones.</ft> <ft>For the nitpickers out there, he has managed to ensconse himself in lawyerese defining his position: <iq>As a Reagan Republican, John Spencer supports the inalienable right to life from conception to natural death and like President Reagan John Spencer supports overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to states.</iq> Bla. Bla. Bla. = Anti-Abortion.</ft> <ft>Oops. Sorry. I mean that he <iq><i>supports</i> border security</iq>. How else is one to interpret that paltry fact in light of recent national discussion?</ft> <ft>Spencer supports his contention that Clinton does <i>not</i> support the Patriot act with this vote in <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358">2005</a>, which was about something else and did not indicate non-support fo the Patriot Act. See <a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249895" author="Hillary Clinton" title="Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the USA Patriot Act Reauthorization Conference Report">Statement ... on the USA Patriot Act Reauthorization Conference Report</a> or <a href="http://factcheck.org/article416.html" source="FactCheck.org">Hillary Clinton's Voting Record Distorted</a> for more information.</ft> <ft>This point isn't even that scarily expensive---we can start with the pile of cash we save on Israel per year.</ft> <ft>No spousal consent, no waiting periods, no parental notification for minors</ft> <ft>The current system does not allow the government to buy at bulk or wholesale prices, a system clearly dreamed up by pharmaceutical company lobbyists, who are probably now swimming in pools made out of gold and filled with Playboy bunnies.</ft> <ft>Personally, he had me at <iq>repeal the Patriot Act</iq> and his whole platform seems ripped right from the pages of earthli News. </ft>