In some ways I feel reluctant to even write anything on Ebola, as I think it’s getting far more media attention than it should, and what’s worse, most of the attention is misdirected. The Ebola epidemic is important, but at this point it is mainly important as a serious humanitarian crisis, and we should be chiefly concerned about helping the people in West Africa who are being affected by it. In sheer numbers it is not by any means the worst humanitarian crisis that is going on; the conflict in Syria, for instance, has killed far more people and affected many times more, and it is still going on. But while people can and should give to help Syrian refugees, not to mention refugees in other places like South Sudan, people in wealthy places like the US and Europe should feel especially motivated to help fight Ebola. Perhaps the best reason, though one that is not mentioned enough, is that with our help it can be stopped entirely. There’s not much we can do to stop the conflicts in Syria, South Sudan, Congo, Somalia, and so on, but given enough of it, Western aid could be sufficient to stop the Ebola epidemic completely. The chief reason the outbreak has become so serious in countries like Liberia is an almost complete lack of medical infrastructure and a severe shortage of trained medical personnel. If we can provide these things in enough numbers, we should be able to help bring the epidemic under control. While the fact that helping today’s Syrian refugees won’t prevent the war or the murderous behavior of Assad or ISIL from perpetuating the crisis should not stop people from helping, the fact that with Ebola we can not only help those that are suffering now but prevent further suffering ought to make people even more eager to take action.
The other motivation for helping to fight Ebola is, of course, that by doing so we protect ourselves from any danger of getting it ourselves. While the danger of Ebola spreading in the US beyond the few isolated cases so far is one of the topics that has dominated news and talk shows, even there a lot of people are getting it wrong. First of all, at this point in time, the chance of the average individual in the US is so miniscule it’s almost not worth thinking about. You are about as likely to have a plane fall on you as you are to get Ebola (okay, I don’t know the exact odds of either, but the point is the chance of either is extremely remote). Even people who have been around people with Ebola are not that likely to get it. As one such person sensibly observed, people would be better off getting hysterical about climate change. For anyone who is not actually in very close regular contact with an Ebola patient, getting hysterical about the chance catching Ebola is completely irrational. But this is not to say that Ebola couldn’t become a serious, world-wide health threat. It is contagious, if not highly so, and it is often fatal (though proper medical treatment seems to greatly reduce the fatality rate). But the right-wing politicians and talking heads whose main plan for dealing with this potential danger seems to be to shut the borders of the US are not only sorely lacking in conscience for their apparent disinterest in the people actually suffering from the epidemic in Africa, but they are also seriously lacking in intelligence or at least common sense.
In a clip that was shown on the Daily Show, Republican Pete Sessions of Dallas, in advocating policies like a travel ban on people from countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone, actually made a point of saying that his priority was to protect his constituents, implying (though not actually stating) that the people of West Africa could all drop dead as far as he was concerned. In case there is any question about their priorities, Republicans in Congress have shown a decided reluctance to fully fund efforts to fight Ebola in West Africa (and as the NIH pointed out, their budget-cutting over the years is a major reason there is still no vaccine for the disease), but are loudly calling for travel bans and other fortress America type measures to keep all the diseased foreigners out,including some truly nonsensical efforts to conflate Ebola, ISIL and undocumented immigrants crossing the US's southern border into a single right-wing paranoid fantasy. Aside from being callous and xenophobic, this approach, like the right wing approach to so many other things, would in the long-term be detrimental to what they claim is their main goal, in this case protecting Americans from the disease. Basically, it works like this. If we help to contain and eventually end the outbreak in West Africa by supplying substantial medical assistance, both in terms of equipment and personnel, no one will have to worry about Ebola, in the US or anywhere else. On the other hand, if we follow the right wing prescription of ignoring the suffering elsewhere but taking stringent measures to keep people from the affected countries out, the disease will continue to spread. Unchecked, it will spread out of West Africa, perhaps to Asia or elsewhere. The more countries and people that are affected, the harder it will be for the US to keep them all out. If it became widespread enough, it eventually would be impossible to keep out, and the US would face a far more serious threat from the disease than the almost negligible threat it faces now.
Unfortunately, hysteria seems to be winning over reason in many cases. Aside from comically idiotic cases like schools closing down because of exchange students from African countries that are nowhere near the ones where Ebola is present, there is the example of the nurse returning to the US from helping fight the disease in West Africa who was quarantined unnecessarily (and it's worth remembering that she knows far more about Ebola than the idiot governors who wanted to quarantine her). As she pointed out, this sort of treatment is likely to discourage those who might otherwise want to go help, a result which would ultimately be self-defeating, as explained above. Americans should care about Ebola, but only because like any others who can afford to do so, they should be helping the fight against it in West Africa, if only by contributing a few dollars to one of the organizations with a presence there (which is what I did myself). It will only become a danger to the US (or any other developed country) itself if our failure to help causes it to become one. In the meantime, Americans should spare some of their hysterical concern for some of the other dangerous epidemics in their country.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
2014 US Elections (Texas Edition)
We’re coming up on the mid-term elections in the United States, and it’s still hard to tell which way they’ll go. Will the efforts of right-wing billionaires to buy political power by bombarding voters with misleading ads, coupled with Republican efforts to suppress voting by mainly Democratic constituencies by limiting voting times and enforcing voter ID laws (enacted to fight non-existent voter fraud) be enough to help the Republicans win a Senate majority, strengthen their hold on the House, and keep their extremist governors in power? Or will relative reason prevail, allowing the Democrats to hold the line in Congress and maybe even win some governorships? I say “relative reason” because unfortunately some of the Democrats are not exactly the most ideal of choices either. In an ideal world, someone like Alison Grimes, with her “I’m not Barack Obama” gun-toting TV ads, or worse yet her anti-“amnesty” (i.e., anti-immigrant) radio spots, or Mark Begich with his “let’s drill for oil in the wilderness” ads, would be the right-wing candidates. But with opponents like Mitch McConnell, even a flawed candidate like Grimes is preferable.
But in any case, I am registered in Texas, which means that few of the people I’m likely to vote for have any chance of winning. Changing demographics might tilt the balance in the Democrats’ favor in the future, but it probably won’t happen this year. There’s an outside chance that, given the awfulness of the Republican candidate for governor and the greater than usual enthusiasm the Democratic candidate has generated among her base, the Democrats could pull off an upset in that race, and perhaps one or two other statewide ones. However, it’s more likely that any Democratic wins will be in smaller constituencies. Unfortunately my US Congressional district is also heavily Republican, so probably the only Democrats on my ballot who will win are in races such as State Representative (where the Democratic incumbent is unopposed) or some of the judgeships (where again there are a number of unopposed Democrats).
As I did for the last election, I have done some research on the major races on my ballot and will summarize my conclusions here. Once again, my major sources are candidate questionnaires prepared by the Dallas News and Vote 411, though the latter is considerably shorter and so less useful. Another interesting site is I Side With..., where you answer yes/no questions about your own policy views and they match them with parties and candidates. I’m dubious about the precision of the results, since while the site provides some optional nuanced responses, some are not nuanced enough. Reading the individual candidates’ detailed answers to questions gives a better idea of where they stand. Also, in many cases, candidates from the same party seem to have given nearly identical responses, which makes me suspect they did not all individually answer the questions. However, you can get a general idea of how you match up with the parties, if not the individual candidates (the site claims I match around 97-8% with the Greens, 93-5% with the Democrats, 40+% with the Libertarians, and about 1-2% with the Republicans, which seems about right, though the numbers are probably a bit high). A fourth source is On the Issues, though they seem to only have information on the voting records of incumbent members of US Congress and on the US Senate challengers, but not on the current state races, and a few of the questions they asked candidates are a bit odd (including one about maintaining US sovereignty from the UN).
I will certainly be voting in the major races, but again I will probably not vote on local races where I discovered nothing about the candidates. Regarding the political parties, to paraphrase what I said about the last election, the Green Party, the third party whose general principles I most closely align with, seems to have a somewhat mixed set of candidates in that while some seem to be serious candidates, many of them don’t seem to be campaigning much or at all. Granted, Green party candidates can’t be expected to have much in the way of campaign funds, but that should be all the more reason to at least fill out all the candidate questionnaires that they can. While some of them may have legitimate excuses for their failure to do so, for most of them, especially those who failed to fill out not one but both of the questionnaires referenced here, I can only conclude they aren’t really serious about running for office. I mean, how hard is it to just fill out a short questionnaire? Or for that matter, to create a blog to promote your campaign, or at least campaign on Facebook (a few of the Green candidates do seem to be using Facebook to campaign, but others with pages haven't posted an update in months)? In these cases, if there is another halfway decent candidate (which generally means a Democrat), they'll get my vote over the Green. Annoyingly, several of the more serious seeming Green candidates are in races where the Democrat is not too bad, and some of the least active ones seem to be races where there are no other decent choices. Furthermore, while I would love to see the Green Party (or another progressive political party) become a serious alternative to the Democrats, at this point I think it’s more important to end the Republican stranglehold on the state. So if the Democrat is not too bad and stands a decent chance of winning, I’ll vote for them, even given a serious Green candidate. Of course if the Democrat is uninspiring and has no chance of winning anyway, I’ll certain pick a halfway decent Green candidate over them (though maybe not one I can find nothing about). On the other hand, if the Green doesn’t strike me as a serious candidate and I agree with the Democrat on most issues, I’ll vote for the latter even if they can’t win.
US Senator
John Cornyn (Rep) – The incumbent is a typically awful conservative Republican, only marginally better than his fellow Senator from Texas, the truly nutty Ted Cruz; according to I Side With, I’m only a 2% match with Cornyn, which sounds about right
David Alameel (Dem) – Good or very good positions on the majority of issues, including the minimum wage, immigration reform, education, taxes, foreign policy and climate change
Rebecca Paddock (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Seemingly tea party type, emphasizes supposed Constitutional limits on federal power, singles out the 2nd Amendment (apparently not so concerned about other rights), anti-immigrant
Emily Sanchez (Grn) – No response to the two main questionnaires, though she did respond to On the Issues, where most of her responses were good, except a reference to supporting school vouchers (she's also reasonably active on Facebook)
While Alameel has no real chance of winning, he seems like a solid progressive. Information about Sanchez’s positions is limited and not sufficient to make her a preferable choice, while the others are terrible. I plan to vote for Alameel.
US Representative, District 24
Kenny Marchant (Rep) – The incumbent representative is terrible on almost every issue (the only notable exception being that he favors normalizing relations with Taiwan), claims to be a libertarian but is still a hardliner on drugs and a hawk on foreign policy
Patrick McGehearty (Dem) – Mostly good, including his positions on taxes on the rich, the minimum wage, foreign policy on climate change, though on immigration his position is mixed (he advocates comprehensive reform but supports deporting undocumented minors)
Mike Kolls (Lib) – Mostly a classic libertarian (as he says, “socially liberal, financially conservative”), health care ideas very bad for the poor, against sending troops abroad but willing to bomb Iran, mixed on immigration, climate change denier
McGehearty, despite the flaws in his immigration stance, is the obvious choice here. Merchant is wrong on almost everything, and Kolls would only be better on a few issues.
Texas Governor
Greg Abbott (Rep) – The current Attorney General would be an awful governor, possibly even worse than the incumbent Rick Perry – at least Perry favors rethinking marijuana laws, while Abbott’s statement on drugs is pure nonsense
Wendy Davis (Dem) – Good on many issues, such as the minimum wage, drug laws, education, and immigration reform, not so great on guns and the death penalty, also rather vague in some responses
Kathie Glass (Lib) – Can’t disagree with most of her rants about cronyism (largely directed at Abbott and Perry) or her stance on marijuana, and a few of her remarks on education and handling death penalty cases make sense, but her ranting about federal tyranny, her xenophobia, her stance on guns, and her negative references to the EPA and the Endangered Species Act make her sound like a loony
Brandon Parmer (Grn) – Didn’t respond to the main questionnaires
I’m not as enthusiastic about Davis as some people are, but she’s good on enough issues to make her vastly better than Glass, not to mention Abbott. If Parmer seemed like a serious candidate, my reservations about Davis might lead me to pick him, but he doesn’t seem to be making a real effort (even on Facebook his last status update was in February), and Davis has an outside chance of actually winning, so I think I’ll go with her.
Lieutenant Governor
Dan Patrick (Rep) – terrible positions on numerous issues, including immigration, health care, the social safety net, and marijuana, and apparently just as bad on other issues such as gay marriage; indeed, he seems to be a complete wacko
Leticia Van de Putte (Dem) – Generally good answers on most policy questions, though occasionally reluctant to commit herself (e.g., she recognizes the potential medical benefits of marijuana but only says she thinks the issue should be discussed)
Robert Butler (Lib) – Apparently a classic libertarian, more reasonable sounding than most libertarians with good positions on immigration, drugs and the death penalty, even favors gas taxes and expresses a willingness to increase spending in certain areas, but his positions on guns, regulating payday lending and the chemical industry, school textbooks, and public charity are all bad
Chandrakantha Courtney (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good answers to the few questions on this questionnaire, including those on health care, immigration, drugs and education
Patrick of course is not even worth considering, and Butler, while better than some of the wacky candidates on the Libertarian slate, has too many serious negatives. If he and Patrick were the only choices, I might vote for him (whereas in most Republican-Libertarian match-ups I just wouldn’t vote), but certainly not in this race. Courtney at least bothered to answer one of the questionnaires, so I will consider voting for her if I can find other evidence that she’s seriously campaigning. Otherwise I’ll probably end up voting for Van de Putte in the hopes that she can pull off an upset against the disastrous Patrick.
Attorney General
Ken Paxton (Rep) – terrible on many issues, including same sex marriage, immigration, regulatory policy and general philosophy
Sam Houston (Dem) – Good, thoughtful responses on most questions
Jamie Balagia (Lib) – Good on drug policy, gay marriage, the death penalty and openness in government, admits to some need to regulate the energy industry, not completely negative about federal government, mixed comments about regulation of business
Jamar Osborne (Grn) – Actually responded to both questionnaires, but unfortunately not very great answers, good on same-sex marriage and women’s issues (also implies support for public option in health care), mainly obsessed with deregulating the legal profession so lawyers don’t have to be members of the state bar, libertarian-style position on government (i.e., for limited government), expresses admiration for Dennis Kuchnich but also Ayn Rand(!)
Unsurprisingly, Paxton is by far the worst one here. In an odd twist, the Libertarian candidate actually sounds better than the Green one in this case, though neither seem to identify that strongly with their parties. If there were no Democrat running, I might have actually considered voting for Balagia, but as it is, Houston is plainly the one to choose.
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Glenn Hegar (Rep) – Favors business, hints at hostility to undocumented immigrants, usual references to conservatism and keeping government small, favors regressive tax policy, apparently has touted his pro-gun and anti-abortion views as reasons to vote for him despite their irrelevance to the job
Mike Collier (Dem) – Good remarks on education, mostly reasonable sounding on other issues
Ben Sanders (Lib) – Some reasonable answers but flawed ideas on taxes and budget in line with standard libertarian positions
Deb Shafto (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good responses to the limited number of questions on the questionnaire, including on distribution of resources, people over profits, immigration and water
As this office is essentially like the state accountant and the questions relate to the job (which is less policy oriented than most), it’s a little harder for me to judge between the candidates. However, Hegar can be crossed off easily and Sanders almost as easily. It’s harder to choose between Collier and Shafto, though. I may decide to vote Green on this one if I can find evidence that Shafto is actually campaigning, but at this point I could go either way.
Commissioner of the General Land Office
George P. Bush (Rep) – Son of Jeb, nephew of W., supports oil and gas development, supports court ruling on beach access that favored private interest over public, talks about being a strong conservative, brags about being an early supporter of Ted Cruz
John Cook (Dem) – Generally good, mostly pro-environment responses, favors open access to beaches, but does also include fossil fuels in his energy strategy
Justin Knight (Lib) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
Valerie Alessi (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good, strongly pro-environment responses to the questions
Texas doesn’t need another Bush in office, and Knight can be dismissed. I haven’t decided for certain between Cook and Alessi. If I find indications that Alessi is seriously campaigning I’ll probably vote for her, as this office in particular could use a Green in charge, but Cook seems decent enough and so is just as likely to get my vote if Alessi doesn’t seem to be doing much.
Commissioner of Agriculture
Sid Miller (Rep) – Anti-immigrant, usual rhetoric on conservatism and the free market, not interested in promoting sustainable agriculture or alternative energy, apparently once referred to Civil War as the “war of northern aggression”
Jim Hogan (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Brief answers to the few questions on the questionnaire that really don’t tell me anything
David Palmquist (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Big on hemp and pro-marijuana legalization, usual government is bad rhetoric, tacky American flag shirt in picture
Kenneth Kendrick (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Food safety activist and whistleblower, generally good-sounding answers to the few questions on the questionnaire, badly needs an editor/proofreader (though several other candidates could use one too); actually has a website, so at least he's reasonably serious
Not a lot to choose from here, but since Kendrick seems to be one of the few Greens who's making a real effort (and Hogan one of the few Democrats who isn't), I think I'll vote Green here.
Railroad Commissioner
Ryan Sitton (Rep) – Claims to be unbiased, coy on actual rules to limit contributions from industry, doesn’t mention renewable energy, climate change denier
Steve Brown (Dem) – Good, generally pro-environmental responses to the questions, including support for renewable energy, dealing with climate change and ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission
Mark Miller (Lib) – Good comments on ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission, acknowledges need to deal with climate change, doesn’t mention renewable energy, doesn’t support comprehensive energy plan, favors “free market”
Martina Salinas (Grn) –– Good, generally pro-environmental responses to the questions, including support for renewable energy and ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission
Sitton is clearly the worst candidate. Miller is relatively good for a Libertarian, but not good enough. I am going to have a tough time choosing between Brown and Salinas. Salinas, unlike other Green candidates, actually responded to both questionnaires, and this is certainly an office where it would be great to see a Green in charge. But Brown’s responses are just as good as Salinas’s. Even if I were to choose on the basis of promoting diversity in a state government dominated by white men, either Brown (an African American man) or Salinas (a Hispanic woman) would be great. This one I’ll probably decide at the last minute. I’d vote for both if I could.
Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Nathan Hecht (Rep) – While a number of his responses sound reasonable enough, such as those on limiting campaign contributions, he flatly (and very implausibly) denies the court has a pro-business bias, cites Scalia as a judge he admires, apparently was once admonished by ethics commission
William Moody (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Gave very brief answers (two just one word), did seriously campaign in past elections
Tom Oxford (Lib) – Considers both big government and big business threats to liberty, says court has pro-business bias, in previous election named liberal Texas judge William Wayne Justice as a judge he admired
This one is a little tricky. I certainly won’t be voting for Hecht; while he may not be the worst Republican out there, that isn’t saying much – his record is still that of a right-wing, pro-business, anti-gay judge with possible ethical issues. Oxford seems okay for a Libertarian, while Moody doesn’t seem to be campaigning much this time around. I might be tempted to vote for Oxford just because Moody doesn’t act like he’s that interested, but I’m not sure I can bring myself to vote for a Libertarian, unless the only other choice is a Republican. I may still vote for Moody, who is at least an experienced judge who has in the past run serious campaigns.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6
Jeff Brown (Rep) – Names conservative Supreme Court Justice John Harlan and current justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito as judges he admires, denies the court has a pro-business bias
Lawrence Meyers (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Gave very brief answers, former Republican who recently switched parties
Mark Ash (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) While his answers were longer than Meyers’, they still aren’t much to go on
Brown is obviously out. Ash and Meyers don’t seem to be trying very hard (perhaps it is telling that this and Agriculture Commissioner are the two statewide races where there’s a Democrat on the ballot that the UAW didn’t endorse). I may just skip this one.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 7
Jeff Boyd (Rep) – Denies the court itself is pro-business in its rulings, though he admits that the legislature is pro-business and so has passed pro-business statutes that the court enforces, big on so-called judicial restraint
Gina Benavides (Dem) – Experienced judge, generally good sounding responses
Don Fulton (Lib) – Says major parties and court favor big government and big business
Charles Waterbury (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Adequate answers to the few questions, but not much to go on
Boyd seems slightly better than the other Republicans on the court, but not enough for me to even consider voting for him, and Fulton doesn’t particularly impress me either. Benavides looks like a good candidate. Waterbury, despite being somewhat lacking in qualifications, would get my vote if he were running for Place 6 and probably if he were running for Chief Justice, but in this race I think I'll vote for Benavides.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 8
Phil Johnson (Rep) – Cites Scalia as a judge he admires, denies the court is pro-business
Roberto Koelsch (Lib) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
Jim Chisolm (Grn) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
It’s regrettable that in the one race where there’s a Green running but no Democrat, the Green doesn’t seem to be bothering to campaign. I may still vote for Chisolm as a protest vote against Johnson, but only with considerable reluctance.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Bert Richardson (Rep) – Admits court has a reputation of favoring the prosecution (though he doesn’t actually say if he thinks it’s true), acknowledges inconsistency in application of death penalty, says he’s a conservative but claims to respect the beliefs of others, thinks partisan election of judges not the best method
John Granberg (Dem) – Adequate responses, though a bit brief at times
Mark Bennett (Lib) – Didn’t respond to questionnaires
Based on this rather slim amount of information, Richardson seems better than the average Republican, but not enough to get my vote. Granberg isn’t particularly inspiring, but if I vote at all in this race, it’ll be for him. More likely I'll skip this one.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Kevin Yeary (Rep) – Denies that the court is tough on crime or favors prosecutors
Quanah Parker (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Favors legalizing pot, otherwise little to go on
Judith Sanders-Castro (Grn) – Decent responses, though rather annoyingly answered many of the questions on the Dallas News questionnaire in all capitals
Since Sanders-Castro at least bothered to fill out the questionnaire I suppose I’ll vote for her, since Parker doesn’t have much to recommend her and Yeary even less so.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9
David Newell (Rep) – Acknowledges that there are problems with wrongful convictions and application of the death penalty, admits that the court probably has pro-prosecution reputation due to certain cases but argues that it is not fully deserved, cites dubious Republican philosophy about Constitution
William Strange III (Lib) – Responses somewhat brief and not too informative
George Altgelt (Grn) – Didn’t respond to questionnaires
With the choices being another conservative Republican, a Libertarian with nothing particular to recommend him, and a Green that doesn’t seem to be campaigning, I may skip this one. If I do vote I suppose it’d have to be for the Green.
Member, State Board of Education, District 11
Patricia Hardy (Rep) – Many responses not very informative, supporter of charter schools, not the most extreme member of the board but was the one responsible for the idiotic banning of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See based on an email from a fellow board member
Nancy Bean (Dem) – Generally good responses, favors multiculturalism, critical of charter schools
Craig Sanders (Lib) – Against all state standards, favors charter schools
Bean is the obvious choice here.
Judge, 5th Court of Appeals, Place 5
Craig Stoddart (Rep) – Admires Scalia, big on “judicial restraint” and strict construction of Constitution
Ken Molberg (Dem) – Reasonable sounding responses, though not much to go on
From the limited information available, Molberg seems okay, so he’ll get my vote.
I'll probably not vote in any of the local elections, so I'll be leaving the rest of the ballot blank (except maybe for the referendums). As already noted, I'm likely to leave some of the races above blank as well, as I'm reluctant to vote for a weak Democrat or an invisible and probably unqualified Green, and I certainly can't bring myself to vote for someone who still labels himself a Republican when the party is dominated by the likes of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, John Cornyn, Pete Sessions, Kenny Marchant and Louie Gohmert, not to mention the idiots in the rest of the country. What's scary is that in Texas at least the latter crew are still probably going to come out on top, and with people like the Kochs spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bamboozle gullible voters, they may even win nationwide. But if the sensible people don't vote, they are certain to win, so I plan to mail in my ballot despite knowing it's unlikely to change anything.
But in any case, I am registered in Texas, which means that few of the people I’m likely to vote for have any chance of winning. Changing demographics might tilt the balance in the Democrats’ favor in the future, but it probably won’t happen this year. There’s an outside chance that, given the awfulness of the Republican candidate for governor and the greater than usual enthusiasm the Democratic candidate has generated among her base, the Democrats could pull off an upset in that race, and perhaps one or two other statewide ones. However, it’s more likely that any Democratic wins will be in smaller constituencies. Unfortunately my US Congressional district is also heavily Republican, so probably the only Democrats on my ballot who will win are in races such as State Representative (where the Democratic incumbent is unopposed) or some of the judgeships (where again there are a number of unopposed Democrats).
As I did for the last election, I have done some research on the major races on my ballot and will summarize my conclusions here. Once again, my major sources are candidate questionnaires prepared by the Dallas News and Vote 411, though the latter is considerably shorter and so less useful. Another interesting site is I Side With..., where you answer yes/no questions about your own policy views and they match them with parties and candidates. I’m dubious about the precision of the results, since while the site provides some optional nuanced responses, some are not nuanced enough. Reading the individual candidates’ detailed answers to questions gives a better idea of where they stand. Also, in many cases, candidates from the same party seem to have given nearly identical responses, which makes me suspect they did not all individually answer the questions. However, you can get a general idea of how you match up with the parties, if not the individual candidates (the site claims I match around 97-8% with the Greens, 93-5% with the Democrats, 40+% with the Libertarians, and about 1-2% with the Republicans, which seems about right, though the numbers are probably a bit high). A fourth source is On the Issues, though they seem to only have information on the voting records of incumbent members of US Congress and on the US Senate challengers, but not on the current state races, and a few of the questions they asked candidates are a bit odd (including one about maintaining US sovereignty from the UN).
I will certainly be voting in the major races, but again I will probably not vote on local races where I discovered nothing about the candidates. Regarding the political parties, to paraphrase what I said about the last election, the Green Party, the third party whose general principles I most closely align with, seems to have a somewhat mixed set of candidates in that while some seem to be serious candidates, many of them don’t seem to be campaigning much or at all. Granted, Green party candidates can’t be expected to have much in the way of campaign funds, but that should be all the more reason to at least fill out all the candidate questionnaires that they can. While some of them may have legitimate excuses for their failure to do so, for most of them, especially those who failed to fill out not one but both of the questionnaires referenced here, I can only conclude they aren’t really serious about running for office. I mean, how hard is it to just fill out a short questionnaire? Or for that matter, to create a blog to promote your campaign, or at least campaign on Facebook (a few of the Green candidates do seem to be using Facebook to campaign, but others with pages haven't posted an update in months)? In these cases, if there is another halfway decent candidate (which generally means a Democrat), they'll get my vote over the Green. Annoyingly, several of the more serious seeming Green candidates are in races where the Democrat is not too bad, and some of the least active ones seem to be races where there are no other decent choices. Furthermore, while I would love to see the Green Party (or another progressive political party) become a serious alternative to the Democrats, at this point I think it’s more important to end the Republican stranglehold on the state. So if the Democrat is not too bad and stands a decent chance of winning, I’ll vote for them, even given a serious Green candidate. Of course if the Democrat is uninspiring and has no chance of winning anyway, I’ll certain pick a halfway decent Green candidate over them (though maybe not one I can find nothing about). On the other hand, if the Green doesn’t strike me as a serious candidate and I agree with the Democrat on most issues, I’ll vote for the latter even if they can’t win.
US Senator
John Cornyn (Rep) – The incumbent is a typically awful conservative Republican, only marginally better than his fellow Senator from Texas, the truly nutty Ted Cruz; according to I Side With, I’m only a 2% match with Cornyn, which sounds about right
David Alameel (Dem) – Good or very good positions on the majority of issues, including the minimum wage, immigration reform, education, taxes, foreign policy and climate change
Rebecca Paddock (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Seemingly tea party type, emphasizes supposed Constitutional limits on federal power, singles out the 2nd Amendment (apparently not so concerned about other rights), anti-immigrant
Emily Sanchez (Grn) – No response to the two main questionnaires, though she did respond to On the Issues, where most of her responses were good, except a reference to supporting school vouchers (she's also reasonably active on Facebook)
While Alameel has no real chance of winning, he seems like a solid progressive. Information about Sanchez’s positions is limited and not sufficient to make her a preferable choice, while the others are terrible. I plan to vote for Alameel.
US Representative, District 24
Kenny Marchant (Rep) – The incumbent representative is terrible on almost every issue (the only notable exception being that he favors normalizing relations with Taiwan), claims to be a libertarian but is still a hardliner on drugs and a hawk on foreign policy
Patrick McGehearty (Dem) – Mostly good, including his positions on taxes on the rich, the minimum wage, foreign policy on climate change, though on immigration his position is mixed (he advocates comprehensive reform but supports deporting undocumented minors)
Mike Kolls (Lib) – Mostly a classic libertarian (as he says, “socially liberal, financially conservative”), health care ideas very bad for the poor, against sending troops abroad but willing to bomb Iran, mixed on immigration, climate change denier
McGehearty, despite the flaws in his immigration stance, is the obvious choice here. Merchant is wrong on almost everything, and Kolls would only be better on a few issues.
Texas Governor
Greg Abbott (Rep) – The current Attorney General would be an awful governor, possibly even worse than the incumbent Rick Perry – at least Perry favors rethinking marijuana laws, while Abbott’s statement on drugs is pure nonsense
Wendy Davis (Dem) – Good on many issues, such as the minimum wage, drug laws, education, and immigration reform, not so great on guns and the death penalty, also rather vague in some responses
Kathie Glass (Lib) – Can’t disagree with most of her rants about cronyism (largely directed at Abbott and Perry) or her stance on marijuana, and a few of her remarks on education and handling death penalty cases make sense, but her ranting about federal tyranny, her xenophobia, her stance on guns, and her negative references to the EPA and the Endangered Species Act make her sound like a loony
Brandon Parmer (Grn) – Didn’t respond to the main questionnaires
I’m not as enthusiastic about Davis as some people are, but she’s good on enough issues to make her vastly better than Glass, not to mention Abbott. If Parmer seemed like a serious candidate, my reservations about Davis might lead me to pick him, but he doesn’t seem to be making a real effort (even on Facebook his last status update was in February), and Davis has an outside chance of actually winning, so I think I’ll go with her.
Lieutenant Governor
Dan Patrick (Rep) – terrible positions on numerous issues, including immigration, health care, the social safety net, and marijuana, and apparently just as bad on other issues such as gay marriage; indeed, he seems to be a complete wacko
Leticia Van de Putte (Dem) – Generally good answers on most policy questions, though occasionally reluctant to commit herself (e.g., she recognizes the potential medical benefits of marijuana but only says she thinks the issue should be discussed)
Robert Butler (Lib) – Apparently a classic libertarian, more reasonable sounding than most libertarians with good positions on immigration, drugs and the death penalty, even favors gas taxes and expresses a willingness to increase spending in certain areas, but his positions on guns, regulating payday lending and the chemical industry, school textbooks, and public charity are all bad
Chandrakantha Courtney (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good answers to the few questions on this questionnaire, including those on health care, immigration, drugs and education
Patrick of course is not even worth considering, and Butler, while better than some of the wacky candidates on the Libertarian slate, has too many serious negatives. If he and Patrick were the only choices, I might vote for him (whereas in most Republican-Libertarian match-ups I just wouldn’t vote), but certainly not in this race. Courtney at least bothered to answer one of the questionnaires, so I will consider voting for her if I can find other evidence that she’s seriously campaigning. Otherwise I’ll probably end up voting for Van de Putte in the hopes that she can pull off an upset against the disastrous Patrick.
Attorney General
Ken Paxton (Rep) – terrible on many issues, including same sex marriage, immigration, regulatory policy and general philosophy
Sam Houston (Dem) – Good, thoughtful responses on most questions
Jamie Balagia (Lib) – Good on drug policy, gay marriage, the death penalty and openness in government, admits to some need to regulate the energy industry, not completely negative about federal government, mixed comments about regulation of business
Jamar Osborne (Grn) – Actually responded to both questionnaires, but unfortunately not very great answers, good on same-sex marriage and women’s issues (also implies support for public option in health care), mainly obsessed with deregulating the legal profession so lawyers don’t have to be members of the state bar, libertarian-style position on government (i.e., for limited government), expresses admiration for Dennis Kuchnich but also Ayn Rand(!)
Unsurprisingly, Paxton is by far the worst one here. In an odd twist, the Libertarian candidate actually sounds better than the Green one in this case, though neither seem to identify that strongly with their parties. If there were no Democrat running, I might have actually considered voting for Balagia, but as it is, Houston is plainly the one to choose.
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Glenn Hegar (Rep) – Favors business, hints at hostility to undocumented immigrants, usual references to conservatism and keeping government small, favors regressive tax policy, apparently has touted his pro-gun and anti-abortion views as reasons to vote for him despite their irrelevance to the job
Mike Collier (Dem) – Good remarks on education, mostly reasonable sounding on other issues
Ben Sanders (Lib) – Some reasonable answers but flawed ideas on taxes and budget in line with standard libertarian positions
Deb Shafto (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good responses to the limited number of questions on the questionnaire, including on distribution of resources, people over profits, immigration and water
As this office is essentially like the state accountant and the questions relate to the job (which is less policy oriented than most), it’s a little harder for me to judge between the candidates. However, Hegar can be crossed off easily and Sanders almost as easily. It’s harder to choose between Collier and Shafto, though. I may decide to vote Green on this one if I can find evidence that Shafto is actually campaigning, but at this point I could go either way.
Commissioner of the General Land Office
George P. Bush (Rep) – Son of Jeb, nephew of W., supports oil and gas development, supports court ruling on beach access that favored private interest over public, talks about being a strong conservative, brags about being an early supporter of Ted Cruz
John Cook (Dem) – Generally good, mostly pro-environment responses, favors open access to beaches, but does also include fossil fuels in his energy strategy
Justin Knight (Lib) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
Valerie Alessi (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Good, strongly pro-environment responses to the questions
Texas doesn’t need another Bush in office, and Knight can be dismissed. I haven’t decided for certain between Cook and Alessi. If I find indications that Alessi is seriously campaigning I’ll probably vote for her, as this office in particular could use a Green in charge, but Cook seems decent enough and so is just as likely to get my vote if Alessi doesn’t seem to be doing much.
Commissioner of Agriculture
Sid Miller (Rep) – Anti-immigrant, usual rhetoric on conservatism and the free market, not interested in promoting sustainable agriculture or alternative energy, apparently once referred to Civil War as the “war of northern aggression”
Jim Hogan (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Brief answers to the few questions on the questionnaire that really don’t tell me anything
David Palmquist (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Big on hemp and pro-marijuana legalization, usual government is bad rhetoric, tacky American flag shirt in picture
Kenneth Kendrick (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Food safety activist and whistleblower, generally good-sounding answers to the few questions on the questionnaire, badly needs an editor/proofreader (though several other candidates could use one too); actually has a website, so at least he's reasonably serious
Not a lot to choose from here, but since Kendrick seems to be one of the few Greens who's making a real effort (and Hogan one of the few Democrats who isn't), I think I'll vote Green here.
Railroad Commissioner
Ryan Sitton (Rep) – Claims to be unbiased, coy on actual rules to limit contributions from industry, doesn’t mention renewable energy, climate change denier
Steve Brown (Dem) – Good, generally pro-environmental responses to the questions, including support for renewable energy, dealing with climate change and ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission
Mark Miller (Lib) – Good comments on ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission, acknowledges need to deal with climate change, doesn’t mention renewable energy, doesn’t support comprehensive energy plan, favors “free market”
Martina Salinas (Grn) –– Good, generally pro-environmental responses to the questions, including support for renewable energy and ending the pro-industry bias of the Commission
Sitton is clearly the worst candidate. Miller is relatively good for a Libertarian, but not good enough. I am going to have a tough time choosing between Brown and Salinas. Salinas, unlike other Green candidates, actually responded to both questionnaires, and this is certainly an office where it would be great to see a Green in charge. But Brown’s responses are just as good as Salinas’s. Even if I were to choose on the basis of promoting diversity in a state government dominated by white men, either Brown (an African American man) or Salinas (a Hispanic woman) would be great. This one I’ll probably decide at the last minute. I’d vote for both if I could.
Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Nathan Hecht (Rep) – While a number of his responses sound reasonable enough, such as those on limiting campaign contributions, he flatly (and very implausibly) denies the court has a pro-business bias, cites Scalia as a judge he admires, apparently was once admonished by ethics commission
William Moody (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Gave very brief answers (two just one word), did seriously campaign in past elections
Tom Oxford (Lib) – Considers both big government and big business threats to liberty, says court has pro-business bias, in previous election named liberal Texas judge William Wayne Justice as a judge he admired
This one is a little tricky. I certainly won’t be voting for Hecht; while he may not be the worst Republican out there, that isn’t saying much – his record is still that of a right-wing, pro-business, anti-gay judge with possible ethical issues. Oxford seems okay for a Libertarian, while Moody doesn’t seem to be campaigning much this time around. I might be tempted to vote for Oxford just because Moody doesn’t act like he’s that interested, but I’m not sure I can bring myself to vote for a Libertarian, unless the only other choice is a Republican. I may still vote for Moody, who is at least an experienced judge who has in the past run serious campaigns.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6
Jeff Brown (Rep) – Names conservative Supreme Court Justice John Harlan and current justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito as judges he admires, denies the court has a pro-business bias
Lawrence Meyers (Dem) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Gave very brief answers, former Republican who recently switched parties
Mark Ash (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) While his answers were longer than Meyers’, they still aren’t much to go on
Brown is obviously out. Ash and Meyers don’t seem to be trying very hard (perhaps it is telling that this and Agriculture Commissioner are the two statewide races where there’s a Democrat on the ballot that the UAW didn’t endorse). I may just skip this one.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 7
Jeff Boyd (Rep) – Denies the court itself is pro-business in its rulings, though he admits that the legislature is pro-business and so has passed pro-business statutes that the court enforces, big on so-called judicial restraint
Gina Benavides (Dem) – Experienced judge, generally good sounding responses
Don Fulton (Lib) – Says major parties and court favor big government and big business
Charles Waterbury (Grn) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Adequate answers to the few questions, but not much to go on
Boyd seems slightly better than the other Republicans on the court, but not enough for me to even consider voting for him, and Fulton doesn’t particularly impress me either. Benavides looks like a good candidate. Waterbury, despite being somewhat lacking in qualifications, would get my vote if he were running for Place 6 and probably if he were running for Chief Justice, but in this race I think I'll vote for Benavides.
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 8
Phil Johnson (Rep) – Cites Scalia as a judge he admires, denies the court is pro-business
Roberto Koelsch (Lib) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
Jim Chisolm (Grn) – Didn’t respond to either questionnaire
It’s regrettable that in the one race where there’s a Green running but no Democrat, the Green doesn’t seem to be bothering to campaign. I may still vote for Chisolm as a protest vote against Johnson, but only with considerable reluctance.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3
Bert Richardson (Rep) – Admits court has a reputation of favoring the prosecution (though he doesn’t actually say if he thinks it’s true), acknowledges inconsistency in application of death penalty, says he’s a conservative but claims to respect the beliefs of others, thinks partisan election of judges not the best method
John Granberg (Dem) – Adequate responses, though a bit brief at times
Mark Bennett (Lib) – Didn’t respond to questionnaires
Based on this rather slim amount of information, Richardson seems better than the average Republican, but not enough to get my vote. Granberg isn’t particularly inspiring, but if I vote at all in this race, it’ll be for him. More likely I'll skip this one.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 4
Kevin Yeary (Rep) – Denies that the court is tough on crime or favors prosecutors
Quanah Parker (Lib) – (Only responded to 411 questionnaire) Favors legalizing pot, otherwise little to go on
Judith Sanders-Castro (Grn) – Decent responses, though rather annoyingly answered many of the questions on the Dallas News questionnaire in all capitals
Since Sanders-Castro at least bothered to fill out the questionnaire I suppose I’ll vote for her, since Parker doesn’t have much to recommend her and Yeary even less so.
Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 9
David Newell (Rep) – Acknowledges that there are problems with wrongful convictions and application of the death penalty, admits that the court probably has pro-prosecution reputation due to certain cases but argues that it is not fully deserved, cites dubious Republican philosophy about Constitution
William Strange III (Lib) – Responses somewhat brief and not too informative
George Altgelt (Grn) – Didn’t respond to questionnaires
With the choices being another conservative Republican, a Libertarian with nothing particular to recommend him, and a Green that doesn’t seem to be campaigning, I may skip this one. If I do vote I suppose it’d have to be for the Green.
Member, State Board of Education, District 11
Patricia Hardy (Rep) – Many responses not very informative, supporter of charter schools, not the most extreme member of the board but was the one responsible for the idiotic banning of Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See based on an email from a fellow board member
Nancy Bean (Dem) – Generally good responses, favors multiculturalism, critical of charter schools
Craig Sanders (Lib) – Against all state standards, favors charter schools
Bean is the obvious choice here.
Judge, 5th Court of Appeals, Place 5
Craig Stoddart (Rep) – Admires Scalia, big on “judicial restraint” and strict construction of Constitution
Ken Molberg (Dem) – Reasonable sounding responses, though not much to go on
From the limited information available, Molberg seems okay, so he’ll get my vote.
I'll probably not vote in any of the local elections, so I'll be leaving the rest of the ballot blank (except maybe for the referendums). As already noted, I'm likely to leave some of the races above blank as well, as I'm reluctant to vote for a weak Democrat or an invisible and probably unqualified Green, and I certainly can't bring myself to vote for someone who still labels himself a Republican when the party is dominated by the likes of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, John Cornyn, Pete Sessions, Kenny Marchant and Louie Gohmert, not to mention the idiots in the rest of the country. What's scary is that in Texas at least the latter crew are still probably going to come out on top, and with people like the Kochs spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bamboozle gullible voters, they may even win nationwide. But if the sensible people don't vote, they are certain to win, so I plan to mail in my ballot despite knowing it's unlikely to change anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
