Tête-à-Tête-Tête

What Joe Public has done here is rather admirable, both in style and substance. In the same vein, I offer my own suggestions. Just as Joe does, I urge you to make your own informed decisions after due reflection, and by all means - go vote. I will not offer predictions, as I have learned that I am an extremely poor prognosticator:

Governor: Phil Bredesen does not want my vote. He is afraid to take a stand against a system of taxation that leaks business and revenue to neighboring states, burdens the poor and middle class, and fails to provide adequate income for basic state functions such as education and health care. Jim Bryson certainly doesn’t want my vote. He is afraid to reform an unsound and irresponsible system of taxation. Instead he wants us to follow him down the rabbit trail of immigration reform, though as governor, he will have no power to implement any such thing. And - since this is merely a pander on his part - he would not take the issue seriously in any case.

In a race where neither major candidate is serious about anything but his own political advancement, and where the outcome is a foregone conclusion in any case, I will be voting third party, and encourage others to do so as well. The two major parties in the U.S. have a stranglehold on power and on the discourse. It needs to be broken, and absent a reformed electoral system, the only way to make a dent is to vote third party. As with Joe P., Howard Switzer (Independent on the Ballot - Green in all other respects) will be my choice. His web-site is lo-tech, but his positions are serious… mainly. He is suspicious of main-stream science, and when the Green Party gets to the point where they are seriously pushing further de-regulation of the dietary supplements industry or trying to outlaw genetically modified foods outright - it will be time to vote Democrat or Republican again.

Constitutional Amendment One: Vote No. Lot’s of reasons why, some good, some bad - I include the bad ones thinking that some people may be more swayed by them than the good ones:

• Gay marriage is already illegal in Tennessee

• It hurts kids (why should the kids in a family be punished for their parent’s orientation?)
• It defaces the constitution: The constitution should provide a foundation for the laws - it should not be treated as a repository for super-laws. If you feel the language isn’t clear enough in the Constitution for the courts to properly decide the validity of marriage legislation, then write an amendment that clarifies the foundational basis. If equal protection under the law is only desirable in this state up to the point where gay marriage remains unprotected, then explain *why* equal protection does not apply to gay couples and put that underlying principle into the constitution, instead - if it can be ratified.
• The issue belongs in the courts. This amendment is designed to keep it out of the courts. But, the courts exist, in part, because legislation decided by a majority is only good enough to protect majority interests. Minority interests require protection also, and this is one of the functions of a Constitutional system where power is balanced between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Don’t overlook the importance of this because you happen not to belong to a minority now. If that is the case, then you or your kids will still be in a minority one day - perhaps ethnic, perhaps religious, perhaps even sexual orientation. They deserve the same protections you do now, as a member of a majority.
• Religious people are having their witnesses stained. Continuing to ally religious morality with homophobic hatred will further tarnish your witness.

Constitutional Amendment Two:

I will vote “no”. Art II, Section 29 of the TN Constitution will be amended to enable the legislature to freeze the dollar amount of property tax paid by seniors when they turn 65, making it no longer liable to increases on appreciation. Although I support the idea of freezing seniors’ tax liability from appreciation, the amendment takes the wrong approach to this, and the current language already allows seniors to be re-imbursed for their property tax payments, making this unnecessary to create the desired result. A better choice would be to strike Setion 29 from the Constitution altogether, and provide a basis for legislative control of property and other taxes, so that institutionalized dependence upon property tax for revenue is no longer a necessity for the state’s budget. Section 29 is nothing more than a “super-law” - it does not provide a foundational basis for property taxes, it replaces legislation, leaving the underlying principles un-addressed. I see no benefit to seniors or to the state that warrants extending this super-law.

United States Senate: I wish that I could make an enthusiastic endorsement in this race. Unfortunately, neither candidate has much in the way of personal integrity or in public policy to recommend him. Both have disgusted me with their campaign tactics - Ford’s bullyish behavior in the Memphis Meltdown - his dishonesty in claiming he was defending his turf against Corker’s planned attacks on his family - Corker’s pandering on immigration, playing to the worst sides of human nature to make his case - his dishonest mischaracterization of Ford’s positions and voting records. Both disgust me with their public policies rooted in political advantage rather than the good of our nation. But, this is the most important vote you will cast in this election.

A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for ultimate power in the same irresponsible hands that have held it completely for the last 6 years. Corker will vote for Republican leadership in the Senate, and by extension for more of the same ill-advised, corrupt, incompetent and immoral leadership that we have endured over these last years. A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for The Iraq War - the premature assault - the bungled post-invasion effort - the unnecessary loss of life - the damage to national security and American effectiveness in the international arena. A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for an unhindered Executive office set to gather all power unto itself by any means necessary, aided and abetted by the other branches of government. A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for economic advantage to the k-street cronies of the Republican party. A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for energy policy set by the coal and petroleum industries. A vote for Bob Corker is a vote for environmental policy set by the industrial cronies of the Republican party.

A vote for Harold Ford is a vote against all this.

I detest Harold Ford, Jr., his opportunism, his arrogance, his sense of entitlement, his gay bashing, his Republican enabling policies. I detest these same qualities (if you can call them that) in Bob Corker. I will vote for Harold Ford in hopes of defeating Bob Corker, and in hopes of slowing the bleeding of our American values and character from Washington.

I urge you to vote against Bob Corker - for Ford, or for Chris Lugo.

U.S. House, District 3 I encourage a vote for the Libertarian candidate running as a Democrat, Brent Benedict, who stands head and shoulders above the personable, even tempered, and otherwise fine fellow, Zach Wamp, on the issues that face us today. I like Zach - he takes the right side on some issues, and sometimes tries to make the right stand. But, he doesn’t think every issue through very well, and sometimes, when he tries to make the right stand, he chickens out. And, sometimes, he’s just an ass. Vote Benedict.

I will skip the Tennessee State Senate race, having no dog in that fight. Likewise with all Tennessee House of Representatives races except District 27: where I endorse Bill Lusk and ask for your vote for him. While his opponent, Richard Floyd, is a clone of demagogue and “moralist” Chris Clem and has no agenda for our town or state, Bill is in this thing for his District, County, and State. He is running on a platform of personal ethics, a businessman’s sense for encouraging growth, and for bringing Hamilton County its fair share of the education budget, something we sorely need. For voters in Lookout Mountain and Lookout Valley, I strongly recommend you consider Bill Lusk for state House of Representatives.

For Chattanooga Municiple Ordinances, I echo Joe P.’s endorsement for ‘No’ on 11873 - to give eligibility to hold city office to those who currently hold unelected office in other capacities. I agree with Joe that this works contrary to civic participation and overall well-being. I abstain from endorsement on the other two offerred.

Tuesday is it: Go vote.