So Now That I've Voted...

My part in the 114th election cycle (or is it the 20th or the 847th?) is done.  I would like to point out, that once again I did not see my name on the ballot.  I didn't even vote for myself for any of the offices up for election.

Now some conspiracy theorists might suggest that this is a direct result of the biased Anti-Mook media machine making sure that my name didn't get out to the voting public, as well as airing commercials subliminally hypnotizing me into voting against myself.  Some might say it was Islamic Jihadists trying to suppress freedom and the American Way (Which I clearly represent at all turns), or the Koch brothers spending billions in silencing my voice among the masses of their preferred candidates.

I assure you, that none of these scenarios are the case. Since the voting polls are still open, I will take this time to get out my political message, before going silent on the matter until at least Monday, when the next election cycle punditry shall start with all those talking heads on TV.

I chose to not run for any office this year because in 2016, it will be the first time in my life that I will be eligible to seek the office of the President of the United States of America. 

Soon to be renamed the Mookified Compound

Because of the two year time crunch, I would not want to burden my supporters with the fact that I, as their chosen leader, would be forced to spend all the time I am supposed to be representing them out on the campaign trail.  Also, If I were to end up in an office that the term would over run that time frame, I would not want to disappoint them by leaving my elected position to take over the bigger better opportunity.

So, in the off chance that too many of you numbskulls wrote me in as your candidate of choice, let me be clear.  I am regretfully informing you that I am hereby conceding this year's elections.  It was a non hard fought battle, but I have stepped aside from the path of all my many opponents. the more they wreck shit between now and then, the greater my accomplishments as leader of the free world, and eventually the universe (I'll be more specific on my plans for NASA at a later date) will seem.

"But what about getting some government experience before attempting to ascend to the Presidency?" you say. To this I answer: I will not be labeled a political/Washington insider. The only pork I want to be associated with supporting between now and then will be bacon. And bratwursts- lots of both.

The kind of pork Washington DC needs!

With your help in 2 years, I will see us through a new sense of economic prosperity to include greater investments in business as well as higher wages for many.  A complete change in our foreign policy, and total reform of immigration.  The budgets will be balanced, the national debts drawn down, infrastructure improved and other amazing things that will blow your minds.  I'd put it down in writing, but by keeping it in my head, none of these idiots in Washington that are all about them and their parties taking credit for shit can steal it and destroy the perfection of the idea and screw 90% of the population, or more.

So consider today, the day you elect your representatives for this midterm election, the day I officially announce my candidacy for the next President of the United States.  I'll accept your support in the form of PAC money, or just straight cash in hand. Thank you for not voting for me this time around, and good night my fellow Americans.

Be a freedom loving patriot- Vote Mookie in 2016!

Legislating From The Bench or Doing Their Job

Here in Iowa, our election day was not only for representatives, senators and a governor. In fact, a huge issue getting a lot of the play was on the retention or rejection of 3 Iowa Supreme Court justices. After all was said and done, Marsha K. Ternus, the chief justice; Michael J. Streit; and David L. Baker — received about 45 percent of the vote, making this the first time members of the state’s high court had been rejected by voters.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

“What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”

A massive portion of the campaign to oust the judges was funded by out of state groups, helping to support the efforts led by Vander Plaats, and heralded by Representative Steve King.

A lot of the arguments put forth by pundits and regular citizens alike was that the ouster was the result of Iowans being displeased with the state Supreme Court legislating from the bench. Now I may be a conservative, but this is one area where I break ranks with our so-called standard bearers.

For one, I personally think the idea of gay marriage is a non-issue and therefor irrelevant in regards to government oversight, save the license issuing process that heterosexual couples go through. Secondly, I personally believe the process behind letting citizens decide to stop homosexuals from being allowed to marry or not is ludicrous. Since the state Supreme Court said the legislation was essentially flawed and struck down as unconstitutional, gay marriage opponents and politicians have taken to their soapboxes to proclaim the injustice of an opinion differing from theirs. Boo-friggin-hoo!

I believe when allowing citizens to vote on the rights of other people's lives you have to look at a couple things. One- does there allowance to participate in some activity truly harm you? Two- Is the vote on an amendment to allow a freedom or restrict a freedom.

Personally, I know gay people, and have some people related to me who have chosen (or are naturally?) the homosexual lifestyle. Am I for gay activities? Not really. I have always and will always prefer women for romantic relations. But in regards to homosexuality I don't have to participate in, condone, or suffer from their lifestyle, or choose to associate myself with anyone who does. Whether or not two gay people decide to get married will ultimately never affect me personally, and I highly doubt it will affect any of the other straight people living around here.

Conservatives are always bitching about how they want the government to stay out of their personal lives and let them live and operate freely as they see fit. But then all of a sudden, hoards of queers appear on the horizon, in full war paint ready to charge on in and ruin their idea of civilization, and now they want to use our system of governance to prohibit the activities of individuals.

Look I get the God-fearing church crowd being dismayed at homosexual activities and lifestyle, I really do. Say what you want, let your heart be filled with all that hate you wish to hold, but remember a couple teachings from the Good Book. Do not judge, for that is the role of God. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Pull the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's.

In other words, you aren't perfect, so who the hell are you to tell other people how wrong they are. Fix up your own house and let others fix their own house as they see fit. Again, you don't have to hang out with homosexuals or people who accept homosexuals as friends for that matter. You don't have to engage in homosexual behavior or gay marriage. Your church does not have to recognize anything related to homosexuals. In the same moment, keep your government out of it as well.

Quit pissing and moaning about how the government is trying to legislate your activities, and then turn around and do the same thing to someone you disagree with. That only makes you a hypocrite. And while everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinions, the rest of those around you are equally entitled to disagree with you and tell you to stuff it where the sun don't shine.

So, unlike many of my conservative friends, I voted to retain the three judges. I voted for the losing side. That doesn't make me wrong, just makes me in the minority at the polls. The judges did NOT legislate from the bench, contrary to popular opinion, but merely did their job in not restricting the freedoms of citizens under their jurisdiction.

A New Day In America

After so many years, so many trials and tribulations we as a country have faced, America again has conquered another historic moment.

I went to bed last night at about 6:30, and was awakened by my alarm clock at 11:00pm to begin my night of work. My wife was just coming in to make sure I got up, so she could go to bed without being interrupted by my alarm clock. She looked me dead in the eye and with a hint of resignation combined with her being tired, said, "We just elected Obama as our next President." So we have now placed a clearly visible minority in the highest executive office in the land.

Both of us had cast our votes for McCain. Well, I did anyways, and assume she did as well, as she was not most vocally not puling for Obama. I admit a slight sense of disappointment when I heard the results, but was not really surprised.

While I do not agree with Senator Obama's politics, it appears an overwhelming majority of Americans did, and voiced their opinion through their vote yesterday. So from here on out, I guess we pray for a good solid leadership from an Obama administration, as well as our legislature. I pray that all the talk of Hope and Change weren't just the normal political rhetoric used to get elected. I'd like to hope that some of his politics were just that, and he becomes a little more moderate than his reputation, in an effort to unite a clearly and definitely divided country (in the political sense). I hope that he makes honest efforts to reach across the aisle, and not use a strong democratic majority across the board to shove all his programs down our throat, without regard to our wants or needs as a country.

So I'll keep a little hope of my own, that he does the job well.

Most of all, I'm just glad that my phone won't be blown up with robocalls, and my mailbox filled with a million political fliers every day (yes I exaggerated- it was only 1/2 million per day). At least not until January, when the batch of politicians vying for the 2010 midterm elections start their campaigning. God help us all. So to the Obama's, their supporters, and those who worked hard to take the campaign from 0 to the Presidency...Congratulations.

To Steal The Title From Shirley: I Voted Today

So today, I voted. And this time, I was actually ON the ist of area registered voters, unlike the 2006 midterm elections, which somehow found my records nonexistent, despite previously voting in '04, and having changed nothing about any of my statuses (Statii??) I don't know with how much knowledge or a clear conscience I voted.
As far as the clear conscience goes, neither major party presidential candidate really got me too fired up. So I voted for the one who would keep government's infringement on me to a lesser level. For those of you who don't know who that is, it would be one Senator John McCain.

Other than that we had a slew of representatives for state and federal congressional seats. With those people, I at least knew something about them (with a little additional help from robocalls). With a local representative for my district, I voted the republican side, only because the democratic candidate had 2 mailers in my mailbox, EVERY-motherloving-DAY! Every day, 2 separate mailers...are you friggin kidding me??? He was mayor of a neighboring suburb, and boasted a balanced budget, and I found out one reason was by consistently and successfully raising property taxes without fail for his small suburban empire. Apparently, spending money is something he didn't have too many qualms about. The other guy sent out some, and yes, they did almost reach the ridiculous level in the last 2 weeks, but nowhere in the same universe for the entire campaign. The republican's fliers always stated statistics. The democrat's fliers spouted some statistics, usually related to the great things he did (like keep a balanced budget), and the 2nd flier usually spouted how evil the republican candidates ideas were.
There was one state representative running for office, somewhere here in Iowa, as a democrat, which I had seen advertised on our local tv stations. I liked his positions, however, upon looking over my ballot, he must've been representing another district altogether.

Anyways, the rest of the ballot consisted of judges we voted on to retain or not, some hospital trustee positions, county commisioner, and a few other oddball offices. I have to say, I have yet to have even heard of a single one of these people. So pretty much all the judges got retained on my ballot, and the other offices, if I could only pick so many was a big fat case of "eeny-meeny-miny-mo". Yes, I know, scientific analyses of the candidates at the polling place, right? I had contemplated writing myself in on some of these, but I figured my popularity off-line isn't nearly as high as it is on the internet...

SO yeah, it was pretty easy, as there wasn't exactly a line, and I got myself and my youngest in-and-out of that place pretty quickly. So let me know how your experience went, if you care to share.

Apparently I'm a Republican?

So yesterday I get the mail (well tehnically I grabbed it this morning, but it was yesterday's delivery). In it I receive 2 letters from the John McCain campaign. One let's me know that they have enclosed a John McCain bumper sticker just for me.
The other let's me know I have a registered survey enclosed. A resoundingly unenthusiastic "Yay!" from me.

We'll address the bumper sticker issue first. Even if I find myself supporting and voting for McCain, do I really want to slap this bumper sticker on my car. My car isn't anything special (A Buick Regal), yet somehow... You ever notice that the cars with al the bumper stickers are generally pieces of crap? And that maybe the bumper stickers are hiding body damage and/or holding pieces of the car together?... yeah, so do I really want to cheapen my car with a bumper sticker that likely will never be peeled off, and for as long as I own the car, I'll be sporting a McCain '08 sticker? I think I'll go slap it on someone else's car. In a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000 total residents, I'm sure I can find someone who needs a freebie job to hold their car together.

Onto the survey letter. Not only do I get a survey to fill out, but I get a special letter from the chair of the Republican Party's "Victory 2008" Committee, Carly Fiorina (you might remember her as the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard).

She goes on to explainthat my registered survey is one of a select few being mailed by the Republican National Committee in my area. Apparently my input is valued because of my "high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party."

Let's get one thing straight. This blog and a few offhand remarks to people around me (oh, and my future faux Presidential aspirations, I almost forgot about that) is the extent of my political involvement. As for my steadfast commitment to the Republican Party...um, I vote for some Democrats, and as of the midterm elections in 2006, my vote didn't count because I wasn't "on their list of registered voters", despite showing them my voter registration, a million or so forms of identification, and had no status changes since voting in 2004. Oh, did I mention that I am not, and have never been registered as a Republican??? I just love their assumptions. I guess signing up for the Conservative Book Club, the NRA, and Human Events Publishing, that makes me a proxy-Republican?
As she ends her little letter, with the standard solicitation of money toward the campaign coffers, she assures me (because I really need such assurance about these things) that the "dedication of outstanding Republicans like you is certain to help our Party...blah blah blah"
(Again..Republicans like me??? Where DO they get this kind of information??)
Naturaly, since the postage is paid, I'll fill out the survey, since MY opinion is so darn important for them to understand voters in my area (primarily democratic county, as most urban areas are). But the question is, do I send them a little extra note asking them where I can find out how I became a Republican wthout registering? Maybe they stamped a "R" on my butt when I was born, and I just haven't seen it as of yet...

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I just finished reading an article in NewsMax, concerning Al Franken's run for Senate in Minnesota. Apparently, including amongst democrats and according to Representative Betty McCollum, a huge number of constituents have shown very grave concern over an interview Franken did with Playboy 8 years ago, over the internet and porn. While I do not politically agree with Al Franken, and I find some of his humor to be crude, I also find him funny. (mostly as a comedian and satirist, but sometimes politically as well)

"Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does," Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr said. "It's unfortunate that she's trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator."

I have to agree with Mr. Barr on this issue. Was Jack Kennedy's supposed lovelife brought up as the issue of the day when he ran for office? Was Eisenhower excoriated for his involvement in the persuading then President Truman over the issue of using Atomic weapons against Japan? Was Ronald Reagan vetted over some lines he used in a movie?

The Democrats of the 90s wished to make little issue of Clinton's in-office rendevouz, AS IT HAPPENED! But now they want to make issue of something a COMEDIAN said 8 years ago, for his job and livelihood, when it has nothing to do with his current occupational aspirations?

I just can't wrap my head around this. It's okay to condone a very real act, plaster it all over tv, radio, the INTERNET, where any kid could access all the information on it at any time of day, but apparently it is off limits for a guy to joke about it:

At one point in the Playboy piece titled "Porn-O-Rama!" Franken called the Internet a "terrific learning tool," writing that his 12-year-old son was able to use it for a sixth-grade report on bestiality.

Sure it's crude and lacks a bit in taste depending on your personal preference, but to be akin to ruining your political career for life....I just don't understand these democrats who are suddenly taking issue with it. And to be fair, I don't really get why NewsMax, a conservative corporation, is bothering to publish this useless news. I mean I DO get it, 24/7 opportunities to find anything to help the conservative political cause, but the entire basis is ludicrous from the get go.

When I was a teenager, I listened to hardcore Rap music, pretended to live teh lifestyle I knew nothing about, glorifying it to boot. I guess I'd better not ever try to seek office of any kind...this might all come back to bite me, via concerned current members of public office and all of their VERY concerned constituents who just can't believe it. Oh, and I stole Graham Crackers after not eating my supper on more than one occasion. Label me a homegrown terrorist, and use my deeds to discredit anyone who ever knew me while you're at it.....give me a break.

If that's all they have on Al Franken, as a party I say drop it and move on to the truly important issues.

To read the entire article: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1

Voter ID Laws Help, Not Hinder

Here is a recent article regarding Voter ID laws, specifically that of Indiana. It is written and was submitted to Human Events Publishing by Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. I looked into this after reading a posting by Sherry Chandler, which included note of Missouri's Voter ID law being struck down. You can find the link to her blog on the right hand side along with other blogs to consider. Feel free to leave your point of view, or questions.

Indiana Photo ID Law Works
by Todd Rokita
Posted: 05/29/2008

As the Indiana polls opened at 6:00 am on May 6, opponents of Indiana’s Photo ID law eagerly anticipated word from our more than 5,500 precincts that the state’s requirement that all voters show a photo ID at the polls was causing havoc. It’s what they told the United States Supreme Court would happen. To them, it was time to watch Indiana’s most highly anticipated presidential primary in generations collapse under the weight of the requirement.

In Indiana, our election officials and voters are fully committed to increasing confidence in and the integrity of our elections. We have invested a great deal of time, money, and energy over the last few years in needed improvements to our election processes. The central component to this effort is the preservation of the fundamental right of each citizen over the age of 18 to have ONE vote, and to have that vote count.

In recent years, sweeping reforms and improvements to the way we administer elections have included new voting systems in all 92 counties, improved accessibility of polling places, educational outreach and training, and absentee ballot reform. One of the most significant and important reforms has been our photo identification law, which requires voters to prove their identity by presenting a photo ID before casting a ballot.

One week prior to Indiana’s primary elections, the United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law. The Justices agreed that, with our law, Indiana is paving the road to better voter confidence for states by preventing in-person voter fraud.

Jeffrey Milyo, a professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri, had noted in a recent study that overall voter turnout in Indiana has actually increased since the implementation of the photo ID law. I attribute this directly to voters having better confidence in the process, and therefore, being more willing to invest their time in it.
Several other studies by organizations like the Universities of Nebraska and Delaware and the Heritage Foundation tell us requiring ID at the polls does not reduce voter turnout.
On May 6th, opponents to the law were left disappointed. Indiana experienced one of its highest turnouts ever for a primary election. Turnout increased from 21 percent in the 2004 primary to around 40 percent for the 2008 primary. Presumably, the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary brought scores of new voters to the polls. Nearly 76 percent of the participants took part in the Democratic primary. By comparison, in 2004, only 40 percent of those who participated voted in the Democratic primary.

Simply put, Indiana voters showed up by the hundreds of thousands to fulfill their civic duty with a photo ID in hand. According to our figures, the number showing up to vote without ID continues to be miniscule, dropping slightly even from previous elections when the rate has been two-tenths of a percentile. In fact, opponents of the concept of having a voter identify his or herself still cannot produce one voter who has experienced a violation of his or her rights.

The deadline to file recounts with the state recount commission has passed. Despite close contests in both the Democratic presidential race as well as that party's gubernatorial primary, no one has filed for a recount. No one has found reason to question the results our closely watched, closely contested statewide election.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, election leaders across the country can now confidently move forward with their efforts to protect voters and improve the integrity of the election process. Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas are all states where photo ID requirements were debated and voted on in legislatures this year, and scores of other states have called my office wanting details on the law.

Sure, my staff was in place before sunrise on primary day, ready to ensure a smooth election by helping voters find their polling places, answering questions, and looking into any polling place issues that would come up. But of the more than 1,300 calls we took that day from voters, only two even related to enforcement of Indiana’s photo ID law -- neither demonstrating that someone was shut out from voting.

And even if they were, photo ID opponents fail to point out one very important Federalist notion – that states have the right to put parameters on, and therefore, introduce order into their electoral processes. To not do so would allow chaos to ensnarl the process, rendering it useless. Results would be in doubt and voter confidence shredded. The likelihood of increased participation would dwindle.

Indiana has now conducted eight successful elections since the passage of the photo ID law. There has not been one proven instance of a voter who was unable to exercise his or her right to vote due to the law. The law itself helps prevent this, including provisions to allow voting by those who forget their ID, can’t make it to the polls on Election Day, or who have religious objections to being photographed. The well-publicized nuns in South Bend, who were reportedly unable to vote during this year’s primary election due to not having proper photo ID indeed had the opportunity under the law to cast a provisional ballot and have their votes count by producing ID within ten days. This is eight days longer than Jimmy Carter even suggested when the Carter-Baker Commission suggested photo ID was needed in the polling to boost election integrity and participation. Sadly, they all waived this right to participate in the election process.

Indiana’s photo ID law is our state’s means of protecting the integrity of elections in a manner that creates the least burden for citizens. Furthermore, it’s a right and duty given to us by the 10th Amendment. It is about ensuring accuracy through increased integrity. It’s a 21st century way to manage our election process that gives us confidence again in exercising our franchise -- our most sacred civic transaction. I look forward to an exhilarating 2008 general election with this issue finally settled.