I guess this really begins the story of my 2011 run for Alderman (even though I plan to make a video in the coming months with my official announcement to run as it gets closer to the date).
If you've been following along (seriously not hard since there's only one other post so far) with the story, I was making some estimates based on the e-mail I received yesterday regarding the 2007 Election Calendar and what it might mean for me running in 2011.
Well, I guess my inquiry lit a fire under their butts, because today they e-mailed me the first version of the 2011 Election Calendar and updated their website with it as well!
Dear Voter,
We are sending the attached preliminary 2011 Election Calendar as follow-up to an earlier response we issued to an inquiry related to the upcoming elections. This calendar is available at our Web site at www.chicagoelections.com and will be updated, as needed, if and when new statutes or case laws impact the election schedule or requirements that are listed in the attached Election Calendar. We hope this information is helpful. We thank you for your interest and for the opportunity to be of assistance.
Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
So I opened it up and here's a rundown of the actual dates.
For the 2011 Elections:
September 14, 2010: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.
December 6, 2010: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 13, 2010: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 20, 2010: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 2, 2011: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 22, 2011: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
My estimate for the number of signatures I'd need to petition for was only off by 5 - I'm only going to need 193 signatures!
Unfortunately, there's a litany of rules for these petitions and how they have to be signed and handled and presented when filing the official paperwork with the City. Like a very scary amount of rules. And while most of them are "how the heck would they know if this is true or not" kinds of rules, I want to be VERY careful. You have to be when going up against the incumbent, you know?
This also seems like a warning that I really should work on retaining a lawyer, if for nothing else then to help make sure I've dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's when it comes to the official paperwork that includes the "Statement of Economic Interest" and any "forms prescribed by the Board of Ethics". At least the "Loyalty Oath has been declared unconstitutional; hence its filing is optional."
Well, that's all the excitement for now. I'll likely continue with my Alderman Saga in future chapters as the date approaches, or if I get some comments or questions regarding me, my campaign, or anything else related that needs to go beyond the Comments and into a new separate post.
So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Aaron Samuels for Alderman (Prologue)
I may have mentioned it before, but ever since 2006, it's been a dream of mine to run for City Council here in Chicago and be an Alderman. It all started on that fateful day when the Chicago City Council unanimously voted to ban the sale of foie gras after they were shown a shock video by PETA and asked to vote on this law.
The aftermath: Chicago was mocked by other cities, the ban was proved to be useless by restauranteurs, and even the Mayor said it was the "silliest law" until it was finally repealed two years later.
I made up my mind. I would run for Alderman just to make sure that SOMEONE on the Chicago City Council would be the voice of reason whenever PETA rolled around. I expanded my idea by wanting to be a city representative who could see both sides on an issue and be able to play Devil's Advocate - as well as to speak up when any alderman is (in my opinion) completely wrong.
This spread out into even more ideas about being a young member of City Council who could spruce up the webpage for our ward and respond to questions using YouTube and maybe do Ward Podcasts.
And then I found out in 2007 that I missed my chance to run. But I vowed that I would do everything in my power to run in 2011 and get my name on that ballot and - who knows - maybe even win a seat on the City Council of Chicago.
Every now and then since that day in 2007, I've tried to find out how the heck one even runs for public office - let alone run for City Council specifically. I've checked message boards, Googled the question, surfed and rummaged through the Chicago City website - and no definite results.
About a month ago, I started e-mailing. I sent e-mails out to any info e-mail address I could come across, asking the same questions, hoping that someone earning a government paycheck could point me in the right direction so that someday I might earn one as well.
Yesterday, I actually got a response.
Hi:
You will need to direct your email/inquiry to the Chicago Board of Elections. You can visit them on the web and obtain pertinent contact information at the url: http://www.chicagoelections.com
Thank you.
Office of the Chicago City Clerk
So I was getting closer. Somehow my searching hadn't pointed me to this site, probably due to the keywords I was using. So I searched and found nothing to answer my question. But there was yet another e-mail address to query, and query I did.
And that same day, I got a response from someone at the Chicago Elections website.
Dear Voter,
Please note that we will be posting information on the 2011 election cycle on at chicagoelections.com under the "for candidates" section in coming weeks. However, the information that we post and the information below is all subject to change with any new legislation in Springfield or rulings in court cases.
----------
Any potential candidate is advised to consult with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Election Code, the Municipal Code as well as an attorney who is well versed in election law and related case law. This is intended to be general information and not a legal opinion, as the Board cannot provide legal advice to candidates or potential candidates for two reasons: (1) the Board determines the legality of candidates' nominating petitions; and (2) state laws are subject to change. With those caveats, the basic qualifications for appearing on the ballot to run for alderman in the City of Chicago are that the candidate: (1) be an elector (registered voter, 18 years or older and a U.S. citizen) who has resided in the ward for at least one year prior to election; (2) be in compliance with all other restrictions/requirements under Illinois law, which include, but are not limited to: having submitted a petition with sufficient valid signatures of qualified electors from that ward; not having been convicted of a felony; ot having any outstanding fines, penalties or debts to the municipality; and having completed other necessary paperwork, such as the petition, statement of candidacy, ethics filings, etc. For more information, prospective campaigns are strongly advised to review all relevant statutes ( http://www.ilga.gov/ ) and strongly advised to consult with an attorney who is versed in the Election Code.
----------------------
State laws may change between now and the filing, and the numbers of signatures needed will be determined, under current law, based on the results in the 2010 election cycle. With those caveats, we have attached the 2007 Election Calendar, which lists documentation rules that were in effect for that 2007 election -- solely for reference purposes. Please note that the Election Board will be updating its web site to include information on the 2011 Municipal Elections in the months after the Primary Election. We hope this information is helpful and thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.
Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
So now I have more of an answer and I can begin preparations. The document had a lot of random information, but there are pieces I can ascertain based on what lies within.
For the 2007 Elections:
September 19, 2006: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.
December 11, 2006: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 18, 2006: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 26, 2006: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 7, 2007: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 27, 2007: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
So there you have it. Sometime in June of 2010 they will be posting this document regarding the February 2011 elections. I'll be able to officially start my campaign to collect signatures in September, and if I hit the right number by December, I'm in (unless the encumbent goes all lawyer on me and objects to me being on the ballot). If I make it on and it causes me such grief that I want to get the hell out of there, I've got over a month afterwards to figure it out. (Unlikely!) And then in February it all goes down!
So how many signatures do I need?
See "Table A: Minimum Signature Required on Aldermanic Nominating Petitions - City of Chicago"
Basically by ward, they tally up the total votes from the previous municipal election (in this case, 2007) and they take 2% of that number (and round up) and that's the number of signatures I'll need to get.
So if in February 2003, my ward had a total of 12,518 votes placed, in order to get on the ballot for February 2007 I would need (2% of 12,518 = 250.36) signatures from 251 registered voters.
I do believe the numbers for the February 2007 elections show my ward having cast 9,861 votes - ergo I should only need to get 198 petition signatures!
This is it, folks. I'm excited!
More to come as I wait for the process to finally begin - or if I get some cool comments/questions to answer that would warrant more Prologue to the story before my campaign even becomes official.
So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
The aftermath: Chicago was mocked by other cities, the ban was proved to be useless by restauranteurs, and even the Mayor said it was the "silliest law" until it was finally repealed two years later.
I made up my mind. I would run for Alderman just to make sure that SOMEONE on the Chicago City Council would be the voice of reason whenever PETA rolled around. I expanded my idea by wanting to be a city representative who could see both sides on an issue and be able to play Devil's Advocate - as well as to speak up when any alderman is (in my opinion) completely wrong.
This spread out into even more ideas about being a young member of City Council who could spruce up the webpage for our ward and respond to questions using YouTube and maybe do Ward Podcasts.
And then I found out in 2007 that I missed my chance to run. But I vowed that I would do everything in my power to run in 2011 and get my name on that ballot and - who knows - maybe even win a seat on the City Council of Chicago.
Every now and then since that day in 2007, I've tried to find out how the heck one even runs for public office - let alone run for City Council specifically. I've checked message boards, Googled the question, surfed and rummaged through the Chicago City website - and no definite results.
About a month ago, I started e-mailing. I sent e-mails out to any info e-mail address I could come across, asking the same questions, hoping that someone earning a government paycheck could point me in the right direction so that someday I might earn one as well.
Yesterday, I actually got a response.
Hi:
You will need to direct your email/inquiry to the Chicago Board of Elections. You can visit them on the web and obtain pertinent contact information at the url: http://www.chicagoelections.com
Thank you.
Office of the Chicago City Clerk
So I was getting closer. Somehow my searching hadn't pointed me to this site, probably due to the keywords I was using. So I searched and found nothing to answer my question. But there was yet another e-mail address to query, and query I did.
And that same day, I got a response from someone at the Chicago Elections website.
Dear Voter,
Please note that we will be posting information on the 2011 election cycle on at chicagoelections.com under the "for candidates" section in coming weeks. However, the information that we post and the information below is all subject to change with any new legislation in Springfield or rulings in court cases.
----------
Any potential candidate is advised to consult with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Election Code, the Municipal Code as well as an attorney who is well versed in election law and related case law. This is intended to be general information and not a legal opinion, as the Board cannot provide legal advice to candidates or potential candidates for two reasons: (1) the Board determines the legality of candidates' nominating petitions; and (2) state laws are subject to change. With those caveats, the basic qualifications for appearing on the ballot to run for alderman in the City of Chicago are that the candidate: (1) be an elector (registered voter, 18 years or older and a U.S. citizen) who has resided in the ward for at least one year prior to election; (2) be in compliance with all other restrictions/requirements under Illinois law, which include, but are not limited to: having submitted a petition with sufficient valid signatures of qualified electors from that ward; not having been convicted of a felony; ot having any outstanding fines, penalties or debts to the municipality; and having completed other necessary paperwork, such as the petition, statement of candidacy, ethics filings, etc. For more information, prospective campaigns are strongly advised to review all relevant statutes ( http://www.ilga.gov/ ) and strongly advised to consult with an attorney who is versed in the Election Code.
----------------------
State laws may change between now and the filing, and the numbers of signatures needed will be determined, under current law, based on the results in the 2010 election cycle. With those caveats, we have attached the 2007 Election Calendar, which lists documentation rules that were in effect for that 2007 election -- solely for reference purposes. Please note that the Election Board will be updating its web site to include information on the 2011 Municipal Elections in the months after the Primary Election. We hope this information is helpful and thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.
Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
So now I have more of an answer and I can begin preparations. The document had a lot of random information, but there are pieces I can ascertain based on what lies within.
For the 2007 Elections:
September 19, 2006: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.
December 11, 2006: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 18, 2006: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.
December 26, 2006: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 7, 2007: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.
February 27, 2007: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
So there you have it. Sometime in June of 2010 they will be posting this document regarding the February 2011 elections. I'll be able to officially start my campaign to collect signatures in September, and if I hit the right number by December, I'm in (unless the encumbent goes all lawyer on me and objects to me being on the ballot). If I make it on and it causes me such grief that I want to get the hell out of there, I've got over a month afterwards to figure it out. (Unlikely!) And then in February it all goes down!
So how many signatures do I need?
See "Table A: Minimum Signature Required on Aldermanic Nominating Petitions - City of Chicago"
Basically by ward, they tally up the total votes from the previous municipal election (in this case, 2007) and they take 2% of that number (and round up) and that's the number of signatures I'll need to get.
So if in February 2003, my ward had a total of 12,518 votes placed, in order to get on the ballot for February 2007 I would need (2% of 12,518 = 250.36) signatures from 251 registered voters.
I do believe the numbers for the February 2007 elections show my ward having cast 9,861 votes - ergo I should only need to get 198 petition signatures!
This is it, folks. I'm excited!
More to come as I wait for the process to finally begin - or if I get some cool comments/questions to answer that would warrant more Prologue to the story before my campaign even becomes official.
So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!
And then Digg this article!
Read more!
Monday, November 03, 2008
Pre-Election Scams and Shoutouts
Well, tomorrow is the big day when America once again votes for a giant douche or turd sandwich to rule the country (or at least partially-rule it, if that whole checks-and-balances thing still exists). Just like with all elections past, you can rifle through a list of groups/demographics/minorities and for each one, find a litany of propaganda or ads or outright lies meant to rouse them in a direction to vote at the polls or even the direction of whether they vote in the polls.
Take the youth of America - which would be the college-aged youth (the ones who are allowed to vote). You can either scare their vote one way or another with fears of the future with your opponent in charge (youth fear the future the most because they have to suffer through it the longest), or you can work the angle of getting them to vote or to not vote. Youth are hard to scare away from voting itself - because they've never done it before and don't realize how much insanity goes on once they're in the game. They tend to vote Democratic, which is why you'll find both candidates trying to appeal to the youngsters, but usually only the Democrats "____ing the Vote" to encourage these political fledglings to flap their wings rather than stay in the nest and die when winter comes.
The elderly are probably the easiest to scare (but the least afraid of the future since they never know how much of it they'll have to sit through in-between Matlock reruns), other than war-hardened veterans. Hence, they tend to vote Republican, because those are the values they grew up with and the familiar is always preferable to change.
I could go on, but I don't need to. I'll let these stories of assholes affecting voters take care of that for me, as you sit back and read about it all. (Don't worry, there's a reward at the end! Freebies!) Try to realize both that these ploys and scams are horrible things to do to the average voter, but also that the average voter is also dumb enough to sometimes fall for them - so who's really the worse side of the equation?
You Will Be Arrested
Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.
Ah yes, the old standby to scare people away of "you might be arrested" - which not surprisingly is being pushed towards African-American neighborhoods. I find it funny that what I've heard about in the past of "you'll be arrested if you have outstanding warrants" is now at the level of "unpaid parking tickets". The scary thing is that they're using this brand of lie outside the realm of "black people" and spreading it into the more-culturally-diverse group of "college students", even if they're doing it wrong.
Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.
See, it's one thing to say "you'll get arrested if you show up to vote and have unpaid parking tickets" because the number of people who that could apply to is a large number. But shrinking that number down to the subset of those with a criminal record and young enough to still be in college is kind of a dumb move.
In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.
"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."
Now we move on to the Hispanic population and the fears of being deported. Frankly, the one has so little to do with the other! Illegal immigrants do in fact have a history of using fraud or just plain lying in order to be able to register to vote or participate in elections - but I'm not sure if the number is so huge that it's worth alienating the demographic just to prevent extra votes for their demographic in the form of illegal immigrant voters. Of course, the ones who'd have a problem with illegal immigrants voting would be the Republicans (who suck LESS in the battle over illegal immigration) and since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic anyway, maybe they should keep on alienatin'!
Feel free to insert a quip of mine regarding the fact that the woman plans on voting but speaks only Spanish.
My Opponent Is Pure Evil
So if you can't scare the voters into thinking they could be arrested, there are worse fates that could arise given how you vote and which grotesque destroyer of all things good and holy you let slither its way into the Oval Office on Election Day. Sure, the word of the year is "terrorism" when it comes to your opponent being a hateful pile of malevolence. It's impossible to forget which candidate's middle name is "Hussein" - although judging by an incredibly-annoying Facebook application, it seems to be a common one (or that all Facebook Democrats want to convert to Islam and terrorism). It's hard to ignore the words "domestic terrorist" regarding a man who may or may not be a friend of one candidate and worked for a certain organization that may or may not have been supported by a candidate.
But why stop there? There were once far worse things than terrorists...
In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."
In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.
I'm really not sure how one can make the leap from Barack Obama to Holocaust, especially since I haven't seen this e-mail. Let me check my mudslinging records. Well, aside from the fact that he DID speak in Germany . . . Barack Obama has been called a Socialist many times, and "Nazi" did stand for the "National Socialist Party", so I guess it's not too far of a jump from that to the murder of millions of Jews... Though I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the McCain-Palin team has proved to me that Obama lacks the EXECUTIVE experiences necessary to really pull off a Final Solution. But does saying Obama would fail to even be a Hitler put him in a good light or bad light? I mean, Hitler did manage to rule a country, even if he did drive it into the ground and make it a laughingstock. I forget the point.
Scheduling Conflict
Hey, sorry voters, but it turns out there's just too many of you who want to vote, so there's no need to show up all on one day - we'll spread this voting thing out so come back tomorrow to cast your vote! Sounds stupid? Well someone tried it anyway...
Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.
They're actually hunting down the people responsible for this one and I think they'll be prosecuting. It is illegal to intentionally mislead voters about where an election is being held or when voting polls are open. So far these were just little attack ads or misleading voters about the SITUATION where the election will be held - not about the location itself or hours of voting. This one steps it up to a scary degree - scary because (of course) some people were BELIEVING IT. And Virginia isn't the only place where the misleading has reached illegal proportions...
In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.
The issue is that nobody really does anything about it, because it's mostly done during the 11th hour and there's just such a history of it.
This has gotten a bit long, so I'll head out and prepare myself for both the process of voting tomorrow and the process of getting assaulted all day by other voters who want to know who I voted for. And then the insanity of getting the hell out of downtown tomorrow evening before everything goes to hell with the Obama Party being held here in Chicago.
Don't forget to go out and vote tomorrow. Unless you're voting for the other guy. Then you should probably stay home.
Freebies!
Here are a list of places giving away freebies to people who vote tomorrow:
Starbucks: free tall coffee
Krispy Kreme: free donut
Ben & Jerry's: free small ice cream
More to come as I hunt them down! Read more!
Take the youth of America - which would be the college-aged youth (the ones who are allowed to vote). You can either scare their vote one way or another with fears of the future with your opponent in charge (youth fear the future the most because they have to suffer through it the longest), or you can work the angle of getting them to vote or to not vote. Youth are hard to scare away from voting itself - because they've never done it before and don't realize how much insanity goes on once they're in the game. They tend to vote Democratic, which is why you'll find both candidates trying to appeal to the youngsters, but usually only the Democrats "____ing the Vote" to encourage these political fledglings to flap their wings rather than stay in the nest and die when winter comes.
The elderly are probably the easiest to scare (but the least afraid of the future since they never know how much of it they'll have to sit through in-between Matlock reruns), other than war-hardened veterans. Hence, they tend to vote Republican, because those are the values they grew up with and the familiar is always preferable to change.
I could go on, but I don't need to. I'll let these stories of assholes affecting voters take care of that for me, as you sit back and read about it all. (Don't worry, there's a reward at the end! Freebies!) Try to realize both that these ploys and scams are horrible things to do to the average voter, but also that the average voter is also dumb enough to sometimes fall for them - so who's really the worse side of the equation?
You Will Be Arrested
Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.
Ah yes, the old standby to scare people away of "you might be arrested" - which not surprisingly is being pushed towards African-American neighborhoods. I find it funny that what I've heard about in the past of "you'll be arrested if you have outstanding warrants" is now at the level of "unpaid parking tickets". The scary thing is that they're using this brand of lie outside the realm of "black people" and spreading it into the more-culturally-diverse group of "college students", even if they're doing it wrong.
Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.
See, it's one thing to say "you'll get arrested if you show up to vote and have unpaid parking tickets" because the number of people who that could apply to is a large number. But shrinking that number down to the subset of those with a criminal record and young enough to still be in college is kind of a dumb move.
In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.
"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."
Now we move on to the Hispanic population and the fears of being deported. Frankly, the one has so little to do with the other! Illegal immigrants do in fact have a history of using fraud or just plain lying in order to be able to register to vote or participate in elections - but I'm not sure if the number is so huge that it's worth alienating the demographic just to prevent extra votes for their demographic in the form of illegal immigrant voters. Of course, the ones who'd have a problem with illegal immigrants voting would be the Republicans (who suck LESS in the battle over illegal immigration) and since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic anyway, maybe they should keep on alienatin'!
Feel free to insert a quip of mine regarding the fact that the woman plans on voting but speaks only Spanish.
My Opponent Is Pure Evil
So if you can't scare the voters into thinking they could be arrested, there are worse fates that could arise given how you vote and which grotesque destroyer of all things good and holy you let slither its way into the Oval Office on Election Day. Sure, the word of the year is "terrorism" when it comes to your opponent being a hateful pile of malevolence. It's impossible to forget which candidate's middle name is "Hussein" - although judging by an incredibly-annoying Facebook application, it seems to be a common one (or that all Facebook Democrats want to convert to Islam and terrorism). It's hard to ignore the words "domestic terrorist" regarding a man who may or may not be a friend of one candidate and worked for a certain organization that may or may not have been supported by a candidate.
But why stop there? There were once far worse things than terrorists...
In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."
In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.
I'm really not sure how one can make the leap from Barack Obama to Holocaust, especially since I haven't seen this e-mail. Let me check my mudslinging records. Well, aside from the fact that he DID speak in Germany . . . Barack Obama has been called a Socialist many times, and "Nazi" did stand for the "National Socialist Party", so I guess it's not too far of a jump from that to the murder of millions of Jews... Though I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the McCain-Palin team has proved to me that Obama lacks the EXECUTIVE experiences necessary to really pull off a Final Solution. But does saying Obama would fail to even be a Hitler put him in a good light or bad light? I mean, Hitler did manage to rule a country, even if he did drive it into the ground and make it a laughingstock. I forget the point.
Scheduling Conflict
Hey, sorry voters, but it turns out there's just too many of you who want to vote, so there's no need to show up all on one day - we'll spread this voting thing out so come back tomorrow to cast your vote! Sounds stupid? Well someone tried it anyway...
Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.
They're actually hunting down the people responsible for this one and I think they'll be prosecuting. It is illegal to intentionally mislead voters about where an election is being held or when voting polls are open. So far these were just little attack ads or misleading voters about the SITUATION where the election will be held - not about the location itself or hours of voting. This one steps it up to a scary degree - scary because (of course) some people were BELIEVING IT. And Virginia isn't the only place where the misleading has reached illegal proportions...
In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.
The issue is that nobody really does anything about it, because it's mostly done during the 11th hour and there's just such a history of it.
This has gotten a bit long, so I'll head out and prepare myself for both the process of voting tomorrow and the process of getting assaulted all day by other voters who want to know who I voted for. And then the insanity of getting the hell out of downtown tomorrow evening before everything goes to hell with the Obama Party being held here in Chicago.
Don't forget to go out and vote tomorrow. Unless you're voting for the other guy. Then you should probably stay home.
Freebies!
Here are a list of places giving away freebies to people who vote tomorrow:
Starbucks: free tall coffee
Krispy Kreme: free donut
Ben & Jerry's: free small ice cream
More to come as I hunt them down! Read more!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Don't Vote?
First I want to say that yes - I plan on voting in the '08 elections. I plan on voting every time I get the chance, especially city and state votes. No matter how much you despise the political machine, you have to recognize that all of the cogs in that machine are the citizens of voting age, and the only way to affect the outcome of the machine is to do what you can as a cog and see what outcomes you can make possible.
So I guess it's time to look at the collective cogs over in Iowa for this "caucus" thing I keep hearing about. I don't know if it's just me, but every time I see "caucus" all I can think about is "raucous" - which inevitably is more of a synonym than anything else. The events seem like a boisterous and disorderly jumble of voters and people with confetti yelling and accomplishing little other than start off one in a long series of pissing contests.
I say "pissing contests" loosely, because the goal of any REAL pissing contest (as regulated by the Urinary Competition League) is distance or volume or something measurable - whereas these pissing contests feature people lined up on each side, pissing at each other. Clearly it's impossible to determine a winner, other than the Least Covered in Piss award. You can't even evaluate teams, because standing on one side of the line doesn't mean that people on the same side won't be pissing on you all the same. And sorry to all you femenists out there, but pissing contests are traditionally a man's game, seeing as we're better equipped to compete. You're more than welcome to participate, but you can't piss and moan about needing a handicap. Well, you can piss - but as I said, probably not as well as men.
Following on that train of thought, Obama beat out Clinton (the female one) in this Iowa Caucus. With all Democratic precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 38 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton. Bill Richardson came in fourth and has decided to continue onward to New Hampshire (the next pissing contest venue) - while Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have reportedly dropped out of the running.
With 92 percent of Republican precincts reporting, Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, had the support of 34 percent of voters, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Fred Thompson had 13 percent, McCain had 13 percent and Ron Paul had 10 percent. Huckabee attributes his jump from single-digit numbers a few weeks ago to the rallying of evangelicals and other social conservatives. "We won the silver ... You win the silver in one event. It doesn't mean you're not going to come back and win the gold in the final event, and that we are going to do," Romney said.
The fact that there even ARE caucuses in the first place just illustrates the point that the whole "popular vote" is a myth. While it's totally true that in the final election for president one candidate can have more individual votes than all of the other candidates, I'd hardly call that the "popular vote" and I'd never call it a "majority" - I might admit to calling it the "most votes" or something like that. I mean, if you divide up the voting population, with a whole half-n-half Red and Blue (and whatever Independant would be, lost in the sea of red and blue), you have to recognize that each side doesn't wholeheartedly believe in their candidate. I mean, trusting a politician is definitely the wrong choice of words, but it's that there are primaries and caucuses where chunks of voters are disillusioned. So you'll never have a majority vote.
No matter how much I dislike the process, though, I'm not a nutcase like one of my old high-school friends. I received an E-mail saying that someone had invited me to a group on Facebook. The name of the group is what stopped me mid-thought as my blood started boiling: "Don't Vote in 2008"
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7815999347
Seriously. I cannot make this idiocy up. Get an eyeful of the group's description!
This group is for anyone thoroughly disenchanted with the electoral college, the US political system and the bullshit that every single presidential candidate spews on a daily basis. For those who don't want more of the same in 2008 and beyond, or for those who don't want a system where a person can win the popular vote and yet still lose the election, don't vote.
Take direct action. Write or e-mail your congresspersons. Start a rally, a protest, or a passive-aggressive Facebook group. Whatever you do, don't buy into the bullshit any more. DON'T VOTE.
My favorite bit of irony is that the people this group is directing its members to contact are congresspersons. You're fighting the machine by TRUSTING the machine?? I really don't know what this group even wants as a result! It apparently wants to change the way that the political machine works, but doesn't want to do that with the logical process of voting for new people in charge who can make the changes or voting for any changes themselves?
I'm totally hoping that none of them come to the shocking revelation that getting people aligned to their cause and NOT voting means that every vote by people NOT aligned to their cause becomes more effective. In fact, I'm totally hoping that my posting this, I can bring some publicity to their little Facebook group and get more idiots to join and not vote and make things easier for the rest of the cogs who are trying to make things happen by actually voting and doing our part in helping to lead the country.
In fact, maybe I should just make my own group, called "Don't Vote in 2008 (if you disagree with my views)" or something like that.
But seriously, you should vote and do your part come Election Day. Unless you disagree with my views.
(Here's where I got the Iowa Caucus numbers)
Read more!
So I guess it's time to look at the collective cogs over in Iowa for this "caucus" thing I keep hearing about. I don't know if it's just me, but every time I see "caucus" all I can think about is "raucous" - which inevitably is more of a synonym than anything else. The events seem like a boisterous and disorderly jumble of voters and people with confetti yelling and accomplishing little other than start off one in a long series of pissing contests.
I say "pissing contests" loosely, because the goal of any REAL pissing contest (as regulated by the Urinary Competition League) is distance or volume or something measurable - whereas these pissing contests feature people lined up on each side, pissing at each other. Clearly it's impossible to determine a winner, other than the Least Covered in Piss award. You can't even evaluate teams, because standing on one side of the line doesn't mean that people on the same side won't be pissing on you all the same. And sorry to all you femenists out there, but pissing contests are traditionally a man's game, seeing as we're better equipped to compete. You're more than welcome to participate, but you can't piss and moan about needing a handicap. Well, you can piss - but as I said, probably not as well as men.
Following on that train of thought, Obama beat out Clinton (the female one) in this Iowa Caucus. With all Democratic precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 38 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton. Bill Richardson came in fourth and has decided to continue onward to New Hampshire (the next pissing contest venue) - while Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have reportedly dropped out of the running.
With 92 percent of Republican precincts reporting, Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, had the support of 34 percent of voters, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Fred Thompson had 13 percent, McCain had 13 percent and Ron Paul had 10 percent. Huckabee attributes his jump from single-digit numbers a few weeks ago to the rallying of evangelicals and other social conservatives. "We won the silver ... You win the silver in one event. It doesn't mean you're not going to come back and win the gold in the final event, and that we are going to do," Romney said.
The fact that there even ARE caucuses in the first place just illustrates the point that the whole "popular vote" is a myth. While it's totally true that in the final election for president one candidate can have more individual votes than all of the other candidates, I'd hardly call that the "popular vote" and I'd never call it a "majority" - I might admit to calling it the "most votes" or something like that. I mean, if you divide up the voting population, with a whole half-n-half Red and Blue (and whatever Independant would be, lost in the sea of red and blue), you have to recognize that each side doesn't wholeheartedly believe in their candidate. I mean, trusting a politician is definitely the wrong choice of words, but it's that there are primaries and caucuses where chunks of voters are disillusioned. So you'll never have a majority vote.
No matter how much I dislike the process, though, I'm not a nutcase like one of my old high-school friends. I received an E-mail saying that someone had invited me to a group on Facebook. The name of the group is what stopped me mid-thought as my blood started boiling: "Don't Vote in 2008"
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7815999347
Seriously. I cannot make this idiocy up. Get an eyeful of the group's description!
This group is for anyone thoroughly disenchanted with the electoral college, the US political system and the bullshit that every single presidential candidate spews on a daily basis. For those who don't want more of the same in 2008 and beyond, or for those who don't want a system where a person can win the popular vote and yet still lose the election, don't vote.
Take direct action. Write or e-mail your congresspersons. Start a rally, a protest, or a passive-aggressive Facebook group. Whatever you do, don't buy into the bullshit any more. DON'T VOTE.
My favorite bit of irony is that the people this group is directing its members to contact are congresspersons. You're fighting the machine by TRUSTING the machine?? I really don't know what this group even wants as a result! It apparently wants to change the way that the political machine works, but doesn't want to do that with the logical process of voting for new people in charge who can make the changes or voting for any changes themselves?
I'm totally hoping that none of them come to the shocking revelation that getting people aligned to their cause and NOT voting means that every vote by people NOT aligned to their cause becomes more effective. In fact, I'm totally hoping that my posting this, I can bring some publicity to their little Facebook group and get more idiots to join and not vote and make things easier for the rest of the cogs who are trying to make things happen by actually voting and doing our part in helping to lead the country.
In fact, maybe I should just make my own group, called "Don't Vote in 2008 (if you disagree with my views)" or something like that.
But seriously, you should vote and do your part come Election Day. Unless you disagree with my views.
(Here's where I got the Iowa Caucus numbers)
Read more!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Romney vs. Giuliani: Illegal Immigrants and Anchor Babies
One of the hot-topic issues that will undoubtedly be coming up again and again in the 2008 elections will be that of illegal immigration and all of the subtopics associated with it. One such subtopic is regarding the legal citizens born to illegal immigrants and their rights to the same things that the rest of the citizens of the United States have access to. For example, in the 1982 Plyler vs. Doe decision, the Supreme Court ruled that children of illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to public education.
While this decision doesn't make reference to whether or not the "children of illegal immigrants" are US citizens or not (I'm not in the mood to look it up) - I'm going to assume it's referring to LEGAL children. If they're legally here, I say they have the right to an education, same as everyone else. While I'm fairly sure that the above decision was referring to illegal immigrant children, I say "no" to the idea of them taking up the taxpayers' money and filling another seat in an overcrowded and understaffed classroom. Maybe if there weren't any illegal immigrant kids in our public school system, teachers could teach better, students could learn more, and we wouldn't be failing all of our tests as a nation.
Either way, whether the child itself is a citizen or not, the fact remains that neither parent is a legal citizen. Which means that they shy away from the school system to enroll their child for fear of being asked a bunch of questions about their immigration status and getting arrested and deported like the criminals they are. They also shy away from hospitals, for the same reason, and refuse to do their part in stopping crime because to attempt to be a witness in court or make a police statement, they'd be at risk of getting "found out" and they again would be arrested and deported because they're here illegally and that's a crime.
Rudy Giuliani wants that to stop happening. He favors a "don't ask, don't tell" policy involving illegal immigrants, that police officers and school officials and hospital workers shouldn't be allowed to inquire about a person's citizenship status unless it's part of an actual investigation of a crime. By which I'm sure he means "A crime BEYOND the initial crime of breaking the law and entering our country illegally."
Mitt Romney represents the other side of the equation - that illegal immigration is illegal and maybe it's a good thing that these criminals are afraid of stepping into the light because they'll be seen as the criminals they are. After all, if a man robs a liquor store and gets shot by the clerk in the process, is he likely to go to a hospital to get treated for his "GSW" (gunshot wound, to those who don't watch any hospital-themed TV shows)? Or is he likely to stay in the shadows, get poor or unreliable medical treatment (if any), and possibly die of infection or blood loss? Sure, he's caught between a rock and a hard place - possibly dying from the injury or going to jail when the GSW is reported by hospital staff - but if he didn't want to be put in that position, he shouldn't have robbed a frickin' liquor store!
Giuliani actually tries to bring up one valid point - that something affecting an illegal immigrant runs the risk of spreading to the legal community. An illegal child sick with a fever and possibly-contagious illness runs the risk of spreading it to the community if not allowed to be treated at a hospital. An illegal witness to a violent crime runs the risk of having the criminal continue the crime spree in the community if damning witness testimony isn't being provided by those too afraid to give it. Allowing kids who don't go to school runs the risk of having them grow up to be dumb gangbangers and continuing the stereotype of illegal immigrants committing MORE crimes of a violent nature if their illegal parents are too afraid to enroll them.
But some of these are risks we're willing to take, according to Romney.
We're fine with turning our backs on illegal children who want to leech time and energy from our school system and the poor teachers. After all, they don't belong here, and the less they learn and assimilate, the easier it'll be to find them and send them back to their country. As for a sick person who'll be infecting others - luckily that's why we have hospitals, health insurance, doctors, HMOs and a crappy-but-existant healthcare system. For our citizens. Maybe that'll teach citizens to either stay away from or report all illegal immigrants - especially the sick ones. Then they can be picked up and taken back to Mexico and the healthcare system Mexico offers its own citizens. You're a Mexican citizen, not an American - take up space in THEIR healthcare system! As for the idiots who don't go to school because their parents won't enroll them? We need better truance officers, I guess. You know, people on the lookout for children who aren't in school? Find the children, keep them off the streets (and preferably back in their own damned country if they weren't born here) - maybe then they'll learn the only lesson they need and probably wouldn't learn in school: You don't belong here, because you're not an American citizen!
Me? I'm siding with Romney on this one. Sounds like there's actually a candidate who's as against illegal immigration as I'd LIKE our President to be. Unfortunately, I haven't heard much coming from him in the form of plans to put the opinion to action. That's what I'm waiting for. So Mitt, if you're out there, reading this - let me know...
...I've got PLENTY of ideas to share with you.
(Some of the Romney v. Giuliani info)
Read more!
While this decision doesn't make reference to whether or not the "children of illegal immigrants" are US citizens or not (I'm not in the mood to look it up) - I'm going to assume it's referring to LEGAL children. If they're legally here, I say they have the right to an education, same as everyone else. While I'm fairly sure that the above decision was referring to illegal immigrant children, I say "no" to the idea of them taking up the taxpayers' money and filling another seat in an overcrowded and understaffed classroom. Maybe if there weren't any illegal immigrant kids in our public school system, teachers could teach better, students could learn more, and we wouldn't be failing all of our tests as a nation.
Either way, whether the child itself is a citizen or not, the fact remains that neither parent is a legal citizen. Which means that they shy away from the school system to enroll their child for fear of being asked a bunch of questions about their immigration status and getting arrested and deported like the criminals they are. They also shy away from hospitals, for the same reason, and refuse to do their part in stopping crime because to attempt to be a witness in court or make a police statement, they'd be at risk of getting "found out" and they again would be arrested and deported because they're here illegally and that's a crime.
Rudy Giuliani wants that to stop happening. He favors a "don't ask, don't tell" policy involving illegal immigrants, that police officers and school officials and hospital workers shouldn't be allowed to inquire about a person's citizenship status unless it's part of an actual investigation of a crime. By which I'm sure he means "A crime BEYOND the initial crime of breaking the law and entering our country illegally."
Mitt Romney represents the other side of the equation - that illegal immigration is illegal and maybe it's a good thing that these criminals are afraid of stepping into the light because they'll be seen as the criminals they are. After all, if a man robs a liquor store and gets shot by the clerk in the process, is he likely to go to a hospital to get treated for his "GSW" (gunshot wound, to those who don't watch any hospital-themed TV shows)? Or is he likely to stay in the shadows, get poor or unreliable medical treatment (if any), and possibly die of infection or blood loss? Sure, he's caught between a rock and a hard place - possibly dying from the injury or going to jail when the GSW is reported by hospital staff - but if he didn't want to be put in that position, he shouldn't have robbed a frickin' liquor store!
Giuliani actually tries to bring up one valid point - that something affecting an illegal immigrant runs the risk of spreading to the legal community. An illegal child sick with a fever and possibly-contagious illness runs the risk of spreading it to the community if not allowed to be treated at a hospital. An illegal witness to a violent crime runs the risk of having the criminal continue the crime spree in the community if damning witness testimony isn't being provided by those too afraid to give it. Allowing kids who don't go to school runs the risk of having them grow up to be dumb gangbangers and continuing the stereotype of illegal immigrants committing MORE crimes of a violent nature if their illegal parents are too afraid to enroll them.
But some of these are risks we're willing to take, according to Romney.
We're fine with turning our backs on illegal children who want to leech time and energy from our school system and the poor teachers. After all, they don't belong here, and the less they learn and assimilate, the easier it'll be to find them and send them back to their country. As for a sick person who'll be infecting others - luckily that's why we have hospitals, health insurance, doctors, HMOs and a crappy-but-existant healthcare system. For our citizens. Maybe that'll teach citizens to either stay away from or report all illegal immigrants - especially the sick ones. Then they can be picked up and taken back to Mexico and the healthcare system Mexico offers its own citizens. You're a Mexican citizen, not an American - take up space in THEIR healthcare system! As for the idiots who don't go to school because their parents won't enroll them? We need better truance officers, I guess. You know, people on the lookout for children who aren't in school? Find the children, keep them off the streets (and preferably back in their own damned country if they weren't born here) - maybe then they'll learn the only lesson they need and probably wouldn't learn in school: You don't belong here, because you're not an American citizen!
Me? I'm siding with Romney on this one. Sounds like there's actually a candidate who's as against illegal immigration as I'd LIKE our President to be. Unfortunately, I haven't heard much coming from him in the form of plans to put the opinion to action. That's what I'm waiting for. So Mitt, if you're out there, reading this - let me know...
...I've got PLENTY of ideas to share with you.
(Some of the Romney v. Giuliani info)
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
