Weird e-mails for Election Day

I have to share this with the readership. It is an e-mail that came in today, full of weird conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, some focused on Diebold voting machines, some focused on just random weirdness — I get material from all over.

I particularly enjoyed this bit, though:

I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE THAT WE HAVE CAPTURED SADDAM HUSSEIN.

Saddam’s wife said that the man we had captured “was not her husband” the moment she saw him, and would not speak to him.

Prove without a shadow of a doubt that the man we have is the man who ruled Iraq, and you can consider a ruling. Otherwise, you have the identical twin dilemna.

Um. Huh?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Voting no, no and no

The Xpatriated Texan on BlueJersey explains why he — and I — will be voting against the three New Jersey public questions tomorrow:

First and foremost, the Constitution is not supposed to be a budgetary document. It is the fundamental law of the land. It shouldn’t be changed at the whim of economic winds. It should set forth the general principles of our society. Dedicating money to one fund or another simply doesn’t measure up to that level.

Second, we just closed down the government a few months ago because we couldn’t agree on how we should close a $4.5 billion dollar deficit. If we slice up how this money is dedicated, how will that help us close this gap? Short answer: It won’t. In fact, we will have to raise taxes somewhere else in order to replace the money we are re-directing.

Third, it is the responsibility of our legislature to create a balanced budget document. We should fully fund the Transportation Trust Fund and we should fully fund property tax relief and we should fully fund our parks and recreation services – but we can already do that in the normal budget process. The fact that these services are lagging behind is a reflection of the values of the people we send to Trenton. Constraining future legislatures with a Constitutional amendment simply allows them to dodge the responsibility for matching their priorities with ours. Let them decide whether to fund these vital services or to give their buddies another over-paid no-show job – and then vote accordingly.

Fourth, the percentage of the state budget controlled by the state legislature is somewhere around 15%. Constraining the legislators this far hasn’t helped, and I don’t see any benefit to doing it further. From my limited analysis of New Jersey budgeting, the problem is not that the New Jersey legislature doesn’t have money to spend – it’s that it chooses to spend the money it does control on stupid things. It’s that it has, all too often, totally abrogated its responsibility to exercise oversight once it appropriates money.

I understand the desire to constrain the legislature so that certain vital services are maintained. But once we start, where do we stop? Unless we truly want to fix the entire budget by Constitutional amendment, it makes no sense whatsoever to approve these questions.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

The dangers of horse-race coverage

The political junkie in me is out and I need to be careful not to fall prey to the kind of prognosticating nonsense that plagues cable news. I’m watching Tucker Carlson (ugh) on MSNBC, following the end of Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” and I’m struck by how little the folks on the tube are talking about what each of these candidates stand for and what the change might mean in policy terms.

Aside from a short nod to Iraq — the consensus on “Hardball,” accurate I think, is that a Democrtic win will mean little change because George Bush will still be in the White House — the talking heads are saying little about the future of the Bush tax cuts, Social Security, trade issues (aside from saying that the likely Democratic winners are cut from the “populist” cloth) , the Supreme Court, abortion, the separation of powers, the abuse of power by the White House, etc., etc., etc.

I can understand how this happens. Horse-race coverage requires little real work, aside from looking at polls, and allows reporters and talking heads to not delve into the deep end of the policy pool, which would require thoughtful discussion and a careful explanation of where the candidates stand.

But it does a disservice to voters, leaving the candidates through stylized and misleading television advertising to define themselves and their opponents.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

My list of top Knicks

Interesting column on the best Knick ever — got me thinking about how I would rank them (I go back only as far as the championship squads, so fans of Harry Gallatin, Richie Guerin and Dick McGuire take note).

So here goes:

  1. Willis Reed
  2. Walt Frazier
  3. Patrick Ewing
  4. Dave DeBusschere
  5. Earl Monroe
  6. Bernard King
  7. Bill Bradley
  8. Charles Oakley (his number should be retired and the organization knows it)
  9. Dick Barnett
  10. Jerry Lucas
  11. Jon Starks
  12. Mark Jackson
  13. Bill Cartwright
  14. Michael Ray Richardson
  15. Ray Williams

I know I’ve left some players off (Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston??) but this seems to be a good start. Knick fans, what do you think?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

The stakes

I’ve written about this before but it cannot hurt to re-emphasize just exactly what’s at stake tomorrow when we head into the voting booth — i.e., that tomorrow’s vote should be a referendum on President George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq and the constitutional separation of powers. As The New York Times wrote on Sunday:

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

I live in New Jersey, where the two sides have been waging a television war of attrition that seems designed to suppress the vote.

But it seems pretty clear to me that New Jersey voters should send Bob Menendez back to the Senate. Sen. Menendez, who spent a dozen years in the House of Representatives before being appointed by Gov. Jon Corzine in January to replace the new governor in the Senate, voted against the war authorization in 2003, when it was considered politically unpopular to do so, and has remained steadfast in his opposition to the disaster the president has created.

Just as importantly, he is a Democrat and the nation needs the Democrats to take over at least one house of Congress as the first step in a change of direction nationally. The nation can not afford to continue thumbing its nose at the international community and it literally cannot afford to subsidize the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

The Republican challenger, state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., has raised some valid questions about Sen. Menendez and the political culture of New Jersey. But he has ran a harshly negative campaign that left me wondering what kind of lines he would cross were he elected.

More significantly, he has failed to answer questions about his past stance on Social Securitprivatizationon and remains steadfast in support of the war (though he would toss Donald Rumsfeld overboard). And while he paints himself as a moderate, he is likely to side with his party’s leadership, leaving the same bunch of right-wingers in charge of tax, military and environmental policy — the same bunch that has made such a mess in the first place.

So while he may think of himself as an independent actor, the reality is that he cannot be — there cannot be independent actors in Washington these days.

So I’ll vote for Bob Menendez and hope the rest of the nation follows suit and boots the GOP from its majority status.

That said, I have my doubts that this will happen (even if Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say so). There are a lot of people who want to see the GOP dumped, but not their own GOP Congressman — plus there is the unfortunate tendency of national Democrats to turn strength to weakness. My fear is that the Democrats will come close, but fail to capture either House, and that it will be spun as a Democratic loss, giving the national media cause to minimize what the party actually may end up accomplishing.

So vote early and vote often. It is your patriotic duty.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick