I thought about a lot of ways to make my pick for the District 1 candidate for Congress, and there really isn’t any way to do it any justice and be fair to everyone. There just isn’t much to pick from, at least by my philosophy. The democrats as a whole were pretty much the same. You could almost stick them in a barrel and mix them up, then pick the first one you grab. It wouldn’t matter who it was as they all follow the same rigid party line of impeachment and taxation. The only exception is Adam Cote, who really should be registered as a Republican. His issues are the economy, which should be a top issue for any congressman, as well as health care and education. Overall, as far as the democrat party goes, Cote would be my choice. Aside from the fact that he is associated with Pierce Atwood, the only issues I can’t seem to accept is that he has fallen for the Red Green farce of environmental catastrophe caused by CO2 emissions and the Gay marriage issue. I could probably live with the rest of his points. The rest of the left wing pack isn’t even worth looking at
Mark Lawrence has an interesting platform where he says he wants to “restore the Constitution,” according to his website. Unfortunately for Lawrence, the Constitution doesn’t need to be restored. Although, the fact that he lists impeachment as his main priority, and the tuck tail and run strategy for Iraq as a close second tells me what he actually wants to do is change the Constitution to suit the needs of the Socialist left wingers. Steve Meister doesn’t fare any better, but he also supports gun control and abortion. Both big no-no’s in my book.
Chellie Pingree is a lost cause. She seems much too quick to put blame on the Republicans, whether or not blame is deserved. Sometimes it’s the voters fault Chellie! Like when they keep electing self absorbed deal making democrats that try to hide their shady deals, while shining the light on somebody else’s gaffs. Ethan Strimling follows right along with the leftist crowd, but one of his main issues is to end our reliance on foreign oil. That’s something I can agree with, but in his case, he doesn’t want the billions of barrels available on US soil to be retrieved. Oil is by far the most economical, and in reality cleanest choice we can make. At least until more appropriate means of energy delivery and use can be developed.
Dexter Kamilewicz, running as an independent seems to be a democrat in sheep’s clothing mirroring many of the leftist popular statements. Charlie Summers and Dean Scontras run pretty much neck and neck, with a few minor variances, which made it harder for me to choose. On energy independence, they both believe we need to be free from foreign supply. Summers seems to favor a well developed, multi pronged approach, while Scontras seems to be a great supporter of cellulosic ethanol. Ethanol is a good alternative to petro fuel, but he doesn’t seem to be aware of some of its drawbacks. Number one, ethanol, in any form, is less efficient than petro fuel. It takes more ethanol to drive your car than petro fuel does. Lower mileage means more fuel and higher operating costs. Another problem I have with ethanol is that according to our own EPA lab results, ethanol has a higher output of noxious emissions such as NO and sulfur based emissions. That means a return to higher levels of acid rain. A solution to the CO2 emissions causing another environmental problem. Doesn’t work for me.
On most of the other issues the two are pretty closely aligned to the party platform. So, given that the left isn’t a choice I’d make even on a good day, that leaves Scontras and Summers. The energy issue is the main dividing point here, and I like Charlie’s position on that issue over Scontras. My vote for Congressman for District one rests with Charlie Summers.
In a couple of other notes, the papers are just starting to get in step with the UN’s food emergency summit in Rome. There’s not a whole lot to like about the proceedings thus far. For the most part, when the country/member delegates were allowed the floor, it seemed to be mostly a US and Israeli bashing party. And many were quick to whine about their own non food related problems. The only thing I see coming out of this conference is the suggestion of another worldwide tax and a recommendation that a new committee be formed to study the problem.
An article from Britain’s Telegraph.co.UK related that many of the member nations in attendance didn’t want to give cash to the UN because they didn’t trust the UN’s manner of handling of the situation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2081656/UN-food-crisis-summit-leaders-fail-to-agree-on-plan.html for the article. there was a lot of finger pointing and blame laying by seemingly everyone, and the biggest culprit seems to have been the bio-fuels industries. Brazil was the strongest opponent of that statement. Not surprising being that over eighty percent of their fuels come from sugar cane. But I fail to see how the Un can effectively criticize a fuel they heavily promoted as an alternative fuel proffered as a remedy for the supposed excessive CO2 emissions that transportation is responsible for. Especially when industry analysts, some even employed by the UN, claim that only about one percent of the increase in food costs can be attributed to ethanol production from food stocks.
The other big issue is the Senate vote for the Climate Change Bill, now having grown to five hundred pages worth of six trillion in new taxes for the American taxpayers. Most analysts seem to feel that the bill has slim chance of passing, and even if it does, it will not do so with a veto proof margin. Either way, Bush has promised to veto the bill, with or without the margin. That would send it back for more discussion and voting. Given the late timing in the year for it, we probably won’t see passage or defeat for certain until next January. I’m going to side with those that claim the bill will be one of the first actions of the new year. Hopefully, this Nation will wake up and see this for the taxing farce that this really is by then.
Here’s a good one IBD has released an article that says “James “Yousef” Yee, a former Army Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Gitmo, will represent Washington state for Obama at the Democratic National Convention, where he’ll likely have a center-stage speaking role. The two are a perfect match. Obama promises to not only close Gitmo, but “reform” the USA Patriot Act.” The article also says “There’s no question that Yee, a captain who converted to Islam, was sympathetic to al-Qaida and Taliban captives at Gitmo. At times, in fact, he acted more like a defense attorney for the terrorists.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297559250759730 for the full article. Should be an interesting read in the normal papers.