Today was the big day, primary election day in North Carolina. Who'd a thunk that a primary held in May would have any significance at all, let alone be an essential battleground being watched across the nation.
Of course the big hoopla over North Carolina's primary is the Democratic presidential race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The media is covering this race non-stop, telling us how important it is for each candidate to "win" the state. Adding to this already high-profile spectacle is the fact that North Carolina is what you call an open primary state. Independent voters can choose to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Independents came in droves to "make their votes count" by choosing to vote in the Democratic primary. Many registered Republicans temporarily switched their party affiliations to independent so they could vote in the Democratic primary too, either honestly or as part of El Rushbo's Operation Chaos. As anticipated, record numbers of voters turned out today, often waiting on long lines for a primary election which usually sees a poor turnout. I of course was one of them and entered my precinct polling location at 7:30 am. When asked which ballot I wanted, I - for the first time - proudly said "Republican."
My vote counted today - and if you live in North Carolina or Indiana, mine counted more than your's.
Despite what the media has repeated endlessly, it did not matter one iota whether Obama or Clinton "won" the primary. The reason it didn't matter is the same reason we still have a race - because unlike the national election in November, states are not winner-take-all in the Democratic primaries. The pledged delegates from each state are divided proportionally, so both sides gain delegate votes. All this fuss is just over whether Obama gets a couple more or less delegates depending on the margin of victory. Will Obama win by 12% or 14%. Either way, Hillary will still walk away with around 40% of delegate votes too.
Take a look at Guam's primary on Saturday as a good example of how ridiculous it is to be worried about who "wins". The media reported an exciting race which Obama won by a mere 7 votes. But did Obama "win" anything at all? Obama and Clinton split Guam's four delagates 50/50. So despite the reports about Obama's "victory", they really tied. If Obama won Guam than by that logic you can ignore the electoral college and say that Gore won the 2000 election. (I know he did win the popular vote but he didn't win what counted, the actual election.)
So realizing the falsehood that voting in the Democratic primary would have any significance, I chose to make my vote really count and vote in the Republican primary because there were several local elections that mattered, and with almost nobody voting in the Republican primary this year, my vote counted all the more. One of these neglected races was the Republican Governor's race which included seven-time-elected Mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory.
Now since John McCain has already clinched the Republican nomination, my vote in the Republican Presidential primary wouldn't count any more than it did for the Democratic Presidential primary. So as long as my vote didn't count in that race, I voted for Ron Paul. Yes he can't possibly win but he is still running and he's even had some radio ads here in North Carolina. So even though my vote didn't count in the Presidential race either, at least I realized it.
---------
Follow up:
I wasn't the only one. Ron Paul got a respectable 9% of the vote in Mecklenburg County.
Against all odds, North Carolina's primary will actually matter this year, and quite a bit too since we have a disproportionate amount of delegates up for grabs. For weeks now there have been television and radio ads for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but this one in particular caught my eye. Politics completely aside, what a strikingly different political ad than I've ever seen before. Through shot choices, editing pace, text treatment, and music selection, this ad is totally different.
Politicians have done positive ads before, but not like this style. It all starts with the music, slightly uplifting, upbeat, bordering on fun. Patriotic orchestra music would have been too serious and status quo. The editing keeps pace with the music. Lots of quick shots for a short-attention-span audience, but not too fast that it's jarring. Text interstitials are nothing new but the simple crisp white on black didn't assault your eyes with the typical deep reds and blues of typical campaigns. And the subtle treatment of the text was very professional, with slight drifting motion, blur transistions, and bolding the key words. And last but not least, the choice of video shots. We saw far more of supporters and large enthusiastic crowds than of Barack Obama. It put the focus on we the people and made it not all about Obama. It gave you a feeling of Woodstock optimism.
Top to bottom, I thought this ad was brilliantly done (especially compared with typical political ad tactics), which is why I decided to writing about it. Again, I'm talking about the commercial only and not Barack Obama himself. However I will say that this ad did give me a more positive opinion of Obama. Not because of the well produced spot, but because Obama made the smart decision to surround himself with other people who knew what they were doing.
Happy Independence Day, 2007. Once again, not "Happy 4th of July". I have off from work today and right before I wrote this post I walked out into the street in front of my house and counted how many American flags I could see around the neighborhood. I could see 21 houses and only one besides mine was displaying an American flag. WTF? (I have four flags out, one main flag on the house and three small ones.)
I'll also take this opportunity to blog about something I wanted to mention a few weeks ago but never got around to it. Without going into much detail, I think the number one problem with politics is... politics itself. The two party system forces politicians to represent their party more often then their own constituents. If a candidate has an opinion on one single issue that differs from the party line, that candidate is shunned by the establishment. But more importantly, their party must always take the opposite view point of the other party because the right viewpoint is whatever is the polar opposite from their opponents' views. Middle ground and compromise is seen as weak, if not traitorous.
This all brings me to the announcement a few weeks ago that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg denounced his Rebublican party membership and has become an Independent. The media has been speculating that Mr. Bloomberg is setting himself up for a run for President in 2008 as an Independent, despite the fact that Bloomberg has adamantly denied those intentions. This is all very interesting but could he possibly have any chance at all of winning? The last 3rd party candidate to win even one state's electoral votes was Strom Thurman in 1948 (running on a pro-segregation platform). In 1992, Ross Perot managed to make it on to the ballot in all 50 states and managed an impressive 18.9% of the popular vote, but still garnered zero electoral votes. Again, would Bloomberg stand any chance of becoming President if he decided to run as an Independent? Chances are microscopic at best, but I read this fascinating article a month ago, "Michael Bloomberg vs. the 12th Amendment". Of course it's extremely improbable but author Jay Cost explains in painfully bureaucratic detail how it is indeed possible, so long as Bloomberg can win just one single state and neither of the other two candidates get the 50% needed to win. Very interesting reading.
Despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution accounts for such a situation, all I could think about while reading this article was how the media would paint it as a chaotic anarchy and that the court system would most likely intercede unnecessarily and partisan politics would end up supercede the Constitution in the end anyway. Well on that down note, Happy Independence Day anyway.
Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd announced yesterday that he will run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. It's way too early for me to decide which candidates to back but I mention Dodd's announcement because my sister Amy worked for him as a Fellow in 1998 and 1999. Amy worked on some of the bills mentioned in this news story about Dodd's long involvement in children's causes.
I watched the presidential address last night. Am I the only one that found it ironic that George W. Bush publicly preached the virtues of communism as the answer to the turmoil in Iraq? Let me say that again. The President of the United States of America said that communism would be great for a successful democracy in Iraq! The relevant quote from his address is:
To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.
Communism is "a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." I'm not at all against the notion that sharing oil revenues among all the people of Iraq may be a good idea, but it is totally hypocritical for the United States government to now promote an economic philosophy which it demonized for generations. We've fought wars in Korea and Viet Nam, battles and embargoes against Cuba, and trade sanctions against China and Venezuela to fight the "evil" of communism. Now we embrace the same concept when it can be spun to our advantage.
Nobody can deny that the Simpsons have been going downhill for years but I refused to believe that it had actually jumped the shark. The shark has been jumped.
First of all, last night's episode was just not funny at all. Secondly, the premise of this episode was that Homer joined the Army, a rip-off of a previous episode in which Homer joined the Navy. But the final straw for me is that for the second week in a row the show ended with blatant propaganda against the war in Iraq.
In last week's episode Kang & Kodos invaded Springfield at the end of the annual Halloween episode. The anti-Iraq message was short, subtle, and most importantly delivered in a cleverly humorous parody. However last night's episode was outright beat-you-over-the-head preaching. The moral of the entire episode was spelled out by Lisa Simpson, after the town of Springfield forces the U.S. Army to surrender, stating that an occupying force will never defeat the resistance of a determined people. Listen, I'm strongly against the war in Iraq too but I don't need political morals force-fed to me by my cartoon entertainment.
Good for Joe! I'm happy that Joe Lieberman was re-elected to the U.S. Senate last night - even though he's one of my least favorite Democrats. I've always strongly disagreed with most of Lieberman's beliefs, from his overly-conservative agenda, to his push for media censorship, to his support of the Iraqi war. But it is his pro-war belief that I am actually supporting right now because to support Joe Lieberman right now is to support democracy.
Last year Joe Lieberman spoke out in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq, a sentiment out of step with his fellow Democrats. Because his views were against his party's lines the Senator lost his Democratic Party nomination for re-election, a turn virtually unheard of for an incumbent not caught in some sort of a scandal. So without the nomination or support of the Democrats Lieberman ran for re-election as an independent, and last night won his race for another term in office.
As much as I oppose Lieberman's support of the Iraqi war, I more than support his rights - no duty - to speak his opinion without reprisal from his party. What I hate most about politics is the notion that politicians can't have differing opinions from their official party viewpoints. This mentality prevent politicians from being able to serve their constituents honestly, instead of being forced to vote however their party tells them to. I may not like what Joe has to say but I fully support his right to say it.
In an unrelated political story, kudos to Keith Ellison who became the first Muslim ever elected to the US Congress. To be honest I know nothing at all about his political views but I am all for religious diversity in the post 9/11 government.
This week the Charlotte Department of Transportation released compelling video of three collisions that occurred within one month's time at one particular intersection in Uptown Charlotte. They claim that there were zero collisions at this interection the previous eight months, during which time there were red-light cameras in operation. CDOT goes on to claim that this is strong evidence that the red-light cameras were effective in detering collisions at these intersections, suggesting we need to reinstate the red-light camera program for our own safely.
I've watched the video of these three crashes over and over again (sorry I don't have a link) and in each case I've noticed two things. One is that the violator didn't even slow down in any of the crashes. And two, that the traffic light was already red before any of the clips even begin. In the image above you'll notice at least three cars totally stopped for the red light, and at least one car that had already made it across the intersection (left to right), meaning that this crash must've had the light red for at least 10 seconds before the collision. Red-light cameras will snap your photo any time you proceed through a red light but their purpose is to deter people from intentionally trying to beat a changing or recently changed signal. That was obviously not the case in any of these three videos. Each of CDOT's examples clearly show an oblivious moron driver and not somebody intentionally trying to beat a light that just changed.
So why would CDOT release this great video and blame the collisions on the suspension of Charlotte's red-light camera program when it's so obviously not the cause? Because Charlotte makes money off of fines generated by the cameras - lots of money. Thanks for caring about our $afety, Charlotte.
RSS/Atom Blog Feed
