The Star reported on the debate yesterday between Tony Strickland and Hannah Jackson, the nominees for their political parties for the 19th Senate District.
The story was excellent, as a news story. The good news is that the reporter told the readers about the debate, without bias or spin. It was a straight news story, as it should be in the news section of the paper.
Now for the analysis:
On questions of health care, Strickland wanted the citizens to decide. Jackson wanted government intervention.
On the mortgage meltdown: Strickland wanted the crooks punished--including those who lied on the finance forms about their income.
Jackson wanted more government.
On cutting government: Jackson wanted to look at "all" programs. Not an answer to the question, "which programs would you cut?". You would think that after six years in the legislature she could name a single program that is a waste.
Strickland named 14 commissions he would cut as a start. He gave a direct answer. He was wiling to answer the question.
Both were asked what would the focus be of their first piece of legislation as a State Senator.
Jackson wanted to use colleges to "retrain people who lost their jobs". That is not the real focus of colleges--that is the focus of high schools and continuation schools. After six years in the legislature she still does not understand the role of colleges, universities and the rest of the education system. Her answer was just words, meant to sound good, with no reason, logic or basic understanding of education. If she had specified the community colleges, that would be a good answer--but she did not.
Strickland continues with emphasis on alternative energy sources. He understands that to lower future energy costs, to make us independent of terrorist and totalitarian nations--plus it creates productive jobs.
Finally, the question about same-sex marriage was raised. Jackson, as a politician said she was glad it was on the ballot--what does that really mean? But, she was honest to say she opposed traditional marriage.
Strickland supports Prop. 8 and traditional marriage along with most Californians.
The bottom line is this. If you believe government is the answer and you do not feel you are not smart enough to run your own life, this debate showed that Jackson is your candidate.
If you believe in yourself, if you understand that government is out of control, if you think government is too big, then Strickland is your candidate.
One last thought that I will be writing about in another blog: One of the reasons we have a deficit is that we have people and businesses that refuse to pay their taxes. The total might be as high as $4 billion, the same amount the State needs to borrow, at high interest rates, for the cash flow problem we are facing. I will tell you about one Ventura County business that owes lots of money in taxes, but is donating money to the State to clean up the environment--instead of paying the taxes it owes.
Wrong as usual Steve. If you believe big special interests should get favors in exchange for large donations vote for Tony. He has a 100.0% track record of supporting the interests of big campaign donors. HBJ on the other hand has got contributions from the same organizations and actually voted AGAINST them over 90% of the time.
Ok..I'll concede that one of the most common differences between the "conservative" Repub view vs. the "liberal" Dem view is on the role of government. Dems want more, Repubs less..that is given.
Problem is of course, given this financial meltdown, which viewpoint is the right way to go? It's all up in the air of course, but it remains true that much of the events generally looked to as probable cause are the result of less intervention..of any kind. The so-called "Free Market" might sound good, and maybe even work, but it sure has some pretty wide swings in the "bust or boom" cycle.
All right, two more things:
1) Stephen, at least based on the Star article that I accessed via the link you provided, it in no way states that Jackson is "opposed (to) traditional marriage. That is just false. The entire text of the links article is this:
"Gooch asked what the candidates thought of Proposition 8, the state ballot initiative that, if passed, would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Strickland said he supports the proposition.
Jackson said she is "delighted this initiative is going to be on the ballot" but is against it.
"I don't think we should be writing discrimination into the Constitution of the state of California," Jackson said."
Seems like Jackson is against discrimination, which it appears you and Strickland are for.
2) As regards what educational institutions would be the right place for any retraining of workers, should that be done, it is my understanding that the K-12 system is restricted to basically, minors. Any re-education, should that be a desirable goal, would necessarily have to be either "Adult" school, or college level, presumably community college. This is because over a certain age..18 I think or near to it, you can only attend public schools at either adult or college levels of instruction. I know this because in the past my 1st wife taught developementally disadvantaged at the now defunct Cam State Hospital, she was a College district employee, she taught "adult" residents basic lifestyle skills, and because I briefly worked for Oxnard College as an Instructor teaching CPR to Navy base civilian personnel.
You do need to check on things like this before you pose them as fact.
1. A YES vote on Prop. 8 is a vote in favor of traditional marriage. A NO vote is against it. Jackson can call it what she wants--but by asking for a NO vote she is opposing traditional marriage.
In San Francisco a government school class was taken to City Hall to observe a same-sex marriage--they were not taken to see a man and woman get married--this was propaganda to , promote same sex marriage--instead of teaching the kids to read or do math, this government school decided to promote same-sex marriage--any wonder our kids are no learning, the schools are more concerned about promoting same-sex marriage than reading.
2. As for retraining Valley Unified School District has a whole section dedicated to adults to train in law enforcement, computers, the health care field, business skills--all for adults. Too bad Jackson and you do not know that.
Plus our community colleges have job training programs.
BTW, our school districts would have more ROP--job training programs for high school students if government allowed them. Each county is limited in the number of ROP programs it is allowed. Ventura County is at the maximum, but has requests for about a dozen more, which they can not open. In other words, government schools are failing our students by not giving them the education they need. Strickland knows that and wants to do something about it. Jackson just gives meaningless words to show her "compassion" but not any common sense.
FACT: Tony Strickland voted NO on regulating predatory mortgage lending.
lol you read that on one of your mailers? Funny thing is HBJ voted yes and the bill was passed and look what kind of crap we're in. Just more liberal legislation that doesn't work. Classic!
The bill DID NOT pass. It was vetoed and look at the mess that resulted. People with credit scores in excess of 750 were told by shady mortgage people that their credit was not good enough for a fixed rate loan and instead were forced into sub-primes. That is Tony Stricklands America.
Stevarino...you can be such a goofball...
Opposing Prop 8 does not mean you have anything against what you call "traditional marriage". They can still continue as they have. Opposing Prop 8 means you reject constraints on what "marriage" is, not that you reject what it has been.
While I concede you might not agree, supporting Prop 8 does not mean you inherently reject "traditional" marriage. What it means is there is a recognition of an expansion of the "marriage" concept...which I gather you don't like. Just be accurate OK?
Stop distorting please.
As far as your remark:
"2. As for retraining Valley Unified School District has a whole section dedicated to adults to train in law enforcement, computers, the health care field, business skills--all for adults. Too bad Jackson and you do not know that."
I think this is what I said....school districts do offer "Adult Education". That is not part of the regular K-12 curriculum. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Your statement was:
"Jackson wanted to use colleges to "retrain people who lost their jobs". That is not the real focus of colleges--that is the focus of high schools and continuation schools."
Again, high schools are for minors, continuations schools are for those that ..for whatever reason, don't fit in to the standard high school regimen, their pupils are generally minors I believe, not adults as like 35+ years old.
Colleges, in particular, Community Colleges are the ideal venue to deal with retraining ADULTS, and I think offering such retraining is actually a pretty good idea
School DISTRICTS might offer Adult programs, but they don't let adults into High School Stevarino.
Tom, you and Hannah need to get up to date about what government schools provide these days--child care, free food (to those who qualify), they teach English to illegal aliens in ADULT schools which are part of the District.
Simi Valley Unified also provides computer and health care education for adults, up to 99 years old. That is why Hannah is unqualified, her answer showed she did not know what she had voted for in the six years in the Assembly, or she wanted to just use words to give an answer.
Oh, yes, they do let ADULTS into High School--in this case SVUSD and the other districts call them ADULT SCHOOLS--different name same, district.
As for Prop. 8--the battle is between supporters who believe in tradition marriage and those who don't. Once you go outside a man and a woman, logically and consistently you must also support, besides same-sex marriage, polygamy, brother-sister, etc. If you don't you are discriminating. If a man and a man have the right to have the State recognize their love, then a man, a man and a woman also have the same "right". If I were Jackson, and believed in same-sex marriage, then why should I tell a man, man and woman they are not allowed to have their love recognized by the State, not be able to have the same tax rights and a man and a woman, or be able to make health care decisions?
Or, if we agree that same-sex marriage between two people who love each other should be recognized, then why can't a 21 year old marry a 13 year old, if they are in love--you want to discriminate?
No, Tom, you and Hannah oppose traditional marriage. Be proud of it instead of trying to deny it.
Everyone should look at this article, http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org..., about the efforts of the Mormon church to write their religion into the California State Constitution. They have contributed almost a third of the $26,000,000 donated to promote a Yes on 8. Much of it coming from out of state. I don't want religious groups from outside the state trying to affect our constitution.
Is it possible that the majority of donors to the NO side are atheists? If so, who cares.
Does it matter what the sexual orientation is of the donors to the YES or No side? Of course not.
We should look is the issues and values of the Proposition, instead of the bigotry of caring about the religion of the donors, for or against.
This is why California is in such trouble, the divisiveness of the Left.
To Steve Frank,
The Mormons living in the State of California have every right to contribute to try to change our Constitution. I have a problem with religious groups from outside the state trying to change our constitution. How would you like it if a group of Muslims from Detroit pumped money into the state to promote an initiative to ban Christianity in our constitution?
Republicans are suppose to ab about freedom of choice not restricting it. The Constitution should only be amended to right an injustice not to create one.
Interesting JW...not sure what bill you are talking about, but AB 489 (2001) did pass and was signed by then Gov. Gray Davis on 10/10/01. It placed more restrictions and requirements on consumer loans among other things...and we are still in the mess we are today. Why don't we try a little more personal responsibility and a little less more government is the answer to everything.
On a side note...what a winner Gray Davis was with his back room deals with the energy companies. If it weren't for Tony Strickland and his courage to go after the Governor for his shady business deals we would all be paying ridiculously high electricity bills.
STEVE! Cut the BS!
You should NOT distort what people say.
I do NOT oppose "traditional marriage"...never said that, I'm in one for pete's sake.
I just don't want to deny the socio-legal benefit of that contract to non-traditional adult human couples...AND I am not afraid that in doing so, MY marriage is in ANY way affected.
The "right" to marry isn't so much the issue as it is what that "right" to marry brings with it in the social contract that is recognized. That is the problem, at least from my point of view.
There are laws sufficient to protect under-age minors and barnyard animals as there should be Stevarino. Respecting adult rights does not inherently mean we disavow rights of minors or crittters.
You epitomize what the Right does when opinions are different than yours. Lie..distort..spin.
I certainly expect, and hope, that if Proposition 8 does not pass that anyone wishing to marry his or her dog has the right to do so. To deny someone the ability to wed their beloved pet to whom they have devoted all of their life to (and vice versa) would seem to me to represent the most appalling display of discrimination conceivable.
Tom:
You clearly oppose bestiality and under age marriage.
I note you do not oppose, by omission, polygamy.
Do you support a man marrying several women? Not sure how you can. Your criteria is consent and being over 18.
Your criteria makes you a supporter of 10 women marrying one man, or vice versa.
Please explain your views on this type of "marriage"--do you support it?
Why should a 17 year old NOT be allowed to marry a 30 year old--it is only an artificial law set by government. If a man and a woman, by your criteria wish to marry, what does age have to do with it?
You need to be consistent or admit your criteria have no values.
In response to jw in the first post, if you truly believe that then you need to check the track records of both the candidates instead of getting all your info from HBJ campaign rallies. And just as a note to everyone else in regards to jw's post, anything someone makes a claim of "100%" be skeptical. It is extremely unlikely the claim is accurate.