The Perfect Voting Guide: Vote AGAINST the Slates and the Times' Recommendations

POLITICS-An informed and engaged electorate is the best thing that a free society can hope for--but LYING to the public about "endorsed" candidates and "higher voter turnout" isn't the road to a freer and more representative democracy...it's the Highway to Hell. 

These last few days I again learned from two volunteer events--my own absentee ballot experience for the Tuesday, March 3rd elections and the Saturday morning Operation Gratitude event where I joined a small army of volunteers made about 15,000 CARE packages for our troops abroad--Freedom Isn't Free. 

Unfortunately, the worldwide cancer that is ISIS is mirrored at home in our nation by a growing apathetic voter electorate who sees the "same old, same old" from both political parties leading to a "Decline To State" as our leading political affiliation by more and more voters...and is a domestic cancer unaddressed by our two major political parties. 

They forget WHY we have such low voter turnout:  most voters don't feel that the candidates or offices make any difference--the endorsements of the Democratic/LA Times political machine lead to the same problems that have plagued our City for decades:  lousy roads, lousy schools, and lousy infrastructure. 

Those glossy slates that promote the same happy, shiny people you've never heard of, and scream "ENDORSEMENT!" instead of qualifications, ideas, etc.?  These are the same faces and names who (more often than not) actually GOT our Community College and City Council and LAUSD into the fiscal and operational messes that they now are in--and have been for years. 

And the Charter Amendments 1 and 2 that promote "higher voter turnout" and avoid the City focus in our odd-year elections?  Promoted by the same corrupt Times/slates/endorsement machine that got us here. 

In the end, who but the most volunteer/hard-working/due-diligence voters would remember to ask the critical question: 

WHO BUT THE CORRUPT LA TIMES/CITY COUNCIL/POLITICAL MACHINE CAN AFFORD THOSE SLICK MAILERS, AND WHY ARE THE GRASSROOTS ALL OPPOSED TO THE TWO PROPOSITIONS? 

At last Saturday night's Mark Isler show, the four reformist candidates for the Community College District (Josef Essavi, Steve Schulte, Joyce Burrell Garcia and Mark Isler) noted that the slate mailers all promote the same incumbents, and even recommend in a "Republican Voter Guide" the same folks in the "Democratic Voter Guide". 

No corruption there, right?  Ditto for the Times, who endorsed the same crowd. 

By the way, the Times didn't even bother to speak with all of the Community College candidates (this isn't my opinion, this is FACT)--so the Times endorsements are based on...what, now? 

It's no secret that the LA Community College Board has been plagued by construction and operational cost overruns, and has for too long favored crony contractors and crony employee unions who don't give a rip about the needs of students and of taxpayers. 

Those reformers--Essavi, Schulte, Garcia and Isler--are all over the political spectrum, but good will and sincerity know no political boundaries.  

As my own experience with the Mar Vista Community Council has taught me, when liberals and conservatives of quality and sincerity all work together--regardless of political affiliation--to achieve compromise and inclusiveness in our motions, things get done. 

So when the Times and the expensive slate mailers arrive to the same conclusion, it's pretty clear that they do NOT represent reform.  They represent the same old, same old. 

Want more taxes, and lousy operations and spending?  Go with the mailers and the Times. 

Want reform?  Do the research, GO TO GOOGLE AND LEARN WHAT THE CANDIDATES STAND FOR, AND WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT AND LOSE FROM A GIVEN INITIATIVE. 

And vote "NO!" on Charter Amendments 1 and 2...unless, of course, you want to void the influence of those who do the volunteer work and fight to learn the issues.  Note that the Neighborhood Councils all oppose them. 

Note that former League of Women Voters president David Holtzman opposes the two initiatives, as do experienced politicians Bernard Parks and Gloria Molina. 

{module [1177]}

I don't always agree with the position of folks like Holtzman, Parks and Molina, but I recognize bravery and honesty and sincerity when I see it.  They may be politically liberal, but are known to be economically conservative (and if that term "conservative" bothers you, please consider replacing it with "common sense", as in the common sense of spending taxpayer money well and spending within our means). 

For those who've not already voted absentee, and who intend to vote in Tuesday's elections, let me tell you that these elections are critical and hard to figure out because of the lack of transparency on the part of the Times and the slates you're getting every day. 

But--in addition to Googling the candidates--there is an easy way to figure out how to vote this Tuesday.   

Briefly read who the slates and the Times advocate, recognize they're backed by money and ignorance, and vote NO on everyone the slates and Times support. 

In our sad, ignorant times, it's best to recognize the ignorance that is the hallmark of the Times today, and the big money coming from those mysterious financiers of those glossy slates.

 

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected].  He also does regular commentary on the MarkIsler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)

-cw

 

 

 

CityWatch

Vol 13 Issue 18

Pub: Mar 3, 2015