On November 4th, residents of District 3 will choose between two Democrats for San Diego City Council -- Todd Gloria and Stephen Whitburn.  For voters hoping to stay away from Democrats, one candidate may be as bad as another, and these are slim pickings.  But for other voters, choosing between two great candidates might come down to a coin toss.

In an effort to avoid deciding by this time honored, but willy-nilly method, I contacted both candidates' campaigns hoping the choice would become easier.  (Read the full transcripts: Stephen Whitburn's Responses, Todd Gloria's Responses) 

Unfortunately, even after Mr. Gloria's and Mr. Whitburn's equally gracious responses, the decision will remain challenging.

Rather than decide based on party lines, this race may just boil down to what each voter values most.  Do you value the perspective of a third-generation native Dist. 3 resident with the pedigree and blessing of popular Congresswoman Susan Davis (D-53rd District)?  Or do you value 26 years of experience in business and elected office, and the backing of the San Diego Democratic Party and notables Donna Frye and Bob Filner?  If the candidates' support networks matter most, as Chuck wrote, the voter's choice is made.  If, however, official recommendations fail to sway, then take a look at what the candidates had to say to me on these topics:

    On Safety:

Todd Gloria prioritizes reestablishing the Community Relations Officers to improve the area's poor safety record.  Stephen Whitburn has proposed a more detailed, comprehensive plan, including: alley lighting, a Crime Stopper's Reward Fund, "bringing back District Three's Community Relations Officers," and "encouraging and promoting Neighborhood Watch, Citizen Patrols, and Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol (RSVP) Programs." 

On this issue, I prefer Mr. Whitburn's ideas because they address both community members' involvement and the city's policymaking role.

As Citizen Voices Bloggers, we agreed to appear on These Days periodically, as part of the job description. For this week's segment I was "encouraged" to go out into the community (my neighbors, co-workers, etc,) to find out how people were feeling about the presidential race, take an informal poll, and report my findings as part of the Wednesday morning show.

Asking people you know about their political beliefs is kind of like asking them about their sex life.  It can feel invasive, and being a private person myself, (at least I was before I got this blogging gig,) and since my neighbors and I have maintained a respectful avoidance of this subject... them with their McCain/Palin signs and me with my Obama/Biden signs, I didn't want to scratch the illusion of tolerance by actually talking to them.  So I did the only reasonable thing... I coped out.

In the spirit of non-scientific inquiry, I got in my car and drove as far away from my neighbors as I could, looking for random victims. I sampled opinions at the community gym, (where both TV's are usually tuned to Fox), Farmer's Market, Dog Beach, a hair salon, and a political forum.  I sent emails to friends, colleagues, and relatives.   Some of my face-to-face contacts at first declined to answer my questions, but when I said "okay", and started to walk away, they usually followed me to tell me what they thought anyway.

The first day of polling was not good news. I encountered a large number of people who had (1) not registered, (2) not paid attention, (3) said they would ask other people or their church how to vote, (4) didn't know anything about the issues. I heard excuses like "I have kids, I have to work, I don't have time to read the paper."   Seems like raising kids might be one of the premier reasons to care about who will run this country in the coming years.

Presumptive president-elect Barack Obama (the polls may differ in their closeness, but all of them - even without counting the younger, cell-phone-only generation -  show him ahead, so I'm not harboring any delusions) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," according to his press secretary. On this, it seems that he would disagree with quite a few of his powerful supporters in Congress (and the UCC, of which Obama's home church is a part).

Many on the right (and in the libertarian camp) fear such a reinstatement because one of its targets would more than likely be conservative talk radio. Under the doctrine, views expressed in such an outlet would have to be balanced by "progressive" views.

But many congressional Democrats, as well as members of the "mainstream" media, seem to have very little interest in "balancing" other outlets. In Arianna Huffington's book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, she writes:

"A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how these ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media - not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards - but the respectable, supposedly liberal media. Without the enabling of the traditional media - with their obsession with 'balance' and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle - the radical Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, movement conservatism would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago."

It is hard for me to take someone seriously who does not acknowledge that there is plenty of "public opinion" out there - including a number of oft-shunned Democrats - that favor a pro-life position. That Huffington feels it is the media's duty to silence a view that she believes is so obviously wrong (and therefore must be) is very telling, but it's not like she can make it so - she's "only" a journalist and not a member of Congress, right?

I started with Citizen Voices as an unlikely Republican.  Definitely outside their demographics, although I shared many of their professed beliefs.  Smaller government, lower taxes, a preference for individual responsibility over nanny-statism and a goal of success through merit rather than survival through entitlements.  The ideals I valued were those of little-L libertarianism, but without the baggage of the Libertarian Party.

But completing a trend that's steadily progressed over the last eight years, and despite their so-called ideals, I really can't support the Republican Party anymore.  To quote Colin Powell's statement of this last weekend, "I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years."  OK, that's putting it mildly, but I will change my registration after this election.

I won't go into every detail of why here, detailing every issue where I believe the Party has abandoned its principles for expediency, and certainly don't reject all the various people commited to public service who still serve under that party's banner.  The list of prominent Republicans featured on the Republicans Against 8 website is a good list of Californians who share the values I described, my values, above despite the party label.

Before visiting family in Ohio this week, I’d assumed this swing state—a battleground for Democrats and Republicans—would be a hothouse of political conversation. After hanging out with native and transplanted Ohioans kind enough to offer me a piece of their minds (with some coaxing and humor), only a few times did conversation turn to national politics.

Here’s what I’m coming away with:

• Nobody’s really thrilled with either candidate, and have very specific problems with voting for either party’s representative.  For instance, the word “entitlement” was offered when discussing Obama’s ideas for the country.  The gist of the conversation concerned taxpayers paying for what others hadn’t earned.  This disdain for entitlement will keep people away from Obama in November, even when voting for McCain isn’t much of a palatable option.  (This seems like a mainstream opinion to me and not one relegated to just Ohioans.  The undecided vote at this point—including in our family an Army couple of two twenty-somethings and their little boy—may not vote at all rather than hold their noses and comply with an amorphous civic duty.)

• Of those who have already decided on a major party candidate, many proudly display their choice with lawn signs and bumper stickers.  Most people who display a preference for president also have several other yard signs for local candidates. 
  

• In small towns like Xenia, Ohio neither Joe Six Packs nor Joe Plumbers are, in fact, obsessed with either their guns or their religion. In the unscientific poll I conducted of the working middle class people living here, there is a certain pride and confidence from attending both Sunday school and keeping a Smith and Wesson (or its general equivalent).  But that pride is a far cry from being small town “hicks” that can’t think or make decisions apart from prevailing community values.

• Illegal immigration is more than a fleeting thought, even in trying economic times in a state not bordering Mexico.  An ambiguous divide exists between being compassionate for people trying to improve their lots on the one hand, and understanding that Americans struggle to do the same thing without breaking the law to do it on the other hand.  (I would argue that although many would say they never break the law to make ends meet, there is still some fringe economic activity, such as pirated entertainment, helping some with tight budgets).

My biggest fear while here has been that Senator Obama’s insult about guns and God will come back to haunt him, and that his words not only struck a chord but then also grew roots.  If I had to guess, I’d say this state goes Red in a few weeks.  I hope this isn’t the case and can’t wait to be proven wrong.

The likely prospect of being led by President Obama come 2009 ignites excitement in many. For me, though, it is a cause for fear - especially in light of the current economic crisis. My household doesn't make $250,000 per year, so according to the Obama camp, I should have no taxation worries. But what does it really mean to "spread the wealth"?

Heads up: I'm about to make reference to ACORN. And while it's not pretty, it's certainly not swiftboating, in part because I'm not going to try to connect the disturbing wave of recent voter fraud to Obama. I'm going to assume that he not only knew nothing about it, but also that he does not endorse it. No, I'm going to bring up ACORN because it can tell us a lot about what Obama stands for. In his words, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career."

Among the issues ACORN fights for is one that has contributed to the current dreary economic landscape. According to ACORN's housing website, it has previously been involved in projects in which "homebuyers have qualified for loans as low as $82,000 and payments as low as $850 per month," with claims that "families with incomes as low as $26,000/year have already purchased homes." Essentially, ACORN (in support of the Community Reinvestment Act) puts extreme pressure on banking institutions in an effort to secure loans for persons who are typically unqualified for such mortgages by normal bank standards. Sound like the type of irresponsible policy that could later backfire with detrimental economic repercussions, including perhaps massive subprime debt and mortgage foreclosures resulting from banks lending recklessly? Well, it's only the tip of the iceberg of harmful economic action that Obama would engage in.

Last night's presidential debate was decidedly... unenlightening and boring. Although the town hall format could have brought something new to the table, the game remained virtually unchanged. McCain had a tough job to do, as he entered the debate nine points down in the polls by some reports. Many Americans are now scrutinizing Obama more closely in light of the view that he is the more probable future president, and this is something McCain could have capitalized on - but he didn't, at least not as much as he could have. Both candidates presented their positions rather well, but this is old news - especially when Obama seemed to avoid directly answering questions in favor of steering the debate towards prepped talking points. Important issues came up, but the responses given could have been directly taken from campaign speeches. In what turned out to be a highly conventional debate, we heard the candidates reiterate their positions on health care, taxation, Iran, Russia, and energy. There remained much divergence and some agreement. The economy and current economic conditions were understandably a time-consuming focus.

But despite the need to address the economy in light of significant changes that have taken place since the last time the candidates faced off, I think Tom Brokaw could have made some more interesting decisions regarding question choices. When citizens, and not journalists, are given the opportunity to ask the questions, fascinating issues are bound to come up - and we can get a unique insight into our politicians' characters and lives. In this debate, however, if you agree with Obama's positions, you probably felt like Obama won; likewise, if you went into it a McCain fan, you more than likely believed him to be the winner (case in point: both the FoxNews on-screen poll following the debate and the Drudge Report online poll declared McCain the winner). Did it do anything for the undecideds? I've made up my mind, so I can't be certain, but my guess would be that it didn't do a whole lot in terms of issues.

But maybe the spotlight wasn't on the issues. Maybe the goal was to see the next president being, well, presidential - a goal both candidates succeeded in. Obama was comfortable, said things a lot of people want to hear, and presented himself as empathetic. But as McCain repeatedly brought up, it comes down to rhetoric versus record. So keeping that in mind, and in light of this rather promising debate format that failed to live up to my hopes, I've assembled a list of my own questions, specifically for Senator Obama. Some of these contain issues that I wish McCain had brought up, and some require more than a two-minute response, so poor Tom needs to stop looking at the timer.

Getting tagged to talk about the Vice Presidential debate for Citizen Voices presented a bit of a challenge.  What to look for, and what to comment on, in a debate between two people that I don't want to be elected for an office that has little significance other than being the constitutional equivalent of a spare tire.  

Unfortunately that analogy really works for how I view the two major party candidates this year.  On the one hand, we have the old retread who got thrown in the trunk in case he's got a little more life in him.  Functional and tested (and not completely bald), but with three good high-performance whitewalls screaming 'change' as you round the corner at personal-best speeds, using him just kinda blows the image, if not the performance.

On the other hand, you've got the little doughnut tire the manufacturer throws in the car when they're being cheap and saving space.  Untested, but it looks slick.  It'll work, as long as you stay below 45 mph and don't drive in rain, sleet, hail, fog, haze or bright daylight and can get a real tire back on that wheel within a day or two.

Ideally, you never have to use either of them, but realistically you need to have one of them in the trunk ready to go.

While certainly all eyes (including mine) will be on how Sarah Palin performs against Joe Biden's extensive foreign policy experience in tomorrow's vice presidential debate, I'm counting on the Democratic candidate for the entertainment. There's no telling what he might say - maybe something along the lines of, "You cannot go into a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent"? Maybe he'll remind us that "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America"? Or perhaps he'll continue to damage his own running mate's campaign by contradicting it directly through the claim that "we're not supporting clean coal". Hey, I'd even enjoy hearing one of his more baffling comments, like the statement that his wife having a doctorate is "a problem". I hope, though, that he can refrain from asking a paraplegic man to stand up for all to recognize. It is fortunate that debates, by their nature, are unscripted - I'd hate to see Biden have to forfeit his vice presidential run due to plagiarizing the speech of a British politician. All in all, I'm looking forward to Biden being Biden - and glad that it will be on national television, for all to see. (This, of course, Biden can liken to FDR's television appearance in 1929. Oops.)

Since it can be difficult to discern sarcasm in print, let me just explicitly state that I am not being sarcastic about being entertained, plain and simple. Before all the die-hard Biden fans out there attack me with comments galore and eager defenses, let me just emphasize my genuineness - I think he's a hoot! In the words of Nancy Pelosi (although in all seriousness, I don't agree with her brushing off Biden's awkward joke about his wife), "lighten up!" When you believe, as I do, that this election is about choosing the lesser of two evils, there is a serious need for some comic relief. And although Stephen Colbert is helpful, he is no substitute for the candidates themselves - one of whom, might I add, has visited 57 states, with one more to go.

Political advertisements on both sides of the aisle often strain credibility.  It can be tough appearing humble when you have the drive and determination necessary get within a couple of hanging chads of being leader of the free world.  But what does it say about you when you place paid advertisting proclaiming yourself the winner of a debate that hasn't happened yet?  I think Chez at Deus Ex Malcontent has the question right, but whether the source of problem lies with the candidate or his organization the fact that the advertisements ran reflects very poorly on the candidate's credibility and capacity to run the nation.