“01100101,” and other stirring political statements from the CA Senate race

[guizot]

In this other thread Rick Kitchen points out that we Californians have 34 candidates for senate to consider. Fortunately, we get delivered to our mailboxes an “Official Voter Information Guide,” where they can publish statements and prevail upon us to give them our vote.

To help out my fellow Californians here, I’m posting some of the more viable statements from the pamphlet, and providing my own analysis of each one.

(ALL STATEMENTS VERBATIM AND COMPLETE, FROM “OFFICIAL VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE”)

==================================================
Candidate: JERRY LAWS

Complete Statement:

@Jerry Laws

“Constitutionalist. Americanism.”

My analysis: We should vote for you because of your large vocabulary?

==================================================
Candidate: HERBERT G. PETERS

Complete Statement:

@Herbert G. Peters

“Andrew Jackson Democrat. Our first 70 years; our county grew and flourished. We had no income tax. Motto: Manifest Destiny. Democrat Presidents; were most wise: Andrew Jackson balanced budget seven of eight years. Franklin Pierce vetoed a federal welfare bill. To reverse downward spiral of last II8 years: balance our budget, resist war, reduce costs, reduce taxes, repeal welfare and minimum wage so all can find jobs. Churches and Charities help needful. Reduce oppression: replace income tax with sales tax. Goal: Better life for all.”

My analysis: He; really; likes; punctuation;

==================================================
Candidate: LING LING SHI

Complete Statement:

@Ling Ling Shi

“Run for God’s Heart and America’s Freedom, challenge 10 giant chaos in economy and economy-related sectors”

My analysis: Aren’t there 12 giant chaos? What about the other two?

==================================================
Candidate: PRESIDENT CRISTINA GRAPPO

Complete Statement:

@President Cristina Grappo

”My education & expertise merits this prolific occupation in order to represent California, as United Senator. I hold a Democratic Party platform with key issues for gun control, human trafficking, balancing the national deficit, and foreign policy initiatives. I am mainstream Facebook in social media! My core values drive America!”

My analysis: Are you sure you can handle a prolific occupation and drive America with mainstream Facebook values at the same time? After all, you’re already the president, too.

===================================================
Candidate: AKINYEMI OLABODE AGBDED

Complete Statement:

@Akinyemi Olabode Agbded

“Rescue America! Rescue America!! Rescue America!!! Californian! Let us together rescue America from turning into a third world country. Enough is enough of American deep suffering. People in Washington has collapsed this country. Therefore, electing Dr. Akinyemi Agbede, as your next United States senator representing the golden state of California 2016 is the answer in order for our country to be reclaimed back.”

My analysis: Bloody Mary! Bloody Mary!! Bloody Mary!!! – Bourbon! — Maybe after a few drinks this statement will make more sense.

===================================================
Candidate: KAREN ROSEBERRY

Complete Statement:

@Karen Roseberry

”S.A.V.E. the future.”

My analysis: ”From W.H.A.T.?”

===================================================
Candidate: PAUL MERRITT

Complete Statement:

@Paul Merritt

“California make history . . . elect an independent Senator Merritt. Elect an independent thinker. Elect the person, not the Party-in-power’s. Our National government is a shambles. We need a strong USA defense. Merritt is solid on international issues. I believe in Faith, respect people and all religions. Merritt supports Senator Feinstein’s boarder security fence, no offshore oil drilling, and our desert environmental protection Act. Merritt adheres that President Reagan’s idea on small government is best. Background: two law degrees, broker, hotel owner, elected city councilperson. Homeowner boards: Palm Springs, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Orange County. Life member Nature Conservancy. Most Billionaire Republicans and Union boss Democrats don’t represent you! Merritt is Independent for all Citizens. Paul Merritt is a Californian!”

My analysis: I’m confused: Are you, or are you not, Paul Merritt?

Candidate: MIKE BEITIKS

Complete Statement:

@Mike Beitiks

“My platform is narrow. It’s more of a single board, really. Federal legislators are doing nothing to protect us from the threat of climate change. I will not do nothing. I swear on the graves of future Californians that I will not sacrifice our actual climate to our political climate.”

My analysis: You will not do nothing? That’s very ambitious. What will you not do in your second term?

===================================================
Candidate: JASON HANANIA

Complete Statement:

@Jason Hanania

My analysis: You know, in binary the period costs extra.

===================================================

Fortunately, we have all weekend to weigh these profound policy positions before making our decision.

[Emtar_KronJonDerSohn]

[QUOTE=Jason Hanania]
01100101
[/QUOTE]

101? Of course! That’s brilliant!

[davidm]

Their grasp of English and grammar are not encouraging.

That last one is apparently either 101 or 65 (if it’s BCD). Do either of those numbers have some special meaning to Californians?

[Bone]

@guizot

===================================================
Candidate: JASON HANANIA

Complete Statement:My analysis: You know, in binary the period costs extra.

===================================================

This is probably one of the better candidate statements. It got me to google it and this is what I found:

Why “01100101”?
Learn more about my Candidacy
What taxpayers don’t know about Voter Guides…

The “Official” Voter Information Guide, issued by the State of California, is paid for by you, the taxpayers, and mailed to every registered voter. Every candidate, and their “Candidate Statement”, should be included for purposes of educating voters. But this is not the case. The State charges candidates $25 per word - and a minimum of one word is required.

U.S. Senate candidates must pay over $6,000 for a full paragraph Candidate Statement. This is in addition to a $3,480 Filing Fee. By purchasing an entire paragraph for $6,000, candidates who do not accept campaign donations cannot stay under the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) cap of $5,000 in campaign expenditures.

Exceeding $5,000 requires formation of a Campaign Committee, appointment of a Treasurer, and substantial financial paperwork. This politician-created process creates an advantage for candidates who accept campaign donations. Their full-paragraph Candidate Statements actually make a statement. If a Candidate Statement only contains a few words, the candidate appears lazy and unprepared, at best.

Speaking as an attorney, campaign donations have become a legalized form of bribery. I do not accept campaign donations. My total campaign expenditures will be well under the FEC cap of $5,000.

Speaking as an engineer, my 2016 Candidate Statement was “01100101”. In computer programming, the binary code “01100101” translates to the letter “e”, as in “evoting candidate”. This optimally met the State’s “one word minimum” requirement and was cost effective. The novelty of “01100101” may also have motivated you to visit my website.

The Voter Information Guide is critical to democratic process because it educates voters about their voting options. It should be neutral. As long as the Voter Information Guide is taxpayer funded, the State should not discriminate based on wealth (campaign funding). Every candidate should be listed, including a full paragraph Candidate Statement. There are 21 candidates in your “Official” Voter Information Guide - but there will be 34 candidates on your ballot.

Not too shabby.

[guizot]

@Bone

This is probably one of the better candidate statements. It got me to google it and this is what I found:
Not too shabby.

I read it too, and agree with it (hence the joke). They really should just give each candidate a certain amount of words. However, they still would have to have a way to keep the pamphlet from becoming a vanity platform for anyone who wants to just publish random statements without really running for office.

[Miller]

@guizot

I read it too, and agree with it (hence the joke). They really should just give each candidate a certain amount of words. However, they still would have to have a way to keep the pamphlet from becoming a vanity platform for anyone who wants to just publish random statements without really running for office.

Yeah, while he’s got a decent argument there, the preceding candidates are a pretty strong counter-proposal for jacking the per-word cost way up

[Johnny_Ace]

The ‘President Cristina Grappo’ brings up another interesting issue, which has to do with the rather creative use of the line below candidates’ names on the ballot, which is supposed to be information on their prior year’s career. She’s the only one who got creative with the name line, though. She’s probably President of her local Soroptimists’ Club.

Particularly the lawyers running for judicial posts, who always seem to be looking for sexier things to have been prosecuting during the last year, and will never EVER admit in print if they’re defense attorneys. Something to do with rubbing elbows with criminals, I guess.

Some examples of Senatorial candidates:

• The aforementioned President of her women’s club (Democrat)
• Pamela Elizondo (Green Party - Environmental Healing Consultant. Is that healing the environment or using the environment to heal people?)
• John Thompson Parker (Peace & Freedom Party - Neighborhood Watch Member. Really? Guess he figured, well, I’ve got nothing better to do, so I’ll just run for the Senate!)
• Mike Beitiks (No party - Stay-at-home Dad/Attorney. Sorry, you can’t do a Senate vote from your computer. But points for not trying to self-aggrandize.)
• Scott A. Vineberg (No party - Social Entrepeneur. Neighborhood Watch Member was better.)
• Don Krampe (Republican - Retired. Well, he definitely has some free time.)
• Paul Merritt (No party - Self-Employed. He could tell you what he does, but he’d have to kill you.)

…and 25 others.

And then there are the ones who don’t have to come up with kooky careers:

• Kamala A. Harris (Democrat, California Attorney General)
• Loretta L. Sanchez (Democrat, Congresswoman from the CA 46th and 47th Districts, the latter recognizable if you’ve ever seen the 3rd or 4th season of The West Wing)

Probably not coincidentally, the last two are the favorites to win in the primary.

[iamthewalrus_3]

Ok, the ascii code guy is pretty clever. And the per-word charges sort of explain why some of the others are terse (but not why they apparently ran their statements through a randomly applied thesaurus replacement filter).

[guizot]

@iamthewalrus_3

Ok, the ascii code guy is pretty clever.

I’m looking forward to seeing how many votes the “ascii” code guy gets, because otherwise, it’s just another name on a long list of many other unfamiliar names.

The person to vote for him would have to be someone who is more concerned about the way the ballot works than who becomes senator.