Sunday, October 31, 2004


Two Commentaries about The Presidential Election

(The following are excerpts from two recent posts here on The Hedgehog Blog. The first is from a "True North" column by Sonja Eddings Brown, a mother, a media consultant in Los Angeles, the current Governing Board President of Granada Hills High School, the largest charter high school in the United States, and my wife. The second post is mine, and was an entry in a Hugh Hewitt on-line symposium on the presidential choice facing voters. Mr. Hewitt referred to the post on his nationally-syndicated radio show.)

Every Last Vote by Sonja Eddings Brown

On Tuesday, November 2nd, we need to organize small, committed groups of people everywhere.

We need every American registered to vote, on every corner, of every neighborhood, in every town, behind the wheel of every car on every expressway, in every astonished easy chair sitting before every TV set, to answer the call for George W. Bush. He is not in the middle of a campaign, he is in the middle of an all out war, and it’s not in Iraq.

To see the rest of this article, go here.

What This Election Is All About by Lowell C. Brown

Neville Chamberlain, the John Kerry of his time

Hugh Hewitt asks: "In 250 words or less, why vote for Bush and what's wrong with Kerry?"

I will vote for George W. Bush; there has never been any doubt about that. I’ll write this post for those who are still not sure for whom to vote, but are leaning Bush. I believe there are hundreds of thousands of such voters.

Kerry is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. I believe Kerry is intelligent, patriotic, well-educated, and well-meaning. But he is tragically wrong about the war against Islamofascism. (I use the term “tragically” in the classical sense. Kerry has a tragic flaw, he does not even know he is flawed, and if he is elected I fear that flaw will eventually result in disaster for himself and millions of Americans.)

To see the rest of this article, go here.

Our Annual California Voters' Guide

A ballot from an 1893 Iowa City municipal election

This year we have once again received many requests for our regular election advisory summary. This November 2nd marks one of the most crucial elections in the country's history. The following information may be shared or passed on to others. Here are some recommendations, based on in-depth study of the issues at hand, consultation with local political officials, city employees, and respected Southern California judges and attorneys. We hope this effort will supplement your own voting research.


George W. Bush

For our thoughts about this choice, go here and here.


Vote Republican: Bill Jones, or anyone but Barbara Boxer.


Vote Republican: Robert M. Levy

Despite the fact that Brad Sherman is the incumbent, and has a remarkably impressive educational and finance background, Sonja has worked with him in the past two years, has met him personally, listened to his views and arguments, AND listened to his staff . Unimpressive, and protected in a fairly safe Democratic district.


Vote Republican: Mark Isler


Team California, which casts a conservative eye on judicial appointments, recommends the following choices:

Superior Court No. 18: Pat Campbell
Superior Court No. 29: Lori Jones
Superior Court No. 52: Laura Priver
Superior Court No. 53: Either candidate
Superior Court No. 69: Judy Levey Meyer


Measure 1 A Protection of Local Government Revenues

YES; prevents legislature from taking funds from local governments

Measure 59 Public Records/Open Meetings

YES; gives public more access to government meetings and records

Measure 60 Election Rights of Political Parties

YES; guarantees continuance of California's long-standing primary election process and prevents new political maneuvering of that process

Measure 61 Children's Hospital ProjectsNO; on its face, this proposition seems to demand a "Yes" vote. But the proposition would authorize $750 million in bonds and does not guarantee that the proceeds would go to Children's Hospitals. Should California incur even greater indebtedness at this time in its history, with no guarantee as to where the money will go?

Measure 62 Elections Primaries

NO; tries to change the current primary election process into the one used in Louisiana. You will end up often choosing between two candidates from the same party, like we do in local elections already.

Measure 63 Mental Health Services Expansion

NO; taxes those making over $1 million an additional 1% tax to create new fund for mental health services. Bad precedent.

Measure 64 Limits on Unfair Business Competition Laws.

YES; reduces frivolous lawsuits, which are ruining the business climate in California.

Measure 65 Local Government Funds and Revenues

NO; requires voters to approve any legislation to REDUCE license fees, sales tax powers, revenues & property taxes.

Measure 66 Three Strikes Law

NO; this proposition may "sound" right, but is a smoke screen. The "three strikes" law may well need revising, but this proposition simply goes too far and is not the answer.

Measure 67 Emergency Medical Services Funding

YES or NO; depends on your philosophy of government. Los Angeles is rapidly losing its few remaining emergency trauma centers. The federal government requires hospitals to provide free emergency services but does not help pay for them. This proposition increases telephone surcharges to generate 500 million dollars annually to keep our emergency rooms open. If you think you might need a trauma center sometime this is one tax increase that may make lots of sense to you.

Measure 68 Non-Tribal Gaming

NO; expands casino gaming in California.

Measure 69 DNA Samples

YES; requires DNA samples from all felons and others arrested or charged with specific crimes. Cost: 20 million a year.

Measure 70 Tribal GamingNO; but nice try. Can't fool us twice. Forces Governor to honor tribes' exclusive gaming agreements.

Measure 71 Stem Cell Research

NO; a controversial and complex issue. Everyone is hopeful that stem cell research will continue. This proposition, however, commits Californians to spend $6 billion investigating this one area of medical research, and would enable extensive embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of what many people consider to be life. There is great promise already in research using adult stem cells—which involves no destruction of life. President Bush has approved millions of dollars in federal funding of embryonic research, but has limited the funding to 22 “lines” of embryonic stem cells already in existence. This measure is an attempt to open that research widely, and to use California taxpayers as the “bank.” All states should encourage interest in this research, but one state alone should not bear a 6 billion dollar burden.

For an interesting TV ad about Prop 71, narrated by Mel Gibson, look here.

Measure 72 Health Care Coverage Requirements

NO; this proposition could destroy California's already fragile business environment and close many small businesses, because it requires all employers to provide mandatory health coverage. Wrong century.

COUNTY MEASURE A Los Angeles County Public Safety

YES or NO; this proposition promises to put 5000 new policeman on the street in Los Angeles, improve terrorism response, and build public safety programs. Would raise state sales tax by half cent. How safe do you feel?


YES or NO; every election it seems there is another clean water initiative. This is a matter of personal choice, but the measure would require the County to sell 500 million dollars in bonds to clean up groundwater and beaches surrounding our beaches.
These recommendations are based on our consults with Los Angeles legal minds, civic leaders, and our study of the issues behind each proposal. We are not a think tank or a professional political orgnaization; we are citizens just like you. After all is said and done, these are our opinions. We hope they help you to make your own decisions.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Lowell,

I thought you and Sonja would find this ACLU quote of interest. They would love to take decisions out of the hands of the people(voting) and let the "proper" authorities, politicians and judges, address the issue.

Monday, November 1, 2004

Same-sex nuptials in danger

By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News

It appears that proposed state constitutional amendments to ban
same-sex marriage in Utah and 10 other states have strong backing, with
only a few races expected to be close.
On Tuesday, voters in Utah, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon will
whether to constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a
While in Utah, neither side is yet ready to admit victory or
those watching the races nationally predict that the only close races
be in Oregon, and possibly the swing states Michigan and Ohio.
Matt Coles, attorney for the ACLU National Lesbian and Gay Rights
Project, sees those three states as the only ones in which amendment
opponents stand a chance on Tuesday.
Coles sees the likelihood of most of those amendments passing as
unfortunate and unprecedented, especially since some 39 states -
Utah - already have clearly defined traditional marriage laws on their

"Taking this policy out of the hands of legislators is quite an
extraordinary thing to do," he said. "If this process goes forward, it
kills the political dialogue on the issue. It's important not to have

Posted by Mark Eddings

Monday, November 01, 2004 9:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Appreciate your thoughtful comments and opinions. But, I would appreciate them being sent out much earlier than the night before the election. 


Monday, November 01, 2004 11:01:00 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

profit fast
is easy. profit fast

Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home