[guest post by JVW]
Today in the race for California State Senate District 26, I marked my ballot for Ben Allen, a Santa Monica Democrat with impeccable lefty credentials. A tour of his website demonstrates that Allen is all-too-familiar with silly progressive talking points, especially my perennial favorite, the notion that government spending is really an “investment.” Here is a partial list of all the things that Ben Allen believes California’s government should be “investing” in:
Early education programs
Public college and university system
Rainwater diversion, drip irrigation, covering the aqueducts, and water recycling
Renewal alternative energies
It is worth noting here that nowhere on his website does Ben Allen promise not to raise taxes; in fact, there is ample reason to believe that Allen would seek to raise taxes by repealing the parts of California’s Proposition 13 which apply to business properties. This while he promises to “work with local businesses to create a friendlier atmosphere for job growth” because who after all expects a Democrat to have a consistent message on taxing and regulating businesses?
And naturally, Allen has all of the requisite progressive beliefs in forcing employers to pay for their employees abortions and birth control, ensuring that LBGTQ students never hear a dissenting word uttered in college, publicly funding campaigns, and jumping aboard every trendy environmental fad as soon as it rears its head.
Still, I voted for him. Why? Because his opponent was none other than Sandra Fluke, whose puerile campaign website not only matches Allen’s hyper-leftism, but takes it a step beyond where even Allen dares to go. Just look at Fluke’s list of endorsements to see the absolute dregs of the modern Democrat Party.
I filled-in my little ballot oval for Allen with passion but certainly no sense of satisfaction or joy. What do you think? Should I have not voted for either candidate and run the risk that Fluke somehow managed to squeak through? Is the lesser of two evils still too much of an evil to garner your support? Leave comments below.
*Actually Allen doesn’t directly call for “investment” in mass transportation, but he criticizes what he terms the past “disinvestment” in mass transport, leading one to conclude that he wants to “reinvest” in mass transport.
**While he doesn’t use the word “invest” in that regard, here is the exact language from his website: “Ben will reduce the terrible tragedies that DUIs are causing each year by providing the resources necessary to hire additional officers to protect our roads and support education campaigns that help discourage people from driving under the influence.” That sounds like “investing” to me.
***Sorry to shamelessly steal the whole Mickey Kaus footnoting thing.