Burnt Orange Report

The Austin Chronicle Endorsements Are in

By Byron LaMasters

They pretty much mirror my own. First, I'll vote straight ticket Democratic and FOR the Capital Metro Referendum, then I'll write-in Lorenzo Sadun for Congress, then I'll go through the list and vote Libertarian in the statewide races where there's no Democrat running. That's basically the approach that the Austin Chronicle took in their endorsements this year with a few minor exceptions (they endorse one Republican, Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo - who I'd probably vote for in this race if I weren't a yellow dog Democrat, so take that for what you will.)

The Chronicle's readership is solidly motivated by Bush hatred of the Dean/Kucinich mold (not that that's a bad thing, but that alone doesn't win elections), so I was a little disappointed with the focus of their Kerry endorsement merely being anti-Bush than pro-Kerry:

President: John Kerry

No surprise to regular readers, and not a tough call. As voters approach the booth, we can either pretend the last four years have not been a national and international disaster, teetering on the brink of much worse, or we can remove the man and the team who drove the country into an aggressive and unjust war, willfully bankrupted the treasury, and used both as excuses to undermine virtually every socially progressive U.S. institution, from schools to health care to Social Security. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he and his neo-conservative handlers, feckless retreads of the worst excesses of the Reagan administration, will have no incentive to moderate their ingrained policies of imperial adventurism abroad and reckless social retrogression at home.

It's astonishing to us that any sentient progressive voter would not see the urgency of summarily evicting these reactionaries who've so abused the public trust. There has been much spilled ink over the insufficient differences between Bush and Kerry, as if the electorate is too naive to know that over the long term, our two-party duopoly needs a major overhaul. We don't entirely buy the cynicism about Kerry on literal grounds, but even so, how can it justify granting four more years to Bush & Co.? We either fight one necessary battle at time, or we surrender.

I mostly agree, but would it be too difficult to say one good thing about Kerry? He's not that bad, guys. It's not like Joe Lieberman won the nomination, and everyone on the left would have to enter the voting booth with a clothespin on their nose. There's a very substantive case to make for John Kerry to just about any mainstream, moderate, independent or left/liberal leaning audience without even mentioning or attacking Bush once. Of course, criticism of Bush is a large part of the Democratic case, but I like to see endorsements that balance both a reason to vote for a candidate in addition to the reasons to vote against the other.

Downballot, the Chronicle reminds us why to vote for those Libertarians running for the Court of Criminal Appeals in the races without a Democrat on the ballot:

Court of Criminal Appeals

Place 2: Quanah Parker
Place 5: Tom Oxford
Place 6: J.R. Molina

Incumbent Republican judges Lawrence Meyers (Place 2) and Cheryl Johnson (Place 5) face token opposition from Libertarian candidates Quanah Parker and Tom Oxford; Michael Keasler (Place 6) is opposed by perennial Democratic candidate J.R. Molina. None of the challengers are particularly impressive. But voters should reject any incumbent on the CCA as a matter of principle; the current court, led by presiding judge Sharon "Who Needs Evidence?" Keller, has distinguished itself largely by its hostility to any and all appellants and its willingness to rubber-stamp any lower court decision that smacks of anti-crime absolutism, whatever the broader legal or constitutional consequences. Meyers thinks the court is "as fair as it can be," and Keasler says he looks to Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for his "textualist" models. Johnson has occasionally acted as a moderating vote on the court's worst decisions, to little avail. The opponents are valiant mavericks, hoping to make a statement about the court's reactionary intransigence and its ineffectiveness at promoting equity and simple justice in the Texas judicial system.

These races don't really offer voters a choice - All three Republicans will win in landslides without breaking a sweat. But voters do have a chance to cast a protest vote in each, and I'd encourage Texans to do so.

The Chronicle has glowing endorsements (just go here and scroll down to read them) of Mark Strama, Kelly White, Jan Patterson and Diane Henson (for the 24-county 3rd Court of Appeals), Stephen Yelenosky (running against the only Republican countywide officeholder, a Perry-appointee for the 345th District Court), Greg Hamilton (in the open sheriff's race), and also for the Capital Metro Referendum. I haven't focused too much on the Capital Metro Referendum, because it's widely expected to pass, and unlike the narrowly defeated light-rail plan in 2000, it's not very controversial. Here's what the Chronicle says:

Capital Metro Referendum: For

How do we put this nicely? If you don't vote for this rail plan, Capital Metro is doomed. Yes, this plan is excessively cautious and modest. Yes, it really sucks that Cap Metro has been put in this box. But in the box it remains, and unless rail wins, that box is going in the trash, and we can give up any hope that Austin will ever have a transportation system (or land-use pattern) that isn't totally dependent on the automobile. We believe this to the depths of our souls, and we hope you do as well.

Overall, solid picks as usual for the Chronicle. They wear their partisanship on their sleave, but their readership is primarily south and central Austin, and well, that's what we like to hear.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at October 15, 2004 06:02 PM | TrackBack