Is it over yet? No...it starts at 7:00AM when the polls open and ends at 8:00PM when they close (applicable to the state of Pennsylvania). Find your polling place and get there to vote within that 13 hour stretch of time!

I'm picking these candidates:

President and Vice President

United States Senate

Ballot Question

It is finally Primary Day in Pennsylvania! Why is it that the second state admitted to the Union has to wait until April to vote for Presidential nominees? It's a mystery. Personally, I think it is because Iowa and New Hampshire are brats, but I digress...

Polls in Pennsylvania are open from 7:00AM until 8:00PM. Find your polling place and pay it a visit today. Due to a ballot question, independents get to vote in what is usually a fully closed Primary.

This is my opinion on that matter:

Ballot Question

And here are my Democratic picks:

President

Senator

In Pennsylvania, Primary Election Day is the third Tuesday of May.  This year that day falls on the 19^th.  You have from 7:00AM-8:00PM to get yourself to a polling station and vote.  I'm picking these candidates:

Court of Common Pleas

Allegheny County Controller

Pittsburgh City Controller

Here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is primary election day. If you are registered with a political party, go forth and choose your standard bearer for the November general election. If you aren't registered with a political party, see if you've a special election or ballot question in your district needing your vote. Smartvoter.org is where I recommend you get your election overview. Polls open at 7:00AM and don't close until 8:00PM - a full thirteen hours to participate in the democratic process! Here are my Democratic Party picks for my corner of the Keystone State:

Governor of Pennsylvania

State House Representative: District 36

I actually have a lot I want to write about, but at the moment I've got "Obamacare" (the law actually called the Affordable Care Act) on the brain. And it seems I'm far from the only American in that position.

I am fine with paying taxes for healthcare - in fact, I would much prefer a single-payer system (Medicare for All). What I take exception to is being forced into lining the pockets of CEOs in the health insurance industry by a government which is supposed to be representing me. My tax dollars are already spent when I get my paycheque, but to be told after the fact that I have to use what used to be a portion of my already meager disposable income in order to purchase a defective product (and health insurance remains as such no matter how many regulations are placed on it so long as it is controlled by the profit motives of the private sector) is galling.

When I lost my job of seven years back in 2011, I got six months of health insurance as part of my severance package. After that I went without because there was no way I could absorb the hit of a $600/month COBRA payment. I am employed again, but still going without because the health insurance plan offered is horrible: it would eat up nearly 25% of my (reduced) income, not cover my daughters nor their mother and comes with hefty co-pays and fees just for taking "advantage" of the "coverage."

Since going live this week, I've been trying to give Obamacare (really, national Romneycare, but let's not stop Democrats and self-professed liberals from cheering on this republican idea passed by a "Democratic" president and House) a chance. Visits to healthcare.gov have met with error messages on the rare instances that I've not been stopped at the landing page which unhelpfully informs me that I need to stay there because I'm in some invisible queue.

With the definitive ACA site not giving me any answers, I've tried to glean what to expect in trying to square myself with this law. I don't want to end up fined and still be sans health coverage (especially since it is not clear whether or not those fines will be a flat fee or multiplied by the number of months one has neglected to pay the insurance man). The Kaiser Family Foundation's Subsidy Calculator estimates coverage for my family will cost $80 per month based on total household income (I work 40 hours per week, my partner 16). Not great, but could be worse, I suppose. Where it does get worse is if my partner decided to start working full time. In addition to the expense of putting our children in daycare when we are both at work, our household premium (according to KFF) would jump to $300/month. We make the same amount of hourly income. How is it that a 43% increase in income causes a 375% increase in one's insurance premium?

Maybe the offerings once I get into healthcare.gov will be better. I certainly hope they are. However, I remain extremely skeptical about the whole messy affair.

As for the teabaggers who have taken over the republican party and shut down the government in a childish attempt to kill a law they don't like: fuck 'em. You don't mix issues and destroy the economy and people's lives over petty ideology...unless you have a seething hatred for Democracy.

Citizens of the United States of America: long have we suffered through asinine attack ads, lies, propaganda and pandering. We weary ones covered in word vomit now must do our civic duty - double-check the location of your polling place and the candidates on your ballot then go forth and...

VOTE!

As always, I throw in my two cents in the form of my ballot picks. Your mileage will vary...

President and Vice President

United States Senator Representing Pennsylvania

U.S. Representative, Pennsylvania Congressional District 14

Pennsylvania Attorney General

Pennsylvania Auditor General

Pennsylvania State Treasurer

Representative, Pennsylvania State House - District 22

A few parting words: no one owns your vote and it is imperative that you do not fall asleep after election day. Voting is merely one piece in the big puzzle that is citizenship in a democratic society. Even if those you voted for do not win, whomever is elected must answer to you. Never let them forget that.

Separated at birth?

Under the law, political mailings and phone calls are given special treatment. Regarding phone calls, many people are confused that, despite signing up for the "do not call" list, they still receive calls from political candidates vying for their votes. Many a campaign volunteer will tell you that they've been the recipient of an angry voice on the other end of the line stating, "I am on the 'do not call' list - do not call me!" Those in possession of said voices fail to understand that "do not call," as drafted only applies to telemarketers - i.e.: commercial organisations. Political campaigns are not restricted by that law, which is why the phones of voters get dialed with impunity every election season by both man and machine. Likewise, there is a list for one to opt out of receiving commercial solicitations in your mailbox. But, again, this does not apply to political campaigns.

Should I ever run for and win political office, I've decided to propose a bill limiting the number of campaign mailings a candidate can send out within any given period of time. I'd name this bill the SPAM act - "Schmotzer's Persistent Annoying Mailings" - in dubious honour of my least favourite local politician. In his campaign to fill out the remainder of Chelsa Wagner's term and win the Democratic Primary to run for his own two year term, Martin Michael Schmotzer has gone into overdrive with the resources available to him as the owner of a direct mail company, figuratively "blowing up" the mailboxes of every voter in the Pennsylvania State Legislature's 22^nd district. For the past three weeks, True and I have received a near daily mailing from his campaign - usually doubled, since he seems to think that we each need our own individual slice of Schmotzer propaganda (every other campaign sending mailings sends one flyer - generally addressed to "The Warren Family" or some variation thereof).

The latest fliers coming from his campaign have been borderline slanderous against opponent Erin Molchany. In it he accuses Molchany of being "bankrolled by Big Shot Republicans" (none of whom he can name, apparently) as well as saying she sends out "hate mail" and is "supported by Extremists" (again, unnamed). On the opposite side of that particular flier, Schmotzer compares himself to other candidates with a particularly laughable chart of falsehoods and "qualification" padding. If any of his shtick is to be believed (and a quick Google search disproves most of it), one is not qualified for office in the 22^nd if among other things:

• One was not born in Pittsburgh
• One did not live in Pittsburgh's South Hills for all one's life
• One is not married
• One does not have children
• One is not a lifelong Democrat (did Schmotzer register as soon as his mother pushed him out?)
• One is not an endorsed Democrat (more on the curiosities of his endorsement below)
• One did not reduce school property taxes (isn't reducing taxes a Republican talking point? Why does Schmotzer hate public education?)
• One is not a Democratic Party official (how Tammany Hall)
• One is not a Union Member
• One is not a small business owner (again, isn't this a Republican talking point?)

I have to be blunt: this man is pulling things out of his ass - and I really think he is doing it because the more people get to know Schmotzer, the less they want him anywhere near elected office.

Schmotzer began his political career as a member of the Baldwin-Whitehall school board from 1987-1993 and then again from 2007-2011. During his time on the board he apparently wasn't adverse to creating tension and discord and he even took a page from the John Boehner school of oratory when he made his final exit.

In between stints on the school board, Schmotzer was the Deputy Clerk of Courts for Allegheny County. In 1997, he was accused of embezzling $50,000 from the taxpayers' coffers and all but confessed to the crime when he "paid back" the money with "interest." Understandably, the Molchany campaign has reminded voters of this transgression and as far as I'm concerned, once you embezzle money you should be barred from public office. Schmotzer, of course, sees things differently. In a letter to voters in the 22^nd dated April 12^th, 2012, he wrote the following:

I am writing to respond to a negative mailer sent to you by my opponent staing, "Marty Schmotzer has a record too". [sic] What she is referring to is something that occurred 16 years ago. I can tell you the mailer tells of this story from one viewpoint only and does not tell the whole story. This chapter of my life went on for 9 years and was absolutely resolved with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the case.

Schmotzer goes on to sidestep the issue for the next three paragraphs, instead choosing to trumpet his time as a school board member. One can nearly hear the jowly voice of Richard Nixon saying, "I am not a crook" as one reads this. Or, if one is of a younger generation, one could perhaps compare this to a Facebook message from an ex-lover desperately wanting to get back into your good graces. The final paragraph:

I work hard, but I'm far from perfect. On April 24th, I humbly ask for your support. I have the experience, maturity and energy to serve in Harrisburg with dignity and impact. Thank you very much.

It is true that Schmotzer has plenty of political experience. In fact, one could say that he has a damning amount of political experience. Pete Wagner apparently owes Schmotzer a favour or is being blackmailed. Again, the Pennsylvania Progressive:

Marty Schmotzer, the former Allegheny County Deputy Clerk of Courts who stole $50,000 from taxpayers and reneged on $25,000 to the IRS received but 25 legitimate votes from the Party's Exec Board to fill the special election nomination for Wagner's vacant seat (she is now Allegheny County Controller). The State Party by laws are quite clear on the procedures: fifty members vote and 26 votes are required. By the close of the voting Schmotzer had 25 votes. Here's the really amazing part of this scandal though: Burn added fifteen additional voters. Nothing in the By Laws permits this and it has never been done before.

The "powers that be" decided Marty was their man for this special election even though it'll be impossible to win. If I'm a Republican I simply pour money into direct mail and radio ads reminding voters of Schmotzer's dishonesty and run away with this seat. I could win this one with a ham sandwich. Burn seemed to think differently though and forced the guy through by packing the Board and thumbing his nose at the rules.

It seems to me that Michael Martin Schmotzer is the perfect party machine politician. And you know how I feel about those. But then again, perhaps I am too harsh. Perhaps I shouldn't see the Easter card sent by his campaign as a ham-fisted attempt at pandering (because we all know that none of his potential constituents could possibly be atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.). Perhaps Schmotzer is actually a nice guy who made a few mistakes because he's clueless.

The argument for cluelessness is certainly buttressed by a phone exchange I had with his campaign less than a week ago. I received a voice mail from his campaign coordinator asking for my support. I returned the call leaving a voice mail asking to be removed from their phone list (most campaigns will acquiesce if you state that you wish to receive no further calls directly from the campaign). Instead of sweet silence, I received a call not five minutes later from a woman who had seen my number on caller ID, but who had obviously not listened to the voice mail I'd left.

She didn't even begin by identifying herself, "err...you just called here...?" There was a pregnant pause.

"Is this, the Schmotzer campaign," I finally asked, breaking the silence.

"Yes, yes it is," came an excited reply, "are you interested in volunteering?"

"No," I said, "I actually called because I want to be removed from your calling list. I will not be voting for Schmotzer for any office."

"I'm sorry you feel that way."

Others have written about less cordial encounters directly with the candidate. A post on pghlesbian.com, "Martin Schmotzer’s Ongoing Disregard For the Law," shows just how much Schmotzer has not reformed:

Today, Schmotzer came to our house and shoved a door hanger type flyer through the mail slot.

[…]

My biggest issue is how Mr. Schmotzer responded. He admitted that he did it because the door knob on “these houses” don’t accommodate his fancy hangers. He justified it. He tried to redirect me by pointing to the ACDC committeeman sitting in the vehicle nearby. He just didn’t accept responsibility. And when I didn’t back down, he walked away with a dismissive gesture.

Seriously? A man who stole $50,000 from Allegheny County taxpayers and wants us to believe he’s reformed blatantly violates federal law and doesn’t give a damn. Why on earth would anyone be foolish enough to think he would conduct himself any differently if he were elected?

He won’t. Its like an Orie/Veon entitlement mantle is already wrapped around his shoulders and we can expect either nothing or egregious conduct.

In a follow-up post it was noted that Schmotzer subscribes to the Rush Limbaugh school of apologising.

And there is the crux of why Michael Martin Schmotzer should never see the interior of an elected office ever again: entitlement. Schmotzer's entire campaign is about how he deserves whatever he wants whenever he wants it and damn anyone to hell who gets in his way - especially those pesky voters! From his pandering letters, to his blatantly false attacks on his opponents to his campaign signs with a colour scheme fit for a used car dealership touting the very Chicagoeque, "vote twice, it's okay," Schmotzer's campaign has been the sleaziest, most disgusting spectacle I have witnessed in recent memory. And even more disturbing is that the paper trail shows that he has always been like this.

As far as I'm concerned, Michael Martin Schmotzer is a wart on the arse of good government. He needs to be frozen out and permanently removed from the body politic. Let's hope the majority of voters in the 22^nd agree with me tomorrow.

There are few things worse in politics than a true believer. I should know, because for too many years I was one of those misguided schmucks who voted for the Democrat under the delusion that I was helping to push my country in a more progressive - nay, liberal - direction. It didn't take long for the overwhelming avalanche of evidence to fall on my head, burying me in the conclusion that, indeed no, that is not how politics works. I completely washed my hands of defending the Democratic Party as an institution when Barack "Barry the DINO" Obama was selected as the nominee for the party's presidential candidate in 2008.

Those who don't dabble in revisionist history will support the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and should have been the nominee. One takeaway: apparently it is not okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the will of the voters and appoint George W. Bush as president, but it is okay for the Democratic Party to ignore the will of the voters and appoint he who lost the popular vote.

While there hasn't been a sham of a convention in Pennsylvania's race for Democratic nominee for state attorney general, I've gotten a taste of nastiness which reminded me of 2008. The two candidates vying for the nomination are Patrick Murphy and Kathleen Kane. Given that both candidates are evenly matched on the issues, I decided that I'd vote for Kane. It wasn't a difficult decision for me; as far as I'm concerned the political arena is way too much of a sausage party so I've got no qualms about engaging in an act of sexual discrimination (against my own gender, no less) and voting for the woman in the race. When I posted this declaration on my Facebook wall, it didn't take long for someone to remind me that while it is perfectly acceptable to vote for a man merely because he is black (or half-black, as the case may be), voting for someone merely because she is female is a big no-no.

It was only one individual berating me for my statement, but as the comment thread wore on, I began getting flashbacks to four years ago when I had the audacity to support Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. I was told that Kathleen Kane did not have a strong pro-choice record and that if I cared about the issue of a woman's right to choose, I should be voting for Patrick Murphy. I countered that the candidates were equal on the subject. The only difference between Kane and Murphy is that the latter is pandering in his campaign ads while the former is more aware of the job of attorney general in stating the truth in that "one does not get to pick the laws one has to uphold." The Mondale method of stating the hard, unpleasant facts during a campaign will likely lose her this election.

Apparently that wasn't enough for this person who persisted in telling me how foolish I was not to jump on with Murphy who has "a long record of defending woman's right to choose" and who is "endorsed by Planned Parenthood and NOW." I wasn't changing my stance nor was I taking the bait, which led to a slur of insults being hurled my way and an assertion that I "may as well vote for Sarah Palin," every so-called progressive's favourite right-wing punching bag. I finally shut down the conversation by stating that one can disagree with my reasons for voting the way I will, but one does not have the right to "enter my house" and insult and berate me for it. The United States is a nation filled with people who, to one degree or another, are voting for reasons others think are "stupid" or "uninformed." While one is well within his or her right to grouse about the situation within their own forum or engage in a debate to try and change the mind of another by presenting their opinion, a line is crossed when one degenerates into name-calling and attempted shaming and crass manipulation. The conversation - such as it had become - ended and the person hurling the vitriol has since dropped me as a friend on Facebook (good riddance, my friends list on that site is way overdue for a purging anyhow).

Ever since Obama's campaign in 2008, I've really come to believe the one can often glean the character of a candidate by the way his or her strongest supporters comport themselves. In 2008 Obama's most zealous supports were a nasty bunch hurling accusations of racism and flat out telling their opponents how "stupid" they were. While a candidate can not control his or her supporters, they can influence them and the Obama camp did very little - if anything - to reign in the crusade of the true believers.

While I've only encountered one incident of a Murphy supporter berating me for cheering on the opposite team, I wonder if this woman (yes, a woman was berating me for not voting for a man - woman are their own worst enemies at times) represented the exception or the rule. Murphy's early campaign advertisements have been obviously pandering - nothing unexpected there - where he trumpets how pro-choice he is. It's the same teaser that Democratic politicians have been dangling in front of women's faces for the past several decades, purporting to defend a woman's right to dominion over her own body while in actuality, Roe is all but dead. The right-wing culture warriors are winning, namely because they scare women into voting for Democrats who, instead of actually fighting back, rest on the assurance that they can merely promise to fight and in making the promise, that will allow them to maintain elected office. It is lip-service of the worst kind.

But I digress; up until tonight I hadn't seen a Murphy ad which I could qualify as nasty. However, on television this evening Murphy decided to take up a mud ball and launch it as hard as he could at Kathleen Kane. Along with my favourite Murphy-maniac's assertion that Kane isn't pro-choice enough, she's also anti-union and gave money to the campaign of Republican Governor Tom Corbett. I did some digging to try and see if these claims had any substance and have, thus far, come up empty-handed.

It seems to me that Murphy's campaign is getting desperate and is worried that pandering isn't enough, thus it is time to scare registered Democrats into line. All I could think is that I know at least one Murphy supporter who would totally approve of these tactics. Because, hey - politics ain't beanbag and who cares how you win so long as you win?

The disciples of Obama learned well.

There are likely registered Democrats who believe there is no point in voting in the primary election this year (many may have already missed their chance regardless). Although at least two individuals - Darcy Richardson and Aldous C. Tyler had declared their intention to run against Barack Obama as the Democrat on the Presidential ticket in November, neither individual has made much headway getting their names on the ballot (Tyler has also suspended his campaign and endorsed Richardson).

Given that it is seemingly a foregone conclusion that Obama will be the nominee for the general election, why should any registered Democrat show up to vote on primary day? Simple: there is always more going on at the polls than the Presidential election. Head on over to SmartVoter.org and enter your address and zip code into the "Find Your Own Election" section on the main page. If your primary hasn't already occurred, you may find yourself surprised by how much there is to vote on that doesn't concern the Presidential election. For one, there may be contested primaries for local and state races. Are there any ballot initiatives to vote on? If you don't say yay or nay at your polling place, you may not get to grumble that your borough increased the millage rate on your property taxes to fund a new water treatment plant without asking you first - maybe they did and your "kept your mouth shut," so to speak.

Obviously, I can't speak for every town in the nation, but I can make some remarks about what I see on Pennsylvania's Democratic ballot for the state's primary on April 24^th. The presidential slot is unsurprising: Barack Obama is the only individual in that slot. However, for Democrats who wish to vote against Obama, all is not lost. Pennsylvania allow write ins; as such, if you want to write in Darcy Richardson or even "none of the above" you are well within your rights to do so. Furthermore, the presidential primary is a "beauty contest" in Pennsylvania. It is not the vote for president that matters in the primary, but the vote for pledged delegates headed to the Democratic Convention. In 2008, I voted for pledged delegates assigned to Hillary Clinton, leaving the remaining spaces blank rather than filling any of them with delegates pledged to Barack Obama. In 2012, one is allowed to do something similar if one wishes to vote against the incumbent; while there likely won't be any pledged delegates for anyone other than Obama, there may be uncommitted delegates who are not assigned to a particular candidate. You can vote for these uncommitted delegates or simply write in "none of the above" again.

Meanwhile, I've found some other interesting things on my sample ballot. Statewide, Joseph John Vodvarka, who attempted to run against Joe Sestak in 2010 but failed to gather enough signatures in his petition to get on the ballot, is running again to be the Democratic senator representing Pennsylvania. This time he has managed to get on the ballot and he is facing incumbent Bob Casey Jr., who defeated Rick Santorum in 2006 by a landslide. My prediction is that Vodvarka will be easily crushed by Casey in the primary, despite many liberals (myself included) wanting to see someone better than Casey in that seat. However, it is quite damning to someone's campaign when their website won't load - at least it wouldn't when I attempted to visit it - your mileage may vary.

Speaking of the failures of websites run by campaign underdogs, Janis C. Brooks' website is hosted by GoDaddy. Brooks is running against incumbent Mike Doyle for Pennsylvania's 14^th Congressional District. Based on what is written on the website, she is positioning herself to the left of Doyle, who himself is considered pretty far to the left. However, what is written is wanting in regards to the meat of policy and I feel it shows a lack of political awareness to try and mount a campaign as a liberal Democrat on a website which is hosted by GoDaddy.

Dissatisfied? Write in "none of the above" - it may not flush the candidates from the polls and force new ones to run, but it does have to be tallied by the board of elections. In the words of mokie: "The point is the right to make your voice heard, not to be herded." To me that means not missing any election and not letting anyone bully you into voting because of some assumption of "inevitability."

While most people are focused on the Super Bowl this weekend, I'm not interested in football or the commercials surrounding the game. Thus, I thought this would be an opportune time for what some might call self-flagellation: doing a high level dissection of the claimed positions of those who aim to occupy the White House.

"Why would you do that," you may ask, "when we all know that it's going to be Barack Obama versus Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum?" Good question - and one which reveals one of the main problems with the system of elections in the United States: the reinforcement of the duopoly. With every election cycle the United States swings a pendulum and it is only a matter or time before it goes one way or the other. However, the thing about a pendulum is - for better or worse - it can only go so far one way or the other. So, as the Republicans move rightward to become not a conservative party, but an actively regressive party the Democrats follow along, eschewing their former progressive glory for policies which more reflect maintaining the status quo (i.e.: Republicanism during the Eisenhower era).

It should come as no surprise that political parties change over time. Over 200 years ago, the Democrats and Republicans were a single party: the Democratic-Republican Party. Their main rivals were The Whigs. In fact, for quite some time the Republicans were what we'd now refer to as a "third party" until The Whigs ingloriously imploded with an absurd strategy of running four Presidential candidates simultaneously, thus allowing the Republican Party to rise up to fill the void.

Anyone who tells you that you only have two choices at the polls this November is only partially correct. While the system is set up to maintain the duopoly, there is always this third option: refuse to engage the "system" how they want you to engage it. There are historical precedents for great changes being made and such change can still be achieved, but it won't be easy and it won't happen in the near future. When a critical mass of the populace accepts the pain of independence that's when things change. It only takes for people to cease fearing being "outsiders" for the outside to become inside.

But I digress...let's get back to the business of dissecting the positions of the would-be Presidents. For this exercise I'm digging up every candidate I can find who has officially declared his or her candidacy. To try and simplify matters, I'll be commenting on four main policy areas: Economy, Environment, Foreign Policy and Social Justice. It's not a great amount of detail, but it's enough to get a basic taste (and let's face it: who wants more when most candidates leave a horrible aftertaste). So, without further ado, here are the tables of the candidates:

And there it is, all ten candidates for President stacked up against one another. Obviously this is in no way an in-depth look at all of them and much policy nuance is missing. However, one gets the basic idea. I'm sure that if I decide to compile another chart like this as the campaign season evolves there will be plenty of changes.

Right now I just want someone to buy me a conciliatory drink for visiting all of those Republican websites in my meager attempt to appear somewhat objective.