Ruthie Kelly’s Portfolio

These short informational columns were part of an election issue voting guide that I organized and edited as the State of Mind editor, which was published during the 2008 National Presidential Election on November 4. Major presidential candidates Obama and McCain were featured, as well as an list of local candidates and local and statewide propositions, the object being to inform students about less-well-publicized local elections so they could vote.

Local candidates covered included Mike Aguirre and Jan Goldsmith for San Diego City Attorney, Sherri Lightner and Phil Thalheimer for San Diego City Council District 1, Todd Gloria and Stephen Whitburn for San Diego City Council District 3, and April Boling and Marti Emerald for San Diego City Council District 7.

The Daily Aztec also covered the local San Diego Proposition D, an alcohol ban on local beaches, statewide Proposition 4, which proposed waiting periods and parental notifications for minors seeking an abortion, and statewide Proposition 8, which banned the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Barack Obama (D)

Sen. Barack Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee. He is currently the junior senator for Illinois, where he was first elected to the State Senate in 1996 and served there until he was elected to Congress in 2004. He was born on Aug. 4, 1961 in Hawaii, as he frequently said on the campaign trail, to “a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya.” Obama lived in several different countries as a child. He attended Columbia University for his undergraduate degree, and Harvard Law School years later where he was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He has also worked as a community organizer and civil rights attorney.

In terms of the economy, Obama’s primary solution is to reinstate many of the regulations and oversights that were eliminated during the years of the Reagan presidency, which he feels are to blame for the current economic woes. Obama says the problem can be fixed by increasing oversight. As he explained in the last presidential debate, his vision also includes many government-sponsored programs similar to those created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression, such as public works projects, which could create jobs.

When it comes to our involvement in foreign wars, Obama takes a moderate approach. He favors a “responsible,  phased withdrawal” from Iraq, removing one to two brigades a month over a period of sixteen months, which would get the troops out of Iraq in 2010. However, he is not in favor of withdrawing from Afghanistan. To the contrary, he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan in order to secure the country and finally capture Osama bin Laden.

He also has an interesting plan to fix the health care crisis. In Obama’s health plan, those who are satisfied with their current health care plan can keep it. But those who are not satisfied or don’t have health insurance will have several options available. Obama’s plan would significantly reduce the number of uninsured in the country. People could select their health care options from a government-approved list that the senators and other federal employees enjoy. Unlike McCain’s plan, which neither sets limits nor addresses the majority of the uninsured, Obama’s plan would also mandate coverage for all children. It would require employers to provide coverage or contribute to a pool to help cover the uninsured.

Obama’s tax plan is very appealing to citizens from the working and middle class. Obama’s tax plan includes no tax increases for families making less than $250,000 a year, and promises that families making more than $250,000 will pay taxes equal to or less than the taxes they paid in the 1990s.

Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” represents the contrast to the policies of the last eight years. And considering the massive Great Depression-like catastrophe the U.S. is currently facing, implementing strong social changes makes him the perfect candidate and the best man for the job.

If you feel you have been satisfactorily served by the policies of the Bush administration, then voting for Obama is a bad idea, because he stands in stark contrast to virtually all of Bush’s viewpoints. If you are against the U.S. leaving Iraq, then you probably shouldn’t vote for him either. But if you think it’s time for a change, time for someone to control the situation we’re currently in, then Obama is the candidate for you.

For more information, visit Obama’s campaign Web site: www.barackobama.com.

District 1: Phil Thalheimer (R)

When it comes to civic involvement, Phil Thalheimer is no newcomer.

Thalheimer led the committee that wrote the city’s master plan for information and technological upgrades, worked for a corporation that managed data processing for public agencies, sits on a management board for a local YMCA, was a member of the Rancho Peñasquitos Town Council and serves on several advisory boards relating to public affairs and aviation. He was also chairman of a group that campaigned to preserve the Mount Soledad Memorial, which is controversial because it displays a cross on public land.

More than anything, Thalheimer presents himself as a fiscal reformer. He lists his priorities as balancing San Diego’s budget deficit via auditing and eliminating wasteful spending and mismanagement, demanding ethics reform so that special interest groups don’t “own” council members and keeping citizens safe by putting law enforcement and police as the first priority for the budget.

Thalheimer ran against former incumbent and current Council President Scott Peters in 2004. His starkly conservative stances on gay marriage and immigration, coupled with his activism in preserving the Mount Soledad cross and involvement in “Jessica’s Law” make him an unappealing choice for liberal voters. And while he has provided detailed stories of his personal and professional past to the local media, he also has been unwilling to take official stances on several of the local issues, such as the local ballot propositions. He casts himself as an “outsider” from normal council procedures and special interest groups, in contrast to Sherri Lightner who is deeply involved in local interests. However, his activism and past employment means he’s not exactly new to the scene, so he’s not precisely the “outsider” he claims to be. And for someone who touts fiscal responsibility so heavily, he’s got quite a large debt himself from his failed 2004 campaign: more than $1 million that he still has to pay back.

For the traditional conservatives in District 1, Thalheimer is clearly preferable to his Democratic opponent. Ultimately, whether you choose to vote for Thalheimer or not largely depends on your political affiliations. Either way, there’s no doubt he’s qualified for the position.

San Diego City Attorney: Jan Goldmitsh (R)

Jan Goldsmith is the likely winner of the race for city attorney, in one part because of who he is, and in another part, because of who he’s running against.

The New York native got his law degree from the University of San Diego in 1976. He has worked as a private attorney, business lawyer and as a legislator whom, among other things, has led a campaign to legalize owning pet ferrets. He also served three terms as a representative in the California State Assembly, where he held a position as majority leader, as well as the mayor of Poway. For the past 10 years, he has served as a judge in the San Diego Superior Court. His long history of legal and legislative experience from all sides of the bench certainly worked in his favor against his less experienced opponents in the primary election.

Goldsmith received the highest percentage of votes in the June primary, and faces a comparatively easy race against his opponent, incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre. Aguirre has been widely criticized by the local media, citizens and the City Council for not acting in the city’s best interests and, on occasion, acting in his own interest. For example, he has filed lawsuits that appeared to benefit him personally, as well as overly ambitious and frivolous lawsuits he purported were in the interests of the people, but ultimately were too broad to succeed. Indeed, Goldsmith’s Web site includes ads directly criticizing many of Aguirre’s past actions, and his “10 commitments to the people of San Diego” are a series of indirect barbs directly addressing Aguirre’s past performance.

Even if you’re an Aguirre supporter, it’s hard to imagine that Goldsmith would have a worse relationship with the local media. Aguirre called The San Diego Union-Tribune “evil,” and told a reporter covering him that he should “see a psychiatrist.” His perceived paranoia about the local media works to Goldsmith’s advantage.

In an ironic twist, Republican candidate Goldsmith is the candidate of change in this race. His previous legal, legislative and governing experience will only help him in office. His background in business and financial matters will certainly be useful in this time of economic crisis, in which the city of San Diego faces a desperate financial situation with a horribly bloated budget. And his promises to be nonpartisan are certainly appealing to voters who have been watching an incendiary city attorney stand in the spotlight for the past four years.

This race is less about partisan politics and more about the function that the city attorney is supposed to fill, and the best person to fill it. Goldsmith is certainly up to the task.

CA Statewide Proposition 4

While the proponent of Proposition 4, also known as “Sarah’s Law,” may have the best of intentions, the reality is waiting periods and parental notification will do nothing but hurt pregnant teens, tying their hands and limiting their options just when they need help the most.

The proposition requires physicians to notify the parent or guardian of a minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion, either via personal written notification or by mail notification. Some exceptions include medical emergencies that would cause the minor’s death or “create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” Other exceptions get nasty: There are only two other ways to get out of parental notification.

One, if the minor provides a written statement that she “fears physical, sexual or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and that her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse on her by a parent.” In this circumstance, the physician can notify another adult family member instead. The physician is then required to report the known or suspected child abuse to law enforcement, who would then investigate. The proposition would essentially require a minor to initiate a police investigation against her parents — yeah, that won’t raise any questions.

So, this first option requires the minor to officially testify that she fears abuse from her parents’ based on their past behavior, not taking into consideration that parents without a history of abuse could resort to violence upon being notified of the pregnancy. If the minor fears abuse without being able to substantiate it by previous behavior, there’s no legal basis for their fears. And if it’s determined that she lied about the abuse, it’s a crime.

Two, the minor can go to court and ask that the notification be waived. The court will then decide if the minor is “mature” and “well-informed” enough to make this decision on her own, or if notifying her parents is not in her best interest. There is no real description of what qualifies as “mature” or “well-informed,” so the decision would be left in the hands of individual judges who undoubtedly have varying personal standards on these qualities.

Sure, minors will be comfortable putting the fate of their bodies and futures in the hands of total strangers with arbitrary personal standards.

This proposition forces minors who are afraid to tell their parents about their pregnancy into a corner, where illegal and desperate measures are some of their only remaining options. What it boils down to is an issue of trust. This law tells minors — who cannot vote on this, by the way, even though it impacts them immensely — their judgment and fears about whether or not they can communicate with their parents is not trusted. If a minor feels like she can tell her parents about her pregnancy, she will. That is when she needs parental help and guidance the most, and if she feels safe seeking it out, this is not an issue.

If she doesn’t feel safe, she probably has a good reason. We should be able to trust her judgment about her own parents’ reactions.

Read the original columns online: Barack Obama, Phil Thalheimer, Jan Goldsmith, Prop 4.