He only faced one opponent during the 2010 primary, who claimed to be a Democrat, but when you read his campaign platform, you quickly notice that his ideas revolved around "Jesus and traditional values will make America strong again." Errr.... no thank you. I'd rather pick a jaded party-loyalist over a guy telling this non-Christian that I need to turn to God.
Needless to say, Stark won the primary. on to the general, and looking at his competitor's website.
Oh, boy. This guy is a fruitcake.
Anyway, I posted to his website, but my comment didn't appear (as it's probably moderated) so I doubt it will show up. As a result, I'm posted that feedback to his site here.
I can't stand Pete Stark, but after reading the contents of this website pretty much confirmed the sad fact that he'll easily be re-elected.
Frankly, when I got to a campaign website, I want less buzzwords and more concrete suggestions on how to deal with these problems. It's not enough to say "state's rights", "local control", or whatever the latest jargon is, but instead I want to know exactly how you plan on cutting the 70% of the expenditures that the feds have on my tax dollar. Specifically, what do you specifically want to do to reduce spending for medicare, medicaid, social security, and the military? That's 70% of every tax dollar, and if you can't address that in concrete terms, then I can't see why I'd consider voting for you.
You can't just say, "We should take back our responsibility for Health, Education, and Welfare" without addressing what you actually mean by that. What would you cut, create or change in federal legislation? Are you talking about eliminating medicare, medicaid, social security, and the education department? If not, then what are you talking about? If so, what do you propose will provide eductation, health and elder care for our citizens? Does it matter if a percentage of the population (such as age, illness or disability) simply can't support themselves, or can't rely on others to do the same for them?
You mention that those in government programs and housing projects should turn to their families for support. What about the people that don't have families that are willing or able to support them? Should they be on the street, homeless and hungry because they don't have a supportive family? Do they get exemptions and federal cash, or do you simply wish them luck as you kick them out into the street?
What about health care? What do you do if you have a pre-existing condition, or your healthcare carrier drops you because you gained an illness they don't want to pay for? Beyond health insurance for people who are lucky enough to have a job that gives that to them, what about everyone else? What about the guy who just got laid off and can't find a job? What about the guy who has to work multiple part time jobs to feed and shelter his family? Do you expect him to be able to afford health care as well? When the poor go without vaccinations or basic health care, don't you think their children are going to bring those illnesses to school and expose your children?
You say that "we don't need the government to intrude into our families with the fiction that we would not take care of our own responsibilities, according to our own morality, social ethics and reasonably within the context of our own various cultures." So, where do you stand on abortion, drug use, or gay marriage? Is it ok for the government to intrude in those cases?
These items and more make me realize that simply stating that there shouldn't be party politics and uncompetitive seats isn't enough of a reason to throw Stark out of office. Stark is an idiot and I can't stand him, but I don't see the benfit to replacing a disingenuous politician for one party with someone who wants to be a disingenuous politician for the other party...