By which I mean the end of the election cycle, and thank Cthulhu for that, because the onslaught of negative TV ads was honestly grating on my last nerve. Sad to say, I’m actually looking forward to the non-stop ads for Christmas shopping sales.

With Election Day tomorrow, I’m going to offer some thoughts on various races. I wouldn’t call them endorsements per se, since I think endorsements are worthless, but I will opine about who I think should win.

I’ll start at the top and say that I want Obama to get a second term. I say this as someone who voted for Obama and has often been disappointed in his performance over the past four years — but not so much as to give him the boot and put Romney in the Oval Office.

I find Romney to be as disingenuous and insincere a politician as you could get, but that’s not why I oppose him. Nor do I oppose him on his rather vague financial policies, which I believe are ultimately no better or worse than Obama’s (though I definitely do not subscribe to trickle-down/supply-side economics as a viable and sustainable economic model).

What is driving me away from Romney in a huge way: I believe he would champion a social agenda that sets back civil rights for women and homosexuals. If you’ve read the GOP’s official policy paper for the 2012 election (I have), you’ll see that it codifies repressing rights for same-sex couples and, specifically, women in the military. Our President is supposed to champion equal rights for all citizens, and anyone who would repress rights in the name of some ill-defined greater social good doesn’t deserve the nation’s top seat.

If Obama is re-elected, my hope is that the GOP ceases its efforts to stop Obama’s major economic initiatives cold in the name of political gamesmanship and works with him to craft policies that are in everyone’s best interests — not just the uber-rich, not just the very poor, everyone.

US Senate

I’m one step away from flipping a coin at the voting booth, because I really don’t care for either Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren. Neither of them has impressed me so much that I’m falling over myself to vote for them.

Congress

Let me first say that Dan Botelho is probably the best third-party/non-party candidate this area has seen in years. He’s not a righteously indignant one-issue ideologue, which is largely what has emerged to run against the party candidates,  but a thoughtful and well-informed candidate with some good ideas.

Christopher Sheldon, while a decent candidate, never struck me as a great candidate, and definitely not a superior choice to Congressman William Keating. His critics like to say “Keating hasn’t done anything for this district!” but that is a patently false statement. His record of achievement is fairly good for a first-term Congressman, and he has treated the Cape as well as his predecessor Bill Delahunt ever did.

State Senate

I think Cape voters would be nuts to let Senate President Therese Murray (D – Plymouth) go, in good part because of that title in front of her name; as Senate President, she has the mojo to get things done for her district in a big way. She’s also spearheaded some significant reform efforts over the past two or three terms, so she’s not sitting on her hands doing nothing.

Tom Keyes has run a much better campaign than in 2010, and I fully expect another close race between him and Sen. Murray, but so much of his campaign has been based in reactionary statements that try to paint Sen. Murray as a corrupt, ineffective do-nothing. If Murray were to state, “I like cats,” Keyes would issue a press release accusing her of being in the pocket of Big Dog. He hasn’t really distinguished himself as a superior alternative to the incumbent, and if he does come out on top, I would say Murray lost the race rather than Keyes won it.

Barnstable County Commissioners

Mary Pat Flynn and Sheila Lyons should be returned to the board, because Eric Steinhilber has not proven himself worthy of ousting either of the incumbents.

Mr. Steinhilber chose the wrong tentpole issue in the “MWRA on Cape Cod” to-do, stuck to his guns far longer than he should have once that topic’s shelf-life expired back in the summer, and has failed to show voters why his opposition to a taxpayer-funded wastewater authority is somehow better, more reliable, or just plain different than Ms. Flynn’s or Ms. Lyons’.

I directly asked Mr. Steinhilber why voters should believe him when he says “I oppose a wastewater authority” but doubt the incumbents when they say it, and he did not provide a good answer; his argument was, basically, he was dead-set against it and Flynn and Lyons were not — and he did not elaborate whether he thought they were lying or were simply easily manipulated dupes who could be bullied into changing their minds.

That, coupled with his lackluster ideas on other issues and failure to recognize OpenCape as a potential economic engine for the region, make him ill-suited for the job compared to Flynn and Lyons — and that’s a shame because I had high hopes for the guy. I maintain he would have made a better challenger for State Senator Dan Wolf (D – Harwich) in 2010 than Jim Crocker, but the man needs to be better about doing his homework and distinguishing good issues from bad (or non-) issues.

Question One

The Right to Repair question is a tricky one, but let’s be clear about one thing: voting “no” on Question One does NOT negate the Right to Repair Law passed earlier this year; a “no” vote is against the ballot question only.

What a “yes” vote would do is set the stage for a mess in the Legislature. By approving a RtR Law via the ballot, voters would be overriding the existing law, which lawmakers approved after several failed efforts in the face of staunch opposition by the auto industry. The existing law may have flaws, but it would be better to address those flaws through the legislative process than by forcing lawmakers to either entirely scrap the law they crafted — or create a compromise law, or ignore the will of the voters completely and keeping the current version.

And yet, I now find myself compelled to defend him a second time (the first time is here).

It’s all due to this Boston Herald story entitled Republicans Feeling Blue As Scott Brown Win Backfires. If you’re too lazy to read it yourself, here’s the gist of the story: Republicans and Tea Partiers who supported Brown are now feeling like grade-A suckers because Brown failed to stop the health care reform bill from passing.

Here’s a telling quote from the story:

“We start to wonder whether we helped a RINO (Republican in name only) get into office,” said Tea Party activist Jeffrey McQueen, who traveled from Michigan to campaign for Brown in the final days of the Jan. 19 special election that rocked the nation. “If it wasn’t for the Tea Party movement, Scott Brown wouldn’t have gotten that seat. We expect to see a true conservative in there.”

First of all: You expected to see a “true conservative,” eh? What happened to the Tea Party being a bipartisan movement? Or was that claim never really sincere? (He asked rhetorically…)

Second: Brown did not vote for the bill. He did vote to allow the process to continue rather than being hijacked by a filibuster — which, ironically enough, led to the Democrats manipulating the process to their advantage so they needed a smaller majority to pass the bill — but the bill itself? He voted against it, just like he said he would.

There was no “betrayal” anywhere here, except perhaps of Brown’s supporters’ expectations — expectations as unrealistic as, say, thinking Obama would overnight undue a decade’s worth of economic destruction. Brown voted against the bill, just like you goofs wanted, so why are you angry at him? Because one guy was unable to overcome a system riddled with loopholes and arcane parliamentary procedures (that the GOP itself used 35 times in the 2005 – 2006 Congressional session, I might add)? What, are you also pissed at that Chinese college kid because he failed to stop the tanks at Tienanmen Square?

Politicians aren’t wizards fresh out of Hogwarts, people. “One man, one vote” is a great slogan but it’s not, for good or ill, how things get done in Washington.

If anything good could come out of this, it’s perhaps that Democrats and Republicans now have a common ground upon which to commiserate: They both now know what it’s like to load up one man with all your hopes and dreams and have them dashed to bits by the cold hard fact that he’s only human.

PS: Democrats, y’might want to stop being so dickish about this situation. How many times must you fly too close to the sun and plummet into the ocean before you realize that arrogance is not a virtue?

The 10 points are:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

No no no. Too wordy. Let me pare that down a bit, make it leaner and meaner:

1) We agree to abandon our common sense, individual wills, and desire to do what is best for the American public, and mindlessly follow RNC leadership on every issue; and, when in doubt, automatically oppose anything a Democrat says, does, or proposes..especially if it’s that Obama guy.

The Irony Fairy obviously tapped this document with her magic wand, since there is also a passage that reads:

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views…

Diverse views? You welcome them? Really?

I think this is a good point for this…

Interesting that this should pop up so soon after the GOP royally blew what should have been a slam-dunk victory in the recent special election for the New York 23rd Congressional seat by backing a third-party candidate over the registered Republican because the latter was not conservative enough (she then left the race and endorsed the Democrat). Shout-outs by the usual suspects (Rush, Palin, etc.) weren’t enough to buoy the non-resident non-interesting conservative-but-not-Republican candidate to victory over the Democrat, who captured a seat that had been held by the GOP for 160 years.

One hundred sixty years.

All flushed down the bog because the Republican wasn’t Republican enough by the RNC’s increasingly narrow standards.

That’s talent.

What’s particularly bothersome about this Republican Purity Test is not how it asks candidates to be good little cookie-cutter drones, but how it asks them to voluntarily reinforce the attitude that is impeding the country’s ability to move forward effectively on anything. If anything is steering the country in the wrong direction — to borrow a favorite GOP euphemism for “We’re bitter because we’re not leading the parade anymore” — it’s our elected officials’ slavish loyalty to party dogma and the entailing knee-jerk opposition to anything coming out of the…well, opposition.

(And yes, I am applying that to the Democrats too. They’re every bit as bad.)

I would like to offer up my own resolution for politicians to review, and my stipulation: if you can’t agree to every single one of these statements, you have no business in public service.

1 ) I support a government that is responsive to its constituents and honors the will of the voter, even if that will is contrary to my personal opinions

2 ) I will do my best to communicate the intricacies of an issue, in a clear and factually accurate manner that does not reflect my own subjective opinions, to my constituents so they may make informed decisions, and will actively seek their input before acting on a matter to ensure my vote reflects their will

3 ) I support a government that engages in efficient and responsible spending, and if faced with a choice between making personal sacrifices and placing additional financial burden on the public, I will make any and all reasonable sacrifices first

4 ) I will base my decisions on hard data, common sense, and above all, on what is in the best interests of all people; I will not automatically oppose an idea based on the party affiliation of the individual(s) proposing it and/or its disagreement with my own party’s philosophies

5 ) I will disregard any outside influence on my decisions by lobbyists, special interests, and the leadership within my own government; only my constituents may influence my vote

6 ) I will not hesitate to speak out against my own party — its leadership or its members — if I honestly believe they are not acting in the public interest

7 ) If I ever abuse the public trust and act in a manner unbecoming of my station, I will immediately accept full responsibility for my actions by resigning my office and relinquishing all claim to any perks or benefits I would otherwise be entitled to

8 ) If defeated in an election, I will honor the voice of the voters and gracefully accept that defeat; I will not re-enter the race under legally valid and ethically dubious conditions in the selfish interest of keeping my job

9 ) I will endeavor to recognize when and if I become ineffectual as a legislator, and when that time comes I will voluntarily bow out of the next election to make way for someone with new energy and ideas

Got any you’d like to add?

Uh…am I still on the same planet as these pundits?

Let’s put this in a clear context: in Virginia and New Jersey (states that supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential elections), Republican candidates bested Democrats for the governorship of those states. More precisely, GOP candidates bested Democrats that were widely considered so grossly inept they probably would have lost to one of those lifesize cardboard cutouts you see at Starbucks pimping Via.

So, to recap: crappy Democratic candidates were beaten by Republicans in two races that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the administration of the federal government, and somehow that foreshadows a resurgence in the GOP Congressional power base next November…a “Republican renaissance” as GOP chairman Michael Steele put it.

Yyyyyyeah.

And yet, the historical special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district is somehow not a factor in this Nostradamian prediction of a looming Dem implosion.

If you’ve not heard about this, it’s a classic case of a hanging yourself with your own rope. Bill Owens, who by all accounts was not what you’d call a campaigning machine, won the election to become the first Democrat in more than a century to hold that seat, after the Republican Party tossed over their own candidate, Dierdre Scozzafava, to support a gent by the name of Doug Hoffman — a third-party candidate who did not even live in the district.

Why? Because Hoffman was more conservative than Scozzafava. She supported evil liberal things like same-sex marriage and abortion rights (which, really, have nothing to do with classic Republican political values like small non-intrusive government and limited taxation and government spending, and everything to do with a morality-based mindset that is often in direct conflict with the core principles of the GOP…but I digress).

Hoffman received lip service from GOP icons like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin (who is still laboring under the delusion that she’s relevant). Scozzafava responded by dropping out of the race — a gutless move in my estimation, but she semi-redeemed herself by then throwing all her support behind Owens in a big expletive deleted you to her party.

The GOP pot accused the Scozzafava kettle of contemptible blackness and called her a traitor to the party…you know, that same party that turned its collective nose up at her to support a non-Republican (did I mention the GOP are sometimes very contrary people?).

Maybe the GOP is making such a big noise about their two minor victories on the gubernatorial front to mask their insecurity over the New York debacle…I mean, taking certain victory and squandering it through indecision, in-fighting, and feeding your own to the wolves? That’s been the Democrats’ modus operandi for many a year.

Remember, Republicans: those who forget the Democrats’ history are doomed to repeat it, and in next year’s mid-terms, you have so much to gain and very little left to lose — and you’ll have even less to lose in 2012 if you don’t get your act together.

Oh, Bob, we hardly knew ye, and I suspect that’s because you never really did anything with your campaign once you entered the race. I infer that by your inability to collect 10,000 signatures on your nomination papers by last Tuesday’s deadline.

So that brings our official field of candidates for the late Edward M. Kennedy’s US Senate seat down to one Republican – State Senator Scott P. Brown (R – Wrentham), who Mr. Burr is now supporting – and four Democrats: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congressman Michael E. Capuano (D), Alan A. Khazei, and Steve Pagliuca.

The Fab Four engaged in a rather tepid debate Monday night, and you can read my analysis below.

***

AG Coakley, by the way, is under no small amount of scrutiny thanks to the Massachusetts Republican Party. The Mass. GOP recently filed a complaint against AG Coakley, claiming she was running a “shadow campaign” (insert dramatic musical sting here) for US Senate using money from her AG campaign coffers, which is a no-no.

The GOP specifically charges that AG Coakley spent about $31,000 from her state campaign fund on consultants in preparation for her Senate bid. Notably, she has reimbursed her state fund for $35,000 in expenses out of her federal campaign fund. File that under Things That Make You Go Hmmmm…

The Federal Election Commission is reviewing the matter but, as of this writing, has yet to announce whether it will launch an official investigation into AG Coakley’s campaign finances — so it will be a while before we learn whether this is a case of eagle-eyed diligence on the GOP’s part or they’re just out to get her.

One might suspect the latter in light of the new GOP-sponsored “Where Was Martha?” website, which focuses on the AG’s failure (real or imagined, you be the judge) to go after disgraced fellow Democrats – namely former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, former State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, and Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner.

***

For those who care about such things, State Senator Robert A. O’Leary (D – Barnstable) and State Representative Timothy R. Madden (D – Nantucket) have officially endorsed AG Coakley’s candidacy. The only Cape Dem who’s not on the Coakley bandwagon: State Representative Cleon H. Turner (D – Dennis), who has yet to pick a favorite.

***

A final note on the Fab Four: a new Western New England College survey has AG Coakley as the person to beat: 37 percent of the people surveyed chose her as the favorite, followed by Mr. Pagliuca and Rep. Capuano running in a near dead-heat with 14 percent and 13 percent support respectively, and Mr. Khazei bringing up the read at a distant four percent.

***

A reminder: Sen. Brown will be on the Cape next month, specifically at the Hyannis Golf Course on Route 132 on Sunday, November 15 from 3 to 5 PM.

Shoot State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry (R – Sandwich) an e-mail at ElectJeffPerry@aol.com if you’re interested in serving on the host committee for this campaign fundraiser.

***

Want to talk directly to Christy P. Mihos, Republican candidate for governor? You’ll get several chances during the campaign, thanks to his new series of live webcasts.

Go to Mr. Mihos’s official campaign website to check for the next scheduled webcast, which will allow viewers to call into his Hyannis campaign office and chat directly with the candidate. The shows will be, as the name suggests, broadcast live over his site. He hopes to hold the webcasts up to three times a week.

***

On the topic of the gubernatorial race, I can’t help but take this as a bad sign – whether of the economy or Deval L. Patrick’s re-election campaign, I’m not sure, but when President Barack H. Obama rolls into Boston for a fundraiser and the place is not standing room only, something is amiss.

According to several media accounts of last Friday’s fundraiser for Gov. Patrick, a high-priced private reception with the President was about half-full, and a subsequent $500-a-head fundraiser for those without such deep pockets was two-thirds full.

***

Ray Kasperowicz, Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives – 10^th Congressional District, will be on the Cape next month – November 10, to be precise, when he meets with the Sandwich Republican Town Committee. Keep your eye on his website and www.sandwichrepublicans.org for details as they’re announced.

***

Republican Earle Stroll of Bolton has filed his paperwork with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance in preparation for his planned run for Massachusetts State Auditor.

If Mr. Stroll’s name sounds oh-so-vaguely familiar, it’s because he almost ran for the post in 2006. I say “almost” because he failed to get enough signatures on his nomination papers. Better luck this time around, dude.

***

State Representative Susan D. Williams Gifford (R – Wareham) has resurrected her dead website. Go there to see what’s new, and let’s hope she takes better care of it this time around.

***

Here’s a handy website promoting one of the possible ballot questions for 2010, which seeks to establish instant runoff voting in Massachusetts: http://voterchoicema.org, the official site for Voter Choice Massachusetts.

Under instant runoff voting, voters basically rank the candidates for a given race. During the tally the candidate who receives the least support (that is, the one who is the top pick among the fewest voters) is bumped out, elimination-style, and that vote is then automatically reassigned to the voter’s number two pick. This goes on until a winner emerges from the flaming heap of defeated also-rans like the lone NASCAR driver from a 30-car pile-up on a hairpin turn.

It sounds, and kind of is, complicated, but proponents claim that instant runoff voting avoids the “spoiler effect,” that voting phenomenon in which two similar candidates split the electorate, allowing a possibly weaker third candidate to sneak through with a win.

I don’t have another car racing metaphor for that one. Sorry.

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net