But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

How I voted...

(Not that anyone cares)

Ballot Initiatives

I'm personally not much of a fan of the initiative system which has strayed far and wide from it's progressive roots. It's simply too easy in Oregon to get an initiative on the ballot and the potential for mischief just too great. I particulary have a problem with amending the state constitution by ballot and vote against measures I might be more inclined to support if they take a marker to the state constitution. The initiative system needs a fix.

With that in mind I voted "yes" on only Measure 42 this year which prohibits the use of credit ratings in determining insurance rates. The measure has a lot going against it- Bill Sizemore is it's chief petitioner for example - but in the end I was unswayed by the arguments of insurance companies that there is a correlation between bad credit and bad driving.

The ballot initiatives are always that little asterisk to election evening that can take the wind out of the high I get out of big wins by candidates I support. This year the biggest threat we face is Measure 48 which puts a Colorado style TABOR law in place in Oregon. Real potential for damage if that passes.

Candidates

It will come as no surprise that I'll voted to re-elect Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski. Kulongoski's been a mediocre Governor but Oregon could do much worse. That "worse" goes by the name Ron Saxton.

On other lines I voted straight Democratic candidate for probably the first time in my life. I just went down the ticket and checked the names with a "d" next to them. If they were non-partisan positions such as judges I'd write a "d" next to the candidate that had a democratic-sounding name and vote for them.

---------

I have some videos, quotes and stuff planned to post Monday that pretty much sums up my current feelings about the state of America and the importance of this election. As always I look at our system of elections - with the peaceful transfer of power - with awe and reverance. But mixed in with that this year is a certain amount of dread of the "waiting for the other shoe to drop" variety. The time has long since passed to put some sort of accountability on the people in power and my faith in the willingness of the American people to demonstrate the revolutionary roots that founded this nation in facing down power is just about extinguished.

If the Democrats win at least the House I will be drinking champaigne. If they take the Senate I'll get something a little better than Cooks to drink.

I love you. However, I hate you.

The thing that really stands out in The Oregonian's ridiculous endorsement of Republican challenger Ron Saxton over Governor Ted Kulongoski is how intelletually dishonest the reasoning is. They begin by correctly identify many of the issues facing the state:

This state has slipped and fallen. School funding is below the national average. Oregon is near the bottom in public support of universities. The number of troopers patrolling highways is only half of what the state mustered 30 years ago. Oregon's system of public finance is a mess, and Oregon, virtually alone among states, has no rainy day fund.

Which leads them naturally to endorse the man who will exasperate all of these problems.

Kulongoski is not a great Governor. He seems unwilling to use the Governor's office as a bully pulpit and all too willing to throw up his hands, point at the Republican controlled state house and claim he can't do anything.

But Saxton? He's clearly not interested in adequately funding state schools, refuses to say where he stands on the number of state troopers Oregon maintains (House Republicans would actually like to REDUCE the number of troopers) and continues to support the kicker which is the biggest obstacle to a rainy day fund.

But on a larger sense we simply can no longer afford to elect Republicans to any office. The party - as it's currently constituted - is simply too regimented and too wrong on the important issues to allow for the individual conscious of it's candidates. Paul Krugman writes today in the New York Times that "...this is a one-letter election. D or R, that's all that matters." I wish I could disagree.

I also wish Fred Stickel and the rest of the editorial board at the Oregonian understood that.