New at Reason

November 3, 2006

Reason editors open up their diaries and declare their political preferences for election 2006.

Comments

|11.3.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Go Jacob Sullum. Another vote for Kinky. With all I keep hearing, he'll be the cult hit of the century, or atleast keep Perry from getting even 1/3 of the vote.

I continue to defy the naysayers.

|11.3.06 @ 3:49PM|#

The view that votes don't count per mathematics is one of those things that's easy to state, hard to refute, and yet still gives me a sense that there's something wrong with it. Someday I'd like to see a rigorous mathematical and philosophical analysis of that.

|11.3.06 @ 3:54PM|#

Although it was hard to pass on kinky, and believe me I thought hard about it for like a whole 10 seconds or so, I still went with James Werner. Primarily because he has a 'nickname the governor' contest.

http://www.nametheguv.com/suggestions/listtop10

|11.3.06 @ 3:58PM|#

I think I'll just vote 'No.'

Or maybe, "You've got to be fucking kidding me."

thoreau|11.3.06 @ 4:02PM|#

I recently had the distinct pleasure of voting for a winning candidate and feeling good about it.

That's right, my thesis advisor won a high office in a professional society.

Hey, it's better than nothing.

|11.3.06 @ 4:06PM|#

I'm surprised at how many people won't be voting. And while I realize that the mathematics of their reasoning is sound, I can't help but notice that it lowers the concentration of an already dilute group of principled small government voters. Let's put it this way, if a Senate race goes to Politician A by a 3-2 margin (not a ratio, but 3 votes to 2 votes), he'll still have the same seat with the same power and he'll still claim a mandate for his views. Voting doesn't "increase the legitimacy of the goverment" or anything like that because they're going to claim legitimacy no matter the turnout and no one will oppose that claim. So while voting doesn't help, not voting doesn't help, either.

Also, I live in Radley's neck of the woods and agree with him except that I'm voting for McWhatever (R) for Congress. Just because he'll only get 30% of the vote and he's not the incumbent. Moran is a grade-A jackass.

|11.3.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Well, I'm less than stunned by Mangu-Ward's party affiliation...but what sort of party affiliation can you say you have if you don't ever vote?

Is it more of a "these are the people I cheerlead for" thing?

|11.3.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Voting is fun, like filling out web questionnaires. Especially this year, when I will have the pleasure of adding my droplet to the (much anticipated) wave of scented body wash that will flush Sen. Frothy out of office.

|11.3.06 @ 4:24PM|#

For those of you who are not voting, I assume this means you don't think much of the "divided government" argument. I bought in, so I am going to the polls, holding my nose all the way.

|11.3.06 @ 4:32PM|#

I'll be voting for Webb and Weed. I'll only be voting for weed though, because I'll hit Goode, then Weed, so I can say I voted for Good Weed. Both suck, though Goode seems like a total asshole. At least Weed doesn't support the deportation of all eleven million illegal immigrants.

From Goode's website: "I support legislation to correct the anchor baby situation, whereby a child of illegal aleins [sic] is an automatic citizen of the United States."

I assume that he means a child born in the United States. The "legislation" that would be required to change this would be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution (14th amendment establishes that all those born in the country are citizens). In any event, illegal immigrant parents have lost the right to stay in the US even if they have a US citizen child. Which effectively means the child is deported, but immigration law is a whole another (depressing) story.

|11.3.06 @ 4:32PM|#

I also bought into the divided government argument. I also can't wait to vote against Sen. Santorum.

|11.3.06 @ 4:35PM|#

I'm registered in my district in New Mexico... but I don't know if I'll bother to vote...

Governor: I may vote for New Mexico Uber Alles... err.. Bill Richardson, simply because his policies seem to be working and he's got a solid pro-gun record. That, and his opponent is a moron. But Richardson's also a corrupt cronyist Clintonite, so it's hard to get too worked up over wanting to support him- that, and he'll win anyway.

Senate: There's no real contest here... Bingaman could sodomize a goat on live television tomorrow and still win the election. Maybe I'll give a write in for Cthulhu or Donald Duck.

Representative: This one is hard- very hard. I'm of the "VOTE GRIDLOCK" camp, but frankly, Patricia Madrid repells me. I have little love for Heather Wilson, and the libertarian index over at Freedom Dems gives little to recommend her, but she still seems slightly better than Madrid. Undecided, though leaning towards Madrid, if only to tick off my boss and cancel his vote.

Local/Constitutional: Down-the-line GOP. Gotta keep American Caudillo... err... Richardson honest.

Oh, and an obvious NO on the taxes and bond issues. That's a "no brainer".

Voting in New Mexico- choosing between corrupt Democrats and stupid Republicans.

|11.3.06 @ 4:40PM|#

As excusers of LP election performances of years past, these guys really need to be punching the LP ballot. Shit, start getting over 5% and I might even switch from the GOP. But Democratic votes only raise my taxes, principled or not, and I can never forgive you.

|11.3.06 @ 4:43PM|#

(slight off topic) Look at all you virginia settled mofos. Looks like Virginia shoulda beat New Hampshire for free state project or whatnot.

(Plus Richmond crushes Manchester in terms of every and anything.)

|11.3.06 @ 4:46PM|#

Virginia strains under the hordes of policy wonks that live in Northern Virginia. Arlington County will eventually become a swamp as it sinks into the Potomac.

|11.3.06 @ 4:53PM|#

I once voted against a school property tax that LOST by one vote.
Damn! My vote finally counted!
They stole it in the recount, of course.

|11.3.06 @ 4:56PM|#

it's a boring year to vote in illinois.

99% of all litter dumped on my property for candidates has been for judicial retention questions.

the governor's race has been quiet down here, but then again, it's a chicago thing anyway. neither candidate attracts or repels me in any significant way.

i'm sending my rep (shimkus) packing.

|11.3.06 @ 5:14PM|#

I just saw David Weigel's fantasy about Webb going after Rumsfeld.

If he can make Donald Rumsfeld cry, I'll follow him into Hell.

|11.3.06 @ 5:21PM|#

So 4 of 9 Libertarians don't believe in voting, eh? That might explain something...

|11.3.06 @ 5:25PM|#

If enough people of an identifiable group stay at home, eventually candidates will pay attention to them to see if they can grab the votes.

|11.3.06 @ 5:40PM|#

I'd like to see more Republicans like Katherine -- the non-voting kind.

|11.3.06 @ 5:45PM|#

I'm registered Bull Moose, and I plan to vote by chest size.

Actually, I'm still registered GOP, which I've disclosed here before, but I usually vote LP or whatever vote makes me the most renegade in the eyes of mainstream politicians. For the record, I keep the GOP status to be able to vote for one of the major parties in the primaries. Lots of fun, let me tell you, because I vote for the person who isn't supposed to win 90% of the time.

Our races in Florida are just icky this year. Our candidates for governor suck (my Congressman is one of the candidates, incidentally), as do our candidates for the Senate. We have less interesting constitutional amendments this time around, too. I wanted to vote for a moonbase or something cool, but nope, nothing like that.

|11.3.06 @ 5:48PM|#

Since federalism is dead anyway, shouldn't we be able to vote for as many offices as we please. I would really love to vote against Santorum.

|11.3.06 @ 5:48PM|#

You're in Florida and you plan to vote by chest size? So you're really going to vote for Katherine Harris?

|11.3.06 @ 5:58PM|#

FinFangFoom,

Yeah, she wins that battle, hands down. Too bad her looks and her body don't match. Sure, why not? Unless there's a lib candidate, anyway. She's nuttier than a bag of peanuts, but I don't like Nelson, either. Though he is an astronaut and stuff. Sort of.

Anyway, I could vote for her because she wins the most surreal candidate award. That always appeals to me.

|11.3.06 @ 6:13PM|#

I vote like Ron Bailey - to punish.
That's why I am voting against Blago in Illinois.

Downstater,
Blago has been a giant dickweed. He has royally screwed the mortgage industry in Illinois, and he's even more corrupt than the Illinois Republican Party. Vote Topinka. At least she ain't Blago.
For the record, the only other voting I'll be doing is against retention for every judge on the ballot. Again, I aim to punish.

|11.3.06 @ 6:35PM|#

Blago is not popular in our house. he's been crap for teachers (which i know gets no sympathy around here, but whatever). Topinka seems to be okay in her education plans except for the nebulous "accountability" plank which usually translates to flogging teachers for failing junior when he doesn't do homework and parents who expect schools to raise their kids.

the illinois gop thought alan keyes was a good idea. ryan is in the pen. i think blago has a ways to go before being worse than the state gop.

as far as the judges, i'm not familiar enough with them (despite the massive mailings - i just don't read them all). i don't have any reason to punish any particular judge.

|11.3.06 @ 6:58PM|#

So H&R staffers are overwhelmingly east coast elites! I might have known.....
FWIW (not much) many ballot slots go unmarked. Tom Mclintock, tho more than I like a wild eyed kook, gets LtGov nod. ANYTHING that raises $ for the State: no. Anything that limits how the State can spend, or sieze: yes.
Ill vote against the ghastly Fienstien. Is there a Libertarian opposing her? I dont know. Ditto in my Rep district- Im voting against Hunter, the foul swine. Looks like default Dem there, as I want him out, & the Lib. candiate hasnt offered up a single reason to vote for him, & thus not the Dim, who might flush this foul creature out of office.
Hopes? Pelosi gets hit by a car, someone puts LSD in the majority Dim house coffee pot, & they try & condemn hundreds of neo- & republithug predecessors. That avian flu put a dent in the Md crow population, vast numbers of repubs swinging from gibbets might offer up sustenance to thier depleted tribe.
Then the Dims, realizing they actually DID SOMETHING not utterly offensive, do a Bob Jones, leaving us all, finally in peace.
But thats too much to ask. Dim House, Dim Senate, Iraq troops home in 5 mos, Afghanistan......well convince me it just wont be screwed up again. And think about it: Bush is a lil rich boy who gets everything he wants, thru life, w/o penalty. His meltdown might be amusing.
Or give em ALL to Cthulu.

|11.3.06 @ 7:02PM|#

The far right wackos in the Illinois Republican Party got tossed a bone when Keyes ran here. They had been bellyaching that the reason the Repubs were doing poorly in Illinois was that they were too moderate socially. Topinka, as the head of the state party, essentially said, "Oh yeah, you think that's the problem? You think far far right nutjob Keyes can win? Go ahead. Run him." She did nothing to support Keyes, and she knew better than wasting somebody electable against Obama with so little time to prepare a campaign.

I have a soft spot for George Ryan because of the death penalty thing, so I don't hold him against the Repubs.

Regarding the judges, most people go right down the list and vote "Retain" (I read that somewhere, can't remember the numbers), so I do my part by voting against every single one.

|11.3.06 @ 7:17PM|#

Especially this year, when I will have the pleasure of adding my droplet to the (much anticipated) wave of scented body wash that will flush Sen. Frothy out of office.

I envy you that. The only interesting race I got to vote for was Coroner, and that was only because I got to chuckle madly as I wrote in Quincy, ME. Nobody else seems to enjoy the joke, though.

|11.3.06 @ 8:00PM|#

Pro Lib:

are you voting for the state constitutional amendment to make it harder to pass state constitutional amendments?

|11.3.06 @ 8:12PM|#

It is rather sad and disappointing that so many people who make their living on politics still refuse to vote in an election. My vote has never counted, especially once I switched to straight Lib anyway, but still its only about 30 minutes of my life no more than twice in any year. Geez, didn't they ever teach you about how voting is one of the responsibilities of citizens in a democracy?

|11.3.06 @ 8:17PM|#

I would like to make a special call to all of you who are not voting either because you feel your vote doesn't count, because you can't stand anyboy on the ballot, or feel that anybody who does vote has no right to complain.

Even though you are absolutely correct on all counts, I ask you to go to the polls and cast an anti-vote. An anti-vote is a vote for "None of the Above". Of coure, you will have to write it in, which can be time consuming but I feel it is ultimately worthwhile.

The benefits of casting a vote against every candidate on the ballot are manifold:

1) It lowers those parasites' vote totals. Remember when Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the vote? Wans't it wonderful when the "winners" couldn't claim the support of the majority? OK, it sucked, but it sucked less than having to listen to George Bush crow that for the first time in a decade that he had support of greater than 50% of the population.

2) You can complain when the winner robs, hurts or murders people in your name, since you didn't vote in support of the system.

3) You don't have to listen to pundits bemoan your "apathy". Instead you can laugh as they complain about your lack of faith in the democratic system. That sort of complaining is so much sweeter to the ear. Well at least to mine, anyway.

3) If enough people do it, it throws a real monkey wrench in the election, since they'll have to count write-ins to do determine a winner. Imagine a Florida style delay while they are laboriosuly tallying the non-machine readable ballots. The formal candidates having to trade barbs while waiting on tenterhooks to find out which one will get to wallow in the trough.

4) And last but not least, if NOTA should ever come up as the winner, there will be a wonderful crisis as people argue whether the first loser should be anointed as the winner, or if they should re-do the election.

NOTA will not rob your neighbor to pay for your child's schooling. NOTA will not rob your neighbor for to pay for your medical bills. NOTA will not try to bring back conscription. NOTA will never vote to send your friends who are soldiers to kill people or die in a foreign land. NOTA will never try to outlaw tomatoes because they have funny knobs on it. NOTA will never jack up the price of sugar to favour the corn industry. NOTA will never embarass you by being caught in the sack with a live boy or dead woman. NOTA will never try to deny you access to medicines. NOTA will never give his brother-in-law's company an edge over yours via tax-breaks or handouts. NOTA will never advocate insane economic policies that will bring about a depression.

Vote against everyone - Vote NOTA ... for the children. :)

|11.3.06 @ 8:21PM|#

s/anyboy on the ballot/anybody on the ballot/

s/George Bush crow that for the first time in a decade that he had support of greater than 50% of the population/George Bush crow that for the first time in a decade that a president had support of greater than 50% of the population/

|11.3.06 @ 8:33PM|#

Blago has been a giant dickweed. He has royally screwed the mortgage industry in Illinois, and he's even more corrupt than the Illinois Republican Party. Vote Topinka. At least she ain't Blago.

Yeah, I'll probably do that myself - but she's gonna lose anyway. Not sure she's any improvement, but if she manages to pull it out of the fire, at least I get to look a different asshole talking to me out of the TV for the next four years. That's something, anyway.

As for the rest of the ballot, I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for anyone. I'll probably vote for the Libertarians, or any other 3rd party on the ballot, if one is available. If not, voting against the incumbent is as good as a strategy as any.

I'll probably need a few strong drinks before visiting the polls.

|11.3.06 @ 8:57PM|#

" I'll probably need a few strong drinks before visiting the polls."
Here, here.........

|11.3.06 @ 9:10PM|#

biologist,

I'm torn, but I think I'm going to vote for it. I just have an aversion to the state constitution becoming just another list of statutes. Pigs, bullet trains, classroom size, etc. should be in the Florida Statutes, not the Florida Constitution. To me, the constitution should focus more on structural and process issues, with some extra civil liberties protections thrown in.

|11.3.06 @ 9:16PM|#

Pro Lib:

I agree in principle, but this is a terrible solution. what we need is a constitutional amendment to allow statues to be passed by referendum, not make it harder for us to influence our government directly

I'm voting no

|11.3.06 @ 9:23PM|#

Yeah, well, that's my problem with it. Still, I fear this may be the only "improvement" we're likely to get. I've changed my mind about this before, so I may again.

I heard on NPR today that something like 2/3 of all of the amendments were put on the ballot by the legislature, so the effectiveness of the Florida referendum process is questionable. I'd also be happier if people didn't seem to vote "yes" by default.

|11.3.06 @ 10:10PM|#

I would like to thank Brian Doherty for his excellent article "Not Voting and Proud".
I now have some philisophical ground to stand on.I have been told more than once that greater men then me have died for my right to vote.In my history class I don't remember a war for universal suffrage or even a war for white middle class voting rights.

Robert Goodman|11.3.06 @ 10:12PM|#

If the voters enact statutes, what's to keep the legislators from repealing them?

|11.3.06 @ 10:13PM|#

I go by the principle that if I read the referendum and don't know what it does, I vote against it.

Alternatively, I look in the Daily Oklahoman and vote the other way.

|11.3.06 @ 10:16PM|#

Hmmm...3 D's, 2 Lib's, 1 R and 3 squishies. Somewhere, the Kossacks are collectively wetting their pants.

No Senate race in GA and my Rep is safe as long as he wants his seat. Fortunately, I have a full slate of Libertarians I can vote for in state races. Yeah, I know none of them will win, but a vote for either an R or D is a vote for the status quo. It ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Power Party wants us to go away. That's why ballot access has become increasingly restricted. That's the best reason for dragging your butt down to your local elementary school and voting 3rd party. It pisses the R's and D's off and that's worth 20 minutes of my time.

What's sad is this myth of "divided government". If it works at all, it's not this version of it. Last time we had a squishy R and a D congress, the congress held up Bushie the Elder for higher taxes so he could fund the troops in the Gulf. Do you people have no memory? With a D controlled Congress, we can expect a higher minimum wage, higher capital gains tax and bridges to nowhere in Tennessee instead of Alaska. This will be the type of Ransom Bushie will pay to keep the same level of troops in Iraq. Seen this movie before.

|11.3.06 @ 10:46PM|#

For those Texans interested, I believe the Kinky Friedman return watch party is at Scholtz's here in Austin. I'll be there for as long as they'll tolerate my darling brats. (Darling Husband will be in Houston, in trial, in federal court, all next week. I hate being a single mother.)

Pro L, is there any truth to the rumor that a former male aide to Katherine Harris had an affair with the male Republican candidate for Governor out there? I heard someone gossiping tonight while we were eating about that.

|11.3.06 @ 11:29PM|#

Nick! What are you thinking by not voting in Ohio?!?! You have a chance to vote agaist the NAMBLA-loving joker who decertified the Libertarian Party on a bullshit technicality as Secretary of State.

I can't think of a better way to spend my vote than to vote against the big chump Kenneth Blackwell.

And at the very LEAST you could be voting no on the five state issues, like all the stupid anti-smoking ones.

Please do it, Nick. Do it for ME!

thoreau|11.3.06 @ 11:46PM|#

Harpua-

There's at least some reason to hope that with the D's in charge of Congress the President won't be able to get away with torturing people and holding them without trial.

But, yeah, I agree, this isn't the ideal divided government. The ideal divided gov't would be R Congress, D President.

Still, you play the cards you're dealt.

thoreau|11.3.06 @ 11:47PM|#

BTW, it's rather sad that a good chunk of the Reason staff can't even be bothered to show up and vote against somebody.

(I didn't say a word about voting FOR anybody.)

Except Katherine Mangu-Ward: Stick with your plan to not vote.

|11.4.06 @ 4:37AM|#

In WI, I'm voting for Tim Peterson (Libertarian) for State Treasurer. He's the LPWI's only statewide candidate, so he needs to get 1% of the vote to maintain ballot status for 2008. I'll write in LPer Dave Redick, who was unable to make the ballot, `cause, what the hell. Herb Kohl, who bought the seat years ago, will win in a walk. The only suspense is how badly he will beat the unfunded nobody the GOP are running against him.

I may vote for the incumbent Democrat for Milwaukee County sheriff, just because he pisses the local establishment off. He's an African-American, and widely suspected of being a secret Republican, because he's socially conservative. The Reps are running a state trooper who is the tool of the deputies' union. Still, for that office, and countless others, i just may write in NOTA. It is easy enough to do on our computer-scannable paper ballots, which have a write-in space for every office.

I'll vote "No" on the death penalty advisory referendum, and on the "No gay marriage, no civil unions" Constitutional Amendment. I wish I could do that with the caveat that extension of benefits to spouses or spouse-equivalents of public employees not be allowed, except as a perk negotiated in collective bargaining, so that the added cost could be offset by dropping other benefits. What I'd really druther is an amendment privatizing marriage!

I will also follow my ritual of ostentatiously refusing an I Voted! lapel sticker, and admonish the Nice Old Ladies handing them out to "save the taxpayers some money!"

Kevin

John M. Joy|11.4.06 @ 5:43AM|#

I did my usual trick and voted for myself... five times, this go-round (Governor, US Senate, Attorney General, State House, State Senate).

http://forum.psdtc.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1889

JMJ

edna|11.4.06 @ 10:16AM|#

post-election prediction: katherine harris will be in the next john waters film.

can you believe it, my congressman has no republican opposition, only a libertarian.

phocion|11.4.06 @ 11:07AM|#

All my local candidates, including my US House rep, are unopposed liberal Democrats. My Senate race is between Santorum and Casey, neither of which I can stomach. Santorum is terrible on social issues and relatively terrible on fiscal ones. Casey is terrible on fiscal issues and relatively terrible on social ones. All the third party candidates have been tossed off the ballot.

My only reason for voting would be to lodge a protest vote against Ed Rendell (who wants to raise the 6% sales tax), but he'll cruise to victory anyway. So for the first time in my entire life (including odd years), I won't be voting.

|11.4.06 @ 11:15AM|#

It's a little disheartening to see so many Reason staffers exhorting people not to vote. If the whole thing is irrelevant, why cover politics at all? What would be the point? The only leverage we have on the politicians, as near as I can tell, is the implied threat to vote them out of office. I don't think many congressmen are really troubled by low turnout: it makes it that much easier to swing the election by "moblizing the base."

Even if you plan to vote for an obvious loser, the implication that you are engaged in the process makes a politician wary of offending the majority that is not part of his base. Even if third-parties cannot get traction, a measurable minority in dissent will cause the major parties to look for ways to co-opt the third party's program. That is, you change the major party's platform by openly rejecting both parties at the ballot box.

Why do you think the Democrats are making noises about accomodating libertarians in their big tent? They know the libertarian right is disaffected with the Republican Party and they might be willing to make some compromises in their platform to pick up some votes. Call it cynical, or too little, too late, or just take what you can get.

I find the assertion that voting is meaningless to be empty and vapid, especially in a political reporter. It would be like someone who covers celebrities without ever bothering to go to a movie. You got the vote; you got the courts; you got public protest. A person serious about changing things uses every weapon at hand, even those that appear feeble.

|11.4.06 @ 2:58PM|#

post-election prediction: katherine harris will be in the next john waters film.


That's brilliant! She'd be perfect.

|11.4.06 @ 3:39PM|#

"I find the assertion that voting is meaningless to be empty and vapid"

Seconded...assertion goes to a vote...

|11.4.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Robert Goodman | November 3, 2006, 10:12pm | #

If the voters enact statutes, what's to keep the legislators from repealing them?

nothing - but what keeps legislated statutes from being repealed - the same thing, nothing. however, with a popularly enacted statute, legislators would be directly, knowingly defying the will of the people, and would be risking their positions in the next election. alternately, a constitutional amendment to allow popularly enacted statutes could be written to require a supermajority of some sort to be overturned. the Florida bullet train is a requirement of our constitution, but they're getting around it somehow (I haven't been paying close attention, but I think the bullet train is dead, and done legally)

|11.4.06 @ 4:26PM|#

There was an amendment last election to repeal the bullet train in florida


I voted early

there is a libertarian runing for gov in florida (alltho he is listed as NPA) John Wayne Smith

i figured why not

|11.4.06 @ 4:55PM|#

with the middle name of Wayne, you know he's a serial killer



not that there's anything wrong with that...

|11.4.06 @ 6:41PM|#

there is a libertarian runing for gov in florida (alltho he is listed as NPA) John Wayne Smith...

I have met John Wayne Smith (as has anyone who has at one time or other been involved in the Florida LP); he is a serious nutcase. However if I was still bothering to vote he'd have gotten mine. If the Democrats had nominated Rod Smith I could have voted for him without holding my nose. Since they chose a typical Washington, east coast liberal type, screw them.

I used to vote to have my say on the initiatives but I'm afraid I've had it with the game.

|11.4.06 @ 7:35PM|#

...is there any truth to the rumor that a former male aide to Katherine Harris had an affair with the male Republican candidate for Governor out there?

There have been rumors about which way Charlie Crist swings for a time now. His opponent in the primary tried to use his acceptance of civil unions (with a sort of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" tone) against him. However, the possibility that might be something to the rumors is news to me.

As near as I can tell, these particular allegations do not have any widespread acceptance. Crist seems to be on track to win the election, with a significant number of Democrats ready to cross over to vote for him.

Keep in mind, there were rumors about Marc Foley for years before he was exposed by the page scandal, so I suspect all bets are off on this. The interesting thing is that Foley was considered a "libertarian republican" until he started along his "protect the children line".

To my mind, the worst that can be said of Charlie Crist is that he might be something of a mental lightweight. When he ran for Attorney-General his opponent brought up the fact that he took several tries (I've forgotten how many) to pass the Florida Bar. However, he strikes me as a rather nice fellow and, if I'm not mistaken, the bar exam is fairly tough and the ability to pass tests is not always as indicator of a fellow's competence.

|11.4.06 @ 9:30PM|#

Crist strikes me as a lightweight, but he also seems way too much a political creature for my tastes. I don't expect a lot of principle from the man, that's for sure. Karen, I haven't heard that rumor, yet. I know a few politicos here--I'll have to see what they know.

I voted today. I actually really did vote for Harris, because I thought it was funny to do so (I'm a little concerned how unseriously I'm taking the vote these days). I also, after a few minutes thought, voted for Amendment 3 (the harder referendum deal). biologist, what convinced me may have been the point you raised above--the legislature is ignoring the more asinine amendments, anyway, which in my mind is very bad. What good is the constitution if it doesn't compel the government to act or not act in a certain way? I'd rather have fewer initiatives and more legitimacy. Probably won't get that either, of course :(