November 6, 2006

To Ahnold or not to Ahnold, that is the question...

Just think, OTRsis, if Ahnold is voted out of office, his parting line is already written. (Or did Clint say, "I'll be back"?)

I've just spent three hours researching issues and candidates here in California. I'm starting to agree with John Adams that government should not be entrusted to the mob. I know I'm just getting a tiny slice of the whole picture and depending how I read it, and what annoyed mood I'm in, I'm not voting based on facts, just gut reactions. After tomorrow, I'll have voted in four states (Massachusets, New York, Maryland and California) and I've never seen this many propositions. There's something to be said for professionals deciding some of these issues. Heck, I can't even find info on the judicial candidates! So should I vote based on whether I like their name?!!

When Jrex was visited by the biohazard guy at Stanford he was told, "Welcome to the most regulated spot on earth. Not only are you in the US, you're in California, and even for California, you're at Stanford." I swear this state must have a law about whether or not I can pick my nose in my own car! (Not that I WOULD just that I COULD...)

No, Dad, this blog is not going to turn into a bitch session about California but it may temporarily veer in that direction. Anyone else frustrated by their options (lack of or over-abundance)?

6 comments:

weigook saram said...

I *hate* the propositions. Even though I'm pretty well-informed, I find them confusing, and I think a lot of them are designed to appeal to people's worst instincts. I'd love to start a proposition to end all propositions.

I voted against Ahnold even though I don't find his opponent (I won't even try to spell his name) particularly inspiring either.

Everblest said...

I voted in my state but the choices weren't real and I sometimes suspect the candidates aren't either.

Inkling said...

It was hard knowing how to vote this year. I did it absentee last week. Fortunately, one of my mom's friends had a synopsis on each judge's voting record, as well as full descriptions of the propositions and amendments. That was soooo helpful, for Missouri had a ton of judges up for election. The propositions and amendments were worded in such a way that I began to wonder if the wording wasn't provided by one particular political group. If I hadn't had the full description from the family friend, I would have voted differently based upon what I read. That's scary!

One note......does the California Bar Association have an approval/retention rating available on the judges? Then at least you'd know if the lawyers minded working with the judges, and have some idea.

Ah.....to live in the land of the Kindergarten Cop....

bg's Little Sis said...

I voted, the choices are limited at best, and it's frustrating reading the proposed amendments, who writes some of this stuff anyhow, we don't speak in Old English why do we write it that way, or is it just legal mumbo jumbo that I'm lost in.

I don't envy the judge stuff, didn't have any of that this season.

OTR sis said...

We vote absentee so that we can sit at our dining room table with the voter's manual. I find it helpful to read what people say about themselves and the arguments for and against the propositions. And if I'm still confused I look at who is supporting the proposition. Are they names that I trust? (e.g., Sierra Club, American Cancer Society, WEF, etc.)

Particularly in the Primaries the Voter's Manual is a trip - with all of the whack jobs running.

Anonymous said...

Good for you! You voted in four States.
Our Nation wouldn't be in the mess it's
in if more public-spirited citizens voted
early and voted often.

Neither Arnold nor Clint said, "I''ll be back."
That was General McArthur.

So, Arnold won! Gee, if it weren't for
the Constitutional provision requiring
our Presidents to be born in the USA,
Arnold would be the leading contender
to the GOP nomination in 2008.

Oh, well.