Vote Today

Instead of a guest blog, let's talk about why we should vote today.

Voting is a critical part of getting more balance in your life. Why? Because having politicians in office who represent what's important to you and your children as you go about juggling work and family is invaluable.

Fifty-four percent of voters are women, yet only 10 percent of the candidates are women. Vote to put more women in office and give them a say in where our money goes.

Vote to get into the habit of voting in every election, not just presidential ones. State and local politicians can have an even greater impact on families than national ones. Do you think our tax dollars should be spent on daycare or defense? Education or Iraq? Vote because if you don't vote you lose your right to complain about the world around you.

Well, on this blog you have the right to complain about the world around you, no matter what, so strike that. But vote anyway.

Tell us why you are voting, or not voting, today.

By Leslie Morgan Steiner |  November 7, 2006; 6:50 AM ET  | Category:  You Go Girl!
Previous: Parents, Kids and Wills | Next: $900 Billion Women


Add On Balance to Your Site
Keep up with the latest installments of On Balance with an easy-to-use widget. It's simple to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry to On Balance.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I voted today because I can! We live in a country that we all like to complain about but we have the ability to have an influence on who controls the power, what they do with that power and what happens to us. I am sure that there will be comments about my naivete about the strength of my vote. I had an elderly aunt who told me what it was like to finally be able to vote and express her own opinion about the course of the US and be heard. THAT is why I vote.

Posted by: I voted | November 7, 2006 7:49 AM

I vote because it's my right and responsibility as a citizen.

Less than a century ago, my great grandmother couldn't vote because she was a woman; I vote to ensure that my voice is heard.

When you realize that even in this great country people are kept from voting because of their race or political beliefs, voting becomes a necessity. I vote because I still can.

Posted by: alexva | November 7, 2006 7:55 AM

I vote because it's my right and responsibility as a citizen.

Less than a century ago, my great grandmother couldn't vote because she was a woman; I vote to ensure that my voice is heard.

When you realize that even in this great country people are kept from voting because of their race or political beliefs, voting becomes a necessity. I vote because I still can.

Posted by: alexva | November 7, 2006 7:55 AM

I'm going out to vote right now. I didn't need the reminder, but it was nice of Leslie to do so! I'm voting because local issues are red hot. We have an out of control District Attorney. We have special interests trying to split county wide voting into districts..only so they can be more easily re-elected. And we have judges spending BIG bucks to be elected even though they face mandatory retirement in 2 years.

Posted by: dotted | November 7, 2006 8:00 AM

According to law, my only duties as a US citizen are to pay taxes and serve on a jury.

My vote allows me to wield great influence, and lets my voice be heard in every November election, whether for Congress, the presidency, or local elections.

Posted by: Phila, PA | November 7, 2006 8:02 AM

I voted this morning. Increasingly, I find myself voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate, which I find troubling. This morning I voted for a change in the status quo. Current policies are not in the best interest of most people.

It would be nice if more women ran for office, but I wouldn't vote for a female candidate just because she is a woman. There are a number of women in Congress with whom I disagree on policy issues.

For those of you living in the District, do you continue to vote in Presidential elections if only to add to the popular vote? If I remember correctly, DC receives no electoral college votes.

Posted by: alex. mom | November 7, 2006 8:02 AM

I am voting today because it is a privilege and a responsibility, being a citizen of this country.

I will be hitting the grocery store and then going to the polls with my 22-month old pulling on my coat and my 9-week old slung across my torso. Nothing will deter me from casting my votes today.

Get out there and do it, people!

Posted by: Centre of Nowhere | November 7, 2006 8:04 AM

DC gets 3 electoral college votes. But no representation in either the house or senate.

Posted by: to alex mom | November 7, 2006 8:07 AM

Did you happen to vote twice?

Posted by: to alexva | November 7, 2006 8:08 AM

"According to law, my only duties as a US citizen are to pay taxes and serve on a jury."

And, (if you are male), you are duty bound to register with the Selective Service at your 18th birthday. But then again, even if you are not a citizen you have to do that. In fact, even illegals are supposed to register.

By the way, the race for Probate Judge in my district is lightening hot! That's why I'm voting.

Posted by: UCGC | November 7, 2006 8:10 AM

And, (if you are male), you are duty bound to register with the Selective Service at your 18th birthday. But then again, even if you are not a citizen you have to do that. In fact, even illegals are supposed to register. >>>

This has really bothered me. Why aren't women bound to this duty? (actually, this is more a rhetorical question...)

**Thanks for clearing up the electoral college thing! I won't worry now about moving to the District as much. It is still a bummer that there is no Senate or Congressonal rep.**

Posted by: alex. mom | November 7, 2006 8:15 AM

I vote because I can. I've only been a citizen of this country for three years, but prior to that, I had never voted because I didn't have that right in my former country, which was mostly under military rule. So now I take every opportunity to vote--primaries, presidential elections, non-presidential elections. The feeling I get is INCREDIBLE! And I wouldn't trade it for the world.

Posted by: KR | November 7, 2006 8:16 AM

I voted for the state offices and with great guilt, did not vote for any of the small local offices - board of ed, local reps, orphans court judge, etc, because I had not taken the time to look into these candidates. I should have - it's my responsibility to do so. But if I was going to duck out of reading up on these candidates, I wasn't going to fill in just any bubble either (voted absentee). My goal for 2008 is to be well-versed in all of my candidates and to vote smart.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 8:16 AM

I second the people who say that they vote because they can. Voting is a responsibility AND a privilege - and I agree that getting into the habit of voting in every election is important.

I live in DC, so my vote today won't do much of anything - all of the races were decided in the primary on September 12th. I will go in and check the boxes nonetheless, because that is what you do as an American.

As far as DC voting goes -
(1) We do have three electoral votes (as many as Wyoming, Delaware, South Dakota, and a hoarde of other small/less populated states), so voting in presidential elections is important.
(2) We elect one member of the House of Representatives (currently Eleanor Holmes Norton), who cannot vote, but does have some powers in Congress. Because the United States Congress controls the DC budget and a host of other things important to the District, having a voice (albeit a small, non-voting one) is crucial.
(3) We also elect two Senators and a member of the House who don't do anything, really, but are there to step in in case DC gets the right to vote in Congress. This is a long shot, and the people who are elected to these positions are probably not the people Washingtonians would elect if they were really doing something - so go figure...

Anyway, kudos to all the people out there voting today (be sure to call your friends in Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee and get them out to the polls!).

Posted by: scr | November 7, 2006 8:17 AM

I am voting in about an hour - have not missed an election since 1986.

As for women running for office - I too would not vote for a women simply because she is a woman.

What do people think of the AARP ads with www.dontvote.com? AARP is urging people not to vote unless they know the issues and where the candidates stand. Is the voting public educated on the issues and if not, should they be voting?

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 8:17 AM

I'm off to vote and drop my four year old off at preschool. I just have my fingers crossed that the people I'm voting for will actually do what they say they are going to do.

Posted by: Leslie | November 7, 2006 8:18 AM

I'm voting because I believe in the good that government can do. I'm also excited cuz I can now say that I voted for one of the Kennedys.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 8:28 AM

I vote so I can impose my personal values on everybody else.

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 8:29 AM

I am voting today in hopes that others with real views on the issues, and the candidates elect officials because they are qualified.

NOT because they are women, men, black, white, gay, straight, for marriage, for cohabitation, military, former military, doves, hawks.

Please, when we encourage people to vote because of who a candidate is, rather than what they stand for...

I guess we get what we deserve.

Leslie, I sure hope your Prom Queen gets elected. I loved High School.

Posted by: Mr. EstrogenCentral | November 7, 2006 8:30 AM

I am going to vote this evening. I vote because I feel it's one of the few ways I am heard. The political masterminds in Washington don't think that they need to bother to find out what us little people think (expecially if we have the nerve to disagree with them). They create situations where they do not hear the other side.

It is the day of reckoning in my opinion. When you are voted out of office, you will have finally heard what we think.

Oh yes... I am voting today. No amount of misleading phone calls, "changing my polling place", changing opinions on essential issues just yesterday, name calling, mud slinging, and flat out lies can stop me. Today -- and just for today -- I will be one of the most powerful people in the world.

Posted by: TTFN | November 7, 2006 8:33 AM

Though I voted first thing this morning (was up all night), I refuse to wear the "I Voted Today!" sticker they gave me.

Doesn't match my outfit.

Posted by: Paris | November 7, 2006 8:35 AM

I voted this morning, not because I think my vote actually counts, but because it gives me the right to complain when they don't do the right thing. Politicians pander for your vote not because they actually want to do what's best for the voters. They don't give a rat's patootie about the voters. Well, I don't have to give a rat's patootie about them at the next election.

Term limits now, and vote ALL the bums out!

Posted by: NAC | November 7, 2006 8:35 AM

I'm voting because those who don't have little right to complain about the state of the country, their state, county or city.

Posted by: db | November 7, 2006 8:36 AM

I early voted!!! YEAH to that! I voted because the county where I live wants to give more rural voters more of a voice thru redistricting. I also got to vote for judges that have REAL impact on my daily life. I voted because even though I live a very blue part of NC, my vote matters, particulary in local elections.

Posted by: nc mom | November 7, 2006 8:38 AM

I voted because some schools bonds are up for consideration, and they would help fund a refurbishing of the local high school. Also, for once, the US Senate race is very tight.

I'm wearing my sticker, though, even though it clashes with my purple shirt! ;)

Posted by: Arlington, VA | November 7, 2006 8:43 AM

We go to the polling place together as a family. We feel taking the children with us (since they were toddlers!), explaining the process, and, as they get older, explaining the issues, is all part of their education process. This morning we had to drag our son out of bed to go vote. "Why do we have to vote, anyway?" he said. Well we had a very brief civics lesson this morning, too!

We want our children to be active citizens that care about where they live and that have a voice in how things are run. That means at the very least that they need to be informed and cast their vote!

Posted by: SLP | November 7, 2006 8:44 AM

I am bummed because I lost my "I Voted" sticker. I voted and took my 5 year old daughter to the polls with me. I explained as much as I could starting with what is the President and Congress and how do they work -- well honey . . . I got a few chuckles. It is important and I am trying to instill in my dd that voting is our responsibility.

Posted by: Marie | November 7, 2006 8:44 AM

>

One of the most disillusioning things I ever did was work as a pollster in college. It was a scientific poll run by my university. The amount of ignorance in the public was just appalling to me. Folks were completely wrong on the issues (attributing the wrong stances to each party). I would say only half of the people who said they were voting knew what they were talking about. Even amongst the ones who knew what they were talking about, there was a lot of crazy talk. Like the woman who said she had stopped voting because one of the political parties had followed her for a month after she last voted. This is just an example-- there was so much ignorance and craziness that I lost a lot of faith in our electorate.

With that said, I am voting today-- I also have never missed an election. I consider it a right and privilege, and the most patriotic thing I can do short of signing up for the military.

Posted by: Neighbor | November 7, 2006 8:46 AM

Back in high school I had a history/government teacher whom everyone loathed. But she was able to secure the official voting machines for our student council elections, which we all thought was the neatest thing. This was in the 80s when you pulled the bar across to close the curtain behind you, and pressed down the levers for your choices. We all felt really grown up that day, and it must have made an impression upon me, because I've voted ever since.

Posted by: Karin | November 7, 2006 8:46 AM

I will be voting on the way home from work. The reason? It's put-up-or-shut-up time.

On the DC question, I support the concept of a Federal District but the District of Columbia is too populous to serve that function. The Federal District should be redrawn so as encompass only the key federal buildings and the rest of the District should be politically retroceded to the state of Maryland (as the Virginia part of the District was done long ago).

The idea of giving two Senators to a single city will never get the needed support in the US.

Posted by: Rufus | November 7, 2006 8:47 AM

I am disappointed that above Leslie advocates voting for a candidate just because she is a woman.

I am an African American, and I think that we now have just about reached consensus as a black voting bloc that we no longer have interest in voting for candidates just because of their skin color (I'm talking to YOU, Michael Steele).

Marilyn Musgrave is a joke. Katherine Harris is an even worse joke. If Leslie contends that these women should hold office JUST BECAUSE they are women, to "give them a say where our money goes", then I am afraid I need to call Leslie's judgement into question or at the very least her sanity.

It's a free country (at least it was before you-know-who dismantled Habeas Corpus) and you can vote for whomever. But if you are voting based on chromosomes and not on the issues, you need to check yourself.

Posted by: Angry | November 7, 2006 8:51 AM

One question I have - why do the vote stickers say "I voted" as well as "Yo Vote"? "Yo Vote" comes first...

Are the ballots in English and Spanish? When and why did this change occur?

Posted by: GenerationXer | November 7, 2006 8:52 AM

Oops, I put cmac's comment in brackets and then the blog erased it. Here's what I was responding to:
"Is the voting public educated on the issues and if not, should they be voting?"

Posted by: Neighbor | November 7, 2006 8:52 AM

I voted today for the first time in my new state, North Carolina, and I was APPALLED that I was not asked for any form of identification. My husband and I made jokes the whole way to work about casting votes on behalf of some of our neighbors (who don't side with us politically), but in reality, I'm sickened to think how easy it would be to go vote a bunch of times. It wasn't like that in Maryland, where we used to live, or where I'm originally from (NY).

Posted by: WorkingMomX | November 7, 2006 8:52 AM

"Fifty-four percent of voters are women, yet only 10 percent of the candidates are women. Vote to put more women in office and give them a say in where our money goes."

Nope, not voting for a woman just because she's a woman. Most of the women in Congress that I can name offhand I do **NOT** share values with and would prefer to see them tossed out on their Prada-clad bums.

That said, I will vote today: one of my candidates is a shoe-in, the other I think will win - which should piss the Post off since they've had it out for him since Day 1.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 8:53 AM

I'm not going to vote for any Republican or Democrat this year. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I usually vote Republican. But the big government, big spending Republicans who want to impose their version of morality on me have lost my vote. On the other hand, I can't bring myself to vote for those big government, big spending Democrats who want to punish me for successfully selling my services to willing buyers for a "heaven-forbid" profit by forcing me to hand over a large chunk of my earnings to an inefficient government.

Posted by: Mike | November 7, 2006 8:54 AM

There is a big push for college students to vote since they have found that this age group is least likely to vote...why then do high schools and elementary school kids get the day off from class and college students still have to go to class/work all day and find time to vote? i am NOT voting today becuase i dont have an opportunity to do so. I would do absentee voting but there isnt anywhere on campus to find out how to really do that. Either help this age group find time/ways to vote or stop complaining that we dont care enough to vote

Posted by: aml | November 7, 2006 8:56 AM

I voted because It's what I do. I still believe that every single vote counts and have not missed a vote since I turned 18. Plus I want to see change. Change in Virginia, Change in The US and change in the World.

Posted by: Joe D. | November 7, 2006 8:56 AM

I got up at 5:30 AM in order to vote on my way to work. I feel an obligation to vote in the name of all those people in the world who would give their lives for the privilege that we take so much for granted!

Posted by: Kathy | November 7, 2006 8:57 AM

Interesting notion to roll DC back into Maryland (except for the independence/constitution ave areas, I guess).

I had not heard someone voice that notion except in the history books.

What would that achieve, Rufus? Less US population who live under Taxation Without Representation? Not a bad idea I suppose, although except for the homeless, DC residents have the option to move to MD or VA now, if they really want representation. Not saying they (you?) should, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Interesting though. I would be curious to see some Poll numbers on where Americans would stand on such a notion.

Posted by: DC-back-to-Maryland? | November 7, 2006 9:00 AM

Oh ami, you better duck!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 9:00 AM

Ami, you clearly know how to use a computer. I presume, since you are in college, that you can type "[your state] absentee ballot" into Google.

Sympathy I have for you?...ZERO.

Posted by: Tears for Ami | November 7, 2006 9:03 AM

Like many others, I voted because I can. And because, having had my say, I have earned the right to complain about whatever the elected officials do afterwards.

But I also wish I was voting FOR someone, instead of against someone. Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (the order may be wrong, sorry to all the history teachers) doesn't mean wealthy, privelaged, professional politicians. Too bad we don't have federally funded campaings, where all candidates have an equal budget to use to educate the public on their views and beliefs. And get rid of all the PACS and non-candidate campaigning - these organizations have almost no limits, no rules, and no ethics. I don't want my government run by large corporations and lobbyists. And I hope that I live to see the day when government once again represents the people, and not corporate interests.

Posted by: voted in va | November 7, 2006 9:04 AM

Since when do high school kids have election day off? What's the point of that, since they can't vote anyway?

Posted by: to aml | November 7, 2006 9:04 AM

Many illegals with no legal right to vote are also voting. The voter registration process is a sham. If the govt wants to launch a raid, there are a couple of precincts I can give them. But that'll never happen of course,... the democrats need those votes.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 9:04 AM

I vote in every election because it is my duty as a citizen. My wife or I also take our sons to vote so that we can instill that same sense of duty in them.

I only wish more people would get involved in the political system. Not only do I vote but I also make it a point to call or write my representative and senator to let them know how I feel about issues that are being debated.

Posted by: Troy | November 7, 2006 9:06 AM

I'm voting after work. I'm trying to figure out if I can off an hour early. My polling place got moved so now it's not quite so close to home.

Nobody I vote for ever wins, but I keep on doing it. I like to think it makes a difference.

It's kind of frightening when I see people I knew as soccer parents running for office -- like they were grown-ups or something!

Posted by: RoseG | November 7, 2006 9:06 AM

In response to Ami's question, in many areas schools are closed because they are used for polling places. The extra traffic and need for parking makes it difficult to have schools open and voting happening at the same time. And, some high school kids are 18 and can vote.

Posted by: Beth | November 7, 2006 9:06 AM

Leslie, we ought to push for a straight ticket vote for all women candidates. That'll make the world a better place, eh?

Posted by: AllWomen | November 7, 2006 9:09 AM

For everyone who is sad that they are casting votes against, and not for, just what are you for? What's your sweeping vision of goverment that's not being represented?

Posted by: oh please | November 7, 2006 9:10 AM

I voted this morning at 6AM. I do think they should switch the election day to a Saturday. It is absurd that people have to get up at 5AM to go vote. Ami, I am sure the polls are open before your first class. I have not heard of polling places opening later then 8AM. If they open that late, then they stay open later into the night. I think ours runs from 6am-6PM. It is lame we keep doing this on Tuesday because of tradition. Also, we get time off to vote, not every job does.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 9:12 AM

Oh come, people! Get off your high horse about duty, privilege and all that nonsense. Any fool can get a voters registration card and drivers license. There's absolutely no verification. There are thousands if not millions of illegals voting today. It's all a sham and a scam.

That said, go vote anyway! :)

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 9:13 AM

to "to ami:" Public schools are off so that the schools can be used as polling places. For instance, I voted this morning in a HS cafeteria. When I was in college, I voted absentee since I went to school out of state -- Google is a beautiful thing, and the electoral board is very helpful if you contact them (most have web sites).

I voted this morning as I believe that it is my duty as an American citizen to try and get people into office that I believe will do the best job (and keep them there). And if they don't win, at least I did vote and therefore have the right to complain if things are going in a direction that I believe counterproductive to the country/county/district/etc. (Don't vote? Don't complain, you had your chance to input your opinion and you chose not to use it then.)

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 9:13 AM

I vote because my mom never could. I am a first generation American and my mom never became a citizen but each Election Day we would talk about the issues and how important it is to vote.
This year my daughter is 4. We took her to political rallies for causes we support and discussed why we decided to support them. This morning she came and voted with us and we told her that this is a very important right that we have as citizen. We hope that by making this an important family event (almost a family ritual - like Christmas and Thanksgiving) that she will continue to honor it once we have passed on.

Posted by: Momma Daria | November 7, 2006 9:19 AM

I did NOT vote today because my registration got LOST somewhere at the DC DMV. I had assumed that everything was legit, but after a call to the Dc elections board, my registration was nowhere to be found. Apparently, judging from the tone of voice of the DC elections agent, the DMV loses more registrations than one would like to admit.

Posted by: Fed up in DC | November 7, 2006 9:20 AM

"(Don't vote? Don't complain, you had your chance to input your opinion and you chose not to use it then.)"

To look at it from the other side, if you don't vote, you're techincally not responsible for the people that are put into office and their subsequent actions, so don't you have every right to complain about them? The voters who voted them in are the ones who truely can't complain, since they are getting what they asked for.

Posted by: on the other hand... | November 7, 2006 9:20 AM

'scuse me Mr. Veto?

Exactly what is the incentive for an illegal to acquire all these documents just so they can vote illegally? Do you think they are that willing to risk Federal charges and deportation so they can cast 1 illegal vote in a sea of thousands of legal votes?

Risk/Reward anyone? Red Herring much?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 9:21 AM

Ami,

You're supposed to be an adult now, and you have the luxury of a much more flexible schedule than lots of adults (like my husband who spends most of his day far from our polling place). Take the initiative to vote or don't, but don't complain that we haven't made it easy enough for you.

The folks who want college students to vote believe you'll side with them on the issues, there's nothing altruistic here.

Having said that, A FAIR WISCONSIN VOTES NO! http://www.fairwisconsin.com/ (Even if you've got a problem with civil unions, this referendum requires judicial legislation).

Posted by: YetAnotherSAHM | November 7, 2006 9:22 AM

Rufus - the population of DC is larger than Montana's (or maybe Wyoming - don't have time to google this morning) and this state has two Senators.

I voted this morning because it is my responsibility as a citizen. I feel it is the minumum I can do. I don't always like the direction the country, state, county, etc is headed in but if I don't vote, I have no right to complain.

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 9:22 AM

And another thing... You attribute these illegal votes to Democrats (now doubt because Rush and Hannity told you to), but do you believe that illegals on the southern border would've rather seen Kerry or your favorite Texan in 2004? The answer is obvious, but feel free to go pull the numbers for yourself while you are listening to Rush today.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 9:25 AM

"For those of you living in the District, do you continue to vote in Presidential elections if only to add to the popular vote? If I remember correctly, DC receives no electoral college votes."

To answer "alex.moms" question -- DC has 3 electoral votes. Our votes for Pres. do count (since the mid-60s). DC's 3 electoral votes and Minnesota's were the only ones that Walter Mondale got against Ronald Reagan in his campaign for President. :-)

Posted by: DC Voter | November 7, 2006 9:25 AM

Maybe I'll vote after work, but I doubt it. Two reasons: I live in DC, so my vote doesn't really mean much. Second, as I look at politics today I am reminded of the old song lyric, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right."

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 9:26 AM

My daughter voted when she was 1 year old!

Since they haven't adapted the voting machines for the visually impaired yet, I have to get somebody to help me. Whaaa, Rant, rant, rant! Everybody else gets to vote in privacy... Not to mention all they have to do is show Id and have their name scratched off a list. I have to have a form filled out, and my SSN is requested.

But what am I complaining about? I'm sure the blacks had it at least 50 times worse at some point in our history.

Anyway, back to the 1 year old daughter...

The three of us squeezed into the booth. My wife made the selections, although I'm not exactly sure if she pushed the buttons for the dandidate I wanted, or if she voted for the candidate *she* wanted, but when everything was ready to go, my daughter pushed the "Vote" button. Cool!

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 9:27 AM

I took my 2-year-old with me to vote this morning. He's been quite a few times already -- every primary or election since he was born. He knows that voting is about choice and giving people in charge permission to make decisions. He knows we voted 'yes' to give them permission to use money for parks and safety and 'no' on being mean to people who want to get married just because they're not like us. And he's a good little campaigner -- he tells everybody VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Posted by: VAtoddlermom | November 7, 2006 9:30 AM

See, I went down to the early voting place last week. I was greeted in Spanish, so I said, "No habla Espanol". Took them 5 minutes to find someone who spoke English. They were having a flu clinic at the same place, sponsored by the city, free for medicaid recipients. Way to turn out the vote. They had a sample ballot all filled out - straight ticket democrat. Looked like I was in Mexico.

I left without voting.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 9:32 AM

In the interest of Fair And Balanced, may I present Claire Mcaskill, Victoria Wulsin, Debbie Stabenow, Jennifer Granholm and Maria Cantwell.

All Good.

Add Jean Schmidt and Sonny Bono's widow (Mary) to the list of The Useless.

Posted by: Women of substance | November 7, 2006 9:34 AM

The polls where I go to vote are held at the local Christ Lutherin Church.

Oh well! So much for separation of church and state!

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 9:37 AM

The most important reason that I voted today was to vote against intolerance. I spent four years of my childhood as a reviled minority in the Midwest and I want my children to grow up in a world where everyone has the same rights and acceptance as everyone else. I also complain a LOT about the gov't and don't think that you have a right to complain if you're not doing something to try and change it.

Posted by: Newlywed | November 7, 2006 9:38 AM

Veto where do you vote?

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 9:38 AM

I'll vote in about 3 hours because I should - I believe it is my obligation. I've taken the kids with me before, but not today because they all do have school. Our state has returned to paper ballots so they'll be much less interested watching me fill in little circles. But, in theory, the results should be more accurate and more easily verified.

My company is giving all employees 2 hours off to vote. I think this is wonderful - do others have time off (paid and does not count towards absent time) to vote? We have a significant number of hourly employees and I hope this encourages them to vote too.

Okay, and I vote because I don't think I can complain if I don't try to do *something* to change the way things are!

Posted by: Stacey | November 7, 2006 9:40 AM

When I first read the topic, I thought there'd be a few comments about the natural (to me) conflict between parenting, school/day-care, work, and getting to the polling place. Not so much, evidently.

I believe in voting, in principle, but I voting is one of those rights that has slid from 100% to 80% since we've had kids. Not to belittle voting, but my voting record has gone the way of my once vast pro football knowledge. Our youngest, particularly, can't deal with the non-moving lines. I'm not willing to drop her off at her school for before-care at 7 so I can vote because her dad can't pick her up until close to 6 -- too long a day for her, IMHO. Neither of us works 9 to 5 jobs. In practice, this has meant that only one of us has voted in the off-presidential years for the last 5 years.

Are we the only family that struggles with parenting, balance, and voting?

Posted by: NC lawyer | November 7, 2006 9:42 AM

Very important for everyone to make the effort although our voting system is not perfect. I am a permanent absentee voter. I love the convenience of it.

Posted by: Suzy | November 7, 2006 9:43 AM

I voted, but I had nobody to vote "for". Our choices are miserable. We need to have a third party that would be fiscally responsible, reasonably ethical, secular, and not run by extremists. My only alternative to right wing losers seems to be left wing losers. It leaves me queasy. It's time the center woke up and started a third party.

Posted by: Common Sense | November 7, 2006 9:50 AM

Harris County, Texas (Houston).
Look up the Houston Chronicle online, search back a few days to read the ruckus about free flu shots in the low-income (democratic) areas.

The GOP should have offered free Starbucks at the Republican areas. :)

All's fair in voting, eh?

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 9:51 AM

I've lived in the District for two years but refuse to change my voter registration from Maryland so that my vote counts for something. I woke up two hours earlier than usual just so I could drive out to Montgomery County and back -- that's about the most I'm willing to give for my country though :)

Also, WorkingMomX: I didn't have to show ID, just had to state my name, address (well, former address), and DOB. I'm actually fairly amazed how easy it would be to go back after work and do it all over again.

Posted by: Potomac | November 7, 2006 9:55 AM

The Constitutional Cenvention took place in Philadelphia. At the time Ben Franklin was an old man - loved and respected world wide as an inventor and statesman. The convention was difficult and legthy but after several weeks a compromise was reached. Leaving the building a woman approached Franklin asked "what have you created?" His reply:
"a republic maam...if you can keep it."

Posted by: Queso | November 7, 2006 9:55 AM

Veto -- that was a totally bogus flap. Who's gonna base their decision to vote on a free vaccination when they're readily available at many health clinics? Also, Vote and Vax programs are in effect nationwide, it's only the Texans who got their panties in a bunch.

Posted by: toVeto | November 7, 2006 9:58 AM

I am voting because I want legislators in place who will do something about rising healthcare costs. I want an increased dependent care spending cap so that I can get more than a few months of daycare benefits. I want legislators who care that working parents are having a hard time and want to do something about it.

Posted by: Meagan | November 7, 2006 10:00 AM

Voting for a candidate based soley on their where they fit in a demographic? How sad is that!!!

Posted by: Yep | November 7, 2006 10:01 AM

Absentee ballot. Learn it, love it, live it. If you give a damn, there's no excuse not to vote.

Posted by: to NC lawyer | November 7, 2006 10:01 AM

I'm not voting at all...

Posted by: XXX | November 7, 2006 10:01 AM

I'm not voting at all...

Posted by: XXX | November 7, 2006 10:01 AM

While if I were voting, it would definitely be a democratic vote, I am not voting anymore because I find jury duty quite nauseating. The Supreme Court should pass a law that says Fritos and other food should not be allowed anywhere in the courthouses, except for designated eating areas. Jury Duty made me so sick that I had to relinquish my right to vote. The people selected for jury duty don't want to work; it was like their Frito vacation. Reminded me of when I was a kid in school getting sick while other students ate Fritos during class. Groase.

Posted by: Karen | November 7, 2006 10:01 AM

I voted already and I am proud that my 18 year old college student sent off for an absentee ballot in October and voted absentee in the first election he is eligible to. Hopefully this will be the first of a lifetime habit. I consider this a step toward adulthood and responsibility as much as getting a drivers liscence and graduating from high school. If you see a young person voting today take time to thank them.

Posted by: Maryland | November 7, 2006 10:02 AM

"that was a totally bogus flap. Who's gonna base their decision to vote on a free vaccination when they're readily available at many health clinics?"


You will be surprised. You obviously have not come down to the early voting place as I have. Many are indigent, so they have no transportation. There isn't a CVS nearby to give free flu shots. They show up because democrat turn-out-the-vote folks went door to door telling them about the free flu shots.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 10:02 AM

Absolutely I voted today, and brought the kids along to the polling site. I have voted in every election, including primaries, since I turned 18, and have brought the kids with every time since they were born.

Our 3-year-old is starting to get the civics lesson. She understands it as voting on rules, and who makes the rules.

Especially important with regressive referenda on the ballots, like the anti-gay marriage/civil union initiative here in VA.

Posted by: Preschool Dad | November 7, 2006 10:03 AM

I did not vote this time because I've been disappointed and disillusioned. In the last election I took the time to study the candidates, learn the issues and voted. My candidates won, then didn't live up to their promises, acted against where I thought they stood, etc. I conclude that I can never know the candidate well enough from just reading print media or their websites. They can say anything they want to get your vote. After that, they do whatever the moneyman tells them.

Posted by: Mr.Honda | November 7, 2006 10:08 AM

To "Women of Substance" - I used to live in Washington State. Maria Cantwell is not "Good". She is a left wing rubber stamp from a safe district. She does not have a mind of her own, or at least you couldn't prove it from her voting record. Someone who always votes the party line, no matter which party they belong to, is not representing their district fairly. They stand to take their oath of office in the name of the people they represent, and sit down and govern according to their party's wishes. That is not a "Good" representative, unless you run the Republican or Democratic parties. That is politics, not governance, and nobody should be congratulated for it. I don't want political extremists on the right or left imposing their views on the people. Both are bad for the country. That's why politics make people sick. The only hope is that the extremists from both ends will balance out. It isn't a very strong hope.

Posted by: Common Sense | November 7, 2006 10:08 AM

Potomac, you've just confessed to voter fraud, which I'm pretty sure is a felony. I understand not wanting to give up your vote by being in DC and really do empathize, but if it means that much to you, don't move to DC -- that's the trade-off you make.

Posted by: to Potomac | November 7, 2006 10:08 AM

New Mexico's Heather Wilson - Another loser.

Posted by: Ditto | November 7, 2006 10:10 AM

Hey Veto, I'm not surprised that it happened. Nothing is beyond these politicians.

I don't think change comes from the top and trickles down to the masses. If you want to change society, change each individual one at a time. It starts with yourself.

Posted by: Mr.Honda | November 7, 2006 10:12 AM

Absolutely I voted today; I consider it a duty and honor. I hope that our citizens have awakened to the fact that we have a vote and should use it. I believe there is an arrogance shown by our country when we try to say there should be democracies in other countries....and yet an unimpressive number of our citizens actually vote... I believe this is a shameful situation for our country.

Posted by: Gayle Joseph | November 7, 2006 10:12 AM

I would love it if Judy Feder won in Northern VA (she's running against Wolf). I know her personally and she's wonderful-- sharp as a tack and honorable. I think she would be a great asset to the House.

Posted by: Neighbor | November 7, 2006 10:14 AM

I voted last month. Why wait 'til the last day.
A Canadian asked me why Americans don't vote. Look on the internet, the avg. and median IQs are 100 and 120 respectively. Same answer applies to the negative ads. Fear is the "best" 30 second motivator and by a wide margin the best based on the skew of the target IQs.

Then, of course, if you don't even know who the candidates are, you might be doing the country a service by not voting.

Posted by: Bill | November 7, 2006 10:14 AM

"Potomac, you've just confessed to voter fraud"

That's ok, she has lots of company.
no one will prosecute.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 10:14 AM

Fo4 seems to be one old bitter man. "the blacks" and whine whine rant rant? 2 guess what party line he votes for. *I do realize that this comment is also a sterotype (ironic isn't it)*

Posted by: mrmedicare | November 7, 2006 10:15 AM

"See, I went down to the early voting place last week. I was greeted in Spanish, so I said, "No habla Espanol". Took them 5 minutes to find someone who spoke English. They were having a flu clinic at the same place, sponsored by the city, free for medicaid recipients. Way to turn out the vote. They had a sample ballot all filled out - straight ticket democrat. Looked like I was in Mexico."

What's wrong with the above? Sounds like a pretty savvy plan.

Posted by: Liz | November 7, 2006 10:15 AM

Not only will my husband and I vote after work, but we have our older son involved. My 11-year-old will earn Student Service Learning hours helping at the polls as an election assistant this afternoon. This is a great program in Maryland to get students involved in the election and set lifetime habits.

Posted by: Silver Spring | November 7, 2006 10:18 AM

And there she goes again....Leslie says yet another stupid thing in her blog. Voting based solely on gender rather than political views? how stupid can you be?

Posted by: DC | November 7, 2006 10:20 AM

I voted on my way to work this morning. I haven't missed an election since I became eligible, except for the one when I was at university abroad and didn't receive my absentee ballot in the mail until after the election. My son, who will vote on his way home from work today, maintains that I vote as an act of civil disobedience. When I protest that, no, it's an act of civil responsibility, he allows as to how, in my case, they amount to the same thing.

Posted by: Michael's mom | November 7, 2006 10:23 AM

"Potomac, you've just confessed to voter fraud, which I'm pretty sure is a felony."

No, my permanent address is still in Maryland. I've just been too lazy to change my driver's license, vehicle registration, etc.

Posted by: Potomac | November 7, 2006 10:25 AM

"And there she goes again....Leslie says yet another stupid thing in her blog. Voting based solely on gender rather than political views? how stupid can you be?"

On the contrary! Leslie is very clever. It's a plant to incite more debate on this blog. Who wants a boring 100-comment blog? 300 is the target. Good for business, you know?

Post up!

Posted by: To DC | November 7, 2006 10:25 AM

"I voted today for the first time in my new state, North Carolina, and I was APPALLED that I was not asked for any form of identification....It wasn't like that in Maryland, where we used to live, or where I'm originally from (NY)."

really? i've voted in MD, VA and NY (NY just this morning) and not been asked for id any time.

that said. i vote because it's part of being a citizen, because i'm enough of an idealist to believe it matters. and b/c like my daddy always tol' me "if ya don't vote, then ya c'ain complain 'bout the guy who wins!"

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 10:27 AM

"They show up because democrat turn-out-the-vote folks went door to door telling them about the free flu shots."

Sounds like a great idea. Why not get Republicans to do the same thing? And I'm so very sorry to hear that you were confronted with Spanish-speaking people on election day. That must have been awful for you--imagine people communicating in a language other than English! Are you ok? Do you need a hug?

Posted by: To Veto | November 7, 2006 10:28 AM

I voted because if you don't vote, it's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll be taking away your guns.

Posted by: Redskins 11-5! | November 7, 2006 10:28 AM

I am in the peculiar position of having the right - and duty - to vote in two different countries. That means a lot of time at the polls, and a lot of reading and understanding the issues, and learning the candidates positions, so that I can make an informed decision come voting time. Some people think that I shouldn't be allowed to do so, because that means my loyalty is diluted (between the country I was born in, and the country I was raised in). I think that, on the contrary, I have a duty to both places. My vote today means that I am actively shaping the future of the country my son will grow up in. My vote on December 3, for the Venezuelan presidency, means that I will have a chance to show my disdain for a disgrace of a president that has done nothing but to make the poor poorer, the country's economy a black hole, and the country's image an international joke, in other words, I will be voting to shape the future of the country where a large portion of my relatives still live, and by doing that, hopefully I will help get someone in the government that will have more progressive ideas and will repair the very badly damaged relations my two countries have. Voting is a right and a duty.

Posted by: MDB | November 7, 2006 10:32 AM

I sure did vote!

Posted by: Milwaukee | November 7, 2006 10:34 AM

To foamgnome
Re: changing election day to a Saturday

Saturday is the Sabbath for some folks....

Posted by: George | November 7, 2006 10:36 AM

Liz-

It's shameful that the democrats had the ticket filled out like that. Won't matter much though because the smugness from Rove screams out another voter fraud thanks to cronies sitting on the actual election boards. On a side note our nation is slipping in the corruption standings for the world. SURPRISE!!

Posted by: mrmedicare | November 7, 2006 10:37 AM

I voted in DC this morning alhtough, as others have noted, it doesn't make much difference. It is strange to live in the city where Congress passes laws and makes important decisions, but to have no voice in how those decisions are made. It was quite sad to receive voting materials in the mail and read the "platforms" of the candidates running for "shadow senator." I think it would be interesting if, like some other countries, the U.S. required all citizens to vote and imposed penalties on those who didn't.

Posted by: MKMS | November 7, 2006 10:37 AM

I did not vote.

I got exams today. I gots ta stay in skool udderwise i get stuck in irak.

Posted by: CollegeBoy | November 7, 2006 10:38 AM

Hooray for the parents who bring their young children to the polls! My husband and I voted separately this morning -- my 2.5 year old son went with each of us while the other stayed home with a sick infant. We will continue to bring him and his sister every election year to the polls and instill a sense of pride and responsibility in them with respect to being a voting citizen.

So many gave their lives so that we could vote, and so many come to this country to have a voice. It's a shame not to exercise that right.

Posted by: NoVa Working Mom | November 7, 2006 10:42 AM

We'll be voting in about an hour - Father of 4, our polling place is also a Lutheran Church, supsicious... but I guess if they can find places like that they don't have to close the schools, and that's good.

CMAC, I think you raised a really interesting question. Colorado has around 13 state-wide ballot issues (4 or 5 are proposed constitutional amendments and the rest are referenda), and then there are local ones on top of that. They cover everything from school accounting requirements, civil unions, immigration, marijuana legalization - it's nuts. Half of them are written in such tortured language you can hardly figure out what you are voting for. It's like this every year in Colorado - it's a very interesting question as to whether this is a wise form of governance. On the one hand, politicians are as weasely as you can get; on the other hand, I have little faith that the majority of voters have the time and inclination to sit and seriously study this many intricate questions before election day.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 10:43 AM

To mrmedicare
"It's shameful that the democrats had the ticket filled out like that"

Where were the Republican voting monitors/workers? What did they do about the situation?

Posted by: Liz | November 7, 2006 10:45 AM

I've taken my kids with me to vote in every election for the past 11 years. They get an American flag, we all wear red, white and blue, and I make it a big special deal---fun breakfast to make up for the crack of dawn awakening---and then squeeze in the "use it or lose it" privilege-of-democracy rah-rah lecture. We were all positively gleeful this morning at our poll, where we were proudly the very first voter(s) in our district.

Go Democracy! (and let's hope there's no shenanigans.)

Posted by: Dignity for Single Parents | November 7, 2006 10:49 AM

I voted in a Catholic church. Straight Democrat though.

Posted by: Potomac | November 7, 2006 10:51 AM

Not to worry Liz, the words "SAMPLE" and its Spanish equivalent were printed over the English and Spanish ballots.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 10:51 AM

I ceased voting, once I realized voting is both a scam and an immoral activity.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=010349

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

Posted by: Fascist Nation | November 7, 2006 10:52 AM

I vote because I feel guilty if I don't, even if it is a local election. For years, the suffragettes were beaten, jailed, even killed trying to get women the right to vote. All I have to do is get up half an hour early.

Posted by: WMA | November 7, 2006 10:54 AM

Good job, NoVa Working Mom! NC lawyer, it is possible. Voting takes just a little while and is a great civics lesson for the kids -- incorporate them into your world. If getting to the polls is such a strain, there's always absentee - click on line to get the ballot then have your kids help you seal and mail the envelope. It is such a momumentally important thing to do and takes comparatively little effort, I really don't see the "balance" dilemma!

Posted by: VAtoddlermom | November 7, 2006 10:55 AM

well, either Saturday or Sunday is someone's Sabbath. I still think they could make it easier on people. Maybe make it Sunday-Monday. Does it really hurt anything to have at least one option on a weekend. There is this group that is trying to change the election day to make it on the weekend. I vote for that one. Too bad, we can't vote by internet. I know a lot of fraud. But very convenient.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 10:56 AM

I'm very skeptical about the supposed Dem sample ballot.

Just about every precinct has Dems and Reps. outside handing out sample ballots, with their party line mentioned. That's probably what veto is talking about. Almost every precinct has election monitors from both parties to make sure the vote is going fairly. No way would the election monitors let them get away with this.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 10:57 AM

"Saturday is the Sabbath for some folks...."

Ummmm....so??????

"Fifty-four percent of voters are women, yet only 10 percent of the candidates are women. Vote to put more women in office and give them a say in where our money goes."

Why must every single blog around here include some reference to women being the under-species? Get over it already.


Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 10:59 AM

"I am an African American, and I think that we now have just about reached consensus as a black voting bloc that we no longer have interest in voting for candidates just because of their skin color (I'm talking to YOU, Michael Steele)."

To Angry --

I sure wish more people felt the way you do. It is utterly unbelieveable that a guy (Steele) with no political creds or experience -- but who has been packaged appealingly by the Republican National Committee -- could be running neck-and-neck with an opponent who should be unbeatable because of his extensive experience and record in Congress.

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 10:59 AM

"They can say anything they want to get your vote. After that, they do whatever the moneyman tells them."

Mr. Honda, at 10:08 -- that is absolutely 100% correct.

Posted by: NAC | November 7, 2006 11:00 AM

This is my favorite day. I LOVE Election Day. I will have an extra skip in my step all day. It is the one day that belongs to US. It is the one day THEY SWEAT. I cannot wait to vote after work. My 3-year-old son will be in the booth with me as I excitedly tell him what an important thing we're doing.

Posted by: go vote! | November 7, 2006 11:01 AM

"They can say anything they want to get your vote. After that, they do whatever the moneyman tells them."

Mr. Honda, at 10:08 -- that is absolutely 100% correct.

Posted by: NAC | November 7, 2006 11:01 AM

the ratio of troll to coherent commentary is high today.

Posted by: dotted | November 7, 2006 11:02 AM

I did NOT vote this time, as each of the candidates looks just as bad as the other. Since I do not believe any of them will effect a reasonable change in anything, seems to me it doesn't matter who wins.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:03 AM

I agree with you Meagan. some of these referendums and amendments have so much "Lawyer Lingo", that it is very confusing to know exactly what a person is voting for. Around here in Northern VA, I think the people who design the wording for the have figured out that if they splash the word "education" throughout the text of the sentences, no matter what the referendum is really trying to push, it will almost always pass.

As a rule of thumb, I don't bote for anything that contains more than 3 semicolons.

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 11:04 AM

Karen:

What a shameful excuse for not voting!

Posted by: star11 | November 7, 2006 11:05 AM

Oregon has had vote-by-mail for many years now, so we avoid the whole "it's hard to vote on a weekday" thing. My husband I never vote early enough to actually mail them though! We usually put them in the drop boxes at about 7:45 on election day. Miraculously, I dropped them off yesterday afternoon this time so we were way ahead of the game.

I agree with the comments about voting absentee. I did so all through college, and actually voted in my first presedential election from Austria. It didn't feel quite the same, but it's still important to vote no matter where you are.

Posted by: momof4 | November 7, 2006 11:06 AM

"...college students still have to go to class/work all day and find time to vote? i am NOT voting today becuase i dont have an opportunity to do so."

aml --

Believe it or not, working adults also have to "work all day and find time to vote." That's how it is in real life.

Stop whining and figure out -- like everyone else has to -- how to fit voting into your busy day.

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 11:06 AM

foamgnome, Colorado had really extended early voting opportunities this year - I think a full week including weekend days on either side. We didn't make it for various reasons, but they did a big campaign encouraging early voting because they're expecting such a big turnout this year because of the ballot issues on gay marriage/civil unions (especially now with Haggert's downfall!!).

I think that was great and I don't understand why that should not be more common - I agree with you that it seems ridiculous to make the opportunity so limited.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 11:06 AM

CollegeBoy -

Please do everyone a favor and stay in school so that you may soon learn the difference between a botched joke and fact.

Posted by: NewYork | November 7, 2006 11:10 AM

Pittypat, I do think it marks a huge positive for race relations in this country when the black candidates (Steele, Harold Ford) can be just as mediocre and unexciting as the white candidates. :-)

Posted by: Angry | November 7, 2006 11:11 AM

CollegeBoy //I got exams today. I gots ta stay in skool udderwise i get stuck in irak.//

Ha! Ha! That's the funniest thing I've read today!

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 11:12 AM

"As a rule of thumb, I don't bote for anything that contains more than 3 semicolons."

That's a good call, Father of 4! Anymore than that and you know they're just screwing with you. This year, for some reason, on one of the sample ballot things we got, one of the referenda was in all capitals, and that was enough to make me want to vote against it. Augh, who can read a tortured paragraph that's also in all caps? I suppose that's not really an issue for you now ;), but it drives me nuts. I did finally muscle my way through it and am voting against it on substantive grounds as well.

By the way, how does your voice software read the little smiley faces we occasionally put in there?

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 11:12 AM

We all need to vote. Not to do so is giving up one of the free world's greatest rights. Even if, as many people say, you feel like you have no real choice (as in all the choices are bad and unlikely to change anything), at least by voting, you are expressing your opinion through your vote. Politicians have to hear us collectively, and if you don't vote, you're remaining silent, which is dangerous in a free democratic society. Especially for women and minorities, the right to vote was hard won. Having had the experience of traveling to and living in various Third World countries, where rights for the average person are few and far between, and having seen what those societies are like, I would never, ever not exercise my right to have a say in who leads and makes decisions for my country. Democracies thrive on an educated, informed citizenry that contributes to the dialogue.

Posted by: Arlington PT-working mom | November 7, 2006 11:13 AM

"To look at it from the other side, if you don't vote, you're techincally not responsible for the people that are put into office and their subsequent actions, so don't you have every right to complain about them?"

No. You had the opportunity to vote AGAINST them, and you chose not to use it. So you forfeit your right to complain.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:13 AM

To Fascist Nation:

I looked at the link you posted, and the reason I vote is to make sure people like you don't have too much of a say in this country. Freak.

Posted by: Yikes | November 7, 2006 11:16 AM

I vote because Susan B. Anthony will rise from her grave and smite me if I don't.

I also vote absentee. First, because it's paper and pen and therefore more trustworthy; second because it saves time; third because I can sit on my couch with a cup of tea and the information booklet and mark the ballot at my leisure. I marked my ballot and mailed it in well before Election Day this year.

Posted by: Flyonthewall | November 7, 2006 11:16 AM

Thanks for not voting:)

Posted by: To VETO | November 7, 2006 11:19 AM

"To look at it from the other side, if you don't vote, you're techincally not responsible for the people that are put into office and their subsequent actions, so don't you have every right to complain about them?"

No. You had the opportunity to vote AGAINST them, and you chose not to use it. So you forfeit your right to complain.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:19 AM

I vote because it is the purest expression of my belief in democracy, and because my ancestors fought and died that I might have the right to do so.

Also, I voted today to throw the bums out.

Posted by: mffarrow | November 7, 2006 11:20 AM

"Not to belittle voting, but my voting record has gone the way of my once vast pro football knowledge."

NC lawyer--

You "belittle" voting by the very act of not bothering to do it.

Ever heard the words "absentee ballot"?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:21 AM

Since absentee ballots are not even counted unless the vote is close, ala 2000, I don't see that voting absentee truly is participating in the process. Is it better than not voting at all? certainly. is it fully participating in the same way as same-day voting? I say, no. Also, if you vote weeks before Election Day, there's no opportunity to react to last minute information. if you're voting the state party ticket, perhaps you don't care about information. Undecideds care greatly.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:23 AM

Actually I did vote today, just not during early voting because I no habla espanol.
FYI, I did not vote donkey (the ass) or elephant (the bull).

Posted by: Vote | November 7, 2006 11:25 AM

Father of 4 - by not voting for anything with more than 3 semi-colons you may be playing into the hands of one side or the other. I have seen issues that use double negatives, etc so that you may think by voting yes you are actually supporting something, but when the law is actually enacted you aren't. If you are unsure what an issue says, go to a source you trust and see what they recommend.

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 11:28 AM

to anon at 11:21: God forbid someone mention balance or tension between parenting and otherwise important civic duties. yes, as you might imagine, I'm quite familiar with the term, "absentee ballot". Thanks for your enlightening post. I won't bother again discussing my petty balance problems for those of you who have it all figured out. btw, I'll be there at 6:15 to 6:30 tonight for those of you who are truly concerned about this year's elections and not just pious bashers.

Posted by: NC lawyer | November 7, 2006 11:29 AM

By the By, Veto, here in Virginia, sample ballots are handed out by the representative from each party. Depending on whether you take it from the table that says Webb or the table that says Allen, the sample ballot is filled out straight-ticket for that party's candidates, and has for the referenda supported by that caucus. I even got one in the mail this week.

The practice is neither illegal, nor immoral, nor even unwarranted. Don't want it? Don't pick it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:32 AM

Redistricting bums me out. I am appalled at the state of campaign finance laws. I find it hard to find candidates who articulate something I can agree with on ONE issue, much less many of them. But I'm not giving up! I vote because I CAN! As a woman, I feel I should vote just because there are millions of women in other countries who cannot simply because they have different chromosomal makeup.

Posted by: The original just a thought | November 7, 2006 11:33 AM

To alex.mom, DC actually has 3 Electoral Votes (Thanks to the 23rd Amendment passed in 1961). It does not, however, have voting representation in Congress.

As an American, I believe that I have a responsibility to vote. If you don't vote, don't complain about the direction this country is moving.

Posted by: Sara | November 7, 2006 11:35 AM

I'm voting because I can. I just became a naturalized US Citizen last December and have been looking forward to this for years. I never thought I'd be casting my first votes at a time of undeniable political enmity and a point at which global opinion of our great country is at its lowest levels ever (an educated guess). I'm an Independent in MD and casting votes across the spectrum on state and national matters. But ultimately, the Republicans have squandered a precious opportunity to prove they can govern us effectively and fairly, so I hope to be part of the wave that injects new blood into Congress and changes our system for the better.

Posted by: DubTee | November 7, 2006 11:35 AM

Angry,

Heh-heh. Right you are. :>)

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 11:37 AM

Meagan, ;-) = semicolen minus right paren.

When I first ran across them, I just thought they were computer generated garbage. Then I googled smilie...

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 11:37 AM

Nice to know that it's run fairly in VA.
Down in the third ward, all I saw were dem sample ballots, and mostly in spanish.
This was during early voting.
Maybe the Republicans just gave up on this precint. can't blame them though. some of the voters even showed their mexican ID cards when asked for ID.

Posted by: Veto | November 7, 2006 11:39 AM

My 6 year-old daughter pushed the buttons for me as she has for the past few years--we hit the "vote" button together. We vote because we care and because we want to be sure our elected officials (who are able to check voting record not only by precinct but by household) know that our demographic group does vote.

For any college students out there--go vote! If you think politicians ignore your concerns it is because people in your age group don't vote!

Posted by: Herndon | November 7, 2006 11:39 AM

"I'll be there at 6:15 to 6:30 tonight for those of you who are truly concerned about this year's elections and not just pious bashers."

NC lawyer --

Good! Glad you changed your mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:42 AM

it is every citizen's responsibility to vote.

Posted by: dontaskme | November 7, 2006 11:45 AM

Some people on here REALLY need to get a sense of humor (am looking in your direction New York and Divorced Mom of 1)

Posted by: funnyguy | November 7, 2006 11:46 AM

And what do I need to get a sense of humor about funnyguy?

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 11:47 AM

Megan - I just voted (Loudoun County, VA)and there were 3 consitutional amendments and 8-9 bond issues (mostly school and road funding) on top of the Senate and House race. It took me a good 5-7 minutes to vote and I am an informed voter. It is a lot of information to digest at the polling place- it was taking some people about 20 minutes to vote. I saw 2 people ask for another ballot because they made a mistake. At least the lines would be shorter if people were more informed.

My opinion: If everyone were more informed we would have vastly different outcomes in elections.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 11:47 AM

Why vote in DC. when there is still no democracy. We do not have any voting representation in the Congress. And when you look at what Eleanor Holmes Norton offers, you know that Aunt Jemima and Uncle Tom still live in DC.

Posted by: Slavery Lives In DC | November 7, 2006 11:48 AM

"My 6 year-old daughter pushed the buttons for me as she has for the past few years--we hit the "vote" button together."

Today's blog has been full of heart-warming stories of parents taking their tots to vote, wanting to instill a sense of public duty early on in their little lives.

The idea here is admirable. However, each parent who takes Jr. into the booth so that he/she can push the buttons and "vote" is wasting valuable time and causing other voters to have to wait even longer so that Jr. can get that civics lesson.

There's nothing wrong with taking the kids to the polling place and giving them the civics lecture on the way to or from. But, for crying out loud, leave the kids to sit on the chairs that most polling places have while you go into the booth. (And, if the kids are too young, hire a sitter, ask a neighbor or spouse to watch them, or get an absentee ballot.)

Other voters, trying to get to work on time or home after a long day, shouldn't have to wait while you use the voting booth to educate your kid.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 11:54 AM

I voted this morning because I really want change. But I also vote because I can and I should. I have voted in every local and national election since becoming a citizen in 1995. In my country I had never voted because we had not had any elections for almost 20 years due to civil war. I have even voted in primaries, school board races etc. It sounds trite but people are still dying all over the world for the right to just walk into a preccint and vote freely. So even if you are voting against instead of for, even if none of the candidates fully satisfies, it is my opinion that we should still show at the polls. If we do not vote, our democracy, even if imperfect, will die.
With regard to voting for a women: only if I agree with her views. For ex: I would vote for a martian rather then for Kathryn Harris in Florida...

Posted by: FC mom | November 7, 2006 11:55 AM

[by not voting for anything with more than 3 semi-colons you may be playing into the hands of one side or the other.]

Which reminds me, how many semicolons, colons, and commas does that anti-gay amendment to the VA constitution have in it. Several people have attempted to explain it to me, but I still haven't been able to figure it out. Severl persons on the Metro gave me a pamplet on it and said the new law would prevent gay couples from getting married in Virginia. But I didn't know that gay couples could get married to each other in Virginia in the first place. Voting either "Yes" or "No" apparently won't change this.

So I'll just go with the 3 semicolon rule...

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 11:55 AM

"My opinion: If everyone were more informed we would have vastly different outcomes in elections."

So true CMAC

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 11:56 AM

cmac, I totally agree about how things would be different with an informed voting public. I just got back from the polls - I would say I was in the booth for at least 10 minutes (fortunately there were no lines!) reading and making sure I had hit the right buttons. And, interestingly, that one referenda, and two others, were still in all caps, while the rest were not. Weird.


On ID - here we have to present some type of verification, but it can be a utility bill or a letter from a school or library with your name and address on it. Most people use drivers licenses, but there's a big list of different forms of verification you can use.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 11:58 AM

To anon at 11:54 - Several people have pointed out that reading the full text of what you are being asked to vote for takes time too. There were a smattering of children at my polling place this morning and I don't feel like their presence impeded the process. Frankly it took me almost 25 minutes to check-in -- it was only a 5 minute wait once I had my plastic card for the machine.

Posted by: Product of a Working Mother | November 7, 2006 12:01 PM

Anybody can vote. Just fill out a voter registration card 30days in advance. When you get the cert, bring your utility bill to the polling place and voila!
Don't worry about all the technical restrictions like being a citizen, not a felon, etc. No one checks.
You want proof? Millions of illegals are voting today. Does your vote really count?

Posted by: Vote | November 7, 2006 12:03 PM

Potomac, you are committing voter fraud and you should be ashamed of yourself! I live in DC and I will vote today because voting for mayor really affects my day to day life. A lot of people in DC are really in tune with national politics, but don't care about the local politics. Yet they complain about the smoking band and public services. You pay taxes here, you have a voice here.

Posted by: WDC | November 7, 2006 12:06 PM

Potomac, you are committing voter fraud and you should be ashamed of yourself! I live in DC and I will vote today because voting for mayor really affects my day to day life. A lot of people in DC are really in tune with national politics, but don't care about the local politics. Yet they complain about the smoking ban and public services. You pay taxes here, you have a voice here.

Posted by: WDC | November 7, 2006 12:06 PM

"You want proof? Millions of illegals are voting today. Does your vote really count?"

Er... sorry, Vote. That doesn't count as proof.

Posted by: Neighbor | November 7, 2006 12:07 PM

I voted with full enthusiasm in hopes that the Democrats will as many seats as possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's more than time for change...

Posted by: A Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | November 7, 2006 12:07 PM

Divorced mom of 1, based upon your reasoning, how many other cities should deserve 2 Senators of their own?

Posted by: Rufus | November 7, 2006 12:10 PM

I almost forgot, retrocession would eliminate the need for the DC Department of Motor Vehicles as those duties would be taken over by Maryland.

That alone justifies it!

Posted by: Rufus | November 7, 2006 12:11 PM

"But I didn't know that gay couples could get married to each other in Virginia in the first place. Voting either "Yes" or "No" apparently won't change this."

Actually, Father of 4, my understanding is the VA amendment is worded broadly enough that it could eliminate existing rights for unmarried couples (gay or straight) related to adoption and other issues. It would also prohibit voters or legislators from ever approving civil unions. WI I believe has a similarly broad initiative.

CO, on the other hand, has a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and a referendum that would establish statutory civil unions for same-sex couples, which means that someone could vote yes on both (although I think most people only support one or the other). It's a very interesting year for this issue.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 12:12 PM

I did vote this morning. The reminder was good though. With a newborn less than a month old, I've got some brain mush going on. The only reason I remembered it was election day was because when I dropped the four-year-old off at school I noticed another parent wearing the "I voted" sticker.

Posted by: Rockville Mom | November 7, 2006 12:17 PM

I voted for Glenda Parker, Judy Feder because they are women.

Posted by: MeVoted! | November 7, 2006 12:19 PM

I voted today because if I don't someone else will and they will decide on policies that affect my life. I also took my 18-month old daughter for the first time. I hope that by taking her to vote that she'll learn about the importance of voting too.

Posted by: voting in cali | November 7, 2006 12:19 PM

F04 - The marriage amendment to the VA State constitution is just that - amending the consitution. There is a law in VA that prevents gays from marrying, also prohibits civil unions. The amendment is a measure to prevent the law from being overturned via the Judiciary.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 12:25 PM

The Freakonomics economist says most economists do not vote because there is little or no value to it.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 12:26 PM

Rockville Mom, newborn? boy or girl?

Congratulations! :-)

Posted by: Father of 4 | November 7, 2006 12:27 PM

I voted twice. Went to another precinct and did it again. Just showed an old utility bill and they gave me the code to cast a ballot!

Posted by: Twice! | November 7, 2006 12:28 PM

I voted this morning.

I didn't pat myself on the back for it.

I left my kids at home with Mom, because voting requires standing in line. Kids whine, figet, and whine when they have to stand in line for a long time. The kid behind me sure did.

I'll take care of the kids when my wife votes this evening.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | November 7, 2006 12:28 PM

Twice - Are you proud that you illegally voted twice?

Posted by: CMAC | November 7, 2006 12:32 PM

"Why must every single blog around here include some reference to women being the under-species? Get over it already."

Amen to that!!!

Posted by: Yep | November 7, 2006 12:39 PM

I forgot to register in my new state and forgot to get an absentee ballot for Virginia. Yes, I know, I should know better considering the important things on the ballot here: stem cell research and a ban on smoking in restaurants among other things.

Anyway, my husband is voting today and no he won't be voting for a woman because she is a woman, he will be voting for her because she is the better candidate.

Potomac, I'm not sure if you meant to imply the irony of voting democrat in a catholic church, but I am catholic and I always vote straight ticket democrat.

Posted by: Scarry | November 7, 2006 12:41 PM

Straight republican, I would rather die than hand this country over to moveon.org, michael moore and the other america haters.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 12:44 PM

Arlington Dad - There was a pack of kids running around the precinct I voted in. The table that the poll workers had their "snacks" on was being raided by a couple of these kids and I kept looking around for the parents. Finally a poll worker came over and shooed (shued? Sp?)them away. Also, there was a bus full of elderly citizens that came in while I was there and the same group of kids were tripping the elderly folks - knocking their walkers, running in front of them real fast. It was annoying.

This behavior is not specific to voting precincts - I see poorly behaved kids and unattentive parents everywhere. I left my kids at home, they have voted with me before but it was when my husband and I went together and we took turns.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 12:47 PM

I think Micheal Moore hates big business not America.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 12:48 PM

I voted today. I vote because is the one active means for me to participate in my government. I may not sway public policy or vote in congress, but I CAN vote.

WI has same day voter registration. I don't know why other states don't have this. We are not required to show ID. I am originally from ND, where there is no voter registration and no voter ID required. Pretty easy.

To AMI,
I could say quite a bit but I will leave my response to this. There are any number of people or offices you could have contacted to find out how and where to vote. Stop waiting for the grown-up world to cater to you and next time, take some initiative.

Posted by: LM in WI | November 7, 2006 12:48 PM

I'll vote this afternoon -- after I pick up my son from school. He's 11; we adopted him internationally, and we want him to see the process that would not be available to him in his native country.

My husband and I were doing our voting "homework" last evening (in CA, there is a LOT of it, with all the measure and propositions), and he weighed in strongly on a couple of issues that he's been hearing about on the radio and tv. It was quite interesting.

I'm trying to get him to understand that my vote is MY vote, and that I don't have to tell anyone how I voted. It's a great process to go through for our little family.

Posted by: Adoptive Mom | November 7, 2006 12:49 PM

Scarry

How is it your husband registered to vote and you didn't?

Posted by: Liz | November 7, 2006 12:50 PM

"What do people think of the AARP ads with www.dontvote.com?"

I tried that last week. IMHO, identifying a person on sight does not mean I am qualified to vote. I might not recognize Nancy Pelosi on sight, but I know what she stands for. I listen to news radio more than I watch TV news. Does that make me uninformed? I don't think so. It just means I don't recogize her picture. Also, Alec Baldwin? Christina Agulera? What do they have to do with anything. You could miss the pop culture, get every one political right, and the sight would still tell you not to vote. Finally, I noticed they picked the worst pictures of democrats, but professional head shots of republicans.

Now on to the issue of family balance and voting. When I was in line this morning, there was a mom there with her 3 kids, they all looked under 5. Maybe she wasn't expecting the line at 7am, but I felt so bad for her. They were running everywhere (as kids do when they are bored). She had to get out of line a few times to chase and/or give them a talking to, but everyone was nice and let her back in the same place. The poll workers kept saying if you get out of line, you have to go to the back.

Posted by: Ruby | November 7, 2006 12:53 PM

pATRICK, when you hate liberty, the terrorists win.

Posted by: america lover | November 7, 2006 12:54 PM

My 4-year-old thought her grandmother was taking her "on a boat" today, instead of "to vote." This evolved into a discussion of what voting means and reinforced for me how critical it is for all of us to make the most of the rights and responsibilities we have as U.S. citizens, including voting every chance we get.

Posted by: BSuze | November 7, 2006 12:54 PM

Rufus - why do people in a city have less rights than people in a state? Why because we regard the District of Columbia as the same as the City of... Do you feel that for these people to get the same representation in congress they must join an existing political definition? You seem to be concerned based on the definition of a city. Remember the Senate represents political boundries irrespective of size (RI vs. Cal.) or population (NY vs. Montana). We can add states (just haven't done it in almost half a century) so why because the District, functions like a city do we need assume that it must be part of an exisiting state and not be its own?

Posted by: Divorced mom of 1 | November 7, 2006 12:55 PM

I went to a local school and pushed some buttons on a computer screen. I have no idea whether I actually "voted", though they gave me a sticker.


One thing that bugged me was how hard it was to figure out what would be on the ballot. I managed to find out ahead of time about the state propositions on the SBE web site, but there were two Fairfax County propositions that I had to read at the polling station. There should be an easier way to find out in advance what the proposals are and what the pro and con arguments are.

Posted by: lart from above | November 7, 2006 12:57 PM

I love liberty that is why I vote against the stalinist pc crowd every chance I get.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 12:58 PM

I will not vote today because we already have the best government money can buy. The circus that passes as politics in the US today is a joke, and the naivitee of the "patriots" that play into the game of the trully smart, rich and powerful is apalling. It's no coincidence that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening. The "values" that politicians espouse are nothing but "feel good" smoke screens for the electorate. Both major parties are tools of special interest groups, and once in office, the candidates could care less about you and me...as a matter of fact, they take advantage of their position and forget that they actually work for you and me! Have you tried to talk to your Congressman without having to prove your worth lately? It's all about who owes who a favor once they get to Washington.

Like I said, we already have the best goventment money can buy. Why even bother with the electoral process? I guess you CAN fool all of the people all of the time after all.

Posted by: JC in DC | November 7, 2006 1:00 PM

you define liberty narrowly to say you love it, but you hate real liberty - ie, dissent, and that's just what they want you do.

Posted by: america lover | November 7, 2006 1:01 PM

I don't think we should be in Iraq oppressing people with checkpoints and security sweeps, thereby teaching people to hate Americans, and then lining up our young men and women to be shot by people who are defending their country from us. We're not defending America or anybody's freedoms by occupying Iraq.

Posted by: lart from above | November 7, 2006 1:01 PM

Scarry,

I registerd but my husband didn't. He went to but it was 27 days before election and you have to do it 30 days prior here in Illinois. Just an oversight on our part but I have been having fun teasing him because he is such a big political and news junkie and now he can't complain about anything and I will continue to give him a hard time if the people he likes don't get in.

Posted by: I voted | November 7, 2006 1:02 PM

Just voted in MoCo (Silver Spring, to be specific). Smooth process, no glitches. They had an unofficial voter count outside the gymnasium, something like 230 Dems voted, 25 Republicans, and 45 "others" (plus me, I guess). I knew it would be lopsided in my area, but wow... Wearing my "I voted / Yo Vote" sticker with pride...

Posted by: Indy53 | November 7, 2006 1:06 PM

I voted because I'm a vet. I'd feel pretty damned foolish not voting after having spent ten years defending citizens right to vote, eh?

Posted by: BL | November 7, 2006 1:08 PM

to anon at 11:42:

I didn't change my mind. I was always planning to vote this year. I made the mistake, however, of admitting publicly that it's logistically challenging at least for my family, and I suspect for many dual-employed-outside-the-home couples, to get to the polls and vote. I don't want to drag my kids along every year. (I've taken them both once for the civics lesson). They're quite tired by 6:30 p.m. I don't like inconveniencing other after-work voters with having to listen to me parenting and/or watch my daughter run around -- and around -- and around. I'm not fond of absentee balloting because I don't trust that those votes are counted -- at least where I live. I agree fully that voting is both a privilege and a responsibility, but it's not always easy once you have kids. similar to parenting, to bring the topic full circle.

Posted by: NC lawyer | November 7, 2006 1:09 PM

Mr.medicare,

All I have to say, is F of 4 doesn't see color when he votes. I'll vouch for that.

Why do you think he calls them 'sneak' beans?

Posted by: Mr. EstrogenCentral | November 7, 2006 1:10 PM

I vote because it's awesometastic! But I don't play identity politics. That's just ignorant. I'll vote for a woman if she represents my views.

To ami: I graduated college in 2004. I was living away from home the whole time. I got an absentee ballot in 2002 (I was just a little too young in 2000 to be eligible to vote). I've actually had more problems casting a vote for American Idol than I have for American government - absentee ballots were easy, but the busy signals when trying to phone in for Elliot Yamin were frustrating as hell. Quit making the rest of us young people look bad, and just educate yourself about your options.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 1:11 PM

Scarry

Was your father able to get to a polling place to vote when he was working long hours as a coal miner?

Posted by: George | November 7, 2006 1:14 PM

Ruby - wasn't the don't vote message to know what the candidates stand for before you vote? As for the head shots of politicans - not sure what you meant but the AARP is a left of center organization so I'd be surprised if they want Democrats to look bad.

As for celebrities and political messages - if you are voting for a candidate because a certain celebrity told you to - God help us.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 1:19 PM

I'm voting today but its not because I think it will accomplish anything, its because if I don't I can't live with myself for trying to do everything possible to make this nation better. Having only two candidates that can realistically win is like flipping a coin and calling it in the air. Neither party represents what is best for the public, the Republicans have become scandalous, religious fanatics and the Democrats lack direction and leadership.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 1:20 PM

I tried to vote...went to the polling place, which is a school, but absolutely no parking (the street parking was taken up by residents, and the school was in session!) So, I didn't have time to haunt the area. I had to get to work. I'll try again tonight when school is out.

The aml (Ami) person sounds like my friends: "I dunno where to find info on absentee balloting." One of my friends happens to be gay and I told him he waited to damn long to register (did it like a week ago) so he has no say in Virginia's gay marriage issue up for decision today. He's kicking himself now :-)

Posted by: CyanSquirrel | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

I voted this morning, straight ticket for the first time since 1978, to cancel out the votes that will be cast later today at the exact same polling place by my uber-Republican colleague in the office next door. We've gotten along great for many years-- as long as the subject doesn't get anywhere near politics.

Posted by: wihntr | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

I voted this morning, straight ticket for the first time since 1978, to cancel out the votes that will be cast later today at the exact same polling place by my uber-Republican colleague in the office next door. We've gotten along great for many years-- as long as the subject doesn't get anywhere near politics.

Posted by: wihntr | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

Dissent is fine and definitely part of liberty. Undermining your country and wanting to burn down the foundations of the country is not. Dissent by the groups I mention is america hating. Not all dissent is valid. I don't support nazi's, communists and their ilk either.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

I tried to vote...went to the polling place, which is a school, but absolutely no parking (the street parking was taken up by residents, and the school was in session!) So, I didn't have time to haunt the area. I had to get to work. I'll try again tonight when school is out.

The aml (Ami) person sounds like my friends: "I dunno where to find info on absentee balloting." One of my friends happens to be gay and I told him he waited to damn long to register (did it like a week ago) so he has no say in Virginia's gay marriage issue up for decision today. He's kicking himself now :-)

Posted by: CyanSquirrel | November 7, 2006 1:22 PM

To Twice! I actually did a paper on that during the last election. I voted in my home precinct, then went to another one and gave them some BS about why my name wasn't on the sheet. They let me register on the spot with my fake ID, then gave me a code for the machine. I went to the booth but did not cast a vote. So technically, I did not vote twice, but I got an A on the paper.

Scary to know that voter fraud is so easy, eh?

Posted by: Senior | November 7, 2006 1:24 PM

I vote today because it is one of the greatest PRIVLEDGES and RIGHTS we have as citizens of this country. There are so many Americans who came before us who gave up so much to ensure that we all have the right to vote today. Remember them when you go to the polls and be proud that you are excercising one of the greatest freedoms in the world.

Posted by: Briana | November 7, 2006 1:27 PM

moveon.org and Michael Moore are trying to burn down the foundation of america by encouraging people to vote against republicans? you don't tolerate or like dissent, my friend, you are a totalitarian wrapping yourself in an american flag in an attempt to justify your dictatorial stance

Posted by: america lover | November 7, 2006 1:29 PM

SENIOR, is one of those people who cry like a baby about doing research when the feds show up. Take some advice, leave the "research" to others. Voter fraud is a serious issue.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 1:31 PM

Wihnter, I typically cancel out my husband's vote. This time we're actually voting the same way on some things, but are still canceling each other out on others. Guess I'm getting more conservative as I age (he's definitely not getting more liberal).

Posted by: Sam | November 7, 2006 1:31 PM

BL - loved your comment. If I still taught high school, I'd put that quote on the "why I vote' board.

Posted by: The original just a thought | November 7, 2006 1:33 PM

Liz,

My husband had to get a drivers license to get plates because his were expired. It was a big hassle, and I didn't have time for that hassle after moving across the country, finding a day care, setting up an office, etc, etc, etc. When I realized I should go register, I was too late by like 5 days. It sucks, but at least I can admit my faults when I do things dumb things.

I voted,

I know I am the same way as your husband. I will never live this down. My father yelled at me over the phone from Ohio! Where by the way, the democrats are out in full swing!

George,

My father always voted. I think they just went to work a little later in the day, but they all always voted. For the last five years of his working life, he worked days in a factory. Working days made it easier for him to vote.

Posted by: scarry | November 7, 2006 1:33 PM

I have to add - my buddy did the same but this time with a dead guy's name he found on the obit pages. He printed out a phone bill, changed it to that guy's name and address, and went to that guy's precinct. All the info was so easy to find on the internet. He got to chance to vote twice too, but he did not push the buttons.

Posted by: Senior | November 7, 2006 1:35 PM

Scarry

How is it your husband registered to vote and you didn't?

why do you care?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 1:37 PM

Hey patrick, we studied about voter fraud. it is more rampant than you think. Try this - look up the census for low-income neighborhoods. They usually vote democratic. Go to that precinct today and observe for 1 hour. You will find some very interesting signs of voter fraud.

BTW, I was given the opportunity to cast a second ballot due to the ineptness of the system. It was a sting, just like what Dateline and news stations do. I never voted twice.

Posted by: Senior | November 7, 2006 1:40 PM

I waited in line for 30mins then they announced that the machines were broken. Either wait indefinitely or come back later, don't know when. I might just give up voting this time!

Posted by: Aargh! | November 7, 2006 1:45 PM

The so-called "marriage amendment" in VA will not change anything regarding "gay" marriage, which is already illegal in the Commonwealth. But it will jeopardize the safety of those who are not married but living in domestic situations. There may no longer be the option to obtain Protective Orders for those who are abused by their partners to whom they are not married. This happened in Ohio two years ago and the Courts are still sorting it out. In the meantime, abusers are free from restraint to continue abusing knowing the legal options to stop them are limited. Other legal options for non-married couples are also in jeopardy. Since "gay" marriage is already illegal, why are we even considering tampering with our Constitution? I hear the argument that this takes the decision-making power away from liberal judges (are there such a thing in Virginia?!)to rule on gay marriage. But now you are depending on those same judges to consider even more weighty matters - the well-being of those who are being abused. Read the whole amendment, not just the first line, and vote NO!

Posted by: Safety4All | November 7, 2006 1:45 PM

Great points. I also love the irony of amending the state's Bill of Rights to take rights away from people (unmarried couples).

Posted by: To Safety4All | November 7, 2006 1:49 PM

Scarry and I voted,

I'm laughing at your stories because I am just the same - I suppose one of the upsides of moving and not having a job lined up was that we had time to go hang around at the DMV all day to get registered, but if my husband hadn't gotten us organized, I'm sure I would have put it off forever. I remember just barely making the deadlines in the past when I needed to change my registration or get an absentee ballot.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 1:49 PM

Just back from the polls - no line, and in light of the above, I'm happy to have filled out my little circles on the paper ballots. At the end, we fed the paper into the machine to read it, watched the tally of number of voters go up one to confirm it was counted, and then went on with the day. Sometimes it is frustrating to vote "against" a candidate rather than "for" one, but I take great pride and joy in having had the ability today to vote *against* Heather Wilson here in New Mexico. For my husband and myself this is important because of the months he served in Iraq - 3 years ago with no progress since then - and the years some of the folks he was there with have served in Iraq, Afghanista and other equally horrible places. We definitely have a personal stake in the outcome of this election and believe in the power of our votes.

Posted by: Stacey | November 7, 2006 1:51 PM

Of course I am going to vote. Those who choose not to vote are not worthy of citizenship and are merely the apathetic uninvolved excuse making whining garbage the rest of us have to carry on our backs.

Posted by: Joe Hellner | November 7, 2006 1:52 PM

Of course I am going to vote. Those who choose not to vote are not worthy of citizenship and are merely the apathetic uninvolved excuse making whining garbage the rest of us have to carry on our backs.

Posted by: Joe Hellner | November 7, 2006 1:52 PM

For oh please who posted way up in this thread, one of my visions of government that seems to be wishful thinking is for the opinion of the voters to matter more to the elected than the wishes of the corporations who sponsor the lobbyists who write the legislation that the elected then push to the floor of Congress. We the voters are courted assiduously for a few month at the end of the elected's term in office and then rarely thought of again.

Posted by: eb | November 7, 2006 1:52 PM

pATRICK, I feel truly sorry for you. Take a step away from all the hatred and anti-liberal propaganda that you have obviously been fed. As a proud, card-carrying liberal, I do not hate America. I have always had a flagpole in front of my house and proudly fly the flag. The same goes for my freinds -- all liberals, all lovers of America. So your baseless generalizations are wrong.

I suppose by your rationale, we'd still be English subjects and the glorious events of 1776 and 1789 would never habe happened because you think citizenship means kowtowing to leaders and keeping one's mouth shut.

America doesn't mean blind allegiance to our "leaders." The very essence of America is questioning leadership and holding them accountable for their actions.

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 1:52 PM

My husband, myself and 5 year old daughter all went to the polls this morning. I gave her my voting sticker and her dad's.

When I was in high school a friend of my parents lost an election by 3 votes. The pay was lousy but the health insurance, which he did not get was terrific. It was hard to watch a good family suffer. Please vote the pools are open for a couple of more hours in the DC area.

Posted by: shdd | November 7, 2006 1:53 PM

For oh please who posted way up in this thread, one of my visions of government that seems to be wishful thinking is for the opinion of the voters to matter more to the elected than the wishes of the corporations who sponsor the lobbyists who write the legislation that the elected then pushes to the floor of Congress. We the voters are courted assiduously for a few month at the end of the elected's term in office and then rarely thought of again. I'm voting today because I always do, although more and more often I doubt that anything good will come of it.

Posted by: eb | November 7, 2006 1:54 PM

To Aargh:

Are you in Montgomery County (MD)? Your experience reminds me of what happened during the Primary.

Posted by: Jen | November 7, 2006 1:54 PM

I am voting today because some many people have given their lives for me to do so.

Posted by: Bart | November 7, 2006 1:59 PM

"I am voting today because some many people have given their lives for me to do so."

Amen

Posted by: Ditto | November 7, 2006 2:05 PM

I voted about 10 days ago by absentee ballot in person in the lobby of the Board of Elections. I had to do this 2 years ago because I was an election judge and they don't place you at your own polling site, so otherwise you wouldn't have a way to vote. Knowing about voting machine problems, and just having the increased belief that by actually handing the ballot to a Board of Elections staff member made me include a stop there in my daily loop of errands. As for those who don't choose to vote, please don't choose to complain. And for the person who felt guilt about not knowing all the ballot issues, I rarely know enough to have an opinion on all of them, so I just skip those and feel it is better to let others who do know about it and maybe have a stake in it to cast their vote. I also saw a comment that said you cross your fingers and hope the person you vote for does what they said they'd do. I think you can hold them accountable with little effort. When someone who represents me votes in a way I disagree with, I let them know. They all have websites so it isn't tough to do at all. Otherwise, again, you really can't complain when they take your vote, and then take you.

Posted by: Craig | November 7, 2006 2:08 PM

"A Canadian asked me why Americans don't vote. Look on the internet, the avg. and median IQs are 100 and 120 respectively"

Are you saying a 120 IQ constitutes a reason for someone not to vote? Sounds like a pretty good IQ to me. I would love to know the IQ of Bush and all his cronies. He may have went to Yale but I don't think he is the brightest bulb in the room but his campaign managers are.

Posted by: Not Dumb | November 7, 2006 2:10 PM

Of course I vote.

My Congressional district has been pretty "safe" for "the other party" for about 20 years, but I vote because if he wins by 80% he'll think he has a mandate to do anything he likes, if he wins by 51% maybe he'll pay more attention to the people whom he's supposed to represent. Likewise my Senator is reliably "the other parth" AND is extremely arrogant, so I vote to make sure he knows the rest of us are out here, too.

I don't vote on everything, because I found myself moderately uninformed about a couple of candidates once I got in there. Who knew we were voting whether to retain a district judge somewhere? I saw no pre-election information on this person, so oh well, I'd rather NOT vote on that one than assume that my party affiliation is a good enough litmus test. Oh, and I've voted in favor of the "other party" guy in the reliable district a couple of times, because the guy was actually representing us, and my party ran a potted plant.

On the 4 state issues available to me, I might have supported one of them except for the phony "pro/con" literature distributed by the state. The state's preferred outcome (pro) got a long, well-reasoned explanation, while the alternative had only short snippy comments. Pretty transparent.

I have mixed feelings about the value of the civics lesson imparted by having your child in the booth with you. Yes, of course, you have to maintain control, so letting them run loose isn't a good idea. However, reading aloud and discussing the issues while in the "booth" can be quite distracting to the rest of us, not to mention borderline illegal if you're advocating a position out lout within the polling place. Take them along if you must, but do the civics lesson at home.

I agree with the lack of sympathy for the college student. I went to college out of state, and that's where I registered to vote, no absentee required.

BTW, my son started sitting down with us to watch the news in the middle of the 2000 primary season (he was 14). After a few days, it became apparent that this was not a short-term interest, and we asked him why the sudden interest (smiley!). He said he had realized that he would be eligible to vote starting with the next presidential election, and he figured he ought to start paying attention and learn about the process. I'm pleased to report that not only did he vote in 2004, he has since voted in school board, local bond elections, a primary, and oh yes, this fall (he is in college, in-state, but out of town, so he had to do the absentee thing). Guess we set a good enough example of being informed, and taking the process seriously.


Posted by: bigrock | November 7, 2006 2:12 PM

If you can read this message, thank a teacher. If it's in English, thank a Veteran.

Posted by: Go vote! | November 7, 2006 2:15 PM

Potomac wrote:

I voted in a Catholic church. Straight Democrat though.

______

I'd be shocked to see otherwise. Let's see, Catholics in Maryland: O'Malley, Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi (born 'n raised in Bal'mer, hon; she and Mikulski went to the same all-girls Catholic high school), Curran (outgoing Attorney General & O'Malley's father-in-law). Go back 4 years to the all-Catholic Glendenning/Townsend era.

Quite frankly, I can't think of a Catholic Republican right now. I'm sure there are some, though.

Posted by: toPotomac | November 7, 2006 2:15 PM

. . . do a blog on this topic. I was reading People magazine on line and was shocked to read this item:

They're expecting twin girls in December, but Sean "Diddy" Combs and girlfriend Kim Porter won't get married anytime soon, the music mogul says.

"I know she deserves to get married," Diddy, 37, tells Essence magazine in its December issue, "but I'm just not ready."

Adds Porter, "He could be a little more attentive to his family, but I understand who he is and what that requires of him. He's in a business where he wants to be the best, and he wants to make sure his family has the best. It takes a lot of his person to do that. You know, there's only so much time in the day. But as long as he makes us feel like we're a family, I'm fine."

And, she says, "There'll be one day when he won't be working so hard, (and) then we have a lifetime. ... I'm not a needy person. If I were, I'd probably be somewhere pulling out my hair right now."

And this couple is on the cover of a recent Essence magazine with the words "Real Love"?

If these two are the poster children for black relationships, no wonder so many black children don't have fathers around and so many black women laugh at the idea of balance!!!! WTF!!

Posted by: Leslie, Please | November 7, 2006 2:15 PM

I'm had to scan responses today rather than read them as I usually do, so forgive me if this has already been heavily talked about, but I felt it needed comment. Leslie has been disappointing of late, phrasing questions that have family implications, but then soliciting viewpoints (consciously or not) from the female perspective only. If her desire is to have fewer males posting, then it's probably working--or will begin to work. Change that improves the balance in our all lives and families won't be made by enlisting answers from only one gender. Were this the first time it had been done, then I'd chalk it up to a bad day or poor choice of words. But a pattern of late seems to be developing. Leslie, what gives?

An example is her phrasing today, which would most certainly be panned if it were offered with the sexes reversed (males ought to vote for only males, instead of what they stand for) or included some superficial component like race:

"Fifty-four percent of voters are women, yet only 10 percent of the candidates are women. Vote to put more women in office and give them a say in where our money goes."

The implied statement that only someone who shares your gender/race can represent your concerns effectively is rather troubling and even insulting. If identity politics is all that matters, then we are in pretty sorry shape. And I hope voters will do more than that. That they will know their favored candidate's positions on issues, and follow through to ensure they do what they say.

"Vote to get into the habit of voting in every election, not just presidential ones. State and local politicians can have an even greater impact on families than national ones. Do you think our tax dollars should be spent on daycare or defense? Education or Iraq?"

As a local elected official, I agree very much with the statement above in saying that you should become educated on state/local issues, and vote accordingly. You often can have greater effect when becoming involved with local officials and concerns.

Then moving on, I want to add a caution. It's easy to bash public servants, but harder to take our own medicine. For every cynical politician there are many more voters who want their cake and eat it too. They want massive services, and ever increasing government help--but NO new taxes, please. Promise me everything I want at no new expense, and give me simple yes/no answers, or I won't vote for you. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Any surprise you eventually only get people running that promise the impossible? Or that promise to provide the solution by the canard of curbing the "waste/fraud/inefficiency"?

If I could offer one statement for reflection, it is trust for the politician that tells you honestly about the downside/sacrifice or trade offs that will have to be had to get where you want to go. Very few politicians are motivated to be truthful on this, since those that are get routinely rejected by the voters. It's like people willfully deserve to be deceived. So vote for the ones that tell you about the hard choices and don't oversimplify very complex issues, and eventually you will get more of them running. Then you will have choices other than clown A vs. clown B, or who I hate least. Opening up the two party system would help in this an awful lot, but that a topic for another time.

But if you truly think you can have your cake and eat it too, then you get the elected officials you deserve...and the cycle (downward spiral?) continues...

Posted by: Texas Dad of 2 | November 7, 2006 2:17 PM

GLOVERPARK, I have not been fed anything and it's typical of you arrogant liberals to assume that we are just mindless drones fed with propaganda because how could we not be liberals otherwise, like you. I have read moveon.org, george soros and limosine liberal pelosi's plan for america and say hell no. We still remember the 60's and the ridiculous nonsense of the left and that is why I and millions of others vote republican. Save your arrogant liberal foolishness for your ny cocktail parties.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 2:18 PM

Indiana. Come see the government in action.

Posted by: Aargh! | November 7, 2006 2:18 PM

bigrock, that's a great story about your son. One of my earliest memories is my parents letting me stay up late to watch the election results in the 1980 presidential elections (I was five); I remember sitting on the couch in the basement and watching the map turn red and my dad trying to explain it to me and feeling very grown up sitting and paying attention with him.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 2:21 PM

THANK YOU: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 01:52 PM

Posted by: I'll second that! | November 7, 2006 2:22 PM

"I have read moveon.org, george soros and limosine liberal pelosi's plan for america and say hell no."

I think it's great that you have read and decided for yourself, even if I disagree with your conclusion. But a lot of your earlier posts seem to imply that this type of speech is in and of itself anti-american and should not be tolerated. Disagree, by all means, but don't try to squelch dissent - it's too important a part of our democracy and someday you may be the one who needs that right.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 2:30 PM

pATRICK, you just proved my point. I never suggested you become a liberal. If you read what I wrote, you'd know that.

I am just asking that you realize that everything in this country is not as black and white as some on the Republican side would suggest.

Rather, I object to your vitriol that liberals hate America, that we're trying to force an agenda down anyone's throat, your personification of Ms. Pelosi as a "limosine liberal," etc.

All of your postings today do seem to suggest that you prefer the generalizations of partisan hatred. Otherwise, your most recent response would have been more of a thoughtful response than an ad hominem attack on me.

Posted by: Glove Park | November 7, 2006 2:30 PM

some of us Republicans remember the '60s a little differently than you do. We remember when being Republican meant fiscal responsibility and libertarianism. Rampant deficits and spend, spend, spend were only associated with the left back then because we understood the value of money. Neither the social conservatives that run the domestic policy of the republican party under Bush nor the neo-cons that run our foreign policy would have been welcome in the party of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon -- my Republican party.

Posted by: to pATRICK | November 7, 2006 2:33 PM

To the anon way upthread at 11:23 who claims that absentee ballots "don't count:" Ummm...NO. That's a laughably ignorant statement. Absentee ballots count like all other ballots, or else there wouldn't be a system that allows people to vote absentee.

I know more people who vote absentee than not, for the following reasons: Time, disability, residence in another country. And a vote's a vote. It doesn't matter if you physically go to the polls or vote absentee, it only matters that you VOTE. Period.

Posted by: Flyonthewall | November 7, 2006 2:34 PM

Hear, hear! If there were more Republicans around like Nelson ROckefeller, I might even be one...

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 2:35 PM

topotomac: Catholic Republican - Rick Santorum. Is Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp?) a Catholic? I think he is but probably gets a pass on the religion issue because he is married to Kennedy.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 2:36 PM

***If these two are the poster children for black relationships, no wonder so many black children don't have fathers around and so many black women laugh at the idea of balance!!!! WTF!!***

No one appointed P. Diddy the poster child for black relationships. I can't believe I even need to point that out. I probably don't, but I guess I will in case somebody loses their mind and takes your post seriously.

Posted by: Angry | November 7, 2006 2:37 PM

Then why are he and his flavor of the . . .week, day, whatever, gracing the cover of Essence magazine with the heading "Real Love"? When was the last time you saw a white, non-married couple who have had children out of wedlock on the cover of a magazine proclaiming their "real love"?

Posted by: Leslie, Please | November 7, 2006 2:39 PM

You like Brangelina?

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 2:40 PM

Imenat to write, "You mean like Brangelina?"

They have kids out wedlock (adopted and natural boen, and on the covers of magazines.)

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 2:42 PM

I meant to write, "You mean like Brangelina?"

They have kids out wedlock (adopted and natural boen, and on the covers of magazines.)

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 2:42 PM

TomKat?

unmarried white folks with children are celebrated on a daily basis on magazines -- as long as they are rich just like, oh say, P. Diddy.

geez. I can't believe I'm responding to this, but what the heck does the choice of a magazine editor or two say about the black or white communities?

Posted by: to Leslie, Please | November 7, 2006 2:45 PM

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams, Maggie Gyllenhal (SP) and Peter Sagard. I could go on, but I won't.

Yes, white people get busy without rings too.

Posted by: Scarry | November 7, 2006 2:48 PM

To the person looking for a third party: try looking at the libertarians - they are getting more mainstream. Basically they are fiscally responsible and socially liberal- like most of the people in this country.

Voted this morning.

Posted by: atlmom | November 7, 2006 2:48 PM

I just tried to respond about Brad and Angelina, but it got lost - forgot about TomKat!

It's ridiculous to impute a celebrity's attitude on a particular subject to an entire culture or racial group.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 2:49 PM

No, GLOVERPARK you just wanted me to "Take a step away from all the hatred and anti-liberal propaganda that you have obviously been fed." Typical. Anyone who disagrees with the liberals has been fed propaganda. You are the one eating the unceasing liberal media machines diet of doom and gloom.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 2:52 PM

You are the one eating the unceasing liberal media machines diet of doom and gloom.

Do you honestly think the media is making up the deficit problem or the number of deaths to our military personnel?

Posted by: to pATRICK | November 7, 2006 2:56 PM

pATRICK, you just don;t get it do you?

If you wish to have a rational conversation, please do so without the the vitriol and the hatered. That's all I have said and all I continue to say.

Your failure to grasp this simple point truly prove the point you seem to think I am making.

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 2:57 PM

topotomac: Catholic Republican - Rick Santorum. Is Arnold Schwartzeneger (sp?) a Catholic? I think he is but probably gets a pass on the religion issue because he is married to Kennedy.

____

CMAC: good catch on Santorum. And yes, the Governator is ostensibly Catholic; Austria is a heavily Catholic country. And I totally blanked out on Michael Steele, as well - he was a seminarian at one point.

I was mostly responding to Potomac's original post that (s)he voted straight democratic in a precinct located in a Catholic church, as if that were unexpected or blasphemous or something. Catholics in the US - particularly those of of Irish and Italian ancestry - have a very long history of being Democrats, and somewhat liberal ones, as well. Think: the Kennedys, the Daleys of Chicago, Cuomo, Al Smith of New York, LaGuardia, etc. etc.

While the church gets a lot of (negative) press for its hard line on abortion, on most of the social justic issues it's still a pretty liberal theology.

Posted by: toPotomac | November 7, 2006 3:02 PM

FREE TACO at California Tortilla today with your "I Voted" sticker!

Posted by: Tom T. | November 7, 2006 3:04 PM

I just don't understand people who get their panties in a bunch over the possibility of non-citizens voting. Does it happen - yes. Should it happen - no. But you know what? I'd rather live in a place where people have the occasional opportunity to vote without holding citizenship or where people can vote twice than to live in a place where the voting is much more controlled and restricted. That idea smacks of closely watched movements and national registrations so that the government will know where everyone resides at all times. It also smacks of elitist voting...what we had in this country originally when the vote was for everyone, as long as one one male and a land or business owner. Besides, it's not as if there is a large, concerted effort to vote illegally.

I was an elections superivor in my town for a long time. The saddest and hardest day I ever had was the time I had to turn away a couple from the polls. They were from the Soviet Union and thought that because they finally owned a house, they could vote. It was hearbreaking.

Posted by: goodtovote | November 7, 2006 3:05 PM

Father of 4:

Thanks. It's a boy. And he did go vote with me today. But I don't think he got much of a civics lesson out of it. He slept through the whole thing.

Posted by: Rockville Mom | November 7, 2006 3:07 PM

Funny, when liberals insult and attack conservatives, it's dissent. When conservatives respond, liberal talk about civility. Par for the course. By the way to the "republican" who wrote about barry goldwater and nixon. I hardly call a candidate that lost overwhelmingly and a man forced to resign as stars to aspire to for our party.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 3:07 PM

Dear Patrick -- Seems like your beef is more with your own Republican party that has been taken over by a group that no longer reflects your views of government -- take and spend on things that MOST of us would rather not spend on; focus on issues that MOST of us do not consider an essential role of government, and on and on.

A friendly suggestion: Rather than pick at the liberals, whose views you've probably never espoused, why don't you and others like you work to TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY!!! If I were in your shoes, I'd be really ticked off right now -- but not with the left. With those who stole your party out from under your nose...

BTW, take a look at the new issue of Vanity Fair. Even the Richard Perle's and Ken Adelman's have had enough!

Posted by: Adoptive Mom | November 7, 2006 3:08 PM

David Letterman and his girlfiend have a bastard child.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 3:09 PM

your continued reliance on broad sweeping statements and trite phrases undermines your position. so long as you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-american, you have no credibility. enter a real discussion and perhaps you will get a real response. glover park is only giving back to you what you put out on this board, and both of you are doing a disservice to democratic discussion

Posted by: america lover | November 7, 2006 3:11 PM

pATRICK, you just need someone or something to hate, don't you?

If you were to engage in a conversation in a polite manner (and believe me, I've been slammed on this blog for being impolite, so I know what I'm talking about), I'd be happy to chat with you. But you come in here with your guns blazing about liberals hating America, etc. and when anyone holds your feet to the fire you react by hurling even more vitriol. To wit:

"Funny, when liberals insult and attack conservatives, it's dissent."

In the prelude to the Iraq war, everytime a liberal tried to engage in a reasonable conversation about why we were going to war, plans for after the war, etc. we were shouted down by conservatives as helping terrorists and being unpatriotic. So conservatives can play that game too.

At no point have I attacked you or insulted you, but you have repeatedly done both to me.

And finally, you cannot selectively pick and choose who is in your party. I would have given you a great deal of credit for standing by your beliefs in your party. INstead what you did was, to use the phrase that's so popular these days:

You cut and run.

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 3:13 PM

"While the church gets a lot of (negative) press for its hard line on abortion, on most of the social justic issues it's still a pretty liberal theology."

I'm not sure I'd agree the church is all that progressive. Beyond abortion, see also: gay marriage, contraception/sex ed, AIDS in Africa, prayer in schools...

Although my point has been misconstrued...I was merely trying to point out that I disagree with putting polls in houses of worship in general. Church and state, too close for comfort (although many religious types are happy to let the two mingle).

Posted by: Potomac | November 7, 2006 3:14 PM

Hey goodtovote //
I'd rather live in a place where people have the occasional opportunity to vote without holding citizenship or where people can vote twice//

how about bussing in a couple thousand mexicans and canadians across the border on election day? republicans will pay them $$ to vote republican, same with dems.

I am glad you are no longer an elections supervisor.

Posted by: Vote | November 7, 2006 3:14 PM

cmac - that may have been the point, but when I went to the site, it was a quiz that was pictures of people and multiple choice to name them and name their position. I didn't see anything about their policies.

Or maybe I ended up on a different site. I don't know. It was dontvote.something I just know it gave me a C, said I wasn't qualified to vote.

Posted by: Ruby | November 7, 2006 3:14 PM

To the person who said so??? When it was pointed out that sat. Is the sabbath for some
:::
Religious jews do not work on the sabbath- this includes writing, driving, using electricity, among other things. So it would be discriminatory to make voting on a day when a significant population couldn't vote.

Posted by: atlmom | November 7, 2006 3:16 PM

I've been a registered Republican for 27 years, so you can put it in quotes, but reality evidently bites whenever you disagree with someone.

You may discount Goldwater and Nixon, but many in our party did not and do not discount fiscal conversatives who protect our borders and don't go looking for wars. You have a very short Republican memory if it only begins with Reagan or Bush. Nixon did his best to get us out of a war Kennedy and LBJ got us into.

Principle is what you stand on when you're in the minority and vote for what is right, not what is popular. You seem to be the fair-weather sort of Republican -- like newby Duke fans in college basketball -- only a Republican when our party's in charge, but not a Republican when it's inconvenient to claim your own. If Goldwater isn't your kind of role model, did you, or would you have voted for LBJ? If not Nixon, you would have voted for -- egad, Man -- McGovern?? I am glad to say that I know a lot of Republicans -- including around my dinner table and church -- but I don't know any Republicans like you.

I'm a bit puzzled at this point about what your political values really are.

Posted by: to pATRICK | November 7, 2006 3:21 PM

---I would love to know the IQ of Bush and all his cronies. He may have went to Yale but I don't think he is the brightest bulb in the room but his campaign managers are.---

Bush earned his undergraduate degree from Yale and MBA from Harvard.

From an October 24, 2004 NY Times article titled "Secret Weapon for Bush?: Bush's SAT score was 1206 and his IQ, calculated from his military intelligence exam (officer qualification test), is around 125.

Not that anyone cares about John Kerry, but Bushie's college GPA and officer qualification test scores were both higher than John Kerry's.

Posted by: Allison | November 7, 2006 3:21 PM

Hear, hear!

Even though I am a card carrying liberal, I think 'to pATRICK' and I would find much we could agree (and disagree, but with respect) on.

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 3:24 PM

"He may have went to Yale..."

You mean, "He may have gone to Yale..."?

Or were you being funny?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 3:29 PM

I am an american first and then a republican. Richard Nixon was a disgrace and we had the unfortunate problem that he was also a republican. He could have singlehandedly ruined the republican party if we weren't lucky enough to have Reagan rescue conservatism. Barry Goldwater was an unelectable candidate just like Mcgovern was. I would have voted for him anyway because I think LBJ was a terrible president. I vote republican regardless because the democratic party sold it soul to the new left. The great men of the democratic party, FDR TRUMAN, to a lesser degree KENNEDY are just a dusty memory. So don't lecture me about being a fair weather republican and I won't fire back about protecting a man who damn near killed the republican party, NIXON.

Posted by: pATRICK | November 7, 2006 3:37 PM

don't you mean nIXON, tRUMAN, and kENNEDY?

Posted by: hee hee | November 7, 2006 3:40 PM

One thing that bugged me was how hard it was to figure out what would be on the ballot. I managed to find out ahead of time about the state propositions on the SBE web site, but there were two Fairfax County propositions that I had to read at the polling station. There should be an easier way to find out in advance what the proposals are and what the pro and con arguments are.

Do they not have voters pamphlets in Fairfax County?


Posted by: confused non-Virginian | November 7, 2006 3:42 PM

"some of us Republicans remember the '60s a little differently than you do. We remember when being Republican meant fiscal responsibility and libertarianism..."

Yeah, and it meant supporting segregation and Jim Crow and resisting Civil Rights legislation... Yeah, you '60's Republicans were definitely the good guys.

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 3:51 PM

so comments from the left are a result of brain-washing and comments from the right are a lecture? do we have that right now? in other words, you're an equal-opportunity a**hole.

and now we know you hate Nixon -- that was helpful. but you still haven't enlightened us on what political values you hold dear?

Posted by: to pATRICK | November 7, 2006 3:51 PM

"Do they not have voters pamphlets in Fairfax County?"

There's also this awesome thing called a newspaper.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 3:51 PM

topotomac: Catholic Republican -

Jeb Bush is another one. For my money, he is the brightest star in the GOP, but he has ruled out a run in 2008.

Posted by: JMT | November 7, 2006 3:52 PM

'to pATRICK,'

Please don;t succumb to the same demons of vitriol that have apparently engulfed pATRICK. You've made some great points today. As maddening as pATRICK is, please don't give in to his special brand of hatred.

Posted by: Glover Park | November 7, 2006 3:54 PM

Okay, if you are Catholic, how do you vote for the Liberal party? They allow for abortions. How do devout Catholics vote for this to continue? I thought that was against the church?

Posted by: need clarity | November 7, 2006 3:55 PM

to GLover Park -- touche. almost lost it there for a moment.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 3:57 PM

To "Leslie, Please":

You are an idiot. Otherwise you would not throw out a challenge so simple to beat!

Yes, there's Brad and Angelina.

Also:
Goldie and Kurt
Susan and Tim
Ryan and Farrah
Tom and Katie
Maggie (Gyllenhaal) and Peter (Saarsgard)

The list goes on. These are all white celebrities who have quite publicly declared their "real love" for each other. Yes, a couple of these couples plan to marry, but the majority don't.

So, your point has been demolished. An apology might be in order.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 3:58 PM

To need clarity: My guess is a lot of American Catholics vote their conscience and not what the church tells us to do. I think a lot of Catholics choose to look at all the issues and weigh their choices. I doubt Catholic or Non-Catholic is a 100% for any candidate. I am sure there are things we all can agree on or disagree on. But the "church" according to Jesus certainly did not tell us how to vote. Therefore the Roman Church should not as well. We vote the way we think Jesus would have. Or at least that is how I interpret it. Blind obedience to anything is a dangerous thing.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 4:01 PM

"Par for the course."

pATRICK:

If you're truly a good old-fashioned, hardline Republican, then you must have spent enough time on a golf course to know that "par for the course" does NOT mean "average" or "typical," as it seems you are using it.

This faux pas casts serious doubt on your Repug creds!

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 4:04 PM

"But the "church" according to Jesus certainly did not tell us how to vote."

foamgnome, I think that's a very healthy perspective. Wasn't there a lot of controversy recently (a few years ago) when some of the officers of the Catholic Church (forgive my lack of knowledge on their correct titles) said that politicians who support abortion measures should not be able to fully participate in catholic mass?

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 4:05 PM

Pittypat

Actually, I thought it was the southern Democrats that supported Jim Crow. Do I have that wrong?

Posted by: Sam | November 7, 2006 4:06 PM

"Even the Richard Perle's and Ken Adelman's have had enough!"

Please, please, please. Can't we all remember that plurals don't take apostrophes unless they're also possessives?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 4:07 PM

to the person who worries about religious Jews not being able to vote on Saturdays

what if it's against my religion to do anything on a Tuesday? What about the Amish who don't drive or use electricity EVER?

Those questions aside, worrying about when we should have elections based on the religious preferences of our citizens is a huge problem. Ever heard of a little thing called separation of church and state?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 4:07 PM

I love the voting sticker. Great idea. Fun to wear it although my kids usually steal it pretty quickly.

Sounds like I might be the only one, but I do vote for women and minorities whenever I don't have a strong feeling for the candidates running. I figure when I don't know what the candidates stand for, I'd rather have female and/or minority representative vs. not voting or voting for a man. Nothing against men, but we do have an awful lot of them in politics already. Maybe this is politically incorrect or naive, but I feel good about it. When I do know the issues, which is most of the time, I always vote for the politician's platform, not for their gender or race.

Posted by: Leslie | November 7, 2006 4:08 PM

To Megan, yes I believe the cardinals did say that some politicians should not be allowed to participate in the Eucharist (communion) if they support positions that the church opposes. I am deeply ashamed of that action. Because it implies that God's love is something that can be earned and taken away at the discretion of the church authorities. As a life long Catholic, all I can say is that is pitiful behavior. But the church has a long tradition of honorable and pitiful behavior. Maybe in the long run, they counter act each other. I am not sure.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 4:09 PM

Regarding Catholics and voting

I'm not a Catholic, so could have this wrong, but my understanding is that, while the Catholic church is against abortion and stem cell research, it is also somewhat pro-welfare/safety net etc. So while certain views of the Democratic party may be inconsistent with Catholic view, others are consistent with them.

Posted by: Sam | November 7, 2006 4:11 PM

With regard to Catholic teaching and voting - the "official" church line is that members of Church hierarchy aren't "technically" supposed to tell laypeople who to vote for. They create voter "guides" and discuss topics like poverty, welfare, stem cell research, etc. Rarely does the Church get behind a particular party or individual (as they did with Solidarity in Poland in the 1970s & 80s), I guess sometimes it happens. But technically, they outline topics, provide guides to diocesan offices (these topics, by the way, have included the fact that they don't think the Iraq War is Just) and allow individual voters to pray and exercise their own conscience.

Posted by: The original just a thought | November 7, 2006 4:12 PM

Sam: The Roman Catholic church loves to support social welfare. So much, that it is kind of funny. When DH and I were taking premarital classes, the priest told us we were all "obligated" to have at least 3 or 4 kids. And if we could not afford them, the church would help us sign up for welfare benefits. Because after all Jesus would support welfare

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 4:13 PM

Also, my husband (who's Catholic) tells me that churches have to be careful about telling people how to vote or they may lose their tax-exempt status.

Posted by: Sam | November 7, 2006 4:16 PM

To foamgnome - a few cardinals said no eucharist, but Cardinal McCarrick said you shouldn't deny someone the Body of Christ because an individual receiving the Eucharist has a relationship and a conscience that is between him/her and God. The Vatican has not ruled one way or the other, but some rumblings imply they're with McCarrick. The Eucharist is such a central part of Catholic life that denying it is very, very serious and I think many people believe that what goes on in one's own conscience with regard to views on life (all life, including waging unjust war, etc) are left to the individual and God.

Posted by: The original just a thought | November 7, 2006 4:19 PM

Man, did this blog get off topic, or what?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 4:22 PM

"Nixon did his best to get us out of a war Kennedy and LBJ got us into."

In fact, the official beginning of American involvement in the war was Eisenhower's 1955 deployment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the South Vietnamese Army. (This is considered official, because it is recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as being so.)

As to Nixon's doing his best to get us out of the war, would you be referring to his "Secret Plan to End the War" on which he campaigned for reelection? Turned out there was no plan, and U.S. involvement in Vietnam continued for another five years. Or perhaps you're referring to his taking the war into Cambodia?

Really, pATRICK, you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 4:24 PM

foamgnome, thanks for sharing all this. I love the bit bout Jesus supporting welfare. Seems to me (based on a very limited knowledge of religious history) that most religious institutions have histories of both honorable or pitiful behavior - I would guess that it's the thoughtful people like you that bring out the honorable.

Sam, what your husband says about tax-exempt status is true - if a church is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization it cannot promote particular candidates or legislation, though it can do general "issue education" like what "The original just a thought" describes. There's been concern recently that some of the faith-based outreaches by the political parties have crossed the line and some churches have had their status challenged.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 4:24 PM

The original just a thought, thanks for more info on the Eucharist and politics. Where does Cardinal McCarrick stand in the church? I believe, but am not sure, that whoever the highest authority is in Denver actually did deny it to a politician here, but I can't remember - I wasn't living here at the time. Anyway, I'm just curious as to how all of that shakes out through the church heierarchy.

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 4:29 PM

This entire discussion has jumped the rails, huh?

Posted by: Wow | November 7, 2006 4:31 PM

folks are giving folks like patrick and veto way too much attention. amazing how the internet has suddenly made it possible for the remotest village idiot to pretend it's QT in the house of commons.

Posted by: centreville | November 7, 2006 4:32 PM

to centreville:

you've given me the best laugh of the day.

Posted by: NC lawyer | November 7, 2006 4:37 PM

while pATRICK may be an idiot, his views and approach towards politics are all too common to be ignored. and since I have spent many words opposing him, I feel compelled to point out to the anonymous poster at 4:24 that pATRICK was not the one defending Nixon.

Posted by: america lover | November 7, 2006 4:39 PM

Defense or daycare? If I had one choice, DEFENSE!!! Would I rather get cheap babysitting service and risk having to live in an occupied country. This is not France- thank goodness. This is a matter of priorities, and defense wins. If I have to, I can move in with relatives to make raising a child more affordable. But what can I do about ducking bombs? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Priorities, people, priorities.

Posted by: dcp | November 7, 2006 4:39 PM

why vote? because we can. Even if we really don't know what we're voting for, the knowledge of why we're voting represents political participation.

Why not vote? A feeling that one vote won't make a difference even though in reality it can at minimum offset an opposing vote.

Here's a question - does polling place congestion act as a disincentive to vote even though we laud high turnout?

Posted by: centreville | November 7, 2006 4:40 PM

Defense or daycare? If I had one choice, DEFENSE!!!

Except that this is not actually the choice we are facing - our war in Iraq is an act of aggression, not defense.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 4:44 PM

Sam,

Yes, Jim Crow originated with southern Democrats after the Civil War. However, by the early '60s, the two major parties had evolved to the point where the Republican party was picking up angry and resentful white southerners by sympathizing with the segregation agenda while the Democratic party was strongly supporting Civil Rights. (Remember that Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

And it's '60s Republicans I was talking about.

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 4:46 PM

"Twice - Are you proud that you illegally voted twice?"

Gotcha! never happened. :) :) :)

Posted by: Twice! | November 7, 2006 4:55 PM

Talk about train wrecks and couples who have kids outside of marriage. Britney has filed for divorce. It was breaking news on CNN. I wonder what will be more important tonight on the news, the state of our nation or the state of a trailer park diva who should have never married, let alone let father her children.

Posted by: Guess what? | November 7, 2006 5:03 PM

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Posted by: Post | November 7, 2006 5:03 PM

Vote | November 7, 2006 03:14 PM

Why on earth do you imagine that we Canadians would want to vote in a US election?

Posted by: Yoki | November 7, 2006 5:21 PM

Britney has filed for divorce?! I can't believe it - no wonder white people have such high divorce rates and no respect for marriage!

(sorry, I just couldn't resist another jibe at that poster)

Posted by: Megan | November 7, 2006 5:23 PM

Leslie posted:

"Sounds like I might be the only one, but I do vote for women and minorities whenever I don't have a strong feeling for the candidates running. I figure when I don't know what the candidates stand for, I'd rather have female and/or minority representative vs. not voting or voting for a man. Nothing against men, but we do have an awful lot of them in politics already. Maybe this is politically incorrect or naive, but I feel good about it. When I do know the issues, which is most of the time, I always vote for the politician's platform, not for their gender or race."

Does anyone else find this ridiculous? She votes for women and minorities because it makes her feel good.

Nothing against men? Yeah, right.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 5:29 PM

topotomac : Yes, I have always been amazed at the Catholic theology vs voting practices. Forgot about Michael Steele - geez - a black, Catholic Republican - is the world ending?

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 5:34 PM

Pitty - I believe it was the Republicans in Congress that helped pass Civil Rights legislation during the Johnson Administration. Al Gore's father opposed it, as did many southern Democrats (Gore Sr. was from TN) - and the Republican's made the difference. A quick Google will confirm this - however I need to go watch election results. You need to look up voting by congress on Civil Rights legislation - read it and weep. Congressional records should suffice.

Posted by: cmac | November 7, 2006 5:40 PM

cmac --

You're shamelessly cherrypicking here.

Leslie didn't say, "[I] vote for women and minorities because it makes [me] feel good."

She said that, all things being equal -- that is, when she doesn't know the various candidates' positions or leanings -- she votes for women and/or minorities. (And she feels good about taking that fallback position.)

That's sort of like if you were to say, "When I don't know anything about a particular issue or platform, I vote for the Republican candidate." It just makes sense. In the absence of specific knowledge, you're going to vote with your gut for an entity you trust.

Same for what Leslie's saying. If she's not educated about a particular issue or platform, she's going to vote with her gut -- for a candidate from an underrepresented minority who she can trust will at least bring a bit more balance to the issue.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. And there's no taint of male-bashing, either. She's right that there are already an awful lot of them in the picture already!

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 5:45 PM

If Leslie isn't familiar with the canidates or their stances, she votes by gender and/or race. But if she's unfamiliar with the candidates, how does she know their gender/race? With women you can usually tell by the name, but I didn't see a "George Allen (white, male)" on my ballot.

Posted by: herndon | November 7, 2006 5:52 PM

it's possible to have seen pictures/ads and not really know the candidates. I know that Barak Obama is black, even though I don't know a thing about where he stands, cause I've seen his picture and just not read the articles.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2006 5:56 PM

I voted for Steele because Ben Cardin is my Congressman and he was too busy raising money to give me effective assistance as a constituent. I have no doubt he will do as little for individuals as Senator as he did as Congressman. People talk about 20 years of experience and a record, record doing what? Experience doing what? All he did was talk about being opposed to Bush, not what he would do, and last I looked, Bush isn't on the ballot. It's gotten to the point where George P. Mahoney could get votes if he got nominated as a Democrat (Google him if you don;t recognize the name). No wonder politics is so messed up, if all that matters to the voter is the label, all that will matter to the pol is keeping the label. Not the policy.

Posted by: Mad in Baltimore | November 7, 2006 6:03 PM

Yes, cmac, Republicans in Congress absolutely helped to push through Civil Rights legislation. But -- and this was my point -- it was also Republicans who battled so hard against it.

Do a little reading about Nixon's "Southern strategy." He made a point of capitalizing on white southerners' opposition to desegregation, and it won him the 1968 election.

Posted by: pittypat | November 7, 2006 6:10 PM

pittypat -- Nixon pursued the Southern strategy because the votes were there, but that was AFTER the Civil and Voting Rights Acts were passed. He tried to have it both ways, because he was a champion of affirmative action and black business at the same time he was pussyfooting with the ex-Dixiecrats. But consider this -- if blacks had moved en masse to the GOP, and the party had been 40% black, it could have never put up racist candidates. Instead, blacks became increasingly yellow dog Dems, which meant the GOP could not profit from pursuing policies that helped blacks, while Dems could not profit by expending political capital to do so. The recent GOP that has renounced racism is doing so because it thinks it can capture black votes. If attractive black candidates attract fewer black votes than they lose in defecting racists, the GOP will stop nominating them. And if Steele, Swann and Blackwell all lose, that is what will happen. And BTW, Steele is the most moderate/liberal Republican who will ever be nominated for a statewide office, so if you're against him, you're against any Republican, ever. Meanwhile, MD Dems don't even bother, because -- as I pointed out -- it profits them nothing to put up black candidates statewide, and costs them no significant black support to put up only white statewide candidates. The best strategy is to withhold your votes until the last minute, and cast them for the party giving you the best deal. Like AARP and the elderly. Pols fall over themselves pandering to the elderly. Stupidly, blacks have declared themselves solidly pro-Dem for the foreseeable future, so you won't see any policy changes of substance for at least that long, while the black family is left to twist in the wind. Programs to reduce the scandalous murder rate, remedy the inequity in education? Nope, nothing, same old same old is what we will get. Steny Hoyer -- when he talks about commitment to civil rights on his web page -- refers to the DISABLED!! Nothing about blacks. No wonder he supported Cardin.

Posted by: RL | November 7, 2006 6:29 PM

To orginal thought: Thanks for clarifying. I should have said some cardinals. It certainly was not a decree from the Vatican. Overall, I have never had a priest or clergy person tell me how to vote in particular. All Catholics know how the Vatican feels about certain topics. But like Sam pointed out, they are for and against both parties policy.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 7, 2006 6:42 PM

I voted in the last ditch attempt at remaining hopeful in the American electoral process. With the amount of change that is necessary (one party rule is disastrous regardless of which party is in control) in our government, if things don't change I will have lost all faith in our ability as citizens to keep our government in check and working for us. I voted today with that in mind.

Posted by: shea | November 7, 2006 6:58 PM

Leslie said

"Sounds like I might be the only one, but I do vote for women and minorities whenever I don't have a strong feeling for the candidates running. I figure when I don't know what the candidates stand for, I'd rather have female and/or minority representative vs. not voting or voting for a man. Nothing against men, but we do have an awful lot of them in politics already. Maybe this is politically incorrect or naive, but I feel good about it."

Male executive said

"Sounds like I might be the only one, but I do hire the man whenever I don't have a strong feeling for the candidates applying for the position. I figure when they are all qualified, I'd rather have the man. Nothing against women, but we do have an awful lot of men in the top ranks already and I'm used to working with them. Maybe this is politically incorrect or naive, but I feel good about it."

I am a woman and I don't normally agree with cmac, but I found what Leslie wrote to be appalling. If I don't know enough about the candidates I either vote the party line since I agree with the general philosophy of the party, OR I don't vote for that position at all since I am not informed. To vote for women or minorities just because there aren't enough of them reeks of reverse discrimination.

Posted by: xyz | November 7, 2006 9:22 PM

TO Posted by: | November 7, 2006 04:07 PM

PULLEEESE Get a lyfe. Of course I know how to spel and use all those kute little cimbals. Because of the balance thing (moving to fast), didn't have thyme to reread it. Get a life OCD one.

But did you get my point? Even the President's biggest proponents of the war are calling it a failure. THAT is huge news, no matter how you misspell it.

And yes, I did vote, with my son on one of those brand new voting machines (with students in the high school play practicing on a stage in the background). It was a profound experience; a great opportunity to explain to my foreign-born son why this is such a great country. And oh, btw, I guess you'd call me a moderate (and pretty bad speller on the first go 'round, but I don't think there's any real political bias there...)

pATRICK -- time for folks like you to fight like h___ to take your party back. After tonight, someone needs to give Karl Rove his permanent unemployment papers...What a picture: Karl Rove in an unemployment line!

Posted by: Adoptive mom | November 7, 2006 9:36 PM


'I got exams today. I gots ta stay in skool udderwise i get stuck in irak.'

Is he back?!? Hope so!!

Posted by: experienced mom | November 7, 2006 10:00 PM

XYZ - What you wrote on Leslie's voting decisions is absolutely true. Reverse discrimination. At least you are being intellectually honest. Party affiliation ans platforms vs race and gender as voting deciders is not so cut and dry. Look at all the black Republicans (Steele, Swann, third guy can't remember) that lost yesterday - I doubt Pitty or Leslie would have voted for any of them if they were unaware of the issues because of the R by their names.

Posted by: cmac | November 8, 2006 7:55 AM

I bet no one is still reading, but I had to chime in.

Just b/c you support something to be legal, doesn't mean you actually support the act. You just realize the idea of it not being legal is worse than the actual thing, I.e., women dying from botched abirtions. Only someone quite naive would think that making something illegal actually stops it. But the realityof making it illegal can be better or worse than it being legal (I.e., murder being legal wouldn't be better for society, but it' s not going away b/c it is illegal).

Posted by: atlmom | November 8, 2006 8:35 AM

cmac and XYZ,

I've been thinking a lot about this since Leslie made that post, and I have to say I think I agree with you. It's funny because I understand Leslie's impulse; we really should have more representation from women and minorities and given all of the past discrimination I understand the desire to simply give them a leg up, all other things being equal. But it in the end, if we really want to eliminate sexism and racism, if we really want people to be judged by their individual competencies and beliefs and not based on their sex or race, it has to start with us. I waffle a bit on affirmative action in general, and in the context of university admissions or other programs usually end up in favor. But elected offices are different and too much hangs in the balance.

Anyway, just wanted to throw my two cents in after having mulled it over for a while.

Posted by: Megan | November 8, 2006 11:01 AM

Although Leslie's choice for a candidate may not be based on any substantive matter, she is more than entitled to vote that way. It is definitely sexist and racist but I don't believe it is discriminatory. Because everyone has the right to vote for anyone based on their own criteria. It is very different then an employer or a school choosing a candidate. In those assumptions, the best qualified candidate deserves the job or the acceptance. In an election it is again the "popular" vote that is the deciding factor. I mean don't you think GWB's mother voted for him simply because it was her son.

Posted by: foamgnome | November 8, 2006 12:15 PM

Megan, xyz, and cmac:

I also thought Leslie's answer was very revealing...

Posted by: Texas Dad of 2 | November 8, 2006 3:07 PM

I would rather wrap myself up in the consitution and burn the flag than wrap myself in the flag and burn the constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2006 6:00 PM

I would rather wrap myself up in the consitution and burn the flag than wrap myself in the flag and burn the constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2006 6:01 PM

megan, xyz, tx dad of 2 and foamgnome,

I am sure no one is still there but today's topic is BORING. (Thursday)

Leslie's voting decisions are very revealing, and she is entitled to vote however she wants - even if it means picking someone with brown eyes vs blue. That is her choice. However, to voice that you want real change, then make such frivilous decisions with your ballot, shows that you are not serious about change.

Posted by: cmac | November 9, 2006 1:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company