Here in Oregon, with its vote by mail, the atmosphere for voting is a little different. You are in your home, generally alone and it isn't necessarily a shared experience. My daughter and I had planned to have a girls shopping day, because I desperately needed some cold weather clothes. She came over early so that we could fill out our ballots, because she had some questions about several of the initiatives. We silently went through the office elections, knowing that each of us was probably voting for whomever had a (D) after their name. I marked off Obama, Merkley and on down through the list.

We got to the initiatives, and as we went through those, she asked any questions she had, asked for some explanations and I did my best to make sure I was a neutral as I could be. Those she wasn't sure about, she asked my opinion and I told her how I was voting and my reasons. We had a discussion about mandatory minimum sentences, the need for building permits on smaller remodel projects, the importance, merit pay, and a levy for a local exhibition center. We viewed some things the same, others we voted differently, due to our differences in how we viewed some things. But we had a great discussion and spent time just talking about "things".

We had taken longer than expected, and headed out after sticking our postage on the envelopes. When we pulled into the parking lot at the store, it hit me! I had just voted for the first black nominee for President! I just looked at my daughter and said "Do you know how amazing this is? I just voted for the first black nominee for President!" I was stunned! I grew up in a family of the "Old South". I remember so many things that had brought me to tears when I was younger. The hatred I had seen, the inhumanity. And now, not only was a voting for someone who I think can be world-changing in his approach, but it has the added bonus of being a man who, 40 years ago, we could have never imagined would be in this position. I tried to express all of this to my daughter, in a way I didn't think she could understand.

Her response: "Mom, I can't really understand what you're feeling, but you need to understand how amazing I feel. This is my first national election, and I voted for a man who I KNOW can make changes. Who is smart, strong and seems to be a sincere honest and moral person. He is the kind of PERSON I would want to be, regardless of his skin color. You raised me in a way that I have never looked at a person's race to judge the kind of person they are, which made it so easy to vote for Obama. I never had to question that...I only needed to open my mind and heart and listen to his message and ideas."

So all in all, even though I don't have a polling place, and I don't have the comraderie of waiting for my opportunity to vote, I think that this was probably the most exceptional voting experience I have ever experienced.

I was watching the news this morning and one of the Republican pundits called Palin a "maverick" like McCain. I realized when I heard it that the word seems trite to me now. At one time, McCain being described as a "maverick" by his peers and the media seemed to have a little punch. But that word seems to be one that should be used by one person about another person. Now, it has become a word that McCain and Palin openly use about themselves, and they use it often.

When I hear Palin say "John McCain and I are mavericks", I get the same feeling I get when someone says "I'm pretty" or "I'm smart". Those are things are don't say about yourself...you let others say that about you. And when Palin is called a maverick and then we see all the evidence that she is no more a "maverick" than she is a "genius", it becomes laughable. Then to compare herself to John McCain in their "maverick-ness" not only becomes laughable, it cheapens any meaning of that word as it may have once applied to McCain.

I think that "maverick" is losing its punch and its ability to help McCain and Palin in any way. Their positions and actions have belied the true meaning of the word, and now it is becoming more of a punchline than a defining characteristic.

The analysis they are now giving is pure racism. Here is how I came to that conclusion:

Obama wins Iowa. The media analyst go "Wow! We never saw that coming! How nice."

Clinton wins New Hampshire. The media barely touches the race or gender issue on this one, though gender is played up somewhat.

Clinton wins Nevada, but Obama wins the delegates. The media pushes the win, not the delegate count. They don't address the Latino vote, instead preferring to push the union angle.

South Carolina. It's nothing but about race. About the black vote. They are banging that drum over and over and over. Everything that has happened up to this point had nothing to do with race. No one is pointing out how well Obama has done up to now. And they are discounting his presumed win today, because it's just blacks voting for one of their own. How insulting!

And what is this about Obama becoming the "black candidate" if the internals are split along racial lines? Again, they are discounting everything up to this point. And they are marginalizing him by equating him to previous "black candidates".

The entire analysis by the media is racist.

to judicial activism - from the right:

"A federal judge Friday blocked Oregon's domestic partnership law for gays and lesbians from taking effect next week, saying opponents should have a chance to make their case for a statewide election on civil unions.

The surprise ruling comes four days before gay couples would be eligible for most of the same legal benefits of marriage. Couples across Oregon had planned to show up at county offices Wednesday to register as partners.

Mosman set a Feb. 1 hearing to hear a lawsuit by gay-rights opponents challenging the state's methods for verifying voter signatures. Opponents gathered signatures last summer to try to overturn civil unions on the November 2008 ballot but were rejected by state officials."

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/storie...

This is atrocious. The rules for our initiative signature gathering process have been in place for years, and this is the first time this has ever come up. The judge in this case is a very religious Bush* appointee, and if he rules for the opponents of this law, he will open a huge can of worms in this state - basically invalidating every initiative passed or defeated for years.

This ruling will harm many people in this state. Couples who are have babies due in the next few weeks, couples who had canceled one person's health insurance because they believed they would now be covered by the new law on their partner's insurance, etc. This is an outrage and potentially very harmful with a lot of unintended consequences.

Article VI of the Constitution says, in part, "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The mere fact that Romney feels that he has to address his religion proves again that the right doesn't truly believe in the Constitution. They do feel that there is a religious test for candidates and if you don't believe as they do, then you are not qualified to run. I realize that religion has always had some kind of influence, but the Right has taken it to a whole new level...and I feel that there now exists a test for public office based on religion. You must be religious to hold office, and for many, it isn't only that you are religious, but that you are the correct religion.

Those that proclaim themselves so patriotic once again prove themselves to have no concept of what that term means.

all along.

My brother-in-law is one of those that thinks * can do no wrong and that he's the smartest, bravest and bestest thing to ever happen to this country. My husband loves to hear us go at it politically (we're strongly disagree, but can yell and scream with no hard feelings), so he called him up last night and told him that I'd said anyone who still believes a word out of this administration needs to be checked for brain damage. Well, that started it.

Nothing was surprising that he said, for the most part. It was all about how right * was and, well Clinton, blah, blah, blah. Total and complete right-wing changing of topic and refusal to stick to his point, because he had no answers. Of course, it was every talking point from the Repukes (I do believe he gets a daily fax).

Then, he said something that absolutely stunned me, and I had thought that was impossible. He said "Bush has to take care of this because the Muslims want to kill every one of us." I laughed and said something about rhetoric and hyperbole and he said, "No, they want to destroy our country." I still couldn't believe I was hearing what I thought I was hearing and I asked him "You mean ALL of them? You really believe all Muslims want to take over our country?" And his response was a heartfelt YES! He truly believes that this is a plot by ALL Muslims...all 1.3 billion of them...around the world, to destroy the United States and make us Muslim.

I had suspected that this mindset was out there in some people, but my BIL isn't a dummy and follows politics as rabidly as I do, albeit our sources are different. If he feels this is true, then I'm of the mind that this isn't just a small fraction of the far right that feels this way...this is their true belief, despite their attempts to pretend on the public airways that this is only a small, radical group that is a threat. They are truly believing that it is ALL Muslims and that we need to go after any Muslim country or ANY country that has a large Muslim population. Bali was a country he mentioned several times, though where that came from I wasn't sure.

So, I see where the enemy is and where they're going. I had suspected it and was hoping I was wrong and that people were more rational than this, but now, I do think this may well be a typical mindset of those holdouts who still approve of this administration. And it scares the hell out of me.

I think we've finally seen George W. Bush being the Uniter he promised to be...except it's that the country is uniting against him and his administration.

I've dipped in and out of Senate and House hearings today, right-wing talk radio, water cooler conversations and news coverage, both straight news and opinion. And I feel like I've landed in a parallel universe. Joe Klein talking against Bush and his policies? Michael Savage advocating moving troops OUT of Iraq and basically embracing the Dem's ideas? Chuck Hagel and NORM COLEMAN raking Condi Rice over the coals?

This is just utterly bizarre to me. I'm not believing what I'm seeing, reading and hearing.

And I'm not sure I like it. For one simple reason. What does a cornered animal do when threatened? Bush is going to lash out, and it's going to be at Iran. He can't come after the entire U.S., but he certainly is determined to maintain some sort of legacy and his own personal inadequacies demand that he prove he's right and he's tough. So Iran WILL be next and I fear what that will lead to.

advantage. The MSM is spinning this as a total repudiation of Bushco, from what I've seen today. There is no way the administration, despite Tony Snow's attempts to the contrary, will be able to unspin it. Bush has to either put up or shut up about his "bipartisanship" idea after this. He also either has to do something with these recommendation or risk losing and alienating even more Repukes by continuing with his "stay the course" policy.

And while we don't necessarily like what the report came out with, we have to remember that the average American sitting out there is listening to CNN or MSNBC, or CBS or reading their local paper and taking their opinions from the first 3 minutes or 3 paragraphs. They will get the message from the reporting that Bushco and his Iraq/Middle East policy is a failure. There hasn't been anything to the contrary out there.

And the right wing radio talk shows are totally against this report. They're in an uproar.

Bring me some popcorn and let's watch the implosion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625 /

"WASHINGTON - Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.

The horror

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who will become House majority leader and is writing the schedule for the next Congress, said members should expect longer hours than the brief week they have grown accustomed to.

<snip>

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."



And this is the party that says NO ENTITLEMENTS!!!

Did someone forget to tell them that the job is in Washington? That they have to actually be in D.C. to do the job? Well, welcome to the real world, Repukes. We have to keep our families together, working for much lower wages, and getting a two week vacation per year. Yes, we work 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. What a bunch of lazy, spoiled whiners.

This is one of those little slogans the conservatives love to overuse. "Freedom is on the march". I believe that we need to point out, loudly and often, how this is in direct contrast to what they are advocating and doing here in the US of A.

Think of some of the things that they have done or want to do to limit our liberties and freedoms:

1. Repeal abortion rights.
2. Wiretapping.
3. Holding prisoners without any right to trial or attorneys.
4. Jailing and threatening the media to control what is reported.
5. Protest zones.
6. Snooping in our libraries.
7. Spying on protesters.
8. Flag burning amendment.
9. Gay marriage ban

I'm sure this is just a start, and that we can come up with many more. But it's obvious that this conservative control is taking our freedoms away from us, not upholding them or advancing them. This needs to be a rallying cry. Every time Bushco says that "Freedom is on the march", we need to respond with the truth.

Last night on Larry King, he had a panel dubbed "the best political team on TV". The general pattern of this show was that one person would state an opinion and all of the rest would agree with whatever piece of rubbish was thrown out. For example, they throw out the idea that the recent "shakeup" at the White House has all been good for Bush, and each of them talk about what genius that was. I seem to remember the "deck chairs on the Titanic" commentary at the time it happened.

The rest of this week Larry will have Bush-apologist Timmy Russert on Tuesday, John McCain on Wednesday and an hour with Rummy on Thursday. I doubt we're going to see a week of Democrats coming up next.

We see them going after Al Gore. Trying to kill any chance of him running before the idea really gets out to mainstream America.

We see Hillary Clinton's marriage being made an issue, as a way of undercutting her.

We see them touting Mitt Romney and George Allen for the Republicans, as well as McCain and Guilliani. Do we hear any name out there besides Hillary for the Dems?

The media want a fight. They want to create controversy and control the election. They present as fact their opinions, and only cover those things that fit the script they are designing for this fall and into the 2008 election.

From what I'm seeing in the reporting, the corporate media are going to guide the next 2 years with their own agenda, leaving no room for us to get out a true message. We will have to find a way to get them off-script and get our message out front.

The Republicans keep insisting that all of this surveillance is to find the "terrorists" and those that want to do harm to this country. But we know that they have spied on the Quakers, Greenpeace, anti-war groups, peace activists, PETA, and who knows what others. I believe that the domestic spying that is going on is illegal, under the 4th amendment. But let's assume that it's legal. My next concern is whose definition of "terrorist" is being used? How does this administration define someone who "wants to do harm to this country"?

We know there is an active move to stifle dissent. And I believe that this administration would use dissent as an excuse to name a group or an individual a threat to this country. We hear almost weekly about some poor innocent who finds out they're on a watch list, and that there is no way to get them off. Wasn't it Sen. Kennedy who was on a watch list? How does that happen?

No way do I believe this spying isn't being used against average citizens. No way do I believe it's a list of a bunch of phone numbers with no identifying information. What would be the purpose of phone numbers if they didn't follow up with identifying information? They are lying, they are spying and they are going to continue to get away with these fishing expeditions if Congress and the media doesn't engage in full-fledged oversight.

Right now, we're in the middle of a conversation about this administration spying on American citizens. What is spying but an investigation? And we have a faulty poll being touted by the MSM as saying that 65% of the people think it's okay for the the government to be investigating us, for our own good. They say that it's no big deal, unless you have something to hide.

Well, why isn't that the same thing with Congressional investigations? If this administration has nothing to hide, then they should welcome oversight. The Dems need to start focusing, in very clear and straightforward terms, about why the Republicans don't want oversight of this administration. There must be something to hide, otherwise, they would shine light on what Bush and his minions are doing.

It's no big deal to investigate this administration. If they have nothing to hide.

When I was a kid, there was a game called "The Last Straw". It involved a camel on wheels with a basket. The object was to load your "straws" (wooden pegs) into the basket and not be the last person to put in straw before the camel's back broke. I remember as the load got heavier, the camel's wheeled legs would start slipping, little by little, until finally, he broke in half.

This administration is that camel. At first, those straws, no matter how big, seemed to not effect that camel at all. But as each straw keeps being added, that camel's little wheels are slipping and sliding.

The key is, we can see that there are still a lot of straws left on the playing field. The straw of NSA wiretapping, the Libby straw, the corruption straw (the closer that comes to the White House, the bigger that straw will be), and now, I'm seeing a new straw being created in the form of the next Director of the CIA.

The rumblings I'm already hearing on the talk shows indicate that this might not be a simple confirmation, from either side of the aisle. It took a while for the right to decide to back Bush down on the Meiers nomination. Today, I'm hearing Republicans coming out of the gate raising serious questions about this impending nomination.

At some point, one of these straws is going to break the Bush camel's back. We see those little feet slipping. The only question now is: Which one?

Shocking story here in the local paper, The Oregonian, about what the military has been up to. This involves recruitment of an 18 year-old autistic boy, and it is appalling:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/i...

"Tracking by the Pentagon shows that complaints about recruiting improprieties are on pace to approach record highs set in 2003 and 2004. The active Army and the Reserve missed recruiting targets last year, and reports of recruiting abuses continue from across the country."

So the Pentagon is aware of recruiting abuses, but the number continues to rise.

"A family in Ohio reported that its mentally ill son was signed up, despite rules banning such enlistments and the fact that records about his illness were readily available.

In Houston, a recruiter warned a potential enlistee that if he backed out of a meeting he would be arrested.

And in Colorado, a high school student working undercover told recruiters he had dropped out and had a drug problem. The recruiter told the boy to fake a diploma and buy a product to help him beat a drug test."

This is obviously a systemic problem that the Pentagon has no intention of correcting. They are just hoping that the number of abuses that they get away with outnumber the abuses that get caught.