The only candidate I want to endorse, because his is the only contest that might be close, is Sam Adam. Even though I think he might be falling apart a bit, he has proven himself to be "smart, tough, and real." Nick Fish is such a politician... In all the times we have met, I have gotten a car salesman vibe from him. Otherwise, Fish is good, too. I reiterate the oft-stated notion that I wish either Adams or Fish was running for mayor (despite their lack of experience). My vote for Potter was luke-warm; the only thing I really like about him is his financial contribution limit. Back to Sam, though, I really hope he runs for office again as he is probably going to lose this time around.

33: I voted yes, knowing all the reasons I should have voted no. But, hey, I am in support of any steps toward legalizing marijuana, period. It is also a loser and my yes vote then becomes only symbolic.

34: I voted yes. There has been a lot of discussion of this on all sorts of blogs. I really had a tough time and considered not voting on it at all. In the end, I went on instinct. Saving forests, good. Timber industry, sketchy.

35: No comment.

36: No!!!! This was my most passionate vote. This measure reminds me of Jim Crow legislation at its worst.

37: No!!!! Third most passionate vote. 37 is such a horrific idea. Do I even need to say more?

38: I voted no and I have no comment beyond stating that.

I voted (notice the past tense, Kari) NO on every initiative. Here they are in my order of importance - thanks to Jack Bog for the idea:

26-64 - I have two children, one in Kindergarten and one in third grade. Enough said.

37 - This would be the end of Oregon's land use system, and thankfully farmers, or at least the farm bureaus, realize this and oppose it. That gives me some hope that it will fail.

36 - It's too bad this issue was forced on the public before we had a chance for a rational discussion of civil unions and gay marriage. I partially blame the Multnomah County council, but based on what is happening across the country, I think that is more of an excuse for the proponents than anything else.

38 - I've never seen an initiative that would so blatantly benefit one company. The fact that the said company is bankrolling the campaign just makes it worse.

35 - One legitimate case of gross negligence that causes permanent injury or worse is enough to keep the law as it is. Some reforms are probably a good idea, but this isn't it.

33 - Is this really necessary?

34 - This receives a no because of the extremely high standard that I have for voting yes on any initiative. Initiatives have sent Oregon on the downward fiscal path of the past 15 years. One initiative that would definitely get a yes vote from me is one to eliminate the initiative system. Initiatives have no give and take - they are all or nothing, which invariably ends in poor law. Even with all the special interests and lobbyists, I'll take the legislative process.

when Measure 36 passes--and it will, by a bigoted mile--what then?

As an ardent and privy volunteer for the No on 36 campaign, I'd say you oughta stop saying that. The numbers are close, despite the proponents skewed polling.

So, get out and volunteer.

I'm really pretty P.O.'d about the ballot choices I have to make this year. Many of the measures just don't ask the right question. For example, why are we asking whether gays ought to be able to be married, when marriage is a religious institution - which is the reason the issue is so divisive? What business is it of the government's whether people swear to stay together for the rest of their lives before God? The only business the government has in it is whether two people have formed a contractual relationship - a civil union - and whether they want to get out of their contractual relationship. Anyone who wants to have a contract with another person to share property and responsibility for each other's interests ought to be able to do so. Get rid of government-sanctioned marriage altogether is my opinion.

Then there's the son-of-Measure 7. Because I supported Measure 7, this version isn't going to make me happy because it's weak and really won't do anything at all. But if I vote against it, I'll just be sending a message that I don't support the concept of respecting private property rights, which isn't how I feel at all. So I'm mad I'm being asked that question.

I'm very angry about the presidential race as well. I can't stand what Bush has done to this country, and I don't like what Kerry would do. So I have concluded I won't vote in that category because any vote I would cast would fill me with too much regret.

On the timber ballot measure, I think it's a cleverly-worded anti-logging measure, though I'm not sure, and though the timber interests are self-centered and not altogether honest or responsible, timber is a vital part of our economy and our way of life, so I don't want to inadvertently destroy the industry in the name of "balance," even though I consider myself an environmentalist.

Fortunately, there are a couple of easy choices that don't upset me. The anti-SAIF measure is a classic special interest measure that is just wrong, any way you look at it. I've known a number of people who have paid dearly for poor medical care by inattentive doctors. I wouldn't dream of setting a limit on the value of their suffering.

As for the rest of the measures, I'm happily at a point in my life where I don't remember what they are - and even better, I don't even know what numbers go with what issues.

Riley also shows Bush way ahead of Kerry in Oregon. For some reason, I just don't trust most polls this year. But Riley's numbers don't add up at all.

I've already worked up a few people with my take on M34 (see below), so I won't go through all of my other decisions/endorsements here. You can find them at my own blog tho (click on my name to link through). One other thought: Becky has it right - too many people are asking the wrong question about gay marriage. Why not a ballot measure to get government out of the church's business for good (and perhaps codify civil unions for all couples who want to "partner" at the same time)?