Who I Am Voting For

This post will mean close to nothing to my non-Cali readers, and they aren't endorsements. Endorsements ain't worth sh*t (unless you're Colin Powell, I guess) . Putting aside the governing principle of my hero Norman Wilson ('the sanctity of the voting booth is the cornerstone of democracy"), here's how I plan to vote (early) tomorrow.

POTUS: Barack Obama. I think I've laid out my reasoning on this position ad nauseum, so I won't bore you with the details.

U.S. Rep: Barbara Lee. Ridicule the "barbara lee speaks for me" bumper sticker if you will, but the woman has been a truly progressive and independent voice in Congress.

State Senator: Loni Hancock. Loni's the only Democrat in this race, but I supported her in the primary because I thought she was the candidate with more vision and leadership. Those terms are typically empty, but in Loni's case, it meant that she took on difficult issues in creative ways, even if it didn't mean winning all the time. By contrast, her opponent championed little bills that gave her a tally of laws to her name but little real change.

14th Assembly: Nancy Skinner, though she has no competition. People I know like her, and she has a looong record as an environmentalist, but I don't know much about her. Still, her politics are in the right place.

Judge, Alameda Superior Court: Dennis Hayashi. His opponent is a former prosecutor. There are enough of those on the bench.

City of Oakland, Councilmember at large: Rebecca Kaplan. Rebecca's great, and I give her a real endorsement. That means, please tell other people to vote for her too!

AC Transit Director: Chris Peeples (and only because I've met him, so I am not even sure it warrants recommendation, although he seemed like a nice person)

Prop 1A: Yes. The basic lack of a rail system in CA is an embarassment. I was an avid Amtrak user in high school, traveling to DC, Boston and Providence often, and alone. It was safe, comfortable and fast. The fact that you can't get to LA, much less San Ho, from SF on the train is just baffling.

Prop 2: Yes

Prop 3: No. Not sure why this bothers me. My logic is awful here. I am tired of single issue bonds (but see Prop 1A) and I feel like medical care in CA/nationally needs an overhaul, not just childrens' hospital funding. Plus, the childrens' hospitals in Cali are among the most anti-union employers in the healthcare industry. So I am just not feeling Prop 3.

Prop 4: No. Anti-choice a-holes trot this out biennially. It aims to require parental notification before abortion. The fact is, an overwhelming majority of young women consult with a parent before having an abortion, and the ones who don't, feel that there are reasons why their parents will not be supportive. Those women turn to aunts, teachers, sisters, mentors. Parental notification just sends women underground to find abortions. If the lifers want to end abortion, they should support birth control, sex ed, and prenatal care, and a world where raising a child is not a debtors' prison for young people.

Prop 5: Yes. Rehab over incarceration = good.

Prop 6: No. Again with the micro-budgeting by ballot. Let the legislature control the purse strings.

Prop 7: No. I haven't fathomed the reasons, but am willing to go along with every major environmental group on their renunciation of Prop 7 and 10.

Prop 8: no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.

Prop 9: No. This is the supposed victims' rights prop. Its redundant, a poor use of money, and while it tugs on one's heart strings, its mean and vindicative. I am just not a retributionist.

Prop 10: No. Same reason as 7.

Prop 11: Yes. And here's one of these props where I part ways with my friends in Labor, who oppose this. Prop 11 would create a multi-partisan commission to study and redraw legislative districts, in order to end gerrymandering by the dominant party in the legislature. Labor (and other special interests) do not like this because it minimizes their voice in the process of creating legislative districts. My view is, we hate gerrymandering when the Republicans do it. Why is it okay or any less democratic when we do it? And I know that the existing process has resulted in districts which are represented by members of groups largely excluded in the past but is also means there is almost no competition for seats.

Prop 12: Yes. Notwithstanding my previous positions on micro-targeting budgets, I like veterans and think they can use a hand when they leave the service. Plus, I believe that investments in veterans pays dividends. During the recent passage of the newest GI Bill, I heard Jim Webb say that this country got back $7 for every $1 it spent on GI education and mortgage subsidy. Maybe it was more.

Prop N: Yes.

Prop NN: No. I am for more police, but the city of Oakland has not met the last hiring goals from 2002 yet, and can't manage its finances at all, so this is a bad way to tie up city money.

Prop OO: No. Pits parks and recs against after-school programs, and deprives the city of funding regardless of city needs. Let the city council do its J-O.

Prop VV: Yes.

Prop WW: Yes.

Still awake out there?