Throwing Marshmallows

I am not a fan of Chris Matthews by any stretch of the imagination, but even blowhards can get something right sometimes.

Today, he had conservative radio host Kevin James on his show to talk about President Bush’s comment which compared Obama to Nazi appeasers (choosing guests who do nothing but shout is one reason why I usually do not like his show). What followed, I have to admit, was extremely enjoyable.

MATTHEWS: You don’t know what you’re talking about, Kevin. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.

JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right? […]

MATTHEWS: I’ve been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich.

JAMES: I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: You don’t know, thank you.

But it got even better. Matthews rebuked James (and Bush) for “being blank slates of history”:

You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving things away to the enemy.

You can see a video here.

This type of political rhetoric drives me crazy…when all else fails, compare the opponent to Nazis or Nazi appeasers. And people wonder why we can’t have a real public conversation about real issues.

Not to mention, since when it is a crime to talk about diplomacy? If you are not willing to talk, then how can you expect to ever make progress?

Yesterday the Diane Rehm Show (on NPR) did a segment on homeschooling. It featured Mike Donnelly (from HSLDA), Rob Reich (associate professor of ethics at Stanford) and Gretchen Roe (homeschool mom and part-time liaison for Calvert School).

I have lots of comments about the show which, in my opinion, came across as fairly positive to homeschooling. I do not want to get into all the points that I would have liked to have seen made, but I did want to focus on one aspect that Rob Reich brought up…the issue of the rights of children.

At one point, Reich posed a question to Donnelly (who had just said that HSLDA was for more freedom for parents, wanting parents to have more choices and less government intrusion): “Are you also for the freedom of the children? What if the child wants to learn, say science, but the parents haven’t taught them that?”

This argument for additional oversight of homeschoolers is one that I have seen made other times as well, mostly by my fellow progressives and mostly in response to the perceived “brainwashing” of children by Christian homeschool parents. And to be honest with you, on face value, this can seem to be a compelling argument, especially for those with stereotypical views of homeschoolers and homeschooling. The idea that children can be sheltered and only hear “one point of view” (one with which many progressives would have issues with) bothers many people.

But when you start looking closer at the argument about protecting “the rights of the children”, you realize that it is not as clear cut an argument as it would seem. And this is because it implies that children have rights over what/when/how they learn outside of homeschooling and that it is homeschooling itself that deprives children of these rights.

But this most definitely is not the case. Switch his argument around a little bit and ask: “What if a child does not learn best with the curriculum the school has chosen? Does he have the right in school to get a different curriculum that better fits his learning style?” Ummm….no. He barely has the right to get accommodations and the parents usually have to fight tooth and nail to get those.

“What if a child is a right-brained learner who is not truly ready to read until between 8 or 9 years old?” Does that child have the right to wait and not be forced into learning to read before he is ready? No. He gets labeled as “late” and slapped with a learning disability (because of course it has to be the child that is broken, not the school).

To be honest with you, one of the main reasons that I am homeschooling is because I believe that children should be allowed to learn on their own timeframe and in a manner that works for them. I am homeschooling precisely because I do feel that my children have rights and that homeschooling is the best way to ensure those rights.

Reich’s argument seems to be less about whether children should have rights and more about who gets to make the decision about what the child learns. The state or the parent. I prefer to let the parents, who have a much more vested interest in the child, make this call. Does that mean that parents always make the right call for what is best for their children? Nope. But please don’t tell me that the state gets it right every time either.

I find it interesting that people who call for more oversight of homeschoolers often seem to have more of a problem with what is being taught rather than with the actual idea of homeschooling. These are the people who call for more oversight and want, as Reich has advocated for, some kind of “curricular oversight” to ensure “that parents are exposing their children to ideas, beliefs and values that go beyond what the children would encounter naturally in the home”.

Now, I am most certainly not arguing against exposure to alternative points of view! It is something that I consciously try to do. What I am arguing against however is the state enforcing how this is done. And here is why:

In order for me to have the freedom to teach my child what I feel is important (such as the different world religions) that means that others have to have the freedom to teach their children what they feel is important (even if I do not agree with it). It is the old free speech argument…I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Again, suppose the tables were switched…suppose fundamentalist Christians got to decide what was taught in public schools and only creationism was allowed. Would liberals feel that they should have the right to take their children out and teach them evolution at home? Would they feel that the Christians in charge of the schools had a right to dictate what they could/could not teach at home? If not, then they should not feel that they have the right to dictate what Christian homeschoolers teach at home.

It is a hard issue to grapple with, because we all want children to have the best environment in which to learn and grow. And we all have different ideas of what this “best environment” looks like. What it comes down to for me is that we live in a free society and one of the aspects of living in a free society is that people are going to make choices for themselves and their children with which not everyone agrees.

I have more to say on this subject, but I think that this has been getting a bit long. I will save the rest for tomorrow…

I had been not been overly thrilled with the direction that the primary campaign and coverage had been taking lately…mostly getting tired with slew of “resignations” and the “controversy” surrounding them on both sides. Seems as if anyone says anything remotely “wrong” and they had to be ejected and the candidates had to completely distance themselves (yes, it bothered me on both sides). Every word and reaction was being parsed and analyzed and the “effect” it would have on each campaign was being analyzed.

Then the “controversy” surrounding Reverend Wright reared its head and I had just about completely stopped reading any kind of coverage because I was so sick of the divisiveness and nit-picking and knee-jerk reactions and judgments. I resigned myself to accepting that it was “politics as usual” and I would just have to accept that this was the way it was going to be and hope for the best.

But then Barack gave his speech yesterday and restored my faith in this political process. I realize that not everyone has the same opinion about it, but I have to say that personally it blew me away. If you have not heard it in its entirety, I encourage you to listen (or read it) on your own. News coverage and sound bites can not do it justice. And that was the beauty of it. It was not a typical politician speech…it acknowledged the fact that there are shades of gray to everything…that things are not as black and white as our politics would have us believe.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

I also encourage you to listen to this NPR report: Chicagoans: Reports Misrepresent Obama’s Church.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments from the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have put the spotlight on his church and his relationship with Sen. Barack Obama. The church being portrayed in the media, however, is unrecognizable to many who are familiar with the congregation.

This is the way that politics and our media works…ideas, people, places are reduced to sound bites which have little resemblance to how they really are. Talking head “experts” who have little to no direct knowledge of the subject at hand come on and talk like they know something, when they don’t. Because life can not be distilled down to 3 or 4 minutes on tv. Life is more nuanced than that.

All the pundits have been asking “is it enough” or “will it work”. I am sure that it will not please everyone and there will still be some who dismiss it. I for one, however, am thankful that yesterday was not “politics as usual” and that Barack at least attempted to move the conversation forward.

When I read things like this, I really wish that Benjamin Franklin was still around to remind us that:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I find it very ironic that the same George Bush that said in his State of the Union speech “On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says.” seems to totally miss the whole idea of separation of powers and the idea that the president is not above the law.

Hmm….now there is a thought.

I have been in the Obama camp for awhile now and hope to pull together some of my favorite links and speeches soon.

In the meantime and on the eve of the Virginia primary, I thought that I would put out a few things for those who might still be undecided.

Governor Tim Kaine sent out an email that actually hits on my main reasons for supporting Barack:

Barack Obama has an excellence of character, intellect and judgment that America needs. His natural inclination is to bring people together to face the tough challenges that often divide us. This was his skill as a community organizer, attorney, state legislator and U.S. Senator. I have also been impressed by Barack’s calm demeanor in the face of triumph and challenge and his ability to pick great people to give him advice. His intelligence is confident and it allows him to adjust and change when presented with new data or important points of view that he may not have originally considered.

People are tired of the same old bickering, gridlock and division. They are tired of politics being defined as “who we’re afraid of and who we’re mad at.” Americans are an optimistic people who want to do great things and feel good about our country. Barack has the positive and inclusive spirit that is the best match for who we are as a people, and where we want to go. He has strong views, but he does not demean others who think differently. Instead, he treats people—even political opponents—with respect and looks for opportunities to build coalitions for change.

And you can also hear why you should support him in Barack’s own words from an event yesterday in Alexandria:

And if anyone needs yard signs, bumper stickers or buttons let me know! I might be able to rustle some up and would love to help spread the word!

Happy voting tomorrow and here’s keeping my fingers crossed. It is so exciting to finally be voting for a candidate rather than against one!

Yup. I watched the State of the Union Speech. And I really want to know what reality Bush is living in.

AFSC has just released a new 2 min. video to help people understand the outrageous amount of money that is being spent daily on the Iraq war — at the expense of meeting human needs.

I am sure that by now everyone has seen the news stories on how homeschoolers have propelled Huckabee to national prominence. Just had to add my voice to the growing chorus of homeschoolers…HOMESCHOOLERS ARE NOT ALL OF ONE POLITICAL PARTY OR ONE RELIGION. We are a diverse population from all walks of life and, yes, some of us are even <gasp> liberal!

Needless to say that I got a kick out of the the Homeschoolers For blog. Although their Barack Obama listings seem a bit weak…I may have to help remedy that…

A friend of mine, Laura had a great letter to the editor published in the Washington Post:

It would be a refreshing turn, though, to learn more in your pages about the diversity of positions we home-schoolers take, as many of us work to remove partisan political agendas from our conversations about educating children. Because we are accustomed to stepping outside the norm, dissent feels familiar, and we express it in multiple arenas — certainly not only in the limited world of Mike Huckabee’s conservative presidential campaign.

I have been trying to basically ignore most of the news stories that show up in my Google Alerts about Huckabee and homeschoolers as they usually do at least mention that it is evangelical homeschoolers who support Huckabee so strongly. And the truth is that some homeschoolers are definitely playing a big role in his campaign.

But the problem is when reporters start reporting on homeschooling in general and portraying homeschoolers in particular ways. Most reporters are not familiar with homeschooling and homeschoolers and usually don’t do much research when reporting on us. Kind of like this article from the New York Times:

It is unclear how many evangelical Christians in Iowa teach their children at home — some estimates are over 10,000 — but the network of families is tightly connected and highly motivated. They come together in groups and online to share curriculum information, form sports teams, and stage other activities. And many, aware that homeschooling was illegal in almost every state until recently, fear that if they relax their vigilance politically teachers’ unions will push to take away their rights.

First off, homeschooling has never been illegal. Second off, most homeschoolers I know do not live in fear that their homeschool rights are going to be taken away. Third off, the president honestly has very little to do with our homeschool rights as home instruction is handled at the state level.

Yes, we do have to be active to protect our homeschool rights and not take them for granted, but in my opinion, that is better done through supporting statewide homeschool organizations like VaHomeschoolers rather than presidential candidates. The truth is that homeschooling is not on shaky ground and does not depend on a president’s support.

I am not a one issue voter and to be honest with you, a presidential candidate’s opinion on homeschooling is far down the on the list of considerations. Homeschooling does color my views in many ways…I have found that I have more libertarian leanings since starting and tend to prefer that government leave me alone as much as possible. Yet, I also feel strongly that it is ok and even good for government to help those who need it and yes, I realize that these may seem somewhat contradictory. But that is ok…it works for me and I tend to not be a black and white person anyways. Nothing wrong with nuance. I guess that you could call me a Democrat with Libertarian leanings?

So don’t believe everything that you read in the newspapers about homeschooling. We are a much more diverse group than you might think based on the news coverage. Yes, we are passionate about what we do. And yes, we are very networked. But we come in all shapes, colors, religious backgrounds, political leanings, shoe sizes…hey just like the rest of the country!

I have not had a chance to listen to the whole debate, but I will say, the parts of the NPR Presidential Radio debate I did hear sure impressed me a whole lot more than any of the televised debates and made me want to listen to the whole thing.
No tv cameras. No live audience. Moderators who put some thought into questions that might help illuminate the issues rather than boost ratings. More time to delve into the questions rather than just trying to put out sound bites. No time limits on answers. Ability to have a real conversation. Allowing all candidates to talk rather than just the top three (I think that this is the first time that I got to hear Chris Dodd say more than one or two sentances).

I have not had the stomach to watch the TV debates for more than a few minutes because I just can’t stand the “television personalities” that pass for reporters these days. Or the ridiculous, non-important questions that get asked (usually about some “controversy”).

Definitely check it out. NPR has even fact checked the statements made during the debate for you. You can listen on your computer or download the broadcast to your iPod.

This is a debate that has some meat that you can sink your teeth into.

Thank you NPR for restoring back at least a little bit of faith in the process. I was beginning to worry that no one “got it” anymore.

There was a really interesting article in Salon this week called Michelle Obama Gets Real in which children’s books plays a key role.

There’s time for one more story before Obama has to address the adults gathering in an adjacent room, and someone has set aside two books from which Obama can choose. There’s one unfamiliar book called “Skippyjon Jones,” and a hardback edition of “Our National Anthem,” the sort of red, white and blue book Lynne Cheney would write, and that an aspiring first lady would be expected to read. “Not that one,” says Obama, quickly discarding the patriotic volume. She opens “Skippyjon Jones” and begins the story of a Siamese kitten who, for reasons too murky to convey here, soon starts using “his very best Spanish accent,” to say things like, “My ears are too beeg for my head. My head ees too beeg for my body. I am not a Siamese cat … I AM A CHIHUAHUA!”

I have to admit that I as soon as I heard Skippyjon Jones mentioned, I both laughed and cringed. We have this book (I picked it up when we were at the National Book Festival) and as described , it is most definitely a tongue twister (and hilarious). Kyle especially likes it. I could feel Michelle Obama’s pain as the article described her laughing through it all. The cringe came because the book can be seen as controversial and is probably not the most “politically correct” because of the Spanish accent and I was hoping that was not the angle the article was going to focus on.

Luckily, the angle the article took was a bit more sophisticated than that:

But Obama’s particular impulse — to reject meaningless political pablum or helpmate hokum in favor of unexpected candor and a good laugh — has already distinguished her yearlong tenure on the presidential campaign circuit.

“You’ve never seen anyone like us before, and that’s a little freaky, isn’t it?” she asks the crowd of grown-ups who’ve assembled at the Monticello library after the bangito conclusion of “Skippyjon Jones.” “It’s like, ‘They’re real!’ Well, guess what? Real people can be politicians too. We as a country have grown suspicious of real. We take the fake.”

I will admit that I am very partial to the Obamas for precisely this reason…they seem very real and human to me and not as tied to poll results (I am also intrigued by John and Elizabeth Edwards for the same reason as well). And I will also admit that Michelle Obama’s choice of Skippyjon Jones over the National Anthem only serves to reinforce this impression. I love that she went with a book that she thought the children would enjoy over a book that would have “looked good” from a political/adult perspective.

After reading this article I kept looking for the news reports taking her to task for this, just like they took her husband to task for not wearing a flag pin. I guess if they had, all she would have had to do was to point out that Judy Schachner was a featured author at the National Book Festival, hosted by none other than Laura Bush.

I do think that it is sad that I was worried about her having to defend her choice of books. But that seems to be what politics has come to in this country…folks look for any little thing and then pounce, usually blowing it way up and way out of proportion until you have no idea what to believe any more.

It was an interesting article and kinda cool to see children’s books take a central role in a political piece.

It appears that if you want vote in the Republican primary in Virginia, you have to promise that you will vote for the Republican nominee in 2008. According to a news article:

“The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they’ll vote for the party’s presidential nominee next fall… Virginia doesn’t require voters to register by party, and for years the state’s Republicans have fretted that Democrats might meddle in their open primaries.”

This is politics in a nutshell. Gotta keep such a tight hold on what people think in any way possible…god forbid that anyone think for themselves.

This cartoon was on Slate.com and I have to say that it sums up my feelings pretty danged well.

The Democrats spent years complaining about how Republicans let good ole GW get everything that he wanted. And yet now that they can stop him and stand up for the constitution, they are not. Same thing with the war. And with Iran. They need to get over themselves and stop fretting about being seen as “weak”. They need to provide some leadership for crying out loud. Everything is so political and there is so much spin on both sides it is no wonder nothing gets done.
I am convinced that history is going to reveal that what we are finding now (wire tapping, torture re-authorization after the denial) is the tip of the iceberg.

Bill Moyers had a fascinating program talking about how the executive office authority/powers have been drastically expanded during the Bush presidency and how that is not a good thing. And how Congress just basically went along with it and let it happen. <sigh>

Looks like John Warner is ready to retire. For a Republican, he was not really half bad. I will say that I appreciated his ability to stand up for what he believed in (even if I did not agree with him all the time) and not just toe the party line. At least he recognized that there were other points of view out there. He also understood what it meant to be a Senator and took his office very seriously. Not to mention, he was a very senior Senator…no matter who wins this time around, Virginia will have two very junior Senators. So on the whole I am a bit sad to see him go (unlike my gleeful joy at seeing George Allen go down in flames).

This brings up an interesting opportunity. Right now it looks like Mark Warner will throw his hat into the ring for the Dems which is great as he did an outstanding job as Governor and if Virginia did not have this weird one-term limit rule would still be Governor (although I will say that I really like Tim Kaine as well). Where it becomes interesting is that Tom Davis (R) who is currently my Congressional Representative is looking to make a bid for the seat as well. Which means that I not only get to vote for Mark Warner, but against Tom Davis.

Which also means that the House job is open as well (haven’t heard who is interested in making a bid for that yet). Which means that next year I have the best chance ever to NOT be represented by Republicans! I could actually live in a state with a Democratic governor, 2 Democratic senators, a Democratic Representative (in addition to my current state rep who is a Democrat). Yikes. Who woulda thunk. Is Virginia actually finally going blue?

I know, I know. I am not going to count my chickens (donkeys?) yet. But a girl can dream, can’t she?

I received an update email from NBC Nightly News with this promo about tonight’s broadcast:

How well does Illinois Senator Barack Obama get along with his chief rival for the Democratic nomination for President? It’s one of the questions Brian Williams asked Obama today in a one-on-one interview.

This is what NBC felt was the most noteworthy question to highlight about a major presidential candidate? Whether the candidates like each other? What does he expect Obama to say? I swear everyone is looking for “dirt” rather than discussing issues of any importance. Earlier I saw a report where people were trying to say that Michelle Obama was taking a crack at Hilary. Everyone wants a cat fight and that is all politics seems to be lately. John Edwards is trying to raise the profile and discussion about poverty and all you can find is coverage of Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter.

Are the American people that shallow that all we want is to hear about $500 haircuts and debate whether Barrack is too “feminine” and Hiliary is too “masculine”? Or is the mainstream media just pandering to the lowest common denominator and trying for ratings?

We are supposed to be having a national conversation about where this country is going and what do we see on the news? Fluff and nothing important. Who likes who and who said what about who and who said something about nothing important. Now I will admit that my eyes glaze over when I hear candidates going on about specific “plans” especially when you realize that by the time the plan is implemented it will not look anything like what is proposed (any other Virginians get a kick out of how Jim Gilmore basically won the governorship by promising to get rid of the car tax? I do…every time that I send in my car tax payment). But I do want to hear about what a candidate feels are important issues and where they want to take us and why. Call me idealistic, but I want a candidate who believes what they say, whether it is popular or not.

It just bugs me when there are so many more important things to discuss (like how the Bush administration has drastically changed the balance of power in our system of checks and balances in ways that are extremely scary) how the mainstream media goes running after the latest distraction (Oooh! Look! Something shiny! Maybe it will help ratings!).

I find that I can hardly stomach mainstream national news ever since the awful sensationalism of the Va Tech shootings. If I hear about something I want to know more about, I try to check it out on NPR. And thank goodness for Bill Moyers on PBS. At least there is some place that I can hear a news program with some substance and things that make me think and question. That goes beyond sound bites. And that has some heart and integrity.

Bah. I just don’t get this society that we live in sometimes.

You are reading a perfectly good interview with a major political candidate for your party and all of sudden you run into a stereotypical portrayal of homeschooling? That is what happened as I was reading this interview with John Edwards in Salon.

Elizabeth has announced that you plan to hire a tutor to help home-school your two youngest children, Emma Claire and Jack, in the fall so the family can be together on the campaign trail. Have you realized how many conservative votes you could get if you play up your plans for home schooling?

I hadn’t thought about that.

I assume that evolution will not be part of the curriculum.

It’ll be part of our curriculum.

Other than thinking about it, have you made any arrangements for home schooling?

No. We haven’t even talked to the children about it, which we have to do.

Now obviously it was the interviewer Walter Shapiro and not John Edwards who has the misconception about homeschoolers only consisting of conservatives who do not teach evolution. Edwards actually seemed a bit confused by the line of questioning (while I am sure Shapiro thought he was being “witty”) I also find it amusing that Shapiro actually seems to think that truly conservative voters would overlook Edwards’ more progressive stances just because he homeschools. Please. I have a feeling that it will take a bit more then becoming a homeschooler to convince true conservatives that Edwards is worth voting for.

I do wish that more folks in the media would wake up and realize that homeschoolers come in all shapes and sizes and all political persuasions. And that yes <gasp> liberals do homeschool!

Not sure it will do much good, but I had to respond of course…

~Stephanie

I knew that I liked Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for a reason (ok, many reasons). He just threw his support behind Barack Obama (the first governor other then Illinois to do so).

~Stephanie

Well, ok, he’s forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. The first step towards actually running. Works for me!

Check out Barack Obama’s video announcement and come do a happy dance with me.

~Stephanie

And I am still kicking myself for not going out and seeing him when he was in Alexandria earlier this past year. Probably won’t make it down to Richmond either, but at least it is nice to know that Virginia is in play now.

Barack will be attending the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in February. And he just wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about how Congress has not gone far enough with ethics reform:

 That’s why it’s not enough to just change the players. We have to change the game.

Americans put their faith in Democrats because they want us to restore their faith in government — and that means more than window dressing when it comes to ethics reform.

I know that I am an idealist. And I know that many people say that being an idealist is not practical and does not really work in the “real world”. But I also believe that idealism is important and there is a time and place for it. I honestly believe that after what we have been through and where politics has taken us lately, that we need someone like Barack.

He may not have tons of experience, but he is incredibly smart and I have no doubt that he would surround himself with the people with the experience and who can give him the information he needs. He certainly can’t do any worse then our current president. One of Barack’s key strengths is that he knows how to listen and he can see both sides of most issues. This alone would be an improvement over what we have today.

He has the ideas and willingness to work for the betterment of our country. He has a vision for what this country could be and should stand for which is more then I can say for most politicians.

It will be an interesting year, that is for sure.

~Stephanie

I swear that Virginia is such a mixed bag of worms. We finally elect a Democratic Senator and give the Democrats in the Senate and then one of our Congressmen has to open his big mouth.

I don’t get this. We have freedom of religion right? Isn’t that what our country was founded on? Congress represents all people of all faiths right? What is the big deal if he carries his religious book for an unofficial ceremony? Would it be better if he was a hypocrite and carried a Bible?

Goode is worried about more Muslims coming into the country and taking over? What? Muslims are not just immigrants. Plenty of Muslims are born right here in America. Are they any less American and deserving of representation then he is?

Please.

I hear shades of the discussion they had when JFK first ran for president…he can’t govern because he will have to put the Pope and his religion before what is best for the country.

Please.

I am tired of living in a country that seems to be afraid of everything and anything. And I feel sorry for my Muslim friends (there is a very strong Muslim homeschooling community up here in Northern Virginia) who have done nothing wrong and have to watch their religion be feared in this way.

~Stephanie

I really need to get to bed…but this is getting interesting. Webb (D) is up over Allen (R) by maybe around 1,000-2,000 votes (it just recently flipped…had been 1,000-2,000 in favor of Allen when Jeff went to bed)…however they announced that there are still over 33,000 votes to count from Fairfax County (my county!!). WooHoo! The good news is that I luckily live in a mostly Democratic county (one of the few in Virginia) so there is still hope. If it is too close (under 10,000 or so I think), there will be an automatic recount. Should be interesting to see where this goes.

Virginia is one of those interesting places…it almost seems like a totally different state depending on where you are. Northern Virginia tends to be mostly liberal. Southwest Virginia is very conservative, more rural of an area. Southeast Virginia tends to be prominently military folks and very conservative as well. Of course there are exceptions in each area. I think that at times SW and SE Virginia would love to secede from those of us up here in the north.

Well, I guess that I should head to bed and check in the morning…I have to say that I am really glad to have done my part.
~Stephanie

This is totally funny…the idea is that lifestyle choices (what kind of beer you choose, where you shop etc) can predict whether you belong to the “red tribe” (republicans) or the “blue tribe” (democrats). Yet again I prove that I defy the stereotypes. Anyone who knows me will get a real kick out of these results (and will know that it is the farthest thing from the truth). HT: Monkeyfishing

I’m in the RED TRIBE!

What tribe are you in?

Tell us what drinks, magazines, and stores you like and find out what your true political colors are.