The King County Republican Party continues its quest to get illegal voter registrations purged from the rolls, and there will be related voter challenge hearings you can attend today Nov. 21 (4:30 and 6:30 p.m.) and tomorrow Nov. 22, at the King County Records and Elections division's Airport Operations Center, 9010 E. Marginal Way South. Parking is in back. This is one way to show your support for clean, accurate elections in King County.
By now, the county GOP has taken deserved lumps for regrettable errors in some of its challenges. Most of the challenges are based on accurate information, but it behooves the party to make sure no such mistakes are committed again. Like good Republicans, they have taken responsibility; something Democrats have still failed to do for the massive 2004 elections screw-up in King County which robbed Republican Dino Rossi of the governorship.
That said, I think the GOP here needs to take care that its identity is not subsumed by its election reform agenda. The party has lost suburban seats in the state legislature; is in the minority in both chambers; and given its iffy status in the 'burbs, cannot afford to write off Seattle any longer.
The biggest challenge now for Central Puget Sound Republicans, in my estimation, is to exercise some leadership and vision on regional transportation issues. That does not simply mean crossing our arms, stomping our feet "No," and pissing and moaning some more. We know a big tax proposal of some sort is coming in 2006 from the Regional Transportation Investment District, to add to funds from the gas-tax hike approved last spring and upheld by voters several weeks ago in the vote against I-912.
Many suburban voters want more general purpose highway lanes as a major component, and they're right. Other suburban voters - ones who help decide elections but who don't comment much at Sound Politics - want more and better transit. There are other issues to address in next year's RTID package, such as tolls; which Alaskan Way Viaduct plan to choose (rebuild, not tunnel); and lane additions to the 520 bridge over objections of communities at both ends of the structure.
In Central Puget Sound, the GOP needs to become more a party of ideas, and economic growth; and less a party of anger and regret. We need to be looking forward, with a positive agenda, and not just at the integrity of future elections. Transportation is a good place to start.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 21, 2005 10:37 AM | Email This-fix the I-405/SR-167 interchange. Meaning make it a serious interchange. Right now the backup during daylight weekday hours pretty much makes 405 a 1+1 (1GP and 1HOV) lane freeway. You can add as much GP lane capacity as you want, but it doesn't mean much if traffic still bottlenecks at interchanges.
-add at least one more GP lane to 405. Or just get rid of the HOV lane.
-if you're going to add more lanes to the 520 bridge, you need to add more lanes to 520 on either end of the bridge
-and finally, improve the I-5/SR-16 interchange. They're buidling a second Narrows bridge and improving SR-16 to imprvoe traffic flow, but not doing anything about this interchange. Which just means better flow until you hit the bottleneck.
Now, I realize that improving interchanges on major freeways is a huge undertaking, and hugely expensive but it can be done, and with great results. My case in point is the I-680/CA-24 interchange in Walnut Creek, CA. It took 3-4 years and I don't know how much money, and included having to build temporary ramps so they could knock down the old ramps to build the new permanent ramps.
And how many of those 'burbanites who want more transit want it so 'other folks' will use it, but not them? My guess: almost all of them.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on November 21, 2005 11:03 AMYou mean you want the Republican Party to abandon the "French Model" (I surrender)?
It will, unfortunately, take a change in leadership first. My greatest fear is that Chairman Vance will go ahead and endorse Sam Reed again in 2008, thus going back to the French Model they seem to like lately.
True conservatives were so disenchanted with David Irons that they just stayed home this year. What a mistake his candidacy was!
After all, what real difference was there between Sims and Irons? Except for Irons saying; "I can do it better" (sound familiar?)I saw nothing of any substance.
Posted by: jaybo on November 21, 2005 11:07 AMTell you what Matt, if you can keep Seattle's uncontrolled spending confined to the city limits, I am all for it. But your metro spending seems to always impact us in southeast King County.
Please stop it.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 21, 2005 11:08 AMMy responses. 1) No, I want the GOP to to be the majority, in Olympia; and I'm tired of highways that too often turn into parking lots. 2) Seattle and its suburbs are an essential part of the regional and state economies. Accordingly, it was the voters of King County, Snohomish County and Pierce County who made sure I-912 failed, and that the legislature's gas tax hike for more road projects region-wide was maintained. You can't pin that "tax and spend" decision on Seattle - our number of voters is a fraction of suburban King and the other two counties combined.
Posted by: Matt R. on November 21, 2005 11:41 AMArguing for more traffic lanes in our area is arguing for progress, but it is not favored by those who call the shots and they have a fromidable machine wrought from years of enforced prejudice and propaganda. I have nothing good to say about the current RTA projects, Sounder Transit, or light rail because they are all decidedly bad ideas.
How do you make sense to those who are inured to reason? You CANNOT.
However, the best arguments are still there for new traffic lanes on the freeways and reforming the Metro Bus system, and those who are not completely brain washed will listen if the reasons are clear and clearly supported. Especially as the mess being made by Gregoire starts coming unraveled while we continue to sit in traffic.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 21, 2005 01:09 PM
It's never been a matter of dollars for me; I voted for 912 because I don't like the direction that transportation has gone, and I don't want to subsidize Seattle roads.
1) No, I want the GOP to to be the majority, in Olympia; and I'm tired of highways that too often turn into parking lots.
What difference does it make which party is in charge in Olympia if they are both going to spend like drunken sailors, and they are both going to advance the government knows best agenda? The Seattle-run GOP has not earned the right to be the majority in Washington State, because they are almost indistinguishable from Seattle's looney-left.
2) Seattle and its suburbs are an essential part of the regional and state economies.
Comment #2 sounds like it needs a "but" or "therefore" following it. How about, therefore, we are justified in raising taxes state-wide to pay for transportation projects in the Seattle metro area.
Matt, you have not convinced me to stop p*ssing and moaning, but if you are representative of the rest of King County GOP, then it is no wonder King County has been written off by the rest of the state.
P.S. Your software blocked using the word "p*ssing." It is bad form to allow the site owners to use a phrase like "p*ssing and moaning" and then not allow posters to reference that phrase in their response.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 21, 2005 01:33 PMSam Reed will NEVER get my vote again! I will vote for his Democrat opponent over him. Whether Chris Vance supports him or not is irrelevant to me. I am disgusted by his do nothing attitude. I am aggravated that he takes credit for the statewide voter database coming. The database was federally mandated. His appointment of Nick Handy as the State Elections Director is also disgusting. Handy was bought out of his contract here in Olympia while working serving the people in the Port of Olympia. Not only doesn't he know anything about elections, he doesn't believe that he needs to know Washington State Laws governing elections. He is a waste of money and oxygen.
Posted by: sgmmac on November 21, 2005 03:43 PMBut my main interest here is to reiterate the need expressed earlier to replace Vance. I am tired of the negative and reactionary stance he has advocated for way too long. Historically (I do love history), Republicans were the party of progressive ideas in this state, and I agree with Matt that transportation offers a vehicle to reclaim that focus....but only after we dump Chris Vance and all his like minded colleagues.
Posted by: mike on November 21, 2005 03:48 PMCatch your breath, and please name me some reactionary policy that Chris Vance supports. Or Norm Maleng. Or David Irons. Or Jane Hague. I am truly interested in understanding your notion of reactionary.
Posted by: huckleberry on November 21, 2005 04:48 PM"You whine about the rest of the state having to pay for Seattle's transportation needs, but historically, Seattle, and the metro areas in general, have subsidized the rest of the state"
I know that is the conventional opinion, but is there any empirical proof of this by an objective body?
Just askin'.
Posted by: Shaun on November 21, 2005 05:04 PMIt's time to do something akin to the Contract for America that was successfully done in 1994 by the Republicans. If the State Republican Party can come up with a viable plan with teeth, it will be able to resonate with many voters who are tired of mediocrity in State Government for the 2006 elections. We all know that there is plenty of ammo out there.
It will also help pave the way for a successor to the current mediocre Governor in 2008, with an R in front of their name. If a plan is absent, don't expect different results than in 2004 - and if that's the case, a major opportunity will have been blown and it will clearly be time for a change in leadership of the State Republicans.
Posted by: KS on November 21, 2005 09:46 PM