In case you missed the memo, Joel Connelly is not very fond of the BIAW. I mean really not very fond. Think Peter Gibbons and TPS reports; it's not a pretty sight. Regardless, Connelly proves the opposing point in his column today.
He says BIAW's recent ads are "nasty." That's a stretch.
Certainly, BIAW has a track record of saying some over-the-top things that causes a reasonable person to raise their eyebrow and may not contribute to advancing BIAW's cause. Yet if the ads in question are "nasty" then I - and other conservatives - look forward to Connelly condemning the coming electioneering language from WEA, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the Washington State Labor Council. I'm sure they will have nothing but very pleasant things to say about Dino Rossi, complete with sunny imagery and cheery voices.
More importantly perhaps, as Connelly discusses in a way, how evil can BIAW be exactly if one of the most liberal-minded and powerful elected officials in deep-blue Olympia, Speaker Frank Chopp, has a strong relationship with the group?
Connelly also laments the merits of the "Pam" ad, pointing out the successful gas tax projects he has personally witnessed in contrast to the ad's discussion of profound problems with the issue. He has a point to a very modest degree. For all its faults, the state DOT has improved in many respects this past decade and is delivering a number of projects on-time and under-budget. The massive Everett project Connelly cites should indeed be a model for finishing major congestion relief projects early and with savings to the taxpayer.
But, the macro numbers still speak for themselves on the budget problems and delays in completing assorted gas tax projects. The long list of media citations at the "Pam" ad website speak for themselves. The state is having problems delivering the totality of these projects on-time and on-budget. And the state has notably failed to address major traffic congestion issues in the Puget Sound region. Let's not even start on delays with replacing the Viaduct and 520.
All to say, as Connelly's own columns in recent months confirm, there is a general mood of uneasiness with the performance of state government on key issues many voters care about. Complain about a BIAW-funded PAC all one wants, that doesn't change the ultimate merits of the issue - which makes the ad pretty effective in the end.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 11, 2008 07:29 AM | Email ThisI didn't know, until you posted here, that BIAW helped fund the add. I don't have a problem with that as long as the information is transparent and open for public review. It does seem suspicious however if they are trying to hide behind this PAC. Be open and forthright. We all know that BIAW is a strong Rossi supporter. What's wrong with them stating the message themselves? Why do they need to hide behind some anonymous PAC, if that is what they are doing?
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 07:23 AMI remember the fallacious ads against allowing whites the opportunity to run a gambling business. Went something like there would be establishments at every corner and gangs of kids and adults hanging out there. Now, that was over the top.
These ads were very spot on.
Do I agree with tc that ALL ads should be dull and boring and completely factual and content not cherry-picked? I suppose so, but there is the First Amendment.
Did I like the Betray-us ads of the moveon crowd against the good General Petraeous? No, but that was over the top and involved our national security.
So, I don't know where the Connelly's and tc are getting off?
Posted by: swatter on June 11, 2008 07:33 AMWe were all told that we had to raise the gas tax because th viaduct was a critical concern. It has been almost 4 years since the Democrats raised the gas tax and yet the Democrats don't even have a plan for replacing the viaduct. That is inexcusable.
As for the DOT, they have some colossal failures that have resulted in wasting millions of dollars of tax money. The Port Angelas project comes to mind.
Futhermore, the general point of the ad is spot on. We were told how the gas tax would reduce congestion. That was one of the main selling points. Congestion is worse than it has ever been.
From the DOT's own website on the viaduct project status:
"WSDOT, King County and the City of Seattle are working together to find a solution for the central waterfront section of the viaduct, and will make a recommendation by the end of 2008."
It has been SEVEN YEARS since the 2001 Nisqually Quake. It is 2008 and they are still holding meeting to "find a solution". It is a good thing the Democrats consider this a priority or it may have taken 40 years to have a meeting to "find a solution".
Don't hit TC with the truth, ya know it hurts! (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 11, 2008 07:58 AMPBJ,
As far as I know, the list of projects has not changed. The projects were listed on the DOT site prior to the vote. They were also listed in the flyers that went out. Do you have information from that time that stated the Viaduct was part of the package? I would think given the price tag for the tax increase, that the Viaduct would have ate up the total revenues and thus was excluded. The purpose of the gas tax was to fund projects across the state, not just Seattle's pet projects.
I would agree with you that the State, King County and City have wasted time on the viaduct. I would also state, however, that it has been the Mayor who has delayed it the most. The state had a plan, which was replace the structure with an in-kind structure (e.g., above ground double-decker structure). It was the Mayor who shot down this for his gold-plated tunnel proposal. You aren't going to have a solution until you can have the State and City come together. At this point, the state should state to the city that it can build it itself and would have to find its own revenue (e.g., tolls). If tolls are good enough to completely fund the new Narrows Bridge, then why can't the City use them to build the replacement Viaduct?
Army Medic/Vet @5
I am not understanding your comment. What truth are you referring to? The truth is DOT has had information on the gas tax projects on their website from before the tax was voted on. The truth is if constituents have issues with the state, they have representatives they should be talking to and who should be communicating with them. Constituents should demand this of their representatives, I know the 26th district residents expect it, and this is independent of party affiliation. The late Bob Oke did a great job of keeping his district informed, just like Derek Kilmer is today.
The Democrats continually demand higher taxes from us under the pretext that we are in a state of emergency. Well, it's three years since they defeated initiative 912 and we still don't have a viaduct plan or a 520 bridge replacement.
Some emergency.
I've heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.
So go ahead WA voters...keep electing Democrats and keep getting nothing done.
Posted by: Kato on June 11, 2008 08:32 AMPlease, don't play stupid. We all know from the Gov on down, they said they need this tax to replace the viaduct. (it's going to fall down)
Remember it's an emergency!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 11, 2008 09:20 AMHowever, you do have to sit back and ask, "what has the money bought?" And while it could be construed as lazy, it was also an ad which required every word and gesture to be thoroughly thought out.
However, on background, I thought the State should have increased the gas tax by a quarter or so about a decade ago. That was thwarted by the Rs and maybe rightfully so (i.e. you don't want to give an out of control State department that much funds without good accounting and there wasn't any back then).
Posted by: swatter on June 11, 2008 09:23 AMAlso, I did check the 2005 package proposal (at least by what was listed on WSDOT website). It did include $2B for the Viaduct. So, it appears the state has ponied up its amount and it is up to the city to deliver on its amount.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 10:53 AMWith regards to Airbus contract to AF, Boeing blew it, but so did the AF. Norm Dicks pointed out in his hearing some serious questions, like how is the AF proposing to fit the bigger birds into their current hangers. The AF hadn't submitted any MILCON projects for hanger improvements. It seems to me that the AF picked the new bird based on an incomplete RFP based on features Airbus had vice what Boeing proposed. Boeing assumed too much and had "ticked" off the AF in the past. At the same time, the AF went a new direction that was not based on existing infrastructure or called out in the RFP. It is a mess, no matter how you cut it and taxpayers now will foot the bill for additional MILCONs to support the AF changing direction.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 11:09 AMI don't know, though, is how traffic has improved as advertised. In other words, the actress/actor were used to verbalize what I see on the ground (or don't see).
Posted by: swatter on June 11, 2008 12:56 PM
First of all I remember seeing DOT officials in campaign spots on TV telling us that the viaduct was a part of the package.
And you just stated about the list of projects now is the same as what it was prior to the gas tax vote. And if you go look at the DOT project list, it clearly shows that the viaduct is part of projects financed by the 2005 gas tax increase. Nice try at obfuscation though.
"I would agree with you that the State, King County and City have wasted time on the viaduct. I would also state, however, that it has been the Mayor who has delayed it the most. The state had a plan, which was replace the structure with an in-kind structure (e.g., above ground double-decker structure). It was the Mayor who shot down this for his gold-plated tunnel proposal. You aren't going to have a solution until you can have the State and City come together."
Wasted time is an understatement. Playing Russian roulette with people's lives is more like it. I could have understood if they had demolished the thing and then did their bickering, that's one thing. But to leave that death trap up for seven years is just total incompetence.
"At this point, the state should state to the city that it can build it itself and would have to find its own revenue (e.g., tolls)."
You know I agree 100%. But that takes leadership from the chief state executive in Olympia, otherwise known as the governor. Instead of stepping up and taking charge, the current occupant of the governor's mansion ducked the issue and had a vote.
"If tolls are good enough to completely fund the new Narrows Bridge, then why can't the City use them to build the replacement Viaduct?"
Absolutely. I agree 100%. So why hasn't this happened already? Who is the one person in this state that could make that happen? Why hasn't that person done so?
Posted by: pbj on June 11, 2008 02:18 PMMy opinion on the viaduct is either: (a) use the $2B and replace with surface street, or (b) use the $2B to improve other roads in the area. Seattlites are too spoiled to every think they would have to pay a toll for something.
OBTW, I did see that the Viaduct was part of the package, but just some of the funding (i.e., not enough to actually replace it, even with in-kind structure).
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this state has done an adequate job with regards to roads. Blaiming the governor is not going to fix it. The add should focus the blame on both the Governor and Legislature. It should include the regional boards. It should include the County administrations, and it should include the Seattle Mayor. All have had a hand in this mess. Replacing CG with Rossi won't fix the rest of the deadheads involved with the decision making. All it will mean is four years from now the Democrats resurrect the same add and run it against Rossi. At least in Pierce County, we are getting rid of Ladenburg, who has not, in my opinion, been aggressive enough with Sims and Nichols with regards to regional transportation.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 02:30 PMThe gas tax increase WAS a bad idea; it's implementation IS a rip-off, and no amount of lipstick on that pig will ever change it FROM a pig into anything else.
Posted by: Hinton on June 12, 2008 05:59 AM