Ballots started arriving this past week and I've started receiving calls from folks asking who and what they should vote for. Some folks here might say they're all evil and we shouldn't vote at all and while I empathize with them and agree to a point (although I probably wouldn't go so far as to call them evil) I live in a little place I like to call the real world and last time I checked their were no citizens in the real world named Tom Paine or George Washington so without further ado, here are my recommendations, with a short reasoning of why you should vote for them:
Measures:
I-1033 - Vote Yes. I don't know about you but I've never worked for an employer that was willing to give me raise just because I ran out of money. This measure limits city, county and state government budget growth. The last time we had something like this (I-601) the state was living within its means. Christine Gregoire moved in, tossed it out, and you know the rest.
R-71 - Reject. There are a couple of good reasons to reject this measure and neither of them have anything to do with my views on homosexuality. The most compelling reason is that it will allow senior citizens to defraud social security by being, in effect, married under state law but remaining single in the eyes of the Federal government and therefore able to collect widow(er)'s social security benefits. If there's a different reason that senior citizens want to enter into a domestic partnership but not a marriage I'd sure be curious what that is. The other reason to vote against this is that it's just more laws. If folks really want to see equality for homosexual couples (which I actually have no problem with), the state needs to get out of the marriage business. If you want to get married, go to your house of worship. If you want a domestic partnership, go to a lawyer (this, also, would allow relatives and multiple people to enter into domestic partnerships).
King County Charter Amendments 1-4 - With exception of #4 these are all housekeeping amendments, getting rid of obsolete parts of the County Charter. Vote Yes on all of them. Or don't. It really won't change anything. #4 adds a citizen review period to the transfer process of already county owned land so feel free to vote yes on that as well.
Seattle Prop. 1 - It's a tax. It's voted on by Seattlites. Even if every SP reader in Seattle voted against it it would still pass. Vote no just to let them know there's still some opposition to taxes in this city.
There are a bunch of smaller city tax levies. Feel free to post your endorsements in the comments section. In general, my recommendation would be, if it's a tax, vote no. I find it extremely hard to believe that the world will end if these entities don't get a pay raise. After all, most of us have had to live on less these past couple years and we're doing okay.
King County Executive - Susan Hutchison. Despite what you may think and as much as I've ripped on Constantine the past couple of weeks, I don't think he's corrupt or evil but I do think he's had plenty of opportunity the past several years he's served on the council to address the looming budget crisis. The same old way of doing things isn't working. Plus, he appears to be in bed with the unions, which I do think are corrupt. Susan may be untested but she has plenty of private sector experience that relates to budgeting and management and plenty of good ideas that haven't been tried in too long. Vote for change! Vote for Hutchison.
Assessor - Lloyd Hara. Hara has the experience and the track record of cleaning up graft at the Port necessary for this position. Plus, it's interesting to note that nearly everyone who works in the assessor's office isn't at all fond of his nearest competition, Bob Rosenberger.
County Council District #9 - Reagan Dunn. His opponent, Beverly Tonda, seems like a pretty sharp lady. She appears to be pro-property rights, pro-gun and fiscally responsible. In another race I'd be compelled to vote for her but Dunn is doing a good job and deserves another term. My advice to Tonda would be to run for something a bit smaller, like the state legislature and then come back in a few years. That and being a little more specific in your voters pamphlet statement. I'm glad your great-great grandpappy was friends with George Washington and that you're a fan of MLK but I'm not sure how that's relevant to service on the King County Council.
Port of Seattle #3 - David Doud. David has relevant experience in real estate and would be a welcome addition from outside Seattle. Plus, Rob Holland appears to be a shill for union labor and ACORN.
Port of Seattle #4 - Tom Albro - Tom has good experience in private industry. Like Holland, his opponent, Max Vekich, is being backed by the unions
Mayor of Seattle - This is a tough one since they're both way out in Left Field. I hope the citizens of Seattle don't get buyer's remorse and wish for the days of Nickels with either of these two. McGinn is an environmentalist lawyer with little experience of any kind. He does want to stop the tunnel. I'm not sure if that's practical especially since his alternative is surface streets. I do find him more "real" though, even if he is a far-lefty.
Mallahan would be the pro-business candidate... I guess, although that's a pretty far stretch. He does want to repeal the head tax and get rid of a bunch of consultants down at City Hall. But he struck me as a phony and I really wanted to gag when he started fawning all over how great Barack Obama was when he spoke at my Rotary meeting.
Flip a coin on this one folks and pray that whomever wins they're better than Nickels.
City Attorney - Tom Carr. Tom is tough on crime, a position that seems to be sorely lacking in this city. His opponent hands out that tired old line about needing to keep schools open instead of building prisons. (Hey Pete, in a city where there are more dogs than kids that's not practical.)
City Council Position #6 - Jesse Israel. Jesse appears to be the less liberal of the two candidates. Plus she's the challenger and when it doubt, "throw the bums out."
City Council Position #8 - Robert Rosencrantz. Robert has run a few times in the past but the city's liberal leanings have left him without a seat. If there's ever been a year to elect a common sense conservative minded guy to the city council this year is it. He's got business experience and won't cow-tow to union thuggery.
And that's all I know. Feel free to post endorsements for other races in the comments section and if you're still undecided it's usually a safe bet to "throw the bums out" and vote for the challenger.
Crock. R-71 represents MORE rights and freedoms, and not less -- and assuming that we shouldn't make laws to create and protect freedoms is laughable. But if you're really ready for the state "getting out of the marriage business", why don't you propose instead that all marriages be abolished in favor of domestic partnerships? Otherwise, your claims that you "have no problem with homosexual couples" are pretty much untrue.
(And for the record, I did vote against Proposition 1. The process of funding levies by popular vote is ludicrous... and one of the reasons to vote DOWN I-1033.)
Posted by: demo kid on October 17, 2009 10:18 AMThat is why I only vote FOR candidates that are in favor of cutting the power of the state while you will vote for candidates that like state power so long as there is some other more evil candidate out there.
We have seen what voting against candidates as Mark suggests has worked out. Now lets stop feeding the vampires and stop voting for them. Lets makes marks 'reality' go away and bring about a new reality where political parties have to give us candidates worth voting for rather than the crap they give us now. Only by refusing to vote for ALL the crappy candidates will we ever put enough pressure to start getting good candidates.
Posted by: Lysander on October 17, 2009 01:37 PMI think you need to work on your reading comprehension. See Mark's ORIGNINAL POST in this thread, as well as his follow-ups. He SPECIFICALLY STATED that the State should get out of the marriage business.
You really need to read this thread again and just read what is written, not what you want to think was written...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 17, 2009 02:02 PMAnd I agree with to an extent about "not feeding the vampires". If someone like Thomas Paine, George Washington or any other of a host of similar folks were running for office I'd whole heatedly support them. But I haven't seen anyone like that in a long while at any level (and not because they don't exist but because, even if those folks are running for office, especially in this state, they aren't going to come out and start talking like that because they'll be immediately written off) and throwing my hands up in the air and saying "The whole system is corrupt!" is not productive unless you want to start an armed revolution just like those folks above did 233 years ago. And if that's what you're advocating then we can certainly talk about that because I feel we're dangerously close to that point. The question is, are you willing to lead the charge and literally put your life on the line.
Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 17, 2009 02:09 PMBUT you endorse in the County Exec Race when BOTH Dow & Susan have made it very clear in the news that they OPPOSE I1033 (Susan called it a disaster which shocked me to say the least), and they SUPPORT the gay rights R71. Also a shock to me that Susan would support R71 and say she is voting for it.
I called her and asked her if this was true or if the Times had it wrong when it came out in the Times a couple months ago about R71 and she said they did not make a mistake, she was supporting it and voting for it.
Mark, I am a conservative. You are a conservative.
Susan, if you read this, I feel like you have BETRAYED the conservatives, and contrary to what you hinted to me on the phone, it will NOT be the fault of ANY conservatives in this county if you lose, it will be your own fault, since you don't believe what you say you are going to support and vote for. For what reason? To get elected? I personally would rather lose than sell my soul.
Now, who DO I vote FOR. NOBODY? I notice that what I just stated above has not been printed ANYWHERE by ANY conservative like a dirty little secret.
Well, I personally have had it with conservatives thinking they have to hide in the corner and not speak up; or, like one told me the other day he was just going to hold his nose and choke on it.
The problem with this is that there has been so much Republican nose holding that the stench is so putrid in this county and state that everyone is running away from us, and the Ds are laughing up their sleeves at us.
But then, I forget Susan has also repeatedly said she is NOT and has never been a Republican.
I support the National Republican Platform. I don't care if I stand alone (which I don't in this county -trust me- a HUGE number of conservatives stand with me) or who wants to blame me for what. I WILL stand up and say the Emperor has no clothes when the Emperor (or Emperess sp?) is naked and making a laughing stock out of the conservatives.
I us my real name here because I, like Daniel in the Bible, am not afraid to open the window and confess to the precepts of Jehovah God at the top of my lungs regardless of who wants to throw me in the lion's den. At least I can live with myself and sleep nights, and when eventually I stand before the Almighty like everyone else, I won't have to hang my head in shame that I consorted with the enemy.
Ruth Gibbs
regpc3@aol.com
206-947-4648
The Times recently covered an ugly scandal about lots of underhanded dealings between the Commission and the CEO, which have made the CEO unusually wealthy on public money.All done very very privately. This has to be cleaned up and the only way to do it is to change Commissioners.
Cappelletti is a write in against Carolyn Parnell.
Posted by: Clean House on October 17, 2009 04:22 PMHow many 80 year olds do you think are going to enter into same-sex marriages solely in order to defraud social security? Seriously?! There are already laws against sham marriages, if I'm not mistaken. Do we currently have a problem with seniors getting married solely to defraud social security? Is there any evidence whatsoever (other than awkward legal speculation) that people are currently getting married for social security benefits? Is there any evidence that domestic partnerships would increase any social security fraud? If this sort of fraud became a problem, a remedy could easily be crafted. This is what we pay our legislators to do.
Mark, your reasoning on this just seems entirely odd. It also seems fairly transparent. You state you want people to be treated fairly, but I would guess you're afraid of catching flack from hard-line religious conservatives.
There is NOTHING wrong with sticking up for what you believe in despite external pressure. This is the definition of courage. There IS something wrong with bending your views and equivocating in order to avoid conflict.
Posted by: AD on October 17, 2009 04:30 PMSo I'd say if you want to continue that march toward socialism then go ahead and write in Thomas Paine's name in every election. But I suspect you're more pragmatic than you lead on. I know you sided with Lori last year against Doug Parris and I suspect you don't view Lori as a conservative.
Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 17, 2009 04:35 PM"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
People like Lysander and Ruth who demand 100% "ideological purity" end up simply marginalizing themselves and their positions.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 17, 2009 04:55 PMNo on R-71.
Posted by: Hinton on October 17, 2009 05:23 PMDow AND Susan on the oither hand, have denounced the Republican party and are fair game as far as I am concerened.
Ruth
I'm respectfully a little perplexed on your justification for rejecting R-71. Parts strike me as rationalized, and I don't think you're analyzing the referendum as a whole.
Specifically: You downplay the benefits given as being an easy matter of contract, all while claiming that seniors entering such relationships are "defrauding" the government. If these benefits can be drawn contractually with such ease, doesn't this potential for fraud already exist? You can't simultaneously argue that it's a trivial matter of contract that shouldn't be governmentally instituted, and then argue it's a needed impediment against this form of "fraud." That makes no sense.
As for "it's just more laws," the bulk of R-71 amends pre-existing laws. Unless you can quantify the harm of adding the little "new law" to the books, you've created a rule that would require rejecting most new legislation, including I-1033. You're creating a vague connection between legislating and law and governance and intrusion. There's a correlation, yes, but it's not absolute. If you don't bother to analyze causation or define the harm involved, you're not really making much of an argument.
I share your hope that some day the government will get out of the business of defining cultural and religious terms. I think there are some non-insane justifications for rejecting or abstaining on R-71, although I haven't found any of them convincing. Space limits conceded, I wish you had dedicated more effort to analyzing the cost-benefits of R-71 instead of finding abstract mantras to dismiss it.
I appreciate your having posted these endorsements. However, after a lot of thought and cost-benefits calculation, I will be voting a strong Approve on R-71.
Posted by: Benjamin Anderstone on October 17, 2009 06:38 PMIf Hutchison is to win, I'd say she has a good reason to distance herself from them - being that the electorate is so Seattle-centric.
Posted by: KDS on October 17, 2009 07:03 PMTHAT folks, is called discrimination and does not afford equal protection under the law - therefore an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!! I would bet someone under 62 will sue if it passes.
Why is it that a very small percentage of the population is determined to cram this stuff down our throats? Marriage is marriage. It is sacred. It is universal. It is between a MAN and a WOMEN.
Ruth Gibbs
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on October 17, 2009 07:10 PMIf equal protection doesn't apply to partitioning marriage by sex, how does it apply to providing domestic partnership rights based on (i believe) pension age?
"Very small percentage" of the population being the >40% of WA that supports gay marriage? And "cram down your throats" being permitting individual churches to make the decision while equalizing federal benefits? Or are you arguing that we can ignore claims of equal protection as long as >50% of the population feels that they violate their traditional definitions? This is an alarming argument.
The domestic partnership law has been in effect for 62+ers for quite a while now. No one has sued on these grounds. The application of domestic partnerships to those 62+ will not be affected whether Ref-71 is approved or rejected.
Posted by: BA on October 17, 2009 08:06 PM