Today is Primary Election Day, so if you haven’t already voted, vote.
Yeah, I know, it’s the middle of August, and with our new top-two primary, there aren’t really many meaningful contests on the ballot. But there are a few, and as my mother relentlessly reminds me whenever she sees me wearing my usual shmatas, appearances count. The Republicans are downplaying expectations in the governor’s and 8th CD races, but they’re also pushing an aggressive get out the vote effort, and you can be sure they’ll claim momentum tomorrow morning if they’re even close. So help Rossi and Reichert meet expectations by turning out for Gregoire and Burner.
Remember, both Reichert and Rossi support that clueless old guy in the video above, and they’re 100% behind his economic policies. There are differences between the two parties, and there’s a lot at stake in this election for both Washington state and the nation.
I don’t generally do formal endorsements, but here are a few other top races I have my eye on:
Commissioner of Public Lands / Attorney General
Again, not real contests, as we’ll be getting rematches in November, but again momentum counts, especially as Democrats Peter Goldmark and John Ladenburg make their final fundraising drive post-primary. Goldmark looks like he’s in a pretty good position to win this thing, putting the Commissioner of Public Lands office in the hands of somebody who actually cares about public lands, and Ladenburg is a dynamic public speaker who could certainly give McKenna a run for his money… if he can manage to raise enough money to get his message before voters. Vote for Goldmark and Ladenburg.
Initiative 26: “The PVR Incumbency Protection Act”
Initiative 26 claims it would make King County Council, executive and assessor positions nonpartisan, when in fact all it will do is remove partisan labels from the ballot, thus giving voters less information with which to make their choices. For example, if it passes (and it probably will), Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer will still be a Republican… he just won’t have to say he’s one in his literature, on his advertising and on the ballot. That’s great for PVR, as it makes it easier to win election in a district that is steadily trending Democratic, but I don’t see how it makes the Council operate any better. I-26 is bullshit. Vote no.
Supreme Court: Mary Fairhurst
Let’s get this race over with by giving Justice Mary Fairhurst the 50% plus one she needs to retain her seat. I’ve got nothing against her opponent Michael Bond—he’s been HA’s most loyal advertiser this year, and seemed like a nice enough guy when he stopped by DL a couple weeks ago—but he’s given us no reason to toss out Fairhurst, who has proven to be one of the most even handed and legally competent justices on the bench, despite the Seattle Times’ anti-government ravings. And… well… she’s a family friend, one of the nicest and most down to earth Supreme Court justices you’ll ever meet. Vote for Mary Fairhurst.
King County Superior Court Position 22: Rebeccah Graham
Hell, I’m no lawyer, so when I’ve got no idea who to vote for in judicial races, I usually ask my lawyer friends (well, the ones I respect), and that means I usually consult with Becca. (I haven’t asked, but I’m pretty sure she’d suggest herself in this race.) But I’m biased, so listen to the Seattle P-I: “Graham has a diverse background, calm demeanor, passion for the law and has six years of experience as a pro tem judge. All make her an excellent candidate.” What they said; vote for Rebeccah Graham.
UPDATE:
Dan Savage writes:
you’re going to ignore the commissioner of public urination race?!?!
I assume he means the Superintendent of Public Instruction, since I already mentioned Commissioner of Public Lands, in which case, yeah, vote for Randy Dorn, even though it’s another one of those meaningless exhibition bouts. For eight years I’ve watched the emphasis on WASL transform my daughter’s classroom into an elementary school equivalent of a Stanley Kaplan prep course. Anybody but Bergeson.
“…with our new top-two primary, there aren’t really many meaningful contests on the ballot.”
Goldy, I know you don’t like the top-two, but how can you blame it for the lack of meaningful contests? We’re stuck with the candidates who turned out. Under what primary system currently in use in the US, would this be a more interesting ballot?
Tired @1,
But we were promised that that top-two would make the primary more relevant. So I guess it’s okay to over-promise something, but not okay to criticize top-two for not delivering what it promised.
Getting elected 101
Lesson #1
The photo of your candidate on he/her website shouldn’t scare small children.
http://www.unitedformarlyn.com/
Lesson #2
Candidates websites shouldn’t look like they were designed by a 12 year old in 1995.
http://www.unitedformarlyn.com/
@ Goldy,
Can’t make that claim until tomorrow when the votes are in.
I voted.
Michael @4,
No, turnout aside, I think we can make that claim. There are only a handful of primary intra-party primary battles on the ballot, and under the top-two, these have become nothing more than exhibition matches, the real decision coming in November. So why bother voting?
Judicial races were always non-partisan top-two, so that hasn’t changed. But I can think of only one race, State Treasurer, where a legitimate contender will be eliminated today. Combine that with a primary that takes place while a lot of folks are on vacation, and you get a recipe for low turnout.
As far as I’m concerned, let’s just get rid of the primary altogether, and move to a Ranked Choice Voting system that would eliminate the spoiler effect. Save us all some time and money. Oh… and let the parties decide who gets to sport their label.
I voted all Democratic or in non-partisan races, I voted against all the right-leaning candidates. Feels good to be a patriot.
Oh iBurn, Puddylicker, PU and their ilk cannot vote because they are felons.
Or out of state.
7 Not to mention that they have a struggle marking one oval at a time using their crayons.
How many of you actually go to a candidate’s website to see their views on the issues?
http://www.blossforthe36th.com
Tx Goldy
@10 cute kids.
But you are a republican. Why should I vote for you over a progressive? Why do you choose to associate with the Republicans?
@12
Blue John, what is your definition of a “progressive”? I mean, in general, what criteria makes a progressive, and why is that important?
I’m interested in why she wants to associate with the Republicans. No Income Tax and apparently replacing the Viaduct with another Viaduct seem to be her only two issues. What else does she support? When issues of fair trade, unionization and social issues come up, how will she vote?
By the way, I’m all in favor of a progressive income tax IF and ONLY if they get rid of the sales tax, completely.
@ 10
What’s with the babies? Who are they? What do they have to do with anything?
I’d vote against you just because you used them at the top of your website. Most people at least only include pictures of their families as a unit.
Does this mean that all of these children are yours and yours out of wedlock? Where’s your husband(s)?
Dear Blue John,
Please go to my view on the social issues–you will be quite surprised! I came from a union family–my father worked 35 years at the U.S. Plywood that was on the south end of the Ballard bridge. I believe we need unions and business and that they each need to bargain fairly!
I am a Republican because I personally believe in fiscal responsibility. I am tried of our local and State government outrageously spend and then need to raise taxes to meet the shortfalls. We need to get a grip on our spending!
I also am in favor of helping people help themselves when possible.
I just voted. I wrote in Rick Steves for Lt Governor and voted for GoodSpaceGuy for Congress.
Other than that I voted progressive the rest of the ballot.
Dear PassionateJus,
They are my grandchildren. I am a widow.
Wow a republican in favor of fiscal responsibility? What a switch that would be. In case nobody told you, republicans have spent America into the largest budget deficit in history. Try again.
@ 18 & 20
I am running for a local election and am not responsible for what the Federal Government has done.
Here is my view on one of the social issues since you do not have time to look:
Prisons
* I would like to take a look at the high mandatory sentencing for marijuana–to me some of those people are not a danger to society and we should think about reducing those sentences.
* I would like to see a tier system for prisoners.
* I want to find success stories from other prisons and utilize those ideas.
* I would like to see prisons becoming more self-sustaining
* I want white collar criminals hit where it hurts them most–in the pocket book!
* With the number of violent prisoners on the rise, we must take steps now to keep them in prison and keep our communities safe.
* Maybe it is time to legalize Marijuana–I have always been opposed to this but if we could have laws in place to step hard on underage usage and strictly uphold driving while under the influence laws we would be able to tax the grower’s revenue and have a sales tax. It should still be prohibited for someone to grow their own. This would, in my view, end a great deal of criminal activity and save a lot of money and time in court costs and police activity.
@ 19
Sorry for your loss.
You should put something right below the picture stating who they are. Like it or not, the first thing people see when they go to your website is them. And people will wonder who they are.
Gee, don’t you think they look like me! LOL
@21 interesting cop out. First you say you are a republican because they stand for fiscal responsibility – when you have it pointed out to you that nationally, republicans are NOT fiscally responsible – you are only a state politician. So does this mean you disavow the national republican party? And don’t you know as a “republican” you’re supposed to run as “GOP” according to the goons who run your party?
Progressives believe in muscular government action to address urgent needs in society just like that other left-wing guy Teddy Roosevelt (no fan of his proto neo-con foreign policies by the way).
Progressives believe IN government which of course is managed and monitored by responsible legislatures and executives. The right wing of course believes in shrinking it and drowning in a bathtub after they’ve wrung every cent they can out of it for their narrow, corrupt special interests.
@25
YLB, that’s all well, and good. How do you propose to pay for all of this proactive, governmental action?
@21, Nothing in your position statements would keep you from running as a Democrat. In fact, the positions you listed would make for a great Democrat. Fiscal responsibility is not a god given right to one party or another.
There is great distrust of Republicans and (Neo)Conservatives on this forum. I admire your attempts to reach out. You might have gotten more traction if you had started earlier, however. The national Republicans have done great harm to this country and the state republicans don’t seem much better, they just are not in power.
Besides, as a gay man, I cannot support an organization that overtly wants me banned, shunned and doesn’t trust me with my child. It’s the company you keep.
Cowards like iBurn don’t want government intrusion except when they do.
Leslie….did you grow up on Magnolia? I wonder if you and I might have crossed paths when we were younger. Anyway, I apologize for pontificating at you the other day about the area’s political history–you probably know more about it than I do.
I might take you to task about “white collar criminals”. If someone does something against the law to rip off someone else’s property, deprive them of their livelihood, put them in danger or louse up their life, that’s a criminal act…the fact that they were able to do so with the stroke of a pen instead of at the point of a gun doesn’t make them any less culpable. A financial wrist-slap doesn’t mean much to someone who’s rolling in ill-gotten wealth. Having to spend some time looking at the grey walls of a prison cell might better get their attention.
And idiots like bbg think they can speak for anyone else – even when they don’t have a clue.
So tell me genius. When do I want governmental intrusion. Give me a specific scenario. You know all about what I think. Let’s see if you can construct even one, logical, rational, sentence, without having to descend into pointless invective.
You favor right wing candidates iBurner. And that means you favor candidates who like to prosecute abortion, tell you who you can marry and fuck – although in your case you ignore them and go for the little boys – you like government spying on you and you like war. This is what right wingers want – even if they are too stupid to realize it, that’s what they vote for.
You support Faux News, the republican party (even tho you say you are a libertarian) and you won’t leave your mom’s basement. Bout sums it up.
OK…I’ll take a stab at proposing a definition of “progressive”, which I tend to view as a rhetorical shield all too many of us tend to hide behind because the right has managed to turn “liberal” into such a scarlet letter. I heard it from someone else, but I don’t think they’ll mind my repeating it:
We believe in directing the common wealth to serve the common good. How much ground that covers can be a matter of debate, from filling potholes and putting out house fires to providing health care for everyone and making sure no child in this “greatest of all nations” ever has to go to sleep hungry.
It seems there’s an extreme faction of conservatism that refuses to participate in the conversation, instead declaring that there’s no such thing as the “common good”, and that there shouldn’t be any “common wealth”. To be a progressive, to me, would seem to be one who’s willing to stand up in the public square and tell those people that they’re wrong.
@32
Okay, good definition. Or at least a good start.
How do you decide what the “common good” really is? Who gets to decide? It isn’t as obvious as it sounds. Then, of course, how is it paid for? If your “common good” exceeds mine, must I pay for what you want? Conversely, if I don’t want services that you do want, should you be deprived?
I guess what I’m getting at is that labels, like “progressive” or “conservative” carry a lot of baggage, and a lot of preconceived notions. I’m not sure how you move the political discourse along any further, without some common frame of reference – which is certainly lacking at present.
Leslie;
I vote Democrat because I’m in favor of fiscal responsibility. Republicans have repeatedly shown that although they use those terms in the years when they are out of office, once in office they completely abandon any pretext of fiscal responsibility.
I believe individuals should be responsible for themselves and their actions. This means that those who are richer or more powerful shouldn’t evade responsibility by passing the costs of their actions on to the average worker and taxpayer. During the past eight years we’ve seen Republicans protecting the interests of corporate financial interests in everything from the bankruptcy reform act (protecting the credit industry at the expense of consumers and the ill), to the financial industry (protecting Wall Street firms from the consequences of their risky housing loans).
I’m a Democrat because I believe that those in government should not abuse their power for partison advantage. In particular, they should not prostitute our basic institutions such as the C.I.A. or Justice Dept. by firing qualified people to make room for those who are more politically obedient. They should not throw away our basic civil liberties, as the Republicans did when they denied us freedom from electronic survellance without court order, or the right of habeous corpus to protect against indefinate detention without trial.
I am a Democrat because I believe that public office should not be considered an opportunity to enrich onself or ones friends at the expense of the American taxpayer (as the Republicans have done on multiple occassion with no-bid contracts favoring their friends at Halliburton, KKR, Blackwater, etc.).
@13
Since you asked.
I cannot speak for all progressives, I’m not like a lock step Republican.
Some of these are old school conservative values, some are liberal values.
For me, progressive values are, in no particular order:
– Solutions may require nuance and compromise and grey areas. Progressive values cannot be condensed down to a bumper sticker concept like “Lower Taxes”. People may have to think.
– Being ethical and honest would be one highest virtues of the country. Those found to be unethical and dishonest would be severely punished.
– The work ethic needs to be encouraged again. Other countries are getting our outsourced work, not only because they are cheap, but because they work hard and do a better job. We need to change our culture to get back to that.
– Personal responsibility needs to be encouraged.
Being fiscally responsible is important because, what good progressive programs if they bankrupt us?
– Government is supposed to be there when fierce individualism is not enough. Big government is suppose to counter and protect us from big corporations and other countries and to deal with environment problems.
– The government should try to promote the middle class, at the expense of the rich. The rich use more of the commons to become rich, they owe more in return. The government should strive to lift the poor out of poverty, but is not bound to give them a middle class lifestyle. They have to work to get that.
– Don’t hire illegals and fine the hell out of those that knowingly hire them, be it CEOs or the homeowner who wants a cheap gardener or nanny.
– K through 12 grade would be required and college or trade schools would be free to those who wanted it and available if they passed classes.
– There would be an official language so everyone in the country has a language in common and can communicate with each other no matter where they went.
– There should be freedom of Religion and separation of church and state.
– There would be a progressive income tax with the top bracket paying 80%. Fines would also be progressive so if Bill Gates got a $50 speeding ticket, it could cost him $5 million dollars.
– No sales tax.
– Allow unionizing of the workforce. If the corporations are not taking advantage of the workers, they won’t want to unionize.
– I would like to have everyone, man and woman, gay or straight, rich or poor, take 2 years of military service, or 4 years of public service (after boot camp) when they graduate from high school. That way everyone has a shared skill to protect the country and themselves.
– A semi regulated capitalism. An unfettered capitalism, like the 1890s is a disaster, but so a soviet style regulated one. Something more regulated than we have now.
@35
Okay, great. I consider myself a ‘conservative Libertarian’, and quite honestly, there isn’t much on your list that I wouldn’t/couldn’t support.
Perhaps most of us are closer than we think, and the differences are all nuance?
How many Republican voters have faced confusion over Dino Rossi’s “GOP Party” preference? Republican? GOP? If you’re old enough or have enough depth of history to know what the Grand Old Party stands for, what does DRoc represent, besides the BIAA? Stealthy.
@35 So what are your conservative Libertarian values?
Wow – I am actually agreeing with I-burn today.
I too think that personal responsibility is important and that the republicans have mortgaged our future with the record deficits they have created. Whether you like Clinton or not he did the following (compared to
Bush):
1. left with a budget surplus
2. left with a strong economy
I also disagree with:
torture
illegal wiretapping of americans (breaks the 4th amendment on illegal search and seizure of effects)
politicization of the justice dept.
(if a democrat gets elected, I want to oust the illegally installed judges and prosecutors – but make sure that party affiliation is NOT the litmus test for future appointments (for non-partisan offices).
What happened to Leslie Bloss? I hope she was not just trolling for votes.
Let’s move to a flat rate income tax, stop getting involved in foreign adventures, and one day we can eliminate income taxes altogether.
@41, we have to agree to disagree because I want the complete opposite. The flat tax is being tried in Iraq and it’s not turning out well.
I don’t think that flat taxes are fair to lower incomes and they do to promote the middle class that I want to see encouraged. I think that progressive incomes, though unpopular by the wealthy, encourage the patterns that maintain a strong middle class.
Michael Bond is the better choice for the Supreme Court and he has made the argument to replace Fairhurst
From his website, something about it reads wrong. He doesn’t seem trustworthy, he seems he one of the activist judges with an hidden agenda. And it’s got that Rossi-esqe whining quality.
How do you propose to pay for all of this proactive, governmental action?
Blue John came up with one of the best ideas of all – one that has a proven track record – a progressive income tax. I think an 80 percent top rate isn’t all that politically feasible right now but if you could do it, I wouldn’t oppose it.
To address climate change, promote the shifting of the country’s energy base away from carbon AND lower taxes on the middle class, I support a carbon tax.
We also have to rethink national security – Europe and Japan pay more, we pay much much less. We also must make the Pentagon fully accountable. Right now it’s for the most part, a black box the taxpayer shovels money into. A proficient expanded State Department is a much better use of the taxpayer dollar than an out of control Pentagon.
42 It sound like the Bush administration is continuing the efforts begun under Paul Bremer to transform Iraq into some kind of neoconservative utopia. One of the more glaring of this project’s early failures was to bring in some “health care managment consultant” to dismantle what was left of the country’s government-run health-care system and replace it with a “privatized” version. Basically, they got as far as the “dismantle” part. As long as the right remains in power here, they’ll almost certainly continue to use Iraq as a crucible for their own socio-economic experimentation, more or less oblivious to the fact that none of it is working. Why? Well, failure in their Bizarro-world is perfectly all right as long as it’s profitable failure.
Back on topic, I voted. Showed my registration card and was asked what my address was by the poll worker.
Thank heavens I live in WA State where I wasn’t commanded to show a driver’s license by a fascist like what happened to a voter recently in Missouri – despite the fact that requiring a drivers license to vote was struck down as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6252
However, this state is not without its vote suppression crazies. If anyone has been given a hard time at a polling place or been taken off the voting rolls without cause – please speak up!
43, 44
Michael Bond is a career insurance defense lawyer. While there are certainly good and decent people who do that sort of work, many who do it do not have much empathy for the down and out. They become true believers in the army of the insurance industry. Can you imagine earning your entire living doing the bidding of insurers? Moreover, I believe Bond has a streak of property rights nonsense in him. Mary Fairhurst is plainly the better choice.
John @ 42: Agreed.
What a lot of Republicans don’t seem to understand is that it takes a lot of effort to re-create a vibrant middle-class after you have destroyed it – usually at least a couple of generations. It’s much easier to have tax and economic policies which effectively preserve the middle class.
Otherwise, when you have a small elite holding economic power and a large peasant class holding no power, you eventually have the peasants trying to reverse the situation – as they did in Russia in 1917, China in 1949, and Cuba around 1960. The results aren’t pretty.
How long will it take for Americans to realize they _are_ peasants? Also seems to me the ‘masses’ in the US will turn on each other (again) long before they turn on the elites.
I voted against Mary Fairhurst for one ruling and that was that protecting teachers is more important than protecting children. She ruled that teachers should be protected against false accusations of molestation. Well, I would agree but parents have the right (and so does the public) if there have been proven allegations against teachers. We had years of a teacher molesting students in Seattle because of this “circle the wagon” mentality of teachers and now we have Mary Fairhurst backing it up. Nope, not for me.
I’m with Goldy on the Superintendent of public instruction; anyone but Bergeson. She only responded to complaints about the WASL under threat from the Legislature. She is so tone-deaf on this issue and has gotten very little else done.
How do we get accountability in the schools without the WASL or something like it?
@48…PL…
My, my, my…
I want judges to be good with the law, apply it in an even handed manner, and not be swayed by emotion at all.
The law is the law – it’s not what a judge feels; if you want “compassion,” whatever that is, go talk to the legislature.
Mary Fairhurst sides with government power against individual citizens and liberty – she has got to go.
The Piper
Piper
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and a judge’s background does not influence his or her view of what “the law” is. Nay, rather at the swearing-in ceremony a new jurist becomes bathed in the light of objectivity and clearsightedness, and is freed of old biases. “The law,” that Platonic body of principles that stands immutable in the face of human attempts to give it a heart, becomes known to the new jurist. Mary Fairhurst, like most judges, sometimes sides with the government, but I don’t see her doing so to the detriment of individual citizens and liberty. I certainly foresee a Justice Bond siding with corporate and insurance interests to the detriment of individuals and personal freedom. Hope you’re well.
@54…PL…
I am well…thanks for asking.
The benefit of the doubt should never be in the government’s favor when it comes to the liberties of citizens. Mary Fairhurst always gives the government the benefit of the doubt.
Give me a Richard Sanders any day of the week and twice on Sunday. He may write some opinions on criminal cases that cause me to tear out my hair, but I know he does it from the standpoint that one role of the courts is to protect citizens from abuses by government.
Mary Fairhurst has no concept of that idea.
Still…the concept of “compassionate” judges scares me. If how a judge feels can determine how he rules, then what’s the point in having law in the first place?
If you want compassion, talk to your mother – if you want predictable rules and liberty in an ordered society, then judges need to keep their personal feelings out of it.
Caught any big ones lately?
The Piper
52 How about the old-fashioned way? Collect data on graduation rates, public-school grade averages and stack them up against SAT scores and college admission rates. It seems to have worked pretty well for a long, long time, until somebody started pushing a bunch of propaganda about how teachers can’t possibly be trusted to be competent at their jobs.
Somehow, we led the industrial revolution, invented the technology to prevail in two world wars and walk on the moon, became a beacon of arts and culture and built a prosperous and productive middle class without any of this “accountability in education” nonsense. Seems since then it’s been a one-way trip to the shitter.
Wow.
Mary Fairhurst is even-handed and legally competent? On what planet? She is clearly the LEAST competent and LEAST even-handed judge on the court: she either does not know, or flatly ignores, the law, and ALWAYS sides with the government.
Seriously, if I had to pick any two adjectives to describe her, it would be “incompetent” and “one-sided,” and I don’t think I am nearly alone in this. There’s a reason why the left-leaning Times endorsed Bond, who is leans strongly libertarian.
For liberals, like Goldy and the P-I, this has nothing whatsoever to do with competence or even-handedness, and they know they are lying when they say stupid things like that. They know Fairhurst’s a moron. But they agree with her extreme leftist ideology, and that, in the end, is all that matters to them.
Note that only one other person here actually had anything nice to say about Fairhurst, and it was wrong: that she doesn’t always side with government. Yes, she does.
The republican version of a good judge is one who will ignore the Constitution when it comes to republicans seizing power.
PIper: “The benefit of the doubt should never be in the government’s favor when it comes to the liberties of citizens.”
I agree. You and I, however, are going to argue about the definition of “liberties.” Should the government get to determine what a woman can do with her own body, put someone to death, dictate who can marry who, ban the smoking of an innocuous plant?
I also agree with you that a judge shouldn’t decide a case based on his or her “feelings.” Respect for the rule of law necessarily involves believing that “the law” is a set, fixed body of dictates. A responsible judge must try to figure out just what the law demands in any given situation, regardless of personal values. On the other hand, the law, from my humble perspective, promotes compassion in many circumstances. A heartless judge is more often than not more than just an asshole–he or she fails to enforce legal principles.
I kind of like Richard Sanders’ criminal decisions. I most certainly prefer him on the Court to a corporate shill like James Johnson, and God save us from Barbara.
With regard to your last question, we slayed ’em in Mexico a week back. A sailfish on a flyrod can be a moving experience.
proud leftist:
Michael Bond’s legal career is broad and includes defense work that has involved different and compelling issues, including international law. Unfortunately, Mary Fairhurst has been on the wrong side of common sense issues too many times to tolerate any further. It is not about liberalism or conservatism, it is about common sense. Look at Woo v. Firemen’s Fund as an example of a completely absurd majority opinion that she authored. Next, look at the most recent decision regarding the privacy of 15 teachers and at the expense of our school children…
As I said earlier, if this had been the Minnesota Supreme Court, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and Harold Stassen would turn in their graves.
60
I have yet to find a jurist with whom I completely agree. When it comes to Fairhurst v. Bond, I don’t have any doubt about who I want on the Court. Interesting mix you suggest with regard to Minnesota politicians.
Proud Leftist:
Bond v. Fairhurst is not a tough choice for me either… its Bond.
It is an interesting mix and an appropriate mix of Minnesota political legends… Harold Stassen was the youngest and one of the most popular Minnesota Governors, who was fairly liberal Republican and tried to persuade Ike to dump Nixon in 1956 as VEEP in favor of Massachusetts Governor Christian Herter. Humphrey really needs no introduction but he deserves much credit for forging the Democratic Farm Labor coalition that became a powerful force in Minnesota politics for decades. McCarthy’s concern for children is can not be challenged… Washington and Minnesota have a similar political tradition. Thus, the comment that these legends would turn in their grave seems appropriate given the recent Washington Supreme Court’s view of the privacy of school teachers at the expense of children.
Mary Fairhurst was the majority author on Woo vs Fireman’s Fund (the dentist who had tusks manufactured and placed them in an unconscious patient’s mouth, then took photos of her). Reason enough to vote against her.
G. in Maple Valley:
That is correct and that majority opinion remains an embarrassment to the Washington Supreme Court
57 – Wow. When an (un)SPer breaks out the “extreme leftwing ideology” in a comment thread about a judicial race you know to stay far, far away from the right winger on the ticket.
Yes, count me in as supporting Mary Fairhurst.
Dear Blue John,
I’m back–I was out waving my yard sign to see if I could find some more voters–please don’t hold that against me!
Ouch!! 80%? Why work hard if 80% is going to be taken from you.
Yeah – republicans are full of it when they talk about no “activist” judges – they don’t mind judges that are activist in overruling judicial precedent for privacy, 4th amendment rights or abortion.
Just like their false support for state’s rights – how many republicans protested when the Bush administration prevented California from increasing the CAFE standards (a wise move now that gas prices have gone up) but opposed by Detroit and the Bush people who slavishly follow the dictum of whatever the corporations want.
Why are GM and the other auto companies self-detructing in red ink? Becuase they lobbied to make big cars and the republicans supported them.
@21
By choosing to be a Republican you are choosing to support their state and national policies. Maybe you should have ran as an independent and mentioned that you would have ran as a Republican if the current batch weren’t such an abomination.
YLB: you do realize you just proved my point, right? Not a single positive thing to say about Fairhurst, you just make it about ideology.
Pathetic.
@67
It’s almost the rate we had in the 1950s.
That CEO who got an absurd $100 million in a severance package would have to live in a paltry $20 million.
How about, instead of giving absurd salaries, companies could spend that money on R&D.
American society tried it the conservative’s way since Reagan. It’s time to try something else. Are you better off than you were when Bush took Office? Want 4 more years of that?
Whoever suggested that Bush Sr. or Dubya was a Conservative???!?
@52. Two Dogs spews:
How do we get accountability in the schools without the WASL or something like it?
I am against the WASL, but not against testing or accountability.
There are many other tests that can accurately measure skills for a fraction of the cost or time that the WASL takes.
Most of theses tests were already available for us to use, but Terry Bergeson wanted to create a unique test for Washington based on her beleifs. She spent millions on the WASL.
The WASL will soon cost $112 per test (currenlty it cost $72, but Wa. recently signed a new contract that goes into effect next year).
Most states use a test that costs under $10 to do the same thing.
Are we getting our money’s worth ? I think not.
The WASL takes weeks to administer, and the useless results do not come back until the next school year.
The MAP test could replace WASL. The MAP (Measure of Acedemic Progress) is only about $10 per test, takes 2 days to administer and results are back within days.
#73.
You are being stupid on purpose, so you don’t have to answer the question.
bush is a Republican. Republicans are the standard bearers of the conservative ideals, or they were. At one time that meant being a fiscal conservative, social conservative, defense conservative and corporate conservative. Are the republican living up to those ideals?
Again I ask you conservatives, are you better off than you were when bush took office? Want 4 more years of that?
Blue John:
The Republican Party has NEVER been a broadly conservative party. Only for a short time in the 90s did conservatives ever (in our lifetime) control the party, and even that control was very tenuous (and obviously didn’t survive the Bush era).
It has NEVER been the case that being a Republican meant being a conservative. There has ALWAYS been a significant fight within the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates. Do you not remember Bush vs Reagan in 1980? This was a replay of Taft vs Roosevelt in 1912. This is not new.
Some Republicans are living up to those ideals, as they always have. Some are not, as they never have.
And no, we’re not better off than we were when Bush took office, from a conservative perspective. From a liberal perspective, we sure as hell are: high gas prices forcing us to commit government resources to alternative energy, much greater federal control of our lives, etc.
Not a single positive thing to say about Fairhurst, you just make it about ideology.
What you said amounted to just right wing name-calling. No specifics. Your words carry no weight.
And you lied about the Seattle Times editorial board – it is definitely right wing leaning. I haven’t wasted 50 cents on a Times in years.
And no, we’re not better off than we were when Bush took office, from a conservative perspective. From a liberal perspective, we sure as hell are: high gas prices forcing us to commit government resources to alternative energy, much greater federal control of our lives, etc.
LMAO!! You support McCain who you foolishly believe is more conservative than Bush, who will preserve and extend the Patriot Act and domestic spying, who will gather around him the same crowd who promoted and defended the unitary executive.
You probably made the same arguments about Bush back in 2000.
Republicans are on their way out in a big way, if they don’t blow up the election with massive fraud and not a moment too soon.
Your candidate for Governor is completely afraid of even calling himself a Republican.
Wow, that statement is so unexpected. Maybe it’s a difference of perspective and used of hot button issues words.
What I see as the government putting resources into energy independence, you see as bad thing? Being locked into oil as our primary energy source is a conservative value?
What are the areas of greater federal control? From my liberal viewpoint, bush and the republicans are doing less and less. The government has scaled back on corporate enforcement that lead to Enron and the banking crisis. They won’t investigate wrong doing in the administration. They scale back environmental protections. Well, they did institute no child left behind that is roundly hated by everyone. And they spy on us without warrants.
I’d love to have you site some examples of greater federal control to see if the liberals here would agree that they were liberal.
And the conservatives fall silent.
The Republican Party has NEVER been a broadly conservative party.
Strange how the “maverick” McCain has had to flip flop so many of his positions to please the Republican base.
At least now it seems broadly conservative enough to me.
YLB: And you lied about the Seattle Times editorial board – it is definitely right wing leaning.
False. I neither lied, nor is it right-leaning.
At least now it seems broadly conservative enough to me.
If a party was characterized primarily by its base, then the Democratic Party WOULD be a true socialist party. The party is characterized by its elected officials and its consistent voters, however.
Blue John: Being locked into oil as our primary energy source is a conservative value?
It is not our primary energy source. Were you educated in the public schools or something?! And besides, what do you propose to do about oil? There is ONLY ONE long-term solution: coming up with alternatives. And that is what companies around the world have been working on for a long time now, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions. There’s no need for the government to do a damned thing, and both McCain and Obama know it, they are only pandering to the sniveling children of this country who think government has to take care of us when they say otherwise.
What are the areas of greater federal control?
Schools and health care are the two most obvious big ones.
The government has scaled back on corporate enforcement that lead to Enron and the banking crisis.
Wow. Who do you hope to convince with your lies? Everyone knows that Enron did its cheating under CLINTON. They got CAUGHT when Bush had been in office for less than a year.
They won’t investigate wrong doing in the administration.
Question-begging fallacy.
They scale back environmental protections.
False.
And they spy on us without warrants.
Continuing a practice from Clinton.
Pudge:
The Republican Party split many times… as you pointed out and used 1912 as an example. Well, they were split badly in 1952 between Bob Taft and Ike. Dewey worked behind the scene with Ike to pursuade him select the youthful Nixon as VEEP while Dewey worked with Nixon to endorse Ike instead of Taft or even Governor Warren. The worst in our lifetime was Goldwater v Rocky in 1964. Goldwater’s upset victory over Rocky in the winner take all California Primary assured Goldwater’s nomination and Rocky was booed off the Cow Palace stage in San Francisco at the Republican Convention leading to disaster. And who could forget the 1976 Ford-Reagan split?
The conservatives controlled the Republican Party in 1964… they just did not get very far in terms of electoral success
It is not our primary energy source. Were you educated in the public schools or something?!
I myself went to Catholic school until the 7th grade and public school after that.
Let’s see according to this source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html
In the USA, out of 101 quad btu consumed in 2007, 39 came from petroleum – higher than any other source.
I think this says oil is our primary energy source.
By the way Pudge most Republicans are educated in the public schools.
YLB: Ha! It only results in more BTUs because it is so relatively inefficient that it NEEDS more BTUs to do the same amount of work. That chart is energy CONSUMED. No, we USE more energy from coal and gas.
“Common Man”: Nothing you said disagreed with what I said. Not sure what your point is.
85 – You’re saying oil is inefficient? Are you “lying” pudge? Don’t you mean “used” inefficiently?
So which is our primary energy source? Can’t be coal – every coal burning power plant bleeds off 2/3 of its energy into the air.
Way to move the goalposts guy!
One last thought – we wouldn’t have much of an economy if we couldn’t move goods and people around. That of course is what oil is used for.
It moves coal around as well.
Good enough definition of “primary” to me.
Um. Oil bleeds off a lot more than that. And I am moving nothing. We’re talking about what supplies the most energy. That would be what “our primary energy source” means. And it’s coal.