PubliCola picks Republican Patrick Reed for the 31st LD House of Representatives Position 2. Here’s what they had to say:
We wanted to hold our noses and endorse incumbent [Christopher] Hurst, but the more we dug in to his record, the less we could justify telling the 31st District (Auburn, Bonney Lake, Buckley, Edgewood, Enumclaw, Sumner) to support this anti-environmental, anti-public-disclosure, anti-jobs, anti-transit, pro-Tim Eyman “Democrat.”
Hurst was the prime sponsor of legislation restoring a Tim Eyman-backed measure limiting property tax growth to one percent a year; supported changing state law that allows criminals to plead not guilty by reason of insanity; voted against transit, clean energy, and green jobs, earning him the ranking of “Green Dud” from the Washington Conservation Voters; supported legislation blocking inmate access to certain public records; and supported a slate of anti-terrorism provisions that were strongly opposed by the ACLU.
Hurst is simply the worst Democrat in the state. And on top of the laundry list above, he’s also used his chairmanship of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee to kill off even the mildest attempts to reform our state’s draconian drug laws.
so what the hell does the Public Safety Emergency Preparedness Committee have to do with drug laws? probably nothing.
lets see, limiting the growth of property taxes – GREAT!!!!!
I dont know, I agree with some of his stances, and dont agree with others.
Sounds like an OK democrat to me.
Lee, you seem to either support or be against someone depending solely on their stance on drug laws. trust me, there is more to life than getting high and worrying about drug laws – and there are certainly MANY more things that are more important.
And given the districts that he represents, I would say he probably has many of the same views that his constituents have.
The last time our drug sentencing laws were significantly changed was 2003, when GOP King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng rounded up a large coalition of prosecutors, defenders, judges, sheriffs and the faith community to cut sentences for non-violent drug offenders by 25% and transfer the funds directly from Corrections into Drug Courts. It saved the state about $20 million a year in prison costs.
There are many reasons that our drug laws need to be changed. Besides the injustice of Three Strikes, there is the injustice of huge racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions and sentencing. Right now, we need only look at the huge Corrections budget and ask ourselves if our community is safer because it locks away addicts (who have a disease!) instead of treating them. If we were to eliminate prison time for non-violent drug offenders, we would save an estimated $50 million a year, even after providing $10 million a year for drug courts, alternative sentencing and community supervision.
This should be one of the first places the next legislature looks to balance the budget.
@1
And given the districts that he represents, I would say he probably has many of the same views that his constituents have.
That may be true, but since he chairs a Democratic committee and uses that position to block good legislation, replacing him with a Republican is beneficial to helping Democrats achieve more progressive goals.
Lee, you seem to either support or be against someone depending solely on their stance on drug laws.
It’s a huge factor for me, and it’s because it generally shows how much courage a particular politician has.
@3
It’s a huge factor for me, and it’s because it generally shows how much courage a particular politician has.
To each his own, I guess. We all have own priority list when it comes to items the govt needs to address. I just dont think legalizing weed is high(chuckles) on most people’s agenda.
@2…not sure what your problem with the 3 strikes law. If you have 3 felonies, you have no business being in society, as you have proven that you are unable to behave like a responsible citizen. Really, its not that hard to keep from getting 3 felonies, is it?
In fact, I think for some crimes, there needs to be a 1 strike law.
It’s a huge factor for me, and it’s because it generally shows how much courage a particular politician has.
So it couldn’t be that they just don’t like drugs and courage has nothing to do with it?
So it couldn’t be that they just don’t like drugs and courage has nothing to do with it?
Possibly, but that’s even worse than just being a coward.
Re 2 and 4
Sarahjane, you’re right. In a nominally democratic country the choices consenting adults make are not the business of the criminal law.
Can’t buy your discrimination arguments per se. That issue is fairly complicated, having as much to do with poverty, poor community ties and a lot of other factors not necessarily connected to ethnicity. But if a person who is labeled a minority commits a crime, I don’t see it as discriminatory to arrest, try and convict and imprison them. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Finding out why the crimes are being commited would be better public policy than crying racism when the criminal justice system does what it is supposed to.
As for 3 strikes it’s an obscenity. The severity of a crime is dealt with at sentencing. It’s a fairly basic principle in the criminal law that one discreet act can be tried as one charge. For instance, if I’m arrested for breaking into a house I can be charged with burglary. But I can’t be charged with burglary and vandalism for that one act.
If we stopped imprisoning people for consensual crime we would have plenty of budget and space for violent or dangerous criminals to serve longer sentences, and serve the whole sentence.
Lee,
I agree that MJ use is not properly a matter for the criminal law (except when driving, operating equipment, caring for children and so on, just as with alchohol.)
But I gotta say, it really isn’t a bellwether issue for most people looking at the more compelling fiscal and social challenges we face in Washington and the US generally.
lost @ 7
You’re making sense here. I wonder if something got into the water supply . . .
Riddle of Steel
The problem with three strikes is that it is based on the assumption that a rigid law is more effective than a judgmental court system. The law does not distinguish between imprisonment as punishment (presumably to deter bad behavior) vs. imprisonment to protect citizens from the bad guys.
As always there is the law of unintended c consequences:
1. Cost … in many states the cost of imprisonment is rising faster than education or heathcare.
2. Numbers The US imprisons far more folks than any other industrialized society.
3. Objectives … the objective of 3 strikes is supposed to be to minimize crime. However, being as inflexible as it is, the unexpected effects are not only inevitable but impossible to fix.
I would suggest that an alternative to prison is innovative punishment. I listened to a prisoner BRAG that he had committed a thrid felony BECAUSE he wanted the security of like in prison.
If the goal is avert crime, we need to think about punishments that are better deterrents. Some examples I have thought about:
a. public flogging
b. the stocks
c. branding or tattooing on the forehead
d. mandatory impoverishment.
e. exile to a geographically restricted and unpleasant place.
lost @ 7
With proud leftist @9
. .
I agree.
I actually see a great parallel between three strikes and antiMJ law. Neither is based on fact. The question real is one of priorities. Makign it easier for Lee to buy pot is OK by me, but of I measure that issue vs the mess in the schools, Afghanistan, Public Health laws, racism …it seems to me that pot should be fairly low on the list.
Yep, contray to most of the wingnuts here, Lost is showing a trend of reasonableness. We may not always agree with him, but at least he is willing to consider his position and discuss it rationally.
So I’m curious, Lost, what do you think of this article, written by Ronald Reagan’s first budget director:
NY Times: “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse” by David Stockman
@8
But I gotta say, it really isn’t a bellwether issue for most people looking at the more compelling fiscal and social challenges we face in Washington and the US generally.
It may not be, but the issue does have a number of impacts – on our budgets (from the more we spend on enforcement and prison costs to the lack of having the money spent on it within a legitimate industry that pays taxes), to the crime rate, to our efforts to keep drugs out of the hands of young people, to the environment.
I contend, rather strongly, that this issue impacts us more than most of us realize. And it’s simply not correct that I, or most of the other folks who fight for marijuana legalization, am doing so in order to be able to buy pot. Everyone can already buy pot. That’s not the issue. The issue is the downstream effect of having the industry run by dangerous criminals and those willing to risk arrest to make a buck.
My belief that many people underestimate the impact that marijuana prohibition has on greater society generally motivates me to pay extra attention to how politicians weigh in on that issue. And what I generally find is that when I do so, I often end up choosing the best politicians of either party because this is an issue that pits perception and politics against pragmatism. It’s not a left-right issue. It’s a issue that tests whether a politician is willing to stand up for individual liberty even when there’s a stigma attached to the exercise of that liberty. That’s what I look for in a politician.
‘The Worst Democrat in the State’
Fat lil Sen. Lisa Brown or Gov. Sea-Hag? I think they’re even. Call it a tie, and present them both a ribbon.
I understand that Rep. Hurst drives our liberals a little nuts at times. I can attest to feeling the same way. But the reality is that he is more liberal than the Republican that might replace him and his first vote every year is for the Speaker. If we want to wage jihad against moderate, or in this case Independent Democrats, then we can say hello to a Republican majority which I guarantee will do far more harm than Rep. Hurst.
In the 26th we also have fairly conservative Democrats. Not only are they a sharp balance to liberal excess, but they also have the privilege of having actual elections outside the safe, liberal confines of Seattle. That’s sometimes a hard thing to get in places where the Communist party outpolls the GOP… but we get to send people to Olympia too and it used to be that they had an (R) behind their name.
Electing them means we get to keep Republicans from doing serious damage to the state. Some of them, like SEN Kilmer, also happen to be some of the sharper legislators in the caucus.
We could go the route of the GOP and begin purging DINOs, but it should be clear that’s a stupid political strategy. Hell, it’s what drove me away from the GOP. Particularly in this toxic environment. I was angry with my own legislators for sponsoring Tim Eyman’s tax caps, but I know I can count on them to back a large number of progressive measures that wouldn’t have a chance if Debolt was in control of the House.
Getting the Publicola endorsement probably isn’t an endorsement he wants or needs, but I’m hoping people like you understand that we can’t keep a majority without the suburbs and that means the Rep. Hursts of the world need to win.
@15
Derek,
I live in the 5th LD. It’s not like I don’t have an idea about the conservative leanings of the outer Puget Sound suburbs.
The issue for me is about Hurst’s chairmanship of a committee that has failed for several years to advance a bill that does nothing more than make our marijuana penalties as lenient as Ohio and Mississippi. And the fact that he’s put out a number of laughable excuses for doing so.
PubliCola had a number of other reasons for endorsing his opponent, from support for Eyman’s tax irresponsibility to opposing environmental measures and transit. All of that together – to me – signifies that there’s absolutely no value that Hurst brings to that seat, unless it’s the tipping point between a Republican and Democratic majority. And I doubt that will be the case this year.
@15 and 16:
I live in the 35th. The Other Timmah! (Sheldon) is our long time burden. I happen to believe he is the worst D in the state by far. The last time he held a chair position, the Rs had the Senate, which should tell you something.
It does matter who controls the chairs. But I submit this isn’t a Hurst issue, it’s Frank Chopp issue.
@16 Lee – I think I see your point a little more now. I guess if I didn’t think there was a risk of a Speaker Debolt I might agree.
@17 Zotz – yes, Sheldon is a completely different deal.
@10
I like the idea of shipping society’s rejects to an island….much cheaper than storing them in a prison….they dont want to be part of society? Fine, let them fend for themselves and develope their own way of life on an isolated island.
sick of tired of repeat offenders.
It’s discouraging to use my vote as a weapon against a candidate rather than cast it for somebody whose policies I enthusiasticaly support. The 2000 election proved Bush’s stolen presidency caused grievous harm to our country as well as to our allies and enemies. Gore may not have been the best the Democratic party could offer, but he would not have led us down the garden path. It looks like I’ll have to hold my nose and choose the lesser of two evils once again.
This time, if the candidates have equal weight on the ‘yuk’ scale, I’ll go Pogo.