You win some and you lose some I guess, as the Seattle Times balances out an endorsement for Democratic Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler with an endorsement for the deceptive and undemocratic King County Initiative 26. Using our NHL-style scoreboard (two points for a victory, one point for a tie), that brings our current standings to Republicans 11, Democrats 7.
Sure, Bruce Ramsey may find it annoying, my arbitrary declaration of I-26 as a Republican initiative, but it really isn’t all that arbitrary. I-26 would turn the county council, executive and auditor into “nonpartisan” positions, essentially allowing Republicans to hide their party affiliation, thus becoming more competitive in races they’d otherwise never have a snowball’s chance in because, you know… they’re Republicans. As I’ve said before, nonpartisanship is the last refuge of Republicans in a region where Republicanism has become a dirty word, and in that context I-26 is most definitely a Republican initiative.
It is also a small “d” undemocratic initiative because it gives voters less information about the candidates and thus leaves them less able to choose those candidates who best reflect their own political leanings. That, after all, is what party labels are about… a political shorthand by which we compare one candidate to another. I wish every voter was as engaged in politics as me and Ramsey, but they’re not, and so party identification is a useful tool for those who don’t embrace politics as a vocation or a hobby.
And finally, I-26 is a bad initiative because nonpartisanship is essentially a lie… a mythical ideal just as fictional as the objectivity and impartiality for which Ramsey’s newspaper supposedly strives. Stripping the “R” off Pete von Reichbauer won’t make him any less of a Republican, but it will make him more electable in a district that is steadily trending Democratic. And that’s exactly I-26’s point.
| Seattle Times Endorsements | GP | W | L | T | Pts | |
| Republicans | 9 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 11 | |
| Democrats | 9 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| Third Parties | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
Goldy rates Brian Sonntag’s endorsement as a tie, even though Sonntag is a Democrat supported by the Democratic Party running against a Republican (Dick McEntee) supported by the Republican Party. And all because Sonntag did a performance audit of Sound Transit?
And the joint Terry Bergeson/Randy Dorn endorsement is also rated as a tie, even though Bergeson and Dorn are both Democrats?
If these highly suspect calls are both turned into Democratic wins, shouldn’t the result be 9 to 9 tied, instead of 11 to 7 Republican?
Also, I believe Goldy counted the endorsement of Justice Charles Johnson as a Republican win?
I am not sure what the race between Johnson and two folks that I have never heard of has to do with partisanship, or what the party affiliation of Johnson’s opponents might be. However, Johnson has been endorsement for re-election by every single Democratic organization which has weighed in on the issue.
So if the Johnson endorsement is switched to a tie, then it would be 10 to 8 Democratic, and if it were considered a Democratic win (given the unanimity in Democratic endorsements for Johnson), then it would be 11 to 7 Democratic.
Bruce Ramsey certainly had a point in his previous thread.
Although Goldy’s scorecard is flawed, I think Goldy has a point when he predicts a Dino Rossi endorsement in the future by the Times.
One of Utah’s most popular rock arches has collapsed. Initial speculation blames corrosion from Republican hot air.
If I-26 passes, Motherbeater Irons will become Babykisser Irons, and will embrace food stamps and social welfare. Not! Goldy is right. I-26 is a subterfuge by partisans who can win only by deceiving voters about who they are and what they plan to do. School boards are nonpartisan, and that’s exactly how intelligent-design freaks take them over.
@2 I believe the Times will endorse repealing the inheritance tax.
Repealing the inheritance tax will create a gigantic tax loophole. Under current tax laws, heirs receive stepped-up tax basis. Here’s how this works.
Let’s say Joe Blow invests $100,000 in a stock that increases 50 times in value. If he sells it, he’ll owe capital gains tax on $4,900,000, the difference between $100,000 and $5 million. He’s still getting a helluva a deal, because the maximum CG tax is 15% which means he’d pay no more than $735,000 in taxes, whereas a janitor who worked for $4,900,000 would pay around $1.7 million in income taxes (not counting Social Security and Medicare taxes).
But let’s say Joe Blow kicks the bucket and bequeaths the stock to Joe Blow Jr. Junior owes NO capital gains tax, because his basis in the stock is $5 million, not the $100,000 that daddy paid for it. Without an inheritance tax, Junior’s tax liability would be zero, and the $4.9 million would never be taxed at all.
In other words, repealing the inheritance tax would create a loophole under which wealthy people could receive large amounts of income tax-free. All they have to do is die, and they’re going to do that anyway.
Fortunately, there’s a way to make everyone happy, and treat everyone fairly. It’s called the Roger Rabbit Tax Plan. It’s very simply. Repeal the inheritance tax, and treat inheritances as ordinary income of the heirs. What could be more fair? We won’t be making heirs pay a higher tax rate than wage earners because they received the money free instead of working for it, although we should. I’m saving that is a Phase 3 reform, to be enacted in tandem with construction of light rail from Lynnwood to Everett, sometime around the year 2040. In fact, that’s how I plan to pay for that light rail segment, after the regressive senior-citizen-gouging light rail sales tax expires.
Republicans are pulling every trick in the book to run away from their ugly name.
Now they’re going stealth. You have to give them points for trying.
Who knows? Maybe they’ll eventually run as “mom and apple pie” Dems. They’ll do anything to push their unpopular policies while lining their cronies pockets with corruption money.
America needs a Republican Party for the same reason we need Leavenworth Penitentiary — we need a political party in which to warehouse crooks and liars.
Instead of I-26, we need an initiative that requires Republicans to wear bright orange jumpsuits and have the letter “R” tatooed on their foreheads.
I’m not sure that third parties have 9 GP’s. After all, what position could the Times have taken on I-26 to earn third parties a W or a Tie?
“… helmet laws – those are all examples of nanny-statism…”
Yes, but not in the exact way presented here. Hospitals are required, by WA State law, to admit any injured person. Head injuries are very expensive to treat, so head injuries raise the cost of our health care. It’s the combination of these two laws which validates the nanny-state critique. If we simply allowed any case of head-trauma to die on the sidewalk, then yeah, ride without protection if you like.
(I commute to work on two wheels. While I don’t like wearing a helmet, my family spent $60K on improving the contents of my head, and my job requires my head to be in fine working order. Most days, anyway…)
There is a range of Republicans (from conservative to liberal) just as there is a range of Democrats. Sometimes we need to look beyond the title to understand what the candidate stands for–it is worth the time.
Many times as I am out campaigning (and explaining my views to conservative Republicans and all kinds of Democrats) I have found that we do have some “meeting of the minds.” We do need to find common ground in Olympia (instead of bickering) so that we can get important work accomplished.