History, politics, people of Oly WA
…Johnson entered my classroom and stated the following: When asked by a student, what would you change about, Washington? His reply: “I’d get rid of all the Democrats.”
What’s the hardest thing about, your job? “Having to work with Democrats.” ‘He went on to disparage two of the Democratic congressmen from the district.
Rock on. As a Supreme Court justice, he might be able to do that.
In 2002 Tim Sheldon gives $10,000 to a Republican campaign committee that tosses the state senate to the GOP.
In 2004 he votes for and supports the Republican candidate for governor.
In 2004 he heads up the local chapter of Democrats for Bush.
This year he fails to get the endorsement of any local Democratic Party organization.
He is listed by the Republican senate campaign committee as a Republican.
In 2006 he receives $500 from a Republican PAC, $100 more than is even raised by his Republican opponent.
Now, he endorses the Republican opponent of a Democratic representative from his own district.
So, I ask you, why do parties matter at all?
Here are some fact type thingies:
1. Libraries are among the most valued and trusted of public institutions. I don’t have any citation to back this up, but they have to be up there, way above elected officials or
2. Conservatives have tapped the social structures at mega-churches, recognizing that social conections are the most effective at determining how someone votes.
3. Libraries are wondering about their own role as “places,” or rather destinations in the way that Applebees and megachurches have become destinations.
Its a sad comment, but the valuable “third places” in our society are no longer places were people randomly come together (maybe they were never that way), but rather places were people go because they know other folks they want to meet are there.
Democrats, especially, should be worried about the places in our communities, and making sure that there are enough places for people to get together.
Out and about today, I was able to squeeze in the last 20 or so minutes of Podcasting Liberally, which covered the cerfuffle this week about a handful of newspapers across the region writing checks to the Initiative 920 campaign (here and here).
Goldy and crew were worried that because all of these papers were in league with the estate tax killer, therefore killing any chance that the anti-920 folks would get fair shake. Their worries were only half baked, as they never got around to wondering why newspapers, all family owned, would hate the estate tax.
Let’s get one thing straight, I like the estate tax. A lot. I like what it has to say about our values as a nation and I never want to see the rise of the American aristocracy again.
That said, I also like local, family owned newspapers.
Lets get down to it. The papers writing checks to I-920 aren’t the Tacoma News Tribune (owned by the McClatchy) the Seattle PI (owned by Hearst) or the Aberdeen Daily World (owned by Stephens Media), because corporations don’t fear the estate tax.
And, over the past half century, family owned papers have disappeared. The estate tax has been a nice neat weapon for large newspaper chains to sweep into a community and buy up a newspaper from heirs who either didn’t have it in them to run the paper, or lost too much cash in the transaction to make it worth it.
A great book on this sad history is Richard McCord’s “The Chain Gang: One Newspaper Versus the Gannett Empire.” While Gannett did tons of other nasty things in their earlier days, the estate tax was a common denominator in a lot of their buy outs. The Blethen family, along with the other publishers that have jumped on the I-920 bandwagon have seen dozens of family, local owned papers go down the chain route.
While I’m not for ending the estate tax, I’m also not for ending local ownership of newspapers. Locally owned papers are under intense pressure to sell out to larger chains, because they are highly profitable businesses. Chains, because they can buy things like paper at cheaper prices, can make the papers even more profitable.
Especially Goldy, who fears the lack of decent coverage of both sides of I-920, can recognize the possible chilling effects of chain ownership of newspapers.
Vote no on I-920, but also support local journalism.
Democratic candidate for the WA 8 is coming to Olympia:
On October 28th we have an opportunity to take a direct action to change the direction of our country. Darcy Burner will be in Olympia for a fundraiser at the Home of Paul and Beth Berendt in conjunction with a swing through the southern end of the eight congressional district ( Olympia isn’t in the eighth – but the district dose come nearby to the Pierce County border).
Burner is taking on one of the most endangered Republicans in the Congress: Dave Reichert. Polling shows that Darcy is well positioned to win the race but she needs a big push to help win in the final days of the election. Will you join us in helping Darcy change the direction of our country?
What: Fundraiser Benefiting Darcy Burner for Congress
Where: Home of Paul & Beth Berendt – 1702 Sulenes Loop SE, Olympia
(Off Henderson St. near Olympia High School and the Briggs YMCA)
Date & Time: October 28th 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Donation: suggested donation is $25, $50 or $100
Call Paul or Beth Berendt for more information at 360-753-6235
Up until about May I was involved in my neighborhood association, that had come together to try to stop the upsurge in development in south-east Olympia. This part of Oly had been pretty rural up until recently, and a lot of long time residents had a hard time understanding why this muddy wet part of town was a good place for a few thousand more homes.
This fight though is a good example of the arguments surrounding I-933, balancing the rights of long time landowners to their rural setting, low volume traffic and property values, with the rights of developers to do what they do.
Earlier today the VP of the neighborhood association sent out a reminder for folks to donate to No on I-933 (to the credit of Dan Stonnington and other folks at the Community Protection Coalition, they were in contact with my neighborhood association early on). I’ll call her Neighbor A has been pretty vocal about I-933, specifically how it would prevent folks like her and her neighbors from stopping development from happening.
Neighbor B, also very active in the association, replied in contrast:
We need less government interference and more accountability to the people. Any and all government (and each person!) should be held accountable for it’s actions. Period.
…I am surprised that you aren’t concerned about the fact that plans are showing a road going thru your house in the future. I would think you would expect to be reimbursed by the government taking your home as they see fit without your intent to sell or input from you. You are campaigning, voting and contributing to the government not having to pay you fair market value when they decide to take your land for a more direct route to downtown. Where ‘they’ go to spend more of our tax dollars on stopping food and medical supplies from getting to our troops fighting for our freedom of speech, way of life and religion.
What does I-933 do for Washington property owners?Yes On I-993 means that if government regulation damages the use or value of your land you are entitled to compensation for your loss.
How much will I-933 cost?
Nothing. If the government doesnÂt damage someoneÂs property, it owes nothing. No damage, no cost. ThatÂs fair.
Does I-933 eliminate zoning laws and environmental protections?
No. Only regulations applied to individual properties are addressed by I-933. Zoning doesnÂt change and the environment is still protected.
My main contention is with the logic that she seems to be employing that “if the rules stay on the books, what is the harm?” The harm is that the rules aren’t enforced, they practically don’t exist.
She also seems to be confusing the concepteminentient domain with so called “takings.” If Neighbor A’s house was taken out to build a road, then under the Constitution of the United States and Washington, she’d be paid. If they downzoned her property from one house per one acre to one to five, there would be no payment (as it stands today). The fiscenarioerio iseminentient domain case, the second is so-called “takings.”
Anyway, I could spend a lot of time countering her logic, but rather, I just want to reflect on if we couldn’t reach someone whose home is being surrounded by new developments, who can we reach?
The only reason there is a halt in development in SE Olympia is because the city was able to enact a rule to put a temporary halt to development until they reconsider their overall rules. If all of those rules can be called into question when they obviously will lessen the commercial value of their properties, how can they be effective at all?
From the PDF:
…that is because it shifts power away from the center of organizations out to the edges. Millions of us now can speak on a much more level playing field than anything that has ever existed before. By definition that is bad for elites and insiders. Which can’t be good news for the incumbent party in Washington.
I think pluralism is also hard-wired into the net, and especially into Web 2.0, where everyone is one click away from everyone else and (contrary to the fears of some), you are far more likely to encounter opposing viewpoints online than elsewhere. This again, it seems to me, means the web is inherently friendlier to people who value civic debate and engagement.
This is not to say that the web is full of liberals. It still trends to the wealthier, especially if you are looking at broadband users. And given the huge technosphere, which is as big or bigger than the political blogosphere, a lot of its politics is more libertarian than traditionally left or right. But even if it’s not by design, it does seem Cox is right, and the right is losing the online future.
That’s because the culture of Web 2.0 favors dissenters and creatives over conformists. If you are uncomfortable with free expression, you’re not going to like YouTube. It’s not “who builds what,” as Cox puts it, that “means everything,” it’s what is the web good for and what do people like to use it for, that means everything.
This is why calling wired citizens the nutroots, is well, nuts.
A good local conversation on this is right here.
I also agree with Micah (I didn’t quote this part) that the right has a good hold on off line networks, such as mega-churches and gun groups. That isn’t to say, though, that these offline networks have to stay with Republicans. One thing I learned while reading Applebee’s America (I loved that book, if you read this blog with any regularity, you’re going to have to settle with that), is that while these networks may be 60 or so percent GOP, by not focussing on them, we’re loosing the 40 percent Dem/Progressives that attend mega-churches, attend gun club meetings, etc…
Though, as the online networks spawn offline networks, we’ll have a greater advantage there.
But, as a reason to vote against, not for the initiative. Goldy points to the obvious two-faced nature of Dan Wood, who would promote I-933 as a way to get the government off the backs of good folks like us, then testify that a fish processing plant was ruining the value of his rental properties down on the harbor.
That Wood would testify before the Hoquiam City council points to something: the way to argue against 933 is to say it will destroy your property values. Not because of government action, but because of your neighbors screwing with you.
or: f*#k Mark Shattuck.
Four years ago Sheldon gave the GOP about $10,000. Now, after his victory over Democrat Kyle Taylor Lucas, they’re begining to return the favor.
Citizens Alliance for a Legislative Majority, a new PAC in Washington funded mostly by seed money from the Republican State Leadership Commitee, gave $500 to Sen. Sheldon earlier this month.
Not that he needs it.
(The Republicans really considered him one of their own anyway)
If Republicans are giving money to Sheldon, who is donating to his Republican opponent, Mark Shattuck?
That’s right, two people for a total of $400 have donated to Republican Shattuck’s campaign, $100 less than what the State Republicans gave to his opponent Democrat Tim Sheldon.
Former California Congressman and current Gig Harbor resident (boy I like him already) Burt Talcott (say that with your teeth clenched) has a very energetic defense of of current primary system in the TNT recently. Actually he seems to be defending primaries in general, and attacking the idea of an IRV system, which would do away with primaries.
Both major political parties, although often adversarial on most issues, strongly oppose IRV.
Now, why would both the Democrats and the Republicans oppose IRV when they disagree with each other on so much? Probably because they’re the two major parties and fear losing their positions to lesser parties. Defending a duopoly.
That isn’t to say that some Democratic county organizations don’t like IRV. Whatcom county put it in their platform this year, and Thurston did two years ago.
Party workers conduct workshops for voters, informational public forums, candidate debates and “get-out-the-vote” campaigns. They monitor elections and hold election officials accountable. They sponsor conventions and neighborhood meetings to develop and explain public policy positions.
These essential functions inform the electorate in ways that the government, individuals and narrow interests do not and cannot possibly accomplish; their value far exceeds the costs of conducting primary elections.
Voting a different way won’t stop parties from doing these things. Not that parties do this sort of stuff anyway. A lot of local parties don’t do a lot of voter education forumy type of stuff. It would be great if they did, but a lot more effort is put into raising money for candidates, not good-for-the public education events.
Primaries enable candidates to demonstrate their political skills and permit thousands of citizens to participate in the nomination process – rather than relegate nominations to a few closeted elite.
This is the most base argument for public primaries, that if we had nominating process within the parties it would be back to the bad old days of Boss Tweed and smoke filled rooms.
It would only be that way if the parties let it be that way. The fact is it has been almost 100 years since the first primaries came along and nearly 40 since they became common. Since then communication technology has, to put it bluntly, has changed a bit. It is possible today to run a nominating convention online (as they’ve done in Arizona).
Defending the current voting system should not be done by saying “We’re trying to save the parties.” I’m all for the parties, and one in particular, but the parties’ fate will be on how well they address the issues of the day and how well they encourage participation, not on how we vote.
© 2026 Olympia Time
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑