Category: Uncategorized (Page 15 of 49)

Ward is running against paleo-conservative Sen. Pam Roach up in King County. She has a new ad, an imitiation of a great Rainier Beer ad that I think we all remember. It turns out to be a deeper statement on growth and where we’ve come from as a region.

Her ad:

The original Rainier ad:

When you look at it side by side to the original Rainier Beer ad, you can see that the same bend in the road is no longer fields, but rather suburban homes.

I had a meeting with Sen. Karen Fraser today to go over he role as a moderator for this event.

I have to say, I probably have one of the nicest elected officials in my district, she spent a lot of time with me, and I’m happy I voted for her.

Anyway, since talking about a public forum doesn’t take very long, our conversation wandered into the topic of blogging (a topic I like talking about), and it sounded like she might get into it herself. I mentioned Rep. Dave Upthegrove’s Uptheblog, which I hope gives her a good impression of an elected official blog.

A few weeks ago the Washington blogoshere on both sides of the aisle were all a twitter with the Sheldon v. Lucas race for the 35th LD Senate seat. Mostly that statewide Dems were trying to get rid of the Dem in Name Only Tim Sheldon.

There was a bit of sniping on the conservative side of things that the Democratic Party was out for ideological purity, not popular candidates. Which may be true. But, at least we try to get candidates we don’t like out during a public election.

The Republican Party tries to fight them off even before they get on the ballot. Seattle Times in 2005:

But state Republicans also adopted rules for a Montana primary — rules state GOP Chairman Chris Vance says are now in effect — that assert the party’s “right to grant permission to use the Republican name … only to candidates who demonstrate significant support within the Republican Party.”

In most cases, the rules require a candidate to have received 25 percent of the vote at the county convention. Candidates also could have qualified by submitting to the party by last Friday a large number of voter signatures, but Vance said he knew of no candidates taking that route.

Democrats have adopted no similar rules.

In the second election with the pick-a-party system, voter turnout went up four points from the last non-presidential year primary election. Since 2004, turnout was down seven points.

There are probably many other factors impacting turnout than the primary system, but it seems that the only thing the system changed was how people talk about the primary, not whether they vote or not.

I’d be interested to see how many people turned in non-partisan ballots compared to partisan ballots the last two times around, and see how that compares to party ID in the state.

Andrew’s post from today on “catty blogs” reminds me of something we should all be doing. Reading right wing blogs and keeping them honest.

Maybe they’ll do the same thing to us.

I started reading Thurston Pundits awhile back, and started righting writing about it when I noticed that my comments on the blog weren’t being accepted. Andy doesn’t accept any comments (despite keeping the line of code that implies he accepts comments) so I don’t take it personally. So, I just started typing my comments in my own blog and linking back to his post.

Its kind of sad though, if you check Andy’s technorati profile, I’m one of the few who cares enough to actually write about what he’s writing about.

Effin’ Unsound is a much larger effort to do this. Maybe Carl should open that blog up a bit and let the rest of us play.

There should be no independent research in our state funded universities, especially when they touch upon topics that matter to some people. And, if a university happens to research something that politicians don’t like, they should be punished.

Or so says Andy over at Thurston Pundits. He also thinks interrogatory sentences no longer need to end in a question mark. But, that is open to discuss here.

Take it away Andy:

Remember the politcally motivated study the UW is releasing to thwart 933.

Bad move UW. Bad move. One has to figure they didn’t really count on the back lash from the folks that butter their bread on the broader spectrum. I understand that at an org that size, 99% of managers could not find a clue if it bit them in the ass anyway, but this one will come back to haunt them.

I’ve been reading Applebee’s America the last few days, and I want to write down some thoughts. Here is one of the first.

I was wrong about the exurbs, or at least the “community” part of the exurbs:

These are people that seem to have a few major commitments. First of all, their family. I can’t fault them for that, the main subject of the story was obviously dedicated to her husband and the enrichment of her kids. Second, what I said above leads us into money, which obviously plays a roll in their decisions to move around so much.

…

I don’t know, but their frequent abandonment of towns and communities doesn’t speak to a deep connection to people around them. If the roads are so bad getting around suburban Georgia, who really cares about fixing the problem of poor planning, if you are going to leave in a few years anyway?

Anyway, much was made about George Bush’s ability to win the so called exurbs last fall, which was one of the things that put him over the top. If these are the people that populate the fastest growing counties in the country, do I care?

…

I suspect that much of the exurbians political tendencies come from their personal choices of being rootless, not feeling connected to a particular place or holding your ground for a community. These are things that I expect the Democratic Party to stand for, and so I would assume that we would lose among with the relos.

While Democratic Party policies speak to a community commitment, the Republican Party actually sounds like they prefer people to be connected to one another. And, more importantly in 2004, they campaigned like community mattered in the exurbs, where people saw the greatest need for good old fashioned community.

People in the fastest growing communities feel the need for connection, for community, and it makes sense that businesses such as megachurches and Applebees, that provide this kind of service, would do well there.

I was wrong about exubians running away from community. They may be running away from their own responsibility to build community, and rather like to have it delievered to them through church or a place to eat. That may sound harsh, but I’ll admit there is a desire for community, but no one talking locally how to actually build it, rather just sell it.

I like what the relish packet has to say. And, he is much better looking than Mr. McGavick.

First, they took out UCLA, now the Huskies are taking on another visitor from the south, property rights initiative 933.

Back in 1995 the UW issued a killer study to a similar initiative, pointing out the millions it would cost taxpayers. OFM released a study pretty much saying the same thing about I-933 last week, now Dan Woods, head of the Yes on 933 campaign is seeing shadows on the mid-90s in this rambling email:.

To: Yes on I-933 Grassroots Leaders & Supporters
Fr: Dan Wood
Re: UW to Release Anti-933 Study Tomorrow

RIGHT TO THE POINT:

Action Step #1. SEND LETTERS TO NEWSPAPERS.

Write to local and regional newspapers today and tell them what you think about this bogus study that was bought and paid for by the opposition to the Property Fairness Initiative. Here are some thoughts:

* The foundations sponsoring this study are run by the same super-rich backers funding the opposition to the Property Fairness Initiative. They want to buy the election, and buying credibility from the UW is part of their strategy.

* These millionaire and billionaire activists live by difference rules than the rest of us. They build their mega-mansions on the waterfront and use their property in ways that regular people cannot. Then they contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars (pocket change for them) to organizations that want more government control over the rest of us.

* The opposition is using taxpayer resources (the University) for political campaign purposes. It’s flat out wrong, just like state agencies and local governments have spent taxpayer resources to campaign against I-933, which will hold them accountable for the cost and affect of their unfair regulations.

* This is the same campaign tactic as last time. Use taxpayer resources and opposition funding to try to convince voters that there is legitimacy to the opposition message. We won’t buy it this time. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

* When the same people, led by the same person (Glen Pascall) did this before, they were discredited as “bordering on fraud.” Taxpayer resources should not be used for fraudulent political campaign messages.

* Visit PropertyFairness.com to read the initiative for yourselves.

* In Oregon, not a dime has been paid in compensation, yet that does not show up in this so-called “study.” The result in Oregon is that government is considering the cost of their actions and working with property owners. We should have the same fair treatment in our state.

…

Last week, we filed a public records request demanding that the University come clean with documents relating to this study. We have received no response to our request for records. Failure to respond will be yet another violation of state law.

You can read about the request and the bogus study below.

…

Our grassroots campaign can beat back their attempt to buy this election.

Farm Bureau Demands Documents from University “Study” Funded by Opposition Groups

OLYMPIA – Washington Farm Bureau today filed a public records request with the University of Washington, asking for public records related to a planned “study” on Initiative 933.

“We want them to reveal who is behind the study, who is directing the study, and what the connections are with the special interests that are funding the anti-fairness campaign,” said Dan Wood, government relations director for Washington Farm Bureau.

“This study is paid for by the same environmental extremist organizations that are backing the campaign against the Property Fairness Initiative,” said Wood. “They are trying to buy credibility from the University and they are using public resources to do it.”

Because the University of Washington is a state agency, it is required to provide public documents, whether on paper or in electronic form, under the state Public Records Act (RCW 42.56).

“It’s an abuse of public trust for any agency to engage in these types of campaign activities,” Wood said. “Under the law, they will need to come clean with the connections to the anti-fairness campaign and they will need to show who is buying this so-called study.”

The Northwest Center for Livable Communities, a division of the University, is coordinating the study on behalf of the Bullitt Foundation, Brainerd Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation and others.

These same foundations funded a University of Washington “study” in 1995, released lat in the Fall campaign. In that year, a similar measure, Referendum 48, sought to address excessive regulations that treated property owners unfairly.

Wood said the late release of the so-called study was a death blow to the referendum, and that opponents hope to repeat the scenario in 2006.

“They’re planning another ‘October Surprise’ for this year,” said Wood.

“This time, the voters aren’t going to be taken in by their tactics.”

In 1995, the University of Washington administration sent two letters to the anti-property rights campaign, telling them to “immediately refrain from the use of the phrase ‘University of Washington’” in their ads against referendum 48.

In similar communication, University Associate Vice President Norman Arkans told the No on 48 campaign that their “wording is misleading in that it suggests that the University commissioned the study when it was paid for by private foundation grants.”

An earlier letter from Arkans told the campaign that, “under state law, the University may not be involved in any way in the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition.” He concluded by telling the campaign that “you are not authorized to use the University of Washington name, trademarks, symbols or logos in any material opposing ballot proposition 48.”

“We hope the University still holds the same values of abiding by the law and not being used for political purposes,” said Wood.

The purchased study in 1995, led by Glenn Pascall, was met with harsh criticism.

The Washington Institute for Policy Studies, which included Pascall on its board of advisors, wrote to Pascall and told him that the study “leaves us with grave concern.”

Cost estimates were based upon “pure analytical fabrication” and the study contained “rhetoric and conjecture without any supportive analysis.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Research Council labeled the study as “bordering on fraud” and pointed out that there was no peer review of the 1995 study.

“This is an example of academic opinions for sale,” said Wood. “Voters were fooled once by this tactic, but they won’t be fooled again.”

“Unfortunately, the University’s credibility will be the biggest price paid for this study. But the anti-fairness campaign is only concerned about buying a campaign message.”

“We’re looking forward to the University complying with the public disclosure law and coming clean about who is buying the study,” said Wood

Over at the 35th LD blog there is a lengthy and (it reads at least) angry post on open primaries and how a lot of Republicans must have jumped over to vote D to push Sheldon last week. I don’t doubt that, but I have a problem with the authors contentions. So, I left a comment.

I fear Eric is correct, that is really isn’t all that important for one to befriend the local LD or county organization to win an election. Though, I don’t think this problem is soley Democratic.

My contention is that local parties need to be broader in terms of who plays. More participatory, more focussed on civic engagement and less on winning elections.