Category: Uncategorized (Page 19 of 49)

UPDATE: Which Democrats did he help beat in 2002?

From the Olympian chat today:

Sal, Olympia: Why do you still believe you can call yourself a Democrat when you voted for George Bush and gave $10,000 of your surplus campaign funds to the GOP?

Sheldon: I certainly call myself a Democrat. I’m a member of the party. I voted for Bush, but I also voted for Patty Murray. I voted for Dino Rossi and also Brad Owen, a Democrat. I didn’t give $10,000 to the GOP. I do give money to organizations that may have supported Republicans. I also give money to organizations that do support Democrats.

From the Public Disclosure Commission:

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
11/18/2002
$3,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
ST. SENATOR SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/09/2002
$2,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS SENATE

REPUB CAMP COMM
10/16/2002
$2,000.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
ST. SENATOR SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/04/2002
$1,500.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY – SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS

SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM
10/11/2002
$1,500.00
G
SHELDON TIMOTHY- SURPLUS FUNDS ACCT
HOODSPORT WA 98548
SURPLUS FUNDS

You can find the same information by going here, choosing the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and sorting by contributor name and then amount.

The Senate Republican Campaign Committee may have given money to Republicans? You’re kidding.

While the SRCC may not the “GOP” by the strictest definition, it is a GOP organization, and that kind of parsing is trying to get away from saying “I support Republicans” while still being able to do it.

Sheldon is trying to win a closed Democratic primary, and as long as he still calls himself a Democrat, he should at least try to act like one.

The 9th Circuit agreed with Zinny, the I-872 Primary system does too much harm to political parties. I’ll probably write about this later some more, but this leaves me with two thoughts for now:

1. We missed our chance. The Democratic Party didn’t have to join with the Republicans to overturn the system. I-872 was passed overwhelmingly by Washington voters. Us who are active in party politics have to ask ourselves the hard questions of why this is.

Why don’t people want to be associated, good or ill, with a party label? Why don’t more people get involved in party politics? I don’t think its them, I really think its us.

2. What will the Washington State Grange do next? In Oregon they think they had an idea that would have passed court muster (it didn’t end up getting on the ballot) and in Pierce County they’re putting non-partisan elections on the ballot.

I don’t know if there is actually a middle ground for the Grange to howe here, but they might just go all the way to statewide, non-partisan.

All three of the Democratic state legistors in Tim Eyman’s district (the fightin’ 21st) are not facing anyone come September 19th or in November. Not even token Republican opposition. Even here in the flumoxin’ 22nd, one of the safest D districts in the state both of our state representatives are facing token Republicans.

What is even worse is that Eyman was asked to run:

Sen. Eyman? Hewitt says he pressured Tim Eyman, the state’s foremost initiative sponsor, to challenge Democrat Shin. He says Eyman declined, choosing to stay an outside activist.

Eyman tries to point out through his initiatives how out of touch state legislators are from the people. That his efforts are a blow to this disconnection between electeds and the electors. That may be true (I happen to be a fan of the intiative process, but not Eyman or his ideas), but the worst thing about his point is that he is doing nothing to solve the problem.

Rather, he is taking advantage of this disconnection. He could run for office and be an example of the right kind of elected official. The initiative process is our last fail safe for when the legislative process doesn’t work. But, Eyman isn’t willing to give the legislative process a chance before going to the backup.

Tim Eyman makes pretty good hay knocking around legislators, so why are the three Democratic legislators in his district not facing any opposition? (I know this is my second post on the same article this morning. Sue me, I’m unimaginative).

I know Eyman has used the excuse before as to why he doesn’t run for office that he is more effective running initiatives, but isn’t this also true:

Seattle Times:

Competition “is a very important part of the process. It makes us better public servants to be questioned and challenged,” he said. “And I have seen a number of times when somebody is not expected to have a chance and they end up winning. That’s not happening much anymore because they [the parties] don’t field candidates.”

Critics contend the lack of competition can lead to a less-responsive Legislature because politicians who don’t have to worry about getting kicked out of office are less likely to listen to their voters.

If what Eyman wants is a more responsive legislature, wouldn’t it be important for people to run against office holders?

Seattle Times:

“I wouldn’t say people should worry,” he said. “I think in Washington state, Democrats and Republicans are competing on the issues and are posing viable alternatives to the people.”

But he speaks from a position of comfort. Most of the unopposed candidates are Democrats, and the party already controls the state House, Senate and governor’s office.

…

There’s no consensus whether the trend will continue.

“All of this is speculation on all of our parts,” said Diane Tebelius, chairwoman of the state Republican Party.

Of course they don’t mind, not having an opponent is good for political parties, not so good for democracy though.

The lack of competition in many legislative districts throughout the state is one of the few reasons that I disagreed with the Democratic Parties choice to sue to overturn the Top Two primary. Unlike closed primary apologists like Andrew, I think having only one choice in November is bad. Even if the competition comes from inside your own party, it is better than not having a vote at all.

It is only slightly better to have a very underfunded opponent running a token campaign, which is the case in even more LDs, including my own.

An even better idea than opening up competition by opening the elections, would be erasing the financial advantage many incumbents enjoy by passing a statewide public financing law, like in Maine or Arizona.

This will be a long rambling post that’s been rattling in my head since high school. You don’t have to read it, even if you like me. I just wanted to write it, and now I will be writing it badly. Oh well, someone should tell me one of these days that I’m not a foreign policy expert.

Alan’s post over at the NPI’s official blog about the recent election in Mexico, and the Democratic party’s lack of response to the possibility that Mexican votes may not have counted reminded me of something. Both parties really don’t care about Mexican votes, and I’m almost positive Alan wouldn’t be complaining about our lack of response had the conservative candidate been at the losing end in Mexico.

On the Republican end, I got into a short tiff with McGavick’s bloggers (over email and comment) about his call for FIFA to not allow Iran into the World Cup not because Iran isn’t a democracy, but because of their stance towards the United States and their neighbors. And the holocost, he had a good point about the irony of the holocost and the Nurenburg Stadium.

Anyway, if McGavick had drawn his line in the sand on civil and electoral liberties, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Togo and Tunisia wouldn’t have been able to compete either. While I guess Democrats not wanting to comment on freedom overseas is bad, at they don’t use it as a blanket when they talk about countries they simply don’t like.

Take Egypt for example. We seem to like Egypt, despite that Egypt is pretty un-free right now. And, unlike Iraq and Afganistan, we don’t care so much about freedom in Egypt:

Last year U.S. pressure impelled Mubarak to hold Egypt’s first presidential election. U.S. pressure also led to a relaxation of constraints on freedom of speech, press and assembly that began to change the quality of public life in Egypt. Given this momentum, it was expected that Mubarak, once reelected, would allow further liberalization. Instead, 2006 has brought a wave of repression and brutality… The regime’s goons have bloodied and arrested peaceful protesters doing nothing more than expressing solidarity with the dignified protests of Egypt’s judges. Spurred by the persecution of its leaders for exposing election irregularities, the extraordinary judges’ movement has sprung to the forefront of agitation for reform.

In response to these abuses, U.S. press spokesmen have issued formulaic criticisms, and Nour’s conviction on patently bogus charges led Washington to postpone trade talks. But the mild tone of U.S. protests, the low level at which most have been delivered and the admixture of warm gestures toward the regime — such as the meetings Vice President Cheney and other top officials held with Mubarak’s son and hoped-for heir, Gamal, last month — have combined to create the impression that the Bush administration has begun to pull its punches on Middle East democracy.

Egypt is an important sidekick in the war on terror. We can send them people to torture, and they’ll take care of it for us.

Democracy, it seems, doesn’t always serve our interests, and where it doesn’t, we don’t care about it. Despite what the President says during speeches. I linked to the President’s inaugural speech there, and I think it’s worth pointing out that following that speech, that his adminstration pointed out that they weren’t actually changing things. Our focus on democracy was the same before all of his flowerly talk as it was after.

I’m not going to vote for Kevin O’Sullivan, not a chance in heck. But, I’m thinking twice about my vote on the primary ballot between Bob Macleod and Dan Venable. I don’t have any problem with Macleod. I voted for him four years ago and almost fully plan on voting for him again. But, my main problems with county government may never be adressed by him. Venable, though, seems able to hit them on the head.

Take this answer from the Olympian’s Capitol Chat:

I agree with Bob on I-933, pretty much straight through. It’s a bad initiative that will cost the county a lot of money. I am a property-rights individual, I’m strong on property rights, but I-933 isn’t the answer to the issues we’re faced with today, like growth. There are other ways of working through it. There are some circumstances within the county — in rezoning — where some people will be severely and negatively impacted. There are some people who will be impacted less than others but still it may not be their preference.

I think it’s for the good of the whole overall county, and as Bob has said, we have a lot of other things the county needs to do to sustain the growth here. We haven’t been keeping up with that where we’re at now. I’m against I-933 as it stands. I think we need zoning regulations. We’re under state mandate to protect our resources. The city of Olympia has gotten eminent domain for the brewery water, then was joined by the cities of Lacey and Tumwater, which means somewhere along the line they weren’t thinking ahead about their water issues when all this growth was happening, and I think the county also needs to take a look back and see what it could have done better in the past four years.
…

I would like to say about the meetings conducted to get public input on the rezoning — I’ve attended three, Aad it seems as though, from a resident’s point of view, they’re getting a lot of lip service from the county. They say they want to hear what we have to say, but when it comes out, none of the resident’s thoughts are reflected in it.

It seems like it’s a pacifier, not a real problem-solving task. It seems like “tell us what you think and we’re going to do what we want.” That’s the opinion I’m getting from a lot of people and one of the reasons I decided to run for County Commission.

I know, long quote to get to what I think was the main point. The county seems to treat the public process like something they need to get through, not something that can actually do something. A lot of the controversy surrounding the new county critical area’s ordinance could have been avoiding if they’d started with a more inclusive public process.

It isn’t like the board of commissioners isn’t thinking in this direction. The Citizen Priorities for Thurston County Government seems to be a good start, but there are problems with it.

One, it was a one year project, it seems. These kinds of projects, if they really want to develop an understanding of how citizens want their money spent, should happen every year. At most, you get a snap shot of one year. At worst, you get a distorted view. By engaging, in depth, you not only create trust between the board and citizens, you start to see a trend in what people are thinking.

Two, the website for it sucks. There is some basic information in .pdf files (of all things… was their something about html that was problem?) on the process, but in terms of actually engaging via the web, there is nothing there.

The step to send packets to 2,400 random voters in the county was a great step. Inviting “the public” into a process like this invites the same old activist folks to make their case, and you really don’t get anything new. Phone interviews with 600 randomly chosen of the original 2,400, even better.

Better yet would have been allowing a web version of the same interview. Even better would have been to have sit down discussions with these folks too.

Three, The actual public process was six hours over three days. You expect to get a broad view of how we want to spend almost $400 million in three nights?

Anyway, to get back to my first Macleod/Venable topic, it seems like Venable realizes their is a public involvement problem at the county. If I do end up voting for him, it will be because of this.

Don’t like O’Sullivan? Want No’Sullivan intsead? Get your bumbersticker or shirt here.

No doubt the most important race in Thurston County this year is between Democrat Bob Macleod and former Democrat Kevin O’Sullivan for county commissioner. Four years of O’Sullivan gave many people in Thurston County reason not to want four more, and he was soundly defeated in the Democratic primary. Now, he’s back as a Republican, and O’Sullivan is working hard to make the issues around I-933 the center of his campaign.

Brian Keeler passes on a diary post from the founder of the Blue Tiger Dems. Pretty good observation on why Lieberman/Lamont is so important. And, it has very little to do with the Iraq War, but rather about our party:

In reality, the Lamont candidacy is signaling something far more important for the Democratic Party.

Lamont’s candidacy is an indicator of a homecoming for “progressives” as they return to work within the Democratic Party at the local level versus criticizing it from the outside.

The fact that Lieberman has now chosen to run as an independent signals his complete lack of understanding of how important people feel it is to make the Democratic party relevant again, a party that stands up strongly against the Republicans on an array of issues, not just the war. In short, Lieberman is out and the progressives are moving back in.

…

Over the years, the word “Progressive” has come to represent activists who are uncomfortable identifying and associating with the Democratic party. Lamont and Keeler are examples of progressives moving from criticizing the Democratic Party from the outside, to rejoining it and running for office.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Democratic Party was hot and activists debated and fought within the party over priorities such as the Vietnam War, civil rights, the environment and women’s rights. By 2000 the same issue oriented activists were working outside the party rather than within it. This was problem was exacerbated by McCain-Feingold, which forced activists to find alternative methods of financing outside of the party. The party literally could not coordinate with “progressives”. This has moved energy away from the party structure, creating a larger chasm between voters and local Democratic organizations, once the backbone of the party.

…

With Lieberman running as an independent, he again misses the big picture as he did when he aligned himself too closely to the Republicans on the war and other issues. Lamont has won the Connecticut primary. He should be supported by all Democrats, because the most important goal is to bring independents and progressives back to the Democratic party.

That Bill Samuels will be posting at DailyKos kind of answers my question from this morning. And, this perspective on the Conn. Senate race answers something else I had stewing about being more specific about how the lessons of the 19th century can apply to today.

McGavick may like to use his way-back machine to become a Senator and vote against the Iraq War, but for now he’s all about staying the course.