Category: Washington Politics (Page 6 of 27)

Some Coug from Tumwater files for the open Brendan Williams legislative seat

December 30, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

I’ve never heard of this guy, but he sounds like a pretty qualified and uhmmm… ambitious fellow.

Via email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Chris Reykdal
December 30, 2009
(360) 790-3151

CHRIS REYKDAL TO RUN FOR 22nd DISTRICT HOUSE SEAT

OLYMPIA – Last night, Tumwater School Board member Chris Reykdal announced his candidacy for the 22nd District House seat being vacated by incumbent Representative Brendan Williams.

“There is something lacking in the politics we see today,” said Reykdal, a Democrat who resides in Tumwater with his wife Kim and their 5 year old son Carter and 3 year old daughter Kennedy. “I am running for State Representative so that all of our children are handed a community that is better than the one handed to us.”

Chris Reykdal was first elected to the Tumwater School Board in 2007, and previously served for three years on the City Planning Commission. He is a former legislative staffer, High School teacher and the current Deputy Executive Director of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. Chris will bring with him to the legislature a comprehensive knowledge of education issues that is second to none.

“Our state is facing unprecedented challenges,” continued Reykdal, “We have avoided critical conversations for too long – from education funding, to environmental protection, to tax reform. I pledge to the citizens of the 22nd District that if they send me to the Legislature, I will take the tough votes and work tirelessly to secure the values that make our community a wonderful place to raise our families.”

Chris Reykdal understands the struggles so many families across the 22nd District are facing because he’s faced these challenges himself. The youngest of eight kids, Chris was raised in Snohomish. With the help of food stamps and Government assistance, the Reykdal family persevered. Through the hard work of both Chris and his family, he was able to attend Washington State University, where he was the President of the College Democrats. He met his wife Kim at WSU and they attended graduate school together at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill.

In the legislature, Chris Reykdal will work every day on behalf of families struggling to make ends meet, just as his family struggled in his youth.

“I am heartbroken at the thought that my kids and their generation may be the first in American history to experience a lower standard of living than the generation before them. One person, one legislator, one dad can’t turn this around by himself, but I am deeply committed to adding my talents and passion to a body of distinguished legislators who do have the power to make a historical difference in the lives of future Washingtonians.”

###

The only thing that makes me wonder about announcements like these is their impersonal nature. Its written the same way most press releases are, as faux news stories, quoting in this case the obvious author. If you’re quoting yourself, why not just write a nice message?

“Hey, I’m Chris, I’m running for state representative.”

TDN uses initiative results to draw a bad conclusion in WA3

December 28, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

The WA3 may very well be a swing district, but you shouldn’t use the recent ballot initiative results to prove it, as the TDN did last week:

While voters across the state soundly defeated a Tim Eyman anti-tax measure and, by a narrower margin, supported the rights of same-sex couples in November, Southwest Washington voters in the 3rd Congressional District had other ideas.

By a small margin, the 3rd District backed Initiative 1033, Eyman’s proposal to cap government tax collections. And by six percentage points, the 3rd District defeated Referendum 71, which extended rights to elderly and same-sex couples similar to those given to married couples.

The numbers, released this month by the Secretary of State’s office, are further evidence that the district can be fickle about its politics — and why political pundits say next year’s battle to replace outgoing Congressman Brian Baird will be a donnybrook that could become the most expensive campaign in state history.

As I wrote last week, there are two reasons to reject this premise:

1. If you are using initiative results, the 3rd was much more conservative last time there was an open race, when Baird beat a Republican by a healthy margin.

2. The No on 1033 campaign did not compete on the air in SW Washington. If they had spent any money in the Portland television market, the narrow win by 1033 would have been a loss.

No so much a leftist rejection (and not so tough terrain) in the WA3

December 20, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Clark County Politics and Politico (and I’m sure tons of people in the next few months will do the same) dusted off the election results from last month to predict a Democratic loser in the open WA3 race. It seems like a good strategy, but it appears to me that saying that an approval of I-1033 and a rejection of R-71 doesn’t necessarily predict a loss for a Democrat next November.

Here’s why.

The last time there was an open seat in the WA3, Brian Baird beat state Rep. Don Benton 55 to 45 percent (Baird pulling down 49k in Clark County, Benton 46k). If the logic that CCP holds was true back then, WA3 voters, and Clark County voters in particular, should have approved some liberal ballot measures in 1997/98.

Well, turns out that didn’t happen. Turns out the WA3 voters seemed more conservative back then then they are now.

In 1997, voters in the counties that make up the 3rd (couldn’t hit it on the nose) rejected a measure that would have given homosexuals workplace protections. Anyone would admit that this measure was considerably more limited in scope that this year’s. But, it actually did worse in 1997 than the more broader measure this year (44 in 1997 to 47 approval in 2009).

By the way, here are my calculations, the data is of course from the Secretary of State’s office.

A year after Baird was elected, the voters in the counties that make up the 3rd (again, not exactly the same) approved Tim Eyman’s first anti-tax initiative I-695 with a whopping 61 percent. Ten years later I-1033 barely skates by in the 3rd with a 50.27% yes vote.

Not exactly a conservative mandate, and not a good way to explain how a conservative will win in 2010. If Brian Baird was able to beat Don Benton with similar ballot measure results reflecting an even more conservative WA3 in the late 90s, a Democrat should actually have a better time this time around.

But, I don’t think there’s any connection between ballot measures and congressional elections, and here’s why:

Measures are a statewide vote and congressional campaigns are regional. This matters in the sense of where a particular campaign will spend its money. A campaign for or against a ballot measure will seem to spend t.v. money where its most needed, Seattle and Spokane (where the people are) and the Tri-Cities (probably because its pretty cheap).

One of the places where they won’t is in the Portland market because its expensive to spend there and you’re spending on very few of the Washington residents in the SW corner of the state who make up that particular market.

And, that’s exactly what No on 1033 did last year. That campaign spent money on television advertising in every part of the state, except where it would reach voters in Brian Baird’s district. Negative advertising in ballot measure elections tends to convince people to vote no as a safe alternative.

So, if the I-1033 campaign had given SW Washington (and therefore the 3rd) the attention it had given the rest of the state, that measure would probably have failed there too.

Hardly a “leftist rejection in the 3rd.”

Can the Tea Baggers scuttle Jamie Herrera?

December 17, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Well, this is interesting news. The most interesting thing so far I’ve seen out of the new, exciting and open WA3:

Our resident political opportunist, Jaime Herrera, is an interesting person. She portrays herself as something of a conservative. But a questionable voting record serves to make me wonder. Is she exaggerating about that the same way she exaggerated about her background to get the appointment in the first place?

My complete familiarity of her appointment process and the horrific manipulation of it was something I’d mentioned in the past. This made it pretty clear to others with information exactly where I stood.

So, we begin with today’s tidbit: the fact that Jamie Herrera appears to have been ACORN’S Representative in the House.

ACORN and SEIU are synonymus with leftist thuggery of the variety we’ve seen practiced over the past several months in support of Obama. Who hasn’t seen the tapes of ACORN’s corruptive influence?

Well, here’s a few of the votes that Herrera took that tends to show exactly where she stands on those issues important to the SEIU… and, by extension, to ACORN.

It seems like conservatives down Vancouver way were ready for Rep. Herrera to get into the race so they could start painting her.

Last time around, the Republican chamber of commerce centrist got beat out by the Ron Paul sort of candidate. This was despite her getting the endorsement of the organized Republicans in the district.

So, if one of Herrera’s opponents can raise a little money and tie her name with ACORN in the district, is she toast?

Jim Anderson live blogging an education forum

November 17, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

This quote from Jim’s live blog gives you a great view of the sort of legislators we have locally. See if you can find the coastal caucus Dem, the suburban Dem, the rural Republican and the leadership Dem.

From the 5/17 blog:

Kathy Haigh: “I think it’s going to be short.” “Another $2 billion down, and no significant funding coming from the feds…. It’s going to be significant cuts…. We should all be keeping a close eye on [the] health care issue.” If the feds stepped in to fund our “Apple” health care for kids, that’d help. ECAP is the “absolute wrong place” to cut from. I-728, 732 are (still) at risk. Levy equalization funds won’t be touched. Higher Ed–expect another tuition increase, even letting schools set their own tuition rates.

Brendan Williams: “At the risk of sounding like a liberal Democrat…” The legislature could have raised taxes, but “the votes were bought to keep that from occurring.” “I did not vote for [728 and 732] to be suspended.” Cutting programs from K-12 education is “the pricetag for political careerism.” “It’s time to meaningfully distinguish ourselves, with all due respect, from the opposition.”

Gary Alexander: “Unlike my friend to the left, I think our first challenge is to see what we can do to reduce the budget. Government will not pull us out of the recession.” “We can’t continue to cut around the edges… We have to go back and talk about what our priorities are: public health, public safety, and public education…. This may mean the elimination of entire services… that can be replaced by the private sector.” “We have to basically produce results that will be sustainable on a long-term basis.” I’m not going to vote for a policy that doesn’t have any funding.”

Sam Hunt: For years this state has kept the crazy old aunt in the closet… our broken tax system…. We have a “crazy tax system.” “The sales go down and the caseloads go up every damn time you look at it… We’ve cut all the edges, we’ve cut all the low-hanging fruit.” “I have some hope that the feds will help with Title I, and health care.”

Bullies on being bullied ( Roy and Valerie Hartwell on the west side of Olympia)

November 4, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

So, were Roy and Valerie Hartwell able to get into the private, no mean people who disagree with us allowed, celebration for R-71 going down in a ball of flames?

It’s one thing to try to make a run around state disclosure laws and act extra careful to make sure no one disagrees with you to your face on election night. But its something completely different when your own campaign takes on the exact same tactics that you claim to be afraid of.

Push poll out there against R-71

October 20, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Literally just got a push poll against R-71 on the phone a few minutes ago from an organization called “FPIW Action” (their phone number is 888-314-9416).

Here are my quickly taken notes from the poll:

The opening statement was negatively couched description of the state law, that while technically true gave was written to prompt a negative reaction. It presented the referendum as homosexual couples receiving rights without requiring responsibilities.

The first question was whether I was aware of the referendum and the second was whether I supported it. The last three were trying to place me in the political spectrum, asking if I was pro-choice, if I would vote Democratic or Republican in the next congressional election and the last if I considered myself a conservative, liberal or moderate.

And, while they said it would take 60 seconds at the beginning of the call, it took twice that long.

Last word on Veldheer, EBO and those Catholic bishops too

July 6, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

JLW over at Olyblog has the last good word on Veldheer:

When the Citizens for a Responsive Local Government were considering Karen’s candidacy (by the way, she did eventually receive the CRLG’s endorsement), we were aware of Karen’s religious affiliation, and speculated about whether it would impact policy decisions at the city. So I called her up and asked her about it. She told me that it wouldn’t be an issue, that she had no objection to same sex partner benefits. She and I had quite an interesting discussion about faith, and tolerance. Karen strikes me as an honest and genuine person. I trust her. I’m surprised that this is even an issue. Are we afraid that every Catholic politician is going to do his or her best to ban birth control? Are we afraid that Jewish politicians will insist that everyone have a bris? I just don’t see any red flags here.

Janet (?) does a much better job explaining than Karen did, but her explanation does open up more questions for me about CRLG’s endorsement process. Since it was so early in the season, it would have been great for them to provide the metadata surrounding their suggestions, including this story. They considered a lot of factors, and since their for responsive (and I assume open) city government, more details about what information they gathered would have been great.

Also, just a note to show that even us Catholics have crappy representation in our church hierarchy, just like Karen’s church:

The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), which “represents the Catholic Bishops of the State of Washington on issues of public policy”, has posted a link to this notice on the main page of their website (hyperlinks are mine).

…

Opposing “unjust discrimination” implies that some discrimination is justified, that it can be just to discriminate. According to the bishops of Washington, it is just to destabilize and undermine LGBT families. The bishops believe it just to disadvantage children by preventing their LGBT parents from protecting them to the fullest extent of the law via domestic partnerships or marriage.

Who wants a general election challenge (from HA)

June 13, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

Back in the day David Goldstein didn’t like the Top Two primary, though he probably still doesn’t:

Supporters of the top-two primary, like Sec. of State Sam Reed, keep arguing that it offers voters more choice. Well, in the 36th LD, the district highlighted in the article, voters will be given the choice this November between a progressive Democrat and a liberal Democrat.

That quotes makes an interesting contrast to today’s post from Goldstein on challenging sitting Seattle legislative Dems from the left:

The irony is, we all know there’s a fair share of deadwood in the Seattle delegation, along with a handful legislators who simply aren’t as progressive as their constituents on a number of important issues, such as pay day lending, the homebuyers bill of rights, tax restructuring, and more. Indeed, start this conversation at nearly any political gathering, and the same names keep popping up again and again, the usual suspects of Democratic incumbents who deserve a serious, well-financed primary challenge, and who just might not survive should they face one.

A primary challenge is one thing. In the old days of actual party-based primaries a well healed incumbent could slap down an insurgent in September, well before the actual public discussion ever got going. And, with the primary in August now, the debate is even shorter in duration.

Most Democrats from Seattle, once they got past the primary, were able to coast through to November with token opposition from a Republican or maybe a Green. But now, a serious progressive insurgent Dem could challenge a sitting moderate Democrat all the way until November, pushing the discussion harder and actually giving voters in liberal Seattle districts a real choice from within the party.

I’m surprised Goldstein hasn’t seen this utility of the Top Two and is still calling for “primary” challenges, when it is really unlikely that a challenging Dem to totally knock off a sitting legislator in August.

Hold a special legislative session in Ellensburg

May 8, 2009 / Emmett O'Connell / 0 Comments

The Other Side blog got me thinking just now.

With the news that no special session will be forthcoming, this is a bit of a non-starter anyway, but what would prevent the governor from calling a special session somewhere other than Olympia?

Logistics, for one. All the legislative stuff is here. So, for a month long special session, it would be unworkable.

But, for only a few days, or even just one day, why not hold a special session in Ellensburg?

As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the state constitution or RCWs that would prevent it. There is some language related to the “seat of government,” but I think that is more open to interpretation.

You would always assume that the state supreme court is a equal level of government as the state legislature. But, while they usually meet in Olympia, they never shy from taking their show on the road. Is Puyallup the seat of government in Washington State? Nope, but the state supreme court met there recently. And, no one really minds that.

Also, and most important to me. If the legislature passes a bill in Ellensburg (let’s just say for keeping certain pork products out of the state), Richard Roesler can write: Ellensburg says not to pigs.