Tag Archives: Democrats

Senator Hagel to Retire, Will Former Senator Bob Kerrey Run?

A strong increase in the number of Democrats in the US Senate after next year’s elections keeps looking better and better. Washington’s two Democratic Senators – Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell -would find their job a lot easier with a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, according to the Washington Post’s political blog The Fix and other sources, is going to announce on Monday that he is not going to run for re-election.

Democrats will lose a strong critic of Bush’s Iraq fiasco but have increased odds of adding to the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Democrats are heavily recruiting former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey to run for the seat. Kerry is now head of the New School in New York and is reported as of Friday as being undecided.

While Democrats currently only control the Senate now by one vote, their odds of picking up seats are great. To start with, Republicans have to defend 22 of the current 34 seats up next year.

Already two other Republicans have announced they are stepping down – Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado and Senator John Warner of Virginia. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho , despite second thoughts, is expected to resign.

Democrats are expected to mount strong campaigns against Republicans in Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire and Minnesota. And Republican Senator Ted Stevens is facing federal corruption charges in Alaska.

Why are Democrats Supporting "The Heritage Foundation of the Northwest"?

Would you believe that some Democrats are lending their names to support a right wing free market think tank in Washington State? Was this a conscious decision or are they being co-opted by the right wing free market think tank? Several of the names are surprising – namely Democratic State Representative Maralyn Chase and Senator Jeanne Kohl-Wells. Lt Governor Brad Owen is not so surprising. But State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s name also pops up.

What group are we talking about? It’s the Washington Policy Center – an organization whose webpage quotes Jack Kemp calling them “The Heritage Foundation of the Northwest.”

The Washington Policy Center is a right wing free market think tank that is skillfully manipulating public opinion through their numerous activities, including repackaging the official state legislative website into a marketing and policy tool called WashingtonVotes.org to increase their exposure to the media and public. The Washington Policy Center is part of a national network of free market think tanks called the State Policy Network.

They say they are “nonpartisan”, citing the testimonials of these Democrats to balance out people like conservative columnist and author George Will and conservative Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Democratic turned Republican Senator Zell Miller of Georgia who savaged the Democrats at the Republican National Convention.

A closer look however reveals an agenda that basically reads like the platform of the Republican Party. That’s not surprising when you look at their Board of Directors. It includes a number of prominent Republicans, including former State Representatives Emilio Cantu and William Polk, former state Senator Stephen L Johnson, former US Rep. George Nethercutt, former Ambassador Della Newman and Kemper Freeman, Jr. as well as Jeanette Hayner and Jon Sonneland on their Eastern Washington Advisory Board. No Democratic names pop up that I recognize, if there are any.

I frankly do not consider them non-partisan because their agenda is basically the same as that of the Republican Party. It’s hard to find anything they are doing that is in the platform of the Democratic Party.

Their “objectivity”is that of free market ideologues. Saying they are “non-partisan” is like Bush saying he is the President of all the people of the United States. That doesn’t change his or their anti-regulation free market support of the corporations’ mindset and corporate profit at the expense of the average citizen..

This free market corporate perspective of course is further evident through the numerous corporate and business affiliations of the majority of their Board of Directors. These include such names as Kemper Development, Washington Trust Bank, Westen Peterbilt, Inc., Columbia Ventures Corp., Fluke Capital Management, Simpson Investment Co., Connor Development, Silver Cloud Inns and Hotels and the Weiss Company.

Some of their recent Action Agenda has been very indicative of their right wing bias.

They recommended repeal of Washington State’s inheritance tax which Washington voters rejected last year.
They supported land use policies like Oregon’s measure 37 to compensate property owners for zoning changes. Voters also rejected that proposal.
They opposed banning PBDE’s – toxic flame retardants urging that Washington state not adopt a “precautionary” approach to environmental hazards. The Washington State Legislature just passed a ban on PBDE’s.
They opposed stricter air emissions standards for cars. The Legislature passed a measure to follow California’s lead to reduce air pollution.
They questioned the validity of recent global warming impacts reported in Washington State.

Their WashingtonVotes website is a ripoff of the official Washington State Legislative website at http://www.leg.wa.gov/. They are basically repackaging information that is produced and paid for by the taxpayers and are using it to enhance their image as providing a service to Washington State Voters. At the same time it allows them to do things like select top bills of the week and highlight certain bills in list placement in a very subtle way meant to influence people’s perceptions of what is before the Legislature. The state’s official website at http://www.leg.wa.gov/ is their source of information.

I have written several posts about the WashingtonVotes.org website.
WashingtonVotes.org Lacks Privacy Policy”
“Data Mining and Privacy Concerns at WashingtonVotes.org “

When I originally posted my concern about http://www.washingtonvotes.org/ lack of a true privacy policy, their website said “”By posting comments, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication on, with, or through the Washington Votes web site, you are granting USA Votes, Inc. a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide license to:
Use, copy, sublicense, adapt, transmit, publicly perform or display any such communication.
Sublicense or transfer to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark,”

After I brought attention to this carte blanche “we can use any information you input” privacy policy, they completely eliminated this wording and now claim they don’t “release, sell or otherwise distribute” the names and addresses of people using the website. They have added extensive clarification to counter their previous non privacy policy.

I am glad to see that they have “clarified” their privacy policy and have dropped their previous claims to rights for anything said or done through their website.

Take it for what it is and what they say at your own risk. The Washington Policy Center’s “impartial information” questions global warming, opposes environmental regulations and worker’s rights and opposes taxes.

They currently have a so called analysis of Eyman’s Initiative 960 measure on their website, as well as the WashingtonVotes.org website, that reads like an Eyman press release. I-960 is a sneak approach to giving the minority control over tax and fees measures before the Washington State Legislature by requiring a 2/3 vote to pass these measures.

I-960 is unconstitutional in that it tries to void the Constitutional mandate that the Legislature vote by majority rules. Instead it would give 1/3 of the Legislature veto power over any tax and fee bills. The Republicans and right wing conservatives currently are a minority in the Legislature.

I-960 would overrule the vote of a majority of Legislators and give the minority control over taxes and revenue to fund the state budget. The minority is trying to grab power they lost when they couldn’t get the public to elect them at the ballot box. So they are trying to change the rules with I-960 so they can control the outcome.

The Washington Policy Center also have a series of papers that oppose Sound Transit and using tax dollars for public transportation. This might have something to do with Kemper Freeman, Jr being on their Board. Objective studies – I don’t think so.

Please contact these Democrats and ask that have their names removed from supporting the Washington Policy Center. They are not nonpartisan in their Board makeup and are not unbiased but have a free market right wing agenda that is contrary to most legislation the Democratic Party supports.

Rep. Maralyn Chase

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles

Lt Gov. Brad Owen – ltgov@leg.wa.gov

State Auditor Brian Sonntag – sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Republican Senators in Dire Straits in 2008 Elections

Republicans face a bleak prospect in next year’s US Senate elections. Senator Larry Craig’s resignation added to what was already shaping up to be a daunting task. Craig’s situation just contributed a little more to an already tarnished Republican image that just got a little tougher to try to turn around. And it puts into play another state, that while Republican leaning, has elected strong Democrats in the past like Cecil Andrus and Frank Church.

The Republican’s problem starts with the reality that they have to defend 22 seats in 2008 while the Democrats are only defending 12 seats. And with the Iraq War and Bush’s ineptitude in running the government at a low ebb, they need to win 23 of the 34 seats up in the Senate to regain control.

Republicans are running in 4 states that went for Kerry over Bush in 2004 – Oregon, Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia who is 80 decided this last week to not run for re-election. This brings the state of Virginia into play for the Democrats, where ex-Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat who left office with an 80% approval rating, is considering running for the seat.
In Colorado another open seat exists with Republican Senator Wayne Allard retiring. As the Rocky Mountain News reported, the Republicans actually set his retirement up with the

promise he made in 1996 to serve no more than two U.S. Senate terms.
The term limits pledge was a relic of the so-called “Republican Revolution” of the 1994 election, when the GOP swept to power promising to change the ways of Washington.”

In a close election in 2002 Allard renewed his pledge. “I’m term-limited,” Allard said in reaction. “That has always been my position. I’ve always said I believe in limiting my term. I’ve stipulated in past campaigns that I believe in term limits, and I’ve never wavered on it.”

As the Washington Post reported

Beyond Idaho and Virginia, the field looks barren for Republicans, GOP campaign aides conceded. NRSC fundraising has been weak, and Republicans appear to have only two real Democratic targets next year, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Johnson’s slow recovery from a brain hemorrhage has impeded Republicans from going on the attack.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report on Wednesday rated the Colorado seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard as a tossup, but the state has been trending Democratic. Anti-war sentiments are turning some voters away from the GOP, imperiling the re-election prospects of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, John Sununu, R-N.H., Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

The Craig scandal is only the latest issue to demoralize the Republican Party, and new wild cards keep springing up, such as an FBI raid on a vacation home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and questions about the role that Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in Albuquerque. Democratic surrogates in labor-backed groups have even been attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The Cook Report considers those three seats and the Idaho seat “likely Republican,” but if the GOP is forced to spend money defending them, it would siphon funds from races where the money would be badly needed. As of June 30, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had $20.4 million on hand, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee had $5.8 million in its bank account.”

Another state that could come into play for democrats is Nebraska. Republican Chuck Hagel has been rumored to be considering retiring. If he does, former Democratic Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey is thought to be very interested in running.

Lots can change in 14 months but it’s all going in the wrong direction for the Republicans right now. It’s probably there bad karma coming back to get them. It was laughable to listen to listen to Senator John Ensign on the George Stephanopoulos show on Sunday. He is heading up the Republican Senators’ election effort.

Ensign said the public wants to elect Senators that “put country before party”. Well there’s one strike against the Republicans. Then he said it was “time to end partisan bickering” That’s two strikes. The third strike was when he said “we need health care we can afford.” That’s not the Republicans. They were the guys that didn’t do it when they controlled both houses and the Presidency. People aren’t dumb. The Republicans are the ones who gave a bonanza to the drug companies at the expense of the public with their corporate welfare drug package that was Medicare Part D. What a joke.

The Republicans are in for more tough times ahead. They are trying to spin it that the country’s problems are the Democrat’s fault. Congress is working under the Democrats now . But our problems are the legacy of a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress. And the American public knows that. There’s nothing more disingenuous than listening to Republicans talk about partisan bickering and inaction. That’s their legacy, not the Democrats.

DNC Slapps Down Florida Jan. 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

The Democratic National Committee voted today to not seat any Florida delegates to the Democratic National Convention unless they push back their Presidential Primary date by at least a week.

As we previously reported, Florida Democrats are in a tough spot. The Florida Legislature is heavily Republican. In the Senate Republicans have 26 seats to the Democrat’s 40 seats. In the House they have 78 seats to the Democrat’s 42 seats. The Governor is Republican.

The Republicans in Florida attached the change moving the Florida State Primary to Jan 29, 2008 as an amendment to a Voting Reform Act. The legislation required a voter verified paper trail for all voting machines. Some 15 of Florida’s counties still use touch screen voting machines that have no paper trail.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee today voted to give Florida Democrats 30 days to move its Primary Election date back at least a week. If it doesn’t, it could lose its 210 delegates to the Democratic National Convention held August 25 – 28, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. Florida has the 4th largest number of delegates.

Florida Democrats can act to make the January 29th Primary non-binding and hold a later caucus to select delegates. It could hold a 2nd election or a mail in election but this is much more expensive at $7 to 8 million.

Florida has 4 million Democrats. The caucus system would draw far less people and would disenfranchise about 170,000 absentee voters, including soldiers stationed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The next move is up to the Florida Democratic Party. They have a state convention scheduled for September 26, 2007.

Washington State Democrats are holding a caucus on Saturday Feb. 9, 2008 to select delegates. There will also be a Presidential Primary Election on February 19, 2007. Republicans will select half their delegates from a caucus and half using the voter results from the Presidential Primary.

Washington State does not have Party registration. This has been a stumbling block for Democrats using the Presidential Primary results to select delegates. This is something that Democrats should work to change in the Legislature next year. Caucuses limit voter participation and prevent many people from helping to select Presidential nominees.

Florida Republicans Creating Political Mischief for Democrats

Florida Democrats are in a bind because of a law passed by a Republican controlled Legislature and a Republican Governor. The Florida Legislature passed and Republican Governor Charlie Grist signed a law moving Florida’s Presidential Election to January 31, 2008.

Florida Democrats want the Primary vote for candidates to count in their selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention. As US News and World reports, the problem is that:

“In 2006, the Democratic National Committee voted to allow a handful of states to join the traditional “first” states of Iowa and New Hampshire in holding caucuses or primaries during the first five weeks of 2008; Florida was not among them. The rules were designed to create order, preserve tradition, and add diversity. But Florida decided to get more attention in the presidential sweepstakes, and that is creating bizarre possibilities”

“…the state could lose huge blocs of delegates to both national nominating conventions next summer. Republicans have left wiggle room to review state-by-state primary plans, probably this fall. The Democrats have gone further as disciplinarians, stipulating that any candidate campaigning in a state that violates the rules will be ineligible to win any of the state’s delegates. Florida Democrats could have avoided the problem by treating the January vote as a so-called beauty contest, without the power to choose delegates, but they decided to go ahead with a full-fledged primary.”

“While the GOP ponders its options, the DNC’s rules and bylaws panel is scheduled to consider the Florida situation on August 25, and DNC Chairman Howard Dean says the party won’t back down. “These are automatic sanctions,” says a Democratic strategist close to Dean. “Without these rules, all of the states would start leapfrogging.”

The Democratic National Committee is meeting today to decide the fate of Florida’s delegates if the Primary is held on January 29 in violation of the previously agreed upon rules for delegate selection and primary dates.

Grassroots Democrats Missing in Action on Internet for August 21, 2007 Primary

If you were hoping to find insight and inspiration on the Internet from local Washington State grassroots Democrats for the August 21, 2007 Primary you were bound to be disappointed. A close look at the websites of the local Democratic County and Legislative District organizations right before the Primary was disappointing to say the least.

The local grassroots Democratic groups were looked at first for how well they alerted people visiting their websites about the Primary. A second point of comparison was whether the organizations were using their websites to gear up for the Feb. 2008 Caucus and Presidential Primary next year. These are just a little over 5 months away.

The first step in evaluating the Grassroots Democratic organizations was to check whether or not they even had a website. The list of websites used was taken from the list on the Washington State Democrats website . Out of 39 county Democratic organizations, 11 (28%) did not have a website. Out of 49 Democratic Legislative District organizations in the state, 19 (39%) did not have websites.

Here is a summary of what was found when looking at the Democratic websites.

Washington State County Democratic organizations:

Washington counties – 39
county Democratic organizations with websites – 28 (72%)
August 21 Primary date mentioned- 10 on first page + 2 more in calender = 12 (31%)
counties with primary endorsements posted – 5 (13%) King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom
number including a link to endorsed candidates – 4 (10%)
counties listing Feb. 9, 2008 Caucus date – 3 (8%)
counties listing Feb. 19, 2008 Presidential Primary date – 3 (8%)
county Democratic websites with links to Presidential candidates – 6 (15%)

Washington State Legislative District organizations:

Legislative districts –49
Legislative district organizations with websites – 30 (61%)
August 21 Primary mentioned – 7 on first page + 6 more in calender = 13 (27%)
Legislative District organizations with Primary endorsements posted – 12 (24%)
number including a link to endorsed candidates – 4 (8%)
Legislative Districts listing Feb. 9, 2008 Caucus date – 6 (12%)
Legislative District organizations listing Feb. 19, 2008 Presidential Primary date – 2 (4%)
Legislative District websites with links to Presidential candidates – 4 (8%)

To be fair 5 counties did not hold a primary. Those counties are Asotin, Ferry, Garfield, San Juan, and Wahkiakum. But that still leaves 34 counties that did hold a primary election.

Why is website presence in a campaign important? Googling on “Democratic endorsements Washington August 21, 2007 Primary” yielded the following results on the first 2 pages:

MajorityRulesBlog
47th Leg District Democrats
Lefty Blogs – Metropolitan Democratic Club
SEAMEC 2007 endorsements
47th District Democrats
the Stranger
King County Democrats
Wash Fed of State Employees

Googling on “Washington State Primary Endorsements” yielded:

MajorityRulesBlog
Sierra Club (MajorityRulesBlog post)
the Stranger
36th Distrct Democrats
LeftyBlogs
Washington State Women’s Political Caucus
SEAMEC endorsements

Googling on “King County Democrats 2007 endorsements” yielded:

King County Democrats
34th District Democrats
47th District Democrats
MajorityRulesBlog
Peter Sherman’s website
46th District Democrats
Gael Tartelton’s website
Jean Godden’s website
the Stranger

Having endorsements on the Democratic websites and candidates receiving endorsements and listing them on their website drove traffic to these sites. This gives additional exposure to the Democratic Party and their endorsed candidates.

By way of comparison, googling on “”Washington State Republicans 2007 Primary” produced one relevant Republican hit to a right wing blog at the bottom of the second page. Typing in “Washington State Republicans 2007 Primary Endorsements” yielded little of the Republicans but brought up the following in the first two pages:

Washington State Stonewall Democrats
MajorityRulesBlog
LeftyBlogs
Washington Federation of State Employees
the Stranger
47th District Democrats
BlogNet News
WashBlog

Despite the lack of a strong internet effort by the Democrats in making and listing endorsements, where it was done it obviously had an impact on visibility of the Democrats.

There is a reason that the Republican presence is so minor in the google searches. Despite the untapped potential of the Democrats in using the web to get exposure and use the internet for organizing , they were far ahead of Republican Party efforts.

The Washington State Republican website has only county organizations. There are no Republican legislative district organizations listed.

The Republicans had only 15 county websites listed for the 39 counties in Washington State. And they seemed to be even less aware that a Primary was occurring. Only 4 listed the August 21, 2007 Primary date on their website and only 2 had endorsements. Regarding the Presidential Campaign only 2 had a link to the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates.

Just in terms of number of sites, the Democrat’s 58 grassroots organization sites outnumbered the Republicans by almost 4 to 1. Now if they can just get some web savy and get links up for the General Election in November with endorsements listed and links to endorsed candidates they can have a much stronger presence on the web.

And they also need to copy the Democratic State Party’s Road to the White House Presidential candidate’s links and add them to their webpages. Island County Democrats have links with pictures of the candidates which is a nice touch. So do the Spokane Democrats. and the Walla Walla County Democrats. Whitman County, Thurston County and Mason County are the only other counties that currently have links to the Democratic Presidential candidates.

And I could only find links available on the websites of the 1st , 6th, 44th and 45th District Democrats.

One additional element that the Democratic organizations should add to their websites is the free fundraising link for Democrats by ActBlue. ActBlue is set up to raise funds for all the Democratic Presidential candidates. John Edwards for President, for example, using the ActBlue website has raised $3,599,983 from 44,058 donors.

MajorityRulesBlog recently set up an ActBlue page for all the Presidential candidates. You can click on the link to see what one could look like for the Democratic organizations. Each organization would get exposure and credit for funds raised for the candidates.

Can Democrats Win the White House without Washington and Oregon?

Republicans, in fear of being sucked under by the anti-Bush whirlpool, are looking desperately for ways to win the White House in 2008.

Republicans in California think the answer is to change the rules for next year’s Presidential election. Their strategy is to change California’s statewide winner take all primary with its 55 electoral votes to one allocating the votes based on who wins individual Congressional District votes.

Except for Maine (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska (5 electoral votes) states currently allocate their electoral college votes by a winner take all process statewide. Each state is allocated 2 votes for their 2 Senators and 1 vote for each Representative.

Currently 19 of California’s Congressional Districts are held by Republicans. In 2004 John Kerry won the statewide vote over Bush by 54% to 44%. However Bush won majorities in 22 of California’s 53 Congressional Districts.

Changing how California allocates its electoral votes would be the equivalent to transferring the combined vote of Washington (11 electoral votes)and Oregon (7 electoral votes) to the Republican column. Remember Ohio’s 20 electoral votes – we’re talking about a sizable impact if the Republicans proposed change in California is successful.

According to the LA Times a California Republican group is pushing the “Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative” for the June 2008 California Primary ballot. If passed by voters it would change significantly change the 2008 Presidential election.

“We’ve hit the mother lode of political interest,” said Republican consultant Kevin Eckery, part of the group pushing the Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative.

The measure was written by attorney Thomas Hiltachk, whose Sacramento firm represents the California Republican Party. Also backing the initiative is campaign strategist Marty Wilson, a fundraiser last year for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and now for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Neither Schwarzenegger nor any of the presidential candidates has signed on to the effort. Nor is there confirmed financial backing; Eckery said the fundraising to begin this week is aimed at getting $300,000 to $500,000 for polling and other preliminary work before signature-gathering. Collecting the necessary 434,000 signatures could cost $2 million.

Proponents are optimistic that backers of the presidential candidates will ante up. Though there are federal limits to donations to candidates, California law places no bar on the amount donors can spend on initiatives.

Can California do this? Yes they can. Each individual state and not the Federal Constitution determines how electoral votes are determined. Hiltachk has filed the text of the Presidential Election Reform Initiative with the California Secretary of State on July 17, 2007. He has paid his $200 filing fee and is awaiting the assignment of a ballot tile and summary. He filed in the name of “Californians for Equal Representation” based in Sacramento, California.

Of course no similar effort is slated for decidedly Republican states like Texas which has 34 electoral votes. Altering the rules in specific Democratic states like California to benefit Republican Presidential ambitions is totally in character for Republicans and is a serious threat to Democrats in 2008.

You only need to look at two recent instances where Republicans used the legislative and electoral process to change rules and commonly accepted legal procedures to benefit Republicans. One was the Republican recall campaign of Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 2003 which resulted in Davis’s recall and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.

The New Yorker in an article entitled Votescam by Hendrick Hertzberg in fact reports that California Republican Hiltachk was involved in the recall effort that put Schwarzenegger into office and that he is “Governor Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters.”

The other was the effort by Texas Republicans with the aid of Congressman Tom DeLay to redraw the Congressional District boundaries in Texas to gain Republican seats in Congress

Texas Republicans and Delay did their controversial redistricting action after they won control of the Texas Legislature in 2002. In 2004 the Congressional District numbers shifted dramatically. A 17/15 Democrat advantage changed to a 21/11 Republican advantage. In 2006 the Republicans still had a 19/13 advantage.

Distributing electoral votes to winners of Congressional Districts rather than winner take all state votes would seem at first look to be fair if every state had the same rules. But that would clearly not be the case if California alone shifted the way it proportions its electoral votes. The end result would be to shift electoral votes to the Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. Its like spotting the Republicans some 20 electoral votes before the counting even starts.

Would the proposal solve the problem of states clearly being Republican or Democratic and being ignored by the candidates because the outcome is not really in doubt? Actually it would probably make it even worse. You just need to look at the last Congressional campaign in 2006. National attention and money was focused into only 30 -40 battleground Congressional districts.

Would candidates really campaign all over Ohio for example? No – they would concentrate their resources in the much smaller geographical areas of contested battleground Congressional Districts up for grabs in Ohio. They would not be very smart if they spent their time in Congressional Districts that are clearly Republican or Democratic and unlikely to change.

Here in Washington State the biggest spending Congressional race was between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert in the 8th C.D. Not much attention was paid to Congressman Jim McDermott’s race in Seattle. If electoral votes were allocated by Congressional District, Presidential candidates would go to Bellevue, not Seattle or Everett or Yakima.

Another alternative being considered by some states is a movement to elect the President by popular vote. Such a bill was before the Washington State Legislature this last session. As proposed the legislation would not go into effect until states with a majority of electoral votes (270) passes the legislation. Maryland is the first state to pass such legislation.

See also:
Newsweek “A Red Play for the Golden State”
Sacramento Bee “Electoral System Initiative worries Dems”

Washington State – August 21, 2007 Primary Endorsements

Deciding who to vote for isn’t always easy. If you go to the website of the Washington Secretary of State you can access a map of Washington Counties. Clicking on the county you live in will give you access to the official County Auditors / Election website that usually contains a link to a sample ballot and the official county voters pamphlet.

Listed below are some links to organizations that have made endorsements for the August 21, 2007 Washington State primary election. Note that some organizations that are listed on candidate’s literature may not turn up on this list because they did not post any endorsement information on their website. If you find additional endorsements that have website links feel free to add them to the comments section. Thanks.

Democratic Organizations:

King County Democrats
Pierce County Democratic Party
Snohomish County Democrats
Thurston County Democrats
Whatcom County Democrats
1st District Democrats
21st District Democrats
3rd District Democrats
34th District Democrats
36th District Democrats
37th District Democrats
41st District Democrats
43rd District Democrats
44th District Democrats
45th District Democrats
46th District Democrats
47th District Democrats

Labor Organizations:

Aerospace Machinists Local 751
Amalgamated Transit Union – Local 587
M.L.King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Other organizations:

Cascade Bicycle Club
Cascade Chapter Sierra Club
The Municipal League of King County
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington
Progressive Majority
Seattle King County Assoc of Realtors
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington State Women’s Political Caucus

See also:

Seattle Works Primary Election Candidate Guide

added August 9, 2007

SEAMAC – Primary ratings and endorsements
the Stranger Election Control Board Cheat Sheet
added August 15, 2007
Tacoma News Tribune Aug.12, 2007 endorsements
HeraldNet.com endorsements
SEIU District 1199NW

46th District Democrats Give Primary Endorsements

Last night the 46th District Democrats in North Seattle met at Olympic View Elementary School. Over a 2 hour period over 100 Democrats debated and voted on candidates to give support to in the Primary on August 21, 2007.

Here is a list of candidates endorsed.

King County Prosecutor – Bill Sherman

King County Assessor – Scott Noble

King County Council, Dist 2 – Larry Gosset

King County Council, Dist 4 – Larry Phillips

Port of Seattle, Pos 2 – Gael Tarleton and Jack Block, Jr.

Port of Seattle, Pos 5 – Alex Fisken

Seattle School Board, Dist 1 – no endorsement

Seattle School Board, Position 2 – Sherry Carr

Seattle School Board, Positon 3 – Harium Martin-Morris

Seattle City Council, Position 1 – Jean Godden

Seattle City Council, Position 3 – Venus Velazquez and Bruce Harrell

Seattle City Council, Position 5 – Tom Rasmussen

Seattle City Council, Position 7 – Tim Burgess and David Della

Seattle City Council, Position 9 – Sally J Clark

The 46th District Democrats also voted to endorse the King County Parks issues, Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 which are on the November ballot.

The Reason We Are in Iraq is to "Support the Troops"?

There have been so many “reasons” given by Bush as to why we are in Iraq. But it is a sorry state of affairs when the rationale for Congress continuing to fund the war turns into a debate about who is “supporting the troops” and the Democrats continue to respond to the issue on these terms.

If the issue is really about “supporting the troops“, then bringing them home now is the best way to support them. We can certainly do a better job at home than having to supply them with food and weapons half way around the world.

Why is the main stream media and everyone else seemingly buying into the idea that what the debate is about now is “supporting the troops“? Is it because all the other rationales given by Bush no longer make sense and this is his last desperate attempt to try to tug at the heartstrings of America? Why can’t someone just tell the Pretender Emperor he has no clothes?

What happened to fighting terrorism or bringing peace and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?This war is Bush’s war and it has turned out to have been made on false assumptions and false premises and false expectations. But Democrats make a big mistake if they continue to respond to Bush’s false pretenses and phony concerns and attempts to re-frame the debate now into a false issue of “supporting the troops“.

The debate now should not be about “supporting the troops” and never should have been. Democrats are wrong to engage in Bush’s phony attempts to change the debate. Get real. Debate what our goals are in Iraq and what we can or can not do. Whatever happened in the past is done – make your decisions based on the present reality and then act. But what the hell does “supporting the troops” have to do with this?

Debate what we need to do next. Only after you’ve made that decision and come up with a plan to carry out with a time line do you discuss what you can do to support carrying out the mission. Only then do you discuss how to “support the troops” in their mission. But only after you reach agreement on a plan of action can you determine how to “support the troops“.

Bush really is saying, support what I am doing. The problem is Bush choose to ignore the concerns of Democrats and others when he started this war. He chose his own counsel and continues to this day to function in isolation, stubbornly ignoring concerns and suggestions of others, including the bipartisan panel on Iraq that he put together to deflect criticism and then whose recommendations he choose to ignore.

Bush seemingly has no end game or exit plan except to ride things out until his term in office is up. Then he can blame whatever bad outcome there is on the next President. Bush is praying that he will get lucky in the next year and a half but the chances right now seem worse than the odds on winning one of those Mega-Lotteries.