I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the democrats in both the House and the Senate (Particularly in the Senate) for continuing to oppose I-695 in an election year.

The Republicans get the issue they need to take control of both Houses, and possibly knock out the anti-695, steadily-backpeddling governor out of office.

This couldn't have been scripted any better if.... hey... wait a minute... you don't suppose that this is all going to plan, do you?

Find THE hot-button issue that will galvanize the voters, getting both their base and the others out that voted for this, only to see not only their will thwarted, but the democrats deliberately ignore it?

And in an election year?

How can it possibly get any better then this?

Ken

-- Ken "The Real" McCoy (bosco@submarine.com), March 14, 2000

Answers

"How can it possibly get any better then this?"

The way things will actually go. The Supreme Court will concur with the decision today sometime this summer. Governor Locke will call the legislature back in a special session. The legislature will reinstate the elimination of the MVET, and everyone can claim that they went with the will of the voters.

Rather simple really.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

Quite frankly I would rather see the MVET come back, with a gradual phase out over the next decade or so. At least that would buy enough time to finish all the R-49 projects, many of which would offer substantial congestion relief to various bottlenecks around the state, and allow the government to figure out a way to fund essential services that are currently funded by the MVET.

Giving the government an extended period of time to prepare to fill the holes would work considerably better than the Eyman plan of throwing them to the wolves with no grace period.

Of course nobody will have the guts to offer up such a plan. Oh well.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.

And just attempt to sweep the voter-approval portion under the rug? If this issue remains unresolved by November, can there be any doubt as to who will be held responsible?

EVERY time the democrats in the Senate vote down an attempt to codify 695; every time they speak out against the public vote portion of 695... well, it's as if it was being orchestrated by Brent Bader.

In the State of Washington in particular, and especially in November, it's going to be a GREAT time to be a Republican!

Ken

-- Ken "The Real" McCoy (bosco@submarine.com), March 15, 2000.

Yes, I think the Republicans are going to be dancing all the way to the bank, or at least to their friendly lobbyist.

If the Democrats were smart, they would propose some type of law giving the voters the capability to override SOME fee and tax increases.

That way, the Democrats could turn the tables on the Republicans, and they could run ads talking about "common sense" and "real reform". Two areas where the old-time Republican leadership are severly lacking.

But, if the Democrats do nothing, then the Republicans will be the only ones fighting on behalf of the people.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 15, 2000.

Ken,

When the I-695 campaign started, it was NOT supported by the Republican party. The Republicans held their endorsement of I-695 until polls show the strong public support for it. Their support of I695 was not based upon the priciples of the Republican party, but strictly upon popular sentiment.

Would you really prefer a government without principles, that will not make a decision on an issue until a poll shows popular sentiment for or against it? Do you really want an representative that spineless?

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 15, 2000.

To those suggesting that the Legislature enact a blanket voter approval statute, you miss the point. The Legislature can't "overrule" the Constitution anymore than a voter approved initiative can.

-- Howard Morrill (morrill@bundymorrill.com), March 15, 2000.

"Would you really prefer a government without principles, that will not make a decision on an issue until a poll shows popular sentiment for or against it? Do you really want an representative that spineless? "

Do you really want a representative that doesn't care what the majority wants, who believes if there's a pay-off to an important interest group, the public can be damned?

Is that statement stupid hyperbole, sure, but no moreso than your statement. Grow up.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

Would you really prefer a government without principles, that will not make a decision on an issue until a poll shows popular sentiment for or against it? Do you really want an representative that spineless?

Sounds like how I feel about Governor Grid-Locke maybe open HOV lanes and the rest of the Democrats, spineless.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

"Sounds like how I feel about Governor Grid-Locke maybe open HOV lanes and the rest of the Democrats, spineless."

Since when have you had a problem with government grid-lock. You seem to have this problem of complaining whenever you dont get your way (call it Tim Eyeman sour grapes syndrome)

You dont like Grid Lock? Go live under British parliament!!! love it or leave it, as they say.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

I think Nate forgot to get his rabies shot.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

Any other (intelligent) responses, Marsha?

It comes right down to this:

Which do you think is better? Representative -or- Direct democracy? Rule of Law -or- Rule of mob?

Go ahead, Marsha, set aside whole "their taxin us to death" argument and take a gander at this question.

-- Merciful Nate (mercifuln8@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

Ken/Mark/Marsha,

The intent of the original post was to slam the Democratic Party and promote the Republican Party. What I did was to remind Mr. McCoy that at the outset, this initiative was NOT supported by the Republicans. In actuality, it was supported from the outset by the Libertarians.

The Republicans did not make any commitment to this initiative until almost everyone had made a commitment one way or the other. Only after several polls were taken showing strong public support for this initiative, did the Republican party finally come out and declare their support for I-695. We elect these people to be LEADERS. In this case, the leaders of the Republican party showed a distinct lack of leadership ability. But if that is the kind of people you want in office, you are entitled to your one vote.

At least the Libertarians and Democrats stated their position early in the campaign and stuck to it. Guessing from your numerous comments, maybe you should be voting Libertarian?

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 15, 2000.

Gene, you wrote:

"Ken,

When the I-695 campaign started, it was NOT supported by the Republican party. The Republicans held their endorsement of I-695 until polls show the strong public support for it. Their support of I695 was not based upon the priciples(sic) of the Republican party, but strictly upon popular sentiment. Would you really prefer a government without principles, that will not make a decision on an issue until a poll shows popular sentiment for or against it? Do you really want an representative that spineless?

-- Gene"

I don't dispute for a moment that Dale Foreman and the State Committee did not immediately come out in support of 695. I guess my question is this: Is Foreman and the 78 committeemen and women the Republican Party? Or are the people the party?

The PEOPLE of the Republican Party ALWAYS supported 695. The PEOPLE are who I stand with.

As a voter, I am faced with two choices to represent me. Those choices are a party that views the will of the people as a mere inconvenience that is sometimes at variance with their view of the world, or the Republican party.

Under our current system, no other political party has any realistic chance of winning any election of any significance. So, I can vote that which is most closely aligned with my views of the two, or I can waste my vote on one of the third parties.

In this instance, the democrat party, not having heard or understood the message of the people, insists on implementing their bigger is better, no tax increase we don't like agenda in the face of the publically expressed sentiment of those they represent. Popular sentiment be damned, the voters have spoken, and the message is clear. If the democrats deliberately ignore that voice, the slaughter of '94 could be a tea-party in comparison.

The FIRST principle of government is to implement the will of the people as they understand it. The will of the people is clearly expressed in this initiative. The content of the initiative, as it stands, MAY be unconstitutional. The individual components within it, however, can be implemented without violating the state constitution, even if that requires an additional ballot vote by the people (as, arguably, the tax and fee issue would). Therefore, government's duty in this matter is to implement that will, and the democrats are opposed to taking that step.

As for what I want in a representative, the FIRST thing I want is for him or her to represent MY point of view. As my two representatives and my senator continue to attempt to act on the will of the people, the democrats continue to block that will. The fallout of that deliberate effort will, most probably, cost the democrats for several years.

Each day that goes by while the democrats continue to oppose the expressed will of the people will make the Republican party that much stronger in the upcoming election. Period. As that happens, the likelihood of an overwhelming Republican resurgence increases geometrically. That's not a political statement... that is a fact.

And a remember... a death-bed conversion is better then no conversion at all.

Ken

-- Ken "The Real" McCoy (bosco@submarine.com), March 15, 2000.

In your next response, you wrote:

Ken/Mark/Marsha,

The intent of the original post was to slam the Democratic Party and promote the Republican Party. What I did was to remind Mr. McCoy that at the outset, this initiative was NOT supported by the Republicans. In actuality, it was supported from the outset by the Libertarians. The Republicans did not make any commitment to this initiative until almost everyone had made a commitment one way or the other. Only after several polls were taken showing strong public support for this initiative, did the Republican party finally come out and declare their support for I-695. We elect these people to be LEADERS. In this case, the leaders of the Republican party showed a distinct lack of leadership ability. But if that is the kind of people you want in office, you are entitled to your one vote.

At least the Libertarians and Democrats stated their position early in the campaign and stuck to it. Guessing from your numerous comments, maybe you should be voting Libertarian?

-- Gene

Gene,

You continue to confuse the political decisions made by the party hierarchy as if that was the beginning and end of the matter. As I pointed out, the rank and file of the Party supported 695 from the beginning. While acknowledge the position of the Libertarian Party as leading the way, I also recognize that as one of the many minor parties, they cannot win. Therefore, they are not an option.

Again, I am reduced, in the harshest possible terms, to a point where I have to decide between who I might want, and who can actually get elected. I have many views that are close to the Libertarian Party position, but I am also a pragmatist. A view that is shut out from the table is a view that isnt heard at all. And that is the reality of the Libertarian Party.

And forced to chose between more of the same with democrats and their continuing tax and spend positions, and the Republican position of, no matter how it was arrived at, supporting the will of the people; its a no-brainer, actually.

Ken

-- Ken "The Real" McCoy (bosco@submarine.com), March 15, 2000.

Ken,

I agree with you. The current political situation makes it difficult for a third party to succeed, but it has been done. People need to start voting for the candidate that best represents their views and not the best out of two. Government will never reflect the view of the people if the people do not support their best representative.

The problem with the Republican party is that it tries to accommodate some extreme view points which scares many moderates over to the Democratic side. And while more moderates may vote Republican in the next election, I would not expect them to maintain that opinion in the following elections.

So, what do you want in a representative? Do you want them to vote strictly per the latest KIRO/KOMO/KING TV viewers poll? Do you want them to vote strictly along the input from their constituents? Do you want them to vote strictly along the party principles or party leadership?

I'm not saying that polls and such should be ignored, only that I want my representative to use whatever resources are available to come up with an informed decision. The decisions they make may be contrary to the polls, constituent views, and/or party line recommendation, but I elect them to make these decisions. They will still have to account for themselves in the next election.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 16, 2000.

Well I do stand corrected, the Senate (you know, the Chamber held by the Democrats) passed a bill today, SB 6865, that codifies the $30 license plate tabs. The bill was prime sponsored by Senator Loveland (a Democrat).

It also turns out that the bill the Democrats refused to pass the day Ken complained that they were denying the will of the people had several flaws in it. Flaws that were not noticed until a day later. Had the Democrats allowed the bill to pass, then there would have been some serious problems down the line.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Patrick,

Please enlighten us. Where can we go to see that the democrats (who, as near as I can recall) were all urging us to wait for the state supreme court to rule every one of the many times the senate Republicans attempted to bring their bill up, when they allowed the bill to be discussed at all, said anything about "flaws" as a reason to deny the Republican request to vote on it?

As for my charge that they are "denying the will of the people," if you could be so kind as to direct me to the number of the bill the democrats have written to refer the vote on taxes and fees to the people as a constitutional amendment?

Since the Senate (you know, the Chamber held by the Democrats) refuses to consider that action (if Sen. Snyder is to be believed) what else could you call it but ignoring the will of the people?

And of course, the reason they just didn't amend the Republican effort, you know, to fix the "flaws" and then vote on this bill is what?

Clearly, the democrats have made every effort to derail 695. They continue to do so, and, politically, they are going to suffer for it.

Ken

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), March 18, 2000.

welcome back westin :}

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 18, 2000.