Ballots have been mailed out in Whitman County, so its time for the annual Palousitics election endorsements.
UNITED STATES SENATE: Mike McGavick
McGavick will provide Washington with a strong, independent voice in the other Washington. He has proven business leadership, a lot of good policy ideas, and will no doubt make a great Senator. Maria Cantwell is pathetically ineffective and a major embarrassment, so much so that even the liberal Seattle Times and Spokesman-Review can't bring themselves to endorse a sitting Democratic Senator.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 5TH DISTRICT: Cathy McMorris
In this year of discontent, first-term Congresswoman McMorris might have been vulnerable to being picked off by rancher Peter Goldmark. Goldmark, however, has allowed his campaign to be taken over by left-wing bloggers and other extremists from outside the district who are financing his campaign. He's been so busy attacking McMorris, particularly on veterans issues, that he has forgotten to actually articulate any positions of his own. McMorris did well in her first two years and will only grow in influence in her next two years in Congress. Again, the Seattle Times and Spokesman-Review have endorsed McMorris after backing her opponent in 2004.
WASHINGTON STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES
I-920 (ESTATE TAX REPEAL): YES
Queen Christine's death tax will be a death sentence for Pullman when Ed Schweitzer passes.
I-933 (PROPERTY FAIRNESS): YES
If we want farming in this state to be more than just entertainment for rich, liberal Seattleites who enjoy the quaint scenery as they drive to their ski chalets, we must pass I-933. Ignore the tree-hugging fearmongers. I-933 will not pave over any pasture or kill any salmon.
I-937 (WIND ENERGY): NO
Hydroelectric power is NOT renewable energy? Even liberal big city newspapers have rejected wacky I-937.
STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Stephen Johnson
Johnson is a champion of property rights and limited government. His opponent, Justice Susan Owens, has made it clear in her decisions that she is more concerned with environmentalism than property rights and is all too willing to legislate her liberal version of morality from the bench.
STATE OF WASHINGTON HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 9TH DISTRICT, POSITION 1: Steve Hailey
Hailey is a rancher and farmer, a lifelong resident of the district, and a Vietnam War hero with a solid record of public service. He vows to help business and agriculture in Eastern Washington. His opponent, the Pundit's Perky Preppy Princess Pursuing Political Promise, 22 year old Caitlin Ross, engaged in questionable shenannigans while registering to vote in the 9th District, is completely unqualified, knows nothing of our district's needs and is completely out-of-sync with our values. Ross, endorsed by the execrable Senator Cantdowell and bankrolled by Code Pink activist Dal LaMagna, espouses the most liberal positions, such as an even higher minimum wage.
STATE OF WASHINGTON HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 9TH DISTRICT, POSITION 2: David Buri
David is running unopposed, but vote for him anyway. He is a very effective legislator, being named as Assistant Minority Whip in his first term. Buri can be counted on to work for us in Olympia.
WHITMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 3: Michael Largent
Largent will be a defender of free enterprise and property rights at a time when we desperately one in Colfax. Nathan Weller has a lot of ideas (many of them unrealistic), but government is about more than surfing the Net. Weller's sudden civic interest (he didn't vote for the last six years) does little to commend him for the office. Being from a different party is not a reason to vote for someone.
WHITMAN COUNTY AUDITOR: Eunice Coker
Eunice has presided over the Auditor's office during the tumultuous 2004 election and the switch to all-mail voting and proven herself equal to the challenge. Her Napoleon Dynamite-wannabe opponent, Nathan Horter has "computer skills" to offer and little else. The Whitman County Democrats have ran a campaign against Coker unparalleled in recent times for nastiness.
7 comments:
As a small business owner I am frightened by opponents of I-920. Most small businesses are like our business, all of our assests are tied up in buildings and inventory. If we both died tomorrow, our family would have to break up the store to pay the taxes due. We already paid taxes on the purchases and hopefully will pay taxes on a profit. It's not right that we should pay taxes again because we die.
Tom is right that intact businesses will generate more tax revenue than businesses which are dismantled to pay a one time tax.
April - I overheard one gentlemen at the debate over these initiatives (on October 19th, I think it was) call the death tax the "jealousy tax" after listening to the anti-920 speaker's words. I have to agree - considering how the outcome of the tax is that many businesses will have to be dismantled, which clearly would work againt the interest of education funding, and since this is an easily forseen consequence, it is reasonable to conclude that proponents of such taxes are driven by jealousy.
I really hope the voters see the wisdom of I-920 and vote for it. Especially in King county.
As for these endorsements, this is a snapshot of the ballot I've already mailed back in. And I wrote Burrage and Groen back in for SC Positions 8 and 9. Hey, why not? :)
Fixed:
"I really hope the voters see the wisdom of I-920 and vote for it. Especially in Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. county. "
Can't let there be confusion as to what County you are speaking of, Paul.
Personally, I don't see the difference: the first King owned people and stole the fruits of their labor, the latter King advocated stealing people's ownership of the fruits of their labor.
Come to think of it, I guess its par for the course with that county, generally. As it is said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Still, I hope they snap out of it and pass 920. I doubt we can carry it in this state without a large number of those voters getting on board.
Paul, here is a Wikipedia entry on the history of naming King County that I think explains what Scotty was alluding to:
The county was formed out of territory within Thurston County on December 22, 1852, by the Oregon Territory legislature, and was named after William Rufus King, vice president under president Franklin Pierce. Seattle was made the county seat on January 11, 1853.[1][2]
On February 24, 1986, the King County Council passed Council Motion 6461, "setting forth the historical basis for the 'renaming' of King County in honor of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.". Because only the state can charter counties, this change was not made official until April 19, 2005, when Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5332 into law. Due primarily to the advocacy of councilmember Larry Gossett, the County Council voted on February 27, 2006 to change the county's logo from a royal crown to an image of King's face.[3] This change, estimated to cost $522,255, is subject to the approval of the King family and the ability to negotiate licensing rights affordable by the county.
April - I know what he meant. Given the history behind the first man by the name of King the county was named for and the second man by the name of King the county is now named for, and how both of them endorsed seizing other's productivity (though in different ways), then I don't see much of a difference in naming the county for one as opposed to the other. It may denote different individual men, and the particular shape and degree of their individual approaches to the world was obviously different, but philosophically, I see no difference in kind between them.
That this will cost over one half of a million taxpayer dollars is a perfect example of the worldview that the first King shared with the latter, and with opponents of 920: you can coercively take from others to satisfy your own ends.
So, like I've said, I hope the residents of King county do not vote on 920 in the character of the namesake (former and present) of their county. I hope they reject the claim that it is acceptable to coercively use others as means to ends; in this case, barring those who have lawfully amassed certain amounts of capital from being able to decide how it will be disposed of upon their deaths, instead allowing government to continue its theft of that natural right of individuals.
Ahhh, I didn't know that about the politics of the first King. Live and learn.
Post a Comment