Chambers gave $250.00 to Patty Murray on 05/15/1998 and $300.00 to Jay Inslee on 08/13/1998. $1,000.00 to Inslee on 03/17/2000. To Deborah Senn $250.00 on 05/27/1999, $500.00 on 11/19/1999, and $250.00 on 01/20/2000. To AlGore $1,000.00 on 09/30/1999.

This is gonna be a big fight in the primary.

I personally have no problem with initiatives. If there is a problem, it's not because they are "out of control," it's because of their inherent nature. For example, $30 car tabs. The argument in favor is simple and appealing. $30 bucks instead of $300. Everybody likes that. The position against is much harder to defend: that money is necessary, here are reasons why, and by the way how will we replace that money. Or the animal trapping initiative. The argument in favor is easy: stop killing animals in inhumane traps. The argument against is much tougher: nobody is poaching lions and tigers, and this amendment would make it tough to catch moles in our yard.

But, back to McGavick's comments--I found myself far less offended by his disbelief in inititiatives than I would have been if he didn't believe in the 2nd or 10th Amendment.

Plus, he didn't say he thinks the process should be repealed, he just didn't think it was the best way to govern. Growing up, it is like the attitude of my parents towards guns. My parents never felt any inclination towards having a gun in the house. They were in no way opposed to the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, they simply felt that we did not need a gun in our suburban neighborhood where the only crime ever committed was when I set up two lighted reindeers to look like they were humping eachother during Christmastime.

That certainly wasn't in McGavik's bio!

Major *wrong* call there Mikey!

(Back to my list.....Let's see what Diane Tebelius looks like...)

Just like all politicians and apparently wanna be politicians to have disdain for the Constitution.

Idiot Senator Leahey today said that current US Supreme Court is the most activist of his lifetime. Give me a break; the problem is that the US Congress has tried more often lately than during the previous part of his lifetime to find a route around the Constitution.

VAWA is perfect example. The US Congress tried to justify it by saying that the supposed epidemic of violence against women (what a load of crap, by the way) affect interstate commerce. The Supreme Court denied that on its face. That was an easy one.

So, what does Congress do? They are in the process of reauthorizing the worst legislation since Jim Crow.

You won't be surprised to see Patty Murray and Maria Can't co-sponsoring it. But David "I hate fathers" Reichert is co-sponsoring it in the House. He calls it the most important legislation he will ever be associated with.

Now, let's think about that. Reichert says an unConstitional peice of bigoted legislation is the most important he will be associated with. Now, what does that tell you about this political panderer.

But maybe the statement is not mere pandering and is actually to be believed: in that case, McGavick voted against the gas tax in R-51 (but wasn't Safeco a big supporter? Wasn't McGavick's former boss Slade Gorton co-chair of the Yes on R-51 campaign? Seems unlikely); voted against unemployment insurance changes favoring large corporations like Safeco in R-53; and voted to do away with charter schools, favored by Republicans and conservatives and opposed by the teachers unions, in R-55. Not to mention voting against the funding for construction of Qwest Field in R-48, right next door to his own Safeco field. Again, unlikely.

In sum, the statement is probably a "palpable attempt at dissimulation" calculated to pander to elite opinion, not an impressive first turn out of the gate for sure.

o_O

What happened to a government by the people and for the people? That was quite the silly statement.

I have no problems with initiatives and will vote for the ones I believe in; but it's always bothered me how initiatives seem to always get approved, no matter what it's for. That's why I don't fall for the signature-gatherer's line that a signature doesn't equal a vote. No, it pretty much does equal a vote; and I'm not putting my signature down for something that I don't want to see passed.

McGavik statement is worrysome, it shows a lack of knowledge of the initiative process, and respect for the true source of sovereignty in our Republic.

Keep it in perspective as to what position he is running for- US Senate. A freshman Republican Senator will have only twice the power a reelection of Cantwell would have. It still isn't much. He still has to toe the line.

Being a CEO of Safeco will give him some say, but not a whole lot in "seniors rule" Senate.

What concerns me more is that he may very well turn out to be liberal in Republican clothing. These initiatives were about keeping our taxes down (as they are some of the highest in the nation); if he is against them, he is for "tax and spend" philosophy. Am I wrong?

His Freudian position on initiatives is all I needed to know.

He could be a great senator... just somewhere else.

If McGavick's statement, wherein he confirms either his ignorance of the state constitution or his disrespect of that document (making him, to me, anyway, unacceptable) isn't enough to reject this clown out of hand... much like he rejects referendums out of hand... then what, exactly IS enough?

If you have been against all the initiatives, what is your stance, Mr. Gavick, on taxes? You can't just generate money that doesn't exist. In the private sector, you could throw away money to improve your bottom line, but we don't want that approach in the public sector.

Hopefully, the comment on initiatives was a brain fart and can be excused due to the infancy of the campaign.

When he's out exploring, perhaps he'll explore the notion of thinking before talking and that while a lot of people in DC might be really impressed because he used to be chief of staff to Slade, let's not forget that he has to win over the same people that threw his boss out of office and elected a dot com moron like Cantwell.

If he wants the party to smartly clear the deck, then he owes us the effort to engage his brain before his mouth.

Memo to the incoming comm dir - bad mouthing the idea of allowing the people to vote on how they should be goverened is the kind of talk that should be reserved for country club dinners with the Bellevue crowd.

Is anyone going to take the Seattle P-I to task for this? I know the overall editorial is a lot more outrageous, but the basic facts they are building their opinion on are also outrageous and incorrect.

His answer made him look EXTREMELY rusty, politcally speaking. Never answer more than what you were asked (unless you're just looking for trouble). I can think of several answers which would have been much better, and his campaign certainly needs to work on many things. He could have answered "while I am strongly opposed to tax increases, I understand that many of the roads in our state are in urgent need of fixing, and I am concerned that simply overturning the decision of the legislature will afford the state no means to improve our roads in the forseeable future." Or he could have said in a sarcastic tone "My donors will be paying for my gas for the next year, and after that I'll be crusing in DC, so I see nothing wrong with a 9 cent hike." Or simply, "Joel, on issues like these, I am but one voice among millions of concerned Washingtonians." Yeah.

"In y'all's haste to dismiss Mr. McGavick, do not forget your high school civics. Senator McGavick will be holding a federal legislative position and will not have one iota of authority to adjudicate state constitutional matters."

I respond:

And I could care less.

I want my senator to respect ALL of the rights of the people, certainly not only at the Federal level, but at the state level as well.

What this guy is telling those of us who DO support that part of this state's constitution concerning political power emanating from the people and that other pesky section, quoted in Stephen's post here, is that we're idiots.

I don't give a damn WHAT he "likes." I want to KNOW that he will support and defend ALL of my rights, including those of initiative and referendum.

Those rights are explicit in this state's constitution. If he doesn't like it, he can go back to the insurance biz.

Imagine what would happen if our state constitution were different, and we had no initiatives or referenda.

After this previous session, the people would have no recourse whatsoever except voting out the Democrats in control who passed all the horrible legislation in the first place.

Unfortunately, too many people in the mushy middle support Democrats in the state legislature because they like their loose spending habits, yet they support initiatives that cut taxes. I would venture to guess that ten percent of the people vote in that manner. This translates into Democrat majorities in the state legislature.

Furthermore, too much voter anger is siphoned away in initiatives. With I-912, the legislators responsible for the gas tax increase will not be held accountable for their vote! And these same legislators will figure out other ways to accomplish their agenda, despite the setback caused by I-912. We have seen this again and again in recent history.

Finally, the Democrat legislators passed much more than a ten-cent gas tax. It is impossible to overturn everything they have done via the initiative process.

With all that said, the fact of the matter is that our state constitution will never be changed. Initiatives are here to stay, for better or worse. We must, then, remember to put as much energy into "voting out the bums in office" as we do in gathering signatures for the No New Gas Tax initiative.