Tim Eyman's remarks at the National Conference of State Legislators last week are well worth reading. First the preface from the e-mail that he sent to his list:
It was a panel discussion on initiatives and whether the process was "destroying representative democracy" or was "a valid voice of the people" -- the other speakers, including the moderator, were openly hostile to the people's initiative while I passionately advocated for it. In a roomful of state house and state senate politicians from throughout the nation, I was clearly the skunk at the party. After my opening statement, which is reprinted below, I was verbally and persistently pummeled during the question and answer session. I loved every minute of it. The initiative process is not defended aggressively enough or often enough.STATEMENT BY EYMAN AT CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATORS --
Without initiatives, government has a monopoly on public policy.
Now as we all know, monopolies are inherently arrogant and unresponsive. You don't like what we're doing, you can't go anywhere else. Initiatives provide representative democracy with some healthy competition. And in that competition, representative democracy is monopolizing the marketplace of public policy changes. Think about it, 99.9% of all laws are made by elected officials at the state and local government levels. In contrast, just a couple of initiatives each year ever become law.
Yet all we ever hear from elected officials is non-stop whining and moaning and complaining about how initiatives destroy representative democracy, how they make it impossible for elected officials to do their jobs, etc.
Gimmee a break. It'd be like Bill Gates & Microsoft wailing about some kid in his garage building his own computer. It's laughable.
If there's one thing I'd want to accomplish from today's presentation is to convince as many of you as possible that if you don't like a particular initiative, then pass your own law with your own solution. Accept the challenge. Welcome the competition that initiatives provide and use them to challenge the sacred cows using the legislative process.
Because if you don't, if you sit idly by and allow a public policy problem to fester year after year after year, then you cannot legitimately complain about the initiative or the initiative process. Say what you will about initiative sponsors, at least we're trying. We're providing solutions to problems to the public that you've failed to address.
INITIATIVES ONLY WORK WHEN ELECTED OFFICIALS FORGET WHO THEY WORK FOR.
Over the past seven years, we've pushed and promoted 12 initiatives, 9 have qualified for the ballot, and 6 have been approved (when voters approve this year's initiative requiring performance audits of state and local governments, it'll be 7). Voters have twice approved lowering vehicle license tab fees, twice approved capping the growth of property taxes, rolled back government-sponsored affirmative action, and made it substantially tougher for elected officials to increase taxes and fees.
Our initiatives have saved taxpayers over $6 billion so far.
The reason we mainly focus on taxes is because in Washington, the average taxpayer is the least represented individual in politics. There are special interest groups for every other cause, business, labor, environmentalists, lawyers, etc. But there are no lobbyists representing
taxpayers who are banging on the doors of elected officials. When hearings and votes on tax increases are being held, taxpayers are too busy trying to earn a living and taking care of their families to drive to a legislative hearing to say no to higher taxes.
Initiatives are the only way for the average taxpayer to have an equal voice in the process. The initiative process treats everyone the same. With initiatives, my mom's vote in Yakima counts just as much as Queen Christine's vote in Olympia. I love that.
One of the reasons I revere initiatives is because of their transparency and consistency. When voters approve an initiative that promises performance audits, or repeals gas taxes, or lowers license tab fees, the initiative delivers on that promise. Initiatives provide a pure, infiltered expression of voters' desire for a particular public policy change. And that policy change is clearly spelled out so the voters can make an informed decision.
This is the main reason voters trust initiatives much more than their own elected officials. Think about the contrast: many politicians are anything but transparent and consistent.
Take our state's Governor, Queen Christine, for instance: last fall, because she was running against a much more fiscally conservative opponent, she knew she had to promise no new taxes or else she'd lose the election. Her pledge to not increase any taxes clearly provided the margin necessary to be elected/selected Governor. Rightly, voters had a clear expectation that she'd have the courage to govern as she ran.
She didn't.
If, like any initiative, she had to put in writing her promised public policy changes, a minimum of 60% of voters would have rejected her at the ballot box.
Her flip flops weren't courageous - they were arrogant, disrespectful, and dictatorial. She jammed through an agenda that voters never saw and certainly never voted for.
It's not courageous to do exactly the opposite of what voters want.
Such deception is impossible with initiatives -- there can be no clandestine agenda. With initiatives, what you see is what you get.
Another benefit to initiatives is that they allow the voters to learn more about their elected officials. Many candidates for public office prefer to highlight their resumes, pictures of their family, campaign slogans like "Elect me because I'm for democracy, freedom, and the American flag." Gobblygook. Positions on issues are kept hidden from the public.
But with initiatives, voters naturally ask candidates, "how are you going to vote on I-900 requiring performance audits of state and local governments?" or "There's an initiative on the ballot that rolls back government-sponsored affirmative action, will you be voting for it?" "Minimum wage, medical use of marijuana, lower gas taxes, $30 tabs, where do you stand on these issues?"
Initiatives smoke out the hidden philosophies of candidates. That's a good thing.
Now, when it comes to critics of the initiative process, there's always the standard voters-are-stupid argument. I've never understand that one. If voters are really as dumb as critics contend, then why do we let the unwashed masses vote for candidates for office? Under this elitist theory, the last thing we should do is let these supposed morons pick our elected officials, better that only the "smart people" choose them.
I simply disagree with this view. I think the voters are smart, common sense folks. And when regular citizens vote on initiatives, they're not influenced by editorials, campaign contributions, or the desire to be reelected. This allows them to vote their conscience and do what's best for the state.
I see nothing wrong with voters being given the chance to vote on issues that representative democracy has failed to address.
Being an advocate for initiatives clearly makes me the skunk at the party here. But I have the absolute certainty that the voters appreciate and revere the initiative process as much as I do.
Thank you.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 23, 2005 05:18 PM | Email ThisI hope Eyeman left a lasting "Stink" in their nostrils as reminder we are not going to take any more elitist manure.
Posted by: JCM on August 23, 2005 05:58 PMHowever, he is right on the button when it comes to pegging the protestations of our elected officials as arrogance. Sheer arrogance. Most of them just don't get the fact that they answer to us.
Great speech Tim.
Posted by: Regret on August 23, 2005 06:10 PMWhere I do disagree with Tim, is that I would prefer laws are passed by the legislature. I think the initiative process is to open to special interest money (more so than Olympia even), My proof, I-892, REF 55, I-901 and so on.
When the legislator fails, that is when the initiative process is essencial (e.g. I-601, I-912 and I-900).
I just wish would spend more time getting the varsity team on the field and less time pooper scooping after Olympia.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 07:57 PMI may not like it, but Christine Gregoire is the Governor of the State of Washington. The Governor of the State of Washington is bigger than Christine Gregoire, Dino Rossi, or anyone else. Disrespect to the office is disrespect to the 6.1 million people who it serves.
For whatever or however reason she is there, faith tells me it was ment to be and that in the end, it will workout for the best.
By showing disrespect to her (and I catch myself doing it to often), Tim's valid aguments come off as being from a guy who is just upset he didn't get his way. I know he is not, Tim's a good guy. But that is how it seems.
Disagreement: GOOD, Disrespect: BAD, Personal Attacks: UGLY.
I got good money saying Dino is the first person to be polite and curtious to Gov. Gregoire. I also bet Dino is the first person to stand up for her if someone personally attacks her.
Plus, you better believe, I am going to be the first person to get in the face of people who disrespect Governor Rossi in January of 2009. I need to do better now of practicing what I am going to preach.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 08:09 PMHowever our system was not designed for professional politicians working on behalf of special interests and self interest.
Our system was design for citizen legislators to go serve the public interest for a short while and return to their own businesses and lives.
The initiative is a citizens check on government. Government in WA has been so out of touch for so long the initiative is all we have short of open rebellion.
Until the state government returns to its properly designated bounds with the legislators serving the people we may very well have to manage Olympia by initiative.
To T.J. as long as the governor acts "imperial" then some of the snide comments are deserved, she is the one disrespecting not only the governorship but the people who did not elect her. If she had any respect for the office or the people she would have stood for a run-off election. Not based on the margin, 1 vote would make her a winner, but the obvious unkownable outcome fo the last election. I am merely returning the respect she gives me as her boss and the one who pays her salary.
Posted by: JCM on August 23, 2005 08:35 PMI might have some respect for Fraudiore is she would not have lied to the voters in order to get not elected.
If Fraudiore had been up front and campaigned on raising taxes and BLOATING government and won than then I would only be left to disagree the voters. But that is not what she did; she lied to the voters to get elected and then did what every good Democrat does - hike taxes and reward the unions.
Posted by: JC Bob on August 23, 2005 09:07 PMNo one made her lie about her position on the gas tax. She did that all by herself.
She ran on a platform that included her statement that she was opposed to a gas tax increase w/o a vote.
On that alone, she deserves any scorn and/or vitriol we care to direct in the lying bitch's general direction.
Posted by: Who.... me? on August 23, 2005 09:23 PMI am not saying you have to respect Christine Gregoire the individual. By all means, if you have an issue with a policy of hers, argue against it.
My point is that if we spend four years calling her names and being bitter, then in 2008 she is the victim.
The other factor to remember is that democrats are not the enemy. There just the opposition. I don't agree with most of what she is done and yes, I think it will hurt our State, but for the sake of my family and yours, I hope I am wrong and that the Washington is successful, even with her at the helm.
The constant belittling just lowers us to the "Bush Planned 9-11" Crowd level. We are no better then the radical libs (not most libs, just a few radicals) secretly hoping we loss in Iraq because it will make they party look better.
JCM made the comment "if she had any respect for the office...". That is my point, let her do the disrespecting of democracy and the state, not us. Around a 100K people voted for John Kerry and Dino Rossi in this state. Why???
It isn't because Dino ran around calling names, throwing bombs, or any of that. We should all try to show some class, like Dino has through all of this.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 09:36 PMI may want to stop posting because you all are proving my point better then I ever could.
Lines 1 through 3. Great Points!!! Any reasonable person would at a minimum have to acknowledge the logic of what you are saying. Most people would probably agree with you. You may even change a few opinions and/or open some minds to another side of the issue.
Line 4; you make it so easy for someone to dismiss your earlier valid point by name calling and cursing her. Now a reasonable person can just write you off as another angry person who didn't get their way.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 09:43 PMI was thinking the same thing!
In fact - it would probably be a good idea to send a copy of this to our *current* Legislators and state Senators....as a reminder of who they're working for......
Initiatives do threaten our representative form of government; there can be no argument on that topic. They are ultimately counter to the Republican form of representative government, because they undermine the authority granted the few to pursue the best interests of all the people. But when a government fails to represent the peoples' best interests, and instead sells itself to special interests driven by their own selfish greed and lust for power, it is they that are threatening democracy, not those pushed into desperate acts to wrestle governance back from the corrupt.
We have witnessed the risks in relying on initiatives. The Grange's Top 2 Primary fiasco for one. Legalization of Marijuana, doctor assisted suicide, the outrageous scheme by Gary Locke to con us into building Quest Field, and other special interest driven initiatives that will continue to grow in number and in successes.
The Tim Eyman initiatives, while desperately needed to drain the beast of its blood, are a symptom of a sick society where government has lost credibility and an ever-growing percentage of the electorate has long-since accepted that government no longer acts in their interests, but instead feeds upon us like parasites. The initiative process is absolutely the last tool for citizens interested in making things better when legislatures, the courts and elected officials take action after action to the contrary. The courts only recently killed the simpler and constitutionally authorized referendum, and now are targeting that last tool that threatens their omnipotence. The US Supreme court has ended the right to own private property, and it's all we can do to fight to maintain the status quo.
The door left open by the initiative process is frightening, though. Because with the right political campaign, the right propoganda spun from the media, enough money spent by interests that will benefit personally, and the right endorsements from the bought and paid for, nearly anything may one day be approved by a simple majority of ignorant legal and illegal voters.
It's a tightrope that we're on, but are there any other options as government consolidates its power and takes what is ours and redistributes it to that simple majority for its continued support?
Just be glad we've got it today. We could very possibly wake up one morning and that right to initiative will be gone too.
Posted by: Mike on August 23, 2005 10:08 PM"We're smart, you're stupid. Shutup and do what we say."
Posted by: madmartagan on August 23, 2005 10:19 PMI think/hope (whatever) he means republican (small "r") form or government, instead of Republican (big "R") form of government.
The difference being:
Small "r": A nation-state that is a republic, i.e. representative democracy (e.g. USA)
Big "R": A government formed by the Republican party.
D(d)emocractic:
Small "d": A nation-state which is governed by a consensus vote of the populus.
Big "D": a government formed by the Democrat party.
Not meant to knock Mike, just want to clarify.
Posted by: T.J. on August 23, 2005 10:28 PMRemember, Bill Clinton said he "loathed the military" and got no grief from the press about it, even though he was commander-in-chief. I understand that the soldiers (who undoubtedly knew all about Clinton's hatred for them) would salute him, but not his back.
They DO very frequently salute President Bush after he has passed, when his back faces them. I would, too. It is an optional sign of respect that they can show. I totally understand why they would continue to salute after he has passed. He loves them and they know it.
Posted by: Michele on August 23, 2005 10:50 PMLet's see, he loves the troops so much that he does what....Sends them in to invade a country that did not attack us, with forces that are under manned, under equipped and on a mission that has no end game plan? That sure sounds like love to me.
He loves them so much that he signed an executive order instituting a stop loss policy that keeps our forces out in combat zones for two years or more at a time, when it was standard for Vietnam troops to only be in heavy combat areas for 12 months at a stetch. Keeping in mind that the majority of these brave folks are guard and reserve. Stop loss keeps them in indefintely, putting their jobs and their families livelyhood at risk.
He loves them so much that he and his administration would prefer that we not see the photos and hear the names of the men and women giving their lives for Halliburton profits. What about the 45,000 amputees coming home from this war who are facing decreased disability benefits and a backlog of nearly half a million cases at the VA that are waiting for review? Sounds like love to me...All this when GW Bush's major accomplishment as president is taking more vacation time than any president in history, bravo GW, many kudos on your record. Michele can you explain anything he's done that indicates he's got even a modicum of respect for our armed forces, never mind anything that shows "love"?
Posted by: BlueDonkee on August 24, 2005 12:29 AMIn the case of Japan, Okinawa officially became a posession of the US, we administered it for 20 years and then gave it back. We currently have troops stationed in Japan to provide for their defense. The scenario in Germany is similar. These siuations stem from diplomatic agreements to provide defense for these countries. FWIW, we are actually pulling troops out of both of these areas.
First big difference is that Iraq did not attack us first, we were the agressor nation. We maintained our presence in Germany and Japan with the cooperation of the people in these countries, note the lack of any significant insurgent activity after WWII. In Iraq we are losing troops to insurgents almost every single day. Iraq has hardly been toppled.
GWB's military service or lack there of is of consequence only because it demonstrates his lifelong reliance on family privelege to make his way in the world and his overall lack of respect for the American military and what it stands for. Look at how he has treated veterans like John McCain and Max Clelland, it is simply shameful.
Posted by: BlueDonkee on August 24, 2005 01:48 AMOne problem with initiatives is that voters are allowed to be schizophrenic. In other words, some people will vote in legislators who support tax increases, yet will vote in favor of tax-cutting initiatives.
Not all people behave this way, of course, but enough do to make a difference.
If voters were forced to choose between two alternatives (that is, in the absence of initiatives), I suspect that more low-tax, low-spend Republicans would be elected into office.
I would much rather have a low-tax, low-spend legislature than a high-tax, high-spend legislature that is periodically slapped on the wrist with anti-tax initiatives.
Posted by: Tim B. on August 24, 2005 04:07 AMTHE KING COUNTY DEMOCRATS JUST ENDORSED CINDI LAWS FOR RE-ELECTION TO THE MONORAIL BOARD!
http://www.wuxx.com/kcdems/temp/endorsements2005/results.aspx
This happened last night, Tuesday, August 23, 2005. With full knowledge of Cindi Laws virulent anti-Jewish statements.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 24, 2005 04:21 AMU.W. care to defend Terry "WorldCom" Mcauliffe, or Hillary "Cattle futures" Clinton. Eyeman's "crime" was failure to disclose there was no fiduciary impropriety.
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 06:36 AMYes, the military respects George W. Bush, and for reasons someone like you and the rest of the Michael Moore crowd could not understand. They respect him because he has the guts to take a stand on an issue, even an unpopular one, because he believes that stand is in the best interest of the American people. One day we may be fighting Islamic terrorists in this country. Where will you stand then....with the Clintonites who hid under the bed in the 90's and hoped the boogeyman would go away?
Look at the voting records for "military" precincts in the '04 presidential election. Some show over 75% of votes in favor of President Bush. They didn't run and hide...will you, Jackass?
Islam, and its evil followers, wants one thing: to kill all who oppose its violent takeover of the world. We cannot pander to Islam, nor parley with it. There is only one way to deal with the evil of radical Islam; and that is to destroy its leadership, the way we destroyed Hitler and Tojo.
Only when we have to fight Islam on our own streets will people like BlueJackass see the light. If this war ever comes to America, I just hope and pray we have a man like President Bush in the Whitehouse.
I apologize for the off-topic post. Someone had to repond to the troll.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 24, 2005 06:49 AM
No Apology Needed....Bravo!!! Great Post!
Posted by: Chris on August 24, 2005 07:04 AM“Her pledge to not increase any taxes clearly provided the margin necessary to be elected/selected Governor. Rightly, voters had a clear expectation that she'd have the courage to govern as she ran.
She didn't.”
This is also true of the Suburban democrats who campaign as fiscal conservatives to get elected. They couldn’t raise taxes fast enough when the Legislative session started. We have to wait years to hold them accountable for the lies they told us.
What’s amazing is the jaw dropping reaction of these lying politicians when the voters call them on these lies using the only weapon at their disposal..The initiative process.
The units with the highest deployment rate to Iraq have the highest re-enlistment rates. The 1st Cav. had rate of 164% of the retention goal other units were even higher.
That speaks louder than anything else about the opionion of the troops on the ground than anything else.
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 07:40 AMGWB lack of service? WTF are you talking about? Reserve service requires 50 points accrued per year. It is math so simple you can do it too (I think), 6 years x 50 points = 300 points to meet the requirement for a 6 year guard hitch.
Now the tough question, one I have explain to my old friend Unkl. How many points did GWB accrue in 6 years. If you were smart, interested in facts you would have read the documents that GWB released (unlike JFK). You would find he accrued 952 points in 6 years.
That is more than 3 times the minimum requirement.
The year in question 1972 GWB had 52 points. He meet and exceed his service requirements.
Trivial point you probably don't care about. AF Regular and Guard pilots in the F-102 (GWBs plane) had a high fatality rate than the Swift Boats in 'Nam.
Get a clue before you post around here.
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 08:23 AMI also think that Eyman should be punished for anything he did wrong. There is a major difference. Eyman is a private citizen that is giving his opinion on a certain subject and putting action behind is words. That can be supported. If he were a public official that would be different.
I do, though, find it amusing how when Clinton perjures himself as the head of the judicial, it is a personal matter and we should all follow him blindly.
I hold public officials to a higher standard. So do dems, when there is an R behind thier name.
Posted by: fred on August 24, 2005 08:28 AMHow many initiatives did Tim Eyman pass?
The answer, obviously, is none. The people passed them.
By voicing your opposition to Eyman, you focus on the messenger - not the message. And when you attack that messenger, you are attacking the people who delivered that message ... which puts you precisely in the same camp as the elitist hacks who think the citizens are too stupid to be trusted with public policy.
You can spin all around his finances and his lying, but it doesn't change the fact that the public passes initiatives.
And the quickest way to stop that from happening? Try listening to us for a change.
Posted by: jimg on August 24, 2005 08:57 AMIf you're speaking of December, 1941, when you ask "when did Germany attach tha (presumed to mean 'attack the') USA?", my response would be that Germany declared war on the USA on December 11, four days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We responded by declaring war against Germany that same day (Dec. 11th). Know your history before you ask stupid questions.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 24, 2005 09:43 AMObviously, BlueDonkey would just as soon that Saddam were free to continue to fill mass graves with tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Obviously, BlueDonkey would just as soon that Saddam were free to start another war with his neighbors.
I am not the least bit sorry the President Bush is disappointing you.
But BlueDonkey I do have a question for you. What was Saddam doing with 1.8 tons of enriched uranium?
Posted by: JC Bob on August 24, 2005 10:06 AMWithout a way for people to nullify things enacted by the gov't, it is a runaway train that will eventually dictate the totality of everyday life of citizens. Un-electing public officers does not revert the harm they cause through law making. This fact alone gives reason why the initiative process must stay intact.
Without those methods of recourse we would be completely at the mercy of out of control government.
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 11:59 AMYou are right that we are in a terrible spot pollitically. I think that is Eyman's point. Think how much worse-off we would be if we did not have the initative process to have a minimal amount of power of the politicians!
There are many people that do not want to be politicians, but would still like things changed. Tim Eyman is using this method, and most people in this state agree with him, as the initiatives he championed were passed by the people.
On the other hand politicians get into office and figure they can ignore us (I-912...). Why would he want to join these people? He is more efective out of the system, and the system doesn't know what to do about it.
Posted by: fred on August 24, 2005 01:33 PMAs for calling me a troll, go ahead, but you're not directly addressing the issues about Bush's heinous treatment of our own troops. The facts are right there - he and Rumsfeld ignored the recommendations of our own general about what it would in the way of numbers of forces to make an Iraq invasion successful. They went in undermanned from the beginning and our men and women are still paying the price. They have used unarmored HumVees as combat vehicles, Halliburton is feeding the men and women in our armed forces spoiled food, and veterans at Walter Reed who have lost limbs serving their country have been forced to pay for their own food. Your slavish, devotion to GWB who has made a mockery of being either a "conservative" or a "Republican"(he's neither one) is amusing but truly bizarre.
Posted by: BlueDonkee on August 24, 2005 05:22 PMIf the troops are being so "heinously" treat why are retention rates so high? Especially in highly active units.
The rest of rant is like the BS about GWBs reserve service (I noticed your have no argument in the face of facts).
You won't find slavish devotion to GWB here, He has many policy faults. But this is not the discussion of them here.
However when a barking moonbat spouts moveon.org BS you will get set straight. Check you "facts" with the troops, you're way off.
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 06:15 PMUmmm....fool! You ARE a troll!
And - We aren't discussing Bush and our troops in this thread. We are talking about Eyman and the initiative process? Hello?
Now go away - and quit trolling this blog.
Better yet....Go study your US History and we will have a test for you later...;)
It is amusing to see the right's increasingly strident and panic sticken attempts to defend what is rapidly becoming the most catastrophic failure of international relation our nation has ever known. It has poisoned relations with our closest allies and provided untold support to those who seek to destroy us.
They quote highly selective "re-enlistment stat's" to show the "troops" (who really know are the foreign policy experts in our nation) really do support this tragically managed and needless war. All the while, ignoring the fact that overall, re-enlistment rates and new enlistment rates are at historic lows and will fall far short of some rather modest, but unachievable goals.
Meanwhile, all the reasons for the war have evaporated, like that obscenely expensive gas you spilled on the Arco driveway while refueling your Hummer. Now, our only reason for remaining in Iraq is to vindicate those who have fallen before.
God save us from the "Christian Right".
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 24, 2005 11:25 PMTranscript of town mtg. Troops question Rumsfeld as to use of unarmoured vehicles:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1261546.htm
Vets At Walter Reed Forced to pay for own meals:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/walter_reed/
US troops fed spoiled food by Halliburton subsidiary KBR:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701727.html
Retention of soldiers at an all time high? I think not...
Army institues stop loss to keep soldiers from leaving:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm
Army to miss recruitment goals again:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7802712/
Here's a guy who "talked to God" and was told George "W" would win by a landslide. Hum..... Either God got it wrong or Brother Pat wasn't listening quite as keenly as he should have been.
Maybe we should be a bit more skeptical about some of the stuff Brother Pat passes along.
Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 24, 2005 11:40 PM
No changing the subject!
Sorry!
Posted by: Unkl Wiz on August 24, 2005 11:43 PMIt's free -- http://www.blogspot.com/
Send me an email when you've launched the blog and I'll be happy to introduce it.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 24, 2005 11:49 PM
Eyman embezzelled funds donated by his own supporters to fund his personal expenses. His organization's CFO wrote to tell him it was inappropriate she would resign if he didn't stop. He did it anyway.
His most fervent supporters told him to lie low for a while so all this could blow over. Now he's back telling his audience how to vote. The irony is this is the same crowd who says they put so much value on "ethical policy".
Once again, I'm confused....
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 25, 2005 12:16 AMYes, there are some of us who think that Mr. Eyman made a tragic error in judgement when he removed funds from his organization to pay his personal bills. He, like the rest of us, is a flawed individual who makes mistakes. But when I determine how to vote on initiatives and referendums, I consider the message and not the messenger. Mr. Eyman would have difficulty gaining my vote for elected office, but if his ballot measures hit the mark, they'll get my vote.
The issue here, which has been clearly stated in numerous posts, is not Tim Eyman but the arrogance of an elected legislature and a governor tainted by a stolen election. Legal residents/voters in this state have sent Olympia the same message time and again: WE ARE FED UP WITH TAXATION FOR THE SAKE OF TAXATION. We want audits and accountability. If you want to increase taxes, show us a plan, and if we approve it, it had better work. We are through paying for stagnant bureaucracy and feel-good, redundant programs. Olympia better get the message and get it fast.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 25, 2005 05:47 AMTheir position is the dislike GWB, and anyone who espouses a conservative to libertarian point of view of personal responsibility and limited government.
When confronted with such a position, their response to the issue is "you're stupid, GWB is paying off Haliburton."
Blue, and Unkl, you brought up so many irrelevant issues on this blog and each and every one you have been proven wrong with source documents provided by posters. Instead of attacking GWB with proven falsehoods why don't you engage in the discussion.
Answer this question.
If elected officials continue to oppose the clear will of the majority of the people, what options should to people invoke to correct the direction of the government?
Posted by: JCM on August 25, 2005 06:33 AMIf the will of the majority wants the choice of safe and legal abortions, "what options should to people invoke to correct the direction of the government?"
If the will of the majority is that they don't approve of GWB's handling of the office of the President, "what options should to people invoke to correct the direction of the government?"
If the will of the mojority is that they want safe, effective transportation systems, "what options should to people invoke to correct the direction of the government?"
The problem here is that you and your fellow posters here just don't like paying taxes of any sort (it would be soooo refreshing to hear you just admit that). You have somehow convinced yourselves that government is and ought to be free. And that any taxes you do pay just go to waste and fraud.
Unfortunately, that ain't the so. All that public infrastructure, civil regulatory, safety, education, and law enforcement systems you use and enjoy cost tons of money. So the question becomes: how do we fairly pay for them?
Or should we just let them fall apart like they did in Iraq?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 25, 2005 07:25 AMIf the will of the majority is to gets us out of Iraq why was GWB reelected? All I see is MSM polls with internals that polling group was 48% democrat 24% republican 28% other. Hardly an unbiased reliable poll. '04 GWB campaigned on staying the course and won.
Sorry you lose that point.
If abortion are so important let's let State Legislatures decide abortion law based on the will of the people. That is the Constitutional method for powers not delegated to Congress. The SCOTUS step in and decide the issue, not the people. Besides the most reliable polling data shows a slight majority oppose abortion on demand.
Sorry you lose that point.
GWB won reelection on Iraq, Social Security Reform etc... Biased MSM polls are not a reliable indicator. Especially with the outrageous MSM reporting on the situation in Iraq, show me last MSM story on the schools, sewer, water treatment plants, power stations, hospitals built, the successful city and local governments set up. Those stories are not told because they would help GWB. How about the story that in the last 20 years the annual rate of fatal training accidents in the military was greater than the rate of combat deaths. Nope that story will never see the light of day.
Sorry you lose that point.
Yes people want an effective transportation system that relieves congestion (not a option in Olympia), that has responsibility and accountability, we want a plan and a budget, not an open ended money pit. We've been sending that message to Olympia for years, they haven't got the message.
Sorry you lose that point.
If you would read the post around here: you seem to have a severe reading disability, you refuse to read anything other than your talking point sheet. You would see that the vast majority of us are willing pay taxes for a project that makes sense, has a budget and is well defined. The main gripe here is not 9.5 cent increase in gas taxes, it is 30 years of WA state waste, corruption, incompetence and refusal to have performance audits, accountability and responsible spending. Last WA budget revenue increase 7.5% but spending increased 12%. That is our problem.
Sorry you lose that point.
Yes government cost. But government also needs limits, fiscal responsibility, accountability, efficiency and open processes. We have very little of that in WA.
Sorry you lose that point.
Finally you do nothing to further you argument by interjection non-sequiturs like GWB is wasting money in Iraq because he lied. Particularly when your points are refuted by the facts. Get over your irrational hatred of conservatism and libertarianism argue the issue on facts.
GAME SET AND MATCH.
Posted by: JCM on August 25, 2005 08:50 AMThe will of the majority was voiced last November in the only freaking poll that counts.
You don't like it. I don't care. You lost. Try again in 2006.
Now do us all a favor and stick to the topic as requested, or STFU.
Posted by: jimg on August 25, 2005 04:20 PM