Remember that old Saturday Night Live skit with John Belushi? (It actually portrayed the Billy Goat tavern in Chicago, on Lower Wacker Drive, where all the Tribune and Sun-Times newsies gathered). Guy asks for a hamburger and Coke; surly grill chef says, emphatically, "chee-borger, Pepsi." No matter what anyone asks for, he tells them "chee-borger, Pepsi." That's it. No other choices.
Sound a bit familiar? It should. In a Seattle Post-Intelligencer Sunday op-ed, Chi-Doo "Skip" Li says Seattle politics is like a restaurant with a wide menu where eveything is drenched in the same sauce. Liberal Democratic seasoning of every issue in Seattle has numbed the palates of too many city dwellers for local politics, says Li. His solution?
Here's my advice to a city populated overwhelmingly by Democrats: Find some Republicans -- be patient, sightings are rare -- and encourage them to run for our terribly misnamed "nonpartisan" city offices and promise them you'll do the unthinkable and vote for them....The complete absence of Republicans of any stripe in Seattle politics means that we are cheating ourselves out of candidates and ideas to compete in the debate over vision and policy for the city.Contrast the present with the '60s and '70s, when Phyllis Lamphere, Tim Hill, Bruce Chapman, John Miller and Paul Kraabel, all bright, reform-minded Republicans on the council, led the way on campaign finance reform, environmental stewardship, neighborhood revitalization and a host of other important issues. Just as muscles atrophy from chronic non-use, a one-party political system can lose its vitality rapidly from complacency and arrogance.
With the tough problems facing this great city, we can't afford the kind of narrow-minded mentality that equates Republicans with scary ogres who drink the blood of children....For our common good, let's hope a few brave and highly qualified Republicans throw their hats into the council ring in 2006, and maybe even the mayoral race for 2008.*
I'll admit to being a bit biased here, as I've been sharing with friends and acquaintances a similar perspective: that a GOP Seattle agenda matters. It is a beginning, an initial step down the road to Rs becoming politically competitive again in Seattle.
Within a few years, it would also be good to see a more professionally-run, energetic and visible campaign for city council elections by district - instead of the current at-large system. District elections would bring better representation to neighborhoods, and put a greater focus on delivery of core services to the local property taxpayers who foot the bill for running the municipal corporation. Less attention would be paid to the sweeping social and global agenda of Seattle liberals. In 2003, the district elections measure failed by 7 points, but turnout was (surprise, surprise) atrociously low, both for the referendum and contemporaneous council races. Voters had tuned out city politics altogether. There IS an opening to reach these people, with something other than the usual fare.
*UPDATE: Ever-alert reader Richard Pope notes, in the comment section, that the next elections for Seattle City Council, after this year, are in 2007, not 2006; and that the next mayoral contest after this year will be in 2009, not 2008.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 29, 2005 10:50 PM | Email This
Monorail!
REALLY? I checked out the Seattle P-I on-line, and the same years are in the actual article.
The next race for Seattle City Council is in 2007, not in 2006. Positions 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 will be elected in 2007.
The next race for Seattle City Mayor is in 2009, not in 2008. In addition to the Mayor, the City Attorney, and City Council Positions 2, 4, 6, and 8 will be elected in 2009.
At least, if the Republicans run candidates for Seattle municipal offices in 2006 and 2008, they can't lose. Can't win either, but what the heck?
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 30, 2005 12:41 AMRon Sims for King County executive
Imagine King County suddenly grappling with a strange, sweeping flu epidemic, a terrorist attack or earthquake. Voters pondering which candidate would do a better job leading in times of trouble should pick incumbent King County Executive Ron Sims.
Sims has the leadership qualities to board the plane to Washington, D.C., and seek federal help in a convincing, productive way."
SO THE SETTLE TIMES BELIEVES LEFTIST PINHEAD RON SIMS WOULD DO A MUCH BETTER JOB OF CONVINCING REPUBLICANS WHO CONTROL WASHINGTON, D.C. TO SEND MONEY TO KING COUNTY THAN REPUBLICAN DAVID IRONS!!!!!!!
Now that's a good one!!
The blind political loyalty, intellectual laziness, lack of curiosity about outright fraud, inability to recognize incompetence and detachment from reality of the Seattle Times is beyond stunning.
Posted by: THS on October 30, 2005 07:32 AM(The GOP led state Senate enabled the monorail when Sen. Jim Horn (R) Mercer Island chaired the Transportation Committee and championed it.)
People forget that there are still a large number of Republicans in Seattle - if you conservatively estimate GOP voters at 25% of the electorate, that's still more republican voters that any other city in the state.
The Seattle bashers in the GOP need to be mindful of those numbers.
I like Matt's idea. I think there are GOP candidates who could win in Seattle - another liberal bastion, New York City, has elected Republican mayors for over a decade. And New York City has more than one left leaning newspaper.
East King County is becoming more politically diverse (not Eatsern Washington). The GOP better wake up. The reason why East King County is becoming more politically diverse is because the GOP is too often aligned with interests that don't represent mainstream values in terms of: providing for a safe and adequate transportation system.
The other reason is that the GOP often appears to be controlled by religious fundamentalists on subjects like abortion and civil rights for all people, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation. Smart people in the GOP know its a problem and that the party's social polcieis, especially on civil rights, are in conflict with the party's strength and foundation: competitive economic policies.
Posted by: thor on October 30, 2005 07:52 AMI suggest we all rise up and pay king county a visit the day before or the day of the election. You can be sure the press will take notice and mention the peoples revolt on the steps of Sim's and Logan's office.
Posted by: Susie on October 30, 2005 08:50 AMAbsolutely and categorically untrue.
East King County is becoming infiltrated with more liberals as they escape the problems of mismanagement of urban King County. And it isn't just "white flight" either. There is a marked movement of people who are tired of corruption, (mis)micro-management, excruciating regulation, and lack of common decency and are moving away from it. To mention anything about transportation issues within the context of some sort of conjecture about the diminution of GOP power is the stuff of liberal wet-dreams. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I know of zero Republicans who aren't in favor of "a safe and adequate transportation system". I know plenty (virtually to a person) who are opposed to flamboyant, grandiose boondoggles that rely on huge blank checks, and have more loose strings that that sweater you got for Xmas from Aunt Sylvia!
As for your supposition that the GOP is controlled by the Religious Right ®, just keep on straining at that if it makes ya feel better ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 30, 2005 09:14 AMIt seems to be Christine Gregoire's and Ron Sim's only known strategy.
Having said that there is good reason for hope, as Christine Gregoire's favorable rating is at an all time low of 36% statewide, and Ron Sims and Dean Logan may have overstayed their welcome in this state.
Posted by: GS on October 30, 2005 09:45 AMNO to people and YES to corporations is not a new idea nor is it a program.
Posted by: Apache Fog on October 30, 2005 11:32 AM#1. Your idea of "moving forward" and mine are not the same. There's nothing "progressive" about totalitarianism--it's the oldest form of government there is. And before you toss out the old chestnut about how "socialism doesn't mean totalitarianism," please read "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek, and then let's just get it out in the open that you LIKE coercion and government force as long it's doing what you want it to.
2. "Tax breaks for rich people;" hmmm... where to start. How about this: the bottom 1/2 of income tax payers (and by the way, that would include me since I only make about 45k a year) pay 3.46% of the taxes (in the most recent year I have figures for.) So, since the high wage earners are paying the lion's share of the taxes, don't you think it's fair that they get (pay attention here) MOST OF THE BREAKS, especially since it's THEIR MONEY? And by the way, your rich buddies like Teddy "Blowfish" Kennedy and John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry are both VERY WEALTHY, and pay almost nothing in taxes. (Hint: they're not "wage earners," per se. They get most of their income from trusts, etc. and the Kennedys have made an art form out of avoiding taxes. They've managed to transfer half a billion dollars from generation to generation, but have only paid--by their own admission--$134,000 in estate taxes. They avoid this by having trusts in places like Fiji.)
3. Denying people social services: You don't have a right to pick my pocket to pay for your feel-good social services. And by the way, since the "War on Poverty" began, we've transferred some 6 TRILLION dollars (yes, trillion) from the productive members of society to the unproductive. And I don't mean "unproductive" in a pejorative sense; I just mean people who for whatever reason (and I'll grant that there are many legitimate reasons people might have for not working--like not being able to, for example.) Wouldn't ya think we'd have won that war by now? Hint: those in the poverty industry don't want the war to be won. After all, then they'd be out of a job. And by the way, they "cook the books" when it comes to poverty statistics. The average POOR person in the U.S. has a higher standard of living than the AVERAGE (read "non-poor") person in Europe.
4. Government-funded bailouts to incompetently run corporate behemoths: I'm with ya 100% percent on this. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the government is allowed, much less obligated, to hand money over from hard working American tax payers to bloated, uncompetitive companies. Well run and efficient companies, either. NO WELFARE: for corporations OR individuals.
have a lovely day.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageIdiotToProposeUniversalHealthCare on October 30, 2005 11:58 AMRemember vote early and then vote provisional!
Posted by: GS on October 30, 2005 04:04 PMIrons repeatedly attacked Sims for a lack of leadership on issues like Elections, Transportation, CAO/Property Rights etc.
I was very impressed by David Irons.....I didn't know he had it in him!
It literally took the stuffing out of Sims!
I really didn’t think David Irons had it in him…..and more importantly, neither did Sims!!
http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/30/A01-365796.htm
There are some strong elevated campaign signs in Bellevue/Newcastle and other areas of east King county. The first poster says No more Sims (circle with diagonal slash with Sims's name inside of it), then Now or never along the bottom - second poster- David Irons for King County Executive and the last poster said - make sure everyone votes on November 8th. Those seem effective to me. The debate on Up Front was a good showing for Irons. It is past time for a change in this county. Seattle is so out of touch with what are real issues in the county, as they prefer a socialist utopia, which is King Sims' ideology - such as his eliminate homelessness in 10 years - by getting more substantial handouts from the Government - but no additional contributions by the homeless back to society, in other words no accountibility.
The City of Seattle is probably every bit as wasteful as King County - after all Greg Nickels is a protege of Sims, when it comes to Sound Transit - but won't hang the albatross of corrupt elections around Nickles though. If any sensible person looks at this race - Government works more efficiently when both parties have equal representation - it has been tilted too much Democrat for the last 16 years. Now more than ever - the playing field needs to be leveled for the benefit of the voters - HELLO ! The council will have a one vote Democrat advantage in all liklihood, so it only stands to reason that if a Republican is the County Executive, things will begin to operate more efficiently in King County and we already know that the CAO and the elections will get cleaned up. NOW or NEVER !
Posted by: KS on October 30, 2005 07:42 PMVote for Irons, Can Sims!
Posted by: GS on October 30, 2005 08:27 PMhttp://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/30/A01-365796.htm
This sounds like a district of Rural King county administered by Dean the Democrat electing machine!
Where did you find this, cause it stinks just like Sim's, Gregoire's, and Dean's election debacle!
Is there ever a skunk in the King County Election house?
Pheeeewwwwwweeeeeeee
In what way is Seattle a great city?
In what way is King County a great county?
Reminds me of an old western flick (pick one) where the Mayor is in cahoots with the local rancher who is buying up all the other ranchers. And if you don't want to sell, well meet my buddy the gunslinger. The people all suffer, but it is business as usual. The local paper prints what the Mayor desires. Anyway, most of us are familiar with the western (pick one) and no the ending. A stranger (new hero) arrives in town one day and suddenly (after many shootouts) things come to a head. The town folk all hide and there is a shootout on Main street or 4th ave.
Well, that is Hollywood and this is the real world or is it. Same story, nothing change. Seattle is not great because the people enjoy mediocrity. Misery for all and for all a good election.
Snuffy
Posted by: snuffy on October 30, 2005 10:46 PMSnuffy
Posted by: Snuffy on October 30, 2005 10:56 PMKeep harping about district elections for the Silly Council. The Silly Council is a ditto chamber with each position elected by the same city-wide majority. This is why there is no diversity on this silly politicaly body. I thought diversity was supposed to be a goal of the city.
Posted by: BananaLand(AKA Iguana) on October 31, 2005 12:33 AMIf 20% of the city votes Republican, 20% of the council seats are held by Republicans. If 10% vote Green, 10% of the seats are Green. Which I guess would be only 2 Republicans and 1 Green on the council, but that's better than the 100% Democrats system we have now.
Posted by: Sotosoroto on October 31, 2005 09:09 AMJames
aka Guns and Butter
aka The Asianist