Sound Politics: "The most expensive state House election in Washington history"

September 14, 2006

"The most expensive state House election in Washington history"

Today's P-I report says "Primary race in 43rd sets fundraising record"

Collectively, Jamie Pedersen, Jim Street, Bill Sherman, Lynne Dodson, Dick Kelley and Stephanie Pure -- the six candidates vying for 43rd District House seat in Seattle being vacated by Rep. Ed Murray -- have raised more than $549,000.

For that kind of money you'd think the Democrats would have more to show for themselves than a six-pack of chuckleheads.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 14, 2006 09:53 AM | Email This

Comments

1. I'm actually not surprised at all. Most of these folks are subscribing to an false reality that blinds them to any rational sense. When they get serious support from an entire district full of voters, anything is possible. Just watch them bark at the moon and enjoy.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 14, 2006 10:27 AM

2. I am pretty sure the 1994 36th District Democrat primary to fill the House seat Jeanne Kohl-Welles had vacated when she was appointed to replace Ray Moore in the Senate was more expensive than this year's 43rd District primary. (Mr Moore had resigned when it was discovered he actually lived in Hawaii.) As I recall it was a seven- or eight-way race, and several of the candidiates raised over $100,000.

But maybe I'm wrong. Who am I to doubt the P-I?

Anyway, the least of all the candidates, Mary Lou DIckerson, won, of course.

Posted by: Legast on September 14, 2006 10:58 AM

3. You are voting for corruption, live with it. Your candidates are bought and paid for by the (insert) liberal special interests.(/insert). I know that's just fine with most of the posters here. Your candidates are the tools of special interests, at a level unprecedented in this state's history. That isn't even debatable.
- Ivan the Hypocrite

Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2006 10:58 AM

4. I think the "chuckleheads" comment is beneath you and this blog Stefan. Just not necessary or warranted in this case.

Posted by: just a guy on September 14, 2006 11:09 AM

5. "The most expensive state House election in Washington history"

The REAL expense comes after the election, without regard to party affiliation.

fwiw, I prefer "moonbat."

Posted by: scott158 on September 14, 2006 11:30 AM

6. jimg @ 3:

There's a considerable difference between the $549,000 raised in small contributions for six candidates in a House primary and the ONE POINT TWO MILLION DOLLARS raised by ONE industry association, the BIAW, to buy a Supreme Court seat for its bought, sold, and paid for puppet, John Groen (groan!)

Call me a hypocrite all you want. It's all you've got. Your math stinks, and so do your politics.

Posted by: ivan on September 14, 2006 11:42 AM

7. this will be a life-time seat with lots of perks for the perkers (or perkette) -- one of the people running is obviously being backed by huge contributors as I have received three mailings this past week from him -- some of the interest in this race may be from home owners in the Montlake area who are shocked (yes, shocked) that other liberals will run a new 520 bridge right down the middle of the manicured lawns -- also this district is heavy with pork -- U of W, etc -- the winner gets to pretend that he (or she or whatever) is a king maker --

Posted by: Lew on September 14, 2006 12:10 PM

8. It is so nice to see these Dems spending big $$$ fighting each other over a house seat that would be Democrat if hell froze over.

Posted by: balanced but fair on September 14, 2006 12:26 PM

9. Ivan,

I will call you a hypocrite for it defines you as a person who believes one set of circumstances should not apply to another ... in your case, conservative interest groups spending money to support conservative candidates versus liberal interest groupls spending money to support liberal candidates. According to your math, conservatives shouldn't be spending any money ... or at a minimum, they should be spending money according to how you deem fit. That's not only being a hypocrite, it's also a show of weakness that you aren't willing to debate the actual issues or qualifications of a candidate, but instead whine about the eeeevil money being spent by your political opponents.

You tire me, Ivan. Your myopic union-thug view of politics overtakes any semblance of common sense in your comments.

Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2006 12:55 PM

10. And by the way, I'll listen to your whining about voluntary BIAW contributions ... immediately after unions cease using mandatory dues to do the same. Until then, shut up.

Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2006 12:59 PM

11. Jimg @ 9, 10:

I'll never shut up. It makes my day to hear that I tire you.

Posted by: ivan on September 14, 2006 02:25 PM

12. "Chuckleheads?" That is practically a compliment for the 43rd Dumocrats. #4 should be thanking you.
Disgusted in 43

Posted by: JB on September 15, 2006 12:06 AM

13. Ivan @6:

What's the difference between BIAW's contributions and SEIU, WEA, Progressive Majority, Working Families Who have Had Enough, et. al.?

You are a hypocrite.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 15, 2006 02:36 PM

14. Recent trends support the idea that homeowners are realizing this and are refinancing to take advantage of today's lower rates while they are still available. "LowLender is the perfect option for people who want to cut out the legwork. Both here baguette diamond ringand there cluster diamond gold ring white white gold pink ring [URL=http://search.jubii.dk/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=itemtag+wb+014] white gold pink ring[/URL] http://search.jubii.dk/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=itemtag+wb+014 Inflation Growing Equity Mortgage Capital Gain

Posted by: white gold pink ring on October 12, 2006 02:48 PM