In the first round, I urged you to vote against Alcee Hastings as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and against Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House.  Hastings could not be hired to be a lowly clerk on that committee because he could not get a security clearance.  That Pelosi would consider Hastings for that position shows that she is not fit to be speaker.  That the Democratic caucus would choose her as minority leader, and possibly speaker, shows how little many Democrats care for the nation's security.

Not all of the endorsements in this round are as easy to make.  But the first is.  I endorse the Seattle Seahawks over the Oakland Raiders.   The Seahawks played just well enough last night to keep me from finishing this post until early this morning.

Initiatives:  I will vote for Initiative 920, to repeal the estate tax, without great enthusiasm.  I am not opposed to estate taxes in principle, but I do not trust Christine Gregoire and company with our money.  The less money they have to buy votes, the better.  (If you are wondering why I do not oppose the estate tax in principle, consider the families Kennedy, Sulzberger, and Blethen.  Think how much better off the nation would be if Ted Kennedy had been forced to find a job tending bar in Boston, instead of being coddled by his family's fortune.)   I will vote for Initiative 933, which provides for compensation when state and local governments destroy the value of private property by regulation.   The principle behind the initiative is a good one, and our officials, especially King County Executive Ron Sims, have given us many reasons to believe that it is needed.  (I will confess that I have not studied the effects of the initiative extensively, but then I haven't had a spare year recently.)   Since I am not superstitious, and I prefer lower costs for energy, I will vote against Initiative 937.   There is no such thing as clean energy (though nuclear comes close).  All sources impose costs on the environment in one way or another, and it is superstitious to believe otherwise.  That the initiative will increase our electric bills is obvious from the fact that our utilities have to be forced to use these politically correct, but expensive, sources.

Mike McGavick is an easy choice over Maria Cantwell.   Although Cantwell is not manifestly unqualified to be a senator (unlike our senior senator, Patty Murray), she has shown serious character flaws.  Even more important, Cantwell has sponsored, all through her career, damaging measures.  As a state legislator, she sponsored the Growth (mis)Management Act, which has made it hard for young families to buy homes.  In her one term in the House, she co-sponsored the Motor Voter Act, which made vote fraud even easier.  In recent years, she has backed measures that would increase the cost of energy.

Cantwell (unlike Patty Murray) does not hold absurd positions on foreign policy.  And for a Democrat, that is something of an achievement these days.  But McGavick is better on foreign policy as well as domestic issues.  And we can not forget that voting for Cantwell is, indirectly, a vote to put Democrats in charge of the Senate.  Though Harry Reid and company are not as bizarre as Nancy Pelosi and company, they do not inspire confidence.  Mike McGavick is a fine alternative to this failed senator.

As I said in my first post, I will vote against Alcee Hastings, which means, in the 1st district, voting for Larry Ishmael.  I would vote for him over Jay Inslee, even if Hastings were not likely to be head of the Intelligence Committee.  Ishmael has a record of real accomplishments, unlike career politician Jay Inslee.  And Ishmael has probably figured out that the correct title for Joseph Wilson, IV is: "discredited former ambassador".  (I am not alone in thinking Wilson discredited; the Kerry campaign dropped him after his Senate testimony (under oath) showed that Wilson had been, shall we say, imaginative, in his charges against the Bush administration.)  Inslee's continuing connections to Wilson raise doubts about Inslee's integrity, his intelligence, or both.

Luke Esser is another easy choice.  His opponent, Rodney Tom, has never really explained his party switch, never explained why he left the party of Diane Tebelius for the party of Castro supporter Dwight Pelz.  Tom has waged a dirty campaign that should, by itself, disqualify him from the legislature, or any other public office.  Beyond that, it is clear to anyone who compares their records that Esser has been the better legislator in almost every way.  Esser would be my choice even if Tom had not made his strange switch and had not waged this dirty campaign.

I will vote for one Democrat, Ross Hunter because I believe he is serious about education reform.  (Though, if he is, he should consider switching parties, since the Democrats are too dependent on the WEA and too tied to educational bureaucracies to bring real reform.)  And I will vote, with considerable enthusiasm, for Bret Olson over the sign thief, Deb Eddy.  (I received two postcards from Eddy claiming that she was for lower taxes and education reform.  If she really does back those things, shouldn't she switch parties?  I don't recall whether she also came out against theft.)

Steven Johnson is another easy choice.   His opponent, Susan Owens, has shown that she is unfit to be a judge at any level.  I will cast a protest vote against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.   He should not have run again, knowing that he would be forced to retire before the end of his term.  So, don't be surprised to see at least one vote for Mickey Mouse in that race.

Finally, there are three other legislators who I can not vote for but know enough about to recommend, Fred Jarrett, Toby Nixon, and Tim Lee.