Initiative 960 is winning, HJR 4204 is losing, as is RTID Proposition 1. All of those decisions are in favor of lower taxes. It bodes well for Dino Rossi in 2008.
You Demotaxing idiots, best take a BIG HEED!
Cause We coming to take you away Ho Ho
:)
Posted by: GS on November 6, 2007 11:48 PMJulia Patterson September " there is no plan "B"
November , If Proposition 1, the roads and transit measure fails, King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson, a proponent, hopes that regional leaders will convene again to consider submitting another package of improvements. "We must do that," she said, "because the problem still exists."
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Will this new sense of sanity prevail in 2008? That is the question.
Truly amazing.
Posted by: snuffy on November 7, 2007 05:38 AMIt had 'fair' people- the majority wins
It had "for the schools"- mom and pa apple pie issue
And the reason for the supermajority is somewhat hard to understand
As for R67, the trial lawyers did a better job in twisting the issue to the way they wanted. They also promised no insurance increases due to the bill passing. We'll see.
Posted by: swatter on November 7, 2007 07:11 AMI also look forward to voting for an elections director, whenever the Klowncil gets around to making it happen. Shame on all of them who voted to make it a two stage process when it was obviously something the voters wanted.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2007 08:00 AMSo much for those mid-term elections in 2006. I think they were a fluke and Republicans should stick to the knitting:
No new taxes
No crazy big budget "packages" that pour good money after bad.
Another thing voters seemed to like is the Super Majority for taxes. How about:
Super Majority in Congress for all new spending?
Posted by: John Bailo on November 7, 2007 08:50 AMPosted by: NW Denizen on November 7, 2007 08:52 AM
" These election results serve as a sharp reminder that fiscal conservatism will be central to Republican and conservative strategy in 2008, both nationally and locally. Lower taxes are better for families, better for property owners, better for small business and farmers. These are the constituencies of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. "
" fiscal conservatism will be central to Republican and conservative strategy in 2008, both nationally and locally "
Steve, I don't know if " central to Republican .... strategy " is wishful thinking on your part or you are simply ignoring the obvious by putting your head in the sand of the Republican Party desert.
" Lower taxes are better for families, better for property owners, better for small business and farmers. These are the constituencies of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. "
'These' are not the constituencies of the Republican Party. They are the constituencies of the conservative movement which includes independents and grassroots republicans. Any connection of the King County Republican Party, the Washington State Republican Party and the Republican National Committee to grassroots 'republicans' is in name only.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on November 7, 2007 08:53 AM1) Big government is great, but there is so much waste in government. They should use what we give them more efficiently first. Then, if they do a good job with that, we may grant them some more money...
2) I want lots of benefits from the government for myself and for the poor, but I don't want to have to pay for it. I want the proverbial free lunch. But I would definitely vote for a tax increase that didn't affect me. Can we just tax the rich more?
BUT: regarding 1) government will always be hopelessly inefficient. Milton Friedman said why: "when you spend other people's money on other people, you don't care what you spend it on and you don't care that it is spent efficiently. That's government."
Regarding 2)
TANSTAAFL...
And taxing the rich "too much" will wind up hurting the economy, and hurting the poor the liberals claim to be trying to help.
Just trying to get inside the head of the Seattle liberal... Perhaps that is a dangerous project! That way lies MADNESS!!! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 7, 2007 08:54 AMAlways have been, always will be.
Now, if the Republicans REALLY wanted to win in Washington state, they would dump the social conservatives and run fiscally conservative and socially tolerant... i.e. as libertarians...
Nah, never happen.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 7, 2007 08:59 AMChris Vance was righton, but the female D didn't come off well. She was not going to give up any points or make any type of statements that wasn't all in Ds favor. Chris told it like it was (but that could have been because the no new tax group was winning).
I wonder if the Prop 1 supporters will bring in real fiscal conservatives or will continue to think Carlson is a true representative of fiscal conservatism?
Posted by: swatter on November 7, 2007 09:05 AMThey very well knew what the voters wanted, and simply used the 2-stage process as a means to piddle on that desire and to keep the King County vote-counting machine in place for the 2008 elections.
Shame on them double for dog-in-the-manger tactics, and may they all lose their incumbencies.
That's how we WON!.
By the way, where is all the libs this morning... Hey Duffman.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 7, 2007 09:27 AMThankfully the Libertarian (big L) Party will never see 2% of the vote. Fiscal conservatism is great, but the baggage that comes with it is unacceptable. I'll never forget Michael Medved's discourse with a Libertarian Party official after the 2004 L convention. This official confirmed L Party planks included open national borders, gun ownership for all (including convicted felons), homosexual marriage and no restraints on abortion. Doesn't sound much like sanity to me.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 7, 2007 09:28 AMLibertarians do not advocate open borders. It is totally libertarian to want to exclude all terrorists, all those convicted of violent crimes in their home countries, all those bringing in large stocks of weapons, etc. and all those with highly infectious diseases. It is NOT libertarian to want to exclude peaceful people who only want to come here to work. Libertarians also advocate ending all welfare and social security payments to illegal immigrants. Most economists will tell you that peaceful people who only want to come here to work help the economy, on balance. They make us better off, as well as themselves. I prefer the hard-working immigrant to the welfare-dependant poor we now have in our inner cities, don't you? How can we arrange a trade? :)
Libertarians have no problem restricting convicted felons from owning guns, though we are strong supporters of the second amendment. That is a conservative position.
We favor total deregulation of marriage. Marriage is a function of the church, not the state. If some churches want to define their version of marriage as between one man and one woman, that is their right according to freedom of association. Government has no right to force any definition of marriage on churches and individuals. The Federal government has no authority to regulate marriage at all, any more than it has the authority to regulate in any other area of religion. See the First and Tenth Amendments. This is a conservative position. People who want them should get civil unions, and then get their churches to sanctify their unions as marriages if they want to.
Now, some churches WILL chose to marry gays and lesbians. That is also THEIR right, and if you believe in the principle of Liberty advocated by the founding fathers, you must tolerate their peaceful activity. Do you believe in the founders' principle of liberty, that you have a right to do whatever you like as long as you are not violating the rights of others? This is the essence of freedom, and it requires tolerance of the peaceful activities of others. Two lesbians marrying each other in a Unitarian church violates NO right of yours or mine. The alternative is to advocate big government power that will come back one day and restrict YOU from doing what YOU want to do with your peaceful life. It is a really bad precedent to set, my friend! :)
Libertarians would leave abortion to the states because regulating abortion is not authorized by the federal Constitution. If we leave this to "states rights" (a conservative principle) then most states will restrict abortion MORE than we have now. Some states like SD and UT will probably outlaw it altogether. There ARE pro-life Libertarians. This issue divides Libertarians. Thoughtful, principled Libertarians come down on both side of this issue. I advocate for abortion to be legal only in the first three or four months of pregnancy, or after that in the case of a significant threat to the life of the mother. Lots of other states would adopt this position, if we do as Ron Paul suggests and get rid of Roe vs. Wade. His position on this issue is conservative.
Medved's attacks on the LP are usualy without merit in this the greatest country on God's green earth.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 7, 2007 10:55 AMMedved does indeed find disfavor with Libertarians, but in this case he didn't need to "attack" his guest, as the Libertarian Party official made Medved's case for him.
As for Libertarian Party platforms and your defense of them, public campaign records speak for themselves. Voters also speak, with very few casting their lot with Libertarian candidates. Perhaps some day you will realize that "anything goes" laws and social
stances have been, and will continue to be, harmful to America and her people.
TANSTAAFL--this was the name I used on the back of my dorm floor shirt in college. People on the floor called me "Mr. TANSTAAFL"...:o)
Posted by: Bill H on November 7, 2007 03:08 PMStuff like "anything goes laws" and "moonbat beliefs" are just name-calling. I have no response to them, and I will not stoop to the level of insulting you right back. I don't make ad hominem arguments.
Say something rational, or just hang it up, OK? You are better people than that. Many liberals are name-callers, but not you guys.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 7, 2007 04:34 PMDebating you reminds me of an interview in which Walter Martin, the "Bible Answer Man", debated a Mormon elder. From the Mormon's answers, it appeared he believed as mainstream, Biblical Christians do. But Dr. Martin knew better, as he had read and understood the foundational documents of the Mormon church.
You can state your opinions of Libertarian beliefs all you want, but the party's platform appears significantly different than what you state. Few people buy into the Libertarian rhetoric, mostly because their views on marriage, abortion, drugs, immigration and a multitude of other issues are patently absurd. So continue to relish in your 1% of the vote and leave the real political battles to true conservatives.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 7, 2007 06:40 PMThe real question is whether, after having practiced on Dino Rossi, the King County board of Corruption, oops, Elections, can manage to pull another 24,208 NO votes out of their hat.
Posted by: Gary Preble on November 7, 2007 07:27 PMMedical Marijuana IS popular as measured by the polls. And are you defending the drug war? How successful has it been? Do you realize that the drug war is the major cause of the gang violence in our cities? It is causing public opinion to turn against the second amendment. You may soon be faced with a choice: your drug war or your right to keep and bear arms. The choice is easy for me...
The drug war is just as successful as prohibition was in the 20's. It is just stupid.
I think it is drug-warriers who have the absurd views. The drug war causes corruption of our police, violence in our cities, and increases overdoses due to inconsistent drug purity, and it does NOT reduce addiction or even drug use. It is worse than pointless. It hurts people. About a third of the inmates in our prisons and jails are there for non-violent drug convictions. This represents a huge drain on the productive workers of society. And then there is the pointless persecution of medical marijuana users, who only want to reduce their pain... Go ahead, defend your Republican war on drugs. Why does it make any sense at all? I think it is utopian.
(By the way, I don't use recreational drugs, and it has been about 20 years since I experimented with marijuana; only a few times in college... I am NOT a hippy...)
Bill, we libertarians are more fiscally conservative than most Republicans. We defend the second ammendment, privatizing social security, keeping health care free and private, and favor private schools and homeschooling. We are pro-entrepreneurship and pro-free trade. Does that sound lefty to you?
Republicans gave us the medicare drug benefit, the no child left behind act, and failed to reform social security on their watch. They have even out-spent the Democrats! I think Republicans have become confused lefties! After all, they have adopted Wilsonian foreign policy! Wilson was a Democrat. Exporting Democracy and nation building are liberal, utopian, nanny-state projects.
I think of it this way, we libertarians are consistent defenders of individual rights. But righties and lefties are logically inconsistent. Why do you defend property rights, but not free speech or marriage rights? The lefties suffer from the complementary problem.
Some Libertarians ARE anarcho-capitalists, but most are not. Most of us, like me, are minarchists. There are some wacky Republicans, but you know it us unfair for me to tar you with that brush. Neither do I deserve to be tarred with the brush you offer.
So lets talk about individual issues, my friends. Just WHY do you have the right to prevent two gay guys from calling their peaceful union a "marriage?" How, exactly, does it hurt you or your marriage? (No, I am not gay.) Doesn't it help things by reducing promiscuity? Don't you want that?
And I told you that abortion was an issue that divided Libertarians. I tend to be for choice, but only in the first four or five months of pregnancy. There are pro-life libertarians, and pro-choice libertarians, so you can't use this issue to characterize us. You know we will never agree on this issue, so why even discuss it? Isn't Giuliani pro-choice?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 7, 2007 09:11 PMA couple more comments and I'll close the book.
I oppose legalization of dangerous drugs because they are harmful to people. And no, I did not read this in a book, I experienced it. Drugs nearly took my life and DID take the lives of many of my best friends. I need more fingers than I have on both hands to count the close friends who have died violent (car crashes, suicide, overdosage, etc.) deaths due to drug usage. I grieve for their families and for the others, who did not die, who remain physically and/or psychologically addicted. I have watched the divorce, homelessness, financial ruin and health degradation that follows in the wake of drug usage. You will never convince me or the majority of Americans that controlled substances should be legalized.
Similarly you will never convince me that homosexuality marriage should be sanctioned by the government, as that immoral lifestyle is also physically and psychologically harmful to the individual and to families. I have watched as friends and family have given into unnatural lusts, chosen this lifestyle and suffered greatly. Several have died grievously.
Bruce, as much as you seem a decent fellow, I can't buy into government sancion of any act or lifestyle that is harmful to people. No, it is not the government's duty to protect us from ourselves, but it should not sanction (and in effect promote) those behaviors that are knowingly harmful.
I am glad you never struggled with, and/or suffered from, bad choices you made. I implore you to consider those who have. All you need to do is open your eyes and look at the wreckage. And hopefully grieve with me......
Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2007 07:22 AMAll I am saying is that making drugs illegal is NOT EFFECTIVE at preventing the entire list of negative outcomes you mention above, and that in addition to being ineffective, the drug war introduces additional HARMS to society. I mentioned these above. It is just not worth it and it makes the problem worse!
I am on your side in wanting to reduce drug use and addiction. I am trying to tell you that prohibition won't get either of us closer to our goal! :)
Oh, and I had no struggles or sufferings from the "bad" choices I made. I tried marijuana about 20 years ago in college, did not become addicted, and suffered absolutely no ill effects. I am glad I had the experience, and from that point onward have had no further desire to use such drugs again. It was like getting drunk. No big deal.
But I really want to talk about your idea that something being legal implies sanction by the government or by society. Contained in this statement is the liberal notion that government should be in the business of saving us from ourselves, and that government should be in the business of PERMITTING peaceful activity.
This country was based on the notion that government is LIMITED to defending our rights. We have the RIGHT to do anything that does not violate the rights of others. It would be a total dystopia to have a government that tried to tell you what the permitted activities were, and all other ativities were prohibited. Instead, government prohibits only that limited range of human activities that harm the rights of others. Rape, theft, murder, etc. Thus liberty is preserved.
And this brings me to homosexuality. You and I have NO right to tell peaceful gay dudes what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or whom they go to bars or hold hands with, any more than our neighbors have the right to tell us what we can and can't do with our consenting wives. If you start barging in to THEIR bedrooms, then you have set the very bad precedent that they can get in to OUR bedrooms!!! Bad idea, my friend.
Better to get government out of the business of sanctioning marriage, and leave marriage where it has always traditionally been: the province of the churches. Let all who want them seek civil unions from the government if they want to protect their children or their property during a divorce. Government has no business regulating marriage at all.
Just because something is legal does not mean the government sanctions it. Smoking is still legal in your house. Writing a letter to the editior complaining about taxes is still legal (for now.) There are thousands of things that are legal, but the government does not sanction.
Society is not the government, and government is only a small part of society. If we want to discourage an activity, there are usually more effective ways than prohibition to achieve this.
If you want your liberty, you must defend it for others, or you will lose it yourself. I defend peaceful drug users, gays, smokers, and religious practisioners even though I chose never to exercise these rights. If you want your rights defended, I suggest you do as well.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 8, 2007 04:46 PM