February 10, 2014
No D votes for 2/3 rule, but issue popular in districts

In a vote you're sure to be reminded of often when legislative campaigns heat up this fall, not a single member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted last week in favor of an amendment to enshrine the 2/3 rule for tax increases in the state constitution.

The measure actually passed on a 25-21 vote, but that is well short of the 2/3 needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Under the state constitution, amendments must originate in the Legislature and then head to the ballot for voters' approval. Breakaway Democrats Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon, who joined with Republicans to form the Majority Coalition Caucus, did vote for the measure, but they are not members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

The issue remains popular with voters around the state, passing with 64% the last time it was on the ballot in 2012 as Initiative 1185. In fact, that initiative passed in 44 of the 49 legislative districts around the state. Only in five Seattle districts did 1185 fall under 50% (the 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, and 46th districts, specifically).

Since 1993, voters have approved a 2/3 rule on the ballot five times. Democrats consistently repealed the voter-approved rule (and voters consistently reinstated it) until the state Supreme Court finally took up the case and ruled the 2/3 rule unconstitutional. The proposed amendment would rectify that ruling and allow the 2/3 rule.

Last week's vote puts some area Democrats on the record opposing a policy that is overwhelmingly popular in their districts. In the Federal Way-based 30th District, Sen. Tracey Eide voted against the amendment (amidst the quadrennial speculation that she won't run again), but 67.7% of voters in the 30th voted for I-1185 just 15 months ago. Though not on the ballot this year, Issaquah's Mark Mullet spurned a policy that 68.4% of his voters endorsed. In Snohomish County, moderate Democrat Steve Hobbs skipped the vote, but his 68.6% of his constituents want a 2/3 rule.

Here is the full list of Democratic senators (note: Hobbs and Frockt missed the vote last week) and the percentage of their district that voted for Initiative 1185 in 2012:

District Senator % Yes on I-1185
1 Rosemary McAuliffe 63.68%
3 Andy Billig 65.86%
5 Mark Mullet 68.43%
11 Bob Hasegawa 61.98%
19 Brian Hatfield 70.32%
21 Marko Liias 62.87%
22 Karen Fraser 54.14%
23 Christine Rolfes 60.22%
24 Jim Hargrove 65.93%
27 Jeannie Darneille 59.85%
29 Steve Conway 67.86%
30 Tracey Eide 67.70%
32 Maralyn Chase 55.37%
33 Karen Keiser 64.23%
34 Sharon Nelson 48.87%
36 Jeanne Kohl-Welles 38.97%
37 Adam Kline 40.67%
38 John McCoy 66.94%
40 Kevin Ranker 55.21%
43 Jamie Pedersen 31.71%
44 Steve Hobbs 68.62%
46 David Frockt 42.71%
49 Annette Cleveland 66.84%
Posted by Adam Faber at February 10, 2014 01:11 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "The issue remains popular with voters around the state, passing with 64% ..."

In other words, short of the 2/3 requirement*. The problem here, then, is either the Democrats are agreeing with the voting populace, saying our Constitution should not be changed in this way, or the Republicans decided a policy should be implemented without sufficient cause.

Given the only reason this came to a vote at all is the negation of the voters' will by the Rodney Tom Occupation, it will be interesting to see how many of those Republicans find themselves criticized for voting for a policy their constituencies do not support.

(* Yes, the admentment needs only a simple majority of the voters, if the legislature has passed it by a 2/3 vote. I'm noting here the irony of Adam criticizing the legislature for not passing by a 2/3 vote a provision that 2/3 of their constituents do not support.)

Posted by: tensor on February 10, 2014 03:52 PM
2. Sounds like you have the same definition of irony as Alanis Morissette.

Posted by: Uhh... on February 10, 2014 03:55 PM
3. "... not a single member of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted last week in favor of an amendment to enshrine the 2/3 rule for tax increases in the state constitution."

Perhaps the Democrats have a core belief, which says that a simple majority should make such decisions. If that's the case, Adam is here criticizing them for upholding their core beliefs. (We can understand Adam's incomprehension on this point -- it's entirely possible he's gone his entire career without meeting a politician who has a core belief.)

Adam seems confused about the definition of "pass":

"The measure actually passed on a 25-21 vote, but that is well short of the 2/3 needed to pass a constitutional amendment."

No, it failed on a 25-21 vote, because it received a simple majority when it needed a 2/3 majority. (It's pretty funny that Adam would show such confusion on exactly the matter of a 2/3 vote, but hey...)

Adam also seems confused about what "rectify" means:

"... the state Supreme Court finally took up the case and ruled the 2/3 rule unconstitutional. The proposed amendment would rectify that ruling and allow the 2/3 rule."

The ruling is entirely correct, by the standard set in our Constitution, so, by definition, there's no way to "rectify" it. A proposed Amendment would change the Constitution, to invalidate the ruling. (Some of us call this, "changing the rules to win the game.")

Posted by: tensor on February 10, 2014 04:55 PM
4. Adam, do you think it should take a 2/3 vote to start a war? To reduce government benefits that help people? If not, why should a majority of the people's representatives be able to enact some laws and not others?

Posted by: Bruce on February 10, 2014 05:09 PM
5. The concept of requiring a supermajority for ANYTHING aside from the the government process itself -- vetoes, constitutional amendments, impeachment, rules of procedure, etc. -- is ridiculous. If a simple majority could change rules and strip rights from a minority, a supermajority requirement can and should limit that power.

If you open it up on an issue-by-issue basis, what would keep another amendment from requiring a supermajority to, say, reduce environmental standards? Reduce funding to social services? Defund Obamacare?

Posted by: demo kid on February 10, 2014 05:19 PM
6. @3: No, it failed on a 25-21 vote, because it received a simple majority when it needed a 2/3 majority. (It's pretty funny that Adam would show such confusion on exactly the matter of a 2/3 vote, but hey...)

It is funny. I used to feel bad about calling him a hack, but he's certainly earned the label with some inane posts.

Posted by: demo kid on February 10, 2014 05:22 PM
7. We can't hold Senators actually ACCOUNTABLE for their votes.

If we did that would mean we would have to vote AGAINST the Tea Party Senators for their Pro Gay Marrage/Anti Religious liberty vote.

That vote has destroyed Businesss and have put Christians at risk of jail time.

But, no, let's not hold these people responsible for how they actually voted.

Posted by: The Truth on February 10, 2014 05:30 PM
8. "But, no, let's not hold these people responsible for how they actually voted."

Hey, if you want to organize against them, please go right ahead. You have the right to do that. I suggest you start leading by example. Specifically:

"That vote has destroyed Businesss and have put Christians at risk of jail time."

Show us some responsibility. Back up those claims with evidence.

Posted by: tensor on February 10, 2014 07:17 PM
9. It needed 32 votes for 2/3. If the Democrats who represent districts where I-1185 passed with >2/3 had voted in the affirmative (representing their constituents) the Ayes could have been 32. That's irony.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 05:38 AM
10. You'll always have your dreams, Southern. Hold onto them...

Posted by: scottd on February 11, 2014 07:00 AM
11. Indeed, scottd, why don't the Democrats vote for something they've consistently opposed? Especially when so voting would have gone contrary to the actual preferences of real voters on I-1185? It is a mystery! (Well, at least Adam and Roots are utterly baffled by it...)

Posted by: tensor on February 11, 2014 07:35 AM
12. Indeed, scottd, why don't the Democrats vote for something they've consistently opposed? Especially when so voting would have gone contrary to the actual preferences of real voters on I-1185?

Not baffled. Totally expected that elected Democrat representatives are not there to represent the voters of their district, but to represent themselves and their parties demands.

Democrat representatives are not there to represent the voter, they are there to "do what is right" for the voter, even if it is contrary to what the voter wants, because the elected Democrat knows what's best?

It is also obvious that Democrat representatives hate any speedbumps on the raising of taxes and that letting the voters have a say in how their taxes are raised is prohibited by party guidelines.

"actual preferences of real voters"? Was there a subset of the 64% of statewide voters that approved I-1185 that donn't count due to not being "real" voters?

I thought you guys were big on "I-1185 isn't constitutional, if the voters want it, they should pass an amendment". Now you're all against it, I wonder why.

2010 - 64% of the state's voters approved 2/3. 50% + 1 of Democrat majority legislature repealed it.

2012 - 64% of the state's voter approved 2/3. 12 elected Democrat representatives sued to overturn the vote.

2014 - 100% of elected Democrat representatives vote against letting their contituents vote on 2/3 amendment.

Nothing baffling here. Same as it always has been.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 12:36 PM
13. A Constitutional Amendment requires two-thirds of each House to pass. In several recent elections, an issue which requires a constitutional amendment has repeatedly failed to get two-thirds of the voters to approve. Why should two-thirds of our legislators do what two-thirds of us have repeatedly refused to do?

Posted by: tensor on February 11, 2014 01:44 PM
14. In several recent elections, an issue which requires a constitutional amendment has repeatedly failed to get two-thirds of the voters to approve. Why should two-thirds of our legislators do what two-thirds of us have repeatedly refused to do?

Moving the goalposts? Typical.

It only takes 50%+1 for the voters to approve a Constitutional amendment, why should they be ignored otherwise?

5 times in 20 years, the voters have shown a preference for 2/3. Democrats could care less.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 02:06 PM
15. .
@14SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 02:06 PM,
"5 times in 20 years, the voters have shown a preference for 2/3."

And 10 times in 20 years the voters have chosen to elect a legislative body that won't legislate a 2/3rds rule.

Occam's Razor tells us you misunderstood the voter's preference.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 02:39 PM
16. Moving the goalposts? Typical.

Once again, how is it a representative democracy for the representatives to do what their own voters, very consistently, have chosen not to do?

It only takes 50%+1 for the voters to approve a Constitutional amendment, why should they be ignored otherwise?

Because you're wrong. It would take only a simple majority of voters IF each House had passed it, and -- please pay extraordinarily close attention here, Adam -- by "passed," we mean by a 2/3 vote. (As you may have noticed, that conditional clause remains false.) Voters in this state cannot amend our constitution all by ourselves, which is why those previous five votes have been ignored.

Posted by: tensor on February 11, 2014 03:14 PM
17. tensor,

You are wrong. Citizens do not have to have more than one vote over 50% to tell their representatives what they want. That the representatives consistently ignore the will of the voters is the crux of your position.

Even if the five 2/3 votes had been 67% or better, more than likely, the elected Democrat representatives would have ignored that as well, once again showing their true tax and spend colors.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 04:23 PM
18. .
@17 SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 04:23 PM,

Who elected those Democrats (and Republicans) in the legislature 10 times?

And what do 10 successive elections of a legislative body that won't legislate a 2/3rds rule tell about the voter's "true tax and spend color?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 04:28 PM
19. "Citizens do not have to have more than one vote over 50% to tell their representatives what they want."

Voters don't even need that. We have district meetings, e-mail, the post office, and telephones available to us for that purpose.

"That the representatives consistently ignore the will of the voters is the crux of your position."

Time after time after time, less than 2/3 of the voters supported amending our state's constitution for this purpose. Now, less than 2/3 of our state's senators just voted the exact same way. How does their behaving exactly as we voters always have behaved support your claim they "ignore[d] the will of the voters"? It sounds like they represented us pretty well indeed!

Posted by: tensor on February 11, 2014 05:17 PM
20. .
Let me spell it out for Southern Roots and Adam Faber (HACK!).

You'll see a proposed WA Constitutional amendment for a 2/3 rule for tax increases sent to the voters agreed to by "two-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses" when pigs fly, which is when the WA GOP will obtain a 2/3rds majority in each each of the two legislative bodies.

In the mean time, I encourage Adam Faber (HACK!) and the (un)SP peanut gallery to give until it hurts to each and every Tim Eyman initiative campaign and for the WA GOP to spend a lot of money reminding voters that their legislature is not close to agreeing with the GOP proposal to drastically alter the state constitution.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 05:17 PM
21. There are a number of Democrats that don't care about representing the people they serve as indicated by the table above. Those politicians who don't care about serving those they represent here should really be voted out of office in November- if those who voted were intelligent enough to figure that out, but too many are not.

(This also would apply to Republicans who voted against their constituents for this issue, but I'd bet that there are fewer of them than Democrats than thumbed their nose at their constituents on this issue.)

Posted by: KDS on February 11, 2014 05:51 PM
22. @21 KDS on February 11, 2014 05:51 PM,

So the voters that "have approved a 2/3 rule on the ballot five times." are not intelligent?

That's almost as good a message as 47% of the voters are takers. Go with it!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 05:55 PM
23. In this case, Mike BS's nemesis is Tim Eyman. Eyman's initiatives are OK about 60% of the time. This time, his initiative should be good to reduce taxation burden and slow the growth of bloated government in this seasick blue state. Even a fair number of Democrats will vote for this, but the radical leftists in favor of centralized government won't.

Too bad they don't like freedom, but big centralized government and freedom don't mix.

Posted by: KDS on February 11, 2014 05:58 PM
24. @23 KDS on February 11, 2014 05:58 PM,

There you go! The voters are "intelligent enough" and the voters "don't like freedom".

Be sure to do your part to ensure the GOP does its part and voters are "reminded of [this] often when legislative campaigns heat up this fall"!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 06:05 PM
25. .
I know Adam Faber (HACK!) never delves into the comment threads, and Rob McKenna ain't going to come to this backwater, but seriously ....

McKenna's premise is that "Since 1993, voters have affirmed their support for the 2/3 rule five separate times in statewide votes." and his conclusion is that the voters want the Democratic dominated state legislature to agree to drastically alter the Washington State Constitution.

I don't, for a second, believe that is the message voters have been sending to legislators for 20 years.

Isn't it just as simple as this?
The message voters, who have been giving Democrats the majority in the WA legislature for more than 20 years, want the (nearly permanent legislative minority party) GOP to work with the Democratic majority in ways the GOP has refused to do for 20 years?

Or maybe the voters are not "intelligent enough" and "don't like freedom"?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 06:19 PM
26. MikeBoyScout is just a schoolyard bully and not worthy of engaging in discussion.

I'm sure he's initiated a pogrom to find the defectors that allowed the 2/3 votes to pass five times.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 06:30 PM
27. @26 SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 06:30 PM,

You need to keep up. I'm a "STALKER", not a "schoolyard bully" according to the (un)SP peanut gallery.

Yes, I've used my platform here on this backwater of the blogosphere to 'initiate a pogrom'.

Alternatively, you're one of those unintelligent voters KDS refers to because you can't wrap your intellect around some very simple questions:


1) Who elected those Democrats (and Republicans) in the legislature 10 times?

2) And what do 10 successive elections of a legislative body that won't legislate a 2/3rds rule tell about the voter's "true tax and spend colors"?

I won't wait for an answer. Like a stopped clock, even KDS can be correct some of the time.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 06:49 PM
28. .
@KDS,SouthernRoots, Adam Faber (HACK!) & the (un)SP peanut gallery,

Let me break it down for you.

- "Since 1993, voters have approved a 2/3 rule on the ballot five times."
- Since well before 1993, Washington state voters have elected legislative bodies in more than 10 elections that have significantly less than a 2/3 GOP majority in either house.
- "Democrats consistently repealed the voter-approved rule"
- Washington state voters have consistently elected Democratic legislators.

What message are Washington state voters consistently sending to which party about how to legislate tax and spend issues?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 07:03 PM
29. What message are Washington state voters consistently sending to which party about how to legislate tax and spend issues?

@29 - Mike BS, So, you are saying that those who vote for Democrats are lazy and ignorant and get the government they deserve ? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: KDS on February 11, 2014 08:17 PM
30. .
@29 KDS on February 11, 2014 08:17 PM,

Nope. If it is unclear, let me state it categorically. The voters are not lazy and ignorant.

As far as I can tell, you are the only one (thus far) on this thread who believes that the voters of WA are lazy and ignorant, and you believe it "wholeheartedly".

Oh, I get that you only believe that about the majority of WA voters who "vote for Democrats".

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 08:23 PM
31. OT - ATTN Jim Miller

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/02/rick-perry-lures-washington-state-residents-to-texas-with-thriving-death-penalty.html


"At a hastily called press conference this afternoon, the Texas Governor made an emotional appeal to Washingtonians who might be disappointed by the sudden suspension of executions in their state: "Come to Texas. The death penalty is alive and well here.""

Vote with your feet Jim!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 11, 2014 08:59 PM
32. kds - isn't interesting that, though the progressives complain of GOP obstructionism, they also castigate and try to sweep under the rug one of the truly bipartisan topics - 2/3 to raise taxes.

Voters may continuously vote in the same party, but they also exhibit some independence (which the progressives hate) when they do things like sign petitions and vote for initiatives for 2/3 on tax increases.

It's not the voters that are getting the message, it's the politicians they thought were going to represent them.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 11, 2014 09:17 PM
33. @32: kds - isn't interesting that, though the progressives complain of GOP obstructionism, they also castigate and try to sweep under the rug one of the truly bipartisan topics - 2/3 to raise taxes.

How is this obstructionism? If voters consider this to be sufficient cause to remove their representatives in the next election, they will. Otherwise, I don't see the problem here. If you don't have sufficient votes in the legislature, it doesn't pass, and it shouldn't.

We do not live in a direct democracy, nor should we. We elect representatives to take care of business in the legislature as the whole, and not to poll constituents about every issue.

Voters may continuously vote in the same party, but they also exhibit some independence (which the progressives hate) when they do things like sign petitions and vote for initiatives for 2/3 on tax increases.

Why would progressives hate "some independence" any more than anyone else? I would challenge the assumption that majority support in a district for an initiative leads to automatic support from a representative.

It's not the voters that are getting the message, it's the politicians they thought were going to represent them.

It is completely absurd that a supermajority would be required for tax increases, and the Democrats were right to vote it down. It is not related to the way that government manages itself, and simply smacks of Republicans asserting a temporary "majority" to get special consideration for when they are demoted back to a minority.

I have yet to see anyone in the (u)SP peanut gallery assert otherwise -- it is simply a partisan issue that has no valid reason to be treated differently in the legislative process. If you want the legislature to do something (or not do something), get the (majority) votes for it.

Posted by: demo kid on February 12, 2014 04:43 AM
34. OK, let's be honest here. The general public will, when voting on a single issue, generally vote for more government programs, lower taxes, a higher minimum wage, etc. In a representative democracy, we hope our representatives will weigh our competing desires and needs using their values and judgment. If we don't like how they do that, we elect different representatives.

It is silly for Adam or anyone else to expect representatives to vote against their core beliefs. It is cynical to expect them to vote to change the rules so that, in the future, the majority will not be able to pass laws. And it's transparently hypocritical to expect them to prevent majority rule for one specific type of law -- increased taxes -- while allowing majority rule to reduce taxes, reduce government services, start wars, or anything else.

I suspect Adam and other thinking Republicans understand this. They are just using any excuse they can find to take potshots because they have no intelligent policy prescriptions of their own. And they are deluding themselves that, any day now, their strategy will start working with WA voters.

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 10:56 AM
35. Bruce, the purpose of requiring a 2/3 vote to raise taxes is to protect those precious, precious loopholes, which Adam, Roots, and the Senate Republicans value even above educational funding.

Why did the Senate hold a vote they knew would fail, wasting their time and our money? I suspect for the reason Adam and Roots have here demonstrated, so a writer like Adam can hack yet another public record into something more to his liking.

Of course, this vote would not have happened if the Senate had the majority of Democrats we voters had elected there in 2012. Every approving reference to the "Majority Coalition" is a stinging slap across the faces of voters who chose otherwise, and an endorsement of backroom wheeling, dealing, buying, and bullying over open and transparent democracy. We all understand that Adam, Roots, and KDS care nothing for democracy if the vote doesn't go their way, and their claims to care otherwise are just risible hypocrisy.

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 01:32 PM
36. Then comes before us rocket scientist Jim Miller, who brilliantly reasons, "Ryan then served 7 months in prison ... So it is only natural to wonder whether Washington Governor Jay Inslee might also have some motives for today's decision (suspending the death penalty) that he would rather not tell us about."

Osama Bin Laden disliked Barack Obama. Jim Miller also dislikes Barack Obama. So it is only natural to wonder whether Jim Miller might also be planning a massive terrorist attack against the USA.

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 03:01 PM
37. @36: Then comes before us rocket scientist Jim Miller, who brilliantly reasons...

The stupid! It burns!

As much as I might slam Adam for being a hack, at least he isn't a complete dullard like Jim.

Posted by: demo kid on February 12, 2014 04:10 PM
38. @36 Bruce on February 12, 2014 03:01 PM,

Do you think Jim is aware?

"Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to." - In 2000, WSJ pundit and sometimes paid Republican operative Peggy Noonan introduced a potentially explosive, unverifiable rumor that Bill Clinton was being blackmailed by Fidel Castro into the mainstream media, using the phrase "Is it irresponsible to speculate?... It would be irresponsible not to." The blatant dishonesty of this ratfucking attempt immediately turned it into an Internet meme signifying a personal attack, usually wildly untrue, launched under a cloak of sanctimony: "Does Candidate Trollypants bite the heads off live, underaged, rabid bats? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!" See also, Keep on walking and Nooners.

Also too, Hitler was a man ... Inslee is a man ... so it is only natural to wonder if Inslee is Hitler.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 12, 2014 04:25 PM
39. You guys should take it easy on Jim. His smug cluelessness is one of best things about this site.

Once in a while, even Jim shows some inadvertent wisdom, such as when he wrote this on the next post:

Murray is planning to run for re-election to the Senate, which is unfortunate.

This shows exceptional insight into the thoughts of probably every WSGOP leader (and probably quite a few on the national level, too). I wonder who they will offer up as a sacrificial lamb to run against her this time? How about the Hugely Popular John Koster?

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 05:00 PM
40. Next I expect Jim will write an open letter to Inslee asking him what crimes he is trying to distract us from, and close comments for a week while he waits for the answer. Oh wait -- he already closed comments.

Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2014 05:08 PM
41. Jim continues his long and worthless career in peddling stupid attempts at innuendo. While he's always good for a laugh, it's with posts like his latest pair which really suffer from his closure of comments. Watching him flail around, as he got his butt handed to him in the comments, really piled on the lulz. He would sometimes close comments before we could force him to walk back every last assertion he'd made in the original post.

As for Sen. Murray, I'm looking forward to another round here of predictions about her imminent political demise, followed by their flabbergasted cries of, "how does this woman whom we constantly deride as stupid keep beating all of us self-described political geniuses?!?" I hope this blog hangs on until at least then.

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 05:28 PM
42. Bruce @40: After that, Jim can post

...while papers in Illinois eventually reported on Ryan's crimes, our local monopoly newspaper has so far failed to report any crimes that Inslee may have committed*.

*- Out of state readers may not understand so I will explain that the Seattle Times frequently neglects to report on the possibility of Gov. Jay Inslee being sent to prison.

Posted by: scottd on February 12, 2014 06:04 PM
43. Jim would also assume readers of a Washington state political blog "might not be familiar with" Washington state's governor, and so he'd helpfully link to a 1996 article, dismissive of Inslee's chances of becoming governor.

Posted by: tensor on February 12, 2014 06:41 PM
44. The Tea Party Republicans (called that because they were elected in Washington State in 2010 not because they have behaved in any way that they had promised to behave) were the deciding vote FOR gay marriage in Washington state which has hard religious freedoms in our state. Businesses have been destroyed and people threatened with jail time because of what these politicians did.

So, yeah, I am hoping that voting records are brought up.

Frankly the people who I talk to who admit to being Tea Party, they are planing to stay home this election. They believe heck, I voted Republican last time only to get gay Marrage, I am afraid what they will give me if I re-elect them.

Sorry, "NEGATIVE VOTING" is passe. Holding ones nose just doesn't cut it anymore. People want to vote FOR something, not just vote against someone who happens to be a D. We are going to stay at home even if that means Republicans lose seats in the Senate this year.

The only chance that this will change is if the incumbents lose the primary. If that happens, that would so energize the conservative base that the Left wouldn't have a chance of keeping the Senate (I am talking about state Senate although the same is true nationally).

Do I see that happening? No, the lobbyists pour too much money into incumbants for that to happen. In fact they are really the ones who run the show in Olympia. The politicans just like being the figureheads. Its all about the title to them, at least on the Republican side.

Posted by: Truth on February 13, 2014 04:43 PM
45. The Tea Party Republicans (called that because they were elected in Washington State in 2010 not because they have behaved in any way that they had promised to behave) were the deciding vote FOR gay marriage in Washington state which has harmed religious freedoms in our state. Businesses have been destroyed and people threatened with jail time because of what these politicians did.

So, yeah, bring on a discussion of voting records. Quite frankly I think the LAST thing Republicans are going to be talking about this year is voting records!

Posted by: Truth on February 13, 2014 04:47 PM
46. "Businesses have been destroyed and people threatened with jail time because of what these politicians did."

Your list of destroyed businesses isn't getting any longer, but at least even you have begun to understand what a farcical swindle the Teabagger "movement" was.

Posted by: tensor on February 15, 2014 11:45 AM