Press "Enter" to skip to content

Contest to none

April 9, 2006

Maybe this is one of those occasions when it might have been as well if the competition hadn't gone away.

The case in point is the congressional contest in Idaho's 2nd district, where two Democrats - Craig Cooper and Jim Hansen - filed to run against Republican incumbent Mike Simpson, who is unopposed in his own primary.

This has been a friendly race, like the contest among the Democrats in Oregon's 2nd. The two candidates have gotten along well, have traveled to events together and haven't torn each other down. There's a distinct plus to this as well: Because there's a contest, there's something for voters and prospective voters to pay attention to. There are debates and televised appearances, giving them more visibility than would have been the case without a contest.

The contest is going away. Craig Cooper, a Idaho National Laboratory scientist who opted in early, said this weekend he was dropping out in favor of Hansen. (See the details on The Political Game blog.)

From his standpoint, you can understand it. The viewpoints of the two appear to be generally aligned, and Hansen, a former state legislator whose life work for more than a decade has been in organizing social causes, is better known and positioned. And probably would have won the contest. (Cooper's website, by the way, does not yet note the withdrawal.)

He did Hansen a considerable service, though, staying in as long as he did. A run for Congress these days by a Democrat in Idaho's 2nd is awfully tough, but this kind of contest probably lightened the load a bit.

Toward a Republican majority, in court

April 8, 2006

Washington's state executive branch offices aren't up this year, and Democrats seem likely to retain control of the state legislature. But Republicans are taking serious aim at the third branch: The top of the state judiciary.

Those seats are legally nonpartisan, of course. And one appointed or elected, judges and justices tend to wander in unpredictable ways; something about the atmosphere of a judicial chamber may have an effect on thought processes.

Regardless, Republicans clearly are aiming for what would be in effect - at least the intent - of a close split or a slight majority in practical terms on the Washington Supreme Court. They might not get it, but the effort clearly is there. It would be a move from generally nonpartisan at present to a distinct shift to the right. After the decisions on the governor's race and other matters, bearing in mind the heat likely soon to erupt over the Defense of Marriage Act, and general in-party agitation against the courts, you can see where the impulse would come from.

Taking this from the top . . . (more…)

A testimonial of character, with annotation

April 7, 2006

Herewith (thanks again to the Betsy Russell Boise blog), a commentary by the Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, Bruce Newcomb, whose ascension to that position eight years ago and retention since has owed much to his his easy-going personality and broad friendships; providing testimonial upon the character of his fellow Republican state representative, Bill Sali, currently the front-runner for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House in District 1:

"That idiot is just an absolute idiot…He doesn’t have one ounce of empathy in his whole frickin’ body, and you can put that in the paper.”

Annotation:

No, that certainly didn't just materialize out of nowhere.

Yes, the irony is that it constitutes catnip for the Sali campaign.

Useful additional reading may be found in today's Dan Popkey column in the Idaho Statesman.

It was supposed to be a short one

April 7, 2006

Nope, there really wasn't an excuse for this session of the Idaho Legislture going on this long. It was supposed to have been either a short one, or one of moderate length. Instead, presently at 89 days in length, it has become the third longest session in state history.

Idaho StatehouseIf it lasts until next Thursday, and at the rate they're going it might, it will tie for second-longest in state history.

The longer ones? Well, the longest-ever was in 2003, when lawmakers and Governor Dirk Kempthorne engaged in a standoff over a proposed tax increase. (Kempthorne won.) The length for that one was at least understandable.

And much more so the second-place session, the record-holder until then. That was the first legislative session in Idaho state history, at which the core of Idaho state law had to be passed. You can see why that might take more than a week or two.

This current session is running long in part because certain lawmakers simply refuse to let an issue go. Aquifer recharge, in the case of House Speaker Bruce Newcomb - it got a vote and failed, but it's coming around again. Abortion, in the case of Representative Bill Sali. And several others.

In sessions past legislative leaders usually would step in at a point like this and say something on the order of, "The vote's been taken. You lost. Bring it back next year if you want, but this session has to end." No one seems to be doing that this year.

And if the hot emotions in the last couple of days on the floor - notably the House floor - were an indication, things may not get much better on Monday.

Primary past

April 7, 2006

Let's pause for a moment and reflect upon primaries past - notably the 2002 primaries, Democratic and Republican, for governor of Oregon.

It's worth a review, and maybe more than one, because so much has gotten repeated: The top two finishers on the Democratic side in 2002 are facing each other again, and so are two of the three top Republican finishers from that year. Are there lessons we might draw from the last go-round for the next one? (more…)

Oregon’s special session

April 6, 2006

The timing is notable. This evening, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski was headed into his first debate with his two Democratic opponents in this year's primary election.

A few hours before that, he said he was calling the Oregon legislature into special session, effective April 20.

The timing of the one couldn't have had anything to do with the other, could it? After all, the call abruptly became the topic du jour once he did it - affecting the content and twist of the debate.

Regardless, the call had merit. People fromboth parties were calling for it. The subject matter listed in his call was certainly weighty enough:

The legislature should limit its attention to two critical issues facing the state of Oregon:

The need to rebalance the budget of the Department of Human Services, and address revenue shortfalls caused by the loss of anticipated federal dollars and higher-than-anticipated caseloads; and
The need to provide additional funding support to Oregon’s public schools.

"I want to emphasize that I am committed to an efficient and productive special session. Discussions with legislative leadership and individual members have gone well. I believe if we work together we can accomplish our task in one or two days.

Those legislators with primary contests ahead no doubt hope so too.

Collisions, maybe

April 6, 2006

The approach the Washington Republican Party is using to determine who can and can't run as a Republican makes sense from a number of angles: encouraging candidates to worh with and be part of the party strcture, to set them up as a relatively unified group, and to have the people who are active in the party have a role in who will be their standard bearers on the ballot.

But it also requires that everything fall into place just right, and therein lies the problem - if it doesn't, lawsuits and political chaos could result.

The situation is outlined in the Vancouver Columbian, home of one of the spots in Washington where all this may matter most, since Clark County is a politically competitive place, and fast-growing besides.

The Washington Republican Party has put in place a rule placing an added requirement for some candidates who want to run as Republicans. The Columbian described it: "Under new rules adopted by the state GOP, all candidates for legislative and partisan state and local offices who are not incumbents must win the support of at least 25 percent of voting delegates in the districts they seek to represent if they want to run as Republicans in the September primary."

As noted, there are organizational benefits to this approach - it is not irrational or unreasonable. But there is a problem. (more…)

WA 8: A bit closer

April 5, 2006

The next round of campaign finance data will be coming out in a few days, and that will be worth exploring. One early pronouncement, if not formal report, is worth some note now.

A while back we noted that in Washington's 8th congressional district, which includes eastern King County and northeastern Pierce County, the Republican incumbent Dave Reichert has had a huge financial lead - about five to one (about $1.1 million to about $205,332) - over his Democratic challenger, Darcy Burner. In considerable part for that reason, this race had the feel of a longshot for the challenger.

Reichert probably still has the advantage, but it's likely less now. The Horse's Ass blog reported (and Burner confirmed at a Drinking Liberally event at Seattle) that her campaign income had more than doubled in the last reporting period, to about $536,000 - with another $250,000 from the national Democrats headed in on top of that. (The campaign said $90,000 came in during one two-day stretch, an impressive number for a House race.)

This doesn't yet put Burner ahead or completely level the field; and we don't yet know what Reichert will report. (We do know he's been raising substantial money too.) But Burner clearly has escaped the cellar and will be in position to run a serious, substantial and possibly competitive race - more, if she handles her advantages well, than was the case a couple of months ago.

The sonics and public expectations

April 5, 2006

The owners of the Seattle SuperSonics, called the Basketball Club of Seattle, has been asking a big favor of the taxpaying public: an upgrade of the KeyArena, where the team plays, estimated to cost about $220 million.

As such requests go - and they have become commonplace; Portland has a similar issue on tap now - this one is ordinarily in scope and in its proponents' appeal: The presence of the team is a big boon to the city (i.e., the carrot), and if we don't get it, we may sell off the team and this major league sport won't be played here (the stick).

This space has been basically critical of these proposals: All of them boil down to a decision to give taxpayer money to a preferred business. (If giving underwriting businesses whic perform some publicly useful function is a propert use of taxpayer money, then consider our hands, here at Ridenbaugh Press, out.)

There is an added component to the Seattle issue, though: The people of Seattle don't even know who the people are who would be benefitted from their largesse. (more…)