Washblog

...money raise rather than volunteers or signatures gathered. The idea that a candidate less popular than Dixon could get into the debate by writing himself a check is obscene.

It's also sad that Aaron Dixon was so unready for this race that nobody will miss his voice in the debate, but that's another issue.

by dlaw on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:33:07 AM PST

---

It was their microphone, their debate, their rules, and their responsibility. Go complain to them.

Are we to gather from this post that it is somehow Cantwell's responsibility to ensure that Aaron Dixon, or any other candidate, is included in these debates? Or more bizarre yet, that we should drop everything and tilt at this windmill 19 days before the election?

If KING had come to Cantwell and offered her an hour of free time, just by herself, without McGavick even, would people fault her for accepting it?

Or out of some sense of "fairness" or "balance" should Cantwell say: "No, I'm not going on TV unless McGavick is here with me getting equal time."?

Some of you people need to get some things straight. This is politics, not beanbag. And this is PARTISAN politics, not the League of Women Voters.

Please all join hands and pray for my condemned soul, because I do not give a flying fuck in a rolling donut that KING would not give Aaron Dixon a forum.  

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:06:39 AM PST

---

Getting

Republicans

Elected

Every

November

Let's all forget about the war, the suspension of habeas corpus, persecution of immigrants and gay people, the pollution of our environment, attacks on our right to organize, the I-933 welfare for land rapers, skyrocketing health care prices, and the sellout of our economy to corporate greedheads.

Because nothing, NOTHING is as pressing an issue in this election cycle as INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING!

And who, pray tell, would be the chief beneficiary of Instant Runoff Voting? Why, the GREENS! Who knew? Imagine my astonishment at hearing that!

Run along, little Greens. Go hold hands and tell each other how "progressive" and how righteous you all are, and how the Democrats are so evil and so corrupt. As if the Greens were any less self-serving.

Then wonder why you get 2 percent of the vote. Psst! Here's a clue: Pennsylvania.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:17:03 AM PST

---

...I don't miss it, and I've voted Green. I know Greens and I'm not happy with Aaron Dixon's performance as a Green.

I think that he should have been far more thoughtful. If he can't provide that himself, there are plenty of people who could have helped him provide a far more thoughtful message. A candidate is a composite. Aaron Dixon is clearly a very charismatic and streetwise person, but all candidates need to know what they don't do well and find people to help them with that.

by dlaw on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:52:05 AM PST

---

I find it amazing that liberals give a shit about left wing minor parties, and their 'right' to be included in a KING-TV debate.  Life is hard, get a helmet.

I didn't hear the little GOP brownshirts whining that the Constitution Party wasn't included.

Besides, Aaron Dixon is a covicted felon and a deadbeat dad, and for any liberal to celebrate THAT is turbo-bullshit.  (Not to mention that he shot at Seattle's Finest and burned white-owned busineses back in the go-go 60's and 70's.)

by Belltowner on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:43:13 PM PST

---

Did anyone see this segment? It was really, really good.

The topic was publicly financed campaigns, aka clean elections (from the left) or tax payer financed elections (from the right).

They interviewed the originator of the idea. Spacing the name, sorry.

They covered Arizona, Massachusettes, California's Proposition 89, and the efforts on the federal level. They gave both supporters and opponents equal time as well as covered the pros and cons.

The biggest con, in my mind, is the "conservative" criticism that it violates free speech. Some court case determined that campaign contributions were a form of free speech and so therefore protected under the 1st Admendment.

Which I think is complete crap. That's called pay to play. Some guy from the Goldwater Institute, Ben Barr?, was repeating the theological free market talking points about "the cost of freedom" and "marketplace of ideas". Total crap.

The actual result of public financed campaigns, and covered very well in the program, is an expansion of speech, with more voices and greater diversity of view points.

Which highlights that no single right is absolute, particularly to exclusion of other rights or the rights of others. Maybe in some sort of Bizarro World, e.g. Bush's America 2006, I can kind of see how money == speech. But even if that were true, it definitely shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else's free speech.

(People who get sucked into ideologies like "the free market" need to recognize the difference between a thought experiment and objective reality featuring cause, effect, and real world consequences. The Dutch, with their principle of harm reduction, are the furthest along this path.)

There was one side effect of public campaigns that does trouble me and I'd like to learn more about. That's the participation of fringe candidates. I'm totally cool if some whackjob (e.g. antiscience free marketing theocrat) gets elected. People deserve the government they elect. But if public campaigns encourage this kind of lunacy, then I'd want to learn enough about the system to apply counter measures.

Maybe stuff like publicly owned debates, equal time, proportional representation, whatever.

All in all, a very good program this week.

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/242/index.html

It aired last night. The podcasts, audio only, are available via iTunes.

by zappini on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 08:51:39 AM PST

---

If I didn't live someplace which voted overwhelmingly Dem, I would never just magnamimously rile the populace like that (what I do with the 'zine).

When I started doing the 'zine, a few people did say "don't you have anything better to do?!"; now it's an institution. Not everyone agrees with me, but they've come to realize that I honestly don't expect them to.

As a PCO I would hit the houses on the list (maybe call first), make my own notes (as I do now) because the list is clearing smoking crack sometimes. (The former Reagan-era Republican PCO's house? Gimme a break! I've talked to the guy doing my 'zine drop, but he doesn't need a Democrat sample ballot.) (The 94 year-old, who's happy for the lit, sharp as a pin, but for whom it is excruciatingly painful to make it to the door? I just drop the lit.)

When you say it's made no difference, do you mean in terms of turnout or in terms of how people vote?

I feel for you, I appreciate what you do. People out there in the 'burbs split the ballot, I know that (you know that); I wouldn't be attacking them for going Green once in a while, while simultaneously crowing over getting a few Republicans to split their ballot and go Dem. That part of my message would be the same: you asked some questions and you voted? That's all I can ask!

by m3047 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 05:49:24 PM PST

---

Noemie:

You got 76% of the Democrat partisan vote to be re-elected PCO of CLOVER; that is nothing to sneeze at.

2003-2005, participation is up from 27%-49%. (By way of comparison, look at Peter House's precinct, SEA 36-1291. He has been PCO there for years, so really the only way to go is down. He does show an increase from 2003-2005 from 50%-69%, so clearly something else is going on whether it's simply better control of the rolls, or that people are pissed off and voting more. But you surpassed that, you nearly doubled it.)

Preference was 26% Democrat in the 2005 primary; in 2006 it was 40%. This parallels the jump in turnout. That increase is not due to a drop in the number of Republicans, but an increase in the number of Democrats from 37-90 in one year.

by m3047 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:32:05 PM PST

---

It may be their microphone, but it is OUR airwaves which we have lent to them, based on certain conditions, one of them being the fair use doctrine.

For details of how KING 5 violated that rule (not just this year but also in the 05 election) see:

http://gentrylange.blogspot.com/

by Aram on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:38:53 AM PST

---

I'm disappointed in Bill Moyer for his comment "I do not know who sets the rules".  If he had watched the debate, they were absolutely clear about what the rules are, where they came from, and how to find out more information.

The rules for inclusion are a full page long, but in short, are based on some demonstrated level of support, including having 10% support in a poll,  having previously been elected to the office, having performed at the 30% level in a prior election, or having raised 10% of the funding needed.

And these aren't arbitrary rules written by King5 to exclude candidates they don't like.  The guidelines are created by the "Debate Advisory Standards Project" (http://www.debateproject.org), a recognized national group with a long history.

As the excluded candidates cannot show that they get 10% in a poll, or even raised 1/10th of the funds needed, they just aren't viable candidates.

Can someone justify taking time away from serious candidates, one of whom will be our Senator, and subjecting voters to the whimsical ramblings of a candidate who has no chance of ever getting elected?  We are much better served hearing the thoughts of our next senator.

If the criteria is simply about being on the ballot, then the debates really would be about money; the filing fee in Washington State for US Senate is $1,652.

by abelenky on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:23:01 PM PST

---

too, with Dixon in there.

Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. has a good followup in the PI: Politics as Usual is Exactly the Problem.

He writes:

Unofficially, the television show could have been titled, "Which Rich Person Wants to Go to Washington?"

The powdered faces of incumbent Maria Cantwell, GOP challenger Mike McGavick and long shot Libertarian Bruce Guthrie formed the cast of millionaire Senate hopefuls.

As Tuesday's broadcast filled television sets, at one home, on Seattle's Beacon Hill, the telling image wasn't of the three candidates.

It was of a lonely man watching from his couch, his reflection bouncing off the faces of the candidates on the screen.

This man had plenty to say about politics -- just no bright lights beamed at him, no forum in which to say it.

Aaron Dixon, the Green Party's candidate for Senate, was on the outside, looking in.

I'm not planning to vote for Aaron Dixon in this race.  But it angers me all the same that he was excluded.  Bill, I'm with you -- our system's in need of a complete overhaul: public financing of campaigns, IRV, a real debates including all the viable candidates.  And Cantwell's campaign should insist on a debate including Dixon.

There's more followup on Aaron Dixon's campaign site.

 

by noemie maxwell on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:25:06 AM PST

---

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:52:21 PM PST

---

Bill, in your post it seems that you are suggesting that all candidates should have been included in this debate. If so, why didn't you mention Robin Adair, who is running as an independent, and argue that she should have been included in the debate too?

Is it because her voter's pamphlet statement and web site seem to be full of somewhat incoherent ramblings and you have deemed her not to be a viable candidate?

by Cherisse on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:15:02 AM PST

---