Washblog

Sirota and the need for a pragmatic ideology

David Sirota, who will be headlining a Seattle Town Hall forum this Friday, has written many excellent articles over the years.  His latest, The Right Has Given Away Their Guidebook - Will We Listen?, is a brilliantly insightful article for anyone interested in building the progressive movement within the Democratic Party.  I can't help but see the parallels between what Sirota describes as "Beltway" reactionaries and our recent discussions here at Washblog.

For example, recently we had a lengthy argument about Dennis Kucinich and his "electability".  122 comments and only one person really brought up anything of substance.  That being Sugarfree who brought up how Kucinich had "parted ways" with the Democratic Party.  

I'll get back to that argument later, but first, let's consider the bulk of the other 121 comments on that diary.  They centered around one thing: winnability.  Kucinich wasn't deemed "electable".  Obama was held up as some sort of Dem Saviour.  He has charisma.  He's "electable".  Not much substance behind their arguments, just testimonials about how he made them "feel good."

What does Sirota say about the idea of "electability"?  He tells us about Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct mail guru.

He (Viguerie) goes on to state that the movement found its strength in being able to "concentrate on advancing the conservative agenda rather than the Republican agenda [because] the agendas most definitely were not always the same."

He details his work going after ideological opponents in both parties, with a heavy focus on ridding the GOP of conservative turncoats not only because they were ideological opponents, but because they were helping undermine conservative electoral chances. "The purpose of these purges was to keep the new movement on the path to power," he writes. "Conservatives mastered the art of discipline - of being able to purge elements from the movement that might hinder it." Translation: intra-party ideological battles, far from weakening a party, can strengthen it by building a movement for said party to take electoral advantage of.

Such drawing of ideological lines is exactly the kind of behavior that media pundits and insulated liberal Beltway organizations attack. These people find it disgusting and impolite for anyone in politics to actually believe and feel passionately about their convictions to the point where they may actually fight really hard to make an agenda reality. Democratic leaders in Washington - too often concerned with Beltway etiquette and opinion, rather than actual human beings outside I-495 - thus ask progressives to applaud as Democratic presidential candidates refuse to campaign on anything other than deliberately vague platitudes like "the audacity hope" and/or "winnability."

Now I like to think about what people mean when they say we should be "pragmatic" as opposed to "purists".  I keep wondering what exactly is so pragmatic about their positions on things?  What I think they mean is we have to forego being "idealists".  We have to make certain compromises in the face of political realities in order to win.

I think they're wrong.  I think the truly pragmatic way of looking at things is to accept what has been proven true time and again about human nature and politics.  I think without an ideology, you CAN'T win.  The current pragmatism of compromise is not pragmatic at all.  Or as David Sirota tells us:

Sadly, as I've noted in an article entitled Partisan War Syndrome, too many Democratic politicians and progressive activists continue to ignore our opponents' lessons at our peril, seeing the Democratic Party - rather than a movement and its goals - as the end unto itself. Many of the leading voices that are supposed to be part of the progressive ideological movement will disparage those who question other Democrats on substantive ideological grounds. These attacks come not out of any policy objection, but simply because one Democrat is questioning another Democrat, which we are led to believe will result in the destruction of the growing movement, rather than the fueling of it, as Viguerie shows.

And Democratic politicians on Capitol Hill? They are more clueless than anyone when it comes to understanding movement building, and their own self-interest in it. All they see a movement as is a threat (probably because, unlike the GOP, so many Democratic politicians ascended during an era where it was cool to shun, rather than embrace, the progressive movement - and now we've got House and Senate caucuses dominated by professional weathervanes). Consider the minimum wage - progressive labor unions and think tanks were fully prepared to push for $8 an hour, but they backed off because, as the Economic Policy Institute's Ross Eisenbrey told the New York Times, "Our friends on Capitol Hill said our statement would be heard as criticizing the Democrats...it would be perceived as raining on the parade."

Put another way, Democratic politicians couldn't muster the intelligence (guts?) to appreciate the value of having an outside progressive movement setting the boundaries of the debate at $8 so that, when it comes time to compromise, the final number can be set at $7.25. Instead, the cry like little infants over potentially hurt feelings, and idiotically suggest that it is more advantageous to start negotiating at $7.25 - thus creating the very real possibility that the "compromise" will be much lower.

Such behavior on a bread-and-butter issue like minimum wage begs uncomfortable hypothetical questions: Had the same Democrats been serving in Congress during, say, the civil rights movement, would we have seen them tell Martin Luther King to push only for a partial repeal of Jim Crow laws because to do otherwise and push for a full repeal would "be heard as criticizing the Democrats?" What about women's rights? If today's Democrats were serving during the fight over suffrage, would they have told the women's movement to not push for full suffrage, because - gasp! - to do so would "be heard as criticizing the Democrats?" And what about on other fights? Will we soon be hearing Democrats telling progressives not to push for, say, a real effort to end to the Iraq War because to do so would "be heard as criticizing the Democrats?" The mind reels at the possibilities - and the destructive results if the progressive movement had accepted such demands in the past, or will accept such demands in the future.

Which in a way, brings me full circle back to the one comment out of 122 that I felt actually had any kind of substantive merit as to why we should not get behind Dennis Kucinich.  From Sugarfree:

Kucinich can't win the nomination for the same reason Guiliani can't win the Republican nomination -- he's out of step with his party on choice.

Naturally, I asked Sugarfree to explain exactly how Kucinich is "out of step" with the Democratic Party.  I felt this was an excellent line of discussion because I believed that by defining the parties boundaries we could define what is and isn't considered being a good progressive.  Sugarfrees response wasn't what you'd expect a progressive to be concerned about, but it WAS what you'd expect a Democrat first, progressive second to worry about.

Kucinich was pro-life and had a record to match right up to the moment he decided to run for President.
He also supported the Lewinsky witchhunt.

Okay, so let's define "out of step" here according to sugarfree.  Kucinich does not support a constitutional ban on abortion.  He does not support abstinence only sex education policies.  He does support contraceptives and education.  He wants to create a society where abortion is less necessary.

As for Lewinsky, he voted against impeachment.

Now consider this:  Abortion is NOT a core progressive issue.  It's a platform issue of the Democratic Party but it has NO BASIS in progressive ideology.  In fact, if you want to be pragmatic and not ideological, then abortion is the Stalingrad of the Democratic Party.  By that I mean it is the noose around the parties neck that just keeps giving to the Republican Party.  If we abandoned the abortion issue the Republican Party would cease to exist.  When you push a right winger into the corner and you disprove every lie and myth the conservatives have sold to him and he doesn't have anywhere left to turn he reaches down and pulls out the "baby killer" card.  It's the last card he has to play and it's the one you can never win an argument with him on.

And it has NOTHING to do with progressivism.

So is Dennis Kucinich "out of step" with progressivism or the Democratic Party?  The BIG question is really:  Is the Democratic Party out of step with progressivism?

Well, let's look at Maria Cantwell.  Is SHE out of step with the Democratic Party?  I think not.  But she's definately out of step with the progressives.  And for pointing this out to Democrats, progressives are proclaimed "purists" who need to be more "pragmatic".

So Cantwell can sign onto CAFTA, the war in Iraq, and other things totally out of step with progressive ideology and she's not out of step with the Democratic Party, but Kucinich can be pro-life and he's the one who's out of step?

Sirota warns us of this rift as well:

As Viguerie says, conservative direct mail fundraising in the 1970s and 1980s "helped conservative candidates remain independent of GOP institutional inertia."  Clearly, similar "institutional inertia" exists inside the Democratic Party in Washington. Whether it is leaders of the incoming majority saying they will consider cutting Social Security, pushing more free trade deals, or refusing to make a serious effort to end the war in Iraq - this "inertia" runs counter to everything that the progressive movement is supposed to be about.

Will we step up, or will we slink away? As America's Right Turn shows, our opponents built their movement that dominated the last three decades by stepping up and embracing movement ideology. What will we do?

What we have to do is obvious: start putting progressive politicians first and Democrats second.  In the end, it's the only pragmatic thing TO do.

< Phil Talmadge on Viaduct for King County Democrats, Jan 21 | Recommended Reading: View From The Future >
Display: Sort:
Slinging labels around like "progressive," pragmatic," "electable," and "purist" is such a waste of time that it really, truly makes me wonder if this blog has any utility at all, if this is the kind of navel-gazing that gets front-paged.

What is "progressivism," and who is to decide? Certainly not me, and certainly not you.

Who are "The Democrats?" If we ask 100 diferent people, we are likely to get 100 different answers. How in the world do we build a better nation and a better world if we can't even agree on what the terms mean, much less what to do going forward? And believe me, there will never be agreement on what these terms are supposed to mean.

I read Sirota's entire post on his blog yesterday. He needs a vacation. His stuff is excellent when he sticks to specifics. This particular post is just a mish-mash of vague terms. In my opinion, it has little utility to the Democratic Party in the present context.

I won't win many friends here with this opinion, but whatever the "progressive movement" is and whoever is to decide, it is not going anywhere without its vehicle, which is the Democratic Party. The "progressive movement" does not nominate any candidates that I am aware of, any more than the "religious right," whose vehicle is the Republican Party, does.

The candidates and office holders know this. David Sirota knows it too. I read him every day. When he breaks down the dichotomy in the Democratic Party to those who favor corporations over communities, and property over people, he is pretty lucid.

Some people might take a clue from some of his better, more precise stuff. This isn't it IMO, and it certainly doesn't provide any basis for anything I intend to do.

I guess that doesn't make me a "progressive." Boo f-----g hoo! I'm here to beat the right wing at the polls. If the Democrats we elect aren't (insert your own word here) enough, then we lobby the hell out of them in Olympia or in Washington DC, or in our cities and counties, and make them understand, in no uncertain terms, what we want, and what we intend to do if we don't get what we want.

But first we elect them. And that means Maria Cantwell, Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, and whoever else ends up with a D next to their names (please not Hillary).

There will not be any "progressive movement" without the Democratic Party. If you don't believe that, look at how the ideologues are wrecking the GOP. Better them than us, every time.

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

by ivan on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 12:19:37 AM PST

* 1 none 0 *


That'll take a while to digest. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that what I refer to under my breath as the "framing nightmare" isn't just something the Democrats are ineffectual in dealing with in terms of the Right, but are actually complicit in from the standpoint of Progressives.

(As for Ivan, well I guess it's a matter of whose in the driver's seat and who's paying for the gas, eh guy?)

by m3047 on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 12:52:07 AM PST

* 2 none 0 *


Now consider this: Abortion is NOT a core progressive issue. It's a platform issue of the Democratic Party but it has NO BASIS in progressive ideology.
Like hell it doesn't.
  1. Control over what happens with your own body is a fundamental civil rights issue, arguably the fundamental civil rights issue.
  2. Separation of church and state, which shouldn't just be a progressive issue, but rather civics 101, means if you want to institute an incredibly intrusive public policy of the sort that the anti-abortion crowd wants, you need way more than just religious doctrine to back it up, and you particularly don't get to force your religious doctrine down other people's throats, just because you happen to be in a majority (or even if you don't as the case may be...).
  3. Last I checked, progressives were all about access to adequate medical care regardless of socioeconomic status...

... and make no mistake, the ability to terminate a pregnancy and make best use of the techniques available in accord with sound scientific/medical principles are a fundamental and necessary component of adequate medical care for a pregnant woman. Things go wrong in pregnancy and you have to be able to deal with that in a timely, effective and safe manner. It's hard enough without lots of religious busybodies looking over your shoulder. And whatever happy-sounding noises you want to make about wanting abortion to be "rare", the need for it will never go away, no matter how good we get at distributing contraceptives.

When a Catholic hospital can get away with not treating ectopic pregnancies and prohibiting their own doctors from informing patients about the alternatives (allfor the sake of its f---ed up religious doctrine which prohibits abortion in all cases --- not even to the save the life of the mother), ... see, you're just supposed to sit back and wait for the Fallopian tube to burst and maybe a miracle will occur.... suffice it to say this has an impact on medical care.

When a wingnut pharmacist can deny properly prescribed medications and tear up the prescription,... which is particular fun if they're the only game in town or all of the other pharmacies are doing likewise because none of them want to be the targets of the next Operation Rescue protest.... medical care is likewise degraded.

When a hospital is so in fear of political fallout that it refuses to allow the use of D&X (in many cases the only alternative to actual surgery and the corresponding massive increase in risk) even on already dead fetuses, or when medical schools stop teaching the technique entirely, that likewise has an impact on medical care.

The thing people forget is that Roe v. Wade was a compromise in the first place. It did not provide for abortion on demand. It allowed for the state having an interest in the life of the fetus in the later stages of pregnancy --- the commonsense view that the more like an actual baby it is, the more we should treat it like one to the extent that it's practical to do so.

And it was completely unacceptable to the right wing folks. But the fact is no compromise will ever be acceptable to them. No matter which of their demands we give into, withdrawal of medicare funding, parental notification laws, waiting periods, prohibitions on taking minors across state lines, "Partial birth" bans, fetal pain bills, they will NEVER be happy.

And any "Democrat" who's been playing into this crap and actively participating in all of the chipping away that's been going on over the past 30 years definitely needs to be held up to scrutiny.

I want a party that stands up for its core positions. Never mind that this is a majority position as well, so it should be a no-brainer (it's just that pro-life is extremely vocal and has co-opted a lot of media people so that tends to be something of a psyche out...)

by wrog on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 04:33:08 AM PST

* 6 none 0 *


Now consider this:  Abortion is NOT a core progressive issue.  It's a platform issue of the Democratic Party but it has NO BASIS in progressive ideology.  In fact, if you want to be pragmatic and not ideological, then abortion is the Stalingrad of the Democratic Party.  By that I mean it is the noose around the parties neck that just keeps giving to the Republican Party.  If we abandoned the abortion issue the Republican Party would cease to exist.  When you push a right winger into the corner and you disprove every lie and myth the conservatives have sold to him and he doesn't have anywhere left to turn he reaches down and pulls out the "baby killer" card.  It's the last card he has to play and it's the one you can never win an argument with him on.

Pen, there are so many things wrong with this paragraph, I'm not sure where to start.  And as a fellow front-pager, I really don't care if I'm crossing the bounds of acceptable discourse here, this has to be called out.

First, abortion is about as core an issue as you can get to what progressivism is all about.  It's a combination of civil rights and protecting the  separation of church and state.  I'm not even sure I can comprehend your rationale well enough to argue it further than that.  

Second, abortion is a winning issue for the Democratic Party.  When asked specifically about situations in which someone they know would want to have an abortion, a majority of Republicans are pro-choice.  Yes, Republicans.  People who are anti-choice are actually still a minority in that party.  You can look it up.  Many politicians claim to be "Pro-Life" publicly (as they call the anti-choice position), but the reality is that most of them privately accept the fact that abortion should be legal.

When South Dakota passed their bill this year, it finally launched the backlash that's been taking forever to begin.  The reason it happened like this is because the Republicans have catered to that view, simplifying the argument and making people equate "Pro-life" with the anti-choice position, while progressives just bought into that false divide.  When the rubber hit the road, and people started to actually recognize that their freedom was being threatened, things started to happen.

Winning arguments on abortion is one of the easiest arguments to win.  I look forward to people pulling the "baby killer" card on me because I can twist their brain into a pretzel faster than you can say "partial-birth abortion".  I've made people cry, and I'm not kidding.  As I said, when you frame the question properly (are you pro-choice or anti-choice), only about 20-25% of Americans actually believe that abortion should be illegal.

Finally, I have no idea what Dennis Kucinich's views on abortion are, and I don't care.  I disagree with Sugarfree's assessment.  His views on abortion have nothing to do with why he has no chance at the White House.  He has no chance at the White House because he's not capable of the kind of charismatic leadership that it takes to win an election like that.  Have you ever seen an interview with the man?  He dodges questions he doesn't like.  He gets frustrated and annoyed when people don't agree with him.  He would never be able to withstand a campaign.  I agree with him very strongly on a number of issues, but he's simply not presidential material.  

And as for your idea of pragmatic ideology, I find that to be an oxymoron.  Ideologies are non-pragmatic by definition.  Ideologies are rigid.  Good politicians know how to cater to people with certain ideologies, but not get sucked into them.  One President managed to do that.  And he's still in the White House right now.  The last thing we want to do is to look for a Democrat who will be as ideologically driven as Bush.  The Presidency is the kind of job you enter into knowing that you don't know everything and that you will continue to learn and change your perspective until the day you leave office.  Nothing about Dennis Kucinich has ever inspired me that he can do that.

by thehim on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 05:17:21 PM PST

* 24 none 0 *


You know, I think I've figured out where I'm not being clear on this issue.  It's what I mean by CORE issues and what I mean by "pragmatic ideology".

Sirota is explaining how the conservatives worked to take over the Republican Party by weeding out those who weren't true to their ideology.  Now think on this:  There are lots of Republicans who are pro-choice.  How come they didn't get weeded out?  This strikes right to the heart of what's a CORE issue and being pragmatic.

Conceptual Guerilla has already defined what constitutes conservatism and as George Lakoff, who took up CG's meme, will tell you, he was dead on:

"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell

And he goes on to show how everything the conservatives stand for, immigration, anti-union, etc. comes down to their being for cheap labor.  Including their stance on Pro-life:

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

So if, as the book Sirota is telling us about explains, the conservatives weeded out anyone who was off message, why do they allow Republicans who are pro-choice?  Because abortion is not the CORE issue at stake.  Cheap labor is.  Abortion isn't going to WIN the battle for cheap labor, it's just going to win MORE.  The abortion issue just keeps people divided.  Hell, if abortion ever got banned again, the conservatives would lose a lot of voters who wuldn't have any other reason to buy into their BS.

I like to think about American politics like the eastern front in WW2.  It was the hugest frontlines in the history of warfare.  Many battles being fought up and down it.  Abortion is just one battle being fought across the entire front.  It's not even a major battle.  And the WAR is certainly not being fought because of abortion.

Abortion is about SOCIAL justice more than economic justice.  And that's okay.  But here's the rub:  There can be no social justice without economic justice, but the reverse isn't true.  Unless you're willing to say that if we're all poor we're all equal, then you can have all the social justice in the world, but so long as complete economic stratification and an old English style class system in place, as long as we have corporate feudalism in place, you can't HAVE social justice.  They are too inextricably tied.

But if progressives win on the economic front, they are GOING to win on the social front as well.  They go hand in hand.  We can win the fight to stop economic stratification, defeat the class warfare, put an end to corporate feudalism and never spend one dollar on the fight for reproductive rights.  And when all is said and done, the majority will want those reproductive rights anyways.  They'll want the separation of church and state anyways.

But if we LOSE the fight against corporate feudalism, against class warfare, then we lose the fight for reproductive rights, separation of church and state and anything else the majority desires.

So no, abortion is NOT the core issue.

And since abortion isn't the CORE issue here, it's only pragmatic to say that yeah, to get this politician elected in this district, it's okay if he is pro-life.  So long as he's on board for the critical battles, like not passing CAFTA or the war in Iraq, or the bankruptcy bill.  If he were pro-choice that would jsut be icing on the cake.  But, despite many Democrats claims to the contrary, up to and including Bill Clinton, we are NOT puritsts.  We have to be pragmatic.  Hence my call for a pragmatic ideology.    If you could win the district either way, then fine, take the pro-choice candidate so long as he's still true to the CRITICAL issues.  But a candidate doesn't HAVE to be perfect, he just has to be on board with the main thrust necessary to win this battle.

In a pragmatic ideology for progressives, we have to understand each issues proper place in the grand scheme of things.  We have to realize that the battle isn't about abortion, that's just one issue.  We can't win all battles at once, everywhere, but we DO have to win certain battles to win the war.  As hard as this fact is to swallow for Democrats, abortion is not one of those battles.  

Now I fully understand those who say they'll never vote for a candidate that's pro-life.  What I don't understand is how, when progressives say they'll never vote for a candidate that passed CAFTA, those people are called idiots and are somehow hurting Democrats.  Somehow being "purists".  Somehow not being "pragmatic".  The exact opposite is what's true.

It's those who won't vote for a pro-life candidate who's otherwise on board with all the critical issues progressives face who aren't being pragmatic.  Who are demanding we vote for only utopian candidates.  Who aren't seeing the bigger picture.  And it's those who demand we follow candidates who vote against us in crucial issues like CAFTA or other issues key to the conservative agenda in the class war to create corporate feudalism that aren't being pragmatic.  THey're being fools.

So the pragmatic take on our candidates has to be that if a candidate is pro-life, but he/she is strongly progressive, then we need to look at his constituency and what other candidates we could run against him and decide whether he's right for the party.  If his consituency is largely pro-life or if there are no other candidates who'd be as true to progressivism as he/she is, then we take the pragmatic approach and keep him.

We don't demand "utopian" candidates.  

On the other hand, if the candidate is betraying major issues in the fight.  If they are stepping out of line in the BIG battles, like CAFTA or going to war in Iraq, we have to look at those things much more closely.  Those are MAJOR deviations from progressivism because we can't win the fight against conservatism if we let those things pass.  

The passage of CAFTA doesn't win our side any pissed off voters.  It doesn't provide their side with a rallying cause.  It only servers their CORE interest to provide the corporations with cheap labor.  It directly undermines our interest in overcoming corporate power.  CAFTA, by going straight to the core issue of conservatives desire for cheap labor and the stratification of the classes, aims straight at heart of progressivism.  There can be no economic equality and without that, no social equality.

So THIS is the kind of thing that CANNOT be accepted by progressives.  It is NOT being pragmatic to say it's okay if our candidates cross THAT line.  Voting for CAFTA has actually driven voters away from Democrats. That's on top of being a major setback on the frontline battle.

This is where we come to the divide between progressives and people like Ivan.  He's okay with it so long as we can keep Dems in office.  Which begs the question, what battle is HE fighting?  Who's side of the battle is he on?

by Pen on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 01:59:17 PM PST

* 85 none 0 *


Display: Sort:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RE-ELECT
ALEC FISKEN

Seattle Port Commission
FISKEN'S PORT WATCH
Environmental Issues

 

 

 

REAL CHANGE
HOMELESS EMPOWERMENT PROJECT

 

PIRATE TELEVISION
Challenging the Corporate Media Blockade


Watch Live or Archived Shows:
Seattle SCAN
South End PSA

 


Photo courtesy of photographer/thankyoult.org
THANK YOU, LIEUTENANT WATADA

 


WA PEACE LINKS

 


ABUSE OF POWER
Inspired by Rob McKenna's Fake Attorney General Letterhead
GIF of Letter

 

 

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Recommended Diaries

Washblog RSS Feeds

Local Media

Coastal/Grays Harbor
Aberdeen Daily World
Chinook Observer
Montesano Vidette
Pacific County Press
Willapa Harbor Herald
KXRO 1320 AM

Olympic Peninsula
Peninsula Daily News
Bremerton Sun
Bremerton Chronicle
Gig Harbor Gateway
Port Orchard Independent
Port Townsend Leader
North Kitsap Herald
Squim Gazette
Central Kitsap Reporter
Business Examiner
KONP 1450 AM

Sound and Islands
Anacortes American
Bainbridge Review
Voice Of Bainbridge
San Juan Journal
The Islands' Sounder
Whidbey NewsTimes
South Whidbey Record
Stanwood/Camano News
Vashon Beachcomber
Voice Of Vashon
KLKI 1340 AM

North Puget Sound
Bellingham Herald
The Northern Light
Everett Herald
Skagit Valley Herald
Lynden Tribune
The Enterprise
Snohomish County Tribune
Snohomish County Business Journal
The Monroe Monitor
The Edmonds Beacon
KGMI 790 AM
KELA 1470 AM
KRKO 1380 AM

Central Puget Sound
King County Journal
Issaquah Press
Mukilteo Beacon
Voice of the Valley
Federal Way Mirror
Bothell/Kenmore Reporter
Kirkland courier
Mercer Island Reporter
Woodinville Weekly

Greater Seattle
Seattle PI
Seattle Times
KOMO TV 4
KIRO TV 7
KING 5 TV
KTBW TV 22
KCTS 9
UW Daily
The Stranger
Seattle Weekly
Capitol Hill Times
Madison Park Times
Seattle Journal of Commerce
NW Asian Weekly
West Seattle Herald
North Seattle Herald-Outlook
South Seattle Star
Magnolia News
Beacon Hill News
KIRO 710 AM
KOMO AM 1000
KEXP 90.3 FM
KUOW 94.9 FM
KVI 570 AM

South Puget Sound
The Columbian
Longview Daily News
Nisqually Valley News
Lewis County News
The Reflector
Eatonville Dispatch
Tacoma News Tribune
Tacoma Weekly
Puyallup Herald
Enumclaw Courier-Herald
The Olympian
KAOS 89.3 FM
KCPQ 13
KOWA FM 106.5
UPN 11

Cascade/Okanogan
Ellensburg Daily Record
Levenworth Echo
Cle Elum Tribune
Snoqualmie Valley Record
Methow Valley News
Lake Chelan Mirror
Omak chronicle
The Newport Miner

Spokane/Palouse
The Spokesman-Review
KREM 2 TV Spokane
KXLY News 4 Spokane
KHQ 6 Spokane
KSPS Spokane
Statesman-Examiner
Othello Outlook
Cheney Free Press
Camas PostRecord
The South County sun
White Salmon Enterprise
Palouse Boomerang
Columbia Basin Herald
Grand Coulee Star
Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Yakima Herald-Republic
KIMA 29 Yakima
KAPP TV 35 Yakima
KYVE Yakima
Wenatchee World
Tri-City Herald
TVEW TV 42 Tri-cities
KTNW Richland
KEPR 19 Pasco
Daily Sun News
Prosser Record-Bulletin
KTCR 1340 AM
KWSU Pullman
Moscow-Pullman Daily News

WA INITIATIVES & REFERENDA
WA BILLS, LAWS & LEGISLATORS
NATIONAL BILLS, LAWS & LEGISLATORS
STATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
FEDERAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
ARE YOU REGISTERED TO VOTE?
Democracy for Washington tool to email legislators by committee
WA House
WA Senate


NW PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL
Medicine Takeback Program
Return unwanted and expired medications for free and safe disposal.