By Jon M. Higley, Candidate for State Representative for the 27th District, Position #2
Einstein is known for his definition of “insanity” — Repeating the same things over and over and expecting different results. This definition fits, more than ever, with the recent candidate endorsements and initiative positions by the Editors of The New Tribune. Throughout the summer, TNT readers were surprisingly provided a tone not often found in this newspaper – scathing editorials directed to the Governor and the majority Legislature for their failure to address the reforms necessary to bring state government into a manageable and affordable operation.
But now as the leaves turn their colors, so are the editors of this newspaper changing colors. They are currently in “endorsement” mode. Not surprisingly, but disappointingly, they continue to endorse the same “business-as-usual” incumbents and career politicians whose voting records have helped place this state into a spiraling $5 Billion deficit ($12 Billion when considering the unfunded state pensions), citing that their “experience” will ensure a more sensible approach to fixing Olympia than their freshman opponents.
If the editorial board of the TNT truly believes that these “experienced” politicians are the only hope for a new direction in Olympia and want them returned to the Legislature, then when the icy winds of January begin to blow and the cold, hard facts of our pending financial crisis hang over the Legislative Session, will these “seasoned” legislators continue down the path of ignoring the fiscal realities? If the majority party did not have the spine to make the tough decisions last session, then it escapes me how the editorial board believes these same elected officials will have a change of heart next session. My “experience” as a citizen and taxpayer of this state for decades says a resounding NO. The size and scope of state government must be trimmed and restructured in order to promote a climate for business growth and job creation, but they’re unwilling to do this.
When the editors state that I’m too conservative for this “blue district” to endorse, it reveals that they are not in touch with the voters. My doorbelling experience over the past six months has revealed that there are more conservative residents in this district than the editors would have us believe. For example, “If you’re not an incumbent, I’ll vote for you!” was a commonly heard remark. It makes no sense to me for the editorial board to chastise the Governor and the majority legislators for their inaction and then turn around and reward them for it by endorsing them again.
I, and many others, HAVE HAD ENOUGH of the lifetime “spending-as-usual” incumbents who have managed to slip under the radar and drive this state economy in the ditch with ever expanding taxation of its citizens and businesses. This is why many new faces appear on the ballot this year. They have come before the voters and pledged to seriously address what is needed in Olympia – commitment to bravely and intelligently reform the way things are done in our state capitol. Fortunately, it is voters who have the CLEAR CHOICE to decide our state’s fate, not myopic newspaper editors whose fickle opinions can influence an election’s outcome. Voters: Beware Before You Vote, and Be Informed!
—
Jon Higley is a veteran, retired 30-year teacher and community leader.
Johnmcmd says
You have hit the nail right on the head! Unfortunately too many, including the TNT equate the incumbent’s “experience” to manipulate government for their own interests, with the values required to represent the interest of the citizens. We went through the same debate when Lakewood CARES was formed in 2000 to bring more representation to city government. Incumbents were entrenched and increasingly arrogant, spending money like water despite citizen opposition. At our first confrontation with the city bureaucracy, held by Lakewood United at Happy Days (before it became a gambling parlor) I was chided: “You know the incumbents have a lot of experience in government”. “Yes, I know and that’s the problem” I responded. “I can teach a chimpanze to ‘work the system’ if need be but if a council member doesn’t have the citizens’ values, I’ll never be able to teach them that nor will they ever represent the citizens no matter how experienced they are.” The audience was stunned but over the next several elections we were able to change the council and start getting the representation we deserved.
So keep it up! You’re making a difference! Eventually citizens will see the light….it took 2 elections for me to win and others 3 elections but eventually citizens were able to see the truth.
John Arbeeny
Past City of Lakewood
Councilmember and Deputy Mayor
2003-2008
Malcolm Russell says
Right on Mr. Higley – AS IN – the TNT endorses Patty Murray: Boo and Hiss…
The TNT endorsement of Murray is flawed because its too myopic. Like so many other contests around our county the TNT editorial board is basing its choice more on what’s good for ‘me’ and not what’s best for US – the country.
The TNT board may flaw Rossi for not making the case that WA would be better off without Murray. But Murrays defeat is important because it could mean a change in leadership for the US Senate – and the TNT editorial board seems to fail in factoring that into its assessment/endorsement.
They also say they that dirty campaigning is no reason to not endorse her. As one reader responded “Voters should turn a politician out of office at the precise moment that (she) demonstrates that (she) will say anything and do anything to remain in office. Her truth-mangling ads (and lies) demonstrate Senator Murray has reached that point.” I think he is right about that, and the fact that it didn’t weigh in more on the TNT endorsement seems to say something about the paper’s current values…
We need leaders, voters and a press of higher values and that think long term and big picture. We need to think big and ask not only what best for (me) in WA but what’s also best for (us) the US.
Read more: www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/10/1376438/re-elect-patty-murray-to-the-us.html#ixzz124wu8oJF
Fredric Cornell says
“Repeating the same things over and over and expecting different results.” That’s certainly one way of describing what doesn’t work. And, for a very vivid and recent actual application of what didn’t work, all that is needed is to look at the eight (8) years of Republican disasters inflicted upon the world by the ‘Dubya’ administration. If you want to go backward, but your vote in ‘R’, but if you want to go forward, put that vote in ‘D’ – it’s just that simple. Emotional rhetoric needs to be recalled by cold, hard facts – it’s just that simple. — And, it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that one out.
Malcolm Russell says
Here are cold hard facts – Patty Murray has been in the Senate for 18 years and her party has been in charge of congress most of the last 20 years, in fact the Democrats have controlled the Senate for 27 of the last 34 years and have controlled the congressional law making, economic and spending processes of our government since 2006 up to today.
Change now is exactly what this economy needs. I doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that we need policies and change that private sector business and the jobs market can believe in – we need more Republicans – We vote for Democratic legislative majorities again and again (in DC and Olympia) at our own risk.
Fredric Cornell says
You Republicans suffer from chronic amnesia. The cold, hard facts are these: Clinton left office leaving a record surplus, and it certainly didn’t take ‘Dubya’ long to spend his way through that – and bring us back to record deficits. Now, all the Republicans are harping for voters to send them back to D.C. for a repeat performance. You are sufficiently delusional to think that Democrats should rebuild in just under two years what it took you guys eight years to destroy. Wake up and smell the coffee. Stop whining; start thinking; come back to reality, and help us Democrats repair what Republicans have trashed.
Malcolm Russell says
Thanks I do enjoy good political debate, but there is no amnesia present from this Voter. Bush signed on for something like a 400 billion deficit (not good), But Obama has signed us up for nearly a 3 trillion dollar deficit. If Clinton surplus was so good then Obamas taking us in the wrong direction, and way past any damage that Bush made…
Plus our Presidents do not make law, or allocate, earmark or spend our tax money the congress does. If you want more of what got us here then vote again for the same democratic party that’s had full controlled of our congress since 2006 and majority control most of the last 34 years. This letter writer’s point is well taken if you keep sending the same party to control congress don’t expect much to change… Its congress not the executive that has the greater impact on our budget and economic policy. Clinton had a Republican congress – those were good economic times – this voter would gladly take Clinton and a GOP Congress again compared to what we have now with Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Fredric Cornell says
Malcolm, please stop with the radical Republican propaganda, already. Please, name, in descending order, ten (10) state programs that you think ought to be slashed. Thank you.
Fredric Cornell says
Malcolm, specifically, do you favor or oppose Lakewood town hall’s use of federal stimulus grant money to fix Lakewood streets, to improve neighborhoods, and to better our community with gutters, curbs and sidewalks. Please, it’s an extremely simple question, so, please, no long-winded radical Republican nonsensical propaganda – just respond ‘favor’ or ‘oppose’.
Malcolm Russell says
Seems the point of a comment section to comment on the topic at hand, I am simply addressing and speaking to the content, context and comments on and of the original letter herein – (endorsements related to the questionable performance of incumbents…)
I assume from the lack of responses and the abandoning of the topic with these new questions… that my alleged propagandistic use of facts and data about the incumbants record was too much. My apologies, I’m not sure the point of the questions as they relate to the original letter on encumbants.
But thanks for the dialog, I do enjoy hearing other’s thoughts and views on issues – in the end we are all in this country together.
Fredric Cornell says
Malcolm: “But thanks for the dialog…” You acknowledge a ‘dialogue’, i.e., a “1. conversation between two or more persons” which interaction, notably, does not exclude the asking and answering of questions. Republicans are very quick to re-chant their senseless mantra of obstructionism, but when asked very simple questions about their defense of that mindless mantra, they even more quickly scamper for cover – without a single answer to a single question. Refusal to answer even the simplest of questions in defense of your stated beliefs indicates that those stated beliefs have no defense, no rationale, and are, therefore, merely obstructionist propaganda void of even the simplest rational defense.
Malcolm Russell says
Chanting a “senseless mantra of obstructionism” and Scampering… I’m sorry for your frustration with those type of people.
I do appreciate and acknowledge a dialog, and I agree with you that a dialog itself doesn’t necessarily exclude asking questions at all… but my point was that a dialog within the context of a publication’s “comment” section should stick to the topic-at-hand and avoid tangents that stray too far off the main topic. That’s the point being made… and the topic here is (endorsements in relation to the questionable performance of incumbents…)
Fredric Cornell says
The TNT endorsement of Patti Murray was both on target and insightful – precisely because she is best for the country. She is best for the country because her beliefs have practical applications, and aren’t simply rhetoric. She answers questions relevant to the country’s welfare, unlike Rossi (and his backers)who, typical of obstructionist Republicans, flee from questions. Rossi’s defeat is important because it could mean a change in leadership for the US Senate – and the TNT editorial board seems to have taken that factor into account when making its assessment/endorsement. Voters should not support a politician at the precise moment that he demonstrates that he will say anything and do anything to get into office, and/or when he flatly refuses to answer questions the answers to which will surely reveal the absolute folly of his obstructionist positions. The fact that Rossi didn’t weigh in more heavily in the TNT endorsement seems to say something about his nonsensical approach to government, and his refusal to be accountable for his obstructionist philosophy. “We need leaders, voters and a press of higher values and that think long term and big picture.” Precisely, and that’s is precisely why the Tribune was correct in its negative assessment of Rossi, and its refusal to endorse him, selecting instead to support his opponent who has a proven track record of backing Washington State voters – and who will answer (and not run from) their questions with common sense answers. We need to “think big” by not supporting Republican obstructionists – and their obstructionist backers – who refuse to be accountable for what they say. Politicians who stand accountable are “best for the country”. Politicians – and their backers – who refuse to answer questions can’t possibly be “best for the country”. Those that have ears to hear, let them hear. Those that don’t, simply don’t.
Fredric Cornell says
I conclude my dialogue with Malcolm Russell with the following observations: The original discussion was about representation needed in Olympia, but Russell quickly derailed that discussion with his take on the Murray/Rossi race for the U.S. Senate. Then, when asked questions about the ramifications of that U.S. Senate race, Russell refused to answer stating, “…but my point was that a dialog within the context of a publication’s ‘comment’ section should stick to the topic-at-hand and avoid tangents that stray too far off the main topic.” Apparently, he, alone, decides what’s ‘too far off the main topic’. The reality is that he refused to be accountable even in his own diversion. That is typical Republican. The rational mind just can’t dialogue with what’s irrational. What can possibly be said in response to: “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.” George W. Bush, January 27, 2000, speaking in Nashua, New Hampshire. What can be said in response to: “They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” George W. Bush, November 2, 2000, speaking in St. Charles, Missouri. Republicans have their own special kind of cool-aid, and to try to be reasonable with what is outrageously irrational is nothing short of futile. The undeniable fact is that the endorsements of the Tribune stand. That is reality. Case closed.
Malcolm Russell says
Just seems ones concept of rational and “whats best” and another’s can be and are different – our elected leaders not being able dialog about them and stay on topic is in my view part of the hyper-partisan problem our country is facing.
If we just criticize each other, diverge from the topic at hand and dismiss all opposing views and opinions as propaganda, mindless chanting and nonsensical obstructionism then by doing so we drive the will to dialog away, we will just continue to be all the more divided. I hope the future changes those things… I enjoyed the dialog and hearing your views on the matter Mr Cornell. Thank you.
Fredric Cornell says
The first above paragraph makes no sense at all, but it, along with other Republican statements appearing above, only gives cause to confirm that Republicans never fail to confound with their pre-packaged nonsense which they propagate in lieu of reasoned, logical thought. “I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe – I believe what I believe is right.” George W. Bush, July 22, 2001, speaking in Rome, Italy. “I think – tide turning – see, as I remember – I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of – it’s easy to see a tide turn – did I say those words?” George W. Bush, June 14, 2006, speaking in Washington, D.C. “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” George W. Bush, May 24, 2005, speaking in Greece, New York.
Malcolm Russell says
To simplify the my comment above…
1) People have different opinions…and
2) it’s unfortunate they can’t discuss them by staying on topic and without derogatory references (i.e propaganda, mindless chanting and nonsensical obstructionism)
3) if we only name-call and criticize it will be our great undoing as a nation…
4) Agree or not, I do respect and did appreciate hearing another viewpoint.
5) Thank you.
Hope that was re-said simply enough…
NOTE: Thanks, the presidential quotes are interesting, here’s a few more…
”I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.”
— Obama, at a presidential campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon
”It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the US Senate. There’s a lot of…I don’t know whats the term is in Austrian, wheeling & dealing.”
— Obama, ”Austrian,” a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009
”UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”
— Obama, attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009
Fredric Cornell says
In a recent televised debate with her Delaware opponent, Chris Coons, we heard the following question being asked: “Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State? (Christine O’Donnell) Currently, the Republicans have no power, no authority, and, therefore, no accountability. I, in good conscience, cannot vote the Republican ticket, but there is something within me which is almost hoping that Republicans get their way because that will force them to be accountable, and will, surely, provide sufficient fodder for voters, when regrouping for 2012, to ensure a second Obama term. The Republican mantra is for less spending, but not a one of them will step forward to state what program in the current budget they would cut. They refuse to be accountable for their thoughtless, obstructionist conduct. Their chorus is repetitive, hollow, and dissonant, void of reason and substance. It can easily and simply be summed up in the this Republican’s serious question: “Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State? (Christine O’Donnell) Here’s another: “To simplify the my comment above…” (Malcolm Russell)