Fear of a "conservative" district

There was an interesting article in the Inlander this week about the Spokane City Council race in District 3 (Story: "The rule of 3rds," The Inlander). The article explores the Northwest district's conservative reputation and how that reputation is shaping the council race.

Of course, I had a few issues with some statements in the article. First off, the statement by local GOP spokesman Curt Fackler that District 3 residents are more concerned with development, growth and "widening Francis and Indian Trail" is ridiculous. I'm here to say that I don't think many residents of the Garland neighborhood, the Shadle neighborhood or the West Central neighborhood give a flying fuck about widening Indian Trail road. I tend to believe that people are far more concerned about the local economy, health care and public education (along with bus benches and Michael Jackson) than they are about the speed of the local commute.

Secondly, while the Northwest district is probably more conservative than the South Hill district as Fackler contends, it is a far cry from being dark red. In fact, according to precinct results, Barack Obama won the district with 52.8 percent of the vote in 2008, clearly showing that a progressive candidate can win here.

That result, in my mind, makes the later statements by state Democratic Party vice chair Sharon Smith completely baffling. Smith told the Inlander that the local Democrats are unlikely to support John Waite, the top progressive candidate in the race.

Waite, who is the owner of Merlyn's (which is worth a +20 bonus to nerd cred), is an independent candidate who describes himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative (though conservative/progressive might better describe his fiscal views in my opinion). Perusing through his web site it is apparent that his main focus as a candidate veers toward the fiscal side of things. He comes out strongly in favor of creating a more progressive tax system (one of my favorite issues), balancing the budget (a Democratic principal - See Reagan, Bush I and Bush II), strong local government and increased government transparency and accessibility.

So, without an "official" Democratic candidate in the non-partisan race, why not support Waite? Why not try to ride the momentum of last year's election and attempt to take out the ultraconservative Nancy McLaughlin in District 3? Well, Smith explains:

“You’d think she [McLaughlin] would have been a big target, and I think there were quite a few people who had some enthusiasm to see her gone,” Smith says. But local Democrats, she continues, won’t support candidates who are “half-hearted and will maybe kinda do OK.”

So, what exactly will "local Democrats" support? Certainly not important things like the Sustainability Action Plan (Though, according to my inbox, they do strongly support barbecues and picnics).

So rather than going after Nancy McLaughlin who, in Smith's words, is "narrow-minded and backwards-thinking," the Democrats elected to not put forth a candidate of their own and are unlikely to support the best shot progressives have in this race.

/facepalm

Listen up, local Democrats: This is the opportunity to ride the wave from 2008 and turn the tide in District 3. The district should not be conceded to the Republicans, especially for petty political reasons. In the immortal words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "The line must be drawn here! This far! No farther!" Please do not condemn the residents of District 3 to four more years of Nancy McLaughlin and her lunacy.