Well, as far as I can tell, none of the City Council candidates do. Yet, I keep hearing that some individuals are attempting to attach certain city council candidates to the Community Bill of Rights.
So far, the most blatant attempts to do so have been directed at district 1 candidate Amber Waldref. Tim Eyman got the ball rolling on Jim Camden's Spin Control blog, where he posted several ridiculous/hysterical comments wherein he repeatedly referred to Waldref as a "crazy-wacko-Seattle-greenie, 'Envision-Spokane-supporter'"** (Story: "News flash: Eyman backs Fagan," Spin Control). Frankly, it was obnoxious.
The fun continued over at The Inlander where Rob Chase, who is involved with the Campaign for Liberty (the teabaggers), took a stab at tying Waldref to Envision Spokane in the comments of a couple of stories (here and here). This despite the fact that he was present at the Campaign for Liberty's candidate forum where Waldref clearly stated her opposition to Envision Spokane. Perhaps he was spacing out when she said it...?
In any event, you can simply go here to read Waldref's comments on Envision Spokane's "Community Bill of Rights" first hand. She does not support it and, for that matter, neither do Jon Snyder or John Waite. All three candidates have made it clear when asked directly at forums and in comments on the Internet.
I guess if there is a silver lining to all of this nonsense, it's that these tactics suggest that the opponents of these candidates (especially Waldref) are getting desperate. To have prominent supporters of your campaign engage in tactics like this tells me that your campaign is grasping at straws.
So, hey, if you happen across someone attempting to tie any candidate to Envision Spokane, feel free to correct them. The best remedy for a dishonest argument is a little truth.
*****
** ~ Interestingly, after he had spent enough time engaging in flame wars with Spokesman.com readers, Eyman's buddy (and Waldref's opponent) Mike Fagan finally showed up to "raise the level of discourse" a bit. He proceeded to declare, essentially, that Envision Spokane is part of a United Nations conspiracy. Fagan stated, "Why doesn't the spokesman or any other paper in this city do an expose on this bill of rights, Envision Spokane, and the trail leading all the way up to the UN?" Just what the city council needs, even more representation for the conspiracy theorist crowd.
7 comments:
Whether Amber Waldref does or does not support Envision Spokane is actually a rather subtle question, leaving plenty of room for interpretation. She clearly does not support Initiative 2009-2 *per se*, for purely pragmatic reasons (probable cost impacts on the city budget). Yet by her own admission she consider the initiative's goals "laudable" and has stated, "If elected, I will keep the values of good neighborhood planning, utilization of renewable energy, worker rights, and the need for a locally vibrant economy in mind as I make decisions."
Well, what does that portend should she be elected to the Council? That she would support some sort of measure to regulate or restrict energy usage? Require all new construction in the city to incorporate solar cells or wind chargers? Vote against a development project if some neighborhood NIMBYs object? Insert some language into city contracts requiring the vendors and contractors (or perhaps anyone holding a city business license) to pay all their employees "living wages"? Refuse to grant building permits or business licenses to out-of-town property owners or businesses?
Everyone supports the *nominal* goals of Envision Spokane. I know of no one (certainly not me) who would not wish to see everyone have access to whatever health care services they need, housing they consider suitable, wages which permit them to buy whatever they desire, and a local economy which can pay everyone those wages.
What is really in question are the *specific* goals of the measure --- legislative mandates which attempt to achieve those *nominal* (and Utopian) goals by government fiat. Which ES goals does Waldref support --- the innocuous nominal ones, or the despotic specific ones?
I.e., would Amber Waldref use her position on the City Council to further Envision Spokane's legislative agenda, even though she does not support the ES initiative *per se*? That question is what counts in trying to decide whether Waldref is "an Envision Spokane supporter."
Well, for starters, I don't think that either Eyman or Chase are considering this more nuanced version of "supporting Envision Spokane" when they are making their comments. They are obviously trying to tie her to the "Community Bill of Rights," Initiative 2009-2, to influence casual voters. It is an all-too-common tactic in modern politics that feeds on voter apathy.
That being said, I don't think Waldref has had much of an opportunity to really address many of these issues specifically. There is no primary in district 1, so there has only been one forum featuring Waldref and Fagan. We have yet to hear a great deal of specifics from either candidate.
In her comments on Envision Spokane, Waldref cites cost along with the role of city government (specifically citing health care as being beyond the city's scope) as reasons for her opposition. She also cites the vague language that is used and the legal quagmire that would likely result from the passage of the initiative.
But -- if we want to split hairs further -- I would say that supporting Envision Spokane's goals as an organization is still quite different from supporting their means to achieve those goals. We agree that we would like to see these end goals achieved, though we greatly disagree on the means by which we would achieve them.
I, too, look forward to hearing her thoughts on these means and some of the more specific issues you have brought up, Contrarian -- though I suspect we will disagree on her positions ;).
I read this about Amber on the Inlander under the Chase comment. Thoughts?
----------------------------
The Inlander is up to it’s usual peculiar standard of alternative political reporting. Nicholas Deshais, who penned the article Stated Ambitions featuring only the candidates from the City of Spokane District #1. It is a little odd given they are not up for election until the General Election in November 2009. The two other races in the city of Spokane, namely District 2 & 3 each feature multiple candidates that spoke at the very same forum, are up for election in the Primary election in August 2009. Since the Primary ballots are now in the hands of the voters, it would have made better sense if Deshais had written an article covering the candidates for District 2 & 3 versus District 1.
Prudence in reporting aside, Deshais neglected to mention Amber Waldref’s confession that her husband calls her a ‘Nazi’. It didn’t take long for the audience to notice that clearly Waldref suffers from acute inappropriate diarrhea of the mouth (AIDOM) when engaging in public speaking. Although acute diarrhea of the mouth (ADOM) is not a characteristic already lacking on city council, (AIDOM) it is an indicator of a lack of experience in public speaking and political naiveté. No other viable candidate in the Forum made a verbal gaff even in same league as Waldref; who appeared to be trying to attain a persona of likeable, warm and fuzzy versus competent and articulate. Obvious points missed by Deshais.
Considering who is endorsing Amber, it is difficult to believe as Deshais conjectures that she will have any influence on local State DNC luminaries (and Waldref supporters) such as Lisa Brown and Chris Marr. It is more reasonable to conclude the opposite would be true. With her demonstrated marginal public political skills, Waldref will more likely be a vote for Marr and Senate Majority Brown on Spokane City Council, than a voice for the citizens of District #1.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? After all, Lisa Brown, a doctoral level economist is the 3rd legislative district representative and the Senate Majority Leader of the State of Washington. Former car salesman extraordinaire Chris Marr is the Majority Whip. Surely what is best for the State of Washington is best for the City of Spokane?
When Brown was elected to the Senate, the 3rd legislative district was the poorest in the state. It still is to this day; despite her years in high position in State Politics. Chris Marr sponsored legislation that outlaws studded tires, a Westside issue. After 5 feet of snow in eleven days last year, and a near record snowfall the year before, some in Eastern Washington and a majority of legislators were are not keen on the idea.
In 2009 Chris Marr and Lisa Brown cosponsored and passed into law Senate Bill 5599. This legislation transfers our State’s Electoral College votes to whom ever wins the national election’s popular vote for President of the United States. This eliminates any presidential candidate from ever needing to come to Washington State to campaign. A real boon for large population states such as California, Texas New York etc, a bust for Washington State citizens.
It is not a far stretch to see Waldref would be more likely to serve the interest of her political mentors than those of City of Spokane District #1. A conclusion easily derived with a little objectivity and just minimal political insight. Nicholas Deshais apparently was just too busy gushing over Amber to notice any other candidate.
----------------------------
I saw that comment too and am still not quite catching the logic. Because Waldref is new and doesn't have great public speaking skills then she will be more likely to be influenced by Brown and Marr than by her constituents?
By that logic then Jon Snyder is also a vote for Brown and Marr on the council, Kristina Sabestinas would have been a vote for Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Mike Fagan would be a vote for Tim Eyman and so on...
I think it is more reasonable to assume that political newcomers will be more responsive to their constituents as they are far less likely to have had their political ideals crushed and to have developed cynical attitudes toward the political process than veteran politicians.
I still do not understand why Jon Snyder says he is against Envision Spokane when as of Sept 30th, 25% of people who gave money to Envision Spokane also game to Jon Snyder's campaign. Our friends can certainly help define us. (www.pdc.org)
Nonsense.
http://spokaneskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/10/envision-spokane-and-concern-trolling.html
@Tim, you are kind of an idiot. Sorry man.
Also- Envision Spokane is pretty cool, and I really wish Waldref was for it-- I would be that much more excited to vote for her.
Post a Comment