WASHINGTON’S PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOTS will start arriving in mailboxes this weekend. One important race for residents in the 45th Legislative District, which includes most of Kirkland and parts of Redmond, Sammamish and Woodinville, is the House Representative Position No. 1, currently held by democrat Roger Goodman.
For the many people who have met and worked with Roger Goodman, you get the feeling that Roger actually cares about the people he represents. He is connected to the middle class and understands the challenges most normal people in our community face.
Roger’s positive attitude toward improving the lives of his constituents is made clear by the fact that during his first three terms in the Legislature, Roger has passed landmark bills that not only improve public safety by tightening drunk driving laws, but also expand early childhood education.
The non-partisan and citizen comprised Municipal League of King County likely recognized these qualities when it gave Roger an “OUTSTANDING” rating, which is the highest rating given by the Municipal League and which is issued only when a candidate is deemed exemplary on four criteria: Involvement, Effectiveness, Character and Knowledge.
Roger’s Republican challenger Joel Hussey, by contrast, lacks these and other essential qualities to be an effective State Representative. Hussey is an elite and disconnected private jet dealer without any real or meaningful vision for the 45th Legislative District. He simply makes the generic claim that he is “running because Olympia is broken.” Hussey’s lack of insight, clarity and experience likely came through to the Municipal League, which rated Hussey lower than Roger.
Notably, what little momentum there is in Hussey’s campaign is not likely because of anything exciting about Hussey personally, but rather is due to the fact that Kirby Wilbur, Washington’s Republican Party Chairman, has targeted the House Position No. 1 election as part of his “12 in ‘12” campaign. That campaign is Wilbur’s attempt win eight State Representative seats, three State Senator seats and the gubernatorial race this year in order to claim a Republican majority in Olympia.
What is disturbing about this “12 in ‘12” campaign, and Hussey’s role in it, is that it shows the Republican Party is more concerned with regaining seats in Olympia to advance a boilerplate conservative agenda instead of actually electing qualified candidates who will effectively represent the unique interests of Washington’s citizens.
Finally, Hussey’s claim that he will do better in Olympia as a political “outsider” than a seasoned legislator such as Roger is bogus. Here is one way of considering this claim: would you pass over a qualified pilot and instead choose a truck driver with no piloting experience to fly the Boeing 747 in which you are a passenger? I hope not.
In reality, those who lack legislative experience such as Hussey are ineffective when compared to their experienced opponents because they do not understand the political process necessary to create and implement effective legislation.
In the end, the choice is clear: Roger Goodman is the best person who will effectively and meaningfully advocate sound policies and legislation on behalf of the residents of the 45th Legislative District. I hope you agree and I hope you will give Roger Goodman your vote during this important primary election.
Trent Latta is an attorney and Kirkland resident. He may be reached at TrentLatta@gmail.com.
All kinds of people, and open doors--how far has the Republican Party strayed from this vision? How far from Nixon's EPA? How far from Eisenhower's caution regarding a standing army, and industrial influence in military matters stealing from the future? No, I'll look to the wo/man before casting my ballot, and a proven representative of the people like Goodman deserves support, regardless of party affiliation.
Names/attributes by Trent’s post about Hussey: Elite, disconnected, shallow, failing, unqualified, unexciting, conspiratorial FYI, the ‘name calling’ comments are mostly a snicker about Greg’s (Patch editor) overreaction to a post I made earlier wherein I said Trent could chose to be a political hack and lie about his opponent. I sometimes forget that these posts share the same limitation that e-mail has – you can’t always know if your writing is being understood as intended. My sarcasm/attempt at humor, often misses the mark in this medium.
From a purely economic sense, a case can be made to legalize marijuana and perhaps many other drugs. But is that the most important perspective to evaluate? I know all too well the costs of waging the ‘War on drugs’ as well as the failure of that ‘war’ -- but no ‘war’ can be won using the tactics that we have employed. I’d like to know if you support the prohibition of ANY drug or substance – and how you decided which ones should be legal now. Generally it is liberals who promote legalization of marijuana and I think we would mostly agree that those who are current users are the supporters. These users have been buying these drugs knowing that their purchases are supporting murderous drug cartels and inhumane working conditions for the mules and others in the supply chain. Isn’t this a tad hypocritical? If they would support a “no illegal drug purchase” pledge as they support legislation to legalize marijuana, they would have credibility. Otherwise they are proving that marijuana usage results in poor decision making.
This lifelong Reagan Republican, now a hardcore independent concurs...
Yes, and no... as with most stereotypes. Easily countered. Retired at 41, just celebrated 30th wedding anniversary, Fortune 100 management career followed by a tech startup that had me working 60-80 hours a week for years without any comp (while meeting a payroll), 1000s of hours of community service since retirement & three braniac kids with multiple degrees & I've been a 'pothead' almost daily since 15. In my case, MJ facilitated success, not impeded, as is the case with many other professionals I know "still in the shadows", for instance the $2B hedge fund principal with an eight figure income I had breakfast with this morning (who happens to be ultra conservative in most political matters but favors MJ legalization...) Picking up on a nuance, you cite concern for the kids. Valid. I concur. I think age of consent should be higher for both alcohol and eventually MJ, but conclude it just not practical. But do you know that in every survey I have seen conducted on high school campuses around the country, each reveals an overwhelming ease of MJ access over liquor? By vast margins... Why? Controls on liquor, and MJ profiteering. There just are not a lot of guys hanging out in the high school parking lot whispering "Hey Buddy, wanna buy a Budweiser?" and when you take away the black/gray market profit motive for MJ, I believe the same will follow.
I'm not sure that your assertion "Generally it is liberals who promote legalization of marijuana and I think we would mostly agree that those who are current users are the supporters," will survive either the dim shadows of my old memory banks, or the bright illumination of Google's memory banks: http://archive.org/details/openmind_ep181 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-24.pdf http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html http://digitaljournal.com/article/320889 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e66_1225209302 "Satire is what closes on Saturday night." --George S. Kaufman
If there was a viable way to 'means test' for recreational drugs, my concern would be lessened, but I fear that those who are already at the bottom of the economic totem pole won't climb any faster while they are under the influence. Thanks for the civil and interesting input. But I hope you do consider the impact of 'supporting' the illegal drug trade -- it's not a pretty sight and we can individually decide which laws to abide by and which laws to break out of convenience. I suspect that there will always be some items which will be contraband, and the market to supply it will be lawless.
Your list of supporters is interesting -- so is the poll showing slightly more Republicans than Democrats (presumably slightly more conservatives than liberals) admit to having TRIED marijuana. Of course, the same poll says that Democrats favor legalization by a substantionally larger (37% - 21%) margin over Republicans. I know we both agree that it is a common ploy to highlight the most unlikely supporters to make an issue more acceptable to those less inclinded to support it. I'm not generally inclinded to change my mind on issues based on polls. I like to evaluate issues based on my own life experience and observations -- besides, polls are often taken in such a manner to achieve the desired outcome. If I am to accept the idea that legalizing marijuana will reduce crime associated with the production, distribution, and sales of the substance, then wouldn't I have to accept the legalization of ALL contraband? Should meth and heroin also be legally sold and consumed? Legalization will reduce the cost and improve the 'quality' of these drugs and I can't see how that benefits our society. If you are confident that using marjiuana has no negative impact on your life, I ask that you consider the impact to those who may be unable to cope well in our society even when NOT under the influence. What impact will increased availability and decreased cost have on their lives?
My post of polls and supporters was merely to refute what I believed was an inaccurate statement. As far as marijuana's impact on my life, what would have been my prime years for smoking were wasted as a Navy fighter pilot flying supersonic fighter planes from an aircraft carrier, and being a flight instructor in those planes. Ironically, we often called the Phantoms 'smokers' as they left a rather visible exhaust trail at normal power settings--those not using afterburner. During those same years, my fellow pilots would discuss a wide-ranging array of topics, including concern over oil peak-production, and global climate change. It's not clear to me now, some 40 years later, why conservatives have abandoned solid science to chase the voodoo doll of alternative realities.It weakens us as a nation. Vote Goodman.
I was hoping to hear your thoughts on the question I posed about what you believe the impact will be on the lower rungs of the social ladder with cheaper, better, more accessible drugs as a result of legalization. This is my primary objection and I'm open to ideas that would mitigate that concern. I agree with your point about the ills and costs associated with the enforcement efforts. Question Goodman.
Ken, both these comments applied to me when I began. Dirt poor hog farmer from Podunk, Midwest, seven miles from nowhere, who spent his youth cleaning out the family hog lots and walking beans for 25 cents an hour. Dad hosed water on the house in the winter so that it would freeze in the cracks and cut down on the drafts. I was bright and driven, but no member of our extended family had ever attended college, nor did I, and rather then accept the invitation to attend, I hit the road and headed west at 17. In my circle, some succumbed to the stereotypical stupor you suggest, others used it as fuel for creative or mechanical pursuits... Good talking with you Ken.
What is your source for your claim that “Interestingly enough this additional spending he initiated didn't help our schools at all. It all went to Head Start programs for the economically disadvantaged. Not a penny for your average tax paying family towards our kids or reducing class size. Since we live in a ‘Sanctuary’ state most of it goes to illegals.” The website you posted says nothing about Roger Goodman or Washington State. And you are flatly wrong that no funding has gone to help “your average tax paying family.” Your claim that we “need some folks to trim government and put it back on track” lacks all persuasive value whatsoever and is instead just a parroted response of the Republican Mantra that I chastised earlier. Do you drive on roads? Do you benefit from prisons? Are there public schools in your neighborhood? Are there parks near your home? When you call 911, do Fireman and Policeman respond? If so, then you are benefiting from government spending. The amount of money that is actually spent on the unspecified “social programs” that you claim don’t work, is likely nominal when compared to money spent on services and programs that you benefit from every single day, whether you are fair-minded enough to admit it or not.
If you engage in the practice of stating that we don't need fiscal discipline as advocated by Jim merely because there is some benefit from government programs, you won't have many listening. By the way, WA spends 26% on education, 17% on health, and 12% on Welfare... about 10% on transportation.
I never said we don't need fiscal discipline.
I in no way drew a parallel between the policies of Reagan and Goodman. By no stretch of the imagination, aside from yours apparently. I fully understand the differences between Reagan and Goodman. They are not being debated in this thread... Calling another comment "dumb", particularly one in which you apparently misunderstand the content, and then challenging one to get "your facts" straight when no facts are presented in the first place, reflects poorly on you.... To clarify for your sake, my comment was made in support of another commentator who was observing that their political decision making was now based on the merits of the individual rather then political ideology.
I appreciate your involvement in the political process and the passion with which you support your preferred candidate. It is unfortunate that our paths have not crossed during the many years we've both lived in the 45th District. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down together, have a cup of coffee and get to know each other better. We can discuss many of the important issues facing our district and the state of Washington. We might also spend some time on the topics of involvement, effectiveness, character, knowledge, insight, clarity and experience that you raised in your blog. I can be reached at joel@joelhussey.com. I look forward to meeting you.
Trent
And - your remark...."inner city politician just sucking the life out of the middle class to provide benefits for others". What useless trash talk. When facts fail, resort to slander?
Trent