Vote a straight Dori ticket! My endorsements

I was going to vote for Mallahan and Hutchinson, but now with your endorsement, they have no shot....thanks a lot

That's like a choice between Obama or Jimmy Carter....Good luck Seattle, you're screwed again.

I assume that means Chuck will reject?

It only means he's just a racist and not a homophobe too.

what the liberal morons would call the Islamophobic, right wing extremist, homophobic, racist, tea-bagging redneck ticket.

1033 not only limits future growth in taxes (it doesn't address "spending" as such) but it arbitrarily declares a statewide standard for current taxation to be used as a basis for "increases in inflation and population growth.

The standard will apply to the state, as well as all cities, counties, and road districts within the state. While *future* voter approved increases are exempt from the 1033 limits, the initiate also forces all state, county, and city taxing districts to adhere to a common standard. Any district currently taxing *below* this standard will certainly rase all taxes to the new standard before 1033 becomes law.

The tricky bits are down in section 10A. 10A(a) reads: The levy by the state shall not exceed three dollars and sixty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value adjusted to the state equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the state department of revenue to be used exclusively fro the support of common schools. (b) The levy of any county shall not exceed one dollar and eighty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value. (c) The levy of any road distrcit shall not exceed two dollars and twenty five cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. (d) The levy of any city or town shall not exceed three dollars and thirty seven and one-half cents per thousand dollars of assessede valuation.

Exempt from provisions of section are Port taxes (10-2-a), Excess property taxes collected by the state according to article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution (10-2-b), taxes collected for "conservation" (10-2-c), taxes collected for emergency medical services (10-2-d), taxes collected to support low income housing projects (10-2-e), taxes collected to pay for parks (10-2-f), levies for ferry districts, (and that would include "foot ferry" districts), (10-2-g).

It's pretty easy to see that if 1033 passes the unrestricted growth of government will simply shift to low income housing, foot ferries, emt services, parks and the environment and whatever Article VII of the state Constitution supports.

Another fabulous example of government by propaganda machine and sound byte. I'll bet that 90-some percent of the people who signed 1033 and who are voting for it have *never* read section 10.

If I vote for this thing it will be reluctantly. What business have any voters outside the boundaries of any county or city demanding that present expenditures be rolled back to a state wide standard? Yes, there is local control for future spending, but section 10 of 1033 potentially overturns current spending in counties, towns, and cities that could have been approved and supported by local residents there. Not everybody in every community is a knee-jerk anti-tax zealot.

This bit of flawed logic Eymanism sends the wrong message entirely. We should be sending Olympia a plainly worded formula for a *decrease* in spending, not a formula for controlled increase- (even if the language in Section 10A results in an immediate and arbitrary roll bck in everything except the several "exempt" categories).

but worth noting for future reference. SENATORS WHO VOTED TO ALLOW ILLEGAL ALIENS TO COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS- (Murray, Cantwell)... http://www.apatheticvoter.com/SenatorsSocialSecurityBenefits.htm

I'm convinced that I will certainly live out the remainder of my life without every understanding what attracts a man to another man or a woman to another woman. That doesn't change that fact that some people are simply wired differently, and they probably can't figure out why I find women attractive, either.

Legal rights shouldn't be subject to so-called "moral" behavior. Simply because some may not approve of the homosexual lifestyle doesn't mean that gays deserve fewer legal rights than straights. (What's next on the slippery slope? Blacks deserve fewer legal rights than whites? The rich deserve more legal rights than the poor?).

If R-71 passes, the gays will have "everything *but* marriage". If it fails, they will have a demonstrable basis for an appeal to the judicial system regarding the legal rights (except for marriage) that R-71 confirms. There's no assurance that a state or federal supreme court wouldn't order the State of Washington to grant *full* equality, including marriage, to homosexual couples. If we pass R-71, the state's defense could be that marriage is a religious ceremony, not a civil right, and while the state doesn't interfere with religious ceremony it does grant equal civil rights to all citizens.

The sky is falling, The sky is falling, The sky is falling, The sky errrr , Wait! The sky is still there. Guess the Chicken LIttle's of the state were wrong then as they are now. Vote YES on I-1033!!!!!

I like McGinn's personal "style" a lot, but he has no real clear idea what the office of mayor is about. He has campaigned that he would "fix the schools" in Seattle (sorry, schools are controlled by the school district, not the mayor). He campaigned that he would fix the bus system (sorry, Metro is a county agency and the Seattle mayor cannot unilaterally do much to "fix" it), and while I disagreed with his proposed "tear it down and replace it with a couple of extra buses" solution for he viaduct I was not impressed when he did a 180, or two or three 180's, on the tunnel.

Mallahan by default.