Proposed Viaduct in Seattle is a Mega-Luxury Project we Don't Need

When you think about it, the proposed Seattle Viaduct Governor Gregoire wants is a Mega-Luxury Project using 1950's traffic solutions for the 21st century. The Viaduct is gross misrepresentation of the actual needs for that transportation corridor and shows no innovation in dealing with reducing traffic flows and reducing fuel consumption and reducing CO2 contributing to global warming.

A Seattle Dept of Transportation Map shows that the average figure for traffic going through the Battery Street Tunnel is 60,000 cars per day. The traffic on the South part of the Viaduct by Spokane Street is also only 60,000. These are two constrictor points.

In the center of the Viaduct a figure of 110,000 vehicles is usually given. The question is how much of this figure is a short on and off travel figure or a pass through that could go elsewhere. What is the traffic flow of these 50,000 vehicles?

Even using these numbers to support rebuilding a Luxury viaduct are misleading. They are actually the wrong numbers to look at.

The important question to ask is, what is the hourly traffic each hour during the day using the viaduct? What time is the highest per hour capacity now and what are the alternatives that might lower that peak capacity travel? How many park and rides and buses could we fund with $2 to $3 billion dollars to reduce that peak capacity?

We obviously don't need a 110,000 capacity corridor for 24 hours, 7 days a week. For most times a lesser capacity option would work. That is unless our goal is to increase traffic flow through this corridor with more air pollution and noise.

So then what is this huge luxury viaduct being built for - for maybe 20 peak hours of travel - 2 morning and 2 evening rush hour traffic flows during the weekdays? Obviously Saturday and Sunday traffic flows are different. Saturday and Sunday traffic wouldn't warrant such a large capacity. And traffic flows in the night are not much.

Building a 110,000 vehicle/day capacity is like buying a huge truck because maybe once a month you need to haul something. Why not buy a small fuel efficient car for most of your travel and rent a truck those few times you need to haul something? Its the same with the traffic corridor in question, why not built it for smaller capacity that meets 90% of the travel needs? And look for solutions to address the remaining 10%.

For those few hours of peak capacity, how about increased bus traffic - maybe even free bus passes from new park and ride lots north and south of the viaduct? You can give out lots of free bus passes for a billion dollars, and reduce traffic noise and congestion and cut air pollution.

It's what happens now with special buses to sports events. What's so different about having "special buses" to zip people to work downtown who now use the viaduct? I know this is a pretty radical idea. Since trips to work are round trips 10,000 people using the bus means 20,000 fewer car trips. 50 people in a bus means 50 fewer cars at the same time. How about some car pooling.

Another way to check the true need for the viaduct capacity is to start charging tolls and then see how many people still use the corridor. Charge car pools or van pools less or let them pass through free. Tolls have been mentioned as one way to help pay for transportation infrastructure and what better way to see how many would pay a toll to use the Viaduct corridor than to start now. The initial toll could be used to build a fund to tear down the viaduct.

Seems to me to be a legitimate way to use the tolls. And the concept of user pay is fair. If you don't use it, why should you pay for it?

We're going to have to tear the viaduct down anyway so why not do it now. Then see how many people clamor to rebuild it. You might be surprised how many would look to different solutions than those proposed now. Too bad we can't plan for an earthquake at 3 AM sometime soon to speed up the tear down process.

John Kerry will not Run for President in 2008

The 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee who probably really won but didn't become President has decided not to enter the 2008 race. According to the Washington Post Kerry

"announced today that he has decided not to run for president again in 2008, saying that he will devote his energy instead to ending the war in Iraq.

Kerry made the announcement at the end of a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about the war. He said he felt a personal responsibility to work toward ending the involvement of U.S. combat troops in Iraq because he had "made the mistake" of voting for the 2002 congressional resolution that authorized Bush to take military action in Iraq.

Kerry said he came close enough to winning the presidency in 2004 to be tempted to try again. "But I've concluded this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign," he said. Rather, it is time "to do all I can to end this war" and focus on fighting "the real war on terror," he said."

Senator John Kerry is an honorable man and would have served our country well as President. His campaign in 2004 was assaulted by right wing fear mongers inspired by Karl Rove who falsely attacked Kerry's war record in a Swift Boat ad campaign that falsely distorted Kerry's record. Rovian tactics were also behind labeling Kerry a flip flopper - another deceitful ad campaign that relieved on repetitious ads amplified by the right wing noise machine of talk radio and Internet postings and right wing media outlets like Fox news. Also numerous instances of attempts to disenfranchise voters like those documented in Florida and efforts to mislead voters and malfunctioning voting machines in places like Ohio as documented by Robert Kennedy Jr and others helped to keep Bush in office.

Kerry was again attacked in 2006 by the right wing propaganda campaign in the telling of a joke about Bush that the media turned into a diatribe about making fun of Kerry. Meanwhile the ineptitude of Bush was ignored by the media for most of Bush's time in office until finally the 2006 national elections brought home the fact that it was not Kerry but Bush who was the real joke. Its one of those joke where you only laugh at because it's so painful otherwise.

Kerry leaving now opens up the Democratic race for President by leaving behind the baggage of Kerry's loss. It also opens up the race to new visions and hopes for a different future.

Is Hillary Power Hungry? Is that Bad?

Women who run for President shouldn't be power hungry. And they should never forgive their husband if he has an extramarital affair, particularly if they want to run for President. Right wing talk radio? Michael Savage? Rush Limbaugh? No, a post by a "progressive" blogger.

"I can't vote for someone who I perceive as so cravenly hungry for power that she'll do absolutely anything to obtain it." so says Carla over at Preemptive Karma.

While Carla says " I can't pretend to understand the goings on in people's marriages" she savagely trashes Hillary for sticking with Bill anyway after the Monica Lewinsky affair. Carla " can fathom no reason for staying in such a dysfunctional situation except to stay next to power."

The vast right wing conspiracy loves you Carla. The right wing long ago launched a "Stop Hillary Movement" See efforts like Stop Hillary clothes at Cafe Press, Stop Hillary PAC, the Hillary Project -educate yourself on the most corrupt politician in recent history, Blogs Against Hillary, and on and on. The right wing is afraid of Hillary. Such right wing noise and fear mongering makes me suspicious of any anti -Clinton spin and so here's my response to Carla which I posted on her site:

I truly don't see that your argument makes sense. Maybe a different perspective is that Hillary leaving Bill would have added fuel and support to the mean spirited partisan right wing Republican power play to impeach Bill Clinton and push him out of office. Maybe it was more an act of courage to stay and deny the right wing satisfaction in their meddling in a family personal matter and trying to use it for their right wing political ends. In fact your link to wikipedia speaks to this - the vast right wing conspiracy.

As some who took after Clinton found out, they had things to hide also. Hillary Clinton was hardly the first person to be married to a straying husband who had sex with someone else.

If you ask me, your comments fall into the Republican game plan to have us buy into this idea that there is something wrong with Hillary both because she stayed with her husband and because now she wants to be President. Why is she being singled out as someone wanting power that we should judge as bad? Could it be that this is parroting back one of the Republican talking points to stop Hillary? Tell me the name of one candidate for President that doesn't want power?

You have to want power to be able to reach your goals and implement your visions. Remember the event that did in Ted Kennedy's 1980 attempt at running for President - the CBS Roger Mudd interview where he couldn't explain why he wanted to be President?

If a candidate doesn't have the drive and ambition to be President, do you think they're going to run a strong campaign or be a strong President? Would you vote for a Democrat that didn't have the passion to want to be President and that couldn't persevere through adversity - including an extra marital affair of a spouse?

How about judging Hillary and the other candidates on what they say they want to do as President and whether they have what it takes to get elected and take this nation forward after the dismal Bush years? Let's not buy into Republican spin mongering. That's what this Hillary "power" trip thing is. It's also a sexism thing because it supports the image that women wanting power are not O.K while men wanting power are OK.

Let's not buy into Republican spin mongering. That's what this Hillary "power" trip thing is. It's also a sexism thing because it supports the image that women wanting power are not O.K while men wanting power are OK. Why is this discussion only about Hillary wanting power? Seems to me that this is what the Republican spin machine wants us to talk about. Its part of their stop Hillary campaign.

I looked up John McCain on nndb.com. It said "McCain had an extramarital affair with Cindy Lou Hensley, whose father owned Hensley & Co., a Phoenix-based liquor company that is the nation's second largest Anheuser-Busch distributor. McCain and Shepp were divorced in 1980, and he married his millionaire mistress the following month" So is John McCain a better candidate for President?

Remember the Kerry criticism by the right wing of marrying into the Heinz family money. It's all a matter of where you're coming from politically as to whether it matters or not about the details of ones personal marital life it seems.

Or lets look at Gingrich who pushed for Clinton's impeachment. "Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, Gingrich married his first wife, Jackie Battley, resulting in the birth of two daughters. He began to discuss divorce with Jackie in 1981, while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. Gingrich married his second wife, Marianne Ginther, in the fall of 1981. [4] They divorced in 1999 because of her dislike for Washington D.C. and other difficulties. A year later, he married a House aide, Callista Bisek [5] amid rumors the two had an affair during his previous marriage, even while presiding over Clinton's impeachment"

Should the BIAW Finance Washington State Supreme Court Campaigns?

Important Washington State Legislative Hearing on

Public Financing of Judicial Races

Senate Bill 5226

Thursday January 25, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Government Operations & Elections Committee
Senate Full Committee

Senate Hearing Rm 2J.A.

Cherberg Building Olympia, WA

Right now the Building Industry Association is the main financier of candidates running for the Washington State Supreme Court. Two of their candidates won election in the last several years - Jim Johnson and Richard Saunders. And they spent several million trying to elect two more Supreme Court Justices this last year. Such outrageous and out of control special interest money in campaigns destroys a fair and impartial judiciary.

It's time for citizens to take back the electoral process and remove special interest money trying to pack our courts with hand picked candidates that are beholden to the special interests, not the law or the public good.

This Thursday starts the process to get the Washington State Legislature to enact public financing of campaign elections. Come and testify that you want to take back control of our elections. Testify in support of SB 5226. The hearing starts at 3:30 P.M. Thursday January 25, 2007. Sign up at 3:00 if you want to speak.

If you can't come, send an e-mail or call your Senator urging they support SB 5226. You can contact your legislators at www.leg.wa.gov.

You can learn more about Washington Public Campaigns by visiting their website at http://www.washclean.org/

Hilliary Clinton Officially Joins Presidential Race

Surprise. Surprise. "I'm in" says Hilliary Clinton. Hilliary Clinton's website contained the announcement this morning that she is joining the long list of candidates running for President in 2008.

"I'm in. And I'm in to win.
Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.
And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures."

..."Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day."

"...I believe that change is coming November 4, 2008. And I am forming my exploratory committee because I believe that together we can bring the leadership that this country needs. I'm going to start this campaign with a national conversation about how we can work to get our country back on track."
"This is a big election with some very big questions. How do we bring the war in Iraq to the right end? How can we make sure every American has access to adequate health care? How will we ensure our children inherit a clean environment and energy independence? How can we reduce the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare? "

You can read the full text and also see her video at her website.

Iraq War Really about Condoleezza Rice being Single?

Right Wing Attack Zombies have once again attacked a Democrat, this time Senator Barbara Boxer, in an attempt to divert attention from Bush's War and the Old Time Media buys into it. It's just as nonsensical as their buying into the same Right Wing Zombies spin diversion coordinated by the Republican Noise Machine when they attacked John Kerry's Bush joke.

When will the media get out of the business of being manipulated and used by the conservatives to deflect criticism of the Iraq War? The New York Times gives right wing blogger's and right wing radio attention and coverage on whether Barbara Boxer offended Condi Rice when she suggested that by Rice being single she didn't have a close loved one in the firing sights over in Iraq. Ouch, the truth hurts.

The NY Times Headline, "Passing Exchange Becomes Political Flashpoint Focused on Feminism". Excuse me, but doesn't the media know what Bush and Rove and Rice are doing? It's political jujitsu. Turn the questioning back on the questioner and make them the issue, thereby deflecting the original question. Flashpoint? No. Just an attempt to deflect questions that need to be asked and answered.

Here is Senator Boxer's question as quoted in the International Herald

"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.
"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

The International Herald's Headline: "Rice says single women can understand ramifications of war"
Excuse me again but what does that have to do with Bush escalating his personal war in Iraq without having to be accountable to America? There is nothing wrong with Senator Boxer's question. It's time someone started asking these questions and demanding answers.

The New York Times noted that Rice had no comment at the time but later its attack time. Bush's press propagandist, Tony Snow comments that he thinks Senator Boxer's comments were anti feminist and "a great leap backward for feminism" Yes the Bush people should know all about feminism with their anti contraception positions and other regressive policies that are steps backward for women.

The media needs to call this line of attack crap and do their job ferreting out the truth rather than just parroting back the Bush propaganda line. But wait, say too much and Bush will exclude you from being able to ask questions at his press conferences, excusee me, indoctrination conferences. Shame on the media for being so docile and compliant in parroting the White House nonsensical attack.

As Babara Boxer says in the International Herald article:

"I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation," she said. "My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."

Thank you Senator Barbara Boxer for raising the issue and asking questions like these. Keep up the good work!

Time for US Senators to Open Their Campaign Books in a Timely Matter.

Old Time Senators seem fearful of opening their campaign books to voters and for too long have tried to unreasonably hide them from the public. While candidates for the Presidency and House of Representatives file electronically with the Federal Election Commission, members of the US Senate do not. As we've written previously, they are still in the dark ages .

As the Federal Elections Commission notes, this means "it can take as long as 30 days before some detailed data filed on paper is available in the Commission's database." They have since 2000 requested that Senate candidates file with them electronically but the US Senate has refused to comply, instead having campaigns send paper reports to the Clerk of the Senate, who then forwards them to the FEC to be scanned. Software is obviously available for Senate campaigns to enter data and forward it directly to the FEC since this is what House candidates use.

But that's only half the story. As Common Cause notes:

The current situation is absurd. Senate campaigns keep their contribution records electronically anyway. What happens next is like a reporting machine designed by the old cartoonist, Rube Goldberg. As it stands now, Senate campaigns take their own electronic records, print them out on paper, ship the paper (cumulatively thousands of pages' worth) to the Secretary of the Senate, which the Secretary then copies to send to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC then pays six figures of taxpayers' money to hire a contractor to retype the information into an electronic format!

Senator Russell Feingold (D) on January 9th, 2007 has again filed his "Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. " It is filed as S-223 . On Jan 11, 2007 Feingold and Republican co-sponsor Thad Cochran in a press release stated that this "commonsense bill to make our electoral system more transparent is long overdue." We agree.

But we also think the bill doesn't go far enough. Compared to Washington State's campaign Disclosure laws it's rather wimpy because current disclosure for both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate only require quarterly reporting. Quarterly reporting means that US Senators and Representatives file campaign reports on April 15th, July 15th and Oct 15th before a November election, and on Jan. 31st after the election. This is hardly timely and significant disclosure in light of how quickly money can be raised and spent in campaigns. Disclosure forms need to be filed monthly!

Disclosure in a timely fashion of who is donating to whom and how much is essential to voters being able to know who's trying to get you to vote for who and why. It helps to know whose interests candidates will be representing even though they will tell you the money has no influence on their votes. Like we are all supposed to believe that, right.

Presidential candidates have the option of reporting monthly or quarterly. I think it should all be monthly. We do it in Washington State for all statewide, legislative and local campaigns. It just makes sense.

Current sponsors of S-223 are Senators Allard, Biden, Boxer, Cornyn, Dorgan,Durban,Feinstein, Graham, Grassley, Hutchinson, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski,Obama, Reed, Rockefellar, and Salazar.

Hey Washington State voters - where is Murray and Cantwell? Seems a few other Northwest Senators are also missing. Time to send a few e-mails. Go to the links below and ask them to co-sponsor S-223. Tell them you want to see monthly reporting, not quarterly reporting as they have now.

Washington State Senators:

http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

for other Senators go to:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Snake Oil Salesman Eyman Tries to Revive Dead Initiative and Republicans

Perennial Con Artist Tim Eyman has something new he wants you to buy. No, it's not a fraternity or sorority watch. He been digging in his graveyard of old money making initiatives and schemes and discovered that applying Clark Stanley's Snake Oil Liniment to his scalp has really helped increase his mental acumen and insight. Or so he thinks.

He thinks it's worked so well for him that he's reviving another initiative to the people of Washington State that he has already failed to get support for in the past. (Initiative 807 in 2003). He's been sending fundraising letters around the state telling people of his dead but now revived vision for Washington State without tax or fee increases. Seems all this snake oil could do was revive old Eyman schemes , not generate new ones.

He and his fellow traveling salemen from Spokane - the Fagan Brothers - have filed an initiative today (Initiative 953) with the Washington State Secretary of State to give a minority of 1/3 of the State Legislature the ability to stop any tax and fee increases.

He thinks it's a brilliant idea - just because the state voters overwhelming elected Democrats by a wide majority to run the Legislature and write and pass the state budget doesn't mean that the losers still can't win. Keep the faith. Rather than the majority passing the state budget, he wants a minority of 1/3 of our elected legislators to decide.

Yes, let a minority or one third of the state legislators decide what is or isn't in the budget. That way the Republicans can still be in power to decide on the critical issues of what's in the state budget and who and what gets funded or not. We all know Democrats stole the Governor's race . It only follows that they must have stolen the Legislature also.

And all Tim has to do is convince you to do is sign and vote for his measure to put the Republicans back in charge. But he won't tell you that it's an attempt to overturn the vote of the majority and give a minority of 34 members out of 98 in the Washington State House of Representatives or 17 out of 49 members in the Washington State Senate veto power over running the state.

No he won't be talking about this attempt to put the Republicans back in charge. His scalp treatments tell him that its not really what's in the medicine you try to sell to people, it's what you convince them to think is in it. Eyman is planning on come out with his own line of snake oil - Eyman's Own Scalp and Hair Remedy

Rumor has it that Eyman has been trying to convince losing Republican Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to buy some bottles of Stanley Clark's Snake Oil Lineament. Eyman says he has plenty in his garage but unfortunately for some of us he is restricting sales to Republicans only. Rossi wishes he had only started taking it before his last election.


Eyman's previous attempt on this initiative was filed as I-807 filed in 2003. At that time we wrote how Eyman had printed up invalid initiative petitions that did not have the correct text on the back . He also tried to falsely sell the initiative as "No Income Tax". The Legislature subsequently changed the law to stop petitioners from falsely representing what an initiative was about.

But let Eyman go ahead and try to con people again. The fact is that the initiative is patently unconstitutional and like others he has written, it would be thrown out in court.

Why? We also wrote about this previously Because any attempt to give one third of the Legislature veto power over the state budget is unconstitutional. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution gives the legislature the power to pass laws by a majority vote. Eyman can not change the state constitution by initiative.

Seattle Times Does the Boy Talk about Girl Power

"Girl Power- No Longer a Novelty" say the "boys" at the Seattle Times. This editorial appeared in today's Seattle Times but was posted January 1, 2007 on the Internet.

We are the only state in the nation which has two girl Senators and a girl Governor, all a testament to "Girl Power" and our "true progressivism and open-mindedness" says the Seattle Times.

Yes, we have a girl for Governor - 59 year old Girl Governor Christine Gregoire (born March 24, 1947). We also have two girl Senators: Girl Senator Patty Murray (born Oct 11, 1950) who is 56 years old and Girl Senator Maria Cantwell (born Oct 13, 1958) who is 48 years old.

The Seattle Times notes that Maine and California also have two "female" Senators. But California's Governor is not boy Arnold Schwarzenegger or male Arnold Schwarzenegger but "ever macho" Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why not in all fairness say "Not a Girlie" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? That would be in context with the "Girl Power" headline. Maine's Governor is asexual I guess because he is just "John Baldacci" He is not labeled as a boy or male. Maybe he is bisexual - in that case the girl power factor would put Maine at 2 1/2 instead of 2 out of three offices in the comparison above.

Our "Girl Power"according to the Seattle Times is because "Voters, as well as skilled politicians at several levels, understand that men do a very good job at a lot of things, and, quite often, women do, too" I think they meant to say "and, quite often, girls do, too." But there is more here.

I have a seventeen, almost eighteen, year old daughter who is off to college next year. As I read the above quoted sentence I can't help but be angered at the bias that this sentence displays that I hoped we were overcoming in our nation. The phrase "...understand that men do a very good job at a lot of things, and, quite often, women do too." is what bothers me. It reeks of sexism. Men, implying all men, as a class, do a very good job at a lot of things, it says. Without qualification, (all) men (politicians) do a very good job at a lot of things (in politics). But women don't always do a very good job at a lot of things. They may "quite often" do a very good job at a lot of things but they don't always do a very good job like men do. This is according to the Seattle Times interpretation of how men and women politicians are perceived by voters and I assume by the Seattle Times. Did no one proofread this editorial?

The Seattle Times editorial is off the mark in talking so condescendingly about "Girl Power" Maybe its because the Times editorial board itself has 8 boys and only 4 girls. But the fact is that the "girls" the Seattle Times talks about as a whole are shut out of power across the country. It's time we talked about the reality that boys run this country. And boys outnumber girls two to one in Washington's State Legislature. Is that a sign of "our true progressivism and open mindedness" that the Times talks about?

The Times editorial never once calls a man - a boy and never once calls a man - a male in its talk about "Girl Power".

The Seattle Times editorial notes that "For many years, Washington has had the highest, or one of the highest, percentages of women in the State Legislature" We are now ranked third after Maryland and Delaware. We are actually tied for third with 3 other states - Arizona, Nevada and Vermont.

But the Seattle Times doesn't give the figures for how many women are in the Washington Legislature which I think is important to this discussion. The Washington State Senate has 20 women out of 49 total Senators (15 D, 5R). The Washington State House of Representatives has 29 women out of 98 Representatives (19D, 10R) Women comprise almost exactly one third of our Legislature or 33.3% . This breakdown is part of an analysis done by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, State University of New Jersey.

Why is it not 50/50? Why do we not have some kind of parity or equality in numbers since women voters comprise about 50% of the voting population? While it is good to applaud the success of women in the ranks of Washington's Legislators to date, it is not good enough to stop there. We need to challenge the parties and the voters to seek out and elect more women to the State Legislature. We need to rise to the challenge of fair representation. That is the editorial the Times should have written.

A closer look at the numbers of women elected to state legislatures nationally tabulated on the page of the Center for American Women and Politics says to me that women have hit a glass ceiling on rising to power in politics in America. ( See also my earlier discussion of the glass ceiling for women in politics)

Women in State Legislatures:

1971..........4.5%

1981........12.1%

1991.........18.3%

2001.........22.4%

2007.........22.8%

The trend is pretty obvious. Its like a mathematical equation where the line is approaching a limit of 25%.

The US ranks below a number of other countries around the world in having women in national Legislative office. Our two women U.S.Senators - Senator Patty Murray and Senator Maria Cantwell are only two of 16 women US Senators. 84 Senators are men. Women also comprise only 16% of the members of the US of Representatives.

Internationally this ranks us 66th out of 151 national Legislative bodies around the world in the percentage of women holding office. Ironically this is lower than the percentage of women in the national legislature in Iraq (25.5%) and Afghanistan (27.3% and 22.5%).

"Woman Power" in America has a long ways to go to reach any fairness of women being represented in office. If anything Washington State is an anomaly both nationally and internationally. But even the numbers here do not suggest "a sign of Washington's egalitarian nature." Because that suggests some kind of equality which doesn't exist. And it really is not a number we should be satisfied with.
.
We should be asking ourselves why aren't we doing better, both here and nationally? Why isn't there an approximately equal number of men and women in public office? Shouldn't we be setting a goal to achieve a better balance? What do we have to do to achieve more women elected to public office? These are the questions that need answers.

Upcoming Forums on Public Financing of Washington State Campaigns

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire has put money in her state budget to use public money to finance Supreme Court and Appellate Court races. Majority House Leader Frank Chopp has said the House will pass legislation to finance public campaigns for judges. Want to learn more about the issue of publicly financed campaigns and why they are needed? Washington Public Campaigns has put together 4 great forums this week that can help change the future of politics in Washington State. Plan on attending.

CLEAN ELECTIONS FORUM
Friday, January 5 - 7:30 PM
Seattle Town Hall, 8th & Seneca
With: DAVID SIROTA
New York Times' best-selling author of "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Have Conquered Our Government-and How We Can Take It Back"

State Representative Linda Valentino (Maine)

and State Senator Ed Ableser (Arizona)

WA Senator Jim Kastama WA

and Representative Mark Miloscia

Moderator Ken Alhadeff,

philanthropist, activist, Advisory Board member for national Public Campaign
$5 Donation Suggested at the door - no one turned away

In Advance: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/9449

**** PRIVATE RECEPTION, 6 p.m. ****
Also at Seattle Town Hall
Attendance is limited.
Payment must be received by December 30th to reserve signed book.
Light fare provided.
Mail your check for admission to private reception (payable to Washington Public Campaigns) to B.Schlosstein, 10101 SE 3rd St., Bellevue, WA 98004,

or donate online at http://www.washclean.org/donate.htm

$25 Reception only, or $35 per couple
$50 Reception plus signed copy of "Hostile Takeover"
More information: Annie@washclean.org, or call 206-784-9695

Everett Clean Elections Forum
Thursday, January 4th - 7p.m. (Reception, 6:15 p.m.)

PUD Auditorium

2320 California St, Everett
Contact: Chad Shue, chadshue@hotmail.com, 425-341-1061,
or: Harry Abbott, harry.abbott22@verizon.net, 425-783-0270

Tacoma Clean Elections Forum
Saturday, January 6th - 11 a.m
Unitarian Universalist Congregation

1115 S. 56th Street, Tacoma
Contact: Susan Eidenschink, susaneiden@juno.com, 253-572-9305

Olympia Clean Elections Forum
Saturday, January 6th - 3:00 p.m.
Olympia Center

222 Columbia N., Olympia
Contact: Chris Stegman, c.stegman@comcast.net, 360-705-3528