- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 16, 2010 at 6:11 pm #596694
flowerpetalMemberI’m not usually undecided this close to an election; and this is where I find myself. The other day I received a phone call from Joe Fitzgibbon’s office asking for my vote. I thought, oh good, here’s someone who could give me something meaty to think about. Nope. She really couldn’t tell me why she thought Joe was a better choice than Mike. She instead rattled off his endorsers until I told her to stop. He has endorsers whom I admire… and so does Mike Heavey. And when I tried to pin her down to some real reasons she first told me “He’s young and has fresh ideas.” (Useless information) and then she told me “Its difficult for me to say why I am voting for Joe.” That’s when I ended that phone call.
So, who and why for you?
October 16, 2010 at 6:27 pm #705822
JoBParticipantFitzgibbon..
Mostly because after speaking with both of them in person ..once you get past politispeak… I felt he had a better grasp of the issues and why they might matter to me.
October 16, 2010 at 7:47 pm #705823
clark5080ParticipantHeavy because I think he just might actually do something about the out of control unsustainable budget
October 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm #705824
acemotelParticipantFitzgibbon! This race in my mind is between the A student and the C student. Many Heavey endorsements are called up on political favors of the father. I find Fitzgibbon to be articulate, smart, and thoughtful. And I don’t believe in political dynasties, especially when the first go-round wasn’t very impressive IMO.
October 16, 2010 at 8:16 pm #705825
CarolPBMemberWell put, Ace
October 16, 2010 at 9:37 pm #705826
blackwatchMemberI haven’t researched it yet but Heavey is against the new liquor initiative and I’m personally really sick of the State’s control of liquor.
October 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm #705827
KenParticipantI waited this one out as long as I can. I have close relatives who are committed and close to Heavey. I have had 3 robocalls from his org today and each one says he will be fighting the “special interest”. The special interest he seems to be fighting is organized labor including the teachers union. I read a while back that he had odd ideas about charter schools but has probably been warned not to voice them in the current campaign.
http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/07/publicola-no-brainer-30-joe-fitzgibbon/
I don’t put much weight in the pissing match over his answers to questionnaires. The nuances are easy to cloud.
Labor is the backbone of the 34th district Democrats even though most of us are not union members. We have enjoyed the results and benefits of the labor movement though many are young enough not to remember it. Some of us from “right to work” states remember the utter powerlessness involved in working in service industry jobs with no hope of betterment.
I don’t care how young Fitzgibbon is, I think he is the more progressive Democrat and will do the job in Olympia in a way that is more inline with my hopes and goals and those of my neighbors.
October 16, 2010 at 10:23 pm #705828
charlabobParticipantDoes anyone know what happened with the 34 LD game to override the endorsement of Fitzgibbon by “nominating” Heavey? Inside baseball, but it sounded very lame and establishment to me. The PCO’s were going to “nominate” someone so <blah blah blah> THE LD meeting spoke very clearly — 94 -21 for Fitzgibbon. I’ve met him and I like what he says. Besides that, I second everything Ken says .. as usual :-)
October 17, 2010 at 6:35 pm #705829
sarellyMemberI’m not sure about this decision. On the one hand, I agree Fitzgibbon is the more progressive – and possibly more idealistic – of the two. His motives for running might be more pure (the desire to actually be of service, as opposed to wanting to gain the status of the office.) I read him as having a gentler vibe. On the other hand, Heavey sounds more experienced and tougher – therefore like someone who can get something accomplished. What exactly he would try to accomplish is not entirely clear, however.
As for charlabob’s question, my guess, based on rumors heard during the campaigns of secretary of state a few years back, is that there’s all kinds of B.S. and skullduggery and backstabbing and sleazy sneaking around going on the 34th, and elsewhere in the local Dem Party, driven by nepotism, etc., and that the only way to counter it is to become involved and be present, and be tough enough (and possibly less scrupulous)to not be cowed by louder voices. Not that the 34th, or the Dems, or any human-run organization is less prone to these problems. Get people together in a group and there’s going to be ugliness.
October 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm #705830
acemotelParticipantKen ++
Carol PB thanks!
sarelly – interesting analysis. your first para explains exactly why IMO he would be a dangerous and reckless pol. Sounds like you are describing the difference between a gangster and a statesman.
October 17, 2010 at 8:37 pm #705831
sarellyMemberLOL, Ace. I have no idea what I’m talking about. But I do think it might be better to have someone in office who can do some of what I want, even if I don’t agree with him – than to have someone I agree with about everything, but who ends up being ineffectual. In order to A) get elected and B) be successful in office, you’ve got to have a thick skin, be single-minded, pragmatic, and yet also be able to the gain support of a broad enough spectrum of people to be able to persuade them to your point of view. Anyone who wants to be in politics is already suspect, IMO. Anyone who wants to be a leader has trouble written all over them, because it takes a gigantic ego to want to lead. You’ve gotta have a pretty firm belief in your own correctness. There are no statesmen, IMO. That’s why even the seemingly “best” candidates, if they win, don’t do what they said they were gonna do – they cave to the pressure. Thus, those who are not introspective, who are not self-critical, who won’t consider other points of view – in other words, lack the ability to learn – ultimately end up being the ones who get their way. I’m afraid it’s a dynamic that’s built into the system. Good thing I’m not cynical.
;)
October 17, 2010 at 11:45 pm #705832
charlabobParticipantTurns out there was nothing sneaky going on with the 34LD nominating convention: Mike Heavey did not attend the convention and did not ask anyone to nominate him. Joe Fitzgibbon was nominated unanimously, so he’s our candidate.
As far as “experience”, I’m curious about what experience Heavey has over Fitzgibbon. Fitzgibbon worked for Sharon Nelson (the previous office-holder) and she said, “Joe is highly respected in Olympia, both by legislators and staff, and has forged strong relationships that make him uniquely suited to represent our district in the Legislature. Our successes in reforming payday lending, protection Maury Island and Puget Sound, and building an alliance of progressive legislators committed to working families and environmental protection owe a great deal to Joe’s policy knowledge and relationship building.”
Doesn’t sound naive, idealistic or inexperiencd to me. He does get things done. :-)
The thing that really worries me is people who vote by signage: Heavey is definitely heavy on the yard signs.
October 18, 2010 at 12:41 am #705833
sarellyMemberWhat I was responding to was more in the life experience category – Heavey’s work in fraud and identity theft prevention, volunteering with the homeless and at-risk youth – stuff that suggests Heavey isn’t afraid of the realities people live with, and is willing to personally be around people who are not middle class. (He ain’t Heavey, he’s my brother.) I know my spouse and neighbors will vote Fitzgibbon. Usually I vote based on endorsements – Fitzgibbon has SEIU, teachers, WA State Labor.
October 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm #705834
thansenMemberThis was a tough one for me…they stack up pretty evenly. So when that happens, I go with my gut. And my gut told to vote for Fitzgibbon.
Now that I voted and mailed my ballot, how do I stop the ads on my TV box? :)
October 20, 2010 at 9:45 pm #705835
St. Stephen St.MemberI enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. I too have been trying to decide who would be a better fit. “He aint Heavey, He’s my brother!” hahaha.
I have to say I recieved a call from a Heavey phone banker and the older gentleman directed me to read the Seattle Times Endorsement of Heavey. I told him that I don’t agree with the Times very often and he laughed and agreed. He did point out that this year they endorsed Patty Murray, Suzan DelBene for congress, and Denny Heck who is running in congress for SW washington. All solid democrats and each one of their Op/Ed’s was dead on. I encourage you to read Heavey’s endorsement. It makes a compelling case that really when it comes to balancing the budget and protecting critical services Heavey has the experience and the independence to balance it with out being swayed by Olympia heavyweights (unions and business interests alike).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012425837_edit23heavey.html
I support unions but I don’t agree with them 100% of the time. And I think Heavey can replicate the success that Dow has shown at the county to get the unions to come to the table.
I do like Fitzgibbon’s environmentalist support but I am cautious after doing some research and seeing the same coalitions that elected our current mayor are the same groups that are supporting Joe (ie SEIU Union, Cascade Bicycle Club, Sierra Club). Especially with him being so young a worry that he might be a lock step vote much like the mayor.
Plus I see on Heavey’s website he is endorsed by the Veterinarians Association, as a dog person I am impressed!
October 24, 2010 at 4:38 am #705836
JoBParticipantSt Stephen St
and Heavy is endorsed by the Veterinarians association because ????
being me.. i tried to find out why..
what i found was this…
http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/12/unions-say-34th-candidate-heavey-gave-contradicting-answers/
this is one case where reading through the comments provided interesting information…
i still don’t know why the veterinarians endorsed Heavy.. but thanks to one of those comments that published the actual questionnaire and answers… i do know how he responded to the unemployment issue :(
I now understand why my gut tells me that Heavy is not the man for me…
October 24, 2010 at 2:33 pm #705837
flowerpetalMemberThanks to all that posted replies to my original query. Your thoughts and ideas led me to vote for Fitzgibbons. Some comments favorable to Heavey by your view were not in alignment with my thinking. Hooray for informed voters… all of us!
October 24, 2010 at 5:28 pm #705838
JoBParticipantinformation does make a difference.. doesn’t it.
the biggest defense voters have against the attempt to buy American elections is to decide not to buy the advertising and start asking questions…
flowerpetal…
i endorse your choice
with glee and giggles ;->
October 24, 2010 at 9:16 pm #705839
charlabobParticipantI got a postcard from “local dentists” yesterday endorsing Heavey. With no reason. Strangely (?) this didn’t alter my determination to vote for Fitzgibbons. I am nostalgic for Boston 2ith so many Irish names :-)
October 24, 2010 at 11:52 pm #705840
JoBParticipantcharlabob..
oh no…
was that what my gut reaction was based on?
he’s a nice irish boy?
no matter.. it works for me:)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.