Slog - Comments on Thoughts on the Finkbeiner Evolution

Comment by mensan

mensan — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:17:14 -0800

Let's not look this gift horse too closely in its mouth. Yeah, so he's trying to spin his failure last year and his decision this year....what do you expect from a politician? I personally don't care what he says his reasons are for doing what he did as long as he sticks to his decision this time around. Even a hypocrite can vote the way we need...

Comment by Sandeep Kaushik

Sandeep Kaushik — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:14:09 -0800

I'm with Ed Murray on this one -- I think Finkbeiner deserves a lot of credit from Democrats for standing up for his convictions on this issue, given that it requires him to buck his party in such a high profile way. I can only imagine the kind of hate mail he's getting right now from the hard right Republican base.
Now, is Finkbeiner bullshitting about his motives in opposing the bill last year, and his motives in switching his position last year? Sure he is, but so what? When politicians act politically, that's not unusual, or particularly noteworthy. It was not in the least bit surprising that Finkbeiner decided last year that holding on to his leadership position was more important than voting for a bill that moderate, pro-business Republicans probably see as a sideshow distraction from their primary agenda. In other words, as an act of nefarious political positioning, it struck me as penny ante.
But when politicians take a stand that arguably goes against their political interests -- as Finkbeiner did in this case -- that is a big deal. So I commend him for it. Thank you, Bill Finkbeiner, for standing up for what is right. On the other hand, now that he has taken this stand based on conscience, which likely means he will never be able to run for and win higher office as a Republican, I would urge him to go back to thinking politically for a moment. And the smart political play for Finkbeiner is to switch parties (again) and run as Dem in his increasingly Democratic district. Our side would welcome him with open arms. Meanwhile, his rabid Republican base will hate him forever. So how about it, Bill?

P.S. Bill, if you do switch, any interest in taking on Reichert? Could be kind of a fun matchup...

Comment by Belltowner

Belltowner — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:12:49 -0800

Procedural note to Sandeep: if the Finkster lives in Kirkland, then he probably lives in Jay Inslee's 1st Congressional District.

As for switching parties: Go for it! I'm a yellowdog Dem, and I'd take him back in a second.

Comment by Dan Savage

Dan Savage — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:33:06 -0800

Sandeep! It's so nice to hear you come down—for once!—on the side of the pro-homosexual lobby!

Comment by George akan

George akan — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:49:08 -0800

This is great news. Ed Murray and all the hardcore supporters who hung in there all these years deserve some big cheers.

This has to be one of the most determined long term projects in State political history.

But - not over yet. Remeber the year, Ed know the exact time, the Catholic Bishops flipped vioes - phone calls to the floor during debate, no less. Deccio from Yakima valley changed, for one.

Cal Anderson is cheering from heaven - setting aside the projects under way for a moment.

Should be a big party when the vote comes in. Congrats will be endless.

I think Fink...... is on his own. And in trouble. There will be lots of seepage to local races this fall from all the corruption in the air. R's should all be running scared.

Next, the national bill.

Regards. GB

Comment by Goldy

Goldy — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:26:49 -0800

I'd like to also raise a glass to Sandeep and The Stranger for the way they pushed the Microsoft/1515 story. It would be foolish to believe that the resulting firestorm didn't ultimately influence Finkbeiner's decision.

Comment by Steven

Steven — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:02:37 -0800

I agree with much I have read here, and I think last years vote by Bill coupled with his reelection challenge have created an easy moment for him to vote his conscience (and I don't buy that his opinion ever changed on this bill) and bolt from his caucus without retribution. The fact is that loosing his seat will only move the R's farther from the majority. And in regard to the Catholic church killing the senate vote back when Cal was in the senate: They were not just on the phone but were in the senate wings. The tactic they used of last minute pressure drove Sen Marilyn Rassmussen to tears as she yielded to the delegation and switched her vote.
Three cheers for Fink, but the real personal story here was Marilyn's support for the bill last year which is what brought the bill to a vote and set the stage for this years passage of the bill.

Comment by Rachael

Rachael — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:08:16 -0800

Oh my! A politician ... politically motivated! I shudder at the implications.