Comments on The BIAW and Your Vote

If I had known that about White, I never would have voted for him. So much for being efficient and getting my ballot in the mail early.

But you endorsed Carlyle . . . maybe here would be a good place to add a comment or two as to why it's OK to vote for the guy despite these donations?

Personally, I care more where candidates spend their money (our donations).

Scott White, Mary Margaret Haugen, and Reuven Carlyle have made all their campaign expenditures WITHIN Washington State.

John Burbank's minion keep whispering, "Follow the money." Suggest you follow his money. Burbank has sent a cool 56% of what he's raised to out of state vendors. Speaks volumes about how he views Washington jobs and businesses.

Your information, while somewhat accruate, is not entirely correct. The Affordable Housing Council, affiliated with the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, has no affiliation with the Washington Affordable Housing Council in this election cycle. Althouth BIAW is the state affiliate and MBA is the local affiliate of the National Association of Homebuilders, the MBA has made no financial contribution to the WAHC. Contributions to Haugen, White and Carlyle were, in no way, coordinated with, approved by or otherwise involve BIAW.

To confuse the issue is inaccurate at best.

Erica, I've defended you for a long time, but you are quite simply a lazy journalist. If people don't vote for these DEMOCRATS because of your misinformation, you should feel really fucking bad.

Reuven Carlyle is better-looking than John Burbank, so Reuven Carlyle gets my vote. Moving on.

Um, the BIAW may not "endorse" candidates, but they send "paycheck stuffers" to all their members, listing which candidates are "builder friendly." These mailers sure look like an endorsement sheet to me. As someone who works in a construction office, I was amazed at how many packets the BIAW kept sending to us, with tons of fliers and handouts we were encouraged to distribute to our employees (we didn't).

It just kills you that the SECB endorses by majority rule, eh?

@ 6

And Scott White is waayyy better looking than Gerry Pollett.

Is there a complete list of donors to the infamous 'It's Time for a Change' ad featuring a baby with an obviously loaded diaper and adults holding their noses? I can't believe that such an offensive attack is allowed on television, but 527 groups seem to get away with anything. Yet flashing Janet Jackson's exposed body part landed CBS in court.

Whatever happened to reasonable discourse?

This post refers to this slog as well as the Oct 27th slog on Carlyle & Burbank.

I also don't understand this "bought and paid for" line of reasoning about Carlyle. Burbank's wife works as a VP for an a major HMO, thus the family is reliant on them not simply for a campaign donation but, at least to some extent, for their very lifestyle. Nevertheless, would it be fair to say that Burbank is beholden to them because of this? Of course not. It would be insulting and stupid. Ditto, what is said about Carlyle's contributors, who, yes, run a much wider array of of the political spectrum than his opponent.

Also, the absurd idea that Carlyle is an all-talk, do-nothing guy is refuted by his many achievements in the private and as well as public sector, most recently the bill last year to get all foster kids a free ride in college.

Won't it be nice when this election is over? All of us can go back to pretending we are nice, open-minded fair people (except of course the oft-quoted Ivan, esteemed chair of the 34th dems--he has a style that is unwavering, bless him.) Unfortunately, the internet record never dies but at least we won't be quite as insufferable at cocktail parties after Nov 4.