Friday, May 25, 2012
Politics McDermott Plans to Endorse I-502, Following the Lead of His Challenger
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott gave a weaselly nonanswer about where he stood on marijuana legalization in this week's paper, saying ending pot arrests wasn't a "pressing issue" or something. Weaselly.
So I began pressing his office. After all, his whippersnapper opponent, Andrew Hughes, had drawn his primary policy distinction between himself and McDermott on this issue—Hughes supports legalizing marijuana and McDermott didn't. Furthermore, voters in Washington State all have to make up their minds this fall where they stand on Initiative 502, which would legalize and regulate pot, so surely a Congressman who makes laws for a living can buck up, too. It took a couple days of prodding his office, sending my questions, and waiting—at long last—for these answers:
Me: Does Congressman McDermott believe that marijuana should be legalized and regulated like alcohol for adults 21 and over?
McDermott: As a physician I believe in helping patients with their suffering and accordingly I’ve always supported legalizing use of medical marijuana. If a state decides to go further and legalize marijuana for general use, I think that is fine as long as it is properly taxed and safely regulated. As with smoking tobacco, I am concerned about potential adverse health effects of smoking marijuana but I don’t believe that it should be a criminal offense.
Me: What does he think should happen to adult marijuana users in Washington State?
McDermott: All states including Washington should have leeway on this issue as long as it’s taxed and regulated in the interest of public health and safety. I don’t think the federal government should be spending taxpayer dollars on going after adult marijuana users, especially if a state legalizes pot for general use.
Me: And if he does support regulating marijuana like alcohol, why hasn't he endorsed I-502?
McDermott: I have been studying the proposal and am planning on endorsing it.
Congratulations, Congressman. That wasn't so bad, was it?
And congratulations, Andrew Hughes! This serves to show why 12-term Congressmen like McDermott need challengers like you. By using this as the dividing line between yourself and a politician who had grown comfortable with an anachronistic platform on drug policy, McDermott evolved because you pushed him to evolve. And, true, you probably won't win. But you can keep pushing McDermott. So keep it up, whippersnapper!
1
"selective pressure" that's how evolution works. McDermott wants to be selected (to survive, if you will) so in the face of pressure it's adapt or die.
Of course we'd prefer our politicians to choose correct policy positions out of principle, but sadly principle doesn't exert as much pressure as an election does.
Of course we'd prefer our politicians to choose correct policy positions out of principle, but sadly principle doesn't exert as much pressure as an election does.
3
McDermott's done a lot of good, and I'm happy to have him as a Representative.
But nobody's seat in Congress should be as safe as his is.
But nobody's seat in Congress should be as safe as his is.
4
@2:
It's the latter, of course. He's had more pressing issues on his plate, hadn't had the time to think too much (if at all) about Dominic's obsess^H^H^H^H^H^H pet project.
It's the latter, of course. He's had more pressing issues on his plate, hadn't had the time to think too much (if at all) about Dominic's obsess^H^H^H^H^H^H pet project.
"weaselly" = "unwilling to say something about it before he'd had the opportunity to study the initiative"It's not like the damn thing is as cut-and-dried as Dominic would like us to believe. It takes a good bit of examination before making a statement about it. Apparently, Dominic would like his representatives to opine on things before they think about them, or maybe instead of thinking first. FWIW, I haven't made up my mind yet, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the state who'd say that.
"following the lead of his challenger" = "Dominic's bullshit opinion, wherein he shills inexplicably for some random egotist"I'll laugh and laugh when Hughes finishes third in the primary. Even in WA-07, there are enough Republicans to put (I think his name is) Sutherland in a distant second place.
5
McDermott is not a "physician" (he's been a non-practicing psychiatrist for eons) and he has basically done nothing for many years. However, he'll win again. I hope someone with serious experience thinks about running against him next time, since he probably won't have enough sense to retire.
6
Dr McDermott is of course a physician and has done an incredible amount of good in promoting general health and well being, perhaps more than anyone else in Congress. To be reelected he must choose.which issues to publicly endorse. This is far from a one issue election and he should wisely decide which opposition he provokes, while strictly honoring his values and commitments. I believe that he has no peer in government for doing just that. In fact i think that the marijuana referendum is such an issue that merits his support and I am elated that we have his support.
7
@5: McDermott, as a psychiatrist, is an MD, having gone through all the usual MD stuff plus an extended psychiatric residency. MDs are the closest fit to the term "physician," but if you mean you wouldn't trust him to do an emergency appendectomy, I agree.
9
@8:
Absolutely. It would have taken me several weeks to (incompletely) enumerate the issues that rank above I-502 on our Congressman's list. And on the list for nearly every Washingtonian, for that matter.
Federal, international, and more important state/local.
Absolutely. It would have taken me several weeks to (incompletely) enumerate the issues that rank above I-502 on our Congressman's list. And on the list for nearly every Washingtonian, for that matter.
Federal, international, and more important state/local.
10
I am getting a little tired of the "Mcdermott is a physician" crap. I keep hearing how good he is on healthcare. But he used his position in congress to trade pharmaceutical manufacturer stocks which was later referred to as 'insider trading'. Regardless if it was insider trading or not,, by doing so he caused an unfair competitive advantage in the market place for one company over others, resulting in undoubtedly higher costs of prescription drugs right here in his home district. All so he could line his pockets with morally questionable cash stolen from his constituents forcing some to choose between food and medicine. He has go to go!
11
@6 and 7, of course a psychiatrist needs to go through MD training, and of course what I meant by putting "physician" in quotes was that he was practicing psychiatry, not medicine, and he hasn't done psychiatry for a long time. For him to be calling himself a physician at this point is really misleading.
Don't worry, he will win. There's no need for long campaign stuff on here.
Don't worry, he will win. There's no need for long campaign stuff on here.
12
Why stop at state initiatives? What is McDermott's position on various county and city issues? What is he doing to lower Tukwila's crime rate? What does he think of ferry service to Vashon Island? What is his position on Seattle's proposed new stadium? What did he do to prevent the I Love New York delis from closing? Sure, McDermott's a federal legislator currently focused on national health care, but Hughes kayaks and rides a bicycle, so dammit, we have the right to demand that McDermott state his position on local matters! And we have the right to ignore his actual record in Congress on drugs and drug enforcement! [But for those of you who care to look anyway, it's here: http://www.ontheissues.org/House/JIM_MCD… .]
13
Although I-502 is strictly speaking a Washington State issue, it could be a valuable contribution to both national and international discussions of drug policy reform.
Drug policy reform is easily among the most important issues at the federal level and is closely tied to several other issues that most folks would identify as critically important. And while many might not consider it an important international issue, millions of Mexicans (including fifty some thousand dead ones) might beg to differ. As would drug users in many countries.
McDermott is in an absolutely safe seat and would have nothing to fear from taking a leading role in this effort. Even in the battle for lifting the ban on using federal funds for syringe exchange, McDermott was not in the forefront, which I find truly odd.
Drug policy reform is easily among the most important issues at the federal level and is closely tied to several other issues that most folks would identify as critically important. And while many might not consider it an important international issue, millions of Mexicans (including fifty some thousand dead ones) might beg to differ. As would drug users in many countries.
McDermott is in an absolutely safe seat and would have nothing to fear from taking a leading role in this effort. Even in the battle for lifting the ban on using federal funds for syringe exchange, McDermott was not in the forefront, which I find truly odd.
14
@12 - Marijuana legalization in any state is a federal issue of great import. If folks were paying attention, they'd see it's been big news across the country since the beginning of The Great Recession. Legalization in WA State would directly impact Federal spending: reduce the number of expensive felony incarcerations, redirect attention of police and fed bureaus to real crime, provide The State of WA access to a cheap multipurpose drug for welfare recipients and save wasted Federal Medicare dollars. And what about State revenue on marijuana to replace Federal costs for all of the above?
No small matter, we're talking serious money. McDermott should have had an explicit position on the goings on regarding marijuana in this state. Sometime during last 5 years of economic collapse he could have grabbed the bull by the horns and done something serious in D.C. Too much to ask, I guess.
No small matter, we're talking serious money. McDermott should have had an explicit position on the goings on regarding marijuana in this state. Sometime during last 5 years of economic collapse he could have grabbed the bull by the horns and done something serious in D.C. Too much to ask, I guess.
15
I wish to hell that McDermott was taking a really active part in federal health care legislation. But unfortunately he hasn't, because he isn't considered a real player there and hasn't been considered so for years. He talks to his constituents here about single-payor insurance (and I've heard him talk about single-payor now at least 5 times) but no one in DC listens to him. He's simply not an effective Congressman. I wish that were different, because he's a Dem, and we don't have enough of those to go around now.
17
it's absolute immoral. all these democratic politicians who SAY they are progressive, and weasel out on legalization. probe and you will find most of them smoked pot. some write books mentioning it, then get to be president, but they are in FAVOR of spending tax dollars jailing and wrecking the lives of thousands of folks, mostly people of color, who had a joint?
what the flying fuck kind of pussy wimpy political party is this anyway?
aren't they at least for closing the massive tax loophole for this entire industry?
what the flying fuck kind of pussy wimpy political party is this anyway?
aren't they at least for closing the massive tax loophole for this entire industry?
18
@15, Fact is a large majority of Americans have consistently been for a health care system "like Medicare for everyone" (i.e. single payer health care). It's not McDermott's fault if politicians in Washington DC refuse to put on the table the solution preferred by most people in countless surveys. The answer to betrayal by elected officials is certainly not to elect another triangulator who'll ignore popular will once elected to congress. McDermott should be congratulated for his steadfast advocacy of the system adopted by many developed nations at a fraction of the cost we spend on a health care scheme delivering lesser outcomes.
Congress is broken and Americans know it: congress has the lowest approval rating in history (barely above single digit). It's rather extraordinary that instead of focusing on repairing our broken institutions by electing more politicians who'll truly represent their constituencies, we are told that a politician’s willingness to vote with the majority of congress critters should be the gauge we employ to determine how “effective” they are.
Congress is broken and Americans know it: congress has the lowest approval rating in history (barely above single digit). It's rather extraordinary that instead of focusing on repairing our broken institutions by electing more politicians who'll truly represent their constituencies, we are told that a politician’s willingness to vote with the majority of congress critters should be the gauge we employ to determine how “effective” they are.
19
@15 (sarah70): What @18 (anon1256) said.
We have some 70-odd progressive and progressive-ish members of Congress out of a total of 535. Please explain to us how you envision any of them becoming "real players" if the electorate doesn't add to their ranks instead of replacing them with unproven, mealy-mounted poseurs, triangulators, and future sellouts.
Obamacare is going to fail. Even if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down in toto or fatally wound it by stripping out the individual mandate, it's going to collapse from uncontrolled costs. Either way, many states are going to want their own single-payer systems, and McDermott's state/regional single-payer proposals are going to start looking like a pretty realistic compromise solution.
We have some 70-odd progressive and progressive-ish members of Congress out of a total of 535. Please explain to us how you envision any of them becoming "real players" if the electorate doesn't add to their ranks instead of replacing them with unproven, mealy-mounted poseurs, triangulators, and future sellouts.
Obamacare is going to fail. Even if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down in toto or fatally wound it by stripping out the individual mandate, it's going to collapse from uncontrolled costs. Either way, many states are going to want their own single-payer systems, and McDermott's state/regional single-payer proposals are going to start looking like a pretty realistic compromise solution.
20
I don't have any particular problem with McDermott I just think he's not a particularly proficient person to promote new laws or improve on the ones we already have.
22
In Comment # 10 above, portobserver makes some serious and completely false assertions. It would be so helpful if people would do a little research and check the facts before launching hostile broadsides Below is a summary of what actually happened. One of the reasons that I so strongly support Jim McDermott is that he has never used his office to make money illicitly.
In the book “Throw Them All Out” the book’s author, Peter Schweizer, asserts that an investment made for Congressman McDermott’s IRA Account in the Canadian company ID Biomedical in June 2004 was somehow improper. The assertion is false. It is a sensationalized in disregard of the facts:
First, Mr. Schweizer tries to connect the Congressman’s investment in ID Biomedical on June 2nd, 2004 with his vote on July 14th, 2004 for the Project Bioshield Act, and then with the awarding of a competitive National Institutes of Health grant in September of 2004.
But these three events were unrelated. The grant that was awarded to ID Biomedical was not from the Project Bioshield program but from another longstanding grant program in NIH. Project Bioshield had not yet been funded when ID Biomedical was awarded its small grant. It takes at least six months to get a program up-and-running. The first grants for Project Bioshield were in May 2005. So ID Biomedical did not benefit from the grant program funded by the bill that Mr. McDermott voted for.
Second, the Congressman actually voted against the law that funded the September 2004 grant to ID Biomedical. On July 10th, 2003, Mr. McDermott voted against both the House and final version of the Labor Health and Human Services funding law for 2004. It was that law, not the June 18, 2004 vote cited by Mr. Schweizer, that actually did fund the 2004 grant that ID Biomedical recieved.
Third, the 2004 grant was a competitive grant awarded under the Bush Administration. As a Congressman, Mr. McDermott has no influence over who wins competitive grants awarded by the NIH or any other department of the Executive Branch. Congressman McDermott had no knowledge that ID Biodmedical had applied for a grant.
Fourth, the rise in ID Biomedical stock value was attributable not to winning a small NIH grant, but to the fact that it was bought out by a much larger company, an event that no public investors, including the Congressman, had any prior knowledge of.
Fifth, the Congressman did not benefit in any way from any investment based on non-public information. His financial consultant manages his portfolio. All stock-picking and timing is initiated by his financial consultant based on the consultant’s own research and analysis. That was the case here.
Mr. Schweizer’s assertion in his book is baseless. Mr. Schweizer never contacted Mr. McDermott’s office about his irresponsible and wholly false assertion. That is unsurprising, given that he is the William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
More...
In the book “Throw Them All Out” the book’s author, Peter Schweizer, asserts that an investment made for Congressman McDermott’s IRA Account in the Canadian company ID Biomedical in June 2004 was somehow improper. The assertion is false. It is a sensationalized in disregard of the facts:
First, Mr. Schweizer tries to connect the Congressman’s investment in ID Biomedical on June 2nd, 2004 with his vote on July 14th, 2004 for the Project Bioshield Act, and then with the awarding of a competitive National Institutes of Health grant in September of 2004.
But these three events were unrelated. The grant that was awarded to ID Biomedical was not from the Project Bioshield program but from another longstanding grant program in NIH. Project Bioshield had not yet been funded when ID Biomedical was awarded its small grant. It takes at least six months to get a program up-and-running. The first grants for Project Bioshield were in May 2005. So ID Biomedical did not benefit from the grant program funded by the bill that Mr. McDermott voted for.
Second, the Congressman actually voted against the law that funded the September 2004 grant to ID Biomedical. On July 10th, 2003, Mr. McDermott voted against both the House and final version of the Labor Health and Human Services funding law for 2004. It was that law, not the June 18, 2004 vote cited by Mr. Schweizer, that actually did fund the 2004 grant that ID Biomedical recieved.
Third, the 2004 grant was a competitive grant awarded under the Bush Administration. As a Congressman, Mr. McDermott has no influence over who wins competitive grants awarded by the NIH or any other department of the Executive Branch. Congressman McDermott had no knowledge that ID Biodmedical had applied for a grant.
Fourth, the rise in ID Biomedical stock value was attributable not to winning a small NIH grant, but to the fact that it was bought out by a much larger company, an event that no public investors, including the Congressman, had any prior knowledge of.
Fifth, the Congressman did not benefit in any way from any investment based on non-public information. His financial consultant manages his portfolio. All stock-picking and timing is initiated by his financial consultant based on the consultant’s own research and analysis. That was the case here.
Mr. Schweizer’s assertion in his book is baseless. Mr. Schweizer never contacted Mr. McDermott’s office about his irresponsible and wholly false assertion. That is unsurprising, given that he is the William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Comments (22) RSS