I am being bombarded on the radio by shrill prophecies of gloom and doom regarding I-695. Are there any "pro" ads in the works? Also, has anyone seen any recent polling data (after 10/10/99)? I-695 appeared unstoppable a month ago, but now the lies are streaming so fast I am afraid the weak minded may be getting sucked in and the lead slipping.

-- Brian (tigger@mashell.com), October 20, 1999

Answers

Probably not, since the Pro side has only raised $200,000. Not exactly enough to even mount a limited media campaign

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

Maybe the reason for the lack of funding could be that this is a bad thing for Washington economy, People are staring to see through this too good to be true Initative! I know I have I AM DEFINATELY VOTING NO!!! Save Transit and Transportation and do the same.

-- Randy Timmerman (Rjustpeachy@AOL.COM), October 21, 1999.

Patrick--"Probably not, since the Pro side has only raised $200,000. Not exactly enough to even mount a limited media campaign."

I agree. What I find most illuminating about the fund raising differences between the two campaigns, the no695 campaign has an order of magnitude more *money* while the yes695 campaign has (apparently) an order of magnitude more *donors*.

In effect, this means the mean donation to the no695 campaign is *two* orders of magnitude larger than the mean donation to the yes695 campaign. It's definitely a populist campaign.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

Brian:

The next poll will probably take place about two weeks before the election. It is this poll that normally tells the world how we intend on voting, but I still would be cautious of the poll results.

As for the Yes campaign, they don't need advertising or radio spots. In fact, no one does anymore. There's this beautiful tool out there called The Internet. Information can be reviewed on demand and instantly. I remember about three years ago when I would be watching TV and every other commercial was some paid political announcement for some canidate or something. Now you barely see them. Why? Because the Internet is the quickest, cheapest way to run a campaign. If I were running for office and my opponents tried to stick me with something, I could go on to my website and post the rebuttel to it without having to shell out thousands of dollars to pay for a commercial to rebut it.

The Yes campaign is very smart. They have this site with these threads so John Q. Public can research the pros and cons of this from anywhere on the planet and decide for themselves how to vote, with no smear tactics like those ads you used to see on TV. I know a lot of people out there who come to this site all the time after reading the PI or MSNBC site and even those stories all have a reference to this site so people can see and read this side of the story.

The Internet IS the greatest tool to ever come along since the TV was invented. No other tool today allows a person in a third world country to find out what the weather is like in Walla Walla, WA right now at the speed of light.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

They all have to be lies don't they. There is not one shred of truth to the facts that the opposition have laid before you. They are all liars and should be held accountable.

What type of brain washing has been going on at the pro I-695 watercooler. You have built this up to be some conspiracy theory in order to boost the claim that polititians have been ripping you off and that your lifes are so horrible because of it.

HELL YES hold them responcible for raising my car tabs and then funneling money into a different project that does not float, but I do not think that this mess of an initiative is the right answer. Some of you do, congrats, but I think the political process is a bit more complicated than just lowering our car tab fees and then using some reserves. I like our reserve funds to be there, they will help in other times of need, we are not in a time of need right now, in fact things are real dandy for a lot of people so I don't get the "underdog" speach is a scare tactic to make you think you are an underdog, yet if someone told you that things are fine you would believe that too.

And Sandy, not everyone in the world is hooked up to the internet. You assume that all people have access to a two thousand dollar machine, or are you just thinking of you white middle class underdogs. "The greatest thing since TV". You watch to much of both. Read a book.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

ac old buddy-

Long time - no see. Welcome back. Gee, I think it was a question about why we shouldn't privatize Seattle City Light that chased you away, wasn't it?

Why DON'T we privatize City Light? It'd generate about $1.2 billion in capital (which we could use to build ROADS), and put the property back on the tax rolls so the new owner could pay property taxes to support Skagit public schools. With competition rather than a government owned monopoly, Seattle power rates may even go DOWN. A win-win situation, if ever I saw one.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

You did not scare me away, I have better things to do than sit here all day and change the subjuct on one another. Mark, stick to the thread, got something to say of revalence, I'd like to hear it.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

"subjuct" "revalence" ???

-- The Spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.

ac:

Did I SAY that everyone was connected to the Internet? No. Read my line again. What I mean is that a "person" (with the right equipment) can be anywhere in the world and get information. And no, I don't assume that everyone can afford a $2K PC either. "Most" local libraries and schools have internet access too.

Stop reading between the lines in posts and read the points being made. Oh, and watching TV is good, very good. I-must-watch-TV. TV-is- good. TV-is-friend. Watch-Watch-Watch.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

Unless you are my second grade teacher, I don't care much about the spelling, there are better things to discuss.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

You had a second grade teacher 'avocado' man? WOW!! I didn't think you made it that far. Why would you do that? It's not required for a government job.

Maybe your position would be cut!!! Another reason to vote for I-695!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

You are so sharp, you got me!

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

ac

Writes "I have better things to do than sit here all day".

As I remember it was running through the streets naked.

ac "I will never post to this site again"

typical lying liberal

Ed - knew he couldn't stay away for long

-- (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

ac--"Unless you are my second grade teacher"

Lemme guess. . .longest three years of your life.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 21, 1999.

Sandy- What is your point? Is it that third world people who are still trying to digg their families and homes out from under 5 feet of mud can look up the weather in Walla Walla. Get real.

The internet is hardley a place for truthful fact finding. Yes, there are some sites, but any jack crack can voice their opinion and put what ever they wish, it is a free forum, there are no rules governing truth or honesty or morality here, that's what makes it great. Just like this site. I am "realy excited" that someone in London can read some of these postings and see what nit whits we are for bickering over something like this.

The amount of people who have access to the internet, the cultural identity of the people who can afford to use and care to use the internet are rarley afforded to equal representation.

The reason these things are not on TV is not because it is cheaper to advertise on the internet, it's bacause the NO's have said we will beat you in a race to advertise, not because the truth can be found here.

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

"You are so sharp, you got me! " He got you mon. He may or may not be SO sharp. Don't have to be SO sharp, to get YOU.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

ac:

Look who is talking about points! Here's how I read your post: "The internet blah blah blah blah blah the truth is out there. Actually you can find truth out there. Has anyone not received a spam from the World Currency Cartel lately? A quick search on Yahoo will come up with a thread telling you it is a scam. It is things like this that make the internet great. (Man am I straying from the topic or what). Any "person" who has internet access can find out about ANYTHING as long as they know where to look to get the information.

In your case, I haven't the slightest clue at to what you are trying to say in your posts. It must be recess in reality for you.

I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you on this issue. The topic as shown is about bombardment of advertising, not about the internet.

So to stay true with the topic.... VOTE YES ON I-695! This has not been a paid political announcement for I-695. Recess is over ac, now shut up and color.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

Sandy- I would like to know, not to pick apart or insult, your reasoning for voting yes? In all fairness of debate, what are your reasons?

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

Sandy's Top 10 Reasons to Vote Yes on I-695:

10. Stops having to choose between food or tabs. 9. Power to the people again. Peace, love, drink coffee. 8. If I-695 doesn't pass, do you really think the Gov or congress will call a special session and try to lessen the amount of the tax? 7. No more stupid thread posts on this website. 6. The government should cut the doughnut fund first before asking me for more money. 5. Gets rid of government employees that surf the Internet all day. 4. You get to tell the taxman where you want your money going on new taxes or increases. 3. Four words: Thirty bucks for tabs 2. Makes the government prioritize their programs to make up for the 2% loss from MVET income. 1. Because I can. Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light.

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 21, 1999.

Good Enough!!

-- ac (calavo@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

Seems like a lot of hype here. Especially amusesd at the lack of insight demonstrated in phrases like "power to the people" and testifying that one knows the Star Spangled Banner only suggests that one paid attention in kindergarten. What I would like to see in a Pro 695 Ad is an assessment of it's cost - not in terms of slamming opponents legitimate concerns of projects aborted...but like what is the cost of 1)running elections for every fee increase and rate change? 2)voter education efforts. Additionally, 1)WHERE WILL THOSE $ COME FROM? and 2)What other projects/programs will be negatively impacted. Just for the record I am a bona fide liberal who believes that there is a legitimate role for government and a need for public projects....CT

-- CT (sailcrazy2000@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

CT--"Seems like a lot of hype here. Especially amusesd at the lack of insight demonstrated in phrases like "power to the people" and testifying that one knows the Star Spangled Banner only suggests that one paid attention in kindergarten. What I would like to see in a Pro 695 Ad is an assessment of it's cost - not in terms of slamming opponents legitimate concerns of projects aborted...but like what is the cost of 1)running elections for every fee increase and rate change? 2)voter education efforts. Additionally, 1)WHERE WILL THOSE $ COME FROM? and 2)What other projects/programs will be negatively impacted. Just for the record I am a bona fide liberal who believes that there is a legitimate role for government and a need for public projects....CT"

Question #1 is a reasonable concern. Personally, I find it a non-issue. It's unreasonable to think there's a high marginal cost associated with adding a tax referendum to an *already scheduled* election.

Question #2 is again quiet reasonable to ask. Given the significant resources already spent on lobbying/public affairs, many agencies presumably would just aim *existing* resources at new targets.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 22, 1999.

Brad... Check it out for yourself...Cost of an election is NOT negligible. Call the Secretary of State & the County Clerk & Recorder to verify costs...

Lo siento me amigo - it is exceedingly naive to believe that the $ could easily be assumed from other coffers...

I read the Statements of AC...that person identified the frustration when monies are co-mingled or shifted away from the original purpose. So...if a tax or users fee was imposed for X purpose and in 2000 AD shifted away to pay for the indirect costs of I 695...what do you suppose happens to the credibility of the proponents of this measure?

These ARE important concerns - don't ostrich this one - even if it isn't front burner in your opinion...CT

-- Carley Tuss (sailcrazy2000@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

CT--"Check it out for yourself...Cost of an election is NOT negligible. Call the Secretary of State & the County Clerk & Recorder to verify costs... Lo siento me amigo - it is exceedingly naive to believe that the $ could easily be assumed from other coffers..."

I'm wondering if you read what I wrote.

We already have scheduled elections (2-4/year in most areas). Each of these has (ballpark) 10-15 ballot items. Are you saying that there's a significant *marginal* expense associated with adding an additional ballot item (I suppose we could argue about what's significant)? While I agree there's *some* marginal expense associated with a ballot item, it makes no sense economically to argue it's significant (we could probably argue about the meaning of significant).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 22, 1999.