Irons makes his position public - No on Initiative 912
Thanks to pressure from the blogosphere, the Republican candidate for King County executive, David Irons, has publicly declared his position on Initiative 912: he's against the measure:
The position Irons is in is obvious. He's voting down Initiative 912 because he wants the backing of business. At the same time, his statement indicates displeasure with the transportation package - likely thrown in to appease Irons' conservative base which strongly favors Initiative 912.
So now we know. Irons is voting against Initiative 912. But, he'd still like to have it both ways. We need to make sure he can't have it both ways - by continuing to point out what his position is. He's voting against. It's something his conservative base needs to know.
David Irons, King County councilman and Republican candidate for county executive, seems uncomfortably balanced on the razor's edge of the gas tax issue, teetering between the interests of the GOP's traditional business supporters and the passions of the anti-tax elements of his conservative constituent base.(emphasis mine)
David Goldstein's horsesass.org blog started the humming with claims that Irons earned the nod from the Alki Foundation by proclaiming opposition to Initiative 912, which would roll back the gas tax increase. Asked to clarify, Iron's campaign office responded with the following: "In principle, I believe all major tax increases should go to a vote of the people. Personally I am voting no on Initiative 912. This is not the package that I would have put together. I believe it should have done more to reduce congestion. That's why we need new leadership in King County that will advocate for more congestion relief."
So, I-912 -- essentially a vote of the people on a "major" tax increase -- is a good idea, but he's going to vote against it?
But will Irons, as a council member and executive candidate, actively campaign against I-912 to defend the billions of dollars in new gas tax-funded construction projects headed for Seattle and King County?
Irons -- through his campaign office -- says that the prepared statement "speaks for itself."
When mobility, traffic congestion and thousands of local jobs are at stake, we'd hope for stronger leadership.
The position Irons is in is obvious. He's voting down Initiative 912 because he wants the backing of business. At the same time, his statement indicates displeasure with the transportation package - likely thrown in to appease Irons' conservative base which strongly favors Initiative 912.
So now we know. Irons is voting against Initiative 912. But, he'd still like to have it both ways. We need to make sure he can't have it both ways - by continuing to point out what his position is. He's voting against. It's something his conservative base needs to know.
