Ideology is not a well defined term. I understand it to mean a set of ideals. "Strict" ideology would seem then to be adhering to some set of ideals in the face of real world realities. While an ideal is a good guide for action it is a theoretical thing that can be useless or even dangerous when applied to any real world situation.

Since ideals are based on current knowledge and beliefs, they are subject to change. When they don't fit a given situation they shouldn't be a straight-jacket that that determines behavior.

Common sense is also a loosely defined term, but I understand it to mean: doing what seems right in a given situation. It's also based on beliefs, but rather than dictating an overall approach it's very specific to a given situation.

Common sense is inclusive of ideology (in that ideology can be used as part of common sense) but ideology does not include common sense. As a result, common sense is a much better guide to every day decision-making than ideology ever can be.

That doesn't mean that an issue like abortion is left to the decision of two people alone (although in this case I think it should be). The law is based largely on ideology but it's implementation by the judicial system leaves a huge amount of flexibility based on the common sense of juries and judges.

I'm not sure about your jump to domestic policy. If you are referring to abortion then I am quite clear on the fact that domestic policy should be based on the realities of civil liberties and societal realities. Civil liberties suggest that the government should stay out of personal decisions. Societal realities suggest that unintended/unwanted pregnancies do not result in a good situation for children. So abortion should be legal without a doubt.

Yes, I think the Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated, with qualifications. The way you've framed this question seems absolutist, so I have to answer with qualifications.

Glass-Steagall was a _part_ of the way Congress tried to fix the economy during the Great Depression. Just one part. A good part, that did its job up until its effective repeal in 1999. All of the other pieces of legislation had to work together to be effective. And, arguably, they were until they were systematically dismantled (by both Ds and Rs, but especially Rs.)

So I do think we need something LIKE it, but designed for 2010 and forward, not the 1930s.

Because the incumbent seems to have sustained brain injuries that leave him far less capable of performing his job than he previously was, and repeatedly neglects to demonstrate that this is not the case.

That he was injured is not in dispute. The degree of his impairment that came as a result of the injury is unclear. He refuses to acknowledge any impairment, and he refuses to engage in a live debate with his opponent, leaving the public to wonder if he is capable of answering questions about his job on-the-fly and if he is attempting to cover up his incompetency. As a fellow human, I feel sympathy for the man, but if he's incapable of doing his job well, then he's doing the entire 8th District a disservice by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his impairment and step down.

I would add--why should you hire someone who didn't even bother to vote for the position she now expects us to anoint her to? Is it too much to expect that members of Congress actually cared about the country enough to vote 9 times recently?

The race in the 8th is important for this reason alone: The Microsoft suburbs are terrarium for the future. They are the urban/suburban test market that foreshadow what America is going to look like in 20 years. Whoever is elected here is onto the zeitgiest.

Specifically, though, this race is important because it's Reichert's humpday election. If he wins this one, he's in. (He's only been reelected twice, which isn't yet a base for long-term incumbency.)

Clarifying point on the Eastside-as-harbinger idea. I exaggerated a bit. The race would be a more accurate indicator of things to come if you were dropping a generic R and a generic D down in Redmond. Reichert (w/ his sheriff fame) isn't so generic.

Heads up: DelBene answered this quetions here: http://wa.electionland.com/questions/15858-ms-delbene-you-say-you-will-cut-your-own-salary-if-elected-how-will-you-do-that

I wanted to address the specifics about the 27th Amendment.

It provides that any change in Congressional salaries may only take effect after the beginning of the next term of office for Representatives.

The effect of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is to prevent salary increases for federal legislators from taking effect until after an intervening election of members of the House of Representatives. The amendment addresses the concern that members of Congress could choose to act in their own interests rather than the public interest.

Because the amendment postpones salary increases until after an election, members of Congress may not immediately raise their own salaries. All Representatives must endure an election before a pay raise takes effect because Representatives are elected once every two years.

This also means that a Representative would have to endure and election before a pay cut takes effect.

The answer to your question is that the House of Representatives can cut their salary, but they will have to wait until after the next election for it to take effect.

Thanks for your question.

Congress should cut its pay by 10 percent. This wouldn't solve the nation's fiscal problems, but it would cause the culture in Congress to change and drive home the point that there isn't money to spare right now. Until an across-the-board cut is implemented, I would cut my own pay and donate the difference to the Bureau of Public Debt.

I don't believe in American Emotionalism. The theory of American Emotionalism - besides the fact that it's bigoted against THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD, is an excuse for Americans to not work on our own shortcomings: our poverty, our bigotry, our corruption, and our willful ignorance of world culture and world religion. Have you seen where we rank in education? It's exceptionally low on most counts.

Here are two specific examples of how I would vote to help ensure equal rights for all.

-- Unlike my opponent, I would have supported the amendment to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
-- Our government should not deny rights to committed couples, and I would also vote to repeal DOMA.

Thank you for the question, Brian.

My opponent called his environmental votes "chess piece" to take environmental advocates "out of the game" in his re-election campaigns. He sees the environment as a political tool. I see the environment as something we need to protect.

The clean-energy economy will provide incredible opportunities to create jobs, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and improve our national security. As someone with a background in business and technology, I believe the key is to adopt thoughtful incentives to encourage businesses and individuals to lessen carbon emissions and help support the clean-energy technology industry, which will create high-wage jobs. The clean-energy industry will grow in the coming decades. Congress should take steps now to ensure the technologies and workers that drive this industry are based here in the United States.

Thanks for the great question.

The top issues in the next Congress will be economic. Creating jobs. Balancing the budget. Helping businesses grow.

My opponent has never worked in the real business world. He doesn't have the experience to fix these problems - just look at his record. Small businesses needed capital, but he voted against the Small Business Lending Fund. He voted against ensuring equal pay for women, which hurt families' abilities to pay the bills. He voted against extending the R&D tax credit, which businesses used to innovate.

I've spent 20 years in the business world. Growing businesses and balancing budgets aren't theoretical exercises to me. I know firsthand how businesses succeed and what Congress can and should do to help our economy grow.

Yes. Here's what I wrote about it in my economic plan: I believe it’s essential that we have a modern equivalent of Glass-Steagall that safeguards investors, protects consumers, and places more realistic limits on leverage. We need to ensure that the deposits and investments of working men and women aren’t used to finance high-risk trades with unregulated financial instruments.

The issues in the 8th Congressional district are similar to the issues important to Washington state as a whole, and the nation as a whole, just taken at the local level. Obviously how to address the current economic situation is a top issue of concern to many voters, and you would want a representative in Washington D.C. looking out for your best interest.

Apart from the specific issues at play, a larger issue is which political party will control the U.S. House of Representatives. Currently the Democrats are in control, and most, if not all, forecasts estimate that Republicans will take control by winning 40 or more seats in November. Who controls the House is extremely important because the party in control picks the Speaker of the House, as well as appoints members to chair important committees. The 8th CD here in Washington is one of the most competitive and closely aligned districts anywhere, so your vote could really matter, not just to this contest, but to who controls the House. (the same can be said for WA-03). If you think the Republicans should be in charge of the House, you'll probably vote to re-elect Reichert. If you think the Democrats should retain control of the House, you'll probably vote to elect DelBene. This is a very important district to the overall control of the House (along with WA-03).

~MB

There are several models for how to provide incentives for quality of care, like what's being done at the Mayo Clinic or Group Health. Congress should examine these models to see what works and what's transferable to the broader health care system, and put incentives in place to encourage quality of care.

One of my top goals for the next 10 years would be for health care policy to stay up to date. The recent health care law was the first time Congress had reformed the system in decades, yet incredible societal, economic and technological changes occurred during that same period of time. Congress can't afford to let health care policy lie dormant for that long again. Over the next 10 years, Congress should continually measure the effectiveness of the health care laws we have in place and make appropriate changes so policy stays up to date.

I would support the Employee Non-Discrimination Act and will work to ensure equal rights for all Americans.

Our country is at a critical point. More people are struggling today than they have in decades. Unemployment remains very high. The deficit and debt are out of control. The decisions made by the next Congress will impact the country for decades to come.

My opponent would take the country backward. He co-sponsored a law that would repeal health care reform. He said he would repeal Wall Street reform. He is anti-choice. He opposed helping women get equal pay for equal work. His plans won't help our economy, families or communities. That's not the direction our country needs to go.

Your question is excellent. I did not read the article you included but know Australia will be the future for harvesting REE's.
The adoption of hybrid vehicles will drive an increased interest in mining.
It sounds like you have a concern that has been bugging me for several years.

Thanks for the question.

Unfortunately, we were not able to schedule any debates with Congressman Reichert. The Seattle Times and The News Tribune offered to host debates, but the incumbent refused to commit. Here's the latest story from The News Tribune about the issue.

She would simply donate whatever amount she deemed excessive to the U.S. Treasury. Anyone can donate to pay down the national debt. As she has been such a successful businessperson, I doubt she needs any of her salary, and will probably use most of it in charitable ventures.

This is a rare chance for Washington's 8th District to elect a highly qualified, capable and informed representative in Congress.