Judgment Day is coming, the Bush enablers can't change their Huggies fast enough, and sweet victory is in the bag--but for whom? The Democratic Party? The peace and justice community? Or both?

With Nov. 7 just around the bend, all signs--polls and otherwise--now point toward serious political payback in store for the Republican Party for its reckless rule of recent years. Even GOP-friendly analysts began conceding the 2006 midterm elections to the Democrats even before this year's October Surprise turned out to be a Monicagate Frankenstein returning to slay its conservative creator.

Here in Washington State, GOP senatorial hopeful Mike! McGuinness--excuse me, McGavick--continues to dig his own political grave with a grand series of ghastly faux pas (most recently among them his laughable claim, in the October issue of Washington CEO magazine, that he never worked as a lobbyist--imagine George W. Bush in 2000 claiming he was never the Governor of Texas). McGavick's opponent, none other than controversial incumbent Democrat Maria Cantwell, currently leads him in certain polls by double digits. Good news of course for the Democratic Party machine, but for the ETS! community, it's not so simple, given our long-nurtured quarrel with Cantwell for her support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, et cetera.

Cantwell's inevitable primary victory on Sept. 19 has put Washington State's antiwar community in quite a quandary. Now that Cantwell no longer has an antiwar Democratic ballot challenger, that leaves the Green Party's Aaron Dixon and Libertarian Bruce Guthrie as the remaining potential protest votes for antiwar folks who still refuse to forgive, in the name of smashing the GOP's death grip on the separation of powers in the other Washington, Cantwell's crucial transgressions against her constituents' known values.

Other lucky states have candidates in play who are staunchly opposed to the Iraq occupation, as well as the Bush agenda in general--notably Connecticut, where noted Bush waterboy Joe Lieberman got a well-deserved trouncing on Aug. 8 in that state's Democratic primary by rising liberal star Ned Lamont. Alas, in Washington State, the sad fact is that antiwar folks here have no Ned Lamont to vote for--despite having had four long years to organize and draft such a candidate since Cantwell's infamous "yes" vote for House Joint Resolution 114, the crucial event that formally enabled the Bush/Cheney molestation of Mesopotamia. So here we are: Our state's junior US Senate seat is now Cantwell's to lose, quixotic protest voters notwithstanding.

The best that we, Washington State's antiwar community, can do now, it seems, is get ready to turn up the progressive heat on a re-elected Cantwell (as well as a Democratic House and/or Senate majority in general), and try to have more collective foresight the next time a key Washington State lawmaker turns his or her back on his or her constituents, as Cantwell did so egregiously back in October 2002. Next time, may an Aaron Dixon, a Hong Tran, or a Bruce Guthrie emerge a full year or more--not mere months or weeks--before an election as crucial as this one.

With all that said, what follows here are the ETS! official endorsements for the 2006 General and Special Elections. Although I've belabored the problematic US Senate race above, recognizing how it remains such a flashpoint for the core readership of ETS!, please note that it's hardly the only important item on this year's ballot; in fact, the Burner/Reichert 8th District race and Initiative 933 (both discussed below) are arguably the two crucial battles for Washington State progressives to win. So read on, and also note that the classic ETS! caveats apply: We do not endorse unopposed candidates (with noteworthy exceptions), and we advise our readers to skip those races. And, as always, consider these endorsements as one opinion among many, do your own research on the candidates and ballot items, and make up your own mind.

We begin with the painfully obvious point of contention for ETS! readers and volunteers, namely, the race for the seat currently occupied by Maria Cantwell.

US Senator: The ETS! community wants to know: Is it safe to wager an antiwar protest vote against Maria Cantwell? The short answer, at press time, seems to be yes. One recent poll, conducted by Rasmussen and released on Oct. 20, placed Cantwell 15 points ahead of McGavick at 53-38. In addition, the national GOP, already in panic mode for delightfully obvious reasons, has given McGavick the dubious honor of being among the candidates they're withdrawing active support from, as they cut their apparent losses in favor of races in places red enough that folks there still don't mind the stench from the exponentially metastasizing rancidity of the Bush-Cheney-Hastert GOP. Nevertheless, the chance remains that the Republicans could still retain control of the three branches of government, with a little help, perhaps, from Diebold and/or Karl Rove. Thus, the choice whether or not to bite the bullet and vote for Cantwell should not be taken lightly.

The ETS! kitchen crew respectfully but strongly disagrees amongst ourselves on this race. Some of us support Dixon, others have serious issues with him. Some of us admire Guthrie, but fear his potential as, yes, a Bush-enabling "spoiler." (And we hereby respectfully acknowledge the independent Robin Adair: to be blunt, Not A Serious Candidate.) We generally seem to agree that Mike McGavick smells way too much like George W. Bush did in 2000: a genetically-engineered corporate "populist," an aw-shucks, just-plain-folks "moderate" who will likely take a hard swing to the right once elected, just like the Boy Emperor did back in the day. His obsequious puppy-dog persona notwithstanding, the thought of this guy in high public office--even with the GOP in the minority in DC--is genuinely frightening.

As for who to vote for, here's where I switch to first person singular, given that the kitchen crew has decided not to write separate endorsement articles (as was done in ETS! for the 2004 US presidential race) for this issue. Speaking for myself, I've officially made up my mind to vote to smash one-party rule in the USA. Speaking for the ETS! kitchen crew as a whole, let your conscience be your guide. There you have it: two clear small-d democratic choices to decide between. Is this a great country or what?

US Representative, District 1 (North King County, South Snohomish County): Praise Mother Earth, there is at least one Democrat it won't hurt one's pride to vote for: Jay Inslee rocks. Not only has he been a consistently and genuinely progressive elected official (pro-labor, pro-environment, anti-Iraq War, pro-civil liberties), it's uncanny how a brainy progressive like Inslee can still have the (unfortunately) electable quality of looking like an aging frat boy. (And what a shame that he reportedly refused to challenge Cantwell in this year's primary, as some pleaded with him to do, out of loyalty to his known constituents.) Inslee's GOP opponent, Larry Ishmael, seems sensible enough ("I believe the key to a secure America begins with secure ports and a secure border"), but Inslee's a known quality in the 1st District, and will likely coast to re-election. Still, a big voter turnout for Inslee will hopefully show the spineless among DC's Dems the rewards of being a brazenly progressive lawmaker. Vote for Jay Inslee.

US Representative, District 7 (Seattle): Jim McDermott, himself a known quality to the ETS! faithful, has of course his doubters among The Left: He supported NAFTA and the WTO! He's a do-nothing legislator for life! Arguably true, but his Republican opponent this year, Steve Beren, is either laughable or terrifying, depending on his intent to eventually score some hot public office by hook or crook. Steve says, in his Voters Pamphlet statement, "I was an anti-war leftist in the 1970s ... but since 9/11 ..." I'm sure you can guess the punch line: the old dove-to-hawk switcheroo. Hey, clever! After Nov. 7, perhaps Beren should abandon the pursuit of public office and instead follow David Horowitz on the Liberal-Professors-Are-In-League-With-Al-Qaeda inadvertent comedy circuit. (Granted, he does call for a Congressionally-led "Manhattan Project" to develop renewable energy. Great idea, but it won't happen if the GOP retains the three branches of guv'mint. Sorry, Steve, just sayin'!)

McDermott's other challenger, Independent Linnea Noreen, has a sensible, if generic, platform (she claims to support "a socially liberal, fiscally responsible agenda"). We'll leave it to you to decide whether a protest vote against Legislator For Life Syndrome is more important than smashing one-party rule in DC. But our primary endorsement also counts for the general election: Jim McDermott.

US Representative, District 8 (Bellevue, Redmond, Woodinville): Now we're getting somewhere. Lots of folks outside the 8th District must be green with envy toward the 8th's lucky progressives who won't have to bow down and chow down on The Lesser of Two Alpos this year. This race is getting national attention aplenty (as well as lots of battling Beltway bucks) for good reason: Democrat Darcy Burner, a young (35), super-smart progressive in her first run for public office, is challenging Republican Dave Reichert, a freshman notable for being a classic waterboy for George W. Bush (as well as, in his younger days as King County Sheriff, having a sublimely blow-dried mane). Fun facts: Reichert's part of the crowd who insist to this day that the invasion of Iraq was necessary revenge for 9/11. Sheriff Hairspray is also a dedicated skeptic on global warming. Definitely not our guy.

Burner, on the other hand, is a passionate yet level-headed critic of the Iraq occupation ("... the Iraq War has helped spawn a new generation of [Islamic] radicalism ... and made America less safe"), as well as other aspects of the War on Terror--including the habeas corpus-gutting Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Crucially, Burner and Reichert have been running neck-and-neck for weeks now, demonstrating that the Eastside's recent lurching from red politics to blue isn't happening quite so fast. For obvious reasons, this race, even more so than the US Senate race, is the one for antiwar locals to pay attention to. If you live in the 8th, vote for Darcy Burner, with enthusiasm.

State Representative, District 11 (South Seattle), Position 2: Both candidates here come from labor backgrounds, the difference being that Republican John Potter is merely a rank-and-file Teamster, whereas Democrat Bob Hasegawa, the incumbent, once served three terms as the elected head of Teamsters Local 174. Hasegawa can also boast a long resumŽ of involvement in local social justice organizations, including Jobs with Justice, Community Alliance for Global Justice, and Teamsters for a Democratic Union. In short, a widely respected local figure with unimpeachable activist credentials. The obvious choice: Bob Hasegawa.

State Senator, District 37 (Madrona, Columbia City, Rainier Beach): Incumbent Democrat Adam Kline, challenged this year by the unremarkable, if sensible Republican Brian Thomas, is best known as a civil liberties watchdog who also favors changing the state's tax structure to a more progressive model. Thomas isn't quite so scary as most Republicans--he's focused on local budget issues, rather than waging ideological jihad in the Voters Pamphlet, but Kline wins out for his productivity so far on progressive issues. Adam Kline.

State Representative, District 37, Position 2: Both candidates here--both African American, incidentally--are worth voting for, for different reasons. Eric Pettigrew, a rookie incumbent, is a genuine moderate who's worked in a genuinely bipartisan manner to bring jobs and social programs to communities of color in South Seattle. Kwame Garrett is young (29), and new to electoral politics, but notable for his past work to empower local youth of color, including co-founding the House of Stylez, a clothing store on MLK Way South, and organizing a hip-hop night at the Vera Project. We encourage Garrett to keep aiming for public office, but give the nod, by a small margin, to Pettigrew for being a known quality as a reliably liberal legislator. Eric Pettigrew.

State Senator, District 43 (Capitol Hill, U District, Wallingford, Fremont): This race is hardly worth commenting on, if only because Ed Murray is such a known quality from his past work as the State Rep. for the 43rd, notably his leadership in helping secure civil rights legislation for Washington State's queer community last year. He's as good as elected in the ultra-liberal 43rd. His GOP opponent, Loren Nelson, is a classic crank candidate, whining and bitching about those money-wasting bureaucrats in Olympia without offering any specific proposals for how to solve the problem he so generically invokes in his Voters Pamphlet statement. If elected, watch how quickly he assimilates. Ed Murray.

State Representative, District 43, Position 1: What a disaster.

The Sept. 19 Washington State primary, wherein six good-to-great candidates competed intensely, if civilly, for the Democratic nomination to replace longtime 43rd District Rep. Ed Murray (who now moves on to the state Senate--see above), could not have turned out worse for the ultra-liberal 43rd: Who should have won, by a razor-thin majority, and courtesy of catastrophic vote-splitting among progressive candidates, but the most photogenic, least progressive (as well as, surprise, best-funded) candidate, namely, Preston Gates Ellis lawyer Jamie Pedersen. And the conventional wisdom, given the demographic facts of the 43rd, is that the primary was the general election with respect to this seat.

The crucial factor in this result, of course, was Pedersen's status as an out gay male running to replace an out gay male in one of the most queer-friendly legislative districts in the country. It's good that the 43rd will continue to have a strong advocate in Olympia for the repeal of Washington State's Talibanic anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Unfortunately, as ETS! pointed out in our Aug. 24 primary endorsements issue, Pedersen's positions on several other crucial issues for the 43rd (such as transportation and tenants' rights) have been frustratingly generic. And really, any of Pedersen's primary rivals would likely have made an equally effective advocate for the DOMA's repeal--as well as for plenty of other issues. As it stands, we'll apparently have to settle for a single-issue official, thanks to a perfect storm of identity politics and progressive vote-splitting. Speaking for myself, as part of Pedersen's new constituency (I happen to live and vote in the 43rd), I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Pedersen's Republican challenger is Hugh Foskett, one of two young, privileged white male University of Washington College Republicans running for public office this year (the other being Will Sohn--see below), apparently tag-teaming in order to Sock It To The Liberal Man. (Aww, isn't that cute!) If elected, Foskett will surely cut the government fat, get things done in Olympia, and amply pad his resumŽ.

Our endorsement for a protest vote? Unless you're convinced that Pedersen will turn out to be a genuinely progressive legislator (we'll concede the possibility), say no to identity politics: Write in Lynne Dodson, the great local educator/activist who we endorsed for the 43rd in the primary--or better yet, write in Instant Runoff Voting. No more progressive vote-splitting in Washington State--ever.

State Representative, District 43, Position 2: Frank Chopp is a classic example of an unremarkable yet reliably liberal Democratic lawmaker, currently in his fifth term in Olympia. Chopp's Republican opponent is UW junior, and Hugh Foskett co-conspirator, Will "Chopper" Sohn (as he bills himself in the Voters Pamphlet--hey, clever!). As a boilerplate conservative-in-the-cocoon, Sohn believes that "working families [should] keep more of what they earn." Hey, this kid's got bold new ideas--and a billion dollar smile to boot! Vote for Frank Chopp.

State Senator, District 46 (North Seattle): Ken Jacobsen is yet another unremarkable Democratic incumbent, noteworthy at least for his proposal to abolish the initiative and referendum system in Washington State. His GOP opponent Brian Travis proposes to "[m]ake English the official language of Washington State." The freaks come out at night--very often in the Voters Pamphlet. Vote for Ken Jacobsen.

State Supreme Court Justice, Position 1: Susan Owens, a widely-respected incumbent, is being challenged by Stephen Johnson, a "non-partisan" Republican party hack and Washington state senator who supports property rights and opposes gay marriage. Among his supporters: Dino Rossi, Norm Maleng, Jennifer Dunn, and none other than Skeletor (a k a Slade Gorton). We repeat here the strong endorsement we gave in our Aug. 24 primary issue: Susan Owens.

King County Prosecuting Attorney: It's long been official ETS! policy to ignore unopposed candidates, either for praise or rebuke, in our endorsements issues. But we just can't let ultra-Republican Norm Maleng's ageless horrificosity pass without comment. For folks new to King County and unfamiliar with Maleng, three words: Tough On Crime. Here, my friends, is the perfect outlet for your protest vote proclivities this year: Write in McGruff The Crime Dog.

Initiative Measure 920: I-920 calls for the repeal of Washington State's estate tax. It's being enthusiastically supported by several of the state's wealthiest families and individuals, including the Nordstroms and Martin Selig. 'Nuff said. Vote No on I-920, and if you're feeling frisky in the voting booth, raise your ballot-free hand in a heavy metal devil sign as you fill in the bubble, in honor of Frank Blethen.

Initiative Measure 933: I-933 is a "property rights" initiative--and how. Its deceptively mundane mandate, "fairness when government regulates private property," would open up the legislative playing field in Washington State to unprecedented challenges to existing and potential land-use laws and environmental protections, giving private developers vastly undeserved power over the public commons. Vote No on I-933.

Initiative Measure 937: I-937 would require electric utilities in the state to use renewable energy, under threat of financial penalty. We're glossing over the wonky details, but this is an obvious no-brainer for progressives: Yes on I-937.

House Joint Resolution 4223: HJR 4223 is a proposed constitutional amendment which would effectively increase the property tax exemption for small businesses in Washington State, from $3,000 to $15,000. Yet another no-brainer: Yes on HJR 4223.

Seattle City Council, Position 9: Sally Clark, appointed to replace the abruptly retiring Jim Compton on the Council earlier this year, is yet another unremarkable liberal public official. We'd love to see an additional liberal-with-teeth, such as Nick Licata or former Councilmember Judy Nicastro, on the Council, but Clark is at least level-headed and well-respected--so far. Her opponent is wacko permacandidate Stan Lippmann. Stan, you really can stop running for random public offices. Other folks have gotten that monkey off their backs--so can you. All it takes is willpower. Sally Clark.

Seattle Initiative Measure 91: This is the measure that says no to corporate welfare for crybaby sports teams. It basically mandates that for-profit sports teams, such as the Sonics and the Storm, repay the City of Seattle at "fair value" for any public financing of such teams. Not only would I-91, if passed, have a practical economic benefit for the city--such as financing for the "more important things" invoked by the measure's key advocates, it would also (potentially) send a message to local legislators and business owners about the political wisdom of further public/private partnerships in the region, sports-related or otherwise. Enough is enough; say no to corporate welfare, vote Yes on I-91.

Seattle Referendum Measure 1: This is the "strip club" referendum, which would put severe regulations on the operation of strip clubs and the conduct of their dancers and patrons. While defending the sex industry isn't exactly our idea of a noble cause, this measure is prudish to the point of pathos; more importantly, implementing the regulations it proposes would be a ridiculous waste of city money. No on R-1.

Seattle Charter Amendments: Now this is what democracy is all about: citizens getting to vote on ultra-wonky technical changes to foundational documents like constitutions and charters. Sexy sexy sexy! Am I joking? Only slightly. Such wonky gauntlets are the price we pay for having any power at all over the conditions of our civic lives. Luckily, all eleven of these amendments merely eliminate obsolete language in the Seattle City Charter and/or clarify appointment authority within City Hall, and thus all are innocuously safe "yes" votes. The one that stands out as crucial is Number 8, which would give the City Council confirmation authority over a number of city departments, most importantly the police and parks departments--an important change in light of recent arrogant behavior by Seattle Parks Superintendent Kenneth Bounds. Yes on Charter Amendment No. 8.

Seattle Proposition No. 1: This proposition, a brainchild of Mayor Greg Nickels, would allow increased property taxes in order to fund transportation and infrastructure improvements in Seattle, mostly no-nonsense maintenance and repairs to existing services and infrastructure. This represents a positive change from the days when Seattle's city mothers and fathers put more effort--and city money--into "public/private partnerships" than into such unsexy matters as repairing potholes and replacing worn-out Metro buses. It's been argued that such tax increases would be potentially endless, but such a position ignores the difference between Nickels' original $1.6 billion levy proposal and the City Council's more sober revision, which will expire after nine years. We don't need more skyboxes for wealthy Sonics fans, but we do need fully-functioning roads, bridges, and public transportation. Yes on Proposition No. 1.