With that in mind, here are the determinations of our group. Those noted with asterisks are incumbents.

US Senate: Mike McGavick (R)

Even the Democrats in our group were lukewarm about Incumbent Cantwell — mainly over her support of the war. The majority believe that McGavick’s message of civility in politics, coupled with his business experience, will give our state better representation in the other Washington than Cantwell, who was rated the 93rd least effective senator (out of 100). Her very public fight with Alaska’s powerful Sen. Ted Stevens wasn’t especially smart either — especially since Alaska is one of Washington’s major trading partners. Stevens will come back to haunt Cantwell if she does win.

1st Congressional District: Jay Inslee* (D)

Except for one member, our board was pretty unanimous As one said, “He’s no Norm Dicks, but he gets the job done.”

6th Congressional District: Norm Dicks* (D)

A No-Brainer. Norm always brings home the bacon. ‘Nuff said.

Kitsap County Commissioner: Jack Hamilton (R)

This was sort of close — but not really, with Democrats even conceding Josh Brown is just too young and inexperienced for the job. This isn’t a position that allows for On-The-Job-Training, and Brown’s arrogant attitude coupled with his lack of understanding of the NASCAR financing proposal didn’t help him any either. Hamilton was far from a unanimous choice, and his conservative views admittedly make some people nervous. But his military and business experience as well as his community involvement, count in many of the areas the job requires. With Brown the only other choice — and a lame one at that — Hamilton gets the nod.

26th District Senate: Derek Kilmer (D)

Kilmer is one Democrat who “gets it” about economic development and job creation, as well as what’s required for that to happen. He can probably have this job for as long as he wants it or until he moves on to something bigger. Jim Hines is an candidate with business experience, and several of our board members expressed the opinion that they would have preferred to have seen him challenge Larry Seaquist or Pat Lantz. The problem was Lois McMahan, whom almost everyone admitted isn’t electable, refusing to step aside. Hines volunteered in service to his party to move her out. Hines should step up again two years from now if a House seat is open.

26th District House, Position 1: Beckie Krantz (R)

Our board was lukewarm about this race to the point of almost no endorsement. Two Democrats expressed the opinion Incumbent Pat Lantz should have retired rather than run again. Krantz is seriously lacking in local community involvement, but has been endorsed by almost every local and statewide business group, which is what got her the nod.

26th District House. Position 2: No Endorsement

Our Democrats’ support of Larry Seaquist was tepid at best. The Republicans don’t like him at all. No one from either side was comfortable with Ron Boehme — for a variety of reasons. There was just no consensus of support for either candidate. Seaquist rails against public funding for NASCAR but admitted he’s never read the Berk Report, and in fact, didn’t even know what it was when asked. He says the money should be used for education, but fails to understand there is no public funding for the project that could be used. His overbearing, “my way or the highway” military attitude is just a little too much to suffer from someone so uninformed and so unwilling to listen.

23rd District House, Position 1: Earl Johnson (R)

The 9/11 survivor won out over Incumbent Sherry Appleton because of his cheerful attitude, moderate, even-handed approach to the issues, willingness to listen to all points of view, and his business experience. Unfortunately, his campaign lacks any compelling focus. Appleton is passionate in her beliefs and works hard for her district, but she’s a little too cozy with the Suquamish Tribe and state employee unions for some of our members. Also her venomous opposition to NASCAR hurt her as well.

23rd District House, Position 2: No Endorsement

Bev Woods has done a reasonable job in Olympia, but her boneheaded opposition to the Bremerton tunnel was a serious mistake. Our Republicans also feel strongly that she betrayed the voters with her support of the gas tax and in overturning I-601 two years ago. Meanwhile, all the out-of-district and out-of-state environmental money flowing into challenger Christine Rolfes’ campaign made the businessperson in all of us — including a couple of the Democrats — nervous. Woods has been targeted for defeat by the Democratic House leadership, but is replacing her with a liberal environmentalist the best we can do? You decide.

35th District Senate: Tim Sheldon* (D)

Sheldon represents his district the way it wants — and 35th District voters let everyone know that loud and clear when Sheldon trounced the party’s hand-picked carpetbagger/opportunist in the primary. Representing your district as the voters want you to instead of the party… What a novel concept. Think it will catch on?

35th District House, Position 1: No Endorsement

Neither Incumbent Kathy Haigh nor challenger Marco Brown have done anything to distinguish themselves in our board’s mind. Haigh’s opposition to NASCAR, her poor AWB rating, as well as her support of Tim Sheldon’s opponent didn’t help her any either.

35th District House, Position 2: Randy Neatherlin (R)

This was close, with Incumbent Bill Eickmeyer almost getting the nod. Eickmeyer gets high marks for his efforts to clean up Hood Canal, but no one could name three other things he’d done during his time in office. His anti-business rating from AWB hurt him too. Neatherlin is folksy and a little rough around the edges, but spearheading the Theler issue last year, as well as his other community activities won us over.

Supreme Court: Stephen Johnson (NP)

Incumbent Susan Owens has just been on the wrong side of way too many issues important to business — such as public disclosure. Her passion for legislating from the bench as she did in the public disclosure case where the law was crystal clear, is simply unacceptable. It’s time for a change.

Initiative 933: No Endorsement

We were about evenly split and agreed to disagree. Opponents’ scare tactics about the cost and what will happen if I-933 passes are mostly just that — unfounded scare tactics that won’t come true, and in some cases, simply bald faced lies. However, in spite of the avalanche of land use over-regulation we endure, rolling back everything to pre-1996 levels isn’t in anyone’s best interest either.

There are lots of regulations that need to be eliminated and/or changed — starting with a major retooling of the GMA. But I-933 is the wrong vehicle. People are discovering what the GMA means to their quality of life as we pack more and more people into small Urban Growth Areas. Suddenly, sprawl doesn’t look as as bad as density at five units per acre — especially if you live next door — as the people on Noll Road in Poulsbo have discovered.

We’d like to see something that accomplishes what I-933 supporters say it will, without taking a meat axe approach to a problem that needs a much more thoughtful solution.

Initiative 937: No

This is a well-intentioned but poorly crafted solution in search of a problem. The simple fact it specifically exempts hydroelectric power as a renewable energy source is downright absurd. To think we will generate 15 percent of our growing electrical needs from wind power – especially given the level of activist NIMBYism in our state coupled with the requirements of the GMA — is ludicrous. And there is the issue of where the wind actually blows...

Can’t you just see all those environmentalists protesting a proposed windmill farm next door to them? Of course if you believe the opponents of I-933, it could happen anyway. Ironic, when you think about it, isn’t it?.