Jim McDermott is one of my favorite liberal politicians. He is an independent minded public servant and always available during Congressional breaks. Sometimes his independence gets him into a little hot water. That is fine by me. I and others have his back. Some have suggested that because Jim voted against an overstated resolution about Christmas and the Christian faith, he should be voted out of office. This is part of a calculated political strategy and must be recognized as such.

Let's look at the basics. It is not rocket science. What does the resolution say? What problem does it solve? Who are the majority of the sponsors? What is the timing of the resolution? What are the political dynamics? It does not attempt to solve a problem or address a need. It talks about the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. The primary sponsor is extreme Republican Steve King of Iowa, now in his third term. King also sponsored a resolution to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which empowers Congress to levy the income tax.

The 60 co-sponsors are overwhelmingly Republican. The timing was just before Christmas break when representatives were headed home. Presidential elections were ready to move into high gear after the first of the year. Given the actual impact of Republican public policy, people of faith are reconsidering their support of the Republican Party and taking a fresh look at the Democrats.

Bottom line: This resolution is a calculated move by Republicans to pander to and shore up the decreasing support of the religious community and is intended as a "gotcha" resolution. The local acolyte columnists and talk show hosts are expected to go after the politician who votes against it. The actual record of the politician with respect to governance and solving problems is ignored. According to the Dec. 23 Seattle Times, members of the House sponsored an average of 13 bills and resolutions. McDermott sponsored 27 and co-sponsored 479.

Jim McDermott deserves the support of our south King County community. In fact, the Democratic majority in Congress must be increased. If a Republican president takes office in 2009, Democrats will need to be able to override presidential vetoes and end Republican filibusters. There have been over 50 in the Senate so far. I look forward to the time when the Republican Party is less extreme and divisive. Then good ideas from both parties can be synthesized into good public policy.

Chuck Parrish

Tukwila