Governor Chris Gregoire's lips were certainly moving during her annual State of the State speech on January 11, but the words coming out of her mouth sounded exactly like those of right-wing initiative peddler Tim Eyman.

"Voters are out ahead in understanding the need for change," Gregoire told a joint session of the state legislature. She was praising the public for voting Eyman's way this past fall on a slew of initiatives that have put the state in a fiscal straitjacket as it tries to deal with a $4.6 billion budget shortfall.

Gregoire, keep in mind, is a Democrat with political capital to burn in what is widely expected to be her last term in office. So why is she responding to this budget crisis by calling for the end of state programs like Basic Health and Disability Lifeline (to the delight of conservatives) and standing before Democratic majorities in the legislature and regurgitating (also to the delight of conservatives) the talking points of a conservative folk hero?

After all, recent history shows that Eyman is plainly her political nemesis. Last year, Eyman and Gregoire clashed over a two-cents-a-can tax on soda that Gregoire helped push through the state legislature. It would have brought the state $34 million this year, except that an Eyman-friendly initiative repealed Gregoire's soda tax in November with 60 percent voter support. Gregoire also supported Bill Gates Sr.'s Initiative 1098 last year. It would have laid an income tax on Washington's wealthiest citizens and could have erased much—if not all—of that $4.6 billion shortfall that Gregoire is now struggling to deal with. Except that Eyman opposed the income tax measure, and 64 percent of voters went with him at the polls.

That's not all: Gregoire also fought against Eyman's Initiative 1053, which sought to reinstitute a two-thirds-majority requirement in the state legislature for any revenue increases. She lost that battle, too.

Tough year, but no one said politics is easy. What's bizarre is Gregoire's current response: abandon political beliefs that she held quite strongly just a few months ago, and instead push forward this year with an "immoral" budget proposal (her word) that's virtually all cuts.

"She's recognizing what the majority of Washingtonians told her," says Gregoire spokesperson Karina Shagren, explaining Gregoire's embrace of Eyman economics. "And that is: Do this with no new revenue. We're taxed out."

We're taxed out. Again: Who does that sound like? (Eyman didn't respond to a request for an interview about his influence on Gregoire's budget proposals.)

"Reality," Shagren continues, "is that while she could certainly come out and push the legislature to come up with new sources of revenue, I think some would say: 'This is just a big waste of time because this is never going to happen.'"

Of course, what helps to guarantee that it's absolutely, positively, never ever going to happen is Gregoire's declaration that the idea of raising new revenue is dead on arrival. She could have stood up there during her State of the State speech and pushed for the kind of "bold reform" she really believes in—even if only to draw fire (instead of applause) from conservatives, and thereby give Democratic lawmakers cover to propose somewhat less bold, but still helpful, reforms. And reforms are, in fact, still possible. A respected Washington pollster recently found that 58 percent of Washington voters would now support a high-earners income tax, provided it came with a constitutional guarantee that it wouldn't be extended to people at lower incomes. Instead, Gregoire said an all-cuts budget is the only way to go.

Another odd thing about Gregoire's State of the State speech: her fixation on the year 1935 as an object lesson in how this year's budget should be handled.

Gregoire told lawmakers:

If the legislature in 1935—in the midst of the Great Depression—could enact landmark change that has lasted for 80 years, then we, today, can also transform Washington State government to better serve our people for the next 80 years. Now is the time to challenge the status quo.

Problem is, Gregoire isn't attempting to "challenge the status quo" one bit. Instead, she's bowing before it.

By contrast, in 1935, lawmakers and then-governor Clarence Martin overhauled the state's entire tax system in response to a money crisis that was inarguably more severe than this one. Their overhaul was far from perfect. It gave us our regressive overreliance on a statewide sales tax that now, 80 years later, needs serious reform. But the point is this: What happened in 1935 was inarguably "bold reform" and "landmark change," and what Gregoire is proposing this year is neither.

Why?

"You have to accept reality," said Gregoire spokesperson Shagren.

Reality, according to Gregoire: Eyman's in charge now.