Some significant signs in a little-noticed election
Dialing for more dollars, Jane Hague's poor showing, how to read the Seattle results, liberal bias, how to spin your win, the dangers of a low-key approach: In an evolving thread, Crosscut's writers analyze Washington's first August primary, an election that was on almost no normal person's radar.
By David Brewster, Knute Berger, O. Casey Corr, and Chris Vance
August 22, 2007.
There was a primary election in Washington yesterday, Aug. 21, the first time in memory a primary here hasn't been held in September, and Crosscut's pundits were possibly the only people who noticed. So here's what they are thinking. We'll add to this discussion through the day. Feel free to weigh in yourself in the comments below.
Campaign 101: Spending wisely
O. Casey Corr: Next to the vote totals, the numbers most analyzed after a primary are the "cash-on-hand" figures. Those numbers can be suggestive of several things, such as the nervousness of a candidate as she or he approached the primary. In a crowded primary, the pressure is on candidates to spend money on direct mail, win some votes through that effort, and not look weak in the vote totals. Balancing that is a desire to hoard cash to finance a direct-mail blitz for the general. Generally speaking, incumbents should get 50 percent or more of a primary vote total.
Let's look at one race, Position 3 of the Seattle City Council.
Venus Velázquez did great in the votes, capturing 42 percent in early returns. Her Aug. 14 Full Summary (C4) disclosure showed a cash-on-hand balance of $38,367, which became a negative balance of $20,609 when you counted her obligations to consultants and others, including a loan to herself of $3,500.
Since that date, of course, she could have pulled in many dollars. I'm not counting any of the reported donations since Aug. 14. But the numbers suggest how much she risked to make the strong showing. She spent everything and more to get through the primary.
As I write this, Velázquez is almost certainly on the phone to donors, talking up her good showing and asking for another check to get across the finish line. Some calls will go to potential donors who wanted to see how she'd do in the primary before giving money. Now she has something to tell them.
Her opponent, Bruce Harrell, shows a cash-on-hand figure of $65,987, which shrinks to a net balance of $12,819 after liabilities are counted, including a loan to himself of $4,300. His higher balance may suggest he felt a little more confident approaching the primary, but doubtless both he and Velázquez considered the possible impact of the candidacy of Al Runte, a 2005 mayoral candidate who came in a distant third in this race.
According to the Aug. 14 reports, Velázquez had raised a total of $124,595 to Harrell's $156,072. These numbers suggest that Harrell's position is better than it seems from vote totals alone, but he's not likely to talk publicly about that. "Cash on hand" is inside baseball. If your phone is ringing as you read this, it's Bruce or Venus, asking for money.
A moderate lawmaker loses
Chris Vance: According to David Postman's blog, Sen. Jim Clements, a relatively moderate Republican, lost to a conservative challenger in a special election in Yakima.
This is very significant, as it is the first time that a moderate legislator of either party has lost to a more conservative (or more liberal) challenger under our new pick-a-party primary system.
Clements often worked with Democrats on issues, supported raising the gas tax, and voted to put this fall's measure to repeal our state's 60 percent vote requirement to pass school levys on the ballot. Will his defeat have a chilling affect on bipartisanship and embolden more ideological candidates?
Update: I just spoke to a reporter with the Yakima Herald-Republic. He says that one factor in Clements' defeat was the fact that his challenger, Curtis King, rang thousands of doorbells, and Clements did not. It wouldn't be the first time a veteran lawmaker was ousted by a challenger who simply worked harder.
I think sweat may have been as much a factor as ideology in this Yakima upset.
Jane Hague's poor showing
Knute Berger: Can you be unopposed in a primary and still have a bad day? Yes, if you're Jane Hague. It was revealed on Tuesday, Aug. 21, that the King County Council member had been charged in July with a DUI after an incident in early June – a fact that flew under the radar until primary day. According to The Seattle Times, Hague faces a judge in Redmond next week. (Hmmm. What's Bobbe Bridge doing these days?)
The Times reports that Hague blew readings of 0.135 percent and 0.141 percent (.08 is legally drunk). Hague claims she'd only had two glasses of wine. According to a Virginia Tech Web site on the effects of alcohol, a reading in that range would manifest itself in terms of personality with over-expression, emotional swings, anger or sadness, and boisterousness. It would impair a person's reaction time, gross motor control, and cause staggering and slurred speech.
The King County Sheriff's deputy who stopped her said she was driving erratically and had to grab onto the car to keep from falling. She was also "sarcastic and condescending," called the arrest "ridiculous," and used foul language.
Doesn't sound like Mel Gibson, but then, he only blew a 0.12.
Hague's lawyer promises to defend her "vigorously." One hopes.
It looks like Republican Hague's opponent could wind up being perennial candidate and gadfly Richard Pope, who has run for office – any office – nearly every year since 1996: prosecutor, assessor, attorney general, judge, port commissioner, everything but bikini inspector.
He jumped into the primary as a Democrat at the last minute when the party failed to recruit its own candidate. If Hague's troubles mount, Pope could possibly prove Woody Allen's famous dictum: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."
On partisanship
Chris Vance: Regarding "Republican Bill Bryant," referred to by David Brewster below, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes Republicans hate the liberal media. Bill Bryant is running for a nonpartisan office. He is endorsed by prominent Democrats like Jan Drago, Cecil Andrus, Alex Alben, and David Dicks, the man just chosen by a Democratic governor to lead the new Puget Sound restoration effort. Yet his partisanship is used to define him. I don't mean to sound like a Dittohead calling into the Rush Limbaugh show, but truly one wonders if the mainstream media will ever realize that their obvious liberal bias is what has caused their decline.
Campaign 101: Defining your 'victory'
O. Casey Corr: If we were sticklers about math, we might wait days or even weeks before conclusions are reached about the primary election. After all, shouldn't we be cautious about pronouncements drawn from "early returns," a tally of just 18 percent of the votes? But that's not how it works. On primary election night, reporters and supporters want an immediate reaction to numbers. But if you are a candidate, you must seize the opportunity to define events to your advantage. Doing this well is important, because campaign messages affect whether you can build momentum for the rest of the campaign.
In short, no matter what the numbers, you want to create an impression that you are the winneror coming on strong, which makes your the winner by November. Either way, you're the winner. (For an example of doing this well, Bill Clinton called himself the "Comeback Kid" after a second-place showing in the 1992 New Hampshire primary.)
By this standard, Venus Velázquez was the winner of the race for a Seattle City Council seat, Position 3. She got herself pictured in a happy moment with a supporter on the front page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and was quoted defining the vote totals as support for what she brings to the race. Bruce Harrell was shown inside, photographed in a pensive moment with his daughter. In returns posted this morning, Velázquez had 42 percent of the vote in a crowded field. Harrell had 27 percent. But Harrell, doing what he needed to do, defined the numbers as all part of his plan, perhaps even the goal. "We're actually where we wanted to be," he told the P-I. He said he expected Velázquez as the only woman in the race to draw a larger share of the primary vote.
Not the best message, but a message.
By contrast, what could be this fall's most intense race showed candidates both using the moment to reinforce their message. The general election for King County prosecutor will be a contest between Republican Dan Satterberg and Democrat Bill Sherman. Both are prosecutors, but Satterberg is the interim King County prosecutor and perhaps has a presumed advantage as the designated successor by supporters of the late Norm Maleng. Sherman last night continued to try to turn Satterberg's long tenure in the office under Maleng as a disadvantage, saying voters are "ready for a fresh approach." Satterberg pushed back. "This election is about qualifications," Satterburg said.
Remember that phrase: "This election is about ..." You fill in the blank: change, experience, getting a mom on the council, getting a dad on the council, a bridge to the 21st century, etc. Even if you have 2 percent of the vote, the tide is going your way. Congratulations!
Colby Underwood: tall but nonpartisan
Knute Berger: Colby Underwood, the 29-year-old Seattle fundraising wunderkind, usually works for Democrats (Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee ...), though he also has plenty of clients in nonpartisan races (City Council). But this time out, he's working for Port Commission candidate Bill Bryant, who won the right to take on incumbent reformer Alec Fisken in November. Bryant is a longtime Republican. Underwood says he took Bryant as a client because he's green – as in a strong environmentalist. Bryant has been described as a Republican in the Dan Evans mold, which is an appellation that doesn't mean much of anything anymore except to the aging voters who remember that at one time, the GOP actually had environmentalists. Bryant isn't the only oddity represented by Underwood: he's also raising funds for a J.P.Patches statue.
One Underwood mystery to clear up: his height. Underwood is tall, and his height has variously been reported as 6-10 and 6-11. He confirms that he's 6-10 but allows as how his driver's license lists him at his "basketball" height of 7-3. He used to play for Shorecrest.
The role of partisanship
David Brewster: I just heard a KUOW-FM newscast that said Port Commissioner Alec Fisken was going to face "Republican Bill Bryant." That was fast, hanging that epithet on Bryant in a nonpartisan race, and it raises the question of how much partisanship will play in the fall election.
For the Port of Seattle, where Bryant and Bob Edwards, both fairly independent sorts, will be "outed" as Republicans, that label is two-edged, since the majority of voters are outside Seattle in the King County suburbs, which incline toward nonpartisanship. Partisanship might also be a big part of David Della's attempt to hold his Seattle City Council seat against challenger Tim Burgess. Both are Democrats, but Burgess gave money to Rob McKenna, the Republican state attorney general who was running against Deborah Senn, an unpopular Democrat. Della is a pure Democrat who will not allow voters to forget Burgess's lapse from purity. But will voters prefer partisanship, even in an age of Bush backlash, to the supposed effectiveness of a nonpartisan?
The most important race, as regards the issue of partisanship, is King County prosecutor. Norm Maleng, still widely revered, was a Republican who played the bipartisan role skillfully. He was known for hiring good lawyers regardless of their party loyalty. (Bill Sherman, the Democratic nominee as determined by voters yesterday, was one such active Democrat hired by Maleng.) As the Democratic Party activists increasingly want to fight the Bush Republicans with equally adamant partisanship, they will tempt Sherman with the votes and money that would come from his positioning himself as a loyal Democrat.
If Sherman takes this bait, Satterberg would probably pounce at the opening, saying that the office should not be politicized, any more than Alberto Gonzales should have politicized the U.S. attorneys. Besides, Satterberg's allies are passing the word among Seattle Democrats that their man is only a nominal Republican, whose partisanship has been so disguised over the years that many thought he was a Democrat.
One rule of politics is that at the local level, party labels don't mean much. We'll see whether that rule still applies in an era of intensified national polarization.
Improvement and coherency
David Brewster: My morning tea leaves (skipping coffee for this one day) read this way: In the King County prosecutor's race, Bill Sherman easily defeated Keith Scully, and the two Democrats' total of 69,000 (incomplete returns), as opposed to Dan Satterberg's 41,000, shows the value of having a primary race to stir up supporters and get your name known. I'd say Sherman now has a good shot at defeating the Republican Satterberg in November.
The easy victory of the two King County Parks levies, each raising $108.5 million over the next six years, shows how you fund parks in King County – put a Seattle benefit (the zoo) in the package, and those pass-any-good-sounding-tax folks in Seattle will sweep it through. The tough questions about this odd way of funding general government obligations will continue, though.
Port of Seattle Position 2 has Gael Tarleton with a modest lead over incumbent Bob Edwards, who has former CEO Mic Dinsmore's salary perks wrapped around his neck. The surprise to me was that Jack Block Jr., with the famous name (his father was on the Port Commission for many years) came in a distant fourth. Maybe not a surprise. With so many newcomers in the region (nearly the highest percentage in the country), a father who was famous back when is unknown today. The anyone-but-Edwards vote was strong, suggesting that he's toast. Position 5 for the port demonstrated the continuing voter appeal of Alec Fisken, who leads Bill Bryant 45,000-30,000. This is still a good race, but Fisken has the potent appeal of being anti-tax and pro-green. The question is how much appetite the public has for mavericks like Fisken.
In Seattle City Council races, one surpirse was Position 3, where gadfly and former mayoral candidate Al Runte bombed, suggesting the general drift of this election toward level heads rather than hot heads. Venus Velazquez has a comfortable lead over Bruce Harrell, but that's still going to be a fascinating race, with both candidates well-financed and Harrell gradually getting the hang of campaigning. (Velazquez is a natural.) Joe Szwaja is the likely opponent of Jean Godden, who failed to turn this race into a non-contest.
In the Seattle School Board contests, Steve Sundquist won by a wide margin over Maria Ramirez, but those two will now run citywide. Ramirez, an attractive candidate up against a very compelling Sundquist, will be the second Hispanic candidate of note (along with Velazquez) this fall, testing the strength of this rising ethnic group. Darlene Flynn, an embattled incumbent in District 2, barely managed to get through the primary, with Sherry Carr, a very impressive challenger, leading the group. Flynn is looking pretty toasty, I'd say.
As for issues? The crushing defeat of a port levy in Vancouver, Wash., which would have bought more industrial land, is a sign of anti-growth politics growing in the "suburbs." One of the mayoral finalists in Redmond, Jim Robinson, wants to raise taxes on business, which is a sign of declining Republican orthodoxy in the 'burbs.
Redmond is also trying to have a kinder, more consensual form of politics after its feisty previous mayor, Rosemary Ives, and this trend toward "maturity" after an age of low-yield activism still seems to me the dominant local mood. We're going to end up with a very different (and much improved) School Board, and probably a more coherent Port of Seattle. The change at City Council will be less noticeable, though if Harrell were to win and Tim Burgess upset incumbent David Della (those two were not on the ballot, as they passed directly to the general election), that would tip the balance in a moderate direction.
Oh, there was an election yesterday?
Knute Berger: It wasn't a very exciting election to start with, but the move to an August primary made it a dud, with turnout projections in the low-30 percent range. When I showed up at my polling place, McGilvra Elementary School in Seattle, around 9 a.m., I was greeted by poll workers with the news that I was the third voter they'd seen – confirmed when I dropped my ballot into the machine. Granted, most folks vote by mail now. Poll voters are the Dodo birds of the election process, and we'll all be filling out mail-in by 2008, supposedly.
There is a longstanding tradition here of tuning out politics until after Labor Day, and I pity candidates trying to get attention during the dog days of summer. I remember at Seattle Weekly – back in the old days when the Weekly did election endorsements – we once ran our primary recommendations ballot in August and nobody noticed. People called in a week or so later demanding to know why we hadn't run a ballot that year!
A lot of people are just out of town: That's why the I-5 roadwork is taking place this month, not September. Many others are just on a mental vacation. The rationale for moving the primary from September to August was ostensibly to give election workers more time between the primary and November general election – needed in this era of ballot-counting incompetence and rancorous disputes over votes. It allows winning candidates a little breathing room if a race is close and the count drags on. But in talking with people, I was amazed how few generally well-informed folks even knew an election was happening.
My hunch has been that the August primary is a voter-suppression move by the parties to ensure primaries that draw only the most partisan and faithful. This time, though, there wasn't much to stir the passions of even a party hack. I bristle at having to declare a party affiliation on the ballot. It seemed doubly ridiculous Tuesday, a largely non-partisan election, to have to declare loyalty to choose either a guy named Noble or a guy named Nobles to be county assessor.
The "where is everyone" quality continued into the evening. I attended a primary night pundit's party in Lower Queen Anne. I foolishly took the often-clogged Denny Way during the tail end of rush hour, only to discover the streets were empty. Had I missed an evacuation order? Even more bizarre, I found a free parking space right in front of the restaurant. Perhaps I had been magically transported back to the Seattle of 1970, when the lights were about to be turned out.
These campaigns were too low-key
Chris Vance: Turnout was horrible, but let's remember that moving the primary to August was a move that reformers had sought for years.
What strikes me about all these races, particularly the countywide races for prosecutor and port commission, is how little information voters have due to the small scale of the campaigns being run. King County is the size of two and a half congressional districts. It is roughly one-third of the state. Yet none of these candidates will be able to raise enough money for TV or radio or significant amounts of direct mail. In the port races, newspaper endorsements will be key.
In the prosecutor's race, Dan Satterberg will struggle to overcome the massive partisan advantage the Democrats have. Even the best GOP candidates struggle to get to 45 percent in King County. Satterberg has a compelling message (the Maleng legacy) and resume, but will he have enough money to deliver it? As of Aug. 14, he had $100,000 in the bank – about half of what a highly contest legislative election spends these days.
Too much money in politics? Sometimes I don't think there is enough.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 2:54 p.m. Inappropriate
For an example of actual media bias, I present to you Fox News mislabeling Republican Mark Foley a Democrat after it was discovered he solicited sex from teenage boys. Talk about a decline in mainstream media.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 3:34 p.m. Inappropriate
On KUOW, "Republican" is not used as a compliment.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 8:53 p.m. Inappropriate
Labeling a candidate as Republican, however, is both informative and relevant, as most people in Seattle would not vote for someone who identifies with the principles of the Cheney/Bush administration. Are you suggesting the unbiased approach would have been to hide this information from listeners? That the media should try to sneak Republicans past the voters? There's a reason why "Republican" is not used as a compliment - because the party has made a mess of the country. Everyone around here can see that, and I'm sure even you can see that at some level.
Anyway, the idea of a non-partisan office is nearly extinct thanks to the Cheney/Bush policy of placing intensely partisan cronies and aparatchiks in every nonpartisan position they could, including the courts, the justice department, FEMA, the FDA, the EPA, military command, etc, etc, etc. They've even ousted Republican appointees who dared show evidence of independent thought.
Chris, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a reasonable conservative of the sort that used to make up the party back in the days of Reagan and Bush I. If that's the case, and you really care about non-partisan politics, then you should direct your complaints to the bumbling authoritarians who stole your party from you and ruined its reputation.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 10:48 p.m. Inappropriate
2. Even in Seattle, how can you possibly link any candidate for Port Commission with the Bush administration?!
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 8:16 a.m. Inappropriate
Chris Vance, former Chair of the Washington Republican Party: Sean, it's not his fault; he is physically unable to talk about media without referring using the phrase "liberal" and "bias." It's one of the tests for being a Republican commentator.
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 9:26 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm happy about the parks measures. In particular the trail improvements.
Presumably Hague will have the decency to resign if she's convicted? Can't have a convicted criminal in office.
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 1:07 p.m. Inappropriate
It's nice to see David Brewster hasn't given up beating on the "Satterberg: Son of Maleng" drums. But Norm's still dead and Satterberg needs to draw attention to his race somehow to override the instinct of King County voters to choose a D over an R in a partisan race. Sherman's in position to win in November.
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 7:01 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: liberal bias? and parks: Oh you mean like Justice Bobby Bridge of the Washington Supreme Court?
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 10:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Given the disturbing degree of conformity within your party, the burden is up to your candidates (and pundits) to establish themselves as thoughtful and pragmatic politicians who put the interests of consituents before ideology and party. Voters are looking for these qualities in candidates for all offices, partisan or not.
You do a lot of scheming on these pages about how Republicans can pull off victories. Here's an idea - why not start by denouncing Cheney's disastrous leadership (as well as Bush's disastrous followership), the erosion of civil rights, the assumption of divine right within the executive branch, the politicization of the justice department, the politicization of science, the merging of church and state, and the billions of dollars that have literally gone up in smoke in Iraq. Then follow it up with a sensible small government/strong military platform that isn't obsessed with gay people and that allows members to voice dissent.
That's the winning strategy, and the dems have a big jump on you.
Posted Fri, Aug 24, 3:41 p.m. Inappropriate
I have previously challenged Chris Vance, in another online venue, to advise his party to support public campaign financing. Most of the office holders and candidates for non-partisan races, including Port Commissioner John Creighton, support it. It would make it easier to rebuild the Republic bench, and would make it easier to find strong candidates, without the very first coffee-shop recruitment conversation being, "You mean I have to raise how many thousands of dollars?"
It is unfortunate that all but one Republican state legislator (Fred Jarrett, 41st, Mercer Island) have opposed public campaign financing. It doesn't make sense and isn't in their best interest. Both Maine and Arizona legislatures have optional public campaign financing, and both Republicans and Democrats are pleased with the results. Statistically, it doesn't particularly benefit incumbents.
Let's start by getting the state legislature to reverse the law prohibiting local and county elections to be run without having to raise big money. Then a story such as David's would have no reason to be written. A candidate who chooses to abstain from fundraising, and who survives the primary, would receive a set amount adequate to get the word out in the general election, in that jurisdiction. If both candidates chose to "run clean," then we wouldn't be handicapping by funds raised, but by who actually connected with voters.
Posted Fri, Aug 24, 4:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Any Republican candidate running for any office outside Mercer Island who advocates public financing of campaigns will see the base turn on him just as if he advocated a peace and friendship treaty with Bashir Assad of Syria or a pardon for Ossama bin Laden. The base hungers for less government, not more.
The Piper
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 5:02 a.m. Inappropriate
In light of these considerations, I am wondering whether the Seattle Port Commission, a kind of board of Alderman, is still able to do the job for which it was designed. Something certainly is quite puzzling, if not amiss, about the way it is currently set up. Judging by the 100s of thousands invested in the last and current commissioner campaign you would assume these offices to be worth more than 6 k per annum. What is really at stake? Not only does the job pay a pittance, commissioners who take their jobs seriously, lacking support staff or a budget for over- and insight, will - on top of whatever other job they have - spend many many hours at slave labor wages poring over contracts and the like; something only millionaires and the retired can afford - unless civic minded beyond the call of duty. The Port C.E.O., knowing of the comparative ignorance of the commissioners, has little choice but to want them to be compliant. However, under these circumstances the commissioners would seem to be easily beholden to the businesses with interests before the Port, which pour such large sums into these elections; certainly not entirely unselfishly I don't think.
The commissioners only perk are much derided junkets to air and sea port related cities where you can either have a good time or, once again, take your job seriously,as some do; that is, you can get yourself a translator and, say, haunt the docks; certainly a good thing to get out of Seattle to get an other than rain-drenched p.o.v.!
Thus I ask myself, ought not the commissioners, when their supporters' contractual interests come before the P.O.S., recuse themselves, as one candidate with multiple interest already promises to do? If the answer is yes, would the commission still be a functioning entity?
But what if it were an appointed commission of specialists in the various areas that the P.O.S. touches, and if such a commission were sufficiently funded and staffed, might it not do a far better job? And work far more cohesively with the executive? That certainly is the case at other Ports that also run their affairs far more efficiently per cargo ton.
The second matter of ethics that I find odd is that the previous Port CEO promised to raise money to defeat the re-election of a sitting commissioner, as in the 2005 election he had campaigned for the re-election of a different commissioner. Ought the Port C.E.O. be permitted political activity; no matter how justified it may seem to him from the point of view of running the Port? The commissioners themselves also take action to support or defeat each other. Not the sort of thing that is needed I don't think in this instance. It strikes me as though the commission is about to implode.
Taking a less than Seattle-centric p.o.v., I also feel that a regional or perhaps state-wide perspective ought be taken. The age-old {!} competition between the ports of Tacoma and Seattle makes little sense; together they could draw far better contracts with the big stevedoring and shipping companies. Taking the ports of Everett and Olympia, and the birth place of grunge, Grey's Harbor, into state-wide consideration might even make better sense.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 5:03 a.m. Inappropriate
The session was interesting for the following matters:
The over all excellent presentations by Port Staff.
Lloyd Hara's excellent probing of their reasoning for their decisions, made or forthcoming.
Edward's and Creighton did good work too. Alec was on vacation. Pat Davis is on a 'is that the port's business' kick.
Tay Yoshitami's low-key approach, and excellence in finessing the question [Pat Davis] of "shouldn't we first all have a knock out drag out possibly retreat type session on the future direction of the port now that all major projects are either completed, near completed or finalized, before we start discussing the priorities of the budget, taxation etc. " He said, in nuce, no the budgeting process must go forward, and the first reading will be as scheduled, which in no way keeps you, the commissioners, from... which i welcome and would be glad to participate in. And then we can combine your up to date thinking at the first reading.
The only reporter there, from the PI, all prettied up to the nines, with calved on size too thick, cutting out early prior to the interchange between Tay and the Commissioners; and the discussion of the ethics amendment, which will have a second reading, that is the considerable heat that threatened to erupt in the late afternoon was postponed to early September [the 11th I think, maybe] . Thus her report the next day in the PI is just a bunch of figures, for which she didn't even need to show up. So much for reporting in this city. Or anywhere or anytime just about that I've been at an event that has been reported upon.
Bob Edwards then came up to me to thank me for some of my sendings, and he took two hours off from his campaign and we relaxed outside in the setting sun outside pier 69, and I found him one of the nicest person i have met in Seattle in these 14 years, home schooled daughter in the air force academy, a good listener to my adventurous stories, saying no he didn't feel that he had been a rubber stamp for Mic, allowed how that payment issue had upset him, too; but I guess he has a different style from Alec; and the sometimes passionate Creighton seem to think that anyone but Bob is what he wants. So there are tensions in a totally underpaid and staffed commission.
Creighton couldn't get Bryant to talk to me, even though that had been his idea. I set up a meeting with Gail Tarleton, whose CIA type background, huge amount of out of state money from a big sinister outfit gives me the willies.
xx
michael r.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 10:49 a.m. Inappropriate
"Eighty percent of success is showing up."
I love the demicans/democlowns. What were they doing during filing week, instead of recruiting an opponent for Hague - getting drunk themselves?
As much as I'd like to see here replaced - even by a single father who wades through reams political finance records and does much of the PDC's work that that esteemed group should be doing itself - now labelled as a 'gadfly,' sorta like Al Runte - I will give her a mini-lecture and tell her it's deja vu all over again. She could have saved her skin by admitting the mistake when it happened. I believe voters would have forgiven her then. Instead, she's tried to deceive the voters, and they don't like that. Now she has something in common with Princess Pat Davis and Bumbling Bob Edwards. Ah, what could have been - she could have ended up like our Lieutenant Governor, who went through a similar experience years ago, and made lemonade anyway. (Not my flavor, but that's just me. He's still a phony demican. While he was state senator, a REAL democrat filed as a repub to run against him. So Mr Pope isn't inventing the wheel here.)
I think Mr Pope is smarter than people think, and I hope he cleans Hagues clock in November. Judging by the primary numbers, he might just do it. And if the democlowns would pull their heads out, they'd realize they have a chance to knock off an incumbent repub. But no, I expect them to squander that opportunity too. Who knows, Mr Pope may sic the PDC on his own newly-adopted party. That would be sweet.
The other election that spoke volumes was for the Port seats. Residents of King County have FINALLY sat up and taken notice - witness the strong showing of Alec Fisken (while pulling down only half the dollars of his opponent), and the anemic support for Edwards - apologist for Princess Pat. That can't be good news for the princess who should have resigned her own seat months ago.
City Clownsil? No surprises there, business as usual. Fundraising is always difficult for challengers to entrenched incumbents in non-partisan races, especially those with name familiarity. As for Venus, sexy name AND some familiarity from her past experience in civic affairs. I'm cautiously optimistic for the moment, but we'll see what she turns into in a couple of years.
Good to see the parks measures pass so handily, in spite of Clownsilmember McIver's attempt at a wet blanket. Good triumphs over evil again.
Now for the main event in November - RTID/ST2, removing the supermajority requirement for school levies (supported by the outgoing Senator Clements - THANK YOU SIR, your legacy is intact), showdowns at the County Council and the Port, and more ... And probably some new Viaduct plan in advance of the $8 million study results. The Sonics can provide the laughs in the meantime. Autumn is always my favorite season, and this year should be no exception. Grab a seat and enjoy the show.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 11:39 a.m. Inappropriate
To my mind, the August primary election experiment was a colossal failure. Everything I've read here confirms that. Move it back to September where it belongs.
Chris Vance: I don't mean to sound like a Dittohead calling into the Rush Limbaugh show ...
Sorry, Cousin, that's how you DO come across, especially with your record. And yes, I'm afraid we're probably related by blood - certainly not by politics. I'll leave it at that.
David Brewster: ... Deborah Senn, an unpopular Democrat.
Where'd you get that? She's a former two-term Insurance Commissioner who speaks her mind and keeps her word. In other words, my kind of candidate and public servant. She is one of the few candidates for whom I'd gladly vote every time she runs. Sadly, she didn't conform to the image desired by the Gregoire demicans who are currently doing their level best to give up the Governor's Mansion after one mediocre term.
Sorry, David. You just bumped down on my own popularity list a notch there.
Della is a pure Democrat who will not allow voters to forget Burgess's lapse from purity.
Burgess is pure opportunist, hoping to sneak into City Hall by going after the weakest opponent he could find. Regardless of what impression he may have left you, he's no democlown. We'll see if Della's tepid support for rebuilding the Viaduct will help him now. As you might guess, my support for him is tepid too. I'm largely voting AGAINST Burgess.
to be continued ...
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 11:59 a.m. Inappropriate
Remember the pick-a-party concept that the primary was glued to, and Satterberg was running unopposed. Norm Maleng had substantial support from swing voters in the past. I'll bet the race in November is a toss-up AT LEAST when voters won't be bound to one party or the other, and Mr Satterberg will do well to advocate continuing Mr Maleng's legacy. There's some chance he will cruise to an easy victory, but it's way too early to predict that yet.
As for the Gonzales analogy, I'd feared the repubs were going down that path when choosing a temporary replacement for Mr Maleng. As a result of their (uncharacteristically smart) move to select deputy Satterberg, the Gonzales analogy evaporated. Now the 'politicization' is up to voters, not to a few megalomaniacs in a non-smoke-filled back room.
There's an analogy to the Alaskan Way Viaduct rebuild issue and advisory ballot that is screaming to be addressed here, but I'll set that aside for now - reluctantly.
The surprise to me was that Jack Block Jr., with the famous name (his father was on the Port Commission for many years) came in a distant fourth. ... The anyone-but-Edwards vote was strong, suggesting that he's toast.
I was surprised at Mr Block's poor showing too - but the Port's sordid history may have worked against him, in spite of his 'reformer' label - his family's good name may have been thrown out with the bathwater. But, besides being talented and qualified, Ms Tarleton is also the only woman in the race, and MAY be the only woman on the Commission, depending on what happens to Princess Pat. For better or worse, never (mis)underestimate the power of sex in a political campaign - all other factors being equal, which they are not in this race.
Mr Edwards survived due to incumbent name familiarity and powerful, wealthy friends in high places. All to no avail, though - the graffiti is on the wall. Blundering Bob should start cleaning out his desk.
Fisken has the potent appeal of being anti-tax and pro-green. The question is how much appetite the public has for mavericks like Fisken.
In the wake of the Davis/Dinsmore affair, I would say plenty. Remember, Mr Fisken was elected on a reformist message four years ago. Many of his efforts have been blocked by the old guard which is FINALLY being dumped from office, albeit slowly. Dinsmore, Edwards, Davis ... How the mighty are falling.
This primary was only the pre-function for the main event in November. See you again before then. That's a promise.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 12:27 p.m. Inappropriate
No obligation to do so. In fact, history encourages otherwise - if she can survive the election in November.
Refer to the history of our lieutenant governor. After a similar experience as a state senator, he jumped on the DARE bandwagon and formed a road show. His constituents pretty much forgave him, largely repubs and those who believe him when he calls himself a democlown. Then he survived a raucous campaign for his current elected position - probably for life, as lieutenant governors in our state tend to be. They're usually pretty much invisible anyway.
From what I can see, the state party ignores him, except to list his office among their victories. Big deal, as far as I'm concerned - he could just as well have an (R) next to his easy-to-remember name. And, voters have short memories. That little misadventure of almost twenty years ago is all but forgotten these days. Voters MAY forgive and forget, but don't count on it - especially when the issue is fresh in their minds, as will be the case in BB King County's 6th District in November.
It's possible that that misadventure and DARE show actually did him some good. Remember, bad publicity is STILL publicity. I happen to think he's an imposter and a phony, beginning to end, but that's just me.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about the P-I reporter. As a frequent contributor to the P-I blogs, especially regarding Port matters, I believe I know her identity. And in my view, she's not a reporter at all, but only another mouthpiece for the Port frat party. Her attitude seems to have infected the P-I's editorial board as well, but the P-I does have another reporter, Greg Roberts, who seems to be able to write an unbiased story. Too bad they don't let him cover the Port more often.
Thanks for an enlightening post. Is your op-ed available anywhere? Someday, maybe having the words 'ethics' and 'Port Commission' in the same sentence won't either draw a laugh from me or raise my blood pressure. Best of luck, and keep at it.