Dick Conlin? I've known Richard Conlin for some twenty years and I've never once heard anyone call him or refer to him by any name other than Richard.

I too find voting to be an uplifting experience, and that's the biggest reason why I won't be voting for Mallahan for mayor -- someone who's been so indifferent to politics and civics that he couldn't take ten minutes to fill out a ballot in most of the last decade's elections.

Van Dyk begins his editorial by telling us that "massive public works projects and unsustainable budget expansions — simply cannot be continued in the present period of economic and public budget distress".

And this is true- we have discovered that the era of building freeways and sprawl must end, as both create unsustainable budget expansions.

Vn Dyk then goes on to endorse Hutchison- the freeway candidate sponsored by Kemper Freeman, dedicated to building more lanes and stopping light rail to Bellevue.

Don't be fooled- when Hutchison says she is for light rail, on the 520 bridge, she knows full well that light rail is not going to run on the 520 bridge. She is simply trying to deceive you, using the kind of word tricks we have all come to prize so highly in the output of the Discovery Institute, which Hutchison has supported with a $100,000 grant from the 'philanthropic' foundation she administers.

And there is deception number 2- using the tax-exempt contributions to a 'philanthropic' foundation to support an "Institute" that is well-known to be simply a Republican mouthpiece.

I'm sure Van Dyk has met Hutchison at cocktail parties hosted by millionaires, and to him she represents all that is right with the world- a perky female face for the oligarchy babbling platitudes about balancing the budget. She is described as "fresh", as though resembling a laundry detergent had anything to do with proper governance.

Van Dyk is uneasy with Constantine appealing to voters, instead of to millionaires, and focusing on issues instead of platitudes. Me, I'm just the other way around. I think that what Van Dyk describes as 'special interest groups' are actually citizens lobbying their government, just as the millionaires Van Dyk favors do.

Van Dyk, Hutchison, Freeman, and the Blethens represent an oligarchy of zombies- their ideas are dead already, they just ain't laid down yet.

I lived kitty corner to Conlin 15 years ago, if I still lived in Seattle he'd have my vote, and Van Dyk's assessment is otherwise spot on.

Constantine is of my generation, however I've seen him close enough to have serious doubts - most notably his judgment towards conservative women. He chose a barfly to be his vice-chair on the KC Council and is now attacking irresponsibly Hutchison, a class act. That's bad politics, bad law, and bad joo joo.

On Eyman, also of my generation - I understand the dig about 1033 resetting the bar at an artificially low level given the current budget dip, but critics, including the very rabid Connelly/Balter combo lose me after that. I don't vote for every Eyman initiative either, but capping tax increase at inflation plus population growth **unless** there is a public vote sounds exactly like the way to get fiscal responsibility.

This however brings up a larger problem of national scope - this is exactly the same time that we **should** be doing the big projects and going into debt to do so. However we've so abused the Keynesian strategy that it is, in large part, the cause of the problem. That is the nut we face on a national level and the future of the Country in the world community depends on it.

Van Dyk's point about closing loopholes is a big part of that solution. So too is collecting from the folks who have abusively conspired in the past to profit from those previous excesses.

Whatever credence I may have put in van Dyke's judgment up to this point is forever gone with his voting for a pretty galleon figure like Hutchinson!

This article was written by Lou Guzzo, under the pseudonym of Ted Van Dyk.

Lou Guzzo, or Ted Van Dyk's other pseudonym - Ed Anger, famous (spoof) columnist for the Weekly World News.

Ted Van Anger calls Hutchison a "credible change agent." Which can only mean one thing: the guy doesn't live here anymore.

Van Guzzo has been known for being totally removed from local political reality because he spent over half the year doing that retired Republican thing in the desert Southwest. By endorsing a moonbat for County Executive, Ted proves he's Snowbirding 24x7 these days.

Another hilarious chapter to add to Ted's Comic Book of Political Commentary.

This is so disturbing in troubled Times. Ted, I know from your post from Raleigh that you have been away and that has compounded the problem. The Hutch endorsement is just scary. But the Mallahan "lesser risk nod" just flies in the face of reality. I do not think you have been listening to McGinn and his reasons for modifying the tunnel message. If you do not like him, just say so but his courageous acknowledgment of the Council vote was just that and he deserves credit for his insight on this. Did you watch the King5 debate last night? I think not.

To reassure those who express various concerns: I not only watched last night's debate but have either watched or read the transcripts of all campaign debates and media interviews; have reviewed the candidates' public statements; have read commentary by third parties; and have
watched and read the candidates' commercials and mailers and received their recorded phone calls. I do not base my voting judgments on whether I "like" or "dislike" a particular candidate personally---unless I believe that some candidate has a major disqualifying character flaw. In fact I feel no personal dislike toward any candidate on the current ballot.

I've tried to make quite clear in my piece the reasons I voted for some candidates and not others. Really not much to add to what was written.
Some will agree with me, others not. Readers should feel free to express themselves accordingly---although comments such as some of those above,
which are personal and do not deal with candidates or issues, are discounted for their irrelevance.

Maybe it's that my enthusiasm to assemble a 500 word response to this article is lower today than it might be on a different day, but I holehearthedly dissagree with most of Ted's thinking and just can't give it enough respect to respond. Ted, I'll read your work a couple more times before putting it in the "skimp quickly" category with Connelly and Balter.

As to not living in King County, sorry but political refugees don't give up their right to speak - and yeah, paying taxes (**without representation**) to support you folks does get up my craw.

Ted: Your support for Hutchison appears based upon a superficial analysis and an acceptance of her banal soundbites. You juxtapose Constantine's focus on important partisan concerns to Hutchison saying, "...in contrast to former TV anchorwoman Susan Hutchison's uncertain affiliation. (Hutchison says she is a genuine independent who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans and who is endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans)."

A cursory analysis of Hutchison's political contribution record show that she has contributed approximately $9000 to Republican candidates in recent history with no contributions to Democrats. Her only contribution during the last Presidential cycle was to that icon of independent thought, Mike Huckabee. Not exactly the record of a "genuine independent."
Ted, take a look at all of those contributions at this link: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/susan-hutchison.asp?cycle=08

Her endorsement by both Democrats and Republicans is a canard. The only alleged Democrats from Washington State supporting her are Don Bonker, Wes Ulhman and Lt. Governor Brad Owen. Bonker and Ulhman WERE Democrats a generation ago and Brad Owen has long been a Democrat in name only.

Ted, neither platitudes nor a pretty face do an independent make. That might be what Hutchison wants us to think but the facts to not support her contention.

Many are criticizing the endorsement of Susan Hutchison.

Other than "experience," please enlighten us about why Constantine is a good choice? I submit that he is a large part of King County's problems, and certainly not part of the solution.

His so-called experience is experience sucking the teat of the taxpayers. He has been the head of the budget committee that has driven King County into this horrible financial mess. Of course the county employees are supporting him --- he is one of them! He won't take any steps to claw back their comp or benefits, no matter what.

If he wants to get the benefit of this experience, then he has to take the blame for the county's financial circumstances.

PJS: Please list the political jurisdictions in America running budget surpluses today. Are there any? The near systemic collapse of the economy and the consequent reduction in government revenues are the primary drivers of the county's budgetary shortfall. Where have you been during the past year or so?

Rerickson - the state of Texas.

I've answered your question. Please answer mine.

"A McGinn mayoralty would present unacceptable risk." Nonsense!

McGinn's opposition to the Deep-bore tunnel is based upon a comprehensive perspective of the dire situation the City of Seattle faces with traffic and related environmental impact, land-use and development, its economy and finances. The real risk is building the Deep-bore as if it addresses, let alone resolves any of these concerns.

The Deep-bore does not require Seattlers to reduce their insane amount of driving. The Deep-bore does not affect development patterns whereby motorists can eventually get more of their needs met by driving less. The Deep-bore assumes the lower emissions of future vehicles is sufficient to halt global warming even though reductions in VMT (vehicle miles travelled) is widely recognized as the only effective means to prevent both catastrophic impacts of global warming and produce vital local economies less dependent and less vulnerable to outside influences dictating market-driven costs of living.

Mike McGinn's position opposing the Deep-bore is realistic, idealistic and practical. Not many people are this advanced in planning philosophy. Apparently, columnist Ted Van Dyk is among the many who can't see the forest for the trees. Seattle was once a forest. Go figure.

OK, Mr Van Dyk:

This needs to be said and it's not personal: your analogy comparing Mike McGinn's statement after the recent City Council vote to a hypothetical reversal of George McGovern's opposition to the Vietnam War is ludicrous and, as such, a low blow.

First, Mike McGinn has *not* changed his position on the tunnel. He's made it very clear that he is still opposed and is still legitimately concerned about the inevitable cost overruns being foisted off on Seattle residents. So am I. What he is doing is acknowledging and admitting that being a committed citizen activist/leader and holding the job of Mayor are very difference gigs.

I view a candidate who is still willing to learn and adjust as a positive trait. I also value a proven track record as a civic activist and engaged citizen extremely highly.

Second, Mike McGinn as Mayor could not unilaterally stop the deep-bore tunnel project. The Mayor can use his/her bully pulpit to convince others to put the issue up for a vote of Seattle residents, or try to persuade (however unlikely) city-county-state decision-makers to reverse course and say we've made a mistake. As Commander-in-Chief, in elected in your ill-advised analogy, George McGovern could have unilaterally withdrawn American troops and ended the war in Vietnam. Or, he could have flip-flopped and maintained or increased troop levels. The unilateral power wielded by a Commander-in-Chief is in no way comparable to the power a Seattle Mayor holds over the ultimate viaduct/tunnel decision.

Last, I have another bone to pick. Your opine that Mike O'Brien is unsuitable for election to the Seattle City Council because he is too "unpredictable to risk." This just after you stated that candidates Bloom and Rosencrantz would bring "conscientious, independent judgment" to the Council. Huh? So you have some inside knowledge or gut feeling that Mr. O'Brien wouldn't also do so.

And how does the quality of "unpredictability" make a candidate too big of a risk on what is a very predictable Council --particularly as one of nine members? It strike me that some of our more valuable and influential current Supreme Court members are so for just this reason. They are independent and unpredictable thinkers and jurists. Again, as a voter, I see these as good qualities.

And yes, as you say in your above post, we of course all have the right to vote for whom we choose and advocate for such accordingly. So, to be clear, what I'm saying is that I find your reasoning in the above two cases to be and flat-out faulty and inconsistent, respectively.

But that's the great fun (and responsibility I'd also argue) we get to have in a democracy with our freedom of speech and ability to vote freely.

As far Mr. Mallahan, I can't talk myself into taking a candidate for Mayor seriously who chose repeatedly to turn his back on both this hard-earned "right" and also his responsibility as a conscientious citizen to exercise good judgment and participate in our little ongoing experiment of a democracy.

Maybe spending the next decade volunteering actively as a citizen activist might beef up his civic resume enough to deserve consideration for the job of Seattle Mayor. Until then, in my civic book, even contemplating a vote for Mallahan is a non-starter.

Bad example, PJS. Texas' surplus was achieved largely on the strength of federal stimulus funds and higher oil revenues, and it's illusory. When you take into account the spending required on K-12 and higher education, plus health and human services entitlements and other obligations, it goes up in smoke. Also, bear in mind that Texas (state motto: "Thank God for Mississippi") ranks at or near the bottom in virtually every index of social progress: childhood poverty, health insurance coverage, etc., etc. Is that your vision for Washington? I'm not sure we want King County and the state to join a race to the bottom.

Ted Van Dyk says:

"I've tried to make quite clear in my piece the reasons I voted for some candidates and not others. Really not much to add to what was written."
--
You haven't made anything clear in your discussion of the County Executive race. You haven't presented any supporting evidence for your claim that Hutchison is either smart, tough, or well-informed. That's because it's been made demonstrably clear that she isn't any of the above.

She hasn't spoken in detail on any of the issues, except to mouth meaningless platitudes like "I will bring people together." If you have done all the homework you claim to have done, and can view her candidacy through the prism of all the government and political experience you claim to have, I'm hard pressed to see how you could come to any other conclusion other than that she is incompetent and unqualified to hold the position.

so I think your analysis of the county Executive's race is about as superficial as it gets, and that you just want to poke a stick in the eyes of liberals just for the sheer hell of it, safe and sound in retirement in Arizona, or wherever the hell you are.

You can characterize criticisms of your shoddy analysis as "irrelevant" all you want to. Those of us who pay close attention know who is REALLY irrelevant. Hint: He's in your mirror.

Mr Mulliner - blah blah blah blah blah. rerickson asked for an example. I gave it to him/her. That's all. I don't accept the relevance of your question.

Neither of you has said a single positive thing about this clown Mr. Constantine. I infer from this that there is nothing positive about him. All I see are dubious negative claims about Ms Hutchison.

Any factual rebuttal to my criticisms of Union Rep Constantine? I didn't think so. He should go find a job where he has to worry about how to sell to customers. How to make a payroll. How to hire the best and brightest. How to fire underperformers. Stop getting paid by the taxpayers for taking their money and spending it foolishly

Really Hutchinson! This endorsement makes me wonder if i should even read crosscut any more!

I wasn't aware that Crosscut gave individual citizens access to its pages to do personal endorsements.

No journalistic principle that I'm aware of would support turning over the front page to a single individual's pleasure, and it is a stain on Crosscut's credibility to have done so.

Your policy is lamentable, deeply disappointing, and entirely unexpected; Mr. Van Dyke's recommendations are deeply flawed and entirely as would be expected.

Aren't you at all concerned about Hutchison's repeated evasions and misstatements? She won't answer many policy questions, she won't say what she did on the board of the Discovery Institute, she won't explain why her campaign headquarters appears to be given to her rent-free by a supporter. She's claimed that the elections commisions has dismissed the complaints against her, which isn't true.

I frankly don't trust her. Dow Constantine has his issues, but he's not the candidate from nowhere with no policies and no backing except for a group of shadowy millionaires.

PJS -- Stop your nonsense. Dow Constantine has been putting his record and his performance on the line before the voters for the past 13 years now, in election after election. He has been returned to office overwhelmingly each time.

Some of his strongest support comes from the business community in his District -- people who make payrolls, hire the best and the brightest, and fire underperformers.

In the state House, in the Senate, and on the County Council, Dow has dealt with budgets every day of every year. He has forgotten more about budgeting and cutting costs in those 13 years in public office that Susan Hutchison, bankrolled by her rich donor's money, could ever learn if she had nine lives like a cat -- and he probably knows a hell of a lot more about it than YOU do.

So quit displaying your ignorance. We know Dow's record. It shows that he has what it takes to be a great County Executive -- with your vote or without it.

Note to David Brewster - you can fiddle with Crosscut's business model all you want, but if this is the kind of content you are peddling, then your venture will fail. I don't at all understand your editorial process am beginning to suspect there is none at all.

I was considering becoming a member because I want a diverse Puget Sound media. And you are among the smartest journalists in the area. And even though Knute pisses me off sometimes, I kind of like him.

But if supporting Crosscut means more Ted Van Dyk arguing very lamely for the opposite of everything I believe, then I'd just as soon see you guys go under.

It takes a lot of guts to share one’s voting choices with the broad audience and hold them up to scrutiny, and Ted deserves our applause for doing so. As a former candidate, I also appreciate his statements in the second to last paragraph about the rigors of campaigning. It is at least a full-time occupation added to what, for many people, is a full-time occupation. That’s why you don’t see too many people with young children as candidates and more that are single, empty nesters, childless, and retired. If the numbers were run, I think that – in that regard – we aren’t a representative democracy. As for Ted’s choices themselves, the only one I have discomfort with is the County Executive. I voted for Ross Hunter in the primary, liking his common-sense approach to reform that didn’t seem dependent on bureaucrats, most notably his ideas for Metro Transit. While I haven’t liked Councilmember Constantine’s approach to the campaign – agreeing with Ted, I can understand him pushing his Democratic credentials and even extending that to values towards an office that’s become a convenient hiding place for closet Republicans, as this one has. If Ms. Hutchinson is successful, I expect the Republicans to push for all other offices to become non-partisan, as it beats changing one’s party name to “G.O.P.” or the bevy of less-obvoius choices employed by creative people during the last election cycle in order to distance themselves from their unpopular standard-bearer and party. It bothers me that Susan hasn’t come clean on her values and has adeptly followed her script, as one would expect from a true broadcast professional. However, it’s disingenous to the voters to avoid answering the tough questions, which she has. When she’s “gone rogue,” she’s pulled light rail on SR-520 out of the hat, which could jettison light rail to the east side or, at the very least, increase its cost, and shows her true misunderstanding of where the process is and what options are left. Put another way, it’s similar to Seattle mayoral candidate Mike McGinn’s recent epiphany regarding the deep bore tunnel. This is not to say that I don’t agree with Ted’s criticism of Dow – I wish there was another candidate who wasn’t entrenched – but of these two, I’d rather have someone who knows how county government works than to wait for a study group or even some long-shut-out Republican groups will their changes on the executive and then passed on to us.

The odd thing here is the number of people with money who are willing to throw a monkey wrench in the King County works. There can't be much doubt at this point that Hutchison is a far-right candidate out of touch with planing and development of Puget Sound. The effect of her election would be to set Seattle back by 4 or 5 years in the race every mid-size city in the US is running, to become viable modern regions with modern transit.

Susan Hutchison lives in a world where cronies appoint cronies to boards full of cronies, where they incestuously pass money back and forth to each other- IOW, her administration will resemble the Bush administration in the creation of drones and the loss of the worker bees.

At this point millionaires like Kemper Freeman look as disturbed as William Casey in the mid-80s. They've bought into their own gab and Hutchison's appearance to the point of forgetting that it doesn't make any sense. Memo to Kemper Freeman- you have investments here. The regional prosperity is your prosperity .

It's almost as though they learned nothing from the Bush years.

Well, serial_catowner, that crony machine is what got Ted Van Dyk to where he is today. Maybe that's why he could endorse Hutchison as a credible and knowledgeable candidate while keeping a straight face.

We all know why Ted was willing to sacrifice his credibility for hers:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010120821_execlightrail23m.html

See, Suzie Q is part of the moonbat John Stanton / Discovery Institute set, which are he'll-bent on keeping light rail out "their side" of the lake. John Stanton is a self-serving Billionaire who bankrolls the Republican party, and good old Ted supports him and his minions all along the way. Paul Allen is a billionaire who supports progressive causes, and civic infrastructure which actually BENEFIT our city - yet, Ted hates Allen. Obsessively.

When Snowbird Van Dyk wanders into local politics, he drags Crosscut down with him. When he covers national politics, the results are....snooze.....

Sean - you're mistaken in your decision to withold support for Crosscut because Van Dyk offends you politically.

The marketplace of ideas should not be homogenous - it kinda defeats the purpose.

In fact, I would kill to read a smart conservative on Crosscut, or a renegade Democrat from a bygone era who actually has something useful to share. Berger achieves that goal quite often. Chris Vance usually has some "common sense" and unique insight to share, even though I disagree with both writers on just about everything.

Van Dyk fails on all fronts all the time: his arguments are almost always informed by myth and disinformation he gathers from discredited sources. Conspiracy theories drive many of these repetitive rants.

Now, if Van Dyk had just TRIED to make a real argument for why Hutchison would make a good County Executive, I would give him props. But, instead, Van Dyk relies on the usual generic platitudes (she is a "credible reformer"). It's lazy, detached journalism - garbage which worked when less sophisticated readers followed the government line, and relied on faux intellectuals like Van Dyk to inform their positions on issues of the day.

Van Dyk personifies bland ideology, and uses a condescending style. That stuff doesn't sell very well these days.

If you're going to talk down to us, at least get your issues and facts straight!

Sean writes: "...arguing very lamely for the opposite of everything I believe."

Your argument loses my support when you suggest that you don't want to read viewpoints from people whose beliefs differ from yours. Criticize the writer for his empty arguments and obvious lack of knowledge of current local politics, but not for espousing ideas that are the opposite of yours.

Appreciate the many comments to my piece---especially those, whether agreeing or disagreeing with me, discussing the candidates and issues.
We shall see how things turn out.

Continue to be surprised by the number of people who use their anonymous comments to rage or to vent personal hostilities. Suggest they reread their own comments to consider why anyone would attach crediblity to them or how they would look if their real names were signed to them. MadisonAve, Sound Transit's strongest advocate, continues to log in with hate comments whenever mention is made of the ST light rail system.

It's a free country, and Crosscut allows anonymous comments, but dialogue suffers when discussion takes place at this level.

I used my real name, Mister Bagman.

Blah blah blah, PJS? When you give examples of this quality, it's an open invitation to disregard everything else you say. You're bringing a water balloon to a gunfight.

Wow. A Republican supports a Republican, without regard to her lack of experience, lack of knowledge, lack of ideas, and lack of grounding in reality. Bush may be out of office, but the "Party of G.O.P." still works the same way. Some things never change.

Ted, this is basically a blog. Commenters on blogs don't usually use their complete real names. That's the nature of on-line journalism. I know that's hard to get used to, considering you and I are basically of the same generation during which we submitted formal written letters to the editor. But I've come to terms with that change, and you can too. Just try. Also try to write a little shorter, but I guess that's Mr. Brewster's call. Perhaps Crosscut writers will get paid by the inch now that there's money from Gates.

Sarah: Thanks for the advice. I receive no pay for what I write. I do it as a public service. I write, long or short, depending on the subject. I thought the election choices were worth the wordage given to them in this case. The shorter the copy, the less information transmitted.

My objections to anonymous comments are not generational. They have to do with the degradation of journalism and public dialogue. Some major publications no longer allow anonymous comments and insist that readers give them names. That makes room for comments by people who use them
for constructive dialogue rather than personal therapy.

Actually, it's the "anonymous" (most of whom are actually pseudonymous) commenters who depend on reason and information to make their case.

Ted Van Dyk depends on his name, and offers up a column that would be rightly judged as pablum were it anonymous. Ted thinks the power of his name should give his column weight, the rest of us aren't so sure.

In fact, there's a little humor here, with Ted, who depends entirely on his name, approving of Susan, who also enjoys the public familiarity of endless media exposure with no actual content. A sort of passing of the torch, as it were.

As for when the discussion will "suffer", I'd say it's suffering already when Van Dyk offers an opinion about "county bureaucrats and special-interest groups that have helped put the county in its present financial and budget hole". This indicates to me that Ted is an older rightwing type of guy who doesn't really understand why county finances are suffering (hint: recession), but tells me nothing about Constantine.

Now, why is it that Miller Freeman and the other millionaires supporting Hutchison are not regarded as a "special interest group"? And what is so wrong about Constantine pointing out that Hutchison is an extreme rightwing candidate? I would think that knowing what the candidates believe would be an important part of an informed vote, but Ted is suggesting there's something "low-politics" about learning this. Maybe Ted would benefit from rereading his own post and asking "why anyone would attach crediblity (sic)" to it.

As a pseudonymous blogger, I expect my posts to sustain themselves with logic and verifiable information- not the power of a name-brand. It's not an impossible standard for journalism to attain.

Serial,

What do you need to know about Constantine that his own actions haven't already exposed? He is a proven liar ( E-mails tying flood Distict to foot ferry funding for his own district.) His ability to be bought off ( CAO ordinance funded by Goldman and friends). His inability controls costs on major projects ( Brightwater), but still gets his biggest union supporters raises during a recession.

A couple of points:

#1) Ted: Here is another perspective on anonymous posting. Using one's real name to make a comment online is potentially an unsafe action in today's world -- sad yes, but also arguably true. When commenting online, you are sharing information with an unknown pool of strangers. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a mentally unbalanced zealot could be motivated enough to track down an "opponent" and harm them. Sure, it is unlikely, but it is also very possible.

I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and so am personally rooted in the old-school mode of submitting written letters-to-the editor with full name, location, contact info as sarah references above. However, it is amazing and scary what a skilled web sleuth can learn about a person today with only the most minimal of leads. I am absolutely serious in making this point. People have been harmed as a result of the scenario I've laid out. Is is a genuine risk in today's society.

So, what I believe is a cyber-age appropriate way to respond is for posters to choose a pseudonym and comment consistently on a particular site under that cyber-handle. This way, one's comments can at least be judged for their logic and rationale over time. If somebody is posting insincerely or making weak arguments, they can be called to task.

This isn't as transparent and honest as using real names but times have changed. What I would suggest should not be allowed by sites is allowing completely anonymous posting. All posters should be required to register using a valid email, pick an e-handle, and then not allowed to change to a different handle while using that email address for access to the comments feature. Sure, one can get around this by using different email addresses, etc., but at least that requires some effort that will screen most irresponsible posters out.

#2) sara probably won't even get to this because I've taken a bit of space to make point #1; nevertheless, I do believe there's something to be said for thoroughly covering a subject. And conversely, investing the time to dig below the surface of an issue and read some longer, thoughtful, well-researched and/or explained pieces. Younger generations seem to be regressing to posses the attention span of a flea as a result of music videos, the Web, remote controls, text messaging, etc. It's even bleeding over to older generations such as mine; if you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess. I'm still going retro and holding out -- as you can read. ;)

Shocked by the endorsement of the phony, right-wing stealth candidate Hutchinson! Was planning on getting Van Dyk's book but now wonder about his judgment. Constantine may not be perfect, but Hutchinson is scary. As one former reporter friend, now in California but still following his hometown politics, put it, she is Seattle's Sarah Palin.

OK, can we complain about the school board picks now?
"Most importantly, I voted for Kay Smith-Blum over Mary Bass. Bass's departure from the board would be addition by subtraction. She has been an uninformed, disputatious, and disruptive force in a system now getting positive leadership from a new system administration."
If you call the new leadership "positive" you can't have talked to many people with actual children in actual public schools. I'm voting for Mary because more people ought to be trying to dispute and disrupt the "reform" train that is barreling into Seattle. Reform is the easy route for adults; better to do the real work that benefits the kids.

I did get down to your point #2, number 6, and I agree with you that longer posts are needed to completely cover a subject. I also agree that posters should be forced by the news medium to sign in with a consistent pseudonym. My request to Ted Van Dyk to "write shorter" was caused by the fact that he could have said what he said in half the space. The other half was taken up by blathering. We've all heard just about anything that could be said by any of these candidates and a good journalist would have recognized that and used several sentences rather than many for each pick. It wasn't as though any of the picks were a shock.

Thank god the election's over in little more than a week. I don't know if anyone could stand this much longer, especially the candidates who (except for Suzie) must be exhausted.

I had a great time reading around your article as I read the topic extensively. Excellent writing! I am looking forward to hearing more from you.

Regards,
Gold

Ted,

You don't mention the Port of Seattle races, though the Port Commission controls some 4,000 acres of property in King County and can, with a single vote, increase our tax levys.

Before folks vote for Port of Seattle commissioner, here's what you should know about candidates Tom Albro (http://bit.ly/4gpg5h) and David Doud (http://bit.ly/CbiIs), who are closely linked to the business as usual crowd at the Port of Seattle.

I'm voting for Max Vekich and Rob Holland instead.

I'm voting for Mike McGinn and so are many others, listen to them on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkNEolhTxw