Goldy

See, this is what “lying” looks like.

Last week Republican King County Councilmember Jane Hague blamed staff for repeated errors in which published questionnaires and profiles claimed a four-year college degree she had not earned. But even if Hague won’t admit the truth, the document above, uncovered in a front page story in today’s Seattle Times, pretty much speaks for itself. As the Times explains:

The Municipal League, which publishes annual candidate evaluations, sent a letter to Hague in 1993 asking her to proofread the biography she had submitted: “Please review this information for accuracy and sign your name at the bottom of this page to indicate that you have approved the information … ”

The document was amended in several places to indicate that Hague had lived in the area for 24 years, was an active volunteer, and was on unpaid leave from her job as King County’s elections manager while running for the County Council.

But no correction was made to the sentence that stated she had earned a bachelor’s degree.

Just look at Hague’s attention to detail in amending the document. Then look at the detail she left unchanged. Now reread what she told the Times last week about circumstances surrounding her failure to be awarded a degree:

“About 20 years ago,” when Hague contacted her alma mater in an attempt to document her credits and get a degree, she learned that credits from the law class hadn’t been transferred to Western Michigan and by then it was too late. She said she never tried to portray herself as a college graduate.

That’s right, she learned she never received her diploma “about 20 years ago.” That would be “about” 1987. And yet she portrayed herself as a college graduate in 1991. And in 1993. And in 1996, 1997, and again in 2000.

In the end, this is not about a little white lie from 15 years ago, it’s about a long pattern of prevarication and blaming others that continues today. It is about whether Hague deserves voters’ trust, regardless of who her opponent might be.

It may not be his best known play, but Harold Pinter’s “Betrayal” is by far my favorite, and the 1983 film version starring Jeremy Irons, Ben Kingsley and Patricia Hodge has stuck with me like few others. The play moves backward in time, starting with a reunion of sorts between two lovers, Jerry and Emma, and ending a decade earlier at the party where they first meet. Jerry is the best friend of Robert; Emma is Robert’s wife. And as the play unwinds (or rewinds,) we learn that Robert has perhaps betrayed his friend and wife as much as they have him.

The play is sad, funny, a bit of a mystery, and brilliantly written — and its simple, one word title turns out to be as much a question as it is a statement. Who is betraying whom? Are they betraying each other? Their families? Themselves? And what is the nature of betrayal itself?

Man is a social animal; we crave personal relationships and the positive reinforcement of society at large. We even rely on social institutions to physically survive. All our interactions with our fellow humans are at some level built on trust, and that is what makes “betrayal” one of the most powerfully evocative words in the English language. There is no wrong greater than an act of betrayal, and nearly every wrong has an act of betrayal at its core. It is not murder that is the original sin, but betrayal; it was Adam and Eve’s betrayal of God’s trust that got man evicted from the Garden of Eden.

This I think explains the tempest in a DC teapot over what is, after all, only an ad. Moveon did not even accuse anybody of betrayal, but merely asked the question: “Will Gen. Petraeus betray us?”

And I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I have any reason to believe that Gen. Petraeus himself is not a man of honor, or because I believe him capable of treason in any way. But because it raises the question of what the word “betrayal” means in the context of this war, this White House and our current political climate.

Indeed for years Republicans have cheapened the word, brandishing it against anybody who would oppose their policies at home or abroad. Karl Rove and his cohorts have constructed a monochromatic political discourse in which you are either with us or against us, in which you either support the President, his war of aggression, and his unconstitutional assault on our civil liberties, or you are as much a threat as the terrorists themselves. How many times over the past few years have politicians and pundits on the right accused those of us on the left of being traitors? And why should the right maintain exclusive ownership over this powerful meme?

For all the heat Moveon is taking from the political class, the ad was both obvious and effective, and the more Republicans desperately attempt to turn the debate from their ill-conceived and disastrously executed war to, well, just an ad, the more they help us establish our frame. “Petraeus”… “betray us”… it is more than just a rhyme or silly pun, it is an unavoidable verbal linkage that inevitably asks the question every time somebody mentions the general’s name.

What is the nature of betrayal? Is it using the tragedy of 9/11 to push through tax cuts for the very wealthy? Is it lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify a war? Is it violating FISA while publicly claiming you are adhering to FISA? Is it leaving New Orleans to drown in its own toxic floodwaters? Is it spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq, and then nickel and diming our permanently disabled veterans at home? Is it running as a fiscal conservative but creating record federal budget deficits? Is it politicizing the Justice Department and the federal bench? Is it presiding over the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history, but defiantly leaving the consequences to the next administration?

Or is it an ad?

The American people aren’t dumb, and if constantly reminded of the word “betrayal,” they’ll sort this one out for themselves. It’s not Moveon who has betrayed the trust of the American people. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not liberal bloggers like me.

If, like in Pinter’s masterpiece, we run the past six years backward to the emotional days following 9/11, when the American people first embraced this president, the true scope of Bush’s betrayal becomes all the more apparent. It is a sad story, sometimes funny, even a bit of a mystery. And in hindsight, just as inevitable.

I love a good beer and I love talking politics, so I’m especially excited to welcome to my neck of the woods the new Southeast Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, which meets tonight (and the 3rd Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Ale House, 4914 Rainier Ave S.

I’m told Bill Sherman might take a break from the campaign trail to chat up us Southies, and I should be getting there a little after 9PM. I look forward to seeing all my South End friends.

In Lou Guzzo’s latest LouBoob installment, Dino Rossi’s “idea” man decries organic farming: “It’s as much a national hoax as the fantasy over what has been called ‘global warming.'” Guzzo is apparently fond of ingesting petrochemicals. That explains everything.

You’re gonna be hearing a lot over the next few days about the new Elway Poll that just came out, focusing on this November’s $17.8 billion Roads & Transit measure (shorter Elway: it’s damn close,) and I’ll be adding my own spin to the cycle as soon as I’ve had time to digest the numbers. But I wanted to quickly comment on another survey Elway summarizes, almost as an afterthought: that showing that when it comes to making the Director of Elections an elected office, voters aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as most of us assumed.

According to Elway only 45% of respondents favored an elected director, with 26% opposed and 29% undecided. No doubt proponents would rather have those numbers than the other way around, but it is never a comfortable position to have your measure under 50% this close to an election. It’s a small sample with a relatively high 6.4% margin of error, but dollars to donuts these numbers are raising a few eyebrows.

While I firmly believe the proposed charter amendment is politically motivated bad policy, pure and simple, I never thought there was much of a chance of defeating it at the polls. I could write essays refuting the opponents’ arguments… but arguing the facts is rarely a winning strategy, and I’ve publicly despaired the rhetorical challenge of convincing voters that “more democracy” can be a bad thing.

But perhaps voters don’t need all that much convincing? What the Elway Poll tells us is that voters are sufficiently skeptical of the measure that an adequately funded and competently crafted “No” campaign would stand a good chance of defeating it at the polls. Of course, there is no “No” campaign, and I can’t think of an organization with both the financial resources and the financial stake to fight one.

But if there was, they could win.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here. And a heads up… the Southeast Seattle chapter meets tomorrow night (and the third Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Alehouse. Come join me and my neighbors for a pint of Manny’s a few miles closer to its source.

What he said:

There’s been a marked recent increase in the number of people asking me to write about their organization, campaign, or client. Whether it’s a non-profit with some new-fangled incredibly-esoteric project, a politician promoting their latest highly-interesting-to-them but-kind-of-boring-to-you policy proposal, or a public relations firm being paid big bucks to push the lame ideas of yet another client, the volume of “give me free publicity” requests has skyrocketed of late.

Interestingly, at the same time, the number of ads these same groups are running on blogs has plummeted.

Now, you don’t have to pay to get me to write about your story. (And the corollary, even if you paid me I still wouldn’t write about a non-story.) You simply have to have a real story, and it has to be news. And by news, I mean that it has to be novel and interesting, and it has to matter. … [I]n essence, these non-profits, political campaigns and PR firms are not asking me to write about a big news story, which IS what we write about, they’re asking me to do them a favor by writing about something that might not interest my readers. And therein lies the problem. Why should I do them a favor when they’ve never lifted a finger to support my blog or the blogosphere at large?

[…] My point isn’t that the blogs should be bought, or can be bought. My point is that the blogs should be supported by the larger progressive community, and they’re not. Liberal non-profits, political operations, and companies interested in reaching either a progressive audience or an inside-the-beltway crowd wouldn’t think twice about spending $60,000 on a Washington Post ad, spending a good chunk of change on an ad in The Hill or Roll Call, or paying a PR firm a $20,000+ a month retainer to get their news on the blogs, among other venues (NOTE: the very best way to get me NOT to cover a story is to have a PR firm contact me). But the notion of spending $800 (or hopefully, several thousand dollars) on a blog ad gives them serious pause. Then they turn around and expect favors.

There’s an old trite saying: “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” Well, the milk just dried up.

There’s an election six weeks away, a ton of candidates and ballot measures vying for attention, and the usual progressive organizations with their usual agendas… not to mention progressive business owners who wouldn’t be hurt by supporting progressive media once in a while. And yet my BlogAds are surprisingly empty. Hmm.

Fed slashes interest rates half a percent. Man… I am such an idiot.

UPDATE:
Shorter Bonddad: “Fuck inflation.”

Once again the Seattle Times and the Seattle P-I feature the same story at the same time but from rather different angles… and I’m wondering if we’re beginning to see a pattern emerge here?

Both dailies feature transit news on their front page, the Times with a big photo of a Sound Transit light rail train in the soon to be reopened downtown tunnel, and the P-I with a photo of the new South Lake Union Trolley being lowered onto the tracks. The Times article is thorough, informative, and typically dry, while the P-I chose to go with a rather frothy piece (the text actually starts on B1) focused on the trolley’s amusing acronym, and a local coffee shop’s t-shirts inviting visitors to “Ride the SLUT.”

There’s nothing particularly political about either piece, so it’s not really worth another line by line close reading, but like yesterday’s divergent take on the governor’s race, there are noticeable stylistic differences as well. The Times mostly reports facts and quotes, whereas the P-I seems to be searching for the story behind the story. (I’m not saying they actually found the story behind the story today, just that they’re looking for it.) I’m generally not a big fan of our media’s gradual drift from news to features, but I’ve got to give the P-I some credit for embracing an edgier and more overtly opinionated approach to the news. They couldn’t quite print the word “SLUT” on the front page, but it made it to B1. And that’s a start.

Okay, I’ll try my best to maintain my journalistic “objectivity” so as not to offend any of my friends in the traditional media, but the contrast between today’s Seattle Times and Seattle P-I present one of those classic illustrations of how the local electorate benefits from having two major daily newspapers… and engaged bloggers prepared to critique them. Both papers feature articles covering the current state of the 2008 gubernatorial campaign, but if you didn’t know better, you’d think they were writing about two entirely different races.

The P-I pastes its four-column headline across the top of the fold, boldly declaring:

Rossi run for governor?
All signs point to yes

A photo of Dino Rossi accompanies the headline with a caption quoting a party insider as saying close advisors “feel 100 percent confident that he is in.” And Neil Modie’s lede is equally blunt:

He doesn’t admit it, but Dino Rossi seems to have made up his mind to run again for governor.

Even as the 2004 Republican nominee faces an investigation of whether he illegally used his public policy foundation as a front for a 2008 campaign, he reportedly is moving toward an announcement of his candidacy sooner than he has indicated. Some of his 2004 campaign operatives have been touting his 2008 prospects.

The story? Everybody who is anybody says Rossi is running for governor… except for the candidate himself, who continues to officially hide behind his so-called foundation. The race is on, and “officially,” probably sooner than later.

Ralph Thomas’ story in the Times, on the other hand, appears on B1 (I haven’t yet seen a print copy,) and presents an entirely different take on the governor’s race:

Gregoire gearing up for ’08

OLYMPIA — If money matters — and who in politics would suggest otherwise? — the state Republican Party has a problem.

Though the 2008 election is more than a year away, Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire already has raised nearly $2.7 million in campaign cash. The Republicans, meanwhile, still don’t have a candidate for governor.

The story? Gov. Gregoire is raising big money, but the Republicans… they don’t even have a candidate yet!

It’s not until more than halfway through the article that Thomas even mentions the status of Rossi’s efforts, and when he does, he initially allows Republicans to characterize it in their own words:

Like most Republicans, Esser is hoping former state Sen. Dino Rossi — who barely lost to Gregoire in the 2004 election — will soon announced a rematch. In their last race, Rossi matched Gregoire nearly dollar for dollar in fundraising.

Rossi has said he will decide by the end of the year whether to run.

486 words into the 600 word piece — well beyond the attention span of many readers — Thomas finally mentions that Rossi has not been “sitting idle,” but again allows him to characterize his own efforts:

For months, he has been traveling the state, giving speeches and raising money on behalf of the Forward Washington Foundation, a nonprofit group he formed last year.

Rossi says Forward Washington is simply an effort to engage the public in finding solutions to the state’s biggest problems.

It is only in the closing paragraphs that Thomas briefly presents what “Democrats contend”….

But Democrats contend it is a de facto “Rossi for Governor” campaign. They point out that, at his Forward Washington gatherings, Rossi uses many of the same pitches that he used in 2004.

In July, the state Democratic Party filed a complaint accusing Rossi of using the foundation to sidestep state campaign-disclosure laws. That complaint is being investigated by the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Compare that to Modie, who spends the bulk of his P-I article — and nearly 600 words of bullet points — laying out the evidence that Rossi is in fact running for governor, including a rather definitive quote from Tacoma News Tribune editorial page editor David Seago, who blogging after “an informal ed board” interview with Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna, wrote: “McKenna said there’s no doubt Rossi’s going for it.”

Notice that like Thomas and Modie I have up until now attempted to avoid editorializing. As far as I know, neither Thomas nor Modie got a single fact wrong; likewise, I have made a sincere attempt to present an accurate and neutral close reading in an effort to understand how a typical reader’s perception of the governor’s race might be shaped, depending on which paper they read. I do not believe that my characterization of the two articles was any more consciously biased than the articles themselves.

That said, no doubt I prefer Modie’s take, and believe it presents a more accurate, nuanced and useful understanding of the current state of the governor’s race. It probably could have benefited from a paragraph or two on Gregoire’s fundraising lead, but “Incumbent raises buckets of cash” is not exactly a “Man bites dog” sorta headline… which I suppose explains why Thomas’ money-focused article ran on B1 instead of A1.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not intending to impugn Thomas’ motives or his reporting skills, and the Democrats’ impressive statewide money lead is certainly newsworthy; these are two different articles focusing on two different aspects of the same race. But the fact that the Times and the P-I, on the very same day, would so dramatically diverge on the status of Rossi’s candidacy, gives lie to the traditional paradigm that proclaims objectivity as even a possible, let alone worthy journalistic pursuit. Modie’s lede claims Rossi has “made up his mind to run again for governor,” whereas Thomas’ lede says Republicans “still don’t have a candidate.” Both are technically correct, but I’d wager political insiders from both parties would privately acknowledge that Modie’s take is the more accurate characterization of Rossi’s intentions.

Think about it. Rossi will certainly generate obligatory headlines when he finally and officially announces his candidacy, and I suppose the event will be at least as newsworthy as the first half-dozen or so of Mike McGavick’s many campaign kickoffs. But should Rossi shock the political and media establishment by announcing that he will not seek the governor’s mansion, well, that would be a huge story. Modie’s lede acknowledges this on the ground reality. Thomas’ lede does not.

Two newspapers, one governor’s race, two very different takes on Dino Rossi’s intentions. Objectivity just isn’t all its cracked up to be.

Dave Neiwert has a great guest column in today’s Seattle P-I, and while he’s writing about bicyclists, the same holds true for pedestrian and transit commuters as well:

Trier, like a lot of misinformed folks, seems to believe the only road taxes we pay are motor vehicle licensing fees and fuel taxes. But the truth is that those fees largely pay for state and federal highways, and even then only a portion of them. The rest of the costs of those roadways are borne by all taxpayers generally, including bicyclists, through local, property and sales taxes. Local roads, where you find most cyclists, are another story altogether.

Indeed, most bicyclists in fact also own cars, so they’re also paying the licensing fees and gas taxes as well. But by using their bikes in place of cars, the wear and tear (and subsequent maintenance costs) they inflict is exponentially less than that caused by cars and trucks.

A 1995 study titled “Whose Roads?” by cycling advocate Todd Litman laid all this out in detail. The study estimated that automobile users pay an average of 2.3 cents per mile in user fees, including fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, while they actually impose 6.5 cents per mile in road service costs. Who pays the difference? It’s picked up by general taxes and property assessments. So while bicyclists pay an equal share of those taxes, they impose costs averaging only 0.2 cents per mile in road service costs.

The amount bicyclists overpay leaps out when you look at the costs of local roads, the roads cyclists use most. Litman found that only a third of the funds for their construction and maintenance comes from vehicle user charges; local property, income and sales taxes pay the rest. Automobile user fees contribute only about 1 cent per mile toward the costs of local roads but simultaneously impose costs more than six times that amount.

This is the type of clarity that makes Dave one of my favorite local writers, and it highlights an argument that should be raised in the midst of the debate over the controversial Roads & Transit measure on the November ballot. The anti-rail folk often argue that they shouldn’t have to subsidize transit riders, when in fact it is transit riders who have long been subsidizing roads via the sales and property taxes that pay for the bulk of their maintenance. Likewise, relatively light drivers like me — I average less than 6,000 miles a year — get substantially less for our sales, property and MVET tax buck than a more typical 15,000 to 20,000 mile per year commuter.

The idea that automobile drivers pay as they go, while everybody else is a freeloader, is complete and utter bullshit that fails to evaluate our transportation system and tax structure as a whole. But I’ve never before been able to put it into words quite effectively as Dave.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Fire or Ice?
The once fabled Northwest Passage has been open for weeks as the Arctic icecap continues its retreat, and dozens of major American cities are threatened as and Greenland’s massive glaciers prepare to slide into the seas. Meanwhile new science suggests that global warming could shut down or slow thermohaline circulation, triggering a cataclysmic and sudden flip into a new ice age. And yet the ideological deniers continue to ridicule and disparage those of us who give credence to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Mark Sumner, a contributing editor to Daily Kos under the screen name Devilstower, joins me for the hour to discuss past climate shifts, and disturbing new evidence that the Arctic is melting faster than computer models predicted.

8PM: Greenspan on Bush: “The President Sucks” Who’d a thunk?
In his long awaited memoir to be released tomorrow, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan praises President Clinton, criticizes President Bush, the Republicans and their irresponsible tax and spending policies, and makes the not-so-startling claim that “the Iraq war is largely about oil.” So now he tells us.

9PM: Is conservatism a brain disorder?
A controversial new study released this weeks shows that the brains of liberals and conservatives actually work differently, leaving liberals more flexible to responding to unexpected event… thus angering conservative pundits, who had difficulty responding to such an unexpected event. UCLA researcher Marco Iacoboni, one of the paper’s authors, joins me to explain the results.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

ABC News has a new report that displays architectural visualizations of major American cities before and after a 3 to 16 foot rise in sea levels. Here’s Seattle as it currently exists:

And here’s Seattle after a 3 meter rise in sea level:

Downtown Seattle itself is fortunate to be built mostly uphill, but we lose our entire waterfront, including the port and surrounding industrial areas that are so important to our economy. (I say if we build the Sonics a new arena, we put it somewhere in there.)

We can argue all we want about whether climate change is primarily caused by human activity (although the overwhelming scientific consensus is that is,) but even the most vehement, ideologically driven deniers are beginning to admit that our climate is warming. If indeed the climate continues to warm (as opposed to say, shutting off the oceans’ thermohaline circulation, suddenly plunging us into another ice age,) sea levels will rise, and our children and grandchildren will have to deal with consequences.

You’d just think, maybe, we all might want to start planning for this possible future, rather than sticking our heads in the sand, or accusing “alarmists” like me of being dirty commies.

FYI, King County has performed its own analysis of the impact of a sea level rise on the region, which I reported on way back in May of 2006. Take a look at the image showing the Duwamish flooding all the way to Southcenter, and explain to me why the best and most prudent approach to this threat is to simply ignore it.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins me for our weekly round up of the week’s news, and a look ahead to coming headlines. Tops for tonight include post-hangover report from last night’s Genius Awards, the education of Jane Hague, and Dino Rossi’s non-campaign. But mostly Josh just wants to talk about the Saturday Night Massacre.

8PM: Mandatory sentencing or “tailored” justice?
A Burien family got the justice they asked for when their 15-year-old son avoided a prison sentence for the accidental shooting of his 16-year-old brother. Prosecutors insisted the shooter needed incarceration for his “serious violent crime,” but in sentencing the boy to 24-months of home detention, King County Superior Court Judge Harry McCarthy said that justice “has to sometimes be tailored for each person.” Should justice be blind, or tailored to the circumstance?

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Oopsy…

King County Councilmember Jane Hague, in the midst of an already troubled re-election campaign, said Friday she takes full responsibility for widely circulated reports that she has a college degree that she doesn’t have.

But Hague denied intentionally providing incorrect information and initially said she was puzzled at how several “Who’s Who” books, The Seattle Times, the Municipal League of King County and the National Association of Counties all reported erroneously that she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan University.

“What is the point here? Are you trying to call me a liar?” she asked at one point.

Um… yeah.

“I’m willing to say that if there were erroneous reports, then you may call me guilty. You can call me guilty because the buck stops here,” the Bellevue Republican said.

Actually, the “buck” never quite “stops” with Hague. It drunkenly weaves for a few miles first, before getting pulled over and blowing a 0.14.

Asked why several “Who’s Who” books said she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan, Hague said at first, “Beats me.” She then speculated that her staff members may have inadvertently filled out forms with incorrect information.

Because of course, when she says “the buck stops here,” “here” apparently refers to her incompetent staff.

If that happened, she said, “I didn’t check it closely enough. There you have it. My fault. I should have been a better proofreader. I should have been more careful about it.”

Sober translation: “I’ve got sucky staff, and it’s my fault for not keeping a closer eye on them when they fill out candidate questionnaires I’m supposed to be filling out myself.

“About 20 years ago,” when Hague contacted her alma mater in an attempt to document her credits and get a degree, she learned that credits from the law class hadn’t been transferred to Western Michigan and by then it was too late. She said she never tried to portray herself as a college graduate.

That’s right, Hague never tried to portray herself as a college graduate, except, you know… in a 1993 Municipal League candidate questionnaire, in the 1991, 1995 and 1996 editions of “Who’s Who”, in Seattle Times campaign profiles in 1993 and 1997, and in a published story in the National Association of Counties online newsletter in 2000… all of which occurred after she claims she first found out she never got a diploma. But other than that, never.

I suppose the kerfluffle over a “BS in Business and Economics” that Hague claimed to receive, but never did, wouldn’t be such a big deal if it wasn’t part of an established pattern of disingenuity and blame shifting over the past 15 years. Indeed, as the P-I reports, Hague has a documented history of blaming others.

After being pulled over for weaving dangerously on the 520 bridge, and then twice blowing nearly double the legal limit, Hague verbally berated the arresting officers, blamed her husband, and is now contesting the DUI. After a 2001 collision with a Metro bus, Hague blamed the bus driver, despite his account and those of witnesses, including an off-duty police officer. When found guilty of ethics violations in 1999 she blamed it on bad advice from a county attorney, who denied having given her any advice at all. And just a few weeks ago, in responding to a campaign disclosure violation complaint, her campaign blamed a “volunteer treasurer” for failing to meet state requirements.

Anybody who has ever run for office or worked closely on a campaign knows how candidates labor over their answers on questionnaires and in interviews — and how closely they scrutinize the write-ups, endorsements and evaluations they get in response. For years Hague knew that publications and organizations were crediting her with a BS she did not earn, and she did nothing to correct the record. For years Hague lied about her resume… part of a pattern that clearly suggests that she lacks the integrity and forthrightness voters usually demand from their elected officials.

Actually paying money to have your name printed in “Who’s Who” is embarrassing enough, but exaggerating your profile is just plan pathetic. Are voters ready to remove this embarrassment from the King County Council?