*** NETROOTS FUND DRIVE IN PROGRESS; PLEASE GIVE TO BILL SHERMAN! ***
Both Republican Dan Satterberg and Democrat Bill Sherman have reputations for being nice guys, and so I was taken aback when I hosted the two King County Prosecuting Attorney candidates on the Dave Ross Show last week, when Satterberg went on the attack right out of the gate. Satterberg is clearly the status quo candidate… the acting Prosecuting Attorney… the entrenched bureaucrat with 17 years as chief of staff in an office controlled by Republicans for over a half century… the guy supported by those with the most at stake in making sure things don’t much change at the PAO. He’s also the candidate with by far the most money. And so while the office is technically open, I’ve always thought of Satterberg as the pseudo-incumbent, and Sherman as the challenger.
But that’s not the way things played out on the air. Satterberg attacked Sherman personally, risking his nice guy image in what appeared to be an attempt to shake up the dynamics of the race. Incumbents aren’t supposed to do that, and so it had me wondering if Satterberg knew something about the state of the race that I didn’t?
Well if his internal polling numbers are anything close to those of Sherman, the answer is a resounding “yes,” and it sure would explain Satterberg’s aggressive (dare I say, partisan) line of attack. In a Sept. 18-20 survey of 1000 likely voters conducted on behalf of the Sherman campaign, Sherman led Satterberg by a significant 47% to 35% margin, with 18% still undecided. Sherman’s margin came from Seattle/North King County, where he led 55% to 24%; the two were virtually tied in East and South King County. The poll had a margin of error of 3%.
Of course, it’s just a poll, and six weeks out at that, and thus the only thing it really tells us for sure is that contrary to some of the early conventional wisdom, Sherman has a damn good chance of winning… if he can get his message out and successfully fend off Satterberg’s increasingly negative attacks. And that’s an awfully big “if” considering Satterberg’s inherent money advantage. Satterberg has already raised over $230,000 — over $100,000 more than Sherman — and unlike Sherman, he didn’t have to spend his war chest in a contested primary. That’s gonna buy an awful lot of direct mail pieces slamming Sherman and his qualifications, and the money keeps pouring in. There are a lot of very wealth folks with a vested interested in maintaining the status quo in the PAO, and they’re willing to do what it takes to help their guy win.
Are we willing to do the same? I’m betting yes.
And so I am proud to kick off WA’s first ever netroots fund drive for a local candidate, setting a target of $5,000 and 200 new contributors over the next five days. That’s somewhat less than the $100,000 target we set for Darcy Burner’s successful national fund drive, but actually quite a bit more ambitious considering the much smaller size of our local audience.
The goal is not simply to give the Sherman campaign a quick influx of cash, it is to prove to the traditional donor community that Sherman has the kind of broad, grassroots support necessary to win in November, thus spurring additional contributions across the board. It is also another opportunity to send a message to the political and media establishment that the netroots represent a growing progressive movement that is increasingly becoming a direct player in state and local politics that cannot be dismissed or ignored.
Back in August, we made history, focusing national resources on a congressional race in a way that had never been done before. We didn’t just raise $125,000 for Darcy Burner, we knocked Rodney Tom out of the primary, changing the dynamics of the 8th CD race.
Now we have the opportunity to achieve the same sort of impact in the King County Prosecutor’s race, that we did in the 8th CD, by giving Sherman the financial edge he needs to put him over the top in November.
So please go to Bill Sherman’s netroots fundraising page and give whatever you can — if it’s only ten bucks that’s ten bucks more than he had before — if you can afford to give more, please give more. (Or even if you can’t afford it… hell, I just chipped in $100 I don’t have.) A thermometer has been posted to Sherman’s home page tracking our progress, and the campaign will provide me with frequent reports.
The only way Republicans can win this race is by dramatically outspending us. Don’t let that happen. Please give to Bill Sherman, and help elect our first Democratic Prosecuting Attorney in over sixty years.
Satterberg is the guy who let Jane Balogh off with community service and is letting her dog still run at large!
P.S., hey poochie, the last thing you’re ever going to see is a smiling veterinarian snapping on a pair of rubber gloves and reaching for the syringe …
Since Satterberg is such a lousy dogcatcher, how can anyone expect him to be a good PA?
All dogs must be euthanized! Dogs are good for nothing. They’re wasting valuable space on this planet!! We should get rid of them to make room in the ecosystem for MORE RABBITS!!!
Donating $100 to Sherman’s campaign would be a good way for Redneck to settle his long-past-due gambling debt. What do you think, Goldy? Not that we should ever expect to see a nickel from that lying welsher … but, I think you should pro forma offer him the opportunity.
“For now, in other words, being an active liberal means being a progressive. And being a progressive means being partisan. But the end goal isn’t one-party rule. It’s the re-establishment of a truly vital, competitive democracy. For in the end, democracy is what being liberal is all about.” Paul Krugman, from, ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’
Vote for Sherman
I’ve chipped in $25. Satterberg is being incredibly disingenuous when he proclaims himself non-partisan, or that his Republican values are more in tune with King County voters than Bill Sherman’s progressive values.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
MtR,
Take it to the open thread.
Listen to the show yourself here: http://sea.bonnint.net/1002davehour1.mp3
And check out Goldy’s praise for Satterberg here: http://www.horsesass.org/?p=327
And I’d love to hear more about those internal polls to see if they had any legitimacy.
@10 PI
hmmm. Interesting image.
Do you mean a little Dick as in Nixon? That would explain the arrogance? Chaney???
or are you personifying Dr. Krugman via his erectile organ?
That confuses me as well. Is a little dick arrogant? Does it depend on how aroused its owner is?
Does Mr. Bush have a humble little dick?
@7 Hey Redneck, I have a suggestion for you that will keep Darryl from deleting your comments — STAY ON TOPIC!!! For example, if you post proof that you’ve donated $100 to Sherman’s campaign as payment of your gambling debt to Goldy, Darryl won’t delete it, because it’s on the topic of this thread. Of course, you won’t donate $100 to Sherman’s campaign (or otherwise pay Goldy) because you’re a LYING WELSHER. So here’s a hint to help you keep your posts relevant … the topic of this thread is:
REPUBLICANS SUCK
Any questions?
Yeah, sure, give money to a lawyer VOLUNTARILY.
BAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
Here’s a little thought for y’all to crunch on…it seems every day that there’s more evidence that the Seattle Police Dept. is, shall we say, losing track of its mission. Sooner or later there’s going to need to be some heavy-duty housecleaning, and sure as heck the mayor and the city ain’t gonna step up and do it–in fact, they may be part of the problem. It’s likely that sooner or later the Prosecutor’s office is going to have to play a role, and if it’s led by someone who’s been a higher-up in the local law-enforcement establishment for many years, how eager do you think that individual is likely to be to rock the boat?
I am looking so far down my nose at that Democrat, Sherman, that if I held my thumb before my left eye and squinted mty right , Sherman would be quite invisible.
Isn’t that Risible!?!
The Pooper
Given Goldy’s prime directive, the only legitimate qualification for political office is party affiliation, hence his endorsement of Sherman AND that unimpeachably honorable, emminently qualified, and never-a-blemish-on-HIS-legal-career-record, Richard “The True Believing Democrat” Pope.
So…in all material respects, Sherman and Pope are identical; equally competent and equally qualified, they’re peas in Goldy’s pod.
Isn’t that special…
By the way…there are those in King County who want the KC Prosecuting attorney to be neither a captive of the extremes of either party, so all you extreme netroot types might want to keep a lower profile lest you scare off and creep out the moderate Democrats who tolerate, but do not particularly care for, you.
Just a suggestion from someone who does care for you…
The Piper
Piper Scott,
“So…in all material respects, Sherman and Pope are identical”
Ummm…Piper Scott…the comment thread readers would collectively like to request that you quit blogging under the influence of crack. Please?
“equally competent and equally qualified, they’re peas in Goldy’s pod.”
Well…it does raise this issue. Richard Pope certainly wouldn’t be as well qualified for King County Prosecutor as Bill Sherman (who has outstanding qualifications).
But, Richard Pope would be MUCH BETTER qualified for the position than Jane Hague. The difference? Richard HAS a college degree. Jane…not so much. Richard also has a JD, along with years of experience practicing law.
Fun fact: in 1998 Richard Pope DID run for King County Prosecutor against Norm Maleng…as a Democrat.
It is one of the things people should respect about Richard—he is not afraid to run against strong incumbents.
@16…D…
“Richard Pope certainly wouldn’t be as well qualified for King County Prosecutor as Bill Sherman.” Oh??? According to Goldy’s underlying thesis and endorsements, the only “qualification” that matters is party affiliation, ergo Charles Manson running as a Democrat is more qualified than any human being alive running as a Republican.
At his next parole hearing, Charlie may well use Goldy’s analysis to try and convince the California parole board that he’s got a job prospect in the Seattle area as an elected official on the Democratic ticket.
Charlie for sheriff? KC Executive since Ron Sims dumping Prop 1 says he’s done with that job (probably bucking for Energy Czar or HUD or Transportation Secretary in President Gravel’s cabinet)?
The possibilities are infinite…
The Piper
Piper Scott,
Goldy’s underlying thesis and endorsements, the only “qualification” that matters is party affiliation…”
Gee…I’ve read his post again and I can find no such generalization. It seems to by your “underlying thesis,” not Goldy’s
Piper Scott,
“At his next parole hearing, Charlie [Manson] may well use Goldy’s analysis to try and convince the California parole board that he’s got a job prospect in the Seattle area as an elected official on the Democratic ticket.”
Well…so long as he didn’t beat-up his mother, the Republicans might consider putting him on the ticket for King County Executive….
@18…D…
Well, what else can it be??? Given that the only absolute in Goldy’s political measuring rod is that a candidate must be a Democrat, what other conclusions is reasonable or viable.
Let’s just put it out there: are there circumstances under which Goldy would endorse a Republican – ANY Republican – over any human being on the planet who ran as a Democrat?
What would he do if Dick Cheney moved to town and Poped (Richard’s thief-in-the-night filing strategy may well morph itself into a verb, so why not say that it started here?) himself into a partisan race as a Democrat?
Weirder things have happened…
The Piper
20 I can’t speak for Goldy, but from what I now know about Cheney, I wouldn’t vote for him for anything, other than perhaps as a candidate to be sent on a one-way mission to Jupiter.
Richard Pope may be slightly unusual, but he’s not a liar, a thief, a murderer or a traitor. Richard Cheney is all of those.
20/20
Also a lousy shot.
Piper,
Given that the only absolute in Goldy’s political measuring rod is that a candidate must be a Democrat, what other conclusions is reasonable or viable.
Is slaying these kinds of straw critters really the best that you can do? You disappoint me, Piper. I’ve had such high hopes for you.
Piper Scott @ 20,
“Well, what else can it be??? Given that the only absolute in Goldy’s political measuring rod is that a candidate must be a Democrat, what other conclusions is reasonable or viable.”
Here are some reasonable conclusions:
1. This race has two well qualified candidates, so Goldy is doing everything he can to get the Democrat elected. That simple conclusion does not support your extreme suggestion that anyone running as a “Democrat is more qualified than any human being alive running as a Republican.”
2. Goldy is a Democrat. Therefore in most circumstances he will chose the Democratic candidate over a Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc. candidate. That simple fact does not support your extreme suggestion that anyone running as a “Democrat is more qualified than any human being alive running as a Republican.”
“…are there circumstances under which Goldy would endorse a Republican?”
Sure. IIRC, Goldy has said something to me about voting for a Republican on occasion.
@23…DJ…
I am so sorry to disappoint! Thank you for clarifying that I exist to satisfy you…
How many coats of wax on the truck, again?
But you could try addressing the question: Given Goldy’s position on supporting any Republican ever versus any Democrat, what other reasonable conclusion is there?
The way things work in this state, it’s not inconceivable for Satan himself to run as a Democrat…
The Piper
Artfart @ 21
“I can’t speak for Goldy, but from what I now know about Cheney, I wouldn’t vote for him for anything, other than perhaps as a candidate to be sent on a one-way mission to Jupiter.”
I was thinking “one way, all expenses paid, trip to The Hague.”
Piper Scott @ 25
“Thank you for clarifying that I exist to satisfy you…”
Here, again, you seem to make an unwarranted generalization. Nothing that Don Joe said implies that you “exist to satisfy” him.
Dude…you really are descending into Puddyhood! Snap out of it!
“The way things work in this state, it’s not inconceivable for Satan himself to run as a Democrat…”
God knows the Republicans have tried….
Piper @ 25
But, I did address the question by pointing out that it’s a straw man. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Quite honestly, I’ve been waiting to see you set forth an argument that doesn’t rely on one or more of straw men, dissembling, equivocation and just plain pulling facts out of thin air while ignoring the truth. So far, you’ve wasted an estimable wit on stuff that blongs in one of the weekly bullshit threads.
Cool…less than 6 hours into it (at the 5:00 pm update), we have raised $1,185 for Bill.
(That total does not include the contribution I made after 5:00 pm.)
Folks…consider sending Bill Sherman something–even if only $10.00. The nice thing about these local races is that your contribution goes much further.
Click here to help!
@28…DJ…
At Scrabble, no…
Straw man? Hmmm…Yes, I do believe that if the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz ran as a Democrat, Goldy would support him.
The point simply is this: I can’t find any non-negotiable for Goldy other than party affiliation; vote for the Democrat over the Republican no matter what.
Maybe I should run as a Democrat…But my Republican-since-the-days-of-Lincoln ancestors all buried in Minnesota would roll over in their graves; they still blame the Civil War on Democrats…There’s a lot to be said for that theory.
The Piper
Piper,
The point simply is this: I can’t find any non-negotiable for Goldy other than party affiliation; vote for the Democrat over the Republican no matter what.
I got the point you’re trying to make, and repeated assertion doesn’t make it true. Around here, we generally prefer an unbiased investigation into the facts over assumptions that are made for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
@31…DJ…
Then show me where he’s said anything to the contrary.
He has, though, made repeated assertions that a vote for anything other than a Democrat is HA apostasy. Also, that he endorses the ultimate in political apostasy, Richard Pope, further evidences the point. No law said he had to endorse anyone! Certainly the King County Democratic Party opted to take that position.
The Piper
Piper Scott @ 30,
“I do believe that if the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz ran as a Democrat, Goldy would support him.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah…we all know that you believe this. But…um…we are all much too familiar with your “inferences skills.”
“The point simply is this: I can’t find any non-negotiable for Goldy other than party affiliation; vote for the Democrat over the Republican no matter what.”
Hogwash. Goldy has always provided well-justified reasons for his endorsements. Given that he is a Democrat…it is hardly surprising that party affiliation is an important factor (as it no doubt is for you, too).
But the character you construct is just your private fiction.
In the race that is the topic of this thread, it can hardly be surprising that Goldy falls on the side of Bill Sherman.
Piper,
Then show me where he’s said anything to the contrary.
Ah. I see. You make the assertion, and rather than making the effort to gather the evidence required to support it, you place the onus on me to disprove it. You exhibit the epitome of intellectual laziness.
And here I was wondering why you chose not to discuss the qualifications of the candidates in this particular race. Thank you for answering that question.
Piper Scott
“He has, though, made repeated assertions that a vote for anything other than a Democrat is HA apostasy.”
That’s interesting…I’ve read his blog for a long time and don’t find any such things. Once again, you seem to be joining Puddybud in PuddyLand™
“Also, that he endorses the ultimate in political apostasy, Richard Pope, further evidences the point. No law said he had to endorse anyone!”
No it doesn’t you dumb shit…Goldy endorsed Richard Pope long before he called himself a Democrat.
“Certainly the King County Democratic Party opted to take that position.”
Your claim is nonsense (see my previous sentence.)
By the way Piper Scott, this thread is about Bill Sherman and fundraising for him. Please ensure that your future comments have some relevant content. Otherwise, take your speculations on Goldy and satan to the (open) DL thread.
The more the netroots, et al, raise for Sherman, the leftier he looks to the undecided, and it’s always the undecided that decide races.
This isn’t a 100% party affiliated county; a lot of people could give a rip about party politics, but they do know a rabid dog when they see one.
Satterberg has bi-partisan support, Sherman rabidly partisan support. Who, then, can be trusted to represent ALL the people of King County?
How’s that, Darryl?
The Piper
Piper,
The more the netroots, et al, raise for Sherman, the leftier he looks to the undecided, and it’s always the undecided that decide races.
You’ve left more unsupported assertions laying around here than there are dead bodies in a Cecil B DeMille movie.
One of these days, I might even figure out what it means for undecided people to make a decision.
@37…DJ…
Routinely in politics, close races remain that way until three days before an election, which is when a lot of the undecided, non-party affiliated electorate start paying attention. They then break one way or the other.
Guys like you, Darryl, Goldy, and me have one thing in common: we’re hard partisans, and we make no bones about it. I’m not at all uncomfortable with this, but I also have to constantly remember that our common fixation with politics isn’t something shared by a great many of our fellow citizens. If anything, it nauseates them
So…the “undecideds,” who are so because they haven’t yet made up their minds for whom they’ll vote, are those candidates need to reach in close races. The base can be taken for granted.
Is it wise for Sherman to risk alienating them by tacking hard left? As a practical matter?
The Piper
Piper Scott,
“The more the netroots, et al, raise for Sherman, the leftier he looks…”
First, I strongly disagree with you that it will hurt Sherman to look “lefter.” That said, I think you’re daft to believe that Bill Sherman picks up any negatives by having Goldy do fundraising on HorsesAss.
“This isn’t a 100% party affiliated county; a lot of people could give a rip about party politics, but they do know a rabid dog when they see one.”
Yawn! Next wingnut talking point, please!
“Satterberg has bi-partisan support, Sherman rabidly partisan support. Who, then, can be trusted to represent ALL the people of King County?”
That’s the best spin you can put on it?
(*Snicker*)
Piper,
You’re keeping up with your intellectual laziness, but that’s not making any of your argments any better.
You might want start with a discussion of the demographics of people who are both informed enough to know what the netroots are doing (or even who the netroots are) yet remain undecided in this race.
Piper Scott @ 38
“Is it wise for Sherman to risk alienating them by tacking hard left? As a practical matter?”
Ohhhhhh….Piper Scott…thank you for your heartfelt concern! I’m sure Goldy will get the message to Bill Sherman so that he doesn’t hurt himself.
It’s real nice havin’ real smart people like you helping out Mr. Sherman.
@39…Darryl…
Aren’t you going to be late for Drinking Liberally?
And thank you for mentioning my favorite candy bar…
Aside from you, Goldy, and some other HA regulars, not everyone is convinced the world revolves around your view of things; while you delight in believing your own press clippings (and I hesitate to disavow you of your illusions…but in politics you should have none)there just might be a few folks out there whose support Sherman needs who might be turned off by the strident nature of your militancy; some voters still consider the “F” word offensive and judge those who use it as often as they flush their toilet in a very negative light.
I simply chalk it up to limited vocabulary and nothing else better to say…but I digress…
I’m sure there’s at least one retired Boeing Machinist who might think a lot of what goes on here is offensive and who occasionally splits his ticket might consider your support his reason to vote for Dan Satterberg.
Yes…to some…yours does occasionally stink.
A cold-blooded, ruthlessly (politics is ruthless…wanna friend? Buy a dog – H. Truman) brutal business demands looking at yourselves in a cold-blooded, ruthlessly brutal way.
I know where you can get full lenth mirrors wholesale…
The Piper
Piper,
I suggested you tackle some demographics, and you’re playing mirror mirror. One is tempted to talk about stones and glass houses, but that would be a digression.
Here’s a little help: Back in May, Satterberg led Sherman by 36% to 34%. The September poll that Goldy cites has Sherman leading Satterberg 47% to 35%. Given that trend, exactly how do you see a netroots fundraising effort doing sufficient harm to Sherman’s campaign to outweigh the benefits of the rundraising?
Would donate if I could, but I’m overextended with all the mold & pipe leak issues going on at home.
Sending positive vibes towards Sherman’s campaign and fund raiser. He’s got my vote, and will be sharing my opinion with my neighbors and friends.
Piper Scott,
“Aren’t you going to be late for Drinking Liberally?”
No.
Aside from you, Goldy, and some other HA regulars, not everyone is convinced the world revolves around your view of things…”
Ummmm…if we thought everyone adopted “our” view of things, there wouldn’t be much point in writing about it, now, would there?
“while you delight in believing your own press clippings…”
Ummm…I don’t have “press clippings.” I am just a blogger. Sorry for the interruption…
“(and I hesitate to disavow you of your illusions…but in politics you should have none)”
…and I’m not in politics either. Just a blogger….(sorry again)
“there just might be a few folks out there whose support Sherman needs who might be turned off by the strident nature of your militancy; some voters still consider the “F” word offensive and judge those who use it as often as they flush their toilet in a very negative light.”
So?
I mean, I hate to disappoint you, but these blog comment threads are a form of recreation. People who are linguistically “delicate” don’t typically read the comment threads. The rest of us are free to have fun with language as we wish.
“I simply chalk it up to limited vocabulary and nothing else better to say…but I digress…”
I tend to believe that we aren’t in fucking kindergarten anymore. “Naughty words” are just another tool in the writer’s toolkit to evoke an emotional reaction in a reader. Still seems to work. Deal with it.
“I’m sure there’s at least one retired Boeing Machinist who might think a lot of what goes on here is offensive and who occasionally splits his ticket might consider your support his reason to vote for Dan Satterberg.”
Could be! But, some two thousand readers visit this blog every day. Apparently Goldy (and to a lesser extent the other co-bloggers) are getting some emotional reaction that keeps ’em coming back. Maybe they are entertained, informed, enlightened, or soothed and they come back regularly for another dose. Maybe they are outraged or disgusted but, for some reason, just can’t help themselves from coming back. My guess is that many more people find that reading the blog (the front page, that is) is useful, or at least, positive.
The price we pay for thousands of repeat visitors is that there will sometimes be the puritan who is so disgusted with the linguistic presentation that they will go so far as to change their vote out of some sense of spite (as your mythical retired Boeing worker would do). Oh well.
“Yes…to some…yours does occasionally stink.”
As a full time resident of the reality-based community, I never had any doubts about it.
“A cold-blooded, ruthlessly (politics is ruthless…wanna friend? Buy a dog – H. Truman) brutal business demands looking at yourselves in a cold-blooded, ruthlessly brutal way.”
Hey…I’m just a blogger…I come here for fun….
@45…Darryl…
I, too, come for the sheer hey of it; jolly good time jousting with all of you.
Still…given that only – ONLY? – a couple thousand drop by each day…And that Goldy isn’t merely a blogger (radio program, occasionally mentioned by commentators around town, the El Jeffe of HA), both what he says and what’s said by his comprades at HA…matters politically; you’ve become part of the political landscape and establishment!
Welcome to fame, Darryl.
Should mention that some of the 2,000 might drop by for the same reason that folks go to Woodland Park to see the chimps. Just because I occasionally buy the P-I doesn’t mean I agree with it’s usually foolish editorial stance.
With fame comes responsibility and close scrutiny – ask Michael Vick – and the fact that you are in Goldy’s inner circle elevates you from the status of mere blogger to that of pundit.
Who knows? Maybe a column in The Stranger will someday have your byline. You might, then, be able to quit your day job and opine 24/7.
So…what you say about Satterberg – Sherman, et al, isn’t merely recreational; like a rock in the pond, you send ripples sometimes in unanticipated directions.
BTW…HA lingo doesn’t bother me…I’ve worked around Teamsters and others. It just might be wise, given the ascendency of your unanticipated new career as the next Joel Connelly (some day he’ll collapse from the weight of the stagnent bile of his opinions), to practice fulminating without using words usually associated with the upper-case of the top of the keyboard.
And do smile a lot…It’s healthier…
The Piper
Wow. Almost the entire wingnuttosphere, right on up to Rush Limbaugh, have spent the past two days smearing Graeme Frost and his family, and Piper has the temerity to talk about the lack of civility here at HA.
Funny how I don’t see any Piper Scott comments over on Michelle Malkin’s blog. Why is that, Piper?
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
@ 48, I should get over what? That some wingnut wants to take HA regulars to task on civility while your method of disagreeing with the State of Maryland is an all-out, no-holds-bars attack on a 12 year old boy and his family?
Sorry, sport, but I’m going to trump your hypocrisy as far and wide as I can. If that bothers you, well, tough.
Which is why Sherman should be elected County Prosecutor. We need someone who has a firm grasp on the concept of civility, which immediately disqualifies just about any Republican.
@49…DJ…
Calm down, laddie…I take no umbrage with your civility; One can’t with what’s not there!
I’m simply suggesting in a friendly way that as HA and its regulars become members of the MSM, local glitterati, and likely candidates to endorse retirement communities and donated vehicle progrmas as does former Seattle angry man, Bob Simmons, that you’ll increase your marketability and long-term viability (think Dennis Hopper pimping an investment house or how Hendrix and the Moody Blues serve as background music for infomercials) by a little advance planning and image crafting.
Move closer to the center, wear neckties, and at least credit Dan Satterberg with being good to his mother; after all, whoever is elected will be the prosecutor for ALL the people. You know…nonsense like that.
From humble beginnings empires grow…
And I’ll be able to tell my grandkids I knew you all when…
The Piper
Piper,
Calm down, laddie…I take no umbrage with your civility; One can’t with what’s not there!
If I calm down any more than I am now, people will start checking me for a pulse, and I’m not so sure you wanted to express anything about civility in quite the way you chose at the close of that sentence.
But, you haven’t really answered my question. You’re here taking us to task, but you’re not taking your fellow wingers to task, presumably because taking us to task is more enjoyable than beating back the members of your own party, no?
Why not just dump the clearly feckless idology, and join the reality crowd?
Oh, and don’t forget to vote for Sherman. He really is a good fellow, you know.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
Won’t reply till Wednesday evening when I get home from my State Job…….
Love it….Benny’s are great, work is not hard, and no extra hours expected.
Ohhhh one other thing…… Union
Sock puppet @ 52,
All of those talking points have already been dealth with in other comment threads, and it’s off-topic here. I’d be more than happy to kick your butt in one of those comment threads, but not here.
Here, we talk about Sherman and Satterberg, and, obviously, if you think Michelle Malkin’s brand of stalking ought to be prosecuted, then you should vote for Sherman. Lord knows, Satterberg won’t prosecute.
@51…DJ…
I think it’s both silly and cowardly to send children into combat, and the process by which we engage in debate over public policy is a form of combat, albeit of a rhetorical nature.
Now’s about as good a time as any to mention what uber-Democrat and feminist, Camilia Paglia, said of Democratic leadership in Congress…Something about “…senators of my party, with a few stellar exceptions like Dianne Feinstein, may be a pack of vain, spineless, poll-puking, strutting peacocks…” http://www.salon.com/opinion/p.....ndex1.html
I don’t take you to task, I simply suggest an alternative path; a more sanquine methodology of communication designed less to alienate and more to encourage, persuade, and comfort…
Isn’t that what being a Democrat is all about? Good feelings?
There’s a Coke commercial in there somewhere…
If anyone shoves a kid out there to do political battle, then shame on them if they think the kid then will be able to say anything but be immune from whatever response would be forthcoming if an adult said the same thing. Absolutely disgraceful!
But typical…never send a man out to do the hard work when you can hide behind a kid who you sacrifice in the process.
At least Bill Sherman isn’t trotting out 11-year olds to criticize Dan Satterberg; I will give him that.
The Piper
Goldy, I heard that interview – you really thought Satterberg was making a personal attack? It didn’t bother you at all that Sherman was openly mistating, by nearly an entire year, his experience in the office? I would hope that Dan would call him out on that. I mean, I’m a liberal, and I work for the prosecutor’s office, and I can tell you that none of the prosecutors who work with Bill think he has any business running the office. It was infinitely frustrating to hear bill talk about his “years in the office” when those of us that worked with him knew he only did one felony rotation, and that he has left that rotation twice to campaign. Dan has a duty as his opponent to point out when Bill is simply lying. bill had no response to this, but just started saying “my REPUBLICAN opponent” over and over. It sounded pretty pathetic and juvenile to me, but apparently it worked…. It would be refreshing to take off the partisan blinders for but a moment and at least acknowledge that most of the DPA’s for king county are liberals, and yet all of us support Dan and not Bill. That should tell you something.
Goldy,
Your gloating over knocking Rodney Tom out of the 8th district race is the tip for me to vote for Reichert. Tom was the best fit for the district and most of the contributors through your netroots drive are not 8th district voters. You make me sick. Both Burner and Reichert blow but a choice has to be made between two bad candidates now, thanks to you.
Always vote Democrat. Republicans are doo-doo heads.
The Pooper
re 56 — “I mean, I’m a liberal, and I work for the prosecutor’s office, and I can tell you that none of the prosecutors who work with Bill think he has any business running the office.”
We are very familiar with this lame tactic, as I am a staunch Conservative Republican who knows that the inexperienced and corrupt candidates that the Reps. are fielding these days forces me to vote exclusively for Democrats.
The Pooper
@59 calling it a “lame tactic” does not somehow make the statements false. We’re in a Democratic county and the vast majority of the deputy prosecutors vote Democrat. Yet I challenge anyone out there to find more than 5 lawyers of the 260 or so in that office who will support Sherman, even anonymously. We sure as heck haven’t seen anyone appear on this blog. Sherman himself said on Goldy’s show that spouses of prosecutors were donating to Satterberg’s campaign.
Prosecutor at 56 says “and yet all of us support Dan and not Bill.”
Really? It is absurd to say every person in the office supports one candidate or the other. It is not unreasonable to think that groups of people/friends/colleagues all support Satterberg. But don’t make assertions for all prosecutors.
The prosecutors that I have spoken to spoke highly of Satterberg and Sherman. The split fairly evenly as to how they plan on voting. One side spoke about experience and stablility. The other side spoke about needing a fresh approach.
‘Wingnut Debate Dictionary’
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/.....onary.html
Re 61: You will find your ‘lame tactic'(and many other wingnut rhetorical devices)outlined in this dictionary.
As a wingnut lawyer, you may find it interesting to see this documentation.
@62 Be forthcoming about how many you talked to. One of each? I know of one in the office who supports Sherman and at least twenty who support Satterberg. That isn’t to say the Satterberg supporters dislike Sherman; they all say he’s a nice guy and many supported his run for the 43rd district. But they are terrified at the prospect of him being prosecutor. He makes very little effort to hide the fact that he’s going to be a career politician, and when the office becomes a political stepping stone, justice suffers.
T @ 64:
“He makes very little effort to hide the fact that he’s going to be a career politician, and when the office becomes a political stepping stone, justice suffers.”
Did justice suffer when Norm Maleng ran for statewide office on three occasions? Has justice suffered under Rob McKenna’s leadership at the Attroney General’s Office?
I don’t think that anyone would argue that both Maleng and McKenna were/are career politicians.
If Sherman does a good job and seeks higher office sometime later, is that a bad thing? As a politician, is accountable to the voters.
How will justice suffer? Being soft on crime will not win votes. Being unreasonably hard on crime will not win votes.
Please explain.
@65 Angela: you didn’t answer my question (first line of post 64). Please do so and then I promise I’ll give you a response to yours.
He makes very little effort to hide the fact that he’s going to be a career politician, and when the office becomes a political stepping stone, justice suffers.
What’s the average length of service for an attorney in the KC PAO?
@67 — I don’t know. There are a lot of people who leave after several years, and a lot that stay on for a career. When I said “office” I meant THE elected prosecutor, not one of the appointed deputies.
@65 — I largely answered your question on the other thread. You still haven’t answered mine.
I don’t know. There are a lot of people who leave after several years, and a lot that stay on for a career. When I said “office” I meant THE elected prosecutor, not one of the appointed deputies.
Has the union representing the DPAs endorsed a candidate?
@69 — Not that I’ve heard. My understanding is that both candidates specifically requested that the union not do so. I’m further told that the union never endorsed a candidate during any of Maleng’s elections either.
Does it bother anyone that Bill has never tried an A felony? Never tried a murder case? Never even spoken with the family of a murder victim?
Bax-
you ask if the Union endorsed a candidate. Short answer, as T says, is no. A couple of Bill’s buddies in the union tried to get them to endorse Bill, but they were shut down (much to the chagrin of many- because had they forced the issue they’d have found Dan’s name at the end of the tally).
The reality, though, is that an endorsement from the PAO Association would really be meaningless, because the majority of the office are not members of it. But, again, as T points out, the overwhelming support in the office is for Dan.
Does it bother anyone that Bill has never tried an A felony? Never tried a murder case? Never even spoken with the family of a murder victim?
When’s the last time Satterberg tried a murder or A felony? How many has he tried?
The reality, though, is that an endorsement from the PAO Association would really be meaningless, because the majority of the office are not members of it.
Really?! Why are most of the DPAs not members?
Bax-
most are not members because the association only represents the junior deputies. When you get promoted to Senior Deputy you are no longer a member. The ratio of junior to senior these days is roughly 65 to 35% (I could be off a bit on the percentages, but believe I’m close)
Bax-
I don’t know how many cases Dan tried, but I suspect his experience is similar to Bills- I honestly doubt it’s much more substantial in any event. But in addition to that roughly equivalent trial experience, Dan has 18 years experience as the second most important person in the office. Bill has done some cool stuff before he came to the office, but he has NOT sat with countless victims and familes of victims to make tough decisions on very serious cases, break bad news or share good. And Dan is not, as Bill is, trying to sell himself as a “frontline trial prosecutor”- which, with all due respect to Bill, who I happen to like and respect- is a flat out joke. The problem is that what we do in our office on a daily basis is so far outside the experiences of pretty much virtually anyone who doesn’t actually do it that Bill can spout such crap and the only folks who see what BS it is are the 3 hundred or so of us who work there and know him. Bill KNOWS this, and exploits it, because he is an adept politician.