Robert Mac hosts a debate between incumbent King County Council member Jane Hague and her challenger Richard Mitchell:
Publicola has a brief recap but, man, it’s worth watching the whole thing.
Who do you think does better, and why?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Hague is a seasoned campaigner and came off as more polished, except when she became defensive about her personal issues. That made her look bad. Mitchell did what he had to do, which was look like he knows what he’s talking about. It’s always uphill to dislodge an entrenched incumbent and I don’t think Mitchell scored a knockout punch in this debate. He needs to campaign very hard.
Mitchell: Good point about Hague not having a serious challenger in 2007, and about her integrity still being in question now due to the personal integrity issues that she encountered then.
Hague: Good explanation regarding her flip-flop on the Metro license fee issue (and I sent her a note thanking her for that decision) as well as not dealing with it earlier: She stated that the issue had changed significantly since she was elected in 2007, and there had been a more recent opportunity to study the effects of the fee that shows that it doesn’t hurt her constituents.
Mitchell: Interesting comeback regarding Metro and Hague’s lack of leadership therewith, mentioning Hague’s flip-flopping until the last minute, stating that the reality is that the characterization of her final vote on the issue shows a lack of integrity because she flip-flopped so much, especially recently, and the issues have been known throughout her tenure. (I’m not sure this is an accurate characterization either, because the bottom line is that she voted in favor of the fees.)
Hague: “We have been working on this issue for a long time.” (I’m not convinced.) “We’re a victim of the economy.” (I saw this coming, why didn’t she?)
Mitchell: He mentions “revenue options” in the context of issues that will appear in 2014, and is asked about raising taxes, and he mentions land-use planning and transportation-oriented developments (both of which take years to plan and implement), and parking issues.
Hague: Mitchell has a Seattle-centric view (I don’ get this in what he says), and in general, her policy would be to only improve the existing system.
Mitchell: The question is “What’s the long-term solution?”
Hague: We’re robbing unincorporated King County revenue for other general fund purposes; this should stop, and we should take advantage of bonding (I’m assuming that she means putting more bonds on the ballot to pay for maintenance).
Mitchell: Don’t change roads to gravel. 50% of those using these roads live in incorporated areas; incorporated areas subsidize unincorporated areas and that’s a problem.
Hague: Mitchell is talking about a utility tax, and the county cannot levy this. (Why?)
So…. “Who do you think does better, and why?”
It’s hard to say without more context. On the surface, Hague seems to address the immediate issues more directly, but I don’t know the full Metro story to be able to make a fully informed decision. And I also don’t know if the Metro issue, which is what 70% of the debate was about, is the largest issue facing us at this time.
@1: I agree that Hague comes off more polished, and I think that Mitchell has an uphill battle if the largest issue is Metro, because of Hague’s license fee vote.