The truth about Bill Sherman

I first met Bill Sherman during his unsuccessful legislative run last year, and I came away quite impressed. So much so, that when I saw the somewhat disappointing field shaping up for this year’s Seattle City Council races, I urged Bill to throw his hat into the ring. Okay, I kinda begged him.

This was a race, I assured him, he could win… a suggestion that Bill literally laughed off, telling me had absolutely no plans to run for office again. He loved being a prosecutor, Bill explained, and only entered the 43rd LD race after Norm Maleng assured him he could keep his job while serving in the part-time legislature, a not uncommon arrangement. (For example, Luke Esser worked in the state AG’s office while serving in the state senate.) City Council, on the other hand, is a full time position, and Bill had no interest in swapping his “dream job” for a life on the council.

I mention this conversation as an answer to Dan Satterberg’s habit of smearing his opponent with the foul taint of political ambition. Satterberg points to Bill’s back-to-back campaigns as evidence of an opportunistic politician intent on using the PAO as a stepping stone to higher office, but in fact Bill had no plans to run for office, because there was no elected office he could serve while continuing his career as a prosecutor.

That is, until longtime King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng suddenly passed away.

I cannot assure you that should he win, Bill won’t someday run for higher office, but then, it would be wrong to demand such assurances from our candidates. Maleng himself ran for state attorney general once, and for governor twice, and I never heard anybody criticizing him for his political ambition. I have even heard Republicans imply that Bill’s 43rd LD campaign was a calculated effort to position him for a run at the PAO, a conspiratorial suggestion of Shakespearian proportions. What next… Bill poured poison in Maleng’s ear? Nobody expected Maleng to retire anytime soon, let alone die at such a relatively young age, and so I think it fair to take at face value Bill’s prior assurance to me that he had no plans to run again for public office.

We take the opportunities that come our way, and right now we have an opportunity to elect a Prosecuting Attorney who will prosecute voter suppression and intimidation as vigorously as he will prosecute voter fraud. Nearly two full days into our netroots fund drive we have already raised $2340 toward our five-day $5000 goal, but have only registered 34 new donors toward our target of 200. Please give whatever you can, even if it’s only five or ten bucks.

Comments

  1. 1

    T spews:

    It’s too bad you didn’t succeed in your effort to get Bill to run for City Council–I probably would have voted for him.

    Prosecutor is a different story.

    First, I don’t believe him when he says all he wants to do is be a prosecutor. According to the PI, he wouldn’t answer the question directly in the forum last week. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....tor04.html.

    One of the reasons Bill’s resume is “impressive” (IMO for certain jobs) is that he’s done a heck of a lot in his short 39 years, which also suggests a track record for always moving on to something else.

    And if all he wants to do is be a prosecutor (as opposed to a Democratic politician), why does he need to run to be THE prosecuting attorney after only 25 months being A prosecuting attorney? Bill has at least 25 years of legal career left.

    Moreover, why did he run for the 43rd if he had no ambitions beyond prosecutor? Even if Norm told Bill he could keep his job, commuting 60 miles to Olympia for four months out of the year means you are an ineffective legislator, an ineffective prosecutor, or both. Bill, in his one felony rotation in the office, met and developed relationships with DV victims as their cases progressed toward trial. I wonder how the victims felt when he dropped all of his cases to run for office. Twice. Or would have felt every year when he went back to Olympia.

    Second, Alberto Gonzales and Mike Nifong show us what can happen when you politicize criminal justice. I agree that Bill is a nice guy and a smart guy, and a capable politician, but he’s demonstrated a willingness to stretch the truth for political ends. These may be details, but where does it end?

    For example, claiming he’s been in the prosecuting attorneys office for four years. In truth it was 37 months, 12 of which he was on leave to campaign. Twice.

    His original website also stated that he’d prosecuted “hundreds” of sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Bill hadn’t prosecuted hundreds of cases and he was never in the sexual assault unit (he may have prosecuted a few in juvenile court, but anything major would have been “declined” to adult court). When called on it, at least he changed the “hundreds” on his site.

    Bill lists an endorsement for the King County Corrections Guild prominently at the top of his homepage, but doesn’t note that it is shared with Satterberg (Satterberg’s site does–and Satterberg has a solo endorsement from every other criminal justice organization).

    Bill still has both newspaper endorsements–for the primary–listed on his homepage, implying that he’s been endorsed for the general (not true).

    When you’re playing with someone’s freedom, a willingness to deviate from the truth for political gain is a scary thought. Bill’s done it. No one’s pointed to an instance where Dan’s done it. He doesn’t have to.

    Dan is endorsed by just about every Democrat whose job involves criminal justice (Pierce Co. Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish Co. Prosecuting Attorney, Jenny Durkan, John Wolfe, Becky Roe, etc.). I’d say every but you might be able to come up with one :)

  2. 2

    T spews:

    And Goldy, before you come after me with the comparisons to Maleng, it is apples and oranges.

    Maleng was elected prosecutor when the office had 35 lawyers, now it has 260.

    Maleng was a Dan-Evans-style Republican who enjoyed bi-partisan support as prosecutor.

    Maleng didn’t staff his office with members of his own political party in anticipation of his next race.

    Maleng didn’t make charging decisions with political ambitions in mind.

    Perhaps it is for these reasons that he never succeeded in his run for higher office. Why else?

    We can look back on Maleng and say his political ambitions didn’t hurt. But he never won, the political environment has changed, and we have the benefit of hindsight. Sorry but Sherman hasn’t earned it. To quote someone else, “Bill Sherman is no Norm Maleng.”

    And this is not a Democrat / Republican thing. I can guaranty you that if the party labels were reversed on these two candidates, I’d proudly vote for the Democrat. And I’d be making my case over on SP or wherever the Republicans hang out.

  3. 3

    Jane Balogh's dog spews:

    We take the opportunities that come our way, and right now we have an opportunity to elect a Prosecuting Attorney who will prosecute voter suppression and intimidation as vigorously as he will prosecute voter fraud.

    How can any prosecuter prosecute voter fraud when the KRCE doesn’t report it? hehehehe roof roof

  4. 4

    Jane Hague's Dead Dog spews:

    But Mr. T, Satterberg is a Republican, and that is a political product as toxic as Chinese toys. Nobody’s going to read all your slanted blather, and if they do, they’ll notice the ever so clever way you imply that Satterberg hasn’t done something you KNOW he’s done by saying:

    “No one’s pointed to an instance where Dan’s done it.”

    I’m sure with minimal research I can find an instance.

    Some people say that you are a weasel-word Republican lie machine.

  5. 5

    T spews:

    @4 — JHDD: People can say what they want (and ignore my post of they want), but I’m spending my time here operating on the good faith belief that there are a lot of Democrats out there who DO think and don’t vote strictly D or R. Go ahead and conduct your “minimal research” about Dan stretching the facts, and present your findings here. I’m being honest when I say you might find something, I just haven’t seen it yet, nor have any of the anti-Satterberg attacks really offered up anything of substance other than the word “Republican”–much like your attack on me.

  6. 6

    Jane Hague's Dead Dog spews:

    How about the fact that Satterberg voted to disenfranchise hundreds of honest voters on some bogus pretext.

    Oh, you’re right. That’s not just ‘stretching the truth'; it’s corrupt, dishonest partisan behavior.

  7. 7

    Don Joe spews:

    T,

    I have to admit, when you trotted out the Alberto Gonzales/Mike Nifong comparison you pretty much lost me entirely. Seriously, did you really mean to compare your litany of petty complaints, suppositions and speculation against the likes of those two?

  8. 8

    Don Joe spews:

    Oh, and your characterization of Sherman’s answer to the PI’s question seems absurdly biased. Here are the two answers:

    “I have no interest in any other job. I want to be the King County prosecutor,” Satterberg said.

    “Being a prosecutor is the single best thing you can do with a law degree,” Sherman said.

    Seems to me that both statements are equally strong. Did you expect Sherman to echo Satterberg?

  9. 9

    spews:

    Easy win for Sherman in King County. No doubt he’ll ignore voter fraud once in office. Don’t want to piss off the base after all…

  10. 10

    Jane Hague's Dead Dog spews:

    Here’s what I think of Republican lawmwen:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...../newsweek/

    Oct. 10, 2007 – “No sooner did Alberto Gonzales resign as attorney general last month than he retained a high-powered Washington criminal-defense lawyer to represent him in continuing inquiries by Congress and the Justice Department.”

    The reason Gonzales is gone is because his whole scheme of firing the U.S. attorneys who would not make bogus prosecutions against Democrats is voter fraud on a grand scale. The fired attorney’s were being replaced with Republican lackies who would do any political shenanigans proposed by the RNC.

    You guys are crooks. Plain and simple.

  11. 11

    T2 spews:

    T @ 1, 2 and 5 –

    You’re just wrong. Or lying. Maybe both?

    First, Sherman’s been with the prosecutor’s office since 2003 – your “37 months” figure presumably already subtracts any leaves of absence. Your “25 months” figure? A simple lie.

    Second, Sherman had already completed a rotation in DV before he ran for the legislature – he was in the filing unit. So quit spinning tales of insensitivity to victims – you should be ashamed of yourself.

    The fact is that Shermans tried more cases in the last 5 months than Satterberg has since the year after the Berlin Wall fell.

    re: the newspaper endorsements – you’re wrong or stupid. the website clearly says they’re “primary endorsements.”

    As far as politicization of the office – Which candidate has taken thousands of dollars in contributions from employees’ spouses? Satterberg. Which has used a top deputy to solicit support from law firms that get millions in contracts from the office? Satterberg. Which candidate continues to get paid while he campaigns? Satterberg.

    The last Republican we saw promising to be a uniter, not a divider – the last one who said he was a different kind of Republican – the last one who pointed to Democratic supporters liek the speaker of the state house who supported him … George W. Bush, the compassionate conservative.

  12. 13

    Jane Hague's Dead Dog spews:

    The Republican Party is toxic. It’s cancer. I don’t trust any politician who would ally themselves with it.

  13. 14

    spews:

    T @1,2,

    You clearly can’t stay away from the Satterberg campaign talking points, can you. Even when you have them wrong.

    Let me just say that I’ve tried to be nice, but if Satterberg and the KCGOP want to go negative — and they want to do it in the comment threads of my blog — then I am totally prepared to respond in kind. A lot has happened in the PAO over the past 17 years, and it wasn’t all peaches and cream.

  14. 17

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @2 “Maleng was elected prosecutor when the office had 35 lawyers, now it has 260.”

    Except when it came to voting on the King County canvassing board or make prosecutorial decisions about Republicans crooks like Lori Sotelo and Jane Balogh. Anything having to do with elections, Maleng was a partisan hack.

  15. 18

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    How old was Chris Bayley when he was elected prosecutor? How much experience did he have? Did Republicans criticize his youth and inexperience?

  16. 19

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @17 Wrong quote. Should read: “Maleng was a Dan-Evans-style Republican who enjoyed bi-partisan support as prosecutor.”

    He sure didn’t act bipartisan when it came to shilling for the WSRP election crooks.

  17. 20

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Just a reminder:

    Rossi was the only candidate who had fraudulent votes deducted from his total by the judge.

    Of the felon voters who told reporters who they voted for, over 90% were Rossi voters.

    King County was not the only county that had felon voters; that was a statewide problem.

    King County was not the only county that had mislaid ballots or other problems.

    All military ballots were mailed on time, and there is not a shred of evidence that anyone tried to keep military voters from voting.

  18. 21

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Rossi is also the slimy real estate agent who worked for a broker who went to prison for robbing widows and orphans.

  19. 22

    TDOG spews:

    Goldy- I’m so glad someone is FINALLY focused on the need to vigorously prosecute voter suppression, intimidation and fraud. After all, that must comprise at LEAST one one hundredth of one percent of what the Prosecuting Attorney does. And maybe Bill can fumble his way through the remaining stuff if enough sycophantic rookies in the office stick around in hopes he’ll in some way reward their loyalty.
    As for me- I’m choosing the guy who knows what it’s like to make the tough decision when issues like public safety, individual rights and yes- even death- are at stake.

  20. 23

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The governor of Washington supervises over 100,000 employees.

    Rossi’s prior management experience consists of supervising 1 part-time janitor for a brief time when he was in college.

  21. 24

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Gregoire’s experience includes running two large state agencies (Ecology and Attorney General), and now, a term as governor.

    Rossi’s experience consists of a single term as a state senator.

  22. 25

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Rossi’s best known accomplishment as a state senator was taking health care away from 40,000 poor kids.

  23. 26

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    If Rossi held public office again, he would rubberstamp developers who’d wreck our state’s environment for their own profit.

  24. 27

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @22 You mean “tough decisions” like bargaining away the death penalty for America’s worst serial killer?

  25. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I’m a Sherman vote. I’ve had enough of Republican sycophants in the prosecutor’s office sucking up to the election crooks in the Washington GOP.

  26. 29

    Anon Y. Mouse spews:

    Roger Rabbit @ 18

    Christopher Tappan Bayley was admitted to the Bar on March 6, 1967 and was elected King County Prosecuting Attorney in November 1970, when he had practiced law altogether for only 44 months:

    http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView....._ID=746856

    He was 32 years old at the time, having been born on May 25, 1938 (according to Stefan’s nifty voter database).

  27. 30

    Anon Y. Mouse spews:

    William R Sherman was admitted to the Bar on November 2, 1999 and will have practiced law for slightly over 8 years (more than twice Bayley’s legal experience) when he defeats Republican ass-kisser Dan Satterberg on November 6, 2007.

    http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView....._ID=773337

    Stefan’s nifty voter database says Sherman was born on June 9, 1968, which makes him 39 years old — seven years older than Bayley was.

  28. 31

    TDOG spews:

    Don Joe at 8-

    If you had been at the debate (or maybe you were, but have selective hearing), while Bill did say being a prosecutor is the single best thing you can do with a law degree (which is true), he did NOT answer the question about his political ambitions beyond the office. Another example, as T points out, of his lack of candor.
    There is nothing wrong with ambition. But there is definitely something wrong with using this office, in this county, to advance it.
    You have no idea how lucky you and all of us have been to have Norm Maleng as our figurative protector for the past 25 years. And if he was a moderate R, Dan is a liberal R. Bill is a nice, bright, capable man. But as a candidate for this particular position (it shouldn’t even be called an “office”- he is a poser.

  29. 32

    TDOG spews:

    Rabbit at 28-

    Get over it, Roger. You clearly know nothing about law or justice here or anywhere- you are all about a letter.
    1) Do you have any idea what it costs to keep a man on death row?
    2) Do you have any idea of the likelihood (especially in this state) that Gary would actually have been executed if we sought, and obtained the death penalty?
    3) Do you have any idea how many Democrats agreed with Norm’s decision to spare Garys’ life in return for giving the familes of his victims closure?
    4) Do you have any idea how many of the victims families (who are amongst, little roger, the folks the PA is sworn to serve) objected to that result?
    5) Do you have any idea how instrumental Dan was in that decision?
    I suspect: No, no, no, no and no. But you do sound like quite the Republican when you moan for Gary to hang (and I always thought the ignorant amongst us D’s flat out rejected the death penalty as too “mean”). The scary thing is that Bill probably would have obliged you, because it may have appeared to be the politically sexy thing to do.
    I know the answers to those questions, and if you don’t, but still vote simply based on a letter, you will have done yourself and this community a misdeed.

  30. 33

    T2 spews:

    TDOG – “there is something wrong with using this office” to advance ambition? Gee, Republicans have used the office that way FOUR TIMES in the last 30 years, three times by Maleng and once by Bayley. According to your reasoning, Norm and Chris were bad, bad men. Who’s to say that Satterberg won’t feel the tug again when Rob McKenna moves on to run for Governor or Senator? Followign again in Norm’s footsteps?

    after all, the last Democrat to move on from KC Prosecutor to higher office was Warren Magnuson. what a tragedy that was! Horrible. Will we ever recover?

    On another note, funny enough, I don’t recall Republicans being concerned McKenna’s utter lack of criminal experience at all…

  31. 34

    TDOG spews:

    T2, here’s what’s to say Satterberg won’t feel the tug: we know Dan’s loyaly- he’s been there for 22 years, 18 of which he spent as the Chief. He is not a politician, like Bill has proven himself to be, as Bayley was, and as Norm took an intermittent shot at being. Dan didn’t get into this race because he was pegged by some party as the shining republican successor. He got into this race because his good friend and mentor died and the statute required the interim be of the same party. So Dan stepped into the malaise. He’s stayed in the race because he cares about the community and its safety.
    As for MacKenna’s lack of criminal experience- he doesn’t run the largest prosecutors office in this state. The AG’s office is primarily a civil office….

  32. 35

    Rudy spews:

    well here is a real voter – democrat – who voted for Norm M. several times

    I flirted voting for Satterberg – he is smart and able

    then I remembered the crazy R who corrupted the voting rights of hundreds of fine citizens in a sinister and cynical plot, false affidavids and all the crap to boot — no penalties, or fines or trial

    the only reason she is not in jail or on probations is Norm and Dan — they failed their duty when the partisan chips were on the table

    now will vote for Sherman, if the office is going to be political, I want no Republicans who have shown such poor jugement and incompetence. none merit our support

    go Bill, you have found your political niche

  33. 36

    spews:

    TDOG,

    You wingnuts really crack me up. All this race really comes down to is two things: (1) experience. Both candidates have it aplenty. And (2) who we can trust.

    I’m afraid that the Republican brand name has become badly tarnished both nationally, and here in Washington State:

    • Sotelo perjurous voter challenges
    • Rossi slamming the Supreme Court
    • David Irons whacking Ma
    • Sex offender postcards
    • False complaints against Rodney Tom
    • Almost anything in the news about Pam Roach
    • Jane Hague’s drunk driving
    • Mike McGavick’s DUI
    • Jane Hague’s false claims about being a college graduate
    • Unprofessional behavior from a former Spokane mayor
    • Reichert’s claims about firing a bus driver
    • And so on

    Perhaps you guys can attempt some leadership instead of being political tricksters.

    Get your house in order and get back to us next election, eh?

  34. 37

    Bax spews:

    1) Do you have any idea what it costs to keep a man on death row?
    2) Do you have any idea of the likelihood (especially in this state) that Gary would actually have been executed if we sought, and obtained the death penalty?
    3) Do you have any idea how many Democrats agreed with Norm’s decision to spare Garys’ life in return for giving the familes of his victims closure?
    4) Do you have any idea how many of the victims families (who are amongst, little roger, the folks the PA is sworn to serve) objected to that result?
    5) Do you have any idea how instrumental Dan was in that decision?

    TDOG — all of these questions are legitimate. It’s a tough judgment call. It was still the wrong decision to make that deal. Ridgway rolled Norm and Reichert. He wasn’t truthful, he didn’t give them enough to justify it, and they should’ve taken the case to trial and convicted him.

    It’s not the only case that King County has handled that give me cause for concern. I say this as someone that is likely to vote for Satterburg. Ask your cops how they feel about the cases where officers have been murdered. Prosecutors should fight to the bitter end to hold cop murderers accountable. I’m not sure that King County can really look themselves in the eye and say they’ve done that with the Underwood, Herzog, and Maher cases. That’s got to change.

  35. 39

    spews:

    @36 Darryl

    Darryl wants to tag the candidates with D’s
    and R’s. That worries me.

    There is nothing that guarantees sanctity in the suffix D.

    Sure, loyalty to the Repricans is not something that I admire. The recent hegemony of the Repricans was a good arguement for voting D, and until the damage is undone it may be important to keep up the pressure.

    So far the only person here who has discussed specific issues that differentiate Satterberg and Sherman, is the Rabbit. Like Roger, I plan on voting for Sherman and have donated a small amount to his campaign (not having all of Roger’s oil wealth that is the best I can do). Still, I am put off and expect Sherman is hurt by the party line position of m,any here.

  36. 40

    T spews:

    @11 T2 — I will double-check my facts and get back to you. I suggest you do the same. For example, look at the bottom right of Bill Sherman’s home page (not the endorsements section). Under “recent news” it says both the Times and PI endorse Sherman and neither headline mentions primary. And are you saying that Bill Sherman didn’t have a caseload when he left to campaign? He was advertising the fact that he was in a DV trial and wasn’t going to think about running until after that. You could be correct on his first run for office, I will check. But please check your math on how long he’d been in the office before accusing me of being a liar.

    @39 Thank you for being one of the D’s who do think. I’m not sure I agree that Rabbit is the only one who has discussed the differences. Last I heard from Rabbit, before he went off on Dino Rossi in this thread, he was inadvertently reaching the conclusion that Bill Sherman has no backbone because Bill would have made the same decision on Gary Ridgeway as Norm did. When called on it, Rabbit disappeared.

  37. 41

    spews:

    Seattle Jew

    “Darryl wants to tag the candidates with D’s
    and R’s. That worries me.”

    No…it has nothing to do with what I “want.” It is the way it is.

    “There is nothing that guarantees sanctity in the suffix D.”

    Of course…but given the track record of local Republicans, who are you going to bet on when confronted with two highly qualified candidates?

    “So far the only person here who has discussed specific issues that differentiate Satterberg and Sherman, is the Rabbit.”

    I think Goldy has made a good case that, where they will differ, partisan issues will decide. And important example is the non-prosecution of Lori Sotelo after the 2005 election. That decision, unfortunately, seems to have had a little partisanship behind it.

    The other problem is that Satterberg is trying to pretend that his is not a partisan Republican. Yet, we keep finding counterexamples. (I.e. the “be nice to dogs” line.)

    “Still, I am put off and expect Sherman is hurt by the party line position of m,any here.”

    I very much doubt it. My point in 36 was less about the election and more about the issues Republicans have in WA and King County. In my mind, the KC GOP is “on probation”.

    That and the lack of prosecution of Sotelo is the reason I did not vote for Maleng when he was up for reelection last year. So, my stance (can we use that word in politics anymore?) hasn’t changed specifically for this match-up.

  38. 42

    SeattleJew spews:

    Darryl,

    I would feel better if there were more substance to the debate over the commitments of these two. For example. where do they stand on:

    rights of undocumented workers
    crack vs coke
    priorities for prosecution
    support for and quality of public defenders?

    on the R vs D issues, many of these are really legal matters. Where each stands on:

    wire tapping
    free speech
    ???

    Are there ANY issues of substance on which these two disagree?

    Basically, other than the Sotelo issue, I have heard nothing but the Rv D issue or silliness about who is or is not more qualified. I would like to know more about Sotelo.

  39. 43

    spews:

    SeattleJew @ 42

    “Are there ANY issues of substance on which these two disagree?”

    You can start by looking at the voter’s pamphlet. Satterberg seems to list only one priority (protecting children online, at home, and at school).

    Sherman offers five priorities: (1) protecting kids, (2) juvenile justice reform, (3) crack down on ID theft, (4) expanding drug and mental health treatment for non-violent offenders, (5) prosecution for those who threaten health and environmental safety.

    Perhaps there is more comparative material on their respective web sites. With any luck, Goldy will have another debate on KIRO.

    “Where each stands on: wire tapping, free speech”

    As county prosecutors, these issues probably make up only the tiniest fraction of their cases. But, I suspect they really would have different approaches here. The information is more relevant to U.S. Attorney’s and State Attorney Generals.

  40. 44

    SeattleJew spews:

    The relevance of national issues to the country is exactly the claim that D vs R is an important basis for voting on this position.

    If I were to know that Satterberg supported Alberto’s interp. of the constitution or ID claims to be science, thta would make me feel fine about not voting for him.

    OTOH, the points you garnered from teh voter’s pamphlet seem to me to make the point .. these are hardly major disagreements. Both guys are suggesting they will do the same thing. That leaves little other than the R and D labels to choose from.

    Anyhow, I have decided to vote for Sherman .. for reasons we have discussed. I just do not see this as a major issue .. unlike Reichert:Darcy6 or Gregoire:??.

  41. 45

    TDOG spews:

    Bax at 37- You are right Gary was a tough decision, and no doubt not everyone agreed with it. But the folks closest to it did- cops and civilians alike. But more to the point- while Bill has been a lawyer for many years and has worked in a couple units of the PA’s office, he doesn’t have any experience managing an office as big as ours or making decisions as weighty as those. You can say “well neither did Norm when he was elected”, but that’s not really the point. Apart from the facts that the office was 1/3 as big then and my opinion that Bill is no Norm- the reality is we DO have a candidate who has that experience and could hit the ground running. This county is too big, and position of it’s head prosecutor too important today to be learned on the fly. Underwood, Maher and Herzog all has some substantial proof problems/equity issues which Norm AND Dan and many others concluded after much consideration either precluded any possibility or obtaining the DP and/or mitigated against us seeking it. For example- Underwood’s killer was as close to beinig legally insane without actually being legally insane. Do we really want a PA who will seek the death penalty in every situation in which it may be statutorily authorized? Heck- that’s Texas, or Utah. Trust me, Norm was no friend of cop killers….

  42. 46

    TDOG spews:

    Seattle Jew at 42:

    1)The county prosecutor has no power to affect the rights of undocumented workers either way- that’s a Federal issue.
    2)There is no distinction under our State law between crack and powder in terms of charging or sentencing- that’s a Federal issue.
    3)Priorities for prosecution can change with the times and are reflected in the history of the office. The formation of Drug Court, The Special Assault Unit, The Car Theft Unit, the increased resources dedicated to the DV unit all exemplify the offices’ innovative history and willingness to adjust to the times.
    4) We want defenders who are prepared and well funded too, but the prosecuting attorney’s office has no power to impact their funding. It’s the legislative and executive branch who control the purse strings.

  43. 47

    TDOG spews:

    seattle jew at 44

    No- it does not leave Just R or D labels to choose from. It also allows for consideration apart from the letters of who has the experience to manage an office of hundreds of lawyers plus staff which is charged with enforcing the laws of this state in a way that tempers justice with mercy. This ain’t just any job for which any ole’ lawyer will do. I hate Republicans for the most part too- but if we simply follow a letter- in THIS race- we risk cutting off our noses to spite our face.

  44. 48

    TDOG spews:

    Darryl at 43-

    See, there’s good old Bill: listing as a priority “protecting kids”- as if it’s a novel idea, and his own. As if this office hasn’t over the years already developed what most other offices would agree is perhaps THE best Special Assault Unit in the country. I could go down your list and asy the same thing to each item (with the exception of the environmental safety thing, which is nuts because the AG’s office handles that) And there are many other examples of Bill suggesting some “innovation” or “focus” as if it’s his own when in fact he KNOWS these things either already exist or have been in the process of formation since well before he put his name on the ballot. That is disingenuous at best and flat out dishonest at worst.

  45. 49

    spews:

    TDOG @ 48

    “See, there’s good old Bill: listing as a priority “protecting kids”- as if it’s a novel idea, and his own.”

    No…nothing he says suggests it is a novel idea. You are pulling shit out of your ass.

    “As if this office hasn’t over the years already developed what most other offices would agree is perhaps THE best Special Assault Unit in the country.”

    Again…he listed that as a priority he would have if elected to the office. The fact that it was Maleng’s & Sim’s priorities for years is irrelevant. For example, he might have said, “too much effort has gone into protecting kids,” but he didn’t. By making the statement, we have a better idea of where he would lead the office.

    “I could go down your list and asy the same thing to each item”

    So? His statement still tells us what his priorities would be. Mr. Satterberg didn’t really give us much to go on there.

    “with the exception of the environmental safety thing, which is nuts because the AG’s office handles that”

    Try to keep up here, Squirt. He said “health and environmental safety” and, OF COURSE there are both health safety and environmental saftey issues that the KC Prosecutor handles! I recall a few recent cases that Maleng’s office handled: unauthorized cutting of trees in Colman Park, a Bellevue man providing flu vaccinations without a license, and some wacky dude in S. King County who turned his yard into an automobile junk yard and was dredging a stream that bordered his property for flood control. Those are just some of the high-profile cases…

    “And there are many other examples of Bill suggesting some “innovation” or “focus” as if it’s his own when in fact he KNOWS these things either already exist or have been in the process of formation since well before he put his name on the ballot.”

    That’s YOUR misunderstanding, Squirt. He didn’t talk about innovation, he was listing his PRIORITIES.

    Sheesh….if a football coach tells you what his priorities will be for the year, it is not a claim of innovation.

    “That is disingenuous at best and flat out dishonest at worst.”

    Sure…when you mis-interpret his statement though wingnut-tinted glasses, I can see how it would appear this way to you.

  46. 50

    Bax spews:

    Underwood, Maher and Herzog all has some substantial proof problems/equity issues which Norm AND Dan and many others concluded after much consideration either precluded any possibility or obtaining the DP and/or mitigated against us seeking it.

    I understand that. It’s not a valid justification for what they did, in my mind. Other jurisdictions have fought and fought and fought on their cop murder cases. Look at Eggleston in Pierce County. They’ve tried him over and over and over even though there’s been issues, because he’s a cop killer, and a prosecutor has an obligation to fight for a cop that’s been killed. The same thing was happening in Snohomish County with the guy that killed the Snohomish Deputy years ago — then he killed himself in jail. The point is other counties don’t negotiate with cop killers. King County does. I have problems with that. Your cops are going to have problems with that, because they’ll begin to doubt the KC PAO’s willingness to fight for them.

    For example- Underwood’s killer was as close to beinig legally insane without actually being legally insane. Do we really want a PA who will seek the death penalty in every situation in which it may be statutorily authorized?

    When a guy executes a cop by shooting him in the head in the middle of a busy street with any number of witnesses standing there, yes, that’s a death penalty case as far as I’m concerned. If the courts overturn it, that’s their decision. But it’s a poor judgment call to not seek the dealth penalty in that case, especially when the case went to trial anyway.

  47. 51

    TDOG spews:

    darryl at 49- either grow up, or pull your head out of your ass. do you REALLY believe Bill trumpeted these things without hoping the uninformed (like you) would conclude they were HIS innovations? You’re either blind or an idiot- either of which would explain your naive acceptance, for example, of his “priority” of “health and environmental safety” in the office. Hey Darryl- news flash: a) we DO that already, and b) there’s enough “health and environmental safety” related crime in this county that isn’t covered by the Feds or the AG to keep about one half of a full time lawyer busy. You buy his crap just the way he intends you and all the rest of you party-wedded mice to buy his crap- without question and without any actual awareness of what the office does or how it does it.
    Now gimme my glasses back, and go learn something so you can stop embarrasing yourself…

  48. 52

    TDOG spews:

    Bax-

    The DP is a tough issue, man, and you’re preaching to the choir when you say “you kill a cop and it’s a death penalty case”. But there is SO much more that goes into the decision than you can know unless you’ve been a part of it- the statute actually requires the prosecutor to consider a whole host of things and any and all mitigating factors.
    I have been a part of that process, Dan’s been part of countless more time than I. Bill hasn’t even come close to case like that, despite what he says about being a “frontline prosecutor”.
    There is nothing strong or admirable about an elected prosecutor who blindly pulls the trigger on a DP notification without regard for the strength of the case, the desires of the family of the victim, the potential mitigating cirumstances etc. In fact I think it’s a cheap trick for a PA to go DP, knowing he ain’t gonna get it and then take refuge in the press release where he boasts “hey- I tried, but this judge or this jury just wouldn’t do it”. THAT’S the weak position….
    I honestly don’t intend to be disrespectful, but unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think you have any idea what Norm and Dan knew about these cases that directed their decisions. It’s unfair to judge without that knowledge…

  49. 53

    spews:

    TDOG @ 51

    “do you REALLY believe Bill trumpeted these things without hoping the uninformed (like you) would conclude they were HIS innovations?”

    I don’t think ANYONE (expect you, but you are obviously an idiot) thinks that the current office is not doing any of these things and many more things. All he did was lay out his priorities, dipshit. Nothing more.

    “You’re either blind or an idiot- either of which would explain your naive acceptance, for example, of his “priority” of “health and environmental safety” in the office. Hey Darryl- news flash: a) we DO that already, and”

    Ummmm…I know it is really hard for you, but TRY TO FUCKING KEEP UP, you wingnut asswipe. Pointing these out as priorities DOES NOT imply that such activities are not being undertaken now. Remember the football coach analogy? Sheesh…some people are fuckin’ DENSE.

    “b) there’s enough “health and environmental safety” related crime in this county that isn’t covered by the Feds or the AG to keep about one half of a full time lawyer busy.”

    So? How is this factoid at all relevant?

    “You buy his crap just the way he intends you and all the rest of you party-wedded mice to buy his crap- without question and without any actual awareness of what the office does or how it does it.”

    But…but…but Wingding…he is telling us HIS priorities. Do you seriously doubt these are things important to him?

    The only sad thing here is that Satterberg didn’t even bother to list any priorities….

    “Now gimme my glasses back, and go learn something so you can stop embarrasing yourself…”

    What the fuck are you babbling about?

  50. 54

    TDOG spews:

    Darryl-

    Dangit-you and your brother Darryl and your other brother Darryl are right. My bad.
    I should have seen it- your best friend Bill is only espousing those things which the office has been doing perfectly well for decades because, by golly, Billy just happens to think they are pretty cool too!! I can’t believe I was so ignorant as to think for one second that the candidate wanted pencil-poised robots like you to think they were HIS ideas.
    But what a brilliant campaign: “I like what they already do- so vote for me!”
    I pity you, Darryl. Your ignorance makes me sick and embarassed for us democrats. I sincerely hope your influence goes no further than this single digit string, because if I’m wrong- we’re all in trouble.
    Do you have any intelligent friends who you run your crap by before you post it? Tough love is a good thing.

  51. 55

    TDOG spews:

    Oh- and Darryl, sweetheart- the coach in your pathetic analogy is already the coach. He ain’t running a campaign to be coach. But I’m sure that logical distinction swims either in and out or over your little brain.

    Snackhead…

  52. 56

    spews:

    TDOG @ 54,

    LOL. Thanks for the rant!

    No matter HOW you try spinning it, you still have one little problem: politicians reveal their priorities all the time.

    SOMETIMES they combine a statement of priorities with a criticism of ongoing policies. Bill Sherman did not do that in the Voter’s Pamphlet. (Both candidates had pretty positive statements.)

    @55,

    “the coach in your pathetic analogy is already the coach.”

    That she is already the coach is irrelevant. A coach making a media statement is doing so not to get elected, but to inspire confidence among fans in her leadership abilities and the team. Success in doing that, in turn, translates into $$$ for the team.

    A politician is trying to inspire confidence among voters in his/her leadership abilities, vision and priorities (which turns into votes). Pretty simple, really.