Goldy

Anybody who has followed my coverage of the Seattle mayor’s race may be surprised to learn that I’m voting for Mike McGinn.

I haven’t been particularly kind to McGinn over the past six months or so, and apart from what I admit to be a surprisingly successful grassroots campaign, he hasn’t done much to change my opinion of him as a politician. But then, neither has Joe Mallahan, and given the choice between grassroots and no roots, I’m going with the former.

While it is far from a perfect test, how one runs a political campaign is somewhat of an indicator of how one might run the office being sought. It’s not supposed to be easy, and how one gets through the daily grind of fundraising and organizing and debates and interviews and all that, both says a lot about the candidate, and helps prepare him or her for the daily grind of office.

In that sense, the quarter of a million dollars or so that Mallahan has pumped into his own campaign has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because without it, he never would have been taken a seriously as a candidate. A curse, because his lazy reliance on his own money appears to have short-circuited his development as a politician.

There are few politicians who truly enjoy “call time” or relish the thought of knocking on thousands upon thousands of doors, but nearly all will tell you that these activities make you a better candidate, because when you spend hours a day talking to voters and/or (gasp) asking for money, you also spend hours a day listening to voters’ concerns. Read all the position papers you want, hire the best consultants to draft your talking points, but nobody can educate you better about the issues than the voters themselves.

But with his own money to backstop his campaign, Mallahan never had to do the kind of call time typical of a citywide race, and it shows. He didn’t appear well-informed about city issues back when he declared, and he doesn’t appear much better informed now. He simply hasn’t grown as a candidate, and that doesn’t bode well for a novice politician seeking the mayor’s office.

As for McGinn, well, I don’t take back anything I haven’t already taken back about what I’ve previously written, and I still sincerely question his ability to work and play well with others. But as impolitic as he’s sometimes been (I still think his unwavering opposition to the tunnel loses him more votes than it wins him), he’s also proven to be thoughtful and at times even flexible. But mostly, like I said, you’ve just got to give him credit for running such a successful, largely grassroots campaign.

That shows political skill, and an enormous amount of hard work, something Mallahan has failed to demonstrate. And while McGinn remains a risky choice, he shows a much greater degree of political upside. No, he hasn’t come anywhere close to throwing a knockout punch, but if this race were a boxing match, McGinn would clearly be winning on points.

So for what it’s worth I’m voting for Mike McGinn, which considering my level of skepticism entering the race, says as much about his opponent as it does of him.

The Transit Riders Union invited all candidates running for Seattle City Council, Mayor and King Executive offices to respond to a questionnaire regarding the concerns of transit riders. All but Susan Hutchison and Joe Mallahan responded.

While Mallahan has generally been pretty good about filling out these sort of questionnaires, Hutchison has typically failed to respond when her honest answers might hurt her with voters. Hence her refusal to comply with similar requests from NARAL, the Women’s Political Caucus, even the Downtown Seattle Association (she has repeatedly accused county government of being too Seattle-centric).

So while Hutchison vaguely denies that she opposes rail, her gushing praise for the Washington Policy Center’s anti-rail prescriptions (they call it “socialist”) and her refusal to answer basic questions from the Transit Riders Union indicates otherwise. Not to mention her tens of thousands of dollars of financial support from Kemper Freeman, who is suing to stop light rail from crossing I-90.

But then, that’s the sort of lack of transparency we’ve come to expect from Hutchison.

I gave myself the weekend to sleep on it, during which I didn’t load a Seattle Times web page once. I thought I might, with a little distance, eventually fisk the paper’s execrable editorial endorsement of Susan Hutchison, but I can’t really bring myself to read it again, let alone read it closely. And honestly… why bother?

For the core of my critique of the Times as both an opinion leader, and as a news organization doesn’t require line-by-line mockery to explicate: quite simply, they are a bunch of fucking hypocrites, a thesis that is perhaps best illustrated by contrasting their treatment of Susan Hutchison with that of Darcy Burner.

As we all know, the Times’ editors dismissed Darcy as an inexperienced lightweight, out of touch with the mainstream values of her district, who should have been advised to work her way up to a congressional challenge… a particularly galling critique considering the quality of her opponent. But perhaps the most misogynistic and mean-spirited attack was the accusation that she “lacked authenticity,” a theme picked up by their news department to devastating effect in an eleventh hour front page smear piece accusing Darcy of lying about her Harvard degree.

Compare that to the Times’ treatment of Suzie, a woman who has never held political office, never ran a business, and never even managed a staff, running for what amounts to the governorship of a small state. What political and administrative qualifications does Suzie bring to office? None. Yet in Suzie’s evolution-denying, abortion-opposing, union-busting hands, inexperience suddenly becomes a positive, enabling her to bring a “fresh” perspective to the problems facing King County government. Yay!

I mean… what the fuck?

And I haven’t even gotten to the issue of authenticity yet.

For let’s be honest, Susan Hutchison has run perhaps one of the least authentic political campaigns since George Wallace ran for governor of Alabama in 1982 on a civil rights platform. On more than one occasion I’ve had local journalists defend her, saying that she’s not as right-wing as I make her out to be, but that’s not the point: Hutchison is not nearly as moderate or as nonpartisan as she makes herself out to be, which makes her entire campaign a lie to which the Times has been complicit.

Furthermore, in recent weeks, Hutchison has repeatedly lied about incontrovertible facts. She claims she never gave money to the BIAW, when in fact she did. She claims her unreported campaign headquarters is merely the residence of her campaign manager, when it isn’t. And she claims the PDC has already dismissed 79 of the 82 allegations in the PDC complaint filed against her, which the PDC firmly denies.

And, of course, Hutchison laughably denies that she is a partisan Republican

Yet where is the front page article taking Suzie to task for her lies?

There is no editorial attacking Suzie’s lack of experience or her extremist values, nor front page article attacking her relentless lack of truthfulness, because unlike with Darcy, the Times wants Suzie to win. And, because as an institution, they are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Now I know there are those who will come back at me in the comment thread, accusing me of being just as ideological as the Times, and at least as hypocritical, but let me remind you that I’m just some foul-mouthed, partisan blogger who post photos of dog turds to his front page, and accuses a sitting state senator of fucking pigs, while they are our state’s paper of record.  I’m not supposed to be better than the Times. They’re supposed to be better than me.

But they’re not.

And as can clearly be seen in their hypocritical treatment of Darcy vs. Suzie, the Times’ alleged credibility is just as fictitious as Hutchison’s alleged nonpartisanship.

If you are dissatisfied with the editorial content here on HA… if you find it offensive, insulting, narrow-minded, blindly partisan, dishonest or just plain poorly written… please, please cancel your subscription.

Every page you view earns me a little money. More importantly, I take pride in maintaining such a relatively large and engaged audience. So the best way for you to send me message is to simply stop reading my blog.

I mean it. Leave. Go away. Erase the bookmark. And don’t come back. That’ll teach me a lesson.

Otherwise, I’ll just take your continued readership and active participation in the comment threads as an indication that I’m doing something right.

That fresh pile of poop on your front lawn, near the walkway? It wasn’t a dog. It was me.

Last night I was visiting friends on the Island, and I had a little too much to drink. So I drove over to your house, scaled the security gate, dropped my pants, and took a dump.

It felt good. (You know, the way you must feel every time your paper shits all over the citizens of Seattle.)

Now I know in a region with a functional, well-funded government, this is the sort of disgusting, uncivil behavior the authorities might investigate and prosecute, but since you clearly hate government (or at least, hate paying for it, and see absolutely no need to leave it in the hands of a qualified executive) I’m guessing you wouldn’t bother to waste precious tax dollars by calling the police over something petty like this.

Oh, and when you have one of your servants clean it up, tell them to double-glove and wear a face mask. I was eating beans.

I was going to post this as an update to my previous post, but the point is too important to leave as an afterthought.

I’m hearing that the Seattle Times endorsement of Susan Hutchison came directly from publisher Frank Blethen himself. This is his right, of course, not because he is particularly wise or well-informed or civic minded, but because he owns the newspaper. He signs their paychecks, so he gets to tell the editorial board to endorse whoever he wants, no matter how unqualified she is, or how out of step with the values of a majority of King County voters.

But… if in fact this blatantly irresponsible endorsement came at Blethen’s directive, then the Times arguably has an ethical obligation to reveal it as such.

One of the monotonously familiar knocks against bloggers like me is that we are just partisan shills, but if and when we are, at least we’re honest about it. So when an editorial board like the Times’ pretends that its endorsements come through candidate interviews and informed discourse, when in fact they merely reflect the anti-labor, anti-tax, pro-Republican views of their boss… well then… the entire endorsement process becomes just as much a lie as those of Hutchison which their paper has chosen to cover up.

Old media journalists love to attack the blogosphere for its supposedly destructive and uncivil anonymity, but it should be duly noted that I proudly hang my name on every stance I take and every word I write, rather than cowardly hiding behind the anonymity of an unsigned editorial. And if Frank Blethen has any sense of civic obligation, he will do the same.

I actually thought the Seattle Times wouldn’t endorse Susan Hutchison because whatever the ideological affinity, even they couldn’t bring themselves to endorse a candidate who is so spectacularly unprepared and unqualified to serve in such an important office.

I was wrong.

I often speak of the Times ed board as a single entity, but I know this decision wasn’t unanimous, so if those ed board members who opposed Hutchison’s endorsement retain at least a shred of self-respect, they will make public who voted for whom, or whether the decision ultimately came mandated from union-busting publisher Frank Blethen himself.

But institutionally, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Apparently, Joe Mallahan wants to arm kids at playgrounds, or something like that, at least according to Renee on the prerecorded robocall I just got. I’m against that, so I guess I’ll have to vote for Mike McGinn.

Can you find I-1033 on this sample ballot? If not, apparently you’re not alone, at least according to the folks at the No on 1033 campaign, who have been fielding phone calls today from confused voters who can’t locate the measure on the ballot.

Hidden beneath five boxes of instructions on the first page, many voters are apparently just dismissing the entire left column as instructions. Folks at the No campaign are particularly concerned that this unfortunate choice of layout might appear on the King County ballot only, thus depressing the vote in the county likely to go strongest against Eyman’s stupidest initiative ever.

So pay close attention when you get your ballot and be sure to vote No on I-1033.

In defending her failure to report the use of a four bedroom Laurelhurst house as her campaign headquarters, Susan Hutchison merely shrugged off allegations by claiming it was “the residence of my campaign manager.”  Of course, that’s neither here nor there, as she’s still required to account for the use of the house as either an expense or an in-kind contribution.

But as I previously pointed out, her dismissive explanation is also clearly a bald-faced lie, as there’s no way her young campaign manager could afford the $2300 to $4000 a month comparable homes in the neighborhood are renting for. Either he’s not paying rent at all, or… well… or this particular scam is part of a larger money laundering scheme Hutchison’s consultant, Dresner Wicker is using to funnel tens of thousands of dollars of illegal, excess contributions into the campaign.

Of course, there would be one way for Hutchison to help clear up the confusion. She could actually live up to her pledge of transparency and have her campaign manager make public both his pay stubs and his rent checks, so that we can see exactly how much he is earning compared to how much he is shelling out for his so-called “residence.”

Or, of course, Hutchison could just continue to lie the public and the press.

As reported earlier today on Publicola, an “independent” expenditure campaign on behalf of Susan Hutchison is about to hit the airwaves. As Erica reports, the group has booked $135,000 on cable and TV, but sources tell me that may only be the initial ad buy.

And who is behind the man behind the curtain?

That’s unclear, but one rumor has it that it’s Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman.

And that’s what I’m hearing too.

So, even though Hutchison says she supports light rail, she enthusiastically endorses the Washington Policy Center’s anti-light rail screed, while benefiting from a large IE paid for by a man suing to prevent light rail from crossing I-90.

Huh.

Live by the PDC complaint, die by the PDC complaint, that’s the painful lesson the Susan Hutchison campaign ironically learned yesterday after a press conference was derailed by questions regarding alleged reporting violations.

PDC complaints are a dime a dozen during election season, a standard campaign tactic intended to discredit the opposition and distract the press. Our disclosure requirements are complicated and time consuming, and mistakes are made, unintentional or not, and thus there’s rarely a top of the ticket campaign that hasn’t had a PDC complaint filed against it, and/or had a PDC complaint filed on its behalf. Hell, even I’ve filed a PDC complaint or two… that’s how common they are.

In that spirit, Hutchison and her surrogates have been pushing a complaint against the Constantine campaign for weeks, accusing it of illegal coordination with an independent expenditure campaign with which it shares treasurers, Jason Bennett. Illegal coordination is a pretty damn serious charge, but like many such complaints, this one is also pretty damn unsupported by the facts. Bennett serves as treasurer for dozens of campaigns, a role that largely consists of, well, filing PDC reports. In fact, it was Bennett himself who first notified the PDC of the potential conflict after he saw the IE come through from his other client.

And that’s the kind of thorough attention to detail Hutchison could’ve used from her own campaign treasurer, judging by the 81 reporting violations contained within the PDC complaint filed yesterday by the King County Democrats. To be fair, individually, the bulk of the violations are of the piddling variety, normally attributable to sloppiness and incompetence, though taken together they sure do come off as a general disregard for our public disclosure laws. Chronically late reports… missing employer information and sub-vender detail… these are the kinda things the PDC tends to try to work with campaigns to resolve, though given the extent of the violations, I wouldn’t be surprised to see at least a minor fine come down, if many months after the election. Or maybe not. The PDC can be inscrutable this way.

But buried amidst all the apparent sloppiness are a couple of doozies Hutchison will find much harder to explain… as she did at yesterday’s press conference, when she first refused to answer reporters’ questions regarding the four bedroom Laurelhurst house she uses as a campaign headquarters, but doesn’t report as either a contribution or an expense, before proceeding to dig herself even deeper by spinning an obvious fib.

Finally, Hutchison told [KIRO-TV reporter Essex] Porter the home was “not donated” and that it was “the residence of my campaign manager.”

[Jordan] McCarren, who works for a California-based Republican consulting firm,  is not from Seattle.

McCarren tells PubliCola that he rents the property. “I have a rental agreement with the landlord.” However, asked who the landlord is, he says, “Honestly, I would have to look that up.”

You don’t know who you pay rent to? “We have offered all that information to the PDC.”

As Publicola uncovered, the rental home is managed by a company owned by wireless mogul and Republican moneybags Bruce McCaw, who has already double-maxed to Hutchison to the tune of $1,600 in contributions. And as for the claim that McCarren pays the rent, well, that’s hard to believe, at least not at fair market value.

Numerous searches of Craigslist and various rental services have shown similar houses in the neighborhood renting for between $2,300 and $4,000 month. That’s a pretty typical range for an $800,000 home, and far beyond the reach of a campaign manager in a county executive race.

As noted, Hutchison’s expenditure reports are a bit of a mess, but the only reported expense that appears to match his position is a $4,500/month recurring “communications consultant” fee, of which McCarren’s employer, Dresner Wicker, certainly takes a piece. So it begs credulity that McCarren would blow the bulk of his after-tax salary renting a four bedroom house in Laurelhurst for six months. Clearly, either McCaw’s company is renting Hutchison’s campaign headquarters to McCarren at well below market rates, which constitutes an illegal and unreported campaign contribution, or the rent is being illegally subsidized in some other fashion. And even if McCarren was paying market rent out of his own pocket, Hutchison still couldn’t use it as campaign headquarters without reporting it in some manner.

(And there’s no doubt the house is her campaign headquarters; that’s how it’s identified in her KCTS profile, and that’s what the campaign calls it in their own email.)

But whoever is paying the rent, it’s a pretty damn serious charge — amounting to as much as $20,000 in illegal contributions — and a damn sight better supported than the merely speculative complaint lodged against Constantine and Bennett. Combine that with the other $20,000 in late primary expenditures the complaint alleges the campaign also failed to disclose, and Hutchison has some serious ‘splainin’ to do.

The irony is, if the Hutchison camp hadn’t so emphatically pushed their complaint against Constantine, our fair and balanced media might not have felt quite so empowered to aggressively question Hutchison about her own alleged reporting violations. “Let she who is without sin cast the first stone” and all that… now that’s a Biblical verse Hutchison should be familiar with.

But more than just ignoring a Bible lesson, Hutchison also failed to learn from a Nixonian one: it’s the coverup, stupid.

I don’t doubt that McCarren may sleep there, but it’s “the residence of my campaign manager” does not answer the question as to why she didn’t report the use of the house as either a donation or an expense. She could have just said “Oops, my bad,” and promised to work with the PDC to clear up any discrepancies; a final determination on the complaint, and any accompanying fines wouldn’t come until months after the election, so little harm done.

But for a candidate who has made transparency a central theme of her campaign, her transparent lie yesterday didn’t do much to shore up her own credibility.