Goldy

Write a post that puts the mayoral aspirations of Jan Drago or Joe Mallahan in a less than flattering light, and I hear crickets chirping in the comment threads; maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong, nobody seems to really care. But dare to critique Mike McGinn and his campaign, or even just diss his electoral prospects, and man, it’s Katie bar the door, my threads and email overflowing with lengthy defenses of the environmental and community activist cum politician, along with an occasional attack on my own credibility and/or motives.

You gotta appreciate the passion. From the public and private polls I’ve seen thus far, McGinn doesn’t appear to enjoy broad support, but unlike the rest of the field, what support he has sure does run deep. Compare that to Mayor Greg Nickels, whose campaign slogan at the moment appears to be “I’m Not So Bad!”

This passionate support for McGinn—and in a similar vein, City Council candidate and fellow Sierra clubby Mike O’Brien—is on display in the thread from last Friday, a post in which I suggested the two Mikes were having trouble garnishing sole endorsements from environmental groups and leaders due to lingering resentment over Sierra Club’s failure to work and play well with others.

Plenty of folks took issue with both my analysis and my facts, and you can read their complaints for yourself. (That, by the way, is what these comment threads are really for, believe it or not… not the usual poop-flinging that tends characterize HA.) But I also heard directly from the two Mikes themselves, and there’s no doubt their personal passion more than matches that of their supporters.

O’Brien called me at home Saturday morning, and we had a long, pleasant, chatty and occasionally tangential conversation (I tend to be chatty and tangential, so no surprise there) on a wide ranging number of issues. Mostly O’Brien called to staunchly defend the Sierra Club and its reputation in the broader environmental community… so much so, that at some point I paused to remind him that as a candidate for office, he should probably spend some time actually promoting himself. (He also used the best excuse ever for getting off the phone with me:  “I gotta go, my neighbor’s house is on fire.”)

O’Brien wanted to set the record straight that Sierra Club opposed the Roads & Transit measure all the way, never made any promises to support it, and wasn’t alone in their opposition. He also touted Sierra Club’s hard work and determination to get a transit-only measure on the 2008 ballot, and ultimately passed, and pointed to their close cooperation with other environmental organizations as evidence of Sierra’s good working relationship.

All that may be true, but, as I pointed out, there were many in the broader environmental coalition who voiced a sense of betrayal at the time, and there are lingering recriminations today. These hard feelings may or may not be deserved, but they exist nonetheless, and that was really all that post was about.

For his part, McGinn defended himself, his campaign and the Sierra Club in a rather lengthy and pointed email. He too took umbrage at the notion that Sierra Club broke any promises on Roads & Transit, and defended its standing in the broader coalition. But he seemed most irritated by a prior post in which I admittedly cast aspersions on his dedication to campaigning. I wrote:

Successfully running for office, especially against an entrenched incumbent, is a near full time job, yet the last couple times I saw McGinn, he was just out riding his bike.  Not doorbelling, not fundraising, not working the crowd, just out enjoying the sunshine and riding his bike.  Good for him, I suppose. It’s a healthy passtime. But with that kinda political work ethic, I don’t think that’s a buzz you hear coming from his campaign, Craig, but rather the hiss of the air slowly escaping from McGinn’s political tires.

And McGinn responds:

The second factual error related to the statement I am “just out riding my bike” as proof that I don’t have a political work ethic. The one day you actually referenced that you saw me I was not “just our riding my bike.”  I was biking back from the West Seattle Water Taxi to my house.  I had spent the day at the Alki Summer Streets with four volunteers handing out campaign materials and talking to voters, as well as talking to folks on the Water Ferry on the ride out and back. My daughter had a scheduled soccer game at the Interbay field, which I was hoping to catch the end of.  I did not see her play, her game was already over.  Which was too bad, since the long days of campaigning and weekend events have cut my time with my kids down to very little. Maybe you should ask them how many hours I am working.  They tease me about the short amount of time between getting home and then getting on the computer or phone.

In either case, a quick phone call to me would have prevented those errors, or at least gave you more info for your column to compare to “the scuttlebutt” other people are telling you.  Other things you state are opinion, but opinions usually come after looking at the facts.  And if you ever want to learn about what my campaign is doing, feel free to give me a call.  I am happy to take a few minutes from campaign work if it helps provide some context and depth for your reporting.

Ouch. To be honest, I really only used the anecdote of McGinn on his bike as an opportunity to set up my buzz versus hiss quip. Ah well, sometimes I guess I let my snark get the best of me, so… um… sorry.

McGinn goes on to talk about issues and endorsements and issues—mostly his opposition to the deep bore tunnel, a position we both share—and again, passionately so. Which brings me back to my main point.

I love passionate politics; it’s something we don’t see enough of around here, and it’s something the two Mike’s clearly share. And if they can translate their own passion, and that of their core supporters into a broader campaign, then they’ll both stand a good chance at winning in November.

I haven’t paid enough attention to the city council races to know if O’Brien is anywhere near that point, but I just don’t see it happening for McGinn. Part of it his anemic fundraising; money isn’t everything in politics, but it is the primary means of getting your message out to the broader electorate in a citywide race, and McGinn doesn’t have nearly enough of it. And part of it is certainly the inherent challenge of an environmentalist going up against an incumbent who is perceived to be strong on environmental issues.

But even those two weaknesses aside, I just haven’t seen an effective message coming from McGinn (or for that matter, any of the mayoral challengers). Passion yes, message no. And that doesn’t make for a winning campaign.

A couple weeks ago I challenged Rep. Dave Reichert to prove me wrong about my cynicism over his self-proclaimed moderation, by taking the lead on climate change legislation:

Indeed, not only does Reichert have the chance to cast one of the only Republican votes for this legislation, he has the unparalleled opportunity to be the lone Republican getting out in front of this bill and leading the way. He and his handlers must know that climate change legislation has overwhelming support in his district—a pro-environment, hydro-powered district less economically dependent on fossil fuels than nearly any in the nation—so if he really wants to prove his moderation and independence (not to mention his legislative competence), now’s the time to show a little leadership and help shepherd this important piece of legislation through Congress.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Well, Reichert never took the lead on this legislation, but he was one of only 8 Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for it, so credit where credit is due, I guess. Still, he followed his usual pattern of voting with his party on procedural votes (here, here and here) before flipping sides on final passage, and as CQ points out, this vote on its on own doesn’t much qualify as a profile in courage:

Most of the 52 House members who didn’t side with their party on Friday’s climate change vote represent congressional districts that backed the presidential nominee of the opposite party in last year’s election.

A lot of these members will face competitive races in 2010, and no doubt they will be brandishing this against-the-grain vote as evidence of their political independence.

He certainly will. But whether Reichert’s independence is driven by conscience or expedience remains to be seen.

Wow. The Seattle Times editorial board really sticks it to Jan Drago this morning. I wonder what this telegraphs?

Few Seattleites doubt Nickels deserves a stiff challenge for a third term. Fewer dispute the idea that politicians take credit for a variety of things they didn’t do.

But Drago’s pitch that she will improve relations with state government is diminished when she hypes her own impact.

Good communication relies on offering accurate descriptions. Take credit for what you really accomplished and don’t pretend your role was larger than it was.

Huh. I guess Drago shouldn’t count on getting the Times’ endorsement.

Kinda funny though to see candidates fighting over who deserves more credit for pushing through an unpopular and expensive tunnel.

Over on Publicola, Josh bashes his head against a poll:

A new survey USA poll has some surprising results: The bag fee isn’t a lost cause. In fact, it’s slightly ahead.

Asked: “Would you vote ‘Yes’ to add a .20 fee on disposable shopping bags?” 47 percent said they would. It’s almost a dead heat. 46 percent said ‘No.’

Um, hate to dis Josh on this one (well, actually it’s fun to dis Josh), but those are terrible numbers for the Yes camp. Measures like this tend to break toward the No side. Indeed, if I were running the Yes campaign I wouldn’t feel comfortable with anything less than a fifteen point margin at this point in the process… you know, before the chemical industry floods the airwaves and stuffs our mailboxes with their propaganda.

So actually, if these numbers can be trusted, the bag fee is starting to look like a lost cause.

To his credit, in his most recent column Ted Van Dyk doesn’t mention Lyndon Johnson once. You gotta appreciate such self-restraint. But dissing Sound Transit’s light rail by pointing to Phoenix’s problems in financing their own… I mean… WTF?

I thought the reason light rail would never work here is because Seattle is different than everywhere else. And now Van Dyk is insisting that it can’t work here because we’re too much like Phoenix? Really?

It is hard to question the environmental credentials of Mike McGinn and Mike O’Brien, both having served as strong, vocal leaders in the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. So why are these two passionately green candidates having so much trouble picking up sole endorsements from the broader environmental community in their respective races for mayor and city council?

Well it could have something to do with the Sierra Club’s well-earned reputation under the two Mikes’ leadership, for not working and playing well with others.

Talk to folks active with other environmental organizations and you’ll find that there’s still a lot of residual bitterness left over from the way the Sierra Club broke rank (and promises) during 2007’s failed Roads & Transit ballot measure campaign. And Sierra Club only rubbed salt in these festering wounds with their early endorsement of Dow Constantine in the King County Executive race, just a week before next Tuesday’s heavily promoted Green Choice Debate at Town Hall, sparking a flood of angry emails within the coalition of environmental organizations sponsoring the event.

“This was supposed to be an impartial forum,” one environmental leader complained to me. “Now, thanks to Sierra Club, Dow gets to come in there with the upper hand.”

Apparently, Sierra Club never promised to hold off on their endorsement until after the forum, which is why they’re not listed as part of the sponsoring coalition, but still… they couldn’t wait one week? No, that’s just not their style.

Now, after years of snubbing their noses at the broader environmental coalition, McGinn and O’Brien are asking these same organizations to hold their noses and endorse their respective candidacies. Yeah, well, good luck with that.

It’s one of those refrains we hear from candidates all the time, especially candidates coming from the private sector with little or no government experience, that they want to make government operate more like a business.

Really? You mean businesses like GM? Like Chrysler? Like Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual? Like Bernie Madoff? You mean even profitable, industry dominant businesses like Boeing?

The words “much delayed” are beginning to attach themselves to the Boeing 787 as if they are part of the brand name. On Tuesday came perhaps the most stunning delay of all: postponement of a first flight intended to show the world that the much-delayed Dreamliner was finally ready for prime time.

Yet it’s not.

The latest bungle has badly damaged Boeing’s already-dented credibility. It raises questions about its reliability compared with Airbus. And it sets the company up for a much tougher financial climb.

I can accept the argument that some aspects of government might work better if their operations were modeled more on some aspects of some businesses, but it is silly to assert that a candidate whose professional experience comes entirely from the private sector is more qualified to run a government than a candidate whose experience is mostly in the public. A) We don’t necessarily want to replicate in government, say, the project management prowess of a Boeing or the customer service practices of a Comcast, and B) private sector experience is not always relevant to the unique demands of public office.

For example, T-Mobile exec and Seattle mayoral wannabe Joe Mallahan likes to tout his business experience, but he won’t be able wring efficiency out of city government by outsourcing jobs to the Philippines or by attempting to bust powerful public employee unions. I’m not saying his business experience isn’t valuable, it’s just not automatically applicable on its own.

So enough of this “running government like a business” meme; it’s a crappy metaphor. Government is not a business (for example, it has no profit motive), and there are plenty of businesses, even profitable ones, just riddled with waste, fraud and abuse. What I want in a mayor or executive is somebody capable of efficiently running government as a government, as opposed to somebody intent on trying to turn government into something it is not.

Once again, Josh Marshall and his cohorts at Talking Points Memo have proven themselves the kings of the conceptual scoop. Something didn’t smell right about the bizarre disappearance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and they stuck with the story until the rotting corpse was uncovered.

But the same can’t be said for many in the legacy press, who if they didn’t entirely swallow the “hiking the Appalachian Trail” story hook, line and sinker, seemed lazily happy to take the bait. TPM joyously outlines some of the most credulous coverage in respectable outlets such as Politico, NBC and the Wall Street Journal, but perhaps the most embarrassing “reporting” came from the pages of our nation’s political paper of record:

The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza — in a Tuesday morning post hilariously headlined “Sanford Returns!” — reported that Sanford “will return to the state tomorrow after spending the last five days hiking the Appalachian Trail, according to a statement released by his office this morning.”

In fact, the Post fell so hard for the Appalachian Trail line that they even ran a story — “For the Gov, A Little Me Time,” by reporter Will Haygood, highlighting the quirkiness of Sanford’s decision to “trek off into the woods,” without ever stopping to ask whether tale was true. For good measure, the story reported: “The governor, it should be noted, is quite happily married” — something it had no way of knowing.

Ouch.

But as TPM’s Zachary Roth explains, there’s a larger point here than just taunting the legacy press. “It’s fair to say you didn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to think there might be something fishy going on here,” Roth wrote, yet the general lack of skepticism displayed by many in the mainstream press reveals a flaw in the medium itself.

None of these are the biggest crimes in the world, but still: It feels absurd to have to point this out, but politicians and their staffers frequently have reason to dissemble, about issues far more important than an extra-marital affair. Too often, though, the press treats public statements from elected officials’ offices — especially those purporting simply to provide information, like the Appalachian Trail line — as self-evidently accurate. It’s as if, despite everything, some in the press can’t quite bring themselves to believe that politicians might try to mislead people.

Part of this is structural. There’s almost no acceptable way for a mainstream reporter to explicitly tell readers that the information being put out by a powerful office-holder may be false or misleading. But the only way that this structural flaw will change is if individual reporters are willing to stick out their neck to change it.

Until then, people will read blog for stories like these.

HA is no TPM, and I’m no Josh Marshall (though both are certainly worthy of aspiration), but I do believe that some of my biggest contributions as a blogger, recognized or not, have come in a similar vein.

Yeah, I’ve broken my share of important stories, but I’m not a reporter in the traditional sense, in that I don’t get up every morning and pound a beat. Nor do I want to. Instead, like many bloggers, I mostly consume the reporting of others, looking for patterns they’ve missed or concepts they’ve misunderstood, attempting to fit the raw data of the daily news into a broader and, I hope, a more informative and engaging context. I’m not so much interested in reporting facts, as I am in uncovering the truth about the facts.

Some call this lazy. Whatever. Lazy or not, it still consumes the bulk of my waking day. And besides, it’s what bloggers like me do.

And it is this contribution to the public debate that is exactly what keeps readers coming back to blogs like mine.

Well, no, the Seattle Times hasn’t officially endorsed Fred Jarrett for King County Executive yet, but this morning’s editorial lauding him pretty much telegraphs that they will.

No surprise there, and no real complaint from me. I like Jarrett, and think he would make a fine executive. I don’t know that I’m voting for him in August, but I won’t be upset if he ultimately wins.

The only question remaining is whether the Times endorses one or two candidates in the August primary, and if the latter, whether they’re crazy enough to endorse Susan Hutchison?

Oops…

A second tunnel-boring machine for the Brightwater sewage-treatment plant has broken down, causing the layoff of 67 workers, King County officials said Tuesday.

King County wastewater officials said the westbound machine, nicknamed Rainier, has a problem with a part known as the cutterhead rim.

It’s not as badly damaged as the eastbound boring machine, known as Helene, which broke down last month and caused the layoff of 60 people. Nonetheless, repairs to Rainier, also known as BT-3, are expected to take months, according to Brightwater Project Manager Gunars Sreibers.

But don’t you worry about Seattle taxpayers being forced to pick up cost overruns on the Viaduct replacement, because thanks to “new technological advances” such mishaps could never happen when the state attempts to dig the largest diameter deep bore tunnel ever. I know that is so because the Discovery Institute says it is so, and there is no greater or more reliable source on issues of science and technology than those progressive folks at Discovery.

A lot of people cheat on their partners. A recent University of Washington study found a lifetime infidelity rate of 28 percent for men, 15 percent for women. If anything, I’m surprised the rate is so low.

So while I personally believe that fidelity is an integral part of a committed relationship, have never been unfaithful myself, and would have been inconsolably heartbroken to have been the victim of such, it’s not really any of my business what goes on within (or without) someone else’s marriage.  Unless, they make it my business, by being an arrogant, holier than thou, family-values hypocrite.

You know, like Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC).  Or US Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). Or US Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Or any number of other  pro-family, conservative politicians who have recently fallen victim to scandals of a sexual nature.

That Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is “packing fudge,” as one of my vile trolls puts it, is not a scandal, because he is openly gay, but would have been had Rep. Frank earned a reputation as a hateful, anti-gay bigot like the recently disgraced and deceased Spokane Mayor Jim West. Even former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat who never ran on a family values platform, ultimately fell victim more to his own hypocrisy than his sexual proclivities, when the former state Attorney General who had aggressively prosecuted prostitution rings, got caught frequenting one himself.

It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.

And that is what has always been so infuriating and offensive about righteously indignant Republicans attempting to brand themselves as the family values party—not their human frailty; we all suffer from that—but rather the sheer arrogance of their claim to be morally superior over others.

The scorn and ridicule now being heaped upon Sanford and Ensign is well deserved, for those who choose to wield their Christian faith as a political sword would do well to read their own Bible: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Amen.

Speaking of bullshit polls, HA readers have spoken, and Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos was the clear choice for the incumbent Seattle Democratic state representative who most deserves a serious challenge. (You know… not counting Speaker Frank Chopp.)

Sharon Tomiko Santos (37th)	51	42%
Mary Lou Dickerson (36th)	40	33%
Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney (46th)	30	25%

Huh. Of course, Santos is my representative, which makes this kinda awkward. Personally, I get along with her just fine, and have always found her accessible. Plus, I have a couple of fond memories of her verbally beating the crap out of Cheryl Chow (in the hallway outside a school closure town hall), and Terry Bergeson (to her face at a 37th LD endorsement meeting). When she’s on, she’ on.

But at least as of lately, Santos hasn’t been on nearly often enough, her voice virtually silent during recent legislative sessions. Her lack of production aside, Santos has also earned her reputation as being less progressive than her district, serving as an advocate for payday lenders, and an opponent of environmental causes. And while she talks a very good talk on tax restructuring, she doesn’t seem to have the will or the way toward getting there.

But perhaps what most qualifies Santos for a serious intra-party challenge is her role in the House leadership, where she serves under Chopp as Majority Whip. No, challenging the Speaker himself isn’t all that viable, but challenging one of his lieutenants is, and even a close race, if not a win itself, would send a very loud message to Chopp and the rest of the leadership that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

So, sorry Sharon, nothing personal, but I can’t argue with my readers’ choice.

The latest KING5/SurveyUSA poll in the King County Executive race came out last night, and while I know the media will focus on the top line figure, Creationist Susan Hutchison’s 41%, I think the real news, if the trend holds up, and if the whole survey isn’t bullshit, is the first indication that Councilman Dow Constantine may be breaking away from the rest of the Democratic pack.

Hutchison	41
Constantine	12
Phillips	7
Hunter	6
Jarrett	4
Goodspaceguy	3
Lippman	2
Lobdell	2
Undecided	23

The previous KING5 poll had Phillips at 9%, Constantine at 8%, and Hunter and Jarrett both at 5%, so the only move amongst the Democratic field that doesn’t appear to be mere statistical noise is that of Constantine. We’ll see.

As for Hutchison, whose numbers climbed from 34% to 41%, I still don’t buy it. I know the race is technically nonpartisan, but what we’re really seeing is a four-way Democratic runoff with Hutchison running unopposed as the lone Republican. And once her Democratic opponent and various constituent groups start spending money educating voters about where she stands on the issues, expect her current numbers with Democrats (31%) and liberals (24%) to drop well into the single digits.

Well, the Little Si Trail actually, but I’ll be out of contact with the office for a little while.

I understand that the political hoopla over yesterday’s scathing King County performance audit report is inevitable, with executive candidates falling all over themselves calling for government reform, but honestly, I’m not really sure what to make of it.

I don’t doubt that there are problems in county government, that there are some bad managers and messed up or missing procedures that need to be replaced or fixed. That’s true of all large bureaucracies, public and private sector, and that’s why we do performance audits in the first place.

But quite frankly, I’ve lost faith in State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s office to conduct and report performance audits fairly, honestly, and most of all, efficaciously.

As I’ve explained before, a performance audit is not a financial audit, does not come close to adhering to the same sort of strict, unwavering standards, and is neither objective nor irrefutable, even when done well. The primary goal of a financial audit is to keep the books honest and accurate by providing an outside, independent verification of an organization’s financial records, and as such, it is mostly an objective exercise in math. The primary goal of a performance audit is to uncover inefficiencies in procedures and/or execution, and to make recommendations on how to improve an organization’s operations. Performance audits are, by their nature, more subjective and less definitive.

Indeed, for a performance audit to be maximally effective it requires the active cooperation and participation of those being audited; when conducted well, a performance audit is meant to be a collaborative process. Unfortunately, by repeatedly using performance audits as a punitive political weapon—an opportunity to very publicly attack and humiliate state and local government officials—Sonntag has transformed his audits into an adversarial process that puts targeted agencies on the defensive, and thus works against the stated goal of increasing government efficiency.

Oh, Sonntag’s office proudly trumpets the millions of dollars the auditors claim that taxpayers might save if their recommendations were implemented, but how much taxpayers have saved, well, we have no idea. No idea which recommendations officials grudgingly implement after Sonntag’s orchestrated media thrashing, and no idea how effective these recommendations actually are.

I’m not refuting all or even some of the findings in the KC performance audit report; auditors appear to have uncovered some egregious and/or stupid practices. But I put the emphasis on “appear” because honestly, I don’t know that the report can be taken at face value, especially coming from an Auditor with a history of targeting his resources at agencies and programs he dislikes, and who has already compromised his impartiality by endorsing Susan Hutchison, the only Republican in the executive race, and the candidate with the least experience at running anything… other than her mouth.

Like I said, I understand all the hoopla and headlines. Journalists are famously skeptical of government agencies and officials. As they should be. It’s their job, and they wouldn’t be doing it properly if they didn’t jump all over a report like this.

But what really bugs the hell out of me about the coverage of this and previous Sonntag orchestrated hatchet jobs, is the complete and utter unquestioning credulity in which our media approaches the least audited agency in the state… the Auditor’s office itself.