Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Last Night's 43rd District Deb... | Happy Hour Roundup! »

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Last Night’s Candidate Debate: 43rd District State House Seat

Posted by on July 19 at 14:12 PM

My two cents on last night’s debate…although, mostly: Why I liked Jim Street…

although although, how he could have been way better. (Hint: Criticize the current legislature.)

Quickly: I thought Bill Sherman and Lynne Dodson and Jim Street emerged as the heavy weights. Those three owned the evening with the most presence/charisma (Sherman), energy (Dodson), and substance (Street). I think Jamie Pedersen disappeared. Dick Kelley seemed downright kooky. And Stephanie Pure, who I was rooting for, ping-ponged between displays of charismatic smarts & displays of being in-over-her-head on specific issues.

Okay: Personally, I liked Street the best. He distinguished himself by being the only candidate to really answer the “What would you cut out of the budget?” question. Rather than the standard D answer (“I’d find cuts in the $6.8 billion tax preferences handed out to special corporate interests”), Street called that approach “vague and fuzzy” and then proceeded to lay out stats on incarceration and vent about his frustration as a judge overseeing buy bust arrest cases. He said he would take the knife to the corrections budget. In fact, he started in on a passionate criticism of “The War on Drugs” before his time ran out, giving a hint that he’ll be a reformer on this issue. I dug him.

He also (twice) made biting comments about ridding ourselves of our addiction to auto-dependency. “We can’t rely on the automobile,” he warned after answering the “What House committee do you want to be on?” by saying definitively, the Transportation Committee.

I wish, however, that he had expanded that criticism to blast the current crop of Seattle Democrats in the house for standing by the line that the $2 billion for the Viaduct must accommodate auto capacity. If Street is as dedicated to reforming our auto culture as he appeared, he (and anyone else up there, really) should have slammed our local delegation for not standing up to WashDOT on that point. I know Ed Murray and Frank Chopp were in the audience and all, but if you’re afraid to challenge your colleagues…

Final note: I do wish the moderator (Heidi Wills) had forced the candidates to answer the 6 tailor-made questions that Eli, star news intern Sarah Mirk and I had suggested in our our debate preview last week.

Our candidate customized questions were:

For Lynne Dodson: “Do you part company with labor on any issue that’s in front of the legislature?”

For Dick Kelley: “Besides your push for publicly funded campaigns, what other issues do you want to push in the legislature?”

For Jamie Pedersen: “Is it true that you were against filing the marriage-equality lawsuit before you decided to join it?”

For Stephanie Pure: “With only 300 contributors—the lowest of all the candidates—do you have enough support to win this?”

For Bill Sherman: “As a King County prosecutor, would you press charges against the Critical Mass bicyclist involved in the altercation with undercover King County cops?”

For Jim Street: “As a city council member (in the 90s), why did you vote for the Teen Dance Ordinance? And how did you vote on Mark Sidran’s civility ordinances?”


CommentsRSS icon

"he would take the knife to the corrections budget"

The problem with that approach is that the DOC would then determine where to make the cuts. And they will make the cuts in inmate programs not in salaries and infrastructure; thus resulting in more prison violence, more over crowding and more violent and ileterate inmates that we on the outside would have to deal with and which we will then have to send back.

How would Street deal with that? It seems like the correct answer is true prison reform and the establishment of alternative sentencing for violent offenders. Reducing the DOC budget will not accomplish anything, other than prison overcrowding and less programs for inmates.

Seems like a change of heart from the guy who supported some of Sidran's crap and supported the TDO.

Oops.

Iliterate.

Actually, Seme, are you sure you went to the forum? Because what he was talking about (and the other candidates appeared to agree with, including Dick Kelley, whose wife is a judge) was basically not jailing people for drug crimes and the basic fact that our own county, King County, will be spending more than 100 percent of its total budget on the criminal justice system by 2010 if it continues at the rate it's going.

If it wasn't for Seattle making ganza the lowest priority for Seattle Police, we'd probably be even worse off, although the King County Keystone Cops and the feds seem to want to clog up our jails anyway. With bike riders, no less ...

Will... I had the same question. He clearly wasn't there.

Fair enough Will. I was, however referring to Josh's quote. The question from Frank Chopp was, What would you cut. What you are referring to came from an earlier response of him bragging of his judge days and his city council days. His response was I would cut the DOC budget and he did not go into detail of how he would deal with the DOC doing what they wanted with the budget.

Cheers.

Personally, I thought Jim Street came across as condescending and smarmy. And 100 years old: Although he promised at the beginning of the debate to "talk about what I'm going to do," nearly every response he gave after that was some version of "When I was on the council..." or "When I was a judge..." Experience is important, but ideas matter too, and Street didn't have many. His proposal to cut criminal justice parroted Dick Kelley's response (an easy thing to do, since Street came last on that question). His proposal to fix transportation? "Put all our taxes in one pot." His proposal to reduce our dependence on oil? "Reduce the number of miles we drive." That's nice rhetoric, but how about some concrete proposals? Funding transit over roads at the legislature takes political muscle, as Ed Murray discovered. Street's resume is impressive, but it takes more than a long track record (Street's 64) to provide real leadership.

This “debate” emphasized the most ridiculous thing about this whole race, that there are 6 different democrats running in this primary.

A couple of them, Stephanie Pure and Lynne Dodson for sure, are basically non contenders, and the only thing they're doing is taking up speech time that could be used on the real candidates.

What surprised me about Dick was his near terrible performance. Despite his immense time in the public eye, his performance made it look like this was his first debate ever. Not to ramble on, stutter or lose my train of thought (as Dick did), his biggest problem was that he couldn’t both speak and watch the clock, leading to running out of time at almost every question.

What I learned about Jim Street in this debate is that he mumbles, a lot. It wasn’t so much that I didn’t agree with most things that he said, but it was that I couldn't see him as a figurehead for my district when he couldn’t even articulate his well-though out agenda.
As for the remaining two candidates, Bill Sherman and Jamie Peterson, they both did a fairly good job. Of the two, Bill did a better job positioning himself as the natural choice but Jamie didn’t really do anything wrong which, compared to most of the crowd, puts him in a strong second.

My 2 cents

The easiest way to knock a few hundred thousand dollars off the King County Jail budget would be to enforce a cap on the overtime claimed by jail guards. It is not uncommon for some of the guards with the most seniority to claim 80 hours or more per week and take home more annual salary than the Executive or anyone else on the county payroll.

Josh, Jim Street did indeed mention drug criminalization, but Dick Kelley said it first (right after his attempted-humor plea for divine aid). In that question, most of the answers were "me too" following Kelley, though (to his credit) Pedersen concentrated his response on the "what would you fight to save" portion of the question.

Good point N, that matches my recollection. Dick Kelley mentioned it and Jim (think he was four candidates later) had puffed it up into a bigger comment. Pedersen did have an interesting response, in that he didn't just "me too".

Kelley mentioned the DOC generally, but Street talked about buy/busts specifically. It was more than just a "me too" answer.

Pedersen's "let me answer the second part first" was a cop-out.

Pedersen dodged the hard part of the question—what would you cut?—and took the easy part: What he would fight for? It's pretty easy to tell a roomful of liberals that you would "fight for" health care.

You're right. Kelley did talk about corrections. Street's answer, however, was more elaborate—getting at a critique of drug laws and incarceration numbers. And it seemed to be part of a larger agenda about fighting against "The War on Drugs."

We're having the candidates in next week. I'll find out if there's any substance to Street's rap or if he was just shining us on.

That's unfortunate, that Kelley didn't come across well in this particular forum. Having spoken to him on a number of occasions, I can attest to the fact that he's normally a pleasant, articulate, intelligent person, and not "kooky" in the least.

I agree, Geni, in person, and in lobbying at the legislature, Dick Kelley is very effective. It felt like, for some bizarre reason, he decided to "tone it down" for the forum, which is kind of strange if you know him. I thought that Bill Sherman was the best at judging the correct level of animation and intensity for the audience and the room. Jamie Pedersen seemed pretty out of place, although to be fair, I got that vibe from Jim Street and Lynne Dodson as well.

So, nobody has comments about the challenger for Jim McDermott's seat who was at the event?

Josh – you and the Slog readers deserve a straightforward answer to your question, and I’m happy to oblige.

The question is: “As a King County prosecutor, would you press charges against the Critical Mass bicyclist involved in the altercation with undercover King County cops?”

My answer: I would not file charges in this case. Assaults on officers are very serious – they have an exceedingly difficult job, stressful and dangerous, and they deserve our respect and thanks. They also deserve the full protection of the law. I have often filed assault charges dealing with attacks on officers, and I expect to file more such charges in the future.

With all the ordinary caveats – I haven’t read the police reports, and only know what I’ve read in America’s Hometown Paper, etc. – as a prosecutor, you basically face three questions: Did a crime occur? Can it be proven to a jury? And what outcome would be in the interest of justice and the community? In this case, there is serious doubt that a crime occurred – the weight of evidence suggests not, and suggests that even if a cyclist did assault an officer, there is doubt that he knew that it was an officer – an essential element of the crime. Second, given the statements that have been discussed in the press, even if a crime occurred, it cannot be proven. Taken together, the just result is not hard to find: I would not file charges.

Josh's question in response to my statements last night, “Besides your push for publicly funded campaigns, what other issues do you want to push in the legislature?” is one I am happy to answer. I have knocked on over 10,000 doors since February and talked about the same issues to everyone: investing more in our children from childcare to preschool to K-12 to college; marriage equality; doing whatever it takes to clean up Puget Sound; funding low-income housing and human services; and putting our transportation dollars into transit, buses, HOV lanes and bicycle lanes and not building any more general-purpose lanes into Seattle. My campaign literature is very specific on these issues.

These things cost money, and I have consistently advocated three areas of tax reform: first, a serious review of all the $6.8 Billion per year in private tax preferences in the State tax code, aimed at reducing the amount that is drained out of the treasury before it gets to the budget; second, shifting the B&O tax to a net-profits tax; and ultimately a progressive income tax to reduce or eliminate the regressive taxes we have now. It was great to hear all the candidates talking about cutting the private tax credits and exemptions last night, after my working to interest people in the idea for months.

But these reforms, and these changes in spending priorities, will never happen as long as special interests and big campaign contributors have as much power in the Legislature as they do now. That is why I intend to introduce an Arizona-style public campaign financing bill, and that is why I am not accepting any contribution of more than $100 per person per election, and the same for organizations. So far over 650 people have contributed, and many say the reason they gave is my limit on contributions. In the shadow of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, there is real desire in the 43rd for reducing the power of money in our democracy.

The Stranger deserves credit for devoting so much effort to covering the race.

-Dick Kelley

Now Dick is thinking to himself "Damn! If only I had clicked `post' two minutes earlier I would've beaten that damned Sherman!".

On another note, the Stranger should totally do a Stranger-style forum (with the Bullshit cards, lightning round, etc) for this race sometime in late August. It would ROCK!

really glad to see that drug law issues came up (especially buy busts, which are an utter waste of police resources and taxpayer $$).

When the Stranger crew grills the candidates I hope you focus in on the drug issue. In particular, the King County Bar Association has had an active drug policy reform project for several years and is highly regarded. I'd love to know the candidates stance on the bar association's recommendation's -- esp. the one calling for a state commission to examine current laws and the possibility of setting up our own regulatory scheme.

Glad Chopp was there to hear it -- despite his liberal background and social service work he has been tone deaf on the issue of drugs and has not backed drug policy reform candidates.

Although I support Lynne Dodson, I wanted to follow-up on Josh’s comments re: Jim Street’s position on the criminal justice budget. I have spent the last 5 years working with others trying to improve the criminal justice system in Washington State. We have made a lot of progress on sentencing reform and alternatives but we always hit a brick wall with Frank Chopp and most of the other Democratic leadership (including Ed Murray when he chaired the capital budget which controls the prison construction budget).

Washington State continues to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars to build new prisons even though alternatives exist. And then we pit human services, healthcare and education against each other (it’s a similar framework on the national level with the continued growth of the military budget).

Chopp and the others are afraid Dems will be labeled “soft on crime” even though the suggested policy changes are supported by a majority of the public and by research and practices in other areas. This has been particularly disappointing since the Dems control the House, Senate and Governor’s office. We have a new Director of the Dept. of Corrections, Harold Clarke, who is open to positive change and has a successful record.

All of the hype by Chopp and Murray at the beginning of the event last night about civil rights and progressive values doesn’t extend to poor people with drug and alcohol problems and mental health issues. They are expendable in our privileged political system.

The War on Drugs has been a serious struggle that has weakened families and communities over the past 15 years. I believe Lynne Dodson and Jim Street will challenge the Democratic leadership and I don’t think the others have the political courage and abilities to take them on (with the possible exception of Dick Kelley).

jim street is not getting my vote and here's why: he has piss poor social skills. i once had the displeasure of speaking to him on the phone and he was rude, brusque and arrogant. this is not an anomaly; two other people i know who have dealt with him personally have confirmed this. i don't want a representative who is full of himself and thinks he's hot snot on china! i don't care how smart he is or that he was a judge/seattle city councilmember. BFD. the reason i like ed murray is because he works hard AND likes people. i'm not feeling that with Jim Street.

There was no single clear winner last night, but there was a clear division between three viable, deserving and compentent candidates and three others who don't measure up.
Street, Dodson and Sherman were by far the best performers in the "debate". Each demonstrated varying degrees of energy, intelligence and perspective (read: experience) that would enable them to be successful in Olympia. I'll refrain from highlighting and comparing these three leaders out of fear of suggesting that I favor one of the three, because I don't--yet.
Petersen, Pure and Kelley each demonstrated to the crowd why they won't be and why they shouldn't be the winner in this race. I'll gladly slice these three, as most of the criticisms have already been said. Petersen came across as smarmy with little passion for politics. His answers and overall tone was completely uninspiring. Pure was "perky" but it takes more than a positive mental attitude to govern. Last time we elected a Tracy Flick we got Heidi Wills who was a major disaster (and it appears that Wills is now applying her political acumen to her hair styling). Pure just doesn't have a grasp of the issues. Kelley probably understands the issues, but he needed too long to answer the questions. And, like Petersen, Kelley was uninspiring. I think I have read the word "yawn" next to his name in every post. None of these three--Petersen, Pure or Kelley--make the cut in my opinion.

Holy SHIT, Good Manners Count, did you vote for George Bush too, because he'd be such a great guy to have as a neighbor? And ECB, are you insane? 64 is the new 32. Experience is a HUGE plus in the legislature. What a crappy set of criteria for choosing an elected official!

An election is, first and foremost, about who can get the job done - who has the track record, the smarts and the balls to deal with the disgusting sausage-making that goes on in Olympia.

Now try going to bed with THAT image in your head...

no, jtroop, i did not vote for dubya AT ALL. i am merely saying that if you want a life in politics, being inconsiderate and rude isn't going to get you far, no matter how experienced you are. now calm down, please.

I didn't attend the event, but I'll second the general sentiment that Jim Street is an arrogant high-handed know-it-all based my experiences with him as a City Councilmember, and also based on the fact that he hadn't changed a bit when I saw him a couple of months ago at a small group meeting. He doesn't really come across as rude - it's just that he knows better than you, and is only listening to you because he has to.

He's certainly qualified enough (probably more than anyone on the list), but he sure as hell ain't responsive - a very bad trait in any elected offical.

Oh, and as I recall, Street also voted for the Civility Ordinances.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).