Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« When It Rains, It Pours | Pay For Lifework »

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Why is a Prominent Democrat Endorsing a Republican Candidate?

posted by on September 13 at 12:10 PM

Prominent Democratic attorney Jenny Durkan—she’s best pals with Gov. Gregoire, she famously argued the 2004 election case on behalf of the Dems and won big, and as Eli reported this week, she’s a big John Edwards fan—has been criticized for endorsing the Republican candidate for King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg.

I had talked to her about this on background a few weeks ago to find out why in a year like 2007 she of all people would help the GOP.

Then, today, this e-mail, from a Democratic Party activist, came in:

Jenny Durkan has seriously damaged her credibility as a Democrat, and that of every issue and candidate she touches by endorsing the Republican, Dan Satterberg for King County Prosecutor. The Democrats on the street, Precinct Committee Officers and “party hacks”, work too hard for our excellent Democratic candidates to have the likes of “glamorous ms. Durkan endorsing the opposition. Why don’t you write about her Lieberman like turncoat behavior?

I’m not going to weigh in on the Satterberg v. Bill Sherman race (his Democratic opponent) here, but the e-mail did prompt me to call Durkan back today. I had found her reasoning convincing when we spoke on background a few weeks ago, and so, seeing this angry e-mail I wanted to give her a shot at defending herself.

So, she went on record.

First of all (or, in the firstable spot), Durkan has a longtime personal connection with Satterberg. She went to UW law school with him in the 80s where she and Satterberg were two of seven students who started up and worked on a public defenders clinic providing indigent defense. She also worked with Satterberg counseling prisoners.

More important, though, she says Satterberg is just more “seasoned.”

“When you stack them up side by side, Dan has the seasoning, experience, and temperment to decide who lives and dies, to decide wether or not to file charges, and to decide policy direction.”

Specifically, regarding policy direction, Durkan credits Satterberg in part for getting KC drug court up and running.

Regarding the death penalty, Durkan says Satterberg was “in the room every time Norm [Maleng, the previous KC Prosecutor] had to make that decision. I want someone who’s been in the room. He’s been through it. I trust him to make the right decision. He can withstand the public heat.”

Durkan also points to her “vociferous criticisms” of former AG Alberto Gonzales over the John McKay affair to make two points. One: She liked McKay, a Republican. Two: Partisan agendas should not be a factor in law enforcement jobs, like it cleary was with Gonzales.

“Who’s best for the job should be the question. Republican or Democrat should not,” she says.

She also says her endorsement of Satterberg is no slam on Sherman. She doesn’t think Sherman is as qualified, but she says she respects him and thinks he would be good at the job too. She also thinks Sherman—in a blue year in a blue state, in a blue county—is going to win. “Neither candidate is going to be able to spend the money to change voters from just voting along party lines,” she says. “The voters aren’t really going to know who either one is.”

Conspiracy theory: I also asked Durkan is she had lots of contracts with the KC Prosecutors office and just wanted to maintain the status quo. (Satterberg was Maleng’s chief of staff.) “I don’t think I’ve ever had a contract with the County,” she said. “I’ve sued them, though.”

RSS icon Comments

1

I just hope that "seasoning" is Bacon Salt.

Posted by Levislade | September 13, 2007 12:11 PM
2

I'd rather eat glass than vote for a Republican.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 13, 2007 12:21 PM
3

*clearly

I kinda like that idea: who's best for the job should be what matters, not the party affiliation. Naturally, though, who's best for the job tends to be who's not running. See: Gore?

Posted by Katelyn | September 13, 2007 12:23 PM
4

If a moderate Republican is going to occupy any public office, I'd rather it be in law enforcement. However, who gives a shit if Satterlee has been in the room when a death penalty decision is made? What is his actual opinion on it? Sherman's is essentially con -- the only acceptable position as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 13, 2007 12:29 PM
5

Satterberg: Pro-Dino Rossi. Pro-Rob McKenna. Anti-gun control. Pro-death penalty. Pro-war on drugs. Anti-police accountability.

Can you really believe that Satterberg's Republicanism doesn't matter to how justice is pursued in King County?

Josh, are you fucking crazy?

Posted by Huh | September 13, 2007 12:37 PM
6

The Democratic Party activist is an idiot.

I'm an avowed liberal progressive homo, but I refuse to subscribe to the notion that I should vote all Democrat all the time, straight party ticket, no matter what.

I was watching the candidate forum yesterday at the GSBA lunch. Both Satterberg and Sherman spoke. If not for the fact that Shatterberg is a Republican, he seemed perfectly reasonable, even to an extremely liberal audience. Very pro-gay rights, etc., even when pressed on the recent cases where the cops appeared to be ignoring the hate-crime angle in gay bashings. Sherman, on the other hand, came across as completely pandering and fear-mongering in his opening statement.

Although I vote Democrat 99% of the time, I don't feel like I owe them my vote. They still gotta earn it. If Shatterberg were to win (which I agree seems unlikely at this point), I doubt it would do damage to the democratic party. It won't tilt the balance of power either in King Co. or Olympia. If he is the better candidate, I don't see the harm in voting for him, despite his party affiliation.

At this point, after my only personal interaction with the two, I am more likely to vote for Shatterberg, the first Republican I've voted for in about a decade.

Posted by SDA in SEA | September 13, 2007 12:43 PM
7

@2 - so you share the same black and white mindset as the bible thumping value voters. way to show them how enlightened democrats are!

seriously. we live in an overly politicized country, and it obviously sucks. If someone is the better person for the job, then they should get it. For a bunch of people who knock religion, commenters on slog sure exhibit a lot of the simple minded traits of true believers.

heil healthcare.

Posted by stupid is as stupid does | September 13, 2007 12:45 PM
8

I regretted voting for a Republican for Secretary of State, a "non-partisan" position. I'm not going to do it again. King County Prosecutor is classic political stepping stone position. I don't trust Satterburg not to happily carry water for his party.

Posted by mirror | September 13, 2007 12:54 PM
9

people (including, josh and jenny, apparently) are forgetting that this is a political office that provides a great deal of sway IN OTHER ELECTIONS. an endorsement from the king county prosecutor goes a long way towards convincing all those law and order folks who they should vote for. you know, all those law and order folks on the eastside where we are trying to elect a democrat in '08.

guess whose going to be getting the endorsement of satterberg if he wins? here's a hint: they won't have a "d" after their name.

go bill sherman.

Posted by xiu xiu | September 13, 2007 1:00 PM
10

Hey stupid @ 7,

See comments 4, 5, 8 & 9.

I'm gay and the Republicans' goal is to spread hatred and destroy me and my family. They don't see me as an equal citizen or even a human being - their politics are ugly and it's personal.

So why don't you chew on that for awhile, stupid.

Posted by Original Andrew | September 13, 2007 1:12 PM
11

I gotta ask... you guys are the 'alternative' to what exactly!?
It's like you're all composing new anti-bad-boy resumes... showing how mature, how fair and balanced, how professional you can be.

Building credibility for those MSM jobs that are sure to pop up as the even-older-than-you-are reporters finally retire.

Posted by macaca | September 13, 2007 1:13 PM
12

@8 what did sam do that was so bad? did i miss something?

Posted by infrequent | September 13, 2007 1:21 PM
13

Hey stupid at 10, really, I mean do you really feel that it at all helps the dialog when when you paint everyone with a such a broad brush, god forbid, that maybe we should value people as individuals, your logic is like someone saying that just because your from the U.S. you are in full support of all its policies, and also, the fight hate with hate thing seems to really be working, it sure has shown those Islamic fundamentalists, I'm mean there is less of them now right, oh...I guess not

Posted by WA | September 13, 2007 1:26 PM
14

@2 - yup.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 13, 2007 1:33 PM
15

Yo Josh:

Ask Tim Burgess if he endorses Satterberg.

Posted by no one | September 13, 2007 1:42 PM
16

WA @ 13,

The Republicans have become institutionally hateful, corrupt and dishonest. A vote for one of them is a vote for all of them. Show them the slightest compassion, and that's when they'll attack you.

Jane Smiley says it far better:

"The Republican Party now seems to work like a gang, in which the most valued qualities in members are loyalty to the gang and the leader, obedience to authority, and violence toward outsiders.

...when you reject common humanity, value profits above people, practice sectarian religion, feel contempt for the choices of others, exalt wealth, conflate consumerism with citizenship, join exclusive clubs, daily practice unkindness rather than kindness, and develop theories, such as those of free market capitalism, that allow you to congratulate yourself morally for selfishness and short-sightedness, then being a gang member is in your future."

Isn't that the very definition of the modern Republican Party now that they've abandoned the farce of small government, personal responsibility, etc?

Posted by Original Andrew | September 13, 2007 1:47 PM
17

Satterberg had better pray for a miracle. Leaving Maleng's many re-elections aside, no Republican has won a countywide election in King County since former Executive Tim Hill - who preceded Gary Locke as County Executive. That's a long time ago...and King County has only grown bluer and bluer since.

Posted by Roger | September 13, 2007 2:36 PM
18

Thank goodness people like Bill Maher can joke about this sad business:

"Republicans sex scandals are getting to be like Iraqi car bombings. By the time you hear about one, there's been another. Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Vitter, Craig...

It's like "Clue" only the answer is always "A Republican... in the washroom... with his cock."

Posted by Original Andrew | September 13, 2007 2:53 PM
19

Dan Satterberg is republican in name only. He's a really good guy and his heart is in the right place about law enforcement and all other issues. Bill Sherman is not qualified for the job, period. Durkan is for him because she knows this and has the balls to say it out loud. And I think the election panel from the Stranger will see it in the interviews with both guys. Hell, Sherman says the same thing. He has party hacks saying differently, but from his mouth he says Satterberg is a great guy.Voting a straight party ticket is what the current type of republican does today: mindless, reflexive party voting regardless of self interest or reason.

Posted by Natalya | September 13, 2007 4:13 PM
20

@ 19 "Dan Satterberg is Republican in name only"

Huh? Then why not switch parties. It's certainly not going to hurt him in King County.

Also, his past political contributions would indicate that he is, in fact, a die hard Republican. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

Posted by xiu xiu | September 13, 2007 4:26 PM
21

#11 - The Stranger is the "alternative" to honesty and good journalism.

Get with the program.

Posted by Li'l Black Rain Cloud | September 13, 2007 4:48 PM
22

SEAMEC endorsed Satterberg.

That is hight praise for the gay rating project, decades of experience.

Sherman is a dolt. But he did something good in Arizona years ago - or so he says.

Posted by pride fairy | September 13, 2007 7:15 PM
23

If Satterberg's a RINO, then he should become a Democrat. Otherwise, he's not getting my vote. Since at least the 1968 presidential election, there's been a false perception that Republicans are the law and order party, and that's hurt Democrats at all levels and helped saddle us with bad policies like the worst aspects of the drug war. We've gutted rehabilitation and turned prisons into schools for hardened criminals. The only way this kind of thing turns around is to directly challenge the idea that Republicans are the guardians of law and order. In an era where the GOP is synonymous with abuse of power and criminality, that perception is less relevant than ever.

Vote for Sherman.

Posted by Cascadian | September 14, 2007 12:49 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).