this whole slog entry is silly, without much substance.... but was Conlin even a WA state resident in 1980 or was he still living in Michigan ?

I guess I'll send Conlin $200 to ensure a sane liberal beats one that over the line.

As I said at Publicola, it doesn't really matter what Sawant's income is - it's how she spends the money. I would think as a Socialist, she likely gives a lot of money away to causes she believes in.

I don't get this tactic but it's unworthy and unbecoming of Conlin (or whoever is doing it).

Erica... seriously?? 100k income is ABOVE middle class? Shit, I would call it just getting by in the Seattle area. Sure, 40 to 60k might be what republicans are calling middle class but the middle class once was able to do much more than live paycheck to paycheck. I shudder to think what people making 20 to 30k have to deal with.

"We all know how this game is played: Conlin pushes the smear to PubliCola. PubliCola publishes. Then Conlin sends out an attack mailer citing PubliCola as his independent source, giving the charge an air of credibility. That's electoral politics."

Well, ok, if that's how the game is played (and I'm not sure that I agree that Publicola is playing the game... I actually think this is a fair issue for investigative reporting.) But to be fair, the Stranger has been playing that game for years as well...

So just to be clear, it's okay for the Stranger to call the candidate they don't like a "huge-headed tooth balloon," a "green-washed liberal fraud," a "snake-oil-sweating charlatan," etc. But if someone dares ask the candidate they like to explain her personal finances (which appear to be in conflict with her platform) there is outrage and disgust and a "lack of respect."
Seems reasonable.

Just a note that Seattle community college adjuncts receive full benefits. 401K, sick time, health insurance. The pay is shit, of course, because they are only part-time, but the job does come with benefits here.

This type of smear on a local level is especially disgusting. It brings all new meaning to the talking point of divisive politics.

I propose she changes the name of her column to "The H is for Hack."

On the bright side, she is closer to landing her dream job with Mr. Blethen.

You can't both want wealthy people to be more socially responsible and then (inaccurately) attack those that are.

To be in the 1% you have to have a family income of more than $350,000 or so.

Doesn't Conlin make more than $100,000 a year being on the council?

@7 Some people would hold a political campaign to a higher standard than SLOG posters.

So, in Conlin's worldview, Mahatma Gandhi would have been disqualified from speaking on behalf of India's impoverished because he came from an affluent family; likewise, Martin Luther King, Jr., should never have been given a leadership role in the Civil Rights Movement because he came from (what would have been considered at the time) an upper middle-class background. And of course, the father of modern Socialism, Karl Marx, is to be thoroughly discredited as a voice of the proletariat because his father was a wealthy bourgeoisie.

Okay, just so I'm clear on that point...

When you need to stab a woman in the back, always send another woman to do the dirty work.

@18: First, Goldy wrote the post not Dom.

Second, Goldy didn't ask those sorts of questions because, as he eloquently puts it: it's none of his fucking business. It's none of yours, mine or anyone else's business why she's opted for a separation and not a divorce.

@18 People do long term legal separation for all sorts of reasons. It can be financially advantageous to stay married for tax or other purposes and it may make things simpler if kids are involved.

Frankly it is none of our business.

Wasn't it Erica who got caught shoplifting a few years back?

Erica seems like a terrible person. So glad she left the stranger. Sad she is still in journalism.

Goldy…I was hoping your article would actually outline why this line of attack from Conlin is actually bad politics, but you didn't quite get there.

As I see it, if you're going to fling mud, you should do so in a manner that highlights your opponents weakness, not their strengths.

Sawant, if anything, appears to be very committed to her ideals and her activism. Trying to paint the picture that she's simply a hack and not therefore not authentic in her position forces the question. Is she sincere?

And, so far as I can see, she's hella sincere and observance will reinforce this on the average voter. So, Conlin launched an attack that in theory is targeted to discredit Sawant, but in the end, only reinforces the integrity of his opponent.

That's not a wise political move.

In addition…he's now giving her tons of earned media opportunities to further her messaging, to get us all talking about her ideals and ideas, and that translates to hard dollars worth of exposure that she likely couldn't have funded on her own.

Again, poor political strategy.

All this bullshit over a city council seat? Christ.

Politicians use smear tactics because they work, in determining votes of some percentage of voters. We need to educate people on this basic principle in order to reduce that percentage, and make it backfire on the negative campaigns.

@24 I know I shouldn't engage anon trolls, but come on, if you actually read the post you'd clearly see that explained. Also, I love how you say socialism as if it were a slur, it's a giveaway of your age.

All that aside, I just donated to her campaign. Not just because of this post, but at least partially spurred on because of it.

This country needs a good kick to the left, and I'd love to see some serious discussion in our society in general about where it makes sense to have socialism and where it makes sense to have capitalism in our economy. Ignoring the fact that we're not a purely capitalist system already, and pretending that socialism has no benefits is idiotic.

@21 - I didn't see where it said anywhere that she legally separated from her husband. It read to me like they had not done any paperwork to that effect.

And I think you contradict yourself a little in what you're saying. If someone is staying legally married solely to receive some sort of beneficial tax treatment, doesn't that hit directly on their ability to be truthful? The whole purpose of getting these benefits is because you're married. If you're not really married anymore, but you obtain some sort of benefit by claiming you are, aren't you in some way perpetuating a fraud on people?

Having said all of that, if they're not getting any preferential tax treatment or other benefit from staying married, then I agree with those who say "who gives a shit?"

I've heard the "Sawant advocates for a $15 an hour minimum wage but pays her workers $10 an hour" line of attack from several commenters/real people. I'm going to vote for her either way, but I'm curious about where that came from and if it is a work of fiction.

@32, it was an Erica C Barnett Sept 20th "Isn't It Weird"
http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profi…

Isn't It Weird That...

Kshama Sawant, the Socialist candidate who's running against city council member Richard Conlin, is campaigning on a proposal to raise Seattle's minimum wage to $15 an hour (it's even on her campaign signs)—yet, in a Craigslist ad seeking campaign door-knockers to promote Sawant's campaign, she offers a wage of just $10 an hour (barely above the existing Washington state minimum of $9.19 an hour)?

"We are challenging the corporate policies of the Seattle City Council and fighting for a $15 an hour minimum wage, affordable housing through rent control, and a Millionaires Tax to fund mass transit and education," the ad says, before noting: "Compensation: $10/hour."

We have a message out to Sawant about the seeming contradiction.

Thank you for pulling the comment with the slur against women. Moderators have been doing an awesome job lately.

How do we know Conlin fed this to Erica at Publicola? She and Josh typically comb all the candidate disclosure forms and post whatever they find, even if it's usually dullish.

@31 Not at all. The law is pretty clear on what different status for filling entail and so long as you follow those there is no fraud. Even if it may contradict your personal view of what those statuses mean.

I have absolutely no idea why she has chosen this, but there are perfectly legally reasons someone might choose to do so. Or conversely choose to not be legally married even though they essentially are.

Absent some evidence of illicit conduct running for office should not entail people prying into your private life.

I should not have said legally separated. No idea what her status is.

Someone should ask "anti-car" Erica about her car.

Not only is she a hack journalist, she's a hypocrite.

In the same way she is criticizing Sawant for having some income and that somehow precludes her from advocating for the working poor/working class.

just as Erica (and many of us) can have a car and still advocate for less automobile use.

fundamentally, Erica is an idiot. Publicola/Met would be better served by letting her go find a minimum wage at Subway. Maybe one day that will be $15/hour.

@40 - "This is a socialist here who wants to nationalize amazon, Boeing and Starbucks among others."

really? haven't heard that as one of her positions.

What ever happened to electing moderate democrats? Far left and far right are not known to compromise.

@36, how do we know that Erica had an original thought?

To be fair, Sawant has apparently never been poor and desperate enough to shoplift a bottle of wine, so how can she really understand the struggles of the 99%?

@43, list pass Charter Amendment 19 and see how radical the response becomes to the at-large council.
I think that there is a current extreme response to a current at-large council.
I think it moderates on idiology and radicalizes on the mundane public services and downtown centric power structure.

Just a note that Seattle community college adjuncts receive full benefits.

They get benefits after they've begun teaching a second consecutive term at a 50% or higher workload and they have to continue working at 50% to remain eligible. The school makes absolutely no guarantee that anyone is going to have any work the next term. There are many instructors who don't get enough work to get benefits.

I'm actually kind of stunned by Barnett's smear. It's been hard for me to put a finger on what exactly rubs me the wrong way in her writing, but this claim that someone with a high income can't support the working class without being a hypocrite is straight out of the rightwing playbook. It's right up there with claiming that how a woman dresses is proof that she's asking for it.

@2

Ha! Love it.

Conlin already has more money than he knows what to do with. There a limit to how many votes you can buy with establishment money. No amount of money can make people start to like an unctuous empty suit. He should be crushing Sawant by listing his dozens of legislative accomplishments he racked up in his 16 years in that City Council chair. But all he has is some shit about letting you keep a pet goat. Nothing against goats, to be sure. Who doesn't like goats? But come on. Sixteen years. Sixteen!

Sawant has a fired up base and a one dollar campaign contribution to her puts as many votes in her column as $1,000 to an unpopular, well-financed creature like Conlin. So go ahead, my friend. Dash off all the checks you want to that money pit of a candidate. Too bad you can't donate some accomplishments for him to run on instead of mere money. That's what he could really use about now.

@32 and @34, although it appeared an another of Erica Barnett's hit pieces and has been often repeated, it is not true that the Sawant campaign is paying anyone $10/hr, as Erica herself knows. The finances of the Sawant campaign, as any other, are all public record and available online.

Unfortunately, it seems clear that Erica Barnett as very little concern for the accuracy of what she reports, or for that matter, engaging in the substantive issues in the race.

In regards to actual issues, one very clear affect of the Sawant campaign is that the $15/hr minimum wage has gained considerable momentum, as well as national media coverage, and could no longer be ignored by the mayoral candidates as a result. The Atlantic covered this yesterday:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch…

If we aren't allowed to care about economic justice, would it make you happy if every hundred-thousandaire like me said "fuck it" and became a Republican clamoring for tax cuts, Erica?

@38 - I guess what I'm trying to say is that staying married can be perfectly legal and appropriate under the law, even if you're functionally not really married anymore. But just because it's legal, where it becomes more of a gray area is in whatever moral judgments people want to make about the conduct. Just because something is perfectly legal doesn't mean that others will believe it is right.

In theory, it should be nobody's business if it's not illegal. But we all know when you run for office, the expectation is that you open yourselves up to these kind of moral value judgments by the public, who inevitably hold you to a higher standard than Joe Blow. So I suspect that this will not be the end of this story.

@53 "Publicoloa" Public aloha. Goodbye Publicola.

Just to put a bit of perspective on the marital status issue. As far as the IRS is concerned, a couple is considered legally married and therefore eligible to file a joint federal tax return so long as they have not filed for either separation or divorce anytime during the current tax year. So, regardless of any sort of "moral obligation", Ms Sawant and her husband are perfectly within their rights in this matter. In fact, unless one of them is paying a large tax debt, it simply doesn't make sense for a legally married couple, regardless of other considerations, to file anything but "Married, Filing Jointly", as this is the filing category with the highest standard exemption, and the one with the lowest assessed tax rate.

In short: only a complete idiot would file something different than "MFJ" if they weren't obligated to do otherwise.

What the fuck happened to Erica, oh Stranger? She's turned into a complete fucking hack. Is that what you guys teach your staff to grow up to become?

Just because someone in the media is criticizing a candidate doesn't mean he or she takes matching orders from that candidate's opponent. That's a pretty big assumption, and one that doesn't suggest the height of journalistic ethics.

Besides, why would anyone need a smear campaign to run against crackpot who wants to collectivize Amazon, for crying out loud?

@60 -- My bullshit detector was going off bigtime at her statement. I'm with you, there must be more to this story.

@59 -- I get that there is a purely intellectual reason to file married jointly on your taxes. Depending on your income you'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. Again, though, that's not really what we're talking about here. Is it the right thing to do -- even if it's totally legal -- to get a tax benefit out of a marriage that is a complete fiction? That's exactly the sort of question that someone running for office -- someone who makes policy decisions for the public like who is taxed and at what level -- needs to answer. And she won't do it. Why?

I think I also realized what else kind of galls me about her statement. Over the past few years I've had to justify my opinion that anybody should be able to get married -- gay or straight -- to people who don't agree with my perspective. Part of my justification is that marriage is about people who love each other, and we as a society shouldn't stand in the way of that. I feel like people who are staying in a fictional marriage for no apparent reason other than $ makes a mockery of everything that marriage is supposed to be, and everything that people have so eloquently argued it should be over the past few years.

While everyone is throwing mudpies, the real question remains unanswered.

To what extent can a Seattle City Councilman, operating out of band, with socialist leanings, make any meaningful change?

I can only see these outcomes. She'll get in there and criticize everything loudly, but will be unable to effect change, and get censured by the insiders.

This is what happened to Mike McGinn.

Or, she'll cave in, adopt the quiet liberalism of Seattle, where you acquiesce to big money, and take their noblesse oblige and distribute it to the poor.

This is what happens to everyone else.

Or, she's really a wolf in sheep's clothing, and under the guise of affordability she'll implement every neighborhood busting apodment building density increasing scheme that will devalue home owners in the neighborhoods and allow her silent backers to take over, all the while getting the dupes to cheer on loudly about how great it all is.

This is too horrible to think about, but based on comments I see in STB and SLOG. Yeah, it's a living.

@67 Log House Republicans called. They want their troll back.

Hey, Goldy. I'm a Kshama Sawant supporter. (In the last legislatives I not only voted for her against Frank "Big Health" Chopp but I wrote her in against Jamie "Microsoft" Pedersen.) I just wanted to point out a huge fallacy in your post. You wrote:

Sawant now shares a modest one-bedroom, 835 square foot Capitol Hill condo with her current partner, who Sawant assures me earns less than six figures. How much less? I didn't ask. Because it's none of my fucking business.

Actually, it is very much your and every other political journalist's fucking business to flesh out the professional and personal financial portrait of politicians, their partners, and their family members. Why? Because those private interests may conflict with the public interest. Would you say it was none of anyone's fucking business that former senator Evan Bayh's wife was earning a shitload of money as a Wellpoint director as he was pondering whether to allow a "public option" to compete Wellpoint's profitability down? Would you say it was none of anyone's fucking business that Susan Rice and her husband owned several hundred thousand dollars' worth of shares in TransCanada as she was being considered for Secretary of State, where she (or an underling exercising "independent judgment") would be the one to sign off on TransCanada's Keystone XL project? Would you say it's none of anyone's fucking business that congresswoman Suzan DelBene's husband is a Microsoft division president as she ponders her position on antitrust, trade, immigration, intellectual property, and tax legislation? If Elizabeth Koch were to run for political office, would it be no one's fucking business to inquire into how much her husband, Charles, makes and how he makes it?

So, yeah, this particular attack was an unfounded smear and it is possible for some rare politicians to consistently place their principles and the public interest above their own personal interests. But the occupations, incomes, and private financial interests of politicians and their family are real or at least potential conflicts of interest that we are entitled to know about and that you are obligated to inquire into for us.

@ 67, yes. It's the right thing to file married-file jointly if one is married. Marriage is a legal contract, and the absense of affection alters that not one bit.

Bailo, if she gets voted in, goes quietly liberal, takes money from developers and other monied types, and distributes it to the poor, that's just fine with me. Because it would be a hell of a lot better than Conlin has ever done in his 16 years, or Rasmussen (who's not exactly poor), or Godden, or either Sally.

SLOG has the most foulmouthed bunch 10-year-old trolls on the net.

@71, he's saying the "how much less [than $100,000]?" is none of his fucking business, not that income is none of his business in general. Knowing whether someone's spouse makes $100,000 or $1,000,000 might be in the public interest, but trying to probe and discover whether he makes $35,000 or $70,000 seems unlikely to be in the public interest.

@71, how much the partners earn usually isn't as important, until we start throwing around 1% and 99% relativities. But if Conlin were married to Jeff Bezos or Roxane Quimby (to keep it hetero) I'm sure that would be in every single post about him.

my my my Goldy. Quite the story. A full blown attack on Conlin all premised on the assumption that Erica's story was at the behest of Conlin, an assumption for which you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. It's not to hard to google Erica and conlin and see she's had significant and critical reporting on him, something that really can't be said for you. Perhaps you should stick to your gardening and pizzas as in depth/investigative reporting certainly appears beyond your means. I believe if you preheat your oven for an hour you can cook a pizza in 12 minutes. Woo-hoo!! And you really think its under the belt for Conlin to point out that his opponent has only been a registered voter for one year? Really. That's scurrilous?? Please.

By the way, the reason I take issue with absurd posts about Conlin is because during my time in Seattle, before gays had statewide protection and when the seattle laws were toothless, Richard was a steadfast leader in our effort to strengthen Seattle's discrimination ordinances along with Tina Podlodowski and Peter Steinbrueck in two key areas. They created a private right of action to allow seattle residents discriminated against on the basis of orientation to be able to sue in court, over the strong objections of the then city attorney, and they extended Seattle discrimination ordinances to employers of every size, so that the 60% of employers with fewer than seven employees could no longer legally require women who wanted a job to sleep with them or shut their doors to disabled individuals seeking employment. So I am, and remain, a fan of Conlin. His opponent in this election may very well have a lot to offer. But to paint Conlin as without substance is, simply, untrue.

@71 Yeah. Goldy is not a journalist though. He's a whore.

He sells his opinions to The Stranger and compromises his morals constantly.

Why else wouldn't he ask or report on the regressive taxation of Mike McGinn when he is supposedly all about fixing the regressive taxation? Because he's sold out his morals for his paycheck.

It's why he doesn't inquire into Sawant's finances. They are very much our business. If she's separated aimiably, that's out business. If she's fucking the CEO of a private school in the city, and going to vote on school taxation policies, that's our business. If she's actually poly and also fucking some Microsoft exec, that's our business.

This is journalism. Lay it out on the table. Sawant is going to be working for the public, and we have to know her outside pressures.

I support Sawant. I love her policies. If I was on the fence, I'd want to know who is whispering into her ear at night. Heck, even though I'm not on the fence, I want to know that. Is her new beau somebody from The Bush School (as anon claims)? Is he somebody who owns a Subway chain? If she can't tell us that, it casts a shadow on her.

2 things: 1) This is the 85th comment- I need my life back. 2) Sawant is separated?? I'm in!!!

*facepalm* 85 comments really? These two sentences alone should answer the question.

"Sawant and her husband grew up in the same town in India"

"As for why we are not legally divorced, that is a deeply personal matter involving emotional and private reasons."

Jeeezzz, we are so stupid when it comes to even comprehending let alone respecting traditions that are not White Christian.

The fact that Sawant's political viability rests upon how much she and/or her partner earns is a serious problem, in my humble opinion.

Hey, non-Seattleites posting here - news flash - we're Liberal, we're Proud of it, and if you're "Left Wing" you are MODERATE in Seattle.

Comprende?

Now stop stealing our gas tax dollars to fund your failed road projects you can't afford to build without us.

@87 it's not how much. It is position and source. I wouldn't give much of a shit if she's dating a janitor at MS, but if she's fucking the head of business development. Or, a chairman of the board. Or a microdeveloper. Or some piece of shit slumlord. This is equally valid of any politician.

Goldy v. Erica: Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Although I agree that the argument "if you make 100 grand you can't speak on poor issues" is b.s., it is fair game to question someone's financials in an election. The Stranger's done this in the past with republican candidates at the state and federal level. Look at the whole "Mitt Romney has a dancing horse, he's sooooooooo out of touch with main street" stuff during the election, how is this argument any different (Mitt Romney was out of touch with main street, but the basic argument is "Person A has wealth level B, so can't really related to people at wealth level C, where C is much lower then B").

@90 +1

We could have prevented a lot of mini-scandals if someone had asked more about Rob Holland's financials when he was running for a job that only paid a modest stipend. The guy wanted to hire his (curiously long term) campaign manager as an intern for multiple times what the boss was paid.

OK, so let me get this straight. Conlin writes about his opponents voting record and uses it as an example of her so called "lack of civic engagement". His statements might be misleading (because she was only a citizen for a short time) but not without merit. What has she done? Not much, from what I can tell. In her defense, so what? She is running for city council, and a lot of city council members have done little before they took office. I think O'Brien did some work for the Sierra Club and then sat on a board. Not much, either. It is a weak line of attack, but hardly a smear campaign. His facts are accurate and at worse misleading.

Furthermore, it is just one of many issues that Conlin has brought up, but The Stranger hasn't bothered to mention them. For example, he has (rightly) criticized her for proposing things that impossible (like an income tax). Imagine if Murray proposed (as his second bullet item on the "Issues" page of his website) something that is clearly impossible. The Stranger would have a field day. "Murray doesn't understand city politics" would make a good headline, and it would be accurate. A candidate for city council deserves a little more leeway, but not much. She has had that on there a long time, and it is stupid. The only reason to have that there is to set expectations that can't be met to folks who don't understand state law.

Now, apparently, you claim that "Conlin pushes the smear to PubliCola. PubliCola publishes... ". That is one hell of an accusation. Do you have any evidence to support that? Accusing someone of something they didn't do is a smear.

It sounds to me like you have a beef with Erica Barnett, not Conlin. Fair enough. Her point is a weak one. But she does have a point -- if Sawant is portraying herself as someone who currently is working class, then Erica is right. However, it isn't clear in anything that I've read that this is the case. Sawant has simply fought for "the 99%", she never said she was one. For Barnett to say "isn't it weird" is bullshit. No, it isn't weird, it is perfectly normal. The guy who championed an income tax for this state was named Gates. Oh, and Robert Reich can afford nice suits, too. Figure it out, Erica.

It is a different thing entirely if much of her funding comes from her own wealth (or that of her husband, which in this state are the same thing). I don't think that is the case, which is why Barnett's story is stupid, and the Conlin campaign is stupid for copying it. But that is hardly a smear campaign.

As for the distraction, The Stanger is as guilty of this as anyone. I have seen very little about the real issues of this campaign or the city. Housing is the biggest one, by far. Conlin and Sawant seem to have a different philosophy on dealing with the really high rent in this city. Conlin believes in loosening regulations to encourage more buildings (this includes Apodments). Sawant wants to spend more money on subsidies for the poor. Fair enough. But there is little talk about that. The Stranger seems far more interested in portraying Conlin as some sort of asshole trying to smear his opponent than a guy with reasonable disagreements on the best policy to achieve a particular result. I guess doing so is aimed at encouraging donations to her campaign. Good luck with that.

@87

What's amazing is that well-funded, scandal-free incumbent Richard Conlin's political future comes down to bickering over how much Sawant's estranged husband makes and where.

Conlin should be batting away any inexperienced challenger with his 16 year track record of service. Instead, this is all he has. This!

You expect this kind of bare knuckle brawling when two closely matched candidates are running for an open seat. But this incumbent guy? No coattails. No great political watershed moment. Not caught up in a big scandal that sweeps incumbents away. He's got a safe seat and here's fighting for his life.

That is fucked up.

@98

Yeah, dude, we get it. Red baiting. You're the Red Baiting Troll. No, really. We. Get. It.

Super funny. Because red baiting. What's not to like? But it stops being funny after 1000x. Time for some new 1950s retro material, Henny Youngman.

@ 91, if Sawant had the hundreds of millions Romney has, instead of the hundred thousand that she doesn't actually have, they might be the same thing. It might also be the same thing if they were both running on the same platform. Or if Sawant was refusing to disclose her tax returns like Romney. Or if she had some wealthy, upper class hobby like dressage.

Do you still think these are the same criticisms?

@101 yes I still think it's the same argument. Like I said the argument is "Person A has wealth level B, so can't really related to people at wealth level C, where C is much lower then B". It's a simple break down of the argument.

Sue for libel and/or slander if they fibbed about Sawant.

Just because Conlin is a homosexualist doesn't mean he gives a shit about Persons of Color:ever heard of Ernst Roehm??O.O

@101 Also you can't go after what is/isn't in one politicians financial statement and then get up on a high horse when another reporter goes after what's in another politicians financial statements. If financial statements are fair game in election reporting then they're fair game, you can't pick and choose based on politicians you like/hate or the amount of money reported in the financial statement.