Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, December 21, 2009

Can We All Just Come Out and Admit That the Gov's Office Tried to Strong-Arm the Mayor's Race?

Posted by on Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Earlier today, Dan linked to an article in the Seattle Times that exposes the governor's office surreptitiously trying to defeat Mike McGinn and elect Joe Mallahan mayor to save the proposed downtown tunnel. The electioneering—which the governor's office denies—isn't shocking, given that Gov. Gregoire endorsed Mallahan, and we've reported on her office's famous "our tunnel" email in the past—but Andrew Garber and Emily Heffter deserve praise for digging up dozens of additional enlightening emails that should seal the verdict.

For instance, the Governor's office was preparing to retaliate against McGinn's anti-tunnel polling and was stocking candidate forums with pro-tunnel propaganda:

In another e-mail, [Gregoire's senior adviser Ron] Judd wrote, "Gang, just a heads up that Mike M has been in the field doing a push poll on the Viaduct. I think he will be announcing something about taxes and most interesting polling regarding how voters will be paying for the Viaduct. I would suggest once we know his angle to be prepared to counter his bs."

Judd said in an interview that state officials provided informational material to waterfront businesses and others interested in the project. "Many of them wanted questions or information so that when they went to the candidates forums they could ask questions," he said.

The emails also show how state officials release an animated disaster video of the viaduct collapsing—which, as we reported on at the time, was released to KING-TV before it was given to Elizabeth Campbell, who requested it—to assist Mallahan's campaign:

Asked about that, Hammond said, "We decided we were going to handle how it was released. We weren't going to leave it to Elizabeth Campbell."

The Times goes on to show emails that reveal how officials wanted to release information to counter McGinn's tunnel arguments, brief Mallahan on the tunnel plans, and work with the city to sign an agreement to pursue the tunnel a few weeks before the election. (Judd is now working at the state's department of transportation, overseen by the governor's office.)

Garber and Heffter can't come right out and say it—because the Times' beat reporters are "neutral"—but the governor's office and the state department of transportation were clearly intruding on the Seattle election. (There's currently an ethics complain filed against them.) Any attempt to claim otherwise—like when Judd told the Times that "I was not, nor anyone else for that matter, even close to crossing the line and working collaboratively and in a stealth way with the campaigns"—sounds like a thick line of bullshit. But I hope the Times editorial board runs an opinion piece acknowledging that, even if Gregoire's actions were technically legal, they stink. That may be hard for the Times, considering that they endorsed Mallahan, largely for his stance on the tunnel. But any reasonable person can see that state officials, including Gregoire, were campaigning against McGinn. That's an insult to Seattle voters, who Gregoire needs to get reelected.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Why is "neutral" in "quotes?" The reporters did a great job digging up this information and passing it along.

Thank you, however, for your "analysis."
Posted by Echoes Myron on December 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
2
It's called "politics" and this is how the game is played. Get over it.
Posted by Prospero on December 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Dominic Holden 3
@ 1) Because sometimes they are neutral and sometimes they are "neutral." No reporter is always without bias.

@ 2) Yes, and part of the game is that media outlets bust the balls of people playing politics who then claim that they aren't playing politics. Get over it.

Posted by Dominic Holden on December 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
4
It's only "strong arming" when it's being done to a candidate you support. If it's being done to someone you don't like it's principled campaigning. If Gregoire's office behaves the same way in 2010 with say, Dave Reichert's re-election in WA-8 Holden and the rest of the Stranger crew will be the first ones out there to cheer her on.
Posted by Wile E. Quixote on December 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM
kitschnsync 5
Of course Gregoire tried to strong-arm the mayoral election. SR 99's replacement has wider implications than Seattle's trafic alone. Gregoire didn't want McGinn to fuck it up.

But she underestimated us... Seattle voters will always find a way to fail, no matter what.
Posted by kitschnsync on December 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM
6
2 ftw

Get over it.
Posted by politics ain't beanbag on December 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM
giffy 7
So strong arming involves sending some information and releasing a video? Oh the horror.

And really, on the video, I can see why they would want to release it on their own terms instead of letting that nut frame its release and argue that the state was 'hiding' it. Maybe they should have released it when it was made but then people would have accused them of scare tactics.
Posted by giffy on December 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Anc 8
@2, No it is called abuse of power by a public official. That is not politics as usual, that is a crime.
Posted by Anc on December 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Baconcat 9
Let's give the "it's just politics" crowd some time to mull over the following:

1) The Council President is the main liaison between the Mayor and Council. He often votes in the Mayor's stead to keep from upsetting any popular mandate, especially if (like Conlin) they are proponents of a more balanced "strong Mayor" position. That's the balance (in this checks and balances game called the doctrine of the separation of powers), it's the only touchpoint between the Mayor's office and the Council.

2) Drago was the sole reason for a 9-0 vote, being a capable whip who used her position and weight to get the votes she needed. Going by the general sausage making of city government, it's obvious there was this basic idea of "the polls say Mallahan is coming in, so we should line up", so it was easy to whip the Council into a unanimous vote, especially with Nickels behind the tunnel

3) We have several councilmembers who previously rejected, dismissed or disliked the tunnel project, and two that are against it coming in after the election. Currently, in the opposed column we have Licata, Godden, O'brien and Bagshaw. Conlin in his capacity is likely to vote however the mayor would vote. The balance is not in the tunnel's favor

4) Now that we're far away from any potential election that could shake up the Mayor or Council's unsafe seats, the tunnel is a sitting duck.

This is, of course, speaking to the city's obligations. Several legislators are already in line to kill the project, and I doubt Gregoire is going to be able to hold on now that McGinn has upset the mix with a large "no" vote on the tunnel by the population of Seattle.

I predict the process of killing the city's involvement will begin in earnest in January with a "taskforce" looking into the potential costs and legality of the cost overrun issue, legislators lining up in opposition down in Olympia, and then maybe we'll see the media begin to ask the real big questions like "if SR-99 is of statewide importance, why are there stoplights and bottlenecks on both ends of DT Seattle? Why is there no urgency to elevate and grade separate in Tukwila?"

Snowball!
More...
Posted by Baconcat on December 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM
10
Um, gregoire isnt running for reelection. no chance she would win. Inslee is supposedly going to run if his wife will let him.
Posted by fart on December 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Anc 11
How does getting the City off the hook for overruns and getting the State to at least go in halvies on the Central Line (as the tunnel has no access to the area) sound as a reasonable compromise?
Posted by Anc on December 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM
seandr 12
Personally, I don't give a fuck if Gregoire took sides in this election.

BTW - you are not doing McGinn any favors by fanning these flames.
Posted by seandr on December 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Anc 13
@11 Did you not give a fuck when GWB and co abused their power and resources to illegally lobby against states de-criminalizing Medical Marijuana, or one of the many other abuses of Federal Power to support their political agenda?
Posted by Anc on December 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
seandr 14
@13 In fact, I do give a fuck about those completely unrelated things. And I give a fuck if McGinn alienates himself from Olympia.

Still, I do not give a fuck if Gregoire legally endorsed Mallahan's candidacy over McGinn's, which is all that is being alleged here. She has a right to vote like anyone else, and when one of the candidates is shitting all over your tunnel plan, I'd say she has no choice but to respond.
Posted by seandr on December 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM
15

Look, what does it matter.

The proof of the pudding is will McGinn stick to his promise not to build the tunnel.

Or is he just a Cosmetic Populist who subverted people by being the ultimate poseur -- a bearded Nickles who only serves the downtown syndicate.

Posted by A Skull Us on December 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Anc 16
@14.... Hmm, either you can't read, or we are just reading different articles (you did click the links didn't you?). I'm not talking about endorsements, but about illegal use of state resources (email system and computers), release of information to influence an election (the video) and actual collusion with the campaign.

But as you already said, you don't care a bit about separation of powers, corruption or illegal election engineering so long as McGinn keeps his lips firmly on Olympia's cock, so I'm not sure continuing this conversation is really worth it. *shrug*
Posted by Anc on December 21, 2009 at 4:04 PM
17
The Governor is not the only one that wants a tunnel. Let's not forget that McGinn softened his stance against the tunnel because it turned off a lot of people. For example, I'm one of those people. My politics and beliefs align almost perfectly with McGinn except for one crucial issue: the tunnel.

You don't have to be a [insert derogatory term here] to be pro-tunnel. Not all lefties have to think exactly alike. Being irrationally unified in thought is a characteristic of fundamentalists, not free thinkers.
Posted by jinushaun on December 21, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Anc 18
I'm not sure about the Tunnel one way or the other. The lack of access for much of Seattle is a negative, as is the potential for cost overruns. I'd like to see more on the public transit front but if push comes to shove that can be added later.

However I am VERY much against the abuse of government resources and power, which it looks like might have happened in this case.
Posted by Anc on December 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM
TVDinner 19
I've always been a big supporter of Gregoire, but this shit gives me pause. Abuse of power is fucked up.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on December 21, 2009 at 5:21 PM
20
1.) Still don't understand why this is news.
2.) Didn't Gregoire say she wasn't running for re-election?
Posted by markanon on December 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM
MrBaker 21
I think this would be "news" if she supported McGinn.
As it is she promoted an approved project, and somebody that supported her project. I am not sure how any of the writing of obvious positions of her, or people in her administration, warrents reporting.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on December 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM
22
Dominic, some of McGinns cum is dripping down your chinnychinchin...
Posted by matildia on December 21, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy