Slog
News & ArtsFriday, August 31, 2012
2012 The Stranger Was Wrong About the Danielson-Gonzalez Race, by Matt Luby
Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Remember Matt Luby, former Stranger news intern and author of the famous Slog post, "Why The Stranger Is Wrong About Everything"?
Well, he recently wrote to tell me that The Stranger continues to be wrong about everything, including our take on the results of the Washington State Supreme Court race between Bruce Danielson and Steve Gonzalez. That race was decided in the August 7 primary and saw Danielson getting around 40 percent of the vote statewide, even though he had raised no money, hadn't campaigned, and, according to his own county's bar association, had "zero qualifications to be on the bench."
Luby doesn't agree with my statement that "a serious amount of prejudice in the electorate" is the only way to explain this result. Here, posted with his permission, is Luby's take:
I have to disagree with your coverage of this judicial race... Are there probably a lot of people who picked Danielson because he has a WASPy name? Are there probably a lot of racist idiots in our midst? Yes, I don't dispute that. But that's not to say there aren't extremely compelling reasons for picking Danielson; I did.
One of your main contentions seems to be that Gonzalez is more "qualified." Who defines qualifications? Is it just a matter of which candidate gets more endorsements? Or which candidate has degrees from better schools? I think there is a real argument to be made about qualifications when you have someone like Sarah Palin whose ascendancy was in large part fueled by the fact that every time she was criticized for being an illiterate hayseed, it only increased her appeal for the average Joes who feel like they are called illiterate hayseeds every day by the media. Sarah Palin is a demonstrably stupid person. It's not clear from any of the reporting I've read that Danielson is anything close to Palin, nor would he ever be one botched operation away from the nuclear football.
For me, the qualifications that mattered were the judicial philosophies the candidates described in their profiles. Danielson explicitly mentioned his belief in the Constitution as an unchanging lodestone of jurisprudence numerous times. Gonzalez didn't mention anything, just that he prosecuted some terrorism cases (wonder if there was any entrapment involved?) and then went on this mindless argumentum ad populum binge about all of his endorsements.
Doesn't it make you think Mitt Romney is a hack when he intentionally obscures his beliefs because he knows they are unpopular? By the same token, doesn't it make you wonder what Gonzalez is hiding, too?
If you don't think this kind of thing matters, think back to the John Roberts nomination hearings. Roberts described himself as an "umpire," a guy who would call "balls and strikes." Didn't that end up mattering quite a bit in the ACA ruling where everyone thought he would be a partisan tool?
I'm sure Gonzalez is a great guy. I'm sure there a lot of racist douches in Washington. But those things aren't to say Danielson wasn't worth voting for. And for the record, I am still an anarchist and I only vote for candidates in primaries where I can try to get the less dangerous criminal through to the final ballot.
Cheers,
ML
1
"Danielson explicitly mentioned his belief in the Constitution as an unchanging lodestone of jurisprudence numerous times."
Does Mr. Luby see that as a good reason to to vote for Danielson?
Does Mr. Luby see that as a good reason to to vote for Danielson?
2
Mr. Luby's explanation for why he voted for Mr. Danielson does not explain why Mr. Danielson got 40% of the vote. Voter pamphlets were only published in a handful of counties, almost all of which went for Mr. Gonzalez. The voters in the mostly "red" counties in the State did not have voter pamphlets, so the description of judicial philosophy Mr. Luby identifies as why he voted for Danielson could not have been a factor - there must be some other explanation. It could be alphabetical order (D comes before G) but, I think it is just as likely that the ethnic differences in the names played a significant role. Bottom line, elections are a terrible way to pick judges.
4
Finally, a level-headed, informed something something. Fuck, I don't even care enough to come up with a full sent
7
I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION MORE THAN ANYTHING
There, does that mean I'm qualified? Vote for me. I don't even know what I'm running for but I'm the best man for the job.
There, does that mean I'm qualified? Vote for me. I don't even know what I'm running for but I'm the best man for the job.
8
So experience, endorsements, track records and talent do not matter. Only something a candidate said one time, and has never proven to be actually true.
What a fucking joke.
What a fucking joke.
9
His argument makes some amount of sense for most races. In a senate race or a mayors race I want to know the candidates philosophy and what they want to do. I want to know their opinions on the constitution and especially on specific sections of it and for the most part I couldn't care less about endorsements and most commentary on their "qualifications" for the job are irrelevant since virtually nothing you've done in the past necessarily qualifies you for being, say, the POTUS.
In a judicial race though "qualifications" mean everything. I don't just want to know that the guy loves the constitution. That's nice but I also want to know that the candidate knows the precedent. I want him to have experience arguing before a court to know how the system works. I don't just want him to say "I believe the constitution is an unchanging document" I want some evidence that he knows what the writers of those documents meant when they wrote it. He has to understand history and what specific words and terms meant in the context of the day.
In judicial races, endorsements matter.
In a judicial race though "qualifications" mean everything. I don't just want to know that the guy loves the constitution. That's nice but I also want to know that the candidate knows the precedent. I want him to have experience arguing before a court to know how the system works. I don't just want him to say "I believe the constitution is an unchanging document" I want some evidence that he knows what the writers of those documents meant when they wrote it. He has to understand history and what specific words and terms meant in the context of the day.
In judicial races, endorsements matter.
10
Eli, you keep bringing up the comments of the Kitsap County bar association. Eli, don't you remember what you wrote about the problems with the endorsement process at King County bar association? How is Kitsap County bar association any more trustworthy than the bar association of King County?
11
@7 & 9 I think it is Danielson's view of the constitution as an unchanging document that Luby approves of. Most judges and legal scholars believe that the Constitution ought to be periodically re-interptreted in light of changing social norms. For example, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights he never intended to guarantee a women's right to an abortion. Conservatives, and apparently at least one anarchist, oppose this view of the constitution because they feel it gives judges to much power.
15
@2 is the best rebuttal. Obviously Luby has terrible politics but even if he's right and people wanted to vote for a wacky right wing Constitution-lover, how would they know Danielson was one without a voter guide? When the electorate is this uninformed, Luby's already tenuous argument falls apart.
16
His writing and thinking weren't very interesting the first time around, and have not improved with time.
17
Anarchist?
I thought Luby was a libertarian?
Not that there's a huge amount of difference between the two, but still...
I thought Luby was a libertarian?
Not that there's a huge amount of difference between the two, but still...
18
@12 Slavery was ended by an amendment to the constitution rather than a re-interpretation of the existing text. Most conservatives don't mind the Constitution being changed in that way.
19
@11: your analysis might be less stupid if you (and Danielson) would educate yourself about the WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION, not the US one. That's the relevant document here, for this particular job. He's not running for the US Supreme Court. Nobody gives a crap what the US Constitution says in the WA court, because those questions don't come up.
Arguing from "the Constitution" is, in this case, a nimrod move demonstrating a bedroom-philosopher understanding of how the world works. No one who has ever been in a courtroom here in Washington would ever say such a thing. It signals that Danielson (and Luby) have no friggin' idea what they're talking about.
And yes, Luby is the worst thing that the Stranger has ever published. No, wait -- that's Bruce Bawer. Luby's not significant enough to be worst.
Arguing from "the Constitution" is, in this case, a nimrod move demonstrating a bedroom-philosopher understanding of how the world works. No one who has ever been in a courtroom here in Washington would ever say such a thing. It signals that Danielson (and Luby) have no friggin' idea what they're talking about.
And yes, Luby is the worst thing that the Stranger has ever published. No, wait -- that's Bruce Bawer. Luby's not significant enough to be worst.
20
Luby: "wonder if there was entrapment involved" in Gonzales's terrorism prosecution experience?
He does know it was the Ressam case, where the guy was caught leaving the Port Angeles ferry with a trunk full of explosives?
He does know it was the Ressam case, where the guy was caught leaving the Port Angeles ferry with a trunk full of explosives?
21
RE: "Worst thing Stranger has ever published" -- what about that troglodyte Stefan Sharkansky who they actually had on staff for a while? (The Stranger's half-hearted attempt at coming off as "fair and balanced," I guess.) Not only was he a nut, but he was a supremely untalented one ... and once he started just phoning his columns in, he became easy to fire for laziness and incompetence.
As for Luby, does anyone know what's become of him? Has he made good on his "threat" to move on to that libertarian Freedom-something institute in New Hampshire? I certainly don't buy his naive "anarchist" blatherings, but he does have some chutzpah, and he's not a bad writer. I can almost see how Dan Savage would've been his inspiration (as Luby claims). Luby clearly admires the subversive, guerrilla-styled approach to political activism that Dan has made a habit out of over the years.
As for Luby, does anyone know what's become of him? Has he made good on his "threat" to move on to that libertarian Freedom-something institute in New Hampshire? I certainly don't buy his naive "anarchist" blatherings, but he does have some chutzpah, and he's not a bad writer. I can almost see how Dan Savage would've been his inspiration (as Luby claims). Luby clearly admires the subversive, guerrilla-styled approach to political activism that Dan has made a habit out of over the years.
22
Hi everybody,
Before everyone mindlessly follows Eli in a line of white guilt, the best rebuttal for Eli's piece (which by the way, was biting hook, line and sinker to something the Gonzalez camp had been shopping around for a while) is from the TNT:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/08/14…
"Another Supreme Court race on the same ballot saw 12-year incumbent Susan Owens essentially reelected against two candidates, neither of whom raised a dollar or ran much of a campaign. Together, the challengers got nearly the same number of votes as Danielson.
Gender bias? For some, probably. But it also reflects the 60-40 ratio common to races featuring incumbent justices versus less-than-vigorous opponents.
Gonzalez spent $263,000 with the most obvious of his efforts on the radio. That’s where his cousin asked for votes. But his campaign purchased air time only in Seattle and Spokane. Disclosure reports show he spent nothing in Yakima, Tri-Cities or the expensive Portland market that reaches into Southwest Washington.
One county to look to for clues, then, is Spokane. There, the Republican candidates for governor carried 54.5 percent of the vote but Danielson had one of his poorest performances in Eastern Washington at just 51 percent. Is Spokane less prejudiced than other counties east of the Cascades? Or did that radio campaign make a difference?"
Yes, there are racist people in rural Washington. But you can't say that's what determined an election, for fuck's sake.
Before everyone mindlessly follows Eli in a line of white guilt, the best rebuttal for Eli's piece (which by the way, was biting hook, line and sinker to something the Gonzalez camp had been shopping around for a while) is from the TNT:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/08/14…
"Another Supreme Court race on the same ballot saw 12-year incumbent Susan Owens essentially reelected against two candidates, neither of whom raised a dollar or ran much of a campaign. Together, the challengers got nearly the same number of votes as Danielson.
Gender bias? For some, probably. But it also reflects the 60-40 ratio common to races featuring incumbent justices versus less-than-vigorous opponents.
Gonzalez spent $263,000 with the most obvious of his efforts on the radio. That’s where his cousin asked for votes. But his campaign purchased air time only in Seattle and Spokane. Disclosure reports show he spent nothing in Yakima, Tri-Cities or the expensive Portland market that reaches into Southwest Washington.
One county to look to for clues, then, is Spokane. There, the Republican candidates for governor carried 54.5 percent of the vote but Danielson had one of his poorest performances in Eastern Washington at just 51 percent. Is Spokane less prejudiced than other counties east of the Cascades? Or did that radio campaign make a difference?"
Yes, there are racist people in rural Washington. But you can't say that's what determined an election, for fuck's sake.
23
a huge part of the 43 percent likely isn't racist, because, duh, 43% of the state is conservative. and without a voters guide, there's still newspapers, internet, etc. it'd behoove us liberals to stop crying wolf on racism and I'd say the claim the 43% is all racist is a big old case of crying wolf. probably only 20 points of it is racist, and we don't know who. meanwhile we liberals partake in the system whereby five million latinos in PR don't have the vote, and DC residents don't have full voting rights, plus other colonies, so while we're doing nothing about serious de jure racist deprivations of rights in which we're the ones enjoying the benefit and depriving others, it is our gummint isn't it? maybe we should not throw stones so much? though it feels sooooo good?
24
The issue with his post is that it's stupid and anyone who calls themselves an anarchist is weird.
That's my totally objective comment on this.
That's my totally objective comment on this.
25
I'm so sorry I re-read through his letter and feel even more strongly that whatever line of reasoning he is following was the product of his brain doing backflips and grasping on to little pockets of information that sort of can be compared, but have little or nothing to do with his point.
26
Froth as you will but Matt Luby was a gem to work with. So polite and funny and hard working. I wish him all the best.
27
Hey there, everybody!
@1 -- Constitutions in this country are invariably flawed, but better than the alternative. Yes.
@9 -- I agree that endorsements matter. If Danielson and Gonzalez had similar philosophies, I would go for the guy with the better pedigree. But I don't even know what Gonzalez stands for. I'd rather go for the guy who told me something about his principles.
@11 -- I think the Constitution has been flawed from the start, but at least it guarantees some rights.
@17 -- I use "market anarchist" and "libertarian" pretty interchangeably.
@21 -- I'm still lurking here in Seattle. I'm almost two years into a book manuscript. Don't worry, I'm not sucking at the teat of the criminal organization calling itself the state--I do have a day job. I've decided I would rather live with granola socialists in Seattle and have cool stuff around than move to NH. I'm not as angry as I used to be!
@1 -- Constitutions in this country are invariably flawed, but better than the alternative. Yes.
@9 -- I agree that endorsements matter. If Danielson and Gonzalez had similar philosophies, I would go for the guy with the better pedigree. But I don't even know what Gonzalez stands for. I'd rather go for the guy who told me something about his principles.
@11 -- I think the Constitution has been flawed from the start, but at least it guarantees some rights.
@17 -- I use "market anarchist" and "libertarian" pretty interchangeably.
@21 -- I'm still lurking here in Seattle. I'm almost two years into a book manuscript. Don't worry, I'm not sucking at the teat of the criminal organization calling itself the state--I do have a day job. I've decided I would rather live with granola socialists in Seattle and have cool stuff around than move to NH. I'm not as angry as I used to be!
28
@ Cienna -- That was really nice! The feelings were mutual. I've often said that it wasn't the case that just one writer at The Stranger was better than anyone I'd ever worked with but that all of you guys were. I loved it!
29
Actually, I think that most voters - seriously, over 90% - have no idea who to vote for in any of the judicial races, even the Supreme Court ones. The ballot doesn't even indicate which candidate is the incumbent.
In the absence of a voter's guide, or any other source of information about qualifications or endorsements, a random choice by uninformed voters should result in each candidate getting 50% of the vote.
If 90% of the voters were complete zeros, then we might reckon that Mr. Danielson would have gotten 45% of the uninformed votes and that Mr. Gonzalez would also get 45% of uninformed votes and all 10% of the informed ones.
The fact that Mr. Danielson only got 40% of the vote is, in fact, encouraging to me.
In the absence of a voter's guide, or any other source of information about qualifications or endorsements, a random choice by uninformed voters should result in each candidate getting 50% of the vote.
If 90% of the voters were complete zeros, then we might reckon that Mr. Danielson would have gotten 45% of the uninformed votes and that Mr. Gonzalez would also get 45% of uninformed votes and all 10% of the informed ones.
The fact that Mr. Danielson only got 40% of the vote is, in fact, encouraging to me.
30
Seems like Matt is starving for attention. It's beyond me why the Stranger would want to give vermin like him more exposure.
31
@26, I'm not surprised. My job has put me now and again in the path of some of the world's behind-the-scenes monsters, and to a lady and man they turn out to be funny, bright and personable. It's just that the work they do brings ruin. I like them, and hate what they do.
32
@27 Matt you do realize that when guys like Danielson talk about their belief in the Constitution as an "unchanging lodestone of jurisprudence" what they usually mean is that any women who gets pregnant out of wedlock is an immoral slut who should be forced to carry her boyfriend's, or her rapist's, baby to term. Roe v Wade is the best known example of a case in which the courts applied the principals enshrined in the Bill of Rights based on modern norms of behavior, rather than the original intent of the founding fathers. So when political candidates and judicial nominees talk about the unchanging nature of the Constitution the message they are usually trying to communicate is "down with women's reproductive rights!"
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS