Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Finally! Vulcan Productions Do... | Today in Line Out »

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Republicans Would Never Do This. But Democrats?

posted by on October 31 at 14:28 PM


The big partisan race on Tuesday is between Republican candidate Dan Satterberg and Democratic candidate Bill Sherman for King County Prosecutor.

An influential Seattle elected Democrat, State Senator Adam Kline (D-37, South Seattle) has not only endorsed Satterberg the Republican, he’s done robo-calls on his behalf, signed a fundraising letter, and given quotes to the dailies about supporting Satterberg.

Would an elected Republican ever ever do this for a Democat? This is what’s wrong with Democrats and all their Free-to-be-You-and-Me shit.

Some, like Sen. Kline, say a law enforcement office should be above politics and non-partisan—which is crazy. (Kline also told me he’s writing a bill to make the office non-partisan.)

With issues like treatment vs. incarceration; sentencing reform; the death penalty; drug laws; and gun laws, law enforcement is hotly politicized, and Democrats and Republicans have different agendas.

Additionally, the KC prosecutor sets law enforcement priorities. Sherman pledges to get tougher on environmental crimes and points out that under Satterberg, a suspected environmental polluter, Nuprecon, got off the hook. (Coincidentally, Nuprecon CEO John Hennessy just donated $5000 to the state Republican Party. Gee, I wonder which race that’s going to go to?)

And the KC prosecutor is on the canvassing board, which oversees complaints about elections—you know, like whether or not to count reams of discounted votes from Democratic strongholds that were originally ignored in the tight Gregoire/Rossi race. (Satterberg was the lone vote against counting the infamous Larry Philips batch of Democratic votes from King County.)

Indeed, on all these fronts, there are major differences between Democrat Sherman and Republican Satterberg. For example, Sherman wants a moratorium on the death penalty and says he’ll advocate to reinstate the assault weapons ban. He also wants to institute an environmental crimes unit, like other major prosecutor’s offices around the country. Not Satterberg. Sherman is more specific about expanding rehabilitation (making drug felonies part of drug court, for example) while Satterberg speaks in platitudes on the issue.

So, I asked Sen. Kline why he endorsed Satterberg.

Here’s what he said:

1) He’s known him for 17 years and Satterberg helped Kline write a strong drunk driving law back when Kline was President of MADD.

2) He’s been good on pushing treatment over incarceration.

3) He supported a Kline bill to make the sentencing grid less draconian and costly.

3) He suspects, although he says he doesn’t know, that the KC Prosecutor’s office shot down former GOP state party chair Chris Vance when Vance was shopping lawsuits in the Gregoire/Rossi standoff. “I suspect Vance went to Maleng and Satterberg,” Kline told me, “And if he did, the Prosecutor’s office obviously said, ‘No.’”

4) He believes Satterberg isn’t going to use the office as a stepping stone to run for a more obviously partisan gig like AG or governor. “Satterberg made it clear to me that he wasn’t going to seek higher office. If he was, I would not have done this.”

Kline acknowledged—kind of undermining his own point—that the KC Prosecutor’s Office is a major political force in Olympia and that they’ve often been on the opposite side of issues from him, citing the death penalty and the Three-Strikes rule.

I told him that Sherman had called for a moratorium on the death penalty. I also told him that Sherman has been running on gun control—one of Sen. Kline’s biggest issues.

“I’m less familiar with Bill,” Kline said. “I just met him last night, and we chatted. He seems like a wonderful guy. But my point is that Satterberg has been there and been doing this kind of work.”


It’s galling that an elected Democrat, who benefits from South Seattle’s strong Democratic base, would go to bat for a Republican, a party that pushes a tough-on-crime agenda over a rehabilitation agenda; that doesn’t get it on the environment; that’s locked into the death penalty; and that is way out of touch on drug reform—all issues that impact South Seattle’s 37th in a big way … and all issues that are in play in the KC Prosecutor’s race.

A Republican senator from an equivalent, conservative spot—not someone like Republican Rep. Fred Jarrett, who orbits liberal Seattle, but someone from, say, the 7th District (Pend Oreille, Steven, Ferry Counties) would never back a Democrat in a hotly contested partisan race.

RSS icon Comments


Satterberg's also doing push-polling. Classy!

Posted by Levislade | October 31, 2007 2:26 PM

Actually, Norm Maleng did it for Mark Sidran in the past. He appeared in a Sidran campaign kick-off video. Not sure if any other Republicans have done it, but it's probably noteworthy if the one Republican who has endorsed a Democrat was Satterberg's mentor.

Posted by Nonpartisan4Satterberg | October 31, 2007 2:34 PM

Well, gollee! Why is it we don't have strong D candidates for up-ticket races? Maybe cuz we're so busy keeping them out of the offices that could get them the experience to be better candidates for the big races? Really is best to leave those to the Rs. It's only fair.

Posted by Juan | October 31, 2007 2:35 PM

Kline is slime.

Posted by whatever | October 31, 2007 2:37 PM

Well, let's get to the point, then - who's worth running against Kline in the next primary?

I'm in for $100.

Posted by palamedes | October 31, 2007 2:37 PM

My concerns about this race are more ground-level than those mentioned so far.

It's all a matter of how the prosecutor's office is run and I have my concerns, albeit based on personal experience (, that some cases are prosecuted not based on guilt or innocence, but for politics.

While I think that Maleng did a wonderful job instilling ethics in his front-line prosecutors, there seems to be an appearance of moral malaise in some of the higher ranks, the sort that occurs when people have no fear of losing their positions.

Sometimes a bit of a shake-up is a good thing.

Posted by Packratt | October 31, 2007 2:49 PM

Satterberg has to be kicking himself for filing as a republican.

Oh, and nice use of "lame" josh.

Posted by StrangerDanger | October 31, 2007 2:55 PM

Oh for shame! I mean a politician who actually thinks for himself, does not tow the line blindly for the party, believes in merit rather than political affiliation. I know the thrust of this post was that a Rep. would not do the same, but come on, is that reason alone. This whole take no prisoners attitude is getting old, and really are the Dems. that different, oh they'll cuddle up to the core, say what needs to be said, make a few attempts at actually following through with their promises (even though they know they will fail), and then they will get back to what they know is really important, getting re-elected.

Now, I'll just wait for the special interests (gays, pro-choice, left-wing wack jobs) tear into me, because, really it all comes down to you, even if it is at the expense of all the rest of us...

Posted by WA | October 31, 2007 3:00 PM

Hopefully, next time around the 37th District Dems will tell Kline to run as a Lieberman for Connecticut Party candidate and withhold their endorsement. He is a bag of shit.

Posted by ratciyreprobate | October 31, 2007 3:07 PM

What's galling is that Kline didn't even do his homework and find out what Sherman was all about before he chose his candidate. That said, one of the few areas where I can stomach Republicans is law enforcement, assuming that the Repub is reasonably moderate.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 31, 2007 3:08 PM

The bottom line for me is that Satterberg seems to be well qualified for the job with minimal partisanship. I respect Dems like Kline for making independent choices. Dems should expend their energy on more meaningful races.

Posted by Polka Party | October 31, 2007 3:26 PM

Crusty, you stole the basic thesis of this argument from Goldy at

Posted by MathBoy | October 31, 2007 3:27 PM

No one in the prosecuting attorneys office supports Bill Sherman (and they're almost all Democrats). Sherman doesn't have a single law enforcement endorsement. Wonder why?

Maybe it is because of these talking points he puts forward--they sound good to the voters in our county, but to those who know what they're talking about, they're a tremendous waste of time or outright counterproductive. For example:

1. Death penalty. There have only been four executions in Washington since 1977; three of the defendants where white, one hispanic. Three of them, including the hispanic, volunteered to get the death penalty. But hey! Let's impose a moratorium! Then it wouldn't have been a bargaining chip for Gary Ridgeway, he'd still be in prison, but the families of 49 other victims would be left wondering.

2. The King County drug court was like the 6th in the entire nation, was CREATED by Dan Satterberg, and serves as a national model. I'm no expert on the diversion criteria, but I know it is darn hard to complete because the addicts have to WANT to get better. Moreover, the county doesn't want the violent offenders (as opposed to addicts that engage in petty theft to support the habit) out on the streets. Sherman's never even done a rotation in the drug unit, he has no way to know what he's talking about.

3. Assault weapon ban. Crusading on that issue -- a federal legislative issue -- may appeal to Sherman's political base, but it isn't a particularly practical use of a local county prosecutors crime. Maybe Sherman can fight that battle when he gets elected as a U.S. representative or Senator.

People keep lapping up Sherman's talking points, but no one who knows anything about criminal justice is buying it. Josh, why didn't you call the DEMOCRAT prosecuting attorneys in Snohomish and Pierce counties and ask them why they abandoned their party as well?

Posted by T | October 31, 2007 3:30 PM

I have known Adam Kline personally for 11 years and politically since he ran for Dwight Pelz's vacancy with the Gary Locke/Ron Sims shift. Adam is a very good person. A very good legislator, and very committed to the 37th and Washington State. Adam is one of the most liberal senators in Olympia (but still not liberal enough for me) and is driven by something unique in politics - a moral compass. He believes in someone and stands by them. That is a principle of society he believes in, legislates, and actually practices. The difference between Adam and the Republicans (soon to relaunch themselves as the hypocrite party)is doing the work for society vs. simply wanting power. Josh - if James Madison were alive today, what would he say?

Posted by Lawrence Molloy | October 31, 2007 3:31 PM

packratt -- i read your story. horrifying. i hope things work out for you well legally. police should not treat anyone that way, guilty or innocent.

and a bunch of people from the funhouse owe you an apology.

Posted by infrequent | October 31, 2007 3:37 PM

JAmes Madison would support the federalist faction against the republican-democrat faction. Duh.

KC prosecutor is a stepping stone to AG or higher positions. The Dems are once again non-fighters who give away power and just don't get it.

Posted by unPC | October 31, 2007 3:46 PM

Republican Rudy Giuliani did the same thing in an much more high-profile race, backing Mario Cuomo over George Pataki in the 1994 NY governor race.

Giuliani isn't exactly Mr. Free-to-Be-You-and-Me.

Posted by Seth | October 31, 2007 3:47 PM

“Would an elected Republican ever ever do this for a Democat?”

One springs to mind…

In 1994 Rudy Giuliani endorsed Democratic incumbent Governor Mario Cuomo over Republican challenger George Pataki.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 31, 2007 3:47 PM

Quelle Horreur, Josh! A public official more interested in an experienced person he can work with than in party affiliation. More interested in acomplishing something than fighting your culture war. I'm so glad that you and the other Stranger culture warriors call out these traitors on their sick moderation!

Posted by David Wright | October 31, 2007 3:50 PM

"He's known him for 17 years"

So much for non-partisanship.

Posted by Trevor | October 31, 2007 4:05 PM

Nonpartisan4Satterberg @2: Norm Maleng campaigned for Mark Sidran only when he was running for *non* partisan offices such as City Attorney and Mayor (when there were not even closet Republicans like Tim Burgess on the ballot). Maleng endorsed a Republican, Rob McKenna, when McKenna ran against Sidran in a partisan race for Attorney General in 2004. Every Democratic prosecuting attorney in the State endorsed Sidran.

The fact remains Republicans virtually never cross party lines to endorse Democrats while Democrats self-defeatingly do so all the time. It's depressing. Kline should be taken to the woodshed for this one.

Posted by kk | October 31, 2007 4:18 PM

I'll be glad to see Bill win this one.

And, having known Sen. Kline for quite a long time, I am very very very surprised he doesn't seem to have met Bill - that would have been difficult to do.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 31, 2007 4:21 PM

More Sherman garbage:

1. Environmental crimes. The state Department of Ecology files less than 10 criminal cases per year statewide.

But hey! Let's create a full unit to prosecute such crimes because it sounds good!

2. Drug court. Let's expand it to include felony drug cases, says Sherman. Wait! It already DOES INCLUDE FELONIES. Here are the criteria.

Sherman doesn't know what he's talking about and Feit keeps lapping it up.

Posted by T | October 31, 2007 4:21 PM

@17/@18: Giuliani endorsed Cuomo because (1) no one thought Pataki would win, (2) Giuliani (probably rightfully) thought Cuomo as governor would make Giuliani's life hell as mayor if Giuliani endorsed Pataki, (3) the voters of NYC would have run him out of town had he endorsed Pataki and (4) there were no Republicans in NYC to punish him. It had nothing to do with a noble belief on Giuliani's part that Cuomo was the better candidate--it was an expression of pure fear and self-interest.

Posted by kk | October 31, 2007 4:25 PM


Thanks, it's been difficult but I keep trying to make something good happen from it, at the very least I hope to convince people that it's in their interest to be concerned about how prisoners are treated in the King County Jail because they can find themselves there someday even if they don't do anything to deserve it.

As for that place, I won't go near it and do my best to convince others to avoid it as well.

Posted by Packratt | October 31, 2007 4:30 PM

As someone who both had your signs in my yard and coordinated field efforts in my state legislative district on your campaign's behalf on the Eastside, Mr. Molloy, I am severely, deeply disappointed in your comments regarding state Senator Kline.

Supporting Satterberg is wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone who promotes him as a nonpartisan official, let alone a competent official, is a liar, someone who is intrinsically lazy regarding their knowledge of this race and this position, or someone who gets a goodie out of Satterberg remaining in office - most likely a combination of two out of three.

And of all people, you, who had an uphill battle running for the Seattle Port Commission against various moneyed interests that now support Satterberg, should know this.

Shame on you.

Posted by palamedes | October 31, 2007 4:47 PM

KK @24,

I didn't know you were in Giuliani's inner circle?

The title of this fairy tale article is "Republicans would NEVER do this...", yet Giuliani did. So, is Josh wrong or simply grandstanding?

Posted by Really? | October 31, 2007 4:49 PM

Just wondering - do you think Mr. Curtis was a fan of Concerned Women of America?

My bet says - YES. Bet he sent them money when he got their fund raising letters. Think on it.

Remember to vote.

Posted by fairy | October 31, 2007 5:14 PM

To buy the myth of Dan Satterberg, one would have to believe he was completely nonpartisan as of a few months ago, and then, in choosing a party, randomly chose the one most antithetical to the progressive values of the majority of citizens he would represent. What is it about the Republican Party he found so appealing? The Iraq War? Its stances against civil rights? Regressive taxation? Its abundance of anti-gay gay officeholders? Surely there must be SOME reasons he chose the party. Frankly, I find the pretend notion that an adult human being in a political office (and world) was utterly apolitical until the age of 47 to be far, far more disturbing than the truth that Satterberg is, in fact, a partisan Repubican. Satterberg has already started to fundraise for his "newfound" party by headlining events, and would, of course, be a draw used to raise funds for his friend Dino Rossi and the eventual Republican presidential nominee. Blow the smoke away from Dan Satterberg and you will find another Karl Rove disciple.

Posted by Brendan Williams | October 31, 2007 5:24 PM


Hey simpleton - if you oppose the death penalty - it is not a numbers game.

The moratorium gave me a reason to vote for Sherman. I have opposed the death penalty since I was 16, my first personal political decision.

End the death penalty forever. It is barbarism in the name of the state. Look north or south, both Mexico and Canada have abolished the death penalty

It is the one thing I and the Pope agree upon.

Posted by Jack | October 31, 2007 5:25 PM


Actually, according to the liberal source of record Wikipedia:

"In 1994, he endorsed Democratic incumbent Governor Mario Cuomo over Republican challenger George Pataki over Pataki's proposals to cut the commuter tax. Giuliani also objected to Pataki's plan to cut income taxes by 25%. The commuter tax was a 0.45% tax paid by those who lived outside NYC but who commuted to jobs within it. Giuliani was strictly against the cutting of this tax, calling it "relatively modest and completely justified."

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 31, 2007 5:50 PM

1) There is no such thing as a "non-partisan" official. There are only non-partisan offices, to which people with political philosophies and alliances are elected - you just don't get to know about those leanings.

2) Adam Kline needs to retire.

Posted by JD | October 31, 2007 5:51 PM


Fair enough if you oppose the death penalty, I'm a bit torn myself. But Sherman doesn't oppose it. In fact, he thinks Maleng made the right decision in Gary Ridgeway's case. Sherman is just pandering by calling for a moratorium because of racial injustice, when there is no evidence whatsoever that that is an issue (with the death penalty) in Washington State.

If he had the balls to say he opposed it, period, for the reasons you do, I'd respect that. But that isn't what he said.

Posted by T | October 31, 2007 5:53 PM

T @ 13, 23,

Since you're doing all this research, why don't you find out why Satterberg headlined a Republican fundraiser the other day along with Jane Hague, both a partisan Republican _and_ a current criminal defendant in King County?

I'm with #29 - if Satterberg is so nonpartisan and has all these community centered values, why did he choose to call himself a Republican?

Posted by qwertyuy | October 31, 2007 6:05 PM

The argument of the Satterberg gang is that Dan was Norm Maleng's hand-picked sidekick and so he's now entitled to be his successor. I say that's crap. Bill Sherman is the strong Democratic candidate that Satterberg and his minions feared and now junior prosecutors panicking over losing the status and perks they held in a Republican-controlled office are desperate. They have every reason to worry about Bill Sherman, a strong candidate with legal and governmental experience, but insufficient ties to the Maleng machine. Bill will be a great Prosecutor; Dan will love the private sector, once he gets used to no longer being the boss's pet.

Posted by J.R. | October 31, 2007 6:09 PM

Who has ever said Dan Satterberg is "non-partisan". He is running as a Republican. He has never said otherwise.

What his campaign and supporters are advocating is that he will strive to keep politics out of the office. He has vowed to encourage the legislature to make the position a "non-partisan" position as it should be. He has touted that he has "bi-partisan" support. He has never said he was non-partisan.

The real issue that people seem to not want to address is qualifications and experience. Do your due diligence on Bill Sherman's experience as a prosecutor and you'll find out that he hasn't done squat. He tried a handful of DUI cases, then went and held the hands of some juvenile defendants for a few months. Then he sat behind a desk reviewing police reports for about a year. When he finally was given the opportunity to be a "frontline" prosecutor and try some cases, he tried about 5 felony trials and left to run for office. When he returned 8 months later he went back to sitting behind a desk. He got to try 1 more case and then went back to running for office.

If that is enough for you to run an office of over 500 and be the beacon for justice in this State, then by all means knock yourself out and vote for him.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | October 31, 2007 6:21 PM

T exposes only part of Bill's fraudulent promise to form an environmental crimes unit. Not only have there been only 236 environmental crimes referred across the entire state for the 12 years between 1994 and 2006, but the Washington State Attorney General's Office already has a division to handle them in cooperation with the Feds. The AG Dept. of Ecology has 29 lawyers and 16 support staff, who represent, among others, the DOE, Puget Sound Partnership and State Conservation Commission:

The TRUTH is that if there are ANY environmental crimes left over for a county prosecutor's office (unlikely), there aren't enough to keep even a single FTE busy. Bill's "promise" is thus pure bullshit, intended to allow him his inevitable follow-up "and that's why I am proud to have the sole endorsement of the Sierra Club"- as if that has ANY meaning for the Prosecuting Attorney of King County. Bill either knows this, and is lying to you- or doesn't, and, well... should.
What so few on the outside see, and so many of us on the inside can't miss- is that most of what Bill says in his talking points has either already been done or simply can't be from the desk he seeks.

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 6:22 PM


Actually, according to the liberal source of record Wikipedia:

"In 1994, he endorsed Democratic incumbent Governor Mario Cuomo over Republican challenger George Pataki over Pataki's proposals to cut the commuter tax. Giuliani also objected to Pataki's plan to cut income taxes by 25%. The commuter tax was a 0.45% tax paid by those who lived outside NYC but who commuted to jobs within it. Giuliani was strictly against the cutting of this tax, calling it "relatively modest and completely justified."

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 31, 2007 6:24 PM

oops... sorry for the double post. (damn pda)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | October 31, 2007 6:28 PM

JR at 35- you just exposed your ignorance about everything related to this race and the office. If anyone were to fear the loss of "status and perks (sic)" (as you call whatever you're talking about), it wouldn't be the "junior" deputies. You see, they are protected by an Association, and can only be fired for cause (Bill, by the way, is one of those "Junior Deputies"). And since EVERY "senior deputy" as well as a vast majority of the "junior" deputies have considerably more experience than Bill, no one is really afraid for his or her job. What we're afraid of, is that Bill has recently proven himself again and again willing to say or do anything to get elected to a position for which he is simply not qualified.

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 6:54 PM

#29--I sure hope you're not the same Brendan Williams I went to law school with, cause I thought he was smarter than that. To call Dan Satterberg a Karl Rove-type only exposes your ignorance of him as a person and as a prosecutor.

#35--You know absolutely nothing about the prosecutor's office staff. An overwhelming majority of the staff and deputy prosecutors (most of them senior prosecutors) support Satterberg, and they are DEMOCRATS. What status or perks exactly are they getting from a Republican-controlled office? Their salaries are set in stone, not-negotiable, and public information. They enjoy the same benefit plan as the metro bus driver who took you to work this morning. It is not status that they fear losing--it is experience and wisdom. Sherman has been in the office a grand total of 3 years. He has never made a single decision that wasn't looked over and signed off on by someone with much greater knowledge and experience than him. And now he wants to turn around and make some of the most important decisions in this county. The staff of the PAO know what that job entails, and Sherman isn't ready for it.

Posted by STP | October 31, 2007 6:56 PM

@36, 40, and 41 weigh in from the prosecutor's office. All of them suggest we simply don't understand. I think I do. What if you had worked for a guy for many years and then some young guy who hadn't even worked there as long as you tried to get the top job. You'd be pissed. Who's he to apply for the job???

The fact is, this is a partisan elected position. Dan Satterberg has decided he is a Republican. This means he allies himself with the party of corporate greed, homophobia, and denying the right of women to choose. He is already headlining events with Jane Hague for the party. He will be used to pimp Republican candidates everywhere.

Bill Sherman is well qualified. You simply haven't made your case to the public. Bill Sherman is a Democrat. Dan Satterberg is a Republican. Vote for the Democrat. The PAO office will continue their fine work. The sun will rise each day.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 7:44 PM

I challenge any Bill Sherman supporter to make an expedited public disclosure request for his assignments in the office over his "career" and a description of each position.

If after reviewing what you receive (and it won't be much) and you still believe that can run the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, then God help you...

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | October 31, 2007 7:44 PM

Actually... let me be more SPECIFIC.

I challenge JOSH FEIT, "News Editor of the Stranger", to actually do some real investigating and make the public disclosure request as I've outlined above and report to his readers what he finds.

As a "news" journalist, isn't that your duty? To investigate and provide facts to the public...? Wouldn't THAT be a story?

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | October 31, 2007 7:51 PM

Actually, let me be more SPECIFIC...

I challenge JOSH FEIT, "News Editor of the Stranger", to actually do some real investigating, make the public disclosure that I have outlined @43 and report those findings to his readers...

Isn't that what being a "news" journalist is about? To dig for facts and provide information to the public? Now wouldn't THAT be a story.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | October 31, 2007 7:55 PM

Tiptoe @42,

Tell me, what do you know about what Bill Sherman has done in the prosecutor's office?

This is not about a young gun rising up the ranks and pissing off those above him. This is about a man without enough experience to even know how to put on a basic drug case, sexual assault case, homicide case, etc... running an office where 95% of the attorneys have more experience than him.

Letting Bill Sherman replace Norm Maleng would be equivalent to a 3rd year tester at Microsoft replacing Bill Gates... but if he's a Democrat, that's okay. Please.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | October 31, 2007 8:06 PM


"Letting Bill Sherman replace Norm Maleng would be..."

I didn't think he was running for the office of corpse.

How very halloweenie.

Posted by Packratt | October 31, 2007 8:33 PM

you gettin' on that, Josh- or is it enough for you, too, to simply vote a letter?

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 8:51 PM

Grow up. Democrat doesn't automatically equal good, Republican automatically equal evil. Adam Kline has sidestepped the partisan bullshit and endorsed a (good) man he knows -- and knows will do a good job.

Posted by wrw | October 31, 2007 9:11 PM

I believe that democrats inside and outside of the office are supporting Dan because they believe he's the better candidate. But Joel Connelly (bleh) has an interesting alternative theory posted on Strange Bedfellows:

"Ambitious Democratic officeholders cannot help but see potential competition if the youthful, dynamic Sherman takes on the high-profile job as prosecutor in the state's largest county. Satterberg has emphasized that he has no ambitions for higher office."

Posted by Gidge | October 31, 2007 9:22 PM

Who cares @ 43-46

You are right. All us uneducated bumpkins don't really understand the way the world works. We shouldn't even be allowed to vote in this race. Why...they should just let the Prosecutor's office decide! Them law school folks know better than us partisan villagers...

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 9:47 PM

Connelly's theory is retarded! Really?! Does he really think that Gregoire is not endorsing Sherman b/c she's afraid of him politically? And that's why Sims is not endorsing Sherman, either? Man, that's some crazy conspiracy theory. How about the obvious: Gregoire and Sims support Satterberg, but don't want to piss off the ridiculous D's who think that endorsing Satterberg is evil.

Posted by my-dog-is-smarter-than-you | October 31, 2007 9:53 PM

Governor Gregoire does not support Dan Satterberg. She watched him vote the Republican party line on almost every ballot that came before the King County Canvassing Board in the 2004 election. you prosecutors posting here insult the intelligence of jurors too?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 10:12 PM

No, tiptoe, who cares isn't saying you don't understand how the world works- he's saying, and I agree, that you don't know how the KCPAO works. That office is vested with the monumental responsibility of enforcing the laws of Washington State- not with making policy or fulfilling Party-line agendas. The position must therefore be filled not by a candidate who belongs to the Party which best fits our notions of fair and prudent foreign, domestic, social or fiscal policy, but by the person most experienced and qualified to run what is the largest law enforcement agency in the State, and anyone with enough individuality to look beyond party lines could see that person is Dan. You simply cannot achieve the level of experience necessary to make the decisions required of the PA in the brief and undistinguished tenure Bill has had there. What who cares is saying, and I agree, is that Bill is greatly puffing his experience and you're buying it because you have no idea of a) how the office works and b) what Bill has ACTUALLY done there- which flat out ain't much...

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 10:22 PM

Wait, do I get this right, Tiptoe? You're saying that Christine and Ron's failure to endorse/support their own party in one of the most important races on the ballot means they actually DO support their own party??? BRILLIANT LOGIC, TIP TOE!!
If you can't hear the volume in their silence you're worse off than I thought....

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 10:30 PM

@53 - Do you even know what you're talking about? Jenny Durkin (Gregoire's atty) watched the whole election unfold. She was there to protect Gregoire and the Democratic party in '04. She has publically endorsed Satterberg. She can do so, b/c she's not a politician. Gregoire cannot come out and publically endorse Satterberg b/c she has her own re-election to think about and doesn't want to piss off a bunch of hardcore party line tow-ers. The fact that she did not endorse Sherman speaks volumes.

Posted by my-dog-is-smarter-than-you | October 31, 2007 11:04 PM

Experience shouldn't be the sole deciding factor for deciding whether to support a candidate or not. After all, Nifong had over 25 years of experience with many of those years in relatively the same type of position as Satterberg.

While I'm not suggesting that Satterberg is a Nifong, I am suggesting that it's important to remember that experience alone isn't always a good thing.

So far, it seems that an abundance of years in the same office is the only thing that Satterberg supporters here are using as a rallying cry.

Posted by Packratt | October 31, 2007 11:05 PM

I am still not sure that calling Sherman supporters ignorant is the best persuasive tactic to use to win votes for the Republican candidate. But, you are the trained professional litigators--so you are probably right...

I'm sorry. Party labels mean a lot to me. The ideals that one associates oneself with are important. I do not believe in the ideals of the Republican party. On almost every issue.

This is a partisan political post under the county charter. You remember the charter don't you? If you don't like the fact that our governing set of laws over the years has chosen to give the public a choice in who their prosecutor should be, and that they should be able to use party labels as a guide to candidate values--then work to change the charter. But until then, voters will continue to support candidates that support their values. The Republican party doesn't share my values.

Bill Sherman is plenty qualified to do the job. If he was as incompetent as you all paint him, the long campaign would have made that apparent. The fact that it hasn't happened must really bug you. Why can't those idiots see what we see?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 11:06 PM

You're wrong, Packratt- the abundance of years isn't the extent of the rallying cry, it's also what Dan has done during those years and the contrast of that combination with Bill's glaring dearth of anything even approaching either. But it's even more: virtually everything Bill has promised to accomplish if he's elected either a) already has been done or b) simply can not be done from the desk at which he seeks a chair. So add to the extraodinary disparity in tenure and what has been done with it the fact that Bill is being dishonest and what do you have? You have a politician- and THAT'S what Nifong was- not a prosecutor. Dan is a prosecutor, Bill is a politician. see now?

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 11:15 PM

What cracks me up the most about this race is this: all the democrats in the office support Dan and all the George Bush wannabies support Sherman. Absolutely friggin' hilarious.

Posted by beware | October 31, 2007 11:22 PM

You can see for yourself, tiptoe. take the challenge of who cares at 43. Get Bill's REALLY impressive job assignments for the twice-interrupted-less-than-three-years he spent there. We ain't makin' this shit up, you just don't want to believe it because doing so would force you to recognize, as I and most of us Dem PA's have, that in THIS particular local race the public benefits more if we can see past the party. Our "frontline DV prosecutor" TWICE abandoned the victims in his case load to run for office, in some instances just days before trial, and then runs on a platform of "wanting to protect victims". That's crap, and not the kind of crap I want from the leader of an office this big and this important to public safety. I care about party labels too, but not over safety, honesty and true compassion for victims....

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 11:32 PM

good point, beware- although I can think of at least 2 GB wannabees who also support Dan!

Posted by Tdog | October 31, 2007 11:34 PM


"I care about party labels too, but not over safety, honesty and true compassion for victims...."

Yeah, I was the victim of a crime, I didn't get much safety when you guys refused to go after the dozen people who kicked my head in while I laid on the ground helpless, all for stopping a fight.

I didn't get much honesty when the KCPAO withheld exculpatory evidence but let officers make untrue and disparaging remarks about me to the press while you let me rot in jail for months while being denied medical care for my injuries.

My family didn't get much safety when they had to endure death threats and the only advice I got from you guys was "yeah, you should watch your back then."

I definitely didn't get much compassion either for being assaulted and then having my civil rights trampled by the SPD, instead I'm stuck with all these medical and legal bills thanks to the KCPOA, KCJ, and SPD.

I don't care about party lables either, but I do care about my civil rights, justice, and the constitution.

Posted by Packratt | October 31, 2007 11:52 PM

Provide your own proof, don't ask me to do it for you. Us voters can only make judgments on what evidence is presented to us. Plain and simple--Dan hasn't made his case to the public. Bill Sherman has demonstrated his clear competence in this race.

I think I'll get some sleep now. I hope you PA's don't have trials tomorrow--you should sleep too so you can better represent the public. Or you can stay up and keep calling Sherman supporters dumb...

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 11:59 PM

You go and watch the Sonics opener and see what you miss...

Tiptoe @all posts,

I don't believe I ever called you ignorant. I simply asked what you knew about Bill Sherman's experience as a KC prosecutor. If you know nothing except that he touts himself as a "frontline" trial prosecutor for the last 4 years, then you don't know the truth.

I'm not hiding information from you, my friend... I'm simply asking you to go get the information if you don't believe me. Very easy... call 296-9000 and make the public disclosure request that I have challenged Josh Feit, News Editor of the Stranger (Seattle's ONLY Newspaper), to go make. Hell, the KCPAO might not even respond within the statutory period and you could make some money.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | November 1, 2007 12:04 AM

Tiptoe @64,

I take back my post @65. YES, you are ignorant (if you want to say "dumb", then that fits too).

We're not asking you to "provide" proof to us, we already know the truth.

For your own sake, go find the proof FOR YOURSELF!! Or, sit there and make your judgments based on what politicians tell you... that's a fine idea.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | November 1, 2007 12:11 AM

really, tiptoe? we voters can only make judgements on what evidence is "presented to us"?? You mean we are passive recipients of whatever crap folks throw at us and are incapable of questioning the representations candidates who would have us vote them into important offices throw our way?
You ARE worse off than I thought. You've been given plenty of facts supporting Bill's paltry experience in the office. If you doubt them, you have a right to find out for yourself.
But I suspect it's not a question of doubt for you. Bill is a D, Dan is an R, and that's all you need to know to cast your "informed" ballot.
at least now I know why you have to tiptoe...

good night

Posted by Tdog | November 1, 2007 12:16 AM

Is it true Sherman graduated from law school five years ago?

Posted by alwaysdem | November 1, 2007 1:24 AM

maybe some of the freaked out comfy prosecutors posting here would care to share how much experience Norm Maleng had in the office when he became prosecutor. 7 years. He was never a "front line prosecutor." He was only 39 years old.

The point is that working your way up a bureaucracy is not the old way to identify leadership. Sometimes leadership is external.

I like Satterberg and I might possibly vote for him, but with each self-righteous post from our current prosecutors about how offended they are that someone junior to them in the office would presume ot lead it, I lean more strongly toward Sherman. Someone needs to shake up these too-comfy, too-self-satisfied civil servants.

Posted by freddie tuesday | November 1, 2007 1:58 AM

editing post @ 69: "old way" was supposed to be "only way"

Sherman did other policy stuff before he went to law school, but no, he clerked for two years after law school and then worked for a leading law firm for a couple years before his three years as a prosecutor.

I don't know him or study his materials, but this was the bio info I have read in news articles & I heard him repeat it at a debate

Posted by freddie tuesday | November 1, 2007 2:01 AM

To the T, Tdog, whocares... posters - tiptoe is right in that the general tone of your posts is that we voters are too stupid to get it, and just need to listen to you.

I sympathize because I'm in a similar situation with some school board candidates (including an incumbent Josh endorsed without knowing the inside or caring to find out). With the early posts in this thread I was leaning toward Satterberg, but I agree with Freddie tuesday that as they've gotten more strident, you're losing your case, at least with me.

Provide the public disclosure docs to Josh or whomever - don't browbeat people to get them. If you can't do it, get one of your acquaintances outside the office to do it.

At this point, you're not doing Dan any favors...

Posted by impartial bystander | November 1, 2007 7:15 AM

@ 71

Impartial, thanks for your post. I do not think the voters are stupid and I apologize if my tone comes across that way.

I do think the media is lazy and/or just outright biased, and many (certainly not all) voters are therefore mis- or uninformed. Take Feit's original blog post and compare my response @ 13. The fact of the matter is that Sherman is a damn good politician--he says things that people want to hear and that make enough sense that you really need to know the details to see behind the smoke. The media has made NO effort to scrutinize Sherman's grand plans. I don't know that Dan's campaign has done that great of a job dissecting them either, though in their defense, it is hard to argue about the impracticality of creating an environmental crimes unit without sounding anti-environment.

The other frustration with the media is their complete lack of effort to get the attitudes from within the office. Both candidates, to their credit, have sworn off public support from the office, but this has the net effect of hurting Dan Satterberg because the office overwhelmingly supports him.

When Janice Ellis took on incumbent Snohomish County Prosecutor Jim Krider a few years ago, it was known that those in the office and the law enforcement community supported the challenger. When the qualifications of a police chief are discussed, one of the issues that the media appropriately deems as relevant is the impact it will have on the morale amongst his or her staff.

Here Dan enjoys the endorsements of Democrat lawyers in the criminal defense community and all of the public safety unions, but the media has never mentioned this issue, only puzzled itself with the Democrats who have abandoned their own candidate. And people like Joel Connelly chalk it up to this bizarre theory that established Democrats like Christine Gregoire or her lawyer, Jenny Durkan, perceive Sherman as a competitive threat?

Relying almost solely on Bill Sherman's "outstanding" rating from the Municipal League, the media is simply unwilling to consider the possibility that those people closest to the office think that Satterberg is enough of a better candidate that it is worth crossing party lines.

Now, as for your frustrations with the school board, please do tell. I admit I am clueless on that and unfortunately have to rely on what I see in the media...

Posted by T | November 1, 2007 8:07 AM

Satterburg is the classic insider.

He's also an up and coming R who will help all other R's.

HE voted for George Bush, McKenna, and Rossi, right? He is an R.

Suddenly for the first time this year he is actively promoting a nonpartisan ooffice for KC prosecutor. Yup, this will benefit....himself!

Why was he silent for so long if that's what he thinks is right?

Posted by unPC | November 1, 2007 8:20 AM

freddie at 69-

you ask a legitimate question. But while Norm only had 7 years in as a lawyer when he was elected, it was still 2 more than Bill, and 5 of those years were spent as the chief deputy of the civil division. the other thing to remember is that the county was about one third the size it is now, and the office even smaller.

Posted by Tdog | November 1, 2007 8:38 AM

Impartial: it just gets frustrating. We know Bill, Dan and the office, and it's tough to see folks of our party who don't, make decisions apparently based on misleading one-liners and party affiliation.

But your point is well taken...

Posted by Tdog | November 1, 2007 8:59 AM


All the insider on and on does not change one whit the real process.

SO, stupids, let's keep it simple.

Push all the endorsements aside, all the so called INSIDE issues, all the political grandstanding.

FACT, King County is over whelmingly Democrat. Very big time Democrat. I think it is simple, Democrats came out of the stupor and said why are we voting Republican?

They are not gong R for any candidate. And that will not change any time soon.

Dan Satterberg did the wrong planning. He should have changed parties.

He would have been welcomed as a Democrat. Sorry Dan, you and your clan missed the chance to make a splash, and local political lore.

Happy trails post election.

Posted by Robert | November 1, 2007 10:09 AM

@72 thanks - it makes sense - I get it. re school board - I will probably let that one lie, as to explain why one of the Stranger's endorsements is more or less asinine would require my beating a dead horse and getting personal about Josh's reasoning skills - and have heard that you really don't want to make Erica/Josh/Dan mad as they will not hesitate to use their bully pulpit. I don't want it to be used against the candidate they should have endorsed.

At least they probably didn't lead off the KCPAO candidate endorsement interviews with, "We really don't follow KCPAO issues and politics..."

Posted by impartial bystander | November 1, 2007 12:42 PM

68: No, it's not true -- Sherman graduated from law school eight years ago.

Posted by scott | November 1, 2007 12:45 PM

From Goldy today:

More evidence of Dan Satterberg’s vaunted non-partisanship comes from his campaign expenditures, where he’s already paid Rep. Dan Roach (R-Bonney Lake) and his wife Melanie $6,663.60 for phone banking on his behalf. I suppose it’s not so uncommon for elected officials to phone constituents on behalf of fellow party members, but I didn’t realize they sometimes charge for it.

Most of the money went to Melanie and her gym (she’s a competitive weightlifter with Olympic ambitions.) Other than Dan Satterberg, Melanie has also been paid to phone bank for such noted non-partisans as Republican Rep. Dan Roach, Republican state Sen. Pam Roach (Dan’s mommy) and the King County Republican Party.

Yup, you can’t get much more non-partisan than that.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | November 1, 2007 3:57 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).