April 23, 2007
A Comment from Jeff Sax

A recent back and forth between former Snohomish County Councilman Jeff Sax and I has concluded, I hope, with a response worth reading from him. See comment #15 at this post, itself a rebuttal to Sax's comments at this original post. Of note, Sax provides some public thoughts on his election loss in 2005 that are as in-depth as I'm aware from him since that year:

As to my election, I have not publicly spoken about my loss. I have however spent a good deal of time thinking about it. In the end I have only myself to blame. Choices have consequences and I made my choices. The consequence was losing the election. I must add however that I slept very well during my four year term and after the loss. The reason for this was that I did act on my principals and did speak my mind. I wasn't a perfect Councilmember by any means, but I did my home work and tried to make our County a better place and to protect the taxpayers of Snohomish County from the back room politics that still take place.

Now, Sax and I still have our disagreements about a few things. I think there might be more common ground between us than he believes related to his rejection of "consensus" as a magic bullet in policy discourse. And, I don't believe his perception of my take on the recent spat between the Council and the Executive actually fits my thinking. Nonetheless, Sax's comment as a whole is compellingly candid and dignified; all to his credit.

Posted by Eric Earling at April 23, 2007 06:29 PM | Email This
Comments
1. well said, Jeff at reference above. well accepted, Eric.

fighting tough can still be dignified in politics. real 'losers' are obvious in their use of tactics. complacency and too much consensus will kill us all--locally & nationally. like anything, some is good--too much is bad.

i usually blame apathetic voters first & foremost. candidates' personalities aside. it's OUR game, and we should watch the ball--not just throw someone the keys & hope for the best.

we need firm leaders & solutions. not limp towels. solutions are not always win-win and have to be negotiated. but they should be in the taxpayers'-voters' best interests--same care as one would decide if running one's own business.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 24, 2007 09:47 AM
2. Too bad we've had no similar candor about the reason Reardon is in office in the first place. My understanding is a bright, if undistinguished member of the Edmonds City Council challenged him and almost beat him. The difference in the campaign was the moderate Councilmember's tenure as Chair of the Sound Transit Board and role as light rail cheerleader during same. Moderates are always great at picking apart conservatives mistakes and pointing out how they blew it...much less so in ackowledging their own mistakes -- particularly when it comes to transit spending and taxes.

Posted by: Edmonds Anger on April 24, 2007 02:22 PM
3. I was at Jeff's house making yard signs (I am not in his council district, but his council district is in my legislative district) the day that Brightwater release hit the newspapers. I agree with Jeff that he did the right thing (for him), but that it was (obviously) politically damaging. I admire someone who will do what is right despite the cost. On the other hand, I also have admiration for people who will do what is best in the long run, which sometimes means making sacrifices in the short run.

My point is, I like Sax, I like Koster ... I like and respect all of our elected Republican officials who are thoughtful and competent and principled and do what they think is best for the citizens. Who remain true to themselves and their constituents. I was very proud to have Jeff representing our party on the Council, and I am very proud that John is my representative there still today. (And don't even get me started on the wonderful *state* legislators we have up in the 39th ... !)

Eric, my only comment to you is that I am a bit perplexed that you seem to think that what is done is more important than how it is done. Maybe I am misreading. But Reardon is violating the spirit (and IMO, the letter) of open, limited, separated, government, and I can't see how this is a good thing. Granted, you know more about county government than I do (I was impressed with the job you did on Charter Review), but what I see is Reardon, for years, abusing his power to manipulate the Council into doing his bidding. I have newfound respect for many of the Democrats on the county council, as they have been seriously standing up to Reardon since gaining the majority.

Posted by: pudge on April 25, 2007 10:16 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?