County GOP Chair Ger Modrell sent out some hints to the party faithful about the "secret candidate" soon-to-be-announced that will run against incumbent Democrat Aaron Reardon. Here they are:
Fact One: He's worked in the private sector since 1979 in a variety of roles all across America, and he knows what it's like to head off to the salt mines day in, day out just like everyone else. He's just as frustrated as everyone else with the lack of leadership regarding our transportation system.Fact Two: He started several companies, raised millions in venture capital, three kids, one wife, two cats, and a pickup truck. He attends church, plays guitar, loves golf and is a lot of fun at birthday parties.
Fact Three: Our candidate comes already prepared to lead, with many years of people management experience. He knows how to listen, he knows how to delegate and he knows how to convey a strong, compelling vision that a team can rally behind.
Fact Four: His first job involved balancing local and county tax and assessment rolls. He developed detailed procedures and systems for ensuring their accuracy and timely delivery.
Fact Five: He is experienced in communicating detailed, complex concepts in a clear, concise, and understandable manner. He is comfortable with both people and high technology.
Fact Six: His current business's core focus is enabling individuals to achieve their dreams of success. Isn't that the kind of leader we're looking for?
The above information probably rules out a good number of the educated guesses people having been making in recent days. Fact Six also does not preclude Tony Robbins either, though I suppose he doesn't live in Snohomish County.
The candidate will be announced at the County Party Convention, at 7 pm this Wednesday at the Red Cross Building in Everett.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 22, 2007 07:07 AM | Email This"A Future Worth Protecting," a free one-hour satellite broadcast hosted by 20 Everett-area Kellett
Edward Jones investment representatives, will be at 8:30 a.m., 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Oct. 11 at various locations. For details, call James D. Kellett, AAMS at 425-258-6434. That was in '05.
Oh, and he was just elected precinct officer for Machias.
He'll need 500k minimum to get his name out there. And he could be everything Eric has mentioned above.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 08:36 AMHere is a reference to a Letter to the Editor that he wrote in '05 to get an idea of his writing style. He is also a coach for little league.
Posted by: swatter on May 22, 2007 08:39 AMAlso, he's not merely an officer, he's the county Vice Chair.
And when you say "Radcliff against Cooper" do you mean "Radcliff AND Cooper"?
Come on who matches the facts? We should put money into a pool. Who ever gets the name right wins the money. Who's in?
Posted by: Dudeman on May 22, 2007 04:54 PMPudge: Radcliff is running against Mike Cooper in the 3rd. I believe you may have confused his name with Bill Cooper running as the token R in the 2nd. Sullivan/Berkey will crush Bill Cooper in the general. Radcliff vs. Mike Cooper could swing either way and will be an interesting race to watch.
Posted by: Steve on May 22, 2007 09:48 PMWhoever the mystery candidate is, he sounds good!!! I'm ready to help out!
Posted by: SW on May 23, 2007 08:17 AMHe was nothing like I presumed. Were doomed. I found him personable and down to earth. Even the loony lefties like him (strange for a centrist Democrat).
I also met Kirke Sievers. I thought I would like him from what Ive seen in the paper. Wrong! He was arrogant and flip. I was also surprised that the people in attendance didnt seem to like Mr. Sievers very much (and they were almost all Democrats). They openly chided him for the County Council antics in the press. He and his wife ended up getting up and leaving.
I think Reardon's in for four more.
Surprised there is no love fest there.
Yeah, any R candatate, particularly this late, will be for show only.
As far as who that candidate is, what is the big effin' secret. If you want my support, you better say who you are, or I will go with the most likely winner, so I have access. Yeah, that's why you contribute, for "access". Another thing I learned in HS civics class bites the dust.
Geez Out.
Posted by: The Geezer on May 23, 2007 10:45 AMIf being personable and agreeing were enough, maybe you'd be right. But Reardon's problems are far deeper than that.
Geezer: I am still waiting for you to apologize for lying about Tom Greene.
pudge, it would be nice if someone could scuff up the teflon on Reardon. Hopefully, the 'dirt' you have on him gets out in public.
I still say I would rather have him as US Senator than Murray or Cantwell.
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2007 12:15 PMI see why lips are sealed if it is this person.
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2007 12:50 PMAll in all, people are going to say Reardon has done a good job. Only the person I just heard about and whose name will remain anonymous has a shot.
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2007 01:59 PMThat said, you might be right about his immunity from hostile press. I was only making the point that him being personable is itself not enough.
And the candidate won't remain anonymous for much longer ... I'm leaving in a few hours to head down to the convention ...
Where did you get your rumor GTP? I thought Dino lived in Issaquah. But, wouldn't that be great?
pudge, I still don't forgive Reardon for that smear campaign and misuse of a PAC to smear Quigley last time around.
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2007 02:30 PMSomehow, methinks that Aaron Reardon is NOT going to lose much sleep over this one. Geez, maybe I oughta run...
Posted by: TamaNekoChan on May 23, 2007 09:42 PMI guessed a clown when I read this. He will sure make things interesting, won't he?!
Posted by: Michelle on May 24, 2007 12:11 AMFirst, Reardon has done OK as Exec. Pudge, the Dems on Council look stupid. Its plain to all that he's a stronger Exec. than Drewell and runs the store like a business. The Dems can't tell which way is up and its obvious the new Chair is puffing his chest. I don't think voters care so long as taxes aren't going up. Remember their pay raise he vetoed. I'm sure they are still stinging over that one.
Second, if we are going to challenge him we need a candidate with some qualifications. This is ridiculous and I'm embarassed for our Party. Modrell should step down.
Posted by: GOP Informant on May 24, 2007 01:17 AMHe has had a good record in the private sector.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 07:28 AMSecond: Modrell should step down? Why? What's she got to do with anything? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about, whatsoever?
And at convention, he was not pushed on anyone: Modrell opened the floor for nominations, and he was nominated, and his nomination was seconded; then Modrell asked three times if there were any more nominations, and there were none. And then he was nominated unanimously by voice vote.
To blame Modrell because no one else stepped forward, because she allowed someone his right to be nominated, because he was nominated by the convention without any opposition whatsoever ... it's just dumb. And if you didn't like it, you should have been a delegate to the convention. Or ran yourself.
But no, you'd rather whine from the sidelines instead of getting in the ring and doing something yourself.
I read his bio and liked it. Compared to past sacrificial lambs, he doesn't come across mean-spirited. I bet he comes up with a bang-up web site full of R principles. I think he will get a lot of people to listen to the message.
I am hoping for closer to 45% than a 30-35%. I suspect 40% which is what others got. But, for down the road.... well, let's hope.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 09:11 AMYes Geri did strongarm the deal. I guarantee that if the name of the candidate had been made public one week prior to nomination (rather than one minute) the delegates would have choosen not to nominate. There was no time to research the candidate. I spoke with a friend of mine this morning who was a delegate last night who was entertained by the magic show but definitely having buyers remorse this morning. This is an embarassment for the party.
Posted by: Steve on May 24, 2007 10:29 AMThe public (even Republicans) will never vote for a candidate they can't take seriously.
Are you willing to trust this clown with your tax dollars?
Posted by: Jason on May 24, 2007 10:37 AMSure, it would have been nice to do some research beforehand. But at the end of the day, what difference would it have made? We'd have no candidate. Some people wanted that, of course: those people should have been delegates and should have spoken up.
I don't know what your friend was thinking, but I know that I prepared myself for the possibility that I would not like the candidate, and would vote against him, preferring instead to have no candidate. If other delegates didn't do so, then they weren't taking their responsibility as a delegate very seriously. Geri can't be blamed for that.
Had the delegates known this is what the chair had in mind maybe someone credible like Gary Nelson or Dave Earling or Roulstone would have stepped up. Did they tell everyone who the candidate was when they walked in the door. How long did the delegates have from the point that the candidate was revealed to the close of nominations? An hour? 30mins? 5mins? Whatever the amount of time it was, it surely was not enough for Earling, Roulstone, Nelson to seriously consider jumping in.
Maybe they'll consider jumping in now. The Herald stated that filing dosen't close for another two weeks.
Posted by: Steve on May 24, 2007 12:26 PMIn fact, all of the people you mentioned were asked directly to run, and all of them flatly refused. I was present for at least one of the ones you mentioned being asked (I won't give you details; they are free to speak up if they want to). All of them, and everyone else you could probably think of, was asked, and simply refused to do it, for various reasons.
You want anyone here to think that Gary or Doug or Dave would refuse to do it, but then would change their mind once they knew who the candidate was? That's wishful thinking with no basis in fact, and even if it is true, then that is THEIR responsibility. Dozens of potential candidates were approached and they all said in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't do it; they are allowed to change their mind, but they can't expect anyone else to sit around waiting for them to do it.
I suggest we wait to see how he shakes the 'magic' and becomes a 'real' candidate.
A comment I received asked and wondered- based on the Herald article- if he was a Mike the Mover type. I said no and liked his web page. My guy said he would wait and see. I don't expect a whole lot of good press, though.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 01:31 PMFor those of us who believe in making county government better and changing the normal routine of corrupt politics, why are you so afraid of a man who does magic?
Are you really that ignorant and prejudiced? So what if the guy entertains the families and children of puget sound. Are we saying that just because he isn't the stereotypical candidate, he's not worthy of any support? Or at least an honest investigation?
I challenge everyone who is insulting him and his commitment to run, to email or call him and actually ask him what he thinks of the issues and what he wants to do for our county.
If you call yourself a concerned citizen, then you owe it to our county to at least spend some time honestly considering him and what he stands for before blasting him with clown comments.
Personally, I welcome the change in personality!
For those willing to do something instead of complain: his contact email is Turk2007Press@gmail.com
After you have talked to him, I'll listen to your complaints, but before you do, you have no right to be this ignorant!
Posted by: SW on May 24, 2007 08:04 PMWhere's Ashton Kutcher? Are we on "Punked?" This is nuts. The voting public is trashing the magic man - not just us. They are also trashing the GOP locally. Just got to work and that is all anyone is talking about. I'm so proud to be a Republican.
Posted by: GOP Informant on May 24, 2007 08:21 PMAs for Roulstone, he's friends with Jack Turk and the attend the same church.
As for Earling, we saw how well that worked in 2003. (No offense to him, but repeats are hard.)
I can't speak for Nelson, but he sure didn't step up when he had the chance!
Posted by: SW on May 24, 2007 08:22 PMYou, like Steve, are just making things up.
GOP Informant: do you find it fulfilling to snipe from the sidelines instead of getting involved? Does that make you feel good about yourself, knowing you aren't putting yourself on the line to do anything, so you are free to just complain behind an anonymous nickname?
Gary Nelson, per rumor mill, had designs on the Exec office in the past, but later chose not to run. This wouldn't have been a good time for him.
pudge, Rs don't run against Rs in Snohomish County, King County or any other office. Ds are the same way.
Posted by: swatter on May 25, 2007 07:15 AMI am not saying Tama is wrong that Rs choose to not run against Rs. I know that. I am saying the party didn't pressure anyone. It was the choice of the candidates.
Posted by: pudge on May 25, 2007 07:37 AMAnd I don't know the particulars, but wasn't McGavick prematurely annointed by the State party and didn't that fracture the party when other candidates wanted in on the action? And wasn't McGavick, through all the hype, a rotten candidate? I mean, he didn't have the charisma to carry it off.
I agree with you 400% on your main statement- no one else wanted to run as Exec after Bart chickened out.
Bart did speak at a Central Committee meeting a year or two ago, but so could have anyone else who wanted to run at that time.
But this goes the other way too: one could just as easily complain that the REASON we are in this mess is because the party DIDN'T back Bart ENOUGH early on. That's the tension that's faced by having a long fundraising and campaign season, that starts much earlier than the primaries.
And yes, there are other examples of candidates being "anointed" early. I am not sure I'd agree they were premature, but that is of course a subjective judgment. And I think McGavick was a fine candidate in a bad year, but that's neither here nor there.
I did vote -- as did the rest of the Central Committee, made up of all PCOs who attended -- to support Roulstone and Ishmael for Congress for 2008. It's not an endorsement, it's not a nomination, but it does perhaps drive away other potential candidates, for the sake of making it easier for them to raise early funds. Some may call that premature; those people should be PCOs and show up to the Central Committee meetings.
The party is a democracy. If you don't like the decisions that are made, step up the plate and take a few swings. If you decide to not participate, feel free to complain, just don't expect me to care too much. :-)