May 24, 2007
Watch the I-25 panel discussion
Last week's Downtown Seattle Republican Club panel discussion on I-25 (the King County initiative for electing the Elections Director) is now available on TVW. The online video is here. It will be cablecast today at 11am and at other times in the coming days. Check TVW for details.
My earlier write-up of the event is here.
A telling admission: After taping the segment with Robert Mak last Friday, David Goldstein remarked about I-25: "there aren't any good rhetorical arguments against it". No, there aren't. That's because there aren't any good sensible arguments against it, as the bipartisan panel discussion helps make clear. For the most part, the only people who oppose having elections run by an official who is directly accountable to the voters are the tight band of insiders who currently get to appoint the elections director, and their fact-averse profanity-spewing shills
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 24, 2007
10:13 AM | Email This
Stefan, well, forgive me for speaking candidly with you. I have no problem with you repeating our conversation, but it would have been fairer if you had related the fact that I specifically made a distinction between the "rhetorical" arguments and the "rational" ones.
When I said there aren't any good rhetorical arguments against I-25, I specifically pointed out that it is hard to argue against more democracy. It just doesn't make for a compelling campaign theme. But there are plenty of good, sensible, rational arguments against electing an elections director -- as difficult as they may be to wrap in an attractive sound bite.
That you would conflate rhetoric with reason speaks volumes.
Stefan pretends, "the only people who oppose having elections run by an official who is directly accountable to the voters are the tight band of insiders who currently get to appoint the elections director, and their fact-averse profanity-spewing shills"
How about the majority of counties our size across the US, who mostly appoint professional election directors? Maybe they're wrong, but every time I've asked Stefan to address this obvious issue -- say, by comparing their experience with the minority of large counties that do what Stefan wants -- I've been met with silence.
3. David, I'd be more inclined to give you due credit for having rational arguments against I-25 if you'd actually present them.
"How about the majority of counties our size across the US, who mostly appoint professional election directors?
Posted by Bruce at May 24, 2007 10:48 AM
Bruce, herein lies the problem....King Kounty fails to appoint "PROFESSIONAL" Election Directors. Was Dean Logan a "PROFESSIONAL"??? Look at all the OOOOOOOPPPPS's under his watch.
Is Huff a "PROFESSIONAL"???
Please define "PROFESSIONAL" Election Director.
Cuz King Kounty ain't had one in many moons.
Goldy: "That you would conflate rhetoric with reason speaks volumes."
Indeed it does. The only rhetoric I engage in is grounded in reason. (Okay, I sometimes employ humor and satire, but that's easily identifiable as such. My serious rhetoric is always reasoned). Goldy, on the other hand, specializes in rhetoric in its most pejorative sense, hollow propaganda that borrows little from reason and facts.
Gee, Bruce, in Dean "I should be able to find more ballots soon" Logan, we had a so-called "professional election director." Since he's the standard agains which must measure (having had no recent experience with anything else), then who gives a rip what the do in Paducah ar Bucks County or wherever?
But...I will concede your point about opposition being greater than Stefan's original assessment. So...without his permission, let me amend his statement as follows:
"the only people who oppose having elections run by an official who is directly accountable to the voters are the tight band of insiders who currently get to appoint the elections director, and their fact-averse profanity-spewing shills" and their sycophant fellow-traveler, some guy named Bruce.
7. Goldy fancies himself as a perfessional werdsmith. I mean, any guy who is such a deep thinker as to come up with a Blog named HorsesAss.Org deserves a certain modicum of respect...which is somewhere mighty close to ZERO!
"fact-averse profanity-spewing shills"
now that's a classic! well said stefan..may i assume that you are talking about goldyroger being their king?
Mr.C- It is true that appointing doesn't guarantee professionalism (witness Michael Brown at FEMA), nor does electing preclude professionalism. But in general it is logical to fill most positions the way the private sector does, through the management hierarchy, and require fundraising, campaigning, etc. only for positions where the public needs to make a choice of political philosophies.
If someone wants to make an exception from that approach -- especially where most comparable counties haven't made that exception -- I want evidence that it is likely to make things better, not worse.
Per your theory...nobody gets elected save board of directors.
And for years in King County we've tried it the appointed way and it can't get any worse. With an elected, it can only get better.
We've suffered under political cronyism for too long...Time to elect, baby, elect!
While you're at the comparison game...how many counties in the State of Washington elect and how many appoint? No fair Googling!
Do you consider Dean Logan to be a PROFESSIONAL Erection Director?
How about Sherril Huff?
What qualifications makes someone a PROFESSIONAL Erection Director??
12. Bruce, we don't have to go back that far. There is Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, Murtha and the list goes on regarding ineptness.
Goldy also substitutes profanity when he can't find a more rational way to express a thought. He seems to believe profanity gives him an edgy authenticity. I think it's that he's built his reputation and web site around childish infusion of hysteria and cursing. It's now part of the schtick.
Occasionally, Goldy wants to be taken seriously. It's then that the Tourette's-like outbursts on his blog become a real liability to his credibility.