Sound Politics: John Lovick's campaign

August 23, 2007

John Lovick's campaign

There's a bit of myth floating out in the press about John Lovick's campaign for Snohomish County Sheriff that needs correction.

Seattle Times coverage on Wednesday said he, "held a slight lead despite little campaigning." Today the Times editorial page said, "State Rep. John Lovick came in first in a three-way primary race with virtually no campaign at all."

Now, I don't know how much time Lovick actually spent campaigning the last few weeks compared to his primary opponents, Tom Greene and Rob Beidler. But Lovick was competitive in yard sign coverage and was actually running TV ads (seen on two different cable stations by this writer, including a Mariners game).

TV is a rare thing for Snohomish County government races. Kevin Quigley ran some in the Democratic primary for County Executive in 2003 and Aaron Reardon ran some in the general. It's safe to say John Lovick - whatever actual effort he put in - actually ran one of the more high profile campaigns for Sheriff that Snohomish County has seen.

I wish I could quantify it more, but Lovick, unlike his opponents, is tardy in his PDC filings. Beidler and Greene filed with required pre-primary reports August 13th. As of this typing Lovick last full report was July 24th, so it's tough to know how much he actually spent on those ads. Either way, cable ads are actually pretty cheap (hint, hint to local candidates). Short of advertising on CNN or Fox, candidates can afford bigger TV buys than one would expect, and with the demographic information on the viewership of most channels one can find stations with a pretty good bang for the buck.

The core of the Times' editorial had merit. The race does deserve a full airing and shouldn't just be decided on name ID. Just don't believe that Lovick's primary campaign somehow had less visibility than his competitors.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 23, 2007 08:37 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Lobby against CAIR and jihads in our back yard and just maybe...

Posted by: dcat on August 23, 2007 09:05 PM

2. If Lovick hadn't entered the race so late, his campaign would've been far stonger, and I think that's what the Times was implying.

Because of the fact that he didn't announce until after session ended, he was unable to compete for funding and endorsements (many of which went to Beidler).

Also, he has far fewer signs than Greene or Beidler. I haven't seen one oversized Lovick sign, but the SR-9 corridor is plastered with huge Beidler and Greene signs.

Posted by: Kevin on August 23, 2007 11:28 PM

3. We received a mailing from Lovick and, watching a recorded show last night, there was a tv add for Lovick.

More than I recall seeing of the others.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 24, 2007 05:34 AM

4. Kevin: if that is what the Times was implying, it's baseless. I don't think the Times was implying that anyway: I think, rather, they were implying that people weren't paying attention to the campaign, and instead just picking Lovick based on name ID.

Also, as to signs, the SR-9 corridor up where I am is very different from where Lovick's base is. Lovick is, so far, a very regional candidate. Most people outside of his part of South County aren't very familiar with him. It will be interesting to get the data from the primary broken down by precinct to see where his support so far lies.

Posted by: pudge on August 24, 2007 07:34 AM

5. pudge, you're not supposed to read anything into the primary results. :)

Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2007 08:11 AM

6. Lovick was doorbelling on my street about 3 weeks ago, and he had a literal army of volunteers with him (I can only assume they were mostly union-types). He probably had 25 people walking neighborhoods decked head to toe in Lovick gear. Anyone who thinks he sat out the primary is ignorant.

Posted by: jacob on August 24, 2007 08:45 AM

7. John is a tough campaigner, and polite to a fault. Folks who meet him will be impressed. Hell, he is even nice to me, and I am always in his face for this or that, living in the 44th.

That said, I belive it is more about party politics.

I was chatting wth the "little red haired girl" that I know in MLT and she is a big NOW and NARAL person. She voted for Tom, but mentioned that NARAL endorsed John.

Now, drinking SOME kook-aid is ok, I suppose, but as speaker pro-tem in the house, John can do a damsite more good for those folks in the hosue, than he can as sheriff.

Politics is strange, and when groups don't analyze where folks can do them the most good, but instead endorse someone in a race that would be to their detriment, well, the Geez's head spins around, and he concludes that it is about dogma, rather than practicality.

Rob's comment that "folks aren't ready for my kind of justice" confirms him to be the gun totin' whacko I feared, so glad he is out. Funny thought that the current proprietor is of the same ilk, so that ain't it, Rob.

The good news is that while I have a preference, we can't be harmed by the two remaining candidates, as both would do the job better than 90% of political office holders do theirs.

The Geezer has spaketh.

Posted by: The Geezer on August 24, 2007 09:16 AM

8. Well, that was quite a spin, meister.

In reality, John doesn't really have the day-to-day law enforcement experience. Greene does.

Some people would say Greene's experience as an insider isn't a good thing. Posters here have pointed out some real dumb law enforcement things Lovick tried to get passed.

Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2007 10:34 AM

9. In his TV ads, Lovick prominently mentions his 30 years as a State Patrol sergeant. You mean he spent his 30 years and never made it above sergeant??!! You'd think if he'd been an outstanding officer, he might have made Lieutenant. Certainly not the guy I'd want as Sheriff-we need real law enforcement, not political correctness.

Posted by: Carol Kujawa on August 24, 2007 10:40 AM

10. My issue is whether State Patrol is really law enforcement as we see it on the streets.

Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2007 11:38 AM

11. swatter, I know you put a smiley face there, but I was previously talking about comparing two candidates who were not actually running for the same thing, such as Cooper and Sinclair, who were not running for County Council, but were running for their party's nomination for County Council. They weren't running against each other.

Sheriff race is, of course, quite a bit different. Anyway, even then, I am mostly interested in comparing Lovick *to himself*: see where he got more support and less support.

Posted by: pudge on August 24, 2007 02:03 PM

12. John Lovick is not capable of providing the management and experience necessary to operate the Sheriff Department. His experience with the WSP did not prepare him to head up the Sheriff Department and his experience in the State Legislation showed him to be very shallow on important issues. He voted has directed by the Democratic Party. I for one do not want a political hack to head up the Sheriff Department where I live.

I will vote for a Deputy Sheriff before I will vote for a legislator to be the top law enforcement officer in Snohomish County.

Posted by: Snuffy on August 26, 2007 08:25 PM

13. This Saturdays I was caught in the traffic jam when IV was closed down for 5 hours. It took 3 hours to travel the remaining distance of 40 miles to Olympia. My point is that no where in this exhausting incident was the WSP directing traffic. The detour off IV via route 18 to 167 was not in anyway directed by or helped by the WSP. The result was an unmanaged traffic jam ensnaring thousands of motorists. All of this to enable the WSP and DOT to investigate at their leisure a 3 car accident.

No I do not want a person that is a Sargent in the WSP to head up the Snohomish County Sheriff Department. Not with that kind of arrogant, don't give a damn, thinking. NO. NO. NO.

Posted by: Snuffy on August 26, 2007 08:51 PM

14. And the difference is what, pudge? No smiley face this time.

Posted by: swatter on August 27, 2007 08:04 AM

15. swatter: Cooper and Sinclair were not running against each other in the primary; they will run against each other in the general. Lovick and Greene and Beidler were running against each other in the primary.

What about that difference do you not understand? It is statistically invalid to compare Cooper's results to Sinclair's. It is not statistically invalid to compare Greene's results to Lovick's.

I don't know another way to say it, and I don't understand how you don't get it.

Posted by: pudge on August 27, 2007 12:16 PM

16. I wouldn't give my vote to Lovick for a position in the legislature, but I can't give my vote to a member of the Sheriffs staff either. I believe the Snohomish County Sheriffs office has some real issues that needs to be looked at by an outsider, any outsider at this point.

When you have Snohomish officers like Detective Larry Cole running around taking pictures of innocent free speech protesters, and management that isn't doing a smack down and is trying to keep the facts from coming out in public, there is a problem.

Do I think Lovick is the right man for the job, absolutely not. It's good the existing one is going away, but it would not be much better if one of his cronies replaced him.

Hell, why didn't Greg Schmidt move up to Snohomish County and help us all out!

Posted by: Joel Johnston on August 29, 2007 08:32 PM

17. Joel Johnston: if you think Greene is a "cronie" then you should really research the candidates more, especially if you care about the job as much as you seem to.

Tom Greene is the right man for the job. Look into him, and I have little doubt you'll agree. It's foolish to dismiss him just because he is in the department now, when it's not him calling all of the shots. Contact his campaign with your specific concerns, or arrange to meet the man at one of his many events.

Posted by: pudge on August 30, 2007 03:52 PM