No, not former Ambassador and famed windbag Joe Wilson, with the hottie wife famous for his marriage to Valerie Plame. I mean candidate for Snohomish County Superior Court Joe Wilson.
All three candidates in the open race for Position 6 on that Court received a rating of "well qualified" from the Snohomish County Labor Council. That is not the same as an endorsement. Yet, despite requests by representatives of the Labor Council to both Joe Wilson and his campaign, he continues to publicly claim the endorsement of the group, including in his voter pamphlet statement.
Call me crazy, but a candidate for the bench deliberately misleading the public in the midst of a campaign is not exactly the picture of judicious wisdom one would like to see in such circumstances. Now, the Labor Council is considering withdrawing their rating of Wilson based on his "disturbing" behavior.
In reviewing the candidates, I originally found George Appel the best, Wilson next in line, and then Jim Johanson. Wilson's antics aren't going to improve that.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 13, 2008 08:16 PM | Email ThisBut can all the signs and endorsements (which nobody kinda/sorta pays attention to) overcome the huge money and postcard blast from the 3rd candidate? Can it overcome the professional marketing company (the 3rd candidate throws money at)?
This could be a true classic- money or grassroots. This could be mail versus on the ground campaigning.
I personally find it unsavory that Johanson's ads show him with pictures of the past Democrat governors and with pictures of fellow judges. Isn't this supposed to be a judicial election and not a popularity contest? Just saying.
I'll be happy with any of your top 2 picks.
Oh, if well qualified doesn't count as an endorsement, just why is the Democrat Labor Council weighing in like that in a JUDICIAL race.
Politics suck.
Posted by: swatter on August 14, 2008 08:00 AMFalsely claiming endorsements is a violation of the law and subject to sanction by the PDC.
I filed a PDC complaint last year against John Lovick because he had, for well over a month after being notified it was not true, claimed on his web site that Kirk Pearson had endorsed him for sheriff.
The PDC, incredibly, didn't do anything about it. They said there was no evidence of intent (as if the fact that they only changed it the day after I threatened to go to the PDC was not evidence that they could have changed it much sooner). But maybe someone would have better luck with the Joe Wilson case instead.
It seems like lunacy that we would consider electing a judge who is willfully breaking the law in his campaign to become judge.
George Appel is the only candidate in this race actually acting like a judge.
Well, one new one I saw last night was Ranked No. 1 by a, get this, poll. So, if I ran a poll and I announced my results- a candidate could say he was ranked No. 1 by my poll. Totally, totally deceptive.
And for the Labor Council one, I saw an Appel one trying to say the same thing but he didn't use the word "Endorsed". He used Ranked Well-Qualified. True statement, I suppose, but still deceptive.
I saw a recent literature or a sign endorsement about how he was endorsed by the Sheriff, but Wilson also claims the endorsement. Which is it? And if I recall, Johannson had a picture of himself and Lovick.
As always, politics suck and it just seems unsavory for judges to have to be subjected to this.
Posted by: swatter on August 15, 2008 07:41 AMWe're certainly not going to take your word for it, as your very next statement about Appel being "deceptive" about the Labor Council is absolutely false. Accurately noting the fact that the Council gave you a certain rating is not, in any way, deceptive. Perhaps you think Appel is implying endorsement; if so, you are quite incorrect. This is a well-accepted practice followed by pretty much every judge running for office in this state.
As to the Sheriff, I never saw anyone claim he endorsed Appel. However, Lovick has apparently endorsed both Johanson AND Wilson. This should come as no surprise to those who have followed Lovick: he will support any and all Democrats, no matter who they are, no matter how many there are.
Lovick even endorsed convict Fred Walser, despite Walser's attempt to get Rick Bart (Lovick's predecessor) to violate public records law.
At least you are over calling anyone a liar you don't agree with.
My hope is that Wilson and Appel both make it to the finals.
Appel's special endorsements are very impressive. He had so many that I thought I saw one with him "endorsed by SnoCoSheriff", but it could have been Prosecutor or SnoCotroopers, also.
My comment on sheriff was more directed against the likes of Lovick. Jack LeCerveau on sidebar is very against Lovick and give plenty of anecdotes.
Posted by: swatter on August 15, 2008 12:29 PMpudge is right about Appel correctly using the "rated 'well qualified'" description. That's what the Labor Council expects candidates will utilize publicly - as Appel does at his website and those yard sign tags. Their internal email alerting their members to Wilson's behavior says as much about the issue.
As to the question of the Sheriff's endorsement, I've seen two different yard sign tags from Appel with the word "Sheriff" in it. One for his endorsement from the Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff's Association and the other for the endorsement from the WA Council of Police & Sheriffs. I haven't seen one about the actual Sheriff.
Speaking of which, the individual Sheriff endorsement issue is complicated. Former Sheriff Rick Bart has a dual-endorsement of Wilson & Appel. Current Sheriff John Lovick has a dual-endorsement of Wilson & Johanson (Wilson uses him in a TV ad, Johanson in a mailer).
Lastly, the yard sign tag about the "poll" says "Ranked #1: Snohomish County Bar Poll." That's obviously based on the result of a Snohomish County Bar Association poll of its members, and is referenced at Appel's website too.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 15, 2008 08:42 PMAt least you are over calling anyone a liar you don't agree with.
I have NEVER done that, not once. I actually back up my claims, rather than smugly making unsubstantiated, backhanded attacks and then running away.