An interesting phenomenon in the Elections Director race is that Sherril Huff's backers are all of the people who fought tooth and nail to prevent the voters from getting to make this decision -- Ron Sims and the Democrats on the County Council, state and county Democratic Party bosses, unhinged bloggers and Bolshie activists, etc. Everybody who was on the wrong side of public opinion on this issue (two votes with 56%+ approval each time ).
And among those on the wrong side of public opinion is Huff herself
Huff, 63, said she didn't favor the charter amendment, wasn't interested in campaigning at this point in her life and was resistant to moving from Kitsap County, where her grown children live, to King County, which she must do to qualify for the officeWhy vote for someone who thinks she's above having to ask you for your vote? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 14, 2008 08:01 PM | Email This
Indeed.
Posted by: Michele on December 14, 2008 08:02 PMIs that any way to label Comrade ivan?
Posted by: Hinton on December 14, 2008 09:53 PMWhen the voters speak as they have, we don't whine about it. We get to work and we organize. We know what's at stake here. If you lot think Pam Roach or David Irons is going to win this election, then feel free to wallow in your illusions.
Fact is, the Democratic vote will be unified, and yours will be split. You can call this election "nonpartisan" all you want. Nobody in King County thinks Pam Roach or David Irons is "nonpartisan."
No job for you with your old boss Pam, Hinton.
So how can Stefan say that David Irons or Julie Anne Kempf are better qualified than Huff to be our Elections Director?
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 14, 2008 11:19 PMBut there are many other disturbing incidents in Huff's track record in the last few years.
The real test is how has Huff's performed when there were close elections -- like when your District Court primary race went into a recount. Huff was in charge then, her numbers didn't add up and her explanations were ridiculous.
How has she handled the transition to mail-only voting? Not very well, according to all accounts.
She also seems to be even less transparent and more secretive than Dean Logan was.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 14, 2008 11:35 PMI looked at Irons' biography on his campaign website, and it says he has been "CEO of Convention Communication Provisioners Inc. [CCPI], a Telephone/Internet company – 1997 to 2008". The website for CCPI also lists Irons as its founder in 1998 and as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
However, during the period January 2000 to December 2005, Irons had a supposedly full-time job -- namely as King County Council member from (former) District 12. Irons was elected in 1999 and re-elected in 2003. When he left office, Irons was making over $100,000 per year for the supposedly full-time job of King County Council member.
Now we discover that Irons was "moonlighting" during his entire six year tenure of highly paid, supposedly full-time service on the King County Council. During this entire period, Irons was also Chief Executive Officer of this internet and telephone company!
Stefan can criticize Ron Sims, Sherril Huff, and the Democrats on the King County Council all he wants to for partisan reasons. But all these Democrats have been working full-time for the citizens of King County at their full-time county jobs, and have not been moonlighting with major private sector jobs as Irons did during the entire time he was on the King County payroll.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 14, 2008 11:42 PMWill their qualifications and ideologies be easily recognized or drowned in saccharin pap as with the judicial nominees?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2008 11:53 PMBy the way, it looks like David Irons won the ballot order lottery, and will appear at the top of every ballot. Sherril Huff ended up in second position on the ballot.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 15, 2008 12:03 AMYes, we residents of neighboring counties have noticed that. As Dean Logan could testify, it's become a "full-time" job to steal an election and attempt to cover it up.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 15, 2008 03:41 AMMaybe so, but that doesn't mean it's an 'epic fail' in anybodies mind but yours.
Democrats have a hard time understanding the whole 'separation of powers'/'accountability' thing because they see politics as purely a power struggle between the proletaria...I mean the "people" and the "powerful", but that's only true in their warped little minds most of the time.
She could get 100% of the vote and it would still be a huge success. The point is that people can now cast her out should they desire.
Posted by: cliff on December 15, 2008 05:36 AMHow's that lawyer thing working out for you bud. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 15, 2008 06:09 AMi'm starting to wonder; apathy in the voting both; people too distracted & too soft; sad--as a country slips into 2nd-rate and socialism; Europe II;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 15, 2008 06:10 AMAh, but it does.
See: Bill Jefferson/Joseph Cao.
Even the most partisan districts have their limits.
Posted by: cliff on December 15, 2008 06:20 AMLOL, yeah them Russian's farms could sure put out the food couldn't they.
Let's see, how many years have we been selling 'wheat' to Russia?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 15, 2008 10:00 AMWhy is there anything wrong with arguing that this position should not be elected but then, when a majority of voters overrule you, arguing who you think the best candidate is to vote for?
The same could apply to the initiative for no-partisan positions.
What exactly are you arguing for, that people who opposed these charter amendments should just give up their right tro vote because they were opposed in the first place?
Posted by: Mickymse on December 15, 2008 10:07 AMI'm happy to vote Democratic, I'm more religious than many of the Republicans I have met around here, and I happen to find plenty of Biblical reasons to be anti-poverty, anti-greed (not anti-business), and pro-environment.
Posted by: Mickymse on December 15, 2008 10:13 AMMy first thought was that Mick must be joshin' us, but in case he's not....let's play name that PARTY!
So....name the party whose leaders and elected officials:
Support the butchery of unborn children
Crow about so-called "separation of church and state"
Support sodomite marriage
Constantly reference and berate the "religious right"
Want to deny any public acknowledgement of God
Have driven God from our schools
Want to end the tax exemption for churches
And name the party THAT:
Enacted the "New Deal" and "Great Society"
Created food stamps, public housing and other massive welfare programs
Legislated the Community Redevelopment Act that destroyed the US banking system
Continues to push for socialized medicine
Just elected a president who wishes to redistribute wealth
And that is just the tip of the iceberg. So if anyone should "shut the hell up", it should begin with you, idiot!
Posted by: Saltherring on December 15, 2008 12:34 PM
I mean, look at some of your examples...
The "Religious Right" gets justly berated for being the kind of fundamentalists we're at War with in the Middle East. There is nothing wrong with public acknowledgment of G-d, nor with the Non-Establishment Clause. And churches have the same simple choice they have always had - just like other non-profits - to either pay taxes or accept curbs on their political involvement.
Unfortunately, some people have forgotten that non-Christians live in this country and have rights too. And, yes, this is precisely how some of our Founding Fathers wanted it to be.
Even more unfortunate is that some of those people have apparently failed to read their Bibles. Otherwise they might know that "Sodomites" are not gay people, but leaders punished for lack of hospitality and oppression of strangers. Neither Jesus or Paul spoke in favor of marriage. Jesus railed against money lenders and the kinds of greedy people that force the poor onto the streets, and their Bible repeatedly calls for forgiveness of debt and other methods of "redistributing" wealth.
Posted by: Mickymse on December 15, 2008 02:45 PMYou mean like you, Mousebait? Look... you and your boyfriend can always move to Massachusetts and get married (for all the good it'll do you...) so what are you sniveling about here?
Posted by: Hinton on December 15, 2008 03:28 PMThat's how one stays educated and informed. You know, reading a variety of sources, listening to opinions different from your own, being open to thinking about the situations of others?
It's something a few of the more dingbat commenters around here seem to have difficulty with.
Posted by: Mickymse on December 15, 2008 03:42 PM