Sound Politics: A new low in cynical politics

January 24, 2009

A new low in cynical politics

Today's mail brought this flyer promoting Sen. Pam Roach for King County Elections Director. Strangely, it was orchestrated by some of Roach's Republican colleagues in the State Senate -- who despise her. It seems to be a cynical (and foolish) gambit to try unload her from the Senate by hoping she'll land into the King County Elections job for which she is unsuited. I'm disgusted.

Pam Roach has been a tireless advocate for election reforms that many conservatives would probably approve of. I'm not sure how effective she's actually been at passing election reform legislation, but I commend her for her efforts.

Her many good intentions aside, she's not temperamentally fit to run a public agency. Her own colleagues in the Senate Republican Caucus have had to discipline her in both 2003 and 2008 for being abusive to legislative staff. Roach's personal feud with Minority leader Mike Hewitt and other caucus members is downright bizarre. Among other things, Roach has accused Hewitt of sticking his buttocks in her face at an offsite caucus meeting. Other Senators who were present deny Roach's recounting of the incident.

The mailer in question was sent under the name "Citizens for a Better Washington". This is an astroturf political commitee which was registered with the PDC a few days ago by political consultant Stan Shore. It's only disclosed function so far has been to campaign for Roach in this race. According to the mailer, the group's only donor is "The Leadership Council", the PAC officially associated with the Senate Republican Caucus, and controlled by Mike Hewitt.

So Hewitt has taken the unusual step of stripping Roach of her authority to manage legislative aides because of her inappropriate conduct as a manager. Yet he tries to convince King County voters to elect her to manage an entire Elections Department, just so he doesn't have to deal with her any more? That's pretty low.

A reminder: I've endorsed David Irons for Elections Director. He's the only candidate in the race who has the combination of political leadership, private sector executive management experience and commitment to election integrity.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 24, 2009 08:32 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Just another from a growing list of disgusting things coming from the likes of Mike Hewitt and Stan Shore.

Again Stefan...good reporting.

Well Done

Posted by: Guest on January 25, 2009 01:24 AM

2. Senator Roach would be an outstanding Elections Director. As Stefan notes, "Pam Roach has been a tireless advocate for election reforms that many conservatives would probably approve of."

Posted by: Stan Shore on January 25, 2009 08:36 AM

3. It is too bad that the dynamics of this race have made it very difficult for anyone other than Huff to win. Irons/Roach/Clifford will split the smaller center-right vote base while Kempf likely won't eat into much of the much larger D base that is all Huff needs to win. Will need a small miracle for it to turn out differently. This was over at filing week.

Roach or Irons definitely would be much more independent of Sims than Huff will be. Unfortunately they probably can't win.

Posted by: Krava Hovno on January 25, 2009 10:58 AM

4. It is a low, low moment when Senator Hewitt would provide resources to a person he hopes (beyond a thread of reality) will not be his problem if she goes elsewhere. Pam Roach has a long history of alienating constituents, staff and colleagues with her rude and unpredictably hostile behavior. Check out one of her more sane Senate moments: Everything's coming up Roaches at www.horsesass.org/?p=2111.

Roach is not running for Director of Elections to win, she is running as the spoiler. Wonder what is in it for her? We will soon find out what the payoff is when she loses.

Posted by: madlib on January 25, 2009 01:09 PM

5. Vote for Bill Anderson. He has the experience in the Banking Industry to ensure that the voting error rate is minimal and well documented for what does occur (Stefan's pet peeve). It does not make sense to try to elect known partisans to a non-partisan job.

What would be an interesting State law is the requirement to hold re-elections for any election where the balance in the votes is less than the known error rate. And yes that would cost money but would ensure that the right person gets elected.

Posted by: Tim on January 25, 2009 01:34 PM

6. David Irons?? Yes, because a man who hits his mother and can't get along with his own family would definitely bring "integrity" to the office. Pam Roach gets a bad rep because she stands up for herself and her constituents, but I'd want her on my side for a fight anytime! She's just the right person to clean up the Elections Department.

Posted by: Jamie on January 25, 2009 04:33 PM

7. Currently Pam Roach is not allowed to have direct contact with Senate Staff! She has a rocky past of violating the Senate prohibition of creating an "intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment." Her temperment is not suited for supervising a large staff.

Posted by: madlib on January 25, 2009 05:52 PM

8. Pam Roach gets a (deserved) bad rep because she has a nasty, vile temper. She also has an incredible case of "red carpet fever." She treats people like she thinks that they're peons who were put on earth to serve her and she never fails to attempt to exact revenge on anyone who doesn't follow her mindlessly. Even mindless loyalty to her is difficult because she's incapable of a consistent temperament.

Yes, I've had dealings with her and no, it wasn't pleasant.

Posted by: Camille on January 25, 2009 06:00 PM

9. Talk about a "new low in cynical politics"!!! The flyer promotes the candidacy of Pam Roach. To see it as anything different is a "new low in cynical". I don't see any evidence that it is anything different and Stefan, you have failed to demostrate what your tin foil hat is picking up.

Posted by: Michelle on January 26, 2009 01:22 PM