1. He told a woman who doesn't work under him that she was good looking and bought her some drinks in a casual setting? That's it? Oh, and few weeks later he said she looks good in red.

Give me a break.

Posted by: John Jensen on November 2, 2009 05:36 PM

2. I'm failing to see where the "there" is. I agree with John Jensen. If the woman didn't report to Dow, can't he pay her a nice compliment? This pure silly.

Posted by: Brian Turner on November 2, 2009 05:59 PM

3. This is it? I'm seeing now why the Hutchison campaign's desperate last-minute attempt at stirring up a "sex" scandal didn't pan out.

So, Jane Doe's charge against Constantine is that she got a free drink at an office party? And that he gave her not one compliment, but two, in the space of a month. Sorry, Mark, but you promised a lot more than this in your radio appearances. So much for your claims of a cover-up: my guess is that the Times didn't feel this was even worth covering.

Posted by: J.R. on November 2, 2009 06:04 PM

4. This is it? I'm seeing now why the Hutchison campaign's desperate last-minute attempt at stirring up a "sex" scandal didn't pan out.

So, Jane Doe's charge against Constantine is that she got a free drink at an office party? And that he gave her not one compliment, but two, in the space of a month. Sorry, Mark, but you promised a lot more than this in your radio appearances. So much for your claims of a cover-up: my guess is that the Times didn't feel this was even worth covering.

Posted by: J.R. on November 2, 2009 06:04 PM

5. The issue isn't whether this was harassment. The issue is that Dow denied that it happened. He could have responded in any number of ways that would have acknowledged that the situation happened, but there was nothing out of line with his behavior, as was demonstrated by the lack of any action. He could have expressed regret that his actions were interpreted incorrectly. Or he could have apologized for coming off as a jerk, and he should know better.

But to deny it all, and hide, just makes him look guilty.

It's not the crime, it is the cover-up.

Posted by: janet s on November 2, 2009 06:37 PM

6. I personally met Dow a few years ago in a professional setting. I went away from it thinking what a sleazy dude due to comments that are on the edge of being inappropriate. I also thought he wouldn't be in politics long (see what I knew!) I just learned of this current issue today (was out of town) and figured I would google what happened. Honestly? I'm not surprised and would venture to say it may be worse than she wanted to report. I think we can find someone better to represent us.

Posted by: SeattleGirl on November 2, 2009 06:51 PM

7. Dow Constantine is a predator and will certainly cost the taxpayers money if he's allowed to further be a liability to the state. Hopefully he's kicked to the curb tomorrow by voters, or we'll be paying some other sexual harrassment victim big time in the next few years. And John, trying to get some gal plowed at a bar in the hopes of 'getting some'- see date rape- is the work of a predator. Why do you continue to minimize his actions?

Posted by: Rick D on November 2, 2009 06:52 PM

8. He mentions a job opening and then later that she is "cute". Coincidence????

Posted by: Lechery Dow on November 2, 2009 06:56 PM

9. Come on John, ya gotta admit this is a real bit of �breaking news�, a Dem who might have said something to make a woman �uncomfortable�.

Usually it�s the Republicans who just can�t seem to keep their pants zipped up.

Class assignment for tomorrow: Compare and contrast what little we know about Dow Constantine�s offenses here with South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford�s recent �hiking on the Appalachian Trail�

Does Mr. Constantine�s offense rise to the level of �Sexual Harassment�?

Does the blogger here demonstrate credibility by condemnation of those persons on both sides of the aisle for this kind of behavior?

Might it appear that the blogger was attempting to smear the reputation of a local elected official for political benefit?

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 2, 2009 06:57 PM

10. Hey now, we Democrats can buy high class hookers! We out do Republicans in that respect. I know my New York hooker was the best! SHout out to Kristen - LUV YA HONEY!

Oh and hey let's not forget Democrat Governor Jim McGreevey. He was into dudes but hey, that's us Democrats for you. We swing both ways!

Bill Clinton was such asn amateur!

Posted by: New York Governor Elliot Spitzer on November 2, 2009 07:03 PM

11. Predator is a ridiculous word to use, Rick D. Your statement, " certainly cost taxpayers money" is absolutely baseless. I haven't read anything about Dow, EVER, that would suggest he is a predator. You do not have to support him, but to make the leap and disparage his personal reputation, is irresponsible. Where's the beef!

Posted by: Brian Turner on November 2, 2009 07:04 PM

12. Looks like an open and shut case to me! I have smeared presidents on less than this.

Posted by: Dan Rather on November 2, 2009 07:05 PM

13. Seattle Girl wrote:
"I think we can find someone better to represent us."

If the latest Survey USA poll is a correct indicator (which I sincerely hope not), it appears that the residents of King County (especially those in your home town) are INCAPABLE of electing anyone better to represent us.

Posted by: KDS on November 2, 2009 07:07 PM

14. Meeting this Tuesday. He fellow Democrats it is blue dress night. And don't ask me what the meaning of is is either.

Posted by: Oral Office on November 2, 2009 07:08 PM

15. Predator is a ridiculous word to use, Rick D. Your statement, " certainly cost taxpayers money" is absolutely baseless.

So you don't think a man 20+ years the elder of some women (a subordinate no less) he's attempting to get loaded at a bar in the hopes he can 'get some action' is not predatory? I use the word because it is exactly the truth. And yes, this will cost us money in the future if he continues his sexual predatory ways as the employer (if aware of previous infractions) doesn't do anything to curb the infractions, is held liable in a lawsuit for doing nothing. Quit being a partisan stooge and use some common sense.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 2, 2009 07:12 PM

16. hey marky mark and the lying bunch,

so dow did not 'believe his actions constituted "sexual harassment"

and apparently neither did jane doe, the supervisor or the chief of staff.

once again, a drummed up smear by pathetic repukes turns out to be an epic fail, and that makes me a very sad panda

(t)rick, you still failed to back up your baseless claims from earlier.

Posted by: mike on November 2, 2009 07:49 PM

17. There is noting wrong with sex or attempted sex between adults. We need to stop the neo-puritans that think there is any problem with a Dow trying to get in her pants in a non-work, social setting, where alcohol is being served. Where his conduct was problematic was in bringing up a job opening during the conversation.

Posted by: Kazinski on November 2, 2009 07:57 PM

18. Well, mikey@16...Dow Constantine is a Democrat, isn't he? Sleaze and dishonesty is stock and trade with Democrat Politicians. If you were to dig further in to Dow Constantine's political dealings, I'm sure you would find far more errant conduct.

Posted by: Daniel on November 2, 2009 08:05 PM

19. boy, those dems sure have the monopoly on sleaze.

just ask mark sanford, er i mean mike duvall, er i mean john ensign, whoops i meant david vitter, um maybe larry craig, no? er, pehaps bob livingston? mark foley? henry hyde? james west? john mccain?

ah, geez. you are right, daniel. did you make it beyond third grade, or do you just get all your info from faux noise? that might explain why you'd think dems are the only sleazy ones...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-20090624-sanford.jpg

Posted by: mike on November 2, 2009 08:20 PM

20. Dow should not have made comments about her "attractiveness" or what color she looks good in. If he had casually said something like "Nice outfit", she would perhaps not have felt threatened (but that's a maybe). But he purposely chose to make more pointed comments about her "attractive" appearance and what she's wearing in what most women would infer as an intent to communicate to her that she was sexually "interesting" to him, that's creating a hostile work environment. I can easily see why she felt creepy about it. Because it does make your skin crawl. And there's not one father in this thread who would play it down if this was their daughter who came home with this story in the exact same situation.

Posted by: Deeann on November 2, 2009 08:31 PM

21. Naah...mikey, I don't think Democrat politicians are the only party guilty of sleaze and dishonesty. Most politicians are guilty. It's just, that the Democrats are far, far in the lead. What a surprise!

Posted by: Daniel on November 2, 2009 08:37 PM

22. The left-wing blog Publicola reported in September that Dow personally gave Council Administrator Ellen Petre the pink slip, and that she would be working from home for the remainder of the year...

Petre is mentioned by her first name at the end of page two of this July 2009 memo:

"Ellen will document in case a further incident occurs."

Got that? The Administrator who documented this matter, in case it happened again, was just coincidentally shit-canned by Dow two months later.

It's the cover-up, stupid.

Posted by: benny on November 2, 2009 09:03 PM

23. don't feed the mikey troll. That troll is a serial liar.

Posted by: KDS on November 2, 2009 09:07 PM

24. Well at least Dow appears to be less sleazy than Portland Major Tom Adams.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 2, 2009 09:08 PM

25. #22: very interesting.....

Posted by: Deeann on November 2, 2009 09:19 PM

26. Is the TIMES going to send over a reporter to get Shirleys reaction? Nice to know that after 17 years together Dow still see fit to hit on employees. Interesting definition of life partner. Makes you wonder how many others there are that haven't been documented? Did Ervin go back the State and ask for similar documents when he was in Olympia?

Posted by: Smokie on November 2, 2009 09:25 PM

27. There doesn't appear to be a story in the TIMES from Mr. Ervin...Why would that be Keith? I realize trying to get into the pants of a co-worker (who applied for a job in his office) 20 years his junior may qualify him for Federal Office, but does it really speak well of his judgement? I am sure Keith will have a very nice article in the post election wrap-up.

Posted by: Smokie on November 2, 2009 10:03 PM

28. Take a closer look at this video of Constantine being interviewed by Essex Porter last Thursday. He clearly looks peeved, a bit disheveled, and clearly uncomfortable having to address this issue.

So Dow thinks there's "really nothing to it" and he was never questioned by county investigators. Maybe that's because Democrats didn't want to investigate one of their own...the logic for not launching an investigation in the notes linked doesn't make sense.

"...probably greater risk by conducting an investigation that other people will come forward and trust that their experiences will be judged fairly and accurately..."

Huh?

Then look at what Frank Abe, Council Coms Dir (and active D) had to say on Friday: "Abe also says: "There is no complaint. No complainant. No accusation. No allegation."

Uh-huh. Except there were accusations. Jane Doe was uncomfortable enough by what happened that she brought it up to someone else.

How drunk did she get exactly, and was there other inappropriate conduct she didn't reveal?

Posted by: benny on November 2, 2009 10:03 PM

29. Oh, dear. I was expecting something a little more explosive than this Piccolo Pete.

Since the "complainant" (and I use that word loosely) has had her identity redcated, how does one know that she is 20 years younger than Dow Constantine? Not that that really matters, but it seems to an insinuation that everyone is accepting as fact.

She claims that Constantine made two comments to her after buying her drinks (DISCLAIMER: My boss bought me two drinks on Friday). She found them so unsettling that she reported them NEARLY A YEAR LATER. She claims to have been drunk when she believes that Constantine told her that he thought she was attractive but that she didn't talk to him. Drunk people cannot drive a car effectively; can they be expected to understand nuance or relay the specifics of a conversation a year later? Dunno. But I wonder.

She was perfectly sober when he told her she looked good in red. I'm not sure why that is sexual or sleazy or pervy. Some women look good in red. Many women look terrible in yellow. Is there any difference between this and, "Nice tie!"?

This is just a lot of nothing. Saying things like, "What if he said this to your daughter!" is so incendiary and dumb. What if someone accused -- or didn't quite accuse -- your husband in this way? Or your brother? Or your father?

I imagine she sought the protection order because she is embarassed to be identfied because she was so ridiculously oversensitive... a year later.

Posted by: Todd Reeves on November 2, 2009 11:06 PM

30. KDS,

please educate me with your false allegations.

smokie
Nice to know that after 17 years together Dow still see fit to hit on employees
ever heard of an open relationship? some people don't believe in the ridiculousness of puritanicalism.

Posted by: mike on November 2, 2009 11:13 PM

31. mike, forget Dow for a minute---are you saying that people who are committed and faithful to each other are....ridiculous? Really?

Posted by: Deeann on November 2, 2009 11:42 PM

32. deeann,

please learn to read.

i didn't say being committed or faithful were ridiculous. i said some people believe - not i believe - puritanicalism is ridiculous.

i was merely implying that we don't know the details of dow's relationship with his partner (nor should we). but to speculate that he's being a 'sleazeball' - when in fact it might be acceptable or encouraged for him to be non-monagamous - is overly ridiculous. especially by those that seemingly should know better than to judge others.

Posted by: mike on November 2, 2009 11:56 PM

33. None of this matters. All that the leftist lemmings in King County care about is the fact that Dow supports abortion on demand. He will win this election no matter what he does. I hope I'm wrong there, but probably not.

As for post #30, 'puritanicalism' is not a word. Try puritanism next time. That should make you look slightlty less ignorant, but only slightly.

Posted by: Kato on November 2, 2009 11:58 PM

34. gee, could you be any more ignorant, kato?
Dow supports abortion on demand

also:
puritanicalism, sport and race

Posted by: mike on November 3, 2009 12:18 AM

35. I'm certainly not as ignorant as you, not by a long shot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/puritanicalism

Don't believe me? Then try this one as well:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puritanicalism

Puritanism is the noun. Puritanical is the adjective. It makes no sense to combine the two.

Puritanicalism is not a word. If you google Puritanicalism, you will get the response 'did you mean puritanical?'.

It doesn't even show up on:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=puritanicalism

Just because another retard made the same mistake somewhere else on the internet does not make it a word.

Posted by: Kato on November 3, 2009 12:41 AM

36. This whole controversy has done nothing but help Mr Constatine and I now must change my prediction to reflect him as our new King County Exec. It BACKFIRED folks! :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 3, 2009 04:37 AM

37. When the county's on the hook for thousands in a sexual harrassment law suit, I hope some of these same trolls that are supporting this pervert 'fess up that it was a mistake. But, in the blue bubble of ignorance that is king county, they probably deserve to have their representatives mirror their constituents value system....or rather, lack thereof.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 3, 2009 05:05 AM

38. #37 So, can we deduce (by your post) that you too agree it will be Mr Constatine? :)

Posted by: Duffman on November 3, 2009 05:08 AM

39. @ 38- Yes, most likely the creepy predator Constantine is likely to win if King county voters vote their values system. I'm in Snohomish Co. nowadays so I'll be unaffected by any lawsuit brought about against the lech.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 3, 2009 05:17 AM

40. If this was it, it sorta demonstrates the desperation of the Republican opposition to latch onto anything this late in the game. I can see the next TV commercial, if we had another week of campaigning, at this rate:

"IN 2002, DOW CONSTANTINE DID NOT SCOOP HIS DOG'S POOP WHILE WALKING ALONG ALKI BEACH.

DO WE WANT DOW'S LIBERAL POOP ON THE REST OF KING COUNTY?"

Really, guys?

Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on November 3, 2009 06:52 AM

41. I imagine she sought the protection order because she is embarassed to be identfied because she was so ridiculously oversensitive... a year later.

Posted by Todd Reeves at November 2, 2009 11:06 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Todd, can you say S/S Judge Thomas.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on November 3, 2009 07:08 AM

42. #36 -Unfortunately, the polls smell that way - so the continued stench may well continue to hover.

Posted by: KDS on November 3, 2009 07:08 AM

43. one too many "continues". Grammatically corrected; "so the stench may well continue to hover".

I'd have to agree with Duffman - this could have and probably should have waited until after the election. There was enough ammo to win on merits against Dow already, so why go digging at the 11th hour, which is perceived to be desperate ?

Posted by: KDS on November 3, 2009 07:26 AM

44. which is perceived to be desperate

there is no perception. there is only desperation.

btw, that 'stench' is the rotting corpse of conservatism.

Posted by: mike on November 3, 2009 07:30 AM

45. Medic/Vet@41, sure, this is the same as Clarence Thomas except that, in this case, (a) the accuser is anonymous rather than a distinguished professor, (b) there are no corroborating witnesses rather than several, (c) the alleged remarks were un-PC compliments rather than repeatedly bragging about one's sexual prowess, and (d) the person is running for a 4-year county executive position rather than a lifelong position as one of 9 judges who interpret the law of the nation. Oh, it would be irrelevant for me to mention that (e) in this case the candidate is qualified for the job.

Posted by: Bruce on November 3, 2009 07:36 AM

46. I actually was way too generous to Clarence Thomas in #45. Another huge difference is that Thomas was still being strongly accused years later while the woman in the Dow case was not complaining at all, just publicly regretting that the issue was being blown out of proportion.

Posted by: Bruce on November 3, 2009 07:42 AM

47. "that stench is the rotting corpse of conservatism."
-mike

Mike, is that why nearly twice as many people in the country consider themselves conservatives compared to those considering themselves liberals (and slightly higher than even those considering themselves moderates)?

Bruce,
Why do you hate black people? Oh wait, never mind. You belong to the Robert Byrd/KKK party.

Posted by: Conservative Clarence on November 3, 2009 08:07 AM

48. Oh, it would be irrelevant for me to mention that (e) in this case the candidate is qualified for the job.

haha. All of the sudden the liberals are clamoring about "qualifications". Sure didn't seem to care about them when they sent the most empty suited, ill-qualified presidential candidate to come along for the past century on the Demcrat party presidential ticket (at the top no less) in 2008. Thanks for the laugh, Bruce.

As for date rape Dow, King co. voters will get the government they deserve. i.e. Continued Democrat party incompetence and bureacratic bungling. The herd mentallity always was a particular trait here in Western Washington, no thinking required.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 3, 2009 08:10 AM

49. Folks, let's try and stay away from terms like "date rape" and "predator". While Dow is certainly a sleazebag those two terms are pretty serious and as far as I know, completely out of proportion to what Dow has been accused of (and even rumored to be accused of).

And as some of you pointed out above and which I've tried to make clear in all my posts related to this subject, the real crime is the cover up, not plying a co-worker with drinks and calling her attractive. If Dow had simply come out with a statement to that effect last week there would have been no story. Instead he tried to hide it from the public. And if he's hiding something this insignificant it makes one wonder what else he's willing to hide.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on November 3, 2009 08:18 AM

50. And Rush Limbaugh Fan @9. This is, for the most part, a local political blog and furthermore I've only been blogging here for a few months, long after the Mark Sanford thing happened. If you know of any state or local Republican politicians engaging in questionable sexual behavior and trying to cover it up, please let me know. While I vote Republican the majority of the time it's only because they tend to be the more conservative of the two choices although certainly not conservative enough most of the time if you ask me and I'm willing to call them out on it when they're doing something I disagree with.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on November 3, 2009 08:24 AM

51. Seems there may be a bit of 'backtracking' going on, and understandably so. :)

btw: I'm still a Hutchison fan

Posted by: Duffman on November 3, 2009 08:28 AM

52. Mark G. I would agree those are pretty incindiary terms, and the 'date rape' characterization is maybe a little over the top, but I stand by my 'predator' label. Plying a subordinate, probably quite a bit younger than himself, with alcohol and dangling the prospect of a 'position' becoming available in his office in the hopes this would be enticing enough to get a one night stand out of it is most certainly predatory behavior by someone in Constantine's position. Sure, some of this is speculation, but I think we've all been around the block enough to know how this stuff works in the real world.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 3, 2009 08:51 AM

53. When is someone going to interview Dow's live-in girlfriend and ask her how she feels about this??

I mean, here's ol' Dow out liquorin' up babes and sweet talkin' them while he has a woman at home waiting for him.

Seems a bit childish Dow and telling about your character.
I have a feeling this is far from over.
Guys like Dow, all pumped up with self-importance, seem to need positive strokes from gals outside their marriage or committed relationship.

Dow is a powerful man...insensitive and has likely done this both BEFORE and SINCE.

Too bad Dow's character flaw has to come out now...rather than weeks ago.
I guess the Seattle Times and Keith Ervins are afraid of some sort of Dow restribution.

Hence....the od MSM whitewash by the Times.
Obviously they stopped digging waaaaaaaay too soon.

Open Government and Sunshine Laws are reaaaaaaal important to the Times. Yeah, right.
The sun was shining and the Times closed it's eyes.

Sweet talkin' Dow Konstantine and the liquored up babes...can't wait for the sequel.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 3, 2009 10:17 AM

54. Rick D..
Good for you for not backing DOWn!
Your point about Dow discussing a position with Dow's target while trying to lube her up good with liquor reminds me of the creepy photographer lurking around the Mall with a professional looking camera preying on susceptible victims.

Anyone seen Dow in a mall with a camera??

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 3, 2009 10:21 AM

55. I think we should all be proud of how Jane's supervisor dealt with this one.

There was NO attempt to determine whether this was part of a pattern.

This was buried.

I think that's SUPER!

; )

Posted by: SUPERvisor on November 3, 2009 01:37 PM

56. sorry, mike, but your comments at #30 clearly imply that in your world, couples are either in open relationships, or they are not--which you then call "puritanical" or ridiculous. As if two people are either "cool" for their open relationships or ridiculous for not being in open relationships. With supporters like you defending him in such manner, Dow doesn't need any enemies.

Posted by: deeann on November 3, 2009 03:14 PM

57. Predator is the correct term.

Posted by: How Now Date Rape Dow? on November 3, 2009 06:21 PM

58. Did you actually read the redacted document?

He practically was baiting her with a job offer ... in exchange for what ??

Posted by: Blue Swan on November 3, 2009 06:52 PM

59. I love all the crap from Constantine about "people wanting someone who shares their values"... what does it really say about the values of people who vote for a slimeball that runs such a negative campaign? I wasn't too keen on Hutchinson but Dow has been around as long as I can remember... it's well beyond time to move on. Unfortunately we're going to be stuck with this career jackass for a while longer.

Posted by: Lamont Cranston on November 3, 2009 10:37 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?