Long story short: Cheryl Pflug, Republican State Senator in WA, was bought off by Democrat governor Christine Gregoire: virtually the moment filing for office closed, Gregoire offered Pflug a cushy state job, and she accepted, leaving that previously safe seat up for grabs between Issaquah councilman and Mark Mullet (D), and businessman Brad Toft (R). She says she wasn't bought off, but literally everyone knows she was. How else to explain the timing?
Dino Rossi left that seat to run for governor in 2003, and Pflug was appointed to fill the vacant seat, then won election the next time around. So while he can't run on the ballot for the next term, Rossi was a good candidate to finish out the current term, so he was appointed to do so, and Toft (the only Republican in the race) is being backed to replace her this fall. Pflug blasted this for some reason ... but I can't figure out why. She says Rossi and the state party are playing Godfather. So, they shouldn't appoint someone to fill her vacant seat, using the same process that got her the same job from a vacancy by the same man? They shouldn't back the only Republican in the race?
Can anyone tell me what the heck she's talking about and how it makes any sense?
Sometimes you just have to sit back and wonder.
Posted by: Monterey on July 11, 2012 09:07 PMIf I ever see that woman in person, I'm going to thank her for dropping out of public service. She's a babbling train wreck that had one of the worst voting records last year. Good riddance.
Posted by: Smoley on July 11, 2012 11:37 PMAnd then Pflug complains about the quality of the Republican candidate? Maybe Toft is too right-wing for the district, and mainly ran because Pflug voted for same-sex marriage. But if Pflug really wanted a more moderate Republican candidate, she shouldn't have filed again in the first place, and given someone else the opportunity to run for the position!
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 12, 2012 02:20 AMHave you tried asking her? Will she not respond to you. Who else would know exactly what's in her mind and why she says things. :)
Posted by: Duffman on July 12, 2012 06:29 AMBy contrast, practically any other matter in this state requiring a hearing, you will get a court judge or an administrative judge who is a lawyer. Even a hearing over food stamp benefits or a day care license, you get an administrative law judge (ALJ) from the Office of Administrative Hearings who is a lawyer. Not only that, but the ALJ's are selected under some sort of merit system, as opposed to simply appointing some political hack.
Another thing, if you appeal a GMHB decision to the superior court, the decision is treated with the same dignity as something done by a professional judge, and reviewed on the record, as opposed to getting a new trial before a real judge in superior court. By contrast, Washington used to have non-lawyer judges in many district and municipal courts, and when that was the case, someone tried by a non-lawyer had the right to a new trial on appeal to superior court, rather than just an appellate review of the record generated in the lower court.
Another interesting thing is that the law requires the GMHB to be appointed by political party, with no more than four members from the same party. In theory, this could mean four Democrats and three Socialist Workers, but in practice, the other three members are Republicans (at least in name only, if even that, since Pflug most recently filed as "Prefers Independent Gop Party").
Now why should any quasi-judicial body be appointed on the basis of party or politics? It is nice for something to be politically balanced, but they shouldn't be appointing political hacks in the first place. If I am a Socialist or Libertarian, and don't like the R's or the D's very much at all, why should my land use decisions be judged by a panel of political hacks from the R and D parties -- regardless of whether you have 4 R's and 3 D's, or 3 R's and 4 D's?
And the fiasco involving Pflug shows just how ridiculous having politically based appointments is in practice. You take an entrenched incumbent R senator, with a strong D challenger, and a weak somewhat extreme intraparty R "primary" opponent. And a D governor appoints Pflug as a nominal R member of the board AFTER filing closes, so the strong D challenger gets a tremendous advantage when the only other filer was a relatively weak and extremely conservative R. And to add insult to injury, Pflug then publicly endorses the D!
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 12, 2012 07:38 AMFish and wildlife and DNR are the same filld with Gregorie drippings.
Posted by: Buddy on July 13, 2012 09:00 AM