Now that the primary election is over, we have, in most cases, a clear picture of who the candidates will be in the general election. In the race for King County executive, there could not be a starker contrast between the candidates advancing to the general election.
King County faces tough challenges, the biggest of which is a level of county spending that structurally exceeds revenue. Blame for this situation lies squarely on the council majority, which has persistently committed to spend money they didn't have to create programs and provide luxurious salaries and benefits to their supporters. If we want this situation to change, we cannot continue to give control of county government to the same people who got us into it. And as chair of the county council, the "progressive" Dow Constantine must take personal responsibility for failure to correct the county's budget direction.
Constantine is also largely responsible for the egregious violation of property rights known as the "Critical Areas Ordinance", which more properly should have been known as the "Confiscated Areas Ordinance". Constantine is well known for his position that anyone who bought property outside the urban growth boundary made a mistake and should be starved of services until they are forced to move back inside the line. His lack of respect for property owners was amply evident when he chaired the various public hearings about the CAO and as he shepherded it through to adoption. The fact that the state Supreme Court found the CAO unconstitutional and struck down key portions has not deterred Constantine's determination to take our property; he's just trying to find another way to do it.
The people of King County simply cannot afford to have Dow Constantine as our county executive. And that's why I'm endorsing SUSAN HUTCHISON in the November election.
Susan Hutchison is not a government insider. She will bring a new vision and direction to King County government, properly prioritize the functions of government, eliminate waste, improve performance and accountability, and get the bloated budget under control without raising our taxes. Susan respects property rights, and will find ways to work cooperatively with property owners to protect the environment we all cherish. Susan will replace the senior managers in county departments with highly-qualified individuals committed to making county government efficient, transparent, and focused on serving county residents rather than controlling us. She will provide the leadership we need to improve the business climate and provide the infrastructure for a robust economy and ample family-wage jobs, reducing the burden of regulation and taxes on job providers.
I hope you will all join me in supporting Susan Hutchison for King County Executive. Please join me by going to www.SusanHutchison.com, endorsing Susan, and making the most generous contribution you can!
anyway, she's a paranoid nutball and will be creamed by dow.
Posted by: mike on August 21, 2009 10:01 PMHey, you keep telling us how wonderful Obama is, and he had no experience when elected to be a State Senator, and had less than 2 years of actual Federal experience when declaring for the Presidency.
I thought you leftists loved clean slates? Wasn't the mantra to do something outside the ordinary, get a new look, a new way of doing things?
I'd think you would be all for Hutchison, unless you're more worried about her politics than her experience?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 22, 2009 10:35 AMSeveral hundred of us paranoid nutballs just packed the sidewalks in front of Northgate Mall all the way from 5th Ave NE to the freeway, expressing our feelings about nationalized healthcare.
Right in the heart of liberal Seattle we got far more positive responses than I would have imagined. Lots of honking, smiles and thumbs up signals. It was wonderful and I think a real indication that even many of the folks who voted for Obama are having second thoughts. The polls certainly indicate it.
Yup there was some feedback from leftists too. What did they do? What one expects them to do. They gave us the finger, or snarled at us angrily. One guy drove by and shouted "go home you f---ing astroturfers!" We just laughed at him.
There were far more people who responded positively to us. Did it make us feel good? You bet it did. Does Susan Hutchison have a great chance to turn King County into a more business friendly place this fall. Absolutely.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 03:09 PMThe Democratic vote in the primary was 62 percent. Hutchison's total was 33 percent. Irons got 40 percent four years ago and he at least had plenty of public sector experience. Hutchison has none, none whatever.
You lot like her because she's a Republican, or a "conservative." You can't pretend that she's better qualified than Constantine, and you won't convince anyone of that who isn't already in your rapidly dwindling cult. Your vote is counted, and it's not enough.
Face reality, like adults do. She's toast, and we have the butter.
Posted by: ivan on August 22, 2009 07:24 PMWhat you might do if you were an objective individual is take a look at the latest Gallup poll which shows that every state in the Union leans conservative. Every single state.
We saw that today with folks overwhelmingly cheering for us right here in liberal Seattle. Obama has gone too far and decent, reasonable people finally get it.
I know better than to try to reason with you, ivan. I'll let the polls do it for me. If there is a "dwindling cult" it's likely to be that 30% of you folks on the far left. It's about time people woke up and figured out your far left agenda. They are. They don't like it at all.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 08:13 PMAsk Mayor Nickels what it means to be an incumbent Democrat right now...
Seems the time is ripe to replace the establishment (which would be Constantine). And you know the saying, as Seattle goes, so goes King County.
Seattle just tossed it's "experienced Democrat". Add in the more conservative portions of the County (non-Seattle, essentially) and it looks good for Susan.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 22, 2009 09:33 PMIf "as Seattle goes, so goes King County," say hello to King County Executive Dow Constantine.
I will however remind you that I warned you after your particularly obnoxious gloating following Obama's victory that the political winds can shift very quickly.
They are, and the polls show it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 09:42 PMDo you base that on some national poll that measures satisfaction with Obama? I'm really curious.
Posted by: ivan on August 22, 2009 10:10 PMIs that indicative of a rebellion against the far left? I wouldn't go that far. I would say that your side isn't exactly gaining much momentum right now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 10:21 PMThe bag tax has nothing to do with Constantine, or Hutchison, or the County Executive race. You are grabbing at straws.
First you say Hutchison has a great chance to win. I point out that she got 33 percent of the vote and that the four Democrats combined got 62 percent of the vote, in THIS SPECIFIC PRIMARY for THIS SPECIFIC POSITION.
Constantine tells the voters that Hutchison is a Republican, and a very conservative one at that, and he ends up doubling the vote totals of each of his Democratic rivals.
It's OK for you to like Hutchison. I expect nothing less. But you're avoiding reality. Her chances are nil, and you're doing all these little dances not to address the hard cold facts.
First you mention your demonstration. Then you mention Nickels. Then you mention the bag tax. None of these have anything to do with the subject of this post, which is Toby endorsing Hutchison (Wooo! Big surprise there!) and your wishful statement that she has a "great chance."
Based on the primary results for THIS SPECIFIC POSITION, I'm baffled that you -- or any of you -- would continue to say so. Hope is fine, but it is all you have. Certainly at this moment, the numbers are not on her side.
Hutchison won the entire slate; it's a non-partisan race, the little (R) or (D) won't help (unless you guys want it to be partisan, in contradiction of the law?).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 23, 2009 08:56 AMPlus I am not paid by any party. I have a job in the private sector.
Posted by: ivan on August 23, 2009 09:19 AMBut the numbers are not on your side in the County Executive's race, and wishing will not make them so.
Dow's Council District has the highest percentage turnout in the primary so far, and that is because people are well satisfied with his representation.
I'll say goodbye now and leave you and Dan to your illusions. I have campaigning to do -- for Dow!
Posted by: ivan on August 23, 2009 09:39 AM
i never said obama was wonderful. i think it's wonderful he's not a tyrannical dbag like bush or a moron like mccain (whos veep candidate is nothing but a quitter who bails when her job gets too hard)
and bill, if you believe a gallup poll that every state leans union, then why are you guys struggling to keep your party togethor?
hutchison's going down. lack of experience, lack of leadership, lack of intelligence does not a qualified candidate make.
Here's our buddy "Mike": "i never said obama was wonderful. i think it's wonderful he's not a tyrannical dbag like bush or a moron like mccain (whos veep candidate is nothing but a quitter who bails when her job gets too hard)"
A good psychologist could have a field day with these folks. What is it about the left that attracts name-calling, angry, dishonest, irrational people?
Those are the people who populate the left. It's not just a few of them. It's most of them. The charming individual who threatened to run my wife and I over in a parking lot the other day because we dared to exercise our right to oppose Obama's policies was typical of folks who populate the left these days. I don't like typecasting people but you casual readers can go on any left website and see what kind of profane, crude people now populate the political left.
They are seeing their socialist dreams evaporate as folks realize just who they are.
Are they going be more angry and dishonest than ever in the coming months?
Oh they sure are.
I am confident that we conservatives are about to take back the country.
The left is going to throw everything in their dishonest playbook at us. Don't fall for it.
Reichert would not stand a chance against Reagan Dunn. Is it not interesting that only Democrats say that is not possible?
Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 24, 2009 11:21 AMIf only the Rs point out that as D leader he led the County into big deficits and resulted in lot of cost-cutting. And that those are worse because he and the rest of the Dems burrowed their collectives heads into the sand for the last year. Otherwise, big blowout again.
Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2009 02:02 PMI am hopeful that Obama's campaign of cramming the left's liberal agenda down our throats has awakened folks that have knee-jerk voted Democrat since the days of JFK, Warren Magnuson, and Scoop Jackson.
Warren Magnuson would never have imagined scaring little children at Christmas by telling them "global warming" was going to leave Santa Claus without a home. That's what Greg Nickels did a couple years ago. Older Democrat voters simply haven't realized that the Democrat party has been taken over by angry old 1960's leftists. They are getting it now. They may have voted for the Democrats, but they are actually conservatives.
The last time most of those folks voted for a Republican was for Ronald Reagan, and that was simply because of their instinctive revulsion for Jimmy Carter who walked around the White House in a sweater turning off lights and the heat. The very symbol of the hopeless anti-capitalist left. Now I think they really get it.
The polls seem to reflect this.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 24, 2009 04:07 PMi'm a liberal.
my agenda is not being crammed down anyone's throat.
if anything obama isn't doing enough. the country resoundingly told republicans enough was enough, they didn't want morons screweing up the country any worse than it was.
turning off lights and wearing a sweater is the symbol of the anti-capitalist left? bill, you may be the one who needs significant mental help. you can thank reagen for defunding alot of those organisations that would have been able to treat you.
your disgust for all things non-republican leads me to believe you must live a very lonely, cold life.
Posted by: mike on August 24, 2009 08:03 PMYou belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve.
You are hopeful.
The polls seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem to reflect.
Keep the faith, Bill. Just don't expect it to help Hutchison. Do you know why? It's because she's a liar.
She says "I'm nonpartisan." That's a lie. All the conservatives support her, so it's pretty clear what she is. She says "I didn't support Mike Huckabee." That's another lie. Public records at the PDC and FEC demonstrate that she did, with cold hard cash.
You lot should vote for her by all means. That's your right and I support it. But your vote is counted, and there aren't enough of you. Most of the electorate around here does not reward liars.
We like to poke fun at Sarah Palin, and deservedly so. She is a pathetic character. But Sarah Palin is a thousand times more honest about who she is and what she stands for than Susan Hutchison is.
So see you Bill. Be sure to belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve.
not only are you intellectually challenged, you are also a hypocrite
how angry and obnoxious leftists are
it took all of two seconds to google dow's full name and find it on soundpolitics voter database.
Posted by: mike on August 25, 2009 08:56 PMHow's those 47 czars and lack of transparency from Obama doin for ya? And I hear people always talking about how "smart" he is, but I have yet to see a single collegiate transcript, or even paper.
Seems to be a lot of hype and little else! Much like Dow...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 25, 2009 09:00 PMthere is no requirement to release college papers or transcripts when running for office. is this a litmus test you want implemented? he graduated magna cum laude from harvard law, meaning he graduated in the top 20% of his class. that not good enough for you? i doubt you had any issues w/ the mental midget bush's plethora of C's...
dow's not as overhyped as his competitor. susan may be the most overhyped candidate since burner (yes, reichert is a hack, but burner was just as unqualified)
dow's got a master's degree in planning from UW, as well as a law degree, also from UW. that's the background of people we should have in charge of our cities.
susan's got a degree in journalism from UofF. this is the background of people who run charities and sit behind cameras and look pretty and read teleprompters because they have no thoughts of their own.
do you really think she's more intelligent than dow? not by your previously stated standards.
throw in the religious kookiness and failure to show up for media interviews, she's toast. hollow, burnt toast.
Posted by: mike on August 26, 2009 12:11 AMi know people can have all kinds of degrees and have inadequate common sense (or as you incorrectly think, idiot) - but my experience is that people with multiple degrees are so entrenched in one focused area of study that other areas can go slip the wayside. that doesn't make them an idiot, it makes them an expert. not a bad thing, though you are dumb enough to think it is.
i'd say obama's 'success rate' is pretty damn good:
harvard grad, columbia grad, state senator, u.s. senator, president. pretty impressive compared to what, your GED?
and yes, people w/ principle and wisdom can achieve a lot. unfortunately, hutchison has neither intellect, wisdom or principle.
bill,
what have you got against lawyers? they're a necessary function of society. also happens to be a good stepping point for holding office.
presidential lawyers:
john adams
thomas jefferson,
james madison
john quincy adams
andrew jackson
martin van buren
john tyler
james polk
millard fillmore
franklin pierce
james buchanan
abraham lincoln
rutherford haye
chester arthur
grover cleveland
benjamin harrison
william mckinley
william howard taft
woodrow wilson
calvin coolidge
franklin roosevelt
richard nixon
gerald ford
bill clinton
barack obama
truman studied law but didn't finish.
harding was the only journalist cum president (and hutchison was no journo, she merely read teleprompters for a living, and apparently not even very well as she was canned for being a lying hack)
speaking of harding, it's good to see the republican modus operandi regarding philandering d-bag senators hasn't changed much.
furthermore, 56 senators have law degrees.
my point is Dow's experience and background are relevent to the task of KC exec. None of hutchison's experience or background are relevent, unless you consider being bad at your job relevent. which explains why you all seemed to love bush.
Posted by: mike on August 26, 2009 09:07 PMThe gathering of titles of merit is not enough to gain praise. It is what an individual contributes to Society is where it is at. So far, Obama has taken a great deal from Society and has given nothing. In fact, he has done a great deal in destroying our Economy. Tell me, what good has Obama done for America?
Your statement that Susan Hutchison lacks Intellect, Wisdom and Principle is a blatant Lie. But then, your a Liberal and Lying is your mantra. You would rather have Dow whose an insider game-player ripping off the Tax Payer's earnings and property rights. Such a Deal.
Posted by: Daniel on August 26, 2009 10:19 PMwhat has susan contributed to society? nothing of merit. add to that the brouhaha w/ her frivolous lawsuit against her employer, as well as working for the hack anti-science/anti-intellect discovery institute, and you've got a shill partisan hack who should be laughed at, not elected.
obama's destroyed the country? really? i don't see us being attacked. i don't see the economy continually in free fall. please, with your infinite wisdom and intellect, prove to me obama's wrecked the economy. i may be a 'liberal' (really i'm a socialist) but lying is not my mantra. seems to work pretty well for you and your buddies on the right, though. and you guys seem to eat it up. 'hypocrisy rules!' is your creed.
i would rather have someone with experience running a city organisation, with a background in law and how cities are designed and function, over a mouthpiece that doesn't believe in public transportation, science or separation of church and state. if that means it's an insider, that's fine by me. i don't see that as being a negative. but then again, i dwell in reality and not ideological lala land.
Posted by: mike on August 26, 2009 10:35 PMSusan has contributed to Society by having had a number of Honest, Functional, Productive Jobs. What has Dow contributed to Society except, being a sleaze lawyer now, working politics as an easy lucrative game to play. He has already shown his expertise in wasteful spending and the stealing of property rights. You want that experienced dishonest Craphead to continue to Rip-Off the Tax Payer even more as KC Executive? Of course, you do...You're a Liberal.
I didn't say that Obama has destroyed the country. I said that he was destroying the economy. Of course, if you are destroying the economy, one could say you are also, destroying the Country. Officially, the unemployment rate went from around 5% to around 9.5% since, Obama has taken over. However unofficially, its about 16% if the people who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted. The extreme Obama Government bailouts will put us in debt for generations. Plus, such over spending is a serious inflation threat. I'm not even going into the detail of Obama Care that will destroy the high standards of Health Care that this Nation is known for. And you think Obama is doing a great job? What a Laugh!
Posted by: Daniel on August 27, 2009 08:26 AMbush's economy shed 2.5 million jobs in 2008, with nearly half of those losses in the last quarter.
unemployment was already at 7% before obama took over. the mortgage and banking industries were already collapsing before obama took over.
so how is obama wrecking the economy, if all he did was take over an already wrecked economy?
i know facts and reality are difficult for the right, but seriously, are you that ignorant?
and hutchison is honest, but dow's not? wow, now who's a partisan hack? maybe the craphead is really you, and you are projecting your newfound lust for dow? stop projecting.
Posted by: mike on August 27, 2009 07:56 PMBush was guilty of over spending and raising the deficit to 1.3 Trillion before Obama took over. But, Obama, in a few short months more that double the expenditures. Yes, he took over a bad economy but, he has made it much worse and is continuing to do so. In short, Obama is making it much worse and not better. For anybody to think otherwise is being insane.
You seem to be stuck on the term projecting. Is that a new word for you?
Yes, Dow is a proved Creep. Check out his record and you'll find what I stated is true. Bottom Line: Anybody who blindly supports Obama is either ill informed, a Fool or both. Here's a test for you...Name one well known Liberal that is known not, for his Intellect but, for his Wisdom. I have put this question to Liberals before and have yet, to receive a verifiable name. I'll be waiting but, not holding my breath.
and you can't blame this all on carter. there is plenty of blame to go around, including both republicans and democrats dropping oversight and regulations.
dow is a proved creep? really? hardly, but hutchison's frivolous lawsuit was rather creepy.
wise liberals:
john locke
adam smith
rousseau
abe lincoln
martin luther king
galileo
and a plethora of artists, scientists, writers and philospohers, etc.
can you name one intellectual conservative? no, because conservatism is anti-intellectual and anti-reason.
one wise conservative?
Posted by: mike on August 27, 2009 10:10 PMYou might be mistaken that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King were liberals.
That's likely what you teach your children.
You probably also would be startled to learn that it was Repblican President Dwight Eisenhower who mobilized federal troops in the 1950's to defend the right of African American students to attend public schools in the south.
You likely also don't know that Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act in the shadow of the JFK assassination against Democrat opposition.
When you talk about the lack of "one wise conservative" you have omitted perhaps the most formidable intellectual giant of the 20th Century. A fellow named Winston Churchill.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2009 10:57 PMif you think ike was a conservative, you've failed history. the question at hand was wise liberal, not wise republican/wise democrat. also, ike could have run as a democrat and almost did. a true statesmen, wise and liberal. but thanks for pointing that out for daniel, bill. eisenhower would in no way recognize the modern republican party, he would be ousted and ostracized worse than moderates.
taxes: very progressive
signed forerunner of medicare
civil rights: very progressive
not anti-union
against wasteful defense spending
warned of M.I.C.
believed in welfare
believed in humanity
pro UN
and churchill wouldn't be found in the modern conservative movement, either.
-pro-labor
-founded england's pensioner program
-said the return to the gold standard was a mistake
-a true flip-flopper, he ran w/ the liberal party for 20 years before returning to the conservative party, but was always an outsider in that world.
history fail (yet again) bill.
Posted by: mike on August 27, 2009 11:36 PMIke was "progressive" in civil rights. Huh? So what you're saying is despite the evidence that Democrats fought civil rights for African Americans for nearly 100 years you have the nerve to attempt to claim a Republican President was simply being "progressive" (a phrase you leftists have just recently adopted)?
This is just too much.
I heard a liberal commentator today say that Churchill established the modern British welfare state. They were wrong. It was a fellow named Clement Attlee. A liberal. A bit of historical study might be in order.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2009 12:32 AMi know reality is tough for you to grasp.
ike may have run and won as a republican, but would have won if he ran as a democrat as well. and it almost happened. he wasn't tied to either party.
the majority of his policies and views would offend contemporary neocons.
truman's views wrt civil rights were significantly more liberal than eisenhower's. but i'm not really sure what your run-on is getting at. it makes no sense (surprise!)
i'm saying that ike signed liberal policies wrt the civil rights movement. i believe some of those policies were forced by the supreme court, but i may be mistaken. for a republican president, this was a decidedly progressive act.
and i'll repeat since you are unable to comprehend very well:
churchill was a liberal when he helped draft the national insurance act of 1911, a full 11 years before attlee became an MP. this act is the foundation for social welfare in the u.k.
attlee went on to expand on those beginning stages of social welfare (nearly 40 years later), but in no way did attlee establish the modern british welfare state, as you so inelegantly quipped.
therefore, i believe your liberal commentator was factually correct. again, epic history fail, bill.
Posted by: mike on August 28, 2009 01:09 AMthanks for proving my point. and the fact you couldn't name one intelligent or wise conservative, if my credibility is 'at zero' -makes yours even worse. hilarious.
so any program that conservatives start w/ good intentions (i assume there must be one) is wrecked by a liberal? now that is patently absurd. the inverse holds some truth, ironically (social security, medicare, etc etc)
it would seem your inane definition of wisdom is unknowable. all those people were incredibly wise.
it seems, though, it is you that possesses neither intelligence or wisdom.
Posted by: mike on August 28, 2009 08:02 AMcan you name one intellectual conservative? no, because conservatism is anti-intellectual and anti-reason.
one wise conservative?
Posted by: mike on August 27, 2009 10:10 PM
i asked, you ignored.
i still don't think you know what wisdom or intelligence are. or the truth, apparently. wow.
Posted by: mike on August 28, 2009 08:46 AMthere is no god. my soul is peaceful.
Posted by: mike on August 28, 2009 09:14 AMyou are an idiot
47. the economy is doing poorly? unemployment seems to have leveled. construction starts are up, housing starts are up, home sales are up, the stock market is up. you're right, daniel, the economy is in shambles!
and you can't blame this all on carter. there is plenty of blame to go around, including both republicans and democrats dropping oversight and regulations.
dow is a proved creep? really? hardly, but hutchison's frivolous lawsuit was rather creepy.
wise liberals:
john locke
adam smith
rousseau
abe lincoln
martin luther king
galileo
and a plethora of artists, scientists, writers and philospohers, etc.
can you name one intellectual conservative? no, because conservatism is anti-intellectual and anti-reason.
one wise conservative?
Posted by mike at August 27, 2009 10:10 PM
milton was embraced by the conservative movement, but was not a conservative.
abe was no conservative either. how can you be so seriously mistaken?
Posted by: mike on August 28, 2009 09:54 AMAs far as the Economy rebounding, it may be a very short rebound before it sinks to new low levels. Plus, in no way, has Obama been helping the rebound. It's like a drowning swimmer coming up for air and Obama is intent on shoving him down again.
Milton was a Conservative and for you to say he isn't, you're Lying again. Let's put it this way...He was far more Conservative than Liberal. As long as you're far more Conservative than Liberal you are considered a Conservative. A lot of Conservative have some Liberal blood in their veins and some Liberals have a little Conservative blood in their veins. Maybe, that is where you are confused. Read some of Milton's quotes and in no way, would you think of him as a Liberal.
A point that I will agree with you is that Yes, blame can be given to both parties but, most of the blame can be rightfully laid to the Democrats. Let it be known, I'm a Conservative and I don't Blindly follow any party.
To say these men are conservatives is false. They would not be accepted into the modern conservative movement. How in no way has obama helped the rebound? It didn't rebound on it's own. Bush certainly didn't help. If you truly believe obama's goals are to wreck the economy, you should wear your tin hat in public so everyone can see how ridiculous you are.
Milton was not a conservative with a big C. he was for several 'liberal' policies that modern conservatives would be appalled by. To say he was a conservative is completely false. Maybe this is why you have so much trouble with this.
but, most of the blame can be rightfully laid to the Democrats hilarious. This is the most asinine statement of read on soundpolitics, and there are some doozies...
It sounds to me like you blindly follow something ridiculous, even if it's not a 'party.'
The rebound is brought about by the Private Sector. The Government is not a Wealth producer. The Private Sector is the Wealth producer. These are basic understandings that you and your fellow Liberals don't seem to grasp. Obama is spending the Wealth of the producers/Private Sector into debt for generations to come and you think that's a good thing? Have a Clue! Once again your a Liberal and without God you will remain a Liberal.