Seattle Times continuing its tradition of publishing poorly justified endorsements
Last year, Frank Blethen and the Seattle Times editorial board were widely flamed and ridiculed for publishing a dishonest series of editorials endorsing Republican candidates - recommendations which claimed to be reasoned or researched opinions but instead suspiciously appeared to be based around just one criterium: estate tax repeal, which the Times also explicitly endorsed in the form of Initiative 920, defeated overwhelmingly by voters.
Readers with good memories can probably still recall last year's endorsements of Mike McGavick, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert, where Blethen saw fit to endorse only Republicans in the state's three competitive federal races.
The Times has continued its tradition this year, falling for Dan Satterberg's attestation that he is above partisan politics and wants the office of county prosecutor to be nonpartisan.
(Curiously, Satterberg is participating in a King County GOP event promoting his candidacy and that of Jane Hague's, recently in trouble for drunk driving, faking academic credentials, and running afoul of PDC regulations.)
The Times insists that Bill Sherman is "up against a wall of experience, and he does not make enough of a case to knock it down" - but Bill's campaign isn't just about experience, although he's got that.
His campaign is about new ideas - keeping what's best about the prosecutor's office while bringing it up to date with today's challenges. Satterberg, on the other hand, hasn't shown that fresh energy.
(In fact, he has dismissed or argued against the key positions and themes of Bill's campaign, such as an emphasis on environmental enforcement, support for an assault weapons ban, and a higher standard for dealing with corruption.)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recognized this and gave Bill its endorsement, because it's time for a new direction. Dan Satterberg gives us the impression that he is an extension of his former boss, and with respect to Norm's legacy, we don't want a prosecutor who tries to be Norm Maleng. We want a prosecutor who brings his or her own vision and the values of the people of King County to the office, and affirms that there are areas where improvement is needed.
The message of the Times' editorial is that it is satisfied with the status quo, not that Dan Satterberg will make a really terrific prosecutor.
The Times has also endorsed a "no" position on Proposition 1, the Roads & Transit package, because - as they unbelievably argue (emphasis mine):
What human experience actually tells us is NOT to build more lanes, because all bigger and badder highways do is create more sprawl, more traffic jams, and more problems. Go visit a place like Atlanta or Phoenix, where massive highway projects abound, and attempt to reconcile the Times' logic with reality.
You won't be able to do it.
We could double the size of every Puget Sound highway, and I guarantee you that as soon as it was done every highway would be just as clogged as before. Why? Because building highways encourages people to drive! Add more space for single occupant vehicles, and it will be filled. "Human experience" has borne this truth out, and nothing Brian Sonntag or the Seattle Times can say in any report or endorsement changes it.
This is why Proposition 1, the package before us, is structured around a fifty mile expansion of light rail, which does attack congestion. How? Light rail gives people a choice, a way of reliably getting to work every day. Because trains run in their own right of way, they never get stuck in traffic.
And because they run on tracks instead of roads, that right of way is guaranteed and unchangeable. Automobile traffic can't go on rails, whereas lanes built explicitly for buses can be converted.
The Times argues that "buses also reduce congestion if people will ride them" - and we don't disagree that bus service should be available, but buses are not a replacement for trains. So what about the people who don't want to ride a bus? How to you get them out of a car? What is Sound Transit doing about them?
It's doing the most sensible thing it can do - build a light rail system.
Trains can move large amounts of people quickly and easily, and they appeal to people who own cars and use them to get to work: research has proven this. Because people who won't ride buses will ride light rail, light rail has the effect of getting people out of their cars, making everyone's commute more reliable.
That's why Sound Transit is committed to building light rail. It is the heart of a functional transit network. Light rail doesn't destroy or compete with buses, it complements them. When Link is extended to the south, east, and north, Sound Transit and its partner agencies will be able to reallocate bus routes to serve even more neighborhoods, and assign new routes that run to the new transit hubs created by the construction of light rail.
An example of a hub incorporating nearly every mode of transportation is Tacoma Dome Station, which ultimately will allow people to transfer between automobile (park & ride) light rail (South Link) heavy or commuter rail (Sounder) streetcar (Tacoma Link) bus (Sound Transit Express) or bicycle (via bike racks).
The station will naturally serve pedestrians too, although there's not much of a point in walking there from downtown when you can ride the streetcar.
Give people choices... and you can get them off the road. It would be irresponsible, foolish, and unfair to continue to force people to drive their cars by spending money solely on highways. And allocating transit dollars only towards buses squanders the huge potential of rail which the Times fails to recognize.
The Times makes another mistake this morning in recommending (by what its editorial writer called a "razor thin" margin) John Marchione as the successor to Rosemarie Ives, Redmond's outgoing mayor, who has served sixteen years in that position. The better candidate, who the Times did not endorse, is Jim Robinson, a four term city council veteran with broad civic and business experience.
(The Times editorial board did better with its Redmond City Council endorsements, but that doesn't atone for its decision to go with Marchione in the mayoral race.)
Robinson, who shares our progressive values, has offered a refreshing campaign theme of people first leadership for our hometown. I've given my support to Jim - and this organization will do the same - because we know his priorities are sound and his leadership abilities are proven.
Other progressive groups supporting him include the Washington Conservation Voters, Cascade Bicycle Club, and the 45th District Democrats.
Not surprisingly, Jim is also the choice of Redmond's public servants, including the Police Officers Association and the City Hall Employees Association, who clearly trust Jim to be a competent manager and a levelheaded mayor.
The Times says Marchione "will bring public administrative expertise to the city's chief-executive job" which "gives him the edge" but they don't justify this argument. Jim has a B.A. in political science, masters in business administration, masters in international management, and has worked at Boeing for decades in three major divisions of the company. Jim has the expertise the job requires.
Jim's qualifications are solid, and his concern for Redmond's future paramount. It's why on the campaign trail he has been asking residents if they want a great hometown or just another employment center.
Jim is a firm believer in environmental protection, equality under the law, open government, healthy public services, and thoughtful planning. He supports Proposition 1 (Roads & Transit), as we do, because he understands how imperative it is that transportation choices be available to the people of Redmond.
The Times indicated in its endorsement that it was impressed with Marchione's Dino Rossi style budget from last December and approvingly stated that Marchione "wants to improve the business climate and is more averse to raising taxes".
Politicians across America like to brag about how they will strengthen the business climate while stressing their opposition to raising taxes, but the simple reality is that our common wealth is the key to having a great business climate.
Think about all the public infrastructure we have that supports our economy and the private sector: our interstate highway system, the courts (where nine tenths of the cases involve corporate law) the Internet...the list goes on and on.
Jim Robinson is a leader who is not unafraid to explore the possibility of raising revenue to keep Redmond's quality of life high and its business climate competitive. That courage sharply distinguishes him from John Marchione.
As for that budget that the Seattle Times seems to be impressed with...well, I'll let former city councilmember Tom Paine explain that. Here is his letter to the Redmond Reporter which just ran in last Wednesday's edition of the paper:
You can learn more about that budget from Jim's frequently asked questions page, where he contrasts his approach with that of John Marchione's.
As for the Seattle Times, it appears the editorial board has no problem with the continued publication of poorly justified endorsements that ignore the paper's own prior editorial stances, the region it serves, and the facts in favor of right wing ideology and the whims of its publisher.
UPDATE: Apparently they've got even bigger problems than I thought - botching candidates' names!
Readers with good memories can probably still recall last year's endorsements of Mike McGavick, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert, where Blethen saw fit to endorse only Republicans in the state's three competitive federal races.
The Times has continued its tradition this year, falling for Dan Satterberg's attestation that he is above partisan politics and wants the office of county prosecutor to be nonpartisan.
(Curiously, Satterberg is participating in a King County GOP event promoting his candidacy and that of Jane Hague's, recently in trouble for drunk driving, faking academic credentials, and running afoul of PDC regulations.)
The Times insists that Bill Sherman is "up against a wall of experience, and he does not make enough of a case to knock it down" - but Bill's campaign isn't just about experience, although he's got that.
His campaign is about new ideas - keeping what's best about the prosecutor's office while bringing it up to date with today's challenges. Satterberg, on the other hand, hasn't shown that fresh energy.
(In fact, he has dismissed or argued against the key positions and themes of Bill's campaign, such as an emphasis on environmental enforcement, support for an assault weapons ban, and a higher standard for dealing with corruption.)
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recognized this and gave Bill its endorsement, because it's time for a new direction. Dan Satterberg gives us the impression that he is an extension of his former boss, and with respect to Norm's legacy, we don't want a prosecutor who tries to be Norm Maleng. We want a prosecutor who brings his or her own vision and the values of the people of King County to the office, and affirms that there are areas where improvement is needed.
The message of the Times' editorial is that it is satisfied with the status quo, not that Dan Satterberg will make a really terrific prosecutor.
The Times has also endorsed a "no" position on Proposition 1, the Roads & Transit package, because - as they unbelievably argue (emphasis mine):
We think what the people want is a plan to reduce congestion. Proposition 1 spends huge amounts of money to make congestion worsen at a slightly lesser rate.This endorsement, and especially that bolded paragraph, has got to be one the stupidest things the Seattle Times has ever published. It isn't just wrong... it's totally absurd. Whoever wrote it has a terrible understanding of transportation issues. It's filled with so many recycled libertarian myths that it just might be a record-breaker for nonsense contained within a 750 word editorial.
Seattle may deny this, but the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes. So says a report issued by State Auditor Brian Sonntag last week, and so says human experience. New roads help.
What human experience actually tells us is NOT to build more lanes, because all bigger and badder highways do is create more sprawl, more traffic jams, and more problems. Go visit a place like Atlanta or Phoenix, where massive highway projects abound, and attempt to reconcile the Times' logic with reality.
You won't be able to do it.
We could double the size of every Puget Sound highway, and I guarantee you that as soon as it was done every highway would be just as clogged as before. Why? Because building highways encourages people to drive! Add more space for single occupant vehicles, and it will be filled. "Human experience" has borne this truth out, and nothing Brian Sonntag or the Seattle Times can say in any report or endorsement changes it.
This is why Proposition 1, the package before us, is structured around a fifty mile expansion of light rail, which does attack congestion. How? Light rail gives people a choice, a way of reliably getting to work every day. Because trains run in their own right of way, they never get stuck in traffic.
And because they run on tracks instead of roads, that right of way is guaranteed and unchangeable. Automobile traffic can't go on rails, whereas lanes built explicitly for buses can be converted.
The Times argues that "buses also reduce congestion if people will ride them" - and we don't disagree that bus service should be available, but buses are not a replacement for trains. So what about the people who don't want to ride a bus? How to you get them out of a car? What is Sound Transit doing about them?
It's doing the most sensible thing it can do - build a light rail system.
Trains can move large amounts of people quickly and easily, and they appeal to people who own cars and use them to get to work: research has proven this. Because people who won't ride buses will ride light rail, light rail has the effect of getting people out of their cars, making everyone's commute more reliable.
That's why Sound Transit is committed to building light rail. It is the heart of a functional transit network. Light rail doesn't destroy or compete with buses, it complements them. When Link is extended to the south, east, and north, Sound Transit and its partner agencies will be able to reallocate bus routes to serve even more neighborhoods, and assign new routes that run to the new transit hubs created by the construction of light rail.
An example of a hub incorporating nearly every mode of transportation is Tacoma Dome Station, which ultimately will allow people to transfer between automobile (park & ride) light rail (South Link) heavy or commuter rail (Sounder) streetcar (Tacoma Link) bus (Sound Transit Express) or bicycle (via bike racks).
The station will naturally serve pedestrians too, although there's not much of a point in walking there from downtown when you can ride the streetcar.
Give people choices... and you can get them off the road. It would be irresponsible, foolish, and unfair to continue to force people to drive their cars by spending money solely on highways. And allocating transit dollars only towards buses squanders the huge potential of rail which the Times fails to recognize.
The Times makes another mistake this morning in recommending (by what its editorial writer called a "razor thin" margin) John Marchione as the successor to Rosemarie Ives, Redmond's outgoing mayor, who has served sixteen years in that position. The better candidate, who the Times did not endorse, is Jim Robinson, a four term city council veteran with broad civic and business experience.
(The Times editorial board did better with its Redmond City Council endorsements, but that doesn't atone for its decision to go with Marchione in the mayoral race.)
Robinson, who shares our progressive values, has offered a refreshing campaign theme of people first leadership for our hometown. I've given my support to Jim - and this organization will do the same - because we know his priorities are sound and his leadership abilities are proven.
Other progressive groups supporting him include the Washington Conservation Voters, Cascade Bicycle Club, and the 45th District Democrats.
Not surprisingly, Jim is also the choice of Redmond's public servants, including the Police Officers Association and the City Hall Employees Association, who clearly trust Jim to be a competent manager and a levelheaded mayor.
The Times says Marchione "will bring public administrative expertise to the city's chief-executive job" which "gives him the edge" but they don't justify this argument. Jim has a B.A. in political science, masters in business administration, masters in international management, and has worked at Boeing for decades in three major divisions of the company. Jim has the expertise the job requires.
Jim's qualifications are solid, and his concern for Redmond's future paramount. It's why on the campaign trail he has been asking residents if they want a great hometown or just another employment center.
Jim is a firm believer in environmental protection, equality under the law, open government, healthy public services, and thoughtful planning. He supports Proposition 1 (Roads & Transit), as we do, because he understands how imperative it is that transportation choices be available to the people of Redmond.
The Times indicated in its endorsement that it was impressed with Marchione's Dino Rossi style budget from last December and approvingly stated that Marchione "wants to improve the business climate and is more averse to raising taxes".
Politicians across America like to brag about how they will strengthen the business climate while stressing their opposition to raising taxes, but the simple reality is that our common wealth is the key to having a great business climate.
Think about all the public infrastructure we have that supports our economy and the private sector: our interstate highway system, the courts (where nine tenths of the cases involve corporate law) the Internet...the list goes on and on.
Jim Robinson is a leader who is not unafraid to explore the possibility of raising revenue to keep Redmond's quality of life high and its business climate competitive. That courage sharply distinguishes him from John Marchione.
As for that budget that the Seattle Times seems to be impressed with...well, I'll let former city councilmember Tom Paine explain that. Here is his letter to the Redmond Reporter which just ran in last Wednesday's edition of the paper:
As a recently retired Redmond City Councilmember, I had the unique perspective of working alongside both of our mayoral candidates, and have the luxury of now being unencumbered by political cronyism. I was hoping for an honest campaign, but the residents of our city need to know the facts.The Times may view Marchione's budget and his conservative "we've got to live within our means" rhetoric with fondness, but Redmond is a progressive city and it deserves a leader who is going to be fiscally responsible as well as one who strongly embraces the values of its socially and environmentally concious residents.
In recent campaign advertising, the Marchione camp has made, at minimum, misleading statements and, at worst, used outright deception about his qualifications.
Mr. Marchione's campaign claims he "Built Redmond City Council consensus to balance the budget" and "added 8 firefighters while maintaining the balanced budget."
Mr. Marchione may want to imply that he balanced the budget, but the fact is the law requires it. We can thank Olympia, not Mr. Marchione.
He claims he added 8 firefighters. What he doesn't say is that as Finance Committee chairman he ramrodded through a budget that paid for other priorities and put it on the backs of the voters to raise their own taxes to pay for needed police and firefighters. Will those be his priorities and his tax raising tactic as mayor too?
What Mr. Marchione also doesn't say is how he and his cronies protected $135 million dollars of unspent, mostly unencumbered taxpayer money in the city's capital budget, while forcing us to tax ourselves to have adequate police and fire protection. Why the big balance in the pot?
Long time council cronies want to protect their pet projects and keep on adding money to the fund. Yes, Mr. Marchione's budget even added to the pot, while he held police and fire hostage to our vote.
Mr. Marchione also claims that he "obtained a new source of water to serve Redmond." What he doesn't say is that he is Redmond's representative on the Cascade Water Alliance, a group the City Council as a whole agreed to join to protect our water availability for the long term future. It is the group's responsibility to get this water source, and according to the Seattle Times and other media, they still don't have it. His claim of being the person obtaining a new source is outrageous.
I know what I think of a candidate whose first steps in aspiring to be leader is to mislead and deceive the public he seeks to serve. That's why I support Jim Robinson for Mayor. Jim will fight insider cronyism and will keep Redmond a hometown we can be proud of.
You can learn more about that budget from Jim's frequently asked questions page, where he contrasts his approach with that of John Marchione's.
As for the Seattle Times, it appears the editorial board has no problem with the continued publication of poorly justified endorsements that ignore the paper's own prior editorial stances, the region it serves, and the facts in favor of right wing ideology and the whims of its publisher.
UPDATE: Apparently they've got even bigger problems than I thought - botching candidates' names!
# Posted by Andrew : 6:28 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment