Friday, October 14, 2005

Candidate Exclusion

So the PI just told me they were not interested in interviewing me during their endorsement interviews. Mark Trahant said "It's time to move on" and that the editorial board decided that I wasn't worth their time. Funny stuff. "We don't usually interview third party candidates".

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that it's not just about money, and campaign finance reform. Equal access to the media is just not a reality. From the day I entered the race I have been largely excluded from many many conversations, candidate forums, polls, and even the primaries. Today was the first day I've found anything about the general election even posted on the King County Elections home page. So from the county elections department, to the media, to the forums, I've been almost entirely excluded from a race I'm legally registered for, and then people turn around and say my candidacy is not viable.

Funny stuff. But not funny ha ha.


Jimmy said...

Your candidacy is not viable and if your campaign detracts from Sims and leads to an Irons victory you will have defeated your own "Green" purpose. You may not agree with Sims on issues but you can bet your ass you will hate Irons'. Wake the fuck up!

Gent said...

I will leave this post up simply for purposes of displaying just one example of the many emails and phone calls I receive daily now.

The rightwing is right about one thing, the Democrats are losing power because they don't have a message. Instead their message is fear mongering and hate. Here's my response... if you believe in the Democrats go ahead and vote for Ron Sims. I however do not.

Almost half of King County will probably not vote in this next election, ask yourself why?

Instead of spending your time writing me hate filled emails, why not write in a reason to vote for Ron Sims?

Jimmy said...

Nobody hates you at all. If you are getting e-mails that appear that way you should look inward as to why.
Irons is bad news. You might not like Ron, but right now, the important thing is to not take a major step backwards. I feel for the Greens and love what they represent both from beliefs and my understanding that we DO need a third party. We cannot get the latter under the current environment. IRV may be the only viable way to get there soon. But History is never kind to those who rush it. And handing Irons an election is a hasty thing to do. It will damage Green chances in the future. Remember what happened to Nader in 04. Not many were not willing to make that mistake again.

As far as Democrats not having a message?? We do have a message and it is inclusion. You could do yourself well to explore further what we are all about by attending some meetings and asking some questions. Otherwise you are just parroting neocon propaganda.

There is a wave of change coming in the Democratic Party. While the core values of personal freedoms, working wages and clean environment are still alive and well, Democrats are finding themselves the party that defends fiscal responsibilty, family farms and sustainable agriculture, defends against the decline of rural America and is the only party seriously committed to energy independence.

Jimmy said...

As for why to vote for Sims, I cannot give you that as I do not live in King County. I do know a bit about Irons and what the implications of his getting elected would be. If greens priority is the separation of the corporation and the state and strengthening labor and environmental obligations you should look closely at his relationship with the BIAW.

There are better ways to get there than this my friend.

Gent said...

Um, your post is simply the most polite. People do send me plenty of hate mail, but I wouldn't leave some of it up as it is highly offensive.

Carl said...

Reasons to vote for Sims:

1) He's the best elected official in gay rights issues in the state.

2) He's managed the budget during the toughest times since at least the 1980's if not the depression. Improving our bond rating in the process.

3) He's been able to keep Metro going strong despite the economic downturn and the anti-tax initiatives.

4) WiFi on some Metro busses, and probably an expansion of that.

5) Not afraid to actually answer his critics.

6) Never hit his mother.

7) He has a track record. He's shown that he has the capibility to lead. He's a known comity, unlike a certian vanity candidate. This might come in handy running a county that's larger than a dozen states.

8) Endorsed by labor, environmental groups, The Stranger, and other groups that matter and have actually been fighting the fight as opposed to sniping from the sidelines every election.

9) Sound Transit. While there have been problems with the LINK, he did manage to get close to the airport from downtown. He'll probably be able to get all the way without significant cost over runs. The Eastside bus routes are cheaper than originally thought. These successes are due to many people, not the least Sims.

10) Steadfast support of the CAO. As a rural person, I know Sims is fighting keep places like Vashon, and the far East County rural. He'll continue fighting suburban sprawl while making the urban areas more livable.

11) He's taken on Qwest on utility relocation, has taken on Glacier to protect Muray Island.

That's it off the top of my head, although I can't think of a single reason to vote for you.

Buckywunder said...

Carl raises several admirable reasons -- and these may be the most important to *him* -- but if Ron Sims was that good of a candidate, why is he obviously having difficulties crushing the Republican buffoon running against him and a Green "vanity candidate" (as you call him)?

Off the top of MY head, I can name a few reasons that I am voting FOR Gentry Lange:

1) Ron Sims used his power as KC Exec to weaken and marginalize the monorail in favor of Sound Transit in the public's mind -- as has nearly every power broker in the city of Seattle -- instead of taking FOUR votes of INCREASING victory margins as a mandate from a thoughtful electorate that realized that it could not *drive* its way towards transportation nirvana because it is a road to nowhere. And light link rail -- with double its original cost and much more expensive per track mile -- clearly was not a sufficient mass transportation system in of itself. Ron Sims is merely facing a backlash NOW that Greg Nickels will face in four years time. The Seattle Greens would be well advised to start planning for that next election now.

2) Ron Sims does not appear to take voting reform seriously enough. Even though Bev Harris of Black Box Voting is from our area and is a local as well as *national* resource on the subject of voting reform (which is taking OFF), Sims inexplicably has played a "hear no evil, see no evil" game with local citizens who are increasingly insistent on NOT outsourcing and privatizing elections in our region. There is absolutely NO reason, with an area FILLED with computer programmers and highly-skilled technical workers, that elections could not be handled with open source software in a completely open and transparent system like they do in the rest of the world. No other country allows private companies to handle elections and Ron Sims apparently goes along with this status quo thinking. As such, it was only a matter of time before King Country and the state of Washington ended up with an election outcome like Ohio, Florida, New Mexico or any of the number of states who had inconsistencies and meltdowns during the last several election cycles.

3) The new traffic theories that Gentry highlights are interesting to me. It is the type of innovative, "outside-the-box" thinking that one sees way too little of here in Seattle. We are content to say, "well, at least we aren't eastern Washington, Idaho or Montana" when we should be comparing ourselves to Portland, Vancouver, BC, New York, Tokyo, Brisbane, Copenhagen and other advanced municipalities of the world in the areas of urban livability and ease of movement.

As for "jimmy?" Jimmy doesn't sound like he remembers the promises of the Democratic Party in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2004. Unfortunately, I do.

When progressive, forward-thinking candidates emerge to try and take the party in a new direction, they are always undermined and sabotaged. After failed candidacies of McCarthy, McGovern, Udall, Jackson, Hart, Brown, Dean and Kucinich, really, is it anybody elses fault if they no longer fall for the Republican lite, lesser-evil, Bob Shrum-DLC loser strategies of the last half-century? Given the record in Washington and King County with Dems like (Bend over for Boeing) Locke, Gregoire, Murray, Cantwell, Schell, Nickels and Sims, you will forgive me if I do not hold my breath for this "wave of change" that is just around the corner. There is a reason that the Democratic Party is permanently on its heels playing defense and the blame falls squarely on itself.

Ron Sims has done an admirable job as a public servant for King County. I respect his record and service. But he is a smart man and there is no reason why he should not have been out front on these issues that matter to me instead of being the protector of the status quo.

Also, why has Sims and the Democratic Party fought against instant runoff voting/proportional representation tooth-and-nail? Because for the most part they are short-sighted and self-interested as opposed to fighting for strengthening democracy. They perceive this as a *threat* to what remains of *their* party power rather than as an *opportunity* to bring voters -- in a TRULY inclusive fashion -- back into the political process.

Even though I do not completely agree with Gentry Lange's platform, I believe that a vote FOR Gentry serves the greater interest in propelling his issues forward and helping to change the political atmosphere of Seattle and King County. And change is needed, indeed.