WA-23rd Endorsements Reflect Red Shift in Kitsap County

by Johnny Walker

@KingstonJW on Twitter

Acting as a liaison between almost 13,000 readers and the politicians who would have their vote, the North Kitsap Herald published key political endorsements Friday that will certainly influence November elections. As these endorsements reflect the editorial boards confidence readers have come to rely on, I want to use this opportunity to give an independent and perhaps alternative perspective. You should take the time to read the Herald’s endorsement in print or on their online service when published, but more importantly research the candidates yourself to make the most informed vote.

With the exception of the Kitsap Public Utilities District (KPUD) race, I’ve followed each of the following candidates at several forums and events during the campaign season, testing them for consistency of message and foundational approach to governance.

Incumbent Sherry Appleton (D) v. challenger Pete DeBoer (R):

The NKH endorses Pete DeBoer and I agree. Pete is the right stuff for north Kitsap. He has strong and implementable positions on job creation, fiscal accountability, reduced spending, education, and the value of limited government. He understands the tactical problems inherent to our ferry system, and is well positioned to improve that vital service. I’ve written much more about Pete here.

The case against Sherry Appleton is equally persuasive. I don’t have to be as polite as the NKH. She epitomizes the problem with State spending and out of control government. Appleton is unapologetic about taxes, voted to suspend I-960 and would look forward to a State income tax. She believes the State should continue to retail liquor and is not generally supportive of privatization. Appleton’s philosophy is clearly to tax, spend, and grow government services and has directly contributed to our State’s budget crisis. This makes sense to her because she believes the role of government is to give services, when it is constitutionally chartered to protect individual rights.

Incumbent Christine Rolfes (D) and challenger James Olsen (R):

The NKH endorses Christine Rolfes and I strongly disagree. While I commend NKH for transparency in its rational, I’m surprised by the conclusion. To be clear, the NKH advisory board voted 4-3 in favor of Olsen but was over-ruled by the managing editor and publisher to support Rolfes. I won’t question the personal motivations of this override, but I will question the rational: “the Herald’s editor and publisher were not convinced he made a compelling argument for change. Furthermore, Rolfes’ professionalism and calm demeanor worked strongly in her favor.”

So let’s be clear, the differences between Rolfes and Olsen are night and day, and quite similar to the difference between Appleton and DeBoer. In almost every respect, Rolfes and Appleton have walked hand in hand on taxation, growing government, suspending I-960, and support of a State income tax. Rolfes is a self-acknowledged progressive who is part of the spending problem. Like DeBoer, James Olsen is a career Coast Guard vet and small business owner who understands how small businesses create jobs. There is clear contrast between Olsen and Rolfes, and they are unmistakable to those who will look. The NKH knows this.

What I suspect the real reason is behind the vetoed endorsement is that Rolfes is perceived as more “professional” and “calm” than Olsen; something I can acknowledge.

James Olsen is a self-identified “fighter” who does not mince words, expects the truth and is harsh on those who prevaricate. I actually like that. The advisory board was correct to think he would be the one to “shake up” Olympia. Yes, Olsen is an energetic, passionate, and incisive communicator that ruffles feathers. So the question is this; “Do 23^rd district voters want performance in government or style?” Vote for James Olsen if you want change in performance because we know what the progressive performance of Christine Rolfes has delivered. She helped create the problem. Why does anyone think she would change?

Incumbent Josh Brown (D) and challenger Abbey Burlingame (R)

The NKH endorses Josh Brown and I disagree. The case for Josh Brown is a little too easy. Yes, Brown has served for one term and it was a steep learning curve, but to suggest that Burlingame could not overcome the same curve in the same time is disingenuous. Short of evidence to the contrary, I dismiss it. There are two other Commissioners to balance the load and the County will not fall apart if Josh isn’t there. It could be true that the NKH did not believe Burlingame made a compelling argument for change but they didn’t say that. I suspect the endorsement for Brown was that he presents himself well as a career politician (style) and has a good management of detail. Burlingame inherently will have less grasp of detail because it isn’t her full time job. Go figure – the incumbent has the advantage, and that shows during tactical discussions at the forums. So why, then, Abby? There are lots of good things to say about Abby Burlingame but I’ll mention just a few pragmatic points here.

Personally, I’d like to see a conservative (R) balance on the otherwise Democrat controlled Commission. Both of the other Commissioners are Democrats. Look what has happened in Olympia and D.C. after years of total Democrat control. Balance is a good thing.

Burlingame has the right foundation to deliver prioritized core services that are required by law and rationalize these transparently to voters. She advocates a zero based budget process. Josh Brown has prevaricated on this issue in recent forums.

In my observations of Burlingame over several months, I’ve noticed she has a good connection with every day working folks. She will represent them well. What I’ve observed about Josh Brown is that he has a tendency to be elitist policy wonk, condescending, and arrogant; the kind of career politician that rules instead of represents. We’ve had enough of those.

I’ve also observed Brown to distance himself a little too hands-off from the performance of other elected leaders. The County Commission is critical in the balance of power, and Josh should be more interested in how other Departments are influencing the pulse of the county. It is not enough to say he collaborates well. He also should balance County power and protect individual rights.

Incumbent John Armstrong v. Linda Gabriel

The NKH endorses Linda Gabriel and I agree. I admit that I know least about these two, having only observed them once at the North Kitsap forum in Hansville, but the truth is that incumbent Armstrong neither asked for my vote nor compelled the audience as to why he was a better choice. Linda Gabriel asked for the vote, told us that her impressive credentials in finance were important and could be put to good use. I agree that in this time of increased scrutiny of government expenditures, Gabriel’s experience could be well put to use.

In the final analysis, it seems evident that the North Kitsap Herald’s endorsements mirror increasing disenchantment with an oversized and overspending government but I think they miss the mark on Christine Rolfes and Josh Brown. I'm not as quick to reward incumbents for creating an unsustainable mess by returning them to office.

Know your candidates and vote. November is coming.

Bainbridge Forum Exposes the Character of Leadership

by Johnny Walker

@KingstonJW on Twitter

There was a lot to be said on Bainbridge Island last Tuesday night, as candidates for the 23^rd Legislative District in Washington State, and the Kitsap County Commissioner race pitched their ideas and pitted themselves against each other in the 10^th annual candidate forum hosted by American Legion Post 172. While I wrote last week that candidate forums were grueling and predictable, I’m compelled to correct myself today. This one was a sparker.

For anyone listening, the political differences were obvious and sometimes heated. Democrat and Republican contenders lined themselves up along predictable philosophies on how to resolve our State and County’s pressing fiscal problems, but what stood out more than usual was how the tone plus content of individual candidates opened windows to their personal character and leadership styles. This is important when voters ask themselves, “how did we get here?” and “how are we moving forward?”

Representative Sherry Appleton, who emotionally over reacted to a small group that began applauding her report of increasing State budget cuts up to 10.5%, hurled the first glaring shot over the brow. “I can’t imagine that anyone would clap about that,” she said, “that human services would be decimated – and you clap?” The problem with Appleton’s challenge is fundamental. The audience had completely ceased its very brief applause before she uttered the potential impact. Not only did Appleton misread the audience response, she used the opportunity as a springboard to attack the audience, intimidate them, and declare her moral superiority over those who might dissent. This is problematic and consistent with Appleton’s leadership style.

Appleton went on to say that she did not understand the mindset that would decimate health care and, “My thinking is that there are people who need help and that’s what government’s job is, is to help them.” While vaguely true, Appleton’s statement conveniently dismisses that her primary role is not services, but to protect individual rights, and that her self proclaimed moral superiority is secondary to the will of the people.

Article I Section I: Political Power (Washington State Constitution): All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

There is nothing in the Article that gives government a blanket charter to simply deliver services according to some undefined moral code. To be clear, Representative Appleton is not merely misguided in her priorities, she is unapologetic. “It will haunt me if someone dies on my watch,” she says, because “we’re not funding it.” And later, “If we have to raise a tax so that somebody will be safe, I will vote to raise that tax.”

As we look into the window of how Sherry Appleton has performed in her Representative role, we can see that the intentions that make her a wonderful person are also the intentions that have put Washington State at grave financial risk. She is the problem and not the solution. She has demonstrated clearly that she will tax and spend according to her own moral code, regardless of constitutional principles, and will unapologetically hinder the speech of the people, even to the point of falsely mocking them. Is this the kind of leader that Washington needs today? I hope not.

A very fine orator, Representative Christine Rolfes is much more subtle in her defense to win a second term but still clear about her guiding principles. Referring to her accomplishments while in office, she told the audience, “we’ve led in this area a progressive agenda,” self-identifying and clearly aligning left of mainstream. She articulated an impressive list of services she has supported that were the result of a tax and spend, progressive, philosophy. While she did a great job of describing the difficulties in financial management during hard times, she avoided the simple truth that she helped put us in those hard times with unsustainable budgeting.

One of the most telling glimpses into Christine Rofles’ character; however, was her delight in baiting the competition at a personal level. I believe she completely jumped the shark when she sought to dismiss challenger James Olsen’s community service through his church. This level of arrogance should be a red flag to any Christian voter because it implies that community service through a religious organization is somehow not as valid or is secondary to a purely secular activity. For those who believe Godly concepts would be beneficial to government leadership, then Representative Rolfes spells trouble. It was also mean-spirited, obviously designed to bait Olsen’s more transparent temperament. Rolfes’ emphasis on the ability to broadly collaborate while dismissing religious community value is indefensible.

In theatrical terms, the window to Josh Brown, incumbent and candidate for the open Commissioner’s seat in Kitsap County, was more of a dark comedy than the potential tragedies I’ve inferred with the other incumbents. On one hand I have to admire this guy. He is younger and better looking than I am, smart and seems to have a good grasp of the facts. Why then did he have to take cheap shots at challenger Abby Burlingame?

I admit I chuckled when Burlingame answered Commissioner Brown’s first question of the night – it was about her experience. Had this question come from the audience, it would have been perfectly acceptable but the truth is that Josh Brown was less qualified to enter office on his campaign four years ago than Abby Burlingame is on her first try this year, and she told him so. It was arrogant and silly, perhaps belying his youth, but an unnecessary cheap shot regardless. Is this a window into his typical management style? Brown seemed to take a step backward about his relative experience in closing remarks when he said, “its not lost on me that four years ago, a lot of people thought that; does Josh have the experience?” This will be thought of as a good recovery by advisors but voters shouldn't forget the first shot. I also didn’t miss that in opening remarks he stumped experience, education, and background, while in closing remarks he changed it to education, experience and, “frankly, integrity.” What does this mean? Was it political savvy adapting to his failed attack on Burlingame’s experience, or was it another cheap shot introducing integrity as a potential campaign issue?

In this election cycle, perhaps more than others, polarization of positions seems relatively apparent. What is left is the middle. One way for the middle to decide is to ask, “how did the State and County get to where they are, and are the same people who brought us there willing or able to lead us out?” The messages and actions of Representative’s Appleton and Rolfes make it pretty clear that they are the problem and unlikely to change in ways that can successfully lead a new course forward. While they acknowledge the need to slow down, there is no hint of changing direction.

I’ve less experience with Commissioner Brown but I value Abby Burlingame’s passion to prioritize core services and take a less elitist posture, something the Commissioner appears to struggle with. Brown should note that it was Appleton and Rolfes’ education and experience that put our State at risk. How he manages transparency and integrity through the course of his campaign may well be a deciding factor for voters.

Know your candidates and vote. November is coming.

Photo Center Left: Chaplain Nels Johansen confers with Bainbridge Island resident during a break in the action. The forum was held at American Legion Post 172 on Bucklin Hill Rd., Bainbridge Island, WA