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.

North Kitsap Forum Explodes with Coroner’s Race

by Johnny Walker

@KingstonJW on Twitter

It was a packed house at the Greater Hansville Community Center Friday night, as 2010 political candidates vied for undecided votes with only three weeks left on the campaign trail. Co-hosted by the Community Center on the week of its 69^th birthday with the League of Women Voters of Kitsap County, the evening began extraordinarily well with the local tradition of pie and genuine fellowship that small communities love to evoke. Unfortunately, the levity did not last.

The surprises came quick for this forum as moderator Fred Nelson made the rounds to turn off video cameras in the room. A last minute rule made by the hosts decided to censure accurate reporting and accountability of this public forum by video. To be fair to Nelson, he was clearly the messenger. I’ll follow up on this unusual hindrance at another time. This entry will cover Congressional and State House commentary with one exception at the tail.

First up under strict rules of time and engagement, were the federal candidates for Washington’s 1^st Congressional District; Jay Inslee (D) and challenger James Watkins (R).

Jay Inslee and James Watkins continue to offer clear voter choices to the future of Congressional leadership, accountability and self-government. Inslee blamed the prior Bush administration at least three times for the country’s financial woes but failed to acknowledge his own role in the Democratic majority during that time. Using a blame and attack strategy to deflect from his own culpability, Inslee even accused Watkins of being against protecting health care coverage for pre-existing conditions. The accusation cherry picked the massive Obama-care package Watkins would seek to repeal and replace, a program the majority of Americans disapprove of, and echoed the false and misleading rhetoric most common to a candidate on his heels. James Watkins had perhaps the most impassioned speech of the exchange when debating the viability of social security’s future. Responding to an accusation by Inslee that Watkins would seek to put social security in the greedy hands of banks and investment firms, Watkins countered that he would protect social security from the “greed and avarice of career politicians” that have borrowed and spent the people’s security on other programs over the years. Watkins also pointed out that Jay Inslee voted with the majority Democratic Party to turn down efforts by the Bush administration to provide oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an exemption that apparently remains in the Inslee supported finance reform legislation.

The Washington State House candidates for 23^rd District were equally polar and contentious in their positions. Sherry Appleton (D) and Christine Rolfes (D) continue to acknowledge the challenges of balancing the budget but make no indication that the State has a spending problem as the result of their progressive ideologies. This should be a problem for independent voters. Challengers Pete DeBoer (R) and James Olsen (R) are strong advocates of greater fiscal accountability and job creation. One clear indicator of party divisions erupted over I-1053, which would reinstate a super majority vote for the legislature to raise taxes (recall that the Democratic majority suspended the 2/3-majority rule earlier this year). Neither Appleton or Rolfes support reinstating the rule, with Sherry Appleton suggesting that if our democracy were really about majority rule, then a 2/3-majority was an inappropriate hindrance because 17 people could “stand in the way” of the majority [of legislators]. Challenger Pete DeBoer smartly countered that if it were really about majority rule, legislators should respect the majority will of the people and honor the 2/3-majority rule. James Olsen piles on by telling the audience that the 2/3-majority does not tie the hands of the legislature but forces them to work together” instead of just raising taxes. These are two markedly different positions and should be clear indicators for voters to follow.

I’m passing over the other County offices for now so I can focus a brief discussion on the Kitsap County Coroner’s race. I actually hesitate in this because I don’t want to give the more inflammatory details of this story unnecessary traction, but the story is important regardless for the lessons we could learn.

In an incredibly ill devised misstep, challenger Pete Favazza (D) lobbed several personal integrity and morals accusations against incumbent Coroner Greg Sandstrom (R) that immediately backfired. I will not detail the accusations; suffice the audience was universally appalled. The accusations were highly personal, embarrassing, and lacked relevance to the forum. The smear tactic was an obvious and epic fail of disastrous proportions for his campaign in the north end and easily overwhelmed any possible value the man could have had in the office. I emphasize “could have had” because I can’t imagine he’ll get any rational voter support from North Kitsap residents as a result of his atrocious behavior, regardless of qualifications.

In an attempt to be fair to Favazza, personal integrity is an important qualification for any office and can be a barometer for how a candidate might be expected to behave legally and ethically. That said, the lesson here is that questions of integrity must also be substantial, substantiated, and relevant. American voters are increasingly intolerant with the politics of destruction, false, and misleading accusations that lack relevance to performance in office. Favazza has become the victim of his own sword.

As the result of Pete Favazza’s public behavior, I call upon him to immediately issue a public apology to Greg Sandstrom and disqualify himself from the Coroner’s race. He has publically demonstrated a sufficient lack of personal integrity and ethics to manage sensitive information so necessary to an investigative office, has maliciously attempted to exploit the personal life of a public servant and his family for gain, and in doing so has most certainly caused personal, emotional harm to the friends and family of Greg Sandstrom. And all of it unnecessarily so. Pete Favazza earns from me an early “NO VOTE” level of confidence in a race that in most years would fly under the radar.

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

Swing Voters in North Kitsap’s 23rd Looking for Change

It might be easy to ignore the primary race in North Kitsap County’s 23^rd Legislative District. People like to think things are peaceful and quiet on this side of the water. Unlike the megatropolis, there was no spirited contention or angst between conservative candidates and the Democratic incumbents had no challengers. There were no surprises in who would advance to the general. The voting result; however, did reflect some interesting detail that suggests incumbent Democrats may be more vulnerable than they think. And if independent and conservative supporters are paying attention, it won’t be so quiet and peaceful over here much longer. Republican challengers should take quick advantage if they want to keep momentum.

In the 2010 primary, incumbent Sherry Appleton (D) took in 54% of the vote against challenger Pete DeBoer’s (R) 46%. Appleton won the 2008 race with 62% majority, sliding 8% off the general election. Christine Rolfes (D) has a similar story, winning in 2008 with 61% and only earning 56% in the 2010 primary against a split 44% between challengers James Olsen’s (R) 33% and Aaron Winters’ (R) 11%. This is another slide of 5% from the general election, making her glass half empty. It might be arguable that a 5-8% drift is negligible but also consider it was a direct gain to challengers, reducing the overall spread from close to 25% to a distinctly competitive 12%. Considering the quiet campaign thus far, this is noteworthy.

If you further consider Senator Phil Rockefeller’s (D) 2008 win was only 62%, you can see that overall support for Democratic candidates didn’t have much variance (61.94; 61.04; and 61.90). This suggests that swing voters weren’t quibbling much in their leftward lean, probably due to the anti-Bush pro-Obama hope for positive change that swept the state (did that happen?). But don’t let the pundits fool you. 61% wasn’t a landslide. 61% is roughly a 3 out of 5 ratio. We play games for winning 3 out of 5 when we know it can go either way. A landslide is more like 3 out of 4 or 4 out of 5 (75-80%) where the winner simply masters the outcome. Democrats won in 2008 by a majority but not a landslide and the 2010 primary results show that majority is slipping in the 23^rd District just like everywhere else in the state. Swing voters are concerned.

In the 2010 general, Sherry Appleton and Christine Rolfes may likely retain the loyal blue, but independents and financial conservatives are sending strong signals right. The gap that conservatives need to close is getting smaller. Tea Party organizations are popping up with increasing numbers. Moderate and independent swing voters are looking for a change that Republicans have an opportunity to deliver. The race for Washington’s 23^rd Legislative District looks like a microcosm of and could be just as competitive as the Murray-Rossi Senate fight but without the news coverage. Challengers DeBoer and Olsen have clear opportunities if they can muster adequate campaign support.

November is coming.

Photos: top left to right; James Olsen with wife at side and Pete DeBoer address Kitsap Patriot's Tea Party event in Silverdale, WA.

What’s Wrong with this Picture? Democrats Absent at Poulsbo Forum

Photo: Republican challengers James Olsen, Aaron Winters, Pete DeBoer together after forum on August 6^th 2010.

It seems a shame that the story after the Poulsbo Candidates Forum last night is more about who wasn’t there instead of key positions addressing Washington’s pressing concerns. I’m appalled that Democrat incumbents would not face the music; both having declined invitations by the North Kitsap County Republican Women that were sent out a month in advance. Representatives Sherry Appleton (D) and Christine Rolfes (D) need to answer up for this and set matters right. Avoiding your competitors is a cheap and disrespectful political tactic.

In fairness, there could be a lot of reasons why Democrats didn’t bother to show. We just don’t know what they are. We do know that they both affirmatively declined so it wasn’t something that happened at the last minute. Maybe it was because the hosts were the North Kitsap County Republican Women and they feared a hostile audience… not good enough. I’m sure the light overall turnout had something to do with poor communication and logistics, but that didn’t stop the three Republican challengers from attending. The campaign chair for Sherry Appleton did show up but completely missed an opportunity to give some brief statement… and then she walked out half way through. Rude. Dismissive. The rest of us stayed. It was only a two-hour event. I have to wonder…

Did Appleton and Rolfes coordinate their absence and mutually agree to not show?

Voters in Washington’s 23^rd Legislative District deserve more. Poulsbo is an important and vital community, not to be dismissed. Challengers James Olsen, Aaron Winters, and Pete DeBoer were there and all had important points. Where were the incumbents? Absent.

Sherry Appleton and Christine Rolfes should make it right. Avoidance is a cheap political tactic.

Pete DeBoer wants Appleton's seat in the Washington 23rd

And he just might get it if voters are listening.

In a two-hour interview with this 3^rd generation Dutch-American yesterday, I found Pete to be humble, thoughtful, knowledgeable, proven in both business and local government, and a devoted man of the sea. His devotion to the sea is reflected in his life’s work and service to a community he loves. A wonderful reflection of Kitsap Peninsula’s cultural and economic values, Pete DeBoer (R) will provide a very credible alternative to incumbent Sherry Appleton (D) this November. Conservatives, independents, Tea Party activists and even moderate liberals will find Pete DeBoer has some very practical and credible ideas… and they should take the time to know what they are for an informed vote.

I write today with restraint about Pete, not because he doesn’t have the right stuff to hold office but because I haven’t yet afforded Representative Appleton equal time. So for the moment I set upon the case to implore North Kitsap County voters and others who would choose to be active, to learn about this man, his motivations and his mission… and to participate in perhaps the most important election cycle in decades. Pete DeBoer sees a bright future for Washington State and his approach is different than the status quo.

Among other things, democracy is about the civil and orderly competition of ideas that represent the people’s will. Failure to participate and make an informed vote tells current leaders by omission that we believe things are just fine. Things are not just fine. With high unemployment, out of control government budgets, increasing taxes, more regulations and poor overall performance it is important that voters use this competition to elect the best of our best. Unfortunately, voter apathy and disenchantment may suggest we lose this chance with only an estimated 1/3 return of mail in ballots! That is just terrible! This is the first election in decades that is less about party and more about performance. Who will help lead us there?

I urge you all to make thoughtful and informed decisions when you cast your ballots in the primary and later in November. Do you like it the way things are or do you want change? Don’t make your decision by omission. Learn about your representatives and candidates.

And while you are at it, look closely at Pete DeBoer for Washington’s 23^rd.