Tuesday, July 14, 2015

The Stranger Endorses Geary and Harris for Seattle School Board

The Stranger - in their madcap manner - have endorsed Leslie Harris for Position 6 (over incumbent Marty McLaren) and Jill Geary for Position 3 (over Lauren McGuire). 

In a moment of reflection:
Vote for Geary so she can get in there and fix things.
Ha! Did you see what we did there? We pretended for two whole paragraphs that putting a passionate progressive on the school board will "fix things." Ha-ha-ha! That's never worked before—why would it work now? Still: Vote Geary.
About Harris:
Harris, a paralegal and longtime PTA volunteer, said her political views align with Sue Peters and Betty Patu—both school board members who've stood up to corporate reformers and who we've happily endorsed in the past. Our dream is that Harris will join forces with them and destroy the board's zombie bloc once and for all. Vote Harris. 
I believe that Peters, Patu, Geary and Harris will all march to their own internal drummers but that they seem to find common ground - especially around wanting to have the cleansing light of day come into JSCEE - sounds good to me.

I don't know why they said nothing about the other races; I'll have to ask.  


19 comments:

mirmac1 said...

The Anti-Times does it again.

Establishment candidates McGuire and McLaren - Doh! How about you get an independent thought?!

Anonymous said...

Hey wait... The Times is not recommending McLaren

HERE ..

-- Dan Dempsey

Anonymous said...

on Times' comments: I am thankful the Times looked at the whole picture of all the candidates and chose the best candidate, Leslie Harris.

(FYI Times, it's "voters should choose Leslie Harris," not "chose.")


-Nice!

Melissa Westbrook said...

Nice! did they not correct that? I pointed that out ages ago (the "chose") sigh.

Anonymous said...

Yeah MW they fixed it. I just like the hat handing that you offered them print-editors. They got it right but it was still sloppy.

-Nice!

Ragweed said...

They probably did not endorse in the other districts because the in those there are only two candidates who automatically advance to the November election. I don't think they will even be on the primary ballot.

mirmac1 said...

You're correct Ragweed. They get a "bye". That's why we don't see or hear much from them, yet.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Of course, that's right, Ragweed. Just slipped my mind.

Vote Geary said...

Peter Maier is asking for individuals to donate to McGuire's campaign. Not a good sign.

Vote Geary said...

Lisa McFarlane from Democrats for Education Reform has provided funding to McGuire. McFarlane pushed charter schools.

SPS Mom said...

VNESS (Voice of NE Seattle Schools) is endorsing McGuire on their Facebook page.

Melissa Westbrook said...

SPS Mom, boy, what a surprise (sarcasm there).

mirmac1 said...

Oh, the reformistas will crawl out from the slime to bolster McGuire's campaign. Look for a PAC as well.

Anonymous said...

I have a question, do people think the candidates should be judged on who is contributing to their campaigns?


MJ

Melissa Westbrook said...

MJ, I think if you are a careful voter, you take everything into your final judgement. But, from past elections, you can see a pattern of who supports whom and there are always the usual suspects on both sides.

I do not think any candidate is for sale and I think most vote their conscience. That said, I think like-minded people elect those they believe will act towards their concerns.

Anonymous said...

MJ asked:

I have a question, do people think the candidates should be judged on who is contributing to their campaigns?

After "Education Reform" minded Maria Goodloe Johnson, Broad Academy graduate, became Seattle Superintendent in 2007, the Big Buck Oligarchs funded eventual winning candidates Maier, Sundquist, Carr, and Martin-Morris to the tune of $480,000.

Maier (spent $165,000 to get elected) and spent 4 years never voting against any proposal. Including $800,000 for the "New Tech" KnowledgeWorks folks to supply Cleveland HS with 3 years of service. He ignored every shred of evidence about New Tech schools.

Factoring in where the money comes from is worthwhile.

-- Dan Dempsey



Jan said...

MJ -- I think it is one data point among many. But it IS a data point, and placed in context with others, I think it can reveal a lot about who a candidate is listening to, which interest groups believe that they "know" that candidate's position -- and like it, etc. I agree with Dan that it was not just general benevolence, or an "accident" that the Maier, Sundquist, Carr, MM board attracted so much corporate and ed reform money. The contributors knew EXACTLY what they wanted, and they bought -- I mean "got" -- it.

In many campaigns, it might not be so glaring, and I don't think I would ding a candidate necessarily for any one specific donation (unless it was REALLY big -- and from someone REALLY tainted). Candidates solicit contributions broadly, and it takes money to run a winning campaign.

Jan

Watching said...

McGuire's campaign is all about data and it's uses. She needs to clarify her positions. Does she support linking test scores to teacher evaluations? Does she support Amplify tests, which are administered 3X's per year- followed by SBAC? What are her thoughts regarding data-sharing etc.

Anonymous said...

MJ -- Speaking of looking at where the campaign donations come from, consider this involving campaign financing and the US Supreme Court in 1919.

In 1918 Henry Ford ran for the US Senate. He entered both primaries. He ran as a Republican and a Democrat. The election was eventually won by a huge spending Republican Truman Newberry.

Statement of the Case
Truman Newberry's Senate problems had begun even before the Michigan general election, when, on September 17, 1918, a resolution was introduced in the Senate calling for an investigation into the Michigan primary. The complaint was based on a report filed by Newberry's campaign committee stating that it had received and spent more than $175,000 on the election, far in excess of the $3,750 limit imposed by Michigan law and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on the amount of his own money a Senate candidate could spend on his campaign. Then, on January 6, 1919, Henry Ford filed a petition with the Senate, formally contesting the election and asking for a recount. The Senate referred the September resolution and Ford's petition to the Committee on Privileges and Elections at the time each was received.

On the day after Newberry assumed his seat, Henry Ford filed a second petition. He again contested the election and charged Newberry with making unlawful expenditures and intimidating voters. The Senate referred the complaint to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and then, on December 3, 1919, adopted a resolution officially calling for an investigation into the election.

In the meantime, Newberry's problems acquired a new dimension when he and 134 campaign associates were indicted on November 29, 1919, and charged with violations of federal and state campaign laws. Despite Newberry's assertions that he knew nothing of illegal contributions and disbursements, a massive array of evidence, gathered by the U.S. Department of Justice with the help of agents financed by Henry Ford, indicated otherwise. Found guilty on March 20, 1920, Newberry appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction by a 5-to-4 ruling on May 2, 1921. The justices narrowly struck down as unconstitutional the power of a federal statute to control state primaries, but they unanimously agreed that the judge in the case had given erroneous instructions to the jury. The favorable ruling concluded Newberry's difficulties in criminal court but not in the Senate.


Really it is time for a constitutional amendment limiting campaign financing. I do not want the finest government money can buy... not for school board and not for president.

All candidates need to clarify their positions ... not just advertise.

-- Dan Dempsey