Election 2009: Dow Constantine-Susan Hutchison TV debate

(added 11:30 pm, video of entire debate)
Live on channel 4 – the King County Executive candidates debate each other. It just started at 9 pm; each is making an opening statement, Dow Constantine first, Susan Hutchison second. 10 PM UPDATE: Debate’s over; tomorrow (Sunday) night, it’s the first live TV debate in the Seattle Mayor race – Joe Mallahan vs. Mike McGinn on channel 7, 6 pm.

20 Replies to "Election 2009: Dow Constantine-Susan Hutchison TV debate"

  • Go, Dow, Go! October 17, 2009 (10:28 pm)

    Throw those gloves on the floor and keep swinging, Dow. Don’t let her lies and mischaracterizations take flight. She’s a pro at talking to a camera and she gives a decent Reagan-ish “There you go again”, but you have truth, experience and heart on your side. Keep fighting the good fight!

  • vanessa c October 17, 2009 (11:06 pm)

    Dow seemed cool and proud. Susan must have had her feet to the fire, the way she was sweating, I mean profusely perspiring. For the fact alone, that she is for the gravel pit project on Maury/Vashon, which would be a huge environmental disaster, DOW IS THE MAN FOR ME!!!! DOW!!! DOW!!!!

  • twirl-a-whirl October 17, 2009 (11:46 pm)

    It will be a happy day when Dow takes office. Susan has nothing in her head except what her puppet masters, Kemper Freeman and his ilk, have put there. How disingenuous of her to act as though no where else in the country is there an economic crises, but here. Either she doesn’t read or she’s trying to run a game that only an ignoramus would believe. SHE DOESN’T FOOL US!

  • gary October 18, 2009 (12:33 am)

    Don’t let Dow fool you either, he is a professional attorney & politician. Why do we insist, generally, our elected officials be attorneys? Even if Dow is among the 1% of honest ones I still think he is a slimeball for his early smear tactics.

  • jen on the hill October 18, 2009 (10:23 am)

    Interesting…At the beginning of the debate, Susan appeared very comfortable in front of the camera- smiling and really working her body language with the camera. Before long, she was visibly upset noted by the cadence of her speech and perspiration (literally wiping the sweat from her face!). Dow although obviously not a tv person, appeared calm and collected throughout the debate.
    I am voting for Dow because he represents my values. In my opinion, Susan didn’t seem to have much substance.

  • twirl-a-whirl October 18, 2009 (10:52 am)

    And don’t forget: Ms. Hutchison was fired from her talking head job for being a liar. Sorry, but I don’t want a liar running King County, one of the biggest counties in the country. As far as Dow being an attorney, that doesn’t both me. Remember, our President is an attorney, too, and I have the utmost respect for him. I believe Dow will put the people of King County first and foremost; Susan will put her puppet masters first always, as she owes them and will continue to owe them, as they will always be there to pull the strings.

  • GenHillOne October 18, 2009 (3:33 pm)

    I found it painful to watch – all we were missing was a wink and a betcha’.

  • Oliver October 18, 2009 (4:49 pm)

    There is a good reason why many of our elected officials are lawyers. Most of us who went to law school did so out of a desire to help others and a commitment to public service. Dow is clearly an example of that. Whether in public service or not, lawyers contribute a lot to our community in many ways, such as financial support for many nonprofits and pro bono services for the poor. I am proud to carry on the traditions of some of the greatest people in our nation’s history. Being a lawyer is not a negative trait in a candidate, rather it’s a pretty good qualification.

  • OP October 18, 2009 (9:07 pm)

    Sorry, but I don’t want a liar running King County…
    So you must’ve loathed Ron Simms…

    Remember, our President is an attorney, too…
    Therein are our problems….

    Susan will put her puppet masters first always, as she owes them and will continue to owe them, as they will always be there to pull the strings.
    And who are they, exactly?

    Dow. The same man that runs the KC budget and seems to like operating it the red. (Must be lawyer-ly trait, or something.) Yeah, vote for Dow! He’ll shove more money down the entitlement/green jobs well! Hoozah! Oh, and he’s still trying the tired (as hell) tact of “She likes George Bush!” Grow up already, Dow.

    And heck, Susan H. has no experience. So what. That didn’t seem to stop liberals from voting for Obama….

  • mar3c October 19, 2009 (6:51 am)

    op, why are conservatives suddenly so budget-conscious? reaganomics ran this country to a $10 trillion debt. iraq II and afghanistan were both off-budget. our manufacturing sector has been looted, shut down, unbolted, and shipped out, along with the jobs.
    .
    but now we have to be fiscally responsible when our government wants to spend money at home?
    .
    it’s obvious who hutchinson’s puppet masters are. don’t be obtuse.

  • OP October 19, 2009 (9:37 am)

    eaganomics ran this country to a $10 trillion debt.

    $10 trillion? Where’d you get that number? When Bush left office it was trillion+, and since 1.20.09 (a date you probably loved), Mr. O has quadrupled it. Moreover, you think Bush was a fiscal conservative? What planet are you on? And guess where the so-called conservatives are who followed him? I tell you: Out of jobs.

    our manufacturing sector has been looted, shut down, unbolted, and shipped out, along with the jobs.
    Wouldn’t have anything to do with outrageous corporate taxes on manufacturing and greedy labor unions, now would it.

    but now we have to be fiscally responsible when our government wants to spend money at home?
    Hell yes. We should always be fiscally conservative, after all they are playing with OUR money. And wars are largely draw from existing military budgets. And all the Dems did to oppose any such increases in budgets for Iraq and Afghan was vote “yes” time and again—all while posturing with nonbinding resolutions calling for immediate withdrawl to appease the anti-war contingent.
    it’s obvious who hutchinson’s puppet masters are. don’t be obtuse.
    You’re the one who can’t site who her alleged “puppetmasters” are. I think you need to go look up the definition for obtuse and then asign it yourself and your “puppetmaster” silliness.

  • JamminJ October 19, 2009 (4:00 pm)

    “eaganomics ran this country to a $10 trillion debt.

    $10 trillion? Where’d you get that number? When Bush left office it was trillion+”

    ummm, if you can’t differentiate ‘debt’ vs. ‘deficit’, no wonder the conservatives ran the country into the ground.

  • mar3c October 19, 2009 (7:11 pm)

    again, op, why the sudden need to tighten the belt? just more partisan politics. dems want social spending, republican’ts want to blow things up and be able to buy cheap foreign goods from wal-mart.
    .
    corporate taxes? corporations shouldered 25+ percent of the nation’s tax burden until reagan came along. now they pay less than 7%.
    .
    as jammin pointed out, the annual budget *deficit* was at $450 billion + throughout most of bush’s two terms and under republican approval, driving the national *debt* from around $4 trillion under clinton to over $10 trillion under bush. the wars were off-budget, not drawn from the defense budget, but we still borrowed from china, england, japan, the bahamas, and mexico to pay that bill. also, the third largest portion of the budget is *interest* on that debt, at around $500 billion per year. (google is your friend.) and dems who opposed war spending – including our own “baghdad” jim mcdermott – were often met with labels like “traitor.”
    .
    also, reagan dropped our trade tariffs in the name of “free trade.” yep, it was really patriotic of him to allow – even invite – japan to gut our electronics and auto industries, while we still can’t sell a buick in tokyo. *that’s* where our manufacturing jobs went. and, yes, i know, clinton didn’t help matters.
    .
    back to the KC exec race, hutchinson also talks an awful lot about “fiscal responsibility” and reducing taxes. the only folks who want to see taxes reduced *and* public spending slashed are either wealthy or foolish. (just ask any californian.) so her “puppet masters” are obviously wealthy citizens and corporations who think they pay too many taxes.
    .
    enough. we want more taxes to pay more workers to build more infrastructure to serve more of the citizenry. tax cuts have never created a single job or built a transportation system.

  • E October 19, 2009 (8:02 pm)

    I don’t have anything to say about the national political picture, as it is irrelevant to this local election. I’m voting for Dow because he is the only one with real credentials and any serious understanding of the job.

  • mar3c October 20, 2009 (7:14 am)

    it is relevant, to a degree. dow obviously wants to invest in infrastructure projects. just like in national politics, this newly-found-fiscal-discipline argument from conservatives and republicans needs to be addressed.
    .
    it’s going to take county tax revenue to build a transportation system that works and fix other infrastructure problems, and we can’t let the mouthpieces for wealthy developers and property owners stop it simply because they can afford the advertising.

  • OP October 20, 2009 (4:03 pm)

    mar3c: JamminJ errs right off the bat in citing that Bush was somehow a follower of Reaganomics; clearly he was not. That’s my entire point.

    corporate taxes? corporations shouldered 25+ percent of the nation’s tax burden until reagan came along. now they pay less than 7%.

    Where on earth on you getting your numbers?

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html

    …national *debt* from around $4 trillion under clinton to over $10 trillion under bush.

    So you want to go down the Obama route of “we inherited these problems”? So how do you counter that Dems/Obama (and folks like Dow) are somehow being more fiscually responsible when (and if) by the time Obama enters his second term that *debt* will be $17.1 trillion, and $23.1 by 2018. That makes Obama “the biggest spender of all” And for what? Social infrastructure projects like health care? Please…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4831719.shtml

    Which doesn’t support your 7% at all. Not even close.

    dems want social spending…

    You entwine both social spending as being part of necessary infrastructure spending, as in bridges, roads, basic gov’t services, etc. One is objective in it’s necessity (infrastructure), the other is subjective in its necessity (i.e. believing the gov’t needs to provide home nurse visits to teen mothers*). Then things get cloudy when something like Link Light Rail is proposed and the public is sold that we “need” it to fix our transportation woes when, in fact, that may not be the case at all. (And, as in most citeis with light rail systems, it’s a failure and waste of public funds.)
    http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=1

    the only folks who want to see taxes reduced *and* public spending slashed are either wealthy or foolish.

    And the people who want jobs. Here’s an inconvenient truth libtards** can’t accept: those “rich” people that you can’t stand provide the little people (that libtards love to patronize while claiming to defend them from corporations, etc.) with jobs. Morevover there are more (and better) jobs created in the private sector vs. the public. Private sector workers also make MORE money so they can afford more things in life, like a house and a car and the ability to raise a family vs. public sector jobs where the salaries are largely static and class restrictive. In the end, instead of empowering people as overseers of their own fates, and recognizing their free will as human beings, you want them to become dependent on the state from the cradle to the grave and never have the opportunity to advance, thus violating every principle of our Founding Fathers.

    But dollars to donuts says you’d argue with them too.

    And sue me if you want to call that making a strawman, go ahead. Deep down in your “more government is good” heart you know I nailed it.

    …tax cuts have never created a single job…

    Bull. Prove it. I know I can. But you made the statement so back it up…with facts and links, not opinion.

    *I’m sure I’ll get blasted for that example. Relax, it’s just an example.
    **Hey, if you’re going down the “repubican’ts” street…

  • mar3c October 20, 2009 (9:11 pm)

    lol. bush certainly was a scholar of trickle-down-my-back supply-side economics, and he hired all of the same criminals to implement dysfunction at the federal level. don’t try to distance yourself from the man you adored in ’04 now. bush took reaganomics to a whole new level. after all, the idea is to shrink government to a size small enough to drown it in a bathtub, right? “the private sector is more efficient,” right? cut taxes and you cut government’s ability to do *anything* without chronic deficits and debt, right? then, when the government needs to spend money – especially domestically – it can’t. (i.e. control it, break it, and then claim that the private sector is more efficient.)
    .
    your tax foundation link reflects the top marginal tax rate; ask haliburton how much they pay in taxes. (hint: the tax rate in the cayman islands is infinitessimal for a company that gets hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidy.)
    .
    what i’m telling you is that the top 2% now contribute less than 7% of federal tax revenues, while earning 65% of the nation’s income and holding over 90% of the nation’s wealth. so, really, my bad: “corporations” and “the wealthy” are not interchangeable, since the vast majority of corporations in the u.s. have revenues under $3 million.
    .
    re: “we inherited these problems…” it’s true, according to your link, that massive deficit is still there after TARP is paid off. so why cut taxes? obama has proposed raising the top marginal rate, but it hasn’t been done. *we have to pay off the debt*, right? (while we’re at it, let’s raise tariffs on china and japan and erase some of that trade debt. they’re protectionist of their economies, why aren’t we?) redcuing deficits and debt is what we libtards have been screaming about since reagan started breaking things.
    .
    but it is a fact that TARP was forced on us by wall street, bush, paulsen, and bernanke, and congress was told that without it, the economy would collapse; meanwhile, fiscal responsibility has dictated that the largely domestic and targeted democratic stimulus package hasn’t even been fully apportioned. from where i sit, it looks like the rich are more socialist welfare queens than the working classes. or blatant thieves.
    .
    re: “social spending”: don’t you want things like health care spending – and, by proxy, workman’s comp – off of the backs of employers? i know i do. look at it this way: if you and every other taxpayer were to increase your medicare deduction from your paycheck to fund a federally-managed insurance pool that covers everyone, neither you nor your employer would have to pay deductibles to the private sector for crappy, overpriced insurance.
    .
    the health insurance reforms coming from congress should seek to set up an *option* to have a payroll deduction which is managed and disbursed by the fed to pay health care providers. you don’t want the tax burden? fine. don’t pay the tax and keep paying aetna.
    .
    back on topic, re: transit: no one is claiming that rail systems are panacea. but they give people the option of getting out of gridlock, especially those without means. look at BART in SFCA. it’s a great system. downtown oakland to downtown san fran in 20 minutes at rush hour. you can’t get from west seattle to downtown that quickly in a car at rush hour and, here, it’s about 1/5 the distance.
    .
    re: tax cuts and jobs: the fact is that *most* people in this country are employed by small business owners, whose average income is $80,000 a year. those are *not* the rich people i’m talking about.
    .
    republican’ts had their way with tax cuts for the upper class for over 15 years. since then, unemployment has grown, middle-class wages have flatlined, and it has become easier for big companies to outsource jobs or import cheaper labor. the wealthy? they’re doing great. they have the lowest tax burden and wage payouts in 50 years.
    .
    i mean, thanks for the laughs, but if you ran your household finances like the republican’ts have run government, they’d throw you in jail.
    .
    re: the founding fathers: they wanted a society where everyone has an opportunity and a safety net. *not a handout*, but a hand up from the rest of us when things get tough. they were throwing off the yoke of feudalism and trying to create a society where no one was desperately poor and indentured to the obscenely wealthy. after all, someone has to do the “menial” chores, right? (like building your roads, schools, and churches.) so why should we be enslaved by poverty?
    .
    re: “prove it.” lol. you want me to prove a negative? show me *one* job that was created because someone got a tax cut. trickle-down is a lie, and bush and the republican’ts proved it by breaking the economy and enriching the already-rich.

  • JamminJ October 20, 2009 (10:33 pm)

    I have a question:

    what is the economics of tax cuts??
    .
    Bush’s tax cuts – ballbark of 1.5 Trillion if I remember correctly by 2010. and job increase was somewhere around 2% during his term.
    .
    compare to clintons higher taxes and 20% job increase.
    .
    so those who are economists out there… where’s the beef (jobs) with Bush’s tax cuts?.
    .

  • OP October 22, 2009 (10:52 pm)

    mar3c, with all due respect to WSB, I’m not even going to bother refuting or responding to your grossly pathetic post with facts, links, evidence etc. they’re wasted on you. I might as well converse with a wall.

    And JamminJ, form a coherent thought and/or sentence. Also try not pulling your garbage from DU or DK.

  • mar3c October 23, 2009 (7:15 am)

    op, you’ll find that facts tend to have a liberal bias. but i’ll be glad to read any links you can provide.
    .
    nonetheless, i’m sure wsb appreciates your inability to respond.
    .
    i’ll leave you with one request: stop carrying water for people who wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire on the sidewalk.

Sorry, comment time is over.