News

Five to Four

by Josh Feit

Tools

• Email This
• Print
• Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
• 0 comments

+ Enlarge this Image

All summer long, Greg Nickels' mayoral campaign knew exactly what Mark Sidran was up to: MIA on the election circuit, Sidran was banking on September TV ads. However, rather than preempting Sidran's strike, Nickels' folks sat back like nervous Nellies and waited.

Now, thanks to Sidran's $96,000 TV assault (that has catapulted him from a distant fourth to a threatening second), Nickels' team has let Sidran take control of the race. Listen to Nickels' unconvincing reaction to Sidran's jump: "I am still in first place."

A bit of advice, Greg: If you want to survive Sidran's charge (Sidran has now netted the endorsements of both dailies), you'll need to hit harder than that. While Sidran's busy accusing you, as Sound Transit's finance chair, of mismanaging Sound Transit's budget, why don't you accuse Sidran, as city attorney, of costing Seattle hundreds of thousands of dollars by mismanaging the U.S. Constitution?

Here's a partial list of Sidran's constitutional bloopers. Try running this list on TV:

· Sidran's proposed "Added Activities" ordinance was derailed when the idea was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

· Sidran lost a state court of appeals challenge to his use of drug-abatement policies when the court found that Sidran's office (in cahoots with the SPD) had violated the constitutional rights of local bar owners.

· Sidran lost the court of appeals challenge to the city's pre-employment drug testing policy, because it was unconstitutionally broad.

· Sidran lost a King County Superior Court case regarding his impound ordinance when Judge Michael Trickey found the ordinance violated the state constitution.

· Sidran lost in King County Superior Court when his office went to the mat defending city hall's rash of closed-door meetings.

Meanwhile, I'd like to address some misguided conventional wisdom about Sidran. The theory (yawn) goes like this: Sidran's numbers are higher than the polling suggests because he's got "secret" support. Seattle Democrats, you see, are too embarrassed to admit they're voting for Sidran; but once they get into the voting booth, their Republican brains will take over, and they'll vote how they "really" feel.

Please. I dare anyone to provide a historical example of when this "voting booth" theory actually played out. The theory flopped famously in 1964 when right-wing presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was relying on the "secret" vote. Guess what? Goldwater lost in a landslide--38 percent to Lyndon B. Johnson's 61 percent.

Recently, demagogue Pat Buchanan was counting on the "secret" vote (nice company, Sidran). Buchanan got just 0.4 percent of the popular vote.

Forget the "secret vote" theory, and check out what's not so secret about Sidran: His lame record of proposing and defending constitutionally questionable ordinances. Nickels should shed light on that record.

josh@thestranger.com