Going to the Candidates’ Debate

This evening, I’ll be covering a candidates’ forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of Kitsap County from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Norm Dicks Government Center, featuring candidates for house and senate races in the 26th and 35th Legislative Districts.

Post questions you’d like to ask the candidates, and I’ll see what I can do.

Visits the Kitsap Sun’s Election Guide for video coverage of editorial board interviews with candidates in most of these races.

At today’s forum:
26th Legislative District:
Senate – Derek Kilmer & Marty McClendon
Rep. Pos. 1 – Jan Angel and Sumner Schoenike
Rep. Pos. 2 – Doug Richards and Larry Seaquist

35th Legislative District:
Senate – Tim Sheldon and Nancy Williams
Rep. Pos. 1 – Daniel Griffey and Kathy Haigh
Rep. Pos. 2 – Fred Finn and Linda Simpson

8 thoughts on “Going to the Candidates’ Debate

  1. I’d like to know:

    1. Do you support the ‘across the board’ cuts proposed by the Governor? If so, why? If not, why not?

    2. If K-12 Education is constitutionally the paramount duty of the State of Washington, why, over the past two decades have local school districts needed to seek increasingly amounts of local levy funding to pay basic education needs? Prime example is student “to-from” school transportation. On average, the State of Washington pays less than 66% of it’s obligation to basic student transportation across Washington State.

    If I am there, I will ask them myself. If not, please ask for me.

  2. A Forum is not a Debate.

    What you need is a long Lincoln Douglas style debate that is long and detailed. I suggest a 2 hour debate that is posted on the web for all to see, and for EACH congressional and legislative position.

  3. I miss those, Randy.

    Lincoln-Douglas is sorely needed towards informed decision-making, particularly in this political climate. Too many candidates get away with sound bites without having to discuss, in detail, what they will actually bring to the elected office. I’ve been reading the talking points in this periodical and others. Candidates are generally parroting one another, or making elaborate promises without a true appreciation for whether or not they can be enacted.

  4. Larry Seaquist has stated his belief that state agencies could be cut by 20% (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jul/17/a-few-impromptu-pokes-liven-up-south-kitsap/). Governor Gregoire – just before departing on her latest overseas junket – has ordered 7% across-the board cuts. Predictably, this has resulted in much hand-wringing (people are gonna die!). I assume Larry will see these 7% cuts as 1) no problemo and 2) a good start. Please ask Larry to reiterate his call for deeper cuts to state government.

  5. Larry does not favor across the board cuts. I went to a budget workshop he held in July. He prefers targeted cuts, for instance, taking 15% off a program that can function as well or even more efficiently at that level, and not cutting other departments and programs that are efficient and highly worthwhile.

    It was a fascinating workshop and I recommend attending any of Larry’s workshops. He also facilitates voter groups to create consensus proposals to solve problems–last year about the ferry system and education.

  6. None of the candidates at Monday’s forum advocated across the board cuts.

    See what they said they’d do instead here:


    and here:


    And if you want to view longer interviews with candidates from each race, visit the Kitsap Sun’s Election Guide for videos of editorial board meetings:


    Chris Henry, reporter

  7. The type of response I seek when speaking directly with candidates goes something like this:

    Candidate: I don’t believe in across the board cuts. (Throw in some campaigning rhetoric here)

    Me: What would be your solution?

    Candidate: I believe in targeted cuts based on the performance output, and reduced cycle.

    Me: Based upon your experience and/or due diligence regarding the budget, what are some examples of programmes you’d cut versus those you wouldn’t? For those you’d cut, what are possible alternatives you’d propose for sustaining it. For those you wouldn’t, what would be the performance measures in place to determine effectiveness?

    There are some candidates who answer this question, but many do not. They should.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here: