Education issues are typically portrayed as, well, boring. The office of Superintendent Public Instruction (SPI) itself is commonly regarded as stuffy, if not useless.
• Website
> Issues
> Non-Campaign Website
• Track Record
• Establishment Support
> Media
> Contributions
> Endorsements
• Lighten Up!
• About Me
• Issues
• Voters’ Pamphlet Statement
• Endorsements
• Calendar
• Support
• Supporters • Voting Checklist
Yet the SPI race ranks among the most important during Campaign 2008, for a couple reasons. First, education is an extremely important issue, and children trapped in privatized public schools are in desperate need of help. Second, the voters actually have a choice—there’s at least one candidate who is not about business as usual. In fact, I could even make this race exciting, with a little help from a certain Latin American president.
But voters need to learn how to recognize good candidates. The good news: It’s susrprisingly easy.
Website
First, take a look at each candidate’s website(s). Remember, this is the 21st century. There is no excuse for a candidate for public office to not have a campaign website. And that’s just for starters.
Most people planning on attending a job interview would dress nicely and make sure their resumé is in order. Similarly, a campaign website should look professional and function properly.
Issues
Sadly, many candidates have campaign websites that are very professional in appearance, but they ignore the most important thing—the issues. If you have to search for the word “Issues,” be suspicious. It should appear on the home page, and it should stand out.
Any candidate for just about any office should discuss multiple issues, not just one. And they should offer intelligent discussions, not just rhetoric.
It’s also important that candidates be able to communicate with the public effectively. Beware of candidates who write what appear to be theses on issues, very impressive in appearance but hard to understand. They may just be trying to dupe you; it’s a pretty common propaganda technique.
In the SPI campaign, any candidate who focuses primarily on the WASL should be marked with a red flag. They’re continuing a losing tradition that began nearly a decade ago. The WASL is disgusting, and it should be burned at the stake, but it is not the only issue, nor is it the most important issue.
Non-Campaign Website
The vast majority of candidates have but one website—their campaign website. What does that tell you?
It suggests a lack of long-term commitment. It suggests they really weren’t interested in politics or a particular issue until they suddenly decided to run for office. Candidates with long-term websites deserve extra credit, provided those websites are credible.
Track Record
What do you know about a candidate, and how easy was it to find the details you were looking for? Anyone who really cares about a cause should have been out there fighting for that cause long before they decided to run for office. There should be some sort of record of their past activities. They should create an online resumé, and they should discuss various political ideas and issues, explaining their positions.
If merely tracking down such information is hard work, beware. This candidate is almost certainly a bum.
Establishment Support
Establishment support is generally bad because the establishment is typically corrupt, especially here in corporate Seattle, which is Washington’s de facto capital. Establishment support comese in various forms, including media, contributions and endorsements.
Media
Establishment support isn’t always positive in the traditional sense. For example, if the media harshly attack a candidate, they’re still giving that candidate publicity. Such a strategy is sometimes used to brand a corporate operative as an activist.
Thus, candidates who are ignored by the media deserve a closer look. Candidates who figure prominently in the media are almost certainly corrupt.
Also, be aware that virtually all the media are corrupt. The liberal Seattle Weekly, The Stranger and most community newspapers are just as sleazy as the Seattle Times. And they do engage in election conspiracies, collaborating to promote particular candidates. For example, the Seattle Weekly may criticize the Seattle Times, promoting an alternative candidate in the process. But that alternative candidate is typically just as corrupt as the mainstream candidate.
Contributions
People who rake in thousands or millions of dollars in contributions are not necessarily the best candidates. In fact, the opposite is more likely true. Political campaigns should be about ideas, not money.
Endorsements
Since virtually every political organization that endorses candidates is corrupt, endorsements should be seen as an anchor, not a plus. Merely attending endorsement meetings is a bad sign.
To put it in perspective, just about any candidate for any office will jump at the chance to interview with a panel from the Seattle Times. Yet the Seattle Times is arguably the most corrupt newspaper in the Pacific Northwest; it even endorsed George W. Bush!
Some of the major endorsers include the Alki Foundation, King County Municipal League and League of Women Voters. They’re all corrupt. Just about any major union can be considered corrupt. I’ve been (mis)represented by the Washington/Seattle Education Association and the Teamsters, and they’re all little more than child-exploiting parasites.
Lighten Up!
Do I sound paranoid, maybe a little extremist? Well, I’ve been politically active since the mid 1990’s, and this is my sixth campaign for public office. Trust me, you wouldn’t even have time to listen to all the stories of corruption and political stunts I could tell you.
But there is a simple alternative. Instead of getting diverted by the corporate media, crooked unions and lavish contributions, check out the candidates yourself. Visit their campaign websites and just apply some simple logic, following the guidelines I offered above.
Or visit my Candidates page to see how I rated them, according to my Voters Checklist. And if you think I’m being unfair, then come up with your own checklist and share it with me. :)
E pluribus unum,
David Blomstrom—May 15, 2008
,
indicating you agree with my definition. Doing so will help publicize the fact
that there IS a Seattle Mafia. If you’re working for the Seattle Mafia and
want to click the thumbs down icon 
,
that’s fine, too. Either way, you’re helping my campaign. :) 
White Chalk Crime - 
This site was designed by 
