.

Goss, First Woman Mayor in LFP, Leads by 228 Votes, Thompson Concedes

Former Councilwoman Goss says a change in leadership was needed, while Thompson blames Gov. Watch political committee for spreading, "misinformation."

After a tough campaign showed an often divided Lake Forest Park, former Councilwoman Mary Jane Goss is still leading deputy mayor Dwight Thompson for mayor of the 12,500 person city as of Thursday afternoon.

Goss, who led Thompson in the primary, is still well ahead by 6.5 percent points, and 228 votes. As of 4:30 p.m. Thursday, Goss had 53.12 percent (1,862 votes) to 46.62 percent (1,634 votes) lead in the general election race to replace the retiring Dave Hutchinson. The mayor's job pays $36,000 a year. 

"I'm pretty happy about that," said Goss, Wednesday, who was nursing a fractured sternum she received after a slippery fall while campaigning. 

Thompson conceded Thursday evening, congratulating Goss before the City Council meeting and sending an e-mail out to his supporters thanking them.

Thompson said Tuesday night, that the results, "were not encouraging." His campaign continued a get-out-the-vote effort tonight up until 7 p.m. and wanted to wait and see today's results but it appears he will come up short.

Thompson blamed the LFP Gov. Watch political committee, which consisted of people who opposed the city's levy lid lift, Prop. 1 in 2010, of providing "misinformation" to voters.

"I think obviously the Gov. Watch piece (mailer) and misinformation they provided is seen in the results tonight," he said.

Goss said, "I think we need a change in leadership and that's why I was running."

Gov. Watch endorsed Goss, Brian Cathcart, Jeff Johnson and Tom French and it appears all but Cathcart are headed for victory.

"We are gratified that the people of Lake Forest Park realized that change is necessary," Gov. Watch Chairman Steve Plusch said. "The challenge for the potential new Mayor and Councilmembers is to step up and work hard to make Lake Forest Park the best city it can be while living within current revenues and respecting the priorities of our citizens. I am confident that they will do so."

As for Gov. Watch, Goss said, "These are  group of citizens in his own city. I think the response (Thompson) gave them was pretty surprising."

Goss last served on the Council in 2005. 

"Six years is a long time ago," she said. "I have faith that the people that are elected can work togeher and get us back on track. " 

In the Council Position 2 race, incumbent Catherine Stanford, a business consultant, widened her lead with Wednesday with 52.97 percent of the vote (1,711 votes) to the 46.81 percent (1,512 votes) of investment manager Brian Cathcart.

Political newcomer Johnson, an auto shop owner, lead shrank a bit but he but still leads pharmacist Chuck Paulsen by nearly six points with 52.86 percent (1,710 votes) to 46.96 percent (1,519 votes) in the Position 4 race.

In the Position 6 race French, the challenger and business consultant, led incumbent Ed Sterner, a lawyer, by more than three points and 118 votes, 51.65 percent (1,672 votes) to 48.01 percent (1,554 votes).

So far 3,644 ballots out of 9,408 registered voters have been counted or 38.73 percent of that possible total. King County turnout was estimated at 52 percent. 


 

William Johnson November 10, 2011 at 03:18 AM
Whatever the final results, one thing is clear for me personally: Dwight Thompson continues his own "misinformation"/demonization campaign against GovWatch. What "misinformation," I wonder, is he referring to regarding Prop 1? Rather than "blaming" GovWatch for his current poor showing in the polls, who, after all, garnered a whopping 78% of the LFP vote opposing Prop 1, perhaps he should consider, instead, that they, not him (or the city council), had their finger on the community's pulse? The unfortunate implication he seems to be drawing is that GovWatch, through a deceitful and deliberate campaign of deception, managed to hoodwink LFP residents into opposing Prop 1. This lays far too much power at the feet of GovWatch and discredits the discernment and intelligence of LFP residents to assess the facts and come to their own conclusions.
Anne November 10, 2011 at 06:03 AM
Gov Watch tries too hard to seem independent when in fact, their rhetoric is swathed in Tea Party talking points.
William Johnson November 10, 2011 at 03:42 PM
I think you've got to do better than that, Anne. Name-calling is usually what someone resorts to when they've run out of rebuttals. The term "Tea Party" is now used by some to discredit their opponents without having to address the substance of their argument. Of course, GovWatch supporters are quite familiar with these tactics, i.e., coming not only from Deputy Mayor Thompson, but from others, well, like yourself, who are upset, apparently, that there are those in the community who took it upon themselves as an engaged citizenry (the temerity!) to challenge Prop 1 (with facts and figures no less!) and share that information with the rest of us. That's how GovWatch began, I believe. What in that “brands” them as Tea Party supporters? Please humor me and list the Tea Party talking points you believe GovWatch is "swathed in"? Fiscal responsibility? Transparency? Are these what you're referring to? I don't recognize them as being unique, per se, to the Tea Party movement. In any event, aside from the name-calling which is unfortunate ands uncalled for, I think your attempt to link GovWatch to the Tea Party is rib-ticklingly funny. I can’t speak for anyone else, obviously, but I self-identity (proudly, by the way) as a very left-leaning progressive.
Bob MacDonald November 10, 2011 at 05:09 PM
If it's a choice between the GovWatch tea party and the incumbent flea party, I'll go with the tea party. Looks like I'm not alone.
Jean Thomas November 10, 2011 at 08:38 PM
I have never understood why some ill-informed citizens decided that "progressive" and "fiscally responsible" were mutually exclusive. The reality is that the vast majority of progressives passionately support the need for fiscal responsibility. More important, it should be obvious that a majority of Lake Forest Park citizens, regardless of their political ties, agree on the need for our City to return to a more appropriate fiscal policy, especially given these tough economic times.
tippy November 11, 2011 at 01:16 AM
Jean, to answer your first point, I think it's because Progressive ideas nearly always lead to over-spending and budget deficits due to their reliance on government to address whatever issues they are trying to solve. That said, yes, it certainly is possible to be both progressive and fiscally responsible, but in practice, it is rarely seen. Tippy
Jean Thomas November 11, 2011 at 01:47 AM
Tippy, I think that in the past, when the economy was booming, your observation was closer to the mark. I suspect that even then, the vast majority of overspending and budget deficits were the result of fiscal irresponsibility by officials and agencies. Times and positions have changed along with the economic downturn. Most progressives today -- and definitely those in Western Washington -- are staunchly in favor of fiscally responsible solutions to the issues facing us. King County Executive Dow Constantine's approach emphasizing more innovative County government is an excellent example. Will we all agree on which issues to address and their priority? Of course not. That's why organizations such as Gov Watch are vital: not just to disseminate factual information based on government records, but also to help provide a way to find common ground among residents seeking more creative solutions to the problems facing our City.
William Johnson November 11, 2011 at 02:59 AM
Tippy, A little know fact drawn from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget tables and adjusted so that all dollar figures are in 2010 dollars: US PUBLIC DEBT—DEMOCRATS VERSUS REPUBLICANS 1978-2010 Democratic Presidents: Jimmy Carter (Fiscal Years 1978-1981) $1.288 Trillion 
Bill Clinton (Fiscal Years 1993-1996) $0.733 Trillion 
 
Bill Clinton (Fiscal Years 1997-2001) Minus $0.235 Trillion 
 
Barack Obama (Fiscal Year 2010)  $1.785 Trillion Total $2.140 Trillion Republican Presidents: Ronald Reagan (Fiscal Years 1982-1985) $1.288 Trillion 
 
Ronald Reagan (Fiscal Years 1986-1989) $1.355 Trillion 
 
George Bush Sr. (Fiscal Years 1990-1993) $1.531 Trillion 

George Bush Jr. (Fiscal Year 2002-2005) $1.794 Trillion 
George Bush Jr. (Fiscal Year 2006-2009) $3.142 Trillion Total $9.110 Trillion Republicans love to tell you that they're the party of fiscal responsibility, but since 1978, they've created four-fifths of all U.S. public debt.
William Johnson November 11, 2011 at 03:00 AM
Part II In the last third of a century, over 81% of U.S. Public Debt has been created under Republican Presidents. Only 19% has been created under Democratic Presidents--and most of that came last year as President Obama was trying to dig us out of the incredibly deep hole George Bush Jr. dug for us. The only "achievements" supply siders can legitimately claim are the massive bankrupting of the U.S. Treasury, the TRILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer guaranteed loans to the already very rich (often erroneously called tax cuts), and the bankrupting of the middle class. 

Go to www.ADebtIsATaxOnYourKids.com for the full charts.
tippy November 11, 2011 at 03:47 PM
William, Isn't it great to get back to the classic conservative/liberal arguments instead of whether or not Dwight can beat someone when he's not running unopposed? I've no interest in addressing your points because I've had the argument too many times and there aren't enough characters available here. That said, Congress creates the budget, not the President. Try your analysis according to who was running Congress - the House, particularly - and then see how it looks. Reagan, for example, traded tax cuts for spending cuts. The tax cuts happened, but the spending cuts didn't (which is the GOP fear right now... rightly so, I suspect) - worst mistake he ever made, he later said. Clinton, another example, really got his budget house in order after the GOP takeover in 1994. (Of course, that same Congress blew it up later and were removed.) But this, to me, is a digression. The real point is that the institutional GOP and the institutional Democrats have no interest (or ability, not sure which) in fixing this (see 2006 as evidence that Republicans are not conservatives, as it was conservatives who kicked them out of the House). This is why the Tea Party is not just conservatives, but also more liberals than many would have you believe. Believing in fiscal discipline is, as suggested here, not just goal of one philosophy over the other. Aside from that, I think your wrong, as your stats don't tell near the entire story. So there. :) Tippy
William Johnson November 11, 2011 at 05:54 PM
tippy, Excuse me, but how exactly is your statement above (“Progressive ideas nearly always lead to over-spending and budget deficits due to their reliance on government to address whatever issues they are trying to solve.”) tied to “whether or not Dwight can beat someone when he's not running unopposed?” You seem to be holding me responsible for bringing the topic up, when, in fact, it was you. Be that as it may, lets take Reagan as an example. Republicans love to say that it was not Reagan's fault but the fault of the "Democratic Congress.” However, Congress was half Republican and the Southern Democrats in the House defected to the Republican side. So both houses of Congress passed the same Republican budget in 1981, when all this started. And in Reagan's eight years and G.H.W. Bush's four years, on average, Congress passed smaller budgets then the Republican presidents asked for. And of Course, G.W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich, were purely Republican and are currently half of the budget deficit even under Obama. The official Congressional Budget link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18/pdf/GPO-CDOC-107sdoc18-1-12-4.pdf
William Johnson November 11, 2011 at 05:56 PM
Part II It’s fine if you don’t want to have this argument again; no need to reply. As for my stats not telling the whole story, you’re correct in one regard: I left out a critique of supply side economics. :0) I agree with you that the system seems irrevocably broken. There is little difference, in my mind, between the “institutional” GOP and the “institutional” Democrats. Harder to swallow your contention that liberals (with their heads on straight) would be attracted to the Koch Brother’s Tea Party. How many liberals, do you think, stand behind Scott Walker in Wisconsin? Rick Scott? John Kasich? Yes, many liberals and conservatives both agree in fiscal discipline.
Sean November 11, 2011 at 06:23 PM
The recession has created a revenue shortfall. Do not lose sight of that. However the city proposes to deal with that is up to its citizens, but the shortfall was not caused by gross financial management by LFP. After the upcoming special session the city and school district will be further in the hole and needing more local revenue from its citizens.
tippy November 11, 2011 at 11:26 PM
William, I'm not sure where you crossed your wires. This thread started with you commenting negatively on Dwight. Since I share your thoughts on Dwight, I was merely pointing out that it feels good that he lost and we can get back to the normal liberal vs conservative argument. I think you misunderstood my point. As for the budget debt argument, it's extremely dynamic and not easily distilled into useful point/counterpoint in a comment forum. It's also not really that useful to dissect the past. You can point to debt, but there's so much more to it. What about the record breaking tax revenues generated by supply side economics - which we had again under Bush Jr. Clinton was able to raise taxes - modestly - because of the roaring success of the 80s. And the phrase "heads on straight" rarely appears in the same sentence as the word "liberal" so that was entertaining to see. :) I think in the LFP elections, we were united. I think in our goals for the City and US budget, we probably are, as well. It's how do we get there that we'd probably argue a bit. But if we can agree on the problem (and if it were up to us), I bet we'd have a better chance at coming up with a solution - even with our assumed differences - than our current Congress. Might be fun to give it a shot sometime. As an aside, liberals have nothing to do with Kasich and Walker. That's just public sector unions - which, in concept, are ridiculous and unnecessary. Tippy
William Johnson November 11, 2011 at 11:57 PM
tippy, Yes, I definitely misunderstood your point. Happy to drop the budget deficit argument. As well as letting your other comments go. Happy as well to know that we're on the same page regarding Thompson. Be well. Bill
Candar November 12, 2011 at 01:11 AM
Jean, Thank you, but I think I can find my own way to factual information without the help of gov watch. Its "Voter Alert"!!!! flier to help me make an informed decision (Vote for mjg, et. al) was in fact disseminated to myself and my immediate neighbors - in our mailboxes without the benefit of any postage paid. I read a letter from the president of gov watch that there was not enough time to mail a response to Dwight Thompson's rebuttal of earlier gov watch statements. Note to gov watch - it is ILLEGAL to place anything, including fliers, in the mailbox without proper postage affixed. The fine is up to $10,000 for an organization. Maybe gov watch needs some watching! Candar
tippy November 12, 2011 at 08:27 PM
Hey William, I hope you took all of my comments in the spirit intended. I'm happy with our election results (generally), and I was just having fun after that. It would be fun to talk with you sometime and enjoy the great debate. But I wanted to be sure you know I was poking fun and wasn't intending to be at all contentious. We fought the good fight on this forum, and I have nothing but respect for your diligence. Hope all's well with you, too. Tippy
William Johnson November 13, 2011 at 05:17 AM
Tippy, I appreciate the follow-up and clarification. I think it's difficult sometimes to know what others are getting at, their intentions, humor, etc. when all you have is the written word, i.e., we don't have the benefit of a visual (facial expressions) or an actual person's voice to help us know where someone else is coming from. I think I missed the humor. Yes, I would also enjoy talking some day in person. I agree (fighting the good fight), and it was great to have your input as well. I'd like to think our comments added something to the debate. Thank you for your kind words. Best wishes, Bill
Jon Snow November 14, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Great discussion on both sides! First time caller. 10 yr. res. Little help? Is there a site that lists our councilperson's party affiliation. I read the election handouts and went to the given sites. I'm not on Facebook. Didn't yield enough on Google. Again, nice debate.
William Johnson November 14, 2011 at 03:25 PM
Jon, Can't help you with that, unfortunately. Perhaps others have this information. I will suggest that I would be extremely surprised to learn that any of them self-identify as Tea Party candidates, though some have obviously suggested that GovWatch aligns with their talking points.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something