Week in Review: March 21, 2025 - with Robert Cruickshank

‘Build With Us': Community Radio Station KVRU Acquired by Local Leaders from Hacks & Wonks

“Ferguson aide resigned amid toxic workplace complaints, lawmakers say” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times

“Tough times for Bob Ferguson as top aide resigns over hostile workplace allegations” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

“State workers blast Ferguson’s furlough plan, calling it a betrayal” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

“Democrats might be having some second thoughts about WA’s new governor” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times

The truth about Washington’s revenue shortfall | Washington State Budget & Policy Center 

“Monisha Harrell breaks silence on her uncle – and former boss – Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell” by Ashley Hiruko from KUOW

“Op-Ed: Bruce Harrell’s Long History of Covering for Abusers” by Ron Davis for The Urbanist

“Why is Sara Nelson Racing to Allow Housing in SoDo?” by Tobias Coughlin-Bogue from The Stranger

“In SoDo, Sara Nelson Got What She (and Chris Hansen) Wanted” by Tobias Coughlin-Bogue from The Stranger

“Seattle Superintendent Brent Jones will leave school district” by Denisa R. Superville from The Seattle Times

“Rep. Smith’s crusade against Democrats’ left wing gets attention, flak” by Jim Brunner and Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

If you missed our Tuesday show, Monisha Harrell and I talked about our recent acquisition of KVRU 105.7 FM - a non-commercial, community radio station in south Seattle. So tune into that show to hear why we did it and what we're planning.

Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: chair of Sierra Club Seattle and longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Welcome back!

[00:01:07] Robert Cruickshank: Hey, thanks for having me on.

[00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Well, we have quite a bit to discuss today. We will start with Bob Ferguson, our governor here in Washington state, and some developments and accusations in his office. What's going on with Bob?

[00:01:25] Robert Cruickshank: I mean, that's kind of the big question that all of us are asking here in Washington state. What is going on with Bob? Both in terms of how he's running the governor's office and from a staff perspective, and what his policies are? What we saw happen at the end of last week is his legislative director resigned in the middle of a legislative session - that's fairly unheard of for someone to leave that position. And in doing so, there were state legislators such as State Senator Yasmin Trudeau from Tacoma raising concerns about a toxic work environment. Earlier this week, Mike Webb, who was a lead staffer in Ferguson's administration, was named as a source of a lot of the toxicity. Bob Ferguson put out a statement at the beginning of the week saying he stands by Mike Webb, doesn't believe the allegations. The next day, Mike Webb resigns. And all of this suggests that there's a larger problem, I think, in the Ferguson administration - a lack of focus on what the public wants, a lack of attention to key details. And I think, really, a lack of responsiveness when concerns are raised. These concerns were raised by state legislators and others in the Capitol for several weeks now. Nothing happened until it blew up in the media. This is not the sort of sharp, crisp, professional management that someone would have expected from Bob Ferguson when he came into office. And so it is fairly damaging, I think, to both the operation of the governor's office here in a critical moment in the legislative session and a sign that this guy is not off to a very good start as governor.

[00:03:05] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I think that is what was striking to me. This has evidently been going on for a while and has been reported up the chain - was by multiple accounts at least. This is several weeks old and reports are that it was happening during the campaign. And really, we saw a continuation after Bob Ferguson and his administration were in office. State Senator Mike Chapman from Port Angeles said in a written statement that he was told weeks ago by a male staffer about the "bullying and erratic behavior of Mr. Webb and how broadly it was already impacting many staff members of both genders who were just trying to do their job." That is incredible. And that we are hearing this from sitting state legislators is also pretty unusual - of the same party, I should specify - is pretty unusual and kind of underscores how dire this situation had become and seemingly how much work it was preventing getting done, which is something we can't afford right now here in Washington state, given everything happening.

[00:04:13] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think that's spot on. Not only does the state face a budget deficit that has to be dealt with, we face Donald Trump and the threat that he poses to our freedoms, our services, and our basic rights. And people elected Bob Ferguson largely based on his reputation when Trump was president the first time - that Ferguson stood up to him, Ferguson was one of the Time 100 in 2017 because he led the resistance against Trump and did so in a very professional, capable way. And so in 2024, voters in Washington looked at this and thought - All right, Bob Ferguson's the guy. We trust him to run a tight ship and do a good job and reflect our values. And he's got to stand up to Trump. But what has happened so far is he's gotten into office and has just made mistake after mistake. And now it's becoming clear that part of the mistake is the staff and the culture of his own office, which - it's not Ferguson's fault that Trump is president, it's not Ferguson's fault that the state faces a budget deficit - it's very much his fault that his office is run poorly, has a toxic culture. And I think it comes down to - ultimately, the governor's responsible for this. And it raises serious questions about how much he's paying attention to things he needs to be paying attention to.

[00:05:27] Crystal Fincher: Well, the governor did release a statement following the resignation of the staffer who's accused of kind of being the center of all this, Mike Webb. And the governor said - Hey, this guy is responsible for me being in office, or I wouldn't be in office without him. He's been a strong supporter, they've had a close relationship. But he previously said he would investigate the concerns. Here, he said that it was unfortunate to see him go - he didn't see it. But now Mike is gone, they'll move forward. He appointed an interim person in that position. And so where do we stand now? How do they move forward?

[00:06:05] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's a key question. When you get a reputation of being a bad boss in politics = as elected official of being a bad employer - it becomes harder to recruit good people to come work in the office. And this should be a plum job, right? Working for the governor of Washington state - a blue state in a crucial moment - you would think there'd be a lot of people who would want to take that job on to go do some good work for the people of Washington state. But if Ferguson isn't really paying attention to or isn't going to shake up a toxic office culture, he's going to have a much harder time finding good people to come in with the experience and skill set that's needed to build relationships with legislators, to work with the public, and to advance his agenda.

[00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: So this question of moving forward is very pressing as we move into the crucial budget negotiations that are happening in the legislative session occurring right now. What is the current budget situation? We just got an update. And how is the governor signaling he plans to handle it? And how is the legislature planning on handling it?

[00:07:13] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah. This week, the state revenue forecast was updated - down another $850 million. Over the course of four years - it's worth keeping that in mind. Not everyone knows that in the early 2010s, when the Republicans took control of the state Senate, they imposed a requirement that budgeting be done on a four-year outlook. So when you see reports in the media that there is a $12 billion deficit or a $15 billion deficit, or that revenue is down by $850 million in the newest estimate over previous estimates - that's over four years. So looking at year by year, $200 something million more in the red. That shouldn't be a surprise to anybody based on what Donald Trump is doing to the economy. We should expect that there's going to be less revenue coming in under current conditions. So what that's going to mean is you can either follow Elon Musk's lead and cut everything and scale back government even further, or you go out and you find new revenue. And legislators in the Democratic Party have been pushed for years to really embrace what is sometimes called progressive revenue - taxes on the wealthiest people and the wealthiest corporations in our state, rather than raising sales taxes, rather than raising property taxes, which are more regressive because they affect the people with the least ability to pay. And finally, I think, in 2025, you have leadership in both the House and the Senate in the Democratic caucuses and members in those caucuses who are really strongly in support of those kinds of progressive revenues to fund public services and avert a lot of the cuts.

We don't know where Bob Ferguson is as a whole on this question. Right before he took office in January, he said he opposes a wealth tax, which is a tax on the intangible property of the wealthiest people in the state - that Inslee had supported when he proposed his final budget at the end of December 2024. And that raised a lot of concerns, understandably so. Where's Ferguson going to be on any number of other revenue proposals, such as a statewide version of Seattle's JumpStart Tax, or some other tax on the biggest corporations and wealthiest people in the state? So his office is being very silent on this deliberately, while all of his public statements are about the need to cut, cut, cut, cut. And it's setting up a battle between the legislature and the governor on this - both of whom, of course, as you said, from the same party. I was at the 43rd District Town Hall over the weekend, and State Senator Jamie Pedersen from the 43rd District, which is Capitol Hill up to Fremont, Central Seattle. Pedersen is now the Majority Leader in the State Senate, so he leads the Democrats in the State Senate. And he said he's all on board with progressive revenue, expect to see proposals soon. And a member of the public asked him - Are you concerned that If the legislature passes these revenues, that the governor might veto them. And Senator Pedersen - Yes, there is that concern. Contact the governor's office if you have that concern as well. So I think both sides are starting to signal that there may be a protracted battle over this question of are we going to use revenues to fund our public schools, prevent cuts to healthcare, prevent cuts to food banks and other important services. And we don't know where the governor is. He's not providing any clarity on this. And having turmoil in his own office among his own legislative liaison staff in this crucial moment isn't helping matters.

[00:10:30] Crystal Fincher: You know, being around and hearing people - especially those who don't typically pay close attention to politics - and especially in light of what's happening at the federal level, I've heard expressed or questioned many times - Okay, so yes, what's happening at the federal level doesn't seem to have much rhyme or reason to it. But here at the state level, there are people who seem to be very competent. You talked before about how people saw what Bob Ferguson did as Attorney General and thought - Yes, that's the kind of person and competence that we want in the governor's office. And hey, he said that he would thoughtfully seek out to find efficiencies to "cut the fat," as people sometimes say in the budget. Can this budget deficit be closed through responsible identification of waste and cutting excess? Can that work?

[00:11:30] Robert Cruickshank: No, it simply can't. Even if you look at a four-year outlook and let's say worst case scenario - $15 billion deficit. You are not solving that through cuts unless you are eliminating entire - not just programs, but entire types of services. Like that's the state getting out of healthcare. That's the state essentially not doing higher ed. And that's just a road we cannot go down and expect to have any sort of opportunity or prosperity in the state of Washington.

[00:11:59] Crystal Fincher: Does that have more to do with just our budget structure overall, where we kind of set up to fail here?

[00:12:06] Robert Cruickshank: Absolutely. And I think that what's happened in Washington is we've staggered along for 90 years without an income tax. We had income tax for a couple of years in the 1930s. A right-wing state Supreme Court threw it out in a controversial decision. We haven't had one since. And one of the reasons we've staggered along is because that's also the same time that we have a large federal government - after the New Deal, which stepped in and provided things like funding for education, funding for healthcare, so on. Now you have a federal government that is rolling a lot of that back. And what that does is it means Washington's rickety system of public finance, which is already not working, now becomes impossible because it was only possible with a large federal spending amount. If that goes away, Washington has to fundamentally remake the way in which we raise revenue in the state. Now, that's been under discussion for some time. State Senator Noel Frame had a Tax Structure Workgroup a few years ago, which produced recommendations that are now sitting on a shelf gathering dust. It's time to take that down and dust it off because, especially in the era of Trump and Musk and huge federal cuts, Washington can't continue to meet its residents' basic obligations and maintain our prosperity and have a modern society with the tax system we have now. It has to change. And that day is here. And ideally, we would have a leader who would want to do that. There's a great opportunity right now. Why are we not telling scientists who lost their NIH grants - Come to Washington State, we have grants for you. Why are we not telling people who are concerned about whether they're going to get their healthcare needs met - come to Washington State, we have resources for you. This is an opportunity that we are passing up because we refuse to touch a broken, regressive tax system.

[00:14:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will stay tuned here to what happens and update on subsequent weeks as this legislative session continues.

I do want to talk about City of Seattle and some developments there. We will start with Mayor Bruce Harrell. There has been a lot of news coming out about Bruce Harrell - what he's been involved with, what's occurred in his office. So what has been written about recently?

[00:14:28] Robert Cruickshank: I think a lot of people had seen the stories about a charge from Omaha, Nebraska in the 1990s when he was waving a gun at just random people in a parking lot in a dispute over a parking space. That was getting attention. But news this last week from Monisha Harrell is fundamentally different. And while waving a gun at people is concerning, the way you run your mayor's office to drive out women, people of color, anyone who wants to do good work because they're not part of an old boys crew is really problematic. And you have to give a huge amount of credit to Monisha Harrell for coming forward and saying this publicly. It's hard enough to come out and explain that your former boss, who was a mayor, was engaged in a set of his own toxic workplace practices in which the opinions and contributions of women were constantly belittled. That's a hard thing to say publicly. It's obviously even harder when that same person is your own uncle. You have to talk honestly about problems that a family member was engaged in, who also happens to be the mayor of Seattle. I read this article in KUOW about Monisha's story, and your heart sinks that she had to go through that experience. Talked about meetings where she tried to say something super meaningful and get dismissed. And Mayor Harreld said - Well, let's put it up to a vote. Oh, you're outvoted. Sorry, your opinion doesn't count anymore. I mean, you and I have worked in a mayor's office and did not function that way at all. People's contributions were valued when Mike McGinn was mayor, who we worked for. Not the case under Harrell. And what Monisha was explaining was that there's this culture of male entitlement, male privilege, people jockeying for power and influence, and the public good was way down the list of priorities that were being attended to in terms of how things were discussed and decided in this office.

And I don't think it's just Monisha. I mean, it certainly never is - just as in Ferguson's office - is probably not just one or two people engaged in toxic practices. But huge credit to Monisha for speaking up about this, because I think it's crucially important that people of Seattle know what their mayor is up to. And when they look at a mayor who has - let's be honest - a very thin record of achievement, you got to look and try to understand why that might be. And it turns out that part of the story seems to be that the highest ranks of his office are more interested in currying favor with each other and with the mayor and slapping down anyone who challenges them - especially if that happens to be a woman, a person of color, a woman of color - than they are with getting good work done for the people of the city.

[00:17:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that sums it up correctly. And the larger context is this is happening as the city faces several lawsuits from women about problems just like this - from people who report to Bruce Harrell, and who Bruce Harrell has stood up for and defended. As a matter of fact, there was an op-ed by Ron Davis in The Urbanist that came out on Wednesday talking about the pattern there. What did he identify?

[00:17:33] Robert Cruickshank: He identified a very clear pattern of incidents and behaviors and allegations and investigations that demonstrate pretty clearly that Bruce Harrell and his administration have a real problem with how they treat people - especially women, people of color - and that it's impacting negatively their ability to do the people's business. And I think people in Seattle should be paying very close attention to all of this as we wonder - Why is it that we still have public safety issues? Why is it that we still have problems getting the Comp Plan through? Why is it that we have people still struggling to afford housing? What is our mayor doing about it? What are they actually focused on in that office? Because it doesn't appear to me that they're focused on doing good work for the people of Seattle. It appears that they're wanting to maintain this macho bullying culture that keeps them on top. And I'm sorry, that's not what being mayor is about.

[00:18:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it really walked through it. A number of these I was aware of - but not all of them, actually. And I think it's so easy to lose context over time, especially if other things were going on - you don't have the time to follow stuff. It goes through - during the Ed Murray abuse scandal, how after multiple allegations, Harrell was still vocally supportive there. Harrell reportedly was accused of pushing for a smear campaign against abuse victims in a recommendation he gave to a nonprofit organization as their lawyer. Standing with former police chief Diaz, after he was accused multiple times of creating a hostile or unfair work environment for women. There have been direct reports - one recently who had to resign after being accused of rape. It is just a challenging pattern of occurrences here that you do, I think, have to start asking questions. And I think what might be missing here, and maybe this is a completely different story if we would see some of that reflection from Bruce Harrell - saying, A lot of this kind of very troubling activity has been happening around me. And what can I do? What part did I play in this, even unwittingly? And how can I correct that? What are people seeing? But I think what we've heard a lot has been an absolute rejection of that. And how dare you question how I would do that? As a minority myself, I'm extremely sensitive to these kinds of challenges - as he has said many times. And so I think that has been what has raised eyebrows along with this. And as each successive thing happened, it just makes people go - Wait a minute, is the problem just there or is he part of it? And I think we're going to continue to have this conversation. Will be interesting to see what unfolds.

I also want to talk about news this week with the Seattle City Council passing a SoDo housing proposal. What was this proposal? Why did it come to be? And what did the Council decide?

[00:20:46] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so folks who've been around Seattle for a while may remember that in the early 2010s - again, when McGinn was mayor - a native-born Seattleite named Chris Hansen, who went to California and made hundreds of millions of dollars in the hedge fund world, bought a bunch of land near T-Mobile Park, hoping to build an arena to lure an NBA team to Seattle. That didn't work. Ultimately, what used to be Key Arena got renovated to Climate Pledge Arena. NHL team, the Kraken, is there. And if the NBA comes back to Seattle, it'll go there at Seattle Center. So Hansen has all this property in SoDo, wants to do something with it. And Sara Nelson agreed, pushed through a rezone in that area to make it easier to build housing. Okay, we need more housing in Seattle. And there should be a pretty high bar to say no to new housing. At the same time, putting new housing near stadiums in SoDo - is that the highest priority of where new housing should go? Especially as we're talking about a Comprehensive Plan update, where there are 30 new neighborhood centers being proposed for a lot more housing that is closer to parks and schools and other amenities. And where those neighbors - the NIMBYs - are trying to fight back in places like Magnolia, Maple Leaf, and elsewhere. People ask - Why is all of a sudden this SoDo proposal hitting the front of the line? Is this a payoff to Chris Hansen? Is this some other thing? And it's unclear what's driving it.

But what is clear is that it's an edge case as to whether housing should go here. I can see arguments on both sides - reasonable. But why is the City Council handling this now in this really expedited way? Why does Sara Nelson make this a priority when - just this week, the Council is talking about delaying adoption of a Comprehensive Plan update that would make it easier to build more housing throughout the city. So the priorities are not in order. And then you have to look at how the Council actually handled the discussion of this proposal itself. And you look at the Council meeting that happened earlier this week where they debated and ultimately approved it on Tuesday, and it just seemed like it was a farce at moments. You had Dan Strauss up there debating openly whether he's more Norwegian or Swedish. You had Cathy Moore coming in, basically saying that this seems like something out of Northern Ireland or Serbia. Someone observing this asked - What's she going to say next, that the Comprehensive Plan is Gaza? Like, just really offensive statements from Cathy Moore. You have Rob Saka trying to micromanage all of this, dictating the number of signs that will go up in the lobby or the thickness of windows. And the Council ultimately passed the rezone, housing will be built there.

But you have to look at this and ask yourself two questions. One, what is up with this City Council where only Alexis Mercedes Rinck appeared to treat this proposal with the professionalism and seriousness that it deserved, and everyone else just making fools of themselves up there? But it's also a larger question about how we handle housing in the city. It should not be subjected to this farcical process where councilmembers who don't really understand the issues and are driven primarily by NIMBY concerns suddenly meddling in the fine-grained details of what's going to go where in a development. This, to me, fuels the arguments for removing the power over zoning, over where housing goes away from cities and councils and having statewide standards. Let me give an example. In California, there are active oil wells in the city of Los Angeles. People don't realize this, but they've been there for over 100 years. And there's a question of - Okay, well, how close to an active oil well can you build housing? And so the state has rules. You have to have a certain amount of feet setback from an active oil well. Okay, let's have similar rules about how close you can be to an active port or to an active highway - things like that. That removes some of the subjectivity from this discussion. That would be a good thing to do, generally speaking. But my God, we've got to do something about the City Council, which just cannot bring itself to act with the basic level of professionalism needed to tackle an important and thorny question such as where are we going to put housing in the city?

[00:25:01] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you covered it really well. The need for housing is urgent in the city of Seattle, and that is agreed upon by many people. What is a challenge, I think, as most people look at this is to say - Okay, so this SoDo proposal is coming up, and being pushed through really quickly without the kind of input and workshopping and planning that we've seen behind other similar proposals - because of how urgent it is, and we really need this. While at the same time, this Comprehensive Plan process is happening - that would have a much broader impact, where we're talking about so many more units. So if we're actually trying to solve this problem, there is a process happening right now that - woo, gets us on the fast lane there - if they would support more housing. What is confusing to a lot of people is seeing many of these councilmembers who were in support of the SoDo proposal be very not supportive, very unsupportive of increased housing in multiple areas in the Comprehensive Plan for Seattle. The difference being the resistance to allowing new and more diverse housing types in particularly wealthy neighborhood -, and those being where the majority of the pushback is. And so, while this conversation is happening, kind of sequestered over here in the corner of - Is SoDo good or bad? Which there are people who can reasonably arrive at either conclusion. Yes, it's good. No, it's bad. But how do you square that with being opposed to more housing in more places in Seattle, where, as you said, they're already set up to absorb this density - the services and needs of a community are already there - and that is what is going to keep housing affordable for the people who are living in Seattle today. That seems to be a contradiction that has not been squared.

[00:27:08] Robert Cruickshank: That's absolutely right. And you have, again, people like Cathy Moore or even Dan Strauss, who appear to be catering to NIMBYs in Central Magnolia or Maple Leaf - two neighborhoods that are not edge cases as to about where housing should go. Absolutely, yes, build a lot more housing, apartments, tall apartments, stacked flats, townhomes, whatever it is going in these neighborhoods. SoDo's an edge case. And yet, rather than take the time to really work through carefully an edge case, they ran that right through. Again, not against more housing here, but that lack of the same speed is not shown elsewhere. And I think what a lot of us who support housing are really concerned by with the SoDo proposal isn't that housing's going there - housing's good. It's that perhaps even this Council is using places like SoDo as a location to put housing that they don't want to put somewhere else. And this has been Seattle's MO for years - we're going to put housing that we don't want in the wealthy neighborhoods somewhere else. Maybe it's going to displace people of color. Maybe it's going to displace the poor. Maybe it's going to be along a highway where there's a lot of pollution that those new residents are going to have to breathe in every day, while the really awesome neighborhoods with a lot of resources and services like Wallingford or Maple Leaf or Magnolia are able to say no time and time again. That, I think, is really the core issue here. And I think we need to push the council hard to show the same sort of responsiveness and speed - around the city - that they showed in SoDo.

[00:28:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I want to talk about Seattle Public Schools and the news this week that the superintendent has announced his resignation. What brought this about?

[00:28:52] Robert Cruickshank: Brent Jones was hired in 2021 after a career working in administration at Seattle Public Schools. He's from Seattle, graduated from Seattle Public Schools. But as I think a lot of people have been watching in the last year or so, the proposal that he and the majority of the school board last year put on the table to close 20 schools really destroyed, I think, public trust. To his credit, Brent Jones had started to recognize this and was starting to make some necessary pivots. He pulled first back the plan to close 20 schools. In October, he said - We're just going to do four. And then listened to the public, said - All right, actually, we're not closing any at all - which infuriated the then-board president, Liza Rankin, who has actually tried to have him fired on multiple occasions since last summer, largely because he was pushing back against school closures. So that was welcome to see. You always want to see either an elected official or someone in a prominent role like a superintendent be responsive to the public. And when they make a mistake, you want them to pivot.

But I think Brent Jones probably decided it was time to move on. His wife got a job at UC Santa Barbara, and he decided it was time for his family to go. And I think that is a good opportunity now for Seattle Public Schools to really chart a new course. You have to rebuild trust. You have to bring families of all backgrounds in. This is not a case where you're seeing white flight in Seattle Public Schools. You're seeing flight from everybody. A lot of families of color in southeast Seattle have gone to charter schools because they're not getting their needs met in public schools. I mean, this is a huge problem. And we need a new leader in SPS who's going to really put this question front and center. How do we ensure that the people of Seattle are wanting to educate their kids in our schools, whether rich or poor, Black, white, brown, whatever it is - we want everyone together in our public schools, learning together, working together, so that we start to build a kind of society we want and push back the awful things you're seeing in DC. I think a lot of parents agree that it's time to see a new direction. And All Together for Seattle Schools, for example - the parent group that led the fight against closures last year - put out a statement this week saying that they want a superintendent from outside of Seattle. That we shouldn't hire from within, that it should be an outside hire from somewhere in the national search, and it should not be done in secret, like the UW president's search was done, the Sound Transit CEO search is being done, the SPD chief search is being done. No, let's name the finalists, bring them out to Seattle, have them meet the public, have the public be involved in this process. Because I think that's the sort of thing you need to rebuild public trust and also bring someone in who's willing to make the changes at the Central Office and potentially clean house - that's obviously needed after the disruptions and dislocations of the last few years.

[00:31:41] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. All right, well, wrapping up today, I want to talk about Representative Adam Smith - representative from the 9th Congressional District - talking essentially about how the Democratic Party has gotten too woke, and that's why we're losing all over the place. And we need to retool and not let those extreme radical leftists take over the party, because that is what has caused the problems that Democrats are facing now. Does this make sense to you?

[00:32:16] Robert Cruickshank: Not really. We're talking about this this week because Daniel Beekman and Jim Brunner in The Seattle Times wrote a pretty big article about Adam Smith's controversy that he's facing here at home over his views. And they framed it as basically - these cranky Seattle leftists just don't understand that the rest of the country doesn't believe the same things they do, and they've got to admit that, and that's why we're losing elections. That is not actually what's going on here. The controversy with Adam Smith started in February when The New Yorker wrote an article in which Adam Smith was reported to have actually sought out and had a conversation with Chris Rufo, who was originally from Seattle, when he first made his political name. He ran for City Council for a hot minute in 2019 and then got on the wingnut welfare gravy train when various think tanks on the right started giving him money to do things like attack the homeless. And then ultimately, Rufo got hooked up with Ron DeSantis to wage war against woke, DEI, whatever it is that he calls it these days. Basically, teaching of racial and social justice in schools and in our government is what Rufo's against. And this guy's basically our local supervillain who is now working with Trump and Musk to destroy any traces of not just woke, but the civil rights movement - they are repealing executive orders that Lyndon Johnson had issued 60 years ago to desegregate public facilities. I mean, come on. And this is the guy who Adam Smith actually sought out for a conversation because he read his book and liked what he heard - and that is what set people off in the 9th District.

The other thing that The Seattle Times article didn't cover, which is crucial backstory, is that Adam Smith - he's been around for a long time, since the 1990s in Congress, representing Western Washington. But his current district was drawn in 2011 to be a majority minority. And the assumption was that Pramila Jayapal or someone like that would ultimately win that seat. But Adam Smith decided - no, I'm keeping it for myself. And Pramila, of course, went on to run for the Seattle seat once Jim McDermott left and retired. The 9th District is 40% white, which means it's majority-minority - 60% people of color. South King County has become a very diverse place, and that is the 9th District. Adam Smith, however, this older white dude, centrist white dude, is not in touch with his district, but he made it worse by going out and talking with someone like Christopher Rufo, who has an in and is working hard to undermine the rights and opportunities of Smith's own constituents. And that is the basis of the concern. This isn't Seattle left being cranky that someone told us - We were maybe being a little too extreme with our words. That's not what's happening. And that didn't make it into the article, and I think that was a real problem.

The thing that did make it into the article, but I don't think got as much attention as it should, is Smith's comments about local service providers and doing homeless services. That really deeply offended a lot of people who were otherwise not interested in this debate over woke. And what Smith did was essentially dismiss their work, and dismiss the good work they're trying to do without having talked to them first to understand what's really going on. So I think that Adam Smith is actually in really deep hot water to the point where I would not be surprised if some local elected official comes after him in 2026. And with a very angry electorate, unhappy with the Democratic Party in DC, Adam Smith is in very serious trouble. And it's not because Seattle lefties are cranky. It's because Adam Smith himself went and had a buddy-buddy conversation with Christopher Rufo, not understanding what that meant for his district.

[00:36:05] Crystal Fincher: I think that's all correct. I think I would add, from the perspective as a political consultant that looks at data and cares about actually winning and understands what goes into that, the framing and the context that have surrounded this conversation - and I'm going beyond that Seattle Times article, but since The New Yorker article came out - has been just wrong, frankly. So the context is that Dems are losing, which on a federal level, absolutely the case - message did not connect, we aren't going to relitigate that here. But what's very important to understand is that there isn't one race. There are races all over the place - races around the state, races around the country. And while at the end of the day, they all flatten out and equate to a certain number for Democrats and a certain number for Republicans, these districts are all very different, and people have to run in their districts. Pramila Jayapal is a great representative for her district - has won repeatedly. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is what that district has chosen - has won now a second time, increased her margin of victory there. Very different districts, very different candidates. Pramila could not win in Marie Gluesenkamp Perez's district. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez could not win in Pramila's district. And to suggest that there is one winning message and that there was one way to operate doesn't make any sense.

So then we come to the context of Washington state here. It is accurate to say, and I have many opinions about why Democrats lost nationally, and there are problems that are in desperate need of fixes. Washington state - Democrats did not lose. In Washington state, Democrats expanded their margins. Voters in Washington state preferred what Democrats said to what Republicans said. Does that mean that what Democrats are saying is perfect? Does that mean that there are no issues at all? That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that voters preferred what Democrats were proposing, what they had done, and what they are planning to Republicans. That is very true, particularly in Adam Smith's district and has been trending that way. And as you talked about, Adam Smith's district - which I happen to live in - was redistricted. His district changed, but these opinions that we're hearing are pretty consistent to what he had been saying for a long, long time. The things that he's uncomfortable with today aren't a surprise to many of us who have been paying attention for a long time. This is fairly consistent with where he had been. I think what he and a number of other people who have felt that way the entire time and then perhaps felt, especially over the last several years, that maybe they would pay a heavier price for standing up for what they actually believed, just pretended to go along with everyone else. But that wasn't necessarily authentic.

So now we're here in this time and they're like - This is a great time where I can get off these points and try and justify how I felt the entire time. But the base actually doesn't support that. And the voters actually don't support that. The voters had a choice, whether it was on public safety, whether it was on standing up for civil rights - on a number of issues, voters had the Republican messaging, plans, record before them and the Democratic plans and messaging before them, and they chose the Democratic plan. So to come back in after that and say - What we need to do is sound more like Republicans. What we need to do is move further over there and be like them. I don't know why you would do that in Washington state. I don't know why you would do that in his district, the 9th Congressional District, because voters have explicitly said that is not what they prefer. So if you want to do it, you can say that that's what you believe. But it is incorrect to say that's what voters want. We have lots of data to support that. And very little, if any, data to support that they prefer something different than what they have repeatedly voted for and increasingly voted for.

So I just wanted to say that I hear this parroting of - Well, Democrats lost. They did lose the presidency. Here in Washington state, they increased their margins. They increased the amount of Democrats that have been elected. They decided to go more in that direction. And overall, in the presidential vote, performed the best out of any state in the nation and kind of bucked the massive trend - trend slightly red overall, eroded on president, but that didn't carry through to the rest of the ballot. So I just wanted to add that in there because some people, despite how wrong it is to just cast significant people aside and throw them under the bus - that's bad ethically and morally - but I just also want to add, that's bad politics. That is bad strategy. And it is counter to the facts on the ground. That has just been bothering me, so I just thought I would add that.

And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, March 21st, 2025. We're back! The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert at Bluesky at @robertcruickshank.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks, and you can follow me on Bluesky at @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to follow us and please leave a review if you like us wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.