Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
Look, what it all boils down to is this: are you going to vote in the Primary next week? And are you going to get your friends to vote?
Integrity and civility
The thread that binds last year's early endorsement of Bill Bradley for president to today's endorsement of George W. Bush is ethical behavior, as a candidate and as an opponent...
Taxes and trade
While the economy under the Clinton-Gore administration has been spectacular,..."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
Anyway, back to the endorsement. Murray has run as a regional mayor, so it makes sense for the Seattle Times to endorse him. Their hope is that he will make things better not only for the city, but the suburbs as well. Most of the candidates want the same thing, but have different priorities. My guess is that if Murray becomes mayor, he runs for Governor in a few years and to do that, he will need the support of a few suburban folks along the way.
In any event, it shows how weird the Seattle Times is. The editorial was right on the money, but completely the opposite of many of the articles they have run in the last couple years complaining about ugly buildings, apodments, lack of parking, etc. My guess that the headline writer wants to stir up anger (Less Parking! More Congestion! Neighbors Angry about Ugly Buildings!) while the editorial board knows what is really important (sky high rents).
The People are done being a City.
They don't want to be a City.
They have had it up to here with a City.
Better watch out, it seems like the Times is gunning for your core readership, and you are making it really, really easy for them.
http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/…
...the ed page, though? Hmmmmnope.
The Times is often wrong, but sometimes they are right. They endorsed Obama, too, you know.
Fair and Balanced.
@27 I'm nauseous reading your post, it's so crammed with campaign propaganda sugar. You obviously work for the Murray campaign. Seattle has done well under McGinn during difficult times, and all Eddie Murray is known for is fighting for gay marriage. I gave up on his campaign as soon as it became obvious that he was running with a vanity mirror in one hand and a comb in the other.
Besides, McGinn totally blew it on police accountability and has little inclination to cross big money developers or ban-the-automobile Critical Mass assholes. Seattle should give Murray a chance to give the town back to the people who keep it alive.
I see the patchwork quilt of cyclists and pedestrians, transit advocates, immigrants and refugees, families with young kids, and oodles of others, and that's how I know I'm in the right camp for me. More than any policy or position or the sincerity and dedication of Mayor McGinn, it's the company I've kept in the last few months that cements my support.
A Seattle Times endorsement for as long as I can remember means one of two things: You're politically easy to support, or you're the wrong type of candidate. Murray's not the worst candidate that could be, but I'm unimpressed. The arguments the Seattle Times make happen to be among the least persuasive arguments I've heard for him, to boot.
To me, though, even "regional mayor" is a euphemism for the Ed Murray candidacy. I simply can't forget his continued efforts through the years to sabotage Sound Transit and (short of that) siphon Sound Transit spending away from Seattle. Whatever Mike McGinn's alleged flaws, at least he's positioned himself as the pro-Seattle mayor. Ed Murray has positioned himself as the anti-Seattle mayoral candidate.
For anyone who's actually interacted with Mike McGinn, it's hard not to come away with an impression of a man who is charming, engaging, and diplomatic. Let's not confuse mensch, though, with pushover or lightweight. Mike McGinn's real civility problem is that he stands for things like in-city density and transit that the Times editorial board and its fellow exurbanists can't quite stomach.
10 points from Slytherin.