When he entered the mayor’s race, T-Mobile executive Joe Mallahan said he planned to be financially “on par” with mayor Greg Nickels by the next campaign finance reporting deadline. Well, he wasn’t bullshitting: Yesterday, Mallahan dropped $200,000 of his own money into his campaign, giving him $218,000 in total contributions, and $205,000 in the bank. Nickels, who has not yet filed his own disclosure reports for April, reported $318,000 in total contributions at the end of March, and $200,000 in the bank. Sounds pretty “on par” to me.
He Wasn’t Kidding
Comments are closed.
I don’t think someone who works in Bellevue should be allowed to run for Mayor of Seattle
Very broad minded, @1. Here’s a better reason.
From 4 minutes googling, Murakami interview:
“Q: So you’d do the little things. Do you have any broader vision? A: Our theme is fix what’s broke, restore trust so you can pursue the big stuff. We’re really 30 years behind in having an urban waterfront. Obviously knocking down the (Alaskan Way) viaduct is going to help, but what I’d really like to see is the waterfront become the city’s piazza. But you only have slivers of exposure to the Sound. . . . .Q: So how would you do that? You can’t knock down all the buildings on the waterfront. A: I don’t know how to do that yet. But we’ve squandered eight years with political bickering. I’ve been very focused doing my job at T-Mobile, and I’m not really a policy wonk yet.
#####
Um, what’re you for, Joe?
So rich guy wants to run for mayor and is willing to gamble with his own money to pull it off. How about some substance on this guy?
What I know so far: his name is spelled the stupid way and he works at a phone company.
@2
The city isn’t just for people who live here. In fact, more people work and go to school here than live here. You need a mayor who knows what that’s like, not someone who thinks Seattle is a fun place to live but the Eastside is where jobs ought to go.
Fuck the eastside.
@4: You know, that would be a legitimate point if it were aimed at an actual policy stance (“If elected, I will send more jobs to office parks in the I-90 corridor!”), but opposing him solely on the grounds that he’s had a successful career with a corporation located outside of city limits is not really that interesting of a position to take.
Obviously, the mayor’s job is to ensure the economic vitality of the city. Nonetheless, the largest city in the Puget Sound is still completely intertwined with its surroundings, and the region’s best and brightest are going to live lives that reflect that reality.
@6
That is perfect nonsense. “The fact the guy worships at the church of satan/westboro baptist would be interesting if it reflected a policy stance”.
You have to be fucking kidding me. Someone’s background is only interesting if it’s related to a specific policy stance? Total bullshit.
Okay, he’s loaded. Got it.
@7: Driving across the bridge to get to work is not a personal moral failing or political stance in the way that belonging to the Westboro Baptist Church is. Seriously, that’s a ridiculous comparison. And I didn’t say that his background doesn’t matter. I said the fact that he works in Bellevue doesn’t mean that he believes all Seattleites should be encouraged to work in Bellevue.
As you yourself pointed out, the greater Puget Sound region is teeming with people who live in one place and have affiliations in other places. I’m not getting the “scandal” aspect of electing someone who is, in that respect, like just about everyone else here.
Again, though, the real problem with Mallahan is that we don’t really know what he stands for. I imagine that will change as the campaign goes on.
Joe Mallahan has no policy stance, on anything, except for the fact that he likes us all to know that he drives a Prius and has a lot on money. Folks like that are a dime a dozen in Seattle, that does not mean they would make a good Mayor. Personally, I am insulted that this guy feels that he can run for Mayor without having any meaningful knowledge of how our City government operates and without any history of civic involvement that would demonstrate that he really cares.
@9
It’s an extreme comparison, but it’s the same sort of thing, obviously on a smaller scale.
What’s ridiculous is to think that the only difference that someone who works in Bellevue and lives in Seattle would have to someone who worked in Seattle is that they might think everyone in Seattle should work in Bellevue. They could:
1) Put too much importance on an SR 520 replacement at the cost of in-city transportation because they overvalue commuting across the lake because they do it.
2) Put too much importance on the entertainment and living aspects of the city compared to the business aspects. The business district is where all the tax revenue comes from.
3) Not bother to compete in a bellevue-seattle business location battle because “Bellevue’s a great place to work” when in fact the residents of seattle need businesses to pay taxes to provide us services.
4) Obviously someone who drives from Wallingford to Bellevue is going to put too much importance on cars as transportation and roads as their means.
Those are just four I thought of off the top of my head. There are certainly others, if you can’t see the nuance there, you need to spend a few more minutes thinking about it.
@11: To address your points one by one:
1) The bridges are much more heavily used by those commuting to Seattle for work and school than vice versa. So, not only is maintaining across-the-water access important to Seattle’s ability to balance its checkbooks, Mallahan’s commute doesn’t even put him in a position where he is all that likely to see the worst traffic across the bridges.
2) I don’t know the exact breakdown of the city’s tax revenues, but poo-pooing the importance of taxes derived from Seattle’s residents seems remarkably silly to me. Yeah, the business core is important. So is Wallingford and so is Northgate. Moreover, the business district already has a powerful lobbying organization working for it, and the idea that a mayor could come into office, dick them over completely and maintain power is kind of far-fetched.
3) Again, the fact that he works in Bellevue does not mean that he thinks everyone should work in Bellevue. This is the central logical flaw in your thinking, and one that you have yet to back with a single shred of evidence. It’s just an assumption on your part that working in Bellevue = inability to imagine anyone working in downtown Seattle. I can’t believe it’s necessary to explain to you that this is not a valid equation.
4) That is not obvious at all. Without knowing anything about this gentleman, I have no reason to conclude that. He may, for all I know, desperately wish he could take a train to work.
The issue is not that I can’t “think” of “differences” between people who work in Bellevue vs working in Seattle. I am responding, rather, to the absurdly simplistic kind of determinism that you’re applying to the mere fact of where this individual works. You’re laying claim to knowledge about his experiences, opinions and prejudices on the sole ground of one relatively trivial fact about him. And the fact is, none of the opinions you are attributing to him follow from the fact in question, and none of those opinions would be at odds with working in Seattle.
I can imagine all sorts of ways in which Mallahan — or Donaldson or McGinn or Nickels or Savage — could be terrible mayors. What I’m objecting to is your reductive thinking about the role of someone’s commute in forming their ability think critically.
@12
OMG, You are completely missing the point!
I didn’t say he has those opinions… What a waste of time.
@13: No, you didn’t. You said that someone who works (!) in Bellevue should not be allowed to run for mayor of Seattle. Those were your exact words. You gave the fact that he might have those opinions as the “reasoning” behind your strange opinion regarding this matter. While this is indeed a likely waste of time, it is very much not I who is missing the point, nor continuing to dig myself into a hole.
@14
God you’re confused. I’m saying that someone who works in Bellevue cannot represent Seattle’s interest, and therefore should not run for Mayor of Seattle.
I came up with a list of possible things, among others, that illustrate the potential for a conflict of interest.
You have no idea what you are talking about and are arguing other points and building up strawmen.
@15: You are attempting to represent my disagreement with your assertion as my being “confused,” which is quite frankly a dishonest and cowardly debating tactic.
The man lives in Seattle, and therefore is legally qualified to run for mayor. I realize you think that the fact that he works in another municipality disqualifies him, but I am saying you have not given a single good reason why that is so. The reasons you have given I have responded to. You said that commuting across the bridge may give him an exaggerated sense of the importance of that bridge, and I pointed out that this was a flawed deduction. You said that he might not realize that that Seattle is a regional center for business, and I pointed out that this is highly unlikely. I have only responded — and quite calmly and rationally — to things you actually said. It may well seem that I am responding to weak and poorly reasoned claims, but they were your claims, clearly documented above, and not strawmen.
Now, have a nice day.
Contributing money to your own campaign is like fucking your sister; yes it may feel good, but it immediately pegs you as a creepy douche to everyone who catches you doing it. Speaking of which…
WiS@5: your case of Viagra arrived today, I see. Duh-duh duh-duh duh-duh… charge!
This guy won’t get my vote.
When you have that much money to toss around, you don’t tell me you understand what this city needs. You tell me you are looking for some power that comes with public office.
Plus, this ass won’t speak much on issues: just basic bullshit one liners is all he seems capable of.