Blogs Apr 16, 2010 at 5:17 pm

Mike O'Brien vs. Mike O'Brien

Dominic Holden
Back to article

Comments

1
Or maybe he's changed his mind after hearing more about it.
Fnarf on April 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM Report this
2
The Stranger's Fall '09 recommendation:

"O'Brien is more progressive on almost every issue
stinkbug on April 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM Report this
3
Oops, damn crazy characters cut that paste off early...

"O'Brien is more progressive on almost every issue--on density, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and removing parking requirements--than his opponent. He believes Seattle will become more hospitable to residents and businesses by expanding transit systems and making livable neighborhoods. We agree. Vote O'Brien."
stinkbug on April 16, 2010 at 5:31 PM Report this
4
Perhaps the reason politicians are so often winning the Stranger's endorsement and then delivering such disappointment has more to do with the rigid ideological purity demanded the newspaper than any real flaws in these leaders. The strait jacket is maybe a mistake.
elenchos on April 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM Report this
5
The Stranger vs. The Stranger
on April 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM Report this
6
@4: I've got it, you're Will when he wants to let his hair down and step into "the other guy's shoes".
Baconcat on April 16, 2010 at 6:23 PM Report this
7
Oh no Dominic, you're going to have to do some recalibration of your "Tim Burgess is the most conservative member of the Council" nonsense.

on April 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM Report this
8
O'Brien made a similar statement to Real Change in our election round-up issue: "The two candidates diverge on Councilmember Tim Burgessā€™ proposed ā€œanti-aggressive panhandlingā€ law: Rosencrantz supports it ā€” he sees ā€œaggressiveā€ panhandling as a public safety issue that, he admits, needs to be delicately balanced with the preservation of civil liberties; Oā€™Brien opposes it on the grounds that it further criminalizes poverty and that panhandling ā€œis not a career choiceā€ but a signal that the city is making the wrong investments when there ā€œare no opportunitiesā€ for the poor.
on April 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM Report this
9
I wonder what Burgess said to O'Brien. "Said" of course is a euphemism.
sarah68 on April 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM Report this
10
Hmmm... Too bad that endorsement didn't work out for you so well, Dominic. You seem to be in a bit of a tizzy over the whole matter. What a predicament for you.
on April 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM Report this
11
O'Brien went on record against this ordinance at numerous community forum/debates during the campaign. His largest applause line of the night at a forum in Rainier Beach came when he said he was flatly opposed to it and would vote against it.
gnossos on April 16, 2010 at 8:31 PM Report this
12
Dominic, could it be that McGinn actually encouraged O'Brien to vote in favor and be the 6th vote because deep down McGinn really doesn't want to veto it? OMG. Why hasn't your tin foil picked this up yet? The DSA-YMCA-Darth Vader-DESC machine has co-opted them all!!!!!
on April 16, 2010 at 8:42 PM Report this
13
@12, the DSA doesn't need McGinn. As Dominic and Baconcat will clearly explain to you, the DSA is Seattle's home-grown Illuminati. It has its fingers everywhere, silently running the machines of government, ready to crush opponents through coordinated attacks and astroturf campaigns, while at the same time disenfranchising (but not too obviously) the REAL power structure of the city, THE PEOPLE and assorted other useless public idiots, who are actually pawns in the DSA's eternal game to control everything in reach for the sake of power and wealth, while portraying an image of a vibrant downtown as a mirage by which to suffocate those of us, like Dominic, who seek the TRUTH, and in fact it's not just the Illuminati, it goes beyond that and is really just like the MATRIX, which was a movie made by the DSA to distract the TRUTH-SEEKERS from seeking the truth about the DSA by showing us a patently obvious trick of smoke and mirrors that obfuscates and misdirects our efforts. But Dominic isn't falling for it. He's on to them, and he will set us free from the DSA-evil-corporatist-downtown-business-yuppie-whiteperson-StepfordWife-conspiracy. Save us, Dominic. You're our only hope.
on April 16, 2010 at 9:35 PM Report this
14
@6 - lol. I may be good, but I'm not that good.
Will in Seattle on April 16, 2010 at 9:36 PM Report this
15
O'Brien:

you better change course pronto. This green shit is nice but you need a progressive base or else you will be toast. And that means sticking with the poor and the ACLU types and the Democratic party organizations and so cut the bullshit right now, okay?

on April 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM Report this
16
Over at PubliCola, Erica Barnett has a much more accurate and honest description of O'Brien's statements on these questions:
...on the campaign trail last year, he said he opposed the idea of banning certain types of panhandling in principle, although Burgess had not yet proposed a specific ordinance.
Dominic Holden is falsely claiming that "when O'Brien ran for office, he told PubliCola that he opposed the measure," and PubliCola itself makes no such accusation, and Barnett is much more fair minded in pointing out the difference between opposing a vague idea in principle and taking a position on a specific bill. How could O'Brien have told PubliCola he opposed a measure that had not yet been written?

The current bill does not "ban certain types of panhandling". It makes panhandling under certain circumstances a civil infraction, when the panhandler combines solicitation with specific aggressive behaviors. Which was already a crime -- in other words, the same actions were already "banned".

What the bill proposes is a new lower penalty for something that is already against the law, a penalty that is easier and less costly to enforce, not any change in what "types of panhandling" are banned or not banned.
elenchos on April 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM Report this
17
@ 16 - Very good job running this one down. Thanks for bringing back some civility to this discourse.
on April 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM Report this
18
But it likely would not be less costly to enforce, because if the panhandler is homeless and (as is likely) doesn't receive/pay attention to the ticket paperwork and can't pay the ticket, that lack of response will trigger a series of events leading to a criminal charge including a warrant, which means that a court will have to deal with it. That is indeed costly.
sarah68 on April 17, 2010 at 7:52 PM Report this

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.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Editors' Picks

Getting Patrick Pregnant
How to Win an Election Without a Newspaper Endorsement
Why Are Pigeonsā€™ Feet So Fucked Up?
Seattleā€™s Unhoused Feel Unheard in the Cityā€™s Budget Process
Losing My Bearings with Cascade Orienteering Club
My Mom Came to Visit This Weekend
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134