When Seattle City Council Member Tammy Morales announced her resignation last Wednesday, Southeast Seattle did not just lose a longtime, battle-tested representative—we are once again being punished for daring to elect a leader who fought fiercely for our community’s interests.
As residents and workers of Southeast Seattle, we share the generational traumas and daily realities of living our lives in historically oppressed, redlined, and underinvested working-class neighborhoods. These struggles shape our politics—it’s why we twice elected Tammy Morales to champion progressive policies and investments our communities desperately need. With so many Black and brown communities concentrated in District 2, Morales understood the need to center racial equity, prioritize authentic community engagement, and repair the harm that has been inflicted upon our communities.
We hold a deep knowledge of the history and patterns of leadership failing our region—and, in turn, how institutions have failed the leaders we’ve chosen to represent us. When we read Councilmember Morales’s statement to our district describing a culture of mismanagement, harassment, and intimidation, we were angered but not shocked. While her council peers’ erosion of trust and co-governance was deeply concerning, we were especially outraged by the treatment she endured from her colleagues.
Let us be clear: Morales is not abandoning her constituents. Like anyone facing a hostile work environment, she is stepping away from a position that has subjected her to intense harassment and hindered her ability to serve our district effectively.
Rather than being angry at Morales for choosing to step away from a hostile environment, our district directs its disappointment toward the institution that fostered this hostility. We recognize the troubling reality: her colleagues have intentionally pushed out a woman of color who represents the city’s only minority-majority district. Her resignation is not merely a reflection of her colleagues’ failure to co-govern but part of a broader pattern of institutional racism that perpetuates abuse against Black and brown leaders striving to uplift the needs and voices of our neighborhoods.
A Tale of Two Legislatures
Morales’ treatment on the council dais highlights the toxic culture that once pushed former 37th LD State Representative Kirsten Harris-Talley out of the state legislature. This culture, marked by centralized control, suppression of dissent, and a lack of integrity, prioritizes ineffective power dynamics over meaningful change and democratic processes.
As constituents who elected these leaders, we saw clear parallels between our current council member’s experiences in governance and those of our former state representative. In a letter to her district published in the South Seattle Emerald, Harris-Talley described her experience of being marginalized: “When you ask an unpopular question, it is dismissed or ignored. When you use the tools you have, you are cautioned that ‘we don’t do it that way here.’ When you speak up against leadership or voice dissent, you are silenced or shamed into getting in line.”
We witnessed these connections firsthand when council members, including Maritza Rivera criticized Morales for sending out an action alert regarding the former’s attempt to freeze funding for the highly popular Economic Development Initiative [EDI]. Another example occurred when Morales broke from her colleagues to defend EDI legislation, which funds numerous organizations serving Southeast Seattle.
Other examples of harm extend to the highest authority on the council. Harris-Talley’s callout of how unpopular questions go dismissed—or even punished—reminded us of when Council President Sara Nelson shut down Morales for raising legitimate concerns around the legality of postponing making a decision on whether or not to place I-137, a ballot initiative creating a sustainable revenue source for our city’s Social Housing Developer, on the agenda.
Even in the hostile environment of the state legislature, Harris-Talley found allies and friends among her fellow representatives and senators who were willing to collaborate and work toward shared goals for the state. However, this kind of support was not extended to Morales, who found herself isolated in a conservative council majority. As Erica Barnett noted in an interview with Publicola, “What did surprise [Morales], she said, was how few of [her colleagues] showed any interest in working with her at all.” By refusing to collaborate with our council member, the council made it clear that they were also refusing to listen to the voices of District 2.
From City to County
The hostile behavior we’ve witnessed from Morales’ colleagues has been fueled by a culture that allows harm to be enacted without consequences. This council presents itself as a pragmatic legislative body focused on efficiency and productivity, even if it comes at the expense of integrity. Hostility is further enabled when those in power engage in harmful actions, such as when Council President Nelson intentionally skipped a committee meeting to campaign for Morales’ opponent, making direct attacks on our council member instead of serving the city.
The pattern of people outside our community feeling empowered to directly attack our leaders when they cannot defend themselves or address the harm is not unique to the dynamic between Morales and President Nelson. It echoes the experience of another council member representing Southeast Seattle—Girmay Zahilay—who was targeted by a racist mailer sent out by his former colleague, Kathy Lambert, through her district.
At the county level, however, consequences were swift. Lambert was stripped of all her committee assignments, significantly reducing her role on the council. Community members called for her resignation. While she lost her re-election bid, voices from our district quickly pointed out that the county council’s actions fell short of the accountability needed to restore trust in the institution. Our county leadership should never tolerate such blatant abuse—and neither should our city.
If anyone is looking for an indication of how President Nelson would handle such a scandal, we can point to how she has empowered, enabled, and actively participated in open hostility toward Morales. Even half-measures of justice appear to be completely out of the question.
In Plain Sight
It’s clear to our district that the other council members on the dais are directly complicit in upholding these patterns of institutional abuse against leaders from our region—and they haven’t tried to hide it. As Barnett wrote, “The vilification has often been open and explicit.”
Instead of respecting Morales as a fellow colleague, the senior-most council member, and a representative of over one hundred thousand residents, this council has repeatedly chosen to dehumanize her by solely portraying her as a symbol of the previous council. This was evident when council newcomers like Robert Kettle took every opportunity to criticize the previous council in Morales’ presence, collectively dismissing her predecessors as incapable of governance and undeserving of respect or accreditation.
As a community of both generational and current victims of harm, we understand that when someone speaks out about abuse, the first step is to listen without judgment. We recognize that there is no such thing as a “perfect” victim, and that every interpersonal situation carries nuance. However, we were particularly enraged by the comments made by Council Member Rob Saka in response to Morales’ resignation letter. Saka dismissed our council member’s serious concerns about her treatment and the council’s erosion of checks and balances as merely “harsh rhetoric and divisive politics.”
Saka’s words are a stark reminder of how victims of abuse are often dismissed in their concerns or minimized as agitators rather than having genuine grievances. Whether it be one singular person or a whole community of people, there is no perfect way to call out harm to those who perpetuate it: their preferred alternative is silence.
Council President Nelson, as the leader of the council, has the direct responsibility of engaging with and repairing interpersonal harm between council colleagues. This responsibility has been handily abandoned by the council president, and much like how her policy positions are clearly at odds with the interests of the voters who elected her, President Nelson’s official conduct as the leader of the legislative department is inflammatory and unrepresentative of the democracy it represents.
Nelson has cut off comments and oversaw the arrest of vocal community members, questioned the intelligence of voters, and needlessly fired the Head of Central Staff who worked on both progressive and conservative councils. Morales, in her letter to our district, named serious concerns about public trust in the institution of the council—a dangerous trend we as her constituents strongly affirm to be true.
Given the hostile environment fostered by Nelson and other council members, it is undeniable that the abuse, isolation, and exclusion experienced by Councilmember Morales may have influenced the votes, behavior, or decision-making of other council members or staff at City Hall.
The resignation letter on Council President Nelson’s desk is not an isolated failure of her leadership—but rather representative of the core theme of how she governs in city politics: intimidation, exclusion, and harassment of anyone who dissents.
So, What’s Next? Who is Next?
The next person to represent Southeast Seattle on the council will have big shoes to fill and even greater challenges to confront. It’s clear that the council majority has little interest in passing progressive policies that will bring investment into our district. We cannot afford another ineffective council member who simply follows the majority’s flawed approach of silencing the voices of Seattleites who are most distant from justice.
An example to follow is newly inaugurated council member Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who represents our community as a citywide council member. In her inaugural speech this past Tuesday, she pledged to make her citywide seat a “people’s office.” Beyond the rhetoric, she committed to collaborating with all council members, pursuing progressive revenue streams to address budget deficits, seeking nonviolent alternatives for crisis response, and defending Seattle from a potential second Trump presidency. These are leadership qualities and policy positions that reflect Morales’ work on the council. Thanks to Rinck, the over one hundred thousand residents in our district can rest assured we will not be left fully unrepresented.
In writing this collective response, we acknowledge the unfortunate reality that if our longtime representative struggled to find collaborators within the council majority, the successor we seek will likely face similar challenges. A District 2 neighbor who rises to the challenge of representing us will need to accept that success won’t come from passing legislation alone—it will come from staying steadfast in our values and purpose. Our new council member must be accountable to a movement that empowers Black and brown working families in our district, and must go beyond accountability to actively grow and harness a popular movement. If we hope to see the interests of working families reclaim the council majority in 2027, we need leaders who can energize and mobilize the working people of District 2.
Any measure of justice can only be achieved if there is comprehensive change in how the council operates not just as a legislative body, but as a body of people. The leadership that is complicit in creating the hostile environment that led our council member to resign is not the leadership that will welcome the next council member we elect. This council needs to engage in comprehensive self-reflection, and only then can they regroup in a formation that will best address the lack of a co-governing relationship.
As residents of District 2, our voice represents a vast, diverse, multiracial, pan-ethnic, and intergenerational community—identities that have historically and continue to be marginalized, and will likely face even greater challenges under the coming presidency. How can our district maintain trust in our democratic process when our elected leaders are met with relentless opposition and harassment rooted in institutional abuse?
This question can only be answered by those in positions of institutional power. But regardless of who represents us in government, it is our responsibility as neighbors to continue organizing to keep ourselves safe.
Alongside the constituents of District 2 who co-authored this op-ed, the following community organizations also co-sign their support: The Washington Bus, WA Community Action Network, Whose Streets? Our Streets!, and the Seattle Students Union.
Bailey Medilo is the Digital & Communications Organizer at the Washington Bus and a member of Anakbayan South Seattle. They live in the Rainier Valley.
Anh Nguyen is a University of Washington Student. They live in Rainier Beach.
Oliver Miska is the Director of Policy at Washington Ethnic Studies Now. They live in Columbia City.
Maria Abando is an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in the Chinatown/International District.
KL Shannon is the Vice Chair of the Seattle MLK Jr. Organizing Coalition and an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in Othello.
Wes Stewart is a community organizer. They live in Columbia City.
Emma Catague is a gender-based violence organizer, former Seattle Community Police Commission Co-Chair, and founding mother of API Chaya. They live in Columbia City.
Clara Cantor is an organizer with Whose Streets? Our Streets! They live in the Rainier Valley.
Emijah Smith is a community organizer. They live in Southeast Seattle.
Um, we’re talking about the Seattle City Council here. Nobody’s being abused. Bureaucratic put downs are not abuse. This is your democracy and government at work. It gets ugly and messy. Tammy needs to be a fighter if she is worthy of your passion.
As a D2 resident I am absolutely delighted that she has chosen to step down. This overblown reaction is so typical of the Stranger. All noise, no substance.
Tammy couldn’t even be bothered to reply to her constituents much less do anything for them.
What did she accomplish? More drive by shootings, the complete decimation of the CID, more traffic incidents, the highest insurance rates, rampant criminality and making Seattle look really stupid with comments like this: “I don’t see why looting bothers people”. GMAFB.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k11Uwk2_YM
Good riddance, CM Morales from a lifelong Democrat. I really hope we get someone who cares about the vast majority of D2 residents, not just the criminal element.
“Harrowing mistreatment,” ha ha ha! What happened was, Morales floating a bunch of progressive ideas that no one else was interested in, and she was shocked when they criticized her instead of bursting into rapturous applause at her progressivism. Anything short of fawning agreement, progressives call it “abuse.” 😂🤣😂🤣
I see the disrespect and gaslighting weren’t limited to the Council and directed at Morales but extend to commenters here and directed at her constituents.
Maybe all the organizers who contributed to this work of fiction ought to organize a farewell party for Tammy. That would be some useful organizing.
I understand how it can feel bad to be abandoned by your elected official when they decide to bail because their job is suddenly required to be accountable and produce actual results, but that doesn’t mean that anything untoward happened here, and whining about it in The Stranger won’t change anything.
TL/DR Version: The council should immediately change their views to reflect ours. If they don’t facilitate all the policies we want they are bullies. However, shouty screamy people are heroes fighting for justice. This is not self-contradictory.
Does every single author in this article they/them pronouns or is that an editing error?
“…and directed at her constituents.”
Like @2, I am one of her constituents and glad to see her go.
The council went to districts in 2015. Morales came in in 2019. I don’t remember who represented D2 from 2015 to 2019, but there’s not much of a pattern to be drawn here.
Where was all of this tender concern for Council Members’ feelings during the decade CM Sawant spent calling them corporate shills and sellouts? Where was the concern for conducting Council business when she repeatedly cancelled committee meetings? Where was the concern for civility when Sawant hectored witnesses, and abruptly left meetings? Did any of these authors complain when Sawant led a vandalizing mob to the family home of a political opponent?
Absent any concerns these authors expressed back then about such abusive behaviors on the Council, this article simply comes across as a bitter and overwrought expression of sore-loserism.
@10 – back in 2016 it was hizzonor Bruce Harrell that was the D2 CM.
@4 if it makes you feel any better he was as unresponsive as Morales was IMO. At least he didn’t whine about being bullied.
And talk about disrespect for your constituents – I and my neighbors have personally witnessed Tammy’s blonde dog walker just leave shit on our lawns without a care. 🙂
I find that disrespectful to be sure.
@11 remember the other day when I and others said you bring up Sawant all the time unprompted and you insisted otherwise?
I don’t see any abuse or bullying. I see disagreement and criticism. And assertions without evidence or really, assertions supported by other assertions. Morales found herself in a hostile environment? No shit. That’s a good description of finding oneself in an 8-1 minority. People are going to tell you that you are wrong. A lot. Constantly. And they may even look at you sternly when they do it. If you curl up in a fetal position or just flat run away every time you’re disagreed with, I’d say that’s a pretty good sign you’re in the wrong line of work.
@13: And I responded the Stranger brings her up all of the time, too, but you never object to that, perhaps because they never describe anything she actually did.
Again, Morales served on the Council with Sawant, and somehow I do not recall Morales objecting to Sawant’s verbal abuses of other Council Members. Or the Stranger complaining about Sawant’s verbal abuses of other Council Members, either.
Look, I am a progressive and a supporter of Morales but this martyrdom complex is ridiculous. The people of Seattle voted for more centrist/conservative members for City Council and being in the minority can absolutely suck, but to cry bullying is ridiculous. Now if she is having health issues, then fine, say so and step down. But stepping down while complaining that noone is supporting her policies and giving her a hard time suggests a lack of recognition of the realities and the need to compromise on policies. I was excited about Mercedes Rink’s election and thought that with two progressives, something more could be achieved and now this. And yes, she did abandon her constituents and the people who voted for her.
TS needs to learn what abuse is and stop lying about to it happening to morals to its readers.
The article doesn’t even identify any abuse. We only get examples of abuse as:
“What did surprise [Morales], she said, was how few of [her colleagues] showed any interest in working with her at all”
“ Sara Nelson shut down Morales for raising legitimate concerns”
“ Nelson intentionally skipped a committee meeting to campaign for Morales’ opponent”
These things are not abuse. They are politics. They are the politics received by someone whose governance has failed when they can’t recognize their governance has failed. BTW, Morales has shut down moderates. Morales has shut down legitimate concerns about her homeless programs not being likely to work ( they didn’t). Morales campaigns and endorses people too.
This article is all whine, no legitimate substance.
@8: “Does every single author in this article they/them pronouns or is that an editing error?”
Pretty sure every Morales voter uses they/them pronouns and a hyphenated last name. I’m only surprised they didn’t include their race in each of their bios. It’s a bit of a progressive faux pas not to include such a vital piece of information. 😃
Awww… they’re being meannnn…. Boo-fucking-hoo…
There’s a pathetic trend of progressive lawmakers citing ‘bullying,’ ‘racism,’ and/or ‘sexism’ and quitting when they don’t get whatever they want.
There was a slew of first-term ‘change the world’ legislators who didn’t run for re-election to the Legislature – where Democrats have solid majorities – because their grand ideas weren’t adopted the minute they arrived in Olympia.
Boo-fucking- hoo…
“battle tested”? At the first sign she’s not going to get her way against a more centrist council she takes her ball and goes home. Now she knows how more right leaning members must have felt in the past.
Tammy ingonred the mobs that showed up at council member Juarez and Mayor Durkin’s homes during her tenure. Protests at city hall are to be expected and are free speech. Tammy doesn’t like that her failed policies helped lead Seattle to a more conservatvie council and that she is now in the minority. Not a good look to leave after barely squeeking out a win for her seat.
It’s very clear Tammy Morales thinks she a princess and princess’ when they don’t get worships get pissed and go home.
Tammy is clearly an over-privileged woman and life has always be easy for her. The doctor husband, the multi-million dollar home, the rich upbringing.
She’ll move on. Probably study interior decorating and make people’s home ugly, like she did to D2 and Seattle.
The princess is gone and Seattle is overwhelmingly happy.
I was in Moore’s district the other day. It’s appalling how she’s doing nothing to improve the atmosphere and quality of life, in general. Poverty, despair, and still no sidewalks. The streets for cars, too, are horribly potted and in disrepair. Lots of rear-enders on 145th where people who don’t live there, commute through, speeding down the street as if it’s nearly I-5, and when they’d never do that in their own neighborhoods.
She’s not doing a thing for her district.
This is how she spends taxpayer money instead – being an anti-democratic beotch to a duly elected progressive representative from another district so that the people of that other district lose their elected representative. And while she does nothing to improve the quality of life in her own area.
I know people didn’t want to vote for a former hooker, but she was much a nicer and more approachable person, and she had fresh ideas about actually improving the liveability of neighborhoods. And I am sure her office would have been hosting one appointment after another with the ordinary people in that district, most of whom would never go near the cold beotchy fish that sits there in office now and instead. Voters, wise up! It’s never too late to learn.
The rest of you: let us know when your conservatives finally deliver on everything they’ve been complaining. Now you are in power yet you still do NOTHING for your districts. You just continue to complain and blame others when you are now the ones in power, and no longer have any excuses.
@23: “…Lots of rear-enders on 145th where people who don’t live there, commute through, speeding down the street as if it’s nearly I-5,”
So, CM Moore has not been as staunch an advocate for hiring and deploying more SPD officers as you want her to be? Ok, fair enough.
“…so that the people of that other district lose their elected representative.”
They weren’t big on keeping CM Morales in office anyway, given the narrowness of Morales’ victory over Woo. And Morales’ decision to quit and go home was her own; no one forced it upon her. (CM Sawant remained in office even after her own constituency signed for her recall, she sued them to stop it, and they defeated her lawsuit — so why should CM Morales have quit due to influences from outside her district?)
You don’t know anything about my opinions on the SPD, so spare your simple-minded divisive stereotypes plunking people in one group (left) vs the other group (right) and only your group is with the police.
Stop rationalizing what these city council members did. It doesn’t matter if you or they, with some crystal ball, think the voters “weren’t really crazy about her.” That’s not for anyone else to say – that’s a matter for the elections, and she was the candidate chosen by the people. It is not the job of the city council to second-guess the voters and reappoint officials after they push out the officials chosen by the voters of that area.
Don’t deflect from the other point of my post either. You’ve been whining and complaining about specific problems and blaming progressives. But now your people are “finally” in power, and you don’t do anything about it now, either. It’s still everyone else’s fault except yours.
There was yet another shooting, another fire in Moore’s district. She was elected blaming progressives for these issues, and now, helping to throw out an elected progressive in another area for supposedly never doing anything about this kind of stuff. Instead of anti-democratic beotch game, what about actually doing her job and focusing on the problems in her own area?
Again, for the umpteenth time, no one was to blame before except the progressives and your obsession with Sawant who is now gone. So what are you doing besides attacking democracy? Right now, no one is to blame except the conservatives or the centrists or the life-long Dems. Whatever stupid political label you want to stick on yourselves, you’re not doing what you said you would do if you were in power.
Stop making excuses for yourselves, stop wasting taxpayer money with your anti-democracy beotch games, and fix the problems you said you were going to fix in your districts if you were elected, or your people, IMO, can get out of city hall too.
@25: You complained about dangerous scofflaw behaviors by motorists in CM Moore’s district. The classic response to such behaviors is to increase police patrols in the afflicted area. Due to large numbers of officers quitting after the progressive City Council tried to ‘defund’ SPD in 2020, increasing patrols would require more SPD officers, which requires more money, which is something legislators control. That’s where I thought you were going with your criticism of her. If that wasn’t correct, then what did you intend by your criticism of her for allegedly not addressing the problem you’d stated? What do you believe she should do, or not do, in response to this problem?
“It doesn’t matter if you or they, with some crystal ball,”
I referred to the certified results of CM Morales’ most recent re-election attempt. She was an incumbent, and her challenger had never previously run for elected office. Yet Woo almost won. That hardly supports your claim the citizens of District 2 would greatly object to Morales’ departure.
“…helping to throw out an elected progressive in another area…”
No one threw Morales’ out. Morales quit. That she claims other persons were responsible does not make it true. She asked voters of District 2 to keep her in office, a very small majority agreed, then she claimed the job was too hard, and quit. Little wonder comments here, and at CHS Blog, were very much in favor of her departure.
CM Sawant spent no small amount of time personally attacking other CMs, calling them names, and saying they should not serve in office. Did CM Morales ever object to CM Sawant’s verbal abuses of other CMs? If not, then why does CM Morales complain about similar behaviors now?
You say no one made her quit, and then you make excuses for an environment in which you yourself say they were calling her names but they were justified in this abusive and unprofessional behavior because Sawant called them names and she never said anything? So this is her just deserts? This sounds like kindergarten.
I left two posts. Policing is just one aspect of what I’m talking about. I’m not with defund, but I don’t think throwing money at things is always the answer, and I support reallocation of resources first.
Apart from Morales, I don’t think voters liked Moore so much as they just didn’t want to vote for her opponent. And she’s a very unapproachable as a “representative.” I think the others are too and what they did in City Hall with Morales will only add to that sentiment.
People can keep arguing about the past, but the present and the future of Seattle is the issue. It sounds your favored people are now in control in City Hall, and you have some choices about how to handle that. Are you going to prove that you’re better as you said you would be? Or are you just going to try to crush dissent or bulldoze your way through without consideration of any other views? I have never seen the later work in the long run.
@27: “…in which you yourself say they were calling her names…”
Where did I write they called her names? For the sake of argument, I merely considered CM Morales’ claim. I then noted that CM Sawant had a long history of name-calling on the Council, that CM Morales seems never to have seriously objected to any of Sawant’s name-calling, and so why would such behavior suddenly become a problem now? Especially a problem serious enough to resign over? None of the many other CMs who Sawant verbally abused ever quit over it.
“Policing is just one aspect of what I’m talking about.”
So, again, what do you believe CM Moore should do about the reckless motorists you complained about? If not police response, then what? Should SDOT reduce the speed limit on 145th, and put in devices to slow traffic? What do you suggest?
Have you contacted CM Moore’s office, and indicated this matter needs attention?
@28 “Where did I write they called her names?”
Here, @26:
“CM Sawant spent no small amount of time personally attacking other CMs, calling them names, and saying they should not serve in office. Did CM Morales ever object to CM Sawant’s verbal abuses of other CMs? If not, then why does CM Morales complain about similar behaviors now?”
Regarding:
“So, again, what do you believe CM Moore should do about the reckless motorists you complained about? If not police response, then what? Should SDOT reduce the speed limit on 145th, and put in devices to slow traffic? What do you suggest?”
I never said anything about not using the police. I “do” think they should use the police with regard to this issue on 145th St. in key locations where there have been numerous accidents because of speeding and reckless driving, and they have statistics over a number of years with this going on. They should be pulling these drivers over (probably out-of-town commuters) and ticketing them.
@28 Regarding:
“Have you contacted CM Moore’s office, and indicated this matter needs attention?”
I addressed this earlier.
And BTW, those awful sidewalks (in addition to the non-existent ones and the potted and broken streets in general they never fix – and which I addressed in an earlier post) — on 145th, there are elderly and disabled people who have use these practically non-existent portions of sidewalks along 145th … too narrow, broken, potted holes, muddy, dangerous… and while these out-of-town commuters (at least, my guess as to who they generally are) are barreling down 145th past them way over the speed limits and far too close to any pedestrians using these almost non-existent sidewalks. And just as I expected, though no one listened to me, a pedestrian on a portion of dilapidated sidewalk was hit by a car and killed in this fashion. But they still didn’t don’t do anything about it: the speeding problem itself or the dangerous dilapidated sidewalk. To this day.
@29: The definition of “similar,” means, in part, “not exactly the same,” so I was saying they were NOT calling her names (because there’s no way to prove it). I was trying to reference her claim they were being mean to her, without reciting her entire tedious litany of complaints.
Speaking of tedious:
“I never said anything about not using the police.”
I asked you specifically about if Seattle should use the police. Apparently your answer is “yes,” but instead of just saying that, you launched into a bizarre, hostile, and bizarrely hostile rant about how I don’t know anything about your opinions on the SPD. (Um, yeah, that was implied by my asking the question.)
“I addressed this earlier.”
Where?