The Seattle Times Ed Board is garbage. Even if you share some of their politics. (Although, I do not.)

The Seattle Times is right. Hang it up Ed.

"So, what the Times Editorial Board is really saying here is that damage to Murray's political viability could pave the way for Oliver's election." AKA beware the dangerous lefties

Our Seattle Democratic Politburo is MUCH closer to the Blethens than most of us should be comfortable admitting.

So as the self-appointed voice and guardian of progressivism in Seattle, when the Politburo sends Brady Walkinshaw to knock out Sawant in 2019 (as certain as oxygen in the air), will the Stranger stand up or can we count on another dyspeptic temper tantrum by Dan?

Hmm. So many conflicting feelings. The seattle times editorial board is like a broken clock, but this is one of the two times of the day they are right.

I understand it's hard losing a job where you get to tell at everyone, but Murray is being selfish. Serve the City. Not yourself.

No one who wouldn't vote for Murray because of a sex scandal is going to vote for a candidate who says we don't need a police department. And the Times would certainly never endorse her.

If we had an opposition party in Seattle (instead of the WA GOP, which is all "Hee-Haw", all the time) there would be a danger, but no one in their right mind wants to be publicly associated with the Republicans in the city of Seattle.

Unless someone pops up in the next few days, we've got more Mayor Murray.

It worries me.
The idea of a Sawant or Oliver in Mayor's office is wet dream for hard-right Trumpists.
Keep fighting Ed!

Viva Nikkita!

Nikkita ftw

Suck it, Suburban Times!

I actually thought a mainstream paper would be more measured in its language than to use a phrase like "extreme left-wing ideologue."

@9
But it's accurate

@3 - "(as certain as oxygen in the air)"

Funny you say that, as the oxygen is decreasing in our atmosphere, largely due to fossil fuel burning.

Oxygen ain't so certain as you seem to think.
And these are weird times. The USA just elected an illiterate corporate puppet to the "Racially Conscious" House... it would seem many things are shifting.

But don't listen to me, I'm a crank.

My main question with this oh-so-sordid allegation against the Seattle mayor --a city which is effectively leading the way for progressives around the country-- is: cui bono?

Where is this coming from? The timing, the lurid details, the "birthday deposition" all seem very curious. My spidey sense is tingling.

Someone is up to something.

"Brady Walkinshaw [will] knock out Sawant in 2019" just like he knocked out Pramila Jayapal. Right.

@10 *sigh*

I'm not a big Sawant supporter (nor a big fan of our electoral politics), but it's bizarre how people go out of there way to deride politicians who have the same policies as mainstream politicians, but oriented towards a different income class.

Republicans supporting socializing costs and protecting wealthy capitalists? Ok. Democrats flailing about, failing to stand for much, and then giving away the farm to developers or wall street types? Ok. A socialist candidate supporting socializing costs and protecting poor individuals from predatory capitalists? OMGWTFBBQWelcomeToNorthKorea or something.

Using the tools of government to benefit a certain group. Often with elected officials taking a few helpings for themselves.

@4 nails it.

@11 Be mindful... we don't have a scourge of false harassment and abuse allegations against people. It's incredible unlikely (generally) that an allegation is anything but factual.

The US security apparatus is no stranger to using sex-related rumors or allegations (often fabricated) to discredit people (MLK Jr. is a simple, well known example), but it's shitty to go running for that explanation first thing.

@11: Yes, let the narrative (specifically the white-guilt-global-warming-narraive-du-jour) provide you with alternative facts instead of objective analysis.

I am a lefty, a supporter of marriage equality and don't think D.H. has a winnable case, but if we are being completely honest, the abuse of Simpson after Murray left the seminary rings true.

It also resulted in Murray being investigated for a felony sodomy charge in 1984 after Simpson talked to a group-home administrator, a social worker and the police. Granted, no charges were filed, but Murray had connections in the DA's office and Simpson was a "troubled" runaway who wanted the abuse to end but not his relationship with Murray who he called "the only parent he ever knew." It also seems evident that the relationship did not end.

In the Penn State child abuse case, Jerry Sandusky preyed on troubled, fatherless boys and many said the same thing: they wanted the abuse to end but wanted to be able to continue to go to the football games and continue to get the special attention missing from their lives.

Whether it's the many Catholic priests or Bill Cosby or wrestling coaches like Republican icon Denny Hastert, the abuser was giving special attention and in an unimpeachable position of power compared to the much younger/child victim. They victims never came forward because not only would nobody believe them, but everybody would hate them as well for ruining the image of the supposedly benevolent person accused.

Ed Murray is in a tough spot as a candidate in that there are legitimate questions to be asked for which there are no good answers.

Did Murray have sleepovers with 13 year-old “troubled” boys?

What was the nature of Murray's relationship with a 13-16 year-old Simpson while living in Portland?

Why did Murray continue the relationship in Seattle with a drug-addled teenage runaway/prostitute who had accused him of felony child abuse? (remember, there is a record of Simpson using Murray's last name and home address in Seattle as his own.)

Was the state of Oregon OK with Murray continuing his relationship with the teenaged Simpson after the abuse allegations? Did Murray feel any responsibility for Simpson as his only "father figure?"

These are only a few of the questions Murray will be asked. Murray's answers will create still more questions--questions with no conceivable answers that can put any of this to rest.

“I would really like for him to admit it and to take responsibility …” Simpson said of Murray. “I don’t necessarily think that he destroyed my life, but I believe a lot of the problems I have stemmed from this.”

@10

It's not really accurate, because it's actually kind of meaningless. I suppose it is effective, though, because it's the kind of rhetorical fluff that appeals to weak minds. I was just surprised that a mainstream paper would use that particular phrasing instead of making a choice of more urbane words.

@18: So are you saying that an "extreme left-wing ideologue" is rhetorical fluff but an "extreme right-wing ideologue" isn't?

But I think we can all agree that we have something to discuss… Certainly no boredom in Seattle right now

I'm no fan of the mayor, but I'm even less a fan of the Times' editorial page. This is so premature that it really can't be categorized as anything but a complete cheap shot.

#12 I'm with you on that completely. I'm not saying its a certainty he knocks her out. It is, however, (or was until this whole business erupted), a dead-bang CERTAINTY that Ed was going to send Brady to take on Kshama. There's no Cap Hill politico whose star has been more closely tied to Ed than Brady.

@19

Why don't you answer that for us. But start by explaining what "extreme right-wing ideologue" means.

Murray's people have been circulating conspiracy theories that are laughable. I am surprised that they have not tried to spin the fact that COUNCILMEMBER LORENA GONZALES formerly worked AT THE SAME LAW FIRM as BEAUREGARD and CONNELLY (Gordon Thomas Honeywell) so they must all have a master plan to take down Ed Murray, right?

@24
So what are some of the more interesting conspiracy theories?

Well, COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES has broad support from the Washington State Association for Justice, as she was a longtime member, and even Baord Member. Connelly was a past President. Beauregard a long time member, and Board Member. So they must all be planning a big take down!

As if The Stranger wouldn't make the same plea. Dan Savage is the editorial board.

@17 brings up questions that have nothing to do with anatomical (non)features. The lawsuit is still alive, no matter what Murray's counsel says, and will be unless a judge dismisses it, so those questions should be answered.

Oh, I see the point the Times is making.
They don't want Sawant, cause god forbid Seattle should get a mayor that would work for us, instead of one that prefers to work for fucking greedy developers, etc.
That's right. Corporations are people.
I have to remember that.

The thing is, they're assholes but they're not wrong. Oliver's basically a good person and a capable activist whose usually on the right side of most issues, but a) even when she's on the right side, she doesn't really know what to do about it, and won't get the help she'd need from the council, and b) on one of the most important issues facing the city--housing--she's made clear she's a devotee of an idiotic underpants gnome logic (1. Restrict the housing supply 2. (complain about the illegality of rent control, other measures TBA) 3. affordable housing for all!) that amounts to a huge handout for wealthy incumbent homeowners and landlords and a kick in the teeth for renters.

@23: Oh, so then you're not objecting to defining a political viewpoint at either far end of the political spectrum. That's what I was wondering. I certainly don't need to provide you with definitions except that extreme left and extreme right eventually meet up with each other and shake hands on the dark side of the moon.

Honestly I think it's more likely Seattle could end up with a republican mayor than a socialist, thanks to Ed. Seems to be the way everything's going lately. I doubt the ST Editorial Board would have any issues with that though.

@31

An odd thing to wonder unless you want to pretend you have poor reading comprehension. Like I wrote, it's an empty phrase. That's why you are unable to offer a definition for its opposite.

A Republican mayoral candidate would probably have a hard time, though, unless they have a strong track record on queer rights and immigrant rights. Are there any who already support sanctuary city policies?

Murray dropping out would just lead to a more "business-friendly" "Democrat" becoming mayor. Oliver has no chance of winning a mayoral race with her experience.
A council seat, maybe.

I wouldn't be surprised if comments 5,6,16 are derived from White Fragility: ANY attempt at destroying the Whties-First & Whites-Only impolicies on Everybody's Planet is IMMEDIATELY attacked in some way . . . .

After reading more on the scandal, I now believe Murray is toast especially if another victim is revealed a la Cosby. However, regarding the possible replacement mayor, if Murray doesn't run again, now there's a conundrum.

Like not a few Seattle voters, I do not want Oliver or Sawant as Mayor. Bruce Harrell would be interim mayor should Murray resign. After giving it some thought, I sure wouldn't mind if McGinn or Nickles run again. But somebody better hurry. The filing date is coming up quickly.

@38
ROFL

@38: You don't know the races of 5, 16, and 16 so your point is meaningless.

5th Columnist dear, I'm sorry to hear you don't like what I had to say, but I'm glad you have a new cliche you can trot out.

And perhaps if you read what I wrote, instead of being a bit fragile yourself, you would see that I'm not necessarily opposed to Ms. Oliver. I'm just stating a bit of reality, at least as I see it. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings