News Jul 3, 2013 at 4:00 am

He's Got a Great Message (Never Mind the Details)

Comments

1
It's so odd to go here and there and have relatively intelligent (seeming) people just start frothing at the mouth when McGinn's name comes up. They blame him for making Dexter marginally more tricky to drive, and at the same time blame him for not making Dexter easier enough to bike. They blame him for Metro transit cuts. They blame him for tacky condos. Everything.
2
If Ed Murray is elected, expect him to be a strong supporter of tying light rail expansion to freeways for Spokane and more lanes on 405. Regional perspective, dontcha know.

I'm voting McGinn. Not perfect, but a damn sight better than Ed, or god forbid Peter.
3
We threw Nickels out because idiot voters in this city are fickle, and they were pissed about the Snowpocalypse response in 2008. That's not an indictment of his team, that's an indictment of the bloc of idiots who voted against Nickels in the primary leaving us with corporate shill 1 and sadsack loser 2.

Ed presided over some tough budgets... but blaming him for them is deeply, deeply disingenuous. Rodney Tom and the rest of the Republican caucus are at fault for this year's budget, and the Republican caucus from last time can take the blame for that one, too... the strident, selfish, foot-dragging assholes.
4
I'm voting for McGinn and contributing to his campaign again. I want a transit-focused mayor. The city isn't going to build its way out of unaffordable housing, so it's got to connect more neighborhoods to the job centers.
5
Seattle has thrived in spite of McGinn, not because of him.

Blaming Murray for the intransigence of Republican is also ridiculous.
6
Dominic, you seem to be saying that the voters will be too stupid to look at the facts on the ground. That's a depressing analysis and I hope it is an incorrect one. However, the Seattle Times and Chamber establishment types have indeed spent over 3.5 years drilling this same messaging over and over and over again until it seems to have a truthiness life of its own.

By simply parroting the Seattle Times/Chamber mantra, Murray is really saying, "Hey, look over there! Don't notice my own inability to collaborate with colleagues I've worked with for the past MANY years. Don't notice the budget holes, lack of transit, education, etc. funding that have happened on my watch in the Legislature - it's that other guy's fault, not mine."
7
It's weird that I know who you'll vote for but you don't.
8
@3 / pheeeew!crack!boom! Murray cannot have it both ways - he cannot be a superior collaborator and then blame others for his inability to successfully collaborate and get things done.

Seattle voters are going to see these distraction tactics for what they are. Our City is not crumbling into chaos, and when politicians like Ed Murray, Harrell and others say that it is and that it is all McGinn's fault, it sounds false. Since that part of their story is false, what else that they say might be?

9
I sincerely hope the electorate is willing to take a look at the details beyond the message. Thanks for this piece, Dom.
10
Idiot voters is right. Murray talks about transit, but he's always on the side of freeways. The tunnel, for starters. The coal trains will be next; he'll happily trade those away for twelve parking spaces in Kirkland or something. Murray's abilities are in negotiating with right-wing crazies, but in the mayor's office YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You might as well elect Tim Eyman, as far as I'm concerned.
11
Sadly @10 and I are in total agreement on this.

Tim Eyman ftw!
12
The grand irony (that few writers seem to point out, shockingly) is that both McGinn and Murray share the exact same Achilles heel: They are both temperamental, self-interested, bomb-throwing emotive Irish dudes that do not play well with others and have well-earned reputations of alienating themselves. It's foolish to think that Murray would be an alternative to McGinn in that way.

Both have done a great job of preserving funding for social and human services, have solid social justice platforms (unlike Harrell that's mostly lip service), etc. Is McGinn perfect? Certainly not. He's proven himself through substantive results (especially with a milquetoast council), and he's got my vote, especially considering the alternatives.
13
And sadly, I agree with 10 and 11. What did Sims do of lasting value for KC? Politically, Murray is taking a backward step. He brings nothing to the job of mayor except his failures in the Leg. If I'm not voting for McGinn, I'm seriously looking at Harrell. (Goldy doesn't like him but except for unanswered emails, can't pinpoint why.) Remember the Pot Law you pimped? It's inevitable = enough people are clueless enough to vote for it.
15
Good point, @14
16
Fine article! It's good to have some facts reviewed. Murray has indeed adopted the Seattle Times' spin on McGinn, and it does not fit the facts.
17
God help us if Murray is ever elected.
18
Woohoo, Ron Get-Out-Of-Town-Before-The-Charges-Get-Filed Sims endorsed Murray ? Do people not remember the whole string of public records act violations this man committed ? Sims stonewalled on the documents related to the "public benefit" of Seahawk Stadium and then the ballot measure passed 51 to 49%.
19
Seattle as a city is in the best shape it's been in a long time. It's seems completely backwards and naive to want something "new and exciting" during a time of prosperity.
20
This article is under the "news" category when it's clearly nothing but opinion and worse, it's election influencing under the guise of "news" or even "opinion."

Ed Murray is NOT a given. He's definitely a political animal, but I don't see that he has much vision for our fast-growing city. Heck, McGinn has more of a vision for that than he does, and Steinbrueck definitely has a vision. Murray is tired of working in Olympia so he'll try his hand at a Seattle gig and the only one available is mayor. Not a ringing endorsement of why he wants the job.

Stop anointing your favorite boy. I hope Peter wins.
21
After a bit of a rough start McGimn found his footing. The guy has been mayor during the ongoing 2008 depression and we are still alive and kicking and with an enviable low unemployment rate and without much cooperation or action from our brain dead city council, partisan state legislature and combative former governor Gregoire. With the exception of the mishandling of the police department debacle, McGinn has performed well. He is moving the lethargic council forward on light rail and trolley car expansion. A great deal got put together for a sports arena for the future Sonics and an NHL franchise and failed to come to fruition solely as a result of the NBA owners. He has delivered on public schools. He has put a much needed and desired focus on neighborhoods that his predecessor lacked. The arterial into my neighborhood finally got repaired and repaved. In his town hall meetings McGinn is engaged and responsive and thoughtful in his responses to citizen questions and their gripes.

So far Murray has offered little in the way of substance to the debate. So just what is "Flash" going to do that supposedly will dazzle us. So far he hasn't said. Seattle has never been about "flash" with the possible exception of the internet boom and we all know how that turned out. McGinn has been a good mayor in tough financial times. He'll get my vote.
22
McGinn won election in 2009, so he can hardly take credit for policies that saw us through a recession that began the year before. McGinn never did find his footing and he dragged those feet until he couldn't drag them anymore on police reform, you can't deny that, so, not really. I foresaw the chief leaving and court-ordered reform before he did, and what does that mean?

I think he's probably a great lawyer but not a city administrator. We need an administrator who has a vision for the city and a demonstrated commitment to it. Hmmm, who could that be...? Who studied architecture and city planning and helped preserve Seattle and learned at the feet of Victor Steinbrueck, who had the vision and foresight to save Pike Place Market among other parts of Seattle... hmmmm? (Peter Steinbrueck.) Steinbrueck doesn't have a big ego. He just wants to do big things for the city and our neighborhoods and sense of community, I'm convinced of it.

The other candidates are all fine men and women, but that's my choice.
23
Fnarf, your magic eight ball isn't working. Comparing Murray to Eyman is more of a stretch than comparing you to Will in Seattle.
24
PLEASE, Seattle voters, stop the coal trains and proposed coal export terminals to be located north at Cherry Point and south in Longview!!

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn is opposed to what 18 additional cars daily will do to just Seattle's rail-divided infrastructure, water, and air qualities alone (not counting all other equally compromised communities such as Edmonds, Everett, Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon, Burlington, Bellingham, Ferndale, et. al.). The I-5 traffic backup from existing trains passing through Marysville is already bad enough. Marysville's mayor has stated that if coal terminals become grim reality, Marysville will pretty much be on permanent lockdown because nobody will be able to get anywhere. Period.

How many of you live near Puget Sound and Elliott Bay near the BNSF tracks? What is your current air and water quality like now? It will become infinitely and intolerably worse if we don't stop this outrageous "proposal", under the false security of promising "Good Jobs Now" that only benefits SSA Marine, Gateway Pacific Terminal, Peabody Coal, Goldman Sachs, and the Koch brothers' already fat wallets.
25
I agree with wenG, Murry is a bad step backwards, even when considering how pathtic McGinn is.

Murry is endorsed by Ron Sims. A Ron Sims endorsment, for me, is the kiss of death. Now I know for absolute fact, Ed Murry must be extrmemely corrupt.
26
Spot on Dom. Murray's PR is CRANKED and I'm sure well paid. They want a shot at redemption. Hold Murray's feet to the fire and thanks for your thoughtful writing.
27
it makes me sick to the stomach that murray resorts to dirty, sleazy campaign tactics (hello Christian sinderman!) and hides behind his sexual orientation to masquerade as a progressive. murray will kill seattle's progressive roots faster than tim burgess. everyone who voted for r-74 should vote against murray and send him a message that we don't cotton to that oppression business.
28
Steinbrueck has the background and experience that make him the best qualified to lead the city through the growth it will experience and major projects coming down the road. He has a great track record on the City Council, is a critical thinker without being divisive. If we are looking for the best qualified leader, he is it.
29
Unless he crossed over to Our Side (the Socialistic one),then Ed Murray is a bourgie fraudster!The only good mayoral candidate for Seattle is the Socialist Workers' Party's Mary Martin--she has the Moral high ground,and should make it to the general election in November if all her should-be natural constituents - the non-"Whites";Leftists;all members of Seattle's Lower Class - vote for their own oppressed demographic group's interests this August.Why?Because the other clandidates are going to divide the Evil Votes amongst each other! ---- http://www.themilitant.com
30
It's odd to see McGinn stating (and you repeating it, Dominic) that he deserves reelection because of lower unemployment and the bigger school levy. He had nothing to do with either of those and can point to no policy that moved either of those things. The Levy came out of the city council, McGinn played no role in its increase. But like a good politician is always present for th photo ops regarding it.
I voted for McGinn the first time AFTER HE PROMISED not to contest the viaduct tunnel. And he so quickly broke that promise and in several substantial ways - I have no trust for the man - none. He showed himself the worst sort of politican. And his style since then has been one of moral certainty where everyone else is wrong and an idiot. He's made the SPD issues worse, and on and on. On the SPD issue I'm reminded of Churchill talking about the Americans - You can always count on him to do the right thing, after exhausting all the other options.
31
The reason the voters of Seattle threw out Nickels is because he was an elitist lying dick and they were tired of the Eastside Landlord class and their local media lackeys slandering real leadership.

Their are some fundamental principles of law at work here, THE major 'industry' of downtown Seattle - namely, how to CRUCIFY real public leaders, no matter how big or small with the projected sexual harassment of the first failed generation in America. Witness their local leadership, the law school classmates of the UW Law School's Ted Bundy, no less.
32
I don't trust Ed Murray. Just because he's gay, good on some environmental issues, gun policy, and some social issues, doesn't mean he isn't firmly in the pocket of powerful economic interests that have their own agenda for our city.

Just one example: Ed Murray refuses to state categorically that he would never attempt to seize control of our city's schools, the way that other mayors have done in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

And, even if Murray were to rule out an absolute takeover of our schools, he'd be doing everything he can---on behalf of some of his benefactors---to influence school policy and finances.

Aren't the schools already rife with politics? Why inject even more political interests into them?

Doesn't the mayor already have a multitude of problems and issues to deal with? Why would any mayor also want control of the schools? Is it because he's convinced that he could do a better job than the electable and accountable board and superintendent, or is he just power hungry, with lots of wealthy backers who mainly see our schools as future "cash cows" for them and other members of a privileged elite?

I think that Murray would dive head first into "Education Privatization", forcing charters, vouchers, "triggers" and other odious, counterproductive things into our schools, ruining them, as has happened in Michigan, Indiana and Jeb Bush's Florida.

Sorry, Ed. I don't trust you on many things, particularly education.

Next!
33
I don't trust Ed Murray. Just because he's gay, good on some environmental issues, gun policy, and some social issues, doesn't mean he isn't firmly in the pocket of powerful economic interests that have their own agenda for our city.

Just one example: Ed Murray refuses to state categorically that he would never attempt to seize control of our city's schools, the way that other mayors have done in places like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

And, even if Murray were to rule out an absolute takeover of our schools, he'd be doing everything he can---on behalf of some of his benefactors---to influence school policy and finances.

Aren't the schools already rife with politics? Why inject even more political interests into them?

Doesn't the mayor already have a multitude of problems and issues to deal with? Why would any mayor also want control of the schools? Is it because he's convinced that he could do a better job than the electable and accountable board and superintendent, or is he just power hungry, with lots of wealthy backers who mainly see our schools as future "cash cows" for them and other members of a privileged elite?

I think that Murray would dive head first into "Education Privatization", forcing charters, vouchers, "triggers" and other odious, counterproductive things into our schools, ruining them, as has happened in Michigan, Indiana and Jeb Bush's Florida.

Sorry, Ed. I don't trust you on many things, particularly education.

Next!
34
My reaction to the idea that McGinn is sending us down the path of Gary, Indiana can be summed up by this image: http://i.imgur.com/qHBf6.gif

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

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