When Joel Connolly is calling you names, you know you are on the trail. DINOs, like Durkan and J.A. Wilson are calling information about Chinese investors 'racist' and comparing them to the anti-Chinese race riots in Seattle in the late 19th and early 20th century. Problem is, today's Chinese investors have nothing to do with the Chinese laborers and immigrants of a century ago. Throwing them all together is, well its racist. That's what racism is.

"Connelly also patted himself on the back"

That's his entire raison d'etre.

So she no qualms about going after the little guy while leaving alone the corrupt powers that be. Sounds about right.

Kudos to Charles for revealing this dirt. And not allowing these entrenched scum bags any slack.
We deserve better than them so much better.

has no qualms*

Charles, she called you a racist because you are

Joel Connelly's enmity is a badge of honor. I haven't come across anything he's written in quite a while, but last time I looked he seemed to be waging a hysterical and dishonest vendetta against conservationists. He was very adamant that we should build a new upper Stehekin Road inside designated wilderness boundaries, and also that we should send dozens of helicopter flights into the Glacier Peak Wilderness to essentially create a replica of the Green Mt. Lookout... and he attacked anyone who opposed his extreme anti-wilderness agenda, in a manner that made Rush Limbaugh look like Ed Murrow. (One of his favorite targets was the North Cascades Conservation Council, the group largely responsible for the creation of North Cascades National Park, and for protection of surrounding wilderness). Never once in Connelly's cringe-worthy diatribes did he ever provide the slightest opportunity for his targets to respond to his lies.

So, to summarize, Durkan's campaign sought an opportunity to comment, and now Charles seeks to point out a variety of perceived shortcomings with Durkan's character? Isn't this just nothing more than whataboutism?

You're a journalist (perhaps) and it has long been a journalistic courtesy to offer subjects of news articles the opportunity to comment on a story about them. You didn't do that. It is also a part of journalistic integrity to disclose any conflicts of interest - like giving financial support to an opposing candidate. You did not provide the transparency needed for the public to evaluate any potential bias.

You allege racism because she responded to your story without giving you an opportunity to comment. There is no ethical requirement that someone attacked by a journalist give said journalist an opportunity to comment. You already have an opportunity and have taken it.

If you are going to be a journalist and report "news" then act like one. But don't do some completely speculative BS hit piece while shilling for the opponent. That is not news; it's dishonest commentary. Oh, the race thing- you don't get to wave it around every time you screw up.

This is some cringe material right here. How did an editor approve this? Why are you letting a reporter who is personally involved in this race report on it? Why are you running opinion pieces under the banner of news?

Durkan didn't call you racist, Charles. Chinese community leaders did. Listen. Apologize. Stop blaming Durkan.
http://nwasianweekly.com/2017/09/chinese…

You didn't do your job: you didn't call the campaign and you only included the facts that would hurt her the most on this issue. That's not journalism, that's having an agenda. You getting called out for not doing your job isn't racist.

Bad look. If I were Durkan’s team, I’d be quoting this heavily in a fundraising email.

Also, fact check. The plain meaning of the statement Durkan’s then office made on WaMu was not that they didn’t find criminal activity, but that they didn’t find enough evidence to warrant a prosecution because of the burden placed on the State when it tries to proves criminal guilt.

We accept in the constitution at it is preferable for a crime to go unpunished than for the state to not have to meet that burden. It’s a principal that protects us from having the Justice system turned into a weapon against us, and you should have to provide more context and more information before you label a prosecutors discretion “chickenshit.” That should require an effort greater than zero.

Durkan will do anything to change the subject. She hates to talk about her own record.

I applaud Joel Connelly for blocking all those people on Facebook. He's absolutely right to block people who say things. My only criticism of Joel is all the people he didn't block. He needs to finish the job and block and block some more. Joel should block every single person he sees on Facebook. No more half measures.

Block them all, Joel. Block them all.

This is the whining of a little small man who likes to dish it out, but can not take it like a big man.

That is the only double standard at work here.

Jenny Durkan lost my vote at "friends with Gregoire." Barf.

@11 Exactly on point. The best way to discredit Charles' writing is to simply read it. He takes a huge leap from a specific event (WaMu crash) to *his* particular theories on global economics, and expects everyone to accept his conclusions about everything. It's rare to find a Mudede piece that doesn't involve a rant about "neoliberalism", as if that's even a real thing.

@17 You should tell the “leftist” economists at the International Monetary Fund that neoliberalism is not “real thing.”

“Three senior economists at the IMF, an organisation not known for its incaution, published a paper questioning the benefits of neoliberalism. “

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/au…