The Main Character

Great point. Of all the candidates challenging the Mayor, there is none more quizzical and seemingly out of character/history/relationship than Mr. McGinn. And for this dare he has a real chance of coming in last place and becoming a joke out of the political gate.

Great point. Of all the candidates challenging the Mayor, there is none more quizzical and seemingly out of character/history/relationship than Mr. McGinn. And for this dare he has a real chance of coming in last place and becoming a joke out of the political gate.

Great point. Of all the candidates challenging the Mayor, there is none more quizzical and seemingly out of character/history/relationship than Mr. McGinn. And for this dare he has a real chance of coming in last place and becoming a joke out of the political gate.

There is nothing ironic or strange about an individual supporting a candidate in one election and then running against the same candidate 4 years later, this happens all the time. Politicians make so many tough decisions that it’s pretty easy to find a number of reasons why you would no longer choose to support their re-election (the tunnel, for example). If folks didn’t stand up and challenge the political status quo and hold the politicians they’ve supported accountable for their decisions then we’d have a pretty stale democracy; it’s too bad this doesn’t happen more often.

There is nothing ironic or strange about an individual supporting a candidate in one election and then running against the same candidate 4 years later, this happens all the time. Politicians make so many tough decisions that it’s pretty easy to find a number of reasons why you would no longer choose to support their re-election (the tunnel, for example). If folks didn’t stand up and challenge the political status quo and hold the politicians they’ve supported accountable for their decisions then we’d have a pretty stale democracy; it’s too bad this doesn’t happen more often.

There is nothing ironic or strange about an individual supporting a candidate in one election and then running against the same candidate 4 years later, this happens all the time. Politicians make so many tough decisions that it’s pretty easy to find a number of reasons why you would no longer choose to support their re-election (the tunnel, for example). If folks didn’t stand up and challenge the political status quo and hold the politicians they’ve supported accountable for their decisions then we’d have a pretty stale democracy; it’s too bad this doesn’t happen more often.

I’d say that McGinn has plenty of reasons to run against Nickels. I’ll name just three:

*Nickels strongly supported the failed Roads and Transit ballot measure that would have forced us to accept 187 miles of sprawl highways. McGinn fought successfully against Roads and Transit and then helped bring a better proposal – a transit only measure back the following year.

*Nickels is backing the waterfront tunnel that will not help with Carbon reduction, but will mire Seattle in debt and traffic long into the future.

*Last year Nickels actively fought against the, parks levy that McGinn brought to the voters.

Nickels has been a bully since 2002, but his politics have changed. I would never have referred to Nickels/Ceis as Bush/Cheney four years ago. But today, there are just so many ways in which that seems apt.

I’m happy McGinn no longer supports Nickels and is challenging him. I think that is an indictment of Nickels, not of McGinn.

Why don’t you write an article about the real story: fearful donors to Nickels who don’t like him, but are afraid of retribution.

Nickels has been a bully since 2002, but his politics have changed. I would never have referred to Nickels/Ceis as Bush/Cheney four years ago. But today, there are just so many ways in which that seems apt.

I’m happy McGinn no longer supports Nickels and is challenging him. I think that is an indictment of Nickels, not of McGinn.

Why don’t you write an article about the real story: fearful donors to Nickels who don’t like him, but are afraid of retribution.

The post wasn’t intended as an indictment of McGinn.

The facts speak for themselves: McGinn enthusiastically supported Nickels in 2005. Now he doesn’t, and he’s running for Mayor.

Meanwhile, that’s an interesting story idea. If you’ve got any leads on that story please send them my way.

As I reported, Jan Drago mentioned the same thing at her kickoff: http://publicola.net/?p=6688
I’d love some examples. She didn’t provide any.

The post wasn’t intended as an indictment of McGinn.

The facts speak for themselves: McGinn enthusiastically supported Nickels in 2005. Now he doesn’t, and he’s running for Mayor.

Meanwhile, that’s an interesting story idea. If you’ve got any leads on that story please send them my way.

As I reported, Jan Drago mentioned the same thing at her kickoff: http://publicola.net/?p=6688
I’d love some examples. She didn’t provide any.

The post wasn’t intended as an indictment of McGinn.

The facts speak for themselves: McGinn enthusiastically supported Nickels in 2005. Now he doesn’t, and he’s running for Mayor.

Meanwhile, that’s an interesting story idea. If you’ve got any leads on that story please send them my way.

As I reported, Jan Drago mentioned the same thing at her kickoff: http://publicola.net/?p=6688
I’d love some examples. She didn’t provide any.

Here’s my suggestion for leads:

Simply look at Drago’s fundraising report. She’s in 4th place, having barely raised more than Donaldson and less than half of what McGinn has raised. McGinn and Mallahan are neck and neck in terms of numbers of donors (Mallahan’s own $200K is the major difference there).

Take Drago’s 2005 donor list and start calling them to ask why they haven’t contributed to her new campaign. She has only 40 donors right now, so you shouldn’t have to call too many people from her 2005 list before someone will talk with you.

Here’s my suggestion for leads:

Simply look at Drago’s fundraising report. She’s in 4th place, having barely raised more than Donaldson and less than half of what McGinn has raised. McGinn and Mallahan are neck and neck in terms of numbers of donors (Mallahan’s own $200K is the major difference there).

Take Drago’s 2005 donor list and start calling them to ask why they haven’t contributed to her new campaign. She has only 40 donors right now, so you shouldn’t have to call too many people from her 2005 list before someone will talk with you.

Here’s my suggestion for leads:

Simply look at Drago’s fundraising report. She’s in 4th place, having barely raised more than Donaldson and less than half of what McGinn has raised. McGinn and Mallahan are neck and neck in terms of numbers of donors (Mallahan’s own $200K is the major difference there).

Take Drago’s 2005 donor list and start calling them to ask why they haven’t contributed to her new campaign. She has only 40 donors right now, so you shouldn’t have to call too many people from her 2005 list before someone will talk with you.

No one should be blamed for having voted for Nickels or even supported him in the past. Nickels has had a charmed political life in his campaigns for mayor. Eight years is a long time in politics. Nickels ran as a relatively unknown candidate in 2001 against the known candidate, Mark Sidran. Sidran carried a lot of baggage including his tough positions on panhandling and vagrancy. Nickels defined himself as the “Seattle Way” candidate and edged out Sidran. Four years ago he ran against an unknown who didn’t know anything about campaigning and couldn’t get any traction. Who knows what his positions were; his campaign never got that far. Now Nickels is running for a third term against a field of a novice candidates. Even though he is ostensibly unpopular he is likely to be re-elected. Maybe it’s time to consider term limits.

No one should be blamed for having voted for Nickels or even supported him in the past. Nickels has had a charmed political life in his campaigns for mayor. Eight years is a long time in politics. Nickels ran as a relatively unknown candidate in 2001 against the known candidate, Mark Sidran. Sidran carried a lot of baggage including his tough positions on panhandling and vagrancy. Nickels defined himself as the “Seattle Way” candidate and edged out Sidran. Four years ago he ran against an unknown who didn’t know anything about campaigning and couldn’t get any traction. Who knows what his positions were; his campaign never got that far. Now Nickels is running for a third term against a field of a novice candidates. Even though he is ostensibly unpopular he is likely to be re-elected. Maybe it’s time to consider term limits.

Nickels/Ceis as Bush/Cheney is apt? You mean they all have 2 arms and 2 legs? Name issues that both groups agree on and have in common? Climate Change? Support for same-sex unions? endorsing Obama? I can’t think of any.

Instead of name calling and personality bashing, why isn’t the debate purely on ideas, issues and proven leadership and experience? You hire the guy who is best for the job, and clearly Nickels is it.

P.S. As far as Sound Transit goes – it would not have even been on the ballot for McGenn supported had Nickels not stepped up.

Nickels/Ceis as Bush/Cheney is apt? You mean they all have 2 arms and 2 legs? Name issues that both groups agree on and have in common? Climate Change? Support for same-sex unions? endorsing Obama? I can’t think of any.

Instead of name calling and personality bashing, why isn’t the debate purely on ideas, issues and proven leadership and experience? You hire the guy who is best for the job, and clearly Nickels is it.

P.S. As far as Sound Transit goes – it would not have even been on the ballot for McGenn supported had Nickels not stepped up.

Nickels/Ceis as Bush/Cheney is apt? You mean they all have 2 arms and 2 legs? Name issues that both groups agree on and have in common? Climate Change? Support for same-sex unions? endorsing Obama? I can’t think of any.

Instead of name calling and personality bashing, why isn’t the debate purely on ideas, issues and proven leadership and experience? You hire the guy who is best for the job, and clearly Nickels is it.

P.S. As far as Sound Transit goes – it would not have even been on the ballot for McGenn supported had Nickels not stepped up.

Glad there are some rules to the moderating of comments. Trolls can kill online community.

The Seattle Times, for instance, should do what the NYT does, and create an “editor’s pick” of reader comments on its articles. Because having the same raving Republicans from Orting and Enumclaw rail against all government spending anywhere all the time has reduced its comment thread to little more than political bathroom scrawl.

Glad there are some rules to the moderating of comments. Trolls can kill online community.

The Seattle Times, for instance, should do what the NYT does, and create an “editor’s pick” of reader comments on its articles. Because having the same raving Republicans from Orting and Enumclaw rail against all government spending anywhere all the time has reduced its comment thread to little more than political bathroom scrawl.

@ 7 has a good point.

Last time around, Nickels was running against Al Runte who was a weak and uninspiring candidate.

@ 7 has a good point.

Last time around, Nickels was running against Al Runte who was a weak and uninspiring candidate.

@ 7 has a good point.

Last time around, Nickels was running against Al Runte who was a weak and uninspiring candidate.

Elections are term limits. Limiting freedom and democracy is not the answer. Public financing though, which hopefully will be on Seattle’s ballot next fall, is part of it. Then candidates won’t have to court major donors to give massive amounts to run for office. It creates a more level playing field where the voices are equal and ideas, positions, plans, records, and experience trump fundraising ability.

I really didn’t intend this to be a public financing comment, but term limits are poor policy and part of the solution is already in the works.

I’m pretty sure Ned Lamont supported Joe Lieberman in 2000. I don’t think that makes his 2006 bid suspect.

I still think we should’ve passed Roads & Transit in 2007, but I’m keen on McGinn.

Elections are term limits. Limiting freedom and democracy is not the answer. Public financing though, which hopefully will be on Seattle’s ballot next fall, is part of it. Then candidates won’t have to court major donors to give massive amounts to run for office. It creates a more level playing field where the voices are equal and ideas, positions, plans, records, and experience trump fundraising ability.

I really didn’t intend this to be a public financing comment, but term limits are poor policy and part of the solution is already in the works.

I’m pretty sure Ned Lamont supported Joe Lieberman in 2000. I don’t think that makes his 2006 bid suspect.

I still think we should’ve passed Roads & Transit in 2007, but I’m keen on McGinn.

Elections are term limits. Limiting freedom and democracy is not the answer. Public financing though, which hopefully will be on Seattle’s ballot next fall, is part of it. Then candidates won’t have to court major donors to give massive amounts to run for office. It creates a more level playing field where the voices are equal and ideas, positions, plans, records, and experience trump fundraising ability.

I really didn’t intend this to be a public financing comment, but term limits are poor policy and part of the solution is already in the works.

I’m pretty sure Ned Lamont supported Joe Lieberman in 2000. I don’t think that makes his 2006 bid suspect.

I still think we should’ve passed Roads & Transit in 2007, but I’m keen on McGinn.

@11 I agree about term limits. But the situation in Seattle today gives you some idea of the sort of electoral environment that might make people consider it.

@11 I agree about term limits. But the situation in Seattle today gives you some idea of the sort of electoral environment that might make people consider it.

@11 I agree about term limits. But the situation in Seattle today gives you some idea of the sort of electoral environment that might make people consider it.

Here’s McGinn’s response to this article (interesting that it’s not posted here???): http://www.seattlepostglobe.org/2009/06/22/why-mcginn-changed-his-mind-about-nickels

Here’s McGinn’s response to this article (interesting that it’s not posted here???): http://www.seattlepostglobe.org/2009/06/22/why-mcginn-changed-his-mind-about-nickels

Why enact term limits when they could just vote against Nickels? You don’t fix democracy’s imperfections by making it less democratic; you make it moreso.

Why enact term limits when they could just vote against Nickels? You don’t fix democracy’s imperfections by making it less democratic; you make it moreso.

I'd say that McGinn has plenty of reasons to run against Nickels. I'll name just three:

*Nickels strongly supported the failed Roads and Transit ballot measure that would have forced us to accept 187 miles of sprawl highways. McGinn fought successfully against Roads and Transit and then helped bring a better proposal – a transit only measure back the following year.

*Nickels is backing the waterfront tunnel that will not help with Carbon reduction, but will mire Seattle in debt and traffic long into the future.

*Last year Nickels actively fought against the, parks levy that McGinn brought to the voters.