with all that said...what really matters is the issues...and on that I received a great email from Street today on music and nightlife issues...I think he's the only candidate coming out with any specific ideas on these issues. And he's definitely someone who's proven he can reach out across the aisle to build the coalition needed to bring our liquor laws into the 20th century.

from Street...

There has much talk on the music and nightlife industries recently so I wanted to make some of my feelings known. I applaud the contribution that nightlife, nightclubs and live music venues make to the economic and social vitality of Seattle and as venues for one of the nation’s most vital and exciting music scenes. Our son Remi is a hip hop artist whose breakdance crew, Fraggel Rock, has performed in a number of Seattle venues. We want him to stay in Seattle, and his willingness to do so will depend on the vitality of the local music scene, which is also closely related to the nightclub industry.

As a state legislator I will do all I can to support the further strengthening of this cultural and economic asset. I will:

1. Help make sure at the state level that the laws regarding mixed use events do not get changed. I am committed to assuring and protecting young people's access to live music.

2. Explore the potential for allowing greater flexibility in the hours of operation for bars and nightclubs.

3. Support an increase in state money for cultural tourism including, in particular, music related tourism.

4. Consider way to reform some of the outdated liquor laws that seem to be remaining on the books from prohibition.

5. In the immediate future, take a hard look at what is needed to make more practical the state laws that require club sprinkler systems with particular attention to the need for more realistic deadlines for implementation.

Street sounds good on paper, but he has been totally unresponsive to every question I've asked of him. I would vote for him if I felt he gave even the tiniest damn about what his constituents had to say. Apparently he does not.

My vote will be for Bill Sherman.

I just had a friend email me and ask who to vote for, he was leaning Stephanie Pure, I said she was good. I wouldn't believe these polls, most people in our district don't even have land lines any more - I'm one of the few. Which would distort the vote, as he'd probably get me (who voted for Dick Kelley), and get old fogies (who voted for Street) who still have land lines, but wouldn't get my friend (he has a cell phone only), thus underrepresenting the Pure vote.

bill sherman is the best choice, but this post is complete sensationalist bullshit, josh.

anyone could have fabricated said poll, you idiot. this is the primary version of an october surprise?

hey, i have a secret poll for you.
i can't reveal my sources, but its 100% accurate, i swear.

Q: Where did Meinert get his info?

a. A Jim Street thug- 51%
b. he made it all up- 34%
c. God told him in a dream- 10%
d. who cares? polls are b.s. anyway- 5%

This poll won't be valid unless its source and methodology are revealed publicly. Otherwise it is hearsay and conjecture.
Having a hard time believing that Pure is polling below the margin of error.

There are some decidedly suspicious things about what Meinert posted - the fact, for instance, that only his candidate - Street - has results expressed down to a tenth of a percentage point, and it is this 8/10ths that puts him ahead.

Valid point, Zander. Actually, we need the question sequences, sample size, randomness method, criteria (was it "likely primary voters" which is code for "old people" or was it "people who vote when it's a big choice"). Also time of day, as during the day distorts towards older people too.

I saw all the candidates at the GSBA lunch on Wed.

I can't imagine why Street is polling like it supposedly is. He may be a great policy wonk, but has all the personality of a sick carp. He was one candidate I was still considering, but his performance turned me off him completely. What a dud. I know that personality isn't everything, but I can't imagine him actually convincing other legislators to support anything he is promoting.

Dick Kelley came across as a completely one-issue candidate. Sure, I'd like to see some sort of campaign financing reform, but it isn't the most pressing issue to me, and his ideas seem to have zero chance of actually getting anywhere in the legislature.

Stephanie Pure was a surprise. She was very personable, and also very well spoken and intelligent. She impressed me much more than I thought she would. I had largely discounted her before, but now I'm rethinking her, and may end up voting for her. She restated her support for a surface option to replace the viaduct.

I was previously leaning heavily toward Pedersen, but he comes across as such a yuppy kid. I still may vote for him, but with less enthusiasm that I had before. The DOMA thing still weighs heavily, and none of the other candidates convinced me that they'd really fight for gay marriage. They all say they support it, but will they really fight for it, or are they just paying lip service to the gay community?

The other surprise wasn't one of the 43rd D candidates, but Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander. I really wanted to hate him for his DOMA vote. But he came anyway, knowing he faced a hostile audience. He did not come across as a right wing asshole. He is a centrist, and has voted in favor of other past rulings on LGBT issues. He did not sound opposed to same sex marriage, but seemed to think that it was a legislative issue, not a judicial issue. He specifically stated that he thought it would be fine for the legislature to legalize gay marriage, and wrote so in his opinion. I went away not hating him quite so much as I did before.

Regarding the secret poll. Given that half the respondents are undecided, and that Meinert wont reveal the source or any of the details, this poll has no credibility whatsoever.

If anyone still had any doubts that Dave Meinert is quickly becoming the new version of Richard Lee, you now have one more piece of evidence. I fully expect to start seeing him carrying around a camcorder any day now.

first, I have claimed nothing about the poll other than that it was passed on to me by a credible source. that's it. ignore it all you want, my reason for referencing it was only to compare it to the money that has been raised.

I agree that polls don't matter, ideas and effectiveness matter. if you want to elect someone who has proven they have great progressive ideas they can turn into legislation and pass in a divded house, then Street is your only choise. If you want a corporate merger lawyer it's Pederson, etc.

on a broad range of ideas Street impresses. and he is the only candidate who has the balls to talk about race and social justice, youth, nightclubs, transportation, education and the environment.

stephanie pure is the candidate to back in this race. yes, she is a little green and, yes, she has much to learn. but her youthfulness is a plus and her work ethic is tremendous.

stephanie has her detractors but, i think the bottom line with her is this: she is enthusiastic, smart, and knows how to get the job done. this is only the beginning for her, i think.

jim street's multiple emails, as copied above by my friend dave, seem like a last minute attempt to woo a strong demographic in the 43rd. i received his message above a number of times -- through email and through multiple myspace bulletins -- and it feels insincere. i don't respect a candidate that panders to voters.

name dropping your son's breakdancing crew and dropping rhetoric about issues facing the music community is bullshit.

stephanie pure knows the folks that she needs to work with in order to turn rhetoric like street's into action. that is half the battle. i hope she wins.

Kerri, all due respect, Street has proven he can be effective in office, it's not just empty political catch phrases. He's the only candidate in this race who has held elective office. And while in office he passed great programs that were ahead of their time and still matter - he helped start one of the first citywide recycling programs in the country, he helped start the 1% for the arts program, he helped start the neighborhood matching program, and he has helped reform the juvinille criminal justice system. He is the only council member that voted against the 'boom box ban' because of it's obvious racial implications. And he raised a son he's proud of and through his son he has come to understand first hand the vitality and importance of music venues in Seattle, and because of that he has specific policy positions on what he can do to help the music scene at the state level. That's action, not rhetoric.

"energy" is a loaded political term. In politics it means you are younger than your opponent and don't have the political chops or ideas to talk about so you insinuate your opponent is old by saying you will be able to 'work hard' with 'enthusiasm' and 'energy'. Street doesn't need to pander or use vague catch phrases. Street has specific policy positions and results from things he's done in the past to talk about.

'energy', 'get the job done', 'turn rhetoric into action'. That's all crap poltical speak. Let's hear some ideas. Street is the only candidate offering specific solutions at the state level to real issues facing the nightlife industry. You can insult him all you want, I guess that's all you're left with when your candidate has no policy positions or actual results of their own to counter with.

This position is not the place for someone to learn how to be a politician. It is a seat that was filled by a very powerful politician in Ed Murray. It took Ed years to get the power he had. We can fill this seat with someone who has never held elective office and never passed legislation at the state level. Or do we can fill it with someone who we know has great ideas and has proven they can turn those ideas into legislation that can get passed.

And 'smart'? If intelligence is a value you are basing your vote on, Street is the leading candidate - here's some references

Jim received his BA and MPA degrees from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and his law degree from the University of Puget Sound. He graduated first in his law school class.

Jim worked for three years as an economist and operations analyst with the World Bank in Washington DC.

Board Memberships. Common Cause, New Horizons for Learning, Private Partners in Public Education, Citizens Education Center Northwest, Sustainable Seattle, 1000 Friends of Washington, Transportation Choices Coalition.

Street talks a good talk, Stephanie seems like a nice person, but the only candidate with any street cred to me is Lynne Dodson. Her website has specific positions on all these issues, she's got endorsements from all over the place (including NOW, SEAMEC, Latino PAC, and real working people) and she actually has been out there on real issues - in the peace movement, on immigrant worker rights, trying to break down institutional racism, environmental justice, and actually working for low tuition, K-12 funding, and a living wage. She gets what it's like to have to struggle and I notice a lot of the candidates just copy what she says after she says it (since she's already actually done it!) - on education, tax reform, health care, child care.... on and on. She'll be great and she's going to win!

Street talks a good talk, Stephanie seems like a nice person, but the only candidate with any street cred to me is Lynne Dodson. Her website has specific positions on all these issues, she's got endorsements from all over the place (including NOW, SEAMEC, Latino PAC, and real working people) and she actually has been out there on real issues - in the peace movement, on immigrant worker rights, trying to break down institutional racism, environmental justice, and actually working for low tuition, K-12 funding, and a living wage. She gets what it's like to have to struggle and I notice a lot of the candidates just copy what she says after she says it (since she's already actually done it!) - on education, tax reform, health care, child care.... on and on. She'll be great and she's going to win!

Are you fuckin' kiddin' me? I can't believe anyone is wasting time (including me) writing about a poll whose source is Meinert. Read his post. All the book learning in the world don't make you smart, especially politically. Just look around at some of the functional idiots who are in elected positions today!

There is something to be said to a candidate who can reach out and touch the bitter, cynical, jaded folks at the Stranger enough to get their endorsement, and they are representative of the youthful, smart, professional, outspoken citizenry of the 43rd.

We're lucky to have an outstanding group of candidates to represent us, but my money is on Pure for now. She'll be a powerful voice both now and particularly in the future.

Cut the crap, Meinert. Street is adopting Pure's music & nightlife platform. She's been saying all that stuff for six months. It's certainly good Street is saying this, and if he wins, I hope you hold him to it.

But Pure was on all this from day 1, even the arcane technical stuff like sprinklers in clubs.

Can someone tell me why we're arguing internal City issues here? The candidates under discussion are running for the State house, not the City council.

I don't want to spoil the fun we're all having, but Seattle's nightlife regulations and zoning laws aren't going to be decided in Olympia.

Nor would I want them to be, frankly.

You folks do realize that most of the other legislators in WA act the same way Jim Street does. His personality will not be the issue you wonks seem to think it is when it comes to getting business done, trust me.

What was that in the Stranger this week about some group called "The Organization" throwing money and volunteers at Pure in the last days? She's clearly not going to win, so who will it hurt? Street? Dodson? Isn't this the kind of last minute secret support that the rules are supposed to stop?

Other groups (labor unions, non-profits, PACS, etc.) are helping other candidates, why not Pure? What difference does the timing make?

hey all - first off,all the candidates in this race are smart, good people, and in a different race there's not one of them I wouldn't support. In fact, I hope Pure runs for council next year, she'd have my support. But we need to pick who will be the best representative in the house over the next term, and on a number of issues. Let's make this a debate about who's the best, not why the people we don't back suck. I like them all. I just like Street the best.

On nightlife issues - there are many that are decided at the state level. One big issue is the liquor control board, who makes the rules about mixed use shows, closing times, etc, etc. Street is the only candidate who is talking about liquor law reform. And that is huge. He is even proposing we look at changing the rules around closing times. That is something we need to change, we all know it. I think Street will be the best person to fight for LCB reform, and he can do it with the credibility of a father, judge, someone who has already passed legislation at the state level with support from both parties, and someone who has worked with youth.

I haven't seen or heard Pure talk about these issues, but if she has, and I believe you that she has, all props to her, I know she cares deeply about them. But I don't believe any other candidate but Street has proposed a list of specific policies concerning nightlife and music they will take on at the state level. But if anyone else has, let's compare the ideas and then consider who is best to make these changes happen immediately.

Meinert got that poll from somewhere and the campaign who paid for it knows they did it, they should come out and claim it. I would suspect it is from one of the candidates who polled poorly, otherwise they'd claim it right away.

Yeah, I know, all politics is local. And sure, there are laws at the state level that affect nightlife.

But come on, let's face it— the big decisions affecting the overall character of Seattle nightlife are not going to be made in Olympia, they're going to be made the city council, and trying to take a city-politics issue and squeeze enough minor state-level details out of it to constitute a "platform" (or even a plank) smacks of pandering.

Especially when one is flogging this particular issue in comments at the web site of The Stranger, which has been riding the nightlife-regulations city-politics hobby-horse endlessly (and, coincidentally, at no small convenience to quite a few of its advertisers).

Yes, there are a few nightlife-issues details that can be addressed in Olympia. And yes, The Stranger is going to lap them up. But if your candidate is suggesting that Seattle's nightlife will be substantially shaped by his or her actions in the statehouse, then your candidate is misleading the voters.

The big decisions affecting nightlife are local decisions, and they should be. Candidates for the 43rd are not in a position to promise you a vibrant club scene. If nightlife is what a candidate professes to hold as a first priority, then that candidate should be running for city council or mayor or King county council or some other local position that actually has authority over the big decisions that affect nightlife, not for a State legislature seat.

#21 - The difference is that the groups helping all those other candidates are doing so in compliance with the state public disclosure laws - that is, we know where the money is coming from and where it's going to. And if you can't figure out why it matters that it's last minute, then I can't help you.

I think Meinert wishes he had the guts, or something, to run for office and hates that Pure-similar in many ways to David in terms of both music and political activism--beat him to the chase. Coming from him, it seems hardly that this is a debate about Street or who is the better candidate, but a waged war against someone he simply cannot accept seeing succeed.

Commenter - fill us in please. The election is Tuesday, so if Pure is getting illegal funding we should know now. And if not then this is a really evil smear tactic that will make me change my vote to Pure just out of principle

I suspect Meinert's support for Jim Street has nothing to do with positions, issues, or experience. It's about viability. He's most likely backing Jim because he thinks he'll win. (A fair assumption considering Jim's name-recognition among 59-65-year-olds, the main voting demographic.) He wants to back a winner because that will help him later.

Frank - it is total BS and an attempt to hit Stephanie who is gaining momentum in the last few days. If you want to read about The Organization, go to their myspace page: www.myspace.com/jointheorg

Hard to be real secret when you talk to the Stranger and have a myspace page, right? This group got a national grant specifically in an effort to increase voter turnout among young people. Yes, real sinister this bunch.

Yes, how odd that they would want to support Stephanie - a young, energetic, promising talent to the Legislature and how mind boggling that they would spend the weekend before the election asking young people to return their absentee ballots or go to the polls.

There is nothing illegal here. Just an attempt to smear Stephanie in the final days. How sad.

7 and Bitter? - hating on me won't get your candidate any more votes. Explaining Pure's positions on subjects that matter will.

I am not a Pure hater, and I don't want to run for office. As Pure's friend and colleague I support her running. It's great experience for her and if she won, I wouldn't be sad. Stephanie wants to be in politics and that is great - she is a good person and is solid on many issues. I personally asked Stephanie to speak at the Capitol Hill Block Party so she could present her case to the music community there. I have said publicly I would support Pure in another race, but in this race, I believe Jim Street is by far the best candidate. Plain and simple.

It's a disservice to Pure that her supporters use personal attacks on her opponents and oppenents' supporters to argue for why she should be elected rather than debating her policies and positions. If this is the style of political discourse Pure supports then I guess I will have to re-examine my support of her running in the future.

PS - I agree with 43rd Voter that the Organization is a good thing, and there seems to be nothing illegal with their support of Pure. I am supporting The Organization at events I am doing. Expect to see lots more of them.

That's great Dave. Since younger voters are the only demographic that supported John Kerry in the last presidential, it's not a bad thing to try to encourage more of that behavior.

Then The Organization should have no problem following the basic public disclosure rules that every other organization, PAC, etc. follows when they raise and spend money in support of a political candidate. No smear. No slime. The Organization might be the greatest thing in the history of ever, but they oughta file basic public disclosure commission stuff if they're going to spend money supporting a specific candidate. Too much to ask?

Yes, there are a few nightlife-issues details that can be addressed in Olympia. And yes, The Stranger is going to lap them up. But if your candidate is suggesting that Seattle's nightlife will be substantially shaped by his or her actions in the statehouse, then your candidate is misleading the voters.

Actually, robotslave, you could say that about the lion's share of local issues, save for the transportation projects. Many of the issues that Pure is passionate about are issues that she would have much more control over at the city/county level, not so much at the state level.

Her heart is in the right place. However, IMO, she has placed her goals in completely the wrong place. With her platform, she'd have my vote if she ran for City Council, hell, even Mayor. But the state legislation requires a different, more expansive and less focused POV. Issues legislated in Olympia are mainly state issues, not Seattle issues.

i just want to say **chop chop** that meinert's posts **snnnnnnnnnnnort** get better and better **snnnnort** with each post **chop, slide, cut** and, really, i'm not saying that **snnnnnnnnnnort** because of the coke. and dave, i think you believe me when i say, **crush, chop chop** really! i mean, listen to to the way he likes to hear everyone else talking about **snnnnnnnort** him or what he himself FEELS, especially when he does it in multiple **snnooort** paragraphs. it works man, really! you got my vote when your run for office. love ya, **chop, snooooooort** dave.

Ms. Pure is only a few years younger that Jamie Pedersen - so funny to play the youth card in your thirities.

Wonder if she worked at Mcdonalds to get thru Yale as did Jamie - or rich mommie and dad?

Youth don't vote no matter how much money some group spends. They have no vested interest that matters until they marry, buy a house and see them selves and adults achored in the society --- sorry Ms. Pure, bad card in this game, esp. a primary. The hags at Horizon House give a shit about the Vera project, and really wonder why we do so little for folks over 70.

Bet Jamie bought the poll, has a lot of QUEER money, too late all you breeders, the Queer tide will silently send him to Olympia, and he will do well.

Petersen by 290. Street is the dark horse and doing a fine campaign. The more confusion, the more voters will drop back to the known leader - Sherman needs to go work for Clinton again, Stphanie needs to get a real job with Gregoire and Co., she is talented - city hall gofer is a dead end, and Bill Sherman sunk himself on the non issue of camapign finance.

Most interesting leg. race in Wa. political history .... and Ed Murray assured himself a real run in the dog pile that will ensue when Mc Dermott retires --- by advocating a bit of gay and lesbian solidarity in this race.... thanks to Anne Levinson, and other members of the cabal, you can bet.

Stranger is a total loser again except for more brownie points with Peter S. .... let the leaks flow and flow and flow and if he ever becomes mayor, the Stranger will get a desk in the corner all the time bellowing how they hate the establishment.

Commenter - you assert and insinuate that Stephanie accepted an illegal contribution, which, by looking at her disclosure reports, is horseshit. The Organization has to report an independent expenditure to the Public Disclosure Commission within a certain time frame based on the cost of the expenditure. Since it was a bunch of young kids walking around distributing flyers, I can guess that this isn't the big nasty specter you'd like folks to think it is.

Jake, I don't buy Jamie Pedersen either, but for many, many more reasons than his age. He's a one-issue gimmick candidate.

Also, now that I think of it... it's not Pure's age that's the issue. It's her experience: save for her activist work and working under Peter Steinbrueck, she has no experience as a legislator. Now she's trying to represent the 43rd District in the State of Washington? That's too big of a step.

If she were 27 and had somehow served on the City Council (no, her work under Peter doesn't count), assuming she had a good track record I'd consider that sufficient. It's not her age that's the issue but her experience. Two different things.

Well, she's the one of two in the bunch that actually has legislative experience. Being a bureaucrat, lawyer, or an activist consititues experience, but not the same kind. Having to research and balance a variety of issues as well as interact with citizens on a daily basis and help solve their problems is directly applicable to the job.

There are several legislators in Olympia who were previously legislative aides. The experience fits.

Not all experience is created equal, Voter. She's worked as an activist outsider and an assistant. Being a top dog who formally answers to a constituency, a city councilperson or a King County official, let alone a state legislator, is a whole other ballgame.

Also, didn't many of those aforementioned legislators who were once aides also had to cut their teeth in lower offices before taking the jump? I can understand someone from an outlying rural district doing this, but not from a big city like Seattle.

hello nice blog