Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Mucha Lucha! | Reichert vs. the Seattle Times... »

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Letter of the Day

posted by on October 3 at 12:00 PM

Let me get this straight (so to speak): Bill Sherman protects the Endangered Species Act, volunteers to defend abortion clinics, and fights for victims of domestic violence; Stephanie Pure organizes a renters’ summit, defeats the Teen Dance Ordinance, and restores funding to Seattle public libraries; and the voters elect Jamie Pedersen, who represents companies that manufacture vinyl windows, sings with the Seattle Men’s Chorus, and loses the pivotal Supreme Court marriage-equality case? If Pedersen failed to convince five judges to invalidate DOMA, how is he going to convince 49 representatives to repeal it? By singing to them?

Bill Sherman and Stephanie Pure were the most qualified candidates to represent our district. If the voters like Jamie Pedersen so much, then I ask them to consider this: I’m gay, I went to Yale with Jamie, and I guarantee them I could lose a vitally important Supreme Court case. Why
not elect me?

Todd Weiner


RSS icon Comments

1

Beautiful. Ed Murray's a moron.

Posted by DOUG. | October 3, 2006 12:25 PM
2

Because you didn't raise the most money.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2006 12:32 PM
3

wait, WHO defeated the Teen Dance Ordinance?

Posted by Frank | October 3, 2006 12:43 PM
4

Todd,

If you've read that idiotic Supreme Court opinion (it's online, by the way), you would know that Jamie didn't "lose" the case.

That ruling pulled back the curtain to reveal that the concepts of due process and equal protection are a sham in our state. Especially egregious was that the "justices" used the exact same language to uphold the ban on same sex marriage that racist judges used in the past to uphold bans on interracial marriage: There is no discrimination because neither blacks nor whites may marry a member of the other race, etc. Sound familiar?

The dissents in the case point out the obvious and are worth reading. Like, for example, preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't force heteros to marry and have kids, and so on.

Jamie does have ties to Preston Gates and Ellis that deserve scrutiny, however
Dan Savage seems to have a personal vendetta against Jamie Pedersen, so that seems to be the only reason your letter was posted.

Posted by Andrew | October 3, 2006 12:46 PM
5

that ruling was bound to be based on politics & ideology, either way it came down. those who may have leaned either way (some would say madsen) had the tools there to do so if they wanted.

And nobody will elect you because your last name is Weiner.

Posted by Ginger | October 3, 2006 12:55 PM
6

did jamie turn down your weiner at yale ? inquiring penises are wondering

Posted by Jerri | October 3, 2006 1:44 PM
7

The election is over, and a lot of our candidates didn’t win. That’s over. It’s time for accountability, now that Pedersen is our rep.

I hope the Stranger asks why he got endorsed by the Rental Housing Association, which should be called the Anti Tenant Association. There are a lot of renters here in the 43rd, you know, and Pedersen will soon be the only Seattle elected in Olympia who received the RHA's endorsement.

Posted by BB | October 3, 2006 1:48 PM
8

Just one more brick in the wall separating The Stranger from any political relevance in this town.

What a waste...

Posted by Disappointed | October 3, 2006 2:46 PM
9

Hey Todd: Your illogic is all over the map. Voters liked Jamie so much that they gave him slightly more than 23% of the vote - not exactly a Chinese Mandate of Heaven. You weren't elected because you didn't run, didn't ring doorbells, didn't raise money and apparently didn't care. Yet Bill Clinton went to Yale, he was impeached as President and heterosexually took advantage of a female intern - yet he could still carry the 43rd District by a helluva lot more votes than Jamie did. And Jamie had no more to do with the Supreme's idiotic decision than Eisenhower had to do with the US Supreme's Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education decision. I guess you're just upset - or something.

Posted by THE DOGS MAY BARK | October 3, 2006 2:55 PM
10

Hey Dan, I still don't get your pissyness over Pedersen. None of the candidates was perfect. I'll grant that Pedersen is imperfect. He will be new to being a legislator, and certainly bears watching. But Todd's screed doesn't bear printing (or posting), much less being labeled "Letter of the Day". Pedersen wasn't my favorite candidate from the pack either. But he won, and he doesn't deserve to be bashed before he even starts. I suspect he'll turn out fine. At least give him the benefit of the doubt unless or until he actually does something to deserve your malice.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 3, 2006 3:27 PM
11

And yet here you are, Dogs May Bark, here you are.

Posted by Stalker of Celery | October 3, 2006 3:34 PM
12

Hi. I don't really want to run for office, people--I forgot that Seattle is the city where sarcasm comes to die--Bill Sherman and Stephanie Pure still are much more qualified for the office than Jamie Pedersen, and Jamie Pedersen did LOSE the state Supreme Court case (that's what happens when you don't WIN a case). More of the voters in this district voted for him only because he's gay, which is an idiotic reason to put someone in office. Look at his resume and his experience and someone explain to me what he's done that qualifies him to hold this office.

That said, he is our representative, and I completely agree that he Jamie should be accountable for what he does when he wins next month. I'll vote for him but I won't be happy about it.

PS--Does no one have an opinion about Bill Sherman?

Posted by Todd | October 3, 2006 3:37 PM
13

Well, Jamie has been endorsed by the 43rd Dems, FYI.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2006 3:57 PM
14

Todd,

The entire point of my previous post is that the Court completely ignored the facts and the evidence, hence it was a sham ruling.

Another example: They totally ignored scientific evidence, and the countless children being raised in our state by gay and lesbian parents by sanctimoniously proclaiming that the legislature was entitled to enact DOMA to "encourage procreation and child-rearing in a 'traditional' nuclear family where children tend to thrive."

No one can win a case against a kangaroo court, and that despicable ruling shows how desperate they were to prevent marriage equality even by using totally specious rationales.

Jamie and company did everything possible and reasonable, but the Court was stacked against them, so stop blaming him for "losing" the case, and stop with the personal attacks.

Posted by Andrew | October 3, 2006 4:02 PM
15

Todd:
I don't think anyone actually thought you wanted to run for office. I think we all got the sarcasm.

Posted by Ginger | October 3, 2006 5:35 PM
16

What's the deal with you and Pederson, Dan? Is this some kind of fight over who's the most important homo in North Capitol Hill?

Why don't you speak your mind rather than hiding behind this stupid letter and the even stupider Stranger Election Board?

Posted by Sean | October 3, 2006 6:48 PM
17

I'm sure Jamie Pedersen is incredibly smart, made every argument he could think of to the Court, and truly wanted to effect marriage equality for gay men and lesbians in the state of Washington. Nevertheless, he still failed to convince five justices that DOMA violates our state constitution's privileges and immunities clause, privacy provision, or Equal Rights Amendment. Even if I vehemently disagree with Justice Barbara Madsen's majority opinion that marriage is inextricably linked to procreation and that marriage equality does nothing to further the well-being of children, Jamie Pedersen's job was still to go into that Court and convince a majority of justices, ideological though they be, to rule DOMA unconstitutional. Even if his arguments were good and his motives were noble, his method didn't work.

This is precisely why I'm bewildered by why a plurality of voters in our district would want to send him to our state legislature--a place rampant with people beholden not to the state constitution but to their constituents who are very likely resistent to marriage equality--when Jamie has just demonstrated that he's not effective at overcoming ideological political opposition.

Moreover, the voters in my district had a choice of candidates who hae demonstrated their ability effect change under adverse conditions--again, Bill Sherman *successfully* helped block Newt Gingrich's Congress from selling parkland, destroying the Endangered Species Act, and ending habitat restoration efforts; and Stephanie Pure *successfully* restored 2.3 million dollars to the Seattle Public Library system, helped defeat the Teen Dance Ordinance, and saved the crossing-guard program--and yet they chose someone whose primary experience is in mergers and acquisitions and venture-capital financing and is endorsed by the Rental Housing Authority. I just don't get it.

That said, I am going to vote for Jamie in November but only because he's the better option than his Republican opponent. Despite Jamie's admirable pro bono support to important non-profits and his obvious intelligence notwithstanding, I'm skeptical that he's going to be effective at building the necessary coalitions to pass vital legislation that represents our district's interests. I hope he proves me wrong.

Posted by Todd | October 4, 2006 1:05 PM
18

My coworker at the gig I'm temping at worked at Preston Gates and Ellis. He says their accounting department was an absolute mess, that everyone held way too many meetings yet never accomplished anything, and they kept changing their office procedures over and over again, without much of a reason.

Clearly, Jamie's coming from a good, professional working environment.

Posted by Gomez | October 4, 2006 10:27 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).