Politics Re: The Verdict on Pedersen
posted by April 30 at 11:55 AMon
Defensive much, Eli?*
“Erica and Josh in particular” didn’t oppose endorsing Jamie Pedersen. Erica, Josh, Sarah Mirk, Annie Wagner, Dan Savage, and David Schmader opposed Pedersen. Everybody, that is, except Eli.
And while we did predict that Pedersen would be disappointing (particularly on issues of interest to renters, which turned out to be true), we didn’t say it would be “corrupt.” What we pointed out was that Pedersen would continue to work for Preston Gates & Ellis, a corporate law firm that lobbies the Legislature, while serving as a legislator, which struck us as a conflict of interest. (The actual endorsement expressed concern that Pedersen would be “too compromised and middle-of-the-road to be truly effective.”) As for “annoying”—well, I don’t know what that means, but I guess I was annoyed by Pedersen’s contention that money has no influence on politics. I certainly stand by my vote for Stephanie Pure. As I imagine the entire rest of the editorial board, all of whom voted against Eli, does.
* Generally, we don’t like to talk about our editorial endorsement process. However, since Eli brought this up, I feel compelled to respond. Having served on the Stranger’s edit board, unlike Eli, for the last four years (and on the Weekly’s edit board for two years before that) I can say that the process is always very contentious, and that heated arguments are extremely common.