What's Tim gonna do, ban abortions in Seattle?

I held my nose and voted for Tim. Della is lame.

"It's a really effective mayor--particularly if you know little about Della..."

A ha ha ha hah ha *koff*

Please DO NOT fix this precious l'il slip of the fingers!

You are so weird.

The Della campaign opposition research fed you all the leads on this crap. The Stranger went bananas over it. After you wrote non-stop about it for two weeks, you decided it didn't amount to much, and gave Burgess a half-hearted endorsement.

And now Della completes the circle and touts the very same dirt you were "reporting" on. Fair enough.

Why do you act shocked? You are not just a reporter here. You're part of the story, Erica.

"The Della campaign opposition research fed you all the leads on this crap."

--Not true. I did NOT get the Burgess/CWA story from the Della campaign.

elenchos,
sigh. we come out against prop. 1 and people scoff that we're predictable. we come out for Burgess and you call us weird. what are we to do?

p.s. ECB didn't get that stuff from the Della campaign. She got it by going to the district endorsement meetings where everybody had been talking about it for weeks. Any reporter could have gotten it. ECB thought to write about it first.

GASP!!! It's was green?!

Your entire second paragraph can be re-used by a Republican nearing end of '08 when we finally spring all of the dirt we have on Rudy immediately before the election. And you will probably post/comment on it. With utter interchangeable behavior.

Those actions will be really effective, particularly if you know little about Rudy and Hillary.

I'm not surprised at all. This seems very typical for Della, who definitely gives off the sleaziest vibe on the city council. Between this kind of dirty politicking, his ineffectual service on the council, and his veiled threats to the police and firefighter's unions, he deserves to tossed on his ass.

I've reluctantly decided to hold my nose and vote Burgess. Anything to get rid of this fucker.

....and where do you think the people at the district Dems meetings heard the rumor from?

My guess is that it originated from Della's campaign.

Same dif.

Josh, Erica, and Dan,

The reason I call you weird is that you act like you have no idea how the Della-Burgess race got so dirty.

The Stranger did everything it could to make it a dirty campaign. Don't pretend you had nothing to do with it when you wrote five times as many words about bullshit as real issues. You sent a clear message to each camp: The Stranger will devote inches to gossip, hearsay and every kind of mud you have. Substance, about things that matter, will get perfunctory mention, at best.

The Della campaign was pushing the CWA story and the other off-topic bullshit and none of the dailies or the Weekly were interested. It wasn't until you all were flogging it on The Slog that it started to get any attention. And after all that hand-wringing, the SECB finally reached the same conclusion that the Times and the PI did when they first sniffed it and found it un-smelly: there is nothing there.

The far larger issue is how pathetic it is when The Stranger laments that our crop of city council candidates is so weak, and their campaigns are so sensationalistic. Look at how much time you devoted to explaining the mechanics of Burgess' PR firm's relationship with their client the CWA. What if you had devoted that much time and space to sexing up the real business that comes before the Seattle City Council?

@8 Public information-- ever heard of it?

Burgess' donations: public record
Contract groups (like the company Burgess owned) employed by 501c3 groups like Concerned Women for America: public record
People in the District Democrats organizations who actually do due diligence on some guy who came out of nowhere and claims to be progressive: priceless.

I'm a little disappointed that good reporters (for the most part) at The Stranger haven't had a little fun with the fact that TIM BURGESS + the firefighters were out drinking with Venus Velazquez on DUI Night. What does that say about their judgment and heroism?

The Stranger covers City Hall better than the dailies in this town. They covered the Burgess story because it was newsworthy. Even if you support Burgess, his history of working for right-wing wingnuts is certainly news. Especially for someone who has always held himself up to be a moral scold.

Vote for Steve Pool.

I'm still voting for Steinbrueck.

if only some of this energy went into actually being a councilmemeber

What cretinous portion of the citizenry would base their city council vote on candidates' positions on abortion? Total WTF. If that's who Della's courting then my mind is made up, and I'm wincing a little bit and voting for Burgess.

Call me nutty, but I'd call an editorial that a candidate wrote two years ago for a major daily pretty strong evidence of a candidate's convictions. Who honestly does 180 degree turns on a variety of major issues in 720 days?

Remember guys. The Stranger = Theater. Rise up. Rise down. Your emotions. More comments. More hits. More ad revenue. The Stranger are very good at it.

Did Tim Burgess drive after " a couple of drinks" - good question

I. Need. Coffee.

$14

You are not even a voter..... Seattle is 80 percent pro choice, and very feminist.

Get a grip, of course it is an issue.

NARAL has endorsed Della, strongly, a key supporter indeed.

What Chas said. It's impossible for a thinking person to read Burgess's editorial from TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO and not see him as a purebred Bushie who's now changed his tune, slightly, but not his outlook. He's a stealth Republican. You're rewarding the people who put Bush in office and then crowed about it. Disgusting. The worst pick you have ever made.

we should go to war with women. we'd so win

I am gay and I cannot believe any gay person would vote for Burgess. All the involvement with Concerned Women of America is just poison. Right now, as we speak, Concerned Women of America is still out there, the leading national opponent of civil rights for gay people in DC.

As we speak, trying to push us into the closet. And some of the timid, sheepy fags and dykes are supporting him. Love the oppressor, so bizarro. He has them hoodwinked somehow. I and my friends have talked about this a lot recently, and it makes no sense at all.

Maybe we should have a kiss the KKK day.

Burgess makes me shutter in horror. And Dan Savage's paper endorsed him, while Dan goes around the country telling students about coming out and building community.

Is everybody forgetting the evil that is David Della? This isn't a decision they wanted to make, you morons.

@3 & @8: The Concerned Women for America story wasn't a rumor, it was a fact and it was very helpful for many voters in figuring out who Tim Burgess really is. It's the job of a reporter to print facts. If that makes the reporter "part of the story," so be it.

Evolved just in time to run for City Council. Convenient that.

I don't vote for the overly religious period, and I don't vote for anti-gay, anti-choice people who give money to fucking John McCain and Rob McKenna. Hell McKenna maybe, but John McCain. Give me a break.

Even if he can't fuck things up too bad on the City Council, what happens when he runs for higher office and uses the fact that he was elected in Seattle as proof of his moderate or liberal ways.

Fuck Burgess, at best he's a naive tool and at worse secret right-winger. Della might not do much, but compared to what Burgess could do thats a blessing.

David Della is not evil. That's ridiculous. He's not a great councilman but he's not evil.

BUSH is evil. Remember him? He's the guy that Burgess gave a slobbering blow job in the Times two years ago. What the fuck? I just can't believe that you'd support him. I can't believe that a serious voter would reward the worst thing that has ever happened to America that way.

I held my nose and voted for Della. Tim didn't sway me.

Yes, Fnarf. Yes, Giffy. I think you are well on your way to making your point that you think Burgess is a right winger. Probably 20, 30, more posts saying it again you will have done it for sure.

But aside from that...

Can you see why your way of thinking about this race has helped to tell each candidate that you are done listening to what they have to say about the viaduct or police accountability or the city budget? If you've made the race about things that are not on the council agenda, then you leave them no choice but to run a campaign that lacks substance just to get your attention. And as long as you want to evaluate candidates with these criteria, instead of their positions on actual issues, you are not going to get clean campaigns.

And on top of that, you are not going to get good candidates. People with good ideas on city policy are not going to be interested in waving ideological flags and trying to spin their entire life history to scrub away any hint of contact with "EVIL." You're pushing away anyone who just wants to get unglamorous work done and leaving the field open to nobody but ideologues and panderers.

Poe - you are just over the top. David Della ahs been endorsed by every political leader and organization that count for me. Including Ed Murray.

A labor activist, Asian leader, and nice family guy. Are you really such a simpleton about politics?

Elenchos, BURGESS IS THE IDEOLOGUE. Not Della. BURGESS is the one who has taken contemptible stands on national issues and then attempted to sweep them under the rug. Not Della, and not me.

You don't hear David Della talking about how much he loves the war, and torture, and the Patriot Act. That all comes from Burgess.

I didn't use the word "EVIL", Poe did, in reference to Della, not Burgess.

I really don't understand the Seattle Liberal. You rail against stuff you don't like, which is virtually everything, but the instant a chance to vote for the stuff you hate the worst comes up, you VOTE FOR IT. Why are you rewarding these assholes?

If Burgess had cut his wife and kids into little pieces and dumped them in the lake, would you still be saying "well, it's not a Council issue"? No, of course not. But what Burgess is a part of is worse than murder for more people in the long term.

Burgess also is willing to say whatever he thinks people want to hear to get elected. How can you be so sure that in two years he'll still favor your preferred options on actual city matters? He's a professional liar; he's not trustworthy.

I actually support Della's positions more often than I oppose them. Is he a great councilman? No. Is he better than Burgess? By a mile.

Do you really want a right-wing ideologue on the City Council? Granted, the City Council doesn't actually serve any function in this city anymore, but really?

This is a statement from Concerned Women of America, who as we speak, has taken the lead in Congress on opposing civil rights for GLBT people. Just emailed to me from a friend. Poe, THEY are evil, and their henchman, Burgess is close.

CWA Asks President for Veto Pledge on ENDA
Washington, D.C. — The full House is expected to vote on the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) this week. This bill would codify the very thing it purports to prevent — workplace discrimination — and threaten all Americans’ First Amendment rights. For this reason, Concerned Women for America (CWA) is asking President Bush to publicly pledge to veto ENDA.

Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, “ENDA pits the government directly against religion, which is unconstitutional on its face. It would force employers to check their First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door. It would make federal lawbreakers out of Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners who honor their faith and would require that newfangled ‘gay rights’ based entirely upon individuals’ sexual choices trump employers’ enumerated constitutional rights.

“ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption which would leave individual business owners entirely unprotected. For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, it would have to follow the individual business owner. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. This applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation. It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his business.

“ENDA would force business owners to betray their faith and adopt a view of sexual morality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of that faith. It would give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for an exemption. It represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys and would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith.”

Shari Rendall, CWA’s Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said of ENDA, “This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based on an individual’s changeable sexual behaviors rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or sex. Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. This bill is even more dangerous than pending ‘hate crimes’ legislation.”

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

I'm voting for Della. Not because he's a good candidate or because Burgess is worse. Della is obviously a little slow for the game; Burgess is easily competent. No, I'll vote for Della because he will be easier to oust next election and ineffectual in the meantime. Burgess would be tenacious in that office and, after removing his sheep's clothing, give us four years or more of finger-wagging Pagelerism.

Fnarf said "I actually support Della's positions more often than I oppose them. Is he a great councilman? No. Is he better than Burgess? By a mile."

I have to agree. And he still owes me lunch - remind me to collect on that.

Put it this way: do you REALLY trust a guy who supports torture to make the right decision on police accountability? Regardless of what he's saying now to get elected?

I would never hate anyone for thought crime: if somebody didn't share my opinions about gay marriage or abortion, I don't mind. The last thing you'll see me doing is seething and frothing over it: I learned a long time ago that I live in a world that contains many many people with ideas in their heads different than mine.

And when I see their ideas evolving closer to mine, I call that glass half full and count it as a victory.

What I'm interested in is what they will do, not what they are thinking. I can even imagine that if Burgess can win, it will attract other candidates who would have not bothered to run in the past for fear of failing some litmus test.

I haven't voted yet by they way: I'm going to hold off 'til the last minute, just to see who can keep themselves out of jail up until election day.

As far as saying Burgess supports torture because he said he likes the part of the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement agences to share information, well, I just don't follow your reasoning.

thought crime is such a far out concept - I can't get my mind around it

isn't it something like deeds follow thoughts?

did Hitler not have a detailed thinking/thought out plan for extermination of the enemy

I think knowing what leaders are thinking is paramount - the high school kid or ice cream truck driver not so important

Mr. Burgess's mind is really important to me, and so far, I think his thinking stinks

His editorial was a full-fledged support for the presidency of George Bush, and explicitly called for all of us to get behind him. That presidency includes torture. If you do not speak out against torture in this administration, you are SUPPORTING TORTURE. Period.

I think it's the most serious issue this country has ever faced, in conjunction with the untrammeled executive power that makes the expansion of torture a dead certainty.

Former Bushies need to be extremely vocal about REPUDIATING THE BUSH IDEOLOGY THAT THEY SUPPORTED. Period.

Torture is not a thought crime. Supporting torturing regimes in the newspaper is a political crime. I don't want it in Seattle.

Outside of the city, I might be willing to compromise, and look at candidates who have made genuine changes, but in the city, no. Ideas have consequences, to quote (right-wing) George Will, and one of those ideas is "George Bush deserves our support", and one of those consequences is "should never hold political office in this city". Period.

I just can't imagine how a liberal in Seattle could bring himself to vote for a vocal Bush supporter.

Add to that impossible baggage that Burgess is carrying, Della has the support of labor and Ed Murray, as others have pointed out, and the decision is pretty easy.

But hey, vote for the Bushie if you like. It's a free country.

I know Godwin's Law says at this point I'm wasting my time here.

But I have all day. Fnarf, can you quote the part of the editorial that voiced "full fledged support" for Bush? I can't find it. Where does it say he we should get behind Bush? It wasn't the sentence "We're leery of politicians who use God-words and quote Scripture" right? It wasn't the part about "God's special affinity for the poor and what that means for economic and social policy" or "Our religious pluralism is our strength."

Where is it? What are you reading?

Good god Fnarf! You too?

"You don't hear David Della talking about how much he loves the war, and torture, and the Patriot Act. That all comes from Burgess."

"...a guy who supports torture."

This has really gone around the bend.

elenchos, its a threshold issue for me. First you have to show me that you’re not a religious moron making decision based on “faith”, and then I'll listen to what you have to say. As far as I can tell, Burgess prefers faith to reason and his faith is the same sort of evangelical bullshit that’s causing all sorts of trouble. That’s a killer for me, no different then if he was a racist or liked to kill puppies. Add to that his active support for theocratic causes, and his only recent support for progressive values and he is not someone I want in office. I don’t even need to get to the level of the viaduct. People like him need to be stopped early and not allowed to gain power.

I could also care less what he supports regarding city issues if the reason he supports them comes from faith not reason. Is that too much to ask in one of the most educated cities in the country.

Giffy, as I was trying to say to Fnarf, I don't see what your basis is for saying he uses the kind of faith-based lack of reason you abhor. He specifically rejects Fallwell and Robertson. He talks about religion in pretty much the same terms as Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Barak Obama. The Times editorial goes so far as to reject creationism, and embrace science and reason.

So for a big exponent of reason, I don't see you using reason here. You're just painting him with a broad brush without citing any evidence for why he's guilty of the charges you make.

But hold on. I'm still waiting for Fnarf to pull out the quotes that make Burgess a Bush-loving snake-handler. Maybe he's got something for us...

Elenchos, you are right and I am wrong. I have reread the editorial and it does not say what I thought I remembered it saying.

I apologize to Tim Burgess as well for slandering him with bug-eyed "torture accusations.

I read that editorial in the white rage aftermath of the 2004 election, and understood it to be supporting both the injection of faith into politics and more generally support for the election results. I now see that that is not true.

I accept that Burgess is a legitimate Democrat.

Still ain't votin' for him, though.

But let's not forget that as Concerned Women for America worked hard in 2004 to re-elect President Bush, the firm owned by Mr. Burgess was preparing their propaganda. Maybe you're impressed that Burgess has done an about-face on just about every one of his former beliefs in the past three years, but it looks like a politically-motivated makeover to me.

@42

Oh... OK. I don't have a witty retort for when someone says I'm right. I have no problem if you don't vote for him if you don't like his positions.

nyc elected rudy
massachusetts elected mitt
california elected arnold

A council member's effectiveness in dealing with local issues should outweigh his opinions on national issues, which are not dealt with by city council members.

@45 and those were mistakes. We are now faced with the possibility of President Mitt to President Rudy. Wouldn't it have been nice if they had been stopped earlier.

Burgess = Good!
Della = Bad!

repeat.

Those of you who have strong opinions have already voted.

Those of you who haven't made up your minds aren't going to vote anyhow.

I want you all to know I'm keeping a list of who supported whom and I'm holding you all accountable to your opinions two years from now when we find out what Burgess really believes and when we've forgotten who Della was.

If you're so convinced he's a right-winger gay-hating Bush supporter, put your name on the list.

After two years, I'll buy you a beer for every anti-gay law he passes and a whiskey for every pro-Bush statement he makes while in office.

After two years, however, you'll have to buy me a whiskey AND a beer for every stand he takes with which the current editors of the Stranger agree.

After, ECB can give me a ride on the handlebars of her bicycle so I don't have to drive home drunk.

Uhm, McKenna's opinion on abortion is that he is pro choice. He has said so publicly and his campaign as councilman proclaimed it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rob+mckenna%22+abortion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a