Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | The Morning News »

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Seattle Times and PI Endorse Burgess

posted by on October 7 at 11:20 AM

news-lead-500.jpg

The PI’s endorsement is pretty vague:

The best choices for fresh blood are Bruce Harrell, who is seeking the Position 3 opening created by Peter Steinbrueck’s decision to leave, and Tim Burgess, who is challenging incumbent David Della for Position 7. Harrell and Burgess offer the potential for a higher level of performance on a council that can be close to brilliant on policy but still stumble on overall leadership, focus and collaboration with other government offices.

Blah blah blah. I’m not even sure what that means. Can someone provide me with an example of a moment when our city council was “close to brilliant” on policy or anything else?

The Seattle Times pretends to address Burgess’ troublesome history in their endorsement:

In Position 7, Tim Burgess receives The Times’ endorsement over incumbent Councilman David Della.

Burgess brings an impressive background in law enforcement, journalism, community activism and advertising work for nonprofit organizations….

Burgess has been characterized as too Republican, evangelical and anti-abortion, labels that don’t ring true. While having contributed to individual Republicans and penned a faith-based-values op-ed in The Times, Burgess describes himself as a progressive Democrat who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. More to the point, his police, business and neighborhood background will be an asset on the council.

Hm. The Seattle Times fails to mention of the years of work Burgess did for the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-female-equality group Concerned Women for America. That’s the major stumbling block for a lot of progressive, pro-choice, and pro-gay voters, not Burgess’ odd donation to GOP candidates or a single op-ed.

The problem many of us have with the now-infamous op-ed isn’t what it seemed to be saying—although there are problems with that, and I went into them at great length on Slog—but what the op-ed would seem to reveal about Burgess’ work with CWfA. It’s hard to read that op-ed without concluding that Burgess wasn’t just taking CWfA’s money because it was so green and plentiful, but because he actively supported CWfA’s goals.

In that early 2005 op-ed, Burgess—who, again, had long worked for one of the most conservative Christian groups in the country—offered some advice to Democrats on reaching “faith-driven values voters” like him. Those “values voters” had just handed the White House to George W. Bush for another four years. And it was Burgess’ use of coded right-wing rhetoric—rhetoric that could have been lifted right off a CWfA mailing (perhaps one written by Burgess’ consulting firm)—that has caused so much concern. Here’s one graph that progressives struggle with in particular:

Admittedly, we struggle with a lot of pressing issues. We don’t like abortion. We value the sacredness of marriage between a woman and man. We recognize that not everyone agrees with us and we know the law isn’t a good mechanism to resolve these issues, but moral persuasion is.

An op-ed by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared in the New York Times last Thursday—the same day, ironically enough, that Burgess and Della came to our offices for an endorsement debate. Titled “The Values Test,” Dobson’s op-ed uses language similar to the language Burgess used in his op-ed for the Seattle Times and Dobson stresses the importance of the same two issues—abortion and gay marriage—that Burgess stressed in his op-ed:

I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.

Burgess claims his positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the Concerned Women for America have all undergone recent and rapid evolutions. He claims that he’s now pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and anti-CWfA. And that may be the honest—and welcome—truth. That’s certainly the kind of evolution I’d like to see more “values voters” undergo. But the Seattle Times is being dishonest when it leaves Burgess’ long and lucrative association with CWfA out of its endorsement.

For more—and, some would say, more relevant—info about the Burgess/Della race, check out Erica C. Barnett’s piece in this week’s Stranger.

RSS icon Comments

1

@Seattle Times

Well I think it would have something to do with the majority of voters interests. I don't think gay rights is a 'big issue' for heterosexuals, regardless of their side on the issue. And it's definitely not something the anti-gay church-going family-caring voter will want to hear about. Same goes with abortion, but, you know, both sides get them.

@Della or Burgess

Duh. Burgess.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 7, 2007 12:44 PM
2

Like Kerry and Gore, this is a case where people are siding with an asshole because the other candidate simply sucks too much.

David Della is ineffectual and benign enough to shift people towards Burgess, despite Tim's issues.

Posted by Gomez | October 7, 2007 1:11 PM
3

@1 Gay rights are a huge issue for most of the urban heterosexuals I know. Abortion rights are also a huge issue for them.

Burgess is getting their backing despite his history as a consultant with CWfA. I believe he's getting their support (and the support of many gay and lesbians) for two reasons:

1. We believe him when he says he's not a bigot. I can't call him a liar after listening to him speak. I've heard him stand up for and speak honestly on many difficult issues.

For example, when asked recently by the APRI folks what Tim planned to do to stop the racist cops from pulling over black people in the Valley, Tim stood up, looked the crowd in their eyes and said, "I believe our police officers stand with the finest, most professional law enforcement groups in the country."

2. We don't believe Della. Della may have never worked for the CWA, but he's also never worked for abortion rights, gay rights, or anything else of substance while on the council. He's made a career of avoiding controversy. He took the popular stance on the viaduct. He took the popular stance on night clubs. He took the popular stance on the OPA. He took the popular stance on skate parks. He took the popular stance on lighting playfields. He took the popular stance on bike lanes / transit.

How many of your issues are you going to give this guy a pass on?

Della is still claiming credit for lowering utility rates!

I trust Burgess. I know I can't trust Della. Please don't take my opinion to mean gay rights aren't a 'big issue' to me or other Burgess fans.

Posted by DownWithDella | October 7, 2007 1:18 PM
4

What Gomez said.

@3

That's a good thing to know. Most of the heteros I know express that it's a big issue for them, but they don't display it. Nevertheless, I can't find the feel that the average heterosexual living outside the Hill will seek out 'gay rights' as one of their primary voting issues.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 7, 2007 1:21 PM
5

I can't help but beat my head against the nearest wall when I read this pathetic crap. Again, if this guy were running for governor or senator, this would merit a little more attention. But effectively asking me to vote for Della just because Burgess did some work for the CWA is akin to asking me not to vote for someone for dogcatcher because of their position on supply-side economics. This is a pure example of pathetic, negligent news reporting that is effectively cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces.

Why not actually talk about the issues that he *would* vote for? The viaduct? The relationship between the city and developers? Oversight of SPD? How about it?

Posted by bma | October 7, 2007 1:29 PM
6

Please follow the link to ECB's story in this week's paper, bma, which will provide you with the info about the "issues." And please note: I assigned the piece to ECB because I wanted those issues aired in our pages too, not just all this gay crap.

I'm talking about this today--after being silent about for weeks and weeks--because the Seattle Times op-ed required a response.

And, again, we may be voting for Burgess for the council today, but a city council seat can launch a political career. So considering how a candidate for the city council -- or county council or school board or any other elected position -- might vote on gay rights or choice is totally legit.

Finally, we haven't asked you to vote for anyone yet. Our endorsements aren't out yet and we're torn about this race. Hence the writing. If it was an easy call, we wouldn't be wasting our time on it.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 7, 2007 1:44 PM
7

@4 it is my primary voting issue for candidates, and 90% of my political paraphernalia is gay oriented despite my breeder status.

And while i may be an exception, does the general population really function on litmus tests. even with abortion, it usually coincides with other progressive tendencies with occasional exceptions like Arlen spector

Posted by vooodooo84 | October 7, 2007 1:47 PM
8

Can we see the dinner menu please?
There's nothing on the lunch worth having.

Posted by old timer | October 7, 2007 2:33 PM
9

I think Burgess represents where many Seattlites are on gay rights issues: he comes from a conservative (ignorant) background, and out of necessity and exposure he has changed his mind. He's been honest and forthcoming, willing to interview extensively about this, and I admire how he's handled the process. Seems like Burgess is a man of integrity, even if his understanding and application of his core values has changed over the years. I first and foremost want men and women of integrity on the Council; it's snakes such as Della who frighten me and who hold the council back.

Posted by Katelyn | October 7, 2007 3:06 PM
10

PS those endorsements WERE dodging the issues. They should have at least been specific about the REASONS Burgess "has been characterized" as all those undesirable things.

Posted by Katelyn | October 7, 2007 3:09 PM
11

#3 - Down with Della - You are full of shit.

How can you post such blather - and out right lies?

I have know David Della for almost 20 years. He is the most gay supportive person on the council next to Sally and Tom. Where do you get off blemishing his reputation with the whisper campaign, " he does not work for gay rights". His campaign manager is a young very nellie gay guy, recently honored by GSBA as a student.

He donates time and money, marches in pride, worked on linking gays with the Asian Communities, voted to fund gay projects, and HE HAS DONE EVERYTHING ever asked.

Why do you think real barometers of his gay support, SGN and SEAMEC have both endorsed him? And those endorsement are never easily given ... SEAMEC is the stiffest political interview in the city. Pols who are not informed hate it.

Go suck some hot air, silly stooge for Burgess. And get some facts to replace the obvious snide, demeaning, whisper campaign.

Posted by Kip | October 7, 2007 3:24 PM
12

I am voting for Della.

I think the lack of information here is just astonishing.

Dave voted along with Licata just weeks ago to review the cops more strongly. That is a hard core progressive stance going back a decade. Seattle cops need more citizen oversight.

Yet he gets no credit. What is this impossible standard this common touch old radical must meet?

Ah, yes, Dave needs to be a ex cop and paid Public Relations Liar who works for hate mongers ... and white helps, since white gives attributes of "potential" and "possible better leadership" and ..... you know the drill.

Geez ...

Posted by Perez | October 7, 2007 3:37 PM
13

To keep things balanced, why doesn't someone at The Stranger ask Della how his faith informs his decision making or if it does?

Posted by Alcina | October 7, 2007 3:40 PM
14

The similar graph breaks and use of "..." in Perez and Kip's posts makes me think they were written by the same person.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 7, 2007 3:41 PM
15

Ecce Homo! You're exposed!

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 7, 2007 3:44 PM
16

Just to measure what is at stake here, I wondered how often a council seat serves as the launching pad for a political career.

Working my way backwards to from the bottom of this chronological list of Seattle City Council members, I had to scroll up past a lot of names before I found anybody -- Norm Rice -- who had made it to higher office from the council. I don't know how far back you have to go before you find anybody who actually reached an office where they might get to vote on the abortion and the gays and the moralism. I didn't see anybody who went on to the governor's office or the US Congress, or a cabinet seat even.

The idea that the city council is the farm team for our national leadership is a nice theory, but history doesn't bear that out. The well-worn path from attorney general to governor to the presidency seems far more important. The Seattle city council is not so much a political launching pad as a death bed.

Maybe if you hate Burgess so much you should send him there just to get rid of him.

Posted by elenchos | October 7, 2007 3:47 PM
17

The most pressing city issue for me is our waterfront. On that issue alone, I am voting for Burgess. We need strong leadership, and Della has failed. He's for a viaduct rebuild; Burgess is not. I'm gay and do not feel threatened by Burgess' evolution on social issues. City Council positions may be a stepping stones to higher office, but recent history suggests otherwise. The vast majority of former council members forego elective politics or make a run for lateral positions elsewhere (school board, etc.)

Posted by Polka Party | October 7, 2007 3:58 PM
18

Hey, elenchos, I've acknowledged before that a seat on our city council doesn't seem to be a golden escalator.

But the general point is valid: any elected office can launch a political career. We have a right, then, to scrutinize not just a wannabe pols positions on stuff he'll be voting on if he wins the office he's after right now, but his positions on stuff he may vote on if he goes on to higher office later.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 7, 2007 4:01 PM
19

Personal beliefs / personality / behavior matters even if a politician never aspires to higher office.

The man is asking for our vote. We have a right to ask where he stands on issues important to us.

Good politicians and good leaders welcome these conversations. They answer phone calls from their critics. They don't threaten their opposition.

@11 - He marched in a parade!! What local politician hasn't marched in the Pride Parade? You have a forum. Please tell us anything specific your friend has done.

Posted by DownWithDella | October 7, 2007 4:16 PM
20

Dan,
Let's see.
You're a sex columnist and part-time porno judge who admits on the radio that he screams at his kid, who makes a living telling tales about his kid....oh, and a rapid Monorail guy...oh, and a guy who argued for the Iraq war....

....and we're supposed to pay attention to you?

Posted by Who elected you God, Dan? | October 7, 2007 4:21 PM
21

@6:

And, again, we may be voting for Burgess for the council today, but a city council seat can launch a political career. So considering how a candidate for the city council -- or county council or school board or any other elected position -- might vote on gay rights or choice is totally legit.

Okaaaay... but you've conveniently forgotten that this guy does not have any experience in an elected office at *all*. If he takes some nasty stands in Council for right-wing positions, then yes, vote him out of office and do everything in your power to keep him from running again.

But this "stepping-stone to a higher position tomorrow" argument is garbage, as it means nothing for the city or the administration of the Council *today*. Aside from these vague attacks about his dalliances with the right-wing, nothing substantive has emerged from the coverage from The Stranger that has even *suggested* that he'd be bad for the job.

To quote from ECB's story:

Among other things, Della refused to take the City Light committee after a campaign focused on incumbent Heidi Wills's failure of leadership on that very committee; he was a staunch supporter of a larger new Alaskan Way Viaduct; and he routinely votes for tax giveaways to companies like Paul Allen's Vulcan.

...

On the campaign trail, Burgess has repeatedly said he supports marriage equality and abortion rights. He has received endorsements from many progressive groups and individuals, including the 34th and 46th District Democrats, Podlodowski and gay state Representative Joe McDermott. Podlodowski says she believes Burgess when he says he supports marriage equality and other progressive values.

So yes, there are some things to be concerned about, and hey, a news story about it is fine. (More than the anti-choice pasts of Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich have received in the mainstream media, in fact!) But are we really empowering some future GWB (or even a Dave Reichert) by voting for this candidate? Hardly. And hey... I *don't* want to have to scrutinize every school board candidate for their foreign policy views or positions on stem-cell research, just in case they do end up running for president.

In fact, I think that it might be best to try to explain how you think that continuously beating a dead horse regarding this, and consequently pushing more of the electorate to Della, does *anyone* a service.

Posted by bma | October 7, 2007 4:22 PM
22

I greatly sympathize with gay marriage advocates, but unfortunately Della has been pretty much dead weight on the council. Nice enough guy and his head's (basically) in the right place, but my vote's gonna have to go to Burgess.

...although I thought the fight against the 4 story QFC in Queen Anne was ridiculous, and Burgess prides himself for stopping that project...

bah! rock and a hard place.

Posted by Cale | October 7, 2007 4:24 PM
23

Yes there is a stepping stone from city and county councils.

Dan is not suggesting it is automatice.

Mike Lowry went from the King County Council to Congress in 1978.

Already mentioned is Norm Rice from City Council to Mayor.

Gary Locke went from the Legislature to King County Executive and then to Gov.

Posted by Mary | October 7, 2007 4:35 PM
24

Cale - the stuff about the new QFC on Queen Anne is his only civic activsm as far as I can tell.

Big fucking deal - stopping an attempt in replacing a structure 80 years old with a new up to code and all modern mixed use building. Stop that horror of horrors and claim it is big time activism.

I like shopping in modern buildings, up to code, with larger displays and better selections. And some new housing sorely needed in that neighborhood.

But, because Burgess did it - it is so very important - he is a PR smarty indeed.

Thin resume, but a good talker for some. I think he is cold and flat in person.

Posted by Nate | October 7, 2007 4:52 PM
25

Most of the reason I respect Dan Savage enough to read his blog posts is that he is a sex columnist, porno judge, pothead, and convicted GOP Iowa primary monkey-wrencher.

That carries a lot more weight than two opposing political campaign operatives posting under sock puppet handles. Why don't you two just use "Della Flack"? You're not fooling anybody and it certainly isn't helping your guy win.

Posted by elenchos | October 7, 2007 4:53 PM
26

Oops -- I meant to say "Della Flack" and "Burgess Flack". Those are cool names by the way -- feel free to use them.

Posted by elenchos | October 7, 2007 4:55 PM
27

Della is an idiot. He has to go-- the rest of this is just a big circle jerk.

Classic exhaustive reporting from ECB, too -- apparently the only transportation issues facing Seattle are the Viaduct and the Burke-Gilman Trail??

Posted by DellaFlack | October 7, 2007 5:09 PM
28

#24.. I am pretty sure we are in agreement...

I DON'T like the fact that he stopped that development.

Posted by Cale | October 7, 2007 5:12 PM
29

# 25 Is Dan running for office? Will he pass out joints at political rallies? Most of the stuff the city council works on is really boring, just try to watch a meeting on TV for more than ten minutes. I doubt Dan is into boring very much.

Posted by Quelloros | October 7, 2007 5:14 PM
30

Flack is a term for a public relations person. And, yes, Burgess was and is a highly paid flack.

Some Burgess hack needs to get his flack correct. Della flack would not call his client an idiot.

Elenchos, just curious, you are always very negative and down in your posts. Do you have any opinions of your own? Perhaps based on some cogent reflections and insightful life experience.

Posted by Robert | October 7, 2007 5:30 PM
31

Della and Godden are dumber than hammered shit.

Posted by geu geu | October 7, 2007 5:59 PM
32

Okay, 31 comments in and nobody has discussed their hard penises. Sigh.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 7, 2007 6:59 PM
33

@31 great argument, geu geu. you've convinced me! i was going to vote for della, but after learning that he is, in fact, "dumber than hammered shit" i'm switching my vote. well played.

i won't even get into the fact that the two people who you single out are a woman and a person of color. interesting coincidence. i guess the four white guys on the council are smarter than "hammered shit."

Posted by DellaFlack | October 7, 2007 7:14 PM
34

we're fucked either way. so the choice is obvious.

NO ENDORSEMENT.

Posted by wf | October 7, 2007 7:21 PM
35

Good lord... are we on THIS again? I thought that, after dragging Burgess through the mud, you had decided you agreed that his change of opinion was authentic and you LIKED him again. Make up your minds! And why, why do we keep letting them bait us on this? We've slogged about this ad nauseam.

Posted by watcher | October 7, 2007 7:45 PM
36

Fuck my cunt!

Posted by Tiffany Mertes Goldsmith | October 7, 2007 9:02 PM
37

@35 hear, hear. announce your endorsements or lack thereof and end this. enough already

Posted by vooodooo84 | October 7, 2007 9:08 PM
38

Um.

In 2005, Burgess was using the words "we" and "I" to describe social values that are abhorrent to me. That's AFTER Bush's reelection. Two years ago, Burgess was publicly saying "I firmly believe" hateful garbage that goes against everything I care about. In two years, he's turned from Jerry Falwell into Dennis Kucinich? Right. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Burgess is scum, period. He's a liar and a hypocrite. If he's really changed, let's see him do some significant work in the community, not in an elected office, for a little longer than TWO YEARS. In the meantime, I'm just not interested in voting for any Bushies in disguise.

Posted by Fnarf | October 7, 2007 9:14 PM
39

12. Dave voted along with Licata just weeks ago to review the cops more strongly. That is a hard core progressive stance going back a decade.

That is not hard core, and that is not progressive. It's a benign, symbolic gesture. Nothing came of it and nothing is going to come of it, because David Della's not going to do anything more than kindly ask for more ineffective accountability measures, just like the others on the council.

This sort of thing is exactly what David Della is all about, and it's why people are siding with Burgess in this race even though Burgess is morally corrupt.

Posted by Gomez | October 7, 2007 9:40 PM
40

Fnarf and Gomez - disagreeing with Burgess is fine and good, but he is far from "scum" or "morally corrupt". Both are pretty ridiculous charges and certainly don't give any credence to your positions, pro or con.

I've had the pleasure of meeting with Tim several times and having in depth discussions with him about his views and past. Tim is a good man - and smart, sharp, thoughtful, experienced and direct. I think he'll be a solid council member. I've worked with the council a lot, and I think Burgess is just the sort of person we need on the council.

And to you anti-Della folks - looks, I am supporting Burgess over Della, but Della isn't a bad guy either. I am very disappointed with him over some of his positions, and think he's been largely ineffective, but I would still trust him with my dog. I just don't think he should be on council any more, especially after flip flopping on the nightlife license and coming out in support of a viaduct rebuild.

Posted by Meinert | October 7, 2007 10:31 PM
41

Meinert - you really like you toast buttered on both sides.

There is no way a progressive gay man, or pro choice woman can think about Mr. Burgess helping to publish hate mail for years and years and years, raking in millions in cash, and not feel he is scum.

He was helping set up a greater hate climate in America, the polar opposite of the life work of many of us. Polar opposite. And that is not even a little OK.

For you, heavily invested in music, that is not so important. But give me a break, so the good old boys have met and talked and it is all going to be fine. The damage his work created, the lives it took mired in the hate and aggressive discrimination of the era, no it is not OK. Not one little bit.

Just ask him how he feels about the lives he helped destroy with all those mailers and all the ultra right wing propaganda he put out. Meinert, you have been suckered. Lots of people have been suckered. That is how propaganda works.
I would love to read some of those old Burgess edited hate mailers, they must be around somewhere. I have seen several of the recent ones and CWA's web site - that is more than enough. Even today, Concerned Women of America churns out the old standard homophobia, lies and far right line.

CWA is my enemy. People who took their money thence helped to cause misery and suffering have no respect from me. Burgess should not be elected to the City Council. And, won't be.

And thanks, Fnarf. In the six months I have been reading Slog, you almost always make the most sense. And I think you are right, beyond all else, Burgess is a Bushie.

Posted by Adam Kelper | October 7, 2007 11:13 PM
42

I'm with 35 & 37. Cancel this spirited knowledgeable local political discussion. It's so boring.

Oh no wait, I'm not with them - I want them to shut up. That was it.

Posted by Sartbert | October 7, 2007 11:17 PM
43

EVERYBODY IS A BUSHIE!!!

Posted by CONSPIRACY!!! LOL!!! DAN SAVAGE RAPE PEREZ GAY FIRST | October 7, 2007 11:19 PM
44

Aw kids, I don't think that Burgess is scum. He's a nice enough fellow, if a bit of a cold fish on the campaign trail. But, he's an ex-cop, an ex-PR man for the Christian right, and his big community cause was fighting a neighborhood development on Queen Anne. Not to mention, he's an ethics scold who doesn't think his business ethics should be an issue in this race. Della started out as a Filipino community labor activist, did the non-profit thing and hasn't done anything more obnoxious than move Heidi Wills into the business of teaching poor kids how to play golf. Yet people are acting like Tim's a prize. What am I missing here?

Posted by J.R. | October 7, 2007 11:23 PM
45

You are missing the effect of manipulated media, an orchestrated whisper campaign, and perhaps a tad of racism.

And, the new Seattle which is about to jettison its old style lefty politics, ie. Tim Burgess, who in another city would be an outright R.

Posted by Paul Lafrance | October 7, 2007 11:36 PM
46

Adam - I think Burgess' work with CWA is a legitimate thing to be concerned about. I believe there are far more important issues than nightclub licenses and the music business in Seattle. Social justice, and protecting the rights of all people in the City, including members of the LGBT community, is much more important to me than a new business license. Education and the environment rank right up there with social justice concerns. Issues of gay rights, especially marriage equality are also a huge concern. I personally don't think I could endorse someone who was against full marriage equality, even if they weren't going to vote on that issue.

I am not endorsing a candidate who is currently working with CWA, I am endorsing one who did, who realized then that it was a mistake and has honestly and openly spoken about that mistake. Burgess supports marriage equality, is pro-choice, etc. He, like many people including myself, USED to believe many things he now doesn't. Most people, unlike maybe yourself and Fnarf, evolve as they move through life. They make mistakes, learn from them, and grow.

I think Burgess fucked up bad working with CWA. And I can understand how that mistake could keep someone from voting for him. But I have met with him and discussed it and am convinced, along with many other progressive gay men (and women) and pro-choice women, that he has grown and is the best person in this race.

I don't think I've been suckered, and neither do many very progressive people with years of experience working in politics. Maybe we're wrong, it happens. All I can say is that I only endorsed Burgess after doing a lot of research on him and meeting with him in person several times. I don't make this endorsement lightly. Endorsing a Christian ex-Cop is something I never expected I'd do. Of course, I never thought I'd hang out with ex-chief of Police Stamper drinking whiskey either. Fortunately, people grow, and this should be something we encourage, even on message boards where it's easy to hide behind our screens and cast dispersions we don't have to face up to.

Tim Burgess is the best candidate in this race. If you live in Seattle and care about transportation issues, social justice, the environment, and making the city a better place for business, Burgess is the candidate you should vote for.

Posted by Meinert | October 7, 2007 11:39 PM
47

41. Meinert, keep in mind you were never a target of any cause he worked for, so it's pretty easy for you, as someone who shot the shit with him and had him help causes of yours, to blow his history off.

Also, if you're gonna give us crap for calling out Burgess, you should actually give the paper crap instead, since they're the ones making a story of this.

Posted by Gomez | October 7, 2007 11:55 PM
48

Gomez - I have a mother, sisters, neices, and close friends and family members who are gay, so while I may not be female or gay, any attack on either is very personal to me. So you can't so easily dismiss my support of Burgess, let alone his support from gay and lesbian leaders like Tina Podlodowski and State Rep. Joe McDermott, 34th district, who says:

"From personal conversations I have had with Tim, I know he is a firm supporter of LGBT issues. He is a full supporter of marriage equality. And I’m a full supporter of Tim.”

I am not giving you crap for calling out Burgess. Like I said, I think his involvement with CWA is a legit story, and I think it's proper for Savage and The Stranger to cover it. Call Burgess out all you want, I think he can take it, and I think he has answered your concerns. But calling Tim "scum" or "morally corrupt" when you don't know him is far from an intelligent discussion of this race, or of his or Della's work, leadership abilities, or positions.

Posted by Meinert | October 8, 2007 12:21 AM
49

Ed Murray has ten times more credibility than Joe and Tina combined - and of course, he supports Della.

Tina has not played any role in LGBT politics for a long time, and all of a sudden she is the gatekeeper. She is currying favor at City Hall for her own reasons.

Ed is a political force in the State, the leader. Joe is a nice guy from West Seattle who is apparently quite stubborn in the face of facts.

Meinert, take your clues from the strongest political leaders who are GLBT. Sally Clark has endorsed Della, her contemporary on the council. Sally is not a retired leader.

Posted by Adam Kelper | October 8, 2007 12:42 AM
50

This is SO beyond a candidate supporting/opposing gay marriage. Some even suggest what do city issues have to do with a right wing social candidate. Would you support someone that worked with and wrote favorable articles about the KKK a few years ago and suddenly called themselves a "progressive" when they decided to run for local office?

Posted by Touring | October 8, 2007 12:50 AM
51

Meinert...I too think you've been taken in. I sincerely believe that Burgess will turn on the nightclubs issue.

I've concluded, from the evidence, that Burgess not only was, but remains philosophically conservative. The now-famous op-ed leaves me no choice but to conclude he voted for Bush, and scolded Seattle over it. I do political and PR work, and can't fathom doing anything for CWfA. If these issues were 10 years old, and he had some history of working for progressive issues, I'd likely believe him now. But, that's only 2 years ago that he wrote that op-ed, and just recently, was the leading voice looking to shut down strip clubs in Seattle. Every public position he's taken prior to running for office in Seattle was not progressive, so far as I'm aware. Has he ever supported any progressive issues prior to running for this office?

As for this mattering? Of course it matters. Look at the role that City government in San Francisco has played in changing the discussion on issues such as gay marriage. The city can legislate on partner-benefits issues and a whole host of creative things to move that issue forward. But, beyond that, true progressive values are frequently at play in council votes.

Perhaps Burgess has had a change of heart; I don't consider the Seattle City Council to be the minor leagues. Let him cut his chops on working on the ground for some progressive issues, and then let him come back to us in a few more years with legitimate credentials as a progressive.

Posted by Timothy | October 8, 2007 3:25 AM
52

I repeat -- Burgess wasn't just "working for" the anti-abortion, anti-gay forces. He WAS them. Two years ago.

I think pols should be accountable for what they say and do. Two years ago -- TWO YEARS AGO -- Burgess was saying "I" and "we" about the enemy. Those were not just paid political jobs; they were coming from HIM.

If he's had a change of heart, that's great. Let's see it in action first, though. Let's see him work for the community he was trying to destroy just two years ago for a little while before we give him a free pass.

I think he's changed out of political expedience. He rode a losing horse and now he's getting back on a progressive one. I don't see why we want people like that. And I'm a moderate, part of the pro-business base that's supposed to be in favor of people like Burgess. But I'm not buying it. Actions have consequences.

Posted by Fnarf | October 8, 2007 6:10 AM
53

Why has Burgess had a free pass on the strip club vote? He was militantly in favor of outlawing strip clubs, just a year ago or so. ( Is that his Civic Activism?)

That issue and the public outcry to put the morality mommies and cops back into the bottle was not just amusing, but, tells a lot about the type of city progressives and liberals like to have.

The vote was over whelming FOR strip clubs.I don't know a single person who agreed with blue nose ex cop person of faith Bugress.

And maybe that is part of his appeal to some people - those who remember some message in their childhoods that naked ladies are evil. Maybe some people think Seattle needs a morality monitor, and it is Burgess. Ex cop straight arrow will help mainstream and clean up the city.

Stranger readers and posters, did you all agree to not ban strip clubs to vote onto the council someone who didn't like them cause the DEVIL lives in them?

I think I fear those who fear naked bodies most of all. They are like the morality police from some back Victorian century.

Posted by Henry Johnson | October 8, 2007 8:19 AM
54

so, you're endorsing him? or maybe there's a College Republican mounting a write-in campaign?

Posted by josh | October 8, 2007 8:22 AM
55

@51 - I don't need to worry about the possibility of your scenario, we all lived it with Della who originally came out against any license, and then voted for one.

You can, without any firsthand knowledge, try to vilify Burgess, but when it comes to the issues, he is the better candidate.

Do you want the viaduct rebuilt? Vote Della

Do you favor the surface/ transit options for the viaduct? vote Burgess

Do you favor a nightclub license that could allow venues to be closed by almost any reason the mayor wants? vote Della

Do you want someone who sees music venues as legitimate businesses who need oversight, but sensible oversight, and who will lead on taking a stand to get better policing at the same time? Vote Burgess

and on and on and on.

Posted by Meinert | October 8, 2007 9:17 AM
56

We need some militant leaders for a while or you liberal comi-pinko bedwetters will continue running this city. T. Weymiller

Posted by Toby Weymiller | October 8, 2007 9:18 AM
57

Meinert...I am not without firsthand knowledge. I work these issues. I understand the difficulty that one might have voting for Della. I just believe that Burgess is not the answer; it is very easy for him to say certain things now that he's running, and then to change later. As you say yourself, you experienced that with Della. The point is, with Burgess, when he changes? We don't just get an ineffectual council member who has done little to merit re-election; we get a very polished, whip-smart Conservative who can wedge these issues. He's shown his smarts by garnering the endorsements of you and others who I think are true progressives, without a single pre-election progressive stance to his name and plenty of conservative credentials in his baggage.

When he turns? It will be a different game altogether.

Posted by Timothy | October 8, 2007 9:51 AM
58

Timothy - I considered this very thing before endorsing him. Although, you are totally incorrect about him not taking progressive stances. He has taken many, and very important ones. He is pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage(unlike Hillary or any major Dem running for President). More than that, he understand how to combine progressive stances while still being pro-small business.

Your point about Burgess being whip smart and effective is important.
He is very much an environmentalist, one of the most important issues in front of us, and one that touches on policy decisions before the council all the time. We don't just need someone who will vote the right way, we need someone who will lead on this issue. Burgess can do this, Della has shown he won't.


Keep in mind, this is a race between Della, an incumbent with a known record and Burgess. Those are our choices. Period. Bottom line, neither are perfect, but Burgess is the better choice.

Posted by Meinert | October 8, 2007 10:04 AM
59

Meinert...comparing Burgess to the Dems running for President on the marriage issue is disingenuous; it's a completely different race in a town with a markedly different demographic than the national demographic.

Was Burgess pro-choice prior to running for office? Can you find any evidence of it? Was he pro-gay marriage prior to running for office? Can you find any evidence of that? I think the op-ed from 2005 shows he was neither of these things.

But, what has me scratching my head now is wondering why you are going to the mat for him? This is becoming fascinating.

Posted by Timothy | October 8, 2007 10:10 AM
60

i usually like what fnarf has to say. he's even said some very interesting things about people of faith in the past -- about how not every religious person is moral scum and harmful to society (if i am remembering correctly).

but fnarf's take on burgess seems strangely opposed to that.

i wanted to write that op-ed tim wrote just a couple of years ago. i see how many people of faith surround me, and how they were courted by one party but not the other. most of these people are "values voters" but also happen to value equality. believe it or not, many are in favour of equal-rights in marriage.

tim made money off the enemy (he worked for them, then recused himself and other staff memebers, then dropped the client), and for that he should be held accountable. but i don't think two years ago he was one of "them". i think two years ago he was trying to bridge a gap.

he did not succeed on this board. because today, two years later, many here still see any person of faith as a them. but i'm not sure the general public sees him as the enemy.

you might not vote for him. but you'll probably be glad if he wins considering what he actually believes.

Posted by infrequent | October 8, 2007 10:10 AM
61

This one is a really tough choice for me.

During his time in city council, Della has gone against some pretty big issues that I believe in-- especially on the viaduct rebuild. But then again Burgess voted for Bush... twice.

The only difference is that Burgess now SAYS he'll do differently.

I dislike Della's stance on some of the issues, but Burgess's past values that his lived with for the majority of his life really bug me. I can't have a clear conscience voting for someone who was so actively against LGBT issues and voted for Bush both times.

But then again I don't want our waterfront fucked up.

Decisions, decisions.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 10:26 AM
62

Meinert - NARAL, those longtime FEMINIST experts on abortion did not think Burgess pro choice at all.

Why have you substituted your wisdom for theirs? Come on. He did an in person interview with their board, and after that, at once they voted an endorsement of his opponent. "We were not fooled, and I almost reached across the table and slapped him" said Karen Cooper, Ex. Director - or words to that effect.

NARAL doesn't like his position on abortion, but, you tell us will all the yeah yeah yeah in the world he is pro choice. What gives?

I gave a fair amount of money to NARAL every year, and THEY are it when it comes to issues of choice. And you dismiss them totally out of hand? You know the issue better than they do when it comes to Burgess?

Posted by earl | October 8, 2007 10:51 AM
63

First, I don't think Burgess voted for Bush ever. Everything I know about Tim tells me he hates Bush's policies. If you have any actual evidence that counters this please share it.

As for NARAL, I think the work they do is awesome. I have donated to them as well. However, I don't take any group or individual endorsement as the bible, NARAL included. I have actually had the pleasure of sitting down with Tim and talking to him personally. I think he's the best choice. And I think Karen Cooper was completely reactionary in her statement about Burgess - Her statement sounds like it comes from an internet chat board, not from a respected community leader. It would be interesting to hear what people would think if a male said the same about a female in an endorsement interview.

Tell me this - what has Della done on Council in the last 4 years to support choice? Was NARAL's endorsement of Della based on anything Della has DONE while on council? I think Burgess and Della's position on choice is the same. So if this is your issue, it's a tie with them, NARAL's reactionary endorsement aside.

Posted by Meinert | October 8, 2007 11:15 AM
64

@62: NARAL leaders didn't actually object to Burgess' current position on abortion, they objected to the fact that even as he was claiming pro-choice credentials, he was making a living producing anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-woman propaganda through the 2004 presidential election. NARAL can't risk endorsing a candidate who says one thing publicly, yet does the opposite when he thinks nobody's looking.

Posted by J.R. | October 8, 2007 11:22 AM
65

Infrequent @60: what part of "we" in that 2005 op-ed is making you think he wasn't one of "them"? He supported George Bush, and he opposed gay marriage, and he opposed abortion rights, TWO YEARS AGO. Him personally, not his client.

I am interested in building bridges to people of faith. Burgess's miraculous conversion from extreme Bushism should be congratulated. But not rewarded with city council votes. IN SEATTLE, which is a liberal city, Bushism should be punished. I won't vote for a Bush supporter, period. Burgess was a Bush supporter. As far as I'm concerned, that means Burgess supported the use of torture. This is a brick wall for me: Bush = NO.

In a state or national election, I would probably look at things differently.

There really isn't any more to it than that.

Posted by Fnarf | October 8, 2007 11:22 AM
66

I read Burgess' 2005 op-ed and conclude he voted for Bush. I would struggle to read it any other way. If indeed he voted for Kerry, I think he'd be shouting that. He wrote the op-ed. He's been evasive on the question. I conclude he voted for Bush, and I think that is the only credible conclusion given the evidence that we have.

What has Della done? From my vantage point, not much. But, at least he's been somewhat ineffectual doing "not much." What I don't want is an effectual Bush supporter in his place.

Listen, I actually believe that Tim Burgess is coming around to see the World through progressive eyes, and I welcome him into the Tent. I just don't think his first stop as a newly-minted progressive should be in the Seattle City Council. I'd happily work along side Tim Burgess in the trenches of progressive issues. Given some experience, I'd be very open to believing that he's a new man. But, given the gravity of the positions he's supported in the past, I can't support him yet for this important position.

Posted by Timothy | October 8, 2007 11:23 AM
67

Burgess says he’s pro-density, yet he led the opposition to bring density to his Queen Anne neighborhood. Go figure.

Posted by BB | October 8, 2007 12:14 PM
68

The Burgess stop the new QFC counter culture movement, so very important for its implications to the rest of the word, IMHO is/was the epitome of NIMBY at is very worst.

Tear down old non code grocery, full block site, replace with new QFC, underground parking, mixed retail and apts. on top.

Only the elite at the top of Queen Ann would not be delighted.

There were added landscaping perks and lighting and exterior upgrades.

Burgess is proud he stopped the 21 st century. I have no doubt QFC could sue and make millions off the city, they are being nice and just moved their efforts to another project.

NIMBY is such an ugly acronym.

Posted by Karla | October 8, 2007 3:49 PM
69

this whole episode is just proof that too many secular liberals don't know how to understand what evangelicals are saying. Burgess was not speaking some secret coded language, but trying to articulate how a group of people understand themselves.

cut out the self-righteousness for a while and try actually listening to people.

Posted by Kevin Erickson | October 9, 2007 11:06 AM

Comments Closed

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