Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on More Repubs for Reuven


more and more, i feel like this was the one endorsement The Stranger got wrong.

Posted by CM | October 27, 2008 6:53 PM

Erica, are you saying you think Carlyle will vote to decrease the minimum wage and cut family leave? Or what?

Posted by elenchos | October 27, 2008 7:17 PM

@1 Why? Because he took Republican money and spent it on ads pushing a progressive agenda? I think that's awesome. The Republicans aren't giving Carlyle money because they agree with him. They just fear latte tax Burbank more.

Posted by blargh | October 27, 2008 8:06 PM

@ 3:

Is it somehow a bad thing that "latte tax Burbank" is not for sale to the highest bidder? Apparently you think so.

Is it somehow a bad thing that Republicans "fear latte tax Burbank more?" Apparently you think so.

I don't live in the 36th anymore, but if I did I would damn sure support the candidate who "Republicans fear more." I *want* them to fear us.

Posted by ivan | October 27, 2008 8:20 PM

Republicans for Obama. Republicans for this Democrat or that Democrat.

How come I go to all the meetings at the 47th District and I never meet anyone who is for a Democrat or Obama?

Republicans are 100% McCain and 100% behind their party.

The rest is a lot of flim-flam from the remnants of the Weather Underground working for Obama.

Posted by John Bailo | October 27, 2008 8:26 PM

See, Ivan, I knew you would show up to push this sleazy innuendo.

Is there in fact a substantive criticism of Carlyle here? Do you have evidence that he is for sale? Is there anything in his policies that you'd point to that supports these vague allegations?

I think this is yet another example of using negative attacks because you don't have anything real to talk about. By all means, if you do have something real, then out with it.

Posted by elenchos | October 27, 2008 8:29 PM

This is a GREAT argument for the top-two primary system.

Carlyle narrowly won the most votes in the primary over Burbank. Under the old system, Carlyle would go on to stomp the token Republican, win a legislative seat for life, and become part of the Democratic establishment. But with the top-two, voters in the general election have a chance to see Carlyle's Republican leanings (or at least his Republican establishment big-money supporters) before they decide.

Posted by Matthew | October 27, 2008 8:30 PM

Carlyle is not responsible for the ads on his behalf, because they were made independently. BUT, has Carlyle publicly clarified his position on the issues of interest to these big funders? If not, then money talks.

Posted by Matthew | October 27, 2008 8:36 PM

The SECB endorsement of Carlyle is puzzling at best.

I thought (maybe) if Carlyle's riches came from wireless tower planning and infrastructure he might be good for large-scale green job projects (solar, wind). But it is looking more and more like he is just some fat cat executive that got rich off of idiots pining for wireless.
Present company excluded, of course.

Burbank came to our door and after talking with him, I was convinced. No contest.

Posted by Miss Stereo | October 27, 2008 8:58 PM

Elenchos @ 6:

I didn't say jack shit about Carlyle. I didn't even mention his name.

I do not dislike Carlyle, nor do I have any basis to attack his character. I don't like several of his big contributors -- like Glacier Northwest lobbyist Jamie Durkan, and the anti-living-wage Restaurant Association -- and I make no bones about it.

I don't much care what *you* think, because you're one of the whiningest little crybaby pissants who posts here -- and your vote is counted anyway.

But some voters in the 36th who have not voted yet might find this thread, and my comments in it, useful. We never know.

Posted by ivan | October 27, 2008 9:19 PM

All I know is that I'm getting some very pricey Carlyle adds in the mail right now. He's got the bucks!

Posted by mirror | October 27, 2008 10:32 PM

Carlyle seems like an edgy, short-tempered megalomaniac. I haven't seen him give a straight answer yet on mass transit, and he repeatedly tries to have it both ways on the environment and transportation. hI don't ahve great hope he someone who will bring people together, he's more of a lone wolf, in-it-for-himself kind of candidate.

Posted by buyer beware | October 27, 2008 10:44 PM

Albert Einstein said,“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Grow up, everyone. It's time for solving big problems together. Small minds can point fingers and wail about big bad business or "real" Democrats, but the truth is we need coalition-builders who will move everyone forward. Clearly Carlyle is that candidate.

Burbank is hugely divisive among and to Democrats.

All of this chatter has led me to VOTE CARLYLE.

Posted by looking for progress | October 28, 2008 7:02 AM

Actually, Enterprise Washington has sent out at least three emails for Carlyle - if the first cost them $3760, then I assume that they're now up to over $10,000. The first, from corporations woh have a mixed record of support for public education, touted his education credentials; the second, from a group that is funded by the likes of Weyerhaeuser, Chevron and Philip Morris, gushed over what a great advocate Carlyle would be for environmentalism; and the third sipmly talked about his endorsements. Carlyle's supporters complain that talking about his implies that he's going to sell out. With any other candidate, it would occur to them that these corporate interests aren't gambling with their contributions: they're supporting the candidate they WANT to see in office.

Posted by Paul | October 28, 2008 8:03 AM

Ivan, your comments are one of many things driving me to Carlyle, so you are making a difference, you're right about that, thanks.

Funny thing is: I've been getting recent desperate Burbank ads. The latest one was a hoot: "look, I can has Obama too!"

Posted by mackro mackro | October 28, 2008 8:23 AM

@ 13:

You want "coalition builders who will move everyone forward?" "Clearly Carlyle is that candidate?"

Based on what, please? Because Carlyle says so, and because it's what you want to hear? Or do you represent the outraged latte-drinkers' vote or something?

Where is the evidence, please? What coalitions do you think need building? What makes Carlyle any more qualified to build them, other than that he is telling you so to get elected?

Please demonstrate to me that the support for Carlyle is anything other than faith-based. Tell me why big business is supporting him to the extent that it is.

Please tell me how following the money is suddenly passé. Does money somehow mean nothing anymore in our new, hip, post-partisan, "transformational," "progressive" world?

Carlyle might become a perfectly good House member and a reliable liberal vote, but I wouldn't be inclined to vote for him based on the evidence that's out there. Most people who get that level of business support -- from those particular businesses -- can be expected to reward their contributors first.

If that's what you want, I guess you should vote for Carlyle. I guess that's why there are 31 flavors of ice cream.

Posted by ivan | October 28, 2008 9:01 AM

although I'm a relative newcomer to this city, I feel in love with it because of someone who grew up here.

Burbank to me is old Ballard/Phinney. He lives in the neighborhood and did knock on my door. He interrupted JEOPARDY!, but I forgive him.

Carlyle to me is Condo Overlord. All the talk of Wireless Entrepreneur to me = Dick Who Wants to Change Things To Even Worse

I realize this may be completely factually inaccurate but it's my PERCEPTION and ultimately, that's why I voted for Burbank.

It doesn't help that Reuven's got those ads with him running with a bunch of children through a park all wearing his t-shirt with their stupid, smiling faces.

Posted by CM | October 28, 2008 9:03 AM

After much thought, I voted Burbank.

He is not a smoothie, but, his real time political game is impressive. And the 500.00 shoes thing from business people who are going to save the state from politics is very stale. And stupid.

Burbank is solid as granite. Is he from Vermont?

Carlyle reminds me of new age people, hard to bring back to planet earth on ordinary issues.

Posted by Ken | October 28, 2008 9:06 AM

Well now, let's us realize a herd of children running en pack in high excitement over a political race is the most natural thing children can do.

I would rather have the political figure tell us how to get better schools.

How to get better health care incl. such basic stuff as vaccinations.

Give the kids a puppy and some soccer balls. And then feature their moms and dads talking about the hard problems we voters.

Duh. Photo op vs. substance, seems to me.

Posted by John | October 28, 2008 9:16 AM

I worked on the fundraising staff of a non-profit on which Carlyle sat on the board back in the mid 90s. As a board member he was a lot of happy talk and very little active engagement. Later, Burbank was on our staff helping to create housing and services for homeless people. He was all about getting shit done. Since that time he's had a great track record. Helping create a state minimum wage indexed to inflation was friggin awesome. Ok, the latte tax might have pissed a bunch of people off, and maybe been a stupid idea, but at least he's got the cajones to think outside the box. John has spent the last decade plus working on policies to benefit working families. Reuven has spent the last decade getting rich on wireless.

Posted by ubutunes | October 28, 2008 9:32 AM

Holy fuck, woman.

Break that shit down into paragraphs.

Posted by my eyes asplode | October 28, 2008 9:37 AM

You astroturf lurkers should be ashamed of yourselves. You show up right before every election and post these canned talking points that your campaigns handed out to you, and you think you're fooling everybody. It's pathetic.

Posted by elenchos | October 28, 2008 9:44 AM

#22 - yes, you are sour grapes a lot. (mother loved that phrase)

What is canned is your constant reply about some conspiracy of people who don't agree completely with you.

I have read no talking points, have no direct involvement in either campaign.

Like many folks who post here, I am an avid Democrat..... who lives and sleeps political fodder, since childhood. And a well versed Seattle native.

Truth be told, much more involved for Obama and Gregoire. Like most of us.

Posted by John | October 28, 2008 10:10 AM

Congratulations Seattle. Republicans have effectively been banned from the ballot and now are shrilly criticized even if they contribute to Democrats.

ECB, you might want to read a history of one-party states (spoiler alert: no happy ending).

Also, horse race stories like this add zero value to the debate. Concentrate on policy.

Posted by kk | October 28, 2008 10:24 AM

Sour grapes about winning, John? That makes sense.

Calling someone paranoid is a weak argument, if it can even be called an argument. All I know is a simple Google search shows most of these handles have never posted to the slog, and after the voting is over, they never will again. And I can spot PR-ese when I see it.

Seattle native? Really? Do you have that beard?

Posted by elenchos | October 28, 2008 10:40 AM

SECB should publicly rescind their endorsement of this slime-ball. Carlyle and his IEs are using his Stranger endorsement prominently on their mailings and TV ads. You've been played, folks.

Posted by BestotheBunch | October 28, 2008 5:21 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.