Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Left vs Right, Visualized | Lunchtime Quickie »

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Politics / Arts / Theater re: How It Helps McGinn

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM

In this week's paper, I quote Jane Zalutsky—chair of the board at the Seattle Rep—as a Mallahan supporter. (In "The Case for Mike McGinn," part three in a zillion-part series.)

I asked her why she supports Joe Mallahan even though McGinn is clearly the culture candidate.

"The tunnel," she said. "I support the tunnel."

"Let's try a thought experiment and pretend the tunnel doesn't exist or isn't a dividing issue. Do you still support Joe Mallahan?"

"The tunnel is such a huge issue, I can't try that thought experiment."

That was last week. I called her again this morning:

"Hey Jane, so—how about that tunnel? Last week you couldn't even imagine the tunnel not being a dividing issue and... ta-da! So are you a McGinn supporter now?"

She wouldn't go that far. But she did say: "I'm going to let this ballot sit on my kitchen table a little while longer." I suspect there are a lot of Jane Zalutskys out there... but only a highly scientific, legally binding Slog poll can tell us:

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Fuck all politicians

Posted by Mahtli69 on October 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I don't think Susan H puts out, unless you buy her blood diamonds, Mahtli69.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on October 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The real question is, does this affect The Stranger's endorsement? Because I have enough shit to do than worry about which political grandstander will be less efficient, so I read endorsements. Guess I'll have to switch to the Sierra Club's now.

Posted by starsandgarters on October 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM

This election (the whole thing) really could be a comedy: The recent (electoral) decision to make county exec non-partisan and its resulting candidates, the idiotic initiative process generally (let alone the strip the government of funding and restrip the gays of their rights bit), the court mandated non-open primary resulting in a top two run off that no one expected, the ever present debate over what to do with a freeway that was demonstrated unsafe eight (8!!!) years ago... I'm sure there's more, but just trying to get through the above steaming pile of crap with anyone who is not fascinated by politics is challenging enough. I will never, ever forget my first election in Washington, when I realized that CORONER was an elected office. Golly. Why are folks turned off by the political process?

Posted by Juan on October 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Dropping the tunnel issue does make me more likely to consider McGinn, but the lies and half-truths that came out of his mouth defending it when it was an issue were offensive to the idea that he was a good candidate.

Plus, the real 'activists' I know who have worked with him have all said he was a vanity blowhard when it came time to have discussions.

So I'm sticking with Mallahan.

Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on October 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Your poll thing is broken. It now allows multiple votes.

Posted by rob!

on October 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I don't get the people who are desperately trying to spin this into a positive for McGinn. How does showing weakness and not sticking to your principles make you a more attractive candidate. Worst of all for McGinn, it shows that his rhetoric about how he could in fact stop the tunnel was just blowing smoke. You are out of your mind if you think this is a good thing.

Posted by Jack Ryan on October 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM

McGinn knew all along he was going to have to change his tunnel stance in the general. He was using the issue as a wedge issue to win in the primary because he knew it could help him make the top two, and then he planned to veer center afterwards. He is playing politics. Of course the Stranger bought it too, as they buy all his promises about transportation as well. At least Mallahan is telling the truth to a certain extent, even if he is infinitely unlikeable.

Posted by it's called POLITICS on October 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM

@8 - really.

so then the Speaker of the House was wrong, huh?

Must be nice in your fluffy bunny delusional world.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on October 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM

There was no change in McGinn's position. All he did was state that he is a rational person and he understands that there is a way to go about things that needs to take place. He's telling us that he is not going to just get in the office and order this to happen and order that to happen. He's showing he is reasonable.

Posted by JoeGDWNTWN on October 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM

#9 eh?
#10-- He's actually a rational politician, he made people want to believe he was going to stop the tunnel. It was his campaign promise "I will stop the tunnel." He knew that would get him in to a top 2 position, knowing all along he had no chance in hell of stopping the tunnel. He's a lawyer, I expect him to be smart enough to know that. But, being the rational politician he is, he milked it as long as he could, and then dipped and weaved into his current stance, bringing in some independents, etc... Very rational move, snake like.

This isn't a matter of what he believes in, that's fine he doesn't believe in the tunnel. I'm sure there's a lot of politicians that felt it wasn't the best option. This is about a campaign promise to STOP the tunnel. It was his ONE issue in the primary.

Posted by it's called POLITICS on October 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM

you know, you could just go search SLOG and find at least 15 issues without trying other than the Billionaires Tunnel.

not that I was commenting on them, but that's YOUR problem.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on October 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

#12 Even The STRANGER announced after the primaries that McGinn was a one issue candidate at that point. It was only after he got into the top two that he came up with another handful of bloated promises he never intends on keeping. And now the Stranger is pretending it never saw things this way. Fact is, the only thing McGinn talked about was that tunnel. Sure, now he's coming out with other policy stances, but he beat Nichols on STOPPING THAT TUNNEL. Not "feeling like the tunnel wasn't a good plan, but not wanting to get in the way of council's decisions", but STOPPING it. That's why he's in the position he's in, and his reversal is a good pretext for looking at his other positions and questioning the practicality vs. popularity of his proposals. 'sall I'm saying.

Posted by it's called POLITICS on October 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM