August 14, 2005
The mayor that nobody likes

The oddest thing in Seattle politics this election is that Seattle's unloved, fiscally incontinent mayor Greg Nickels doesn't have any strong challengers. After all, even the hardcore hippie-dippie liberal activists don't really like him, today's Seattle Times reports: "Democratic groups withhold blessing from candidate Nickels"

Although a second term for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels appears inevitable, he is not proving especially popular among the city's liberal Democratic groups that helped elect him four years ago.
Seize the day, Richard Lee!

Today's Times also has an article on one of Nickels' showcase accomplishments: ripping up the Rainier Valley to put in light rail.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 14, 2005 10:46 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Not to worry Stefan, Seattle dems know which side of their biscotti is laminated. As much of a turd in a punchbowl that nickels is, they will obediently fall into line.

More importantly is the lack of conservative interest in saving Seattle. Have conservatives written off Seattle as beyond redemption? Are they so pessimistic that they won't even try to rescue her?

Time will tell...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 14, 2005 11:47 AM
2. Maybe it's time for Mr./Miss 'None of the above' to run. Nickels could be the first candidate to run unopposed... and lose.

Posted by: JB on August 14, 2005 12:23 PM
3. As for "have conservatives written off Seattle?" soup, it's about as fiscally sound as a Christian conservative in San Fran, a Republican Senate race from Mass. or a GOP mayor in Washington DC.

Posted by: PC on August 14, 2005 06:11 PM
4. I don't know about you Alphabet Soup, or the rest of you, but I have long since written off Seattle as a haven for the country's socially inept misfits. Really, there is no more appropriate leader for them than Mayor Nipples. It's a dying city and the Mayor is just the guy to hurry the process along.

As for the light rail, it's just a last ditch effort to show the city has some life in it. But, you know that it is not going to accomplish much because during the construction, all you hear Nipples talk about is how he wants to keep South Seattle poor.

Meanwhile, just to have some fun, I think I'll try to go swim during the Muslim Sister Swim. I've always suspected there might be a reason these women are kept under viel, but I'd like to find out for myself. Of course, I won't be able to. Should I bring a law suite against the City when they don't let me during hours the taxpayers are paying for?

Just imagine what would happen if there were an "Arian Brotherhood Swim." There would be an uproar and for good reason.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 14, 2005 08:44 PM
5. I grew up in Seattle. It used to be a nice place to live and raise your children! I moved away in the mid-1980's and returned in the early 1990's...and I could not recognize the city!

I will not visit downtown Seattle. I certainly will not take my children to the waterfront or Seattle Center anymore - for fear that they will gain an unwanted education of druggies, wino's and panhandler's...just by walking from the parking lot to the Aquarium! To see so much low-life concentrated in the 3 block walking area would be just too much to try to explain to them!

If my kids have a school field trip to downtown Seattle - they will stay home or at the school...it's just that bad...

Mayor Nickles is just one of a long line of failures in Seattle that have made that city unappealing for those of us who remember what it used to be like....

Seattle fell fast in the early 1980's....It can rise again once it's out of the Democrats rule...

Posted by: Deborah on August 14, 2005 11:04 PM
6. I like JBs idea for Mr/Mrs None of the above.Since no one is running against Nickels.I just wish malfeasance could be proved so he could be recalled like Grey out Davis in California!

Posted by: Laurie on August 15, 2005 07:30 AM
7. Soup's question is an important one. "Have conservatives written off Seattle as beyond redemption?

The real question behind this is not whether conservatives will regain power, but how.

It isn't just Seattle but the whole region (and state) that is at peril. Liberalism will not sustain anyone unless tethered by common sense --conservatism. I speculate that it will take a disaster to change things in Seattle --a terrorist attack, or major earthquake (probably the former) that kills so many people and radically inconveniences so many others that it shocks everyone out of the stuporous liberal pretense. There is nothing like almost dying or having a family member or friend die to sober one up to reality.

Until then we can expect petty corruption, moral degeneracy and pandering to criminalism from people like Sims, Nickels, Gregoire etc. The political will exists in both King County, and our state at large to elect conservative Republicans, and it all depends on the unity of the Republican Party whether this will be transformed into a reality. Please remember, Dino Rossi was elected Governor once; he can be elected by a greater margin again.

Stay sharp and keep up the resistance because we need to be ready when enough of the community is fed up with miscreants and ready again for responsible leadership. Because factions are more powerful than personalities, any Republican (even a liberal one) is better than any Democrat. Vote Republican, and then hold their feet to the fire.

The culture in Seattle may be –by itself- beyond redemption, but there is hope from beyond its borders.
My question is -- are you prepared for the disaster?

Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 15, 2005 08:58 AM
8. well, its interestng to read that local, seattle politics suffer the same party-drone mentality that afflicts our national scene.

wreckless fiscal policy, bloated govt, needless pork projects, sometimes i can't tell if you're complaining about seattle or d.c. all you guys need there is a mismanaged war!

perhaps your local republican candidates are a different type than the party sends up to d.c., but somehow i doubt it.

here's a joke you guys can twist to make it fit your reality:

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a
light bulb?

The Answer is TEN...

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs
to be changed,

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness,

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb,

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished",

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally "in the dark" the whole time,

8. One to viciously smear #7,

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,

10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country

Posted by: dinesh on August 15, 2005 02:42 PM
9. My good friend Dinesh -- this is a local blog. It is one of the few places that covers local Seattle and Washington issues. National issues are debated on plenty of other blogs.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 15, 2005 02:44 PM
10. stefan, indeed it is and generally a good one at that. i can recount multiple instances where this blog has had a real impact on my thinking about issues that are affecting your area.

however, sometimes, partisan comments in the posts, but more frequently the comments, seem entirely out of place and, shall we say, contrary to the larger national reality, e.g. fiscal responsibility, pork projects, etc. so its worthy to note when certain people demand something of local politicians that is somehow excused of the national politicians they support. there's a real dissonance there at times.

that said, your point is well taken, and i'll try to keep posts relevant to the various local issues you address.

thanks for the useful work.

Posted by: dinesh on August 15, 2005 03:02 PM
11. Yeah it would be a shame to change Rainier. It is such a nice, pretty area, untouched by the burden of money and development. Take the family to the Rainier Valley often?

Posted by: CandrewB on August 15, 2005 05:49 PM
12. "...your point is well taken, and i'll try to keep posts relevant to the various local issues you address."

Should that day ever come, Ill endeavor to alert the media.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2005 08:41 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?