November 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm #605727
inspired by the front page WSB article about tim burgess announcing his candidacy for mayor, i did a little googling and found a pretty comprehensive article about him from the stranger, july 10, 2012.
he doesn’t quite do it for me.
say what you want about mcginn, but he’s not a politician, and i like that. and he has a history of flipping off the downtown power elite. which is probably why so many negative comments pop up any time he is mentioned in the press. the public is largely unaware of what the mayor does, but they read articles in the times, which has a well-known anti-mcginn bent.
burgess, however, is someone who seems… malleable, and i don’t like that. mainly because i’m not someone who has the money or influence to mold him. and i disagree with the notion that people downtown automatically know what’s best for the entire city – which seems like people buying government they can deal with, rather than deal with the populace and its fickle will.
and there’s the fact that commenters to the WSB article (linked above) allude to mcginn being at fault for making seattle look bad in face of the DOJ investigations. but tim burgess, as chair of the public safety committee, was no more productive or engaged.
and to the one-issue deep bore tunnel voters: before you talk about mcginn “impeding progress,” remember who “won” that argument. my suggestion for those of you who despise mcginn for trying to make sure your property taxes didn’t get jacked up when the tunnel goes over budget:
elect the tunnel boring machine for mayor.
just throwing some fertilizer out there. what are you thinking?November 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm #778482
Good Q. I just happened to be online yesterday and noticed a Stranger note about Burgess throwing his hat in the ring.
They were more even-handed than I expected them to be. They certainly weren’t enamored with him but they did give him some props.
Your important points notwithstanding, I’m going to need more research as well…November 29, 2012 at 5:45 pm #778483
I wrote to him and promised not to vote for him again if he voted for the new arena. He voted for it. That promise includes a vote for mayor.November 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm #778484
I’m a tunnel AND an arena supporter and I’m ok with McGinn’s issue-by-issue based approach. I agree that he’s NOT a part of the downtown cabal and that’s good. He wasn’t happy about the tunnel for various reasons and I respected that about him.
His basic stance seems to be toward lean and green and that’s a good thing.
It sounds like the DOJ issue is going to be one where no on involved will come out looking good. Sometimes that happens. I DO know I won’t trust any opinion from the Times on it – or any other important issue for that matter.
Is Burgess a better option? Don’t know yet but I’m not terribly dissatisfied with McGinn so he’ll have to be demonstrably more to my liking once he starts taking positions on issues for realz.November 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm #778485
Tim Burgess answers his e-mail, I’ll say that much for him. I contacted the Mayor and City Council about Nickelsville a year ago and Burgess was one of the first to call me back. We chatted for about 10 minutes.
Burgess also attended a meeting of the Highland Park Action Committee on this topic, but that might be just because he, like some Highland Park folks, wants Nickelsville gone.
In any case, on the responsiveness issue, I’m still waiting for a return contact from Mayor McGinn on a question I asked him more than two weeks ago.
That’s not a good sign. How can someone who won’t even return calls or e-mails “represent” my point of view?
McGinn’s non-responsiveness on a variety of levels (Tunnel, NV, stadium) means that he won’t be getting my vote again. Doesn’t mean Burgess will be getting it. But McGinn definitely won’t be.November 29, 2012 at 8:12 pm #778486
I’ve seen the Burgess run for Mayor coming for a long time, based on the stream of unsolicited, self-congratulatory emails I receive from him on a regular basis. Too much ado about nothing, which sums up my impression of him.November 29, 2012 at 10:52 pm #778487
I tried long ago to unsubscribe from his emails but since I am a PCO and my email is public I seem unable to stop them.
I voted for McGinn because he was the most ineffectual of the candidates and unless someone else who has even a smaller chance of achieving their crazy goals appears I will continue to vote for him and vote to endorse him at party meetings.
Any of you who want to push your favorite candidate ( or quash the hopes of your least favorite) should join the 34th district Democrats. You can do so online now which will get you on the mailing list for the newsletter and your dues/contributions will go where you as a member vote them to go.
If there is no PCO in your precinct, you can be appointed to the post and run in the next pco election.
It pays nothing and you have to talk to your neighbors and occasionally politicians and other riff-raff.
:)November 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm #778488
Tim Burgess gave the stranger an exclusive interview which he asked them to hold till 5 PM on the agreed day to publish.
his exclusive became a lot less exclusive when he also gave interviews to other news outlets in Seattle.. to be aired at 5 PM on the Stranger’s agreed publishing day.
and that, in a nutshell, is my issue with Tim Burgess…
yes, he calls you back
but can you count on what he has to say?November 30, 2012 at 12:04 am #778489
I’m not a member of any organized political party. I know you know the rest of that quote. ;-)
I tend to be a little too organized to last long in the comintern. But I’ll consider your gracious invite. :-)November 30, 2012 at 3:08 pm #778490
Those of you who think they might not be welcome at the 34th district may like to know that there are greens, socialists, blue-dogs, labor union, cops, lawyers, and business owners, nurses, doctors and teachers among your neighbors who attend meetings (whether often or rarely) as well as odd balls like myself (social democrat and supporter of the second amendment as well as the rest of bill of rights) I have spotted some former moderate republicans who can no longer stomach the hard right turn towards authoritarian theocracy demanded by the state republican party.November 30, 2012 at 4:10 pm #778491
Thanks, Ken. For the record, I would feel welcome, I’m sure. I just would lose whatever remaining mind I have trying to deal with dialectic chaos that surely would prevail in a group that diverse. I’m not averse to a big tent, mind you, I just have limited capacity to work through the making of the sausage… :-)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.