Jolt
Former Mayor Nickels Takes on McGinn
Wednesday's Jolt:
No winner or loser today, but a serious jolt.
In an unusual move, former mayor Greg Nickels goes after current mayor Mike McGinn.
As opposed to Nickels' oddly anodyne post over at former Cola columnist Dan Bertolet's cool new site today, Nickels gets downright gritty on his Facebook page, linking a recent Seattle Times editorial that criticizes the current mayor for breaking a 2009 campaign pledge not to stand in the way of the tunnel if the council decided to move forward with it. McGinn, basically running the anti-tunnel referendum now, has obviously broken that pledge.
And Nickels pulls no punches, questioning his successor's integrity. On Nickels' FB page, he posts:
Things get interesting when, unlike most FB lovefests where friends click "Like" or leave "you go, girl" type comments, some of Nickels' "friends," including local architect Rob Harrison, actually tangle with the former mayor and criticize the tunnel.
Harrison enters courteously, but firmly:
And voila, a heated discussion ensues.
Nickels mostly stays out of it, except for a couple of comments, which brings us to another Jolt. Nickels, who maneuvered for years—including maneuvering around 2007's anti-tunnel vote to bring us the tunnel deal, doesn't defend his tunnel.
He simply continues to question McGinn's integrity:
No winner or loser today, but a serious jolt.
In an unusual move, former mayor Greg Nickels goes after current mayor Mike McGinn.
As opposed to Nickels' oddly anodyne post over at former Cola columnist Dan Bertolet's cool new site today, Nickels gets downright gritty on his Facebook page, linking a recent Seattle Times editorial that criticizes the current mayor for breaking a 2009 campaign pledge not to stand in the way of the tunnel if the council decided to move forward with it. McGinn, basically running the anti-tunnel referendum now, has obviously broken that pledge.
And Nickels pulls no punches, questioning his successor's integrity. On Nickels' FB page, he posts:
Thanks for sharing this, Shannon. I don't agree with the Times very often but what stays with me is:
"If I'm elected mayor, although I disagree with the decision, it will be my job to uphold and execute the (tunnel) agreement," he said. "It is not the mayor's job to withhold the cooperation of city government in executing the agreement."
These words changed the election. But was there ever any intention to keep th[em]?
Things get interesting when, unlike most FB lovefests where friends click "Like" or leave "you go, girl" type comments, some of Nickels' "friends," including local architect Rob Harrison, actually tangle with the former mayor and criticize the tunnel.
Harrison enters courteously, but firmly:
To put out a contrary view, I think changing one's mind based on good new information is a sign of great integrity and courage. Should one make consistent choices or the right choices?
And voila, a heated discussion ensues.
Nickels mostly stays out of it, except for a couple of comments, which brings us to another Jolt. Nickels, who maneuvered for years—including maneuvering around 2007's anti-tunnel vote to bring us the tunnel deal, doesn't defend his tunnel.
He simply continues to question McGinn's integrity:
I'm not debating whether the tunnel is the right solution, we can disagree about that (and how long it should be debated). The point the Times made was about integrity -- a promise made and clearly and repeatedly broken.
