[caption id="attachment_11470" align="alignnone" width="477" caption="Mike McGinn"][/caption]

Mayor Greg Nickels has been relentlessly attacking challenger Mike McGinn for his statements about the proposed $4.2 billion waterfront tunnel, issuing not one but two press releases to "clear up the distortions and half truths about [McGinn’s] position on the Alaskan Way Viaduct."

The substance of the mayor's attacks is that McGinn isn't actually for lower taxes, because his replacement scheme—the surface/transit option, which would replace the viaduct with transit and improvements to streets—would still require $930 million in city funding (for things like the seawall, utility relocation, and upgrades to Mercer Street), and could result in the city losing $2.2 billion in money from the state legislature, which does not support the surface/transit option.

"The reality is that Seattle taxpayers would be saddled with billions more in taxes to pay for his risky scheme, which would force tens of thousands of cars onto city streets and I-5, creating gridlock," Nickels' statement claims.

McGinn was quick to respond to the broadside, saying Nickels' claim that the city's part of the surface/transit option would cost $930 million was "simply false. The cheaper option he rejected would cost Seattle much less."

In an interview, McGinn added that the city hasn't come up with a plan to pay for the $930 million share Nickels says it will pay for, and the voters haven't had a say on Nickels' tunnel. "If you pick the most expensive option, it's going to cost the most," McGinn says.

And McGinn pointed out that Nickels clearly stated his support for the surface/transit option back in 2007, after voters said they didn't want a new viaduct or a tunnel. McGinn's release quotes Nickels: "[The voters] have sent a very clear message — whether it is above ground or below, they don't want to build another freeway on our waterfront. ... [I] have heard the voters."

But it didn't end there. This morning, Nickels counterpunched, charging McGinn with "deliberately misleading the voters" about how much the surface/transit option will cost. Nickels' response also included a new estimate for the surface/transit option: $3.5 billion.

"McGinn favors tearing up the current agreement with the state even though doing so will likely cost Seattle billions in Viaduct replacement funding," Nickels' latest statement said.

Nickels spokesman Sandeep Kaushik [who helped co-found PubliCola last January] acknowledges that Nickels used to support surface/transit, but said that changed when he realized the state wouldn't pay for it. "[Nickels] went through a long and involved process of negotiation with the state and the county to come up with a compromise solution," Kaushik says. "If Mike McGinn tears up that deal and says, 'Okay, we're going to do the surface transit option anyway' ... the state is not going to pay for it."

McGinn's response: "I really don't think elected officials should threaten the public when they don't get their way. They're saying that they don't care what the voters said," when they rejected the tunnel in 2007.

Leaving the specifics of the debate aside, this morning's battle of press releases raises an question about Team Nickels' campaign strategy. The first rule of politics is "Don't mention your opponent." So why would Nickels devote so much time (and ink) to blasting McGinn by name?

Kaushik says defeating McGinn's anti-tax message could peel off support from McGinn among anti-tax conservatives and Republicans. (For example, in a recent SurveyUSA poll , 14 percent of self-identified Republicans and 19 percent of conservatives supported McGinn, compared to nine and 13 percent, respectively, for Nickels.)

That doesn't wash with me, for a couple of reasons. First, Republicans and conservatives make up a tiny portion of the Seattle electorate—12 percent and 14 percent, respectively, according to the aforementioned poll. Second, Nickels is working hard to brand himself as "the progressive candidate" in the race (see any of his ads), so he isn't seeking support from Republicans anyway.

Another couple of possibilities, both intriguing. First, Nickels may be hitting McGinn now in preparation for a big hit on the other frontrunning challenger, Joe Mallahan, later this week; rumor is that Nickels is planning to roll out a barrage of anti-Mallahan TV ads right before the August 18 primary. The more Nickels can drive both challengers' numbers down, the better he'll be positioned to run against either of them in the general. The mayor's latest tracking polls reportedly show McGinn within striking distance (a couple of points) of Nickels, making it conceivable that both challengers—and not Nickels—could go through.

The second possibility is that Nickels is intentionally driving up McGinn's name recognition, so that McGinn, not Mallahan, makes it through the primary. According to this theory, Nickels would prefer to run against bike-riding Sierra Club leader McGinn who they can paint as fringe goof ball, and probably more on point— because McGinn won't be able to raise as much money as Mallahan (who's already poured more than $200,000 into his own campaign).