Police Chief Search Takes Center Stage in Mayoral Campaign

My point is that with this race, you don't know, I don't know and none of us can really know. So acting like you've got your finger on the pulse of society, or that McGinn does, is nonsense at best... especially considering you're clearly on one candidate's side and that we keep in mind that everything you say is colored by that context.

"demonstrating a penchant for leaderhsip"

Gomez, everyone has personal biases -- otherwise known as opinions. Most people have by now decided who they want to vote for, on the basis of whatever data they use to decide. The ballots drop very soon now and we will see who wins. Do you remember that it was thought that Nickels would win the primary?

In the meantime, it's silly for you or anyone else to claim that they know or care more than the rest of us who's the best candidate (i.e., the best person). You don't know us; to you, we are simply posters on a blog. And so are you.

I care way more about this than any of these screechy screeds here on which candidate is a better person, because nearly all of you bring a personal bias to the table, with no real interest in an open minded discussion.

It's been said before, but votes on election day from participating Seattle voters will be all that ultimately counts.

Bunch of sound and fury here. Not one substantive issue being debated about police department policies that could or should change.

sorry... last sentence was suppose to say "livable" not "liable."

@34 - Don't get caught up in parsing the details, you knew exactly what 32 meant, Mallahan has BOTH SPD union endorsements.

As for your observation that it is getting "harder and harder" for you to take the Mallhan supporters seriously you may want to take a look in the mirror, and for that matter have a serious "coming to god" conversation with your fellow McGinn supports. McGinn is going to lose this campaign because he can only focus on one issue: The Viaduct. His issue is not the issue most of us are concerned with; however, McGinn is too late to join the conversation the rest of us have been having about public safety, job creation, and maintaining a vibrant liable city.

@32: Nobody has SPD's endorsement. A municipal department doesn't endorse candidates. The police union endorsed Mallahan. That's a bit different.

The number of posters talking about being shocked about McGinn's supposed stands on various things is going up rapidly and it's harder and harder to take them seriously.

@ 23 - I've the opportunity to go around to a few of the forums and debates (League of Women Voters, and City Club), and have read over both candidates websites. Yes, my opinion is from actually listening to both men, and determining that McGinn is out of touch with 85% of the city. I will concede there are plenty of voters who are concerned about the cost of the Viaduct and how the State came to its decision about it, but honestly these aren't the vast majority of voters. Most people I've talked to about the election are concerned about bread and butter issues. Are senior centers going to close? Is there enough city resources to keep social services running? How are the candidates going to spur job creation? McGinn doesn't seem to be focused on these issues or doesn't have a real answer to solving the problem, he just goes back to bikes and Viaduct, which again is fine, but isn't the concern for most.

@28 - My trust in Joe comes from his ability to level with voters, for the most part he doesn't waffle when asked a hard question, and is pretty nuanced free. He might not give me the exact answer I want to hear about an issue (say the 1st Hill Street Car), but at least he keeps it real. I think Joe has a better take on the pulse of the city, the entire city. McGinn seems to focus on the far-far reaching left, which to me, given the state of the budget, and economy just isn't realistic for where we currently are.

@ 30 - I'm not sure if you live in a dungeon and are unable to escape because your bike tire is flat but Joe has been at dozens of community forums and debates throughout the election process answering questions from voters, and listening to their concerns. No I'm not a campaign staffer (let me know if you have an "in" though, sounds like a fun job). I truly am just a voter who has lived in Seattle for 6 years (moved here after college). As for public safety I believe the new mayor should be involved in the selection process from its infancy, not midway through. Why would he want to take over something Nickles started, honestly that sounds like a self-defeating task (Nickles has screwed us enough, lets not let his legacy be that involves the Chief of Police).

@30 Ehh ... McGinn's time tabled take on public safety seems to be just spin. Who has SPD's endorsement? Mallahan. And whose public safety platform supports increased patrol officer staffing AND beefed up community support, outreach, education and community engagement? Mallahan. I read over both candidates' public safety platforms and was shocked because McGinn is all about punitive measures before education, engagement and positive solutions.

#6 - this committee doesn't need to be approved by the council. even though you're "pretty sure" it does...

@17 - Really, are you one of the paid Mallahan staffers? That came across as an ad buy.

"I'm a typical Seattle guy and I have no opinion except being pro-Mallahan." Comes across like a Coca-Cola employee performing the Pepsi Challenge.

Us attacking the statements of his paid employees are all we're able to analyze, as the guy won't speak to the voters himself - for fear of making more horrible blunders and sounding like a total idiot.

And as Public Safety has proven to be an issue that Seattle is really concerned with, it makes more sense to come out for Public Safety, rather than announcing you want to delay the process.

Mallahan's "vision for the city" apparently wasn't important during all those times he didn't vote. He had no vision for himself as a contributing citizen, let alone as a leader. For that alone--even without the other liabilities I feel he has--I couldn't vote for him.

"Joe Mallahan can be trusted" I don't think this is true. Joe is willing to say different things to different people in order to get their endorsements. Then it's Charla's job to try and clean up the mess. Joe has no track record of caring about any Seattle issues until a few months ago. It's all very worrying to me.

McGinn's arguments for this were totally lame.

First he says the delay would affect public safety, yet then acknowledges that the interim chief is doing a fine job and can't identify a specific threat.

When asked if having both his and Mallahan's criteria in the mix politicizes the process, he said no. Right.

Then he says the "delay" would delay new initiatives. When asked what new initiatives would be delayed since his published platform basically continues what is happening now, he responded "read my website". lame answer. he has no idea, since he most likely didn't write the platform.

he's blowin' smoke... or smokin' something.

folks who support the deep bore but are not impressed by Mallahan are looking for reasons to vote McGinn, as he impresses them on all other issues and approach and background. I heard this after both the Library and Ballard high debates.

I love word games!

@11 -

actually, i think McGinn was fine with the surface & transit plan the state DOT said would work, twice.

he seems to be opposed to a tunnel that the politicians put together after they dismissed the stakeholder group.

so his position here seems consistent. when you have the whole community having input, that's fine. when you dismiss their results and substitute power politics, then you push back.

@17 Reality Check...

Joe Mallahan can be trusted, is inclusive, and is willing to compromise when hard decisions need to be made.

Have you made this determination from the campaign trail?

@18 Obviously you don't live in the CD, or if you do it hasn't been for very long. I'm not thinking of a word that includes 'ander', the word i am thinking of has an 'i' and another 'p'.

IMO, the best thing that happened in the SPD is the exit of Gil. Remember Mardi Gras right before the earthquake?

3.5 weeks is basically a month and dammit they need to get a move on.

the point is the mayor gets input ANYWAY, later, his input is not needed to send messages drawing 30 top resumes and interviewing to get to the final 6. total waste of time to dealy that 3.5 weeks, pete, so in this case the effecitive management guy is mcginn not mallahan.

btw we want a chief by mardi gras.....right?


just in case.

@ 18 - You mean like whenever Mallahan opens his mouth and sound comes out?

@16 - I think you're wrong on that point but this is definitely a case of good politics for McGinn, regardless of the efficacy of the policy.

Grandstanding in my neighborhood over a non-issue. There is a term for that. Starts with a 'p' and ends with 'ing'

@ Pete - it sounds like you've been drinking the McGinn "Free-Trade Kool-Aid"

I mean honestly man can't you please come up with a reasonable counter argument to Mallahan's policy proposals, and vision for the city, rather than attack a campaign employee? I just don't see how this advances your cause.

I'm a typical Seattle guy who wants to see our city prosper. Until this week I was up in the air as to whom I would vote for, McGinn settled it for me, and it's not him.

Joe Mallahan can be trusted, is inclusive, and is willing to compromise when hard decisions need to be made. I just don't see McGinn doing any of the above.

@6-I'm pretty sure the committee has to be approved by the City Council, and that hasn't happened yet. If they new Mayor wants to make changes to the committee, it will take even longer. Nickels originally brought this up weeks ago and McGinn agreed at that point to let it get started. It's definitely going to be a delay of several months.

Also, I wonder if Mallahan's hesitancy has something to do with his stated preference to hire from within. I personally think it would be a mistake to do an internal hire of any of the likely suspects (I've heard current officers say that you need new blood if you want to do anything with the old boys club).

@10 - I agree with you about Mallahan and his spokesperson Charla. Having daily wishy-washy statements defending Mallahan's positions from Charla is not good for his campaign. McGinn is effectively exploiting this. But although I believe he is passionate and sincere in his opposition to the tunnel, I think McGinn realizes that overall it is a losing position for him. He has to talk about something else everyday to keep the subject off the tunnel and on issues that put Mallahan on the defensive. Even if you don't think the tunnel is a losing issue, you have to acknowledge that this strategy works better for him. I think the issue concerning the committee is a tempest in a teapot but has its intended effect. Josh's piece pondered who politicized the process. To me, uh, it's clearly McGinn, even if it is effective for his campaign.

Mallahan is whoever he's talking to wants him to be; that's why people keep saying that, "he seems willing to work with us." Great strategy to get endorsements and donations, horrible strategy for running a major City.

When you see them in person, McGinn definitely is not the desperate one, nor is he in print. He's himself. I don't know who Mallahan is. He doesn't really act like he knows.

And no, I'm not a McGinn volunteer or campaign worker (same thing, I think). Just a voter keeping her eyes and ears open.

Pete, that seems spot-on.

He's willing to let this committee go ahead with a decision, but wants to rehash the viaduct all over again. Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?

Uh, Pete, McGinn holds press conferences to discuss the tunnel, while Mallahan hides behind his paid spokesperson.

I think it's clear who is and who isn't on the defensive.

Why doesn't Nickels just nut up and play Mayor until the end of the year? Seattle's been without a police chief for a while now. Nickels shouldn't even have included McGinn or Mallahan in this decision.

Also, this would have been a much more interesting story to have McGinn and Mallahan battle an individual taking over the helm of SPD rather than the process of selecting him/her. Huge opportunity wasted to entertain us. Lame.

@7 - Okay, but any day that McGinn can spend not defending his position on the tunnel is a good day for him. That means he has to be agressive on other topics - even if they are non-issues like this one - so that he can elicit additional ambiguous responses from Charla. This is the game he has to play.

@7 I don't think McGinn is the desperate one here.

This is pure politics from McGinn. The committee would start up again immediately following the election, in 25 days. Three and a half weeks is hardly significant in a 6 month process. I think this shows how desperate McGinn is for wedges other than the tunnel. It's probably not a bad strategy because it puts Mallahan on the defensive and counters yesterday's "obstructionist" and "elitist" tags that Mallahan (again) tried to pin on him.

Yum, now I want a cheese-steak sandwich. One without a side of bullets.

How exactly would Mallahan add positive value to the work of this committee? Joe's going to be just a tad busy trying to figure out how to run the City if he wins, delving into the details of a search committee process is not likely something he'll have time to do.

However you feel about the race, isn't completely true that McGinn has Mallahan completely back on his heels?

There's certainly only one driver in this race.

I agree with Gidge on this. And, if Mallahan wants to add folks (in the event that he wins), he could always do that. Why hold up the process now?

Kate Joncas and Hyeoke Kim are the co-chairs of the committee as proposed by the Mayor. It's probably safe to assuem that Joncas is a Mallahan supporter, since the DSA supports the tunnel, and Kim has endorsed Mallahan. I think it says a lot that McGinn is willing to go forward with this committee, despite the fact that it's chaired by two people who oppose his candidacy.