Most of this year’s nine campaigns for Seattle City Council have become a face-off between two far-Left candidates. Sort of a political reality show version of the movie “Dumb and Dumber,” only called “Left and Lefter.”
That reality begs the question: Is there really a choice? Judging from the races listed below, we are confident the answer is “no.”
City Council District 2: Councilmember Bruce Harrell vs. challenger Tammy Morales
Councilmember Harrell has solved many pressing problems during his tenure on the City Council, including whether or not Columbus Day should indeed be called Columbus Day. Harrell was one of the councilmembers (Sawant was the other) who decided to use the Council’s time to introduce a resolution to change the federally recognized Columbus Day to “National Indigenous People Day.” resolution passed with flying colors.
Morales said of her run against Harrell, “This district is progressive, it needs a progressive candidate running it, and that’s not [Harrell]. This is a democracy, this isn’t the house of lords. He doesn’t just get the seat. He has to fight for it like the rest of us.”
If Harrell doesn’t define a “progressive,” then we’re not sure we want to ever find out who does.
City Council District 3: Councilmember Kshama Sawant vs. challenger Pamela Banks
Socialist Sawant has used her time as a City Council member to present herself as God’s gift to humanity— disorderly conduct charges, insults against the Vietnamese community, provocative statements, public tantrums and all. If Sawant has made anything clear, it’s that she craves attention and she gets it by waging publicity wars against people and entire industries.
Her latest target is the tech industry. The socialist recently made bizarre comments criticizing what she appears to view as worthless competition among various products. Sawant said of smartphones, “Does it benefit us to have an endless range of phones where, actually, we could have a few models of really well-functioning smartphones, and not have all these massive resources being devoted to having a little bit of an edge here, a little bit of an edge there? Rather than having those resources dedicated to solving the basic problems of society?”
She continued her bizarre tirade against competition by stating (emphasis added), “How do we bring the global economy to function in an efficient way, where resources are directed to the most pressing needs, rather than this nonsense of competition? The alternative would be these technological companies, or any other company really, being democratically owned by humanity, by people, precisely because we all have an interest in solving these basic problems.”
Comparing herself to Sawant, Banks admitted, “I don’t think we differ much in our values. The biggest difference is how you get things done.”
Banks readily admitted that there isn’t much of a difference between Seattle Democrats and self-proclaimed socialists. So, what’s the point?
City Council District 6: Councilmember Mike O’Brien vs. Catherine Weatbrook
Councilmember O’Brien believes his greatest accomplishment on the City Council is his success in forcing Royal Dutch Shell to withdraw from its exploratory drilling plans in the Arctic. O’Brien said of Shell’s decision, “This about-face from big oil is really a big win for those of us who spoke out against Shell’s Arctic drilling plans and called for a just transition from our current fossil fuel dependence.”
He went on, “From the beginning I have said life as we know it depends on bold, immediate action, especially when a harbinger of catastrophic climate change is moored in our backyard. The people of Seattle, the mayor, and the Seattle council were resolute in our opposition to Shell’s presence in our city and its pursuits in the Arctic.”
Of course, Shell’s decision has everything to do with cost analysis, not the long and loud yelling used by extreme greenies. Or, for that matter, with a group of “kayaktivists” paddling plastic kayaks out in Elliot Bay in an attempt scare off the multi-billion dollar oil company.
Weatbrook gave a weak explanation of why she is running against O’Brien, just barely calling him out for his out-of-touch actions. She said of him, “While I think Mike is a nice guy and I have a lot of respect for him, I don’t see him in the community. I don’t see him connected to the district. That doesn’t mean he can’t become that. But I think I have a long record of being connected to the district.”
If Weatbrook is serious about taking on O’Brien, she’s gonna have to go better than make “kinda, sorta” statements.
Leave a Reply