Sound Politics: It's in the P-I

January 24, 2006

It's in the P-I

I congratulate the P-I editorial board for a sensible editorial on the Seattle City Council's slate of finalists to fill the Jim Compton seat: "Hire the temp":

the council has performed the reverse alchemy of making six finalists with some impressive individual qualifications come off as a disappointing group. They are peas in the comfortable pod in which City Council tends to seal itself: the intertwined worlds of communications and non-profit, government and community agencies.

There's remarkably little private sector background in the finalist group. That tends to support the complaint that Seattle likes every kind of diversity except varying philosophical outlooks.

A rare event: the P-I editors and I agree on something. And they reached the same conclusion that I was planning to post: The appointment should go to former Councilwoman Dolores Sibonga, the only one of the finalists who has pledged not to run for election after filling out the term.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 24, 2006 09:30 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Leave it to the City of Seattle to conduct screening interviews for a high visibility position like an audition for the Gong Show (Yes, I could have said American Idol, but let's face it - the days of finding any rock stars around here are long gone ;'}

I fail to see why the PU would consider "the gratifyingly large number of applicants" a good thing - it's readily apparent that it's a good gig: you don't have to be particularly bright (just politically correct), politically savvy (just non-Republican), or even much more than room temperature.

Those Seattlunatics are sure funny critters ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on January 24, 2006 09:58 PM

2. The council has made a lot of people upset, but their strategy is probably to go after the minority vote... Which they will probably have now.

Sure, they upset the very conservative white guys, but why should they care?

Is it wrong to act purely to get more votes? Probably. But both sides do it (The word Postcard rings a bell).

Gerald, LiberalWashington.com

Posted by: Gerald on January 24, 2006 10:15 PM

3. How is this any different than how a president chooses Supreme Court nominees? The President is not looking for a differing philosophical outlook when he chooses, oh, say, I don't know....Alito. Why is the council being held to a differing standard? I know, it is a conspiracy. That's it.

Posted by: My Left Foot on January 24, 2006 10:21 PM

4. That's a good point. Since when do we expect politicians to pick people with opposing viewpoints?

In fact, if the council is voted in because of their philosophical outlook, then as a voter I expect them to hire others with that same outlook.

At least the finalists have "some impressive individual qualifications". Be happy with that.

Gerald, LiberalWashington.com

Posted by: Gerald on January 24, 2006 10:27 PM

5. I don't relate well to left wing nuts - therefore I don't reside in Seattle. Each candidate blends well with the rest of the Silly Council - so what !

Posted by: KS on January 24, 2006 10:33 PM

6. Well three cheers for the PI! I agree!

Posted by: Michele on January 25, 2006 12:06 AM

7. Hooray for place holders! What I really want is a no-talent whitey. Or a Muslim, just to make ya'll go nuts. Or Dominic Holden.

Posted by: Belltowner on January 25, 2006 01:00 AM

8. How is this any different than how a president chooses Supreme Court nominees?

Because the President must then submit the nominee to the Senate, which then proceeds to make a fool of itself trying to rip the nominee to shreds over non-existant issues (like Kennedy did). But at least they ask serious questions and didn't prejudge Alito based only race, enthnicity, skin color, sexual orientation. Plus, even the Senate Democrats by and large don't live in the same kind of insulated bubble that the Seattle City Council does.

Mark Sidran put it best... "Seattle is 84 beautiful square miles surrounded by reality"

Posted by: Mike H on January 25, 2006 06:58 AM

9. Oh sure why not let the present council dictate the political future of the rest of us too.

I like political choices for EVERYOnE --- it is called democracy. Why should the Council have any right to restrain Ms. Sibonga if she wants to seek public, office.

Rejecting applicant for office at elections is only the role of the voter in any future race. Not the Councils pre-condition role as employer.

What they and he the PI are suggesting is illegal undr the city's own protection of political idology and stupid to boot.

Fair, free, and open elections. You dissapoint me Mr. S. ---- let Delores be hired, and let her be free to chart her own political destiny.

Too much nanny state, too much imperial council.

Posted by: R and R Smith on January 25, 2006 07:14 AM

10. Belltowner,

None of us will "go nuts," about liberal pinheads turning Seattle into a toilet . . .
we'll just snicker at those of you who live in Belltown.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 25, 2006 09:41 AM

11. HEY COMRADE MY LEFT FOOT...

YOU KNOW WHAT... I AGREE WITH YOU... IN SEATTLE THE LEFT IS IN CHARGE AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHOM THEY WANT...UNTIL THE PEOPLE MAKE A CHANGE.

JUST LIKE THE CONSERV'S ARE IN POWER IN MOST OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO LISTEN TO DRONE WHINNES FROM THE LEFT!!!!

COMRADE LEFT FOOT... YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH WAYS!!!

Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 25, 2006 10:36 AM

12. best editorial by pi ever!

Posted by: Once At City on January 25, 2006 10:52 AM