Ed Murray replies

My state representative, Ed Murray, apparently found the various blog entries I have written about him (here, here and here). He posted this comment in one of the archived entries. It's only fair to give his remarks a larger audience:

Just a few comments, first don’t believe everything you read in the media. The reporter only gave part of my comments. The entire statement “It has been years since I have significantly door belled in my district because I am doorbelling for democratic candidates in swing districts.” In addition I pointed out to the reporter that when I do doorbell I meet moderate Dan Evans republicans who live in the 43rd. Again an indication that I do door bell. In addition the public record shows that I hold numerous campaign events in my district during election years. This year we already held a meeting on gay and lesbian issues that was attended by 500 people.
Finally as I told the reporter that, candidates left unchallenged is not a healthy thing for democracy, which includes me. I have both lost and won elections, but that is why we have them. Besides what is the worse that could happen, I could get a job that helps to really support my family and have evenings and weekends off.
On charter schools: First the comments of an anonymous member, unless you can tell me who it is, it is hard to know the context of the conversation. But forgive me for fully considering an issue, hearing all sides, before making up my mind. In the end based on the information I had in front of me I did not vote against the bill. [sic] I will be honest I still not sure if it was the correct vote (a statement that has overwhelmingly angered most on the constituents I have heard from on this issue). I am happy if you are interested in discussing my reasons in more detail (remember this is a part time gig, so give me some time to reply).
In regards to the comments made about transportation, I disagree with them, believe they misrepresent my positions and statements and again willing to provide more information if anyone is interested.
Finally regarding comments like pasty face, it has been years since I have been attacked for my Irish (and growing up Catholic) heritage. But on behalf of my pasty faced non tanning family, what a jerk….ooops…..I forgot Seattle politicians are not suppose to talk like that

I second the part about not believing everything you read in the media. The same reporter quoted me just as selectively once, so I would give some credence to Rep. Murray's recollection of his interview.

I stand by my remarks about his statements on transportation. I heard them myself.

I never thought of "pasty faced" as an attack on anybody's Irish heritage let alone Catholic faith, just a physical description. But clearly, the main issue should be Rep. Murray's actions, not his complexion. So instead of "pasty faced", how about "thin-skinned"?

UPDATE: Rep. Murray posted a comment below. His remarks are worth posting more prominently (reformatted slightly for readability)

Just two examples of how you got it wrong on transportatiion:

1) You wrote:

Julia Patterson promised that any new transportation projects would be guaranteed to be inline with what the voters approved, or they would have to be revoted on.

Julia refered to the RTID legislation that requires just that. Legislation I help to write (perhaps if I had been in the legislature when RTA was created I might have had a chance to add the language).

2) In regards to my Sound Transit reform legislation, you only talk about last year. This year it passed the House (and merged all 6 puget sound transit org. into a single org. with an elected board) Died in the senate along with the house public/private partnership bill that would helped us sart updating how we finance transportation in this state.

First of all, I thank and commend Rep. Murray for taking the time to comment on my blog. I challenged him to engage with his constituents more and that's what he's done here.

Regarding the substance of his comment, he didn't explain how I was wrong in (1), instead he affirms that my report of Julia Patterson's remarks was correct. As for (2), I wasn't able to find press references, so it would help to know which specific bill(s) he's talking about and what else they included that would have been unacceptable to the Senate.

But the main point I was making in my earlier post is that while Rep. Murray along with Councilmembers Ferguson and Patterson have expressed support for the principle of strict accountability in the abstract or in relation to future projects, they are unwilling to apply those principles to the real and very serious problem of Sound Transit light rail as it exists today. As it stands we have a light rail system whose construction will disrupt traffic and neighborhoods for years to come, that costs many billions of dollars (and billions more than was approved by the voters), yet will serve a much smaller number of riders relative to some of the more cost-effective alternatives. Unless our current elected officials are willing to shut down this unaccountable and unsalvageable disaster (and they're not) they shouldn't be surprised that so many of their constituents seem so disgusted and untrusting of proposals for new transportation projects.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 25, 2004 12:28 PM