This great post via Brian of WashBlog:
2001, Greg ‘the Seattle way’ Nickels:
“I will make transportation and gridlock my top priority as Mayor.”
“Build the monorail. It’s time for city officials to stop thwarting the public will.”
“The city has seen enough studies. Frustrated motorists are tired of gridlock, and tired of talk. It’s time to get people moving again.”
2003, Greg Nickels claims results on the Monorail and notes the public’s tire of continually voting on it:
“We are moving forward on what voters said repeatedly when the approved taxes for bus service, approved light rail and said yes to the Monorail. Over and over, the public’s message was clear: Do something about traffic! We are.”
2004, Greg ‘end the gridlock’ Nickels voices stong support to quit talking, and build the Monorail:
“We can’t keep second-guessing our decision to build a new monorail, and risk continued gridlock and frustration. We need to move forward.”
2005, Greg Nickels state of the city speech:
“We will never stop our relentless focus on doing the basics right. Because of this focus, the citizens of Seattle have given us their confidence and support to do more. People want us to make smart transportation choices for this century.
That support has helped us move further than anyone thought we could. It has helped us do the impossible. We broke ground for light rail. We approved building a monorail and then reaffirmed that decision – twice!
We continue to make progress and we’re not shying away from tackling the biggest “impossible” challenges.”
The recent cut and run from the Monorail by Nickels reveals a double standard by which city officials approve large sums for a central library, the South Lake Union trolley and Seattle Aquarium expansion without votes, and yet demand a vote on a voter-backed monorail for a ridiculous 5th time.



Of course, there are two sides to most stories.
For the other side, check here and start reading. Might take a while.
http://www.soundpolitics.com/
Those who believe stories only have two sides should probably find the third and forth sides they haven’t bothered to look for.
No, there are only two sides :).
I was thinking today that I might describe myself as a political syncretist - neither liberal nor conservative, nor centrist either, so that I can maintain radical elements from both sides.