I have taken to reaching out personally to political guests. I invited Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda to come on the show after she implied that anyone against the head tax was a radical, right-wing Trumpist (which is weird, considering that the anti-head-tax movement was started by Ballard Democrats).
And then I reached out to Councilmember Sally Bagshaw last night on Twitter because she has a new blog post up that I think is accusing me of misrepresenting her stance on the heroin death sites. She previously said she wanted to “explore” the government purchasing heroin for addicts so that they will not break into houses and cars to pay for drugs.
She calls them either safe consumption sites — because you know, it is safe to inject heroin — and also CHELS, Community Health Engagement Locations. Great message to send out to the children of the region — heroin is safe, as long as government is supervising it.
Now in her blog she retracts and says, “While I said I would like to ‘explore this,’ I meant I wanted to learn more about impacts in other cities and to understand the thinking behind that public safety model, not explore this practice as a policy Seattle would actually consider. I want to make clear: I am not supporting this idea for Seattle.”
She’s clearly talking about me, because I am the one who seized on her proposal to explore this. So I went back and pulled up the soundbite, and I think it’s pretty clear she said she wants to “explore” it in the sense of a possibility for Seattle to pursue, in order to reduce crime. It’s clear that she was entertaining this idea for Seattle. And her blog is just lying now because people were disgusted at the evil that taxpayers would buy heroin for addicts.
It’s really shocking to me that she was sincerely wanting to explore it as a possibility for Seattle, and now in her blog she says, “I want to make clear I am not supporting this idea for Seattle.” I never said that she was supporting it; I just said that she wants to look into it. Her blog is in panic mode because once again people have seen how warped her mind is. And I will tell you, Sally Bagshaw is a sick, sick human being. Let’s not forget, she worked feverishly to keep an accused child rapist in office.
Let’s go back to a Seattle Times story from January, when all of the text messages and emails about the effort by people like Sally Bagshaw to keep Ed Murray in office were uncovered. Five people had come out with child rape allegations, and by this point, pretty much everybody had reached the inescapable conclusion that Ed Murray was a child rapist. Councilmember Lorena Gonzalez was planning to call on Ed Murray to step down. Sally Bagshaw assured him in a text that a response to the “step down” camp was circulating.
“I think we will get five votes,” she said. “I think you will like it.” That meant they would get five council members who would vote to keep Murray in office. She added, “Shame on those who want a political witch hunt for their own political gain.” This is a person who was working to keep a child rapist in the mayor’s office.
And then she goes on her blog with all this revisionist history and says she does not support that, even though she clearly was considering it. So I went on Twitter and invited her to come on my show for “an unedited conversation on this topic.”
And then, when she didn’t respond, I thought, “I will do her a favor. I will tell her the questions I am going to ask.” I never do that for guests. But I offered that to Sally on Twitter. I wanted to know if she thought Ed Murray was a child rapist when her emails were trying to keep him in office, and if said she wanted to look into taxpayers buying heroin for addicts. So now she can even prepare answers to my questions. But she is not going to get away with this revisionist history nonsense on my show.
Sally, the invitation is still out there. I think we could have a really fascinating conversation and I await your response.