Patient West backers could use some help

You want to support the mayor. You think he’s done a solid job of running the city after several years of moribund municipal leadership. You want to be fair, so you’ve withheld judgment. You want to wait until you’ve heard his side of the story.

The headlines speak of alleged molestation, abuse of power and a double life that showed that the mayor’s private actions stood in contrast to his public views.

You didn’t like the way the newspaper unearthed the information. You didn’t like the fact that transcripts of lurid online conversations were printed verbatim. You’ve never really liked the media or the mayor’s most vocal opponents. You didn’t like the way Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers broadcast a conversation she had with the mayor.

The allegations of molestation? You know those came from felons. They can’t be trusted. You don’t like the fact that the mayor dated such young men; or that he offered internships and other things he gained by virtue of being a political leader. But you are tolerant and are willing to wait for his explanation.

The allegations against the mayor were leveled on May 5. The hours have turned into days; the days have turned into weeks. On Friday, a month later, he finally held a press conference to answer questions. But when that 30-minute session was over, you had heard a lot about his mayoral accomplishments before the scandal broke, but you’d heard no new information to discredit media reports of West’s online activities and the abuse of public office. Plus, he avoided the question of whether it’s appropriate for a 54-year-old mayor to have sex with a high school student.

You would’ve liked to hear more. You want more ammunition to deploy against those who are calling for him to resign. You quietly wonder what’s taking him so long.

The mayor has received some public support, and you’ve taken solace in that. Yet some of the points in defense of the mayor seem to contradict themselves. You hear that he is being attacked because of his sexual orientation. But you realize that the “attackers” don’t have a problem with that. The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board has been supportive of partner benefits, gay marriage and the annual legislative quest to ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

You hear that the revelations came on the heels of an announced River Park Square parking garage settlement. You know about the paper’s relationship to that public-private partnership. So, perhaps, that was the paper’s reason for going after him.

But you’re not sure why the settlement would anger the paper or its owner. It’s the city that took the biggest hit in the garage fiasco, right? So, you wonder why the paper would attack the mayor after he helped broker a deal that ended litigation.

You also wonder why people who opposed the River Park Square deal from the beginning are also calling for the mayor to resign. What’s in it for Cherie Rodgers and former Mayor John Talbott? Why is every single council member calling for his resignation? Why are they all bedding down with the Cowles Gang?

A lot of this doesn’t add up, so you would like for someone – anyone! – to float a coherent theory for why the paper would suddenly turn on a man it had endorsed for mayor in 2003 and multiple times before that in legislative races. You had hoped that the mayor himself would’ve shed light on this conundrum by now.

Instead, headline after headline comes, and the mayor and his attorneys only say they need more time to respond. You wonder how long it takes to discredit blatant falsehoods. You wonder why previous supporters such as the Spokane Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Spokane County Republican Party and the state’s Republican Party chief didn’t wait for the mayor’s explanation. You wonder why they aren’t ripping the news coverage. You know you wouldn’t let such damaging articles go unanswered for weeks at a time if they were about you.

So, you wonder. And you wait. But for how long?