It's a lot simpler than that. The owner just told them to vote that way.
If they didn't, they'd be fired. It was never said that was the result, but that is what would have happened.
Gut instinct? Are they fucking serious?
I mailed my ballot this morning (Team Cantwell) and I'm STILL cancelling my Times subscription.
Good job exposing the Times on their BS, Josh.
Will is correct. Blethenstein said "Grrrr, death tax, grrrr!", and they duly endorsed McLimpdick.
I mean really, "We agree with Cantwell 80% of the time, but our guts, man, our guts! They tell us vote for Mike!" wtf?
What Vesely failed to mention is that a vote for McGavick is a vote for the knee-jerk wedge issues (gay marriage, flag-crapping, etc.) of the Partisanocracy -- which for some reason has been moderately successful in cleaving the populace into two divergent groups, a la the Sunnis and Shiites. We've heard it before. And frankly, I'm tired of a Senate that resembles a Miami/FIU football game. Can we vote for people who legislate to help us, rather than those who are paid to call each other terrorist-supporters?
(Speaking of that, as I type here in Bothell, a small plane flying a Stephen Johnson banner is hovering over my office ... wow ... )
Believe it or not, there are actual candidates in many other states -- Republican and Democrat -- who eskew this technique in favoring of representing their actual constituents, presenting thought leadership and exemplifying the reasons why many folks run for office in the first place. Check this month's Esquire (no, really) for a great rundown.
For this and other reasons, I too canceled my Times subscription this morning.
I'm hep to this month's Esquire. Check my post from 2am this morning. Anyone that gives out Rep. Cynthia McKinney Awards for the worst members of Congress is worth checking in with.
Josh, you are my hero!
I'm so glad I got me some edd-yu-cayshun so I could see through that "repeal the estate tax" smoke screen of an endorsement by the ST editorial board.
Thank you Josh for putting exposing this big fat liar in your paper.
What's your point, Matthew?
Keep in mind Josh...as Annie Wagner said on the Buju issue: "...I do want to address the complaints about the The Stranger’s perceived “hypocrisy” on this issue. Point number one: The Stranger is not a monolithic entity. Sometimes we speak with one voice (political endorsements, for example—which are only issued after vociferous internal debate), but generally, we’re all responsible for our own opinions."
Couldn't the editorial board have come together, discussed the issues and ultimately come to the conclusion that McGavick is the man? Couldn't the other articles have been written by individual reporters being their "own person"?
What makes all the previous articles the sole voice of the Seattle Times?
Good job, Josh. The bit about McGavick's private sector experience should be blown to hell as well. Ms. Cantwell has plenty of that herself and, like McGavick, became quite wealthy from her experience.
The Times is not a monolithic entity—agreed. Neither is the Stranger. But we're talking about the unsigned editorials, written collectively by the entire board, and signed off on by the entire board. And Josh's article consistently refers to the Seattle Times' editorial board and its—its, singular—stated position on the issues.
The McGavick endorsement, like all those editorials that take positions opposite to the ones McGavick has taken, was written by the board and reprsents the paper's official, collective position.
The paper's unsigned editorials are not one writer's opinion, and neither is the McGavick endorsement.
Annie was quite clear—did you even read the quote you included in your comment? "Sometimes we speak with one voice (political endorsements, for example—which are only issued after vociferous internal debate), but generally, we’re all responsible for our own opinions."
I've been queasy about the Times' editorial board since my own campaign. I went in for my endorsement interview, which was held jointly with my opponent, debate-style, rather than privately. They fawned all over my opponent, sitting and shooting the shit with him, asking about his health, blah blah blah. Then they turn to me and snap, "so why should anyone vote for YOU?"
Wow. Thanks for making the non-millionaire in the race feel like an unwelcome interloper, guys. Guess I should have been groveling at their knees in pathetic gratitude that they mentioned my name in their crappy birdcage liner at all.
Then again, even though they endorsed my opponent (imagine my surprise), they did say a couple of nice things about me. Sigh...
Nice work on this issue, guys.
Nice one. The Times endorsements across the board seem to follow that paranoia and dysfunction are a healthier economic environment for their enterprise than better governance is. Or BlethanCo have finally gone full on with the dementia.
Then times is a mediasaur that will walk for a few decades even after it's dead. What it's good for is to read for free off the Internets or if you're eating breakfast somewhere there's no Little Nickel. Voters haven't given a rusty fuck who the times endorses for as long as I can remember.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).