Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Science Proves Life Begins at ... | Monday Night Madonnaisance »

Monday, October 16, 2006

While We’re on the Subject of Burner…

posted by on October 16 at 17:30 PM

Did you catch the Seattle Times endorsement of Dave Reichert on Sunday? Goldy did, and he’s out for blood, calling the endorsement:

A turgidly written, rhetorically dishonest piece of sophistry.

Indeed, while Times columnist Joni Balter, a member of the editorial board, described Reichert in July as “not the sharpest pencil in the backpack,” the Times endorsement now praises him for having “matured” in office and for showing “a capacity for appreciating nuance and an appetite for seeking answers.”

What’s going on here? Goldy and McJoan at DailyKos both see one thing driving the Times’ endorsement: The Estate Tax. McJoan points out that when he voted to repeal the Estate Tax earlier this year, Reichert put out a press release mentioning the Times by name as a reason for his vote. And Goldy puts it this way:

The Times incessant shilling for estate tax repeal has so strained its credibility and bored its readers that its endorsements have become more an exercise in narcissism than civic engagement.

UPDATE: And over at Northwest Progressive Institute, Andrew Villeneuve says the Times has “disgraced itself.”

RSS icon Comments


Is this your way of saying you're not nominating the Times ed board for The Stranger Genius Award?

Posted by Eli, why did you leave the Times? | October 16, 2006 6:41 PM

Is this your way of saying you're not nominating the Times ed board for The Stranger Genius Award?

Posted by Eli, why did you leave the Times? | October 16, 2006 6:41 PM

From today's Seattle Times Q&A with Reichert:

Do you favor estate tax? Why (either way)? — Evelyne Tsezana, Auburn

Dave Reichert: I want to permanently eliminate the death tax. The assets people work hard to accumulate and that are already taxed during their lifetimes should be theirs to pass to whomever they wish when they die.

Glad we got that on record.

Posted by Daniel K | October 16, 2006 7:17 PM

The Times endorsement was deplorable, especially after that damning piece on Sheriff Hairspray in the PI just last week. It's probably the same logic that led them to endorse Stephen Johnson over Susan Owens for State Supreme Court.

There's only one rationale behind the Times endorsements, and it's spelled G-R-E-E-D.

Posted by Andrew | October 16, 2006 7:58 PM

It will be a happy, happy day for me when the Seattle Times finally closes up shop: A smarmier, kiss-assier. more banal paper has seldom found it's way to print.

The Blethen mongoloids can doubtless live off the fruits of their forebearer's labor, costing society no more than the occassional bastard child or veneral treatment, and that is fine - just as long as that dreadful, banal rag is finally gone from Our Fair City.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | October 16, 2006 9:43 PM

I agree that Joni Balter is not the sharpest pencil in the backpack, on the other hand nobody has ever accused The Stranger of disgracing itself.

For those who are convinced that oppposition to the death tax is the only issue that motivates the Seattle Times editorial board, I'll observe that the Times endorsed Patty Murray over George Nethercutt, John Kerry over GWB and Dave Ross over Dave Reichert in 2004.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | October 16, 2006 10:06 PM

However, Stephan, what's also true is that the Democrats stand a fair chance of a majority in the House come 2006, effectively killing any permanent removal of the Estate Tax for the near future.

Desperate times, in Blethen's mind, I suspect, call for desperate measures.

And that's pretty much what the Times' endorsement of Reichert is, in a nutshell - desperate.

Posted by palamedes | October 16, 2006 11:02 PM

I'd like to be clear that I always expected the Times to endorse Reichert, as is their right. My objection was to the means spirited tone of the editorial, and the dishonest, one-sided portrayal of the race.

To compare Burner to Karl Rove was not just offensive, it was downright disgusting. The Times owes Burner an apology.

Posted by Goldy | October 16, 2006 11:21 PM

I know that this may burst some egos in the publishing world, but does anyone really care what candidates newspapers endorse?

Goldy's criticism is spot on in it's comments on the tone of the editorial. But, seriously, no one cares who the Times, The Stranger, the P-I, or any other newspaper endorses for office. The only category that might be effective for are judgeships since most people rarely get exposed to the views of the candidates. Even then, I suspect the effect is negligible.

Posted by B.D. | October 17, 2006 5:10 AM

what do you mean --- jamie pedersen did not have either the times, pi, stranger or the muni league - nada in the hotly contested race 43rd race

but, he did have the critical backing of the seattle gay news, sgn, and seamec

i think i would call that targeted influence vs. scattergun endorsements, seems of little value in most races

talking of endorsements, labor did not deliver to their candidate, and neither did the enviros - paper tigers in seattle when it comes to grunt work - some talk amd some money, no traction on the ground

Posted by Jac | October 17, 2006 6:05 AM

The times endorsement is of great value in that, they feel, no alarm bells ring about the Silver Fox..... so says the stalwart and top of the ladder daily.

In effect the Times is saying nothing so bad has happened to useat the incumbent.

Good, very good message for him.

In a close race to unseat, voters need reasons to jettison the status quo, the Times says there are none.

No great glamour lines but fine for Reichert. Bruner is getting a lot of hype from Seattle based liberatls, what that means for votes in that district is an interesting question.

Might backfire on her.

The so called Goldy, lives in the 37th. What does he know of the eastside vs. people who have lived there for many years? Small scale carbetbagging.

Goldy is activating resources to Bruner, as is the Stanger, money and hours, but the eastside locals might begin to resent the Seattle freak scene political players mucking around in their backyard.

Posted by aubrey | October 17, 2006 6:22 AM

I actually value the Stranger's voting guide very much.

Posted by why not? | October 17, 2006 6:24 AM

Actually, Pedersen had the luke-warm endorsement of SEAMAC. They split their endorsement between Pedersen and that wild-eyed lady, an almost unheard of move in a race with a viable gay candidate.

I'm voting for Hugh Foskett. That sailor suit! So cute!

Posted by Stalker of Celery | October 17, 2006 7:18 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).