Seattle Times endorses Reichert

[Fenris]

Yeah, yeah, big shock, right? They seem to think Reichert has "nuanced" opinions, while Burner toes the party line.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003303415_eighted15.html

The Auburn Republican deserves re-election. The former King County sheriff has an impressive record of public service and has shown a conscience-driven independent streak that reflects his moderate district. For starters, he refused to play along with his party on the atrocious Terri Schiavo spectacle. He also opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a key part of President Bush's energy policy.

<...>

Opponent Darcy Burner criticizes him for changing some positions, but Reichert shows a capacity for appreciating nuance and an appetite for seeking answers himself and making up his own mind. After initially opposing stem-cell research, he investigated the issue, visiting researchers at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. He sought answers, found them and changed his position.

He surprised many recently by saying he's not convinced about how much global warming is caused by human action. We are convinced it's a substantial contributing factor.

<...>

On the other hand, it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line. The former Microsoft manager is smart and argues effectively for change — if only she were running against President Bush. Which she is not. Burner's public-service record pales in comparison to Reichert's, a law-enforcement officer for more than three decades.

As her only public-spirited pursuits, Burner offers youth coaching and a stint on her community club board. Perhaps more troubling is her spotty voting record. She missed either primary or general election votes in four years, starting in 2000.

<...>

There's more, but it's pretty predictable hagiography.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Not surprised

I'm sure they're endorsing I-920, the Blethen Family Tax Relief Initiative, as well.

[baby_bear]

2. What is "the Democratic Party line"?

Good grief. The Democrats would be in power if we had a "party line." Our diversity and
noncohesiveness - good and bad qualities - make it so that there is so specific party line.
So how the Seattle Times can criticize Darcy Burner on this is beyond me.

I also don't think that being on the county payroll for years necessarily constitutes "public-spirited pursuits." Everyone in King County should realize how Sheriff Reichart angled the county council for exorbitant budget increases for his department. He was not well respected, as my memory indicates.

Someone should go back and dig up all those Seattle Times and P-I articles about how Reichart continually demanded more money from the County budget and was so self-aggrandizing in the process.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in memory.

b_b

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

3. Imagine,

A news source far superior in every way to the press as it is.
If you were the editor of a newspaper such as the Seattle times/PI,-

Such a thought would be your worst nightmare.

Of the reasons newspapers like to put issues-stories to sleep
(put it to bed so to speak)


Is (right) there in Sundays paper.

We tollerate the newspapers limitations in reporting.
We do not have to except those limitations as be valid.
To read between the lines of the newspaper or the journalist and both,
One must project into the truth.

Thats the difference between the writer and the journalist.
The writer rather than except limitations ,will revert to fiction to cover the truth as it is.

The papers power within the structure ,is based on the very bull shit you saw.

That,s why , you buy the paper-not the bull shit.

You take what you can use ,and send the rest to the trash- call that recycling.

Make no mistake about it though- trash is indeed trash.

[RobertSeattle]

4. Horse takes the Editorial Board down too

http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=2104

...
"To this there is only one reasonable response: FUCK YOU! As a Democrat I have spent much of the past decade being vilified by the Republicans, being branded as an immoral traitor and a coward, and of being an enemy of the state. I have watched Karl Rove and his cohorts swift-boat a war hero, and morph a patriot who left three limbs on the battlefield into Osama bin Laden.

And the Times has the temerity to tar Burner with the Karl Rove brush? They attack Burner for running a negative campaign when every single mailer and commercial coming out of the NRCC and the Reichert campaign has been an attack ad? This, after Reichert aired an ad that actually fabricated a quote from the Times? Have they no shame? Are they entirely fucking clueless?"

...

(More at link)

[pscot]

5. It's all about the Benjamins

Their ediotorial rationalizations are just bullshit. Reichert voted in Congress to repeal the inheritance tax, Barcy Burner will not. This is quid pro quo. Republicans aren't that hard to understand. Just follow the money.

[Pierzin]

6. Boycott the Times!!! hahaha!

How can Dave Reichert look at himself in the mirror? Where are the livers of these spineless morally bacnkrupt politicians? It is just
so fundamentally wrong to support ANYTHING this president does.
I just want to wretch!

[JetCityLiberal]

7. Their grovelling over that inheritance tax

has become repulsive. We get the P-I in our home. The blethen's have plenty.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

8. Who does Foley indorse?

!Just honk when you dirve by Vern Fonk
Tomorrows profile is Magic Mike MaGavic in the PI/Times!

If ya can,t hack it ,just ax it!

Magic Mike
!Just honk!

[rhett o rick]

9. My letter to the Times

Sending any republican back to Congress is irresponsible. Those republicans that aren’t corrupt or perverted have done absolutely nothing to stop those that are. In fact in some cases, like the Foley case, the republican leadership as high as the White House covered up the behavior and encouraged Rep Foley to continue as he was.

The republicans having complete control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives has been a disastrous mistake. Rep Reichert has supported the republican machine almost 100% of the time. He obviously isn’t part of the solution, must be part of the problem. We need a change, we need Darcy Burner.

[rhett o rick]

10. My second letter.

How can the Times endorse a candidate that has voted to suspend habeus corpus?
And rationalizes away the Neocons lying to the Country to go to war?
And looks the other way while fellow republicans prey on young pages?
And votes to forgive the President for violating the laws of this Country?
That supports laws that go against the Constitution? Like spying on Americans and indefinite detention of anyone.
How can the Times endorse someone that endorses torture.
Those that can torture or allow torture aren't true Americans, nor true Christians, nor true humans. They are barbarians.
How can the Times endorse a barbarian.
Rep Reichert may not himself be corrupt as some of his fellows, but he has done absolutely nothing to rid the Republican Party of those that are. He has supported them almost 100% of the time.
How can the Times do this?