SEN-WA: Left-of-Center Seattle Times Endorses McGavick (R-WA)
Paper endorsed Cantwell (D-WA) six years ago.
By Adam C Posted in Archived — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The reliable left-of-center Seattle Times has made a surprise endorsement of Republican Mike McGavick. Bellpe diaried about the endorsement and other recent WA SEN happenings. I wanted to bring out some of the details of this solid endorsement starting first with the indictments of Cantwell.
Critics will note that McGavick supports the elimination of the federal estate tax, a cause for which The Seattle Times has campaigned many years. That is part of why we endorse him, but not most of it. We endorsed Cantwell six years ago, knowing her position on the estate tax, and could endorse her again...
McGavick would consider the deployment of more troops. That is painful but possible. Cantwell would have other countries pay for a multinational occupation, and have Turkey and Egypt send troops. That is wonderful but unreal. A candidate from either party calling for an immediate withdrawal would be refreshing, but that seems beyond the imagination of modern campaigns...
When asked about control of public spending, Cantwell restates her support of the line-item veto, a reform that would require a constitutional amendment and therefore isn't realistic, either. Her actual voting record has not been for restraint...
And now for the reasons McGavick would make "an innovative and influential senator for Washington."
Mike McGavick is an unusual businessman-politician. He managed the multibillion-dollar turnaround of Safeco Corporation, sacrificing some jobs but saving many others. He showed a sense of social purpose in his stress on racial inclusion at Safeco. He knows politics, having worked for Sen. Slade Gorton. He has run a clean campaign...
We are for [renewable energy] ideas to the extent they are real, but we agree with McGavick that "when you study renewables you don't see big numbers relative to economic need." He would have a look at nuclear power and build the waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Cantwell voted against Yucca Mountain.
It is not the type of ringing endorsement, a right-of-center paper would post. But then again it is not common for major papers to refuse to endorse incumbents generally friendly to their editorial opinions. This speaks well of the Seattle Times for actually listening to the campaigns and analyzing who would be a better Senator for Washington. Mr. McGavick is a dynamic leader and his addition to the Senate would not always please conservatives. Yet as a West Coast Republican, he and Oregon's Gordon Smith would be good role models for moderate Republican success on the west coast. Kudos to the Seattle Times and to Mr. McGavick for securing this endorsement.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Hugo Chavez suffers an "embarassing" loss at the United Nations — Comments (3) »
SEN-WA: Left-of-Center Seattle Times Endorses McGavick (R-WA) 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Also endorsed McGavick in today's editorial page. Surprising in a liberal college town.
In other developments, McGavick is apparently redefining himself at this late hour -- "late" in that all-mail ballot counties have already delivered general election ballots to voters -- as a "different kind of Republican." What that constitutes is a little vague so far. Some sort of "McCain lite?"
His tv commercial repetitions seem unabated, despite the recently-reported cessation of national Republican funding. A recent RS commenter attributed this to his being a self-funder which I took to mean giving or loaning his own money to his campaign.
The quality of his tv ads remains quite high.
Bellinghamster
These are what Lefties are supposed to be. Honest disagreement while still aiming for the same goals we are. Think about today's Left...do they share the same goals we do? Nope. These are opinions I can respect.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
supposed to faint and fawn over like David Copperfields grateful to get a crumb from the master's table and which the MSM will hold up as proof of their objectivity.
The sooner we quit trying to get MSM to like us the better. They NEVER will. But if they ever do, it will mean we have failed!
We, and I mean Fox News and Red State, et al must one day get to the point that WE set the agenda that the MSM responds to. Rather than continuing to let the MSM decide what is news.
Red State is eons ahead of Fox News, I am proud to say.
This fits in with my waging of war post Haystack's declaration against CNN-MSM-THE LEFT...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Despite the fact that Fox puts on the air a few more Republicans than the rest, the whole Fox News organization is no more reliable than any other.
Their aggressive recruitment from CNN guarantees that.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Any network that trots Alan Colmes out as the face of the liberal left is not playing fair!
Personally I love it...he SO articulates everything left! In an inarticulate way, that is!
I wouldn't know, but yes, I will grant you that they have a solid bloc of anchors/commentators that slant one way.
That's just commentary, though. A viewer discounts that. I'm more worried about the facts given in their straight news shows and accounts.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
If they really wanted to make the left look bad, they would put somebody like Carville in there. Heck, even Jimmah Carter in that slot would make them look much worse.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Have you noticed how Rush has Admin and elected GOP congressmen as guests now than he used to? He has really been filling a gap that way. He has been a major factor in righting the GOP ship this election season in just the way i think we should be setting the agenda instead of following it.
Fox News is a big disappointment. While they do better characterize the news and give it a better perspective historically and otherwise more of the time than not, they still more often that not accept the CW and spout knownfacts too much.
They should mostly ignore what the MSM says is news. They should not read the NYT front page at 5 am.
And when they do mention the MSM it should be to correct their lies.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
A news story will come on Fox News and Nan will say, "hey did you hear that!"
And I'll tell her, "Yeah, we hashed that subject out on RedState two days ago!"
And, of course, the story will never even make the MSM!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Sadly, the blogs on the right reach maybe 100,000 people a day, while the MSM reaches everyone. I'm a bit surprised that more people have not switched to getting their political info online.
Frank Blethen, the recent owner of the Seattle Times, is a one-trick pony. His one and only issue is ending the estate tax, because the Times is a family-owned business, and he doesn't want his kids to pay anything when he drops dead. He's donated a lot of money to GOP estate tax opponents at the federal level, and the local level. So, the paper endorses on that issue, and runs constant editorials on it (without much, if any, disclosure of their self-interest). For some education, you can start here and google onwards. Basically, an estate-tax opponent supporting a GOP nominee is hardly news.
They still endorsed Cantwell over incumbent Gorton in 2000. Although I don't know for sure, I bet Gorton was in favor of repealing the death tax. And he was a noted moderate Republican. They obviously took a gamble on Cantwell and won by a narrow 2,229 vote margin. The Times editorial will definitely give cover to those who are uneasy about Cantwell but worried about voting Republican, especially independents and moderates. This, if played right by the campaign, should win over a few new voters. If the race is anywhere as close as 2000, it may matter.
Overall, I think their endorsement of Cantwell in 2000 shows they are not a "one trick pony" regardless of their motivations. It may be a major issue in their calculus, but it is not the only one. Flipping support against an incumbent signifies that one feels let down. That's how this editorial reads to me.
The endorsement of McGavick specifically pre-empts your claim that this was a "one-issue" endorsement. In 2000, the paper endorsed Cantwell, knowing full well her position on the Estate Tax. McGavick landed this clutch endorsement because he has worked hard to convince the paper he will be the kind of Senator this state deserves, not working on the edge of issues and not spitting in other Senator's faces (i.e. Cantwell/Stevens debacle). McGavick's other endorsements today by the Bham Herald and the Walla-Walla Bulletin might not be the "groundswell" of support, people have been hoping for, but they are a sign that this race is still competitive, and winnable.
Take your naysaying elsewhere. Please.
Blogging at RespectfullyRepublican.com
One wonders, with the Seattle Times circulation going in the tank, as is the LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post, if they are simply doing this endorcement to try to get additional subscriptions from the other side of the political aisle, knowing that Cantwell is far ahead and probably has the election in the bag. The term "left of center" describing the Seattle Times is laughable...They are definitely FAR LEFT. NO ONE I know where I live can stand to read their tripe. Just a thought anyway, if one has a devious mind.
Don C.
I'm not a resident of the area and only read the Seattle Times infrequently. Note I did not say how far "left-of-center" they were. From this endorsements view, it seems they are slightly to the left of the WaPo (who endorsed the war). The opposition to the estate tax is not a far left position. But it seems they would be a reliably Democratic editorial column, which is why the endorsement is important. If they had endorsed Cantwell, nobody would blink any eye.
As a one time Seattle-area resident (Bremerton - Navy yards), my guess is that the paper is sensing that they are tanking with the newspaper reading public.
Liberals hate conservatives, but they are sometimes "intriguied" by libertarians. Their only savior might be the libertarian voter. So, they are less offended by reaching out to him/her than they would be a conservative Republican. And the Seattle area is more libertarian than most other cities.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
This could give a boost to McGavick. I don't think people pay much attention when a liberal publication endorses a liberal Democrat. But when a liberal publication endorses a Republican, people will take notice.
I trust this will boost Mike.
In King County we have three major newspapers:
1: Seattle Post Intellegencer (the P-I): This newspaper is the the "Ned Lamont" newspaper- basically they are the public face of "true belivers" of the left. They are still basically sane about non-political issues. On political issues they are borderline.
The P-I is also losing money and are only able to continue operating because of their joint-enterprise agreement with the Times. The Times is just about to win the final round of the lawsuit that will close the P-I down. It's kind of sad, they are the most liberal of the three major newspapers, but they also had the best sports section.
2: Seattle Times: This newspaper is the "New Democrat" (dare I say "Clintonian") newspaper- they pay more attention to business realities, and enjoy a sort of counter-elitism elitism against their fellow liberal paper (the P-I). You know the type of liberal I'm talking about. The one who prides himself on "right-thinking" and being part of the "right-people" who *care* about the poor/disadvantaged, but also pride themselves on their "moderation" which basically allows them to look down on conservatives as unfeeling, and look down on idealogically pure liberals as extremists.
I have noticed that they tend to make endorsments of Republicans as long as
A: the Republican is running as a business friendly moderate; and either
B: the Republican appears to have little chance of actually winning, or
C: there is no way the Republican will lose.
The Seattle Times probably has the biggest subscription of the three newspapers- but this subscription has been in decline.
3: King County Journal (previously the Eastside Journal): This is the smallest and newest of the three major newspapers. Based outside Seattle on the Eastside, the KCJ is by far the more conservative newspaper- but more of a "McGavik", business friendly moderate. Unlike the other two newspapers, the KCJ has been growing. Also unlike the other two newspapers, the KCJ tends to focus more on local issues and events. There is also less of a focus on politics. The KCJ has recently been put up for sale, as the owner feels he lacks the capital necessary to turn the KCJ into a "real" newspaper.
Truthfully the KCJ is a little too thin- literally.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)