October 01, 2004
Blindly Partisan at the Seattle Times

The Seattle Times endorsed John Kerry even before the Republican convention, so it should be no surprise how this morning's paper editorialized about the debate: "Round One: an edge for Kerry, a win for voters ":

The confident performance was not only presidential, it undercut all the assessments of Kerry's inability to serve in the Oval Office as commander in chief ... Kerry and Bush offer starkly different styles and views of the world. Best of all, they can articulate the differences.
The editorial conceded that Bush did well in some ways too, but do they really believe that Kerry articulated much of anything at all, let alone undercut all the assessments of his inability to serve as President? Did the person who wrote this editorial even read the transcript and try to make sense of Kerry's bizarre incoherence?

The other Times' editorial this morning attacks the Nethercutt for Senate campaign ad that merely plays a clip of Patty Murray making her dumb remarks about Osama bin Laden ("Hes been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. Hes made their lives better.
We haven't done that."). "The Hail Osama ads"

The George Nethercutt for U.S. Senate campaign should yank a sleazy attack ad running on TV stations in our state.
The ad insults the intelligence of Washington voters.
The ad raises very important questions:
1) Are Murray's asssertions even factually correct? The Times own article yesterday disputes that Osama builds daycare facilities. Even if Osama has created some humanitarian projects, has he done more in that regard than the United States has done? Murray's campaign has so far failed to either retract the "day care" comment or provide evidence that Osama actually builds day care facilities.
2) To the extent that Osama is admired in parts of the Islamic world, how much of his popularity is due to whatever humanitarian projects he might have contributed to, and how much of his popularity is owed to the fact that he murders infidels?

It's legitimate to ask these questions and to challenge Patty Murray's grasp of the underlying issues. Most voters who examine Murray's statements on the video are likely to conclude that she is an ignorant fool. The Times calls these questions an "insult to intelligence" and "sleazy". The only thing that insults one's intelligence here is that we have a sitting senator who appears so out-of-touch with the reality of the war that we're fighting. The only thing sleazy here is that the state's largest newspaper appears so partisan that it jumps to discredit these legitimate questions about Murray's ability to do her job.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 01, 2004 02:41 PM | Email This
1. Methinks the Seattle Times is bloody partisan. I linked this editorial on my blog earlier today, too.


Posted by: Josef on October 1, 2004 02:54 PM
2. I hope the Nethercutt campaign runs this and hopefully other versions of her comments daily until November. And I hope the Times and the other local rags devote loads of column inches howling in indignation. And let's get Patty Murray shouting liar more ink. Maybe a Netherutt ad could incorporate Patty's liar comments. Take a page from the Swift Boat ad strategy George.

The Times "articles" are only ment to shame the Nethercutt campaign, prompting it to sheath a weapon. I prefer to get these insults to the voters intelligence the broadest possible airing.

This women is a clown, an unserious person for serious times.

Posted by: Gary B on October 3, 2004 11:00 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?