SEATTLE TIMES (endorses): Kerry for President

[Newsjock]

Just posted, from Friday's paper. A shocker!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002016659_kerryed27.html

Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.

The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

The first issue is the war. When the Bush administration began beating the drums for war on Iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. When war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. The troops deserved it. In hindsight, their commander in chief did not.

... This page had high hopes for President Bush regarding taxing and spending. We endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. In the end, there was no discipline in it. In control of the Senate, the House and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the Republicans have had a celebration of spending.

more

[Baja Margie]

1. Praise the Lord !

[LynnTheDem]

2. WOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW!!!!!!!!! (I can do that, I live in Texas :D )


YIPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!


HAPPY DANCIN'!!!

[TransitJohn]

3. happily kicking

:bounce: :kick: :bounce: :kick: :bounce: :kick:

[ribrepin]

4. Amazing

Seattle Times leans conservative. I would have thought they would hop on the * bandwagon.

I think * should prepare to return to Crawford. Does anybody know if the Seattle Times has ever endorsed a democrat for president?

[Ediacara]

6. They don't lean conservative

They're less liberal then the PI, but that doesn't mean they lean conservative. In 2000 they actually endorsed Bill Bradley in the primaries! The editorial board was overruled by the paper's owner in the 2000 endorsement, and the convoluted logic by the editorial staff was astounding.

[dennis4868]

18. correct me if I am wrong....

but didn't they endorse Clinton in 1992?

[Ruffhowse]

5. This will help take Washington off the "in play" list and firmly into

Kerry's camp.

[TXDemGal]

7. Good stuff!

Anybody know which media company owns the SI?

[Ediacara]

9. The Times is privately owned IIRC

by the Blethen family, but I think they're associated somehow with Knight-Ridder. Seattle's other daily, the P-I, is a Hearst Paper IIRC.

[TXDemGal]

11. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[gort]

22. Blethen family votes their pocketbook

Frank Blethen leans a lot to the right. He allegedly bullied his editorial board into endorsing Bush over Gore because he felt a Bush administration would be more favorable to his attempt to abandon the JOA with the Seattle-PI.

Looks like the editorial staff did a pre-emptive endorsement before Blethen could muscle his choice on them like he did last time.

I will not be surprised if in the near future some of these editorial staffers decide to step down so that they can "spend more time with their family."

Also, for fun, do a Google on Frank Blethen. Enter these words: Frank Blethen shot neighbor's dog.

Have fun.

[AnnitaR]

8. Not only happy for the endorsement but...

DAMN! Love the way they wrote it too! Gee if that isn't a kick in th gut for W!

Woo Hoo! :toast:

[regnaD kciN]

10. Does the publisher know about this?????

In 2000, the entire editorial staff voted to endorse Gore, but were overridden by Frank Blethen, the publisher. Why? Because the Times is a family-owned paper, and Blethen was beating the drums for the GOP-sponsored repeal of the estate tax, supposedly because his poor downtrodden family wouldn't be able to hang on to the paper after his death without it. He ordered the staff to cast aside their own positions and write a ringing endorsement for Bush, talking about his
honor and high moral standards :puke: (unlike that nasty Clinton and his permissive Democratic cohorts). Everyone in Seattle knew that it wasn't about "honor and dignity," it was about "the estate tax, stupid!"

So, now, we get one of the earliest endorsements of any presidential candidate I've ever heard of, and it goes against the publisher's darling. I can only wonder if the editorial staff decided to stage a "pre-emptive strike" without Blethen's knowledge or permission. And, if so, it will be interesting to see how many heads roll at the Times over the weekend...

[DaveSZ]

12. Hmm

Was the estate tax repealed?

[MagickMuffin]

13. Fool me once

At least they've seen the light at the end of the darkest tunnel America has ever had to witness.
Perhaps they should have done their homework way back in '99-'00.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again!
pResident Bush Sept.19,2002

[acmavm]

14. Yes!!

.

[GOPFighter]

15. YES!

I hope this is just the beginning of an onslaught of endorsements from thoughtful editorial staffs. They didn't even wait until after the GOP Convention to make their endorsement!

Nominated for front page.

:kick:

[Inland]

16. The key statement:

"give the president the benefit of the doubt."

Kerry did it. Congress did it. The country did it. Not just on war, but on domestic policies and homeland security, too. The president dared us to call him out, and time and time again the country felt that it had no choice but to trust the man occupying the office. But the man in the office doesn't have to be Bush. It can be someone worthy of the trust.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Good God they chose Bush over GORE!?!

I hope their change in sentiment is typical of ex-Bush supporters.

[Robb]

19. What a great line

"The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind." :) :thumbsup:

[Jack Rabbit]

20. This is a surprise

As this piece points out, the Seattle Times also wrote an editorial in the Spring of 2003 endorsing Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq that repeated all the junta's lies and talking points.

To win this election, we will have accept the support of those who were wrong about Iraq, even some who continue to be wrong.

Sober conservatives should be encouraged to reject Bush, even if not all will. Those who agree with Bush in principle must agree that he doesn't have a clue as to how to go about what he is doing. Were I a conservative, I would at least be entertaining the idea that a competent liberal is better than an incompetent conservative.

[regnaD kciN]

27. A s(n)ide comment...

To win this election, we will have accept the support of those who were wrong about Iraq, even some who continue to be wrong.

You mean, like the nominee himself?

;-)

[WI_DEM]

21. Wow and an early endorsement too

I don't think the Chimp will get nearly as many endorsements this time.

[LisaM]

23. We are going to subscribe to it TODAY

and tell them why. We've always gotten the P.I.

[Katha]

24. YAYYYYYYYYYY!

Fantastic! It was brave of them to endorse Kerry. :wow:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

25. .........................

[AspenRose]

26. Is anyone keeping track of all Kerry newspaper endorsements?

It'll be interesting to see them all compiled by region and see Kerry's influence nationwide.

[llmart]

28. Are they the first major newspaper to issue an endorsement?

This is terrific. Even though I find it appallingly lazy of voters, many just vote for who their paper endorses. When I was in line to vote for Gore in 2000 the woman in front of me was told she could not take her newspaper in to the voting booth with her and she said, "Then how will I know who to vote for?" The sheeple look to someone else to tell them who to vote for. Sad.

I only hope both Detroit newspapers endorse Kerry, though I highly doubt that the conservative leaning Detroit News would have the moral fortitude to do that, even though they know Bush has been a disaster.