Thursday, July 22, 2010

Columbian starts their democrat endorsement slate.

In the 2008 election, The Columbian endorsed democrats, and nothing but democrats, for every open seat on the ballot from president on down to state representative.

As mentioned, president? Obama (And man, THAT'S worked out well, hasn't it?)

State Treasurer? McIntire (Never mind that 33 of this state's county treasurers and the Republican's democrat boss had endorsed him, or that he had worked in the office for several years... he wasn't a democrat.)

State Representative 17th? Probst

State Representative 49th? Jacks

County Commissioner? Brokaw

These were the only open seats available for the local democrat newsletter to endorse.

Now, ideally, endorsements would be based on mundane issues such as experience, education, vision, ideas, a record of success. And the same standard would be applied to everyone, equally.


The problem here is that our local rag only plays the "experience" card when it suits them.

When they want a democrat to win (always, as far as that goes) and the democrat has no experience that qualifies them for election, then their lack of experience is ignored.

For example, McIntire had precisely zero experience in the state treasurers office, so his complete lack of experience had no impact on the rag's decision to endorse him. In endorsing McIntire, they ignored the 33 county endorsements of his Republican opponent, as well as his opponent's democrat boss... and they certainly ignored the fact that the Republican was the Deputy State Treasurer.

But what McIntire DID have going for him was this:

1. Open seat.
2. Democrat.
3. Very big on a state income tax.

The first two, of course, were the clincher for the rag. The third was just icing on the cake.

So, the rag plays the "experience" card whenever it suits them, and fails to play it whenever it suits them.

Their endorsement of Pam Brokaw, for example.

Brokaw had zero elective experience. Brokaw was the direct recipient of David Barnett's corruptive largess in the form of thousands and thousands of dollars. She cowardly "failed" to take positions on the bridger/looter situation OR the Barnett casino.

Her opponent, Commissioner Mielke, had been elected to state representative for 4 terms, had served on a variety of committees covering a variety of areas of concern to a commissioner at the county level.... and none of that meant anything.

They carried Brokaw's water like Gunga Din. She lost, of course: cowardice in positions is rarely an attractive characteristic to the voter.

That, of course, brings us to the pre-endorsement endorsement of Golik for county prosecutor.

The selective application of facts is one of the more despicable aspects of the Columbian's editorial decisions.

For example, this little tidbit:
Indeed, it’s difficult to overstate the value of Golik’s endorsements. Not only have his fellow deputy prosecutors tabbed him as their top choice, he’s been endorsed by Vancouver police officers, Clark County sheriff’s officers and police officers in five other cities in Clark County.

I missed any mention in this tripe of an endorsement of the fact that Golik is the president of the prosecutor's union.

Naturally, all of the other unions involved will endorse both a fellow unionist AND a union president.

That's obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that the local stain on our community neglected to mention that minor little detail.

Because, of course, if they HAD mentioned that little fact, then the lack of value.... the worthlessness of these endorsements would have been obvious.

But because it's an open seat, and because this paper's agenda is to only elect democrats whenever possible, and because including the facts behind these endorsements would guarantee the Republican's elections, these low lifes left that out.

I'm stunned.

Are you stunned?

It's this selective applications of facts that make the local rag dangerous. They have a duty to present ALL of the facts... not just the ones they like.

Did they do that here?

Of course not.

It's not like they didn't know (from the Columbian article "Prosecutor's Union backs Tony Golik"):
Golik is the president of the prosecutors union but was excluded from participating in the vetting process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it's not like these scum DIDN'T know. It's just that they didn't believe YOU should know.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about the rag's selective self-censorship.

1 comment:

Lew Waters said...

Lou Brancaccio loves to pint out that they endorsed President Bush in 2004, to deflect the obvious bias.

One endorsement?