The Columbian lies: endorsements in the 17th... updated.

As I previously stated, the Columbian will, in any competitive race, ALWAYS endorse the democrat.

Their predictability in that regard is part and parcel of what makes them a worthless carbuncle on the community we live in; and, of course, they absolutely nailed my prediction.

Who can forget their "brilliant" endorsement of Don Benton's opponent in 2000?

It read, in part:

“...although sincere and well-intentioned, lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the important policy questions for Southwest Washington and the state. About the only attribute in his favor is the fact that he’s not Don Benton. And on that admittedly flimsy basis, we endorse Peterson.”

And these slime then whine when the candidates they've trashed... repeatedly... won't come in and put their heads on the democratian's chopping block?

I've got to wonder why Benton doesn't punch a hole through Brancaccio... and Lou snivels like this?

When it comes to Probst, if Benton's opponent was Mao, they'd still endorse him over Benton.  They lie, exaggerate, twist, and write for those carrying their water like Gunga Din: this race is no exception.

Their hatred of Benton for ignoring their self-serving, downtown mafia-centric agenda, and failing to kiss their ass every hour on the hour has always been the sort of thing that drives Liar Lou Brancaccio insane with personal rage and animus.  It's is the thing of political legends.

Ask yourself: if Benton had been working as hard FOR the democratian's agenda as he has worked to spike it, would we be reading any of their sewage concerning endorsing his opponent, any other excuse for this crap notwithstanding?

When they write of Probst:

The Columbian endorses Probst because of his poised approach, intense work ethic and his superior record of legislative and civic contributions, especially in job creation,

That is an outright lie.

Probst supports the democratian's agenda which, stunningly enough, happens to match the democrat's agenda to a "T."  Odd that they don't mention his rabid support of their agenda, or Benton's opposition to it.  Nor do they mention Stonier's support of that theft program.

Why do you suppose that is?  Project isn't big enough to mention?

Like the democratian, Probst wants to waste billions of dollars replacing a bridge that does not need to be replaced.

Like the democratian, Probst wants loot rail.

Like the democratian, Probst wants tolls of ever-increasing size that will last forever.

Add Brancaccio's hatred of Benton and Lou's fringe left, screw what the people want bent, and voilà'!  You have the endorsement of his fellow leftist (Brancaccio is psychopathic in his completely false claims that he's "non-partisan") and their subsequent endorsement of Probst meets the established criteria completely:

1.  Is the race competitive?

2.  Do they support the bridge rip-off?

3.  Are they democrat? 

If those criteria are met: the endorsement will ALWAYS go to the democrat.

The second example of this is the Stonier race.

Stonier is gong to lose.  But because this race, for some reason, is viewed as competitive by the rag, this woman... who's a total union/WEA Obama super-delegate hack.... well, they endorse her THIS time, (for whatever the reason, that disqualified her last time) because, well, she meets the criteria.

The lie, for example, that "Stonier came out ahead in the primary" in an obvious Rivers-Dennis Kampe play where Kampe "came out ahead in the primary" (because he was the only democrat running in the district (Kampe got 31.92% of the vote) and there were, if memory serves, 6 others splitting the rest of the vote as 2 Republicans split the vote here) only to be crushed in the general with Rivers winning with 60% plus of the vote.

The Republican vote was 55% in the primary; it's likely to be about that in the general; the rag knows it, so their effort to manipulate the outcome by making the absurd claim that Stonier "came out ahead in the primary" just goes to their bizarre efforts to get democrats elected.

Further, in endorsing their fellow fringe-leftist, the democratian ignores the VALUE of Olson's elective  and executive experience at a school board... of which Stonier has zero, somehow believing that Stonier's NON-experience is a better fit then Olson's proven record.

It matters not to them when they want a democrat elected.

The Harris-Gizzi race isn't competitive.  In reality, neither is the Olson-Stonier race... but they would sure like to change THAT.

Historically, the democratian endorsements and agenda has served as a convenient guide as to which candidates to vote AGAINST (whoever they endorse in competitive races) how to vote on the initiatives (voting against whichever ones they like, supporting whichever ones they oppose) and to date, they've done nothing to break out of that mold, as their "arguments are not persuasive."

There will be other endorsements filled with the democratian's situational ethics and shifting criteria, where in one endorsement, a candidate's experience will be a huge factor, and in another, it will mean nothing.  These people manipulate their endorsements to the point where they're utterly worthless and by far are much more a reflection of their deeply held, fringe-left bias than anything else they have to offer this community.

Imagine how much more positive this rag would be if they just printed the news, didn't lie, exaggerate, or use his soap box as a club to beat on those wise enough to disagree with these scum.