The pit yorkie is already tap dancing on their endorsements.

So, we get the usual prevaricating gruel from Laird concerning endorsements:

Plenty of reasons to be angry — Readers who complain that The Columbian is just a den of far-left loony liberals will no doubt point to the 10 Democrats we endorsed in the Nov. 6 election as evidence.

Conversely, readers who insist the editorial board is just a bunch of radical right-wing extremists will quickly reference the 12 Republicans we endorsed.

As we know by now, Laird is a lying scumbag who couldn't tell the truth if someone had a bulldozer aimed at his head.

There's NOTHING "balanced" about these endorsements.  In fact, given the massive whining and complaining the democratian does about what those they've endorsed actually DO at the state level, it amazes me that they so dense, so unalterably stupid, that they can't see that they bear partial blame for these outcomes.

Here, locally, their filter is set like this:

The endorsement rules are simple:

Is the race competitive?
Are they democrat?
Do they support the CRC?

If the answer is "yes" to those 3 questions, in no particular order, they're endorsed.

Thus the endorsements of every CRC supporting democrat, including Boldt.

Simple, really. And it's leaned so far left it's impossible for it to stand upright.

Just for one example, when the democratian endorses a Republican in a race where only those labeled Republicans are running (Boldt is no more a Republican than my spaniels) that is hardly a sign of "Balance," or anything at all to brag about.  Laird, of course, knows that, but they're not above lying to get what they want, and in this case, they're seeking to buttress their fake cred as "unbiased."

So, let's test my theory to determine it's validity:

The rag has endorsed the following here locally in competitive races:

Probst, Stonier, Cleveland, Wylie, Hussein, McKenna, Boldt, Tanner.

With Stonier, who they positively TRASHED in 2010, she's undergone some miraculous transformation to their preferred candidate this time around.

Now, what do all these morons have in common?

Each of them... every single one of them, favors the new bridge scam/loot rail and tolls.

But even before they get that far, the first question is: are they democrat?  Boldt and McKenna are, other labeling notwithstanding:  They vote and think like leftists who don't give a rat's ass about what the people want.

In the state-wide race, every candidate the democratian supports also supports the CRC where applicable... and gay marriage.  Any resemblance to a "Republican" is purely coincidental and based on the candidate's political expediency.

The pit yorkie knows all this: endorsing a Republican more democrat then the democrat, or endorsing a Republican when you can only choose Republicans TO endorse is the kind of disingenuous parsing that this lying slimeball is known for.

Because if they weren't lying, why are they withholding information from the voter on the CRC?  Why have they implemented a double standard for their candidates, holding up GOP literature to strict (and moronically false) scrutiny while failing to go over leftist literature with the same microscope?

The candidates label is meaningless in the face of their leftwing intransigence.  For example, Boldt could call himself a member of the Hyena Party and it wouldn't change the fact that in every measurable way, he's much more likely to vote with Stuart and against Mielke... the Republican... on the commission.

And like the rag, that's all I need to know.

Unfortunately for the yorkie, this kind of parsing crap just make you look like... well... like a John Laird.

And who in their right mind wants to look like that?