Yet another disgruntled ex-reader cancels their subscription to the Seattle Times:
Editor
Seattle TimesBy this email I am canceling my subscription to the Seattle Times. Your endorsement of Rob McKenna’s self-serving challenge to the constitutionality of the health insurance reform bill argues that the suit is a challenge to Big Insurance that progressives should approve. The idea that the Seattle Times supports the challenge out of a concern for the power of corporations in American life lacks any credible evidence in the editorial positions historically taken by the Times.
The Times has every right to support McKenna’s efforts to tack the gubernatorial shoals of Tea Parties and Clubs for Growth, but doing it with a lecture about what liberals should believe grates one last time too many on me. Lawsuits are supposed to be filed in a good faith belief in the positions advanced. Unless he is dumb and, therefore not qualified to be Governor, McKenna cannot believe that this lawsuit has merit. When McKenna files and the Times endorses a suit against corporate personhood to overturn Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, I’ll re-subscribe.
I’ve learned to live without the PI. Living without the Times will be like noticing it’s not raining.
Jan Bianchi
Attorney at Law
Nearly 19,000 citizens have joined the “Washington Tax Payers OPT OUT of Rob McKenna’s Lawsuit” Facebook group over the past week, yet the Times dismisses our opposition as a mere “politically orchestrated hiss.”
So if you’re sick and tired of being disrespected by Frank Blethen and his cronies, cancel your subscription and send a copy of your correspondence to me, and I’ll be happy to post it to HA, with or without attribution.
Does anyone have the editor’s email address handy?
“like noticing it’s not raining”
Jan is my hero or heroine today.
@1 Sure. Frank.Blethen@selfservingshithead.com
I cancelled my subscriptions some time ago during the first re-election campaign of Mr. Moderate Dave Reichert.
When the PO went under, I swore I would rather have no local paper than that rag.
The times sales people have called me numerous times with inducements that were an almost free paper. I told them I would never buy or take the times, even of its free, and they should get another job somewhere else.
ART @ 3:
Thanks, man!
They did report yesterday’s health reform rally, but downplayed it — no photo, no front-page play like the Tea Parties got.
I don’t have time to read the Times. Too many good books waiting to be read. It’s nothing but a GOP newsletter, anyway.
Goldy–
1) Who has actually confirmed the # of opt-outers….that they really signed and that they are citizens? Knowing how ACORN likes to fudge and sign others registrations, it’s important to have this independently validated (like Eyman’s Initiative sigs are!!) before they are in any way believable.
I know you get my drift. And I also know you will continue to spew an unvalidated number (not that it really matters)
2) Why would an attorney raise other sideshow issues and not make a specific legal case on why whe disagrees with McKenna’s decision.
All it is is an attack…with ZERO substance on why she feels the lawsuit is not valid.
ZERO!!
But she is very cutting and tries to be funny in a progressive sick sort of way.
What a joke Goldy.
Wear yourself out though!
@8 Can you possibly make yourself more irrelevant than you already are?
It’s the primary responsibility of any newspaper or news media to HOLD THOSE IN POWER ACCOUNTABLE>
The Democrats are in power.
The Times is doing it’s ethical job.
All you folks do is whine about it.
Seems like y’all are much more comfortable NOT being in power. That the media questioning why and what you are doing…and if a Bill that impacts 1/6 of our GDP is Constitutional has made you go crazy!
IF you and your attorney above are wrong…we’ll have a Field Day, won’t we Puddy!
Eyman’s signatures are independently verified?
Not so much. By my understanding, the Secty of State does some random sampling to determine what percentage are invalid, and then applies that percentage to the totals. If it’s close in terms of the number requireded to validate the initiative, only then do they do a more extensive check.
But the check is only with respect to (a) is the signature that of a registered voter? (b) does the signature on the petition appear to match the signature on the voter registration card?
Nobody checks with the voter at his/her address to ask them if they signed the petition, unless the signature is questioned.
My guess is that if we put the names and addresses of initiative signers online, you would soon hear a howl of protest from lots of people who will insist that they never signed the initiative, and will want to know how their name showed up as a supporter.
I’d quit, but we refused to subscribe to the fishwrapper
11. rhp6033 spews:
The Secretary of State does so in a manner prescribed by law. The MUST be registered voters
However, this silly Facebook sham is totally unverifiable. Could be plenty of folks logging in numerous times, could be folks not registered to vote….who knows.
Another of Goldy’s wild fantasies.
It’s a joke rhp.
This lawsuit will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Why can’t Goldy and some of the other immature leftists be like Michael who said “BRING IT ON!”
Hmmmmmmmmm??
ACLU lawsuits seem to appease you folks. Never a complaint.
But so much verbal static on this…so much politicizing.
Makes reasonable folks wonder what y’all are so scared about!
Since I don’t subscribe to the Times, I’m considering sending the following letter to Macy’s, a major advertisor in the Seattle Times:
# 13: The ACLU doesn’t use taxpayer money to fund it’s lawsuits, it uses private donations. It only recovers money from the government, sometimes, if it wins. It also doesn’t purport to represent anyone other than the ACLU and the named parties.
KcKenna, on the other hand, purports to represent all of the people of the State of Washington, and uses taxpayer money to fund his participation in the lawsuit/campaign gimmick.
GBS: For many reasons, but mainly due to our 1920’s revulsion at the consequences of Woodrow Wilson’s war and peace, America in the 1930s was pacifist and neutral. To cut down the merchants of death that progressives and some isolationist Republicans blamed for profiteering in WWI, FDR’s New Deal cut more than a pound of flesh from our military services.
Perhaps we didn’t need a bellicose TR navy when Harding, in the early 1920s, negotiated the destruction of naval tonnage. Perhaps we didn’t need to fund munitions when 1920’s governments made war illegal. Perhaps we didn’t need an army when Germany’s war machine was destroyed forever in the trenches. And when, aside from the occasional adventure in Haiti or Nicaragua, our army’s biggest deployments between 1918 and 1941 were the war on veterans at Anacostia in 1932 and war games in Louisiana. Perhaps we didn’t need pilots when Billy Mitchell crashed and burned.
In the 1930s our military services were inferior to those of dozens of nations. We were unprepared for attack or defense. We were unprepared for a half-front war when, after Japan’s invasion of China, and the Hitler/Stalin pact, FDR belatedly began to steer us by stealth toward war on two fronts.
Pearl Harbor awakened our giant capacity for mobilization while taking another bite from our decimated fleet. In the Pacific, knowing Japan’s codes, we were able to reach parity with Japan at Midway, then supremacy.
In Europe, though, we fought until 1944 like an army that had been dormant for twenty years. North Africa and Italy, sideshows for the Germans, were almost more than we could handle although we knew their codes.
But Hitler had invaded his ally, the USSR, and awoke a giant that — unlike us — seemed almost willing to be bled to death. Why? Movies don’t show it, but Stalin’s soldiers and civilians were willing to fight to probable death because certain death was behind them. Worse than the Germans in front were the NKVD behind them, ready to shoot anyone who faltered.
Conservatives make no excuses for Stalin. But excuses were made here for a tyrant because he was a leftist tyrant. Much of our Old Left was enthralled by Russia’s red dawn. Too much of the New Deal was filled with Stalin’s useful idiots. Much of our New Left and many of our intellectuals, years after Stalin died (believing he was being poisoned by Jews), believed that Russia’s militant socialism or Mao’s or Castro’s was America’s future.
No disrespect to your uncle or to 290,000 good Americans and average Joes who died in battle, but they didn’t defeat Germany. Stalin, who had murdered much of his officer corps during the show trials, did. Stalin and his killers in the NKVD made Soviet soldiers and civilians fight and die in the millions because they had no choice.
Daddy: Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Apologize for flipping you off.
Neocon: Used as a pejorative. Paleocons suspect it’s used as an anti-Semitic slur by the sensitive tolerant liberal left. Neocons, almost by definition, are liberal Jews who came to their senses.
Credulous Intel estimates: You didn’t know what I was talking about because I didn’t know I’d typed GBS instead of GWB. Common mistake. They’re almost interchangeable.
1990 CIA estimates about Iran: Perhaps you refer to 1990 estimates of Iraq’s nuke program, which was set back by Israel at Osirak in 1981, then revived. Vaguely recall defense secretary Cheney saying after the Gulf War that Iraq had been year’s closer to getting a bomb than we’d estimated.
Oops. Knew I’d forget something.
Remember that Wilson, after the Armistice, took WWI to the Bolsheviks. Think we were in Russia until 1920.
Even the Wenatchee World editorial board get’s it. Somehow I think the average Times reader is slightly to the left of the average World reader, and yet…
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/.....dominates/
19
Stunning. Having grown up in Wenatchee, at least through many of the formative years, I can’t believe the World would publish a reasonable Op-Ed like that. I couldn’t wait to the the hell out of the most conservative city in the state of Washington. Now, we get a more reasonable editorial page response to the healthcare bill than we get out of the Seattle Times. Who would have that it possible?