A lot of people have taken this ridiculous Seattle Times editorial to task. But now a few days late, let me also make fun of some choice selections.
Meanwhile, Murray is transformed from the bold big-city mayor into one who defers to his defense lawyer when he is invited to speak to The Seattle Times editorial board about the biggest political scandal in Seattle in generations.
I think we can all agree: No matter if you think he did it, if you think a law firm run by bigots is setting him up, or if you’re not sure, the scandal is definitely that he won’t talk to the Seattle Times Ed Board. For decades, we’ll all remember where we were when we read about how Ed Murray isn’t meeting with the Seattle Times to discuss this and is instead deferring to his attorney in a legal matter. For me it was when I got to this paragraph the other day. For many of you, it’s right now.
Murray’s defenders cast the lawsuit and related allegations as well-timed political payback for his iconic career as a gay civil-rights champion. Indeed, there are legitimate questions about the law firm that filed the lawsuit. It is founded by a Tacoma attorney with an anti-gay rights record.
But Murray’s counterpunch begs a question: when is the right time to file a child sexual abuse lawsuit against an elected leader?
This is correct. The Seattle Times shouldn’t sit on the story, just because it’s happening at the beginning of an election year. But also, someone who knows what “begs the question” means* should probably be in the chain. Whatever. You’re here for me to make fun of the baby splitting if you’re here for anything (are you here for anything? Why?).
Murray at times has been that leader, and could still be. Regardless of whether the allegations are true, he cannot lead under this cloud. He should serve out his term and not run for re-election.
There are 2 possible situations. First possibility: He’s guilty of at least one of the charges; If that’s the case, saying he should serve out the rest of his term seems pretty gross. The other possibility is that he’s innocent of all charges; If that’s the case, being forced to not run for office by a bigoted law firm seems like a terrible thing. The Seattle Times’ solution, in other words, is a bad one no matter what you think happened.
* I generally say it’s more important to communicate your ideas than to follow the rules, and that isn’t always just an excuse for my horrible typos. So if you want to use “begs the question” to mean raises an issue that I’ll phrase in the form of a question — and you think your audience will understand it that way — go for it. But surely, the Seattle Times (and newspapers in general) should be behind the curve on that.
Did the Seattle Times editorial board call for Trump to drop out when he was accused of sexual harassment, admitted to sexual harassment, and was also accused of raping a 13 year-old girl?
The Seattle Times’ solution, in other words, is a bad one no matter what you think happened.
Incorrect moral framework.
From The Times (emphasis added):
Regardless of whether the allegations are true, he cannot lead under this cloud. He should serve out his term and not run for re-election.
Believe me, The Times editorial board gives exactly zero fucks about the potential suffering of alleged victims. They care about halting an accelerating slide in circulation numbers and page views. But they need to find a way to do it without resorting to actually developing an editorial voice that is relevant to the majority of Puget Sound residents. If they honestly believed that these allegations were so crippling to Murray that he can no longer serve, they’d call for his resignation immediately, right?
The Seattle Times solution is absolutely great… for The Seattle Times. Instead of the typical yawner of another municipal election, they’d get months of juicy moral scolding and gossip mongering culminating in some kind of Calvinist cleaning in November. Wes Uhlman is rested and ready!