Wow. That’s quite an endorsement for Republican Mark Hargrove:
In the primary, we favored Hargrove’s more moderate Republican challenger Nancy Wyatt. Hargrove is hard-line and inflexible. He agreed never to raise taxes. Ever. That’s a little rigid.
So why would the Seattle Times still endorse such a “hard-line,” “inflexible,” “rigid” and, let’s face it, far-right, theocratic, intolerant extremist like Hargrove?
Still, voters should select Hargrove instead of Geoff Simpson, the incumbent Democrat, who has been accused of domestic violence and who has not distinguished himself in Olympia.
Which is kinda funny, because in fact, the real reason the Times refuses to endorse Simpson is exactly because he has distinguished himself in Olympia… as a strong, progressive champion of working families.
But, you know, the Times will pretty much swallow anything to get an anti-tax/anti-labor politician into the Legislature, even if it also means the candidate is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-birth-control, anti-immigrant and anti-environment. And the Times knows all this. It’s all there on Hargrove’s website and in his various candidate questionnaires.
I mean, the guy has pledged never to raises taxes ever, no matter what, not for education or public health or public safety or even in the event of an emergency. Honestly… how can the Times responsibly endorse somebody running for a deliberative body, who expressly promises to refuse to deliberate?
You know, Hargrove is probably not a bad person. He’s probably not even crazy. He’s just wrong. Completely and utterly mind-numbingly wrong.
But the Times’ editors… they know better. And they should be ashamed of themselves.
The Times? Shame?
Not in this universe. If a hard right Republican drove his car into a doghouse full of puppies, the Times would lament the damage done to his car.
Ummm- did anyone notice the mention of “domestic abuse”. That’s a possible reason- Ya think!
John425,
Wrong. That would be a reason to not endorse Simpson, not a reason to endorse Hargrove. They might have said, instead,
John @2,
Accused. And I’ve posted on the incident. He pushed his wife it of the way when she was barring his access to his daughter’s hospital room.
But the Times just tosses that out there to cast aspersions. Were he a BIAW Dem who called for repeal of the estate tax, Geoff would’ve easily gotten their endorsement vs an extremist like Hargrove.
If you don’t vote, these people win…
and everybody loses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DRkUU-qhjk
@5: Really great clip, Mike! It’d make a great DNC ad.
MBS @ 5
Thanks, man, that clip ruined my morning.
@3
Darryl, FTW!
That’s what they should have done.
Looks like Geoff Simpson’s domestic violence asaault trial in Seattle Municipal Court — originally set for Tue 10/12/2010 — has been continued until 11/30/2010. This was a defense motion for continuance, based on wanting more time to conduct an investigation.
Oct 08, 2010 JURY TRIAL HRNG SCHDLD FOR 10/12/2010 AT 900 IN DEPT1001, CANCELLED!
Oct 08, 2010 READINESS HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 10/22/2010 AT 1000 INCOURTROOM 1001
Oct 08, 2010 JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 11/30/2010 AT 900 IN COURTROOM 1001
Oct 08, 2010 DF: SIMPSON, GEOFFREY HARRISON (391557) PRESENT DL 10:12 CLK CP
Oct 08, 2010 DA: MAYBROWN, TODD (1000000615) PRESENT
Oct 08, 2010 CONTINUANCE REQUESTED BY DEFENSE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION-GRANTED
Oct 08, 2010 PARTIES MOTION TO EXCLUDE SPEEDY TRIAL TIME-GRANTED CURRENT EXP DATE 10/25/10 NEXT DATE IS 11/30/10 – 49 DAYS EXCLUDED NEW EXP DATE 12/13/10
Oct 08, 2010 POSSIBLE DISPO AT NEXT HEARING
Sep 24, 2010 READINESS HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 10/08/2010 AT 1000 INCOURTROOM 1001
Sep 24, 2010 DF: SIMPSON, GEOFFREY HARRISON (391557) DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT. CLK KLM DL 1040. SECOND RDNSS.
I wonder why today’s docket entry for 10/08/2010 includes “Oct 08, 2010 POSSIBLE DISPO AT NEXT HEARING”? Is Simpson planning to do some sort of plea bargain type thing?
If so, it probably wouldn’t involve simply pleading guilty. Since Simpson doesn’t have any prior conviction record, they would probably do something like “Stipulated Order of Continuance (SOC)”. If a defendant gets some sort of counseling, doesn’t do anything wrong (or get falsely accused of doing something wrong — a major risk!) for a period of time (like 12 months or 2 years), pays some money to the court, then the charges will be dismissed with prejudice at the end of that period. On the other hand, if the defendant violates the SOC, then they usually agree that the police report would be admitted into evidence and they would basically be found guilty on that basis alone without further trial.
This entry could be an error, of course, by the court clerk. But if Simpson wants to make some sort of deal, instead of taking the risk of trial, it makes sense to continue things. Just like it would even if Simpson wants to go to trial, to put that uncertain result off until after the election.
Are they saving the Zieger endorsement for Sunday, when their readership is highest?
Any parent who doesn’t insist on seeing their kid in the hospital wouldn’t get my vote. Simpson’s ex is always doing something to try to hurt him. Using his sick kid in the hospital as a tool is a new low for her. He’s a good father & family man who had the bad luck of falling for a crazy woman. He’s one of the few elected officials that actually speaks his mind and stands up for working families. It would be a great loss to the district if he wasn’t re-elected.
So what is with all the guys who were Eagle Scouts? They get a merit badge for running for office?