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.