Is anyone going to caucus for president based on The Seattle Times’ endorsement? I don’t think so, and further, I think they realize it. Why else would they open their endorsement (bold mine):
THE 20th, and possibly last, debate among GOP presidential candidates is mercifully over. Washington’s Republican precinct caucuses on Saturday force a choice.
Hmmm. Ah, Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has the most potential in a thin field to represent his party in head-to-head competition with Democratic President Barack Obama.
This is certainly no endorsement of Romney’s candidacy. We share Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna’s obvious ambivalence about making an early commitment.
First off, what does Rob McKenna have to do with anything? Seriously, what? They didn’t even introduce it as anything. They just — what — think everyone who reads their editorials follows Rob McKenna as closely as them? There was no reason to mention him whatever.
Second, congrats for putting some actual snark in the ed page. I mean it when I say it could use more that, even if this time they executed it poorly.
More to the point, I love the phrase “this is certainly no endorsement” in the middle of the endorsement. It’s not like anyone is forcing them to endorse. Literally nobody changed their mind because of what they read in the editorials this morning. Nobody.