Times endorses Bill Sherman for County Prosecutor

At first I was pleasantly shocked when I read the headline “Sherman gets nod“… but then I realized they were only talking about the Democratic primary:

Sherman has worked in the prosecutor’s office since 2003. He was a deputy prosecuting attorney in its Domestic Violence Unit before going on leave to conduct his campaign. He has prosecuted sexual-assault cases, gun crimes and juvenile crimes, and says he will focus attention on repeat offenders involved in drugs or domestic violence, will overhaul the fraud division and expand the offerings under victims’ services.

Sherman is smart and well-spoken, though in a race among lawyers to become King County’s top prosecutor, being well-spoken is expected.

The Times editorial board is nothing if not establishmentarian, and insists on leaning Republican despite being the largest paper in this deep blue region of the state (ergo its ridiculous endorsement of Mike McGavick.) And you can’t get much more Republican or establishment than the late Norm Maleng’s 17-year chief of staff, Dan Satterberg — so I’ll streak naked across Frank Blethen’s front lawn if Sherman actually captures the Times’ endorsement in the general election. (Notice how carefully the Times avoided providing Sherman’s media people a single, usable subjective quote?)

Still, I suppose nice words in July make it all the more difficult to turn nasty in October. Difficult, but not impossible.

Comments

  1. 2

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Why shouldn’t the Times piss off Goldy? It’s a very public soapbox for an unreformed troglodyte obsessed with making our tax system even more unfair than it is.

  2. 3

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Why should children of multimillionaires like Frank Blethen get an absolute free ride on millions of dollars of income they didn’t work for?

  3. 4

    Mark1 spews:

    The Times reports the real truth, and gov’t cheese recipients like you Rodent just can’t stand that. Let’s see your next hundred posts on this thread now bunny. Flail! Whine! Tax! Spend! *(insert carrot here to get a word in edge-wise)*

  4. 5

    Right Stuff spews:

    @3 Because it’s not your money.
    Why should the life’s work of an individual go to the government?

  5. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @4 Any time a wingnut mouths the word “truth,” watch out! Shit will be coming out of his oral orifice shortly.

  6. 7

    Mark1 spews:

    And you know all about that first hand don’t ya bunny? You’re certainly an expert in that field. May I suggest becoming a paid expert in the field, but oh wait; that’d mean you’d actually have to work. Nevermind.

  7. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    If you want to read a real newspaper, read the P-I, which has no less than two columns in today’s editorial page calling for impeachment to go forward. The gravamen of the argument goes like this: If Congress doesn’t impeach Bush and Cheney for their overreaching, it will have acquiesced to a permanent expansion of executive power that future presidents will exercise too, pointing to Bush-Cheney as precedent. Naturally it doesn’t occur to wingnut blockheads that whatever Bush and Cheney are allowed to get away with, a President Hillary Clinton or a President Bill Richardson will be able to get away with too.

    Frank Blethen is something less than a partisan hack. The only thing he cares about is his personal financial interests, and he doesn’t even care very much about the fortunes of the Republican Party or its candidate. He merely uses his newspaper to throw temper tantrums.

    Blethen’s flagship newspaper does business in the state with the nation’s worst tax system. How often do you ever see anything in the Times about that? The only thing we get from him is childish screeching over the inheritance tax. If Frank ever gets his way — repeal of the inheritance tax — then, at a minimum, Congress ought to repeal the stepped-up basis provision so that estates or heirs at least have to pay capital gains taxes at least at the reduced capital gains rates. But that’s not what Frank wants — he wants an absolute, complete, free ride on earned inherited income … while saying nothing from his bully pulpit about how the workers in his printing plant get screwed by the tax system we have now.

    Why should I worship Frank or extol his rag?

  8. 11

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @5 “Because it’s not your money. Why should the life’s work of an individual go to the government?”

    Life’s work? Are you kidding? Heirs do NOTHING to earn their inheritances except be born! Hey, no one likes taxes. I’m not saying taxes are good. All I’m saying is why should heirs get special treatment that people who WORK for their money don’t get? Please explain that.

  9. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    All I’m asking for is that inheritances be taxed the same was wages. That’s not asking for much.

  10. 13

    Right Stuff spews:

    Roger Rabbit says:

    All I’m asking for is that inheritances be taxed the same was wages. That’s not asking for much.

    Except those dollars have already been taxed…..

    This whole argument of inheritance tax is so small…..
    All it does is bring out the socialists like Rog.

    “One guy works for ten years and earns a million $$$ and is taxed on it. Another inherits a million $$$ and pays none.

    Do you not get it? One guy works for ten years and earns a million $$$ and is taxed on it
    That money has been taxed. The governments take is done!

  11. 14

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @13: Guy buys a share of stock and never sells it. It splits 6,000 times over the years and with appreciation turns in to a good size fortune. He dies and leaves it to his only kid.

    Question:

    1. Is the bequest ‘income’? A gift? A fucking unbelievable lucky break? An example of truth, justice, and the American way?
    2. How much tax has been paid?
    3. If a tax applies, who should pay the tax? The dead guy or the kid?

  12. 15

    Right Stuff spews:

    @14

    1. Anyone who ownes a stock that splits 6000 times has hit the lottery…
    2. If the stock is sold, taxes are paid at that point.
    3. The owner of the stock at the time of sale is the party that should be taxed.

  13. 16

    ArtFart spews:

    11 That’s not precisely true, Roger, in the case of the Blethen family. Most of Frank’s kids either work for the Times or are off going to school or paying their dues someplace else to qualify to take the thing over when he checks out. If Frank is by definition an asshole for wanting this, then so were several generations of his forbears. I’m willing to accept that he may be at least partly motivated by a desire to preserve the instution they’ve all worked their butts off building.

    On the other hand, he’s become so damned obnoxious I’d favor a special exemtion for his family from the inheritance tax, on the condition that he shut his pie-hole.

  14. 17

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @15:

    1. True, but it’s an example concocted to demonstrate a point.
    2. Pay attention. The stock is never sold in the story. But, just for kicks, answer this: If the kid sells the stock, what is the basis for determining capital gains tax?
    3. But what about the income to the kid? Did it go up? Go down? Stay the same? If you won the lottery (ticket sales are taxed ya’ know–the gov. takes the vig up front) would you argue that you shouldn’t pay income tax since the funds have ‘already been taxed’?