This is a terrible decision from The Seattle Times.
The Seattle Times Co. jumped directly into two of the state’s hottest political contests Wednesday, launching an $80,000 independent-expenditure campaign promoting Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and announcing a similar effort in support of the referendum to legalize gay marriage.
I don’t like either of these, but the R-74 ad makes a tiny bit of sense on its own. They look like they might win a squeaker, so the Seattle Times can say, “oh look our ads made the difference.” I don’t think that’s good for the brand of independent minded fair people, but at least I could see a path to it working. But since McKenna is losing, and will probably lose, the pitch will be buy an add, it won’t help you? Or do they think it will turn it around?
The death knell for McKenna, having the Times endorse him. I mean, really, how much weight does the Times carry these days? It’s like Sarah Palin endorsing Newt or whoever she weighed in on. Nobody really cares. Background noise.
If the Seattle Times can afford to spend $160,000 on political ads, it can afford to pay the newspaper tax that was suspended a couple years ago at Frank Blethen’s request.
It is one thing for a newspaper to make endorsements — people expect editorial positions to be taken. But an independent expenditure by a newspaper? Sort of unusual. Probably alienates people who disagree with the newspaper’s position, in a much more powerful way than an editorial would.
I keep reminding my Sis that Times is a Republican ragsheet, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.
That said, there will be 3 votes from this household against McKenna (Sis & Me, and niece coming up from Vancouver WA for our Vote Party w/dogs on each lap “supervising”. Already planning the fancy dinner.
When one hears all the horror stories of what Republican Govs are inflicting in WI, OH, FL, PA, VI, etc. – who in their sanity would take a chance on bringing that crap here as well?
However, we will ALSO deliver 3 ‘Yes’ votes for Gay Marriage & Legalizing Marijuana.
The Blethen crew want McKenna’s agenda, especially on their taxes- but being a Seattle paper they want the readership. Their endorsement and money to 74 is about circulation.
@4 Federal Appeals Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional
A second federal appeals court has struck down the “Defense of Marriage Act” as unconstitutional.
Carl, your fair-minded coyness and pronouns don’t serve you well here. You don’t like the ads? The issues endorsed? The idea of a newspaper jumping into political advertising? Path to what working?
This is probably a ploy by Uncle Frank to help McKenna pass himself off as a moderate, as detailed by the article referenced in a newer thread here on HA. The whole point is to associate McKenna with marriage equality as a “liberal cause”, knowing that the anti-R74 forces have called in the cavalry and are expecting to blow it out of the water. Blethen’s no doubt counting on making enough revenue from the expected eleventh-hour anti-74 ad blitz to nullify his supposed “expenditure”.
Saw the ad. Cancelled my subscription(put on “Protest Hold”). The ad itself is funny. The idea that a Teabagger (with a capital “T”) like McKenna (with a capital “Enema”) would have any positive impact on government gridlock is ludicrous.
@9 Good luck trying to cancel. We’ve been trying to get the Times to stop littering our front porch for a couple years, and paid or not, a copy still shows up every day.