Have I ever mentioned that the Seattle Times editorial board is a bunch of unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags? Because the Seattle Times editorial board is a bunch of unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags. Let me know if I'm repeating myself.
In the August primary, the editors endorsed Democratic challenger Richard Mitchell against 17-year Republican incumbent Jane Hague for King County Council District 6. It wasn't really all that surprising; the Seattle Times always endorses one or two Democrats in partisan races (and yes, for all intents and purposes, the council is still partisan), if only to make a show of being nonpartisan itself. And in manner and appearance, Mitchell comes off as exactly the sort of a token Democrat who traditionally appeals to Fairview Fanny's wizened old hacks: a thoughtful, moderate, suburban, uber-educated, nonthreatening black man.
I'm kinda canny at predicting Seattle Times endorsements. I told Mitchell he stood a good chance of winning their endorsement. As usual, I was right.
Well fuck me if the unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags at the Seattle Times didn't come out yesterday and flip their endorsement, giving Hague the Blethen stamp of approval in the general election. What a bunch of unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags.
Back during the primary, the editors lauded Mitchell for his "quick mind and grasp of detail." On second thought, I guess we wouldn't want that from a council member. They were particularly pleased when Mitchell agreed that the county's employee benefits "should be aligned with similarly large-sized businesses."
"That is The Times' position also," the editors congratulated themselves. In fact their only caveat was their concern that Mitchell "might be too quick to raise taxes."
So what's changed since then? Well... um... it was Hague who cast a decisive vote to raise taxes—the $20 Metro-saving car tab fee the Seattle Times vehemently opposed—while Mitchell, apparently his endorsement-flipping transgression was approving negative campaign ads that were allegedly "nasty to the point of being offensive." You know, nasty, negative stuff like this:
Four years ago, Hague was stopped for drunken driving, was ill-mannered to police and blew an alcohol reading of 0.135, more than two-thirds above the legal limit. She was running for re-election but kept her arrest quiet during the filing period so that she had no credible opponent.
Oh wait. That wasn't Mitchell. That was the Seattle Times in explaining why they couldn't re-endorse Hague. So they've flipped on Mitchell for repeating in his campaign advertising the same negative attacks first printed in the Seattle Times. Really? Unprincipled. Illiterate. Hypocritical. Douchebags.
Which raises the question: did the unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags on the Seattle Times editorial board really vote to yank their endorsement from Mitchell, or did this unprincipled, hypocritical bit of douchebaggery come at the point of an editorial veto from publisher Frank Blethen? Not wanting to castigate the wrong people, I asked board member Bruce Ramsey, who while almost always complete wrong on almost everything, can often be a bit of a mensch.
"Sorry. I do appreciate your desire to castigate the right people," Ramsey wrote back, "but I can't be talking out of school."
Well then, I guess I'll just have to label the entire board as a bunch of unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebags, instead of just Blethen, whose unprincipled, illiterate, hypocritical douchebaggery goes without saying.