Upper Left Coast

Thoughts on politics, faith, sports and other random topics from a red state sympathizer in indigo-blue Portland, Oregon.

Monday, October 23, 2006

The award for the lamest endorsement

It goes to the Oregonian, for yesterday's completely stupid and baseless endorsement of Maria Cantwell over Mike McGavick for the U.S. Senate seat in Washington state.

What does it come down to? Just read the first and last paragraphs:
The Internet, recently explained Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens -- chairman of the committee that oversees it -- is not a dump truck; it's a series of tubes.
. . .
Washington state should re-elect Cantwell to a second term in the Senate. She not only knows that the Internet isn't a set of tubes, but she also has an idea what it connects to -- and where that connection could carry a high-tech state.
No, really. That's the Oregonian's argument. A senator from Alaska doesn't understand the internet, but Maria Cantwell knows a tube when she sees one.

If you read the rest of the editorial, and have a little bit of knowledge about the race, you'll know this endorsement is even sillier than it sounds at first blush.

Cantwell, the editorial says, has a high-tech background, and uses that knowledge in areas like health care and immigration. She works on energy issues, taking on the oil industry and pursuing new energy sources. She supported the Iraq War, but "has done some serious thinking" about that decision and the future of Iraq.

The editorial notes that McGavick ran Safeco Insurance, but doesn't note that he turned the company around, saving thousands of Washington jobs. It notes that he worked for two moderate Republican senators from Washington state, but doesn't talk about the fact that a moderate Republican would be more in line with much of Washington than Cantwell's reliable left-wing voting pattern (Cantwell has never seen a spending bill she doesn't like, and her vote against border security is, at best, curious considering her state has already seen an attempt by a terrorist to cross the border with evil intent). It rejects McGavick because he had "some trouble" explaining his position on Social Security, as if that's a more important issue for the Northwest than border security.

The kicker, however, is this line:
[McGavick] has a good point in calling for less-poisonous partisan politics -- although unfortunately this Senate campaign hasn't reflected it.
That's true, but what's left out of that statement is that much of the poison has come at Mr. McGavick's expense.

The editorial concludes: "Her first term argues strongly for giving her a second one." If this editorial is any indication, then no, it doesn't.


  • At 10/23/2006 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What makes the Oregonian editors feel qualified to endorse candidates in Washington state? They're not even qualified to endorse candidates in Portland!


Post a Comment

<< Home