Yesterday's Seattle Times editorial on Mike McGavick's current radio ad related to the trifecta bill was annoyingly fallacious.
The Times seems to have two main objections. One, they apparently didn't listen to the ad - or at least that would explain the editorial's confusion - because they appear to be parroting the Cantwell campaign talking point that the ad claims Maria opposes the sales tax deduction, period.
But the ad never says that, it specifically critiques her vote on this bill, and doesn't delve in anyway into Cantwell's history of supporting the deduction. The Times discusses that history, and I explored it as well here. Indeed, that is part of what stinks about Cantwell's vote. Her past history of support for the sales tax deduction included in the bill makes this an easier "yea" vote for her to make, but instead she chose the will of her party over the interests of her state.
The second issue that has the Times bothered is the fact this issue was included in a "politically charged bill" - a point which in and of itself parrots another Democratic talking point. This gets us to one aspect of this whole trifecta bill debate which is so disingenuous. Democrats and liberals whine mightily about combining the minimum-wage increase with changes to the estate tax (and then including popular tax "extenders" like the sales tax deduction). Yet, there has been no acknowledgement, including from the Times, that Republicans themselves have made major compromises in this legislation.
First, instead of extending repeal of the estate tax scheduled to occur in 2010, this package would have met Democrats half way by only limiting the estate tax rather than killing it all together. Second, Republicans made a major concession by adding a minimum wage increase to the bill. People seem to have forgotten how consistently Republicans have opposed such moves as bad economic policy. They offered a huge compromise in the interest of (egad!) getting something done in the United States Senate.
Evidently, however, compromise in the Senate - where virtually every piece of legislation is a compromise between competing interests - is unacceptable in this case. Because the Times says so. Keep the ad running, Mike.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 31, 2006 07:30 AM | Email ThisSo the Times is showing that they do not listen and see the world through a very skewed lense. Also, they are proving once again to be an arm of the Democratic party in this state by parroting the party line, thus helping Maria.
Posted by: Dengle on August 31, 2006 08:40 AMMost probably a FAX or Email from the Cantwell Camp came in to the Seattle Times. Rather than go and fact check the story, or even write it from a reporter's perspective, they basically just took the talking points from the FAX or Email and parroted the Cantwell Camp for maximum political benefit to Cantwell. There is no doubt that the Times is whoheartedly endorsing Cantwell both as an official position and through all kinds of subtle bias.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 31, 2006 09:38 AMThe editorial does not make that statement. It merely refers to the ad as a "political trick". I agree, since the ad focuses on a single vote without acknowledging the context (Cantwell as a leader in promoting sales tax deductibility) which would create a completely different impression.
Say it isn't so!
Posted by: steve miller on August 31, 2006 10:00 AMCantwell press release: "...ad which falsely claims Senator Maria Cantwell doesn't support the Washington state and local sales tax deduction"
Seattle Times: "McGavick's radio ad attacks Cantwell for voting against the sales tax deduction -- and Washington families"
Actually, in this one sentence, the Times is more accurate than Cantwell - McGavick did say that she voted against the bill - not that she "doesn't support the Washington state and local sales tax deduction".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 31, 2006 10:40 AMDon't get me wrong ,,, I would never support Cantwell. But but Eric is doing, in his article, exactly what we conservatives and libertarians hate of the MSM; picking one point and fitting the facts around while ignoring known supporting evidence.
Posted by: soundcrossing on August 31, 2006 11:55 AMI think my original post on the trifecta issue, at the link noted above, was quite clear on noting Cantwell's extensive work on the issue prior to the trifecta bill. That work isn't the issue, the issue is her vote on this bill, which is all McGavick is criticizing her for. The Times whines that the ad doesn't recognize her previous work. Since when are 30 or 60 second campaign ads supposed to lay out the good things one's opponent has done? Have Democrats never offered ads that criticize Republicans for a vote against a particular bill that includes language they might have voted for in the past under different circumstances? Get real.
If the Times wants to disagree with McGavick's position that's fine, but their logic in calling on him to pull the ad is nonsensical.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 31, 2006 12:22 PMMcGavick's radio ad doesn't even come close to the stuff the Dems are using.
Posted by: Patrick on August 31, 2006 02:03 PMWhen I send an acid comment to him via e-mail I address him as "Baby Blethen". That all but guarantees a response. LOL!!
Posted by: John425 on September 1, 2006 08:22 AMAnd in addition, a guy who says he's running a civil campaign to change what's wrong with Washington shouldn't be running trickster spots like this.
Mike should tell the GOP to "go jump" and run the sales tax deduction solo and make it permanent. It's pretty simple.
If he continues to run the ad, his character will be more of an issue. I thought McGavick was going to be better than this.
Posted by: thor on September 1, 2006 09:25 AM