It seems some of our friends in the liberal blogosphere are immensely confused about the process of newspaper endorsements. Indeed, some conservatives would question the value I place on them at times. A brief discussion of both points is in order.

On the latter, conservatives used to newspaper endorsements going against them tend minimize their value. At times, that choice is correct (see the P-I). Yet newspaper endorsements remain a notable potential boost to campaigns, especially challengers. When an upstart candidate seeks to dethrone the incumbent, the independent validation of a prominent, thoughtful newspaper endorsement can be quite helpful, especially for purposes of campaign momentum. Candidates like Mike McGavick who win such endorsements tend to crow about them. Challengers who fail to receive them find themselves staring at a missed opportunity to move their campaign forward.

As to the liberal blogs, their reaction to recent endorsements by the Seattle Times has only served to weaken whatever credibility they may have had with non-liberal readers. The Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) blog responded to the Times' endorsements of Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris, and Mike McGavick. Horse's Ass chimed in with a vengeance on the Reichert endorsement as well.

What's striking about their retorts, other than the fact both websites imply writers at Sound Politics are responsible for the drafting of the Reichert editorial, is the harshness of their language.

NPI says about the Reichert endorsement:

This editorial is, without a doubt, not worth the paper it's printed on. The Seattle Times has disgraced itself and its reputation with a nonsensical, shoddy piece of writing that does its readers no service. The Times is marginalizing itself and its owner, preoccupied with his hatred of the estate tax (both state and federal) doesn't seem to care.

And about the McMorris' backing from the Times:

The Seattle Times is rapidly losing credibility and relevance with its readers and with the community. Its owner's delusional obsession with repealing the estate tax has turned the Times into a one-issue paper, and that's a shame.

Then further on the backing of McGavick:

Frank Blethen and his editorial board are nothing less than deceitful hypocrites...Frank Blethen seems clearly bent on destroying the Seattle Times' credibility, and he's doing a fine job of it. His endorsements are indefensible, his rationale is ludicrious [sic], and his criticisms of Democrats have been bizarre, false, and one-sided.

...

The Seattle Times may as well start editorializing daily on repeal of the estate tax, and only repeal of the estate tax - because that's all their owner really cares about.

Goldy, of course relies on profanity to convey his more nuanced points:

Once again failing to distinguish between being serious and being solemn, this soporific and stiffly written unsigned editorial displays the intellectual rigor mortis that has come to define the dying newspaper industry...To this there is only one reasonable response: [Bleep] YOU!

Ok, timeout. A brief discussion here on how the editorial board process works.

Some would have their readers believe Frank Blethen merely holds court while his dutiful writers scribble away, hurriedly transcribing his words of wisdom for conversion into future editorials. In reality, the editorial board meets with candidates then deliberates to make a decision as a committee. Based on the slightly left-of-center tilt of the Times, sometimes such decisions are close, such as their 2000 endorsements of George Bush and Maria Cantwell. Sometimes they are more decisive as a slate, such as 2004 when the paper endorsed John Kerry, Patty Murray, and all the Democratic Congressional candidates in western Washington. Sometimes they are not as one-sided - though if the Times' one motivation is to end the estate tax then their 2004 endorsements down the Democratic ticket would be beyond ironic.

In reality, to suggest that their decision making process is driven only by one issue about which the publisher happens to care is rubbish. Does one really think Jim Vesely, Lee Moriwaki, Joni Balter, Lance Dickie, Bruce Ramsey, Kate Riley, and Lynne Varner are all going to bow to their publisher and exercise none of the journalistic integrity of their positions? That is insultingly trivial. Person for person I suspect I'd disagree with most of those individuals on a majority of the issues of the day, and I've not been shy about criticizing them in past. But to think they're just a bunch of stooges for Frank Blethen is laughable.

Yet, NPI in particular would have you believe this:

Many observers were confident the Times would endorse the incumbent, Senator Maria Cantwell. After all, to endorse her challenger would be an insult to the Democratic city and state where the Seattle Times calls home.

As if editorial boards sit around pondering the impact on its readership based on what editorial positions they decide to take. Please. I've worked with editorial board members all over the Northwest for my day job, and dealt with a number of candidates going through the endorsement interview process. I've not once encountered such a notion.

Moreover, even if once accepts the amateur Oliver Stone conspiracy theories about the Blethen family, how does one explain the Bellingham Herald endorsing Mike McGavick, or the Spokane Spokesman Review endorsing Cathy McMorris? Perhaps it might be that some editorial board members find them and their candidacies more impressive than those of their opponents. Good people can disagree about such things.

I have no qualms about tearing into an editorial board when one thinks they're dead wrong, but creating an army of straw men clothed in the dark uniform of deceit supposedly designed by one newspaper publisher really doesn't deserve a place in serious public discourse.