Tuesday, October 17, 2006

LTEs on Saxton Endorsement: WTF, Oregonian?

This doesn't mean Carla is any less of a sharpie for immediately seeing the contradiction between The O's news coverage of Saxton and its mind-numbingly illogical endorsement of him on the op-ed page, but apparently she was not the only one who threw up her hands and said, "what the FUCK????"

In 48 hours, the paper received 140 letters to the editor on its goobernatorial endorsement, 136 of the opinion that Oregon's daily record had lost its freakin' mind. Here are some of the best comments from the six(!) pages of disbelief, disappointment and disillusionment, with my favorite lines bolded:
The lies in Saxton's attacks on Gov. Ted Kulongoski in his campaign ads, Saxton's empty promises to "reel in" government spending (privatizing is the key word here) while spending more money on education (excuse me, where will that money come from?) and his minimal experience as an elected official are just a few of the reasons Saxton shouldn't be our next governor.

Experience does matter, and your Sunday front-page articles looking at Saxton and Kulongoski [indicated to me that] Saxton doesn't have the experience to be an effective leader and take Oregon where it needs to go.

I was stunned when I read that you are endorsing Ron Saxton for governor! Did you not read your own columnist David Sarasohn's article on Oct. 13, "In Ron Saxton's TV spots, reality is always spotty"? How can you one day tell us that Saxton is running "what may be the most dishonest media campaign in Oregon memory," and the next day recommend that people vote for someone who has distorted the facts so often and so dishonestly? This kind of change, we do not need.

Saxton's promises echo those of President Bush, who cut taxes for the wealthy, got us involved in a needless, expensive war, and has managed to convert our federal budget surpluses to record deficits. Why on Earth would The Oregonian endorse someone who perpetuates this dishonest line of thinking?
CHARLES K. JOHNSON, Southeast Portland

Don't you read your own newspaper? Your editorial for Ron Saxton says that he "has a demonstrably strong record on education." In the Sunday profile piece, however, your reporter shows that Saxton's record as chairman of the Portland School Board included poor hiring decisions, huge administrative cost overruns and golden parachutes -- leaving the tough decisions to a later school board.
YINTIAN ZHOU, Northwest Portland

You're concerned about how many state troopers are patrolling the highways? So am I. That's why I support Kulongoski and his plan to put more troopers on the highways. Saxton thinks he can cut his way to more troopers. It doesn't make sense.

In fact, your whole editorial simply doesn't make sense. By your own criteria, Kulongoski is a better choice.
SUSAN MATTHIES, Southeast Portland

The endorsement of Ron Saxton for governor was like watching a ping-pong game with one player trying to cover both sides of the net. You rightly make the case that Saxton's claims do not add up: If Measure 41 passes, he can't possibly strengthen Oregon's schools, make us safer and protect basic health care for the poor, even with the non-specific efficiencies he keeps alluding to.

In the next breath you let him off the hook for his implausible assertions and try to make us believe that change for the sake of change will bring back voter confidence and reduce cynicism in government.
CAROL ROBINSON, Northwest Portland

In your contrived endorsement of Republican robot Ron Saxton, you ignore the multiple ethical questions surrounding Saxton himself while trying to connect Gov. Ted Kulongoski to Neil Goldschmidt's sexual activities.

In pointing out that Kulongoski has not gotten the Legislature to follow his lead, you don't discuss how hard it is for anyone to make progress when at least one house is controlled by typically knee-jerk, politics-above-all, mean-spirited modern-day Republicans (think Karen Minnis and Wayne Scott).
TOM SOPPE, Southeast Portland

Day-um. Somebody's ass just got called OUT. No wonder they don't put bylines on editorials.