Print 
PDF
The Seattle Times, as many of you know, is in the tank for Rob McKenna and so-called gay "marriage."
An unusual, perhaps desperate, lunge toward survival has brought them to contribute substantially in money and influence to both McKenna and the redefinition of marriage. And to advance a deeply held secular progressive belief, even in the face of some harsh criticism.
What should biblical Christians--- evangelical Christians make of this?
Ironically, the Times' actions are raising questions from the conservative right and the progressive left. In some cases, it is the same question.
To further confuse those who may still believe the Times is a reliable, unbiased news source, Alan Fisco, executive vice president for revenue, explained that this is "a pilot project to show the power of newspaper political advertising and to attract new revenue."
Since the newspaper is strongly endorsing both McKenna and same-sex "marriage," does that mean they will endorse any one or any cause for the price of a newspaper ad? Or simply, anyone who passes their moral litmus test?
If not, their experiment is flawed and misleading. A paid ad does not equate to an endorsement and free ads.
Are they purposefully misleading future potential political advertisers? Or underestimating their intelligence?
And why is the Times so comfortable with McKenna, when they have refused to endorse other candidates because of the candidate's beliefs on social issues---specifically marriage and life?
Here are a couple of facts and questions every biblical Christian must ask themselves before they vote.
Some facts and questions:
1. The Times declared that John Koster is highly qualified for public office, but they could not endorse him, they said, because of his personal social [biblical] values. He is strongly pro-life and strongly supports marriage as between one man and one woman. And is leading in at least some polls for the first Congressional District, because he is highly qualified for the job.
The Times says they support McKenna because he is "an easy way to end the gridlock that threatens to cripple state government."
Does that mean they think McKenna is so liberal the Democrats will support him and Republicans will also support him because he is "Republican?" And Republicans only want to win and will put Party over principles? Will the conservative Republicans we have contributed to and supported during this campaign lose their way, forget their home town promises, and once in Olympia, support some policies they should not support as they follow their Republican leader?
Evidently, the Times folks are so comfortable with McKenna on social issues and so sure he will not rock their "values" boat, they have no reason not endorse him.
Does that matter to you? Does it bother you?
2. Fisco says this decision was made "completely separate from the journalism functions of the newspaper."
There was really no need to consult them regarding the endorsements.
Why have the journalists written a letter to their employer, the Times, objecting to this new "normal" in the news business.
The fact is the Times already has a complicit journalism side. The news side already writes stories that elevate same-sex "marriage," abortion and other far left secular progressive causes and diminish those who oppose the causes and support life and marriage. Remember their recent hit piece on Bishop Sartain? The Times called the bishop "out of touch," because he believes in traditional marriage.
So why have the journalists reacted toward their employer? I think it's because it further unmasks their bias. And un-necessarily so.
Roy Peter Clark, with the national journalism think tank, Poynter Institute says, "Their credibility is at stake."
Todd Donovan, political science professor at Western Washington University says, "The Times credibility takes a big hit here."
Fisco's Fiasco.
3. Given the Times' propensity to support candidates whom they feel will advance "choice," abortion, the redefinition of marriage and other progressive ideals (or at least not stand in the way) and oppose those who actually hold traditional biblical values, does it bother you at all that they are so committed to McKenna?
Based on all the numbers I've seen, McKenna cannot win without a substantial number of votes from conservative, biblical Christians.
There are two messages being advanced by McKenna. One, he really is a Republican. Two, he really doesn't embrace many of the Republican Party's stated values.
On October 8, the Seattle Times got a little concerned and published an article under their "truth needle" series. In it they defend McKenna against some of the fundamental beliefs of the Republican Party, saying he disagrees with the Party's position on abortion, "supports a woman's right to choose" and would not try to advance any legislation otherwise. They said, "He will not push to make the procedure [abortion] illegal."
They also point out that although Mr. McKenna did join 25 other attorney's general in an attempt to overturn Obamacare, he really doesn't want all of it overturned and actually supports some of it.
And regarding the Republican Party budget proposal that was authored primarily under the leadership of VP candidate Paul Ryan: The Times, on behalf of McKenna, is telling people, "While McKenna has praised Ryan's knowledge of the federal budget, he has not endorsed the proposal."
I do, but I don't. I am, but I'm not.
This is more than a "Revenue Experiment" by the Seattle Times.
It is a test of where the heart and conscience of the faith community in Washington State lies on the most important moral issues of our times.
I am not trying to tell you how to vote, but I hope and pray you think clearly through the lens of your own faith and biblical worldview, not through that of a very few evangelical leaders who agree with the Seattle Times and are, while "defending marriage," advocating for a man who has shown no inclination to support the most important values and beliefs of the Christian community. Who in fact openly supports abortion under the guise of "choice" while whispering he is personally pro-life.
That's nauseating.
And troubling to those who are not blinded by the drive to sit at his table, should he win.
Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Discerning. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.
