By Sam Foster
A recent editorial from the Post-Standard Editorial Board asks voters to "Assume the Worst" about Ann Marie Buerkle because of the private nature of some of the organizations spending in this November's elections…
Voters: Don't be suckers. Ask yourselves: Why are those donors hiding? Is it because they know they are hijacking democracy? What's on their agenda? Outsourcing more jobs to China? Establishing One World Government? Lowering taxes only for the rich? Eliminating consumer safety standards? Boosting corporate subsidies and bailouts?
Go ahead, voters: Assume the worst and vote accordingly — until the cowardly donors reveal themselves.
The charge seemed to waffle more on ad hominem than on actual logic. So, I decided to write the Post-Standard to see if the rule applies to them, or just the organizations they don't agree with.
Dear Post-Standard editorial board,
I have been puzzling over the editorial board's recent editorial "Assume the Worst."
According to the writers, one should assume the worst about an organization's political intentions when sources of funding are not made public.
Since the Post-Standard is a privately held company, I was wondering if you'd submit a list of your parent company's, Advance Publication, investors and the amounts that they have invested.
If you are unwilling to do so, I must by your editorial board's logic, assume the worst about Post-Standard's political views.
Reporter for Pajama's Media
Somehow, I doubt that such a list will be forthcoming. Thus, without any sunlight to who is running the Post-Standard, we must "Assume the Worst" of the Post-Standard for publishing "Assume the Worst" and tell you not to vote for Dan Maffei, because he must be held accountable to a third party organization.
Voters: don't be suckers; apply the Post-Standard's voting standard to the Post-Standard then realize that it is rubbish.