Okay, so Columbian editorial writers aren't that bad

In my previous post, I criticized the Columbian's editorial board for what we believe is a rushed editorial that has echoes of Eyman rhetoric throughout. I also said this:

This editorial lowers our respect for the Columbian editorial board down another notch. This isn't the first time they've gone out of their way to praise Eyman, and we doubt it'll be the last. They're losing credibility in our eyes - fast.

I stand by what I just said. However, I also just noticed this in the Columbian's Sunday editorial which came out strongly against I-912:

Bipartisan legislative support for the solution is matched by bipartisan support in private sectors. The liberal Northwest Progressive Institute in Redmond agrees with the plan, and chambers of commerce and business groups see the gas tax increase as more than necessary, in fact vital: "If we don't fix (transportation problems), we'll have an economic heart attack," said Steve Mullin, chairman of the Washington Roundtable, a group of large-company CEOs. "The longer we wait, the more it will cost in the long run."

Well, how kind of them to mention us in their editorial. It's good to know our work has been noticed.

We still think the editorial endorsing I-900 is awful. But if we're going to dish out criticism, we should also dish out praise when we think it's due. The Columbian's stance on I-912 is solid, and we like to see that. We like it even more that we're mentioned in the editorial.

So, fine. The Columbian's editorial writers can turn out something good. But we're going to keep our eyes on them when it comes to editorializing on Eyman.