I’m sitting here thinking about today’s Chris Mullick article’s (one on his blog and one in the daily) about the early challenge to Doc Hastings from Pasco Democrat, George Fearing and I’m wondering… Does the Herald like to sell newspapers? I say that because in some strange way, I leave this article with a similar dismay as I did during the Richard Wright campaign in 2006. But it wasn’t quite the same since Richard’s local paper coverage was virtually non-existent (especially this early) where the early runner George Fearing suddenly gets press.

Well, I can pretty easily guess the reason the article exists at all. George appeared on “The David Goldstein Show” (710 KIRO Seattle) last Monday and I suppose that was a surprise and good enough reason to start waxing over recent history…

Fearing didn’t report any fundraising activity during the first quarter of the year, his campaign Web site is still under construction and he hasn’t sought publicity, although he was a last-minute addition to a Seattle talk radio show Monday night.

A former Libertarian and a well-known Tri-City attorney, Fearing’s political experience is limited to his sound defeat last November in a bid to unseat state Rep. Maureen Walsh, R-College Place.

A sound defeat indeed but forget about mentioning that Walsh’s seat is held by… Maureen Walsh. Maureen isn’t exactly the poster child for neocon madness, and let us not forget the insanely neocon challenge to Democrat Bill Grant in that same district which turned out badly for challenger Kevin Young. These two legislators from opposing parties have great credentials and my impression is that the general public is pretty happy with Washington’s 16th District Representation. But reading Mullick’s print article I couldn’t fathom the following:

Latta said Fearing won’t put such limits on fundraising this time and that Walsh was unbeatable after the death of her husband last year.

Or much less stomach the following out of context quote:

“It was just one of those things,” she said. “I don’t think anyone could beat Maureen after the loss of her husband. If you had run Abraham Lincoln against her she still would have gotten the sympathy vote. I’m not casting aspersions on her but that race was unwinnable.”

This is leaving out much of the conversation. I spoke with Mimi Latta about Mullick’s article and disappointment is putting it lightly. Mimi gave him a clear disclaimer that this was obviously a tough race to win and in political reality, the deal was sealed with the death of Maureen’s husband, not because. A political reality and not a smarmy judgement on the outcome. Mullick’s article simply doesn’t read that way and a poor example of follow through. Mimi follows through:

The comment about Maureen Walsh was totally out of context. I was adamant that I wasn’t denigrating Maureen’s performance as a legislator. I repeated it twice in different words, but Chris left it off and so slanted the article. I was calling Chris back from a dusty parking lot in 89 degree heat in Moses Lake and replied to his comment that George had done a bad job in the 16 Legislative District race. I said that there were some things that George could have done better, but that it would have been a difficult race for anyone. Then I prefaced my comment about the death of Maureen’s husband essentially sealing the deal in Maureen’s favor by saying that I wasn’t saying anything negative about Maureen or the race she had run. After I said that, I repeated that I wasn’t taking anything away from Maureen Walsh or the way she performs her duties. Chris said “uh huh” when I asked if he understood that.

I think it’s a shame that Chris Mulick took my words out of context and changed the meaning into a statement that might make Maureen feel bad or get angry. I have a close friend whose husband died suddenly and it was a horrible shock that took her several years to really get over. Maureen stood strong for her kids and ran the race and won it. Chris Mulick doesn’t have to make it sound like anyone thinks less of her.

But to the larger point, Mullick’s two entries aren’t shining examples of smart journalism. If the Tri-City Herald would like to encourage folks to vote as they have done in the past through their editorial pages, they should be less inclined to paint candidates as hopeless causes with bitter intentions. It simply isn’t good for Democracy and doesn’t exactly give folks reason to pick up a paper to enjoy with coffee. And candidates like George Fearing, you know… those folks willing to step up to the plate deserve better. And really… what better way to sell papers than to have candidates actually duking it out for votes? I would say that would sell better than painting challengers as unqualified hacks.

As far as Fearings political experience, I guess Mullick needs an interview… But really, I guess Doc’s pre-Congressional experience in toilet paper sales, and his less than stellar post-Toilet paper sales Congressional experience makes him a better candidate. Ok… ok, that wasn’t fair… but hey, I’m just a blogger.

Oh, and by the way, the audio for the David Goldstein Show interview with George Fearing can be found… right… HERE. (beware… lots of commercials)

[Quick Update: It should be noted that Richard Wright garnered 40% of the 4th CD's vote with less than a 3rd of the financial numbers comparedly to other Democratic challengers, and virtually no name recognition, in this district. Remarkable that a newspaper would ignore that when a 1 million dollar campaign waged in the 5th CD with similar numbers.]