Why people shouldn’t vote for McKenna

The Times’ endorsement for Rob McKenna [“Rob McKenna for governor,” editorial, Opinion, July 1] outlined all the reasons I will not be voting for him come November.

For one, he supports charter schools while Inslee does not. How many times must the citizens be faced with this ridiculous issue again and again after we have already rejected it multiple times? Why would The Times endorse a candidate who is against the will of the people?

Then later on, The Times argues that since “McKenna supports the two-thirds votes for the Legislature to increase taxes, while Inslee does not,” he is the better candidate. This two-thirds majority is the direct reason for why the current administration has been forced to make so many cuts. Earlier in the endorsement, The Times says that the current administration has made too many cuts where it is easiest. They would not have had to make these cuts if the two-thirds law did not exist.

It is not fair for The Times to claim that the Legislature has made too many cuts in the wrong places, while at the same time, praising McKenna for supporting the reason these cuts must be made.

Thank you for giving me a handy guide for explaining why people should be voting for Jay Inslee.

— Ben Lennon, Seattle

Inslee represents us, McKenna sells us out

I was surprised to see The Times’ endorsement of Rob McKenna for governor, especially given the reason for the endorsement: “He’s been here, Inslee has not.” Does The Times truly believe that a U.S. congressperson does not have to understand the issues facing their constituents back home?

Of course The Times does not mention the one national issue, which Jay Inslee was proved right and McKenna completely wrong — the Affordable Care Act. This act will provide coverage for millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It puts an end to pre-existing-condition exclusions, lifetime caps on coverage by insurers and new insurance exchanges that will allow affordable insurance options to millions who now have no coverage at all.

McKenna was not the author of the lawsuit, but joined later. The question is, for what possible purpose?

The only reason I can come up with was that he planned his run for governor then and felt his “me too” on the lawsuit would generate millions in campaign contributions from wealthy conservative donors outside the state.

Inslee has represented us well. McKenna, on the other hand, tried to sell us out for political gain.

— David Pfeifle, Lynnwood

McKenna carries the Republican practices

I am disappointed in The Times endorsement of Rob McKenna for governor. He may be a local boy who made good, but he is a Republican. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the Republicans are the ones who want to fix our nation’s problems by going back to the failed Reagan/Bush “trickle-down” policy of more tax cuts for the really rich, dismantling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, overturning Roe vs. Wade, continuing our broken health-care system, etc., etc.

Republicans, the party of Grover Norquist, have no ideas for leading our country forward; they only want to drag it back to the failed past. If McKenna is as intelligent as The Seattle Times portrays him, why would he align himself with such a sorry bunch of reprobates? If he were as intelligent as The Seattle Times portrays him, McKenna would have nothing to do with the Republican Party.

— Doug Bradley, Seattle

Questioning The Times’ judgment

It is both shocking and extremely disappointing that The Times endorsed Rob McKenna for governor on June 29. I find this shocking because The Times released this the day after the health-care ruling from the Supreme Court.

McKenna burned through valuable time, resources and taxpayer dollars to take a case to the Supreme Court, which he ultimately lost. McKenna’s job as a lawyer means that he staked his reputation on this battle, yet The Times turned around a single day after a very public defeat to endorse him.

Why endorse McKenna at all, let alone now? With his reputation as a lawyer taking a severe blow, the endorsement fell back on saying that McKenna was better than Jay Inslee purely because he has been “here.” If all it takes to win approval from The Times is to merely show up, then we have to start questioning the judgment of this paper.

— Brian Gardner, Issaquah