The front page of today's Seattle Times displays the following headline: "Ad wrongly depicts Rossi's answer on Boeing, Airbus".
The headline itself wrongly depicts the Murray ad as false.
Here is the ad:
Here is the exchange that led to the Murray ad:
News Tribune: "When you say fight for it, and you want a level playing field, I'm not still understanding if you're saying that that WTO ruling should have a factor in the tanker bid."
Rossi: "No, not as far as I'm concerned. No."
From the Seattle Times own reporting:
"[In] an unambiguous ruling against Airbus... The WTO ruled that Airbus received billions in illegal subsidies for every jet program it has launched since it entered the market 40 years ago."
The WTO ruled Airbus received illegal subsidies. Rossi was asked if the ruling should be a factor in the tanker bid, and Rossi said "no".
I don't see the problem.To repeat the question verbatim would be to assume the audience knows that the WTO found that Boeing workers face a disadvantage due to an uneven playing field in the form of "illegal subsidies".
The paraphrasing was necessary, accurate and appropriate. If Rossi didn't understand the question, and/or the WTO ruling, and/or his own answer, that isn't the Murray campaign's problem.
That billions of "illegal subsidies" represent a competitive disadvantage to Boeing workers is a fact not in dispute.
Meanwhile, the Rossi campaign has an ad out that claims Murray "voted to double the nation's debt". I don't seem to recall that vote. I do recall Murray voted against the war in Iraq and against the Bush 2001 tax cuts, which combined have added a cool $2 trillion to our nations debt.
Shame on the Seattle Times for providing Rossi with a free, false and misleading attack on the Murray campaign.
Recent polls have this race dead even. You can donate to the Murray campaign here.