Consider a title change?

Please consider changing the “Reset 2010” header of The Seattle Times’ election coverage. This header implies bias, in that it implies that a reset of politicians or political agendas is needed, when many of us would like to see a continuation of the progressive politicians and progressive programs, such as health care and financial reform, that have been put in place under the Obama administration.

In the future, please choose an unbiased header for election coverage that is inclusive of all viewpoints.

— Wendy Colbert, Mukilteo

Freedom of speech linked with healthy bank accounts

So The Seattle Times endorsed the two federal congressional candidates in my district (2nd Congressional District) with by far the most money [“2nd Dist. — Larsen, Koster,” Opinion, Aug. 9].

I’m not surprised. I’m very worried about the direction our country is going when big money talks and we, the people, are at a huge disadvantage trying to bring much-needed change. How can democracy survive when those with the big bucks have inordinately more freedom of speech — which actually gets heard — than the rest of us?

The Seattle Times’ Monday editorial states just a couple of the reasons why The Times should not have endorsed these two candidates. So, follow the money?

It’s distressing that what The Times tells us to think is that we should continue supporting the big-money candidates who all too often support policies that help big corporations and hurt the vast majority of Americans, not to mention others around the world.

— Sharon Abreu, Eastsound