Washington State GOP chair Chris Vance tells The Olympian he thinks Dino Rossi will prevail in his court bid to overturn Democrat Christine Gregoire's narrow, disputed victory in the 2004 election for Governor, but if he doesn't, Rossi should challenge Maria Cantwell for U.S. Senate next year. Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane says there's no way Rossi will do that. Vance then says he'd run against Cantwell if Rossi and other party leaders asked him. Talk about a trial balloon. I dunno, Chris has done a pretty fair job as GOP state chair (I know, I know, some of you disagree with that, and that's fine...we SHOULD air these things out). But I don't see him as an especially strong challenger to Cantwell. I'd prefer someone like, oh, I dunno, ex-Microsoft exec Bob Herbold, whom party leaders came to before Rossi as a possible candidate for Guv....Herbold v. Cantwell: THAT would be exciting.
The Olympian (first link, above) also reports on a recent Elway Poll finding that 63 percent of Washington state respondents "accept the results of the election and (say) move on." Vance rightly replies a court ruling in Rossi's favor will invigorate calls for a new election. The poll also showed strong support for election system changes, including photo ID at polling places.
UPDATE: An SP reader in the business community e-mails me, saying it's a very good bet that Safeco CEO and Chairman Mike McGavick is going to challenge Cantwell. If so, outstanding! This guy's story, guts and leadership abilities would make him a compelling candidate. We need somebody like Herbold or McGavick to step up. This May '03 Seattle Times profile (free reg. req.) of McGavick is well worth a read.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 17, 2005 10:34 AM | Email ThisAlthough Rossi hasn't ruled it out, I get the sense that his heart really isn't in a Senate run. He wants to help his state and being Governor allows you at least the chance to do that. Being a Junior Senator doesn't. Plus he wants to stay in WA and have the kids grow up there. Disrupting a solid family life to be buried in obscurity for six years in DC, one vote out of a hundred with little influence, is probably a sacrifice too many.
Posted by: Interested Observer on March 17, 2005 10:24 AMThe state's Supreme Court is about as elitist as they come and they completely ignore the views of the majority on such things as gay marriage.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 17, 2005 10:37 AMVance for Senate. I think not! Why oh why cannot the GOP find viable candidates to run against these two clowns?
Posted by: Ed on March 17, 2005 10:46 AMVance has given up philosophical control of the party to Eyman, lost senate and house seats, and has shut out any competition in the party, which would make its candiadates stronger. He was lucky that he had the best candidate for Govenor that the GOP has mustered in 20 years, and he still lost that race. And I don't think Vance can take credit for either McKenna or Rossi, who were just naturally good canidates. And now he is volunteering himself for the Senate. How wonderfully noble of him. Go for it, you will get John Carlson for Govenor numbers. Can you Say Cantwell 65%?
Herbold would be an interesting candidate. Rossi would have been interesting, but is getting tarred by the loonies in the challange. But lets face it, the Republican bench is pretty shallow.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 10:47 AM1. The Elway poll shows that, when you don't use a Republican pollster, the public is *overwhelmingly* against a recount. (Btw, if you don't think Strategic Vision is heavily Republican-oriented, please do your research on them.) The poll also shows that 74% believe that errors are inevitable in the voting process; 23% believe you can ensure a perfect ballot.
2. The Seattle Times points out that *hundreds* of the people that the Rossi campaign publicly accused of a felony (illegally voting) are people whose convictions occurred when they were underage -- thus meaning that they were *actually fully entitled to vote.* (The Rossi camp did retract the list of alleged felon-voters, but only *after* first voluntarily releasing it to the press at the same time that they were compelled to release it to the Democrats in the Chelan litigation.)
If the Rossi campaign can't get something simple like checking whether the prior felony convictions were juvenile offenses right, after *months* of time to analyze and focus on this issue, how can they claim with a straight face that King County (and the others) should have done a better job on election day? I mean, it's clear that they falsely accused *hundreds* of people of a felony (illegal voting) based on a simple mistake!
There's a reason that people are talking about whether Rossi should run against Cantwell in '06. But as a Democrat, I do hope y'all spend as much time as possible tilting against this windmill and almost 2/3 of the public. All this wasted energy on your part is music to my electoral ears. And I love the part where the Rossi folks are now looking not just at losing the recount case, losing in the court of public opinion, *and* having to face libel/slander litigation from people they've falsely accused. Should be fun.
Posted by: Mike on March 17, 2005 10:52 AMI believe Dino will be Governor and we will have a great candidate who will defeat Cantwell. For obvious reasons, however, that race can't really start in earnest until it is clear that Dino will not be the candidate.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 17, 2005 10:58 AMNice post Matt.
Cantwell is a tough one as she is much more modrate politically than Murry who just won by 11 percent. She is more conservative than alot of urban republicans and seen as a friend to business with a start up business background herself.
Nevertheless, Rossi is probably the best shot the republicans have against her. I don't see Vance any more viable then a Nethercutt.
I am sure any poll would show that Vance has quite a few negatives with the public, much more than Rossi. But if Rossi loses the contest, people don't like losers much. (Although Cantwell herself lost her seat on Congress years ago and then went to work for Real Networks.)
Posted by: Erik on March 17, 2005 11:03 AMAnyone got a link to the actual polling data?
It's easy to quote some poll, study, or "anonymous inside source."
I want to see some specifics
Posted by: smoke on March 17, 2005 11:12 AMThat is the exact definition of a trial balloon. If you had answer "My job is running this party, and I have no further ambitions." that would not be a trial balloon.
And, while you are gracing us with your presence, care to comment on the slander you and the BIAW put out accusing people of illegally voting when they did not?
A link to the Elway poll would be nice, but its result are not surprising. The Stratigic Vision poll (which does lean GOP) had been showing Rossi's numbers going down, peoples negatives on the elections going down, and Governor Gregoire's numbers going up.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 11:29 AMThere is only one measure of success and ability. And that measure is this: Does the GOP control government?
Do we control the House and the Senate? Is a Republican governor living in the Mansion?
Vance has been an ABYSMAL chair, just like he was an ABYSMAL congressional candidate.
Have you forgotten already? Adam Smith HAMMERED this guy. How can ANYONE believe that Vance stands a chance against Cantwell?
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 17, 2005 11:43 AMSo did Julia Patterson, if I recall. On a county council seat, if I'm not mistaken. And an OSPI bid some time back, too.
Whether or not he's done a good job as party chair, his time of being an electable candidate has passed.
Posted by: jimg on March 17, 2005 11:58 AMJohn's a Republican businessperson who over the last 20 years has worked hard and succeeded at bringing thousands of high tech jobs to this State while the various do-nothing Democratic governors have sat fiddling.
He is a brilliant technology visionary and, like Rossi, is the kind of cross-over Republican who could do well in this state. He would blow Maria away. Wireless vs. software, might be a fun match-up!
Posted by: LoneWolf on March 17, 2005 12:05 PMVance strikes me as having an idea of the concepts necessary, but has a tendency to crumple when contested, unless really pressed, like in the gubernatorial challenge. Not necessarily weak kneed, but more of a lag time when things head toward slippery slope. Let’s face it…if you look at his resume, it’s clear he’s uncertain about his highest and best use, which puts him in the same category as many of the Dems…wanting to be something, rather than having a fire in the belly to do something. Thus his appeal is limited in the eyes of those who have chosen to be conservative/Reps. I like him personally, and appreciate what he’s done in the election contest, but don’t see him in a run for the Senate.
The best chance of beating Cantwell is someone who has a profile in business that shows actual success, rather than Cantwell’s serendipitous and pixilated toe-dipping into cyber success. Poke Cantwell with a pin, and you get wonk-ism, rather than substance. Run a person of substance against her, and the contrast will be as clear as between CG and Dino. Don’t try to out-wonk a wonk, rather pit substance against lib agenda wonkism.
Dino’s choice, of staying local as gov sounds very much like the correct choice.
JDB…I disagree very strongly… “the Republican bench is pretty shallow”. Since we’re into spring training, let me put it in baseball terms…traditionally, the Dems tend to nurture their newbies by bringing them up through the farm system of PTA, service groups, and lower offices. To some extent, the Reps do that as well, but they are much more likely to follow the career path through business, the military, etc. Of course there is overlap and exceptions. But the fact is, potential Rep office-seekers aren’t on the bench…they have real jobs outside the public sector and the public eye. They are no less qualified, and potentially much better equipped to actually put forth good public policy, once they get settled in and transfer over their skills and ideas.
Yours is a common claim made by the Dems, yet overlooks an inconsistency...the left has no problem with their school administrator types or lawyer types running, as those are seen as viable backgrounds...yet let the Reps run a successful businessman and there are inevitable claims of lack of experience. Yet businesses have to deal with taxation, marketing, and gov regulation on a daily basis. Besides the obvious, this shows a bias in that an ability and preference for furthering the lib agenda is preferable to dealing with problems, monitoring, and accountability that business-types have with the lib agenda.
I love Dunn, but she’s a non-starter for the Senate. She’s even less likely to consider it now that she’s out of the house than she was back in the 90’s and chose to go after house leadership rather than the Senate.
As one who used party supplied voter ID lists for campaigns both pre and post Chris I can tell you that they are more accurate and better developed by a factor of ten since he came on board. And that is absolutely critical to winning elections.
And the party's finances are in better shape.
Posted by: barchester on March 17, 2005 01:02 PMIt's funny how polls weren't important to Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt only a short time ago when they pertained to the unpopularity of Mansion-Caretaker Gregoire and how polls were showing Rossi still beating her if new elections were held...
Posted by: flexnfx on March 17, 2005 01:19 PMI agree with this. Since "Not Much" is happening, it's a little outta-sight, outta-mind. The majority of people (and these are Democrat State Workers), are still bracing themselves for the departure of Gregoire. Many of them look at her with a bit of disdain...that says alot to me.
Posted by: flexnfx on March 17, 2005 01:23 PMThe lists have been and continue to be, a joke. Entire campaigns go without using them.
You tell us the party's finances are somehow better off. Care to explain how it is that finances were so bad at one point, the WSRP couldn't afford a political director?
As I stated before: there is precisely and only ONE measure of success for a Party chair. And that is the level of success the Party has politically across the state.
No amount of spin can change that. The idea that Vance was first, re-elected and second, given a flippin' PAY RAISE is beyond absurdity... as is the idea that he could even BEGIN to credibly run for statewide office.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 17, 2005 01:38 PMYou say: "The majority of people (and these are Democrat State Workers), are still bracing themselves for the departure of Gregoire."
What is the basis of this statement? The Elway poll was of the state, or do you believe the majority of this state are Democratic State Workers? I know a lot of people who work at a variety of levels with the State, and they aren't really wrapped up in this. A) It doesn't matter to most state workers who the Govenor is (most people's jobs aren't effected, most people just do their job) and B) Like probably 85% of the state, they have moved on (I would bet that you have 9% of the population who are Republicans, 5% who are Democracts and 1% who are Independants who actually care at this point. More than that actually have oppinions on the issues, but that is who cares.
Scott158:
Both parties draw from both pools. You are right that the Republican's in general tend to go outside their office holders more than Democrats, but when is the last time a non-politician ran for a major office on behalf of the Republicans? Arguably John Carlson, but he is really just a politican of another stripe. Can you name another in the last 20 years?
I have no problems with buisnessmen running, never said I did. Booth Gardner came from the private sector. Mike Kreidler came out of the private sector. Again, name a GOP canidate for Senate or Govenor over the last 20 years who came directly from the private sector.
Posted by: JDB on March 17, 2005 02:01 PM1) We gained the second highest statewide office after a 12 year drought;
2) We held on to two congressional seats that in both instances started out looking vulnerable, though in retrospect the 5th probably never was;
3) We lost seats in the state House and Senate;
4) We elected the first Republican Governor since '84 only not by sufficient numbers to counteract "flexibility" granted in the law to King County Records and Elections to find after-election votes.
BTW - I'm not intending to besmirch CV's immediate predecessor who also had challenges that he worked hard to overcome and who helped move the ball forward. But any fair assessment must look at the good as well as the bad.
1) We gained the second highest statewide office after a 12 year drought;
And LOST the HIGHEST office, CONTINUING a 24 YEAR drought. PLUS, “YOU” LOST MORE seats in the House AND CONTROL of the Senate.
You actually see this as something to BRAG about?
2) We held on to two congressional seats that in both instances started out looking vulnerable, though in retrospect the 5th probably never was;
Please. Cathy had that thing sewn up from the get-go. The 5th never WAS competitive. The moment Reichert won in the 8th, it was over.
Sorry to see 2 things. First, that you bought into the Seattle media spin on the 8th and second, that you actually believe the WSRP had anything to do with the outcome.
And, come to think of it, here’s another clue: It isn’t about KEEPING a 6-3 democrat advantage… as if THAT is some kind of accomplishment. It is, instead, about ELIMINATING that 6-3 democrat advantage. Your mindset… that keeping 3 seats out of 9 is some sort of accomplishment, is symptomatic of the disease that infests the WSRP HQ.
It is NOT “OK.” It is NOT a reason to re-elect Vance chair, and it damned sure isn’t a reason to give him a RAISE.
3) We lost seats in the state House and Senate;
As well as losing control of the Senate… a minor detail you left out.
4) We elected the first Republican Governor since '84 only not by sufficient numbers to counteract "flexibility" granted in the law to King County Records and Elections to find after-election votes.
I’m sorry… but the person sitting in the Governor’s mansion doesn’t bear the name “Rossi” after the title “Governor.” Anything else is meaningless.
So tell me. When does the “good” part begin?
Wow were to begin?First of all the state party
is not I repeat is not in great financial
shape.In fact they are broke.In the month
of january alone they went through 750,000
dollars just in legal fees paid out.
They must really have some high priced
talent on the payroll.If you want to give
Vance credit for the voter Id roles fine.
The one thing everyone seems continue to
miss is vance is not honorable man.He lied
to keep the state chair position.
Vance prior to the state chair elections
brags about how the executive board gave
him a raise.Sounds good there just one
problem with it.It was contigent on Rossi
winning the election.which ofcourse has
not happened yet.I hope don't have repeat the whoppers
he told about mark hulst.
This adversarial relationship he has
with the Biaw helps no one.The latest example
of this was a couple weeks ago at a town
meeting in Mt vernon.Vance walks up to John
Piazza and says what the F were you trying
to do to me.For those of you who don't know.
john piazza is on the Biaw executive board.
This kind of behavior by a political party
leader is reprehensible.Like I said before
A should have honor and integrity and inspire
people.We don't have that now.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. McGavick will be willing to give up his $3 or so million a year in comp to run for the Senate.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2005 02:56 PM#1 - I raised the issue of the lost seats exactly for the purpose of pointing out that '04 was a mixed plate. The loss of the Senate was a big blow and if you have specific complaints about WSRP operations that brought about this result please enlighten us;
#2 -- I'm glad you knew in advance that the 8th and the 5th were locks. Yes, they are R districts, but the national party believed them to be vulnerable as evidenced by their involvement in both races;
#3 -- The BIAW is a great group that should be cultivated;
#4 -- The Rossi campaign was an exceptionally well run campaign and Dino chose to endorse CV suggesting, at the very least, that Dino believes CV's presence in that position to be of value (if you have inside information about Dino's opinion to the contrary please share it).
Your argument that the Rossi maybe-loss should be viewed as a sign of leadership failure at WSRP begs the question of whether a reversal for Gregoire in court will operate to establish leadership strength at WSRP in your mind?
Posted by: barchester on March 17, 2005 04:46 PM for your benefit and those that may not know
I will explain this one more time.about 2 weeks
prior to the state chair elections.Chris vance
sent out a letter to the state gop committee
these are the ones vote.Vance told them that
Dino Rossi's campaign had asked mark hulst to
drop out the state chair race,Vance also in
sit with the major political media of this
state said the same thing.
Dino Rossi's adamently denies ever making
any such request.Mark Hulst also denies it
ever happened.Vance did this because hulst had
him on the ropes and he knew it.This nothing
more than act of desparation on vances part.
Initally what was supposed to happen was
Rossi campaign were going ask Vance to drop
out of the race.He had embarassed them one
to many times and they had had enough.
What I believe happened was dino began
to feel overwhelmed by the moderate wing
of the party.you know over there dead body is
there ever going to be a conservative state
chairman.So dino backed away from asking vance
to drop out.
I would say now that vances support is shakey
at best.I base this on 2 reasons . 1st 46
committee members voted someone other than
vance.
The 2nd being that after it was all said
and I know for a fact that mark hulst was
flooded with emails and phone calls begging
him to run again in 2 years.In fact some
committee have even admitted that would
have voted for mark had dino not backed
vance.I believe mark would have one easily
based all the support he got afterwards.
thats it in nutshell.
Posted by: phil spackman on March 17, 2005 05:37 PM
What? Heh.
#1 - I raised the issue of the lost seats exactly for the purpose of pointing out that '04 was a mixed plate. The loss of the Senate was a big blow and if you have specific complaints about WSRP operations that brought about this result please enlighten us;
“Specific complaints?”
I specifically complain that the WSRP did NOT do what was needed to keep Horn or, God help me, Carlson; I also complain they didn’t do what they needed to do to take out Haugen.
The fact is this: SOMEONE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCREASINGLY (INCREASINGLY) BAD REPUBLICAN CLIMATE IN THIS STATE.
Do you not… for one minute… think that Vance wouldn’t be taking all the credit if this thing had turned around? Of COURSE he would. And you know what? He would be doing that RIGHTFULLY. That said, when this state CONTINUES to sink by the bow… when the level of defeat of the Bush vote in this state INCREASED over 2000… when the state GOP does NOTHING for minority outreach… ALL of that stops with Vance.
The INDISPUTABLE FACT IS that since Vance took over, our situation has continued to deteriorate. And if HE isn’t responsible for fixing it… then who is?
VANCE is the captain of the Republican ship of state. That’s what he gets PAID FOR. CLEARLY, he has and continues to fail. To those of us in the field, his continued presence as the “leader” of this party is a disheartening blow that shows how much the state committee is out of touch.
VANCE CANNOT FIX THIS. He’s had FOUR YEARS AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HE’S MADE… THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HE’S MAD HAS BEEN NEGATIVE.
The proof is in the outcomes… and the outcomes suck.
#2 -- I'm glad you knew in advance that the 8th and the 5th were locks. Yes, they are R districts, but the national party believed them to be vulnerable as evidenced by their involvement in both races;
Having done more than one congressional race, I can tell you this: The RNC and the RNCC is a player in EVERY credible campaign. McMorris led EVERY poll and Reichert led ALMOST EVERY poll.
But picking those two was easy money… RNC/RNCC involvement notwithstanding.
#3 -- The BIAW is a great group that should be cultivated;
Yeah? And? The only group Vance has fought with that’s caused the GOP damage has been the Libertarians. And what a master stroke THAT was!
#4 -- The Rossi campaign was an exceptionally well-run campaign and Dino chose to endorse CV suggesting, at the very least, that Dino believes CV's presence in that position to be of value (if you have inside information about Dino's opinion to the contrary please share it).
Dino has surrounded himself with liberals and members of the Bellevue Mafia.
I admit that Vance’s lap dog credentials are hard to beat, and endorsing someone for Party Chair who will do exactly what you tell him to do does have a certain attraction to it from Dino’s perspective.
But Dino isn’t God and his knowledge of the internal workings of the state GOP organization is, apparently, limited at best.
Your argument that the Rossi maybe-loss should be viewed as a sign of leadership failure at WSRP begs the question of whether a reversal for Gregoire in court will operate to establish eadership strength at WSRP in your mind?
Hell, no. Leadership of the Party is MUCH more than the outcome of ANY single race, including governor.
You insist on applying some other criteria for effectiveness besides the only one that matters. This state is becoming a deeper, darker blue. And Chris Vance is the one who has to find a way to get a new box of crayons. Unfortunately, he’s proven himself incapable of that. He needs to step aside and let someone else do it.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 17, 2005 05:39 PMYou started your complaint against CV arguing that the only criteria for choosing a state party chair was political success. When presented with successes you attributed them to others without, I might add, choosing to attribute losses to anyone but CV.
Far from being duped by the Seattle media I'm very aware of the national party's role in this year's congressional victories. But, of course, by noting victories in the 5th and 8th I was simply using the measuring stick you chose. Now you inform us that CV should not be judged by victories in the 5th, 8th, AGs race and possibly Governor's race. But that he should take responsibility for the loss of Horn and Carlson.
Maybe so, but your measuring stick is starting to look like a moving target.
I've tired of this and will be signing off.
Posted by: barchester on March 17, 2005 06:11 PM
Can I remind you that Rossi carried 31 of the 39 Counties in the 2004 election....
What color is the state now?
Just a thought, using a bit of math....
Posted by: Chris on March 17, 2005 07:01 PMAnd on a more specific note...
Who - speaking of "who", I think it would be helpful if you could actually identify yourself. I found it odd your blog gives no mention of who you actually are...at least no mention easy to find. Given the, uh, highly opinionated nature of your opinions, those of us such as Matt and barchester who are actually interested in debate versus your rant of the moment would probably appreciate knowing who you are…if you’d be so kind.
Can I remind you that Rossi carried 31 of the 39 Counties in the 2004 election....
What color is the state now?
Just a thought, using a bit of math....
Posted by Chris at March 17, 2005 07:01 PM
Happy to answer: The color is blue. Dark blue, and getting darker.
As you SHOULD know, the color is based on exactly one factor: the vote.
Democrats control our state legislature and state executive. Kerry received over 7% more than Bush this go-round... an increase of 2% over 2000.
So, to directly answer your question... if this state became any bluer, it would be black. Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 17, 2005 11:41 PMYou have yet to provide any evidence of any success… your pout notwithstanding.
You asked for specific complaints. I provided them. The purpose of the WSRP is not to “take credit,” it is to do everything it can to place, and keep, this state under Republican control.
Instead of any movement in that direction, just the opposite is taking place and under Vance’s watch, will continue to take place…
My “measuring stick” is sunk in concrete. Had the GOP in this state even remotely began to move back to control of this government, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But at the end of the day, by EVERY statistic available, we are getting farther and farther away from that goal… and yes, the responsibility for that begins and ends with one man: Chris Vance.
Who - speaking of "who", I think it would be helpful if you could actually identify yourself. I found it odd your blog gives no mention of who you actually are...at least no mention easy to find. Given the, uh, highly opinionated nature of your opinions, those of us such as Matt and barchester who are actually interested in debate versus your rant of the moment would probably appreciate knowing who you are…if you’d be so kind.
Sorry, Eric… I don’t do requests.
Who I am has no impact or bearing on this issue. My ideas and observations rise or fall on their own merit. Until everyone posting here is held to the same standard, I’ll remain anon.
If that bugs you, well, you can always avoid reading my stuff.
You obviously have made your mind up. It's pointless to debate. You want Vance to walk on water, heal the sick and raise the dead. He's not gonna do that. That doesn't make him a bad chair, but you arn't gonna realize that nomatter what, that is clear.
Posted by: Cliff on March 18, 2005 12:06 AMI would venture to say that everyone posting here "has made up their minds."
Unless you would care to point out some evidence to the contrary... say a few posts indicating a change of mind or position based on what's posted here?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 18, 2005 08:53 AMAs much as I am impressed by your concern over my "credibility," you've already made up your mind, as, apparently, many of your ilk here have.
"What ilk, you may ask?" The ilk, strangely reminiscent of the moveon.org types of the last election, who lost no time ignoring the issues in favor of attacking the messengers.
My ideas... my positions... are just that. Mine. It would serve no purpose, save to satisfy your curiosity, to respond to your "request." For you, the fact is that you have already arrived at your conclusion about who I am, in that you've determined that my "controversial ideas are falling on their own merit based on watching various people debate you in assorted threads on this site."
That you're so limited to assign credibility to an idea "based on watching people debate" instead of concerning yourself with the substance within the idea is not my problem.
Tell you what, Eric. Why don't you just refer to me as "pathetic?” You know... much like your titillation over who I am?
As always, you may feel free to ignore my "pathetic" little comments and act as if I don't exist. And certainly, when it comes to my blog, feel free to avoid reading that as well. Wouldn't want you to become contaminated by my ideas, observations or positions, would we?
Meanwhile, I'm sticking to the issues. Any other observation about me, who I might or might not be, my blog or anything else not connected to the issues will have to be addressed by someone else.
As I pointed out... I don't do requests.
Fini.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 18, 2005 09:15 AMPathetic - I came to my conclusion after observing your comments and attempts at debate on several threads, on several subjects, at this site. As to the substance of your posts, that is exactly what you and I (and many others looking back at those same threads) are in disagreement over...not to mention your inability to actually keep to the issues as you claim, without hurling insults and invective. The more you post the more you prove that point, and I thank you for that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 18, 2005 10:47 AMFeel better? Over your tantrum now?
GOOOD boy. But I warn you... next time it's a time- out for you!
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 18, 2005 04:45 PM