The P-I's contumelious liberal columnist Joel Connelly shovels his usual abuse on me today, but at least he figured out how to spell my name (the third time's a charm).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 01:31 AM | Email ThisHere, let me give it a whirl...
oranges oranges oranges APPLES oranges oranges
There we are. Free. And flows better, too.
Posted by: Wind Rider on May 23, 2005 04:01 AMDid you use "contumelious" in your post because joel accused this site of being "vituperative?"
Posted by: Danny on May 23, 2005 04:41 AMI guess that means that Connelly would not object to a candidate claiming, say, an endorsement from Joel Connelly, regardless of whether Connelly had actually endorsed him or not.
Right? I mean, surely Connelly doesn't want to control the Connelly label.
Posted by: ScottM on May 23, 2005 05:37 AMCould you imagine being stuck in a room w/ that guy/ next to him on a plane?
Posted by: righton on May 23, 2005 06:13 AMYesterday afternoon around 3 or 4, on KIRO radio, the host and guest talked about something I'd never heard before. They said Judge Bridges has/had contributed money to the Gregoire campaign.
Is this true?
Posted by: who'dathunk on May 23, 2005 07:07 AMEven-handedly? I strongly disagree.
s'okay. Spin away Joel Connelley. We really don't care what you think as long as we have a legit governor.
Posted by: cc on May 23, 2005 07:23 AMJudge an unknown factor in vote trial
Once upon a time, he wrote an extensive and worthy series of articles about the WPPS debacle. Now his kitty liner of a newspaper is sinking while he spins into the ground covering up the sham of KC elections and the disgrace that is Sound Transit.
What a sad little man he has become, and he deserves to continue fading into obscurity with the Times and P.I.
Posted by: Shaun on May 23, 2005 08:36 AMNo, but still trying to figure the guy out. Some blog, perhaps here, likely totally false and a rumor said they'd heard Kiro person saying he gave to Gregoire.
Well Joel, its really quite simple, the voters chose the new top-two system after having a system they were used to and for the most part liked taken away, then when they went to vote, most only read the part that said you can vote for whoever you want...not reading the bit that said, two Democrats or two Republicans could end up running against each other in the general election.
Posted by: Jason on May 23, 2005 08:55 AMIs that directed at me? The FACT is, the host on KIRO Radio, Sunday, May 22, 4:00 PM?/ gie or take, made the claim and the guest agreed (Pitman???).
I have no idea whether it was true or not. (Bridges contributing to Gregoire campaign) I thought coming here to ask the question would help set the record straight, regarding what was claimed by the host on KIRO radio. I thought this blog had some credible people capable of sorting out such media claims.
Posted by: who'dathunk on May 23, 2005 09:05 AMThe fact is, most of the time the only candidates that have a chance statewide are Democrats. Of course, this is because of King County. Most of population is in King County and, unfortunately, the area has attracted all sort of idealistic left wingers who think they have found a totalitarian utopia.
Add to that the fact that King County elections is corrupt as they come, and you can't get a Republican to win statewide.
But, what if two Democrats end up running against each other for a statewide office? They would have to differentiate from each other, so you will find one of them, at least, calling for better policies than the ones we get crammed down our throat.
More important, the underdog would be motivated to expose the fraud in the King County elections machine. This machine is exactly why the democrats are against the open primary - they want to protect it from scrutiny.
Unfortunately, Republicans are playing into their hands by opposing the possibility of two Democrats running against each other.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 09:29 AMComic relief. This only works in an alternate universe where the Dan Rather is considered middle-of-the-road. I suppose in a world viewed with blue-colored glasses, pink is indistinguishable from red.
He really should be writing conspiracy novels. When pulp fiction and/or stringing together mostly unrelated near-factoids are your strength....
…it’s a sad thing when talent is misapplied.
I see your point, but believe the top-two primary will produce two Dems that will only differentiate themselves by the promises they are willing to make, and later break with abandon, ala "no-higher-gas-tax" Fraudoire.
Cheers,
Shaun
he's right about the Blanket Primary. So were the voters.
That Chris Vance and Paul Berendt both oppose it is enough right there for me.
Republicans all talk about the 'will of the people'.. but then you go and defend elitist party hacks subverting it like the good little toadies you are.
Time for another option in this state. Anyone who says Amen email me.
Posted by: exile on May 23, 2005 11:11 AMOur answer to the parties is to not vote for any of their candidates in their so called rigged elections. It is time for candidates to run as independents and not tied to the tired old politics of the parties that do not amount to a hill of beans anymore. Both parties have been corrupted by the extremist. It is time for the majority middle to take back the state. Vote for the independents.
Posted by: tc on May 23, 2005 12:20 PMBeing a little touchy, are we? After all, the article is mostly about the attempt to throw-out the voter-approved revised primary system with this single remark about SoundPolitics:
"The vituperative right-wing SoundPolitics.com Web site had this to say about him Friday: "Sam Reed is worse than worthless," wrote head blogger Stefan Sharkansky. The Shark pronounced Reed "unfit to be the state's chief elections officer."
So apart from "vituperative," everything else passes my fact check of what you said. Now there's another useful word: "an outburst of violently abusive or harshly critical language" - Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Seems apt to me. Maybe you see him as abusive elsewhere, but I don't see it here. The guy just can't match the intemperance of ideological bloggers, poor fellow.
I kinda liked the part about McDermott's failure to become our governor, too. Maybe he'll run again this fall?
Hmm, you think the new primary rules will apply to the 2005 general elections, assuming the Federal Courts allow the law to stand? Now *that* could be really exciting if we are electing the governor. Heh.
I want to play, too, but what is the antonym to perspicacious (which would be Stefan)?
The dictionaries available to me show the following antonyms: dumb, idiotic, naive, obtuse, retarded, slow, stupid, unintelligent
So hey Joel, which one do you wanna be? ;'}
(As far as I can tell, all are appropriate!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 23, 2005 07:07 PMPlease stop!
Posted by: Von Aras on May 23, 2005 08:35 PMMost notable – and amusing – about the bloated pompous self important Joel Connolly is that he takes his own spiel seriously. You go there big guy – soon you might be allowed to write classified ads for the County Journal.
His interactive debating skills are marked by his sublime shameless delusion. He presumes to have won the argument anytime his pointless tactics are dismissed. Everyone but Joel and a few liberals think he is good at exposing conservative common sense as nonsense through his insistence on making no sense mean being “nuanced.” Ever the pseudo-sophisticated pretender, when Joel is constantly backed into a corner, he accuses his adversary of some phony breach of etiquette, though Joel has caused the breach. Then he tries to move on having avoided the issue.
In sum and to illustrate, if Joel Connolly disappeared from the scene never to be heard from again, hardly anyone would give a $hit. Maybe his mom?
Joel Connolly is a loser.