Given the lack of grassroots excitement over Safeco CEO Mike McGavick's announcement of a Senate bid, others are trying to decide whether to jump in the race. The Seattle Weekly reports that former KIRO-TV anchor Susan Hutchison has "pollsters in the field checking out her prospects against Cantwell" and says that "her poll shows that Republican voters believe she is a stronger candidate against Cantwell than McGavick".
From my perspective, Hutchison's prospects as a Republican candidate for anything went to zero yesterday as I listened to her on the John Carlson Show defending her work as a member of Ron Sims' Task Force on Elections. She supported all of the task force's recommendations, saying they were adopted "unanimously" and "by consensus". I was hoping that Hutchison would at least distance herself from some of the goofier recommendations or at least present a preference for some alternatives, but her unabashed support of the task force's recommendations came off as just plain ditzy. She couldn't explain the sense of bringing in a turnaround team while letting Dean Logan keep his job; Carlson quoted my blog post and asked for her reaction to my criticism that "the report does not identify the reasons for the loss in trust or the specific acts and failures by the elections section that led to that loss in trust. For example, it could have acknowledged the widespread perception that there were more ballots counted than there were voters." All she said was that they couldn't include every concern that some citizens had. (So they included none of them!) She also had no answers to any of the criticisms that many callers had about all-mail voting, except to say that she believed it would work.
The WA Republican Senate primary should still be considered wide open. I want to be careful to add that I'm not against McGavick, I'm just waiting to hear a more compelling message than I heard the other day. But Hutchison is toast. As her foolish participation in Ron Sims Elections Task Force becomes more widely known in Republican circles, she'll be quickly written off by most party activists. On the other hand, if she's serious about running for office as something other than a Republican, she can probably count on the support of Joni Balter and the pro-vote-fraud lunatic left.
UPDATE: A WAV of Hutchison's interview on the Carlson Show is here. (thanks to Josef). A friendly tip to the McGavick folks -- this audio should pretty much guarantee that Hutchison is not a serious contender in this race.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 29, 2005 10:03 AM | Email ThisThat one interview showed me that she lacks the skills necessary to be a local representative, let alone a US Senator.
Posted by: BellevueSteve on July 29, 2005 11:13 AMCHRIS VANCE- If you think grass roots are going to be doing any fund raising for a guy who thinks the voter initiative process is a bad idea- you'd be wrong. 420,000% wrong in fact.
I never batted an eye on writing a check to get Dino over the top- I wouldn't cross the street to help McGavik afer his comments on initiatives.
Posted by: Andy on July 29, 2005 11:17 AMLikewise, it's not my "perception" of KC Elections that needs to change; the reality must change.
Posted by: Shannon K on July 29, 2005 12:51 PMVery well said.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 29, 2005 02:44 PMHer job is reading cue cards!
Posted by: Norm on July 29, 2005 07:51 PMSusan does seem to be a Republican. She gave $3,000 to Nethercutt's campaign for the U.S. Senate and $500 to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. And most importantly, Chris Vance is backing someone else.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 29, 2005 08:23 PM
Don't be so hard on susan yet.The one thing
everyone seems to be forgeting.Is that we are a
seriously divided party right now.There alot
of people that see mcgavick being shoved
down there throats by vance.
There are those that are also backing tebilus.
I have to tell you guys neither mcgavick or
tebilus are going to be able to unite this
party.I know Susan Hutchinson can.Its because
she has the unique ability to inspire those
around her.
Yes I am sold on susan because she is the
only one who actually can beat cantwell.
In all likelyhood I will get to meet susan
this week. I look forward to interviewing
her.
If she gets the nomination And I will
make a prediction right now:she will
get it.Believe me most everyone will rally
around her.Oh and for the record she is
a republican.The fact of the matter is
whether no it right now or not.The state
gop needs Susan Hutchinson.
Stefan don't even try and use vance against me.
Everything I have written about him on my blog is true.I don't care how many times he denies it.
Its still the truth.At some point stefan your
going to have realize that vance is not who
you think is.Your going to have to have the courage to face the truth.
Nice catch Stefan! Hutchinson is definitely NOT what the people are looking for! Her comments were so lacking in substance and support for public concern over the past elections fiasco! She's just a drone....
How is Diane Tebelius looking?
(Phil Spackman - I think your hatred for Chris Vance is again clouding your good judgement..this time in the Hutchinson matter....)
Posted by: Deborah on July 29, 2005 10:26 PM First of all I do not hate chris vance.
I have simply been pointing out that he
is not an honorable man.Everything I have
said about chris vance I can back up.
Whether you choose to believe it or not
is up to you.
Now as to Susan Hutchinson all of you are
making far to much out Of one interview.Give
her a little bit more of a chance than that ok.
Otherwise I stand by what I said about her.
I do have to wonder if mcgavick did the same
thing if you would be raking him over the
coals like you are Susan.
We raked McGavik last week when he made a comment that he doesn't think the people's initiative process is a good thing.....
Susan Hutchinson is just the latest to reveal a backward stance on matters that we find very important. We are simply sick and tired of supporting candidates (because they claim to be Republican and conservative) and then looking back and smacking our heads for not seeing something as obvious as McGavik and Hutchinsons revealing comments while they were running for office! I am sick of RINO's!
Future Republican candidates would be well advised to watch what they say about issues that have the people steamed right now! Our Initiave process and honestly dealing with the KC election corruption are just a couple of hot-button issues with the people......We are watching everything and hearing every word!
Susan blew it big time...and there is nothing she can do -now- to fix it!
Posted by: Deborah on July 29, 2005 11:23 PM It was one interview lets not go overboard.
If ronald was judge on the first debate he
had with carter the way you and everyone else
are judging susan.He would not been president.
so take easy it ok.
Susan Hutchison probably fits more into the moderate label. We need more candidates like this, especially those which are not controlled by Chris Vance & Company's puppet strings. A candidate like John McCain would have easily carried Washington in the last two presidential elections. Hutchison is the only Republican who could beat Maria Cantwell -- other than Dino Rossi, who isn't going to run.
I also think Diane Tebelius would be a significant improvement over Mike McGavick. But Tebelius simply isn't going to be able to get the support she needs, and will probably stop trying after pursuing this matter another month or two. Tebelius tried to get support to run for Attorney General two years ago -- she has a far more impressive resume' than Rob McKenna did -- but the state GOP establishment (Vance et al.) had made their mind up on McKenna. So they offered her help to run for Congress -- where Reichert outpolled her two to one. She isn't going to get this "help" to run against McGavick, of course.
Diane Tebelius should have been made U.S. Attorney for Western Washington back in 2001. After all, she had worked in the U.S. Attorney's office here for nearly 20 years. But this plum job was given to John McKay instead -- who didn't have anything near Tebelius' professional credentials, much less her level of REPUBLICAN political involvement. Another bad move on the part of Vance & Co.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2005 10:35 AMAnd that's where your argument supporting Susan Hutchinson loses any credibility with many conservatives. John McCain? Please. What's his position on Subject X today? Whatever position will give the 'maverick' the most air time.
And while Hutchinson may very well be a Republican (the first I've heard of it) but you'll pardon me if I don't put a lot of stock in a former talking head/hairspray crowd of the MSM.
Posted by: jimg on July 30, 2005 12:37 PMSo when an apparent moderate like Susan Hutchison becomes attractive to a hard-core conservative like Phil Spackman, I certainly have to take notice and nod in approval.
I am tired of stagnation in the GOP. I am tired of the GOP being an exclusive club for Chris Vance and his friends. We need competition between principled moderates and principled conservatives -- and not more of the same top down leadership that we have had for the last quarter century or so.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2005 01:47 PM Thank you for your kind words.I think
more people like you are starting to see what
I see in Susan Hutchison.Yeah I'm probably will
catch more flack from all ends of the gop
But I don't care.I see something that I
have not seen in along time. other than dino
anyway.
Susan just has that quality about her
that people like.she inspires them
and we need that now more than ever.
I assert that the Republican party is not divided as some would define it, but rather has been overrun by liberals. I would go so far as to say that liberal Democrats have infiltrated the Republican Party (literally, jackasses in elephant suits) and gradually dissolved the Party's platform and ability to resist liberalism from within.
Look at Chris Vance. He is a spectacularly pathetic leader. Come on. We need a chairman who will man up for us and stand his ground against the Democratic Party's ongoing assault on the constitution and right to referendum, and we get this!?!? Hell, he whines worse than my 11-year-old daughter. Whining does not change the political landscape. Not against an adversary who will stop at nothing to retain power, including statewide fraud. Vance has consistently screwed the pooch, and should be booted.
How many Republican politicians made promises throughout this past campaign that they would stand in the gap for conservative voters and values if elected, only to betray us on the very issues for which we trusted them to win the day?
No,no, no. I firmly assert that our party is not divided. It is infested.
Unity within the Republican Party as it now exists is not possible, and is the last thing we should strive for. What we really need is to identify the jackasses in elephant costumes and summarily eject them from the party. And Chris Vance should be the first to go, since he has not the nads to lead and has so far been Washington State's very own homegrown Bill Frist.
So, then, if unity requires that we find a way to peacefully coexist with the liberal traitors who have taken the party over, then to hell with unity. Unless and until the WSGOP fumigates, they will not receive one dime of my support or one second of my time.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 30, 2005 05:38 PMNot. On. My. Vote.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 30, 2005 05:41 PM I understand what your saying.But it is
divided.Yes there's no question there are
alot of liberals in the party.However in
order for us to defeat cantwell we must
be united.
It simply will not be with the liberals
in one corner and the moderates in the
middle and the conservatives in the other
corner.I submit to you that's exactly
what we have right now.
Mcgavick can't do that because there are
to many people upset with chris vance
for shoving him down there throats.
Tebilus has alienated to many people
in the past months to have a realistic
chance.
Susan Hutchinson on the other hand doesn't
have these problems.Again all of you are being
way to hard on her after just one interview.
Give her more of a chance. I am convinced
that what you see you will like as much as I
do.
oh and in case your wondering I have never
met Susan Hutchinson.That's right, in the 11
years I have been involved in politics I have
never felt as strongly about any candidate
as I do about Susan.Look I know this puts
me at odds with many other coonseravtives
but every fiber in me tells me she the right
choice
Posted by: phil spackman on July 30, 2005 06:06 PM
I don't think Phil Spackman has been emphasizing "unity (at any cost)", but instead has been promoting "reason" and "principles". We certainly have to watch out for ersatz "unity" of the kind that current party leadership has relied upon to retain power.
Vance has been promoting this ersatz fake "unity" by playing off moderates and conservatives against each other, and causing both principled moderates and principled conservatives to lose interest in the GOP.
Sometimes Vance has actually annointed good people -- Dino Rossi is a genuinely nice fellow and has proven to be extremely popular. At the same time, four of the eight partisan state executive offices lacked serious GOP candidates in 2004 -- while the Dems put up strong candidates for all eight positions.
(And don't forget the total flake -- Will Baker -- that Vance recruited to run for State Auditor. I am sure that Will Baker caused at least 130 people statewide to think twice about Vance's annointment of Dino Rossi.)
Most of us don't seem particularly enthusiastic about Vance's annointment of Mike McGavick to run for U.S. Senate. Phil and I are willing to take a look at Susan Hutchison, who is apparently a moderate, to run for this position on the GOP ticket.
We need to get some genuine moderates back into the GOP in this state. Not ersatz "moderates" of the Chris Vance mold, but real moderates -- such as the 399,980 people who voted for John McCain in the February 2000 primary.
(By the way, the 833,658 cast for GOP presidential candidates in February 2000 -- of which nearly half went to McCain -- was just slightly less than the 840,712 votes cast for Bob Dole in November 1996, and more votes than what several statewide GOP nominees got in either November 1996 or November 2000. So the moderate vote is also important, and cannot be simply written off by using the "traitor" label.)
If you don't like Hutchison, then don't support her. But I think it would be a major mistake to tar her with the same brush that Chris Vance so richly deserves.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2005 06:13 PMTebelius is a dedicated public servant, having work in the Justice Department in various attorney capacities for over 20 years. She would best be suited as U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, and should have been chosen for that position back in 2001.
She would have been an excellent candidate for either state Attorney General or U.S. Congress last fall. But the Vance clique had already made up their minds on Rob McKenna and Dave Reichert for these positions. Tebelius ran for Congress anyway, and fell short. If Reichert hadn't been in the race, of course, she would have won the GOP nomination.
The reason why Tebelius won't go too far in the Senate race is that her natural supporters would largely come from the same folks that the Vance clique has great influence over. Since the Vance clique has already decided to back Mike McGavick, Tebelius won't be able to get much support locally. And at the national level, the Vance clique does have the ear of Karl Rove et al. -- as would most any existing state party leadership in any other state. So much for the idea of getting much national support.
Susan Hutchison comes from outside the traditional box, and I would imagine will be getting the same type of support that was attracted to John McCain. I hope she can get the support of McCain's national network -- which should only grow in influence over the next few years.
Let's don't send Vance to Siberia or anything like that. Chris would be well suited for some mid-level functionary position in the government bureaucracy. In fact, he might even make a decent head of Records & Elections in a David Irons administration.
Let's all work really hard to get David Irons elected. This can also give Chris Vance a dignified and graceful exit (with sufficient income to support his family in their normal style), while giving excellent opportunities for reforming the state party leadership. Truly a WIN-WIN scenario.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2005 06:31 PMHaving a hostage metality sucks, and in politics it is the kiss of death.
Hutchison has a long way to go to inspire me to support her. I will keep an open mind, but I'm not impressed so far....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 30, 2005 07:56 PMAs for the "Group of 14", I would still say it is much better to have a Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate over a Mary Landrieu (D-LA). And while Susan Hutchison may turn out to be another Susan Collins, Maria Cantwell is quite a bit to the left of Mary Landrieu.
And when was the last time a conservative Republican won either a U.S. Senate or Presidential race in this state? If you count Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Gorton and Evans as moderates, the only conservative Republican winner for statewide federal office in the last 50 years has been Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2005 09:01 PMI just don't see it that way that you do. I appreciate both your insight and your candor, but I just do not agree.
The present body of representative Republicans that we have to deal with is not ever going to meet in the middle. There are three factions:
1: The "moderates" (jackasses in elephant suits). These are the liberal Democrats who call themselves Republicans and play on the gullibility of anyone who does not pay attention, but who sees the brand label and buys without looking at the piece of junk the label has been slapped on. Moderates have no place in the party, but stay there to keep the Democrats in power.
2: The keepers of the status quo who know that gaining or maintaining their positions depends on their not rocking the Democrat- controlled boat. These are the Chris Vances and Susan Hutchinsons, and the Sam Reeds.
3: The faithful remnant who are angry that the above two have hijacked the Republican Party and renounced the conservative platform that once was its foundation: constitution, individual rights, and moral responsibility. These are the Dino Rossis.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Hell, I don't expect most people to agree with me.I am a staunch conservative, and have so been for all of my adult life. I have seen the Party's traditional, constitutionalist core values gradually erode due to the infiltration of morally weak, politically craven hacks who sold the party and us constituents down the river so they could have their ride on the gravy train.
Whatever promise you see in Susan Hutchinson, I am just not buying it. Whatever chance she may have had for gaining my vote vanished the moment she opened her mouth on KVI. She sounded like just another nodding head. She spoke the same patronizing drivel that we have heard from the KC Councilmembers.
John would challenge her on an issue, and she would always begin with this condescending, "Well, John..." and followed with exactly what we had been hearing from Norm Rice, Dean Logan and the rest of the Jerk-off liberals in the King County Council.
Susan's was not the posturing of a hawk, but the squawking of a parrot. She fell in lock-step with the rest of the Dems that constantly tell us, "Well, you know, peon citizen, we know what's best for you, so you just be quiet and keep your place." She is most decidedly not worthy of my vote because she could have stood up for the truth, but instead took the easy way out and chose to perpetuate the big lie.
As long as we are a two-party system, one would think that one would be able to discern a difference between the two parties. Right now, the only way to identify the two parties is in recognizing that the WSDP is the whip-cracking dominatrix and the WSRP is the submissive b*tch.
The Republican party under Chris Vance is a joke. And nobody has the spine to take it back from the liberals. As long as they continue this trend, they can ask me until they are blue in the face (as they are at the core) for my time, my money, and my vote. And my answer will continue to be:
Not. One. Dime.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 30, 2005 10:10 PMhttp://www.susanhutchison.com/
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 31, 2005 12:30 AM Your right based on that website I would
agree.That's funny man.I don't know if anyone
else knows this but last year susan won the
Stanley O. Mcnaughton champion of freedom
award.This an annual award is given out by the
washington policy center.
Those of you who think I'm crazy need to
read the transcript of susan's acceptance
speech.Then you will know why I believe in
her so much.Just click on the link
that soundpolitics.com has provided for
the washington policy center.Its on the side
of sound politics home page.
Then all you need to do is type hutchison in
the search engine on washington policy
centers website.enjoy
Ahhhh.... Old Diane. Egomaniac extraordinaire, she out-raised everyone in the 8th CD for the primary... and came in a resounding 3rd, behind Reichert and Esser.
Her whole shtick has been about the greater glory of Diane. A power-hungry, step on the bodies to achieve my goals type, Diane has given her all as the Washington GOP National Committee woman... her all for Diane, that is.
I wonder if she'll ever know why she'll never get that Federal judgeship? Or why she was passed over for that US Attorney slot? No matter... she was never about getting Republicans elected (So very few in the state GOP actually are, you know) and was always about what SHE could get out of it.
Think about the MONUMENTAL ego required to actually believe that if you come in 3rd in a congressional primary in your home district... that you could ACTUALLY BELIEVE you could win in a statewide when possessed of the personality of a snake and an incompetent state party to back you!
Tip o' da hat to orbusmax.com and the King County Journal.
Posted by: Who... Me? on July 31, 2005 10:26 AMBut now she also has a track record of falling in step with the puppet committee that Ron Sims "appointed," and when she could have pressed for substantial reform on every single key issue concerning KC Elections, or at least voiced her dissent, she did not. And not once did she say that she even disagreed with the majority.
Whatever she did before this committee frankly means nothing to me at this point. That was then but this is now, and her performance on this committee indicates that whatever integrity she may have had before this committee has apparently fallen by the wayside. She now has a record of submission to the pressure of liberal Democrats.
By her actions on this committee, Susan Hutchinson has placed herself squarely in the camp of all the other RINOs who have betrayed the cause of the Party. She has become one of them. That is exactly the type of politician that we must reject if we are to salvage this party.
I am not going to invest in a candidate who has already gained a record of compromising the core values of the Republican constituency.
Like the old disclaimer goes: past performance is no guarantee of future quality. I really don't care what she did before this. She lost her wings on this one, and she has nobody to blame but herself.
Guys, I really do want Party unity as much as everyone else. But bringing the different factions together is not going to happen. It should not happen, because the only way we are going to see unity in the party as it now exists is if we simply capitulate and give up our values, and I'll be damned if I capitulate to a bunch of liberals. If we want unity, and a WSRP that returns to its original mission, then we are going to have to push the contrary factions out. There can be no other way, because it does not and will not ever work.
I don't think Tebelius was passed up for the U.S. Attorney position because she hadn't been active enough in the GOP. She has actually been rather active for at least 20 years.
The person who was appointed, John McKay, has never given money to or been active in GOP politics. His main advantage seems to have been his brother, Mike McKay, who has been active in -- or at least taken the credit for -- prominent roles in GOP politics. However, this hasn't kept Mike McKay from backing a Democrat or two in partisan races -- something Tebelius has never done in her entire life.
Anyway, I have looked at your blog on Clark County Politics. You don't seem to be very enthusiastic for Mike McGavick, Diane Tebelius, or Susan Hutchison. Who would you support in this race against Maria Cantwell in 2006?
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 31, 2005 11:00 AMSusan may well be more moderate than Andy... I don't know. I don't think you can work in broadcast television in Seattle and not be somewhat moderate... to downright liberal like most of the newscasters :-) I don't think there is anything wrong with being a moderate Republican. We are not all cut from the same mold. And like some others have said, I don't think you can win a statewide race in Washington as an ultra conservative. Like it or not, you need the King Co vote. Just look what happened to Ellen Craswell. She got smoked big-time because most people viewed her at a nutcase.
I heard part of Susan's interview on Carlson. Like most others, I did not like what I heard... but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at this point until I know more about her.
The bottom line to me is almost any Republican is better than almost any Democrat candidate (there are exceptions of course). At this point I would rather have Susan Hutchison in office than Maria Cantwell... or Patty "Osama Momma" Murray for that matter!
Posted by: Tucker on July 31, 2005 12:00 PMNeither was a Republican Party "activist," neither did anything for Bush to speak of, nor were they part of the Bush Campaign in 2000... yet they got those appointments.
Diane's level of activism can't be denied. She HAS the resume'... but it's a resume' designed ENTIRELY to further her own political career... not for the betterment of the Washington State GOP.
Word gets out. People who need to know... well, they find out.
Did you ever wonder why, for example, Jennifer Dunn never got a Bush appointment?
Richard asks:
If not Diane, Mike or Susan, then who?
I really don't know who. You could also add Vance to that list.
But in the end, I want a REPUBLICAN in that seat... not a RINO or some other brand of pretender.
And someone who insults hundreds of thousands of us for supporting referenda or initiatives is not that... someone who joins in the Sims whitewash is not that... and someone who alienates people everywhere she goes is not that. And the incompetence, shortsightedness and complete lack of fund raising skills represented by Vance is not that.
In the end, it will probably be much like pornography and that famous statement by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, in Jacobellis v. Ohio.
I'll know that person when I see them.
And I, for one, prefer to avoid having to "settle" for someone in order for them to gain my support.
Neither was a Republican Party "activist," neither did anything for Bush to speak of, nor were they part of the Bush Campaign in 2000... yet they got those appointments.
Diane's level of activism can't be denied. She HAS the resume'... but it's a resume' designed ENTIRELY to further her own political career... not for the betterment of the Washington State GOP.
Word gets out. People who need to know... well, they find out.
Did you ever wonder why, for example, Jennifer Dunn never got a Bush appointment?
Richard asks:
If not Diane, Mike or Susan, then who?
I really don't know who. You could also add Vance to that list.
But in the end, I want a REPUBLICAN in that seat... not a RINO or some other brand of pretender.
And someone who insults hundreds of thousands of us for supporting referenda or initiatives is not that... someone who joins in the Sims whitewash is not that... and someone who alienates people everywhere she goes is not that. And the incompetence, shortsightedness and complete lack of fund raising skills represented by Vance is not that.
In the end, it will probably be much like pornography and that famous statement by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, in Jacobellis v. Ohio.
I'll know that person when I see them.
And I, for one, prefer to avoid having to "settle" for someone in order for them to gain my support.
I agree with your comments, especially the part about any Republican being better than almost any Democrat candidate.
However, like Who me?, I'm hoping to hear from someone better, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well it looks like everyone got this
out of there system now.Thats good
we need a good open discussion.That
way we can all say what we think.
Remember later this week I will
interview Susan Hutchison.I think you will
we be surprised at the outcome.
Just give her more of chance I know
you won't be disappointed.
With that said enjoy the rest of your day.
There are many pi$$ed off people in this state and I believe a majority who are ready and willing to place their elective franchise behind a real conservative if only one arises. This political capitol will only inure to the benefit of those who repudiate the liberal corruption that generated it. What would encourage a disgruntled Democrat to vote for a Republican who promises to behave just like a Democrat? Susan Hutchison was appealing until she talked down to us essentially saying that if elected, she will call herself a Republican, and behave like a liberal Democrat.
I don't want to get along with liberals either Democrat or Republican -- I want to defeat them and their policies. I hope that candidates are reading the comments made here because they represent a win or lose analysis for the Republicans.
As I have said elsewhere, either way I will vote Republican, but I fear that many who should, will blow the political capitol that exists if our candidate doesn't provide geniune conservative leadership.
REMEMBER, a real conservative can win an election in Washington State, Rossi did.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 31, 2005 05:07 PMThe idea that "any" Republican is better than a Democrat is nonsense. Would you buy a Yugo just because some salesman slapped a Mercedes hood ornament on it? Of course not! So the argument of any Republican being superior to any Democrat is just silly. That's what got us into this mess within the party.
This is not about simple partisan lines. If Zell Miller ran for President, I'd vote for him before anyone the Republicans have out there right now, because he is a man of integrity and I flat-out know what he stands for- and because he is willing to stand up against partisan politics for what he knows to be just.
I'm sorry, folks. I can't agree on this one. I will not vote for just "any" Republican simply for the purpose of replacing a Democrat. There are just too many liberals and hacks entrenched within the WSRP for me to have any confidence in voting for them. It has to be more than that! I have to see integrity, strength of character and conviction, and a willingness to stand up even if he/she stands alone. With one exception- Rossi- we have nobody with that kind of integrity in the Party.
That doesn't mean that someone can't change. That cuts both ways. A good rep can go sour, and sometimes (but very rarely) a sour one can turn around, too. But it hasn't happened here yet, and I see no evidence of its occurring any time soon.
I do not say these things lightly. I am convinced that unless the WSRP undergoes a sweeping change in character and commitment, the party in this state is doomed to be the lap dog of the Democrats. And that deeply saddens me.
Phil, you have won me on this point: there is still time for Susan Hutchinson to convince me that she is indeed a person of character and integrity. That goes for the rest, too. My mom used to tell me to always allow a dog two bites. Susan just bit once. She has one bite left. I will be remain cautious and skeptical, but will also try to keep my mind open.
Phil, I also have three questions for you:
1: When and where can I hear your show?
2: Are you going to pin Susan down on her responses last week?
3: Can you make the transcripts available ahould I not be able to hear your interview?
Again, I will keep an open mind. Fair enough?
Posted by: ERNurse on July 31, 2005 05:36 PM Thank you for your response.
As to your questions.Its my dream to have my
own political talk show or at least guest host.But unfortunately
because of the kind of things I would
talk about it hasn't happened yet.What I'm
going to do is interview susan and put the
transcript on my blog.
The address is rightofseattle.blogspot.com
You will find that it is unique in that its unlike
most other political blogs.where democrats
bash republicans and republicans bash democrats.
I take on republicans that I think are the root
of are problems in this state.
This is why none of the local talk shows
won't have me on.They just as soon sugar
coat everything and pretend everythings
fine.When in reality its not.
As you probably have surmised most stories
are in a less than positive light.So yeah
this one on Susan Hutchison will be a first for
me.I will get the answers that all of you
want.However I don't think it a problem
to get them.
Political Parties are more important than candidates.
I believe in party line voting because it works, especially given the extreme positions that the Democrat party have endorsed. I disagree with everything the Democrat party stands for and if it suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, we would all (Republicans and Democrats alike) be far better off. The party is built on blind prejudice for ideas that cannot succeed for the betterment and security of America and they are hide-bound determined to perpetrate them regardless of the consequences. In politics it is ideas that really matter, not personalities.
Liberal Democrats are unscrupulous, unethical, and immoral, because they support ideas that are decidedly unscrupulous, unethical, and immoral for America. I agree that Zell Miller is a principled man, and I believe that he would make a good candidate, but I would never vote for him for President as a Democrat simply because his own party would never let him win. The simple fact is, he is too honest. Conceptually, if he could win as a Democrat, they would beat him up so badly that he would be no better than Bill Clinton was and probably worse, mostly for their party. If Miller ran as a Republican, I would probably vote for him.
Personalities that overshadow ideas are dangerous for America. Even in dictatorships, history proves that factions are always more powerful and consequential than individuals. Political parties survive Presidents, Presidents never survive Political parties. Bill Clinton is a great case in point. He barely won his first election and he was a Democrat in name only because his concerns and interests first and last were Bill Clinton. A shining personality, though he was a better candidate than George Bush or Bob Dole, Bill Clinton was in many ways good for the conservative cause because he was so dishonestly self-involved that he was bad for liberal causes. He was good for the Democrat party though, and they supported him ONLY for that reason.
It was precisely Clinton’s ability to brilliantly represent the shallow cynical emptiness of the Democrat agenda that forced Democrats to support his presidency, and Clinton -in his own way- their mantle. No matter how anyone slices it, Bill Clinton could never be a Republican candidate for any office and win. The party would never tolerate him. Richard Nixon had far more integrity and shame than Clinton, and the Republicans threw him over. Clinton kept the Democrats painting rotten fences white while he diddled America, and he knew if they didn’t tacitly support each other, both would lose. 1. George Bush and Bob Dole each would have done a better job in every conceivable way for America, but Bill Clinton captured the interest of a shallow, self-indulgent, extremist constituency called the Democratic Party. A match made in hell.
Ronald Reagan suited the Republican Party because though he was a charismatic match for Bill Clinton, he had something Clinton didn’t; integrity. Honesty only survives in the Republican Party. Reagan never let his personality overshadow the job, because he respected the Presidency and the American people, and he proved it. Democrats, as has become all too obvious, are quite different people in temperament, and ideals.
Party line voting makes nothing but sense in the most fundamental ways because the Democrat party’s unity depends on strict issue advocacy and narrow lines of policy tolerance. Even if you like the candidate, if he or she is a Democrat, you are hitching your wagon to a turd. You’ll find many so called pro-choicers in the Republican Party, but forget having any power as a Democrat if you marginally tolerate a pro life position. The fact is there are many liberals and so called moderates in the Republican Party and no discernable conservatives in the Democrat Party; i.e, at least those with any power to get anything done. A liberal Democrat candidate named Joe Leiberman was left standing alone in support of George Bush on the Iraq war is currently never heard from, and has no power other than his single vote. The Democrat party is most famous for the party line vote on issue after issue while Republicans regularly cross the aisle. Gofigure?
The same things are principally true on the state level here in Washington. I would vote for Susan Hutchison almost no matter what she does from here on out because the Democrat Party has absolutely nothing to offer Washington state but more of the same economic, social, and political disaster. Still, I hope a better candidate will emerge because I know they are out there.
I say vote Republican every time regardless of the candidate.
1. Read All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos (Unwitting testimony to the effect of political naiveté' and partisan blindness to reason)
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT A "STRONG REPUBLICAN" WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. (I'm not saying my mother is a staunch republican, but do not forget what state senate she's running for.)
Posted by: John HUTCHISON on September 10, 2005 01:22 PM