1. This will definately haunt those who supported the gas tax...let's see if they REALLY were thinking of their constituents best interest.

Posted by: Andy on September 25, 2005 12:15 PM

2. Exactly Andy. The light should definately be shining brightly on these so called Republicans that think it's okay to support higher taxes. I wonder if the same could have been said about our local sales tax increase in Clark County. Surely it passed overwhelmingly because of the **cough** **cough** "bi-partison" support.

Posted by: Brent from Clark County on September 25, 2005 12:53 PM

3. Apparently another principled conservative needs a good savaging and Vance doesn't want his Goebellian thugs quite as constrained as they were with Steve Hammond.

Susan Hutchison, come on down!

Posted by: Jim on September 25, 2005 01:24 PM

4. Wow - not sure what Jim's problem is. I've always wondered why it is considered bad form to point out your opponent's record. Of course, all votes can be construed to mean something they didn't mean. But, that's why we have a free press.

This might also have been a result of the recent court ruling about lying in last minute campaign pieces. The party shouldn't have rules that even the courts think are contrary to free speech.

What is it about Susan Hutchinson that seems to be a big secret? I've heard it implied. Either have either have the guts to come out with it, or shut up!

Posted by: Janet S on September 25, 2005 02:54 PM

5. That's great news, I think the party will be healthier and stronger when we encourage active debate.

For example, Brent From Clark County and I disagree on the merits of the local sales tax increase we just passed. But I wouldn't want to stifle his viewpoint if he challenged my position on the tax were I to run for office in the future. Likewise, were he to run for office, I would want to be able to critique the position he has taken.

So, that's good news! Now let's see how things start shaping up for 2006, that will be the REAL test.

RM

Posted by: Randy Mueller on September 25, 2005 03:01 PM

6. I too am encouraged by the prospect of Republicans slinging mud and derision at each other. We Democrats do it all the time.

Ever since Ronald the Great pronounced the commandment, the only criticism an R might receive would be from some source outside the fold. At which point, the response would be either "that's just another Democrat with a partisan agenda" or, if it was from a more objective source, "see! yet another example of the media's left wing bias."

I look forward to a robust debate amongst the Republicans. You have a lot of material to discuss.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on September 25, 2005 03:37 PM

7. "You have a lot of material to discuss."

Such as why anyone would give a damn about anything a liberal would have to say...

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 25, 2005 03:47 PM

8. "This will remove a great cause of tension in the party," said state Party Chairman Chris Vance.

I was at the 2004 Convention where Chris told Reed Davis that if he didn't sign the 11th, he would not be allowed to address the convention( He didn't sign and didn't speak) Chris also told him that if he did sign it, he would be fine $5000.00 for previous comments.

A long time source of contention yes. An excuse to silence Nethercutts opposition, absolutely.
While the voters are in the process of removing Sam Reed, the WSRP should be doing the same with Chris Vance.

Posted by: Jim L on September 25, 2005 04:20 PM

9. It's amazing how libs love to spew forth on this site!

The only Republican I have ugly thoughts & words about sits in the SOS office.

Posted by: Susu on September 25, 2005 04:25 PM

10. Janet

There is no big secret with regards to Susan
Hutchison.I have spent a lot time getting
to know Susan.I think because she spent 25 years
in the media they believe she must be a liberal.When Susan
finally is ready to announce those that think
that about her will be in for a surprise.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 25, 2005 04:45 PM

11. I hope whatever it is about Susan Hutchinson that isn't being said is all positive. She seems like a very nice person. Although, I have to admit, that I'm glad to see Diane Tebelius considering getting in the race. She seems to have the edge to her that will be needed in the race against Cantwell. Susan seems to be too nice and reluctant to make public criticisms.

To all you democrats here - until I see some substantive critique of your own guys, don't you dare comment on Republicans commenting about each other. Harry Reid is the puppet of Moveon.org and George Soros, and is now saying some of the stupidest things about his fellow senators. But do you say anything about it? Of course not.

Posted by: Janet S on September 25, 2005 05:03 PM

12. Debate is always positive.

Politics debates seems to go something like this.

Candidate A:
I think, (insert substantive policy point).

Candidate B:
So; have you stopped beating your wife yet.

It is not restricted to any party or cross party debate, witness Dunn's last minute attack over attendance on Hammond.

The 11th commandment has been used more off as shield when a opponent brings up an uncomfortable past vote, statement or public character issue the one being questioned screams 11th commandment.

Borking is over the line, but public votes, statements and actions are fair items of contention.

UW by the way the Dems are more efficient at eating their own young, the Reps haven't attained that level of "sophistication."

Posted by: JCM on September 25, 2005 07:46 PM

13. Off topic...did I hear on the radio today that Ferguson has retaken the lead over Edmonds? This race looks like it will come down to who has better skills. And I'm not talking about the candidates...

Posted by: Organization Man on September 25, 2005 07:54 PM

14. Org Man,

As of yesterday afternoon Ferguson by 312 votes.

Dist. 1 Dem Results

Posted by: JCM on September 25, 2005 08:45 PM

15. Randy Mueller - You can rest assured that if you do run for office you will be very heavily challenged by me verbally, with my wallet, and my vote. You have tarnished the Republican name in my opinion.

Posted by: Brent from Clark County on September 25, 2005 10:30 PM

16. Thanks Brent...I look forward to the debate, and to the greater freedom of expression that the party has given us. We'll all be better off for it.

:-)

Posted by: Randy Mueller on September 25, 2005 11:15 PM

17. Thanks for that link to Distr. 1 election results JCM! The fact that a machine Democrat is on the losing side is encouraging!Especialy being Edmonds this is priceless!!King County does have a nasty tendency to throw election results though, I hope they can be stopped if this occurs.

Posted by: Laurie on September 26, 2005 07:40 AM

18. If Susan Huchinson wanted to impress me, she had her chance with the King County Election Review. She did not stand up for my rights as a voter, and I doubt I will stand up for her as a candidate.

Posted by: dl on September 26, 2005 08:54 AM

19. While on the subject of the Washington State Republican Executive committee. Seems King and Peirce Countys Committee folk are livid that the committee voted to endorse I-912
Isn't that a surprise?
As an aside
Oklahoma's overwhelmingly democrat electorate voted 87% to deny their politicians gas tax.
Whoever said democrats didn't have a lick of sense?

Posted by: Jim L on September 26, 2005 09:59 AM

20. It's nice that folks have claimed to pay lip-service to the so-called "11th Commandment". However, whenever there is a close contested primary, the gloves have always come off anyway, 11th commandment or no.
What the problem has been is not adherence to this toothless piece of 1980's political party doctrine. Rather the situation we often have, including now, is where supporters of a losing candidate choose to take their ball and go home.
This usually shows either political naivety on their part, wanting to "show" or get back at the winner by withdrawing their support, or simple poor sportsmanship. But for whatever the reason, after primary season, the individual members and groups of the "Big Tent" party need to be pulling toward a common goal.

Posted by: Reporterward on September 26, 2005 10:55 AM

21. dl

One thing your forgetting is the election
reform committee had one republican and
that was Susan Hutchison.Just how did
you think she was going to convince a bunch
of liberals to do anything.Since most of them didn't want
to fix a system there party benefited from.

Again there is another side to the Kvi interview
that you don't know about.Soon enough you will.
I would add you need to hold McGavick and
Tebelius to the same standard as you are Susan
Hutchison.It was one interview that you don't
know the whole story about.It just one interview

Posted by: phil spackman on September 26, 2005 11:06 AM

22. Phil S...didn't hear the interview. The entire democratic process begins with clean and fair elections, so I'm looking for candidates who are committed to cleaning up the election process in Washington State. If she wants my vote, she will need to distingish herself from the Sam Reed "don't make waves" and "SSDD" type of candidate. Since Susan was on the KC committee, I would have expected to hear a noisy din when procedures and practices were not kosher (which we know they were/are not). That did not happen and she appeared to go along with the wishy-washy report. If she is too small a fish to make waves in a little bitty committee fishbowl, how will she fare in a much bigger fishbowl? Therefore, at this time she is not on my list of interesting candidates.

Posted by: dl on September 26, 2005 11:45 AM

23. Jim L,

I would be my guess that these OK dems are, on average, right of Seattle reps.

Posted by: fred on September 26, 2005 11:51 AM

24. You gotta love the dissimulation.

"We Democrats do it all the time." Presumably that is . . . slinging mud and derision at each other.

Right.

Unkle fitz -- honorable liberal democrat and purity-do-right hissownself all rolled into one fuzzy lovable little rascal.

Very amusing indeed.

What next . . . dancing bears?

Posted by: Amused by liberal ding dongs on September 26, 2005 11:58 AM

25. Phil, can you please put spaces in between your sentences? Also, the first letter of each sentence is capitalized. For example, Phil:

i love susan hutchison.i spread rumors and lies.susan hutchison is super fantastic. -- INCORRECT

I love Susan Hutchison. I spread rumors and lies. Susan Hutchison is super fantastic. -- CORRECT

Posted by: A on September 26, 2005 12:39 PM

26. Ack!! Now we have a grammar/punctuation sheriff?

Posted by: Jim L on September 26, 2005 12:58 PM

27. A

I would like you to tell me what it is you
think I'm lying about. I have never to my
knowledge spread a rumor about anyone.
As far Susan Hutchison I don't deny that
I think she is the best candidate.

There are a lot of things I know about
Susan that most people don't. Once they
do most of them will understand why I'm
So convinced about her.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 26, 2005 01:43 PM

28. Woo-hoo! We're already in the 2006 primary season!

Phil. Susan's a great lady, I agree but I hope these things you personally know about her pertain to politics and her stance on issues.
We're going to start worrying if you begin recounting what's her favorite body moisturizer, what time she goes to work each morning and whether she listens to "Can't Take My Eyes off of You" while she works out.

Posted by: Reporterward on September 26, 2005 02:01 PM

29. Sorry for being facetious, but since the topic has strayed to Hutchinson vs. McGavick pro and con we might as well have fun.

Posted by: Reporterward on September 26, 2005 02:03 PM

30. I never liked this 'commandment'--in any party; however, i also understand the need for unity and one message; but---give everyone a rope--if there be hangings, it's one's own speech & actions; why protect a dufus? why dumb-down the offerings to the public? it's like the paltry shelves of products in the old Soviet Union;

let the people decide; if a party is so afraid of a bolder speaker, too bad; grow some pits; maybe the 'bold' they fear are REAL connnections with their constituents that one candidate may have picked up on;

this is not a private family where one may not want to air dirty laundry;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 26, 2005 02:08 PM

31. The "Washinton State Republican Pre-primary Agreement," just repealed, mentions, but has almost nothing to do with Ronald Reagan’s “eleventh commandment.” That was a smokescreen - window dressing to obscure candidate censorship. It was only used by the Gorton/Evans/Dunn/Eikenberry/Vance left wing of the party to silence the conservatives because they can’t win in honest debate.
According to one of its last remaining proponents, left-leaning and top-down RNC apologist Jeff Kent (during his argument that we should keep it), the Contract, with its threats and fines has, in fact, repressed a great deal of political speech through intimidation alone and HE THINKS THAT IS A GOOD THING.
Articles on Candidate Censorship available throgh the archives at www.TheReaganWing.com include:
1. King County Picnic: Sunshine; Censorship & Violence Provided By Dunn Supporters.
2. The Flyer Michael Young Doesn’t Want You To See.
3. The Twelfth Commandment of Chris Vance
4. RONALD REAGAN VIOLATES VANCE COMMANDMENT, FACES FINES OF $185,000
5. The Vance Record: Candidate Censorship and the $10,000 Challenge
6. The agreement itself (at http://www.thereaganwing.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=15).

We have worked for 16 months to acheive this. It will open up possibilities for advancement of the conservative cause you never imagined before.
You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Posted by: Doug Parris on September 26, 2005 03:09 PM

32. Reporter ward

No I'm not talking about personal matters.
I was talking about her views on the issues.
Once everyone knows where Susan stands.Most
will be happy.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 26, 2005 04:39 PM

33. Thank God for people like you Doug Parris!

Posted by: Brent from Clark County on September 26, 2005 05:06 PM

34. Boy I am glad that pesky 11th commandment is gone.

Now we can get some good old fashion nasty primaries. Maybe we can get luck and spend a year talking about gays, guns and god and then spend 6 weeks trying to appeal to the rest of the planet. Maybe then we will only lose by 15 points. Yes, I can't wait.

Seriously: I did not agree with the 11th commandment, decent principle, bad policy. Something should be in place to fine or prevent candidates from calling themselves republicans that flat out lie about their opponents (another republican or a democrat).

The idea of restoring civility to the party is good. The idea of keeping primaries on issues relevant to that particular office is a good idea, giving a licence to say whatever falsehood you want and still fly under a GOP flag, not a good idea.

I fear wear this is heading. To candidates running around to as many district meetings as possible calling the other a pro-choice RINO, true or not, just to get to the general. God help us to not become like democrats who will say anything to get power.

Posted by: I wish I still felt good about our chances in 2006 on September 26, 2005 11:37 PM

35. The so-called 11th commandment addressed a naive aspect of politics that really only concerns conservative interests; the aspect of honest fair play and civility. Shamelessness and deceit can’t be cured with "11th Commandments" or “Alien and Sedition Acts,” but rather hopefully with the critical thinking capacity of a discerning voter ship. I just hope it means that Republicans run most vigorously against Democrats rather than Republicans.

The reason an “11th commandment” would never work for Democrats is not because it would prevent in-fighting in their party as some silly party hacks like Unkl Fiz maintains, but because it would be useless. They are already united by very narrowly defined and easily enforced interests. Hate GW Bush.
An air of reasonability in substitution for a line of reasoning is not “fair play and civility,” but disingenuous deceit. Now, Democrats have largely abandoned any reasonability in favor of outright insanity.

Republicans must unite under the necessity to make unpopular decisions that Democrats refuse to make. So long as the liberal Democrats keep their heads stuck firmly up their a$$es on all of the major crucial issues, Republicans will continue to succeed. Just enough people recognize that with Democrats in charge we will all pay hell for what comes to us under their pretense of "leadership." Examples of liberal Democrat leadership shown in New Orleans versus that shown by Hayley Barber in Mississippi, and the scams of Hitlerite Cindy Sheehans’and her ilk versus the indefatigable GW Bush abide, but only for sane people.

Where Republicans are aptly called politicians for all of the good and bad that can represent, Democrats are pathologically lying politicians who practice nothing but smearing their political enemies even to the extent of directly aligning themselves with their constituents' and America's enemies. We can readily observe this now that they are tested by difficulties, they FAIL ON ALL COUNTS, and prove it by blaming anyone but themselves.
Remember, a liberal Republican can be reined-in, but a Democrat is a liberal true-believer on a train bound for disaster.

I’ll take a Republican (any Republican) over a Democrat (any Democrat) any day.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on September 27, 2005 10:14 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?