There's almost nothing funnier in politics than watching the Democrats incinerate each other in an intra-party fight: "Race for leader of state Democratic Party heats up".
The funniest thing here is that some Democrats fabricated a controversy over former candidate and King County party chairman Greg Rodriguez, who adopted his male partner's last name --
Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton, said she had heard questions about Rodriguez's name change — but not in terms of an attempt to hide anything. "People always say, 'Oh, he's not a Latino, his partner is.' "We read later in the article that Sen. Prentice is a Latino, which would imply that "Oh, she's not an Anglo, her partner is". I'm not sure that anybody outside the Democrat inner sanctum really cares about other people's living arrangements or ancestry any more. But those Democrats seem to care a lot:
Prentice said she recruited [former State Supreme Court Justice Phil] Talmadge because she thinks [Dwight] Pelz is racially insensitive. Some of that comes, she said, in part because he has had campaigns against five African-American opponents.At the risk of spoilng his chances, I reiterate my endorsement of Dwight Pelz for state Democrat chairman. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 31, 2005 11:00 AM | Email This
Even Democrat Mitchell over at Washblog blames "nascent conservatism" for his reluctance to support a gay candidate for party chairman.
Paul Berendt's New Years resolution: cry less, and distance himself from his party as it remains mired in process and sensitivity.
Posted by: David Keenan (a/k/a Seatle Sense) on December 31, 2005 11:24 AMSo, with the makeup of the leadership of the party, I believe that Talmadge has a distinct disadvantage. The Dems love to throw around the terms like racist or homophobe if others don't agree with them and they attempt to ignore the 1st amendment as much as possible. The Republicans have other problems - such as they need to learn how to frame an issue in their terms and get a backbone. That's why I am an independent.
Posted by: KS on December 31, 2005 11:43 AMAnd yeah, how does one become a racist simply because of the skin color of the opposition candidates in an election? By that 'reasoning' anybody who voted for Pelz is a racist.
This is what happens when you use gender, race and sexual indentity politics to define your positions. In truth you stand for nothing.
Kudos to Postman for putting this out there. Let's see who tries to sweep it under the rug.
Posted by: jimg on December 31, 2005 01:51 PMThe current crop of 3 losers that I am stuck with are controlled by special interests (i.e. unions, the tribes and the WEA) which sucks !
Posted by: KS on December 31, 2005 05:38 PMIn fact, we need not go further than the pages of SoundPolitics to find this deplorable and thoroughly disgusting practice employed. The idea of accusing Stefan as a racist because he criticizes sims would be laughably stupid if it weren't so insidious. Stefan can speak for himself (he does so quite well) and I do not hesitate to call out any scum who would take such an underhanded approach to "open discussion or debate".
For the first time ever, I have had it done to me. dugnut (or whatever he wants to call himself) is a phony, disputatious liar. He has chosen to falsely accuse me of being an anti-Semite. (On http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005503.html )
Anyone who knows me (or of me) knows that this is the furthest thing from the truth. I can confidently invite dug to show me a single sentence where I have ever disparaged any Jew. He cannot because I never have. I expect an apology from him, but do not expect one.
From his first foray at SP he has chosen to take the low road. Falling all over himself in his efforts to jump to unwarranted conclusions, he started his less than admirable association at SP by leaping to the conclusion that a phony post (by another liberal purporting himself to be Stefan) was legitimate. Instantly taking offense, he castigates all Republicans unfairly with stupid and inane insults ("Wait....I am talking to uptight Republicans, moral compass commandos who label everyone that dares to disagree as unpatriotic devil consorts.")
He then shamelessly tries to play on our emotions by playing up the fact that his spawn is military (as if anyone gives a crap) and virtually dares any & all to disparage the boy (of course, no one here would or did).
Quite the auspicious start there dug. Dug professes to be a "middle of the road kind of guy" but his positions on everything discussed here have been consistently left wing democrap. As such I (along with most of SP) have called him on it. It must take a special kinda guy to be so consistently and completely wrong dug. But you're one of the best at it. You have gotten your a$$ kicked so many times in your short time here it's no wonder you've come unglued.
When all of his talking points failed and he realized that he didn't have the horsepower to keep up, he resorted to lame-brain tactics. Usurping someone else's moniker in an attempt to hitch-hike on it might have even worked if you hadn't sucked so badly at it dug. When that failed he turned to false accusations. A despicable act by a desperate fool.
Apologize or go away.
And the personal threats? I'm game if you are.
Anytime, anyplace.
See -- if you're a minority, you automatically become oppressed, and then you can go straight to victomhood and collect $200.
Posted by: starboardhelm on December 31, 2005 07:10 PMBut, since we let these pinheaded idiots run the city, county, and state, we have to listen to this nonsense about "sensitivity", "inclusion," "cultural diversity" ... government would do better if it focused on good schools, good roads, a non-corrupt sheriff's office - you know, the basics. The reason that man created government in the first place. (To listen to the idiots in Olympia, you'd think THEY created man.)
Posted by: BananaLand on December 31, 2005 07:43 PMBut, since we let these pinheaded idiots run the city, county, and state, we have to listen to this nonsense about "sensitivity", "inclusion," "cultural diversity" ... government would do better if it focused on good schools, good roads, a non-corrupt sheriff's office - you know, the basics. The reason that man created government in the first place. (To listen to the idiots in Olympia, you'd think THEY created man.)
Posted by: BananaLand on December 31, 2005 07:45 PMBut, since we let these pinheaded idiots run the city, county, and state, we have to listen to this nonsense about "sensitivity", "inclusion," "cultural diversity" ... government would do better if it focused on good schools, good roads, a non-corrupt sheriff's office - you know, the basics. The reason that man created government in the first place. (To listen to the idiots in Olympia, you'd think THEY created man.)
Posted by: BananaLand on December 31, 2005 07:45 PMI should have been more clear. When I said "I don't get it" what I really meant was "I don't get how the level of discourse could have gotten so low in this country that a comment like Prentice's can ever see the light of day without everyone roundly shouting her down."
Then again, I really shouldn't be so suprised. The trend has been there since the 60s to replace common sense with a left wing prescribed racial ideology combined with accusing everyone who disagrees of racism (or Nazism, when they want to get really nasty).
Posted by: Marc on December 31, 2005 08:11 PMLook, SOUPYSALES, I did not at anytime,ever, in any way shape or form issue a personal threat. You really believe this bulloney that you foist around like a world championship trophy.
I wonder who you really are? You seem to have all my quotes, and you did use one that I am most proud of crafting, obviously you are smitten with me. I have not argued one point with you. I have answered questions, I have pointed out flaws in your theories, I have mostly just sat back and waited for you to go sideways. You did not disappoint.
As for an apology, well, OK. I apologize for the anti-semitic accusation. With all the vitriol that spews forth from your keyboard I made a quite logical conclusion. As for the incident regarding the fake Stefan post, it was my first visit, what would you have thought?
Leave my son out of it. I am EXTREMELY proud of his service to this country. I am not sure if you realize what goes into being a tabbed Army Ranger, but I am sure that without having ever met you, that you would not be able to accomplish what he has. I mention him out of pride, I honor him by doing so, and I do it often with no apology, ever!
I am impressed with your ability to use a thesaurus. Your parents must be so proud.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 08:14 PMMy God! They really do eat their own!
Those they don't consume...they just enjoy oppressing!
I wonder what's going on with their party?
You said: "Most of the blood of those slaughtered around the world in the world's most bloody century is all over the hands of America's left."
Are you reminding us that it was Democratic administrations that got America involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam?
Are you saying that was a bad thing?
The left in America got us the eight hour day, the weekend, an elected senate, civil rights, women's suffrage, bans on child labor, the minimum wage, the GI Bill, and so on. Can't those lefties leave well enough alone?
Posted by: Roy on December 31, 2005 09:27 PMThank you for making my exact point. Exact. Indentity politics.
According to you, women should vote for all women's issues, minorities should vote for all minority issues and gays should vote for all gay issues. Identity politics, pure and plain as day.
Would it ever occur to you that a person could vote a certain way because they believe it's right or wrong and has nothing to do with his or her gender, skin color or sexual orientation?
You claim West is a hypocrite because, as a homosexual (or bisexual), he didn't vote for gay issues. By that liberal logic (and I use that word loosely), isn't any woman who votes pro-life also a hypocrite in the eyes of a liberal? What about heterosexuals who do vote for gay issues? Hypocrites or heroes? You seem to want a one-way street.
Once you start down this path and put people into defined circles, everybody votes for their interests and their interests only. Screw everybody else.
I don't expect you to understand or agree with this because it conflicts with your world view. But give it a try.
Posted by: jimg on January 1, 2006 01:06 AMMy point is this. How can you live one way and allow your "conscience" to vote another? This is the ultimate act of disingenuousness.
This would be the same as if I were anti-abortion, but when my girlfriend shows up pregnant, I am suddenly persuaded that it would alright...this time. You must vote your beliefs, be true to yourself. If you honestly change your mind, that is one thing, but to selfishly change your ideals to benefit yourself, that is wrong. I think the Spokane mayor wanted a job. He is from a conservative corner of our state and he wanted reelection. In the end, that is what cost him.
We are charged sometimes with voting for the greater good, though we might not like it. Example, I have no kids in public school. A school bond is needed to fund improvements. Even though I don't benefit and it is going to cost me money, the greater good is the education of our young, I am bound to vote for its passage. *This example assumes that bond is a bona fide need.*
It would be wrong to vote for a man because I am a man if the woman candidate is the better qualified. But just because I am woman does not mean I have to vote for her. I think we assume that people can't think for themselves. Yet, for over 200 years we really have been doing very well.
What do you think?
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 1, 2006 01:30 AMWere you actually attempting to respond to anything I said? Should I repeat my questions? What is "thw=e POLICIES you champion spawn". Did I mention Hitler, Lenin, or Pol Pot?
Posted by: Roy on January 1, 2006 01:53 AMYou're off the mark a bit. The problem isn't people voting in their own self interest. Heck, that's the way the system should work since people know what is best for them better than any third party possibly could.
The problem instead is the idea that even though we all have individual self interests, that individual self interest does not apply to minorities that must be treated like a monolithic voting bloc and enforced by demogoguery as divisive as anything the Bolsheviks used. When one of their "protected" groups speaks as if they might have a self interest that isn't the same as their vision of the interests a group should have, they are the first to invoke racist stereotypes such as calling someone an "Uncle Tom." In other words, self interest, in the eyes of Democrats, only applies to groups that are powerful enough to not need protected status, and the rest should just go with the party line. That is the essence of racism.
Prentice's argument that Pelz is racist is a slightly different take on this, assuming that there should be an enforced party line for all of the left (once again, there is no self interest but groupspeak), and thus a white person choosing to run against a minority is denying the minority the chance to speak for the group unnecessarily because the end policy results should be the same no matter who on the monolithic left is elected and because there is an inherent value to the Dems if minorities are the ones espousing that party line. Or, at least, this is what she seems to want to argue and a position that should be publicly denounced.
Posted by: Marc on January 1, 2006 11:16 AM"How can you live one way and allow your "conscience" to vote another?"
Conscience - on this particular case - was a poor choice of words on my part. Principle would be a better word than conscience.
Let's take the specific issue of the so-called Gay Rights bill.
The bill has been around the Legislature for years. (and let's keep in mind when bashing the GOP for not getting it passed - in 1993, the Ds held a 65-33 majority in the House, 28-21 in the Senate and Mike Lowry as Gov. Why couldn't it pass then? And last session, the Ds controlled both chambers and gov's mansion. Still no passy.) Anyway. Much - if not all - of the opposition to the so-called Gay Rights bill is the belief that it grants SPECIAL rights to gays. Without getting into that debate, why would it be hypocritical for a gay person to vote against a bill which they believed - in principle - was granting special benefits and protection for a specific group of people ... of which they happen to be a member? The opposition to granting special rights would trump personal positions.
One could make a point it was more difficult for West to vote principle rather than in the interests of his 'group.' I agree with your point on the politics of West's situation and who elected him to office. Obviously. But simply calling him a hypocrite because he didn't toe the line of his liberal group-think is not accurate.
Geez. I'm actually attempting to defend Jim West. The guy was a grade-A jerk before all this mayoral stuff came out. (no pun intended)
Posted by: jimg on January 1, 2006 11:55 AM Well KS you make some good points.
There is know question they need a
new state chairman.The party is in
serious debt and it doesn't look like
it will be retired anytime soon.
What's worse is there trying to make it
look like the debt will be Dino Rossi's
when in fact its the State Debt's.What
makes it even worse is Dino is out there
himself saying the same things when he knows
its a lie.It gives me no great pleasure to
say that about Dino.What he is doing though
is sad.
In addition to that what they have been
trying to do to Susan Hutchison is beneath
contempt.Because Vance,Simpson and there
crowd are so scared of her they doing everything
to stop Susan from running.From intimidation
to attempted character assasination.
For to long has this crowd gotten away
with this kind of behavior.Its truly disappointing
that they would try and do this to one of
there own.Just so McGavick can run unopposed.
Susan has not let this bother her at all.
For which I am glad.
This stuff has to stop in order for this
party to be successful.Next month will be
the first State meetings of the new year.
Its about time that Vance and his crowd
hear loud and clear that enough is enough.
If I have to do it I will be there to confront
Vance and Simpson.
And the success of the Republican Party? Puh-leeeze. don't make me barf. The success of the WSRP as it currently exists is a wretched and heinous thing to ask for. Shame on you! If the Republican Party could field people who will adhere to the principles that they advertise, then it would be a different matter. But as it is, it has become nothing more than the annex of the Democratic Party on the right side of the aisle.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 3, 2006 09:07 PM