State Rep. Rodney Tom (Medina) has announced that he is switching his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and will be challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Luke Esser in the fall.
"I realized the far right has complete control of the party and for me to be effective for my constituents I need to be a Democrat," Tom said today.I'm sorry that Rep. Tom is leaving the GOP. Although some of his positions have been at odds with many other Republicans and I don't agree with him all the time, I think we agree on more than we disagree. And his voting record is much closer to the other Republicans in the House than to any House Democrat. For example, the most recent published Association of Washington Business scorecard gave him an 86%, while the average Republican scored 95%, the average Democrat scored 29% and the highest Democrat scored 50%. On the other end, the most recent Washington State Labor Council scorecard gave Tom a lifetime score of 29%, the average Republican a 15%, the average Democrat a 92% and the lowest Democrat a 62%.
Assuming that Tom's past votes reflect his convictions, I'm skeptical that he'll be both comfortable with, and accepted by, many Democrats. But I'll try to talk with him myself and hear him out directly before I comment further.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 14, 2006 09:06 PM | Email ThisGood luck pal. Remember as soon as you have a (D) after your name, "your constiuents" expect a lot more than you know. Remember, this is the party of the Kos Kids, Code Pink, MoveOn.org, etc. Not only will the Dems not be grateful, they'll immediately turn on you and throw you under the bus for not being progressive enough, socialist enough, etc.
If you think you had trouble pleasing your constituents while on the opposing team, wait until you share the same locker room.
Methinks Mr. Tom has problems grasping reality. Don't let the good Lord hit ya..... ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 14, 2006 09:59 PMThe same party chaired by Dwight Pelz noted Fidel Castro admirer?
Posted by: Mark on March 14, 2006 10:04 PMAt least Esser will not have to explain why he's a member of a party that is virulently anti-christian, as evidenced by the democrat car magnet scandal!!!
Posted by: Misty on March 14, 2006 10:12 PMIt's becoming more and more apparent that this state is full of "RINO's" - so his "right wing" excuse is pretty lame....
If he actually had a history of conservative voting....it makes even less sense!
Mark's comments above about Tom leaving what he feels is the "far right" only to join the filthy and fraudulent "far left" - makes me wonder about Tom's true intentions even more....
The line between parties is becoming a blur lately.....especially in this state! The simultaneous exit of both Vance and Berendt still gives me the creeps....It was so scripted!
The dance between political parties is becoming just too orchestrated to be natural... The Dems push us and the Republicans do nothing effective..and the world changes and we all lose..week after week....
Now - we are to believe that we have a conservative repubican jumping over to the liberal Dems side because he thinks his party - in this state - had gone too far to the right?
What is he trying to do here? Create some kind of perception among the people? Among the Democrats?
Medina has big money. Bill Gates is in Medina...
Could this be from a bribe?
Be sure to invite your friends to your party. Maybe if enough of them leave with you the WSRP will start looking like the Republican party again... er... wait... did it ever?
I have to agree with some of the other comments. What was this guy thinking when he became a Republican in the first place? Obviously the guy doesn't care about principles or he would have been a Dem all along. Or was that just another example of his opportunism at work.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 14, 2006 11:08 PMI have a few questions for Rodney:
He is free to respond here if he wishes:
Do you believe that a 13.5% increase in spending by Queen Gregorian this year is a good idea? Do most families in this state get a 13.5% increase in their wages and ability to spend this year?
Do you believe that an additional 5 cents plus a 9.5 cents additional gas tax, totaling 14.5 cents per every gallon of gas is a good idea? Does every family in this state get an additional income increase each year to cover this?
Do you believe a 7% increase in college tuition added each year, on top of the increased alcohol and cigar and cigarette taxes, on top of massive Estate tax increases, on top of nearly $1000 dollars per year in my own new property taxes, on top of California car emissions costs and fees, on top of $10,000 dollar pay increases to all of Queen Christine's closest staff and the retirement consequents of these unreal increases, on top of a demand to use only Union people with massive costs doing work in this state?
Do you believe that a fat raise for all state workers was justified at the same time that most workers in this state are seeing cuts or no raises in their own wages?
Do you believe that Cadillac medical, retirement and vacation benefits for government workers should continue, despite the massive losses of all of these benefits in the private sector?
Do you believe that a nearly 9% additional income tax, which has been written up by 3 democrats, Senate Bill 5991 (SB5991) should be levied an top of all the other taxes and fee's in the last 2 years?
If yes to all, you are already a Democrat!
If no to any, it is your decision, I have already made mine, which should guide you!
Good luck, the path you are on will lead you to massive leftist socialism and ruin.
I hope you rethink, as you are far too bright an individual to make this liberal move.
Good luck, and watch your back, as the party you are entering, has no bounds, and their is no way back!
At least when Democrat incumbents switch to the Republicans, the GOP tends to welcome them with open arms and tried to make sure they have the GOP nomination secured the next time they are up for re-election.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 15, 2006 12:14 AMThe only Democrat I would welcome with open and I do mean open arms is Joe Liberman! He is a true patriot! I love the guy, because he stands up for what he believes, and understands the war on terror!
Compared to the other demoncraps, he is a breath of fresh air!
Posted by: GS on March 15, 2006 12:42 AM
If he had been planning a straight across move- in the House, then maybe okay. But, he was frustrated he wouldn't get to run for the Senate as a Republican, so he picks up his football and runs. He definitely is not the leader I want in office.
Who doesn't have problems with the party machine? But, if he can't make changes when he is inside, how can he be any more effective as a maverick.
At least Jumpin'Jim went independent and Zell Miller stayed a Democrat.
I see Loser written all over our own Rodney.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2006 07:17 AMStated mathmatically: 2+3=5 or 3+2+5.
Anybody really notice a difference anymore?
Like this is some huge change for super clown.
Posted by: Pbs7mm on March 15, 2006 07:26 AMI am sure that he has changed his view now. But Damn him for supporting Rodney Tom for so long!
I am sick of these Republicans who support RINO incumbants regardless. Now I suppose hypocritically they will attack his voting record but this is the same voting record he has had while they suppported him.
The only thing that has changed with this guy is the letter R is now the letter D. Therefore if you supported him before you should be supporting him now. But my point is that you shouldn't have been supporting him before.
Damn you Republicans who support RINO incumbants regardless. What is the point of electing some republican who is going to vote like a Democrat anyway. And who is going to stab you in the back in the end.
So I guess it is OK to criticise Tom now even though his voting record hasn't changed. Even though yesterday it was see no evil hear no evil speak no evil from the Republican insiders.
You all make me sick. I for one will be voting against my RINO incumbant.
Posted by: Steve on March 15, 2006 07:40 AMI say good riddance.
We need to return the republican party to the Reagan Conservative message.
That message of faith in people, belief in America, optimism, limited government is a winner. Reagan proved it, Gingrich proved it.
The rest of the RHINOs should be honest with the people and go to the party where their true allegiances lie.
Libertarian nails, Tom is not interested in Public Service, he is interest in his career as politician, and we need far fewer of that type around.
Posted by: JCM on March 15, 2006 07:58 AMToo bad none of the new massive public projects will do anything to fix traffic congestion. In case you haven't noticed, widening of I-405 on the eastside isn't anywhere on the docket with these new taxes, just "studies".
Posted by: Palouse on March 15, 2006 08:08 AMWe're at, what, 28 cents a gallon tax now (or is it 31? 34? I can't keep track) - with more to be added automatically? Just how much more do you think "right wing wackos" like me should be paying?
Rodney Tom isn't switching parties because transportation isn't getting enough money.
Posted by: jimg on March 15, 2006 08:36 AMBut if that is the case why did so many Republicans support him?
Republicans deserve being stabbed in the back. They will support the most liberal of legislators as long as they have an R.
Tom hasn't changed anything about himself except for his party. His voting record is the same it was yesterday.
Remember how before you good Republicans would attack any conservative who would bring up his voting record and say that he is too liberal. Remember how you would Demonize that Conservative and keep them out in the cold.
But now it's ok to criticize his voting record huh?
You ARE JUST HYPOCRITIES!!!!
Posted by: Conservative NOT A REPUBLICAN on March 15, 2006 09:05 AMNow it's far game.
I am so out of politics for the very fact that it seems that even when we win we lose. At least that has been my experience. Even when we win by getting a republican in office that Republican turns out to be a RINO and starts voting liberal.
So I ask, what do we really win when we get a RINO in office? They vote the same way a liberal would but the republican elite stimies criticissm of those votes by the conservatives. And in the end they stab you in the back. I say it is better that you have a Deomcrat in there who you can at least criticize how they vote and who since you know they are your enemy to begin with can't stab you in the back.
Republicans deserve this betrayal. They could have defeated Tom along time ago but like Nazis they did everything they good to stop conservatives from speaking out against him. So now the insiders "Golden Child" have betrayed them anyway. Poetic justice I say.
And now just look at all the people who are changing their tune about him from just yesterday. He didn't change anything but his party. If you supported him before you should be supporting him now.
But of course the truth was that you shouldn't have been supporting him before. But the Republicans support their RINO incumbants with a totalitarian zeal suppressing conservative dissent regardless of how liberal that RINO votes.
Well that is until the RINO inevitably betrays the party which happens sooner than latter.
Or have we all forgot what Sid Morrison and his supporters did in 1992 on behalf of Mike Lowry?
Posted by: Conservative NOT A REPUBLICAN on March 15, 2006 09:20 AMCould you provide some evidence of his widespread support among Republicans? I certainly did not witness it on this blog. In fact, most conservatives spoke out AGAINST all Republicans who voted for that transportation package and the ones who voted for the gay rights bill.
Posted by: Palouse on March 15, 2006 09:22 AMHe didn't want to work within his own party.
Of course, what I know of the R party, he would have been ostracized if he had run in a primary for the R seat, anyway.
Posted by: swatter on March 15, 2006 09:25 AMSee lots of people out of laziness or stupidity or misplaced loyality or whatever don't even look at voting records. For those people the "R" is enough.
Well, when a Bill is voted on an R vote is counted just the same as a D vote. When an R votes like a liberal that has a real effect in promoting liberal policies. The very liberal policies that if you ask the Republican who helped him get in office he would say he was against.
But regardless of voting record it's only the R that matters.
Look, if you supported Tom before, you should support him now for his voting record hasn't changed.
But of course my point is that you shouldn't have been supporting him before.
How many other RINO legislators are out there who get the backing of conservatives just because of the R regardless of how liberal they vote? From what I see quite a few.
Posted by: Conservative NOT A REPUBLICAN at on March 15, 2006 09:31 AMHow about a direct quote? It was last week when the precinct caucuses were being discussed.
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005838.html
Gee, it would have been nice if the Mainstream Republicans and Log Cabin folks had "flooded" our caucuses. I was at Stevenson Elementary in Bellevue and we had something like 19 precincts in a pooled caucus. About 10 of these precincts supposedly had PCO's. Precisely five of our PCO's showed up -- including myself. The sixth person attending happened to be the wife of one of our PCO's. If this pattern were repeated for the entire 48th district, we would have had slightly more people show up district wide for our caucuses, than the number who might attend the average 48th district PCO meetings.
I just don't think 2006 is a Republican year at all. Certainly not in this state. Mike McGavick will get clobbered. Dave Reichert will probably hold his seat -- if for no other reason than the Democrats having a weak candidate up to challenge him. We will be very lucky to keep Luke Esser and Rodney Tom in the legislature if Republicans in the 48th district are so few and far between any more.
I wonder how many people the Democrats had show up in the 48th district for their caucuses on Saturday, March 4? Back in 2004, the Democrats had over 4,000 people show up throughout the 48th district -- an average of more than 20 people per precinct. This year, it seems like the GOP will be lucky to have gotten 0.5 people per precinct to the caucuses in the 48th.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 8, 2006 08:04 AM
---
I bet Richard Pope has changed his tune now. What a hypocrite. If you supported Tom before you should be supporting him now for his voting record hasn't changed.
Of course I would say Richard Pope was very wrong for supporting Tom in the first place, but those Republican RINOS got to support them until they betray you, which of course in the end they usually do.
Posted by: Conservative Not A Republican on March 15, 2006 09:45 AMDeborah, paranoid Deborah. I don't know Bill Gates's position on statewide issues, but in recent years he's primarily supported Republicans nationally. According to fundrace.org he gave the maximum $2K to George W Bush in 2004. At least find a conspiracy theory that isn't so easily disproven.
Posted by: Bruce on March 15, 2006 09:51 AMAnd now he gets betrayed. Serves you right Richard Pope, you unprincipled ignorant scumbag.
It is "republicans" like Richard Pope who do not consider voting records but instead just votes for whatever R is thrown at him that is the problem!
Posted by: Conservative Not A Republican on March 15, 2006 09:53 AMIn any case Esser is a real conservative, and when stacked up against Tom in the general will hopefully prevail.
Posted by: Palouse on March 15, 2006 09:59 AMI don't live in the District in question, but had I last time around I would have voted for Esser and aginst Rodney Tom.
I will not vote for RINOS for public office be them incumbants or otherwise. I rather have an enemy that will look me in the eye than on that will stab me in the back.
Posted by: Conservative Not A Republican on March 15, 2006 10:02 AMI will be voting Democrat this year. Well with the intent of getting my RINO incumbant out of office, not because I actually support what Democrats stand for. But my RINO incumbant votes practically like a Democrat anyway so if I did vote Republican I would in fact be supporting what Democrats stand for.
But then again, I might not even take the trouble to vote. After all I do live in King County where my vote doesn't count if it goes against the will of Ron Sims.
Posted by: Conservative Not A Republican on March 15, 2006 10:07 AMI don't know this man personally but I have sure met many like him in my day.
Posted by: Conservative Not A Republican on March 15, 2006 10:09 AMI missed it the last time you posted it.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Conservative, Not a Republican on March 15, 2006 10:16 AMWe can have a good debate about this issue, and castigate Tom accordingly, but the these kind of postings from the unhinged, filled with their withering hatred of people with disagree with them rather than using factual substance, are the kind of stuff that pushes people like Tom to jump ship (and people like Zell Miller on the other side).
I don't think Tom should have done what he did, but for all those of you that are wishing him good riddance, keep in mind that's now one less possible vote for a Republican Speaker of the House, which despite your rantings is going to give you much better policy outcomes than Speaker Chopp & Co.
Posted by: Jim L on March 15, 2006 09:59 AM
----
I am hoping that Jim L will have the guts to post the rest of the list.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican. on March 15, 2006 11:11 AMDemocrats have been successful in doing this for years. If we don't learn from our enemy and adapt what works to our use then they will continue to beat us.
This isn't Marquess of Queensberry rules here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_rules). This is an all out barefisted street brawl. And the sooner we realize that the sooner we will stop losing to a group of people who will do anything to win an argument.
Conservatives think that logic and truth wins the day. Well if that isn't the case liberals wouldn't even have a fraction of the power they do. Sorry. The truth is that emotion wins the day. Demonization wins the day. Certainly I believe that the emotion should be backed by truth, logic and reason, but truth,logic and reason doesn't ultimately win a political debate.
Emotion does. Being able to demonize your opponent does. Being first to label them Nazi does.
Sorry but as nice as "Godwin's law" would be it doesn't stand up to experience. It doesn't stand up to the test of reality.
Now, all this being said, I want to make it clear that I will be throwing all my support behind Luke Esser because, even though both he and Rodney are more closely aligned with the Rs than the Ds, Luke is even more closely aligned than Rodney. And I think that's what all of you fail to understand. A wise political strategist once said, "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." In other words, the folks that run against people like Rodney are far worse for what we want to accomplish in this state than these so-called RINOs. Take Sam Reed for instance. I know there's a lot of angst in the party over Sam and perhaps there should be. But can anyone seriously tell me they'd rather have LAURA RUDERMAN!!!!! as Secretary of State?!!!!! Say yes and I will seriously be questioning YOUR allegiance.
Anyway, I hope Rodney reconsiders because one thing is for sure. If Luke doesn't get him (which he will) the Dems surely will.
Emotion is what wins a debate in the real world. Emotion is what wins a debate that takes place anywhere outside a sterile collegiate debate.
And I hope we believe we are fighting for something more than some debate trophy or plaque.
Certainly I believe that the emotion should be backed by truth, logic and reason, but truth, logic and reason doesn't ultimately win a political debate.
So, the question you must ask is how important are these issues to you anyway?
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 11:33 AMI don't hold any "allegiance" to any political party. I only support parties and politicians who demonstrate a support of my conservative believes.
So you can take all your crap about "allegiance" to the Republican party and shove it.
You are part of the problem!
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 11:38 AMThey will make deals with one another regardless of the parties.
So stick your "allegiance" crap where the sun doesn't shine. I will never sacrifice what is best for my family, I will never sacrifice my principles for your so called "allegiance" which the politicians at the top don't even follow.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 11:41 AMhow bout the top ten ?
Campbell
Jarrett
Hankins
Tom
Priest
Walsh
Haler
MacDonald
Rodne
Woods
C not R is still missing the point. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that politics is a street brawl, but one fought between sides which are not exactly homogeneous.
In this case, both the R's and D's are coalitions that can both be fractured. With the exception of the Clinton era, D's have suffered mightily under this for decades. R's too have had their challenges though the '94 Revolution and the Bush electoral victories have been able to hold thing together...for now.
The point is that one's side, regardless of its differences, has to be relatively united or it will get roughed up by the opposition. That means sucking it up and realizing there are people on your side you don't entirely agree with, but you agree with them a lot more than the other side. That's why we have Arlen Specter of the ladies from Maine, the D's had Zell Miller, and now Ben Nelson. It's not perfect, but it's reality.
Yes, logic and reason have their role, especially in the realm of political philosophy and platforms, but you're right, emotion and communication have a role too once we get into the politics of winning elections. But you're a lost cause until you come to grips with the fact someone isn't a closet liberal just because their own lens of logic and reason might be different than yours even though they have the same party affiliation. D's suffer through this problem too, when conservative D's get called closet right-wingers by the Daily Kos crowd, but it doesn't make it right.
No one is saying you should have automatic allegiance, but use your brain. If you're a conservative in this state, it's a no brainer choosing between the D's and the R's. Just be prepared for the fact that because it's a blue state that the R's will at times have to compromise to get some of their agenda passed and/or win an election here and there. That's just reality, but if you insist on taking your ball on going home, be my guest.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 15, 2006 12:27 PMMy guess is that's he's neither a Republican or a conservative.
Posted by: Palouse on March 15, 2006 12:39 PMAs for Rodney Tom, anyone here want to lay odds on whether he'll even win the Democrat primary? I think the over/under right now is him losing by 15 percent.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 15, 2006 12:52 PMhttp://www.pdc.wa.gov/viewreports
Posted by: Sue on March 15, 2006 01:14 PMWhich means that you will not get your way when it comes to an issue where the politician has to decide whether to make you or someone who will not vote for the politician unless the politician votes the person's way upset by voting one way or the other. You lose because the politician knows they can count on your vote even if they get you mad by voting against you.
Solid iron clad loyality to a political party means you will never get the politician to vote the way you need them to vote. Solid Unflinching alligence to a political party or to a politician is the quickest way there is to achieve political impotency.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 15, 2006 01:29 PMBut they are Republicans so we have to support them. Right?
Well, I guess I am free to criticize Rodney Tom now whereas yesterday I would have been called a liberal, traitor, or something worst for doing so.
Hypocrites. The Republican Insiders are all hypocrites. I say that if you supported Rodney Tom before you should support him now because nothing about his voting record has changed.
That said, of course Republicans shouldn't have been supporting him before.
But by changing their tune about Rodney Tom it shows them for the phonies they really are. If he was good before he is good now. If he is bad now, then he was bad before.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 15, 2006 01:36 PMTo run for State Senate, Tom would have to get written permission from each donor to use their dollars in the State Senate campaign. He might get this permission from some of his corporate and lobbyist donors. But probably folks like GOP heavyweight John Stanton, who has donated $1,350.00, won't give Tom permission to use their money for a State Senate campaign.
If such permission is not given, Tom would have to dispose of these monies as surplus funds. Tom could give Stanton his $1,350.00 back. Or Tom could donate it to a charity. Tom could even give Stanton's money to the DEMOCRAT party if Stanton doesn't authorize Tom to use it in his Senate campaign.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 15, 2006 01:50 PMBut you know, thanks for pointing out what I don't know about politics. You seem like quite the theorist and strategist so I value your input.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 15, 2006 01:54 PMTom should have stayed in the GOP. No one would have challenged him for re-nomination, and he would have probably gotten re-elected to his State House seat.
If Tom thinks the GOP is going too far to the right, he could have easily changed that if he really cared. The 48th district GOP organization is just a skeleton crew these days. Over half of our elected PCO's didn't bother to show up for the precinct caucuses last week, and hardly anyone else did either.
If Tom had gotten everyone in the 48th district who donated money to him, or worked in his campaign, to file for election as a PCO or to attend their precinct caucuses, he could have easily taken over the 48th district GOP organization, and wouldn't be able to complain that the party was going too far to the right.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 15, 2006 01:58 PMAnd that is the VERY POINT I have been making.
Damn you Richard Pope and people like you who have been keeping liberals like Rodney Tom in office for years!
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 02:15 PMThere is a quicker way to get a list of Rodney Tom's donors.
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContServlet
From there you can download a .csv file of his contributors.
Both ways work. It all depends on how you perfer the information.
Posted by: Hank on March 15, 2006 02:19 PMNothing of real significance.
If that is what the "Republican" party of Washington state has come to, well the Democrats can have it for even if the "Republicans" do obtain power it wouldn't be a real change anyway. Not on the critical issues.
They can find another Bush-Bot or R-head to take my place licking stamps and waving signs for them. They only laugh behind our backs about how easy we are to manipulate anyway.
And they have every right to laugh. After all we conservatives are helping these liberals get elected. That is a kind of sick joke.
And Richard Pope is a sick excuse for a man.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 02:26 PMWell Richard, with someone like Rodney Tom representing them WHY SHOULD THEY!
How much dissent have you personally silenced in regards to Rody Tom's liberal voting? How many people have you forced out of the party for not beng Rah Rah, brain dead Rodney Tom supporters?
And now he has stabbed you in the back. Well that is just poetic justice you fithy scumbag.
You got exactly what you deserved!
If you want to know why so many conservatives don't participate in the Republican party, just look in the mirror. You drove them out by forcing them to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when it came to Rodney Tom and his liberal voting record. You drove them away from the GOP with torches and pitchforks.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 15, 2006 02:35 PMGet over yourself. Your revolution of the tiny minority isn't going anywhere. Do you actually think that people like you constitute anything near a relevant portion of the electorate? You are to the Republican party what the Democratic Underground is to the other side of the aisle: the lunatic fringe. Because obviously a political disagreement is great cause to call someone a "sick excuse of a man." Then you wonder why no one listens to you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 15, 2006 02:47 PMAnd unfortunately Mark (Politics is a contact sport-interesting that you object to the aggressive contact taking place here), simply attending a precinct caucus does not address the issue C not R is talking about. Most people aren't paying attention enough to realize that Rodney Tom is betraying his party. They have lives unlike some who have all the time in the world for politics.
But C not R, take heart, the sleeping giant is wakening, he's hitting his snooze a few times, but he's eventually going to get up and I think we're going to see a real reckoning soon. Hopefully before it's too late.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 15, 2006 03:23 PM
Why?
Because the RINOS are much more effective at boiling frogs for the liberal cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Posted by: Craig C. on March 15, 2006 04:21 PMGovernment has grown far faster in size and scope with the Republicans in power than it ever did with the Democrats.
Don't believe me? Check this 12 page CATO report.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 15, 2006 05:09 PMThat sure sounded to me like you were objecting. My mistake, I guess.
How is it liberal to assume the majority of voters aren't paying attention to the voting record of Rodney Tom or any other RINO's? I said they have lives. I didn't say they don't understand the issues. I also said the sleeping giant is waking up. He's smart enough, just not paying attention.
And you would lose your wager by the way. Though I don't have any direct impact on the 48th district, I am part of a movement to drive out RINOs from office by doing the very things you suggest and more.
You want to make a joke of the thought of a scheme to liberalize the Republican party, go ahead. You should see the debate that's heating up in platform committee. Oh, but my sources are sworn to secrecy, so I can't tell you. The conservatives will be thrown off the committee if I do.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 15, 2006 05:18 PM
And as a sidenote, another reason for the leap in federal spending since 2000 is the need for dramatic increases in military spending (pared down too much during the '90's), not to mention Homeland Security, which is a non-defense outlay. Would you like to complain about government expenditures during World War II as well?
All that being said. I think the one issue the largest majority of Republicans/conservatives can agree on at the federal level is the need to reduce federal spending. An issue for which all levels of government in DC are responsible.
And finally you speak about the federal spending issue the same way you toss out the RINO label: with breathless indignation. Don't be duped into believing people aren't aware of the issues you're bringing to the table. There's this thing called the Internet, we're not stupid.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 15, 2006 05:37 PMTruth in advertising laws being what they are, someone ought to sue the WSRP.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 05:50 PMAnd then jumped ship. After all, it's not like he has any integrity or anything ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 15, 2006 05:52 PMAnd Roy's assertion that the WSRP is becoming controlled by the radical right is just comical. They guy is off his freakin' meds. Everyone knows the Republican party in this state is the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party. I don't hear any one of our esteemed (R) senators or reps protesting the Democrats' overthrow of our constitutional rights.
Too right wing... *snicker*... give me a freakin' break.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 15, 2006 06:08 PMDamn straight.
I put out signs for you clown. I've never regretted anything so much in my life.
It's strange, I sensed something was wrong when he mentioned that he was good friends with Ross Hunter (D). Normally, that wouldn't make me flinch, I have lots of friends that are democrats, and I expect if I were ever elected to anything, I'd make friends accrost the isle too. But something about the way he said it rubbed me wrong. The way he attacked the Montana primary too, saying he couldn't win the primary under that system. I knew something was up.
Anyhow, I've met his father a number of times before, he stored some signs for another candidate I worked for. He's a very nice man, but I wish he had taught his son loyalty.
Posted by: Cliff on March 15, 2006 09:32 PMAnd right on CandrewB, suggesting that Gates has anything to do with this is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Bill Gates doesn't need to bribe state legislators to do anything and he certainly doesn't care which party you belong to. He's rich enough that he can tell either party what to do.
And as for you, ERNurse, I think the doctor must have slipped and given you a lobotomy. If the Republican Party platform is created by a majority of Republicans showing up to the State convention then aren't the majority of the people defining what a Republican is? (i.e. maybe those "12 people" aren't the ones who should be calling themselves Republicans). Wake up! You don't like the WSRP?! Fine. Go join the Heritage Party then get 5% of the vote in the next election and become and official party in this state. Yea right, didn't think so.
Posted by: Politics is a contact sport on March 15, 2006 10:36 PMThey on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
You don’t even know of a popular song.
Not know the issues? Where do you get that? Exile could kick your butt around any block in town on any issue, you vermicious knid! All you know how to do is lie and twist words.
More than 50% of the electorate SHOULDN’T BE VOTING, because they are no better than you at freeing themselves from the transparent Orwellian programming of their socialist agnostic education. What dolts!
And while we’re on the subject, Exile is more active than you ever thought of being, horn head. R.I.E. doesn’t need clandestine plots because we are the children of light. We deal in Truth. You in lies, distortions, deceptions and evil. You are the children of darkness and fill up the measure of your Father.
Why is Diane Tebelius in charge? I explained that months ago. You really need to keep up with the issues, lefty. No one good wanted the wreckage. The WSRP is bankrupt. Bankrupt of cash, Bankrupt of vision, Bankrupt of morals. Hey, maybe you could be the chair. We could be the free sex GOP and if we make a few babies, well, what the heck, we could just kill them!
What dream world are you in? You completely ignore the reality of my arguments and make believe I said something completely different. Are you on drugs?
You apparently need to learn the definition of blasphemy too. And while you're at it, learn how to stop whining when your brother in Christ admonishes you with a word for word quote from Scripture, no additives.
So you want diversity in the Republican party? Sure, let in all the commies, the greens, the sexual libertines, all the while spouting platitudes of "limited government" and "personal responsibility" while government grows into a bigger monster than it already is and "sexual liberty" takes you ever further into irresponsibility and more dependent on the government. But hey, we need to welcome all points of view in the party. So what if they thwart our objectives.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 16, 2006 08:36 AMIs there anyway you could take the contents of your 12:16 post and adapt it into a Reagan Wing flyer and hand it out at Republican events? I think it would really help your cause. Just give us readers at Sound Politics a heads up so we can avoid being trampled by the stampeding masses rushing to join your revolution. Thanks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 16, 2006 09:00 AMYour assertions regarding Christianity are all false. You have, in essence, proclaimed your right to apply it, like a label to your chest and ignore all its teachings and, further, that no one can measure your hypocrisy by comparing your self-contradictions to the teachings of that faith for the last two millennia. Ridiculous!
The only thing we hate is evil. The reason you think we hate you is because you are fully engaged in it.
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 16, 2006 10:26 AMThe point is you, and Doug too, are so stuck on social issues that are understandably at times viewed through a theological lens, that you've lost touch with the reality of representative democracy, as refined by our Founders, which requires compromise on most issues...not absolutism. Your continued insistence of condemning those that disagree with you in the political realm puts you, and Doug, on par with Fred Phelps and the rest of the fine fellows at Westboro Baptist Church.
As Mark noted, and as the Bible supports, judgment is supposed to be left in God's hands, not yours. And for the record, I’d pleased to engage in a contest with Doug over who could create the most compelling flyer for a Republican event. Better yet though, I’d be happy to debate him as well. The more he talks and writes, the better for my side of the debate.
But...
God is certainly a Conservative!
Posted by: Conservative, not a Republican on March 16, 2006 10:46 AMListing words together is not the same as equating them. Planned Parenthood however lists them all as "reproductive rights". They do indeed all have one thing in common. They all say I want the pleasure of sexual activity without the "personal responsibilities" of the gift that comes along with that pleasure.
You don't think my views have any traction? Take a look at this woman who's highlighted in the URL here and tell me these views don't have any traction.
My point is if you want Republicans to continue to act like Democrats, it's a recipe for destruction. Just look at the traction their getting on the national level. Sure there's a fringe here in Western Washington that will continue to drum the leftist mantra, but the majority of Americans and Washingtonians respond to truth, not shying away from it.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 16, 2006 12:46 PMFurthermore, my point about traction is you guys are still nothing but a vocal minority. When you start winning elections (and implementing some of your policies with which you differentiate from the heathen masses you and Doug like to condemn) give me a call.
Lastly, I understand your point, but utterly disagree with it. Are there Republicans out there that would be better off as Democrats (Linc Chaffee comes to mind)? Sure. Does that mean the party as a whole is becoming Democrats? No.
In case you hadn't noticed, the Democratic party is itself struggling with strife. It's natural on both sides of the aisle. You and Doug haven't discovered some movement in the middle of the Republican party's own debates waiting to explode into a populist tide.
Oustide of issues unrelated to our debate such as Iraq, oil prices, Katrina, Abramoff, etc., I don't think we'd be having the same conversation because Republicans in DC wouldn't be taking nearly the beating they've received the last year or so (though issues like immigration and spending would still be hotly debated). And you're flat wrong about some "leftist mantra" coming solely from Western WA. There are moderate Republicans from across the country (ever been to New England for example?). I strongly believe there is a majority in this country that can support a truly conservative candidate, though I'm not sold on the same situation in Washington. But then again, we disagree about the definintion of a conservative anyway, and I don't feel like rehashing that debate with you...let alone Doug.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 16, 2006 01:05 PMWell, actually, Planned Parenthood still has nothing to do with the debate I was having with the R in E, C not R, etc., in part because we were discussing none of those issues. But, thank you for making my point about being fixated on some social issues at the cost of all else. Are those important issues in society? Yes. Are they what we were talking about, or are they worth throwing the entire Republican party out with the proverbial bath water even if you're disgruntled on the issue? No.
And for the record I wasn't defending New England Republicans, or moderate Republicans, or whatever label you'd like to use. I was simply pointing out a glaring weakness in R in E's point, in part because unlike he and Doug, I don't think they're automatically evil human beings and thus worthy of expulsion from all things Republican.
Lastly, your odd attempt to invoke Ayn Rand and eugenics, coupled with a wandering discussion of the common good v. individual interest was at least mildly entertaining. Do please tell us more about how abortion and sex education are the root of all evil and the cause of all woe in Washington State. I'm the last person to align with Planned Parenthood in the manner in which you describe, but you're so far off the reservation I was hoping you could actually just enlighten us troglodytes with more wisdom.
Related to that, am I to read the implication of your post correctly that you think it is bad to treat venereal diseases?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But some in the Mainstream Republicans want us to believe that the left wing fringe represents the entire state of WA or that we need to move to be closer in line with the left wing fringe in order to win elections by being moderate. Meanwhile Republicans are losing conservatives votes, thus losing elections.
Haven't you noticed, that of all of Stefan's posts, the ones regarding the inter party battles always get the most comments. We meet some of our best friends on threads like this. Thanks Stefan. But these are certainly not our only friends and allies. The listeners of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and even Michael Savage far outnumber the readers of SP. Ditto that of the readers of Michelle Malkin. All of whom say, "Republicans win when they run on conservatism." All of them would agree that includes social conservatism.
And if you don't think Reagan had anything stingingly critical of his fellow Republicans, you should try reading his speech when he ran against Incumbent President Ford (that "Mainstream", big government, pro-abortion Republican). You'll find it at www.thereaganwing.com in the archives. Go read that and tell me who "hijacked" Reagan. I'll give you a hint, the defenders of the Washington Pre-primary Censorship Agreement that The Reagan Wing killed.
Oh and Sport, to add to the answer to your question, "why is Diane Tebelius the WSRP chairman?": Ah, because Chris Vance is not. Because that once popular conservative Republican who was the first Republican to win the governorship in 20 years spent his political capital on becoming "mainstream" and helping Vance rule from the top, his endorsements are now worthless.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 16, 2006 04:33 PMAnd from what I have seen in the end "Mainstream" Republicans don't follow the line fiscally either. For the life of me I can't understand really what makes a "Mainstream Republican" differ that much froma Democrat except they are less vocal about their liberalism and therefore can boil us frogs alive without us jumping out like we might with a full blast of the Democratic agenda all at once.
I perhaps agreee with 25 percent of what you believe in. And that 25 percent isn't the crtiical cultural issues of our day which I feel we must immediately address before it is too late.
The stuff we agree with is trival compared to the very important areas where we disagree. I really wish more of you would follow Rodney Tom's lead. Sure in the short term it would hurt us but when things turn around like they do in politics and people get sick of liberalism again, then we can have a true Republican party that can take charge of the state instead of a Republican party that they throw out in the following election after they put them in because instead of real change they got more of the same liberal policies.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 16, 2006 05:03 PMI truly do have the best interest of the party in mind. But the reason I do is not so we can simply have power for the sake of having power, but to implement our principles into public policy. I don't want a "theocracy", just the kind of nation that our Founding Fathers had in mind, based on Christian principles. So though I am a loyal Republican (to the principles of our party) not just any Republican will do. It's time for the conservative grassroots to rise up and hold our elected officials to the principles of the party.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 16, 2006 05:15 PMComing from you, I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 16, 2006 09:22 PMI don’t want to keep going around in circles too much, but it’s worth discussing this: “Meanwhile Republicans are losing conservatives votes, thus losing elections.”
This is a point we (Republicans, Mainstream and not who like to win elections) disagree with you and Doug, and Co. (fall-on-the-sword conservatives). Neither side can ever prove it’s point in a way to convince the other side so it’s not worth debating much further, other than to emphasize that your school of thought had its chance with Craswell, Smith, and Carlson…not to mention many legislative candidates in the ‘90’s. In case you hadn’t noticed, those candidates didn’t fair terribly well in Western Washington, or even Spokane for that matter. Moreover, Democrats have been making steady in-roads in previously Republican districts because they talk about issues a majority of voters care about more.
What you, Doug, and C not R haven’t grasped is that the issues that keep you up at night aren’t at the top of the agenda for enough voters to win elections. Moreover, while the listener/readership base of Rush, Ingraham, Savage, Malkin are pretty darn good. They still don’t constitute a majority of voters, particularly in this state. You just think they do despite the evidence to the contrary, because ironically much like a downtown Seattle liberal, you’re seemingly blind to the fact that alternate points of view exist, even in your own party.
The social issues that get you so passionate are worthwhile issues, but I for one believe our respective houses of worship are a better means to truly solve these problems in the way you describe. If Doug truly understood Reagan for example, he would have a better grasp of the fact Reagan supported social change and moral values through the institution of the family, and of faith. Not through government policy, government should be getting out of the way (heck, lost in this debate is the fact the two biggest issues Reagan was dealing with was an anemic economy and a rapidly warming Cold War…was he passionate about the other issues, sure; but he didn’t run campaigns based on them).
There is a difference between government founded on Judeo-Christian principles as supported by the Founders, and a government that sets social mores for its citizens (like being anti-contraception for married couples) and which is focused on issues that the general populace isn’t clamoring for action on…which obviously isn’t very good representative democracy.
Just like the faith I think we both hold in our own different ways, there is a fundamental choice involved that is up to the individual in the case of faith, and up to non-government entities in the case of society. Should we elect Godly people yes. Should we insist on saying our way or the highway to the rest of society. No, just as in our faith we leave the choice up to the person as God intended. And as much as we’re not going to agree on this point as a whole, I think the history of our government policy supports it.
Lastly, I read the version of the article you read. It is interesting stuff, and worthy of examination. But I would argue that how much of what is being talked about is self-selection of where people live. People who want to have kids leave urban areas (as the older article notes), thus leaving those areas to people with fewer kids, who tend for many reasons to be less conservative. It’s in some ways a question of which comes first. I don’t think people having more kids makes them conservative, or having less makes them more liberal. They largely choose to have the kids they do, in part because of their lifestyle which is in turn partially a function of their political beliefs, not vice versa. So the whole issue of contraception and abortion is somewhat moot in that respect.
But since you brought it up, I care about limited government, education, transportation, health care, Social Security reform, environmental policy, foreign affairs, tax policy, ethics in government….and so on. I also care about social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. I just don’t turn every intra-party discussion into a debate about abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood, etc.
There is a place for those issues, but they’re not the meat of what government does, nor should do. Moreover, people that actually want to win an election here and there so they have a chance to implement their policy preferences (the whole point of politics the last time I checked) have figured out screaming with condemnation about abortion like Doug doesn’t get you very far with a majority of voters in between the fringes of both parties who don’t put such issues at the top of their list. As much as you might differ with that, you can’t change it. So quit expecting that the issues where there isn’t anything near a consensus on even in the Republican party should be put up on a pedestal and placed at the top of our agenda.
Maybe we do disagree on 75% of issues. I doubt it. I think we just disagree on the issues you care about the most. But if we do disagree that much, that makes you a Libertarian or a member of the Heritage party. In which case I wish you the best, because I’m not going anywhere. Unlike Rodney Tom I realize that when I agree with one party an overwhelming majority of the time, and agree with the other much, much less, I stick with the former.
Besides, I’m already in elected office and actually have and do work for Republicans who…hold your breath…get elected. And…keep it really quiet now…do you know what we do once a Republican get elected? We actually put some Republican principles into action! Imagine that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 16, 2006 10:36 PMThank you for being a little bit more respectful this time. You still have some wrong impressions of us, but I'll let most of it slide for now, it's late. But I must tell you, if you think I was a big fan of Carlson or Craswell (two very different kinds of Republicans I might add), you're wrong. Smith is another story. She did a fine job serving several terms in public office. Like Slade Gorton, she ended her political career with a loss, but for two very different reasons.
You are slightly wrong on where government should be involved. I quoted the Declaration of Independence earlier, which makes it quite clear. And you have misunderstood what I think government should be doing too. Of course churches and families should handle much of the social issues, but the problem is government IS interfering. Allowing abortion when its job is to protect the unalienable right to life--first and foremost, funding abortion and contraception, and coming close to requiring pharmacists to fill abortion drugs even when it goes against their moral consciences and professional opinions. It's on the brink of giving us gay marriage here and it already has elsewhere, etc., etc.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 17, 2006 12:05 AMYour assertion that we don’t have a grasp of what makes winning campaigns, that we are myopically focused on social issues, is pure fabrication. It’s like saying the Allies were too focused on German social issues – like Hitler’s CHOICE program for Jews- when they should have been fighting his tanks and his socialism. Nonsense! Defeating Hitler was defeating Hitler. But when the final solution came up as a subject, as it still does with American “National Socialists” from both Parties, of course we are morally bound to win the debate. And we do. That’s why you always change the subject and start attacking us personally.
I find it interesting you think a house of worship is the best way to fight abortion. Is that how we ended Slavery? I forget. Is that how we defeated Hitler? We prayed him away, right? How many other forms of murder should we legalize under that theory? If we just change hearts and minds we won’t have gang executions. Let’s disband our police and FBI! For how many other classes of human beings can we extend the right to kill? We could just change hearts and minds. Wife getting on your nerves? Wanna bump her off? Well that’s a matter of personal CHOICE, but please come to church with me. Got human body parts in your refrigerator, Mr. Dahmer? Just read this tract, I’d like to change your mind. Osama, we have an outreach program for you with free cookies.
Nonsense!
And if you don’t know Reagan cooked Carter on Life, you’re too young to remember the campaign.
Your study of the governments established by the Founders is seriously lacking, too. We had a citizenry with high moral standards and they enforced them with good laws. That laid the foundation for a nation of unprecedented (in the Modern World) freedom and prosperity which you-types are busily disassembling.
You reference “the faith we both hold.” Don’t be patronizing. There is no evidence of that.
Your rhetorical question - “Should we insist on saying our way or the highway to the rest of society? No” -is incredibly vacuous!” That’s all government does. The only thing any government has ever done since the beginning of human civilization is lay down codes of conduct and enforce them.” The only question is to determine what the proper code is and what the proper action is to enforce it. What could you possibly have been thinking? Or were you?
As to your final point, well, being more liberal makes people have less kids, it’s that simple. It is essentially an ingrained selfishness, dressed up as a thousand other things. Your vasectomy, birth control pills, “Emergency Contrabortion” by chemistry, surgical abortion, partial birth abortion, infanticide and child abandonment all have the same spiritual root, and it is a selfish desire to control ones reproductive destiny in contravention of the will of God. Each of those choices simply cross the line at a different point, some of them involving murder. That is not a political statement, it is a spiritual observation. So, now Eric, it is your mission to tell me, once again, we have the “same faith”
Beyond that, we disagree about the bulk of the last issues you're talking about as you note. We disagree violently on contraception. I'm actually probably 75% or more of the way with you on abortion. I think Roe v. Wade is horrible Constitutional law, but am prepared for the fact that if it is ever overturned many states in this country will allow varied access to abortion. I suspect I would differ with you and Doug on the exact course our own state should take at that point, though we wouldn't be wildly far apart.
Lastly, I should note I understand Craswell, Smith, and Carlson are not homogeneous, and had varying levels of support among even the most conservative Republicans. But, they were all candidates that were viewed by most of the electorate as a whole as strongly conservative (whether all three deserved that label or not). Take Linda Smith for example: people like Doug continue to whine about the lack of enthusiasm from some people in the party machinery for her, especially on the fundraising side. Yet on a dollar for dollar basis, she came very close to the same fundraising totals as Murray yet she lost by 17%. That clearly indicates there was a bigger problem with her candidacy than unified financial support from all corners of the Republican party...because we you spend nearly the same amount of money then receive a 17% beating there's something else going on. I've posed that question before at this site, and it has yet to be answered by anyone who joins you in saying Republicans need to be more conservative to win elections. Frankly, the grassroots you describe already dominates below the top echelon of the party, and worked darn hard for Linda Smith? So please explain the magnitude of her loss. It can't simply be explained away by saying the kind of Republicans that strongly supported Chris Bayley weren't thrilled with her.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 17, 2006 07:25 AMFirst, I didn't like Carlson either as a candidate...but have discussed in the post just above this one why I included him in the list.
Second, I don't see the value in breaking down past candidates solely into two different camps. I no more support the list Doug ticked off in its entirely than he might 100% support a list of strident conservatives I might list. I used three prominent examples for illustrative purposes, that most readers can understand. In current circumstances, I happen to be happy with having Reichert and McMorris winning in 2004. I don't think either fits the two camps Doug would like to divide us into; maybe he likes McMorris, I doubt he likes Reichert, but I don't particuarly care. I just think the stridently conservative candidates Doug likes tend to not have very good statewide appeal in this blue state.
On the issue of Reagan and Carter, I have no doubt Reagan appealed to Doug, and others of more clear political mind than he, on the issue of life. But, I'll go way out on a limb and guess that of the issues on the minds of the American electorate at the time, that wasn't at the top. Perchance, issues like the economy, oil prices, stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, the Cold War, America's role in the world, and our need for a strong leader at home were at the fore. That's my whole point, which remains lost on Doug. No matter how much he hollers about such issues, they still remain 2nd tier issues to most Americans (with the exception of when things like courts impose gay marriage and the like, then they become top tier). Until he understands that his electoral success isn't going to change much.
Lastly, on the issue of faith: I was noting that R in E and I likely share a similar basic, core faith in Christianity. I can infer that from his writing and know it for myself. Beyond that I wouldn't know the details of his faith (nor he mine), so I don't know why Doug insists on claiming we don't share the same core faith because we disagree on one aspect of it's application in modern life. Such disagreements have been occuring for centuries and aren't worth the demonization Doug favors, particularly the assumption that someone is evil and doesn't have religious faith because they lack 100% agreement with you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 17, 2006 07:43 AMI am glad you put the second part in. All too many see winning elections as an ends to itself. Winning elections should be a means to an ends. It shouldn't be about power for power sake.
A Republican victory that brings about during the the following legislative session just more of the same olde liberal policies isn't a victory in my book.
So for me it isn't about winning for winning sake but about winning so some change can actually happen. The proof of victory doesn't come on election night but months later when either they enact conservative public policy or (as the mainstreamers would have it) continue along the same liberal policy direction.
I am glad we got that straight. I want a conservative victory. And that might not happen even with a Republican election victory. Especially when you consider the extent that the mainstreamer Evans Republicans (RINO) has control of the state party apparatus.
I will forego a Republican electorial victory one year if that could bring about a Conservative victory later on in what is supposed to be what it is all about - implimenting conservative policy.
For again, to make myself clear, a Republican Electorial victory that doesn't bring about change in a conservative direction isn't a victory in my book. I know for some Republicans whose job depends upon election victory, all that matters is the win. For them it is power for power sake. They don't care about actually doing something, for them all that counts is having the office. It's like what you say about politicians, some are there to do something but most are there just to be something.
So we need to keep the eye on the prize and resist the temptation of "false wins", ie. wins in the election booth that don't translate into wins in the public policy arena.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 17, 2006 10:15 AMMy referencing the financing of the Smith campaign was not to claim she didn't have enough money. It was to illustrate that she didn't have the Republican Party on her side. I listed Slade's obvious opposition as another example.
It is possible to win with less money; to lose with more. But it is near impossible, for many many reasons, to win when your own political Party opposes you. I'll just give ONE obstruction that the RINOs erect (it was more significant to Smith '98 because of the infantcy of the New Media): It is the ability of "Mainstream Press" to demonize a candidate. Most of what the electorate knows about candidates was (and to some degree still is) filtered through an incredibly biased press establishment. Their (the media's) strength, however, is largely dependent on being perceived as "objective" so people will trust what they say (which is frequently distortions and outright lies). When the Media wants to color a candidate as "extreme" and scare voters, it is necessary to masquerade, not as a propagandist (which is what they are), but a "neutral reporter." Conservatives have been SUCCESSFULLY branded "extreme" when the press can quote REPUBLICAN LEADERS to that effect about a candidate. If the Party would hold the line against this, it would be exponentially harder to accomplish the "extremist" demonization since the Press would then be seen as obviously PARTISAN. Since doctrinaire RINOs have dictated Party behavior in the WSRP for decades; since radical leftists like Dan Evans and the late Veda Jellen have been allowed to publish anti-CHRISTian lies and bigotry to destroy Republicans (while being called "moderate"), Conservative candidates start with a 20-point handicap. As I said, this is just ONE of many factors in the RINO sabotage of the conservative movement.
But in Linda Smith's case there is another factor. She did not campaign on conservatism, but, instead, attempted to do what you have suggested and pragmatists always champion: focus on other issues.
In 1998 Smith's key issue was Campaign Finance Reform and her strategy depended on controlling the terms of the debate. When she was attacked on her conservative views she employed conventional political wisdom (the same Bush used with regard to his alleged marijuana use) and refused to react, attempting to steer the debate onto her chosen ground: Campaign Finance Reform.
Linda had formed alliances with Ross Perot and was enamored of his focus. So, in effect, she lost for the same reason Rick White, a pragmatist, did (and, to a slightly lesser degree, Mike McGavick, a liberal, will): She failed to defend the conservative ideals which were being propagandized as "extreme" against her. Rick, no friend of the right to life, was attacked as "anti-choice" and did nothing. Linda, actually an excellent proponent of the right to life, remained similarly silent. She lost following the advice the "pragmatists" always give.
Any questions?
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 17, 2006 11:49 AM"...the late Veda Jellen have been allowed to publish anti-CHRISTian lies and bigotry to destroy Republicans."
Congratulations Doug. Anybody that thought you may have had any ounce of respect, good will or CHRISTian values yourself has just been given a good wake up call. You and your cohorts really need to leave the GOP now. Go join the Heritage Party or whatever other extremist nutbar politcal organization you can find. No one wants you in OUR party anymore. Criticizing those of us who post on SP and other public figures like McGavick, Gorton, Munroe, etc. is one thing. Defaming the good name of one of the greatest women of our party and our time, who's no longer even alive to defend herself, is slanderous and not at all something MY God would condone. I DARE YOU TO REPEAT THOSE WORDS DURING THE COUNTY OR STATE CONVENTION!
"I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though the are not, but are liars - I will make them come down at your feet and acknowledged that I have loved you." (Rev. 3:9)
Posted by: Politics is a contact sport on March 17, 2006 01:16 PMI can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, to a jury of my peers, that Veda Jellen was a profoundly dishonest anti-Republican activist who engaged in a process of poisionous gossip and false public statements to destroy the reputation of Republicans and that she aided and abetted OUTRIGHT BALLOT FRAUD to falsify elections within the Republica Party. Veda Jellen was a part of a known conspiracy to destroy the Washington State Republican National Committeeman by slanders because he was a conservative, and openly made war against the Republican Party in Snohomish County in 1988 and the entire Washington State Republican Party in 1992, by making false and defamitory PUBLIC statements (as well as private), directly damaging Republican Candidates. She was a classic Jennifer Dunn/Slade Gorton ooperative and a Predator. She engaged in the same kind of scurrilous (actionable) slander you have done. How old were you in 1988, Sport?
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 17, 2006 02:44 PMIn addition, if Slade opposed her after the primary, why did he campaign with her? Why did he loan out a notable portion of his Senate staff around the state to support her campaign directly as well as GOTV in key Cong. districts? That doesn't sound to me like he did anything but support his party's nominee, even though she obviously wasn't his first preference...let alone the grand conspiracy you continue to claim has been hatched against candidates you favor. Your arguements have a ring of current anti-war liberals railing against neo-con cabals.
I ask in part because every time I have encountered your analysis of events in which I was personally involved (Slade's last few years in office, the 1998 elections, Earling v. Neighbors in 2003, etc.) I've found your analysis to be factually incorrect and intellectually specious. That's part of the reason debates with you are somewhat pointless, since anything other than your skewed version of the facts is viewed as heresy in your eyes.
Also, out of curiousity, are you Catholic? R in E has previously indicated he is, I'm just curious if you are too. And if not, what denomination do you worship in?
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 17, 2006 03:31 PMThe ultimate goal, as I stated, is to enact government policy that aligns with our beliefs. In order to do that you actually have to win elections. My point is neither you nor Doug have a rational though process on how to win elections in this state, particularly statewide elections or those in competitive legislative districts.
We do agree a bit on one aspect your point. For example, I wouldn't be upset to see Republicans lose control of Congress for a cycle or two given the last few years, where power for its own sake has appeared to take precedent over good policy. That being said, I don't think you and I would agree in the least as to how Republicans can reclaim the Legislature in this state.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 17, 2006 05:01 PMI just perused your Predator post (I and II); I had forgotten I had seen them before though my reaction was pretty much the same, a mix of laughter and tears. Laughter at your conclusions, tears that such deranged thinking passes for political thought in some circles.
So, if Dan Evans and Slade Gorton were to the left of the Democratic party, why were they (Slade especially) brutally attacked by that same Democratic party? Shouldn't the Democrats being welcoming such liberal bastions as you describe into their midst?
Also, you bemoan the supposed declining record of truly conservative victories the past 25 years. Based on that belief, could you fill us in on the success of Republicans prior to that, say dating back to World War II? How Republican was this state? How many Republicans did we elect Governor and Senator? How many legislative sessions were lead by Republican Speakers of the House and/or Majority Leaders of the Senate prior to the emergence of Evans, Gorton, etc.?
I'm not beginning to offer a defense their policies, I'm just asking where is the great conservative tide (you're type of conservative that is) that was ruling this state before this evil tide of tricky, conniving, closeted Marxists seized control of the party?
R in E is not a HE, but a SHE.
But just curious, what does Doug's denomination have to do with this discussion?
Sport, go ahead and continue to tell people like us we're "extremist moonbats", and see how well YOUR party does with that attitude. I dare you to say THAT on the convention floor. Be sure to come with your pro-abortion-choice and pro-gay-rights positions as well as your advocacy for free college education, socialized medicine and unlimited transportation spending positions. Better yet, see if you can get your friends on the platform committee to be honest and put all of that in.
And I guess this is one of those cases when you've "won" the debate even when you're wrong!
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 17, 2006 05:39 PMHe usually comes out to play these games, but I haven't seen him anywhere....Is he building that McCain monument?
Here timmy, timmy, timmy........................
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 17, 2006 06:19 PMI have never claimed any “grand conspiracy” that’s silly. I do know, factually, of a specific conspiracy to destroy former National Committeeman Jim Summers, saw it unfold, confronted it, investigated it, interviewed witnesses, collected documents, talked with its principals and Veda Jellen was at the center of it. This is not a matter of speculation. Eric may vouch for her character, but I don’t find that impressive coming from a moral relativist.
Eric, you have never spent much time disputing me based on facts. But when you have, I prevailed. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
R.I.E., I’m glad to see you’ve come out of the closet as a woman. It will make my pronoun usage easier, but, I trust this is not a change for you??
Sport, Your age is only applicable to whether or not you have any possibility of knowing, from firsthand experience, much about the career of Veda Jellen. She was old and had a voluminous political history by 2000 and I know of no book that could have filled you in on her antics. “A jury of my peers” is a legal term, has nothing to do with whether or not I know any of the jurors personally, and simply was meant to denote that I am not shoveling ideological boilerplate. I know these things for facts. She lied in public to the detriment of Conservatives in particular and the GOP in general. I can prove it in court if necessary (to people that have absolutely no horse in the race) and in the ‘80s it looked like judicial proceedings might actually take place for a while. She was good at making friends and whispering misstatements of fact to them that damaged others reputations behind their back that her listeners had no way to evaluate. Why would they doubt her veracity? Why wouldn’t they like her?
I’m sure you are undefeated in debate, Political Contact. But what were the scores of some of those debates? Where were they held? Who were the judges?
How would you know, Eric, whether or not I had “a rational though(sic) process” on how to win elections in this State? I’ve never discussed it with you.
Answers to your questions:
1. …if Dan Evans and Slade Gorton were to the left of the Democratic party, why were they (Slade especially) brutally attacked by that same Democratic party?"
Simple, Democrats wanted to win elections. It’s called partisanship. And the Democrats caught up to the liberalism. Look at Slade’s relationship with Brock Adams as an example of compatibility/rivalry. Slade lost his seat in ’86 trying to get to the left of Brock, but once they were both in office they got along like two muskrats. Brock, during that period, was the single most liberal Senator in America.
2. “bemoan the supposed declining record of truly conservative victories the past 25 years.” I bemoaned the declining record of REPUBLICAN victories. The Republicans have lost increasingly since the advent of Reagan because the grassroots is conservative but the elite are liberal. Jennifer spanned this gap with deception, convincing the grassroots that liberals were conservative, but it won’t work anymore and the polls bear that out. Deceivers as good as Jennifer are very rare and Vance proved that. Most pathological liars lose track of who they told what. Vance didn’t even care who he told what and would contradict himself to the same audience. Not the White queen. She was a true pro. (And a despicable human being.)
If we, once again, stood for something (liberal, like the old Evans days or conservative, as in other States) we’d do better, but the base won’t be fooled any longer. We need to either replace the base (as Michael Young is trying to do) or replace the elite (as I’m trying to do). Mike McGavick would be a dream candidate (for 1976). Bob Williams might be a dream Candidate for 2016. But right now we are in a rough transition. Is it easier to replace the liberals on the State Committee or 75% of the PCO’s, the whole of talk radio and the national direction of the Party? Put another way: Can Dan Evans, Slade Gorton, Jennifer Dunn, J. Vander Stoep, Mainstream of Washington and the Log Cabin Republicans defeat the ghost of Ronald Reagan? My money is on the ghost. Ronnie has more potency after two years in the grave than that whole crew, combined, on their best day.
3. I can’t fill you in on anything about the Republican Party prior to the mid-sixties, when I became aware of politics in the wake of: the 1960 election, my father’s chairmanship of the Edmonds Education Association, reading “Black like me,” the Kennedy assassination, Evans gubernatorial campaign and campaigning for Open Housing as a High School student. You see, what I write is based on personal experience. For instance, I knew Veda Jellen. I was one of her victims.
4. Evans/Pritchard/Munro/Gorton did not take over by being “tricky” - they did it by being the cutting edge of the liberal movement. It was later, after Reagan, that they had to get tricky to hold on to power as the Party changed but Jennifer did most of that for them. But Slade needed help with it. Not because he isn’t brilliant, but he has trouble reading people (being an android himself). He was too prone to think liberalism could sell in the Party. That’s where McGavick came in. Mike was the prevaricator extraordinaire, the illusion master, the wizard of waffle, the magician of magnetism, the conjurer of charisma, the… sorry, I lost control there for a minute… anyway, Mike made Slade look conservative. But he needed the old media monopoly intact to accomplish it. Today the truth is too easy to get. It’s hard to say one thing to one group and another to a different group and not be found out. So Mike has taken to saying both things to both groups. Let’s see how that plays, shall we?
I'll quit if you can prove to me it's just an amazing fluke that there's another Mark Griswold that ran as a Republican in the 43rd Legislative District located in the Puget SOUND of Washington State who had these choice positions listed on his campaign website in the election cycle of 2004:
*Subsidized higher education should be available at little or no cost to anyone who wants it.
*It may cost a lot of money but this is the only way we will get drivers out of cars and into public transportation.
*Whatever it costs, a good public transportation system must be built and it must be built now.
*Everyone should have the right to affordable health care.
*One of the founding principles of the Republican Party is equality for all. I believe that premise applies to gays and lesbians as well.
I admit, that last one is a bit ambiguous. Hard to pin him down. But I prefer a straight shooter like this Mark Griswold in his interview with the Seattle Times' Danny Westneat that same election cycle:
His politics should appeal to moderates and independents. He supports gay marriage and abortion rights, backs the creation of charter schools and wants to help small businesses by lowering taxes and fees.
Boy, those fiscal policies are sure conflicting, aren't they? Danny goes on to note:
He won't get much help. When I called the 43rd District GOP (actual motto: "You Are Not Alone"), the chairman begged me not to print his name. He runs a business that contracts with Seattle government, and fears retribution if it's known he's a Republican.
There's an inspiring district chairman for you courtesy of the Pat Herbold administratiion in the KCGOP that apppointed him, endorsed the above Griswold campaign and personally selected the current KCGOP chairman, Michael Young.
But I digress. If you are not the same Mark Griswold, this is indeed an amazing fluke. But maybe that's not your real e-mail address under your handle. Or maybe you are another Mark Griswold who just happens to have a keen interest in Washington State and KC Republican politics. Or maybe you've had a tremendous philosophical transformation at some point in the last 2 years which I certainly believe is very possible, having gone through one myself several years ago. But it seems as though that transformation if indeed did take place, is in its infancy and teetering on the fence (Infants should really stay off of fences). If the transformation theory is the correct one, then I suggest that you get off of the fence, grow a little bit more in that transformation before you tell all of the grown ups to go away.
But which ever the scenario is, though your positions are leaps ahead of the pre-transformation/other Mark Griswold, I find only two flaws (but significant ones) in your stated positions above. Roe was wrong, not because it was a terrible infringement on states rights, but because it was an infringement on the first most basic right-Life. That's a very important distinction. If we'd left slavery up to the states, it might still be legal. But the party of Lincoln was founded on the principle that no man should be considered the property of another. That's the pro-life position too. That baby is not the property of the mother, so his life trumps the right to property that doesn't apply here and the so-called "right to privacy" found in the so-called "penumbra" that doesn't exist in the constitution.
On marriage, first of all, a horse is not a person, therefore a union of man and horse would not be a union between two people. But that aside, the government has a role in the institution of marriage. Mainly because innocent children are involved in a typical marriage (atleast, that was the idea when these laws were written, but at this point is still true). If a man takes a woman as a wife and fathers 6 or even 2 children with her, while she has devoted herself and her time to him and raising those children (forgoing any career or salary) on the premise of their vows and contract "to honor and cherish until death do us part". Suppose the man decides, "I'm done with this woman and these kids...I'm outa here" He's broken his end of the contract. Who is going to support these children. The mother? the one who suddenly has to enter the work world when to this point, she's given up her career and has little or no previous experience? Of course, it's that man's duty to see to it that his wife and kids are provided for, but it was also his duty to stay in the marriage, so we can't trust that he's going to hold up his end of the bargain on this one either, can we? Should the Church go after him at this point and fork out the money from him? Of course not. The wife now has recourse to the law because she had a legal and binding contract. Of course now that we have no-fault divorce, the system is corrupt, but the idea was to protect the faithful spouse from the unfaithful one, thereby protecting her (or him) and the children. So government involvement in marriage is probably here to stay, as it should be, though it needs to be restored. For a couple who stays together, don't you see the need for the filing of taxes together and deductions for dependent children?
Now we come to the issue of "gay marriage" which you said you're against. Good. Do you see the same priority or need to have legal protections for homosexuals? I hope you see the glaring difference? So you're right, atleast where this is concerned; government should stay out of it, and whether you call it "gay marriage" or "civil unions", it's the same thing they're asking for: government to sanction their unions.
And finally, I'm sure you must know this: Right and wrong (as in this debate or anything else) is not determined by a majority vote. But yes, I quickly accepted defeat on who "won" this debate ("even when the winner is wrong"), because that's something that can be determined by a majority vote. I think the majority of SP contributors and about half of its readers are hostile to the pro-life and family cause, that they would vote for you because you side with them in our debates, even though you supposedly agree with me on these issues. By the way, on all of the other issues that you expressed above, we agree.
You crack me up. It's good to be out of the closet though as a heterosexual (as God created all of us) woman. And no it is not a change. I have always been and always will be happily female. I can save the taxpayers the expense and keep my husband happy.
As a member of the pro-life interest group, I find it heartening that the other side is just as perplexed about McGavick's position:
http://www.prochoicewashington.org/politicalupdates/newsupdates/200603031.shtml
But I think the NAGs know he's no threat to legalized abortion. Sure they prefer their gal Maria. But they'll use McGavick as a target to create a little hype and raise some funds. In the very slight chance he gets elected, he'll get invited to their "chocolate for choice" cocktail parties where they can kiss and make up. Finkbeiner's wife we'll be sure to get him an invitation.
Meanwhile it does no good for the "pro-life party" to have a candidate not defending the party's position, whether he's pro-life or not. He makes us look like we've got something to be ashamed of. Leave aside running on the life issue, just answer the question directly, would ya Mike?????? Have you seen his issues page on his website? Not only will he not take a position on life, he won't take a position on anything. Why even have an issues page? You hit it spot on, Doug. The bobbing and weaving isn't gonna work anymore. It barely worked for Slade and not for long at that.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 17, 2006 10:57 PM
Steve Hammond is a bad example of someone
the Reagan wing supported being trounced.
For your benefit I will explain what I mean.
First of all Steve Hammond never had a fair
chance at winning.The King county Gop decided
early on they were going to back Reagan Dunn.
They did everything they could to derail
Steve Hammond's chance of winning.From not
allowing him to speak at events where Reagan
Dunn spoke.To trying to freeze out those that
wanted to be delegates that would support
Steve Hammond at the county convention.
Before the County convention steve and reagan
had a gentleman's agreement that whoever lost
would drop out of the race.I think Reagan Dunn
agreed to this because he never thought he
would lose.When he did lose he started to come
up with different reasons why he should be
allowed to stay in the race.Mind you there
were never any conditions in the agreement
to allow reagan dunn to stay in the race.
From saying that Steve Hammond broke the 11th
commandment.When confronted about this Reagan
Dunn could never say what it was steve said
or did. When that didn't work it was well
the vote was to close we have to let the people
decide.
The King county Gop Leadership threw everything
they had at Steve Hammond.In doing so they
alienated a large voting block in District 9
and I don't know if they will ever be able to get
them back.This in part hurt David Irons chances
of winning because a lot of these people sat
out the general election.
As far as Brian Thomas is concerned the
county leadership sent the wrong message
to voters of District 2.Yeah I know these
people don't like Brian.Never the less
he was the candidate that the delegates in
district 2 voted for.The party should
have supported him.Instead they told district
2 voters we don't like Brian so screw
you.
It will also make other prospective candidates
in district 2 think twice before they decide
to run.So before you open your mouth in the
future know what your talking about.
2) It may cost a lot of money but this is the only way we will get drivers out of cars and into public transportation. Whatever it costs, a good public transportation system must be built and it must be built now. Did I say government should be the one to pay for the whole thing? No. Read my earlier comments about having a private entity build and run a public transportation system, sans government subsidy save, maybe, tax credits and land easement for the throughway.
3)Everyone should have the right to affordable health care. Again, did I say the government should be the one paying for it? No. And again, if you bothered to research my campaign further you would have noticed my strong positions on Health Savings Account.
4)One of the founding principles of the Republican Party is equality for all. I believe that premise applies to gays and lesbians as well. While I disagree with their lifestyle I don't think they should be persecuted for it. I'll bet we both disagree with the religious choices of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. But I bet we also both agree that they shouldn't be denied the same rights as Christians.
4)As for Mr. Westneat. Come on, R.I.E., you and I both know that people are quoted out of context, misquoted and so forth, especially by left-wing moonbats such as Westneat. Honestly, I'm surprised he gave me as good an opinion as he did. But to be more specific:
Gay Marriage: Yes, I did support it during my campaign, mostly because of the district I ran in. Personally I was on the fence then and have since come down squarely on the side of no on gay marriage (more on this later). So I'll give you that one.
Abortion Rights: I'm really not sure where Danny got that one from. I'll admit it was quite a while ago that we chatted but my views then, as they are now, were definitely not what NARAL would call support for abortion rights. Again, if you did more research on my campaign you'd see I received a partial endorsement from Pro-Life Washington. The only reason I didn't receive a full endorsement, I suspect, is because I didn't support outlawing all forms of abortion immediately. My views on this remain the same. Pragmatically, you and I both know there's no way this state as a whole would allow that to happen. Instead we should outlaw as much of it as we can (parental notification, late-term, partial-birth, etc.) and do more to push abortion alternatives like adoption and abstinence and other preventative education.
As for the last quote, feel free to call up the former 43rd District Chair and ask him about it. Danny completely misquoted him on that. Besides, I don't think emptying the 43rd Disrict bank account and giving me hunderds of dollars of his own money and hours of his time could be classified as "won't get much help." Steve probably did more to help me during my campaign than nearly everyone else combined!
5) Now, on to the marriage issue. I hope you know I was being sarcastic when I threw the man and horse comment in there. If not, I was. But for the rest of it. I disagree. The government still has no business in regulating marriage. Why? Well, how well has it worked anyway? A man and a woman can still have a child (and a man and a man can still adopt a child, btw) without being legally married. State recognition of marriage does absolutely nothing to protect families (especially when it's legal for gay couples to adopt, which, btw, I'm opposed to). The only way we can assure a strong family unit is through non-governmental organizations devoted to such things, like the church.
As for Roe, I seriously question whether you've ever read the decision or are simply tossing the word around like so many people on both sides do. It really had very little to do with abortion, that was just the vehicle by which the argument reached the Supreme Court. It was, as I said, a state's rights issue (just like the Civil War, btw, imagine that?). But in terms of our discussion that's beside the point because I hope that you realize we are both on the same side of the abortion issue. We both think it is wrong and should be outlawed (although we may differ slightly on the process of getting to that stage.)
And I was simply interested in Doug's denomination because your Catholicism sheds some light on your views on contraception, particularly for married people given the Catholic Church's position on such issues. It is rarer, however, to find such thought in non-Catholic denominations so I was just curious if he wasn't Catholic what the denomination might be.
Since he sometimes veers perilously close to Fred Phelps and Company, I was really hoping on some guidance so I might stay the heck away from wherever he practices his faith, that he feels empowers him to tell me I don't have one.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 18, 2006 08:17 AM
First off you don't scare me at all.because
in order for that to happen you have to have
the facts on your side. you don't,on your
best day you can't touch me.everything I
said I can back up.
What I said happened to Steve Hammond did
happen. I am not going to repeat myself
again.
So your stated campaign positions were an act of deception, not only to the conservatives, with running under an R, but to the liberals who might have interpreted your "equal rights for gays and lesbians" to mean right to marry other gays, not get fired for being gay by a private company to be enshrined in the law (after all you were running for the position of law maker), and your asserted rights for everyone to higher education, health care, public transportation, etc. were not government handouts either, which one would read that to mean (again, coming from a candidate for a law maker position). Oh and your position on the issue of gay marriage would depend on what district you represent or what crowd you're talking to?
But a change in position is another thing. That's what I meant earlier about your transformation still in the developmental stage. If you are still developing your positions on the important issues of the day, perhaps you shouldn't go around asserting them so confidently. Nobody wants you to go around carrying a "God hates fags" sign and none of us do that. We don't believe that. In fact we don't think God created any human beings to be "fags". So why don't you quit beating up that poor straw man, as evil as he is.
Eric,
My position on contraception is not as rare as you think in Protestantism. All of Christianity believed it (including Protestantism) until the 1930's when the Episcopalians broke from it, that followed by their break with many of the other moral teachings. If all of the Protestant Churches want to follow that trail, they will eventually become extinct. Ditto that for liberals. This is the one I was looking for earlier: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm (Hat tip to Sytman and Boze)
Though the article doesn't say this, it will also be true of liberals aka. "moderates" in the Republican Party.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 18, 2006 12:33 PMPerhaps so. But I'm in happy company with Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlaffly, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Judie Brown....
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 18, 2006 12:59 PMThe crux of the issue is, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that people do at times dispute you based on facts. You, however, have never been willing in my experience at Sound Politics to accept that your distorted version of the facts may not be true. And as I’ve said, there have been too many instances where I’ve had personal knowledge of the events you describe, where I know you to be flat wrong, thus I have no faith in any of your other political analysis and insight. For the interested reader, if there are any left on this thread, there is this string of comments (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003708.html) which included you and I debating events during my father’s primary for Snohomish County Executive in 2003. There, as usual, you refused to accept anything other than your version of the truth, despite the fact you were wrong.
That’s part of the reason people lose interest in debating you rather quickly. You’re open to Doug Parris’ point of view, Doug Parris’ thoughts on religion, and Doug Parris’ political anlaysis; nobody else’s. Everyone else is an evil heretic in your eyes if they disagree with you. That’s really a great foundation for debate and rational discourse.
Now, I think it is rather pathetic of you to claim you’ve never given us insight into how you think candidates can be successful in this state. That’s the primary point people debate you on at this site; disagreeing with your thoughts on the best Republican candidate, disagreeing on your understanding of the workings of the Republican party, disagreeing on your thoughts on how the Republican party needs to act in upcoming elections, disagreeing with you in observing that your mode of communication turns most of humanity, disagreeing with you that people are not evil because they disagree with you. So, you given us plenty of insight as to what candidates you think should run and how they should conduct themselves, and how the party should be engaged in supporting them.
Speaking of which, and please don’t think I’m requesting that we continue to debate this points, we now have you on record that I think are insightful of enough for any rational readers still out there on this thread:
1) Doug Parris believes that Linda Smith didn’t run a conservative enough campaign in 1998
2) Doug Parris believes Slade Gorton is more liberal than the Democratic party
3) Doug Parris believes that Republicans that don’t share his philosophies on abortion and related social issues are evil, unworthy of inclusion in the Republican party
4) Doug Parris believes in conspiracies against he and his fellow Reagan Wingers…lots and lots of conspiracies.
5) Doug Parris believes Veda Jellen was darn near the devil incarnate.
6) Doug Parris believes Bob Williams has the potential to be a dream candidate for the Republican party.
7) Doug Parris believes the Reagan Wing is the largest Republican organization in America (http://abortionstate.blogspot.com/2006/03/reagan-wings-doug-parris-advises.html)
8) Doug Parris believes that he can question the self-professed faith of others because they don’t agree with his political beliefs.
Readers can judge for themselves based on that list as to the merits of any debate with you.
I really have no interest in debating the historical application of theology and contraception, nor the merits of the issue. My point from the beginning has been by making such issues prominent, when the overwhelming majority of society disagrees, Republicans turn themselves off to many voters they need to win in the modern world (though I know you and Doug among others will continue to believe there is a hidden mass of conservatives who think like you waiting to come out of the woodwork as soon as us fools that know how to win elections so we can enact policy are extinct...or just go away).
Has contraception been historically frowned on by much of Western society? Yes. Has reliable, safe contraception been readily available to married couples prior to later in the 20th century? No. Thus the debate has totally changed.
Society has changed whether you like it or not. Just one example of that, which influences birth rates, is our transformation from an agrarian society to what we are today. And now really only the Catholic Church (that vibrant growing institution in the Western World) really retains such views on contraception for married couples.
Is a ban on contraception possibly a sound theological position to have? Maybe. Is it relevant in modern politics? No.
Since you have no idea who I am you
don't know where I was that day.Be that
as it is I don't what you were watching
but Steve Hammond won.That should have
been the end of it.
Just because you say otherwise doesn't
make what you say the truth.Ask any of
the several thousand Steve Hammond supporters
on the south side of the county.Whether you
you believe it or not that's how they see it.
Its typical of you elitist's in King county
The leadership has alienated a sizeable voting
block on the southside and all your worried
about is being right.
You really have a nack for reading into things what hasn't been said. I have not avocated a ban on contraception as a political campaign issue or public policy. I simply offered up some sarcasm when you were giving us suggestions for good PR for The Reagan Wing. I said we could use your rhetoric as a better approach and while we're at it, go ahead and hand out free vasectomies, contraception and abortion, all the while fooling ourselves that we're growing the party. It's worked so well for the Democrats, why not? See my above link.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 18, 2006 02:51 PMYou really have a nack for reading into things what hasn't been said.
Talking about yourself again?
Taking policy issue talking points out of context doesn't change my stance on those policies. I'm sorry you never had a chance to hear me speak or read any of my responses to various political questionaires or, for that matter, have enough insight to discern what my stances were on certain issues through reading my website (and I assume that's where you were getting all those quotes). As for me being in the infancy of my views, well, perhaps my stand on gay marriage was, when I was running for office, still being worked on but other than that my views then, as now, are as solid as anyone's out there and I'd be happy to have a full on debate about them with you. I can't promise I'll bring you over to my side of thinking (in fact, I probably won't on some issues) but I do promise to lay out logical arguments as to my views. Let's do one right now for practice, shall we?
Gay Rights: what people do in the privacy of thier own homes or what they feel or perceive to feel within their own bodies/minds/hearts, is nobody's business but their's and God's and anyone THEY care to share it with. This applies to sexual orientation, religious viewpoints and a whole host of other "thought crimes" one might call them. Do I have a problem with a private company discriminating against homosexuals? No. Do I have a promblem with a private company discriminating against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, blacks, whites, Hispanics or the French? No. Whatever a private company wants to do, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights (and the right to a job is not a right, it's a privilige), is fine with me. The market will take care of them. (I wonder how long Denny's really would last if they decided not to hire or serve blacks?) Does all this mean I think private companies should discriminate? No. Does all this mean that I'd go around campaigning on this libertarian viewpoint? Standing for an end to all anti-discrimination laws? No. As Eric has pointed out, sometimes we can't go around campaigning on certain issues if we want to have any chance at all of getting elected. If you and the RW, weren't so myopic in your view of politics you all might get elected once in awhile.
Phil,
So are you, in fact, Brian Thomas in disguise? Or perhaps you're Albert Pong. Please enlighten me as to who you are. I'm not disputing that you were at the 9th District Caucuses. All I said is that you weren't RUNNING the 9th district caucuses, you weren't at the 2nd district caucuses and you were not a member of the KCGOP board last year. PLEEEEEASE correct me if I'm wrong.
As for Steve winning. Technically, yes, he did win the caucus but there were a lot of shenanigans going on that, if you had been involved in running that caucus, you'd know about (although I'm sure you're going to deny this). And again, to imply that Steve would have won the primary if all of south King County had turned out makes you sound like a whiny liberal complaining about Florida or Ohio. Didn't show up to vote because you were too angry? Ooh, that'll teach 'em.
So he techinically won,Tell me what it was
that either Steve Hammond or any of his
supporters did.This is the crap that Reagan
Dunn tried to shovel about the proceedings
but never did give a straight answer about.
Please don't say that because there were more
votes than delegates that hammond cheated.
The fact of the matter is if you removed the
extra votes from Hammond's total he still
came out on top.The reason those supporters
sat out the general election wasn't that
they were angry that Reagan Dunn won it was
the way he won.They didn't then and they don't
now think they have a voice in the party any
longer.
For the record I am who I say I am.
Sure I know Brian Thomas but I'm not
him.Ask anyone who knows both of us they will
tell you that.
I took your policy issue talking points directly from your website, word for word, not out of context. If your fiscal policy issues were then, the same as you state them to be now, you left an impression completely different from where you stand/stood. That didn't win you enough swing votes to win the election, did it?
Hey, I think they might be hiring over at McGavick headquarters. They really could use some help. Some of the current communications people are really struggling with their own consciences on how to answer where Mike stands. Maybe you could write his "issues" page for his website. You can even list me as one of your references. I think you are very talented at riding the fence. You could sit at the master's feet. Some of his current staffers (God bless them) are ameteurs at the art of deception.
Oh and why don't you give your INSIDER version of the story of what happened at the 9th district caucus? Tell us how Steve Hammond's campaign participated in these so-called shenanigans that only gives him the honor of "technically won". And while we're at it, have you considered the idea that at the precinct caucuses (that get delegates elected to the convention) require each attendee to sign a statement swaring that they are indeed a Republican and the primary election doesn't? I can't tell you how many times I heard Republicans encouraged to cross over in Bob Ferguson's district and get a Democrat ballot. Don't you think the Democrats play the same games? The KCGOP leadership waisted our time on a Saturday, by calling Republicans in to pick their Representatives and in the districts that didn't go their way, they thwarted the results. Exhibit A: Steve Hammond, Exhibit B: Brian Thomas.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 19, 2006 02:02 PMOne more thing: You said earlier, that Roe vs. Wade was about State's rights, did I understand that correctly? I have read the decision and for the life of me, I don't see that. Please do give quotes and your arguments to back that up, because that is news to me and probably many Constitutional scholars. But I am open to seeing you back that up.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 19, 2006 02:12 PMEric’s distortion: “2) Doug Parris believes Slade Gorton is more liberal than the Democratic Party.” The fact: Slade Gorton was more liberal than the Democrat Party in the fifties and sixties. Slade didn’t move, the Democrats did. They became a thinly-veneered Marxist Party and Slade had to collect more conservative votes (when they didn’t matter) as time went by, to try to stay in office. Once again, reading comprehension. Try going back over my posts, again; trying to think, not in images, but by weighing the meaning of the words. This is really Junior High School remedial stuff. Learn to think.
Eric’s lie# 3) “Doug Parris believes that Republicans that don’t share his philosophies on abortion and related social issues are evil, unworthy of inclusion in the Republican party.” Fact: This is a complete fabrication. I’ve never said anything close to this. But there is evil in the Republican Party. It is not the open, honest Pro-abortion, Gay Rights, Tax-and-Spend candidates or activists as Griswold was in 2004(who knows where he is today?). It is the Dunn/Gorton types who win by deception. By fooling us and misrepresenting their views. If they were as open (not to say honest) as Griswold, I’d enjoy the debate. It is the liberals who want to silence US, not the other way around. If they would just tell the truth about what they believe that would take care of the problem. McGavick can’t tell the truth, he’d be struggling to get over 30% if he did.
Eric’s lie # 4) “Doug Parris believes in conspiracies against he (sic) and his fellow Reagan Wingers…lots and lots of conspiracies.” This is childish stuff. Let me respond in kind: “Eric believes the John Birch Society is plotting against him and puts toxic ink under his pillow” Ridiculous.
“5) Doug Parris believes Veda Jellen was darn near the devil incarnate.” Well, now you’re getting close. Veda did very, very blatantly evil things. But being the devil incarnate is a tall order. He’s not like God, you know, he can’t be everywhere. He probably spent quality personal time with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. He clearly visited and inspired great authors of wicked materials and movements; Muhammad and Marx come to mind. But to suggest Veda Jellen, or even Jennifer Dunn was worth his time is really pushing it. He has a lot of associates that can attend to those lesser concerns, you know, or are you as clueless on theology as you are politics?
6) "Doug Parris believes Bob Williams has the potential to be a dream candidate for the Republican party." Bull’s-eye. If and when we have a conservative Republican Party, he may re-emerge, and I will keep this post to shove down your throat when that happens. Bob Williams is both charismatic and brilliant. Intellectually, he is at least a match for Slade, (but not on the dark side) and in terms of charisma, well, you don’t have anyone on your side of the ideological aisle to match (except Clinton and other Democrats, of course).
Eric’s lie: “7) Doug Parris believes the Reagan Wing is the largest Republican organization in America” (http://abortionstate.blogspot.com/2006/03/reagan-wings-doug-parris-advises.html). This is pure fertilizer. The Reagan Wing is, as I said, the Washington State affiliate of the largest Republican organization in America . Here, Eric, I have to point out that you have demonstrated, either a striking inability to understand English sentences or a profound dishonesty. Which is it?
Eric’s distortion: “8) Doug Parris believes that he can question the self-professed faith of others because they don’t agree with his political beliefs.” Let’s compare the truth with that statement: I believe that it is possible to weigh expressions of philosophy by logic. So, if an emissary of the left tried to say that Ronald Reagan was a philosophical communist, we could disprove that by examination of his statements. Yes we could judge. Because the word “communist” means something objective, not just what you, I, or the proponent of the above silly assertion might want it to mean and Ronald Reagan can be proven, even after his death, not to have been one. Christianity, too, is an established “faith” (that is, in the sense of it being an organized structure of belief) and that is not subject to a vote of any organization that now exists. It is over 2000 years old and its definition can be found in any dictionary. Christianity asserts the truth of the Bible and the Bible has a great deal of very plain teaching with which it is possible to define ideas that are not compatible. The practice of homosexuality, for instance, is condemned. So if I assert some “right” to practice homosexuality, it can be said, objectively, logically, that my belief is incompatible with Christianity. But that is only doctrinal (intellectual) judgment. It is also possible to make moral judgments based on written or spoken expression. Christianity deplores lies, for instance. When Veda Jellen, for example, went to the media to assert a fictional account of events at the Snohomish County Republican Convention in 1988, and, in fact, she was not present during the events she pretended to witness (which can be proven by innumerable eyewitness accounts of her presence at the King County Convention, instead, at that same time), we know, and can prove, she was lying. And when, further, the object of those lies was the destruction of the reputations of innocent people, we can determine that, in Biblical terms, she had done evil.
You, though, Eric might be a different case. It might be that you actually thought the falsehoods you told, above, were true because you can’t decipher English sentences by logic. So I cut you some slack.
I don't see what interest Danny Westneat would have in falsely claiming you favored abortion rights. If he favors them too, it seems his support for you ("Republican stirs breeze of change") was sincere. I seem to recall visiting your site early in your campaign and being shocked with some of your positions, and then later going back to find some of them removed. Did your website person misquote you too?
Westneat did not quote your district chair to say, "he won't get much help." He was giving his general opinion based on the absurd slogan "You're not alone" and the fact that the district chair didn't want his name known for word to get out to his business contacts that he was a Republican.
Your positions were still "tax and spend", asserting that higher education should be available to anyone who wants it at little or no cost. If it's a private-public partnership, it's still calling for more public funding (that's tax and spend). Charter schools aren't as popular among conservatives as you assert. Private schools with no public funding and run on a shoe-string budget are still a small fortune to "anyone who wants it". As soon as you add public funding to the mix, that doesn't bring down the cost. It only increases the gimme's and cries for more money.
Many voters evaluate the candidates by the information provided on a website. If you didn't provide more information on your positions on higher education, public transportation and health care, what else would one think that you were advocating but public funding for those things by the way you worded it? Do you expect them all to conduct a complete investigation or interview you personally to find out where exactly it is you stand? What would make them think they'd get any more straight-forward answers in a personal conversation with you?
Eric,
How long do you think you're going to get away with your anti-Catholic comments as an elected official?
And I was simply interested in Doug's denomination because your Catholicism sheds some light on your views on contraception, particularly for married people given the Catholic Church's position on such issues. It is rarer, however, to find such thought in non-Catholic denominations so I was just curious if he wasn't Catholic what the denomination might be.
Since he sometimes veers perilously close to Fred Phelps and Company, I was really hoping on some guidance so I might stay the heck away from wherever he practices his faith, that he feels empowers him to tell me I don't have one.
And now really only the Catholic Church (that vibrant growing institution in the Western World) really retains such views on contraception for married couples.
Do you think Catholics leave their brains in the Holy Water font when they enter a Church? Do you think we just have some fantasy about life and "that's nice for you, but you're really just brainwashed fools"? You sound like the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I think American voters have demonstrated what they think about your kind of anti-Cathollic bigotry in the 2004 election and in the exit polls. That vibrant growing institution in the western world is what inspires people like Justice Scalia and (presumably) John Roberts and Samuel Alito and the majority of the voices who asserted themselves in the wake of the Harriet Miers nomination. What filled St. Peter's Square upon JPII's death and the announcement of B16 as our new pope was only a tiny portion of that vibrant growing institution.
If I were you, I'd think twice about mocking our intellegence and our influence!
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 20, 2006 07:22 PMPerhaps your views have changed. Perhaps your views don't have anything to do with the words that come out of your mouth. But you are responsible for them, nevertheless. Your positions were undeniably tax and spend. Now, perhaps you don't have the intellectual integrity to understand that “Whatever it costs, a good public transportation system must be built and it must be built now.” on campaign literature is as tax-and-spend as it gets. Perhaps you were just expressing a "feeling" that a government (that's what "public" means, GOVERNMENT FINANCED AND GOVERNMENT RUN) trasnportaion system is really, really, important. But you ACTUALLY SAID, "WHATEVER IT COSTS"
Words mean things.
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 21, 2006 12:31 AMPerhaps you were speaking of Human Life of Washington. If so, they did not give you an endorsement either. You see, I receive their newsletters. They listed on the results of the candidate survey that you were "in partial agreement with the Human Life PAC". That is not an endorsement. They only give endorsements to those who are in full agreement with the PAC. Are you going to call them "extremist moonbats" too?
So I know a little bit more about your campaign than you think I know. I make it my business to know what those running as Republicans stand for, contrary to your accusation that I don't:
I really don't care if you don't have the time to study the issues. Make time! Pick up a freakin newspaper or ask someone who does. It's the responsibility of the citizenry to be informed.
I also know that you've contradicted your positions right here on this post. For any objective reader, it would be just as obvious as your immature boasting about how nobody can touch you in a debate.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 21, 2006 10:48 AM2. One can't read your posts, above, without coming to the conclusion that you are STILL an advocate of Gay Rights. You've articulated gay rights in this blog. Frankly, if you were to be my protector, I'd rather be gay than a fetus.
3. You keep saying abortion is "wrong." (perhaps in the same sense that wearing white past labor day is "wrong" like Pat Herbold and Teddy Kennedy believe)and endorsing "some" restrictions. (Many Wash. State RINOs endorse "restrictions" that they will never vote on and then "delegate" responsibility for enacting those restrictions to a level of government specifically excluding the one they're in or running for. (See the McGavick playbook.)) but you have danced around the central question of the issue. Is a child an individual human being at the moment of conception and is the Government of the United States, therefore, morally bound to protect its life? To be pro-life you need to answer "yes" to both questions.
4. According to one of your posts above, you say Christians "shouldn't judge" (stuff). You and I have different views on this, but given YOUR views, how do you justify your constant use of hateful sarcasm, derisive ridicule, (eg. "go take a civics lesson," "you're just too smart for us" "I think the doctor must have slipped and given you a lobotomy"); calling people names like "extremist nutbar" and "extremist moonbats;" describing your opponents as whiney, defensive, offensive and blasphemous; constantly and visciously insulting their intelligence; and making false (and unquestionably judgemental) accusations like they "want...that everyone who doesn't believe exactly as [they] do should be stoned to death," they make "blasphemous hate-filled diatribes," and imply they are "carrying around 'God Hates Fags' signs and bombing abortion clinics"?
5. What happened in the 9th or 2nd District Councilmanic Caucuses that contradicts Spackman's accounts?
6. By what morphodite of logic do you think that your having been in an official capacity at some function disqualifies someone else from making factual observaces thereof? That's strikingly irrational! You, who cannot keep your story straight even on this blog, are not qualified to criticize Phil Spackman.
R.I.E., I stand corrected. It was Human Life of Washington. As far as whether what they said constitutes an endorsement or not, well, the letter I received gave me a partial endorsement and a partial endorsement is still an endorsement (and even if wasn't, can you explain to me why they'd say I was in partial agreement with them if I'm such a pro-abortion activist?)
Posted by: Full Contact Politics on March 21, 2006 02:27 PMThe way I look at it, as does Republican National Coalition for Life does, if your position allows for abortions, you are pro-abortion atleast in some cases. Pro-abortion-mixed-choice.
As for NARAL not endorsing you, they also didn't endorse Dave Ross-D in the primary because he believed in parental notification, but he's still pro-abortion-choice. And I don't know, did you fill out their questionairre? You probably could have received atleast a "mixed" rating for even them. But there's no guarantees, given their extremism on the pro-death side.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 21, 2006 03:32 PM
If you are privy to the information
about the Hammond-Dunn race.Then tell
us what it was that Steve Hammond or his
supporters did or said.What exactly did
they say or do?
The only thing I ever heard about Reagan Dunn
was his claim that he was on a federal task
force to prosecute terrorists. He was not
it was checked out his name was not mentioned
anywhere as being part of it.If it was
questioned that's why.But the other things
you bring up this is the first I have ever
heard of any of them.
As far as being barred for the 9th district
caucuses. I am not a member of the 9th
but I walked right in and no one said a word
to me or asked for any id.
As for Brian Thomas yeah your right they
didnt have to support him but they should
have.Yes I know all about the file they have
on him at the king gop headquarters.Doug
parris actually was able to have a close
look at the file.I'm not going to put words
in Doug's mouth he can answer this himself.
Other than to say the file isn't as you allege
As to the wide spread allegations that delegates
were sent to the wrong caucus.If it happened
the King Gop are responsible for it.That place
was circus I for the life of me can't
understand how anyone can be that disorganized.
It isnt as though that haven't done those
things before.
You say that hammond supporters spread vicious
lies about reagan dunn. If they did they wern't
the only ones. I was on the receiving end of
some of the most vicious hateful things that
were said about Steve Hammond.In fact Reagan
Dunn himself called Steve a preacher boy and
to far to the right to represent district 9.
What bothered me most about it was Reagan Dunn
never condemned any of it.
If what you say is true about Hammond
supporters saying such things.Knowing
Steve if he had known about it he would
have done everything he could have to put stop
to it because that's not how he plays.
Everything you say, here, about Brian Thomas is a libelous fabrication.
1. There are not, and have never been any restraining orders.
2. He has no police record.
3. He was, however, the target of liberals who attempted, by false and REFUTED police complaints, to prevent him from holding a sign that said "support our troops" at a City Park. (Typical was the assertion that he was "trespassing" when he went into a store, open to the public, owned by a liberal, to buy a snack.)
4. The incredibly corrupt KCGOP administration, when Brian ran against their chosen, (quietly gay-rights) executive board nominee, used slanderous accusations of "racism" and "anti-Semitism" to defeat him.
5. An officer of the KCGOP (their muscle guy) PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED Brian Thomas as a means of political intimidation, more than once.
6. They began, at that time, to collect a file of his letters PROTESTING THESE ILLEGAL TACTICS they were using against him in very salty language, as a "secret file" to imply the slanders (as you have done, above, more explicitly) including the false implication that he has a police record.
7. I took the time (about an hour), at the invitation of King County Chairman Michael Young (who actually does support racial discrimination and whose tactics are at the center of this despicable campaign) to go through all that material. I took a witness. I read the material out-loud into a digital recorder (unbeknownst to the KCGOP "handler") who escorted us to the file.
8. There is absolutely NOTHING of what you said in it.
9. Brian Thomas is not, and has never been a racist, has never said anything racist, is not, nor has ever been anti-Semitic nor said anything to that effect and has had a flag of Israel displayed on his house for a period of years, well before he became the target of KCGOP slanders.
I hope you have a lot of money. Mr. Thomas is now empowered to take a bunch of it from you if he chooses to file suit against the blatantly false defamation of his character in your last post.
One more thing about Brian Thomas if as you
say he was barely nominated I'm confused about
a couple of things. First of all are you saying
only one delegate in the room voted for brian
and no one else voted?Knowing Brian I can't
imagine him going any further with a campaign
if that was all the support he got.
Since when do you allow anyone to put an R
by there name.I didn't know they needed your
permission.You see this is what's wrong with
the King county Gop.They continue to lose
elections because of this kind of elitist
thinking.