May 25, 2006
Darcy Burner for State Senate
The best part of Seattle's Sandinista weekly, The Stranger, is "Critical Overview." It's at the front of the print edition, and gives a frank and often hilarious rundown of what's in the current edition from the perspective of an actual adult who hasn't been quaffing the poisonous "Urban Archipelago" Kool-Aid that infects the worldview of most of the paper's staff. But the current Critical Overview has a real howler of an error regarding Darcy Burner, the Democratic challenger to incumbent U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert (R-8th).
For another week, The Stranger news team maintains its miraculous stasis. Tireless wonkstress ERICA C. BARNETT plays referee between battling viaduct theories; compunction-free rabble-rouser THOMAS FRANCIS rants about an allegedly iffy Seattle Housing Authority contract; and ELI SANDERS—having already charted every nook and cranny of the woman herself—turns his gushing attention to state senate hopeful Darcy Burner's growing army of volunteers. Dear God: Let my organs fail now.
Doubtless they'll fix it online momentarily. But the slip is revealing. Despite all the nutroots hype, Burner is indeed a second-stringer ill suited to a Congressional run.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 25, 2006
12:24 PM | Email This
Darcy has been downgraded from running for US Senate to running for Washington State Senate by The Stranger. Kinda makes you wonder if she is even qualified to run for the state level office.
By next week she may be running for some elected position in her hometown of Carnation, like City Council or School Board. Quite frankly, that may be a good way to start fulfilling her political aspirations.
2. Sorry bout the typo - she was downgraded from running for the US House of Representatives, not the US Senate.
It's interesting when you look at the record of Nutroots candidate support. Kos doesn't look so good when you look at the real numbers of how many Nutroots candidates have succeeded.
And, it's going to be interesting when Darcy gets pressed on her actual stance on the War in Iraq and whether she would withdraw troops. Now, she is asking the safe and standard Democrats "But are we safer?" question. Not only do most people look at the landscape and say, uh yeah, we probably are safer than we were on 9/10, but more importantly, most don't want to back down now.
I'm anxiously awaiting Reichert's challenging her on the war in a debate. She's going to have many "John Kerry" moments.
"Sorry bout the typo - she was downgraded from running for the US House of Representatives, not the US Senate."
Well, according to Matt Rosenberg, that's a very revealing typo you made Gary.
Of course, Matt is the psychologist here - so I invite him to reveal just how a typo like that is so revealing.
5. Jeff B., I am in complete agreement with you regarding my anticipation of a Burner vs. Reichert debate. As George W. famously said, "Bring it on!". Of course Reichert is too chicken to debate anyone. Didn't in 2004, and probably won't in 2006. Why? Because unless it is scripted he'll come across as dumb as a doornail - and that's insulting doornails!
If that's the reason for the lack of a debate, perchance you'd like to comment on the reason that Jim McDermott never debates his opponents? Is it because Jim will come across dumb as a doornail, Daniel? Or is it because he has no serious opposition?
I'd claim it's the latter, just like Dave Reichert. Why would Dave debate Darcy? Only people like YOU will vote for Darcy, and a debate won't change that, no matter how intelligent and polished Reichert will look. The rest of the populace (and well over 55% of the voters - you heard it here first) will stand behind Dave.
7. Kos doesn't look so good when you look at the real numbers of how many Nutroots candidates have succeeded.
That number would be 0, in case anyone's counting.
And what is it with liberals constantly claiming everybody except them is stupid? Is that the basis of your argument? "I don't like him because he's a Republican, ergo, he's stupid." Yet somehow Dumbasadoornail Dave managed to hold down the position of KingCo Sheriff for how long? No doubt it sure was stupid of him to finally capture Gary Ridgeway, huh. And if big ole Dumb Reichert can get elected to Congress in 2004, just what are you insinuating about his opponent?
Insults. That's all you've got. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously. Elect Democrats because everybody else is stupid!! Quite the platform ya got there.
8. It is the standard lib broken record - Rs are dumb. What they haven't answered is how so many dumb people keep getting elected over their nuanced intellects the whole time.
9. Don't worry about DK, he's too busy trying to pimp Darcy's "Dead squirrel" run to see the truth of just how pathetic she is as a candidate. Dave Ross socialist sycophant, Pro Ron Sims, Pro CAO, Pro Dwight "Cuba" Pelz, Pro Maria "Dead Squirrel" Democrat.
This Republican will oppose Dave Reichert and vote for any Democrat.
Republicans have out spent the liberals. What's the difference, between a liberal and a Republican ... I don't know.
Bush tries to nominate his personal lawyer for the top supreme court position, now that's dumb.
Bush and Reichert have not said one word about property rights and the decision to take private property away like we are some Communist country. I says we vote the Democrats in.
Republicans don't see to understand the difference between illegal and legal. A clear sign they have no right to hold office.
And any Conservative political type that thinks my family, my friends, my business associates are going to vote faithfully republican this year are frick'in dreaming. Their is going to be a political bloodbath on Republican candidates in the next election cycle - led by the 50% of Republican party either not voting or voting for Democrats like I will. And it's too late for Bush and the Republicans because their is nothing they can say that will change my mind.
Taking out Dave Reichert will be a nice start toward having a party that has some values once again.
Larry - You nicely sidestep matters by not explaining why Reichert didn't debate anyone in 2004. He was hardly a serious opponent himself then, so not in a position to declare that his own opponents were not serious opponents.
If Reichert is such a debating stud, then all the power to him, but you know he isn't. Once he's off script, he's lost. No amount of hair and aqua velva is going to help him in an unscripted debate.
As for the utter impossibility of electing "dumb" politicians, you need look no further than the preznit himself. Bush and Reichert epitomize dumb politicians. But if you can't see that then with all due respect you're an idiot yourself.
That's the freudian slip to end all freudian slips!
Fits the situation so well!
13. Vote for who you want, someone like Darcy. Who has never held any public office, who openly supports the taking of private property without compensation, someone who advocates for voting rights and citizenship for illegal aliens, Someone who is like the other six congressional clone Democrats in Western Washington. So much for any diversity in representation. I am sure there will be as many debates between Burnout and Riechert as there were between McDipstick and his last challenger, remember King County rules apply.
Darcy wants amnesty for illegal aliens, no doubt. Reichert wants to secure the borders and monitor immigration in a systematic way.
That is plenty reason enough to reelect Dave Reichert ! He does not support illegal amnesty like Prez. Jorge Bush.
Darcy may be a blogger, so what ? a majority of them are out in left field.
15. John McDonald - by not supporting any Republican, and only voting Democrat - you are opening the door for socialism. I don't support the Prez. on a number of issues, but to lump all Republicans with him is absurd !
16. As for the utter impossibility of electing "dumb" politicians, you need look no further than the preznit himself. Bush and Reichert epitomize dumb politicians. But if you can't see that then with all due respect you're an idiot yourself.
17. The biggest point that the Darcy Burner campaign and her 206er supporters from Seattle are trying to push is that she's "not Dave Reichert".
What they don't realize is that the historically "red" 8th Congressional District loves the "Sheriff" and his overall postive name recognition in the community is proof of this.
Their brand of politics, pick any number of issues from the war on terrorism, the environment to transportation, doesn't play in East Pierce County, South East King County and even most of Bellevue and Redmond.
It’s obvious that you miss Clinton's SINGULAR SLICKNESS
. . . but Dave Reichert isn't slimy and he didn't debate because he didn't have to debate.
Televised so-called debates are seriously over-rated. They are not substantive events where the merits of a candidates' background or positions are highlighted but a media event where subjective nonsense dominates until the dust settles.
Faking slick works for people like you. The MSM pandering to genius’s like you "scored" the wooden doll brain-dead performance of John F'n Kerry above the honest and straight forward approach of GW Bush in their three debates and Bush won the election. He won because while you were reveling in the phony box-seat "scoring" of the performances, voters (especially women voters) were listening to Bush say he would protect America and keep his word. Since, he has done both very well, especially judging by the irrationality of the ludicrous liberal democrat attacks against him.
Prior to his election, Reichardt did debate all comers on the radio several times and came across very well, but his opponent refused to step up and debate him.
As usual you have your fancies mixed up with the facts.
19. The Republican party is a socialist party. Only Lyndon Johnson expanded government at a faster rate. Dave Reichert brags about how much he spent on his website numerous times. Tell me how that's not socialism. Tell me how his silence on property rights is not socialism. Tell me how he likes to brag that he is an independent ... independent of what? (common sense). I'm a royally pissed off Republican (or used to be - can't really define what I am right now). Dave R is going to pay the political price as his loss is the only way to make the Republican party wake up. I'm so fed up of the crap they carry on with, the nearly criminal incompetitance. 100's of billions on terrorism preparedness and they can't get a drink of water to 20,000 people in New Orleans, talk about 3rd world leadership.
I agree, "criminal incompetitance"
is going around, and if you really think the Republican party is a "socialist party,"
I understand your comment.
If thy left eye offendeth thee . . . pluck out thy right eh?
If I thought the Republican party was reformable then I would be all for reform. If the evil I see in the party was limited to a few bad eggs, then I would have a different opinion. However, it is tough to find anyone left in the party who is for moderate things like limited government, private property rights, actually wants to go after terrorist like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah amoung others. I don't like a President who when 9-11 happens the first thing he does is make sure the Bin Laden family is safe and taken out of the country. This is some of the evidence that points to the current Republican party having become totally unhinged from reality. This is not a left or right issue for me. This is a question of do I have a party that stands for some very simple basic principles or not.
When Dave Riechert is crowing about putting a pink leather sling back on Nancy P as opposed to talking about real issues, then he is part of the problem. We don't need another Nero fiddling while Rome burns (American drowning in another $1 Trillion in debt since GWB took office). No wonder the economy looks good when you spend more than $1 Trillion then you took in.
So what you are saying is that you do not have a supportable party or a viable candidate in any election? Because from the list you just wrote NONE of the major political parties are going to make the cut.
If you think you are going to get a different outcome with Democrats in charge, you are sadly mistaken. All you have to do is look at KING COUNTY and the STATE OF WASHINGTON. Who was it that Passed the CAO in KING County by one vote on party lines, is that the property rights you speak of? Is the Deficit the State is going to have next year after a record surplus due to the Republicans? Does the 8th district really need to send another Dave Ross socialist to Congress to go along with the other 6 Democratic socialists from Western Washington?
23. You are an idiot.
Go build a bomb shelter.
You claim the Republican party is "totally unhinged from reality" but I think most readers of your website would say that label might best apply to what you are professing there. Do you honestly believe the economy is roaring because of deficit spending (largely on defense and homeland security) during the Bush Presidency? One usually expects such non-economics based explanations of the economy from Paul Krugman.
Let's talk about the "roaring" economy.
In 2000 the US GDP was $9817.0 Billion
In 2005 the US GDP was $12487.8 Billion (counting inflation) only 11134 Billion when inflation is included.
The total GDP increase from the years 2001, 2, 3, 4, 5 as compared to 2000 was 3.065 Trillion. Deficit spending was directly attributable to 1.00 Trillion of that growth and indirectly probably attributable to nearly all of it as deficit money doesn't just stop working after it leaves the government coffers. So if Georgie could balance the government books the US growth would at a minimum of 1/3 lower than it has been through his entire presidency and likely 2/3's lower or even zero if you count the ripple effect of the deficit spending. Hardly a robust economy. According to your idiot logic why not spend $1 Trillion more and raise the growth rate even higher.
Gas, Real Estate, Gold, etc. prices exploding are a signs of inflation and a lack of faith in the US dollar NOT a roaring economy. Jeez, even the socialist Canadian dollar and Euro are outperforming the US dollar. But since you are so smart, perhaps you can use so warped logic to get out of these points.
26. If a Democrat had posted the deficit numbers that GWB is posting, then Republicans like yourself I think would grow a brain and suddenly realize how bad these deficit numbers are. When it is our guy screwing up, then suddenly we all get fuzzy brains and can't do some basic math. It is this lack of honesty that has me so pissed at the Republican Party. Jeez, Republicans don't even know the difference between illegal and legal anymore ... what has become of the respect for law and order party. I'm sure I'll get some lame excuse from the die-hard Republicans. Trust me, Republicans are going to get hammered in the next election. You can fight my logic, you can disagree all you want. Just remember when you candidate loses by 20+ points what I said. I'm sure you blame it on something like you were "moderate" enough or some other crap. Well after about 10 years out of power you'll learn just like the Democrats are learning this election cycles. The average democrat is now sounding more conservative than the average republican. Don't believe it, just turn on CNN and compare it to FOX now. FOX is the new home of the liberals, CNN is getting conservative. My how the world changes.
In American we have two choices: Republican or Democrat. The Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and the White house. I invested my votes in them, I invested my money in them ... yes I just threw a small poster from Elizabeth Dole about how I'm one of the top 100 Republicans in the State of Washington or some such crap along with a nice signed letter from President Bush. I bet I have a lot more invested in the Republican Party than you shills.
The Republican Party has crapped on my values, ran away from their base and only comes back around election time.
Oh yes, Frist is now sponsering a Gay Marriage Bill to try to get the base whipped up. Do you politico's really think we are falling for this crap again? You guys are frick'in cheap phony hacks. At least you are about to be unemployed cheap phony hacks.
Next time, maybe in 2015 when we are finally sick of the Democrats, then try governing for a change - instead of pushing socialism on us in the form of "free" perscription drugs. What next free gas, free food, hell I'd like a free car, pool and an XBOX.
We are all thankful that we have you to clue us in.
We trust you and we won't fight your "logic" or disagree with the sagacity of your comments
especially about this here durned deficit. Whoooeee how about that deficit, and darn that there law and order party.
Golly I guess I'd better watch that there CNN!
And that sly old FOX . . . boy howdy . . . they are really getting liberal arn't they?
Bill O'Reilly is now supporting Bush that liberal fool -- what are we going to do?
Man are we lost and need your advice.
Tell us more.
CLICK THIS WEB FOR CANDIDATE WHO AGAINS ILLEGALS ALLIENS AND THEY WILL PROTECT OUR BORDER AND ENFORCEMENT IMMIGRATION.
WASHINGTON STATE SPEND 100 MILLION FOR BENEFITS ILLEGAL ALLIENS AND PAY FOR THEIR KIDS. STOP IT !!
CLICK THIS WEB FOR CANDIDATE WHO AGAINS ILLEGALS ALLIENS AND THEY WILL PROTECT OUR BORDER AND ENFORCEMENT IMMIGRATION.
WASHINGTON STATE SPEND 100 MILLION FOR BENEFITS ILLEGAL ALLIENS AND PAY FOR THEIR KIDS. STOP IT !!
Man are you quick . . . and smart too.
I gotta agree that those there "shills" don't pay big dough like you do to the Republicans and they crap on your "values."
Yea, those durned frick'in cheap phony hacks out there are now sponsering a Gay Marriage Bill to try to get the base whipped up so they can be unemployed cheap phony hacks.
All of the unemployed cheap phony hacks out there want no jobs, "free" perscription drugs, free gas, free food, free cars, a pool and an XBOX and Republican Senators like Bill O'Reilly is giving it to them. Old CNN is onto old Bill though and they will stop him in his tracks.
Its good to have you on our side John, I just don't know what we would without your amazing insights and gall darn it what would we do if you were against us.
Thanks, lets hear more.
I'm glad you think it's funny that the people you supported made our country look like a 3rd world nation for 4 days during Hurricane Katrina ... oh that was so amusing I bet, you probably could not stop laughing at that one. You probably thought it was hilarious when Castro offered to help us out.
You probably thought it was so funny when HAMAS was voted into power ... really tickled your funny bone. You probably think it is too knee slappin' funny now that Iran is close to getting nuclear weapons with the trigger controlled by a certified madman, can breath you are laughing so hard. And Bushie is havin' a hard time doing anything about it because our CIA info was so bad the last time we invaded a country that we have no credibility this time.
Oh yes and 1 Trillion in T-Bills oh just right off that silly debt, who cares about all the those seniors who are about to be eaten alive with inflation ... just turn down the thermostat Grandma, that's what blankets are for HA HA. Beside your drugs are free now so what are you worried about.
And this one must really get you laughing ... 20 Million new citizens just for breaking the law. What a country! And the punch line of that funny, we already gave amnesty to 6 million about 15 years ago. Amnesty International must be feeling great about the Republicans.
Or maybe the London or Madrid bombing you found funny, perhaps the crappy conviction job the government did on Z. Moussauwi. Now we get to pay $40K for his room and board, at least until Al Queda uses him in a prisoner exchange. Now that's real funny.
George Bush, God's gift to America ... NOW that's what makes me laugh.
Well, let's see, GDP growth, unemployment, business spending, growth in personal incomes, productivity increases, etc. all point to a very strong economy. Perfect? No. But I don't think any economist thinks there can be such a thing. Yes, inflation is a concern, and yes deficits are a concern, but they can be dealt with and don't merit the doom and gloom you profess.
Moreover, your whining about the deficit seems to come from the starting point that everything was rosy when Clinton departed. In reality, excessive cuts in military spending and a short-term glut in capital gains taxes from the dot com boom are what truly created the comparatively good fiscal times of the late '90's. Granted, Republicans have lost much credibility on being fiscally responsible, but how are the two trends I've described the fault of President Bush?
In addition, since when did the strength of a country's currency compared to others in a fluctuating world market become an automatic signal for the strength of the country's economy? The United States has been carrying the water for much of the economy in the industrialized world the last couple years and all you can do is complain? Ok.
I don't disagree with the idea that Republicans have some real challenges this fall, or that they as a party (notably in Congress) have some real issues they need to address to get their own house in order, and to improve their performance on behalf of the American people. But your prattling negativity makes Bush out to be an apostate. If that's what you think, that puts you in the camp of Bruce Bartlett and Richard Viguerie: self-titled conservatives who are essentially deeply unhappy with anything short of Barry Goldwater. I'm glad we live in a country where you can make such arguments and hold such beliefs, but that doesn't make you right.
As for being a "cheap phony hack" and a "shill" with less invested in the Republican party than you...uh, sure. You don't know me, so what gives you any credibility to make such an accusation. You're the one with the controversial website and postings. You shouldn't be stunned when people disagree with you, and slandering them is no way to up your credibility.
I'm with ya there buddy. You got the handle. I'm not laughing at you that you know of. Thanks for all of the additional pointers and deeply insightful info.
As a person who needs to grow a brain and suddenly realize how bad these deficit numbers are like you do, I hadn't thought about Katrina, or HAMAS or Iran and nucular weapons or any of it. Thanks for pointing these things out. I was too busy being an unemployed cheap phony hack who wants free perscription drugs, free gas, free food, free cars, a pool and an XBOX. I'm just a clueless hack unlike you who knows it all from talking about it.
But now . . . I has seeeen the light and yo has shown it to me!!
Thanks very much!!!
Now . . . if I'm reeeel smart like you I will do what? Rant and rave like a lunatic? Laugh at Bush? Tell me . . . please master . . . tell me!! I'm lost but I'm putty in your able hands.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
I think the economy is okay, but like as you state Clinton benefited from the .com boom; Bush is benefiting from the real estate boom and massive deficit spending. Unfortunately, I believe both booms are phantom wealth created by the imbalances in world trade. In other words, the Chinese, Saudis, Japanese, etc. need to put their trade imbalance money somewhere so they put it into US banks and T-bills driving the interest rates artifically low and have sparked a real estate boom ... well that is starting to unwind now so watch out if you are heavily invested. And if real estate even goes sideways our deficits are going to get much worse.
I did not hold Bush responsible for the deficits that came after 9-11 using the exact logic you mention and voted for him in '04. However after the perscription drug bill, after the transportation bill, where is the spending restraint? 9-11 was 5 years ago, yet we are spending like drunken sailors on thing entirely unrelated. I see numerous Republican Senators defending pork as if their life depended on it, the Senator from Alaska was a sheer embarrassment to me.
No offense, but our currency and it's strenght does reflect the monatary policy of the US. When we have massive deficits our currency goes down, when we don't our currency goes up. The only way this fiscal law changes is when the country we are compared too is also having big deficits like Japan has had.
I'm not an extreme conservative and I don't know the names of the folks you mention, except for Goldwater. My political memory starts with Reagan, may he rest in peace. And being ultra-conservative doesn't make anyone right, the facts make you right. And the truth is a minimum of 1/3 of the entire growth under Bush comes from deficit spending ... this is undeniable -- and that's with the benefit of one of the biggest booms in real estate ever.
It really concerns me that a Republican like yourself would think that I'm extreme because I oppose free drugs, massive pork laden highway bills, and don't like my government playing nice with certain terrorist and condemning others ... it shows how out of the mainstream the "mainstream" Republicans are. This is why the Republican party is going to get creamed in the next election. Reading your post, I just shake my head and say "you just don't get it". I mean that respectively, perhaps some of the republican political types are so wrapped up in the day to day politics they simply cannot see what they have become. If you look in the mirror you'll see a donkey from the 1980's.
So I guess your point is ... you knew all of these points and are so smart, that these points really amuse you, and that you will keep voting for all these funny people who make a joke of our country and send people in harms way to defend it. HA HA.
The cheap phony hacks comments is directed at elected Republican politicians who trot out bills around election time or when they are down in the polls to get the base fired up. In reality they have no intention of these bills passing. Bill Frist is a top sponsor of these types of bills.
Sorry about it reading as if it was directed at you.
No, john, my point is that you are an arrogant, presumptuous, and emotionally unstable dim-wit who has no idea what you are talking about. The main difference between you and a liberal is the array of doctrinal prejudices you are blindly devoted to. You are as easily led and inveigled by bull$hit as any liberal and just as thickheaded. Michael Savage already exploits the useless shtick of "Real Conservative Politick."
If you ever were actually a conservative you have no excuse. No political situation in human history has ever been as cut and dried as you portray that you expect them to be, and if you read or study history or politics at all you would know better. Instead you buy into superficial "analyses" while ignoring how they come about – and infer simplistic emotion based answers just like a liberal.
You momentarily make conservatives appear to be the same as liberals -- and we are not -- by a long shot. But mostly, your comments are tedious and boring in their predicable contrariety.
You have absolutely no positive effect on anything you pretend to care about, and we can get a more entertaining and instructive versions of liberal bull$hit from liberals.
Thanks for asking.
Thank you in turn for your own thoughtful comments. On one hand I’m quite sympathetic to your frustration. Yet, I firmly believe that frustration is simply rooted in a well-founded lack of movement on an agenda. That lack of movement is in large part due to the semi-inert system our Founders put in place. While at times it can be maddening, in the end such a system serves us better. Granted, current political dynamics make it difficult to achieve many of the domestic and foreign policy objectives you’d like, but a system that would allow you more ease would easily be a nightmare if true liberals were in power (not those Republicans you’d like to claim are liberals) – picture a New Deal on crack if you will.
The crux of our disagreements I think is that I’m more of an optimist and you’re more of an idealist. That label fits both gentlemen I mentioned previously. Bartlett, the former Reagan appointee in the Treasury Dept. who is skewering Bush in print, and Viguerie, the prominent conservative activist in the 70’s and 80’s who dislikes Bush, and couldn’t even find much nice to say about Reagan (who was not a true conservative he claimed). Both of these men attack Bush for not achieving more conservative victories, without reasonable understanding given to the political pressures and challenges that prevent any President without an overwhelming majority of Congress on his side from doing so.
On economics, I’m much more in the Larry Kudlow school of thought than you, believing in the inherent strength of the American market system, and the benefit of the infusion of many of the American system’s strengths into the global economy, particularly the capital and currency markets. On foreign policy, despite the inevitable mistakes, I think Bush has done tremendously better than virtually any other Republican capable of holding the office in our era would have done…don’t even get me started on what prominent Democrats would (or would not) have accomplished in a post 9/11 world. In short, I agree things aren’t rosy, but I think they are better because of Bush, and we shouldn’t hold anyone to the kind of lens you’re using.
Furthermore, I have to strongly object to your Katrina complaints. Yes, FEMA was left wanting. Yes, mistakes were obviously made, for which accountability should be expected. But the core reason people were left deprived in the immediate aftermath of Katrina was the complete collapse and failure of state and local government services. They are the true first responders. They (notably those in New Orleans and LA, not MS) failed to provide for their citizens in those first few days when the feds have never been expected to provide all-inclusive disaster response. Particularly when the National Guard arrived, no thanks to the indecisive LA authorities, then one actually started to see the issues you raise – with all the related gnashing of teeth in the media – be addressed. I totally agree with holding government accountable for failure, especially in the provision of one of its most important services, but let’s place blame where it’s truly due.
Lastly, I don’t think you’re extreme. I think you have unrealistic expectations of the policy process, though I do share some of your frustrations with many Republicans in Washington, DC. I disagree with you on the particulars of the drug benefit (it’s hardly free), I agree with you on the highway bill, and I think you’ve oversimplified how our government deals with terrorists. I agree with you most strongly on the feeling that a notable number of Congressional Republicans have lost sight of the bigger picture – the pathetic and sanctimonious response to the FBI search of Rep. Jefferson’s office being a great example. Yet, we both remain conservatives and Republicans. I just don’t choose to express that by opposing Dave Reichert.
In your first paragraph you make the point that our system is slow and difficult by design. I agree.
The second paragraph was informative.
The third: I also agree that our economic system is robust and can endure many shocks and bad management. On foreign policy, there was some good especially in '02 and '03. However, I'm not going to talk about the democrats in terms "because they are so bad that makes us better" That logic is an excuse for poor performance. You would never except that logic out of your school age trial, "Well Dad, I got a D but my friend flunked." as it just means that both parties are losers.
Hurricane Katrina, the state and local democrats completely screwed up. However, i did not vote for them. The only party I voted for that had the resources to help was Bush. Just remember it was 4-6 days before help arrived in many cases. As a country we have spent about 100 billion on disaster preparedness post 9-11, we had days of warnings prior to the event, PBS specials on what would happen if a hurricane hit New Orleans, etc. The hurricane make a mockery out of all the disaster preparedness spending that GWB's executive team pushed for, got, and spent. Remember GWB is the executive branch - he is the guy in charge of making the federal gov work. LA and New Orleans did not get billions, they did get some money and squandered that. I don't think it is idealistic to expect that the world's remaining super power be able to evacuate 20,000 people (about 1/2 of a major rock concert) through 3-4 feet of water within 2 bright sunny days in one of our major cities. The report just came out that they kept confusing the Super Dome with the Convention Center. I don't want to be lied to by federal officials when they say that their trucks cannot get through the water when TV station vans are lined up in rows next to the convention center.
On Terrorism, George Bush set up the standard on how we should view terrorist and terrorism. I agree with his standard. However, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Chechnya groups, and many other terrorist orgainization all with the same basic ideology and who share fighters go unmolested. And it is a undisputed fact that our state department is regularly critical of the efforts of Russia and other central Asian secular governments and their efforts to stamp out terrorism. Russia has lost whole apartment blocks, commercial jet liners, endured school massacures, and had their major Moscow theater taken over with hundreds being killed, and all our state department does is rip them for human rights abuses. No wonder Putin has 70% popularity and is now flipping off the West - pretty stupid foriegn policy if you ask me. We should have had our pilots flying next to Russian pilots bombing the hell out of the Chechen Islamic Jihadist. Now that is a positive foriegn policy, and imagine for a moment how Russia would be more open and accepting of our comments on Iran if we were actually combating terrorism with them instead of ripping them every change we get.
Well I'm glad to see that you can admit somethings are not perfect in Republican land, I only fear it is too little to late. Americans (even ones that don't follow politics closely) have a intuitive understanding of when a party has been in office too long and isn't standing on principle anymore. There is nothing that can be done about the Republican Rout in November as GWB has dug the hole too deep and too wide.
Thanks again for an articulate response. I think this conversation has largely run its course but let me make a couple points of clarification:
I’m not saying we should think Republicans are doing ok because Democrats would do worse in power – that’s unwise in both domestic and foreign affairs. In the same paragraph I bemoaned potential Democrat control of foreign policy, I noted I think Bush has done an excellent job all things considered in his Presidency.
As for Katrina, I think you’ve fallen for the media-induced myths about the fault of the feds, and more importantly their ability to sweep into a hard-to-reach geographic area (especially with major road damage leading into New Orleans) to save a population that was utterly underserved by its state and local authorities. By virtually all critiques I’ve seen, New Orleans and Louisiana should have done a better job of evacuating its citizens. It’s a bad sign when the President had to cajole the Governor to order the evacuation of New Orleans as the storm approached.
Some quick research found a couple sites of note on this topic. I don’t believe them lock, stock, & barrel but they are insightful:
Again, this doesn’t absolve the federal government by any means, particularly FEMA, from imperfect performance. But again, putting blame where blame is due – as opposed to what TV reports indicated – seems a more prudent response.
You said to John (the baptist) McDonald, "I’m more of an optimist and you’re more of an idealist."
In my view, you are using the depth of your experience and intellect to observe what is, rather than the sting of displaced anger at what might have been in an ideal world. I share many of John's ideals but I realized long ago that they are not acheivable; just something to aim at. I know better than to take the shallow liberal positions he takes about most aspects of current politics and bash his own with them. Some people claim to love humanity, and others ideals, but it is always better to love and give succor to those who are in your corner than the world or an idea.
With every single issue John observes he presumes the liberal position that is based on ignorance rather than circumspection. None of us can really understand or unravel all of the complexities of many of our foreign affairs, but I know that Bush and Condoleeza Rice know a whole hell of a lot more about Russia and Chechnya than John pretends to know. John may be right, but I seriously doubt it. Either way, neither he nor I will never know.
After a few examples of this tripe, it becomes easy to see that John is full of $hit. Example: Anyone who seriously believes that a "budget deficit" during war is the key thing to worry about, has read no history, forgotten all they read, or been trained to ignore the facts (college educated liberals). Deficits from war spending haunted every president in history from George Washington forward. There is a reason for this . . . . . . WARS COST M-O-N-E-Y. And lots of it.
Only a very stupid man or a Democrat worries about borrowing the money necessary to preserve the survival of an economy so that it can grow its way out of the debt. Suicide may be painless, but it won't support the future and its nothing to be proud of.
The real lesson (and the only one worth bothering with) about Katrina. Most people will do anything to avoid blame for their cowardice and incompetence, BUT GW BUSH STEPPED FORWARD LIKE A MAN AND LIKE NO OTHER AND ADMITTED THAT HE MADE MISTAKES -- EVEN THOUGH HE MADE NONE. "Mistakes" are not be discovered by second guessing the past in comparison to an unrealistic ideal but a measurable standard. No realistic standard can be used to conclude that FEMA failed. Only blame shifting. FEMA can not do what John or anyone else feeeels they should be able to do and they never will be able to. Bush didn't want the fragmentation of the Homeland Security Department, but he got it and it will fail or succeed on it's own merit. ONLY LIBERAL MORONS BLAME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR KATRINA.
Your comments are on point and make sense. Your response to John was well taken although I doubt that it affected his “thinking.” People inured to their own prejudices rarely see beyond them.
I don’t care what John says much because he is just like any other empty headed liberal nay-saying bomb thrower.
Amusing to tweak, but tediously unsubstantive.
It would be nice if the Republicans would stop appealing to voters like me if they really believe that my ideals are unattainable when in office and are attainable only during a campaign. Thus, I, my family, my friends will sit home and watch the Republican rout. Maybe next time someone will get elected that really shares my values as opposed to doing a great job of only talking about them in the fall.
I'm willing to bet that my passport has a lot more stamps in it then Rice or Bush put together. I was really against the presidential daily briefing being made public a few years back because it was suppose to be full of sensitive data. The thing that surprised me most is how simplistic it was ... if you remember, it basically said that their are terrorist in the middle east and they might do something, sometime in the future. We didn't need the billions spent in the CIA to tell our president that. In other words, I'm really NOT convinced that Rice, Bush or anyone else in the top of the government knows much more about foriegn issues than we watch on CNN, FOX, or CSPAN.
A very large portion of the deficit has nothing to do with the "war". I'm confident you know this in your head, but your loyality/heart to the Republican Party is causing selective blindness.
I think you also know that the Bush Admin screwed up in Katrina, so did the locals and state government. At the end of the day, 20,000 people could not get a drink of water ... you know this. Your loyality can't even let you think that your team was at least 1/3 responsible for the 3rd world response. 1/3 being local, 1/3 being state.
In the 1980's when Reagan was cleaning Carter's clock, conservatives has stats, facts, beliefs, a positive outlook, that America was great, and believed that anything was possible. Now I have to argue with "conservatives" who have feelings, only can redicule, have no numbers to back up their positions, whose only refuge is the "top people must know things we don't". (how does one argue with that type of comment), who associate me with a liberal because I'm pissed off at Bush and liberals are pissed at Bush therefore I and Liberals have something in common. Talk about pathetic arguements.
Good Lord, thinking that the structure of Homeland Security was responsible for the failure to evacuate 20,000 people in New Orleans or even get them a drink of water is insane loyality to the party. How come TV Vans could manage to get in, Jeez, Geraldo could get in with water. But our 100 Billion dollar disaster prepared Federal Government could not with all the helicopters, boats, etc. at their disposal. In fact, there are 10,000 Mobile Homes just rotting thinks to these geniuses. But I'm just a voting bomb thrower, to be ignored when the facts are inconvenient ... better to get back to bashing those dope smoking liberals who rarely take a bath as they are much easier targets and you can feel so much more superior.
I'm sure you think you are superior to me, but when you finish reading these post, you know I'm right thus the lame arguements about being an idealist and other non-fact based approaches.
Even your desire to focus on Democrats when they hold so little power shows you are down to the last thing that will bind the party together and that is the fear of Democrats. A strong party would be talking about where they want to lead American, but were is the vision, what is the plan. Is it the space plan that did not survive one week, social security that lasted two months, I can't think of any other plans since the last election -- oh yeah, amnesty for illegals that's the plan, honoring the law breakers. Today's Republicans are not conservative, not liberal, they just love being in power and handing out money - in fact, it seems that the top Republican leadership is trying to dump the conservative wing of the party and replace it with the illegal (soon to be legal) immigrant vote. The gig is over come November.
44. I just heard Darcy Burner get on KIRO's drive time show and say that she would Secure the Border without a fence and legalize 12 Million illegal aliens in a quick and orderly fashion and prosecute all employers who hire illegals. I had no Idea she was from the class of '86.
Yep. This one certainly has to respect the merits of those "arguements"
john, did you confuse your meds with M&M's again?
A misspelled word equals someone on meds - whatever. I can just see you thinking "Oh boy, a misspelled word ... tee hee, that is just so funny. Oh my God, what an idiot he misspelled a word." You are a loser dude, get a life.
It really appears that the only defenders of Bush left are the political nerds who think a misspelled word is funny.
And by the way, notice how our commander in chief has stopped supporting the troops. Trials for the troops, freedom for the terrorists is the new Bush Doctrine.
BTW, I noticed nothing of the sort. Only a complete idiot or a Dhimmicrat would say the crap that you are spewing.
Which are you?
I must admit that you are a creative troll but a liberal troll nevertheless.
I break my own rules from time to time, and I broke one of them earlier here -- "never argue with fools."
I sincerely hope you believe your liberal tripe with your heart and soul and apply it accordingly.
I wonder how many Microsofties have had a quiet snicker at Darcy's web site - it's built with PHP no less, the major competitor to their .NET vision.
Also instead of hosting her campaign photo's on MSN she is using Flickr.com
Shame on you Darcy, it's little details like that that Dave will eat your lunch on...