Rasmussen reports today that Republican challenger Mike McGavick continues to close the gap, calling the Washington Senate race a toss-up
In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll of an increasingly competitive U.S. Senate race, Senator Cantwell now leads former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) 44% to 40%, a toss-up. She led by five points in May, eight in April, thirteen in March, fifteen in January.Meanwhile, this week's SurveyUSA report ranks Cantwell as tied for 80th most popular U.S. Senator.
KC Elections hold the trump card
Posted by: Jack Burton on June 21, 2006 10:08 AM"uh oh, PRINT MORE BALLOTS!!! Get a plan in place to lose or delay the military votes pronto."
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2006 10:21 AMThe 'Rats learned their lesson from the '04 debacle. Rossi surprised them by making it enough of a horserace that he won the initial and second tallies so they had to go to overtime and a third tally to manufacture enough "votes" for Fraudoire to be installed. They'd rather not get caught with their pants down again and have to go hunting for "lost" ballots a dozen or so times in King County. The all-mail ballot will help sidestep the "messiness" and "inconvenience" of casting ballots at the polls (since voting at the polling place could actually help ensure a more legitimate election, oh, the horror!).
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 21, 2006 10:25 AMIn short in 2000, Cantwell really did not have to be all that eloquent or visible to defeat Slade Gorton. Now she's going to have to back up her positions with real arguments. And she's going to have to explain why she has a defeatist stance on the war, and why she's against drilling for oil to reduce our foreign dependence in what largely amounts to an empty wasteland.
Cantwell does not have the charisma or the resolve to stand up to McGavik, all she's got is the blue enclave of Seattle. If there's even the slighest defection from the more moderate Seattle Democrats, she will lose.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 21, 2006 10:25 AMCan we trust commissions and citizen advisory panels appointed by that same majority party, tasked to align their recommendations with the majority's agenda, while that same party refused to hear the full testimony from citizens opposed to it?
Can we trust a party that has politicized the Elections department for political advantage with the appointment of a life-long partisan Democrat whose decisions during the 2004 election, and the decisions of his staff, would have resulted in serious investigation and prosecution in nearly any other state in America?
Can we trust politicians like Larry Phillips, Julia Patterson or Larry Gossett, who are willing to unilaterally make changes to the Elections department and our county's elections processes, despite the utter failure of that department to give this state the governor it actually elected in 2004?
Finally, are there more than a couple hundred citizens in this county that are paying any attention to any of this? And isn't that why the Democrat Party feels safe to corrupt our elections process further for political gain?
Posted by: MJC on June 21, 2006 10:27 AMThe way things are set up now, we can count on having more and more Democrap rule shoved down our throats till there are nothing but democraps in office. As Josef Stalin said, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes". Nuff said!!!!
Posted by: cowboy on June 21, 2006 12:39 PMIf I were to bet, I'd bet on Cantwell. Not because I think she's the best candidate (I'd prefer the Libertairian), but I'd like to win the bet!
Posted by: Libertarian on June 21, 2006 12:48 PMAre there any counties out there where Republicans control the election machinery? If so, have them come up with (legal) reasons to drag out the process as long as possible, then report their results, hopefully after KCE has done so. If that ends up making a difference in an election outcome, where somehow, miraculously, a Republican candidate "comes from behind" to just barely beat a 'Rat, then we'll hear no end of screaming and wailing from the 'Rats about how unafir it all was.
But then, just wave the bloody shirt from the '04 theft and Fraudoire's illegimate assumption of the governorship. The 'Rats can't have it both ways (but they will try).
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 21, 2006 01:25 PMFifty-three percent (53%) of likely voters approve of the job Christine Gregoire, the Democratic Governor, is doing; 45% disapprove.
Posted by: JDB on June 21, 2006 02:15 PMBut, I never realized Gregoire was up for election this year. You have 'scooped' the scoopers.
Posted by: swatter on June 21, 2006 02:20 PMThe statement "Appearance of Impropriety" is humorous. Logan's counting of unauthenticated ballots and his absolute knowledge of the total number of votes in all other counties before final King County certification was very convenient.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 21, 2006 02:28 PMShe's taking a breather this election year and doing not nothing. A Democrat doing nothing resonates well with many voters, which explains why cantwell has lasted so long.
Rest assured when Gregoire gets going on jacking property taxes the number will fall again. Then she'll take another breather during the '08 election year and try to make nice with swing voters.
Cantwell has done nothing for so long, it's almost like we don't have anyone representing us in DC.
Posted by: Andy on June 21, 2006 02:39 PMI haven't heard McGavick talk about ANWR much, perhaps he's afraid of his stance on the issue, and how the D's will spin it. But I hope he starts playing the same gas price angle that Jeffers mentions in his hit piece. Democrats have a problem with basic economics, and that needs to be pointed out as often as possible.
Posted by: Palouse on June 21, 2006 03:00 PMCantwell has voted against school choice, for the International Criminal Court, for taxpayer funded needle exchange programs, against medical savings accounts, against state flexibility to control voter fraud (S.565), for limits on campaign freedom of speech (HR 2356), against repealing the death tax, against malpractice reform (S. 812), for business killing Kyoto protocol (S. 139), for banning so-called "assault weapons", for gun manufacture liability (S. 1805), against making it a criminal offense to injure or kill a fetus (HR 1997), against continuation of welfare reform, etc, etc, etc...
yeah, they're just alike
Posted by: Palouse on June 21, 2006 04:00 PMI am not convinced McGavick is for lower taxes.
If McGavick is such a tax cut hawk why hide that
fact?Back in december I was informed that McGavick
signed the Americans for reform not to raise taxes
pledge.The problem is McGavick instructed AFR not to
place his name on there website as having done so.
McGavick wanted them to wait before they posted
that he had signed.(Palouse I still have the email
from norquist's secretary)If you want it let me know.My question is why hide something like that?
I can't imagine anyone not being proud of the fact
that they agreed not to raise taxes.Yes its posted
up there now,but that only happened because Doug
Parris made such a big deal out of the fact that
it wasn't that they relented and put it up.
McGavick's answer about the State gop's
plank on immigration.I'm opposed to them but I
understand why they feel that way.Common that's
a bill clinton answer.I know there are various
issues McGavick talks about on his website.
The problem is he has never offered an idea
or solution as to how he would do those things.
I know the McGavick campaign seems to think
they have there base sown up.Based on the polls
one would tend to agree.However November is
still almost 6 months away.If McGavick continues
to take the base for granted it won't happen.
Unless he gets more definitive, he probably won't have enough support. Its not that he couldn't to it - it seems like he probably won't if he follows his pattern. He has some things in common with Bush - like he knows and hears it from constituents about what to do, but refuses to do it.
Posted by: KS on June 21, 2006 06:48 PMKind of says something about our state that mediocrity would be a huge improvement.
Posted by: ScottM on June 21, 2006 07:17 PMSurveyUSA report ranks Cantwell as tied for 80th most popular U.S. Senator
Good thing for Cantwell it's not a popularity contest, it's about who can pander most believably to the greatest number of voters.
Posted by: Dan on June 21, 2006 08:46 PMAccording to your pinheaded analysis of McGavick he "has some things in common with Bush - like he knows and hears it from constituents about what to do, but refuses to do it."
Your understanding of the American Constitutional system of Republican governance is "brilliant."
You and John McDonald might get together to end your pain . . . it's the best thing for you really.
Liberals are comical.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 21, 2006 10:18 PMNe'erDoWell voted against the nominations of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think McGavick would have voted on these nominations? Is this an important issue? Is it important to those reading this who sits on the USSC? Would that be an important difference between the candidates running for the Senate from SayWA?
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 22, 2006 05:37 AMI noticed it as well. What it tells me is that Rasmussen polled not enough republicans/independants.
I would guess that Gregoire's approval rating must really be hovering around 33%.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on June 22, 2006 06:32 AMAs mentioned, I will vote for McGavick, but know how politics works in this area and he'll need at least a 3% lead to make up for the potential voter fraud in King County.
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2006 07:02 AMSo for taxes Phil, here's his statements:
The government is obligated to provide its citizens with opportunities for success. This comes through lower taxes, reforming the liability system to create greater business opportunities, and promoting educational excellence.
Lower-tax societies compete best. Tax increases are counterproductive.
The U.S. liability system makes it hard for businesses to take the kind of risks that fuel economic innovation. The liability system needs to be revamped to support business innovation that creates opportunity for American workers.
Because of the continual threat of lawsuits, doctors often opt to curtail their practices or retire early. The result is reduced access to high-risk care, which is a particularly acute problem in rural areas.
His statments on immigration:
America must secure its borders against terrorists. We must stop those who intend harm to our homeland before they ever have the chance to enter our country—whatever it takes.
America must secure its borders against the scourge of illegal drug running. Illegal drugs plague urban and rural communities alike. The flow of illegal drugs over our borders must be stopped—whatever it takes.
America must secure its borders to alleviate the debilitating impact that illegal immigrants impose on our social service networks. We are a generous nation, but illegal immigration strains our communities, robbing our own citizens of full access to the social services for which their tax dollars have paid.
A secure border paves the way for a flexible and realistic guest worker program. The borders first, then we work with people that are looking for opportunity and willing to contribute to our work force.
The immigration stance sounds okay to me. "Kicking all the illegals out" is a pipe dream.
I'll leave the rest of the research up to those interested in pursuing it. But all I need to see is how Cant-vote-well voted on so many issues and realize that anything is better than her vote.
You are the one buying easily into nonsense. You say "Bush in many ways has become lame - do you like the way he is trying to control our borders ? or prosecuting our politically correct war in Iraq ?"
In answer to your questions , yes I like the fact that he is trying to control our borders. I have seen your comments recently about Bush's illegal immigration plan that parrot John and the left. The fact is that you don't know what Bush's plan is because it is in the background while Congress takes up the issue. Bush took up the issue in 2002 and 2003 and no one would listen. Again in the last two years he politically forced congress to take it up and now that they take notice, instead of addressing the issues, people like yourself blame Bush for the elements of the Congressional plans they don't like. You are acting like a fool when you do this.
With respect to your loaded question about Iraq, you are entitled to believe any emotionally charged foolishness you like, and calling the Iraq war "politically correct" is exactly that. The form of your question answers it more adequately than any answer I might provide. Again, you are acting like a fool when you do this.
There are things being done in this war with respect to our troops that are very frustrating, and none of them are being done because of any lacking leadership on the part of GW Bush. Our troops know this is part of the asymmetrical war tactics of terrorists designed to disturb and dishearten our populace, and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. So does the MSM. You proclaim yourself to be on the conservative side of things. If that is so, use your brains and knock off the silly chicken$hit liberal stupidity. Liberals play directly into the terrorist’s game, follow them and you are a liberal just like John.
You say, "What disturbs me about McGavick is that he is taking no real position on the critical issues."
Come on KS wise up. Is it possible that McGavick must play a very delicate political game because of the nature of our state's whacked liberal political climate? Do you think he could possibly win by appealing to the right wing??? If so, you don't understand politics. Again, you sound foolish when you say this. I am betting that you are smarter than this but simply frustrated and misguided by your passions. Politics is not bean-bag, and purity is for baby soap ads. Both sides must play the game.
Countervailing McGavick's apparent diffidence is the certainty of Cantwell's staid liberalism. Reticence is a sign of political acumen, not cowardice. George Washington used it to great effect. I’m not saying McGavick is Washington’s equal, but I am saying smart is as smart does. Our Republican Party is imperfect, but within it are the elements that will defend our country, act economically responsibly, maintain our true civil liberties, and uphold the constitution. McGavick will do these, and Cantwell will not. The Democrats are out of their fu@king insane minds with hate and lust for power for it's own sake.
Just as you don’t rip the roof off to renovate your house during the storm season, now is not the time to restructure the inner workings of the Republican Party. If you are a conservative, work within the party to secure the parts of it that work. Those who are too weak or foolishly idealistic to aid the party will turn against that which sustains their views in a Quixotic gesture of political suicide. If you are a liberal like John, join the other side and do whatever you can to tear it down. I'll be at the top of the ladder pushing you over. Thankfully it's easy, and fun.
There are many things about the war in Iraq, immigration reform, and local politics that I disagree with, but I do not drink cool aid of any kind. A sensible intelligent look at the issues will always conclude that the wise choice is to support and vote Republican.
Thanks
On the other hand, he has helped mold the Supreme Court into the way it will best serve the people with his two appointments - that is a good thing.
"There are many things about the war in Iraq, immigration reform, and local politics that I disagree with, but I do not drink cool aid of any kind."
So do I, but be objective. Republicans can drink cool aid (just a less virulent strain) than Democrats do. It is important to voice dissatisfaction with the President's policies on immigration - so he won't sell out this country like he is apparently doing - this is a BIG issue . I pretty much agree with Tom Tancredo's take on illegal immigration. Bush is a RINO - look at his spending policies that will eventually hurt our economy, unless the rising deficit is reversed. How can a true conservative stay silent about that ?
Maybe you are right about McGavick in that he is running a delicate campaign - so far it seems to be getting some results. I'd say he has a legitimate shot, but he had better have a sizeable enough advantage to offset the voter fraud he will encounter in King County..
What flavor is yours?
"...so he won't sell out this country like he is apparently doing..."
Case in point. Saying that just makes you look stupid KS. Are you stupid?
"Bush is a RINO - ..."
What, compared to you? Hah! You're sounding more like Liberal~John all the time...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2006 01:22 PMIt is not important that you agree with me about Bush's policy on the borders and in Iraq, but that you have a rational reason if you disagree. If you make an argument, I can respond with a counter argument, but statements are not arguments and sweeping indictments of Bush on specific issues without reasoning is nonsense born of hateful ignorant prejudice. Not worth the effort it takes to express.
I am being objective as well as consistent. We are not talking about “Republicans” here, but our discussion of McGavick and politics. Why do you say nothing about your comments playing directly into our enemy’s designs? If my reasoning in the place of your empty statements is what you call “cool aid drinking,” this is understandable. It is also a clear distinction between McGavick and Cantwell, reason and nonsense.
Your statement that it ”is important to voice dissatisfaction with the President's policies on immigration - so he won't sell out this country like he is apparently doing” is ham-fisted prevarication in substitution for stating a claim. It is the rhetorical equivalent of arguing that you should think before you speak rather than rape your brother’s dog who is also your podiatrist or scrap your Volkswagen. Nonsensical.
Just as twisted and desultory is the idea that Tom Tancredo's take on illegal immigration is good because Bush is a RINO, because his spending policies will eventually hurt our economy, unless the rising deficit is reversed. Unless you are reliant on clichés', why not take on one subject at a time and make some sense out of it? I think you mean well but you need to focus. Having a substantial position based on solid evidence is hardly blind faith.
I am glad that you agree and hope that I am right about McGavick as well because I think it best.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 22, 2006 02:00 PM"Your statement that it ”is important to voice dissatisfaction with the President's policies on immigration - so he won't sell out this country like he is apparently doing” is ham-fisted prevarication in substitution for stating a claim. It is the rhetorical equivalent of arguing that you should think before you speak rather than rape your brother’s dog who is also your podiatrist or scrap your Volkswagen. Nonsensical."
I voted twice for GWB, although reluctant last time. Can you demonstrate that Pres. Bush is not what I had claimed ? I will say that your analogy is quite a stretch and out of bounds. Most any true conservative will tell you that his comprehensive immigration plan contains provisions for amnesty for illegals - the devil is in the details/check it out ! I am dissatisfied with the Senate's bill, which by the way was fine with Bush. Are you satisfied with the Senate's version (SB 2611), which would allow up to an addition 100 million + illegals in this country over the next dozen years ? The real problem is that he is not leveling with you, me or the people about what his real policy is.
Bush is a RINO compared to Reagan for one, Santorum, Gingrich and George Allen - his discretionary spending is more extravagent than most any president in the last 50 years - if you don't believe me, look it up. He is a poor communicator and does not take the offensive nearly enought against the clowns in the MSM who love to twist and distort and does not defend his Iraq policy enough, if he wants to look formidable.
You guys mean well, but you look like the fools to independents (Democrats not considered here) who once liked the President, but are distancing themselves from him because of his policies. If you can't handle the truth that there are some problems with the current President that may be able to be resolved through persuasion by the conservative element, your attitudes aren't any better than the enemy within (the left).
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2006 05:34 PM
You really need to focus and deal with the discussion.
You have not challenged my beliefs, but merely made statements of disorganized opinions. As I told you earlier, statements are not arguments and your sweeping indictments are only hateful ignorant prejudice. If you have a claim to make. . . make it . . . Piling multiple conclusions based on nonsense is not making a claim but proffering mere confused unfocused opinions. It’s the same as telling everyone what your favorite color is and stating that you challenged their beliefs.
You say ”I voted twice for GWB, although reluctant last time. Can you demonstrate that Pres. Bush is not what I had claimed ?” I am left by your doggerel to assume that you mean to ask me if I think that you should have voted for Bush and if he is a “RINO.” Republican in name only is a foolish construct to begin with because the Republican Party has long been the bigger and more ideologically tolerant tent. No. Bush is not a RINO any more than you are because you lack the nuance to understand and put Bush’s policies into perspective.
The fact that you voted for Bush twice motivated by the same incapacity to reason that you demonstrate now, only shows that you are neither a smart nor a consistent person. Bush said what he would do and he is doing it. You say SB 2611 Senate Immigration Reform Bill ”will allow 100 million illegal aliens into this country over the next dozen years.” This is plain stupid and false and it shows how easily persuaded of utter nonsense you are.
Then you say that:
”by the way [this bill] was fine with Bush.” This is B.S., based on what?
”Bush is a RINO compared to Reagan for one, Santorum, Gingrich and George Allen.” Pinheaded crap, based on what?
”[Bush’s] discretionary spending is more extravagant [sic] than most any president in the last 50 years” Based on what?
When you say these things it shows that you are buying into the half baked claims of liberals who cannot substantiate anything except their own willingness to lie.
Cite any source of information that substantiates any of these claims and I will show you twisted liberal prevarication based on partisan lies. BTW, given your lacking sophistication, mere opinions are not evidence.
Who's the fool?
I may look like a fool to you for any number of reasons, but I have paid you the compliment of making an argument based on solid reasoning. All you have done is to ignore solid arguments, re-state the silly nonsensical opinions of liberals, and claim them as yours. First hand liberalism is comically stupid enough, but second hand bull$hit coming from a supposed conservative is ludicrous.
Next time for the sake of consistency, I suggest you should be true to your own obviously limited capacities and vote Democrat.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 22, 2006 06:57 PM"by the way [this bill] was fine with Bush.” This is B.S., based on what?"
Go back and read what Bush said and if you find what I said to be contrary, then cite the source, otherwise your claim is baseless.
”Bush is a RINO compared to Reagan for one, Santorum, Gingrich and George Allen.” Pinheaded crap, based on what?
What I said is that Bush is more liberal than all of the politicians I just named with his fiscal policies. Come on, this is getting ridiculous - you are sounding like a Bush cool-aid drinker now. I don't think you want to come across like that. Stop being so defensive.
”[Bush’s] discretionary spending is more extravagant [sic] than most any president in the last 50 years” Based on what?"
Based on facts and statistics - go back and check, which evidentally you didn't. I stand by what I said.
"All you have done is to ignore solid arguments, re-state the silly nonsensical opinions of liberals, and claim them as yours."
I don't think you want to go there - I have heard Kirby Wilbur and Lars Larson, two conservative talk show hosts espouse these same views, with substantive evidence and have checked these out on Orbusmax.com. That is good enough for me and don't know why it wouldn't resonate with you. Go back and do some research and come back with some facts if you are going to continue to refute the above points, rather than resort to name calling - a trait of the liberals. That will never convince me or anyone else who is rational.
I'll ignore your last statement - too ridiculous to waste my time with. You are flat misunderstanding my intentions - I sure as hell am not in the same camp as John McDonald. I can go along to get along from here. This whole dialogue is going nowhere - its up to you if you want to continue it.
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2006 07:59 PMThat is the common thread running through all of Bush's policies, from immigration to Iraq.
"When someone hurts, government has got to move."
That statement alone should put paid to any notion that Bush is a conservative.
You may now proceed to call me names as well. I'd suggest "right-deviant" and "counterrevolutionary thoughtcriminal."
Posted by: ScottM on June 22, 2006 09:07 PMFor the first time you are quite right, "This whole dialogue is going nowhere." Continue it? No thanks.
I never intended to change your beliefs, only to engage you in order to find out why you say so many foolish things, and you have unwittingly but very effectively provided me with the answer. Since you “think” a dialogue consists of repeating empty lazy circular statements over and over, your intelligence is obvious. Given your responsiveness, my comments are justly contemptuous, but none are in any way defensive. Quite to the contrary, I am amused, as your "proofs" speak for themselves.
Your capacity for rational debate is equaled by the citations and veracity of the evidence you have presented here. You are quite content with that fact, and I am amused that you are content. You share a common and easy regard for the value of ideas and factual content with John McDonald as well as a sloppy irrationality and inconsistency and in these ways you are very much in his camp.
I like dealing with people like you in business because I can get over on you very easily and you never know that I did. Mostly because you are shallow enough to think those around you are as shallow as you are.
Noli mi contendre. Thanks very much for illustrating very clearly the substance of your views.
Posted by: Amused by dim witted liberals on June 22, 2006 09:52 PMWhat names would you like.
You stated your opinion and I disagree.
If you call your opinions facts as KS does, that is something else.
At least you are not claiming that Bush caused Katrina or that Senate bill 2611 will allow 100 million illegal aliens into this country over the next dozen years. If you say such things I might say you are a fool and I would be objectively correct saying so because that is what it would mean.
Wow ScottM doesn't like GW Bush. Who cares?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 22, 2006 10:01 PMWhere exactly is "there" ks? And why shouldn't I want to visit?
...I have heard Kirby Wilbur and Lars Larson, two conservative talk show hosts espouse these same views, with substantive evidence and have checked these out on Orbusmax.com."
That's rich! You actually believe that saying that someone else shares your beliefs and that gives you street cred? I listen to Kirby too, and I haven't heard the defeatist attitude that you routinely spread.
"You guys mean well, but you look like the fools to independents (Democrats not considered here)..."
Why should I give a tinker's damn what independents feeeeeel? An "independent" is coward, unable to muster the courage to make a choice. And yes, like it or not, there is a choice: vote right, vote left, or throw your vote away outright. I vote right (literally!) - it sounds like you used to vote right (although "reluctantly"). Now you're spreading gloom & doom for folks considering their next selection. I'm not. I haven't heard negativism from Amused either.
I pity your loss of nerve. Perhaps you should take up something a bit less stressful - say needlepoint.
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2006 10:48 PMI prefer Republican over Democrat, however I am disillusioned with both parties. If you would get your heads out the clouds, you would see that most Americans share my views. Call it negativism if you like, but I am trying to be realistic and both parties cater too much to special interests. Also, I did not say that Kirby Wilbur has a defeatist attitude - he is very positive, but he too realizes that Pres. Bush falls short in fiscally and on the borders and isn't afraid to stray from the so-called party line and call him on it. He also praises Bush for the war on terror and his appointments to the Supreme Court and respect his take on these issues. Scott M has some valid points about Bush that I agree with. However, Bush is not running again.
How about focusing more on the Republicans running this time around ? For instance, how about discussing the importance of the Repubs. maintaining control of the House, so that a decent Illegal immigration bill can be passed next year ? (if the Dems take over the House before the President signs the illegal immigration bill, you can kiss our sovereignty goodbye, unless the President vetoes it - which won't happen).
BTW - you should care alot about how the independents feel - the rough breakdown of party affiliation is 30% R, 30% D and 40% Independents - the Republicans need to win the Independent vote to win the election. Have a nice evening.
Posted by: KS on June 22, 2006 11:07 PMI said nothing about Kirby having a defeatist attitude dumba$$! I said you have a defeatist attitude!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 22, 2006 11:38 PMIt's true that I don't care for most of his policies and that I think he's been a fairly poor president. But that is a very different thing from disliking him.
And the 100 million figure comes from the Heritage Foundation. After the bill was amended to reduce the number of foreign helots--er, sorry, "guest workers"--they reduced the estimate to 66 million.
I haven't personally done the research necessary to defend or dispute their work, but it cannot simply be dimissed by calling it "stupid and false."
Posted by: ScottM on June 23, 2006 07:27 AM"Are you satisfied with the Senate's version (SB 2611), which would allow up to an addition 100 million + illegals in this country over the next dozen years ?"
In fact this is false. According to the same Heritage study that Scottm references, this is the number of legal immigrants that would be allowed in over the next 20 years, later amended to 66 million.
I'm not thrilled with alot of what Bush has done either, but the term "RINO" is thrown around so haphazardly these days, it has lost all its meaning. Those who think Bush is a "liberal" are deluded, and I can only posit that you would not think that if President Gore was in the White House right now, because then you would know what liberalism is.
Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2006 08:06 AM"Those who think Bush is a "liberal" are deluded...,"
No, you're deluded! NYAAAAAAHHHHH!
"...and I can only posit that you would not think that if President Gore was in the White House right now...,"
Well, I suppose if Gore were in the White House I probably wouldn't be giving two seconds thought to whether George W. Bush was a liberal. If asked, I would probably have continued to assume what I thought back in 2000: that Bush was a moderate, squishy, kinda-sorta-almost-from-the-right-angle-if-you-squint conservative.
"because then you would know what liberalism is."
No, then you'd know what radical, collectivist leftism is.
That's why I qualified my description of Bush with such words as "old-fashioned" and "moderate."
Posted by: ScottM on June 23, 2006 08:31 AM"If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States."
Now, if I read this correctly, it says:
"If enacted..."
"...allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate..."
"...to the U.S. over the next 20 years..."
Now if he wants to p!ss & moan about shoddy legislation, have at it! But he is claiming that the Senate's bill is somehow proof that Bush is a RINO. That is, to my thinking "stupid and false."
I don't grade on a curve.
I say that Bush is liberal because he believes that it is government's job to take care of people, whether those people are Americans, Mexicans, or Iraqis. Isn't that pretty much the sine qua non of modern liberalism?
Posted by: ScottM on June 23, 2006 10:19 AMI noticed the Slimes did another hit piece on McGavick today, portraying him as cozying up to business (special) interest groups to raise money, but when the topic of Cantwell's fundraising is mentioned, there is exactly one line:
"Much of Cantwell's funding is out-of-state money."
That's it.
Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2006 10:41 AM
This is what the Heritage Foundation link really said;
Soup - you did not read it correctly - you left out the part about illegal aliens would become legal through SB 2611, which is significant, as is shown by your quote below;
Now, if I read this correctly, it says:
"If enacted..."
"...allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate..."
"...to the U.S. over the next 20 years - you left out the fact that illegals would become legal with the amnesty law enacted.
OK, dude - If you are going to be so adamant about Bush being conservative when it comes to illegal immigration - why has he not done anything about the borders since 9-11 ? He loses credibility with me and many others by having done nothing. The only reason he is taking a stand on it is because the House of Reps. forced the issue with their bill earlier this year and then the Senate took it themselves. Face reality and stop whining !
" I say that Bush is liberal because he believes that it is government's job to take care of people, whether those people are Americans, Mexicans, or Iraqis. Isn't that pretty much the sine qua non of modern liberalism?"
Scott M hit it on the head and this sums up why his rating is in the low, maybe mid-30's. I hope that my criticism helps Bush become a better leader - he still has 2-1/2 years left and he can use encouragement and guidance, but if he makes bad decisions, he needs to be constructively called on it by responsible conservatives.
Getting back on topic - the Cantwell camp is getting desperate because of the latest poll. If McGavick can keep his cool, I think he can win - but Stefan/WSRP will need volunteers to monitor vote tallying at King County - I'd like to be there, like I was in 2004 - but hope to see more non-Democrats than back then.
Posted by: KS on June 23, 2006 07:26 PMThe bottom line to all of this is this: What are you doing to advance the political objectives of your party?
It is a simple question so I know you can answer it.
Please tell the audience how your p!ssing & moaning over your perceived notions of Bush's shortcomings possibly advances the agenda of Republicans (much less conservatives)? In the face of our enemies!
As much as you are entitled to your opinion about stuff - if you were talking about girls I would be tempted to tell you that you were "thinking with the head of your d!ck". You are failing into every liberal trap that comes along (and I don't mind telling you that we are all embarrassed for you!).
Let me put this as delicately as I can - if you have reservations about the upcoming race, think real hard about it and...if you don't have anything positive to say STFU!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 09:31 PMThink about what's best for the party, because I bet you'll find that, so goes the party goes the Union.
Take care,
Soup
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 09:37 PMEven the accuracy of dissimulative and phony claims are unimportant to people like KS.
What the hell KS, why not say 200 million in 5 years or 300 million in two?
Then pinheaded KS moron says ”OK, dude - If you are going to be so adamant about Bush being conservative when it comes to illegal immigration - why has he not done anything about the borders since 9-11 ?”
Bush was a little busy, and he was the President, not the King. How about the little fact that he doesn’t have the power to do anything about the borders (only Congress does) but he has been forcefully trying to persuade the Congress do many things about illegal immigration since he arrived in office. KS is too dim-witted to recognize the cultural/political war against Bush that is on-going, so he joins the liberal side because it is easy.
KS’ comments prove that he is a liberal idiot who has no understanding of the constitution or regard for the truth. His capacity for rational debate is equaled by his accuracy of citations and the veracity of the evidence he represents. Blaming immigration reform (esp. SB 2611) on Bush is a sure sign of rank stupidity and that is KS’ stock in burble.
Who needs liberal morons -- we have KS?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 23, 2006 10:42 PMYour enraged blathering only makes you sound as incoherent as a rank and file leftist troll. You throw out baseless garbage like " ”This is plain stupid and false and it shows how easily persuaded of utter nonsense you are.” At June 23, 2006 07:26 PM, KS says about his own (and the very same) citation ”if I read this correctly, it says: "If enacted..." "...allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate..." "...to the U.S. over the next 20 years . . . “ - your point is obscured by you ad-hominem attempt, yet you never say why it is utter nonsense and the point you made is weak - whether it was 103 million or 66 million - WTF - its still way too many people to effectively assimilate into this country ! I won't bother with addressing your claims that I have joined the liberal side - that is totally laughable - goofball !
For one thing, Liberals would relish 200 million illegal aliens in the next 20 or 30 years crossing the borders and the chance to expand their liberal plantation and entitlements and elect more Demoncats and watch this country go to hell. You know that and you are not so ignorant to not understand where I am going - I think you are better than that, so just take a deep breath and CHILL !
I am a conservative before being a Republican - Borders, Language and Culture - its stuff like what you wrote that gives Republicans a bad name. I have come to believe that Republicans are a whole lot better than Democrats - I want to see it stay that way. However, your ridiculous statement claiming that I don't know the constitution - because I dare to stray away from your perceived mainstream Republican lines doesn't make any sense. I know that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution really needs to be changed to delegitimize "anchor babies", but that's another story for another time.
In summary, save your vitreol up for a leftwingnut who supports Fraudoire, Cantwell, Murray or Darcy Burner - none of whom I would ever voter for by the way - or go do a frontal assault on Klownstein and the rest of those pinko clowns over at Horsea$$ - I'd even throw in a plug if you did. If anyone else would like to weigh in on this, feel free, because this dead horse has been beaten thoroughly and the road ends here.
See ya.
Being reeeeeel conservatives unlike us, KS and ScottM know all there is to know about politics from talking "with" their pet hamsters.
I am happy that people like ScottM and KS are able to say what they believe so we can be entertained by them.
BTW, no offense meant to any hamsters.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 23, 2006 11:50 PMOn this thread at June 22, 2006 05:34 PM, you asked me ”Are you satisfied with the Senate's version (SB 2611), which would allow up to an addition [sic] 100 million + illegals [sic] in this country over the next dozen years ?”
At June 22, 2006 06:57 PM on this same thread I said in response ”This is plain stupid and false and it shows how easily persuaded of utter nonsense you are.”
At June 23, 2006 07:26 PM, you KS said about your own (and the very same) citation ”if I read this correctly, it says: "If enacted..." "...allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate..." "...to the U.S. over the next 20 years . . . “
KS . . . This means you are not only an idiot who cares nothing about facts . . . but you prove that you are a liar by refusing to admit that you completely misrepresented facts ---- even when you were caught dead to rights. Conservative?? Not.
Admitting that your cite was incorrect would have been honest, admitting that the phony statistic you cited is stupid and baseless would have been much better. You do neither because you are a shameless liar.
You talk about Republican morons, you don't know the first thing about the Constitution let alone the 14th amendment and prove it with your idiotic comment.
If you hired a peanut (or John McDonald) to advise your comments they would be no sillier but possess the same authority.
Keep running your idiot liberal crap.
See ya.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 24, 2006 12:38 AMks: You seemed to have mixed my post to you with Amused's. I pointed out the disparity of your claim to the facts displayed in the story. Your spin on it is so extreme that one could only attribute one of two possible conclusions - either you indulged in hysterical hyperbole, or you are a liar (who got caught). Which is it?
Since you read my post (and plucked a portion of it to pretend to bash Amused) why didn't you answer my question - How do you hope to advance the interests of Conservatism by bashing and disparaging its representatives? In what way does that possibly make us better?
Amused: You're over the top dude. I don't think ks is a bad guy, just confused.
scottm: You're not helping anything. Try a piece of STFU....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2006 08:51 AMAS, your wit and sagacity cut me to the quick.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 09:48 AMWithdraw your application for my complimentary membership in your liberal butt-sniffer's society . . . moron.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 24, 2006 09:52 AMSo if it makes you feel a little better about your intellectual capacity, you go right ahead and call me names. I can take it.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 10:03 AMThe answer is that KS belives that he is a reeeel conservative who knows the truth. KS never developed any critical thinking skills or capacity for reasoning and the result is a conservative who functions like a liberal -- completely on the surface of things, and never engaging any substance. Look at the dialogue here . . . you will find that he engaged no factual argument . . . he just repeated circular statements masquerading as claims in the smug assumption that he was making an argument. KS will niether advance or detract from the interests of Conservatism or liberalism one bit because he is a witless fool. As always, he will be a petty novelty of inconsistent ungrounded statements and lazy illogic punctuating an otherwise reasonable surrounding dialogue and debate.
In essence, KS and ScottM are one and the same, liberals without a cause except to hate GW Bush for nonsensical reasons. The left is destroying itself by using the same idiotic insanity that KS uses to attack GW Bush. Starting out ScottM recognized his limitations by expressing his moron opinion without citing idiotic whacko leftist nonsense. His schtick now is to pretend that his superiority lies in his complete lack of any point.
Neither can make an argument about anything if their lives depend on it, and neither has any real point except to say that McGavick is or isn't something or other because they hate GW Bush.
This tactic will backfire again in the up coming elections and the fact that they employ the hodge podge of idiocy and incapacity for reasoning displayed here is reason to believe that conservatism is well contrasted by their liberal function-after-formula foolishness.
Hey guys, how about that McGavick? . . . oh yeah gee whiz right, I hate Bush too wheeeeeee.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 24, 2006 10:22 AMLiberal, Amused? I'm a liberal because I criticize Bush for being too liberal? Where are you from, Bizarro World?
It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to distinguish between disagreement and hatred. For you, after all, there doesn't seem to be a difference.
So it probably won't do any good to tell you that I don't hate Bush; I merely disagree with his political views and policies. It really is possible, you know.
As for McGavick, I'm going to vote for him, and I've got one of his signs in my yard. I'm not excited about McGavick; I'd prefer a principled conservative to a moderate "problem solver" (which I suppose is just more evidence that I'm a liberal). But the alternative is Maria Cantwell, so I'm for McGavick.
I also donated some of these buttons to his local campaign office (sorry for the self-promotion, but they do serve to make a point):
http://www.etsy.com/view_item.php?listing_id=265745
http://www.etsy.com/view_item.php?listing_id=274849
Check out the rest of my shop, and you'll see that the only Democrat I am promoting is Joe Lieberman, on the grounds that America needs sane Democrats.
Not that I expect any of this to penetrate the armor of ignorance with which you clothe yourself.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 11:16 AMI actually am enjoying this juncture - it is serving to separate the wheat from the chaff (so to speak). American politics is a two-party system. Dhimmicrat for the left, Republican for the right (everything else is lunatic-fringe and irrelevant). The Republican Party is the representational voice of Conservatives, whether you like it or not. If you like it, for God's sake support it! If you don't like it, work to change it from within the system. Anything else and you earn my contempt.
ks and scottm and Liberal~John have set upon a "thousand little cuts" stratagem that serves no practical purpose than to damage the Republican Party. (I should note at this point that I hold some small belief that they are just very inept articulators only matched by their false pride that prevents them from backing down from their stupid and foolish statements).
It is good to cull the lame and insane as early as possible and to that end this has been a productive session. Going forward I won't have to waste energy wondering WTF they meant with their inanities - it's just the stuff of incontinent morons!
Thanks guys!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2006 11:22 AMI wear your contempt as a badge of honor. If I ever earn your respect, for God's sake please don't tell me.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 11:56 AMA parasitic whore who sells crappy trinkets on the Internet?! Not bloody likely!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2006 12:00 PMAs I told KS earlier, it is not important that you agree with me about Bush's policies, but that you have a rational reason if you disagree. If you make an argument, I can agree or respond with a counter argument. Statements are not arguments, and sweeping indictments of Bush on specific issues without reasoning is nonsense born of hateful ignorant prejudice. While it is simply worthless nonsense, it is considered factual by liberals.
You say that "Bush is liberal because he believes that it is government's job to take care of people, whether those people are Americans, Mexicans, or Iraqis."
This STATEMENT is acceptable as a matter of mere shallow opinion but nothing more. Standing alone it is utter foolishness. If you are so indolent and "bizarro worldly" that you would hitch your wagon to KS' bag of nonsense . . . what would you call that . . . reasoning? Conservative?
You may be a conservative who is off your oatmeal or taking meds for some reason, but stupid is as stupid does. I don't like everything Bush does either but I would never claim that it means that he believes that it is government's job to take care of everyone. There is no evidence that this statement is factually true or -- as a conservative -- you might have presented some, any.
Anyone can claim to be anything. Your claiming to be a conservative while espousing liberal ideas is true "bizarro world" stuff. Personally, I couldn’t care less about your politics, but I do find your insensibility to reason amusing.
BTW, if you want to talk like a liberal and vote Republican -- that’s fine with me. I imagine there will be a lot more of that happening as the idiotic statements people like you make are dismissed by more and more people especially liberals weary of stupid liberalism.
If this meant anything, I'd be very offended.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 12:35 PMNo mater how vehemently you disagree with me, is that really anything to throw such a fit about?
Hell, AS sounds like a damned Marxist. I'm a "parasitic whore" because I sell things? How can one relatively innocuous comment drive you so insane with rage that you'll say anything that comes into your head, as long as it's a way to insult me?
I doubt very much you'll think about any of this, of course, but I thought I'd try.
You may now resume your childish shrieking.
Posted by: ScottM on June 24, 2006 01:30 PMThe fact that it's meaning escapes you is the whole point.
Thanks for making my case.
Now you use some truly classic liberal projection.
All you did was say that Bush is a liberal, and all I said in return was "You stated your opinion and I disagree.".
Otherwise, I left you alone until you interposed support of KS and his idiotic liberal nonsense.
No one is shreiking or vehemently disagreeing with you, just pointing out that when you make worthless nonsensical comments, and consider them factual as liberals do, you are acting like a liberal idiot.
Your testament that the nexus between stupidity and liberalism means nothing to you, establishes that you are a liberal idiot.
Nicely done.
No you liberal dumbass! It's because you leach off of the trademarked icons of others. Do you have permission to sell any of your crap?
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2006 03:16 PMDo you have permission to sell any of your crap?
If my question sounds "furious" to you then just pretend that I am asking it nicely O.K.?
Do you have permission to sell any of your crap?
Posted by: Amused by ScottM on June 24, 2006 05:22 PM