1. It seems to me that Ms. Moats declared her candidacy to make a point, that point being that Mr. Roulstone, as a candidate, does not fully represent her viewpoint on social issues. Those issues, including abortion and homosexual marriage, are important to many citizens, including myself. I'm weary of holding my nose as I cast votes for "moderate" Republican candidates. Perhaps Mr. Roulstone needs to reconsider his stance on social issues, rather than pander to a liberal votor bloc.

What's YOUR stance on social issues, Eric?

Posted by: Saltherring on August 7, 2006 05:23 AM

2. salty, her own husband didn't know she was running. How can the campaign have any credibility?

And no, Eric, this doesn't sound like an example of the "eat your young" philosophy you and Tim Goddard so despise. This is way, way too weird or "curious" as Cornfield says.

Posted by: swatter on August 7, 2006 06:51 AM

3. Salt -

They are important to many citizens, but the entire circumstances of the filing are odd. Everthing I've seen doesn't indicate Roulstone is choosing to "pander to a liberal voter block." Moreover, even if he was, if the goal is to elevate visibility of one's issues it would have made sense to run a campaign against Roulstone much earlier since getting into a Congressional race this late in the race only serves to harm the eventual primary winner, rather than create some sort of serious debate.

Moreover, whatever issues are motivating Mrs. Moats isn't the point. Whatever those issues are, and whether people agree or disagree with them, she is making a political point with this odd filing. And that point is foolish.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 7, 2006 07:23 AM

4. Swatter,

I agree, she should have illicited agreement from her husband before filing.

Eric,

What I read in her filing is frustration with Republican candidates who "walk the fence" on social issues in an attempt to establish credibility with differing party factions on those issues.

And yes, it is an odd way to make a point, but I do not agree that it is foolish. Some people's moral values ARE important enough for them to be the primary issue in deteriming which candidate to vote for.

Posted by: Saltherring on August 7, 2006 08:03 AM

5. I don't even know this new candidate. But as someone who has tangled with you on this kind of stuff, Eric, here's what I think. I don't think this late filing is going to have any impact on Roulstone's campaign. In the primary, she'll get maybe a couple of thousand votes if she has a no-nonsense hard hitting statement in the voter pamphlet. (This is what Brad Klippert did in '04) But Roulstone will still win the primary, and then he will be the only Republican for voters to choose in the general.

I don't think Roulstone has pandered to left. Do I believe he should have a stronger campaign on social issues? Yes. And I think he could do a little more thinking on them and refining his position on them too. But, I think that Roulstone is a genuinly good guy. Unlike McGavick, I think when push comes to shove, he'll do the right thing in office. I've even volunteered on his campaign, because I have a good sense about him, though he's not my perfect candidate.

I heard all of the buzz about this late filing of the opponent a couple of weekends ago, and I just couldn't see what all of these people are so upset over. When you have or are a great candidate, you should welcome competition, not fear it. Welcome a debate on the issues, because your ideas are superior to your opponents. Or are they? And if you've run a strong campaign, what have you got to fear if an opponent files late with no money and no campaign?

Posted by: Michelle on August 7, 2006 08:17 AM

6. Tim and Eric fall all over themselves to support the "moderate" candidate of the pragmatic GOP left in virtually every case. Being further left is being "more viable" to that crowd. They misrepresent anyone who won't support a liberal Republican as a "purist." They claim, very erroneously, that conservatives demand 100% agreement. But the fact is, if anyone who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend, then by the same logic anyone who disagrees with me 80% of the time is NOT! Some Republicans, Sam Reed, for instance, disagree 100% of the time. Eric, however, in stark contrast to the grassroots, PREFERS liberals.

Doug Roulstone ain't like that.
I predict, with any time in office, Doug will be doing things, like John Koster's opposition to government promotion of homosexuality, that Eric doesn't agree with.

Doug faced the Reagan Wing for extensive questioning and is, clearly, very sincere, genuine, and conservative in his heart though new to the political scene. He is that extremely rare (and usually temporary) animal that is actually personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. It is a form of cognitive dissonance that normally cannot last, because the unborn child is either a human being (as Doug believes) or it isn't and either should be protected (which Doug hasn't yet decided) or it shouldn't. If it is like an appendix, just a body part, why be pro-life, even personally? If it is like a newborn, a person, how can you allow other people to kill it?
There is a ratcheting logic to this that can't be escaped. Many people just haven't taken the time to do the thinking. Others are so heartless or incapable of reason that they never will.
Still others, particularly deceptiCon Republicans, are just plain lying about their position on life. They know they lose credibility with the base of a pro-life Party and are trying to minimize the damage. My guess is that Mrs. Moats, not knowing him, thinks Roulstone is that kind. I agree with Michelle. She can't possibly do any damage. I think Eric is just trying to besmirch and stereotype social conservatives.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 7, 2006 02:34 PM

7. Thanks again for bringing that up when you and Phil went McGavick bashing on the Goldstien Show last night. Why should anyone who is "in the fight" listen to you or Phil when you go on that POS's (Goldstiens) show and bad-mouths the ONLY viable candidate opposing Cantwell?

Roulstone is a good guy and i hope that he wins, can you say the same for McGavick? Because in this race if you are against him you ARE for Cantwell.

Posted by: Huh? on August 7, 2006 05:07 PM

8. For once I think Michelle and I are largely in agreement on a couple points. I agree on her general assessment of Roulstone and agree that Mrs. Moats' impact is likely to be minimal, assuming she runs a relatively non-existent campaign. Her comments in the Herald, however, seemed to indicate otherwise which is where my trepidation comes from since if she does wage a campaign, it would have been more sensible much earlier in the campaign season.

Meanwhile, Huh? @ 7 raises a great point about about Goldy hosting Phil and Doug (though Goldy's site only notes Phil) on his radio show. That's like me having a radio show and inviting Goldy on to discuss how Tim Eyman can revitalize his career. Pure comedy.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 7, 2006 06:19 PM

9. It's about time that politicians are held accountable for their votes.

You sound to me a pure party hack, Eric, who would be supporting Maria Cantwell, despite her voting record, if she was only a Democrat.

We have too many RINOS in office already. If she can take the Republican Mask off this guy in the primary, perhaps people will stay home in the general, weakening the power of the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State.

What good is a Republican win, if they they become the politicians we claim that we hate? If they are just like the Democrats, then what's the point?

Anyone who can't stand firm on the critical family issues of the day doesn't deserve to be elected. Sure money and business is important, but more important is family.

Posted by: J.J on August 7, 2006 06:32 PM

10. McGavick has too many negatives especially his SAFECO background.

He will lose like Nethercutt did. He will do better than Nethercutt, but he will still lose.

Posted by: J.J. on August 7, 2006 06:36 PM

11. Right...who could possibly want to support someone who made the tough decisions and turned around a major Seattle Corporation as CEO when they could have a talentless Democratic hack hired by Realnetworks to lobby her government buddies. Gee that is a tough call.

Posted by: Huh? on August 7, 2006 06:47 PM

12. Eric @ #8: Just letting you know that the Michelle you discuss is not THIS Michele (I'm the one with only ONE "L", who usually posts comments here).

Totally confused now?

Posted by: Michele on August 7, 2006 07:23 PM

13. Michele @ 12 - Nope. I can tell by your respective email addresses and often by the comments themselves. But thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 7, 2006 07:35 PM

14. To Huh(?): Roulstone agrees with me 90% of the time. McGavick disagrees with me at least 80% of the time. He is not a social conservative. He is not a fiscal conservative. And he is not a foreign policy conservative. He agrees with the war on terror (for now) but endorses the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill on alien invasion. He is pro abortion (politically) And a Constitutional liberal. Even knowing her record he would confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. He helped Slade sabotage Robert Bork and the Freedom Fighters in Nicaragua, thumbing his nose at Ronald Reagan. He is running a Mathew Lesko campaign on TV RIGHT NOW promising the Federal Government as a catch-all problem solver. You say he "made the tough decisions and turned around a major Seattle Corporation as CEO" but it is clear you don't know the inside story. Just because he made a company profitable doesn't mean he did it ethically. He didn't. And I'm not talking about just firing people. It may well come out and, if it does, this campaign is over. People who consider voting for him deserve to hear the truth, but his slipery, evasive dissimulation on abortion is a very good example of how the McGavick campaign has labored hard to obscure the truth.
NEVERTHELESS, I said nothing about him on the radio last night. Nothing. Don't tell lies. I support Brad Klippert. If you are agaisnt Brad Klippert you are for Cantwell. I am not against McGavick because I particularly don't want to be blamed for his loss. I haven't told anyone not to vote for McGavick. I have told people that honestly had been decieived into thinking he was pro-life to quit spreading that deception.
JJ: Roulstone is not a Mainstreamer. He is far to the right of Eric and Timothy and... well most of the Soundpolitics bloggers. He reminds me of a Congressional candidate in the same district I worked for in the late '80s and early '90s also from the Navy and also named Doug; A conservative thinker that had never really considered the Life issue. But being a good man and logical he eventually became a pro-life radical like the rest of us conservatives. I think Roulstone may well do the same thing.
Yes, Eric, I agree with you about the radio. If you had a show it would be pure comedy.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 7, 2006 07:38 PM

15. Eric,

On our rare agreement: A blind hog can catch an acorn sometimes. But if you agree with me, then explain the nature of your post. So what if she runs a campaign this late in the game?! The way I see it, maybe she'll convince Roulstone of the need to protect pre-born children in our laws. Is that what you're worried about? I welcome the debate!

Oh and you already do go on liberal blogs and bash Tim Eyman and you do it here too. So you better be careful in that glass house of yours.

Posted by: Michelle on August 7, 2006 08:12 PM

16. If you lie down with Goldy, you are going to get fleas. I had a family member working for Safeco during the turnaround so I guess you would have the superior knowledge on the "inside scoop" there. Being for the Klippert/Cantwell ticket must mean YOU are for the Democrats holding on to the Senate seat, Goldy would not have had you on otherwise. Good luck to you and Phil, I can't say I know very many people who would agree with your positions but I respect your right to voice them.

Posted by: Huh? on August 7, 2006 08:57 PM

17. Michelle @ 15 - My original post never said Roulstone was greatly threatened by her candidacy, though it could be problematic. The main point was I think the candidacy as it has been handled is foolish. I don't have a problem with the debate, I think the timing isn't constructive in this case coming so late in the campaign cycle. I don't think that was difficult to understand. As such, I was simply agreeing with your assessment of what would happen if Teri Moats didn't run a campaign besides a voter pamphlet statement.

Also, that's news to me I'm posting at liberal blogs. I assume you’re referring to a brief comment at Postman's blog where he was discussing a radio interview between Eyman and John Carlson. I noted I heard the conversation in question and it was tense. If you feel that constitutes Eyman bashing at a liberal blog then be my guest.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 7, 2006 09:43 PM

18. Yet, all appearances are this is just the kind of candidacy that warms the hearts of ideologues, but does nothing to achieve a Republican victory in November...Will her candidacy raise awareness of the issue(s) she cares about? Yes. Will it distract from Doug Roulstone's generally solid effort? Yes as well. Will it thus help defeat Rick Larsen in the general election? Not in the least.

These comments sound as if you considered her somewhat of a threat. But it's not unlike you to deny the transparent meaning of your own comments in black and white.

Speaking of which, yes, I'm talking about your comments at Postman's blog (where Eyman is regularly bashed). The thread was largely about your post here being an example of Republicans who have contempt for Tim Eyman, including the contempt displayed in the John Carlson interview with him. And your comment about the "intensity" of the interview with Carlson was piling on to all of the negativity already there, while adding NOTHING positive about him. When conservatives go on liberal blogs and liberal radio shows, it's to promote or debate conservative ideas. You went there and agreed with the liberals. Do you figure you'll get a few extra votes that way? You do it regularly here and call yourself an "out of the box conservative". Michael Hood of Blatherwatch paid you a compliment in asserting that "Stefan Sharkansky" is a pseudonym for "Eric Earling". I'm beginning to wonder if "Eric Earling" is a pseudonym for "Michael Hood".

As for the interview with Goldy, Phil was invited as a guest on the show. He confidently promoted conservative ideas in a liberal environment. He acurately asserted that the party (specifically KCGOP and the candidacy of Mike McGavick) is driving away its base.

Doug called in when Goldy started to take calls. Doug said NOTHING about McGavick.

Posted by: Michelle on August 7, 2006 11:21 PM

19. The more I read of Doug Roulstone the more I wish he was running in the 6th so I could vote for him. As for McGavick, I will hold my nose as I vote for another Rino as the lesser of two evils. McGavick reminds me of Gorton, Evans and rest of the milque toast, limp-wristed moderates the Say WA Republican Party dumps on us. Once in D.C., they look and sound just like the rest, watching the ebb and flow of the opinion polls before forming an "opinion". As a moral, fiscal and foreign policy conservative, I'm still looking for another Rossi to run against the likes of Cantwell. I'm won't be holding my breath, however.

Posted by: Saltherring on August 8, 2006 05:43 AM

20. Lets see now Phil's (noted McGavick opponent)an invited guest on a ultra left wing, socialist show and Doug manages to slip through the screeners and be on during the segment. Coup for Goldy, Republicans who hate Republicans, maybe he will make it a regular feature. What purpose did this little adventure into progressive land serve? I didn't hear any engagement on the issues, Goldy wasn't challenged by either Phil or Doug. You folks are free to support which ever candidate you want, but the reality is that you would rather sit out and whine than have a change from Democratic control of the Senate seat.

Posted by: Huh? on August 8, 2006 07:34 AM

21. I didn't get half these comments. Who is Phil? Owngoal can't get anyone else, so what is wrong with Phil (whoever he is) getting a little face time at his expense. Owngoal had him on to promote Owngoal's objective which is to lose McGavick.

We, in this State, have a tough road to hoe and eating the young is not a good path. You all have to admit that the laidback Puget Sound region is liberal. Because of that, you aren't going to get more than one conservative in higher office per generation as Governor or Senator.

Dixie Lee, as crude and rude as she was, was the last conservative and there ain't been another since then.

Every other pretender to that office has been hammered at the polls. Get a few liberal Rs in office first and then work from there. You want what you want now and you have no patience. Hey, wait a minute, you sound like a liberal!! Think about it!!

Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2006 07:39 AM

22. I heard this woman on Thor Tolo's radio show today (AM 820 for those not familiar with his PM drivetime show) and I guess she isn't campaigning until she finishes building her house, or something like that. She seems to be going out of her way to SOUND like an unserious candidate, even. I'm sorry but she sounded kinda flaky even if she IS sincere.

Posted by: Michele on August 8, 2006 07:27 PM

23. Once again social nut jobs are attempting to say that anyone who is a true conservative should not run as a Republican. I am too old to even attempt to be kind to people who have taken a truly conservative party (read Republicans of the 40s, 50s, and 60s) and turned it into a laughing stalk. We need people who want to keep the government out of our pocket books AND out of our lives. That is not the place of government and until crack pots like Craswell, Williams, et al rode into town it was not the place of the Republican party. Oh, what happened to the GOP of my youth? And by the way, what happened to candidates who could win state wide? The truth is conservatives, such as Gorton, Eikenberry and other winners were not personally in favor of abortions, they simply abhored a politicians whom believed they had the right to play thought police. And they won!

Posted by: The Duke on August 14, 2006 01:55 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?