Per my pledge in this post discussing the fall-out of the Connecticut Senatorial primary, here is the first major poll out since that election.
Short story: Lieberman 46%, Lamont, 41%, Schlesinger 6%. The broader discussion at the link is worth reading as well given the interesting content, including Lamont having a not so good "19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable" rating right after his primary victory.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 12, 2006 01:53 PM | Email ThisNo doubt this will be a tough race for either candidate if Lieberman stays in it, which I think he will given his huge ego.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 12, 2006 02:06 PMLieberman wins in Nov. and Lamont will extend the nutroots o-fer record.
Posted by: Misty on August 12, 2006 02:21 PMHalf (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.
Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.
Over at HA Goldy is gleefully describing Lamont as a "centrist", (do I know these people, or what?).
Lamont got the nomination courtesy of the far left of Sharpton, Jackson, and Kim Gandy, all of whom appeared with him at his victory podium. I still chuckle every time I picture them all standing up there.
If the Dems think they can make this fall's campaign a referendum on the War on Terror all I can say is "go for it!"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 02:24 PMQuoting from a Washington Post article from today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101528.html):
The most difficult group to pin down is the unaffiliated voters [in Connecticut], who shift between Republican and Democratic candidates, usually following national trends.
Polls show that over the course of this year, Lieberman has lost ground with the group, mainly over his war position. According to a July Quinnipiac University poll, more than two-thirds of unaffiliated voters in Connecticut believe that the war is wrong and want U.S. troops withdrawn.
"That's a potentially large group that could begin pulling away from Lieberman," said Scott L. McLean, who chairs Quinnipiac's department of political science. "They seem to go where the center is, and in Connecticut that's antiwar. My guess is they'll break to Lamont before this is over."
This race is far from a done deal.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 12, 2006 02:36 PMDaniel K whips out his patented ego measuring device.
It's always fascinating to watch how fast Liberals are willing to flush their "friends" once their usefulness has past. I especially loved hearing Lamont's campaign manager calling Lieberman supporters scum. All this love for a guy that voted the party line 90% of the time. Liberals once again prove their moniker of "Tolerance and Diversity" is nothing more then psychotic delusion.
Posted by: swassociates on August 12, 2006 02:39 PMInterestingly, the intern said he could FEEL the evil in the room. I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about what that evil was. Very, very interesting.
Posted by: Misty on August 12, 2006 02:55 PM"[unaffiliated voters] seem to go where the center is, and in Connecticut that's antiwar."
Lamont's stance on the Iraq war is where the Connecticut center is. You may not think that is the case, but in the rest of the country the majority of people believe the Iraq war has been a mistake (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) and that we need to start reorganizing where we are placing our troops, and bring many of those in Iraq home or moving them elsewhere (like Afghanistan).
That's certainly not what these polls numbers reflect.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 03:00 PMOverall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.
Regardless of how voters feel about the war it comes down to a matter of trust. Maybe you're too young but I remember what happened to George McGovern under very similar circumstances.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 03:12 PMIsn't that what We want?
I can't undersand why any Republican would want Lieberman to win since a Lieberman lost will totally destroy Democratic chances in 2008.
Any Republican who wants Lieberman to win betrays the Republican Party.
Was Dan Evans good or bad for the Republican Party? More importantly, was Dan Evans good or bad for Conservatives WITHIN the Republican party?
A "Lieberman Republican" is exactly NOT what the Republicans need in the state of Washington today. The sad fact is that the lesser of two evils in this campaign unfortunately really is Cantwell. For as bad as she is, she has no influence within the Republican Party in Washington State like McGavick would have.
Posted by: Betty on August 12, 2006 03:19 PMKlink! Here's hoping you are a Democratic Party strategist!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 03:26 PMI just can't bring myself to vote for a "Lieberman Republican" knowing how a McGavick win will allow the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State to further drive true conservatives out of influential positions in the party replacing them with "Lieberman Republicans".
This party control will give the Mainstream Republicans a total Veto on who gets to be the party's nominee on every state house race, every state senate race, on every Congressional Race, on every Governor's race, etc... It will mean that there will never again be conservative Republicans elected in this state ANYWHERE.
Sorry, with that much at stake, Cantwell is "the lesser of two evils".
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 03:33 PMAfter all further kookification of the Democratic Party could only help Republicans.
Why is it that Leftist Republicans go on and on about the 11th Commandment and how important it is to support Republicans Regardless of where they stand but violates all that as soon as a conservative they don't like runs?
And, was Eikenberry really THAT conservative anyway? I didn't think he was. But that didn't stop Mainstreamers from coming out in the newspaper supporting Lowry.
Well, Sid Morrison got his job with the Lowry adminstration by turning his supporter's list over the the Lowry campaign after the primary, so stabbing Republicans in the back sure worked for him.
Let's see how well it will work for McGavick with his backstabbing endorsement of Lieberman.
Posted by: Sue on August 12, 2006 03:43 PMI happen to have some friends in Conn. that are moderate Dem's. They all say that although they do not think going to Iraq was the right choice they feel that leaving now would be a bigger mistake.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 12, 2006 04:10 PMBill - Extrapolate all you like about what this war will produce in the November election outcomes as compared to Vietnam and 1972 results, but that doesn't change my point regarding the Iraq war and how it is not the same as the "War on Terror", and that a poll question about one doesn't infer the same response on the other.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 12, 2006 04:26 PMThanks Eric! More's the pity that whoever this is finds it too difficult to simply participate in the give and take of the discussion honestly.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 04:42 PMI do not care what you may think because my words are words of truth and people will remember them, if not now, then if McGavick gets elected they will look back and see how true these words were.
Just get involved in a few political campaigns and you will begin to have the same sediments regarding the Left Wing of the Republican Party in Washington State that I do.
That is unless you are an Evanite. If that is the case I only have disdain for you.
How could the Mainstreamers choose Mike Lowry over Ken Eikenberry?
How can they now justify a Republican candidate now coming out endorsing a very liberal democrat (on practically every issue except for the war on terror)?
These are legitimate questions, and these questions will not go away.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 05:50 PMGo Lieberman.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 12, 2006 06:04 PMKookify the Democratic Party Even Further.
A Lamont Win is Good for Republicans. Any "Republican" who would endorse and/or support Liberal (Except the Iraq War) Lieberman proves that they aren't really a Republican except in Name Only.
Go Cantwell. I hate saying that but at least a Cantwell win will not give her any influence in the Washington State Republican Party like a McGavick win would give him.
I don't want the Washington State Republican Party controlled by "Lieberman Republicans".
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 06:11 PMIf I was a Connecticut resident, he would get my right wing vote way sooner than any fringe 'R' candidate with no chance of winning. God forbid the WSRP being run by crazy kooks like you!!! That's all we need...
Steve-o, alcohol and pain pills are a dangerous mix... come back when you're sober.
Posted by: Mark J on August 12, 2006 06:35 PMWatching the "nutty progressives" delude themselves provides lots of harmless enjoyment.
Icing on the cake here in my opinion was Cantwell's instant endorsement of Lamont. Oops.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 12, 2006 06:36 PMAnyway, The way I look at this it is truly a brilliant political move by Mike McGavick. He has said that he wants to go to the Senate to bring back civil debate and stop the partisan bickering and actually solve problems. This is a great first step to proving that point. By endorsing Liberman he is showing that he would rather have someone who he could actually work with in the Senate than some left winger who is a one issue canidate (cut and run) with no real solutions.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 12, 2006 06:41 PMYeah, but on practically every other issue Lieberman has been a diehard Liberal.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 06:53 PMYou make that very valid comment regarding RINOs in the US Senate.
But then you go on and say...
Let's Elect Our Own RINO to the US Senate.
Schizpophrenia?
Look in the Mirror!
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 06:56 PM
Maybe we can rename the McGavick Campaign "the Blair Switch Project".
If you liked Gorton and if you loved Evans, then McGavick is your Man.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 07:56 PMIt worked for Sid Morrison when he gave his mailing list to the Lowry campaign after losing to Ken Eikenberry.
Perhaps that is what McGavick was thinking. Pehaps even he knows his campaign has little chance of success.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 08:04 PMWhat's McGavick's position on the War on Terror in general and the Iraq War in specific?
I mean an exact quote from him. Not what you might think it is but something you can document as coming directly from him.
Vote for Mike McGavick.
Get Tony Blair.
Those who think we need a "Lieberman Republican" elected to the US Senate are the same "Republicans" who voted for Mike Lowry instead of Ken Eikenberry.
Same "Republicans" who thought that Dan Evans was a great Republican.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 08:18 PMNot surprising, since we don't really know much about McGavick's positions on most any issue.
Except that he is endorsed by McCann and is endorsing a Liberal Democrat for Senate.
I can see why some "Republicans" would want to support him. They are probably the same people who endorsed Mike Lowry over Ken Eikenberry and helped Sid Morrison get a job in his adminstration.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 08:25 PMEric and Stefan are gracious enough not to ban a POS like you, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't make fun of you...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 12, 2006 08:33 PMHe was a Evanite too. Actually he was their rising star.
What ever happened to Ted? He had such a promising political future ahead of him. He worked for Dan Evans. He was his fair-head boy.
And he had 'great ideas'. That is what fellow Mainstreamer Granddaddy Ralph Munroe had to say about him.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 08:39 PMThey love to bicker amongst themselves, and hear themselves repeat the same talking points over and over again....
You will feel right at home there!!!
Yes, though I'm getting close. But since, Alphabet and others are wiping the floor with Steve/Betty/Sue I'll leave it be.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 12, 2006 08:54 PMSteve and I aren't the same people and I don't think I know him. He's doing what I always do wrong and that's equate Republicans with Conservatives. Bush, Sid Morrison, D. Reichert type Republicans have nothing to do with conservatives it just the marketing "Brand Identity" to get elected.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 12, 2006 08:57 PMAnd Steve, here are just a few McGavick quotes on the War on Terrorism (which does include the Iraq war whether you like it or not):
"It is imperative that we support American troops fighting in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in other terrorist hotbeds."
"Iraqis must have a fair chance at democracy.
We cannot retreat from our moral obligation to finish the job of helping Iraq achieve its goal of a democratic government. To do less is to allow evil to succeed and to put our own security in danger. "
"U.S. forces should come home from Iraq when the job is finished. Setting a politically driven timetable for troop withdrawal gives the advantage to America's terrorist enemies."
There you go.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 12, 2006 09:31 PMHe will get all wobbly-kneed just like the Republicans in the Senate Mark J. was talking about.
Of course, we will most likely never know because it is far more likely that he will be working for Lieberman this time next year.
Hey, True, since you are so good finding quotes please find one now regarding Reichert and the Terrorist attack on the Jewish Federation.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 09:43 PMhere is the link and the quote
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_072906WABshootingDSRL.94583.html
Rep. Dave Reichert (WA-08)
"The services the Jewish Federation provides ensure the continued good health, prosperity and peace of our entire community in Seattle and the Northwest. The Jewish Federation serves not only the Jewish community, but all of us. Their contributions are selfless, substantial and unique. I am grateful to them for their work and am honored to support them as a Member of Congress. It is a tremendous tragedy that those in our community who work to better the lives of others have become the target of deadly violence today.
"I am deeply saddened by the loss of life and by this attack. Our community was attacked by someone wishing to wreak havoc and violence among good and peaceful citizens, causing the loss of one life and leaving many people injured. On Sunday, I attended a rally with thousands of Israel's supporters that the Jewish Federation sponsored. We stood together in support of Israel and its quest for peace. I stand with them today in their sorrow and grief. I pray for the speedy healing of the wounded, peace for the victims, their families and for all of us affected by today's senseless violence."
Of course I am not suprised you jumped to Reichert once I pointed out the quotes from McGavick. It's just typical when people such as yourself are defeated on one subject you try for another.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 12, 2006 09:52 PMIf I lived in CT, I would prefer to vote for the republican, but since he has a snowball's chance of winning, the race is really between the liberal who is at least reasonable, and the leftist nutroot who isn't reasonable. Those are really the only to options. So, do throw your vote away on the Republican, knowing the nutroot will most likely win, or do you hold your nose and vote for the reasonable liberal. Given those options, I vote for the reasonable liberal, and try and get a decent Republican to run the next time around.
Posted by: Mike H on August 12, 2006 10:39 PM*ouch* Consider: The British terrorist plot hadn't been uncovered yet I suspect. If that poll was taken now, I bet the Joe's number would go up a little further. The feed-back loop of the MSM and the liberals makes things like this happen.
*tee hee* Looks to me like the "Nut Roots" is the kiss of death for the Demorats. Not that I mind . . .
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 12, 2006 10:57 PM"Senseless violence?" The violence was horrendous, the violence was unforgivable, but it was hardly senseless.
He was a Muslim and he wanted to create fear in the Jewish community. The violence made perfect sense given the goal he had.
Now, if he went and shot up a Catholic church because he was a Muslim and wanted to get back at the Jews, that would indeed be senseless.
But if he thinks what happened at the Jewish Federation was senseless then he doesn't understand the nature of the threat we are up against.
By calling this act of terror "senseless" he is either lying to us or is an idiot? Which do you think it is?
The only thing Senseless here is conservatives voting for someone as liberal as Reichert and thinking that somehow they are helping conservatism by doing so.
Since we're not supposed to vote for Reichert, I guess we should vote for Darcy Burner?
What's your alternative here? Do you even have one, or are you just griping to gripe?
For Reichert, it's either him or Burner. Which would you rather have? Saying "I want a REAL conservative" doesn't cut it - that's not an option in this election.
Reichert or Burner - what's your choice?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 12, 2006 11:35 PMAnything that pushes Democrats even further to the left can only increase the election prospects of Republicans.
The fact that they are now all for Lieberman proves that they really don't give a damn for getting Republicans elected. The whole "have to support McGavick thing because he is a Republican and you have to support Republicans even when they turn out to be very liberal because what is most important is electing someone with an R in front of them" is a crock.
They don't believe that unconditional support of Republicans is the be all and end all. They proved that when they backed Lowry over Eikenberry in 1992 just as they are proving it right now with their support for Lieberman when the best outcome for Republicans would be for Lamont to win and further kookify the Democratic Party.
Party loyality means NOTHING to them. And it really should mean NOTHING to us either. For whether it is a Republican politician voting for a liberal policy or a Democratic politician voting for a liberal policy it is still a politician voting for a liberal policy.
And when its a Republican politician it's even worst because Republican Elected officials hold great power within the Republican Party organization to drive out conservatives from positions of influence within the party and to keep them out.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 11:37 PMThen we can find a REAL REPUBLICAN (Not one who first got appointed to Sheriff by Ron Sims) to run against her in 2008.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 11:41 PMEikenberry or Lowry - what's your choice?
Well we all know the outcome of that and Sid Morrison thanks you for it.
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 11:44 PM
Edmonds Dan, and if you had your way it would NEVER be an option in ANY election.
You would sooner vote for a liberal like Mike Lowry, than allow that to happen.
Oh, wait, that's right, YOU DID.
Though I wouldn't have called Dan Eikenberry that conservative, but obviously more conservative than you wanted.
What is your ideal Republican. Dan Evans?
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 11:55 PMOtherwise we will not have an opportunity to elect a conservative in 2008.
But that's the way you like it, isn't in Dano.
By the way, how's Sid?
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 11:59 PMIn CT, the republican will NOT be elected. He has baggage. So the next best choice is Lieberman. Sometimes you have to go to plan B. In Great Britain, you have Tony Blair. He's a great ally on terror. Sure he's a socialist, but where we need him he's awesome. you get what you get. If you don't want to vote for McGavic, fine. A non-vote for McGavick is a vote for Cantwell---she'll raise your taxes while she cuddles up to extreme leftists in her party, as she's doing right now with those on her campaign team. She doesn't care if you pay more in taxes, she sees you as a doormat to pillage and accomplish her leftists agenda with. As for me, I'd rather she left office. I'll be voting for McGavick.
Posted by: Mistty on August 13, 2006 12:39 AMWhen did he cast all these votes?
Wow, Misty, that IS quite an achievement for McGavick voting for all these things, especially considering that he currently ISN'T a US SENATOR.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 01:12 AMThen rushing to their Cell phones calling Connecticut up trying to get their election results hoping somehow to get a job with Lieberman.
Don't worry guys, I am sure that McCann will be hiring. But watch out for his temper.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 01:21 AMCantwell cuddling up to extreme leftists in her party is bad.
But McGavick cuddling up to extreme leftists in his party is good?
Say what you will about Cantwell but she has no influence over what happens in the State Republican party. She has no influence on who is in or who is out there or who gets influential positions in the State Republican party and who is blocked from them.
McGavick, on the other hand would have such influence.
Sometimes you have to go to plan B.
That is why I have moved from a position of not voting for McGavick to a position of voting for his opponent.
It was his endorsement of Lieberman that did it for me. I realized that "Lieberman Republicans" are the last thing that the state Republican Party needs controling it.
Seen it with the Evans Republicans and the control they had (and to a great extent still have) within the State Party. Been there, seen that, have the stab wounds (in the back of course) to prove it.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 01:31 AMWhich ones?
Harriet Miers or Samuel Alito?
Will he support Bush's Immigration policies?
On the Democratic Side, a very liberal US congressman by the name of Mike Lowry (he held the seat that McDermott now holds) won their primary.
Well, after the primary, Sid Morrison gave his campaign mailing list over not to the Ken Eikenberry campaign, but instead to the Mike Lowry campaign. Several prominent Evans Republicans came out publicly in the Newspapers and such for Mike Lowry.
An interesting thing about that is that after they did that, they still attended Republican functions. I remember seeing Kay Trepainer at the Republican convention in 1994. She wasn't made to feel unwelcomed or anything like that. There was no consequence for her for her betrayal. No lost in perstige in the local Republican party or anything like that.
Anyway, Lowry won, an as an award for his help Sid Morrison got appointed head of the State Department of Transportation.
Now there are plenty of other times that Evans Republicans have stabbed conservatives and the Republican party in Washington state in the back, but that has always been the one that has stood out for me.
Kind of like the New York Times and Walter Durranty. Sure there are plenty of more recent stories I could tell about the New York Timse but being responsible for the deaths of over 1 million in the Ukranine is a story that seems to still stand out, though I must admit Castro, and their current treason in the Terror war do come in close contention as well.
Anyway, that is the Story of Sid. If the Mainstreamers weren't still stabbing us in the back, perhaps it only would be just a historical story, but the same elements who were in the Republican party back then are in the Republican party now (I hear that Kay is still around somewhere). It is just that now they are all supporting McGavick.
And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to Repeat it.
This "Lieberman Republican" McGavick reminds me too much of Sid Morrison, Slade Gorton, and Dan Evans, for me too ever support him.
By the way, I just Googled "Sid Morrison" and found out that he is the chair of the Washington State Mainstream Republicans.
http:\\www.washingtonmainstream.org/newsletters/NewsletterSept2005.PDF
After betraying the Republican party like that and after being a member of the Lowry Adminstration, he is still a respected "Republican" leader. Well at least on one wing of the party.
Any guilt I might have felt about voting for Cantwell, has suddenly just faded away.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 02:53 AMI have thought of a great idea for a TV series for him to star in.
It is called Really Cold Case.
Each week he goes around trying to solve all the other cases he should have solved a quarter century ago but failed to.
I am seeing at least a 5 season run - at the very least.
Posted by: Sue on August 13, 2006 04:27 AMThey could call it 24 (years).
Posted by: Sue on August 13, 2006 04:42 AM
Ok, the perp said that he was a Muslim and he wanted to kill Jews...
But why then did he go to the Jewish Federation to shoot people???
Why of all places the Jewish Federation? Why there?
There seems to be no motive here... It just doesn't make sense...
(And we wonder why it took him so long to catch Ridgway)
Posted by: Sue on August 13, 2006 05:10 AMHe has been playing the role of a conservative for years.
At least when he goes back to his district to talk to Republicans.
And to pretend to be something so different than ones true nature (and voting record) takes a great talent for acting indeed.
And, by the way, I heard he never did catch that rioter.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 06:56 AMYou know, in a couple of decades or so.
Dave Reichert always gets his man... eventially.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 06:59 AMMy, the venom and focus - I feel so appreciated!
I would have voted for Sid Morrison, because I don't think he would have screwed things up as bad as Lowry did.
My ideal Republican? Someone with the clarity and vision of Ronald Reagan, the stubbornness of George Bush, and the politcal savvy of Slade Gorton.
You want a REAL conservative? The time for that is the primaries, not the general. It's amazing that you're willing to put Burner in over Reichert - that tells me you have no foot in reality!
What is the incumbent re-election rate? You think once the 8th goes Democrat it could come back Republican easily? Not a chance.
You want a conservative? Fine. That's what PRIMARIES are for! Once the general comes, take the devil that torments you less...
You're just out of it...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 13, 2006 07:47 AMBut I guess the Rules are just different when its the so called Mainstreamer who is the loser.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
Hey, I learnt from you that if your candidate doesn't win in the Primary, Burn the Republican that did win in the general.
What better candidate to Burn Reichert with than a candidate named Burner.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 07:55 AMESPECIALLY AGAINST INCUMBANTS.
Or are you all talk and never been involved with the workings of the Republican party or with a campaign before?
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:00 AMYou did ask for qoutes and I found them no problem. Then you tried to just bash them away like they were irrelevant. You claim to be a Conservative, yet you just try to ignore the things you do not like just like a Liberal. Perhaps there is some sort of internal struglle going on with your personalities. Perhaps you should just popst as "Sybil" from now on.
As Edmonds Dan put it, primaries are where you should focus not in the general election. I am sure that most everyone on this board would like to see more Reagan Conservative. It can happen. Look at the Primary race in Michigan (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060811/COLUMNIST17/608110336/-1/NEWS13).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 13, 2006 08:03 AMThat EXTREMIST?
Wouldn't you want a Republican who could actually win a national election like John Anderson?
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:04 AMI thought we had to become more like the liberals in order to win elections.
Isn't that what all the mainstreamer/Evanites are saying to all the conservativates?
Actually that is correct, but not in the way the Evanites mean it.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:11 AMso if you have worked on campaigns why not work on a Conservative Republican campaign in the next Primary? You never have answered why you dont try to get a true Conservative to win in the primary. You say that Primaries are discouraged against incumbents, which is probably true, but it doesn't make it illegal.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 13, 2006 08:12 AM
So you are admitting that you think like a Liberal and like a conservative.....look at the duality in that.
Getting a Conservative Candidate through a primary takes money, and since Evanites are pretty good even now (will be even better if McGavick gets elected) at keeping lobbists away from supporting conservatives and instead having them back their candidates, the Evanite will almost always have the monitary advantage in the primary.
And also there are thousands of things subtle and not so subtle that the Evanites can do to drive a conservative out of the primary before filling. Like all liberals they can be quite ruthless.
But if a conservative does win in the primary, then the Evanites do all they can to make sure that the conservative loses the general.
Sure, I suppose you can find an exception where the conservative gets through the primary and actually wins the general, but that would exactly be what it would be - an exception.
That's the Real World of Washington State Republican Politics. And it will only get worst with a McGavick win.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:22 AMThat's the way I would put it.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:25 AMThe downfall of so many conservative politicians and I have seen it time and time again, is that they are too much the ladies and gentlemen.
Remember, when you shake hands with a Evanite, their other hand is behind your back with a knife.
Honor, as in war, has no place in politics.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:29 AMNo, but it makes them foolish. And sure I have played the fool and put my heart and soul into campaigns that I knew had no chance of winning (due to superior funding of the challenger and the political maneuverings of the political power brokers), but playing the fool gets old real fast.
Especially when even "true republicans" won't back the candidate you support because the District chair told them they were supposed to support the other candidate. Lots of conservatively minded people are very susceptable to such tactics, and they like most people don't bother to scratch the surface and take what candidates say at face value.
Perhaps it is arrogance on their part thinking that well I shook the guy's hand and he had a strong handshake (or I looked into his or her eyes) and I would know if he/she was lying to him or not.
And besides, for many, politics are a social outlet. Support the wrong candidate (from the party elite predominately Evenite perspective) and then will shut you out of this social outlet.
And what I have found is most people are weak. Weak when it comes to social stuff like this I mean. And with conservatives too trusting. At least until they themselves get burned a couple of times or so, and then they just become too tired of it all, and wash their hands of it all and quit.
Of course the social aspects of campaigns aren't why I was involved, but for many it does play a large part.
It hurts when people hate you. Sure there's some of us who don't care and some who even gain strength by that, but for most being hated really really hurts.
You may find that childlish, but if you get involved in politics and you are perceptive enough you will be surprised how great a role something so simple as "wanted to be liked" and "not wanting to be hated" plays in politics.
Whether you are 7 or 70 "wanting to be liked" or at least "not wanting to be hated or on the outside" is quite powerful indeed.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 08:51 AMJust who in the heck is "McCann"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 08:58 AMNow I have great respect for Vetnam Vets and I don't buy the liberal sterotype that all of them are wacked-out, most aren't. But this guy sure is.
He was tortured in Nam and made to give up intelligence. They broke him. I hear he has flash-backs to his torture which makes him get angry all the time.
He has at times supported the legislation of Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 09:07 AMYou can spray your vemon all over these pages and nothing will change.
The funny part is watching everyone here wipe the floor with you.
It's odd though, don't you get it Steve. YOU WRONG. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 13, 2006 09:15 AMNow Steve I'm a vet of Nam. I'm pretty damn sure your not. I'm not real crazy about McCain, but you should really shut your pie hole about about your last comment!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 13, 2006 09:19 AMSteve. I'll let you in on a small fact. Mc Cain gave up nothing while he was a POW. That's why he was beated so bad.
He could have gone home early (US) if he had given the info they wanted. But he didn't.
Next time you make some really stupid statement about a NAM vet. Use Kerry's name. Now that is a true nut case!
Which IPs compare for Steve, Sue, etc. and how do they correlate to the IPS of some of the past HA posters that come over to SP posing as alternative points of view?
Steve = Roger Rabbit at HA
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2006 09:33 AMLet's see if he can spell Kerry's name right!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 09:33 AMBut McCain broke under torture but then claimed that we shouldn't torture terrorists because "torture doesn't work".
Well, it worked at least once.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 09:35 AMI consider them both traitors.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 09:36 AMBetraying all our brave soldiers who fought, were permanently injuried and died there.
That's often the problem with Republicans. All too often it seems like money comes first for them, even before patriotism. (The Democrats have the same problem to some degree but you would expect more from the Republicans - at least you should.)
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 09:58 AMMakes me pretty darn sure you're a leftie.
When I reached middle age I gave up discussing politics with my old leftist friends. They'd always turn beet red and start shouting. In my experience that's how lefties "discuss" ideas. I decided that I did not want them to have a heart attack or a stroke in my livingroom.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 10:18 AMhttp://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd59.htm
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:20 AMFrom the first days of McCain's captivity, he seriously violated the Military Code of Conduct, which outlines the basic responsibilities and obligations of members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have been captured by the enemy.
According to documentation obtained by the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, not only did POW McCain promise to give the communists "military information" in exchange for special hospital care not ordinarily available to U.S. prisoners, but he also made numerous anti-war radio broadcasts.
Article V of the Code of Conduct is very specific in declaring that U.S. military personnel are required to avoid answering questions to the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements disloyal to the United States and its allies or harmful to their cause. Any violation of this code is considered collaborating with the enemy.
The following is McCain's own admission of collaboration in an article he wrote, printed May 14, 1973 in U.S. News and World Report:
"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size, shape and color of a football. I remembered that when I was a flying instructor a fellow had ejected from his plane and broken his thigh. He had gone into shock, the blood had pooled in his leg, and he died, which came as quite a surprise to us - a man dying of a broken leg. Then I realized that a very similar thing was happening to me.
"When I saw it, I said to the guard, `O.K., get the officer.'"
"An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, `O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:22 AMHow can you be friends with evil?
What, you could have Nazis and Skinheads as friends just as long as you didn't talk politics with them?
Evil is Evil. And liberals, they aren't merely wrong - they are evil.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:26 AMHis wife at the time, was a member of the National League of Families and she fought to make sure that John McCain came home. He rewarded this loyalty by divorcing her after his return.
He was shot down October 26, 1967, and by November 9, 1967 he was giving interviews to foreign correspondents, providing information on his prior command, casualties and tactics, in direct violation of the Code of Conduct. (The U.S. military Code of Conduct is the definitive code specifying the responsibilities of American military personnel while in combat or captivity. Article V of the Code is very specific in ordering U.S. military personnel to avoid answering questions to the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements disloyal to the United States and its allies, or harmful to their cause. Any willful violation of the Code is considered collaborating with the enemy.)
In the interview that he gave on November 9, 1967 to VNA International, he claims when he bailed out and landed in the lake, that locals pulled him out and took him to the hospital. Yet in the U.S. News and World Report - May 14, 1973. McCain is quoted as saying "I think it was on the fourth day (after being shot down) that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football . . . when I saw it, I said to the guard, Ok, get the officer'...an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug'. He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, Ok, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital."
While testifying before the Senate Select Committee, the very man McCain claims was responsible for his own torture, his interrogator, "The Bug" was appearing. When the moment of confrontation came, McCain rose from his seat, walked from the podium to the floor and stood face to face with the man who was responsible for torturing him and countless other Prisoners of War...McCain then grabbed the man and embraced him!
He has been a consistent advocate of lenient treatment of Vietnam.
While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993) he referred to POW/MIA Family Members and POW/MIA Activists as whiners, vultures and the lunatic fringe.
Although the Senate Select Committee concluded that we left men behind, McCain crossed party lines to help lift the embargo and normalize relations with Vietnam. "It's very important for us to recognize that the war is over, ... In my view, an improvement in relations between our two countries does a whole of lot things from a practical standpoint, but it also, from a spiritual standpoint indicates that we are ready to close that chapter," McCain said. (Many POWs and families of MIAs would strongly disagree that is time to close this chapter! Improving relations with Vietnam stood to benefit the McCain's family as they hold a large interest in the Budweiser Corporation. Surprise, surprise Bud was among the first large U.S. Corporations to enter Vietnam after relations were normalized.)
He ignored a letter from former POW, Capt. Eugene "Red" McDaniel, co-signed by 50 former POWs which asked that the embargo not be lifted and not to normalize relations and still McCain would not be swayed.
When the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1996 came on the Senate Floor for debate, Senator McCain called this bill "un-necessary" and "burdensome" even though the MSPA was sponsored by the then majority leader and the man who had considered asking John McCain to run with him, Sen. Bob Dole.
McCain managed to get the MSPA amended by removing criminal liability and several articles that were important to POW/MIA Family members.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:30 AMNo sense of humor.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 10:39 AMhttp://www.usvetdsp.com/markmcan.htm
"Flying Squad" Of Returned POWs Are Protecting McCain's Image
By Major Mark A. Smith
United States Army Retired
Former POW (Vietnam)
Army Green Beret Captain Mark Smith was captured April 7, 1972 during a heated battle with the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam. Smith was held in a bamboo cage until he was freed during the general POW release in 1973.
In my opinion, there are no "sacred cows" when it comes to the office of the President of the United States of America. At this point, there is a "flying squad" of returned POWs from the Vietnam War protecting the image of Senator John S. McCain. One can but wonder why Senator McCain would require such a team. He is not under attack or even serious scrutiny by the "liberal media." TV commentators who usually attack anyone who shows a less than pristine bent for the most part are mum on the Arizona senator.
My concerns are simple. I believe that any and all of the intelligence held by U.S. Government agencies on Senator McCain's time as a POW must be made available to the media and public. There is too much danger of a President being held hostage by things in the files of Intelligence agencies and, even more dangerous, held in the files of foreign governments in Asia and Europe.
My intentions have nothing to do with any feelings I may harbor toward John McCain personally. I have none. My intentions in all of this have to do with him professionally.
They have to do with his treatment of [North Vietnamese Army Colonel] Bui Tin, who I consider nothing more than a "sent agent." They have to do with his simplistic attitude toward the issue of MIAs and his utterly vile behavior toward those who disagree with him, including POW/MIA family members.
Lastly, I feel for any of the "Keating Five" to have the audacity to make "Campaign Reform" the cornerstone of his platform is the height of hypocrisy. He took the money right along with the others. To claim he did not know is not the type of answer one who aspires to be President should give in my opinion. He was responsible but, he did everything in his power to shift the blame. He sounded too much like Clinton for me. He disappointed me in that.
I don't care if he has a temper unless he decides to vent it on an aging MIA mother, and he did just that. I can't forgive that and no one else should.
MIAs? I wrote then-Congressman McCain while still in the Army, from Korea, about the MIAs. Senator Denton wrote to me encouraging me to trust the Government. I didn't like the answer, but I got an answer from Senator Denton. My letter to McCain was answered by DIA. I wrote to him as one of the few POWs the Communists returned along with himself, and he checked nothing. So much for John's concern about MIAs.
A friend of mine was with Admiral McCain when he came to meet his son upon his return to U.S. control. When he reminded Senator McCain of this, John responded with a tirade and claimed that he received no "special treatment" and even denied his father was there. I'm sorry, but that was just a lie.
There was deep concern among the intelligence community about John McCain. His interviews and statements from Hanoi and pictures of him in an actual hospital gave great worries to many, including Bill Colby himself. His hero image was not nearly as solid in 1973 as it is now. That may have been wrong, but it was a fact.
I don't know why John did many of the things he did in captivity and since, but I do know that none of this is off limits, when it concerns someone running for President.
Andrew Jackson was a war hero and he and his wife endured terrible rumors, innuendo and the washing of dirty laundry. If "Ole Hickory" was not immune, someone captured by the enemy also is not.
Some are issuing damning statements about Senator McCain, which I have never seen anything to justify. Unless there are verifiable facts to back them up, these people should shut up. Most importantly, Vietnam Veterans have some serious questions to ask about which the media seems too timid to even venture a query. These must be answered and answered now.
Lastly, for returned POWs to stand up and say that no MIAs could have been alive after 1973 "Because we knew everyone in the system," is a self-serving lie and has no place in the utterances of honorable men. If they truly do not know better, they should support their candidate and keep their mouths shut about MIAs. They know nothing of remains still reaking of decay long after the war, nor have they ever been in the arena of which they try to speak as "experts." All of this to support a political candidate for President? That is what McCain is and the leadership of our nation is too important to take anyone's word on a candidate.
After all, there is a large segment of time when none of these POWs were with McCain in Hanoi. To state or even insinuate otherwise is to lie and that is unacceptable, even if one believes all that John now says.
Like I have said in the past, I hope John is everything that he claims to be, but that does not excuse giving military intelligence to the enemy, his supposed "open mind" on MIAs, his treatment of MIA family members, or his attacks on [former Marine POW] PFC Garwood, a man he never heard of as a POW.
Perhaps he could address why all those boys in Hanoi were on the radio I had to listen to in 1972-73 and none were being tortured. Contrary to the carefully contrived belief within the media, the vast majority that I heard were "highly trained and disciplined pilots" and not a bunch of "Army and Marine" enlisted men.
I find it totally unprofessional, for professional military men to attack people who have legitimate questions about a political candidate regardless of who he is or who his father was. I find many things said about Senator McCain to be unsavory and with out merit.
Those things are easily dealt with by John's campaign staff. His friends have every right to defend him on these things, but they have no right to issue blanket statements about McCain's captivity unless they were with him all the way. They were not unless his claim of isolation is a fabrication.
One would hope the same people are more accurate in their description of McCain than they were in their totally meritless claim of "knowing everyone in the system." This is a self-serving lie and a totally dishonorable one at that. You knew? You knew nothing!
In closing, let me say this. The very insinuation that anyone who challenges John McCain is a lesser person in the returned POW community is so much bunk.
This is political, pure and simple. John must be judged as a candidate for President, on what his past actions truly were. Where he has stood on the issues as a politician are open to scrutiny and he is also certainly allowed his defenders.
However, to put out totally inaccurate statements about what the POWs in Hanoi knew about who was a POW and who was not, and who collaborated and who did not, while ignoring the dishonorable actions of those let back into the fold in the last minutes of captivity, has no merit.
We are talking about the leadership of the Nation, and I and others have serious questions about McCain's suitability for that position. We are allowed to have these positions and there is no requirement based on honor that requires us to remain mum.
Furthermore, there is no challenge as to our right to be judged on our performance on the battlefield or in prison. I welcome anyone to debate me on my performance in either scenario and I find the insinuation that we in the jungle somehow suffered less or served with less honor to be not only professionally and historically reprehensible, but, also laughable.
Perhaps some in our number learned the value of propaganda a little too well during our captivity.
I will not be steam rolled by a "flying squad" of propagandists. I want some damned answers, not another self-serving book that builds the images and egos of my high-flying compatriots from Hanoi.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:39 AMIn fact, the senator married the daughter of one of the richest men in Arizona. It seems that McCain got more than just a wife in the bargain, he married into a family that already had quite a reputation in that state
Nope, conservatives will keep helping get liberals elected into public offices and then wonder why even when they win things don't get better and even get worst.
Posted by: Steve on August 13, 2006 10:58 AM* - surrendering Iraq to the terrorists will cause more war, more death, more destruction, and eventually cost more American lives. The people calling for the withdrawl of Iraq are anti-peace and pro-terrorist. You cut and runners may not like that reality but it is true.
Posted by: AP on August 13, 2006 11:21 AMAnd for the record, "Steve's" IP address is: 216.240.133.186
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 13, 2006 11:54 AMRoger Rabbit is one sick puppy and such schizophrenia is well within his reach. Hundreds of posts, basicaly a dialogue with himself. That's what made me think of Steve.
Hey Steve,
Grab a beer and go outside an enjoy the sun, your taking this thread a little too seriously.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 13, 2006 02:03 PMPresident Reagan lost the primaries when he first ran for President; he did get it the second time... Is there a lesson there?
And perhaps - just perhaps - the Republican Party of Washington isn't as "conservative" as you want it. Maybe you need to find a different party? Or work to change the way the party operates.
Working for the Republican Party to LOSE does no conservative any service.
According to your logic, it was best that we had Stalin, Hitler, and Mao so that we learned what the evils of absolute dictatorships and extreme statism yield.
Personally, I think I'd rather keep those hypotheticals than the hundreds of millions killed...
Just like I'd rather keep the 8th in the hands of the Republicans - even a moderate Republican - than give it to the Democratic party.
Or giving a liberal - but tough on defense, a la Scoop Jackson or JFK - Senator a pass back to the Senate than a complete moonbat candidate.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 13, 2006 02:42 PMTons of thoughts which actually made sense.
I should probably arrange an election night party for those of us conservatives who will watch the inept unprinicipled Republicans go down in flames this November. I'll use the money that I normally gave to the party.
I'm glad you mentioned the Sid Morrison thing, I remember when I campaigned for Dan McDonald for Gov (no relation), that I took fundraising boat tour in the Everett Harbor and the Democrat crowd showed up for Sid Morrison. It was my first real taste of backstabbing politics ... it really surprised me how close WA came to having to choose between two massively liberal Democrats in the General Election.
Like you the best thing for the Republican Party will be a good back of the woodshed beating by those of us who make up the base - and the beating will cause a lot less long-term damage in 2006, then 2008.
The Republican party needs to learn that floating never ending issues right around election time like "flag burning, gay marriage, an abortion bill, etc." isn't going to cut it anymore. We have a majority and we expect to it to govern conservative and mean it, or you will get booted out of office.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 13, 2006 03:23 PMThis is clearly exposed in "The Shadow Party" by David Horowitz. This process started in the late 70's and has now progressed to the point that it has funded liberal think tanks $50 Million. The traditional Democrats like Lieberman are being driven from the Democrat Party by the party leadership given an assist by the left-wing blogs like the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, Democratic Underground and locally Horseass.org. The party called Democrat is becoming a shadow party (now more aptly called the Socialist Party) and not reflecting public sentiment. This will become more apparent after Bush leaves office, unless Soros' role becomes diminished by then. BTW - Harold Ickx, a former Clintonista is a key operative of Soros in this country. Seems like Soros is every bit as much of an enemy to this country as is the President of Iran and Chavez in Venezuela.
As if anyone needs further proof, we've all seen how these so-called Dems bristle when anyone calls them socialists. They doth protest too much.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 13, 2006 04:21 PMI just found out on Satursday about Sid Morrison being the Head of the Mainsteam Republicans of Washington State.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org/newsletters/NewsletterMay2005.pdf
The fact that even after the Great Betrayal Sid Morrison is not only welcomed into a group calling itself "Republican" but appointed a leadership position really shows me where that group is coming from.
I WILL NEVER vote for a memeber of the mainstrem Republican of Washington State.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
I would rather vote for the most liberal of Democrat then to support any member of the mainstream Republicans of Washington State.
It's a tactic I actually learned from the Evanites, so if they don't like it they only have themselves to blame.
I must admit even I was kind of shocked that they would have a member of a Democratic Adminstration as their head. I guess I shouldn't be surprised because there is no end to how far down they will go. Betrayal is their art. But still I didn't think they would be so obvious about what they are really all about.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 08:19 AMYeah, Reagan lost the 1976 primary. It is very, very difficult to win a primary against an incumbant which Ford kind of, sort of was.
But looking back it was a blessing. People in 1976 were still outraged about Watergate and Liberal Republican Richard Nixon (yeah Nixon was a liberal. Affirmative action, price and wage controls, do I need to go on).
I doubt even Reagan could have won that year so I am glad that he didn't become the Republican Nominee.
He isn't the only Republican to lose in the primary one year only to become the party nominee the next campaign so I really don't see why it matters. The primary in 1976 helped gain support that he used in 1980 to help him achieve victory.
And again, in 1976 he was running against a kind of sort of incumbent which means that all the "establishment" support within the Republican party would have been going to Ford. It is very, very, very hard to win a primary against an incumbent, especially against a sitting President.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 08:28 AMBill,
How about the so called Mainstream Republicans (in this state also known as Evans Republicans after Dan Evans or as I like to call them the Evanites)?
I hate when people put it in terms of Democrat and Republican. The problem is with LIBERALS. Yeah, that makes ALL Democrats a threat, but don't miss out on the fact that it also makes a group of people in the Republican party a threat as well.
Liberal Republicans can be just as socialist as the Democrats.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 09:47 AMWhat?
Democrats aren't Leftists?
Leftism is a dying ideology?
How can you say that when even George Bush is to a great extent a Leftist (John Kennedy was more conservatite than Bush).
To say that under estimates our enemy.
I would agree with you in one respect. If you put Socialism to a vote, it would fail. But that has always been the case.
That is why Norman Thomas, who was the leader of the socialist party of America for a long time (and a founder of the ACLU) said the following:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas also said:
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly"
Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party presidential candidate from 1948 till 1964. In 1968 a news reporter ask Mr. Thomas why he wasn't running any more. He said that he didn't need to. The Republicans and Democrats have adopted my platform completely.
Posted by: Steve on August 14, 2006 10:05 AMsteve is debating itself again!
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 14, 2006 10:22 AMThe MSR (mainstream Republicans here) will have no arguement as usual and attack your mental state because anyone with a conservative value must be crazy. When a Lowry supporter is leading a major Republican group in Washington ... Just Laugh at these pathetic numbskulls who keep spouting the Republican line sans principle.
The lack of defense from Republican supporters on Sound Politics is because they have absolutely no idea what their leadership is going to do next. As a result they are forced to focus on issues like resume inflation that go the character of the candidates and avoid accomplishments, positions, and values where they lose or will be undercut next week.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 14, 2006 06:41 PMWay to go liberal~john. (are you still on the suicide watch?)
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 15, 2006 11:43 AMLieberman is quite the environmentalist. Did y'all know that? And he talks a mean game on "morals" but when you scratch him is a typical northeast liberal.
This could be a chance for Republicans to take advantage of fighting between a [D] and an [I] and actually pick up a seat in a year in which we'll probably lose Pennsylvania and maybe a couple of other seats.
If Schlesinger ever hits 20% I'm sending a donation.
Posted by: Charl on August 16, 2006 08:46 AMThat is why Republicans should want Lamont to win.
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 11:04 AM