August 26, 2006
Fallout of the McGavick DUI Story is More Evidence Civility Theme Works

I imagined at first I might have much to say about Mike McGavick's preemptive move to let the skeletons out of the closet. After reviewing what's out there though, and considering the facts of the issue I'll say this: it's incredibly intelligent to get this sort of information out to the public on your own terms, on your own timeline.

Moreover, the later half of August is just about the ideal time to do such a release since the only voters paying attention to the race now (and not focused on the vacation season) are generally those who have already made up their minds. Any Democratic attempts to flesh this issue out in the coming weeks in hopes of swaying undecided/independent voters are much less likely to have meaningful effect.

Indeed, they are more likely to reflect poorly on Democrats for engaging in slimy politics while McGavick is being forthright with voters and talking about the obvious need for change in Washington, DC. But seems Democrats have already fallen into that trap. Read the take of noted national conservative blog Captain Quarters for more. I could quote from it, but encourage readers to digest it in full since it gives Democrats and Cantwell's campaign the critique they richly deserve.

UPDATE: Commenter Bill Cruchon notes Robert Jamieson's column in today's PI, also lamenting the incivility of the Democrats. Jamieson calls the Democratic retort to McGavick's disclosure "low-blow stupidity," and his column generally supports my thesis that McGavick's civility theme is paying dividends while others keep playing politics as usual.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 26, 2006 01:36 PM | Email This
1. Smart move by McGavick. An even smarter one would have been to take a cab.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 26, 2006 02:31 PM
2. Quoted via Captain Quarters from yesterday's P-I. "Cantwell campaign spokeswoman Amanda Mahnke said the senator had no reaction and would not be commenting on McGavick's admissions.

The Cantwell campaign then, however, alerted the state Democratic Party about the P-I query. Party spokesman Kelly Steele telephoned to say, "From privatizing Social Security to drunk driving, it becomes clearer every day that Mike McGavick and George Bush are cut from the same cloth."

A truly nasty attack which made sure to include the "privatizing Social Security" lie which has been spread so willingly by the media.

It was too much even for the P-I's Robert Jamieson who called the attack, "low-blow stupidity".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 02:45 PM
3. Jamieson's reaction was predictable, given the skeleton in his own closet.

Posted by: Maximus on August 26, 2006 03:03 PM
4. I respect Jamieson as a generally fair columnist. If he has skeletons in his closet it only proves that he's human.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 03:16 PM
5. On todays "Beltway Boys," the McGavick story led off the "Ups and Downs" segment. You can watch it again tonight at 8:30pm. The segments starts about 14 minutes into the program.

Bottom line is that Mike did the smart thing, and it's a positive for him.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 26, 2006 03:23 PM
6. I could give a rip about a 13 year old DUI, what I care about is McGavick seems lock step with polluters and crooks such as Ted "bridge to nowhere" Stevens and George "culture of corruption" Bush.

The Northwest does not need more liars in office, and unless McGavick distances himself from the other Washington, or acts like he'll be his own man, I really cannot see how people here would vote for him.

Unless you just rubber stamp anything with R in front of it regardless of its actual benefit.

Posted by: DaveD on August 26, 2006 03:40 PM
7. What has cantwell done? I have heard all the negative about the challenger McGavick. I have heard nothing about Cantwell (other than her save the sound tv ad).

I feel sorry for a guy that hasn't even served our state in the other washington to get so slammed because he has a R behind his name.

I say give the guy a chance, and see how his campaign unfolds. See if he has the muster.

BTW, What are Cantwells skeletons? Is she even married, does she have children, or a grandma yet?
Has she led life through experience or just got by with whatever was thrown her way. Does she a have any goals to achieve this time around???

I wonder about the incumbrent sometimes, do they get like middle management and think they are "the sheet".

Posted by: Chris on August 26, 2006 03:48 PM
8. One thing I know about Cantwell is that she talks the talk about "energy independence" out of one side of her mouth. Out of the other side she's against any efforts to go get our own oil.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 03:57 PM
9. I have heard that too. She doesnt want to drill anywhere, and only talks of the corn fuel ect.

I doubt i will be driving a corn fueled vehicle anytime soon, but i sure could use some oil "made" in the USA.

I think she is an enviro in sheeps clothing, but I am not too sure about that yet.

I depend on natural resources for a living, so I would like to know how she stands. And mike for that matter.

Posted by: Chris on August 26, 2006 04:56 PM
10. While I agree that campaign's could and should
have a lot more civility. Mike McGavick is
really not one to talk about civility. His
campaign should have thought about that before
they went after Susan Hutchison.What they tried
to do to her was dispicable.So before McGavick complains
anymore about personal attacks and being civil
he should look in the mirror.

By the way Eric the next time you talk to
McGavick why don't you ask him why he doesnt
want anyone to know that he signed the atr pledge
not to raise taxes and why he felt it necessary
to not tell anyone that he actually signed it
for four months.I have tried asking through
his website and they won't answer me.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 26, 2006 05:15 PM
11. Phil; With all due respect it's nearly impossible to digest your posts. You make references that aren't explained such as the Susan Hutchison comment, and the "atr pledge", whatever that is. It's very hard to take what you say seriously.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 05:24 PM
12. Did mcgavick run against hutchinson? I thought he was safeco ceo or something?

Please explain Phil

Posted by: Chris on August 26, 2006 05:43 PM
13. Bill,

I am not about to go into what they tried
to do to Susan Hutchison. McGavick's campaign
knows full well what I'm talking about.If at
some point in the future they deny doing
anything then I will spell it out.

The atr I was talking about is the americans
for tax reform run by Grover Norquist.For a
number of years now Grover has been going around
to perspective candidates to see if he can get
them to sign atr's pledge not to raise taxes.
Last July Grover first came around to Washington
State to trying and get the perspective
candidates to sign.

Mike McGavick initally told Grover Norquist
no. Only after it looked like Susan was going to
run did he change his mind and sign the pledge.
As a matter of fact it was two months later
when he finally signed it.After having signed
the pledge McGavick then instructed atr not
to send out a press release or post on there
website that he signed but to wait.

In early December McGavick still had not given
atr the ok to issue a press release or post it
on there website. Only after Doug Parris had
made such big deal about this to atr and Vance
did it finally get put on atr's website.

To this day you see nothing on McGavick's
website about this at all. My first question
would be why did you initally turn down Norquist?
and why hide the fact that you signed the pledge
in the first place? I don't think its unreasonable for someone who is running for
the United State senate to answer these questions.
Yes I have tried to get the answers from McGavick
through his website and got no response.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 26, 2006 05:54 PM
14. Chris,

Without going into any specifics Susan was
seriously considering the idea of taking on
Cantwell.The State Gop leadership and McGavick
saw her and rightfully so as a big time threat
to McGavick's chances.Again I will not go into
what they tried to do to Susan. For now I will
just leave it at that.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 26, 2006 06:03 PM
15. "I am not about to go into what they tried
to do to Susan Hutchison. McGavick's campaign
knows full well what I'm talking about.If at
some point in the future they deny doing
anything then I will spell it out."

Phil, I doubt anyone here has any idea what you are talking about.

I do think decent manners dictate that if you are going to make accusations you have some coherent facts at hand to back them up. Otherwise, in my opinion, you would be well advised to keep them to yourself.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 06:07 PM
16. Bill,

I can back up what I'm talking about so I'm
not worried about what anyone else thinks.
As far as Susan is concerned I was simply pointing
out that while McGavick talks a good game about
civility. That isnt how he played in the recent
past.What they actually said or did is not the
issue its the fact that they played that way
that is.He is the one that has been making a
big deal about civility not I.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 26, 2006 06:19 PM
17. I just heard Cantwell's new TV add on King 5, she says she is busy cutting taxes on residents of this state...


She killed the sales tax deduction in Washington we have been enjoying netting an average return to the citizens of Washington.

Yup! She is working hard cutting taxes on residents of this state...

Not hardly Maria!

She is reading directly from the playbook of Queen Christine's campaign tax cutting practice, and this commercial proves that Mike's campaign add accusing her of killing the sales tax deduction is gathering traction from her camp.

Posted by: GS on August 26, 2006 06:54 PM
18. It isn't like Maria hasn't done some ethically questionable things with her primary opponents. Maybe McGavick should have "hired" Susan to work for his campaign. I have no idea what you are talking about, and it doesn't sound like you do either.

Posted by: Michael on August 26, 2006 07:02 PM
19. If you want to see what Phil is talking about, see these articles:

Of course, these are unrebutted articles written by Phil himself, and are barely more coherent than what he has written here.

Posted by: Michael on August 26, 2006 07:09 PM
20. By the way, Phil is Susan's brother, for those who are confused.

Posted by: Michael on August 26, 2006 07:11 PM
21. Michael,

Thats real class, since you can't defend
McGavick you take shots at me.I know exactly
what I'm talking about. As far as rebutting what
I said on my blog well your right no one has
and you know why? Because they can't. Though
there has been ample opportunity to do so.

What generally happens over on my blog when
I bring up something about McGavick they don't
defend him they take shots at me just like what
you and some of the others are doing here.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 26, 2006 07:35 PM
22. I am not interested in defending McGavick. I will probably vote for him, but it will be more a vote against Cantwell, McGavick hasn't really inspired me. But when I have something to say, I post it or I don't post it. I don't say "If you knew what I know, you would be upset, but I can't say what it is."

Posted by: Michael on August 26, 2006 07:48 PM
23. Phil, I'm sorry, but coming at this as an outsider I can't make heads or tails about whatever it is you seem to be trying to allude to.

Either come right out with it or give it up.

What you are doing is little more than the nastiest kind of gossiping: pretending you know a deep, dark ugly secret and letting peoples imagination wonder how ugly it is.

Say it or move on.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 26, 2006 07:48 PM
24. "She killed the sales tax deduction in Washington we have been enjoying netting an average return to the citizens of Washington."


How did she do that? Last I heard, it was a GOP controlled Congress and Executive branch. Did she cosponsor an ammendment to get rid of that deduction?

If I remember right, she was one of the players who got that deduction written into code in the first place.

"Maria worked with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to restore this important tax cut for the next two years as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, signed into law in October 2004. Under Maria's provisions, more than one million Washingtonians will receive an average tax cut of over $500, and state officials estimate that residents will save a total of almost $500 million per year. Now, Maria is leading the effort to make this tax cut permanent."

Truthfully now, did she then recommend it killed, under the courageous objections of Frist and Stevens only to prevail under threat of fillibuster?

Posted by: CandrewB on August 26, 2006 08:10 PM
25. Oh, I see.

"Senate leaders apparently can't resist hanging onto the leverage they perceive to gain by keeping the deduction in jeopardy. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee is from one of the seven states held hostage to the tactic, yet he has thus far refused to strip it out for a vote to make it permanent - proving that partisan game-playing can even trump his own constituents' interests."

They had to vote against it due to the GOP attaching it to the Paris Hilton Reduction Tax measure. Kind of a stretch to say she single handedly killed it don't you think?

Posted by: CandrewB on August 26, 2006 08:22 PM
26. I asked this question on some Horse website, but no one answered me there. Perhaps I will have better luck here.

Why doesn't some clever, intrepid journalist as Ms. Cantwell what her greatest mistakes in life are? McGavick has given us real information about him. I want that information before I decide to entrust someone with my vote. So I applaud his disclosure. I very much would like to know the same info from the incumbent.

Posted by: John Galt on August 26, 2006 09:14 PM
27. Estate taxes are massive Double taxation. Plain wrong. Cantwell voted against all tax decreases for state residents when she voted no on that bill!

All I get from every democrap in this state is demands for more more more more! They all got their hands out!

You made no mention of the Queen and her 17% budget increase and highest tax increases in state history, after campaigning on a no new tax basis. Who the heck gets a 17% raise every year to pay for her increases?

Posted by: GS on August 26, 2006 09:14 PM
28. Bottom line: In this day and age of few politicians deserving votes from anyone because only a select few of them really serve the people - I don't know if McGavick would do other than serve himself - he shows some possibility of that being the case - even if he supports some of Bush's policies. One thing I know for sure though is that Cantwell talks out of both sides of her mouth and is out to serve herself, even if she isn't always in lockstep with the Democrat Party. My dissatisfaction with her influences my vote here more than what I have seen from him. This election could be about rising anti-incumbent sentiment and I am willing to take a gamble on new blood in DC with the miserable performance of Congress.

Posted by: KS on August 26, 2006 10:02 PM
29. For your reading pleasure Candrewb:

Per The New Tribune, August 17th, 2006

"Cantwell voted against Washington taxpayers"
I recently typed in "Maria Cantwell voting record" into my Google search engine. It came up with several sites that track the voting records of our elected officials. So I started checking out Cantwell's voting record. It did not take long to see that in most cases she is a rubber stamp for just about every bill she sees that expands our already bulging federal government.
But recently she voted no. When she voted no on the recent bill addressing the federal minimum wage, she also voted no on the amendment that would allow Washington state taxpayers to deduct from their income tax the state sales tax they pay the state.

So, fellow Washingtonians, prepare to keep paying tax on sales tax. It would seem that money in the pocket of the federal government is more important than money in the pockets of Cantwell's constituents.

I could not say it any clearer! She cost all of us in this state an average of over $500 in her latest no vote!

Posted by: GS on August 26, 2006 10:15 PM
30. I am late in the discussion and the conversation has moved on but I would like to reiterate what has been said about every scandal. The problem is never the crime, it's the later cover up that is always the undoing. People are surprisingly forgiving as long as they aren't lied to. It was a smart move and will probably get McGavick some votes. That said, I hope we don't start seeing sob story, Oprah Winfrey style of campaigning.

Posted by: Elaine on August 26, 2006 10:34 PM
31. Every tax except the income tax can be considered double taxation. And she voted no to giving multi-multi millionaire's kids a government-sanctioned path to aristocracy. If you are interested at all, you can look up a Feingold ammendment that exempted the first 100 (100!) million from the estate tax. Guess who voted it down?

Posted by: CandrewB on August 26, 2006 11:20 PM
32. Darcy doesn't need to drink to cause auto accidents. She does that on her own. McGavick put himself and others at higher risk for an accident by driving while intoxicated, but let us not forget, it was Darcy that actually caused the accident, on the day she declared her candidacy, no less.

Posted by: Michael on August 27, 2006 12:29 AM
33. I wonder what that DWI did for his insurance rates.

That might be a scandal in and of itself? Did his DWI increase his insurance or did he get special treatment (for obvious reasons) despite that?

Posted by: Teddy on August 27, 2006 01:36 AM
34. Drunk Drivers killed more Americans last year than al Quada, Hezbollah, and Hamas COMBINED!

Posted by: Teddy on August 27, 2006 02:08 AM
35. Now we might know why McGavick needed to run a "civility" campaign. It is a common tactic for candidates with secrets in the closet that don't reflect well on them.

I applaud him coming out on his DUI - its a good thing to do as a person and a brilliant political move.

But he made a big mistake in denying that this is a campaign tactic. Of course it is.

And he made a big mistake by going after the "tone" of the campaign and linking Cantwell to the "tone" he doesn't like. That's lowball politics.

The whole thing is a bunch of political spin from a master political gamesman who claims to be running against political gamesmanship. Creepy.

Bottom line: Blue state will back the blue candidate.

Posted by: thor on August 27, 2006 07:46 AM
36. I just posted the below in the comments at the previous thread, it applies here as well:

Our old friend "Steve"/"Conservative not Republican" is trying to make a comeback in the comments after being banned by Stefan and I. He's being deleted whenever we come across his comments.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 27, 2006 08:20 AM
37. Thanks Eric. His comments about hoping people's family members die due to a drunk driver were beyond despicable. I don't usually get angry about what I read here but that crossed the line. What a dreadful excuse for a human being that person is.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 08:31 AM
38. I feel sorry for Cantwell and her campaign. All that opposition research gone to waste, and all those ads already made and scheduled for airing the last weekend of October which will now never be seen. Let's just hope that the researchers and ad producers have already cashed their checks before the "stop payment" reached the banks.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega on August 27, 2006 09:20 AM
39. KS at 28 said it all for me--very well put!

take all their talk with a grain of salt & go do the boring, unsexy homework on their ACTUAL votes and DEMONSTRATED ACTIONS to clear your mind's fog; i "column A & B" them to see who is mostly on my side with real actions; none will ever do all the things i want--it's always a compromise;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 27, 2006 09:33 AM
40. Could Steve be Deb Frisch? She's been known to post under the name "steve" and make threats and post false suicide notes. She's been posting from this IP address:

Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 27, 2006 09:35 AM
41. Obi Wan: another interesting sidebar, Deb Frisch is currently formally charged in Oregon with stalking and harrasment on blog sites.

Posted by: katomar on August 27, 2006 10:03 AM
42. Bill, at #37: "What a dreadful excuse for a human being that person is." ? is that a civil comment??

I find it humorous that in modern America it is worse to condemn evil than to actually BE evil. Hence, we see those who exposed the felonious activities of our former President demonized as "Clinton Haters!" and John McCain vilifying the Swift Boat Veterans for their "terrible charges" but not Kerry for the "terrible acts" that were the basis for the charges. Mike McGavick can destroy his first family by divorce and imperil the lives of unknown and innocent third-party drivers by driving while intoxicated, but somehow it is worse to criticize him for those things than for him to have done them. Welcome to Crazy World.
I exposed Chris Vance as a habitual liar, constant Republican Party rule breaker and across-the-board liberal activist who actively used his position as State Chair to destroy conservative candidates, totally drain the Party?s financial reserves for his own political benefit, leaving us close to two million dollars in debt before his resignation and I was denounced as "uncivil," my criticisms dismissed as personal animosity. I was (and still am) the subject of literal hate speech by the GOP left for telling the truth on this and other issues as if it is okay to DO those things, just not okay to point out when someone does them. "Corruption may be bad, but exposing corruption is worse." "Republican Unity" is, thus, supposed to mean collusion with corruption for the sake of public relations. Welcome to Crazy World.

What is even more fascinating, however, is the methodology of the McGavick hit machine. His campaign repeatedly ONLY criticizes Cantwell's votes. On her votes he takes the liberty of impugning Cantwell's motives, saying she (and the Democrats) are guilty of evil "partisanship." (Something he, trust me, will never be found guilty of.) How is it possible for Cantwell to respond? MCGAVICK, never having held any office, HAS NO VOTES. Thus any criticism of him is "uncivil," a personal attack. And he takes no traceable positions on issues, that is, he leaves himself room to go in any direction. For instance, he decisively criticized the Alaska pipeline for leaking. He did not know whether to blame Government (to appeal to conservatives) or the "Corporations" (to appeal to liberals), but he knew it was someone's fault and that, if elected, he would solve the problem because that's what government does. It is, on its face, brilliant strategy. Utterly void of principle, but smart if he gets away with it.

But everyone has missed the larger goal of this strategy. He has real negatives. Not the "preferred" ones to which he just confessed, but negatives that could lose him the election. From the very outset of his campaign he has desperately tried to position himself to make it untenable for Cantwell to use his negatives against him. That is what all the talk of "civility" is about. It is a gambit he utterly depends on. Because he cannot run on substance.

Not that he doesn't have any substance, he does. He just can't get elected on it. You can't beat a Democrat incumbent, running on Democrat substance as a Republican. Democrats won't trust his pro-choice credentials, for instance, because he is a Republican and if he runs on them he loses the Republican base. Cantwell could, without going "negative," label him as "anti-choice" and he could choose to remain silent and lose (like Rick White did) or respond with "I am too pro-choice!" and cut off his base. And it is clear that Mike is well aware of this. It is the only explanation for his deceptive equivocation on the issue.

Bear in mind I'm talking about one of his positives, not a negative. He really is pro-choice. That is "positive' in the sense that it is substantive, like Stefan and Andy and... well, I don't have to name them all, do I? But Stefan and Andy are open and honest about their pro-abortion choice positions. They have earned the support of those that agree with them. That is "positive" in a technical political sense. But having abandoned his philosophical support for the Iraq war, and equivocated on everything else, including Republican loyalty, Mike McGavick doesn't have any "positive" (substantive) positions left, nothing at all.

What happens when the negatives come out?

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 27, 2006 10:28 AM
43. Doug -

Perhaps you've missed incursions from "Steve"/"Conservative not Republican"/"Betty"/"Sue"/"Alex" in recent weeks. His comments were and are beyond the pale in the depth of their personal slander and attacks (not to mention the fact he tends to virtually spam various threads with repetitive comments), thus Bill is entirely correct. Your history of comments at SP are civil compared to adjective I and others have not been prone to use otherwise to describe your missives.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 27, 2006 10:42 AM
44. Nicely done doug, what?

I'm still voting for Mike McGavick because with him I have some small hope that he will, as a moderate Republican, will support some of my interests as opposed to cantvotewell, who never has and never will support any of my interests!

In this case I think your party purity ethic is misplaced.

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 27, 2006 10:51 AM
45. " Bill, at #37: "What a dreadful excuse for a human being that person is." ? is that a civil comment??

Uh, Doug. When someone posts here, (since removed by Eric), that they wish members of another posters family be killed by a drunken driver that hardly merits a "civil" comment. I'll reserve civil commentary for the battle of ideas.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 10:52 AM
46. Thanks Eric for policing the garbage. I don't want to see SP become HA.

I've read a lot of Phil Spackman here at SP. Some of his comments are insightful, but they always come with some sort of chip on his shoulder. Grain of salt.

McGavick seems to be doing a great job of spin control. Must be more Rovian genius.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 27, 2006 12:54 PM
47. "Why doesn't some clever, intrepid journalist ask Ms. Cantwell what her greatest mistakes in life are?"

Because George W. Bush can't seem to remember making any mistakes during his administration (see his last couple of prime time press conferences), reporters don't bother asking politicians that question any more.

Posted by: DCExPat on August 27, 2006 01:50 PM
48. "Because George W. Bush can't seem to remember making any mistakes during his administration"


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 02:37 PM
49. Suit yourself, Alphabet Soup. I'm supporting a REAL Republican to go against Cantwell. One who is much more likely to represent your interests. There is one, you know! Not likely to win, you say? McGavick isn't either.

Posted by: Michelle on August 27, 2006 03:30 PM
50. katomar, thanks for the tip. Maybe Eric can tell us if the banned poster is using an IP from the same domain, and location in Eugene, OR. Stefan could get a restraining order against her too.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 27, 2006 03:57 PM
51. Bill, Eric, I have no quarrel with banning Steve. As Eric points out, I haven't followed "him," or the history of "his" posts. I plead complete ignorance. I just meant to point out an ongoing source of hypocrisy in the GOP. People are severely criticized for being critical. The Republican Left has no qualms about comparing Conservative Christians to Islamic terrorists, calling them extremists and saying conservatives want to use politics to impose religion (a blatant lie) but goes ballistic if the right points out that they are Republicans In Name Only.

And Mike has not ceased to attack Maria, all the while talking about a "new tone." In the vast majority of cases, the only reason he doesn't criticize her is because he agrees with her. As I speak he is further to the left on Iraq than Cantwell AND Lieberman.

Alphabet Soup: My "party purity ethic"? What is it? I think you'll find you're referring to an image of me created by my detractors, not anything I said. But you're wrong about the difference between Cantvotewell and Mike. She voted to authorize the war on terror. Mike now says he wouldn't have done that (knowing what he now knows). Unless you're anti-war she's closer to you than McGavick. The big difference between electing Mike and someone worth voting for (like Brad Klippert) is that, if elected, Mike would begin removing conservatism from the Party structure altogether. If he were successful in doing that, the Democrats would move father to the left (as is their tendency anyway, at least in Washington State) and we would take their older, more moderate, left-wing positions. The new GOP would become the old Democrat Party. The debate would only be about how FAST to grow government, never "IF" we should. But, of course, that's not going to happen. The majority of the grassroots is conservative. A winning McGavick would, instead, start an internal Party war like you've never seen before. When Evans was governor they literally threw legitimate conservative delegates out of a State Convention onto the street. Political blood will flow.

There was a river of death in the Soviet Union
Old men, young men flowed on down
It was filled with the blood of Jews and Christians
Millions wore the thorny crown.

The river of death flows unatoned
Past congressmen with hearts of stone
It's filled with excrement, filth and stink
Where Western liberals kneel...
And drink.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 27, 2006 04:26 PM
52. Doug says, "The Republican Left has no qualms about comparing Conservative Christians to Islamic terrorists, calling them extremists and saying conservatives want to use politics to impose religion (a blatant lie) but goes ballistic if the right points out that they are Republicans In Name Only."

This is all news to me. Examples to illustrate what you are talking about, please.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 04:45 PM
53. Obi-Wan,

"Steve" uses a variety of IP addresses (all from the Seattle area, none from Oregon), though always the same one when he posts several comments in succession, sometimes with different names. But there are several other easy clues to his posts that allow them to be identified.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 27, 2006 05:38 PM
54. Eric, thanks. I've noticed a few clues myself.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 27, 2006 06:05 PM
55. Jeff B.,

I agree I do have a chip on my shoulder when
it comes to the washington State gop. I will
explain why: This is the minority party in this
state and it shouldn't be that way.The State
gop leadership and the establishment crowd for
to long have gotten who and what they
wanted.They never listen to there base about
anything. All because they think know better
than you and I.

There way has almost never worked all it really
ever does is drive there base away.I know some
you wont agree with me but they blew it this time
in regards to the US senate race.What they have
now in Mike McGavick is someone who is a moving
target with a lot of baggage.I can say without
hesitation that Democrats have not even started
attacking him yet. Believe me its about to get
a lot worse.

So yeah Jeff B. I am sick and tired of this
crowd. That being the State Gop and establishment
crowd. They are ruining a a great political party
and I for one have had enough of it.Your right
I do have a chip on my shoulder and for good


What I said is not gossip I was there when
it happened.What is so hard to understand
about the tactics the McGavick campaign use
without knowing what they specifically did.
I will say it again what I'm trying to convey here
is that McGavick talks a good game when it comes to
civility but in reality he and his campaign do
not practice what they preach.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 27, 2006 07:50 PM
56. That's the point Phil, you DIDN'T say anything... you alluded and hinted at something horrible and ugly, but you don't seem to carry the courage to just come out and say it. That in itself, that vicious maneuver is indeed the ugliest form of gossip: innuendo.

Again, say it or move on, because innuendo carries no credibility.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 27, 2006 08:10 PM
57. I'll give you credit Phil. At least you haven't starting ranting about the "Evanites".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 08:12 PM
58. Cheryl, I totally agree. If Phil wants to lend credence to his charges it's his responsibility to provide specifics.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 08:40 PM
59. Earl--
Check out this article in today's Peninsula Daily News.
Mrs. Gregoire actually had a frigging "CEREMONY" to celebrate the $100 million PLUS Hood Canal Bridge boondoggle.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 27, 2006 08:51 PM
60. Bill (52) here's an example of scurrilous slander:

Diane plays the race card

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 27, 2006 09:39 PM
61. The liberal Republicans are telling us that we must support McGavick even after these revelations.

But, if we do, how does that make us different than the Democrats? It seems like if we support McGavick we are putting our principles aside, just like we constantly see and criticize our opponents of doing.

Sorry, I have lost too many friends due to Drunk Drivers to ever support someone like McGavick. I don't care that the Democrats support Teddy Kennedy.

I never have.

Posted by: Debra on August 27, 2006 09:40 PM
62. "Suit myself"? - Don't I always?!

I could say that I'm in awe of your logic, but won't because I'd be fibbing. You claim that you support a "REAL Republican" instead of McGavick but curiously you didn't even mention his/her name. No matter because he/she has no hope of winning.

As a Washington voter I'm familiar with casting a vote in a race I'm confident we won't win, but in this race there are only three choices; cantvotewell, McGavick, or throw your vote (and mine) away. That's it. I know that there are a few other candidates on the slate but they have zero chance of winning.

This is really a no-brainer for me: McGavick or cantvotewell.

So yes, I will suit myself and vote for McGavick!

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 27, 2006 09:53 PM
63. Doug #60. I consider myself to be a Reagan conservative Republican.

Ronald Reagan was a man of principle. I think he would be embarrased by the things you say here and on your website.

You didn't answer my question in post #52. Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 10:01 PM
64. alphabet soup I hope that you lose a love one to a drunk driver. Then perhaps you will understand, that YES, this is a big deal.

Posted by: Tad on August 27, 2006 10:25 PM
65. Thanks tad - that's very liberal of you.

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 27, 2006 10:34 PM
66. 59 Cynical

Wait until Mr Seattle Mayor starts digging up bones in his big waterfront dig, and this story of Gregoire handing out millions of our tax dollars will look like peanuts.

Posted by: GS on August 27, 2006 10:52 PM
67. Bill (63):
1. If you consider yourself a Reagan conservative and Reagan a man of principle, then you certainly can tell me what principle I have violated over which you claim embarassment. Please. Be specific.

2. I can see where you might miss that the Chair of the Republican party falsely charging me with racist remarks is an example of the left calling the right "extreme" but you're wrong. It is. But maybe I can help you with some more: :
"Vance looked at the results of recent elections and concluded that state voters perceived the GOP's past standard-bearers--like KVI-AM talk-show host John Carlson and conservative Christians Ellen Craswell and Linda Smith--as too extreme." :
"Though Republican leaders say they are eager to keep Christian conservative voters in the fold, they are working hard to make sure another candidate like Craswell does not rise up. "Ellen Craswell was an anomaly," said state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance. "Her views did not reflect the Republican Party's values. If you're looking for a radical conservative party, that's not the Republican Party. Never has been, never will be." ... Vance said incompetence by Republican leaders allowed the party to be taken over by people who "were not just conservative but wanted to openly espouse Christianity through the Republican Party. These folks weren't just pro-life, they were almost theocrats."
"More people voted for Craswell than Dole in WA, so that doesn't exactly put me on the fringe, though she certainly was."

This is a constant drumbeat from the Republican Left: "Craswell was extreme because we say she was extreme." Absurd! She was pro-life. They are not. They are gay rights Republicans. She was not. Extreme? Ludicrous propaganda. Killing people is extreme. Sexual perversion is extreme. Ellen Craswell was a Reagan conservative. They are not.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 27, 2006 11:27 PM
68. "Tad" posts "alphabet soup I hope that you lose a love one to a drunk driver. Then perhaps you will understand, that YES, this is a big deal."

I understand the anguish of those that have lost loved ones because of drunk drivers.

Wishing that unfortunate fate on others is a surely a sign of mental illness.

It's easy to post this kind of disgusting garbage when you use a phony name and e-mail address, "Tad" or "steve" or whatever you decide to call yourself at any given moment. You should be ashamed of yourself, and you should apologize to all of us.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 11:39 PM
69. Doug. Again you avoid my query to substantiate what you said way back in your post #51" "The Republican Left has no qualms about comparing Conservative Christians to Islamic terrorists, calling them extremists and saying conservatives want to use politics to impose religion (a blatant lie) but goes ballistic if the right points out that they are Republicans In Name Only." I merely asked you for some concrete examples to back up what you said.

Have the courtesy to answer my earlier questions before you bombard me with yours.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 11:54 PM
70. You know, Cantwell says she helps military people. She is a liar. When Nethercutt was in office, my brother was having trouble getting the military to provide reimbursement which regulations stated he and others should be getting.

He challenged his superiors and ended up asking for help with it from Cantwell. He told me she was so incompetent that he ended up contacting Nethercutt's office because Cantwell had no clue.

When he presented what his research and the process he had persued to Nethercutt's office, they were impressed and recognized my brother had already done most of the work to prove his case. There was very little for Nethercutt to have to do, but Nethercutt DID follow through - unlike Maria "Cant-Be-Bothered".

It turns out my brother was right. The Army had regularly been denying soldiers certain benefits that regulations said they deserved. He personally got $3,000 out of it for back benefits owed.

Now I am certain all the "progressives" are waiting for me to say how he supported Nethercutt and is a Republican. Nope. He voted against Nethercutt (I say he deserved Cantwell personally).

He is a Bush hating, frothing at the mouth liberal Democrat who hates Cantwell because of her incompetance. His nickname for Cantwell is a substitution of the first four letters of her last name, replacing it with slang for a female sex part that rhymes with grunt.

Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2006 12:13 AM
71. Bill Chruchon, I've given you FOUR examples and you say I'm "avoiding your query"?? All of the above are substantiation. It is, unmistakably, the demonization of conservatives by the Republican Left.

You baffle me. Are you incapable of reading English sentences or just lying?
When Chris Vance calls conservative candidates "too extreme" and then says, conservatives "were not just conservative but wanted to openly espouse Christianity through the Republican Party. These folks weren't just pro-life, they were almost theocrats," how can you possibly not realize that is substantiation of my claim that the GOP Left is "calling them extremists and saying conservatives want to use politics to impose religion"

It is clear, obvious, and a four year old could follow it.

What are you smoking?

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 12:53 AM
72. Smoking?

Probably the same stuff you and Phil were "hitting" when you appeared on the Goldstien show as the tag team act of "Republicans who hate Republicans who don't support who we support." That would be the wing of the party who is so dedicated to the principle of being governed by Democrats at every level of the Government.

Nothing wrong with being Cantwell and Phil run with that. Oh and Burner Republicans are welcome in the fold too. Maybe you can get Susan to join you!

Posted by: Smokie on August 28, 2006 08:35 AM
73. Doug, I didn't see a single word in your "examples" where anyone in the "Republican Left" compared Conservative Christians to Islamic terrorists, called them extremists, or said conservatives want to use politics to impose religion. If I missed them, please point out where they are.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 08:49 AM
74. I'm sensing a political identity crisis amongst 2 of our most recent posters. I suspect they are "Republicans" only because of personal history and/or tradition despite the fact their political beliefs have no longer have anything to do with traditional Republican tenets. Embrace your inner liberal, boys. Come out of your political closet and publicly "move-on" over to the left.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 28, 2006 09:25 AM
75. RE: Spackman- he's been a conspiracy theorist for more than a year now. Always having "inside knowledge" that he can't talk about.
Hey, Phil: have you checked to see who's hiding under your bed?
He also works hand-in-hand with Doug Parris who has a 110% purity test for Republicans. Of course, no one has ever passed Doug's test.

Posted by: John425 on August 28, 2006 09:47 AM
76. I can't see anything in the current State Republican Platform that's "liberal" as Phil and Doug seem to believe. I remain suspicious of these folks as the ultimate outcome of their positions would result in electing Democrats.

Gotta love them for comic relief though. It's not that they're paranoid, it's just that everyone is against them.

Don't suppose these two guys are actually members of the DNC whose mission is to prove that the Republican Party is made up of religious kooks. Nah! I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 10:03 AM
77. PBJ--I agree--

thankfully, I have not had to call on my congresswoman for a serious matter; however, little things matter too--what pisses me off the most is my representatives' penchant for not answering my letters or e-mails on point--

if i oppose or support anything, i usually get a nice topic-oriented form letter that obviously does not address my concerns; what the hell are we paying their staffs for?! they read nothing; simple business courtesy taught in every company--lost of politicians;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 28, 2006 10:36 AM
78. Bill, Let me try one more time helping you.

Vance said incompetence by Republican leaders allowed the party to be taken over by people who "were not just conservative but wanted to openly espouse Christianity through the Republican Party. These folks weren't just pro-life, they were almost theocrats."

If you still can't see it, well, "you can lead a horse to water..." as they say.

One of you said the current Republican Party platform doesn't have anything liberal in it. The current Republican Party platform is conservative AGAINST the will of the Republican Left. They repeatedly tried to "accept the platform as is" (the bland draft that was presented by the committee) and adjourn the convention before it got any "worse" for them. Overwhelmingly, the grassroots voted (and the left put up a fight against) to ADD each of these to the platform: to get tougher on illegal immigration via no amnesty by renaming it "guest worker program" and properly interpretting the 14th Amendment to not include "anchor babies", to repeal the Growth Management Act, to endorse a One Strike Law with a penalty of Life in Prison for violent sex offenders, to oppose public funding of embryonic stem-cell research and call for the suspension and review of RU-486.

Did you not follow the news after the convention? All of the liberal Republican candidates (and current office holders) that the press could reach were distancing themselves from the immigration plank. A recipe for disaster in their campaigns, I might add.

Alphabet Soup, I was referring to Brad Klippert. Nobody would be "wasting" their vote in the primary on him. And if he wins the primary, we have a real contrast between him and Cantwell. He supports the Republican Platform.

Posted by: Michelle on August 28, 2006 11:02 AM
79. I know who you were talking about. He's probably a nice fellow, but outside of you, me, and about ten other people, no one knows who he is.

He has zero name recognition.
He has zero traction in this race.
He has zero percent chance of winning in the primary (much less against cantvotewell).

Those are the realities of the situation. Read 'em & weep...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 28, 2006 11:11 AM
80. "Michelle" at #78.

Having an identity crisis, Doug?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 11:18 AM
81. I have NO identity crisis. Michelle is my real name! Doug is his real name! I guess you want to ASSume that anybody who challenges you SP'ers must all be one person.

Alphabet Soup, You know who he is, I know who he is, 10 other people, and the 18% who voted for him at the convention know who he is, people wearing McGavick t-shirts who heard Klippert speak for the first time and who said they were shifting their support to him after the convention know who he is, Human Life of Washington and all of their supporters now know who he is (he has their endorsement), and gradually as more and more Republicans grow frustrated with McGavick's non-positions will be looking to find out who he is.

McGavick has less chance of beating Cantwell in the general than Klippert does. I'll grant you that right now, McGavick has more of a chance at winning the primary, but that's because of people like you who base their vote on "who can win". You might as well vote for Cantwell with that mentality. She has already proven that she "can win".

Posted by: Michelle on August 28, 2006 01:00 PM
82. Michelle,

Allow me to attempt to address this Vance quote you and Doug keep using: "Vance said incompetence by Republican leaders allowed the party to be taken over by people who "were not just conservative but wanted to openly espouse Christianity through the Republican Party. These folks weren't just pro-life, they were almost theocrats."

Espousing Christianity through the party or being "almost theocrats" is not the same as "imposing religion"

Neither of you has addressed Doug's other contention regarding the "Republican left" comparing conservative Christians to Islamic terrorists.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 01:13 PM
83. I just heard Maria Cantliewell in her most recent campaign add lying about hpw hard she is working to reduce taxes on the citizens of this state.

Where was she on eliminating the federal estate tax on the citizens of this state.....She voted NO

Where was she on reinstating the federal deduction on our state sales taxes.....She voted No

Where was she on the election of Queen Gregoire to this state, who has raised the budget in this state 17% taxed everything that drives or crawls, property taxes, every fee in the state, college tuition, etc. etc. .......Cantwell voted Yes for her!

So exactly what taxes are Canliewell working so damn hard on presently to cut for state residents.......................................................................................................

I'm waiting.........................................................................................................

Posted by: GS on August 28, 2006 01:43 PM
84. Bill, your denials of my direct quotes of Republican leadership proving my point are simply delusional. You're barking at the moon.
John 425 ("The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." John 4:25): your most recent post is just a lie. You can't back it up, but I'm sure you don't care. You will, instead, move on to making up more lies on other topics.

I can understand anyone's frustration with Phil making an accusation of McGavick, and then refusing to document it, but, in fact, if you had been a Soundpolitics reader for more than a few weeks, you would realize he has already backed it up. That's a fact. You just haven't been around long enough or you haven't done the homework. And he does have legitimate reasons for not repeating his facts at this time, so, as much as it hurts you to do so, if you want Phil to "be silent" you're going to have to do so yourself on this issue (or do the research).

Both Michelle and I have posted here - also for a very long time. Thinking I was posting under that name is the demonstration of more pure ignorance, a recurring theme of yours, Bill. If you knew anything about the Republican Party or the Reagan Wing you would know that a big reason the Republican Platform is conservative is because of our extensive efforts: Platform committee members in numerous Counties and at the State level, and floor motions and speeches of Reagan Wing Republicans across the state. But, given your penchant for reading comprehension, I doubt there is any way to convince you of anything.
Mr. Soup: Triangulations about viability have absolutely no relevance to a primary election. Do the right thing. If the "right thing" is not viable the Primary will prove it - but you will have redeemed your soul. And you will be free to vote for the lesser of two evils in the General if you so choose.

re: Phil "works hand-in-hand with Doug Parris." First, let me say I am proud to be so accused with regard to Mr. Spackman. And you're going to find that Doug Parris "works hand in hand" with a vast array of people across the State and nation who may disagree with each other on many topics, but find a principal unity in conservative principle. NARLO's Ron Ewart is a salient example. We're everywhere. We are a vast right-wing conspiracy. We are the conservative wing of the Republican Party. There is a difference between the GOP's liberal establishment and us. They think people of this Party exist to provide them with position. We think Their positions exist to provide those people with freedom. And we go to make sure that they have it. We won't sit down, we won't shut up and we're not going away.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 02:45 PM
85. Fair enough Phil. I agree, the WSRP could do a lot better. But at the Senatorial level, we all know that this is essentially a referendum on the degree of US statism and whether or not we continue to confront Violent Islam. The rest of the issues are dwarfed by the larger issues and are left to lower local and state offices.

A vote against Cantwell is a vote that says that one does not believe the Progressive Lie and one wants to remain strong against Violent Islam.

With that in mind, who really cares about internal bickering? McGavick is about as good as it gets in a world where no one who would actually make a good electable, well financed candidate or leader would ever consider running for office.

As for the DUI witch hunt. To me this seems like the kind of attack the Democrats fantasize over while getting drunk with Goldstein. It all seemed like a good idea while they were inebriated inside the Blue Cocoon. But in the real world, we've all made mistakes and know that dredging stuff up from 13 years ago is a stretch that makes Democrats look lame and childish.

It's the Bush deranged mentality that so many on the left have adopted.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 28, 2006 03:14 PM
86. Smokie,

I don't know what you were listening to that
night I was David Goldstein's radio show.
How on earth you could come away with that conclusion
you have is beyond me.I did not that night
nor have I ever said I hate anyone because
they don't agree with me.

As for Doug Parris and I being a tag team that
night you should know I was scheduled as
a guest on Mr Goldstein's show that evening.
Doug just happened to call in and it went from
there.Since I only had about 20 minutes of
airtime we barely scratched the surface of
what David and I were going to talk about.
There is a whole lot about the State Gop
that we didn't have time to get into.

Now I know some of you are wondering why
did I go on David Goldstein's show?Well
David was the only one that was interested
in hearing what I had to say. Now I realize
that he was interested for different reasons
that say KVI,KTTH OR KRKO talk show hosts
would be. I have tried many times in the past
to get them to hear what I have to say. They
just aren't interested because they would rather
sweep it under the rug and pretend everything is a
bed of roses. All for the sake of party unity
which is joke I might add. Since they don't
have it now and have not for a long time.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 28, 2006 03:24 PM
87. You can accuse me of lying all you want Doug. I have a thick skin. I'll leave it to other readers here to judge for themselves whether or not there is any validity to your charge.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 03:25 PM
88. From an address by Hubert Locke, former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington:

"He warned that the American fascists would not come wearing swastikas and brown shirts. The American variety, he said, would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance.
We should make no mistake about what is at stake in this battle with the religious right."

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 03:33 PM
89. Well, leave it to the looney U of W and its looney professors to think that a cross and the Pledge of Allegiance are bad things!

Posted by: katomar on August 28, 2006 03:39 PM
90. From my reading here, looks like this Doug character is the real fascist.

Posted by: john on August 28, 2006 03:44 PM
91. I believe Professor Locke borrowed that quote from Sinclair Lewis.

You're not trying to imply that Locke is a Republican because he taught at the Evans School of Public Policy are you?

Hubert Locke tilts very heavily to the left.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 03:52 PM
92. For Bill:
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

"They are not conservatives," says Evans of this hard right faction [Christian Conservatives]. "They are religious radicals with very little knowledge of how our political system works and it has been suggested to me by other religious persons that what they want is a theocracy. They are intense and they tend to cluster, thus they are a force."

To accuse someone of working for a theocracy is precisely the same as saying they "want to use politics to impose religion." In meaning, the phrases are identical, indistinguishable, one and the same, precise duplicates, an exact match. That is what the word "theocracy" means. Are you just unfamiliar with the term?

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 04:05 PM
93. "Hubert Locke tilts very heavily to the left."

Well, gee, Bill, you're starting to get the picture.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 04:10 PM
94. Doug Parris-

Have you heard the word of the lord today? Take a chill pill you nutwad.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 28, 2006 04:10 PM
95. I'm beginning to understand why Chris Vance resigned.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 04:44 PM
96. So Phil and doug , hand in hand going forward in such venues as the Goldstien show to illuminate the horribly fractured base of the Republicans going forward into tho '06 election. Gee that was a productive worthwhile venture. David Goldstien was the only one willing to listen and give you airtime? Why would that be? Do you think it was his impartial need to inform the public behind that invite? Phil is scheduled and Doug just happens to get in on the call in portion of the 20 minute segment?... gosh I better go out and buy a lotto ticket.

Posted by: Smokie on August 28, 2006 06:25 PM
97. Well Smokie, one thing we can say about Phil and Doug. They don't show any trace of bitterness.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 06:45 PM
98. "...I better go out and buy a lotto ticket."

No, Smokie, no need for any changes... just take another toke.

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 28, 2006 08:16 PM
99. For sheer enjoyment readers here will enjoy post #78, where Doug mysteriously morphs into "Michelle".

"Bill, Let me try one more time helping you." (What a dead give away!), and then Doug subsequently and inelegantly denies that he and "Michelle" are one and the same a few posts later.

Great stuff, and for those I suspect have suffered Doug's rantings for a long time I hope you have a good laugh. I sure did.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 28, 2006 08:19 PM
100. Bill,

I hate to burst your bubble but Michelle and
Doug are indeed two different individuals.
I can say this because I know them both.
Even Diane Tebelius can attest to this she
knows who they both are just as well as I


I'm going to say this one more time. I did not
know Doug Parris was going to call in to the
show. Did I tell him before hand about the
show yes. He and about 60 other individuals.

As for David Goldstein I know thats why he
wanted me to come on the show.I made a point
of saying that he had different reasons for wanting
me on than did the other radio stations.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 28, 2006 08:32 PM
101. Phil

"Now I know some of you are wondering why
did I go on David Goldstein's show?Well
David was the only one that was interested
in hearing what I had to say."

"Useful idiot"
'nuf said...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 28, 2006 09:17 PM
102. Can't help you there Dougie! Not my cup of tea as it were. However you and Phil can probably make a fortune in the fertilzer business on that load of bull pucky you two continuously spew.

Posted by: Smokie on August 28, 2006 09:28 PM
103. Smokie,

If your not willing to state what it is Doug or I
am lying about. Then just be quiet.Its typical
of people like you they make a blanket statement
to impune someone else and never give specifics.

Alphabet Soup,

You can sit there and take all the cheapshots
you want. But it doesn't change the fact
that the republican party in this state continue
to lose because they won't listen to there
base.Do you that there are 32 State Rep postions
that are not contested by republicans this year?

With that many seats left uncontested we will
never get majority again in this state. Good
people will continue to sit out these races
because of the percieved lack of support from
the party.Don't believe me I will give you a
couple of examples.

The King Gop says they support Jeffery
Possinger, Mike Riley and Karen Steele.
Would you like to know how much money
they have these three individuals to date?
0 thats right absolutely nothing.Now there
are some they have.Donna Watts and Andrew
Franz are a couple of them.

In the case of Jeffery Possinger this is a
continuation of what happened in 2004. Pat Herbold
was openly supporting Roger Stark in the
primary.When Possinger won she was furious
and refused to give him any support whatsoever.
Its my contention that he could have won
if they had actually supported him.But they chose
not to just like they are now.

This is what I'm talking about you never hear
any of this on the talk shows. Instead
they make it look like everything's fine and say
nothing. This crap has gone on far to long
and it needs to stop.

Chris,Bill and everyone else that doesn't
know what the McGavick Campaign tried to
do to Susan Hutchison. Here it is:First of all
I have gotten to know Susan pretty well.
So I can speak with authority about her character.
No she isn't my sister but I consider her the
big sister I never had. So yes to me she is
family.Even though she didn't run this time
getting to know her has been a real blessing
for me.

Anyway what happened? Well as I said before
the State Gop and the McGavick campaign saw
Susan as a big time threat to McGavick winning.
So they had to try and take her out of the race.
They started by trying to portray her as a
flake. They would use some of there county
chairpersons to say things like Susan didn't
show up for a meeting again.Or we heard the
meeting she had with Such and such organization
didn't go well. Or we as a county party must
support McGavick because he has the resources
to win Susan doesn't.None of this has any basis
in fact.

One of the best ones I know about has to do
with the Washington federation of Republican
women's organization.Last year at there annual
convention another one of McGavick's county
chairpersons started floating a story around
that Susan was invited and confirmed she would
be there and then just didn't show up.This particular
one I believe was started to damage her ability
to get the women's vote.Again not true, I
personally contacted Jennifer Holder about
this and she went to great lengths to explain
to me that Susan had been invited but
told them she had a previous committment.
Jennifer said she made three separate
announcements explaining this fact.
at the convention. Still this story got
a lot of the traction at the convention.

These kinds of rumours and stories went
on for several months. It got to the point
where I finally said to Susan I know you
to well and I know what there saying about you
isn't true. Her response to me was I don't
care it doesnt bother me at all.Thats because
Susan was confident enough to know she could
easily overcome this stuff.

Don't let anybody from the State Gop leadership
Say they were neutral in this race. From the
very beginning they were supporting Mike McGavick. But thats a story is for another day.

Believe me I got enough emails and phone calls
from people around the state to know that this
crap got spread around pretty well.It was an
attempt by the McGavick campaign to damage
Susan Hutchison's reputation. All for the sake
of having primary free of any opponents.So
when Mike McGavick talks about civility I
simply don't buy it.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 28, 2006 10:50 PM
104. Phil - you've done a lot of finger flapping - but not much in the line of factual answers to real questions.

Oh - and for the record - Mike! looks so much better than Maria...

Posted by: jeremy in ballard on August 28, 2006 11:04 PM
105. Jeremy in ballard,

Just what questions are you talking about
that I haven't answered?I would really like
to know.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 28, 2006 11:54 PM
106. For sheer enjoyment readers here will enjoy post #100 by Bill Cruchon where he mysteriously asserts that Michelle (who is actually Republican in Exile)
is Doug Parris.
This follows the recent revelation by Michael Hood (who is actually blatherwatch) that Stefan Sharkansky is Eric Earling, (when many of us thought Eric Earling was Michael Hood).
It reminds me of the old days when Republican in Exile was considered a man. Or the even older days when I revealed that Lyndon LaRouche and Henry Kissinger are the same person (You notice they are never seen together. Coincidence? I think not.)
Cruchon, it turns out, is actually John425. When "John425" was accused of lying in post # 84, "Cruchon" responded (in his #87) with: "You can accuse me of lying all you want..." What a dead give away!

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 29, 2006 12:39 AM
107. This is one of the best comment thread burn sessions here for quite some time. I do wish I could have participated in it.
We've got readings from the scriptures, the classic RINO vs. "real" RINO debate, name calling and a load of one liners I'll be using at the next family outing.
Yet another classic clash of the titans from the best of SP readers. The only thing missing was Medusa and the Kraken.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 29, 2006 01:17 AM
108. Well since you asked, specifically your entire demeanor and presentation is irritating, smug, self-righteous and condecending. You and Doug have a particular form of myopia which doesn't allow for ANY give and take which would allow for unifying over any common principles.

Apparently in your absolutist world, you will disparage Republican candidates openly because they were not your picks. As you and your hand in hand friend have stated "You will not sit down, you will not shut up and you will not go away." What you have done is marginalize yourselves to the point of being irrelevant.

Posted by: Smokie on August 29, 2006 07:41 AM
109. Smokie,

Yet still you give no specifics about what Doug
or I supposedly lied about. I have high standards
of which I live by and believe in.I am not about
to compromise them for anyone.

As to unifying over common principles I guess
your refering to backing McGavick. I don't know
anything we are in agreement on other than anwar. Most everything else we either don't know
where he stands on it or he wont say what his
position is.I will not blindly support someone
simply because they have an R by there name.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 09:00 AM
110. I'd rather "blindly" support anyone with an R behind their name than have Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 09:23 AM
111. I'm more concerned about the big picture. Wailing and wringing your hands endlessly about Mike Lowry and Sid Morrison, the "evanites" and what happened in the past doesn't make much sense to me. I think you guys need to get over it. It's 2006. A lot more is at stake. Or do you not think it's important to keep Reid and Pelosi out of their potential leadership roles?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 10:30 AM
112. Phil, at this point I really don't care what you and Doug say or do. You have chosen a path of tearing down candidates of your own supposed party that don't agree with your perspective and it is your right to do so. Just as it is the right of others to move beyond your blather and try to work for change. Perhaps it is time to consider taking those who share your views to another party if you cannot find any common ground in the one you are in. A party is a free association of individuals united by a set of common goals. No party could possibly reflect all of the goals of all of all the individuals involved,so people have to make choices. If that party doesn't reflect your goals and you cannot move the party toward your point of view, perhaps you are in the wrong place. Say hi to Goldy, he's interested in hearing what you have to say.

Posted by: Smokie on August 29, 2006 11:06 AM
113. Fred, if you, Phil, Doug etc. represent the so-called conservative wing of the state Republican Party I don't want to be a part of it.

Your constant rantings, incredible anger, and vicious name calling are far more representative of the kook left. "Reagan Wing". Oh brother!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 11:18 AM
114. Smokie,

Once again you still haven't told me what it is
Doug or I have lied about.Since your the one
making that claim. Please tell us all what the
lies were.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 11:23 AM
115. "Fred", formerly at 109, 112, 114, 115, and 117, until his comments were deleted, is once our friend "Steve" who is banned from posting here...goodbye.

Posted by: Eric Earling on August 29, 2006 11:30 AM
116. Bill,

I have called no one names let alone used any
vicious ones.I defy you to find anywhere that
I have ever done that.To characterize someone as
having incredible anger without even knowing
them at all isn't a good idea.

Look politics is just one aspect of live.
An important one yes but that's all it is.
So before you say something like this again
you need to remember that.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 11:34 AM
117. Your unsubstantiated accusations about McGavick and his campaign speak for themselves, Phil.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 12:43 PM
118. Bill,

I can back up everything I have said McGavick
and his campaign.However I am not about to start
naming names here or anywhere else. I know that
as soon as I starting getting that specific
The endless amount of problems will start for
me and my family. While I have the truth on
my side. I do not have an unlimited amount of
resources to deal with it.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 01:23 PM
119. Phil Spackman: (from The Reagan Wing--7/22/05)

"It was at that point I decided
to go after Vance with everything I had. Because no one makes
me look like idiot and gets away with it."

No anger, Phil? You're off the deep end, fellow.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 02:41 PM
120. Bill,

you have taken out of context something I said.
I was not angry in when I said that.I became fedup
with kind of tactics chris vance was using
against my friend Mark Hulst. To use someone
like Dino Rossi to unknowily do your dirty work
I thought was reprehensible. I didn't then and I don't
now think that kind of a person should be a leader
of a State Political party.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 03:38 PM
121. "you have taken out of context something I said."

Very well Phil. Here's the address to the "in context". No more comprehensible than the stuff you post here, I might add.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 03:56 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?