October 04, 2006
Suppression of dissent in Mrs. Gregoire's Amerikkka
Mrs. Gregoire realized that people other than the safe Democrat constituencies such as trial lawyers, labor unions, Indian tribes, environmentalists, feminists and newspaper editorial boards want a voice in selecting Supreme Court judges, so she is seeking to restore the status quo ante with "publicly financed judicial campaigns"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 04, 2006
10:34 AM | Email This
1. To show her sincerity Gregoire should immediately disband the PAC she controls and donate the money to charity.
Side note: If the tables were turned and McGavick had a larger war chest than Cantwell we'd be bombarded with cries of "Big Money!" and schemes to reduce/eliminate financial support in senatorial races too. Remember - it's evil big money when it comes from business interests but it's manna from heaven when it's from tribal casinos and unions.
2. Predictable...
And unfortunately popular.
Pander to her LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN PALS and paint the opposition as EVIL CORPORATE AMERIKKA, "SPECIAL"INTERSTS, GREEDY DEVELOPERS et al.
Unfortunately Ms. Gregoire, the "EVIL ONES" are also the ones who create jobs and the bulk of the tax base. Trade associations like BIAW (which represents 12,000 small business owners), Farm Bureau (representing virtually the entire agricultural community), Washington Restaurant Association (which represents tens of thousands of small, locally owned businesses) are hardly EVIL CORPORATE AMERIKKA.
It's time for Washington voters to have a say-so on Right to Work. Initiative time folks.
It's the only option.
Gregoire and her ilk will systematically destroy Private Business in Washington State otherwise.
3. yep, saw right through that one. When she says "Oh dear, I'm really concerned about this," what she's likely meaning by that is "OH DEAR, liberals are being outspent! Can't have THAT!"
4. right Cynical--ever see the salaries on the union bureaucrats & upper managers? newspapers never mention them--nor compare them to the average stiff union worker salary; but unions scream about the mutiples of salary excess between industry managers & workers;
no matter about killing business--state puts hand in your casket anyway "for the good of many"--translation--they live like a remora off of your family's hard work & investments & give it to illegals, homeless bums and nobody who helped you build that wealth.
like the B&O tax--you still pay even if you don't make a dime of profit; how job-friendly is that?! and don't get me started on the tribal monopoly on gambling, smoking, state booze monopoly and other vices we have as our last relief valves;
5. jimmie, what the heck does the B&O tax have to do with public financing of judicial elections?
Readers should be asked gently to keep comments to the topic at hand. Otherwise it's just a rambling gabfest, of no particular interest or value to consumers of this web site.
6. Our resident Union Thug and professional troll, ivan, is living, breathing proof that the union hierarchy is way overpaid.
Look at the size of that SOB!
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg
ivan is the fattest of the two dudes.
He's the "chinless" one on the LEFT (obviously).
Hasn't EVER missed a friggin' meal, has ivan?!
7. stu--
Actually jimmie is right on point.
So much harm has been done to the cost of doing business in Washington by the far left whackjobs.
B&O taxes are a great example.
Based on sheer volume.
Do union workers get paid on volume stu??
Of course not....they get paid for showing up.
stu, Jimmie is actually more on point than you may be able to comprehend.
In Washington, it has been a constant battle of business owners who risk capital and CREATE jobs and pay the bulk of the taxes....and the State Government (which extract money to feed it's overfed bureaucracy any & every way they can!)
It is the point stu.
8. The newspaper editorial boards were touting
the "non partisan" website www.votingforjudges.org
for voter info. However, the sponsors and endorsements the website and newspapers offered included bar associations, the trial lawyer association, Municipal League of King County,League of Women Voters, all heavily democrat groups. Would like to see more voter info sources in SoundPolitics editorials.
9. B&O tax is a giant rip-off, espeically for service businesses who far and away pay THREE TIMES what everyone else pays, ratewise. It's a racket and a rip-off. When will they DO something about that??
10. The answer is: Resign!
The question (asked by Mrs Gregoire in the linked article) is: "...we're looking at ways in which we can help".
11. No doubt any "public financing of judicial races" measure enacted by the current crowd in Olympia will specifically exempt union-run call centers and the like from being counted as contributions.
How utterly contemptible that Mrs Gregoire, and the rest of the totalitarian creatures masquerading as democrats, want to limit (i.e., censor) any speech that they don't agree with.
And how convenient, that she and her ilk have a crew in the WSSC that is experienced in eroding our constitutional rights.
12. If all elections both were publicly financed then there would be no problem. People would decided all races without out the media machine.
13. Remember the board that rates the candidates is stacked with Democrats that want Judges writing law from the bench. So those individuals will get high ratings.
The bottom line. If you can not get a bill through the legislature. Do it through the courts. Let the judges be the ones writing the laws. Because they can really change all the rulings. Watch them go the same way as the Supreme Court Liberals Use international law to justify their rulings.
Just think of the liberals wanting to outlaw the Bible. They would use the laws in BC that call the Bible a BOOK OF HATE. Coming to a state near you. Christians and Family values is not something any democrat believes in. They cant if they want to be in the circle of Democratic Power.
14. I disagree with the rhetoric that you propose. I know plenty of D's, R's, L's who believe in family values and are Christian, in addition, it is not in any of our power to judge. I am not afraid of the power of the public. This is our democracy - if we allow for campaigns that are truly public - and that means no funding from labor (or other groups) - the message would be up to the campaigns to give and people to choose. To that end, the idea of a government board created to advise people who to elect is corruption waiting to happen.
15. She does not seem so outraged by Cantwell's 57.6% out of state Campaign donations.
Just one more way to pour our tax money down a rat hole.
16. Stu, self-proclaimed blog traffic cop, bronx cheer to you. Mine is the first so-called OT posting you found? are you a frustrated ex-hall monitor? take your "gentle reminder" and...
to make you happy, here's something on-topic. i dont like public elections funding. sounds fair & innocent on its face. however, my $$ goes to causes i don't like--like the old days of United Way. and, i prefer to pay for my causes and fighters, not throw it into a common pot like (shared) "school supplies." and--seeing how pols. spend my money now, how do I know it's properly accounted for? lobbying is not clean, but more government money handling is not the answer.
17. Suspicion that the Dems have big plans for private property in the state and need a compliant court + plus they will be revisiting the gay-marriage issue as well --
18. Stefan, can you ever consider an issue on its merits rather than its political implications? That's the difference between being a thoughtful analyst and a political hack, you know.
Does it make sense to have private financing of judicial races?
But since you care only about the politics, let me point out that (a) the liberal interest groups you mention would be prevented from donating in a public-financing system, and (b) the states she mentions as models, Arizona and North Carolina, are not exactly hotbeds of radical communism.
19. Bruce, you know as well as I that the First Amendment wouldn't allow it, though reducing the impact of special interests in the elections is a good thing.
20. Dave,
You may think what I said is "rhetoric" it is not. It is an observation. Is the Supreme Court uses international Law to find support for their rulings. Do you not think the STATE SUPREME COURT if they could get away with it do the same. Look at some of their rulings recently. Any way to prevent strict constitutionalist off the court or keep them as a minority voice.
As others have stated some of the issues. I am looking at them doing Gay rights in the next year or so and then they will sue the Conservative Churches as being discrimating against their life style. Just like in BC. That was how the Bible was defined as a BOOK OF HATE. The cause and effect has many levels. It is hard to know how the judges will vote. I want conservatives. I do not want rule by judges. KC has been using the court system to keep collecting taxes even though the voters said they couldn't. If they control the Supreme Court well you do not want to see what new rights and priveleges. Maybe they will give the right to vote to none US Citizens. There are counties all over the country that do that now.
It is important to be an alarmist. Because these changes may take place over a decade but they will unless we stand fast on who gets into Supreme Court. I dont trust Democrats because they have been in power for too long and now control many institutes to allow them to keep in power.
21. One thing that rubs me the wrong way is how the governor speaks out of both sides of her mouth. After her slate of judicial candidates wins, suddenly she says she'll start thinking about "public financing."
She is one of the core disruptive factors tainting the judiciary in Washington. Her PAC "Legacy Fund" contributed about $17K before the primary to the "Citizens to Uphold" PAC. That PAC is for big government over citizens' rights. How the Supreme Court decides certain cases means big money to the tax-fed contributors to Cit to Uphold.
That's a classic campaign financing money laundering technique: $$$ to one PAC, then to another.
Obviously the gov. bought plenty with her money at the primary last month.
Then AFTER the primary the gov. makes her PAC kick in $10K additional to that PAC to spend for Owens, J. and/or against Johnson before the general election. So she's causing a bad situation to get worse. It is a problem she specifically identified, and then she throws her own fuel on the fire.
Apparently she's really keen on paying off Owens, or getting Owens on the bench to do something for her later, or who knows what.
The gov. contributes to buying judges to further her interests in certain big money cases.
Now she plays lip service to changing the system. But that is the same system that feeds her base richly. Her actions demonstrate she uses the deficiencies with and biases of our judicial system to her political advantage, and she probably wouldn't spend any capital trying to change it.
22. Heck this is the governor that still thinks it's OK to auction off the people's Governor's home for her political hacks. BS I am not buying it!
23. How far is WA State from this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S96o6RfiRIk&mode=related&search=
If I hear the term public-private partnership one more time I'm going to puke. Please can we just call it what it is? Fascism.