1. What part of "the tantrum-prone, self-enriching, pork barreling senator-for-life from Alaska" is untrue?

Stop throwing stones Stefan, you'll break your house.

Posted by: Cato on June 13, 2007 10:15 AM

2. "the tantrum-prone, self-enriching, pork barreling senator-for-life from _________"

You can insert the state Washington and take your pick of our senators as well. Both of our senators are the enemy of the taxpayer. Cantwell especially likes to throw tantrums about "price gouging", even though it still hasn't been proven to happen anywhere in her state.

Posted by: Palouse on June 13, 2007 10:53 AM

3. Can you say Harry Reed, Cato?

Come on, give it a try. LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 13, 2007 11:33 AM

4. Well Cato, what part of "...the "Seattle Clowncouncil," "lying bastards" at the King County Elections Office and "Mrs. Gregoire, the felon's friend."..." is untrue?

Dontcha think it's Mr. Connelly that should stop throwing stones?

Posted by: drw on June 13, 2007 11:56 AM

5. The problem with cantwell is she won't do anything about the price gouging.
It is one thing to read the whine list about price gouging,but another to take a stand and solve the problem.
Problem..no competition.
Allow industrial cannabis to be grown for fuel..cannabis fuel competes with fossil fuel.. fuel price drop..problem solved.
Senators can make the laws that will enable industrial cannabis to compete.
The fact is The Democratic Senators want to achieve social engineering bliss by using high gas prices to create a fill in of urban villages.
I am tired of hearing the D's complain about gas prices then doing squat about it.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on June 13, 2007 12:06 PM

6. tantrum-prone Really? How often? Getting upset happens to everyone, and if it's for a good reason I don't see that as a tantrum. Sometimes you need to blow up to get action done.

self-enriching Really? How? Turning a few acres of scrub desert into millions by pushing through illegal land-use waivers? Sending billions of dollars of contracts through your committee to your husband's companies?

pork barreling Hey, it's only pork-barrel if it's for a different state. For his constituents it's called benefits...

senator-for-life Unless Alaska has an exemption, I believe he faces an election every 6 years.

from Alaska Well, got that ONE right...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 13, 2007 12:08 PM

7. I have to actually agree with both Cato and Joel CONnelly... Stevens is a tantrum-prone, self-enriching, pork barreling senator-for-life. He throws tantrums on the floor, he is under investigation for corruption, he's the longest serving Republican Senator, and can we say "Bridge to Nowhere"?

That isn't name calling, just stating the facts.

(that is, of course, the only thing I agree with Cato and CONnelly about)

Posted by: Mike H on June 13, 2007 12:12 PM

8. Forgive me Palouse, I didn't realize that a two-term senator was undefeatable.

Maybe when the GOP finds candidates who are not DUI CEO's or single market radio talk show hosts they might have a chance of defeating one or both of the Washington 'senator(s)-for-life'.

Posted by: Cato on June 13, 2007 12:14 PM

9. Publicbulldog,

The reason they don't want to do anything about it is three-fold:

1. It works for social engineering, attempting to force the poor and underprivileged among us to use public transport and live in certain areas (by controlling/concentrating that public transport to certain areas/corridors). Get the riff-raff out from their neighborhoods, you know...

2. If you start to sniff around, you find out that the State makes around 8 TIMES what the oil companies do, in terms of "take" from each gallon. Even at today's inflated prices. And while the price drops (below $3/gallon today, at the Costco at Aurora Village), the oil companies profits shrink proportionally. Not the State's cut!

3. A platform from which to attack those "evil rich Rethuglicans" who want to control everything via BusHalliburtonChaneyMcChimpy. Never mind the billions of dollars they unethically funnel to their own companies (like Senator Feinstein did for years).

So Senator Cantwell wants to raise a ruckus a bit because it looks like she's doing something for "the common folk". Yet actually DO something about it and the smoke-and-mirrors fall and the true goal of their actions becomes visible...

So do a bit of blustering in front of the camera for a 30 second sound bite (score those political points!) but ignore anything more, because that would expose what the real goals are!

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 13, 2007 12:15 PM

10. Mike H: no, Connelly's claim about name-calling was irrespective of truth. You can name-call and still be telling the truth. His complaint was about name-calling itself. And yet, it's something he engages in, regularly.

Posted by: pudge on June 13, 2007 12:23 PM

11. Cato, check back here in 12 years and we can reevaluate the for life designations. Methinks I'll be right on that.

Posted by: Palouse on June 13, 2007 12:34 PM

12. I'm ambivalent. I don't know whether our pint-sized double-digit-IQ senior Senator or our mendacious, crypto-socialist junior Senator is more objectionable. So I'll just hope that Richard Riehl is cast in the title role when they film Joel Connelly's life story.

Posted by: Rey Smith on June 13, 2007 12:36 PM

13. Excuse me Cato.

I didn't realize that a two-term senator was undefeatable.
___________________________________

Can you say Barbara Boxer & Finestein!

You make this soooo easy. LOL

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 13, 2007 12:44 PM

14.
No wonder readership for the hoary fishwrappings called the PI and Times keep declining, and viewing for SoundPolitics is on the upswing.

This is another case where the core of Seattle Insiders has completely lost control of the populace on all sides of the issues.

We need new brooms...

Posted by: John Bailo on June 13, 2007 12:53 PM

15. Yeah, if I wasn't a polite conservative I might take this occasion to call Connelly a fat tub of out of shape of blubber who will certainly at some point be a burden on our health care system. But only liberals would say something like that about those that disagree with them.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 13, 2007 01:00 PM

16. Bill (#15), that's so out of line. Next you'll be saying Teddy Kennedy only wants to build a bridge across the Rio Grande so the illegals won't drown.

Posted by: Rey Smith on June 13, 2007 01:18 PM

17. Rey, you heard that Mexico is not participating in the 2008 Olympics? Apparently everyone who could run, jump or swim has already left the country.

Bill H

Posted by: Bill H on June 13, 2007 06:27 PM

18. Good call Bill. Connelly is a great argument against nationalized healthcare. Few would want to pay for an obese man who has very little respect for his own health and would only burden the rest of us.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 13, 2007 10:16 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?