Lynne Varner's editorial in yesterday's Seattle Times reminds me of this painting
Gregoire herself recounts a story that places her in soft lighting but also serves as a headline for her tenure as leader of our state.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 21, 2007 05:51 PM | Email ThisThe narrative goes like this: One day, a group of lobbyists came to her office and one brought along her 11-year-old daughter. Everyone went around the table introducing themselves and their professional title. When it came to the young girl, she gave her name and for a job title said, "I'm just a kid."
"Nice to meet you," the governor replied. "But I have to correct you on something. In my budget, you are more than a kid, you're the centerpiece."
Cue the violins if that pleases you. But I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with pitiless leadership that hews blindly to the fiscal bottom line. I'm predicting a political future full of Gregoire and her type.
Posted by: Glenno on June 21, 2007 08:35 PM
Well, I have had one or two conversations with her. According to Lynn, I am a racist because I am concerned about the 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the African-American community (fastest route to lifetime poverty known to womankind).
Of course, I am also a racist according to the Seattle School District because, while working, I saved money for my future retirement.
Posted by: JC Bob on June 22, 2007 06:32 AMDear Friend,
About a week-and-a-half after the election last November, my then 3-year-old son Henry asked me whether I had won or lost. When I explained that I had lost, he cried. But once he stopped crying, he looked up at me and said with conviction, "It's okay, Mommy. You just need to try again." (He tells me that the bad guys never win in the end.)
Posted by: Smuff on June 22, 2007 06:49 AMGovernment is for losers.
Republicans should stick to business.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
http://www.freemarketcure.com/twowomen.php
http://www.freemarketcure.com/thelemon.php
http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php
http://www.freemarketcure.com/
A friend suggested I come and read your blog to get a "dose of reality." Sorry to say, when I come here, I find that your postings are of the extreme nature.
Why can't there be reasonable republicans out there? Ones that don't stoop to this kind of inane graphical and message extremism?
Or this there...clearly I have a bit to discuss with my friend (who apparently must be a lot more extreme than I had though) about the views here.
Does anyone know a reasonable republican site for Washington that supports positive, reasonable positions and doesn't stoop to crass personal attacks? If so, I'd be very grateful...and happy to recommend to my friend.
Posted by: Harry on June 22, 2007 11:45 AMGet out there and mingle with the rest of the country: you'll find extreme WA conservatives would be laughed at and dismissed for being too liberal in sane parts of the country.
To a liberal, a "reasonable Republican" is the guy who agrees with him.... in other words, another liberal.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 22, 2007 11:56 AMHowever, I'm used to the left being extreme and wacky (and someone pointed me to the crazy horse website which is ridiculous).
I have lived in the deep South and the midwest. The views that are on this website are consistent with the extreme views in those areas.
I'm looking for someone who blogs in a positive and offers reasonable, helfpul suggestions. One who is fiscally conservative yet doesn't bash opponents. One who believes that life is sacred, but doesn't draw ridiculous extreme comparisons.
When I moved here, I was told this is an ultra liberal state. I accepted that -- believing perhaps the republicans here would be more reasonable in their views.
Alas, I have found the opposite at this blog (which I was led to believe would be realistic).
Where are the reasonable republican bloggers? Please post URLs.
Posted by: Harry on June 22, 2007 12:07 PMI wanted to slap the lady who, after saying she only has just shy of $600/month of living expenses and $2300/month income (non taxed), that it was ridicules that she should have to pay for her own health care, then said that when she did have to go to the ER, just decided not to pay.
Thanks for sticking me with the bill, lady.
I have noticed of late that they are getting a little antsy over the perceived (their perceptions) failure of their standard bearer to do two things. First, gain some headway in the polls and second, work harder to promote the "progressive" agenda.
The first is simple - Washingtonians are not convinced that Gregiore won her position honestly and people just plain don't like cheaters.
The second one though mistifies me. What is there about her tenure that doesn't promote the "progressive" agenda?
I guess its all about perception.
Posted by: deadwood on June 22, 2007 12:57 PMI'm a little confused about what your standards of comparison might be when you state that this blog is extreme.
This is a pretty tame blog when compared to most others I have encountered - right or left. It offers a pretty broad range of analysis from the right side of the political spectrum, but that is what it advertises itself to be.
If your criticism is based on a lack of lefist perspective here, I think you might have a pretty unrealistic view of what the political blog universe is all about.
I have to conclude that you are misrepresenting yourself and that you are in fact a not so clever troll.
Posted by: deadwood on June 22, 2007 01:08 PMGo pound sand Posted by: JDH on June 22, 2007 01:24 PM
Your umbrage at a little venting using words like "drat" and "egad" are a little over the edge. Hang around and engage some of our writers in their pet projects. For one, I am completely humbled in the presence of JDH when he talks "lack of" global warming data.
Ragnar provides terrific commentary and supports that with quotes from real sources.
And, deadwood is anything but. So, hang in there, young fella.
Posted by: swatter on June 22, 2007 01:33 PMDon't let some of the peanut gallery get you down. There is nothing specifically wrong with what you seek, but your approach did invite a little sarcastic response.
I do not know now long you have been reading here, and which postings you have ventured into, but you will find a broad range of ideas and opinions, some off the wall and some well reasoned. We have input mostly from conservatives, a few libertarians and a couple of liberals, most of whom are polite. Not all are, though, but this site does not ban someone simply for being generally rude unless they get too personal and offensive or are generally telling untruths.
As for the main postings, they are a mix of news, commentary, sarcasm with a little tongue-and-cheek thrown in for entertainment value. (my opinion) Almost nothing is "personal" though it might be critical and sometimes lampoonish. (by the editors, not necessarily the population at large.) This site is very fiscally conservative but not every socially conservative, though many of the audience might be.
I think we would all be interested in specifics as to what you feel is uncivil about the site and "extremist". Maybe a fresh outside view would be beneficial. I can't speak for the editors since I have no pull with them, but it couldn't hurt to hear your perspective with specifics.
Posted by: Eyago on June 22, 2007 02:27 PMWe criticize each other, we chastise, disagree and tend to stay true to ourselves. The libs sing from the same song book NO MATTER WHAT.
Contrast what you read from them and what you read from us. They ALWAYS agree with each other, or at the very least, they don't publicly DISAGREE with each other
Contrast their stick-togetheriveness in Congress (Clinton impeachment and the lack of condemnation/excuse making for his behavior is a perfect example) to us (Illegal immigration bill now on the table is a perfect example)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 22, 2007 02:57 PMI understand that in the USa perhaps there has been a Republican that one time told a smilar fictional little story, perhaps to look good?
Or staged an oportunity for the photo?
Alors, if you rightie-tighties want to throw a electirc light on Gregoire why do you not comment on the news she has made an error in the budget for the child health care program for which she is full ofpride!
It apears that the program was underfunded because they did not make attempt for a full estimate of the children who are etranger--I mean illegal immigrants or illegal aliens, what the term is.
If I be not in error, does not the right wingdans l'Amerique du Nord pose objection to the reform of the immigration situation?
Is it not said to be for costs of the social programs?
And there is also in this story aspects of secrecy or error in the procedure of the fiscal note -- I believe this "transparency" issue is often very important to you all?
"50% budget overrun for illegals due to concealment of proper information" -- perhaps this would be a better topic than a photo of M. Stalin and complaint about a fictional story involving one child?
Quoi? Oh, ca faire rien.
{:)
That painting is too funny. It is new to me and I enjoy me some top-drawer propaganda.
Her Governess Gregoire just used the same image of an eleven year old kid at her feet as her image in a press release. Worthy of derision - you bet!
She's coopting the same iconography Stalin uses.
Bear in mind, to pay off her political backers, she embraces big taxes. She couches that in terms of a collectivist bent. That is the rationale used to "justify" the anti-citizen actions her cabal takes.
It isn't just that she and Stalin use kids for their images. She and Stalin don't respect private property. She and Stalin use government as an authoritarian, and yes statist, tool.
I think she looks more like an emperor. Specifically, Emperor Palpatine.
Seriously though, if Gregoire cared so much about the kids then why the hell is she creating massive financial liabilities that will cripple the economy they inherit, if it is not crippled long before?
Posted by: pudge on June 22, 2007 10:40 PMFormer Washington Post sportswriter, "Seinfeld" writer and executive co-producer Peter Mehlman did just that today in a Huffington Post article (h/t Ace) which said that President Bush is actually worse than Hitler because at least the German dictator meant well when he was trying to exterminate Jewish people.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13723
Posted by: JDH on June 25, 2007 01:42 PM