Some people have wondered, what is Dino Rossi up to?
Apart from the fundraising that Eric mentioned, he has a bunch of plans, starting today, at 6 p.m., when he delivers his own State of the State address on dinorossi.com.
He also has several Lincoln Day events coming up in the next few weeks in Lopez Island, San Juan Island, and Okanogan, Douglas, Klickitat, Whitman, and Thurston counties. On March 1, he'll be at the Snohomish County Lincoln Day Dinner.
I am surely not the only one that hopes Dino not only gets the word out to Republicans, but that he communicates to all the citizens of Washington the terrible situation the Democrats have put us in, regarding taxes, the budget, transportation, education, and more. Hopefully tonight's State of the State is merely the beginning of that process.
Posted by pudge at January 14, 2008 01:40 PM | Email ThisCcan you imagine ego that size in the governor's mansion? The thought is beyond evey partisan sensibility...and would require him to annex the entire city of Olympia -- given his inflated self-worth and excessive pride.
Posted by: Tom Anderson on January 14, 2008 03:11 PMTom Anderson: it is "unmitigated hubris" to run for governor? What are you talking about? Only a partisan -- that is, you, I am confidently assuming -- could claim Dino's "hubris" is any greater than Gregoire's. You're not fooling anyone.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 03:15 PMHope he spends lots more this time. Bush will drag down thousands of good Republicans this time, and guys like Rossi will suffer from it.
Let's hope some of the good candidates survive.
Posted by: Big Whoop on January 14, 2008 04:05 PMkilroy: sorry, but history paints a very different picture. Abe Lincoln is the most well-known example, but even our current President and many others lost elections before winning. Dan Kristiansen too.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 04:21 PMI was there every day during the recount, MBOS, "Ridgeway Building" and the Admin. There is plenty of things to criticize the King County Elections about. However, what you're saying non-secured facilities is a bunch of crap and lies.
Posted by: Don Ward on January 14, 2008 04:32 PMGreat job Dino.
Hated the tie though.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 14, 2008 07:19 PMhttp://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/129469.asp
Posted by: kojak on January 14, 2008 08:27 PMMaybe he read that Elway poll before he read that speech!
Is it too late to recruit John Stanton to run?
Posted by: redflag on January 14, 2008 08:46 PMTransportation in this state is a collossal failure of leadership. Instead of letting Seattle dink around with meaningless opinion votes, she should have taken down the viaduct and rebuilt it with the new gas taxes. Since Rossi is not beheld to the same Democrat party machine in MLKC, he could have made that decision and forced their hand to either go along with it, or face the consequences from voters.
And to all of the trolls who continually post here that Rossi shouldn't even try because Gregoire is so great, get a life. I would gladly take Gary Locke back over her. Worst governor this state has ever had. Bloated budgets, felon releases, new internet taxes, DSHS failures, highest gas taxes in the nation, and zero transportation leadership.
Posted by: Palouse on January 15, 2008 08:15 AMSay exactly which transportation problems will be solved in the first budget he writes, and which ones won't.
Say exactly how, and where, he'll reduce the size, or rate of growth, in the state budget. Spell out which taxes will be reduced and which won't.
Saying the current path is wrong is a no-brainer, he needs to show that he has brains and is willing to take a few risks BEFORE he's elected.
Otherwise he might find himself elected with no mandate to lead.
Posted by: BA on January 15, 2008 05:00 PMBut the "mandate to lead" stuff is complete hogwash. If you win the election, you have a mandate to lead, by definition. And yes, that means Gregoire has a mandate to lead. That is what a mandate to lead IS: being selected as the leader.
And I don't just mean linguistically. I know that over time it has come to mean something greater, but it's a mirage. Bush didn't have a "mandate to lead" by your standard, but he sure got the backing of the Congress and the people to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. Every situation that arises is a different situation, and you may or may not have the support of the people for each decision you make, but one thing is certain: you have been given a mandate by the people TO MAKE that decision, whatever it is (as long as it is within the law, of course!).
That is why, for instance, Bush had broad support for his Supreme Court nominees. Even Alito was favored by about 57-24 percent of the public. Surely not all of those 57 agreed with Alito, and surely many of the "undecideds" disliked Alito. But they recognized that Bush is the one who gets to make that decision and as long as there's nothing to specifically disqualify him ... he has a mandate, no matter how close the election was. Many Senators voted for Alito for the same reasons.
And on the other side, Reagan was elected overwhelmingly in '84 but was hammered for various things over the next four years. What happened to his "mandate"?
An election IS a mandate. It doesn't give you carte blanche ... but nothing does.
Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2008 05:47 PMThat makes sense and would get the support of most all citizens. Oh and it would show he is a free market conservative.
Posted by: Lysander on January 15, 2008 08:14 PMIf he hasn't spelled out in detail what he intends to do, then how is he going to to translate an election win into any specific programs?
I'm not talking about any linguistic turn of a word here - I'm talking about if he's elected will he really be able to do something different.
I'm also interested in what that difference will be.
Otherwise the opposition will just ignore him.
He risks the voters ignoring him too.
Posted by: BA on January 15, 2008 09:04 PMA question for the Dino-saur this time around would be, just what rights DO gay Washingtonians have in your universe?
None, I bet. Except the right to pay taxes to support the majority.
Posted by: Waldo on January 15, 2008 11:41 PMShe is the governor For the Government, not For the People.
Posted by: GS on January 16, 2008 03:18 PM