1. This is their way to presort the population prior to mandatory treatment under the new health care system.They have a way of dealing with those who don't provide answers!Are my tax dollars paying for these forms?

Posted by: kilroy on February 7, 2008 07:55 AM

2. Or, why do I have to sign an oath of loyalty to the Republican party in order to vote when John McCain doesn't?

Or, as my cubbymate figured out, he is going to caucus with the Democrats and then vote for the Republicans in the primary. He wanted to know why he couldn't.

Lest we forget, it was in the early to mid-90s that the local Rs had a litmus test they required everyone to sign before they could politick at the county fair.

Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 07:56 AM

3. ""We're not as obsessed with categorizing Americans as our Democratic friends," state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said."

Yeah, sure! As evidenced and exemplified by the contents of this blog...and how many talk show hosts? What a frickin joke! As pure as the wind-driven snow... :)

Posted by: Duffman on February 7, 2008 07:59 AM

4. Swatter,I don't think anyone in the 90's ever asked your preferred position prior to joining the party.

Posted by: kilroy on February 7, 2008 08:09 AM

5. I would love to be in the room when Dwight Pelz has to tell several women of color that they are not welcome at the Nation Convention, because their group is over represented.

Posted by: Moondoggie on February 7, 2008 08:12 AM

6. I do believe it was the abortion litmus test. Unfortunately, I can't remember which year, except it was during a contentious gubernatorial election- at least between the Republicans.

That schism still has not been healed.

Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 08:13 AM

7. Hopefully Esser can keep up these good quotes so the Times and PI don't keep running to Vance everytime they want perspective from the Republican party.

Posted by: SeattleR on February 7, 2008 08:16 AM

8. Luke is absolutely right. We really AREN'T obsessed with trying to put everyone in some assigned group category. Would that today's Dems could get over themselves with all that and just see people as people instead "a white, a black, etc"

Posted by: Michele on February 7, 2008 08:23 AM

9. If these questions fail to cause people from fleeing the Democrat caucus there is little hope for them. Do these party officials have no shame? Apparently not.

Posted by: SIDNY on February 7, 2008 09:03 AM

10. Just look at the stimulus bill. From the house, the "rebates" were to go to certain income earners.

The Dems in the Senate, though, decided that they needed to help a specific veterans group, elderly, etc., etc.

Were these specific groups of people not already in the original income earners group?

The groups they targeted were designed to cater to specific voting blocks, to show how much the Dems "care". That these groups of people were probably a subset of the original group was immaterial.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 7, 2008 09:04 AM

11. Go Esser. Just pointing out the obvious Democrat Racism and Classism.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 7, 2008 09:18 AM

12. The real story here, which was buried in the Herald story, is that all Democratic delegates are selected based on demography. That is why the Democrats are able to claim their convention "looks like America," because it has been specifically rigged that way. They have to have a certain number of each race, each gender, each sexual orientation, and more.

Oh, and this is rich: A spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign said the form's content shouldn't discourage supporters from taking part Saturday.

"I don't think whatever is in the voting card will make any difference. I don't see it as an obstacle," said Jeff Giertz, press secretary for the campaign's Washington operation.

Wow. If this were a Republican caucus, they would accuse the GOP of trying to discriminate against people, which is PRECISELY what the Democrats ACTUALLY ARE doing. But it is OK for them! Because they mean well!

swatter: Or, as my cubbymate figured out, he is going to caucus with the Democrats and then vote for the Republicans in the primary. He wanted to know why he couldn't.

Because he would be breaking his word. If he feels his word means nothing, I suppose, then go for it.

Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 09:46 AM

13. If they anticipate that the question might be offensive, why ask it?

Posted by: russell garrard on February 7, 2008 09:55 AM

14. If McCain can do it, why can't my cubbymate?

Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 10:12 AM

15. Unfortunately, I am going to be gone most of the day.

1. Hi Duffman, I agree with you.

2. I read the article and collection of information is voluntary. Most politcal people I know of either party have no problem is saying None of your d**n business.

3. People here seem to be confused by affirmative action which was started by Nixon and a quota. There is quite a difference.

4. I wonder if your caucuses and convention will look a bit like the Masters with only one Tiger Woods and possibly a VJ Singh.

5. I believe this is groundhog day and I had this discussion with Eric and you all on two threads. It would be interesting to see who turns of at your caucuses, I theorize that in many of your caucuses not much diversity in terms of ethnicity. In my opinion, for all the typical blather on this thread about content of character, yada, yada, most republicans want to think that people don't see color, but like a traffic light with red, green, and yellow bulbs, it exists.

Well, Duffman, we agree except for Billary. I guess she is loaning the campaign several million. Good move, send Bill out on the road to make speeches for dough.

Posted by: WVH on February 7, 2008 10:16 AM

16. #2 Or, why do I have to sign an oath of loyalty to the Republican party in order to vote when John McCain doesn't?

Or, as my cubbymate figured out, he is going to caucus with the Democrats and then vote for the Republicans in the primary. He wanted to know why he couldn't.

Lest we forget, it was in the early to mid-90s that the local Rs had a litmus test they required everyone to sign before they could politick at the county fair.

(A) Caucuses are for party members to select Presidential Preference Candidates. Why should a democrat or independent or libertarian or any other party member pick a Republican candidate? Or vis verse?
(B) Your friend will be breaking the law. He/she can vote in the general election for ANY party's candidate they want. The Democrats are selecting their candidate, Republicans theirs. Once the candidate is selected then voters can chose which candidate from any party.
(C) I have been a Republican for 50 years. I do not ever remember a litmus test for abortion. I do know how a strong grass roots group can "take over" a caucus and if enough can do it in all Caucuses that group gets their way. Example I know of a John Birch Society group that took over the Democrat Party in Grays Harbor several years ago by infiltrating the Precinct Committee Officers. Anyone who thinks politics are pretty and clean need to spend some time involved.

Posted by: Ken Howard on February 7, 2008 10:25 AM

17. How quick we forget?

Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 10:54 AM

18. I know of a black lesbian with an Hispanic surname. How many times can she vote in the Democrat caucuses?

Posted by: John425 on February 7, 2008 01:07 PM

19. Duffman at #3. Might have been nice if you'd cited an example or two.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 7, 2008 01:34 PM

20. Ken Howard and pudge, the Snohomish County newspaper just reported that Pete Jackson, Democrat and son of Scoop Jackson, voted in the primary as a Republican since his vote wouldn't have counted in the primary as his party of choice.

Are you two going to be all over it?

Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 04:49 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?