Today's media panel was diverse yet concordant in many areas. Wenatchee World Editorial Editor Tracy Warner, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle Times editorial writer Kate Riley, KVI host Kirby Wilbur, and TNT columnist Peter Callaghan were the assembled media contributors.
Some recurrent themes:
1) This election in the Evergreen State is about competence and optimism. As Joel Connelly put it, the question will go something like:
Are you satisfied with the performance of your state government? Is it more responsive and efficient than it was four years ago?
The logical consequence of that is the Governor's race will be both a battle of personalities and a battle of visions. The incumbent is hamstrung by gridlock on some notable issues while the forward-looking challenger has to combat the political winds blowing against GOP candidates.
2) Local concerns matter. The same issues don't play the same for each party in different districts. Democrats seem to have mastered this distinction better than Republicans in recent cycles - thus their tide of suburban victories.
Kirby Wilbur talked about the importance of candidate finding three issues, sticking to them, and offering more than just platitudes on those topics. He furthermore acknowledged that the issue of sex offenders works in some districts but not in others (hint, hint to the Republicans who have beaten that horse so frequently in recent years).
On a tangentially related note, Tracy Warner noted how transportation isn't much of an issue East of the Cascades, other than to be concerned about how much Eastern Washingtonians will be asked to pay for solutions elsewhere (never mind how long Western Washington has been subsidizing Eastern Washington roads, but I digress).
There was also agreement that the Top Two primary will lead to more - and obvious - competition in November for some safe seats. That means Republican and Democratic money going into districts hitherto unaccustomed to notable cash expenditures in the General. Clearly, that may well mean less money in both direct contributions and independent expenditures in some competitive races and thus, even more importance on the candidate's image and message discipline in swing district contests .
Posted by Eric Earling at May 17, 2008 08:09 PM | Email ThisYou need your roads, bridges and ports so that they can create your jobs to get their products overseas. And yes, those wonderfully rich people in Seattle who subsidize the Eastern Washington roads, seem to only have the knowhow to grow pigeon crap on their cemented sidewalks and highrises, no way they have the ability to even feed themselves, hmmmmmm good thing there are roads built to send the food back and forth.
Gee whiz folks, take the blinders off and look at the larger picture. Those outside of the King County Metro area are still trying to figure out why a bunch of irrational cityfolk are willing to commute for 2 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic to get from their home to their workplace 35 miles away.
Believe me, those outside of Pugetopolis have long envisioned a state where Pugetopolis was walled off from the rest of the state with all the bridges blown up and no way to get you folks out here. We don't want your money, we just want you all to quit regulating us to death with all your leftist leaning laws (yeppers, even the Republican lawmakers you throw at us want to cut our hearts out with their regulatory knife).
Posted by: Doug on May 17, 2008 09:53 PMAs kind of an aside, whenever I am behing someone who is driving slowly and has at least two people in the vehicle I always look for the EMPT on the plates. It means you are paying their salaries as the cruise the roads. Oh well, Seattle likes their beaurocrats too.
Posted by: Dick on May 17, 2008 10:05 PMThat's going to be what voters in the 8th are going to be asking themselves: Do they want to be represented by a Republican who votes for Bush's occupation of Iraq every time, and will surely do so for McCain's continuation of that occupation? Do they want to be represented by a man who opposes a woman's access to birth control?
Posted by: Daniel K on May 17, 2008 11:50 PMBut if he starts talking about restricting abortion or preventing gays from marrying, I'll just sit this one out.
This state has one of the highest rates of non-church-goers in the nation. The social conservative positions are dragging the GOP down in this state, and preventing them from electing good, fiscal conservatives to state and local government positions. The pro-lifers and the homophobes are the biggest enemies of the free market fans and the taxpayers. Time to ignore them for a while.
In this state, you can't win with a socially conservative agenda. Its unpopular. But as Eyman proves again and again, a fiscally conservative position can win.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 18, 2008 02:44 AMI don't know any pro-abortionist and Sodomite supporters (using these terms because you used the homophobe slur) who are also free market fans and want limited government.
Gov Schwarzenegger ran on being a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Of course, he raised spending at a hyper rate and has driven CA into the ground. Why do you think people without principles are suddenly going to become principled on your issues?
Mitt Romney ran on being a social liberal and fiscal conservative. Now MA is shackled with a massive and bankrupt medical system.
I can think of quite a few more, but at least those are ones that are in the press.
Abortion is sick, killing a baby with scissors to the back of the neck is not "socially liberal" or cool - it is just sick, sick, sick, sick and people that support that are F@#$% up in the head and value system. You know they are, they know they are because they won't even talk about it. Thankfully, pro-lifers are gradually winning. Unfortunately, it is not because they are winning the debate but because the abortion lovers are not having kids, and killing the few they do have. One day this nightmare proceedure will be banned in this country, and the doctors who perform it thrown in jail and face capital punishment with a high powered suction hose or with a pair of scissors to the back of the neck - After all, that method of killing is "socially liberal". I'm sure you'll be supporting it.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 18, 2008 06:56 AMWell said.
Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are ultimately contradictory, since the former results in genocide, making the latter impossible.
We have Mexican invaders because, in part, "social liberals," being immature fiscal conservatives, don't like to break a sweat but use political sophistry to manipulate others into paying their way.
A primary solution rests with the nation's pastors and priests, who also don't like to break a sweat, but love to spiritualize and rationalize their cowardice to fight what they know is truly wrong. When these watchmen on the walls start performing courageous acts of faith, like they have in previous generations, we will have social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, and our nation and Christendom will be saved. Until then, it's every man for himself.
Most voters are either weary of the gridlock in transportation policy, or sick of traffic, or both. And most people realize that trains won't do jack to solve the problem in any reasonable time frame.
Sure there are the anti-car Seattle greens, but they are more than eclipsed by the rest of Puget Sound with a more realistic concept of autos. And of course the entire rest of the state.
If Rossi just appears to be the voice of reason in the debate-it-to-death Seattle transit political wilderness, he will win handily.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 18, 2008 07:48 AMA block in Seattle might serve more people each day than that 100 miles stretch of road.
The point being?
Posted by: BA on May 18, 2008 10:21 AMThe main 2 reasons for Dem success in WA is a) fear of the Ken Hutchersons and Joe Fuitens b) the proliferation of RINOs--voters will usually take a real 'D' over a RINO.
Rossi has a chance to lead a Republican resurgence if he takes Bruce Guthrie's advice.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 18, 2008 10:24 AMBoth Romney and Arnold held losing hands, and couldn't have gotten much done in any case.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 18, 2008 10:34 AMHow's that? Does that block in Seattle grow the wheat to feed those people? Do that block in Seattle generate enough electricity to power their computers? Is there enough timber along that block in Seattle than there is along that 100 mile road to make enough paper to serve those in the Seattle block?
How does the block in Seattle serve those in the East? Well the corporate crook bankers figure out how to give subprime loans like Bear Sterns and then get the government to tax the people in the East to bail them out.
Big cities are artificial constructs that consume far far far more than they produce. Wheat doesn't grow in big cities, nor do timber, fish or cattle. the hard work of keeping humanity alive is done in the rural areas producing food, not the urban areas that seem only to produce crack cocaine and corporate crooks.
And for those that tell us all about the ports shipping and such, please grab a map and look at our geography. There is this river called the columbia that goes to the pacific ocean. Far more wheat, timber and grains travel that route than what goes through the Ports of Seattle. What the Port of Seattle does do is bring in more cheap crap from China and put more American out of work.
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 10:47 AM"How does the block in Seattle serve those in the East? Well the corporate crook bankers figure out how to give subprime loans like Bear Sterns and then get the government to tax the people in the East to bail them out."
Since the voters in the east did not pay any part of constructing the block in Seattle, what it does is none of their business. (But, keep reading, you may learn how it serves them.)
I wasn't aware that liberals in Seattle ran Bear Sterns, Enron, or Worldcom. Thanks for that interesting look into your private, little reality. What color is the sky there?
You guys just will not admit that tax money flows from Puget Sound to Eastern Washington, will you? I hope the next legislature passes the bill the Senate considered last time. It would have required any county with a net inflow of state tax money to ratify, by popular vote, their acceptance of this "government welfare". (Watching the rural civic debate before such an election could become a big tourist draw for us liberals here in Seattle.)
Meanwhile, we have on display even more bitterness that Sen. Obama so aptly described:
"Big cities are artificial constructs that consume far far far more than they produce. Wheat doesn't grow in big cities, nor do timber, fish or cattle. the hard work of keeping humanity alive is done in the rural areas producing food, not the urban areas that seem only to produce crack cocaine and corporate crooks."
How many tractors are built in wheatfields? How many pesticides does a pasture produce? How much software is written in forests? How long do you think any of us would survive without the industrial products of modern cities?
Worldcom's main corporate office was in northern Mississippi. Your point?
"Gee whiz folks, take the blinders off and look at the larger picture. Those outside of the King County Metro area are still trying to figure out why a bunch of irrational cityfolk are willing to commute for 2 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic to get from their home to their workplace 35 miles away."
Higher population density causes unique problems, which can be managed with (among other things) good government. That's why we liberal urbanites never fell for the rhetorical garbage about government being inherently a problem. New York City has a much higher population density than Seattle, but the government there has pro-actively managed the situation better. We in Seattle would love better mass transit, but all we ever get from Eastern Washington is demands for more roads, from the rural counties who need our tax money to pave their roads.
"Believe me, those outside of Pugetopolis have long envisioned a state where Pugetopolis was walled off from the rest of the state with all the bridges blown up and no way to get you folks out here."
Then how would we have Farmers' Markets on Sundays in Seattle? Your farmers do want that income, don't they? They seem to drive a long way on rural roads (and on Seattle blocks!) to get here.
BTW, we liberals call it "flyover country" for a reason. Also, no "bridges" connect Puget Sound to Eastern Washington, because we don't build bridges over a mountain chain(!). However, if you want to destroy the bridges over the Columbia in Eastern Washington, we can talk.
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 11:40 AMDon't waste your breath. This site has lost its edge since Stefan moved on. Did he sell the assets to the other posters?
The regular posters seem to be based in Sno County and primarily live in small towns or rural areas. They have no clue what goes on in the rest of the state. The republican party is based in rural areas and small towns. Worldwide, rural areas and small towns are losing population. Peggy Noonan had it right about how current republicans are clueless.
What will happen in this state is that for the foreseeable future, it will remain one-party. Democrats will develope a range of candidate philosophies to run in different locales. Republicans will drive everyone out of their party who doesn't spout liberatarian anti-urban crap and they will flock to sites like this to talk about how deranged liberals are. They kinda remind me of the Cindy Sheehan dems who blame Bush 43 for everything from the Jack the Ripper murders to hemorroids.
Posted by: WVH on May 18, 2008 12:01 PMDo you even realize what the demographics of Snohomish County are like? I live in Lynnwood (after growing up in Edmonds), in the heart of suburbia and work in downtown Seattle. Moreover, I'm not a libertarian - ask Bruce Guthrie - and HATE with a capital "H" the urban v rural debate that some in the right-of-center seem insistent on provoking.
In the past, you've made a number of assertions about others in comments at this site that were utterly detached from reality. This might be your most profound.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 18, 2008 12:46 PMYou have returned from the wilderness. Welcome back. Now will you answer my questions I asked on the other thread that you refused to answer?
May 1-2008, Today I saw a three legged dog.
1) In 2001 the Nisqually quake damaged the Alaskan Way viaduct. We wer subsequently told that it was a matter of life and death to replace that structure and this argument was used to get our gas tax increased. Subsequently, the first project the DOT used that money for was a bike trail in Moses Lake.
Do you believe that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, similar to the Cypress Viaduct in 1989?
2) Gregoire had four years to come up with a plan for the Viaduct replacement. That is in addition to the 3 years her predecessor (another Democrat) had. She has not done so. In fact when given the opportunity to show leadership, she instead put the issue to voters. Do you think that she has showed leadership on the viaduct issue by punting for over four years in addition to the three years of punting her Democrat predecessor did?
3) If you were raped, would you want the DOC releasing your rapist to live under a bridge five miles from where you live? Would you not care if they didn't notify you of this?
Would it make it any better for you, as a theoretical victim of rape, that the same thing occurred in Florida to rape victims there?
4) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending money on pet massage, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
5) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending $1.5 million lighting the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in decorative holiday lighting, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
6) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, shoulw we be using taxpayer monies to subsidize the Clearwater Casino, a the current Gregoire budget has us doing?
If you and Gregoire thinks those items above are more important that fixing viaduct, why should the people trust you and Gregoire to have any different priorities for the next four years?
7) How in good conscience, can you support a woman whom you know for a fact attended a racist sorority and even embraced it by becoming its president?
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 12:53 PMNot seething rage, just reality. None of the resources a city consumes are produced there.
Since the voters in the east did not pay any part of constructing the block in Seattle, what it does is none of their business. (But, keep reading, you may learn how it serves them.)
The voters in the East do not pay taxes? That little thing called Safeco field was built in part from taxes from the rest of the state. You might be interested to learn that agriculture is the largest employer in the state and that Food processing is a $12 billion industry and is the state's second largest manufacturing industry.
I wasn't aware that liberals in Seattle ran Bear Sterns, Enron, or Worldcom. Thanks for that interesting look into your private, little reality. What color is the sky there?
Apparently you aren't aware of much are you? Bear Stearn has offices Bellevue, considered a Seattle suburb. And if you poo poo that because it is not Seattle proper, then let's talk about the Seattle block where Worldcom operates. And look at Washington Mutual, another crooked corporate banking product of Seattle. Please tell us what fantasy world you live in where there are no corporate banks in Seattle? I guess you must be using that crack cocaine that the urban areas are so good at producing. Or do they have to import THAT too?
You guys just will not admit that tax money flows from Puget Sound to Eastern Washington, will you? I hope the next legislature passes the bill the Senate considered last time. It would have required any county with a net inflow of state tax money to ratify, by popular vote, their acceptance of this "government welfare". (Watching the rural civic debate before such an election could become a big tourist draw for us liberals here in Seattle.)
Building infrastructure so you can get your cheap crap from China off the docks through the rest of the state and to other locales in order to keep the goods flowing through your ports is not welfare. It is looking out for your own interests. You are like the husband that buys his wife a new frying pan for her bithday, wants her to immediately "try it out" by cooking up some grub for him and then wonders why she is "bitter".
Meanwhile, we have on display even more bitterness that Sen. Obama so aptly described:
Not bitterness, truthfullness.
"Big cities are artificial constructs that consume far far far more than they produce. Wheat doesn't grow in big cities, nor do timber, fish or cattle. the hard work of keeping humanity alive is done in the rural areas producing food, not the urban areas that seem only to produce crack cocaine and corporate crooks."
How many tractors are built in wheatfields? How many pesticides does a pasture produce? How much software is written in forests? How long do you think any of us would survive without the industrial products of modern cities?
How many tractors are built in Seattle? Please link to the exact locations. How many pesticides are manufactured in Seattle, please link to the exact locations. How many people in Seattle even embrace the use of pesticides on their produce as opposed to "organic"? How long until the human races is extinct BECAUSE of the industrial products of modern cities (PCB's etc)? Isn't that the message you liberal urbanites are always sending? Pesticides=BAD, must have ORGANIC. CO2 = BAD - use solar panels and wind. How many solar farms and wind farms are on that Seattle city block? Oooops there we go again. We must use that acreage in Eastern and Central Washington. Not only isn't there enough room, but the hypocritical liberal urbanites don't want any such thing in their back yard blocking their view.
Worldcom's main corporate office was in northern Mississippi. Your point?
With offices in Seattle. See above.
Higher population density causes unique problems, which can be managed with (among other things) good government. That's why we liberal urbanites never fell for the rhetorical garbage about government being inherently a problem. New York City has a much higher population density than Seattle, but the government there has pro-actively managed the situation better. We in Seattle would love better mass transit, but all we ever get from Eastern Washington is demands for more roads, from the rural counties who need our tax money to pave their roads.
You liberal urbanites created the million dollar toilet plan that are crack houses in reality. Money down the toilet on toilets. For $50 someone in Eastern Washington could slap together a plywood outhouse complete with a moon shape in the door. Same effect, way less cost.
You liberal urbanites created a boondoggle monorail plan that pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars and not an inch of new monorail was ever built. You liberal urbanites created the billion dollar brightwater nightmare. The Seattle PI reports:
"When King County officials authorized a third sewage-treatment plant, they knew it wasn't the cheapest way to handle the region's growing volume of sewage.
Little did they know how expensive it would become.
The Brightwater treatment plant is now expected to cost $1.8 billion -- roughly double what the Metropolitan King County Council was told when it first approved the project.
Officials don't know of a plant this size anywhere that has cost so much. "
So, "officials don't know of a plant this size anywhere that has cost so much". I guess there is something noteworthy produced from the brain trust of urban liberal intelligentsia, the costliest projects in the nation. Pat yourselves on the back!
Why are you liberal urbanites complaining about a few roads? They are only cost you a few fancy toilets. Isn't that how liberals measure things, in lattes and such?
Then how would we have Farmers' Markets on Sundays in Seattle? Your farmers do want that income, don't they? They seem to drive a long way on rural roads (and on Seattle blocks!) to get here.
There are plenty of other customers for that agricultural product and it can easily be shipped via the Columbia River to the Pacific and off to Asia and the rest of a grateful world. And I doubt many rural people will be driving on Seattle streets since the liberal urbanites declared war on the automobile. Your liberal mayor Nickels is already talking of banning automobiles on Seattle streets via the use of "congestion pricing". And only an ignorant liberal urbanite would think for a microsecond that people drive all the way from Eastern Washington to go to any market in Seattle. Usually it is the other way around with people going East during the harvest season to get the freshest produce.
BTW, we liberals call it "flyover country" for a reason. Also, no "bridges" connect Puget Sound to Eastern Washington, because we don't build bridges over a mountain chain(!). However, if you want to destroy the bridges over the Columbia in Eastern Washington, we can talk.
First off, is that how liberals reduce their carbon foot prints, by "flying over"? In you war on petroleum products, have you liberals ever asked yourselves what it is that fuels those planes that bring you your cocaine?
As to no bridges in the mountains, I can only presume you have never left the comfy concrete jungle to travel East over I-90 or perhaps you were too busy sipping your merlot at 30,000 feet on your carbon polluting jet to look down and notice there are indeed bridges over Snoqualmie pass.
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 01:49 PMPlease excuse my broken html @ 20. Being a dumb hick from the backwoods of Eastern Washington, I don't know any better. What's your excuse?
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 02:47 PM1. Eric said this:
"In the past, you've made a number of assertions about others in comments at this site that were utterly detached from reality. This might be your most profound."
Please state what assertations were detached from reality as opposed to assertations you didn't like or didn't have the facts in order to respond. I remember a couple of threads where you lost it because I simply asked what experience you actually had with diversity, for example in your church, associations, and community. You and your allies never answered the question, you just that it was inappropriate, I asked. All you ever said was I support people being treated fairly, yada, yada, whatever that means.
a. Here are the demographics for Lynnwood:
Lynnwood Demographics
Population - 33,847
Latino 7%
White 70.9%
Black 3.3%
Asian 13.9%
Ntv.Am. 1%
Other 3.5%
2000 U.S. Census data
The median age for residents in Lynnwood, WA is 34.9 (this is younger than average age in the U.S.).
Families (non-single residences) represent 62.5% of the population.
http://www.muninetguide.com/states/washington/municipality/Lynnwood.php
b. Here are the demographics for Seattle:
Population - 563,374
Latino 5.3%
White 67.9%
Black 8.4%
Asian 13.1%
Other 3.8%
2000 U.S. Census data
The median age for residents in Seattle, WA is 35.4 (this is older than average age in the U.S.).
Families (non-single residences) represent 43.9% of the population, giving Seattle a lower than average concentration of families.
http://www.muninetguide.com/states/washington/municipality/Seattle.php
Here are the demographics for Bellevue:
Demographics
Population - 109,569
Latino 5.3%
White 71.8%
Black 2%
Asian 17.4%
Other 2.9%
2000 U.S. Census data
The median age for residents in Bellevue, WA is 38.2 (this is older than average age in the U.S.).
Families (non-single residences) represent 63.4% of the population.
http://www.muninetguide.com/states/washington/municipality/Bellevue.php
Would it be fair to say that Lynnwood is smaller than either Bellevue and Seattle?
You seem to be rather thin-skinned. I, for one, do hope that you run for some office. It could be quite a experience. You seem to be defensive about just about everything. Running for office might actually toughen your hide.
2. pbj or who ever you are. We know the e-mail address is phony. I suspect you are a poster. I just made a comment to tensor not to waste his time. This site seems to be populated by those with multiple personalities who post under different names. You really don't outside comments, you can just talk to yourself and get all the answers you want.
Now this next comment will probably send both Eric and pbj into a tizzy. You folks want a Greek chorus and to be able to propogandize every lame libertarian idea. pbj, whoever you really are for this post, until you truly unmask yourself, no further comment is necessary. I suppose I should be BANNED for these remarks, right, pbj.
I think Stefan has got the right idea, that a summer hiatus is a good idea. If I want propoganda, I can read Pravda. Have a great summer.
WVH, speaking of never answering questions, when are you going to answer the questions I asked in this thread?
Maybe you don't have the facts so you dodge them?
Here they are again for you in case you forgot:
1) In 2001 the Nisqually quake damaged the Alaskan Way viaduct. We wer subsequently told that it was a matter of life and death to replace that structure and this argument was used to get our gas tax increased. Subsequently, the first project the DOT used that money for was a bike trail in Moses Lake.
Do you believe that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, similar to the Cypress Viaduct in 1989?
2) Gregoire had four years to come up with a plan for the Viaduct replacement. That is in addition to the 3 years her predecessor (another Democrat) had. She has not done so. In fact when given the opportunity to show leadership, she instead put the issue to voters. Do you think that she has showed leadership on the viaduct issue by punting for over four years in addition to the three years of punting her Democrat predecessor did?
3) If you were raped, would you want the DOC releasing your rapist to live under a bridge five miles from where you live? Would you not care if they didn't notify you of this?
Would it make it any better for you, as a theoretical victim of rape, that the same thing occurred in Florida to rape victims there?
4) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending money on pet massage, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
5) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending $1.5 million lighting the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in decorative holiday lighting, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
6) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, shoulw we be using taxpayer monies to subsidize the Clearwater Casino, a the current Gregoire budget has us doing?
If you and Gregoire thinks those items above are more important that fixing viaduct, why should the people trust you and Gregoire to have any different priorities for the next four years?
7) How in good conscience, can you support a woman whom you know for a fact attended a racist sorority and even embraced it by becoming its president?
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 03:28 PMNo one's banning you. Go ahead and defend Gregoire's failed policies. We are all waiting to hear you address the issues. The truth is you can't. All you can do is throw baseless epithets and use diversionary tactics to do ANYTHING, but answer the questions.
I know it upsets you greatly that unlike the anal equine blog, you cannot ban people or delete their responses. That is why you avoid answering the questions.
Nevertheless, I leave it up to the independent reader to assess for themselves whether you, as a Gregoire representative, can answer for the terrible job Gregoire has done with this state since being selected as governor over the people's choice, Dino Rossi.
Here is but a small sampling of the facts:
Angry liberal urbanites riot in 1999 WTO
Bitter liberal urbanites angrily march against our troops in Olympia
They even protest the police having a conference
The idea that rural america is bitter an angry is a lie. The fact is it is urban america that spends its time rioting and fighting in the streets.
The candidate has to get up there and address the ripoffs and hypocrisies of Leftism Washingtonian policies. He has to expose what's lurking beneath the surface of a seemingly apolitical bureaucracy and elucidate the implicit ideology of the Sierra Club over the AAA Club that rules Washington.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 18, 2008 05:49 PMIf you want to protest the Farmers' Markets in Seattle, by all means please come here and do so. I will listen avidly to the farmers' responses to your claim to speak for them. (Then I will demand you pay for using the street in Seattle to get here.)
BTW, I wasn't aware that crystal meth was an urban problem. Thanks for helping me out on that. Also, an elevated roadway is not necessarily a bridge. Just sayin'.
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 06:22 PM"That little thing called Safeco field was built in part from taxes from the rest of the state."
We voters in King County rejected the stadium proposal on our ballot. The legislature, whose House Majority Leader was Dale Foreman of Wenatchee, went into special session to pass a stadium bill. Had Foreman not so agreed, SafeCo Field would not exist. Your point?
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 06:28 PMActually Ebbers was a Canadian by birth. It took the cooperation of the entire company to help conceal the fraud. Just as Germans in WWII weren't guiltless because they claimed they never knew, fraud on the level Ebbers perpetrated must have been widespread knowledge.
And as part of WAMU, the Eastern Washington branch is probably just as guilty.
"f you want to protest the Farmers' Markets in Seattle, by all means please come here and do so. I will listen avidly to the farmers' responses to your claim to speak for them. (Then I will demand you pay for using the street in Seattle to get here.)"
I don't want to protest the farmer's markets in Seattle. As I have shown, it is the liberal ubranites such as yourself that do that. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence at all that people from say Spokane, drive all the way to Seattle to get a good strawberry when Green Bluff is 15 miles North of Spokane.
"BTW, I wasn't aware that crystal meth was an urban problem. Thanks for helping me out on that."
Yes it is actually. According to this Seattle Times article: "
Federal agents and local police say it took more than a year to finally deal a death blow to a close-knit group that the Drug Enforcement Administration said has smuggled hundreds of pounds of methamphetamine from drug labs in southern Mexico to the streets of Seattle.
Also, the National Drug Threat Assessment 2005 Summary Report says this:
For example, methamphetamine use in Seattle appears to be considerable as evidenced by a high number of ED mentions for methamphetamine...
Glad to help you out on that. ;)
" Also, an elevated roadway is not necessarily a bridge. Just sayin'."
Well you might want to take that up with the Washington State Department of Transportation. They seem to think there are bridges.
;)
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 07:03 PMSince I am sure you would be interested, let me also point to to another resource. King County provides a list of meth sites in Seattle.
Glad to help you out on that. ;)
BTW let me point out that in post 15 above you stated:
"How long do you think any of us would survive without the industrial products of modern cities?"
I guess those industrial chemicals created by the "modern cities" have a drawback huh?
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 07:25 PMLet me point out that there is another conclusion from the National Drug Threat Assessment 2005 Summary Report:
National-level rates of use for methamphetamine are lower than those for many illicit drugs, primarily because the drug is largely unavailable to significant portions of the population, such as those in the Northeast (the most populous region in the country).
Oh and this map clearly shows that Seattle is a PMA or Primary Market Area for illegal drugs. Funny, it doesn't say anything about Ellensberg, Wenatchee or Cle Ellum. Imagine that.
Posted by: pbj on May 18, 2008 07:50 PMI take lots of guff from lots of people with a smile and a laugh. It's part of the gig.
I find your commentary, however, to be particularly devoid of open-minded thinking and your assertions about me more detached from reality than one would expect from even a flaming liberal in assessing a staunch conservative. Since you're not a flaming liberal, however, that tells me you're either a) not very bright or b) don't have the common courtesy not to presume things about people you don't even know (and which in this case has been contradicted by my own posts at Sound Politics).
I'm sure you'll have questions about that, but then again you have questions about lots of things that indicate you pose those questions without doing any research and expect others to give you basic information. Your request at this site to learn more about why conservatives weren't excited about John McCain after he secured the GOP nomination shows you hadn't actually been reading this site for the previous year...in which such discussions were frequent.
That obvious lack of regularly reading work done here means you are in no position to make the sort of judgments you have. Your assertion that I'm trying to promote an "urban v rural" debate is laughable. A number of conservatives are unhappy with the attention I believe the GOP should be giving to urban and suburban issues - a topic that has received considerable attention here the last couple years.
If you want to take a break from reading Sound Politics over the summer I won't be upset. Enjoy the break.
P.S. I have run for office (Snohomish County Charter Review Commission), won a seat, and served in the position. I worked well with both Democrats and Republicans while serving as Vice Chair of the Commission, including working with a a now Democratic County Councilman and the current Democratic County Executive. Once again, you presume too much.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 18, 2008 07:51 PMAnd I commend you for that. King County does not equal Seattle though.
And for the record, the special session of the legislature that was called for by the Democrat Governor Mike Lowry who later signed the bill. Had Lowry not done so, Safeco would not exist.
How does it feel to have one of your own override the will of the people?
Are you going to claim somehow that the million dollar crackhouse "hi tech" toilets in Seattle were the fault of someone in Wenatchee as well?
I agree with your assessment of WVH. I believe she is just a professional antagonizer, as the majority of her opinions and assumptions are irrational and unfounded. She persists in categorizing and labeling people for the purpose of creating divisions that really don't exist. Classic liberalism.
She is, however, more rational than most of the Ron Paul Rubber Room Brigade.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 18, 2008 08:17 PMUm, no, you wrote this:
"There are plenty of other customers for that agricultural product and it can easily be shipped via the Columbia River to the Pacific and off to Asia and the rest of a grateful world."
But the farmers instead drive hundreds of miles, over roads my taxes financed, to sell those goods to me and my neighbors. So much for your point that the farmers do not benefit from my taxes. What do you think of them, for taking a course of action you describe as useless? Why don't you come to a Farmers' Market, and ask them? I'd love to hear what they'd say in return.
"And I commend you for that. King County does not equal Seattle though."
But Bellevue does! Please explain. Also, please note that the ballot measure to pass the stadium failed because Seattle voted heavily against it. The closer a voter was to downtown Seattle, the less likely was the 'yes' vote. Seattle killed the Stadium; politicians from all over the state built it anyway. So much for your supposed point.
"How does it feel to have one of your own [Lowry] override the will of the people?"
How many elections did he win after that? That should give you an answer. My point stands: Dale Foreman violated the will of Seattle, and taxed me for a massive government project which I had rejected. If I sound bitter to you, it is because I voted for limited government, but the government took my money anyway.
Posted by: tensor on May 18, 2008 11:15 PMLook, a fiscal conservative defends our rights to property.
But a social conservative wants to restrict peaceful behavior and in that way violates our right to liberty. Social conservatives violate individual rights when they promote the drug war, try to prohibit gambling or prostitution, or try to violate civil liberties such as was done with the USA PATRIOT Act, or to restrict freedom of speech by censoring the internet or other forms of media.
So, why do you defend property rights, but violate our rights to liberty? Our rights to liberty and property are equal in importance, and spring from the same source. Yet you social conservatives pick and choose among them. You treat them differently.
I find this contradictory.
Libertarians, on the other hand, defend both Liberty and Property.
And there are Libertarians who are anti-abortion. Abortion divides Libertarians. But we defend the right to life as well, we just don't all agree on when the right to life begins.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 19, 2008 12:04 AMBy the way, both Swartzenager and Romney were Republicans, not Libertarians. To the extent that they violated their own principles, the dirt rubs off on the GOP, not the LP or small "l" libertarians, as you imply.
And I agree with you on partial birth abortion. I oppose it. But I think that abortion should be legal in the first six months of pregnancy, and in the case of significant risk to the life of the mother.
As far as gays and lesbians are concerned, I defend their right to marry each other. Why? Because I defend the right to liberty, and when two gays marry each other, they harm no one else, and they violate no one else's rights.
I also defend your right to join a church that refuses to marry gays and lesbians. I find that kind of church policy disgusting, but your right to freedom of association trumps my disgust. But a Unitarian church should have the right to marry gays and lesbians all day and night if they like, and more power to 'em.
Not all homosexuals are sodomizers. Few lesbians are. And by the way, if your wife ever performs a certain oral sexual act on you, you are both guilty of sodomy. That is why the inflammatory term you use is inappropriate.
Whereas my term, "homophobic," clearly applies to you, and anyone who thinks that gays marrying each other will harm them in any significant way.
But tell me, exactly how does gay marriage harm you, or violate your individual rights to life, liberty and property? What, exactly, are you afraid of? I look forward to your answer.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 19, 2008 12:20 AMTheir taxes paid for those roads too. Their taxes pay to maintain YOUR roads. Their taxes pay to police YOUR roads.
You are trying to claim that the entire agricultural output of Eastern Washington goes ONLY to farmer's markets in Seattle? Good luck with that one.
Most of those farmers you see at Seattle markets are boutique farmers with 10 to 15 acres of boutique produce. They are nowhere near the tonnage output of the Eastern Washington agricultural industry.
"But Bellevue does! Please explain. Also, please note that the ballot measure to pass the stadium failed because Seattle voted heavily against it. The closer a voter was to downtown Seattle, the less likely was the 'yes' vote. Seattle killed the Stadium; politicians from all over the state built it anyway. So much for your supposed point."
That isn't my recollection. I believe that Eastern Washington voted against it in solid numbers. Unless you have some evidence to convince me otherwise, I'd say your point was not made.
"How many elections did he win after that? That should give you an answer. My point stands: Dale Foreman violated the will of Seattle, and taxed me for a massive government project which I had rejected. "
Lowry didn't run because he had a Clintonesque sex scandal in the works. It had nothing to do with the stadium. It was Lowry and the Democrat state Senate that violated the will of the state. Together they held the majority and could bitch slap Foreman ten ways from sundown if they really wanted to kill Safeco field. But instead, Mike Lowry appeared on TV with a child in a baseball cap and said he was "saving baseball" in Washington. If Democrats had nothing to do with it, why did they fight Armen Yousoufian for years and finally end up having to pay him for trying to block a FOI request on the financing documents for Safeco?
So on top of the taxes for Safeco that Mike Lowry got you, your liberal urbanite representatives also cost you over $800,000 for trying to keep the public from finding out about the boondoggle financing.
"If I sound bitter to you, it is because I voted for limited government, but the government took my money anyway."
That'll teach you to vote for tax and spend Democrats. Any Republican that behaves that way, I vote em out. Just ask FORMER Republican State Rep Beverly Woods. Unlike liberal urbanites, I actually check to see what issues the candidate supports and how they vote. I don't let the party designation dictate my vote.
Yes it is more work and you actually have to use that thing between your ears, but I find the effort worth it. You really should try it some time.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2008 12:34 AMYou said:
"But the farmers instead drive hundreds of miles, over roads my taxes financed, to sell those goods to me and my neighbors. So much for your point that the farmers do not benefit from my taxes. What do you think of them, for taking a course of action you describe as useless? Why don't you come to a Farmers' Market, and ask them? I'd love to hear what they'd say in return."
Eastern Washington farmers aren't the only ones bringing "product" to you liberal urbanites. As soon as you begin collecting money from the Mexican drug cartels traveling "your" roads to bring you your cocaine, then we can talk about Eastern Washington Farmers.
I was a Libertarian for decades, until the cryptoMarxists began using the party as another platform for their backdoor, wedge-driving subversion.
It also became clear that no ideology, e.g., Marxism, libertarianism, anarchism, nihilism, grounded in naive temporal immanentism has ever succeeded in perfecting a civilization, because it was man-centered. Men will do what pleases them and try to justify their pleasures with bandwagon laws and political smokescreens.
Homosexuality, genocidal abortion, invasions, intergender warfare, and atheism destroy nations and, being self-destructive, are antithetical to anyone's liberty, but are strikingly similar to the social warfare technigues being used against Western civilization and Christendom by their enemies.
Others agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_libertarianism
Presently, only conservative Republican Christians even come close to being trusted in preserving our heritage and culture, which, like it or not, is the most influential in the world. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we have. Modern Libertarianism is known by its fruits, which are nonexistent.
Posted by: The Pirate on May 19, 2008 07:55 AM
Are you proposing something more god-centered, say, a Christian theocracy?
I'd rather not participate in that.
I'd say that the success of America is due largley to the extent to which it was libertarian, which is was until about 1920, when government spending was about 5% of GDP, and the religious right had not been so successful in violating the liberty of peaceful people.
America USED to be the most libertarian nation on earth, but in the last few years it has slipped to only being in the top ten. There is a lag in the erosion of our power, but socialism will erode our power just as it did for the USSR.
The fruits of modern libertarianism is America. To the extent that we have allowed the government to grow to erode our rights to life, liberty and property, we have undercut the source of our strength and future success.
There are two roads to the libertarian philosophy. One is theistic and the other is atheistic. One is that our rights are God-given. The other is that our rights come from the principle of self-ownership and reason. The Bible or Atlas Shrugged. But no matter which route, we come to the same place.
Atheists can be your allies, if you can open your Christian heart and let us in.
PS: Look out for Ninjas!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 19, 2008 11:34 AMI propose a republic run by Christians, as we have had for 200 years. The old Soviet Constitution is a direct copy of ours; the difference is that our document was actualized by men who tried to subordinate themselves, and their egos, to His laws. The Soviets, et al., only subordinated themselves to fellow amoral pagans who had more guns. Atheistic libertarians are are nothing more than cleverly marketed neoSoviets. If you are one of those, there is indeed no place for you, anyway.
The "religious right" has always been the substance of American success; our government has been the form used to implement Thomistic Divine/natural/human law. Libertarianism has always been a mere pimple on the butt, because it has always represented static intuitionism. Sorry, libertarians cannot usurp God and our claim Christian nation's achievements just so they can get a subhuman buzz.
I will grant that our government employees erode our power of life, liberty, and property and transfer it to themselves, but that is not a libertarian theme. That sociopathy was first explicated in Romans 13, where we are told to choose our government employees from those ordained of God (Christians), who then are to punish the wrongdoers and protect the righteous.
I suggest you read, and understand, the Bible. The origin, and profundity, of our Divine rights predates the atheist Rand by millenia. We can't retreat to Galt's gulch. We must physically destroy the enemy, due, in significant part, to obstructionist idealogues like libertarians.
Atheists are, per se, enemies of God -- you know that. Christians will not be unequally yoked with them, or accept their poisonous leaven. You need to unharden your heart and let God make you a new man, by asking His forgiveness and governance in your life. You will then have the eternal peace you seek, as revealed in your writings.
P.S. Look out for angels!
Posted by: The Pirate on May 19, 2008 04:27 PM
Ron Paul (a Christian, I might add) wants us to go back to following the wisdom of the founders and the Constitution. Seems like that should appeal to you. Not all libertarians are atheists.
I think that the Constitution is largely a libertarian document.
And, by the way, the Constitution does not mention God or Christianity. It is secular.
But if you don't want to work with me for the defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property just because I am an atheist, I'd say we are both worse off.
I've never seen an angel. But I've seen both pirates and ninjas! :)
I've never heard god speak, but I am now having a conversation with a pirate! Seems more reasonable to believe in the latter than the former.
"You Republicans should go where you can be successful: the fiscal issues. This is Dino's genius." - I agreed 4 years ago, however no one believes R's are fiscal conservatives anymore. Thus my family won't send money to him like we did 4 years ago.
"The social conservatives are preventing the success of the fiscal conservatives in this state." - Totally disagree, what is preventing fiscal conservatives is R's busting the bank every chance they get.
"And I agree with you on partial birth abortion." - but apparently not on mostly developed abortion.
"I oppose it." "But I think that abortion should be legal in the first six months of pregnancy," - that's because you are either very uninformed, a very sick person, and likely don't have kids. A six month old baby feels pain, is very big, has eyelashes, sucks it thumb. Click the link here and see for yourself. http://www.angelfire.com/nm/MorganWilliam/grow.html
"As far as gays and lesbians are concerned, I defend their right to marry each other. Why?
Marriage is about KIDS, gays CAN'T have KIDS, FYI babies don't come from buttholes. People get married because raising kids is a 20+ year commitment. Finally, Marriage is not about RIGHTS, it is about RESPONSIBILITY. Unless you define Marriage as the right for me to pay all of my wife's bills, the right to be questioned about my whereabouts, the right to not have sex with anyone else unless you want the right to lose 50% of your stuff, etc. please let me know what "Rights" marriage has? -- I'd like to know as I've married for 17 years and haven't discovered any.
"I also defend your right to join a church that refuses to marry gays and lesbians. I find that kind of church policy disgusting," -- Look there is disgusting behavior everywhere, and if it turns you on to see two guys butt banging, then oh well, let's go kill a 6 month fetus. And a Unitarian Church isn't a Church, it's a religion for those whom religious beliefs are abhorent but still want to say they go to church: LOL.
"Not all homosexuals are sodomizers. Few lesbians are." - I guess strap ons don't count.
"And by the way, if your wife ever performs a certain oral sexual act on you, you are both guilty of sodomy." Sodomy refers to anal intercourse -- modern perverts and moral confusionist like you have tried to turn that into Oral Sex. Oral Sex is not killing millions of people like butt banging does.
"Whereas my term, "homophobic," clearly applies to you, and anyone who thinks that gays marrying each other will harm them in any significant way." - Gays marrying harms kids, because every kid should have a Mom and a Dad. Moms and Dads provide genetically-based different perspectives on life. Something no two Gays will ever do.
"But tell me, exactly how does gay marriage harm you, or violate your individual rights to life, liberty and property?" -- I'm not worried about me, I worry about those little kids growing up with two slimy guys butt banging each other. You ever met a entirely normal gay. I haven't. I was molested twice by gays (once at department store in Toledo, OH), the gays across the street from us were loud mouthed freaks and drunk stupid most of the time, I know two guys who died of AIDS, the guy at work wore a dress and had the shoulders of a linebacker turning gay after a messy divorce, come now - outside of hollywood are gays really normal? Gay activity in nature occurs because of confinement, stress, etc. -- it is always a negative. The truly compassionate view is try to figure out what is wrong with a gay person emotionally, chemically, etc. and fix it. Why should they be deprived of a woman simply because they were not born with enough hormone, or were raised by a single mom with no male role-model, or married a femiminst - divorced and went gay (which might be preferrable to the celebate life of being married to a femininist - LOL).
"What, exactly, are you afraid of?"
My kids being raised in a society were Gays are normal, it's okay to kill 6 month old fetuses, while letting criminals go free, and where church going people are considered disgusting, and about to elect a president who thinks the country has 57 states, doesn't know what a Hanford is, and has a racist pastor. Apparently the fiscal bankruptcy of this country is going nicely with the moral and mental bankruptcy. --- AH, all is well.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 19, 2008 10:43 PMDon't worry Meg, it is more likely that Big Macs and obesity that will give Joel Connelly a heart attack. I think you're safe.
Posted by: pbj on May 20, 2008 07:03 AMYou're behaving very poorly.
Your equivocating the administrators of the Soviet and US Constitutions is ignorant or perfidious. Atheist libertarians traditionally reject Christian charity, yet you request it. You are a hypocrite. I don't give charity to God's enemies, since they are also my enemies. The Psalmist David advises His enemies are to hated with a perfect hatred. The patriach Gideon knew hatred was required before he beheaded those enemies. Jesus instructs Christians to bring those before Him, who would not have Him rule over them, and slay them. (That's also one of Christendom's counters to Islamic jihadists. You heard it here first.)
The Soviet immigrant Ayn Rand (aka Rosenbaum) rejected libertarianism, but urged passive resistance by our best and brightest to authoritarianism; again, pretty ignorant or perfidious given the mindset of our enemy neoSoviet atheist authoritarians, some who dress themselves in libertarian clothes.
The Constitution was the product of the Christian, not the atheist, flow of political history. It was non-denominational, but it certainly was not secular, because the rights and responsibilities came right out of Christendom. Bruce, again, you are either ignorant or perfidious. In either case you would be a liability in combat, and no intelligent person could risk working with you. You need to sit on the sidelines.
While you watch the battle, I recommend you get better grounded in rights and responsibilities. Start with Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, St. Thomas's Treatise on the Law, and certainly the Bible.
I sense you are afraid of the exposure and accountability you would face before God for your support of the genocidal abortion of His unborn souls, the corruption of the natures of His born souls through homosexuality, etc. The sad part is that you can't run, and you can't hide by ostriching with atheistic libertarianism. The glad part is that he will forgive you. You can talk to Him through prayer and meditation.
Bruce, it's time to leave your superficial life and become a new man in the Lord. The alternative is untenable.
Posted by: The Pirate on May 20, 2008 10:17 AM
How can Abu Rozzi be a "forward-looking challenger" when his main campaign pitch is, "Hey! You almost elected me last time! You owe me!" (Cue "Five Aces" Sharkansky to claim the Democrats were better at cheating than the GOP. To which the obvious reply is, hey, if the guy can't hire competent help, he deserves everything he didn't get.)
Being a more sore loser than Al Gore does nothing for Abu Rozzi's image. One can only assume he got the nomination because no other Republican thinks they can win, either, so better Abu Rozzi gets stuck with being a two-time loser rap, eventually.
That and his transportation plans bought and paid for by his Saudi overlords. Abu Rozzi never saw an OPEC gallon of gas he didn't like us to pay for. (While the Saudis tithe to the terrorists.)
I am not afraid of supporting the liberty of my gay and lesbian friends.
I have an 18 month old son, so you are wrong in that assumption as well. My position on abortion is not as extreme as yours.
I suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
You claim to be the Christian, which is why I thought I could expect a little Christian charity from you. For you not to act with charity is hypocritical. I am not subject to that constraint because I am not a Christian.
But what I propose is for you and I to work together on the fiscally conservative issues. I point out that social conservatives tend to lose in this state, while fiscal conservatives like Eyman and Rossi have a good chance of winning. I point out that if Rossi and Eyman adopted socially conservative positions they would lose.
The strategy is simple, then: if you want to rebuild the GOP in this state, focus on the fiscal issues and ignore the pro-life and the anti-gay crowd for a while. Otherwise, the GOP will continue to be a minority party, largely out of power. Doesn't that make sense?
I extend an olive branch, and you seem to be rejecting it. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 21, 2008 01:43 PMI don't believe your name is Bruce. I certainly don't believe you are a father, or that you are a Republican sympathizer; your writings belie that.
The perverse friends you support have abandoned their moral responsibilities and are viruses in the body politic, which has the God-given right of self-defense to rid itself them. If you support them and their pathologies, then you oppose civilization and are also its enemy.
D'Souza has already desroyed the dolt Dawkins in written and public debate.
You have not shown you deserve charity, because you are clearly an enemy of God and Christendom. Being a pagan you cannot dictate, or even suggest, the behavior of Christians, since you rely on the Christian ethos to buttress your fallacious, circular argument, i.e., the amoral cannot dictate to the moral.
Consequently, I cannot trust you, and would never knowingly work with you. Remember, atheism is the opiate of the corrupt and fallen.
The GOP loses elections when they betray their social conservative base, and compromise by adopting the suicidal policies you espouse.
What makes imminent sense is for Christian pastors and priests to target King County as a domestic mission area, like any other third world pagan country, flood it with missionaries, convert the heathen, and elect conservative Christians to all offices. This is already happening. We will get social, economic, and international policy conservatism in your lifetime, and you will be powerless to stop it from your amoral sideline.
You extend poisonous leaven, not an olive branch. I know you by your written works, and am dusting off my sandals.
Your last sentence exemplifies perfidy with your dishonest selective ommission. The full quote is: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God." Matthew 5:9. Now that's hypocrisy. You can't reinvent God in your own image. The Marxists tried and failed with liberation theology. Liberation libertarianism won't work either.
We're through.
Jesus would have advocated charity, even to atheists. He would have been a Christian to all those who you would call "sinners."
I am merely pointing out that you are acting against the teachings of your own faith. There is nothing circular in that, my friend. I do not have to claim to be a Christian in order to point that out.
I am not an enemy of god. One can not be the enemy of what one does not believe to exist. I am the enemy of those who would force their religion on me via the law. I am the enemy of un-reason, and blindly accepted doctrines. I am the enemy of both left and right-wing socialism.
If you cannot distinguish me from a communist, then that reflects badly on your own ability to perceive.
You are right that I am not a Republican. I rejected that label when the local Republicans in the 43rd District rejected Ron Paul. But I AM a fiscal conservative. I am a fan of the free market, free trade, property rights, and lower taxes and government spending. I believe in limited, Constitutional government. Eyman is one of my heroes. There is ample room there for the two of us to work together, even if we disagree on social and perhaps foreign policy issues.
Your rejection of my alliance on fiscal conservative issues is against your own long term rational self interest.
Good luck with your missions to King County. I suspect you will need it. Your plan is Quixotic, and I know what it is to be Quixotic, since I am a Libertarian! :)
We are, indeed done, for now. No fiscal conservative are you. But I believe in forgiveness. If you change your mind, I am ready to work with you on fiscally conservative issues.
Go in peace, my friend. I wish you happiness.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 21, 2008 09:54 PM