Readers from 2006 may recall regular commenter John McDonald, the arch-conservative whose anti-Dave Reichert animus rivals that of the netroots, albeit from a different ideological direction. McDonald cheered for Reichert's defeat, which alas, didn't work out so well for him.
Well, McDonald appears to be back in the comments with some regularity, and if he is going to be, let's make sure we understand where he's coming from. Besides his fervent opposition to Reichert he also holds a deep and abiding disdain for George W. Bush. Now, it's fair to say many a Republican has a quibble or two with 43, but McDonald's glower is rich and venomous.
One might ask: if you can't stand Dave Reichert and George Bush and reside in Western Washington, what exactly is the point of your being a Republican? In McDonald's defense, he supported Dino Rossi in 2004. But alas, the plot thickens. Read this short exchange between me and him in this post:
12. HYPOCRISY ALERT: Sound Politics Mainstream posters are excusing the poor showing of Rossi in the poll, if a conservative were behind 11 points - they would be thrasing [sic] the influence of the right in the party.My family sent money to Rossi in the last run, not going to happen this time :-) I'm really sick of anyone who Sound Politics support, no offense to Rossi who is a great guy, but until the midstream republican start to understand that limited government matters - screw them.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 19, 2008 09:36 PM
13. John -
If you want to make your political decisions based on who Sound Politics does or doesn't "support" then be my guest.
And if you honestly think that someone that railed against McCain for months as insufficiently conservative to represent the Republican party is a "Mainstreamer" then I'm not sure how firm a grasp you actually have on the issue.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 19, 2008 09:42 PM
14. Eric, no offsense [sic] but you are terribly predictable.
Just like last election cycle you will fall in line with anything that has an R on it (unless it is a conservative Baptist Republican) in time for the election. All your huffing and puffing about McCain is just you trying to get street Cred, prior to supporting him with big hugs and kisses this fall as Obama will be sooooo scary by then.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 20, 2008 12:05 AM
Essentially, McDonald is saying he won't support Rossi this time because people at Sound Politics seem to like the guy. You'll pardon me if I don't consider that the most admirable way to define participation in perhaps the biggest political race this state has seen in years.
Moreover, it's clear McDonald hasn't' been following the site for the last year or so. Loyal readers know full well that John McCain was skewered on a regular basis during the primary season (for good cause from the conservative point of view!), and isn't going to get a pass in the general either. Furthermore, given that my final GOP primary preferences ending up being Mitt Romney 1st, no second choice, and Fred Thompson 3rd it's really hard to see that as setting the table as "hugs and kisses" for McCain.
McDonald seems upset in part because of my disdain for Mike Huckabee as a prospective GOP nominee. Well, last time I checked the results of the primaries, a whole helluva of a lot of other people, especially non-Evangelicals and people living outside the South, did too. Never mind the fact I'm an Evangelical Christian as well, but I digress.
Ultimately, McDonald seems to have a chip on his shoulder the size of a small state. He only seems to like Republicans who would have trouble getting elected in some red states, let alone blue ones.
So, commenters, before you engage him, be aware he loathes Reichert and Bush and can't bring himself to support Rossi this time like he did in 2004 because my support is evidently too damn troubling to him.
Logical political thinking this is not.
UPDATE: grammar fixed, per Dopio @ #2...price I pay for cranking out multiple posts as bedtime starts calling my name.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 20, 2008 10:35 PM | Email ThisApologize for going off-topic. Back to the topic at hand, I kind of feel that JM is an operative for the dems posing as a conservative. A lot of his arguments tend to lack common sense and exhibit such uncivility often observed in the far left (even fringe).
Posted by: DopioLover on May 20, 2008 10:46 PMAnd it's worse than illogical political-think:
When people like Mr. McDonald refuse to support Rossi or McCain because of some rigid ideological purity test, and/or the deep-space ''reason'' of being against anyone supported by SP.com contributors, as a practical matter their attitude amounts to not just ''screw those candidates'', but effectively ''screw the country''. That is UNSAT.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 20, 2008 10:53 PMThat's possible though I've seen a lot of specific, conservative-oriented language from him that matches that of some other religious, social conservatives who feel highly trodden upon by the Republican party and essentially demand more conservative candidates before they'll be supportive again. In McDonald's case, he might just be more vocal - and a bit more quirky - than some of the others in his same boat.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 20, 2008 10:56 PMTry again in the morning on the grammar. It should be "between him and me." You have the "me" vs. "I" correct now, thanks to DopioLover. It's "me" because you are part of the object of the verb and of the preposition in that sentence, not the subject. Now, you need to correct the other error: first person is always named last in a group of subjects or objects.
But back on topic: I've never met John McDonald. I didn't read the whole thread to which you are referring, so I can't say for sure how much I agree with him or not on most points. But just based on your exerpts above, I don't think it's fair to say that the reason he doesn't support Rossi is BECAUSE SP does. He just said that he's sick of anyone who SP supports, but then went on to say, "until the midstream republican start to understand that limited government matters - screw them." I wonder if he has made the case that Dino is part of the "midstream republicans" or that he doesn't "understand that limited government matters," but just from reading these exerpts, I would guess that this more accurately describes why he now opposes Rossi.
Ummm... Because the Republican Party shouldn't be a Stalinist cult of personality, but rather should embody principles and ideas? And neither Reichert nor Bush show through their actions any semblance of also holding those principles? (Bush does most of what he does to annoy Poppy; Reichert is interested solely in a quiet life double-dipping two pension funds at taxpayer expense while doing as little as possible to earn either one. Both are essentially principle-free zones.)
Duty. Honor. Country. All those things Bush stands against. And Republicans should stand for.
Which is why the Democrats are far more the party of conservatism these days, but hey.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on May 21, 2008 03:32 AM"Yep, the Campaign Trail is Tough" thread
"That said, I'm still voting for B.Obama because like McCain I'm for affirmative action, and Obama should get in simply because he is partially black, and since he is especially un-informed this only makes the case for affirmative action that much stronger. Really, I am voting Obama. If McCain was truly consistant, then he would spot Obama 5 points in the election because no partial black has been elected yet."
Posted by John McDonald at May 20, 2008 09:14 AM
Talk about having 'political cognitive dissonance'....
Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2008 05:21 AMI prefer the multiple posts before your 'bedtime' than just a single post grammatically correct. I love reading your articles. Who among us takes time to proofread all our posts. Obviously, I don't.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2008 07:33 AMSo what he's saying has some truth to it, from my point of view.
As for your question - "if you can't stand Dave Reichert and George Bush and reside in Western Washington, what exactly is the point of your being a Republican?"
The answer is simple. Some of us still believe that the Republican party was the party of small government and freedom.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2008 08:10 AM
Say what? You've been hanging around HA instead. NOT SP.
Except for some of our lib posters.
I can deal with the national stuff, even though this is a supposed regional blog. But this is ridiculous.
Posted by: jimg on May 21, 2008 09:20 AMAnyway, JM is being completely inconsistent if he is voting for Obama who will create one of the biggest beaurocracy through the implementation of national health care system. He would again be inconsistent if he supports Gregoire (because he is not supporting Rossi).
Posted by: DopioLover on May 21, 2008 09:24 AMArmy Medic/Vet - It's amusing that you would argue this, but par for the course here. It's like every day is opposites day on SP.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2008 09:26 AMPlaying stupid just doesn't cut it.
"maybe Obama is AB"
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 21, 2008 09:30 AMI actually found out about this place about 3 months ago from a regular who also posts on opencarry.org. So I haven't been here long, but it doesn't take long to realize how NOT small government/personal freedom this place is.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2008 09:35 AM...and here I thought it was because Goldy was named "Equestrian lover" of the year by the Enumclaw chamber of commerce. =)
When you watch him speak in public, peer longingly into those deer-in-a-headlight eyes and you will shudder at the deep ideological chasm. It’s tragic he traded in his empty holster for an empty suit.
The American Conservative Union (ACU) just released its scores for the 2007 session and guess how our serial-killer-nabbing savior did? In his three years in Congress he’s scored a paltry 64 (out of 100) in 2005, followed by an even lamer 56 in 2006, topped off by his latest stellar performance of 48 – voting more often than not to give the finger to his party while rubber-stamping Ms. Pelosi’s agenda.
Look up the definition of RINO in the dictionary and it’s likely accompanied with The Sheriff’s vacuous mug-shot. There were only two (2) Republican Representatives who voted more liberally than Reichert last year in the ENTIRE U.S. House – fruitcake Mike Castle of Delaware, and cupcake Chris Shays of Connecticut. Now, there’s an accomplishment, Dave!
Was it this Prince Charming who genuflected on bended knee to see if he could deliver the shoe which might fit his delegation sister’s senatorial foot? -A perfect metaphor for his Cinderella political career if there ever was one..
>BongBongBong
Oh, my, what time is it showing on the clock?
Suggest you read Rasmussen...
While Obama 48% McCain 42% in Colorado, it's McCain 50% Obama 40% in the ever more valuable Florida and McCain 45% vs BHo 44% in the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll... AND Other tracking data shows that most Americans prefer lower taxes and fewer government programs.... which ain't the BHO or your gal Hill.... or the queen.
>>The last thing we need is one David Reichert in office.
I'd contend that the last thing we need is one Darcy Burner in office.
Posted by: Smoley on May 21, 2008 01:08 PMI had no Idea Hillary was making her pitch for being VP to OBAMA in the manner depicted in your photo link. Who would have thought she could still "Step up to the microphone" like that at her age. How Monica like of her.
Posted by: Smokie on May 21, 2008 01:45 PMThen why in the world would they elect the Republicans after their big spending spree from 2000 - 2006? We now hove the biggest debt and largest Govt. in the history of the US. Let no good deed go unpunished. =)
Oh yeah, I'm sure the same tracking data shows most Americans believe in Global Warming and the Tooth Fairy if you asked them about it Rags.
They didn't remember. They became Dem's and spent like fools, that's why they are gone(2006) and now you notice the dem's are back to Biz as usual. Even though they said they wouldn't!
Yet some people assume that because I post at Sound Politics, that I am some evil "mainstreamer."
Not that I think the other SP posters are "mainstreamers." Maybe not as conservative as me, but eh. All I know is that I want to get things accomplished, and that necessarily means working with people I don't always agree with ... because there's no one I always agree with.
Although, I did also dislike Huckabee ... but my reason was that he was the LEAST conservative candidate in the GOP race. Well, after Giuliani.
But my point here is that the argument here seems to be more about tactics than actual issues. Eric agrees with small government principles. Maybe not as far as I do, but that isn't the point being made: the point being made is that he shouldn't support people who aren't ideologically pure enough. Even if Eric were MORE conservative than John McDonald, this would still be the root of the problem. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Eric's stances on any issues. It has to do with Eric supporting people John doesn't want supported.
Posted by: pudge on May 24, 2008 09:40 PM