Joni Balter spent some time on this issue recently, for whatever that was worth. Regardless, the Evergreen State will be bandied about by both sides in these early months of the general election campaign as a potential battleground.
Political talk is nice, but spending is usually the ultimate truth-teller in politics. Accordingly, note that John McCain's first general election ad is running in "Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
I'm pretty sure there's not a Washington in there.
What we do have in our state is a RNC Victory Director, one of only nine states with such a staffer. That copious attention from the national party's voter turnout arm is heavily a function of this being virtually the only chance in the country for a Democratic Governor to be dethroned. It won't hurt Dave Reichert any either.
Hiding a little under all the Presidential happy-talk is evidence that Dino Rossi's race is as much a national GOP priority as it is a local one.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 07, 2008 09:08 AM | Email Thishttp://www.bradblog.com/?p=6043
Have they not seen the re-election rate in this country or just chosing to ignore it?
Unless Rossi comes out of his status quo shell and proposes we start cutting some government programs rather than just pretend he can run them better, his campaign will never pick up traction amongst conservatives in the volume needed to win.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2008 12:14 PMNews flash: Sure Rossi could try to pick up the 500 to 1000 conservatives out there who still won't vote for him, but why should he? He has some issues with transportation that might swing 5000-10,000 moderates his way, and in the state of Washington at this time, that's what could win him the election.
Heck, everyone is perfectly aware that when it's budget time, he's the only lawmaker in the last 20 years that really knew how to wield a knife. We need him elected, we don't need him to sacrifice himself to run on a platform of libertarianism.
Posted by: Doug on June 7, 2008 04:23 PMANd there are more than a few thousand conservatives out there in Washington. You just would not know it because they for the most part have given up on the GOP after the GOP gave up on them.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2008 04:48 PMI do not even ask Rossi to pick a big agency, a small one would do. I just require that he identify at least ONE agency that he would seek to abolish as governor. If he can do that it will show me that he is serious about decreasing government rather than better managing government and I will then consider jumping on board.
Rossi however appears unable to find one place that our state government has overstepped its bounds.
Posted by: Lysander on June 7, 2008 05:13 PMAt the risk of arguing with a brick wall, I should note that when Rossi announced his campaign last October he mentioned four issues prominently in his speech: education, transportation, public safety, and the state budget. Of those, he has rolled out a full plan on only one: transportation.
One would logically expect such roll-outs on other issues in the coming months as the campaign season picks up steam. I'm not saying you'll be entirely satisfied by his budgetary proposals, but you would at least be on firmer rhetorical ground in constantly criticizing his supposed budget ideas if you actually waited until he has presented them before launching into your complaints.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 7, 2008 05:37 PMI'm guessing most people in WA are still not aware of how many State bureaucrats the Gov gets to appoint: It's over 1100. That's right: ELEVEN HUNDRED.
Just being able to clean out all those socialist agency appointees and managers that make, interpret, and implement all the agency rules we are aflicted with would be huge all by itself.
OK- that's wishful thinking. Obama himself could yell "kill whitey" and the left would still vote for him.
Posted by: Andy on June 7, 2008 06:47 PMBut Rossi does have a slim chance of winning. That is true as long as he sticks to fiscal issues, and avoids getting painted as a social conservative, or a GW Bush fan. The left knows that GW Bush is unpopular, and does it's best to associate all Republicans with Bush because they know it works.
Will the anti-gay, anti-abortion socially conservative crowd cause Rossi to lose? They could, if they demand too many statements from him.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 7, 2008 07:38 PMSo in other words you would be happy with Rossi if he just proposed a cut of a governemnet agency even if said agency was never cut. I am not saying that Reagan did not try to cut the dept of Ed, but in this day and age of politics if Rossi said if elected I would cut (insert name of agency) and it did not happen the left would use it against him like the "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge was used against Bush Sr. in his re-election campaign.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 7, 2008 09:22 PMhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/05/31/cstillwell.DTL
Did I mention that the majority of people listed in this article are LEGAL immigrants?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 7, 2008 09:57 PMI respect that he has not released his whole plan. However he also has a career to look at as a politician. While in the state senate I have not seen or heard of one bill he introduced that would have elliminated any government agency. I somehow doubt it is coming in the future either.
Also why do you have to preface every comment to me with a rude comment like calling me a brickwall?
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2008 02:25 AMTrue soldier:
Yes I would be happy if he proposed elliminating one agency. I would be disappointed if he did not succeed but would not blame him if he at least tried. Cutting the agency is not the important thing really. The important thing is what the willingness to recognize agencies need to be cut means. Unless a candidate recognizes this, they are just saying they can better manage government. I am not looking for someone to run my life. I do not care if they pinch more pennies while running it than Gregoire can, I want someone that says I should run my own life. That is what a agency cut would show.
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2008 02:32 AMSB 5362, 2001, would have eliminated an agency.
Posted by: Doug on June 8, 2008 08:36 AM1. Lets be civil. There is no reason to start calling people names.
2. THanks for the example of Rossi trying to elliminate an agency. It is intersting to see. Unfortunately in the past 12 years he seems to have changes his position on that. He now wants to add another layer.
From his transportation plan:
"A Regional Transportation Accountability Board is needed to prioritize, fund and plan projects
in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap countie"
In other words he no longer thinks we should get rid of the transit authorities, he just thinks they need to be better managed and that he is the person to do.
Posted by: Lysander on June 8, 2008 10:05 AMHe went on record as opposing I-120, which had codified Roe v. Wade. A state which voted for that Initiative won't vote to elect Mr. Rossi, and he knows it. That's why he runs away from the topic, although he still seems to believe the state should make a woman's private medical decisions for her.
"The left knows that GW Bush is unpopular, and does it's best to associate all Republicans with Bush because they know it works."
Could you guys get President Bush to come here, and like in 2004, say how Rossi would do "a heck of a job" as our Governor? We all know what that phrase really means, don't we?
So, an incumbent with a record will oppose a perpetual candidate who runs AWAY from his own beliefs and party. Good luck with that, guys. If he does win, are you going to be proud of what such a campaign says about your beliefs and party?
Posted by: tensor on June 8, 2008 03:47 PMHow in the world has the act of killing the unborn worked itself into the saying of 'a woman's private medical decision'? The state is supposed to protect it's people, mother, father, and children alike. Limiting abortions is the act of a state to protect it's people, yet now we are to believe that isn't important, that instead murdering a viable unborn child is really "a woman's private decision"?
Rossi doesn't need to run from it, he just doesn't need to address it. It's not like the Governor of Washington state is going to change the U.S. Supreme Court, however, wouldn't the Dems love to try to make such a non-issue, the issue. Heck, sounds like you are all trying to tie him to Bush already.....Desperate.
Posted by: Doug on June 8, 2008 04:37 PMThat is the premise of Roe, and therefore of I-120, which a majority of Washington State's voters (Dino Rossi not amongst said majority, at least according to him) endorsed in 1991.
"The state is supposed to protect it's people, mother, father, and children alike."
Agreed. However, medically, biologically, and legally, a fetus is not a child.
"Limiting abortions is the act of a state to protect it's people..."
Since a fetus is not legally a child, limiting abortions does not protect anyone. What it does is to insert the state into a woman's private medical decisions, without her consent.
'... murdering a viable unborn child is really "a woman's private decision"?'
The vast majority of abortions take place prior to viability; the rest are medical necessities. Either way, legally it is not 'murder'.
"Rossi doesn't need to run from it, he just doesn't need to address it. It's not like the Governor of Washington state is going to change the U.S. Supreme Court,"
Four statewide Initiatives have addressed this issue: R-20 in 1970 (which legalized abortion, by popular vote, years before Roe) to I-694 in 1998, when the electorate refused to criminalize late-term abortions. So it is an issue in our state, one which predates the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Roe.
"Dems love to try to make such a non-issue, the issue."
Republican-controlled sessions of our state legislature have considered bills to contradict our will on this topic, and so we have a right to know if any prospective Governor would veto such a bill. (Obviously, those Republicans considered this topic to be an 'issue', did they not?)
"Heck, sounds like you are all trying to tie him to Bush already.....Desperate."
But does not "Rossi, you'd do a heckuva job," have a great ring to it? What do you not like about our President?
Posted by: tensor on June 8, 2008 05:22 PMOnce again, you fail to see that an abortion has an effect on more than one soul. I did not say that a state banning abortions would do so only in order to protect a child. Just as they ban cocaine, or just as they ban pornography near minors, the state is protecting people other than the direct target. Abortion has a far reaching adverse affect on society, not just because of killing viable unborn children, but also the effect it has on the mothers and fathers of that child.
And, the decision in Roe was very expicit to point out that the justices did not know at which point life began so they left it to science to work out where the fetus becomes viable. We have thousands of instances of medically unnecessary abortions each year where a child is aborted that could have survived outside the mother's womb with today's medicine.
And that premise of Roe's of yours - being a private matter - was overturned on Casey and does not hold legally anymore.
Posted by: Doug on June 8, 2008 07:57 PMMedicine and biology concern themselves with organisms; the law concerns itself with individuals. None of these fields bother much with souls.
"Just as they ban cocaine, or just as they ban pornography near minors, the state is protecting people other than the direct target."
It would be interesting to compare the vast and expensive failure that is our drug war, along with the foolish efforts against 'pornography', with the many women who died from botched abortions prior to R-70/Roe. Which unwarranted expansion of state power has caused more harm? I would welcome that discussion, especially from a small-government perspective.
"Abortion has a far reaching adverse affect on society, not just because of killing viable unborn children, but also the effect it has on the mothers and fathers of that child."
Have you ever conversed with a woman you know well, about an abortion she has considered, or has had? I have, and the issues she recounted were much more complex than you have here allowed. (No, her fetus was not formed from my gametes.)
As far as the effects of abortion on society, please read the book "Freakonomics". The economist authors claim legalization of abortion accounts for the entire decrease in crime two decades later.
"And, the decision in Roe was very expicit to point out that the justices did not know at which point life began so they left it to science to work out where the fetus becomes viable. We have thousands of instances of medically unnecessary abortions each year where a child is aborted that could have survived outside the mother's womb with today's medicine."
Biological reality limits viability to the period in which most abortions have been performed, before about 22 weeks at the absolute earliest. We err on the side of the woman's right to choose the fate of her own body.
"And that premise of Roe's of yours - being a private matter - was overturned on Casey and does not hold legally anymore."
Please do so explain to the majority of your fellow Washingtonians, who continue to behave -- and to vote -- as if our state should not intervene in a woman's private medical matters. Better yet, please have Dino Rossi explain that to us. Part of my definition of leadership involves always telling the truth, even -- especially -- to an audience which resists hearing it. Perhaps this is no longer a conservative virtue.
BTW, Casey in no way invalidates the premises of Roe or R-20. Here's Wikipedia's version:
'The plurality opinion stated that it was upholding what it called the "essential holding" of Roe. The plurality asserted that the right to abortion is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the plurality reiterated what the Court had said in Eisenstadt v. Baird: "[i]f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey)
As Casey points out the state has the right to protect the fetus at the moment it may by viable. Any error on the side of the woman's 'right' to choose is an error on the side of MURDER.
The current interpretation of the Constitution is that the state's responsibility to protect the unborn is greater than the woman's 'right' to choose at the moment that child is viable. Even one baby being killed after that moment, means the state has murdered and failed to perform it's responsibility under Casey.
And you are correct, far more women in their childbearing years have died while having an abortion than have died due to second hand smoke, yet the liberals in this state find it necessary to protect those people from second hand smoke by making the decision for them...
Posted by: Doug on June 9, 2008 01:09 PMNo, it means the state has failed to offer the maximum protection to the fetus. Even if we allow for your rejection of medicine, biology, and the law, inaction still does not equal action.
"And you are correct, far more women in their childbearing years have died while having an abortion than have died due to second hand smoke..."
You left out the word 'illegal' before 'abortion', and so the statement is false. (A legal abortion is far safer than bringing the fetus to term; an illegal abortion is far more dangerous.) The state's "unwarranted governmental intrusion" (to quote your beloved Casey decision) contributed to the deaths of those women. I eagerly await your praise for us voters getting our state out of the assisted-murder business.
"...yet the liberals in this state find it necessary to protect those people from second hand smoke by making the decision for them..."
That Initiative passed with an overwhelming majority of the vote. Thank you for admitting how liberal this state really is. (BTW, I voted against it, because the law makes a pub owner responsible for what happens beyond his or her establishment's boundaries.)
Returning to Rossi, we need to know if he'd follow the approach taken by the Bush Administration, which has tried to bestow personhood upon the fetus. Having no mandate to do this, and no Constitutional authority either (see Roe, Casey, etc.) the Bush Administration just ignored these restraints. We need to know if Rossi would follow suit, ignoring the clearly stated will of the voters. If his contempt for our decisions equals yours, his radical potential is our legitimate worry.
Posted by: tensor on June 9, 2008 07:56 PMAnd if an anti-abortion law passed with an overwhelming vote, would you sit idly by, of course not, then you would deem it unconstitutional by the unseemingly reason of stare decisis. Yes, that one little term is the only thing holding Roe and Casey together at this moment, three justices who deemed that stare decisis is more important than the written constitution. Dental floss, that's it.
Posted by: Doug on June 9, 2008 08:19 PMIn a legal abortion about 99.99% of the time one baby is killed, and a few mothers as well. It is true that a woman, and/or a woman and child may die while she brings the baby to term, but I would think it's less than 99% of the time.
Posted by: Doug on June 9, 2008 08:25 PM"The extraordinary annual drop in the mothers' deaths due to illegal abortions is completely and absolutely correlated to the widespread use of Penicillin in the medical (and backroom medical) field in which the timing of was circumstantial."
I don't know which anti-choice organization supplied your talking point, but I've got news for you: penicillin does not mitigate excessive bleeding.
Now, think for just one little minute about that talking point. It claims to compare the death rates from an illegal medical procedure to a legal one. Where did your author get his reliable statistics on an illegal medical procedure, one which the people involved would sometimes hide for decades after the fact? Think a little more: would a back-alley operation even bother with such niceties as proper medication? Have you ever read the accounts of women who endured such agonies?
"I forgot to comment on your absolutely disgusting comment that: A legal abortion is far safer than bringing the fetus to term..."
Relax, I did not expect you to consider the woman's point of view.
Posted by: tensor on June 10, 2008 07:52 PM