That would be these ads, which prompted this response from Christine Gregoire:
"We have hit rock bottom in this campaign and it is only June," Gregoire said of the ad campaign. "I call on my Republican opponent Dino Rossi to denounce the BIAW and these ads and instead run a campaign focused on good policy and the issues."
If these relatively benign ads are "rock bottom" then we've hit a new low for the pansification of local politics. It's not as if outside groups on either side are likely to become more polite as the campaign season unfolds.
Moreover, can we expect Greogoire to "denounce" the inevitably warm and sunny ads that will emanate from an equivalent PAC on the Democratic side?
Not likely.
Faux outrage is always a cute way to change the subject, but it also shows that the radio ads in question have landed a punch. Otherwise there's no reason to speak up about them.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 19, 2008 07:39 AM | Email ThisBetter lay off those cigarettes to lighten up that complexion.
Posted by: Uchitachi on June 19, 2008 07:53 AMYeah, we have hit rock bottom with Chris Gregoire. Much higher taxes. Scare tactics to pass a huge new gas tax for transportation in 2005, with very little to show since. Tribal favors that create more ways for people to squander their money, and allow it to get back in Democrat contributions. Mandatory public employee union dues to Democrats. Corruption at the Port of Seattle. Angry violent protests in Olympia. Talk of plastic bag bans. A whole new bureaucracy to police garbage in Seattle.
And MoveOn.org resorts to the exact same tactics all of the time. It's typical Leftist, just like Gregoire riding in a town car from the Governor's Mansion to her office a short walk away.
Do as they say, not as they do.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 07:59 AMIt's US politics....sad.
Posted by: However on June 19, 2008 08:26 AMThe Port of Seattle is run by REPUBLICANS. Three of the five current commissioners were endorsed by the Republican Party: Bill Bryant, John Creighton, and Lloyd Hara. A fourth commissioner, Pat Davis, was not actually endorsed by the Republican Party, but her last opponent, Jack Jolly, was endorsed by the Democratic Party. Davis was supported by prominent Republicans, such as Slade Gorton, Rob McKenna, and Jane Hague.
However, you may be right to blame the Port of Seattle fiascos on Governor Gregoire. Unfortunately, Gregoire has largely aligned herself with the REPUBLICAN CROOKS who run the Port of Seattle. For example, Gregoire supported Davis' re-election in 2005. And in 2007, Gregoire stayed neutral in the Port of Seattle races, and did nothing to support or help Democrats Alec Fisken (who was defeated by Republican Bill Bryant) or Gail Tarleton (who defeated Republican Bob Edwards). Gregoire also stayed neutral in the other high profile King County races last year.
Dino Rossi can at least be given credit for being politically savvy and returning the support of his supporters. While Gregoire stayed neutral in all the King County races last year, Rossi strongly backed the Republicans in every race -- Satterberg, Hague, Bryant, and Edwards.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 19, 2008 09:09 AMBut, attacking her record? That is supposed to be off-limits? Of course, that is the DalaiBama's recipe for campaigning. Gregoire subscribes to that school.
You know, it would be nice to purge our executives and legislators in Olympia. Just for a CHANGE.
I hope she still keeps at it. That old Portland Whine (Jailblazers with Drexler comes to mind) would sure taste good this summer.
Posted by: swatter on June 19, 2008 09:25 AMIt's part of their DNA. Liberals like Gregoire are used to being the political equivilant of schoolyard bullies. It's about time conservatives learned that the most effective way to deal with bullies is to hit them back.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 19, 2008 09:31 AMBut the Democrats have shown themselves to be far worse. So it's the lesser of two evils. I mean really, spending time on plastic bag bans, when we have have serious transportation and energy issues in this state? Yet, that's what we get from the entirely entrenched Democrat majority in this state.
Or for example Seattle fretting about cyclists and spending millions to develop for what amounts to a very tiny percentage of the population. I'm a cyclist, I like safe roads, but I don't believe that my enjoyment should be forced on the majority of the population.
That's the Democrat way. Force the ideas of a small ideological contingent on everyone regardless of even any economic or societal benefit.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 09:34 AMFurther sadness, everywhere.
Posted by: However on June 19, 2008 10:10 AM"We have a deal for the Governor. If she and her friend promise to stop telling lies about Dino Rossi, then he and BIAW will stop telling the truth about her."
Posted by: Paul on June 19, 2008 10:37 AMFor starters: You better trade in your BIG BLUE CADDY for a Prius since you don't want drill for oil.
Posted by: Scott on June 19, 2008 10:53 AMThe majority of WA voters will want to drill for more oil. There's only so many moonbats in Seattle. There are a lot of independents, middle of the road Democrats, Union Democrats, Soccer Moms, etc. that drive every day, and see the numbers at the pump. And they can implicitly connect the dots to see that doing nothing is not going to bring more gas to the pump at a better price.
They will vote with their pocketbooks.
Cater to the environmentalists, and lose the election.
As a Gregoire supporter and Democratic voter, I would be happy to contribute to your proposal. The SUSA poll that gives you such confidence asks those questions in too much isolation to bank an attack on. But, you seem quite confident, so please go forward with your idea. I'm sure many of the readers of this blog would be willing to help you fund the effort.
Posted by: BillL on June 19, 2008 12:58 PMhttp://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
This is their answer to increasing drilling. The insanity shines at many levels, from screwing the American public by sending us into a full-blown depression, to the notion that pure Communism like this is somehow acceptable in the USA.
Actually, is it Communism, or Nationalist Socialism? Either way, it is anti-American.
Christine has shown to be in lockstep with everything Leftist, so one would expect she she supports either Communism or Nationalist Socialism. Which is it?
I'm not going off of polls. I'm going off the gut feel of being an average American. Whether we like it or not, or disagree with it or not, we've built our economy on cheap energy and gasoline/ diesel. Our lifestyle in almost every single city revolves around our cars, and delivery of goods and services using out roads. Even Democrats who support transit have some implicit understanding of the fact that in cities without transit, it will be decades at best before there is any meaningful replacement of autos.
We must use our autos today. And we must do so for survival. Not getting to work, performing services, etc. is not an option. And we sit on top of billions of barrells of oil. In proven and unproven reserves, off of our coast and in areas all around the country. And we have the technology to drill horizontally and access vast fields with minimal surface interruption. And we sit on enough uranium to power our country for as far in to the future as we can imagine.
When the average voter starts to connect the dots with our current infrastructure, high prices at the pump, and a lack of willingness to use our own resources, ingenuity, etc. eventually they get fed up and realize that it is our own fault that we are in this predicament.
And then they start to ask who is we, and start looking for someone to take the fall. Senators, Congressmen, and Environmentalists are the three biggest reasons why we now have high gas prices. As this realization hits, and the realization that the only way out in the short and near term is to take responsibility for our energy needs, any politician or environmentalist standing in the way is in for a very rude awakening.
The environmentalists wanted high gas prices to force the issue. So now they get to deal with the awakened hordes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 01:13 PMIt is also interesting that a number of D's are starting to show their true communist colors. Nationalizing private industries is a page right out of the Castro/Chavez playbook.
It's about time they said what they really believe.
Posted by: Kato on June 19, 2008 01:22 PM''And we sit on enough uranium to power our country for as far in to the future as we can imagine.''
Yup.... and if fact if we get our act together and make 4th Generation fast neutron breeder reactors a priority, we could probably provide all electric power for the entire county for over 100 years JUST FROM THE ''SPENT'' FUEL in the cooling ponds at existing nuclear power plants; even with the projected signifcant growth in electric power consumption. That ''spent'' fuel still has about 95 percent of the potential energy left.
Of course even on a high-priority basis it will take a couple decades or so before significant numbers of Gen-IV reactor are online. But just like drilling: Every day we don't start is ONE more day of delay.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 19, 2008 01:41 PMThere are two big reasons why we now have high gas prices: supply and demand. Rapid industrialization of China, India and other parts of the developing world have dramatically increased demand while supply has remained relatively stable and, in fact, may have peaked. Environmentalists have had nothing to with this, though a set of environment-based realities certainly weigh against the sustainability of seeking the relatively moderate amounts of untapped oil supplies.
Environmentalists talk about this,but they did not create these problems.
Some of these environmental concerns are esthetic, but esthetics matter to a lot of people. People in Santa Barbara, for example, don't like seeing oil platforms on the horizon and they don't like small bits of tar washing up on their beaches. I'd be willing to bet a lot of Oregonians and Washingtonians would feel the same way.
More importantly, the reality of climate change (which I know most commenters on this board consider to be a commie plot but, you know, get over it) makes seeking more oil supplies, especially at the expense of esthetic and wildlife habitat losses, just not worth it. America will never have much oil supply compared to the Persian Gulf states. So, because of climate change, and because of national security concerns, it's time, as Bush himself says, to break the addiction. Gregoire has pursued policies, as much as possible at the state level, that help us break the addiction. Rossi, at best, pays lip service to them.
Posted by: BillL on June 19, 2008 01:46 PMIs "pansification" your own?
As a former uranium miner, I say "hear, hear" for nuclear power. Regarding disposal problems of the beautiful stuff, Yucca Mountain is the most carefully engineered disposal facility ever constructed. Interstate transport to the facility is a fair cost and risk for the benefits of nuclear power.
All organisms on earth evolved in the presence of the radioactive materials. Immune systems are enhanced by light exposure to such materials. The principle is called "hormesis".
Bart
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 19, 2008 02:01 PMYou think growing your way out of the fuel problem is a good idea.
More importantly, the reality of climate change
____________________________________
O-yes we just love the new words instead of warming. The enviros lost that one, so they change the words to sound better. Just like when dem's use the words for highter taxes= investment.
Sureeeeeeee.
What is it about these liberals that they have such annoying inflections?
OH WAIT... I know!
It's their I know better than the little people and perpetually talk down to us habit.
Is there a liberal politician that acknowledges they are wooing thinking adults?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 19, 2008 02:05 PMThis is another reason most don't buy your warming BS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.
...............
Earthquakes because of warming. You G/W nuts have jumped the shark!
Yeah, nevermind that the caribou at Prudhoe Bay have thrived since they drilled there. And there is absolutely ZERO evidence that drilling at the tiny piece of land in ANWR would have any detrimental effects there either. Another big liberal lie.
because of national security concerns
National security concerns is a reason FOR drilling for more oil domestically, not less. Alternative energy sources are desirable, but we're nowhere close to them meeting our needs in the next 20 years.
Environmentalists have had nothing to with this
Except when they do. When the environmental lobby gets Democrats to filibuster drilling in ANWR, or stop off shore drilling, or to stop refiniries from being built.
I won't even address your ridiculous climate change arguments, but suffice it to say that we all use oil. Look around your house, it took oil to make alot of things you own and use every day, and chances are it got there on a truck that requires oil too.
Posted by: Palouse on June 19, 2008 02:18 PMThat's one part of "we"
The other part of "we" is:
Christine and company will have to start their campaign from rock bottom as they try to divert attention from traffic congestion, lowering education standards, bloating the budget, and taking huge campaign kickbacks from the tribes.
Posted by: Andy on June 19, 2008 02:20 PMI think you are simplifying the equation. Yes, China and India are a big part of new demand, but what does with demand is supply. In a normal market without intervention, supply would have ramped up in accordance with demand. But Environmentalists have successfully lobbied the government to add ethanol formulations to our gasoline, limit the number of refineries built to zero, and limit the number of nuclear plants built. Not to mention the whole Ethanol craze.
And environmentalists have successfully closed much of our coast to drilling. For example, the California Coastal Commission. And they lobbied Clinton not to drill in ANWR. So, absent increased supply and coupled with China and India is the total problem. Read up on it, environmentalists are real, and they are thwarting our energy policy as much as possible.
You should also read up on "Global Warming." The main hypotheses on which the warming scare has been based have been debunked. The Hockey Stick curve was based on dendrochronology studies of tree rings and leaves, etc. Not only was the statistical math which generated the exaggerated curve prominently featured in Al Gore's propaganda proven to be flawed, but the underlying hypothesis that tree rings are a function of water has also recently been disproven. And just the other day, it was shown that leaves function well in many different temperatures, which debunks the link between CO2 and temperature further. There are vast number of studies and scientists, even IPCC scientists who are now coming out wholly against climate change hysteria. And we have seven years of empirical evidence to show that the trend is now towards cooling, which correlates very well with a lack of Sun Spots in the current SSC23 to SSC24 transition. The science is not there, and this is the end of the line for Al Gore and the other scaremongers.
Lastly, you are wrong about the US oil reserves. Recently the Bakken formation in South Dakota and surrounding areas was discovered to most likely contain upwards of 400 Billion barrels of oil. And there are many other areas where we have not drilled due to environmental restrictions, etc. It's easily possible that we sit on even more oil, that we just have not discovered yet, but we do sit now on a sizable known patch, even compared to the Middle East finds. Not to mention vast stores of natural gas comparable to the Middle East's oil.
We have the technology and the resources if we want them. What we have been lacking is the will, because of decades of lies told by environmentalists and other leftists causes that enjoy a crisis as a means to further their power.
Unfortunately for the left, the Sun did not get the memo. And with the new media, and such severe lack of policy as to create sudden gas price spikes, we will see a shift in public awareness that pressures our government in to response.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2008 02:47 PMArmy/Medic/Vet: Spot on!! Tom Chalko is the latest mad scientist to get publicity and MSM coverage. The following quote from "http://nujournal.net/" proves my point:
"Thomas J. Chalko
No second Chance: Can Earth Explode as a result of Global Warming?
Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the socalled greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause the meltdown condition, enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion."
Chalko hypothesizes that global warming will cause the world to explode.
Maybe not. Natural uranium is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235, with a miniscule percentage of U-234. The U-235 is used in fission reactors, enriched to several percentage through centrifugal separation.
U-238 itself is totally useless in a fission reactor. However, if the U-238 is exposed to the neutrons generated in fission, then it becomes Plutonium 239, which is very useable in a fission reactor. Basically, a fission reactor generates enough neutrons, so that considerably more U-238 can be converted into Pu-239, than the amount of fissible material that is consumed.
Unfortunately, U-238 (so-called "depleted uranium") is being used for military purposes, since it is the heaviest metal regularly available. U-238 is used for bomb casings, shell casings and other similar uses. U-238 could be made into valuable fission fuel, but instead is being consumed in military applications.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 19, 2008 03:32 PMa belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[4] of workers by the owners of capital
a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)
Does this not sound like the Leftist Global Warming crowd?
Posted by: scott on June 19, 2008 03:44 PMSince Richard Pope understands aspects of fission, this will inspire me to vote for him if he runs again. Even if we disagree about political details.
I will submit a slight difference of opinion about depleted uranium. Not used for shell casings. It's used for ammunition slugs. Its high hardness and extremely high specific gravity make it ideal for use in armor piercing projectiles.
Depleted uranium is about as toxic as lead. Take your choice for ammunition. Flesh. Lead. Armor. Uranium.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 19, 2008 04:04 PMReally? Can you please name 10 of those scientists for us?
Posted by: pbj on June 19, 2008 04:08 PMI thought U-238 is used both for armor and for armor-piercing projectiles. U-238 is worse than lead in several ways. Especially because U-238 is highly flammable, burning to release toxic vapors. Lead does not tend to burn too easily.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 19, 2008 04:19 PM"60 Minutes" did an awesome piece about nuclear power a little over a year ago that addressed this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml
Posted by: Mike H on June 19, 2008 04:33 PMAfter four years I find it hard to believe that some folks might be undecided, but there are some out there. For these folks, maybe the ads will work.
Having heard some to them, I have to say they are well done. To call them unfair though is a pretty lame response.
Posted by: deadwood on June 19, 2008 05:44 PMAnd it's very risky relying on the volatile Mid East to supply a large percentage of our oil.
Posted by: ajday on June 19, 2008 06:21 PMThe left has their panties in a wad because they didn't think of them first - isn't that always the case ?
Posted by: KS on June 19, 2008 07:01 PM''Recently the Bakken formation in South Dakota and surrounding areas was ...''
At least so far, the Bakken formation is I believe primarily centered in NORTH Dakota. That happens to be important to me, since I still own 80 acres of the old family homestead back in ND... even though most of the excitement about the Bakken formation is (sadly) a bit further west than our place; otherwise we might be in the short line for a good oil well.
NOW: Richard Pope @ #37 in reply to me @ #25:
First please note that I was talking about FAST NEUTRON reactors, which because of the much more energetic neutrons are significantly more efficient at converting FERTILE U-238 into fissile material.
For more technical info than most people want see:
www.inl.gov
www.nei.org
www.nuclear.gov
www.gnep.energy.gov
www.cleansafeenergy.org
WRT ''using up'' the supply of U-238 for conventional munitions, Bart @ #40 pretty much answered it correctly. IIRC the biggest use is for the core ''rod'' in ultra-high-velocity, non-explosive armor-piercing SABOT rounds in tanks.
Confess I don't know the total volume of U-238 used for munitions, but I believe it's very small if not miniscule; compared to proven reserves. And I believe zero U-238 munitions material comes from any of the spent fuel in cooling ponds at all the operating commercial reactors: That requires complex and expensive reprocessing technology and dealing with those nasty actinides; it's much cheaper and easier just to start with clean or at least ''cleaner'' U-238.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 19, 2008 07:48 PMOh and by the way, far more important than money, you have let dangerous criminals run free in this state, to fund your socialism.
I'm Voting and supporting Dino!
Enough of yout tax happy F'n idiots!
The Bakken Formation occurs throughout the Williston Basin, which was an inland sea analogous to the Caspian Sea that existed during Cretaceous.
The Bakken is quite extensive, but fairly thin (30 feet or so). It is known to exist in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Sakatchewan, and Alberta.
The total amount of oil is estimate by the USGS to be 400 Billion Barrels (yes, that's 4 followed by two zero's and a B). Approximately 20 Billion of those is exploitable with current technology. About 4 billion of the 20 billion is under North Dakota.
Its pretty big and like the 800 Billion barrels of estimated oil in shales in Utah and Colorado would likely make the US self-sufficient for a couple of centuries.
The main reason we aren't developing it is that Mideast oil was a lot cheaper to get at $20 to $40 a barrel. The Bakken and Oil shales are profitable so long as oil stays above $40 a barrel.
It's time to go at it.
I like Newt's mantra!
Drill Here! Drill Now!
Posted by: deadwood on June 19, 2008 10:08 PMYour statement about us "wasting" valuable depleted uranium on weapons is ridiculous on the face of it. There is no shortage of fissionable material to run our power plants. The problem is a shortage of nuclear power plants. The moonbats won't let us build nuclear reactors because they all saw the China Syndrome (nearly as scientifically incorrect as Al Gore's "documentary" on global warming) to many times.
Posted by: Calvin A on June 20, 2008 07:24 AMHowever it is better than lead because it is two times as dense, giving a projectile more kinetic energy. The flammability is, apparently, one of the advantages. When it hits it can, under the right circumstances, create burning fragments.
This is all an advantage. The purpose of a military at war is to kill the enemy with the minimum number of casualties to one's own side. This increases enemy deaths at little to no risk to our soldiers since U-238 poses little risk to humans unless it is ingested.
Posted by: Calvin a on June 20, 2008 07:36 AMEnd ^) See you
Posted by: Maria on June 26, 2008 12:19 PM