Via profiles in the Seattle Times:
Dino Rossi - likable guy and upbeat, problem solver.
Christine Gregoire - "not so much."
Throw in some head in the sand campaigning and you've got all the ingredients for a close race in a blue state.
Add to the mix that Gregoire's campaign doesn't seem to be firing on all cylinders on either the Westside or Eastside of the state and you can understand the basic factors that explain why this race is so competitive.
Cross-posted at the Examiner.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 10, 2008 08:24 AM | Email ThisGregoire is loaded for bear in the debates. It's the one thing she does well.
However, her actions for the past 4 years speak so loudly that no one but her deep base is buying her crap.
I hate the elitist card, but I'm going to play it. If you are voting for her- you're either a terribly uninformed person or you're an Animal Farm partisan or both.
Posted by: Andy on October 10, 2008 08:45 AMI can only wonder if a rep has said that about Obamas wife. You and the MSN would go on for weeks.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 10, 2008 09:36 AMNo, that wasn't an Obama funded ACORN employee throwing a paint bomb at your McCain/Palin bumper sticker on your car's back window.
That was Goldy's head exploding when he read the P-I, Examiner and TImes recommendations against The Queen.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 10, 2008 09:41 AMGovernor Gregoire appointed Washington Utilities and Transportation commissioners had stayed true to the governor by extending the decision of Puget Sound Energy's sale to a foreign country. This has been going on for a year. Even after thousands of emails and letters sent to the UTC the commissioner's extended the decision, one more month. Like after the election.
Posted by: George on October 10, 2008 10:15 AMBoy, the democrats aren't even trying to hide their radical socialist agenda anymore. They nominate a guy close to communist Ayers, we find Obama was known as a Socialist movement candidate, he's in bed with ACORN--a radical leftist group and even gave them $800,000 to campaign for him. Obama's friends pushed for bad loans to be made, he sued for ACORN to push banks to make even more crappy loans that'd never get paid back, and now he claims he can fix it. that's like electing Hitler to help jewish people prosper in WWII Germany.
Posted by: Michele on October 10, 2008 11:39 AMCould we tone down the disrespect a little? dial it back to 7 or 8 maybe?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on October 10, 2008 12:09 PMan interesting read, don't you think? And I think it puts all of this country's incessant bickering (about whatever, abortion or any other subject) in an interesting perspective. I mean, think about it - I've been in dozens, if not hundreds of abortion debates on this site alone. Now, granted, I get into it for reasons of my own (as some of you have heard me say, "Not to change people's minds" - which is a largely futile quest anyway with damn near 100% of the population, regardless of which side of the fence they line up on) - but think of all those pundits, and bloggers, and editorialists out there. The public speakers, the lobbyists, the talk-radio hosts, the concerned citizens, the activists and activist groups. What do these people actually accomplish, other than riling everyone up? And for what reason? A big reason I'm sick of hearing about the election is, let's not kid ourselves - everyone has made up their minds. Hell, everyone had their mind made up when the final candidates were announced. All the debates and fundraisers and speeches and television commercials - what are the point of these, but to get people who have already made up their minds all riled up? To piss off the opposition? Go flip through the strangers pages on this site and look at every person who's written about the election, and TELL ME HONESTLY that they're not just thumbing their nose at the other side? Every single one. I would bet good money that if the election had been held in March, June, September - the numbers would be damn close to what they'll be in November.
And then, even putting "big things" like elections aside, look at all the piddly fights we get into. Abortion, euthanasia, border policy, guns, drugs, pornography, foreign war, environmentalism, oil, global conscience, foreign aid, big business, tobacco, health care, death penalty, animal rights, homosexuality, multiculturalism, schools, hospitals, prescription drugs, speech, religion - it just goes on and on and on. And for all our oh-so-righteous indignant outrages over these things, what's the practical effect? What does the "activist" - be it the average joe with a computer and a free website, or the widely-known head of a national organization - think he accomplishes?
These people believe that they're making a difference. But are they? Really? Or are they just preaching to a choir and spitting vitriol at the heretics? Are they just fighting a cause for the sake of being in a fight? Are they just committing intellectual arson to watch the carnage? Activists, regardless of their stance on religion, are believers. They don't care about ideas, they care about beliefs - and more importantly, making YOU believe the same thing THEY do. By force if necessary. I can't help but think about what Rufus, the 13th Apostle, said: "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier." Damn right, Rufus. ...
Is that all activism is these days? One side threatens or antagonizes, and the other side overreacts like their mother just got slapped? "Being pissy and in-your-face. Being an ass-ache," as Leydecker put it? And what does it get us? Change? Hardly. More like hatred and violence - most of it collateral damage. And it doesn't matter which side is acting, and which side is reacting. They're both guilty of both all the time.
Spirited and passionate debate and the exchange of ideas is one thing, but it seems like the people who have (and want to have) that are far and few. I'm reminded of a friend I had in college, Wyatt, who was in an ethics class with me. He and I disagreed on every subject there IS - and often got into it, sometimes with raised voices and the occasional vulgarity. But you know what? After class, we'd put it all aside, go to The Coug, and get a pitcher of beer. I'll never forget how that blew people's minds in my class. How we could be going at each others throats in class, but then be goofing around in the hallway after. How one girl early in the semester even came up to us after class in utter disbelief that we were good friends, asking us how it was possible that we got along. I (in my usual verbosity) started jabbering about intellectual honesty and mutual respect and emotionality causing one to take things that weren't personal personally, but Wyatt put it much better and much more simply. He shrugged, and said, "We disagree. That doesn't mean we have to hate each other." Like it was the simplest thing in the world to understand. Because it is. But only if you're the type that knows how to separate the person from the argument.
Most people don't. Activists sure don't. And as a result, they close themselves off from the ability to learn anything. Which is (or at least should be) the whole point. But then, it's not about learning anything for them ("changing a belief is trickier"), is it? It's about being an angry, reactionary ass-ache, causing nothing but collateral damage.
SOME of the reactions to his commentary:
In every case, I think it's not that people are determined to be right, but that they're terrified of being wrong.
Being an activist or extremist is much more about having self-worth/a cause/a meaning in the world (despite the surface claims of it being about "change for the better of society" or anything else philanthropic.)
So, that's why most of them are so passionate about it regardless of the actual results; those are just a side bonus
It's the danger of mixing emotion with logic in an argument. It's hard to change a person's mind when they FEEL correct, despite how sound the reasoning presented is.
Then again, so many activists rely on emotional arguments to make their cases anyway. It makes me wonder sometimes if we're irreparably losing our rationality more and more as each day passes...
"Rational" just means you're making the best decision given the information that you have. If you're equating emotional reactions with information, then good luck making the right decision.
MY KID, again:
Being an activist or extremist is much more about having self-worth/a cause/a meaning in the world (despite the surface claims of it being about "change for the better of society" or anything else philanthropic.)
It's interesting that you say that. I showed this to a friend of mine, and he sent me an episode of Penn & Teller where they bring up a similar point.
"Is passion supposed to replace common sense? We understand the desire to "join up" and do something important - it's sexy to want to save the world. But you gotta spend a couple of minutes to find out if you're really saving the world, and not just being herded around by some politically-motivated assholes who may not really care that much about [an issue] but see this as some chance to raise money for whatever they think is a good idea."
And I think you're right. I think a lot of activists - particularly the average laymen activists - are just doing it innocently, for the sake of feeling like an activist. So they can feel like they're making a difference. (The Ingrid Newkirk, Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson types - I suspect there's something a little more malevolent about them.)
Not so much in Las Vegas, but when I lived in Seattle, I used to ALWAYS see protestors. Gobs of people bitching about this or that - whether they were taking to the streets for immigration, or hassling pedestrians for signatures about gay marriage, or coming on TV to praise the virtues of hybrid cars. And for the life of me, I could never fathom what possesses a person to make big signs, get on a bullhorn and take to the streets. I mean, what is that supposed to accomplish? Promoting awareness? Shrieking for the sake of shrieking? But millions of people (especially college students) get SO into this stuff, like it's giving them some kind of high. Because it probably is. As you said, "having meaning in the world" - especially in a world that likes to remind us of how tiny and insignificant our lives our. That's something I was thinking about, both as I read my book and wrote this post. "Activists" seem to suffer from contempt over their insignificance to the world. And they seem to think that if they shout loud enough, that the universe will take notice.
But it doesn't. All that happens is that the people who already agreed with the activist nod, and the people who disagreed shake their head and roll their eyes. And in the meantime, people like me get home an hour later than usual because the activists shut down a couple of the streets in order to hold their protest.
It's stupid. It's a stupid waste of time. Which wouldn't be a big deal, if not for the fact the negative impact it has on everyone else. Collateral damage. Whether it's as extreme as Ralph in the story getting a knife jabbed into his side, or screwing up traffic for the afternoon, or a damned televised debate bumping the newest episode of House to next week. And just as Leydecker said, "[I]t's not about [the issue], and that's what drives me absolutely bugfuck. ... [It's] about whose team is the best team."
Now, WA State is known as a very liberal place with a corrupt state government, everywhere. Their last 'election' made national laughingstocks out of us.
The Queen was told many times her wild increase in spending was unsustainable and would cause unnecessary deficits and now here they come.
Can't tax your way out of the coming recession and the state is over-leveraged at a time when it would have been really nice to be solvent.
Still, half the people I know think she's a good governor. Those same people do not read newspapers and do not have a clue what is really going on. More than half of them have interest-only sub-prime mortgages they cannot afford with balloon payments coming and think the government should bail them out of these loans. Hey, what's THAT tell ya?
Me? I'm working here and moving away when I retire to spend my money SOMEWHERE ELSE. HAHAHAHA!!
Posted by: Uncle Steve on October 10, 2008 01:21 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A
Posted by: Michele on October 10, 2008 07:31 PMAfter 7 years of pure GOP dishonesty that has got us in this mess we're in, the GOP wants to do the same with our state. Another fine mess you've got us into. I wish there was a single fiscally responsible conservative left anymore.
Posted by: Paul Si on October 11, 2008 04:35 PMYou mean, as opposed to trying desperately (and somewhat pathetically) to be the next Frisco?
Posted by: AT on October 11, 2008 05:45 PMThe mud is sure flying on both sides. But today's Seattle Times (Oct. 12) does offer a couple of true insights. How does "Jefferson" see Gregoire v Rossi, round 2?
Tweedle dumb and Tweedle dumber : On many issues there is no difference because neither says anything meaningful. I can not tell their policies on the economy, environment, or taxes apart. I fault Gregopire most for this because she should have the courage to say that tax cuts in good times are/were asinine and to propose real tax reform. Rossi is ether pandering to his party or is really irresponsible about taxes.
On Jobs: These two are peas in a pod. Gregoire ahd been a very good person for WASTATE, INC and Rossi would be too. She is too much af a democart to understand that she ought to brag aboutg her achienvements working with the state's businesses.Neither is willing to talk about the future of Boeing if we do not address issues of infrastructure.
A pox on both houses: On most other issues, they both deserve to eat the feces they are spewing. Neither one is willing to make realistic stands on taxes, jobs, higher ed. Major issues that the sate should face ... immigration and higher ed are ignored in this campaign tol the detriment of all the voters. Gregoire deserves to have her face slapped for demeaning Rossi's Catholic beliefs and he ought to get the same for trying to link her ot sex offenders. I suspect they will end up pushing the same wheelbarrow in Dante's Inferno.
On three issues the choices are clear:
Gregoire v Rossi on "gay" rights. Rossi's stand here is scary. Is there relaly anone left who feels two people should not be able to commit to one their inheritance rights to one another without writing a formal contract? Gregoire's stand is simple and clean. Leave marriage a religous issue and recognize the rights of two people to form a pair without regard to geneder.
Rossi v Gregoire. Education illustrates Gregoire's greatest weakness ... she is a doctinaire democrat with no positon that does not fall within the party orthodoxy.
Gregoire seems to see the schools as union issue, righlty worried about our not having enough money to pay teachers and lower class sizes. While these are very importnat issues, on their own they do not provide any sense of moving forward t improve the system.
In contrast, her opponent stands for educational reforms, most of which are also part of Obama's platform: revampling the WASL, strict requirements for a high school degree, differential pay for teachers based on specialy and achievement, bringing more experts into teaching, etc. I only wish he would also address the clear need to pay or all this.
Rossi v. Gregoire If she has a plan, it seems a well kept mysetery. Rossi's plan may be fanciful, obviously will not work w/o taxes, but at least he says he sees the need for a statewide transportation plan and is willing to to put himself down for a real solution to the viaduct
So why am I voting for Gregoire? To be honest, I am not voting for her but against Rossi's association with the radical right. Guzzo, Palin, Hutchinson, the Discovery Instute .. these are all scary people. On the national scene they may have destroyed McCain as a viable alternative to Obama. I simply will not vite for any Republican who doe snot eschew these extremists.
*Contrary to how some here view SJ, I do not consider myself a Democrat or a Republican. I have a set of views, hopefully consistent views, and I vote according to those. If I were to sum all those, I would come close to calling myself a Jeffersonian .. that is a believer in individual liberty and freedom of opportunity for all.
Posted by: Sesttlejew on October 12, 2008 03:22 PM