November 16, 2009
Ask John Koster to Run for Congress

Rick Larsen is the elected Representative for Washington's Second Congressional District. He's been there for several terms, and some of us think this is the year to unseat the guy who supports continued funding for corrupt organizations like ACORN, liberty-killing and economy-destroying health insurance reform, and nation-bankrupting stimulus.

We need a strong candidate in the Second CD: someone who is well-known and well-respected; who is unapologetically conservative; who is thoughtful, rather than merely opinionated; who works well with others; who can raise money; who appeals strongly to everyone from middle-of-the-road moderates to far-right libertarians, because even when they don't agree with his specific views, they agree with his goals and principles and the way he expresses them.

In the Snohomish County Council, we have such a candidate: John Koster. He can win if he runs, and if he is well-supported. He can unseat the guy who supports continued funding for corrupt organizations like ACORN, liberty-killing economy-destroying health insurance reform, and nation-bankrupting stimulus.

But he hasn't said he'll run, so a petition has been started to ask him to run. I encourage you to fill it out. This is the year.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at November 16, 2009 06:04 PM | Email This
Comments
1. You forgot one of Larson's economy killing party line tax us to the hilt bills, "Cap and Trade". When I asked him not to support that bill, he wrote back that he voted for it because it is a jobs bill. That's just crazy.

Posted by: Chuck Berlemann on November 16, 2009 08:38 PM
2. John would be really good, but I am not convinced he has the drive to run a really hard campaign.

Posted by: Jacob on November 17, 2009 05:37 AM
3. Now is the time to start. We need to bring someone forth and Kostner has the name and creds. This should be done to bring forth a REAL CONSEVATIVE canidate for people to support before an independent third party jumps in and splits the vote in the general election. Then we will never get it done. The 2010 Mid Term is the tiping point, if we don't get it done then we may never recover.

Posted by: JIMBO on November 17, 2009 06:01 AM
4. Jacob, have you ever seen him campaign? I assume not, because I can't imagine someone saying that who had.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 06:19 AM
5. Pudge, given the fact he had to work way too hard for re-election, and that he is widely considered a candidate for SnoCo Exec I would really doubt his heart would be in this one, especially if the money wasn't rolling in.

Posted by: Jacob on November 17, 2009 07:17 AM
6. Suburban women (and some men) won't support anti-choice Christian zealots. Until Republicans learn this lesson, be prepared to be in the wilderness for a long time.

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 07:52 AM
7. Suburban women (and some men) won't support anti-choice Christian zealots. Until Republicans learn this lesson, they should be prepared to be in the wilderness for a long time.

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 07:53 AM
8. I hope Koster runs. You tards will waste your money supporting him, and Larsen will beat him like a drum.

Posted by: ivan on November 17, 2009 07:57 AM
9. Jacob: given the fact he had to work way too hard for re-election

He did work hard, yes ... because he took nothing for granted. You know he won by almost 17 points, right? The numbers show he probably could have won while doing far, far less ... maybe nothing at all. He could have skated to victory, but that's not how he does campaigns.

Indeed, that he worked so hard in a campaign he was almost certain to win anyway shows the opposite of what you claim: that he does have "the drive" to run in a tough campaign.


and that he is widely considered a candidate for SnoCo Exec I would really doubt his heart would be in this one, especially if the money wasn't rolling in.

Surely he wouldn't run unless he was going to put his heart into it ... and unless he was going to get the money. He knows what it takes to run a successful campaign. So I won't worry about that, because I know if his heart isn't in it, he won't be running.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 08:13 AM
10. Luigi: no zealot is going to be in the race, that I know of. Perhaps you are posting a comment on the wrong story?

ivan: as usual, you are out of step with the electorate. I guarantee you that Koster is one of the last people Larsen wants to see running against him. Larsen, when facing a strong campaign, has only won by a few points in this district, and that is when there wasn't a strong anti-incumbency and anti-Democrat fervor among the elecorate. Add to that Larsen's extremely unpopular votes this year, including his support of ACORN, and Larsen knows he is in deep trouble.

Maybe you're just putting on a brave face and aren't as ignorant as you seem.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 08:20 AM
11. Nobody gives a rip about ACORN except for you and your ever-dwindling fringe right-wing cult. We'll see who is out of step with the electorate on the morning of November 3, 2010. We'll see if the anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic "fervor" that you're trying so hard to create out of thin air has any semblance of reality, or if it is just more of your usual right-wing bullsh*t.

When it turns out to be the latter, you'll just lie as usual, say it was something else, and call anybody who disagrees with you a liar.

Koster's just another right-wing wackaloon, and if he runs for Congress (Please, John, run!), he'll get what's coming to him -- a thorough a*s-kicking.

Posted by: ivan on November 17, 2009 08:30 AM
12. You're right, ivan. The American people are squarely in favor of the government spending $6.5 billion dollars in Congressional districts that don't exist. Hell, I'll bet Democrats win all of those phantom districts, and then you'll really be ahead.

Posted by: Gary on November 17, 2009 08:36 AM
13. ivan: Nobody gives a rip about ACORN except for you and your ever-dwindling fringe right-wing cult

Thank you for proving my point that you are completely out of step with the electorate.


Koster's just another right-wing wackaloon

I defy you to give a SINGLE example of him being a "wackaloon." Just one.

You can't. You're grasping at straws and resorting to the same old tired leftwing playbook of demonizing every Republican or conservative as some crazy Theist or Fascist or Anarchist. The voters are sick of it, so, please, keep it up.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 09:03 AM
14. Actually, ivan, forget I said anything. You're completely right. I agree with everything you said. Koster has no chance, no one will vote for him, and Larsen has nothing to worry about at all. Ignore everything I said to the contrary.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 09:13 AM
15. How many times does a guy have to lose before you Republicans give up? Koster is too conservative even for Snoho County. He's proven it more than once. Let him be in his level of incompetence and see if you can get someone under 55 without a skin problem.

Posted by: boteet on November 17, 2009 09:48 AM
16. @10

The following is taken right off his website for county council:

"past Board President Arlington Christian School; attends Arlington First Baptist."

We soon will enter the second decade of the 21st century. Educated people, especially women, will not support anti-choice Christian zealots for congress. When will Republicans learn this lesson?

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 10:16 AM
17. boteet: How many times does a guy have to lose before you Republicans give up?

Um, I guess the answer you are looking for is "once." Because that's the number of general elections John Koster has lost. (He also lost a primary in 1992, the first time he ran for state representative.)

Koster has run and won a total of six county and state office general elections. (And back then, his LD was almost entirely in Snohomish County, with just a couple hundred voters in King.) His only loss was against Larsen ten years ago, where he slightly lost in the general after slightly beating Larsen in the primary.

So please, explain how Koster has "proven ... more than once" that he is too conservative for Snohomish County.

I know how you leftists often hate facts, but you should at least consider that they exist, and that some of us know them, so you don't look so stupid. But then, you think his "skin" and age are problems, so it's not like you're lucid.

Thanks for the laughs ...

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 10:21 AM
18.
#16 "past Board President Arlington Christian School; attends Arlington First Baptist."

Oh, my God! Scandal!

Posted by: Gary on November 17, 2009 10:32 AM
19. Luigi: OK, so you're anti-Christian. You equate being a Christian with being a zealot. But most people don't do that. Educated people, both men and women, know those are not the same thing. Larsen himself is a Methodist; is that acceptable to you? Maybe you are bigoted only against Baptists, and not Methodists?

Regardless, educated people reject bigotry, and won't be swayed by yours.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 10:33 AM
20. Maybe Luigi missed what happened in the House last week with the Stupak amendment.

Posted by: Gary on November 17, 2009 10:38 AM
21. @19

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. H L Mencken

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H L Mencken

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 10:51 AM
22. Luigi: do you think those quotes let you off the hook for your anti-Christian bigotry?

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 11:00 AM
23. Let me be clear: I don't care if you agree with John's religious views. Or even if you respect them.

But you are holding his religious beliefs up as reasons he should be voted against: the mere fact that he is a Christian is, to you, a disqualification.

Mencken's quotes do not back up your bigotry here. Indeed, Mencken's quotes imply the opposite of your claim: surely you would not vote against someone because he thinks his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

I suggest you either admit you were wrong; come out and say that you are a bigot; or tuck your tail and run.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 11:05 AM
24. At hte Tea Party Express rally I saw 2 republicans challenging for Patty Murray's seat in 2010, if they are brave enough to do this lets encourage Koster to run. He sounds like he has valuable expertise that could be a benifit to ousting Larsen! I'm wondering if things get bad enough if the politics as usual crowd could (most of them could all end up with pink slips!!)it may indeed come down to that! That is what the Tea Party Is promising on the Federal level.Just a thought.

Posted by: Laurie on November 17, 2009 11:27 AM
25. @23

Yes, I'm quite intolerant of irrationality in the many forms it takes.

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 03:37 PM
26. Luigi: and yet, here you are, equating being a Christian with being a zealot. That's exceptionally irrational.

Thank you, however, for admitting you are a bigot. Again, for your sake, however, you really should recognize the fact that your kind is in a tiny minority here in the Second Congressional District, and you'd be doing your candidate a disservice by attacking the Christianity of another candidate, even if your candidate weren't a Christian, which is.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 03:42 PM
27. Pudge:

Call it Christian bigotry or whatever you want, but I think Luigi is driving at a couple of good points here:

First, on the religious level, if someone wants to believe that bunch of palpably ridiculous nonsense, that's fine, but if they are going to hold it up as a selling point for their candidacy, don't be surprised if a lot of us feel like it's an excellent reason to vote for someone else.

Second, identifying oneself as "Christian" in the Republican Party these days doesn't mean "follower of Christ," or "follower of Pauline theology," or even an adherent to traditional "Christian principles." Today, "Christian" means anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering. None of which can be found anywhere in the four gospels.

So if you want to label us as bigots, fine, we're bigots against both of the above forms of irrationality.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 17, 2009 04:27 PM
28. I agree we have a good opportunity to defeat Larsen in 2010. Koster would be okay, but Rep. Doug Ericksen of Bellingham would be an even stronger candidate. Koster doesn't sell well with city folk. We need someone who can win in Everett, Mt. Vernon and Bellingham. I'd support Koster but would prefer Ericksen.

Posted by: Robert on November 17, 2009 05:46 PM
29. Fan: First, on the religious level, if someone wants to believe that bunch of palpably ridiculous nonsense

So, you're irrational. OK. Or perhaps you don't know what "palpable" means?


if they are going to hold it up as a selling point for their candidacy, don't be surprised if a lot of us feel like it's an excellent reason to vote for someone else.

Simply mentioning his community involvement on his bio on the County Council web site is "holding it up as a selling point for his candidacy"? Riiiight.


Second, identifying oneself as "Christian" ... doesn't mean "follower of Christ"

Yes, it does. You're wrong.


So if you want to label us as bigots, fine, we're bigots against both of the above forms of irrationality.

Except, of course, that you are the ones being irrational. You're pretending that because some Christians are "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering" that therefore Koster is, just because he is a Christian. That's definitionally irrational. Luigi pretended that "Christian" means "zealot." This is also definitionally irrational.

You are rejecting an intellectual assessment of the facts of the candidate for your own irrational bigotry.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 06:03 PM
30. Robert: I have nothing bad to say about Doug Ericksen. However, realize that he has no name recognition in Everett, and probably not much in Mt. Vernon, and I think Koster will do much better in both than Ericksen will. I could be wrong of course, but I think Koster will do very well in the cities, especially in Everett, where he is fairly well-known, working at the County for many years now.

Also, note that Snohomish is almost as big in the 2nd CD as Whatcom and Skagit put together.

I'd support Ericksen but would prefer Koster. :-)

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 06:08 PM
31. I can't vote for him, but would like to see Koster run for Congress and win in 2010. This is too much of a one-party state and the people deserve way better in DC as well as in Olympia.

Posted by: KDS on November 17, 2009 06:37 PM
32. FWIW, women in most societies, including our own, are more likely to be religious than men. (Whether that makes attacks on people for their religious beliefs sexist is a question I will leave to others.)

Also FWIW, Bush lost the district by 2 points in 200, and by 4 points in 2004. The 2nd district leans Democratic, but not by much. (Cook gives the Democrats a 3 point edge, according to the 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.)

I would guess that a vote for cap-and-trade, or, if you prefer, cap-and-tax, could be a real loser in the district since it strikes so directly at Boeing. (A commercial airline industry is probably incompatible with the 80 percent decreases in CO2 emissions the bill promised.)

Posted by: Jim Miller on November 17, 2009 06:56 PM
33. I can't say it any better than H L Mencken:

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.

-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on November 17, 2009 06:59 PM
34. 2000, not 200, of course.

Posted by: Jim Miller on November 17, 2009 07:00 PM
35. Gosh Pudge, I'm disappointed.

I've come to expect so much more from you.

Is that your best rebuttal?

To say that I don't know what palpable means?

To declare that we're irrational?

Awww...

"You're pretending that because some Christians are "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering" that therefore Koster is, just because he is a Christian. That's definitionally irrational. Luigi pretended that "Christian" means "zealot." This is also definitionally irrational"

No Pudge, we're not pretending. Show me a Republican who doesn't call himself a Christian, and isn't "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering," and I'll show you a Republican who is under attack from their own party for being "not conservative enough," a RINO, and soon to be "not part of the Party much longer."

Show me a member of the Republican Party leadership, and I'll show you someone who calls themselves a Christian and is "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

My conclusion: to this crowd, Christian means "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

You say "Second, identifying oneself as "Christian" ... doesn't mean "follower of Christ"
Yes, it does. You're wrong."
Yeah? How am I wrong?
I suggest you take a peek at your Bible, read the Gospels and then show me where Jesus said anything about being "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

Go ahead, show me.

Or are you one of the many, many Christians who thump on the Bible to pontificate on your ideology, but never bother to check into what it really says?

So if Koster wants folks to think of him as a "Christian," we'll just assume that means "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

And frankly, I think we have quite enough of those folks in office already.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 17, 2009 07:08 PM
36. Just wanted you to know what a religious bigot really looks like.

Your line of "Chistian" bullshit has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology, it's just bullshit.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 17, 2009 07:20 PM
37. Let me be clear. I'm rational; therefore, atheist. I regard Christianity, tarot card reading, Ouija board, numerology, etc. as irrational

If Kestor wasn't a zealot, he wouldn't post his religious beliefs on his website.

Posted by: Luigi Giovanii on November 17, 2009 07:23 PM
38. Luigi: again, shrug. Again, your irrational bigotry is an extreme minority belief here in the Second CD.


Fan: Show me a Republican who doesn't call himself a Christian, and isn't "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering," and I'll show you a Republican who is under attack from their own party for being "not conservative enough," a RINO, and soon to be "not part of the Party much longer."

False. Me. I'm on the Executive Board of the Snohomish County GOP. And while an occasional member of the Reagan Wing might call me a RINO, most Republicans seem to like me pretty well.

I've never been accused of being anti-intellectual by a serious person. Perhaps overly intellectual, but never anti-intellectual. I'm for low(er) taxes, but not against taxes. I am for decreased restrictions on immigration, against a border fence, but for stronger enforcement against businesses who hire illegals.

I am against anti-discrimination laws for gays and against gay marriage, but for civil unions for gays (and, lest you think this is unequal, I favor civil unions for everyone, and civil marriage for no one, which would, in fact, be perfectly equal).


My conclusion ...

... is proven false. Note that you asked for only one Republican by way of your use of the word "a," and you used the conjunction "and" requiring that all of the conditions must be true, and you've therefore been proven wrong.


Yeah? How am I wrong?

In that the word "Christian" means what you say it doesn't.


I suggest you take a peek at your Bible, read the Gospels and then show me where Jesus said anything about being "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

All at the same time? Nowhere. But it does say that homosexuality is an "indecent" "error," and it says inmany places we should respect human life and protect the weak; that life begins well before birth; that the life in the womb is a person; and so on. Certainly the Bible is pro-life and anti-homosexuality, though not anti-homosexuals.


Or are you one of the many, many Christians who thump on the Bible to pontificate on your ideology, but never bother to check into what it really says?

I know what it says very well, actually. You apparently don't.


So if Koster wants folks to think of him as a "Christian" ...

He just said some of what he does in the community in his bio. Get a grip.


... we'll just assume that means "anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-tax, anti-intellectual, and war-mongering."

Yes, because you're irrational.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 07:39 PM
39. Fan: Just wanted you to know what a religious bigot really looks like.

But ... you didn't show anyone. You instead made up a characterization that doesn't apply to anyone in particular, certainly not me, and certainly not John Koster.


Your line of "Chistian" bullshit has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology

I gave you an example when you asked: now you give me ONE example of anything I said about Christianity that "has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology."

Go ahead, show me.


Luigi: I'm rational; therefore, atheist.

That is, in fact, irrational. By this standard, many important scientists -- including Isaac Newton himself -- were irrational. By that standard, the word "rational" is meaningless, and therefore your definition must, rationally, be disregarded.


If Kestor wasn't a zealot, he wouldn't post his religious beliefs on his website.

That is, in fact, an irrational conclusion.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 07:42 PM
40. "I gave you an example when you asked: now you give me ONE example of anything I said about Christianity that "has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology."

Sorry Pudge. You didn't show me squat.

In your usual style, you simply declared something to be true with no evidence or rational to support it as in:

"But it does say that homosexuality is an "indecent" "error," and it says in many places we should respect human life and protect the weak; that life begins well before birth; that the life in the womb is a person; and so on. Certainly the Bible is pro-life and anti-homosexuality, though not anti-homosexuals."

Where in the Gospels does it say those things Pudge? I'll go along with protect the weak, but I can't find the rest. Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.

Help me out Pudge.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 17, 2009 07:59 PM
41. Bring up a simple congressional election and the anti-Christian bigots come out of the woodwork.

Posted by: Gary on November 17, 2009 08:03 PM
42. Like most Bible Thumpers Pudge, ya got no clue what it really says.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 17, 2009 08:05 PM
43. Even though I can't vote for this office, I hope that Koster runs and wins. This is a one-party state and the taxpayers and other people deserve way better than who they have in office now in both DC and Olympia.

Posted by: KDS on November 17, 2009 08:15 PM
44. Fan: Sorry Pudge. You didn't show me squat.

Lying doesn't become you. I demonstrated I am not anti-gay, not anti-immigrant, not anti-tax, and so on. You asked me to show a Republican in leadership who was not all of those things you said, and I gave you me. You are, irrationally, lying by saying I did not.


Where in the Gospels does it say those things Pudge?

Where in the Gospels does it say that the Christian Bible is restricted to the Gospels? You completely invented that nonsensical requirement of restricting this discussion to the Gospels, a restriction that "has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology."


Like most Bible Thumpers Pudge, ya got no clue what it really says.

Again, you have utterly failed to give a single example of anything I've said about Christianity or the Bible that "has nothing to do with the Bible, what Christ might have said, or Christian theology."

I suggest you cease your trolling and personal attacks and lies. No further such comments will be tolerated. If you would like to answer my question as I answered yours, you may.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 08:15 PM
45.
Hi all,

Whoa, "not in the Gospels?" Holy cow, are we going to be smiting people and hanging Kings from trees? or get into the paranoia of Revelations, written during the height of the repression of Christians, never mentioning a single saying or teaching of Jesus, and certifiably nuts?

Still, as a political orphan I have sympathies with both sides. The Dems need to be clipped so they can't enact Cap and Trade which would subsidize the destruction of the environment while creating a bewildering set of new bureaucratic rules, as well as push through a health bill that doesn't solve the very real problems of the current system, and so they don't follow Krugman's advice and pass even-huger (is that a word?) deficit-swelling stimulus bills.

But the paleo-conservatives are failing to see in conservativism ideas that could be new and compelling and could attract a fifth column from urban areas to their side.

They could be against foreign wars as unfunded projects of our largest bureaucracy.

they could recognize the hand of the free market in illegal immigration. (Nobody's dying to cross the line into North Korea).

They could be fighting hard to legalize drugs. We all should be scared to death that the anti-market Prohibition on illegal drugs will destroy the country we used to call Mexico as it threatens to destroy our democracy up here.

They should be for extending the marriage subsidy to everyone, since we're not ever going to get gov't out of the business of handing out Marriage licenses.

They should be for finding a creative and positive way to save species, here and abroad, as we're living in the age of extinction, instead of relying on the (mostly) negative measures spelled out in the Endangered Species Act.

They should be for getting rid of biofuel, a government mandate that is causing starvation and loss of biodiversity all over the world. Ethanol is for idiots.

They should stand firm against bank bailouts, which the House Republicans almost can say they did, but the higher up Republican leadership to their everlasting shame did not.


But Koster is a guy who is going to stick with the old play book, and unless SnoCo gets a whole lot madder at the Dems by then, he'll probably lose by a good margin, if he even has the stomach for all that hard work in the first place.

Thanks for the interesting post.

Best

new left conservative


Posted by: new left conservative on November 17, 2009 09:22 PM
46. leftist: Whoa, "not in the Gospels?"

Yeah, can you believe that troll? Saying something has to be in the Gospels to be Christian? Crazy.


But Koster is a guy who is going to stick with the old play book ...

Which is ... what?


he'll probably lose by a good margin, if he even has the stomach for all that hard work in the first place.

So you don't follow Second CD elections, and you know nothing about John Koster.

Thanks for sharing, I guess.

Posted by: pudge on November 17, 2009 09:44 PM
47. So YOU are the Republican who breaks the mold? Because you're on some committee in Sno Co and you say you're not all those awful things?

You crack me up Pudge.

Frankly, I was hoping for an answer that was a little more objective and a Republican that was a little more prominent. But fair enough, you win, you have now shown me one.

And you've also confirmed my suspicion that you really don't know jack about what the Bible says and where it says it.

You are just another purveyor of religious bullshit attempting to use it to support their ideological bullshit.

And feel free to delete my comments or block any further ones. Censorship is a wonderful confirmation that you can't win the arguement.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on November 18, 2009 06:30 AM
48. Fan: So YOU are the Republican who breaks the mold?

The mold you imagine is there, isn't. I am one of many. You only asked for one.


Because you're on some committee in Sno Co ...

You asked for someone in Republican leadership. I am elected to the county GOP executive board.


I provided exactly what you asked for: stop complaining about it.


And you've also confirmed my suspicion that you really don't know jack about what the Bible says and where it says it.

I asked you to provide a single example of this. You have utterly failed to do so. I provided an example when you asked me. Why did you not provide an example? Obviously, because you can't. So why even respond? It just highlights the fact that you can't back it up.

And there is no censorship here, there is moderation. I do not delete comments, I ban people. You have proven you have nothing to offer. You were given multiple chances to provide an example, and you refused, because you cannot do it, yet you kept making the assertion anyway.

Buh bye.

Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2009 07:03 AM
49. It takes a lot of money and more importantly personal time to run for congress. It is a big, but doable step from county council to congress. I say to John K, go for it.

Posted by: Dick Muri on November 18, 2009 01:04 PM
50. No, not the ACORN! :-o

"PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. Clearly the ACORN card really is an effective one to play with the voters who will decide ....gets to be the Republican nominee."

pudge, the reason a majority of Republicans believe that ACORN has such magical powers is that the Republican party is shrinking to a wingnut base. You, sir, are apparently a leader of wingnutia Republicans, else why would a thoughtful person include ACORN in the post?

But hey... it has worked so well for Hoffman up in NY-23.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2009 11:19 AM
51. MikeBS:

Your dishonest attempts to distract from the facts and the point are unconvincing.

I didn't blame ACORN for anything except their actual crimes, and enabling of employees to commit crimes. ACORN, by any estimation, has significant, systemic, problems, and overwhelmingly, Americans believe they should not get federal funding.

Rick Larsen voted for keeping funding for ACORN.

And it gets worse.

He said that there's "more important" things for Congress to do, which is true, but it was already up for a vote, so why not vote for removing funding from such a problematic organization? If it's the "principle" of the thing -- being a waste of time -- why then did he sponsor resolutions this year to commemorate the Pig War and recognize Pipeline Safety Day, which are obviously far greater wastes of time, being obviously far less important?

What did I say there that is "nutty"? I defy you to speak to what I actually wrote, rather than deceitfully citing some survey that has nothing to do with what I wrote, other than that they both mention ACORN.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2009 11:41 AM
52. @51 pudge on November 19, 2009 11:41 AM,

"I didn't blame ACORN for anything except their actual crimes"

but, of course, you know pudge that ACORN has never been convicted for a crime.

Prove me wrong pudge?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2009 11:52 AM
53. MikeBS: but, of course, you know pudge that ACORN has never been convicted for a crime.

I never implied they had been. That said, in our own state, they did essentially admit culpability in the crimes committed by their employees, as part of a settlement with Sam Reed.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2009 11:58 AM
54. @53 pudge on November 19, 2009 11:58 AM,

"I never implied they {ACORN} had been {convicted of a crime}."

No, of course you didn't. At 51 "I didn't blame ACORN for anything except their actual crimes."
Who you going to believe?
pudge?
Or your lying eyes?

pudge, without a doubt corruption in the public sector is something political leaders should address.
But the ACORN hullabaloo is propaganda that pales in comparison to real crimes committed against the tax payer by a particular Snohomish County corporate welfare client.

wingnutia.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 19, 2009 12:56 PM
55. MikeBS: No, of course you didn't.

Exactly. Why do you choose to misinterpret my saying they have committed crimes to an assertion that they have been convicted of crimes?

OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend. Does my saying so imply he was convicted of that crime?

Stop making lefists look so stupid, MikeBS.


without a doubt corruption in the public sector is something political leaders should address.

So you should have no problem with anything I said.


But the ACORN hullabaloo is propaganda

Everything I said is true.


... that pales in comparison to real crimes committed against the tax payer by a particular Snohomish County corporate welfare client.

So since Boeing isn't being defunded, Larsen should vote against defunding ACORN?

Stop making leftists look so stupid, MikeBS.

Posted by: pudge on November 19, 2009 01:08 PM
56. But the ACORN hullabaloo is propaganda that pales in comparison to real crimes committed against the tax payer...~ mike bs

hmm, yeah. Aiding and abetting international human trafficking for the purpose of child prostitution, caught on tape, is just small bananas for mike bs.

Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.

Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2009 08:45 PM
57. ACORN "Aiding and abetting international human trafficking for the purpose of child prostitution . . . caught on tape"

Rick D. we both agree that child prostitution is a crime. You claim a crime of horrendous proportions was caught on tape.

Tell us Rick (and fellow believers of the ACORN bogeymen), if such a horrendous criminal conspiracy was "caught on tape" where are the victims?
Where are these poor human trafficked souls victimized by the evil ACORN?
Where is the money trail of tax payer money going to despicable pimps and slavers?

Does it ever occur to you that what James O'Keefe presented to you was not a recording of a criminal conspiracy but our modern version of War of the Worlds; the Martian invasion of October 30, 1938 when Martians incinerated people with "Heat-Rays."?

Those of you who believe the ACORN bs (child prostitution, election stealing...) being pushed on you with never a shred of evidence are either suckers or fools.

Those who knowingly traffic in the ACORN rumors (pudge!) of crimes and evil ACORN conspiracies are playing you for suckers and fools.

wingnutia

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on November 20, 2009 06:38 AM
58. MikeBS: Tell us Rick (and fellow believers of the ACORN bogeymen), if such a horrendous criminal conspiracy was "caught on tape" where are the victims?

You don't need actual victims for a crime to have occurred; this question shows a gross misunderstanding of the American legal system.


Does it ever occur to you that what James O'Keefe presented to you was not a recording of a criminal conspiracy but our modern version of War of the Worlds

At first, yes, until ACORN admitted those were its employees, and then went on to fire them. So no, it was real, at least for some of the employees.


Those of you who believe the ACORN bs (child prostitution, election stealing...)

Except that we know for a fact that ACORN employees in different locations were willing to abet child sex slavery. And we know for a fact that ACORN employees in many MORE different locations HAVE engaged in voter registration fraud, which we know is easily exploitable, if successful, into actual election fraud.

Those are all verifiable, in-evidence, facts.

Whether ACORN has stolen an election, I have no evidence; I do know that they have attempted to enable themselves to steal elections, which is bad enough.


Those who knowingly traffic in the ACORN rumors (pudge!) of crimes and evil ACORN conspiracies are playing you for suckers and fools.

You're a liar. I did not traffic in any rumor of any kind. I stated only facts. Yes, it is my interpretation that ACORN committed crimes, but that interpretation is based on only fact -- their settlement with Sam Reed, the obviously systemic problems in their organization -- and not any sort of rumor or innuendo.


By the way, what kills me is that most of these people whining about this supposed survey of Republican belief that ACORN stole an election, also probably believe that Republicans stole Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 ... something there's no evidence for. At all. You could argue that there were problems in 2000 and that Gore should have won (just like you could argue Rossi should have won in 2004), but there's no evidence of theft. And in 2004, there's not even any evidence that Kerry SHOULD have won.

Posted by: pudge on November 20, 2009 07:10 AM
59. I am not suprised by the comments above--the comments reflect the typical liberal response when anyone proposes to put forward any fiscally conservative candidate; they pull out the fear card and begin throwing "smoke screen bombs". "Conservatives are war-mongers", "Republicans want to ruin the environment", and worst of all, "He is a Christian!"

What we really have to fear is the increasing threat that our monetary system will collapse and inflation will begin to skyrocket. Furthermore, we are saddling ourselves and the few generations with a staggering amount of debt that will dampen our economic prosperity for the foreseable future.

As progressives toss their smoke-screen bombs laws are being enacted in congress right now by tax and spend liberals like Rick Larsen that will dismantle our democracy and severely restrict our individual freedom. Many of these are socialist in nature.

The installation of Marxist policies have been tried and have failed in a multitude of countries, but our democratic politicians right now want to take us down this same path. To get around the constitution they will say that our founding fathers who lived in the past didn't understand the complexities of our modern age.

The budget deficit this year alone will top $1.5 trillion dollars of the $4 trillion dollars congress will spend this year. The total budget was originally planned to be the largest ever at $2.5 trillion dollars. This is unsustainable. This is more of a crisis than global warming, terrorist attacks, or any issue.

Yet progressives will continue ignoring this fiscal crisis all the while spewing the tripe that has become their smoke screen to rational thought.

Wake up America things have got to change and change quickly.

Posted by: Barry on November 23, 2009 08:27 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?