Once elected to a political office, many politicians are infected by egophoma, a belief they hold office by divine right. There has been an unusually virulent strain in this year's election season. Some are cured by tea. Others are too far gone.
In Alaska, a "loyal" Republican is rejecting the will of the party voters and striking out on her own. Senator Lisa Murkowski, after losing her re-election primary to Joe Miller, has decided she is so indispensable that she will continue her race with a write-in campaign. She joins another disgruntled senatorial candidate, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, who seeing his hopes of winning the Republican primary fade against fellow Republican Marco Rubio, decided to run as an independent. Republicans are not alone in such charades. The best recent Democrat example is "Change in party will enable me to be re-elected" Arlen Specter. As it turned out, Spector lost the Democrat primary anyway. May a similar fate await Crist and Murkowski on November 2nd. In Washington and Delaware, the second place Republican finishers in the primaries have not endorsed their opponents but at least they have not muddied the waters by launching write-in campaigns that only serve to help the Democrat candidates.
Remember Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." And perhaps we should add: "If you lose a primary, you lose. Wait a couple of years and try again."
Posted by warrenpeterson at September 18, 2010 05:30 PM | Email ThisAnother well-known analog was Joe Lieberman, who ended up getting the most votes as an independent, so it's hard to fault him morally for persisting, even if you dislike him as I do.
It is true that independents and 3rd party candidates often cause arguably unfair results, such as Ralph Nader did in 2000 and Murkowski may do this year. That's a fault of our plurality system (combined in Nader's case with the electoral college and butterfly ballot and Supreme Court, but don't get me started). Perhaps candidates should be held morally responsible for this somewhat predictable consequence of bucking the 2-party system. But that doesn't mean the candidate is driven by ego as you suggest.
And ironically, Reagan didn't actually follow his 11th Commandment consistently.
Posted by: Bruce on September 18, 2010 07:28 PMwhy is it the people on the right are "extremists" while the far left are never categorized even though the far left would see all of of our civil rights taken away....
gun rights...the right to free speech...the right to assemble....the talk radio that doesn't meet their standards...there is nothing that the govt doesn't have their hand into....
and lets not forget that they want to control your diet and limit your choices of drink...
and now the leftist want to tell you can't smoke in your own apartment...
and I find it interesting that the democrat party is so controlling that it has no dissent...all their people march in lock step....
they sit quietly on their hands...following their messiah...even though he promised them to end the wars, gain jobs, control immigration,tax breaks for the middle class,close Gitmo, and oh lets not forget how he was going to end partisan politics...
what a joke...
Posted by: lee on September 18, 2010 07:58 PMBut no matter how much you love Miller, how can you disagree with my characterization of him as as "extreme right" on the political spectrum? That's an objective reality, just as I objectively called McAdams "weak".
Posted by: Bruce on September 18, 2010 08:17 PMObama---radical extremist scary leftwing ideologue. To the core.
Posted by: Michele on September 18, 2010 09:10 PMI can't agree. A primary (in most states) is for the parties to decide which candidates will represent them in the general election. If the people decide they would prefer someone who is not representing one of the parties, so what? I can't see how trying to get the party's nomination, and failing, should mean that the people shouldn't get the chance to elect you.
At root, winning the primary is not different -- in most states -- from winning an endorsement. If someone fails to get a major endorsement from, say, the AARP, should they drop out of the race? Of course not: so what makes an endorsement from the party so different?
If you promise to drop out if you lose the primary, you should do so. And if you're only trying to play spoiler, well, you should be tarred and feathered. But if you're running to win, more power to you. Yes, it means the GOP could lose an otherwise likely seat: that's life. The GOP should do a better job next time of finding a candidate (like John Koster in the 2nd CD) that can appeal strongly to all of the party's constituencies.
While I do believe our partisan system serves us well most of the time, clearly it has its problems, and we should not hold our government hostage to the parties or their system.
I think that iIS the lesson to be learned from this election season: that the elected have forgotten they work for the people. And the people are tired of being forgotten in the machinations of those to whom they gave power.
These sore losers are proof of that. That the party in power ignored the people on the healthcare debacle is proof of that. The administration ignoring the outrage of a KSM trial in NY, ignoring the overwhelming support for Arizona, ignoring the demand for faster action in the gulf are all proof of their arrogance.
I believe they will pay a price for that.
I am not one who is anxious for the GOP to take control as I do not underestimate the administrations dedication to then blame every single misstep they take and the consquences of those missteps on the GOP. I would love the Democrats to completely and solely own the mess they made but I also don't believe we as a country can take much more of their arrogant manipulations. A perfectly divided government and gridlock might be the only answer.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 18, 2010 10:13 PMThe left accuses us of regurgitating talking points. I'm curious from where we're supposed to be getting them.
I think Murkowski should want to move out of the way for the good of conservatism. She should keep her eyes on the prize. This is a good example of a huge ego. She's an establishment Republican who's way out of touch with her base. It's egos like that who split the base and get Democrats elected inadvertently. She should have the right to run, but she should gracefully bow out.
Posted by: Todd R. on September 19, 2010 03:55 AM
Oh, nevermind.
Bruce considers what was mainstream several short decades ago to be "extreme right". This is because the elitist media, Hollywood perverts and hard-left politicians have driven America's politics and culture far to the left the past two decades. What was considered unspeakable in public 20 years ago is now televised in primetime for schoolchildren to see and hear. And what was considered perverse or socialist/Marxist is now law.
The evil and shameless left has labored tirelessly to circumvent America's Constitutional freedoms, drive our Christian heritage into hiding, bastardize our foreign policy, bankrupt our private-sector economy and sell the nation's soul to the Devil.
All across America concerned citizens are standing up and saying NO to the Democrats and RINOs who have brought this upon us. I hope and pray that we have not waited too long.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 07:42 AMHow about this. You have a close friend who blows up Gov buildings when he don't like what the government does.
Can you say O-bummers friend Bill Ayers.
I can, and yes he's FAR left. So that shouldn't put O-bummer in the same class as Ayers?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 19, 2010 08:55 AMSorry that should be (doesn't like what the gov does)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 19, 2010 09:05 AMTHEY ARE RINOS! They are so called "mainstream"(read socialist) Republicans.
They never cared about the Republican party. They just used it as long as they could get away with it.
Posted by: Kim on September 19, 2010 09:35 AMLet's get some new blood in Congress on both sides of the aisle, and restore fiscal sanity to the USA.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 19, 2010 09:42 AMPosted by: Bruce on September 18, 2010 08:17 PM
By common sense and pointing out that your analysis is ridiculous.
If you believe that Miller is an extremist, you are saying that the Founding Fathers were extremists for adhering to constitutional principles. The problem with you and your leftwing extremists ilk is that you have bought into the current DC mindset. The Progressive movement has been out to abort the constitution since they started and this mindset along with their greedy egos has permeated DC, resulting in the USA teetering on the brink of financial collapse.
McAdams characterized himself as a Marxist a while ago and has not refuted that since - so he is the extremist and his policies mimic the policies implemented by the Federal Government since Obama came into power - the ones that have brought so much revulsion by over 60% of the voters.
Posted by: KDS on September 19, 2010 09:58 AMLots of us have egos and it can work against us if we aren't careful.
Take loyalty to the Republican party. A lot of us remain loyal to a party who doesn't even remain loyal to itself. Why? Because after the years, after for many of us the decades of working on behalf of the Republicans we would have to admit to ourselves that all that effort was wasted. And many of our egos can't take it.
Also, all the people here were all so for Rossi. It is hard now, despite all the evidence to the fact, that he deceived you. You were played - big time. But to admit that you were conned by him is too much for your egos.
I just think if you can for one moment put aside this partisan straight-jacket you all have seemed to put yourself in, perhaps, perhaps, all this fishy business will become clear to you.
Sure, the Democrats are evil, you have no argument with me there. But gosh, at least they admit what they are. The Republicans who conspire with them, they take your effort and use it against you on their behalf.
Stop being played like a fiddle. Stop running to kick the football thinking that this time they are going to hold it and not pull it away at the last moment like they have every time before.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 11:00 AMThat is why it is so hard for you all to see this fishy affair for what it where for the person who free themselves from the partisan perspective it is just so clear.
The people who tell you to be true to the Republican party, they are often the ones most likely to betray the Republican party when it's in their interests to. I bet that people have over the years told conservatives that they must vote fore Lisa Murkowski because she has an R, but as you see she sure doesn't care about the R when it hurts here.
Do what I say not what I do. Well sorry. I am voting against Reichert this year. Call me a lib, whatever. But I am tired of voting for RINO after RINO only to at the end of the day be betrayed by them anyway.
Actually I admire Joe Lieberman. He was the last really true Democrat (along with Zell Miller) before his party was taken over by Marxists. If you're looking for zealots, Bruce, you need not look any further than the party you blindly support.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 19, 2010 11:26 AMI am not one who is anxious for the GOP to take control as I do not underestimate the administrations dedication to then blame every single misstep they take and the consequences of those missteps on the GOP.
Ragnar I pounded you so hard on that other post I felt it was only right for me to complement you when you show some sign of intelligence.
Indeed the worse thing that could happen this year is for the GOP to win back the House and/or the Senate this year. First it would be the end of the Tea Party movement. And second it would give Obama somewhere he could put the blame.
You only have to look back and see what happened in 1996. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is really hoping that Republicans win big time this year.
For some of us, those of us who live in the 8th Congressional District we can help prevent the worse from taking place by voting against Dave Reichert. His lost would be a great win for tea party voters.
2012 is the year we need to focus on taking back the White House and Congress. But we need to not "throw out the bums" to only replace them with New Bums like we did in 1994. We need to replace them with people who care about RESTORING (not maintaining because we don't want the status quo) our Constitutional Republic.
If 2012 has a tea party movement as strong as we have now or hopefully stronger (which won't happen if they think "we won" this year) then it would be easy to get a good conservative to win in 2012. But if we don't defeat Reichert this year we will have to defeat him in 2012 and I don't know what the mood would be in 2014.
Thanks for showing at least some sophistication in your political analysis there Ragnar. Perhaps there is some hope for you yet. Perhaps someday you might understand why the analogy of pro-wrestling to politics is so apt. Although perhaps that is just too much to hope for.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 11:26 AMNo, I am serious because I have tried, literally tried to find a time in our history at least going back to 1900 where being a Democrat would be being true to the principles of our country.
Was everything okay with the Democrat party before FDR? It was FDR who destroyed it? Well to say that would mean that it was perfectly okay when Wilson was in control. Is that what you are saying?
I know you are going to see this as an attack but no I mean this as an honest question. When was it "good" to be a Democrat? When was being a Democrat not being against the principles of our founding that makes us proud Americans?
Posted by: CnR or D on September 19, 2010 11:35 AMHeck even KKK Robert Byrd was elected after 1932. If you want to talk about "true Democrats" in the South for his time it were people like him.
Posted by: CnR or D on September 19, 2010 11:41 AMGoing back to the turn of the century (not this century I mean 1900) when did the Democrat Party STOP being that?
Posted by: CnR or D on September 19, 2010 11:50 AMWhen and how did Rossi deceive us? Please be specific.
The democratic party stopped being that and confirmed it was now the party of the far left certainly when it passed ObortioCare this year. Otherwise, it began when they abandoned Vietnam, when they became hell-bent on preserving partial-birth abortion under GW Bush, when they blocked Judge Bork, assassinated Justice Thomas' character (led by Biden), filibustered Miguel Estrada. There are a lot of benchmarks since the '70s.
Posted by: Matt M. on September 19, 2010 12:35 PMCnR claims Dino Rossi deceived us. By my recollection Rossi has not served in public office since 2003, when he performed quite well as a fiscally conservative Chairman of this state's Senate Budget Committee. Did this perceived deception occur while Rossi served in the Senate or since. Again, refresh my memory.
CnR seems to believe that because we have been "deceived" we should all just stay home on November 2nd, as there is no one worth voting for.
I will admit to having been disappointed by Republican politicians, but I certainly would welcome the opportunity to be represented by virtually any R at this point. As it is now, every elected official who "represents" me, from all three Jefferson County Comissioners right on up to the POTUS, are 100% leftist Dimocrats. Therefore, I HAVE NO representation, just like colonial Americans prior to July 4, 1776.
And If you have "ego" problems, CnR, deal with them....but don't include me in your soul searches.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 12:58 PM
Scoop is also the last Democrat I voted for.
If there was an ounce of honesty eminating from the D Party, they would re-name themselves the Socialist Non-Workers Party.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 01:05 PMLof of nuts out there, and Didier has proven himself to be just another egotist nut. I seriously thought the man had more character than he has shown by not endorsing Rossi.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 01:09 PMAgree on McKenna, although I was referring to state and federal district representatives/senators.
Besides, "Taxation Without Representation" gives me even more reason to consider participation in a revolution against the anti-constitutional criminals who are presently in control of our federal government.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 01:39 PMWell thanks for letting me know where YOU are coming from.
Posted by: CnR and Definitely nD on September 19, 2010 03:59 PMI thought you knew that.
He will be running in 2012 and that's where the focus needs to be. If we peak to early like we peaked too earily in 1994 then we will have ensured Obama's re-elected.
Republicans won big time in 1994. Clinton won big time in 1996. Please everyone let us learn from history so we do not repeat it. I don't want the Macarena to make a comback either. Please let us stop this Groundhog's day scenario.
And Matt if you can't smell something Fishy well that's your problem. Perhaps you been on the government cheese so long that your smelling doesn't work.
People in the know know what's going on with the Senate campaign. But it doesn't even take being in the know. It is so so easy to figure out if you don't let partisanship stand in the way.
Matt would you help a Republican get elected if by doing so you would lose thousands and thousands of your own income if he did indeed get elected? No, not logical is it?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 04:11 PMSo, it seems to you before 1968 the Democrats were good. Is that about the right time for you Matt?
Posted by: CnR and nD on September 19, 2010 04:18 PMYou never mention progressives.
Yeah, I never did mention Teddy Roosevelt did it.
Sorry, my bad.
Now what party was Teddy a member of?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 04:24 PMCnR believes Dimocrats admit to being evil. Can't remember ever hearing one admit to that. Refresh my memory.
"I consider myself a progressive Democrat." ~ Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Now I hate Hillary, but gosh at least she admits to what she is.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 04:35 PMHad Adlai Stevenson just would have won this would now be such a much, much better country.
Right Matt?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 04:44 PMBefore 1896. Although Cleveland totally had no idea how to fix the economy after the Panic of 1893.
When was the Grand Old Party really grand? (Besides the 1980s).
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 05:26 PMYou still have not' provided any examples of Democrats who have admitted to being evil.
And also, how was it that Dino Rossi "deceived" us?
Posted by: Saltherring on September 19, 2010 05:40 PMThey don't pretend to be conservative like Bush did and then pass through socialist bailout schemes.
And for how Dino Rossi deceives you well, I will just let you think about that when he loses on Election Night. I have given you so many clues as to the answer to that it is obvious you don't want to know otherwise you would have already figured it out.
All I can say is that the fish rots from the head down.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 05:47 PMHe played all of you for a fool BIG TIME!
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 06:23 PMRight Ragnar.
Like I said, if you really wanted to know, if you really had a mentality capable of understanding the way things work behind the scenes, you would have already figured it out.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 06:37 PMLook, I believe most of you get deep down what happened here but like I said it is your egos that won't let you admit it. It just hurts too much.
Yeah, conned big time. Played like a fiddle.
Ragnar on the other hand doesn't have a clue. And I doubt he ever will.
Look this doesn't make me happy because I know that as long as the conservatives are filled with suckers like Ragnar and the rest of you it will always be the progressive Republicans who will get to say I Have The Power.
You shouldn't even need clues to figure this out. But even with clues the 'R' blinds you. I can visually imagine a small capital 'R' jumping on all of you and sinking its teeth through your skulls into your brains in order to control your mind to make sure that you only see what it wants you to see.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 07:27 PMNor did I know it meant that one was pro abortion.
Did the definition change without me getting the memo?
Perhaps I should just call myself a constitutionalist then.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 07:38 PM. follow the money....follow the payoff....we're seeing the ruling class trying to stomp out the rabble out here in the hinterlands..
I don't think its going to work...
Lee, it has already worked in Washington State. But hopefully in other areas in America it won't.
But the conservatives in Washington State are just a bunch of suckers. Not all of them. I have known some very good conservatives in my time and yes they have lived here in Washington, but most people here who consider themselves conservatives have been Republicanized (again I can just picture capital 'r's with fangs jumping on top of their skulls and attaching themselves onto the brains).
By the way Lee do you like fish... oh never mind.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 07:57 PMToo weird for me.
Lee said:
...follow the money....follow the payoff....we're seeing the ruling class trying to stomp out the rabble out here in the hinterlands..
I don't think its going to work...
Lee, it has already worked in Washington State. But hopefully in other areas in America it won't.
But the conservatives in Washington State are just a bunch of suckers. Not all of them. I have known some very good conservatives in my time and yes they have lived here in Washington, but most people here who consider themselves conservatives have been Republicanized (again I can just picture capital 'r's with fangs jumping on top of their skulls and attaching themselves onto the brains).
By the way Lee do you like fish... oh never mind.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:04 PMI don't know why it didn't italicized like the rest of the quote.
My response was of course that in Washington State it already has.
By the way, Bill, didn't you ever watch Sesame Street? Oh, too old for that? Okay did you ever vote for Adlai Stevenson? Matt M. thought he was great.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:10 PMCreepy, aren't they?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 19, 2010 08:11 PMBut that's how one think when they have trapped themselves into a partisan mindset.
In the end you are always going to find yourself alone in the dark wondering what happened.
Well for those of us without this self imposed handicap we won't be wondering. The answer is obvious.
You are so sad Bill. So very sad.
Some plants aren't Democrats. Some plants smell like fish.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:15 PMSee what I mean Lee.
These people just can't free themselves from a partisan mindset.
Which makes it oh, so easy for the political elite in our state to play them like a fiddle.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:21 PMHm.
Oh well.
Although progressive Republicans have them beat on that one thanks to Dan Evans.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:28 PMRichie supported Adlai Stevenson. Not because he believed in Adlai Stevenson but because there was a cute girl working in the Adlai Stevenson campaign. Which is understandable. If I was Richie's age when LBJ was running I would probably supported LBJ because have you ever seen pictures of her daughter at that age - WOW.
At the end when the campaign was over she dumped him...Aww!
Well like I said the Fonz spoke out in favor of Eisenhower. He said "I like Ike. My Bike Likes Ike".
Aaaaa
Well it might have been cool to vote for Ike but looking back at what he did in office a lot of it wasn't too cool. He wasn't exactly what we today would call a conservative.
But Matt we know now where you come from and all I have to say to you is SIT ON IT! Someone who would have supported Adlai Stevenson isn't a conservative in my book.
Or do you do it all for a gal too?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:41 PMI might have voted for him though. Not on purpose but you see he was a master at voter fraud. But I didn't support him.
I mean look at what he did with the so called "great society".
But, Matt you said you had no problems with the Democrats until the 1970s so you must have been all cool with that right?
Matt, you honestly don't know what being a conservative means.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:50 PMYou have trapped your little mind into this limited kind of thinking and you just can't get out of it.
Everyone who is against you MUST be a Democrat, right?
If someone ran into your car you would go MUST BE A DEMOCRAT (even though it could likely be Jane Hague or Mike McGavick).
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 08:55 PMI guess this gets back to ego but why can't they say that "well I really didn't care much about politics, never really paid attention, so I asked my Daddy who to vote for and he said Democrat so I voted Democrat"?
Because it is either that or that there is some time in the past that the person actually believed in what the Democratic Party stood for.
And at least as far back as 1896, at least that far back I can't really see that as being a good thing.
But I guess their egos can't admit that either they were wrong or that they just voted the way they did justbecause someone told them to.
Voted the way they do because someone tells them to vote that way? Hey, kind of like now, except now it is a different somebody (the Republican Progressive Elite).
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 09:17 PMMaybe I am just talking to some really, really old people.
Well I guess if that is the case I should ask them who they voted for in the election of 1860. Surely not that Radical. I mean I was basically in agreement with the guy but this isn't going to happen politically. We have to change the hearts and minds of people first. And Abe should really have gotten that IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID and stay away from controversial social issues.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 09:24 PMLook, I am not the politically correct type, but if they don't want Jackson on the twenty - okay. Let's put Reagan on it instead.
Some have credited him with shaping the modern Democratic Party. Okay, was that "when the party left them"? After Jackson? The party was okay when their leaders were out there killing Indians, huh?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 09:42 PMWHEN WAS IT A GOOD TIME TO BE A DEMOCRAT?
When someone says "the Party Left Me" or in this case "One of the Last Real Democrats" they are implying that there was some time in the past that the Democrats were good.
And like I said I had to go back 106 years where that perhaps, perhaps was the case.
So either I am talking to some really old people here or they don't strongly believe in constitutional principles the way they claim they do.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 09:47 PMAnd I am not too sure about him either. I would have to learn much, much more about him before I can say conclusively.
What is interesting is that Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive. And indeed he was a member of the so called GOP. SO that is AT LEAST how far back it goes when you are talking about progressivism infiltrating BOTH PARTIES!
And there is some disturbing things I have read about Marxists at the forming of the Republican party that I need to find out more about.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 10:03 PM"One of the Last True Democrats"
Well I considered Robert Byrd a "True Democrat" so is that what he means?
Matt M. says that the Democrats were great up to 1968 or so, so I guess he had no problems with LBJs so called "great society".
Posted by: CnRorD on September 19, 2010 10:11 PMCastle wasn't the only one who voted for cap and trade Bill. Do you understand that Bill?
Or is that 'R' Monster on your head preventing you from seeing that part?
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 10:26 PMSo how can these people say "the party left me" or in this case talk about a "True Democrat" like it's a good thing?
They can't and still be true patriots.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 10:36 PMBut I guess their egos prevent them from doing that.
Posted by: CnR on September 19, 2010 10:42 PMWhy would I do that absent of facts? Some people just have too much time on their hands it would appear.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 20, 2010 12:26 AMI ceased considering myself a Republican several years back also. I grew weary of the limpwristed and traitorous legislation some of them supported.
The R Party in this state is all but dead. We need to replace it with the Tea Party.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 20, 2010 06:43 AMIf you run as a "maverick", or "moderate" or whatever way the poll winds are blowing on any given day then the electorate will rightly judge you as lacking in the core conviction department.
Murkowski needs to gracefully offer her support to Miller and exit stage right. Her antics make her, and all such "mavericks" and "moderates" look bad. With "friends" like her who needs demo-marxists?
Posted by: Attila on September 20, 2010 09:06 AMYou said:
A "true Democrat" is one that loves their country, believes in the 'little guy' and lives their lives with faith, family and friends.
And I quite honestly asked "when did the Democrat Party, in your opinion stop being that." I really want to know because I went back over century to get a maybe. Perhaps Cleveland. Perhaps but I will need to look into him a little more before I am sure.
So either you are really, I mean really old, or you are wrong.
Please don't let your ego stand in the way of admitting that you are wrong. Look, I can do it. I once voted for Dave Reichert. I was wrong.
Now you try.
Either that or please answer my question. You aren't the first person I have heard over the years say something to the effect of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic party left me". So I am just asking when precisely did this happen.
Matt M. said give or take around 1968. So he thinks stuff like the so called "great society" were the bees knees.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 09:28 AMThis is something Mr. Rossi has yet to do (and he is on a losing trajectory unless he discovers some fire in the belly to support his race against the idiot in tennis shoes).
Oh, I get it. You still think that Rossi is trying to defeat Murray.
That's just so adorable.
It makes me just want to pinch those little cheeks of yours.
They are just so cute at this age. Such wide eyed naivete.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 09:40 AMSo, if our battle is against Progressives, which I believe it is, we can't limit ourselves to this Democrat Bad Republican Good mentality.
Sure Democrat is bad. Like I said I have gone back over a century to find even a maybe. But there has also been times when Republican bad as well.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 09:55 AMThe Realtors endorsed Murray, specifically citing as one of their reasons her seniority.
If Rossi wins he would not have the seniority that Murray has now.
You know it doesn't take an insider to figure this whole Senate thing out. But it does take someone who is freed from this Democrat Bad Republican Good mentally. It takes someone mature enough to think like an insider. I don't like how insiders think, but I am mature enough to understand how they do.
You were played people. Played big time. The Washington State Political Elite played you like a fiddle. I know that might hurt your egos, but admitting it is the first step forward to possible recovery.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 10:02 AMI know you are likely asleep right now but feel free to answer once the sun goes down.
By the way, I am on Team Edward. I hate dogs.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 10:23 AMI know your ego might get bruised a bit. But in the end it is really the best thing to do.
Or do you like being taken for a SAP?
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 11:06 AMA vote for Dave Reichert is a vote for Obama.
You don't want Obama to win do you?
Posted by: Jake on September 20, 2010 11:49 AMSO, yeah get ready for a Second Term for Obama and perhaps even for a comeback for the Macarena as well.
These so called "conservatives" on Sound Politics are a progressive's best friend. God I hate them so.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 12:40 PMOur hero, an everyman seeking happiness clashes with the machine in an attempt to restore light to a world turned dark.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 20, 2010 12:55 PMThe much better blogs are the ones that are moderated and require real but hidden email addresses in order to comment. I recognize that requires some effort and time, which is not always possible. A good example is WattsUpWithThat. The Signal to Noise Ratio in the comments is much higher there as a result.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 20, 2010 01:37 PMAnd Ragner, Obama can't be defeated this year. He can only be ensured re-election.
And you seem be doing all you can Ragner to ensure Obama's re-election this year.
November 2nd is more than Election Day.
And it is April Fools Day with the part of the fool being played by you Ragner and all your little friends.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 01:49 PMWhen did "True Democrats" exist? You used the term, not I.
Until you answer that I don't think a socialist like you should have any credibility!
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 01:52 PMHearts and Minds.
When I think of that term I think of it being used by progressive Republicans in order to get conservatives to abandon their position on abortion. As in "we can't win the abortion argument politically. It needs to happen through a change in people's hearts and minds." As you might have seen it above I used it sarcastically in regards to Lincoln and Slavery, in that slavery shouldn't be a political issue we need to change hearts and minds.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 02:01 PMI doubt Murkowski would have given any thought to mounting a difficult write-in campaign against Miller except that Joe Miller is a known dolt incapable of answer simple questions about his own positions.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 20, 2010 02:24 PMYou are all a bunch of progressive Republicans here. All except Ragnar who I honestly don't think has a clue.
But the rest of you know that Rossi never wanted to defeat Murray. Don't you?
There was never a good time to be a Democrat. At least not a good time in the last century or so. And unfortunately it it beginning to seem there is no good time to be a Republican either. They are co-conspirators in this progressive takeover we have been seeing for more than a century and of which Obama has been the product of.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 02:33 PMLOL ... Ewwww...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 20, 2010 02:48 PM...You mean like Obongo without his teleprompter and scriptwriter?
Posted by: Saltherring on September 20, 2010 03:19 PMOr a bunch of you here who can't have an option until it is appropriate by the WSRP (which is of course progressive).
Look I am still waiting for Jeff here to tell me when was the era of "True Democrats". Because I sure can't find it. At least not in the last century.
You have poor Ragner here that doesn't understand why defeating Murray wasn't Rossi's purpose.
And now you have Miller trying to award someone for voting for Cap and Trade.
It's why I left the Republican party a long time ago. They aren't what they say they are and those who are are just to stupid to realize that they are just being used by those who aren't.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 03:47 PMSame difference.
Ragnar is sad that you didn't check into Jake's link. It doesn't go into a liberal site but a site of someone who really, really wants to see Obama defeated.
But it might force you to think a bit, and perish the thought.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 03:51 PMI just posted in response to a Pro-Reichert post by Jim Miller that he voted FOR cap and trade.
He deleted it saying "it was off topic".
Republican Progressive/Democrat progressive it doesn't matter. This is the strange logic they use.
Talk about a "political ego".
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 03:58 PMIf people can't see this blog for what it is then they are truly blind indeed.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 04:21 PMI've go a headache form rolling my eyes. I believe I'll name it CnR.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on September 20, 2010 04:39 PMI really do. You have no idea why Slade wanted Patty re-elected do you?
Here's the answer about pro-wrestling. It's not real. While I am sure that there are some animosity among the wrestlers most likely it's not the same animosity that you see in the ring. They see themselves as colleagues, and indeed it's not unusual for two wrestlers who portray themselves to be enemies in the ring to actually develop friendships between each other.
Look, I know you will never believe me about pro-wrestling or the true nature of politics. For you it will be always be Republican good Democrat bad so there's really no point to it is there.
But in the real world being colleagues is most often more important the political parties and after one is removed from office it's this relationship to former colleagues that can translate directly into personal income by the ability to grant access to these people for clients who pay great sums for that ability. The more seniority that person has the higher the sum that can be charged for access to that person.
Yeah, silly, right. What you see in the ring is all there is.
Whatever Ragnar. Whatever.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 04:59 PMHave fun wondering "When will Rossi get the fire in his belly?"...
Yep...
I will find it interesting to see what Rossi gets when this thing is all over. The political elite are pretty good at taking care of those who serve them.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 05:46 PMLobbying is fiction. That just happens in the movies.
Explain to me why then did Boeing AND the Realtors endorse Murray.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 05:53 PMThat's bad
bad, bad, bad...
BUT
When Republicans vote for Cap and Trade...
That's good...
Good, good, good...
Only someone with a mindset susceptible to CULTS could really be a republican with the twists of logic you have to make just to keep to the party line.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 06:27 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-htSSHxsE
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 06:30 PMthat was the one of the stupidest videos i have ever seen.
Posted by: KDS on September 20, 2010 06:37 PMHe's a Republican after all.
And that makes whatever he does A OKAY!
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 07:12 PMThen you should donate to his defense fund.
But, nah, that would never happen.
A Republican would never be accused of, much less convicted of being a mass murderer.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 07:20 PMSo, to the so called Mainsteamers GOOD IDEAS come from mass murders. Perhaps that is why they are so strongly pro-abortion....
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 07:27 PM"No, I can't," she remembers him saying. "I have other things to do."
"What other things?" she pressed.
"Just things, Liz," he answered.
Ted Bundy's to do list.
1) Early Breakfast Meeting with Ralph Munro.
2) Help Doorbell for a Mainstream Republican Candidate.
3) Kill Denise Naslund.
4) Pick up laundry.
5) Work on the budget for Washington State Department of Emergency Services.
6) Call and chat with Dan Evans.
7) Kill Janice Ott
8) Speak on behalf of a Mainstream Republican candidate at a campaign fundraiser.
9) Go to bed.
Posted by: CnR on September 20, 2010 07:44 PMThat would be fun to watch. The three of them together are still about 50 cards short of a full deck.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 21, 2010 12:30 PM
