July 06, 2012
Meet Any Interesting Candidates On The 4th?
Just to get things started, I'll name the two I met at the Kirkland 4th celebration,
running for the senate against Maria Cantwell, and
running for insurance commissioner against Mike Kreidler.
I had brief chats with both at the Kirkland 4th celebration and liked both, but haven't
studied their proposals or qualifications enough to say much more now. (It
will be easy to vote against the incumbents in those races. We need
someone in the Senate who will not vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, and we need
an insurance commissioner, not an anti-insurance commissioner.)
So, are there any candidates you like? (Links to their web sites, or articles
about them, would be helpful, of course.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 06, 2012
09:09 AM | Email This
"It will be easy to vote against the incumbents in those races."
That's the way I start my own research on candidates -- with my conclusion in tow. That way, if you never get around to the actual research, you still know who to vote for.
2. Jesse Young for 6th District U.S. House. A conservative businessman, Jesse is everything we could ask for in the 6th. Now that we're ridding ourselves of (retiring) Nutcase Norm Dicks, let's also flush the socialist Dimocrat curse.
Finkbeiner, Dunn both support gay marriage. No way will I vote for these two pandering asshats.
The promotion of minority interests over those of the majority is standard operating procedure for despots, monarchies, dictators, socialists, liberals.
And apparently WA state RINO losers with no principles, ethics or morals. No wonder the WA state GOP sucks with losers like these two with the state GOP endorsement.
4. I saw Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe at the Bothell Parade with 8 mildly upbeat supporters in tow. Unfortunately for Rosemary, Dawn McCravey had just gone by 5 minutes before with over 60 very enthusiastic supporters. Perhaps 12 years of screwing up the educational system for our kids is enough for Rosemary. Guy Palumbo had a couple dozen supporters with him. Guy didn't look the way I pictured him in my mind. I figured he would be wearing a trench coat, have a head full of unruly hair, and oh yeh, and ask alot of questions.
Dawn is for real. Great candidate. It's rare to find a Republican active in education. She is one, Chad Magendanz in the 5th is another. Joel Hussey is the real thing. Would love to see him beat Roger Goodman.
Steve Litzow is a far better candidate than Maureen Judge. But if you want to focus on yes votes for gay marriage as a reason for voting against someone, be prepared to put up with a state government that disagrees with your view 100% of the time, rather than only 10% of the time.
Get over it.
6. James Watkins for state auditor.
"Finkbeiner, Dunn both support gay marriage. No way will I vote for these two pandering asshats. The promotion of minority interests over those of the majority is standard operating procedure for despots, monarchies, dictators, socialists, liberals." - Hank
This sort of backward thinking is why so many young people have an absolute visceral hatred for the GOP. Despite the common sense economic positions, they just can't support a party that tolerates fundamentalist religious extremists who are hate gay people.
I'd encourage you, hank, to read the federalist papers. Our founding fathers did not fear a country where minorities would have rights. But they did strongly fear this nation becoming a place where the majority would use their democratic power to oppress minorities. That's what the hanks of the world would have us do.
I understand, hank, that it might be frustrating to see that public opinion is shifting so quickly on the issue of gay rights, but don't worry. You might be surprised to discover that treating gays equally under the law and with dignity and respect doesn't harm you nearly as much as you imagine.
And Dunn and Finkbeiner are heroes who have exhibited a great deal of courage on this issue. I'm proud to be able to vote for them.
Nobody hates gays. That is the best you have-hate?They just simply do not meet the definition of marriage. End of story.
Further, the persistent effort to force the rest of us to accept behavior abhorent to us, while at the same time demanding we not only accept it, but promote and elevate it. And then, be so very angry that we just want to be left alone and we will leave them alone. Talk about intolerance....
Typical liberal: doesnt like something so demand everyone not like it.
Dunn and Finkbeiner pander to a 2-3% minority hell bent on ramming their beliefs down everyone else's throat: unfit for public office.
9. Well spoken, Hank. If Republicans will not defend morality and decency, who will?
10. The GOP has finally figured out that they should nominate candidates who have some cross-over appeal on social issues. Dunn and Finkbeiner will both be getting this Democrat's support in the primary and in November. Pretty much every Dem I know is supporting Finkbeiner over Owen as it is. I'm not sure about the SoS race, but from what I know about Kim Wyman, she's got a fair amount of appeal to Dems as well. Haven't you all been down the purity road on these issues before? How did Ellen Craswell, Linda Smith etc etc. work out for you? And while we're at it, hasn't Rob McKenna proclaimed himself pro-choice?
Hank - This country is not a theocracy, and therefore does not have to conform to biblical definitions of marriage. Marriage is a legal construct, not a religious one. It can mean what the people deem it to mean.
I have no idea why people are so adamant against having others share in the same legal rights that they have. I'm glad we have elected Republicans finally breaking with the religious zealots who have dominated the GOP in this state.
@9 -- "Well spoken, Hank. If Republicans will not defend morality and decency, who will?"
Everybody wants to defend morality and decency.
We just don't agree that your quasi-politico/religious dogma is synonymous with morality and decency.
13. I hope the state party isn't wasting a cent on the Senate race; it's unwinnable. McKenna needs the dough!
14. Very sad to see "Republicans" abandon the unborn and traditional, Bibilical marriage. No wonder America is in the state it's in. Even Muslims ascribe to higher moral values than many in our more conservative political party.
re 14: "Very sad to see "Republicans" abandon the unborn and traditional, Bibilical marriage."
As conservatives, we must abandon you and your ridiculous beliefs. You are making us look foolish -- and, as a voting bloc -- you are just not that important anymore.
Primitive Christians like yourself abandoned the aqctual living people long ago. Who would ever believe that you ever really had much care for the as yet unborn.
For all the billions of humans as yet still asleep in the rock of ages, you espouse a 'last days' philosophy that does not even take them into account.
As a conservative, I wash my hands of you and your ilk. I'm a Goldwater conservative -- not a simplistic religious crank.
Anytime someone posts on a political blog and uses the word "hate" in describing the nature of a differing position, you
a) make your own position clear,
b) admit that your position is void of substantive reasoning and knowledge, and
c) favor insults, having abandoned any hope of convincing your opponent with well-reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the lecture. When someone posts:
". . .the persistent effort to force the rest of us to accept behavior abhorent to us . . ."
I'm not certain how to describe it other than as complete intolerance, or "hate". No one is forcing anyone to accept anything. If you find gay relations "abhorrent", then don't engage in them. It isn't up to you to prescribe behavior of others that does not harm them, or damage you. You don't have a right not to be offended.
It is time to stop being the morality police. All it has done is guarantee a generation of Democrat rule in this state.
@16 -- "b) admit that your position is void of substantive reasoning and knowledge"
If your definition of substantive reasoning also involves believing faith-based mumbo-jumbo, then count me out. The moralistic Evangelical core of the religious right is just the displaced Democrat racists of the 60's generation who no longer had a home after the 1964 civil rights act, but were welcomed by Richard Nixon as a way to win national elections by using them as a wedge.
I welcome the Reagan Democrats into the GOP -- but not the inflexible, hidebound southerners of the religious right.
Gay marriage has nothing to to with morality, or much of anything else.
You dont get to redefine the word marriage, just because you are a baby boomer with superior intellect and some minority viewpoint, persuasion, activity.
For example, gays want to trash the Boy Scouts, a private organization. Just dont join it if you dont like it. Yet, you loon liberals insist on forcing your views on others. Leave us alone.
Libs and gays are minorities. We are happy to let you just carry on. But, leave us alone. Push your C R A P on the majority, and we will trash you. Do you not get that?
You are the one who brought "morality" into it. I believe we are a nation of laws.
No idea how two people getting married, in a legal contract, does anything to you. But whatever. Pretty much violates all that is "conservative" to insist that your views take priority over the free exercise of rights.
No idea what the boy scouts have to do with this. Gays have freedom of speech and can trash anyone they want. Yes, young boys should not fear that their leader will act inappropriately. Lots of Catholic youth thought they had the same protection, but they didn't. I used to be Catholic. I can't justify being a member of an organization that protects those who prey on innocent children. But I do not call for the Catholic Church to be abolished. They are being punished by the legal system, which is how it should work, for actual wrong doing.
I feel sorry for you who mock God and the Biblical laws and values He gave us to live by. Someday Cheddar, you will face God and have to give an account of your life. Are you ready for that. How about you, Janet?
Therefore God has also high exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phillipians 2:9-11
That your argument quotes biblical text, pretty much affirms my argument.
We are a nation of laws. We are not a theocracy.
I am fine facing God in the afterlife, but thanks for being concerned for my fate. Now, can you stop worrying about it? I suspect you have enough to do, just to make sure your own life is lived as you think God thinks it should be.
Where do you get the idea that anyone is pitching for a theocracy? America's founders used Biblical law to frame our constitution and as a model for our court system. The Ten Commandments and other scriptures are inscribed into virtually all longstanding government structures in Washington DC. God's laws were given to us to help us live productive and healthy lives, both physically and morally. The further we drift from God's law and grace the more we will experience His hand of judgement. How many unborn children can we murder before He says enough is enough? I shudder when I consider the judgement some of our politicians will receive, not to mention the people who voted for them.
re 21: "I feel sorry for you who mock God and the Biblical laws and values He gave us to live by."
1- "I feel sorry for you...." I don't believe you do. I think that you are hopeful that I will be punished and would do it yourself claiming that you were God's instrument.
2- "...who mock God and the Biblical laws and values He gave us to live by." Your interpretation of "the Biblical laws and values He gave us" is just that -- your interpretation. It's not, and never will be, the law of the land -- nor should it.
Making negative judgments upon others and wishing them punishment and them claiming that you are not the source of the malevolence fools no one -- not even yourself. Inside, you know that you are the malefactor, not the supposed breaker of 'God's rules' -- which are really only your own.
Well said, Cheddar.
If you insist that the definition of marriage come from the bible, then you are imposing your religion on others.
The scary part about the religious zealots is that they offer foundation to those who would impose sharia law on us. What defense do we have to oppose it, if there is outright admission that our laws are based on the bible, and not based on reasoned, secular common law?
26. Good Grief, Janet, calm down. Surely you have met people who don't agree with you before. Is it always so "scary"? Fact of the matter is that gay marriage has been imposed on most state through a activist judiciary because the people always vote against it. The fact that you are throwing sharia law around shows you haven't got an argument let alone a clue.
27. I am going to close this post because (1) there are a few too many insults for my tastes, and (2) because it has drifted off topic.