Sound Politics: Seeking principled partisan politicians

September 16, 2004

Seeking principled partisan politicians

Note to certain Republican politicians: You weren't hired to be "bipartisan." Bipartisanship is a clever "value" invented by statists who want you to believe you're doing a good thing by making sure all of the policies you pursue and promote are at least half-bad.

This allows them to benefit from 150% of any "progress" made in politics, since their politicians are not so naive.

Please, be partisan. Make your party count for something bigger than the letter "R" again. Stand on principle.

Posted by Marsha Michaelis at September 16, 2004 09:53 PM | Email This

Comments

1. QUESTIONS ON "BIPARTISANSHIP" (be forewarned, I am going to have fun with this...):

#1: Is it "BIPARTISAN" when EFF gets a certain 2nd-generation Democratic candidate for public office to send to none other than THE lobbyist for the Washington Federation of Teachers EFF policy papers on the state budget and your latest muckrake with the State Labor Council, WFT's parent organization?

#2: Is is a sin for Democrats to support Dino Rossi? Or just Republicans supporting Kerry-Edwards?

#3: Is it a sin for Dino Rossi to unify Democrats, undecideds and Republicans - or do you want Ellen Craswell to re-emerge and condemn us all to that ogre Gregoire???

I personally think this post is a little too vague for its own good and needs polishing. I am also trying very hard not to say half of what I want to say... like, I dunno, the following question should be a clue...

BONUS QUESTION: Okay, gotta ask: When are we gonna see ya on a ballot?

[Marsha: You could have ran for Superintendent of Education and taken 40-50% of the primary off the bat from the conservative vote, closed up the gap with a few good close-in strafing runs at the statists and won. Or ran for State Representative and won a seat, hands-down.]

Finally, I have this definition of "bipartisanship" and I like to believe I am no statist: When both parties agree on something of MUTUAL value that conforms to THEIR core beliefs - like performance audits...

Posted by: Josef on September 16, 2004 11:38 PM

2. Josef, you're right. It's a little vague. In the end, partisanship isn't the issue because I'd be happy to see both Republicans and Democrats voting together on the right principles. Good point.

Posted by: Marsha Richards on September 17, 2004 09:12 AM

3. I'd just be happy if I didn't hear 'unanimous vote' out of the Seattle and King County decision makers. "We're so smart we all liked it!" Gag.

Posted by: Al on September 17, 2004 10:10 AM

4. Thanks, Marsha. Sorry if I got carried away, but as one of those few Democrats wishing for the heady days of the 1960s when MORE Republicans than Democrats supported LBJ's The Civil Rights Act, or in Recallifornia when Democrats started to police their own and fire Gray Davis, or when just one year ago at Skagit Valley College - a broad "Coalition of the Leading" stood up to now ex-Trustee Barbara Andersen and won.

With that said, Al, I have the very same problem with Skagit Valley College's Board of Trustees. You very, very rarely get any dissension or critical thought out of them - but then again, one Elizabeth Hancock was so terrified of me microtaping a discussion on a 7E7 draft resolution she bullied me and in doing so, violated state law. Now this crook wants another five years as trustee - I say N-O!

Posted by: Josef on September 17, 2004 10:28 AM