For anyone interested, the Reagan Wing has posted a response to my report from the Washington State Chair Candidate debate they hosted last Friday.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at February 05, 2005 09:14 PM | Email ThisIf the Republican Party is going to win state-wide races in WA, it very much needs thoughtful activists with a little real-world pragmatism like Timothy Goddard.
Second:
In reading the "Fireworks, Anarchy and Spin" piece on thereaganwing.com, a number of things jumped out; including:
(Vance) "He had come with a posse (including Diane Tebelius and Fredi Simpson)."
and
"But when some of the Vance thugs got up ...."
and
".... our incumbent Chair is intervening on behalf of the party’s enemies and ensuring Democrat victories"
Rose Strong and Mark Hulst were credible, experienced candidates for State Party Chair. But tirades like the "Fireworks, Anarchy and Spin" piece by Doug Parris help only one party: The Democrats.
And let the record show I object to Mr. Parris referring to a group of people that included Diane Tebelius and Fredi Simpson as "thugs"; that is out of line. Diane is a well-respected, hard-working, nationally-recognized attorney who has made significant contributions to the GOP. Fredi Simpson is County Chair of my neighboring Chelan County; I met her at the big ReVote Rally in Oly on 11 January. She is personable and outgoing; and IMO another example of someone we are fortunate to have as a Republican Party activist.
And while I am not going to get in to what Chris Vance might have or should have or could have done different in the last few years, IMO he has done a pretty good job of leading the charge as the partisan public face of the State Party on the current far-and-away top priority of pursuing the Election Contest for Gov. The comments by Mr. Parris do not help that effort at all either. And to insinuate Chris Vance is trying to help the party's "enemies".... Come on, that is over the top:
(1) Opponents, not enemies; unless you want to give David Postman and other serious reporters material for yet another piece about how (R)s do not seem interested in broadening their base enough to win State-wide.
(2) The best tactics can be debated, but I am confident Chris Vance is very interested in having Republicans WIN elections. That piece by Mr. Parris makes me wonder how interested he is.
Methow Ken
(who just happens to be a 2-time elected-not-appointed (R) PCO, *and* an Area Chair).
I would suggest, first of all, that the organizer of a debate has the absolute right to set the terms of the debate. As the Reagan Wing pointed out, they paid for the microphone and issued invitations based on certain expectations. If Chris Vance did indeed attempt to turn it into a press conference, then he was in the wrong.
I think it might be time, now that we have all had a chance to blow off some steam, to take a step back and figure out how we can work together for the next two years to take back Olympia. If we don't like the management style of the party chair, tough. We have to deal with him for the next four years. If we truly believe that the state party is to moderate or left, then we need to recruit candidates who can win while reflecting our views.
Over the past twenty five years the Republican party has consistently won when espousing a conservative message (Reagan, G.W. Bush, Congress, etc) and consistently lost when espousing a moderate/liberal message (Bush Sr, Dole). It should be fairly obvious that we need to expand our base by convincing people that we are different from the Democrats, not by convincing people that we are a better version of the Democrats. In this I agree with the Reagan Wing.
However, we certainly don't win by alienating people who might be interested in working with us by attacking their views, attacking their events, and generally causing discord. If we don't like a wing of the party, don't attend their events, or attend their events with an eye towards politely disagreeing and then stating clearly and concisely why. They can then decide if you are right.
Posted by: Calvin A on February 6, 2005 07:15 AMI have no interest in a repeat of the Craswell years. If you would win a statewide election, you must ask how your message will sell in the Puget Sound suburbs, because that's where it will be won or lost.
They are playing with fire.
Posted by: South County on February 6, 2005 07:59 AMTo tie this in to the post above, Kristin Brost's soundbites and press releases make her like an absolute idiot, an indulged child with extremist little temper tantrums that may speak to leftwing nuts, but will never resonate with the general voter base. She is a present wrapped in a nice little red bow to the WSRP, and I only wish her well in her role of making the State Democrat less and less relevant to Washington state voters.
The point is, leave all the indulged children, temper tantrum, get out of "my" party-type antics to the Democrats. That is, unless you do want to return to the marginalized Craswell years. Rossi won the election precisely because he spoke to the normal person on the street, not only in the suburbs but in the inner city and on the farms. Rossi's message was one of moderation and inclusiveness, not extremism and divisiveness. Other than dead people and felons, most people who vote tend to be normal, rational, everday types whose main concern is putting food on their families' tables. Kudos to Rossi - the Republican wing of the Republican Party needs to take back its party in this state.
Posted by: LoneWolf on February 6, 2005 08:17 AMUntil today I hadn't heard of your blog page. I have now bookmarked it.
I was reading SoundPolitics and saw the posting of your comments back to Goddard.
Two things jump out at me:
1). I have been frustrated for several years at the lack of proactive movement on the part of the Republican party in Snohomish County and other areas of Washington. The lack of strong candidates or when we do have one; we don't rally. This said, I am grateful for the outrising of strong Republican bloggers as a result of the Gregoire mess. The investigations, analyzing and efforts on the Internet may just save us from eternal liberalism here in the greater Puget Sound.
My hope: Passion is wonderful and needed. There also needs to be some semblance of teamwork. If we want to build this party to maximum potential, we MUST find some ability to be respectful and cohesive while still agreeing to disagree. The Democratic machine is far too skilled in campaigning for us to fight with each other on the sidelines.
Thank you for being involved, I am given hope.
2). I worked hundreds of hours on the campaign in which you spoke of (Betty Neighbors vs Chris Vance). My role was to be with the delegate when at all possible. You don't spend hours driving with a delegate on the roads of Snohomish County to obscure rural places you have never heard of without learning a great deal about that person. Being the type of person that I am, the car was continuously filled with questions, debate and learing. Betty Neighbor's opponent was and is not the same as Aaron Reardon. To compare the two in such a manner makes me nauseated. Their ideology, integrity and style are worlds a part. After the primary, during the general campaign, it was on a daily basis that the differences between the two candidates became more and more evident. Trust me, after having several unpleasant run-ins with the democratic candidate when I defied him to tell the truth...well anyway. Dave Earling beat Betty Neighbors for many reasons. Dave Earling should and could have won the General (and Snohomish County wouldn't be in the mess it is in) if there other factors were in play: Support of people such as yourself and the elimination of the union machine. Voter turnout was absolutely horrendous and the union 'boys' were out in full force. Look at the numbers.
To make a statement about Dave Earling in such an off hand manner is unsettling. If you are going to support the idea that Betty (an amazing woman who has an amazing future IF she is supported to look at the truth of why she lost) lost the campaign because of Chris Vance, then you should investigate more thoroughly.
Chris Vance has had a rise in power lately. Chris Vance had some say in the Snohomish County Election for Executive but not as much as you think. Certainly not enough to doom a candidate.
Lynn S. Eul
At any rate, in case anyone was curious, I stand by my depiction of events.
Posted by: Timothy on February 6, 2005 09:20 AM
with all do respect I was at the debate.
Let me state for the record I am not a
member of the reagan wing.Most of what
Mr parris said about the debate is true.
As far as fredi simpson and diane tebelius
are concerned maybe his characterazations
were a little over top but the week before
the elections fredi simpon unleashed one the most
vicous personal attacks on mark hulst I have
in 20 years ever seen.
Diane tebelius helped vance game the system
during the elections to help him win.So don't
sit there and tell me these 2 are such civic
saints.
One more time I will say this about a week
in a half before the elections Vance sent
out a letter to all the state committee
members stating that Dino rossi's camp
had asked mark to drop out of the race.
Vance also repeated this in a sit down
with the media.
Rossi's camp has adamently denied that
dino or anyone from his staff ever asked
mark to drop of the race.Even mark says
this never happened.
add this to the fact vance cheated to win
reelection says volumes about his lack
of honor and integrity.
Efforts to quiet ultra-conservative elements in the Republican Party somehow do not strike me as becoming more "inclusive." I do not always agree with what is loosely termed the "religious right," but they have a right to their views within the framework of the Republican Party. No, I don't think they should run the party totally.
But with all this talk of a more moderate Republican Party, I feel increasingly drawn to find out more about the Constitution Party, as I think many more conservative Republican will do if we are excluded with all this "inclusiveness."
I think it would strengthen the Republican Party in Washington State to move more right rather than left (moderate if you prefer) at this time, and take advantage of the fact that many people are angry over this election mess, high taxes, and the leftist agenda being scrammed down our throats at every turn.
Does he have a vision? Can he raise money? Can he find/develop qualified candidates?
It is on these questions alone that this issue should have been decided. Unfortunately for Chris, the answers are no, no, and no.
Let's remember, Chris became Party Chair after an utterly abysmal showing against Adam Smith in 2000. The Party was in turmoil, publicly illustrated by another abysmal and recently failed congressional candidate who couldn't win the primary even though she had raised, by far, the most money of any of the Republican candidates.
The candidates were Chris Vance; Don Benton, who had raised a stunning amount of money, and John Koster, who had come fairly close to taking the WA-2. Oh yeah, let's not forget the worst possible choice for Chair, Reed Davis.
Reed Davis was eliminated in the first vote, having garnered the total of, ahem, 3 votes out of 78, the multiple editorials of the Seattle Times endorsing him for Party chair having been the kiss of death.
You see, both Davis and Vance supporters seem incapable of apparently understanding that candidates need to be judged by what they do far more than by what they say.
Davis had been at the helm of the King County GOP for 8 years, which had become, under his "skilled" leadership, a total train wreck. As Party chair, he would have brought the same talents that have turned King County into a 150,000 vote-plus Democrat strong hold. Davis turned off voters by the thousands in his very public and inexcusable clash with the Party with his whiney demands to get rid of our primary system, cherished by the vast majority of voters across the state... going so far as to publicly demand that the state GOP either join the suit filed by the democrats or that he, Davis, would use King County funds to help the dems fund it... or join their suit with the KingCo GOP party. Idiocy. Michael Young will, if anything, do much worse.
Vance, otoh, having just got his ass caved in by Smith, (The ass-caving having consisted of Vance putting together an ASTOUNDING 34.95% of the vote against Smith and a total fundraising effort of under $400,000 against Smith) brought THOSE stellar talents to the table as Party chair.
He was, however, the darling of the Veda Jellen-Jennifer Dunn-Bellevue Mafia set, who, because Benton failed to be their lap dog, wanted him publicly and politically dead (Ever hear or see the results of the audit that was supposed to "expose" Benton's mishandling of party funds? You won't, either. I wonder why...)
Since then, what has Vance accomplished? Why, he's lost control of both Houses... done NOTHING in minority outreach.... increased the dem’s margin of victory in the presidential race…. continued his abysmal fund raising.... and accomplished zilch in the area of candidate recruitment/development. He implemented his idiotic “suburban crescent” nonsense that accomplished nothing except to make him out to look like an aspiring democrat…. Working towards keeping the party base home in droves. Have I mentioned that he’s done NOTHING in minority outreach?
But, he continues to be the darling of the people that Rossi has, quite mistakenly, I might add, surrounded himself with; those same, stellar individuals most responsible for making King County into a demo punching bag. Vance is a good little lap dog… positioned exactly and precisely where the “powers that be” want him to be and exactly where we cannot afford to have him… IF we want a Republican resurgence in this state… IF we want to turn this thing around… IF we want to do more than forfeit this state, at almost every level, to the democrats.
So, for Vance supporters, here is what you have to look forward to: Republicans will continue to lose at almost every level, but certainly at the legislative level, as long as Vance is running the show.
So, in the end, I need to remind you: be careful what you wish for… Because in this case… You’ve got it.
I've been reading Timothy's blog since well before he started posting here on Sound Politics, and in all that time he's struck me as a promoter of civil, rational discussions of the issues. He's not the sort who'd enjoy having his writings cause strife among his allies, and he's certainly not the sort who would deliberately try to keep the argument alive. He posted the link to Mr. Parris' response in order to let the man have his say and left it at that.
In this comment thread I've seen people on both sides of this little intra-party rift hurling recriminations at each other, and I've seen people who have no real disagreements whatsoever tearing each other apart over perceived insults. This is idiocy, and it stops now.
Whatever our rivalries, when all is said and done we are friends and allies. Don't ever forget this. Our disagreements may be important, but they should always be pursued in a civil manner. Anything less is a distraction from the main goal of getting Republicans elected.
As for this specific instance, Mr. Parris has had his say, and presumably that satisfies his desire to respond to Timothy's description of events. Those of you zealous to defend Timothy's honor, let me assure you that he is more than capable of defending himself. He has elected to let this pass with only one or two minor caveats. I think perhaps it is time for the rest of us to do the same.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 6, 2005 12:00 PMThe Reagan Wing's own website can hardly be described as civil. Furthermore, while Tim Goddard's description of the events in question may or may not have been 100% correct, this would hardly be the first time members of the Reagan Wing have been accused of acting inappropriately.
Which begs a interesting question as posed by JG: how does the Republican party balance the moderation and inclusiveness necessary to win elections in this state without losing touch with its core principles? While some, incorrectly I think, might accuse Goddard of swaying too far toward pragmatist side, it seems to be inarguable that the Reagan Wing has swung too far to the side of being stridently unyielding.
For example, I had to chuckle at Mr. Parris' analysis of the Betty Neighbors race for Snoh. Co. Exec. (full disclosure, I'm the son of the man that beat her in that primary). I know Steve and Betty, and have gotten along with them well after that election, but Mr. Parris is flat out wrong. In fact, Betty was able to compare positions with her opponent in the primary, as there is evidence to prove - her consultant even took excessive liberty with the facts in achieving that separation. Moreover, Dave Earling received a higher percentage of the general election vote than any Republican who has ever run for the office, thereby making Mr. Parris' analysis of the general wholly inaccurate. In fact, had the traditionally conservative Master Builders and a number of other development interests not supported Aaron Reardon, Republicans would likely have won the seat.
These sort of overall flaws in analysis, and the very nature of the response to Goddard, are an interesting analogy to the Reagan Wing's problem as a whole: just as Mr. Parris' defense against Goddard is obsessively focused on petty details and personal attacks, the Reagan Wing has a whole seems to gets so wound up in the details that they never see the big picture. They represent some of the great principles of the party, but their approach would doom the party to failure in Washington state.
One needs no other evidence of that last point than to examine the gratuitous personal shot Mr. Parris takes at Goddard at the end of his defense: "Perhaps last month when I pointed out the inconsistency between Timothy's “pragmatic” political philosophy and his professed Christianity..."
I don’t see the evidence, necessity, or propriety in questioning Mr. Goddard's personal faith. As a fellow Christian and Republican I hardly see the dichotomy, and if Mr. Parris is attempting to argue a theological point, his attack on Mr. Goddard is more contrarian to the Christian faith than the accusations he puts forward. All the more reason to leave that issue out of this debate since it has no business there to begin with.
If unity is what we seek, it would be helpful if people could put aside ad hominem personal attacks and focus on winning elections - which if we don't do we'll never be able to enact the principles in which we all so strongly believe.
Finally, Mr. Parris’ analysis of Mr. Goddard’s background implies great concern with Republican credentials, so I’ll lay mine out for full disclosure here: I worked on Gary Nelson’s Congressional race in 1992 and worked for Slade Gorton for the last 3 ½ years of his term (including a leave of absence to assist Rick White’s 1998 campaign). My work for Slade included 8 months on the campaign staff where I was among other things, Field Director and GOTV coordinator for the 2nd CD and the whole of Snohomish County. I also advised at length my father’s campaign for Snohomish County Executive in 2003, and am currently a Bush-administration appointee in Seattle. I can speak from experience – it is better to win and govern than to lose and complain.
My point was that this was not a Party-organized or even candidate-organized event. The debate was organized well after the registration and two candidate receptions had already been planned.
Please refrain from questioning the facts in the piece. It may not have contained everything you thought was important, but everything contained in it was true.
Posted by: Timothy on February 6, 2005 03:01 PM Whoa! I going have to put the kabosh on this
right now.Mark hulst did know there was
going be a debate.The reason I know is
because I spoke with mark the night before.
He said to me yeah I found out about the
debate from the internet.So yes he did know.
I am sorry to disagree with you but he knew.
Tim the real story is being missed here
Vance rigged the vote so he could win.
this is outrageous.
So, in the end, I need to remind you: be careful what you wish for… Because in this case… You’ve got it.
Exactly so. That election is over, and it's too soon to start the next one. There's a process in place, which was followed.
Posted by: South County on February 6, 2005 04:09 PMMr. Earling states accurately that “Betty was able to compare positions with her opponent in the primary,” The point is, that when it began to be effective, Chris Vance intervened on behalf of Earling and shut it down with his censorship. That effectively shut down the Neighbors campaign in the last two weeks. He apparently sees no problem with this.
I must, however, acknowledge Mr Earling’s experience. He worked for Gorton when the Senator voted to acquit Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial for political reasons, despite admitting the evidence was to the contrary. How can those of us who are “stridently unyielding" compete with flexible moves like that?
We had a team calling every member of the State Committee personally during the week of February 23rd to make sure they knew of the debate. Steve Neighbors, however, emailed me on the 28th to point out that our contact information (that drove our parallel email campaign) had not been updated for Snohomish County since their re-organization meeting. So I’m not surprised he was missed. Mark Hulst, as I pointed out in my article, knew of the Reagan Wing plans for the debate as early as Jan. 14th. I talked to him several times on the phone about the debate in the final week. Among the topics discussed were the possible elimination of Vance because of his unwillingness to sign the censorship agreement he required of others. Mark expressed the desire to debate Vance, hypocrisy notwithstanding. Mark was also willing to put his hospitality suite plans aside (which later became a moot point) in order to get to debate the other candidates. Mark arrived early that evening (the only candidate to do so) while there was virtually no audience. The only sense in which Mark might not have “known” the debate would occur is in the same sense I didn’t either, when it looked like we might only have one candidate. I explained that uncertainty in my article.
And I should note, there is a big difference between having a disagreement over issues and ideas versus personal attacks. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think your point of view and chosen actions in support of that view are incorrect. I was not taking shots at you personally and think it is rather thin-skinned of you to take it otherwise. If we can't have a healthy, honest debate it does everyone a disservice.
As to your points in your 5:04 post: the Reagan Wing website and your own posts here are proof enough on the points of disagreement I raised regarding your work that you line-itemed out. If you can't acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with your work and analysis, which at the least should be described as highly emotional, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
As to Betty Neighbors, here again you've got your facts wrong. The last thing I did was call Betty a liar, simply not true. No candidate for that caliber of race does the research for their mail pieces, that's the consultant and campaign staff. Thus the content is their responsibility, not hers.
In this case, there were mailers - which constituted a huge portion of that campaign’s mail program - during the last two weeks (the timeframe you claim she was hamstrung) where the facts were simply wrong. And 100% factually correct or not, they did separate her from her opponent. You have my email address with this post and I would be happy to discuss the details of that in another setting since it would get much too lengthy for this forum.
However, I don't see the value of a Earling v. Neighbors debate in general because it does little to help the party now. I'm simply noting you have a number of basic facts wrong in one example you’re using to discuss the state chair race, as an example of errors in other analysis you have offered. I know Betty and think she was a good candidate then and a great candidate in the future for the party. I also think Steve Neighbors will be a true all-star performer as a county party chairman.
To be candid, I don't see you disputing any of my assertions with facts, only more vitriol. If you take that as an "ad hominem" personal attack so be it, I'm not trying to impugn you, I'm simply observing your style of communicating.
Which leads me to your, and my, last point, regarding Slade. Once again, you're factually incorrect. Slade voted the way he did because of the way he read the law. You may not like it but he took his role as a juror seriously and frankly ignored all political advice. The politically expedient thing to do in that instance would have been to vote yes to the charge in question and move on. It is a measure of the man – whether you agree with him or not - that he held his Constitutional duty in higher regard than his political popularity. Nonetheless, your need to get focused on this detail again validates one of my points: your political and policy analysis seems unable to get past details you don't like to see a bigger picture.
You may not like that analysis, since it disagrees strongly with you, but it is just analysis and commentary, not me questioning your character as you imply. Based on your statements thus far, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on many, many things.
You say, “I was not taking shots at you personally and think it is rather thin-skinned of you to take it otherwise.”
Gosh, let me get this straight… If you accuse me (ambiguously) of “ad hominem attacks” it’s “just analysis and commentary” but if I point out that you called me overly melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, obsessively focused on petty details, and engaged in personal attacks and un-Christian activity… I’m just being “thin-skinned”? Is that correct?
You say, “If you can't acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with your work and analysis, which at the least should be described as highly emotional, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.”
What do you mean “can’t acknowledge candid, honest disagreement with [my] work and analysis”? You have made no rational criticism of anything I said. You just applied a lot of ad-hominem labels to it. You say I can’t “see the big picture” but offer no illustration of that or any particular with which you disagree… except my comments on Slade. And I’ll get to that in a minute.
You say, “The last thing I did was call Betty a liar, simply not true.”
This is a careful distortion of my words. I said you had accused “the Betty Neighbors campaign of lying.” Here are your exact words: “…her consultant even took excessive liberty with the facts…”
That is not accusing him of mistakes. Taking “excessive liberty with the facts” is an intentional act. It is lying.
But I suppose you will say that pointing this out is the petty obsessive ness with “detail” you accuse me of. Others call it “accuracy.”
You say, “I don't see the value of a Earling v. Neighbors debate in general because it does little to help the party now.”
Or perhaps it would reveal too many inconvenient “petty details.”
You say, “To be candid, I don't see you disputing any of my assertions with facts”
You make no assertions that could be disputed with facts. Except the comment about Slade. (I’ll get to it.) You have made a series of entirely subjective and denigrating slurs. “…melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, obsessively focused on petty details, engaging in personal attacks and un-Christian” What facts would be an appropriate rebuttal of those smears?
You say, “…I'm simply observing your style of communicating.” No, you’re attempting to undercut my points, not by reason, but by implicating me personally.
You say, “Slade voted the way he did because of the way he read the law. You may not like it but he took his role as a juror seriously…” and,
“It is a measure of the man – whether you agree with him or not - that he held his Constitutional duty in higher regard than his political popularity.”
Mr. Earling, immediately following Slade’s indefensible vote to acquit I corresponded with him personally disagreeing in detail. (Petty of me, I know.) Slade wrote back and explained that while there was ample evidence to convict Clinton of the charge for which Slade had helped vindicate him, He was also aware that the Constitution called for Clinton’s removal from office if convicted. Slade explained that he thought that was too harsh a penalty. So, literally to avoid the inevitable effects of the Constitution, Slade voted “not guilty” to charges for which he said he knew the truthful vote was “guilty.” This letter is in my possession. It is personally signed by Slade Gorton.
Mr. Earling, if you are typical of Slade operatives, you are an epistemological relativist. To you this is all “detail” that needs to be “gotten past.” But to those of us who hold, as a matter of real belief, the principles upon which this nation was founded they are matters of truth. Sorry, we won’t “get past” them.
As the ReaganWing website and your posts here show, it seems you tend to construe criticism of your positions as a personal attack at the same time as your critiques of others could easily be construed as personal slanders against them. Given the shall we say bold nature of the positions you take, that problem essentially chokes off debate.
Looking at the comparative tone in your posts versus mine, I think it is inconsistent for you to claim I'm not putting forward any facts and "rational analysis." Meanwhile, many of your statements, as I and others here have noted, are not supported by facts, only your emotion and perception. I believe other readers of this site would agree.
One final point on a fact you continue to get wrong that bears correcting. I never said anyone affiliated with the Neighbors campaign lied, I said someone took liberty with the facts. If I had to guess it was insufficient research of a couple of issues rather than deliberate mistatements.
And lastly, I'm not sure based on our continued disagreement on facts and your analysis of the facts that I even trust on face value you're analysis of the letter you received from Slade. If you know Slade personally, so be it. If not, as with all other Senate offices, we had a handy auto-pen device in Washington, DC and Bellevue to cope with the volume of signatures that would otherwise occupied a tremendous chunk of Slade's waking hours.
I wish this conversation would have been more productive. Have a good day.
“…melodramatic, petty, uncivil, stridently unyielding, highly emotional, obsessively focused on petty details, engaging in personal attacks and un-Christian”
You, gentlemen, have "taken excessive liberty with the facts."
Posted by: Doug Parris on February 7, 2005 09:54 AMIt is because you have no other avenues of defending your falsehoods that instead of responding to my arguments you trust in the simple application to them of denigrating adjectives. If I were to respond in kind I would, without any specificity, say your arguments are slanderous, immature, duncical, malevolent, obstinate, defamatory, uneducated, doltish, naïve, headstrong, chuckleheaded, intractable, libelous, heretical, puerile, numskulled, pigheaded, stiff-necked, illiterate, ornery, impractical, and downright evil. And I would protest that this was a criticism, not of you, of course, just your ideas.
You do not wish to discuss the facts. You wish, instead to change the subject to my “approach.”
Yes, Timothy, your case rests, for effectiveness, on making Doug Parris look bad by the continued repetition of hateful insults. Yes, it is ad hominem, and it is intellectually barren.
(Incidentally, what was my "case?" I wasn't paying attention.)
Posted by: Timothy on February 7, 2005 06:02 PMI assume that your sarcastic indictments of tactlessness and imprecision are really not about me as a person, right? You wouldn't do that, would you?
Regarding unseating Chris Vance: I was not a candidate. You probably just weren't paying attention.
This is whats wrong with the state republican
party.You have people condoning what someone
like fredi simpson did as opposed to comdeming
her for lack of character.Great job by chris
vance? He lies through is teeth to keep his
job and your ok with that?
Whats wrong with you people? either you want
people that are honorable and have integrity
or you want to be like the democrats who don't
care.as long as they win its all that matters.