My column in this week's The Stranger is on the primary contest between Steve Hammond and Reagan Dunn to represent the new 9th County Council District: "Freshman Mistake"
The brightest new political star to appear in the local firmament this year is undoubtedly Republican Reagan Dunn, recently appointed to the King County Council. Only 34, Dunn has several years of accomplishments as a government lawyer under his belt and is blessed with savvy, good looks, and the political machine built by his mother, retired Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn. His time-limited council term would serve him well for launching a successful challenge to vulnerable council Democrat Julia Patterson or even 1st District Congressman Jay Inslee. Instead, in what may have been his riskiest freshman mistake, he chose to take on well-liked fellow Republican Councilman Steve Hammond and is now in a tough primary fight.Read the whole thing.
The version of the article that I submitted had this line that was cut to save space:
I personally think [both Hammond and Dunn] have broad appeal and would serve the district well, just differently. All the other GOP insiders I’ve spoken with seem to agree.It would have been nice to elect both to the Council in November. An observant [moderate Democrat] reader pointed out to me that there are a few precincts that overlap between Dunn's current district and Julia Patterson's new district. Dunn missed an opportunity (albeit at some personal inconvenience) to move into that part of his district and then take on Patterson, who I think he could handily defeat. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 12, 2005 10:46 AM | Email This
Isn't this interesting we both have
a column on the hammond-dunn race today.I just
now posted mine.Anyone interested in reading it
may go to rightofseattle.blogspot.com
There are many more reasons to support Reagan Dunn than the ones that you list in your blog. The claim of the money and the name recognition are a simple bonus to what he can bring to the table.
Reagan is a former land-use attorney with vast experience in suing the government over illegal takings of land. Does this sound like a hot-button issue in the race? This is exactly what the CAO is, and Reagan is the most well-equipped to lead the charge against it. Steve touts that he formed the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, but there have been reports that he was pushed out of their leadership. He was briefly their president, and never again. I don't even know if he's a member of their organization anymore.
While serving in John Ashcroft's Attorney General's Office, Reagan was the former National Coordinator for Bush's Project Safe Neighborhoods. This helped to combat violence in local neighborhoods around the country. Reagan has taken a hard stance against methamphetamine, and the growing trend in violent crime is tied to the rising tide of this drug.
Most of all, Reagan has worked the hardest in demanding accountability over Ron Sims' Elections Department. He was the first to call for the resignation of Dean Logan. Steve Hammond is trying to claim that they he intended to do it the same day, but his office hastily wrote a letter after hearing of Dunn's press release. Steve played "follow the leader" here. Dunn has called for an independent canvassing board. What have we heard lately from Hammond's office on elections? He signed on to Irons' letter, along with Dunn, to the Secretary of State asking for Reed to step in and run the election. Hammond can not claim any political victories for himself. All he does it try to piggy-back the ideas of the Republicans on the rest of the Council. Honestly ask yourself, what has Hammond actually done lately?
Posted by: District 9 Voter on August 12, 2005 11:22 AMThe rules were simple, win the caucus, you are on the ballot. He lost, then refused to play by the rules. I would vote for a dem before him, because he is not what I want to see as the future of the party. I hated Evans, Spellman, Gorton and all the other friggin RINO's that we have elected because they were all we as Republicans COULD elect. The 9th is safe, it is going to a repub no matter what. I see no need to compromise my values to put mama's spoiled little brat in place.
Posted by: Izzy on August 12, 2005 11:39 AMWhy should Reagan have to "move" to take on another candidate. That never serves anyone well. Reagan has grown up here. This is his home. Republicans had less to do with the redistricting than the Dems. That's the problem, whoever is in the minority when redistricting occurs will find themselves in a worse position than before and that is what is happening here. Two R's squaring off against each other. Now we have to choose who is more qualified.
Posted by: District 9 Voter on August 12, 2005 11:48 AM
Two R's squaring off against each other. Now we have to choose who is more qualified.
I disagree. We need to choose who will best represent our interests. The Council is a legislative body and the councilmen are representatives for the citizenry. King County Council seats do not require bureaucrats. We in rural King County do not believe that Reagan Dunn can represent our interests as effectively as Steve Hammond. Reagan is a RINO.
P.S. Noticing a lot of Reagan Dunn signs popping up on public land out here in God's country. Must be those hard-earned dollars at work...
Posted by: Huckleberry on August 12, 2005 11:58 AMWe in rural King County do not believe that Reagan Dunn can represent our interests as effectively as Steve Hammond.
If I remember correctly, one of the amendments that Steve offered up about the CAO was something to the tune of "Seattle residents can no longer mow their front yards." This wasted time on legislation only serves to harden the city's view of rural areas. No one likes to work with Steve. He's abrasive and accomplishes nothing. Reagan is a more effective policy-maker and negotiator, and is a better candidate to serve South King County.
Posted by: District 9 Voter on August 12, 2005 12:05 PM
This is what I'm talking these are 2 more
things that I here alot about reagan dunn.
I will conceed to both of you that reagan
dunn was indeed first to call for dean logan's
resignation.
What has always bothered me about this
is that reagan dunn waited until 2 weeks
before the district caucus meetings to
do this.I believe this was a calculated
move on reagan dunn's part to get the media
and everyone else's attention.
Reagan could have done this many weeks
earlier but he waited until then do it.
In other words he was grandstanding.
Now as to whether or not steve hammond
was forced out of the CAPR.First of
all you perputrating a myth that I
have heard many times over.The fact is
the reason he won at the convention
is because those people were energized
to come out and vote for steve.
I will go out on limb here and say if you were to
ask almost any of the members of CAPR they
would say if wasn't for steve hammond
they wouldn't exist.
As to whether or not reagan dunn is
stronger on property rights.My biggest
problem with reagan dunn is that he won't
take position on it.
Everyone time I have been informed he has
spoken to an organzation and this subject
comes up he dances around the issue.In fact
I personally heard him once myself. Reagan
just wasn't convincing.
You ask what has hammond done lately?He
has been there for these people and he will
continue to be.He isn't using this position
as way to move on to something bigger.Which
I submit is exactly what reagan dunn is
doing.
This for reagan dunn was never about serving
the citizens of the 9th district.Is about reagan
dunn and the advancement of political career.
Steve is going around trying to say that he planned to call for Dean Logan's resignation the same day, but Reagan just got the press for it. So would you concede that if Reagan was trying to politically grandstand, then Steve was trying to do the exact same thing?
Posted by: District 9 Voter on August 12, 2005 12:11 PMAnyone can plant signs on public property, It just takes money. What's important is to look for the signs on private property - that takes permission and shows interest and affinity.
First of all district 9 voter you use what I
call the Alan Colmes defense.You don't defend
what your guy did.What you say is well the other guy
did the same thing so its ok.As though that absolves
reagan dunn from what he did.
I have been in alot of meetings with
steve hammond I never heard him say any such
thing.But if he did it was wrong.
That still doesn't change what reagan dunn did.
Sweetnsassy
Your going to tell me that 35 people were sent
to the wrong room?Its amazing the lengths you
dunn supporters will go to justify him staying
in the race.Reagan dunn never put any conditions
on staying in the race. Only if he won.These
various reasons and excuses continue to pop up.
I guess if one reason doesn't work we will
just try something else.
You miss the point. It's not just that delegates were sent to the wrong room, but MORE ballots were cast than DELEGATES on the list. (I would italicize it, but I just don't know how, not meaning to offend with caps). That speaks of sloppiness in the counting process and the caucus. It's better to just have Reagan and Steve do what Dino and Christine should have done, another election.
Posted by: District 9 Voter on August 12, 2005 01:08 PMThe problem with Reagan is that he is too much of a politician and doesn't have a public opinion until after his pollsters sample the popular opinion. Reagan is a spineless jellyfish going with the current much like his neighbor Jane Hague. In my opinion we need more philosophically pure and predictable candidates like Steve Hammond, David Irons, and Kathy Lambert. I vote for people whom I can trust to be consistent, firm, and spiritually/morally rooted.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on August 12, 2005 01:37 PM Michael young addressed that situation
not long after the convention.He believed
that the alternates were inadvertley
seated.No one did anything to cheat.
I remember that idiot attorney that
reagan dunn had there to watch
the count.After the count was done he
actually said when the numbers were off.
to the parlimentarian. Spoken like a true
gregiore supporter.It was amazing all
the parlimentarian did was remove the
extra votes it didn't change the outcome.
I love how you guys try to compare this to dino rossi's
situation.There's just one big difference
here. Dino won two counts before it was
taken away.that didn't happen here.
Yeah I guess they could have voted again but it
would not have changed the outcome.
I did meet Kirby and that was the highlight of the day.
I personally think the past strategies have not worked and it's time to put heads together and re-think. Focus on winning and take back King County. We don't do that with mamby-pamby candidates.
I heard J. Dunn was very dissappointed that Regan didn't win. I don't blame her. After everything she did for us, we just flipped her off. Sorry Jenn.
Posted by: chardonnay on August 12, 2005 04:05 PMI'm sure Steve is a nice guy, but we need someone tough that can stand up to the rampant Ron Sims mentality in King County.
Seriously, show me a politician that doesn't have an ego. Remember who the enemy is. The Dems eat R's for breakfast.
Whether Dunn wins or not, I'll never vote for him for any office to which he appears on my ballot. I don't need people who cut back-room deals in favor of "self" over the "whole."
If you think Dunn is savvy (I believe that was the word Shark used), go to PDC and check out how much money he spent in his losing effort for the party nomination. I believe it was over $100k. There were maybe, what... 400 PCO's voting, $100k spent, and not much to show for it. That's not savvy... that's borderline "Democrat." But, what do you expect from someone who cuts deals with Jane Hague.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on August 12, 2005 04:32 PMWhy exactly does anyone think Julia Patterson's going to be a pushover in an election, unless they are drinking Republican Kool-Aid?
She used to represent the 33rd LD for a good long time, and that district is the core of her King County district. Now, back in the 80's and early 90's, it was a swing-to-R district, then Julia got elected as it, like many other Puget Sound suburb districts, started leaning D. It now has 3 Dems representing it- Senator Keiser's a former labor lobbyist, and Rep. Upthegrove is openly gay. So it's not exactly Eastern Washington, or even the outskirts of Pierce, Snohomish or King County.
The 5th Council District gets her old LD, a lot of the 11th (Renton, also a strong D district), and the 47th (which is swing, but starting to lean D a bit).
I'd bet you a nickel John Kerry beats 55% of the vote in the precincts that make up that new district. How that translates to an easy win for ANY Republican...well, you got me. Could a R win there? Yeah, given a pushover race, but Patterson's not going to be a pushover- you're fighting demographics of not enough R's, absent a major scandal, and she does have a record that agrees with the district. You'd be better off supporting a sharp reform-minded D, like Bob Ferguson kocked off Cynthia Sullivan and Carolyn Edmonds. THAT could happen against an entrenched D incumbent.
Posted by: eponymous coward on August 12, 2005 05:27 PMI don't think that Steve is one to be eaten for breakfast. He stands his ground and supports his constituency. Come election time, I'm sure that the voters will remember that Steve has been very steadfast in his support. We already know Steve's stand on issues such as Tent City and CAO. Tell me how Dunn stands on these issues that confront this constituency--he waffles. Has Dunn taken a strong stance to push back these issues if elected?
By the way, if you go to the King County TV archives and watch the KC Council meeting where Dunn was interviewed to fill a vacant seat you will see a very uncomfortable Jane Hague asking Dunn why he wants the temporary position and if he has intentions to run for Council Seat again. Prior to this meeting, there was a great deal of speculation on another blog that some groups were thinking of supporting Dunn against Hague. This line of questioning was so apparent and preceded the re-drawing of districts.
I'd rather vote for R's that make D's hungry for breakfast than for R's that will sit at the table with the D's.
Calling Dunn a RINO, or Jane Hauge a do nothing, vote with the democrats Republican is just so much nonsense. The difference is in people's styles, methods, and occasionaly they disagree on the issues. You know it reminds me of how people call McCain a RINO and then say they plan to vote for Guliani. Now I like both men, but there is no doubt that McCain is a true blue conservative- sure he's a bit ornery, and his foresight on campaign finance leaves a lot to be desired- but a reasonable person can not deny he's much more conservative than Guliani.
In the same way, both Dunn and Hague are more conservative than David Irons. The difference is that Irons is very confrontational about the conservative positions he takes. Hague and Dunn tend to be "establishment" Republicans. They feel just as strongly about conservative principles. (For example, Hague is spitting mad in private about the election fiasco, I think she feels that it's a personal insult, since she used to run the place. She reminds me of my grandmother- even angry, she was very polite, but you knew not to cros grandma when she was upset.) However, they feel the best way to succeded in getting substantive change (as opposed to complaining loudly and feeling better, but not changing anything) is to work within the system.
Now I don't always agree with them- I think we need some confrontation this election- but that doesn't mean that they aren't useful at times. I sort of view polititions with different styles as different tools in our Republican tool kit. One tool for this job, and that tool for another. Dunn and Hague have their place. Irons and Hammond have theirs.
I think that with Jane Hague we have sufficent insiders on the Council right now, and we could use a true rural man like Hammond, instead of Dunn. That does not mean I wont vote for Dunn in the future, but he's not my pick for this office- and I don't have to call him a RINO to justify my decision.
Posted by: madmartagan on August 12, 2005 08:50 PMa) have a vote on the Council during redistricting (he started after the redistricting)
b) wasn't at any of the redistricting meetings
c) wasn't even the nominee of the Republican Party to fill McKenna's seat until mid-January when the redistricting was done?
And if he did gerrymander the districts, why would he cut himself into a district that had so many supposed 'rural' delegates that he didn't win the convention?
Just curious, because I've been hearing this 'gerrymandering' argument since about January and it still doesn't make any sense.
-Enron Sims
Posted by: Enron Sims on August 12, 2005 09:43 PMWell said Elvis.
Posted by: 4pawz on August 12, 2005 09:59 PM Well said,Mr Rowley has said he will do whatever he has to
get reagan dunn elected.What I find most
interesting about rowley is the last time
around he supported steve hammond.
Rowley donated a substancial amount of
money to hammonds campaign.This time well
we know why.I hope there is a debate between
these 2. Its certainly needed, I'm sure
it would be standing room only if happened.
Well..Because - She's an idiot.
No one in her newly designated district boundaries like her and she appears to be on drugs during the televised King County Council meetings....
In addition to all of that.......Julia is a liberal Democrat with a hefty appetite for spending our tax dollars!
Julia Patterson's biography is not reflective of her attitude or ethics since serving on the KC council. I am just left shaking my head! She SHOULD know better! With her work history and education - she should be a different person. Yet - she is a loopy liberal who signs on to anything Larry Phillips and the rest of the foolish liberals on the KC council present! Has anyone performed a background investigation on her? Is that a requirement for office? It should be!
Julia Patterson simply must be booted out of office this election. Some of her area covers Sea Tac (a growing problem) and East Kent (I'll bet not many Kent residents know this!)....
Too bad Reagan Dunn didn't sign on against Patterson! I would have voted for him.! Steve Hammond is definitely the best man for rural King County! Orin Wells is running against Patterson. Check out his website www.orinwells.com.
Posted by: Deborah on August 12, 2005 10:36 PM That's telling them allright.But when your
right your right.I agree orin wells is a good
man. He seems to have pretty sound strategy
as well.Since I'm in the 5th district we will
see how it goes.
Keep those kind posts up I like it.
I mean that.
Rowley isn't just close to Dunn - he's close to *a lot* of Republicans. You still didn't answer the question: if Dunn had successfully 'gerrymandered' the district to suit himself, why didn't he make a better district for himself that would've included more Bellevue delegates? It doesn't make sense to craft a district that wouldn't allow you to sweep the convention.
In fact, Rowley also gave a lot of money to CAPR. So I don't think smearing Rowley makes any sense either.
All I hear is a conspiracy theory. It's too bad you have to play the smoke & mirrors game.
Everything I've seen from Dunn so far has been great. He opposed the gas tax: good. He opposes the CAO: good. He wants a rural ombudsman that will protect our property rights: great. He was the first to ask for Dean Logan's resignation: superb. He asked for a non-partisan canvassing board: awesome.
And on top of that, he's a former federal terrorist prosecutor.
He has my vote.
-Enron Sims
Posted by: Enron Sims on August 12, 2005 11:43 PMPolitics can be and is a dirty game and it gets even more dirtier when one of the candidates has a whole lot of money. They can increase their dirty tricks exponentially.
I received an e-mail from a gentleman who participated in a "quote-unquote" telephone survey from an anonymous solicitor, on the Hammon/Dunn contest in the 9th District of King County. Some of you may have already received this e-mail, or the survey. This gentleman's portrayal of the questions he heard is interesting to say the least. It is alarming, to say the most. This is his recollection of the survey.
Last night, I received a telephone call from a lady saying that she was conducting a "survey" about King County politics. I agreed to participate. When we were finished, I became very concerned and felt that this was not an appropriate survey by any means. What I am transmitting is not verbatim, but it is the gist of things.
She began by asking what issues I considered the most important in King County and I said "Repeal the CAO." She then asked if I recognized the name Steve Hammond and followed with a question if I recognized the name Reagan Dunn. Then she asked who I would have a tendency to vote for. Hammond! She asked the question again, with (maybe) slightly different wording.
She then read a statement that was supposed to describe Mr. Hammond and Mr. Dunn. She said Mr. Hammond was a former preacher, a member of the King County Council, etc. and then asked which of these attributes would most likely sway me to vote for Hammond. Then she read the statement about Reagan Dunn, with many glowing statements about his ties to Presidents Bush, Reagan etc. and asked if any of these would make me want to vote for Mr. Dunn.
Then came the most disturbing part. She read some statements about Mr. Hammond - all of which could be controversial or provocative - such as "Mr. Hammond has said women should not work outside the home." Then followed each with a question: "Would this make you more or less likely to vote for Mr. Hammond or have no impact." There were about four of these types of statements, followed by the same question. I wish I could remember more of them. But I do remember that she did not say anything about the CAO or Mr. Hammond's efforts in that regard.
Next, she did the same thing with Mr. Dunn. These statements were all in a much less controversial tone - such as "Reagan Dunn was the first to call for Dean Logan to step down following the election controversy," also, "Reagan Dunn has said that we must work to repeal the CAO." Sorry, I don't remember exact words on any of these, but I do remember laughing out loud a couple of times. Again she asked, after each statement, if these facts would make me more or less likely to vote for Mr. Dunn.
Then she again asked who I would be likely to vote for, after hearing these "facts." The entire survey seemed to be doing at least a couple of things - sew some seeds of doubt (for Hammond supporters) in the mind of the interviewee and also to assess how to formulate Mr. Dunn's "positions."
It was the most biased, smelly "survey" I have ever taken part in! I got a follow-up call from someone to "verify" the survey and I told him my opinion. All he said was "we'll make a note of that."
Now of course this is an assumption, but this so-called survey has Reagan Dunn's finger prints all over it. This tactic might work in the inner city, but it certainly won't work in the rural areas, because living in the country we have to put up with more critters than city folk do. And when we smell a "rat", it's still a "rat" by any other name.
Ron Ewart
Fall City, WA
This is very troubling yet not surprising.
Reagan Dunn has a lot to explain for.
Like I said before there needs to be a
debate between these two but I don't think
Reagan Dunn is man enough to do it.
This is so typical of his campaign.
I remember quite sometime before the
caucuses.Reagan had called steve a
preacher boy and to far to the right
to represent the 9th district.
Recently in interview with Kvi reagan dunn
told them he was the only real republican
in the race.That He had just as much support
as steve hammond so he every right to run.
There is only one candidate in this race
that has behaved in professional manner
and thats steve hammond.Its ironic that
reagan dunn and his supporters accuse
steve of doing the very things they do
themselves.
In any other county I was say this needs to be
brought to the attention of the county party
but in king it would be waste of time.
Since I would be willing to bet the farm
that they already know about it.
You reagan dunn supporters need to look
in the mirror and ask yourselves is the
really how we want to win?
In this case voting for a democrat rather than Dunn does not make sense. You would be shooting yourself in the foot because you would risk having a democrat majority on the council. So the same story would apply to the future that we are facing now. Not that I am saying one vote will tilt the table. (Even more doubtful in present King Co) But if your one vote is all you have, throwing it to the other side is very couterproductive. It would make more sense for you to get out and help Hammond get the vote. Donate to his camp, he does not get a lot of money from cronies in the east coast like Dunn has. Steve's money is coming from grass roots supporters. Send him a little or work for his camp. That would be the best way to go. That way you may not have to face the decision of voting for Dunn.
Uh, maybe you should read my post again.
Hint: Patterson was elected multiple times from the 33rd LD, which is the core of her current AND her new district- which hasn't elected a R to the Legislature for years. She got re-elected in the 33rd in 1994. You know, the year Republicans took over the Legislature and nuked a lot of D incumbents?
I realize that the Republican KoolAid and contempt for liberals is strong here, but I'm saying this as a political pro, not as a D: Patterson's district isn't a swing district- it's somewhere between strong lean and safe D. There are very few safe R bastions left in King County- basically, it's the 31st (Pam Roach) and the 5th (Rossi's old district). Even Bellevue and Mercer Island elect D's these days. Guess what? Those two LD's make up the County Council district Hammond and Dunn are running in (plus pieces of the 47th). THAT is why Dunn wasn't interested in taking on Patterson- serious uphill battle (in terms of the D/R generic split being 55/45 or so) compared to Hammond's district, which will probably elect R's for years to come quite safely, what with the urban/rural divide in King County.
Posted by: eponymous coward on August 13, 2005 01:48 PMWhat is at issue, and what IMO will be the determining factor will be the mood of the voting public.
Will they reward the dems for the graft, corruption and general pis-poor reputation by voting for simple-minded hacks like Patterson, or will they look to someone to try to lift us out of our predicaments?
The trend nationally is away from dems who have proven that they are the obstructionist, no new idea, do~anything~to~win party and towards conservatives (or at least Republicans).
Works for me....
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 13, 2005 03:02 PM
What makes you think I would care what do?
The only thing I'm concerned about is that
they both live up to the agreement they made
before this campaign started.As far as I can
tell only one them is.
In regards to king county what you described
isn't the problem here.The gop leadership
in this county constantly undermines the will
of its voters.As for just sitting around
you should know I have lived in king for
3 years.That entire time the precinct I
live in has not had a pco.
I have offered many times to be the pco
only to be turned down because the leadership
in this county party does not like me.
Now prior to living here I resided in skagit
county for almost 11 years.
During that entire time I was a pco,area chair
and the county yr chairman.The difference between
how the gop was ran there as opposed to king
is like night and day.I'm not saying everyone
got along all the time.The reason things were
successful is they a had chairman named mark
hulst who actually new how to lead.
What you have here is a joke.They continue to
let egos and pettiness undermine this once
great county party.Thats the reason its the
way it is.
I can't even believe someone actually said they would vote for a D over Dunn. Come on, get a grip.
Posted by: chardonnay on August 13, 2005 07:35 PM1. He lies.
2. He gerrymanders.
3. He's only 33 (34) so he can't possibly have vast experience.
4. Quietly embodies the pro-abortion, pro gay rights, economic left wing, get left-wing money of the GOP
5. Submitted some kind of nasty poll.
6. Didn't move into someone else's district to run against them (ie. carpetbag).
I guess the 11th Commandment really *is* dead. You are pathetic.
-Enron Sims
Posted by: Enron Sims on August 14, 2005 04:05 AM First of all we aren't the candidates.
They are the ones that agreed to this
set of rules.Just because you don't choose
to believe any of things doesn't make them
any less true.
Some of you people I just don't understand
You will chalk this stuff up to the belief
that its just politics.Well it shouldn't be
this way.Honor and character should still
matter.We should be able to expect that
out of are leaders.No matter who they are.
Because I win campaigns thats why you should care. I will do what it takes to win, not sit around and bitch like a 4th grader on the playground. I can now see why people do not want to deal with you. I offer an opinion and you start in with an attitude. You are part of the problem and not part of the soloution. I am certainly not defending the status quo in KC, but if you really support Hammond (or in this case, hate Dunn) get off your ass and go pound signs, lick stamps and make calls. All you want to do is offer your grnd opinion of the way things should be, but do nothing to affect outcomes.
Posted by: ranger06 on August 14, 2005 10:50 AM
I don't know what your so upset about.
For the record I do not hate Reagan Dunn.
You have know idea what it is I do here
Sir I have been helping on a lot of campaigns.
So don't judge me on something you know nothing
about.
My problems with Reagan Dunn are with him not keeping
his promises regarding this race .How can anyone
trust what he says or does.But I do not hate
him.If Reagan Dunn sent you over to sound
politics to try and shut me up.It won't work
because he doesn't understand why I do what
what I'm doing.
Sir we have serious problems within the king gop
and the state republican party.Between the two
of them there killing the party in this state.
If I have to yell from the top of my lungs so
everyone knows whats wrong with the gop in
this state and king county and how to fix it.
then that's what I will do!!
And know one including Reagan Dunn will keep
me quiet.
Posted by: phil spackman on August 14, 2005 11:31 AM
Come on people, lets try to keep our in house disagreements in house, and stay united against our philiposhical and political opponents.
Posted by: madmartagan on August 14, 2005 12:33 PM
That aspect is a small part of it.What bothers
me more is that Reagan Dunn and his supporters
continue to spout this garbage about how Steve
Hammond violated the 11th commandment,nor can
they back it up with any specifics.Thats because
Reagan Dunn knows it never happenend.
When in reality its Reagan Dunn and his supporters
who continue to take cheap shots at Steve Hammond
and those that would support him.What bothers
me more is that Reagan continues to let it
go on.For whatever reason he refuses to condemn
what is being said.
So I have no choice but to believe
Reagan Dunn is ok with it.Ranger 06
before you pipe in again and say this
is how its done.I don't agree that's ok to
do whatever you have to in order to win.
If your going to win, win honorably.Leave
the cheap shots and cheating to the democrats.
I will it say again there needs to be at least
one debate between hammond and dunn.
the questions need be answered by both of
them.Reagan the balls in your court.
We DON'T need a genuine momma's boy in political office in Seattle. Reagan rode the skirt tails of his momma all the way. And we'll will work hard to keep the momma's boy Dunn from gaining political office in our state of Washington.
Posted by: gorilla on August 14, 2005 04:20 PMWe DON'T need a genuine momma's boy in political office in Seattle. Reagan rode the skirt tails of his momma all the way. And we'll will work hard to keep the momma's boy Dunn from gaining political office in our state of Washington.
Posted by: gorilla on August 14, 2005 04:21 PMThat wing of the party is successful by disquising themselves as conservative on everything else so they can get your vote and once in power, weaken the party's stand on abortion. They have succeeded while we haven't been paying attention. They purposely avoid the subject and encourage even pro-lifers to stay away from the subject so that we will all just believe that all Republicans are basically the same.
If you care at all about ending abortion, you'll be smart and not give any of them your vote. And by the way, when you dig far enough, you'll find that they're not conservative on much of anything else. Don't let they're empty rhetoric fool you. And what good is it to elect another Republican if he doesn't act like one other than when it suits him getting elected?
And where's that big name Democrat that they were supposed to have running in this race? That was just a scare tactic that was repeated through the campaign proceeding the convention and I still see it posted here to this day. Let's get a real conservative elected and defeat these scoundrels once and for all!
Would someone please give me an example of Steve Hammond's so-called "dirty campaign"? If you ask me, I think he's had only nice things to say about his opponent and everyone else in the party stabbing him in the back. "A Real Class Act" he is, unlike his opponent who got called that by Hammond at the convention when Dunn shook his hand in congratulations for WINNING the NOMINATION. Perhaps he should have waited before handing out such a nice compliment.
The way I see it, judges should not be making such decision anyways, because the issue of abortion really comes down to a question of facts, not law. Is an embryo a living human being? or is an embryo of some intrinsic value because it will become a human being? That's not an issue of law for the judical branch to interpert. It is a question of fact- and there for a question for the legislative branch to decide. (I personally feel that embryos do have intrinsic values- and therefor support government restrictions).
If you've ever read Roe vs Wade, you'll find it doesn't make any sense at all. The first half reads like a decision upholding anti-abortion laws. The SC admitted that the state had a important reason to be involved in the abortion decision- then all the sudden, the SC says that the state can't interfer 'because I [the SC] say so'. It really is an atrocious legal document.
Posted by: madmartagan on August 14, 2005 07:26 PMPerhaps the label "pro-abortion" is offensive, the truth often is (as you have learned when speaking out about Dean Logan, Ron Simms and all of their cronies). But it is definitely not dishonest! To promote laws that allow the murder of innocent human life is pro-abortion. And it's one thing to not care about the issue very much, but quite another to selectively promote candidates who vow to defend such laws.
Madmartagan, I agree with part of what you say. I have read Roe v. Wade and you're right, it is an atrocious legal document for the reasons you point out and more. I also agree that the legislative branch has every right and ability to decide. It makes one wonder why they haven't, especially with Republicans in the majority right now. I'd differ on the issue of judges deciding though. The constitution may not say anything about the particular method of murder: abortion, but it certainly says plenty about infringing on other's rights of life, liberty and persuit of property. And just as the Dred Scott (a decision based on doubt of personhood) was overturned, so can Roe v. Wade.
Anyway, curious as to why you brought up judges and this issue, since we are discussing the candidacy of a potential county council member with the potential of moving up to other elected offices?
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on August 14, 2005 09:37 PMWould it be less offensive to you to call it "pro-abortion-choice"? After all, "pro-choice" can mean many things, ie. pro-school-choice.
BTW, Where were all of these so-called "libertarians on abortion" when the phrase got voted down from the Republican platform at the 2004 convention, "we oppose all public funding of abortion"? I believe you were there. How did you vote? Just curious, do you oppose the Federal Dept. of Education? That would be a "limited government" position.
Watch out, next thing you know they'll be calling you a RINO.
Posted by: Enron Sims on August 14, 2005 10:58 PMThe state of Washington is up to their eyeballs in abortion. The majority of the politicians that run the state, if not truly pro-abortion and in active support of WA NARAL are simply unwilling to do anything to slow this industry down -- They fund it to the tune of $11 million dollars a year; they promote it on the state web site and in their "health" clinics; they won't let parental notification or waiting periods get out of the health care committee even though the citizens of the state and women who've been through a crisis pregnancy and had abortions support that kind of legislation. The reason all the these things are pro-abortion is because the help the abortion industry NOT women. Maybe you aren't pro-abortion but I think that being consistent as a limited-government conservative means fighting just has hard to stop the politicians from spending money and resources on ALL their wasteful and harmful projects -- including abortion. Speaking of which, the state of Washington has opened themselves up to a huge, huge, lawsuit once the truth about the harmful effects of abortion are studied and document. It may take this current generation of abortion supporters and their morally bankrupt whacked-out 60's politics fading away before the truth will make it to the public but believe me, it's coming. You certainly can't support the state taking that kind of financial hit.
Another thing you should know -- Despite what Marcy Bloom of the charming Aradia Women's "Health" Clinic, WA NARAL and the Seattle newspapers say -- We have legal abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. We have roughly 25,000 abortions a year in this state. Once Roe v Wade is overturned you are going to see the number of abortion clinics and abortions in this state skyrocket. How many of those abortions will the state fund? How will we be able to regulate an industry that is harming our citizens and has been so untouchable in this state?
Thanks to the SC we can't do very much through the legal/criminal justice system to prevent abortions but there are "libertarian" and "limited-government conservative" things we could do -- like stop the funding, quit pushing girls and teenagers into the abortion clinics with the false idea that abortion is equal to pressing the reset button, and quit acting as if any legislation that doesn't grease the rails into the abortionist's office is somehow a tragedy for women's rights.
Good hearted people, some of them libertarians and limited-government conservatives want to know how to get the state of Washington out of the abortion business. The question is -- is Reagan Dunn willing to help?
Posted by: Mary E. on August 14, 2005 11:35 PMThis is off topic but I cannot let it pass. While I agree with much of what you say, I can't let one of your statements go without comment. You say, "And just as the Dred Scott (a decision based on doubt of personhood) was overturned, so can Roe v. Wade."
Unless you mean that the substantive effect of Dred was superceded by the 13th Amendment, Dred Scott was never overturned, and it was not a decision based on "doubt of personhood." It never addressed or even discussed personhood in any way, but it was the first of many perversions of the Fifth Amendment procedural due process clause into substantive due process by an activist Supreme Court. For this reason, it is important to make some careful distinctions. See, The Tempting of America by Robert H. Bork.
Dred Scott was judicial activism par excellence perpetrated by Justice Roger Taney that essentially took the 5th Amendment Due Process clause and poured substantive effect into it. Effectively it said that because slaves were property, and property rights were protected, no state could deny anyone from possessing such property in any state. Ultimately, Roe v. Wade was founded partially on the distant standard of judicial activism in Dred, this time perverting the 14th Amendment due process clause.
My point is that slavery was both legal and constitutional at the time of the Dred Scott decision and while Dred Scott was a bad decision, it was not bad merely because it buttressed slavery. Slavery was legal then and thereafter, but Dred distorted the power of the court. While the 13th amendment was later created to ban slavery, Dred Scott stands today as precedent establishing a substantive due process application of the 5th Amendment, thus perverting the idea of procedures as equaling substance. In effect it prohibited the states from fulfilling their primary role by instructing America that neither Missouri nor any state or group of states was allowed to prohibit men from owning slaves in their state as property based on bullshit.
Issues such as slavery and abortion were deliberately calculated to be decided politically by the legislature and not by the judiciary (in the public arena). Thus Taney substituted his judgment -through a perversion of the constitution- for that of the people through the legislature. It is really too bad that more people do not understand this because the same basic problems are arising again.
Roe v. Wade prohibits the legislatures of the states from fulfilling their primary roles because some few Supreme Court Justices invented a “Right of Privacy.” This right does not exist in the Constitution but in the minds of some lawyers based on a penumbra, based on a passing inference, based on a vapor, based on wishful thinking, but certainly not the U.S. Constitution. Justice Brennan and the court again substituted their judgment for that of the people. They are creating new “rights” as we speak because we are too ignorant to recognize the incremental undoing of the Constitution in the face of emotionally charged positions.
I encourage everyone to re-check the facts about this issue with more accurate historical and constitutional understanding because it is important that we all understand it thoroughly in order to defeat those who argue for Roe v.Wade. Roe v.Wade is really not about abortion, but what J.S Mill called the “tyranny of the minority,” here more aptly termed the “tyranny of the judiciary,” and the deliberate migration of the judiciary away from its assigned power to hold judgment toward that of making law.
Exile, please let me know if you think I am wrong about this because I find it to be a crucial issue in all of today’s political dialogue.
Re Dunn v. Hammond. Both good men. Sad. Conservative Republicans need to be united in the face of this liberal mess, or we will lose again and again to united liberal morons. That is how we get a moron like Patty Murray in the U.S. Senate. Unbelievable.
Thanks.
They further went on to refer them as "an article of property" and "held and bought and sold as such". That is strikingly similiar to the way we treat the unborn today, no? Not as persons who are endowed with unalienable rights by their creator. The Dred Scott decision also sounded as if the rights were endowed by the government, not our Creator.
As far as Dred Scott being overturned, I had the impression it was (does someone know the answer to this). Even if it was not overturned by the court, you correctly point out that amending the constitution took care of it which gives a great argument for amending the constitution for serious reasons. You also suggest a point I agree on, that decisions like slavery and abortion were designed for the legislature to decide. That's why I get so frustrated with Republican politicians who say things like I'm not running for Supreme Court when asked about abortion.
This is why we need to determine whether our nominees are truly pro-life and then unite behind that one nominee. This is why I can't support Reagan Dunn.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on August 15, 2005 12:52 PMWe could sure use another President Lincoln today, couldn't we? Can you imagine if a President were to say he will ignore a SC decision?
Posted by: Republican in Exile on August 15, 2005 09:32 PMHere is the problem is I see it. There are two important lines of reasoning involved. One involves the political (constitutional) problem of slavery, the other is associated specifically with Dred Scott v. Sanford accurately viewed as a legal decision in effect and force of law. Let's examine both carefully.
As you observe, the “principle” involved is primary here. While you are correct in saying that dialog within the text of the decision discussed the status of slaves and what could be aptly termed their "personhood," this "dicta" was not dispositive in any way and in fact had nothing principally to do with either the inception of the case or its outcome.
"Although some details of the litigation’s beginnings remain fuzzy, overwhelming evidence indicates that the slaves [Scott and wife] sued only for freedom and not, as some charge later, to challenge slavery-oriented political issues." See The Supreme Court of United States, Oxford University Press, Inc., p. 760, par 1 (1992)Dred Scott was not an issue of slavery itself, but one slave’s application for freedom in a free state. “Sanford's attorneys injected additional issues into the federal litigation, including Scott's ability to sue in a federal court, raising the issue of a black person’s claim to be a citizen of the United States.” Id. Statements were made by many that stirred up considerable cause for controversy. Very common in legal decisions, obiter dictum (passing commentary) while interesting and sometimes instructive, is by definition never intended to be dispositive. Though harsh sentiments eventually led to the Civil War, they had nothing to do with the actual disposition of the Dred Scott decision.
To assert that Dred Scott "Denied all black people status of citizens on the basis that Negroes were not human beings but were all property" is inaccurate and inapt. The fact of the matter is that slavery was legal in half of the states at the time of the Dred Scott decision including Missouri where the action was filed, and illegal in the rest. The court did not deal with, nor did it have the authority to deal with the question of the legality of slavery as a national issue. The question of slavery itself was and is a political one, not a legal one, and because the Supreme Court’s power was and is limited by the content of the Constitution, they knew it at the time. Initially it was believed that the court would simply exercise its “judicial restraint” and ignore the issue turning it back to the state. Instead they skirted the issue and ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional based on 14th Amendment “Substantive Due Process.” Nevertheless, asserting that Dred Scott “never had an effect on actual reality” ignores the fact that the decision brought about the deaths of over 200 people in Kansas, the “Pottawatomie Creek Massacre,” and the ultimate political solution it called for – civil war.
The reason that I belabor this issue is because a similar important and misleading dichotomy exists with respect to Roe v. Wade that existed in understanding the effect of the Dred Scott decision. The real issue in both Roe and Dred was not the incidental substance of the decision (abortion or slavery), but judicial activism. Neither abortion nor slavery was proper subject matter for the Supreme Court because the issues were not constitutional in nature at the time of the corresponding decisions.
If, as some suggest, the court in Dred Scott had found that slavery was illegal, it would have been a clear injustice of the worst kind. Since the Constitution allowed slavery in half of the United States at the time, the court had no business deciding the issue of slavery either way. Further, the court was not empowered to prohibit the legislative authority of Congress to create the Missouri Compromise (as they did) because there were no legitimate constitutional grounds upon which to do so. The founding fathers clearly recognized issues such as abortion and slavery as political ones to be solved by political majorities, not insular minorities (Supreme Court Justices). In order to declare slavery illegal, Justice Chaney and the Supreme Court would have had to completely overreach their Constitutional authority and make law, rather than review it. As it was, they overreached in declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
The lesson that must be learned from Dred Scott is not about the morality of slavery or personhood, but the distinction between appropriate Constitutional political processes and the separation of powers. This doesn't forsake morality, but place moral efficacy in the proper hands—the legislature as consistent with Constitutional authority. The American people’s ultimate freedom and security depend on the integrity of its political processes, and the judicial branch has completely overreached their authority under the Constitution.
Fundamental rights are endowed by our creator but in the American Constitutional political process, majorities have the power to enact the creator's intent. Our founding father’s enacted the Constitution to be held intact until changed by the will of the people, not perverted by lawyers in black robes. This political process existing within the 5th amendment of the Constitution allows amendment of the Constitution to effectuate change as it is called for. Amendment, used in more than a few instances in our history (including 13th Am abolishing slavery), is difficult enough that will not be used hastily, but nevertheless useful to resolve what James Madison called, “extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults." See Federalist 43. Sec.8 Ultimately, long after Dred Scott was decided, the Congress through it’s duly prescribed powers and processes did what was supposed to be done and abolished slavery through the 13th Amendment, but the lasting effect of Dred Scott was judicial activism through Substantive Due Process.
Reasonable people disagree about abortion, but Justice Brennan and the Supreme Court in Roe insisted that you don’t have the right to have your say (vote) about it because they maintain that abortion rights are protected by the Constitution. This is not about moral issues or degrees of personhood but assignment of the power to decide them. Whether abortion rights should be protected or not is not up to the Supreme Court, but the open political process through the individual State’s legislatures. Dred Scott applied for his freedom in a free state of Missouri and (I believe) he should have been granted it, not because slavery was immoral, or reasoning within the text of the Declaration of Independence support freedom for slaves, but because it was the law in the State of Missouri under the Missouri Compromise and the U.S. Constitution.
Dred Scott was bad law that was never overturned as legal precedence, and politically it lit the fires of nascent abolitionism and civil war to change the face of America forever. Roe v. Wade, based on intentional misreading of the judiciary similar to those in Dred Scott, has done a great deal to divide us amongst ourselves, and it will cause a lot more damage before it is resolved. While I feel for the loss of life, I am more concerned about the mechanism that will either support or destroy it in the future; the American Constitutional process. In the light of current events, and especially as conservatives, we need to have a firm grasp on clear distinctions about these key legal and historical issues without which we may win small battles, but lose the approaching war.
Apologies if this seems off-topic, and thanks very much for the comments.
I think you inadvertently referred to the 14th Amendment due process clause in the above article regarding Dred Scott when you meant something else. Clearly, the 14th Amendement, adopted after the civil war, did not inform the Dred Scott case.
Posted by: barchester on August 17, 2005 09:44 AMYou are quite right. I meant 5th Amendment Substantive Due Process Clause, not 14th Amendment “Substantive Due Process.”
Thanks for the important correction.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 17, 2005 10:50 AMRegardless of what Dred Scott was originally about, it indeed upheld legal slavery and the text gives us clues as to why the activist judges decided that way. And the Constitution did not allow slavery, though it did not explicitly condemn it.
I am all for solving the matter of abortion politically. I wouldn't mind also if we had judges who strictly interpreted the constitution and didn't look to what other cultures are doing. Nevertheless, I'm pretty confident that if legalizing abortion would have been put to the legislature and the public for a vote before it reached the courts, it would have never been legalized. Unfortunately, the supposed authority of the courts has swayed some of public thought, perhaps enough to make it a risk. Though, I'd be in favor of a public campaign to sway them back. The polls are showing that most Americans favor restrictions on abortion, and many favor making it illegal. The problem is that many of our politicians (including too many Republicans) favor the opposite.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on August 17, 2005 06:45 PMRight on.
Exile,
The whole point here is that it is not up to judges, any judges, to make decisions about abortion, just as they had no authority to decide about slavery.
Under ANY RATIONAL interpretation of our Constitution, Slavery was legal until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Observe "persons bound to service," in Article 1 Section 3, and the reference to the 4/5ths rule. Indeed if slavery had not been allowed to remain as a compromise, we would not have a Constitution--at least not remotely like the one we now have.
Absent Roe v. Wade, abortion would be legal in predominantly liberal states and not in others as it should be because majority rule would prevail in the political process (legislatures).
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 22, 2005 05:29 PMNo pro-abort or waffler has been able to show with any logic (just opinion) when a newly-formed human cell (zygote) "turns" into a human being. Philosophy, which is logic, demonstrates that "any being of human origin is a human being." (Duh!) That first life certainly is not plant life, and it certainly will never be an animal. That first life is human life. It is in the first of many stages of the development of a human being, which development continues until death.
Therefore, pro-aborts and wafflers tolerate a policy of killing a life when they have no evidence that it is not a human life. This is espousig murder in intention. One has to find out for sure before killing.
Reagan Dunn and his mother are Roman Catholics. They claim that their stance on abortion is a Libertarian one, i.e., people should make up their own mind on this topic!! But, the Catholic Church teaches that any politician that tolerates abortion in his policy/teaching is self-excommunicated from Truth by his own rejection and flouting of the Truth. If the Dunns do not believe the Church has the authority from Christ to discern and teach the Truth, then they should have the honesty to take a stand and go through the official process of disconnecting from the Church, which they, through their lack of belief, already are.
Instead, Dunn publicly waffles and keeps one foot in both camps with his "Libertarian" stance, thus, pleasing the highest number of people. Obviously, his future career is his highest priority. I do not trust him to take a stand and advocate strongly for my property rights. Reagan Dunn is not a Steve Hammond!!
Posted by: Truth Through Logic on August 25, 2005 08:26 AMI have never gotten a better ansewr than,
"I like him and his mother."
" He is a lawyer."
"He has a lot of money to win."
"He is good-looking."
"I heard him speak."
"He was a Republcan since he was born and that is why he was named 'Reagan.' "
"He showed great courage in asking Dean Logan to step down." (Huh?)
"He and Ferguson (D) suggested an ombudsman for the rural property owners." (Huh?)
That is the extent of the thinking and knowledge of the issues by these mostly young Dunn supporters.