You just lost your right to vote at the polls. What rights will the newly Democrat county council use a party line vote to take away next? I don't know about you, but I'm on the edge of my seat.
Quite a few commenters here have recently questioned why they should support Republicans when they aren't conservative/libertarian/whatever enough for their tastes. Snohomish County just gave us all a very good answer to that.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at January 04, 2006 01:45 PM | Email ThisUnless you can figure out how to make absentee voting the exception rather than the rule, you have to deal with the change.
Didn't you notice the ratios of people voting absentee?
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 02:18 PMWith all mail voting, we need to see improvements in the laws surrounding ballot management. I had hoped that the laws would be reviewed and strengthened prior to going to MANDATORY all mail.
Oregon is currently the only all mail state. What has worked and what hasn't worked for them? How do our laws match up to theirs? (Such as all ballots are required to be received by election day).
I'd better go re-register just to make sure they have my current signature...
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 4, 2006 02:27 PMAnd BTW, NEVER EVER EVER put ANYTHING past an incumbent.
And yes, I am sick about the all-mail voting. Maybe I will FedEx my next ballot just to stick it to 'em.
PS to Aaron Reardon's staff. Please take me off the freakin e-mail list. I've unsubscribed, but every time I post on here I miraculously get back on your maling list.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 4, 2006 02:28 PMThanks
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 4, 2006 02:31 PMWhat a pile of s--t. Where are the students of history???
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 4, 2006 02:31 PMHere's your basic logical fallacy: Pointing to how Democrats vote says nothing about how Republicans, specifically liberal ones, will vote. There is not, nor will there ever be, any proof of how liberal Republicans would have voted had they been elected.
Your post is completely disingenuous and a backhanded slam against people who you otherwise can't defeat in a factual debate.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 4, 2006 02:46 PMI trust sideshow Bob about as far as I can throw him! He lied to us repeatedly a couple years ago when it was discovered that the ABSENTEE BALLOT counting machines were NOT COUNTING ALL THE BALLOTS!
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on January 4, 2006 02:48 PMHere is Kathy Lambert's contribution to the all-mail voting bandwagon. She, Fergie, and Patterson encouraged Ron Sims to explore all-mail voting options. (If memory serves, she tried to back track on this story, but not very effectively.) Among her short list of "Hot Topics" on her Council website, she lists ending homelessness, but not election reform. Hmmmm? Here is Ms. Lambert's greatest hits, the news stories she wants us to associate her name with. See how it oozes with conservative values?
Now let's turn to Reagan Dunn. Here's his greatest hits. Oooo, I see that in lieu of his representing my interest in county government, I get an actual, honest-to-God ombudsman (or should that be ombudsperson?). Please forgive me, but I would prefer a council representative. He sure seems to be playing a one-note song with all the meth hype. I don't see anything on opposing all-mail voting.
And here is Jane Hague. Look at all the conservative dogma she is peddling. Nothing against all-mail voting that I can see.
Finally, we have Pete von Reichbauer and his greatest hits.
Don't all four of these claim to be conservatives. (Well, maybe not the Reichmaster!) I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.
There is no way in hell this King County Council is going to refuse all-mail voting.
I'm a Democrat, and I feel this is very bad.
Posted by: Insider on January 4, 2006 03:44 PMAs an aside, I'm curious, where did you learn Basic Condescention? At my college, we learned the Advanced form, it's far more entertaining. You should read up on it.
Posted by: Timothy on January 4, 2006 03:47 PMP.S. Please, stop voting for Democrats.
Posted by: huckleberry on January 4, 2006 03:52 PMHowever, I know the effect is clear: mail voting results in increased fraud and error. Period. Everyone who knows voting knows this. The only reason to do it is to save money. The Democrats on the County Council, and Sideshow Bob, are willing to sell my right to vote.
(And speaking of which, Sideshow Bob's main issue last year was getting all-mail voting in place, and then he reports his final tally to the county, not making note of any problems that might affect the outcome, despite knowing full well that Stephens was being challenged, and that if Somers wins, then he gets his all-mail voting? Not to sound all conspiracy-ish, but this is more than a little fishy, and should be investigated by the state. Thankfully, our state AG is a Republican ...)
A relative of mine was a chaplain for an all-black college in Mississippi in the 60s. He was beat up many times for working to get blacks real rights to vote and participate. He was aghast when visiting WA recently and hearing we were going to all-mail voting, because he knows how much easier fraud is through the mail. He's seen it before.
Hell, we in WA have seen too, thanks to Stefan's work, how easy fraud is if you mail your vote to King County.
I do not think most of the Democrats who vote for this want to encourage fraud; but in fact, they do encourage fraud. It's like when Logan won't check out bad registrations: whatever his motive, he encourages fraud. This is not up for debate, it is fact: mail voting makes fraud much easier, and increasing the incidence of it increase fraud, and the chances of fraud.
And what's more sad is that even if their intent is not to encourage fraud, they are apparently not intelligent enough to see how much worse mail-in voting is, or that they just don't care.
Once again the liberal Republican argument that 'they have to get elected' is touted as the real solution. But they're not getting elected. Why is that? Could it be that voters in a representative democracy want someone who actually represents them? If I make a product and nobody buys it, it's my fault not the consumer's. However, if my product doesn't sell because my competition lies about it, pushes it off the shelf, or threatens me if I market it, that's a different matter.
As for your condescending, petty insult in reference to my handle - it's 'Republican (by default)'. That means that where there are no good choices, the one selected is the just the best of the bad, which isn't saying much. And for the record, the handle only applies to the WSRP. On the national level, I'm still decidedly Republican.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 4, 2006 04:22 PMI like Sax and wish he had won. I still get e-mails from him, but he was previously damaged by all the bad press. And the enviros really went after him, too.
So, the Rs didn't put up the right candidate.
1) I'm cool with condescension. This is the Internet, after all. But yours was some seriously cliched, simplistic condescension. "I learned basic logic in elementary schoool?" Come on, we should have higher standards here.
2) Who's the "teacher" in your analogy? And I'm sorry if I led you to believe I was making arguments in that other thread. I wasn't.
3) I'm honestly not sure which unelected liberal Republicans you're talking about, nor what exactly that has to do with anything. People who claim to want to see conservative principles hewed to by the government, but abandon the GOP at the drop of a hat, are simply unserious people. You sound like you're a bit more serious than that, which I appreciate. Grownups know how to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, even how to work hard to make sure that the lesser of two evils happens. I'm not talking to the grownups in the room, just those who threaten to torpedo what they claim to be their own interests if they don't get their way in all things.
4) Petty, I'll accept. But condescending? "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
5) Some advice: take a deep breath, and take life a bit less seriously.
Posted by: Timothy on January 4, 2006 05:12 PMBut in all seriousness, it's generally better to be in power than out of power all things being equal.
Posted by: Reporterward on January 4, 2006 07:02 PMTimmy: Was there actually a thought in your comment?
1) Once again, I was responding in-kind to your childish, backhanded bullying. If you don't want to be treated like a child, stand up and act like an adult. Debate the issue with your opponents, don't wait for an opportunity to slam them when you think you can get away with it. (P.S. You didn't)
2) The 'teacher' in that analogy was the onlookers who watched you lose an argument, some of whom posted their thoughts. It's so hard to tell the difference between your arguments and your liberal, rhetorical talking points. My mistake.
3) How many ways can you go wrong in one point?
a) The unelected liberal Republicans are the ones who aren't in the House, Senate, city and county councils. They're the ones that the WSRP floated as 'winnable', but then lost... almost every time.
b) "People who claim to want to see conservative principles hewed to by the government, but abandon the GOP at the drop of a hat, are simply unserious people." - The drop of a hat? We're talking about decades of broken promises, non-representative representatives, being taken for granted and then abandoned. Minimizing the extent of liberalism in the party, and it's effects, doesn't fly much any more. Nobody abandoned the GOP. It abandoned them.
c) "Grownups know how to..." - Why does this sound familiar? Oh, I know. It's the very thing you're criticizing me for. Condescending, cliche, simplistic. What's the difference between this statement and the elementary school comment I made? Or is this just more of the hypocrisy of the left?
d) "...hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, even how to work hard to make sure that the lesser of two evils happens. I'm not talking to the grownups in the room, just those who threaten to torpedo what they claim to be their own interests if they don't get their way in all things." - The only thing we're trying to 'torpedo' is the efforts of liberals within the party. 'Evil' is probably an appropriate word, considering the level of betrayal that has taken place in some cases (your word, by the way).
e) This isn't a temper tantrum. (see 3b above).
4) Disrespecting my choice of handles, and the statement it makes, is condescending.
5) Which is it? Do you appreciate my seriousness or not? Life I take seriously. The life of an unborn child I take seriously. The life of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis I take seriously. The life of innocent victims of crimes I take seriously. Those are the lives that the WSRP should be standing up for, yet isn't. Taking those lives less seriously will make us just like the terrorists we're fighting. Those innocent people only have one life, and if we won't stand up for them, who will?
Maybe that isn't what you meant. Maybe you just meant 'lay down and take it'. Sorry, not me. And not a lot of others who are speaking up and have spoken by not voting for the garbage candidates that the WSRP floats.
And just in case you didn't get it, I'll say it again. We're not winning! The WSRP is losing and taking the rest of us down with it.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 4, 2006 07:27 PMI was just about to step in and explain the analogy, but Republican (by default) is doing just fine, I see.
I don't think R by default is in Snohomish Co. so I'll give this little insight. I just moved here from King in September. So I'll give you my general impression.
The shift of power in the Snohomish Co. council happened due to the loss of Jeff Sax. I don't think you can blame this loss on those of who won't vote for a Republican because he's not "conservative/libertarian/whatever enough". It seems to me that Jeff Sax was plenty conservative and plenty principled. No, what we seem to have in the case of Jeff Sax is a perfect example of the double standard that exists in the WSRP establishment. When there is a Republican that is principled, the establishment does very little if anything to campaign with party resources or defend against the liberal press. Sax was getting smeared in the press. And yes, Timothy you and the Sno. Co. party gave tacid endorsement for Sax, but why didn't you put out an aggressive campaign for the guy to save his incumbent seat? I've looked in your blog archives and no where did I see any spilled ink over Jeff Sax.
And by the way, I agree with Republican (by default). We are not going to continue to support the WSRP candidates who are not committed to protecting human life. My religion does not allow me to do that. So if you want to call that a petty temper tantrum, go ahead. You can answer to the Author of my religion for that.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 4, 2006 07:56 PMThat is the perfect analogy of the liberal Republican losses.
"However, if my product doesn't sell because my competition lies about it, pushes it off the shelf, or threatens me if I market it, that's a different matter."
And a perfect analogy of what the WSRP does to many good Republican candidates.
Republican (by default), mega dittoes!!!
My argument is simple. Conservatives should support Republicans, even when they don't agree with them on many issues, because the alternative is much, much worse.
I'm not:
a) Accusing anyone of a tantrum (where did that come from?)
b) defending the actions/competence of the state party
c) saying we should elect Liberal Republicans. Who would I like to elect? Read here
d) Criticizing anyone for condescension. I'm just crtiticizing people for lame condescension.
Two quick things on Jeff Sax. First, while I obviously should have done more, I wrote more about Sax than I did about any other council race. Feel free to do a search for "Jeff Sax" either here or on my own blog. I also helped out at a Jeff Sax fundraiser I was called to in an emergency at the last minute, along with various other events that were held for both Sax and other candidates. To the extent that I know him, I consider Sax a friend.
The county party, too, worked pretty hard to get him elected. They blocked Stephens from the the convention to ensure he had no trouble there, and when the executive director had to leave her post, she went to work for the Sax campaign. Unfortunately, because so many people abandon their local Republican party because they don't like one candidate or the other, the Snohomish County party isn't exactly a political juggernaught. They had far less money on hand than the Sax campaign, but to say there was no "aggressive campaign" is either a lie or, more likely, just ignorance.
Now, seriously, everyone, take a deep breath and have a laugh. I was serious about you people taking things too seriously. It is a fundamentally liberal failing.
Posted by: Timothy on January 4, 2006 09:19 PMYou asked,
"I'm not:
a) Accusing anyone of a tantrum (where did that come from?)"
Let me remind you:
"People who claim to want to see conservative principles hewed to by the government, but abandon the GOP at the drop of a hat, are simply unserious people."
and:
"I'm not talking to the grownups in the room, just those who threaten to torpedo what they claim to be their own interests if they don't get their way in all things."
and I believe the accusation was made, using the word tantrum in the other aforementioned thread.
You also said,
"I'm not:
b) defending the actions/competence of the state party"
You use the identical rhetoric they do and complain that we don't support the candidates they put up while shoving the competition off of the shelf.
you also said,
"I'm not:
c) saying we should elect Liberal Republicans. Who would I like to elect?"
John McCain
Mike McGavick
Harriet Miers (you said we should not have opposed her appointment)
d) your not only are you condescending but proud of it, two terrible vices.
I do plead ignorance on Jeff Sax, for now. Like I said, it was my general impression having just moved here before the election. But the case you make for the Snohomish Co. party and an aggressive campaign opens up lots of questions. I'll look for the information available on it and get back to you.
I'm mostly referring to how Sax was smeared in the press on the issue of leaking the Brightwater deal to the public. Shame on him for believing the citizens ought to know what was going on behind closed doors and would affect their lives. Later it was determined that this leak was not illegal, but the press was very good at confusing the public on the issue. I didn't see the party sticking up for him on this. It seems to me that you (as the Sno. Co. website webmaster and blogger) and the party establishment just let him go down.
On election night, the press also made him look pathetic in those pictures of him looking "all alone" at his election night party. Where were the counter stories and pictures or was he really all alone?
I'm reserving judgement on Jeff Sax for now, but I think I'd like to know a little bit more about him. Being a seemingly conservative Republican dissed by the party establishment puts him in good company.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 4, 2006 11:02 PMIsn't this the same Snohomish County that just got through implementing all new eletronic touchscreen voting machines? I hope those can be sold to some other county or state so that WA taxpayers don't have to eat that cost.
Tim and the R party don't seem to understand people like us and work hard to get you and me into the tent.
It seems it is a "poor me" and "nasty them" for abandoning us.
Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2006 07:35 AMNow Sideshow Bob can see which ballots are from which precincts before being opened and can selectively say the signatures "don't match" and can print a few more ballots on demand for those tight races...a little grease to get the right guy over the top.
The credibility was lost by Sideshow and Logan and Reed, et. al.
The speed by which this was done after being voted down twice in the last year only lends credibility to the obvious that you needed to increase the opportunities to cheat the system because your ideas are far from Americas. The savings idea is a red herring so rotted the bones are showing.
At this point all we can do is get Sideshow Bob unelected the next time around...get Sax reelected when Stephens is in jail for fraud and shooting someone who laid pavement in "his" precious Maltby he does not live in and reopen the polls.
Sideshow has no idea what he in for… jail time baby when your caught….After all there is a state trooper from Mill Creek who is in the legislature who would never want to be elected by fraud right? He would enforce the state laws right? Oh wait no he to is a democrat!
Anyone want to help the retirement homes voters fill out their ballots?
Can you see the High School social studies teacher assisting with turning in ballots now?
Moveon just rented space in Everett like 500 little boxes. Now that provisionals can't be screwed with gotta just register all over and vote vote vote.
New contest for 2006 election. Winner is the one that can show the most ballots voted in Snohomish and King County. Send pixs to Dean Logan and Sideshow. Use D precincts...wait nevermind Soros already has us beat.
Bottom line folks we gotta turn out the real vote on our side so that when the totals roll in from the other 35-36 counties Sideshow would fall asleep at his desk remakring ballots but still could not get Arongant Readon elected Governor in 2012.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 5, 2006 07:45 AMExile-- As for who I'd like to elect, first, please note that you don't elect Supreme Court Justices. It's true that I prefer McCain to what appear to be the realistic alternatives (Clinton, Giuliani), and I'm in pretty good company in supporting McGavick (ie, Dino Rossi). Speaking of Dino, he's someone else I'd like to elect. That must make him a scary bad liberal. Doug Roulstone must be one, too.
Still no laughter, though. That's very sad.
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2006 08:19 AMWhat qualifies as the "Establishment" for the Republican party in Snohomish County was utterly behind him. He had more money than God, a massive array of independent expenditure support, and the full grassroots mobilization of the County party (for what it's worth in an off year election).
The Herald and the Times were beating up on Sax because he did something so dumb even his Republican counterparts on the Council, both conservatives who wanted to retain the majority, couldn't defend him. Which is a reminder that while Sax is staunchly conservative and principled, you need more than that to be a winning candidate. Sax lost by 6% to an unimpressive candidate he beat four years ago, that should tell you something.
You can fault the Republican party for not more aggressively pursing rumors that Stephens lived outside the County, but you can't fault them for lack of support because they were going to the mat for him in every way possible. And in the end, I don't think Stephens being removed from the ballot would have changed the outcome at all.
The criticism of Tim for not doing more blogging about Sax is silly. What readers of Soundpolitics or Tim's blog were undecided in that race? And if they were (in whatever tiny numbers they might have been), don't you think the unmissably visible campaign in the district itself - with more mail and yard signs than any County Council race deserves - might have caught more of their attention?
Yet, Rep in Exile's point is a reminder of the flaw in the logic of many of those that share is line of thinking. When Republican candidates they don't like lose elections they claim it's because the candidate wasn't conservative enough. When Republicans they like lose elections they always find a way to blame the party rather than the candidate. Where's the accountability there?
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 5, 2006 08:22 AMYou're making my point about the double standard. You'd be all over me if I said your candidate did something stupid. I didn't see the party going to bat for him.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 5, 2006 09:04 AMThe party put up the wrong day, didn't they? There was no vote; it was by the party hacks themselves.
I think the Rs screwed up by not backing Jeff (and I believe his story on the house issue) on the negative campaigning.
And who in the world was his campaign advisor? And no, he didn't have that much money, but he still had 2.5 times the cash as Somers.
Where in the world did the money go? Signs don't cost that much.
Somers, as far as I know, played it clean with respect to the building permit issue. So, how did he lose? If the voting machines were such a hot issue, why didn't Rs en masse saturate the area?
And truthfully, all Jeff got was 'attaboys' from the machine.
Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2006 09:48 AMJust because you didn't see the party go to bat for him doesn't mean it didn't happen. Most of what parties do to support candidates is not highly visible, short of TV or radio ads.
Moreover, I welcome criticism of "my" candidates. Example, I didn’t think Nethercutt was the best candidate ever, but he was light years ahead of Reed Davis - who posters of similar mindset as you at this site strongly supported. So I suppose that makes Nethercutt “my” candidate. And, I think he ran a terrible campaign.
Also, feel free to point out Republican candidates who you think were too liberal and I'll be happy to point out errors/weaknesses I saw. I'm an equal opportunity critic of candidates and officials, but just happen to strongly disagree with your self-stated line of thinking to select the best Republican nominees to win general elections in this state.
Swatter -
I don't disgree with the notion the party put up the wrong guy. I'd have preferred a candidate with less baggage.
But how did the party not back Sax against negative campaigning? Money poured to help him fight back, the party put a lot of effort in GOTV, and a lot of people gave of their time for grassroots activities to aid his campaign – which included fighting back against attacks he faced.
On a related note, your comments about Sax’s financial resources are off base. He had over 233k for his own campaign (compared to 132k when he won in 2001), plus hundreds of thousands in independent expenditures to support his cause. And that 233k is to the best of my knowledge the 2nd highest amount ever raised in the county for such a race, topped only by Koster's 240+k last year as well.
You should be able to run a great campaign across the entire county with that, let alone in just one of the five County Council districts. If you don't think that's enough money for a race of that size then you don’t have a good grasp for such precedent in the county.
As to the money itself, PDC reports show he spent a truckload of it on mail and staff…and for what’s it’s worth, a lot on signs. It looks like part of that included the Madison Group, which I would view as a colossal error, and a guaranteed way to overspend for services and products.
In the end, Jeff lost despite saturating the district with yard signs, and overloading people’s mailboxes, because he lost credibility with voters. Nothing else explains spending that much money and losing by 6% to the very same unimpressive candidate he beat by 4% the last time around.
And there you go again with your condescention. I know full well we don't elect supreme court justices. I was simply pointing out that you favor liberal candidates. I didn't say you never support conservative ones (when there's no alternative). As for Dino endorsing McGavick, he endorsed Chris Vance too...need I say more.
What makes you so sure that McCain, Giuliani and Clinton are the only realistic alternatives? Are you as confident about that as you were about Harriet Miers getting confirmed?
Eric,
As I recall, this debate started on this thread by Timothy's assertion that Democrats have control of the Snohomish county council because some Republicans chose not to support candidates who's "conservative/libertarian/whatever enough". I'm simply pointing out that it appears his assertion is wrong, unless you can put me in touch with the group of conservatives that torpedoed his campaign.
Your statement is very telling though. You call his move-to let the citizens know what was going on behind closed doors that would affect their lives and property-"so dumb that even his Republican counterparts couldn't defend him." Like I said, your making my point. Keep it up.
As I recall, this debate started on this thread by Timothy's assertion that Democrats have control of the Snohomish county council because some Republicans chose not to support candidates who's "conservative/libertarian/whatever enough".
Nope. I just pointed out one of the (many) consequences of having Democrats in power. As I noted before, some people have been arguing against lots of things I never said.
You call his move-to let the citizens know what was going on behind closed doors that would affect their lives and property-"so dumb that even his Republican counterparts couldn't defend him."
In my mind, the dumb move wasn't leaking the document (that's debatable). It was leaking the document to a Democrat. Alas, the lesson we should all learn from Sax's plight is that you can never trust Democrats.
As for the 2008 race, I'll talk more about that elsewhere in the future, don't worry. But for the moment, pretend I'm right about the viable candidates. Who's your pick from those three? I pick McCain because I think he's the conservative choice there, which kinda undercuts your point (ie, that I favor liberals). You can question my predictive abilities all you want, that's fine, but doing so doesn't bolster your initial accusation.
When I look at Republican candidates, my first question is, "can they realistically win?" Because losing elections does no one any good, and leads to things like all-mail balloting. My second question is "whose proposed policies line up best with my desires/beliefs?" Once I've determined those answers, I know who I support and encourage others to do the same.
If you think that's the wrong way to go about it, that's fine. If you think I'm wrong in my answers to the first question, that's fine too. But it might reflect better on you if you didn't question my sincerity on the second. I don't question your motives, only your judgement. It would elevate the discourse if you did the same.
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2006 12:33 PMIn that case, you abrogate your responsibility, and take yourself out of any position to influence the ultimate decision. That is an unserious--and, frankly a dangerous position to take.
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2006 01:31 PMTim already dealt with the premise issue, so I won't elaborate beyond saying that wasn't the starting point of his post, the angle of disgruntled conservatives was fleshed out later.
And of course no conservative element torpedoed Sax, he did that himself with non-hardcore conservatives. He was on shaky ground with a significant number of voters based on past behavior in office; committing an act that was illegal (but not worth prosecuting according to the Attorney General's office) and irresponsible on many levels simply cemented existing negative impresions of him. That's not making your point in the least, because my comments on his behavior have nothing to do with the policy debate about Brightwater. Moreover, your implied ends justifies the means mentality to justify his action is a poor match for the more purist political idealogy you've been espousing at this site.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 5, 2006 02:04 PMIt will take more than simply electing Republicans to correct this aggregious assault on our constitutional right to fair elections. It will take more than one election cycle. It will take a complete change from the the current culture in which Republicans vote for Republicans without first carefully examining a candidate's record, but simply because they are Republican. That kind of mindless thinking is what got us into this mess.
So my question to you is this, Timothy: Even with a Republican majority, do you really think that, given the current crop of liberal Republicans who infest the WSRP, that anything would change?
And my advice to you and all other starry-eyed Republican voters is that you renounce your faith in the current WSRP lineup and start redirecting that energy into restoring the party to its conservative roots by pressuring the party leadership to cease supporting any candidates who do not reflect a conservative paradigm. Unless we conservatives pull our support and make our presence painfully felt among the party hacks, the betrayal of our values will continue unchecked.
Until that happens, Washingtonians will continue to lose more constitutional freedoms, and the Republican party- and your blind faith in it- will be as much to blame as the most corrupt Democrat. If you continue to waste your money, your time, and your vote on the known quislings who have overtaken the party, you get what you deserve.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 5, 2006 02:30 PMAnd keep that fireball Kim Halvorson in the mix.
Posted by: swatter on January 5, 2006 03:25 PMAnd what ends did I imply justified what means?
Let me be clear. I have not said that the only thing a candidate needs to win is to be conservative. I have said that acting and voting like a conservative (including the fundamentals) is all he needs to qualify for US Senate. Winning a statewide election takes that and widespread support. That's what the party is supposed to do--once they've chosen their candidate in a primary or convention.
Tim,
I am simply refusing to pick one of those three, since they are not the only candidates, nor will they be. What you're doing-asserting that they are-is far more dangerous. But even if they were, my religion does not permit me to vote for any of them, atleast not without serious consequences. So again, you can take that up with the Author of my religion.
And you keep up the condescention, calling me to "elevate" to your level of discourse. I'm still laughing, you insisted. First I'm too serious, now I'm unserious. But if you prefer me to consider you foolish (in your judgements) rather than evil (in your motives), I can go with that. In fact, that is how I tend to lean as I've expressed to you previously.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 5, 2006 04:11 PMYou implied that the cause of fighting Brightwater and protecting the rights of local citizens justified the means by which Sax released the information.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 5, 2006 04:20 PMWord for word, I got Timothy's point. He sited the Snohomish Co. example of what happens when Republicans don't support a Republican who's not "conservative/libertarian/whatever enough". How many times do I have to say it? This is getting old.
On ends and means, I did no such thing. As far as I could tell, and again I do not have all of the facts (it would have helped if there was a counter explanation from the GOP), he did nothing illegal or unethical by leaking the information. The press made it out to be though. As Timothy says, the only thing "dumb" he did was trust a democrat (thinking she'd be concerned about the environmental concerns Brightwater would cause-only to find out that partisan politics was more important to her than the noble cause of protecting the environment). Yes, that might have been naive of him, but not unethical.
And by the way, I live in Snohomish and even have a PCO. I did not receive one piece of literature in my mailbox for any Republican. And furthermore, I searched for information on this issue from either a non-biased source or a Republican supporter somewhere, anywhere and found NOTHING!
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 5, 2006 04:33 PMThe Snohomish County Prosecutor asked the Attorney General's office to investigate to avoid conflict of interest. The AG's office had the Kitsap County Prosecutor's office handle the inquiry. They found Sax had committed a "a relatively clear criminal law violation." They also recommended not charging him because it wasn't clear a jury would convict based on the evidence. More info here:
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/25/100edi_editorial001.cfm
I'm sorry you missed the avalanche of mail that Sax and others put out to support his re-election. But it was there. You can confirm it by looking up at the PDC web site how much he, as well as the Quality Communities PAC spent on direct mail. I believe there was one other indpendent expenditure group that also did pro-Sax mailings but I don't know the name their organized under so thus can't look their expenditures up.
To do so, go to www.pdc.wa.gov, click on "search the database", and click on "detailed expenditures by candidates and political committees." There, select year 2005, then scroll through the options for Sax and the PAC (you'll have to do it separately). That will pull up a line-item of their expenditures...and you can see a ton of it went to mail.
If you didn't get any of such mail, it might be because a) you moved to the area recently, b) you're an infrequent voter, and/or c) you aren't an identified Republican...and depending on the mail program being run by a given campaign, you thus may or may not receive the mail in question.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 5, 2006 05:27 PM2) No, you and anyone else who interpreted it that way were just wrong. I said as much in my first response to Default.
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2006 06:50 PMI don't see many Republican leaders in this state that have the moral courage to do that- certainly not enough to win the majority. When I see them, I'll back them, whether they win or lose. I cannot say any fairer than that.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 5, 2006 10:06 PMI was up in North SnoCo and didn't get any mail from the R but did get one from the D.
The D was outspent 10 to 1 but still felt it important to get me some literature. That effort went a long way in my opinion.
What in the name of $@$@$ did the R spend his $200k?
Posted by: swatter on January 6, 2006 07:52 AMevery illegal alien and fraud perp will now vote with abandon & free of audits---legislators will say "this is what 'WE' all wanted, right?"
..scary...no turning back now...Pandora's Box opened...