The King County Republican Party Central Committee has endorsed Diane Tebelius for state party chairman.
I know both Fredi Simpson and Diane Tebelius only slightly. I like them both and think they're both capable. I'm not qualified to say which would make the better party chairman and I'll leave that fight to others. May the best person win.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2006 10:31 AM | Email ThisFreddi Simpson is a nice lady. But but she does not have the experience or the intellection to carry the WSRP through the financial and political challenges of the next year.
Posted by: AliciaCR on January 10, 2006 10:48 AMNeither Tebelius nor Simpson represent any such new direction for the Party, but a continued journey down the old road that has led us, not only to consistent defeats at every level (State Legislative, Statewide and National), but has left the State Party in such a hole of financial despair that none of the conservative and visionary candidates who contended for this office from November through January, 2004, will be running.
Diane is, at least, twice as intelligent as Freddi, but it won't make much difference. It doesn't matter how long or hard or how articulately you tell people nothing, it's still nothing. As a Party we have no message. Under either of these two we will not change that. We will, instead, seek candidates who "fit" districts and oppose initiatives (like 912) which work for change that could embarrass those candidates.
Mark Hulst did impress a lot of people last year--if he wants the vice-chair job, he'd be a strong candidate. He's still a strong candidate for the top job, for that matter, if he goes for it.
But if we do end up with a male vice-chair, whoever it is, I hope it's more of an outsider than either Simpson or Tebelius (as I've said before). Unfortunately, that means that, other than Hulst, I don't know who that would be--since, you know, they're an outsider.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 11:43 AMShe is a proven fundraiser -- a desparate need of a Party over $1 million dollars in debt; and she's fearless, going to Afghanistan as a U.S. election observer, risking her life to help bring democracy to the Afghan people.
The State Party would be foolish not to elect such a smart, fearless, proven leader with conservative credentials, who can also fix a tractor and run marathons.
She'll fix this Party!
Posted by: Carrie Lynne on January 10, 2006 01:14 PMThey'll have to both cover a debt of over a million, and rally the grassroots enough to secure a senate seat in a statewide election. There seems to be two major, conflicting problems:
- The 'grassroots' don't trust big money or those who are beholden to them,
- Big donors, usually from Western Washington, generally want influence for their money, which takes away from the influence of the grassroots.
As I see it, there is no middle ground. I say that partly because the party has been looking for it for decades and hasn't found it (as seen in House and Senate minorities). WSRP can continue to give in to the big donors' demands (as exemplified by the party elite) and continue to try to convince the masses that they're doing the right thing, which is getting more and more difficult with every passing legislative session. Or, the party can go full-tilt grassroots, find out if there are large donors who will support that effort, and see if voters in the middle (self-described Independents) will decide to follow the grassroots of the party in their (relatively) conservative, family-values trending.
Each time a new chair is elected, the party begins to drift in the direction that person thinks is the way to go. But none recognize that there is a huge fork in the road with only two tines, left or right. The middle has been used up in the recent past by all of the party's failures, and there's no way to convince one side to go over to the other.
Of all of the candidates, who will recognize the real state of affairs? I'm reminded of the difference between a dreamer and a visionary: both see the same goal, but the visionary sees the road to get there. Is there a visionary in the party?
Of the top possible contenders who have been mentioned in this race, Fredi and Diane haven't shown a connection with the masses, while from all reports Hulst has. Fredi has been right there near the top while the party spiraled downward, so I think a change is needed. Another comment said that Diane 'understands' that the grassroots are the backbone, but has she ever rallied them? Was Diane's fundraising from big donors or from a lot of little donors? By both his willingness to run against Vance and his loss to Vance Hulst has shown himself to be an 'outsider', which is what we need. While Diane has worked with the National party, Hulst has proven himself at the county (read 'grassroots') level. How about Hulst as Chair and Diane as Vice-Chair? Sounds like a win-win (grassroots and national).
The only question is will this party recognize the place it's in and the choice it faces at this fork in the road? Or will it continue to try to walk on non-existent tines that it pretends are in between the one on the left and the one on the right?
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 10, 2006 01:40 PMRCW 29A.80.020
State committee.
The state committee of each major political party consists of one committeeman and one committeewoman from each county elected by the county central committee at its organization meeting. It must have a chair and vice-chair of opposite sexes. This committee shall meet during January of each odd-numbered year for the purpose of organization at a time and place designated by a notice mailed at least one week before the date of the meeting to all the newly elected state committeemen and committeewomen by the authorized officers of the retiring committee. At its organizational meeting it shall elect its chair and vice-chair, and such officers as its bylaws may provide, and adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations. [...]
Unless you're referring only to February-December 2005, then this is an inaccurate statement. Previous to her election as Vice Chair, she was Dino's Chelan County Chair, which is why he's such a big fan, and was the Chair of the county party there--a county where the GOP has had even more success than they could reasonably expect.
I'm not on anyone's "side" at this point, but I want to make sure the facts being bandied about are accurate.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 02:01 PMCarrie: I would be a lot more comfortable with your characterization of Diane if there were more evidence of it than the pronouncements of Diane. Where has she demonstrated political courage? (I mean in some other way than taking a high-profile, politically neutral job traveling to Afghanistan under a constant protection of armed Secret Service officers that the Afghani voting citizens did not enjoy.)
Diane seems quite capable of cogent exposition of… any side of an issue that works for the moment, and, later, finding the value in the other side of the same issue.
So, in fact, if Diane were to commit herself to the conservative principles that are the foundation of Republican grassroots support and, in addition, to an ethical process in the conduct of the business of the State Party that, during the course of her term as National Committeewoman, has been blatantly and entirely lacking, she could be what you suggest. It will require a lot more than fund-raising. It requires a reversal of direction. She is intelligent and, perhaps, capable of that. But reversing direction would necessitate an understanding of what is wrong right now and she has not demonstrated the courage or vision to stand up against the political and ethical cesspool that has been the Vance Administration.
Is she a team player? Who does she think the “team” is? The grassroots conservatives who listens to conservative talk radio or the “moderate”/left establishment that constantly works to liberalize the platform, eliminate the grassroots from the candidate selection process and has Dino Rossi’s manhood under lock-and-key?
Ever wonder why no one takes you seriously? I present to you Exhibit Z.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 02:37 PMJust curious, who would you support in this race? It would be helpful if you could name names, even if they are not realistic options so we can accurately understand the kind of candidate you would support. Platitudes about who you would like to see and the inevitable disparaging comments about others doesn’t really get the job done in the end.
THIS SHOULD MAKE THAT PARRIS WACKO HAPPY ANYWAY
THIS SHOULD MAKE THAT PARRIS WACKO HAPPY ANYWAY
When Benton was Chair previously he raised a ton-o-money but was unable to keep the mainstreamers from tearing the party apart...but then again I guess they have done that under vance too.
Posted by: Duckhunter on January 10, 2006 02:53 PMI stand corrected. Yet that was the period that much of the debt was amassed. Did she have a hand in that? I don't know the in-workings but wouldn't she at least have to sign off on that amount of expense? And no, I'm not saying that fighting for clean elections in court wasn't worth it, but the way the case was conducted was a sham. That money could have been better spent, maybe on a different team.
Previous to her election as Vice Chair, she was Dino's Chelan County Chair, which is why he's such a big fan, and was the Chair of the county party there--a county where the GOP has had even more success than they could reasonably expect.
She's still an insider.
Ever wonder why no one takes you seriously? I present to you Exhibit Z.
And Timothy, with regard to being taken seriously, of all the things that Doug said you chose to take exception to that? It does seem consistent that when you're unable to refute the main points of your opposition, you either nitpick or make it personal. Maybe what he said about Dino was a little harsh, but come on, if you cant do better than that you might want to re-examine your stand. And in principle, I agree with him, Dino is a big disappointment these days.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 10, 2006 02:57 PMOur primary method has been publication of the truth.
With respect to our primary method, I believe we are undefeated. Timothy does not try to refute us, he just uses condescension and ridicule.
And our first two goals, lofty as they seemed, are now accomplished in less than two years.
We convinced the Censorship Agreement Committee, and by projection, the State Executive Board, that censorship is counterproductive to the Republican Party.
We convinced, both, Mr. Vance, and the liberal powers that be in the Party, that his continuance as Chair was counterproductive, to Mr. Vance and the Republican Party, respectively.
These have been the results of an intellectual exchange in numerous media including direct correspondence to which Mr. Goddard was, obviously (and for obvious reasons) not a party.
During the same period Mr. Goddard, by contrast, has demonstrated a pronounced willingness to accept the moderate/liberal/elite explanation for virtually everything, endorsed their left-leaning choices like an echo, has become an apologist for them, and has openly trumpeted his creed: that loyalty to the existing establishment, regardless of its moral position, is a higher priority than committment to principle.
Doug-- You've noticed that I don't waste serious arguments on you. Good catch.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 03:19 PMYou don't "waiste" serious arguments on Doug, because you don't have any.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 10, 2006 03:38 PM
If you knew Freddi Simpson you would understand how incredibly stupid this endorsement is. The only reason it can possibly have been engineered is because she can easily be controlled. The only thing that can possibly obscure how inadequate she is for this position is her failure to acquire it.
I cannot but conclude that Dino did not, himself, broker this deal. If, in fact, he made an independent decision, he is unqualified for an executive position. And it is not the first of its kind. His wisdom seemed so excellent as a candidate, but assumed so marked a liberal slant with the nomination of his transition team, and his endorsements since then, that one had to conclude, either, he is not what he led us to believe, or he wasn’t making the decisions. I concluded the latter out of the same deference I give George Bush. He reminds me a great deal of George Bush. The Bush team endorsed RINO Arlen Specter. What did it tell us about Arlen? Nothing. It told us about the Bush team.
Freddi Simpson? Come on! She has the political skills of the average high school cheerleader.
How could Dino possibly do this? We know what he got in exchange for the Vance endorsement. But this?
Let Freddi Simpson debate Diane Tebelius and then tell me where you think Dino Rossi’s manhood is.
I demand a Debate. But who would have the courage or foresight to host State Chair debates?
There is a grain of truth to that. People of sane mind tend to argue a bit with Doug, then move on to better things once they find out points of disagreement with him are met only by louder yelling with insults of increased intensity. In Doug’s world, he is never wrong, and if you disagree with him, there must be something intrinsically at fault with your brain. Doug equates this with people never being able refute him, because as noted, in his world, his political analysis and understanding of the facts is never wrong.
I, like Tim, have exchanged verbal haymakers with him on other threads at soundpolitics, only to find the depth of his condition, and his unwillingness to accept the fact normal people don’t spew insults, or question the integrity of others, as a means to express honest disagreement on an issue, incompatible with serious debate. There is a difference between telling the honest truth and having a robust disagreement, and just acting like an ass.
Speaking of yelling, if soundpolitics had a volume button, I'd encourage readers to turn it down as Doug considers responding to my comments.
Thanks, that does add some clarity to your thoughts, despite the passion with which we disagree.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 10, 2006 04:35 PMIt will be interesting to see who--if anyone--Doug's list of approved candidates end up endorsing.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 04:56 PM"Pam Roach could turn it around."
Pam Roach is the LAST person the GOP needs as its Chair. No offense, Doug, but any remote consideration of Sen. Roach as the face of the party is nonsense. It's a non-starter.
Catastrophic is the closest I can think of because Webster has yet to create the word which would accurately describe it.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: jimg on January 10, 2006 05:04 PMMr. Earling, then, accuses me of extreme intellectual egotism, suggesting that merely disagreeing with me results in my thinking “there must be something intrinsically at fault with [one’s] brain,” and mindlessly assuming that my “political analysis and understanding of the facts is never wrong.”
Once again, Mr. Earling (I think, again, wisely) does not attempt to list specifics. If he did, I might be able to respond specifically and factually. Facts have nothing to do with what Eric is doing, here.
Mr. Earling, having clearly made at least eight (thoroughly undocumented) insults, accuses ME of:
Spew[ing] insults, or question[ing] the integrity of others, as a means to express honest disagreement on an issue.
I leave it to the readers to determine which of us is so engaged.
No doubt. She's kinda like our version of Jim McDermott, it's not so much that she's extreme, it's just that she's crazier then a drunken cliff diver on acid in Mexico.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on January 10, 2006 06:25 PMThe thing I find funny about this, is that every moron who posts on a site like this thinks he knows more about what the party needs then people who are actually doing the work.
If it is an 'insider deal', perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on January 10, 2006 06:28 PMSuffice it to say a detailed exchange on this issue is not properly, or even adequately done, at soundpolitics. However, regarding the issues I've raised, any interested reader could simply read some of the articles at your website, or do a search for you at this site and read through the comment streams in which you've engaged. It's easy enough for any reader, just search for your name, then clarify the search to capture all comments. Examples abound here and at your site. For ease of reference, I would point readers interested in such suffering to these topics which I have knowledge of (plus of course this own comment stream):
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003636.html
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003641.html
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003708.html
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005509.html
The volume of your work is too extensive to necessitate a point by point discussion.
And yes Doug, the Candidate Censorship Contract would have fallen of its own accord, particularly after the unnecessary attention it garnered during the 2004 Senate race. But, thanks for sharing. Good evening.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 10, 2006 06:28 PMAlthough, we could use Pam for some fundraising opportunities. The Washington state GOP could sell some Pam Roach Roses and Floral Arrangements...
Posted by: Reporterward on January 10, 2006 06:48 PMAs far as the candidate needing to be a fit for the district...that's politics 101. Dino Rossi couldn't be elected in Seattle, but he was a perfect fit for the 5th, my district. We need candidates with different characteristics for so-called "crescent" districts. Eastern Washington districts need still another.
I think a west side politician gets that...
Dino can endorse as he pleases...I won't put too much stock into it. It's not his call, and I'm sure he understands that.
As far as the so-called "Candidate Censorship Agreement," that sounds like Reagan's 11th Commandment. Some Reagan Wing.
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2006 08:10 PMI don't want more of the same. I want a by-gawd conservative sitting as chair instead of the limpwristed weenies that with which we are perpetually afflicted.
Like I said to you before, Timothy: you show me a true conservative Republican, and I will back him or her. Nothing on the horizon that I can see.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 10, 2006 10:35 PMAllow me to quote Dino Rossi: "the number one job of the state party chair is to elect Republicans." It's not to set policy, write the platform or anything else.
Posted by: Timothy on January 11, 2006 08:19 AMPerhaps there is some bias in my endorsement. I certainly know much more of her work on behalf of the party than I do of Freddie. Perhaps that we are located closely and that I see her frequently at local activities has some impact on that. But I do know that as State Committee Woman to the national party, she's traveled the state and kept the counties informed of what's going on.
I have heard some raise some questions about her core values and I would counter that she is every bit Republican (a party comprised of a variety of opinions and policy ideas - and not welded at the hip to a particular dogmatic ideology) and is someone I am proud to have working for us.
Conversely I have heard some disturbing things about Freddie in the past couple of days (can anyone confirm or deny the following information?) but am willing to consider it as rumor until proven or not.
The information that has come to me was that she was a one-time host of a radio talk show in Wenatchee and did a less than stellar job at representing the Republican point of view. So much so that after a short time the station pulled her and replaced her with someone that could better articulate a coherent position and engage in intellectual debate. If this is true, and if she is not an articulate person that can think and speak on her feet, the results of having such a person as the State Chair would be disastrous as the media sharks would go on a feeding frenzy.
Other information from the East side of the mountains on her radio tenure revealed that she took some rather interesting positions on a number of issues:
1.) Gambling (tribal is presumed) was good for Wenatchee and should be allowed.
2.) Marijuana should be considered for legalization. (A Big thumbs up from Daryl in Federal Way I'm sure)
3.) There are more important issues than abortion and we should not get involved in these touchy social issues - what's more people should have freedom to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
4.) That the public doesn't realize it, but the primary doesn't "belong" to them, it belongs to the parties and that the parties should choose how they are run. - (a position I support, but perhaps not the best way you explain the issue nor advance the discussion)
As previously stated, this is information that has come to me from the eastern side of the state and needs to be vetted. I hope someone can.
And while not wanting to spread rumors, if accurate, this type of information should at least enter into the conversation as to whether or not such a person is best suited to speak on behalf of and lead the State party?
I hope someone can shed more light on this, because I REALLY do want to see the best person selected for the job. Right now in my mind, that's Diane.
Jamie
Posted by: Jamie on January 11, 2006 09:41 AMYou have done precisely as you accuse me. You are using insults as an alternative to rational debate.
After your diatribe of slurs without specificity, and after I pointed out that you simply applied those desctiptions to me generally, without even one alleged instance that illustrated your point, you have responded by posting links to places I have written, nothing more. You, again, have failed to make any connection between ANYTHING I ever wrote and your spurious conclusions, simply asserting that they exist there, somewhere. If they did you could point it out. It is like a man who sees pink elephants in the room and complains that there are too many to indacate the location of even one.
It would be exactly the same if I were to say it is clear from Eric Earling's writing that "he is an admitted child molester", and, when challenged, simply left links to a volume of your writing. Such stuff doesn't even rise to the level of serious implications. They are just baseless slurs.
You say that the Candidate Censorship Contract would have fallen after the "attention in garnered in 2004." But, Eric, what attention? there were only two sources: 1. The liberal press coverage which ONLY published the Vance side of the controversy. They said it was "Ronald Reagan's" [this is a joke], that it's purpose was just to make people be nice to each other [a complete misrepresentation], and that Reed Davis was the only person who had ever refused to sign it. [a total fabrication]. All this coverage was positive for it. 2. The only other source of attention was what the Reagan Wing was giving it, exposing the contract itself and the falseness of the Vance/press claims. We showed that had Ronald Reagan, himself, been subject to it he would have owed $185,000 in Washinton State Republican censorship fines for one speech alone in his last primary race.
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 11, 2006 01:27 PMAgain, thanks for sharing. But if you re-read my previous post, my whole point is that a full breakdown of your work at this site and your own would take too long and occupy too much space here. If you'd like to pay my salary for a couple weeks so I can take some unpaid leave from my job, I'd be happy to undertake the point-by-point issue.
In the meantime, I strongly believe a reasonable reader of a representative sample of articles from your site, and your comments at this one, would reach a conclusion similar to mine.
When you attack others, you describe it as “negative truth.” When others point out the potential flaws in your “negative truth” approach, you label it an “ad hominem” attack, a tactic you’ve used on multiple occasions at this site. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t make them a bad person, but a reasonable reader of your comments can reach no other conclusion, based on your choice of words, that you think less of people (and believe them worthy of insult) simply because you find their positions on policy and/or politics undesirable.
Moreover, we are having a rational debate. It just so happens the topic of debate has changed from the race for WSRP Chair to your method of communication. We disagree quite strongly about a host of issues, which we’ve fleshed out in the past. Yet, just because I, and others, have taken issue with your tactics in the midst of such exchanges, doesn’t mean my criticism is an alternative to rational debate. Indeed, my whole point is your method of communication tends to make rational debate almost impossible.
And actually Doug, if you left links to my writing, someone could in fact read through and attempt to confirm the kind of hypothetical statement you gave.
In the meantime, I look forward to the Chair’s race continuing to unfold. Will the Reagan Wing be hosting a debate for that race, and since you insist Hutchison is running, for the Senate race as well?
Timothy, I propose that the color of Dino's sky is brown on this issue. Because the number one job of the Republican Party is to represent the people whose values and conviction put them in their cushy chairs to begin with, it logically follows that the NUMBER ONE job of the chair is to ensure that the will of the people is being faithfully represented in the candidates that he or she 'anoints.' You and I both know that if the said candidates were doing what we expected them to do (i.e., keeping their promises and refusing to sell out their constituents as soon as they got off the bus in Olympia), then they wouldn't be sitting on the curb sniveling and moaning like little girls who missed the circus parade. They sold out, and we flushed them.
Evidently, judging from Dino's statement, the WSRP hasn't learned a damned thing.
You see Timothy, the party never bothers to listen to what their BASE thinks. To them it is all about having more Rs than Ds in Olympia at any cost. To us, it is about values. Can you wrap your head around that concept?
How outrageous! Imagine that- to actually stand on moral principle and defend what is right against any challenge? Maybe you can envision such a candidate. But the WSRP sure as hell can't- which is EXACTLY the reason why the WSRP is consistently left against the wall while the Dems keep dancing.
Dino's statement, and your support of him, is indicative of why Republicans are the pathetic tuberculoid cripple in the Dickensonian tragedy that is Washington State. When you sell out your principles and your constituents for the sake of staying in that nice public-funded office, eventually the people whom you have shat upon will simply stop backing you.
You want a Republican majority? Get back to the root conservative values. At this point, it really doesn't matter if the majority in Olympia is Democrat or Republican in this state. They are both pretty much the same. If it were not so, then people would have voted Republicans into the majority, because they would have seen that they were really different from the Dems.
In this state, they are not. So we gain nothing by backing them. Change that scenario, and you'll see more Republicans in Olympia. Until the WSRP gets this, they will be justly and deservedly damned to mediocrity. Dino's statement implies that he has chosen to support the status quo. If he does, then he deserves to lose every freakin' election for the rest of his life. If you think that Dino is correct, then you and the WSRP deserve each other.
I won't waste my time on the WSRP until they start growing some spine and start representing the conservative values of the base when it really counts. The party as it currently exists has screwed me and my family enough. Well, screw them. And if you want to keep this rotten, unprincipled corpse of a party alive in its current form, then screw you too.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 11, 2006 09:18 PMThe Chair's job is to lead the party, primarily to help get Republicans elected. The platform is written at the convention, by the grassroots (who dominate such gatherings). Moreover, the Chair doesn't endorse candidates, that's the job of the State Committee, whose members are elected from and influenced by the grassroots. Candidate recruitment is often done below the chair level, and frankly below the level of the state party as a whole for most partisan races. Moreover, the grassroots is more engaged in such processes as the candidates run for offices of smaller size (such as the legislature, county offices, etc.).
As to what officials do in office, they are responsible to their consituents and where it applies, their caucus. We don't have party structures in this state, or really this country, that allow parties to hold officials running under their banner strictly accountable to the party itself. That's just reality. It's not a card-carrying membership that can be revoked or controlled.
Your problem here is not that the grassroots aren't involved, it's that in your view, they (and you) aren't winning. That's a different issue than what you're trying to lay at the feet of the state party chair.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 11, 2006 09:52 PMThat is not what the Republican Party was historically about. Ours was the party that opposed slavery and was not afraid to stand their ground. Ours was the party that promoted the cause of rights for blacks when the Democrats were still lynching them. Ours was the party of Ronald Reagan, the man who was responsible for winning the cold war when Democrats and moderates were calling him a stupid, doddering old man.
This is not the same Republican party. This party backs down, caves in, and sells out. That's not my party. I want nothing to do with your party.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 11, 2006 11:02 PMEric: The situation you described is a myth. The party doesn't function the way you described because you left out the most important factor. You're pretending that those in leadership in the party are only influenced by the grassroots voters in the party, which is the way it should be, and not by the money and power brokers (small-time though they be). But nice try with the smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 11, 2006 11:03 PMYou have made numerous false charges and, despite repeated requests have failed to come up with ONE example. I can only conclude you can’t.
You say “I strongly believe a reasonable reader of a representative sample of articles from your site, and your comments at this one, would reach a conclusion similar to mine.” What an empty assertion! I contend the reverse. That's easy.
I strongly believe an equally hypothetical panel of the greatest minds in Western thinking could examine a representative sample of your writing from every source and conclude that you are a political liberal whose methods are principally sophistry with occasional, irrational, character assassination to the exclusion of logic. What wonderful things can be done in the universe of the hypothetical!
I have said that what you call my “attacks” should be weighed for validity, not on whether or not they are negative, but whether or not they are true. This is a realm with which you seem to be unfamiliar. By contrast, you seek to undermine my arguments by attacking me personally, to the exclusion of any fact (as is repeatedly demonstrated, above, where, you say, it “would take too long” to list any facts). That is classically ad hominem.
You say, “…I, and others, have taken issue with your tactics.” But that is not true, at all. Timothy uses condescension and ridicule, openly admitting he can’t or won’t attempt rational argument. You, yourself, cannot list ANY SINGLE instance of ANY SINGLE TACTIC, but, rather apply denigrating adjectives to me, without a shred of supporting documentation.
You say, “…your method of communication tends to make rational debate almost impossible.” But, to the contrary, persistent logic and insistence on fact makes sophistry almost impossible. I’m not surprised you find it so irritating.
The Reagan Wing would be willing to host a debate. We’ve been busy, however, trying to find a reform candidate who will touch Vance’s disaster (and the anointing of Timothy’s demigod) with a ten-foot-pole. No luck so far. Nobody wants to step on this particular land mine.
By the way, in response to a comment/attempted derision you made on a separate thread, a 2004 Reagan Wing State Chair Debate video is, in fact, available.
You say, in your typically deceptive manner, that we have insisted Hutchison is running. That is entirely untrue. I have repeatedly said she is not, at this time, running. That is not "secret, insider" information. She remains a potential candidate and will, if she runs, make a crater-sized impact on the surface of the State electorate. Good men should be praying for it.
The mere potential of her candidacy (because they are aware of the internal polling) has the McGavick campaign desperately attempting to use the State Party to shut the door on other candidacies ala Nethercutt. This procedure, and Freddi Simpson's prevarications in service to it, will create a bitterness that, should Hutchison decide NOT to run, will magnify Mike "Bader" McGavick's margin of defeat in the General. He might not do as well as "the giant killer" did in 2004. He certainly can't win.
The State Chair serves at the pleasure of the State Committee. The State Committee serves at the pleasure of the County PCOs. The disconnect between the State Chair and the PCO’s is a result of years of intentional camouflage of the role of the State Committee. The PCO’s simply don’t know how it works or what they do and are not told. With few exceptions they have no idea how the Chair gets his job.
King County PCOs were overwhelmingly opposed to the election of Chris Vance in 2004. NO STATE COMMITTEE CANDIDATE in King County said he would vote for Vance. Two of the winners campaigned AGAINST VANCE. Yet, Bob Strauss, who campaigned against Vance, and Michael Young, who assured me, personally, how much he disliked Vance, both voted for him.
At each level you go up in the Party it gets more liberal.
This is a measure of the level of calculated deception in the process.
The Platform is the reason for the Party to exist. The State Chair, State Committee, candidates, and legislative caucuses are just means to an end and that end is making the Platform Public Policy. All the functions of the Party arise from the grassroots. The Declaration of Independence (as well as the Bible) describes this philosophy perfectly.
The Republican Left HATES THIS. They believe in their own, privileged aristocracy. That the purpose of the Party is to win elections.
William Wallace in Mel Gibson’s movie said it best when he addressed the Scottish nobles:
“There's a difference between us” He said, “You think the people of this land exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.”
The Republican noblemen (and Timothy, Eric, and ReporterWard) believe the Party exists to provide candidates with position. I think their positions exist to provide the grassroots with freedom.
That kind of incident is why the Reagan Wing was described as “irrelevant” earlier on this thread, because people as a whole don’t agree with your tactics. Your style of “negative truth” doesn’t win political campaigns.
In addition, it is important to note that your version of “truth” is fixated solely on what you believe, making no allowance for that fact you may have erred with incomplete facts and/or inaccurate analysis. You are after all human, I think, so might therefore want to accept the fact, as noted in the Bible, that you are indeed fallible.
When you disagree with someone else’s public policy, you consider it lacking in absolute “truth” and therefore worthy of your vitriolic condescension. You certainly have the right in your own home, but outside of that location you may have noticed it is not generally well received.
Now as to the problem of the grassroots being heard, I acknowledge that is at times an issue, as it is in both major parties in America, by very nature of their convoluted structures. By the same token, the grassroots has an undeniable impact on the process as you yourself described in your last two posts. Moreover, there are clear real world examples we can point to of grassroots influence, such as recent Republican votes in Congress on immigration. It is undeniable that those votes were driven by grassroots pressure, rather than the full and complete policy preferences of the members of Congress on their own, as an aggregate body.
Your corny use of the great film Braveheart also, as usual, badly misses the point. I, and I believe the others you cite, believe our fundamental goal is to enact as policies we as Republicans support. To do that, you have to win an election or two. That has nothing to do with providing anyone with privilege, it has everything to do with actually having people in office you support, to enact policies with which you agree. Basic civics last time I checked.
Particularly in this state, I and the others you deride, have an understanding of what candidates are best suited to victory, and what tactics with which to advance their candidacy. In our view, it is better to be able to enact part of one's agenda than none at all. You and those who support you, however, seem firmly comfortable in insisting on all of your agenda or nothing.
For a man of your evident patriotism, I thought you would have a better understanding of what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our system of government, which in fact virtually REQUIRES compromise of some sort, in most instances, to achieve public policy goals. This tends to relegate your all or nothing approach ineffectual.
There is a fundamental difference between Ronald Reagan and your espoused means of enacting what you consider to be his vision: Reagan was tough, but he was a gentleman. Reagan spoke from his heart, but he was civil. Regan relished political combat, but he had class (he didn’t throw tantrums in front of children at party picnics).
It is one thing to believe simply in Ronald Reagan’s policies, it is quite another to live up to the standard he set for electoral success. While few can expect to match his combination of the above, we shall at least endeavor to, to the best of our abilities. Since your chosen methods still leaves us utterly short on the electoral side of that equation, I really don’t have anything else to say to you.
The problem that you and the WSRP have here is that the more you try to assimilate candidates to the dominant political environment, the more like them you become at the core of your values. The more like the opposition you become, the less likely the conservative base will be to support your great white hopes. Without the support of the conservative base, WSRP candidates lose. That is exactly what happened to the WSRP and their anointed last November. Their voting records betrayed them as nothing but the same warmed-over RINO Judases, and fed-up conservatives refused to come to their support. Hence, they were left standing by the wall while the Democrats remained the belles of the ball.
And I take particular exception to the prevailing attitude among the WSRP pantheon, and those who blindly support them, that Republicans of the stripe are the base and that you have the hearts and minds of the conservative base in your back pocket. Au contraire, mon frere. The current WSRP worldview does not reflect the grassroots at all. If it did, we would have a Republican majority. Since the grassroots in this state do not see any difference between the Democrats and the Republican candidates that the WSRP anoints as far as core values go, we see no need to support or elect them.
In fact, I would dare say, sir, that the WSRP lost so much ground last November because the people who trusted them got tired of being betrayed. Think about it. Democrats may be conniving underhanded little bastards, but at least we know what they are up front. WSRP candidates, by and large, are also sneaky underhanded little bastards who have proven that they are no better or different than the Democrats. The difference is that the Republican candidates try to hide that under a veneer of 'values-speak' in order to con grassroots conservatives into voting for them.
Nothing supports this argument better than the fact that the WSRP has lost positions in this state and has not one candidate who qualifies as a true conservative. They are all, by and large, jackasses in elephant suits. If this were not so, the WSRP would not be working so hard to convince us otherwise and spin the voting records of their anointed. Democrats are in power right now because at least the people know what they can expect from them. The Democrats may slap us in the face, but the Republicans in this state- and even at the federal level- stab us in the back.
As long as the WSRP elite thinks that they hold the keys to the magic kingdom and that they know what is best and thus feel no need for listening to their base, they will continue to lose ground because the base is not buying their BS anymore. The attitude that they, you, and Timothy demonstrate is no less arrogant than that of the Democrats.
The WSRP has painted itself into a tight little corner by bluing up their select few candidates and abandoning the conservative base. And I will say this plainly so that you can understand me: the conservatives are the base. Our values have not changed. The WSRP has abandoned its conservative roots for the sake of political expedience.
Still, as their statements, attitudes, and selection of candidates have clearly demonstrated, they refuse to see that. Judging from the statements from you and Timothy and the rest of the party, they really have you conned. You really think that the WSRP is leading the way, don't you? Nothing proves you wrong more clearly and irrefutably like lost elections and turncoat voting records. The WSRP leadership have really conned themselves into believing that they are leading the way, and they have conned you too.
But there is an old saying: "You might think you're a leader, but if nobody is following you, you aren't leading; you're just taking a walk." That sums up the situation the the WSRP now faces.
So you and the WSRP can go right ahead and skip down your yellow brick road. But I guaran-dang-tee that unless the WSRP starts promoting candidates who embrace and wholly uphold the values of the conservative base, the party and those who blindly follow them will find next November to be even colder than the last one.
One, you say 2005 was a bad year for Republicans. Yes in some sense, but the two most signficant dynamics in that election were President Bush's unpopularity (equaling a motivated Dem base and less enthusiastic Rep base), and the I-912 debate. The former obviously has nothing to do with this thread(though impacted Republicans in close races). The later is indirectly relevant, but I believe you give way to much credence to the idea that voters voted they way they did on 912 because of their feelings about Republicans or the Republican party. They voted they way they did largely because of how they felt about that particular issue (gas taxes, transportation, etc.) at that time. Claiming that 912 reflects on the typical voter's view of Republicans and reprsents a popular frustration with them is nonsensical.
Second, you, and Doug for that matter, continue to whine about Republicans losing elections because they are not staying true to the base. Yet, it is the candidates who were most easily identifited with the base you claim is so critical (Craswell, Smith, and Carlson) who have in recent years suffered the most crushing electoral defeats. Meanwhile those that have won statewide office as Republicans (Rossi, McKenna, Sutherland, and Reed) are not easily identified with that same wing of the party. Even the Republican Congressional candidates who won open seats in 2004 (Reichert and McMorris) are likewise not identified strictly with the grassroots of the party. If you, or Doug, had more credible examples of your theory holding true more people might consider it relevant.
That is not to say the grassroots does not have an important role in the party, particularly in writing the platform, setting the agenda, etc. But your complaints about the capacity of candidates to win, despite the passion with which you and a vocal minority express them, have little foundation in electoral reality.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 12, 2006 10:43 AM“Professor Republican”: Freddi Simpson has offered to give what she does not have to gain what she does not deserve in order to do the bidding of those who do not appear in accomplishing what the grassroots do not want.
ER Nurse: You write beautifully and your words are truth.
Eric:
You say, “When you disagree with someone else’s public policy, you consider it lacking in absolute “truth””
No, Eric, the fact is when I find someone else’s public policy absolutely contrary to truth I disagree with them. There is an important difference you’re confused about. That’s because you don’t believe in truth.
Regarding Braveheart, it is you who missed the point.
Your recent post contained two core falsehoods. The first of these is from the liberal/elite talking points memo on the Reagan Wing:
“You and those who support you, however, seem firmly comfortable in insisting on all of your agenda or nothing.” This is utterly untrue. We do oppose candidates who disagree with us on almost everything and attempt to fool the grassroots about it, but our membership is full of people who, and we endorse candidates who may disagree on one or two main issues, but agree on the majority of issues. David Irons is an example. George Bush is another. That’s the way a real Political Party works. But we won’t abandon any of our issues to please a minority. It is our commitment to principle that aggravates you.
You belong to the Wing of the Party that believes in a special kind of “Incrementalism” You’re going, incrementally, backwards. Backwards into big government, backwards into gay marriage. This can be extensively documented.
Your second outright fabrication is contained in this:
“(...he didn’t throw tantrums in front of children at party picnics).” This is a clear reference to a libel of me posted on Sound Politics by “Reporterward.” The full story is, once again, HERE. My attorney says one element helpful in a libel suit is the ability to prove the effects of the libel. In this case the question is whether Mr. Ward’s false statement, defaming my character, actually caused damage: “Did anyone read and believe him?” You are helping, here, by repeating his lie, to answer that question for me. If you know of any others who have repeated this and can direct me to them, or their statements, it would be very helpful. Perhaps Timothy would also like to render an opinion on an event he did not witness?
Regarding McGavick you ask: “You may disagree with his politics, but what about having an honest, highly successful career is ‘despicable’?”
Having a dishonest, unsuccessful career is pitiful. Having a dishonest, highly successful career is despicable. Mr. McGavick has founded his entire political career, as have most post-Reagan RINOs, on deceiving the grassroots into thinking he has conservative beliefs. Dan Evans never did that, but was always an up-front liberal (though he claimed liberalism was Republican). But in endorsing Michael “Jackson” McGavick, it’s clear Evans doesn’t mind others being disingenuous as a tactic.
Had Mr. McGavick come to us honestly espousing the values that made him so valuable to the liberal Senator of whose staff he was chief, I would make no such claim. It is the calculated deception, the “moon-walking,”
if you will, that makes it contemptible.
NORM GERE: Your kind words have redounded to my edification, like precious rain on a parched land. May He in whom our fate securely rests bless you and your family.
What action was taken to sanction those Republican reps who voted with the Democrats to jack up our taxes and nullify our right to referendum for all tax increases? Was any taken?
Give me the name of one sitting Republican representative whose voting record would consistently support their claims to be a conservative.
And whether you choose to believe conservatives are a minority in this party or not is your choice. I contend that we are not, but rather that the leadership of the WSRP has painted us as the extremist lunatic fringe in order to solidify their liberal tendencies and to paint themselves as the mainstream, which is bollocks.
It was the conservative base that kept Bush in office in 2004. It was the conservative base that kept the RINO McCain out of the White House in 2000. It was the conservative base that forced the withdrawal of the spectacularly unqualified Harriet Miers from consideration for SCOTUS.
OTOH, the "mainstream" Republicans that you so confidently describe as the majority bear uncanny likenesses of Democrats. They cave to the Democrats' agenda, they undermine the Republican party in critical issues (such as the tax increase, nullification of the people's right to approve or disapprove tax increases, etc.), and give weak, patronizing non-explanations for the substandard work they put forth and for their constant capitulations and betrayal of the conservative base.
Your version of the WSRP, or rather the paradigm that you insist is the "mainstream," is nothing more than a parroting of the Democratic Party. That is not mainstream Republicanism. That, sir, is liberal Democratism. The WSRP leadership and those who have bought their rubbish may think that we do not see that, but we do.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 12, 2006 11:57 AMAnd yet you hold Reed up as an example of Republican virtue? That pretty much sums up your version of the WSRP. And that is exactly why you, the WSRP, and the jackesses in elephant suits who have undermined the party's conservative platform should never be taken seriously, and it is why the candidates currently trumpeted by the WSRP should not be allowed anywhere near a position on the public dole.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 12, 2006 12:12 PMThe “powers that be” who are endorsing her want her because she can be controlled. As a woman, I take offense to that. Are they that intimidated by a smart, driven, credentialed woman? They aren’t looking at the big picture, they only see their own interests. They aren’t looking at innovative, creative ways to win more seats. They accept the status-quo. Here are a few points for all of us to think about:
Diane T. raised thousands of dollars in a MONTH during her Congressional bid last year. She is focused, driven, and appears to have a concrete plan to re-establish the Republican Party in Washington, instead of happily lapping up the scraps Democrats throw our way. New energy, creativity, more money = better opportunity to win more races.
Mr. Rossi may have his reasons for endorsing Freddi Simpson, but he should wait until he actually wins the Governors seat BEFORE rewarding his friends. Winning the Governor’s race won’t do him a lick of good if he has to fight with a D-controlled legislature.
My final point is the big one…D-Chair Paul B. is retiring. Does anyone here think the D’s will settle for anything less than a pitbull? The person who takes his spot is stepping into a winning program, will have (whether any of you want to admit it) big shoes to fill, and will have the energy and enthusiasm to take their game to the next level. If the Republican Party doesn’t put someone, bringing their “A” game in as chair…well all the Legislators in Olympia that are being coerced into thinking this is the right thing to do, may find themselves replaced by a Democrat in the near future. Food for thought.
I think both of them are good candidates, with their own strengths and weaknesses. I'm withholding judgement at least until I have an opportunity to interview them, as I did for the candidates last year.
I'll have a lot more on this at my own site tonight.
(On another topic, I'm intrigued to note that I'm now apparently a Republican nobleman. If so, my serfs are severely late with their rent, and will have a most painful flogging when I find them!)
Posted by: Timothy on January 12, 2006 12:46 PMI write: No one should begrudge her (or anyone else) for collecting fees for services rendered. Is that what this comes down to...Rossi is paying her back???...that's a bit immature. If Freddie and her gang were so great in Wenatchee...why couldn't she muster a few more votes (130 or so)and solidify a victory??? Why, because she didn't do any thing extraordinary!!! And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with the WSRP...you get for your money...NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY! With work, committment, strong leadership, and vision there could be a R majority (however slight) in Washington, but the state party "puppet masters" are too busy being POWERFUL and not being EFFECTIVE!
Posted by: Dexter on January 12, 2006 02:27 PMFirst, let’s deal with Reed. I simply listed him accurately as a Republican (that was the party affiliation next to his name on the ballot) that has won a statewide race recently, as part of a broader notation that the only Republicans to win such races are not strictly identified with the grassroots. I said nothing of his virtue, yet in a Parris-like leap of wisdom you assumed a lot about me simply because of his accurate inclusion on that list. If you had taken the time to ask, again before your Parris-like leap to conclusions (which reminds me, is Doug anything like the character in the movie Office Space who wants to make the “Leap to Conclusions” gadget?), I would have concurred that Reed is in very deep trouble with the grassroots, for good reason.
Regarding some of your other points, I was able to find the following re: the races in question. Note that these are direct expenditures from the campaigns, not figures on party spending, which is virtually impossible to quantify in general, and especially in support of individual campaigns. That being said, I do know from personal experience there was aggressive GOTV work done by the Republican party in 1998, and particularly 2000.
1996: Locke spent $2.4 million, Craswell spent $1.8 million
1998: Murray spent $5.6 million, Smith spent $5.2 million
2000: Locke spent $3.8 million, Carlson spent $2.7 million
Regarding sanctions for what I presume to be the gas tax issue, as I noted before, those are difficult to dole out strictly from the party absent a dues-paying membership structure much more rigidly controlled than what exists modern American politics. Thus, any notion that they can be punished by the party itself for this supposed crime is relatively nonexistent.
That being said, there are consequences, such as within the respective legislative caucuses. For example, Sen. Swecker lost his leadership position on the Senate Transportation Committee, likely because of that vote. Moreover, I suspect all Republicans voting for the gas tax heard about it at length from the grassroots, and may face a primary challenge next time around because of it. Since, accountability through the ballot box is one of the best forms of accountability in a representative democracy, that strikes me as a reasonable outcome.
Lastly, you didn’t specify whether you wanted state or federal officials as examples of conservative voting records. On a federal level, Hastings and McMorris are both accurately described as conservative. At a state level, most Republican Representatives from Eastern Washington hold conservative records, as do Reps. Kristiansen, Pearson, Nixon, and Talcott…there may be more but I’m not familiar with all of the current Republican members of the state House. In the state Senate, Republicans from Eastern Washington are not quite as consistently conservative (such as Sens. Delvin and Deccio) but the same rule generally holds. In addition, Sens. Benton, Carrell, Esser, Roach, Stevens, and Zarelli are known for being reliable conservative votes.
>The information that has come to me
>was that she was a one-time host of a
>radio talk show in Wenatchee and did a
>less than stellar job at representing the >Republican point of view. So much so that
>after a short time the station pulled her
>and replaced her with someone that could
>better articulate a coherent position
>and engage in intellectual debate.
>If this is true, and if she is not an
>articulate person that can think and speak
>on her feet, the results of having such a >person as the State Chair would be
>disastrous as the media sharks would go
>on a feeding frenzy.
I once worked at the radio station in question, KPQ, and the real story is that Fredi hosted a political talk show a few times, and when they wanted to make it more aggressive, Fredi took a pass on it and didn't do the show anymore. They even tried to get her to come back to do it, but Fredi didn't want Republicans portrayed as frothing at the mouth. That's it. That's the story.
>Other information from the East side of
>the mountains on her radio tenure revealed
>that she took some rather interesting positions >on a number of issues:
These are all completely false.
>1.) Gambling (tribal is presumed) was good for >Wenatchee and should be allowed.
Fredi is against gambling.
>2.) Marijuana should be considered for >legalization. (A Big thumbs up from Daryl in >Federal Way I'm sure)
Fredi is anti-drugs. She wouldn't even let her teenage son Kane, have champagne for New Year's.
>3.) There are more important issues than
>abortion and we should not get involved in
>these touchy social issues - what's more people
>should have freedom to do what they want in the
>privacy of their own homes.
Fredi is pro-life. Just like I am. Just like you are, Jamie. That's all I need to say about that.
>4.) That the public doesn't realize it, but
>the primary doesn't "belong" to them, it
>belongs to the parties and that the parties
>should choose how they are run. - (a position I
>support, but perhaps not the best way you
>explain the issue nor advance the discussion)
Fredi supports the party against the blanket primary, but she is otherwise status quo -- when they wanted to axe over half the precincts in Chelan County, she fought to keep them the way they were, and she succeeded. She has never taken any of the silly positions you're discussing here.
>As previously stated, this is information
>that has come to me from the eastern
>side of the state and needs to be vetted.
Sure, this sort of information comes from Brian Maydole, Diane's former campaign manager. (I'm sure there's no axe to grind there.) I met Brian when he worked for the Legislature (before he got fired) and Brian's information is, shall we say, less than dependable.
>I hope someone can.
Feel free to email me.
>And while not wanting to spread rumors, if
>accurate, this type of information should at
>least enter into the conversation as to whether
>or not such a person is best suited to speak on
>behalf of and lead the State party?
Fredi is well suited to lead the State Party. Dino did not endorse Diane, he endorsed Fredi. I have never been disappointed in trusting Dino's judgment on the issues and endorsements. I suggest that people can trust Dino now.
>I hope someone can shed more light on this,
>because I REALLY do want to see the best person
>selected for the job. Right now in my mind,
>that's Diane.
I disagree.
For Diane, this is a stepping stone to Congress.
For Fredi, this would be the pinnacle of her political career. She has pledged not to run for office. She has pledged to not take pay for the remainder/last year of Vance's term. She will not take benefits. I figure that could be as much as $100,000 or more. That will substantially help us reduce the party's debt.
Will Diane do the same?
I think both parties have to deal with this. I'm sure if you asked a Democrat familiar with legislators from his/her party, they could also cite people whose votes they support but whose behavior they could do without.
Because members of the legislature are generally a representative slice of our society, there are individual members, regardless of their political beliefs, who behave unimpressively. That was the distinction I was drawing in my earlier post.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 13, 2006 08:20 AMThe fact that you are consulting an attorney over the exchange between Reporterward and you about the incident is proof enough of your petty inability to see past the trees and view the whole forest, for which I've criticized you in the past.
That is indeed, the crux of the arguments against you made at this site. You claim: "It is our commitment to principle that aggravates you." On the contrary, I admire principle a great deal, and even find grains (small though they may be) of your personality to admire accordingly. But, it is the absence of civility and your complete unwillingness to respect those persons who share different views than you that people find aggravating and unpalatable.
Candidly, if your behavior in person is anything like your behavior online, I'll take Reporterward's description of events as holy writ.
In the meantime, you could really stand to dial it down a notch. Start a workout regimen, take up a hobby, have sex (though I’d prefer if you didn’t actually procreate), read a good book, go to church, watch an enjoyable movie, follow sports...whatever it takes. I don't pretend (or desire) to know what God's plan for you is, but I don't recall any passage of the Bible that says simmering and festering in your own rage is preferable to enjoying God's creation from time to time.
I appreciate your defense of Fredi. However
there are some other things you need to
consider. First off Fredi has done some pretty
dishonest and unethical things in regards to
the upcoming US senate race.
It is inappropriate for a state political
party leader to be out urging state committee
members to support a particular candidate
prior to the primary.Fredi spent a great
deal of her time the last few months traveling
around the state doing just that.
Everyone knows that Fredi is supporting
Mike McGavick.She shouldnt be out there
trying to get committee members to do the
same.The other thing and listen very carefully
Eric, as I can back this up.Fredi found it
necessary to start spreading a rumour that
Susan Hutchison would committ to speaking
to various political organizations and then
just not show up.This isn't true and she knew
it.
It was an attempt to make Susan Hutchison
look bad and specifically damage her ability
to get the women vote.So I'm sorry this makes
me seriously question whether or not Fredi is
qualified to the lead the party.
Lest you think I am supporting Diane Tebelius
think again.Back when Diane was considering
running for the senate. After she decided not
to run she told Susan Hutchison she would
never back McGavick.Four hours later she turned
around and did back him.
Diane I have come to find out has a history
of doing this kind of thing.To my way of
thinking Diane is not an honorable person.
If she can't be taken at her word how can
she ever be trusted.The best thing I can
say is I'm glad I don't have to vote.
You cannot win the dispute so you attack the man.
You cannot justify the attacks so you change the subject.
What is your political position on Human Life?
Eric, have you thought about being a writer for The Book of Daniel? I see a very promising career for you.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 13, 2006 09:33 PMEric,
As I think I've addressed before in a similiar discussion, we (who want Republican candidates/elected officials to stay true to conservative principles) do not contend that the only thing a candidate has to do is identify with the Republican base. It also takes backing and yes--money, as well as the party leadership actively backing them. But if one or the other is missing, the campaign is doomed unless the race is for SoS or PLC--since neither have to vote on legislation. As for your examples of Republicans who "closely identify with the base", my breakdown is below. But first let me tell you that I define the "base" as a very broad group of people (not just the activists in the party) who vote Republican because they are conservative in their values, otherwise known as "red-state" Americans, the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians who voted for Ronald Reagan in both of his elections.
Your examples of the ones who identified with the base:
Craswell--The party leadership didn't back her
Smith-----The party leadership didn't back her
Carlson---Abandoned the base in his campaign
Your examples of those who won, but weren't easily identified with the base:
Rossi-----The base believed him to be closely identified, more than you know. Catholics in particular identified him as pro-life and many of them who traditionally vote Democrat have come to realize the prominence of the abortion issue. Though, for anyone who didn't know Rossi's conservative and pro-life reputation may not have been convinced of it, since he bought the bad advice to avoid the issue at all costs.
McKenna----has been identified widely with the base. He has turned out to be less conservative than he comes across in campaigns. Many have only come to realize this after electing him.
Sutherland---For Public Lands Commisioner, a race that does not get much attention during a campaign. I guarentee many of the votes he gets are from people who have never heard of him and figure he's Republican and would much rather have an R than a D in an office with that title--to avoid extreme environmentalism, hopefully.
Reed----I think someone addressed this on the new thread about "what he's sweeping under the rug now". Most people didn't know what the Secretary of State does, though that's beginning to change. Again, they figure they'd rather have an R than a D. Reed and Sutherland are both known to be "pro-choice" among other things, but the base figures they won't have much to do with those issues in their positions.
Reichert----had a macho manly appeal, something the base loves. He was also attacked by the Democrats for his "radical" positions on a woman's "right to choose" which is usually a good sign for the base as long as there is no evidence to the contrary of their claims.
McMorris----the base identified with her too. Decent voting record, conservative interest endorsements such as the Susan B. Anthony List.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 13, 2006 10:41 PM
Eric,
As I think I've addressed before in a similiar discussion, we (who want Republican candidates/elected officials to stay true to conservative principles) do not contend that the only thing a candidate has to do is identify with the Republican base. It also takes backing and yes--money, as well as the party leadership actively backing them. But if one or the other is missing, the campaign is doomed unless the race is for SoS or PLC--since neither have to vote on legislation. As for your examples of Republicans who "closely identify with the base", my breakdown is below. But first let me tell you that I define the "base" as a very broad group of people (not just the activists in the party) who vote Republican because they are conservative in their values, otherwise known as "red-state" Americans, the overwhelming majority of Washingtonians who voted for Ronald Reagan in both of his elections.
Your examples of the ones who identified with the base:
Craswell--The party leadership didn't back her
Smith-----The party leadership didn't back her
Carlson---Abandoned the base in his campaign
Your examples of those who won, but weren't easily identified with the base:
Rossi-----The base believed him to be closely identified, more than you know. Catholics in particular identified him as pro-life and many of them who traditionally vote Democrat have come to realize the prominence of the abortion issue. Though, for anyone who didn't know Rossi's conservative and pro-life reputation may not have been convinced of it, since he bought the bad advice to avoid the issue at all costs.
McKenna----has been identified widely with the base. He has turned out to be less conservative than he comes across in campaigns. Many have only come to realize this after electing him.
Sutherland---For Public Lands Commisioner, a race that does not get much attention during a campaign. I guarentee many of the votes he gets are from people who have never heard of him and figure he's Republican and would much rather have an R than a D in an office with that title--to avoid extreme environmentalism, hopefully.
Reed----I think someone addressed this on the new thread about "what he's sweeping under the rug now". Most people didn't know what the Secretary of State does, though that's beginning to change. Again, they figure they'd rather have an R than a D. Reed and Sutherland are both known to be "pro-choice" among other things, but the base figures they won't have much to do with those issues in their positions.
Reichert----had a macho manly appeal, something the base loves. He was also attacked by the Democrats for his "radical" positions on a woman's "right to choose" which is usually a good sign for the base as long as there is no evidence to the contrary of their claims.
McMorris----the base identified with her too. Decent voting record, conservative interest endorsements such as the Susan B. Anthony List.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 13, 2006 10:42 PM
I don't like abortion. Next question.
And Doug, if my comments against you weren't justified, you wouldn't respond.
R in E -
You raise some interesting points. Except you missed an essential element of the discussion. The canididates you cited who lost never were able to develop an appeal outside of the base, thus they lost. The candidates you cited who won, did develop an appeal outside the base. That's why they won. I find it fascinating that you who rips the party establishment so much for being worthless whines so much when you claim the party establishments doesn't support your candidate. For example, Linda Smith matched Patty Murray nearly dollar for dollar. So why exactly did she lose by 17%?
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 13, 2006 11:11 PMSo what about that writing career? (See my earlier question)
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 13, 2006 11:29 PMSince I answered your question, perhaps you could answer mine about Linda Smith?
As to your other points, as you might imagine I disagree. But I don't see the point in us continuing to go round and round on a thread no one is even reading anymore as it slips down the soundpolitics main page.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 14, 2006 09:19 AMAs far as your suggestions not being sinful, your suggestion that he have sex but you prefer he not actually procreate is not only a sinful suggestion, but it is highly insulting to the man's wife and/or children if he has them. Maybe you didn't give that any consideration. Also, you're assertion that he should give up his righteous cause in order to pursue earthly pleasures (you have no idea if he takes time out to do those things on your list that are good) reminds me of some of the soundbites I've heard from The Book of Daniel like Jesus telling the preacher he should "lighten up, dude" about his drug dealing daughter.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 14, 2006 10:23 AMFurthermore, are you trying to say it's sinful for a man and wife to have sex even if the goal is not to procreate? I had a vasectomy after my 2nd child was born, so is it no longer proper for me to have sex with my wife? Get real. The Bible is quite clear on the value of the physical union of spouses, aside from producing children. Besides, the part about hoping Doug doesn't procreate was clearly in jest. It's not as if I have any control over the matter. Moreover, if he did take that as an insult, I hope you understand the irony of you expecting me to have great concern about that given Doug's own propensity for his "negative truth" to include what most of humanity would consider to be gratuitous insults.
And yes, most of Smith's money came from the grassroots. But how exactly did the establishment work against her? Just because some Republicans you would label part of the establishment weren't excited about her candidacy doesn't explain how despite nearly equal financial resources (and a notable Republican GOTV effort), Smith was pummeled at the polls by an unimpressive incumbent who at the time was vulnerable. It's not as if such "establishment" Republicans backed Murray. Based on that 17% defeat, I think it's fair to argue a couple million more bucks and/or the enthusiasm of the "establishment" wasn't going to put Smith over the top.
As for your vasectomy, though it's a bit of TMI, it explains a lot. Thanks.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 14, 2006 02:13 PMAnd as for the vasectomy, excuse me for engaging in prudent family planning. My wife and I started our family young, and decided it made the most sense for all of us, for many reasons including financial, to call it good at two children. Any criticism of that is juvenile, not to mention the fact you didn't answer my question about your criticism of sex between spouses not intended for procreation.
Plus you're also still dodging the question about Linda Smith.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 14, 2006 03:54 PMLet me get this straight – you say, “…if my comments against you weren't justified, you wouldn't respond.”
So - If a man is accused of something and has a defense, the accusations are true, but if he has no defense he’s innocent?
Reminds me some of the incidents of 1692 in Salem, Mass. That year there were several peculiar trials. The court admitted one particularly interesting kind of evidence (among many), a touch test--if an accuser's convulsions ceased when the accused touched her, the defendant was guilty. The test, whose results rested, obviously, entirely at the discretion of the prosecution, fell within a long tradition of such illogical tests. Previous defendants were required to carry red hot iron bars and, if burned, were convicted. Others were thrown in the river and, if they were able to swim out and survived were guilty –if they drowned they were considered innocent.
Eric’s test is in this grand tradition of tests for witchcraft.
"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?" Proverbs 26: 18 & 19
Yes, I have a wife and children on whom, as well as on me, you have pumped your bile.
But I must apologize for not having more pity on your seemingly sociopathic disregard for facts in deference to your psycho-babylonian ideologuery. I did not, previously, know you had been gelded. Small wonder that you are, shall we say, a bit testy. You have my deepest sympathy. I understand, however, that the operation might be reversible.
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 14, 2006 04:54 PMThanks for the history lesson, regardless of its lack of relevance to what we're talking about. Speaking of lack of relevance to our conversation, thanks for the verse too. What neighbor have I deceived?
This is just like your hysterical citation of Braveheart: quaint and mildy entertaining, but utterly out of place with our conversation...all while reinforcing the perception that your approach to debate is too heavy on hyperbole to be taken seriously.
I've been calling you on the carpet for your demeanor, your rude behavior, and your fascination with details over the importance of the big picture. Yet, you apparently believe you are infallible, and refuse to accept the fact you may just be wrong in your understanding of the facts and your analysis therein. Perhaps your record of winning political debates and elections might have brough this to your attention earlier, but I think we've established your logic doesn't jive with most people. Leading us to the logical conclusion that you are either a) superior to most people or b) wrong. I leave it to the readers of your work, the members of the Republican Party State Committee, and the voters of the state of Washington to answer that question.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 14, 2006 05:04 PMIn this case, they seem to think the procedure in question changes the man somehow. Maybe they missed their high school biology, so perhaps they need to be reminded a vasectomy simply prevents sperm from joining the semen in exiting the penis. It does nothing to affect the hormones (or soul) that make a man who he is. Especially given their citations of the Bible and religious doctrine one would think they would understand that concept a little better. Though coupled with R in E’s implied view of sexual relations between spouses, it does certainly demonstrate an antiquated and erroneous understanding of human sexuality…why anyone would want to proudly express such a state of mind is beyond me.
And as I noted, when one is using a vasectomy voluntarily for prudent family planning purposes, one wouldn't actually want it reversed. Pardon my wife and I for trying to be responsible about such issues. Then Doug wonders why people don’t take him seriously.
Your denigration of my demeanor and behavior are slurs, proved so by your continued inability to specify any particular instance thereof in, what you admit to be, a prodigious amount of material.
What you term my “fascination with details over the importance of the big picture” is, in fact, the reverse of your tendency: I can back up my claims with fact (detail), while you have nothing but broad conclusions based on your liberal ideology. Your vilification of my “Braveheart” reference is a good example. You insist that your insulting typification of it as “hysterical” be accepted without even so much as any argument for it. You wish to pontificate without reason or fact – you call it “the big picture.” I think it is “the big lie;” you expect it to become resonant only by reason of its having been repeated incessantly.
Your repeated claims, that I believe in my own “infallibility,” and cannot entertain the possibility that I might be wrong are total fabrications. In days of discussion and through repeated requests for any documentation – any facts at all supporting these slurs – you have come up completely, resoundingly, empty.
But let me re-direct the question you are currently dodging: What is your political position on Human Life?
You have said, “I don’t like abortion.” But that is not a political position it is a famous dodge. It is the position of Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jennifer Dunn, Dan Evans, Kate Michelman, Ann Stone (founder of Republicans for Choice) and the rest of your ideological cronies. But they have the guts to come out of the closet and admit their position (although it took Jennifer 14 years). You and Mike McGavick are still hiding. Did Slade teach you that?
Doug -
On the posts I cited above, I did break down in detail where you are wrong. And on this thread I have repeatedly cited instances where you are wrong. I just don't have your fetish for long posts of point-by-point minutiae, especially since as discussed, even when you are presented with facts that disagree with you, you always insist you are correct. See for example any discussion between Reporterward and you, or Timothy Goddard and you, or me and you arguing about the Earling/Neighbors primary in 2003 (which given my proximity to the race you might want to acknowledge I had a more detailed understanding of than you). I’m willing to accept in exchanges between you and them that their version of events (the King Co GOP picnic, your WSRP chair debate) is not 100% correct, you however, refuse to acknowledge someone may have a different view of things without impugning their character, or tossing around the liberal label like it’s the worst charge known to man.
And Doug, I didn’t dodge your question, such as how you’re now dodging my criticism of your juvenile vasectomy comments. I said I didn’t like abortion. That’s correct. I also don’t support assisted suicide. You want more detail? Then ask. For example, I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision. I think it should be in the hands of state legislatures, where I would not favor total abolition of abortion but would support strong restrictions, particularly in the 3rd trimester. Some states would probably go further with that, which is a reasonable outcome if it is made by legislative bodies rather than the courts. I’m sure you won’t like that position, but I am being honest with you.
So Doug, I’m not hiding from you, as much as you’d like to believe that. And if you want clarification, please avoid your usual tactic of jumping to conclusions, ask specific questions and I’ll clarify.
And if I have no credibility here, why was I invited to the summer picnic of Soundpolitics contributors? Were you invited Doug?
Moreover, if I lack credibility (or other positive characteristics) as a person , why was I recently elected to public office…and then elected Vice Chair of the body on which I serve, even though I’m by far and away the youngest out of 15 people serving on it?
What have you been elected to?
II. Thank you for your belated admission that you are Pro-Abortion Choice. Given that you believe in a woman’s basic, though regulated, right to kill her children I believe your initial response indicating opposition to abortion can, in fact, be properly labeled a dodge.
III. No, I was not invited to Stefan’s contributor picnic, but I have not been much of a contributor (except, I think, for two threads in more than that many years.) Had I been a contributor and, still, not invited, I might want to speculate as to the reason, but my entire direct discourse on Sound Politics with Stefan has been to state a disagreement with him on Abortion and Gay Rights. If I were Stefan I might not invite me either. If you are so credible how come you haven’t been invited to a single Reagan Wing meeting?
IV. You, once again, repeat your claim that, “when you [meaning Doug] are presented with facts that disagree with you, you always insist you are correct.” Once again, for I don’t know, the umpteenth time, please give me ONE example of this. Have you no shame?
V. With regard to “the ‘liberal’ label”: Liberals seem to hate being labeled liberals as much as Communists hate being called Communists. But the problem is that ANY label for something generally regarded as negative eventually becomes a “negative” term. Changing the label doesn’t help for long. Reagan Dunn is now calling himself “progressive.” I have a much higher regard for an honest liberal who admits his positions and, of course, even more if he joins the Democrat Party, rather than attempting to change, mis-direct and generally hamper the Republican Party. It is when a politician consciously works to fool the GOP grassroots, like Slade and McGavick, that I think a character issue is pertinent. It’s not just being dishonest, like a car salesman, it is the thwarting of the will of the majority of the Party and enabling the destruction of the greatest nation on earth. You will call that hyperbole, but only because you disagree.
I’m not talking about Republican Party offices. I’m talking about actual government, where you’re elected to serve on a government body that does the people’s business. That is the whole point of the party, to elect people to office so some of our ideas have a chance of being implemented. I’m on the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission, thanks to the votes of over 13,000 people in southwest Snohomish County.
As to losing elections and debates, let’s look at just a few candidates you’ve noted at this site you supported: Reed Davis, Steve Hammond, and Betty Neighbors. Respectable people though they might be, they lost. And you’re not winning many current debates in the Republican Party since you support neither candidate for state party chair, and your lone hope for the Senate still has yet to enter the race. I might note that since the Legislature will probably move the primary to at least August that puts your hope in an increasingly difficult position.
Next, I have never done anything but clearly state my position on abortion. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. And when you asked for elaboration I gave it.
Since I favor more abortion restrictions than most of Americans, one would think you’d want me on your side, especially if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned and the issue returns to state legislatures. However, the tone of your reply is consistent with the condemnation you have for others who hold different beliefs than yours, especially on emotional issues like abortion. Perhaps you noticed using abortion as a litmus test is working out terribly well for the Democratic party? If you’d like Republicans to stay in the minority in this state, then sure, we could implement your exclusionary, all-or-nothing line of thinking on abortion.
It is telling that you broached the question only late in the debate, bringing it up as an unrelated issue to our discussion of state party issues and your tactics in such debate. You then claiming that I am “ideological cronies” with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Kate Michelman is comical, but a great insight into your line of thinking. You could line Jennifer Dunn, Dan Evans, and me up against the former trio and find we probably disagree 90% of the time, if not more, on the issues of the day. Moreover, I can say with certainty even on the issue of abortion that that same trio of liberals would find my position horrifying. Yet you try to claim there is some similarity because of you disagree with the lot of us. I think that says more about your inability to accept the views of others as honest, despite your disagreement, than it says anything about anyone else.
I’m also fairly certain I wouldn’t want to come to a Reagan Wing meeting. My point was your claim that I have no credibility at this site is a non sequitur.
And Doug, I have given specific examples of your inability to accept facts different than your version of them. For starters, I’ve just recently cited our disagreement over the facts of the Earling/Neighbors primary in 2003 (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003708.html), your disagreement with Goddard over the Reagan Wing debate (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003636.html and http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003708.html), and your disagreement with Reporterward about the GOP picnic (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005509.html). In each of those cases, you’ve refused to accept that someone could have an honest difference of opinion as to how events unfolded. Rather, you insist on attacking those that disagree with you, usually in terms that question their character instead of accepting the fact honest disagreement between adults is not abnormal. Your petty claim that Reporterward has libeled you (about which you admitting consulting an attorney) because he disagrees with your interpretation of events is a true gem, even for you.
Now, just recently you’ve given us two more examples. One, because you don’t like my view on many issues pertinent to the Republican Party, you claim I have “deceived” people. Similarly, in your most recent post you claim that McGavick and Slade tried to “fool the GOP grassroots.” In both cases, you’ve ascribed malicious intent merely because someone doesn’t share your vision of the Republican Party; that is intellectually unserious and politically untenable behavior.
If you were correct that the behavior you’ve ascribed to me, McGavick, and Slade, then I’m surprised this majority of the party you claim is being deceived by liberal hucksters hasn’t woken up to this fact. Why exactly was Slade elected to statewide office 6 times? Is your hidden majority of the party that stupid that they were duped 6 times in over 25 years? Or maybe, just maybe, are you perhaps wrong?
At this point, I’m done with this thread. You can post any insult you like afterward (or as you like to call it, your version of the facts expressed through “negative truth”); I’m not going to respond. I will for once agree with R in E, time for some balance.
Interesting choices for examples!
Reed Davis was banned from the State Republican Party by the Candidate Censorship agreement. This directly led to a widespread perception that he lacked viability. The perception of lack of viability (virtually the only winning issue your wing of the Party ever has) destroyed his candidacy. But his political crucifixion was instrumental in winning the debate that ended that dirty and illegal bit of deception that is Candidate Censorship. By your standard Christ, himself, lost the debate with the political establishment of the day by being murdered.
Bette Neighbors lost her primary battle as a direct result of her primary campaign (in its last two weeks) being cancelled by the Earling wing of the Party working through the Premier Prevaricator, Chris Vance (illegally) using the CANDIDATE CENSORSHIP AGREEMENT. Proud, are we?
Steve Hammond clearly won the debate in the Republican Party, winning the Party’s sole nomination at the 2005 King County nominating convention despite the expenditure of over $170,000.00 (and a whole lot of cheating) by the GOP left to get the nomination for his opponent. Dunn immediately announced his intention to defy those results, using the CANDIDATE CENSORSHIP AGREEMENT as a justification for it, and run in violation of Party rules. He won the primary by spending more for that seat than any other County Council primary race in Washington State History and diverting campaign funds that could have (and should have) gone to David Irons to battle Ron Sims.
Your wing of the party doesn’t win debates. You just silence your opponents and cheat.
You reference “your lone hope for the Senate,” suggests that, while conservatives have only one, you have more than one. I think that’s accurate. You have both McGavick and Cantwell, each of whom is closer to your philosophical positions on government that ours. Best of luck.
You say, “Next, I have never done anything but clearly state my position on abortion. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. And when you asked for elaboration I gave it.”
I asked for your political position on abortion. You replied that you “didn’t like” it. If that was, in fact, your POLITICAL position, that is, the position you felt government should take, it would mean you wanted abortion outlawed. But, as it turns out, you are pro-abortion politically, that is, you don’t believe in the Right to Life of pre-natal children, however much you might be willing to regulate their murder. What you had stated to me was not a political position at all, but a personal preference akin to “not liking” the color purple. It was, unmistakably, a dodge.
Your position is morally bankrupt and your typification of it, like McGavick’s, is based on deception.
I agree with you that abortion is, in two ways, an “emotional issue.”
1. Since it involves the slaughter of innocent people its opponents have little tolerance for the heartlessness of its proponents. But you will find that this is not “special” for fundamental moral issues. Opponents of slavery held similar feelings that were decried by the “pro-choice” faction of the day. Opponents of Nazism held similar feelings and were decried by “pro-choice” Americans who worked to keep us neutral on the expansion of Hitler’s tyranny in Europe.
2. Proponents, by contrast, typically use emotion as a replacement for reason in coming to their position. Those who pursue a sexually promiscuous lifestyle have an emotional need to be able to snuff out the evidence of their indiscretions. Those who have, in the past, succumbed and had an abortion have an emotional need to wipe out their deep sense of guilt. And those who have thrown in their lot with pro-abortion-choice politicians like you and McGavick want to have their political choices held above criticism and feel vulnerable.
Yes, my position on the murder of innocent pre-natal children is exclusionary. It excludes murder. I assume that you, too, have exclusionary positions, now that the battles are over, on slavery and Nazism? Don’t you?
I brought up what I expected to be your liberal position on life because I felt it would be helpful in showing anyone that might still be reading this repetitive thread (of your lies and my replies) that you were, in fact, a liberal. You are, in fact, an ideological crony, on that issue (and probably many more) with those I mentioned. Your claim that Evans would disagree with the Democrats “90% of the time” is dead wrong and can be proven so with his voting record. In the U.S. Senate Dan Evans established the Senate’s FOURTH MOST LIBERAL VOTING RECORD. There were only two Democrats ahead of him. He was more liberal that Metzenbaum & Rostenkowski, liberal lions of the day, as well as the overwhelming majority of the Democrat Party. And on the most significant items he had the help of Slade Gorton (with McGavick (admiringly) on his staff) whose voting record at that time was in the dead center of the Democrat Party. This is a matter of public record.
You say, “I think that says more about your inability to accept the views of others as honest.” I can accept that your views of the right to life (which you don’t believe in) are, themselves, honest. I think typifying those views as “I don’t like abortion” is an attempt to paint yourself on the other side of the issue.
I never said you had no credibility at this site. There are a lot of Gay Rights and Pro-Abortion contributors here, like Rosenberg, and those views are held (at least so far) by Stefan, himself. But you were talking about general credibility. My guess is that few of your “13,000” constituents ever come to Sound Politics and few of the Republicans in that group knew you were a “pro-choice” activist.
The issue of credibility you now call a “non sequitur” was, exclusively, your issue. You seem to think that having a constituency that, in some venue, is a majority (however fleeting that might be) gives your positions (no matter how irrational) validity. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” Ex. 23:2
You definitely would not want to come to a Reagan Wing meeting. We’re conservatives.
Now to your examples:
What facts do I fail to accept concerning:
1. The Earling/Neighbors primary?
2. The third Reagan Wing debate?
3. The GOP picnic?
The Earling/Neighbors controversy was a disagreement, not over facts, but over the interpretation of them, to wit: Just how liberal was Earling?
The Reagan Wing debate issue revolved around fictions Timothy published about it, that I could demonstrably prove false. For you to suggest the facts went against me is absurd.
The GOP picnic, again, revolved around fictions, this time published by Donald J. Ward, which I also could prove, emphatically, false.
For you to suggest that in these instances I was “proven wrong and refused to admit it” (the original charge that you’re been challenged to back up) is just downright dishonest on your part because you already have enough information to realize that the issues, at the very least, are not proven against me.
But it is also true that you are slithering out from behind your original charge, now suggesting that you only said I refused to acknowledge an honest disagreement. No, Eric, what you said was that I was proven wrong and refused to admit it, and, in this case you have failed, though challenged repeatedly to do so, to come up with ANY SINGLE EXAMPLE.
Timothy may have begun with an “honest difference of opinion as to how events unfolded” on the Regan Wing debate, but when his opinion was proven false, it was Timothy, not I, who refused to admit he could be wrong.
And Ward’s false statements about the GOP picnic were not an interpretation of events, at all, but a fabrication, on his part, of a fictional occurrence. You were not there, but if you are rational you must admit that at least one of us is simply lying. He said that I threw a tantrum and nothing could be further from the truth. No, he cannot hide behind the idea that his was simply a different “opinion.” Yes, it calls his character into question, but it was already in question because he claimed, here on Sound Politics, that The Reagan Wing did not vote for Republicans. These are blatant lies.
Yes, I claim that McGavick and Slade have deceived people. It’s clearly true. All over the State there are people, for instance, that are choosing to support McGavick claiming he is “a pro-life Catholic” the objective of his obfuscation on this issue. But Mike McGavick’s position on abortion is an explicit denial of the Catholic position. He is pro-abortion-choice. Any Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church cannot, in good conscience, vote for him.
Yes, you, Slade and McGavick have a different “vision of the Republican Party.” But making your visions work for Sate-wide election campaigns depend on making the pro-life community believe that you are on the “same side” of the abortion issue as they are. That is, clearly, deception.
“Why exactly was Slade elected to statewide office 6 times?”
Great question!
Slade Gorton built a powerful political constituency when he, Dan Evans, Ralph Munro and Joel Pritchard were, literally, the vanguard of the liberal movement in Washington. They were more liberal than the Democrats in that day. (See a more complete story here.) It was the emergence of Ronald Reagan and the resulting influx of conservative activists, together with the dramatic swing left of the Democrats, that politically necessitated fooling the Republican Party into thinking Slade was conservative. The press was instrumental in helping Slade do this, being, throughout his career, very friendly to Slade when it came to any Republican challenge. They called Slade “conservative” and Evans “moderate.” Many, many Republicans accepted this, and Slade’s disingenuous pronouncements at conventions, at face value and voted accordingly. So Slade got conservative votes by being a Republican and liberal votes by being a liberal. It was a very effective formula for a long time. But the media monopoly began to break up with the emergence of talk radio (thank you, Mr. Limbaugh) and the internet. Slade’s ability to position himself as “mildly conservative” began to erode. His margins slid until he (just like Linda Smith and Ellen Craswell) lost his final election.
The future of the Republican Party is absolutely dependent on developing a consistent, principled message behind which the Party stands. We could do it, as did Dan and Slade and Ralph and Joel in the old days, by being more liberal than the Democrats, or we could do it (as Dino Rossi’s campaign suggests) by being (for the first time in Washington State History) a conservative Party. But the proof was made by Slade Gorton and John Carlson in 2000, George Nethercutt in 2004, and will be made by Mike McGavick in 2006, that we can no longer be viable by straddling the fence and standing for nothing but “pragmatism.”
I'm afraid in regards to Steve Hammond and
Betty Neighbors you don't quite have the
complete story on how they both lost.
Lets take Steve Hammond first:Steve didnt get
the support of the King Gop.The leadership
decided early on they were going to back
Reagan Dunn. Before the county convention
Steve and Reagan made a gentlemans agreement
that whoever lost at the convention would
drop out.
Reagan dunn I don't believe he ever thought
he would lose.Because after the convention
he kept coming up with excuses Of why he
should still be able to run.Mind you there were
never any conditions put on there agreement
to drop out.First reagan said that hammond
broke the 11th commandment.When reagan was
confronted about what it was steve did he
could never give a straight answer.
Then it was well the vote was to close
at the convention we need to let the people
decide.It didn't help that the king gop
didn't enforce there own rules.It was that
way because they were in the tank for reagan
dunn the entire time.Reagan Dunn just prior
to the primary himself broke the 11th
commandment.He put out one of the most
vicious fliers that wasn't even remotely
true about steve hammond.
Eric you must realize that the king gop
leadership threw everything they had at
steve hammond.from trying freeze out
those that wanted to be delegates to
make sure reagan would get the most
votes.To not allowing steve to speak
at events where reagan got to.As well
having some of the district chairs
on reagan dunn's payroll.In short its
was never a fair race.The outcome didn't
help the king gop at all.The leadership
actually alienated a large voting block
in council district 5 with there behavior.
I dont know if they will ever be able to get
them back.
As to betty neighbors you know as well
as I do that vance threaten to fine her 5,000
if she pointed out the differences between
her and her opponent in the primary.
That severely hurt her chances of winning.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Doug tried to defend betty neighbors in
the previous posting.Sometimes you can
be very clever in the way you write.
yet still not know what your talking
about.Next fully read what someone
says before you jump to conclusions
I still believe Diane Tebelius is the best person for the job. Nothing written here convinces me otherwise.
Again, Fredi is a nice lady but NICE won't raise the approx. $300,000 installment due March 31st. Even if she doesn't take a salary that's only - $20,000 (Feb/March salary)? - a drop in bucket of what is owed. Raising money for the WSRP debt is a 24/7 job. Fredi working 3 days a week won't cut it. The WSRP Chair is a serious job. Not taking a salary and working part-time is a status quo approach that will get us no-where and can not be taken seriously as a solution. The debt needs to be firmly dealt with so that our party can move on. Fredi has NO experience raising hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we do not have the time for her to learn.
Diane has the fundraising experience, the political and professional background, and will work OVERTIME to meet the WSRP debt obligations and move the party forward.
I would agree with you Diane is a better
candidate than Fredi.However I will
reinterate this for you.Back when Diane
was seriously considering running for
the US senate.She decided she wasn't
going to run. At that point in time
Diane told Susan Hutchison she would
never support Mike McGavick.Then four
hours later she did back him.
Now I have come to find out Diane
has history of doing this kind of thing.
You have to be able to trust what a
leader says.If we can't take Diane at her
word. How can we ever trust her?
Diane Tebelius has a long history of serving the Republican Party and representing the interests of the WSRP as the National Committee Woman. Her actions speak volumes for her allegiance to the Republican Party. I believe she is best suited for the WSRP Chair.
This is not a third party report I was
there when Susan got that phone call from
Diane telling she was dropping out and would
never support Mike McGavick.Whether you
choose to believe or not It happened
and it is not the first she has done this.
Next time you see Diane ask her about
the time a few years back when she ran
for state vice chair.You might just be
surprised what you find out.
Doug-- What spite & deceit? You practically said it yourself.
Posted by: Timothy on January 16, 2006 11:05 PMThanks.
Since you've come back to the scene, would you like to offer a defense for your friend's anti-life comments toward Doug and his wife and children? ("Have sex, but please don't procreate") And by the way Eric, how is it taking time to enjoy "God's creation" if you would prefer him to prevent His creation from taking place, while using the means He provided for it?
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 17, 2006 01:33 AMOrthodox Jews (those who still hold to the tenets of Judaism) share the same view as well. Some Protestants who've studied the issue enough or have had the blessing of God revealing it to them, share this view as well. This issue might be worth another look for you. You say you're a fan of G.K. Chesterton. I wonder how much of his stuff you've read. Do a google for Chesterton on contraception and see what he had to say about it.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 17, 2006 08:33 AM(I know Chesterton makes a very good argument against contraception. He also makes a good argument against women's sufferage. One can respect someone immensely while still rejecting some of their arguments. The opposite is also true.)
Posted by: Timothy on January 17, 2006 10:21 AMFirst of all, the points I've made against contraception are not "theological" (the study of God). But I'm confused as to what your position is. You said you are a fan of contraception, but then you provided a link "to illuminate" your stance. The link you provided discusses how evangelical Christians are coming to the realization that the Catholic Church was right about contraception.
Your suggestion that I lose respect (and votes) when I lump contraception and abortion together: 1)I didn't-but the Supreme Court did. 2) I'm not running for anything 3) I have not proposed any legislation against contraception--I just pointed out what the laws used to be--that were put there by Protestant legislators. By the way, even the father of the Protestant reformation believed as I do.
And as far as I know, Chesterton never argued against sufferage for women. Though he made many tongue in cheek comments (which always seem to go over your head) regarding women's liberation. So if you want to provide me with a source that proves he did, go ahead. But I'd be careful that whatever you provide doesn't say the complete opposite like your link on contraception.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 17, 2006 05:41 PM