Yesterday's post on McGavick's support for the Senate stem-cell bill (which, by the way, was also supported by Majority Leader Bill Frist) elicited this comment from "Mark" (#8)
Just what the Senate needs yet another Senator nominally a Republican who finds himself more comfortable voting with Democrats, it's not just this issue, there's no way I would vote for him.Oh, well. But "Mark" doesn't vote anyway, as he told us in this comment on May 10 (#3)
I moved to Snohomish County last Fall and will not bother to register to vote here as I have no confidence at all that my vote will be counted or if counted will be counted accurately.Mark doesn't think very highly of Congressman Reichert either, as he told us in this comment last week (#11)
he has proven himself a borderline RINO in the past ... I guess in order to survive in the increasingly left leaning 8th one needs to be a RINO to continue to be elected there.Governor Craswell and Senator Smith thank Mark for his vigilance against the RINOs in our midst and for his principled refusal to vote. Cuba Dwight Pelz, Senator Cantwell and the current occupant of the Governor's office are undoubtedly also grateful to Mark. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 19, 2006 10:11 AM | Email This
This kind of talk keeps at best mediocre democrats getting elected. At worst it helps dangerous idiots get into office (Paging Seattle City Council).
Posted by: Steve_dog on July 19, 2006 11:14 AMIt's obvious what your soft spot it, guess it really bothered you that overwhelmingly most of your posters took a position that disagreed with yours on that issue.
Glad to know that for at least a brief moment I annoyed you more than the Queen, Ron Sims, Goldy or the many trolls that post here of which apparently I am now one.
The only thing missing is your official announcement of the name change of the site to Rinopolitics.com.
I guess living in Seattle you look around yourself and by comparison you may actually believe yourself to be some sort of Republican, that would be a Dan Evans Republican.
I don't like the fact Mcgavick is apparently pro-choice and will vote for this bill... but then again, this is a state that legalized abortion via initiative years before Roe vs Wade. To say your not going to vote for him over this one issue is a bit short sighted.
Same with Reichert... I haven't agreed with some of his votes, but I agree with him more often then not, and he does put his district before his party, and represents it far better than Burner ever would, so I will happily vote for him in the fall.
Posted by: Mike H on July 19, 2006 11:37 AMI agree with Mark in many ways. Many Republicans are feed-up with the way our (Republican) elected officials have handled things. i.e.: The Boarder, Spending on PORK, the devaluation of the dollar, the war effort, (or lack of one) to name but a few.
As someone who lives in the 27th (6 months a year) I know what it is like to live in a LA LA LAND of Demorat's that would make San Fransicko look like Salt Lake City. I have had State G.O.P. leadership tell me that we need to more to the left to get elected...at what cost to our principles...that, in my opinion would make us no better that the vermin we are trying to rid ourselves of.
What does the G.O.P. not understand about the word CONSERVATIVE!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on July 19, 2006 11:38 AMThere has been far too much infighting among the GOP for far too long. I have lived in this state nearly 20 years, and definitely noticed this in the 1988 election cycle.
We get folks on the right that want to trash the moderates. And moderates that want to trash the folks on the right. A lot of moderates have become Democrats, and many folks on the right have been third-party fringe types or non-voters.
It wouldn't have done much good to nominate Chris Bayley over Linda Smith in 1998, for example. Bayley was a moderate, who might have given Patty Murray a close race. But Bayley spent enormous sums -- I think over a million from his own pocket -- on negative ads trashing Smith and the right. He did nothing to appeal to conservative voters who form the largest portion of the GOP electorate. This gave him no chance of winning the primary at all, much less winning the general election had he gotten the nomination.
I thought that Dino Rossi would be a disastrous nominee in 2004. Rossi seemed to be too conservative with not strong enough of a resume'. Fortunately, Rossi proved my fears wrong. Rossi was able to reach out to all factions and unite the GOP electorate. And also appeal to the overall electorate effectively. While a stronger candidate able to use the same strategy could have beaten Gregoire, I can't say that Rossi disappointed me in any way -- after all he was our strongest candidate for Governor in 24 years.
I think Mike McGavick is a VERY STRONG candidate. I didn't know whether he was more of a conservative or moderate when he announced. I was afraid that perceptions of being "hand-picked" by Chris Vance and his insurance industry ties would turn off many voters. I was hoping for someone like Susan Hutchison to emerge as a primary contender.
I am still not sure whether McGavick is more of a conservative or a moderate. But that really doesn't matter to me. I like his politics and principles a lot better than those of Maria Cantwell. I also think McGavick will show some independence and initiative. I don't think McGavick will be rubber-stamp for President Bush, and I know that the swing voters definitely don't want a rubber-stamp. And I also think McGavick can work effective for our state (and our principles) if he finds himself as part of the minority in the Senate or having to deal with a Democrat president.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 19, 2006 11:59 AM
Some people have high standards of which
they live by and in who they will vote for.
That doesn't make them schmuck's.It make's
them principled individuals.If wanting someone
in office that is honest and has integrity
is so wrong then I fear we are finished as
political party.
Steve_dog,
What helps dangerous idiots get into office
is the continued belief by the State Gop and
the establishment. That they know better than
you or I who candidate should be.
The reasons Cantwell and Smith lost had
almost nothing to do with there conservative
backgrounds.It had more to do with the lack
of support of the State Gop leadership.
For now we will just leave at that.
Is Darcy a better choice? Of course not, but as John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." Also, "Always stand on principle, even if you stand alone."
Posted by: TedR on July 19, 2006 12:33 PMI have to ask you... which is, better...compromise your principles, morals and values 30% of the time for 70% agreement (more like 50 / 50 at best). Alternatively, stop supporting POLITICAL WHORES who only purpose is to use you for "THEIR" political and ego realization.
As for voting for a Demorat, they have no morals or values, so I can vote for them 0% of the time.
So Mike H what are my options???
Oh, and heaven forbid a politician who believes "too passionately" in the Constitution. We surely don't want anyone like *that* in office.
Posted by: TedR on July 19, 2006 12:52 PMThis election I would not vote in that race if I had the opportunity, I don't only because I don't live in that district. I believe that all things must be accounted for when I meet my maker and one thing I will be able to do is tell Him that I did not compromise principle when it came time to vote.
You are correct that we need an alternative if we are to get anywhere, and that is what my party, the Constitution Party, is slowing but surely working towards in this State. We, at the very least, want to give people an alternative to the R's that are slowly looking like D's. And not just an alternative, but a legitimate candidate.
The workers are few and the work is great, but I do believe we are making progress.
Posted by: TedR on July 19, 2006 01:07 PMCantwell is on the wrong side of these and other top issues. You might disagree with what the exact top issues are, but it's what the electorate as a whole feels is the top issue that matters. For those of you who sacrifice your vote on principal, or for minor issues, fine, it is your right. But the majority knows that we will be far better off with Cantwell gone.
There isn't a lot of difference to me whether you are a Democrat or a Republican and you are trying to shove your religious and/or social values down my throat. I don't like either one.
If you are pro-life, good for you. Live your life the way you want to live, but don't tell me how to live my life. Everyone's moral boundaries are different. Before you tell two twenty year olds that they can't abort their baby who doesn't have a brain or some other serious medical condition, ask yourself if you will raise that deformed baby for the next 50 or so years.
There are horrible, disgusting and plain vile things going on all around the globe. You cannot possible change everyone, the only thing you can do is live your life and be happy with your choices for you and your family.
Posted by: sgmmac on July 19, 2006 01:57 PMIf the only alternatives are to A) vote for someone I agree with 10% of the time, or B) not vote at all, which would result with person from alternative option A) getting elected, or C) vote for someone who I agree with 100% of the time, but has no shot of winning, resulting in the person from option A) winning then yes, I compromise and vote for the guy I disagree with 30% of the time.
Katomar answered it best. You can't get everything you want 100% of the time. If you insist on having everything all the time without compromising, then you will only end up with nothing all the time, and won't even be in a position to work for a compromise.
Welcome to Democracy 101.
Posted by: Mike H on July 19, 2006 02:06 PMBut both of them see nothing wrong with declaring human beings slaves because of the color of their skin.
As an abolitionist, you disagree strongly with this. Do you vote for the fellow you agree with 70% of the time despite the fact he's going to do nothing about slavery? Or do you look for a third choice?
Posted by: My Boaz's Ruth on July 19, 2006 04:47 PMI would have to say that I do agree with Mark that you do have to stick to your principles. You can't vote against your principles. I disagree with Mark on not voting, though. You should always vote. There may be races where you can still vote your principles and help have a voice.
If the Republicans and Democrats would have listened to the voters on the primary issue, we all could vote our conscious in a truly open primary instead of having to settle for whoever the party nominates to put on the ballot. You want to blaim someone. Blaim the parties for their power-monger attitude, instead of trusting in the voters. If we had the Grange Model, which was approved by the voters, you maybe would have seen a McGavick versus another Pro-Life Republican in the general election. But no, the state Republican and Democratic parties know best. Not us voters.
Chew on that Mark. Why call yourself a Republican when your party goes against your wishes? The state (and National) Republican power is just as corrupt and power-hungry as the Democrats.
The only opportunity we have to change things is to elect candidates that put the voter first and not the party. That is one thing that I do like so far about McGavick. I am not convinced, however, when push comes to shove that he will tow the party line. Let's look to the fall and see who he brings in and if he allows the party to run negative commercials. It sure would be nice to see an election about the issues and not about all the negatives of each candidate.
Posted by: tc on July 19, 2006 05:01 PMWhy is this issue at all up for grabs in the party of moral values? Much more of this and we will start to lose credibility.
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on July 19, 2006 06:04 PMI second Mark's frustration. I've always still pulled the lever until the primary this year in my new midwestern locale. I didn't vote for White ballot Rino's. What will I do in the General? I don't know.
One thing is for sure Senator Frist's chance of surviving past South Carolina in 08 went the way of the Veto override. He's toast with the pro-life base.
For those of you who support fetal stem cell research, why? It doesn't work. As opposed to adult stem cells. Two Texas women are now walking because of adult stem cells. In the fetal stem cell field we have faked research and a lot of hysteria. That the Republicans in Congress are now shifting to support this nonsense tells me that they like the Democrats are respounding increasingly to feelings and perception. Besides even if it did work is carving up dead babies in a futile attempt to keep yourself alive really that appealing? Is that they way you want to be remembered? You are still going to die. And your epithat will read, what? He lived eleven more years because of his advocacy of slicing and dicing babies. No better than the Chi-coms. Worse even!
Voltaire's last words to a Doctor, I will give you half of everything I have for six more months of life. Later he said, I hate God and man I shall go to hell. And he did. Voltaire predicted the demise of Christianity within fifty years of his death. Two years after his death his former house was a publishing location printing --- Bibles.
This side of time is Kindergarten. Honor the teacher and His sacrifice on your behalf and treat your fellow students well then you get promoted. Dishonor the teacher and the other students you get expelled.
Posted by: Jericho on July 19, 2006 06:29 PMAs they say, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
The more things change, the more they stay the same (sorry Neil).
Posted by: Daniel K on July 19, 2006 06:48 PMI know that I will never agree with any politician 100% or even 75%...but the line between Republicans and Demorat has been blurred so much you cannot tell one from another. Both sides have sold their souls to the highest bidders.
Now I' am being told whom to support, because this what "The Party" wants. "Better Red State than Dead State" I know nothing about what Mr. Mike really thinks or believes in. If you go to his web site, or read his campaign hand outs, there is a lot of nondescript, noncommittal, and lacking information. I did a little homework on line to find out where he stood:
1). Pro-Choice...not my issue but an important one for base Republicans.
2). Pro- Government Stem Cell funding by taxpayers... Again not my issues but still an important issue for base Republicans.
3). In favor of "some" gun controls...that's like being a little pregnant, you don't mess with the second amendment.
4). No stand on Social Security reform..."we will cross that bridge when we get to it" Ted Kennedy
5). No stand on the devaluated dollar...The U.S. currency has fallen 25% in the last two years.
6). A Federalist...he says Smaller Government... but Big Government has all of the answers.
7). Still has no clear stated opinion on the war.
What will Mike have to debate Ms. Cantdowell about, there on the same talking points page?
Has anyone else noticed that Ms. Cantdowell is running against President Bush and his policies not our Republican candidate? Maybe there is nothing separating them?
Not exactly, Daniel. I describe my philosophy as "small-l libertarian" and that overall I feel most aligned with Republicans, and not, say, Democrats or the Big-L Libertarian Party.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 19, 2006 10:04 PM"Mark," would you prefer the GOP run tickets of Craswells every year?
The fact is that the fringes of both parties are just that -- fringes. The vast majority of people are Moderate Left or Moderate Right and are civilized enough to have adult conversations and debates about how to do things.
When in doubt, I do vote the party line, but voting for GOP whackjobs just because they're 100% true to the platform hurts the party because:
A.) Most centrist or sane center-lefties wouldn't dream of voting for them, so there is little chance they'll win in this state.
B.) You'll end up win a zealot / automaton who will act in the best interests of him-/herself and the party, not the people s/he was elected to represent.
Posted by: The REAL "Mark" on July 20, 2006 12:13 AMIf he does, he's even more nuts then I originally thought, and I already thought he was pretty nuts.
Posted by: Cliff S on July 20, 2006 06:58 AMShows how much you know. She was for CFR from day one, that wasn't new when she ran for Senate. And she only won 3 elections (one for State Senate, two for House), all squeekers in which she was underestimated and not taken seriously. She won re-election in 1996, barely, on absentee ballots, and probably would have lost her house seat anyway in 98 had she not run for Senate.
Craswell was repeatedly re-elected to the State Senate until her team came up with giveaway compromises to "get the support" of the GOP left for Governor.
I was a frequent volunteer on the Craswell campaign when I was young. Nice lady. But if you think for one second that she was anything but a disaster as a candidate, you are out of your mind. There's a huge difference between a low profile race for State Senate in a conservative district and a high profile race for Governor.
I agree to a point. Except in this case, it's more like a case where candidate A believes in human sacrifices under specific scenarios (like sacrifice criminals convicted of murder) and candidate B believes in unlimited human sacrifices regardless of the human sacrificed. Shades of gray make all the difference between your typical pro-choice Republican and typical pro-choice Democrat. Usually the pro-choice Republicans have some kind of limit, like nothing in the 3rd tri, very limited 2nd tri, whereas usually the pro-choice--and proud of it--Democrats advocate for abortion at any time throughout pregnancy for any reason.
Posted by: ferrous on July 20, 2006 09:02 AMI'm surprised you can tell the difference given your complete lack of being able to distinguish between the use of "executive" with a small-e, and "Executive" with a Big-E.
Then again, perhaps you do know the difference, but think your readers don't - which suggests that you need to clearly define what a small-l libertarian is vs. a small-r republican.
Or should we turn to John McDonald for those definitions?
Posted by: Daniel K on July 20, 2006 12:58 PM How much money do you think the state party
Gave Craswell? The answer is 0 thats right
they gave her nothing. Linda smith was not
the candidate the State party and establishment crowd wanted. So they did next to
nothing to help her.
In all seriousness, though. The Ellen/Bruce Craswell issue is one that is illustrative of the reason why the Spackman/Parris approach to local GOP politics is wrong.
We all got behind Ellen in 1996 even though she got pushed over the top in the open primary because of Democrats sabotaging the process by voting for her. Heck, she even got more of the vote than Carlson in 2000.
How was this repaid? By having her husband, Bruce Craswell knock off Rick White by splitting the ticket in 1998. As we all know, that sinner White wasn't nearly pure and conservative enough for their high and mighty standards.
Do you like having Jay Inslee ensconced in the First Congressional District? Thank the Craswell's and their nutburger base who will always cut and run when their help is needed most.
Doug, I had the pleasure of watching you in action during this year's state and county convention. (I made sure Kirby got your amendment, btw)
Now if you hit the streets and bring more people into the Republican fold, then I'm all behind you. But if your goal is to kick everyone out of the party until you can gain control, then I will fight you tooth and nail as I have been doing.
Your choice.
Yah, your 'facts' are right, kind of like Michael Moore and all his 'facts'. Technically, they aren't incorrect, they just don't mean what you say they mean, are incomplete, grossly distorted, etc.
Let's say, for example, that a woman takes her 2-year-old child into the bath with her. You could write a headline that says "Woman exposes herself to 2-year-old" and technically, you would be right. But of course, reasonable people would still recognize you as the liar you are.
Posted by: Cliff S on July 21, 2006 01:24 PM
I simply do not understand why some of us insist on giving human traits to an embryo. It's not a person yet folks, and the tissue would be thrown away anyhow.
Concentrate on getting non-activist judges on the bench and maybe solve the mess that created abortion as a "right" in the first place.
Re: "Reporterward" - I don't speak for Spackman, but the "Craswell issue" has nothing to do with my approach to GOP Politics. I've pointed this out countless times. Pay attention.
But the vilification of Smith and Craswell has everything to do with the animus of the Anti-Christian wing of the Party. The Republican Left doesn't agree with the Republican Platform or the grassroots on anything, philosophically, and to survive they not only have to destroy candidates who do, they have to re-write history. There were no "Craswell years." The Party has never, in a quarter century, been in conservative hands. Occasionally a conservative has, with Herculean effort, overcome the massive cheating that the Left (constantly) engages in to win a primary and then go on to lose the general, but 70% of our losses are by "pragmatists" even though they, by contrast, have the full promotional and financial support of the Dunn/Vance/Tebelius/Kent crowd.
My approach is to get a Republican Party that will actually stand for something, like it did when Evans, Pritchard, Gorton and Munro were winning. That's how it's done. Not in microcosm. Not a single campaign. A MOVEMENT.
The Party won back then because it was, literally, the spearhead of the Liberal movement. That's history. A Party becomes dominant by standing for something till it becomes tangible to the voters; it's being credible.
Today we could win if we became the spearhead of the Conservative Movement. But, of course, that won't happen overnight, and especially not with stealth liberals like... well, I don't have to name them do I? They are the protégé's of the old guard. The octogenarian wing of the Party. The Old Money. The only thing they have in common with elephants is wrinkles. Who is championing conservative principles? We thought we saw it in Dino, but they took him.
We have no leaders... although the potential, the talent is here in abundance. But those people have no Party and they know it. No wonder they don't run.
I saw the greatest candidates of my generation destroyed by sabotage, starved for campaign funds, robbed of "viability" dragging themselves through the media streets at dawn looking for an honest Chair.
But the Revolution is coming. It just won't be televised.