July 19, 2006
RINO alert

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
Comments
1. Maybe "Mark" can raffle off his vote like the plan of that guy in AZ. Then he can make some $ and not have to worry about how his politicians vote.

Posted by: Dengle on July 19, 2006 10:34 AM
2. Aaaaaarrrgggghhhh. This is why the WA state GOP doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

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 AM
3. Wow Stephan I'm impressed you took all the time to do all that research checking IPs etc, to try and hold up to ridicule some schmuck you occasionally posts on your blog. I'm sure you're very proud but you have said more about yourself than about me.

It'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.

Posted by: Mark on July 19, 2006 11:14 AM
4. Welcome back, Mark. You seem to be saying that the only Republicans who aren't RINOs are those who don't bother to vote for Republicans. I think the most apt part of your comment is where you call yourself a schmuck.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on July 19, 2006 11:19 AM
5. Hey Mark, quick question... which is better? Voting for someone whom you agree with 70% of the time, but that 30% you disagree with are some big issues? Or not voting at all, and getting someone you agree with 10% of the time, and that 90% are all the same big issues and much more?

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 AM
6. Hold on Stephan...

I 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 AM
7. I have to agree with Stefan. We need people who can have a broad appeal. And I don't mean picking the most liberal or least conservative candidate as our nominee in every instance.

There 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
8. Stefan&Mark H,


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.

Posted by: phil spackman on July 19, 2006 12:07 PM
9. I fell that Mike H. is right. You have to go with the canidate you feel will best represent you even if that means only 70% of the time. I have never seen a politician that I agree with 100% of the time on all things, yet I still due my duty as an American and vote for whom I feel that will best lead our country. Sometimes the majority agree with me and sometimes they do not. I mean look at what is happening to Joe Libberman over in Conneticut. Here you have got a Senator who has voted 90% of the time with the Democratic party for the past decade or two and now because he agrees with the war on terror and especially the war in Iraq alot of the political left (i.e. Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.) are ready to throw him overboard. I do not agree with embroyinic stem cell research or with a guest worker program (which Mike McGavick supports), but I am not willing to throw him overboard and be stuck with all the crud we will be stuck with from Maria Cantwell.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 12:25 PM
10. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Everyone must locate their line in the sand. My line always errors on the side of life. Encouraging stem cell research is not erring on the side of life.

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 PM
11. Hey Mike H...

I 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???

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on July 19, 2006 12:36 PM
12. No one ever gets 100% of what they want, and if they do, I pity them. In deciding on a candidate, I guess you just have to select the one that most closely reflects your views on a majority of issues. That's about the best one can hope for. And there's also the sticky little thing called electibility. Politics is, above all, pragmatic. Take Howard Dean for an example. He was the far left's dream candidate. However, he was so unelectible he went down in flames really early on. Then look at Clinton. He had the looks, charisma, speaking ability, and television savvy that won him an election, never mind that he is arguably one of the worst presidents we've had. I'm pretty impressed with Alan Keyes, but would never support him as a candidate becuase he is not electible. Too passionate about what he believes in (the Constituion), and that scares people.
And pooh, pooh Mark. You got caught, so stop whining.

Posted by: katomar on July 19, 2006 12:45 PM
13. katomar: You've missed the point, if you stand on principle, electibility has nothing to do with it. Lets say that I agreed with some politician on all but one issue. Lets say he believed in human sacrifices for religious purposes. Now, it doesn't matter that I agree with him on everything else, the one issue on which we disagree outweighs the rest.

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 PM
14. TedR, I can see your point, but when have you ever agreed 100% of the time with any politician. I do agree that putting aside ones priciples is wrong. But I pose this to you, what choice would you make in this election then? If you choose neither then you still end up with something bad. I agree the best thing would be to find more true conservatives to run, but until that happens you must make the best choice you can.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 19, 2006 12:58 PM
15. TrueSoldier:

This 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 PM
16. Ted R.
You misunderstood me. I said people are scared by someone as passionate as Keyes because he is "visibly" passionate. Another good example is Ross Pirou {sp}. What he had to say was good stuff, but no one listened. They were all just hearing the squeaky voice and seeing those big ears. I was not in any way suggesting anyone abandon their principles or vote for a sacrificer of humans. However, sometimes you do just gotta give a little and do what's practical.

Posted by: katomar on July 19, 2006 01:12 PM
17. Phil - I think you meant Craswell not Cantwell, but if you think they lost because of luke warm support from the state GOP you are sadly misled. The last "gift" the Craswell's left us was the defeat of Rick White by new "Congressman for Life" Jay Inslee. But at least we got rid of that damned RINO! That'll teach 'em. Oh. We live in a blue state folks, if you want any of your issues to move forward, you need candidates like Dino or Slade that can appeal to the quasi-libs. At least with them the Dems have to cheat, with the true conservatives, the Dems don't have to cheat...keep in mind Patty Murray's absolute destruction of her opponents...

Posted by: Cliff on July 19, 2006 01:26 PM
18. Since there will never be 100% agreement, we vote for candidates based on their overall ideology and their stance on the largest issues. I think most here would agree that confronting Islamic Fanaticism and Teror towards Western Civilization is a far more imporant and more pressing issue than stem cell research. Another important issue is the creation of both more domestic oil production for the short to medium term, and more domestic energy production in general for the long term. We can't have continued growth without energy, and for now that is oil and in the future, whatever gives us the most bang for our buck.

Cantwell 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.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 19, 2006 01:44 PM
19. Not all conservatives are pro-life. Not all conservatives are pro-military. There are many differences within both the Republican and the Democratic parties. The Republican party has done a much better job of staying together in spite of differences than the Democratic party.

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 PM
20. I 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)...

If 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 PM
21. A bit OT, but does anyone know McGavick's position on gun control?

Posted by: PJH on July 19, 2006 02:26 PM
22. McGavick's position on gun control? It's anyone's guess. Shouldn't the party have found all of this out BEFORE telling us we all needed to "get behind one candidate"?

Posted by: Michelle on July 19, 2006 03:13 PM
23. So. in 1850 or so. You have two candidates. You agree with one 70% of the time and the other about 30% of the time.

But 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 PM
24. To all you disgruntled Republicans, you have nothing to blaim but yourselves. Republicans are getting so splintered, they may resemble the mess of that's called the Democrat Party. You see being an Independent voter has its advantage. The biggest is you can vote your conscious and are not holden to the belief that you must vote the party line irrespective of who the party's nominee is. Your aren't left with the choice of not voting because your party didn't nominate someone who you can agree with (on the big issues). Being an independent means you can vote for who you think will best do the job. It is the most American of the choices. Parties waiver back and forth. Parties pander to whoever they think will give them the best chance. Both parties abandon principles along time ago. If you want a party that holds to its principles, then you better look to the small third (fourth, fifth, etc.) parties. You can forget about it with both the Democrats and Republicans. To them it is about power, pure and simple. Why do you think they spend so much time slandering their opponents instead of really addressing the issues? The best thing that could happen is to do away with parties.

I 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 PM
25. I hate the term RINO. Parties are not monolithic, but we get together because we have a few common principles and MOST of the time we agree on application of those principles to the real world. If a person works to get fellow Republicans elected to office, and once in office takes his or her first votes each session to ensure Republican control of the legislative chamber (setting the agenda is the most important thing legislators do), then he or she is a Republican. I consider myself a loyal member of the GOP, and when I disagree with fellow Republicans on any given issue, I have no right to claim that I am somehow more of a Republican than my fellow party members based on my application of our shared principles that issue.

Posted by: Chris from Lakewood on July 19, 2006 05:13 PM
26. '"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Bush said of the research that involves tiny human embryos.'

Why 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 PM
27. To all those who'd withhold voting, I will grant that you're principled and admire your willingness to stand the ground. However, you are all forgetting something. Whether you choose to vote or not, some will get selected to represent the people whether you vote or not. This means that your withholding of votes give a greater chance to do greater harm to your principles. As such, I vote to minimize the harm done to my principles.

Posted by: C. Oh on July 19, 2006 06:17 PM
28. Moderate Republicans have always worked out so well for the party in the past. Bob Dole, Bush I, Ford, The Republicans in Congress between 1948 and 1994. We need more of that as opposed to say an extremist like Ronald Reagan. Recall that Washington State voted for Reagan.

I 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 PM
29. I find this whole matter amusing given that Sharkansky has repeatedly referred to himself as a Libertarian. How does that make him an authority on how Republican voters should vote?

As 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 PM
30. Hey Mike H...

I 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?


Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on July 19, 2006 08:50 PM
31. Daniel K. (#29): I find this whole matter amusing given that Sharkansky has repeatedly referred to himself as a Libertarian.

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
32. Man, I leave you kids alone for a minute and look what happens!!!

"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 AM
33. What is abundantly clear is that Sharkansky and company know amost nothing about Craswell and Linda Smith that isn't the product of bigoted anti-conservative propaganda. They only talk about the image of them created by the socialist media. Smith, for instance, never (that's right, NEVER) lost an election until she decided to get moderate and run on campaign finance reform. 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. What a joke that was. Vilification of Smith and Craswell by implication alone has become the stock in trade of the pro abortion wing of the GOP. But why should we expect Sharkanski to know those old facts? He was a Democrat at the time. The end result of the (highly successful) smears of actual conservative candidates has resulted in the permanent minority status of the GOP. Governor Evans and Senator Weicker thank Stefan for his vigilance against Christians in our midst and for his principled support for killing prenatal children. Cuba Dwight Pelz, Senator Cantwell and the current occupant of the Governor's office are undoubtedly also grateful to Stefan.

Posted by: Doug Parris on July 20, 2006 01:23 AM
34. I'm just wondering if Phil Spackman is actually stupid enough to believe that Craswell/Smith lost because the State GOP didn't get behind them.

If 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 AM
35. Smith, for instance, never (that's right, NEVER) lost an election until she decided to get moderate and run on campaign finance reform.

Shows 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.


Posted by: Cliff S on July 20, 2006 07:06 AM
36. TedR posted:
"Lets say that I agreed with some politician on all but one issue. Lets say he believed in human sacrifices for religious purposes. Now, it doesn't matter that I agree with him on everything else, the one issue on which we disagree outweighs the rest."

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 AM
37. Shark wrote, "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."

I'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
38. Thanks to Cliff S for confirming that even the opposition can't find any factual errors in my post. Smith had never lost, though Cliff, with that clairvoyance that all moderates seem to have, asserts that she "would have." She had previously believed in CFR, you say? So what? She never made it her centerpiece until running for U.S. Senate and it bored the base (at best). And the GOP left didn't support or vote for her.
Any moderate, of course, would think Ellen was "a disaster" despite State Senate winning percentages as high as 73.52%.

Posted by: Doug Parris on July 20, 2006 01:26 PM
39. Cliff,

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.




Posted by: Phil spackman on July 20, 2006 02:07 PM
40. Looks like I haven't missed out on the "Smack a Spack...man" marathon.
And "WhoisDougParris" anyway? I hope there are some websites which answer that question...

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.

Posted by: Reporterward on July 20, 2006 03:03 PM
41. Thanks to Cliff S for confirming that even the opposition can't find any factual errors in my post.


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
42. While one might fairly oppose this measure as a "pork" project I fail to see how using fetal tissue is a problem. Advancing the state of technology in general is always a useful goal and I have no problem with this.

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.

Posted by: Petrock on July 21, 2006 06:26 PM
43. Ciff S - Your post is so devoid of substance it requires no response - I'm a liar because you say I am? How compelling.

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.

Posted by: Doug Parris on July 21, 2006 08:35 PM
44. Hopefully the days of Craswell and Linda Smith are gone, although I campaigned for the later - but realized that she ran a poor campaign. Craswell had no business running for Governor - what was the GOP smoking then ? & Carlson (although he is OK on the radio) didn't do much better. The political climate is changing and I believe that this state will become less of a blue state, in spite of the GOP leadership. GOP is rather pathetic, but people are witnessing that Democrats are worse - they are the sewer of corruption and love to be in denial. Have a nice day...

Posted by: KS on July 21, 2006 10:38 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?