It seems that the 38.45 percent of the electorate that bothered to cast a vote in the Seattle Mayor's race just didn't choose wisely. Voters were so fixated on which of the seven candidates would be selected to oppose Mayor Greg Nickels in the General Election that Nickels failed to make the Primary cut. A minor panic has resulted. Unions (public employee and construction) and businesses with close ties to Nickels (Paul Allen's Vulcan) are rumored to be polling the chances for State Senator Ed Murray as a write-in candidate for mayor. Seattle Times columnist Joni Balter lent her support for Murray in an August 26th piece - "Sen. Ed Murray for mayor? Let's hope so for Seattle's sake". Her thesis is that neither Mike McGinn nor Joe Mallahan has enough political experience or inside knowledge of how government operates to hit the road running. After all, Nickels had worked for then City Councilmember Norm Rice and spent "many years on the County Council" before winning his first of two terms as Mayor. She worries "about the somewhat scary prospect of a novice running City Hall." Another concern is the City Council would fill a power vacuum resulting from a weak mayor. I wonder if she has similar concerns at the national level but I don't want to bring up consistency just now.
Among Murray's qualifications according to Balter are he's a "Democrat", helped "secure two gas tax increases" and he's a "crusader for gay and lesbian rights." That's enough to make any Seattle liberal swoon. But you pretty much get all that with either a
Joe Mallahan or Mike McGinn but at least in the case of Mallahan, some real, live private business experience too. Seattle could use a dose of that. I didn't support either of them in the Primary but of the two finalists, Mallahan is clearly the better choice. The problem with a Murray write-in is that it may well siphon enough votes away from Mallahan to give McGinn the winning plurality. McGinn is blindly anti roads and wants to reopen the Viaduct/tunnel wounds, positions that will ensure nothing gets done until "The Big One" drops the Viaduct in a heap of rubble along the waterfront. He supports the City taking over the Seattle Public Schools. The Seattle City Council already acts as an amateur utilities commission, adding the school system to their plate makes little sense.
We had a primary election. The voters chose Mallahan, in the face of a negative campaign by the unions against him, and McGinn to advance to the General Election. Pick one.
Posted by warrenpeterson at August 29, 2009 04:40 PM | Email ThisSomeone from the world of business is always painted as "inexperienced". Sarah Palin sure got that treatment and she runs a business.
When our founders penned the Constitution one of the ideas was that people of diverse backgrounds would run for office, serve, and then go back to their business. Hasn't exactly worked out that way.
I am just kidding but would we not be better off if we passed a law that no more than 10% of our elected representatives were lawyers?
I think we probably would.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2009 05:22 PMThis state no longer needs his peculiar brand of hatred in the Legislature, and frankly, Seattle deserves him.
Posted by: Hinton on August 29, 2009 06:13 PMThe leftists that have flocked to Seattle in the past 20 years and have turned it into a cold, unfriendly place will love this guy.
He's one of them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2009 06:55 PMAs much as I like his position on gay rights, Murray is a tax and spender, that's why Balter likes him. McGinn is the true conservative here, a guy who doesn't go along with all the big concrete-pouring projects the highway lobby, unions and politicians have lined up for us who live here to pay for.
The notion that it's dangerous to ride the Viaduct because of the earthquake risk has some merit, but doesn't get me too excited. If the risk is so high, why don't we close it with a couple Jersey barriers which could be ready for tomorrow's commute? Why do I constantly drive it just to save 5 or 10 minutes?
(I've set myself up to be laughed at now after I'm dead, haven't I? whoops).
I'm getting long-winded here, but I agree with the blog post. Murray won't win and would end up helping McGinn.
Thanks everyone,
new left conservative 1
Posted by: new left conservative 1 on August 29, 2009 08:41 PMMust be nice not to have to bother with primaries like the others.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2009 08:54 PMIs it just me?
Posted by: Ken on August 29, 2009 09:52 PMAnd with Murray, the city could perhaps save money by holding its "Silly Council" meeting in a Capitol Hill bath house.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 30, 2009 08:25 AMAfter all he's electable.
He can't lose.
Right....?
I vote for a PILLAR of salt...
Just let Seattle stew in it's juices, it will destroy itself in no time as surrounding areas prosper from Seattle's self inflicted lunacy.
Posted by: Andy on August 30, 2009 02:48 PMEd won't run...He's unqualified and bad for business.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 31, 2009 07:25 AMYour obviously satirical comment hits home with me and calls attention to the biggest gripe I have with the Republican Party. We lost big with McCain last year and probably would have lost with Huckabee or Romney. Nothing takes the fire out of a grass-roots Republican groundswell like a limp-wristed moderate.
Republican Party leadership: If you are reading this-and you should be-enough with the "electable" moderates. Republicans need to emphasize the message of conservatism and recruit candidates who embody conservative principles. Obama has proved to be an even greater disaster than many of us thought he could be-leaving the door wide open to point-blank confrontation. But who is leading the charge? Radio and TV conservative commentators! Where are the Republicans?
Posted by: Saltherring on August 31, 2009 07:27 AMDemocrats are trying to push the notion that Republicans cannot win elections unless they are left leaning "moderates".
It's a ridiculous theory made more frustrating because many Republicans evidently have fallen for it.
Republicans constantly fail to comprehend that the Democrats are dictating their political strategy.
What do we end up with? Candidates such as John McCain who opposed drilling in ANWR and agrees with Al Gore about "climate change". Dave Reichert who votes for "cap and trade".
We are a conservative country and we win when we stick to the principles of conservatism. We don't win when we act like pretend Democrats.
None of that necessarily applies in the Seattle Mayor's race. We have not had a Republican Mayor since 1969. This has become a very liberal city. We have the choice between a liberal business guy, and a liberal environmental lawyer.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 31, 2009 08:31 AMI don't understand when people write this is a conservative nation or right of center. I also don't agree with people who write that Obama has been a miserable failure. Finally, there seems to be alot of people, likely the same people that have been eagerly anticipating Obama's 'failure', that want Seattle to fail to and 'stew in its own juices'.
Did I miss something? What is wrong with Seattle? What have we down to make ourselves a 'laughing stock'? I see articles of how our city ranks in the top tier of best places to live, greenest cities, outdoor cities, etc. etc. Is this a farce or is it just the 'liberal media' supporting a liberal city?
I think it would do the right good, in my opinion, to stand behind the president during the rough stretch we are in. All the other side seems to contribute to discussions related to anything is anger, hostility and cynicism.
The other side was behind the wheel for eight years and look where we ended up. I suggest now, that conservatives stop being backseat drivers and appreciate that this is a left of center nation, voted by the people, and let the majority try and steer us out of difficult times.
Posted by: Michael B on August 31, 2009 09:34 AMThat would be with Reagan(1980 1984) and with the Republican Revolution (so called "revolution" because after they were elected they wouldn't walk the walk but still that is what they were elected on in 1994).
What the electorate responses to is to people who promote what they believe confidently. Did McCain do that? Did McGavick do that? Or was their message a watered down well "I agree with what my opponent said but we don't need to go that far".
Look why go "Democrat lite" when you can have the real thing if that's the way you swing? And at least when you listen to the Democrats they promote what they promote with confidence. For someone who isn't invested in either ideology and doesn't understand either ideology then the one which people are promoting with the most confidence is the one that is going to seem on the surface at least to be the most appealing.
Even if being a moderate worked in getting people elected I would not support it. Because why is "winning" so important when all it means is that they go back and vote like Democrats anyway. Yeah, for the politician themselves they get the high salary and all the other perks but for us contributors, us stamp lickers and sign wavers what does "winning" really get us if by winning we elect "Democrat lite"?
But the fact is that being a moderate doesn't even work in getting people elected which is proved by the Republicans greatest periods of success being periods of time when they were unabashedly conservative, or at least talked that way.
Conservatism works politically as well as in reality. We just need to promoting it boldly with confidence and that won't be a message that the Republicans will be sending in 2010 with trying to get Reichert re-elected. And therefore in the end we will wind up losing in 2010 and as I see things going now in 2012 (low voter turnout) when the message carrier will be Romney.
Posted by: Steve on August 31, 2009 10:22 AMWe need to bar them from attending Republican meetings and if that doesn't work get physical against them.
We must not tolerate Romney Freaks!
Posted by: Paul on August 31, 2009 10:30 AMRepublicans just have zero credibility after Bush. Their "brand name" has been damaged beyond repair.
After all how can they position themselves to be the "fiscally resposible" alternative when we look back and see what they did in office and they were pretty fiscally irresponsible themselves.
Yeah, you can say that the Democrats are being MORE fiscally irresponsible but that's a "me to but less argument". And that doesn't sell well. Try to promote any other product by saying that, yeah, we are bad, but our competitor is worse.
Fly Republicans airlines. 30 percent of our planes crash yearly. But heck, that makes us better than our competitor Democratic Air. They crash 50 percent of the time.
And especially with Romney who will be the Republican candidate in 2012. The "fix is in" just like it was for McCain in 2008 and just like for those of us who remembers Bob Dole in 1996. The Republican establishment machinery is in motion for that to happen, and therefore baring something externally happening (Romney dies, gets caught up in a scandal, something unforeseeable like that) Romney will be the nominee in 2012 just like McCain was in 2008.
Posted by: Steve on August 31, 2009 10:50 AMAnd his supporters like they were freaks!
Posted by: Dave on August 31, 2009 10:56 AMContributors to Michael McGinn.
Contributors to Joseph Mallahan.
And also:
Posted by: Beth on August 31, 2009 11:45 AMSure makes all your McKenniacs out there look like fools doesn't it!
Posted by: Steve on August 31, 2009 11:51 AMBut you keep on believin' that wrestling is for real. You keep on believing that it really makes a difference if the person touts an "R".
The truth even when they run and win as a Republican once they start serving in the public office they start behaving like a Democrat.
All good Republicans must support Mike McGinn. And we all must support Cap and Trade since that is what the Party tells us to do and we must do what the party tells us to do even if it contradicts what they told us yesterday.
Cap and trade WAS bad now it's good.
Obamacare is bad, Romneycare is good.
It is so fun being a "movement republican". You don't have to think. In fact for a movement republican thinking is a bad thing.
Posted by: Beth on August 31, 2009 12:03 PMSince these great "Republicans" support him, then I guess all conservatives must.
And remember Cap and Trade is good. Obamacare is bad, but Romneycare is good!
The Republican party has become a cult!
Posted by: Steve on August 31, 2009 12:16 PMAnd he is supposed to be the great hope of the Republican party?
Huh?
Talk about being the "Stupid Party".
I and many conservative friends are ready for a third party. We are weary of Republicans who promise fiscal conservatism and, if elected, embrace social and fiscal leftism. Either the Pubs sit up and take notice, or we walk.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 31, 2009 01:13 PMEvery conservative (or Republican) I have ever talked to or heard on the radio has condemned RomneyCare and predicted it's failure. The only person pimping RomneyCare was Romney and even at that he's blaming somebody else for it's failures. You need to put up some links where you read that prominent Republicans were/are pimping RonmneyCare.
Ditto Cap and Trade. No conservative Republican has supported that piece of cr*p legislation and never will with the exception of McCain and he's out of his mind or a closet Democrat, nobody seem to be sure, not even his kid.
You need to make more sense of your posts. Which are fabrications of your mind and which are stuff supported by some sort of facts? Here's an idea when you put up BS, bracket it with a *, then we can separate your fantasies from the world as everybody else knows it.
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 31, 2009 02:06 PMSo Rob McKenna is supposed to be responsible for the political donations of the thousands of people who work under him? Even those who were there before he was elected?
I'm sure that's news to him.
Posted by: Say No to Sockpuppets on August 31, 2009 02:08 PMToo Dang Funny!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 31, 2009 02:29 PMWhen a new person comes into public office they have the option of replacing the people who were once there with that politicians own people. It's expected actually.
It would be silly to have someone who opposes you working under you.
Do you think any conservatives work at the Governor's office? Even as say a secretary?
Why are you trying to defend the indefensible? You are behaving like a cultist McKenniac. You remind me of all those people who were defending McCain last year and who will be defending Reichert next year.
Posted by: Greg on August 31, 2009 02:31 PMIt would be silly to have someone who opposes you working under you.
It would be even sillier - and quite stupid - to fire someone over politics if they do a good job in a non-political position. Maybe Steve Dietrich is really good at his job of prosecuting criminals?
You want to put party loyalty ahead of performance; you're the problem, not McKenna.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 31, 2009 02:46 PMWell, guess then I don't need to get all hot and bothered about getting Repugs elected since in the end it's all about who's going to get the fat pension rather than any real change.
Posted by: Nancy R. on August 31, 2009 10:08 PMThat is exactly what happened in the 1990s when the Republicans had control of the State legislature. As you might have figured out the Legislators don't write their own bills. They have legislative committee staff people doing it. In 1994 the Democrats were in control. All staffers on these permanent legislative committees were leftist activists. Well, of course you would expect that. But then came the so called "Republican Revolution" Republicans took control of the legislature.
So you would expect that in 1995 there would be a whole different committee staff, right? Packed with conservative activists just like the year previously it was packed with the lefties, right? WRONG. The same people who were there when the Democrats were there were still there! And they were writing the same types of bills.
SO in the end nothing in substance really changed.
That's what people mean when they say "it's like a wrestling match". They can put on quite a show for the outsiders making it look like they are at each other's throats but the truth is that they are actually working in unison.
I have to give the Democrats far more credit than I can ever give the Republicans. I totally am against the Left and believe their ideology harmful. But, damn it at least they do believe in something, and are willing to fight for it. The Republicans, and I am talking about the Politicians, not the grassroots, they don't believe in anything except remaining in office. Once in they really don't have much of an agenda except staying in power. For them it is all about being something rather than doing something. And therefore they don't use the power they have once they are in to change the direction of government.
If they cared about doing something rather than being something, they would ensure that when in office they had their people working on public policy. Instead, they just allow the liberals to continue their agenda. Hell, as long as they keep the title and the pension the leftists can just continue doing what they are doing for all they care.
The fact that McKenna has leftists in his administration proves that Republicans just don't give a damn. And therefore why the hell should we give a damn about them!
You make some good points. Does Dave agree with them too? Is he in the same room as you. I notice than when one of you posts so does the other.
The reason the Republican party is so messed up is just as you say. However, it goes a little deeper than that. Whenever a Republican wins a national office he/she is almost alway a career politician. I would argue that career politicians are rarely in it out of a sense of patriotism; they are in it for thier own increase of power.
Show me the candidate who was pursuaded to leave his thriving business to do "the peoples work" for a time, with the full intent of returning to his private life ASAP, and I will show you a patriot and someone who will no doubt do good things for this country.
John McCain's military service did not make him a patriot. Getting shot down and becoming a prisoner of war did not make him a patriot. He did not fulfill any of the criteria I stated above to make him a patriot.
My question for anyone is, who "serving" right now in DC fits my above description of a patriot? I am dubious about whether there really is a patriot in DC now.
Posted by: REBEL on September 1, 2009 11:21 AMI guess it's a matter of record though. Check out to see who were the staffers in the Washington State House permanent committees in 1994 and then in 1995 to see if they did indeed change, or if as Beth asserts the same people writing the bills in 1994 were the same people writing the bills in 1995.
I do find it wrong that both in the Washington State Attorney Generals office and in the King County prosecutors office, both positions held by people coming from the Republican party that there are so many liberals in high positions there.
After all we know that the politician really doesn't do the meat and potatoes work. We know they leave them to staffers. And if the staffers are leftists then indeed they are no doubt pushing through Leftist public policy irregardless of the fact that the person holding the office has an republican affliation.
Let's look at this from the opposite position. Can you imagine a republican working in a high office under a Democrat position? I mean not including someone like Sid Morrison who stabbed the Republican party in the back and helped an extreme liberal win so the job was an award for his betrayal. No, I can't see it. They would replace all important top positions with people sharing their agenda. And I am not saying that's wrong. After all, supposedly that is why they were elected. They were elected to put their ideology in practice so of course the top positions would go to people sharing the ideology.
It's not wrong when the Democrats do it, but if a Republican is elected the same thing should happen. But for the most part it doesn't happen to anywhere near the degree it does when Democrats take over.
Democrats know how to use the power they have to get what they want. The problem with the Republicans is that they don't want anything. Anything but to have the title of the position of course. And of course I am talking about the Republican politicians of course. Not the grassroots.
Posted by: Dave on September 1, 2009 11:47 AMAnd since only an idiot would put in someone who opposes you as your right hand man either McKenna really shares Dietrich's ideology (or at least doesn't oppose it so doesn't mind going along with it) or McKenna is a idiot.
Either way it doesn't look too good for the McKennics. After all, if he becomes Governor he has shown from what he did at the AG's that he will keep most of the "meat and potatoes" workers (as Dave called them) and so any change will be superficials not substantial.
When Republicans get into power they start acting like liberals even to the point of hiring them.
Posted by: Steve on September 1, 2009 12:06 PMYet when one of their own has a questionable person on their staff, we are just supposed to say he is "just an employee".
Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about having a Obamacare Bad Romneycare Good mentality.
Posted by: Dave on September 1, 2009 12:13 PMBut doesn't having someone of his ideology work so high up kind of show where Obama is coming from?
Yes, yes, it does.
But these people live in a world of "Wrestling". They live in a world where something is bad under a Democrat but good when it is done by a Republican.
Posted by: Steve on September 1, 2009 12:22 PMIf it's true with Obama it's true with McKenna
And besides we know it's the staffers who does all the real work anyway. So the work will reflect THEIR ideology, not that of the elected officials.
You don't think the legislators write the bills themselves do you?
Posted by: Dave on September 1, 2009 12:26 PMAs a "rock ribbed" conservative I am doubting my principles now that Obama is so successful.
Those derned old Republican conservatives have people trying to hurt everyone and that good old Obama & company are saving us from them and gol-darn it, I'm just going to have to give credit to those honest democrats who have principles and who stand up for them. How about that ACORN eh? They really helped those street people every election better than any Republican. Turned them into semi-professional voters.
I gotta go along with good ole Beth that as a conservative where something is bad under a Democrat but good when it is done by a Republican, Dave is right on top. Sometimes I'm sure Beth is on top as well especially since Obama's 98% approval rating in the polls combined with his shoe size are convincing enough for Beth and that pesky Dave feller. If Obama is good enough for them, Murray should be a shoe in and as they say, "its all good," so why worry?
Besides, Murray would be a win-win especially after Bush messed up the County Council and built that wonderfully productive light rail system. Maybe Murray would build another and further fix our economy? Those lazy Republicans didn't do anything to get a tunnel built on the waterfront -- once again, and messed up our state budget so it just seems obvious (to Democrats)like we need Murray in there so he could be a homosexual mayor. Then no one can accuse us of being bigoted or intolerant and we can quit worrying about economics.
Those conservative Republicans are screwing up so many things in our lives here in the great Northwest. . . what sort of damage do you spose they could do if they were ever in power?
And they didn't do much different than the Democrats.
They even kept the Democrat's staffers at the permanent committees. The lead staffer in the Education committee in 1994 was Bob Butts. The lead staffer in the education committee in 1995 was Bob Butts, etc.
The truth is that if the Republicans ever do get back in power no doubt the change will only be cosmetic. They will keep the same democratic activities in the same positions.
For that is what they did before.
That is obviously what McKenna did.
And what can I even say about the King County prosecutors office. "Republicans" have been in control of that office for years yet they have so many liberals in key positions.
The Fact that McGinn has been endorsed by people within both the King County Proscutor's office and the State Attorney General's office is indeed a sad testament to the state of the Washington State Republican party.
But you keep on going believing that "wrestling is real". You keep on believing that the "wrestling match" isn't just for show and that they really do hate each other as much as they do in the ring.
You keep believing that Romneycare is good and Obamacare is bad.
Posted by: Beth on September 2, 2009 09:16 AMAnd they didn't do much different than the Democrats.
They even kept the Democrat's staffers at the permanent committees. The lead staffer in the Education committee in 1994 was Bob Butts. The lead staffer in the education committee in 1995 was Bob Butts, etc.
The truth is that if the Republicans ever do get back in power no doubt the change will only be cosmetic. They will keep the same democratic activists in the same positions.
For that is what they did before.
That is obviously what McKenna did.
And what can I even say about the King County prosecutors office. "Republicans" have been in control of that office for years yet they have so many liberals in key positions.
The Fact that McGinn has been endorsed by people within both the King County Proscutor's office and the State Attorney General's office is indeed a sad testament to the state of the Washington State Republican party.
But you keep on going believing that "wrestling is real". You keep on believing that the "wrestling match" isn't just for show and that they really do hate each other as much as they do in the ring.
You keep believing that Romneycare is good and Obamacare is bad.
Posted by: Beth on September 2, 2009 09:17 AMRepublicans on the other hand believe in NOTHING. Now please understand I am not talking about the grassroots, but the Republican Politicians. Republican grassroots have good principles which is why the Republican politicians have to lie to them all the time.
Republican politicians don't really want to do anything while in office. To them having the office is an ends unto itself. That is why you will rarely see a republican elected office "rocking the boat" but instead just allow the liberals who work under them (or around them) just continue through with their liberal agenda. For the Republican politician's ONLY agenda is his or her continuance in public office.
Funny thing about "belief", it doesn't have to be grounded in facts, decency, truth, or virtue. Anyone can "believe" in anything no matter how stupid or destructive and Democrats prove it. The Democrats paramount "principle" (more of a creed) is to skim the surface of everything, and implement solutions that work directly against the substance of classic liberalism (conservatism) - individual freedom. Democrats are silly robotically addled-idealists who are in love with the idea of equality of outcomes but fail to recognize that it confounds the basic tenet of human purpose and drive.
Moreover they are fundamentally dishonest fascist socialists at heart who believe in modern liberalism - the worship a godless religion of state whose catechism is strict adherence to anything that bears no relation to facts or reason. They lie to everyone including themselves and will readily destroy anything in order to gain power to implement their ultimately destructive useless ends.
If they were smart, they would be conservatives and whenever threatened or moved to act like adults they are conservative, but otherwise they are too narcissistic and self deluded to know the difference.
Example: A President that will use his power to cajole and coerce little impressionable school children in order to poison a national debate thus proving that he has no respect whatsoever for Americans as individuals. This is pure fascist pandering of the teutonic variety.
Democrats believe in their solutions- all of them destructive, and Democrats get lots done - all of it bad.
I'll take the "hands-off" Republican way and allow INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to dictate the terms of human destiny any day.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on September 3, 2009 08:37 AMOtherwise Liberals would have us defeated in no time. Jimma Carter was famous for working imperiously against this infra-system and he failed largely because of it. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Kennedy didn't solve it - he started it and then barely got us out of it having lost significant NATO defensive ground in Europe. Serious people were all too ready and able to shoot nukes at each other.
While conservatives, as Beth likes to say, "allow the liberals who work under them (or around them) just continue through with their liberal agenda," unless we instill a fascist government in power, this will continue. Many liberal traitors worked against George Bush's agenda. Many more worked with him and that is why we survive.
Likewise, no matter how deliberately destructive Obama is, he is surrounded by decent honest American Patriots who will continue to defend America. Let's hope and pray it will be enough to get us through.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on September 3, 2009 09:01 AMI have always considered them the nameless enemy within.
The point Beth makes is important. Unless the conservative coming in actually is willing to push through a conservative agenda then the status quo would continue in whatever office we are talking about. And since the status quo in American government is liberal activism, that is what will continue whether the elected official is a Republican or a Democrat.
There is a difference though. No one will argue with you that Obama is a socialist. Well most people wouldn't. SO when his socialist policies fail as socialist policies always do in the end, that failure will be correctly blamed on well socialism.
But with Bush, which for the most part was a continuation of the Clinton adminstration with the people in middle management being the people who got in during Clinton and Bush didn't fire, they were still pushing through socialist policies. Most notably the socialist policy of guaranteeing loans to people who in a capitalist system would never get the loans because there was too great a risk of them not paying the loans back.
So, basically Bush was allowing Clinton's socialism to continue but because it failed on his watch and "he's a republican" the left spins it to it being a failure in capitalism.
At least with the Democrats in control the blame is placed appropriately.
Posted by: Steve on September 3, 2009 09:45 AMNope. They'll Blame it on the Bush Administration. Ah, if only he were that competent and that conservative. They may have to drop the blame down a notch to Cheney.
If it is true with the Obama Adminstration, which I believe it is, then it is true with Rob McKenna's Attorney General's office and it is true with the supposedly Republican King County Prosecutor's office.
And the grassroots are STUPID if they think otherwise.
And that is a role they play so well.
Remember PERSONNEL IS POLICY. It is true about the Obama adminstration. It was true about the how the change in the state legistilature in 1995 was only cosmetic, and regardless of how you McKenniacs might wish any differently it is true about Rob McKenna.
You are such an idiot. Presidents from both sides have spoken to schoolchildren. Were they indoctrinating them? No, they were encouraging them to study hard (well not George W. Bush our "C" president) and do well in school. If you can't take that for what it is, you are a sad and pathetic person who has NO respect for the office of the presidency (like all of FOX).
"I'll take the "hands-off" Republican way and allow INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to dictate the terms of human destiny any day."
"Hands off"? Invading Iraq on a lie? Telling women what to do with their bodies? The totalitarian Patriot Act? Really?
Screw you - Obama is still President. Suck it up.
Posted by: Really on September 4, 2009 08:23 PM