I don’t generally relish driving traffic to (un)Sound Politics, but since Postman has already linked to Eric Earling’s post on what Republicans need to do to win in the suburbs, well, why the hell not?
Earling thinks Republicans are losing on the issues, specifically, education and transportation. Well, duh-uh. It’s not chicanery or ballot fraud that has led to Democratic dominance in the GOP’s former suburban strongholds, it’s the fact that the Republican Party as a whole has grown increasingly out of touch with suburban voters. But as Earling is discovering in his own comment thread, it’s more than just issues, it’s ideology.
For despite all the complaints from political extremists and unengaged independents about not being offered a distinct enough choice at the polls, the two parties actually sit on either side of a substantive ideological divide: at their core, Democrats believe in government… whereas Republicans don’t. Sure, this is a broad generalization, and the ideological divide does not always manifest itself in practice (hence the Bush administration’s profligate spending and relentless encroachment on privacy,) but it dominates the rhetoric in which the two parties frame the issues.
Earling seems to lament the region’s affection for light rail and other mass transit solutions, but advises his fellow Republicans to accept it as reality and find a way to give the voters what they want. The problem is, the GOP’s stubborn opposition to transit stems not just from a policy dispute or a revulsion to higher taxes, but from a revulsion to big government programs in general… and what could be bigger than the physical and social engineering involved in building a commuter rail system? The free market cannot and will not build the Puget Sound region a modern transit system, and so to the free market ideologues who dominate the GOP base, Sound Transit just reeks of Soviet-era central planning.
Likewise, Earling laments the failure of vouchers and charter schools to catch on with voters in our “blue state,” but once again pragmatically advises his fellow Republicans to just… well… deal. But I think the more interesting question to explore is exactly why vouchers and charter schools hold such a strong appeal to the GOP base? Of course, these are market-based solutions, and as such reveal the party’s fundamental distrust of the government they seek to run.
The fundamental problem for Republicans is not that they picked the wrong issues, but that on issue after issue both their position and their rhetoric reveals an anti-government meme that is simply out of step with the majority of suburban voters. None of this should be news to Earling or anybody else; the trends have been apparent for years. Indeed two years ago, in the wake of the disastrous 2004 election I expounded on this theme in a presciently titled post: “Subdivide and conquer: a strategy for a new Democratic majority.”
Families move to places like Mercer Island for better public schools, cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods, and all the other public services that a higher property tax base provides. These are people who believe in government because they benefit from it every day, and they routinely tax themselves to pay for the services they want.
These are people with whom urban Democrats have common ground, and we have an opportunity to exploit the wedge the neo-cons have provided, to expand our base politically and geographically. For in addition to a shared belief that good government is necessary to maintaining a high quality of life, suburban and city voters have a mutual interest in maintaining an economically and culturally vibrant urban core.
The problem facing Eastside suburban Republicans is not tactical or strategic, it’s philosophical. The KCGOP was once dominated by “Rockefeller Republicans” (or in the local parlance, “Dan Evans Republicans”)… socially liberal fiscal conservatives who, like their Democratic counterparts, believed in using government as a tool for promoting the public good. But today’s GOP is dominated by ideological purists who would, if given free reign, dismantle and privatize the public services that define suburban life, while imposing the moral strictures of their right-wing, fundamentalist Christian allies.
Okay, again… perhaps I’m generalizing, but the larger point remains. Suburban Republicans are losing elections because suburban voters simply don’t trust Republicans to run a government they clearly profess to despise. Read the comment threads on (u)SP or the righty trolls here. The problem with education? Those greedy teachers and corrupt, incompetent administrators. Transportation? Self-aggrandizing government officials, wasteful civil servants, and self-serving special interests. Crime? Liberal judges who care more about the rights of criminals than the rights of victims. Even when it comes to social issues Republicans have adopted the rhetoric of blame. The gay civil rights bill wasn’t about a class of people demanding the same legal protections as everybody else, it was about a bunch of perverts seeking to impose their disgusting lifestyle on the rest on us.
Meanwhile, at the same time Republicans are putting so much time and effort into maligning government as incompetent, inefficient, and sometimes, downright immoral, suburban voters enjoy the benefits of a functioning local government everyday. They love their schools, their libraries, their parks, their police and their firefighters, and they consistently choose to tax themselves to improve these services. Thus the main problem for suburban Republicans is that the reality of suburban life simply doesn’t match the bulk of Republican rhetoric.
I appreciate Earling’s efforts at introspection. But it’s going to take a lot more than a shift in tactics to revive the GOP on the Eastside.
Spot on, Goldy. The Republicans in Washington State have basically run the Dan Evans Republicans out of the party. This started in the 70’s and 80’s with Jennifer Dunn and the Reaganites, and accelerated in the 90’s.
Here’s a good example: these ar candidates who the Republicans have run at the top of the ticket for statewide offices since 1992, either against incumbent D governors or senators: Ellen Craswell, John Carlson, Linda Smith, George Nethercutt, Dino Rossi and Mike!™ McGavick.
All of them are pretty seriously conservative candidates. The least winguttably so is probably Rossi, who got a major whitewashing in the media, which made his race closest, but it helped a lot that Gregoire campaigned as an incumbent going for Gary Locke’s third term and ran a miserable campaign. And outside of Rossi, NONE of them have run anything close to a close race. They’ve all gotten killed. (For the record, I still think that Rob McKenna is the guy to watch out for in ’08 or ’10 in a race for statewide office, as capable of pulling off the “I’m a sort of moderate Republican” trick, even though it’s questionable how honest that would be- and unlike Rossi, he WON his statewide election in ’04.)
I think Earling has figured out that this is a blue state, and the only way Republicans are going to get a meaningful seat at the table is in the Dan Evans/George Pataki/Mitt Romney/Governator sense. However, the wingnut fringe is so deeply embedded in the Republican party that even the cluebat of losing many, MANY statewide elections by 10 points or more and slowly watching the Seattle suburbs go from red to purple to blue (just like Seattle: Dan Evans and Slade Gorton were Republicans who were elected to the Legislature from Seattle, back in the 50’s and 60’s) might not be enough to wake them up.
And OK, maybe it’s a tie between Mike!™ and Rossi… but still, the GOP has done a craptastic job at the top of the ticket for years and years, and it’s slowly turned them into a party of rural/small town Washington (and even there, they aren’t completely dominant- D’s get elected in places like Aberdeen and Walla Walla, and can even run strong in Okanogan County).
They have to quit thinking that Washington voters are Bible-thumping Tim Eyman clones for them to make ANY progress- and I don’t know if they can do that, given how much of the party faithful clearly want to make government and secularism the enemy (Washington simply isn’t a Bible-thumping state like Georgia or Texas). Ah, schadenfreude…
Oh, God, the (u)SP comments on Earling’s post are comedy gold. “The answer to trapnsportation gridlock is building a huge-ass freeway through the Snoqualmie Valley! And railing against environmentalists, bureaucrats and teachers! Plus vouchers and charter schools! That will get us back in power for sure!”
Dear uSP posters/HA trolls:
Please, PLEASE keep electing candidates with these values in your Republican primary elections to run in statewide contests, county offices and legislative elections. And be sure to get involved with your Republican party caucuses and get elected to your district/county/state party, so you can make sure you shoot down any Republican who doesn’t agree!
Sincerely,
EC, on behalf of the Washington Democratic Party
It remains very basic for me. I don’t understand the nuances and I have boiled it down to this:
Republicans are a selfish lot with no social conscience. They resent any “taking” of what they see as the rewards of their hard work. (I would submit that the current condition of our government is a direct example of their “hard” work).
Republicans leave no allowance that some of us are truly victims of circumstance beyond our control. They believe that everyone is a product of their own devices and choices. They want to punish the poor and the mentally incompentent. Republicans then relieve their conscience by suggesting that corporate and public largesse will compensate. It won’t.
To recap: Republicans are selfish lot who are only concerned with themselves and the hell with the rest of us.
That is why they were so thoroughly trashed in the last election. Americans, as a whole, have a conscience. Until the WingNuts recognize this, they are doomed.
I am not shedding any tears.
4 Dammit COMPETENT no extra “N” necessary. I hate that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16041817/from/RS.2/
Looks like the so-called conservatives have been pussy whipped. They’re running from their base and the religious right.
What a stunning victory for the rest of us! Hip Hip HOOOFUCKING RAY!
MLF @ 4
“They believe that everyone is a product of their own devices and choices.”
The Republican belief that success is the product of hard work and good choices, and that hard work and good choices necessarily beget success, is rather compelling proof–as if more were needed–of their rejection of reality. Those of us who have a few years on us and have been able to observe the way the world works with open eyes know that happenstance, luck, and connections often have far more to do with an individual’s success than does merit. As Ann Richards said of GW, “he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.” Does any objective person believe that GW achieved what he has achieved through hard work and good choices? Of course not, we know that if not for his aristocratic birth, free ticket to the Ivy League, and Daddy’s friends setting him up in both business and politics, the best he could have hoped for would have been middle management in a non-Fortune 500 corporation. Nonetheless, Republicans keep chanting the mantra about hard work and good choices. I have seen far too many people who are poor, or otherwise “unsuccessful”, because of forces far beyond their capacity to control–injury, disease, lack of family support, abuse in the workplace, racism, etc. While hard work and good choices most certainly should be promoted, the role of fortune in determining who achieves success is far more determinative than Republicans would acknowledge.
Gee, Goldy, it seems to me that Mercer Island Republicans don’t mind taxing themselves for government services, as long as nobody else benefits. It kind of makes their local government like a big country club. I think its funny how they congregate in “cities” like Mercer Island, Medina, Woodway, or Hunts Point, rather than in a larger city which must distribute its services more evenly.
So the very people who oppose taxes which would raise the standards of Washington schools generally, are more than willing to drop several hundred (or thousands) of dollars at their local PTSA auction to fully fund their own school’s programs, and more. They might send their band on a trip to Switzerland, or hire a full-time highly paid football coach, or whatever. Sure, they get some personal benefit (whatever is being sold at the auction) and a federal tax deduction to boot. But is it really that they are just looking after their own children, given them a boost up the ladder, or are they at the same time making sure the other kids get kicked off the lower rungs of the ladder, and are not in a position to compete with their own kids?
I think it was a decade or so ago, when the Mercer Island basketball team was getting trounced by one or the other Seattle schools. The chearleaders pulled out dollar bills, and started waiving them at the visiting stands, and chanted: “Hey, Hey, its OK, you’r going to work for us some day!” The principal put an end to that cheer after it was reported in the media, but I’m sure the kids didn’t come up with that one without getting a good dose of the attitude from home.
#4
“Republicans are a selfish lot with no social conscience. They resent any “taking” of what they see as the rewards of their hard work. (I would submit that the current condition of our government is a direct example of their “hard” work).”
Do you care to provide a citation other than your opinion since it is a known fact that conservatives are much more liberal with their money that Liberals?
Proud Leftist at 7:
I think you hit it on the head. To some extent it is an outgrowth of the Puritan (Calvinist) philosophy. To summarize: If you are diligent, disciplined, reverent, thrifty, and hard-working, then you are one of the “elect” whom God will reward for their efforts efforts. The proof that one is one of the “elect”, therefore is in their success. If one is not successful, then it is because of some inherent lazyness, lack of intelligence (poor choices), or “hidden sin” on the part of the individual.
Now this is actually a rather helpful ideology, on a mass scale, in that it encourages good qualities of thrift, hard work, reverence, discipline, etc. in all its citizens. But it comes at a price, because it discards those who, for whatever reason, fail to succeed. Not only are they a failure, but now they also have the stigma of being ungodly, lazy, etc. attached to them.
If you want an example of this type of philosophy at its worst, you only need to see virtually any of MTR’s posts on this board.
The problem is, this attitude is expressly contrary to the Bible, particularly the Book of Job. In that book, God reproaches Job’s friends, who (among other things) accuse him of some hidden sin in his life, which must be the cause of all his suffering.
But on the other hand, the successful ones point to their own success, and argue that it would be just as easy for someone else to do so, if they just mimicked them.
But currently we have a large number of college graduates who are finding that the college education is not necessarily the path to financial security they thought it was. The reason is that the person with good contacts, and access to money, is more valued than skill in any particular profession. Whether the profession be banking, marketing, advertising, legal, architecture, etc., the “rainmaker” in the firm will always be far more valued than the person who actually does the work.
So a fraternity brat in his mid-20s with a drinking problem and middling grades can get into an Ivy-league graduate school, get set up in the oil business with his father’s (and grandfather’s) business contacts, get rescued from having the firms collapse (twice), and get set up again representing the owners of a baseball team, and then parley that into the governor’s seat, and then the Presidency, while the rest of us are still trying to pay off our student loans, yet the fraternity brat will argue that he “made it on his own”, and he got there by “hard work and dilligence”.
You’re a smart person, RPH6033. Well put.
Interesting thread . . . keeps getting back to the “me” in everything. Kind of disheartening.
Goldstein, I realize you are a relative newcomer to the area, with scant knowledge of the region’s history, but ridiculous statements such as “The KCGOP was once dominated by “Rockefeller Republicans” (or in the local parlance, “Dan Evans Republicans”)… ” only shows you, once again, didn’t do your homework.
Just when was the KCGOP dominated by “Dan Evans Republicans”? Throughout the actual Dan Evans administration, from 1965 through 1976, the KCGOP was the center of anti-Evans sentiment. County GOP chairs like Ken Rogstad and Dennis Dunn kept the turmoil boiling.
And little has changed since Evans left the mansion.
So please, point to any two-year period in the past four decades when Dan Evans Republicans ran the KCGOP. Just two years out of the past forty-two.
And after you get done realizing that yo had no clue on that, go take a look at what Republicans do to promote government on a local level, then consider that there is a big difference between opposing vast government projects that rarely solve the problem, and opposing government.
Stop the knee from jerking and do some research before you write, and you might actually put something accurate and defensible on this blog.
A question . . . how can one be a true social liberal but a fiscal conservative? What does that mean? Social programs take money.
Addition to #10:
Its interesting that those with wealth and connections can turn into completely opposite directions. Some realize that it is mere luck or accident of birth which landed them in their position, and then use their wealth and power to assist others, in furtherence of the concept of “nobles oblige”. Others decide that it was not accident that put them in a position of wealth or power, but their inherent superiority of industriousness and intelligence, and that assisting others would only deprive them of the motivation they need to succeed.
I remember once and interview with Donald Trump, who argued that he had to work hard as a teenager, so he was a “self-made-man”. His job as a teenager? Collecting rents from his father’s tenants in the various buildings his father owned. Certainly this was a helpful education for his future career, but hardly duplicatable by the average person.
Something’s fishy here from the mind of Goldie:
“Earling seems to lament the region’s affection for light rail and other mass transit solutions, but advises his fellow Republicans to accept it as reality and find a way to give the voters what they want. The problem is, the GOP’s stubborn opposition to transit stems not just from a policy dispute or a revulsion to higher taxes, but from a revulsion to big government programs in general… and what could be bigger than the physical and social engineering involved in building a commuter rail system? The free market cannot and will not build the Puget Sound region a modern transit system, and so to the free market ideologues who dominate the GOP base, Sound Transit just reeks of Soviet-era central planning.”
The problem is with anything run by the government is the continual “throw money at the problem” when it doesn’t work. Otherwise many government programs would be the shining stars of today. Since the government has an unlimited pocket (your taxes) they have no compunction to be accountable unless the citizenry revolts.
Another problem is everyone wants a government handout. How many here would love it if:
1) They received their prescriptions free even though WalMart charges $4 each?
2) They received Free Condoms so kids can have sex without consequences
3) They received Free Abortions on Demand
4) They received Free College education without earning it through high school hard work and studying
That’s just for starters.
I love it! What a great story! He learned to take money from people. That’s a hard one for many of us to get by . . . I’m a bleeding-heart liberal who would rather give it away that take it from somebody. It really, really is hard for some of us. I’ve been a benefactor to Mr. Goldstein and look how he treats me!
MWS: The problem with anything . . .
The problem with anything is corruption. Whether the government (all those rethugs currently paying their lawyers), private industry (read Bernie, Ken, Jeffrey . . . ) anybody who seems to get some power. It isn’t big or small government; it is big or small consciences and a lack of ethics. What do you do about that?
Skagit, being “fiscally conservative” is about deficits, not overall spending. One can be very liberal and still be fiscally conservative if one raises sufficient taxes to cover the government services.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Skagit at 13: I think it is theoretically possible to be a “fiscal Conservative” and a “true social liberal”.
There are really three “grand” questions. The first is how big is the total federal income from taxes. The second is whether the government is going to spend more than it brings in, and on what (or why). The third is how much of the total budget is going to be spent on what types of expenditures.
A person who’s biggest priority is a balanced budget can still agree to tilt the priorities within the budget for social programs, if he feels they are an investment in our future, and even agree to increase the size of the budget by taxing himself (and others like him) to pay for the programs he thinks are valuable.
LSoS,
So, exactly what happened on November 7th?
I know, questions hurt the wingnut mind.
Don Joe, give me one more then: the issue is that people believe liberals want big gov’t but don’t want to pay for it? That Dan Evans Republicans wanted social programs and fiscal accountability but Democrats didn’t? I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone argue for large deficits. . . even though the current Republican administration found a way to do it!
What’s so special about being a so-called social liberal/fiscal conservative? I would think we are all fiscal conservatives in that sense.
RPH: I’m thinking . . . might fine hairs you’re splitting there.
Skagit: Good point about ethics (remember Mel, Dan, Jim?). But you didn’t address losing governmental propositions. How does one say stop to a gov program gone awry? It’s nearly impossible.
Don Joe said it better at 18 than I did at 20.
DJ th Moonbat!: You side made it a referendum on Iraq. Did you forget your marching orders already?
STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID Moonbat!
RHP6033 @ 8
Mercer Island is NOT dominated by Republicans anymore. There are certainly a lot of active (and wealthy) Republicans from Mercer Island. But Mercer Island as a whole votes pretty reliably and heavily Democrat. More so than just about any area of the Eastside.
rhp @ 10
As a Lutheran pastor’s kid, I never had much use for Calvinist notions. I always figured anyone who sought to earn a ticket to heaven hadn’t spent much time with the Gospels. After all, if the guy hanging on the cross next to Christ got to go, then earthly works seemed rather trivial. Moreover, the concept that earthly success somehow revealed God’s favor hardly seemed reconciliable with Christ’s admonition to leave parents, children, siblings, home, and everything else held dear, and follow Him. And, Christ, if I recall, just did not hang out much with the pharisees, who I see as the James Dobsons and Rick Santorums of the present. Nonetheless, you’re absolutely correct–those old Calvinist notions seem to carry the day with so many still.
Skagit,
The term “fiscal conservative” arose largely in response to government policies that were driven by Keynesian Economics. It’s really about fiscal policy as a tool for altering the state of the economy.
One of the things we learned through the 70’s is that running government deficits tends to not have quite the economic stimulus that we used to believe. Among other things, chronic government deficits have a crowding out effect (i.e. people buy government bonds rather than invest their money in new business). This tends to put upward pressure on interest rates.
The political debate in the late 70’s, early 80’s, involved a good deal of this issue. Liberals used to argue that unfunded government programs were good for the economy due to the stimulus effect of the deficits. It was a counter-argument to the Calvinist view that RHP discussed above. Our experience during that time served to undercut that argument.
Since then, the progressive/liberal argument has changed, and what you see with people calling themselves “fiscally conservative” is a side-effect of this change on political currents.
LSoS at 15:
Pay your debt, Welcher.
As for your argument, I can’t refute it. It has no substance, truth or form.
Oh yeah, Fuck you.
LSoS,
So, the war in Iraq was not a government endavor, and the Nov. 7 election was not a citizen revolt? Your disconnect from reality gets more and more amusing.
What is really funny about the King County GOP is the lack of party loyalty among the party LEADERSHIP. We have seen some of this with GOP activist Larry Corrigan, who gave 20% to 25% of his campaign contributions to Democrats.
On Saturday, the small band of King County Republican PCO’s elected Mike Nykreim as one of their representatives to the State GOP Executive Board from the 1st CD. The state GOP Executive Board has two people from each congressional districts, with King County’s representatives being elected by PCO’s from all over King County (and not just those from the CD in question).
Believe it or not, Nykreim supported Rodney Tom over Luke Esser in the November 2006 elected, and donated $100.00 to Tom’s campaign on June 26, 2006. Nykreim just helped eliminate an incumbent GOP state senator, and Republican PCO’s choose him to be a top GOP leader? Incredible! Of course, they didn’t know that at the time they elected him.
Another interesting disloyalty by a GOP leader is Fawn Spady of Mercer Island. Her father-in-law, Dick Spady, started Dick’s Restaurants. Fawn and her husband Jim Spady currently run this business. The Spadys have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting charter schools. Fawn Spady was the GOP nominee for State House in District 41 to run against Democrat incumbent Judy Clibborn in 2004.
However, Fawn Spady gave $750.00 to Democrat Aaron Reardon in his successful campaign to be elected Snohomish County Executive in 2003. Fawn gave $500.00 to Reardon in the primary, when he defeated Goldy’s sister-in-law and another Democrat. Fawn gave $250.00 to Reardon in the general, when he defeated Republican Dave Earling (who happens to be Eric Earling’s father). Her husband Jim Spady gave Earling another $750.00. Incredibly enough, during the 2004 campaign when Fawn was running for the legislature, her husband Jim gave $150.00 to Democrat Laura Ruderman for Secretary of State, and $200.00 to Helen Sommers, a Democrat state representative from Seattle.
Of course, the standard Republican solution to the problems liberals try to solve via government programs is to let the private sector solve the problem. When that doesn’t work, Replicans say, “stop complaining“.
County GOP chairs like Ken Rogstad and Dennis Dunn kept the turmoil boiling.
Dennis Dunn was Jennifer Dunn’s husband, for the record.
Thanks for making my point, Jim. Goldy not quite being right on local Republican politics of 30-40 years ago shouldn’t surprise you, and you managed to miss his overall point. How’s that right-wing takeover of the local and statewide Republican party that started in the 60’s and 70’s with the Goldwater/Reagan side of the party tossing aside the Rockefeller/Evans wing working out for you? It’s worked GREAT for us Democrats the last 40 years- we rather like winning elections. Handing us Seattle, home of Dan Evans and Slade Gorton on a silver platter, and then the suburbs, so you folks can win Yakima by 30 points? How generous of you!
I’d point out that the major success y’all had in major electoral office in the last cycle was a guy (Reichert) who’s major campaign theme (aside from “I’ve been elected before, and my opponent hasn’t”) was that he wasn’t a rubber stamp for a Republican president, and correcting Goldy on the trivia on exactly when and where the local Republican party machinery lost their mind and thought they could win elections by being anti-government biblethumpers doesn’t change that- or the election results in King Çounty of the past 30 years.
Don Joe. . . redo the link. It doesn’t work.
Jim King @ 12
Your arrogant hostility shines through once again. Goldy said that the KCGOP was once dominated by Dan Evans Republicans. It was, dumbfuck. Not the leadership, of course–Dennis Dunn, may God have mercy on his soul–is certainly an examplar of the nonsense that has led the local Republicans for a long time. But, Goldy didn’t talk about the county party’s leadership (and you’ve taken one phrase in a long monologue and turned it into its theme). Rather, if you look at the Republicans that used to get elected to office in King County, you’ll see that Goldy is right. Remember John Miller, asswipe? Even Slade Gorton as a state legislator before he sold his soul? Know-it-alls, as you prove, can rarely breathe and wipe their asses at the same time.
Here’s the link that didn’t work:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/...../612030359
By the way, Skagit, according to UPS, the book has been delivered.
Goldy, once again, light rail is NOT commuter-rail. And this is not merely semantics. Light rail can be more appropriately titled “anti-commuter” rail. If you understood this critical difference and potential of light rail, you’d have had a better chance to improve the Link Project beyond its current lackluster potential. Link is going to be the worst case example for light rail in the USA. Don’t believe the hype from Sound Transit. They are not building the best light rail system possible. And the one they are building will be a gold-plated comparative loser.
What else would Seattle’s all-powerful automobile-related interests want but a light rail that will literally make the traffic situation worse? The key to understanding where Link fails is in the land-use and development aspect that to date has made many the seller, insurer, fueler and parker of cars, and the rest who one way or another deal with the automobile epidemic, a fortune. The Link LRT Project is a national disgrace. It’s being built to fail.
I have no expertise in this, but it seems to me that the problem with the KCGOP is that they have lost their identity. I heard something today that struck me as true…Good govenance is not dependent on whether there is an R or D after the name of the office holder. If the KCGOP had a solid plank from which they ran, keeping core conservative values, they will do fine. I travel for work around the western US and it is amusing how regional DEM and REP really are. For instance, in AK the DEM candidate is generally more conservative than a King Co REP… Some other thoughts….King County is too large. Seattle and Bellevue are ever evolving into a “twin city” scenario and more and more folks who lived in Seattle now live on the eastside. This is one reason that the eastside which WAS traditionally more conservative than Seattle is now more left leaning than right. Or so it seems. I think KingCo could easily be split into two if not three separate counties.
Good post and well said, Goldy. Me thinks the entire GOP will have to hit rock bottom for the old guard thinking to take the party back from the nuts.
Don Joe, I don’t have it yet. Dave Elliott will get it to me. Thanks again. It isn’t often I’m on the receiving end. I think you must be a BHL, too. Es posible?
Skagit, BHL? Big-hearted liberal? Probably, but opinions likely vary according to perspective. I’m sure my children wouldn’t necessarily describe me as “big-hearted”. At least not yet. And that’s a good thing.
Bleeding-heart liberal, Don Joe.
To quote Homer Simpson, “Doh!”
WELCOME TO THE WINGNUT ECONOMY!
“Women are closing in on men when it comes to wages, but not for the reasons anticipated — or hoped for — when gender pay equity became a rallying cry in the 1970s.
“Data show that the pay gap has been narrowing not because women have made great strides, labor experts say, but because men’s wages are eroding. …
“The difference between men’s and women’s median annual earnings shrank from 26.3 percent to 23 percent between 2000 and 2005, with women earning an average $31,858 and men $41,386.
“Over the past five years, however — as the economy expanded, profits rose and unemployment fell — men’s hourly wages declined a total of 2 percent while women’s rose 3 percent, census records show. Women’s gains were barely enough to keep up with inflation.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/yzy7dg
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Any of you trollfucks want to remind us again how well the top 2% are doing? Redneck? Headupass? Ghost? Whomever?
46
Of course, there’s another component to the public’s discontent that wage data don’t measure: Economic insecurity. Not only are workers earning less under the GOP’s reprise of 19th century pirate capitalism, but they’re LESS SECURE: less job security, less health security, less retirement security. And MORE DEBT, as millions of Americans sink ever deeper into mortgage, credit card, and student loan indebtedness in a losing struggle to remain middle class. People are truly afraid about their economic futures. This, more than anything else, is behind the voters’ massive across-the-board repudiation of the GOP in last month’s elections.
FYI, CSpan is airing the audio of the Supreme Court Oral Arguments parents vs. Seattle School District right now.
The failed GOP liar – er I mean candidate Dino (I can’t tell the difference between a real estate broker and agent) Rossi is cliaming he might run again. PLEEEEEEEASE let it be that lying asswipe Dino. PLEEEEEEEASE – Chris will smoke him this time.
• Major symptoms to become acquainted with:
• Depression
• Cynicism and distrust of government and authority
• Anger
• Alienation sleep disturbances
• Poor concentration
• Tendency to react under stress with survival tactics
• Psychic or emotional numbing
• Negative self-image
• Memory impairment
• Emotional constriction
• Hypersensitivity to justice
• Loss of interest in work and activities
• Problem with intimate relationships
• Survivor guilt
• Difficulty with authority figures
• Hyper – Alertness —hyper arousal
• Avoidance of activities that arouse memories of traumas in war zone
• Emotional distance from children, wife, and others
• Self-deceiving and self-punishing patterns of behavior, such as an inability to talk about war experiences, fear of losing others, and a tendency to fits of rage
• Suicidal feelings and thoughts
• Flashbacks to dangers and combat
• Fantasies of retaliation and destruction
• High risk employment/recreation
Roger and Gang how many people have some of the symptoms and what do you do about them?
If you are a Veteran call this person for answers to your questions? 253-512-8722 and ask for Tom Riggs.
Goldy, the Repukes have a point: After 6 years of GOP rule, government is now “incompetent, inefficient, and … downright immoral.”
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Cynicism and distrust of government and authority
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Hypersensitivity to justice
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Fantasies of retaliation and destruction
“I appreciate Earling’s efforts at introspection.”
Earling is full of shit. He thinks Republicans have an advantage on crime. The reverse is true:
Clinton puts cops on the street; Bush cut funding for cops.
Crime declined under Clinton; crime is soaring under Bush.
Why does Earling think Republicans can run on “crime” when their record on crime is just as abysmal as their record on jobs, incomes, spending, disaster relief, and everything else?
It so happens the current issue of Time Magazine has an article about soaring crime rates, and the causes of it, which I posted on a previous thread:
“Roger Rabbit says: Violent crimes are surging in American cities. So what does that have to do with Bush? Simple. In the 1990s, crime rates fell dramatically after Clinton used federal funding to put 100,000 more cops on America’s streets. To Bush, if Clinton was for something, that was reason enough to be against it. So Bush slashed that funding and took those police officers off the streets. In addition, he dumped unfunded homeland security mandates on the nation’s cities, forcing them to divert even more officers from community policing to homeland security duty. The result: A dramatic rise in violent crime. So if you get killed for the $20 in your wallet, thank the Wingnuts! Chalk up another miserable failure of Nutwhig ideology. 12/04/2006 at 12:06 pm”
Quoted under Fair Use, and if I don’t like it, I’ll sue myself!!!
If you want to read the whole Time Magazine article, which Skagit for some strange reason thinks I didn’t read, go to http://tinyurl.com/yblcbx … and yes, Skagit, the article DOES say cities besides Milwaukee have soaring crime, and Bush has cut funding for cops, and even more cops were taken off the streets when they were called up to serve in Iraq, and … so why do you think I didn’t read the article?
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Self-deceiving and self-punishing patterns of behavior, such as an inability to talk about war experiences, fear of losing others, and a tendency to fits of rage
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Problem with intimate relationships
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Depression
If Earling got really, really, really introspective he would realize Republicans are getting their asses kicked in the ‘burbs because they’re fucking liars who don’t deliver the goods and create more problems than they solve. Why the hell should anyone vote for liars and cheats? Why is he having such a hard time figuring out why voters are rejecting a party that has suffered a major-league morality meltdown?
@1:
No, it happens that Queen Crissy and buddy Dean “Incompetence” Logan stole the election fair and square. What goes around comes around, and one of these days you whiney, ignorant liberals will actually have to form an actual thought as to what to do now. Kinda like a dog that chases a car. When the car stops, most dogs stop and run away with their tails between their legs sheepishly. Kind of symbolic of the new shift towards the left huh?
58 Why should I be depressed? You guys are the party who got an ass-kicking! Tell you what … you guys can have the entire national supply of Prozac … we don’t need it.
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Avoidance of activities that arouse memories of traumas in war zone
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Difficulty with authority figures
Poor delusional flaky klaky probably thinks his side won.
Hey Redneck!!!! Whoooooo is supposed to unlock the crane boom so it can weathervaaaaaaannnnnne????
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Memory impairment
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Tendency to react under stress with survival tactics
Roger you don’t have this problem today?
Survivor guilt
1 “Spot on, Goldy. The Republicans in Washington State have basically run the Dan Evans Republicans out of the party. This started in the 70’s and 80’s with Jennifer Dunn and the Reaganites, and accelerated in the 90’s.”
Yeah, and now they run candidates like Mark Griswold, who posted the following comment on Sucky Politics under the alias “FullContactPolitics”:
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. It’s obvious people don’t remember what happened 5 years ago. Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”
http://tinyurl.com/ydlfwu
Well geez, how can you get elected on a platform of hoping a terrorist attack kills innocent Americans because your party might get an electoral advantage from it?
It’s surprising Griswold got even 15% of the votes in his 43rd District race for the legislature. Makes you wonder about the 15% who voted for him, doesn’t it?
If the KCGOP wants to do any better at the polls, the first thing they need is candidates more salable than this Griswold guy.
Klake you don’t have this problem?
Difficulty thinking clearly due to emotional imbalance.
Impotence brought on by acute Rabbit induced stress.
Lost of conscience, brought on by being a RightWingNut apologist.
Klake, for help with these and the other issues you are dealing with, please call 1-800-SUCK-ROG.
Klake, call the number. Get the help.
When they get a “quality candidate” (sarcasm) like Motherbeater Irons or Roadkill McGavick, they might reach 38% on a good day.
Face it, the wingnut program of concentrated wealth for a ruthless few and mass poverty for the rest of us isn’t the hottest item on people’s Christmas wish lists this year.
70 I’m here to help you, klake. Really, I am. My toll-free number operates 24-7. I’ll get back to you as soon as Reddick finishes.
How’s that CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE ideology selling this season? Do you pigfuckers have the Christmas blues because you’re stuck with unsold inventory? Need a catchy new sales jingle? How about “fuck you, wingnuts”?!!
“How to Defeat the Right in Three Minutes
“Have you got three minutes. Because that’s all you need to learn how to defeat the Republican Right. … It’s really … simple. First, you have to beat their ideology, which really isn’t that difficult. At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that I call ‘corporate feudalism’. They have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a ‘respectable’ sounding ideology. That ideology is pure hogwash, and you can prove it.
“But you have to do more than defeat the ideology. You have to defeat the ‘drum beat’. You have to defeat the ‘propaganda machine’ that brainwashes people with their slogans and catch-phrases. You’ve heard those slogans. ‘Less government’, ‘personal responsibility’ and lots of flag waving.
“So you need a really good … ‘counter-slogan’ … to ‘deprogram’ the brainwashed. You need a ‘magic bullet’ that quickly and efficiently destroys the effectiveness of their ‘drum beat’. You need your own ‘drum beat’ that sums up the right’s position … [and] exposes the ugly reality of right-wing philosophy – the reality their slogans are meant to hide.
“Our slogan contains the governing concept that explains the entire right-wing agenda. … You can see it in every policy, and virtually all of Republican rhetoric. And it’s so easy to remember, and captures the essence of the Republican Right so well, we can pin it on them like a ‘scarlet letter’.
“Is there really a catch phrase … that sums up the Republican Right … [y]ou better believe it, and it’s downright elegant in its simplicity.
“Right-Wing Ideology in a Nutshell
“When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just ‘dime-store economics’ intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don’t really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don’t. It all gets down to two simple words. ‘Cheap labor’.
“That’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy ‘catch phrase’ that describes them perfectly … they’re ‘cheap-labor conservatives’.
” … [C]heap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you’ll work, and the more power those ‘corporate lords’ have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a ‘wannabe’ like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool forced to work cheap. …
“[L]et’s apply this principle and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like social spending or our ‘safety net’ … [b]ecause when you’re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you … next to nothing. You see, they want you ‘over a barrel’ and in a position to ‘work cheap or starve’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions [because]these reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you ‘over a barrel’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives like ‘free trade’, NAFTA, GATT, etc. [b]ecause there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world who are ‘over a barrel’ and will work cheap.
“Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman’s right to choose [because] unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women ‘ver a barrel’, forcing them to work cheap.
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like unions [b]ecause when labor ‘sticks together’, wages go up. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about ‘morality’, ‘virtue’, ‘respect for authority’, ‘hard work’ and other ‘values’ [s]o they can blame your being ‘over a barrel’ on your own ‘immorality’, lack of ‘values’ and ‘poor choices’.”
[Roger Rabbit Commentary: Yeah, like going to law school instead of engineering school.]
“Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
“The Cheap-Labor Conservative ‘Dirty Secret’: They Don’t Really Like Prosperity
“Maybe you don’t believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and ‘cheap labor’. Consider these facts.
“Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
“That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the ‘golden age’ of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. …
“These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like ‘liberals are destroying America.’ In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930’s all the way to the present. You can go to ‘Free Republic’ or Hannity’s forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to ‘Stalinism’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
“Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country’s development going right back to the American revolution.
“Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
“Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to ‘resegregate’ the public schools.
“Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
“Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any ‘social spending’ … and … [w]ealthy cheap-labor conservatives … buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. …
“‘Free Trade’, globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide ‘corporate playground’ where national governments serve the interests of corporations – which means ‘cheap labor’.
“The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like ‘bottom up’ prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple … cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or … woman – who works for an hourly wage.
” … See how easy it is to understand these cheap-labor conservatives. The more ignorant and destitute people there are – desperate for any job they can get – the cheaper the cheap-labor conservatives can get them to work.
” … Every time you respond to a cheap-labor conservative … look for the ‘cheap labor’ angle. Trust me, you’ll find it. I can even show you the ‘cheap labor’ angle in things like the … absurd conservative opposition to alternative energy.
“Next, make that moniker – cheap-labor conservatives – your ‘standard reference’ to the other side. … If enough people will ‘get with the program’, it won’t be long before you can’t look at an editorial page, listen to the radio, turn on the TV, or log onto your favorite message board without seeing the phrase ‘cheap labor conservatives’ – and have plenty of examples to reinforce the message. By election day … every politically sentient American should understand exactly what a ‘cheap labor conservative’ is, and what he stands for.
Now if you stop right here, you will have enough ammunition to hold your own with a cheap-labor conservative, in any public debate. … But if you really want to rip the heart out of cheap-labor conservative ideology, you may want to [read further].
“Less Government and Cheap Labor
“’Less Government’ is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it’s all about ‘cheap labor’.
“Included within the slogan ‘less government’ is the whole conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the ‘free market’ and government’s role in that market. In fact, the whole ‘public sector/private sector’ distinction is an invention of the cheap-labor conservatives. They say that the ‘private sector’ exists outside and independently of the ‘public sector’. The public sector, according to cheap-labor ideology, can only ‘interfere’ with the ‘private sector’, and that such ‘interference’ is ‘inefficient’ and ‘unprincipled’ … the cheap-labor ideologue paints himself as a defender of ‘freedom’ against ‘big government tyranny’.
“In fact, the whole idea that the ‘“private sector’ is independent of the public sector is totally bogus. In fact, ‘the market’ is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
“But the cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in ‘freedom’. What the he wants is the ‘privatized tyranny’ of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it – ‘cheap labor’.
“For proof, you need only look at exactly what [they think] constitutes ‘big government tyranny’ and what doesn’t. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
“Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that ‘government can’t do anything right’ – except apparently, kill people … [and] exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.
“Cheap-labor conservatives complain about … giving ‘rights to criminals’. It never occurs to them that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials – you know, the ones who can’t do anything right.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support the ‘get tough’ and ‘lock ‘em up’ approach to virtually every social problem … it’s the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today – a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth – they say our justice system is ‘too lenient’. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn’t like.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other ‘black bag’ operation the CIA can dream up … against constitutional governments elected by the people of those countries.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support ‘domestic surveillance’ …
“Cheap-labor believers in ‘freedom’ think it’s the government’s business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support … ‘secret tribunals’ with ‘secret evidence’ and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are ‘Stalinists’.
“And let’s not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to ‘protect our national symbol’ from ‘desecration’. … Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda … cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of ‘freedom’. I mean, just what do these guys consider to be ‘tyranny’. …
“Take a look.
“’Social spending’ otherwise known as ‘redistribution’. While they don’t mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is ‘stealing’.
“Minimum wage laws.
“Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
“Labor unions, who ‘extort’ employers by collectively bargaining.
“Environmental regulations and the EPA.
“Federal support and federal standards for public education.
“Civil rights legislation. … Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were ‘tyranny’, but segregation itself was not.
“Public broadcasting – which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of ‘the culture’. The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. …
“See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it ‘tyranny’ if government does something for you – using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:
“150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.
“300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt … that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders and buy us absolutely nothing.
“Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq ….
“That’s all in addition to the Defense budget – large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.
“Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It’s ‘social spending’ on people who actually need assistance that they just ‘can’t tolerate’.
“And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.”
http://tinyurl.com/lnzs3
4 “I have boiled it down to this: Republicans are a selfish lot with no social conscience.”
BINGO!!!
Goldy,
Should you really be giving away all this free campaign advice to Republicans? I’ll come back to that–because I don’t want to give you too much credit right off the bat.
First off, you couldn’t be further from the truth when it comes to who is in control of the WSRP and KCGOP. Look at the recent KCGOP re-org results as a case in point. Young and Sotelo both retained their seats, after challenges from two inflexible ideological purists (Gibbs and Parris).
Strong and consistent party leadership is certainly important–but there are a ton of GOP PCOs out there hungry for local and statewide leaders with some fresh ideas and a “winning strategy.” The current KCGOP team has a long way to go, but all indicators point to a positive turn around.
As for the two issues Eric brings up at SP (education and transportation) your advice is either slighty mis-guided, or a clear partisan dis-information campaign. Here’s why I say that: you do a nice job of mis-construing the GOP leadership and their political positions, but also manage to weave in some good analysis of what’s really on the minds of the GOP grassroots (i.e. talk of the Soviet-style planning at Sound Transit).
That results in your overall analysis falling short. The trend of Republican losses has just as much to do with poor messaging as it does outdated policy positions and lackluster party leadership. I think Eric’s proposal of “getting hip” to the new climate, and then executing a strong message strategy is spot on. Of course, to do that requires strong leadership at all levels. Sigh…
It’s not transportation and education.
It’s the social issues.
Until the GOP goes libertarian (i.e., neutral) on abortion and gay rights, it will never be able to carry Seattle let alone the suburbs.
The two surviving Republican legislators from King County, Skip Priest and Fred Jarret, both voted for the civil rights bill and are pro choice.
They won re-election based on that and not because of education, transportation, taxes, land use or whatever issue.
Voters are fed up with Christian Conservative politics.
http://www.whackynation.com/?p=27
proud leftist @ 28… You forgot to add “This is most certainly true”.
Goldy, while I tend to agree with your post, I must ask “So what” if the Democrats in Olympia won’t deal with the issues at hand? Do you really expect any major developments in areas like transportation, education funding, state pension funding, not to mention tax reform, either sales/income or property tax? If what you’re saying is true, then Democrats must have the courage to get their ideas passed, and not worry about the next election, or they know (or think they know) the political tides could go the other way if they overreach. Which is it?
Also, has anyone seen klake and Roger in the same room?
76 “The trend of Republican losses has just as much to do with poor messaging …”
Really? Incompetence, corruption, and chicanery had nothing to do with it?
78 “Also, has anyone seen klake and Roger in the same room?”
I don’t go to leper colonies.
@34 eponymous coward says:
“Dennis Dunn was Jennifer Dunn’s husband, for the record.”
Note the operative word there, on the Dunn’s, is “was”
As for how the Reagan takeover worked- well, during the Reagan years, the GOP held most of the statewide offices- Spellman for one term, but Eikenberry, Munro, Marquardt, and Boyle for quite a spell- gee, I see a few Dan Evans Republicans there, people supported by then-State GOP chair Jennifer Dunn. Joel Pritchard was elected in 1988 to the Lt Gov’s office, too.
And Eikenberry stepped aside and conservatives supported Dan Evans in 1983 as the party united to take a U.S. Senate seat.
Hardly the Goldwater/Reagan faction running Dan Evans Republicans out of office and out of the party.
Changes came, starting in 1986, but that was the Pat Robertson crowd- a very different element. We see the heirs of THAT movement constantly claiming the Reagan mantle, but their predecessors OPPOSED the Reagan GOP.
@36- as for you, proud leftist, you dumb fuck moron don’t know shit. John Miller supported Reagan, asshole. As for the rest of your tripe, go stuff your head up your ass.
The acronym KCGOP refers to the party, and the party structure in King County was never ran by the Dan Evans Republicans. Goldy switches his intent around as it suits him, using KCGOP to mean the party when he wants to damn all Republicans for the sins of today’s idiot leaders, but using it with other meanings when wanting to make other claims. It is a consistent misuse of logic in his postings.
But what ya’ll need to look at is where most of those “Seattle” Republicans ended up- in the Reagan camp. Not just John Miller, but Bruce Chapman, Slade Gorton, and most of the rest. The “Dan Evans” Republicans mostly became Reagan Republicans. And most King County Republican office holders were- and are- Reagan style conservatives.
Goldy’s rewrite of history, and the illogic that flows from it, doesn’t stand up to historical fact-checking- as usual.
And proud leftist continues to show what a goddamned fool he is.
If Jimmy Queen says it – it must be a lie.
Just to be clear here, in referring to the KCGOP I was referring to the electeds and to some extent the base, but not specifically to the party leadership. I have no idea who the WSRP chair was before Chris Vance or who the KCGOP chair was before Mike Young. I wasn’t paying attention back then.
So I’ll cop to being imprecise. Though if it makes Jim King feel better to accuse me of trying to rewrite history, he is free to soothe himself any way he pleases.
The point remains, the GOP once put forth moderate candidates who believed that government was generally a tool for the public good. Now the vast majority of their rhetoric oozes with anti-government bile.
Goldy- you can’t rewrite a history you don’t know- you are making up fiction. Period. The ratio of “Dan Evans” Repblican to other Republicans is about the same today as it was forty years ago, and all the years in between.
You are not imprecise- you are flat-out wrong.
You just like opining about that which you don’t know.
Let’s come to current events, and those “Dan Evans” Republicans now holding state-wide office. But that, too, runs afoul of your fiction, doesn’t it? How can they be there if they have been run out of the party?
You just don’t have a clue on this.