I’ve got the news, and I’ve got it first: Dino Rossi is pulling the plug on his hopeless court challenge of Washington’s gubernatorial election!
According to a very reliable GOP source, campaign staff are preparing to call a press conference for later this afternoon, at which time Rossi will also announce that he intends to start immediately campaigning for a rematch against Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2008.
The decision came after a sometimes raucous late-night meeting at Rossi’s Bellevue headquarters, in which the normally soft-spoken Rossi repeatedly castigated state GOP Chair Chris Vance and several top members of his legal team, for misleading him about his prospects of winning in court.
According to my source, when Rossi asked if the recent revelation of nearly 1800 improperly handled provisional ballots in heavily Republican Eastern Washington would hurt his chances of prevailing in court, attorney Harry Korrell bluntly replied “No. You didn’t have much of a chance to start with.” A heated exchange followed, in which Rossi complained of being “lied to” and Vance accused Rossi of not being a “team player.”
Rossi, who continues to maintain a full campaign staff months after the official campaign ended, has asked key staffers to stay on for another three years. He will not run for Maria Cantwell’s U.S. Senate seat in 2006, having no desire to move his family to the other Washington. When asked if he would support a Vance candidacy for the Senate, Rossi reportedly quipped “I’d rather see that lying, cock-sucking, sack-of-shit roast in Hell than represent my party.”
April Fool!
(And let me just apologize in advance if I’ve offended any cock-suckers by comparing them to Chris Vance.)
A Scoop, indeed!
Thanks for the fun, Goldy.
Jackass strikes again.
Geez, I don’t have inside info like that! For a minute there, you had me wondering who you’ve been hanging out with, Goldy. My initial reaction was, “So THAT’S why he doesn’t show up in Montlake on Tuesdays!” I forgot all about April 1, maybe because in the Rossi camp EVERY day is April Fool’s Day (except they don’t tell you they’re jest-foolin’).
Say it ain’t so, Goldy. Say it ain’t so. Please, tell us that post #1 was the April fools day joke!
One GoogleGulp of each flavor for your efforts here.
Like every article in The Onion over the past four years, though, what you intend as parody will eventually turn into reality … take it to the bank!
Goldy–
You are a goofy little feller…
I know it’s hard to keep stoking the fire on this election contest..
Aren’t you the least bit interested in the depositions of Logan, Huennekens and the KingCo Election staff??
Poor Dean “Weird Al Yankovic look alike” Logan won’t be able to hide behind Julia Patterson, Larry Phillips and Ron Sims. Some of the questions he will be forced to answer under oath will be interesting.
Let’s count the number of “I don’t recalls” “I’m not Sure’s” etc.
Logan is the “nationally recognized” Election Expert according to SIMS!!!!!!! Let’s see how knowledgeable he is.
Perhaps Logan will be overcome with amnesia??
“Poor Dean “Weird Al Yankovic look alike” Logan won’t be able to hide. . . .”
Aaaaawwsome! Like they were . . . separated at birth!
Al: http://www.weirdal.com/102698.htm
Dean: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....gan21.html
CHOMP! Ow! That hook hurts…
Man, I must be getting cynical in my… um, not old age… advancing age(? – but age is always advancing)… okay, mid-30s. I saw that one coming a mile away.
Ten years ago, you might have had me. I guess I just don’t trust good news anymore. Well done nonetheless.
GOLDY…talk about SHOCK ANAD AWE. You got my attention. T
Chee @ 12
Of course he did.
Cut & Paste@13. Old line.
RDC,
Wanted to get your take on this article by John Fund.
Does Hillary look strong in your opinion? Would you prefer someone else?
I have an opinion on the Texas districts that are cited in the article, and that opinion could be expansive enough to include the other districts, to some extent.
Interesting on the R presidential list is this:
Some think Giuliani doesn’t have a prayer of winning the GOP nomination because of his stand on social issues. Maybe so. I certainly wouldn’t give him good odds in a head-to-head match up with a conservative. But Giuliani’s chances improve if the 2008 race draws a crowded field of candidates, including a handful who will split the social conservative vote. – T. Bevin
Oh, well. I have a game to watch…
marks@15. John Ford sums it all up in his last line where he says what it takes to survive in politics. Much like many philosophers have said, “take the mid path.” Ford calls it moderation. Some say it’s fence riding, others call it getting a sense of how the wind is blowing or better yet, keeping abreast of the pulse of the people. Moderation does away with extremes, is not too far to the left nor too far to the right. I think Hillary has a way of looking the playing field over and adjusting the cards she will play accordingly. She may be ahead of her time, not sure if voters are really ready for a woman Pres.
Hello Chee…Marks…To use an overused cliche, I’m not watching the game because I don’t have a dog in that hunt, and no money wagered. John Fund is to good journalism what Benedict Arnold is to patriotism, IMO. That aside, I wouldn’t put much stock in voting patterns in the last election. My guess is that 9/11 and gay marriage got Bush re-elected (or just elected, depending on your point of view). Remember that in the summer of 1929 the political thinking was that Hoover would be a shoo-in in 1932, and that the Republicans would have a lock on power for the foreseeable future. History shows us we can’t see very far into the future, and certainly not as far as the next presidential election.
I don’t like Giuliani’s chances. Long ago (1961) a mentor of mine (I was very young at the time) told me that Communism carried within it the seeds of its own destruction, and would collapse in my lifetime. Well, the Republican Party has gotten itself into the same pickle. I may expand on this at another time, but for now suffice it to say that the party’s core is hard right, and will never accept someone like Giuliani. If the Rs are routed in the 2006 elections, things may change; otherwise the party’s reasonable elements will be out in the cold.
I like Hillary Clinton’s political skills, but her sex is her Achilles heel. It probably doesn’t matter what she does ‘twixt now and then. She may get the D nomination, but I just can’t see this country putting a woman into the head office. In this regard, we are not a very advanced nation.
I supported Edwards early on in the going in the last election, but I thought he was disappointing as a VP candidate. Perhaps with some seasoning he’ll come out strong in ’08. Don’t know much about the current governor of Virginia, but he’s a D who seems to be able to get support in the South.
However, all of this speculation will be more irrelevant than it already is (can that be possible?) if we piss off the Chinese over Taiwan or some other issue. The Japanese are our friends. The Chinese are not. It is the acme of stupidity to have allowed them to be in a position to sink our economy. Each night when I go to bed I say a prayer to whatever gods may be that GWB’s luck not run out.
Good common sense there, Chee…and you are likely right.
RDC, that was much like my own view of the article. The confluence of issues, coupled with the confusing nuances of the Democratic nominee led to GWB’s re-election. If the R’s spend too much time studying 2004 and trying to discern meaning from tealeaves 6 months old without taking such into account, they might set the vehicle on cruise control and run it off the road.
David Brooks has an interesting take on the two major political parties. I don’t think he has talked to you, because if he did, he may have arrived at a different conclusion.
While it may be moot, I have seen some positive signs from Bill Richardson of New Mexico. It is early, but so far he seems fairly palatable to me. I’m not a fan of Edwards based on a knee-jerk dislike of his oily demeanor. In other words, he is the consummate politician, and those scare me. Makes me wonder (irrationally perhaps) what he’s hiding…
Regarding China, I share the concern. My tiny business unit (relative to the corporation) has major concerns in HK, Shinzou, and Taiwan. Taiwan is not likely to have much overt help from us despite whatever promises Washington has made in the past. That may lead to a further weakening of our influence if the shit hits the fan. More to the point, the economic repercussions from any negative activity in the region are not difficult to imagine. It may not ultimately matter, but who should get the blame for it if things go to hell?
On the run…more later…I read Brooks’ column today…hogwash. It’s not ideas that have propelled the Republicans into control; it’s their superb propaganda machine and their dumbing down of discourse. Reagan’s cementing of the racist vote in the South helped a lot also. If things go to hell in the Far East, the Rs will blame….you guessed it..Clinton!!!
…but Brooks on his worst day is better than Safire was on his best. I have no private information, but a hunch tells me that Richardson isn’t going to try for the top of the ticket…maybe something in his background that wouldn’t play well. Pure speculation on my part. For the Rs, I was thinking today of the disappearance of Colin Powell. He forgot, if he ever knew, one of Machiavelli’s observations: loyalty with princes is always one way. He should have resigned immediately when it became apparent his speech to the UN was essentially one big lie. Also, as I recall you spent enough time in the military to know that it is not a way of life that encourages independent thinking or action (this is another story, but when I was in the military I often thought, this is what living in the Soviet Union must be like). Anyway he is too liberal on social issues for the base, and, forgive me, I think his race would hurt him with the same group.
Re Edwards…don’t be too hard on consummate politicians. FDR was probably the best at the game, but Reagan and Clinton were also quite good. Two out of three isn’t bad.
If China made a move on Taiwan, the Republican Party would come apart. A sizable element would go beserk if we didn’t intervene, and if we did intervene, I don’t think the country would go along. Plus we would lose. So might the Chinese, but we would suffer more. Every Chinese not a native of Taiwan knows that Taiwan is just a wayward province that someday will be officially reunited with the motherland.
BTW, I would be very pressed to name my favorite philosopher. What about you?
I forgot to say, I will overlook all of your spelling errors if you will return the favor.
On the run again, but I feel compelled to make a comment on Rich Lowry’s column in today’s PI. It may also be in yesterday’s Washington POst…I can’t remember if they run his stuff also. I only get the weekly edition. Anyway, it is a textbook case of mistaking a few isolated trees as representing the entire forest. First, faith is the antithesis of freedom. Faith requires submission of the will and the rejection of reason. But more to the point, the forest in this case was the Enlightenment, a very secular movement which ushered in the notions of liberty and personal freedom on a large scale. Religion was the foe of the Enlightenment. Lowry also claims credit for the Church’s opposition to communism as an example of standing up for freedom. Nonsense. I don’t know what the Pope’s personal agenda was, but the church opposed communism because communism represented a loss of revenues and influence. If this was not the case, where was the church in opposing nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy and Spain? Yes, the Quakers opposed slavery, as did the Unitarians and others. However, they came late to the cause. The slave trade existed with the tacit blessing of those of faith for a very long time. The good people of Europe, the home of the Enlightenment, condemned it long before we were ready to. Lowry is a lot like David Brooks; nice guys probably, good writers, but often utterly unaware or deliberately deceptive about history and blithely complacent about the suffering their “philosophy” has and is causing in the world. (Better Wolfowitz at the World Bank than the Defense (we are going to have to change the name) Department. I’m much more comfortable with him handling bonds than bombs.
Anytime I see Machiavelli and FDR mentioned in the same string I ask why the redundancy? :) FDR had a knack for navigating the political waters of the time, and eventually getting what he wanted, often at the expense of his opposition including those in his own party. If we were to rate Presidents of the 20th century, FDR tops it even without WWII and winning the third and fourth terms in my rating system.
I would have to have some very narrowly focused blinders on to not recognize the Rs have a racial divide. Not that you said so, but the notion there is endemic racism within the party is a simplistic (and ultimately wrong, IMO) conclusion. Certainly elements within the party are racist and/or misogynistic, not capable of accepting a black man or any color woman to be the leader of the party. I think Powell could have done it, but I have not seen him as willing to take on the Presidency, or more properly, not willing to beg for the money from donors and spend the time campaigning.
As you pointed out in a previous post (and paraphrasing, so correct me if I get it wrong), our equal opportunity system needs to change from race to economic need. Who are the advocates of the truly destitute? I would submit that charities are, and those are run predominantly by religious organizations. If we were to look at a country club consisting of white people, we would likely surmise (correctly?) that it is due to racism. I suppose it has nothing to do with differing economics and/or conflicting cultural interests.
Although they may have begun with the best intentions, and perhaps still have a role to play in politics if they could figure out their stand on things, I think race-based groups have become inherently racist. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the National Association for the Advancement of
African-AmericanColored People (NAACP) are two predominant examples of how a good concept turns bad. The advocacy has shifted from racial equality to racial groupthink.A personal example of this was a party my wife and I held when my son came back from duty in Iraq a little while ago. My wife and I invited our friends and co-workers, a very diverse group both in race and economics. Conversation at one point turned to GWB and the Republican Party. One of my wife’s African-American coworkers brought up the discrimination issue and began to emphatically state that Republicans are racist. I took issue with this and pointed out the obvious fallacy of lumping me in with the racist Rs, using my marriage as an example. He had the gall to say my marriage was not interracial because my wife isn’t black. In effect, he was arguing that if you were not black you would not be a victim of racial discrimination. By extension, a non-African-American is the same as a white person.
My summary of these narrowly focused groups is that they do not (want to?) see the full picture, and are putting forward a victimization scenario for the people they represent. By their very nature, it is not advancing racial equality, but racial separatism. Until we Americans somehow bridge this divide, the “no justice, no peace” folks will continue to have a very different opinion from the rest of Americans concerning race.
Wimping out here, but beyond Cliff Notes, I have little experience with officially recognized philosophers. Thus my favorite philosopher is my dad. Hey, at least I didn’t say “Jesus.”
Spelling errors? Where?
As to Lowry, I have not read it yet, so can’t comment…
First of all, I’m happy that your son is home from Iraq. I would like to see all of our sons and daughters home from Iraq, and soon.
I’m not sure why Brooks and Lowry irritate me so. Maybe it is because, unlike Safire (except on consolidation in the media) and Krauthammer, Brooks and Lowry ought to know better. Once in a while each writes a very sensible column.
Racism may be endemic in the GOP…endemic just means regularly occuring or always there, which is a different thing from saying it characterizes the party. I don’t believe it does. But I do believe it helps the party win elections, particularly but not exclusively in the South. When the Ds were the race-baiting party, they controlled the South. When this dubious distinction passed to the GOP, it gained control of the South. I know, I know…there is more involved in the transition than just race, but race plays a significant part. I disagree with you on Powell. I think he may have been able to get the nomination just after the first Gulf War, but not now. The power brokers in the GOP now are much different from what they were then.
Religious charities on balance do very good work. Those who put converting others to their faith before serving the needs of the destitute are the exception. My favorite major charity, and one that is now quite well off, is the Salvation Army. If I am ever unfortunate enough to be out on the street and devoid of hope, that’s where I’m heading. I don’t buy their message, but their heart is in the right place, and they never give up on anyone.
A country club could be all white because of racism…think of the Augusta Golf Club in the not too distant past. More likely today a club that is all white is so because membership just isn’t very attractive to those of color (or affordable…which would also exclude whites. We are in complete agreement about the need to change affirmative action. It has been remarkable successful, and it has changed attitudes about race and sex stereotypes forever (well, one can hope so). What I would like to see is a prominent Republican politician say so. But, like SS and Head Start and Medicare, etc., it was a Ds idea, so we likely won’t hear any praise coming from any R. But it is time to declare victory and move the focus to the disadvantaged of all stripes.
I view the NAACP and similar organizations as lobbyists for a particular point of view, kind of like the NRA. Both do some good, and both were in their earlier years very good for the country, but now both have become negative roadblocks to progress. I think the NRA is worse than the NAACP, because people die because of what it does, but the comparison still holds.
There were two people at your party who were wrong about racism. Your guest when he excluded any minority other than his own as qualifying for that status, and you when you used yourself as an example of a non-racist Republican because you had married a minority person. I’m not saying that you are a racist…seems pretty doubtful, from this distance, but it is a mistake to believe that because someone is married to a person of another race that that person can’t hold racist views. The psychology here isn’t too hard to follow. Indifference is the opposite of love, not hate. Hate and love are bedmates figuratively and sometimes literally. Or a person might be driven by quilt feelings about racist sentiments to romance a person of a different race. Our big brains make us very complicated creatures. Even someone like chardonney, relative to other primates, has a big brain. BTW,I have encountered the same phenomenon of people claiming that other minorities aren’t really minorities. What they are doing is what we are advocating doing….they are basing minority status on how well the particular group seems to be getting on in our economy. With African Americans there is also a bit of a dog in the manger attitude.
Well, I spent (for me) a lot of money today, and spending money wears me out, so I’m going to bed.
I forgot about philosophers. I think GWB was on solid ground in naming JC as his favorite. I have no confidence whatsoever that all of the words attributed to him were actually his, but the New Testament carries in it a number of philosophical precepts (or maybe it is better to say philosophical basis for forming precepts).
There were two people at your party who were wrong about racism.
Most assuredly so. I never tried to insinuate I was particularly smart beyond my line of work. I usually end up jumping into politically charged debate with both feet in my mouth. A good host would have steered the conversation to basketball or football. Adult beverage consumption also played a factor. To our credit, neither of us raised our voices or worse, though our language may have been considered crass.
Jim Hoagland writes:
The world has never had more communication and yet produced so little understanding and wisdom.
Can’t say I unreservedly agree with the entire article, but that line was worth the price of admission.
I have some obligations tonight, so I will not be able to comment extensively, but I did read Lowry @ National Review. Your question on where the Catholic Church was during the Nazi era is a good one, and I have a partial answer: failure of leadership by an Italian pope.
Getting to the end on this thread. Perhaps we should have a liberal drink?
The Hoagland article has much in it to ponder. Of course I disagree vehemently with his notion that religion has often been a source of advancement throughout history. On balance, the opposite has been true.
Liberal drinks it is then. I’ll look for you there. I’m still trying to make up my mind about who is my favorite philospher. Liberals, you know. They just can’t come to a decision about anything.,