I have an email correspondence going on with AG Rob McKenna’s office on a number of questions regarding former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and what if any role McKenna might have played in both the dismissal and the search for a replacement. McKenna’s communications people are good. Their response was prompt, concise and deftly worded in a way that does not exactly provide a direct answer to some of my questions. I’ll report back after they reply to my follow-up.
To be fair, McKenna was heading out to Montesano and Grays Harbor this morning, so my answers were provided secondhand by Communications Director Janelle Guthrie. But she did manage to offer one direct quote from her boss:
“We had a good relationship with John McKay. He was an excellent attorney, highly respected by other prosecutors as well. I think President Bush made a mistake.”
Hmm. I didn’t actually ask what McKenna thought about McKay’s job performance or President Bush’s decision to fire him, so the fact that he chose to offer his opinion unprompted is telling. (Not to mention a display of political savvy that is apparently beyond the reach of fellow Republican Dave Reichert.) For by publicly defending McKay and criticizing Bush, McKenna would appear to be separating himself from both the widening scandal, and the slow-motion implosion of the Bush administration itself.
But taken at his word, his statement also does something else that I hope levelheaded voters will take to heart: it hammers yet another nail in the coffin of the oft-repeated GOP meme that Democrats somehow stole the 2004 gubernatorial election.
As the New York Times points out in an editorial today, “phony fraud charges” were at the center of the U.S. attorney firings:
In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud.
[…] John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”
So if McKenna, fully aware of McKay’s public comments, is now vouching for McKay’s performance and criticizing his firing… isn’t he also vouching for the integrity of the 2004 gubernatorial election?
McKay refused to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury, which is of course exactly what many Republicans wanted him to do. That is what the EFF’s Bob Williams and the BIAW’s Tom McCabe angrily demanded. That is what all six Republicans on the King County Council demanded when they wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. That is what our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics continues to demand today. When then-WSRP Chair Chris Vance describes speaking with McKay and complaining to the White House, he appears incredulous that good Republicans wouldn’t subvert our supposedly impartial judicial system for partisan political purposes:
“We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything.”
Not to mention a Republican state Attorney General, Rob McKenna. In 2004 the entire investigative, prosecutorial and administrative apparatus was controlled by loyal Republicans, and yet there were no indictments, there were no prosecutions, and there were no grand juries. Why? For the same reason a cherry-picked judge in a Republican county dismissed “with prejudice” all allegations of fraud: there was no evidence.
I believe a sort of mass psychosis set in to our state’s Republican establishment in the wake of Dino Rossi’s incredibly close and understandably frustrating loss to Gov. Chris Gregoire — a mindset of dark thoughts in which party stalwarts cynically determined that absolutely everything and anything was possible at the hands of their enemies across the aisle… and that absolutely everything and anything was permissible in response. Fed by the paranoid fantasies of the right-wing blogs, and the ruthless partisanship of the BIAW and EFF, the state GOP not only pursued a hopeless legal contest, but set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to McKay’s firing. The WSRP made the biggest political mistake possible — it came to believe its own propaganda — and in so doing played a major role in instigating a national scandal that threatens Gonzales himself, and further tarnishes the Republican brand.
“President Bush made a mistake.” Absolutely, and in more ways than one. It remains to be seen if McKenna’s efforts to separate himself from this mistake after the fact are entirely supported by the record of his own actions and statements at the time.
Not only that, Goldy, but McKenna clearly states that “Bush made a mistake.” He is acknowledging what most of us believe but Tony Snow has denied, that Bush had something to do with this mess.
David
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
Amen, brother.
Has the stench of the Republicon controlled White House made any loyal Republicons puke yet?
Anyone still supporting Bush these days should try out for the leading role in the upcoming movie Caveman.
Prosecute innocent Democrats, and ignore guilty Republicons. That is what Rove had planned for the ’08 elections. He said the “scandals” would not be repeated, and this abuse of power was his shot across the bow of any prosecutors that may want to prosecute a Republicon crook, or ignore an innocent Democratic politician.
Just the facts.
Democrats were investigated and prosecuted since 2001 at a 7 to 1 rate compared to Republicons. With the culture of corruption so thick in the GOP a blind monkey could see it, only Democrats were being investigated.
Ask the FBI why they didn’t give $100,000 cash to DeLay…. I wonder what the hammer bug man would have done if offered all that cash.
Even worse, they started to believe the conspiracy fantasies of their fringe members.
Of course, we’re vulnerable to the same kind of problem, although we are insulated somewhat by the fact that our party has been welcoming to moderates.
This is one reason that I am somewhat concerned about our attempt to do away with the primary election. Caucuses tend to bring out the folks on the fringes, while the rest of us have to work, take care of families, have a life…
Even a “beauty contest” primary would give a voice to that large chunk of the party that cannot fully participate in the caucuses. The caucuses could still choose a different candidate, but would have to explain the reason for ignoring the primary choice.
On the Republican side, that is how they ended up being the only state delegation to go for Rev
RidiculousRobertson in his Presidential bid. We’re not immune to the same kind of problem, where the candidate is more of a reflection of the fringe wing of the party, rather than the majority.Even though I’ve been a big “top two” fan, this is the one serious drawback I see to that system.
Of course, we’re a small enough state that it isn’t likely that we’ll be tipping the balance, and we’re blue enough that we’ll support the national candidate almost no matter who that turns out to be, but it is still a subject of some concern.
You are learning to spin quite a yarn, there. Thought of going into writing? More money there. Or how about writing and then reading podcasts? This is a new field, though not as lucrative as being the owner of an “energy credit” corporation.
Only the most rabid partisan would try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Further tarnish? Nope. Like a smart guy once said, “Ya can’t polish a turd.”
McKenna REALLY needs to watch his back after publicly using the “M” word with respect to Smirky McFlightsuit.
And yes, one of my work colleagues has finally had it with his former party. The other night he finally admitted OUT LOUD that they can’t get one G.D. thing right. I think it was actually the Walter Reed crap (no pun intended) that pushed him over the edge.
And that G.D. Tony Snow is starting to remind me of Ron Ziegler, Nixon’s press secretary:
1. Everybody knew how much Nixon lied.
2. Everybody knew how much Ziegler had to lie, being the gold soldier he was.
3. Ziegler knew that everybody knew that he had to keep doing this little dance. I actually almost felt sorry for the poor rat bastard.
Ummmm, Goldy, with regard to the McKenna era in the AG’s office, you’re off by a year. Christine Gregoire was Washington’s Attorney General throughout 2004 and into the first few days of 2005.
What McCabe, Vance, Reichert, Hastings, et al. don’t understand — or maybe I mean don’t want to understand — is that the only reason Dino Rossi was within hailing distance of winning the gubernatorial election is that Gregoire did such a piss-poor job of running for the office. Had she acted like anything other than Locke-lite during the campaign, she would have won handily.
Good work on this one, Goldy. This shows that McKenna is no dummy politically, and all the more dangerous for it. It costs him very little to say this, and polishes his credentials with poor gullible fools who are searching desperately for a “Dan Evans Republican,” even though McKenna is pretty far to the right of Danny Boy.
As for Stefan, he will continue to spread the big lie to his amen chorus of right-wing sheep that the election was fixed, and that the information that he has collected somehow constitutes evidence of fraud.
I notice that in addition to McKay, McKenna won’t touch Stefan’s “evidence” with a 10-foot pole either. Yet I have never seen Stefan say boo about that.
We all know why that is. Stefan’s bagmen at BIAW and/or EFF, or whoever his bagmen are, have told him not to mess with McKenna, because McKenna will do their bidding just as Stefan does. McKenna just poses as the “good cop.”
Stefan has kicked me off his blog for saying this. I wonder that it took him that long. He says it’s a lie and that I can’t prove it. Well, he can’t prove election fraud either.
a sort of mass psychosis set in to our state’s Republican establishment
SHEESH! IT’S BEEN THERE AS LONG AS I’VE LIVED IN THIS STATE. IN 94 IT WAS AS STRONG AS IT IS NOW IF NOT STRONGER. KVI? HELLO?
it came to believe its own propaganda
YUH THINK? THEY’VE ALWAYS MADE IT UP AS THEY WENT ALONG!
LMAO!!
IVAN: IT’S TOO BAD THAT SHARANSKY HAS BANNED YOU. IT’S GOOD HILARIOUS FUN TO GOOGLE THE RUCKUS YOU STIR UP AT THAT SNAKE PIT OF HATE, (UN)SP THAT IS.
It’s more than just a mistake, Goldy. What all these Republicans attempted to do was procure false prosecution, and that’s a felony. So is suborning perjury. We need a grand jury, all right — but not to investigate the election. We need a grand jury to issue indictments against Chris Vance, Tom McCabe, and every other Republican involved in trying to misuse our nation’s criminal justice system to retaliate against their political competitors with criminal prosecutions for doing nothing more than winning an election fair and square.
I’ll be back soon enough with a different handle and a different IP address.
That transvestite, dick-sucking punk Steffy wants a world where he gets to talk and you get to listen and that’s all. Typical Publican. Doesn’t want debate, just wants it his way. It’s okay Steffy, we all know it’s your wife who wears the pants (and probably the dildo) in your family.
The GOP is best described as, not a political party, but mass hysteria.
@5 Only the blindest, most self-serving, Republican loony could fail to see the real motive behind the U.S. Attorney firings, and the reason for Rove’s deep involvement. You’re shooting blanks, son. This is the real deal — the absolute worst kind of abuse of power — trying to use the power of prosecution to persecute political opponents and protect your own criminal wrongdoing. It is pure Stalinism.
@7 “Ummmm, Goldy, with regard to the McKenna era in the AG’s office, you’re off by a year. Christine Gregoire was Washington’s Attorney General throughout 2004 and into the first few days of 2005.”
You’re technically correct, but Goldy is materially right. McKenna was the AG during the election contest trial, and in the aftermath. McKenna may not have been the AG when the pressuring of McKay began, but he was the AG throughout the aftermath period when McKay’s investigations took place.
@7 (continued) I don’t think Gregoire was Locke-lite, nor do I think the problem was her positions. She took bold, dramatic positions and made daring promises during the campaign, which she has dramatically kept while in office. No, the problem was the Gregoire is a great lawyer and a good administrator but lacks candidate skills and consequently campaigned ineptly. But, given a choice between a slick campaigner and a great leader, I’ll take the latter every time.
You also failed to mention two other key factors in Rossi’s near-miss. First, the Republicans and Rossi himself falsely packaged Rossi as a moderate — a tactic the GOP has been using across the board, which is far less likely to be successful in the future because voters are wising up to it. Rossi is actually an extremist candidate from a radical party, and more Washington voters now understand that fact.
The other factor is that a gay candidate, running as a Libertarian, siphoned off tens of thousands of votes that normally would have gone to the Democratic candidate. Without Bennett’s participation in the election, it would not have been close. There is no way the gay votes she got would have gone to the gay-bashing party’s candidate.
N @7,
The R’s really didn’t start pushing hard for investigations until mid-December, after it became apparent that Rossi might actually lose, so I assumed that the pressure on McKay and others came in 2005, after McKenna assumed office.
Roger @ 18:
Sorry, she WAS Locke-lite, she took shitty positions, and she ran a lame campaign. She needs to never, ever again use the handlers and consultants, or her little pet ground troops, that she used in 2004.
I have every confidence that she will rectify that, and she has a hell of a record to run on. But let’s not rewrite history, shall we?
One might speculate on the possibility that Gregoire wasn’t quite on top of her game during the 2004 campaign. Recovering from cancer can be a bit of a distraction. If she’d had more energy to put into campaigning (or if she’d stepped aside and let someone else run who did) the outcome might not have been quite as close. A more agressive opponent might have more effectively shown up Rossi as an empty suit with slimy backing.
@20 I couldn’t disagree more. Locke decorated a chair; Gregoire, in her first year, broke long-festering legislative logjams on a broad array of transportation, education, and health care issues. She got the priorities right, and she got her positions right on the key issues facing our state. I agree she ran a lame campaign, which was partly her fault personally. Her handlers and consultants did a competent, if less than magnificent, job. Their worst error was failing to see how fast her 12-percent lead was eroding in the final two weeks of the campaign as a result of Rossi’s attack ads, and not reacting swiftly or forcefully enough to those ads. There was nothing wanting in her little pet ground troops, who dutifully and competently slogged away at the mundane tasks of fundraising, scheduling, and working the phone lists; and Gregoire hugged a rabbit.
Let me reiterate. Here is the most important thing every candidate has to do: http://tinyurl.com/opkdy
Only the blindest, most self-serving, Republican loony could fail to see
THAT INCLUDES ALMOST EVERY WINGNUT WHO COMES HERE.
re 4: You are always branding yourself as the dependable, safe, moderate Democrat and making ominous, somewhat opaque, reference to a “fringe element” that ruins it for all the good hearted, albeit somewhat bungling, moderates.
I think you owe us all a concise explanation of exactly what are the philosophical underpinnings of your moderation and how it is a superior world view to, let’s say, Noam Chomsky’s.
There’s something slippery and hidden in your pronunciamentos and I, for one, would like to know what your credentials are for labeling who is moderate and who is not.
@21 I don’t think Gregoire’s health had anything to do with it. I was around her during the campaign, and she wasn’t distracted. She was focused, and campaigned energetically — keeping in mind that she was still Attorney General and had responsibilities in that office throughout the campaign.
Gregoire has never been a strong campaigner, and until 2004, didn’t have to be. She didn’t have to get elected director of Ecology, and she never had a strong opponent or close race in her three elections for attorney general. She concerned herself with things like arguing cases before SCOTUS, not growing campaign skills; and in her last few years as AG, she was deeply engrossed in the tobacco litigation and Hanford cleanup. She’s much more a lawyer, administrator, and policymaker than politician, and always has been. That is both her strength in office, and her weakness on the campaign trail.
@23 That’s the whole fucking problem in a nutshell.
@23 Actually, there are only 3 wingnuts posting here, and 20 of them are Kevin Carns.
It’s all too bizarre to logically figure out.
Mike McKay and John McKay have been close friends and allies with Norm Maleng practically forever. And Norm Maleng is pretty close politically with Dave Reichert.
On the other hand, the committee that Norm Maleng headed up to choose a replacement for John McKay came up with Rick White — who has been suspended and isn’t licensed to practice law. Okay, no one went to the Washington State Bar website to see if the candidates were licensed attorneys or had any disciplinary record. But still, Maleng knew White hadn’t actually worked as a lawyer for many, many years. I assume White didn’t submit a totally fabricated resume’ or anything like that, and also Maleng and the committee members had a good bit of general knowledge about White.
Throw in a few more curve balls. Mike McKay was originally head of the appointment recommendation committee back in 2001. Mike McKay was co-chair of George W. Bush’s campaign in Washington in 2000. But Mike McKay had donated money to Christine Gregoire (technically through his law firm) and Ron Sims (in his own personal name) in 2000 while he was chairing Bush’s campaign! Regardless of what you think of the merits of these three politicians supported by Mike McKay in 2000, this is bizarre, and in fact infuriating to committed Republicans in 2000. As it should be.
Then the news was reported in early 2000 that Anne Bremner was going to be the top choice of Mike McKay’s committee. Bremner had claimed to be a Republican, but then it was discovered that she had donated to Gary Locke and Jay Inslee in October 2000, just weeks before the election.
All of these issues raised a stir among committed Republicans in early 2001, and presumably Bush or responsible people acting in his behalf got this information.
Then John McKay decided to apply for the job of U.S. Attorney. Mike McKay recused himself from the committee — at least for consideration of a U.S. Attorney. And the name of Anne Bremner totally disappeared from the radar screen for further serious consideration for the position.
Norm Maleng ended up heading the appointment selection committee in 2001, at least for the U.S. Attorney position. The committee recommend John McKay, Diane Tebelius, and Rob McKenna to President Bush for consideration.
Of the three, at the time I thought Diane Tebelius would have been the best choice. Over a dozen years actually working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle. Rob McKenna had no litigation experience whatsoever, had not actually practiced law for five years (he was on King County Council), had the least total time since bar admission by far, and had not been in a managerial position over other attorneys. John McKay had a pretty varied and impressive background, attorney managerial experience, a helluva lot better resume’ and so forth than Rob McKenna, but no experience working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. And Tebelius and McKenna had a lot stronger Republican credentials than did John McKay — who mainly seemed to be a Republican because his brother was a Republican (of sorts).
Anyway, we ended up with John McKay. And now the same people who gave us John McKay — i.e. Norm Maleng et al. — want to give us Rick White!
Of course, it should also be pointed out that Norm Maleng backed Rob McKenna for state attorney general in 2004. Mike Vaska was by far the better candidate from a professional perspective — 20 years of actual law practice, versus six years for McKenna, extensive litigation experience, and managerial experience as a partner in a major Seattle law firm.
Go figure …
@29 Oh c’mon, Richard, you’ve been around long enough to know that professional competence and experience have nothing to do with the political appointments made by your party.
@29 Except maybe in your case.
I couldn’t resist. Richard is sooooo tempting a target … fat and juicy, like a German observation blimp floating over the trench lines.
This is beginning to sound like some sleazy prime-time soap opera.
Roger submits:
It was part-and-parcel with her crappy campaign. Any halfway-decent campaign would have hammered Dino on his faux-moderate packaging, would have elucidated the widely-available evidence of his wingnuttery, would have turned the tables on his patently-erroneous claims that Gregoire was somehow “responsible” for the state’s economic shortcomings during the Locke years. Hell, the Republican legislature, led by Senator Dino Rossi, did more to hamstring Washington and gut the social safety net than anyone else. As Attorney General, Chris had next to nothing to do with the budget … certainly far, far less than the damage wrought by Dino.
Yes and no. One of the analyses I wanted to do, but never got around to (sigh…), involved the influence of Bennett. I can say that she actually pulled an appreciably lower number of votes than is typical of a Libertarian candidate in Washington, and that her percentages tended to be higher in the red counties than the blue ones. Now, these observations still might translate to Bennett hurting Gregoire — standard Libertarian candidates might demonstrate an even higher red-blue differential than she did, and the votes that didn’t go to her might well have shifted to Dino — but it isn’t crystal-clear.
Of course, in a 133-vote-margin race, anything could have spelled the difference. Such as the hundreds, if not thousands, of dimwits who wrote in “Ron Sims”.
Looks like Rob McKenna is going to be given the opportunity to sue the King County Republican Party over their numerous and egregious PDC reporting violations:
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/......22.07.pdf
The PDC enforcement staff is recommending that the matter being turned over to the Attorney General for a civil lawsuit, since the $4,000 or so fine that the PDC can impose in an administrative enforcement hearing is insufficient for violations of this magnitude.
The Public Disclosure Commission is scheduled to vote on this recommendation at 1:00 p.m. on March 22, 2007, in the afternoon session of its next meeting:
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/......22.07.pdf
Rob McKenna needs to exercise some professional ethics, and recuse the State Attorney General’s office from this case, and hire outside counsel. In a letter of November 17, 2006, Rob McKenna endorsed the re-election of Michael Young as King County GOP Chair and Lori Sotelo as King County GOP Vice-Chair — the same morons who managed to screw up the PDC reporting in the first place and continued to screw it up even further after I pointed the problems (to date) to them back in August 2006.
Rob McKenna needs to hire outside counsel. Perhaps someone like Mike Vaska, who has private practice experience in PDC enforcement. Vaska sued over the PDC reporting problems of the gas tax repeal initiative back in 2005, and won.
RICHARD, DAMN! YOUR NAME IS ALL OVER THAT FIRST DOCUMENT.
I GUESS YOUR NAME IS NOT TOO POPULAR WITH THE KCRP.
N in Seattle @ 34
Libertarians tend to pull about 2% or so for Governor and U.S. Senate, about 1/2% or so for President, 3% or 4% for Secretary of State, Attorney General and other down-the-ticket offices, and often a good bit over 5% for the seen-as-do-nothing office of Lieutenant Governor.
When someone only gets 2% of the vote (a mere fraction of my worst performance ever running for public office!), the number of votes is so scattered that it is difficult to do any meaningful statistical analysis. It is hard to say whether Bennett “hurt” Rossi more, or Gregoire more.
Or even anything about the hundreds of folks who wrote in “Ron Sims”. You might call them Democrats, and say they could have voted for Gregoire. But they knew Gregoire was on the ballot. And they knew Rossi was on the ballot. And they didn’t want to vote for EITHER one of them. If 150 or so of these folks had found Rossi tolerable, then maybe the election would have turned out different.
Or what about the at least 50,000 or more people who left the Governor’s race completely blank?
Hell, look at the 883,002 who voted for ME when I ran against Christine Gregoire for Attorney General in 2000. While the overwhelming majority of these folks would have probably voted for Dino Rossi in 2004 (assuming they voted in both elections), it is probable that at least a miniscule percentage of them did not. Even 0.015% of these folks (132.45) voting for Gregoire, Bennett, or leaving this race blank would have made the difference.
Richard @ 37:
You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers. The National Opinion Research Center (Called NORC by those who have heard Ann Coulter laugh) has done some studies about people who vote for the Libertarian and Green parties, and have come up with some counter-intuitive surprises. The “Libertarians take votes from Republicans” meme is about 60% accurate. That is, of 100 Libertarian votes, about 60 would otherwise vote Republican and 40 would otherwise vote Democratic.
Greens, on the other hand, are more problematic. If there is a Green high on the ticket (Senator or Governor), Greens split almost 50/50; slightly more would otherwise vote for the Democrat that the Republican, but with two BIG differences:
1) Fewer than 30% of Greens actually voted for the same office in the prior general election;
2) After they vote for the Green high on the ballot, they discover there are other, “trivial” offices on the ballot, like state senator and state representative. When they vote for down-ballot offices, they do what all trust-fund brats do: They vote about 70% Republican.
Richard @ 37:
I forgot to add the note that Libertarians are more consistent: More than 80% had voted for the same office in the prior general election, and they voted about 60% Republican, 40% Democratic on the down-ballot offices.
Nice post Goldy. You can’t really trust anything McKenna says as representing his true beliefs though. He gets that it is time to put the close race behind the GOP in order to find footing on the high road and he gets that distancing himself from Bush and siding with McKay, a moderate who has no standing, is a cheap chance to help McKenna’s own image.
Lucy asked:
Well, it’s simple. Everyone to the right of me is a wingnut, everyone to the left of me is a radical, and I (of course) am a perfectly reasonable moderate, so if you always agree with me, you’ll be fine. ;-)
More seriously, most people, in their own minds, are “moderate” in that they carefully consider all sides of an issue before making an opinion. That is how we can have moderate liberals and moderate conservatives, with opposing viewpoints, but both still “moderate”.
If you’ve spoken to folks at candidate’s forums and similar events, along with reading this board, you have certainly run across people that simply refuse to believe that anyone that holds an opposing opinion could be doing so out of honest, good-faith consideration.
Both the left and the right have these folks, and some of them on both sides post here.
One of the problems with being “moderate” is that it actually requires considering and understanding opposing views. Much easier to just say “dittos” and let someone else do the thinking.
So, if you can honestly debate with someone of the other party, listen to their arguments and consider them without simply dismissing them as “Repugnican” or any of the other various names I see here, chances are you’re a moderate.
If a Republican can honestly listen and consider your opinion, putting forward honest argument (as opposed to talking points) then chances are that person is also a moderate.
If you both have to take it outside and fight it out in the parking lot, you’re fringies.
One last thought. If politics is the single most important thing in your life (assuming you are not a professional politician) then you’re also probably on the fringes. Most normal people have lives, families, jobs, friends…
And on that note, I’m going home to have a late dinner. It’s been a long day.
re 25: “I think you owe us all a concise explanation of exactly what are the philosophical underpinnings of your moderation and how it is a superior world view to, let’s say, Noam Chomsky’s.”
I asked you a serious question and all you gave me was “a bowl of pottage” in response. In a way, I’m challenging you to clarify your thoughts.
I don’t think you really know why you think and say as you do.
Do the “fringies” change in response to “moderates”? Or, is the opposite true? You make LARGE statements, so I’m asking you to back that stuff up with some substance. I don’t want to be called a “fringie” by someone who can’t speak gogently about Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russel, Leo Strauss … all the great minds AND George Costanza and the phenomenon of SHRINKAGE.
C’mon, John! Less drivel, more substance.
John McKay for Washington State Atty Gen. He is a democrat – so I hear. Maybe McKenna is strategizing here? Support McKay, so he can’t use Bush as a campaign weapon against him in 2008?
O’Riley was so hilarious tonight. He complained of all the actors calling Bush names, and how it hurts our image worldwide.
He forgot to mention the fact that what Bush does hurts our image a billion times as much as what the hollywood elite do.
Nevermind the hooded figure on the box with the electrical wires attached. You know, the cab driver…..
Hey Bill’O, I feel so sorry for you these days. All that fake outrage, and anger. All you can do is attack the people that want a better America, and cover for the people destroying her…..
OMG “Bush” made a mistake!!!!! Civil War in Iraq!!!!
Headline News….. Way to cover the news Goldy!
You need to quit counting your pennies and watch TV now and then….
@34 “Of course, in a 133-vote-margin race, anything could have spelled the difference. Such as the hundreds, if not thousands, of dimwits who wrote in “Ron Sims”.”
They weren’t dimwits, they were blacks put off by Gregoire’s failure to court the black community, in the wake of defeating a black candidate in the primaries and racism allegations hurled at her. She survived because Washington has a lower proportion of black voters than many other blue states. The hundreds of write-in votes for Sims were a message that said, “Don’t take us for granted just because you’re a Democrat.” Hopefully, she heard the message, and learned from it.
@36 Does this mean Richard won’t get the U.S. Attorney job?
@37 “Hell, look at the 883,002 who voted for ME when I ran against Christine Gregoire for Attorney General in 2000.”
Only 100 of them voted for you, Richard. The other 882,902 voted for the “R” next to your name. Mickey Mouse would have gotten those votes if he had run as an “R”.
Looking at this race from another angle, your 38% is competitive with Roadkill McGavick, Motherbeater Irons, and cigaret smoke; and you’ve got Low Tax Looper beat all hollow!
I think the firing of John McKay was just as much of a warning shot to Moderate Republicans in the Washington State Republican Party to show who is boss, (ie the Karl Rove friendlier wing) and also to think about the 2008 election. Rove maybe not had been personally involved in the recount and court case, but his office was heavily involved in both, along with the RNC.
The big loser in Washington State from the firing of John McKay is Dino Rossi. I don’t think Norm Maleng and Rob McKenna are going to be lock step with him, or see big campaign contributions from the Seattle Law Firms to Rossi. Maleng and McKenna will support him in the end, but this whole imbroglio takes the a bit of the sails of out of the BIAW given their heavy handness in the recount and court case. Rossi is probably going to have a more difficult time fundraising this time around.
I also think why Karl Rove did this was to get ready for Nov 2008, so there wouldn’t be a repeat of Independent office holders like McKay and elected officials like Sam Reed who didn’t take jobs as partisan hacks.
Also, some of the biggest anger toward the firing of McKay comes from the legal community and law enforcement. Rossi is going to have a difficult time to explain he had nothing to do with the firing of McKay when BIAW was calling for McKay’s head. Rossi may not need King County to win, but he needs Downtown Seattle’s Law Firms for fundraising and networking. To have a sitting judge, Chief Judge Lasnik publicly complain about this, is very rare thing.
What is so stupid about firing McKay, is that even if Rove or DOJ and/or Gonzales told the truth about the real reason for the firing, they still would had cause a huge firestorm in Washington State, and especially within the Washington State Republican Party.
Hell, Richard, you’re more popular than either the basketball arena or the tunnel! I’m sure that’s a great comfort to you.
@41 That’s all very nice, John, but your worldview is predicated on the false assumption that today’s Republicans are reasonable people with honest differences of opinion. They’re not. They’re rock-throwers. They’ve thrown out all the rules that used to govern political competition. Their attitude is, anything goes. They’re fucking nazis! You can’t deal with sociopaths in a normal way. This situation calls for a new approach — radical surgery, chemotherapy, all-out war against the rightwing cancer in the body politic. If we don’t, they’ll kill us all.
@43 “Moderates” are the crowd who go along with the status quo; “fringies” are the forward thinkers from whose ideas all social, economic, and scientific evolution springs.
@50 No, I think it was bald-ass pandering to the “we-wuz-robbed” wing of the WSRP.
McKay is a more convenient scapegoat for losing the election than Rossi is. He’s more expendable, too.
Roger Rabbit @ 51
Sorry, I think the basketball arena and the tunnel have me beat. They were in the ballot only in Seattle. My 38.4% numbers were statewide. My Seattle numbers were a LOT lower than that. Just remember what I had after my name.
Roger Rabbit @ 48
I am overqualified for the U.S. Attorney job, since I am licensed to practice law and have paid all my bar dues.
I rather get the impression from a public statement he made this week, that if the Bush administration came to him with hats in hand and begged him to take his old job back, he’d tell them go go piss up a rope.
Wow! It looks like Rick White is seriously thinking that he will get the appointment as U.S. Attorney from President Bush:
“[Rick] White said late Friday that he was working toward reactivating his status as an attorney in the state of Washington. He said he needs to complete about “20 to 30 hours” of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) before he can reclaim his license.
“I understand I’m in a bad position,” he said.
White said he let his license lapse because he wasn’t practicing law. With the nomination as a candidate for U.S. attorney, White said, he plans to resume practicing.
To appear as a lawyer in federal court — which U.S. attorneys regularly do — White has to be a licensed lawyer in a state, have a local lawyer sponsor him, submit an application and be approved by a federal judge, said Janet Bubnis, the chief deputy clerk in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington.
If appointed, White said, he intends to complete most of his CLE requirements at the U.S. Attorney’s National Advocacy Center in South Carolina.
…
I can understand why there would be some questions here,” Esser said. “But I’m sure what’s happened is that Rick just didn’t think about it, because he’s confident in his abilities as an attorney.”
…
[U.S. Congressman Dave] Reichert picked King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng to lead a panel and submit candidates. The other candidates are Interim U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan and Seattle lawyer Michael Vaska. Both Sullivan and Vaska are listed as “active” members of the state bar.
Maleng’s spokesman, Dan Donohoe, said the prosecutor had no comment on White’s status. A Reichert spokeswoman said his office also had no comment.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....te17m.html
Wait a minute: “If appointed, White said, he intends to complete most of his CLE requirements at the U.S. Attorney’s National Advocacy Center in South Carolina.”
Does this means that White will be doing this at taxpayer expense? He gets appointment to the U.S. Attorney position PRIOR to getting his law license back? Gets paid about $3,000 a week salary. Get flown to South Carolina, and given hotel and meals at government expense? And gets legal education that costs the federal government a lot of money to put on?
What a lucky fellow! While I don’t think White should get the job at all, he should at least have the decency to make up the legal education requirements he needs on his own time, at his own expense, and prior to getting a penny in government salary. And, if he had any sense, prior to President Bush announcing his intention to appoint White, and definitely before the Senate confirmation hearings (lots of luck!).
Of course, under present law, Alberto Gonzalez can appoint White as “temporary” U.S. Attorney indefinitely, without needing any Senate confirmation. He still needs Senate confirmation for a “permanent” appointment — something which isn’t so important, when “temporary” appointments can be permanent, and “permanent” appointments can be temporary.
If Bush or the new Attorney General, (Gonzales is not going to survive the US Attorneys purge and some pretty serious allegations of conflict of interest with the killing an investigation from the Office of Professional Integrity) have to select a new US Attorney for Washington, the best choice would be Jeff Sullivan, given he has worked in the office, he seems not to be a partisan hack, Murray and Cantwell would probably approve or not fight Sullivan for the nomination. Cantwell is not going to let Rick White take the position given that he defeated her in 1994 in their house race. She would put a hold on the nomination, and with this new information out about his inactive bar status, he won’t be nominated, unless there is some intense lobbying effort.
Roger @ 22, 37:
Both of these posts are just plain full of shit.
http://www.theauthoritarians.com/
For clues into the mind of Chris Vance and several of the usual suspects.
@41-43
I guess the right wingers have become so irrelevant that ignoring them has turned my attention slightly to the left in the search for red meat.
For Barelli claim that “moderates” investigate issues whereas liberals act in lock-step is amazingly self-serving and silly.
Lucy brought up Noam Chomsky as an example of someone that I too would assume you mean by someone with a “fringe” viewpoint. He’s an anarcho-syndicalist actually, and certainly more liberal than the Democratic Party concensus. If a more informed and broad-based investigator than Chomsky can be named, it is a name I am, no doubt, unfamiliar with.
The fact that Chomsky is one of the most read and quoted intellectuals world-wide turns your statement of what is fringe and what is moderate on its head.
Wow. Lots of folks telling me what I think.
First, folks, if you want to disagree with my statements, that’s fine. No problem. But please read my statements and disagree (or not) with them. Berating me for what someone says that I said is silly.
(For example: I have yet to say absolutely anything about Mr. Chomsky.)
Next, I have also not said anything about liberals (or conservatives, for that matter) acting in lock-step. Quite the contrary. With the current political spectrum being what it is, “liberal” seems to have been defined by some to mean anyone to the left of Vice President Cheney.
Or, by the apparent definition of at least some on the left, “conservative” seems to be defined as anyone to the right of John Lennon (or occasionally Vladimir Lenin).
By the very nature of political discourse, there are no clear dividing lines between the philosophies. Essentially, (my opinion here) the majority of folks fall somewhere in the range between “moderate liberal” and “moderate conservative”.
A complete answer would require several book-length dissertations, and while my posts may occasionally seem that long, I think Goldy might object if I tried that here, so here’s the short answer.
Who says it’s superior?
How is any particular philosophy “superior” to any other, other than by the particular yardstick used by the philosopher?
How is the philosophy of Noam Chomsky superior to the philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli? Or vice versa?
Some folks, generally those on the far sides of the spectrum (my opinion here, you are welcome to disagree) are completely intolerant of anything that even hints at a willingness to consider the opinions of others.
My point, made way back in comments about keeping the primary election, is that this group of people tends to be far more politically active than the more “moderate” folks that are primarily concerned with family, job, life, etc…
Anyone wishing to disagree with that statement is welcome to, with my blessing.
You are also welcome to put forward the argument that this is somehow a good thing. It could be argued that this group is more passionate about the issues and stays better informed.
But, as our form of government is a representative democracy, for that argument to be valid, you have to consider the vote of that politically active person to have more intrinsic worth than the vote of the person that simply reads the news, makes a bit of effort to stay involved and informed, and bothers to vote.
One of the things that, as Democrats, tends to enrage us about the Republicans is that they keep trying to make it harder for those regular folks to vote. They seem to believe that the vote of that ordinary working person is not as valuable as the vote of a captain of industry.
So how, as Democrats, can we propose something that also makes it harder for average working people to make their voices heard?
58 I need to stop posting stuff after I’ve had that second snifter of brandy. If anyone didn’t get it, I was referring to John McKay above. He sounds like one pissed-off dude. And you know what? I don’t think he’d be someone I’d want mad at me.
And Lucy…please don’t sell us moderates short. Some of us still long for the days of old-school “weirdo Washington” politics” when many of the Republicans were more liberal (and less crooked) than the Democrats. It may never happen again, but then again, who knows?
Anticipating the next barrage of argument from some here, I’ll put forward some differences and similarities between the personal philosophies of myself and Mr. Chomsky. In doing so, I am simply attempting to answer questions about my own opinions, and I’m making no claim that I am somehow a match for Mr. Chomsky, nor am I claiming that the comments below are the complete opinions of either myself or Mr. Chomsky. As I mentioned earlier, this would require several book-length dissertations.
Folks reading are welcome to either agree or disagree with either of us.
Differences in world views:
Chomsky – there isn’t much difference between slavery, and renting yourself to an owner, or “wage slavery.”
Barelli – without the owner of the “plant” (business, factory, whatever) there is no job. Without the worker, the plant is useless. There must be a balance. So long as the workers have a viable mechanism for redress (example – a union) then there is a great difference. Essentially, the worker is making a voluntary bargain with the capitalist, and has the option of leaving and going elsewhere. This is especially true today, when most people change jobs every 3-5 years.
Chomsky – Power is always illegitimate unless it proves itself to be legitimate.
Barelli – Calling something “illegitimate” does not change any facts. Power is what it is, and different people will have different views on whether it has proved itself or not. Essentially, this sounds good but has no real meaning.
Chomsky – Labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.
Barelli – Labor unions as a balancing force against the otherwise unilateral power of capital.
Chomsky – Highly organized society based on democratic control of communities and work places.
Barelli – Loosely organized society with an emphasis on individual rights.
Similarities in world views:
Both – The U.S. government often has double standards. We preach democracy and freedom while having a history of promoting, supporting and allying ourselves with authoritarian and repressive countries.
Both – Strong support of free-speech rights, opposing censorship.
Both – Opposition to the “war on drugs”, although with slightly different reasoning. We agree that “US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that“, although he takes it further saying “the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control“, while I just think it to be failed policy and an unnecessary intrusion of government control into the personal affairs of the individual.
Does this help?
Moonbat quiz: How many Commanders In Chief do we have?
A) 1
B) 535
Moonbat Quiz: Who is NOT Commander In Chief
A) Stretch Pelosi
B) Ted The Swimmer
C) Traitor Murtha
D) The Smartest Woman In The World
Who’s the welscher on the board?
Welschers don’t count.
Wingnut quiz:
1. Who has the authority to declare war?
A. Congress
B. The President
C. Rush Limbaugh
2. Who has funding authority, and may place limitations on the use of those funds?
A. Congress
B. The President
C. Michelle Malkin
3. Which party got the stuffing knocked out of them in the November 2006 elections?
A. The Republicans
B. The Democrats
C. The kegger at the “Speakers Rountable” get together.
(Note – this question may have more than one correct answer)
Redneck Quiz: How many co-equal branches of government are there?
A) 1 – Executive Uber Alles
B) 3 – Checks, balances and oversight are appropriate and necessary
Good to see Mark the Redneck back. I figured with all the scandals going on, he wouldn’t be defending the Bush Gang any more. Oh well, the investigations have not even got started yet…..
I have a question for ol Markie.
Can you name one thing Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld got right in Iraq?
One single thing?
(crickets chirping)
You want to know how to lose a war Markie? Have Bush be the commander in chief. If the point of invading Iraq was to make a lot of $$$$ for the oil industry, and defense contractors, while making the number of people that hate the United States explode, then the occupation has been a smashing success.
If the job of president is to make America hated around the world, double the national debt, and destroy the military, then Bush is the greatest president ever!!!!!!!
And to think. He couldn’t have done it without the help of the do nothing, bobblehead, GOP congress.
Anyone calling themselves Republicons these days should see a doctor. They are not well.
Bin Laden could only dream of hurting America as much as the Bush Crime Family!!!!!!
Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
Moonbat quiz: How many Commanders In Chief do we have?
A) 1
B) 535
C) VP Dick Halliburton
Moonbat Quiz: Who is NOT the legally elected Commander In Chief
A) Stretch Pelosi
B) Ted The Swimmer
C) Traitor Murtha
D) The Smartest Woman In The World
E) George W. Bush
Moderates are Conservative enablers — from slavery to Iraq.
How do you compromise with MTR?
No, Lucy, we aren’t, unless you also want to include everyone that is unwilling to take action before getting reasonably complete information, and are willing to change that opinion based on additional information as “enablers”.
While the firebrands captured headlines in the fight against slavery, it was the moderates that actually fought the battles and turned the tide against it. Lincoln was pretty moderate. If anything, the firebrands (on both sides) made the problems worse by polarizing the country and making it necessary to fight an ugly, bloody war.
England managed to be “moderate” and outlawed slavery years earlier without the need for bloodshed. (Yes, there were other differences as well.)
By the way. While there are one or two one either side that would fit my description of being on the fringes, you aren’t one that I would put there.
“Moderate” covers a lot of ground.
All of which still manages to avoid the point I was trying to make way back at the beginning.
We, as Democrats, seem to be willing to endorse a system for picking our candidates that makes it more difficult for the average person to participate.
Careful readers will notice that this is a change from my opinions of earlier days. (New information and a look at the problem from a different perspective – it’s that “moderate” thing again.)
As Democrats, we should be encouraging more participation in the system, and that includes finding ways to ensure that all of our members have a voice in picking delegates and candidates.
So, why are we trying to do away with the primary elections?
@42 “One last thought. If politics is the single most important thing in your life (assuming you are not a professional politician) then you’re also probably on the fringes. Most normal people have lives, families, jobs, friends…”
John, that’s just plain silly, and you know it. Politics is damned important — it decides all the important issues in our lives, from war and peace to how much taxes we pay to whether we will starve in our retirement or get the medical care we need to whether our votes count or we even have a right to express our opinion on public issues. Sure, families, jobs, and friends are important, too. But politics can take all these things away from you — even life itself — so how can politics be less important?
Recognizing the impact politics has on our lives, and devoting more than an average amount of thought, time, and energy to trying to influence political outcomes, does not make a citizen a “fringie.” What makes a person a “fringie” is having crackpot political views. By this definition, the entire Republican Party and 95% of its following are the “fringe” element of American society. Their views, at a minimum, are revolutionary.
Hmmm, it appears I already replied to that one; but this reply is better.
@57 Richard, what can I say? You got me cold this time.
@59 I need about 6 more credits for this reporting cycle. I’ve got until Dec. 31, 2008, but why wait until the last minute? Better to get them out of the way this spring, before all the classes fill up. If find myself sitting next to western Washington’s next U.S. Attorney, Richard, I’ll tell him you need a job and give you a good reference — and I won’t say a word about that messy little deposition.
@60 Oh God, I hope so! Yes, please God, yes! Let Gonzales and Bush appoint Rick White to U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, then pay him salary while he sits in CLE classes at taxpayer expense to get his license back. Even Frank Blethen’s Republican Times won’t be able to resist having a field day writing headlines for that one!
Every attorney in Washington State will be asking Congress to pay their CLE tuition for them.
Read the words, Roger, please.
“If politics is the single most important thing in your life”
My faith is more important, and my political viewpoints are guided by it, rather than the reverse. Social justice, equity, charity. All of these viewpoints stem from my faith, and if the Democrats ever stop supporting them, I will be gone in a heartbeat.
My family is more important, and I consider my position on issues with a strong view towards their benefit. If I ever came to the conclusion that the Democrats were actually opposed to families (regardless of what the Republicans might say) then again, I would be history.
Politics is a tool. Nothing more, and only one tool among many in the effort to bring about a better country.
Discussion is a far more important tool. Politics can sometimes enable discussion, but often seems to block it, especially among those with completely entrenched political positions.
And on that note, I’m headed home to be with my family. Happy Saint Patrick’s Day.
@62 Ivan, my dear ivan, I’m in a position to know about the things of which I spoke. To say more might give away my identity, so I won’t say how I know. But judging from your last post, it appears you have run out of both facts and logical argument, so I think it’s fair to say I have won this argument. Now, let’s move on.
@65 John, I’m not sure you entirely understand how we got where we are today with this whole “liberal” and “moderate” terminology. Over the last 30 years, rightwing extremists captured the Republican Party and purged its moderates, and the GOP is now a radical party bent on uprooting the social and economic system that has evolved in our country over the last 75 years — they want truly radical changes. At the same time, they have waged a well-organized and lavishly funded campaign to demonize the term “liberal” and falsely define themselves as “moderates,” to the point where the meanings of these terms have become distorted in the general public’s thinking. That is not accidental. “Liberal” still means the same thing it has always meant; and a “moderate” is still in the middle between progressive and conservative; the only thing that has changed is that when a Republican uses the term “liberal” to mean “radical” and the term “moderate” to mean “rightwing extremist,” he’s lying.
And you are completely off base in thinking that a “moderate” is defined in terms of non-participation in politics. Apathy or indifference does not equate with “moderate.”
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not being judgmental. I understand that the vast majority of people focus on making a living, raising their families, and trying to get a little enjoyment out of life — which leaves them little time to inform themselves about public issues, and no time to actively participate in politics. I have no problem with that. But it does not follow that there’s something out of whack with people who do make time for political activity because they understand that politics is important because its impact on our lives is large.
@68
“Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
Moonbat quiz: How many Commanders In Chief do we have?
A) 1
B) 535”
Roger Rabbit Reply: The correct answer is (C) – 0, because it’s clear that nobody is in charge of our military strategy, in fact, we don’t even have a military strategy.
“Mark The Redneck KENNEDY says:
Moonbat Quiz: Who is NOT Commander In Chief
A) Stretch Pelosi
B) Ted The Swimmer
C) Traitor Murtha
D) The Smartest Woman In The World”
Roger Rabbit Reply: The correct answer is (E) – The Dumbest Man In The World,” George W. Bush, who so far has managed to warm a chair in the Oval Office for six years without getting a single thing right, because it is clear that Dick Cheney, not he, is calling the shots where foreign policy and military non-strategy is concerned.
@76 “How do you compromise with MTR?”
Instead of throwing him overboard wrapped in a chain beyond the 300-mile limit for not paying his gambling debt, you dispense with the chain and give him a sporting chance to swim back to shore.
@77 I’m afraid Lucy is right on this one, John. You see, conservatives are a minority in this country, and even after stealing several million votes and suppressing several million more, they still can’t get “elected” unless several million moderates vote for them.
@84 “My faith is more important, and my political viewpoints are guided by it, rather than the reverse. Social justice, equity, charity. All of these viewpoints stem from my faith, and if the Democrats ever stop supporting them, I will be gone in a heartbeat.”
“Faith” is a pretty broad term, John. I take it you mean some sort of religious belief similar to mine. I’m just a simple rabbit, so I believe without questioning what I was spoon-fed about Jesus being the Son of God sent to earth to save mankind from its sins, and being an example of all the things you describe — social justice, equity, charity. (Actually, I don’t recall him saying anything about equity. To the best of my recollection, he didn’t promise life would be fair, and told us to pay Caesar’s taxes.) And you left out a couple things I think are significant, such as forgiveness. But … let’s cut to the chase.
You say if the Democrats ever stop supporting social justice, equity, and charity, you’ll be gone in a heartbeat. Gone where? Is there another political tent somewhere on the plain where your views can find a comfortable home? Surely you don’t mean the GOP, so you must be referring to either (a) a minor party, which is the same thing as not voting, or (b) not voting, which is the same thing as giving in to the things you oppose and abhor.
And why are you even suggest the Democrats might “stop supporting social justice, equity, and charity”? What the hell provoked that outburst? Do you have some perception that the Democrats are backing away from social justice, equity, and charity? What do you see that I missed?
Or are you obsessed with the imperfections of Democratic candidates and ideology, and perhaps frustrated that the party, its candidates, and its followers fall short of divine perfection? Democrats are, after all, only human — and rabbit.
me thinks goldy is worried his friends did something wrong
and/or Goldy, did you fudge any ballots?
Roger Rabbit @ 81
Well, I need 14 hours by December 31, 2007. At least I need these hours to renew my license, instead of to get my license in the first place. Hopefully, I will get the appointment from Bush, so it won’t be such a scandal to pay me $3,000 a week plus expenses when I go down to South Carolina to take them.
Roger, I’m old enough (and so are you, from other comments you have made) to remember when Democrats did not support justice and equality. George Wallace was a Democrat. Parties change, and it could happen again.
And, if that happened, there would either be another tent, as enough others would also be leaving, or I would have to join one of the splinter parties. But one of the reasons I am active in the Democratic party is to prevent that sort of thing.
Your comments about the shifting political spectrum are quite correct. The Republicans have been chasing out their moderates for a number of years. Some become independent, some have joined splinter parties and many of them took a long look at the Democratic party and decided to switch.
Occasionally, I’m asked why I’m a Democrat, and I usually answer that it is because I believe in smaller, less intrusive government that does not spend my unborn grandchildren’s tax dollars.
Republicans say those things, Democrats do them. I prefer action to rhetoric.
But there are those in the Democratic party that do not care for folks such as myself, and just as there are folks in the Republican party that would (and have) purge their party of anyone that does not put party before principle, we have those folks too.
No, I’m not obsessed with the faults of the Democratic party. I am a member of that party because it most closely mirrors my own opinions.
But when I see something within that party that seems wrong, or seems inconsistent with our stated policies, I will continue to point it out. This is why I disagree with doing away with the primaries.
Oh, and a bit more about the terminology. I do understand exactly what you mean. Thirty years ago, I was considered to be rather conservative. Positions such as “abortion is a decision to be made by a woman and her doctor, without government interferance“, “the function of the military is to defend our country“, “government should stay out of people’s bedrooms” and “government’s role is to provide equality of opportunity” were all conservative viewpoints.
Now they’re liberal viewpoints. My positions haven’t changed a lot in those thirty years, but the country seems to have shifted, and frankly, not for the better.
Roger @ 85:
Yeah, like you’re the only person in the world who was on the ground in the 2004 campaign, right? It’s fair to say you THINK you have won the argument. I stand by my statements, and my identity is out there for the world to see.