I suppose one explanation for why the WA state GOP is so unwilling to join Democrats in moving the primary back three weeks, is that they don’t actually intend to hold primaries anymore.
At least that was the gist of news reports yesterday, all over the radio and in the Seattle Times, about how former U.S. Rep. Rick White, state GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance, and Safeco CEO Mike McGavick all hope to win the primary, um… capture the nomination, uh… be hand picked by Karl Rove to run against U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell in 2006. As the Times succinctly put it:
There will be a primary of sorts
Goldy — I don’t think that either party intends to hold primaries in the future, since Washington now has a “top two” system. Both the Democrats and Republicans want to be able to choose the party nominee via convention, and also prohibit other candidates from using the party name when they file for office.
Even if they can’t keep other folks from using the party name, both parties will still have conventions to endorse candidates and urge all of the party faithful to vote for the party endorsed candidate in the primary — instead of some other person who is running under the party name.
I don’t really see Chris Vance as a viable candidate for statewide office. He spent lots of money running for SPI in 1996 and Congress in 2000, and lost badly. Even did worse than a lot of token GOP candidates who didn’t spend any money.
For that matter, Paul Berendt wouldn’t be a strong candidate for much of anything either. Vance is learning how to do a decent job as state party leader, and should stay in that position for at least as long as Berendt has stayed in his.
Rick White would seem to have a lot of promise, if we turned the clock back about seven years. He twice won a district (1994 and 1996) that Bush Sr and Dole had lost by double digit margins — and which I am sure that Gregoire carried by a few percentage points over Rossi (especially if we looked at the way the 1st was drawn in the 1990’s, with more Seattle precincts than it has today).
White has spent most of the last seven years, however, outside the state. He was a lobbyist in D.C. for a year or so and then came back to Seattle to work for a while with his old law firm of Perkins Coie. Now apparently he is working in California running some sort of software trade association.
However, it might hurt Rick White since he has apparently been suspended from the practice of law by the Washington Supreme Court:
http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView....._ID=757955
This may very well be for not paying the annual dues, since there seems to be no disciplinary action taken against White.
While it costs $396 per year to be an active member of the Washington State Bar Association, it would only have been $117 per year for inactive membership. White could have easily spared the $117 per year this would have required.
Many people take inactive membership — including Rob McKenna during many of his years on the King County Council, and Bob Ferguson starting in 2004 after his election to the King County Council. So long as someone hasn’t been inactive (or suspended) for more than five years out of the last ten years, they can generally get reinstated to active membership without having to take the bar examination again.
It didn’t hurt Rob McKenna that much being on inactive status for nearly five years altogether when he ran for Attorney General. After all, people knew he wasn’t really practicing law during the nine years he was on the King County Council, and couldn’t hold it against him for saving a few hundred dollars on bar association dues.
On the other hand, the fact that Rick White has actually been suspended from the practice of law (assuming that this information is correct), will likely result in a different perception.
Wow, a comment thread that starts out with substance and thoughtfulness instead of content-free bile and taunting . . . refreshing. Kudos, Richard.
The decision on whether to move the primary election back a few weeks really seems unconnected to the parties’ choices of their candidates. In the ‘top two’ system, the Democrats and Republicans will each have chosen someone to represent them in the primary, and others will likely also join the primary ballot claiming to be R’s or D’s (without the blessing of their party . . . it will be interesting to see how the Secretary of State handles that). Neither party is skipping the primary; they’re just going to pick their candidates ahead of time because the primary serves a different purpose now.
That wouldn’t change if the primary were a few weeks earlier. They would have to have their candidates chosen that much earlier, of course, but election season starts pretty early these days and it probably wouldn’t make much difference.
If only it were true that the parties skipped the primaries and picked their candidates at the conventions; why are taxpayers footing the bill for the primaries? Let these guys rent a room themselves.
If you want the parties to be anything other than vehicles for brand-recognition, get them out of primaries and let party faithful do the nominating.
I don’t think there is any argument: between the two parties, The Republicans have a reputation for organization and planning, while the Democratic Party has been recently searching for an identity while actively attacking itself.
This recent tactic of pre-selecting their candidates prior to the primary may be a very smart move.
Look at the last presedential election…. By the time a Kerry was chosen, there had been so much mud thrown amongst the democratic party that voters just threw their hands up in disugust. Combine that with Kerry having been turned into a public approval mouthpiece after 30 years in Washington (did anyone really understand one where he stood on any one position?).
At any rate, I am babbling.
My point? I welcome the new republican candidates running for election in this state and would like to see each and every democrat in office in this state kicked to the curb.
glad you credit Karl Rove with being involved with the selection of our new Senator from WA. clearly Rove has outsmarted the dems at every turn, gotten Bush elected twice as President and has seen to it that, unlike Clinton, Bush has more of his party in Congress, not less. when Rove helps to get a republican elected from this blue state, get our the kleenex for another Berendt cry.
I second the sentiment of David @ 2. Thank you Richard @ 1 for an interesting, informative, timely, and “on-topic post” post to start out this thread!
Rush @ 5. Many of us liberals are happy to give Karl Rove credit for his successes. He is, truly a genius—an evil genius, but a genius, nevertheless.
Wow… six posts in a row, on topic, without invective (even from prr.) A modern era HA record.
Richard… of course I was being facetious when I made the reference to Republicans blocking moving the primary back. And yes, neither party supports the top-two. (And neither do I.)
But there is a kernel of truth to my poking fun at the Republicans for their lack of democracy within their party. There has been a concerted effort, especially within WA state, to avoid primary battles in major races by anointing a single candidate, and then shunning anybody else who might have the gall to challenge for the nomination. This was the inspiration for my adjectival nickname for Vance: “GOPolitburo Chair.”
But I also think this is significant in that the decision is not being made even by the state GOP leadership, but rather from the Whitehouse. I think local Republicans should be a bit peeved that the national party is choosing their candidates.
Richard @ 1
Seems more likely he didn’t get his required continuing legal education credits, as I doubt that a former Perkins Coie lawyer/D.C. lobbyist can’t spare $396 a year.
P.S. to #8
I’ll bet he even skipped all the recent cle’s on voting reform, ha ha ha
Democrats will continue to hold small outposts of victory; western WA presumably will remain one of them.
But there is a reason that Democrats can’t (and won’t) win national elections of any substance. The Democrat party has courted and gladly collected single-issue extremist fringe groups (and more importantly to the Democrats, their money) the way an untamed wild cat collects hairballs.
ACLU
NARAL
MoveOn.org
Nambla
GLBTA
PETA
Green Peace
Earth Liberation Front
Animal Liberation Front
Global Exchange
Emily’s List
Amnesty International
Sierra Club
NAACP
People for the American Way
Air America
Center for American Progress
Are there extremists on the Conservative Republican side? Of course there are. But the bottom line is that what those groups on the right stand for simply makes more sense to Mr. and Mrs. Average American.
Try to see the Democrat Party through the eyes of Middle America Mom & Dad working hard, raising their children.
See what THEY see when they are faced with choosing Conservative vs. Liberal, Republican vs. Democrat:
St Patrick’s Day Parade vs. Gay Pride Parade
Tom Sawyer vs. Heather Has Two Mommies
Pat Robertson vs. Larry Flint
Respect for average Americans vs. elitism and contempt
The right to own guns vs. the “right” to murder a baby
Free speech vs. the “Fairness Doctrine”
Boy Scouts vs. ACLU trying to destroy them
Property rights vs. Sierra Club
Phyllis Schafly vs. Rachel Corrie
School choice vs. teachers unions
Believing in God vs. Eliminating God
Americans are liberators vs. Americans are bullies/abusers/it’s all about oil
Veneration of the Cross vs. “Cross in Piss”
Doing the “right thing vs. doing the popular thing (poll driven decisions)
Pro-Life quiet, peaceful rallies vs. WTO riots devolving into destruction.
Ted Nugent vs. Eminem or Fifty Cent or Insane Clown Posse
Personal responsibility vs. nanny government control
Ozzie & Harriet vs. Ozzie Osborne
Pride in the American soldier vs. Jane Fonda spitting on them
Self-sufficiency vs. cradle to grave entitlements
Resolve in convictions (Bush) vs. saying what’s expedient (Kerry)
Ethical absolutes vs. moral relativism
Touched by An Angel vs. Sex in The City
American sovereignty vs. United Nations and/or world court
American Pride vs. “blame America first”
Flying the American flag vs. burning the American flag
Cutting taxes vs. more taxes
Achievement vs. Affirmative Action
“How Great Thou Art” vs. “It’s all about ME!”
“I’m an American!” vs. diversity driven, set apart hyphenated Americans
Abstinence vs. abortion agenda driven Planned Parenthood
Words have meaning vs. “depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’ ”
Calm Dick Cheney vs. the Howard Dean scream
Industry vs. owls
Femininity vs. feminism
Research vs. rats
Baby vs. “fetus” or “clump of cells”
Citizens vs. animal “rights”
Deter vs. appease
Reading, writing, history, math vs. sex ed
Individualism vs. collectivism
Protect innocent life vs. coddle a criminal
Martina McBride vs. Madonna
Intelligent design vs. the happy ‘accident’ of a few atoms colliding
Families vs. “It takes a village”
‘Father Knows Best’ vs. despise “patriarchy” and daddies are dispensable
Farmers vs. fish
Free market society vs. socialized government
Sound business decisions vs. union dictates
Monogamy vs. “hooking up”
Secularism
Humanism
Satanism
Naturalism
Fetishism
Materialism
Wiccans
Pornography
Violent “music”
Body piercing
Drugs on demand
Abortion on demand
Euthanasia on demand
Viewed in the totality of their associations, the Democrats and their collection of fringe extremists are no different than that wild feral cat: they are frightening, wild, undisciplined, out of control, their behavior is ugly to witness, seeing them from a distance they appear mean, completely out of sync with the mainstream and because of that are simply unwelcome in their homes.
prr @ 4
We know you’re a babbling GOP partisan; no need to advertise. (wink wink)
Rush @ 5
Rove has indeed outsmarted us at every turn and his candidate is now sitting in the governor’s chair in Olympia. (wink wink)
Goldy @ 7
I’ve been under the impression the WA GOP avoids primary battles because they can’t get anybody to run. (wink wink)
Random Thought Department
Goldy, you were asking the other day whether you should change your blog’s name to make it, uh, more mainstream. This idea just occurred to me:
HorsesDerrier.org
Alan @ 8
If Rick White had taken inactive status, he would not have to take any continuing legal education credits — at least during the period of his inactive status. All he would need would be to pay the $117 per year.
Active members will be suspended for not doing the continuing legal education credits, even if they have paid their dues. Inactive members won’t be suspended for that reason, since they don’t have to take continuing legal education.
If he is suspended, of course, he doesn’t have to pay any dues at all. (Neither do disbarred or resigned or deceased lawyers either.)
A lawyer suspended for non-payment of dues has to pay double the amount of missed dues in order to be reinstated. And if they are suspended while they are in “active” status, that would be double the amount of missed $396 dues. So that could be a lot more expensive.
While lawyers can avoid taking continuing education while they are inactive (or suspended for that matter), they have to make up all the missed continuing legal education in order to be reinstated.
Regardless, I don’t think it is a political plus for Rick White. Nor would it benefit him should he decide to start practicing law again. How much it hurts him, of course, is a different question.
Richard @ 12
Regardless of the reason, I don’t understand why anyone who goes to the trouble of graduating from law school and passing the bar exam would let go of his ticket for such a silly reason. If a prominent Republican lawyer is determined to get tossed out of the bar, he should make it worth the trouble by stealing enough to retire comfortably in a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S.
Looks like the GOP is trying to give Cantwell a free pass, or maybe (as per usual) they’re having trouble recruiting a human sacrifice for their latest suicide march. Of these three McGavick would seem to be their best bet, mainly because the public never heard of him and knows nothing about him.
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger of Germany) appears to be a less than divinely inspired choice, but at age 78 probably won’t run the show for more than a few years.
I’ll bet the Cardinals consider him an interim caretaker while they cogitate about who might be able to follow JP’s act.
Or maybe they figured they need a good bookkeeper. The Vatican has been running deficits for years. It doesn’t work for them, either.
Nice attempt at spin Alan/Don/whoever you are…
Our new Pope is VERY conservative, has been outspoken about the degradation of society and the importance of the Church remaining faithful to it’s precepts.
Did you even bother to LISTEN to his homily before the conclave?
On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism – the ideology that there are no absolute truths.
“Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism,” he said, speaking in Italian. “Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards.
At least that was the gist of news reports yesterday, all over the radio and in the Seattle Times, about how former U.S. Rep. Rick White, state GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance,
I can’t believe that the GOP is considering Vance to run for state Senate. He has spewed out volumes of meanspirited rhetoric in the last campaign cycle that I don’t think there are going to be any Vincocrats. Not one.
White looks kind of normal, however, he got beaten in his last election and job rightfully exposed as an extremist on social policy issues which few Washingtonians support. I don’t think the bar membership issue will hurt him. White problem is that he is Ellen Craswell’s candidate.
(Nice job posters. 16 straight posts with an exclamation mark, all caps or the repeat key. Amazing.)
From Today’s Seattle Times “King County Council calls to Audit of Elections Office”
It reads and I agree:
Ferguson said the credibility of Sims’ panel may be damaged by Chairwoman Cheryl Scott’s contribution of $1,000 to Democrat Sims’ unsuccessful primary-election campaign for governor and her gifts of $2,700 to the eventual Democratic nominee, Christine Gregoire. Scott also held a fund-raiser valued at $378 for Republican candidate Dino Rossi.
“Let’s be honest,” Ferguson said. “For some people in this county, the executive-appointed commission is not in perception independent. Whether that’s a fair criticism or not I’ll leave to the reader to determine, but that’s a real perception.”
You @ 10 probably thinks an “extremist on the Republican side” is anyone who reads the New York Times. Since when is Emily’s List an “extremist group”? Oh, I get it — they supported Gregoire.
Pet Poop @ 18
I’m optimistic that he may be able to move the Church forward into the 16th century.
Fortunately Alan/Don/whom-whatever…
The Church cares even less than I do about your views of it.
In your typical liberal arrogance, you assume the Church should change to meet the desires of the people, when in fact it is the people that have the obligation to live up to the teachings of the Church.
Just like the Constitution, the tenants and beliefs of the Church are not malleable like the clay of relativism.
GS @ 20
It probably would be hard to find anyone who gets appointed to anything who hasn’t contributed to someone. That goes for Republicans as well. The fact Scott made a political contribution to Sims’ campaign doesn’t mean Sims owns her or that she can’t think for herself. Focusing on this campaign donation (why? she’s a Democrat, for God’s sake) and ignoring her qualifications (she was CEO of Group Health, so she does know how to run a shop) is the classic GOP red herring tactic.
It’s a non-issue.
CivicActions: Emilys List
Emilys List. EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office.
EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office. We are a network of more than 100,000 Americans — from all across the country — committed to recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; training the next generation of activists; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.
Pet Poop @ 23
Rest assured the Church doesn’t care what I think. For that matter, It doesn’t care what you think, either. The Church is a perfect example of a government that selects itself.
Oh Really? @ 23
“Just like the Constitution, the tenants and beliefs of the Church are not malleable like the clay of relativism.”
The part of the Constitution about not getting imprisoned without trial seems pretty damned malleable these days.
BTW, it’s spelled “tenets” not “tenants.” A tenant is someone you collect rent from.
Spoken like a true secular relativist donnyboy.
TY for the tenant/tenet correction – I ALWAYS screw that up.
You @ 25
Oh, I get it now — Emily’s List is a radical organization because they want to vote and don’t want to wear burqas.
29
You’re welcome. I’m your humble servant, and I aim to please. :D
Pretty slow on this board so far today. The trolls must be at work.
Where’s Mr. Cynical? I don’t think he works.
Oh, I get it now – Emily’s List is a radical organization because they want to vote and don’t want to wear burqas.
Comment by Alan— 4/19/05 @ 11:57 am
From their site:
“dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office.”
“training the next generation of activists; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.
They have some pretty big code words there: radical right, pro-choice, activist, progressive – and large membership numbers do not make them mainstream and not radical.
don’t get it @ 25
“EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office.”
Oh my freaking god! That IS radical. Dems are lost if they associate with subversive groups that belive women should be elected to political office.
Can’t we do something about this subversion via the Patriot act?
don’t get it @ 24
“They have some pretty big code words there: radical right, pro-choice, activist, progressive – and large membership numbers do not make them mainstream and not radical”
Please! Tell me this is brilliant satire.
RADICAL????? Le’see
– (anti) Raidcal right — this describes some moderate righties, too. Perhaps this covers 60% of the population
– pro-choice — That would be about 55% of U.S. voters (based on Nov exit polls).
– activist — since when is it considered radical to “train the next generation of activists”? (Excluding Continuing Education for Judges, of course).
– progressive — Wow! That is one hell of a radical code word. What, perhaps 48% of Americans would fall under this label.
What the heck does the pope have to do with our primaries? Give it a rest will ya?
I’d like to echo the kudos to those of you who chose to stay out of the sewer with your comments…very refreshing indeed.
To the topic I don’t see either party with any up and comers on the near horizon…the pickings for good candidates are slim in this state across the board in my ever so humble opinion…I do like hearing what folks think about the names thrown out though.
Who is McGavick anyway?
Oops, previous post was for don’t get it @ 34
RE: dj/35
It’s very convenient to pick and choose one small thing to harp on and to attempt to discredit, however, when Emily’s List is taken in the totality of the entire comment it’s just one more example of a single issue group responsible for diluting the message and consequently the power of what was once a formidable political party.
I agree with Goldy that Vance is probably not the best choice. A candidate with a lot more charisma than Vance would be a much better choice. However, I think it’s paranoid to view this as a Rove orchestrated plot as opposed to the obvious pragmatism.
Voters are generally very dumb. Sure a few of us keep up to date on all of the nuances of politics here in WA, but in general, many people just show up at the polls and vote either R or D, especially in the big name races. The state is obviously pretty split along partisan lines, so why split again within each party.
It’s in both the Republicans and Democrats best interest to get the infighting out of the way as early as possible and start advertising their candidate to the average Joe voter. It’s all about the number of sightings that a typical voter has of the candidates name, face, etc. They certainly aren’t voting rationally or based on the issues.
Primaries are going the way of the fringe parties. Realistically, we live in a highly charged, bipolar, extremist political climate. Suit up the two gladiators as early as possible and give the public their bloody battle.
#10
YOU ARE AWESOME.
That is it in a nut shell for all you liberals. that’s why you lost and will lose. and what’s funny is that you don’t get it. LOL
doesn’t get it @ 34
Whoop-de-doo.
McGavick is CEO of Safeco Insurance.
doesn’t get it @ 39
Reality check: Emily’s List is one of the most successful political action groups in the country. They were Gregoire’s biggest backer — sort of the Democratic counterpart of BIAW, except there’s no comparison between Emily’s List and BIAW (Emily’s List is respectable — and doesn’t spend L & I taxes on political campaigns).
RE: alan/44
No sir, you still don’t get it.
I refer you back to 39.
Allan @ 24
“and ignoring her qualifications (she was CEO of Group Health, so she does know how to run a shop) is the classic GOP red herring tactic.”
Under her leadership, group health became known as group death..
I don’t think I’d trust this old bag to tell me which way the ocean was, let alone why she thinks Logan should be let off the hook.
Whatever goes on with this appointed board, one thing is certain, they will all be getting a nice little bonus check from the County
Democrats are really being hypocritical when they criticize Republicans about the party apparatus choosing their candidate. I seem to recall that talk show host Dave Ross was the last minute annointed candidate for congress in the 2004 elections even though a stalwart Democrat had already decided to run. But I guess the Democrat appatchik didn’t approve of him, so Dave Ross was picked by Paul Berendt. So pot, meet kettle.
VRWC @47,
I seem to recall a three-way primary for the 8th District nomination.
Goldy @ 48
Yep!
http://tomecat.com/vote/9-14-letter.html
You just don’t get it @ 10:
NAMBLA? You have to be kidding. Those sickos are a Jon Stewart punch line, not a Democratic or Republican constituency.
It’s easy to write off the Democrats if you demonize them and pretend that they’re all evil anarchic perverts out to destroy America and ne’er-do-wells who suck off the middle class. And it’s equally easy to write off the Republicans if you demonize them and pretend that they’re all evil fascistic religious zealots out to “purify” America and robber barons who suck off the middle class.
Enough of the caricaturing—it’s about as useful as schoolyard taunting. Substantive discussion is much more fun and rewarding.
David–@50
Perhaps we can figure out a way to all meet for a quick group hug and then slink away to our Marxist and Fascist lives!
I have met plenty of the LEFTIST crowd who use the “civility ruse” to try and stifle opposing viewpoints. They are known for looking you in the eye, nodding as you speak and then screaming “PERSONAL ATTACK” the second you question their position. They try to paralyze opposition by getting those who disagree tied up in “political correctness” to the point they succumb.
So David, I guess what I’m trying to say (as civilly as possible) is you come across as a panty-wearing girly-man.
I’m not actually “calling” you a panty-wearing girly-man David. That wouldn’t be civil. I’m saying you “come across” as one. Hopefully you can appreciate the difference and be tolerant of opposing viewpoints…even though some may be harsher than you can handle. You see, it’s the rainbow of diversity that makes this country so great. Take DonSux for example. Bitter man…but just different enough to improve mankinds aura in a sick sort of way.
prr @ 46
“Under her leadership, group health became known as group death..”
Uh … no. It’s been known as that for at least 25 years, long before she showed up.
No you don’t get it @ 45
Emily’s List is dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women to local, state, and national offices. I see at least 3 issues there:
1. Get Democrats elected
2. Support pro-choice candidates
3. Elect women to public office
They are not, strictly speaking, a special interest group because they’re broader than just one issue; but they aren’t a political party covering the full spectrum of issues, either. They’re probably best described as an activist group. The Democratic Party receives support from a number of such groups; so does the Republican Party.
I really don’t see what your issue is with Emily’s List other than they’re pro-choice Democrats and you’re neither. You have a difference of opinion with them; we understand that.
Mr. C @ 52
Gee, C, thanks for the compliment! But I’m NOT going to hug you. I don’t want your fleas.
prr-@46
Actually under her leadership at Group Death, you will die quicker than under her predecessor. DonSux will spin that into “she is compassionate”. Terry Schiavo wouldn’t have lasted 3 days under her regime!
DonSux@55-
You don’t want my fleas? I don’t blame you.
I’m not too excited about being exposed to contact with the excrement you have all overself from that perpetual case of “blogger’s diarrhea” you so apparently are afflicted with.
I don’t think they make Pepto-Bismol strong enough to help ya with that “Blogger’s Diarrhea”!
RE: alan/54
Quit obsessing about Emily’s List. As you are quite aware, the commentary (#10) was NOT about EL – it was about what average Americans ‘see’ when they compare conservative vs liberal, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democrat
Mr. Cynical @ 51
“I have met plenty of the LEFTIST…. They are known for looking you in the eye, nodding as you speak and then screaming “PERSONAL ATTACK” the second you question their position.”
Maybe it’s the shotgun you’re pointing at ’em?
Mr. C — You’re pretty much the last person I’d expect a substantive contribution from, so no surprises there. Anyway, I’m pretty sure you understand I’m not out to stifle opposing viewpoints; quite the opposite. I want to see real discussion of opposing viewpoints instead of a “discussion” that consists mainly of pointless insults and distortions. But then, you’re probably not man enough to take part in that kind of debate. That’s for grownups.
You just don’t get it — re: your screed @ 10, my response @ 50, and your post @ 58:
What we need in this country is more respect on both sides for the other side. Your list is just one (long) example of how we damage our dialogue by convincing ourselves that the other guys are irredeemably evil and not worth listening to.
And just so you understand that your worldview is not representative of half of America, consider another way that Mr. and Mrs. Average American see the Republican/Democrat or left/right divide:
Concern for elites and connected pals vs. concern for average Americans
Government intrusion in the bedroom vs. personal privacy
Automatic weapons sold to criminals at gun shows vs. sensible gun control
Thought police vs. free speech
Abuse of police power vs. open political expression
Companies that pollute vs. environmental conservation
Profits vs. people
CEO handouts vs. pension plans
Chardonnay vs. beer
BMW and Mercedes vs. Ford and Chevy
One system for the rich and one for the poor vs. one America for all
Idealizing private and parochial schools vs. supporting public education for all
Imposing Christian fundamentalism vs. accepting religious pluralism
Sending other people’s kids to war vs. actually serving in Iraq
Saber-rattling vs. diplomacy
Eagerly invading Iraq unprepared vs. not wanting to start an unnecessary war
Belief in our infallible commander-in-chief vs. healthy skepticism of leadership
Intolerance for other views vs. reasoned debate
Relying on beliefs vs. relying on facts
Religious faith vs. science
Violent abortion clinic protesters vs. peaceful union picketers
Abandoning the poor and weak vs. providing a social safety net
Loopholes, kickbacks and questionable ethics vs. fair play
Inherited wealth and dividends vs. hard work and wages
Corporate welfare and subsidies vs. personal responsibility
American exceptionism vs. participating in (and listening to) the world
Xenophobia and witch-hunts vs. pride in and caring for all Americans
“We can’t be wrong” vs. “What can we do better”
Tax avoidance vs. paying taxes
Borrowing, adding debt vs. taxing, paying as we go
good-ol’-boy network vs. reaching out to help disadvantaged minorities
Connections vs. achievement
Disdain for immigrants vs. drawing strength from diversity
Abstinence-only education vs. effective sex education and contraception
Misogyny vs. feminism
Criminalizing abortions vs. letting women decide for themselves
Punish criminals and punish them some more vs. punish and rehabilitate criminals
Wishful thinking vs. global warming
Intelligent design vs. evolution
Inflexible “family” concept vs. understanding non-traditional families
Strong-father family vs. nurturing family
Discipline vs. inquiry
Unregulated free market vs. government regulation of business for social good
Missionary position vs. wild sex
Football vs. baseball
Sometimes jail the innocent vs. sometimes free the guilty
Fake, scripted “town hall” rallies vs. real town hall meetings
Dogma vs. reason
Hate vs. love
Now, there’s a nub of truth in each of those, but most of them are over the top and I imagine Republicans would consider them slanted, ridiculous and unfair, just like Democrats probably consider the list at 10. That’s exactly the point. It doesn’t help us solve any problems to spend our time trying to pigeonhole the other guys into radical, unrealistic positions.
In short: Grow up and get over yourselves.
David @ 60….our resident idiot is not about anything worthy of discussion. He only harps about the liberals and their ‘short cut to hell’, at least in his 40-90 eyesight. Legally blind and morally bankrupt
Go to http://Iblog4SenatorCantwell.blogspot.com for more on the OTHER Washington’s mandarins…
josef, how are your comments comming along on your pseudo blog? Last I saw you were 0/15, with reason
RE: David/61
You devised a very impressive impressive list David, one that goes far to explain WHY Mr and Mrs Middle America has turned away from your party as extreme, as too much, too far.
Furthermore, even the mover and shakers within your party acknowledge that’s the case – have you paid any attention to Hillary lately?
Have you read any articles by concerned Liberals?
http://www.latimes.com/
Have you read anything written by Carville or Begala lately? Just TODAY they wrote another article expressing the very concerns over the dichotomy of their (your) party and mainstream America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/o.....gala_x.htm
Continuing to denigrate and sneer at voters for not being “wise” or “hip” or “astute” because they are too dumb to vote for your party will not endear them to do so in the future.
Rather that continuing to tell them how stupid they are because they aren’t you, perhaps it’s time to look at their very real concerns for their families, about morality as they see it, through their eyes.
Everything on your list makes perfect sense to you. That’s fine. However you fail to even consider it makes no sense to Mrs and Mrs Middle America. Screaming at them, shouting them down won’t suddenly change their minds.
You can continue to insult and point fingers and decry ‘evil Conservatives’, but that won’t get your candidates in office and won’t further your agenda. These past elections, where Democrats have so stunningly lost ground, are proof that mainstream middle America is trying very hard to tell your party something important. Sometimes it’s important to stop arguing and LISTEN.
Personally, I agree with mainstream America and actually prefer that you don’t listen. All the “stuff” your party aligns with makes us feel like we’re being stung to death by a million bees: we can handle a few stings, but a swarm will kill us so we avoid them.
You just don’t get it @ 65:
The average American might well say the same thing about your list. The country’s divided roughly evenly these days; don’t make the mistake of thinking a narrow victory last November means everyone shares your perspective.
Agreed. That’s why I’ve been asking people to stop doing that and engage in real dialogue.
Haven’t done that. Not doing that. Not going to do that. You should reread my posts #50 and #61 if you’ve missed the point.
RE: David/66
Yes, the country appears evenly divided, but that does nothing to help your case because the bottom line is the Republicans took many more offices than were expected which tells us that many Democrats voted FOR them.
In actuality, the same can be said for this gubernatorial mess. Would ANYONE, even a Conservative, ever have predicted that the final results would be so close? Of course not. Neither side ever even considered the massive cross-over votes that took place toward Rossi. The proof of that is the huge difference in votes for Kerry and Murray that Gregoire didn’t get.
Up in the first paragraph I said “appears evenly divided” because of some cultural polls that have recently come out.
-Yesterday Harvard released a poll that found more college students (albeit by a very small number) approve of George Bush than disapprove of him.
-Gallop just released a poll that found that 57% of Americans now support the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is the highest percentage since Gallup began polling in 2003.
-Quinipac recently had a poll which showed 62% of respondants favored the death penalty for those convicted of murder. That was echoed by a more recent Fox poll that showed 69%.
-Rasmussen found that 76% of American adults believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
-Rasmussen found that 53% of voters say that they pray every day or nearly every day and that just one-out-of-eight voters (12%) say they rarely or never pray.
-51% of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. That’s UP 6%.
-Gallop had a poll that showed American teenagers are more pro-life than the general adult population. 72% of the teens in the survey said they believe abortion is “morally wrong.” 26% said it was “morally acceptable.”
Those are stunning numbers and your party would be well advised not to ignore their implications.
Democrats are not ignoring any polling statistics, but the ass troll certainly is.
-Gallup also released a poll recently showing Bush’s approval rating at the lowest mark ever for a second term president at this point.
-The Gallup poll showing 57% of Americans support a constitutional amendment on gay marriage also said, and I quote: “At the same time, when given a choice among same-sex marriages, same-sex civil unions, or no legal arrangement at all for same-sex couples, about half of Americans favor one of the first alternatives.”
-Gallup’s 2003 poll declaring that 72% of teens say abortion is “morally wrong” also showed that 47% believed it should be legal under some circumstances. (probably when they need one) That same year Gallup published another poll showing that 57% of teens say premarital sex, 61% say gambling, and 67% say divorce are “morally acceptable.”
Not exactly your rock-solid benchmark for defining morality, now is it?
Speaking of morality, where do you think the highest instances of teen pregnancy happen? That’s right, the top 15 states holding this dubious honor support a “conservative” red-state ideology.
Value per 1,000
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/bl.....enpreg.png
What about pornography?
Last year the Washington Post reported that GOP corporate donors cash in big time on porn, including Rupert Murdoch’s Fox.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ge=printer
There’s so much in here that flies in the face of the ass troll’s moral indignation that the article is definitely worth reading. But here are two of the best highlights:
In this world of irony, corporate leaders at companies as diverse as News Corp., Marriott International and Time Warner can profit by selling red state consumers the very material that red state culture is supposed to despise. Those elites then funnel the proceeds to the GOP, which in turn has used the money to successfully convince red state voters that the other political party is solely responsible for the decline of the civilization.
…
Desperate Housewives, the hottest new show on television, features plotlines such as one in which a married woman is having an affair with her 17-year-old gardener and another in which a man murders his neighbor. Turns out, the show performed better in the November sweeps month in the red state markets of Dallas-Fort Worth (first), Atlanta (first) and Kansas City (second) than it did in the Blue state markets of New York (fourth), Chicago (fourth) and Boston (third), according to Nielson Media Research. The show did quite well in red state markets Salt Lake City (fourth) and Birmingham (sixth) as well.
Looks like the Bible Belt is hooked on Hollywood! Wow, what a shock.
As to the following: Would ANYONE, even a Conservative, ever have predicted that the final results would be so close? Of course not. Neither side ever even considered the massive cross-over votes that took place toward Rossi. The proof of that is the huge difference in votes for Kerry and Murray that Gregoire didn’t get.
Actually it was the Republicans in the state who were cross-over voters, except in the case of Rossi. They also voted heavily in favor of other Democratic candidates in Washington State in a backlash against GW’s extremism, leaving state Republicans licking their wounds and praying they can unseat Maria Cantwell. Circumstantial evidence will give you whatever picture you wish to believe. Just like quoting specific polls numbers.
RE: We do get it, you’re shamefully dishonest/68
Actually, I have been very honest about where I stand:
Me/65: “Personally, I agree with mainstream America and actually prefer that you don’t listen. All the “stuff” your party aligns with makes us feel like we’re being stung to death by a million bees: we can handle a few stings, but a swarm will kill us so we avoid them.” Comment by You just don’t get it— 4/20/05 @ 1:39 pm
But very dishonest in your attempts to justify that stance with selective quotation of polling data.
You know, I’m not going to spar with you. I simply don’t find trading insults to be productive.
I didn’t post my thoughts to be provocative. I posted them to explain how I believe my family is under assault. I gave voice to the words that are being spoken by my neighbors, my friends, my extended family and by folks just like me across the nation. I had hoped that by trying to give a glimmer of what worries plain, ordinary, hard working America, liberals would examine how they are ignoring the reality of our lives.
I politely tried to explain why I believe that Democrats are losing nationally. You don’t seem to care to disagree, but rather try to defend. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge the concerns that we find valid in our lives, but seem to rather insult us for even having them.
So be it.
Defensive posturing does not change the fact that mainstream America feels under assault by liberal lawmakers and judges.
ME: “All the “stuff” your party aligns with makes us feel like we’re being stung to death by a million bees: we can handle a few stings, but a swarm will kill us, so we avoid them.”
Good luck in your pursuits.
You know, I’m not going to spar with you. I simply don’t find trading insults to be productive.
I didn’t post my thoughts to be provocative.
Let’s review your first posting @ 10, then.
Viewed in the totality of their associations, the Democrats and their collection of fringe extremists are no different than that wild feral cat: they are frightening, wild, undisciplined, out of control, their behavior is ugly to witness, seeing them from a distance they appear mean, completely out of sync with the mainstream and because of that are simply unwelcome in their homes.
You don’t honestly believe that this statement was not intended to be insulting or in any way provocative? Clearly you must have felt that being the first to level and insult was productive, otherwise you wouldn’t have done so.
I posted them to explain how I believe my family is under assault. I gave voice to the words that are being spoken by my neighbors, my friends, my extended family and by folks just like me across the nation. I had hoped that by trying to give a glimmer of what worries plain, ordinary, hard working America, liberals would examine how they are ignoring the reality of our lives.
You make the arrogant assumption that you’re actually speaking on behalf of “plain, ordinary, hard working America” any more than Democrats are. In fact, you gain no argumentative momentum from doing this because it is the merit of your ideas that matter to us – not the number of voters who share them. We feel equally under assault by those who would seek to undermine civil rights, subsidize special interests with our tax dollars, engage in ineffective unilateral warfare, intend to stack the courts with judges who are known to engage in ultra-conservative judicial activism, have emptied the US treasury in less than five years, pay journalists to sell their political positions, allow polluters to write our energy policy and call it such things as the “Clean Sky” and “Healthy Forest” initatives as if to insult our intelligence with an ironic joke, change ethics rules to escape the responsibility of ethics, who would destroy public education if not for the hard work of the NEA, harbor desires to turn the US into a theocracy, etc. etc. etc. Not only do you not care to listen to us, you think we have no right to be listened to.
You don’t seem to care to disagree, but rather try to defend. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge the concerns that we find valid in our lives, but seem to rather insult us for even having them.
People who are worthy of being acknowledged earn that right by discourse that is reasonable, respectful, and most of all: HONEST.
You never once had the intention to be any of these things and now that this has been proven true you’re ready to pack up and run away. Nor were you ever deserving of insult-free replies because you disqualified yourself from that right immediately.
Good luck in your pursuits.
Same to you, but if you actually hope for luck in that regard the first change you need to make is in your own attitude.
All the things you are determined to argue are POLITICAL issues.
My family, my friends, my neighbors, for whom I do indeed have the right to speak, are far more concerned with the MORAL and cultural issues and the positions taken in them.
I don’t believe my speaking for middle America was at all arrogant. Take a moment to have a look at the red/blue county map that’s been splashed everywhere:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....ntymap.htm
That IS middle America.
Furthermore, you have no idea in what capacity I speak. You have no idea what career I have that would put me in contact with mainstream America and their opinions. I believe that is a pretty darn big arrogant assumption on your part.
You claim your side feels equally under assault. I have no doubt that is the case as the result of your side losing the national debate and more importantly, national elections in the recent past
You clearly took every opportunity to jump all over me for each and every of my claims with which you did not agree, or the few you felt you could disprove, but I noticed by its glaring omission that you made no mention of the fact that the “movers and shakers” within the liberal establishment are addressing the very same issues amongst themselves and are attempting to moderate at least their rhetoric if not their stances on moral and cultural issues.
Regarding the feral cats – it was the only example I could think of that “collected” something undesirable (hairballs) and even though it’s something common (a cat) would be unwelcome because of its wild nature.
My attitude was (and yes the operative word is WAS, as it is no longer) one of wanting to discuss.
Your attitude was clearly more than a bit confrontational and more desirous of proving me wrong than of actually discussing the issues. I believe that was a pattern followed by both Gore and Kerry. It didn’t seem to work too well for them either.
All the things you are determined to argue are POLITICAL issues.
My family, my friends, my neighbors, for whom I do indeed have the right to speak, are far more concerned with the MORAL and cultural issues and the positions taken in them.
Many of the things I’m determined to argue are moral issues. Civil rights vs. discrimination, pacifism instead of war, environmentalism, ethics, education (think Jesus and the fisherman) and religious tolerance have everything to do with morality. The fact that politics plays a role is because far-reaching zealots are not satisfied with carrying out their mission through faith alone.
Furthermore, you have no idea in what capacity I speak. You have no idea what career I have that would put me in contact with mainstream America and their opinions.
Ahh yes, “I know America better than you do because of my job.” The nice thing about online forum exchanges is when your original argument falls utterly on its face you can proclaim yourself to be anyone you wish, anonymously of course.
You claim your side feels equally under assault. I have no doubt that is the case as the result of your side losing the national debate and more importantly, national elections in the recent past
Again, our problems are with the merits of your ideas. Not the elections, not how many voters share them, but with the very scary agenda you are trying to accomplish with this new political influence.
What I find ironic is how “your side” makes constant accusations about what the left stands for and then proves that they are all of them many times over.
Moral hypocrites who decry pornography and entertainment but consume them at the same or higher rates than we do.
Political hypocrites who decry judicial activism and then want to engage in it wholesale.
People who cry about the “liberal media” bias yet openly acknowledge – indeed, take pride in – their own variety of the same.
Those who demand for abstinence-only education but who have children topping the lists of teens engaging in sex leading to pregnancy.
Preachers of the sanctity of marriage who have the highest rates of divorce per state.
The so-called “culture of life” who has the highest murder rates in the country.
People who should be thinking “camel and eye” but who instead shelter the special interests of the wealthiest on earth under their religious umbrella.
You clearly took every opportunity to jump all over me for each and every of my claims with which you did not agree, or the few you felt you could disprove, but I noticed by its glaring omission that you made no mention of the fact that the “movers and shakers” within the liberal establishment are addressing the very same issues amongst themselves and are attempting to moderate at least their rhetoric if not their stances on moral and cultural issues.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe I share some of the same moral beliefs, that liberals do in general? Some of your own polling data showing nearly 80% of people believe in the resurrection of Christ should have told you that. I take issue with transparent dishonesty, be it intellectual or outright. I dislike rank hypocrisy, especially the kind that attempts to justify its existence through God or moral values. I am a Christian just as many, if not most Democrats. Where we differ are on key subjects like the role of religion and church in our government, our tolerance of homosexuals and even people who aren’t religious themselves, our belief that a good Christian nation does not need unnecessary war, or that it can take care of its poor people and provide opportunities for them through access to a good education, healthcare, and more.
Democrats aren’t trying to change our message because we’re lacking in morals, we’re trying to show people that we never did lack them and those who are saying otherwise have an exclusively political motivation for such a lie.
Regarding the feral cats – it was the only example I could think of that “collected” something undesirable (hairballs) and even though it’s something common (a cat) would be unwelcome because of its wild nature.
An analogy you intended to be insulting and provocative, even while claiming that your rhetoric was free of both.
Your attitude was clearly more than a bit confrontational and more desirous of proving me wrong than of actually discussing the issues. I believe that was a pattern followed by both Gore and Kerry. It didn’t seem to work too well for them either.
Right, and Bush took the route of lying (“By far, the vast majority … goes to the people at the bottom.” or “useless nation building”) and hypocrisy (“I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question”) which seemed to work well for him – just not on me. Proving you wrong was easy; discussing the issues wasn’t ever something you had in mind anyway.
You don’t get it…How exactly are the Dems, or anyone else for that matter, in control of you or your family’s morals?
How does anyone stop you from instilling within your family the moral values you hold dear?
RE: G Davis/74
I never claimed anyone was in “control of” my morals or those of my family. I am well aware that as a parent I’m the one in control and am responsible for setting the examples of the values I wish to instill in my children.
What I said, way back up there in number 10, is that taken in their totality, the fringe groups with whom the left has aligned itself (or perhaps, with whom they have allowed themselves to become associated) present themselves as a massive assault on everything we hold dear. What I further said was: “All the “stuff” your party aligns with makes us feel like we’re being stung to death by a million bees: we can handle a few stings, but a swarm will kill us, so we avoid them.”
Avoiding that which is diametrically opposed to what you believe seems a sound concept…but I still don’t get all the hubbub about how the Dems are assaulting anyone.
Have the Dems or anyone else on any politial level, managed to pass legislation that forces you and/or yours to partake in activities against your best moral judgement?
Are there issues that you hold dear that you would like to see legislation passed on that have been ignored by the Dems on any political level, or any other group for that matter?
It has NOTHING to do with legislation.
My original post had nothing to do with the Democrats per se, as it did with whom they are aligned and how America judges them (by not voting for them) because of those associations.
And no, the very last thing I care to see is more legislation, more government intrusion into our lives.
It has to do with what I, and many others, feel is the degradation of our society, who the groups are leading to that degradation and, most importantly, that those groups have aligned themselves with the Democrat party.
This says it quite well:
CARVILLE, BEGALA & THE CULTURE WARS
http://www.realclearpolitics.c....._0845.html
“…The fact is, it’s very hard to talk about a Democratic party resurgence without discussing social and cultural issues. Polls show that Democrats continue to retain traditional advantages with voters on domestic issues like healthcare and education. Where Democrats fail with voters – aside from the crucial issue of national security – is when it comes to issues of culture, faith, and family. This is no small matter, because these are among the most influential factors in determining how people vote…”
It has NOTHING to do with legislation.
That is simply untrue. If it had nothing to do with legislation then you would not be talking about what the Democrats need to worry about politically. There would be no fascist comments from Tom DeLay about Congress’ role in making this country a theocracy. We would not be hearing about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So please, enough with the intellectual dishonesty.
And no, the very last thing I care to see is more legislation, more government intrusion into our lives.
Then call off the elitists from your party who are doing exactly that. Since you like quoting polls let’s not forget how 63% of Americans supported the rule of law in the Terri Schiavo case and more than 70% opposed Congress’ and the President’s legislative attempts to intrude into our lives, with Florida residents opposing this move by a 2-1 ratio and 67% of Americans believing the move was politically motivated.
It has to do with what I, and many others, feel is the degradation of our society, who the groups are leading to that degradation and, most importantly, that those groups have aligned themselves with the Democrat party.
While half the country feels such degredation is the result of the alignment of special interest groups and overreaching religious zealots with the Republican party.
A message for those who peddle in tired old analogies: “All the “stuff” your party aligns with makes us feel like we’re being stung to death by a million bees: we can handle a few stings, but a swarm will kill us, so we avoid them.”
The pendulum swings both ways. Listen to the advice of the more sane members of your party if you just don’t get it: Look, we won’t always be in the majority. I say to my conservative friends, someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. -John McCain
A prime example of how wrong you are:
Each year, more than 3 million teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease. In addition to the threat of disease and pregnancy, sexually active teens are three times more likely than teens who aren’t sexually active to become depressed and to attempt suicide.
Clearly, it’s in society’s interest to discourage teen sex. Teens themselves realize this: According to a Zogby poll, more than 90 percent of them say that society should teach kids to abstain from sex until they have, at least, finished high school. Parents want a stronger message: Almost nine in 10 want schools to teach youth to abstain from sex until they’re married or in an adult relationship that is close to marriage.
So what does your party do?
They introduce legislation that would effectively abolish federal abstinence education programs.
Government officials now spend at least $12 promoting contraception for each $1 they spend teaching abstinence.
If contraception is already taught in nearly every school, and condom promotion gets nearly all the government funds, why the push to kill the limited funds for abstinence?
Fringe interest groups: Advocates for Youth and SIECUS.
SIECUS has a history of promoting the far boundaries of sexual permissiveness. One article published in its “SIECUS Report” periodical actually encouraged society to overturn the “taboo” against sex among nine-year-olds.
Far from encouraging young people to wait until they’re older before having sex, they send the message that it’s OK for teens to have sex as long as they use condoms. Only 7 percent of parents approve of that message.
There’s a saying: those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In the case of liberals and their fringe groups, that little saying is not only an admonition, but a prophesy.
Take a look at Goldy’s latest entry. The people whom you’re entrusting with your “moral values” are playing you like fools.
When liberals express as much outrage as murdering babies in the womb, euthanizing innocent women and old people and remorse for the culture of death as celebrated in such places as The Netherlands, I’ll worry a bit more about using animals to hone medical skills that may someday save my childrens lives… or yours.
OH! I am so sorry… I seemed to have forgotten the moral relativism of ‘life’ as expressed in this pantheistic little gem:
“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Uh huh, talk about double-standards! I expected no less from you. When you find out a major leader of your “culture of life movement” lied in order to gain access to animals so he could kill them to further his own career (not save your children’s lives) what is your response? Complete and utter hypocrisy. Just like Bush supporting a bill in his own state that was used to euthanize a new-born baby, Sun Hudson, against the wishes of his mother, but opposing the rule of Florida law when it came to Terri Schiavo. Jon Stewart put it best when he said, “But to be fair, the Texas law did make ability to pay part of the equation.”
I seemed to have forgotten the moral relativism of ‘life’
So let’s just stick with the Republican’s preferred motive for rationalization: Money.
Which takes us right back to my post #10 – Democrats collecting single issue fringe groups for the money they can (and do) contribute to the party.
Yes, in this last election the Republicans collected more cash -however they did it by small donations from individual Americans, while the Democrats money came in great big lumps from those very same aforementioned interest groups (does the name Soros ring any bells?).
93% of all Republican party receipts were contributions from individuals vs. 83% for the Democrats.
PAC contributions to Democratic party committees totaled $12.2 million or 11% of receipts. PACs gave a similar amount ($12.4 million) to Republican committees but this represented only 5% of their receipts.
Which takes us right back to my post #10 – Democrats collecting single issue fringe groups for the money they can (and do) contribute to the party.
More hypocrisy! So the Republicans don’t do the same? I’ll remember that next time I see Tom DeLay as the keynote speaker at an NRA meeting.
PACs gave a similar amount ($12.4 million) to Republican committees but this represented only 5% of their receipts.
Sure, while corporations piled on tens of millions more than all the PAC contributions to Democrats combined.
It’s pretty hard to take your outrage over cats previously disposed and/or neglected and already scheduled for euthanasia being used for research to further medical expertise when you advocate abortion for no other reason than convenience.
In as much as I am still grieving a parent that died during what should have been “routine” surgery, I have a very tough time feeling aghast at young surgeons getting the skills they need so as not to harm any MORE patients.
Perhaps you would prefer they just practice on all those disposable babies, in as much as there are folks on your side of the political spectrum like Peter Singer who advocates the right to “abort” up to nearly a year after birth, just in case good ol’ ‘Mom’ thinks it’s all just not working out well enough to suit her.
It’s pretty hard to take your outrage over cats previously disposed and/or neglected and already scheduled for euthanasia being used for research to further medical expertise when you advocate abortion for no other reason than convenience.
Don’t put words into my mouth to make your case. I advocate reproductive rights because I believe that individual rights are the basic premise for American freedom.
I have a very tough time feeling aghast at young surgeons getting the skills they need so as not to harm any MORE patients.
Perhaps you would prefer they just practice on all those disposable babies,
You should feel aghast at young surgeons lying to animal shelters, claiming they’re going to take on a pet only to kill them practicing surgery. Thousands of doctors gain their skills each year through honest means and working with cadavers.
in as much as there are folks on your side of the political spectrum like Peter Singer who advocates the right to “abort” up to nearly a year after birth, just in case good ol’ ‘Mom’ thinks it’s all just not working out well enough to suit her.
I’ve never heard of this before, and if it’s not a joke then it should be taken with the same level of respect as proclaimations from the Grand Wizard.
To be fair, Singer specified “up to 28 days” after birth, not a year (my mistake).
NOTE THE SOURCE- Animal Liberation Front
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
“Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby’s birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents’ right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.”
I’d like to encourage you and your fellow…(hmm, what’s a good word for the opposite of a soldier?)… to continue to argue your positions in the culture war, energetically, arduously, loudly, publicly and often… Please.
To be fair, Singer specified “up to 28 days” after birth, not a year (my mistake).
It doesn’t matter, that opinion not shared by 99.9999999999% of Democrats or anyone who supports reproductive freedom.
(hmm, what’s a good word for the opposite of a soldier?)
Pacifist, maybe? Conscientious objectors? Followers of Jesus’s teachings? Even soldiers fit those categories.
to continue to argue your positions in the culture war, energetically, arduously, loudly, publicly and often… Please.
You don’t have to worry about that. The very last thing any of us are going to do is cave to the intimidation of smug, right-wing elitists no matter how drunk they are with power.
Not so much with power as IN power.
As smug as the not too long ago ‘WE are the President’ Hillary?
Pacifist, soldier or onscientious objector, just keep up the good work. Thanks.
Definitely drunk with power as evident by recent modifications of ethics rules to bail out Tom DeLay or the constant threat of changing Senate rules to get their way, even when the majority of Americans don’t support such a tactic. Smug as the kind of people who once called Chelsea Clinton the new “White House dog.”
Thanks!
Keep that selective outrage coming, …
while I mention the kind of folks that mocked the Bush girls for acting like “girls” at the convention yet ignored the Kerry daughters (Gosh weren’t they the ones booed at the MTV awards? I wonder how many mainstream conservative Americans were in that audience??) dressing like harlots in see-through dresses and while ignoring both Kerry and Edward’s hypocritical duplicity in besmirching Mary Cheney… or even the homosexual organizations putting Mary on milk cartons because, despite the fact she is a homosexual, she won’t toe the agenda for them.
http://big-dog.home.comcast.ne.....chive.html
Let us also not forget the ever gracious Theresa sniffing her well-bobbed little nose that Laura Bush “never had a real job since she grew up,”.
And, speaking of Delay, why is it the DEMOCRATS are the ones continuing to block the Ethics Committee from even meeting to discuss these purported “violations”?
http://www.washtimes.com/natio.....-4228r.htm
Kinda make you wonder what they have to hide.
Keep that selective outrage coming,
Back to the usual response of hypocrisy, I see.
the Kerry daughters dressing like harlots in see-through dresses
These are see-through dresses?
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/im.....33025x.jpg
while ignoring both Kerry and Edward’s hypocritical duplicity in besmirching Mary Cheney
They said she was gay, which she is. Right-wing crazies all across the land called Chelsea Clinton – in addition to the “White House dog” quip – ugly, suggested Bill Clinton wasn’t really her father, have posted webpages saying “Chelsea Clinton don’t give good pussy,” all sorts of great moral right-wing insults.
Let us also not forget the ever gracious Theresa sniffing her well-bobbed little nose that Laura Bush “never had a real job since she grew up,”.
Which she apologized, unlike say, Rush Limbaugh who first perpetuated the “White House dog” comment and later tried to blame it on a technician’s mistake.
I guess his nose isn’t so much well-bobbed as it is brown from being shoved up Bush’s posterior.
And, speaking of Delay, why is it the DEMOCRATS are the ones continuing to block the Ethics Committee from even meeting to discuss these purported “violations”?
They’re blocking the committee from meeting because Republicans changed the rules so the committee must now meet a majority vote that is impossible due to its even party split, assuring (as intended) that it will no longer have any power over ethics breaches by the Republican leadership.
Kinda make you wonder what they have to hide.
Only if you’re feigning ignorance in a shallow attempt at spin.
http://jgerkin1.home.comcast.n.....ughter.jpg
I see you’ve reverted to your preferred troll name.
For shame on Kerry’s daughters! They need to behave morally, like this:
http://www.turnspit.com/conten.....htwins.jpg
I haven’t “reverted” to anything.
Everything I have posted has been with the utmost sincerity and honesty. You can choose to believe it or not.
Regarding that picture, it sure looks computer enhanced to me, whereas Vanessa was splashed all over the media world in all her (modest) glory. Adult choices vs. college behavior. Which do you think should be judged more harshly ?
And regarding Rush Limbaugh, I have no idea whether he said it or not, and quite frankly I don’t care. While he is indeed a self proclaimed partisan and unabashed conservative, he is not an official candidate/party campaigner (except for once for Carlson and we know how well that worked out). If you care to go tit for tat in ugly things people have said about Bush and conservatives in general I might mention, and I certainly could easily research and find a few choice words and insulting, degrading insults uttered by Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnell, Spike Lee, Chevy Chase, Janeane Garofalo, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Danny Glover Cher, Alec Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks, Springstein …
I’m going to assume you are honest enough to acknowledge those because frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination at the moment to research the insults that they put forth on a regular basis.
Perhaps you’re right about the ethics committee… or perhaps in convening the meetings someone (MS Pelosi? Mr Reid?)runs the risk of exposing the purported “violations” of others who engaged in the exact same behaviour.
Sure does give one pause.
Amended:
I’m going to assume you are honest enough to acknowledge those because frankly I have neither the time nor the inclination at the moment to research the insults that they put forth on a regular basis and in the course of their campaigning for Kerry/Edwards and their attendance at the Democrat convention.
I haven’t “reverted” to anything.
Of course not, you were always the ass troll and everyone knew it.
Regarding that picture, it sure looks computer enhanced to me,
Your capacity for squirming truly amazes me, but not as much as your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
And regarding Rush Limbaugh, I have no idea whether he said it or not, and quite frankly I don’t care.
Then why should anyone care about your rants?
If you care to go tit for tat in ugly things people have said about Bush and conservatives in general I might mention, and I certainly could easily research and find a few choice words and insulting, degrading insults uttered by Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Rosie O’Donnell, Spike Lee, Chevy Chase, Janeane Garofalo, Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, Danny Glover Cher, Alec Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks, Springstein …
While I could find an equal number from Limbaugh, Hannity, Ann “Assassinate the President” Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, John O’Niell, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin, Peggy Noonan, Bob “Treasonous Leaker” Novak, Joe Scarborough, Matt Drudge, Jeff James Gannon Guckert, Ed Gillespie, Dennis Miller, James Taranto, and probably many others.
Just admit that neither side has monopoly on morality or insults.
Perhaps you’re right about the ethics committee…
I am right about it. Don’t think the American public isn’t aware of what is going on, either.
You can believe whatever you choose, especially if that’s what you need for validation – I find it quite amusing, so have at it.
The only one on your list that is actively involved in the campaigning is Ed Gillespie past chair of the RNC and gosh, you know, I do believe that was actually his JOB.
The rest are COMMENTATORS…and that’s what a COMMENTATOR is paid to do – COMMENT.
Every single person I named is an ENTERTAINER, and supposedly, THAT is what they are paid to do, however instead, each has actively campaigned on the “trail” with Democrats and/or actively participated in campaign fund raising by participating in commercials or holding events.
And yes, I am well aware America is cognisant of what’s happening with Delay, just as they are well aware of the duplicity of the judicial filibusters and that brings us full circle back to my original point.
My belief that the photo looks computer generated doesn’t constitute “squirming”, it’s simply my opinion.
However, you chose to simply ignore adult daughter Kerry choosing to dress like a poorly paid porn queen vs. typical college student Bush daughter hijinks. And that is because… something about hypocrisy, was it?
Well I answered/refuted…who knows where or why it went.
All I can say, You just don’t get it, is WOW…
It’s been a good long while since I’ve read diatribes like yours…so angry.
This is the sort of nondiscourse that scares me more than anything else…complete shut down of any conversation at all…just diatribes.
I’m sorry I asked.
We do get it, you’re shamefully dishonest at least you tried…
Diatribes?
Can you show me where I had a diatribe?
Not once have I called a name or insulted anyone.
I stated MY case as I see it – that’s called an OPINION.
People disagreed with my opinion, ‘argued’ an opposite opinion and I refuted those in line with my beliefs.
Just because you don’t happen to like or agree with my opinions you decide to go on the attack – that seems far more dishonest than whatever the heck it is you are attempting to accuse me of.
Diatribes=name calling???
Main Entry: di·a·tribe
Pronunciation: ‘dI-&-“trIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub — more at THROW
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironical or satirical criticism
Main Entry: con·ver·sa·tion
Pronunciation: “kän-v&r-‘sA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English conversacioun, from Middle French conversation, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around
1 obsolete : CONDUCT, BEHAVIOR
2 a (1) : oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2) : an instance of such exchange : TALK b : an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c : an exchange similar to conversation
– con·ver·sa·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
– con·ver·sa·tion·al·ly adverb
Main Entry: ex·change
Pronunciation: iks-‘chAnj, ‘eks-”
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English exchaunge, from Middle French eschange, from eschangier to exchange, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin excambiare, from Latin ex- + cambiare to exchange — more at CHANGE
1 : the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another : TRADE
2 a : the act or process of substituting one thing for another b : reciprocal giving and receiving
3 : something offered, given, or received in an exchange
Let me ask you this…do you care what other’s opinions are or are you so fed up with what you see in society that there’s no room for negotiation?
I’m not attacking you…I really am interested if folks have any interest in trying to understand each other.
RE: G Davis/105:
“Let me ask you this…do you care what other’s opinions are or are you so fed up with what you see in society that there’s no room for negotiation?”
“I’m not attacking you…I really am interested if folks have any interest in trying to understand each other.”
I don’t see it as an either/or question.
Quite frankly, I’d have to answer, BOTH.
Yes, I (and my family, neighbors and friends) are very fed up with all the cultural “stuff” that’s is nibbling away at us like a constant prolonged water torture. We feel that just when things can’t go beyond what we already believe is unacceptable, it does.
A good example is popular music. We realize that to our parents ordinary rock n roll was outrageous, but how can lyrics calling people whores, using the F word, and advocating violence be not only be considered acceptable but actually hailed?
Another good example is diversity. America was premised on immigrants coming here to be part of an American culture, becoming Americans but every application, questionaire, etc is sliced and diced into groups that only serve to set one group of folks apart from others. Who does that serve? Certainly not America as a whole and most certainly not any of the groups set apart.
Education is another example. We can all see it is not working the way it is. We all know that the last 40 years we have seen more and more money put toward fixing it, but to no avail. We can see with our own eyes that private schools are doing education better and for less money and we ask to please just let’s give it a try. All we get in an unequivical “NO”. We can see that homeschoolers are achieving at phenomenal rates and then we see the education bureaucracies not only trying to shut them down, but recently in California ARRESTING parents for wanting what they see as best for their own children.
You accuse me of not wanting to hear opposing opinions, however I rarely hear opinions or solutions to my worries, but I do hear lots and lots of just plain ‘opposing’ for (what appears to me) the sake of opposing.
Before anyone can hope to achieve ‘understanding;, they have to actually listen, they have to acknowledge that opposing views are as valid as their own and they most certainly have to realize no ‘understanding’ will ever be achieved by denigrating the concerns of others.
I saw a Mom and sons in the market the other day; one son was pushing the cart as Mom was filling it and I came upon them just has other son had his toe run over with the cart. He was howling and hopping around and Mom said ‘oh stop it, you’re not hurt’ and marched toward the next aisle.
That is exactly how we are treated when we voice our
concerns. ‘Understanding’ will never be achieved by dismissing us and marching away.
*Yes, I (and my family, neighbors and friends) are very fed up with all the cultural “stuff” that’s is nibbling away at us like a constant prolonged water torture.*
Fair enough…and in the interest of learning about each other, would it surprise you if I felt the same way?
I don’t like being told that my daughter shouldn’t be taught real science because it conflits with the far right’s religious teachings.
I don’t like having to prepare my daughter for a time like I grew up in where women were not allowed to make medical choices for themselves with the consultation of their doctors.
I don’t like having music, movies, television, books, art, and even the news media scoured for what is possibly offensive material to folks that hold different opinions than I.
Those are just a couple of things that are bugging me…if you’d like I could get into politics, the economy, education, health care in total, and on and on…
Where you and I differ is that I know I can NOT go to a certain movie if it contains material I find offensive…I CAN turn the TV off or better yet toss it out…I can NOT allow my children unmonitored access to the internet…I can educate my children to my moral bar and feel confident that it’s reasonable and tolerant enough they will listen and heed same…which allows me to trust my children to make good judgeents of their own when I’m not around.
If someone comes to my home and tells me what to do, how to think, what to appreciate, that they are more moral, more corret than I, I will fight with every ounce of y strength against themby the same token, I would fight to the death for your right to speak your mind and follow your bliss.
Would you do the same?
I feel that each of us should be allowed to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and to pursue the happiness that each of us defines for ourselves.
I’m not threatened by folks who feel differently than I…I don’t feel it necessary to tell you that my *right* is the only *right*.
Do you feel the same?
“I feel that each of us should be allowed to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong and to pursue the happiness that each of us defines for ourselves.”
Except that the schools are teaching MY children sex education and “diversity” and PETA principles and Christmas is out but “winter holiday” is in – those ARE moral issues and those ARE moral stands against what I feel is right and I HAVE NO CHOICE for my child. They have taken MY RIGHT and sovereignty as a parent to teach MY child in MY time away from me.
***
You may find this commentary interesting. I did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04.....8;position
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-8623r.htm
There is no school in the world that can legally force your child to take part in any sex education class that you don’t approve of…you’re just wrong on that…ask your school.
That said, you do have the option of homeschooling or private, religious based schooling as do I…I’ve just chosen to trust my children and that I have instilled my belief system in them firmly enough that they can weather the multitude of storms that will great them through their lives.
Take all that aside as well though, and look at your list of grievances about the schools…how are they different than my list of grievances about the schools except that they come from opposite ends of the spectrum? We both don’t like what our children are encountering in society today.
So how do you and I, the normal folks on the block, get together and work it out ourselves? Our glorious elected ones are certainly not going to do it for us, so how do we break down the walls between us and figure out a compromise that works for both our children?
I just ran across this site and am always amazed at how people with no knowledge of a subject will post like they know what there talking about. One good example I got from a brief look was the Comment by David on 4/20/05 in message 61. David for the record you cannot by automatic weapons at gun shows. You have to be a state that allows there possession and purchase thru a class 3 firearms dealer. It also costs you 200.00 extra to pay the government transfer tax and an approval from the local chief of police and 6 month wait for the ATF to approve the transfer. This has been the law since 1935 just to update you on some facts. Now with the internet this type of misinformation should long ago have been a thing of the past. However people like David just have an agenda and facts just don’t enter into there view of the world.