This is the problem with Republicans: The former KIRO-TV News anchor doesn't want you to know she's a Republican. She helped run a campaign that enables Republicans to run for office in liberal King County without disclosing that they're Republicans. And now she is using those new rules to run for King County executive without telling the voters that she's a Republican. Hutchison was one of the leading proponents of last year's Initiative 26, which made all King County offices officially "nonpartisan." In a statement she cowrote supporting the measure, Hutchison said it would "end partisan bickering" and "create genuine nonpartisan elections." Opponents of the measure predicted that it would empower Republicans to run stealth campaigns in liberal King County. Now Hutchison is attempting to do exactly that. In announcing her run, Hutchison boasted about her lack of partisan affiliation, name-dropping both outgoing King County executive Ron Sims, a Democrat, and Democratic former governor Booth Gardner. "Voters are looking for a new direction in government," Hutchison said in a press release. (Barnett) The problem with Hutchison dropping Democratic names is that she actually opposes their policy. The reassignment of county offices to nonpartisan status was backed primarily by conservatives, and one of its first effects was that Republican candidates fled their party label. In Washington, we have two parties vying for the conservative mantle. There is the Republican Party, with which we are all familiar; and then there's something called the "Grand Old Party Party", and this is what some of our Republicans called themselves. The ballots listed party leaning, so even for statewide offices, many Republicans (including the gubernatorial candidate) expressed their affinity for the "GOP Party". The problem Republicans face is that in western Washington, especially urban areas like Seattle and Tacoma, the party has a hard time getting its candidates elected. So they want a chance to run for office without the stigma of being a Republican attached. This allows them a greater breadth of lies. Hutchison, for instance, supports the right wing of the Republican party, including contributions to "GOP Party" gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, his primary political backers (the Building Industry Association of Washington) through a surrogate PAC (ChangePAC), President Bush, former Representative George Nethercutt, Representative Dave Reichert, and Republican presidential candidate Mike "Gay Sex Is Like Raping an Animal" Huckabee. Additionally, Hutchison served on the board of the infamous Discovery Institute. While the Institute claims she left the board in 2007, they somehow forgot to remove her name from their directors' roster until, well, last week when people started calling to confirm that she really was affiliated with the organization. Susan Hutchison is a long familiar face around Seattle. She's been part of KIRO's news team for over twenty-five years. She has star power in this city (our news anchors are nearly untouchable; just ask Jean Enersen). One would think that acknowledging her conservative roots would help establish her among the party. Of course, there's also the fact that establishing her conservative roots will kill her chances in the general election. Still, though, if the effort to strike party affiliation from King County offices had been genuine, we wouldn't have seen the candidates scurry like rats to disassociate themselves from the word "Republican", and neither would a potential powerhouse like Susan Hutchison find herself flashing that fake smile and trying to associate herself with people and policies she has opposed. How convenient. The party that stood for over a decade on "personal accountability" now wants to divorce itself from its past. And, as Hutchison's case demonstrates, you can try to change or erase the party name, but you can't escape the party itself. But when you're willing to make a political speech denigrating people who live without Jesus, give money to partisan extremists like Mike Huckabee, and make a concerted effort to wreck scientific education in public schools, people are likely to remember. She can start dropping names like Trotsky and Marx if she really wants, but she's not going to convince anyone she's not a Republican until she stops acting like one. And a fine place to start would be with the lies. I mean, really. Nobody actually believed stripping county offices of party labels would end partisan distraction. And there's a fine argument for nonpartisan civic office at the local level, anyway. It would have been nice, though, if just once, Republicans could get their way and then not prove their most cynical opponents right. Seriously, very little the GOP does actually surprises anyone who is paying attention. But one thing that is surprising is that Republicans still seem to think they have a legitimate right to be taken seriously. And they will, someday. Shortly after they stop lying to people. (Oh, and let's make one thing clear: Yes, all politicians are liars. But there is a difference between lies. Telling your wife you mailed the credit card bill when it's still in your pocket, hoping to avoid an argument while calculating how to excuse yourself to the 7-Eleven in order to hit the Post Office before it closes, isn't a good thing for your marriage, but it's a far cry from selling a war for bullshit, claiming the media is conspiring against you while it is evident that journalists and editors alike are fawning over you, or trying to reorganize the political system in the hopes of increasing your electability by making it easier to hide the things voters don't like. No, I can't recall the last politician who delivered what was promised. But that's a problem, not a virtue. When the "GOP Party" figures that out, then maybe they'll understand why this is one time you don't want to dog-pile in dishonesty.) Of course, the upside for this is that Hutchison has virtually no chance. Maybe the liberal media conspiracy will rescue her and try to convince everyone that she's not a Republican. ____________________ Notes: Barnett, Erica C. "Closet Case". The Stranger. April 15, 2009. TheStranger.com. Accessed April 17, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/closet-case/Content?oid=1393918
When a government is making very bad decisions about how it deals with problems by helping the thieves and hurting the general public by over taxation, I'd think that everyone has a big problem with that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
actually this might end up helping the dems. after removing party label from ideas dem ideas suffered a small decrease of support in dems and and decent increase with republicans and independents. while the reverse was true of republican ideas.
(Insert title here) In many communities, yes. In King County, Washington, though? No. Take Jim McDermott, for instance. Even after a scandal in which he paid out a settlement for having received in the mail a tape made from illegal surveillance of a political opponent, his job was secure. He'll serve in the House until he's ready to quit, and while replacing him with another Democrat of the same general quality will be difficult, it is highly doubtful that the GOP could yank that seat. The new Democrat would need to fuck up in some absolutely stellar manner. Personally, it's one of those difficult issues. Like I said, there is a legitimate argument for county offices to be nonpartisan. And when opponents of the change explained what they expected would happen, that was a hard bit to swallow. On the one hand, yeah, we could see it coming. To the other, "The change will allow Republicans to hide and lie to the people even more," just seems like a weak argument. After all, this is the sort of thing voters should be able to see through, especially with a local media outlet making the point as we see with Barnett's article. Still, though, it would do much for the Republican Party's credibility if they didn't prove the sniveling factions right. Really, if the Machiavellian-Capitalist party would stop lying so goddamn much—above and beyond the normal dishonesty of politicians—it would do much to improve their chances in places like Seattle. We don't hold our politicians in any higher general esteem than other metropolitan areas, but Seattlites have yet to sink into that idiotic malaise where a campaign promise unfulfilled (for whatever reason) is the same kind of dishonesty as, say, sending the Secretary of State to lie to the UN, the nation, and the world in order to justify a war. And, as a general comment, I'll simply remind that paying attention is one of the easiest things people can do to disarm Republicans: If you stop to think about the comparisons and arguments they put up, you'll find yourself asking a question you might occasionally wonder about the idiot pundits: They can't tell the difference? You know, it's like the religious conservative who gets offended because someone says, "Because the Bible says so," is irrational. So, insulted, he lashes out at the next person, and accuses them of child rape on the merit that he likes to have sex with other consenting adults. It's the difference between inconvenient truth (e.g., an irrational argument is irrational), and deliberate denigration approaching slander and libel. And when people can't figure out that difference? Well, they're just not up to the demands of public office. Like the Family Guy joke about President Douchebag and Senator Date Rape. Or the South Park bit about Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich. When our options strike us as being so unsatisfying, the one who can't figure out such basic differences just don't have a chance around here. Take Hutchison, for example. She's announced a political run, tried to play up her "nonpartisan" credentials, and got called out almost instantly. Seriously, did she not realize that would happen? Did nobody in her organization, or even her family point it out to her? She gives to Republicans. Only Republicans. And, preferably, the nuttier the conservative, the better. She sat on the board of the Discovery Institute. She has publicly said that people can't live good lives without Jesus. Did she really think that she could stand up, call herself bipartisan, and try to include herself with two popular Democrats whose policies she opposed, and nobody would call her out? I'm sorry, but if she's really that stupid, she shouldn't be anywhere near public office. If this is the case, she should probably go back to the job she's most successful at: Smiling pretty for the camera and saying whatever the teleprompter tells her to. This whole conservative ploy depends on the presumption that voters really are that stupid.
There is a whole 354 pages in Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Lyers who tell them," about lies of the top junta of the Bush Administration and some of its loudest Republican Neo-Conservative spokesmen and defenders. charles http://atheistic-science.com
Follow-Up: Just Because Follow-Up: Just Because And four and a half years later, Susan Hutchinson has most definitely dropped the attempt to hide her conservative outlook. That is, Abby Livingston notes for Roll Call: The Washington State Republican Party is the latest state GOP organization suddenly tasked with electing a new party chairman. The former state chairman, Kirby Wilbur, announced his resignation suddenly in late July. He left the party to work for a conservative group called Young America’s Foundation, per The Seattle Times. The top two contenders to succeed him are the interim chairwoman, Luanne Van Werven, and former TV anchor Susan Hutchison. Grays Harbor County GOP State Committeeman Jim Walsh, Clark County Republicans Operations Director Christian Berrigan and Benton County precinct committee officer Lloyd Becker are also contenders for the position, according to The Seattle Times. “The person everyone assumes will win is Luanne Van Werven,” former WSRP Chairman Chris Vance said. “Conventional wisdom is that she’s got the votes already at the state committee.” But Vance cautioned her election is uncertain because it’s up to the state party’s 117-member state committee to select the new chairman. Vance’s concern is that Van Werven, Hutchison and the other contenders diverge from the party’s tradition of picking leaders with experience as operatives or running for office themselves. But the biggest driving concern for Washington Republicans is that, like so many other Republican state parties around the country, their party faces divisions between the state’s traditional GOP membership and a faction of former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, supporters. “What we really need in Washington is somebody who can bridge the different gaps within the party ... and start to win high-profile races,” said Connie Partoyan, a former aide to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers , R-Wash., and former Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash. State operatives hope that whoever is the new chair will be able to help the party win prominent statewide contests for the first time in 20 years. Despite a couple of thin margins, no Washington Republican has won a campaign for Senate or governor since 1994. The party’s state committee will select the new chairman on Aug. 24. And it is an interesting notion. Our Birther from the East Half, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chair of the House Republican Converence, is perhaps our most prominent Republican right now. The four highest-ranking Republicans in elected office from the Evergreen State are all in the U.S. House of Representatives. Slade Gorton was the last Republican from our state in the U.S. Senate, and even that was an interesting course, having lost his seat in Class III, and then winning a seat in Class I, two years later. Right now, Republicans have a hard time winning statewide office. It's not like Luanne Van Werven is a stellar politician; she's a Republican stalwart, willing to try to schmooze both sides of the right-wing aisle, that is, conventional and insurgent Republicans alike. The best thing the GOP can say about her is that she is not Susan Hutchinson. As Jim Brunner noted last month, when Kirby Wilbur resigned: One name that has emerged is Susan Hutchison, the former KIRO-TV anchor who unsuccessfully ran for King County Executive in 2009 largely downplaying her ties to the Republican Party. In a phone interview Tuesday, Hutchison confirmed she is thinking about running for the GOP job. “I think it’s an exciting job, and I think there is a lot to be done, and it requires someone who is dynamic, understands the territory and the state and can raise money and bring people together,” Hutchison said. Asked whether those were qualities she possesses, Hutchison replied: “I think they are.” As for her efforts to portray herself as “nonpartisan” in the 2009 King County Executive race, Hutchison said “that was what was required in that job — it was a nonpartisan position.” “I ran a very good nonpartisan campaign,” she said. “And if the other side would have run a good nonpartisan campaign it would have been a fair contest.” If only people would have believed her poseur posturing, you know? Meanwhile, the Republican Liberty Caucus would like to put a Tea Party Libertarian in charge of the state GOP. Democrats, of course, would be delighted. Late news also suggests this contest might be further complicated if state Sen. Pam Roach (R-Auburn) throws in. Indeed, this could actually get entertaining. Evergreen State Democrats might have the pleasure of seeing Susan Hutchinson eviscerated once more as well as the ascendancy of a Tea Partier to unify Republicans by chasing out the moderates. Fun, fun, in the great Northwest. ____________________ Notes: Livingston, Abby. "Washington Republicans Have Turnover at the Top". Roll Call. August 19, 2013. RollCall.com. August 19, 2013. http://www.rollcall.com/news/washington_republicans_have_turnover_at_the_top-227113-1.html Brunner, Jim. "'Nonpartisan' Susan Hutchison considers run for state GOP chair". Politics Northwest. July 30, 2013. Blogs.SeattleTimes.com. August 19, 2013. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...-hutchison-considers-run-for-state-gop-chair/ —————. "Pam Roach for state GOP chair?" Politics Northwest. August 19, 2013. Blogs.SeattleTimes.com. August 19, 2013. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2013/08/19/pam-roach-for-state-gop-chair/
And you cannot see where the real problem lies? To what are "republicans" trying to abscond personal accountability for their past? Whatever, the opposition has labeled them for that's what!!! Honestly, it is hard for me to decipher what your issue is? The idea of dropping labels of republicans and democrats actually puts the onus on the voter to begin to think for themselves. This is the core problem. Everything is decided by labels and not ideas; few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds. So we get what we deserve. So what she wants to drop names of those she disagrees with! And your problem is that if she has no label, in a situation where you were not aware of her ideology, then you cannot and many others who simply rely on those labels have to start thinking about the issues. Instead, most want to simply read the label and then begin their condemnation of the individual. In short, if she were a democrat that did not agree with the others democrats; then she is a traitor. If she is a republican, well, then of course she is a republican; and we all know what republicans are? This is the problem with identity politics whether it is skin color or political affliation. Ideas, philosophy and thoughts are thrown out the window. When those are thrown out the window, then winners are not based on ideas, philosophy and thoughts but rather on popularity contests. Did you really want to look at John McCain for 4 years as the leader of our country? No, Obama wins by a landslide. Thinkers would argue more austere reasons than simply populism. Romney or Obama, well, in the end Romney is a republican! See how that works, or do you deny the truth of this?
Good! We need more people who do not blindly adopt the platform of either party. Too many people have knee-jerk responses to any mention of "republican" or "democrat."
We do not need to enable people who have in fact adopted the platform and stereotypical approaches and fund-raising benefits and clout of their actually and formally adopted Party, to conceal that fact; people should not be helped to hide their lifetime of associations and beliefs and sources of support. Too few people have had accurate and informed knee-jerk responses to the label "Republican". If that number is growing, as it should, the label is a significant issue: There simply are no good reasons to associate oneself with that Party - it's a disaster, a rolling stinkbomb of cringe-inducing viciousness, a jackal pack of thuggish Christian Klanites and pious corporate criminals and self-loathing closet cases and ignorant Randite corruption, and if you don't recognize that you probably aren't fit to hold office. Why did she lie? For good reason. And for that very reason, we should not enable such dishonesty.
I prefer to evaluate people on their beliefs, decisions and actions rather than their labels. Same for Democrats. Lots of people are now associating that name with failures of domestic and foreign policy, of gridlock in government, of blamestorming other people rather than fixing their own problems, of having a tendency to spend far too much etc etc. When such people hear the term "democrat" their knee jerks just as much as yours does when you hear "republican." Like I said, we'd be better off if people abandoned those parties completely.
I would love that, but the only way that can happen is if we redesign how we vote: we would need Instant-runoff voting to make multiple parties mathematically competitive. Snowballs chance in hell the present parties are going to let that happen!
Republicans are trying to abscond with a lot of things and not just their past. With the advent of the Republican entertainment complex, there is no longer any penalty for lying. A conservative politician now always has the Republican entertainment industry at his or her back. They can act impudently and never be held accountable…especially so if they are running in gerrymandered districts and can suppress opposition votes. No the problem is a good well informed voter. Voters cannot be well informed without good honest information which is something our Republican brothers and sisters fear most…a well-informed voter, hence the need to deceive and lie. And Republican lying is ubiquitous, turn on Fox News, CNBC early morning evening programming or listen to Republican talk radio it won’t take long before the lies and deceit start coming at you and with gusto. It has gotten so bad that Republicans have rendered their party incapable of national governance and that is a shame. We should all be working towards a more perfect union. We should all be striving to be better citizens. But the lust for power and money has corrupted the Republican Part so that it has become a shadow of its former self. The knowledgeable and moral patriots have been purged from the party. As a former Republican, it is beyond sad. It is a tragedy. I liked McCain back when he first claimed the maverick moniker, but when he yielded to crony capitalism that was the end of my support for McCain. McCain and Romney lost not because of labels, or physical appearances. They lost because the Republican Party has become more extreme and out of touch with main stream America and cronyism dominate its economic and social policies. And both McCain and Romney were flipping flopping by the minute and by the hour in order to appear main stream while also appearing extreme to the party base.
And you regard their Party associations, Partisan fundraising connections, lifetime of alignment of beliefs with Party platforms, and attempts to conceal all of that, as uninformative? No, it's not. Which is why you haven't seen stealth Democrats trying to hide their Party affiliations while running for office, pushing for laws allowing them to conceal their sources of funding, etc. And those people are ignorant and unthinking victims of poor media coverage and corporate domination of political information sources. So? Is there no role for factual reality in your political evaluations? But that is exactly what is not happening, in the OP - she's keeping the Party, embracing its many comforts and benefits, and attempting to conceal the fact. She wants the corporate money and job connections, agrees with the bigoted warmongering and social policies, and aligns with the economic childishness, but she doesn't want to be associated with the recent history of the consequences of such governance. No one is objecting to someone denying a label that does not fit, refusing association with positions and beliefs one does not in fact share. The objection is to misrepresenting one's actual Party associations and actual behaviors; and this is something that Republicans, in particular, seem to be doing in increasing numbers - it started really kicking in with the supposed "Tea Party" full of "Independents" that somehow all turned out to have voted for W twice, have mouths full of Republican campaign talking points, and express "concern" or "doubts" about evolution, global warming, and Obama's birth certificate. As a brand name, "Republican" is belly up and drawing flies - that is because the Party couldn't avoid getting stuck with some at least of the consequences of its governance, and whenever its leaders open their mouths on TV they have to lie or sound like jackasses. That's how it goes - First Law of Advertising: the name acquires the attributes of the thing, not the other way around. But the people who want to disassociate themselves from those attributes should have to disassociate themselves from the thing, not just the name.
Largely yes. Parties don't accurately describe most politicians. They sure don't describe me. While some of what I believe falls under the umbrella of both the parties, most of what I believe falls outside both. I strongly support alternative energy (solar, wind, tidal, hydro) for power generation - that makes me a democrat. I also think we should be going for more gas drilling - that makes me a republican. I also think we should be going after nuclear in a big way for baseline generation - that makes me an outcast in both parties. I think we should have a smaller government that does less - but of the functions we keep, education is critical. I think unions have done a lot of damage to the competitiveness of the US - but I also think anyone should be able to join one. I think anyone who obeys the law and wants to work in the US should be allowed in. I support equality in all areas for people of all races/religions/sexes/sexual orientations. I also think we should phase out affirmative action. All of which is why I am registered as an independent. Neither party fits me. ================ New Minnick ad hides Democratic Party affiliation Joe Newby Spokane Examiner In a new ad released by Walt Minnick (D-ID), no mention is made of his affiliation to the Democratic Party. Entitled, 'Standing up to Washington is right for Idaho', Minnick gives the appearance of a man who has embraced the conservative idea of lower taxes and less government, bragging about his vote against Wall Street bailouts and the massive health care bill. “I’ve had to say no far more than I’ve said yes,” he states in his ad. While technically correct, this statement is a bit misleading. The National Taxpayers Union gave Minnick a grade of 51% on his voting record. This means that he voted for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda nearly half the time. ==================================== Vulnerable House Democrats work to hide party ties Rep. Dina Titus has been a loyal soldier in pushing the Democrats' ambitious agenda, voting for health care legislation, extended unemployment benefits, new energy taxes and a repeal of the military's ban on gays serving openly. Her campaign signs, however, proclaim Titus an "independent voice" for Nevadans. Aware that their stock has taken the same tumble as home values, Congress' most vulnerable Democrats are declaring their independence from their party's agenda in Facebook profiles, television advertisements, news interviews and campaign websites leading up to the Nov. 2 election. That's when Republicans hope to retake control of the House they lost four years ago. The rebranders include Democratic Reps. Betsy Markey and John Salazar in Colorado, Zack Space in Ohio, Jason Altmire in Pennsylvania, Glenn Nye in Virginia and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. In Texas, Rep. Chet Edwards, once promoted as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, has become a vocal critic of his party's policies. =========================== They'd say you are an ignorant victim of the liberal press. Of course there is. But if you think "political party propaganda" = "factual reality" you've bought into that propaganda. So has the democratic party. Their approval rating is currently around 35%, which is abysmal. Right. And the democrats have gotten stuck with the consequences of Benghazi, Wiener, Filner, the current state of progress in Congress (i.e. zero) the domestic spying scandals etc. They also have to spin and deceive or sound like jackasses. People are getting sick of both.
"Republicans are trying to abscond with a lot of things and not just their past. " Care to expand on that or it is just that they're republicans, so you know??? "With the advent of the Republican entertainment complex, there is no longer any penalty for lying. A conservative politician now always has the Republican entertainment industry at his or her back. They can act impudently and never be held accountable…especially so if they are running in gerrymandered districts and can suppress opposition votes." I'm sorry and the same could not be said of democrats? Why? Well. because they're democrats and you know?!! " Voters cannot be well informed without good honest information which is something our Republican brothers and sisters fear most…a well-informed voter, hence the need to deceive and lie. " And this thread was started by a democrat!!Hmm kinda makes you wonder doesn't it? Look the point is that, yea sure some voters do not need labels for them to decide things. They are either well read, family history decides party, or simply not impressed with party politics. However, it takes real courage to be among those who a party believes is theirs for getting the vote to say that they do not follow the party. What are they usually called? Not free thinkers thats for sure! " And Republican lying is ubiquitous, turn on Fox News, CNBC early morning evening programming or listen to Republican talk radio it won’t take long before the lies and deceit start coming at you and with gusto." True enough you might say that Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Savage may fall under this umbrella. However, what about Maddow, Olbermann, etc. do they not do the same things? Have you ever listened to Mike Church? Excellent radio personality, and I think Andrew Wilkow is solid. I have listened to Alan Colmes from time to time. Dude it goes both ways, if you do not think so. You are in denial. "I liked McCain back when he first claimed the maverick moniker, but when he yielded to crony capitalism that was the end of my support for McCain." Wow you supported McCain?? Yet, many republicans do not like him, and yet you "supported" until he "yielded to crony capitalism". Why do I smell a rat? " McCain and Romney lost not because of labels, or physical appearances. " Umm, hate to break it you but yeah that is why they lost. Obama, who did not truly offer many political ideas in '08, yet McCain did not really differentiate himself. And of course being able to elect the first black president was too much for many. That is not racist either. It is simply calling it as I see it. At that time was America ready for a black president? I certainly think so, but I would have preferred one who had identical political beliefs to the Constitution and our historical beginnings (outside of slavery of course). Romney did differentiate himself from Obama, but then again he is a republican; and you know who and what republicans are? " They lost because the Republican Party has become more extreme and out of touch with main stream America and cronyism dominate its economic and social policies" And their are no extremists or out of touch personalities in the demoicratic party!!??!! Right? You have proven my point with your rhetoric. You are also in denial about how many truly uninformed people are when it comes to politics.
Dal Segno al Coda It's a coda to a running joke in local politics. She's still bitter about losing an election because voters didn't buy her dishonesty. The problem your outlook runs into— —is that it surrenders to corruption. I mean, I know the idea of an honest politician is kind of a joke unto itself, but not everyone is ready to simply give up. To the other, one can understand why a candidate for county office that touches on education, transportation, environmentalism, and taxes might want to hide her policy outlooks on education (creationism, abstinence, Bible-as-history), transportation (mass transit a waste), environmentalism (global warming a hoax), and taxes (upward wealth redistribution) when those ideas are exactly the opposite of what the electorate wants. Meanwhile, Hutchison is still angry that people thought for themselves. So, yes, we in the Puget Sound region are kind of chuckling at the stupidity. From respected celebrity to embittered political loser. And we don't have any conscience issues about the schadenfreude because it's not like she's suffering in obscure poverty. Meanwhile, if you were paying attention to the larger question, you might note that Republicans are having a hard time winning statewide office in the Evergreen State. As I noted already, the four highest-ranking Republicans in elected office in our state are all in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our last Republican U.S. Senator was elected in 1994; our last Republican governor was elected in 1981. If the GOP would like to continue that trend for the foreseeable future, then Susan Hutchison is the perfect candidate for state party chair. • • • I think there is more to it than that. After all, voting for "Democrats" is my "concession" to the "right wing". In other words, while I see the point about labels, and while I acknowledge the general lament that "people are stupid", I generally don't think them that pathetic and helplessly idiotic. Okay, maybe Republicans, but I'm trying not to identify an idea (e.g., conservatism) according to the behavior of its adherents; after all, that would be unfair, wouldn't it? To judge a label by its decisions and actions? I mean, sure, it's just an innocent label, right? And we cannot possibly hold accountable the people who make up that label. That's just not fair to them, either. Or maybe I should set that all aside and evaluate you according to your beliefs, decisions, and actions. Thus: Why are you advocating willful dishonesty in the public discourse? Yeah. Why are you standing up for liars, con artists, and aspiring fraudsters? You know, since I'm evaluating you according to your beliefs, decisions, and actions. Or are you going to tell me how unfair I'm being by expecting that the mere idea of honesty will enter the discussion at some point?
I'm not. I'm not. Any more than a democrat is supporting lying under oath. (Because, after all, he must be a Clinton supporter, right?) See, that's the thing that many people don't get. Just because you voted for Clinton doesn't mean you support lying under oath. Just because you voted for Bush doesn't mean you support lying about WMD's.
What Plays in Peoria Of course you would. Given what plays in Peoria, though, the twenty-first century is getting tired of waiting for Illinois to catch up. • • • Perhaps not intentionally. But take your argument back to the topic post in the proper context, instead of the one you've invented for it. Susan Hutchison ... • ... supports an initiative that strikes party consideration from county election, and then ... • ... runs for county executive, attempting to falsely align herself with popular political policies she opposed, hoping to use the new law to hide from voters the fact of her political contributions to ethically questionable political causes, and also to separate her policy outlook from her candidacy ... ... and you say: "Good! We need more people who do not blindly adopt the platform of either party. Too many people have knee-jerk responses to any mention of 'republican' or 'democrat.'" So, guess what, dude? Sure, you might say that's not what you're trying to do, but that's what you're doing. The idea that one could possibly take— • I don't want you to believe that, if I'm elected, I'll do what I'm really going to do; instead, I want you to believe all these lies I'm telling you in order to establish the foundation for a contract. —and turn it into— • Good! We need more people who do not blindly adopt the platform of either party. Too many people have knee-jerk responses to any mention of 'republican' or 'democrat.' —is indicative of how deeply your partisan coloring stains your notion of reality. Someone gets caught trying to lie to people and, hey—just because she's a Republican, is it, then?—you're going to defend the liar? Okay, fine. But when people wonder why you're defending liars, you don't get to lie and say, "I'm not." (Also, let us know, please, if the "rebranders" of the Democratic Party try to hide their party affiliation on the ballot. You know, like, instead of, "Dino Rossi — Republican", something like, "Dino Rossi — prefers GOP Party". You know, because since then, I haven't seen a single damn event for this mysterious Grand Old Party Party.)
Sorry, but I still cannot see how this lends itself to corruption. If a candidate wants to believe in creationism, he or she has that right, and the people have the right to either decide they like that candidate or not. Let that remain for the educated voter to decide. We can start actually educating the public in many ways; rather than demonizing what they say or simply snicker at the opposition viewpoint. You rather exemplify the point. In saying that one is a republican or democrat, the automatic assumptions are brought forth. Don't believe me? Your own words in another post are that Illinios needs to catch up with the 21st century, because some would trust republicans before democrats? Irrespetive of your intention, the point is made. You know he or she is a republican and, you know about them, right? I do not care about your local politics, although from what I am reading in your posts the point is being made in your state. The democrats have effectively demonized the opposition party and only democrats are winning elections. Now I would be untruthful, if I said it was all due to that, as I am sure in some cases the republican candidate did enough to impugn his/her own name. But I refuse to believe that is the case all the time, surely some of the attitude that. you know voting republican is akin to slime of a brontosaurus sneeze. In short, no ideas are put to the forefront for an honest debate. Its just, well, you know what republicans believe?
