The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |

Politics & Government

Our network sites | Advanced

Postman on Politics

Chief political reporter David Postman explores state, regional and national politics.

E-mail| About the blog | From the archive| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

June 23, 2008 4:46 PM

FOX News on Republicans shying away from party brand

Posted by David Postman

FOX News this afternoon reported on Republicans’ efforts at re-branding themselves on the primary and general election ballots. Dino Rossi is one of “scores” of Republicans that correspondent Dan Springer says are “leaving the Republican moniker behind.” Anchor Britt Hume said the Republicans were "shying away from the Republican Label." And that may be a bigger crime on that network than failing to wear a flag pin.

When Rossi filed to run, he listed his party preference as GOP Party.

Curtis Fackler, a Republican candidate for insurance commissioner and the chairman of the Spokane County Republican Party, will be listed with no party preference. He told Springer that there are 30 percent of voters in the state who will vote against a Republican “no matter what.”

And we want to get around that. We want them to read our statements and see where we’re coming from.

Rossi says in the piece that Democrats are insulting the intelligence of state voters by suggesting they don’t know what GOP means. But, as it has been pointed out, even some people who should know better have been ignorant of that Republican shorthand. And Fackler's comments certainly make it clear that at least some Republicans are using their new freedom on the ballot to distance themselves from the battered party brand.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by JimD

5:19 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Rossi wants it both ways.
He says democrats insult republicans by suggesting they don't know what GOP means...but is using GOP instead of "Republican" to take advantage of that very ignorance.
Maybe by calling foul on the dissing of "republican" voter's intelligence, he feels no need to similarly defend the swing and undecided's he's trying to court by disguising his republican heritage, whom he must believe are ignorant that GOP is synonymous with republican.
Oh what a twisted tale we weave...

I'm glad this is getting some coverage, especially on FOX.
Knowledge is power, and knowing that GOPs are republicans gives voters the power to vote otherwise.

Posted by John

6:13 PM, Jun 23, 2008

The democrat have used "d" only on signs but that's ok right!

Who would be proud of being Democrat I may ask?
Seems like 2004 you couldn't find a "d" even on a sign.

Both have short comings however the Republicans are far better even in the worst of dark days.
When the little "d" sheep find out who BHO is then will see. He has flipped so many times where calling him flap jack BO!

Posted by cm

8:01 PM, Jun 23, 2008

John, you need to get out more

Posted by elmo fan

11:21 PM, Jun 23, 2008

This was a tactical blunder by Rossi. He is going to get tied up trying to explain this away and there is no easy way to parse it. Look for some very comical videos on the local news this fall as we hear Dino try to explain he really is a republican but likes GOP because......

Posted by John

11:27 PM, Jun 23, 2008

If it is bleak to be a Republican in 2008, BHO is in bigger trouble than we thought. He should be beating Senator McCain by 50 points.

Instead, he and wife are repackaging themselves, and avoiding the media.

Over the weekend BHO learned you have to win an election to have the President Seal at your podium.

Let’s face it why did the DNC allow BHO to win so far cause he is black and the polls shows Republicans in trouble they thought he would be better than Hillary even with his baggage and being from Chicago he knows how to bring the money in under the radar.

One must ask if he is so great without a teleprompter why did he refuse an old mans request for town hall meetings.

He is a bumbling fool without help.

BHO is the Republican dream in a bad year. The liberals will lose again but this time it’s due to guilt.

We need to wait until the convention to see if the DNC has a change of heart bad word change of taste.

Posted by Daniel K

8:13 AM, Jun 24, 2008

Obviously some in the Republican Party didn't get the memo that when you have a strategy like this you don't spill the beans and reveal it is a deliberate attempt to run away from the party name.

Then again, perhaps they didn't get the memo because of the confusion of who is actually in the party and who isn't!

Posted by JimD

9:00 AM, Jun 24, 2008

Think it's even more than that.
The republicans have to cohesive political consensus of what they represent anymore.
What does it mean to be a republican?

A continuous string of sex and finance scandals?
A knee-jerk, cowboy foreign policy?
Tax breaks for the wealthy at a time of war while the deficit goes off the charts?
Re-writing the constitution?
Deregulation to the point we're allowing poison imports and have virtually no effective border screening?
Corporate governance by and for those with the deepest pockets?
Myth and religion over science?
Political surrogates in the form of FOX News and its ilk, promoting all manner of distortion and propaganda with screaming midgets posing as journalists?

The list is endless.
No wonder republicans are running away from the brand.
As I (and many others) have predicted for some time;
We're seeing the end of the republican party as we've known it.
The era of republican conservatism has come to the end of its natural life cycle.
(Actually, crashing and burning is more like it.)
Perhaps abandoning the big R for GOP is the first step in building what is in-effect a whole new party.
Nice name.
Now they have to figure out what they represent and why Americans should support it.

Posted by Brian from Shoreline

10:29 AM, Jun 24, 2008

Curt also says that he is running as a non-partisan for Insurance Commissioner because insurance is non-partisan. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and everyone else buys insurance. In fact, we are required by the State of Washington to have it to drive on the roads here.

I think it is time to elect a candidate who is willing to shed a party label when running for an office that doesn't need and shouldn't have one. Maybe, we will get lower auto and health insurance premiums from a someone who has proven qualifications for the job and has stood up to the industry.

Posted by John

12:00 PM, Jun 24, 2008

jimd, is on his ramblings again but is right since the "d’s" took control of the government in 2006 the country went down the tube he is right for once, can’t wait until the shameless “d’s” are kicked out.
Even his bro BHO likes high gas prices can you imagine the price of gasoline would be if he prevails.

Posted by bud

1:36 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Rossi is a loser. Proven fact.

Posted by Bothsides

4:09 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Take a breath JimD, at present time their is an R in the white house and a very slim margin for the D's in the senate, the party is not going away. Your other rants are very nice, typical talking points from the liberal left with nothing to back them up, re-writing the constitution, you're joking right, you can say it as many times as you want, it won't make it fact though.

Posted by JimD

6:25 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Well, in the literal sense - how about re-writing the Constitution to prohibit same sex marriage?
Is that stated objective by most republicans not a FACT, Bothsides?

And in the interpretative sense, how about denying our prisoners of war the jurist prudence to which they're entitled at Guantanamo - which the Supreme Court just ruled "unconstitutional". (meaning the constitution does not allow it as it's written)
Remember that FACT?

How many more examples of attempting to rewrite the Constitution would you like?
Of course it's FACT.
Are you not aware that attempts to rewrite or subvert the constitution are a leading complaint against republicans - particularly the Bush administration - that has helped fuel the party's decent into outright contempt by a majority of Americans?

Posted by John

8:01 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Where do you find this information about re-writing the constitution? Are you still into comic books?

Posted by JimD

10:09 PM, Jun 24, 2008


Obviously my previous post wasn't simple enough.
Let me spell it out real slow...

Many republicans want to pass a constitutional ammendment to prohibit same sex marriage.

That IS changing or re-writing the constitution.

Got it?

Posted by John

11:55 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Many republicans want to pass a constitutional ammendment to prohibit same sex marriage.

You made it sound like it was a back door deal, I have no problem about that one !

Cuba is not part of the USA ask Castro !

The SC vote was 5-4 . the 5 are not correct and history will prove that.

Posted by Bothsides

8:13 AM, Jun 25, 2008

Since when should OUR constitution cover the rights of foreign prisoners of war. You libs keep spewing this bogus constitution crap in order to justify impeachment, however, there isn't anything there, therefore, no impeachment. Keep digging, maybe you can come up with something like you did for Scooter Libby, they couldn't find that he outed Valerie Plame so they did the next best thing, caught him making contradicting statements and tried him for it.

Posted by JimD

8:33 AM, Jun 25, 2008

So now you're admitting the republicans DO want to rewrite the constitution after all...?
Thank you.
The bigger point of course, is that Bush and his ilk view the constitution as an inconvenient set of rules they have to work around, instead of the document they swore to revere and uphold.
They're constantly - and rightly - getting set-back on their attempts to pervert our constitution.
And that's just the attempts we know about to-date.
No doubt, when Obama and the democrats take our country back from these hacks, we'll uncover untold crimes against the country that have been hidden by what's arguably the most secretive, duplicitous and incompetent administration in our young country's history.
Thank God our founding fathers mandated a judicial branch of government that keeps in-check those who'd prefer to alter our founding principles for the political expedience of the moment.

Posted by upchuck

9:53 AM, Jun 25, 2008

bothsides says: "libs keep spewing this bogus constitution crap"

i see you hold our county's founding document in very high regard : O

the point is not to advocate on the behalf of potential terrorists, but to advocate on behalf of a constitutional american government with 3 co-equal branches to deal with them. despite your most extreme rhetoric, it's obvious that judges and congress are not in league with terrorists. so why are you so adamant that constitutional checks and balances should be thrown out the window when regarding actions of the bush admin? would you want a president obama to be free to jail anyone he wants without judical oversight? don't you want scalia and thomas to be allowed to have something to say if obama crosses any lines? shouldn't the country be free to elect a R congress with powers of oversight if they see a need to put a check on where obama and a dem congress start taking us?

Posted by Elliott

11:58 AM, Jun 25, 2008

“Since when should OUR constitution cover the rights of foreign prisoners of war.”

Since our constitution was ratified and contained these words: “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.

It’s very simple. The Geneva Convention requires that we treat POWs according to certain standards. We signed the Geneva Convention. Our own constitution requires that we obey the Geneva Convention as “the Supreme Law of the Land”. Got it?

Posted by John

12:00 PM, Jun 25, 2008

to jimd/upchuck,
Will one of you win this battle within you?

to jimd,
"So now you're admitting the republicans DO want to rewrite the constitution after all...? "

It's called amendment to the US Constitution your used to the sleazily scams the “d”’s do
This is not the same no matter how you twist it.

Posted by Bothsides

12:13 PM, Jun 25, 2008

So the Geneva convention mirrors the constitution.......I don't think so. Got it.

"would you want a president obama to be free to jail anyone he wants without judical oversight?"

Upchuck, absolutely, if he wants to arrest someone from another country that is a suspected terrorist I have no problem with that, if it's necessary to ensure the safety of the US than by all means Obama, arrest them and do what's necessary, that's what we elected you for. You say "anyone he wants", GWB is not arresting anyone he wants and sending them to Cuba, these are non US citizens that are not "protected" by our constitutional rights.

Of course I have respect for the constitution, I just fail to see GWB re-writing it, and the evidence, or lack there of i.e. no impeachment supports that.

Posted by JimD

4:42 PM, Jun 25, 2008's like saying hardly any illegal aliens are coming across the border because look at how few we catch?

Look - impeachment would throw the country into paralysis at a time when we must stay especially focused.
That fact that some oppose conducting a Senate trial for what they acknowledge ARE impeachable offenses, in the middle of everything else we're trying to deal with, is hardly evidence the President isn't an impeachable, constitutional pervert.
Guilty of war crimes too.

We're almost through this disgraceful national nightmare.
There'll be plenty of time to try and convict the traitors and crooks after they're out of power and can no longer hide behind it.

Posted by Bothsides

8:40 PM, Jun 25, 2008

Yeah, right, the D's would jump at the chance to throw W out. You've got to be kidding, the D's are really thinking about "the good of the country", now that's LOL. They will do anything to be in power, they love the fact that gas is over four bucks a gallon, they love the fact that the economy is faltering, they won't stop at anything to seize control.

Posted by jimD

9:11 PM, Jun 25, 2008

"...these are non US citizens that are not "protected" by our constitutional rights.
Actually, that's not correct.
While they do not have the civil rights of citizenship, they DO have the right to hear the charges against them and be afforded a legal proceeding to address them - which they've been denied to date - so sayeth the Constitution according to the Supreme Court's recent ruling.

If you want to argue with the Supreme Court justices, keep in mind that only TWO were appointed by democratic administrations during the last FORTY YEARS. (did you know that?)
It is now the law of the land, as interpreted by an almost entirely republican-selected Supreme Court.

I think your complaint is with the founding fathers.
And they did not intend that we pick up foreigners and simply hold them indefinitely with no charges, no representation, under documented cases of severe torture, and frequently on the flimsiest of evidence - sometimes fingered for revenge by a rival tribe or affiliation when they've done nothing wrong at all (some at least).
That isn't America.

There are lesser countries that do allow this - dictatorships mostly - and we've never before stooped to their level, and hopefully never will again once Bush's reign is finished in a few months.

I don't see how you can "have respect for the constitution" when you don't know what it represents or care how know how it's been stomped on by this current administration.
Seems more like contempt for the Constitution to me - which is certainly in lock-step with GWB and his band of thugs.

Posted by upchuck

11:52 PM, Jun 25, 2008

the point is bothsides, that the only way you have to show that gw is not sanctioning the arrest of anyone he wants to is beacause his administration says so. our constitution requires more. he must act in accordance with our contitution and laws written by congress. and the judicial branch has the authority to review and affirm or deny the allegations levied by the administration in accordance with those laws and the constitution. and no one is saying tha there will wont be differences in how citizens, foreigners, or pows are treated. and certainly no one is clamouring for the release of terrorists!!! but in all cases the executive cannot act withough oversight.

this really suggests how tremendously deep and profound the failure of the bush presidency is: what other president would either fail or not even try to get the legal and neccessary approval from congress or the supreme court for their efforts in stopping TERRORISTS after 9/11???

whether or not this course in the 'war on terror' was chosen out of ignorance, foolishness, or less innocently, it is certainly an "UN-american" path to tread.

Posted by JimD

8:43 AM, Jun 26, 2008

You give Biush's intentions more benefit of the doubt than most.
I find it inconceivable that a relatively educated man, surrounded by lawyers and sitting in the oval office, doesn't understand the letter and spirit of the Constitution of The United States.
To the contrary, the only explanation for repeatedly and consistently breaking his oath of office is a disregard for all manner of constitutional intent - not to mention the oath he swore on a Bible.

And while some may argue that the threat of religious fundamentalist extremism justifies such action, the truth is - he didn't have to trash the constitution and our founding principles to fight this "war".
Every perversion of our principles and legal ethics could have been avoided, and in most cases could have better addressed the objective.
Can you think of a better way to undermine our international standing as a moral, just country, than needlessly locking people away without any specific charge what so ever?
He clearly chose this route the same way he's operated the rest of his life - lying, cheating and deceiving.
With profound respect for recovering alcoholics who more effectively treat the moral illness along with the psychological and physical - there are some like Bush who stop drinking and drugging, but never change the duplicitous character they developed while living that lie.

I better stop there...

Recent entries

Jun 26, 08 - 06:53 AM
Cantwell has Countrywide mortgage

Jun 25, 08 - 03:01 PM
Italian group says Dems Rossi attack is "racist"

Jun 25, 08 - 02:01 PM
Gregoire ad says she "cleaned up Dino Rossi's mess"

Jun 25, 08 - 10:36 AM
More than $1 million in union-funded PAC

Jun 24, 08 - 04:21 PM
Michelle Obama to raise money for Gregoire







Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Browse the archives

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008


Buy a link here