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 17, 2008 2:54 PM

Nothing to see here

Posted by David Postman

I'll be away from the blog until Monday.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by Turbine

5:50 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Nothing to see here...that must be the title of Dave's Post on the TRIBE BRIBE scandal.

Posted by jan

7:59 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Too bad. I was waiting to see whether John McCain wanted to drill for oil off the Olympic Peninsula and the San Juan Islands and whether any current member of the state media would bother to ask the obvious. Looks like the President now deserves the same question.

McCain wrote of Florida, California and Washington today by advocating an tired old plan to drill oil offshore. Anybody walked on the oil tar stained beaches of Santa Barbara any time in the past 20 years?

Posted by C. Calloway

9:37 PM, Jun 17, 2008


They are merely indicating their preference for the federal ban to be removed and allowing states to pursue this option.

Therein lies the obstacle for Democrats, they complain about high oil prices but are vehemently against the options that can have an immediate impact. A true environmentalist would prefer high gas prices as it discourages automotive use and carbon dioxide.

Alternative fuels will take well over a decade to have any noticeable effect on gas prices. An interesting fact via National Geographic, China increased oil consumption by 600% between 1996 and 2006. The only way to lower gas prices is to increase oil production and build more refineries. By the way, this option reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

Having said all that, this is a choice of options. Each is fraught with drawbacks. Mr. McCain's stand is to allow the people and their representatives make that choice.

Posted by Luvya

7:19 AM, Jun 18, 2008

Gregoire is bold enough to do something like the TRIBE BRIBE because she knows guys like Postman are either too gutless or too unethical (neither is good David!) to acknowledge it.
I thought it was the Media's job to challenge those IN POWER David?
Have you ever read the Journalist Code of Ethics David?
I didn't think so.

Posted by upchuck

11:02 AM, Jun 18, 2008

hey cc,

you are wrong about transportation alternatives - i own a car that runs on used fryer oil from restaurants and my neighbor drives an all electric car. true that hydrogen is 'about a decade away' and it will always be becasue it is a decoy to distract us from the fact that electric car technology is already ready to go, those who say it isn't are lying or mistaken. the big fear of the oil and auto companies is that if we use electric cars we'll be able to get our energy from the public municipal power grids rather than the private energy delivery system of exxon and co that gives lee raymond and pals their 100 million dollar salaries.

Posted by C. Calloway

1:04 PM, Jun 18, 2008


I agree that alternatives are out there, and encourage people to seek them out, but I do not believe they will have a significant impact on how Americans use oil over the next 10 years and beyond.

I am guessing there 50 - 75 million gas powered cars on the road right now. Realistically, the majority of those vehicles as well as replacements will still be on the road in ten years.

Oil is not going away. If people want lower fuel prices, the best short and long term option is increase the supply.

My point is that due to high global demand, the quickest way to reduce gas prices is increasing the supply.

Posted by upchuck

1:25 PM, Jun 18, 2008

well, it would also take 10+ years to develop the hard to reach reserves in anwar and the continental shelf... plus it puts our environment at huge risk. on the other hand electric car technology is already here but the auto manufacturers refuse to give us consumers the choice.

Posted by JimD

2:20 PM, Jun 18, 2008

I think we'll see a quick turn-around by auto makers offering at least plug-in, hybrid vehicles.
They respond to demand, and the heavy gas guzzlers were still in high demand until recently.
No one's forcing folks to buy these monsters.
it's what they've wanted - well beyond $3 gas.
But $5 gas seems to be the tipping point.
Ford just frantically announced huge cuts in it's SUV and truck line, and so too will other manufacturers in the near future I suspect, as consumers finally begin passing them by for smaller, lighter vehicles.
Drive by a Dodge or Ford dealer lately?
They've got pickups and SUVs parked on top of each other with huge discount pricing to move.

Good points - except your comment that more domestic drilling would produce "immediate" supply is wrong. There are a few places where wells could be tapped and flowing in five years or even a little less. But they would produce a miniscule amount of oil relative to our current consumption.
Most of our off-shore options would take around ten years to become productive, and their output would still be tiny in comparison to our usage.
Even if these wells were already in place, even the oil executives are saying it might only impact price by 25-cents per gallon - so great is the influence of emerging oil consumers (China, India..) on our current demand problems.

One option never mentioned would be to nationalize our domestic oil production to separate it from the demand pricing of the world oil market.
We could then supplement our cheap domestic production (1/3) with oil purchased on the world marked (2/3) which would dramatically lower the net cost.
But I suspect this "socialized" approach - even though it would dramatically reduce prices at the pump - would be considered when pigs fly....or we hit $10 gasoline and $12 diesel... hmmm...

Posted by John

4:29 PM, Jun 18, 2008

Not to worry about oil companies the Democrats have a plan to take over the refineries BO has already said he wants to take over the oil companies. The special interest that backs the DNC will sit back and allow this to happen. Mean while we the Americans will be sent back to the Stone Age for our energy needs. The environment whacko will never allow a wind or solar grid to become active in the USA. The lawsuits to stop this have already been drafted. Do you really think this green stuff will survive a democrat-controlled government? The fun is just beginning.
PS saw gregoire last night she was shocked at the tribe bribe report....... Got to love the dems for their honesty.

Posted by JimD

5:20 PM, Jun 18, 2008

New Subject:
GAO finds "a number of significent errors" in tanker contract bidding process....recommends rebidding the contract.

Posted by William

7:52 PM, Jun 18, 2008

obama , is studdddddddering again.


Posted by John

8:26 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Where have all children gone?

naral, gays, anti-guns

The DNC put the squeeze on them this year.

How dose it feel to lose your rights of free speech in America?

Posted by jimD

8:59 AM, Jun 19, 2008

The GAO's criticism of the tanker contract is more blistering than anyone expected.
Even McCain now says the Air Force has to go back and re-do it...although he STILL inexplicably suggests the taxpayers would be better off financing a foreign plane that (it turns out) is no cheaper or more effective than Boeing's proposal.
Is there no end to this man's conflict of interest or how little he understands the economy?
The GAO said the tanker contract decision was flawed because the Air Force:

• Used criteria other than those stipulated to assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes.

• Erroneously concluded that Northrop offered lower total program costs, when Boeing's cost was lower.

• Improperly gave the larger Northrop plane extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters.

• Failed to prove that the Northrop plane could refuel all the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.

• Conducted "misleading and unequal discussions" by providing Northrop with more information than Boeing.

• Gave Northrop an improper break by dismissing its failure to sign a required aircraft-maintenance plan as just "an administrative oversight."

• Inappropriately rejected Boeing's estimate of its engineering costs and made "unreasonable" increases in that estimate...."


Posted by John

9:11 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Hussein breaks promise of Federal public financing system in the general election,
He promise to run a non-attack campaign too what’s next. Just another politician boys no change!

Posted by C. Calloway

9:13 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Re: Boeing:

A good summary of why McCain stopped the original Boeing contract:

I know this is a sensitive issue for the State, but his actions helped unveil the Government's attempt to pay $6 billion more for the tankers than their value (To steal a line from the Left, "how many children could have used that $6 billion?).

The illegal action resulted in a $615 million fine on Boeing, the CEO had to resign, the CFO went to prison, as well as the key Air Force liason.

I want these jobs to stay in Washington as well, but to blame McCain for exposing this...come on.

Posted by JimD

9:40 AM, Jun 19, 2008

No no... No one to my knowledge is suggesting the scandal shouldn't have been exposed.
Indeed, we can be grateful the fraud was uncovered.
However - McCain didn't' actually uncover it.
Boeing found it in an internal audit and alerted the Air force and proper authorities of their findings - that's how McCain found out about it.
Boeing not only made the scandal public, they assisted in the prosecution of those involved.

The problem for McCain begins there. Under his direction the Air Force created a number of situations that insured Boeing's re-vamped management couldn't compete on a level playing field.
The GOA report confirms this in no uncertain terms (above).
But that's not all.
McCain was employing Northrup/Airbus lobbyists - folks paid by Northrup/Airbus's to win the contract - while the contract was improperly steered away from new Boeing management.
But wait, there's even more.
McCain was taking huge campaign contributions (the largest paid him to date) from Northrup/Airbus while overseeing the process which the GOA says gave Northrup/Airbus a clear and unethical advantage.

The complaint is that since Boeing not only brought the scandal to everyone's attention, immediately replaced their management and helped in the prosecution of those involved, it should have been given a chance to continue competing for the contract on an equal basis with its competition.
The report clearly finds this did not happen, and recommends in the strongest terms that the Air Force go back and do it over.
Meanwhile, McCain's out there claiming he uncovered the scandal (a blatant lie), and says Boeing then came-up with an inferior, more expensive product (not true, says the GOA)....and all the while is employing Northrup/airbus lobbyists and taking campaign donations from same.
Does this pass your "both in fact and appearance" ethics test, C.Calloway?

Posted by William

10:04 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Shameful Hussein had the majority of Americans looking at him 6 months ago as a new type of politician. Over time the more we learned about him the more distaste we have for him and his wife. Like once a week another scandal appears. He has stopped talking about faith, grandma, muslims, fainting women,countrywide,kickbacks from hoods, likes the high price of gasoline.
I could go on and on with this fake.


Posted by JimD

10:52 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Don't pull any punches, William.
Keep it coming.
The pathetic disinformation about Obama and his wife are helping create a backlash against the sleaze, ignorance and bigoted slander McCain's followers are using to elect a man who represents the same.

Posted by upchuck

2:17 PM, Jun 19, 2008

ok, who knows what mccain's middle name is? seriously, i have no problem with BO's middle name, but you guys use it as if to suggest he was in league with saddamm in iraq or something. if you're going to slander by inference at least try something that is founded in some sort of truth.

...whatever one makes of obama's choice to pass on public financing, the likelyhood is that it will have make next to zero difference in changing someone's mind. those who don't like him will see it as a reason to like him less, those who already support him will likely accept his explanation (a reasonable one too ) that this allows him to accept money from the 1000's of supporters who have backed him so far and that despite the finance limits all campaigns have found ways around the rules with 527s like the infamous swift boat attacker of 04.

Posted by William

3:19 PM, Jun 19, 2008

I have no idea what you and upchuck are talking about.

You both are leaping on what the facts are if not prove me wrong.

If I supported a guy who stands for nothing and lies guess I would like to ban free speech too.

Thought he was a socialist I was wrong.

When someone running for President of America want to set rules on what we can or can’t talk about he’s not a socialists but a communist.

Where are you coming from calling me a bigot or a McCain supporter?

You don’t know jack about elections either this isn’t cuba, BHO has a convention to win.

He’s losing support from his own party and his handlers have banned reporters for interviews.
Hill, is still in the game he has a very good chance on losing.

He wants power and will stop at nothing to get it.

He has no feelings about you or your family. He has done nothing in his life to help American people. After spending 20 years in brainwashing what could you expect?


Posted by John

5:05 PM, Jun 19, 2008

Democrats drop insults as they drive by.
Never can they defend the parties platform or issues.
Just throw out insults.
Never thought upchuck was a bigot too.
Hey that's his name make what you want out of it.
if you got a complaint call BO!
He might care.

Posted by JimD

5:58 PM, Jun 19, 2008

You guys don't want to discuss anything here.
You know little, if not nothing about any of these issues - spitting out mangled versions of one-liners probably picked-up from some talk radio hack.
Pure nonsense that would be funny if not such a dramatic representation of the uninformed and ill-willed wacko-fringe that seriously believes anyone takes them seriously - let alone able to decipher their fourth-grade spelling and grammar errors, or even what they're trying to say.
I'm always up for a vigorous debate, but bring something to the table, man.
Like a dictionary, a point you wish to make, and some thought applied to how you make it.

Posted by John

6:26 PM, Jun 19, 2008

Off you medication again.
Everything was going so good then poof you went liberal again. You need to increased your medication.
I truly doubt you can handle a 8-5 job Jim or is it the grave yard shift going through trash cans that makes you so mean?

Your refusals to bring up falsehoods on BHO misgivings shows how immature and weak you are as a writer and a human being.

Have a good night hope you feel better after your nap.

Posted by JimD

6:37 PM, Jun 19, 2008

..and btw, John - it couldn't be more obvious that you're also authoring William and a couple others, including the infamous "Jim".
Same exact style, same misspellings, same grammatical errors, same words...and as the Times' tech guy can quickly determine if you don't knock it off - from the same computer and/or server.
You've been forewarned ;-)

Posted by John

7:45 PM, Jun 19, 2008


Can't take the truth that a democrat is going to lose again, get used to it. Next time pick someone who can pass the test of time for more than 6 months and be vetted.

Bring on your seattle times guy or whoever JIMD.
I thought they might track readership and they where worried about President Bush spying what a laugh!

You must sleep with one eye open and ware a tin foil hat.

Read an old book "How to make friends and influence people"

JIMD you’re a joke the democrats deserve you.

Now, get back to the trashcans and find some dinner.

Posted by C. Calloway

8:56 PM, Jun 19, 2008


I wanted to clarify. McCain is unethical because he had lobbyists on staff who eventually won the bid.

Obama is ethical because the earmark he requested for his wife's hospital was rejected.

So assuming each person had nefarious intentions, McCain is unethical because he got the contract where as Obama is clean because he failed to get the earmark?

The answer is you are a liberal, and thus have already decided deep in your soul that McCain is a heartless man and Obama is a saint.

We all appreciate your investment in the blog, but don't paint yourself as impartial. All of your opinions are weighed down by your unwilingness to find value in opposing arguments.

You might be a tad like George W. Bush in that sense. Once you make up your mind, no other evidence will sway you.

Posted by William

9:48 PM, Jun 19, 2008

The library has closed so you won’t receive this e-mail until morning.
This blog is worthless for a challenge, when it comes to obama I can't blame you for not standing up for him or her.
jim, your a coward like the terrorist being a woman in a mans clothing.


Posted by JimD

10:04 PM, Jun 19, 2008

That's a bit harsh.
But my objective is to persuade, of course - I can't deny that.

My problem with your thesis is the premise that there was any nefarious intent or deed in Obama's proposed earmark for a Chicago inner-city hospital, which his wife HAPPENED to be employed with.
He proposed 300 million for various causes around the state.
A reasonable person might conclude that as 1 of 200 equal pieces of the pie, it's unlikely he would have denied the hospital anyway.
And if his wife hadn't worked there, the hospital's registered lobbyists would still have hit him up, right?
In short - there's nothing to indicate the hospital got any special treatment from Obama - not even in the opportunity to request an earmark, since the hospital employed lobbyists to do that very thing.
It would analogous to Grunmond/Airbus losing the tanker contract despite MCain's cozy relationship with their lobbyists...except Grunmond/Airbus GOT the contract.
If you don't walk away with merchandise, a sale didn't take place.
if you DO walk away with merchandise in exchange for payment to obtain that merchandise...what was it?

Posted by upchuck

11:29 PM, Jun 19, 2008

what, i'm a bigot because i support obama over mccain?

and where do you come off painting me as an obama supporter? i might still vote for nader = )

cc, i can't speak for jimd, but i have nothing but respect for mccain as an individual and do not see him as heartless nor obama as a saint. my difference with him and other respectable conservative politicians is in political ideology. this difference is not insignificant, but it is a difference i can have with friends and family who i love dearly and have a positive relationship with.

as for the slanderous posters on here i hold a bit more contempt for them with all of their off based and ill informed accusations towards me and other liberals/progressive on here - 'take your meds', 'bigot', etc)


Posted by John

8:41 AM, Jun 20, 2008

Both of you bring up the word slander as a byproduct of your hidden agenda.
Never have you both debated any charge against BO stand on free speech or his background scandals. I view both of you and this web site including the print as progressive liberal leaning towards communism.

As for the spying by the seattle times on it viewers to this site all I can say is typical communist behavior.

JimD and upchuck I’m your worst nightmare! You can’t intimidate me with hollow threats towards me. Nothing you can say or physically do to me will stop me from slamming Idiots like you. Both of you have been warn.

As to BO he’s a bubbling fool who couldn’t beat a women for the election.

He with his wife has no backbones and with their friends the people who hate America live in the same cesspool as both you.

Have a good day!

Posted by JimD

9:12 AM, Jun 20, 2008

new subject:

By reversing his earlier decision and now deciding to forgo taxpayer money to finance his campaign, Obama's getting hit for breaking a promise, but earning kudos for rejecting taxpayer dollars and creating a large network of small donors on the Internet.
Is the increase in Internet campaign financing from small donors effectively diluting the influence of large corporate and special interest donors?
Is Obama's reversal of position just a broken promise, or a dynamic response to a better way to finance campaigns that's developed since that promise?
"...Even the Supreme Court, in a 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold measure that banned soft money from politics, recognized how difficult it is to shut off the spigot." "Money, like water, will always find an outlet," the court wrote.

These days the outlet is the Internet, which at least plays into the spirit of reform, some analysts said, and possibly does more to rein in the influence of big donors and special interests than 30 years of restrictions imposed by federal law.

While collecting contributions through the click of a button has contributed to the record-breaking sums of money raised this election, it also has made it easier for average Americans to participate...."

Posted by upchuck

9:22 AM, Jun 20, 2008

actually john, JimD has posted at lenght about the supposed Obama 'scandals'. however, i'm not sure what you're referring to on the 'free speech' rant. maybe if you could write a bit more clearly with correct spelling and grammer i could debate you on the issue, if one indeed exists.

as for potentially outing any posters who claim to be someone else, if you'd been on this blog long enough you would recall that this was a tactic used by your fellow conservative sharkasky at his blog long ago.

'hollow threats' ...seriosly???

'or physically do to me' ....huh?!?

c'mon man let's talk about politics rather than making personal insults ('take your meds') or slandering the politicians in question with completely meaningless remarks (he 'hates america')

and btw, you're not my worst nightmare... in fact this little spat of blog sparring can be a nice outlet at times (althought there's likely so many other more important and productive avenues for my political energy!) but anyway, thanks for indulging me.

Posted by John

10:03 AM, Jun 20, 2008

No, I'm new to this cesspool upchuck or whoever you are.

Both of you are the same person may I use one of your words upchuck "seriosly" Yeah, Mr. spelling ace!!!!
And same for your brother - jimD

"It would analogous to Grunmond/Airbus losing the tanker contract despite MCain's cozy relationship with their lobbyists."

Who is Grunmond and Mcain JimD?

Your both are IDIOTS !
I never insulted anyone until I read both of your posts.
I'll pray for you again!
God really loves you.
Try to have a good day it's Friday!!!! Oh I forgot you don't work, sorry.

Posted by John

11:14 AM, Jun 20, 2008

I know the times and other web sites get credit from web hits but until yesterday thanks to JimD didn’t know THE SEATTLE TIMES also tracks your IPS address. Typical of the democrats I must add.

I will not support a web site that is tracking readers IPS address.

I have faith that BO, you two idiots with George Soros will be together one day.

Posted by upchuck

11:32 AM, Jun 20, 2008

ok, you got me on that spelling error there, john = )

still wondering what your charge is against obama regarding free speech?

and i'm sure that IF the seattle times takes JimD's suggestion to check your IP address it would be a laughable effort in comparison to the illegal snooping conducted by bush's nsa and fbi.

ok, i'm off to go drive my cadilac with all of my children that i had out of wedlock to pick up my food stamps and welfare check = ) = ) = )
**(bonus points if you know which former president's racist comment i'm referencing)**

Posted by John

12:02 PM, Jun 20, 2008

"still wondering what your charge is against obama regarding free speech?"
The BHO Doctrine what we can and can't talk about him or his wife. If you still don't know or can't find it look again at the DemocRats _underground web site . I never been there but will bet you'll find the suppression of free speech I've talked about when it about BHO past life!
I have no idea what or who your talking about again

"ok, i'm off to go drive my cadilac with all of my children that i had out of wedlock to pick up my food stamps and welfare check = ) = ) = )
**(bonus points if you know which former president's racist comment i'm referencing)**
I will not reply to you or your brother again.

The times tracking is Appalling!!!

When did JIMD first hear about this?Who at the TIMES leaked this ? How many years has this been going on without the public knowledge? We Must have hearings on this NOW!

Posted by JimD

3:15 PM, Jun 20, 2008

new subject:

By reversing his earlier decision and now deciding to forgo taxpayer money to finance his campaign, Obama's getting hit for breaking a promise, but earning kudos for rejecting taxpayer dollars and creating a large network of small donors on the Internet.
Is the increase in Internet campaign financing from small donors effectively diluting the influence of large corporate and special interest donors?
Is Obama's reversal of position just a broken promise, or a dynamic response to a better way to finance campaigns that's developed since that promise?
"...Even the Supreme Court, in a 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold measure that banned soft money from politics, recognized how difficult it is to shut off the spigot." "Money, like water, will always find an outlet," the court wrote.

These days the outlet is the Internet, which at least plays into the spirit of reform, some analysts said, and possibly does more to rein in the influence of big donors and special interests than 30 years of restrictions imposed by federal law.

While collecting contributions through the click of a button has contributed to the record-breaking sums of money raised this election, it also has made it easier for average Americans to participate...."

Posted by JimD

4:01 PM, Jun 20, 2008

...continued -- additional facts for Bothsides...

"...McCain finance chairman Tom Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left Loeffler's lobbying firm to be McCain's finance director, both began lobbying for the parent company of Airbus in 2007, Senate records show...
William Ball, a former secretary of the Navy and frequent McCain surrogate on the trail, also lobbied for Airbus, as did John Green, who recently took a leave from Ogilvy Public Relations to serve as McCain's legislative liaison...
McCain has steadfastly said his role in the process has been one of a neutral arbiter. Tuesday, McCain said he had "nothing to do" with the winning Airbus contract other than insisting on a fair process...
Airbus parent EADS North America more than tripled its contributions to U.S. lawmakers after 2004, as they pursued the Air Force contract, according to an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). McCain was the TOP INDIVIDUAL RECIPIENT of contributions from the company in the 2008 election cycle...
McCain has acknowledged sending two letters to Defense Department officials urging... officials (2006) to change their criteria for evaluating bidders for the tanker contract..."
Note: That mid-negotiation criteria change requested by McCain was one of the "improper" flaws in the contract process according to GAO, which now necessitates re-bidding.
Nice try, McCain.

Posted by JimD

4:02 PM, Jun 20, 2008

..oops, wrong thread. sorry.

Posted by William

4:40 PM, Jun 20, 2008

It’s disgusting for them to spy on us for profit or other despicable motives.

Our privacy has been violated by the Seattle Times.

Even jimd or whoever he is should be upset.


Posted by JimD

5:36 PM, Jun 20, 2008

John-William-Jim...and any other names you've used,

This is private property belonging to the Seattle Times, just like your home is your private property.
We are guests.
You have no more right to constitutionally protected free speech on this blog, than someone has a right to crash a gathering in your home to hurl "free speech" insults at you and your guests.
This is a commercial blog - not the public square.
Having said that, David is an extremely tolerant site administrator, and to date the only thing of your's he has removed is your wish that McCain had been tortured more in Vietnam, which you posted in some Machiavellian attempt to discredit "liberals" named Jim...or whatever you were doing.

We're on the honor system here.
I'd suggest you show some honor by participating as the site intends - discussing POLITICS.
If your only interest is hurling insults, may I suggest "", a trucker's I used to moderate for.
Be warned - you'll have to register, agree to rules of membership and clean up your act a little.
Pull the crap you've pulled here, and you'll get booted.
Even truck drivers have their standards, and you can't just go around insulting folks with no other purpose than to act like an idiot.
But it's still a better match to your style and interests than Postman on Politics, since you have no apparent interest in the civil discussion of politics.

Posted by John

8:40 AM, Jun 21, 2008


To accuse anyone without justification of saying that about Senator John McCain is indecent.

I’m calling on Mr. Postman, if he has any integrity to ban you from this site.

You’re disgusting little kid who hides behind a keyboard and drops bombs.

I plan on monitoring this site to make sure your banned!

If not, I’ll proceed with further action against you and the Times.

Posted by John

8:55 AM, Jun 21, 2008

I insist MR. POSTMAN you have JIMD apologize to me then banned him.

I don’t want to leave this malice open ended as you did.

Posted by JimD

9:46 AM, Jun 21, 2008

LOL... You, of all the posters here, have no standing to call slander - even if it did apply.
Of course, your actually identity is not at any risk since you post under a pseudonym like everyone else.
I can forgive your ignorance about the Internet and such matters.
But The Seattle Times may not be as generous with someone who's added meaningless threats of malice to your history of posts clearly intended to pervert the blog's purpose - political discussion.

The exchange of ideas and concepts regarding the posted stories?

Sometime drifting off-subject with loosely related topics of disagreement?

Robust, sometimes heated, occasionally angry debate?

Occasional name-calling with a legitimate, argumentative purpose?

Exploiting the open-access, direct-posting honor system with a continuous string of insults under multiple pseudonym containing no discernable political content what so ever?
I doubt it.

Posted by John

10:37 AM, Jun 21, 2008


You’re a hopeless depressed person.

God, will forgive you, as I

Have a nice weekend :)

Posted by JimD

12:54 PM, Jun 21, 2008

Back to politics (still - new subject:

"OMAHA, Neb. -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday he would consider serving as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate if asked...
Hagel's vocal criticism of the Bush administration since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has touched off speculation that if Obama were to pick a Republican running mate, it might be Hagel.
Hagel wrote in "America: Our Next Chapter" that the invasion of Iraq was "the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence."
He said Friday that he and Obama also have differences....
"But what this country is going to have to do is come together next year, and the next president is going to have to bring this country together to govern with some consensus," Hagel said. ...
He hasn't endorsed Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumed Republican nominee..."

Interesting idea...?

Posted by Bruce Lloyd

8:30 AM, Jun 22, 2008


The campaign for both Senator Obama and Senator McCain is just starting. Let us all remember there are 18 Million voters out here (nationwide) including myself who were avid Hillary Clinton supporters, and most of us still are.

I will review where we were just two weeks ago, and most of us are “still there”.

First we will start off with the subject of press coverage and non-coverage, and we conclude with a disgraced DNC.

Hillary Clinton was not chosen as the Democratic Nominee for President largely due to factors beyond her control. All the following factors were involved, equally. Horrendous negative sexism coverage by the press, the press falling (hook line and sinker) for the euphoria of the Barack Obama mega-revivals where 75,000 people would show up screaming and hollering “yes we can” and with women fainting in the aisles, the press failing to challenge, explore, and write about Mr. Obama’s thin credentials which include his job as an Illinois State legislator where he voted “present” at least 130 times on important votes on legislation where he avoided taking a stand, his ONE speech in 2002 when he was still in Illinois when he said he was opposed to a war effort in Iraq, and then we have the “conspiracy” that I and others are suggesting that emanated from the Democratic National Committee under the guise of leadership by Chairman Howard Dean, which I write about below.

I think for Hillary Clinton to have accomplished what she did is remarkable, and speaks volumes for her character, leadership, the qualities, knowledge, and skill she could have brought to the Presidency. I feel the American people lost for now a great candidate. In my opinion, and the opinion of 18 Million other voters who were allowed to vote and our votes were counted by the Democratic National Committee as we voted for Hillary Clinton, the candidate who has now been appointed as the front runner is not the most qualified.

If Mr. Obama wants to win in November, he should realize how thin his resume is, and how thin and weak his support is, he should make nice to Hillary Clinton, invite her to be on the ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate, and offer her some good meaningful work to do in a new administration.

Do I think Mr. Obama will do that? As of now, absolutely not. He and his hordes of advisers won't "get it".

Now onto the disgraced Democratic National Committee

The DNC is a disgrace, and they think we don’t know.

In my opinion, Howard Dean and his other sycophants at the DNC disgraced themselves on the Florida and Michigan voter mess. With an election this close, they should have found a way to count their votes. Voters went and voted. Oh yes, I read all the screaming going on by the hyped up bloggers who had all the answers (the answers they wanted), but that still doesn’t recognize that if those voters had been recognized, the delegate count would have been about even, the stampede of the super delegates trying to follow Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson (serving obviously in his last term) would have been slowed, or could have been stopped.

Hillary Clinton was prepared to go through a revote in both states. Mr. Obama refused, of course. He knew he would lose AGAIN. Note: On the first vote, he lost in both states.

Howard Dean and his top sycophants were clearly in the tank for Barack Obama.

And now you (the DNC) want our money….. and support.

You DNC folks are living in “la-la” land.

No thank you. Good thing you moved to Chicago. That's a nice quiet place. No corruption there. Maybe we can forget you.

And I remind everyone for the umpteenth time, in Florida it was the Republican Controlled Legislature and Republican Governor that forced through the primary election date to be one week earlier than it should have been. And Dr. Dean and his DNC sycophants said there was nothing they could do. Of course, they were in the tank for Obama. What a disgrace.

In closing, I invite the reader to an article just published in, by Harry Siegel, June 19th, titled: “Obama Could Win the Vote, Lose the Election”.

I believe for the Democratic Party to win the Presidency in November, Senator Clinton should be invited in as an official member of the team, offered the Vice President spot as a candidate, and asked to take over something major such as Health Care Reform on January 20th 2009.

Posted by JimD

1:37 PM, Jun 22, 2008


I too supported Clinton and am very disappointed the voters didn't swing more in her favor.
The algorithm of qualifications and experience facing voters was a bit more complex than just who's "best qualified" - a subjective determination at best - and this won't be the first time we've entered a general with a significant portion of the party not seeing their favorite candidate at the top of the ticket.
Such is democracy.

However, the process is virtually complete, the voters had their say, and under difficult circumstances created in-part by both candidates in measuring the votes, Obama is now the presumed nominee.

I take Clinton at her word that electing a democrat is more important than electing her per se, and that she will fulfill her duty to the country to that end.

I strongly doubt she will be offered VP, or would want to accept it, in-part since it would involve a more in-depth vetting of the Clinton's finances - including her husband's foundation - than she faced running for the top of the ticket.
The offer is also compounded by her perceived attempt to hoild it hostage to her follower's support - reinforced by your suggestion of the same - to the extent Obama would look weak and insecure if he offered it to her.
And it's a shame she did that, since she's obviously most qualified to take the reigns in the event she had to.
Poor strategy on her part, in my opinion.
No way he CAN offer it to her now.

More likely, she'd want to run for Governor of NY anyway - an executive head of state not unlike POTUS - where she could further her qualifications and resume with transferable experience to her next run for Pres.

It was announced yesterday that Clinton is meeting with Obama this week to plan her contribution to the campaign, which will include a vigorous campaign schedule and a joint appearance before next weekend.

I hope her most ardent supporters follow this lead in putting the interests of the country ahead of any ill-considered revenge for not achieving what once seemed like a sure thing.
It's what she's requested of us, what she will be doing herself, and what's clearly is in the best interest of the country - unless you believe McCain is a suitable alternative.

Recent polls show Obama with an ever increasing lead among women - by a wide margin - and is pulling away from McCain among all likely voters.
We're moving on - as we have no other choice if we're to wrestle the country back from the policies of Bush/McSame.

Posted by Questioning

7:10 AM, Jun 23, 2008

As a Clinton supporter, I focus back on her comments about who is most qualified to be President. At that time, it was clear she felt it should be herself.....or Senator McCain.
Senator Obama has not gained any experience since she made that appropo comment.
Senator Obama has a paper-thin resume..for sure.
Then you ask yourself, "Who will he listen to? What can of advisers will he choose?"

His track record with Reverend Wright Anthony Rezko, William Avery and other losers is disconcerting.
I also believe the Muslim Extremists will test whoever is named the next Commander-in-Chief. Senator Clinton & Senator McCain truly understand the evil agenda of these animals.
Senator Obama seems to naively believe you can reason with Ahdimajad. Foolish.

There are still over 4 months of vetting to be done.
Senator Obama is articulate. He is a fine motivational speaker. But we live in dangerous times. I truly do not have confindence in him as Commander-in-Chief or to choose a solid team.

Posted by JimD

8:39 AM, Jun 23, 2008

You view is shared by many.
But many of those arguments can be made the other way.

His values and beliefs do not seem to be affected by Wright and others.
To the contrary, his associations with fringe elements in our diversified society reveal a man who goes to some length to understand views contrary to his own while maintaining his own values and beliefs.
These are attributes sorely missing in our current administration, and in my opinion, among "my way or the highway" republicans in general including McCain.

I don't know how you conclude that Obama doesn't understand the truly evil nature of Islamic extremists.
His views and policy objectives are virtually identical to Clinton's.
Our enemies will test any new administration of course, but Obama has clearly and consistently articulated nothing short of what we'd expect from our commander in chief in such situations.
And due to how the rest of the world sees him as a truer reflection of the constitutional values and principles our friends look to us to exemplify, we'd certainly get more help and cooperation dealing with terrorism than anyone believes the Bush doctrine is worthy of, and which mcCain seems absolutely determined to continue.

Obama's resume? Yeah - it's thin and he's relatively inexperienced. But folks like him, his values, his heritage (raised in Kansas no less), his brand of patriotism in word and deed, how he's prioritized his life (working the streets of Chicago instead of immediately going for a high-paying job).
He's a fresh, new bridge to the next generation (which will elect him as one of their own, by the way) and has shown commanding skill and talent in running his campaign.

My biggest concern about Obama - and the reason I too preferred Clinton - is that he may be a bit too bi-partisan and pragmatic when dealing with republicans.
At least we knew Clinton would fight tooth and nail for the best Supreme Court nominees and truly universal healthcare, for example.
I'm concerned that Obama might negotiate away hard-core democratic objectives in what may turn out to be a sweeping new wave of bipartisan cooperation.
But if it give you any solace, I think this works to the advantage of those who question his agenda, since he clearly intends to run a consensus administration where the most hawkish and conservative among us will be listened too - just like he listens to Wright and his ilk ;-)

As for Clinton's campaign one-liner that she and McCain were best qualified to be wouldn't put too much stock in it.
She's more consistently and repeatedly insisted that "who ever's the nominee" is worlds apart from a continued republican administration, we simply have to take our country back and she would obviously support Obama if he became the nominee.
I guess we get to choose which flip-flop of Clinton's we wish, and the latter is obviously where she stands now.
If we trusted her judgement to be POTUS, perhaps we should respect her call to us to support Obama as vigorously as she will be - beginning this week.
Frankly, I have to question the depth and commitment of any support once afforded Clinton that's now being directed to McCain.
I'd go so far as to call it an insult to Clinton personally, if you truly believe her overriding objective was to get the country back on the course she and Obama represent, and which McCain obviously does not.

Posted by JimD

9:05 AM, Jun 23, 2008

Bruce Lloyd,
With all due respect for your fierce defense of your beliefs and what you believe is best for the country...

I'm pretty old and have watched many elections play out.
Supporters of various candidates in both parties give it their all to push their guy/gal to the top.
It's NEVER "fair" to the extent that it's politics.
Folks could go on arguing past disagreements and calling foul...but those who've been through this recurring drama a few times have learned how to accept defeat gracefully, put it behind them and get on with supporting the hand dealt them.
There are always winners and losers.
Most republicans are less than thrilled with their presumptive nominee.
And one party or the other will be very disappointed when their nominee isn't elected in the fall.
This is an inherent characteristic of democracy, for the only way the populace can be in lock-step on political matters is at the receiving end of a gun barrel.

I can't tell you how proud I am for our country that this election cycle has drawn-in so many relatively new political enthusiasts.
And I know it's difficult to come-up on the losing end of a fight you've invested your heart and soul into.
But those of us who've been though this before accept it and rally around the winner - as you're about to see Clinton and most of her staff do shortly.
It's the inherent nature of democratic politics that not everyone will win.
I hope you'll come to terms with your disappointment, like we've learned to, and continue supporting the reason Clinton got into the race in the first place - to elect a democrat to the white house and start bringing Bush's national nightmare to a close.

Posted by John

9:57 AM, Jun 23, 2008

JimD is upchuck about 95% sure of this.

JimD is a black man who harbors resentment against whites, which are hiding in his ramblings. He will not debate any negative about BHO both have the same skill with a lot of words with no meaning.

Now, nothings wrong being black but at least you can admit it.

I've had the fun getting him and upchuck upset it's really hilarious how insecure they are (democrats).

Problem with democrats they have a dry sense of humor if any.

However, the McCain rant and trying to pin that on me is over the line. For one to engage in this type of slander is typical morals of the Democrat party.

I have no faith in Mr.postman doing anything about this. As he is part of the problem as is the Times, which has not, been a fair paper in 30 years.
I'll let them both wade in the cesspool they have created.

God Bless

Posted by upchuck

10:09 AM, Jun 23, 2008

to bruce and other concerned with the media's fairness towards clinton -

i somewhat agree with your assesment of how clinton was treated by the media. however, my biggest hope is that this realization of 'biased' coverage helps more folks from the more main stream segment of american society to recognize how destructive the main stream media is by creating a false paradigm or narrative about how our world works. if you feel that clinton was misrepresented, try supporting a dennis kucinich, a mike gravel, or a ron paul type candidate and see how you perceive the msm coverage compared to what you might now about them being a supporter who is afamiliar with them outside of the soundbite world of the msm. if your gut response is to consider those guys wacko, then my point is made. consider the fact that a majority of americans thought that iraq was behind 9-11. my freinds who watch fox news believe that europe is firmly behind bush and american policies regarding iraq and the middle east. and while the press is engaged currently in a narrative of 'winning' vs 'cutting and running' in iraq with the supporting narrative being to support the 'fledgling iraqi govt' they ignore the fact that right now the bush admin is negotiating an extension of the security agreement on the terms of our presense in iraq and the al malaki govt wants us out and the bush admin is holding some of their assets hostage in american banks.

i wish i could write a bit more clearly to make my point... in summary: kudos for recognizing that the main stream media can skew things, now help others take the next step to recognizing what other issues and societal narratives are massively skewed by the main stream media in our country.

Posted by upchuck

11:09 AM, Jun 23, 2008

Just for fun, I've taken the liberty of quoting a number of the personal insults from poster 'John' that are unrelated to any political discussion:

Also, FYI, I'm not JimD, but thanks for the compliment... I find him to be more articulate, informative, and detailed on discussing the issues than my typically sarcastic and brief comments.

From poster 'John' on this thread alone...

"Never thought upchuck was a bigot too."

"You need to increased your medication."

"is it the grave yard shift going through trash cans that makes you so mean?"

"You must sleep with one eye open and ware a tin foil hat."

"get back to the trashcans and find some dinner."

"...the people who hate America live in the same cesspool as both you."

"Your both are IDIOTS !"

"Try to have a good day it's Friday!!!! Oh I forgot you don't work, sorry."

"You’re a hopeless depressed person."

"You’re disgusting little kid who hides behind a keyboard and drops bombs."

Posted by John

11:54 AM, Jun 23, 2008

"Also, FYI, I'm not JimD, but thanks for the compliment... I find him to be more articulate, informative, and detailed on discussing the issues than my typically sarcastic and brief comments."

Sorry, It was not a compliment he uses a grammar program and you don't to make it look like someone else.

You do not need to type 1000 words to make a point that is lost somewhere in the long-winded story.

Again, You and JimD can't defend BHO on anything I mention about him.

Posted by JimD

4:01 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Maybe we should just ignore him.
Or...view him as a comical transition from one serious writing to another - a cartoon that couldn't be a better parody of (__fill in the blank___) if a clever comedy writer spent all day crafting it.
He's certainly not doing McCain, republicans or conservative any favors ;-)

One media skew you left out (I think...?) is the skew given Obama by a less-than-enthusiastic examination of his actual political record by the MSM.
They clearly love the guy, and it's shown in their coverage.
The void was filled by FOX News type stuff about Wright, Soros, "Baby Mama" supers on Michelle and other tabloid-style non-starters.
This further perpetuated that appearance of nothing substantial or relevant worth mentioning, when in fact Obama's actual record - a mixed bag at best - has been given a relatively free ride by the MSM.
Perhaps the problem isn't so much that Clinton was so aggressively sliced and diced, but that Obama wasn't afforded the same treatment.
Just one's escaped the inherent unfairness and spin of the MSM, whether it be for the better (Obama) or worse (others) of their candidacy or record.

Posted by JimD

4:11 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Which brings me to a constructive suggestion for those who want to be better informed.
You HAVE to absorb a wide diversity of reporting to get anything near the balanced truth.
I monitor FOX as much as NPR and BBC, and try to read a variety of newspapers (I still love newspapers :-)) including the trite likes of USA Today.
Their contradicting styles, objectives and target markets provide a relatively well-rounded version of truth when taken in COMBINATION.
Still not balanced as I'd like, but a hell of a lot better than just listening to one or two versions of the day's events and issues.

Posted by John

4:26 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Now your finally talking with a open mind !

Keep it up.

My work is done here.:)

Posted by JimD

10:00 AM, Jun 25, 2008

Because it's like arguing with "that Bucket woman".

Recent entries

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

Jun 24, 08 - 07:01 AM
Two Republicans with two views of one meeting

Jun 23, 08 - 04:46 PM
FOX News on Republicans shying away from party brand

Jun 23, 08 - 02:32 PM
Weekly newspapers look for new revenue in big campaign year

Jun 23, 08 - 11:52 AM
Republicans overthink race, while black voters go elsewhere







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