Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Politics & Government


Our network sites seattletimes.com | 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

July 2, 2008 11:39 AM

First anti-Gregoire spot on TV

Posted by David Postman

A builder-backed PAC is airing a new TV spot criticizing Gov. Chris Gregoire for approving a major expansion for tribal casinos. The 30-second spot, “Giveaway,” is the first TV ad from It’s Time For a Change,” the PAC funded by the Building Industry Association of Washington, the Farm Bureau, the NFIB-Washington and others that back Republican Dino Rossi for governor.

The ad shows an elderly woman frustrated while playing a slot machine. A narrator talks about the deal Gregoire killed with tribes in 2005 that would have required revenue sharing as well as for the final agreement that allowed more slot machines in tribal casinos.

I don’t see the ad on the Change Web site yet. But you can watch it here.

Most of the claims in the ad are from two recent newspaper stories, from the P-I June 12, and the Times June 24.

As the old lady loses her patience with the slot machine, the narrator says,

Sorry dear, Christine Gregoire and tribal casinos are the only winners here.

Note: The ad keeps up the strong trend of the campaign, a female narrator and a female on screen.

Yesterday, after Gregoire’s media buyer spotted the Change PAC buy, the campaign sent out a prophylactic press release predicting the TV spot would follow the same theme of radio ads the PAC has aired.

All of this is in addition to the $500,000 that Rossi’s anti-consumer protection, anti-toxic clean-up friends have already spent on radio ads disparaging and manipulating Gov. Gregoire’s record.

"While Dino Rossi tries to hide the fact he's a George Bush Republican on the ballot, his biggest supporters, Olympia's most powerful special interest lobbyists, continue to spend what seems to be an unlimited amount on false and misleading attack ads," said Aaron Toso, press secretary for the Gregoire campaign.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by John

12:06 PM, Jul 02, 2008

Hillary, is now out of the ring, today we have in the black trunks with Pinko Pokka dots Barack Hussein obama who has said No,No,No,No to President George W. Bush in supporting FISA Bill.

In the White trunks with Pinko Pokka dots we have Barack Hussein obama who has said Yes,Yes,Yes,Yes and will voted with President Bush on keeping FISA!!!!

May the best …….

Posted by Particle Man

12:51 PM, Jul 02, 2008

John John John.....
Off subject again.

Posted by John

1:04 PM, Jul 02, 2008

Oh Sorry, I keep hear about CHANGE, I goofed sorry for changing the lines of drips.


Posted by Particle Man

1:22 PM, Jul 02, 2008

Regardless of how off base these ads on this issue are, the fact is that this is the best political issue Rossi and his supporters have since it has the hint of being relating to ethics.
So the Rossi folks will spend over a million dollars hammering this spin driven story home for two reasons.
1. One of Chris Gregoire's strengths and a Rossi's weakness in ethics. As AG Gregoire was central in passing sweeping ethics legislation and she has a long and clean record in regard to ethics.
2. Mr. Rossi's frequent and documented lapses in ethics figure to be on full display as this political season kicks into gear.
It would be funny if it was not a sad reflection on how a campaign and its supporters can shift what should be a close examination of Mr. Rossi's record of directly funneling cash into his pockets while in office to a debate over campaign contributions from various tribal organizations made mostly to the state democratic party.

The fact is that folks should get the whole story about Rossi's influence peddling and sleazy deals with lobbyists when last he held public office.
Rossi should open the records surrounding these transactions if in fact he did nothing wrong. But we should not expect this. No what the voters will get is smoke and mirrors, evasions and a million dollar campaign aimed at preventing the full truth about his corrupt dealings from coming out.

Posted by Josef

1:38 PM, Jul 02, 2008

TVW?

I hope that's a typo...

Posted by Andy

2:07 PM, Jul 02, 2008

I'm writing today in Christine Gregoire's defense.

Being in Olympia, sometimes you get to be privy to interesting conversations in politics. The press is condemning Governor Christine Gregoire’s campaign for going negative out the gate with negative ads and smears like those on http://www.dontknowdino.com/. Getting dirty so early wasn’t her team's first choice in campaign planning. The campaign staff actually wanted to spend the first 5 months proclaiming victory and laying accolades on her many accomplishments as Governor. As an old hat at marketing and as most of Washington State knows, that is a herculean task, even for the best spinners. I happened to be a fly on the wall for one of those conversations.

I was having lunch in downtown last month. At a table near to us sat the transportation secretary and one of Gregoire’s campaign aides. She was telling the aide that if in 2004 there had been no roads at all in Washington, Gregoire would have finished enough miles of roads to connect a route directly from each of the new businesses spawned from her economic expansion projects to every other business spawned and never take the same route twice.

To this the aide replied, “Wait a minute! This morning I had coffee with the state’s economic team and they warned me that not one of those billion dollar projects had produced a single job at all.”

The transportation secretary responded quickly with a mouth half full of potato salad, “That’s ok, we haven’t finished any roads either.”

Posted by Particle Man

2:53 PM, Jul 02, 2008

You had me there for a minute Andy.
Not really.

Posted by Wiz

3:21 PM, Jul 02, 2008

Wow. How about that statement from Aaron Toso. Can someone tell me what the difference is between a Republican and a George Bush Repulican? Is he trying to say that Dino, if elected, will start a war with Idaho in an attempt to corner the potato market? Seriously, why do all Republicans have to be mini GWs?

Also, I thought that the Tribes were Olympia's most powerful special interest group. Queen G says she chose to deny the compact because she didn't want to see gambling expanded. hmmm...gambling sure seems to be expanding as a result of her 2007 compact. According to Ralph Thomas of the Times "Last year, Gregoire signed a new tribal gaming compact that opened the door for one of the largest gambling expansions in history"

Would have been nice if we could have seen some revenue out of the deal.

Posted by Wiz

3:23 PM, Jul 02, 2008

ok Particle, I will take the bait. Where are these lapses in ethics documented?

Posted by Partical Man

4:08 PM, Jul 02, 2008

Here is one link to wet your appetite.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20041020&slug=rossibiz20m

The Windsor apartment deal was financed by one campaign contributor and backed through a partnership with lobbyists who had business with Rossi's Senate committee at the time. Rossi as agent in the "partnerships" purchase and sale reaped cash of several hundred thousand dollars more than the proportionate interests of the parties.
If Dino were smart he would release all of the documents regarding these transactions (before others do that for him) and hold a press conference where he agrees to answer the questions this sleazy influence peddling deal rases.

Posted by Methow Ken

4:35 PM, Jul 02, 2008

I thought the ''Giveaway'' spot by Change PAC was great. As an active member of the WA State Farm Bureau I'm glad my favorite organization is helping to get out the story of the Governor's $140M give-away; and the ''payoff'' that was received in return by the Gov's campaign via money-laundering thru the State (D) party.

No: I'm not claiming that the Gov and the State (D)s broke the law, because I haven't seen any evidence of same (at least not yet). But if anything qualifies as a blatent appearance of conflict of interest, surely this does.

Then: Particle Man and ''Partical Man'' continue in the usual unsubstantiated partisan attack-dog role, claiming that:
''One of Chris Gregoire's strengths and a Rossi's weakness in ethics'';

In your far-left dreams, PM.

and then:
''Mr. Rossi's frequent and documented lapses in ethics''

Never underestimate the willingness of the left to distort and twist reality beyond all rational and meaningful recognition.

Posted by Wiz

4:46 PM, Jul 02, 2008

OK, read the story.....

but I guess I don't see the issue. Did the lobbyist guys receive perks from Rossi?

Posted by John

6:07 PM, Jul 02, 2008

All I can say is we have the first prostitute in history as Gov. instead of sex it's money going both ways.

Too bad she didn't send some to lewis co. before people where killed by the Democrats last Dec.

Posted by YIKES

7:37 AM, Jul 03, 2008

The much bigger issue than this is the $2.7 BILLION deficit Gregoire's massive overspending has created. Gregoire has failed to announce a plan for dealing with this other than we'll deal with it later and either cut spending or raise taxes.
DUH!
Gregoire needs to be honest with Washington Voters for a change.
WHAT specifically are her plans for dealing with the massive deficit she created by adding 8000+ State Employees and other spending increases that vastly outpaced revenue increases.
What will she cut?
What tax will increase?
Fair & simple question.
No answer.
C'mon David Postman, why don't you ask this question of her or her head propagandist Victor Moore??????
Ask about something important David.
You can do it!

Posted by Truth

10:18 AM, Jul 03, 2008

". As AG Gregoire was central in passing sweeping ethics legislation and she has a long and clean record in regard to ethics."


WRONG . As AG Gregoire was central in trying to pass the blame for LOSING $10 million on her subordinates!

In 2004 candidate Gregoire said she wouldn't raise taxes, Governor Gregoire has raised them several times.


Gregoire as ethic champion? Hardly. More like an ethical cautionary tale.

Posted by GregoireUnethical

10:31 AM, Jul 03, 2008

And pray tell will all the shills from the Gregoire campaign please tell us how it showed ethics when Gregoire joined a Southern Sorority at the UW, a sorority that discriminated against blacks? Furthermore, Mrs "ethics" became PRESIDENT of that racist organization.

So when it came time to show ethical behavior, Gregoire embraced the racist organization over ethics.

But I am sure a Gregoire surrogate will chime in now and tell us all how "everyone was doing it 'back then", right? Just like they try to pass of the Gregoire $2.7 BILLION deficit by saying "every state has it", like that is an excuse (which is untrue by the way).

Posted by Particle Man

10:38 AM, Jul 03, 2008

Wiz, I can accept that you are having a hard time getting why this is such a big issue.
The ethics laws in our state which apply to legislators and state wide elected officials prohibit them from receiving gifts of any kind, valued at more than $50.00 (this may now be as high as $150.00).
No trade in votes need be shown yet Dino had a voting record of 99% as rated by these lobbyists clients.
So when a deal is made available to Dino by these same lobbyists that results in a drastically disproportionate (by more than $150,000.00) payment to then Sen. Rossi, this can only be termed influence peddling. And this only addresses the transaction in terms of the ethics law.
This apartment deal which Dino facilitated for a man regarded and tried as a slumlord, in order to make the eviction of state assisted low income residents possible through a brief change in ownership. Dino would like us to buy his spin but the fact remains that the goal was to evict low income families from their apartments something the prior owner was barred from doing by contract and without cause. So, here we have Dino who likes to talk about "growing up in the projects" as something that gave him some kind of deep understanding about aid, when in fact he does not even pause when faced with a pile of cash.
This chapter provides us with a view of both Dino's disregard for ethics laws and just as importantly his lack of personal ethics and respect for his own roots.

Posted by John F. Amen USN Ret.

11:57 AM, Jul 03, 2008

I would like to provide a personal experience concerning John Mc Cain's and his selfless dedication.

I was stationed on the U.S.S. Forrestal and during our deployment off the coast of Vietnam,a fire on the flight deck occured.The fire was caused by the bombs cross decked to us by a departing carier group which were old and unstable.

John was attached to the airgroup that was departing and voluntered to be detached to our airgroup extending his tour as a A6A Intruder fighter pilot.

About 85 navy personnel were killed during the fire
and 50 more died of wounds sustained fighting the fire or were trapt aboard the Forrestal.

I remember seeing John Mc Cain whith blood stains all over his flight suit being lifted off in a litter and brought up to the area that wounded and dead that had been designated as seriously wounded.I also remember him assisting in the efforts to assist those more seriously injured.

Later that afternoon John was transfered to another carrier assigned to our battle group.That same day he was launched in a A6A-Intruder to provide close air to ground support for our troops in Vietnam.

I don't know if the wounds he sustained that day limited his prowesness, but I can testify that John Mc Cain is one hell of a attack fighter pilot and American, despite the garbage that Airforce former general spouted about John.

Barach's comment that the generals coments were not artfull dosen't make it for anyone who knows John Mc Cain.

Posted by jamesb

1:55 PM, Jul 03, 2008

John F.

I think it’s a stretch to say that General Clark in any way discounted John McCain’s military service. He responded to a direct question and simply asked how military service makes one qualified to be president. If military service was required to be president, a number of our better presidents would not have been.

I also have nothing but respect for Senator McCain’s service. I do not feel my support for his opponent indicates otherwise.

And, General Clark was in the US Army, not the US Air Force.

Posted by JimD

4:00 PM, Jul 03, 2008

Indeed - McCain's military service is not a qualifier for POTUS.
The president's job is not to perform heroic acts of physical courage or survive the horrific torture McCain endured with distinction.
I understand how a military hero can seem appealing at a time of international uncertainty with the very real threat of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorist activity it has fostered.

But potus is a MANAGEMENT job, not a soldering job.
And while McCain's military record may show great patriotic character and personal determination, that in itself is not is valid qualifier for the job of president - the point General Clark was making.
If anything, McCain's management credentials may be viewed as suspect to the lasting effects of the personal ordeal he went through, just as a woman who was raped may be too close to the issue to necessarily make a good sex crimes prosecutor, etc.

Not saying McCain's history disqualifies him - no way.
He's no doubt a great American and probably a great guy.
Your story of his bravery on that carrier is among many that document his character and integrity back then.
But his military history is relatively neutral in the sum of his qualifications for POTUS - in the opinion of General Clark and a whole lot of other folks.
I admire Clark for having the courage to say it.

Posted by Turbine

9:42 PM, Jul 03, 2008

So what do others think of Wesley Clark? Ask General Sir Mike Jackson of the British force under NATO command of Wesley Clark who is reported to have told Clark "I am not going to start World War Three for you" in refusing an order to have British Paratropps assualt Russian troops who occupied the Pristina , Kososvo airport before NATO troops could arrive and take control. Yep, Old Wesley sounds like a real charmer.

Posted by AD

11:51 PM, Jul 03, 2008

JimD, you seem to be unaware that officers in the military, by their very nature, are leaders and managers.

And while no one should vote for John McCain JUST because he was in the military, the fact that he was, and served with such distinction should be viewed in contrast to Barack Obama's (non-existent) military service. The president wears many hats and one of them is commander in chief. What a row the Democrats made in '04 over GWB's lack of military bona fides! How times have changed!!

Posted by KS

11:46 AM, Jul 04, 2008

Hmm... seems like BH Obama has taken over where John Kerry left off in 2004 in his pandering attempt to be all things to all people. "Change you can believe in" ? I don't think so.

See the following link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_to_the_center

As for Gregoire vs. Rossi. I did not agree with his approach to save the Sonics but his fiscal approach is clearly superior and there would be a balance of power with he as Governor. With her, it would be business as usual and increasing fiscal irresponsibility and goodbye Boeing looming.

Posted by JimD

6:45 PM, Jul 04, 2008

AD,

I think everyone is aware of military management and the unique characteristics it demands.

While Kennedy's, Johnson's, Carter's and GHWB's respective military leadership duties gave them some insight into military command, Ronald Reagan - the shining star of the right - didn't seem to suffer for lack of it.

Similarly, Obama's lack of military service in no way makes him less qualified to be commander in chief than McCain.
Indeed - McCain's full-tilt support of invading Iraq in the first place, compared to Obama's ability to see the folly for what it was, is a far better determiner of wise command.

We have a civilian commander in chief by design.
For all intents and purposes, McCain's military service is just a series of jobs on his resume.
It's an impressive part of his life, no doubt.
But what's he's done the last forty years since is clearly more relevant to the job.
Sending thousands to die in Iraq for virtually nothing...the Boeing tanker deal....
Better we elect someone who doesn't bring this shaded history of foul-ups to the position of commander in chief.

It's no accident we have a CIVILIAN commander in chief by design.

Posted by jamesb

8:33 AM, Jul 05, 2008

KS,

What it looks like is that the republicans are going to try and falsely brand Obama as they did Kerry. We have seen the results of a president who doesn’t react to changing circumstances. Even the article you posted states outright that shifts in position between primary campaigns and general elections are common if not expected.
“So it's not uncommon as spring fades and November approaches to see candidates de-emphasize or even cast off some of their most extreme positions in favor of policy more palatable to the middle. They mostly do it quietly, or try to anyway.
And though there can sometimes be criticism about shifting positions, voters usually forgive and forget.
For one thing, a willingness to hone policy, add nuance or even change one's mind — especially when new information comes to light — is not in itself a bad quality in a leader. For another, those partisans who supported a candidate in the primaries are not likely to switch parties and back the other candidate. Often the worst that can happen is they stay home on Election Day. Politicians are usually willing to risk that for the chance to court the center.”
I see no reason to go through the numerous shifts of John McCain. We should be debating policy differences not this kind of garbage.

Posted by hinton

4:13 PM, Jul 05, 2008

JimD, are you lying on purpose, or did your keyboard just slip?

Was it just 4 years ago that you fringe left nutters trotted out a moron "reporting for duty?' by the name of Kerry?

Odd, isn't it, that in the self-delusional world of the leftist, when one says TODAY that "...potus is a MANAGEMENT job, not a soldering job," then can then forget just 4 short years ago it was a HUGE reason your sort trumpeted to vote for Kerry.... well, one is reminded of yours, and those of your fellow liars, rank hypocrisy.

It was a HUGE reason in the last cycle. Now you people belittle his service (and by inference, the service of every other veteran) every chance you get, as if that empty suited moron you support is somehow MORE qualified to lead during a war without ANY military experience, even though he felt so little about his country that serving in its military never entered his head.

You people are pathetic. Not nearly as much as Oliar (hows that "get us out of Iraq the day I take office" thing working for you?) who has no experience, no judgment, no plan and no clue... but close enough.

Posted by JimD

5:20 PM, Jul 05, 2008

Hinton,
I don't recall ever promoting Kerry's qualification for POTUS as dependent on his military service.
Rather, I remember a lot of us defending Kerry's service from the outrageous lies and smears by the swiftboating scum - whom even Bush and McCain denounced as 'disgraceful", "un-American", "un-Patriotic"...etc.
There might have been some who declared Kerry's Vietnam service a better qualifier than Bush's lack of active duty, but I certainly wasn't one of them.
Your accusations regarding my opinions are as prejudiced as your hysterical complaints about how most Americans view McCain's service - an impressive record of distinction but of little relevance to managing the country.

When Obama supporters start trashing McCain's record in the way swiftboaters trashed Kerry (if they say McCain was a coward, didn't earn his medals, lied about his service and is a traitor..,,and worse,) let me know so I can denounce that as strongly as I denounced the similar attack on Kerry.
In the meantime, McCain's heroic military service is just that - impressive heroism by a Vietnam-era soldier.
Forty years later in 2008 however, it has virtually nothing to do with his qualification to be our next POTUS.

Posted by KS

6:14 PM, Jul 05, 2008

I would encourage McCain's surrogates to shine a light on Obama's weaknesses and his flip-flops for political expediency.
McCain has changed positions as has virtually every political candidate, but for more substantive reasons such as rising gas prices.

Barack Obama is vague on purpose, so he can parse his words and take a position for political expediency. His judgment is incredibly poor, judging by the people he has associated to help him move up the political ladder. His plan for growing government, universal health care, increased corporate welfare and higher capital gains and tax rates add up to taxing and spending this country into oblivion, resulting in an honest to God recession. Progressives and leftists market him as all things to all people, when in reality he is the Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by JimD

9:23 PM, Jul 05, 2008

Leading economists and others are naturally split on McCain's classic republican trickle-down, versus Obama's traditionally democratic sensibilities.
Trickle-down has never worked as promised (certainly not the last eight years) while the previous eight years under Clinton exemplified democratic economic policy at its best.
McCain supporters and republicans in general exaggerate what Obama intends to do, then further exaggerate the result by framing it in the obviously dis-proven hypothetical.
Fact is - republican economic REALITY - a regressive approach to taxes and uncontrolled spending on credit - is a recipe for the very disaster we now find ourselves in.
They have no claim to overall economic success from this overall scheme (quite the opposite right now) and certainly no standing to criticize the rather conventional and sensible economic proposals by the accomplished economic experts in Obama's camp.

Posted by KS

10:14 PM, Jul 05, 2008

"They have no claim to overall economic success from this overall scheme (quite the opposite right now) and certainly no standing to criticize the rather conventional and sensible economic proposals by the accomplished economic experts in Obama's camp."

Are you kidding ? Obama's economic plan is to raise taxes, and continue to spend us into oblivion with his new entitlement programs - universal health care - including 15 million illegal aliens, Medicare and $745 billion to be earmarked for the UN - to fight worldwide poverty. These so-called sensible economic proposals make Bush look like a fiscal moderate.
McCain has not specified an economic plan yet, but his history is that he is clearly more of a fiscal conservative than Bush. The left likes to link Bush to McCain - mainly because of the Iraq war, which is getting better and needs to end soon.

Consequently, the opposition has linked Obama with the second term of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by JimD

8:08 AM, Jul 06, 2008

Obama proposes lowering taxes for middle and lower income Americans.
The Increases would begin for those earning more than 250k a year and include capital gains taxes - restoring the revenue losses that have helped drive us into debt and produced little (if anything) in investment return.

McCain?
Who knows.
Even he admits the economy is not his thing.
But his voting record shows there's no program too expensive for John McCain.
Traditional republicans don't like his lack of fiscal conservatism.
His version of the silly gas tax "holiday" just rolled it into the existing debt.
And he's surrounded by corporate lobbyists clearly more loyal to global corporate interests than the U.S. per se.

In short - republicans in general neither behave like the fiscal conservatives they claim to be, nor represent sound fiscal policy in how they let the top end off the tax hook in hopes their wealth will trickle back down to the rest of us.
Obama wants to continue giving tax breaks to the wealthy in a time of war and skyrocketing national debt.
Obama has a plan that actually makes sense, in part by re-employing progressive taxation and plugging the expenditure leak in Iraq.
He wins the fiscal responsibility award over McCain by default - hands down, no doubt what so ever.

Posted by JimD

8:12 AM, Jul 06, 2008

..correction, third paragraph should have read:

"...In short - republicans in general neither behave like the fiscal conservatives they claim to be, nor represent sound fiscal policy in how they let the top end off the tax hook in hopes their wealth will trickle back down to the rest of us.
MCCAIN wants to continue giving tax breaks to the wealthy in a time of war and skyrocketing national debt.
Obama has a plan that actually makes sense, in part by re-employing progressive taxation and plugging the expenditure leak in Iraq.
He wins the fiscal responsibility award over McCain by default - hands down, no doubt what so ever."

(sorry for the typo)

Posted by Patriot

10:02 AM, Jul 06, 2008

Senator Obamas, economic and energy plans is the perfect storm.
Within three years his plan will reduce the livelihoods of the American public by exporting not only jobs but also business to foreign countries.

Our energy situation under Obama will be $15.00 A gallon for gasoline and climbing.

Manufacturing complex in America will not exist.
All Americans who still live here will finally be equal.
Job well done.


Posted by jamesb

10:54 AM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,

Do you have anything to support your statements? Oil was $34 a barrel when Bush invaded Iraq. Now it’s $146 a barrel? And the number of American jobs sent over sea has escalated exponentially. Of course, if we had Constitutional Amendments against flag burning and gay marriage, none of this would be happening huh? What is the republican energy plan?

Posted by JimD

5:18 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,
Please enlighten us with some facts about how McCain or the republicans are going to undue the damage they've done to our economy and our country as a whole
In eight short years they've spent our surplus, run our Chinese credit card way past its limit, exhausted our military, traded millions of manufacturing jobs for low-wage service jobs, ignored our infrastructure, and stubbornly refused to support or invest in any significant energy policy that reduces our oil consumption.
Bush and others BELITTLED the "tree-huggers" who bought fuel efficient cars and wanted to raise efficiency standards.
Now he's literally begging the Saudi royal family - his "close friends" if you recall - to increase production.
That's the republican's energy policy.

Why should we trust these fools to walk our grandmothers across the street, let alone govern our country, given the incompetence they've displayed at the helm, Patriot?

Obama compared to what?
The party of gross mismanagement and dereliction of duty that got us into this mess?
No contest, Patriot.

Posted by Patriot

7:27 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Posted by jamesb
10:54 AM, Jul 06, 2008
Patriot,
“Do you have anything to support your statements? Oil was $34 a barrel when Bush invaded Iraq. Now it’s $146 a barrel?”


Can we stay with the same subject? The post isn’t how or why we got here, its Obama’s answer to keep prices higher.

Senator Obama said the only concern he has with the high price of gasoline is it went up too fast.

He is out of touch with the American voter.

“Of course, if we had Constitutional Amendments against flag burning and gay marriage, none of this would be happening huh?”

Off subject again.

“ What is the republican energy plan?”

Mussel the Democrats for one year and you will see the price of oil reduced.

Drill 24 hours a day and let the market correct it’s self.


Posted by Patriot

7:32 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Posted by JimD

5:18 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,
"Please enlighten us with some facts about how McCain or the republicans are going to undue the damage they've done to our economy and our country as a whole"


The post is about Senator Obama Democrat.

Posted by jamesb

8:03 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,

Why isn’t it about how and why we got here? If you don’t understand how a situation began, how can you hope to change it? You don’t think the fact that we are dependent on foreign oil has anything to do with being dependent on oil in the first place? The fastest way to reduce our dependence is conservation. The biggest hurdle to conservation has been the Republican Party and John McCain has offered nothing different. Higher gas prices have reduced consumption. None of us likes paying $4.50 a gallon but drilling in Alaska or off the coasts isn’t going to alter that enough to make a difference. Dropping the federal gas tax for the summer won’t save the average American enough to fill their gas tanks even once. Taking those funds out of highway projects will cost American jobs and further delay in repairing infrastructure but wouldn’t take a time from foreign oil producers.

Your “energy plan” to mussel the democrats is very cute. After all, they have held Congress for the past 16 months and created all these problems in that short amount of time.

As far as your “off topic” remarks. The thread was about ads in our governor’s race. And saying I am off topic in your opinion doesn’t answer the questions I posed. But then again, if you had to answer, you would have to acknowledge the republicans have been fiddling while Rome burned.

Posted by JimD

8:05 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,

The subject you're on is, in your own words:
"Senator Obamas, economic and energy plans is the perfect storm.
Within three years his plan will reduce the livelihoods of the American public by exporting not only jobs but also business to foreign countries.
Our energy situation under Obama will be $15.00 A gallon for gasoline and climbing..."

Again - what is your basis for these conclusions?
And to what are you comparing Obama's policy proposals?
McCain's, right?
That's our choice.

But don't let me stop you from presenting the substance behind your predictions requested by JamesB.
Do you have anything to back-up your claims, or are you just guessing?


(I think you meant muzzle democrats - covering their muzzle - not turning them into clams or bivalve molluscs)

Posted by Patriot

8:40 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot
10:02 AM, Jul 06, 2008
Senator Obamas, economic and energy plans is the perfect storm.
Within three years his plan will reduce the livelihoods of the American public by exporting not only jobs but also business to foreign countries.

Our energy situation under Obama will be $15.00 A gallon for gasoline and climbing.
Manufacturing complex in America will not exist.
All Americans who still live here will finally be equal.
Job well done.

Above post is Obama’s position not McCain’s.

Democrats always needed the price of crude to increase.

Democrats have two faces, smiles, and frowns. One is in the back room of the DNC the other on TV.

I know both posters have nothing to say about Obama plan, I understand the situation your in and feel deeply sorry the best candidate you had lost.

Yes, Muzzle :)

Posted by jamesb

9:16 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Patriot,

So you are admitting that you are unable to support your statements about Senator Obama’s energy stance? You can support your statement that the democrats always needed the price of crude to increase? The basis for your claims is?

Posted by JimD

9:37 PM, Jul 06, 2008

The democrats always need the price of crude to inrease?
Why?
What in the world are you talking about?

You haven't said one single word about Obama's policies.
You've just thrown some predictions up that have nothing to do with his policies what so ever and have no connection to reality or fact, ....unless you have some basis (any basis) to justify them like james b requested.
Do you?

Posted by Patriot

9:51 PM, Jul 06, 2008

I have answer your questions pertaining to Obama in previous post.

Obama’s own words where used sir.

Over twenty years the Democrats talking points have been, gasoline is cheap.

In 70's we should have drilled you can no't conserve your way out maybe you two can however I like riding my big fat truck and heating my house to 75 degrees and like to eat fatty foods.

Posted by JimD

10:11 PM, Jul 06, 2008

You haven't posted one single word from Obama.
Not one.
You haven't posted one word of his policies.
You haven't described one word from policies.
All you posted is an OPINION - which is fine, but for which you've offered no basis or reason behind, except some secret democratic conspiracy to raise the price of crude oil and send our jobs overseas....frowning in the back rooms and smiling on TV...?
Are you sure you're not confusing reality with some movie on TV?
Because if democrats are so hell bent on raising the price of crude and implementing this evil agenda, the Clinton administration sure didn't follow through very well, did it?
Low fuel prices and the best eight years of peace and prosperity wel'll ever see again, not to mention the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY president in our history, EVER...and that's a fact, Pat.

Posted by Patriot

11:12 PM, Jul 06, 2008

Both posters are either comedians or virtually live in another world.

I'm not taking the bait guys, you won't accept the truth that is your problem.

Jim, I cannot accept Obamas words either.
You can Google them. Sometimes we must bite our lips.

Posted by JimD

12:06 AM, Jul 07, 2008

What "truth"?
All you've posted is your opinion - with nothing to back it up.
Truth is something tangible and provable.
Present your evidence that Obama and democrats have a secret plan to raise the price of crude and send jobs overseas to make us all "equal", and then we can start debating whether that's the truth.
In the meantime, it's no more true because you say so, than I declaring the moon is made of green cheese, then insisting it's true because I said so.

Not asking for much here, just some basis for your so-called facts and wild theories about Obama and the secret conspiracy to destroy the United States.

Posted by Patriot

6:50 AM, Jul 07, 2008

“Secret conspiracy “ Call it what you feel comfortable with is fine, but do not put words in my mouth I never said this.

Posted by jamesb

7:53 AM, Jul 07, 2008

Patriot,

What are these “words” of Obama’s you keep referring to? Post them. Give us a link to them. Prove what you allege. I’m sure you would like to be like Rush and be able to cut off anyone who questions you but that’s not the way it works here. You stated Obama and the democrats want higher oil and gas prices. What do you have to support those statements?

Posted by JimD

8:00 AM, Jul 07, 2008

"...Within three years his plan will reduce the livelihoods of the American public by exporting...jobs...business to foreign countries...$15.00 A gallon for gasoline and climbing...Manufacturing complex in America will not exist...All Americans who still live here will finally be equal....Job well done..."

I called this theory a conspiracy because that's what you described - a DNC that wants to implement this outcome with an Obama administration.
You finished by describing the duplicitous face of the DNC, "One is in the back room of the DNC the other on TV," - implying their agenda is a secret from the public.

I call it a secret conspiracy theory because that's exactly what you described.

Posted by Patriot

11:02 AM, Jul 08, 2008


Everyone knows the high price off gas has been a God sent to the liberals push for mass transit.

They see a gleam of light that has helped them push the agenda.

Senator Reid Democrat Nev. said last week Fossil fuels and coal makes him sick.

The back room smiles, sure you think they will screw up like Senator Obama did about high gas prices in public.

This congress has the lowest approval rating in the history of polls.

When you hear Democrats say no on every plan to increase gas and lower the price it is a plan to keep the economy falling.

The American people demand us to drill now yet the Democrats play the game of three monkeys relying on Senator Obamas approval to carry them over the hump.


If the oil is turned off do you really think conservation, wind and solar will prevent the collapse of America?

Poor people have to choose between feeding their family and buying gas and Reid says he gets sick from gas.

Where is the compassion of Democrats on helping the poor, today not next year?

Can we stay focused on the above with your reply please.

Posted by jamesb

2:32 PM, Jul 08, 2008

Patriot,

How can I “stay focused on the above” when it makes no sense. You make accusations for which you offer no evidence. You imply that Obama has caused the increase in fuel prices and that is ridiculous. If you have something to support your claims, please post it or give us a link (other than your fox “news” garbage) to go to.

Posted by The Truth

9:37 PM, Jul 08, 2008

Google works well, learn how to use it; you may expand your knowledge.

The American people are not worried about Senator Obama it is who’s behind him.

Posted by American

9:45 PM, Jul 08, 2008

I did post the links for you, however Postman wouldn't post them and has banned my handle from this web site.

Your E-mail to him worked.
Obama tells us what we can talk about and now THE SEATTLE TIMES is filtering free speech. I plan on visiting a more respectable web blog.

Patriot

Posted by jamesb

8:36 AM, Jul 09, 2008

Oh American/Patriot…which ever,
You didn’t post the links. You have not supported your claims. If Postman banned your screen name, and I have no idea whether or not he did or why he would ban your screen name and not you, it would be because your posts are offensive and usually off the topic of the thread. (Only a guess on my part). Now you are back on the Times is biased garbage. There are Constitutional limits to free speech by the way. Look up the term “fighting words”.

And Mr/Ms Truth,
What do you have to support your claim that the American people are worried about the people behind Obama?

Posted by The Truth

9:47 AM, Jul 09, 2008

"And Mr/Ms Truth,
What do you have to support your claim that the American people are worried about the people behind Obama?"

Obviously you have not attended an Obama rally or you would not be asking this question.

The media never scans the people on the left or right sides of him. These are the ones who manipulate the media to cover-up the their hidden agenda.

One needs to ask before voting “Who is Obama?” very few Americans can answer that question but his handlers know exactly.


Posted by jamesb

10:13 AM, Jul 09, 2008

The Truth,

Again with accusations with nothing to back them up. You attended an Obama rally? You have knowledge the MSM has not reported? These people who are never scanned on the left or right are who? His supporters?
I have not attended an Obama rally. (They are hard to get into you know. Too many people want to be there. At least the test for getting into an Obama rally is nothing more than who gets in line first. Unlike McCain rallies where anyone with an opposing point of view is banned. Like the older woman in Denver who was kicked out for holding a sign that said nothing more than McCain=Bush) I was an alternate delegate to my district democratic caucus. I spent several hours sitting in a high school gym waiting to see if I would be seated. I was there with hundreds of normal everyday people. None of us complained. None of us were manipulated. One of the people I sat with was a former US ambassador who had been appointed by Bush43. (yeah he really was. I looked him up when I got back home) The vast majority of the people there were Obama supporters.
You know nothing. You have nothing. You can support none of your accusations. You use a screen name that implies you know “the Truth” and use it to post idiotic nonsense. I suppose if I was a conservative, I’d be frustrated as you are. However, I would not go posting unsupportable garbage on blogs.
Once again, do you have any evidence to support your claims?

Posted by The Truth

10:52 AM, Jul 09, 2008

Throw out an x-bush ambassador without a name.

Until you attend a rally keep eyes open and watch next time.

Money talks and opens doors, until you can contribute to this discussion on facts you should refrain from attacks.

Posted by jamesb

11:13 AM, Jul 09, 2008

Truth,
Again you avoid answering direct questions. Again you try to turn the tables and make it sound like I initiated “attacks”. You made the accusations but obviously can’t support them.
How have you contributed anything that is backed up with facts? You haven’t. You are just blowing smoke hoping the uninformed will believe your garbage.
Once again. You made accusations about Obama. Please support them. Or admit you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

PS, the ambassador has a name but I don’t feel comfortable giving it as I don’t have his permission to do so.

Posted by The Truth

12:18 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Been their saw what I have said, up to you to see for yourself this is politics not faith.

The uninformed usually attacks what they don’t want to hear this typical liberal tactics I cannot blame you for this.

You cannot give us his name? Did you meet him in an illegal situation or just run of the mouth garbage.

Give us the name it was appropriate for him to tell you, which allows you to tell us.

If not, or you do not reply, we all will know James.

Posted by jamesb

4:34 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Truth,

You have been where and seen what? You were at an Obama Rally? Which one? When? (been there by the way, not their)

Your little bit about the uninformed being the ones who attack may be accurate but I’m not sure that can be made as a blanket statement. Regardless, the “attacks” were made by you so what does that say about you bud? Go back and read your own posts and try and make anyone believe I have attacked you in anyway. All I have done is call you on your BS.

The ambassador was talking to me and me alone. The fact he told me what he did for a living does not in anyway mean he was giving me permission to post his name on a blog. Had I been a reporter or had I told him I would use his name, it would be a different matter. The man is now a private citizen. He was at the caucus as a private citizen and therefore I’m not going to post his name or the country to which he was the ambassador. If that means you don’t believe me, so be it. No skin off my nose.

And once again, you have failed to give any evidence of the claims YOU made. You were the one who made the claims about Obama but you really don’t have anything to base them on. Now you want to make it sound like I attacked you. Nice try my friend but it won’t work with me.

Once again I ask that you support your claims. (I know you can’t as I am sure others reading this know you can’t but I ask anyway)

Posted by The Truth

5:05 PM, Jul 09, 2008

No matter what I tell you how could I possibly prove it.

You need to go or find someone you trust who went.

Tell us his name, did he say off the recorded?

Yeah sure.
I have my boots on James give it to me. :)

Posted by jamesb

5:53 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Truth,

Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe something just because it was posted on a blog by an anonymous poster? You have made semi-specific claims but offer nothing to support them.
With the exception of an early post of yours on this thread about Gregoire, your next post, 6 days later said “The American people are not worried about Senator Obama it is who’s behind him.” It was in response to that post I began asking you to support your statement. You have yet to do so. You kind of suggest you were at an Obama rally without saying whether you were or were not You post cryptic statements like “Until you attend a rally keep eyes open and watch next time.” Without saying what that means. I’ve asked if you know something the mainstream press is not reporting but you remain silent.
Once again Sir. You made the following statements;
1) The American people are not worried about Senator Obama it is who’s behind him.
2) The media never scans the people on the left or right sides of him. These are the ones who manipulate the media to cover-up the their hidden agenda.
Do you have anything to support those statements?
You are probably used to being around people who agree with you and don’t question what you say. You aren’t used to actually having to back-up your remarks. You want to make me the bad guy and make believe I have attacked you. I wonder if down deep you really know what a fraud you are.

Posted by The TRUTH

7:04 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Prove to us you’re telling the truth about the ex bush ambassador you say you know yet refused to tell us his name sir? This is something material that can be proven, I tried to be honest with you, saying you need to see for yourself or talk to someone you trust.
Perhaps there is no one you can trust too bad.
Because you’re a loser do not blame the whole world.
6 days ago????

Posted by jamesb

7:39 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Truth,
Once again you try and change the subject. See what for myself? What did you see and where did you see it? We are still at square one here. You have never given anything to support your original statements.

I’ve given you my reasons for not disclosing the ambassador’s name. I mentioned him in describing my experience at the district caucus. That was the largest group of Obama supporters I have actually been a part of. His name is not pertinent to your original statements.

What have you yourself seen Truth. Where did you see it? At what Obama rally were you present? Back up your original statements.

Posted by The Truth

8:26 PM, Jul 09, 2008


You call me a fraud and expect me to help you LOL twice, typical liberal up bring.
70,000 who showed up where mostly kids you cannot win elections with kids.

Doubt you’ll ever be allowed into his rallies so that is why you’re so upset with me.
I can understand this; it is hard for someone like you to support a flawed candidate.

You should ask yourself a few questions about Senator Obama, who is he, would be a good start. Where are the Rev. Jackson, Sharpton, and the NAACP?
If you get off you butt and investigate you may find some answers.

Don’t throw out a statement and say, “One of the people I sat with was a former US ambassador who had been appointed by Bush43. (yeah he really was”

Then expect us not to ask his name the only one your fooling is yourself.
If this makes you feel big so be it I’ll stop asking.

Posted by jamesb

10:01 PM, Jul 09, 2008

Truth,
Careful there bud. Your prejudice is showing. And you have yet to answer the questions. I’m not asking you to help me with anything. I’m asking you to back up the statements you made.

Posted by The Truth

10:33 PM, Jul 09, 2008

James,

"Careful there bud. Your prejudice is showing"
How did you come up with that conclusion?

Posted by jamesb

8:56 AM, Jul 10, 2008

Truth,

Your words “You should ask yourself a few questions about Senator Obama, who is he, would be a good start. Where are the Rev. Jackson, Sharpton, and the NAACP?”

That’s how I came up with that conclusion.

Posted by The Truth

9:26 AM, Jul 10, 2008

"You should ask yourself a few questions about Senator Obama, who is he, would be a good start."

it was mean and raciest of me to ask you this question,
I realized now.
sorry, please forgive me.

Posted by jamesb

10:33 AM, Jul 10, 2008

Truth,
Fair enough.

Posted by THE TRUTH

11:42 AM, Jul 10, 2008

jamesb

10:33 AM, Jul 10, 2008

"Truth,
Fair enough."

Did not realize asking Democrats to think is racist.
Thank you, for your forgiveness.

The Truth

Posted by jamesb

1:24 PM, Jul 10, 2008

Truth,

You had a nice thing going there but you just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Asking democrats to think is not racist. Bringing up Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP when you are talking about Obama….and mentioning no one else…..shows you are thinking more about race than anything else. (the man had a white mother and black father you know. Why do you bring up only blacks and black based organizations?)

As far as asking someone to think, I’ve been trying to get you to support your statements and you have refused or are unable to. Make your electoral decisions on any basis you wish but you should be willing to back them up unless you are ashamed of your reasoning. Skin color is a pretty pathetic reason for deciding who to vote for.


Posted by The Truth

1:54 PM, Jul 10, 2008

Jamesb,
you should be ashamed of yourself bud.

Your sicker than I thought you have no idea who I am or where I been. Too bad you have a closed mind I was starting to have fun typing to you.

You either need to grow-up or seek mental treatment as you need it Bro.

Posted by jamesb

2:10 PM, Jul 10, 2008

Truth,

Go back and read your own posts. You are either ignorant or an out and out racist. You can’t support what you say. You try and get little digs in whenever you can. You have nothing to teach me. You have nothing to teach anyone. You are just another fool republican being lead around by your nose. Now go back and find out what Rush or Bill O wants you to say next. God knows you can’t think for yourself.

You should also stop using the screen name truth unless you start telling the truth

Recent entries

Jul 10, 08 - 10:44 AM
Pro-Rossi signs say Seattle stole '04 election

Jul 10, 08 - 10:23 AM
Soprano's band says Demo ad offensive

Jul 10, 08 - 08:46 AM
New ads from Gregoire and Rossi

Jul 9, 08 - 01:28 PM
Gregoire releases tax returns, but nothing from Rossi

Jul 9, 08 - 10:48 AM
Another political scribe leaves the biz

Advertising

Marketplace

Advertising

Advertising

Categories
Calendar

July

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 31    
Browse the archives

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

Advertising

Buy a link here