Monday, May 21, 2012

What price for a gay marriage vote? Appointment to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

Political turn-coat and RINO Republican State Senator Cheryl Pflug (5th District) got her 30 pieces of silver today with her appointment by the Governor to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

I guess, like Reagan Dunn, nobody "turns Gay" for nothing.

More to follow.

7 comments:

Martin Hash said...

I notice that RINO is a pejorative term in your book, and I'd like to differentiate it from what you call a person who is NOT a Conservative but IS a Republican?

p.s. I hope that appointment wasn't a payoff.

Just a guy said...

A democrat.

And it was a pay off. No one undergoes miraculous election year flips without an ulterior motive.

Just a guy said...

I'll take it a step further, since the answer was a bit simplistic.

You ask: what you call a person who is NOT a Conservative but IS a Republican?

A RINO is the fake Republican version of a democrat, much like a DINO is a fake democrat version of a Republican.

Tim Sheldon immediately comes to mind as a DINO; he even ran (and was elected) as an independent Mason County Commissioner while simultaneously running as a democrat for the state senate.

When you vote for democrat core principles (Tax increases, progressive causes, gay marriage, union extortion) and you run under the banner of the GOP... then voilĂ ! RINO.

Under that banner, I can name McKenna, Romney, Reagan Dunn and Cheryl Pflug... Liz Pike and just about any opportunistic politician with roots in the RINO Club, aka the "Mainstream Republicans," who never uttered a syllable in support of gay marriage until this year... including during any of their election campaigns.

It was, we're told, a matter of principle.

Odd, isn't it, that her deciding vote and her 6 figure appointment just happen to coincide so neatly... isn't it?

That such is how business is done and Gregoire is a lame duck doesn't mean it's right. And as much as possible, I try to do the right thing... party notwithstanding.

Martin Hash said...

A wee bit of interpretation:

RINOs take positions on issues not based on ideology but for self-interest.

I suppose, reading between the lines, that your support of an ideological sincere non-Conservative Republican would be problematic but not impossible?

Just a guy said...

Perhaps you can help me with that, Martin.

What is, precisely, an "ideologically sincere non-Conservative Republican?"

How can one lay claim to a party label while simultaneously claiming they don't follow that party's ideology?

It seems to me that one who does not follow a party's ideology is, well, an independent.

And I have no problems with independents. But, say, for example, like Marc, if you're going to vote in an ideologically different way then the party you claim to be a part of... in Marc's case, increasingly higher taxes and fees, ramming the CRC project down our throats without a vote (even lying to me about it) then should you not make a clean break of it and just declare yourself an independent instead of using a party's assets, people and money to get elected, only to subsequently violate the tenets of that party by voting as if, again in Marc's case, you were Steve Stuart (That is, a democrat?)

Is there not... or should there not be more to being, say, a Republican than just claiming the label?

Would, for example, a pronouncement from me that I had become a democrat make it so?

Or would I realistically have to back that up with some action that showed that to be the case?

For example: as a "Mainstream Republican," where are their positions substantially different from the platform of the democrat party?

And if their positions are similar... then why even call themselves "Republican," mainstream or otherwise?

A very close friend asked me today: "So what do you think will happen if McKenna is elected?"

I looked at him and said:

I doubt their will be any substantial difference between what McKenna would do and what Gregoire has done.

If labels are to mean something... shouldn't those who use them, particularly as an avenue to get elected... be held accountable for that choice?

Looking at Marc's record.... in every meaningful way... and I mean EVERY meaningful way... he's voted with the democrats since he became a county commissioner.

In 2008, he promised on his website not to raise our taxes.

How'd that work out for us?

I apply the duck test. Marc passes: that is, he votes, legislates, raises taxes and ignores the people just like Steve Stuart.

Since he shares Stuart's values instead of those of the GOP, shouldn't he re-label himself and leave the GOP?

Or are these political labels just meaningless?

Martin Hash said...

1) There are only two Parties that have any chance - any third Party is masturbation.

2) A Party is defined by its platform. I always read the Democratic platform to see if I still fit because to hear some of the Leftist rhetoric, I really wonder sometimes, but as a matter-of-fact, "mainstream" Democrats as defined by the platform are NOT Marxists. Actually, there are many Democrats (Probst) more conservative than me, making me a "Liberal."

3) If the Party's platform ideologically crosses the line (in the case of Democrats: if it goes Marxist/Progressive), I'm out - but then where do I go?

I think RINOs and DINOs are the compromise - as long as they clearly state their positions BEFORE the election. I'd go a step further to expect RINOs and DINOs to ABSTAIN on issues where their ideology differs from their Party's platform.

Just a guy said...

"A Party is defined by its platform. I always read the Democratic platform to see if I still fit because to hear some of the Leftist rhetoric, I really wonder sometimes, but as a matter-of-fact, "mainstream" Democrats as defined by the platform are NOT Marxists. Actually, there are many Democrats (Probst) more conservative than me, making me a 'Liberal.'"

Then you're one up on my favorite example, Boldt, who has publicly acknowledged he hasn't even bothered to read the GOP platform.

As for your "abstention" idea, that could be a useful compromise. but the more frequently one "departs from the fold," so to speak, the less likely their claim to the party mantle.

Marc doesn't seem to care that the GOP has smacked him. He hasn't done a thing to repair the damage, has publicly stated he doesn't think the GOP action will make any difference, has failed to acknowledge or even to admit that he's tossed Mielke under the bus... or any of the other things you would expect someone who gave a damn about party affiliation would do to get it back... and Marc has done none of them.

In this instance, Marc is only one example... but he's SOME example of a case in point on the RINO scale.