"You will never be the best version of yourself if you allow other people to convince you, you can't be better because of your skin color, because of your sexual identity, because of the community you came from... you must resist those narratives at all costs if you truly want to be successful in America." - Charley Kirk
A federal appeals court has ruled that imprisoned felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act.
A federal appeals court has ruled that imprisoned felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act.
Tuesday's 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that state law did not violate the act, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.
The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."
A spokeswoman says state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step.
. As stated here, here, here and here, the sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, with it's decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal's victims or government, is obvious.
The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address, in his haste to restore the felon's "rights," that the felon violated the victim's rights without a second thought.
We're lied to:
First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.
Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.
But I just can't feature any of these clowns going, "Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won't be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy."
Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government's thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.
This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?
Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.
I'm touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?
Not so much. What this law "signals" to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.
They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.
When the "new law" fails because felons WILL NOT "stay current" on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?
And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?
Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn't set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven't had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon's payments?
This bill is sheer idiocy. I wonder when we're going to see this rag write an editorial demanding that convicted felon's gun rights be restored?
After all, the Second Amendment isn't the second suggestion, and all these arguments for restoring felon voting rights can certainly be applied to restoring felon gun rights.
In fact, substitute the word "gun," for the word "vote," and you come up with a pretty persuasive argument... right?
First, regaining the right to possess guns could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.
Second, it would encourage participation in firearms training. After being under government's thumb unarmed for so many years (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to own firearms to help protect others from criminals.
Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state's current prohibition of denying felons the right to possess or own firearms after incarceration is not only malicious, it's essentially a requirement for felons to remain helpless and unarmed, denying to poor felons the right to self defense that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot own or possess firearms until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to own or possess firearms as long as they stay current on payments.
That, of course, is "different" somehow. Right?
But is it?
A "right" is a "right." Voting is a "right," and so is owning or possessing a firearm. How can anyone supporting this bill oppose the restriction of ANY "right" by these people?
The fact is that the primary driver for this bill, our utterly worthless leftist-masquerading as a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has shown a monumental level of incompetence when it comes to administering the issue of keeping felon voters of the rolls.
Of course, that incompetence is, in part, driven by his agenda which has included the elimination of the felon voter rules for years now. To that end, Reed has done absolutely nothing to set up a system to identify felon voters to keep them from voting.
Well, he HAS whined, repeatedly, about how HARD it is to do that particular task, but besides that, he's done absolutely nothing to implement that requirement, and in the last election, he was directly responsible for sending out 10's of thousands of ballots to felon voters disqualified from voting by their felony conviction.
And now, we expect this clown to implement a far more exacting, far more complicated and cumbersome system than a blanket prohibition?
Ohhh. I'm really confident. Aren't you?
The leftist rag sickeningly claims racism as the basis for the opposition to this issue, contending that because of the "disproportionately" high percentage (I guess the idea that a "disproportionately" high percentage of people committing crimes just happen to be "of color" doesn't enter in to their world) of criminals are "of color," that could "conceivably" ("Conceivably?" Is this guy smoking crack? What was the minority vote in the last election?) favor Democrats.
I oppose this bill ONLY because those who will benefit from it are those who cheerfully and willingly violated the rights of their victims without concern to voting rights.
The ONLY question to consider is this: Will this bill make it MORE likely... or LESS likely that restitution will be paid?
The restoration of rights should ONLY be granted after the COMPLETION of ALL of a sentence. To complete incarceration... mandatory... required incarceration because YOU have VOLUNTARILY committed a crime or crimes, EARNS you nothing.
Again, I seriously doubt that any of the morons supporting this travesty face the possibility of restitution from a convicted felon. I seriously doubt that any of the women who had voted for this had been rape victims. I seriously doubt that any man who voted for this had a murdered wife or child. I seriously doubt that any of these people have had a knife held to their throat, had their house burned down or have been robbed at gun point.
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't about race. This is about holding those who would victimize us fully accountable for their actions... not scamming the system with $5 per month payments so we can get more criminals voting.
And this newspaper presents NOTHING... and those supporting this garbage present NOTHING that eliminates the need for accountability... and to make the victims whole.
You want to crank this up?
Then put these people on a repayment schedule and LOCK THEM BACK UP WHEN THEY FAIL TO STICK TO IT.
But don't even think they'll give a damn enough about this precious right to avoid recidivism just because a bunch of liberals got together and decided to remove yet another layer of accountability.
State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.
The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We're not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.
Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.
If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That's too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.
. Once you've read the story, you notice how completely bizarre the headline for this story is:
WA bill would smooth voting restoration for felons
.
Apparently, those leftist supporting this bill seem to view the mere act of release from custody as something of a "restoration process" for convicted felons.
.
Something that happens "automatically" has nothing to do with "restoration."
.
Even the definition of the word "restoration" refers to the concept of making whole... or returning to a prior state:
to bring back into existence, use, or the like; reestablish: to restore order.
2.
to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting.
3.
to bring back to a state of health, soundness, or vigor.
4.
to put back to a former place, or to a former position, rank, etc.: to restore the king to his throne.
5.
to give back; make return or restitution of (anything taken away or lost).
6.
to reproduce or reconstruct (an ancient building, extinct animal, etc.) in the original state.
.
In this particular instance, the democrats and our colossal waste of skin are MUCH more concerned over "restoring" the felon than they are "restoring" the victim.
.
Only in a democrat controlled state can up become down and right become left like this; where the victims, once again, are relegated to second place.
.
I would personally love to hold a poll of everyone supporting this bill. For everyone of the leftist scum shilling it or voting for it.
.
When were you victims of a felony? If, for example, you female representatives sponsoring or voting for this garbage... if one of these felons that you're so concerned about had raped and murdered your 13 year old daughter, like the murder that just happened around here...
.
... would you be so hot about "restoring THAT felon voter rights?"
.
What if one of these felons had held a blade up against your throat... and then slowly stripped you clothes off before he raped you... repeatedly... deaf to your screams (if he allowed you to scream) deaf to your pleas... deaf to your shattered humanity, your pain, your horror...
.
... would you be so hot about "restoring THAT felon voter rights?"
.
Somehow, I believe that few have experienced that peculiar agony.
.
Now, I get why Darnielle is doing this. When she says:
"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."
Where, in that babble, does the good representative express ANY concern for the VICTIM?
She doesn't... because she has none.
What this is about is much like the other democrat concerns. They see ripe pickings for the illegal alien vote... and now, they see the opportunity to get another voting block... the convicted felon voting block.
I can see the democrats doing what our waste-of-skin Secretary of State deems to be impossible: identifying convicted felons and focusing on them as a voter block. You know, convicted felon mailers and the like, pointing out that CRIMINAL voters certainly wouldn't want to support REPUBLICANS... would they?
The rest of Darnielle's swill is eyewash to cover the true goal: opening up additional thousands of democrats to vote legally... no matter what they've done... or haven't done... to complete the court-ordered process to restore the felon's victims.
Another neo-communist legislator, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells (From Seattle, stunningly enough) babbles more of the same:
"It's more an issue of fairness," she said. "I don't think the right to vote should be based on one's income."
Apparently, the good senator also lacks any concern for the victim.
Now, the total moron behind this bill, our complete waste-of-skin Secretary of State, Sam Reed, tells us this utter crap:
"When people have served their time and are out of prison, we want them to get involved in their community and get connected," said Reed, a Republican.
This is the usual kind of bureaucratic bullshit double-speak that paper-shufflers engage in to justify there crapping on us.
I can just envision with ease these civic-minded convicted felons... rapists, murderers, robber, drug dealers... being let out, met at the gate by the local democrat county party chair and being personally guided through the voter registration process.
That, of course, would include the imprisoned illegal aliens, as well, because our erstwhile embarrassment of a Secretary of State has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to insure that ONLY eligible American citizens vote. I could be asking too much, however... after all, HE'S ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE EIGHT FRICKING YEARS WHILE HE"S DONE NOTHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT ALL.
I will give Reed SOME credit for at least a glancing reference to the TRUE reason he has for being a rabid supporter of this bill... it's to make it easier... ON HIM!
Equally important, Reed said, the measure would help reduce the bureaucratic challenges in determining who is a legal voter.
The state's voter database is able to track people who are currently in prison, or who are still under supervision by the state Department of Corrections. More than 12,000 felons have been removed from the rolls since the database went online in 2006. But people who haven't yet had their rights restored, often because of unpaid court-ordered fines, are harder to track.
"It continues to be a problem," Reed said. "We really need a bright line."
"It continues to be a problem," Reed said. Unfortunately, the Times didn't ask... and Reed didn't offer, the reasons WHY it continues to be a problem... and how they all revolve around HIS failure to do absolutely anything about it.
WHEN YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM... WHEN YOU AVOID TAKING ANY ACTION TO FIX THE PROBLEM... THE PROBLEM AIN'T GONNA FIX ITSELF.
AND IN THE ENTIRETY OF HIS EIGHT YEARS IN OFFICE, SAM REED HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO FIX THIS ISSUE.
NOTHING.
And now, like his fellow leftists, he throws the victims of these criminals under a bus.
Because the one issue NEVER talked about by these morons is what I call the "Rule of Likely."
If Government acts, is the outcome likely to be GOOD? Or is the outcome likely to be BAD?
So, to APPLY the "Rule of Likely," I ask these idiots this:
When these oh-so-civic-minded felons are GIVEN (Not "restored," but GIVEN) their "rights back... is it MORE likely or LESS likely that the non-existent incentive of the vote will INCREASE the payment of restitution to the victims?
Or DECREASE that likelihood?
Sam Reed's life will become easier... not that he's done a damned thing in this arena ANYWAY. But the lives of the VICTIMS, who SHOULD be the paramount concern of all these weasels supporting this bill will not be made better by one wit.
But then, I doubt that Reed or anyone in his family has been raped, robbed or murdered... like I doubt that very many of this bill's supporters have undergone that particular agony.
And oh, how easy it is for those who have not to ignore those who have.
Because political expedience and political advantage at the expense of the forgotten victims is the order of the day.
It just makes me proud to be an American.
Also, this quote in the article is inaccurate:
Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state's top elections officer, had not taken a position on the measure in the past, but this year he publicly supports it, saying the bill could foster greater civic engagement.
I don't know if the reporter just didn't check, or if Reed just lied outright... but making his own life easier has been Reed's mantra for years... and he has CLEARLY been taking this position for AT LEAST almost four years.
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 By DON JENKINS, Columbian staff writer
Felons cast most of the illegal votes that clouded Washington's gubernatorial election, and the state's chief elections official Tuesday proposed a way to prevent it from happening again: legalize those voters.
Talking to reporters at the Clark County auditor's office, Secretary of State Sam Reed for the first time came out solidly in support of letting freed felons vote, regardless of their court-imposed debts.
Felons currently must pay off fines and make restitution to victims before they can apply to have their voting rights restored.But keeping disenfranchised felons off voter rolls has proven difficult for county auditors.Felons accounted for 1,401 of the 1,678 illegal votes cast in the 2004 election. Fifty-nine felons voted in Clark County. Election officials plead that they may never learn about the conviction.
Here, a bit more of the truth comes out... and Reed doesn't seem to say a whole lot about "fostering greater civic engagement" back THEN.... just now.
For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.
Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.
A measure to remove that payment requirement - opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" - has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.
"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."
Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.
But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.
"Until they pay their fines and restitution, to me, they haven't carried out their entire sentence," said Rep. Ed Orcutt, a Kalama Republican who opposes the bill. "So their voting rights shouldn't be restored."
. Democrats have been trying for years to increase the felon vote, much like they've worked very hard to increase the illegal alien vote.
Is there any doubt that thousands if not millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in the country? Is there any doubt that democrats have made serious efforts to enable and encourage that vote?
Well, here in Washington State, democrats on a party-line vote brought their dream a step closer by eliminating part of the sentence requirement before voting rights are restored to convicted felons.
That is, in the democrat world, felons that have violated our laws, damaged or stolen our property; assaulted, raped, kidnapped, or even murdered our citizens and others should not have to complete all of their sentence before democrats make them eligible to vote... democrat, of course.
So, the guy that raped and murdered your wife and daughter and then got out on probation after 8 years or so, can now vote the moment they get out... no restitution required.
That makes perfect sense in the world of the democrat politician, where all votes are welcomed and sought after... including the votes of illegals and convicted felons who have not completed their sentences.
Sam Reed, our waste-of-skin Secretary of State who sent out what... 27,000 illegal ballots to convicted felons ANYWAY in the last election, will be thrilled.
The rest of us, victimized by these people... and now by State House Democrats... including Wallace, Probst, Jacks and Moeller?
Not so much.
Why is it that I believe that none of these clowns who voted FOR this piece of garbage have ever been victimized by a felon?
I wonder... if, say, the parents of Wesley Allen Dodd's victims... or Ted Bundy's victims, were they in the legislature, would have voted for this despicable, moronic bill?
Felons would be able to vote before paying off their court-ordered fines under a bill approved by the Washington state House on Tuesday night.
OLYMPIA, Wash. —
Felons would be able to vote before paying off their court-ordered fines under a bill approved by the Washington state House on Tuesday night.
Under current law, convicted felons in Washington can't vote until they have served their sentence and paid all restitution and other legal fees.
The bill approved on a 53-43 vote would give felons their voting rights back after they're released from state custody, including the completion of any parole or probation.
The felon voting rights measure now heads to the state Senate for consideration.
Supporters of the bill - all Democrats - said the state's present system amounts to a poll tax because people who have turned their lives around but can't afford to pay court fines are kept from voting.
Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, said the measure also would help state elections officials by clearing up a gray area: Under current law, it is difficult to determine whether a felon who is no longer in state custody has legally restored his voting rights.
But Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Carrolls, objected to Democratic pleas that Washington should move toward some 30 other states that allow quicker restoration of felon voting rights.
"We shouldn't be making it easier for felons to vote. All those other states should be making it harder," Orcutt said.
Lew tears into Reed in a variety of ways. I leave it to the reader to go over to his blog and check out his take. I mention Lew here essentially to give credit for reminding me about this issue, since I, too, read Reed's garbage in the LTE section of the Columbian, but failed to address his self-delusion essentially because out here in the hinterland, Qwest (aka the Prince of Deafness) decided to have an unspecified internet outage for unknown reasons for an unspecified duration and it just slipped my mind.
Lew's gentle slap at the moronic political protestation of Mr. Reed, which I discovered yesterday, reminded me to take my Fulda Tanker's Boot out and bury it in the Secretary's political butt.
Here it goes.
Reed is arguably the worst elected official in government today, and that's saying something.
In the most important elements of the domain of the Secretary of State, those elements concerning our election system, he is an utter, abysmal, failure.
Reed's failures make electoral fraud a fact of life in Washington State today. His failure to reform the state electoral system combined with his staunch support of the democrat position of giving convicted felons the vote while they encourage every other form of illegal voting since they know they, the left, benefit from the fraud vote.
The steps to reform the system are straightforward and simple: pick a date far away from the next general election.... say, February 1. On that date, invalidate every voter's registration in this state.
Require everyone to re-register USING PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO PROVE THEY ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS. Democrats hate this idea because they know of the thousands of people illegally registered because they don't HAVE to prove citizenship, they directly benefit and most of those illegal votes go to their candidates.
Require everyone applying for mail-in or absentee ballots to show, in addition to their proof of citizenship, PROOF OF THEIR RESIDENCY. We all saw that nonsense in Ohio and all the ACORN fraud that so helped democrats in the last election.
Continue the requirements of keeping felons from voting and restoring their right to vote WHEN THEY HAVE COMPLETED EVERY ELEMENT, INCLUDING RESTITUTION AND PROBATION, OF THEIR SENTENCE.
These are, as I said, simple and straightforward steps. Secretary Reed heard these demands over, and over, and over again at the 4 or 5 bogus dog and pony shows they put on around the state after the debacle that was the 04 cycle.
And what do we get from this election disaster of a Secretary of State? It's too hard to separate felons out. Our computers don't talk to Department of Correction's computers. It's too complex. The weather's wrong. My pony has a loose shoe.
That this idiot has had 8 years to FIX all this and has done NOTHING to accomplish that task seems to have fallen through the cracks.
And now... now, who does he think he is? Why, he thinks because HE won statewide, that HE actually knows something about politics and how Republicans, apparently, can regain political prominence.
So, to show his high level of political ability, he reminds us that he "is one of two Republicans left standing state wide." Big whoop.
To set the table, here's his spew on the LTE front:
Put party division aside In the aftermath of the Barack Obama tsunami, Republicans are correctly analyzing what appened. As secretary of state and one of two statewide Republican elected officials left standing (the estimable Attorney General Rob McKenna is the other), I hope party leaders will resist the self-defeating instinct to move toward ideological dogma, negativism and government-is-bad rhetoric.
I hope the party will increasingly be the idea-rich home of pragmatism and reform, inclusion and problem-solvers. We are, after all, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dan Evans.
We have thrived for 148 years by championing individual freedom and responsibility, equal rights, fiscal conservatism, strong local and state governments, free enterprise, conservation of natural resources, and a strong national defense. To move away from the practical, common-sense middle is the wrong impulse.Yes, Democrats have won the White House, the governor’s mansion and legislative majorities, but we must put division aside and get on with collaborative governing. Voters want results.
Sam Reed Olympia
First of all, the main purpose of this is not to set Republicans straight.
The main purpose is so Reed can brag, period. "Egomaniacal" doesn't begin to cover it. But what Mr. Reed seems incapable of grasping is this: nobody cares.
Nobody cares that he won. Our local county commissioner races resulted in $460,000 spent... just in one county.
The statewide costs for Reed's election?
$186,000.
All of 14,162 people didn't bother to vote in this particular county for this statewide race.
The low amount of money goes to the utter lack of importance of this office and the fact that Reed's positions on electoral reform come straight out of the democrat playbook. Why take this idiot out when he's doing what the democrats want? And in the critical area of election reform, Reed acts like he's taking his marching orders from Comrade Dwight Pelz, chair of the Washington State Democrat Party.
That said, Reed is a member of a democrat front group known as the Mainstream Republicans. Essentially, Mainstreamers are democrats who, for some unfathomable reason, want to have an "R" appended after their name.
The irony and hypocrisy of Mr. Reed's letter cannot be overstated.
The first paragraph of Mr. Reed's letter is this:
"In the aftermath of the Barack Obama tsunami, Republicans are correctlyanalyzing what happened. As secretary of state and one of two statewideRepublican elected officials left standing (the estimable Attorney General Rob McKenna is the other), I hope party leaders will resist the self-defeatinginstinct to move toward ideological dogma, negativism and government-is-badrhetoric."
First of all, the so-called "tsunami" was, like Mr. Reed, a lot of hot air.
Here in Clark County, we gained Republican control of the County Commission and lost but one of 12 legislative seats, where Republicans now hold 7 positions. The legislature as a whole gained both one House and one Senate seat.
Yes... we lost the governor's race, but then, I predicted Rossi's loss from the moment he came out in favor of a taxpayer-funded bailout of the Sonics... for only $75 million taxpayer dollars.
So, Reed, in an effort to exaggerate his own success, exaggerates the climate within which that success took place. That is defined as "self-aggrandizement."
Government IS "bad." As the multi-hundred billion dollar bailouts continue, it can only get worse. But at the state level, there are PARTS of government that are "bad," such as the moronic and worthless Secretary of State's office. And as a party, Republicans shouldn't ignore that. And that he would claim that government ISN'T bad shows how dramatically out of touch and moronic his perspectives are.
Next, he spews:
I hope the party will increasingly be the idea-rich home of pragmatism and reform, inclusion and problem-solvers. We are, after all, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dan Evans.
If pragmatism as practiced by Mr. Reed means the abandonment of Republican principles, then I say "screw pragmatism."
I would rather lose each and every year standing up for something then to cave into the politics of expediency and wimp out by adopting democrat party positions as a tool to become re-elected. And THAT is the recipe for Mr. Reed's success.
"We have thrived for 148 years by championing individual freedom and responsibility, equal rights, fiscal conservatism, strong local and state governments, free enterprise, conservation of natural resources, and a strong national defense. To move away from the practical, common-sensemiddle is the wrong impulse."
Again, cluelessly, Reed would have us believe that conservative principles include these tenets. Just for one example, the Soviet Union used to have the strongest imaginable "state government."
And how do these massive and moronic bailouts equate to "free enterprise?"
Rossi OWNED the "common sense middle." What good did that do him in a state so blue it borders on black?
None.
"Yes, Democrats have won the White House, the governor’s mansion and legislative majorities, but we must put division aside and get on with collaborative governing. Voters want results."
If "results" got people elected... or unelected... then Reed would be long gone and Gregoire with him, given their disastrous tenures in office.
Mr. Reed is so dangerously ignorant, so politically inept, so moronically guilty of misfeasance and so unqualified to hold elective office that his election is proof that you can, in fact, fool all of the people, all of the time.
And it certainly does NOT give Mr. Reed the gravitas that he thinks it does with his blown up sense of self-importance.
I look forward to actually watching Mr. Reed ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.
Comments (111) 
E-mail article 
Print view 
Share
Digg
Newsvine