
Journal pudge's Journal: 2004 Washington State Republican Convention, Day One 41
Day one of the 2004 Washington State Republican Convention -- the next step after the county convention -- was an eventful one. It was my first.
Entry
When we first arrived at the convention center, we saw four protesters holding up signs about torture, wearing black hoods and electrodes. C'mon, I thought the Seattle area could do better than this. I was hoping for more.
Inside, there were many tables filled with bumper stickers and t-shirts and flyers. We chatted with Jay from the Log Cabin Republicans, who was urging people to not amend the Constitution to exclude gay marriage. We agreed that equality was the important issue, and that people should be working on a way to provide equality, not to prevent it.
We also agreed that people are much more than their sexual proclivities: if you agree with the Republicans on most issues, why should you oppose them just because of the one issue where you don't? But then again, many people feel strongly enough about one issue to be a single-issue voter, especially when that issue is so core to their beliefs. But then again, it is sometimes better to work within the system than against it.
Anyway, we went inside for the convention. The convention seating is broken down by county (or in the case of King County -- by far the most populous, accounting for nearly a third of the 1000 delegates from 39 counties, by my count -- which was further broken down by legislative district (e.g., districts for the state legislature). Later, when we would caucus for selecting delegates, we would split up by congressional district (e.g., districts for the federal Congress).
Speakers
Most of the morning was taken up by candidates for office, and other VIPs, giving speeches. Washington has 11 federal congresspeople, including the two Senators, and three of them are Republicans: Representatives Jennifer Dunn, Doc Hastings, and George Nethercutt. Dunn, who is retiring from Congress, spoke first, followed by Hastings and Nethercutt, who is running against Patty Murray for the Senate.
Next came the other big candidate in the state, Dino Rossi, the candidate for governor. He was followed by the only two Republicans in statewide office in WA, Secretary of State Sam Reed and Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland.
They were followed by others chasing statewide office: Rob McKenna (the favorite) and Mike Vaska (the outsider) for attorney general, Jim Wiest for lieutenant governor, and Curtis Fackler for insurance commissioner.
I really like Rossi and Fackler. Wiest seemed not entirely there, to me. I like Vaska a lot, but McKenna wasn't bad either. I plan to vote for Vaska in the primary, but I think McKenna is going to win, and I think he'll be fine too.
Richard Sanders was the only nonpartisan candidate to speak. Rarely are nonpartisan candidates allowed to speak, but in the case of the state supreme court, if the party executives decide a candidate is worth endorsing, then they do endorse him and allow him to speak. I'm not big on electing judges, but whatever.
Controversy
The one statewide candidate I left out is Reed Davis. I left him out, because the state party did. You see, the state party requires that candidates wishing to speak sign the so-called 11th Commandment, popularized by Ronald Reagan: thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican, under pain of a $5,000 fine. Davis refused to sign it, so was refused access to speak.
The notion of the 11th Commandment is a fine one, but the idea that it should be a rule is nonsense. Reed Davis is running in large part because he thinks Nethercutt would not make a good Senator. If he thought Nethercutt would make a good Senator, he wouldn't run. So to ask he refrain from criticizing Nethercutt is patently ridiculous.
Further, the party broke their own rules by endorsing Nethercutt, a candidate in a contested primary. And who decides whether or not a criticism of another candidate amounts a violation of the 11th Commandment? The exact same people who endorsed Nethercutt decide whether to fine someone for criticizing him. The process lacks any integrity whatsoever. And this is why Davis didn't sign it: he would be signing onto a sham.
After the candidates -- sans Davis -- spoke, the convention was officially opened and the rules were proposed. The very first motion was to amend the rules, allowing a candidate to speak without signing the 11th Commandment. The arguments against the amendment amounted to two specious claims: first, that Davis violated the rules and therefore should not speak; the second, that we should not have candidates attacking each other.
I already addressed the second, but let me add that one woman complained that when she heard Davis speak at her county's convention, she was offended that he spoke ill of Nethercutt there. I heard what was likely the same speech at my county's convention, and I had a very different impression. Maybe I am more open to conflict than she is.
But the first argument, while at first glance seems reasonable, really lacks any merit. Note that I said we were addressing the proposed rules of the convention. The convention had no rules until we, the delegates, voted to adopt them. He had not violated any rules, because there was no rule to violate. It's begging the question.
Unfortunately, after lengthy debate, the amendment was defeated, and Davis was not allowed to speak. Davis was disallowed from speaking under the auspices of unity, but it surely resulted in increased disunity. That's what happens when you don't allow people a voice.
Slate Voting
There was only one other proposed amendment to the rules, relating to slate voting. The Bush campaign selects the people which it thinks we should vote for, for delegate to the national convention, and puts them on a slate. That's fine, but what isn't fine is that these slates end up on the ballot itself. There's one box you can check that chooses an entire slate, or you can vote for delegates individually.
It's similar to the party-line ballots some states have, where you can check one portion of the ballot to choose all Republicans, or all Democrats. But this is different. In the case of party-line ballots, you are consolidating information that is already on the ballot: party endorsement/affiliation. Here, they take a private endorsement that wouldn't otherwise be on the ballot, and promote it to a privileged position.
I can understand why people do this: it makes the voting process more expedient. But what I can't understand is how people can't understand how undemocratic this is. People actually stood up and said this wasn't undemocratic, and emphasized, over and over, that you can vote for people not on the slate. They proved how much they don't get the point. They couldn't see how putting someone in that privileged position on the ballot itself is inherently undemocratic.
Thankfully, this amendment did pass.
Voting, and Losing
We then retired to our nine congressional district causes, to vote for delegates to the national convention. I was one of about 15 people who was up for three delegate and three alternate spots.
The first round we voted for delegates (the ballots had been preprinted with the slates at the top, which had now been torn off, as per the adopted rules), and several of the people said they only wanted to run for alternate, so were excluded. We each spoke a few words about ourselves. I thought I might, at 30 years old, play the "I'm the youth of this party" card, but the person directly before me was 21. And wore a nice suit. And had a Tom Cruise smile.
So, I tried a different tactic. I told them I was from Massachusetts, the home of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, the Democratic National Convention, and the Boston Red Sox, who were going to sweep the Seattle Mariners this weekend in a three-game series in Fenway Park. I thought that would win them over, but I did not get 20% of the voting, and was eliminated.
One needs 50% of the vote to be elected, and only two received 50%. Anyone more than 20% and less than 50% -- four people -- were in a runoff. No one got 50% on the second ballot, and only three of the four got 20%, so we went to a second ballot with three. Then a third, again with three: Tom Cruise, the senior member of the state rules committee, and a young Army veteran who was going back to school and becoming more involved in politics.
We heard from each candidate again, and on the fourth, we finally had our man, Mr. Rules. I'm glad, even though I voted for Army Guy, because he would then have the opportunity to serve on the national rules committee, apparently.
Then we went to alternate voting. I spoke again, and thought, hey, maybe I wasn't convincing enough about my qualifications. So I said:
Voting is a funny thing. I don't how many of you are baseball fans, but a few years back, one guy voted for Red Sox shortstop Nomar Garciaparra 40,000 times. Do any of you remember that? Well, that was me. Really, it was. I'm a computer programmer, and it was just a little hack I wrote. So, I've voted more times in my life than anyone else here. Please vote for me. Thank you.
I got a lot of laughter and smiles, but still, I came up short. But then again, I was up against the county chairwoman, Tom Cruise, and Army Guy. I didn't really have a chance, although from the feedback I received, it seems like I might have been close behind.
It's not over: on Saturday, the party will select 11 at-large delegates and 11 at-large alternates. But maybe next time I should change my tactics. Maybe I won't use the word "hack." Or "Massachusetts."
We finished up the day by selecting an elector for the electoral college. Remember, you have one elector for each state representative to Congress, which means one for each congressional district, and two statewide. So tomorrow we will also choose two statewide electors, in addition to the additional delegates.
The elector we elected wasn't in attendance, but two respected party men spoke on her behalf, noting that George Bush calls her at home, and calls her his "second mom." Her opponent was well-respected in the party, but it's hard to be the President's mom.
Log Cabin Republicans... (Score:2)
However, I would agree that a federal ammendment defining marriage is not a good idea (for reasons mentioned in the link above on "improve equality".) I don't think the collection of power to define marriage to the federal level is a safe place to put it. Much better
I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
This: When we first arrived at the convention center, we saw four protesters holding up signs about torture, wearing black hoods and electrodes. C'mon, I thought the Seattle area could do better than this. I was hoping for more.
Well, it made me laugh. On several levels. The uselessness of protesting such an event for those reasons and the small number that actually did. I just found it amusing. I chuckled a bit when I first read it actually. St
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Well, it was a Friday. I imagine SOME protestors have jobs. Let's keep our fingers crossed for Day Two!
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Usually *that* number is four! LOL
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
The Log Cabin guy I talked with is a conservative Christian. That throws a monkey wrench in your dichotomy, don't it?
One thing I forgot to mention -- maybe I will add it later -- is that we heard from the candidates for our congressional d
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
This week, a memo was leaked to the media claiming that the secret GOP plan is to win this next election, and then once Bush has another four years to do what he wants, then start cutting government spending.
Does this seem plausible to you? Is it likely that Bush's plan was to first cut taxes, making Republicans really popular (
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Humm, so much to work with here.
First, OMB guidelines, that are always released
Correction (Score:1)
Re:Correction (Score:2)
OMD is a great group and we will all remember it fondly.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Hmm... my ideal abortion stance is "Are you male? Yes? No vote." unfortunately that's not a stance you can take, since it seems to come up at the most inconvienant times. As such I tend to vote on that issue with the majority of women I personally know. I view it as a w
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Do you realize you are begging the question? If a child in the womb is a person, then there is no justification for this stance, because the purpose of government is to protect the rights of people. The whole point is that we disagree on whether or not eh child is a person deserving of rights, obligating the government to protect them.
As to the religion bit, I support individual religious rights but I also support freedom FROM religion.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Slavery is a complex issue which I think slaveowners are more equipped to deal with.
Which papers and which principals? That seems kinda contradictory considering how many of the founders were Diests and more than one was an Atheist.
Yeah, silly. Which was an atheist (not that I disbelieve you, I am just wondering who you're referring to)?
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Off the top of my head, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were both "godless men." Not too deeply involved, but they were involved all the same.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Off the top of my head, Thomas Paine a
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Franklin was also a deist IIRC. You could call him an agnostic, I guess, but his stated beliefs fit in more with deism.
I think of Paine as an atheist, simpy because so many people have referred to him as one. Mainly because of "Age of Reason."
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
The main point is simply that your view that only women should have a say on this issue is begging the question. If you don't feel comfortable discussing the rest, well, that's fine.
I think of Paine as an atheist, simpy because so many people have referred to him as one. Mainly because of "Age of Reason."
Right, but Age of Reason expressed a belief in God. It criticized the church and Christian ideas like special revelati
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Just started to make a post turning your question into "Are you a slaveowner? No? No vote on abolition, then," in order to help explain how pudge and I (and my wife!) think. I decided not to because I worried someone would hideously misunderstand and claim I was comparing women to slaveowners. Then I read on and realized pudge had already made the comparison. But let me add my voice to his.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
(I know; it was a rhetorical question. But you know how geeks are.)
If life begins at conception, should we measure age as DoB + 9 months? Wierd stuff like that.
My wife thinks so. Actually I just turned around and asked her (she's on the laptop; Windows XP, I'm afraid) to confirm, and she said yes.
And this isn't so rhetorical as you think it is. I've noticed in the past year or two many folks talking about the issue of Mother's Day with an increasing acknowledgement of the participation of women
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Good for her, I don't know her from Eve, and I don't know you from Adam. My mother, both of my grandmothers(before one died), my sister, all of my ex-girlfriends(one switched viewpoints to pro-life post-historectomy), my cousins and the vast majority of women I personally know do not agree. I don't live in the liberal bastion of
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
I really didn't want to get into this in Pudge's journal without his permission.
Err, not sure why it should be such a big deal. One of my replies to you last night didn't make it because of the limits on posting frequency, but it was, "This is slashdot; we debate everything." :)
the vast majority of women I personally know do not agree.
That's some nice anecdotal evidence, but the latest figures say a slim majority of women oppose abortion.
What do you propose we do to prevent a woman's body fro
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
I really didn't want to get into this in Pudge's journal without his permission. But oh well, guess I may as well and he can tell me to shut up or move it elsewhere if he wishes.
Say ... are you under the impression pudge would want to prevent an opposing view from being in his journal? Or that he might mark you foe for disagreeing? If so, I think you have a lower opinion of him than you ought to. Pudge is the kind of guy who welcomes dissent. That shows all over his journal: in these last two entrie
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Not at all. He's been around for awhile on my journal, and he knows that while I do not squelch dissent, I do attempt to keep discussions on the intended topic, and will ask people to stop if I believe the discussion has veered too much. And that's what he was referring to.
I don't think this discussion has veered off-topic, because the topic -- which includes what Republicans believe and are push
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
The woman's body is of secondary importance, because someone's actual life is at stake. A woman has the right to control her body: she has the right to not create a life in the first place.
If you don't want a child before it's born, and can't abort it, what do you do?
You accept some personal fucking responsibility for your actions
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Actually I do understand the pro-life position(and after being an adversarial prick for a post I've felt out your specific posi
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
No, pro-lifers differ on when life begins. But all of them agree, pretty much, that once the blood is flowing and the brain is waving, it's alive. That is very early in the second trimester.
It is life worthy of the same rights and protections as any adult human life.
Well, not "adult." Adults have the right to do things children do not.
No argument with you on the former, the latter is where
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
For some people, yes. The question is about when life begins, and some people feel it begins when brain wave activity starts. Therefore, abortion before that is OK, and after it is not. The abortion issue really isn't a complex one. It depends almost entirely on how you define life. Most everything else is just a distraction.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
And I'm sure most Republicans, and probably a large minority of Americans, agree with this:
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
You're absolutely wrong. There is no remote possibility that this is true. Note that all the things you mention completely miss the point of the amendment, which is to go beyond promoting Christianity and prohibiting things that conflict with Christianity. That is, nothing you mention addressed that.
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Pudge, 81% of the country agrees or strongly agrees with the statement "It's OK for a prayer to be said at a high school graduation ceremony if a majority of the graduating class favors it" (i.e., if the prayer is Christian, since 85%+ of this country identifies as Christian).
Do you think a high school leading its students in prayer is
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
As for banning other religions, 24% of the country thinks that the freedom to worship as one pleases, guaranteed in the First Amendment, "was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of people consider extreme or on the fringe." Suck it, Wiccans!
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:2)
Let me please go on record as one (more) Christian who does not agree with this:
As such, all people of all faiths may worship freely, as long as nothing objectionable to the Christian faith is practiced. And, as such, the foundational principles of Christianity [found in the founding fathers' documents] should be taught in all public schools and promoted in all public aspects of life.
(and since I'm one of those particularly lunatic Christians who believes most "Christians" aren't legitimate Christians
Re:I'm only going to reply to your first paragraph (Score:1)
While much of what you post is interesting(to me anyway), it is entirely irrelevant.
Moo (Score:2)
Because if not for the one-issue voters, the small issues would simply be overlooked, and the Republicans would be as evil as the Democrats.
Now, if each issue got a fair argument, no matter how tiny it was, most of the one-issue voters should be okay with it, unless it is extremely significant to them. Because then, it isn't a small issue, it is a big one.
Ultimately, people are voti
Re:Moo (Score:2)
I think you misconstrued me: I don't wish to criticize single-issue voters, but to defend those who choose to not be single-issue voters. If someone says, "the views of the party on homosexuality are so offensive to me that I cannot join it, even though I agree with everything else," then I'll accept that as valid.
Everyone should be who they are, and then the one t
Re:Moo (Score:2)
Ah, OK. Then we agree.
If I ever run for office, <snip> Present who I am, and let the chips fall where they may.
Now that's what I like to hear! Know anyone running like that in Detroit?