Good year for Republicans!

The worst of the GOP good compared to Democrats

Posted December 29, 2004 4:30AM PST

Seattle Post‑Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly found and compared the basest of local Republican Fund‑raising efforts with the basest of same for Democrats, and Republicans come out looking pretty good:

The come‑ons come out of opposite extremes in the political spectrum. The first is from the College Republicans of the University of Washington. The second is from Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott. — In the Northwest: Fund‑raising letters display bipartisan baseness, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 29, 2004

The college students' loathsome lowness includes sarcasm, misspelling Phyllis Schlafly's name, and lining up speakers for 2005 that include Michelle Malkin. Congressman McDermott, on the other extreme, is asking for money to help pay legal fees for breaking the law:

Only indirectly is the letter's real purpose disclosed: Its goal is not to fund any campaign, but to pay McDermott's legal fees. "We cannot allow Republican leaders to financially destroy a member of Congress who has a proven track record of standing up for endangered democratic values," it states. — In the Northwest: Fund‑raising letters display bipartisan baseness, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 29, 2004

A Democrat Congressman's plea to help pay for fines and legal fees, versus sharp‑tongued college kids? Oh, the pain!

Seriously, it speaks very well of Republicans in general and conservatives in particular, that our biggest bads for the year are a few callow youths, while the Democrat's is a very senior progressive‑liberal lawbreaker.

Capitalist double standard?

Is the American attitude toward American Indians un‑American?

Posted December 28, 2004 6:00AM PST

Making money. It's the American way. That's why immigrants flock to America. It's the land of opportunity, where everybody is welcome to come and make a better future for themselves. Everybody, that is, except American Indians:

I assume the Tulalip Tribes have every legal right not to renew the leases, require those leasing to vacate, and even take possession of the homes. … Isn't it really about money? … I already sense that animosity toward the Tulalip Tribes has increased and wonder what their decision will do for the long-term greater good of their people. Unfortunately, I think it will result in more prejudice, and may ultimately impact various tribal revenues. — Residents, tribes need to face reality, by Robert Dietz, Everett Daily Herald, December 28, 2004

The hostility Dietz identifies is real, pervasive and indicative of a double standard in American culture that expects Indian tribes to behave like communist collectives. Yet, progressive liberal myths to the contrary notwithstanding, Indian tribes have never been communist, or even socialist.

Historically, tribes have ranged the spectrum of social organization, from semi‑nomadic bands of sprawling extended families, to tightly knit and highly stratified city‑states. Today, the modern Indian tribe is akin to a family trust, custodian of the community, keeper of culture and history, and manager of inherited rights and properties. As such, there is nothing socialist about it. So why shouldn't they do things that "are really about money"?

Corporate ventures are really about money. If they're not, then management is derelict in their duty to the stockholders. The great American entrepreneurial spirit is really about money. That's what makes America prosperous.

But when something that an American Indian tribe does is about money, everybody, from local entrepreneurs to national "property rights" organizations, protest that it's un‑American.

Isn't that protest, in and of itself, un‑American?

When political correctness kills!

In the age of AIDS, doing what is politically correct can be deadly

Posted December 22, 2004 6:05AM PST

Should people who are infected with HIV be identified? Perhaps with a discrete tattoo or some other indelible means that warns potential sex partners? Under present law and social attitudes, this would be unthinkable.

But as HIV continues to spread, with no cure on the horizon and the infected living longer, healthier, though still much shorter lives, maybe we ought to start thinking about it.

What got me to thinking about it is the case of Anthony E. Whitfield, who was sentenced, yesterday, to 178 years for deliberately exposing 17 women to HIV:

Whitfield, 32, was convicted last month of deliberately exposing 17 women to HIV during a span of several years. Five victims contracted the virus, including the mother of one of his children. — Man gets 178 years for spreading HIV, by Scott Gutierrez, The Olympian, December 22, 2004

The sexual revolution, feminism and a progressive liberal agenda are largely responsible for creating the social conditions that make women vulnerable to men like Whitfield.

Women's liberation, Grrl Power, no‑fault divorce, widespread promiscuity, and rebellion against "oppressive" patriarchal institutions like marriage, have all contributed to this.

Abstinence and fidelity work. We know this. More teens are getting the message, and teen sex is decreasing. But are there any legal steps we can take, such as identifying infected people, to protect against the further spread of HIV?

In our society, probably not. The progressive liberals would mobilize every resource to protect the right to privacy of people who are infected with the deadly virus. But in practical terms, that's tantamount to the right to infect others, which is just plain wrong.

To take this even further, should prison inmates who are infected with HIV be housed separately from the general prison population? Again, Whitfield provides a compelling case for doing this:

Whitfield was diagnosed with HIV in 1992 after being assaulted while serving a prison sentence in his native Oklahoma, according to documents filed by prosecutors. — Man gets 178 years for spreading HIV, by Scott Gutierrez, The Olympian, December 22, 2004

Whitfield was infected while in prison. He got out, went on to infect others, and now that he's going back to prison, where, for the rest of his shortened‑life, he will almost certainly infect others, inflicting on them what was inflicted on him.

Long after he is gone, the men whom he infects will go on to spread his deadly legacy. First among other prison inmates, and then, when their prison terms are fulfilled, among others throughout society.

At the very least, this case should teach us that we need to start segregating prison inmates with HIV from the general prison population.

Payback Florida 2000

Are Democrats stealing the Washington state gubernatorial election?

Posted December 15, 2004 5:50AM PST

The big issue in Washington state right now is the gubernatorial election. The Democrats are doing their best to get payback for Florida 2000, and 6 weeks after the general election we're down to the third count, with no certain end in sight.

The results of the November 2nd election triggered an automatic recount:

When the vote count finally wrapped up last night, more than two weeks after Election Day, Rossi's margin was a mere 261 votes over Democratic Attorney General Christine Gregoire, triggering a mandatory statewide recount that begins this weekend. — It's Rossi by 261; recount is next, The Seattle Times, November 18, 2004

Dino Rossi, a Conservative American Indian Republican and two‑term state senator, worked his way through college and achieved success as a commercial real estate agent before entering politics. Since then, he's made a name for himself locally as the guy who balanced the state's budget without cutting essential services to the most vulnerable citizens.

Christine Gregoire, the state's three‑term attorney general, attended the University of Washington, where she was a member of Kappa Delta, which was an all‑white sorority at the time, a fact that Democrat rival King County Executive Ron Simms used against her during the primaries. No doubt, this hurt her, later. Appointed director of the Washington Department of Ecology in 1988, she held that post until 1992, when she was elected attorney general.

Both are decent, hardworking people, both have distinguished themselves, but Gregoire is a long‑established member of the liberal elite, who have dominated Washington state since the Great Depression. Rossi, who has proven he can create agreement among both Democrats and Republicans, offers a six part agenda—called Forward Washington—that is both simple and sensible.

Consequently, he went from trailing by a large margin to winning by the thinnest of margins. Hence, the recount controversy Washington state confronts, now.

Stealing Washington?

With a win of only 261 out of more than 2.8 million votes, the first recount was automatic. The recount reduced Rossi's lead to only 42 votes. That placed the results well within the margin of error, so it made sense for Gregoire to ask for a second recount by hand. Unfortunately, this is controversial, and for a very good reason. It's generally accepted that counting by hand is less accurate than counting by machine:

The experts tend to favor the machine recount, although some key election‑watchers, including the secretary of state, find compelling arguments on both sides and acknowledge that any vote‑counting system has a tiny built in error rate. — Man or machine? Rossi-Gregoire recount prompts dispute over accuracy, by David Ammons, The Associated Press, The Oregonian, December 11, 2004

According to Secretary of State Sam Reed, the error rate for machine counting is about a hundredth of a percentage point. He doesn't know what the error rate for hand counting, but, according to Reed, it does have some advantages over machine counting:

"But hand counting has some advantages over a machine, such as being able to see when a punchcard chad falls back into place and a machine couldn't `see' that vote. Humans can see things that machines can't in the area of voter intent." — Man or machine? Rossi-Gregoire recount prompts dispute over accuracy, by David Ammons, The Associated Press, The Oregonian, December 11, 2004

Nonetheless, experts agree that hand counting is less accurate:

"Human beings are undoubtedly more prone to mistakes, but a hand recount may not be that much different if both are done well," agrees elections consultant Don Whiting. — Man or machine? Rossi-Gregoire recount prompts dispute over accuracy, by David Ammons, The Associated Press, The Oregonian, December 11, 2004

This means that, all other things being equal, each candidate has about a fifty-fifty chance of winning a hand count. But all other things are not equal. First, the Democrats tried to change the rules by demanding that all the ballots that had been rejected as invalid be reconsidered. They did that in the first recount, too, when the state supreme court allowed them to count some questionable ballots. That is how they were able to reduce Rossi's lead:

Are machines perfect? No, which is why a recount was necessary in the first place. Yet after nearly 2.9 million votes were recounted, the results were almost the same. The main reason Rossi's margin slipped from 261 to 42 is that King County "enhanced" votes rejected by the machines. — Note to Gregoire: Concede already, by John Carlson, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 2, 2004

This time, they asked for the chance to enhance all the rejected ballots, but the court said no:

The justices unanimously rejected a lawsuit that would have required counties to reinspect more than 3,000 previously disqualified absentee and provisional ballots. — Court rules against Gregoire, by Chris McGann, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 15, 2004

But they weren't through. In the predominately Democrat King County, the auditor's office discovered even more ballots:

Gregoire's hopes to prevail in a hand recount now rest largely on 573 King County absentee ballots that election officials say were wrongly disqualified because of a clerical error. — Court rules against Gregoire, by Chris McGann, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 15, 2004

This happens. Every county discovers errors in the counting process. But in the predominantly Democrat King County, they just seem to keep on finding mistakes that work in the Democrats' favor, which indicates either incompetence or corruption:

"This is the seventh time King County has made a mistake that has resulted in more votes," said state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance. "At this point it is impossible for us to determine whether they are colossally incompetent or completely corrupt." — Court rules against Gregoire, by Chris McGann, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, December 15, 2004

The 573 ballots they just happened to find will almost certainly swing the election to Gregoire, but that's not the end of it. King County is one of the largest counties in America. In an otherwise red state, King County is what makes Washington blue. Some 59% of voters in King County voted for Gregoire, so any increase in the error rate due to counting by hand will tend to work in her favor, further eroding Rossi's lead.

In a word, they are stealing the election.

Will it end there? Probably not. State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance has repeatedly confirmed that he will keep all legal options open. This could go to the supreme court. But it will likely end up in the Washington state legislature, which is controlled by Democrats. Despite that the majority of Washingtonians believe that Rossi has won this election, there can be little doubt as to the outcome: the legislators will vote their party rather than their conscience, and give the election to Christine Gregoire.

Several weeks ago, when all this started, I sent out an email saying that the Democrats are going to steal this election, and that in the aftermath many will jeer that it's payback for Florida 2000. I was sure I was right, but hoped I was wrong. Now, although we are still weeks away from the final tally, it seems very clear that this is precisely what will happen.

Florida 2000 was confirmed by several investigative reports, many of which were conducted by liberal newspapers. When Democrats start their jeering, we can take solace in the fact that the investigations—and there will be investigations—will prove this election was stolen.

The question Democrats will need to answer is, if the outcome of Florida, which was repeatedly proven to be legitimate, enrages many Democrats to this day, then what kind of a backlash will Washington 2004 create?