http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/17/why-governors-matter Comments On: Why Governors Matter by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 15:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Goldy nailed this one.
Posted by Westlake, son!]]> Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:11:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by philosophy school dropout]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:11:53 -0800 The Stranger
I agree with @20 - he's hideous. Lieberman couldn't be president for the same reason, what with those flapping wattles.

There is hope that all of this overt extremism will result in such a routing in upcoming elections that Republicans will realize their race to the bottom isn't working. But, no - they'd just assume they weren't extreme enough, and double down.
Posted by Free Lunch]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:47:41 -0800 The Stranger
Which, is of course a problem for candidates in situations like this; the one who serves in-state has a definite advantage over the one who serves in D.C., since it's much easier for them to hit the hustings at the local level.

At the same time though, it's a generally held belief that most voters don't really start paying all that much attention to local races this early in the election cycle, when national races tend to dominate.

As for the poll numbers, well, considering the minutely small sample sizes (e.g. the most recent one, done by SurveyUSA, contacted a mere 572 registered voters in WA), and given the usual 4-5% margins, Inslee's numbers don't look nearly as bad as McKenna's camp would like people to believe.

We're still a long ways out from November, and so far McKenna has been running pretty much on name-recognition alone. As I said previously, once voters have an opportunity to really compare the two candidates' positions side-by-side, I think the numbers will change dramatically going forward.
Posted by COMTE]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:27:06 -0800 The Stranger believe in their positions. To do otherwise is to 0.)underestimate their possible tenacity and 1.)indulge in the assumption of bad faith.

The latter, in particular, is bad because it destroys the possibility of discourse---how can you even discuss moderate patching of our insurance system if you believe it to be just a cover for guillotining priests? The assumption of bad faith is also an invitation to become intellectually lazy, to assume that no sane. rational. at-heart-decent person could believe otherwise than oneself, and any appearance that this might be so is just the mask of an hypocrite...as opposed to a tiny suggestion that you could just possibly be wrong.
Posted by Gerald Fnord]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:50:41 -0800 The Stranger
Where in the fuck is Jay Inslee?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:37:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by WestSeven]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:45:21 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by M. Wells]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:35:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Andy Niable]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:15:57 -0800 The Stranger We need at least 12 straight years of Democratic rule to turn around all the messed up stuff in this country.

If the Republicans can find a real -- real to the book -- republican to run, it would be the best thing this country ever did. But we really need a Nixon.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:32:19 -0800 The Stranger
Separated at birth?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…


Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:28:59 -0800 The Stranger
Since no one has come out in the Republican party -- except a few local and low level guys -- and said, fuck it, let the gay guys get married -- how could they know?

My own sense from being part of it is that today's Republican Party is somewhat of a Cargo Cult.

They remember the Good Olde Days of Reagan, and how it used to be -- and so they sort of imitate it in a ritualistic fashion...hoping that it will somehow bring them landslide victories. Yet it doesn't. Pretty much any candidate who seemed to have a national chance as a Republican went down the tubes as soon as he started to "model himself as Reagan".

Meanwhile the two guys who got elected since Reagan, Bush and Bush, were the most un-Reagan guys you could think of (and party regulars hated them!) and were sort of de facto social Liberals (GW increased free health clinics in America by 3x !!)

So, I think this is a case of where no one really knows what they are doing in the Republicans any more. That's the problem when you send all the intellectuals into the rice paddies. Things start getting a lot harder.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:22:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DOUG.]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:26:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:10:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Democrat1234]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:22:26 -0800 The Stranger
He just doesn't have enough arena rock to him. Generally, to be a viable presidential candidate you need some mix of arena rock and smarts. Bush had enough smarts and a lot of arena rock. Obama and Clinton had both. Hillary had enough arena rock and a lot of smarts. Palin has a ton of arena rock but maybe it's still not enough to overcome her lack of book smarts.

Gore didn't have enough arena rock. Romney is like the Republican Mormon version of Gore, which is why his chances of winning don't seem that good to me.

Jeb Bush is a much better candidate than any of the candidates running this year. Indeed, none of the good candidates are running this year, because they know it will be an uphill battle and barring something unforeseen, Obama will be hard to beat. 2016 is where the action is.

Here's hoping the Dems can win this year and field a great candidate in 2016 too. We need at least 12 straight years of Democratic rule to turn around all the messed up stuff in this country.
Posted by j-lon]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:21:09 -0800 The Stranger
@6, good points
Posted by neo-realist]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:46:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Picaroooon]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:18:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CbytheSea]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:17:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Gidge]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:07:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:42:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Phoebe in Wallingford]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:41:20 -0800 The Stranger Did you read this about Scott Walker of Wisconsin?

http://governorsjournal.com/2011/12/gove…

You're right, Governors matter.
.

Posted by lark]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:41:11 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:24:00 -0800 The Stranger The real question is whether their anti-birth-control agenda will help or hurt them in the next election.

They frequently try to find "wedge issues" that they can use to persuade a segment to get out and vote. The trick is to try to frame it as "the Liberals are attacking your X so you have to get out and vote to protect your X".

Playing the anti-birth-control issue (and stacking the discussion with Right wing bishops and such) is just an attempt at portraying Obama as someone who is attacking Christianity.

Which is why it would be good for the Liberals to get large groups of women to publicly oppose the bishops' opposition.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:13:39 -0800 The Stranger