Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 8, 2012
2012 Bruce Danielson Can't Really Explain How He Got Over 276,000 Votes Last Night. (But He Says I'm "Ill Informed or Malicious" for Asking.)
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM
- Bruce Danielson
I just reached Kitsap County's Bruce Danielson, the man who managed to get 43 percent of the vote in his run to be a Washington State Supreme Court justice—despite having raised $0, having received zero endorsements, and being described by the head of the Kitsap County Bar Association as "having zero qualifications to be on the bench."
This was not the first time Danielson and I had spoken over the phone, but when I introduced myself this time he replied:
“Oh yes, the man who likes to call me a racist.”
I told him that I'd never called him a racist, though it does seem to me that he benefited from prejudice in his run against highly qualified incumbent Justice Steve Gonzalez, the first Mexican-American ever to serve on the state's high court. I mean: How else to explain the election results?
“You gotta be kidding," Danielson replied. The results, he said, "show heavy advertising, special interest moneys—what do you think?”
It was clear we were having some sort of miscommunication. I told Danielson that I wasn't looking for an explanation as to why Gonzalez won. It made sense to me that a more qualified incumbent would win against a guy with "zero qualifications to be on the bench." What doesn't make sense to me is that Danielson polled so strongly in this race without doing any serious campaigning or even sitting for endorsement interviews.
“Kiss ass, you mean?" Danielson shot back. "Kiss ass with the press? No, I didn’t.”
Well, I asked, then what explains your strong showing?
“This is a classic problem," he replied. "That every time something happens, some ill informed or malicious individual comes out saying, 'Racist!'”
I asked if he was calling me ill informed or malicious.
"Both," he said.
I asked again: Why did you end up with such a surprisingly high vote count in this race?
“It seems high to you because—" Then he stopped and went in a different direction. "I would probably say that my view of statutory and constitutional construction happens to be more… you could use the word conservative if you like," Danielson said, "but I’m more of a fundamentalist when it comes to constitutional construction.”
How would anyone in, say, Eastern Washington's Douglas County (which voted 70 percent for Danielson), know this if you didn't campaign?
"My web site."
Are you saying that more than 276,000 voters from all over the state came to your web site and evaluated your ideas about constitutional construction relative to Gonzalez's? Because that's actually something you could track.
“I probably could, but I haven’t.”
I told Danielson that Washington State didn't mail a statewide voters guide this year, and only four counties—King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap—stepped in to fill the void. He lost in all of those counties. In counties without voters guides, he tended to do a lot better. Danielson seemed surprised by this information.
“Wow. I don’t know. It’s probably because… I don’t know. Maybe it’s because they did go to my web site.”
Or maybe you benefited from latent prejudices in the statewide voting population.
“Are you suggesting that I was playing to that? Absolutely not. What am I supposed to do, change my last name so that it doesn’t play to your preconceived notions?” He said I was engaging in "race-baiting, plan and simple."
I asked again: What explains your strong showing last night?
"I've tried to explain things to you, and it’s obvious I can’t get anywhere with you. Best of luck. I know you’re going to do another hit piece…. Good luck."
1
I like to think that some of those 276,000 would have voted against him if they'd known he's such a sniveling prick.
2
You give a guy a Pulitzer because he's gay and suddenly he thinks he's a journalist. Sorry, Eli. Not everyone's racist because you declare it and not everyone's a homophobe because a drama queen misbehaves on a ferris wheel.
3
it is bad for the republic when partisan ill informed malicious. pricks pretend to be 'journalists'.
4
Hilarious, but what's the point?
Danielson isn't personally responsible for any voter racism that benefited him in this election. By your own admission, he didn't even campaign, so he couldn't have campaigned on a racist platform.
What kind of response were you hoping to get, and to what end? This just seemed a little like burning ants with a magnifying glass.
This is one case where you need to interview the voters, not the candidate. As in, "Why the fuck did you vote for that guy?"
Danielson isn't personally responsible for any voter racism that benefited him in this election. By your own admission, he didn't even campaign, so he couldn't have campaigned on a racist platform.
What kind of response were you hoping to get, and to what end? This just seemed a little like burning ants with a magnifying glass.
This is one case where you need to interview the voters, not the candidate. As in, "Why the fuck did you vote for that guy?"
5
Really brings home the narrowness by which we missed falling into a judicial chasm if we'd elected this hotheaded numbskull. Nicely done.
7
I got the point you were making in the earlier post but what exactly were you hoping he would say?
"People who voted for me obviously did so because they didn't want a Mexican on the court!"
The prejudicial issues raised with the earlier post were valid. This post is just you piling on for no real reason other than to imply that he's a racist without actually saying it.
"People who voted for me obviously did so because they didn't want a Mexican on the court!"
The prejudicial issues raised with the earlier post were valid. This post is just you piling on for no real reason other than to imply that he's a racist without actually saying it.
9
this is a stupid assed shitty question, Bozo.
It is not 'journalism'.
It is an embarrassing display of your prejudice and ignorant bigotry against people who hold views you disagree with.
It is not 'journalism'.
It is an embarrassing display of your prejudice and ignorant bigotry against people who hold views you disagree with.
10
Being the beneficiary of racism doesn't making you a racist, at least if you aren't intentionally courting the benefits. Danielson may not be qualified to be a judge, but he is qualified to go make a name for himself in men's rights circles on the internet, or other places where people take personal offense at the suggestion they are somehow privileged.
... all that said: what's he supposed to say? Aside from "Something that isn't so transparently hostile," that is.
... all that said: what's he supposed to say? Aside from "Something that isn't so transparently hostile," that is.
11
@1 I would like to think so too. Jesus, I can't believe we even came remotely close to having this guy on the bench.
I don't have any problem with interviewing Danielson, but like @4, I'm much more interested in really knowing why people voted for him. Eli, you should hop in a car, head out to the crappy little diner in Ritzville, and start asking why 70% of Adams County voters picked this guy.
I don't have any problem with interviewing Danielson, but like @4, I'm much more interested in really knowing why people voted for him. Eli, you should hop in a car, head out to the crappy little diner in Ritzville, and start asking why 70% of Adams County voters picked this guy.
13
@4 and others:
Danielson filed at the last minute. He didn't campaign in any normal sense of the word. Yet he seems to believe there's a good reason he got 43 percent of the vote. I think it's fair to ask him what that reason might be, and press him when he can't really answer the question.
Danielson filed at the last minute. He didn't campaign in any normal sense of the word. Yet he seems to believe there's a good reason he got 43 percent of the vote. I think it's fair to ask him what that reason might be, and press him when he can't really answer the question.
14
Heh. Racist or not, he clearly has trouble thinking in a straight line and forming a coherent response to a question. Both would be good skills for a judge, I think.
15
The problem with his reaction is that he's conflating an actual, stated theory about his voters--that they, on some level, voted for him because they prefer white-sounding names--with a non-actual, entirely-made-up-by-him theory that he himself is a racist. This indicates that he either a) has trouble with basic reasoning, or b) understands perfectly, but is using accusations and reverse scapegoating because he doesn't want to admit that Eli is correct.
17
I agree with @Eli that it was a fair interview. If you don't want to be pestered with follow up questions, don't give bs responses.
18
Wow this is just extremely disappointing. Eli you're supposed to be the respectable one now. This post is just embarrassing. You lost this round.
21
As GermanSausage (@8) and schmacky (@15) pointed out, no one is calling Danielson a racist here. Maybe Eli threw him a curve ball ("You're hopelessly unqualified and spent nothing on marketing, so why did people vote for you, exactly? Is it because you have a white-sounding name and people are racist?") but that doesn't mean he has to respond so discourteously or defensively. He could have made up any number of reasons (he's first alphabetically, so he's listed first on the ballot; maybe those who knew a bit about Gonzalez didn't like him and thought anyone else would be better) but instead chose to take the question personally. He's obviously terrible under pressure and cranky about losing.
22
Ahem.
"I couldn't really say for sure. I agree this is an unexpected result, given the factors you mention. While it would be naive to imply nobody in the state made their vote because of my opponent's name, I don't see that accounting for even close to 43% of the vote any more than my website accounts for it. Perhaps my votes were votes against Mister Gonzalez's record of [blah blah blah legal claptrap goes here]. Perhaps it was a dissatisfaction with the current government. In any case, I am grateful to my supporters for their votes, and I congratulate Mister Gonzalez on his win."
YOU'RE WELCOME, YOU OVERLY DEFENSIVE ASSHAT.
"I couldn't really say for sure. I agree this is an unexpected result, given the factors you mention. While it would be naive to imply nobody in the state made their vote because of my opponent's name, I don't see that accounting for even close to 43% of the vote any more than my website accounts for it. Perhaps my votes were votes against Mister Gonzalez's record of [blah blah blah legal claptrap goes here]. Perhaps it was a dissatisfaction with the current government. In any case, I am grateful to my supporters for their votes, and I congratulate Mister Gonzalez on his win."
YOU'RE WELCOME, YOU OVERLY DEFENSIVE ASSHAT.
23
... think Johnson ... all alone, political currency in Wa.
... and sure, backlash, but voters need to voice that.
... and sure, backlash, but voters need to voice that.
25
Mr. Danielson: your campaign seemed to have the momentum of a stationary freight train. Why were you so inexplicably popular?
26
When are you going to go after newly elected King County Superior Court Judge Sean O'Donnell for wiping the floor with poor Vietnamese immigrant Hong Tran last night? Surely he only won because of the virulently racist voters of King County and not on the merits of his qualifications.
28
So this guy is supposed to agree with Eli that it's suspicious, thus alienating the (racist or otherwise) people that voted for him? What if he wants to run again? It's a no win situation for him, but looking like an egotistical schmuck is far better politically than telling 276,000 people that he agrees with a liberal who thinks the people who voted for him could be racist.
29
@28 - No, but "I don't know" is an acceptable answer more often than people seem to think. He can disagree with the implication that his supporters are racist without getting combative. He is not only unfit for the bench; he is also unfit for basic PR.
30
@28:
I think Danielson is now 0 for 3 in judges races, and given his campaign style: file at the last minute, sit and do nothing, wait for the results on election day; one would think that he'd eventually get the notion in his head that, perhaps he's just not cut out for this sort of thing.
I could be wrong, but that I believe is the conclusion a reasonably intelligent person would make.
I think Danielson is now 0 for 3 in judges races, and given his campaign style: file at the last minute, sit and do nothing, wait for the results on election day; one would think that he'd eventually get the notion in his head that, perhaps he's just not cut out for this sort of thing.
I could be wrong, but that I believe is the conclusion a reasonably intelligent person would make.
31
@2 - Your comment of "You give a guy a Pulitzer because he's gay..." shows YOU to be homophobic, and your points become tainted with your hate.
32
here is your answer, asswipe.
43% of the voters dislike the incumbent so much they would vote for ANYBODY instead.
THAT is your story,
not this juvenile exercise in self congratulatory mental masturbation.
43% of the voters dislike the incumbent so much they would vote for ANYBODY instead.
THAT is your story,
not this juvenile exercise in self congratulatory mental masturbation.
34
@29 While I would personally agree with you that 'I don't know' can sometimes be the best answer, I don't necessarily think it's a wise move in politics. Strong, assertive jackasses can go far, I don't think I need to list examples.
@30 He got 276,000 votes by not doing a goddamn thing! I don't think he's learned any lesson!
@30 He got 276,000 votes by not doing a goddamn thing! I don't think he's learned any lesson!
35
@13 - Eli, Perhaps it's a fair question, but you are asking the wrong person to answer it. I voted for Gonzales and actually believe your theory is correct - many people likely do vote for the ango-sounding name over the Hispanic-sounding one. But please be honest and take responsibility for the thrust of your questions. It's not fair to ask a candidate running for office to prove to you that his supporters aren't a bunch of racists. I have to agree with others - this was low of you. This is intellectually dishonest, and you should know better.
36
Oh I know I'm late to this party, but @ 2 - Fuck you.
Seriously, Fuck. You. Aaaand the mis-shapen jackass you rode in on.
Jeez-us.
Seriously, Fuck. You. Aaaand the mis-shapen jackass you rode in on.
Jeez-us.
37
@33
He's too pithy with his anger to be SeattleBlues. He also lacks the volume and self-righteousness, plus SB would bust out some really vile homophobia sometimes. I think this is just some punk kid who wants to troll some libfags on the internets olololo.
He's too pithy with his anger to be SeattleBlues. He also lacks the volume and self-righteousness, plus SB would bust out some really vile homophobia sometimes. I think this is just some punk kid who wants to troll some libfags on the internets olololo.
38
So Eli blanket-slanders Danielson and everyone who voted for him ("if you don't vote for the Hispanic guy you are a racist") and Danielson gets a little surly when the twerp calls him on the phone.
*** I'm sorry, in a previous post I inferred that Eli got a Pulitzer just because he was gay. I omitted that he also got it for paying the entry fee. I regret the error.
*** I'm sorry, in a previous post I inferred that Eli got a Pulitzer just because he was gay. I omitted that he also got it for paying the entry fee. I regret the error.
39
oh, leave eli alone. he just wants to be cool and edgy in his reporting, and you guys crap all over him. like he's ever going to change his style because of some squawking on the interwebs.
42
So, for real, though, you screeching arseholes like @2 and 9, do you have a better explanation for how a guy with no campaign whatsoever got 43% of the vote?
I mean, you don't like The Stranger, and you're frothingly homophobic. We get it. Consider that understood. Now, moving past that, can you explain why the majority of people in rural, majority-white counties voted for someone they knew literally nothing about, as opposed to a guy they might actually have heard of as a qualified candidate?
And just to head you off, "NUH-UH FAGGOTS" is not an acceptable answer here.
I mean, you don't like The Stranger, and you're frothingly homophobic. We get it. Consider that understood. Now, moving past that, can you explain why the majority of people in rural, majority-white counties voted for someone they knew literally nothing about, as opposed to a guy they might actually have heard of as a qualified candidate?
And just to head you off, "NUH-UH FAGGOTS" is not an acceptable answer here.
43
I bet # 2 touches itself sexually every time someone gets angry at its comments.
Perhaps a letter to Savage Love would be a better use of its energies?
Perhaps a letter to Savage Love would be a better use of its energies?
44
The republicans were pushing this guy. They know that Gonzalez is the candidate of the democrats so they are going to vote for the other guy. Danielson was endorsed by pastor Joe Fuiten and I'm sure similar endorsements by republicans happened across the state. Look at Gonzalez's endorsements page. True, McKenna endorsed him but mostly all democrats and democratic organizations. Republicans will naturally vote for the other guy no matter who he is or how unqualified he may be. There's doesn't have to be anything racist about it. Gonzalez will probably have 60% by the time all the votes are counted. That's pretty good for any statewide candidate with a challenger.
45
Of course, the real problem isn't Eli. Every time he squats, craps out an opinion, and calls it a fact, every poof this side of the Cascade takes it as the word of God.
46
So the Stranger has been bashing this guy consistently for a month or two before the election, calls him up and says "hey you fucking cracker, admit people only voted for you cuz you look white power!"
He gets surly, and it is his fault.
He gets surly, and it is his fault.
48
@44's got it.
So glad that this guy apparently lost, now that I read this interview. He sounds like your typical defensive, self-involved teabagger, looking to be a far right rubber stamp on the court. If I was a hardcore Republican I would have voted for him too.
@45 Chill, bro. You're just making your team look bad.
So glad that this guy apparently lost, now that I read this interview. He sounds like your typical defensive, self-involved teabagger, looking to be a far right rubber stamp on the court. If I was a hardcore Republican I would have voted for him too.
@45 Chill, bro. You're just making your team look bad.
49
He probably got a lot of votes because there's a lot of anti-incumbent sentiment out there right now, particularly among conservatives, and a lot of people would have voted for him simply because he isn't the incumbent. I'm sure there's some racism, too, but I'm willing to bet if the incumbent were a white guy named Smith, any opponent would have gotten a large number of votes. I don't think anti-incumbent sentiment alone accounts for 43% of the vote, but ....
In 2004, my father ran for county commissioner in a really, REALLY conservative part of Oregon. Despite being a bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, gay-marriage-performing, raw-food-eating liberal (who looks Hispanic and has a Jewish last name), and despite not campaigning at all or spending any money, he got 32% of the vote (comparatively, the same county only went 26% for John Kerry), because people HATED the incumbent. There is no reason my father should have gotten more than 10, maybe 15% of the vote, but people hated the incumbent. These days, when incumbent is a dirty word to some people, it can explain a lot of election results.
That's a county where people staged a write-in campaign to vote out the extremely popular, competent, non-partisan county clerk simply on principle of hating incumbents. Makes sense the same sentiment would exist on the east side in Washington.
The fact that this dude isn't not smart enough to just say that he thinks people are inclined to vote against incumbents speaks volumes about his character and his defensiveness, though.
In 2004, my father ran for county commissioner in a really, REALLY conservative part of Oregon. Despite being a bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, gay-marriage-performing, raw-food-eating liberal (who looks Hispanic and has a Jewish last name), and despite not campaigning at all or spending any money, he got 32% of the vote (comparatively, the same county only went 26% for John Kerry), because people HATED the incumbent. There is no reason my father should have gotten more than 10, maybe 15% of the vote, but people hated the incumbent. These days, when incumbent is a dirty word to some people, it can explain a lot of election results.
That's a county where people staged a write-in campaign to vote out the extremely popular, competent, non-partisan county clerk simply on principle of hating incumbents. Makes sense the same sentiment would exist on the east side in Washington.
The fact that this dude isn't not smart enough to just say that he thinks people are inclined to vote against incumbents speaks volumes about his character and his defensiveness, though.
50
Jesus, Eli, lay off. You sound like a major "sore winner". Your guy won. The guy you don't like lost. Why waste time -his, ours, even yours - with this stupid phone call. He should have hung up on you.
51
Having an unremarkable full name made up of widely used and typical (to the area and culture of the voter) parts has always been an advantage in judicial races in this state, regardless of matters of race or ethnicity. Most voters are neither knowledgeable nor engaged enough in the court system to know anything about who they might be voting for, even when voters guides are available. Toss in Danielson's placement at the top of the ballot, and you have a decent explanation which might point towards ethnic bias, bit is hardly a case for widespread racism. There have.to be better and more frequent examples of that sort.of thing than this.
53
More, establishing a widespread implicit race bias in an environment where white folk face the same challenges if they do not have a sort of John-Smith-like name, and in a situation where people may know nothing more than the names of the two parties involved, and are somewhat likely to just fill in the first oval, is going to take some footwork beyond what we've seen from Eli so far. Better to stick to the more readily established case that our system for picking judges is a poor one. There is no need to even bring up racism in doing so.
54
Eli, welcome to the watchlist of insane and inane nuthobs. Behave yourself and you'll be off the list in 12-15 years.
& stop eating crazy for breakfast.
& stop eating crazy for breakfast.
55
I'm with MacCrocodile, @#22. If this guy had the sense God gave a newt (not that Newt), he'd say that his relative electoral success was the voters refusing to endorse Gonzales's record, or the voters rejecting Gov. Gregoire's appointee and with it her administration, etcetera. He could have given a potted little stump speech about how the voters know Gonzales is too soft on crime or on endangered species or something or other.
Instead, he stammered and lied, thereby making it pretty clear he agrees with Eli: he also thinks he did pretty well because of racist voters, or else he'd have come up with some plausible reason for people to have voted for him that's not a transparent fiction like saying his pathetic excuse for a website has somehow gone viral.
Instead, he stammered and lied, thereby making it pretty clear he agrees with Eli: he also thinks he did pretty well because of racist voters, or else he'd have come up with some plausible reason for people to have voted for him that's not a transparent fiction like saying his pathetic excuse for a website has somehow gone viral.
56
I agree with you, @55. (Also, I kind of like how you make it sound like Gonzales' being "too soft...on endangered species" would be an acceptable explanation - It probably would be to a lot of Republican base types!)
57
Why bother to ask him why he got so many votes in a losing bid? What's the point? Why is he responsible if people vote for him because he has an Anglo name?
58
Patricia Kayden: It doesn't mean a flying fuck (ahem, 'scuse my language) to Danielsen, at least on the surface.
But it is extremely illuminating to us to see it in action. Eli predicted the guy with the bland white-guy-sounding name would score higher than the guy with the foreign-y sounding name, and that nearly happened.
Eli follows up, and the nutjobs (hi to you, "WorstNightmare", I see you and your friends got their asses spanked yet again by commenters way smarter than you. How's that feel?) came out of the woodwork.
That's fascinating and very instructive to see. It tells us how pervasive and how stupid the hard-core wingnuts are.
And it's not just Eli's article, but it's also the followup in the comments. Seeing every wingnut commenter and their stupid comments, and seeing their stupidity and their bigotry being exposed, day after day. Eli, the Stranger, and all the regular commenters here are combating that stupidity and that bigotry by shining a bright light on it and not allowing it to hide and fester in the dark.
That's what the point is.
But it is extremely illuminating to us to see it in action. Eli predicted the guy with the bland white-guy-sounding name would score higher than the guy with the foreign-y sounding name, and that nearly happened.
Eli follows up, and the nutjobs (hi to you, "WorstNightmare", I see you and your friends got their asses spanked yet again by commenters way smarter than you. How's that feel?) came out of the woodwork.
That's fascinating and very instructive to see. It tells us how pervasive and how stupid the hard-core wingnuts are.
And it's not just Eli's article, but it's also the followup in the comments. Seeing every wingnut commenter and their stupid comments, and seeing their stupidity and their bigotry being exposed, day after day. Eli, the Stranger, and all the regular commenters here are combating that stupidity and that bigotry by shining a bright light on it and not allowing it to hide and fester in the dark.
That's what the point is.
59
"Danielson, whose law office is in Seattle, questioned that reasoning Wednesday. While ethnicity might have been a factor, Danielson said, so was his own website, which allowed voters to learn about his strict constructionist views on constitutional law." -- Seattle Times.
I want to look at the "hit counter" for his website. Did he get more page views than votes? Doubtful.
I want to look at the "hit counter" for his website. Did he get more page views than votes? Doubtful.
61
eli, you should really be calling up his parents and giving them hell for having such a vanilla name. wonder what would happen if a sanders ran against a gonzalez?
64
Big irony is those 'racists' on the east side probably have more daily interaction with the Gonzales of this world than the angry white hipsters living in 80% white Capitol Hill.
Big irony is those 'racists' on the east side probably have more daily interaction with the Gonzales of this world than the angry white hipsters living in 80% white Capitol Hill.
65
A better question is "why did he even run?"
Asking him about votes after he's already defensive because let's face it, we would all be a little bit defensive if we've read stories about how unqualified this reporter thinks we are. How he handled it was wrong, but pushing the point and trying to back him into a corner into saying "everyone that voted for me MUST be racist." can be construed as overzealous. No one is going to say that.
But a "So, if you put no money into your campaign, didn't tout to any journalist, and filed at the last minute, what made you decide to run in the first place? Why did you think you could win?"
It's a legitimate question and if he weren't so defensive, it might receive an interesting answer.
Asking him about votes after he's already defensive because let's face it, we would all be a little bit defensive if we've read stories about how unqualified this reporter thinks we are. How he handled it was wrong, but pushing the point and trying to back him into a corner into saying "everyone that voted for me MUST be racist." can be construed as overzealous. No one is going to say that.
But a "So, if you put no money into your campaign, didn't tout to any journalist, and filed at the last minute, what made you decide to run in the first place? Why did you think you could win?"
It's a legitimate question and if he weren't so defensive, it might receive an interesting answer.
66
Far be it from me to suggest that maybe their voting machines need to be investigated for back doors. But just because Ohio's got decades of experience with that doesn't mean Washington zealots can't learn.
67
Guys, guys. Nobody was calling him a racist before this. They were calling the VOTERS racists! However, now that this is out, he's just a dickish, privilege-denying dude. It wouldn't have been that hard -- as he should've seen this question coming -- to say "Congratulations to Gonzales for retaining your seat. As a white man, I recognize that I carry a certain amount of privilege. I encourage voters to do their research next time."
OR EVEN JUST, "I disagree with Gonzales on this point, and I would like to think that voters agree with me on that. If voters voted for me just because of my name, those are votes I didn't earn."
Or at least he didn't have to call a completely valid question about his privilege "malicious."
OR EVEN JUST, "I disagree with Gonzales on this point, and I would like to think that voters agree with me on that. If voters voted for me just because of my name, those are votes I didn't earn."
Or at least he didn't have to call a completely valid question about his privilege "malicious."
68
As a Mexican-American, I believe that the reporters questions are "race baiting", and frankly, it is tremendously insulting to insinuate that this man is getting votes because he has an anglo-ish last name. To suggest such thing is racism, and only someone that harbors racist feelings (either traditional or reverse, white guilt style) would say such a thing. The only way to counter racism to to STOP TAKING RACE INTO ACCOUNT in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever. It is the only way. I only put that I am Mexican because I anticipate an onslaught of false liberals accusing me of being racist, and yes, I accused those of you that would take up this race position as being false liberals, as a real liberal would not take that position, only a fake and racist liberal would, and that aint no liberal at all..
69
Ask #2 basic geography questions. For instance ask him how far is it from Seattle to Rome and if he says "I'M THERE IN MY SEEKRIT VILLA RIGHT NOW. NO. I'M BACK IN SEATTLE TO YELL AT THE HOMOS. OH! AND... NOW I'M ITALY AGAIN.", it's Seattleblues.
70
@68 if I may, your comment translated and distilled for the non-moron:
"Stop accusing people of racism and bringing race into everything because ethnicity doesn't matter and we should just forget about race and I know because I'm a color blind Mexican you stupid racist fake white people who are not Mexican like me!"
"Stop accusing people of racism and bringing race into everything because ethnicity doesn't matter and we should just forget about race and I know because I'm a color blind Mexican you stupid racist fake white people who are not Mexican like me!"
71
No, @68, you're not a racist . . . you're a moron.
By your logic, the Dr. Martin Luther King was a racist because he "took race into account." Of course he took race into account numnutz. It exists. And to pretend it doesn't is to be blind to the real world.
The reason why we're all so fascinated by this situation is because we have a pretty clear case of racism on our hands and might even be able to quantify it by thinking deeply about it. On one hand you have a Latino candidate who was eminently qualified, endorsed by 250 judges across the state, Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, rated exceptionally well qualified by nearly every civic and legal organization that rated him, raised more money and contacted more voters than any other Supreme Court candidate in history through a truly grass-roots campaign, and endorsed by every major paper in the state. And on the other hand you have a no-name attorney with an anglo sounding name who raised no money, refused to participate in the endorsement process, refused to be rated by the bar, and never introduced himself to the voters - except through a one page website with three spelling mistakes on it.
And yet 42% of the population voted for the dumbass with the anglo sounding name. In fact, he got a higher percentage of votes in rural counties than the Republican candidate for Governor (who, by the way, endorsed the Latino) - so you can't say that it was just because people thought the Latino was a Democrat. You also can't say that it was because of an anti-incumbency feeling because the other incumbent Justice won with 65% of the vote against TWO opponents. So what are we left with as an explanation for why the white guy got more of the vote?
So, no, you're not racist, you're just plain dumb.
More...
By your logic, the Dr. Martin Luther King was a racist because he "took race into account." Of course he took race into account numnutz. It exists. And to pretend it doesn't is to be blind to the real world.
The reason why we're all so fascinated by this situation is because we have a pretty clear case of racism on our hands and might even be able to quantify it by thinking deeply about it. On one hand you have a Latino candidate who was eminently qualified, endorsed by 250 judges across the state, Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, rated exceptionally well qualified by nearly every civic and legal organization that rated him, raised more money and contacted more voters than any other Supreme Court candidate in history through a truly grass-roots campaign, and endorsed by every major paper in the state. And on the other hand you have a no-name attorney with an anglo sounding name who raised no money, refused to participate in the endorsement process, refused to be rated by the bar, and never introduced himself to the voters - except through a one page website with three spelling mistakes on it.
And yet 42% of the population voted for the dumbass with the anglo sounding name. In fact, he got a higher percentage of votes in rural counties than the Republican candidate for Governor (who, by the way, endorsed the Latino) - so you can't say that it was just because people thought the Latino was a Democrat. You also can't say that it was because of an anti-incumbency feeling because the other incumbent Justice won with 65% of the vote against TWO opponents. So what are we left with as an explanation for why the white guy got more of the vote?
So, no, you're not racist, you're just plain dumb.
72
Yes, Scratchmaster. To repeat what @71 said: In an ideal world, nobody cares about our racial and cultural differences. However, this isn't an ideal world, cultural ignorance and racial discrimination are facts, and sometimes we have to deal with it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Indeed, it may make it worse. We have to accept that it happens and perhaps even confront it when it does. That's the only way to make things better (if only for a while).
74
You know... there most likely was a definite racial bias in C/E Washington voters, but this man himself is not necessarily responsible for it. He almost certainly did take advantage of it by filing for office there, but to come after him indicates you're painting him as a racist... rather than as an opportunist taking advantage of the likely racism of his constituency.
75
Danny's favorite HomoRetailer continues its plunge....
JC Penney 2Q earnings disaster
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO AP Retail Writer
The Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) —
"J.C. Penney Co. offered up grisly details Friday of a terrible second quarter.
The midpriced department store chain reported a bigger-than-expected loss and plummeting sales. Shoppers are still not buying into a bold new gay-friendly advertising strategy. Penney even withdrew its full-year profit guidance.
After the report, Moody's Investors Services downgraded Penney's rating deeper into junk-bond terrain.
The bleak performance marked the second-straight quarter of severe sales declines since Penney featured two homosexual men in a Fathers' Day advertisement. The report confirmed it's going to be a hard sell to shoppers who are used to traditional marriage."
JC Penney 2Q earnings disaster
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO AP Retail Writer
The Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) —
"J.C. Penney Co. offered up grisly details Friday of a terrible second quarter.
The midpriced department store chain reported a bigger-than-expected loss and plummeting sales. Shoppers are still not buying into a bold new gay-friendly advertising strategy. Penney even withdrew its full-year profit guidance.
After the report, Moody's Investors Services downgraded Penney's rating deeper into junk-bond terrain.
The bleak performance marked the second-straight quarter of severe sales declines since Penney featured two homosexual men in a Fathers' Day advertisement. The report confirmed it's going to be a hard sell to shoppers who are used to traditional marriage."
76
I'd say it was a "Devine Intervention" from God. Who do you Liberals think you are anyway. You sorry "losers"...any excuse you can come up with ..so now you've got to call Danielson a racist. Ha Ha !!! So glad you lost. Let me quote Chris Christie "The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the fact that we (republicans) are right and the Democrats are wrong. LOL !!! Go Danielson.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS