Pay attention now, this is complicated:
(photo: Clint Didier- tight & right)
Mike Siegel, former radio talk host has endorsed the endorsement of former GOP chairman, ex-Washington Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Ken Eikenberry of former farmer and NFL tight end, Clint Didier, candidate for the Republican nomination for the US Senate against former real estate speculator and gubernatorial candidate governor, Dino Rossi
"I've always found Gen. Eikenberry to be committed to populist conservative values," said harrumphed Mike Siegel. "His endorsement, and particularly his comment on fiscal responsibility, should also resonate with the grassroots movement."
It's a courageous political gesture for Mike, but that bluster-fuck of has-beens ain’t huge news since nobody but wonky geezers like ourselves actually know who Siegel and Eikenberry (who are even more geezerly than ourselves) are.More newsworthy (and this, too a stretch on any newsworthy scale) is that Didier is a dryside Tea Party candidate who’s been endorsed by Sarah Palin and Sen. Ron Paul. (listen to Didier speak with Rush here).
We’re excited by the Siegel/Eikenberry/Didier developments. It’s early, but we wouldn’t be surprised one little bit, to find ourselves voting for Didier in our State’s fabulous Top 2 election which gives us all a chance to vote as Republicans.
We think Sen. Patty Murray should face a candidate of Dider's caliber in November.
Classic tongue in cheek post. Rossi appears to be the strongest candidate vs. Murray. However, it would be interesting to see and hear Didier and Rossi in a debate, it needs to happen - Rossi may also be surprised.
Posted by: KS | July 10, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Don't worry Blather, Republicans will stick with the Party Hack, no matter how many times he has lost. Dider ha no money, a they don't have the balls to nominate a real conservative for this race even in a year when a free market, small gov't outsider could kick ass. They will go with whoever is safe, and they will lose again. It's depressing.
Posted by: Jimbo | July 11, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Down to Oregon today and back again..saw 3 Didier signs...and that was it.
Posted by: sparky | July 11, 2010 at 02:09 AM
A few weeks ago, I heard a talk-show caller refer to Dino Rossi as "the Perry Como of state politics." Mr. Excitement.
[Note to self: Watch SCTV episode with Eugene Levy as Perry Como.]
Posted by: tj | July 11, 2010 at 08:15 AM
That picture is not Clint Didier. It's Bo Gritz, the wacko militia guy (and friend of Mike Siegel).
Posted by: Lawrence Fishkiller | July 11, 2010 at 10:42 AM
I just love that Republicans are stuck with either one of these two. All the money the Republican can scare up in Washington DC, can't make Rossi look anything but a sneaky loser. Didier is a farmer from the east of the mountain and endorsed by Sarah Palin. The Reoublicans' Rasmussen poll not withstanding, Patty has no excuse for not kicking butt this year.
Posted by: Hen3ry | July 11, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Why do so many prominent Republicans disrespect presumptive nominee Rossi so much? And what does that mean in the larger scheme of things??
Posted by: Big Bob | July 11, 2010 at 03:26 PM
Rossi's a good man. He just doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly. I think Didier has the fire and that he can close the gap with patty and win this one for the gipper.
I'll be doing everything I can for him.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 11, 2010 at 06:08 PM
Remember what Mitch McConnell (head of the Senate Campaign Committee did to Linda Smith when she was running? Cut her nuts off with the nat'l money. That will happen to Clint if he gets it, too. They see Dino as the cheapest option because of name recognition. They won't invest the kind of money to bring somebody up from obscurity.
I'm afraid we're stuck with Rossi. All due respect Brother Crocker, but the Tea Party isn't that strong over here. Too bad we couldn't have got somebody from this side of the mountains whose name is known. This new Top Two election system that Michael loves so much is slanted against outsiders and newcomers to politics. Miracles can happen, I suppose. Wish I had the faith.
Posted by: James J. | July 11, 2010 at 09:11 PM
Rossi seemed like a nice guy during the first race, but for some reason his image took a dramatic turn for the worse the second time around. I think it was just hard to reconcile the nice guy image with the nasty attacks against Gregoire. Granted she deserved it, but it was contrary to the idea we had in our heads about Rossi. Suddenly the idea that he was a greedy real estate developer looking to become a political proxy for the BIAW. His "I'm a nice guy" act turned out to be a thin veil.
Posted by: Andrew | July 11, 2010 at 09:26 PM
hi it's Mama Moore. I just want to say how proud i am of my son Colton. You've all seen his face on the teevee being brought off a plane in the Bahamas. Who cares if he was in handcuffs ,....my boy was on CNN , FOX, BBC- all the biggies. He's worldwide news, Johnson. How many of you can say your son is worldwide news? Thopught so. Bigtime baby and the deal I'm setting up with FOX is bigtime too. Millions and millions, buster. It's all about The Benjamins, mister. I'll take The Benjamins any way i can get 'em. If i've got 'em and you don't, guess who is the winner. Welll tee hee hee it is me me me. See ya later, losers.
Posted by: Mama Moore | July 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM
in case you didn't figure it out , the Mama Moore piece was a satire written by me, Tommy008
Posted by: Mama Moore was me, Tommy 008 | July 11, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Why do I think Didier can win??
The economy sucks, there are no new jobs, the stimulus failed, the government is bleeding money, ObamaCare is unpopular, the Feds have screwed up the gulf oil spill and we are facing the largest tax hike in history at the end of the year.
Patty has always blindly followed Democrat leadership and been beholden to the chattering class in DC who assure her everything is okay; that the progressive agenda is secretly popular with the public.
Even west side libs are figuring this out.
I have enormous respect for Rossi and think he would be a great U.S. Senator. I don't even think of him as a loser. He actually won his first race for governor but was cheated out of his victory by partisan vote counters and our state's partisan Supreme Court. That said though I think this is one of those odd years when you can throw conventional political wisdom out the window. The natives are restless. Didier can win in Nov.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 08:22 AM
the progressive agenda is secretly popular with the public.
Yes, the progressive agenda is popular with the public. Too bad Obama did enact it. But, unfortunately for all of us, he stuck with the conservatives. Eight years of more of the same.
Sad, isn't it?
And, yes, I'll be forced to vote for a Senator I don't like either because the alternative is unthinkable.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 10:14 AM
And speaking of the vote counting after Rossi's first run for Gov. an article on Drudge is now reporting that ineligible voters may have pushed Al Franken over the top in Minnesota.
What the heck is the problem? If we know a voter is ineligible then why do we count the vote??? Aren't we a nation of laws?
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM
A conservative group says it, Fox repeats it and then Drudge reports it. Lots of credibility there.
Posted by: David Tatelman | July 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Fox generally does the "some people say" rather than actually try to provide proof.
This is considered news.
"Health-care reform" as enacted is not popular on either the right or the left but not for the same reasons.
Voting for Didier is stretch unless we decide to mess with the primary.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 12, 2010 at 12:16 PM
The state GOP won't fund Didler to the extent that Rossi would receive. Maybe Clint can apply for federal funds like his family did with irrigation.
Posted by: Coiler | July 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Tatelman sounds like one of those folks who thinks the New York Times and Dan Rather are the only sources of unbiased and reliable information in this great green nation.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Why don't we focus on content and not who said it.
Posted by: sparky | July 12, 2010 at 02:41 PM
Aren't we a nation of laws?
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 11:31 AM
That's pretty funny coming from the party who got the Supreme Court to select the President in 2000 but of course they made sure that everyone knew it was a "one time only" Supreme Court selection.
Just for this one time . . .
Crocker, you're another idiot.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 07:12 PM
Crocker - consider the source. As you can tell, the leftiists are getting testy because their party has made a shambles of guvmint since Obama the Destroyer was elected in 2008, Bush set the stage for this, to be clear. It behoves the GOP to have learned to be what they are supposed to stand for - smaller and more efficient government and to get rid of the neo-cons. They may get another opportunity to be a majority in the House.
Pelosi needs to be gone as the Speaker of the House - she may have rammed through statist legislation satisfactorily, but she's an ignoramus when it comes to following the constituion and covering up when she is wrong - as are the rest of the extremists in the White House. A government fit for idiots - a balance of power is the remedy and its time for a lot of these incmbent jackasses to get the hell outta there.
Posted by: KS | July 12, 2010 at 07:44 PM
Well, another stupid rant from KS. What, pray tell, did say that was incorrect?
Bet you can't tell me.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 07:57 PM
Good point sparky. When rather went on his GW military service rampage the bloggers got down to specifics and posted it and Rather was ultimately turned into anchorman toast.
Lots of Koolaid kids in Minnesota. Tatelman and Joanie need only find the blog or the press release announcing how one of the "children" reviewed the data and found evidence contradictory to the conservative groups findings. Not that tough one would think.
Come on Tatelman. Come on Joanie. Let's do some research. Let's back up the empty rhetoric. This is a simple challenge.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 08:02 PM
It was a conservative group that has made the accusation about the voting. If you read the article posted on Fox very carefully, you will see that all they really did was match the names of felons to the names on voter lists. Now, it may be against the law in MN for them to vote ( in WA they can vote after they have served their sentence) and they should tighten that up. But there is nothing in the article that says they looked at the ballots to see HOW they voted. I know there are some here who are happier believing that the felons voted for Al, but there is a 5o% chance they voted for Norm.
Had Al been on the losing end of things, I don't really think Fox News nor the Minnesota conservatives would have launched an investigation nor reported anything about felons helping Norm.
Posted by: sparky | July 12, 2010 at 08:12 PM
Crocker sounds like puts to me.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 08:32 PM
Good point sparky... one of the things I had been wondering about. Would be interesting to see how they actually voted.
And, for the record there Joanie, the Supreme court did not select the president in 2000. They merely looked at the fact that the ballots had been counted over and over and over again and that one side had consistently received more votes. Their decision was to "vacate the premises". The only other option was to count everything again and I don't think any of them were up for that.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 08:33 PM
...find the blog or the press release announcing how one of the "children" reviewed the data and found evidence contradictory to the conservative groups findings.
Does that make sense? It's gotta be sputs.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 08:34 PM
Crocker doesn't sound like Puts. The above italicized does make sense. He's just asking you for a source to put up. Enough of the 2000 election strawman you like to try to paint conservatives as lawless with your broad brush - err you were painting the SCOTUS judges who sided against Mr. Gore. It would have been a mediocre result the other way, one less war would have been the only improvement - so there...
Well, we're waiting - or will you grace us with some more empty rhetoric ?
Posted by: KS | July 12, 2010 at 08:58 PM
As for "vacating" anything, yes, that's what happened: five republican judges selected the President. Exactly. There were four dissenters including Bush-appointed Souter.
dissenting opinion by Bush-appointed Souter
and then check out profile on David Souter, a man who left the Court rather than be a party to its politics.
David Hackett Souter was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 25, 1990, by President GEORGE H. W. BUSH. Chosen by the Bush administration because of his conservative judicial style, Souter has proven to be a moderate justice whose personality and temperament have enabled him to build a centrist coalition that has garnered support from the Court's ideological extremes.
Souter believed in open-minded intellectual consideration of cases. He was not predictable. Unlike pretty much all the others. His opinion holds a higher authority. For those of us who can connect the dots. It's Complicated
David Souter finally tells Americans to grow up.
You might learn something about the law and the Constitution by reading this.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 09:36 PM
t would have been a mediocre result the other way, one less war would have been the only improvement...
One less war - mediocre? Ten years, hundreds of thousands killed and maimed, trillions of dollars later - mediocre?
Did KS really say that? This must be a nightmare. Even KS couldn't be that klueless.
And "crocker" did not ask for a source from me. And I don't know which "children" he's talking about. And I don't think he does either. Go to bed, KS.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 09:48 PM
Joanie... you are highly delusional.
For the record your "War" is a war declared by Jihadi's against america. Neither GW nor the "love sick Poodle" had any control over that.
Islam is at war with America. America is not at war with islam.
Your opinions here are total nonsense.
It may be time for you to board the good ship "Rachel Corry" and sail off to Palestinian never, never land.
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 12, 2010 at 09:56 PM
You've said nothing intellectually honest nor worthy of debate as usual.
It is klueless to whom you should address your remarks. He called it a war. Not me. I think it was a criminal action to which we over-responded for oil.
Your response is, again, misplaced.
Now you go to bed, too, sputs.
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Unless, of course, you're GG assuming the role of sputs this time. If so, bravo!
Posted by: joanie | July 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Allow me to quote some words of wisdom from one of my favorite posters:
"Crocker, you're another idiot."
Amen!
Posted by: Fremont | July 12, 2010 at 10:13 PM
We have the Rachel Corry crowd out and about here led by Ph(J)oanie. blah, blah, blah.
What can you do about the election of 2000 ? It was as it was and no matter how much you whine and bitch is not going to change that one bit. Grow up and get over it - Al Gore is now a fraud and huckster and to be honest, there has not been a worthwhile presidential candidate since the last decade.
Where Crocker and I differ is that the GOP has to get out of the business of nation building, spreading democracy, et.al. Neo-cons brought down the GOP and it is time for them to get out of the way - big government conservatives are progressives in disguise and in many cases chicken hawks.
Posted by: KS | July 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM
The 2000 outcome was not democratic, it was judicial, and the judiciary is hit and miss, to put it lightly. The atrocity that was the Bush term serves to demonstrate what happens when the wrong leader is chosen. It should come as no surprise that the collective wisdom of millions trumps that of nine judges, no matter how nice their robes and heavy their gavel.
Now we have Obama, a democratically elected leader with a healthy majority of the electoral and popular vote, and he's systematical correcting the problems laid upon us by the previous administration.
Even Republicans agree that Obama's reforms are better than the outgoing policy. They don't oppose him on substantive grounds, rather they're avoiding bi-partisanship in order to make Obama look less-good in 2012. Good luck with that. The face of the Republican party is "just say No!" and "drill baby drill" and "I apologize" to BP. I think we should start a GOP death clock. They don't have much time left. Their best hope is the likes of Mitt Romney, and he's practically a liberal. Will we have two Dems running against each other in 2012??? And then there's this "tea party", bisecting conservatives before our very eyes with some surreal hockey mom nut job holding the scalpel. If that's not a death sentence to the GOP, I don't know what is.
What's actually happening with the "tea party" is the libertarian wing and conservative wing of the Republican party are ripping apart into two new entities. If someone like Romney gets the nomination, they won't come together, they will continue to split further apart. Romney will lose of course, and you will subsequently see third party candidates carrying the "tea party" banner. That's just how it is.
Posted by: Andrew | July 13, 2010 at 02:53 AM
LMAO - Andrew; you're delusional.
Posted by: KS | July 13, 2010 at 08:51 AM
Uhhh... Andrew. Since when is counting votes and declaring the side with the most the winner "not democratic"?? This is essentially what the supreme's said when they vacated the decision.
Tea Party is on a roll and you libs are acting like a bunch deer staring into their headlights.
Ya'll need to go on a retreat or something so you can compose yourself and try to come up with some meaningful and convincing arguments.
It's actually a lot more fun to debate someone who can put forth a logical argument than it is to read the blather from libs like Joanie, Tatelman, and Andrew....
And, speaking of Andrew... Where in God's name did you get the idea that "Republicans agree that Obama's policies are better than the outgoing policy"? Which administration's outgoing policy are you talking about? Carter's, Truman's, or Hoover's?
Posted by: Robert L. Crocker | July 13, 2010 at 09:33 AM
You didn't read the decision did you? You should. Then, you'd know what you're talking about. Until then, you just sound stupid.
Again, from the Souter dissent:
But as Justice Breyer has pointed out, no showing has been made of legal overvotes uncounted, and counsel for Gore made an uncontradicted representation to the Court that the statewide total of undervotes is about 60,000. Id., at 62. To recount these manually would be a tall order, but before this Court stayed the effort to do that the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all disputed ballots now.
Yes, it is about counting the votes: all of them. Read, sir. Then think. Hopefully, comprehend.
Posted by: joanie | July 13, 2010 at 09:57 AM
"Uhhh... Andrew. Since when is counting votes and declaring the side with the most the winner "not democratic"?? This is essentially what the supreme's said when they vacated the decision."
You can't say the supreme court vacated something and that the process was "democratic". That's not intellectually honest. Bush was appointed through the judicial process. That's a fact.
"Tea Party is on a roll and you libs are acting like a bunch deer staring into their headlights. bla bla bla bla bla bla"
The tea party is Libertarianism with new clothes.
"And, speaking of Andrew... Where in God's name did you get the idea that "Republicans agree that Obama's policies are better than the outgoing policy"? Which administration's outgoing policy are you talking about? Carter's, Truman's, or Hoover's?"
Even Repuglicans knew that health care was broken, and while they won't support Obama's reform, they still admit it's better than the status quo.
Repuglicans are complaining that Obama isn't winding down the foreign wars fast enough, wars they previously supported. They're also complaining that Obama hasn't closed Gitmo yet, a detention facility utilized heavily by their own man, Bush. Republicans and Obama were in agreement on off-shore drilling prior to the oil spill disaster. Republicans only argument against Obama will be that he's not more effective, because they refuse to offer support even though they know it's an improvement.
Latest example; holding back unemployment benefits. Repuglicans are blatantly breaking the system with the hope that blame will be misdirected towards Obama. It's cynical, and I'm sad to say that polls show it's working.
Posted by: Andrew | July 13, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Idiotboy returns today at noon.
Posted by: Tommy008 | July 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Dave is interviewing Jere Van Dyke about his imprisonment by the taliban. He's here to talk about his book at town hall tonight. Very interesting.
Posted by: joanie | July 13, 2010 at 10:41 AM
yes , riveting , profound interview. i shudder to anticipate what's coming in about an hour on KIRO, after Dave. The return of the dunderhead. From profundity to asininity in 60 minutes.
Posted by: Tommy008 | July 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Latest example; holding back unemployment benefits. Repuglicans are blatantly breaking the system with the hope that blame will be misdirected towards Obama. It's cynical, and I'm sad to say that polls show it's working.
Posted by: Andrew | July 13, 2010 at 10:22 AM
The rest of the story, suspicously omitted is; meanwhile, the Demothugs refuse to dip into unspent stimulus money to fund this. The GOP would vote for this. They would rather deficit spend in their effort to fund a welfare state. They'd rather use unspent stimulus cash for their slush fund and screw over those in need as well as taxpayers.
Their cynicism knows no bounds.
Posted by: KS | July 13, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Repugs are the ones blocking the unemployment checks. What's to tell? You can't bullshit your way out of this one.
Posted by: Andrew | July 13, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Chuck, you may have to go flip burgers at Dicks.
Posted by: sparky | July 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM
You are already bullshitting if you claim that Dems aren't doing the same thing as I have demonstrated.
As always, the lib progs try to have it both ways but want to make the rest of us believe that they are self-righteous when they are really dark and cynical.
Posted by: KS | July 13, 2010 at 02:45 PM
Good Stuff. I've really got to get over here more often.
Yes, you guys should really cross over and vote for Clint to let your champion, the Wm. F. Buckley of the left, Patty Murray, have a chance to blow him away in debate. That would work. The GOP establishment has the same distate for Clint they did for that over-rated cowboy actor thirty years ago and the reason is obvious. They're both small-government, Constitutionalist anti-choice EXTREMISTS and, hence, can't win. Why not expose ol' Didier in all his Palin-esque fringe-y-ness? Beating Rossi is getting boring.
Why not have another Reagan to kick around?
Posted by: Doug Parris | August 13, 2010 at 10:51 AM