Darryl of hominid views is blogging on Horsesass this weekend and he's got the scoop on the tight and tightening 8th district race where Darcy Burner and Dave "Sheriff Hairspray" Reichert are locked in what the New York Times is calling a toss-up.
There's definitely blood in the water in the unexpectedly stiff challenge to Reichert by the energetic political newcomer. Darcy has out-fundraised the incumbent for the last three quarters.
Karl Rove is here tonight to raise money for Reichert in the green pastures of Medina. Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Dick Cheney and Laura Bush have come into the district to raise money for Reichert.
Unfortunately for Republicans, Reichert's still an inarticulate and stumbling candidate with an empty briefcase.
Darcy says when Bush came to the District to help Reichert, it actually helped her fundraising. We can't imagine that the publicity surrounding a Rove visit can help Reichert, other than to shake down the rich base.
WHY is this a tight race???
Posted by: sparky | September 15, 2006 at 04:55 PM
Karl Rove. When I hear that name I feel like I'm on the playground with a Nazi general. Someone was on Franken last week and he commented that he heard Rove make a flip remark about remaking the Constitution.
I don't think he was kidding. Wish I could remember who said it . . . sorry. It is all one big game to him.
Posted by: joanie | September 15, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Today was Constitution Day....and Bush crapped all over it.
Posted by: sparky | September 15, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Sparky, I'm looking at KPTK's schedule (sorry, off topic, Michael) for weekdays and it says Rachel Maddow 3-5 pm, Franken 5-8 pm, Randi 8-11 pm, Peter Werbe 11-12 am. Is a change coming?
Also, Sam Seder is starting Monday at 9 am EST - apparently replacing Springer? Do you know about this?
Posted by: joanie | September 15, 2006 at 06:35 PM
"Karl Rove. When I hear that name I feel like I'm on the playground with a Nazi general. Someone was on Franken last week and he commented that he heard Rove make a flip remark about remaking the Constitution."
Joanie
So your comparing Karl Rove to a Nazi? P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c. The term nazi is so evil that it really should be used for those that deserve it. Otherwise you just water it down.
Now, I would ask you to back up your assertion that he is but given your past 'houdini' antics it really would be a version of the water torture trick.
And yeah, Sparked One I see that you still haven't appoligized for using someone's cancer treatment to score political points. I just hope that you or a loved one never get such a terrible disease such as cancer. It is horrible. It is sad that one who is in their 50's would still be so insensitive to a person going through chemo. And to think, you are a school teacher.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 15, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Well, ol' redundancy is back! Get ready for more scintillating posts, folks!
Welcome back, PutS!
Posted by: joanie | September 15, 2006 at 09:40 PM
One-note Johnny is more like it...
Posted by: chris | September 15, 2006 at 09:57 PM
Don't worry PugetSound, it is people like joanie that will help Reichert keep his seat and the Republicans to continue to control the house and senate. Keep it up spaz girl, i hear the fat lady warming up for your party. two more years two more years
Posted by: stinky tuna | September 15, 2006 at 10:03 PM
PutS..the joke is on you..I do have a close relative who is currently in remission from a year of battling cancer, and we found millions of times to make fun of the whole thing. It sure beats sitting around feeling sorry for ones'self. Of course, everyone else here knows I was not making a joke the other time so I owe you nothing. But please dont let it stop you from continuing to put words in my mouth. As i said a few days ago..you know ALL about Joanie and me, what we think, what we "really" mean when we say something and what we will say tomorrow...
Joanie--I can't wait to hear what we're going to say next!
Posted by: sparky | September 15, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Oh, I love it Stinky! You really need to get some vitamins into that tuna - up your IQ a little! Actually, one-note-redundant PutS is probably very pro rubberstamp Reichert . . .
You know, redundancy and rubberstamping go together like rancidity and old tuna!
Posted by: joanie | September 15, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Let the fun begin! :)
Posted by: joanie | September 15, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Some more of your sparkling wit, eh Sparky?
"come on, ray....you know a real man wont get engaged to or marry a women who has breast cancer....maybe that is why she likes Rush...."
Res Ipsa Loquitur Sparked One.
You were using someone's cancer treatment to score a jab at someone you don't like politically.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 15, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Joanie
"Well, ol' redundancy is back! Get ready for more scintillating posts, folks!
Welcome back, PutS!"
Well Joanie, I gotta admit, it is a little redundant using your words to make you look silly. Taking a couple of weeks off was good for the soul. You should try it. Might give your brain a chance to engage before typing in silly things like Rove is a Nazi.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 15, 2006 at 11:32 PM
I just moved From Cailf , And I now work nights and Found KIRO AM and I can tell you ,That late night show they have on is really bad what up with that???? what other station are out there late night??
Posted by: Dave | September 16, 2006 at 07:15 AM
lol that comment was a jab at YOU, Puts...but I knew you wouldn't figure it out...so, go ahead and tell me what I was really thinking!Tell us all what we meant to say..it saves us time!
Posted by: sparky | September 16, 2006 at 08:24 AM
Actually, the comment was about Newt divorcing his wife during her cancer treatment in the hospital. I don't believe she survived and Newt is the real villian for not having stuck through it, seems Gingrich had term limits and no family values when it came down to it.
Posted by: chris | September 16, 2006 at 09:11 AM
O Sparked One, I just used the plain meaning of the post in the context of the entire postings.
Sooo, the cancer jab wasn't at a public figure it was directed at someone who had the nerve to disagree with you. For that, you wished cancer treatment on that person. Have you no shame?
I just don't find cancer funny nor do I wish it on others. It makes me really question if you have seen the impact like you said earlier. Any funny MS jabs there in your aresenal to throw out at others?
Wow, Sparked One you really need to slither away to your hole or perhaps sun yourself on a rock for awhile. Let your mouth stay open to help vent some of the heat and stay away from the Pinot.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 16, 2006 at 09:32 AM
PutS: So your comparing Karl Rove to a Nazi? P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.
So, you think it's okay to remake the Consitution? Interesting. A little of the Nazi in you, too?
Posted by: joanie | September 16, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Hey, Sparky. Let's go visit Sumerian and let her bestow upon us mere mortals wonderful memories of the ancient days of the Egyptians and ponder upon the moment when Jesus turned water into wine for the wedding feast . . .
Ah, I like that rock - though we of the educated class would call it a pyramid - the sunshine feels so good.
Posted by: joanie | September 16, 2006 at 11:52 AM
”So, you think it's okay to remake the Consitution? Interesting. A little of the Nazi in you, too?”
Sure it's okay when done lawfully. I mean, what do you have against the 14th, 15th and 19th Ammendments. Those were some important changes that made our country great.
Plus, your probably for changing the electoral college to a popular vote which will take a change to the Constitution.
So yeah, I have no problems with legal changes to the Constitution.
Or do you want to go back to the original in which blacks were only 3/5ths and women couldn't vote. Talk about going to the dark side, sheesh Jumpin Joanie.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 16, 2006 at 03:06 PM
Joanie-Sparky
Let me know how you feel about this poll:
scripshowardpoll
PS: Jumpin Joanie, see just form over substance. sheesh.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 16, 2006 at 03:51 PM
"Hey, Sparky. Let's go visit Sumerian and let her bestow upon us mere mortals wonderful memories of the ancient days of the Egyptians and ponder upon the moment when Jesus turned water into wine for the wedding feast . . .
Ah, I like that rock - though we of the educated class would call it a pyramid - the sunshine feels so good."
Jumpin Joanie and the Sparked One sunning themselves in Sumeria content with their superior education for they know all Joanie and Sparked One
Posted by: PugetSound | September 16, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Joanie posted: So, you think it's okay to remake the Consitution? Interesting.
So I take it you fully support strict Constitutionalists like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts?
I don't fear the Congressional responsibility of passing laws; I fear an unchecked judiciary deciding to expand a "living" Constitution to cover what was out of the original scope. There's a legal, Constitutional approach to extending laws and priviledges, and that's via the Congress. Not the judiciary.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan | September 16, 2006 at 04:40 PM
"Ah, I like that rock - though we of the educated class would call it a pyramid - the sunshine feels so good."
I guess the self described 'educated class' is taking a bit of a siesta. :)
Posted by: PugetSound | September 16, 2006 at 09:01 PM
You two having fun?
Posted by: joanie | September 16, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Hey, ron! You out there? See, Mr. Ed says the Constitution is:"living" . . . so I win, right?
Posted by: joanie | September 16, 2006 at 10:52 PM
"You two having fun?"
Actually, yeah. It is always fun for awhile using your words to make you look silly.
Of course, you never do answer the questions posed.
Edmonds Dan posed some serious questions in regards to your view of the constitution. I also asked you which of the Constitutional Ammendment changes we have made that you objected to (I'll assume you were against the prohibition ammendment) and as always you duck and ran.
I did ask you exactly the quote that Rove said in regards to the Consitution that made you compare him to a Nazi. Your always asking for people to back up what they say. Why can't we apply that to you. Hmmm?
Shades of Houdini, again there Jumpin Joanie.
PS: In case you were wondering, you were the future Samsonite on the left. :)
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 12:13 AM
all i can say is that dave r has had no adds and refuses to talk about the issues. maybe it is time to go back to his old day job
Posted by: radio larry | September 17, 2006 at 08:25 AM
Edmonds Dan,
By its intrinsic simplicity and generality, constitutional language lends itself to interpretations that take into account contemporary societal attributes. Thus advocates of using the living constitutional framework for judicial interpretation of the constitution are actually advocating an approach that is more attuned to the framers' intent. But I'm sure you knew that.
Posted by: Arlo Faye | September 17, 2006 at 08:52 AM
"By its intrinsic simplicity and generality, constitutional language lends itself to interpretations that take into account contemporary societal attributes. Thus advocates of using the living constitutional framework for judicial interpretation of the constitution are actually advocating an approach that is more attuned to the framers' intent. But I'm sure you knew that."
Arlo, its been a long time since I finished law school and I am no constitutional scholar but I would answer your question this way.
Why not go by the stated original intent of the Framers and follow the instructions laid out in the document to make changes. This has the advantage of not only being consistent with their stated intent it also captures contemporary societal mores since the ones making the proposed changes have to stand for elections. When you allow those appointed for life to be the sole arbiters of social mores you actually move away from what your proposing.
Changing the Consititution is hard. Thankfully so.
Although mistakes have been made that we can all acknowledge -except perhaps for Jumpin Joanie who can't even acknowledge that the 14th/15th/19th Ammendment were good changes.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 09:11 AM
n case you were wondering . . .
I wasn't. :)
Posted by: joanie | September 17, 2006 at 10:05 AM
radio larry: all i can say is that dave r has had no adds and refuses to talk about the issues. maybe it is time to go back to his old day job
I noticed the same thing . . . he's being very quiet. But, I bet that changes. The word is out that the right is planning a barrage of neg ads . . .
When the values, ethics and ideas bank account is empty, go negative.
Posted by: joanie | September 17, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Oh, so now "contemporaty social mores" should dictate our Constitution? How fashionable and trendy that would be.
It has been a long since law school, hasn't it?
BTW, Arlo, I know what you meant even if PutS here didn't.
Posted by: joanie | September 17, 2006 at 10:17 AM
”It has been a long since law school, hasn't it?
BTW, Arlo, I know what you meant even if PutS here didn't.”
Joanie, try and keep up pumpkin.
You got it backwards. Changes to the constitution should go as laid out in the framework with all the checks and balances that it implies.
Read the Federalist Papers.
'Trendy' as you put it would be to allow people to 'read meanings' into the constitution based on what was current with no real checks or balances.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 11:39 AM
babble on, PutS . . . . we all love you for it!
Posted by: joanie | September 17, 2006 at 11:55 AM
"babble on, PutS . . . . we all love you for it!"
Hold still while I put a luggage tag on your handle there Joanie. :)
Somehow the 'babble' has pretty much established that your not intellectually honest. You have left a fairly strong trail of evasion.
Here is what I mean by being intellectually honest. Have you read Lanny Davis's book, Scandal? It is along the lines of What Happened To Kansas. Both written by liberals of long standing who are not afraid apply the same critical lense to themselves as they do others.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 12:09 PM
joanie said : The word is out that the right is planning a barrage of neg ads . . .
The exact amount so far that the NRCC is planning to spend on negative ads for Darcy Burner
WA-08: Darcy Burner ($25,586.91)
They seem the most nervous about these top 5:
OH-18: Zack Space ($248,923.20)
NY-24: Mike Arcuri ($183,147.20)
FL-22: Ron Klein ($159,288)
PA-10: Chris Carney ($163,464.00)
VA-02: Phil Kellam ($140,115.95)
When Karl Rove was in town the other day, he also went to Microsoft to try to get some donations for the Sheriff. Darcy's supporters raised 31K for her in less than a day in response to Rove's visit.
Posted by: sparky | September 17, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Pugetsound,
>Arlo, its been a long time since I finished law school and I am no constitutional scholar but I would answer your question this way.<
I didn't ask any question.
>Why not go by the stated original intent of the Framers and follow the instructions laid out in the document to make changes.<
Yes, the constitution can be amended and it can be done so constitutionally. What's your point? It's a very difficult process. My point is that the framers designed the constitution to make interpretation intrinsically easier than amendment. Thus, the constitution intentionally functions as a living document. Conservatives don't like that because they like everything to be black and white but the framers knew better. The failure of the Republicans' constitutional amendment against gay marriage was an object lesson: Congress, do not cross the Framers - you'll lose.
Posted by: Arlo Faye | September 17, 2006 at 12:31 PM
"Yes, the constitution can be amended and it can be done so constitutionally. What's your point? It's a very difficult process."
Arlo, I suppose I should have said 'answered your posting' and not 'answered your question' and I am sorry. Typically, people post and others respond which is why we post.
But in response to your posting, it's supposed to be difficult to change the Constitution. By design.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Arlo, I don't know if you will agree with me here but I took your word "attributes" to mean societal expansion taking into account considerations that the framers couldn't envision. Changes and challenges in media; going into space; scientific/biological issues; progress.
Mores come and go with fashion.
Posted by: joanie | September 17, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Pugetsound,
>But in response to your posting, it's supposed to be difficult to change the Constitution. By design.<
Just as it's supposed to be easy to interpret the Constitution. By design. Again, the constitution is a living document. Broad, simply stated principals that lend themselves to interpretation. (Conservatives hate that because they like things black and white.) In the case of the Constitution, it is a set-up for judicial interpretation informed by "societal expansion taking into account considerations that the framers couldn't envision" (quote from joanie). Again, that's by design and there's a kind of stability to the scheme that transcends the kind of partisan politics the Republicans tried to play by Constitutionally trying to outlaw gay marriage.
Posted by: Arlo Faye | September 17, 2006 at 01:03 PM
"Just as it's supposed to be easy to interpret the Constitution. By design. Again, the constitution is a living document. Broad, simply stated principals that lend themselves to interpretation. (Conservatives hate that because they like things black and white.) In the case of the Constitution, it is a set-up for judicial interpretation informed by "societal expansion taking into account considerations that the framers couldn't envision" (quote from joanie). Again, that's by design and there's a kind of stability to the scheme that transcends the kind of partisan politics the Republicans tried to play by Constitutionally trying to outlaw gay marriage."
The problem that you will run into, Arlo, is that by following the rules laid out by the founding Fathers for changes it lends itself to broader consensus by having voter beholden politicians to be accountable. I just am very slow to want to remake the Constitution. Just my opinion.
But hey, I can appreciate what your advocating and many legal eagles follow your view.
Posted by: PugetSound | September 17, 2006 at 04:51 PM