October 14, 2010 in City

McMorris Rodgers turns down debates

Romeyn says refusal ‘denies me a voice’

Jim Camden The Spokesman-Review

Tags:2010 5th Congressional District2010 electionCathy McMorris RodgersDaryl RomeynJill Johnson

For the first time in decades, there will be no debate or face-to-face forum for Eastern Washington’s 5th Congressional District race because the incumbent is refusing to participate.

U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers’ campaign said Wednesday she will not be able to debate Democratic challenger Daryl Romeyn “due to scheduling constraints.”

McMorris Rodgers, seeking her fourth term in the House, declined to participate in one proposed televised debate, a one-hour question-and-answer session planned for next week on KSPS and KXLY-TV.

She also turned down other forums with Romeyn, a novice candidate she outpolled nearly 5 to 1 in the primary, and over whom she holds a 100-to-1 advantage in campaign contributions, according to the latest spending reports.

“I don’t think that’s the way American democracy works,” said Romeyn, a former television weatherman and outdoor reporter. “They must feel putting her out there (in a debate) would do more damage than holding her back.”

McMorris Rodgers said Wednesday that her campaign had waited to commit because Romeyn was slow to file reports with the Federal Election Commission after he won the primary, and “we weren’t sure how serious of a candidate he was.” The campaign then tried to identify some dates but couldn’t fit them in with other scheduled events.

“We’re on the campaign trail. We’re talking with people every day,” she said after making an appearance at the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association meeting.

Some forums, including one sponsored by the Spokane League of Women Voters, occurred while McMorris Rodgers was in Washington, D.C., for a congressional session that lasted much of September. But others have been held or were scheduled after the House adjourned Sept. 30.

Romeyn said when McMorris Rodgers refuses to appear, sponsors often drop him from the program. “That denies me a voice as well,” he said. “It’s almost as if this race doesn’t exist.”

Jill Johnson, producer for the planned debate, said she contacted both campaigns a few days after the Aug. 17 primary. Romeyn agreed quickly; the McMorris Rodgers campaign said it couldn’t commit right away.

“I was never told they would do a debate,” Johnson said. But the campaign did not decline, either, and asked her to push back the proposed date, which she did.

The stations scheduled it for Oct. 19; the McMorris Rodgers campaign declined Monday. The station will likely air a rerun of the debate between Sen. Patty Murray and Republican challenger Dino Rossi in the time slot it set aside for the House debate.

Debates have been a mainstay of Eastern Washington congressional campaigns for decades. McMorris Rodgers debated in her three previous congressional campaigns, including three in five days with 2008 opponent Mark Mays. Republican George Nethercutt, who held the seat for 10 years before she did, debated opponents in every election, including nine debates when he defeated House Speaker Tom Foley.

Foley had said in his first campaign in 1964 that an incumbent has an obligation to debate an opponent so voters can compare them. Foley never refused to debate, although challengers sometimes declined.

166 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

dukkandpooh on October 14 at 5:51 a.m.
Unbelievable. It seems to me that if a candidate refuses to debate, that his/her opponent should at least get some airtime. If she does actually have this huge lead, she has nothing to gain or lose by debating. Where is the incumbent anger where she is concerned? If she has been such a great representative, she should be eager to get into a debate and share her accomplishments!
tbberwyn on October 14 at 6:39 a.m.
McMorris only comes to Spokane for photo opps with vets
drywitt99 on October 14 at 7:13 a.m.
To the Editors of the Spokesman-Review:
Care to rethink your endorsement of Rep. McMorris Rodgers?
She cannot free up one hour for a debate with her opponent?
One lousy hour?
The House is in recess, giving members the opportunity to return to their districts to speak to the concerns of their constituents.
Is that the type of leadership and commitment we look for in our leaders?
Well, is it??
liarsinnews on October 14 at 7:27 a.m.
Give her the BOOT. Rodgers would be the last person on this earth I`d vote for.
PlanB on October 14 at 7:37 a.m.
She just can’t get out of the habit of voting ‘no’.
wcpeabody on October 14 at 7:39 a.m.
What is she afraid of? I think it is disgusting she will not even give her opponent the respect of having a debate with him.
Seems like in her mind she already won and the election is just a formality
schleufer on October 14 at 7:51 a.m.
i can see why she wouldnt want to answer why she goes to washington and instead of doing what she was elected for she takes orders from her party. what she is constant about is standing next to boehner and his hyprocacy.
the republicans are not about working togeher and getting things done, they are about them selves and screwing things up.
there seems to be no end to the stories that the dems are in trouble and are going to lose yet these articles have no shortage of people who are pissed at the republicans and the support for them is almost non existant.
what else can you expect from someone who isnt used to thinking for them selves?
hawken on October 14 at 8:05 a.m.
It’s quite understandable that McMorris detractors would pound her in this forum for not debating Romeyn .
If the roles were reversed, McMorris supporters would be pounding Romeyn for not debating McMorris .
The fact is, that “to debate” or “not to debate” is one of the basic, political strategies used by both sides.
For example, Patty Murray declined at least one debate that I recall, with George Nethercutt, when she beat him in the 2004 race. That year, the Dems had a huge advantage over Republicans.
Patty Murray does not even do town hall meetings with the people of this state after she has been elected, most recently relating to Obama’s Health-Scare bill.
“
“Senator Patty Murray’s office says she will be doing small events across the state. (“The town hall is not a format that she often uses,” said her spokesman, Eli Zupnick. “She prefers doing smaller meetings with constituents.”)
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/08/12/barack-obama-can-do-it-why-cant-washingtons-congressional-delegation
Seems fortunes have changed and roles have reversed this year.
Vote McMorris
misjustice on October 14 at 8:09 a.m.
Cathy is afraid to debate a former weather man!
; )
8john on October 14 at 8:21 a.m.
Stations should offer Romeyn the opportunity of an interview, equal in length to what the debate would have been. The interview should be between Romeyn and a person presenting the voting record and public statements McMorris has made and asking Romeyn his position on the various chosen issues.
The issues and questions should be given Romeyn prior to the interview so he can give a thoughtful answer, not an off the top of the head response.
Voters have a pretty good idea where McMorris stands on the issues but probably do not know Romeyn’s.
The results of an election can only be improved if the voters are informed.
The Spokesman should provide readers a brief edited transcript of the TV program for readers.
I have supported McMorris for years I but now feel that she has failed to represent our best interests and is now no more than a part of the Republican and Democrat agenda to destroy the foundations of our country for the benefit of the wealthy.
I know where McMorris stands so I will be voting for her opponent in the hopes he will work to restore our freedoms and finances.
schleufer on October 14 at 8:32 a.m.
out of 9 comments she has one supporter.
daryl has my vote. he is a trusted member of the community and maybe that is why she dont want to debate him. she dont want to try and run a well liked and trusted person into the ground. all that would do is piss alot of people off.
put them side by side and on one side you have a republican sellout and on the other…the choice is easy.
Random_Axis on October 14 at 8:36 a.m.
If I were in her shoes I would not debate any whackjob liberal either. What’s the point? You just feed their ego and give them a platform to spout their bakwas.
GO CATHY!
VOTE McMORRIS-ROGERS!!!
misjustice on October 14 at 8:51 a.m.
Umm, Random, debates are a part of the campaign process.
But you’re right, why have an open forum to express what you’ve done, during your last term, on behalf of constituents, when you really haven’t done anything? I can understand why Cathy wouldn’t want to have that discussion.
hawken on October 14 at 8:57 a.m.
schleufer points out that McMorris is out-voted in this forum 9-1…
Actually, I find that quite encouraging! By my calculations, conservatives are outnumbered on this forum by 50-1!
Looks like conservatives might be making some great gains in this forum!
Of course, we already know that to be true in the state and nation at large, don’t we.
Or…. maybe liberals are just becoming more and more of a “no show”…. Like George Soros….

Even the liberal left’s piggy bank, George Soros, says he’s not investing anymore money in this election as he does not want to get in front of the coming “Republican avalanche.”
Now doesn’t that seem a bit greedy on Soro’s part? ….not expecting a return on his investment! He sounds like just like another, greedy owner… don’t you think?
Very good misj..! on your weather man comment!!
MrNatural on October 14 at 8:59 a.m.
Plastic Cathy ain’t so chatty it seems. I understand the strategy…she is one of the incumbents who is responsible for the problems in Washington. She can’t stand on her record and would have nothing constructive to offer the middle class. She most likely got her marching orders from the orange boner and turtle head…”if you want to continue to stand behind us girly then shut up and sit down!”
If any of you out there can’t realize that she is just another mannequin shill for the K-street Neo-cons and has no designs for improving conditions for the common people of eastern Washington then go back to asking yourself “who crapped in my pants”
I’m voting for Romeyn’s Domain
misjustice on October 14 at 9:06 a.m.
Mr. Nat; you crack me up! Plastic No Chatty Cathy!
; )
hawken on October 14 at 9:07 a.m.
Oh… yes! Romeyn is the man…. After all, the centerpiece of his campaign is building “trail breaks” in the National Forest.
Yes, that is absurd! I didn’t make that up… It’s the conclusion of the SR who actually interviewed the man.
They also said, it’s long past time for him to come up with some ideas of his own! A blind man groping around in the dark, searching for an idea,,,, keeps invading my mind’s eye over and over again.
Since he doesn’t have any ideas of his own, he surely ought to be reading this forum… and using some of your ideas…. Naaaa… they still would not be ideas of his own I guess.
hawken on October 14 at 9:16 a.m.
Hey…. Misj….
I thought I would make this post just to get another count….
lest you take over my role as a “bloghog”…. was that the term you used???
Anyway, I’m just trying to give you some covering fire here.
Diana on October 14 at 9:17 a.m.
Soros invoked! Everybody drink!
horse_feathers on October 14 at 9:24 a.m.
No debating it, McMorris has my vote, she is one of the few pubs in there that is a true conservative.
hawken on October 14 at 9:27 a.m.
horse feathers…. what about the “trail breaks?”….
Don’t you think they should have higher priority than our depressed economy? Come on!!
MrNatural on October 14 at 9:28 a.m.
I will admit Romeyn is a bit of a dark horse in this election and I was hoping that the debate would inform and clarify some of his positions. Still I’m voting for him because I know what he ain’t (isn’t). I hope Romeyn takes on a bit of the Foley and starts bringing opportunity and federal projects to Eastern Washington. As far as not so chatty Cathy all I’ve heard is a great sucking sound.
Glad to make you smile mj
(glug-glug-glug Diana)…if the contrarians would put as much effort into Osama Bin Laden as they do George Soros he be history…
misjustice on October 14 at 9:32 a.m.
A drinking game, so early?
; )
Here’s how Plastic Cathy voted on
Budget, Spending and Taxes
(Her vote follows the bill’s number, hint, it’s usually a N)
Date Bill Title Vote Outcome
09/30/2010 Continuing Appropriations
HR 3081 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(228 - 194)
09/23/2010 Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments
HR 5297 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(237 - 187)
07/30/2010 Tax Law Amendments
HR 5982 N Bill Failed - House
(241 - 154)
07/27/2010 Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Supplemental Appropriations
HR 4899 Y Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(308 - 114)
07/22/2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension
HR 4213 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(272 - 152)
07/01/2010 Deeming Supplemental Military Appropriations Passed and Allowing Divided Question
H Res 1500 N Bill Passed - House
(215 - 210)
07/01/2010 Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Supplemental
Appropriations
HR 4899 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(239 - 182)
07/01/2010 Limiting Afghanistan Military Funding to Withdrawal and Other Specified Purposes
HR 4899 N Concurrence Vote Failed - House
(100 - 321)
07/01/2010 Requiring Timetable for Withdrawal from Afghanistan
HR 4899 N Concurrence Vote Failed - House
(162 - 260)
06/17/2010 Small Business Lending Fund and Tax Law Amendments
HR 5297 N Bill Passed - House
(241 - 182)
05/28/2010 Unemployment Benefits Extension and Tax Law Amendments
HR 4213 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(215 - 204)
05/28/2010 2010-2011 Defense Appropriation Authorizations
HR 5136 N Bill Passed - House
(229 - 186)
05/28/2010 Science and Technology Funding
HR 5116 N Bill Passed - House
(262 - 150)
05/27/2010 Removing Funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s Alternate Engine Program
H Amdt 661 N Amendment Rejected - House
(193 - 231)
05/19/2010 Science and Technology Funding
HR 5325 N Bill Failed - House
(261 - 148)
See all key votes in Budget, Spending and Taxes
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=3217
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 9:38 a.m.
Ok I’ll probably reluctantly vote for Cathy. If there was another conservative candidate I would probably vote for them. Cathy’s avoiding serious local issues that might mire her down as she’s being groomed in DC for leadership positions by the Reps.
Cathy would be wise to remember all politics is local.
See this excerpt from my comment in the Camden’s blog thread on his article:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/oct/13/no-debate-5th-congressional-district/#c204861
I like Cathy and her stance on many national issues but she avoids controversy like the plague. I tried several times with her office to deliver a letter in opposition to the appointment/ confirmation of Michael Ormsby as US Attorney for the Eastern District of WA to the Senate Judiciary Co. I even hand carried a copy with additional background documents to her district office. Snail mail is delayed significantly because of the anthrax screening.
I was also requesting that she take a position in opposition to Ormsby’s confirmation. I also used her web page to schedule a meeting with her when she was in the district. No follow-up from her office or Cathy. Gee this is a mainline constituent issue. A follow up one way or another would have been appropriate but no response is not good.
I finally went to her town meeting in Spokane last month and addressed her in public. She made a commitment to deliver my letter but would not take a position because this was a Senate issue. Yes this is a Senate issue. More specifically a blatant political appointment in deference to Sen. Murray who submitted Ormsby’s name without any vetting. I pointed out that this federal court district was largely in her district and she could have an opinion. So much for a constituent complaint and taking a position cutting from the local political consensus.
misjustice on October 14 at 9:40 a.m.
And here’s Plastic Cathy’s votes on
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Date Bill Title Vote Outcome
05/28/2010 2010-2011 Defense Appropriation Authorizations
HR 5136 N Bill Passed - House
(229 - 186) (this bill had the rider re; DADT)
04/29/2009 Hate Crimes Expansion
HR 1913 N Bill Passed - House
(249 - 175)
01/27/2009 Employment Discrimination Law Amendments
S 181 N Bill Passed - House
(250 - 177)
01/09/2009 Employment Discrimination Law Amendments
HR 11 N Bill Passed - House
(247 - 171)
01/09/2009 Employment Discrimination Law Amendments
HR 12 N Bill Passed - House
(256 - 163)
07/31/2008 Employment Discrimination Law Amendments
HR 1338 N Bill Passed - House
(247 - 178)
07/30/2008 FDA Regulation of Tobacco
HR 1108 Y Bill Passed - House
(326 - 102)
07/16/2008 Allowing the Use of Certain Terms in Within the Intelligence Community
H Amdt 1114 Y Amendment Adopted - House
(249 - 180)
07/09/2008 Electronic Communications Preservation Act
HR 5811 Y Bill Passed - House
(286 - 137)
06/20/2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
HR 6304 Y Bill Passed - House
(293 - 129)
03/14/2008 Electronic Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Review Act
HR 3773 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(213 - 197)
03/11/2008 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
HR 2082 N Veto Override Failed - House
(225 - 188)
2/17/2007 Inclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
HR 2764 N Concurrence Vote Passed - House
(253 - 154)
12/13/2007 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
HR 2082 N Conference Report Adopted - House
(222 - 199)
12/11/2007 Recognition of the Importance of Christmas and Christianity
H Res 847 Y Resolution Passed - House
(372 - 9)
See all key votes in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=3217

Well, at least she recognizes the importance of Christmas AND voted for Santa!
; )
Another drink?
Scoutster on October 14 at 9:40 a.m.
This is an insult to all the conservatives.
They deserve to have one of their leaders stand up in a public, spontaneous forum and defend their borrow and spend policies that got us here and continuous obstructionism when it comes to solving them.
She is taking you for granted, reich wingers!
I don’t expect her to lose in this GOP animal farm, but I would think she’d at least buy us dinner before she …. us.
hawken on October 14 at 9:42 a.m.
Referring to Romeyn as a “Dark Horse”…. is being very, very kind…. or,,, very, very much in denial….
I’ll give benefit of the doubt in this question….. very, very, kind.
Making “trail breaks” the centerpiece of his campaign is way beyond informing!
Who in their right mind would waste time debating an opponent, in the depths of a depressed economy, whose centerpiece in his campaign is building “trail breaks” in the national forest!
Rather than spending her time meeting people face to face.
Hypothetically, If McMorris agreed to do such a debate…. I might even vote for Romeyn…
I would have to seriously consider the “dumb” and “dumber” test…. If, McMorris were to agree to such a debate….
johno on October 14 at 9:43 a.m.
No one has pointed out that she’s told a bald faced lie by blaming it on “scheduling”. That might be the way Washington DC works, but it shouldn’t be the way Eastern Washington works or be accepted by the voters. She’s acting like a political hack insulated in her power with no need to answer any tough questions or be held responsible for her actions. Shouldn’t we just save her salary, travel, and federal government run health care plan expenses and just record her votes the same as John Boehner’s.
misjustice on October 14 at 9:44 a.m.
Ron; she seems fairly consistent; won’t give you an answer to your inquiry and won’t give voters answers via debate process.
Diana on October 14 at 9:46 a.m.
Still waiting for career politician McMorris Rodgers original thoughts and legislation she created. Got anything? Or does she just stand behind Orange Boehner grinning for photo ops?
Scoutster on October 14 at 9:49 a.m.
Cathy’s Spokane phone #
509-353-2374
schleufer on October 14 at 9:53 a.m.
as for her listening. earlier this year i had contacted her office twice to tell them to take me off thier mailing list as i didnt want any republican prop coming to my house. in both cases they had ample time to get it done then i got another one. this time i called her office and left a message explaining my prior requests but not only did i get another mailer from her but i see in fine print that it was paid for by my tax dollars.
its only a mailer and it fit nicely into my shredder, it did piss me off they didnt listen then spent my tax dollars on something i had already told them i didnt want.
anything that ends up in my mail box with republican printed on it either goes into my shredder or i rip it up and mail it back to them.
hawken on October 14 at 9:59 a.m.
Looks like Romeyn’s campaign priority, building “trail breaks” in the US Forest…. over our depressed economy, …. is gaining ground here in this forum!
This race might be closer than we think!
misjustice on October 14 at 10:01 a.m.
“Cathy McMorris Rodgers has sponsored 23 bills since Jan 4, 2005 of which 19 haven’t made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400659
MrNatural on October 14 at 10:01 a.m.
From Daryl Romeyn’s web site…FYI
The economy is the number one priority of my campaign to represent you in Washington’s 5th Congressional District.
We need lasting jobs that pay wages a family can live on.
We have to make products in America again
*Nurture small business with tax relief and encourage entrepreneurs by providing access to capital.
*Invite non-polluting industry to locate in Eastern Washington.
*Protect natural resources - our chunk of earth and sky - through environmental stewardship. We can boost rural economies and protect green forests and valuable watersheds by building “light on the land” firebreaks in our national forests. Benefits include jobs, timber, and clean air to breath in Spokane during fire season.
*Farming is a lasting pillar of economic strength in Eastern
Washington. Let’s work to spur more food exports and domestic consumption - gains for Washington agriculture. Let’s grow local foods from local farms for local kids.
I’m a responsible Democrat
* I’m one of you, a citizen of this great state who sees a need for common sense ideas. Government must be accountable.
*I’m fiscally responsible: We need to pay for our wants and needs.
*I’m socially responsible: We can do better by our families - backing people over profits.
*I’m responsible to you: Your Congressman is your voice in our nation’s capital.
Our incumbent is as partisan as can be, voting 97% of the time with her party. I say good ideas come from Republicans and Democrats alike. We need Representatives who will talk through their differences for the good of the country. So let’s break camp and get moving along the trail to the new frontiers of a better tomorrow. Join me. I need your vote.
Thank You
hawken on October 14 at 10:03 a.m.
Natural…. was that posted after he got hammer by the SR?
misjustice on October 14 at 10:10 a.m.
Guess we’ll have to do our own debate/forum for Cathy.
Cathy, where do you get your money?
Top 5 Contributors, 2009-2010,
Campaign Cmte Contributor/ Total / Indivs / PACs
Moneytree Inc $19,200 $19,200 $0
Nelson Irrigation $19,200 $19,200 $0
Microsoft Corp $15,250 $5,250 $10,000
Manson Construction $14,400 $14,400 $0
Schweitzer Engineering $10,390 $10,390 $0
Top 5 Industries, 2009-2010,
Campaign Cmte Industry Total/ Indivs/ PACs
Retired $62,570 $62,570 $0
Health Professionals $57,030 $19,130 $37,900
Insurance $43,570 $3,570 $40,000
General Contractors $43,350 $22,850 $20,500
Republican/Conservative $41,250 $31,250 $10,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026314
blushresponse on October 14 at 10:17 a.m.
If there won’t be a debate, for those that want to support Daryl Romeyn, why not volunteer with his campaign to make sure he’s getting the voice he deserves?
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elect-Daryl-Romeyn-for-Congress/145249685494965
Email: romeynforcongress@yahoo.com
schleufer on October 14 at 10:18 a.m.
the republicans can spew whatever and some will continue to forget the past, if they could only be a fly on the wall in the lunchroom at work they would really know how the people feel about them and what they have done.
soccermomsusie on October 14 at 10:23 a.m.
Whatever it takes for Cathy to win, she must do it. Although, I think most of us would still vote for her even if (and I know this sounds undignified) she hurled fecal material at voters during town hall meetings. Why is this? Quite simply - she listens to her bosses and does what she is told. She is one of the few who stood by GWB then and stands by him now! Voters know this and respect her for it.
When GWB had the good idea of keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan Freedom Wars off the budget books, she agreed! Now that DumboDemoncrat Obamatron 2000, with his goody-goody ways, decided to “come clean” and put these Freedom Events on the budget, it makes Barry O’Kenyan have a huge deficit compared to God’s Wonderful Boy. GWB’s strategy is the kind of strategy we need to day. This is the kind of strategy Cathy is using. In fact, it is the kind of strategy that will win for all Republicans!
Want proof? Look at one of America’s leading companies - AMWAY. They are one of Republican’s biggest contributors (now that ENRON, WorldCom, Global Crossing and other wholesome corporations have gone to Corporation Heaven - RIP). AMWAY is emblematic of the Conservative Dream and the AMerican WAY! It is no secret that the Republican Party models themselves after this successful enterprise. And, of course, it is God’s will!
I like seeing Cathy on TV too. She is always basking in the glow of John Boehner (he reminds me of my second favorite Dino - Dean Martin - especially when his show was on in the 60s and color tv was in its infancy).
Keep voting for America’s best president (GWB) by voting for Cathy. Remember too that Rossi will put the W back in Washington (State). NO MORE STINKY TENNIS SHOES!!!! GO CATHY (I only wish she still had her cartoon. It was funny and true at the same time)!!!
W AGAIN IN 2010!!!
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
hawken on October 14 at 10:25 a.m.
Misj…..
Do you actually believe McMorris is going to get a penny from George Soros?…… or, any other liberal left group?
Let’s agree on the obvious…. Liberal’s get their money from liberals…. Conservatives get their money from conservatives…
Your logical fallacy is an Appeal to Belief: Or, “Appeal to Ideology”, I would say…
Description of Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.
misjustice on October 14 at 10:30 a.m.
He said “Soros” again. Take another drink!
; )
hawken on October 14 at 10:34 a.m.
Scoutster
McMorris is walking the streets meeting with people face to face, a week before the election…. Not answering phone calls.
Just leave a message for now….
misjustice on October 14 at 10:37 a.m.
She’s a street walker?
misjustice on October 14 at 10:37 a.m.
In her condition?
hawken on October 14 at 10:38 a.m.
Where I can get in on the free drinks all of you liberals are handing out?
Never mind,,, I know,,,, I’ll just attend the next, local VFW when Murray is speaking there…. I hear that she’s buying!
hawken on October 14 at 10:45 a.m.
Never mind the fee drinks…. In my excitement over free drinks…. I failed to consider that if they are being handed out by liberals…. the tax payer is actually paying for them.
A liberal is willing to give away everything… except that which belongs to them.
schleufer on October 14 at 10:49 a.m.
i read this post.
blushresponse on October 14 at 10:17 a.m.
If there won’t be a debate, for those that want to support Daryl Romeyn, why not volunteer with his campaign to make sure he’s getting the voice he deserves?
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elect-D…
Email: romeynforcongress@yahoo.com
then went to daryls web site and made a donation. good idea…i feel good about it. nuthin like putting your money where your mouth is.
beerman48 on October 14 at 10:54 a.m.
There are several posts that state Mr. Romeyn’s primary campaign point is “trail breaks”. Obviously you have not heard him speak nor have you visited his web site. Daryl has come out for a balanced budget based on a pay as you go procedure for passing new spending programs. Isn’t that the way we run our budgets at home? McMorris-Rodgers requested that the date of the debate be changed, and the producers did so. Now it is still not “convenient” for Cathy. She owed us in her district more than another excuse. She is obviously afraid that appearing in this format would do her more damage than good. This reads like business as usual to me.
hawken on October 14 at 10:57 a.m.
Misj…. see,,,, I told you liberals get their money from liberals… and conservatives get their money from conservatives.
I totally agree with schleufer…. every liberal in this forum should give money to Daryl Romeyn following schleufer’s example…. put your money where your mouth is! He absolutely has a point!
It will be interesting to see how many liberals in this forum actually follow schleufer’s lead, actually do that and then let us all know.
Romeyn does need the help, desperately.
MrNatural on October 14 at 10:59 a.m.
…this one’s on the house….”SOROS!”
A fine dry
Maison blanc de démocrate 2012
As opposed to a fruity
Chateau noir de républicain 1984
hawken on October 14 at 11:00 a.m.
Christman…
I think your issue is with the Spokesman Review… who actually interviewed the man.
MrNatural on October 14 at 11:06 a.m.
hawken…to answer your question above..Those positions were on his (Romeyns’) web site before this SR article came out.
cpd805 on October 14 at 11:11 a.m.
8John said “Stations should offer Romeyn the opportunity of an interview, equal in length to what the debate would have been.”
Really? It is the responsibility of the TV stations to give Romeyn free advertising? That is not their business. Their business is in ratings. A debate would boost their ratings, whereas some sleeper QnA with someone with virtually no chance at winning would not.
And Mis, what is the purpose of all the bills and how McMorris voted? That does not reflect the content of the bills and why she voted the way she did. Maybe come context would make your point more pursuasive.
hawken on October 14 at 11:15 a.m.
Good Job Natural….
Why then would Romeyn would stress “trail breaks” as his priority when interviewed by the SR.
Are you sure???????????????
I know!! He had a political consultant put that up on his web site for him… whom then didn’t tell Romeyn… Otherwise, how is Romeyn supposed to know what to think?
Either it is true that his campaign centerpiece is “trail breaks” as he apparently stated to the SR…. or…. maybe, the SR is just made that up…
I wonder if they will stand by their story?
hawken on October 14 at 11:16 a.m.
Very good point…. cpd805!
misjustice on October 14 at 11:20 a.m.
cpd; those that are so inclined may research the hypothetical reasons of “why” Plastic Cathy voted the way she did; I gave ya the bill #, date, outcome, etc… IMO she voted the way she did because leadership told her how to vote (except for the SCHIP vote in which she opposed her party).
hawken on October 14 at 11:25 a.m.
Scoutster on October 14 at 9:40 a.m.
“This is an insult to all the conservatives.”
It’s not an insult to me….
Again, another liberal, logical fallacy! Specifically,
A “Hasty Generalization”
Also Known as: Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion, Hasty Induction.
Description of Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:
1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
1. X% of all observed A’s are B”s.
2. Therefore X% of all A’s are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when not enough A’s are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A’s are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
How many times have I posted this web site for you liberals?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
Really, you should spend some time on this web site!
Scoutster on October 14 at 11:27 a.m.
Walking the streets glad handing people is the same as a debate?
Oh, OK.
Do you suppose the GOP will let Obama do that in 2012?
Aren’t you conservatives just a little bit concerned about this? What if you lived in the Satan’s district, Nancy Pelosi’s, and she just said she wouldn’t bother with a debate.
I lived 30 years in a conservative Rep district before coming here. The challenger never got more than 30%. But every year the incumbent would have 2-3 debates.
He felt duty-bound.
hawken on October 14 at 11:34 a.m.
cpd…. liberals don’t read the bills…. they just publish them in volume, without reasonable defense…. shouting…. see?
Then when challenged, they retort…. draw your own conclusions…!
Never mind that the “devil is in the details” with any bill, my Dem or Rep,
hawken on October 14 at 11:35 a.m.
Scoutster ….
please refer back to my previous post using the test “dumb” or “dumber.”
Scoutster on October 14 at 11:42 a.m.
hawken, I don’t generally bother with your posts anymore, but since these two were directed to me, I did.
I’m sorry, did you actually respond to my question of “if this make you nervous?”, or are you hiding behind your specious, boring and petty arguments again?
“My, we think a lot of ourselves, don’t we?”
—The Church Lady
hawken on October 14 at 11:46 a.m.
Scoutster
You say…
“I lived 30 years in a conservative Rep district before coming here. The challenger never got more than 30%. But every year the incumbent would have 2-3 debates. ”
So the challengers in a “conservative district”… never got more than 30% of the vote??? You call this a conservative district?
Or….. maybe….. all of those losing conservatives should have been out meeting the 70% majority of conservatives face to face, rather than relying upon “sound bites” in a debate…. if it was in fact a conservative district???
Are you making up this stuff??? It doesn’t pass the smell test to me.
Diana on October 14 at 11:49 a.m.
Still waiting to hear some accomplishments. And waiting.
hawken on October 14 at 11:50 a.m.
Scoutster…. now that is really misleading…..
“hawken, I don’t generally bother with your posts anymore, but since these two were directed to me, I did.”
in fact I have spent a good deal of time in personal exchange with you, person to person….
So tell me more about a “conservative district” where “conservatives” can’t get more than 30% of the vote?
This is fascinating example you cite!
schleufer on October 14 at 11:51 a.m.
this interesting. no doubt the republicans are raising alot of money. having a few friends in high places can really pay off when it comes to that. watch this entire video and think about this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#39642627
what would you rather have, a few really rich people donating massive amounts of money or having massive amounts of people making small donations?
it seems the republicans are basing thier polularity on volume of cash and not the volume of donators.
cpd805 on October 14 at 11:52 a.m.
Mis……Well, if the Congressmen and women don’t have the time to read the bills, then I certainly don’t. Unfortunately, one can’t look at the title of a bill and determine if it is a good bill or not. Many times, a Rep will vote against a bill because of the riders and unrelated pork usually associated with bills. And mostly, regarding the past two years at least, voting against pretty much any Democratic sponsored bill was probably a prudent thing to do.
I know you posted the basic facts of whether she voted yes or no on a bill, and that’s fine. However, without ANY context, it tells us nothing.
jdodgion on October 14 at 11:55 a.m.
Cathy should allow the debate to go on, if she’s serious about her candidacy.
hawken on October 14 at 12:01 p.m.
Ut… Oh…. Scoutster… there you go again with another liberal, logical fallacy! I view you MSNBC link…. They are talking about who funds energy bills in California…. who knows when…. I could not find a date on the MSNBC video.
You and I were talking about your so-called “conservative district” where conservative candidates can’t get more than 30% of the vote! I question that it is actually a conservative district?
Now you throw at me a video on who supports energy prices in California? Another of your Red Herrings!!
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Maybe you should quit responding to me personally, or otherwise show yourself more and more to be lacking in logical debate. Meanwhile, I will continue to demonstrate you logical fallacies….
again…. see….
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
zelda on October 14 at 12:02 p.m.
McMorris Rodgers is a cardboard cut-out. She’s the sole female in John Boehner’s backdrop scenery. The token woman on the podium.
She won’t debate because she can no more speak extemporaneously than she can do linear algebra. She interacts only with hand-picked audiences where all questions are submitted in advance so her staff can generate sound bites with simple declarative sentences and one-syllable words. Her legislative record is laughably sparse. The only accomplishment the S-R editorial writers could point to in their endorsement was a bill where she cooperated w/Democrats on a bill to prevent mistreatment of developmentally disabled kids. A trailblazer, she’s not.
Unfortunately, she’s probably going to have this congressional seat for life which will afford us all the chance to watch her fossilize — an officeholder preserved in amber for a district where time stands still.
hawken on October 14 at 12:12 p.m.
Zelda Krup …. If what you say is true….
“She won’t debate because she can no more speak extemporaneously than she can do linear algebra.”
Maybe she could as the president for advice on the use of “tele-prompters.”
hollytm on October 14 at 12:18 p.m.
The Romeyn Campaign would be absolute fools not to take advantage of her snub. Get a commercial up now people!
This is some pretty egotistical behavior out of McMorris-Rogers, she has finally reached the pinnacle that every good Republican wants, that of a fat-cat politician. You ignore your biggest voting block Dear Mrs. Rogers, and Spokane does not like it at all. Your day of reckoning is coming, you just stepped in a big pile of elephant dung!
Scoutster on October 14 at 12:21 p.m.
Hawken..
I think you misunderstood my post. Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
I lived in a conservative district, like this, where the candidate only had to have a beating heart and GOP after their name and they won.
My point was that even the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN (there were two in the years I lived there) who were the elected representatives would hold at least 2 debates every two years with whoever the Democratic challenger was.
Conservative District.. Conservative, Republican Representative incumbent.
Even these conservative, Republican yahoos in a safe seat would give us the honor of standing in front of constituents every 2 years and defending their record. They didn’t need to, but they did.
hawken on October 14 at 12:21 p.m.
Zelda Krup
Here’s your liberal, logical fallacy concerning your assertion that McMorris cannot speak “extemporaneously”, which has not been established… other than your accusation….
when….. compared to Obama’s total dependence upon a tele-promoter….. It’s called the logical fallacy of “Special Pleading”….. In other words…. McMorris can’t speak “extemporaneously”…. in your opinion…. While at the same time you don’t criticize the president for his dependence upon tele-promoters…
Description of Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
I understand, and you liberals have demonstrated that “logical debate” is very difficult for you…. Not to worry, I am a patient man… I will continue to help you as much as I can. But,,,, in the end you WILL have to spend some time in personal study.
hawken on October 14 at 12:28 p.m.
Scoutster ….
I certainly did misunderstand what you were saying…. Yes, you were not clear….
I do understand that you would not be in favor of a conservative being elected in a conservative district…. as a liberal… totally understandable….
I also understand that your only recourse to defend your liberal views in a conservative district to accuse the conservatives, electorate and candidates as being stupid….
“where the candidate only had to have a beating heart and GOP after their name and they won.”….
Yes, that is totally consistent with your liberal, logical fallacies, again…. Know as the “Ad Hominem” logical fallacy…
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Scoutster on October 14 at 12:33 p.m.
Whatever…
OK..I’m an idiot and you are the only one with a brain.
You win. I concede.
Will you stop now?
zelda on October 14 at 12:40 p.m.
Let’s not rehash debate club 101. I know the syllogisms, Hawken.
Cathy spoke to handpicked audiences when she campaigned in Spokane in 2008. As for teleprompters, just about every major politician uses them. Bush used teleprompters. To not use them would be like opting for a bullhorn instead of a microphone with amplifiers.
Unlike Obama, whom I don’t think is running for the 5th Congressional seat, McMorris Rodgers would be sunk without her crib notes during a debate. If she got an unexpected question, she’d founder in quicksand. She’s blinking eyeballs without much of a brain attached. Obama, however, has an intellect and if his teleprompter malfunctions, he is still able to speak cogently and from a deep base of knowledge.
Unlike McMorris Rodgers, he’s not an automaton.
hawken on October 14 at 12:40 p.m.
No…. I will not stop…. at least until after the November elections… not as long as you liberals keep using your logical fallacies to spread your demonstrably, flawed, world view…
I will point out liberal, logical fallacies every time I see one…. I have cited this web cite for you liberals again and again….
I would expect that you would use the same, if I use logical fallacy.
Debate is good! Trying to have an intelligent debate with those whom have a propensity to use logical fallacy is like climbing Mt. Everest!
I did hike, backpack, the John Muir trail in my younger days.
duckinspokane on October 14 at 12:44 p.m.
Romeyn has gone on Christian Radio for interviews, he’s gone up to Pend Oreille county for forums, etc. He is criss crossing the entire 5th district to get his message out and to speak with voters. It’s pretty laughable to call Romeyn a liberal. His ideology is decidedly in the middle. Heck, I even know Tea Party supporters that are backing Romeyn this year because they are sick of Cathy not doing anything for us, and in fact, voting to help get us into the deficits and debt our nation now faces.
hawken on October 14 at 12:46 p.m.
Sorry…. Zelda Krup …. you DO NOT know debate club 101…. if you did you would not continue to demonstrate your logical fallacy.
I did not make up the definitions of logical fallacies….
The fact that most liberals, whom claim to be informed, educated people don’t understand them is “prima facia”…. valid upon it’s face.
Simply saying “I get it”…. doesn’t “get it.”
zelda on October 14 at 1:06 p.m.
I think you meant prima facie, Hawken.
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 1:13 p.m.
Hawken,
You can pick at nits if you wish. Zelda is dead on re Cathy. Look I’m a conservative and am not happy with Cathy either for the reason I explained up thread. As I said all politics is local. If you fail to represent your constituency whether conservative/liberal you run the risk of alienating your base.
I know other people that have had constituency issues that her office has either been clueless on or she’s blown them off. Yes this is a relatively safe conservative district and that’s why she’s being groomed by the Rep leadership. However bottom line is if you p/o too many of your constituents they will not return you to office.
Here’s an excerpt from a friend who responded to my lukewarm response re Cathy:
Lets not forget that Cathy McMorris Rodgers refused to help me when I presented her access to documentation and a audio tape regarding the contaminated muni bonds to finance the convention center expansion. I caught her Spokane office not telling me the truth about a supposed email sent to me, referring my stuff to Cathy, and the email contained any progress that may have been made at the time. When I corrected her aide (in Cathy`s Spokane office), not having received any reply, she promised to personally talk with Congresswoman Rodgers about it and she would be sure and get back to me.
During our conversation, I mentioned to her the River Park Square parking garage and how the Cowles Dynasty tried to block the taxpayers from finding out about the illegal muni bonds, but the IRS reported the illegal transaction and the bonds had to be refinanced (sticking it to the taxpayers). I followed up telling the aide, the same cast of characters were involved with the CCX financial package and I expressed to her that Cathy might be influenced by the Cowles family.
The aide said, she was sure Cathy would not be, and told me it didn`t matter who was involved if she thinks they were wrong. I think I made one call after that and was given the run around and felt it was an exercise in futility and gave up. THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD about the possible crime. Rodgers, needs to be voted out of office. I think it was a disservice to me and to the voters/taxpayers by not investigating the possible contaminated muni bonds.
hawken on October 14 at 1:15 p.m.
Thank you Zelda…. you are correct….
…never let typos distract from the obvious, clear point everyone else gets…. which has been defined as well….
I have seen several typos by the SR…. Yet, I am still able to connect the dots. And they get paid to write!
But you do deserve credit here…. you actually looked up the definition of “prima facie”…. Well done!
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 1:18 p.m.
BTW I linked to this article on my FaceBook page and Bob Apple wrote this comment:
Bob Apple She has found time to add more to her name. I can remember when it was much smaller and she actually lived in Eastern Washington but now she has multiple residences here and actually lives in none. She has her raise and full health care taken from us and has no time to address her lawful challenger?
hawken on October 14 at 1:26 p.m.
Ron…..
If logical fallacies… are a “nit”, as you say,,,, let’s all just keep making absurd indefensible, accusations without any accountability of what we assert… that’s like having a boxing max with no referee… no reasonable rules that are accepted intellectually by all…
I have no issue with your opinion of McMorris…. as long as it has some logical base…. that does not violate basic logic and clear thinking.
Personal experience is a sound argument for one’s opposition to anything… Blatant, illogical, ideological arguments are not.
misjustice on October 14 at 1:27 p.m.
@ Ron; when you asked Cathy (at her “town hall”) about the District Courts, did you have to pre-submit that question? I get her little invites all the time but usually can not attend, so I am unfamiliar with her format/structure for these meetings. Anything that you could share would be appreciated.
; )
hawken on October 14 at 1:32 p.m.
Ron the Cop… you worry me a bit….
you cite…
1- “She (McMorris) has found time to add more to her name.”
2- “…she has multiple residences here…”
3- “She has her raise and full health care”
More logical fallacies…. Your personal experience is credible. Your logical fallacies are shameful.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
hawken on October 14 at 1:56 p.m.
Misj…. This might be helpful to you regarding your question of Ron the Cop….
“@ Ron; when you asked Cathy (at her “town hall”) about the District Courts, did you have to pre-submit that question?”
“The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431418276770899.html
So are you for or against politicians asking that questions be “pre-submitted”…. your question has implications…. but is not clear.
misjustice on October 14 at 2:02 p.m.
sqawken; you do not speak for Ron.
Although it seems as if you want to speak for everyone.
BTW; STFU
; )
hawken on October 14 at 2:05 p.m.
Misj….
I was speaking to you…. regarding your question of Ron the Cop….
I speak for me…. ask my own questions… draw my own conclusions…
Let me repeat my question….
“So are you for or against politicians asking that questions be “pre-submitted”…. your question has implications…. but is not clear.”
Is this too difficult?
hawken on October 14 at 2:20 p.m.
MisJ…..
Is my question “Just too hard to explain?”
“So are you for or against politicians asking that questions be “pre-submitted”…. your question has implications…. but is not clear.”
You sound a bit like Biden with a no response.
“…Democrats aren’t running on the administration’s accomplishments like health-care and financial-regulatory overhaul and the stimulus because “it’s just too hard to explain,”
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/13/vp-biden-d-hair-club-for-men-dems-not-running-on-obamas-accomplishments-because-voters-arent-smart-enough-to-understand-them/
hawken on October 14 at 2:29 p.m.
Either my question is…
1- “too hard to explain”…..
2- or Misj…. does not have a simple answer to a simple question….
3- or,,,, she just needs more time to search the Internet for some cutesy cliche’…
My question repeated:
“So are you for or against politicians asking that questions be “pre-submitted”…. your question has implications…. but is not clear.”
Let’s give her some time here with this complex question.
misjustice on October 14 at 2:31 p.m.
Cathy does not even have a home ANYWHERE in her district.
She lists 2 mortgages; one for a residence at 3057 Hunrichs Way in San Diego, and one for a residence at 1426 G St. S.E. in Washington D.C.
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00026314_2009.pdf
She couldn’t travel from her “real” home(s) in order to do the debate.
misjustice on October 14 at 2:36 p.m.
For those so interested, the link also lists her stock holdings (impressive and diversified, she’s done well for herself), capital gains, and other financial information.
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00026314_2009.pdf
hawken on October 14 at 2:37 p.m.
Ut… Oh…. looks like Misj…. has ignored my complex question!
“So are you for or against politicians asking that questions be “pre-submitted”…. your question has implications…. but is not clear.”
….what else can she do?
I understand…. Typical liberal left, non-response to specific questions….
ceyer on October 14 at 2:39 p.m.
This really illustrates how little respect she has for us, her constituents. I wish she would at least pretend to have an interest in the democratic process. Reminds me of when she was back in Spokane in August 2009 and her “town meeting” was closed to the public. The S-R may endorse her, but I see nothing but disrespect from her for the people of the 5th. We have no access to her and she seems to like it that way. Gets her elected over and over again.
hawken on October 14 at 2:41 p.m.
God forbid, that any of you would be subjected to the slanderous implications of Misj… and her liberal likes….
She just keeps piling on with impunity, her negative implications of those whom oppose her liberal ideology…
I think they call this character assignation by implication.
But, that’s just my opinion, speaking for myself.
hawken on October 14 at 2:49 p.m.
ceyer; I see that you are a member of the “liberal aristocracy”…. with you logical fallacy….
“The S-R may endorse her, but I see nothing but disrespect from her for the people of the 5th.”
What you see in the 5th… is not supported by the vast majority in the district….
Your Hasty Generalization Fallacy:
Also Known as: Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Leaping to A Conclusion, Hasty Induction.
Description of Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:
1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
1. X% of all observed A’s are B”s.
2. Therefore X% of all A’s are Bs.
The fallacy is committed when not enough A’s are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A’s are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
hawken on October 14 at 2:57 p.m.
“The principal feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things—war and hunger and date rape—liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things…. It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.”
P.J. O’ROURKE
ceyer on October 14 at 3:04 p.m.
I listed my observations. You attack me as “liberal aristocracy”. Refusing to debate and holding only closed “public” meetings (August 2009) are clear examples of her disrespect for us. You show your true colors attacking me personally and not actually questioning why she acts this way. Have fun with your BS. I won’t waste my time responding to you further.
hawken on October 14 at 3:15 p.m.
ceyer;
Please re-read my 2:49 post…. as to my calling you a member of the “liberal aristocrats”
As to your criticism of McMorris NOT holding public, town hall meetings…. May I suggest Google?
Misj…. a, self proclaimed, “card carrying member of the ACLU”… will not respond to me either…. at least for now….
I will give credit to Misj…. at least she says she is proud of her liberalism…. Cudos…. Misj…!
I am proud to be called a conservative…. I don’t understand why you take offense when I call you a liberal? … as you have demonstrated yourself…. do you need to come out of the closet…..? maybe????
Maybe you could help me with this questions?
misjustice on October 14 at 3:17 p.m.
Ceyer; thank you for stating the obvious. Cathy’s supporters would send up the hue and cry if the situation were reversed; if her challenger refused to debate.
hawken on October 14 at 3:20 p.m.
Misj… where’s my pat on the head? I said the same thing on my 8:05 post this morning!
“It’s quite understandable that McMorris detractors would pound her in this forum for not debating Romeyn .
If the roles were reversed, McMorris supporters would be pounding Romeyn for not debating McMorris .”
jddavis on October 14 at 3:23 p.m.
Why debate? I’m 99.9% sure that McMorris-Rogers likes trees too!
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 3:25 p.m.
Misjustice,
They had raffle tickets at the door. She gave her canned speech about wanting constituent ideas re cutting the federal budget. After a short video she then had a local boy scout group pull names from the hopper and write on a white board. If your number was called you went to one of the mikes and asked your question or gave your comment. Mine was the first drawn. I have to say though they pulled quite a few numbers out of the hopper. My photo appeared on her FaceBook page from the event. If you attend with several other people you can probably stack the hopper a little in your favor.
Hawken,
If you took the time to read my post before launching into speech 101, you would note the comment your dissecting for its logic flaws was from a comment that Councilman Bob Apple posted on my FB link re Cathy.
hawken on October 14 at 3:26 p.m.
jddavis…
whether or not you are correct…. we don’t know for sure….
What we do know according to the SR, is that the centerpiece of Romeyn ‘s campaign is building “trail breaks” in our national forests.
hawken on October 14 at 3:28 p.m.
Ron the Cop…. I saw that…. yet, you cited Bob Apple as your source…. is this a “cop out?”
misjustice on October 14 at 3:50 p.m.
@ Ron; Thanks a lot for your response. I appreciate the information.
Maybe the next time that I get an invitation to one of her “town halls”, I’ll be able to attend.
MrNatural on October 14 at 3:58 p.m.
…Ah!…ya just can’t teach a pig t’ sing and ya sure can’t tango with a troll…
There is an untenable talent to [sq]hawkin O’ Reilly’s joust that can leave one exasperated and bewildered. How does one debate the finer political attributes of political Idiocracy? Fact is you don’t. I’d sooner debate the smell of blue.
I will concede that this “P”illed “h”igh and “D”eep of debate deserves to be anointed with the title of grand master….All hail hawken… the grand master debater of opinion

Coochie Coochie Coo
The Natch (some call me Mr. Liberal)
hawken on October 14 at 4:04 p.m.
Oh yes… mIsj…
we believe your self-serving, false humility… that you would actually consider attending a McMorris town hall….
“And here’s Plastic Cathy’s votes…”…..
oh yes…. when pigs fly!
hawken on October 14 at 4:16 p.m.
Natural…. I think you make a couple of false assumptions here….
1- I don’t like your liberal music, which I have heard over and over for decades.
2- I have no interest in your tribal dance.
misjustice on October 14 at 4:20 p.m.
@ Natch; masterdebater! Indeed!
; )
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 4:45 p.m.
Hawken,
I did cite my source, Bob Apple, I’m not vouching for the accuracy of his comment. I just presented it for others to make their own conclusions. I’ve had a number of conversations in person and by email with Apple re his insight into the goings on in the Spokane political arena. Apple has been right most of the time. In law enforcement circles we would call him a reliable informant if that holds any water as to the truth of what he says.
Misjustice has provided some info re Cathy’s property holdings. He does cite his source “opensecrets.” Whether it has any credibility I leave it to the crowd sourcing keybangers here to determine.
BTW did you notice I said up thread I’m inclined to vote for Cathy as the LOP (Least objectionable person).
If you really want to debate a local race ask me what my opinion of Co Prosecutor Steve Tucker is (A REPUBLICAN). This guy should be in jail for his failure to do his sworn duty to WE THE PEOPLE. And then watch how fast my comments are pulled by the “powers that be.”
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Two-term president Riverside Police Officers’ Association
Riverside, CA
hawken on October 14 at 5:04 p.m.
Ron….
You ought not cite someone whom you don’t know whether or not you agree or disagree with…..
People ALWAYS cite sources to support their position… That’s your failure not mine… You need to be very clear about what you are saying.
You have to be especially clear for the sake of liberals….
Regarding Tucker… I’m not sure we have anything to debate… I will not support him simply because he is a Republican….
As I am on record as saying….. I am not impressed with him as a prosecutor.
I would like to discuss your thoughts more on Tucker…. But, I must warn you in advance….
Misjustice…. is the “jumping strings” police….. in this forum….. If you take on Tucker any further you could be cited, arrested or shot my Misj…. She is very intolerant with such a crime!
Since Tucker is not the topic of this string…. I only give you fair warning about Misjustice… believe me she is parked behind the bill board just waiting to catch you!
Thayne on October 14 at 5:06 p.m.
What an interesting series of blogs. As usual, hawken is the only one with the correct viewpoint. The rest of us are just simpletons who don’t know anything. Hawken, you are worse than a broken record. I do not see that the Romeyn’s primary campaign centerpiece is clearing (building, like you say implies constructing something. Forest breaks are the removal of underbrush and non viable trees.) forest breaks. As for teleprompters, at least President Obama doesn’t have to write his talking points on his hand like moosealini (aka Palin) did.
hawken on October 14 at 5:12 p.m.
Thayne …. you are not being fair…. what about the poor?
I am sure that if Palin had access to all of our tax money as does Obama…. she would have… a state of the art, teleprompter and not have to resort to such impoverished methods as writing notes on the palm of her hand!
bszottlinger on October 14 at 5:23 p.m.
Thayne:
He’s right you are not being fair…you used the “Fantasist Fallacy”
Come on play fair!
Shylock13 on October 14 at 5:29 p.m.
I am a moderate, leaning right, independent who votes for the candidate, not the party. In my judgment, Cathy McMorris Rodgers is in Congress to advance and enrich herself in every way possible. I do not believe she cares about Spokane or its citizens. Please review all of the votes where she opposed what was in the best interests of us all. Then check those bills that passed with benefits to our area—including some bills for which she took credit—that she voted AGAINST! No congressional district should have House Representative who is primarily concerned with her/himself. That is what this Congressional District has.
hawken on October 14 at 5:41 p.m.
Bear….
well done…
but you leave me with a bit confused here as to your practical position….
You don’t like McMorris…. ok….
Does that mean Romeyn is your man ….?
…the only other option, whose centerpiece of his campaign is “trail breaks” in the US Forest (according to the SR)….?
I’m just trying to understand.
Elkay on October 14 at 5:54 p.m.
I am not overly impressed that Cathy didn’t have the respect for a televised debate here, no matter who her opponent is. When something is *important*, you make time, period.
If I vote for her, it will be reluctantly … I need to review more about Romeyn.
And Hawken, I’m an American first … not a lemming. I’ll await the clever insult you’re sure to shoot off at me.
meh.
Shylock13 on October 14 at 5:56 p.m.
Hawken,
I wish that I had another alternative. Given the candidates, I can’t vote for McMorris, and I am not impressed by Romeyn. But I will probably vote for him. He does not seem to be into special interests and his own advancement…at least not yet. But I might just punt!
hawken on October 14 at 6:00 p.m.
Elkay….. May I suggest that you see the SR article comparing the two….
Editorial: McMorris Rodgers capable of tough job… just type this into the search window…. It should come right up.
Elkay on October 14 at 6:01 p.m.
Theodore J. Bear,
When I REALLY can’t decide who is worse, I won’t vote for either one. It’s happened only once or twice in my decades of voting. I call it my Voting Fallacy.
hawken on October 14 at 6:06 p.m.
Bear….
Almost all politicians have “special interests” in their pocket….. maybe all…. Granted, maybe not Romeyn… at this point….
But, if by some, one in a million shot, he is elected…. you must give him some time… after all, he would be a rookie. Shouldn’t take him long.
zelda on October 14 at 6:45 p.m.
Oh, God. I just listened to McMorris Rodgers being interviewed on KXLY. You don’t get much illumination from a 15 w. bulb. At least Dave Erickson needled her about refusing to debate Romeyn. Her awkward, hesitant answer to Dave’s mean gotcha- zinger (which she obviously didn’t expect - doh, wait, what?) was, “Well, sometimes the scheduling doesn’t work out…” and then her voice trailed off.
hawken on October 14 at 6:58 p.m.
Zelda… !
Are you OK?!! …. after watching KXLY? !!!
Should I call 911?
menemc on October 14 at 7:25 p.m.
Hawken,
I find it very interesting that you spend so much time picking apart other’s logic yet have failed to give a single logical fact of your own.
Your “debate” strategy seems to be:
(1) If the facts don’t suit my point-of-view, I’ll just change them.
Ex. “Who in their right mind would waste time debating an opponent, in the depths of a depressed economy, whose centerpiece in his campaign is building “trail breaks” in the national forest!
“Rather than spending her time meeting people face to face.”
-In fact, this is a huge assumption on your part, unless you have evidence to back this up? I happen to know first-hand that Daryl is out spending time with the people face-to-face. And I’d love to touch on your assertion that Daryl’s campaign centerpiece is ‘trail breaks,’ when it has been brought to your attention multiple times that this is not the case, but I suppose I’ll leave that for one of my later points …
(2) If the facts don’t suit my point-of-view, I’ll just ignore them.
-Refer to the previous point for evidence of this.
(3) If the facts don’t suit my point-of-view, I’ll just dismiss them.
Ex. “Almost all politicians have “special interests” in their pocket….. maybe all…. Granted, maybe not Romeyn… at this point….
“But, if by some, one in a million shot, he is elected…. you must give him some time… after all, he would be a rookie. Shouldn’t take him long.”
-This can also be referenced in the previous 2 points.
(4) If the facts don’t suit my point-of-view, I’ll just change the subject.
Ex. “Maybe she could as the president for advice on the use of ‘tele-prompters.’”
-How is Obama relevent to this conversation?
(5) If the facts don’t suit my point-of-view, I’ll just act condescending and focus on how others are wrong instead of how I’m right.
-Well, this can be evidenced in just about every one of your posts and really goes without saying.
I also find YOUR gross overgeneralizations to be quite disgusting and hypocritical. Here’s a few:
-“A liberal is willing to give away everything… except that which belongs to them.”
-“He had a political consultant put that up on his web site for him…”
-“[L]iberals don’t read the bills…. they just publish them in volume, without reasonable defense…”
-“I also understand that your only recourse to defend your liberal views in a conservative district to accuse the conservatives, electorate and candidates as being stupid….”
-“You have to be especially clear for the sake of liberals….”
For all of these, you have no proof to back up your assertions! Those last two are also examples of your hyporcisy as much overgeneralizations. You say it’s not fair to use the argument that conservatives are stupid, yet it’s ok for you to assume that all liberals are stupid?
I also find it ironic that you cite the following: “Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true. ”
Yes, it’s a fallacy, but it’s one many conservatives also subscribe to. Let’s see … (1) Sadam Hussein had something to do with 9/11; (2) Obama is responsible for the bank bailouts; (3) “ObamaCare” is a government take over of health care; (4) Obama was actually born in Kenya/is a Muslim/is a secret terrorist/is a Nazi/is a Socialist/Etc.; (4) Giving tax cuts to the rich improves the economy and benefits everyone. None of these are true, but the majority of conservatives believe them or some version of them.
I hope you appreciate the time it took to research your countless posts to cite actual evidence of my accusations. And, long story short, get over yourself!
hawken on October 14 at 7:47 p.m.
menemc ….
you have expended allot of energy!
The consistent flaw with your list is that you don’t quote the whole dialog of those whom I refute, “in context”….
in each case… you simply pull out my retort, wanting it to stand on it’s own, without the benefit of other readers to understand the context… in an effort, to make a failed attempt to arrive at and persuade others of your own predetermined conclusion….
It is clear what your predetermined conclusion would be, otherwise you would not have invested all of this effort with the outcome you publish.
I’ll let others whom have an interest, read each of my post “in context”….. which many of them have already done.
Where were you when we were having a timely debate, in context, each topic at a time?
Now, after the fact, you make a failed attempt to go back and cherry pick my rebuttals “out of context”,,,, bundle them all together and sell that as convincing.
I think people are pretty intelligent…. they can decide for themselves…. in context.
remember the saying…. “anything out of context,,, is a pretext.”
Actually, it doesn’t take me much time at all to refute liberal, logical fallacies… on a case by case basis.
zelda on October 14 at 7:53 p.m.
Yup. It was KXLY — home of good general assignment reporters and weird anchor desk politics.
It was kind of jaw-dropping to listen to her advance the cause of education as a competitiveness issue for the U.S. when she got her degree from Pensacola Christian College, which is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by the United States Department of Education. Picking a school that’s not accredited by *anybody* is no small feat. (Makes me wonder what her safety school was.) And getting a weekender’s accelerated MBA from U of W isn’t a whole lot to brag about either.
menemc on October 14 at 7:57 p.m.
Aw, Hawken, that is where you are wrong! I didn’t “cherry pick” or take anything out of context. Anyone can go back and read any of those quotes “in context,” if they like, and decide for themselves. Like I said, I’m pointing out that you don’t pass your own logic requirements. Of course you don’t like that; who would?
As far as not being here: some people have jobs.
“Actually, it doesn’t take me much time at all to refute liberal, logical fallacies… on a case by case basis.” Nor does it take that much time to refute CONSERVATIVE logical fallacies on a case-by-case basis. The point is that EVERYONE is guilty of logical fallacies from time-to-time, not just liberals—as I pointed out in my previous post.
“I think people are pretty intelligent…. they can decide for themselves…. in context.” So now your opinion of others’ intelligence has changed? Thank you for proving my points once again.
hawken on October 14 at 8:06 p.m.
Pensacola Christian College, for decades, has actually had no interest in government approved accreditation and all the strings that come with it…. Their purpose was to keep the government out of their education process, by design….
As for the UofW…. whom is and has been accredited for ages, you trash them as well.
Here’s another fact you fail to mention (possibly calculated)…. UofW accepted the Pensacola undergraduate degree or McMorris would have never been admitted to their graduate program….
Therefore, your attempt to trash both Pensacola and UofW is revealed to be what it is…. nothing more than an attempt to trash both… only because you want to discredit McMorris in any way you can. Seems you have more than one problem here in your reasoning.
I’m just wondering who made you the “Chancellor” of higher education in the US of A? Is that a self-appointed position?
Scoutster on October 14 at 8:12 p.m.
I just don’t understand why the right isn’t more upset about this.
Besides the fact she is just taking re-election for granted, and the lack of graciousness in refusing to meet a challenger, it is un-American.
I would be just as outraged if this was a Dem in a safe district. As an independent, I deserve a chance to listen to both sides. She had taken that right away from me because she doesn’t feel she needs my vote.
This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an ethical one.
hawken on October 14 at 8:13 p.m.
menemc….
to be sure, conservatives commit logical fallacies as well.
However, not once since I have been on this forum, over the last several weeks, has anyone refuted my conservative arguments, using universal definitions of logical fallacy…. not once.
We can disagree all day long…. no problem…. but neither you nor I have the right to market our world view when it is logically flawed,,,, again,,,, using “universal definitions of logical fallacy”…
I invite you to judge my arguments by the same standard.
Maybe that’s something you might want to focus on in the future.
menemc on October 14 at 8:26 p.m.
Hawken, again, you prove my points. Rather than argue YOUR point, you just dismiss mine, because it doesn’t suit you. Maybe my post was too long or you don’t read well, but the last time I checked, overgeneralizing IS a “universal logical fallacy.” I also used your “Appeal to Belief” fallacy to prove my point. And hypocrisy may not be a fallacy, but it certainly discredits one’s argument.
I feel for you; I really do.
Scoutster on October 14 at 8:26 p.m.
OH, I get it…He’s Stephan J. Hawking…
Of course, we are dim bulbs in the light of his genius.
You win, Dr. Hawking. Please, by all means, find a great little blog somewhere where you won’t be besmirched by us lesser beings, and you may pontificate all day in the solitary splendor you so richly deserve.
We promise to come and read, every day, but we won’t comment. We will just let you bathe us in your intellectual light without resistance.
We bow to your superior mettle (meddle?), Dr Hawking. Please, go find that blog and come back one more time, just once, to tell us where we can find you from now on. We will visit you daily, we promise!
hawken on October 14 at 8:31 p.m.
memenc…. simply accusing me of the fallacy of an “Appeal to Belief” (which is a logical fallacy) isn’t good enough… you will have to apply it to a specific argument I made which is NOT simply an opinion….
There is a difference between logical fallacy and opinion…. Give me a specific and let’s discuss it.
menemc on October 14 at 8:36 p.m.
Scoutster,
OH! Why did we not get this before? It must be because we are of the unwashed (uneducated? uniformed? illogical?) masses too inferior to understand the brilliance that is He!
bszottlinger on October 14 at 8:40 p.m.
Can I get in on this?
hawken on October 14 at 8:40 p.m.
memenc…. maybe this will help…
What is the difference between an opinion and an argument?
In: Literature and Language, The Difference Between
An opinion, whether it is grounded in fact or completely unsupportable, is an idea that an individual or group holds to be true. An opinion does not necessarily have to be supportable or based on anything but one’s own personal feelings, or what one has been taught.
An argument is an assertion or claim that is supported with concrete, real-world evidence. Many people confuse or lump the two terms because they cannot recognize the difference between evidence and reasons. In this case, reasons are typically associated with ‘feelings’ or commonly accepted ideals, while evidence is associated with measurable, objective truths or realities. While arguments may not always be ”right” or true, they must at least be supported by some kind of external evidence.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_an_opinion_and_an_argument
Shylock13 on October 14 at 8:41 p.m.
The post talking about “Appeal to belief” is way off base. That type of propaganda is known as “the big lie.” Say something often enough and forceful enough and it will be believed. That was the modus operandi of Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, with no reference to Hitler intended or implied, politicians from both parties are using that technique now. It is axiomatic that 10-20% of the electorate are “swing voters” in any election. It is also axiomatic that they “swing” based upon their FEAR. They vote, almost overwhelmingly, against those/that they fear (or, if you prefer, for those/that they fear less). If you wonder about the veracity of that statement, ask any non-partisan political scientist…or simply look at all the NEGATIVE campaigning (much of which does not even mention the opposing candidate) designed to put FEAR into voters. Again, both parties are guilty!! Our elected representatives should be chosen based on THEIR ability to represent their constituents…not on FEAR!!
menemc on October 14 at 8:44 p.m.
Hawken, again, you ignore what you can’t defend! If only you had the self-awareness to see how you are coming across … I’m trying to help you here, but you don’t get it. If there’s one thing I know it’s that people will believe whatever they want, regardless of evidence to the contrary. You have proven this over and over tonight. I am not interested in repeating myself or wasting time on pointless endeavors, because it is obvious that no matter what I say or how I refute you, you will refuse to acknowledge its validity.
If you’d like to interpret this as a “win” for you, so be it. But perhaps you will gain perspective in the future; though I doubt it.
hawken on October 14 at 8:46 p.m.
menemc…. that’s your “opinion”…. see above for definition. You don’t even have to defend it.
menemc on October 14 at 8:55 p.m.
HAHAHAHA! Yes, I am so unintelligent that I do not even understand the difference between opinion and fact. Obviously! Even though, again, you are being hypocritical here because the very “facts” you use to accuse others of using logical fallacies are often also opinions. So I’m wondering who of us doesn’t understand the difference between the two (and who of us thinks citing “wiki” anything is a reliable source).
I would dig through the posts to find examples, because I know you’re going to accuse me of not having them, but if I do, you’ll accuse me of taking them out of context.
I’ll give you the last word:
hawken on October 14 at 9:02 p.m.
menemc …. last word….
without exception…. every time I have accused one of using a logical fallacy….. I have posted the specific definition of the specific fallacy, with footnote to the source of the definition of the fallacy, as it applied, according to the context of the discussion.
There might be one occasion when I did not footnote the web site with the universally, accepted definitions of logical fallacies (which I had previously posted to the same people over and over again)…. but, in each case, I quoted the specific fallacy as it applied to the context of the discussion at hand, using the specific, universally accepted definition.
bszottlinger on October 14 at 9:39 p.m.
I would suggest anyone having access to the DSM-IV-TR updates review the section on SGTA. The updates will be included in the DSM-5, which is do out in 2013.
james_l on October 14 at 10:02 p.m.
Someone recently took logic and/or debate classes and is now trying to frame everyday conversation in context of their newly found knowledge.
I have always found it cute when one of my children or grandchildren took a class in school and then couldn’t wait to show everyone they are now an expert on the topic.
Ron_the_Cop on October 14 at 10:11 p.m.
Well said James. Night all:-)
zelda on October 14 at 10:21 p.m.
We rounded third base and slid into Hitler at least 12 posts ago. Time to say g’night.
Ron_the_Cop on October 15 at 9:20 a.m.
Good morning Zelda. LOL you’re right on the mark:-)
greenlibertarian on October 15 at 10:09 a.m.
“http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/13/vp…”
-hawken
Here is a comment from the “weaselzippers” site that hawken links to:
Regarding Biden and Obama:
“The REAL Bob says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Infuriating. If I didn’t hate them before, I would and do now.
This from absolutely the stupidest, most ignorant, venal, corrupt, arrogant pieces of (excrement) this country ever produced – if they actually WERE born in this country.
If I have to crawl over broken glass to vote, I will vote Nov. 2.”
THAT is the mentality of the sites he obviously frequents.
For the love of God, quit feeding the troll hawken.
Ron_the_Cop on October 15 at 10:27 a.m.
Gee Green I guess Hawken got you fired up:-)
arliacne on October 15 at 12:51 p.m.
This is a slap in the face of democracy and the people of the 5th district. McMorris deserves your no vote.
bszottlinger on October 15 at 1:20 p.m.
James:
Ron:
I still think you should look at the updates to the DSM-IV and pay special attention to the SGTA section.
misjustice on October 15 at 1:33 p.m.
Brad; I know what DSM-IV-TR is but am sketchy on SGTA. Can you expand?
Loved your double dog dare fallacy, BTW!
; )
bszottlinger on October 15 at 1:58 p.m.
Misjustice:
You almost hit on it a few posts up. I couldn’t figure it out until I reviewed the DSM-IV updates, then it all came together. I might add many people are enabling the poor fellow, which I don’t think is helpful.
SGTA disorder can be very serious, and requires a considerable amount of treatment.
I’m not a shrink, so I can’t officer much of an explanation as to the various causes, you would have to read the update, but apparently, Sexual Gratification Through Argument disorder is quite rare.
misjustice on October 15 at 2:05 p.m.
Ohhhh! I might have known it was something sexual!
He IS good at one handed typing; as the other hand is busy, well, you know!
; )
misjustice on October 15 at 2:08 p.m.
@ Natch; master(de)bater! Indeed!
; )
bszottlinger on October 15 at 2:14 p.m.
Misjustice:
I still don’t think it was in good taste for Thayne to use the “Fantasist Fallacy” by even a remote mention of Sarah Palin. I can’t imagine what was going on after that.
Elkay on October 15 at 2:18 p.m.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! (sorry, I know this is a serious blog)
liarsinnews on October 15 at 3:57 p.m.
Can Romeyn be any worse than Cathy? I don`t think so. Remember, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, refused to look into the convention center expansion finances where contaminated muni bonds were used in the financial package to build the (I think) ugly structure. I offered her documented proof showing her some of the cast of characters that hoodwinked the voters and betrayed the citizens of Spokane in the purchase of the River Park Square parking garage. Everybody should remember the developers of the RPS garage got caught by the IRS selling illegal muni bonds through their attorneys. A sell out former Mayor, representing the citizens of the Lilac City, cut a deal whereby criminal charges would not be filed against the Cowleses/
Ron_the_Cop on October 15 at 4:02 p.m.
LOL Brad. You should hang out your shingle as a shrink:-)
bszottlinger on October 15 at 4:14 p.m.
Actually, maybe it’s me with the problem, Sarah Palin isn’t that bad…..looking. :)
misjustice on October 15 at 5:06 p.m.
Cathy is flip-flopping.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/15/mcmorris-rodgers-romeyn-debate-possible/
Ron_the_Cop on October 15 at 10:00 p.m.
Well Romeyn is now hedging:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/15/-again-again-debate-again/
I think I’ll write in the name of Tim Connor:-)
keithj on October 16 at 9:55 p.m.
I agree with Cathy this time. What’s the point of a debate? If you believe in “trickle down” economics, Cathy is your girl. She can be depended upon absolutely to contnue to represent billionaires, near billionaires, and multi-national corporations to the detriment of the people of Eastern Washington. We have a quaint custom in eastern Washington to “live poor and vote rich”. I have total faith that Trickle Down Cathy will do her best to increase the ever-widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us. Tinkle Down Cathy will be rewarded for her slavish devotion to the policies of Dick Cheney with a landslide victory.
eagleproducer on October 19 at 11:30 a.m.
hoseleathers: If by “true conservative” you mean voting with the Bush administration 97% of the time then we are in agreement.