When people say stupid shit over...and over...and over

For some reason, the voters in Washington state have a collective stupidity about primary elections. And I don't mean kinda stupid, or a little dumb, or slow on the uptake, or even really stupid. I mean fucking stupid, unhinged jaw, speechless, drooling in your mashed potatos waiting for craft hour stupid.

Some background. In 1935, the Grange, which like most special interest groups hates actual democracy and especially political parties (I'm not pointing fingers here - they're no different from any other special interest groups, including my employer. They're right to focus on their interest, and democracy is right to defend itself.), pushed through the blanket primary, a goofy system in which anyone can vote for anyone in the primary (sound familiar? It's usually called a general election). Voters love this, because it allows them to not understand the political system and vote twice for the same election.

Question: If I'm a voter, and in the primary I want to vote for a Democrat for Attorney General and Republican for Governor and Green for County Commissioner because I think they're the best candidates for the job (the most common defense of the blanket primary), what is the point of even having a primary? If I believe these people are the best candidates in September, will I, barring a dead girl/live boy scenario, be likely to change my mind?

So here's what happens. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the California blanket primary violates the First Amendment right of the political parties to free association - in other words, political parties have a right to select their own candidates from among members of their own party. Pretty straightforward, right? This decision formed the basis of a 9th Circuit court ruling in 2003 that Washington's blanket primary also violated the parties' constitutional rights. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal, forcing the state to adopt the current system, wherein you have to pick a party (or a non-partisan ballot).

The point? Primaries are the opportunity for parties to select their own candidates to run in the general election. There is no constitutional right to vote for anyone in the primary elections.

Caveat: I have the same question many critics of the current system have: Why the fuck is the state paying for the parties to choose their own candidates? This is an obvious solution to many complaints - pay your own way to choose your own candidates. I hate when politicians are stupid about obvious solutions.

So let's bring up some of the drooling mouth-breather complaints (DMBC) and Switzer's response (SR):

DMBC: I should be able to vote for whoever I want.

SR: You are. It's called a general election.

DMBC: But I want to support the best candidates in primary elections.

SR: So wait for the general; they'll still be there.

DMBC: But I might want a Green candidate, douchebag.

SR: Namecalling already, huh? Listen lipshitz, in the top two system you friggin' morons so crave, Green candidates have no chance. D's and R's will still dominate the system, and instead of having a D, R, G, C, P, L and I candidate in the general election, you'll be stuck with the D and R. Or D and D or R and R. That's it. No more choices for you. Wipe your chin, it's getting slick with the drool.

DMBC: *wipes*

SR: thanks.

DMBC: I have my rights, my freedom of speech is being limited. The constitution says we're supposed to have an open primary.

SR: ???I'd be dumbfounded by this argument if I didn't remember that you're retarded. The primary isn't IN the constitution. Here's a factoid: the primaries were created by the Parties, to choose their own candidates.

DMBC: I think it's wrong "to allow the parties to select their own people" (actual quote by swatter in this thread).

SR: ....{wracks brain for appropriate response to something so obviously stupid as to potentially be some sort of trick}

DMBC: *wipes chin*

SR: Are you a Republican?

DMBC: Um, sure.

SR: Do you think I, a Democrat, should be able to select your candidate?

DMBC: No! Democrats should select their own....oh, wait.

SR: Ahhh...you're getting it grasshopper

DMBC: No, I pooped myself. Democrats shouldn't select my candidate, but I should be able to vote for whoever I want.

SR: {storms off, muttering angrily about disgraceful state of civic education in this state}

Mr. Switzer goes to Washington

Okay, so I haven't posted for a while.  Here's the deal; I've been preparing for a big trip which I am now in the middle of.  I was in Las Vegas last week (some photos to be posted soon, I promise), for business.  Although truth be told, after business was completed on Friday, I stayed through the weekend and did my own thing.

Now I'm in Washington, DC for more bidness.  I'll post more (I'm in the office and need, desperately, to work), but I wanted to share that this young liberal-ish person, in the first two hours in our nation's capital, ran into both George Will and John Ashcroft walking down the street.  How surreal!  No photos of them, but Mrs. Switzer's first question was "how fast were you driving when you ran into them?"  She's no fan, either, as you can see.  Anyway, that's my way of saying, I'm still here, and I'll have more fun to share later.

Switzer make news, Switzer famous

Finally, someone recognizes my greatness besides me! Chris Mullick in the Tri-City Herald covers my nose-ring poke at Pam Roach, and my lil' contest/offer. Unfortunately, no one has yet sent me a nose-ring photo. Could it be that Pam was right??

Burner up 49-46

Via Goldy at Horse's Ass.

Mike!'s Very Bad Judgement

So I wrote the last entry, and while putting it together, the things that REALLY bother me were just sorta percolating.

First, there's this:  Mike! said he knew as soon as he saw the police lights that he shouldn't be driving. 

Wouldn't an adult know he shouldn't be driving before he finished his first drink? 

The fact that his line of logic still makes sense to him, at the age of 48, scares the shit out of me.  It tells me that, like a 5 year old (or any old adult Republican), he doesn't view something as wrong until you get caught.  Well, I wonder what that portends for his time in the Senate? 

Will he, perhaps, take illegal contributions in exchange for votes?  Will he accept sweetheart real estate deals in exchange for sweetheart defense appropriations?  Will he screw the American people to ensure power and money for himself?

I knew as soon as the FBI was searching my office that I shouldn't have taken that money.  And I regret it.  I knew when I saw the police pull their weapons that I shouldn't have killed that hooker.  And I regret it.

My daughter isn't old enough to drink (much less drive) by a long shot, but she knows full good and damn well that you don't drink and drive.  She knows this because A: her parents have drummed it into her skull, B: her parents have set that example and expectation, and C: her parents have drummed into her skull the concept of responsibility without oversight - the idea that wrong is wrong, no matter who sees you do it.  In other words, she will know she shouldn't be driving before she takes her first drink. 

Will she drink and drive?  I kind of assume so - she's a teenager, and some trouble is to be expected.  I hope she doesn't, and I think we've done (and continue to do) everything possible to prevent it.  But kids sometimes do really stupid things - but they stop doing them before they're 35.  Apparently, Mike! didn't have the advantage of understanding responsibility without oversight.  Apparently, he learns right from wrong only through punishment; the foresight of consequence seems to escape him.  That scares me a little.

Here's the other thing.  Mike! went on Dori Monson's Right-wing Pro-War Masturbatory Theater on 710-KIRO this afternoon, and talked abou the lies he's been caught in surrounding his DUI.  Here are the pertinent quotes that show how deeply flawed his character really is:

Monson asked McGavick if he still drinks. "I enjoy a drink. Drink too much and drive? No. No, I will not," McGavick said.

But Monson pressed him on that, asking if he drives after drinking at all.

"Social drinking is a part of my life," McGavick said.

But why not have a zero tolerance policy about drinking and driving?

"Because I don't have any risk that I won't follow what I know is right. So, I don't feel the need to do that. The law takes all this into account, Dori."

Two things: 

One:  When asked if he drives after drinking, he said "Social drinking is a part of my life."  He avoided the answer, which was "Yes."  Meaning he learned NOT ONE FUCKING THING from that event 13 years ago that was purportedly embarrassing to him and which he purports to regret.

Two:  He said he doesn't have a zero tolerance policy because he doesn't "have any risk that I won't follow what I know is right."  As I wrote above, he apparently didn't know it was wrong to drink and drive until after he'd been caught, so why would he think he doesn't have any risk of repeating the incident?  Clearly, what he "knows" is right encompasses any behavior, as long as he doesn't get caught.  So this is meaningless.  It also means he drives drunk. 

A bonus third:  "The law takes all this into account, Dori."  Translation:  I can drink and drive up to a .08 BAC.  I'm a miracle-man, who knows my own BAC.  As long as I "know" it's right, I won't get caught, because the law wouldn't punish a guy who knows what's right...right?

This is a man who has no accountability, at all, in his personal behavior.  He takes no responsibility for himself, and indeed, seems to see himself as above accountability, despite his fake Regrets!.  He isn't just a bad Senator waiting to happen (although as long as he keeps talking, he'll never be Senator), he's a danger to himself and those around him.

Finally, just because this guy has me so disgusted and I had missed this tidbit, I quote Goldy:

There was one other McGavick quote that really stuck in my craw, when he reiterated his regret that he “didn’t get to participate on a regular basis” in his son’s life.

I dunno, maybe I put too much weight in, you know, words… but “didn’t get to” doesn’t sound to me like an admission of responsibility. It wasn’t that McGavick “didn’t get to” participate in his son’s life. He chose not to.

Mike!:  Learn to take some responsibility for your behavior.  Lip service simply won't do - you have to truly be responsible for yourself.

Mike!'s Very Bad Week

Mike! seems to have got himself in some hot water last week.  He set things in motion Friday before last, when he launched his "Regrets!" tour, letting the world know his character was being moidalized and he was ashamed A) that he was a divorced non-custodial parent, and B) he was once 'cited' for DUI after running a yellow light and blowing a 0.17.

Oooops.

Let's put A aside first.  Nobody cares.  Nobody was going to care.  He knew that; he just needed something to add to his list of Regrets! to maintain the veneer of honesty and civility he's trying to foster.  There are literally tens of millions of divorced non-custodial parents in this country.  Only a retarded monkey candidate would bring this up as part of a "character attack", and Mike! knew it. 

But B.  Oh boy, B gives people something to work with.  Now, I advocated leaving B alone, because, like the divorce, nobody gives a shit, and attacking him for it just vindicates his wounded bleating about non-existent character attacks.  Nobody listened, natch, because...well, switzer's an idiot.  I also advocated focusing our energy on highlighting his misleading bullshit attack ad that he released the same day as his Regrets! tour began, which was clearly what he was trying to draw attention away from.

Luckily, people listened to me this time.  I'm sure all this was in the works anyway, but nothing came out until after I'd mentioned this to a Cantwell staffer, so I'll just tell myself it was my genius that led to their efforts (even if they put out their press release a day before my conversation with them), and you can just go to hell if you think I'm wrong.  A man's gotta convince himself of his worth sometimes. 

So the Cantwell campaign, Dems and MSM all put pressure on him to pull the bullshit attack ad, which he of course refused to do (Republicans, unlike Democrats, never admit mistakes or apologize - Mike!'s Regrets! tour not excepted {because it were a fake apology/admission}).  This provided several days of bad PR as he took beatings from all directions.  He's running another attack ad starting today, btw.  Just fyi. 

But then, lo and behold, exactly seven days after the Regret! was mentioned publicly, a reporter finally got their hands on the actual DUI arrest report.  That's right, Mike! wasn't cited, he was arrested.  Put in cuffs, taken to the hoosegow.  Turns out he was totally shitfaced (of course, .17 is a clue), failed not one, not two, but three field sobriety tests.  He also fell asleep during processing.  And he blew the .17 90 minutes after the initial arrest!  Oh, and there's the little matter that when asked how much he'd had to drink, he told the officer "Two, maybe three beers"...hic!. 

Now he admits he doesn't remember what happened after getting arrested - hoo boy!  It just keeps getting worse!

So, the issue here isn't that he was cataclysmically hammered.  It isn't his incredibly bad judgement.  It's that he lied about this when he was supposedly bearing all and being honest!  (Oh, there's the trifling matter that he knew he shouldn't be driving, not before he got in the car, not all the time but screwed up this time, but didn't realize he shouldn't be driving until he saw the police car's lights.  Classic Republican logic - it isn't that he shouldn't be doing it because it's wrong...it's that he shouldn't be doing it because he got caught.)

Now we hear that the race is listed as leaning Democratic retention, based on piss-poor fundraising, incredibly poor message management, bad poll numbers, and revelations that he's in cahoots with bad oil men from Alaska.  It's just one thing after another for the poor guy, a Very Bad Week indeed!

News! News! News!

Newsflash: Being an atheist in America = hard.


Republicans running as ringers in the Democratic Party? Say it ain't so!

Why vigilantism is and should be dead.

Mike! McGavick: douchebag. Lying douchebag.