Murray vs. Rossi

OK, so case in point about national politics... The friendly neighborhood case of Senator Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi.

On the one hand, Senator Murray is a known entity... a liberal. She's been a Senator for 18 years now, coming in on a platform of a "Mom in tennis shoes." I don't personally know much about her other than that she attended that school that MUST NOT BE NAMED in Pullman, but her voting record makes her solidly to the left. So the health care law that 60% of Americans believe should be repealed [1]? Of course she voted for it. Partial birth abortion and other abortion issues? Solidly pro-choice [2][3]. So for being consistent, she's great.

So on the other side is Dino Rossi. Dino is unfortunately best known for losing twice in his bid to be Washington's governor, including the closest gubernatorial election in U.S. history in 2004[4]. My experience with Mr. Rossi is earlier. He was my state senator when I was living in Renton, and when I was looking into his record, he struck me as the "real deal." I have a natural skepticism especially when it involves politicians, but he seemed (and seems) to me to be a family man, fiscally conservative, and a man of faith. I have no false illusions about my impact, but I was one (of I'm sure very many) people that sent him an email and asked him to enter the Senate race. I do believe he's the only man with ANY chance of winning against Senator Murray.

For the Democrats, in Washington you have a serious standard bearer. But her ideas? In the state the economy is in, do we really need someone running on a platform of bringing home the pork for Washington? I'll go ahead and say it... No we don't. What about a party that circumvents standard rules to push through health care "reform" not wanted by the majority of Americans. Shall we allow that to continue to happen? No. Senator Murray's ideas, and those she supported are not (in my opinion) what's best for America.

Now that I've laid it on the Democrats, how about Republicans? Well, some have stated that Mr. Rossi is part of the "establishment" I can only guess because he's supported by the national Republican party. Clint Didier, for example, had this quote:

"I don't know Dino Rossi personally. But I do know he is part of the Republican establishment – all you have to do is look at those he surrounds himself with. I don't believe he's the conservative people think he is. If people want more of the same, the McCain or Bush type of governing, then they can support Dino. If they want the change they missed the last time, then they can support me"[5]

Other people accuse him of not being pro-life enough (interestingly some democrats are portraying him as too pro-life) [6] or not conservative enough. All I can say is angry Republicans.

I think Jennifer Hammonds Heffernan said it well on Dino's Facebook page [7] when she wrote:

"I respect Clint for sticking to his principles and asking Rossi to consider a very large portion of conservatives who see themselves first as upholders of the Constitution and Republicans second. If Clint doesn't wish to endorse Rossi, I don't see how it matters because every individual still has the freedom to vote for Rossi if they wish. They don't need Clint's permission to do so. Many Clint supporters will vote for Rossi as a vote against Patty, but some will choose to abstain because to vote for someone who isn't 100% in line with Constitutional principles goes against their conscience. The wonderful thing about America is that we each have a vote and the freedom to use it without coercion. "

To me, the big issue is not who does or does not vote for Dino Rossi or Senator Murray. I really would like to see Dino go to Washington DC in January. I believe he's the best guy for the job and his ideas are better than Senator Murray's. But when the arena changes from ideas to attacks and anger, that's the "reality on the ground" but doesn't stop me from wishing it was different. I have nothing against Clint Didier, or Sarah Palin (I even financially contributed to John McCain's campaign BECAUSE he selected her for VP), or for that matter Senator Murray. But must politics always come down to bickering?

Am I alone in this?
-----------------------------------
[1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
[2] http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53358
[3] http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Patty_Murray_Abortion.htm
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004
[5] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/204413.asp
[6] http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/08/clint_didiers_last_ditch_attac.php
[7] http://www.facebook.com/DinoRossiWA

So why a blog?

So here I am, writing my first blog post ever. I guess the question someone (but maybe I'm being overly optimistic) is asking is why?

Caveat emptor: I am an Army officer. Although I don't plan on discussing a lot about the military (mostly because I think Army things are very well blogged and I can't add much to the discussion), my affiliation limits to an extent the type of things I can say. Fortunately, I'm a big believer in courtesy and respect to everyone, and especially to those with whom I may disagree.

Mostly I wanted to start a blog because I haven't seen much written from an apolitical perspective...

Don't get me wrong. I am an almost stereotypical "religious right" conservative. I am a proud Presbyterian (even if my denomination has for the most part forgotten what that means). I believe that homosexuality is a sin, that big government is bad, that judicial activism has changed our government to something our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. I believe that people do not have the right to kill babies, even if they happen to be inside their mother's body. If you take a checklist from any of the popular conservative pundits, I can probably check off on nearly any issue on them.

But here's what I see in at least the national stage - on the one side, you have liberals that really do largely control the government or the media, or the universities, or any number of other things, that have truly wigged out ideas that many Americans, including myself, just don't believe in. On the other side, you have conservatives that come across as angry, being forever "against" this thing or the other thing. In all cases, whatever truly changes? How many times have you seen a politician make a speech thusly "It's the (opposing party)'s fault that (pet issue) is this way?"

That's why I'm here... I'm a Christian, and an American, and a Conservative, and I'm pretty happy anyway. If you're a Democrat or a social liberal, I think your party or ideological system is pretty wigged out, but I can talk with you about it anyway, and not be rude. If you're an angry Republican, I think you're right more than you're wrong, but you can be nicer about it. I'm not so convinced that politicians at the national level are so different regardless of party anyway.

So I'll try to write on a regular basis on whatever - hope you stay along for the ride!

God bless you all,

Dion