Washington State Senate Seat...Currently Occupied by Patty Murray

So I've been kind of busy the last couple of weeks.  I haven't really invested a lot of time for my blogging.  My other blog gives a rather detailed reason why.  Most recently I spoke of a candidate from Wisconsin.  Scott Walker is an admirable man and certainly deserves the thoughtful consideration of his constituency.  I don't live in Wisconsin though.  So I will refer to the old adage that  says all politics is local.  Living in Washington State I am obliged to comment on the races that matter most to me and the one of most import right now is the one being fought for the seat in the Senate currently occupied by Patty Murray.
The last couple of months a local football hero by the name of Clint Didier has been making massive in roads into the polls in his effort to unseat Murray.  Didier is a relative unknown in the state political arena.  He had not garnered significant Republican party support but had received the endorsement of Sarah Palin, which could be regarded as a bellwether...although it can't be said of what.   In some polls Didier has reached parity in a fight with Murray.   Most recently, however, he has slipped.  What can be attributed to this slip?  None other than two time Gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi, the GOP party favorite.  Dino Rossi is a great guy.  His stance on the politics of this state are what we needed when he first won the Governors seat before being ousted after three recounts and thousands of illegal votes made Christine Gregiore our Governor.  His time was then and not now.
Dino Rossi has the endorsement and was encouraged by the GOP regulars to enter the race nearly 6 months after others in the field announced their campaign.  People like Clint Didier, who has amassed considerable statewide support, have done the hard and expensive work of gaining recognition.  Now, when much of their support is cementing, Dino Rossi comes in with his state recognition from two failed attempts at the Governors Mansion.  Even before he entered the race he was polled as more than a match for Murray he decided that he would enter the race only after his Primary opponents had spent their time and money building statewide recognition.  I wouldn't fault him this if he could point to legitimate differences in his platform that make him the better candidate.  The problem I have is that, largely, his platform matches Didier's almost plank for plank.  Rather than muddying the waters in a top two primary Rossi had the opportunity to do like Mitt Romney, throw his statewide recognition behind the strongest current campaign and leverage that for future political favors.
I don't have any problems with Rossi winning.  I think it would be a much better option to Murray.  I do, however, think that the ringing endorsements of the GOP entrenched makes his independence somewhat suspect.  I want a straight talking, frank, aggressive tight-end that is humble enough to accept a hand when he needs it but strong enough to never rely on it.  I compare this to a smooth speaking real-estate agent with deep ties to the West-side (read: left-side)of the state .
Sure the Tea-Party has embraced Didier and that may or may not be his biggest leg in but he is not the Tea-Party candidate that the left derides as racist, sexist and anything else -ist they think they can pin on someone with no evidence to support their position.  He is a true outsider with an intimate understanding of the States needs and interests in local, national and world politics.  If our top two primary works the way I want it to work then we'll have the choice between two awesome guys and either answer will be acceptable.  If it gives us a clear choice between Murray and either one of the big name GOP candidates then I hope the result is that the tight-end reaches the end-zone again.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin Makes Her Choice in Washington (politicalwire.com)

Hope for the Republic

Who's tired of government waste?  Who's tired of government interference?  Who's just tired of government?  Well there's hope.  I just read an article about Scott Walker in Wisconsin.  I now have hope that there are real Republican's with real values that actually act on those values.  I'm not sure I like the endorsements of Newt and Jeb but his actions speak louder than their praise.  This guy actually has returned "$370,000 in salary over eight years because he thought it was wrong for the county executive to be paid more than the state's governor".
That's more than Biden has given to charity over the last decade and nearly as much as Obama gave (as a multimillionaire) for the last two years.  This is the type of person we need running.  Someone who the competition has to resort to toothless comlaints of spending too much on campaign meals (money that I'm sure is donated by people rather than taken from tax payers).  I would like to see more leaders like Scott Walker, principled, disciplined and responsible.  If we can ask for more than that from our politicians it's because they already have these traits.  We need a George Washington and just like George Washington (who refused to be paid as Commander in Cheif durring the Revolutionary War) Scott Walker demonstrates leadership through example rather than rhetoric.

Racial profiling...it exists...now what?

So I'll admit something that I don't want to admit.  Racial profiling does, in fact, exist.  While I wish that this term, along with the concept of race in general, would just disappear, I have to admit that racial profiling exists and that while it's not nice I'm sort of glad for it...except when things like this happen.  In Seattle area (Lake Union) showed up to a 911 call of armed robbery.  They arrived and found someone that they suspected of being involved (he happened to be Hispanic) and they proceeded to treat him inhumanely (beating, kicking, swearing etc). The problem is that they didn't just beat and kick him.  The problem is that they used racially charged slurs and made it clear that they suspected him because of his race.  In the end they were able to determine that the person they beat was not a suspect and not involved in the robbery.  The Seattle police chief has done the right thing by taking them off the streets while they investigate the whole scene.  So now what?  That's the real question here.  Do we fault these officers for making a rash judgment based on experience and trends?  One of the officers is part of the Gang task force, can we blame them for assuming that a Hispanic wearing typical gang garb (rather than polo shirts and designer jeans) at the scene of a potentially violent (armed) robbery might have something to do with them being there in the first place?  (I know, that was a long sentence/question) No we cannot blame them for making judgments about potential suspects.  What we can blame them for is making the judgment that they deserved to be beat, kicked, and otherwise abused before they could determine their full involvement.  Cops detain, they do not execute the sentence. 
Cops have a tough job.  No one is denying that.  They have to make judgments on situations based on little information just to be safe.  They are expected to be the best of humanity while dealing with the worst.  They must remain composed and stalwart in the face of death.  Being a cop is working cleanly in filth, you're bound to get dirty eventually.  This said, as a cop you know this going in and thus should be held accountable when you don't match the standards society sets for you. 
I have called for profiling to be used at borders, airports and in crimes.  Why?  Because it works.  Profiling, in all its forms, works.  As children we learn patterns at a very early age.  We recognize them with no effort and we make assumptions based on those observations.  We are now expecting humans to ignore important skills in the name of being politically correct.  This is not ok.  The actions of the officers in this situation are not to be blamed for their human assumptions but on their inhuman reactions.



http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/23490010/detail.html

Illegal Immigration Mexico Style.

Image by Pacoy69 via Flickr

May Day is perhaps the most politically charged "holiday" on the calendar.   This year, as in years past, it was used to protest immigration issues, more specifically the Arizona law.  All of the outrage, from the criminals defiantly walking the streets protesting a law that they are choosing to ignore, is a little disturbing considering several facts.  I was recently made aware of the immigration laws of Mexico. (Thanks Tiffany)  In fact Mexico is particularly brutal in enforcing this law on their Southern borders.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

 Now lets compare this to the Arizona law.  First of all you have to be committing a crime that would get you pulled over by a cop and then if you were suspected of being an illegal immigrant you would be asked for your papers.  After producing, or not, your documents, you would be cited for the crime you were pulled over for and then deported.  Now lets look at the Mexico law.   If you enter the country lacking the means to provide for yourself you are eligible for deportation.  In Arizona there is no such clause.  Now who sounds more fascist, a country that can deport you for being physically or mentally ill, or a country who will allow you access to our hospitals and then deport you?  If you enter America and are a drain on the "economic or national interests" we welcome you anyway.  Arizona is simply suggesting that you do it legally.

Again, does anyone see the problem with a President of the United States standing on the side of criminals over the side of the law he swore to execute?  There are some serious problems with the current state of affairs and the fact that a majority of American's support Arizona's movement makes for a very interesting summer as we prepare for the fall elections.  Obama and other Democratic leaders have already said they would not be addressing immigration this year because of the election.  The more outrage by the left over this issue, however, may result in it becoming a major plank on the platform of people running this fall.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll: Majority Backs Arizona Immigration Bill (cbsnews.com)
• Mexico Is A Dangerous Place...Third In An Occasional Series (minx.cc)
• Felipe Calderone criticized Arizona's immigration law for being discriminatory. How tough are Mexican immigration laws? (slate.com)
• Some Hispanic Americans hope law deters illegal immigration (cnn.com)
• What if Arizona adopted Mexican immigration law? (tech.bl0x.info)

Stop Immigration. (Period)

So there are many people who are having a hard time with Arizona'z new stance (actual enforcement) on immigration.  Certainly the left has done a magnificent job of making this sound worse than the law actually reads.  I read a piece by Pat Buchanan recently and I started thinking about the immigration issue in bigger terms.  First of all Pat is right.  Arizona's law makes it so that regular police officers can now act on reasonable suspicion of someone being an illegal resident.   This is, actually, the responsibility of the federal government.  It's the reason we pay border agents, FBI, Homeland Security, TSA, etc...  Arizona has simply taken it upon themselves to enforce what Obama has refused to enforce.  My thoughts on the subject are perhaps a little more radical than even Pat's.
I am of the opinion that until there is an effectively zero unemployment rate (frequently considered between 4 and 5%) the immigration both legal and otherwise should be limited extremely or entirely.  Yup.  I said it.  I would rather those immigrants who want to come to America to enjoy our liberties and wealth come here when the nation is prospering.  I want American's to hold jobs enough to support themselves and then be able to provide (if necessary) the support system that a new immigrant may need to be successful in our country of promise and opportunity.  Is that such a  horrible expectation?  Sure.  I'm a greedy bastard.  I don't want someone to come over and make it harder for themselves and everyone else because they're now competing for jobs that are non-existent.  They would be better off in a country that they are familiar with and have some sort of support system.  We need another Eisenhower.  Someone who recognizes the importance of making sure legal citizens should be considered for employment first.  The "jobs that American's won't work" is a misnomer and a lie.  The problem is that its so pervasive that some jobs are stigmatized to the degree that even entry level teenagers are not taking the jobs so they are competing for jobs against more educated, experienced, and capable people and not getting the job.  The effect of this is that young people are becoming more dependent and value work less.  This is could explain the reason so many young voters voted for Obama.  He promised that the Government would take care of them-- just like mommy and daddy.
I'm ok with being called a bigot, racist, fascist, Nazi, etc so long as others are willing to admit that they are dependent on the government in the exact same way they were dependent on their mother when they were born.  I think the latter is far more humiliating. 


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146341