Republicans choose criminal to run
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 08-09-2004 - 7:45am |
GOP Picks 19-Time Inmate for State Race
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040808/ap_on_el_st_lo/candidate_criminal_record&e=5
TACOMA, Wash. - Republican leaders in Washington state were happy to have a contender for state auditor when they accepted Will Baker's last-minute offer to challenge a popular Democrat.
They didn't worry too much about who he was or how he spent his time — until they realized a considerable amount of his time was spent in jail.
Now party leaders are scrambling to remove him from the ballot, days after naming him as the Republican choice to oppose Democratic incumbent Brian Sonntag's bid for a fourth term.
"We didn't check him out," state GOP chairman Chris Vance said. "If I could, I would withdraw the letter putting him on the ballot as the Republican candidate — but it's too late."
On Friday, state election officials denied the party's request to remove Baker from the ballot, saying that would require court action.
Baker, a 41-year-old roadside flower salesman and self-styled political activist, has been arrested at least 19 times since 1992, mostly for refusing to stop speaking at Tacoma City Council and Pierce County Council meetings. He was last released from jail less than two months ago.
Baker declined to be interviewed by the Tacoma News Tribune, but when asked about his candidacy he said, "No one's asked me to withdraw."
When no Republican candidate emerged for the state office by the July 30 deadline, Vance said Baker called GOP leaders and volunteered.
In haste, the party accepted Baker's offer without thoroughly examining his background.
"He told us that he was a conservative activist," Vance said. "We did just a minimal amount of checking."

Pages
It is pretty sad to see that it is not.
"Who knows, maybe next time he may threaten the meetings with a bomb or something."
Sure, lets see what we can come up with that him or someone else "might" do. We can play that game forever and resolve nothing. >
Ok this was your post was it not? Look at the last 2 lines of your post. Now you are asking what I said about the Patriot Act has to do with this, and you can't make a connection? You also said in another post:
But it does make him a threat and the 2 things are the same. Someone who is from a muslim country is considered a threat becuase of where they came from and not of any actions of their own. Someone who repeatedly has to be arrested for disobeying the law, is a threat, but one they created for themselves.
Do a background check for Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczinski, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold what comes up? Before they did what they all did, they all had problems with authority. I do not know how someone is going to react, but do you want to take the chance? If we are to assume muslims trying to come to this country are potential terrorists, then why can't we presume that the typical trait of someone who dislikes to listen to authorities tend to become a killer? I see how this is ok in your eyes.
You know very well that the parties can't control who identifies with them. The Republican Party does not condone racism of any kind and the idea of eugenics should be anathama to every American.
<>
I wouldn't bring up that maxim unless
Renee ~~~
Yeah, I'm asking what criminal convictions or actions on the part of candidates or office holders has to do with the Patriot Act? Why are you jumping subjects so drastically?
"But it does make him a threat and the 2 things are the same."
Wrong. It *might* make him a "potential" threat, but that's about it unless you also have some information on previous threats or threatening actions on his part.
"Someone who is from a muslim country is considered a threat becuase of where they came from and not of any actions of their own."
So what? This isn't even *marginally* the subject under discussion. If you want to discuss the unfairness of treatment of foreign nationals under the Patriot Act, start another thread. Jeez...
"Someone who repeatedly has to be arrested for disobeying the law, is a threat, but one they created for themselves."
Again, not necessarily. You've provided nothing that establishes him as a threat to the safety or security of anyone. That he was obstinate does NOT automatically make him violent or dangerous... that's purely an assumption on your part.
"Do a background check for Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczinski, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold what comes up? Before they did what they all did, they all had problems with authority."
So you're taking a few specific cases and drawing a general conclusion from them? Logical fallacy at best.
"If we are to assume muslims trying to come to this country are potential terrorists, then why can't we presume that the typical trait of someone who dislikes to listen to authorities tend to become a killer?"
That's a "typical trait" of those who kill? You got any science to back that up?
And do yourself a favor, get that muslim bee out from under your bonnet. It's getting tiresome in a thread where it wasn't even a miniscule aspect of the OP. The generalization you're making regarding lack of respect for authority doesn't serve this thread either.
"I see how this is ok in your eyes."
You obviously don't see a damn thing except what you expect to see. Your outrage over the treatment of some muslims appears to be tainting your view of anything and everything, including totally unrelated issues. You're making assumptions about Mr. Baker as well as me, and both without the slightest bit of substantive support for those assumptions.
Get over it or start another discussion. When you can somehow bring yourself to discuss the subject you yourself started let me know.
~mark~
Hmmm... I know one place I really like to place it! Would you like to know where? :-)
Ok ok, see what you want to see. It is fair to say that someone who has no character traits whatsoever of violence is being processed as a potential terrorist, and someone else who has traits of acting out violently be allowed the advantage of "we should wait till he does soemthing bad before we judge". Good thinking there Mark! Repeated acts of disobeying the law, no matter what it is, has consequences. People who consistently disobey law, has a problem. There are reasons that many corporate jobs insist on the candidate to take a psychological type test. But hey, not my problem not my state and not my party. Eric and Dylan were just angry teenagers that were given the benefit of the doubt, werent they?
The whole point of the article was the republican party of the state gladly accepted this person's bid to run for auditor. I guess someone is better than no one, even if this person has no appreciation for laws. He will make a great addition to the republican party if he is elected!
You have yet to establish "traits of acting out violently" as anything more than your personal perspective. I asked before and I'll ask again, do you have anything of a scientific nature establishing a firm connection between a lack of respect for authority and violent tendencies? Any violent actions or threats on Mr. Bakers record?
"Repeated acts of disobeying the law, no matter what it is, has consequences. People who consistently disobey law, has a problem."
No argument there about them having a problem, but none of that necessarily indicates a problem with *violence*.
"Eric and Dylan were just angry teenagers that were given the benefit of the doubt, werent they?"
Actually, no. According to psychological reports and profiles with them they weren't really angry. Disgusted with the perceived stupidity of those around them, and wanting to rid the world of those they felt weren't as worthy as they were, but not angry. There were signs that violence was a possibility with them, but they weren't given the "benefit of the doubt" about that, they were just ignored until it was too late.
~mark~
I can't believe that someone actually said they didnt bother checking this guy out because that pretty much is their job, isnt it????
Pages