You can't get any more hypocritical than this. Christine Gregoire and the Sorelosercrats are now filing suits to change the vote counting rules for their second recount. But during a 1996 recount, Attorney General Christine Gregoire advised the Secretary of State that state law did not provide for the very changes that she's now demanding. The Rossi campaign just issued this press release:
In 1996, Gregoire said not to change recount rulesThe first two pages of the 1996 memo are posted : here [large PDF] Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 07, 2004 02:27 PM | Email ThisThat was then, this is now
Bellevue, WA – A 1996 document emerged today that reveals Christine Gregoire’s hypocrisy on the issue of changing the state’s recount rules midway through the recount process.
Papers filed in the state Supreme Court this morning by the Secretary of State’s office include a November 1996 memo from then-Secretary of State Ralph Munro regarding a manual recount in a state legislative race. The memo says that Attorney General Christine Gregoire’s office told the Secretary of State that previously rejected ballots could not be brought back into the recount process.
Here is what the memo says:
“Challenge of Ballots Not Allowed. We are advised by the Attorney General that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters (as provided in RCW 29.10.125) during the recount. The recount procedure provided for by statute is a mechanical function of re-tallying the ballots cast and accepted as valid by the precinct election officers or the canvassing board during the canvass of the election. The decision of the canvassing board with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a particular ballot during the canvass is not open to question during the recount.”
Governor-elect Dino Rossi’s spokeswoman Mary Lane said Gregoire will have a hard time explaining why she wants to change the rules now, when as Attorney General she supported them.
“With each passing day, Christine Gregoire’s hypocrisy is being revealed more and more,” said Lane. “In 12 years as Attorney General, she signed off on the recount rules she now wants to change. This 1996 memo makes it even more clear that the only reason she wants to change the rules now is because she’s lost twice and she isn’t willing to accept the voters’ decision.”
Yesterday the results of an Elway Research poll showed that 68 percent of Washingtonians oppose Gregoire’s attempt to change the rules and bring previously rejected ballots into the recount.
A HUGE SMOKING GUN.
That is brighter than the billboard on I-5 in Fife begging Christine to CONCEDE.
Posted by: Jeff B on December 7, 2004 02:32 PMNo wonder Kerry gave her $250,000 for the recount.
Posted by: Jeff B on December 7, 2004 02:40 PMI expect we'll witness some Clintonian moments.
Posted by: South County on December 7, 2004 02:55 PMThat is a damning document, for sure. I agree that the position is going to be hard to defend.
Bout the only thing she can go with at this point is that she was wrong in 1996 to issue the opinion.
Similar to many things that happen in real life, i.e. the Supreme Court overturning the ban on sodomy that they affirmed over a decade earlier, they overturned themselves, segregationists admitting that they were wrong when they voted for the things they voted for, etc.
But yes, this lefty agrees, that's a crappy skeleton to have in her closet.
Posted by: DustinJames on December 7, 2004 04:18 PMand remember, "yes" doesn't really mean "yes"....
Posted by: lee on December 7, 2004 05:19 PM"That was simply an interpretation nearly 10 years ago. The disputed 2000 election in Florida disenfranchised thousands of legitimate voters and underscored the need for public servants to protect the vote of each and every citizen. We must count every vote to ensure the legitimacy of this close election. The public deserves no less."
We're you almost convinced? Dang, me neither.
Posted by: Mike on December 7, 2004 06:10 PMThat's logic for you!
The Dems are hoping that the suit gets thrown out. That will be their justification to contest the election and send it to the legislature.......
I'm thinking Rove could take lessons here!
Posted by: Shane on December 7, 2004 06:35 PMIf presented as evidence to the Supreme Court, these two(faced) positions should just about kill any chance she has to get those dubious County-rejected ballots re-introduced into the count. Even that gang of judges can't miss the logic here.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 7, 2004 07:05 PMHow badly would she be trounced by Gov-elect Rossi if a re-vote happened tomorrow? If things keep going downhill for her, only the hardest liners will still be supporting her on Dec. 22, regardless of the recount results. If she has any pride or sense, she'll concede before the recount proceeds.
Posted by: zip on December 7, 2004 07:50 PMI think we have already established that one. I heard her on the radio on the way home talking about "silencing the rhetoric." Most of the rhetoric I've been hearing has been from her party heads.
BTW, did anyone go to the Dino rally this afternoon?
Posted by: Chris on December 7, 2004 08:14 PM...Republicans also gleefully pointed out old cases in which Gregoire, as attorney general, advised against considering invalidated ballots in a recount. A November 1996 memo from the secretary of state’s office regarding a close legislative race says: “We are advised by the attorney general that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters (as provided in RCW 29.10.125) during the recount.”
Brost said that memo referred to legal advice from previous state attorneys general, not from Gregoire.
...
Now...they shoot off their mouths repeatedly and BAM!!! Rope-a-dope 2!!!!
Be patient Boys & Girls....when you see these cocky Gregoirians strutting around puffing their chests and they are strutting into a big pile of poop, YOU DON'T WARN THEM NOT TO STEP IN THE PILE OF POOP!!!! You let them step into it nice and deep...then you scoop up a big bucket full of it and dump it on their heads!!!!!!!!!
Ready for rope-a-dope 3????????
The AG from the four years preceeding the 1996 memo was also Gregoire. Common sense tells us that it is unlikely that a memo regarding a time sensitive topic such as a recount in 1996 would be referring to an AG from at least 5 years prior.
It's just more of the same. A win at any cost. Even if her public image is damaged beyond repair, the state is out an extra million dollars, etc. it is all of no concern to Gregoire. She views herself as an heiress to the throne.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 8, 2004 01:34 AMWho knows? However, look for a whole LOT of Demoncratic Losses statewide the next time voters have a chance to punish these thieves! This MIGHT POSSIBLY even turn Washington into an Anybody but the Demoncrats state.
Posted by: leaddog2 on December 8, 2004 10:44 AMYou don't make mistakes like that at this kind of a crucial juncture.
Posted by: Jim King on December 8, 2004 07:29 PMAnd believe me, I'm not going to simply trust some sleazy jerk-off lobbyist who claims credit for all sorts of things without also mentioning that he's a paid lobbyist.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 8, 2004 08:12 PMI don't know, Jim. I haven't yet seen specific information that the AG office in 1996 had no knowledge of the opinion upon which Munro was relying.
Clever... ask Gregoire to prove a negative. That's right, the burden should be on Gregoire to prove she had no knowledge of a memo issued by Munro. (Insert sarcasm emoticon here.)
Posted by: David Goldstein on December 9, 2004 12:04 AM