I'll be a guest on this Saturday's Republican Radio at 11am along with state GOP chairman Chris Vance to discuss the gubernatorial recount.
Listen to the whole show! 10am-12noon on KTTH 770 in Seattle and other stations around the region:
Kitsap County, WA: KITZ AM 1400UPDATE: I finished the segment. Among his other points, Chris Vance explained that King County's
Olympia, WA: KGTK AM 920
Portland, OR: KBNP AM 1410
Spokane, WA: KSBN AM 1230
Chris Vance also praised Sound Politics, calling it the "unofficial home page for this contest"! We're honored.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 17, 2004 09:36 PM | Email ThisVery nice. I'm a talk show host on KSBN. RR beat me to you - I was thinking about asking you next week on my show. I'll follow this message up privately to you.
Your readers will be interested to know KSBN and KBNP stream online.
www.ksbn.net
www.kbnp.com
"Promoting freedom, liberty and defeat of the Democrats"
Posted by: Stephanie Sandlin on December 17, 2004 10:49 PMStrong, defensible positions always encourage and benefit from the constructive sharing of ideas and opinions (kudos to your site for allowing such discussion).
Here's hoping the show isn't all one-sided...that does neither your side nor the commitment to constructive discussion any good.
PS Stephanie, if you're not joking, that slogan is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about. Witn polarized attitudes like that on either side, our country will continue its divisive slides....
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 10:02 AM
Uh, tom...it's called REPUBLICAN RADIO...
Same would be true for Air America.
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 11:27 AMIn an ideal world, I would enjoy a conversation with a democrat - so that I could understand how they could justify their views - but I've never seen such a conversation that didn't very quickly erode into personal attacks - because, as I said - it comes down to core beliefs and values that really are a part of the person - so to attack those - is to attack the person.
Posted by: Julie on December 18, 2004 11:45 AMNo compromise? It's my way or the highway? And I get power, you will be subject to my beliefs?
My gosh....this logic describes all the problems the world has faced since recorded history. All those who have core principles, and are unwilling to compromise, have created the worst of history.
Note..this applies to the extreme left as well as the extreme right.
Please, soundpolitics readers, come out strong against such extremism...please speak out publicly to put such extreme views where they belong.
If the majority of readers/posters here do agree with that sentiment, I fear for our republic democracy.
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 12:07 PMIt's only a matter of time before people make informed decisions for themselves, and this is a very scary concept for Democrats who are used to handing down the ideas of the party from on high.
The history books are full of examples (again, both on the extreme left and extreme right) of those who get power to refuse to compromise. It never ends well.
To answer your question, what I meant, and stand by, is leaders must be willing to compromise. I can't think of a single successful leader who didn't compromise on his/her beliefs -- the ones who didn't are far from successful.
No, I don't scare easily. But I do get scared when people who know they're right refuse compromise outright. Closed minds create problems; they don't help solve them.
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 01:08 PMWhat I read between the lines are your ideas are better than othes -- that's fine, since everyone (hopefully) believes their ideas are better than others.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be open to compromise, as Julie states. That's the scary part.
You are clearly a partisan Republican, which is fine. May better ideas prevail...regardless of source. But let them prevail as a result of reasoned thought, discussion and, yes, compromise.
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 01:12 PMThis is quuite obviously improper procedure that goes way beyond the concept of a recount, and is way outside of the 700 or so disputed ballots.
This is the Democrats creating new conditions where none existed before through human. partisan, subjectivity.
The Supreme Court will strike this down with very little deliberation because it is such a clear cut example of bias, inequality and partisan politics that should not be the province of the objective process of tabulation.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 18, 2004 01:15 PMI expect my workmates will be stomping around like on Nov 3 unless there are MSM reports about these irregularities. This here blog after all is largely an excercise in mutual back scratching.
Posted by: DeadWood on December 18, 2004 01:20 PMDon't bother with them. I came to this site seeking refuge from the same obstinance that was frustrating me on the left-wing blogs I read. Nuanced thinking in this country is a thing of the past. These cretins (and left-wing cretins) don't realize how dangerously up their arse their heads are.
I fear for this country, too. Both poltical parties are extremely corrupt and extremely self-serving and completely lacking vision for a sensible future for this nation and world.
Cry the beloved country!
Posted by: Silas on December 18, 2004 01:23 PMThe reason why more are turning to the Republlicans is not because all of their ideas are correct, but because the Republicans for the most part are willing to let individuals make those decisions for themselves instead of having them force fed to us by a bureaucracy that knows best.
This election contest is a perfect example of why the polls clearly show that W Democrats and Republicans in majority numbers are completely disgusted with King County Elections. There is no attempt to be open and fair or consistent in their standards for counting, instead they simply believe that they know best what it will take to get Gregoire elected and that this trumps all appeals to process, custody, objectivity, etc.
Fortunately, we have rule of law in this country and that gives us something to fall back on. The Supreme Court will do the right thing because the one source of objectivity left is the RCW and it makes quite clear that there is a difference between the words recount and recanvass. This is where the line will be drawn. King County will not be allowed to count as they please.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 18, 2004 01:31 PMWell written and argued.
I hope that if the Supreme Court decides in a way differently than readers here hope, they will respect the rule of law in this country.
Too often, when courts disagree with some people's opinions, the judges are deemed "activist judges" who are imposing personal opinion instead of carrying out their duites. These same courts, when ruling in concert with the same people's beliefs, are seem as upholding the rule of law.
I hope the court's opinions, regardless of how they rule, will be taken in the vein of upholding the law. Unforutnately, past examples suggest that will not be the case.
To the D's credit, they argued with the court's result, but did not resort to calling the judge "activist". I hope the Ds will do the same if the supremes rule against them -- as will the Rs if their victory is overturned.
You think that's possible?
Posted by: tom on December 18, 2004 02:08 PMOh, I get it--you're doing the "we're afraid to live in Amerikkka" left-wing rant again. Poor baby. But you are fortunate you live so close to Canada. And the borders are open! Get moving. What are you waiting for? In Canada, you won't have to hide under your bed, trembling in fear of those "mean-spirited" people who won't compromise. . .with terrorists, for example.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on December 18, 2004 02:14 PMThis one seems pretty simple to me and the 3 or 4 other lawyers I ran it by yesterday. RCW 29A.60.210 permits recanvassing if "there is an apparent discrepancy or inconsistency," but goes on to provide that such recanvassing must occur "before the last day to certify the primary or election..."
As such, since the election was certified following the initial recount, the newly found ballots cannot and should not now be counted. Conversely, if they had been found prior to and recanvassed in connection with the initial recount, they would definitely be in play.
If Christine and Larry are upset, the focus of their attention should be the King County elections division, that twice failed to count these ballots, and not at the R's who are simply asking that the laws of our state be followed in determining who our next governor will be.
The statute is clear on its face, which is why I would expect a unanimous decision from the Supremes to exclude the newly discovered ballots from the recount.
Posted by: Tim A on December 18, 2004 02:36 PMHow positions change as judges rule (and as counts change) is amazing.
What the court needs to clarify is what the law means when it says Counties can canvas until the primary or election is certified.
To which certification does the law refer? The first certification which followed the Nov. 2 election, the second certifiation which followed the machine recount, or the certification which will follow the hand recount.
If the WSC rules it means the election, which is the arguement forwarded by the R's, then we are done except for KinCo reporting. If it rules that this means the certification of the count during which the votes are canvassed, then all those ballots will be counted.
The election will likely hinge on which way the court decides. ALl we cn do now is wait.
Posted by: DeadWood on December 18, 2004 04:15 PMI think saying it never ends well to stand by your beliefs is untrue.
Orwell's Animal Farm is a classic, well told example of how compromise destroys good ideas. It is, of course, a parody of the communist leaders at the beginning of the Soviet Union - like the farm, the Soviet union did not stand.
Unfortunately we live in a world with many shades of gray, but with a lot of black and white as well.
Posted by: Troy Colley on December 18, 2004 05:06 PM"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ", and then comes a perfect list of core values with which I will never compromise, and with which no elected official in the United States is or will ever be authorized to compromise.
If we at least can agree that there are principles that, in the political system defined by our Constitution, and explicated by 200+ years of american jurisprudence, are not to be compromised, then 1) we will be able to look forward to a long standing, successful constitutional republic, and 2) we will be able to begin a discussion of what those principles are. But to say there aren't an principles that cannot be compromised is to abrogate the principle of constitutional government itself. Through that door lies the prospect of tyranny, or further attempts to impose some socia1ist utopia on those of us who cherish liberty over equality (socialized medicine anyone?). This concept shouldn't be scary to anyone who believes in our country, but it is scary to anyone who seeks to subvert it, even if only one bureaucrat at a time.
Posted by: srogers on December 18, 2004 05:29 PMray
Posted by: ray on December 18, 2004 07:39 PMNapolean created the original set of rules, much like our constitution - and then the wordsmiths began working on the original document, moving it farther and farther from the original intent, watering it down by compromise after compromise. Soon eneough, the leaders looked just like the farmer they overthrew in the first place.
Posted by: Troy Colley on December 18, 2004 07:41 PMyet when faced with a controversial comment (that some values/beliefs are non-negotiable) he got a little excited: "Please, soundpolitics readers, come out strong against such extremism...please speak out publicly to put such extreme views where they belong. "
I know you're still here Tom, so, tell me, where do you think I belong?
It scares ME that some in this country do not believe that we should have inalienable (def: not subject to forfeiture) rights.
Posted by: Julie on December 18, 2004 08:35 PMI completely agree and subscribe to the rights our forefathers wrote -- and do consider them inalienable.
But, that isn't really what I believe Julie was talking about with respect to "core values". Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Can you find any left-wing radical to suggest those aren't shared values?
No, I think she was talking about things much more practical.
And by the way, I'm finishing a book on the Declaration and Constitution process and boy was there compromise. Phew.
By the way, I presume you've painted me somehwere quite left of center. I assure you that's far from the case.
Finally, Christie Whitman came out today with comments about the Republican party asking that centrists not allow the extremists to hijack the party. Does that make her a commie?
No, I think she was talking about things much more practical."
Tom, this is a great start. First, we should ask Julie, what WERE you talking about?
This gets at my primary point - if we can agree that there is such a thing as a fundamental value, then we can start to descern what such values should be. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - these are a given . . . you would think. But it seems undeniable to me that much of the Democratic party's agenda openly and aggressively subverts these values for the purpose of providing to its constituents progressively more equality of living conditions (as opposed to equality of opportunity). This agenda, if accepted at all, requires those who accept it and impose it to compromise life (in terms of life energy diverted, against one's will, to the betterment of others), liberty (in terms of the attack on private and religious charity and the loss of the ability to act in any economic capacity without a license from a government agency), and the pursuit of happiness (in terms of lost property rights). And I will gladly suggest that most "left wing radicals" do not share these core constitutional values or they would not embrace the socia1istic agenda that subverts them.
I admit that I don't really know what values Julie holds so dear since she doesn't say specifically in her posts, but it is really important to recognize that such values exist, and then to examine whether those that she is referring to are indeed fundamental, consitutionally defined values. If they are not, she would still be free to believe and espouse them, but she would not be free, if she were in government, attempt to impose them on anyone else.
Posted by: srogers on December 18, 2004 10:16 PMThe RCW is clear in one thing and that is the point of the rules for the elections is to arrive at finality. There must be a clear winner. This is why the Superemes will draw the line at recount instead of recanvass.
It much more palpable for the average voter that some votes are not counted because of a clear line that was drawn from written law. That line makes is clear that all votes should have been in and canvassed by the absentee deadline after election day. Were there some votes excluded? You bet. Military absentees, voters who did not make it to the polls by 8:00 pm on 11/2, provisionals with botched signatures, screwups by election workers, etc. You don't get a shot at the lottery if you don't buy your ticket before the deadline, and you also don't win if the clerk typed in your winning numbers wrong. There's nothing sanctimonious about about a vote that was not properly cast or canvassed. The pool of votes has long since been defined. Adding to that pool now is a completely subjective process that is also highly partisan.
The court will realize that the literal interpretation of the RCW and the words "recount" and "recanvass" are the proper delineation for this contest that will provide an end to this dispute and a fair standard that predates the post election partisan rancor. That's why these judges were given the job in the first place. Their primary function is to find an objective standard from written law.
For those above who are unsure, the legislative branch creates legislation. The judicial branch interprets that legislation. It's really quite elegant and quite simple. Thank you Mr. Madison.
Actually, our forefathers didn't believe in inalienable rights, as you assert, but in unalienable rights. (You're not doing well for someone who say he's reading a book about this historical period.)
And by the way, it's never a good idea to accuse other people of rants--even in your oily, self-effacing, passive-aggressive manner.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on December 18, 2004 10:53 PMI am also a firm believer in the sanctity of life. I will not compromise on my belief in that regard. I can accept that others do not agree. That is their right. I very much resent my tax dollars being used in a manner that I find reprehensible.
There are obviously more. These are two I would consider "core".
Posted by: Julie on December 18, 2004 11:52 PMI think people would almost universally agree that on the day before giving birth, it would be murder for a mother to demand that a doctor abort her pregnancy. Medical complications may require a decision to be made between saving the life of a mother or her child, and I believe the family members should be allowed to make that choice according to their own set of values (I think I would argue for saving my wife of 12 years over a child I had never met, but that is my choice and others may choose differently).
I also think you'd get almost universal agreement that an abortive procedure on the day after conception does nothing more to violate the "sanctity of life" than squishing an ant or taking an antibiotic (which kills living things). Those who believe that a fertilized egg or a zygote is a human life that needs the same kind of protection that an eight week fetus needs can do so only with reference to their religion, because there is no medical or scientific evidence that a fertilized egg has a "soul" or is cognizant of its existence or its mortality or has any other characteristic used to define "human life" over "non-human life". I would never tell you that you have no right to believe a fertilized egg is a human life (if you do), but then you have to agree with me that our government cannot base a policy decision solely on religious grounds. So the thing to do is to have the best discussion possible as to when an embryo does attain a level of development such that it becomes a human life to be protected from its mother's decision to terminate it.
And then, if such a thing can be determined then one could say that prior to such and such a time, a woman does have a right to have an abortion. That means the government cannot prevent her from getting one - IT DOES NOT MEAN SHE HAS A RIGHT TO FORCE SOCIETY TO PROVIDE ONE FOR HER. So it does not necessarily follow that you should have to pay for something you may find reprehensible, even if we can come to agree that a woman may have that right.
I think the Court in Roe v. Wade did a pretty good job of determining when a fetus deserves protection, but I also think this issue is legislative in nature and should not have been determined by a court. In a perfect world our legislatures would be able to discuss this and other contentious issues rationally, but in reality they are embroiled in a two-party fight to retain political power, and so they court the extremists on each side of the issue and are afraid to back off from the sound bites (Pro life! Right to choose!) that they use to motivate their voters and secure their power.
Posted by: srogers on December 19, 2004 10:01 AMThe exact wording in the voters pamphlet (which apparently no one read) said that no woman can be denied a state funded abortion in the state of WA unless two Dr.s certify in writing that ACTIVE LABOR has begun.
I wish it could be discussed civilly too, I wish that the realities involved could be pondered by voters, without all of the fear tactics that are thrown into the ring. (If you let them try to limit access to abortion, they'll take away the right to have them!!)
I wonder if it's possible that election fraud in KC is what may have tipped that one as well??
Posted by: Julie on December 19, 2004 02:26 PMhttp://www.fwhc.org/abortion/120.htm
As I read it, the initiative did not create or extend an "unrestricted right to an abortion":
RCW 9.02.110 Right to have and provide.
The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health. A physician may terminate and a health care provider may assist a physician in terminating a pregnancy as permitted by this section.
Viability is defined to be "point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures."
Perhaps this is too late in your opinion (it is later than allowed by Roe v. Wade, which I believe is up through the first trimester). I'm far from an expert in this area of law, so perhaps it has been interpreted to allow an abortion up through active labor. If so, I will be as appalled as you are, and I would gladly support you in any effort to amend the statute to give in more teeth.
That said, though, as I read through the actual code, the only provision that I am really opposed to is this one:
RCW 9.02.160 State-provided benefits.
If the state provides, directly or by contract, maternity care benefits, services, or information to women through any program administered or funded in whole or in part by the state, the state shall also provide women otherwise eligible for any such program with substantially equivalent benefits, services, or information to permit them to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies.
I have a visceral problem with this,
but the problem is creeping socia1ism that forces you and me to pay for all kinds of things we are opposed to, not a rational balance between liberty and life, which otherwise the statute seems to provide.
Was the initiative passed fraudulently? If Dean Logan can be believed in any little way whatsoever, then things at KC were worse in 1992 than they are now - anything's possible!
Posted by: srogers on December 19, 2004 05:02 PMI suppose that the "judgment of the physician... reasonable likelihood ...survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures." This decsion is then left up to the discretion of Dr.s who stand to gain financially by opting for the abortion. How close to the due date could you get - and still have a Dr claim with relative certainty that the baby might need help?
I don't mean to split hairs here. I believe it's a bad law. I personally know of a gal who had one in her 6th month.
At the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) they have a large room, where there are preserved babies (fetus's) in liquid in glass boxes, shown at incremenets of about every week, until full term. It is breath taking (but not in bad taste) the actual details on very young ones is quite startling.
There are signs as you go into this dimly lit room that inform you that these babies lives were lost due to unpreventable and/or natural causes.
If I ever meet someone considering an abortion, I will take them there. If they can live with their decision after understanding it, then, so be it.
Posted by: Julie on December 19, 2004 05:38 PMIt was this "The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health"
The "health" can be mental health. To deliver a baby to a woman who doesn't want it can cause undo stress which is mentally unhealthy. Therefore, you can not refuse her an abortion, regardless of viability. It is still illegal though, if active labor has begun.
Posted by: Julie on December 19, 2004 05:47 PMI respect your efforts on this issue. Since we agree that the law creates a right to an abortion far later in a pregancy than at least you and I think is correct, the value of life is being subverted to liberty in a manner that actually costs innocent lives, and you have done more to try to prevent that than I have by simply thinking and writing about it.
To go back to our original point of departure, though, do you think that there can be no right to an abortion even if the line were drawn at a more appropriate place? If the right was guaranteed (with no state funding) for the first two months, would that be OK? I know that one is tempted to say no because if you give an inch the other side will take a mile, but still I'm curious what you think about the other end of the spectrum where things are a lot less defined.
Posted by: srogers on December 19, 2004 06:08 PMOK - that's utterly outrageous. If you read Roe v. Wade, there isn't a shred of this kind of disingenuousness. Health means what everyone except an extremist would think it means - physical health, as in, "if the abortion is not performed the mother's life would be in danger."
That's why it is so important to frame the issue in terms of finding a reasonable balance between the core value of life and the competing value of liberty - life is to be preserved, once it is recognized that it is "viable", unless something equally compelling (the life of the mother) creates a legitimate dilemma.
So, in the end, if this (an abortion is OK if the mother doesn't want it to protect her "mental health") is the kind of "compromise" urged by tom and Jeff B. earlier in the thread, it should be obvious to anyone why you, Julie, prefer to draw a line in the sand. And Tom, if you're still out there, standing on a principle in the manner tjat Julie has has never, ever, created a tyrant like Stalin or Hitler.
Posted by: srogers on December 19, 2004 06:45 PMThat said, I would not think it was barbaric of someone to have an abortion through the first 8 weeks or so. Even a little later perhaps (but not much later). By 12 to 16 weeks, this should not be an option, and at 27 weeks+, I honestly do not understand why it is not murder.
I believe that most people are good at heart, especially concerning babies. I don't think I-120 would have passed if people had understood the consequences of their vote.
Posted by: Julie on December 19, 2004 06:53 PM