Dino Rossi issued this statement on the event of today's "inauguration"
“With thousands of questionable ballots, improperly cast ballots, and disenfranchised voters still in question, most people believe that Washington does not have a legitimately elected governor. In King County alone, at least 1,800 votes cannot be matched to voters, and and additional 348 provisional ballots that we know of were put directly into voting machines, so we’ll never know if those votes were legal or not. In King and other counties we’ve also seen unreconciled votes, disenfranchised military voters, and a host of other problems.I think Dino Rossi captures the mood of the state very, very well. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2005 03:06 PM | Email This
“I agree with the current governor that every vote should be counted, but with an important distinction: Every legal vote should be counted, and every vote should have a voter. I don’t think that’s too high of a standard to ask for
“In our democracy, power comes from the people. But we don’t know the true will of the people because this election process has been so flawed. That’s why a clear majority of Washingtonians support a revote.
“We must restore the public’s faith in our election process. I believe the election contest we have filed, and the revote most Washingtonians want to happen, is the only way to give the people of Washington the legitimately elected governor they deserve.”
The law mandates that all voters be properly registered, and that registered voters cast only one ballot. It further mandates that each county maintain an accurate record of registered voters, including a history of their participation in each election. Precinct officers are also required to accurately record all registered voters who cast votes, and also to record all persons to whom provisional ballots are issued.
While the words "one-to-one reconciliation" may not appear anywhere in the statute, all of these maesures would be pointless without a one-to-one correspondence of voters and ballots. It is a simple mathematical reality if the provisions of the statute are adhered to.
Posted by: Patrick on January 12, 2005 03:32 PMRCW 29A.44.020
List of who has and who has not voted.
At any election, general or special, or at any primary, any political party or committee may designate a person other than a precinct election officer, for each polling place to check a list of registered voters of the precinct to determine who has and who has not voted. The lists must be furnished by the party or committee concerned.
Rossi will never back down
Though Fraudoire now wears the crown
Sure to wreck us all
And Paul will dance alone at the ball
Let her celebrate while she can
In fact, let her drive the state for a span
No one will forget where this all began
Plus it'll show the citizen's her gall
And who can forget the tears of Paul?
Soon she'll be unemployed
Her reputation and party destroyed
Join the Fight!
Long live the Right!
Does this dimwit sound like someone else we know?
Just think, this dope was a mere 130 votes away from being our GOVERNOR!
Now you clowns who voted for him should grab your ankles and take it right where the sun don't shine!
Posted by: KingCountyIsTheOnlyOneThatMatters on January 12, 2005 03:46 PM"...As you have already made your exit from the moral world, and by numberless acts both of passionate and deliberate injustice engraved an "here lieth" on your deceased honor, it must be mere affectation in you to pretend concern at the humors or opinions of mankind respecting you.
What remains of you may expire at any time. The sooner the better. For he who survives his reputation, lives out of despite of himself, like a man listening to his own reproach."
(Thomas Paine to General Sir William Howe. Crisis No. V)
Posted by: Dan on January 12, 2005 03:55 PMThat's like saying there's no law requiring us to enforce the law.
Posted by: Mark on January 12, 2005 03:55 PMCounties should be required to exhibit a 1 registered voter for every 1 vote ratio. No more, no less. They should also be required show proof that they validated the registered voters identification, place of habitat (their home address), and nationality (yes, prove that you are a US citizen, go figure) at the time of registration AND at the time of voting. They should also be required to have their voter registration database (or what ever they use) updated, and set aside on the day of voting so that they are not allowed to add new registrations after the fact (I'm sure King has been adding voters who weren't registered to vote Nov 2nd into their db since Nov 2nd). All Provisional ballots should be a different color so that they are distinguishable from the regular ballots. Provisional ballots should also be pre-marked as provisional so that if they do happen to be included in regular ballots, they are kicked out to be validated before being included in the count. Each county should be required to verify provisional ballots to their registered voter lists and other county registered voter lists. Each county should be required to make voting information available so that each voter would be able to verify that their vote was accepted and tallied.
I can come up with more, but I think I've made my point. What Dino is asking for IS NOT too much.
Posted by: Mikey on January 12, 2005 03:56 PMSill Orange,
Robyn
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 12, 2005 03:57 PMPatrick--I don't understand what you mean when you say these measures would be pointless without a one-to-one correspondence. They would be entirely with a point--to ensure proper registrations for in-person voting, or notation when administering provisional votes.
That is not at all the same as a post-facto reconciliation of ballot totals with entries in poll books, absentee signatures, provisional notations, and votes tallied under voter protection laws. Again, is it helpful, advisable--but not required for this election.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 03:58 PMMaybe the increase in Troll Traffic is attributable to the Moonbats and Union workers from the protest yesterday who were listening to the ReVote speeches and just found out about Sound Politics?
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 12, 2005 04:00 PMFrom the article, their motivation for challenging the GOP motion to contest the election is that, with the contest ongoing, they can't get their $730,000 back that they had to put up to get the hand refraud, er, I mean, hand recount.
This somehow reminds me of the old saying that an honest politician is one who, once he's bought, stays bought.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 12, 2005 04:01 PMSuppose a guy is caught stealing something and trying to rub off the serial number. Suppose further the cops get a warrant to search his dwelling and find all sorts of fancy equipment with the serial numbers removed. Is there any proof that all the equipment is stolen? Is it inconceivable that some of it might have been acquired legally?
Dino Rossi is avoiding using the term "fraud", because if he refers to a group of 500 votes as being fraudulent and then one is found that's legitimate, the media will focus on that and ignore the fact that hundreds of those ballots almost certainly are fraudulent.
Two things should be noted:
-1- There are substantial anomolies which are indistinguishable from fraud; even if only 10% of them represented actual fraud, that would be sufficient to tip the election.
-2- That these anomolies are indistinguishable from fraud is a consequence of King County election officials' willfully unlawful mishandling of evidence.
As has been noted elsewhere, precincts where all the election laws are followed will have no problems reconciling counts of voters and ballots. Any mismatch between those counts is proof positive that election laws were not properly followed. It may be that the violations are minor and correctable mistakes (e.g. miscounting voters because of a voter who signs his name so big it takes up two lines in a poll registry) or it may be that the violations constitute deliberate fraud. But the fundamental cause of the mismatch is that somebody violated some election law.
That the Democrats don't seem interested in maintaining the legally-required evidence to allow such things to be ascertained is, to say the least, 'interesting'.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 04:02 PMMark--your statement doesn't make sense. There is no law to enforce, which is the point. No law exists to mandate that they be reconciled post-election. You can't enforce a law that doesn't exist.
Mikey--I never said it was too high. I said it was irrelevant to this election.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 04:07 PM"They cry peace, peace, but there is no peace."
Posted by: Jericho on January 12, 2005 04:09 PMThey post here merely to take Stefan and the others important threads - off track!
If you stop and analyze the troll posts - you will see they are not contributing to a *well rounded* debate...they are merely offering a COUNTER-POINT. That is : To use your points and opinions against you! They are only as brilliant as YOUR argument - because they simply spin your argument around....There is no mental gymnastics involved here...It's truly a very lazy exercise!
In fact - the ONLY time you will get a genuine thought from the trolls - is when you call them on their tactics....And then it is usually a post of some derogatory nature....
So PLEASE fight the urge to respond to them.....Let your argument,point, opinion stand as you first wrote it! To be baited into an argument with a troll - just gives them their wind to spin it!
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2005 04:11 PMNo. The site is not down. However, Goldy is taking a victory lap up to the capital.
He deserves after knocking down the conspiracy theories 24/7.
Posted by: Erik on January 12, 2005 04:11 PM"Where appropriate, [the court's powers] include the power to order a new election where no other remedy would adequately correct distortions in election results caused by fraud or neglect." - Foulkes v Hays 1975.
Do you have a problem with that?
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2005 04:12 PMNote that the Foulkes v Hayes case involved fraudulent ballots where the candidate voted for, could be identified.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 04:15 PMBut I appreciate the reliance on interpretation of statute. It's what everyone should be focusing on at this point.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 04:18 PMDean Logan has already publicly admitted neglect at least three times:
1. Provisional ballots being fed into machines and counted;
2. Voters casting ballots without being made to sign the voter register;
3. Absentee ballots being found in unsecure locations weeks after the election.
Furthermore, state law requires that ballots be kept absolutely secret pertaining to whom the voter cast his/her ballot - so figuring out to whom the votes went will not be an issue. It only must be shown that there was enough 'distortion' in the results.
So will you please shut your trap about Rossi not being justified in his contest? Game, set, match, okay?
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2005 04:21 PMNeed some place to send your spam? Send it to the following jerk-off:
"Timothy L. Drobnick Sr."
(He sends me spam. I send him mine.)
Posted by: James C. Hess on January 12, 2005 04:30 PMMy point was that the requirements for registration prior to the election and for record-keeping during the election are pointless if there is no expectation that they will be followed. If they are followed, a one-to-one correspondence of voters voting and ballots cast should be the expected outcome.
Or, as Mark said it so much more elegantly (and succinctly): "That's like saying there's no law requiring us to enforce the law."
Posted by: Patrick on January 12, 2005 04:36 PMAny questions?
Posted by: bill crowbar on January 12, 2005 04:39 PMDJ--not true. There may be votes without a paper trail, which is not the same thing as a vote without a voter. That there is a discrepancy only means that the vote's exact provenance cannot be conclusively determined...not that it was not otherwise correctly cast. And of course, election day balloting is only one piece of the entire count.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 04:39 PMIf the prev. one had submitted a bill, I think it has to get voted on. But the new one can dismantle committees, fire people, hire new people, start new things, and all that.
Likewise, any law that passed under the old governor is still law, of course.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 04:48 PMChanging the state of affairs is not a bad idea. The point is it's irrelevant to the most recent election, which is now completed.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 04:52 PMPeople are required to sign their name in a log before they receive a ballot and vote. If the number of ballots received in a polling place exceeds the number of signatures, it must therefore follow that either somebody cast more than one ballot after signing the book (illegal) or somebody cast a vote without signing the book (also illegal). The only way there can be, e.g., nine more ballots than signatures is if nine votes were cast illegally.
It may be that those ballots were cast by people who didn't sign in, but who were eligible to vote, hadn't vote before, and didn't vote later. In such a case, the failure to follow procedures would not alter the vote tally (compared with following procedures and signing in properly). Even in that case, however, the vote is still illegally cast and should not count (no illegally cast vote should ever count).
Although absentee ballots and provisional ballots have different standards, the same principles apply. Ballots are supposed to be accounted for as they move through the system. If procedures are followed, there will be a variety of counts that will reconcile precisely. Any 'off' counts are a sign that something was done improperly (illegally).
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 04:53 PMFor Gregoire, it could be denial, bravery, who knows what. At this point, she really ought to get busy at her job.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 04:54 PMYou played right into my hand on that one!
1. King County violated the law by permantly altering ballots.
2. Several hundred unsecured ballots were allowed into the canvassing process and counted. Didn't you know this????
You misunderstood me - it's voter-to-ballot secrecy. Of course we know what the ballots say - we don't know to whom they belong - registered or unregistered, felons or dead people, etc.
Also, your citing for an election being set aside is irrelevant. You are referring to Washington State statutes when the relevant law is a Supreme Court decision. Guess which takes the upper hand? I think even you can figure that out.
Check.
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2005 04:59 PMWhat's is right is wrong, what is wrong is right. Bill Clinton didn't do it, any of it. America is the real evil empire and stingy at that. There is no God (God forbid). Christians are facists and fascists too. Bush is an idiot as well as a 21st century Machiavelli. Karl Rove drags black people behind his truck for kicks. Condi is a house nigga as is Colin and Justice Thomas. Capitalism is dog eat dog system that must be destroyed. The ACLU is right. Planned Parenthood is the way to go. We need more government. Mankind came from animals. Darwin and Spencer were right.
This has all become clear after Crowbars 'punk' post.
Thanks Crowbar.
Posted by: Jericho on January 12, 2005 05:00 PMThere are only two possiblites. Either Rossi wins his case or the phoney gov continues in her assumed office.
In the latter case all we will have is increased taxes, businesses leave, revenue falls, taxes are increased again, more businesses leave etc.
Finally Washington will be more bankrupt that California.
End result: trolls join their friends the homeless at the soup line. Three cheers!
Posted by: TomasM on January 12, 2005 05:19 PMAs much as we'd all like a revote, it's not very likely. I make this projection based on the scene in the statehouse today. The State Supreme Court justices, who will ultimately decide this thing, were all there. As they were introduced, they waved with enthusiasm to the crowd as if they were rock stars, and seeming to me to give the clear signal that they won't let this election get thrown out.
So, personally, I'm bracing myself for the next 4 years of avoiding the desperate actions of a wounded political beast.
GreGore did her obligatory head fake toward moderation in order to try to win back the "Dinocrats" that voted against her. I think that to make it stick, she will have to stick to it this year at least and any new taxes will be of the hidden variety - obscure "user fees" and that sort of thing.
The government performance measuring thingy will be just that, a "thingy." "Performance" sounds good, except when you consider what the action is. Any performance system is tied to objectives, and if your objective is some silly measure like "diversity," you will get government that focuses on that even more than it already does. The Nazis were unfortunately showed exceptional performance when killing humans in concentration camps. So, while she's trying to impress with this "thingy," I doubt it will be in the interests of anyone that visits this blog.
Of course, she has thrown a bone of pay raises to the monopoly teachers union that is more interested in striking than teaching at public schools. The same was thrown to state workers.
But, she will need more to keep the silly Seattle liberals on board. Environmental measures will be one of those, and it will fit right in with her performance "thingy." So, anyone in rural King County who was hoping for some relief from the government taking of the economic use of their land is just going to have to suffer indefinitely. I went for a walk through Seward Park the other day and noticed a sign for a typical Seattle Parks project where they are spending $150k to put down gravel, cut down big beautiful trees, and replant some "native" trees, all in order to create a salmon habitat right in the middle of the most popular parking spot for boaters. Go figure. Expect a bunch more stupid projects like this - all cosmetic and having nothing to do with helping salmon stocks.
But, this won’t be enough for the wack-job wing of King County. The solution, which will be straight from the Clinton book of political maneuvers, will be to quietly ne extremely liberal on certain social issues.
At the top of the list will be gay marriage. I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage, but for any of you that are against it, you will need to keep a close eye on this. She and her pals won't do anything drastic, at least not in the public eye. However, they will, in a very lawyerly fashion (which is what they all are), undermine the obstacles to gay marriage. The end result will be a situation in which she can say, "I couldn't do anything to stop it."
While she is a fan of gay marriage, there is a certain kind of marriage that GreGore and her pals don't like - heterosexual marriage. In particular, she and her pals have a deep disdain for the male side of heterosexual marriage. If you don’t believe this statement, check out some of the curriculum fancied by the Women’s Studies department at UW. (The Independent Women’s Forum did a great analysis here: http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf )
The percentage of men in King County in their 30s who have never been married has reached 46%, so they've had some success already. Of course, the bought and paid for MSM says that is all because of choices by women. The reality is, and you will never hear this in the MSM, marriage has become a high risk enterprise for men and THEY are choosing not to get into it.
But, 46% single men isn't good enough for this crowd. So, one of the performance measures may as well be 75% unmarried (heterosexuals, that is).
How? First and foremost, by simply continuing the status quo of fathers being separated from their children in family courts and labeled Dead Beat Dads, and therefore on criminal probation, from the outset of divorce. The other step will be to advance the hysteria around domestic violence, complete with more false statistics about how dangerous ALL men are. After all, all men are part of the conspiracy called the "patriarchy" and the state would be better off if there were none. This may involve the institution of Napoleonic Law, which is already pretty much in place, but GreGore and pals will make it formal that all men accused of any crime will be guilty until proven innocent.
Then, there is the issue of how our boys are suffering in public schools, so well discussed in Christina Hoff Sommer’s book, “The War Against Boys.” Of course, GreGore has no boys in her family, so she cannot identify with the problem. To even discuss it is heresy within her crowd anyway. But, by any measure, our feminized public schools are failing boys, who are 4 times more likely to drop out, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, are accepted at UW at 75% the rate of girls, and 10 times more likely to be put on the favorite drug of our public school teacher’s monopoly – Ritalin.
Since The Shark and the rest of the Dirty Dozen have the MSM pathetically scrambling to catch up with SoundPolitic’s excellent political analysis, let’s see them try to catch up on a few of these issues.
"The ungodly..are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous for the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish." 1st Psalm (in part)
Posted by: Jericho on January 12, 2005 05:31 PMCP, each county auditor is named as a respondent in the election contest. I would think that is what the counties have to do with it.
Matt R, sorry :( I was replying to a post on the wrong string. Next time I'll refer the person I'm addressing to the appropriate string.
The only D that crossed was Tim Sheldon. I watched the legislative session yesterday, I believe it was 65/80 65 to delay certification, and 80 to proceed with certification.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 12, 2005 05:46 PMSo I guess the next shoe to drop is the evidence Dino will present to the Chelan County judge. And it will be convincing. A revote is coming.
Posted by: Michele on January 12, 2005 05:46 PM"Thanks for calling the Legislative Hotline about the governor's race. My position is that this issue is now in the courts and that's where it belongs. Our constitution calls for a separation of powers.
If the courts decide we need a revote, then we will have one."
followed by the usual Sincerely, Darlene Fairley
Can anyone tell me what she is referring to? I would like to understand exactly what she thinks the validity of her stand is. Just so I have something to fight back with! Thanks for your help, forgive my ignorance.
Posted by: Laura on January 12, 2005 05:47 PMRCW 29A.68.070
Misconduct of board -- Irregularity material to result.
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
------
Translation: Misconduct and incompetence on the part of those conducting the election is not in-and-of-itself reason to throw out the result, unless that misconduct or incompetence resulted in the person with the highest number of legal votes NOT winning.
------
RCW 29A.68.110
Illegal votes -- Number of votes affected -- Enough to change result.
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
------
Translation: The presence of illegal votes (e.g. from dead people or live ones who cast multiple votes) is not in-and-of-itself reason to throw out the results of an election, unless the number of illegal votes, when discarded, would change the final result of the election.
------
Then there is this one, which I believe is the legal basis for the court challenge:
RCW 29A.68.090
Illegal votes -- Allegation of.
When the reception of illegal votes is alleged as a cause of contest, it is sufficient to state generally that illegal votes were cast, that, if given to the person whose election is contested in the specified precinct or precincts, will, if taken from that person, reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of legal votes given to some other person for the same office.
------
Translation: To contest an election on the basis of illegal votes cast, you simply need to show that the number of votes in question exceed the margin of victory.
------
Given that in King County alone there are over 2000 votes in question, which is more than 15x the margin of victory, it seems to me that the basis for this contest is a no-brainer.
Posted by: Jason on January 12, 2005 05:52 PMBut, it will never get past our Supreme Court, which is already in love in GreGore.
So, I'm not optimistic.
Posted by: Iguana on January 12, 2005 05:58 PMThere are better things to do- like bury their Queen and the party that forced her upon an unwilling population.
Taking the time to answer their typical insipid (and usually misspelled entries) distracts us from from this noble purpose.
Drive on.
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 12, 2005 05:59 PMI think what your representative is trying to say is that she believes that this is an issue for the courts to decide, not the legislature. Which I happen to think is very much a "pass the buck" attitude.
The act of ratifying the election was never meant to be purely ceremonial. The consititution gives the legislature that power for a reason, so that they can act as part of our system of checks and balances, not so that they can simply rubberstamp the result and say "We don't care how flawed the election was, it's not our job to decide these things" which is exactly what some of them said during the joint session yesterday.
I don't remember which one it was, but one of the Dems got up, a guy with a full beard in a tweed suit and said matter of factly "Its not our job". My jaw about hit the floor when he said that. If it's not your job, why then does the consitution require your vote for ratification? Talk about shirking their responsibility.
Posted by: Jason on January 12, 2005 06:06 PMThis is a poorly written sloppy statement. I called the Rossi headquarters in Bellevue to tell them, but they still haven't bothered to correct it on their site. It's missing puctuation left and right, has at least one typo and commas are way over-used.
Now I make errors all the time, but not on something this important.
I realize resources are probably spread thin in Bellevue, but you don't just 'throw together' a press release the national and local media may well pick up. It just looks bad, like you don't care. And no I'm not being anal!
Next time send it to me Mary and I'll proof it.
Posted by: Jim on January 12, 2005 06:32 PMNow that the legislature has refused to decide the contested election before issuing a certificate of election to Gregoire as required by our constitution, the point is moot -- at least until the court tosses the matter back to them.
For a few lengthier discourses on this general topic, I invite you to read my blog. (Shameless plugging is allowed on this blog, I hope.)
http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/01/can-wa-courts-decide-contested.html
Posted by: Micajah on January 12, 2005 06:33 PMYou may be adults chronologically but resorting to foul language shows you for the
emotional children that you really are.
Please try to act like grown-ups, or go watch television.
For those who are here simply to disrupt, your desperation is showing.
Be adults and live lives of quiet desperation like most of us do. Thank you.
"Republican Sues for Washington Revote" --from the January 8th Los Angeles Times. Just got the clipping from my sister today.
This L.A. native (that would be moi) is going to write a letter to the LA TIMES about it, tho. It quotes some commie WSU professor as saying Gregoireovich has the political advantage. Oh Really? When 62% of the state wants a revote?? Not hardly....
Posted by: Michele on January 12, 2005 06:44 PMJason, I believe the case can be made stronger. I posted on this earlier on a different thread, hopefully nobody will mind a repeat.
KC has admitted to 1800 more ballots than voters, and to another 346 provisional ballots being fed into the counting machines without being verified.
Thus there are at least 2100 illegally cast ballots in KC. The obvious standard for apportionment of these ballots would be the overall results in KC, ~58 to 40 for CG, if memory serves. Thus every 100 of these ballots, if invalidated, would remove 58 votes from CG, but only 40 from DR, a net gain of 18 for DR vs CG. Thus, arguably, removing all 2100 illegal ballots would result in a net gain of (2100/100)(18) = 378 votes for DR. Without going into the gory details of the statistics, I believe that 2100 is a large enough sample to support this argument.
Therefore, arguably, CG is not the winner of the election.
Posted by: ewaggin on January 12, 2005 06:46 PMI say Rossi should throw in the town let Gregorie self destruct and kick Cantwell's butt in 06... These clowns for supreme court justices are not going to allow a revote, they all voted for Gregoire.
Posted by: Jordanc on January 12, 2005 06:49 PMOh, yeah. GET OVER IT!
Ahh, now I feel better.
Posted by: space on January 12, 2005 06:54 PM“John Kerry did the right thing by choosing not to drag the presidential election into court. Slade Gorton made the same choice in the 2000 election. I hope Christine Gregoire will follow their example.” - Dino Rossi, 11/12/2004
Posted by: James on January 12, 2005 07:01 PMDennis Bounds made the statement just at the end of the story about the inauguration....
Does anyone have information on this?
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2005 07:06 PMDon't feel alone, 45% of democrats want a revote of this mockery of an election and 62% of Washington residents. A very remarkable showing for a state that went for Kerry and Patty Murray - not exactly right wing conservatives.
Michele - please give us your first hand account on sweet Christine activities this evening.
CP
Posted by: Hello Kitty on January 12, 2005 07:11 PMAll things that go around....
Posted by: Peter on January 12, 2005 07:14 PMI found this in the Seattle PI site...
Here's a snippet:
"Hearing on Rossi's election challenge postponed
By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Hope for a speedy resolution to the uncertainty surrounding the governor's election seems to be fading fast.
On the same day Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire was inaugurated, a new judge was assigned to Republican Dino Rossi's election challenge.
Chelan County Superior Court Judge John E. Bridges on Wednesday granted motions by the Democratic and Libertarian parties to intervene in Rossi's case. A preliminary hearing was rescheduled from Friday to next Thursday, Jan. 20.
"We hope the Democrats aren't going to try to stall this thing," Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said. "That's not going to be met with a lot of good feeling from the people of Washington."
At stake is not only the fate of the election, but whether Democrats will get back the $730,000 they paid for the hand recount. State law allows a party to pay for a hand recount in close races, which the Democrats did after Rossi won a machine recount by 42 votes. State law also says that if the hand recount reverses the results of the election, as it did for Gregoire, the state has to pay back the money....................."
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2005 07:21 PMEven with a small sample, you can see what the people's sentiments are. So let the left keep blowing smoke and changing the argument to try and cloud the real issue of why a revote is warranted, but deep down, the Gregoireistas believe that they would lose if and when a revote were to be held.
If you don't believe this poll, please call KIRO or email them and don't burden us with your stupid questions, innuendo or ignorant assertions !
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2005 07:34 PMMike Gregoire (Christine's hubby) is a retired State *Fraud* investigator!!
I guess if you want to do it right...it helps to be married to an expert!
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2005 07:41 PMShe's got it backwards...it's Rossi's efforts that are creating credibility issues. When one loses, one should admit it and move on. He had no problem with this concept when 1) he was ahead or 2) Gore was behind.
Funny....he pretends it is about counting votes but he sued to STOP VOTE COUNTING!
Posted by: Scared for USA on January 12, 2005 07:47 PM"What a flip-flop. After reading Dino's statement, and looking at the following statement, I see a flip-flop of major proportions (not to mention the inherent sore-loser tone of his note):
"'John Kerry did the right thing by choosing not to drag the presidential election into court. Slade Gorton made the same choice in the 2000 election. I hope Christine Gregoire will follow their example.' - Dino Rossi, 11/12/2004"
James,
I wonder why you didn't provide a source for what you claim is a statement by Dino Rossi.
This is all "Google" came up with for that statement:
Joel Connelly’s column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 22, 2004 --
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/204758_joel22.html?searchpagefrom=2&searchdiff=22
Not so long ago, Republican State Chairman Chris Vance was excoriating the Democrats for going to court over the recount.
"King County is doing the right thing by including Democrats and Republicans in the counting process, and I am amazed that Christine Gregoire has the gall to challenge this plan in the state Supreme Court," Vance declared.
At another point, Chairman Vance reiterated his antipathy to post-election lawyering: "John Kerry did the right thing by choosing not to drag the presidential election into court. Slade Gorton made the same choice in the 2000 election. I hope Christine Gregoire will follow their example."
That appears to be the statement you claim was made by Rossi. Granting that Vance's statements could be attributed to Rossi's team, could you tell us what source led you to attribute the quotation to Rossi himself?
There's no need to be so worried. If worst comes to worst, Gregoire the Pretender will become Governor Gregoire.
That won't allow her to shoot you or throw you in jail.
We can disagree with each other in this country and ride out the storm.
Even if Gregoire the Pretender wins in some apparently underhanded way, Rossi should say what my grandfather said in such circumstances: "I can live without it, if she can live with it."
He didn't mean that he would forgive and forget. He meant that he wouldn't keep fighting that particular battle.
Right now, you might check with your county auditor and ask for a copy of the instructions the election workers follow in processing ballots before counting the votes on them. It makes for dull reading -- in my county, at least -- but we probably need to know the nuts and bolts of what they have been doing if we hope to make it better in the next election.
Posted by: Micajah on January 12, 2005 08:18 PMKeith, welcome. It would seem that there are many politicians here (mostly Democrats) that do not have a clue either. They will have to learn the hard way that their job is to represent the will of the people of this state, or face unemployment.
Posted by: JG on January 12, 2005 08:22 PMDid anyone know that Comrade Fraudoire used to be a Republican? When she lived in Spokane and attended Gonzaga Law School, she was an active Republican grassroots leader.
Then she started working for DSHS and Dept. of Ecology and shifted to the left for political expediency.
Just an FYI for any hardcore Party types.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 12, 2005 08:23 PMWestern-leaning reformer Viktor Yushchenko on Monday was declared winner of the Dec. 26 voting, but cannot be inaugurated without Supreme Court approval of the results. Yanukovych has refused to concede, alleging that the vote was marred.
...
Not to draw any unfair correlation, but does this sound familiar? I have a hard time believing Christine and her backers will let go without dragging this out. They've already managed to postpone the hearing to the 20th. Resolved quickly? I say nay. Is Christine & Yanukovych reading the same "delay and game" book?
It's usually better to get it straight from the horse's mouth -- not the other end.
Here's the comment you apparently relied on:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-comments-popup.php?p=369&c=1#comment-8208
"“John Kerry did the right thing by choosing not to drag the presidential election into court. Slade Gorton made the same choice in the 2000 election. I hope Christine Gregoire will follow their example.” - Dino Rossi, 11/12/2004
Comment by D Huygens— 1/12/05 @ 8:56 am
Note that it, too, fails to provide any source for that purported quotation.
Copying and pasting the URL that identifies the source is easily done in blog comments. Be wary of people who don't identify the source.
Posted by: Micajah on January 12, 2005 08:31 PMThose quotes purported to be by Rossi were not by him (perhaps Vance said some of them) but I doubt if they were for real. Consider the source; www. horsesass.org
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2005 08:44 PMThe best way to light a fire under the legislators to change the election system now is to have a revote soon. If Rossi wins the revote, more election reforms would be implemented before 2006. If there is no revote, it will take longer for this change to occur. Even money if anything significant would be in place for the 2006 elections if there is no governor revote, so for the good of election reform - REVOTE !
The ONLY way I can see for elections to be cleaned up is to have revotes when the number of fishy votes from precincts that supported the winner exceeds the margin of victory.
If this election is allowed to stand, nothing will happen to the election officials responsible for thousands of fishy votes. A lot of voters don't mind having election officials get away with fudging things for their benefit. But nobody is going to like election officials whose fudging causes an election to get thrown out.
The principle is somewhat similar to that underlying the exclusionary rule. If a cop uses illegal methods to get evidence, and that evidence helps the state score convictions, the cop's department is going to be loath to discourage his tactics. But if a cop's illegal tactics cause cases to get thrown out, his department is going to be very unhappy with him.
If the 1800+ fishy votes in King County cause the election to get tossed, the election officials responsible for them will find themselves looking for other employment.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 10:33 PM
Don't you sick freaks understand that the Gross National Product of King County is higher than that of ALL of the other 38 counties put together, AND the country of SPAIN tossed in as well?
Now pull your heads out of "Done-O" Rossi's ass and FALL IN LINE!!!!
Posted by: KingCountyIsTheOnlyOneThatMatters on January 13, 2005 05:12 AMSore-looserman.
Ok sound politics. The gig is up. The game is over. Governor Gregoire is now in control.
Or does sound politics wish to be known as the Sore-looserman Blog>
The Democrats Won, the republicans lost.
Get over it
Move on
Live with it.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 13, 2005 07:14 AMYou trolls can not comprehend what it is to be on our side. We don't rely on the government for our house payment or our groceries. We don't have to wait by the mailbox to get our ssi/welfare checks. Thats what really seperates you thieving trolls from the rest of us. We are all trying to hold on to (or regain) what is rightfully ours - our earnings, our property, our legal elections - while most of you know that without access to these things, you'll most likely starve to death in public parks.
Oh, and btw - Jesus said that if you don't work - you don't eat. Doesn't sound like any liberal I've ever met ;)
Posted by: Julie on January 13, 2005 10:31 AM3. Republicans with their kids at protests and counter protests were the targets of vile and sometimes violent actions by leftest protesters.
In the future, we Republicans should make sure we carry video cameras to any protests or political gatherings and record the actions and words of the "fair minded" leftists we encounter.
Posted by: Scott on January 13, 2005 10:41 AMIs this your example of discussion? Ponder that it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Posted by: South County on January 13, 2005 11:09 AMAnd about yard signs, I put up 20 signs one day near my home on the Eastside (and yes, I paid for it with money I earned working, having never received public assistance unlike half the impoverished residents of nearby Carnation) and the next day more than half were gone. Oh, and the liberal larry signs? Lovely.
Posted by: JesusIsALiberal on January 13, 2005 11:58 AMThey know it would be watched very closly, especially in King county, and thus they wouldn't be able to cheat and thats not to say they wouldn't try to. By my estimation Comrade Gregiore would overwhelmingly lose any revote.
Gregoire called her initial 200 and some-odd lose a "statistical tie", so isn't 129 also a "statistical tie"?
If the Democrats had any integrity or honor they would also call for a revote to prove that they won.
If there is in fact no revote I for one don't want to hear the whinny liberals cry about unemployment or whatevers on the Democrat talking points memo for the day. After all thats what they wanted.
Posted by: steveyd26 on January 13, 2005 12:29 PMJesus is not a liberal.
He would never kill a unborn baby, which seems to be a favorite method of contraception among liberals, thank god the fewer liberals the better i say!
The old saying goes at protest,
"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"
The Republicans lost, the Democrats won
Get over it, Move on, Sore Loosermen Blog.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 13, 2005 02:47 PMNow, Jesus was a liberal. Jesus would probably not have an abortion, although his becoming pregnant would probably be another immaculate conception, wouldn't it? Would Jesus prevent a child from aborting her fetus? Would Jesus prevent a woman carrying a child with no brain from aborting her fetus? Would Jesus sit in judgement of ANYONE for ANYTHING? No. He wouldn't.
As for the revote, I thought Rossi wanted to protect the peace and concede. Oh WAIT! He wanted Gregoire to do that! I'm so sorry. I had an underfunded public education. I get confused.
Posted by: JesusIsALiberal on January 13, 2005 03:51 PMFirst of all it's called the Right for a reason.
You didn't get a underfunded education, your Liberal teachers were to busy teaching you about multi-culturism, diversity and how G.W.B is bad and the ACLU is good.
Plus the retarded liberals in king county couldn't even cheat enough to "win" the election on the first try. Or was it their stratagy to cheat just a little on each count? Did they think no one would catch them?
What if Pinko Commie Gregoire lost the hand recount? I bet she would be yelling and screaming to her liberal allies in the wa. supreme court for a revote.
Posted by: steveyd26 on January 13, 2005 05:40 PM