I attended this morning's press conference with King County Executive Ron Sims and Elections Director Dean Logan.
It was an attempt at whitewash and it backfired. Big time. Another nail in the coffin not only of this disastrous election but also for King Sims career. The purpose of the conference was to release Logan's "2004 Election Report to Ron Sims", on the web here. The prepared text of Sims' remarks is here, a press release is here. Here are some highlights of the press conference.
Sims read from his prepared statement:
It is fair game to be partisan about many issues. But elections are a sacred trust that we must all hold dear. I am deeply disappointed that so many have sought to take political advantage of human error and turn it into cries of fraud and corruptionWhen Sims stated that
...
Notably missing from much of the debate were facts [emphasis in the original]And that is why shortly after the final certification of the 2004 general election I asked Dean Logan to conduct a comprehensive review of what really happened in the gubernatorial race and report back to me with the facts and any recommendations for improvements.
I received the full report from Dean yesterday. The report is an honest, factual and candid examination of last fall's elections.
We had an accuracy rate that any bank would envyA few people in the crowd erupted into laughter. Sims then gave an impromptu lecture implying that the people who laughed at his laughable statement did not have a proper upbringing. A few moments later he said:
The facts are clear. We had an election that was 99.98% accurate.Departing from the text, he added:
Even our critics can't find a percentage less than that.Actually, I did! Keep reading.
Sims did acknowledge that
Some mistakes were made and we all regret that.Unfortnately, neither Sims nor Logan acknowledged the actual mistakes, how many there were or how they actually "accepted reponsibility".But with every mistake we accepted responsibility
Dean Logan summarized his report, which has to be seen to be believed. The report's only explanation for the 1,800 net discrepancy between ballots and voters is:
The most common reasons people who voted may not appear on the list of registered voters is:As discussed many times before, the 1,800 net discrepancy is net of the federal write-in and ACP voters.* the cast a federal write-in ballot ...
* they are participants in the state's Address Confidentiality Program...
* human error during the crediting process and when voters sign the poll books
During the Q&A, most of the reporters asked insistent questions about the 1,800 discrepancy and simply weren't buying Sims and Logans answers and insistence to the effect that no fraud can occur because accountability is built-in at the front end and the poll workers are too dedicated to their jobs to permit invalid votes from being submitted.
Ron Sims revealed what I believe to be his true character. I raised my hand to ask a question and at first he pointedly tried to ignore me by saying twice:
"I want to take a question from the press."
God forbid any citizen would question the County Executive.
"I am from the press", I insisted and asked him to explain the claim in his prepared statement that the election was "99.98% accurate". "What numbers did you use to come up with that?" I asked. When he looked confused, I said "What are the numerator and the denominator?".
He shook his head dismissively and said "he's asking me about numerators and denominators"
Dean Logan jumped in to explain that there were about 900,000 ballots counted with a variance of 1,800.
"But that's not 99.98%", I explained, "it's 99.8%"
Sims looked annoyed that I pointed out that his facts were nonsense. When I tried to explain that this is not an accuracy rate that any bank would be proud of [it corresponds to a $2,000 error in every $1 million], he cut me off to let somebody else ask a question. Fortunately, there were more questions about the 1,800 discrepancy from reporters who simply weren't buying Sims' bullshit.
Among the other bullshit that was handed out to the audience was a packet of newspaper columns sympathetic to Sims, Logan and his vision of sloppy elections, written by various fools and sycophants such as Corky Mattingly, Mark Trahant, Floyd McKay and Joni Balter.
Sims and Logan ran out of the room as soon as possible after the formal press conference ended, leaving a number of TV and radio reporters free to interview both me and a Mr. Hess from Shoreline. I didn't actually meet Mr. Hess, but I believe he might have posted some comments on Sound Politics in the past. Hess was not impressed with the Sims/Logan dog and pony show and did a very good job of explaining the issues to the cameras. Check the local radio and TV news today for reports.
Sims did have one line in his prepared remarks that I agree with:
The greatest threat to democracy is bad information.I'm convinced from sensing the temperature of the professional journalists in the room that this was an unmitigated disaster for Ron Sims and that there were few who swallowed his bad information today.
UPDATE: The Seattle Times Keith Ervin was there and filed this report.
UPDATE 2: KING-5 News has a report with a streaming video. Listen to the hails of derisive laughter as Ron Sims make his "accurate as a bank" claim.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 09, 2005 12:08 PM | Email Thishttp://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2005/02_February/09_ElectionsReport.htm
Pretty thick on the coverup of all the issues so well raised here and continue to accept at being off over 2000 ballots to voters is ok. My bank sure doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Steve on February 9, 2005 12:12 PMI'm only sorry that my hunch (and likely everyone else's hunch here) that it would be just that--a dog and pony show--turned out to be correct.
Posted by: Michele S on February 9, 2005 12:23 PMThanks for going to the press conference. Your site is of great value to me. Please stay with the facts and the truth. There is so little of it out there now days. Of course I consider all sides, but you've done a wonderful job, stay with it.
Oh, please keep your blog open to all voices and all ideas, no matter how nasty and silly they may appear.
It is unfortunate you had to lie when you said you were a member of the press (which technically would mean you have press credentials), but I'll let that slide given how little we can rely on the press these days.
Hopefully this will help refocus the need for election reform, which after this Governor or the next have come and gone, we will be relying on, nationwide.
I don't ever expect 100% in an election, but hopefully we can do better than 99.8%, and certainly we should try.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 12:28 PMI think you still must be a little outraged by the lies and coverup though.
This was the first time that I have seen you use profanity .....
Have a Latte and then put that sharp mind of yours to work on exposing all of their lies....
oh yeah, and I'm not complaining or offended in the slightest about your words... you have remarkable restraint compared to me!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 9, 2005 12:32 PMI'll bet he comes out with one of the following "arguments:"
* No reason to disbelieve the report.
* Applauds Sims and Logan for facing angry conservatives.
* Uses Goldstein math to explain away the false 99.98% accuracy.
* Accuses Stefan of calling Sims a liar.
* And as usual, plenty of profanity laced Ad Hominem attacks on Stefan.
Standing by to see how the spin cycle goes for Goldstein.
"Even as we resolve the issues of the historic gubernatorial race, new challenges await us, including:
-responding to a changing public dynamic that relies on a new era of technology and media (Web sites, Internet blogs, talk radio, etc.) as the primary source of information; and almost assuredly some form of statewide election reform."
p. 21
I am glad that responding to SP ranks slightly ahead of "some form of statewide election reform".
I also like that there is no King County Elections insignia so they created one to put next to Logan's sig on page 2. Poor job done too.
And, while on the topic, since our tax dollars are paying for this, ya think that maybe you could put together a nice plain simple black adn white report without stupid clip-art? The header logo on Page 3 cuts the K out of King too.
Posted by: Rex on February 9, 2005 12:34 PMBut, if the election was run in such a fine, upstanding, and proper manner, why does he need more money for "improved training"?
Did anyone ask Sims where the extra ballots came from? I know the report makes a feeble attempt, but were they pressed on the issue?
}8-
Posted by: Snowy Owl on February 9, 2005 12:35 PMYes, I noticed that too. "A new state of the art elections facility!" Oh goody, there go more of our tax dollars down the drain. Sims has already directed the facilities division to begin searching for this Atlantis.
Well run elections don't come from buildings, fenced cages, computer equipment, voting machines, databases or Elections officials. Well run elections come from proper authentication and auditing procedures that assure us that those who voted were legitimate voters who cast one vote.
Sims, please let us know when you find the "Elections Atlantis."
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2005 12:47 PMI thought Gregoire only opened her mouth to change feet. Now I see Sims foot in Gregoire's mouth and Gregoire's foot in Logan's mouth and it's just one big toe-licking contest.
Posted by: Larry on February 9, 2005 01:17 PMDoes everyone see how badly we need to oust this guy?
I pick IRON MAN-David Irons to run against him.
I wonder how much taxpayer money went into making it so pretty.
Regardless....its clear that they admit the problems but not the responsibility and certainly not accountability to the election mis-results.
Typical.
karl
If your bank made errors of that magnitude you would probably find another bank. It's time to find another King County administration.
Posted by: Bob Edelman on February 9, 2005 01:29 PMOn page 14, the crediting process of voters was not defined as a "critical election process" that is "conducted in an open, public and secure manner."
Instead, "State election laws address ballot security and accountability on the front end of the elections process - at the polls, in ballot counting centers and throughout the verification process.... Crediting voters for voting is not designed to determine if voting fraud occurred."
Reading between the lines, King County Elections has defined this reconciliation process as something less than a "critical election process."
Therefore, without the presence of observers, how are citizens to trust King County's report that 252 of the 348 ballots were cast by legitimate voters? Furthermore, what accounts for the change in numbers from 348 to 341?
From page 16: "As of the date of this report, we have been able to account for 341 of the ballots through further review and reconciliation. Of those, we have confirmed that 252 were cast by valid, King County registered voters and we have credited them for voting."
When did this occur? How many observers were watching? (The answer is "none.")
One of the "guiding principles" of King County Elections reads as follows: "We encourage the public to participate in the election process through education, public notices and transparent processes."
Transparent? Why weren’t observers allowed to watch the crediting process?
Furthermore, King County is hereby admitting that 96 invalid ballots (348 - 252) were added to the certified totals. (If seven more valid votes can be ascertained, this would reduce the number to 89.)
When such errors weigh so heavily on an election separated by 129 votes, it seems outrageous that observers were locked out of the reconciliation/crediting process.
Had observers been present, they might have discovered more information about the thousands of remaining mystery ballots. King County speculates on reasons to account for these mystery ballots, but provides no specifics.
Posted by: Tim B. on February 9, 2005 01:34 PMThey always gloss over the problem with the enhanced ballots. Using the term for the day, it's really the 900 lb gorilla. I suppose that from the sheer size of the problem they can't see if for the trees. But I'll guess that it's more a matter of trying to reduce their liability to a manageable handful.
Sims trying to duck your question is priceless. And in front of the media. Absolutely perfect.
Have you ever noticed that these folks don't do to well in the light?
Their proposed solutions to problems never include an honest assessment of responsibility. "Ah, yup. Checked it out, and I'm gonna fire myself." Yet that should head the list.
They also never mention the fact that it's not their ability to count that is the principle question, even though that can be problematic. Perhaps investing in remedial math rather than new buildings. The real problem is documenting and handling the ballots, chores that they treat with callous disregard. Along with the validity of votes.
Thanks, SS...the look on Sims face must have been validating.
Posted by: scott158 on February 9, 2005 01:37 PMG. Gerlann,
You're right. I think it was sick and insidious that the Clinton Administration did that -- and for eight long years. It was horrible the way Bill Clinton, George Stephanapoulus, DeeDee Meyers and the rest consistently ignored so many accredited and credible reporters. And the way they reacted when someone asked a question that wasn't in the prescribed talking points -- just terrible!
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer your question and give my opinion on how the Clinton Administration manipulated the media.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 9, 2005 01:38 PMDori Munson is TRASHING Ron Sims as I type.
Notice how the "fix" to this offered by Ron Sims is to
SPEND MORE MONEY???
Oh yeah, Shark, do YOU have "good home training?"
Posted by: smoke on February 9, 2005 01:46 PMOr maybe it depends on the outcome - you think?
Posted by: Jonathan on February 9, 2005 01:50 PM252 of 348 provisionals valid is a 72% acceptance rate. This acceptance rate is so far below the overall provisional acceptance rate (90% - 28,000 of 31,000) that I wonder why so many were rejected.
State law assumes provisionals to be illegal until verified. KC's report would seem to state that provisionals should be treated more like absentee instead.
Posted by: Jack on February 9, 2005 02:00 PMGreetings from South Georgia from a 30-year Washington State resident who has worked in both journalism and politics.
I disagree with your charactarization that Shark lied about his press credentials. Blogs are now recognized (often reluctantly) by many "mainstream" (read that "lefty") press as part of the New Media. In fact, Shark's appearances on national t.v. news and several talk shows have been invaluable to this Washington political junkie.
Thank you, Shark, for your great coverage of this issue. You are the John O'Neill of Puget Sound. Like the Swift Boat Vet, you tell the truth as you know it, and don't back down when attacked by the MSM or Democrat/liberal hacks.
Posted by: Evergreen Exile on February 9, 2005 02:04 PMI don't understand this desire to let things stand because no election can be perfect. Why not? Lots of things have to be perfect in life or they are corrected...generally when speaking of money. Bills have to be paid to the penny...you can't just round down and tell the company that it was close enough.
Can King Co. residents 'accidently' mispay their property taxes by .2%? Maybe that question needs to be addressed to Mr. Simms and see how he'd like that rate of accuracy when applied to his county $$$.
Posted by: megs on February 9, 2005 02:07 PMLogan deserves everything coming at him. He could have been a hero had he done the right thing and admit that the election was too close to call, and come out early on with all of the discrepancies and said that it was not good enough for him as the person who is appointed to handle elections in King County.
Instead, he chose to go along with Sims, Gregoire and the party line.
These people are all going to lose their jobs. As soon as the next election cycle comes around, the voters will speak.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 9, 2005 02:35 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Executive Sims sounds quite annoyed at your insistence that he get his facts right. Is the exisence of hundreds of disenfranchised voters or illegally cast ballots beneath his concerns? Is it really so bothersome to pay attention to detail on these matters?
Sorry, Executive Sims, but facts do matter. And I'm glad you were there to point them out, Stefan. As John Adams once noted in a high-profile court trial, "Facts are stubborn things."
Posted by: Seth Cooper on February 9, 2005 03:02 PMMr. Cynical rarely if ever compliments anyone. But Stefan, you have busted this thing wide open. Sims & Logan felt compelled to have this press conference for one reason only. It was an attempt answer YOU!!! Why in world would these 2 boneheads have a press conference BEFORE Republican depositions start????? This is unbelievable! They have give the Republican lawyers more fodder for questioning than we could have ever dreamed of!
Let me try to answer my own question about WHY they would have a press conference BEFORE depositions:
1) They are so arrogant tnat they believe they can talk their way out of anything.
2) They are incredibly moronic.
3) Both 1 & 2
4) They are desperately seeking a spot on the TV Show "AMERICA'S DUMBEST CRIMINALS"
Stefan, one of the keys to your success is your upbringing, in the Badger State. When we grew up there, life was simple and people were honest. Their word was their bond. Things have changed in parts of Wisconsin (like Milwaukee County!) but what you were taught stuck. Praise God!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 9, 2005 03:20 PM99.98% performance (let alone 99.8%) was NOT tolerated.
"Oh but that's different."
Yeah? How so?
Posted by: smoke on February 9, 2005 03:20 PM----- On balance, the report gives the King County elections process high marks in the face of dramatic increases in the number of voters voting, new registrations, absentee ballots and a tight turnaround on a new primary system.-----
Well, guess THAT settles it.
Oh, wait. Who wrote the report?!
Posted by: JeanneB on February 9, 2005 03:24 PMBite me, moron.
Posted by: South County on February 9, 2005 03:50 PMLogan at least appearantly knew what a numerator and denominator were and appearantly knew the numbers that maybe he had used to find his incorrect answer... just didn't know enough to arrive at an accurate answer... which is a no no on both elementary math tests and at press conferences attended by Stefan.
I think it not too much to ask that men in their positions should have better math skills... or a different occupation where it really wouldn't matter all that much.
Posted by: ctmohr on February 9, 2005 04:03 PMYou're right. They SHOULD have some math skills. Lacking that, they should have someone on their staff who DOES have math skills. Hard to believe that no one on the Sims/Dem spin machine didn't brief Sims on something like this just in case it came up. On second thought, they probably had all their questions planted in the MSM, hence Sims' hesitance to answer anything from Stefan.
I wonder how tight ol' Ron's sphincter got when he saw Stefan's hand go up...
"Executive Sims asked Director of Records, Elections and Licensing Services Dean Logan for the report and his recommendations shortly after the gubernatorial election was certified in January. Logan will present it to the Metropolitan King County Council Committee of the Whole February 14. Copies of the report will be available on the Web, and in hard copy at libraries and throughout the community. The Executive and Logan will hold public forums on the report and its action plan."
Posted by: Jacob on February 9, 2005 04:13 PMHey, Sound Politics looks like the press to me!
What do you need to do to be considered part of the "press." Sign an oath of fealty to the Democrat establishment?
King Sims has years now to fix the election problems. Obviously, it's not something he really wants done.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 9, 2005 04:28 PMI was STUNNED today with Ron Sims proclamation of how well the elctions went! Even HE (the King of spin in KC)knew he couldn't sell the election report!
I was also amazed at his response to the hecklers during his press conference! He tried to use a soothing mantra of "Excuse Me"..over and over again...but with each chant - his voice quivered more and more.... He is not one who can take confrontation. Makes me wonder how he can push such controversial laws, ordinances and policy down our throats - if he can't tolerate the outrage he creates?!
Anyway - His appearance was absurd! He was not believable - he knows it! He is not excused!
The report will serve to only further anger people in this state!
Posted by: Deborah on February 9, 2005 04:31 PMHow freaking idiotic is THAT !! Reporters are not able to do the math themselves???
And, King Sims - wow, he was shaking and trembling.
These people are not used to the sheep fighting back!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 9, 2005 04:53 PMAt least the math part, anyway! ;-)
Posted by: Bill M on February 9, 2005 04:55 PMI kind of like the odds that I have a .02% chance of living forever :-)
Tim
Posted by: TimMan on February 9, 2005 04:57 PMThe sad part is that there are morons out there who don't see that when they vote for idiots like this (and lawyers with poor records--no names...) they thumb their own noses at the integrity of the elections. It is easier to let someone else do their thinking for them (whoever promises the biggest hand-out) and then have fun ridiculing those who blow the whistle on fraud as being 'sore losers', etc. This is the type who would rather watch cartoons on Saturday morning than listen to talk radio or read a book on the lessons of history. What ever happened to "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence"? We get what we deserve..., but too often we get what THEY deserve, too. I think it is high time we require an IQ test and an exam on the Constitutions (pass by 80%) before a person is allowed near a voting booth in this country. I would risk trusting some of these freaks with a loaded gun before I would give them a ballot. And maybe it is time the 'silent majority' finally questions aloud the PATRIOTISM of these dolts who hide behind the Constitution while simultaneously attempting to undermine and destroy it. We also need a few trials for insurrection, treason and get busy building public stocks in the town squares again--nothing like good old peer pressure to set people straight and weed out the rotten eggs.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on February 9, 2005 04:58 PMThe SeattleTimes is reporting but The P-I is mum. Gusess i need to change my subscription.
Posted by: TimMan on February 9, 2005 05:01 PMAs for Logan, nowhere on any website was I able to discern where he earned a college degree. I actually sent off this question to his email address at King County last week, but I have yet to receive an answer.
Posted by: Larry on February 9, 2005 05:02 PMBite me, moron.
This coming from the same person who defined a troll as:
Those who offer what I call the "Animal House Defense." [snip]
In short, anyone I would find obnoxious were I speaking face-to-face.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 05:07 PMI assume there is such a thing as the 'credentials' you cited. For a number of us, SP is 'credential' enough.
Anyway, I am very suspicious of those 'credentials' carried by 'bona fide' press types...
"... and some critics say that the accuracy rate was really 99.8%" ...
Thanks for reminding us, Iguana...
We elect people who can't balance their own checkbook, and have reporters who can't check their own facts...
Posted by: smegma on February 9, 2005 05:20 PMTo quote Andrew Sullivan in his better days:
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 9, 2005 05:21 PMStefan IS press. If I say that, would that make me a liar, also? That was a stupid statement on your part, period. It was offensive, and I was offended.
You may not share that opinion, but it doesn't make me a liar, or Stefan...words have meanings. You missed the point of the question, and the answer.
If in your mind he is not, then I would suggest you examine your standard of what is press, and isn't. It's a different world today than it was four months ago...on this issue, Sound Politics/Stefan speaks with more credibility and authority than either Seattle Daily. If Stefan isn't press, The Times/P-I most definitely isn't.
As far as Sims...when he dies he'll have to be screwed into the ground. I care not whether he thinks Stefan is press.
Posted by: South County on February 9, 2005 05:25 PMP.S. Daniel K.--sorry, man if I came on too strong with you--got to bed at 4AM and up at 8. Makes me very cranky.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on February 9, 2005 05:26 PM"It is unfortunate you had to lie when you said you were a member of the press (which technically would mean you have press credentials)"
Technically according to whom? You? Actually, I'd like to refer you to the notice posted on the King County website yesterday. It was not a 'Press Conference', it was a 'News Conference'. What's the difference? Ask Ron Sims. It could be that they weren't allowing ONLY members of the press, that it was open to the public, and was for the dissemination of news.
Furthermore, here's the relevant definition from Merriam-Webster:
"7 c : news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters"
I consider Stefan and Sound Politics to be all of the three above. Do you argue this? Your comment appears very snide given these circumstances.
Posted by: Larry on February 9, 2005 05:32 PM
Well, like Cosby says, "first you say it...and then you do it". I'll bet he said it AND did it--hence his quick retreat to shower and change.
"As for Logan, nowhere on any website was I able to discern where he earned a college degree."
If he produces a degree from the Carribean, we will know why we are a Banana Republic...
I surely thought that I read that there were hundreds of Military ballots that were not counted. Was I dreaming?
Posted by: Gil on February 9, 2005 05:48 PMYou can count on me, either day.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on February 9, 2005 05:59 PMKey word in part 1 is 'issued,' while part 2 says 'received too late.' There is no way to figure out how many of those got to the voter close to, on, or after election day, and thus why would the voter send it back? A real statistic would be, how many of the '15,000' made it back?
Posted by: smegma on February 9, 2005 05:59 PMThe question of who is part of the press these days is indeed getting difficult to discern clearly, and certainly worth a healthy discussion one day, and perhaps Stefan's statement, "I am from the press", will go down as a seminal moment.
Certainly a lot of people rely on information he supplies much as they might of traditional media outlets. What we define as the press is undergoing change - I can see that. But there is also a point at which a blogger can be viewed as equivalent to the press, and even amongst bloggers we can agree there has to be a threshold that must be crossed to qualify, although defining what it is is not so easy.
When Shark entered that news conference (and I'm not at all suggesting he shouldn't have been there) he did not carry any traditional official press card with him, and as such was not part of the press, as traditionally defined today. Yet I am willing to accept, for the same reasons you offer, that when he walked out of the news conference he may well have done so as the embodiment of the new face of the press.
What will be interesting to watch is whether the "I am from the press" moment causes the traditional press to evolve into the new media, or Shark to have to conform more to the traditional press. I suspect it will be a long time still before people without an accredited press card can get access to press only events, and in saying so I am not passing judgement as to whether that's a good or bad thing, just making the observation.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 06:14 PMBrought to you by the same people who are behind "The Gregoire Heeling Tour" it is time to get signed up for "House Training with Ron Sims"
Are you ready to be "House Trained!"
"House Training" involves agreeing in a hypnotic state (no laughing) to everything Sims says:
CAO, YES SIR!
ACCEPTABLE ELECTION ERROR RATE, YES SIR!
MORE TAXES, YES SIR!
SOUND POLITICS WELL RUN, YES SIR!
MISSING MONEY IN COUNTY BUDGET, ITS OK SIR!
See I have had my "House Training" have you had yours?
That is NOT what Sims said. He said 99.98, not 99.8. I can't find 'Corrections' on the King 5 website, does someone see where a correction should be mailed?
Posted by: Al on February 9, 2005 06:23 PMThe problem is the relationship between the error rate and the "official" election margin, right? If this election had been won by, say, 30,000 votes out of ~3,000,000, that 1 % beats the 0.2 % widely, and intuitively there's not really any reason to hold a revote. I am not a statistican, though I have played one on TV, but, I'm sure a stat guy could give you a ratio between vote margin and estimated error that would satisfy a specific certainty (in %) that the win went to the right candidate.
In conclusion, yes, 99.8 % is not good for aircraft T/O and landing operations, banking, nuclear weapons arming-system performance, it could indeed be fine for an election, just not one that was "won" by a coupla hundred votes out of 3 million.
Oh, BTW, not sure I agree with this comment either: "How would you feel if your wife told you she was faithful 99.8% of the time?" What's the prob, I mean, wouldn't that be only once in a thousand years, at least with my wife ;-} Yeah, that's the sad part - I CAN do the math ...
Posted by: Jimmy Antley on February 9, 2005 06:25 PMIf I misinterpreted what you said, I apologize.
Posted by: South County on February 9, 2005 06:25 PMIf the wrong candidate was elected because of the error rate. Then the error rate isn't 0.2 it is 100%!!!
Posted by: Joe on February 9, 2005 06:26 PMI do not presume to know more than others on the matter. I do know that you have usually been fair. I noticed some taking offense, and joined in the bandwagon, but I hope I was not callous in the refutation (was I?)...
Besides, I would be more interested in this fact:
How many of the '15,000' overseas ballots made it back?
He said there is no connection between the two in state law and that one was never meant to be a check on the other."
Well, how is voter/votes reconciliation accomplished?
What does "certifying" an election mean?
I know we have discussed this before, but I am dizzy from all the spin, courtesy of the Sims/Logan "news" conference(i.e.train wreck?).
Posted by: JG on February 9, 2005 06:36 PMCan't recall reading you being so.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 06:36 PMTime wounds all heels (I hope).
Posted by: JG on February 9, 2005 06:40 PMAccepted, although I suspect I'm always going to be one post away from "moonbat troll" status in these here parts!
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 06:42 PMNo, dude, the ballot error rate. You may want to learn about stats a bit, Dan. Ya gotta read the whole post, also.
I'm not disagreeing at all with the need for a re-vote. The ballot error rate will never be 0. Those who think so don't live in the real world. It's just that in an election this close, the margin is way lower than the estimated error rate, so it was indeed a bogus call to assign the governership to Mrs. Gregoire.
Posted by: Jimmy Antley on February 9, 2005 06:44 PMNo, dude, the ballot error rate. You may want to learn about stats a bit, Dan.
Ummm... I didn't write that. That was Joe.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 06:48 PMI won't go so far as to support your .2% = 100% wrong claim, but you would think that the people responsible for elections in King County would learn what accuracy really means by now.
He claims that the post-certification process of going through the poll books and absentee ballot envelopes is subject to human error that could cause such a large discrepancy.
Well, then how about tackling the problem in smaller chunks? Rather than make one long run at trying to scan all those documents, do it one polling place or precinct at a time.
Then the numbers aren't so huge, and it's a task that could be handled by the election officials at each polling place before transporting the ballots to counting centers.
Such a count of signatures and a check to see if that number matches the ballots in the box at the polling place would also give the polling place workers a reason to double-check the area, if a discrepancy is found.
If they were required to make a written record of the count and of any discrepancies they found in those numbers, we would know before the end of election day whether there were polling places that had a whole lot of ballots for which they had no explanation as to how those ballots got into the ballot box.
This isn't a recommendation for future reform.
It has been a law since at least 1990:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.44.280
RCW 29A.44.280
Duties of election officers after unused ballots secure.
Immediately after the unused ballots are secure, the precinct election officers shall count the number of voted ballots and make a record of any discrepancy between this number and the number of voters who signed the poll book for that precinct or polling place, complete the certifications in the poll book, prepare the ballots for transfer to the counting center if necessary, and seal the voting devices.
Perhaps the GOP will ask to see the records that were prepared immediately after the close of the polling places.
It should be possible to compare the polling place records with the official returns of the three vote counts and see whether there were a few thousand ballots that got into the ballot boxes improperly, which precincts were affected by this irregularity, and whether there were a few thousand ballots that appeared out of nowhere once the counting centers got the ballots for counting.
Why hasn't King County brought forth these records in an effort to show that there were no irregularities that cast doubt on the integrity of their election returns?
Sorry, Daniel K. You must be confused. "Press credentials" are required in other countries that fear the press. Think Ukraine until recently (Reporters killed). Think Russia right now (reporters killed). Think Muslim extremists (Danny Pearl and others killed.)
In the U.S., except for the White House and maybe a couple of other places, there is no such thing as a requirement that anyone have "press credentials." Any American who reports news in any medium is a member of the American press corps and needs no credentials in this country to represent himself as such.
Think First Amendment to U.S. Constitution! So, Stefan TOLD THE TRUTH!
Mac (a reporter, hence, member of the press)
WAS: "Dan"
S/B: "Joe"
"The ballot error rate will never be 0. Those who think so don't live in the real world."
I think I was on the bad side of an argument about this once. I had a headache for 3 days after getting soundly beaten, because I could not phrase the right rebuttal. It (the election) was indeed too close, and must be tossed based on the margin.
Why I could not articulate it then is still a mystery....
Daniel K -
"although I suspect I'm always going to be one post away from "moonbat troll" status in these here parts!"
We KNOW where you live...:-)
Posted by: smegma on February 9, 2005 07:00 PMYou need some of Ron Sims House Training!
As more bill payments go electronic, billing errors are going down-but switching banking customers from the paper check to keyboard and mouse still isn't seamless. People can type in wrong amounts, misplace decimal points, hit the enter key too many times or set up automatic payments incorrectly. Still, even though millions of mistakes slip through on-line bill payment systems, better software and increasingly computer-literate customers have brought error rates to historic lows. "Most of these systems have gotten more sophisticated," says S. Kere Lewis, managing director of the payment-services practice at BearingPoint. "And on average, the consumer has become more savvy on how to work this thing."
According to TowerGroup, about 36 million U.S. households-about one third of the total number-will pay bills on-line in 2004. Errors will account for about 0.2 percent of those 1.7 billion on-line transactions. "There is always going to be an error rate that they have to live with," notes Beth Robertson, senior analyst at TowerGroup. But she says rates are remarkably low and roughly half of what they were in 2001. Nonetheless, a 0.2 percent rate is still about 3.4 million payment mistakes that occur either because of customer error or some other glitch in the system, including problems stemming from billers who may switch bank accounts and fail to notify banks so they can change the routing of customer payments. Banks also may fail to cancel a recurring payment either because the request wasn't processed in time or the customer didn't make the change correctly on the front end.
On-line bill-payment systems, however, increasingly work to save Web- banking customers from themselves. For example, a person in a hurry to pay bills might accidentally enter a zero where there should have been a decimal, turning a small payment into a ridiculously large one. "There should really be some business rules around that," says David Cornelius, vp of financial services solutions at FileNet, a Costa Mesa, CA, enterprise content-management company. "Is this a reasonable amount compared with other bills from this payer? So if someone is trying to pay $22,000, you can ask, 'Is that a normal range for that utility?'" The on-line system might then ask for confirmation of the amount before letting the payment go through. "You can ask, 'Do you really want to pay this amount?'" he says. "If they insist that they do, maybe that sets off some sort of fraud detection."
http://www.banktechnews.com/article.html?id=20040802GHXBKDQ5
Posted by: Norm on February 9, 2005 07:44 PMI think that's a great idea! As a full-time college student, I think I'm going to follow suit and start grading myself from now on. Hmm, I predict a definate improvement in my GPA coming very soon...
RM
Posted by: rmueller on February 9, 2005 07:56 PMThen if you want to go the extra mile make a really ridiculous comparison and say that elementary students would have been proud to get your kind of grades if taking college classes.
If anyone laughs... Lecture them on how they must respect your opinion.
Do it the Sims Way!
You need some of Ron Sims House Training!"
Nah, what I neeeeeeed is some of the same weeeeed that Ron Sims has been smoking - must be some good s___t!
First of all, regarding provisionals, using the airplane analogy, this would be like buying your ticket at SeaTac and boarding in Everett -- with no database available in Everett for those people boarding in a place different than the place they "registered" with their purchased ticket.
Second of all, regarding absentees, using the airplane analogy, this would be like buying a ticket for November 2nd, but being able to board anytime during the three weeks before that date.
Republicans complaining about the current election result have things in the wrong order. Fix the problems first, then try for a revote. Having a revote before these problems are fixed only creates yet another opportunity for things to go wrong.
Plus, I don't think it's right for those 22,000 people who left that vote blank to get another chance to vote for this contest. I also don't think anyone who voted for Sims, Locke, Talmadge, Scooby-Doo, Superman or Edgar Martinez (he got 9 votes) should get another chance at this race.
And one big thing to fix about the verification process would be to have every Washington county use the same methods to verify signatures. Some county workers just eyeball signatures. Some workers look for six things in common between your latest signature and your registered signature. King County looks for three.
My wife (a lifelong Republican who voted for Kerry this time because Bush didn't fulfill a single campaign promise, went back on several others, and helped to falsely lead us into a pre-emptive war in Iraq) has suggested that voters be asked or required to re-register every 5-10 years to keep their signatures as up-to-date as possible.
It also appears that there are a lot of pollworkers out there who either shouldn't be pollworkers or need better training.
I don't think it's right for Republicans to try to recall Sam Reed just because he won't be another Katherine Harris or Sam Blackwell. He was elected to be bipartisan and he's doing just that.
And to give you guys something to rant about (but please don't write me if you're just going to attack me), Gore lost by 537 in Florida during a national election and I was told to get over it. How come so many Republicans can't do the same with this less-powerful, less-important-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things Governor's race? Why stoop to my bitter liberal level? :)
Mistakes and errors -- as dumb as they may be -- are not the same thing as outright fraud. The more people are involved in something, the better the chances something will go wrong.
Sure, I'm trolling here and you'll probably never hear from me again (I can almost hear the cheering now), but if anyone wants to logically discuss this, by all means, drop me a line.
Posted by: Mister B on February 9, 2005 09:09 PMIf Stefan wasn't at the conference today our lazy MSM would report the wrong error rate! Some still did regardless of his correction. Which is extremely lazy or negligent.
When bank errors occur there is typically a paper trial to correct the error. When a voter casts an illegal ballot there is little way to reconcile the "mistake"
More money is not going to solve the problem in closing loop holes for fraud and mistakes. Changing the procedures will. Weekly cleaning of voter registration rolls (dead, felon, non citizens and multiple registrations deleted), Defined procedures for ballot enhancement in accordance with state law, military ballot sent out early, and provisional ballots that can not be processed at the polls under any circumstances WILL HELP!!! This can already be done with current staff and resources.
Splitting King County into two counties would help solve this problem... Less voters in the system to manage!
Just say no to Sims!
Posted by: Joe on February 9, 2005 09:09 PMAnd I believe any voter registered in King County -- but living in another country -- can vote for at least the president by visiting the US embassy in that country. If I'm wrong and someone knows about that better than me, so be it.
It's a safe assumption that not every military person who received a ballot bothered to return it. Voter turnout in King County in this election was somewhere around 64% (a guess). I seriously doubt military voter turnout was 100%.
Posted by: Mister B on February 9, 2005 09:19 PMMORE BALLOTS THAN VOTERS==BALLOTBOX STUFFING!!
(especially having months to reconile this. You KNOW if Logan thought they could, he would have done so by now, right?)
Jefferson County reconciles every Precindt. And guess what? When every Precindt reconciles...THE COUNTY TOTAL RECONCILES!!!
Jefferson County---18,772 Ballots Counted
18,772 Voters (including 3 Address Confidentiality Program voters)
100%
100%
100%
Logan previously said this was IMPOSSIBLE?
Jefferson County did it with 2 very experienced election staffers and an old worn out vote tabulation machine and some very old poll workers.
The Auditor, Donna Eldridge, demands complete accountability. You don't CERTIFY until you RECONCILE.
Logan & Huennekens are going to be wetting the bed thinking about the days of questioning they will be getting soon UNDER OATH!!
Logan has always walked tall and gladly accepted the title Election Expert. All the other County Auditors like him and most were so taken by his command of the statutes that they were ready & willing to sign the BLIND-FAITH Support Letter Corky Mattingly of Yakima (former Patty Murray & Cantwell worker).
LOGAN--reputation far exceeded his true level of expertise. Bottom-line.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 9, 2005 09:21 PMAll open minds are welcome.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 09:26 PMI don't believe I am, and I previously addressed my point. Scroll up a little for my response to smegma, South County, Steven O'Dell and Larry.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 9, 2005 09:29 PMI agree with Logan on one recommendation the primary needs to be moved up to give more space between primary and general elections... But working a weekend or a few nights to get our military ballots out a little earlier then a deadline that had to be laid out by the DOJ might look better... Don't you think?
Posted by: odjoe on February 9, 2005 09:31 PM
Hundreds of millions of dollars for one developer. Taxpayer dollars. Irrutable proof. Didn't matter. King County Executive Sims, his staff, and the King County Council consider themselves above the law and only answerable to judges should cases be pursued long enough to hold them accountible, but that doesn't happen often, with challenges of their arrogance eventually bankrupted before the the legal threads are finished. These groups spent over $300K and it's still not over 10 years later. And the cases can take forever. Even now, these groups are awaiting a ruling from the State Supreme court 10 years after the original appeal of the county's illegal land use plan.
The reason no one in King County speaks out is also simple. When it comes to the issues that matter in King County, like Land Use, it trumps everything else and has turned political adversaries into strong allies. Not even a fatally flawed election is not enough for county Republicans to get really aggressive. Only relative newcomers like Lambert and Irons have been willing, but their motives should not be assumed to altruistic. Anyone who doesn't go along, well tough luck. Current and former councilmembers like Jane Hague, Rob McKenna, Chris Vance, Larry Phillips, Cynthia Sullivan all shared in the benefits of looking the other way at the "errors" being committed in DOT and DDES - and those alliances were stronger than just about any other political consideration, including party affiliation. When the builders got Vance elected to the chair of the party, I knew things couldn't get worse.
King County's use of the "human error and incompetence" argument is just an excuse to avoid firing loyal staffers that are willing to take the necessary steps to achieve the desired results. Steps that have no limit, in my humble opinion.
Fraud in this election? From my chair I'd generally demand proof that it didn't occur before accepting that it didn't from this bunch. That's nearly impossible given all the checks and balances that could have been in place, but were intentionally not. At a minimum, show me a couple "mistakes" that didn't help Gregoire steal this election?
Posted by: Mike on February 9, 2005 09:42 PM
NASA: Nasa announced today that system failure caused the loss of the $1 billion spacecraft. Despite the devastating loss, the head of Nasa today praised his design team for their incredible work in system development for the lost spacecraft. "99.8% of the systems on the spacecraft worked flawlessly," said the director. "The program was a huge success with an incredibly small failure rate of just .2%, and we don't believe that such a small failure rate justifies any significant changes."
If we can put spacecraft into orbit, send ships to the moon and to the far reaches of the solar system, you'd think that we could match up a name to every ballot if we really wanted to. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: Mike on February 9, 2005 09:54 PM(2) It sounds to me like Mr. Sims would do well selling Bass-o-matics.
(3) I'm glad a judge has taken this under his wing.
Posted by: Boonie on February 9, 2005 10:06 PMdoes this mean they got back 14,984 ballots back in time-due to their timely mailing.
Posted by: darcy on February 9, 2005 10:06 PMBTW, on you link , for some reason it didn't work with the Safari browser but it was fine with Firefox.
Keep up the the good work.
Your token Chinaman,
Chopstix
900,000 x 99.98%= 899820
900,000 - 899820 = 180?
where did all the zeros go MR. Sims??
(You know,I Really can't stop laughing)
Posted by: Terry, Clark C on February 9, 2005 10:09 PMHas he changed his mind about how those ballots might have found their way into the vote tallying process among the properly cast ballots? Does he now think maybe some of them came from absentee voters?
It sure would be nice to know how many ballots the polling place officials said they put into each one of those transport containers on election day after the close of the polls.
Posted by: Micajah on February 9, 2005 10:18 PMSoldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afganistan hardly have the time or transportation to visit the US Embassy. There are US Army soldiers serving their county in over 100 countries as I am typing this. If you count the other military services, the countries count probably is closer to 150 or so.
I have a friend in Iraq who requested his absentee ballot from Thurston County, he recieved it right before the election date, he sent it back and his vote for President Bush and Dino Rossi was NOT counted.... Probably wasn't recieved back in time. Letters average 2 to 3 weeks ONE way.
All of those soldiers will stay and fight even though their rights were violated, they'll defend yours!
Have a Great Night
Posted by: sgmmac on February 9, 2005 11:14 PM
Not only is Ron Sims not a math whiz but it is quite obvious he has no grasp of vocabulary!
Fraud:
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be.
Submission of dead peoples ballots, felon votes, and double votes is ALL by definition FRAUD!!! This site, the Seattle Times, and many other media organizations have confirmed these events ocurred. The court case in Chelan will just confirm what we already know!
ENOUGH OF THE INSULTS ON OUR INTELLIGENCE, JUST LAY LOW AND SHUT UP!
Posted by: Joe on February 9, 2005 11:43 PMHe was on some syncophant's radio show tonight, ranting and raving about how unfair this all is. He went on again about how this was good enough for a bank and banks always say, "Check your statement" because sometimes they are wrong.
What a joke.
Also, is Sims gay? He sounds like it. I don't have a problem with him if he is, but I never heard anyone mention that before.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 10, 2005 01:46 AMIf you divide CG's 129 "lead" into the 900000, you'll get Ron's 99.98(5)% accuracy. So he isn't relating the count accuracy to ballots and voters - only to what it took to give CG the lead.
Posted by: Jack on February 10, 2005 06:40 AMActually, when a group of newspapers paid for an indepedent tally they found that Gore actually lost by well over 2500. Three of the 8 newspapers involved reported it. None of the reporting newspapers were national news media.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on February 10, 2005 08:07 AM"Having watched the tapes of Ron Sims news conference on the 2004 election I would like to point out an error in your story today regarding the Republican call for a commission to review the 2004 election in King County.
Contrary to what your story stated, Mr. Sims did not state that the county was 99.8% accurate, he stated that the county was 99.98% accurate. It was in fact, a member of the audience that pointed out to Mr. Sims that his math was faulty. Since it appears that King Countys inability to perform simple math is one of the roots of their problem with the 2004 election you would probably be doing the public a favor in reporting what Mr. Sims actually said and mentioning that once again, a member of the public had to point out what he was doing wrong.
By the way, even using Mr. Sims figure of 99.98% accurate, for a bank that would mean that they could not account for $200 for every $1,000,000 that they handle. I'm not a banker but I suspect that a discrepancy of that nature would have not only the banks auditors going crazy but would probably trigger a federal investigation as well."
Jay
Sims is a pioneer of the dumbed-down WASL system. In that system it is taken on faith that solving simple math problems without a grownup and a calculator is superhuman, and ANY answer with a number in it is good enough. Note how ignorant he was about the concept of numerators and denominators in producing the statistical ratio of 99.98% that spewed so glibly from him.
He might just as well have said "the accuracy was real good", or "the percentage was real high", and the statement would have had no different meaning than his silly number bore.
Let's elect a new, numerate, County Executive.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 10, 2005 09:14 AMOn the last census, the liberals wanted to go to a statistical counting regimen, "to make sure all of the people were counted." This was in direct opposition with the way the census was set up in law to function. The framers wanted each individual counted, i.e., they wanted hard numbers, not a best guess based on second hand observation. The problem with rationalizing with statistics, is that statistics are soft numbers and can be interpreted and reintrepreted to make almost anyones argument. Liberal courts have based an amazing number of decisions on these soft numbers, rather than hard data.
Ballots, like the census, must be hard numbers. After the fact, we can play with the data all we like, to glean what ever correlations might be there.
0.2%, 0.02%, 20% or even 0.002% is not relevant. At the end of the day (preferable, voting day) the numbers add up and be reconciled. Will there be errror? Possibly, but not necessarily.
Posted by: alaric on February 10, 2005 09:23 AM"I have a friend in Iraq who requested his absentee ballot from Thurston County, he recieved it right before the election date, he sent it back and his vote for President Bush and Dino Rossi was NOT counted.... Probably wasn't recieved back in time. "
It should have been counted, if it was signed prior to Nov 2nd.
Reference: RCW 29A.40.110 Processing incoming ballots.
"For registered voters casting absentee ballots, the date on the return envelope to which the voter has attested determines the validity, as to the time of voting for that absentee ballot if the postmark is missing or is illegible. For out-of-state voters, overseas voters, and service voters, the date on the return envelope to which the voter has attested determines the validity as to the time of voting for that absentee ballot."
Posted by: kbrady on February 10, 2005 10:47 AMPosted by: dpk on February 10, 2005 11:15 AM
If Sims gets reelected, its because there are too many voters with their collective heads where the sun don't shine and badly need re-education. Oh, the collective ignorance of the Seattle masses ! some of which are infesting this blog..
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2005 11:21 AMhttp://tinyurl.com/6rg6m
Enjoy,
Mike
It is clear you have been housetrained by Ron Sims and that is a shame!
Posted by: Joe on February 10, 2005 11:29 AMHere are the predictions I made for Goldstein spin:
* No reason to disbelieve the report.
Goldy went even further by saying that since most county auditors don't expect the number of ballots to match the number of voters, that Sim's report might even be conservative in its assesment of how excellent the election was in King County. In short, we should blindly trust whatever the partisan auditors say about errors.
* Applauds Sims and Logan for facing angry conservatives.
Of course Goldy spins Stefan and Mr. hess as angry conservatives, in fact the only two! Goldy goes further by defending Sims error. Goldy pretends that it's no big deal that Sims stated number was off by an order of magnitude, and implies that it would be improper for Stefan to raise an objection to this obvious error as it occured. Don't look behind the curtain while Wizard Sims is speaking!
* Uses Goldstein math to explain away the false 99.98% accuracy.
I nailed this one. Goldy used his new math by dividing up the errors to try and explain them away, and then in Goldyspeak sites from the County Auditors of the Ministry of Truth to explain why the errors were not really errors.
* Accuses Stefan of calling Sims a liar.
See above.
* And as usual, plenty of profanity laced Ad Hominem attacks on Stefan.
And Goldy really impressed me here. A few more ad hominem attacks and "Stefan is a prick" references and reference to masturbation (has anyone else noticed that Goldy has a 12 year-old-boy like preoccupation with sexual references?) Amazingly, he managed to hold back his usual sprinkling of profanity.
Goldstein's main point is a Red Herring meant to distract you from reaching the obvious conclusion. To Goldy, it makes perfect horse sense that since Shark, Hess and possibly a few others were the only ones that were laughing during the press event, that no one else would laugh or look down on the ridiculous statement from Executive Sims that the results should be the envy of any bank.
Wait, what's that I hear?
The roar of laughter of thousands upon thousands of Washingtonions who unblinded by the amazing Goldstein Denial Lenses were able to see Sims statement for the joke that it was.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 10, 2005 11:58 AMConsidering the collective intelligence of the electorate in Seattle, barring a miracle - Socialism will continue to prevail.
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2005 12:15 PM......there's smoking. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, odds are it's a duck.
Certainly there was distributed fraud in the election (felon and dead votes), and there were actions by KC Elections that certainly appeared questionable (at best).
But there is a difference between what is discussed casually here, and the specific allegations included in the election contest, that difference being what can be proven in a court of law.
Posted by: ewaggin on February 10, 2005 12:32 PMewaggin - You are right there is a big difference between a lot of loose talk and made up phrases about this election and what is actually alleged to have happened by the WSRP et. al.
Sorry guys - no fraud, nothing that looks like a duck, although I do hear a lot of quacking going on.
Posted by: dpk on February 10, 2005 01:28 PMDenial?
Posted by: Joe on February 10, 2005 01:44 PMShout this from the top of your roofs, from the church steeples, from the pulpits, from the street corners, from the town council meetings!
BLOGGERS ARE JOURNALISTS!
Tim
Posted by: TimMan on February 10, 2005 05:08 PMI am glad Ron Sims was raised with a mother who taught him to respect differing opinions, I am however a little saddended that she did not teach about lying and stealing.
Posted by: flexnfx on February 10, 2005 06:52 PMStefan is a journalist ! The genie is out of the bottle...Most newspaper journalists are jealous of him and Sound Politics is his second job. Blogs are replacing newspapers, especially the dead fish wrappers we have in this area - although once in a while, the Times comes through and the King County Journal is worth reading on occasion.
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2005 06:58 PMHe rocks, and deserves one....BIG TIME.
Posted by: MB on February 10, 2005 07:41 PMWHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: WHAT IS A REPORTER?
Thu Feb 10 2005 20:49:03 ET
White House spokesman Scott McClellan On Thursday challenged liberal media activists, who are currently feigning outrage over events surrounding "Jeff Gannon," to examine the definition of reporter in the new century.
"In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism," McClellan said.
"Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.
"There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view, and there are people in that room that represent traditional media, they represent talk radio, they're columnists, and they represent online news organizations."
Posted by: MB on February 10, 2005 07:47 PMCharlie
Posted by: Charlie Quidnunc on February 11, 2005 05:48 AM