Oh my. One of Mrs. Gregoire's communications aides told me on Thursday afternoon that her office didn't have a recording of Gregoire's Q&A from Feb. 3 -- the one where she explained why she was withholding release of her public schedule, reportedly blaming talk radio inspired death threats. An alert reader posted a comment pointing out that, yes, there is a recording on TVW and it looks pretty bad for Gregoire.
Fast forward to 33:35. The following is the relevant exchange, which lasts about 2min.30sec. Do watch the clip. Gregoire's facial expressions and stammers are very telling. Let's hope she isn't playing poker with the state's treasury.
Reporter 1: I've asked your office to publish your daily schedule including your private meetings, with the understaning that if you're doing a job interview that name might be redacted. The word came back last week that you would not be doing that, that you'd put out a daily schedule of your public appearances but not the people you're meeting with. I'm wondering who made that decision, if you stand by that decision and what your reasoning is.Unbelievable. The reporter asked a completely different question, why the schedule of her private meetings in her office are being kept secret, and she talks about her public appearances. Contrary to what the spokeswoman told me, this would appear to be a deliberately planted statement. She even denied that she had a real death threat yet somehow managed to blame these "talk show radios".Gregoire: What I asked of you all is to give me six months. And I'm doing this at the request of the chief of the state patrol.
Reporter 1: Explain what the request has to do with...
Gregoire: I'm going to honor when the chief of the state patrol says for my personal security that we need to maintain some procedures internal that at some point in the future we may not need to. So at this point in time I'm going to honor the suggestion of the chief of the state patrol. So I've only asked you folks if you could give me six months. At that point I'll be happy to open it up. But if you could just allow me these six months I'd appreciate it.
Reporter 1: Does that apply to people who are coming to your office to meet with you, constituents, others that that is a security issue...
Gregoire: That has to do with when I go outside the office.
Reporter 1: I don't care when you go to the grocery store, but I do want to know who you're meeting with and clearly you have public appearances on a daily basis but there are people you meet with behind closed doors
Gregoire: [fumbling] Inside the office? Oh, that wasn't brought to me. I'll be happy to take a look at that for you.
Reporter 2: Have there been any death threats or things that have caused, given the patrol reason for concern?
Gregoire: The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people. Not those people who are actively engaged in the system. That's not the issue. It's others out there. I'm not going to deny. I haven't had one real death threat at this point. But you know I'm not going to be deterred by any of that. I got death threats frankly when I was attorney general. So I've got a job to do. But I'm also going to be smart. I owe that to the citizens of the state. And I'm going to listen to the chief of the patrol.
The more I learn about this episode, the more it looks like Gregoire staged the whole thing simply to marginalize and hide from the revote protesters. It's too bad the mainstream media hasn't been increasing the pressure on her for this. But we will.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 11, 2005 01:21 AM | Email ThisReporter 2: Have there been any death threats or things that have caused, given the patrol reason for concern?
She responds to this component with:
I haven't had one real death threat at this point. But you know I'm not going to be deterred by any of that. I got death threats frankly when I was attorney general
So, she answers and says no.
As far as talk radio goes, she states:
The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people
Sounds pretty bland to me. If she made a post like this on any political blog, everyone would fall asleep.
So talk radio is "a bit concerning." Big deal.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 01:44 AMWhen I heard Gregoire announce her “death threats” and deride talk radio the next day, I figured that in her mind she was still competing with Rossi—this time for “target of the year.”
Yet...we the people are not blind. We the people have woken up and it us, the bloggers, business owners and everyday folks that this den of thieves is fearful of.
A new election is coming. A unification of the WA GOP is occurring like never before and we the people will soon re-elect our new Governor...Dino Rossi!
Keep the faith and keep fighting because they are on the defensive and that means they are scared!
Posted by: flexnfx on February 11, 2005 01:55 AMHa. No. It wasn't the am radio she was talking about. Read the article:
DeVere said a third party reported overhearing Jeffrey Martelli of the Yakima County town of Wapato saying he disliked government officials and planned to kill Gregoire and her children, he said. Nothing came of the Jan. 19 threat, but the man was booked, arrested and released to await a trial, he said.
The threat didn't only change Gregoire's behavior, Rossi got some perks:
Rossi was assigned bodyguards from the elite Executive Protection Unit after he won the first vote tally in November and was designated the governor-elect. He had access to the state patrol plane and to a secure governor-elect's office.
Wait. There's more:
DeVere said the patrol is still concerned for Rossi's safety.
"We are still reviewing this on a daily basis to determine if there is still any potential harm to Mr. Rossi," he said. "We don't have anything specific, but if you look at the overall level of contentiousness over the election, our goal is to ensure his safety."
Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said Rossi's protection is "24-7" but declined to give particulars. Rossi didn't request continuing patrol protection, but accepted it after the chief recommended it, she said.
Thus, both Gregoire and Rossi followed the WSP suggestions. Gregoire kept her schedule unknown for awhile and Rossi got a plane, bodyguard, and other perks.
The "overall level of contentiousness over the election" changed the actions of the WSP concerning both Gregoire and Rossi. The WSP was concerned about the safety about both of them.
Thus, if there's any scandal, its why Rossi keeps getting perks and protection at taxpayer expense.
Who cares that Gregoire kept her schedule secret for a time? the president does it continuously.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 02:10 AMRossi - The Elected One
Grefoire - The Appointed One
Rossi - The Elected One
Gregoire - The Appointed One
Check out:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/210659_security04.html
Zip,
You didn't read my post above where I included the transcript. As to talk radio, she stated:
The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people
That is a true statement.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 02:36 AMThat is a true statement.
That is propaganda, and irresponsible comments like that from Gregoire and Berendt have made this a "contentious" election.
Posted by: South County on February 11, 2005 04:07 AMIf the WSP came to you and told you that you might be in danger and they recommended that you be protected for a time, would you say no? Why would you expect Rossi to say no? You and Rossi are private citizens; are you saying that WSP has no duty to protect private citizens?
Furthermore, Gregoire is the Governor at this point. She is supposed to be available to her constituents. Why isn't she publicizing her schedule and/or making appearances, even if it is with police protection?
Your answers here look like Pike Place Market - a big bunch of apples and oranges all mixed together.
And the part about talk radio is ludicrous. The level of discussion is 'concerning' - and this means what? That they are whipping up more death threats? Get real.
Posted by: Larry on February 11, 2005 07:16 AMMethinks thou art craven. And if you can't stand the heat....
Posted by: Anna on February 11, 2005 07:41 AMGregoire is simply the "wrong person, filling the wrong job position, for the wrong reason (i.e. election fiasco) at the wrong time in Washington State history." She is all about moving the state left politically and the government gaining more control over "we the people." Washingtonians are becoming very tired of the Socialist machinations of the left, at least those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing Socialism is the answer to life's inequalities.
Besides serious doubt that she is actually the elected Governor (I think she is not), she is almost daily convincing Washingtonians that she doesn't have a clue how to act like a governor.
Posted by: JG on February 11, 2005 08:08 AMcould it be because she is working her staff day & NIGHTS to get her budget out before the election is voided?
Maybe, just maybe, we all will like her once we see her idea of a budget. NOT!
I say "not" because at this point it isn't relevant what she does or who likes her. the election was a fraud and the people want answers as to why. Ron Sims can tell us to shut up all he wants,
"I expect some good home training from you"
but, WE WILL NOT KING RON.
From kimatv.com
Man Accused In Governor Death Threat Claims Innocence
(WAPATO, WA - Mike Conklin) -
A man accused of making death threats against Washington Governor Christine Gregoire says he didn't do it and that he's innocent.
Jeffery Martelli, of Wapato, Washington, was in court last month because police say he threatened to kill Governor Christine Gregoire and her children.
Gregoire mentioned the incident in a press conference last Thursday.
Martelli was released from the Yakima County Jail on $10,000 bail. Prosecutors had asked for $1 million bond.
Martelli says that he never threatened the governor, but that he had made a comment about killing the governor and her children to make a point about abortion.
Martelli says he has suffered emotional problems dating back several decades when a child he fathered was aborted.
Gregoire supports abortion rights.
"The therapist blew what I said out of proportion," Martelli said.
The defendant, who faces a March 14 trial date, says state services have failed to help him.
Martelli says he now works building model boats as a hobby to ease the mental stress while he waits for his trial.
You can also see a news stroy from KATU TV
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=74648
Posted by: dpk on February 11, 2005 08:48 AM
(yes, it's a joke; if you don't get it, don't bother)
Previous to her threat comments when she said she would have to wake up and look herself in the mirror about an issue, I thought - better her looking at her in the mirror than me looking at her in the morning mirror! Yikes!
Posted by: llevrok on February 11, 2005 09:12 AMAll our Governor said was that the State Patrol had requested that she keep her schedule private because they had concerns given some of the vitriol that was flowing. So, if you have any concerns, blame the State Patrol. But I think they are just doing their job, just as providing the protender to the throne, Rossi, with protection isn't a bad thing.
And let's not forget the context, which was why was the State Patrol doing this for both Gregoire and Rossi. She simply passed on what she has been told (and, quite clearly, she said that she had not had a death threat, so stop spinning that she claimed Talk Radio was causing death threats).
Further, not publishing her schedule does not mean she is not available to the citizens of the state of Washington. Even Bush, who doesn't publish his schedule often and who screens his audiences and force them to sign loyalty pledges is available, and it isn't like the Governor or President can go somewhere and no one knows far ahead of time that they will show up.
Stop whining so much. If you have any complaints, they are not with Gregoire at this point. She is the elected Governor pursuant to the laws of this State. She did not run King County Elections, nor do anything else wrong. Like Rossi, she followed the law.
I know many hear hope that a Judge (since Rossi and Republicans trust the Lawyers, not the People), to appoint Rossi govenor, so he can resign and we can have a new vote, which is the only way a new vote before 2008 is going to happen at this point. And, quite obviously, you want to tear down Gregoire, which appears to be the only tactic that Republicans can use to win now days. But wait for her to something wrong, or at least something you policitcally don't agree with. Stop trying to make things up out of whole cloth. You only weaken your other arguements and come across fairly pittiful.
You have complaints, some of which are have some substance. If you really cared about the state, and not just political gain, you would concentrate on real election reform. Of course, that would involve spending money, probably increasing taxes, and strengthening government. I guess it is easier to twist a non-offensive statment for political gain instead of actually working toward a solution.
Posted by: JDB on February 11, 2005 09:32 AMI think it is comments like this that has the State Patrol worried.
I will note again for BillN and the rest of you, Gregoire is the legally elected Governor of the State of Washington. This is because she recieved the most votes. Now, it is possible that the election was fatally flawed, but until that is proven, she is the legally elected Governor, and Rossi is just the pretender to the throne. Say it again with me, you are going to have to get use to it.
As to the Clinton Impeachment, SOL (and, yes, I have to ask, is it possible for anythign to happen without conservatives throwing Clinton into it, and you all argue that liberals are motivated by their hatered of Bush..., sheesh): A purjured statement about sex in a politically motivated case that was thrown out for other reasons hardly rises to the level of high crimes or misdemenors.
I know, I know..., the House impeachment managers insisted they had tons of evidence that Clinton was a scoundrel and a rat, but they chose to present none of it in public (probably because it was all hearsay, second hand, or highly questionable information). And, even if true, would not be impeachable. A direct attack on the election system and coverup (Nixon), clearly is impeachable. But lying about sex, even under oath, is no more impeachable than lying to the American people to justify a war. There should be political consequences, not impeachment.
Posted by: JDB on February 11, 2005 09:48 AMI happen to agree with you that what she said was quite bland.
However, things that people say can't be divorced from the context in which they are said. Gregoire as Governor has the ability to attract the press merely by opening her mouth in front of cameras or microphones.
The fact that she used this press opportunity to suggest, even in the slightest way that talk show radio is inciting people to violence, given what she knew about the nature of the threat against her is irresponsible.
Furthermore, when taken in the context of the story about Rossi from the day before, she clearly had a motive to lead the reporters to these questions to either draw attention to Rossi's protection or her own. And then to suggest that her own protection was due to the climate of violence generated by the general frustration that many citizens legitimately have regarding the outcome of a very close election, fraught with errors.
I'm sure the WSP does not appreciate their expert judgements regarding security to be used as political tools.
There is also the fact that the election contest case was to be taken up in Chelan County the very next day, another reason for a timely Gregoire sympathetic press conference.
Gregoire's behavior has done little to engender the healing that she claimed was needed to ease the disbelief in the results of the election. If anything, she's making the situation worse for herself and contributing to the air of contention by giving talk radio more fodder.
She's brought this upon herself.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2005 09:52 AMReporter 2: Have there been any death threats or things that have caused, given the patrol reason for concern?
Gregoire: The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people.
She was asked a direct question whether there had been any death threats. Why would anyone, unless there is political motive, answer to the question by starting out with a comment about talk radio? It is as clear as daylight that she deliberately wanted to slam (but failed miserably) the talk radio.
C. Oh
Posted by: C. Oh on February 11, 2005 10:13 AM
You obviously have no idea what you are writing about. Your clearly partisan liberal logic (an oxymoron, mind you) will find no purchase here.
The election can be voided, in which case there would be a new election in November 2005.
As for the 'spinning' about death threats and talk radio - why did she bring it up in the first sentence of her answer? It's not us spinning, it's Gregoire. Did you even read the transcript?
Here is the relevant passage, and you might want to read very slowly if you have trouble comprehending:
Reporter 2: Have there been any death threats or things that have caused, given the patrol reason for concern?
Gregoire: The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people.
We didn't connect the dots - she did.
Posted by: Larry on February 11, 2005 10:19 AMBecause, in answering the question directly, that is what the State Patrol told her.
If she had wanted to slam talk radio, it would be easy enough, She could just tell people to listen to it.
Posted by: JDB on February 11, 2005 10:20 AM"No evidence! No evidence! No evidence! No evidence!"
"Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah!"
Why does anyone bother to tell a liberal to pull his/her head out? Whenever a liberal DOES pull his/her head out, it is usually for the purpose of chanting "No evidence! Narrow minded! Right-wing wackos! Multilateralism! Socialize medicine! A chicken in every pot, and a Birkenstock on every foot!"
Never mind, liberals. Just keep your heads in.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 11, 2005 10:25 AMWhere did you get this quote ? out of thin air ? Cite a credible source to your accusations, then I question you - what does it matter if a blogger said that ? It is not yet certain that CG is the legally elected Governor of this state - not until the court case is over.
"Stop whining so much. If you have any complaints, they are not with Gregoire at this point. She is the elected Governor pursuant to the laws of this State. She did not run King County Elections, nor do anything else wrong. Like Rossi, she followed the law."
Actually, I have complaints with her demeanor - that of a shrill, shreiking shrew. She cannot accept the fact that some question her legitimacy based on the election results - she has been arrogant and pompous about it. If she had been more graceful and selfless about getting to the bottom of the non-compliant way that the vote counting was handled, people would be more apt to let go of it, but by her attitude displayed in her choreographed statements, she has added fuel to the public cry for a revote - and to top it off the State Legislature is trying to pass bills that were once defeated and essentially thumbing their nose at the public, which the temporary Governor is also doing. She followed the law in doing what ? Didn't commit a felony ? We are getting used to it and do not like what we see and any citizen with a lick of common sense would be outraged when they find out what they are attempting to pull in Olympia. Keep exposing Olympia to the light of day !
Posted by: KS on February 11, 2005 10:27 AMC. Oh
Posted by: C. Oh on February 11, 2005 10:28 AM"(probably because it was all hearsay, second hand, or highly questionable information)"
No so, the Republicans were cowards not to push on with it. By the way, I read all about the evidence they had, you can too, it's public information.
"Telling" people to listen to talk radio has already been tried- by liberals like Al Franken. It failed miserably. Conservative talk radio- and sites like Sound Politics- flourish because the MSM no longer satisfies the public's need for accurate, SOUND reporting.
You may not like this but the fact is most people reading this site and listening to talk radio have enough intelligence and- yes- nuance to see what you call Gregoire's "bland" statement for the insulting innuendo that it is. In the past your liberal pals in the MSM were able to control all access to essential information, so we had only our suspicions to go on. Now, thanks to Mr Sharkansky and others, we have the facts. It must drive you (and Erik, and the other trolls) crazy. Having to deal with facts for a change, I mean.
Well, enjoy the trip. It's going to be a long ride.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 11, 2005 10:50 AMI think that it is entirely possible for any extreme fanaticism (political, "religious," sports? rock/rap music? etc.) to eventually result in some kind of psychosis or dementia that could be considered a valid mental illness. Liberalism does not have a corner on that market, but liberals' ability to deny reality is unsurpassed by anyone.
Licenses. Registration. 5-day wait. No sales at media shows. Those antennas are as alarming a sign of trouble as a gun rack on a 4-wheeler.
Posted by: scott158 on February 11, 2005 11:03 AMYou're right about private meetings...unless they happen in the Governor's Mansion or the State Capitol, or are paid for with state funds. After all, it's our house, we pay the bills for it.
We should know about all public appearances and all meetings, public and private, in the Mansion and the Capitol. If she wants to meet in private, paid for by herself or the lobbyist/private citizen/whatever, off public property, then we have no right to know.
For instance, if she wants to have lunch with her cousin at the 5-Spot on Queen Anne, we don't need to know. But if she writes it off as an expense that we (the taxpayers) pay for, then we do have a right to know.
Posted by: Larry on February 11, 2005 11:29 AMYou can always tell someone has a strong arguement when they have to start with a personal attack. I find it questionable, based upon what Judge Briges has said, that he can or will "void" the election. But even if he did, the Constitution seems to say that if there is a vacancy that the seat will be filled at the next general state wide election, which would be November, 2006. I would say there is less than a 20% chance of that happening, in which case we will probably get stuck with the interesting historical note of a Gregoire, Owens, Gregoire Govenorship.
But if my logic (oxymoronic as it is) escapes you, I will put it in terms you seem to understand: Your Momma's feet smell.
KS:
I should have made my citation clear, but I sort assume you would have read the other posts. The quote is taken from BillN's post of 9:18am, two posts before the post in question..., I wonder if he knows he is quoting Malcom X.
C.Oh:
Ah, again a great conservative that has to couch his/hers arguements in terms of personal attacks. You all need to have more, or at least some, faith in your actual arguements.
Gregoire never said that, nor did I. She was asked what the State Patrol had told her that caused her not to release her daily schedule, had she had death threats. Her answer was: No, I have not had death threats (although those are part of being in public office), but that the State Patrol was worried given the level of vitriol they were hearing on talk radio. She never said that talk radio was calling for her death, or was causing this, but that people were expressing their anger there. She even went futher and clarified that people who were comitted to the system were not part of the problem.
As I pointed out, at this very site, in this very thread, we have, shockingly, I'm sure, an over the top statement that "any means" are justified to remove Gregoire. Perhaps your side should take a step back and worry more about your reckless statements. I think that the citizens of our fair state should be disapointed with our election system. There are good reforms that have been suggested from both sides, that could make the system better. If Rossi really wanted to come out on top of this whole thing, he would drop the election challange and ask Gregoire to appoint him head of the elections reform commission.
However, in any human run system, I'm afraid that you will always have enough error in 2.9million or so votes make a victory of 129 questionable, even if we went to very tight registration and electronic voting with paper recipts and no absentee ballots. We should all be happy that given the heavy scrutiny that we are putting our system through that there are absolutely no signs of actual fraud, corruption or ballot stuffing.
JC:
And the GOP's whole agenda is to scare people so they get what they want. Cf: Iraq, Social Security, Homeland Security, Revote. Sadly, I think we can both agree, that Politicians don't always speak to the better angels of our nature.
Lastly, Son of LIberty:
An actual arguement not wrapped in an insult. Thank you.
And, on the whole, I agree with you. Clinton should not be foregiven his stupidity, or his selfishness, any more than Nixon or GWB should be forgiven their sins. Then again, I don't think you should ignore the good all of them did either. I just think relating everything back to Clinton or Nixon or Bush does you little good in the end. If it is directly on point, or we are just throwing bombs, go for it, but otherwise it adds little to a specific debate.
And I have read a lot, although not all, of the material that the impeachment managers had. Most of it is questionable, and none of it relates to the one charge they had any legal grounds to go forward with impeachment, which is perjury. The rest just goes to the what a scoundrel and a cad arguement, which is a good political arguement, but not much grounds for impeachment.
But somehow I doubt we are going to agree on this. I'm just afraid that the Republicans are going to be upset when this precedent comes back to haunt them. Impeachment should have a much higher statement.
Posted by: JDB on February 11, 2005 11:31 AMAt least I had the self-restraint to only question YOUR knowledge and logic, and to leave your mother out of it. If you'd like to bring your mother into it, I'll go down to the local massage parlor and ask her to take lunch.
But as for your other assertations, you're still wrong. The election for the Gubernatorial vacancy would be November 2005, and your '20%' number is just passing gas into the wind. Furthermore, Gregoire would not win that election.
Posted by: Larry on February 11, 2005 11:56 AMCheck out what high crimes and misdeameanors means in a legal book from the lated 1700's.
Ann Coulter laid it out with all the necessary references in her book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors. President Clinton was well qualified for impeachment. In tht book you can check out what people were impeached for. Usually it was for morally reprehensible behavior as exhibited by President Clinton in his actions of lying, improper sexual activities, giving political favors, etc.
Bob
Posted by: Bob Langenbach on February 11, 2005 11:59 AMMaybe you can join Lynne Stewart when she emigrates to North Korea with her boy toy Ward Churchill.
Jeff who?
I do think that you missed the context in which she stated that she was not going to deny that she "hasn't had one serious death threat" I believe she thought that the threat was real.
Why anyone would think that the individule could possibly be serious is rediculous, but that's another matter.
I may be wrong but that is just my opinion!!
P.S. keep up the incredible and awesome work & big hat tip
Thanks, David McReynolds
Posted by: Papamac on February 11, 2005 01:22 PMthey let a web site guy in the white house press room. OH MY GOD!!!!!
What's that sound...oh, the sucking wind of another liberal whiff...
Who cares about Jeff Gago?
Posted by: Shaun on February 11, 2005 04:28 PMActually, Papamac I believe you are correct. Stefan poorly transcribed Gregoire's comments(purposely or an honest mistake?). He wrote:
I'm not going to deny. I haven't had one real death threat at this point.
If you watch and listen to the video, you will see that this should have been transcribed as one unbroken sentence:
"And I'm not going to deny I haven't had one real death threat at this point."
The turn of phrase is awkward, but she is not denying she hasn't had a death threat, she's not saying she hasn't had a death threat.
I think JDB was misled by Stefan's transcription, but I find it interesting that the only other person who made a similar comment was Stefan himself (She even denied that she had a real death threat).
If you find the power of punctuation of interest, and haven't already read the book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 11, 2005 04:48 PMAnd fwiw, there is no such thing as journalistic privelege regarding sources, at least not in federal law (a few states may grant such things, I seem to recall.)
Posted by: Kirk Parker on February 11, 2005 07:06 PMThose who don't 'get over it' and go along with her plan are victimizing her. Expressing opinion that conflicts with her agenda is now being 'angry.' The home of anger is talk radio. Anyone who listens to talk radio, or participates, is obviously angry, and just like the guy in Wapato? Therefore, anyone who disagrees with her legitimacy is just like him?
I don't know, folks. Just not making sense here. I can understand 'momentum' and the fear of losing power. We see that all the time. Clinton was a master at it. The fear of losing control or of the ability to impose an agenda is at play here.
Have to say taht despite the awkward nature of her conference, she obviously had a talking point through which she wanted this in the media. And, like the lapdogs they are, they took her crafted position, and added salaciousness, slander, and a false sense of urgency to it. Just like they always do. She wants 'momentum,' and they want 'access.' That's the way the game is played anymore.
Makes for a nice cozy little arrangement through which ratings are built or maintained. Oh, and did I mention that it's self perpetuating?
(The local media was in a bliss with Eyman. He gave them complete access, and they were able to translate that part into access with the current power structure to engender rebuttals.)
Quid pro quo. Access in trade for control of the message.
I just resent the public officials and govenment taking such a leap of logic so as to condemn those of us who have legitimate heartache with the process as being wacko nut jobs out to hurt people. How, in this day and age, we let the 'protectors of democracy' get away with this nonsense is beyond me.
And, for the record, I have eliminated local media from my information diet. I don't watch the local news, except on dire breaking news stories, and choose not to listen to the local talk radio circuit. (I made a singular exception for Dori Monson one day, but only for an hour.)
Guess I am at the point that I don't need people trying to sway my opinion with their carefully crafted means and methods. Thank the stars for the internet, and the ability to garner complete, full, and in context information on a pull basis, allowing me to absorb, analyze, and act appropriately.
Having said that, I am sure the local gendarmarie is enroute, for I have committed two acts of aggression here, 1) not going along with Gregoire's agenda, and 2) not providing the local media with an argument to maintain their lapdog status. I am sure to be judged angry, and a threat to the structure.
Be well, and enjoy the day. (I snuck in 9 holes yesterday afternoon before the rains rolled in. Already put me in a good mood.)
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 12, 2005 08:30 AMMy local media blackout WILL be modified upon the return of Brian Suits to the market. And only for his show.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 12, 2005 08:35 AMThe State Patrol is advising her. So what? Is she being a little over-cautious on it? Probably. Is she going to have to loosen up? Most likely.
If the situation were reversed, and Dino Rossi were occupying that office, you would probably be telling some other bozo complaining about it to get a life.
There are far more important things concerning Gregoire that you could be spending your time and energy complaining about. Here are a few suggestions:
Economy
Jobs
Social issues
Fiscal Spending
All the rest is just a distraction.
Posted by: Political Pulpit on February 12, 2005 08:48 AMSo wouldn't some well-planned, well-publicized, well-attended protest attract just as much attention and keep these flames of injustice from fizzling out!
Let's go!!
Posted by: kristen on February 12, 2005 10:29 AMCG had the facts (the Monday before being sworn in as gov.) of 1800 plus voterless ballots, but refused to wait 2 weeks for resolution. In doing so she shattered the confidence in our voting system, she had a CHOICE and made the wrong one.
Below is a letter I sent to CG January 19,
2005, just before the initial hearing in Chelan County
Dear gov.
I would like to personally request that you reconsider the gravity of your decision not to consider a revote, or admit that this election was a mistake.
I understand your position with a certified count and margin of victory, that it is hard to consider the best option for this state. But assessing the complete situation secondary to personal victory must be very hard to do.
That said, tomorrow is the day Chelan County, and well, you could rise to a high status in your political career by a simple intervention, hold a press conference and publically lead this great State onto the first step in election reform by restoring voter confidence and requesting a revote.
You have a chance to lead this state respectfully, It may be the greatest move in your political career.
Please reconsider.
Respectfully
Terry Bxxxx
It is obvious to me this woman does not care that Washington voters are fed up with her lies, but cares only about her "agenda" and not the will of the people in this State, also if SOS Sam Reed had any testicles he would publically admit that this election is "bogus"
Posted by: Terry, Clark C on February 12, 2005 11:18 AMDoes anyone out there have an inside track to CG's own belief in her own re-electivity?
Does she truly belive that if a new election was to be held tommorrow that she would win again?
Posted by: flexnfx on February 12, 2005 11:59 AMPoint 1: I don't think she won the first time.
Point 2: If CG thinks she can "win" another election she is more delusional than I thought. Please increase her meds.
Posted by: JG on February 12, 2005 12:24 PMI believe that there are a few reasons; 1) she is delusional and doesn't pay attention to the public or 2) she is insecure with the thought of being dislodged from her position of power that she could never admit such a thing (denial) to anyone or
3) deep down she really knows that she would be defeated in a new election, so why bring it up unless she has to ? Chances are it is all of the above - at one time or another. Those in the Democrat machine like the pretend Governor just don't get it - their mantra; "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" and "We know better how to spend your money than you the people".
I would have a lot more respect for her if she would be more honest in her statements about the election, and at least pretend that the average Washingtonian has an I.Q. above room temperature.
Posted by: JG on February 12, 2005 03:29 PMPeople who know that they stand on truth are less apt to adopt a siege mentality, because they know that the truth will ultimately vindicate them and therefore they need not worry. People who have something to hide tend to exert excessive energy building defenses against discovery- including smearing the people who they consider to be too close to knowing the truth, outright denial of any truth that has been clearly established, and attempting to portray themselves as martyrs.
Cases in point; compare GWB's willing release of his NG service records with Kerry's continual evasion. Compare GWB's silence during the CBS National Guard smear campaign with Kerry's constant ad nauseum invocation of his Vietnam War service. Who spent more energy defending himself?
Locally, compare Dino Rossi's insistence that the people have the right to a clean and equitable election (via open revote) with CG's and the WA Dem Party leadership's strident and hurried efforts to stonewall meaningful election reform measures, their frenzied drive to consolidate their power through ramrodding legislation, their painting of dissenters as hateful and stupid, their accusing talk radio of promoting violence, and their openly-voiced animosity towards non-mainstream sources of information. Looks like siege mentality to me.
If CG's election was legitimate, then she would have no need to defend herself by leveling incendiary and unfounded accusations against her political adversaries. Truth need not defend itself, because it will ultimately stand on its own merit. Unfair adversaries and slanderers have the remarkable tendency to hang themselves with their own ropes- as CBS has demonstrated.
If CG is legitimate, then she has nothing to fear. Wouldn't she be wise to simply let the situation play out? Nobody is out to bump her off. CG will not be removed from office by way of violence, but through her own behavior.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 12, 2005 07:14 PM"If CG's election was legitimate, then she would have no need to defend herself by leveling incendiary and unfounded accusations against her political adversaries."
For someone who is suppossed to be legit, she sure acts like she the kid who got her hand caught in the cookie jar.
I think (only my opinion with no basis in anything but) that she expected to win by a considerable number of votes vs. a candidate that very few people knew. However, there was a hitch, people turned out (and albeit a slim majority) voted for Rossi and she lost to this unknown (the Repub's 3rd choice). Yet, she was able to heist the election in the 2nd recount, get herself (or King County got her) in office. Perhaps in her world, justice had been served and her rightful position as Governor (her presumed cakewalk to the mansion) had been restored. Now that she has what she wanted, a large portion of this state will not accept this. To her, she is the heir apparent to Locke, yet she cannot escape the ghost of the revote and the continued legal challenges that persistently follow her. In her mind she is perhaps thinking, " this is not how it was suppossed to be"
These are merely speculative thoughts of mine....
Posted by: flexnfx on February 13, 2005 11:21 AMFor Gregoire, the best thing she can do is keep her mouth shut or stick to a very carefully edited script. She seems to only damage herself more when she speaks w/o the supervision of the party and/or advisors.
Posted by: flexnfx on February 13, 2005 11:51 PM