Today's Seattle Times has one of its snottiest editorials ever. I'll bet Joni Balter had something to do with this: "Political sleaze hiding as a survey"
Sleazy political tactics are no way to uncover errors in the governor's race.Joni has her boxers in a twist because the BIAW took the initiative to do what government officials have only been dragging their heels on -- investigating potential election fraud.
Joni doesn't actually tell us what she does think is a "way to uncover errors in the governor's race". Presumably she would seethe and whine about anything that would threaten the former Attorney General's illegitimate rule. But I have a suggestion for a way to uncover errors in the governor's race -- investigative reporting. Maybe the folks who did a truly fabulous on the Infospace investigation could set their sights on a current problem.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 08, 2005 03:23 PM | Email ThisRanger06
Posted by: Ranger06 on March 8, 2005 03:47 PMAnd if these people were greedy enough to sign the check, then so be it. It was very clever. I have found Tom McCabe to dead on with issues. I also have found him to have a unique ability to articulate opinions and policies in easy to understand language.
I think it is the successes that are causing the Gregoire camp all this heartburn. Her minions in the AG office have lost case after case to BIAW.
The PDC has been exposed by Democrat hacks.
Hats off to the BIAW.
Posted by: swatter on March 8, 2005 03:57 PMHB 1875
Sponsors:Representatives; Fromhold, Conway, Campbell, Wood, McCoy, Hunt, Simpson, Ormsby, Williams, Kenney, Chase, Moeller, Hasegawa, Cody
SB 5842
Sponsors:Senators; Doumit, Kohl-Welles, Rasmussen, Keiser, Kline, Prentice, McAuliffe, Spanel, Franklin, Jacobsen
To dismantle the retro programs which will hurt the BIAW and the Farm Bureau and it's members. Our company has 30+ employee's and we paid more than $60k to L&I in one year. Through the Farm Bureau we get a refund on those premiums. Why do they want to dismantle those programs? Partisan politics. Every sponsor is a Democrat. Do they ever stop? Continued punishment of business owners. The Farm Bureau just called us and asked us to help them out by calling these hacks and voicing our concerns.
If L&I was doing such a great job at safety why do the premiums continue to rise? Because they award every claim, even an absessed tooth is the fault of an employer.
What BIAW did was LEGAL,
Forging signatures, Illegal
Second, it is a sleazy tactic, and a questionable one. Plus, lets face it, none of us would like a state where the BIA got its way. It is just a shame that Rossi is so indebted to them that he can't be independant should he ever become govenor.
Posted by: JDB on March 8, 2005 04:06 PMasking an op-ed columnist to do investigative reporting.......whoops, i had to get back on my chair (from which i fell laughing).....
shark, it seems your efforts to shine some light on this election is as far as the story goes for some of these newspapers. the REAL STORY OF ELECTION FRAUD is merely a sidenote. too bad.
Posted by: dinesh on March 8, 2005 04:14 PMNothing sleazy about getting signatures and paying $10 for them. Is everytime a reporter lies to a potential source, is it sleazy? If so, you would have to indict the entire journalism "profession".
As far as BIA getting its way legislatively, that really isn't the point, is it. That they are being aggressive in researching the incredibly flawed election (at best) does not put Rossi in their pocket in any way. And their opposition to abusive government practices like CAO is a benefit to our society.
What nitwit would want to live in ANY society where one group was able to impose their views on the rest of us without any check or balance. Oops, sorry. I forgot I lived in Washington, where the Dem's have been doing just that for years.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 04:14 PMGuess it always depends who's ox is getting gored.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 8, 2005 04:18 PMPersonally, I think it was too clever by half. The R's got some pretty much worthless info and a lot of very bad PR. But I do have to admit, it was wonderful entertainment. I can't wait for their next move.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 8, 2005 04:35 PMThe Times love to flap it's gums about how "community" oriented it is. Community is one of those rubbery liberal codewords that could mean just about anything. In the Times context it means "we protect our own".
In order to uncover the malfeasance in the governor's race the Times would have to expose a lot city, county and state bureaucrats to the light of day, but this is not the Seattle Times thing.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 8, 2005 04:54 PMBTW- did anyone hear about what Frank Chopp did today involving the SEIU? I only got part of the story.
Posted by: ERNurse on March 8, 2005 05:16 PMYour sanctimonious crap comparing the actual recanvassing by partisan political operators versus an attempt to detect vote fraud is as offensive as it is inept. Argument by analogy has always been the resort for the poorly prepared or those without a legitimate position. If your point cannot stand by itself, then it is childish to attempt to buttress it by resorting to whining about "well you would do the same". Particularly if you are absent any appropriate, recent, and relevant examples.
As far as getting bad information, at least the BIAW (not the Republican party--an important distinction for most informed people) is attempting to uncover vote fraud. Something the current election officials are loath to do. And, unless you accept Democrat PR as shoveled out by the PI, more than enough good information has been garnered to show all but the most partisan that this last election has only proven how flawed the current election practices really are. It certainly did not produce a legitimate governor.
In other words, they are investigating possible "fraud" by the democrats to have absentee ballots counted, not merely investigating "mistakes".
Please tell me, which is more sleazy?
a. paying $10 to have a look at your signature and see if it matches a signature on a signed affidavit.
b. forging a signature on an affidavit (perjury).
Really, the last election was a model for the country. Maybe even the world!
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 05:29 PMsupeona everyone of those who signed a "Berendt" affidavite, drag them to court, hire lawyers and require them to provide their "affidavit" signature, voter registration signature or any other various signatures they use for their many different identities - under oath
-or-
pay them $10.
Which method is more typical of how our government would do it? Hmmmmm.
Granted, the info gathered may be of limited value, but is interesting how many people use "different" signatures. Seems to underscore the need for a positive photo ID when casting your ballot and do away with most mail in's.
How many signatures are being gathered for upcoming initiatives? What's the going price these days? Should we stop signing everything because of the sad reality of identity theft and whining op-ed columnists?
Posted by: Mike J on March 8, 2005 05:29 PMNo, the issue is how they've gone about doing their "investigation".
This site has fallen to a new all time low if it condones such deliberately deceitful tactics as those used by the BIAW. All your holier than thou preaching about what is wrong and what is right is revealed for the sham it really is when your indignation is not at the sleazy BIAW political tactic, but at the editorial that paints it like it is.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 8, 2005 05:49 PMTo Icon, calm down, you're going have a heart attack. My comments and opinions are what they are. You can hang whatever label you like on them, but try hard not to take them personally.
I'm not the first to make the analogy, but I find it fairly cogent.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 8, 2005 05:51 PMGood to read that you think a revote would result in a Rossi election. Most Dem's aren't so honest.
As far as having interests aligned on a specific issue and collaborating, such collaboration by no means eliminate the distinctions between the two groups. One might as well attempt to claim that an friend of the court brief filed on any legal case makes the filer undistinguishable from the litigants--a foolish proposition.
And I realize that the superficial and inept analogy between the canvassing and the signature check has made it into the D position statements. In what way does more people mouthing a sophistry make that sophistry any more legitimate? One might as well maintain that an initiative passing legislating PI as 22/7 changes Euclidean geometry because a majority voted for it.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 06:06 PMYou will get your revote. It will be in 2008. Rossi will make a good candidate if he doesn't give himself a black eye with the BIAW's tactics.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 8, 2005 06:35 PMBut my question in this forum, to Unkl Witz, is this:
If all of us here want election reform, wouldn't we WANT Rossi to be Governor as a RESULT of that? It is plainly evident that no substantive changes will take place concerning election law with Gregoire in office. She took office as result of a flawed election, and if she recognized that she would certainly do something. She has not and will not.
So you attribute our need for election reform as a result of wanting Rossi in office. Balderdash. I want Rossi in office because of my need for election reform. Certainly, I voted for Rossi for many reasons. But you're bassackwards when it comes to election reform.
Posted by: Larry on March 8, 2005 06:48 PMIt's just too bad you guys have to do the work that newspapers USED to do.
Posted by: Michele on March 8, 2005 07:24 PMWhen the left starts calling tactics into question, you can hear the howls coming from hell because it just froze over. What a load of crap, libs complaining about methods.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 8, 2005 07:38 PMMaybe you should be much more interested in what they uncover than bogus considerations of the BIAW motivations. That is, if you wanted anything other than to ensure the former attorney general's occupation of the governor's office you would want to know more about the massive irregularities Stephan and others have uncovered in the recent election.
And, again, I commend you for acknowledging yet again that the (legitimate) electorate would prefer Rossi over Gregoire if the gubernatorial were to be reheld. I would not be so certain about the outcome of a revote.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 08:05 PMThe Seattle Times should just be embarrassed. In fact - they should just save themselves some hassle and merge with their liberal PI! I honestly can't tell the difference between the two anymore.....
Posted by: Deborah on March 8, 2005 08:30 PMPosted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 8, 2005 04:29 PM
Posted by: JCH on March 8, 2005 09:13 PM...maybe some of that howling is because on one hand, you're talking about a political party actively trying to manipulate the results of the election after the fact, while on the other hand you are talking about a business association trying to UNCOVER manipulations and fraud. Golly gee... one of those really DOES sound sleazy.
As for some people maybe feeling stupid for responding and cashing the checks.. boo hoo. As someone else already pointed out, we don't see investigative reporters writing stories and including a mention of "oh, by the way, we're really sorry we had to lie to get the information we're reporting."
It all ultimately comes back to the fact that none of this would be necessary if the people running the election really cared about fairness or even common sense, OR if the local rags weren't so deep in the pocket of the leftists that they can't be bothered to put two and two together and investigate some of those suspicious affidavits. Heavens no, there's no time for that... they're too busy dressing up their stories about the felon votes and dead votes where they just HAPPEN to only quote those who claim their illegal vote went to Rossi.
meh.
RR
Posted by: RookieRick on March 8, 2005 09:48 PMThis site has fallen to a new all time low if it condones such deliberately deceitful tactics as those used by the BIAW. All your holier than thou preaching about what is wrong and what is right is revealed for the sham it really is when your indignation is not at the sleazy BIAW political tactic, but at the editorial that paints it like it is.
It was great, elegantly effective. I don't see any apology is indicated.
Posted by: South County on March 8, 2005 11:22 PMSo if I understand the Times' logic, paying someone for a survey is a sleazy tactic, but stuffing the ballot box is good as long as no one uncovers it.
Posted by: Ken on March 9, 2005 08:45 AM