And you shouldn't either. Like Stefan Sharkansky, just below, I found the message in this Seattle Times editorial appalling. The wrong person now sits in the governor's mansion in Olympia. There is strong evidence for fraud and mismanagement even in the raw returns — and more in the analyses that Stefan and others have been doing. And yet when a private group, the BIAW, does what the Seattle Times should have been doing all along and uncovers evidence of fraud, the Times complains that their efforts are "sleazy". And they complain without mentioning that the BIAW believes that they have uncovered false signatures with the effort.
If you have been reading this site for the last few months, you may recall that I had a small disagreement with Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat. In this post, I said that "mainstream" journalists were not interested in investigating charges of vote fraud — when those charges are made by Republicans. And then in a spirit of cooperation, I offered tips for journalists who were interested in investigating vote fraud. To my knowledge, neither the Seattle Times nor any other "mainstream" news organization has followed any of the tips I gave there. And some of them, if I do say so myself, are pretty darn good tips. For instance, why was there a surge in the number of provisional votes last November? It is hard to think of a completely innocent explanation.
One would think that the sheer size of this story would attract journalists. It isn't every year that a governorhip is awarded to the wrong candidate, after all. But it's a free country, and if the Seattle Times wants to mostly ignore the biggest story in decades, that's their privilege. But they should not attack those who are willing to investigate vote fraud — even when it is directed against Republicans.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(One of the minor mysteries of the election is why the Seattle Times endorsed Dino Rossi. I don't take their own explanation at face value, and I suspect I am not alone in my cynicism. My guess is that some on the editorial board went along with the endorsement because they thought he had no chance to win. They could pose as nonpartisan without cost. It is, when you think about it, rather extraordinary how little support the Times has given to "their" candidate since the election.)
More: I am informed that the endorsement was made by the publisher, which would explain why the editorial writers have not shown much support for Rossi.
Posted by Jim Miller at March 08, 2005 05:18 PM | Email ThisLet me get this right. You agree with the BIAW's deceptive actions?
Mr. Roach has been rightly called out for his behavior by some thoughtful republicans.
Why is it off limits to suggest that the BIAW went a bit overboard?
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 05:37 PMI think if Tom had exhausted all other options, this was justified. I still would feel better if he hadn't used the non-profit group's identity in order to obtain these signatures. It really was an ethical lapse.
Now before I get attacked by those who think they had no choice: wrong. McCabe's not a party to the lawsuit/ election contest, and the Rossi case is strong enough without the possibility of forged affidavits. The most relevant factor in all this is that McCabe SUSPECTED forgeries, and did not have strong evidence yet.
He lied in order to obtain these sigs. He may or may not have had to: but it's yielding the high ground regardless.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on March 8, 2005 05:50 PMSleazy is a country mile from suggesting that the BIAW went a bit overboard. While I don't think the BIAW actions were either sleazy or a bit overboard, those that think BIAW solicitation of signatures might be a bit over the top are, in my mind, have a considerably different mindset.
Interestingly enough, one of the things that BIAW may have inadvertantly shown with this effort is that signatures are really not good enough for voting absentee ballots. The multiple signatures and variation in signatures have to make it virtually impossible to reliably and efficiently validate a good signature. Poll workers are not expert handwriting analysts and expecting them to be so is an exercise in futility.
Maybe the absentee ballots should be notarized (which would have the added benefit of ensuring that voters provided valid photo id). Or voters must supply a thumbprint.
I guess a re-election isn't necessary then, as you've all been suggesting, because heck, you already know who won.
"And yet when a private group, the BIAW, does what the Seattle Times should have been doing all along and uncovers evidence of fraud, the Times complains that their efforts are "sleazy".
It is precisely the fact they are a private group that makes it all the more sleazy.
This site has fallen to a new all time low when 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 06:54 PMThe Times doesn't even realize how entrenched, inbred and fat (so to speak) they are with the Democrat establishment.
Posted by: Michele on March 8, 2005 07:21 PMIMO, nobody, neither Dem's or GOP are innocent in the entire Election process, but at least the GOP is trying to get to the bottom of it, instead of burying their heads in the sand, and spouting "lies" like the Dem's are doing....
Please try and understand NOT everybody interested in this fiasco is politically motivated, they are just SEEKING THE TRUTH (with no help from the MSM)....
Posted by: chris on March 8, 2005 07:23 PMNothing wrong with a good sting operation -- it did not compromise the people that sent back signatures in any way -- in fact it made it clear that other people were forging some of their signatures on legal documents -- should be able to set up a class action suit here eventually --
Is that wailing and knashing of teeth I hear in the peanut gallery?????
Posted by: Bill on March 8, 2005 07:37 PMLet's see, this is what the BIAW mailing to the 400 voters said: "Our association is conducting this study to estimate trends in home ownership and demographics relating to home afford-ability in the Puget Sound region."
Yep - no lies there.
What you don't get is that you can be against such deceit and still be for election reform, and due process. Rossi is persuing the route of due process via the court system - that is his right. Shark and others have made requests for public records as is their right. Many others are looking at ways the election system and information cross checking can be improved. Legislation has been passed and more is being considered.
If you have a beef with the Seattle Times coverage it shouldn't be with this editorial, or David Postman's investigative reporting. Direct it elsewhere. The fact is, what the BIAW did was deceitful. They are not the police and this type of entrapment is not something you should encourage of any private body or citizen. That leads to a downward spiral. You guys want to go on about moral values, yet you never draw a line in the sand. Your response is "good for the BIAW".
Have your opinions, principles and ideals, but stand up against such deceitful tactics when they occur by either GOP or Democrat faithful, or else don't expect to convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 8, 2005 08:11 PMThe Seattle Times has just sunk so low. They should be embarrassed.
Posted by: Deborah on March 8, 2005 08:27 PMWhen a reporter called me, as an employee of a well known, large tech company, and baited me with the question, "Is is true that you will not have ?" this was not sleazy, but just investigative reporting (I did not answer the scuzz ball but referred him to marketing.)
I am confused as it seems that "journalists" want it both ways - its not sleaze when a "journalist" does this, but it is sleaze when someone else investigates a potential fraud?
Posted by: Edward on March 8, 2005 09:28 PMThat you think the harmless deception is ok when done by government but somehow sleazy when done by an association (not even a private group, really) truly identifies you as a Democrat.
Were the people who cashed the checks harmed in any way? No, they weren't. Particularly when the state and local government have the stated policy of not pursuing illegal voters. Heck, they even got $10 for their troubles. Government policies should be so beneficial for anyone other than government union workers.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 8, 2005 09:54 PMExactly the twisted thinking that goes on here. There is no indication that the people who were sent this mailing did anything wrong, and if anyone forged anyone's signature it would not have been the voter who received the BIAW mailing.
Edward asked "it is sleaze when someone else investigates a potential fraud?"
Are you paying attention Edward? The issue is not that someone is merely investigating a potential fraud. It is the manner in which they are doing it, it is the fact it is being done via vigilante and witchhunt tactics, and it is the very fact it is only potential fraud, i.e. there is no evidence that there was fraud in this specific situation. The BIAW should have indicated precisely what the purpose of the mailing was. I'm sure you wouldn't be please to discover someone had tricked you into participating in a signature verification scheme without your knowledge.
iconoclast spouted, "Were the people who cashed the checks harmed in any way?...Heck, they even got $10 for their troubles."
Hey then you shouldn't mind if I trick you into being a good Samaritan and donating some blood for $10. Never mind that my true intent is to take a DNA sample because I'm sure you committed a murder and I want to test my theory. What harm did I do to you? To make you feel even better, I'll give you $20 and a lollypop.
KS stated, "If the roles were reversed, your side would have tried the same thing"
With an attitude like that you sink as low as those you claim make up a "sewer of corruption".
Posted by: Daniel K on March 8, 2005 11:10 PMForgive me for asking.......
But what in the Hell are you still doing here?
I thought someone told you.....we already know your script! We heard it over and over and over during the pre-elections, then the elections, the recounts,...Heck! We heard it during the Gore/Bush Florida fiasco of 2000!
I'm tired of reading liberal BS spin! It's like reading the rantings of a bad child!
You are simply hard-wired to the left and nothing anyone says here will change you or make you a free minded person....
Recall Reed appeal filed in the Supreme Court Tuesday morning 03/08/05/
The Recall Reed Team is discussing the bigger picture of this RECALL REED effort of whether "the people" who reserve certain rights for themselves, and do not delegate to their elected representatives, have the constitutional right "to expect" their elected officials and representatives, at ALL levels, TO UPHOLD and enforce the Constitution.
What in the constitution or the RCW's gives these elected officials and Judges the right to TAKE AWAY the right of the people to collect signatures, as a precursor to making the case to the recall an elected official for wrong doing, not allowed or expected to perform, in their official capacity?
CLEARLY: the King County Prosecutor filing charges against 99 King County Felons who voted is STEP ONE toward undoing this fraudulent election which SAM REED ought NEVER have certified.
Again: SAM REED is becoming less relevant to this RECALL effort, as the big picture really is:
(1) Do the people have the right to expect their elected officials to uphold our State Constitution, and
(2) Can "the people" fire officials who VIOLATE the constitutional requirements.
Didn't we go through this with our Declaration for Independence in 1776? It is OBSCENE that we have elected officials who waive sign language and use taxes to defend their ILLEGAL ACTIONS against the interests of the people.
It is very telling that Paul Berendt, the State Democratic Chair, DEFENDS the REPUBLICAN Sam Reed -- NOT Chris Vance, the GOP State Chair. THINK about it.
As to meeting both LEGAL and FACTUAL insufficiency on our Recall Charges: we laid out the charges as NINE SEPARATE charges for a reason. We did so, to compartmentalize them into chunks, which make up a whole -- that of a SET of charges, all of them combined making up a battery of charges. Think of it as a "battery" of tests when they analyze your health by drawing blood. One test by itself may look good; but when you add them all up, you get a composite picture.
It is indisputable in Judge Wickham's OWN WORDS, that:
On some of the nine charges, we met legal sufficiency.
On some, we met FACTUAL sufficiency.
When looked at by the "unobservant" and the "mainstream media," our case was dismissed on 02/14/05.
When looked at by NINE Supreme Judges, at least 5 Judges will not be fooled and will see what really happened: we met LEGAL AND FACTUAL sufficiency if you look at all nine charges as a battery of charges, all of which are part of one set of charges which we could have submitted as ONE CHARGE.
In case you have not heard of it, Paul Berendt, the Democratic State Chair has publicly accused me and Linda to be stooges for Carl Rove, and that we were put up to RECALL REED by Carl Rove and the National GOP. Utterly ridiculous. Anyone who knows me and Linda Jordan knows we have been and remain totally NONPARTISAN, have no connection with Carl Rove, the GOP anywhere, and have no idea where Paul Berendt got such NONSENSE. Categorically totally fabricated and a blatant lie and Paul Berendt knows it! It is disgraceful that anyone would make such a charge when they know it is a ridiculous and preposterous lie. Why do I say this? Simple. I know it is FALSE, and as such, I know Paul Berendt cannot dig up any evidence to support such a ridiculous charge.
Twenty-four hours ago, Harry Stonecipher, the Boeing CEO, was FIRED for having an improper relationship with a company executive. None of this has to do with Harry's "official" duties as CEO and was not done at the expense of doing his job. Though morally wrong, and violation of company ethics, that's what it was.
By comparison, SAM REED violated his oath of office, violated countless State Laws, violated the State Constitution, with implications far greater then Harry Stonecipher having a relationship with another company executive, and SAM REED is DEFENDED by the Attorney General, at a tab of $250,000 legal fund paid by us -- the taxpayers -- and defended by a Judge who readily admits that SAM REED Legally and Factually violated provisions which entitle the people to merely collect 660,000 signatures, to ultimately decide whether ALL of the people choose to fire or retain him.
When you think about the above, I bring to your attention that it is an admitted fact by SAM REED's Office, that when Initiative, and Referendum Signatures are checked --
TWENTY PERCENT are ILLEGAL. Apply the same standard to the nearly four million voters in this last election, and by SAM REED'S Own statistics, 800,000 were ILLEGAL and SAM REED has done "nothing" to correct the problem.
In fact, Sam Reed has done EVERYTHING possible to make sure that all the possible and potential illegal voters do indeed VOTE.
Daniel, my friend, take up a collection and buy some new cliches.
Yes it is, and after canceling my subscription in December due to these kinds of editorials and lack of coverage over this election debacle, their arguement to me was, "but The Seattle Times endorsed Dino Rossi for Governor" to which I replied, so where is the support now? No answers.
I was saying this tongue in cheek. There was nothing wrong with a sting operation such as this, due to the circumstances which it was conducted. The Demoncats came back with 400 signatures for those who voted for CG and provided those to activist judge Lum and he bought it hook, line and sinker - without verifying the signatures. The Republicans should have raised an issue with that then and there and appealed that decision. BIAW is simply attempting to go back and verify the authenicity of those signatures ? Can you not handle the truth ?
Let's not forget that virtually any home/ land owner's signature in King County can be found on King County's Recorder's Office website. Might be worth doing a little digging there as well.
Note to self- Cancel Seattle Times Subscription for poor unbalanced journalism.
Posted by: Cameron on March 9, 2005 09:14 AMSting operations are to be conducted by law inforcement, not the BIAW.
The number of voters the Democrats were chasing down for their signatures was considerably greater than the final number they came back with. Were they looking to fake the signatures they surely would have come back with more.
Get over yourself. What is the truth? You don't know what it is any more than anyone else here.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 9, 2005 09:17 AMNot with the mindless arguments being presented. As for being hardwired to the left - hardly. I've probably voted for more Republicans in my life than Democrats.
Choose your stereotypes as you wish, but they don't change the fact that what the BIAW did was underhanded, sleazy, and just plain wrong.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 9, 2005 09:21 AMPrecisely! If you want to investigate signatures there are other ways to do it. The BIAW deception was sleazy AND unnecessary.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 9, 2005 09:23 AMRespectfully,
James
The problem is that there is too much legislation from the bench, which undermines our Democratic Republic. My objective is to find the truth and not hide it as you lefties tend to do.
Posted by: KS on March 9, 2005 09:35 AMI have a couple of issues with the article that I would have liked to see covered. First the numbers don't quite add up. The Times states that after their January investigation they concluded that "...at least 129 convicted felons in King and Pierce counties had cast illegal ballots." However King Country is purging 99 felons who voted in 2004 election from the roles..." and later that Pierce County "...has removed 73 felons from its voter-registration list...".
If the Pierce county action is against felons from the 2004 election that would indicate 172 illegal votes in the 2004 election.
Second is to speak to what this means for the suit on the governor's election. Given that the counties seem to be admitting 172 illegal votes in just two counties for an election decided by 129 votes, it would seem to make Rossi's case much easier to make. While the article mentions that illegal votes is central to the suit, it doesn't go further to try to analize what this means for the suit.
But, do these methods get reported by MSM as deceptive?
A recent e-mail that "likely" surfaced by questionable and possibly unethical methods caused a prominant CEO to be fired. Where is the outrage at the sleazy method of uncovering the truth?
How about the people who kept having their candidate signs repeatedly torn down and defaced, so they videotaped the offenders? Were those citizen actions decried as "deceiptful" by MSM? MSM merrily replayed these home video's without criticizing the methods of sneaky citizens.
Is there really much difference when a citizen or private company (CBS, BIAW, etc.) tries to get proof of something they felt was a possible criminal act?
We have a lot of double standards in our "progressive" society, but everyone prefers to do the tricking rather than be the one who got tricked. Ever watch candid camera? I hope the sour pusses see the humor in all this. This may have just been a PR stunt to keep a story alive that MSM and liberals would rather just go away. Try thinking outside of the partisian box on this and laugh a little. Nothing illegal was done!! Keep that in mind when you're doing your taxes.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 12:30 PM