They appear on the Dave Ross show. All right that's unfair, but we can say that, if a local Democratic official is in the wrong, they will almost certainly appear on the Dave Ross show, where he will protect them from tough questions, and give them every chance to get their version of the story out. (Often they will also appear on KUOW, where they will get similar treatment.)
Yesterday, I heard an example. County Council member Julia Patterson had some harsh things to say about some of Ross's competitors.
Julia Patterson, D-SeaTac, took "hot talk" radio stations to task, saying, "If there is anything that will undermine people's trust and confidence in our election system, it's those radio stations continuing to lie about fraud in King County."
So, after making that charge, where did Patterson appear? On the Kirby Wilbur show? The Mike Siegel show? The Dori Monson show? The John Carlson show? Not as far as I know. But she did appear on yesterday's Dave Ross show. That doesn't prove that she's in the wrong, but it does give us one more reason to think so.
Those in her district may want to suggest to Patterson that, if she wants to make such strong charges, she should be able to substantiate them. And she should be willing to face those she has charged with lying.
Correction: Several commenters have informed me that Patterson did appear on the Dori Monson show, which shows a little courage, I guess. Her performance on the show did not impress them.
Thanks to Janet S., Janet, and Joe for the help.
Posted by Jim Miller at March 16, 2005 07:23 AM | Email ThisShe sounded very condescending on Dori's show. She has a great deal of contempt for free speech, and the right of the citizens to question their government. She thinks it is dangerous to closely examine and raise questions about the election, because that will undermine the integrity of democracy. Asking if there is fraud present is tantamount to overthrowing duly elected officials. I'm not exagerating. This was really the tone of her interview with Dori.
Posted by: Janet S on March 16, 2005 07:43 AMCouncil Member Patterson,
I find your opinion about talk radio hurting public trust in the election system to be completely absurd! If you want to talk about false and inaccurate information look no further then the 2004 Elections Report. As a member of the November 2nd canvass crew I knew when the report was published that it was full of holes. My original concerns have been confirmed by the data finally released to the public on Friday as well as answers from Dean Logan on Monday. Where is your outrage about that report Julia? What's worse is that tax payers had to pay for a report that was inaccurate and premature. Then a great bonus was the postcard that we (over) paid for to advertise the report. This was a report published by our county government not some radio talk show host. I agree with you that misinformation is damaging that is why I am urging you and your fellow council members to pull the report from public viewing. The election report is more damaging to public trust then anything I have heard on airwaves, TV, or the newspapers.
Sincerely,
Joe O'Donnell
Besides, they have found that they can get all sorts of traction out of the myths surrounding domestic abuse. So, whenever something happens that "hurts their feelings" - like when someone disagrees with them - they start wearing the victim cloak.
Basically, if you are a guy, you are not allowed to criticize a woman, or it is abuse. Really, all of you should beware. I would not be surprised if radio talk show hosts started getting arrested.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 16, 2005 09:26 AMSent March 15 2005
Mr. Phillips,
It appears as though the most controversial issues were saved to the end of Mondays meeting. I urge you to call Dean Logan back to discuss these. Proper time was not allowed for provisional ballot issues as well as the level of discrepancy.
Questioning when Mr. Logan knew about the real number of unverified provisional ballots need to be asked. Why were inaccurate numbers published in the 2004 Elections Report at great tax payer expense? Also he is either misinformed or lied to the council on Monday when he said that no absentees went through the polls on election day. I physically saw them when hand counting some of the more questionable polling sites pre-certification. Some are even logged in the documents released on Friday by the elections office. The public has a right to hear him answer these question and many more regarding the most controversial issues concerning the election.
Sincerely,
Joe O'Donnell
More importantly, Ron Sims should be before the Council, if not a tribunal, answering questions.
Unfortunately, the Council throws softball pitches. They are a large part of the reason that Sims thinks he can get away with anything, including fraudulent elections.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 16, 2005 09:59 AMjulia.patterson@metrokc.gov
Posted by: Dan on March 16, 2005 01:09 PMYes, if no none notices vote fraud, it doesn't matter how many people voted twice, how many dead people voted from the grave, how many provisional ballots were illegally counted, how many ballots were "enhanced" counter to state law, or how many felons voted as it didn't happen unless it was noticed.
I guess that is why I favor what Dino Rossi is doing in the courts. I believe that if a tree falls in the deep woods that sound waves will be produced regardless if anyone is there to hear the tree falling. Likewise, if dead voters vote, if felons vote, if ballots are enhanced, if unverified provisional votes are mixed with regular ballots and counted, I feel that the legitimacy of the vote is compromised. To the extent that politicians cover this up and refuse to adress it, I feel that is fraud and the legal definitions I have read support that.
Posted by: Bob on March 16, 2005 03:02 PMFlooding her with email and letters will just make her dig in deeper. In listening "between the lines", I heard her say that she is getting lots of feedback from her constituents, and it is really annoying her.
Posted by: Janet S on March 16, 2005 03:34 PMI thought the obvious answer was "when they opened their mouths".
Posted by: Ed on March 17, 2005 11:07 AM