March 23, 2005
Don't bank on these elections
I'm pulling this post due to questions about the factual accuracy of some of the statements. I apologize for the inconvenience. -- MR
Posted by Marsha Michaelis at March 23, 2005
10:41 PM | Email This
Excellent piece,Marsha. We COULD have decent elections, but they won't hear of it!
They are their own worst enemy. WHY exactly are we trusting a convicted felon, or buying software nobody else recommends?
I'm confused. With King County's 3.4 Billion dollar budget a 99.98% accuracy rate would mean 6.8 million went missing each year.
While that maybe par for the course in King County, I hope my bank might get a bit mad.
3. Marsha, what an absolutely remarkable list. What's more remarkable is the utter buffoonery of the democratic leadership. While fraud is possible, it is pathetic that the 'RATS are so eager to accept crap, rather than demanding excellence. It's all so disgusting.
I want to say I am so glad to live in Snohomish County, but then I thought that a vote living here may not be any better in Everett, than it is in Seattle. Dumbocraps control much up here also.
Stefan, I travel a lot (write this from Chicago) so my time is limited somewhat, but I'd like to see some numbers for Snohomish county and look at the data like you are in King. I wonder how many real ballots are stuffed? How can I help?
Nelson, Unkl Witz, school girls, and Chew2: This is the last time I write about you lack of fairness. No mention of the brick throwing incident from any of you. See how people no longer care what you all say? See why people lump you with the radicals? See why you lost credibility? See why the words you write are worthless? If you can't condemn bad acts by bad people you will NEVER, NEVER get your points across for others to believe you.
You know, it's one thing to waste people's time with a press conference, but it's another to bombard them with junk mail at taxpayer expense.
Ron Sims, for the last time, here is how to do the math for calculating election accuracy. I've already plugged in most of King County's numbers (at least the ones you relied upon in your press conference). The only new numbers you would need to enter are for the number of precincts with reported vote discrepancies and for the number of votes counted in those precincts. Otherwise, you can just click the "Calculate" button and the math will be done for you.
Do you think that "any bank would be proud to have" your real accuracy rate? How about their customers?
6. Perhaps Ron Sims truly is Buckwheat and Don King morphed into one big a$$hole! Sims is "the Pimp of Corruption".
7. You can go back to 1996 where the Pierce Co. Auditor at the time (a Democrat) was running two ballot remarking/enhancement operations .. one publicly announced and the other at a unannouned location ... a locked and guarded warehouse owned by a local electrical union. The auditor admitted over 28,000 ballots were "remaked" in Pierce County that election. By the way, the election "trouble shooter" for the auditor was her husband, former managing agent for the teamsters union. And, yes, this is the same auditor who claimed she had two degrees from the UW and had none, yet was re-elected.
8. Hi Marsha, I'm confused -- if this is an op-ed, what paper did it show up in? URL? I could not find the URL link in the posting. If it is there, excuse me. Thanks!
If you want to step back for a minute and look at the bigger picture, read the following article. It puts our little battle in a new light.
You say people ďno longer care what we sayĒ. That has become evident to me since almost none of the replies have anything to do with what I write. For the most part they consist of a string of names, insults and smug conclusions that in no way follow from any rebuttal to my points.
There are a few exceptions, a guy named Fred often replies in a thoughtful, intelligent and respectful way, almost always providing a very legitimate counterpoint to my posts. Another guy named Spokane Republican also has some very useful things to say as well. To me, that is the value of this forum; to provide constructive political discourse.
Unfortunately, most of the posts remind me of my youth, where groups of children who happened to live near each other walked home after school together shouting names and insults at other children they didnít care for.
That seems to be the trend these days, on both sides; shout insults, waive signs, and shake your fists. I guess because it provides a good photo for the news media.
Itís not that we ďcan't condemn bad acts by bad peopleĒ Pud. I certainly do. If you read a few of my posts, youíll see Iíve said a number of unkind things about people on both sides of the aisle.
As Iíve written before, when I see clear and compelling evidence of fraud, I will be right along side all of you shouting for retribution. But I just read through Marshaís list again. All of those things look a lot like bureaucratic incompetence to me, not fraud.
Iíve met Ron Sims personally, he doesnít strike me as ďbad people.Ē He strikes me as a decent, honest politician who is trying to serve the public in the best way he knows how. I would also observe that he is trying to advance his own political career, but thatís no sin.
I havenít met Gregoire, but from what Iíve seen, Iíd put her in the same category as Sims. I havenít met Dino either, but Iím more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt along with a host of other Republicans.
I donít regard any of these folks as stupid or evil. You and your fellow posters here apparently do, and the distinction seems to fall almost exclusively along party lines.
Thatís fine, you are all entitled to your opinions and the ability to express them. But letís not call it political discourse, letís call it for what it is: the unrelenting demonization of liberals and the Democratic Party.
As ever, thanks for listening.
If by brick throwing incident, you mean the Port Angeles case, then upon a showing that it was politically motivated, I'll condem it. However, you will forgive me if I don't care about simple vandalism.
However, have you condemned Mike Siegle for spreading obvious lies? (Cf: Norm Rice.) I am so looking forward to your next post detailing why anybody who listens or talks with Siegle should not be listen to if they are part of his warp destructive world.
Puddybud - I'm curious why you even attempt to engage the trolls. You know the sort of non-answer answer you're likely to receive.
From the Eriks and Normans who will call you a "doo-doo head" to the Unkl Swizzlesticks that pretend to be anything but the disrupters that they are, they only distract and disparage.
The only one I've seen on these boards that even comes close to offering at lease a cogent argument has been chew2, and even he can't help himself but spew the demo line. It all seems like a waste of time.
Unless, of course, you gain pleasure from baiting them ;'}
JDB - You don't care about simple vandalism? Why not? When society doesn't care about crime - whether littering or artists (aka graffiti) - then that is equivalent of legalizing these activities. It also makes the next level up crime less significant soon to be ignored too. Take the small infringements seriously and it will help the escalation to larger ones.
If your car where vandalized would your attitude change, or is just because it was the GOP?
Thanks, Ghost of Erik's Mama, for your clear display of political discourse at its worst. Can we all agree here that his/her post is devoid of any meaningful content?
I think it's also curious that you're so feckless as to post a false name and address.
You've actually been disciplined by the administrator for doing this on this site before. At least I hope that was you and not someone else--I hope we have only one adolescent here.
Fred- You hit the nail on the head....
JDB- "only if it affects You" mentality. The Me Me Me society we live in today, and it is a Shame. You only condem such actions when they are politically motivated. (your words not mine)
ChrisW - I dont see any difference between your post and "the Ghost of Eric's Mama's post.
Sorry, I lost my cool a bit. I had seen what I think was this person posting before disguised as Erik's Mama and Erik's Brother Jerik:
He truly did draw the attention of the admin.
What's different? My "name" isn't a weak insult to another poster and my email address is real. In fact I changed my name to ChrisW so people wouldn't confuse me with you.
Unkl Witz: But letís not call it political discourse, letís call it for what it is: the unrelenting demonization of liberals and the Democratic Party.
Liberalism has deep roots in socialism and communism, which are wretched political philosophies that eventually enslave. The New Democratic Party (e.g. Dean, Kerry, Moore, Boxer, H. Clinton, Gregoire etc.), has embraced liberalism in the extreme. Liberals only want to talk they never want to listen. Why would conservatives want to listen to those that are doing their best to enslave Americans and destroy the sovereignty of the U.S.A.? Liberals and the Democratic Party espouse what I consider an evil viewpoint, but leftists do a better job of demonizing themselves than any conservative ever could. Most liberal posters are only at this blog to provoke and/or harass, so spare us from your sanctimonious lectures.
Yes, let us not call it political discourse, because liberals only want their viewpoint articulated, and do their best to oppress any dissenting viewpoint. Reminds me of the so-called "United Nations," and communism in action. Suggestion: find a liberal blog, and whine to other liberals about "house training," manners, and the workers of the world uniting. Meanwhile let us talk about this election mess, and how liberals and the Democratic Party are trying to engage in a whitewash.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but your silliness is engaging in a sappy spiteful way. Keep it up.
That is because you are a putz.
I hate to say it, but there is a lot on here making Unkl's point rather dramatically. He, rightfully, said that name calling ON BOTH SIDES is wrong and in no way furthers the discussion. I for one like to hear from the lib point so I can understand where they are coming from. It is a lot easier to have counter arguments accompanied by facts when the other side is understood.
Civil discourse and respectfully disagreeing will help us all to understand the issue better. All sides are exaggerating - whether or not it is fraud has not been proven, though it really makes no difference on whether there should be a legitimate vote. I personally think it was fraud, if nothing else but by omission to do checking properly knowing what would be found.
Fred et al:
That was poorly worded on my part. I have endured vandelism in my life, as most people have. What I meant is that I don't think I have to make a public statement against every instance of vandalism.
Some people on this board should really look up the definition of a troll, it is not just someone that disagrees with you. I'll throw insults after being insulted, but that is the level of discourse on this board, and I long ago gave up a hope that most people here will rise above it. There are a few here who rise above the normal malstrom, and who actually care for facts (I won't ostercise you by naming you, the rest here would almost assuredly turn on your). It just amazes me how many people here think that whining, personal attacks or just pasionate belief without facts is the way to convince people you are right.
That is my biggest complaint with the right; the shere inability to accept facts and science, and instead to assume that your feelings are right. I'm actually amazed that so many Democrats keep posting here and trying to approach things rationally. Perhaps we all hope that if people actually critically think about politics, they will realise that the Democrats get many things right. The scary reality is that if some of you on this board actually started to listen and argue, you might actually strengthen your position.
But whenever a good conversation starts on this board, I know the actual trolls will show up soon enough and insult those who are just seeking a little wisdom.
"I'm pulling this post due to questions about the factual accuracy of some of the statements. I apologize for the inconvenience. -- MR"
Gosh, given the demonstratably low bar for factual accuracy on this forum, Marsha's blog must have been pretty far off the mark to cause her to pull it.
Unkl, there is a difference between the story and the comments. I haven't seen other stories that have been factually wrong, mainly as they are a lot of numbers. The interpretation of the stories has varied widely with a lot of unsubstantiated claims from both sides. I think it shows the integrity of the "authors" of the stories that they are pulled. The facts could also have been brought into focus due to the posts on the story.
There may be information on here that states that there may be issues as the source data is 'not available', which is a different issue all together. This is stated as conditional, not as facts.
The thing I find 'interesting' is how basically none of the election issue is carried by the MSM. But dem claims are repeated over and over as fact in the MSM (UBL going to be found just before election, draft after the election, and of course our friends at CBS with fake documents).
You are correct: to the extent that Marsha discovered her error and withdrew the blog, I commend her integrity. Good for her.
My point is twofold:
1. Stefan and his bloggers post a lot of info on here that clearly leads the reader to believe it is a fact; e.g "Gregoire's unsustainable budget". I think this is misleading and a disservice to his readers, as so many of them repeat the basic info as factual without realizing the unstated question marks in the blog, i.e. unsustainable is Bob Williams opinion, not a fact. They go on to draw other conclusions from these non-facts; such as Gregoire is an idiot. Sheís not, trust me on that one. Neither is George Bush, despite what Air America says.
2. Marsha, just like our buddy Dan Rather, should vet the info thoroughly for mistakes, untruths, and reliability of source before posting them; not after a comment draws attention to the shortfall.
Finally, youíre not going to get any spirited defense out of me for the mainstream media. They pick their focus on what sells, and whoís ox they wish to gore. I donít trust them one inch more than you apparently do.
As always, I appreciate your comments.
Ankle whiz and others like him have no sincere intention of exchanging honest views. He plays it small and wears his ersatz reasonableness like a ribbon on his sleeve on the pretense that he is sincere and therefore superior. Nothing either you nor I can ever say will change his views, and he is incapable of assisting me in any way because his schtick is stupid. Though thoroughly unimaginitive, he is a predicatably small minded liberal bore with no ideas of his own. If he were a smart liberal like Mike or others, he might be more of a challenge. Look and you will see that even though he plays an underhanded liberal game, I treat Mike quite differently.
All of Whiz's and JDB's opinions are based on utter foolishness that no one but an idiot would believe, and I don't owe either anything let alone respect or comity. Both are convinced of their rightousness through prejudice rather than reasoning so neither cannot be reasoned out of these ideas. While I may observe with some mirth the cluckings of chickens, I won't dignify them by clucking back unless it amuses me to do so. I certainly won't dignify the rants of a dim witted barn yard bird as binding dictates of rhetorical rules of order.
I have observed often while you and several others figuratively kick the stuffing out of these guy's arguments and all they do is come back with more liberal bu**$hit. In his bid for credibility Whiz sometimes covers it in sham karo syrup. You guys do a great job and there is rarely anything left for me to say so I mostly don't bother. One can never win by fairplay with them because they play a game where the rules change according to their whims and they lack the shame to know when they are wrong. I don't care if Whiz or JDB stay or leave or anything about them, but I do know that their views are a complete waste of serious consideration or effort.
Fred, when I say that from reading your stuff, you seem like a great guy with solid views, I am calling you names and telling the truth so there's nothing wrong with also observing the truth that ankle whiz is a putz. If I find your views questionable at some point, I will engage fairly because you engage honestly and deserve it in return. Anklewhiz doesn't and he is not entitled to a fair exchange. Annoyingly manipulative, mostly he is just . . . boring.
Anklwhiz and JDB no doubt believe that I am somehow afraid of engaging them in debate. In reality I am mostly too bored with their simple mundane nonsense to bother answering it. I have nothing to prove to the likes of them and I already know full well what they think of me. Being at odds with liberals is as natural as avoiding influenza, cancer, and auto accidents among other things that are just as inevitable, and staying healthy is the measure of success. The best measure of my own virtue is how much liberals dislike or hold me in contempt.
Imagine your vote is like a deposit into an account - where you, over time, benefit from the balance and interest.
Now...imagine invalid and illegal voters withdrawing from your account.....causing a $129.00 overdraft...and the bank says that the invalid and illegal voters withdrew from your account in *error* but they aren't sure exactly how much was taken from your account - they aren't sure exactly which teller didn't follow procedure - they aren't sure what the heck happened at all...so the bank just tells you to accept the overdraft and they promise to reform their procedures in the future...
Now you are stuck with an overdraft that is beginning to grow from the fees imposed on it..(ie; the Democrats implementing taxes, CAO,etc...) The bank, in it's promise of reform, decides to promote a new policy that will instead - make it easier for invalid and illegal voters to withdraw from yours and others accounts by mail! Since they are not sure which teller didn't follow procedure the last time - they accidently promote her to head the new mail voter department where she again fails to verify signatures, and other steps necessary to verify customers (voters)...
Hmmm....I just can't see Ron Sims analogy working here.....Having an election that a bank would envy?....I don't think so.
I hate to burst your bubble, but this liberal neither dislikes you nor holds you in contempt. In fact Iím rather fond of both you and Deborah. You two have provided a foil, a sort of a convenient punching bag off which I can expound my own crackpot ideas.
Iím also flattered you were moved to write a 500 word post on why you had neither the time nor inclination to engage me anymore.
In short, I will be truly blue if your thoughts and words disappear from this forum.
I know, weíll still have Deb, but I hope you will reconsider.
See what I mean? whiz knows he's a disingenuous putz and he is proud of it.
I rest my case.
Unkl - you give Marsha a lot of credit! But I would doubt her resources would even be a blip compared to CBS's. CBS has far more resources to vet their stories and the professional responsibility to do so. They are using the PUBLIC airwaves. Also, Marsh did pull the story after questions arose. CBS denied any question (in a matter of fact blamed the "right wing" bloggers) and stood by the story 100%. Dan Rather still claims it is true!
Blaming the messenger for the information being misused is also not fair. If the stories are accurate with any and all caveats, the fact that others interpret the stories for their own convenience is not a problem the site, only the responders. I find it a lot worse when campaign ads and speeches are based on reports in the paper. Other than why would anyone have confidence in a candidate that gets the information out of the NYT, why wasn't vetting done to ensure the accuracy of the story before stating it as fact?
30. That is meant to be Also, Marsha... sorry Marsha for the misspelling
I think CBS got exactly what they deserved out of the whole affair, a black eye and a fat lip. First off they certainly should have double checked the sources and the documents in this matter before airing it on national television.
But even more importantly, shame on them for the cheesy attempt to resurrect an issue that has nothing to do with the impending election at the time. Bringing up Bushís service record of 30 years ago is like pointing out that Al Capone was an alter boy in his youth. It just doesnít have much to do with the current issues. George Bush had almost an entire term as president. That was the issue to report and debate.
As for credit where it is or isnít due, I think you give Ron Sims and the KC Dems way too much credit to think they swung this election with a few hundred or even a few thousand carefully placed illegal votes. I really doubt they had any idea it was going to be so close at the time. And itís hard for me to believe anyone would risk prison time just to get a fellow Dem in office. Remember, Sims and his machine ran a spirited race against Gregoire in the primary.
There were mistakes in how KC conducted the election, there always have been and always likely will be. That makes them just like most of the other counties in the nation. Not many of them can pull off perfection with a government bureaucracy. The problem here wasnít the mistakes, it was the fact the election was so damn close. A statistical tie.
And while they may have bungled the vote, I believe the hand recount was handled well, with shoals of observers and partisans hawking every ballot. In the end, Gregoire had more votes, not many, but still more, than Rossi.
So unless you can come up with better evidence of fraud than weíve seen so far, I canít see the courts voiding this election.
PS: Iím sorry your friend Amused doesnít like me anymore. I must have hurt his feelings with one of my caustic replies to his posts.
Unkl - I don't think I have said it is fraud, though I probably got as close to that as possible without actually saying that. I guess our point of contention is the hand count. I do not think it was handled well (understatement of the year). How more votes appear after the previous counts I think needs explaining. The fact that almost all of them are in KC, well beyond the relative percentage of the populations. The odd goings on with the counts and documentation that have been found in KC's own records. All these add up to an election that doesn't seem legit. These floating discrepancies I find disturbing, as I would think everyone should.
From what I have seen of the law fraud is not required to invalidate the election, though I have not read the laws myself. You are right; the only reason so much is made of it this time is because it is possible that the outcome was changed. If the 'errors' were smaller than margin of victory the only outcry would be to change the system to eliminate the errors. The government manages to track everyone that owes taxes with accuracy. Elections should be better than that Ė they are the foundation of our democracy. I can assure you that Sims would not accept only 99.8% of county taxes from Microsoft or Washington Mutual thinking that is close enough.
The hypocrisy that irks me the most is how the dems held up the certification of Bush's second term because of 'errors' in OH which if all went to Kerry would not change the outcome, but dead silence (if not outright support for CG here in WA). Errors are errors; all should be looked into and resolved. When an outcome of an election COULD be changed then it needs to be resolved quicker.
There probably will be errors in all elections, though I don't necessarily see why. But when the officials that are meant to be responsible for ensuring a fair election abdicate their responsibility as some have, that becomes a disgrace and fraud by negligence (not a legal definition)