Cheryl Scott, the Sims/Gregoire big-money campaign contributor who was asked by Sims to chair his personal "independent" elections review panel, says she's not exclusively Democrat, she swings both ways:
"The irony is I've also donated to Republicans," Scott said. "It's a difficult thing to be described as a Democrat or a Republican when I've tried to think about my political contributions as a private citizen and also as someone who cares about the issues, not just the people. ... I don't identify as a Democrat nor as a Republican."This chart illustrates the breakdown of her contributions to partisan candidates in WA state
[a search of federal campaign database shows a similar partisan skew]
The stated goal of this commission is to help restore trust and integrity to the elections. If Cheryl Scott thinks she can mislead the public about something as basic as her own political habits, then how can we believe what the commission reports back to us? The other people who agreed to serve on this charade of a panel should be starting to feel some embarrassment about lending their good names to help cover-up Ron Sims' worsening scandal.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2005 12:51 AM | Email Thisand Stefan, your last paragraph just sums it up perfectly.
Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 01:51 AMWhen is he going o get it? The people are no longer stupid.....
I couldn't believe the buzz in the community today over his *Blue Ribbon* committee! There was a collective groan! People just want a national agency to audit everything! No more hand-picked nonsense committees.... Everyone I spoke with just want the Feds to lock everything down and bring out boxes for an audit!
Posted by: Deborah on April 13, 2005 02:04 AMThe other nine people on the election reform commission all appear to be people of good character, with a lot of political diversity and various backgrounds.
http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2005/04/11ElectionsCommissionMems.htm
I think Cheryl Scott should step down or be removed, and that the other nine folks that Ron Sims appointed should handle the job.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 13, 2005 02:49 AMSo far, one SHARK has trumped the whole DNC Dog pack, no matter what 'bread' they 'claim'!
BRING IN THE FEDS . . BRING IN THE FEDS . . .
When the gavel falls on this case, it will 'reverb' nation wide!
The Sun is rising on a Brand New DAY!! [;-D
Hat tip & wink to you Stefan \;-D
As to the question of bring the feds in be careful what you wish for. A federal investigation could lock everything up for years where no one will be able to gain access to all the damning evidence that is coming to light thru Stefan's hard work. The end result would be a public with a short memory forgetting all the details. No real action would be taken to fix the problems because it's under investigation.
Posted by: GPat on April 13, 2005 06:00 AM
Look at the results of the sham of an "electoral reform" commission that Commissar Reed headed up to run interference for Fraudoire. The whole purpose of that was to put on a show, to legitimize Fraudoire and play the role of "see, we're serious about doing something". What came of that, aside from a waste of time and taxpayer dollars? Crap! Pure, unadulterated crap. Anyone out there stupid enough to think that this latest dog-and-pony show will be any different?
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 06:22 AMApparently she is as arrogant as Dean "Weird Al Yankovic lookalike" Logan.
Scott should have made no comment at all about her donations rather than such a misleading one. That comment speaks volumes when compared with the reality of published donations. She is obviously part of the whitewash crew.
NO GO!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 13, 2005 06:23 AMThe end result will be a whitewash, and the Democrats and the media will naturally be inclined to accept the committee report as gospel truth, even if they know it's not.
If Sims were truly interested in the truth, he would have appointed a partisan Republican and Rossi supporter to chair the commission. Yes, such a chairman would have been inclined to find as many problems as possible, but King County would have had every opportunity to defend itself (abetted by a friendly media) against any allegations, and anything which wasn't true would have been quickly knocked down.
Surely it would have been better to have a chairman who was overenthusiastic about finding problems than one who would prefer to find no problems at all.
Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 06:42 AMSo it is quite possible for both to be true. She's not a Democrat, but she leans that way.
For example, if Ralph Monroe were to be brought in, given a budget, and told to clean house by firing whoever he felt should be let go for whatever reason and to set up procedures for what remains and hire competent staff and then train them in "best management practices" used by other counties in the counting of ballots; I might just have my confidence restored.
Short of that, this is all part of another Ron Sims coverup.
Posted by: Bob on April 13, 2005 07:59 AMNo, wait, I see:
Not only does she have extremely poor judgment, but that she has deep pockets to go with it!
Thanx for illustrating that for us ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 13, 2005 08:03 AMFull of crap as always. Idiot.
Posted by: Amused by idiot liberals on April 13, 2005 08:09 AM As long as the msm was the sole source of information and as long as no one broke omerta they could get away with almost anything, the only time the truth got out was when they had it in for one of their own, but as long as everybody involved was still in their good graces anything could be AND WAS swept under the carpet.
But it sounds good, and that's enough, isn't it? Why worry about such a petty thing as truth?
Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 08:15 AMIf Ms. Scott has all this loose cash, why don't she donate it to a shelter to help the people out directly?
Posted by: Anna on April 13, 2005 08:25 AMPrior to this last political cycle that was kinda true of me, I had the Washington State Republican Party 'on probation, I don't like my hard earned money being pi55ed down a rat hole by a bunch of cowards that would never stand up for principal. My Political giving was to groups that would not waste my money, the NRA in particular. The Party has changed and so have my giving habits though, so your statement isn't quite factual smart guy. Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 08:30 AM
But, her heart lies with the democrats. Gregore in particular and she wants desperately to save this election as a result.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 13, 2005 08:36 AM"she swings both ways"
Well, she'll fit in just perfectly...don't all Demo-RATS "swing both ways" and I'm not talking politics
Posted by: No Phony's Allowed on April 13, 2005 09:33 AMScott likes Gregoire for business reasons, and if she helps the liberal cadre keep its power, she gains more power for herself and makes lots of money, and she knows that she will be appointed in the future to influential posts on committees that make public policy--especially about health care. Just smart business.
That's why Washington State is becoming a worse place for working people to live--inbred influence and corruption. They are coming after your pursuit of happiness next. Let's force you to pay through the nose--both up front and in property and hidden employment taxes--and then require you to wait in line behind illegal immigrants (who pay nothing) for health care. Why not?
Ask Cheryl Scott, she's CEO of the largest Health Care Cooperative in Washington State. Where do you suppose the dollars for services and facilities come from for illegal immigrants? And what do you suppose Cheryl Scott would like for the Governor and State Legislature do, cut funds for Health Care? Cut government intrusion into peoples lives? Force illegals to pay for their own care? Encourage enforcement of immigration policy? Of course not.
How many apartment dwelling Seattle liberal troglodytes are going to pay the bills for these illegals? None--it's funded mostly by business property taxes and private residential property taxes. Sure liberals have to work here too, but they are the enlightened ones who don't believe in property ownership, so what the hell, tax it into oblivion. Then get unions to strangle business into financing jobs and "social justice" too. Works for liberals, and Gregoire too.
Cheryl Scott is a good choice for Washington State Health Care Czar . . . I mean Independant Elections Review Chairperson.
Posted by: Amused by obvious liberal corruption on April 13, 2005 09:38 AMAmused, you don't sound too amused. You use the name Amused to imply you are so far above and intellectually superior to liberals that you find it all, well, amusing. But the vast majority of your posts sound downright angry and are abusive. That is a very unique response to amusement. Lighten up.
Scott, it is entirely possible I am wrong, hardly probable, but entirely possible.
Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 09:54 AMYou exhibit the typical liberal's inability to interpret data.
First off, nobody is claiming that they donated $200,000+ to Republican causes. Take another long look at the chart. She has only donated $2,000.00, not $200,000.
Secondly, you are only looking at half the data. She has donated 7.5 times more money to Democrats. Or, stated differently, 88% of her donations are to Democrats. So what if she has thrown a few scraps to Republicans when she needed some vote or something?
She is obviously partisan. If she voted 88% of the time for Democrats, would you call her non-partisan? Can you see the 'irony' in that?
Posted by: Larry on April 13, 2005 10:10 AMDemand a Revote, step down Chris, and let's move onto a semblence of decent and honest government that is "By the People and for the People!!!"
Posted by: A Concerned Citizen on April 13, 2005 10:11 AMIMO she and Gregoire share a vision of what government involvement in health care should be. Like Gregoire, she's willing to impose it on us. Mere corruption would be much cleaner.
Posted by: South County on April 13, 2005 10:16 AMCandrewB, you should apologize, and then schedule an eye exam. The chart indicates donations of $2,000 to Republican candidates, not $200,000. Where did you get that figure? Admit to an honest mistake and we'll go on, but don't cover it over. You shot from the hip, and were wrong. Now be a man and own up to it.
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 10:27 AMI stand corrected.
When I hear "big money" I think Enron and Soros.
Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 10:36 AMAnd I have voted for Brian Sontag in the past. The rest of my votes go all to republicans. Is that 'irony'? Or does it mean that I'm a diehard Republican who once voted for a democrat? Come on, it's the latter, of course!
Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 10:38 AMDon't worry there feller, you amuse me plenty. Especially when you supply every reason for me to believe that I am so far above and intellectually superior to liberals.
Why not take a stab at accuracy out of a concern for truthfullness for a change, you might find it refreshing. Your delicate sensibilities are not my concern. Tighten up.
Larry,
As usual, spot on.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2005 10:39 AMWhen will our government switch from reactive to proactive? Its like the 9-11 commission, great, we investigated how it happened so we can stop it from happening again, however that’s the nature of the problem. Terrorist aren’t going to fly a plane into one of our buildings again, because while we’re investigating the how’s and the why’s they’re out thinking up the new what’s. And low and behold, we never have another plane fly into another building and we pat ourselves on the back and we’ve done a great job. The problem is, we’ve investigated, spent tax dollars, and now stopped something that was never going to happen again in the first place.
Great, so bring in the Feds from Washington to Washington, they can hunker down for two years and tell us everything we already know, yes, this election was flawed, felons voted, for both parties, absentee ballots weren’t counted, for both parties, provisional ballots were erroneously counted for both parties. Whether you’re a democrat or republican the fact that we had a flawed election is easy to agree with, however as a society, this is our reaction, and this is why politics in this state and in pretty much every other corner of our (un)United States has the same problem, its tough to ever move forward when both sides are always concerned about the others beaten path.
Why not join together as Republican and Democrats and realize, we don’t need to spend tax payer dollars to fund a commission to figure out our election process is broken. We don’t need tax payer dollars trying to think up patches we can implement. We need to scrap it all!!! Start over, I’d much rather have my money used to create a entirely new system of voting then for someone to report back to me that what I already did didn’t work. Why not have voting occur over a week instead of a day when its for such positions as President and Governor? You would think this State could think up something new.
Regardless, in the end it is not a government of the people, for the people and by the people, it a government made up of rich people, regardless of color, regardless of sex, regardless of party, money runs politics and special interests have money. Look at Tom Delay, why should any government official be able to accept a trip from anyone. Our CPA Auditor’s can’t accept gifts from anyone anymore because they would not be independent, shouldn’t our government officials be as transparent and independent as anyone?
Stephen, I don’t have readily available access to the information you seem to, but maybe when this mess is all cleared you can find this out for me, what percent of U.S. Senators, U.S. House Members and U.S. governors were in the top 5% of wealthiest American’s prior to winning office? Why is that? Why do you need to be rich to be able to get your message out and to govern?
My friend, the time is close, but not yet. We must try the court case first, show the facts, make the argument, and see what justice does.
If the courts fail us, there are just a few other avenues to take. If that fails, yes the system has failed and than its in the peoples hands to act. Only armed with the truth and facts can we act in a proper manor. The courts have failed us so many times before. The rode to revolt is narrow and dangerous, it is best to be fully armed in a factual and honest way.
Good God ya might have done her in (and beleive me she is one of your own), be more careful next time.
Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 11:00 AMIt is true that George Soros has very deep pockets. But, he is free to give his money (waste it) to the political causes he chooses. That is his right. Soros has been nothing if not generous to the MoveOn.org gang and various other left-leaning causes.
The Ken Lay/Enron disaster crosses party lines all over the place. Ken Lay is a certified Friend Of Bill and has donated to various Clinton-related funds. He has also supported and cozied up to George Bush. Both sides have been tarred with that brush.
I do not advocate limiting the rights of individuals to spend their money on candidates or parties of their choice. But the point here is that the head of this latest "commission" is by no means an impartial, non-partisan individual, as evidenced by the "voting with one's wallet" indications.
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 11:55 AMJC, you are missing one critical point in your assessment of the situation and the "let's all get together" approach. The Democrats are in control, and are benefitting from the lack of control over the elections system. They're not interested in solving the problem. They ARE the problem. Did you see the animated movie "NEMO"? There'a scene in there where some (normally fish eating) sharks are having a "fish eaters annonymous meeting, promising not to eat their fellow fish. Suddenly the shark leader gets a whiff of blood from the movies fish star and goes into a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats got a whiff of blood from the closeness of this election, and went to work to change the result.
I know Stephan doesn't want to use the word "FRAUD", but all the indications are there. Where there's smoke there's fire, and the Feds are the Firemen. No one else will do. And the "FIX" to this problem can't be addressed until there is a house cleaning of all guilty parties.
You just reminded me...
Whatever happened to the Gregoire "Healing Tour"??
Did she heal us telepathically?? While we were sleeping? Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 13, 2005 12:21 PM
With every attempt at cover-up, ignorance, number reconciliation, etc., it just seems to damage Sims, Logan, and KC further. which inturn, further shines the (il)legitimacy spotlight on Gregoire.
What appears to be (yet another) attempt to divert attention away from the (choose your own word) fraud, incompetence, ignorance, or all of the above, it only seems to draw a bigger bullseye on this county and it's (mis)management.
Regardless of what happens in Chelan, this issue will come up again and again when it comes to Sims and Gregoire's attempted re-elections. Both want to move on (and who could blame them), but the mounting evidences, cannot and will not let them.
Posted by: flexnfx on April 13, 2005 01:12 PMJust wanted to make a quick point on an earlier post of yours. You imply that apartment dwellers don't pay property tax. This is, of course, not the case. Any property owner/management company will factor property tax into the rent the tenant pays.
The sad fact is that many renters don't realize this and will vote for property tax increases in November, and complain about their rent increase in March..with no clue that they basically "shot themselves in the foot."
Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 01:54 PMGrow up republicans...share blame for what you have wrought.
Posted by: Susan Tyne on April 13, 2005 01:55 PMLove the site and Stefan's hard work.
Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 01:56 PMSeems like you have it exactly backwards. Instead of responding to my specific point, you claim I didn't suggest any.
That's classic republicanism. Ignore facts when they (often) don't support your case and make up facts when they do (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE HERE: The republicans, nationwide, claimed the democrats faked a politicial memo about Schaivo but in the end it was a republican staffer who wrote it and gave it to a republican senator who gave it to a democratic senator.)
This site is another great examples of ALLEGING democratic malfeseance (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE -- yelling "FRAUD" in a crowded election) when the exact opposite is true.
You guys are GREAT at talking off the GOP talking points and repeating thsese types of lies OVER AND OVER again to assume those with little minds will believe they're true!
It works! Lies, retold and retold, are believed by many with limited faculties. Thank God we live in state where those with thinking skills outnumber those that relie upon others to tell them "the truth."
Posted by: Susan Tyne on April 13, 2005 02:11 PM"ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE HERE: The republicans, nationwide, claimed the democrats faked a politicial memo about Schaivo but in the end it was a republican staffer who wrote it and gave it to a republican senator who gave it to a democratic senator.)"
When more facts were reveled, specifically that the republican staffer wrote the memo, the staffer was fired and republicans denounced the memo. What is so wrong with that?
Unlike...Oh, let's say any one of Michael Moore's movies that dem's still propagate as fact (still site propaganda from F-911 to me all the time as fact in conversation) even after evidence to prove otherwise was produced. Overwhelming evidence at that for almost every point made.
Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 02:27 PM
Don’t you know that it isn't facts that determine whether something is true or not, it's how the self described sensitive among us feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel about it.
Get with it man Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 02:55 PM
I must have missed the news that UBL was captured just before the election, when did that happen. I'm sure glad my daughter isn't old enough to have been drafted in November after the election. Etc., etc., etc.
I'm not sure of your point. All of these have nothing to do with the local gov. election.
Please explain what you mean about fraud and the opposite is true (only if it is on topic)
Posted by: Fred on April 13, 2005 02:57 PMI'm not sure quote how you think making accusations of fraud (true or not) unjustly changes the vote totals in an election, which is what the rest of us are talking about.
This is why I didn't respond to your "specific example." It has nothing whatever to do with the kind of misconduct we're talking about here.
Do you understand now, dmubass?
Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 03:09 PMAll of them.
And why is Bush pushing for amnesty for those very same illegals you find so amusing?
Interested: Agreed, the smart money is donated to whomever is in charge. Of course Enron donated to Clinton; in the '90s you better had, ask Microsoft. I don't think Lay would have been a friend of Bill if he was just a retired Governor from Arkansas?
Scott C:
Admittedly, appointing Scott as the nonbiased chairperson does not look good.
How embarassing for you.
Which should have been with two r's by the way.
Embarassing was a misspelling.
Both of which are unfortunate during a zing.
It's OK though. Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 04:24 PM
Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 04:38 PM
You are absolutely correct; until they catch on, liberals will initially indirectly pay some of the cost.
But only until they find a way to pass it back to property owners through subsidies and/or rent control measures. This is already commonly done in many areas of the country for this very reason. Class warfare and the ignorance of victim mentality on parade. No matter what, liberals will never take direct responsibility for anything. Classic liberal generosity: Take someone else's stuff without their permission and give it to another so you can take credit for being generous.
Liberal socialism is a corrupt but easily apprehensible idea that consumes everything and diminishes everyone involved. Requiring very little effort to understand, liberalism is highly popular and thus common. Ignoring obvious consequences as a commonly accepted liberal practice is nothing to be proud of because it makes unaccountable tyrants of those who presume to be its leaders, and foolish lazy children of all those who follow them. While they shoot themselves in the foot, they insist on shooting you and I as well.
Look at the liberal arguments presented on this thread.
Thanks for the observations.
Sims has been true to his home training which was always appoint a committee that will see things your way. The committee doesn't have many people on it who even know what to look for. It will be a white wash from the git-go.
Sims ought to be ashamed of himself, but like all DemocRATS he believes that the end justifies the means.
I hope that judge who's hearing the case for Rossi throws the book at the Democrats and Gregoire.
Posted by: Clean House on April 13, 2005 06:09 PMThis site is another great examples of ALLEGING democratic malfeseance (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE -- yelling "FRAUD" in a crowded election) when the exact opposite is true.
The proof contradicts your assertion. You sound like the Queen of Denial and I don't mean Cleopatra. Alleged will be demonstrated over the next several weeks in the courtroom, dear.
"You guys are GREAT at talking off the GOP talking points and repeating thsese types of lies OVER AND OVER again to assume those with little minds will believe they're true!"
What lies are you referring to ? Come on, be specific and cite your proof. You just divulged some strategy out of the Socialist Democrat playbook...You assume conservatives to be of lesser mind - maybe so, but you leftists have NO common sense !
"It works! Lies, retold and retold, are believed by many with limited faculties. Thank God we live in state where those with thinking skills outnumber those that relie upon others to tell them "the truth."
You know that it works, because you leftists have succeeded in pulling the wool over the common people's eyes like the sheeple that you take them to be. That is changing to your dismay - we have called bull-bleep on your little leftist mantra because it is sadly lacking in substance. Keep quacking away - but we know your game... That goes for you Ron Sims and your ilk.
Posted by: KS on April 13, 2005 08:25 PM
Yet - He didn't choose ANY Bankers to be on his *Blue Ribbon* election committee.......? Go figure....
I would LOVE to have access to all of the King County election data! I know many fellow Bankers in King County who would love the opportunity to audit that mess....
Posted by: Deborah on April 13, 2005 08:53 PMLooking forward to an "Orange Ribbon Committee".
Posted by: dan0841 on April 13, 2005 10:59 PMYou know, I don't care who Cheryl Scott donates her money to. Anyone is free to donate to whatever cause they choose. It's the American way. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't care that she's a Democrat. Generally speaking, I'd say, being from Washington state, that is more likely to be the case than not. What I don't like is the disingenuineness of trying to claim some measure of impartiality, when it is clear what her political leanings are. Just be honest with yourself and you can then be honest with those around you. A good thing for Ms. Scott to remember, as well as anyone else.
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 14, 2005 05:10 AMWashington does have a law on contribution amounts. I am not sure of the exact amount but I believe it is in the neighborhood of $1650 per individual, per election cycle. For example, you can contribute that amount for the primary and then do it again for the general election. I think it is the same for organizational contributions, but I am not positive on that. Posted by: CandrewB on April 14, 2005 07:55 AM
I’m somewhat surprised that you would be surprised that Scott would make political contributions for business reasons. Do you know Cheryl Scott personally or something more about her than her open public record provides about her? Ron Sims asks Cheryl Scott to chair his personal "independent" elections review panel and this doesn’t raise a flag for you? Do you think Cheryl Scott would chair such a politically charged panel out of civic magnanimity?
It is naive to look at the wall and ignore the writing on it. This is what politicians do, retired or not, and this is precisely how they do it. Of course Gregoire and Scott share a (liberal socialist) vision, that’s the point, and you are correct to observe that they would “impose” this “shared vision” on us, because they are liberals who believe socialism is best. What is so amusing is how easily people are fooled into this liberal idiocy.
PLAY PRETEND and many will buy into it. This is how corruption works best because it is easiest—right there in front of everyone, just like the utterly worthless 911 commission. All that the 911 commission accomplished was to gloss over Bill Clintons failed responsibilities, and allow a forum for democrats to spew subterfuge and propaganda about Bush. Now, liberals have a codified lie (911 Commission Report) to cite in their continuing support of lies and deceit for partisan purposes to show they are sincere. In the mean time the real issue important to all of us except the partisan liberal bu22$hitters took second place.
Sound familiar?
There are limits depending on the office being sought. My mom ran for a WA house of representatives seat and the max an individual or organization could give her was $675 per election cycle (i.e I could give $675 for primary and $675 again for general).
Posted by: Teresa on April 14, 2005 11:24 AM