Today's Seattle Times front-page article compares what candidate Gregoire said with what Gregoire did while acting, illegitimately, as governor: "What Governor Former Attorney General Gregoire said — and did"
"I thought I knew a lot about her character and her ability to negotiate," said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane. "But it wasn't clear which issues she would stand up for and help out on."Oh, I think it was clear to everybody she would turn out to be a garden-variety tax-and-spend anti-business union lackey Democrat, in spite of what she might have said while campaiging
On increasing the gas tax:Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 01, 2005 11:11 AM | Email ThisCandidate Gregoire said she did not support another gas-tax increase until taxpayers are convinced that a nickel-per-gallon increase approved in 2003 is being well spent.
Gov.Former Attorney General Gregoire helped pass the biggest gas-tax increase in state history.
And with Republicans still pushing a court challenge to overturn the election, Gregoire has had to face the lingering prospect that a court could remove her from office and order a revote as early as this fall.
(hint: since you decided to compare apples and oranges in your post, you already provided ample disclosure.)
Posted by: Danny on May 1, 2005 12:51 PMUntil the court case has been completed, I like calling Gregoire "former Attorny General Gregoire". Calling either her or Rossi Governor or Governor-elect would be a mistake.
If the courts rule against Rossi and for Gregoire, then refusing to acknowledge Gregoire would be a bit childish.
Posted by: iconoclast on May 1, 2005 12:55 PMGregoire--the Gray Davis of Washington: Special interests ARE her interest.
Give it up Shark. Keep living in your fantasy world.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 1, 2005 02:24 PMOf course, your mileage may vary...
RM
"OLYMPIA – April 26, 2005 – Gov. Former Attorney General Christine Gregoire will hold a news conference at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, at the Portland airport to discuss the recently completed Washington legislative session and its impacts on Southwest Washington:"
Didn't mention her as being Governor of the State of Washington there.... like she is just in limbo.
Posted by: YakimaJim on May 1, 2005 04:07 PMnext time at least try to be witty or insightful...please...you're not presenting yourself well at all.
Posted by: Danny on May 1, 2005 06:32 PMIn fact, that is why she lost the election!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 1, 2005 06:42 PMClaiming normalcy doesn't equal disclosure. However your desire to see the "Republican side" of things does provide disclosure, of a sort. Your opinion has now been duly noted. Don't hold your breath on any changes. The "Republican side" has had something very precious stolen by (I would guess) your side.
Passions run deep when you are the victim of a crime. Not so deep when you are the perpetrator. The former AG moniker will likely remain.
Posted by: Danny on May 1, 2005 07:10 PMThe guy you consider being lame has done more to advance knowledge and understanding of the issues that involved around the KC Elections office debacle for Republicans and Democrats alike. He has taken heat and hits from every Democratic Blog out there. If you are truly interested to see what is being said by the people on the Republican side of this issue then spend more time watching and reading to see the personal integrity and ethics displayed in his work compared to the Democratic Blog’s that you can read as well.
He may not address the Governor as you see fit but have you seen how the other side refers to him and his work. Be critical, but be fair in your judgements. Know one here wants to put you down, we just want honest and open communication shared thoughts and ideas.
Terrible isn't it? Of course, I see no mention of the republicans that gleefully voted for the transportation bill as well. No they were given a free ride because they were Rs.
Now if the viaduct fell down before it was fixed, that would have been labeled as the legislature's fault as well right?
Posted by: Erik on May 1, 2005 08:42 PMThis business of bestowing titles for life however goes too far. It seems to me that it is only during the last 20 or years that people who once held office gained that title for life.
Johnson, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Truman were referred to as former- or ex-presidents, not as President after their term in office was over.
Rossi is now Mr. Rossi, at least in my mind, until the courts have ruled and a re-vote determines otherwise.
Clinton is likewise Mr. Clinton, as is Mr. Carter and Mr. Bush (the elder).
Have we forgotten that we as a country fought a war with Britain 220 years or so ago to abolish this nosense of titles?
I know some will argue that the office deserves respect, and I would agree, but once the person no longer serves in the office, why should they, in a land without aristocracy, retain the title?
Posted by: Deadwood on May 1, 2005 08:53 PMPlease explain why I have to pay more for gas to fix Seattles viaduct, when I live in Clark County?
The proposed replacement of the I-5 bridge here will be largely paid for by tolls on both it and the I-205 bridge, costing me everytime I am forced to cross it or those people that work in Portland and have to cross it twice everyday.
If the funds are actually coming from elsewhere, why is there a "temporary" (yeah, right, a temporary tax from Democrats) toll of $3.00 being proposed?
Posted by: DakotaRed on May 1, 2005 08:56 PMI will stop buying retail in this state anything I don't absolutely need that has sales tax on it.
I cut my driving by at least half, and I used to drive a lot
I am no longer licensing my trailers
I was going out to eat 3-4 times a week with parts of my family, and I have not gone out since their monster tax hike
I haven't purchased any alcohol or tabacco in this state since their monster tax hike
I figured out what their new tax plan meant to me and my family, multiplied it by 3 and changed my buying habits to assure I get a 2/3's tax cut out of this!
I feel soooo much better about the whole thing now!
Posted by: GS on May 1, 2005 09:09 PMAlot of people are ashamed to refer to her as a Governor and I respect that. There are no stickers out there that I know of that say "Not my Governor" or "Re-defeat Gregoire" - although the later makes more sense that the re-defeat Bush because she lost 2 counts where Bush lost 0.
As for the Viaduct, I digress; they should just dismantle the thing and rebuild the overpass above ground - quite a bit less expensive (but still spendy) than the tunnel idea, but no - you watch the lawmakers of this state and Seattle push the extravegance of the tunnel - when it is not necessary. (It might be different only if Mr. Rossi is elected Governor soon). Seattle seems determined to have another WOPS on wheels beside Sound Transit Light Rail and apparently the Monorail..
Posted by: KS on May 1, 2005 09:37 PMInstead of spending my time driving (and paying gas taxes) I'll spend more of my time Brewing with my fellow conservative brew masters!
And offer to teach any of my fellow conservatives the art so they never have to enter a State liquor store again! (Even if they are open on Sundays)
Posted by: GS on May 1, 2005 09:39 PMRegarding the name calling: No she doesn't deserve the title Governor. She didn't win the election, it was manipulated 2+ times until the result came out the way King County wanted it to. Calling her Governor is a disgrace to our state and democracy...calling her Governor certifies Washington as a bananna republic. No- she is the former attorney general.
Posted by: Andy on May 1, 2005 10:28 PMFor the same reasons that the rest of the state subsidizes your mail delivery, telephone, and builds roads to towns of 200.
Posted by: Erik on May 1, 2005 10:29 PMWas Gregoire deceiving the voters on taxes deliberately during the campaign? It is hard not to think so, at least on gas taxes.
(BTW, kudos to the Seattle Times for this piece. Now if we could only convince them to treat Cantwell, Inslee, McDermott, Murray, et cetera, with the same skepticism . . . )
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 2, 2005 08:09 AM I have to disagree with you a little. While
its true portraying herself as moderate didn't
hurt.I believe it was the women vote that made
it as close as it was.
I recall reading in the king co journal prior
to the election.they were interviewing a woman
about who she favored in the governors race and
why.This lady said gregiore because she would
do a better job with economy.What bothered me
about it was the journal didn't ask her why.
I think the answer would have been because she 's
a woman.
What's unfortunate here is that most people
have no clue about economics.Remember the lengths
that gregiore went to to court the woman.
Using the women who claimed she was republican
in those radio ads.Saying that gregiore
understood how to run the economy.We all know
by now that lady was descredited.
My point with all of this is I think
gregiores campaign knew early on that
if they had any chance at all they needed
the woman vote.
I am sure that Gregoire gained disproportionate support from women -- and I am also sure that she would have lost anyway, without her promises, already broken, on taxes.
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 2, 2005 12:26 PM