May 24, 2005
Bill Huennekens on the stand

King County Superintendent of Elections Bill Huennekens is a live witness.

* Rob Maguire asked Huennekens if he provided the canvassing board with any reports on provisional ballots. Advantage: Croker Sack!

* Huennekens says he destroys any reports of felon voters, but says he doesn't know whether those reports are destroyed immediately or after a two-year retention period.

* Maguire: What does King County do to prevent someone from voting both absentee and at poll site?
Huennekens: if absentee voter appears at poll site they're given provisional.
Maguire: is the process of crediting used to prevent someone from voting both an absentee and a provisional?
Huennekens: the process of crediting? no.
Maguire quotes from deposition.
Huennekens admits crediting is "part of the process"
Maguire: what is the rest of the process?
Huennekens can't quite say.

* Maguire: Did King County have an audit process with respect to ballots in the November election? Why is an audit process followed during that time period?
Huennekens: various things are required by law and that's how we provide for the integrity of the election.
Maguire: is part of the audit process determining whether the number of ballots received reconciles with the ballots tabulated?
Huennekens: yes.
Maguire: you rely on data associated with batches of absentee ballots for the audit process?... And the audit process involves the batch slips?.. is crediting part of the audit process?
Maguire: did King County handcount every absentee ballot envelope returned?
Huennekens: no we did not handcount every single one.

Maguire hands Huennekens Agenda from Certification Meeting of Canvassing Board for November 2004 election and Mail Ballot Report.

Maguire: what is the purpose of the Mail Ballot Report? Is it designed to reflect the audit process?
Huennekens: I didn't create the report, don't know what it's designed to reflect.
Huennekens doesn't remember specifically discussing the report with Garth Fell. Remembers only telling Nicole Way he needed the report for certification day.
Huennekens can't say he knew before certification how the "Total Number of Ballots Returned" was calculated. Says he learned only later in non-specific conversations how the number was calculated.

Maguire: did King County attempt to do a reconciliation of the number of absentee ballots returned with the number rejected and counted.
Huennekens: ... attempted ... reconcilation did not succeed. Some batches had discrepancies.

[It appears that Huennekens implicitly admitted that he should have known the Mail Ballot Report that showed no discrepancies was bogus]

Maguire: does King County know the true number of absentee ballots returned.
Huennekens: I don't know if we have an exact number of absentee ballots that were returned.

Maguire hands Huennekens the "Binder Summary Spreadsheet"
Huennekens: purpose of document is to account for ballots at polling place.

Hamilton: gets Huennekens to acknowledge document was created in March only after the election, seeks to exclude from evidence as hearsay.

Huennekens acknowledges that original Binder was done during canvassing period, in part, to account for provisional ballots that went through Accuovte

Bridges overrules Hamilton, allows the Binder Summary Spreadsheet admitted into evidence.
Hamilton objects to some additional exhibits "I assume you'll overrule this, but..."

Adjourned until 1:30pm

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 24, 2005 10:45 AM | Email This
Comments
1. You can remember a lie for a short time, but you cannot remember a lie for a long time.

You can remember the truth for a short time and a long time…

Posted by: Glenno on May 24, 2005 10:49 AM
2. He doesn't look like a happy witness...

Posted by: steve matlock on May 24, 2005 10:52 AM
3. Hey, DEMOCRATics are stating that being a felon is no impediment to registration.

Through Bill Huennekens.

So, if you are canceled from the system, just fill out a new card completely, and you are completely legal to vote, per King County

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 10:59 AM
4. Good 'ol Bill... talk about your basic "deer in the headlights" look.

He seems to have some pretty significant memory loss. Perhaps a recent head injury or something...

Posted by: DanC on May 24, 2005 11:15 AM
5. Bill Huennekens, note to self, might want to review the text of the Fifth Amendment.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:19 AM
6. If I had to paint a face of guilt, it would look like Bill Huennekens face right now on TVW. What a deer in the headlights.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:22 AM
7. "Was that at your direction?"

"Er, uh, yeah, the direction of Dean and I, yes."

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:23 AM
8. There is this quote in the P-I from Judge Bridges. This certainly doesn't sound good for Dino. Is there something more to it than the PI is saying?

"The court does not believe there is a fraud causation element to this case, for whatever that's worth," Bridges said "I am not saying that the evidence is not admissible."

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 11:25 AM
9. Fred,

Scroll down.

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 11:27 AM
10. "Does King County know the exact number of ballots returned in the 2004 General Election?"

"We have the ballots, I don't know that we have the exact number."


Dear GOP Lawyers, Let's count them and put this matter to rest. I bet they will show that the Mail Ballot report was flawed, and allowed the election to be certified even though the results were not verified. Toss it out.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:27 AM
11. Horses Ass: Note, Bill Huennekens just testified that reconciliation is different than crediting. How many posts does Goldy have to retract?

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:29 AM
12. Has the Dem lawyer had a single objection sustained yet? Sounds like every one has been overruled...... ;o)

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 24, 2005 11:38 AM
13. And people think that the bunch at Enron were crooks!

Posted by: Bigbird on May 24, 2005 11:41 AM
14. Just tagged the cheaters again. Exhibit 36 gets admitted. Duh. It helps to show that King County had no idea what was going on in November, it took them until March just to begin to figure out which way was up.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:41 AM
15. Editor,

Not trying to be dim (but sometimes I just can't help it) if you meant scroll down in the PI article there was just a bunch of back and forth by each side, which obviously are advocate positions. I didn't see anything that would indicate the judge would allow this to be a fraud case. The only part is that in the quote I listed above there was still a small opening for that with "The court does not believe..." could be interpretted as "at this time" allowing room for that to change.

Thanks.

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 11:42 AM
16. Amazing..... Dims are scared that the summary spreadsheet might actually be admitted into evidence....

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 11:43 AM
17. It helps to show that King County had no idea what was going on in November, it took them until March just to begin to figure out which way was up.

Correction:

It helps to show that King County knew fully well what was going on in November, it took them until March to figure out the cover story.

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 24, 2005 11:44 AM
18. Fred,

This was yesterday's news. Judge Bridges allowed this line of argument, this morning. You need to get yourself up to speed.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:44 AM
19. Watch Durkin scrambling behind the interveanors table.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 11:45 AM
20. Numbers... Numbers??? I didn't do this work...I dont know where these numbers came from.... sheesh

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 11:47 AM
21. Again, has the Dem lawyer had a single objection sustained yet? Sounds like every one has been overruled!

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on May 24, 2005 11:51 AM
22. When Huennekens uses the term "crediting," he appears to use it in the same way the "talking points" prepared in January used it. He means the process of updating voter registration files to reflect the voting history -- that is, transferring the voter credits in that part of DIMS where voters were credited with voting by absentee and from the poll books where voters were credited with voting on election day.

Someone needs to rap Huennekens and the others on the knuckles with a cane every time they use the term "crediting" to mean anything other than what the law says. Voters are credited by a notation made by the poll book judges in the poll books at the instant before a ballot is issued to each voter. Voters are credited by a notation in DIMS (or whatever computerized voter registration data base is used in each county) at the instant the absentee ballot from each voter is accepted as valid.

Voters credited in the poll books on election day may try to cast other ballots, so one must either go look at the poll books every time an absentee or provisional ballot is being verified or transcribe the information into the computerized data base to make it readily available.

Voter crediting always happens before certification, because it's required by law and because it is the only practical way to determine how many valid ballots ought to be in the vote tabulation, and is the only way to keep people from successfully casting more than one ballot.

Updating voting history happens after certification, typically, as the data from one part of the data base is used to update voting history in that same data base.

If the data input from the poll books and during the absentee ballot verification process is done carelessly, then the canvassing process is less able to prevent double voting. Also, the data base cannot then be used to verify that only valid ballots are in the vote count -- and have been counted only once. Only by knowing how many valid ballots you have can you determine if you correctly counted them all.

If the voting history update using that data shows too few voters who cast valid ballots compared to ballots included in the vote tabulation, it means there were invalid ballots in the vote count or some valid ballots were sent through the vote counting system more than once.

Ironically, many who defend the legitimacy of Gregoire's certificate of election claim that the process reflected in the data base shows King County counted the votes with sufficient accuracy to make her the duly elected governor, but that the data is too inaccurate and unreliable to show that there were more ballots in the vote count than should have been there.

How can it be reliable and unreliable at the same time?

Posted by: Micajah on May 24, 2005 11:52 AM
23. Nice try.... another objection bites the dust..

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 11:52 AM
24. Jeff B - I'm trying, hence the question. Allowing that line of questioning does not necessarily mean that a possible verdict is fraud, or has that changed? Where was that stated?

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 11:53 AM
25. I don't get these objections.... dem lawyer seems to be objecting to any summation of the raw data by the elections staff as heresay... Does this mean that the entire certification of the election is thereby heresay as it is just a summation of the raw data by the elections office?

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 12:00 PM
26. Objections are used for a basis of appeal. Get as many in as possible and maybe one will stick for grounds to appeal. As you can't just appeal for fun, you need a legal reason, like the law was not properly interpretted. Having an objection overruled CAN give that reason. The appeals court needs to agree.

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 12:09 PM
27. It's either early onset Alzheimers or perjury.

Take your pick, but my guess is that "higher ups" will arrange for Billy-boy Heunnekens to be admitted to an institution with a mental disorder in order to save them from additional damaging testimony.

Either way, the guy is dumber than a lobotomized cow. He is going down for people like Gregoire? Sad.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 12:34 PM
28. Is he related to Patty Murray? Same IQ genetically passed along

Posted by: righton on May 24, 2005 12:45 PM
29. Stefan,

Any word on the number of activists or others surrounding the trial venue?

I was thinking of taking a trip to Wenatchee next week, and just wondering how you think that would affect the "political" (read: court of public opinion) side of the trial?

Respectfully Republican

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 24, 2005 12:56 PM
30. The Dems lawyers don't want any real documents admitted, but then again are their any real documents in King County's Election Department, that is that haven't been scribbled all over!

Posted by: GS on May 24, 2005 01:00 PM
31. Fred,

Meant scroll down SP to "It's in the PI"

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 01:03 PM
32. Thanks Editor - I missed that :(

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 01:07 PM
33. GS - You ask if there are KC documents that haven't been "scribbled all over"?

How about ballots ... err "most" ballots that is.

Posted by: Mike J on May 24, 2005 01:27 PM
34. Does anyone else think that Billy-boy Huennekens is gay?

I don't care or pass moral judgement on whether someone chooses to be gay or not, but I think he is one of those people in government that is on a mission for "social justice." Election fraud is a strange way to pursue you view of "justice," but it would appear that is the way he was thinking!

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 01:32 PM
35. WOW!!! Those Dems appeared TOUGH and OBNOXIOUS the last 5+ months, they always had an answer to everything yet put them on the stand, under oath for a few minutes, they become completely different, actually very pathetic.

Posted by: Raylene on May 24, 2005 01:34 PM
36. Watch the trial online at TVW

For our out-of-state observers!

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 24, 2005 01:36 PM
37. Boy, ole Bill is trying to be way too clever by half in his attempts to nonanswer the questions. "Open and Transparent" are not adjectives to which I would ascribe Mr. H's attitude towards elections and accountability.

"Our best explanation..." Oh man, that inspires confidence....

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 01:37 PM
38. I am out of state at the moment and gleefully watching Billy-boy Hinnykins wriggle on the stand!

But, the dang feed is extremely slow because of demand.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 01:39 PM
39. Well, at least Bill and Dean will still be able to vote if they wind up in jail.

Posted by: K L S on May 24, 2005 01:42 PM
40. You guys are boring.Where are the interactional games?

Posted by: harry poon on May 24, 2005 01:43 PM
41. "I wouldn't call it a reconciliation. I'd call it an explanation."

Oh, shocker... overruled again.

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 01:44 PM
42. Just to correct the record, Huennekens is not gay. He has a wife and two small children in Thurston County, the county where he lives.

As opposed to King County, the county where he "works" and collects an exceptionally large (85K) paycheck from the taxpayers.

Not that his sexual orientation matters. He IS inept, bungling, lying, and wholly unfit to serve as the elections superintendent for a large county.

Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on May 24, 2005 01:45 PM
43. The feed is slow and continually interupted over the net. Will look for a "mirror" site, or other feed.

P. Bell out!

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 24, 2005 01:46 PM
44. Let that truth keep raining down!!!!

Thanks for the great report!

Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 01:47 PM
45. Deadman;

You are spot on. Last Friday I attended the Puget Sound Regional Council's all day seminar for planners, electeds and landuse activists at the Seattle Center to update their Vision 2020 plan. Basically, Agenda 21.

Social Justice is a concept they have adopted into the regional planning protocol they are making for local planners to incorporate in local zoning regulations.

You bet Huennekens is following the playbook. He's part of the socialist bureaucrats that run the show and believe in Social Justice here in Pugetopolis.

Posted by: Encouraged Voter on May 24, 2005 01:51 PM
46. OH, and btw, kudos to Micajah re the item at the top of the post regarding reports on provisional ballots! Pal, you are GOOOOD.

Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 01:54 PM
47. Yeah Encouraged - one man's justice is another man's injustice. These activist politicians should get out of the "social justice" micro-management business and worry more about running the basic aspects of city/county/state government.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 01:56 PM
48. OK Susan - thanks for the clarification. My bad.

I'm just not used to the gender ambiguity of so many feminized men that came out of the WA public school system.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 01:58 PM
49. In the spirit of helping out the PI and trying to save them time on their mission of unscrupulous headline writing, let me supply the all-too-predictable headline for their website:

"GOP CASE FALLING APART"

Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 01:59 PM
50. Or ....

"HINNYKINS MANHANDLES REPUBLICANS"

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:02 PM
51. Deadman;

Almost every single person I've met here in Washington who's advocated "social justice" have 3 things in common.

1) Sexual orientation is undeterminable.

2) Wimpy white males make up the largest group.

3) They all believe "It's Bush's fault".

Posted by: Encouraged Voter on May 24, 2005 02:05 PM
52. 4) All rules that apply to you and I don't apply to them, because thay have "needs".

Posted by: Dogbert on May 24, 2005 02:11 PM
53. This guy is an IDIOT!!!!

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:12 PM
54. His answer to where the discrepencies came from seems to be "don't blame us....we where just trying to do a good job".

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:13 PM
55. Right Encouraged -

And, they are always asking you: "How do you FEEL about that" ... or "How does that make you FEEL" ...

And, when one of their social justice issues comes up (which is usually mixed in somehow with environmentalism, although the two are logically at odds) they start jumping in your face with the rage of a caged mouse and saying ...

"Did you know that corporations ...." ... something along the lines of all corporations conspire to kill children, burn down forests, and keep gays from practicing safe sex ....

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:13 PM
56. Hey Stefan,

I recall you've had many conversations (and maybe in-person visits) with Mr. Huennekens...was he like this before, too? I mean, was he amazingly forgetful, wishy-washy, and fond of the words: perhaps, possible, maybe, conceivable, etc.? I suspect not.

Posted by: Scott on May 24, 2005 02:19 PM
57. Mr. breach - or, you could interpret as, "We just don't like to be bothered with the details, we are more interested in 'social justice' as reflected in getting everyone, including illegals, to vote .... "

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:20 PM
58. We should tell them how we FEEL..

WE FEEL YOU SHOULD ALL GO TO JAIL FOR STEALING ELECTIONS!

and

WE WILL FEEL GREAT ABOUT PAYING FOR YOUR ROOM AND BOARD WHEN THERE!

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 02:20 PM
59. Watch as Hinnykin answers questions asked by Dem counsel .... look how cooperative he is and how he remembers everything.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:23 PM
60. Where is the dem lawyer going with this line of questioning?

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:23 PM
61. They keep saying that it costs about $40k to keep someone in jail. There is a savings of $45k right there on his salary!

Him being in jail counts as another felon voting D

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 02:24 PM
62. Ahh... I see.... can't prevent anyone from registering... don't look...dont tell

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:24 PM
63. I thought he was unresponsive to the questions before lunch, but he's amped it up since. "Not my fault, didn't have anything to do with that, could be, can't necessarily tell, might be...." Man! Wish more people in the state would take the time to watch.

Quick run of the sitrep:

Trolls are quiet
Goldy isn't even updating his blog.
"The binder" keeps getting mentioned.
PI staff writers are pulling their hair out trying to come up with spin.

Situation strangely changed from the heated nonsense over the past six months. Could it be that the light of truth is causing the spinmeisters to back away from their chants?


Oh, goody. Petitioners are done with him, now it's the intervenor's turn!. Mr. Smarmy, Esquire, is up to bat. More objections. Great.

"Republicans consider withdrawing case"

(Wenatchee) Courtroom observers have concluded that the Republican Party is about to withdraw their case to overturn the people's Governor, Christine Gregoire. In the face of unprecedented volume of objections by the people's lawyers, the Republicans admitted to being weary from lack of sleep in open court.

Bill Huennekens, Superindent of Elections for King County easily and confidently parried the leading questions of the anarchist's lawyers, and defended the legitimacy of our Governor, Christine Gregoire, while avoiding giving the ultra right wing extremist Christian Conservative inspired lawyers any ammunition to proceed with their case. The cross examination was a mere formality by the people's advocate.

Or something like that....

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 02:29 PM
64. You forgot to also tar the GOP as Nazi, neo nazi, para fascist, theocratic loonies.

Posted by: righton on May 24, 2005 02:33 PM
65. Does anyone else notice that good ol'Bill tends to bob in his chair just before he gets ready to tell a lie???

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:33 PM
66. "cross-over voting" - yeah, right. Someone will get a ballot, sign in at one polling place, then decide to go to another polling place to turn in the ballot.

Give me a break!

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:34 PM
67. It's OK to falsify a Mail Ballot Report, but not OK to call it inaccurate without counting the envelopes that have survived? Yeah, sure, whatever you say, Hamilton. Let's go count the envelopes. That will perhaps show us how many ended up in one bin or another, but what else?

Posted by: Micajah on May 24, 2005 02:34 PM
68. Hamilton's line of questioning goes like this...

It's just too hard to tell what really happened.. too messed up... poll worker screw ups, slipery ballots, fuzzy data, etc. to decide that CG didn't really win.

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:36 PM
69. Patches Pal,
You should go to work for scrappleface.

Posted by: Dave on May 24, 2005 02:38 PM
70. Yeah Micajah - when we say "fraud" we are referring to a falsified report. One needs go no further than that. They all admit to falsifying the report.

So, the question now is: why falsify a report? what's the motive? what are you trying to hide?

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:38 PM
71. Okay everyone, the authority of all authority (No, not God, but he thinks he is) has weighed in. We might as well give up because Ken Schram says we're crazy

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 02:40 PM
72. I can understand the Republican and Democratic parties objecting when the opposition is questioning Huennekens(and the others), but why is the King County lawyer doing it? One would think that his job was to find out what actually happened.

Posted by: Ken Deter on May 24, 2005 02:42 PM
73. Editor,
What was missing in the Ken Schram article was there was no foam on his mouth in the picture.

Posted by: Dave on May 24, 2005 02:46 PM
74. Dave,

I'm thinking Ken must be writing speeches for Al Gore on the side, these days.

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 02:48 PM
75. I am not a lawyer (thank you Lord!)...and I understand how this line of questioning plays to the great unwashed, but what on earth does this guy think is going to be the end result of proving a) KCE's incompetance and b) the fact that we can't narrow down the absolute value of the errors to a number that comes within thousands of the margin of victory.

Seems to me that you connect the dots, and he's proving the R's case for them.

Ok, I haven't had drugs today, so I'm probably out of the loop...pretty much like every other day...

I realize that there are no guarantees of the ultimate victory of truth, justice, and the American way, and if this fails, it will only serve to illuminate some long-hidden darkness in the heart of the status quo-mongers.

Posted by: scott158 on May 24, 2005 02:53 PM
76. Perhaps the Dems are going toward the point of "you can't tell who won so let's just leave well enough alone" since the judge at one point (I believe) said that the GOP had to prove that Dino actually won. If they keep going on about how horrible the election was and how you just don't know WHO won then by that reasoning CG stays Gov.

Yes/No??? Just a thought.

Posted by: megs on May 24, 2005 02:58 PM
77. He said "TRANSPARENCY"?? "Every part of the process is open to the public"

Shark....you rolling on the floor laughing??

Posted by: MrBeach on May 24, 2005 02:58 PM
78. Schram thinks he is credible because he has a beard now.

He is one of those holier-than-thou media ninkumpoops, with emphasis on the poop.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 02:59 PM
79. Megs - I agree, that is exactly what their you must impute from their arguments. Nobody knows who really won, but Gregoire was ahead in the last "count" so let's leave her in there and, if you dispute it, you are just being a sore looser.

So, they are highlighting the "mistakes" and trying to prove that they really were just "mistakes."

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 03:04 PM
80. No, Ken doesn't write for Gore, but it does seem he'd be a great writer for the moveon crowd. He don't need no stinkin' facts or logic. Just wave your hand and it'll go away.

Posted by: Danny on May 24, 2005 03:05 PM
81. Just sent off an e-mail to Scrap, opps mean, Shcram. Asked if he even read the dispostions of Way, Fell, Logan and all. Told him to get better informed before rampaging.

Posted by: Shannon on May 24, 2005 03:06 PM
82. Oh my God. We just heard the core of the Democrat's case.

"Democracy is sometimes messy"

They have got to be kidding themselves if they expect that will fly.

Posted by: Jason on May 24, 2005 03:09 PM
83. Shannon,
Rampage? Uh, a little girl's temper tantrum, maybe.

Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 03:10 PM
84. The bottom line of the Dem's cross of Bill H. seems to be "shit happens."

And what's this crap about voters "forgeting to sign the poll book." If the election is run correctly, you CAN'T get a ballot until you sign in, so if that happens, it's fraud because the election worker let you cast a ballot without signing in.

Posted by: Tucker on May 24, 2005 03:19 PM
85. Why does Goldy always sound so whiney? I can't stand listening to his voice. Whereas Stefan always sounds so calm, mature, and reasonable.

They just got done with their interviews on Carlson.

Posted by: megs on May 24, 2005 03:26 PM
86. Shram's garbage sounds like he is trying to set up an excuse of why CG is so unpopular. It is only because the Rs are calling Fraud, not because she raised taxes, paid off her partners in crime, etc. etc. It is all the Rs fault that people are becoming skeptical over the election system.

It sounds like the same old worn out D tactic. They know they are fighting a losing battle, so lets start blaming the Rs now for all the problems.

Posted by: Fred on May 24, 2005 03:26 PM
87. Looks like KC just bought some political cover. Seems they just contracted with a Texas company to "audit" the KCE folks. Wanna bet that in a day or two the Demo argument will be, "hey, we know we screwed up the election, but these Texans will fix us all up; no reason to invalidate the election, we'll just do better next time!"

Posted by: Harbor Republican on May 24, 2005 08:32 PM
88. Would that Texas company be Enron?

Posted by: Dogbert on May 24, 2005 09:03 PM
89. Wonder why they thought they needed a TX company to audit them. This is an operation with an accuracy rate that ANY bank would envy. Ron said so. It MUST BE.

I'm done with listening to Goldy. He's so bad he's embarrassing. Not a worthy opponent for Stefan. When he comes on I just turn down the radio. I can't take it anymore. Too much predictable liberal nonsensicalness.

Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 10:08 PM
90. Fred - Why does schram do anything? He always looks as though his Tucks pads aren't doing the job.

The only person I can think of who takes more delight in being wrong is Juan Williams of NPR. I get such a kick out of the "two fools fighting" feud that he has with J Carlson. Neither one could ever be considered an intellectual heavyweight, but John comes off sounding so much more reasonable when placed side~by~side with schram.

He is a reliable barometer of the dems dementia, and for that, I give him a tip of the hat...

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 25, 2005 06:39 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?