To recap last session:
1) Bridges agrees to accept CFRs as evidence of felony convictions (unless proven otherwise, it seems)
2) Bridges denied motion to dismiss
On lunch break until 2:15pm, when Democrats will call various county auditors who are friends of Dean Logan to testify about what a nice young man he is.
A few comments struck me as particularly significant from Bridges' remarks when he denied the motion to dismiss: (1) "I can't imagine that the legislature [when writing the election contest statute] contemplated such as situation as we're faced with today" [meaning who would predict an election could be so badly f*cked up?], (2) "the parties don't agree what the law is" and it is "up to the court to decide" and (3) this case is largely about "what the citizens of the state of Washington expect when there is an election contest filed and what they deserve when a contest is filed"
That all suggests to me he will be prudently creative in his interpretation of the law to craft a solution that is more common sense than literal. I will not go so far as to predict what the specific solution might be.
--
I'm not going to liveblog the Friends of Dean Drool-a-Thon. Feel free to keep the color commentary going in the comments section.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 27, 2005 01:26 PM | Email ThisGiven four days and absolutely no showing of fraud, it is really all you have left.
Posted by: JDB on May 27, 2005 01:34 PMWhere have you had your head? Up your ass? Felons voting, dead people voting, illegal aliens voting. And elections supervisors falsifying reports - FRAUD!
Posted by: pbj on May 27, 2005 01:36 PMHow are things in Never Never Land?
Posted by: swassociates on May 27, 2005 01:39 PMMost conservatives consider activist judges to be those judges who try to MAKE laws. Bridges is saying that it is up to him to INTERPRET the law. That is what judges are supposed to do. The problem with ACTIVIST judges is that they think they can CREATE law themselves, and that is NOT their job!
Now, if Bridges doesn't rule the way I would like him too (in Rossi's favor), but he has been fair, then I guess that will be that, but I won't go off saying he is an activist judge... unless he tries to make-up his own election laws.
Posted by: MNM on May 27, 2005 01:43 PMBoring.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 27, 2005 01:44 PMOf course, if we accept this, it necessarily follows that the government of Washington State is illegitimate and may be justly overthrown, by force if necessary.
Posted by: ScottM on May 27, 2005 01:49 PMThat's it, in a nutshell.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 27, 2005 01:54 PM1. ScottM: "The Democratic position seems to be that the law as it stands does not protect the right of citizens to legitimate elections."
I don't think that's quite right. I think the D position is that the law as it stands doesn't require perfect elections and in the absence of demonstrated fraud, the result of the final count will be allowed to stand.
2. S. Adler--if banks are so good at handling your money, how come they are required to have deposit insurance?
Posted by: Steven on May 27, 2005 02:01 PMPoint 2 - Banks are required to have insurance, not in case they dont account for this penny or that, but because they do not put all your money in a vault. They use it, to loan to others, and then earn interest, which they can pay a portion thereof back to you. Because a bank could be left with less cash in reserve than thier ability to pay out in a situation of public crisis (i.e, the 29 stock market crash), they are required to carry insurance.
Talk about mixing your f***ing metaphors
Posted by: Itsasquak on May 27, 2005 02:08 PMHowever, we're talking about a system of encouraging illegal votes, of covering up illegal votes, of losing votes from non-Dem precincts. That is what needs to change.
Posted by: Shannon K on May 27, 2005 02:16 PMStatistically deduct that!
Posted by: Tracy on May 27, 2005 02:18 PMIgnore the liberal Dem trolls.....they are very upset right now..... And be sure and watch out for drunk drivers this weekend! snicker....
Posted by: Deborah on May 27, 2005 02:23 PMI made my own bumper sticker the other day: Revote or Revolt! Stand up and demand a fair, open, trustworthy election!
Posted by: Rick D on May 27, 2005 02:32 PMWhatever the outcome, I have huge respect for Dino Rossi. He is doing all of us a great service by exposing this election mess. I truly hope he does become your Governor.
Thanks also to Shark's great work and this excellent web page. Thanks to all those who post such great comments and insight. Keep it up!
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 02:36 PMUnfortunately for the Communists er Democrats, this isn't about an exam at UW
Posted by: Jarhead on May 27, 2005 02:43 PMJeez, how nosey can you get?
Posted by: rolling eyes on May 27, 2005 02:50 PMProceed!
Posted by: MikeFedUp on May 27, 2005 03:01 PMWell, I hate to say it, but that is certianly what it sounded like to me!
And, believe me, the last thing I want is for Gregoire and her man-hating pal Durkan ( see this: Gay and Lebian Task Force Foundation ) to stay in office.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:01 PMRM
Well, greg, if you are a guy, she may as well be Satan. She'd like to have you castrated, hog tied, and burned at the state.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:04 PMI wonder why Durkan isn't interviewing her.
Oh, well, I guess they were a little afraid she might not be able to control herself.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:06 PMThat's funny!
"Bathe her, and bring her to me..."
She had to recuse herself on the grounds that she's attracted to the witness!
I couln't help it, it's to hot, and my brain melted!
Posted by: Reta Retard on May 27, 2005 03:21 PMIn Clark County there were 57 more absentee ballots counted than people recorded as having voted by absentee.
For poll votes, there were 32 more votes than voters.
Durkan: "Is the fact that you were able to reconcile the polling places within 32 an indication to you, as the auditor, that there was any kind of fraud in Clark County?"
Kimsey: "No."
King County's discrepancy was approximately 1775, which is almost 20 times as great as Clark County's.
King County handles more ballots -- 5.2 times as many as Clark County.
I hope Judge Bridges pays attention to the arithmetic when considering whether the discrepancies in those two counties are at all comparable in size or implication.
As for the absence of a mail ballot report, noted above by Randy Mueller at May 27, 2005 03:02 PM -- I would be surprised to find that any of these bureaucrats do such a reconciliation report. It's only required by law, and the laws simply govern the performance of their duties -- so of course many of them ignore the law (and common sense).
ha ha ... that's a good one!!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:29 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002290397_danny27.html
I HATE OUR LOCAL PAPERS!
Dan S.
Posted by: Dan S. on May 27, 2005 03:29 PMThe D lawyer did not ask her how many ballots were cast. The R should ask for the exact number for a comparison.
The provisional ballots MIGHT have been in the accuvote. MIGHT. Strike her testimony. Maybe, could have, possibility. This is plausible deniability all together.
Go after accuracy on her part. She will testify that the accuracy is of utmost importance.
Posted by: ROn A. on May 27, 2005 03:31 PMIn fact, she looks like a "member of the club."
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:34 PM1) How much larger is King County then Clark County? If not 20x was that pointed out by the GOP lawyers?
2) If the mail ballot report is required by law has that statute been read several times by the GOP lawyers?
They need to hammer this home I think.
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 03:34 PMI would recommend you check your moral compass to see if the needle needs tightening, because obviously the screw loose.
In a moral relavistic society where anything goes, meaning the truth to this type of society has no right and wrong, the JDBs of the world will justify anything, including the obvious. Unfortunately, the JDBs are getting their education from the Public School System where anything goes!
Posted by: pcs on May 27, 2005 03:35 PMWe now know that the were several elections workers, who knew something was wrong and did nothing. Add to this another oddity, the actual ballot count difference between the manual (hand) recount and the machine recount in KC is 625. But the number of ballots credited to all three candidates is 971. So again, it goes back to "fair and accurate accounting." And with this bunch, that just did not happen.
Posted by: Mike P on May 27, 2005 03:36 PM Too bad that King County doesn't seem to allow things like that. She may be a Democrat, she may have to admit some mistakes, but at least she appears to be forthright.
p.s. I'm have a medical situation that has me highly frustrated right now, I needed that laugh. Thanks
Posted by: Orange Robyn on May 27, 2005 03:38 PMWow! This woman probably isn't going to get Durkan too worked up.
I'm trying to figure out which of these too is more masculine.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:40 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002290397_danny27.html
I HATE OUR LOCAL PAPERS!"
Yeah, shame on the GOP, they had no right exposing solid evidence of the blatent fraud that was perpetrated in KC by the Dems! Shame!
Danny Westneat, are ya
Bitter much?
I'm sure elections in ALL states are this bad. Maybe this close one will shine a light on the problem. I hope.
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 03:49 PMRCW 29A.68.011 Prevention and correction of election frauds and errors.
[paraphrased and shortened]
The appropriate judge shall require any person charged with error, wrongful act, or neglect, to correct the error, desist from the wrongful act, or perform the duty and to do as the court orders, or to show cause why the error should not be corrected, the wrongful act desisted from, or the duty or order not performed.
While subsections 1, 3, and 6 mention deadlines for filing, note that subsections 4 and 5 do not mention deadlines for filing. I believe a reasonable person would expect subsections 4 and 5 to be considered on the merits of indivual cases.
Subsection 4 includes wrongful acts by any election officer. Subsection 5 includes neglect
of duty on the part of an election officer.
Now, consider King County's falsified Mail Ballot Report in conjunction with RCW 29A.84.610 Deceptive, incorrect vote recording.
So, it seems the appropriate judge would have authority to require the Mail Ballot Report to be corrected, that is, reconciled. Of course, given the data set available from King County, that can not be done.
Hmm...
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on May 27, 2005 03:51 PMYou are using the same tactics that the Democratic lawmakers in DC are using to oppose Bush nominees. Quit assasinating the character of the lawyer and stick to the facts of the case itself. *sigh*
Posted by: Eyago on May 27, 2005 03:55 PMWell, for that matter, so is Durkan.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 03:55 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002290397_danny27.html
Here's my favorite quote from Danny:
"Maybe because you saw only what you wanted to see?"
I think Danny messed up - I don't think he was supposed to let the official MSM modus operandi cat out of the bag. Seems to explain most of the reporting on the trial, including his "news" story.
Posted by: Bubbasaurus on May 27, 2005 03:56 PMThis idea that an election cannot be perfect. I just cannot buy that. I only have ONE vote and by darn they better handle it PERFECTLY. GRrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: Hanna on May 27, 2005 03:56 PMI have to agree with you there. I am not without humor, and a little poking of fun is reasonable, but try not to be mean spirited.
Posted by: Eyago on May 27, 2005 04:04 PMMaybe not alot of cross examination, but think of it this way, what are the dems really proving.. seems to me that they are just showing that the election was way more screwed up than thought to have been believed...this questioning by the dems to their witnesses should secure the fact that we need a new election...
Posted by: me_b_watching on May 27, 2005 04:07 PMBeth at May 27, 2005 03:34 PM -- the answer to both questions is "probably not." The number of ballots counted by King County may well be in the record (899,199). I don't know if they thought to put the number for Clark County (172,277) in the record. The requirement for an absentee ballot reconciliation is contained in a regulation issued 17 years ago in 1988 -- far too recent for them to know about, I guess.
Posted by: Micajah on May 27, 2005 04:08 PMHow can you explain something that is non-existant? Sort of like the Dems' lawyers trying to explain the non-existant voters that voted in King County.
Posted by: JRR on May 27, 2005 04:09 PMAnd, for the record, I could care less about a person's sexual orientation, as long as it doesn't involve hatred for others that don't fit their preferences. Durkan is tightly aligned with the UW Women Studies department and all their nonsense theories about the "patriarchy."
So, as far as I'm concerned, if she is busy attacking men and the basic Constitutional rights of men, she is fair game!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 04:10 PMTo me the problem is that the Rats are attempting to show that errors occured in Rossi counties as well that offset the ones in King County. They are trying to say that the errors cancel each other out and therefore Gregoire is the true winner. I want our lawyers to argue numbers and the proportion of errors being much larger in King County. I don't hear that they are doing that. I imagine that will be in their closing. Right?
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 04:12 PMIf Sims weren't such an idiot, KC should offer a job to this guy to come in an clean the place up.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 04:21 PMWould that be a "searching glance."
alaric
Posted by: alaric on May 27, 2005 04:21 PMBut, be careful, you might get Eyago upset with you.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 04:24 PMI learned that one mistake does not justify another, but we live in a new world. Now I guess we are to believe that a mistake on the part of party B not only justifies the mistakes of party A but also makes those mistakes acceptable norms. It is indeed a new world!
Posted by: Hanna on May 27, 2005 04:25 PM...
So, as far as I'm concerned, if she is busy attacking men and the basic Constitutional rights of men, she is fair game!"
I don't have any argument with your position regarding the effect of millitant feminism on our culture. It IS off topic, so it's validity is borderline, but I'm not objecting to noting the fact that she might be antagonistic toward men since she is a major player in our drama, but I think some comments (and I have not gone back to identigy WHO'S) have gone over the line and refelct poorly on this site.
You have entered your evidence, and unless new evidence comes to light that is relevant, I think we can be done with this portion of the "hearing" and we can get back to whether it matters if the government can obscure an election enough to subvert the voters.
Posted by: Eyago on May 27, 2005 04:29 PMThe next revelation was the number of errors associated with absentee ballots. I have always voted at a polling place, after hearing what I heard today, any responsible voter that could vote at a polling place should.
Posted by: Jaybo on May 27, 2005 04:29 PMIt's time they stopped calling the Dem lawyers "interveners" and start calling them INTERLOPERS
Posted by: Michele on May 27, 2005 04:37 PMWe are in a LOT of trouble, if that's the case.
And I don't want those corrupt people down at the Enron (formerly known as King) County Elections Department ever touching my ballot again.
Cascade County NOW!!!
Posted by: Michele on May 27, 2005 04:42 PMI agree that generally attacking people for their personal life is a bad idea. However, in this case, I think people should be aware of the sort of crowd Gregoire hangs with. The MSM had a column on Durkan, but didn't point out just how militant she is in the gender feminist camp. Birds of a feather hang together.
Durkan is Gregoire's righthand man ...err ... woman ... whatever(!) ... and Durkan is up there taking the lead in looking out for her. What Durkan does reflects exactly what Gregoire wants, while Gregoire claims to be out of the loop.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 04:44 PMThat hurts the dems!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 04:57 PMIt's truly too bad that so few people are watching this case. And while our friend, JDB, likes to talk about talking about reform, sadly, I don't see too many people looking at the lessons learned here.
So many of the partisan defenders of the status quo are hoping for an interim or ultimate victory as validation of the system, and plan on continuing their practices. Remember, the donkey party wants felons, dead people, multiple ballots per voter, people voting in multiple states, and other shennanigans to continue. In fact, they argue for the continuance of the current practices in one of two ways, a) 'It always happens,' or b) it's not illegal. Hamilton is leading the charge on that.
I want the revote, make no mistake. But I also want the election reform of which we have discussed for so long. Let's keep an eye on both prizes.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 04:59 PMYou answered your own question. He got the job BECAUSE he spills conventional liberal pieties onto the page. Or rather, he regurgitates them.
With your personal attacks against the attorneys, I guess that means that you conceed Rossi's election contest is baseless.
Posted by: Erik on May 27, 2005 05:28 PMIsn't this the 'distributed vote fraud' that has been discussed several times on SP? A few extra votes in this county, a few extra votes in that county... pretty soon it *should* add up to a winning election for a D - right??
Eyago - agreed! DMV's repeated posts make him look obsessed. Kind of like the R's who kept saying about the Clinton scandal: "It's not about the sex, it's because he lied under oath!" Then they kept repeating the sex parts, over and over and over.
I've been married more than 40 years and have three grown children. Public talk of sexual matters does not interest or excite me. Besides, hasn't DMV heard of Tammy Bruce and Andrew Sullivan - conservative homosexuals? The politics of the individual is more interesting and important than the sexual orientation.
Posted by: mac on May 27, 2005 05:32 PMGo back a few blogs and take a look at how they disrespet women. Must be turning them inside out to have Condi Rice with such a powerful job.
They think she got it through title 9 and affirmative action.
PS Berka wearing women get killed by their brothers more often than you think.
So instead of just having a raw raw club, lead by angry white males you might ask Stefan to let free thought flow.
At least you won't have to go over to HA to see what the otherside thinks.
Posted by: danw on May 27, 2005 05:47 PMWouldn't that be spelled burkha?
I don't mean to nitpick, but having been in areas in which they have been worn, it is a small consideration and a tip of the hat to the diversity they bring to the table.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 05:49 PM
What about this election? With all the mistakes, whether fraudalent or not, can you say with any certainty who really won? Be honest. I think it is patently obvious that this election was too close to decide with the mess that happened in many counties here. Can you own up to that?
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 05:51 PMThe following:
"I enjoy a dissenting view. I don't really like when people who disagree begin accusing other posters of beating their wives and not supporting their children. That's not an "opposing view" it's probably boardering on liable."
Was Posted by me...I swear I put my name in the "Name" box...the comments were directed at DanW.
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on May 27, 2005 05:54 PMHell, their system is so nifty I wouldn't doubt if a few Portland residents had the time to journey across the river to join our process. That is, if they had time between street protests and gay marriages.
BTW.. Clark County WA is a wonderful place to live. Conservatives should consider moving here. We need more of you!
Posted by: Splatter on May 27, 2005 06:00 PMYou know what I meant...
Posted by: Splatter on May 27, 2005 06:04 PMI agree with you totally. There is absolutly no way to tell who won this election. The only thing strange about this election was it's exceptional closeness. The Margin of Error can not determine the winner. Is that clear enough?
But what is the solution?....not the one you would like to see, but the one that was on the rule books prior to the election.
Three counts and court challenges.
That is why this whole thing is going on in Chelan, this is part of the solution on the books.
They need to prove Fraud, if they prove it, then justice will be served.
As for the Bad Boys on this Blog, they have been trashing women and every minority group they can think of on this Blog forever. They are as close to white supremicists as you will find, and as I am often accused of being in cahoots with extremists like Ward Churchill, these folks make up a good percentage of your sides debate, be wary who you sleep with.
Posted by: danw on May 27, 2005 06:11 PMI am not as versed in WA election law as others here are, but it is clear that the legislature did not envision anything close to what happened here and the law is unclear. This is unchartered territory. Judge Bridges has a tough job. But it is obvious that without anyway to determine who won, not only because it was close, but due to incompetence, a revote/new election must occur. We cannot let this stand because there is no legal precedence. Wrong is clearly wrong, despite what views those on my side have re gay marriage, women, civil rights, etc. That is all irrelevant here.
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 06:25 PMFrom what I can remember, hitting the comments below the post with the number takes you to the thread for that section, much like here.
It's been a long while since I have gone there, so forgive me if I lead you astray. Personally, I find the site distasteful, disrespectful, and lacking in 'good home training.' But others think differently, so enjoy.
It does occur to me that my desire to be vulgar so others would see that I was confident and didn't care left me shortly after learning how to curse correctly in the Navy. Some others apparently feel the need to continue.
Hope that helps, and BE SAFE this weekend, folks. Already some major MVAs and more than a few spot fires going on up here in Snohomish county. And with the holiday weekend, drinking, hot weather, and general idiots out there, it's likely to get more intense.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 06:31 PMDon't buy her "I worked from within" thing. We know, the black community knows, everyone knows she chose to be 'popular' and NOT rock the boat about it while in college. She waited until she couldn't be kicked out of the sorority as a studetn before wanting say anything. Don't deny it.
Posted by: Michele on May 27, 2005 06:35 PMNo argument there Mac. You won't find me arguing against gay marriage, either, except to the extent that it is not practical when mixed with the judicial invention of "meretricious relationship." (Which would mean that you would need to worry about your same-sex roommates from college taking you to court and claiming a meretricious relationship).
In this case, however, when you look at the involvement of Durkan in various organizations, it is clear that her sexuality and her politics mix quite demonstrably. So, to point out her lifestyle is to point out her politics, and vice versa.
Other than that, I was having a little fun. I apologize if anyone was offended.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 06:36 PMHave a wonderful and safe weekend.
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 06:39 PMWe have seen election after election where these things have gone on. Did Slade Gorton really lose to Maria Cantwell? Did Sound Transit legitimately win? And, some have cited other instances in which the results are questionable, based on what we've seen this time.
The instinct that something wasn't quite right has been around for a while, but it wasn't until this election that people began to peer into the mechanics and results to see the mess. It wasn't until this election that people stood up to declare that this isn't acceptable. It wasn't until this election that we had a candidate who was willing to stand up and asked for a contest, that we might see what's been happenin. It wasn't until this election that folks like Stefan did the hard work, perservered, and put together information that indicated problems beyond the scope of what people thought of as 'worst case.'
So, we are left with the MSM bleating whatever lines that the donkey party wants out there. The donkey party officials are looking not only to vindicate their practices, but to quell all notion of changing things. We have, and I'll be polite, the apologists like danw who, to be charitable, want the party currently in power to inflict their will upon us. And a public that is apathetic to a large degree about what's been going on.
Heartening though, when you talk to the person on the street who has any awareness of what's been going on, they become upset at learning what constitutes acceptable behavior amongst their elected 'representatives.'
The legislature knew exactly what they were doing when they enacted the laws that danw is so favorable in his disposition towards. Make it impossible to hold the elected official accountable for the actions of the people who instilled them. Yes, there are those who will demand that we a) show who was voted for, despite a constitutional guarantee of secret ballots, and b) demand that the contesting party name the perpetrator of fraudulent ballots which are untraceable. Because the law says so. (Theoretically, we have courts that have the ability to declare things unconstitutional, and invalidate laws. Of course, that's only been used lately to defeat the will of the people for initiatives that are construed (painfully twisted) to show more than one subject in a ballot title.)
danw aside, for his attempts to defend and promote illegality are tiresome, we have serious issues, and the best opportunity to learn what has been happening, so we can begin the process of cleaning up this mess. (Cleaning up may involve inviting a good portion of our current legislative body to find success elsewhere, for their inclination was very much to continue the status quo and make it easier for people to cheat.)
Beth, thanks for your thoughts. You are a breath of fresh air in here, and a wonderful respite from 'others.'
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 06:53 PMYou need to look a little closer at the list of Bloggers on the right side of SP. I can show you one of them that has direct links with White Supremicists. But I will save that for HA, it makes so much better reading over there. people are actually offended by Nazi's on the left, versus voting for them over here.
Yes and lets compare Christian Coalition to Blacks, gays, Women, Hispanics, and every other non white male group that the boys over here love to go after.
Posted by: danw on May 27, 2005 06:53 PMuh, isn't that exactly what you just did? This guy is a troll.
For the rest of you, there is an club of angry men that include white men, black, hispanic, and every other color you can think of.
Some of them are simply angry about having to pay child support. But, most are after a presumption of joint custody of children after divorce. They have a reasoned argument for this. They also have good reasons for being angry at how family courts treat them as only a wallet and not a father as well.
Finally, while there are abusers out there, the come in both sexes. And, the laws in place strip men of their basic Constitutional rights while there are a large number of frivolous charges out there.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 06:58 PMI am curious about your fascination with nazis, and truly, what it says about how far left you really are. Would you say that you are mainstream?
I comment solely on the basis that the nazis were, of course, National Socialists, correct? Given the behavior, intentions, platforms, and actions, it would be reasonable to presume that they were big government types with aspirations of using that government to control a great deal of the populace, correct?
We associate socialists with the far left, yet you indicate that they are extremely to the right of the political scale from you. How much farther left can that possibly make you?
Even more interesting to me is the fact that all of the socialists, communists, and wherever you happen to be on that side of the scale are so far to the left of me that the chasm is unbelievably wide. I could never see myself going to the left to become a nazi, yet by association, you seem to paint me along those lines.
This is not acceptable.
Further, I reject your attempts to portray the mainstream as being so far to the left that the balance ends up being somewhere between communism and socialism. Any reasonable person evaluating your statements would find themselves questioning your thinking on that. I therefore subsitute reality in place of your vision, and assure you that most good folk I have known in this world are not in between the two.
Regards,
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 07:02 PMSo I'll put it in small words for you.
Represents democrats in court...probably a democrat.
Like Eyman represents Woodinville sugar daddy, takes money into pocket.
Like Cynical Accountant for GOP shill group BIAW, Fixes books and sends money to Stefan.
Real easy stuff.
One more.
Wife left you for another women, not your fault.
so get over it.
What is "HA" by the way? I'd like to go check it out.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 27, 2005 07:07 PMIf we can't have honesty and integrity, we can at least insist on quality.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 27, 2005 07:14 PMI agree with all you say except I am not quite as sure as you are that the legislature really thought through what they were doing to arrive at the result we may be faced with here. It is perfectly conceivable that they just are not as bright and forward thinking as we might hope and never envisioned the situation WA finds itself in now.
I remember FL in 2000 with those poorly writen election contest laws that were written by great Repubs such as Tom Feeney. They might have the best intentions but without a crystal ball cannot conceive of all the possible possibilities.
I guess that WA legislatures of the past were not as reliable as Mr. Feeney or his GOP ilk. I still am not convinced of evil intentions. Just lack of foresight. Scalia was our hero in 2000. Maybe Bridges will be this year. What is right is right.
See ya. Have a great weekend!!!
Posted by: Beth on May 27, 2005 07:15 PMIt is not the same.
I am too tired to go look for the quote, but the difference would be Nazi "Business controlling Government"....Socialist "Government Controling Business". neither one of them are good for the common man. Both of them lead to power in the hands of a few.
We on the left are being drawn as people who want to put some sort of socialist state into effect...it is just wrong. We are all capitalist Americans who want to live the American dream.
We understand, that when you go to far to either extreme, the odds go down for anyone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
"Absolute power corrupts absolutly"
On either side.
So when people throw names out of corrupt officials on the other side, it just proves the point, that there needs to be checks and balances. Right now there are no checks and balances. We see laws being written that are too corporate friendly. I like laws that help promote business, but not at the expense of all else.
So when I say Nazi/Fascist, it is because I believe we are headed towards corporate control of our government, the last remaining bastion is the Media and they are crumbling under their ownership.
That is what has us all in a bunch if you will on the right.
Who are these mythicals "we" people on your side that believe this and where is the proof that this is their thinking? I see no such moderate logic in the Dem party at all. Maybe at best it is given lip service on occasion by Lieberman, Nelson. etc. But it no way is it acted upon as the prevailing view or even presented as an acceptable alternative.
Show me where and when your party shows any inclination for poeple to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Good luck. That kind of talk is hearasy in the modern Dem party.
Of course the Dems idea was to try to diminish the evidence and accusations pointing to the election fraud and incompetence that is rampant in King County...
Yet - out of 39 Counties in this state...King County is the only one *without* a County Auditor!
So - just how relevant will this testimony be? Comparing counties with Auditors to a County without?
And - I believe the GOP cross-examined when appropriate today! The Dems were doing a pretty good job of making the GOP's case for them....
There are discussions over at www.horsesass.org
and because no one is banded for having different thought than the author here. they tend to be more lively. (dirty, but lively) you just need to go to the bottom to post.
I know that mentioning Clinton is like saying "Devil" here.
But I think we were in a better less polarized time during his administration. agreed?
I refer back to checks and balances.
I think if you look at some of the programs that came out of that administration, you will see that they were not all give aways like you would like to believe, but opportunities for the lower and middle classes to have an opportunity to move up.
Business prospered and not at the expense of the lower classes. The Tax cuts for the wealthy during a war, have not had the effects of trickle down economics that George senior called Voodoo Economics, when Reagen mortgaged our future the first time.
So take a look at this I am sure it might be called a partisan website, but try to remember if these Ideas were something you felt would make our schools better, healthcare more affordable, tax structures not as regressive..etc. and overall a better America.
http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/Accomplishments/html/accomp-plain.html
My question is: If the people at King Count KNEW that the the election was hotly contested, that the margin was razor thin, WHY did they present their totals KNOWING that they were grossly inaccurate? They obviously were doing everything they could to count "all the votes", "finding" votes where ever they may have been hiding in some effort to insure that everything was done to get the correct amount counted. So, if they knew how important everything was to the election, how could they possibly say "here are our vote totals" when they had several thousand votes that could not be reconciled. They KNEW they were not reconciled. They were clear enough to let everyone know when they messed up and "missed" ballots, but they couldn't be clear enough to let everyone know that they coudn't reconcile their counts?
I do not yet beleive that we can prove specific fraud in this case, but I am certain that there was a conspiracy to suppress the magnitude of the irregularities and that had these irregularities been known then the election would NOT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED. And thus, the certification was done due to the violation of the requirements of state law with respect to King County's requirements of reconciliation. (I could have said that better, but the wife is already on my case about being on the computer, so you'll just have to bear with me.)
Anyway, short version: The KC reconciliation was known to be grossly in error but was presented as accurate and the failure to disclose this information allowed the election contest to be certified. It should not have been, and I would hope the judge would see that and rule that the revote is to be done due to the error in certifying an incorrect vote reconciliation whose margin of error exceeded the margin of victory.
Comments?
Was there voting irregularities?
YES
Enough to alter the election?
Clearly! Rossi (wins), Rossi (wins), Gregoire (with discovered votes!)
Okay, RE-VOTE! Lets not make this soooo dificult.
Think of it as democracy PLUS. Another chance for Commrade Gregoire to show her stuff. (That 9.5 cent gas tax may hurt her re-vote huh!)
A better site for the accomplishments. Most of these done with a GOP congress.
Safeguards and programs for the lower and middle classes while the rich still got richer.
If you ever understand the thought behind the "commons" it can work for all of us, not just the few.
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jobwelldone.html
Posted by: danw on May 27, 2005 08:02 PMThe Mariners lost by 5 runs the other day, I am not happy with those results..let's not make it difficult...let's just replay the game...there were some bad calls from the umpire...let not count that game. work for you?
Oh.....rules? they make the rules before the game. not after it's over.
Posted by: danw on May 27, 2005 08:07 PMAnd when the people ask for an accurate count of their votes these same liberals and their attorneys spring into action to explain that open and fair elections are just to hard to get right.
So they decided to make it easier to understand by falsifying the numbers and throwing the election.
Posted by: glenn on May 27, 2005 08:47 PMdanw is the posterchild for why the Dems are losing power. Gets his paycheck...doesn't work a lick and is bitter towards those of us who are successful.
Danw is a parasite.....
Humor him!
Thank you for the reply, and I certainly apologize for my long held misunderstandings about nazis, and the associations with socialism.
I would appreciate a reference on the quote, to help my understanding grow.
My reference, and what has led me astray on the associations between nazis, fascism, socialism, and such was WWII, or as the Russians called it, the Great Patriotic War. Any reference by the latter group of the nazis, and the socialists in Italy was in the vein of fighting fascism. This, by communists, of course. In fact, part of my problem is that on the political spectrum, it appeared to be the communists that indicated that the socialists were the right wing extremists of their day. And, sadly, my public school education left me thinking all these years that the term nazi was a direct derivative of the german acronym for the national socialist party. I was, until your post unaware of another origin for the term nazi, and certainly other original meanings.
Thereby lies my ignorance, for all to see.
I will go see what I can find out and see if somehow I can straighten myself out.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 09:02 PM--- Correcting my public school education, I have learned that it was the National Socialist German Workers Party. (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
--- There's now a Libertarian Nazi (National Socialist) party out there. A green flag with a swastika and everything!
--- Democracy was anathema to the NSGWP, as were thoughts and deviations from governmental approved ideology.
--- The term Nazi is a short form of the German word (NA)tionalso(ZI)alist (National Socialist), reflecting the ideology of the NSDAP.
--- Nazism, or more correctly National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, often abbreviated NS) is a political ideology promoting Germanic racial aspirations and a strong and centrally governed state. The term is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the "Third Reich"). This ideology was held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called NSDAP or the Nazi Party), which was led by its "Führer" Adolf Hitler. Adherents of Nazism held that the German nation and the Aryan race were superior to other races. Nazism has been outlawed in modern Germany, although remnants and revivalists, known as "Neo-Nazis", continue to operate in Germany and abroad.
The term is derived from the word Nazi, which is used to label the supporters of the National Socialism. This term in turn was originally invented as tongue-in-cheek analogy to Sozi (a common and slightly pejorative abbreviation for socialists in Germany), but became more popular and much more pejorative than the original.
To be fair, danw, I did find a treatise composed by Glen Yeadon, who takes much the same position as you, and may indeed be the source of your quote. Though well crafted, and fairly well argued in places, Mr. Yeadon made some assumptions beyond the scope. It is, after all, his thoughts and comments on the general situation, and not a scholarly definitive. But, still, worth reading for those of us who do attempt to understand the greater implications.
Thanks for the thoughts danw.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 27, 2005 09:26 PMDanw is a parasite.....
Humor him!"
Yep, danw is ridiculous alright. Notice he skeedaddled right outta here when you called him on his use of government property to blog. It really was time for him to go.
Posted by: cc on May 27, 2005 09:56 PMI appologize in advance for errors in syntax or grammer or spelling...but as that one post with all the misspelling on purpose going around says. YOU STILL HEAR WHAT IS SAID....Hearing and understanding are different animals.
I'll let Cynical the BIAW Shill and all of you know once and for all, That I do not work for the Government, or the "guvment". and unlike Cynical, I do not make my living of Rebates from the state stolen on the premise of non-existent worker safety training programs.
Instead the BIAW on it's website tell companies how to avoid being caught having their unsafe workplaces inspected.( we're going to be locking those fire exits again pretty soon)
I am self employed, and if I was as self-centered as Maniacal, I could save a ton of money on taxes, with the GOP in office. There is more to life than money, I know that might come as suprise to some here.
PP The constant relationship between Nazi/Fascism was why I related the two. I believe that Fascism tends to go towards Corporate control of Government. If you don't think that the amount of Money that goes into campaigns mostly comes from corporations versus the grassroots types, then you may be deluding yourselves.
As for the Clinton bashers, Who's stock portfolio is higher now than it was before the bubble burst?...except for Cynical who bought all those Oil stocks...and banks in the Caymens.
Clinton became polarizing not because of his policies, but because you and the complicit media decided his immoral behavior offended you.
So Higher abortion rates, 45 million uninsured, 1600 dead americans in a colonial war. No trickle down economics, High paying jobs mostly outsourced, Pensions dismissed in the sneakest bankruptcy bill ever, not even to mention what has happen to the enviornment under this administration. (you would think living in the great northwest this would matter to you, but it doesn't)
I guess that it is just a different definition of Morality between us.
I just don't think you've looked at your own beliefs in awhile. You're letting the sound machine tell you what you believe....your loss not mine.
Going to bed now, so if you wish to berate me...I'll check it out in the morning.
DanW - Do you realize that you have at least 11 post's in this thread??
I know you are upset and all - over the Republicans momentum in the contest.....but you really should back away from your computer again and call it a night...
It's a beautiful evening and you should just calm down....get some rest...go to your *happy place*....
You can troll again tomorrow!
Posted by: Deborah on May 28, 2005 12:06 AM
One element shared by all fascist movements, racialist or not, is the apparent lack of consistent political principle behind the ideology_political opportunism in the most basic sense. One virtually unique aspect of fascism is its ruthless drive to attain and hold state power. On that road to power, fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in vogue and more likely to gain converts.
Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
All in favor raise your hand.
Goodnight really
You call it trolling, I call it trying to find someone like PP or Beth to have a debate with.
You are obviously not that person, you would just rather read what you want to see. there is a place for you too dearie..it's called Fox news. (sorry, couldn't help myself)
Posted by: danw on May 28, 2005 12:14 AMThe idea of conducting a fair and impartial sampling didn't get through to her.
Posted by: Baynative on May 28, 2005 06:36 AMThanks again for taking the time to answer. It required a bit of thought, and was interesting in each of it's bullet points.
Perhaps I am obtuse, but your last piece failed to dissassociate nazism and fascism from the tenets of socialism though. Again, I end up with the sense that the use of nazi still leaves such philosophy way to the left of most of us. (Although learning that nazi is to the right of the sozi was interesting)
You see, communism, socialism, collectivism, fascism, nationalism, and theism,they all rely on the strong central governments to advance their agendas, extraconstitutional or not. And common between the philosophies is the practice of achieving results they desire, despite laws, the will of the people, or international adherence.
We'll get back to that in a moment.
Sure, the term nazi was in use before Hitler's takeover of the central government, but the base concepts were present along the way. Sure, the NSDAP disbanded the unions, and promoted business interests as a means to control the influence of communism and to build popular support as an interim measure. Sure, the move towards racial superiority and imperialism came into play in the later years of nazi rule.
Still doesn't change the fact that the core problem was strong central governmental systems that were put into place and bastardized into vehicles to oppress, control, and harm others. Take any of the national evils in this world, and you will find at the core, a central government way too strong and ripe for takeover by people who had agendas to achieve. Collectivism, the concept where the 'greater good' is served at the diminishment of the individual is the core problem of most of the evil committed by governments, from my view.
You see, Jefferson saw the potential for things like this to happen. And, in the 1790s, he saw a great deal of the precursor actions endemic to what we've seen throughout history happen through the presidency of Hamilton, who pushed federalism to the limits. And Jefferson's presidency was a direct reaction to the excesses of Hamilton's largess. Of course, to posit the common understanding of Jefferson today, we would think he merely penned the Declaration and argued for a separation of church and state. Unfortunately, Jefferson was not at the height of his game and failed to limit the push for federalism over time.
Bringing all this into play for today's world, and the purpose of this thread, we see collectvism as a great deal of the problem here. It is the signal stated motivation of the whole chain for those who support Gregoire and the use of the state government to put under one party control for the achievement of their collectivist agenda. And, we are seeing on a smaller scale, the legal and extralegal efforts to install the regime that will take that power and run roughshod over this state. Again, the agenda is more important than individual rights, as seen in the behaviors of the people who have acted to accomplish this. This, in a state where the constitution MANDATES that the focus of state goverment support the individual over the collective. Something is afoul here.
So, is the Rossi a big central government fan? Perhaps. Is he borderline socialist, nazi, fascist, theist, or collectivist? Perhaps. Would he promote business in the nazi model and tear down the collectivist unions to build support for his agenda that requires a strong central government? Perhaps.
One thing we can be sure of is that Christine Gregoire definitely falls way to the left of him, and already has a history of income redistribution, collectivist takings, use of central government to promote agenda over the rights of the individual, and supports the extra legal means to maintain and use that power going forward. This would be a good time to right the wrong, support the individual, and to set the tone going forward. On that, I hope we would all agree.
The problem is clearly the continuing moves to build the central governments and make them ripe for takeover, danw. Our liberty should never be a matter of hoping that big government can be taken and used to impose our will on others, and choosing between candidates who would use that power to sustain a party agenda.
And yes, as a tip of the hat to you, danw, and your concerns about things national and international in scope, the same concerns are felt at the national level. It's not an either/or situation for most of us out here in the hustings. It is a matter of having to solve our problems in order to move on to bigger problems to solve. And, I, for one, refuse to be swayed and distracted from my immediate problem solving. It's what has made me a success in the military, the business world, and in my private life. To be focused on those things that need to be done before taking on the next big challenge. Would we agree, danw, that part of the problem you have with our sitting president, is the issue of big central government, and the takeover of that government by someone seeking to achieve an agenda? From your writings to date, I would say that it would be a true statement. So, is the problem truly our sitting governor and president, or perhaps the realization that big government, in it's current form, is able to be taken by a group of people who then can run roughshod over others?
Tell you what. Let's understand and fix our problems here at home, then take the lessons learned and go work towards fixing the same issues at the national level. We in Washington have a unique opportunity in history to understand, resolve, and carry forward the solutions to the malfeasance being perpetrated against us at all levels. Let's expect better. Let's encourage better. Let's support better. Let's make it happen!
Having said that, the Mill Creek delegation of our legislature is about to get some 'feedback' on expectations and their performance (lack of) to the concerns of their constituent today. Not going to tolerate continued behavior on their part. Thank you, danw!
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 28, 2005 07:40 AM-- You are correct. I didn't add the Green party label. Wasn't that a hoot to see though? Comic relief for me last night.
-- Six sigma. That is something to which they should aspire, certainly, but let's think about this for a moment. For them to implement this, how much money would they spend to attempt accomplishment of the program? In business, there is a naturally limiting factor through bang/buck, preventing excess monies being spent on wasteful things. KC would just end up with rainbow visions, and the poor taxpayers would be saddled with more taxes to pay for a program that is beyond the understanding of most KC employees. Unless they could understand the concept, internalize, embrace, and achieve, it's not going to happen. And that's a leadership issue.
But hey, I don't live there. If KC residents demand it, go for it. :)
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 28, 2005 07:45 AM2. KC residents pay for it, but it affects everyone. The state is well within its rights to require performance standards of the counties, at least when there are statewide elections involved.
3. The 6 sigma thing was just to point out that we can and should expect better, and not be conditioned to accept the line that "it's close enough for government work". I don't care how (within the law) that they have quality elections, but I am entirely reasonable to expect them.
4. If they can't be sure, then they should not certify the results. And if they certify false results, a. the results should be thrown out, and b. somebody needs to serve some time.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 28, 2005 08:10 AMReply: By this definition, FDR was a fascist.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
Reply: Ever see the old US war propaganda movies. War does not make a country evil. The purpose for going to war and the expected profits from going to war are the evils behind war. For example, when we left Japan, Germany and soon Iraq and Afghanistan we will leave a self-determining people. This cause for war is not evil and in no case considered a fascist mentality.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
Reply: Why am I reminded of the Dem thugs in Wis. that slashed the tires of the Rep vans and all the vandalism leading up to the election of Rep head-quarters all over the country.
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
Reply: Did you know Bill Clinton used the executive order more than any president in the history of the country?
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
Reply: Bill Clinton, need I say more.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
Reply: Interesting acticle a week ago in the SG news paper. It was about a liberal who left the Dem party the day the Iraqis voted in January. For whatever reason, the neo-cons have hi-jacked the liberal mentality of freedom and liberty and the liberals (dems) are left only with economic ideas that died with the cold war.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
Reply: Actually, the key here is control of the mass media. Survey after survey show that most of the mass media (with the exception of radio) are basically the media wing of the dem party. Independent surveys show that typical news casts favor dems by a factor of about 4 to 1. The claim of "no bias" rings hollow in the face of the facts. Even the outgoing ombudsman of the NYT admits this bias, which should have been a huge story, but was quashed by the other partners in crime.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
Reply: "Bush is a loser" Harry Reid, top dem in the US Senate
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
Reply: "Republicans are evil" "I hate Republicans and all they stand for" Howard Dean DNC Chairman
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
Reply: Ever look at the top doners to political parties? Dems outnumber reps 3 to 1 in the top 25. The fact is that the dems left the average working guy long ago and are basically beholden to special interest big money types.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
Reply: Why was Kerry nominated to run for president? Because he was most electable. He has no consistent ideology and has only ever stood for what would get him elected. Dean I could have respected as a dem candidate or even the guy who ran with Gore. They at least have a fundamental ideology. However, the dems nominated the perfect man to represent their party, a party without ideology.
dB
Posted by: dB on May 28, 2005 08:30 AM As I said in my earlier statements, that any move towards either extreme is not good for the common man. and that is why I am strong supporter of checks and balances.
Some of the greatest American acheivments were done by the likes of Nixon,Reagan(begrudgingly), and Clinton. when they were forced to compromise with an opposi