This comment is specifically addressed to King County Elections' few remaining defenders in the audience --
Don't you people think it's weird as heck that Linda Sanchez' canvassing crew worked its guts out during the 15 days prior to certification going through the pollbooks (twice), while the official story is that crediting is a meaningless post-certification exercise, and then none of the details of their failed attempts at reconciliation were presented to the canvassing board?
Who here does not think that that's really, really weird?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 02, 2005 01:18 PM | Email ThisMay god bless your dutious attention to this matter. You have earned a place in my special coven straight to heaven when that day comes. You have shown how evil and insidious these liberal Democracy haters are and how out of touch people can be. Your time and attention paid to this incredible story is quite welcome in this time of the nearing rapture.
Stand ready and prepare for that Holy day. The Bible Prophecy will be nearer to fullfillment on the day that Mr. Rossi has been put in the governor's mansion. Mr. Rossi is a Chosen one.
until He Returns,
Dr. Tim LaHaye
Posted by: Dr. Tim LaHaye on June 2, 2005 01:31 PMDon't you people think it's weird as heck that Linda Sanchez' canvassing crew worked its guts out during the 15 days prior to certification going through the pollbooks (twice), while the official story is that crediting is a meaningless post-certification exercise, and then none of the details of their failed attempts at reconciliation were presented to the canvassing board?
Who here does not think that that's really, really weird?
Me. :)
As the judge has ruled, the voter crediting issue is not applicable. However, they are working to show that even if it was, Rossi would still lose the election contest.
This is the same approach as the felon voting issue and the proportional analysis. The democrats are attempting to show that regardless if it is used or not, Rossi loses.
Overall, the democrats are working to make their (anticipated) win appeal proof so that regardless of the legal standard the supreme court uses, Rossi would lose his contest.
Hmm - a stoned troll? What are the odds...
Posted by: Rick D on June 2, 2005 01:38 PMStef...nice shout out from LaHaye!
Posted by: Danny on June 2, 2005 01:38 PMBloggers have uncovered that K.C. chemical co. (Seattle, WA), a division of Evergreen environmental friendliness (Olympia, WA), is missing 100,000 gallons of nastium grossate. Nastium grossate is used to kill just about anything. Operations superintendent Dean0 Bloagan, told reporters that "our inventory meters are so bad, we can't tell how much nastium grossate is missing". Bloagan said that while he can't be sure how much is unaccounted for, "you can't prove that any is missing". He was also quoted as saying that "Elmer the operator screwed up because he's old. Quit picking on old people".
A collapsed tank can be seen from the fence, with a large swath of dead barren land between the tank and the Puget Sound. Three-eyed fish have been caught nearby. Assistant director of the state department of ecology Nixie Handon stated that "K.C. chemical is a respected member of the nastium community. Back off. And I'm impartial."
Attornies for K.C. chemical released the following statement: "like this is no big deal, and like everybody does it, and like get over it".
Posted by: Dogbert on June 2, 2005 01:38 PMIf I were over on some lefty blog starting arguments, I wouldn't post anything without a link to corroborate what I said. (It still doesn't help, but it's intellectually honest.)
Posted by: Bostonian on June 2, 2005 01:51 PMI am not a troll. We are witnessing one of the prophesized battles of good versus evil as predicted in the Bible. This is the time to take a stand.
I have spoken recently with Mr. Rossi and we shared stories about the Future and God and how we long to rise soon. But we must perservere here on Earth first. We must attempt to let all know about the Rapture and battles like this are part of the plan. The overwhelming and corrupt ways in which the Democrats in King county controlled this election must be laid bare for all to see the naked truth of fraud. This will give our movement momentum. It has been pre-ordained that a political battle like this will take place. This could be the one we have been waiting for.
until He returns,
Dr. LaHaye
Posted by: Dr. Tim LaHaye on June 2, 2005 01:54 PMWhat I gather is they really didn't vet their list all that well, while the GOP list has been hit for months.
Like the number of votes- they have a wild guess about how many are really legit felons
Posted by: Andy on June 2, 2005 02:02 PMI believe it is fairly public information that Dino Rossi is a follower of Roman Catholicism, and as a result, would not believe in what you are such an ardent proponent of, and, as a result, would have no use for your "Left Behind" shrill.
I am pretty sure Dr. LaHaye would not appreciate someone misrepresenting him in this manner.
Posted by: Doug Taylor on June 2, 2005 02:03 PMSaid Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny McCormack in the February 18 P-I, "It has nothing to do with the ballot-counting. It's a separate process".
Both of these oh-so-confidently expressed statements aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. McCormack's twaddle, and probably Eric's as well, is a direct result of Nixon Handy's full-court press to circle the wagons around the 'election community' and defend King County malfeasance in the court of public opinion. The cover-up was employed to avoid a detailed investigation of the election, particularly in King County, and MSM in support of the Democrats could be counted on NOT to do such an investigation.
The community of legitimate Washington voters (that's a different group of citizens than the 'election community') was by these misleading statements to be reassured that the election was run without any irregularities.
It's a coverup worthy of Watergate. I know that in 30 years some doddering ex-'activist' will publicly describe how all those extraneous ballots got into the system to be counted, but there's work to be done while we wait.
First: hold the 'election community' fully responsible for a botched, if not stolen, election, and bring charges against all individuals who swore oaths and hold responsibility for the non-enforcement of the RCWs and WACs that provide for rigorous ballot checks throughout the process.
Next: fire the glib appointed sinecure-holders such as Nixon Handy and Dean Logan, who participated in the coverup without naming the names and kicking the butts of those who were charged with running a clean election. The elected participants should now quite properly fear for their re-election as well.
Somewhere in here, Judge Bridges will issue a ruling, and having seen the extent of the malfeasance and the cover-up, he won't feel obliged to follow Eric's self-invented rules.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 2, 2005 02:05 PMDearest and God Blessed Hanna,
You forget one important detail: I know the facts because I made the facts Have you seen my new Mercedes? It's got nice leather seats!
Dr. God
Posted by: Dr. Tim LaHaye on June 2, 2005 02:06 PMHanna, it's not really Tim LaHaye, who in reality is a little misguided in his beliefs. Google him to learn more. And in the meantime, enjoy the slightly twisted humor of our own "Dr. Tim LaHaye" here.
Posted by: JRR on June 2, 2005 02:06 PM"And the woman of white skin will be enthroned unjustly, and she will set forth tax increases. Lo, this is a sign of the coming end."
Posted by: Doug Taylor on June 2, 2005 02:07 PMI think most of us would agree that the intent of the process should be to identify who has voted, but I don't believe that the process was set up to make this determination. The question should be is the process sufficiently accurate enough that one can assume that it accurately documents who voted. If it is not, then we don't know the answer to the question of how many people actually voted (to the precise number). We only know within a range. In the case of this close election the degree of inaccurracy in the process is greater than the difference in vote count. The statistical expert yesterday was correct in calling the election a statistical tie due to the inaccurracies present in the process.
So, irregardless of how the trial turns out, if it is the goal of us voters that we want an accurrate count of who voted, then we should demand government officials set up the process so it can accurately provide this answer. This will mean longer voting lines or additional polling places and/or voting stations in order to verify and document voters and other process changes. It will mean training polling workers in the proper process. It will mean audit controls in place to make sure the process is followed. It will mean seperation of precinct polling places so that one can not get ballots from different precincts mixed up.
Our process right now is set up to speed up voting (getting people through the lines). If you want to increase the accurracy, then the throughput will need to decrease so that all the steps are followed correctly.
You know, like the sentences of the child molesters.
Or have THEIR voter registration 'flagged' to be sure they haven't voted twice (or three times) AGAIN!!
Posted by: arky on June 2, 2005 02:08 PMNice credibility.
Posted by: Andy on June 2, 2005 02:21 PMOr the Dems saying that felon and illegal votes make no difference in the final tally, yet wanting to Republicans to prove exactly how these votes were cast. :-\
There's been a lot of wierd stuff come to light in this mess.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 2, 2005 02:23 PMYour switching between yes and no so fast who can tell wtf your trying to say.
BTW there's no need to put an ir before regardless. Even if it were correct it doesn't change the meaning. Check it out
I agree that voter crediting is not important, regardless of the fact that so much effort went into attempting to do it before KC Elections gave up on it.
and
I agree that voter crediting is not important, irregardless of the fact that so much effort went into attempting to do it before KC Elections gave up on it.
See - they same the same stupid indefensible thing
- that was a bomb shell of total cherry picking.
Posted by: Andy on June 2, 2005 02:25 PMThe Democrats' case, at least to me, has only seemed to hurt them. The more they bring up, the more they heap coals of irrationality upon themselves. Their best chance would have been to say very little and let the Republicans' case stand on its own.
I think the Republicans' lawyers have done an OK job, although I'd have held back on the word fraud. I would have tried to prove fraud without saying it was fraud. That would have been easier, in my view.
Posted by: Doug Taylor on June 2, 2005 02:29 PMWhat was the Republican split? I don't remember it being 98% CG leaning.....
The last witness appeared to be a bit condescending and smug.
Posted by: Jack on June 2, 2005 02:39 PMI saw a quote from the Thurston County Sheriff saying he had found 1 or 2 down here and that he was positive there were a lot more- but it would take a ton of resources to find them and he didn't have those resources.
So the Dems started with a cherry picked list- went and cherry picked into Rossi precincts so that if proportional analysis is applied- it would only hurt Rossi. This would explain the ST headlines week ago.
Posted by: Andy on June 2, 2005 03:06 PM