Secretary of State Sam Reed had a premature ejaculation of joy on Wednesday.
A headline at The Olympian website: "Reed: First post-Gregoire-Rossi election ran smoothly"
frankly, if there were any real problems we would have seen them yesterday," Secretary of State Sam Reed said today ... "It's kind of a relief ... after what happened last year," Reed said.Is Sam Reed for real? Most of the problems with last November's election presented themselves not on election day, but afterwards. So it's far too soon to declare victory. And we may have a recount that will stress the system. As of this evening, Bob Ferguson is leading Carolyn Edmonds by only 25 votes. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 21, 2005 11:04 PM | Email This
Is Reed getting dizzy yet? So he can tell in one day that things went well in yesterdays primary when we are still discovering things that went wrong in 2004's election? He's kidding right?
Besides it is very clear that many of the counties weren't particularly forthcoming about last years problems with Sam or the people during the election or after. So how is he so sure now?
For our sake, I hope he is right. I think the General Election will be the real test.
Reed might want to withhold judgement on the “sewer of corruption” being fixed until say..After the count is in on a close one like Edmonds/Ferguson. Ferguson cant feel too confidant knowing the machine polls favor his opponent.
Hey Sam, do your job. Given what has happened in this elections department, don’t you want to be on ground zero with a magnifying glass before you tell us all is well?
Posted by: Brad on September 22, 2005 06:47 AMOther functions that previously had serious problems, haven't even occured yet; validating and counting provisional ballots (by law not to be counted until all other ballots are counted as to prevent double voting), voter crediting, precinct and county reconcilliation, documenting and certifying the final count numbers, and will the number of ballots even approximately equal the number of credited voters?
I am soooooooo looking forward to voting Sam out of office.
Posted by: dl on September 22, 2005 08:03 AMHow long does it take to count 313 ballots? (Plus a few more absentee still on their way)
Even if they only used one person to do the job, at an average of 5 minutes per ballot, (I think that's plenty of time even for government work)
it would take 26 hours.
Thing is - none of what he does as SOS should be partisan (R or D) in any way. Yet, he attempts to play the middle by claiming to be one thing and being something completely different when the lights are turned off. That's not a traitor. That's a hypocrite. He's been doing it for years in Thurston County. It's now that the rest of the state gets to see it.
Posted by: jimg on September 22, 2005 09:03 AMMemory kicks in here...after 2004 elections, who said (I paraphrase) that elections this close were rare, and therefore it was unnecessary to demand unreasonable levels of accuracy? Don't feel limited to answering with just one name. Remember, that was referring to a governors race differential of under 200 votes...less than a year later we already have an important county race with a differential of 25 votes. Who says accuracy isn't important???
Posted by: dl on September 22, 2005 09:32 AMWhile there is no shortage of incompetence within King County Elections, the real problems had nothing to do with "accidents" and more to do with deliberate efforts to overturn the results of the governor's race.
Kinda interesting how all of these "screwups" seemed to be in Fraudoire's favor, eh? And kinda interesting how King County waited to be last to submit their results of the third count. I think we all knew that the results had been predetermined just as soon as the democrats put up the $800K deposit to run the last recount.
King County Elections worked very hard from November 3rd until December 30th to make this happen. And they have worked very hard since then to try and survive the resulting political firestorm. Just focus on the "problems" and the money we can spend to "fix" them.
This is right out of the Clinton playbook. His troops were very loyal to about sex and not about perjury.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on September 22, 2005 09:42 AMRequest every single scrap that you requested last year for _this_ election. (And make a button 'Donate to FOIA fund')
Including the list of voters on Sept 5th. (15 days prior to election).
Posted by: Al on September 22, 2005 09:45 AMNext he will be saying it was the best run election he has ever seen.
LOL
Posted by: jaybo on September 22, 2005 09:51 AMThe point is that these bozos only see failure when someone complains of not being able to vote for some idiotic reason, such as being confused about how to use a simple ballot.
Accurate counting, screening of illegal votes, and catching double votes, are not considered ingredients of success. Well, they are in the sense that the Democrat mafia that runs that state uses these aspects of "counting" the vote to ensure that they "win" elections.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on September 22, 2005 10:04 AMI know that Logan is a Reed protege, but really? It's so damn transparent. Reed has been all over the map in his criticism and praise, and at this point, I don't trust what he says at all. I still think Reed is more honest and of better character than Logan, but just basic common sense would suggest a more cautious measured response than a sudden knee-jerk gushing of praise almost immediately after the election. It's really true that those who can are out doing it, and those who can't are in government, teaching, etc.
We shall see in November.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2005 11:41 AMI would volunteer for the recount, but I don't think they would want me after that kind of blunder....On second thought, maybe they would! Aren't they looking for people who just make HONEST MISTAKES.
Posted by: Liz on September 22, 2005 11:44 AMReality never has been is strong suit, so why any surprise over this pronouncement. He checked out from his responsibilities last Novemeber, so why bother to worry about it now?
I know Sam has received my vote for the last time.
Posted by: duhh on September 22, 2005 01:32 PMLet's see.....Slade Gorton, Dino Rossi...Let's hope Ferguson is not added to the 'screw' list...
Posted by: Realist on September 22, 2005 07:41 PMAgree. It takes a lot for an R to lose my vote, and I have no problem with voting for the 'Lesser of two evils', but when you literally get nothing from the R, you mine as well have the D just so it'll be obvious that they are covering up.
I hope he gets a primary challenge if he runs again. I don't think he'd have a chance in hell of winning.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on September 22, 2005 08:08 PMIsn't Logan running against someone in November or did King Sims decide to reneg on another promise ? What a sham ! The 3rd most corrupt county in the US is living up to its infamy..
Posted by: KS on September 22, 2005 09:53 PMThe real question should be, "Just who the hell is Sam Reed working for?"
Sound like a rhetorical question? Sure as shootin' sounds like one to me.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 23, 2005 10:17 PMThe real question should be, "Just who the hell is Sam Reed working for?"
Sound like a rhetorical question? Sure as shootin' sounds like one to me.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 23, 2005 10:17 PMThe real question should be, "Just who the hell is Sam Reed working for?"
Sound like a rhetorical question? Sure as shootin' sounds like one to me.
Posted by: ERNurse on September 23, 2005 10:17 PM