In a recent post, yellow rabid dog Democrat blogger David Goldstein attacked County Prosecuting Attorney Norman Maleng for declaring his intention to take action against the illegally registered mail box voters. It's weird enough to attack Maleng for following both the law and the sentiments of the entire canvassing board on this matter (Even the Democrats on the canvassing board acknowledged that most of the mail box voters whose challenges they rejected probably don't live where they are registered, but that PAO investigations are a better tool to handle the problem than are poorly researched challenges from other citizens).
But the weirdest thing about Goldstein's post is that it links to a document containing confidential legal advice given to the canvassing board under attorney-client privilege.
The ultimate leaker of the privileged communication is most likely Dean Logan himself. Several of the document's pages were printed from Logan's own e-mail account, and the document was faxed from Logan's office (296-0108) --
We owe our thanks to the wonderfully clueless David Owngoalstein for compromising his source by posting this document with the original fax headers intact. But more to the point, it is highly unusual for privileged attorney-client communication to be leaked. In particular, I don't believe that Logan has the prerogative to unilaterally waive privilege on behalf of the entire canvassing board, which is a statutory body accountable to three different elected officials. That somebody in Elections leaked this document confirms that the Elections section is just another political operation in Ron Sims's personal service.
I eagerly await the response to my public records request of Dean Logan, the essence of which is to produce:
a) Page 1 of The Fax (i.e. the cover page)UPDATE: In response, Goldstein posts the fax cover sheet from Dean Logan's (mis)Communication Specialist, Bobbie Egan. It remains an open question whether Dean Logan had the authority to unilaterally waive attorney/client privilege on behalf of the entire canvassing board, to whom the advice was addressed. I e-mailed my inquiry to Dean Logan yesterday morning, cc:ing his executive assistant, the other members of the canvassing board and Janine Joly. If there were nothing inappropriate about Logan's disclosure of this information I would have expected a reply to that effect by now.b) In the event that the cover page cannot be produced or does not identify the recipient of the fax ("The Recipient"), then please produce the page of the transmission log for the fax machine from which The Fax was sent, which would identify the phone number to which The Fax was transmitted
c) any other written communications, including fax and email, between The Recipient and employees of the Elections section between November 28,2005 and November 30, 2005
d) Documentation of any rule or specific action of the canvassing board authorizing the waiving of attorney-client privilege to the advice contained in the Fax.
And regarding the Bobbie - Goldy relationship, Goldstein is known to be something of a semi-official spokesman for the Ron Sims campaign/administration. Bobbie has an unusually friendly relationship with Goldy for a public official's spokeswoman to have with someone who writes about her agency. The two are often seen sitting together in public, as they were at this recent voter challenge hearing:
I would also argue that Logan (or his office) may be obstructing justice, by attempting to undermine the investigatory process of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office in this matter. Obstruction of Justice is not a matter to be taken lightly.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 12:26 PMLet's be honest--Anyone arguing against challenges to patently illegal registrations is quite simply advertising themselves to be FOR vote fraud.
Posted by: Michele on December 2, 2005 12:29 PMThen it could be linked to both metrokc.gov and Dean Logan's election site!
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 12:50 PMActually, for once, Reed's intentions are sound with this one.
He's not suggesting to remove the requirement of providing a valid address to register to vote.
Reed is planning to propose that anyone challenging a voter need not provide the current correct address of the challenged voter for that challenge to be valid.
This would make it sufficient that a challenger can prove that a voter does NOT live where s/he claimed when s/he registered to vote, without the challenger needing to acomplish what is often impossible -- prove where the challenger really does live.
Posted by: Insider on December 2, 2005 12:54 PMThanks. That's actually important info. Does it not seem ridiculous that even if you could show that a voter does not live at his/her registered address, that the challenge is unsuccesfful because you were unable to find out where they actually live?
On the matter of 'standard of proof' (incorrectly called "burden of proof" by Ms. Joly on p. 12), "clear and convincing" evidence is a standard of proof that is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" yet more than "a preponderance of the evidence." So, what I'm saying is - there is a lower threshold of proof needed here than to convict someone of a crime.
The concept of not physically being able to live in a small postbox seems (in my opinion) to be proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" - and certainly more than "clear and convincing."
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 01:09 PMSo Stephan, they have defiantely as Ron Sims and Dean Logan keep claiming become more responsible to the citizens out here.
Having said that, Stephan, if the documents you requested from Dean Logan were requested today, you should definately have them back in your hands at the latest by December 16th.
So Please Please Stephan, keep us all posted on how well the new and improved cooperation and communication between King County and the Citizens works in this instance.
In Closing I want to thank Ron Sims and King County elections for their rapid delivery of requested documents!
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 01:13 PMIt's also funny/sad that the dimwits in the Seattle area just don't understand that rules need to apply to everyone.
Posted by: Steve_dog on December 2, 2005 01:25 PMHow did you get that document? and can you post the fax cover page and spare us the suspense of waiting the customary several months it takes for Dean Logan to satisfy public records requests?
(I promise to redact any personal phone numbers that might be on the cover page)
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 2, 2005 01:46 PMAre you insinuating that you would respond to a public records request? Because that would imply that you're actually WORKING for KCEC and Dean Logan, as we all suspected, rather than just being his mouthpiece (or bullhorn, as the case may be.)
How about telling us if Logan has photos or something of Ron Sims. Only reason most of us can see for keeping that dimbulb on the payroll is he knows plenty of dirt...
Posted by: righton on December 2, 2005 01:52 PMYeah you're open about your methodology. You are a completley biased liberal hack that will do anything to serve the Puget Sound political machine.
What I don't get is how you can be so blatantly partisan about an issue that is non-partisan and important to the integrity of all future elections. You may find that one day, the shoe is on the other foot. Would you want a Republican controlled King County Elections office to show as much disrespect for obviously erroenous registrations? Probably not, but for now, it serves your cause to both slam the Republicans for voter challenges and end up with enough screwed up votes so as to have probably tipped the scales for Gregoire in 2004. Even you have to admit, that she ran a pretty poor campaign for a Democrat in such a blue state, and that regardless of how you feel about the election, she dodged a bullet last year.
You are not willing to show the objective integrity towards voting as a whole. You always retreat to the partisan angle. It's probably true that a lot of that has also occured on the Republican side, but can you blame the minority party for at least wanting to clean up the system while they are the minority? Yes you can, and that's why you have a few liberal sycophant readers and zero credibility beyond your URL.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2005 02:01 PMGOTCHA at its finest... go get 'em.
Posted by: A Watchdog on December 2, 2005 02:04 PMHate Bush
Hate the War
Hate Bush
Hate Norm Maleng
Hate Bush
Hate Siegel
Hate Bush
Hate Religion
Hate Bush
Hate Tax cuts
Hate Bush
Hate GOP
Hate Bush
Hate Anne Coulter
Hate Bush
Hate Christmas
Hate Bush
Hate Iraq Victory
Hate Bush
And that's just in the last few days!
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate
And did I mention that they Hate Bush?
I am just glad I am not their kids waiting for a Merry Christmas. In fack I am just plain glad I am not their kids or their dog (I don't like to be kicked every day when they are swearing at Bush)
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 02:09 PMRCW 5.60.060 protects the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office from having to disclose confidential attorney/client communication, and it protects county officials from disclosing such communication "when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure."
(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.
The RCW also protects the recipient of such legal counsel, which in this case would include Logan, Constintine and Satterberg.
(5) A public officer shall not be examined as a witness as to communications made to him or her in official confidence, when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
Now what's interesting is that while these emails can be disclosed, such a release would require the waiving of this privelege by all of the recipients. That would include Logan, Constantine and Satterberg.
Given that the public interest almost never would suffer from learning the truth about decisions made by King County officials, this RCW is routinely cited to hide legal advise, and likely to protect King County officials when they act counter to such advise in their typical "arbitrary and capricious" ways.
Someone with access to Dean Logan's email clearly released this information in the hopes of justifying attacks on Norm Maleng for his decision to challenge illegal mailbox voters . And if it wasn't Logan, it was one of his staff. Without the waiving of privelege by all 3 recipients of these emails, someone broke the law.
For starters, Dan Satterberg should be contacted and asked if he waived his attorney/client privilege, and if not, an investigation should be launched by Maleng into violation of RCW 5.60.060 immediately.
Posted by: Mike on December 2, 2005 02:11 PMYou may add to that:
Knowingly divulging confidential information in an attempt to prevent Maleng from investigating crimes may be classified as obstruction of justice.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 02:29 PMAll I have to say is can we borrow your Hatchet?
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 02:53 PMStephan, does the law say anything about timely disclosure of the requested info? (Sorry, I'd look it up myself, but I figured you would know off the top of your head).
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 03:11 PMor maybe he's on the phone with sims...who is chewing him out YET AGAIN. Posted by: christmasghost on December 2, 2005 03:15 PM
If what you suggest is correct and evil...what say you to the singed under penalty of perjury statements made by your friends in the GOP?
If you choose to follow the law (we know you don't because to this day you still say Rossi won), you have to hold your own to the same standards.
Nah, you don't care about right/wrong. You only care about winning for republicans. Hope they have you fat and happy on their payroll.
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 2, 2005 03:23 PMhypocrites!
Posted by: Matt on December 2, 2005 03:37 PMC-L-O-W-N-S-T-E-I-N!!!!!
CLOWNstein said it was released to the press prior to him getting his hands on it and CLOWNstein claims he asked for it AFTER he heard about the press release.
1) So precisely when, time & date, did KingCo formally release these documents to the press?? That should be a public record.
2) Precisely when did CLOWNstein request this document??? Does Bobbie Egan's phone log show a call from a DAVID CLOWNSTEIN???
3) Were Norm Maleng or Dan Satterburg consulted on the release of this A/C privileged document by Logan?
It's ALWAYS fun to do a TIMELINE on mystery's like this one. Who knew what when? That's what CLOWNStein claims to do when he weaves one of his infamous conspiracy theories.
I have a funny feeling there is a whole lot of covering up going on right now. E-mails, including deleted e-mails, are all Public Records. Logan and Egan clearly know this so it's kind of hard to conceive of why they would transmit this information via e-mail if they were pulling a fast one...but these 2 CLOWNS are not the brightest bulbs!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 2, 2005 03:46 PMNo scandal here other than Stefan jumping to conclusions as usual. Bobbie's job is to handle media requests. My guess is, that if Stefan had emailed her, she would have told him the same thing.
Posted by: Goldy on December 2, 2005 04:09 PMI don't know who released the document or why, but presumably that person either agreed with that advice (and wanted it promoted) or found it outrageous (and wanted it ridiculed). I'd bet on the former, since the advice is pretty common-sensical. Scandalous!
Posted by: Bruce on December 2, 2005 04:10 PM
Jefff B: Objective inegrity towards voting? Don't make me laugh (or cry). The Rethuglicans in this state will do anything they can to disenfranchise the poor, the weak, etc. Why?
Cuz those those folks don't vote GOP! Last I heard, in this country it's one person, one vote. Onus is on the accuser to PROVE the person shouldn't be allowed to vote, not the other way around.
Steve dog: Yep, lots o' swearing over there, but it ain't the lefties. I've seen posts over there by conservatives that would make porn stars blush, both for their content and their lack of sincerity.
GS: I think y'all have the hate concession all sewn up. Good christians like y'all shouldn't hate (gays, poor people, people of color, liberals, war protestors, etc) least that's what I was taught in 12 yrs of catholic school. Is it different for Protestants? Oh, and TREASON is a bit more serious than a client confidentiality leak isn't it. For the latter they execute you (or used to, at least): for the former, I probably wouldn't even go to jail, do you?
Mr. Cynical: Can't believe I'm even commenting on your street corner psychotic ramblings*, but I see you've worked urself into a fine lather. Go shower off. Then, let us know how you are going to blow this all out of sense and proportion to show that it's actually something the gov't should waste time on investigating.
* Got that from a reference to Grover Norquist by (wait for it) Senator McCain's chief of staff
The law that defines what information is required for a voter registration is RCW29A.08.010 and can be seen at this URL...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.08.010
One of the required items is a "complete residential address".
RCW29A.08.110 tells the auditor that it has to be a "complete valid residence address".
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.08.110
RCW29A.08.112 defines the exceptions to a traditional residence address. This says..
Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status if the voter designates a valid mailing address.
For the purposes of this section, "nontraditional address" includes shelters, parks, or other identifiable locations that the voter deems to be his or her residence.
While it isn't explictly listed, a post office box actually qualifies, because it's up to the voter to deem it his or her residence and it's an identifiable location...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.08.112
The actual law in question authorizing such a challenge can be seen at this URL...
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.08.830
The sad thing is the first section actually ends with these words...
"The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides."
So, according to the law, it's "not really" illegal to register with a post office box as a residential address, since it's a valid mailing address. To challenge the registration you have to know the actual address the person "really" resides at, and it's up to the voter to deem an address their residence.
I hate to say it, or even think about it, because it really does open up all sorts of opportunity for voter fraud. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV either, but the way the law is written, I could work in Seattle, drive to a house that I might own in North Bend every night after work, sleep in that house with my family, and drive back to Seattle to work each day, and claim my "residence" address to be a box at a mailbox store in Enumclaw when I register to vote. As long as I as the voter "deem" the mailbox store in Enumclaw, which has a valid mailing address to be my "residence", I would be legally registered to vote there, and anyone that wanted to challenge the registration would have to prove that my actual residence is elsewhere.
If I was careful (suppose the house in North Bend was a rental, and my contract didn't describe it as my "primary place of residence"). My registration in Enumclaw would probably survive a challenge, even if the challenger claimed I lived in North Bend.
The way our election statutes are written really encourage election fraud, and make it nearly impossible to prove.
Posted by: Perri on December 2, 2005 04:29 PMThis is discussed in the documents. One of the interpertations of the nontraditional residence law is as you have mentioned, but the other interpretation is that, even if you think the mailbox store is your "residence", you must register your residence as a government/public building nearby - library, fire station, police station, city hall, etc.
If part (a very small portion it seems) of the law is written to reduce fraud possibilities, which interpretation gets closer to acheiving that goal?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 2, 2005 04:48 PMSo when Goldy asks from Goldy's high paid friends at KC, Goldy Recieves!
When Stephan asks, Stephan waits until they are damn ready, or as was the case with the database logs or until they are legally forced to act!
If you don't see what's potentially wrong with this situation, I can't help you!
Go back to your site and spew your hate!
Stefan often makes huge, complex public records requests, often for information that is not compiled in the form he is requesting. You simply cannot compare the two.
Posted by: Goldy on December 2, 2005 04:57 PM"They (KCRE)assured me that Logan had waived privilege before I posted."
I think perhaps what you may have overlooked in some of Stephan's writings here on this subject is that the "client" wasn't Logan alone. The "client" was the Canvassing Board for some of the advice that was being given. Logan is only 1/3 of the canvassing board and therefore likely does not have enough authority to waive privilege. The board would likely have to meet, and then decide whether to waive or not. That is the point of contention that we're talking about here - all rhetoric elsewhere aside.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 05:01 PMAnother interpretation is that the way the law is written protects a voter form being disenfranchised by a group (hmm I wonder) with an ulterior motive. Logic would suggest that said group would be on the side of the minority, and wants to "even up" eligible voter tallies in their favor.
Here's a compromise: Be really vocal about Texas giving back the 5 seats the GOP gained by illegal* gerrymandering, and maybe you'd have a little more credibility.
* As interpreted by the task force of DOJ lawyers who investigated said gerrymandering. But the GOP appointed superiors squashed that report.
Posted by: Larry the Urbanite on December 2, 2005 05:02 PMThere's a balance between disenfranchising a group and preventing abuse of the system. That's lost on you and Goldy because the system is working well in your favor at the moment.
In your fantasy world, all conservatives are "Rethuglicans" and their mission is to disenfranchise the poor, homeless, minorities and in short, anyone that might be a typical Democrat voter. And in Goldy's fantasy world, the evil genius Karl Rove (aka "The Boogeyman") is behind the whole plot.
Of course, it could be just that some are incensed by the few who don't follow the rules at the expense of the accuracy of the overall result of our elections, especially when a race is a close one.
But I don't want to deny you your "Rethuglican" fantasy, I'm sure it lets you go to a happy blue place where you can explain away the fact that we have a Republican president who won with a solid majority.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2005 05:41 PMFor the record, I have met Bobbie in person twice... at the two hearings I attended. I didn't even know what she looked like before the first hearing. Not that you seem to care all that much about setting the record straight. No... you'd just rather try to make a point through innuendo.
Posted by: Goldy on December 2, 2005 05:43 PMStefan on the other hand is an afront to Logan. So with him, the policy is to deny and delay no matter the validity of his claims.
I guess that's what we should expect when the top elections official is a partisan appointee.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2005 05:52 PMGoldy then posts on his site about an hour later that he has posted the FAX Cover Page, but implies that he has suddenly decided to save the taxpayers the burden of a public records request, without mentioning that Stefan had asked him in the comments of this thread, presumably in response to Goldy's post that all he had to do was ask. It is of course unclear whether Goldy would have volunteered this information if Stefan had asked before going public with this post.
To the readers who only read HA, this helps support Goldy's opinion that Stefan has made a Horses Ass of himself. Subtle, yet it is a good illustration of Goldy's modus operandi.
There's only one Horses Ass, and he's proud of his "Hell Raising" site.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 2, 2005 06:39 PMPrecisely the point! Different standards of co-operation by KingCo Elections depending upon your political beliefs.
Friends get immediate attention.
Foes get stone-walled for months.
Not how open, transparent government is supposed to work is it.
Now I doubt seriously there is anything going on physically between Goldy and Bobbie Egan primarily because Goldy is a little light in the loafers....a fancy boy!!
And if Goldy isn't gay, I doubt Ms. Egan would be a target of his affections.... Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 2, 2005 06:41 PM
I share Marc's concern about this piece of information...
Insider, You responded to Marc's post with the following:
"Reed is planning to propose that anyone challenging a voter need not provide the current correct address of the challenged voter for that challenge to be valid."
I'm sorry....but what was noted in the email to Logan above was pretty clear! "Reed will introduce legislation this year to remove the "actual address requirement"......Period!
It's fairly cut and dried - with NO mention of challengers or challenged voters....etc..
Considering Sam Reed's history of non-compliance with state election laws, and his apparent affection for the state's corrupt Democratic Party....I would remain very concerned about anything introduced into legislation by him...
Posted by: Deborah on December 2, 2005 08:12 PMBUT.... Goldy isnt producing them, other than a typed response within the comment thread of his post.....Wouldnt that clear everything up?
I would like to see a Copy (PDF) of that email.
Posted by: Chris on December 2, 2005 08:25 PMFind the place where it says "Jeff told me that the Secretary of State's Office is planning to introduce legislation this year that would remove the actual address requirement." The paragraph immediately before that includes the phrases "actual address" and "address where the voter actually resides", both clearly referring to the need to provide these when challenging a registration.
Posted by: Bruce on December 2, 2005 09:22 PMBut you simply get immediate treatment when you request a document like this, and that is not a bias we should see from an Election office.
I do understand that complex documents take more time, but I don't think a computer log is anything more than a file that could have been sent as quickly as what you just recieved.
That's all!
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 09:35 PMBruce, do you see a conspiracy in everything I post?
Thank you for clarifying Janine's reference to Jeff's information concerning legislation to remove the "actual address requirement". I admit, I was just browsing through the pages.... I'm usually more thorough....my bad.
Silly me - for thinking our upstanding and (cough)stellar SoS, in conjunction with our liberal Democrat legislators, would ever consider removing "actual address" as a requirment for voter registration......Sheesh! That would be as absurd as changing the state to a fraud inspired "All Mail Voting" system or allowing illegal immigrants to have driver licenses...and then allowing them to register to vote! ...Surely they would see the risks involved.....Oh,wait...
Posted by: Deborah on December 2, 2005 10:18 PMDo you think non-citizens should be voting?
If yes, wow.
If no, would you place any safeguards on registration (other than simply asking them if they're citizens - and hoping they'll answer honestly)?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 2, 2005 10:44 PMIt will be interesting. If these documents are "public" Stefan will have them Monday, directly from KCE. If he's stonewalled, then something more sinister may be at play.
What will be really interesting is to discover not just who released the documents, but did they have the approval of all members if the Canvassing Board. If they had that approval there isn't a problem. If they didn't, then I hope the member(s) who didn't waive their right of attorney-client privilege sue the stuffing out of the person that leaked the documents.
The memo from the PAO was to the Canvassing Board. That cannot be made public without the permission of the entire board; I would argue that it would take an affirmative vote of all members. One could argue that a follow-up email to Mr. Logan was intended for him only, and that he alone could waive privilege, but I would argue that he was acting as a board member and on behalf of the board, and therefore could not waive privilege on his own.
The plot thickens.
You have managed today, to draw the folks on the other side away (for the moment only I am sure) from their mind numb rabit main topic which is Bush Hatred.
Your KC topic on HA drew 150 comments and the Hate Bush Topic Of The Day only grabbed a mere 51.
You truely made history on HA today.
Tommorrow Goldy will have a fresh new Bush Hate article for them to chaw back and forth on like mind numb rabbits! Rest Assured!
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2005 11:42 PMI am confused. Every post on HA receives far more comments (regularly exceeding 150 in number)while each post here at SP receives just 40 to 50 posts.
This tells me two things: 1. HA is far more popular and informative. 2. People tire of conspiracy shouting, blathering dolts.
Perhaps this is because the masses have tired of the lies and deceit. The polls continue to show that the Republican strangle hold on America is about to be forcibly released through the wonderful miracle of voting.
Can't wait to hear you all cry next year as the House and Senate begin to look far more Democratic.
America, what a country!
Democrat and proud to be an American.
Dug
Posted by: DugoutNut on December 3, 2005 12:25 AMGo Trojans!!!! (Sorry, I am an alum)
Dug
Posted by: DugoutNut on December 3, 2005 12:27 AMPeel back the onion a little. The same few people at HA comment hundreds and hundreds of times a week. One guy sometimes comments 10 or 20 times in one thread. There is no link between the number of comments and the overall traffic to the blog.
Goldy won't release his traffic statistics. But it is well known that his traffic is a small percentage of that here at SP. If HA ever reaches anywhere near that of SP, I'm sure Goldy will be the first to loudly proclaim that fact to the world.
And, if you filter out not only the multiple commenters, but the trash comments devoid of content, the cut and past comments, etc., etc. to edit out all of the noise, that reduces legitimate HA traffic by a substantial amount as well.
This tells me two things: 1. HA is far more popular and informative. 2. People tire of conspiracy shouting, blathering dolts.
Perhaps this is because the masses have tired of the lies and deceit. The polls continue to show that the Republican strangle hold on America is about to be forcibly released through the wonderful miracle of voting."
A bit of clarity for your confused state:
There are a lot of us who follow the SP dialogue, and act when needed.
Example: The actions taken by many conservatives produced what had to be a frightening event for Democrats - Rossi making a real run of the race - even in King County. Why? Because, and I know this first-hand, we convinced a lot of died-in-the-wool, life-long Democrats to vote Rossi.
Posted by: SilentObserver on December 3, 2005 09:50 AMBut I also want to comment on the habit here of stating little lies in absolute terms, so that you all believe that they are fact. Like Chris who claims I refuse to show the email from Bobbie stating that confidentiality has been waived, when I in fact included the text in my original post, and repeated it with headers in the thread. Or Jeff, who absurdly states that I refuse to release my stats, when anyone can easily click on the SiteMeter icon on my home page.
And finally I just want to point out the absurdity of Stefan disparaging HA as a "partisan blog." And SP is not? The difference between me and Stefan is that I constantly acknowledge my bias, whereas he hides behind his charade that he is an objective reporter. And it constantly amazes me that so many of you are willing to buy into it.
Enjoy your little world here. And feel free to visit me in mine, anytime.
Posted by: Goldy on December 3, 2005 10:00 AM"The Rethuglicans in this state will do anything they can to disenfranchise the poor, the weak, etc. Why?
Cuz those those folks don't vote GOP!"
Once again, you liberal idgits bring up the disenfranchisement canard.
We can show evidence from a court of law of thousands of illegally cast ballots that were counted in the 2004 election. We can show further proof of thousands of illegally-registered voters that were found to late for the court case.
Can you provide evidence of ONE voter who was not allowed to vote in ANY election in Washington State history? Consider this a challenge.
No liberal troll monkey who has posted here and claimed 'disenfranshisement' or 'suppressing the vote' has been able to point me to ANY person who has EVER not been allowed to vote when they should have been allowed to. This isn't Alabama in 1963, it's Washington in 2005 - and NOBODY is prevented from voting.
You claim that Republicans are trying to prevent poor and weak (?) people from voting - prove it!! Show us some poor, weak people who weren't able to vote! Because we can show you THOUSANDS of illegal ballots - you know it, too.
I've thrown down the gauntlet, Larry the Urbanite and Dug, can you answer the challenge? Or are you talking about things that don't exist (disenfranchised voters in WA state)?
Posted by: Larry on December 3, 2005 10:05 AMI'm also not fooled that Sound Politics is any less partisan than Horse's Ass. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there is also a liberal bias where there should not be, in the King County Records and Elections office.
I know it's hard for you to imagine that vote counting should be a non partisan, objective process. You'll never admit it, because it would be bad for your meager site traffic, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with cleaning up the elections in King County.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2005 10:17 AMAs far as Dug's assertion, HA may indeed be the more popular site. After all, KC seems to be about 60% Democrat, this is a plausible assertion. However, more popular hardly means more informative as Dug concludes. More popular simply means that more people want to see it for whatever reason, and it could be for the one nugget of info in a million lines or any one of a million nuggets in a million lines of text. You can't tell just by traffic which one it is.
Posted by: Marc on December 3, 2005 11:03 AMActually Sitemeter stats show you both the total amount of traffic (page views) and the number of unique visits. It's not perfect, because the same person could vist from two different IPs (home and work) but it's a pretty good representation. And the bottom line is that SP is far more popular than HA. If Goldy has a particulalry interesting nugget, it sure is not reflected in the total number of people who find that nugget interesting.
So in essence the argument of many here is that because the same people like reading about the same nugget over and over again, that makes it popular. That's an excellent window into the liberal mindset. They make the news. They tell you what is the correct way to think, etc.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2005 11:44 AMYour last comment perfectly summarizes my view of the 'Liberal Echo Chamber' here in Seattle.
Posted by: Larry on December 3, 2005 11:51 AMI'm not sure you've been reading (or will read) my comments here. But I'll reiterate-
Waiver of privilege by one member (Logan) of a three-person panel is not valid waiver. If the three-person panel all waived privilege, then I agree with you, it's all legitimately a matter for public consumption. If not, then it shouldn't have been in public hands.
Did anyone other than Logan waive?
(I thought I made this question clear before - hopefully it's now clear).
In general, they are so incensed with the Republicans and religious right that they refuse to make judgments about things that are clearly wrong or believe that corruption is wrong or they believe it will play into the hands of the R's, except if it involves Republicans. This is how their twisted and whacked out logic (or lack of) works. I doubt if any leftist troll could honestly deny that - but the trick is that they are dishonest and spread lies about the opposition because they can't handle the truth and are afraid the truth would make him/them look bad. Not a bad way to sell a used car.
They are BLIND to making reasoned judgments and they will vote for anyone with a D in front of their name (that includes Castro, Hugo Chavez or Sadaam) over anyone with an R in front of their name. Called it blind hatred - amongst all of the laughing and joking. To believe they have a soul is a vey questionable assumption.
Posted by: KS on December 3, 2005 03:52 PMOf course non-citizens should not be voting.
I know it sounds crazy, but I think it should be asked to some of the people who oppose gun control - Do you think people should be murdering other people? If yes, wow.
More seriously, I am starting to support a national ID card. Database technology has essentially eliminated privacy anyway, so the added risks from national ID are minimal. That could help control registrations. Short of that, I favor clarifying state election law to allow county elections depts to perform certain checks on suspicious registrations and ballots and cancel those who do not respond appropriately. (But this will necessarily be implemented subjectively, which creates opportunities for abuse that must be monitored.) And I favor prosecution of anyone who deliberately breaks election law, although intent is difficult to prove.
I support mail balloting on request (or maybe for everyone) because the majority of people clearly prefer it. There is value to all of us to live in a society with high voter participation. Furthermore there is little evidence of deliberate fraud, and in order to reduce mail voter fraud you'd have to prohibit virtually all mail voting. The cons outweigh the pros in my view.
Posted by: Bruce on December 3, 2005 05:19 PMI pretty much agree with you. Some type of national ID (which also clarifies state citizenship - so that college students from Rhode Island who are really only here temporarily will be voting in Rhode Island and not here), would be preferable.
State election law does need clarification (you're right), and in the manner in which you prescribe. Right now, we have zero enforcement by Logan (and that's the problem). He could do something to determine voter registration, but he doesn't.
I also agree with you that the flaw in the way the current law was accidental (in the sense that they didn't realize what it would really mean when push came to shove). They want to be protective of privacy and voter rights, but there's such thing as being "too protective" (as when Mau Tse-Tung voted in the 1972 election).
Since you agreed that non-citizens should not be voting... by what method should we conduct voter registration so as to determine whether or not we are correctly registering citizens (and thereby rejecting the registration of non-citizens)?
PS- "In God We Trust"
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on December 3, 2005 06:16 PMEven though you say you will NEVER post here at SP again, I am just asking you to do one thing.
Scan a copy of the email Bobbie E sent you "releasing these documents to the public". Since you keep refusing to do so, I am led to believe that there is no such email.
You keep repeating that you posted it in a comment thread, but hey, I could post the "same" in this comment thread.
I know I am like a dog that won't let go, but since you are so sincere in your "proof", then post "it", not a typed written "copy".
Posted by: Chris on December 3, 2005 07:38 PM
BULLSHIT! You NEVER revealed you methodology regarding your bogus presentations on the gas tax. You Clownstein are a liar of the highest order. A LIAR! Hear that Clawnstein? You are a DAMN LIAR!
He said he would never post again. Just watch, he will because he is a LIAR!
Posted by: pbj on December 4, 2005 12:17 PM"...his crazy conspiracy theories..."
Goly's theories, or Minow's?
How soon can we expect Steffie to appologize:
For bad research
For jumping to conclusions
For bad photography
just to list a few transgressions.
Posted by: Jim King on December 4, 2005 01:39 PMYou owe your fellow blogger an apology.
You suggested things with minimal information.
He prvoided full information...showing your suggestions were faulty.
You owe him an apology.
And please, try to be more careful. Fool me once, shame on ....how does that go again?
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 4, 2005 01:50 PMStefan...you claim to use fact over fiction.
You have said the republicans are heroes because they apologize when they make a mistake.
1) You used fiction over fact and were provided fact.
2) Will you apologize -- or was that just more soundpolitics hot air (leaving all future musings subject to the same air of falsehood)...?
To: Michael
From: Dean Logan
Subject: Democrats are screwed
I didn't waive attorney client priveledge. I don't know where Goldy got that. mmmkay?
Posted by: Michael on December 4, 2005 05:27 PMI can think of 3 methods:
1) Allow only in-person registration and require a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. But this reduces voter participation (call people lazy if you wish, but the consequence is clear) and people have made it clear that they like mail-in registration. Also, there is actually no way to prove that you are a citizen, let alone that you are eligible to register, just that you once were. And there is the question of what to do with people who have already registered by mail.
2) Keep the system as it is now but to conspicuously prosecute people who deliberately break the law. I think there are extremely few cases of this, however, and even those would be hard to prove.
3) Introduce a national ID card that includes citizenship status with a national database for verification.
I'm leaning toward starting with #2 while we debate #3.
Posted by: Bruce on December 4, 2005 05:58 PMYou guys probably already know this, but it raises a serious relevant question. We already have a national ID in the form of a Social Security number. The only thing necessary is to find a way to get around states rights respecting enforcement. Our SSI's are already locked to the IRS so all legitimate citizens and alien workers must provide an SSI #.
Illegals get around this requirement by obtaining a matricula Consular card at their local Mexican consulate. The odd thing is that apparently illegals can collect state Aid to Families with Dependants benefits (funded partially by SSA). They can obtain state licenses to own vehicles, obtain a drivers license, and register to vote without having an SSI number. The federal government cannot force the state's to stop allowing illegal aliens to vote so long as the feds refuse to force all polling places involved in Federal elections to require an SSI from every illegal. Why not?
I am hoping Bush will get off the dime and do something about this, but good luck getting it through the Congress. Liberals love illegals because they want our social systems to collapse, so they can consolidate socialism. Their culture of dependency rests on pandering to illegitimacy because it breeds dependancy and blind loyalty. Don't expect Democrats to vote any reforms that would threaten the blind fealty of illegal aliens at the polling place. Pawns all.
Political courage is a rare thing in the Republican party as well; Bob Dornan lost his seat in Congress over this very issue. Why would Republicans sacrifice their seats in Congress to solve illegal immigration?
I know . . . because its the right thing to do and it would go a long way to solve serious problems, but like I said, political courage is a rare thing. Lose an election in order to help your country?
Good question--anyone have an answer? That's the dilemma.
Radical conservatives and radical liberals (excuse me, corrupt socialist communist conspirators) are usually the most resistant to this. As a moderate, I believe that data gathering and processing has become so powerful that a national ID wouldn't reduce privacy much further, and the advantages might well outweigh the disadvantages.
Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2005 01:33 PMComically petulant comments.
In earlier comments you seemed like a sensible person. Thanks for the clarification.
By the way genius, I didn’t ask ”why some people are hesitant to have a national ID,”, I asked, ”Why would Republicans sacrifice their seats in Congress to solve illegal immigration.” Nevertheless, your answer becomes you.
Further, I don’t need your excuses because I am not confused (or stupid) enough to make believe that liberalism and socialism are not inextricably linked together. Since you are . . . mores the laughs for me.
Wow, “the reason is privacy,” eh? Apparently you are saying that you believe that our SSI # hasn't already been utilized to a great extent to establish a linkage of multiple databases that already invades our privacy? Very interesting. Liberal socialist programs starting with The New Deal, proceeding through the Great Society made this a reality.
Nevertheless, your endeavor to “conflate” *radical conservatives* with *radical liberals* as “corrupt socialist communist conspirators,” is a real hoot. Especially when you go on to say that these *corrupt socialist communist conspirators* are RESISTANT to centralized governmental controls such as a national ID? Fascinating.
Finally you assert that adding another ADDITIONAL national ID (over and above an already established and intrusive SSI #) somehow ”wouldn't reduce privacy much further, and the advantages might well outweigh the disadvantages?” Get a grip; privacy is not an issue unless you refuse to recognize the fact that our SSI # is a national ID. Knock your socks of, I couldn’t care less.
As this is obviously what you call “thinking” like a moderate, I’ll pass.
Thanks for the answer, it was entertaining and enlightening.
You also wrote "Liberals love illegals because they want our social systems to collapse, so they can consolidate socialism." Five hours later you deny conflating liberalism with socialism?
Then read my post again. I agree with you that SSN is already not very secret, that therefore there is little to lose by having national ID, and that national ID might well be SSN. But I know enough about systems to understand that there might be reasons (unknown to you or me right now) why a new number could be more practical. This is an implementation detail; the important question is whether we have national ID that can document citizenship.
Posted by: Bruce on December 5, 2005 09:38 PMI never denied anything . . . weasel.
Your silly a$$ occult "systems knowledge" may portend to mean something enviable to you, but the reply amounts to an empty reiteration of bull$hit.
I do conflate (combine, connect) liberalism with socialism, and never denied it (quite expressly to the contrary) moron, what is your dumb-a$$ problem?
Do you know what “conflate” means? How about “consolidate?”
Your obsequy reveals why you relent when you earlier commented like an arrogant a$$hole about views otherwise usefully and easily exchanged amicably.
Bruce, you are a dumb a$$.
Thanks for the further clarifications.
Interesting and very amusing.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 5, 2005 11:36 PM