Spokane Mayor Jim West has been recalled from office.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 06, 2005 11:16 PM | Email ThisI saw a cute one today on the back of a Truck, it had the boy p'ing on the letters Gregoire........
She is though of about as highly as West is!
Posted by: GS on December 6, 2005 11:20 PMDoes this mean I won't have to see him as the lead story in every G-damn news source anymore?
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on December 6, 2005 11:42 PMAny Mayor who defiles his position as West has deserves to be recalled - then prosecuted!
He's a predator!
Now maybe the Feds can work their way over to this side of the mountains....?
Posted by: Deborah on December 7, 2005 12:03 AMMore then that though, it is a clear case of the public excercising its ability to check its government, so even as it is a loss for him it is really a triumph of democracy.
At there is democracy on one side of the state.
Now if only it moved over here.
Posted by: karl on December 7, 2005 12:50 AMThe guy was mis-using his government office in order to get sexual favors... sound familiar? We just hold our guys up to a higher standard then you.
Posted by: Mike H on December 7, 2005 03:54 AMIt's nor demonizing, it's called accountability. You guys ought to try it sometime....and you can start with Queen Christine.
As far as West is concerned, I'm sure he's glad to be free of the mayor thing. Now he can concentrate on the really important things...like trolling for pubescent schoolboys!
Posted by: Saltherring on December 7, 2005 05:25 AMI can't believe how whiny you guys can be when a close election doesn't go your way.
I am not at all whiney. I think West misused his office and ought to have resigned.
Since when are you guys concerned with fairness and democracy?
Since when aren't we? First I am not a Republican, I am Independent. But lately it has been the Democrats who are selective in their application of standards, not the Republicans.
Isn't it your party that tries to keep the black vote down every election cycle? Where were the cries of outrage when the state police were harrassing elderly black people in Florida in '04?
Um, no not really. Isn't it your party who just got busted in West Virgina for buying votes? By the way, if you paid attention, there was invstigations aplenty about the alleged intimidation, and there was none proven. Allegations do not make proof of misdeed.
Wasn't it W who was appointed to his first term?
Ah the *selected* not *elected* cry. Is this Mike Webb? That right there is proof you did not actually understand what happened in Florida in 2000 with Bush v Gore. Do your homework.
At least we got to count our votes in Washington, instead having the counting stopped and an arbitrary decision made by the courts.
Right, Instead we got to count a couple thousand illegal votes and select a governor with a system rigged to allow cheating, and a staff of officials biased to ignore fraud. I fail to see how this is an imporvement.
Stop whining. The last election was very close. That's a big improvement. When was the last time you guys won a governor's race?
In this state? not for a while. Nationally? Republicans held 28. After the 2005 elections, they still held 28. Big changes are in the winds...
Go get 'em next time. In the meantime, stop attempting to deligitimize the electoral process. You just might succeed. I don't think any of us want to live in a state like that.
Yea. Actually forcing people to obey laws, register legitimately, be a valid voter, vote just once and not cheat would really suck wouldn't it?
Have a nice day, troll.
Posted by: Karl on December 7, 2005 07:59 AMI realize that those who seem so supportive of West now are those who ridiculed him when he was simply another "R". Well I am sure he's looking for work now so feel free to give hime a ring. Lucy, I know someone like West and his diverse background will always be welcome at your schools faculty.
Posted by: Roscoe on December 7, 2005 08:06 AMI can guarantee everyone this: NOBODY outside of Washington State has any idea, nor do they care, about Jim West. In fact, most people outside of Seattle have stopped caring about this issue.
Major implications for the GOP?? National laughing stock?? Hah. I'm laughing hard now. Nobody knows, nobody cares. If the lefty trolls want to try to associate a gay predator former mayor with current GOP candidates in 2006 and 2008, well, I can't wait to see how that blows up in their face.
The biggest fool troll award of the day goes to Alan Scott. What an idiot!! State police harassing elderly black people in Florida?? Alan, that happened FORTY YEARS AGO, and it was DEMOCRATS that were doing the harassing. It didn't happen in '04, it's a myth, and you're too stupid a fool to know the difference.
Posted by: Larry on December 7, 2005 08:33 AMIt's too bad that the democrats don't subscribe to the same ethical standard (ref. Jim McDermutt).
I would rather have a democrat in office that is law-abiding than a republican that is a law-breaker.
Posted by: jaybo on December 7, 2005 09:14 AMAnd as for Spokane's recalled mayor, it is just a shame that the Spokesman-review that did their dirty little sting wasn't there to catch Clinton before his pecker came out of his pants and into Monica's mouth
Posted by: Dan on December 7, 2005 09:51 AMI would prefer to live in a state where we follow the laws - all of them! Laws for voting and laws governing the conduct of elected officials.
West was a hypocrite who set himself up for failure. You cannot publicly decry a behavior that you yourself are indulging in, it's laughable that anyone believed that he wouldn't be tossed.
Posted by: sgmmac on December 7, 2005 10:23 AMBoth sides do it.
Power corrupts.
There are bad democrats and bad republicans.
There are many bad poltiicians.
Anybody who believes their side is pure and the other is not is a fool
Posted by: LovinUSA on December 7, 2005 11:22 AM(I tried to do the italics thing, but I'm not tech savvy enough)
I know I shouldn't bother, but why not:
I know I shouldn't bother, but why not?
I can't believe how whiny you guys can be when a close election doesn't go your way.
I am not at all whiney. I think West misused his office and ought to have resigned.
Why didn't the state GOP or conservative (political, not church) organizations come out against this guy? If they did , why did he still pull 35%? Becuz, u r NOT concerned with fairness, but power
Since when are you guys concerned with fairness and democracy?
Since when aren't we? First I am not a Republican, I am Independent. But lately it has been the Democrats who are selective in their application of standards, not the Republicans.
Democrats are selective? Why hasn’t Hastert had the ethics committee come down like a hammer on all the Republicans that are under investigation? Why aren’t they investigating on their own? Why hasn’t he even hired any investigators yet? Your assertion is a) unsupported and b) might be true in a particular case or a few cases, but I believe the weight goes the other way.
Isn't it your party that tries to keep the black vote down every election cycle? Where were the cries of outrage when the state police were harrassing elderly black people in Florida in '04?
Um, no not really. Isn't it your party who just got busted in West Virgina for buying votes? By the way, if you paid attention, there was invstigations aplenty about the alleged intimidation, and there was none proven. Allegations do not make proof of misdeed.
OK. Apply your last statement to this year’s WA Gubenatorial race. Not only do allegations not make proof, when someone WINS a court case, they are usually considered cleared of the charges.
Wasn't it W who was appointed to his first term?
Ah the *selected* not *elected* cry. Is this Mike Webb? That right there is proof you did not actually understand what happened in Florida in 2000 with Bush v Gore. Do your homework.
This case should have been decided by the FL courts, not the Supremes. Most UNBIASED legal experts agree the 2000 election result was won by a technicality, and a technicality of dubious legality. But the Supremes are the highest court in the land, so….
At least we got to count our votes in Washington, instead having the counting stopped and an arbitrary decision made by the courts.
Right, Instead we got to count a couple thousand illegal votes and select a governor with a system rigged to allow cheating, and a staff of officials biased to ignore fraud. I fail to see how this is an imporvement.
See comment above about allegations not being proof (or a rebuttal argument either), hypocrite.
Stop whining. The last election was very close. That's a big improvement. When was the last time you guys won a governor's race?
In this state? not for a while. Nationally? Republicans held 28. After the 2005 elections, they still held 28. Big changes are in the winds...
Only wind here is you, Karl. The GOP is going down big time in 2006/2008. You’ll be lucky to hold your majority in House and Senate (probably not both) and you sure as hell ain’t winning the presidency again for a while. Bush has been the worst disaster for the GOP since Nixon.
Go get 'em next time. In the meantime, stop attempting to deligitimize the electoral process. You just might succeed. I don't think any of us want to live in a state like that.
Yea. Actually forcing people to obey laws, register legitimately, be a valid voter, vote just once and not cheat would really suck wouldn't it?
You know what would suck more? Disenfranchising voters because of meaningless technicalities. Especially if those voters didn’t even know (or care) that they were in violation. Or didn’t know their rights. Voting is a RIGHT, guaranteed by the constitution for ANY citizen. It’s one person, one vote in this country, Karl. No more and no less. Don’t like it? Move to a red state.
Have a nice day, troll.
Why? Why insult the guy? He’s trying to make an argument and have a discussion. Just becuz you disagree with him, why demonize him? What is so wrong about voicing his opinion? I think you may be projecting here a little Karl. Go watch the Grinch and compare the original size of his heart to yours. You can borrow my microscope.
BUZZZZZ Wrong Answer! I've seen the Jim West story gloated about on several big volume liberal blogs, Daily Kos for one.
BUZZZZZ, wrong answer number 2! Voter supression is still in question in severla states from the 2004 election. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities#U.S._House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary_.28Democratic_Staff.29
Read the article then follow the link to a separate article about voter supression. Interestingly, the only folks concerned about this is Democrats. Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be that GOPers aren't really that concerned if the po' folk don't get to vote?
Today's conservative lies, propoganda, half truths and distortions brought to you by Larry (not Larry the Urbanite)
Posted by: Larry the urbanite on December 7, 2005 11:51 AMLarry,
Karl
(I tried to do the italics thing, but I'm not tech savvy enough)
(smile) No worries, we all have to learn. email me off line and I will share the secret.
Why didn't the state GOP or conservative (political, not church) organizations come out against this guy? If they did , why did he still pull 35%? Becuz, u r NOT concerned with fairness, but power
First, some did, and some didnt. Some rallied behind him on principle, some didnt. Some opposed him on principles, some didnt. I am not responsible for that. Do some just want power? Absolutely. So do some democrats. The key is that many politicians of any stripe or color only want power. I dare say some of his opposition didnt give a rat's tail for what he did, thye just jumped on a chance to hound a republican out of office. Politics is often not pretty.
I am not responsible to the republicans, I am not one.
Democrats are selective?
When the Washington Democrats refuse to uphold legal standards, then yea I would say they are.
Why hasn’t Hastert had the ethics committee come down like a hammer on all the Republicans that are under investigation? Why aren’t they investigating on their own? Why hasn’t he even hired any investigators yet? Your assertion is a) unsupported and b) might be true in a particular case or a few cases, but I believe the weight goes the other way.
I was speaking to a specific issue, regarding elections and this topic. My assertion is supported on every page of Stefans work on uncovering the institutional misfeasence and ingorance of the law by the democrats in king county. Facts don't lie.
OK. Apply your last statement to this year’s WA Gubenatorial race. Not only do allegations not make proof, when someone WINS a court case, they are usually considered cleared of the charges.
And King County was found to have allowed over 1800 illegal votes. Thanks for pointing that out.
yes, Gregoire won the challange case, not because proof exhonerated her, but because the laws do not allow for a reasonable standard of proof. She will have to live with that cloud over her administration.
This case should have been decided by the FL courts, not the Supremes.
Agreed, but since the Florida courts erred, that SCOTUS was the remedy.
Most UNBIASED legal experts agree the 2000 election result was won by a technicality, and a technicality of dubious legality.
Utterly ridiculous. The fact was that Florida had laws in place, and the democrats insisted that the election and recount be done outside the scope of those laws. The issue should have been a simple matter of enforcing laws, not making new ones up on the spot. The democrats made the spin attempt to say they were only trying to be fair, but in reality they disenfranchised many voters by limiting their initial recounts to selected democratic strongholds. Count every vote my foot.
They also violated equal protection.
But the Supremes are the highest court in the land, so….
The legal process exists for that exact reason though. You cannot blame one side for using the process, and exhonerate the other for using the same process. Gore's people filed many lawsuits too...
See comment above about allegations not being proof (or a rebuttal argument either), hypocrite.
Go back and read the judges ruling again. The proof there were illegal votes was met. The proof of who those votes were cast for was not, so the case lost. But no one can deny that there was illegal votes in that election, and a more then sufficient number to cast the results in doubt.
Gregoire won, as you said about Bush, on a technicality...
Only wind here is you, Karl. The GOP is going down big time in 2006/2008. You’ll be lucky to hold your majority in House and Senate (probably not both) and you sure as hell ain’t winning the presidency again for a while. Bush has been the worst disaster for the GOP since Nixon. ,/i>
As I said, I am not a republican, so I dont give a rip. And frankly no matter who controls congress the same thing happens. they vote themselves pay rasies, waste money on pork spending and ignore the people. So what?
Bush though has not been a disaster. Carter...now there was a disaster. I have issue with Bush on many fronts, but overall I think he has acted properly more then not. I think a Gore or Kerry administration would have been tragic.
You know what would suck more? Disenfranchising voters because of meaningless technicalities.
So when the law supports the democrats, its just, but if it favors a republican its a meaningless technicality?
How can you possible stand here and state you care about integrity and fairness and yet you sanction fraud, people breaking the law and a system that not only allows, but practically encourages fraud.
In case you missed it Larry, fraud in the elections affects everyone, because people on both sides can cheat. Any actions to restore confidence to the elections process is necessary at this stage, because there is no confidence in the system as it is now.
Especially if those voters didn’t even know (or care) that they were in violation.
Ignorance is no excuse, the registration form has clear instructions. There is no way some of those people can possibly say "oops". And if they didnt care, then they are equally guilty because of willful violations.
Or didn’t know their rights. Voting is a RIGHT, guaranteed by the constitution for ANY citizen. It’s one person, one vote in this country, Karl. No more and no less. Don’t like it? Move to a red state.
One vote one person? So you do agree with the republicans who tried to challange the illegal votes. Well why didnt you say so?
First, a right is not necessarily free of regulation and it damn well is not free of responsibility. Second, not every citizen is entitled to vote. My 15 year old son is a citizen, he cannot, nor can felons without applying to restore their rights. The right is not absolute. Third, those wishing to vote must do so according to the law or they forfeit their franchise. You are the hypocrite. You cite *meaningless techincalities* in one breath then chastise those who seek to uphold the rules by claiming we are violating rights, ignoring that those rights are controlled and governed by those same *meaningless techincalities*.
The laws are there, let them be followed. If they are flawed, let them be changed and fixed. Election reform and integrity should be a bi-partisan issue. Why isnt it?
Why do the Democrats oppose stopping illegal votes? Why do the Democrats seem to fear integrity?
Again, voter fraud hurts everyone, not just republicans. They have as much to lose.
Have a nice day, troll.
Why? Why insult the guy? He’s trying to make an argument and have a discussion. Just becuz you disagree with him, why demonize him?
Because he was acting as a troll, posting inflammatory remarks to incite an argument, not a discussion. That *is* the definition of a troll...he was trolling for a hit, and I took it.
What is so wrong about voicing his opinion? I think you may be projecting here a little Karl. Go watch the Grinch and compare the original size of his heart to yours. You can borrow my microscope.
More hypocrisy? You condemn me for insults by insulting me? Nice work.
I have no control over him voicing his opinion, thats up to Stefan who allows all comments. I can however voice my response, as I did, in a reasoned argument, with specific comments adressing his comments in full context. And yes, I called him a troll, which was also my opinion. Let him take exception if he choses.
Why does he need you to defend him anyway? If you disagree with something I said, then fine, we can discuss it, as we are, or not. It seems for someone who wants to condemn me, however, you are living in a glass house and trhowing lotsa rocks.
Posted by: Karl on December 7, 2005 12:34 PMI can't believe the stupidity that is sometimes posted here. Voting is a right for ANY citizen? Does that mean my son, who is less than 18 years of age but still a citizen, can vote? How about the newborns down at the local hospital? All citzens if they were born here. Want to sign them up on the voter rolls? Who knows, you can probably register them as 'Rats and then cast their ballots for them as well (in King County, anyway).
It may be surprising to many, but the US Constitution does not specifically address the right of citizens to vote. It mentions the votes of Electors, Senators, and Representatives, and has Amendments specifically addressing what Congress may not do in terms of limiting rights of citizens to vote (15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments concerning race/servitude, gender, and age, specifically). But the states make the laws regarding who may legally register to vote and how that shall be done. There is no specific empowerment clause in the US Constitution regarding voting rights of ordinary citizens. The are groups working to change this (ReclaimDemocracy.org, for example) by passing a constitutional amendment specifically affirming that citzens have a right to vote, but such an amendement has not passed either the House or Senate, nor been sent to the states for ratification.
"I've seen the Jim West story gloated about on several big volume liberal blogs, Daily Kos for one."
Hah! And Daily Kos helped John Kerry get elected, right? How many of Koz's 10 or 12 most important elected officials last November actually got elected? Zero? One?
Your logical fallacy here is assuming that people who frequent Daily Kos and gloat over other people's misfortune and hope for the deaths of our soldiers represent the general population. They don't, and you don't, and that's why Republicans own the White House, Supreme Court, House, Senate, and the majority of Governor's mansions in the United States.
"Voter supression is still in question in severla states from the 2004 election."
Hah. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad. Wikipedia is an open source, and doesn't have any significant fact-checking (nor do you). The ONLY place in the U.S. where voter suppression has been proven in a court of law pertaining to the 2004 election is in Milwaukee, where DEMOCRATS were found guilty. We also had voter suppression here in Washington State - because King County still cannot prove that they mailed out military ballots on time.
Voter suppression is a canard invented by the Democrats to encourage distributed vote fraud. But the only voter suppression currently practiced is against the military by the Democrats.
Posted by: Larry on December 7, 2005 01:18 PMThat is no excuse. He broke the law and violated the public trust. He wants to surf the web for young men with... fine, do it at home. But when you get on computers that are public property on the public's time and at the public's expense, and offer 18 year olds city jobs if they'll "play" with you, I don't care if you landed a Boeing plant for the new 797-28,000ERXLGT Mega Ultra Super Jumbo Jet and brought a million jobs to the city, you have no business being mayor. The libs at the paper can't control squat if you aren't breaking the law.
Posted by: Mike H on December 7, 2005 02:52 PMNothing could be further from the truth. I could care less what party West was from, or what his sexual affiliation was, the guy abused a leadership position and for that, he should be removed from office and tried for any possible criminal activity.
It would have been a lot more apropos though if this had happened in King County.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 7, 2005 02:59 PMYes, and I'm not defending what he did. But he apologized to his constitutents and (like the woman caught in adultery) asked for a second chance. As a conservative Christian, I serve a God of "second chances". I would have voted to give West a second chance.
Posted by: Susu on December 7, 2005 05:22 PMBut the real question is... is he sorry he did it, or sorry he got caught? The fact that he seems to be wanting to blame this all on the Spokesman-Review for catching him red handed breaking the law and is going to sue them shows me that he's only sorry he got caught.
Let me ask you this... my best friend, who is an excellent manager at a bank, embezzles $1,000 from his employer and is caught red handed by another employee. The FBI begins investigating evidence that he has done it before. He says he's sorry he made mistakes in his personal life, but blames the coworker for all of this and plans to sue, arguing that breaking the law and breaching the trust of his employers shouldn't cost him his job. Are you saying that if you were his boss, you wouldn't fire him?
Posted by: Mike H on December 7, 2005 05:39 PMThe Republican Party (Chris Vance) made a big mistake by not harshly denouncing him.
But then, I guess his crime isn't as bad as others.
If he wished people Merry Christmas now that is a crime that the Republican party will soundly renounce anyone for.
Posted by: Scott on December 7, 2005 07:36 PMMike H, Jim West has not been charged with any crime.
The Spokesman Review had it in for him the minute he took office because of the Riverpark Square fiasco. They set him up. That's when this became "the story." There was no story until they trapped him. They copyrighted the stories on the front page of the print version. They offered every story on Jim West FREE on-line. Any other story can be viewed on-line only if you are a paid subscriber to the print version.
As for Shannon Sullivan, the single mother who started this recall process. What does anyone really know about her?
This whole thing makes me sick. Had Jim West been a democrat, this would have NEVER reached recall status.
The people of Spokane have not spoken. The Spokesman Review has spoken for them.
Jim West is a pervert. Steve Smith, editor of the Spokesman Review, is a jerk. They are both embarrassments to Spokane.
West should have resigned the minute this hit the front page.
Susu, you said it best, Conservative Spokane will regret this for a very long time.
(Lest you all think I have something against newspapers, rest assured I don't. I work for one.)
Posted by: cc on December 7, 2005 07:47 PMBut since he is a republican, he is just a sick idiot to them
Gotta love semantics.
FWIW I still think he should have resigned, For the record, lest I be accused of something here.
Posted by: Karl on December 7, 2005 11:48 PM