October 23, 2006
The Real Geoff Simpson

State Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) is running for re-election as a family man, featuring his wife and kids in this mailer:

But court documents tell a different story.

Republican Donna Watts is campaigning to replace Geoff Simpson.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 23, 2006 10:22 AM | Email This
Comments
1. For those in the 47th, there is a Meet & Greet for Donna tonight.

Please call 253-631-8612 for more info.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 10:59 AM
2. If, as the records show, he hasn't lived in the district for over a year, is he still eligible for this position?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 23, 2006 11:04 AM
3. I'm going to jump in and defend the guy in this case. It sounds like the standard divorce story- curious why he would position himself in a nuclear family when he's clearly not.


BAD FORM TO THE GOP CANDIDATE for bringing his personal dirty laundry out for public consumption. If you can't win on issues-- don't freaking run.

You disgrace your opponent, you disgrace yourself, you disgrace your party and you disgrace this system.


Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 11:06 AM
4. I'm curious why his wife dropped the "No Contact" order the day after it was served on him. Is there more to this story than is shared?

Posted by: SexyMama on October 23, 2006 11:13 AM
5. BAD FORM TO THE GOP CANDIDATE for bringing his personal dirty laundry out for public consumption. If you can't win on issues-- don't freaking run.

You disgrace your opponent, you disgrace yourself, you disgrace your party and you disgrace this system. -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 11:06 AM

I didn't realize Stefan Sharkansky was the GOP cnadidate.

All this time I thought it was DONNA WATTS.

Try to pay attention, Andy.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 11:17 AM
6. BAD FORM TO THE GOP CANDIDATE for bringing his personal dirty laundry out for public consumption. If you can't win on issues-- don't freaking run.

You disgrace your opponent, you disgrace yourself, you disgrace your party and you disgrace this system. -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 11:06 AM

I didn't realize Stefan Sharkansky was the GOP candidate.

All this time I thought it was DONNA WATTS.

Try to pay attention, Andy.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 11:18 AM
7. Geoff Simpson should contact Maria Cantwell, she may be able to help out.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 23, 2006 11:23 AM
8. Cheryl-

Don't play the Donna is one level removed and not responsible for this crap stroy- it's wrong, it's unacceptable and reflects poorly on everyone involved.

If you want to play the cutesy game of Donna NOT intending to capitalize on it- fine- you're only kidding yourself. It stinks and is a tactic I would expect from a Democrat- I expect better from a Republican candidate.

Bad form too Stefan as well for airing it. It's a cheap shot.

In all probability the guy is seeing first hand what a hell family court is and will be an active voice in the legislature for reforming it...as reform is badly needed.


Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 11:31 AM
9. Yikes, that is disgusting! Wish his wife could get money to run an ad to correct the attempt to confuse the voters

Posted by: Michele on October 23, 2006 11:32 AM
10. I am pretty tired of all the mud slinging from both parties but this is beyond decent, posting anybody's divorce papers on the internet. I agree, this is standard fare for most divorces (having been through one myself) and mild by comparison to most. Watts must be pretty desperate if she's resorting to this type of stuff. I'm not proud to be called a Republican when I see this.

Posted by: Barry on October 23, 2006 11:37 AM
11. I am pretty tired of all the mud slinging from both parties but this is beyond decent, posting anybody's divorce papers on the internet. I agree, this is standard fare for most divorces (having been through one myself) and mild by comparison to most. Watts must be pretty desperate if she's resorting to this type of stuff. I'm not proud to be called a Republican when I see this.

Posted by: Barry on October 23, 2006 11:38 AM
12. Get and read a copy of Paul Johnson's Intillectuals if you want a picture of how all the darlings of the left treated their families and other people. The fact that liberals get so defensive regarding the personal lives of the people highlighted in this book would lead me to conclude that it is likely that this is the norm regarding how liberals act. Johnson covers Marx, Sartre, Shelley, Tolstoy, Brecht, Ibsen and others that the left worships.

Posted by: JDH on October 23, 2006 11:40 AM
13. Andy: You're missing the point. He is putting out campaign fliers claiming to have a perfect family life and to be a good fiscal manager. Public documents support just the opposite. He could just have easily put out fliers about some of the "issues". Instead, he chose to make those two items a centerpiece. I'd say, then, it's fair game to take a look, see if he's telling the truth, and if not, let people know. It's not so much his problems, it's his lying about them! Not the kind of ethics you want in an elected official.

Posted by: katomar on October 23, 2006 11:40 AM
14. Bad behavior like this is excused by what?????

Nothing.


BTW - the biggest advocate in the legislature for shared parenting happens to be on the left and fights his own party every session over this issue.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 11:49 AM
15. I really don't care about the guy's divorce or even his marriage-until-the-election-is-over. There are some bigger questions about harrassing his wife, and the abuse and manipulative control she endured at his hand. Cutting her off from funds to support the household and the kids when he is the only income generator is exactly what made her come to heel and obey him. I've seen it a thousand times. Can anyone say "Tacoma 2002 in the making?" Someone better watch this guy.

Also, Geoff Simpson made this the main issue in the campaign by saying, "I'm a husband, father, and family man. That's why you should vote for me...I have good moral values." Instead of standing up and defending his record in Olympia, he is focussing on the lie that he has stable relationships and that he is personally a stable individual.

But that is his M.O. If he says it, it's probably not true. He claims he works for lower taxes and spending, but voted for the biggest spending increase in history and plenty of higher taxes.

He claims to have voted for the toughest sex offender legislation in the country, but actually he voted against what would have been the toughest sex offender legislation in the country...he let offenders who rape children off if they know their victim (80% of cases).

He is a walking, talking lie.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 12:11 PM
16. The point about Simpson is that he doesn't just run on his record. Everything having to do with him is a lie. That's why this informatio is relevant. He made it relevant. If he hadn't, no one probably would have cared.

Andy, I'm shocked that you would defend this low-life. Anyone who treats a woman like he treated his wife should be horse-whipped, not defended. Shame on you.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 12:13 PM
17. Tomorrow, some of the Cantwell financials will be unsealed in the Dotzhauer case.

Posted by: swatter on October 23, 2006 12:22 PM
18. "BAD FORM TO THE GOP CANDIDATE for bringing his personal dirty laundry out for public consumption. If you can't win on issues-- don't freaking run.

You disgrace your opponent, you disgrace yourself, you disgrace your party and you disgrace this system."

Andy you are a hypocrit. I don't recall you ever criticizing Clownstein for dragging out David Irons' personal dirty laundry.

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 12:23 PM
19. IIRC, Brian Baird got zinged for a similar "family man" ad during his divorce a few elections ago. Didn't impact his reelection.

Then again, Democrats aren't perfect, just forgiven.

Posted by: Joe Waldron on October 23, 2006 12:24 PM
20. "Don't play the Donna is one level removed and not responsible for this crap stroy- it's wrong, it's unacceptable and reflects poorly on everyone involved.

If you want to play the cutesy game of Donna NOT intending to capitalize on it- fine- you're only kidding yourself. It stinks and is a tactic I would expect from a Democrat- I expect better from a Republican candidate.

Bad form too Stefan as well for airing it. It's a cheap shot.

In all probability the guy is seeing first hand what a hell family court is and will be an active voice in the legislature for reforming it...as reform is badly needed.


"

Andy,

Please take your faux manufatured "indignation" back to the DNC who paid you to come here to troll! The gig is up dude. You are a hypocrit of the highest order.

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 12:26 PM
21. Quite frankly, Simpson does NOT have a good record to run on. If people knew his involvement with trying to get the CAO stuff going on the state level, he'd be toast as much of his district is parcels of farm land with neighborhoods here and there.

I also agree with Katomar. If he's putting this image of family man out there to attract us conservatives, then he's absolutely fair game.

Also, Andy, get real. The candidates are not responsible for bloggers. That's expecting quite a lot. I don't hold Maria Cantwell or Darcy Burner responsible for what is said at HA or DailyKos or wherever the moonbats roost.

Posted by: ferrous on October 23, 2006 12:28 PM
22. CharlieR

Have YOU been through an ugly divorce, where accusations fly? Based on your commentary, not likely.

I'm advocate for reforming family law. Neither YOU nor I can determine if "abuse" happened or not, but the man is ALWAYS guilty of an accusation of abuse made by a woman. and has to spend 10k or more to prove he is innocent. I point you to Duke Lacrosse as exhibit A. Also I read through the claims- and they are mostly BS used to extract money through initial hearings.

Suppose all the claims of abuse are bogus? What is the penalty for a false accusation....NOTHING.

Either way- this is a campaign tactic that cannot be tolerated.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 12:28 PM
23. Andy,

Have YOU ever been throught he family spats exactly of the kind Daid Iraon's went through? then for Goldstein to air his dirty laundry is A_OK with ol "Double Standard" Andy.

You are a hypocrit Andy and I am calling you out on it!!!

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 12:31 PM
24. On principle, it's hard to take the anti-Simpson website seriously when its creator is unwilling to identify him/herself, either on the site or in the website registration (which went to extra effort to be anonymous, unlike, say, Donna Watts's site).

Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2006 12:31 PM
25. PBJ and other doubters.

I am a GOP PCO, president of the Thurston County YR club, and blogger at Thurston Pundits.

I have given about a thousand bucks to various GOP campaigns this past year.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 12:31 PM
26. Andy,
You keep missing the point. Screw the divorce crap. He's a liar. Everything he says is a lie. He infused his perfect family image into the campaign and it's a total fabrication. That's the point.

And if everyone took your approach, Crystal Brame would be dead today...oh wait.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 12:37 PM
27. Andy,

You can claim anything you want. Me, I am a PhD in Astrophysics with a double minor in Nuclear Chemistry and Mathematics, I discovered the cure for cancer and recently was asked by NASA to design the next heavy lift space vehicle.

Your hypocrisy in selective criticism is rank amateur political activism. No one has disclosed anything that is not already in the public record. If the main selling point of a candidate is a lie, then it deserves to be made public be it a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian.

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 12:38 PM
28. PBJ-23

Exactly- this is a smear tactic expected of a Democrat candidate. I expect better from GOP candidates.

It shows the GOP candidate is unable or unwilling to talk about real issues or the Democrat candidates own track record on issues.

I would expect this from the likes of Darcy, Maria or Gregoire. NOT doing this kind of crap is what makes people feel good about coming out and supporting GOP campaigns.

SO DO YOU WANT TO BE JUST LIKE GOLDSTEIN? gee-that's setting bar real high.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 12:39 PM
29. "On principle, it's hard to take the anti-Simpson website seriously when its creator is unwilling to identify him/herself, either on the site or in the website registration (which went to extra effort to be anonymous, unlike, say, Donna Watts's site)."

A Democrat troll such as yourself ought not talk of principles and such when clearly you do not posess any such thing.

Any doubters are free to obtain a copy of the source documents for themselves. A for the website creator wishing anyonymoty, I cna fully understand. THey probably don't want some union thugs to firebomb their house or whatnot. For all we know it could be his wife. Given that she had to get a restraining order against him, she is probably in hiding already.

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 12:41 PM
30. CharlieR

Not to change the subject from BAD FORM from Donna, but I'll pose the same question to you on abuse accusations as I do to candidates running for court positions

Do you believe every accusation of abuse is true?

Would you prosecute for perjury an accusatoin of abuse that was proven to be blatantly false?

- and NO- I have never been accused of abuse, I'm a watch dog of this crap because I know how the divorce industry works and how this BS gets integrated into custody battles.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 12:45 PM
31. ANdy--i disagree--posters 13, 15 + 26 hit the nail--

sure, it's mudslinging, but when you CHOOSE to involve yourself (i.e. drag us in) in the public light and divorce courts by your actions, then WE have a right to see it in all it's glory and cellulite.

i agree that actions while elected, voting & legislation are my main concern, but personal life/personal messes matter too as an indicator for the trust & power i place in the legislator.

ask yourself if any employer would notice, try to help or be concerned when their employee is having major problems in their personal life--it ALWAYS spills over to the job--that's the point

as for the mudslinging, there are many ways to do it--plain naked dirty or more clever--i'd choose clever-but-true.

and don't forget--any good employer does background checks and public court/document searches for candidates--that's just being smart about yor choices and employees. that's not "dirty tricks"

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 23, 2006 12:53 PM
32. I think it's vile of you to paint Donna Watts with the disgrace (and the rudeness) of Geoff Simpson.

I'm in his district. I've had email correspondence with him... loads of it prior to the coronation of the illegitimate queen. He was ugly, dismissive and downright rude. I have no trouble believing him a bully to his wife or dismissive to his children.

I find it fascinating all the liberals whine about Dave Reichert reminding the voters of his long history as sheriff but no one seems to mind that Rude Geoff uses his firehat to attempt to make him look good.

I'm glad he's been exposed... he's been skating in on name regognition and little else.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 12:55 PM
33. Saw that the signator Judge/court commissioner in the case @
http://www.therealgeoffsimpson.com/superior_court.pdf
was an Ed Heavey.
Wasn't Heavey previously a Democrat state legislator???
Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest?

Posted by: sendpoly on October 23, 2006 01:00 PM
34. Andy, it sound as though you've probably been through the wringer with problems similar to this. But does that mean that this stuff with Simpson can never be true? There are an awful lot of verbally or physically abusive husbands/fathers out there, from the survivors I've talked to. I have an adult friend in her 40's who is STILL trying to recover from a childhood dominated by an angry, verablly abusive and just plain scary father who made his wife wish that she and her kids were dead so as not to have to live with it. The friend is sick from it, and her 3 sibs are addicted and completely messed up. I heard another guy discuss how his father killed his beloved dog right before the son's 6-yr-old eyes, purely because the father was so angry and addicted and messed up. It just devastated the kid and he had massive problems as an adult. Obviously this was not the only trauma the dad caused, but the one the kid remembers most because of the great horror and hurt from it. He loved that dog. This stuff really happens. Divorce and abuse wrecks lives of spouses and kids. It should not be apologized for or swept under the carpet.

Posted by: Misty on October 23, 2006 01:00 PM
35. Andy--
I've got to agree with Katomar.
The only reason this is a relevant issue is because Geoff Simpson MADE it a campaign issue. Had he not, I'm with you.
It says volumes about someone's character to represent themselves as a "family man".....when Court PUBLIC RECORDS clearly show something much, much different.
I also believe a candidate's Personal Finances are fair game too when they represent themselves to be good fiscal managers. Simpson did that too.
In addition, he is REQUIRED to report those Credit Card debts on his personal Financial Statement filings. REQUIRED.

Andy, I agree that often the issues that matter get clouded by some of the mudslinging. KLOWNstein did it to Irons....and you have yet to respond to requests to comment on that.
However, character & honesty ought to be very important too. Simpson has told a WHOPPER and been busted.....as it should be.
Let the voters decide if it's important to them.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 23, 2006 01:02 PM
36. Andy,

Of course anyone who lies under oath should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Why shouldn't we uphold the law?

And you are still missing the point you slimy liberal. I honestly don't believe you are a Republican, and if you are, you are exactly the reason why the GOP keeps losing. We let the democrats play fast and loose with the truth and they keep skating in. They have some real doozies as candidates this year and, according to your brilliant strategy, we shouldn't even point out their total incompetence to serve.

In the 45h District they have a pot-head, Hempfest activist running. In the 2nd District they have a Ramtha-JZ Knight channeller running. And then Simpson is a total fabrication as a candidate. If he'll lie about the most important things, then he'll lie about anything...like his voting record, position on issues, etc.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 01:04 PM
37. http://www.votesimpson.com/family.htm
http://www.votesimpson.com/bio.htm

Personal

Washington State native

Covington resident for 20 years

Married to Kathy Simpson for 23 years.

Three children: Jacob (16), Joseph (11), and Hannah (8)

Hobbies: fishing, hiking, baseball and baseball card collecting

Committee to Re-Elect Geoff Simpson
16624 SE 254th Place
Covington, WA 98042

Campaign Phone: 206-795-7415
Campaign Fax: 253-630-5641
Email: geoff@votesimpson.com

Campaign Manager: Zach Knowling
Campaign Manager Email: zach@votesimpson.com
Campaign Manager Cell: 206-795-7415

Campaign Office Address: 27001 169th Place SE
Covington, WA 98042

Treasurer: Jason Bennett

I suggest we start calling Zach the campaign manager and asking him about this apparent lie he's perpetuating for his campaign.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 01:07 PM
38. Note too, that his web bio lists the ages of the kids as 16, 11 and 8, while the court documents list them as 15, 10 and 7.

Either he's lying now (2006) and has been since the filing of those documents (2005), or they are still only separated but LEGALLY still married, or they reconciled at some point....

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 01:14 PM
39. Donna Watts campaign supporters:

Your foot, your gun, your finger. go ahead, knock yourselves out.

you've flung more poo on yourselves than your opponent.


Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 01:19 PM
40. So -- taking a look at the photos on his mail piece and the stories about his two apartments and the "friend" in seattle, i wonder whose "lawn is he mowing"?

Posted by: Whiskey Dick on October 23, 2006 01:20 PM
41. While I'm no fan of Simpson or any democrat for that matter, anybody who would seek political gain by beating up on a family going through tough times should be ashamed of themselves. Watts just lost my vote.

Posted by: Barry on October 23, 2006 01:26 PM
42. I don't even know Dona Watts any more than you do. Maybe you could help the Democrats with strategy. Because the Abrahamof and Foley scandals certainly hurt the Democrats, not the Republicans, right? You're brilliant.

The guy is a liar. HE MADE THE ISSUE his picture perfect family life. And is no one paying attention to the nearly $100,000 in credit card debt he has? Somone should look at his F1 filing and see if he reported that debt as he is required to do. And what about his constant PDC violations where he uses public resources for his campaign? He is a liar and a desperate man who will look anywhere for money to help him climb out of the mire of debt he has sunk into. He is unethical, violates PDC law with impugnity and is ripe for corruption. The voters have the right to know that their Representative does not have his personal life together and that it poses a serious public risk, like Cantwell and Dotzauer sleeping together then conniving to get his clients the big federal contracts.

Too bad you can't see this point Andy. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile, please advise the Democrats. If they'll take your advice we'd be in better shape here in Washington.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 01:30 PM
43. Cheryl@38 writes: Note too, that his web bio lists the ages of the kids as 16, 11 and 8, while the court documents list them as 15, 10 and 7. Either he's lying now (2006) and has been since the filing of those documents (2005), or...

... or the kids have aged by a year in the past year?

Scandalous!


Posted by: Bruce on October 23, 2006 01:33 PM
44. his voting record is __________ on fiscal issues?

his voting record is __________ property rights?

he has a criminal conviction of domestic violence?

he has/has not served in his own kids school/school district?

his voting record is _________ on family issues?

also to point out that he's a self professed family guy going through a bitter divorce IS ok- that website IS NOT- it will alienate any mainstream supporter and anyone who has been worked over by the divorce industry.

Liar liar liar- which party mouths does that come out of? Just put Bush in there a couple of times and you've got the same political prowess of a moonbat.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 01:33 PM
45. Andy, regardless of the cause, do you know if he lives in the district, and if not, does that open a legal question on whether he is legally qualified to run for this particular office?

I couldn't find a law that requires candidates to have residency in the district in which they are running.

The only requirement (I found) is that they are a registered voter in that district and that they provide the address of where they are registered.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 23, 2006 01:37 PM
46. CharlieR

the 100k in credit card debt is not uncommon in divorce. The abuse accusation puts between 10-30k on there...and no repercussion to the wife or the wife's attorney for making that accusation. The tactic is to drive your adversary into bankruptcy, win sole custody of the kids who then become annuities in child support.

Why do you think I'm an advocate for reform on this issue along with about a dozen other GOP PCO's?


Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 01:38 PM
47. What does Watts have to do with this? She's not making this an issue, it's bloggers and other groups.

So are you voting against McGavick because of the Canwell scandals? Did you vote for Clinton because of the sex scandals the GOP targeted?

No one bases their vote on campaign tactics...especially when the candidate had nothing to do with it. That's just a tactic the Democrats use to whip wusses like Andy into shape and keep anyone from calling a spade exactly that...a dirty, black spade.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 01:38 PM
48. Charlie- if so- Stefan can post that Donna, nor anyone from her campaign had ANYTHING to do with this or that website.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 01:41 PM
49. This guy is in a position to give out state money and he isnt reporting over $100k in debt! Look at page 66 of the court documents, he is using House of Reps fax to send his divorce records in. His wife says he overestimates his social security and FICA payments. he threatens to turn off the electricity. Why would Geoff Simpson care about the kids of the 47th District, he dosent seem to care about his own.

Posted by: Simpson is a Bad Man on October 23, 2006 01:43 PM
50. Okay, I'm tired of arguing on this. You can't see the point and you keep focussing on the darn divorce...which is not the point.

The legal costs are in the document. I just looked them up. Nowhere near $10K. He can't manage his own money and that's relevant.

Stop picking up the gauntlet on the divorce issue and see the point...he is lying to voters. He is NOT a family man, good husband, father, etc. He is NOT a fiscal conservative. He is an angry, out of control liberal who shouldn't even be working as a fireman, let alone as a legislator.

Posted by: CharlieR on October 23, 2006 01:43 PM
51. ". While I'm no fan of Simpson or any democrat for that matter, anybody who would seek political gain by beating up on a family going through tough times should be ashamed of themselves. Watts just lost my vote. "


Barry, funny, I didn't see your outrage when Goldstein was doing worse to David Irons.

Posted by: pbj on October 23, 2006 01:50 PM
52. I have been a Democrat for 40 years and I am in Simpson's district. In fact I am ashamed to say I voted for him last time. He is a liar and should immediately step down for the good of the party.

Simpson just lost my vote.

Posted by: LoyalDemocrat on October 23, 2006 01:52 PM
53. Cheryl@38 writes: Note too, that his web bio lists the ages of the kids as 16, 11 and 8, while the court documents list them as 15, 10 and 7. Either he's lying now (2006) and has been since the filing of those documents (2005), or...
... or the kids have aged by a year in the past year? Scandalous! -Posted by Bruce at October 23, 2006 01:33 PM


You made my POINT, Bruce.


The POINT Bruce, is that a FULL YEAR after his family disintegrated in his campaign bio and his campaign literature he is STILL using them and perpetuating a lie to make himself look like the devoted family man that he apparently is not.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 01:54 PM
54. Maybe you should look at the piece where he had his daughter dress up and "play"/pose like she was sick again (she'd been sick & in the hospital last year). Who takes campaign pictures of their sick kid in the hospital or better yet-who would make their kid pose for such a piece is a low blow? AND- what hospital allowed such a farce?

If he claims to be for victim rights, why are his wife and kids victims?

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 23, 2006 02:09 PM
55. If he's a City of Kent firefighter, where does the City and Mayor stand with these documents? Shouldn't there be some position taken that protects the public from potential negative actions from this man?

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 23, 2006 02:28 PM
56. Tomorrow, we will see the shell game Cantwell is a party to with respect to the Dozhauer situation. I hope we don't get into the homewrecker thing but instead focus on the shady, unsavory and unhealthy business/political relationship the two have had and make her unfit for another term.

Posted by: swatter on October 23, 2006 03:22 PM
57. This kind of sleaze may be suitable for some democrats to use, but any Republican who would stoop so low should be drummed out of the party.

Divorce documents are notoriously nasty, usually far nastier than the real situation - just ask anyone who's been through it. I question the values of ANYBODY who posts private information about a family on the internet.

If I did live in the 47th I'd drink out of a toilet before I'd vote for Watts. Did she consider at least blacking out the personal information about his kids before posting the documents? No. And that's just unnacceptable.

Posted by: JessL on October 23, 2006 03:28 PM
58. What goes around comes around. When Simpson ran against Phil Fortunato a few years ago, he found a former business partner of Phil's at the 11th hour and got her to accuse Phil of dishonesty in the South County Journal. There was no time to correct the record, and Phil lost narrowly.

Simpson is a creep and this is justice served.

Posted by: gary on October 23, 2006 04:18 PM
59. Who said Watts posted these? That's just what you Democrats try to say to take pressure off your golden child who can do no wrong. Where is your support for women and victims now? You're going to feel like an idiot when he Brahmes his wife one of these days.

And if you care so much about his kids, then advise your friend Mr. Simpson to resign and spend more time fixing his family. Living in Olympia four months out of the year isn't going to fix his family problems. Wait until the stories about his time in Olympia away from his wife come out.

So why don't you instead focus your hatred on Simpson, who exploits his wife and kids for his personal campaign agenda? If he exploits them, put their names and ages on his website, and says what a wonderful father and husband he is (and how fiscally responsible he is) then why isn't it fair to say "bull crap!" and call him out for being a lying bastard?

Doesn't the $100,000 in credit card debt bother you? What about his illegally hiding it from the voters? What about abusing his position as a government employee and using taxpayer owned resources for his campaign? (he's been fined already for breaking the law and yet he keeps doing it) What about him claiming to be a graduate of an all boys Catholic School in Hawaii when he didn't even attend? He's a high school dropout. He got a GED while he was in the military. Just call the school and ask.

Everything about this guy is a lie. He lies about his resume. He lies about his picture perfect family. He lies about being fiscally responsible. He lies about how much debt he has (which is important because it tells us how susceptible he is to corruption). And he lies about his voting record. And you would rather drink toilet water and then turn around and vote for this guy? Get real.

And if you lived in the 47th I'd advise gargling toilet water to get the bad taste of voting for Geoff Simpson out of your mouth the last three elections.

Posted by: CharlesR on October 23, 2006 04:31 PM
60. It does not surprise me that he sends verbaly abusive e-mails to his wife. I'm in the 47th dist. I sent two e-mails to Geoff during a legislative session and abusive replies back from him.

Posted by: Bob on October 23, 2006 05:17 PM
61. Geoff, is a public employee (fireman) and has a firehat on his posters. It seems like this should be wrong, but what do I know.

Posted by: Robert Sjolin on October 23, 2006 05:27 PM
62. Andy, the website is to call BS to the literature Simpson is sending out which portrays him as Mr. family man. That isn't his lawn either. And I don't believe he's active in the fire department either. Unfortunately his wardrobe seems to be long on those shirts.
As far as him being a class act, forget it. Too many stories follow this guy.
I can tell you even his next door neighbors don't have a sign of his in their yard.
The Watts campaign probably didn't post this on their own but Geoff has made enough enemies around here that this was bound to happen. Even without me reminding y'all about the emails he's sent to me. (available on request though)

Posted by: PC on October 23, 2006 06:13 PM
63. I lived in Covington when he ws running for city council there. At the time the local fire fighters endorsed his opponent. He was a slimeball then and I see he hasn't changed much.

Posted by: MSRedneck on October 23, 2006 07:02 PM
64. Sorry, but if he has to put a cutesy fire hat on the end of his name, there is something amiss...

Clearly, Mr. Simpson should not have billed himself as a "family man" in the mailings.

Unfortunate.

Posted by: Shaun on October 23, 2006 07:38 PM
65. I think Andy needs to be thrown out of the YRs. He's obviously more interested in trying to protect his darling leftists than actually bringing Republican ideals forth.

And Geoff Simpson needs to be defeated.

Posted by: Sakaki on October 23, 2006 08:00 PM
66. http://soundpolitics.com/archives/004873.html

The sort of dignity and class we expect from our public servants...

Posted by: TB on October 23, 2006 08:13 PM
67. This has all the ingredients of an "MSNBC Investigates" tragedy. Something about this guy reminds one of Scott Peterson.

Posted by: Organization Man on October 23, 2006 08:24 PM
68. Get rid of Simpson - he is a disgrace. I am in a neighboring district, but he resembles Josef Stalin in appearance and probably in more ways that you'd want to know ! Vote Donna Watts !

Posted by: KS on October 23, 2006 08:25 PM
69. If Watts campaign is how a Republican is going to run- then no- I want no part of it. If you can't address REAL issues and have to drag someone and their family through the mud- you've got no business serving. Go be a Democrat, they seem to get off on that sort of sleaze and character assassination.

There have been a couple of good reasons to not vote for Simpson posted by his constituents- he MAY be a terrible senator- but without doubt the Watts campaign is choosing to lead with this one- SP gets a lot of hits and they could have easily gone with any other issue- ----is SP going to be taudry and titilating like MSM?


Yeah it was real uncool when they pulled this on Irons....and now guess what- you're no better then they are.

note I didn't have these objections on the Cantwell issue- there is clearly an illegal loan in that case and the law has been broken by Cantwell in a dozen ways.

There's a line and the Watts Campaign crossed it.

Posted by: Andy on October 23, 2006 10:31 PM
70. Keep leading your baseless charge Andy... but before you do, please show us all your proof that shows Donna Watts had anything whatsoever to do with Stefan posting this story.

It's pretty darn clear you have the "keep repeating a lie till it sticks' tactic down pat.

Please, prove it or peddle it elsewhere.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 23, 2006 10:45 PM
71. Andy,

You are still missing the several points.

1) Donna was not apart of the decision to run with this.
2) Two Geoff Simpson is a known hot head. According to some witnesses when he was in Covington City Council. He threw a chair during or after a meeting that did not go his way. As someone who has seen his wrath aimed at me in an email and what he has said in an email about Julie Holbrook, the former mayor of Covington, I beleive that the "allegations" were real.
3) The GOP should above all be about the truth. These docs are damaging and Geoff had them sealed after copies were made. He is trying to hide the truth. How many citizens can seal there own records?
4) Lastly, grow-up politics is a contact sport. It should be about the issues, but when a candidate is lying call them on it. If they are abusive expose it. It does not matter if the person is a Dem like Simpson or a Rep. Like Boy Packwood or Bob Ney. Bad character should disqualify anyone in the eyes of informed and consciencous voters.

James S.

Posted by: James S on October 23, 2006 11:00 PM
72. I'm not defending Simpson as a candidate. I'm attacking your sleazeball approach to campaigning.

Are YOU authorized to speak for Donna and her campaign? NO?

Has someone who is authorized to speak for Donna - or Donna herself come on here and corrected it? No?

It would be a pretty easy correction to assert.

Has Stefan clarified that Watt's campaign had nothing to do with that website or bringing it up. NO?

Go ahead roll in the gutter with democrats- I'm not the only Republican who has no respect for Donna and her campaign for this tactic.

Cheryl- your obviously pretty freaking close to the campaign - if not directly tied to it as your posts would indicate- make the phone call and have Donna get a note posted that her and campaign had nothing to do with this.

pretty much crickets chirping except from the ra ra ra no Republican can do evil crowd.


Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 07:56 AM
73. Nice try, Andy, but with the exception of bucking my HOA, I'm not close to any campaign.
I have ONE sign: Riley's.
I've never met Donna Watts.
I met our PCO when she was distributing flyers.
I met Mike Riley when he was putting up signs. I know Phil Fortunato because our kids were school/team mates.
I met Kirby Wilbur... once.

I do however value TRUTH... truth from politicians and TRUTH from people like you who are trying to tar a candidate because her opponent is revealed to be a bigger jerk than we knew. I LIVE in the 47th. I've had dealings with Simpsons and have been on the receiving end of Simpsons vile and degrading emails.

Furthermore, this is a more honest revelation backed up with FACTS and PROOF than the innuendo thrown at Irons by your ilk last year.

This is more honest than the crap thrown at Bush, Nethercutt and any other Republican.

You liberals love to hint at rumors, tell and re-tell them to imbed them as truth in voters minds but you can't stand when truth and facts about one of your own hits the light of day. Your rallying cry seems to be "It's not FAIR'.

Tough.

Deal with it.


You are the one whining that Donna watts is responsible. You made the charge, you can provide the proof. Your little game of trying to get any of us who despise Simpson to prove a negative is not going to work.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 08:51 AM
74. Andy,

The Donna Watts campaign doesn't have say squat. I am involved in the publicly airing this material. I am not involved in the Watts Campaign with the exception of having a sign and donating $50.00. I went before the city council in Kent to address the public liability for his actions. He has a temper. Whether he is a state rep or not Kent has a public employee that is persuing a path that could lead to legal liability. He is behaving like he is above the law. People like that do not belong in public life.

Also, being a bunch of straight laced Polly Anna's have earned us nothing, but a minority position in the Leg. If you are content in always coming up a loser in this state, continue the wimp noodle rountine. I know our first instinct is to be polite and civil, however we will never be invited to join the left's social Fraternity. They despise us. They hate us and for you, Andy, they are laughing at you.

James S

Posted by: James S on October 24, 2006 09:11 AM
75. Andy,

Obviously, you are NOT a true Republican! You've adopted the "it's everyone else's fault" rhetoric that is common place with the "D" party.

If you lived in the 47th district or had direct, personal contact with Mr. Simpson, as a Republican, you would know that his mailings are nothing but fabrications and LIES! You would also know that unless you had donated to his campaign, you would NOT be allowed into his office. Anyone who disagrees with him is "shut out"!

You might also be interested to know that he was the Representative who tried to pass a resolution stating that the U.S. was responsible for 9/11 and he's a former Navy man who got his GED while on ship in Hawaii.

When the gentleman from Florida spoke before the House of Representatives in support of vehicle licenses carrying the "Operation Support Our Troops" designation, Mr. Simpson threw such a fit that his own caucus leader had to request that TVW shut off while reprimanding Mr. Simpson to get himself under control. There are many more instances of that kind of uncontrollable outbursts and anger with him in Olympia and when he was on the City Council in Covington. If he acts that way in controlled public situations, how does he act in the privacy of his own home?

He has violated PDC rules in the past and again this campaign season with using public equipment in his pieces. He only gets a "slap on the wrist". He went more than a year without any reports to the PDC and has only NOW ammended those reports. Clearly a violation of rules!

He claims to have supported the toughest sex-offenders laws in the country, yet when the opportunity came to pass "Jessica's Law", he went balistic on the House floor AGAIN. The law that he is sooooo proud of does NOT include family members which are over 80% of the cases. He fought against including teachers, coaches, clergy, etc. Fortunately, he was over ruled.

He claims to be fiscally conservative, yet he voted for the largest tax increase in WA history and approved the gutting of I-601. He and his seat mate, Pat Sullivan, worked hand-in-hand to support passage of the CAO of which Pat Sullivan was a co-writer.

This is the type of legislator you want to support because someone was fed-up enough over his lies and wanted the voters to be aware of public information? You should be ashamed.

I hope you are exposed for the fake that you really are. You embarass even the worst RINO's.

For others who feel it better to "throw away their vote" because this "smells", maybe you need to do some more investigating on your own. Mr. Simpson's record "stinks".

Anyone who gets into politics, knows that their history (public and private) is open for scrutinty. Just ask Mr. Simpson how he beat Phil Fortunato and Steve Altick. "DIRTY TRICKS" and "LIES".

This divorce information is factual as it is SWORN before a judge! And his voting record is available thru a variety of resources including TVW video and audio posting. Check it out!

Posted by: SexyMama on October 24, 2006 09:27 AM
76. As a Democrat I think Simpson has brought shame on our party. If this is how Democrats are going to run, by lying, then I want no part of that party. SHAME on Simpson!!

Posted by: Doug on October 24, 2006 09:48 AM
77. Folks,

Andy is a plant by the DNC. He is doing what is called sock puppetry wherine the same Democrat goes onto a conservative blog or forums and proclaims themselves to be lifelong Republicans that are disgusted with the party and then blather the standard liberal propaganda lines.

Andy is obviously one of these liberal sock puppets. He is no Republican, I can assure you of that. That he continues with the charade even though everyone here sees right through him only reinforces the impression of him as a Democrat automaton.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2006 09:54 AM
78. again- your gun, your feet. Your flies, your vinegar.

I don't need to stand between the two, however I have no intention of shutting up about it.

Knock yourself out and fire away!

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 09:58 AM
79. pbj- scroll over to the right hand side and read thurston pundits.

yeah- I'm a hell of sock puppet. I've been blogging for property rights, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and other conservative issues for a year just to drop a stake into a gutter fight campaign run by some hot heads.

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 10:02 AM
80. You owe Donna Watts an apology, sock puppet.

You are smearing her with no proof.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 10:11 AM
81. Obviously this have degraded into a name calling match.

Once again, the point is missed regarding Simpson, his record, fiscal management and anger management problems.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

Just the FACTS!

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 24, 2006 10:15 AM
82. Obviously this have degraded into a name calling match.

Once again, the point is missed regarding Simpson; his record, fiscal management and anger management problems.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

Just the FACTS!

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 24, 2006 10:15 AM
83. Obviously this have degraded into a name calling match.

Once again, the point is missed regarding Simpson; his record, fiscal management and anger management problems.

KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid!

Just the FACTS!

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 24, 2006 10:16 AM
84. Cheryl- it must have been the OTHER candidates opposing Simpson in the race who not only dug through the gutter to obtain the divorce info, but then created the website. One has to do some work to get those records- it's not a google search.

If the campaign or candidate wasn't involved- it's pretty easy to say--- but when the best you've got it is "we won't say we didn't do it, you have to prove we did it-" with a bunch of name calling- you've lost.

Too bad. Simpson is probably a terrible candidate, but Donna's integrity has been exposed as much as Simpsons here. The ironic part is- you've been a big part of making that happen.

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 11:19 AM
85. Andy is a plant by the DNC.

No. He is not. I disagree with his position on this issue, but he is by no means a plant, sock puppet or anything of the sort.

Posted by: jimg on October 24, 2006 11:21 AM
86. Oh gee Andy, maybe it was a citizen who is fed up with the likes of Simpson. Maybe it's his ex wife. Maybe it was her brother. Maybe it was a neighbor that despises him. Maybe it was a past competitor.

But in your one-note little brain it couldn't possibly be anyone of those, it just had to be a candidate.

Perhaps then, you can explain the worse tactics of MoveOn.org, or HorsesAss, or People for the American Way... they all do the very same and worse. Was it Kerry who forged Bush documents or someone hoping to hurt Bush? Was it Kerry who pounded on Bush for 9/11 or someone who wants to hurt Bush?

Tell us more how it just had to be the other candidate. You made the charge you have the burden of PROOF.

And by the way, perhaps you can tell us why you are harping on this in THURSTON COUNTY. I seem to remember the 47th district is miserably stuck in corrupt KING County. Also, perhaps you can explain why anyone who hope to comment on your little blog has to jump through hoops and THEN have their commment vetted by you.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 01:21 PM
87. Cheryl- you already lost. Attacking me won't make your candidate more credible- nor will it dissociate your candidate from the mud slinging.

It's a pretty easy thing to disavow and you don't have to convince me your campaign isn't responsible- you have to convince the SP readership- you flung the poo- now deal with it.

Speaking of thinking things through- do you have any idea of how many GOP candidates in races this year in our own state that have messier accusations of domestic violence? They're all wife beaters if they've been accused of it right....DOOOP you didn't really think it through did you?

It obviously didn't occur to the brain trust at camp Watts that a lot of the candidates on our side of the fence are human beings who might ALSO have jilted ex's in their pasts as well. Thanks to mud slingers like yourselves- the high ground has been surrendered and your just as bad as your opponents.

If moveon.org and goldstein jump off a cliff- are you third in line?

I'm not the one running for office and you're the one standing in a hole with a candidate holding a shovel.

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 01:42 PM
88. Wouldn't a quick "who is" search at least tell us who bought the domain name?

I'm not too happy with the kids' names being posted, but the information in the docs is much worse than that oversight.

Three things really bother me: 1) He has/had the $100,000 in credit card debt; 2) His wife took out a restraining order; 3) His boorish behavior toward her during a very difficult time in their lives.

He doesn't seem to be a very good man. I truly hope that his children haven't been permanently injured by all of this.

Posted by: wapatowinnie on October 24, 2006 01:42 PM
89. wapato- the restraining order and the abuse allegation is part of standard divorce procedure by bottome feeding family law attorneys- with it you can get the guy thrown out of the house, immediate custody of the kids, temporary support + all bills paid.

The request for a protective order is NEVER denied by judges or commisioners and often the guy doesn't even get to have an attorney or any representation present to challenge the assertions of abuse as being completely bogus at the hearing where all of this goes down.

After the charges are proven bogus-and they usually are- the ex already has custody and therefore usually gets to retain custody (despite perjury in the first place) of the kids- meanwhile the guy is out having to pay an extra few thou for an attorney to prove he is innocent AND an apartment AND the original residence and status quo living conditions while dealing with it.

Gee- any idea where the 100k of credit card debt comes from- any idea why divorced guys (usually dads fighting for custody of their kids) end up in bankruptcy?

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 01:52 PM
90. Andy -

You seem to be internalizing all of this. I completely understand why someone might object to this sort of information being used in a campaign.

Nevertheless, it's out there. Have you looked at the financials? I don't see how a divorce would cause you to incur thousands of dollars in credit card debt on a Target Visa.

There are several credit cards listed here. I'm sure not all of them are his. The bigger point is that he is entrusted with taxpayer dollars - and the dollars of the contributors to his campaign. Is he a good steward? Has anyone checked to see if he's making payments to the same credit cards using campaign resources?

This all just stinks to high heaven.

Posted by: wapatowinnie on October 24, 2006 02:14 PM
91. I hear this is a a plant by good old Andy to discredit the GOP in general and Donna Watts specifically.

How much did the Gregoire libs pay you to perpetrate this scheme, Andy?

Don't deny it, kiddo, no one here will believe you. You refuse to provide proof of you accusation that Donna is responsible for this and you CAN'T prove you aren't.

Andy from Thurston Pundits: dirty waterboy for the WA democrats.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 02:42 PM
92. Cheryl, just want to comment that you've done admirably against someone who doesn't merit such attention. If Andy is who he claims, at the very least he needs to grow up and realize that not all bloggers and organizations taking a stand to support a candidate are not actually directly affiliated with that candidate. And if he's just a liberal troll, he needs to be pitied as he obviously has a pathetic existence.

Count me as another person who's had an email run in with Geoff Simpson. He's my rep as well and when I wrote to him and Pat Sullivan about the Governor's race debacle, they both just brushed me off. I remember one of them was particularly rude about it but don't remember which. I'm getting the strong impression it must have been Simpson if the guy has anger issues.

Posted by: ferrous on October 24, 2006 02:50 PM
93. I notice many of the posters commenting on this subject are using aliases. I will stand out in the sun and put my two bits worth into the squabble.

I can tell you from personal knowlege that Donna Watts knew nothing about this information being put out in the public. She learned from a phone call from a reporter that something had been made public, but she still may not know what or that anything is on Sound Politcs.

Although I was not directly involved, I do know how it come to be and I also know that no one involved in it really enjoyed doing it.

The primary reason it was done is that Geoff Simpson was again deceiving the public by proclaiming to the voters what a great family man he is and how he is so good at personal budgeting that they should give him another term.

Geoff has a history of expressing his anger and the remarks entered above by others are all true with plenty of other incidents that could be added.

It is also true that he was unmerciful in going after both Phil Fortunato and Steve Altick in the past three elections. He didn't care one whit about destroying their reputations with false allegations. THAT is dirty politics. He is also a sore loser. You should have seen the email he sent to Phil when he beat him.

Releasing facts is not dirty in the same manner, but I say again those involved did not enjoy placing his private life in full view. No one who enters politics should really expect anything about him or her is going to remain private.

As to paying his credit cards with campaign funds, there is a suspicion that he did far worse. Whether he will be reported to the PDC for violations of using his personal credit cards for campaign expenses (not allowed) and then paying off not only those expenses with payments to the credit card companies (also not allowed) and paying personal charges with campaign contributions (very much not allowed) I do not know. I don't know if that can be proven.

The whole point here is that he does not deserve to be re-elected for a variety of reasons. Lying in his campaign mailings is just a minor part. Our Supreme Court has ruled that it is OK for a candidate to promise things they do not plan to deliver and to flat out lie to the voters because it is protected under freedom of speech.

If you read his material he, Sullivan and Kauffman are all trying to look more moderate and promising to lead the fight to put a 1% cap on annual property taxes. I presume they mean they are going to restore the cap the Democrats eliminated but they mean the rate not the amount as your property value increases. They promise to increase the Tax Exemptions for Seniors, and to control spending.

Does anyone here believe them? They and the rest of the Democrats are the ones who did just the opposite and I don't think if they are elected they will do anything of the sort. But they think it will get them elected.

Back to the original post. Andy, Donna Watts was NOT involved and had no knowledge of the release of this information. It was done by others who want to see Geoff Simpson out of Olympia where he is an embarrassment to the 47th district.

Posted by: Orin Wells on October 24, 2006 03:39 PM
94. As a PCO in the 47TH, well said Orin.

Posted by: James SHACKLEFORD on October 24, 2006 03:58 PM
95. I see a lot of people making unsubstantiated allegations about Geoff Simpson and many of them are downright ridiculous. PC says he doesn't work at the fire department for example. Earlier this year, my husband had a heart attack. Geoff Simpson was one of the firemen who came to my house and saved his life so I know that's a lie. I have always been a conservative but occasionally I vote for a democrat if I think they'll do a good job (I guess that makes me a traitor in some of your eyes) and I have always supported Simpson. Nobody who's been through a divorce is naive enough to take anything that's contained in divorce documents with anything more than a grain of salt. I called Geoff today and spoke to him. He told me that although he and his wife had gone through a tough time last year, they had reconciled and were working on keeping their 23 year marriage intact. Donna Watts and the rest of her cheerleaders on this page should be ashamed of themselves. Donna's been divorced - I wonder what's in her documents? Call Geoff yourself if you want to know the truth about any of the crap on this page - his number is 253-630-3498.

Posted by: Phyllis on October 24, 2006 04:11 PM
96. Phyllis--good to hear your husband was saved--hope he's well.

I think posters here would not call you a traitor for 'voting the person.' Nor do I think they are all liars. As for the 'crap on this page,' that's your opinion. As is mine about liberal blogs.

I find the exchanges interesting and many points certainly not covered in the lazy, biased media. I take them all with a grain of salt. Besides, divorces and other things in the public record are fair game. Sad, but necessary if (and I assume) people like you want transparent government and candidates' FULL stories and backgrounds.

Let Geoff speak or post for himself. He's the one who wants a vote, so on with it! Why should I call HIM? HE wants to serve the public, so tell us why and back it up. Jab at the opponent too. We're all ears.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 24, 2006 04:23 PM
97. "Back to the original post. Andy, Donna Watts was NOT involved and had no knowledge of the release of this information. It was done by others who want to see Geoff Simpson out of Olympia where he is an embarrassment to the 47th district."

Geeze- was that so hard?

It's about time someone NOT riding the short bus chimed in.

Orin- Should I take it that this was also not a knucklehead campaign rep doing it? As Cheryl's junior high girl attacks would indicate- it doesn't sound like the greatest amount of smarts are lined up to beat simpson- it would behoove Donna to correct any interpretation that she or her campaign was behind this beyond any reasonable doubt.

The "you can't prove we did it" responses and attacks spattered through this thread read like a signed confession of guilt. I'd like to be fair and encourage the actual campaign to set the record straight.

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 04:31 PM
98. Orin,

If it wasn't Donna. Who is behind the website?

Posted by: Who then? on October 24, 2006 04:48 PM
99. And isn't it illegal to spend money opposing a candidate without reporting it to the PDC?

Posted by: Who then? on October 24, 2006 05:17 PM
100. Phyllis, so he arrived as a firman huh? Is he full time or a reserve? Perhaps my information isn't complete. No matter. That fireman schtick is getting old.
How about using his kids pic in the hospital as campaign literature. TACKY. How about using and prompting his kids to go before the city council and say they were willing to give up a video a month to pay for things like sidewalks, around the city. TACKY. (ask a home builder who pays for those sidewalks)
He likes to play dirty and loose with words and now it's come to about 100 little inputs on this site about him. NONE praising his record in Olympia, most questioning his character. How's that?

Posted by: PC on October 24, 2006 05:50 PM
101. Thanks Andy! Want a fire hat?

Posted by: GeoffAppreciatesAndy'sHardWork! on October 24, 2006 05:50 PM
102. "It's about time someone NOT riding the short bus chimed in." -Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 04:31 PM


Very nice SLUR, Andy. Why do you hate the handicapped?

"You disgrace your opponent, you disgrace yourself, you disgrace your party and you disgrace this system." -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 11:06 AM

"Either way- this is a campaign tactic that cannot be tolerated." -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 12:28 PM

"NOT doing this kind of crap is what makes people feel good about coming out and supporting GOP campaigns.
SO DO YOU WANT TO BE JUST LIKE GOLDSTEIN? gee-that's setting bar real high.+ Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 12:39 PM

"you've flung more poo on yourselves than your opponent." -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 01:19 PM

There's a line and the Watts Campaign crossed it. -Posted by Andy at October 23, 2006 10:31 PM

"I'm attacking your sleazeball approach to campaigning.
Go ahead roll in the gutter with democrats...
pretty much crickets chirping except from the ra ra ra no Republican can do evil crowd." -Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 07:56 AM

"again- your gun, your feet. Your flies, your vinegar.
I don't need to stand between the two, however I have no intention of shutting up about it.
Knock yourself out and fire away!" -Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 09:58 AM

"you flung the poo- now deal with it."- Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 01:42 PM

"It's about time someone NOT riding the short bus chimed in." -Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 04:31 PM

How's that moral high ground you like to preach from, Andy? Air pretty clear and pure up there, is it?

"It's about time someone NOT riding the short bus chimed in." -Posted by Andy at October 24, 2006 04:31 PM

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 06:08 PM
103. Jimmie, thank you for the well wishes, my husband is doing fine. Geoff is a full-time fireman, he told me this morning that he had just gotten off work. What's tacky about somebody's family appearing in their campaign stuff? And where's your proof about Geoff prompting his kids? Maybe they wanted to do it themselves. Talk about somebody playing dirty and loose with words, PC. Got any mirrors in your house?

Posted by: Phyllis on October 24, 2006 06:11 PM
104. You had a good interaction with Fireman Geoff in a stressful situation. I'm glad.

I've had several horrendous interactions with the man that is supposed to be in Olympia representing his ENTIRE district, not just the ones able to vote and that vote 'D'.

I believe my interaction with him is far more indicative of his legislative attitude than your interaction with him in his JOB.

You think he's the second coming of Superman, by all means vote for him. But do so knowing full well the way he treats his CONSTITUENTS (vs his patients) and the revelations others have made about him. I've seen the letters to and about Phil Fortunato that Orin refers to, and they were indeed VILE. He may be a terrific firefighter, I have no way of knowing, but he's a vicious person, a terrible, closed minded legislator and even worse representative of MY FAMILY, MY NEIGHBORS and MY DISTRICT.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 24, 2006 06:22 PM
105. Looks like Cheryl has a nice home life with lots of support from her husband. No wonder she's so bitter:

Boy have you got it WRONG WRONG WRONG! I found it very interesting that you concentrated your article on Moms with babies -- but oh Marty, those sleeping little babies grow and grow and continue to need more attention not less. I have been a stay-at-home Mom for most of the 24 years of my marriage.

"MOST OF THE MEN I work with haven't even really stopped to think about what their wives have done to them."

How about the things that are done for them? Let me tell you about the responsibilities I carry so that my husband doesn't have to concern himself with them:

I handle all the marketing, cooking, meal planning, laundry (at its peak 20 loads a week -- all done in one day), cleaning and errands such as dry cleaning, banking, post office, and the myriad of others that complicate our lives.

I handle household maintenance: if I don't clean the furnace filter it doesn't get done. I hire the lawn people, wait for the plumbers and interview the contractors. I do the weeding, the planting and make sure the garbage gets out to the curb on the right day. I provide the clean bathrooms and dust free rooms and an organized home. I'm the one that cleans the closets, sorts the toys, organizes the garage and donates and delivers the extraneous to Goodwill.

I handle ALL the household finances -- I pay the bills, balance all the accounts, talk to the investment people, read all the volumes of information before making investment decisions. I get the tax information to the accountant that I hired. I financed and refinanced the mortgage.

I handle all the medical appointments -- I sit on the phone trying to make them, I take the kids to them, I review all the insurance paperwork associated with them and I am the one that follows up on the phone when there are problems. I fetch the prescriptions, make sure they are dispensed properly, sit with the sick children, get up with them in the middle of the night and clean up after them. And that's just the doctors -- lets not forget dentists, orthodontists and optometrists.

I handle all the school responsibilities -- I meet all the teachers, I oversee the homework, I help with the research projects, I find the tutors, run to the library, bake the cookies, go to the PTA meetings and teacher conferences. I am the one that does the required school volunteering -- I work in the classroom, drive carpool, work fundraising events.

I handle the extracurricular activities - I find the teams, interview the coaches, drive all the kids to all the practices on all days. I find the piano teacher, the saxophone tutor, the drum specialist. I sit through karate lessons, soccer, volleyball, basketball, baseball and wrestling practices. I shop for and work the concession stands while Dad watches the event. I sew on the scout badges and lead the Cub Scouts (which involves its own volume of pre-planning). I find the summer camps, get the kids packed, take them to camp and get them back home. Ditto for family vacations.

I discipline the kids, shop for their clothes, books, school supplies, sports equipment and toys. I've taught them to read, to pray, to cook, to iron and to sew.

I'm the party planner and the decorator -- I bake the Christmas cookies, send out the cards, make the costumes and I am Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Halloween provider. The decorations are put up and taken down , yep by me again. I'm the every-holiday-chef. I'm the gift buyer and gift wrapper for every occasion.

I'm the one that gets my husband to and from the airport so that he can just jump out of the car and catch his flight rather than dealing with parking his car and catching a bus. I support my husband in his career.

And somehow I manage to read, exercise, belong to book clubs and Bible studies and lunch with friends.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not looking for sympathy -- this is the path I freely chose and I am incredibly thankful I have had the opportunity to stay home. I am, however, deeply offended at your glib treatment of my hard work, my chosen profession. You owe me and millions of others like me an apology for dismissing our hard work in our chosen careers. I'll be waiting and I suspect I'll be waiting a very long time.
-- Cheryl Wilton
Seattle, Washington

Posted by: anonymous on October 24, 2006 06:28 PM
106. yeah Cheryl-

I managed to say all of those colorful things without directly attacking you or specifically calling you or anyone else attacking me a retard.

Reading over the thread- you (and a lot of others) ran out of things to say about the issue and spent the latter half of the day attacking me- and ooooh how smart that makes you. Your parents (and children) must be proud.

I'll leave the door open for Donna or someone from Donna's campaign to outspokenly set the record straight. My blog entry stands unedited until that happens.

Posted by: Andy on October 24, 2006 07:26 PM
107. Phyllis--103
i am not parroting other posters nor claim to be lily white; all im saying is that public figures need to know that they are/will be tempered in the fires of CLOSE scrutiny--for good reasin--the public trust; re-read my posts please;

people who VOLUNTARILY step forward for public life/trust need to know that anything true or false will be tossed about. thats life. this is about giving power to someone.

i would like some assurance that the "total picture" of a person is reasonably sane and not fraught with issues. think of this as picking an employee, banker, CPA or whatever--TRUST.

for the record, hope your husband (saved by Geoff) & you live to 100+ as well as Geoff's family too. No animosity here. But--like the line in the Godfather movie, "This is business."

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 24, 2006 07:36 PM
108. To everybody who is saying that the website is the work of one Person on a Mission: where did the massive amount of "therealgeoffsimpson.com" signs come from? Printing and placing large numbers of campaign signs costs money and requires big time commitments from more than one person. Around Covington, it seems like I see three of those signs wherever Simpson has one. That costs money, and that tells me that there's some kind of institutional backing. I don't know that it's Watts or even the Republican party, but it's not just a couple of people on a mission, either. I'd be very, very interested to know who is providing the necessary dollars for this.

Posted by: Mike the Stationary on October 24, 2006 08:23 PM
109. i don't see where anyone attacked andy. I do see his ruffled feathers and his objecting too much.

Posted by: ragnardanneskold on October 24, 2006 08:26 PM
110. Well Phyllis, what makes me think their kids were prompted is NO kid in their right mind would give a rats behind about council meetings and taxation. They also read from a script. And tacky is putting it lightly about using your daughter's hospitalization for campaign literature. Wait....my son had open heart surgery when he was 5 months old. Perhaps I could run for office and use the pictures from that for propaganda! Nah, I haven't been hit on the head with a 2x4 for public office yet.

Posted by: PC on October 24, 2006 08:35 PM
111. PC -

Maybe Simpson's kids take after their dad. Maybe they care about their community. Maybe they want a safe place to walk to school and to the neighborhood store - you know which one I'm talking about. Geoff Simpson has done more for our community than 1000 Pat Cavanaughs will ever do. Get over it.

Dan Spence

Posted by: Dan on October 24, 2006 09:31 PM
112. So let me get this straight, so Geoff's bad behavior towards anyone who opposes him is excused because he increases our tax dollars and then spends us into bankruptcy we should look the other way. That type of statement is anti-woman, anti-social and amoral. He treats people like garbage and then has the nerve to ask for my vote. No thank you.

Posted by: James Shackleford on October 24, 2006 09:47 PM
113. Having been a resident of Covington and watching as the council with Simpson on it, sowed the seeds allowing WalMart into what was designated a "theatre property". They held meaningless community meetings asking for opinion on weather to allow a WalMart when the decision had been made, impromptu bar room meetings at the old A's restaurant,(reported in KCJ)with alcohol while conducting city business. The stores placement surrounded on 3 sides by what was and still is residential single family homes.

Attending council meetings during that time was painful, and watching Simpson and Sullivan, (then Mayor) schmooze the developer of the "theatre property" who showed up at every council meeting in the early days and layed on the butter until he bought the "theatre property" instead of his previous role representing the original owners. I watched this clearly slimy developer holding the city by the nuts until he sold the land to WalMart and set the course for Covington to become merely a generic shopping mecca off of Hwy 18.

Hmm, where did "jack" the developer go after that?

Where was Geoff protecting the environment or for that matter anything that was Covington. He had the gall to tell me that my property should sell easily, being zoned downtown commercial. Funny, I put my house up for sale but had to disclose the WalMart going in across the street, LITERALLY! As well as the new apartments (3 stories) right off my property line. I held that home for 9 years and had to take nearly $50K off the lowest appraisal to even get developers to stop and look. Now it's a crappy rental property waiting for redevelopment. I wasn't going to raise my kids in that environment.

I'm not a hateful man, but when someone stands on my lawn, with 2 other councilmembers, lies to me and costs me tens of thousands in loss in part due to his actions. I say couldn't happen to a more fitting anal dwelling butt monkey.

I realize the divorce accusations are probably inflated, but as far as I'm concerned I got a great chuckle out of it.

Posted by: MSRedneck on October 24, 2006 10:53 PM
114. The issue are still the same. Geoff Simpson lies!

If he wasn't afraid of "the truth", then why did the "Read the Truth" signs disappear so quickly. And in case you haven't noticed, most of the Watts signs have be damaged/slashed/knocked down/removed and Simpson's haven't been touched.
She has dealt with this since the beginning but has been above board all along.

Donna has nothing to hide and has been willing to go toe-to-toe with Mr. Simpson but he never shows up at joint gatherings where his record would be discussed or exposed. Maybe he's afraid he won't be able to control his temper.

She's available to every voter in the district and will openly talk to even the most liberal because she plans to represent EVERYONE. You can contact her via her website: www.donnawatts.org, if you have specific concerns or issues. She will respond with respect and dignity. To me, that speaks volumes about the integrity of her campaign.

I've had contact with Mr. Simpson and since I'm on the "other side", he refused to respond or even speak to me when I went to Olympia. Even when I was with someone who supported him and had donated to his campaigns, I was NOT allowed to enter his office. He does NOT represent the constituents of his district!

His lies and abuse of power have finally come back to haunt him. He needs to GO! and the time is NOW!

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 25, 2006 09:32 AM
115. Spence, it seems you measure doing good for the community by taking of tax dollars, regulating property and things like that.
I recall the City of Covington movement being borne on the idea "to stop the growth King County will foist upon this community". The council did nothing but grease the skids on that and the stories are ripe with who did what to who. But back to my earlier point, not one out of now 114 posts complimenting his record in Oly.
And yeah I know the store. So you spend time noting my patronage.

Posted by: PC on October 25, 2006 10:44 AM
116. Phyllis, if Geoff is currently a full time firefighter, then how is he gonna find time to represent us voters like we deserve to be represented?

Hmmm, thanks for giving me yet another reason to NOT vote for the guy. *chuckle*

Posted by: ferrous on October 25, 2006 11:46 AM
117. Ferrous,

read this article in today's KCJ. It tells you how he represents us:

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061025/NEWS/610250313

Posted by: readthenews on October 25, 2006 11:56 AM
118. Thanks for the article. Ok, so essentially we have a legislator who is too tired to do his job. I've spent periods of time working 7 days a week. It's too much and that's with not staying up for 36 hours straight to then get a little rest before the next week of work. 36 hours! Good grief. Readthenews or whoever you are, do you understand how much legislators should be reading in their job everyday in order to make informed votes? Do you understand how much time it takes going to all the meetings, doing all the networking, allowing time to talk to community members and constituents (that part's been answered--he doesn't bother meeting with constituents unless they are on the donor list), going to all the political events, caucuses, etc? It is a full time job and it's a job that should be taken seriously.

Obviously (IMHO) Simpson does not consider being a legislator in charge of contributing to the future of this state to be that important.

Posted by: ferrous on October 25, 2006 12:06 PM
119. A couple more things Dan,
Having sat on a jury where a divorcing couple's private life was splayed open in front of anyone who cared sit in the courtroom, let alone a jury, I probably wouldn't post Geoff's legal/domestic records. Yeah they're public, but the slime factor comes to play.
As far as his campaign literature goes though, that is fair game.

Posted by: PC on October 25, 2006 12:50 PM
120. Hey Andy,

When did you change your name?

Posting # 101. Posted by GeoffAppreciatesAndy'sHardWork! at October 24, 2006 05:50 PM

Your email address is still the same no matter what name you put to it.

What a cop-out!

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 25, 2006 03:52 PM
121. I really feel sorry for the kids. Those boys now think the way their dad does and will treat their girlfriends/wives the same way and the daughter will allow herself to be treated the way her mom has been.

I hope one day someone comes to the aid of the wife and gives her the support she needs to leave, taking the kids with her so that they can all get counseling and be safe. That's the only way to end such a destructive cycle.

My prayers are for the kids as they don't have a choice in the whole situation.

Posted by: Concerned voter on October 25, 2006 04:00 PM
122. Hello all, Sorry I came to this so late, I've been busy campaining.(I'm a GOP candidate for state senate)First let me say that I know who Andy is and he is not of the "lefty" persuasion. I also do not feel he was saying you should vote for Simpson over Watts. Secondly this was brought to my attention and I wrote to Donna and let her know that divorce proceedings in no way should be considered an exercise in honesty and that this type of tactic could backfire and be used on perfectly good GOP candidates. I then wished her luck in her campaign. I believe Andy was attempting to bring to light the fact that divorce has evolved into a destructive force against children's relationships with their fathers and I, like many other GOP(and even some Dems who at least get this right) have seen this as an important issue in our society with very broad implications.

Posted by: shaydo on October 25, 2006 04:56 PM
123. Sorry, missed the g.

Posted by: shaydo on October 25, 2006 05:06 PM
124. If a GOP candidate acted like Simpson with their family then that person is not a "perfectly good GOP candidate..." In this day an age, when polititions say they are for protecting childern, but then prey on pages we a polititions private live is not private. How they treat their family, the people they are the closest to, is a relavent topic. There is a saying that character is revealed by how someone treat those who can not hurt you. It is also true for people that will most likely not hurt you, your own family. If you treat your spouse, parents or kids badly, you have no business in Public life.

Posted by: James Shackleford on October 25, 2006 10:25 PM
125. I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg with Simpson. At least one member of his own party has also raised concerns about his personal conduct. I've heard much of this same stuff raised by one of his local Dem colleagues in the House. She was the first person to share most of this (and more) with me...before the website was ever made. She says he is abusive to women...and to her personally...in Olympia. So anyone who thinks this is a republican smear campaign, should keep in mind that it was a democrat who has been raising questions and circulating the legal documents all summer.

Posted by: linda p. on October 26, 2006 06:43 AM
126. I just saw a commercial for Simpson last night on the Food Network. It was his wife talking about what a great family guy he is.

Ok, so now I've decided she's suffering either from schizophrenia or Stockholm syndrome (or both). For a woman to be pursuing restraining orders and such, that's pretty extreme action from someone who isn't afraid of what her husband might do to her when he's angry. JMO of course.

Posted by: ferrous on October 26, 2006 09:27 AM
127. shaydo- thanks-

I have a forwarded email from Donna disavowing having anything to do with this. I updated my blog accordingly.

I'm not going to bother to respond to attacks above- two days ago I had a much higher opinion of SP's readers.

Posted by: Andy on October 26, 2006 09:42 AM
128. Andy,

I'm sorry your opinion of SP readers has changed. Unfortunately you brought alot of it on yourself by making accusations without facts. Now that you have the facts, you seem disappointed and don't want to play anymore. If only you had read EVERYTHING and paid attention to people who actually live in the 47th and have had dealings with Mr. Simpson, you might not have been treated so bad.

My grandfather always said, "Engage your brain before opening your mouth" and "it's easier to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm those thoughts".

I'll check your blog and thanks for the entertainment.

Posted by: SexyMama on October 26, 2006 10:00 AM
129. linda p., what democrat legislator was that? If what you're saying is true, this is very important. that legislator should stand up and say enough is enough. Simpson is a liar and an out of control personality. He is going to seriously hurt someone if no one intervenes. And if he gets away with this, he will feel even more bullet proof. you should let someone know who that legislator is so they can talk to her and get her to go on record.

Posted by: CharlesR on October 26, 2006 10:55 AM
130. SexyMama at 128:

Well said! It is sad that Andy thinks he can come on here, starting sliming away at Stefan and the readers who support Stefan and not expect many of us to take offense. Then he has the nerve to find out that he was in fact WRONG and yet he doesn't have enough class to admit his own huge role in attacking us at SP first.

Posted by: ferrous on October 26, 2006 11:35 AM
131. Andy,

What criminal avows knowledge of their crime? It's illegal to fund opposition to any candidate without reporting it with the PDC. You seem like a bright guy. Why are the perpetrators of this smear hiding their identity? If it's truly voters that are outraged by Simpson's representation of their district, they should claim responsibility openly. Why would they want to hide? On the other hand, Donna Watts surely wouldn't want anyone to know she was responsible so such a sleazeball smear. Anybody here want to claim responsibility?

Posted by: nobody on October 26, 2006 12:08 PM
132. Didn't think so.

Posted by: Nobody on October 26, 2006 12:33 PM
133. see a previous post above. there was a guy earlier who said he was involved in it.

Posted by: CharlesR on October 26, 2006 12:56 PM
134. I expect he'll be telling the PDC why he failed to report it then. Or maybe you will be CharlesR, or should I call you Donna?

Posted by: nobody on October 26, 2006 01:04 PM
135. Sorry. Don't call me Donna unless you're willing to buy me dinner first or be my escort to the next Log Cabin Republicans dinner.

Posted by: CharlesR on October 26, 2006 01:50 PM
136. It's gonna' be a real shame when Richard DeBolt and Kevin Carns both lose their jobs.

Posted by: Mike Armstrong on October 26, 2006 07:20 PM
137. It's gonna' be a real shame when Richard DeBolt and Kevin Carns both lose their jobs.

Posted by: mike@armstrong.com on October 26, 2006 07:30 PM
138. It's gonna' be a real shame when Richard DeBolt and Kevin Carns both lose their jobs.

Posted by: Mike Armstrong on October 26, 2006 07:32 PM
139. Wow, 138 posts on the Simpson thing and the topic just under it with Darcy and Baghdad Jim isn't generating half the comments. I know a conspiracy when I see it. Geoff is to deflect attention from the rest of the party.
I have to admit, he did it well.

Posted by: PC on October 27, 2006 01:37 AM
140. Look I asked for a simple disavowment very early in the thread. What I got was:

- you can't prove we did it.
- we don't have to dis-avow anything
- flinging poo is fine -
- Simpson is a liar liar liar so this ok
- a bunch of character attacks on me by some chromosome challenged kool aid drinkers.


If your not guilty, don't act like you are. If you think this kind of crap is ok- put your name on the mud when you fling it instead of screwing your candidate's credibility.

Do you think ANY rational person would believe this wasn't associated with Donna's campaign?

---
nobody- if you're concerned with the PDC ruling- go after them.

Posted by: Andy on October 27, 2006 11:30 AM
141. Geoff... er, Andy, is now sending out flyers BLAMING Donna for this...
it sure didn't take you long to slip farther into your own slime Geoff... er, Andy.

Hey Geoff.... er, Andy, how about OWNING YOUR OWN PROBLEMS AND LIES?

A vote for Geoff... er, Andy, is a vote for a serial abuser, user and LIAR.

Posted by: ragnardanneskold on October 27, 2006 03:00 PM
142. It's time to stop the name calling and get down to business. I've heard that Andy is who he says he is, unfortunately, he's picked the wrong side on this one.

As far as the Watts campaign involvement, I don't believe there is any. I've met her and she's very professional and well spoken. I've also met Mr. Simpson and he has the personality of a nat and very offensive if you express an opposing opinion.

The facts are there if people would only read the whole story.

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 28, 2006 08:59 PM
143. Desperation is what best decribes Donna Watts. It is now known that she is a proven liar as to her involvement with the website. When she loses, so does Richard DeBolt and Kevin Carns. Too bad, because Debot's ineptitude is good for the future of our state since it keeps getting democrats elected.

Posted by: sign shredder on October 29, 2006 03:01 PM
144. #143 Sign Shredder-

What proof do you have that Donna was involved with the website? My understanding is that it was disavowed and Andy has proof of that.

Are you responsible for the distruction of Donna's signs as your name implies? Maybe you didn't read the paper or watch the news about candidate Deb Eddy. The destruction of campaign signs is a chargable offense. But of course you know that since you only work under the cover of darkness or have others do your dirty work like all liberals who have NO moral conviction. Make all the accusations you want, the dirt always shows up on the accusor not the victim. But then again, maybe you know how to create victims like your mentor Geoff (maybe you're even Geoff).

Posted by: valiant boy on October 29, 2006 03:16 PM
145. To sign shredder-

One more thought-

It seems that the shredder of signs is the DESPERATE one otherwise you'd leave them alone.

Are you afraid of a little competition Mr. Simpson? Confession is good for the soul, but then again, we all know that you have NO soul.

What did you threaten your wife with if she didn't do your bidding with your FAKE ads on TV and your literature? You have a double standard and are a liar.

The 47th district will be sooo much better off when you're out of Olympia. OH NO! That means you'll be back locally and have to really work as a fireman.

Posted by: valiant boy on October 29, 2006 03:34 PM
146. "Are you responsible for the distruction of Donna's signs as your name implies?"

Confession is good for the soul indeed!

Posted by: Sign Shredder on October 29, 2006 07:26 PM
147. Well valiant boy, did I just hear you say "Donna's signs"? I though Donna was as pure as the driven snow! Now she (valiant boy) admits that she was responsible for the signs. I guess her haircut does look like a "prince valiant" now that I think of it. Donna Watts is pure sleaze.

Posted by: Sign Shredder on October 30, 2006 09:25 AM
148. Sign Shredder-

I'm not sure what you are referring to because I'm talking about her personal campaign signs. You know the ones - *Donna Watts for State Rep.*
They keep getting knocked down or totally removed and others are left alone. You obviously have a problem with "strong" women. Are they a threat to your masculinity?

Donna has been more than above board which is more that can be said about your or your minions, Mr. Simpson/Sign Shredder!

It's really too bad that your "kind" can't even run a race without blaming others, but then again that's the liberal philosophy, isn't it?

Posted by: Valiant boy on October 30, 2006 06:39 PM
149. For this James Shackleford character to go trolling through the customarily tawdry, unsubstantiated muck that makes up the average divorce file (in this case an averted divorce) speaks volumes about him. What a voyeur. I would think that the "family values" crowd would be happy anytime a divorce is avoided; and any private pain that nearly brought one on is not our business. I was interested to see that the actress Jane Wyman's recent obituary was censored to make no mention of the fact that she was Ronald Reagan's FIRST wife; we would not want to imagine Ronnie, our nation's only divorced president, with anyone other than Nancy, right? That, well . . . and the deficit-spending . . . well, and Iran-Contra, too . . . oh, and all the indictments of Administration figures . . . etc., would diminish his Mt. Rushmore eligibility. Get over this story. Donna Watts, 57, has only been married 19 years. Has she ever been, gulp, DIVORCED?!!! Perhaps Shackleford should dig in and find out the dirty details! Was the matronly Donna a naughty girl (or perhaps even personable) at some point? I can't wait to see The Real Donna Watts!

Posted by: Bob on October 30, 2006 06:50 PM
150. Bob-

OH NO! Another puppet for the liberals!

Anyone who knows President Reagan also knows that Nancy was wife #2 and Jane was the first.

Iran-Contra? He inherited that from Carter! He brought this country out of the worst depression since the market crash of the 20's, put us back on the road to prosperity and restored our military power. Yes, he deserves to be honored on Mt. Rushmore!

Why is it that you people can not see the whole picture regarding Geoff Simpson? His reconcilliation is a farse! His wife and children are victims both then and especially NOW! HE"S A LIAR AND AN ABUSER!!! And you think THAT'S okay? Read between the lines!!

As to Donna Watts, why don't you contact her website: www.donnawatts.com to ask your insidious questions or are you afraid of the answer?

Posted by: SexyMama on October 30, 2006 07:19 PM
151. Good point Bob. I've never been one to KNEEL at the altar of Ronald Reagan like the ill-informed muppets who reside here on this blog. It sounds like Donna Watts and her errand-boy Shackleford are desperate to slime an honorable man because Donna has absolutely no qualifications to enable her to win otherwise. I read the muni-league ratings on her: adequate. How was it for you honey? Oh, it was adequate. Speaks volumes.

Posted by: Don Trujillo on October 30, 2006 07:35 PM
152. Don,

The Muni-league is just another "liberal" group who try to pass themselves off as non-partisan. Anyone with an ounce of brain knows this and takes their ratings as a grain of salt. Why don't you check "Jobmakers" rating of Mr. Simpson? It's a real eye-opener!

As to Geoff being an "honorable man", I guess you support male domination at all costs even if there are children involved. Abuse of ANY kind is NOT victimless.

He says one thing yet does the opposite when he's in Olympia. You should check his voting record. But then again, you liberals like higher taxes, welfare, and the taking of private property (to name a FEW issues).

You obviously have benefited from President Reagan's positive efforts in setting this country back on a FORWARD course. You at least have the income to afford a computer and the education to use it. Too bad, you can't use it in a positive manner.

I'll pray for you and your family just as I'm praying for Mr. Simpson's wife and children.

Posted by: SexyMama on October 31, 2006 01:50 PM
153. You should pray for Donna Watts and James Shackleford too. Jesus doesn't like liars:

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/Default.aspx?docid=976106

Posted by: Don Trujillo on October 31, 2006 02:40 PM
154. Don,

And this proves WHAT? Nowhere in the said document is Donna Watts or James Shackleford named. This is clearly from the KCGOP and was an independent expenditure which is TOTALLY legal and is common practice for any election cycle.

It's interesting that when a switchero is pulled on the "D"s, they become outraged and call foul but the "R"s should "take it like a man". What a double standard but then again, that's par for the course with you libs.

Jesus forgives liars those who ask for forgiveness. Have you asked for forgiveness yet? I don't think Mr. Simpson believes he has anything to confess or ask forgiveness for, including his lies, abuse of power (at home and in Olympia), or ordering the distruction of personal property (just a few examples since there are TOO many to list).

Fortunately the voters in the 47th district are smarter than you think and Geoff will be sent back to the firehouse. It's just too bad that even his own don't want him there either.

Posted by: SexyMama on November 1, 2006 11:08 AM
155. Personal attacks on a great legislator like Simpson are deplorable. Are you also attacking the drunken, wife-leaving Mike McGavick?

The "Jobmakers" website is designed to make Democrats look bad. Somehow supporting Washington's farmers by supporting biodiesel -- which farmers were pushing for -- was a "job-killer." The only jobs it may have killed were in Middle Eastern royal families. Mental health parity was even a jobkiller, for Pete's sake! In the PDC reports I see most business interests are lined up behind Simpson. Or is Bank of America liberal?

SexyMama, perhaps we can just put the astrology-worshipping Reagan's face on the bank notes that we sell to China to maintain our status as a debtor -- a status Reagan worsened more than any president before him, and one that Bush, Jr., restored us to after Clinton's budget-balancing. If Reagan's face is on Rushmore, it should just be spray-painted on in red ink -- it is more than we can afford with our budget so deeply in the red, but the symbolism would be appropriate.

I've got you figured out, SexyMama. You're actually Donna Watts. And that means your nickname is a damnable LIE! The fiery fate that awaits you in the afterlife will make your sorrow on Election Day a happy memory.

Posted by: Bob on November 1, 2006 03:52 PM
156. Bob/Boob,

Once again, as ALL liberals do, you've missed the point. Slinging mud without all facts is so typical.

Mr. Simpson's actions, both in Olympia and at home, speak volumes and the informed voters of the district will dot the i's and cross the t's on November 7th.

You don't have to rely on "Jobmakers" to get a true read on Mr. Simpson. Just check his voting record. VOLUMES! Listen to his uncontrolled rants on the House floor on TVW. More VOLUMES! Check out the City of Covington council meeting minutes. VOLUMES & VOLUMES!! Attacks on constituents and past council members. VOLUMES & VOLUMES & VOLUMES...

I don't want this type of person representing me in Olympia. Oh yeah, I forgot. Since I don't support him or vote for him, he won't represent me anyway.

It's time for a change and Donna Watts has more REAL qualifications than Mr. Simpson will ever have. She has character and ethics which Mr. Simpson will never be able to claim with a straight face.

Just to set the record straight, I AM NOT Donna Watts! I do admire her determination to go against such a vial individual who will stop at nothing to ruin people. Just ask Phil Fortunato and Steve Altick. They've suffered his wrath as well as others.

I've added you, Bob, to my prayer list too. God be with you.

Posted by: SexyMama on November 1, 2006 11:12 PM
157. If you have objections to his voting record. Please spell them out, it's not enough to say there is some problem with them.

Uncontrollable rants? I like a fiery politician who fights special interests to represent the people back home. Can you be more specific/provide links to his "uncontrollable rants"?

I attended council meetings in Covington when the 4 pawns of developers were in control, again Mr. Simpson did an admirable job of representing the wishes of the people. That's why he was re-elected to the council and why people here wanted him to represent them in Olympia.

When Geoff disagrees with a partisan republican who attacks him, is that what you call an attack on a constituent? Again, be more specific and provide examples or your statements are meaningless.

What qualifications does Donna Watts have? I have researched her and have been unable to find any record of involvement except protesting against a mother who lost her son in Iraq and minor roles in mostly losing republican campaigns.

Steve Altick was a hypocrite who deserved to lose and Fortunato was a laughing stock in the legislature who embarrassed our district.

Donna Watts will lose by a bigger margin than either one of them because she is simply not qualified for the office and has failed in her desperate ploy to smear Simpson's family.

SexyMama or whatever your name is, you should pray that your false piety does not condemn you to eternal damnation. I'm really sick of fake Christians like you.

Alyssa

Posted by: Alyssa on November 2, 2006 09:21 AM
158. To Bob,

As for this James Shackleford, when the complaint document is signed to and then an agreement is filed for Geoff to pay the utilities after he had them she off, that is not unsubstantiated. The court would view that as Geoff admitting that he did that. Mike Mcgavick isn't claiming that he will be a good Senator, because he is SUPERDAD and SUPERSPOUSE. Geoff Simpson is claiming that. He says that he knows how to balance a budget in Olympia, because he does it at home. He has about $100,000.00 in consumer debt that he admitted too. He did not claim this debt on his PDC. Was he lying on the PDC or on the Court documents? Or did money fall out of the sky, or did he use campaign funds to pay his personal debt? Are you calling his wife a liar? Is Kathy a liar? Was she lying in the court documents (which is punishable by jail time) or is she lying in the ads (if Geoff is re-elected her children would be more secure financially). Geoff Simpson is a fraud and a hot head. Throwing a chair in a City Council meeting is not impassioned leadership. It is the mark of a selfish, potentially violent, but definately vindictive person. The court documents are simply the most recent documented examples.

As far as praying for me, we could all use prayer. I do not enjoy being the messenger on this. As for me, I'm praying for Kathy Simpson. This would not be the first case of an abused Spouse went back to her abuser. I've seen emotional battered wife go back to their husbands time and time again.

Posted by: James Shackleford on November 2, 2006 10:28 AM
159. Don -

Prove that I am a liar. I published Court Papers and a summary of those documents. The signs were bought by the KCGOP after my site wnet up and I notified them. I also notified the Kent city council of Mr. Simpsons activities and handed the documentation to the mayor. I was given the documents on Sat 10/14. I contacted the city council on that next tueday. The site was up on Wednesday. The council paid for the signs on 10/24 a full week after my site was up. As far as Jesus liking liars, when I read scripture Jesus LOVES all of us in spite of our faults. Jesus ate with liars, adulterers, and murders. Heaven is full of these types of people. We have all sinned. Have you always been truthful... to your kids, your wife. If I have sinned then I will pay that price. Exposing a fraudulent windbag like Geoff, may give his wife and kids the support they need to leave him and have a decent life, before something really bad happens. Also having a divorce is not a strick against you in my book. Turing off the utilies and phones to the house my kids live in, does.

Posted by: James Shackleford on November 2, 2006 10:44 AM
160. Mr. Shackleford -

You are a repulsive excuse for a human being.

Your lies will be exposed, I'm sure. The signs began to appear on 10/22. That means they had to be designed, produced and distributed about the same time as Donna put the sleazy website up that you are claiming credit for.

I haven't read the documents on the website because I'm not a peeping-tom, bottom feeding scum like you.

Please provide evidence that Mr. Simpson ever threw a chair. Certainly such an act would have been covered by the news.

Oh, I forgot, evidence is not necessary any more since the Liar In Chief signed away the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. I understand how a dunderhead muppet like you could begin to beleive that evidence is no longer necessary and that people are guilty without it.

Anything can be written in divorce documents. My only hope is that Mr. Simpson files a lawsuit against you to make you pay for your slander against him. Accusing someone of domestic violence when there is absolutely no evidence that it has occurred is very serious. Are you prepared to defend yourself?

Posted by: Don Trujillo on November 2, 2006 11:33 AM
161. Are you still talking about this? Jeeze.

Posted by: ohjeeze on November 2, 2006 12:21 PM
162. #157 Alyssa,

I've done my homework and you should too. I always taught my kids to research it themselves then they would learn it and remember it better than if some else did the work for them. They are now productive members of society and have the brains to see thru the crap you libs shovel out.

I'm disappointed that another woman would support an abusive male in this way. I've seen his handiwork despite her attempt to cover it up.

If you are so enamoured by a firey politian who speaks out against special interests, then why didn't you support Phil Fortunato? He was firey, spoke out against special interests but the one thing he did differently was represent ALL voters in the district. He may not have agreed with you but at least you weren't barred from his office and he would take the time to listen to your side and try to convince you otherwise. He didn't abuse his power in Olympia or anywhere else. Mr. Simpson, on the other hand, ruined Phil's livelihood and business with his lies!

Mrs. Watts has not smeared Mr. Simpson or his family, as he's done it all on his own and the documents prove it if only you'd get your head out of the clouds and open your mind to FACTS! As I stated at the top, "Do your own homework"!

I'm now adding you to my prayer list but some are hopeless causes. My life is in God's hands and I know where I'm going when I die, do you?

Posted by: SexyMama on November 2, 2006 05:47 PM
163. Don -

Nice. You have no evidence that I'm a "liar". If you don't read the court docs, how can you say that I'm lying? (typical lib) The facts are, according to the court docs, Geoff terminated the house phone and his wife's cell phone. He denied his kids access to 911, an emergency service. Unlike, you I read the docs. Geoff Simpson created this, by making his family relations a campaign issue, by featuring them in his ads. He moved out of his house and lived out of the district. He ran up almost $100,000.00 in person consumer debt. He wants to hide this, but he created it.

As far as your personal opinion of me is concerned ... I find is very sad and pathetic that you assume that I care. In fact, it is quite humorous. So please, continue to entertain us with your ad homonym attacks and "clever" turn of phrase.

As far as Geoff filing a lawsuit, in order for something to be slander or liable, it has to be untrue.

Keep up the “good”(lol) posts,

James
OXOXOXO

Posted by: James Shackleford on November 2, 2006 09:13 PM