February 22, 2007
Who's the Idiot?

Recall my Feb. 3 post which busted the Secretary of State for disseminating incorrect information about initiative signature gathering campaigns. See the comments signed by "PDC expert", which tried to argue the SoS line that the Washington Education Association used only volunteer signature gatherers to place the anti-charter-school Referendum 55 on the ballot. "PDC expert" was as obnoxious as he was incorrect. And as it turns out, he is a state legislator, Rep. Geoffrey Simpson (D-Kent)

Simpson's comments (emphasis added) --

#10:

Stefan - your ignorance is stunning.
RCW 42.17.020 15 c

(c) Contributions other than money or its equivalent are deemed to have a monetary value equivalent to the fair market value of the contribution. Services or property or rights furnished at less than their fair market value for the purpose of assisting any candidate or political committee are deemed a contribution. Such a contribution must be reported as an in-kind contribution at its fair market value and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the provider.

#12
Stefan -

Reporting in-kind contributions is a way that campaigns have of making it look like they've raised mare money than they actually have because they report the fair market value of the service as if it were a contribution. Keep talking though because I love it when you demonstrate your stupidity.

#20
Eyman is a liar and the sheep on this blog will believe any lie he tells them. Show us the form that shows the payment of $211,000 by the WEA Tim. Show us the money. Oh, that's right. You can't because there never was any money. An in-kind contribution of volunteer time was all they contributed. Idiots.
I later linked to a newspaper article in which a campaign spokeswoman confirmed that the WEA really did pay for the signatures.

How do I know that the comment poster was Geoffrey Simpson? The commenter's IP address was from the King County network, and through public records requests it was traced to the City of Kent and to Geoffrey Simpson himself.

Two additional ironies here.
1) Simpson really is a "PDC expert" -- he's an expert at being busted by the PDC for illegal use of public facilities in his campaign.

2) One of his top priorities in the legislature is "Making government more efficient and accountable".

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2007 01:42 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Figures. Our public maste...uh, "servants" at work again. What kind of a district is the 47th? Mine in Queen Anne will never send anyone other than a dem, for example.

Posted by: Steve (was Steve_Dog) on February 22, 2007 02:01 PM
2. Heh...Gotta love public records requests!

So nice to see Geoff "Family Man" Simpson showing such lack of respect to a citizen such as yourself. I wonder if this is how he treats his constituents?

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on February 22, 2007 02:08 PM
3. Wow! No wonder he didn't want to sign his real name. Well, that just goes to show you how stupid and ignorant HE is, thinking no one would track it down from his sign-off. Busted.

Posted by: katomar on February 22, 2007 02:12 PM
4. Do as they say, not as they do. The Nanny State Democrats are fed up with all of this questioning. They liked it back when everything happened behind the scenes. Damn this new media, public disclosure, etc.

Someone ought to run against Simpson and just take out ads on buses and billboards all over the district. I envision a white background, with just the text of his comments here.

Almost all of our politicians are pathetic. Not even realizing in 2007 that his comments might be traced? Pretty weak. In the private sector, this kind of thing would most likely get one fired. But it's no problem to waste taxpayer dollars I guess. And other Democrats will most likely rush to his aid to help cover this up, just like they always do.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 02:16 PM
5. He is also trying to force a NASCAR track in Kitsap despite none of the state legislators from there wanting it. He wants to use YOUR taxes to create a new state goverment agency do it too.

Posted by: KitsapBob on February 22, 2007 02:25 PM
6. And once again another 100% affirmation of why I call them LEFIST PINHEADED KLOWNS!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 22, 2007 02:47 PM
7. And once again another 100% affirmation of why I call them LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 22, 2007 02:48 PM
8. Stephan. You should check out the things that Rep Simpson has written on the Stranger's Blog. These he actually signed with his own name.

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/02/today_is_nascar_day_in_olympia

I was down in Olympia trying to fight the NASCAR track that he is trying to force on my damn town of Bremerton.

Good old Geoff Simpson wrote HB 2062. It is a freaking horrible piece of corporate pork and is a waste of our taxes and undermines a communities local control.

Jacob (That guy you found getting his picture taken with Dean Logan) Metcalf
Washington State Young Democrats Technology Director
Yes if you check the IP I just posted as KitsapBob.

Posted by: Jacob Metcalf on February 22, 2007 02:50 PM
9. I think it's funny and rather telling that Democrat legislators come to this site and post. I bet for every one of them that posts, there are ten more who just read it. They know the news and commentary here is not whitewashed like what they find in the friendly local papers and other MSM sources.

Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2007 02:51 PM
10. Interesting that when Stefan doesn't like something someone says (even when they are correct as I was in each of my posts) he investigates them and violates the personal privacy afforded to all the posters on this blog by the ability to post anonymously. Poor baby. Make sure you don't disagree with Stefan or he'll open an investigation on you too...

Posted by: Geoff Simpson on February 22, 2007 02:59 PM
11. Another shameful/shameless lying democrat... what a shock.

Volumes were written about this horrible man and yet there he is still in Olympia.

Who's worse, the shameless liar or the voters that allow him to be so?

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 22, 2007 03:00 PM
12. Actually Palouse this site is a great resource for keeping your finger on the pulse of Republicans in Washington State.

Posted by: Jacob Metcalf on February 22, 2007 03:00 PM
13. If you tell the truth, you won't have to worry about him investigating you... there won't be anything to expose.

Just something to think about.

David

Posted by: David on February 22, 2007 03:05 PM
14. Jeff B: Of course one would be fired from a private sector job for that kind of communication. We just need to realize that's why they are public servants. Most of them don't have what it takes to survive in the private sector.

Posted by: Katomar on February 22, 2007 03:06 PM
15. So the the 47th district's version of Bluto is at it again eh? What a surprise.
But being a dim-oc-rat, he'll not only get away with it, but be praised for it I'm sure.
I wonder if he's still living in West Seattle while representing the 47th these days?

Posted by: PC on February 22, 2007 03:07 PM
16. Somehow the guy reminds me of Bluto- fat and blustery. Just saying. I don't know the guy.

Sounds like Stefan busted Bluto and Bluto uses the old "depends on the definition of is is" defense.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 03:14 PM
17. Actually, Geoff (comment #10) you are wrong again.

FIRST he provided the supporting evidence with the link over to the spokesperson confirming that the WEA paid for the signatures.

THEN, since you were after all, too afraid to post under your own name, AND since you are, after all, in his yard calling him an idiot, he used a perfectly legal means to provide some rather interesting context to your oh so informative comment.

If you want to stay annoymous, don't post and don't run for public office. Oh and you should probably double check on the regulations around proper use of taxpayer property. Just in case your "expertise" is a little short there as well.

Funny that when Stefan pointed out that you were wrong your only response was to complain about your privacy being violated. Poor baby. As opposed to, you know, arguing the facts. As you noted, "interesting" indeed.

Posted by: Has a Clue on February 22, 2007 03:15 PM
18. So Geoff, do you have some facts that the Seattle Times does not?

In this campaign, charter-school opponents have raised $332,056 in cash and in-kind donations, of which $265,985 has come from the WEA, Evans said. The group spent most of that money to pay signature gatherers to help get the referendum on the ballot.

Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2007 03:19 PM
19. Why does anyone need to post anonymously? Especially a representative of the people? One would think that Rep. Simpson's views would be something he would want public. And if it's not something he wants said other than behind closed doors, then don't say it in a public forum.

Isn't this Public Service 101? Maybe we ought to have a class in Olympia for incoming representation. You work for your constituents. And you ought to have the integrity to represent all constituents fairly, and not just those who can grease the skids, or to whom you agree with ideologically. And if you find a lack of decorum in Internet communication, or in criticism, the last thing you would want to do is sink to that same level with cowardly and childish anonymous posts.

This is one more good example of why it so many shameless and narcissistic persons end up as politicians. And then multiply that by 100 if they are on the Democrat side.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 03:22 PM
20. Rep. Simpson is wrong or lying. WEA did use money from dues on Referendum 55 to repeal charter schools as adopted by the legislature.

Go to the PDC website:
http://www.pdc.wa.gov

Select "view reports" from the top right corner.
Enter "WA ED*" in the filer field.
Use "select from list" and chose form "LC3"
Send the query to receive back monthly reports of all cash WEA used from general funds for political purposes.

Look at those LC3s from 2004 leading up to the election to see regular flows of cash and paid workers helping the R-55 campaign.

Rep. Simpson suggest these are volunteer services reported as having some value, but in this case they are well-paid WEA employees, resources etc. flowing from the WEA coffers to the R-55 campaign.

Keep in mind this is only what they absolutely had to report. It does not include member communications. It does not include expenditures or paid staff funded by the national, regional and local level. It does not include whatever is not expressly required to be reported such as work on the referendum BEFORE it was filed by their president.

Geoff Simpson's labor allegience is well known. He has received more direct funds from labor organizations than nearly all other legislators over all time. The indirect is impossible to know.

Union contributions 2000 election
Mike J. Cooper State Representative Democrat $40,195
Johnny R. Lovick State Representative Democrat $34,700
Geoffrey H. Simpson State Representative Democrat $34,525
Elizabeth A. Loomis State Representative Democrat $32,550
Hans M. Dunshee State Representative Democrat $32,090
Tami Green State Representative Democrat $31,485
Richard G. Hildreth State Representative Democrat $30,750
James M. Kastama State Representative Democrat $30,600
Christopher A. Hurst State Representative Democrat $27,990

Posted by: anon on February 22, 2007 03:37 PM
21. 14 says it all;

here is an (alleged) guy elected & taking the public teat & slamming his employer.

now, he (allegedly) bites the teat. most animals in the natural world would give him a swift biff to the head or quick 10-story de-nesting for that arrogance;

"we the people" endure and put up with such merde.
it's our own doing. whether ignorant or purposeful.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 22, 2007 03:44 PM
22. Yeah Palouse, it was typical, the WEA shut down a great charter school in Gig Harbor last year. All of the kids were great kids. Much better behaved than their peers, and much better grades now that they have been forced into the public school system. I talked to one of them the other day, you can already see the WEA indoctrination affecting this kid's previously excellent judgment.

The WEA, a mill for future Progressives. But there are always a few that question the official curriculum, and learn to think critically and independently.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 03:44 PM
23. Incorrect information from Sam’s office down there by Tumwater? Then again if they weren’t engaged in on-duty board wars and did their jobs there might be fewer errors with the work they’re paid to do.

Ooooh, I know there’s got to be a passel of Sam’s sycophants on company time with company PC’s who’re champing at the bit to post on this thread. I wonder if blog reading and troll answering is in their job descriptions? Bet it will be after the next bargaining session. But the public doesn’t need to know about those negotiations; might violate someone’s privacy.

Posted by: play it again sam on February 22, 2007 03:45 PM
24. With respect to anonymity, swatter is not my real name. However, I am sure Stefan and his group know who I am and I am comfortable with my posts. However, when I googled my name I found two posts giving a whole lot of personal information that I didn't expect to be on there. These were from other web sites, BTW. Therefore, the swatter was born.

However, if I run for office and am in the public limelight, you bet your booty that I want my name out there. And I expect everything I post under my name be part of the record. I don't know what Bluto's problem is.

And another thing to learn, Bluto, is if you post and slam the moderator, you can expect that moderator to track you down. Bluto, "he who has the gold makes the rules". Don't forget it next time.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 03:55 PM
25. Stefan,

Looks like he is also good at using city/county resources for non-business uses. In most agencies, that is grounds for immediate termination.

I'm not suggesting you file a complaint, the last thing you probably want is a poor Democrat looking like he's being persecuted on your blog.

Posted by: Patrick on February 22, 2007 04:01 PM
26. Geoff Simpson --

Weren't your PDC filings EXTREMELY LATE in your most recent campaign for public office? I see lots of reports filed a year or more after they were due for the 2006 election cycle.

Do you have an explanation for this?

I bet even Stefan can go to the PDC website and see how late your reports were.

Posted by: Richard Pope on February 22, 2007 04:03 PM
27. "In kind" means "in lieu of" a financial contribution.

Change the subject all you want, make up cute names for me, investigate my personal life and file any complaints you'd like. Stefan and his defenders remain wrong in this instance and my postings were accurate.

Posted by: Geoff Simpson on February 22, 2007 04:26 PM
28. Wow Rep Simpson you are just making freinds all over the place. You made the front page of both SoundPolitics and Washblog.

There is a great article on Washblog about your horrible bill HR 20062 AKA the "Pork for NASCAR bill"
http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/2/22/13731/7539

Posted by: Jacob Metcalf on February 22, 2007 04:34 PM
29. An idiot keeps on posting he is not wrong...what more needs to be said!

Posted by: me on February 22, 2007 04:37 PM
30. Geoff, it is my experience, that people who act like you are at this moment, have much to hid or are guilty of.

Posted by: Chris on February 22, 2007 04:52 PM
31. an embarrasement to me and others who live in that district. PLEASE

Posted by: fRed on February 22, 2007 04:56 PM
32. Hey Geoff,

If I understand this right, I can almost see your point about "in kind contributions" - except for this part of the Seattle times article:

In this campaign, charter-school opponents have raised $332,056 in cash and in-kind donations, of which $265,985 has come from the WEA, Evans said. The group spent most of that money to pay signature gatherers to help get the referendum on the ballot. Its balance is roughly $36,000, she said.

In order for what you're saying to be true, 100% of the $332,056 had to have been time volunteered, and somehow the word "spent most of the money to pay signature gatherers" actually means "there was no money, but we count all these contributions of volunteer labor as money".

If I stretch my imagination as far as it will go... nope, sorry, can't quite get there - try again (and if you can please refrain from calling anyone stupid, I'll refrain from calling you a liar).

Posted by: thecomputerguy on February 22, 2007 04:57 PM
33. Geoff, perhaps you can explain how the fact that Kelly Evans, campaign manager for Protect Our Public Schools said that the money from the WEA was used for paid signature gatherers to get the measure on the ballot conforms with your argument that they were all volunteers.

Are you disputing what Kelly Evans said or what the Seattle Times reported that she said?

Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2007 04:59 PM
34. Dems do it.

Repubs do it.

The only thing that really stinks is one side claiming only the other does it.

Would Stefan only accept and admonish the repubs who have found to do similar (and worse) things, his indignation would be justifiably rightgeous.

But he doesn't. He likely says that's a job for others (Goldy? -- who, by parallelism suffers the same shameful shortage of completeness).

So...Stefan's postings can be correctly considered what they are: merely a warped one-sided view that purposely excludes the full set of facts to erroneously suggest dems and dems alone are guilty of bad behavior.

Of course, none of this is new. Here (and in Goldy's weirdo land), people continue to delude themselves to think they're side is always in the right and only the other side falls short.

Hence, we have folks here who think Iran Contra was fine and folks there who think Clinton's perjury was just dandy.

A sad commentary on politics. Wherefore are there no complete and honest political posters?

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:06 PM
35. One more note: the comment at 10 is right on. It's a scare tactic to "out" folks who disagree with you. I don't recall ever seeing Stefan "out" someone who agrees with him. And I don't recall Goldy ever "outing" someone who agrees or disagrees with him.

This just shows Stefan's basic insecurity about his own positions. Positions from strength need not work so hard to identify anonymous detractors.

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:11 PM
36. Geoff--
Listen Pinko
Grow up!

Posted by: dude on February 22, 2007 05:14 PM
37. Rep. Simpson is in violation of using government resources for political purposes... in this case, his official email/computer, tho maybe not his House computer.

But let's remember, boys and girls, Rep. Simpson has a "D" after his name, so we can expect that nothing will happen as a result.

Posted by: Hinton on February 22, 2007 05:14 PM
38. If someone were using public resources on Goldstiens blog, out them. If not, it is a private citizens expressing an opinion, not a public official abusing thier position.

Didnt some issues come out about Simpson during the election? He seems to be a bad, bad man in general. The 47th deserves better.

Posted by: Geoff Shouldgo on February 22, 2007 05:16 PM
39. Swatter -- how do we know you are not an elected official?

Perhaps Stefan knows who you are and chooses not to "out" you because you agree with him? But perhaps you are a state senator? Or work in state government? And posting here throughout the day?

My oh my....I think the only thing to do is for Stefan to OUT EVERYONE...not just random people who disagree with him. Otherwise, we might (incorrectly or correctly) assume EVERYONE is a state leglislator or on the state payroll and posting here!

And what if Stefan KNOWS someone is elected and posting here and DOESN'T out him? Ah yes, fair and balanced....

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:17 PM
40. AsItIs:

An awful lot of hypotheticals you've got going there... Is that supposet to sum up to an argument?

After all, how do we know you're not Geoff Simpson?

Posted by: jopalm on February 22, 2007 05:21 PM
41. You know I'm not Geoff Simpson because Stefan would have OUTED me immediately!

And sorry you couldn't follow the logic. Summing it up: everyone does it. Only idiots say it's only Dems or only Repubs who do it.

Those who foster such beliefs are idiots.

Those who follow such beliefs are bigger idiots.

And logic/experience would suggest that at least poster on soundpolitics is an elected republican official (or government employee) and that Stefan knows this and knows who it is but hasn't outed the person because he likes the official!

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:25 PM
42. Oh good twenty questions! Are you Pat Sullivan? Are you one of Geoff's staffers? Are you one of Geoff's girlfiends? Any of the above? A combination of the above?

Posted by: Asitshouldbe on February 22, 2007 05:33 PM
43. AsItIs:

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was speculation. Thanks for pointing out it was logic. But I still have a problem. In scanning this thread, the only post that seems to have the words "only Dems or only Repubs" are yours! Should I infer then from your logic that you're an idiot?

OK, I'll bite. What experience (your choice of words not mine) are you drawing on to form the conclusion other elected officials are posting under a pseudonym? I know of quite a few that post openly under their rightful name and title.

Jeeeez... Since Stefan *hasn't* outted you, the only conclusion I can draw is that you must *be* Stefan! (Either that or one of those politicians that he refuses to out!)

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 05:35 PM
44. ajopalm

Your posting proves my point! Your assumptions are as valid as mine or as any others here.

Trust no party hack....one side or the other.

Regarding experience about my conclusion about officials -- notice Stefan won't publicly swear that he knows of no other official posting!

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:39 PM
45. I am sure that he gets a certain number of views on his home page each day. I would love to be looking over their shoulder when his staff sees the SURGE of hits sourcing from SoundPolitics. Who says that all publicity is good publicity? Haw Haw!

Posted by: ConcordBridge on February 22, 2007 05:43 PM
46. Asitis:

Damn. And I missed the public swearing in, too. (If I missed it, how could I possibly be expected to know he refused it?)

My posting did nothing. The point was already well proven in your own mind. Perhaps as you *truly* gain experience you'll discover that (horrors) not all assumptions are as valid as any other.

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 05:44 PM
47. Ajopalm: Your posting did EVERYTHING. You have proved the point of logic flowing from incomplete and missing data...!

You are right about assumptions...some are more valid than others.

However, it's clear that all assumptions on wacko blogs like this and horses*** are equally (in)valid.

Stefan does nothing to change this (nor does Goldy for that matter).

Stefan....where/when will the public swearing be?

(Get the point yet? I've assumed things about Stefan...and his lack of forthrightness regarding my assumption allows my belief to move forward. Lemmings...I mean careful readers here...will see immediately that I must be right and Stefan owes the world an immediate accounting of his complete and utter unwillingness to "out" officials who are known to him....simply because they are like-minded lemmings...i mean thinkers!)

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:48 PM
48. Asitis:

"You have proved the point of logic flowing from incomplete and missing data...!"

I'm going to go out on a lib here... You're not actually Geoff Simpson, Stefan or an anonymous politician are you? You're DAVID MATTHEWS!

Consider yourself outted, dude!

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 05:53 PM
49. Good Work Stefan! Keep it up your doing just fine! It's about time your letting shit fly at the dems faces! We know all about their ignorance!

Posted by: dcat on February 22, 2007 05:54 PM
50. Ah...dcat brings us back to the point: DEMS are ignorant and worthy of facial fecal attacks (and, by unsaid extension, REPUBS are honest smart folks). NUFF SAID!

Dave Matthews...in my dreams! If I could write and play music like that, I wouldn't be hanging around here pointing out the obvious to the "believers"!

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 05:58 PM
51. Stefan,
Let the dipshit trolls go troll someplace else if they don't like it here! They seem to be manic with the wrong perscriptions! No life either!

Time to start moderation I do. If they don't like that they can start their own blog! This is your place! How rude of them! I bet they were born with those poor manors.

Posted by: dcat on February 22, 2007 06:02 PM
52. Asitis:

"NUFF SAID!"
In *my* dreams...


But you seem to have it backwards. Don't you know it's DAVID MATTHEWS who's the (true) BELIEVER ???

I've got to tell you, if you get this fundamental facet wrong about DAVID MATTHEWS, well, then I'm just not sure I'll be able to continue to believe in the rest of your argument!

Say it ain't so...

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 06:04 PM
53. "Poor manors" -- an oxymoron don't you think? No silver spoon here!

Don't worry...stefan won't tolerate much more of me...i'll be outed soon and will be banned forever...

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:05 PM
54. Asitis, you sure are missing the point of this topic. It was the money/in-kind-services and Geof Simpson in case you wouldn't read it. Typical lib move, forget the point and go to characterizations of your opponent. Are you a student of James Carvel?

Posted by: PC on February 22, 2007 06:07 PM
55. Asitis:

Dude, you've really got to start paying attention... You were outted in #48...

Hello? Remember?

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 06:08 PM
56. Speaking of true democratic believers, I haven't seen a moustache like Geoff's since the village people...that would explain the facial thing Asitis likes too.

Posted by: Asitshouldbe on February 22, 2007 06:10 PM
57. Geoff Simpson: "[Stefan] violates the personal privacy afforded to all the posters on this blog by the ability to post anonymously."

Sorry, buddy, you waive any entitlement to privacy when you use official government computers for posting blog comments. And you invite exposure when you're as wrong and as obnoxious as you were in those comments and act like a jerk thinking you're protected by anonymity.

But I can certainly understand why an elected official would be ashamed of posting those comments under his real name.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 22, 2007 06:12 PM
58. Ajo: Problem is he posts here regularly under his own name....darn....no DM here.

Asitshouldbe: Precisely. Personal attack beyond the outing....more proof to the point.

PC: "Typical lib move" you say as you dish out a typical wacko (either party) move as not only do you mischaracterize what I did, you get what I said 100% wrong...but since you said it, the lemmings (I mean clear thinkers) will believe it. I said Dems do it (and I didn't think I had to spell it out...yes...I think Geoff did it!) and Repubs do it.

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:15 PM
59. In order for it to be a personal attack, you would have to be a real person. Asitis you are not.

Posted by: Asitshouldbe on February 22, 2007 06:21 PM
60. Asitshouldbe: You did a personal attack on Geoff. He's a real person.

Stefan, on one hand you must be pumped to see the (in)ability of your lemmings (I mean readers) since it makes your job of convincing them very easy. On the other hand, it's kinda scary, eh?

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:26 PM
61. Many comments have pointed out that there's graft on both sides of the aisle. I think that's true, but the way it is handled by the media and internally by the parties gives a big advantage to Dems. Most often, it gets swept under the rug, or ignored on that side. Repubs usually get called to task by an aggressive media outing, or by the shame of party leadership which ends in a resignation.

I'd be more than happy to see any corrupt Republican go down in flames, just as I would any Democrat. Pork, and special protections have got to go.

But there is a visceral hauteur on the left. Geoff Simpson proves that out with his comments.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 06:26 PM
62. Jeff,

Thank you for the honesty.

However, republicans get away with bad deeds regularly. On the national level, it's obvious: 1) We took a proved Iran Contra scandal guy and elected him president 2) Republicans pardon guilty republicans regularly (most notably, Ford who got the presidency by promising to pardon Nixon post-resignation 3) How long did Nixon serve in jail for his crimes?

There are plenty of examples for Democrats too (as you point out).

By the way, how do you feel about Ted Stephens?

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:31 PM
63. Are you a music critic,blind to the cookie duster or a homophobe? offended? and a real person? Geoff it is you!

Posted by: Asitshouldbe on February 22, 2007 06:32 PM
64. Jeff...oh yeah...

What about Pam Roach? Kinda proves the opposite of your point....

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:32 PM
65. It's been fun folks.

I hope some of you have gotten the big picture. Time to put partisanship aside and fight for the rights of all for honesty, integrity and truth.

Stefan..no need to out me...I'm outta here....bye bey...

Posted by: AsitIs on February 22, 2007 06:46 PM
66. Don't know what all the fuss is about. Geoffrey Simpson seems to be a fine example of a Democrat.
WEA is a fine organization, one whose agenda is one and the same with that of the Children.

Posted by: Attila on February 22, 2007 06:50 PM
67. You know, I think Asitis actually believes he was putting forth a logical, compelling argument and proving a point. Now THAT'S scary...

Posted by: ajopalm on February 22, 2007 07:00 PM
68. Wasn't Simpson the guy in the peculiar campaign ad mowing somebody's lawn?

Posted by: follow the iaff money on February 22, 2007 07:29 PM
69. Is Geoff related to Homer & Bart??
He certainly acts like it.

Posted by: dude on February 22, 2007 07:41 PM
70. Dude: No, I think you're thinking of Beavis and Butthead.

Posted by: katomar on February 22, 2007 08:23 PM
71. #1 What kind of a district is the 47th. There is a well know personality that does "man on the street" and 2 of 3 can not name the Vice President. I beleave the 47th district could do no better. Geoff sends out a bunch of lies in the last week of the campaign and they beleave them. Question anything that this great mind does and you get flamed well. I been well chard by Geoff. Bob

Posted by: Bob on February 22, 2007 09:39 PM
72. The most disappointing thing about this Simpson character--his immaturity.

Posted by: Organization Man on February 22, 2007 10:03 PM
73. Geoff Simpson not acting very statesman-like.

Posted by: Michele on February 22, 2007 10:31 PM
74. Can you belive this guy is a fireman?? Uh er wait sorry there I think those Dems changed the defintion to firefighter anyways. He is lying and exhibiting irrational behavior ahhhhh but wait the union over the public the fire service was created to serve. Just like the leacher uh I meant teachers union.

Trading our liberties for their security.

Look how insulated from accountability he KNOWS he is. Entitlement is a dangerous thing. He thinks he can do what ever he wants regardless of the consequences. This behavior is becomeing widespread and how do we deal with it?? Let rapists vote multiple times while letting ACORN mail a million ballots from Joel Connelly's cabin while letting the Indians run the state from the Muckleshoot Smokeshop while the Queen bickers with Seattle over what color shoes she will wear today.

When are we going to see some leaders and not scamsters at any level of government?

Posted by: Col. Hogan on February 22, 2007 10:49 PM
75. Only Geoff Simpson would use Government computers from his work on work time to send this kind of message. I wonder if Kent has a policy about using city property for personal reasons or non-city business. Shark - send the evidence to the city of City and then demand to know the outcome of the disiplanary action. He has a habit of "harassing" people via city computers. As far as the people in the 47th district, we are working on new efforts to educate the people and prevent his alst week shiny mailer blitz.

Posted by: James Shackleford on February 22, 2007 11:00 PM
76. Yeah what is it about local Democrats who are firefighters being jackasses?

Stephen Phillips at Effin' Unsound is a volunteer firefighter. He thinks he's fooling people by hiding behind a pen-name, but anyone who read his old blog, Washington Political Report, knows exactly who he is...

And then there's Andrew at the "NW Progressive Blog" -- he may not be a firefighter, but he's certainly a hoser!

Posted by: Patrick on February 22, 2007 11:18 PM
77. Patrick, and I suppose I'm hiding behind an alias by posting this as Goldy? Get real.

A) Stephen Phillips doesn't hide behind a pen name anymore than Theodore Geisel did.

B) What is it about you McCarthyites that makes you so eager to out people's identities?

I say Stefan, if you have a problem with people posting anonymously on your blog, you should block anonymous comments. Make your commenters register. But to just selectively out commenters you disagree with, well, that's just petty and mean spirited.

(Those weren't my first choice of words, but uSP doesn't allow me to use the appropriate expletives.)

Posted by: Goldy on February 22, 2007 11:57 PM
78. Geoff Simpson at #10:

"Interesting that when Stefan doesn't like something someone says (even when they are correct as I was in each of my posts) he investigates them and violates the personal privacy afforded to all the posters on this blog by the ability to post anonymously. Poor baby. Make sure you don't disagree with Stefan or he'll open an investigation on you too..."

Well, Geoff, your personal privacy was not violated if you were using government assets (since I can tell you are clueless, that means a government computer in this case). EVERY SINGLE EMAIL you write using that asset or network IS A PUBLIC RECORD. So don't go around claiming, like an idiot, that your personal privacy was violated. If it was, then those Port of Seattle Police officers that sent the suggestive and "racist" emails using Port assets had their right to privacy violated. Now, I doubt you believe that their rights were violated.

I wish the state auditor could do a performance audit on each legislator and determine if they are (1) an idiot, or (2) somewhat sane. We all know what the result would be for you.

Posted by: Michael H on February 22, 2007 11:59 PM
79. (Those weren't my first choice of words, but uSP doesn't allow me to use the appropriate expletives.)

You mean those that make you look like a foul-mouthed jerk (i.e., a typical liberal)?

Posted by: Interested Observer on February 23, 2007 05:33 AM
80. Father-Daughter/Liberal-Conservative Talk

* A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very
liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican,
a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt
that

her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what
he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes
on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she
was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends because she spent all her time studying.

He asked her how her friend Audrey was doing. She replied, "Audrey is
barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies,
and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for
her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of
times she doesn't even show up for classes

because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and

certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
fired
back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really
hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I
worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,"Welcome to the
Republican party"

Posted by: dcat on February 23, 2007 07:16 AM
81. I think the real point that the trolls haven't figured out is that Bluto's disagreement was in the form of childish name-calling. In my experience here, Stefan has a pretty thick skin, but the words of Bluto the bully were out of line.

As for most government employees, they are real careful of computer use during business hours. They don't even let me send some of the funny things people e-mail me that I forward.

I see no problem, though, with an elected official doing what he is paid to do- legislate and communicate- so I saw no problem them with Bluto using company resources. But, I also see a problem with his post but that is an issue to be discussed with his voters. And no, I see no problem with Stefan checking ip addresses on people posting on his site.

Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2007 07:19 AM
82. David Postman has an article in todays Seattle Times

Careful who you call stupid

Posted by: Janet on February 23, 2007 11:18 AM
83. Based on Goldy's comments, I'm breaking out my tiniest violin and playing a weeping ballad. Boo hoo. The king of mean-spiritedness himself, Goldy, can't handle a little hardball politics. Everyone knows that scrutiny is what you sign up for when you enter the political game. Especially as a candidate. And especially when you make comments on a local blog for all to see, anonymous or not.

I don't see Goldy shedding a tear for the scrutiny he gave to David Irons.

As with all things left, the hypocrisy is so thick, you can walk on it.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 23, 2007 11:33 AM
84. Simpson told me that he doesn't often post comments on blogs.

Another flat out LIE by an arrogant democrat politician... the shameless liar posted vociferously during the campaign.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 23, 2007 11:51 AM
85. Way to go, Stefan. Sadly, Geoff Simpson handily defeated his opponent for re-election in my district last Fall. And the thing is, he really can be quite rude. I remember getting a rather rude reply from him when I politely emailed in 2004 (or maybe early 2005) about supporting a proper recount instead of the ridiculous farce that was happening. Politicians should be tactful and diplomatic. Simpson is not capable of either as he demonstrates to people time and time again.

Posted by: ferrous on February 23, 2007 01:37 PM
86. Call his office and tell him to get back to the peoples business and quit abusing taxpayer resources. 360-786-7918.

Posted by: Angry Voter on February 23, 2007 02:32 PM
87. What's amusing is that Postman over at his blog is happy to defend any Democratic public official abusing public resources to further a cause he likes. He would never out a Democratic Public official doing anything immoral, illegal or unethical, like blogging on the public dime under an assumed name to hurl invectives at constituents. Mr.Simpson obviously displays the kind of class and behavior that are appreciated by the local pressmen like Postman. My question is, how does he keep his job? Dotzauer/Cantwell, Dunshee/Snohomish County Parks, Half of the Democratic Caucus in Olympia/Indian Tribal Contributions. A rookie reporter at a middle school monthly could do a better job of objectively reporting the policial news in this area.

Posted by: Smokie on February 23, 2007 04:32 PM
88. It's too bad the dim-oc-rats won't put somebody with ethical characteristics to run against that baffoon. Oh what an oxymoron that was. Sorry.
But if there is one out there, why not run against him in a primary highlighting "the family man/firefighter/neighborhood lawn mower" farce that he is?

Posted by: PC on February 23, 2007 08:44 PM
89. All this does is point out to everybody else what is widely known in Olympia - Geoff Simpson is an effing jerk. It's no secret.

Posted by: jimg on February 24, 2007 01:20 PM
90. He did the same thing on my blog. I couldn't get a coherent argument out of him regarding the pharmacists conscience clause. Just a bunch of insults.
He's a Planned Parenthood dupe who will say or do anything for a buck.

Posted by: Mary E on February 26, 2007 10:46 AM
91. Why allow anonymous commentary if you then out them? Seems shady to me. But I guess "unethical" is the moral compass of the GOP. I'm not saying I like Geoff. I don't know the dude. But if you're going to out a commentator, you should make everyone register with their legal names, addresses, occupations, and little pictures.

Posted by: what's it to ya? on February 26, 2007 01:54 PM
92. Seems shady to me.

But an elected official, using public resources, to distort the truth ... all while portraying himself as a PDC expert isn't shady?

Yeah. It's the person who exposed the fraud who's the villain here. Black is white; up is down.

Posted by: jimg on February 26, 2007 03:10 PM
93. 92: He wasn't acting in his official capacity. He was using a public resource made available for personal use. Had he used his office to publish lies, that would be one thing. But a person espousing his opinions with a reasonable belief that he could post anonymously, I think violating that trust is shady. And again, I said I had no opinion of Geoff - I don't know him, I'm not defending him or his statements.

Posted by: him on February 27, 2007 01:23 PM
94. So while at the firehouse, on the payroll, This Fireman/Statesman takes a few minutes to "share" his wisdom anonymously using terms like "idiot" to describe anyone whose opinion on the PDC reporting of the WEA that is contrary to his own. This is not the first time this has happened and certainly will not be the last. Now that we are over a week down the road, what is the appropriate response? Did the IT manager find the use within guidelines? Is this an approved use for Government employees at work? Is Mr. Simpson given special treatment because of his "Other" job?

Maybe the fault lies with Geoff's employers for enabling his behavior. He obviously lacks the self control and discipline to realize he has even made a mistake, a formal complaint by someone with standing in Kent should be filed with Human Resources and the IT department for violating policy. Write him up, monitor his abuse of government resources, let him be a jerk on his own dime.

Posted by: Smokie on March 1, 2007 08:48 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?