1. This Crosscut regular has so commended Chuck.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on May 11, 2007 05:56 PM

2. Is it just me, or does it look like McKay might have something in common with John Edwards?

Posted by: Krannich on May 11, 2007 07:11 PM

3. IF the local Republicans were smart, you would run Mr. McKay for state or national office.

He's a winner. Articulate, public servant, clean, doesn't stink like Bush.

Republicans will NEED to have a huge dose of "I am not George W. Bush" for years, perhaps decades to come, and this man is a start.

Posted by: McKay for Public Office on May 11, 2007 07:54 PM

4. McKay for Public Office, or should I say Jim Hughes. Why would anyone take anything you say seriously Jim? Mr. McKay is simply pimping himself as a victim for his upcoming political run, but it will not be as a Republican. Maybe he will run as the "Law and Order" candidate against McDermott? Perhaps he will duel Sims and Phillips for County Executive. Or most likely he would challenge for the elected auditor position so he can finally find out where the elections office is located. Say hi to Lori for us, she has our pity.

Posted by: Huh? on May 11, 2007 09:20 PM

5. I like this McKay guy more every day. Imagine, a Republicon not licking George Bush's boots at every turn. I know not doing as you are told means you will have to pay a price, but Mr. McKay seems to have something long since missing from average Republicons. Integrity.

Posted by: Facts on May 11, 2007 10:41 PM

6. Great job Stefan! Hold their feet to the fire and it will be less likely it will happen, or more likely the legislature will try to hide the evidence of it happening as was done this last session.

Posted by: GS on May 11, 2007 10:53 PM

7. I love the way the whole Gonzales thing is turning tables on the Dumb-O-Crats.

What started as an accusation, is now an indictment that these "prosecutors" sat on their hands in the face of Democrat corruption that needed to be addressed.

The only reason for these hearings is that Gonzales was doing his job -- getting rid of lollygaggers and pressing the case against corrupt Democrat politicians.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 12, 2007 12:15 AM

8. Hey Facts you are quite the "Defender of the faith" aren't you. Can you imagine (using your analogy)all of the various forms of licking that took place during the Clintons reign in the Whitehouse? I remember all of the staffers he sent out to say "I support Bill, he never had (blank) with that woman, Miss (Blank). I would help you to fill in the blanks but the list is too long.

Posted by: Huh? on May 12, 2007 06:57 AM

9. Does anyone here know if "anybody" had done a FOIA on Mckays investigation into the election of 04???

Posted by: Chris on May 12, 2007 10:42 AM

10. Huh? Licking Clinton's boots? I always believed what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults is no ones's business. They probably did too.

John Ballyhoo, I love your posts. Them Dumokrats pointing out the fact that the Bush Crime Family appears to have tried to turn the Justice Department into a branch of the Republicon Party is making the Dems look bad? Thwarting all those investigation of Republicons?

What was is that McKay said? Something like he would be surprised if charges were not brought against Karl Rove. Heh, but who is he right?

Let the investigations continue. I love our chief prosecutor Gonzales saying I don't know a few hundred times. He doesn't know? He is either a retard, or a lying crook. Which is it?

I just love it the way folks support people that are so incompetent, or dishonest that they make real americans sick to their stomachs.

Every day more evidence of them trying to tip the scales of justice, or influence elections, like in Missouri comes out. When are you going to wake up?

Posted by: Facts on May 12, 2007 11:15 AM

11. The Crosscut article is too kind in describing the skulduggery in the elections office:

"He's been especially critical of the stumbling and bumbling inside the elections office of the state's most populous county...."

Anyone who takes a close look at the way the ballots were handled would be likely to see something more than "stumbling and bumbling."

Enough illegitimate ballots were included in the vote count initially to make it close enough for a recount.

Then, enough additional ballots were included, legitimately or not, to change the outcome in what was actually not so close an election except for the illegitimate ballots for Gregoire.

Posted by: Micajah on May 12, 2007 12:13 PM

12. How did I know that Facts would approve of Clinton licking, even if it was between consenting AG's and First Ladies. How is that ACORN Investigation working out for you there Facts? McKay was all over that wasn't he? Of course if he actually had conducted an review of the election of '04 he may have been in a position to realize who he needed to watch in '06.

Posted by: Huh? on May 12, 2007 01:40 PM

13. #4: Huh?

Posted by: Huh??? on May 12, 2007 04:08 PM

14. Crosscut needs traffic, so it tried, in its bland David Brewster way, to stir up the owner and patrons of this site. They succeeded. It's flatus emitted in a windstorm by the dullest collection of ink-stained geezers in the business.

Posted by: murtz on May 13, 2007 12:26 AM

15. "I just love it the way folks support people that are so incompetent, or dishonest that they make real americans sick to their stomachs."

Why must these comment threads ALWAYS spiral in to a discussion of Hillary? It gets old fast.

Posted by: Zarro on May 13, 2007 10:35 AM

16. What's eating you Zarro?

Was it that Gonzales was getting too close to overturning your beloved "Chris" Gregoire's coronation?

Posted by: John Bailo on May 13, 2007 12:39 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?