I just got back from the Mainstream Republicans conference in Wenatchee.
There were a number of interesting speakers and panel discussions, of which the most notable to me were Prof. Matt Manweller's comments in the panel on the Iraq war; Dino Rossi's talk on the state of state government; and John McKay's breakfast speech and post-speech blogger/press gaggle.
In addition to myself, the group included Neil Modie of the P-I, Rich Roesler of the Spokesman-Review, Sean Cockerham of the Tacoma News-Tribune and Mark Gardner of the WhackyNation blog.
We discussed his investigation of the 2004 election and other topics.
Roesler's report is online here; Gardner (who took the above photo) has his report here.
I appreciate that McKay took the time to meet and take our questions. His answers were candid and informative.
UPDATE: The P-I report is here. The News-Tribune article is here. I'm still working on my detailed write-up.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 20, 2007 03:38 PM | Email ThisWith the rabid left looking to eradicate the Republican party by hook, crook or any means available, we don't need any John McKay's handing them the gun and the ammunition.
It may ultimately be that his refusal to properly investigate election failures in 2004 was a principled decision - one that I and most Republicans vehemently disagree with. But that does not excuse his despicably shameful behavior since he learned of his dismissal.
He displays classic victim mentality. According to his world view, anything that adversely affects him must be the result of some conspiracy of wrongdoing. In adorning himself in his cloak of victimhood, he rejects cherished conservative values of independence and self-reliance. Instead he is seeking to exploit his dismissal to gain political advantage at the expense of Republicans by demanding our sympathy.
I could never support a candidacy founded on such base motivations.
You say that like people are supposed to care.
Posted by: Mike H on May 20, 2007 05:43 PMMcKay is quoted as saying that there has to be evidence of a conspiracy for there to be a federal crime. That's nonsense.
Bob Edelman
Posted by: Bob Edelman on May 20, 2007 06:31 PMI know this is off topic, but I couldn't resist.
You mean your friends in the movement aren't cutting you a deal on gas? I thought Hugo was funneling bucks to the needy so that they could buy oil. You really need to get some better friends. I remember the last time we chatted, I was doing my laundry and you didn't get a cut of the $20 mill funneled into Georgetown, so I had to do my laundry all by myself with no help from you. I mean, you are down in Tampa driving all over looking for gas. Goodness, your friends don't think much of you.
Ok, now back to the topic.
Posted by: WVH on May 20, 2007 07:08 PMNow why McKay was even part of that list, who knows. Any answers out there from the Un-matthews crowd? Posted by: PC on May 20, 2007 07:33 PM
As for McKay not seeing the documentation Edelman sent him, he'll probably just pull a Fraudoire and blame it on an underling. No problemo. Posted by: katomar on May 20, 2007 07:48 PM
Heh Al Gore, glad to see your office is taking full advantage of your global warnings. Do you really need three monitors, one flatscreen TV, and piles and piles of dead tree material to boot?
http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/gore_life/20.jpg
As for McKay and the lack of investigation, he seems to be saying that as long as there are procedural errors, or individual fraudulent ballots, then the election stands.
Obviously, the election laws need a further overhaul to close the loopholes. Which is what many tried to impress on Maleng, McKay and Reed in the immediate wake of the 2004 election. But now that the main furor has passed, and there is an all Democrat majority, there's little hope of any reform.
And this will send a giant signal to Moonbat Seminar voting drives in 2008. Moonbats will fill out extra ballots knowing that they won't be investigated. And for any close election, that will be enough. Meanwhile, KCE will continue to have the option of covering over improperly counted ballots as simply a matter of being overwhelmed, etc. And they will also know that won't trigger an investigation.
It's true what John Fund says. When it's close, Democrats can steal elections.
And I'll say again that the KCE source that failed to come forward is a craven chump. I don't care if that person was worried about their job, or whatever. A free society depends on everyone playing by the rules. And it is in every John Doe's interest to report suspicious behavior and impropriety. King County Elections played loose with absentee and provisional ballots, and then failed to disclose any of that to agents of the law during the trial. Even if the mistakes were honest, the omission should be a crime.
I sincerely hope all of Stefan's research is used to create an anti-Gregoire ad campaign next year. Maybe Ms. Gilpin or others can put together a drive so the whole state can learn what SP readers already know.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 20, 2007 09:52 PMA bit of advice.....validate everything McKay tells you. Get the documentation. I'd even be willing to give McKay the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he THOUGHT some things were looked into that were not. Whatever.
Where is the documentation about what was looked at, who was talked to and discussed and WHEN.
Intentions are irrelevant.
Like Joe Friday says, "Just the facts ma'am." Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 20, 2007 10:10 PM
This story about what McKay actually looked at and how he drew his conclusions seems far from over. On the contrary, it seems like this interview has breathed new life into the whole case.
At the very least, it is interesting that the new PosterBoy for the Dems, McKay, said he would vote for Rossi!! After KLOWNstein & others portrayed him as a new Dem CultHero! And McKay used numerous adjuectives to describe the STENCH eminating from King Kounty Elections.
Great '08 Campaign Material if nother else.
Don't you think???
Stefan--get on the record, in quotes, every negative comment McKay made about that Election. Sounds like you have quite a few, with an audio back-up!!!
Glad Stefan took the time. It has borne much fruit.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 20, 2007 10:30 PMThis story about what McKay actually looked at and how he drew his conclusions seems far from over. On the contrary, it seems like this interview has breathed new life into the whole case.
At the very least, it is interesting that the new PosterBoy for the Dems, McKay, said he would vote for Rossi!! After KLOWNstein & others portrayed him as a new Dem CultHero! And McKay used numerous adjuectives to describe the STENCH eminating from King Kounty Elections.
Great '08 Campaign Material if nothing else.
Don't you think???
Stefan--get on the record, in quotes, every negative comment McKay made about that Election. Sounds like you have quite a few, with an audio back-up!!!
Glad Stefan took the time. It has borne much fruit.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 20, 2007 10:30 PMBut say there was a witness who had evidence of said conspiracy (e.g., statements by conspirators revealing the conspiracy) you might be in a much different posture, depending on nature/scope of the statements and the credibility of said witness.
Anyway -- I think the entire community is well served by Stephan's bright light on the election process. I can't wait to see him nominated for a PI distinguished public service award...
Posted by: seanod100 on May 20, 2007 11:22 PMMcKay is just a disgruntled employee. Perhaps he can join former rep Beverly Woods in the unemployment line!
Posted by: pbj on May 20, 2007 11:46 PM1 & 2 also have to right--"by any means" seems to be the left's tactic. useful fools, teary-eyed victims, anything. and local papers here are thrilled to play into it all, devoting more space than a David Mathews ranting.
if anyone thinks voting integrity is not important now, just wait for the effects of the so-called immigration 'reform' (amnesty) to kick in--that's a lot of 'constituents,' baby!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 21, 2007 04:44 AMTotally appropriate in a Republican convention for the potential candidate to show up even though you or he may not like some of the speakers.
So, from my read, there is a new standard McKay was using- he needs lots and lots of evidence before he can- what?- look for more evidence? Sounds a lot like he talked to Meleng and Reed.
Since when has an investigation needed evidence before it looked for evidence?
No wonder he didn't find any.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2007 07:29 AMYou dumped David M? HAPPY DAYS are here again. Yahoo! (-:
Thank you so much, he was such a bore.
KLOWNstein says take McKay's word for his detailed investigation & conclusions.
Stefan says thanks to McKay for his words BUT show me all the evidence you looked at.
Then McKay starts acting like he never saw or heard of Stefan's evidence generated post-trial because of King Kounty's stonewalling on Public Records requests????
That doesn't make any sense unless McKay wants us to believe he closed his eyes to specific evidence during the course of his "investigation".
We can put an end to much of this discussion by simply opening the investigation files. BUT WAIT!! Another revelation! McKay says the investigation isn't over. This means they cannot release the files???? Sounds like a mighty tangled web here.
TRUST....but VERIFY.
Something Reagan did regularly.
Something Bush is weak on.
David Matthews, the America hating NAZI traitor is gone. Hoo-ray......
Posted by: REBEL on May 21, 2007 08:28 AMI'm sort of suspicious. In the "Mainstream" Republicans charter they say:
"We value life and seek to protect it - We should not attempt to legislate a definition of life."
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org/principles.aspx
So are they pro-abortion or not?
Rudy Giuliani supports a woman's right to abortion explicitly -- like most Americans...so he is the mainstream.
I'm not sure if these Washington guys are a rivulet posing as a mainstream.
Nope. Once they are sworn in there is this little bunch o' writing called "laws" and ya need to dump yer talking points.
". . . at anytime (sic) for any reason . . ." is just plain erroneous.
The Justice Department must remain faithful to the laws. Posted by: Nope on May 21, 2007 11:25 AM
Can you cite any statute that was violated by removing McKay? No, is that because there are none?
Posted by: Paddy on May 21, 2007 12:12 PMGezzzzzzzz.
PS, He did it because he wanted to shut down investigation about him and his wife in AKI-saw.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 21, 2007 12:21 PMPaddy: please put your profoundly written talking points down. Posted by: Profound on May 23, 2007 09:15 AM