May 20, 2007
John McKay at the Mainstream Republican conference

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 This
Comments
1. McKay's refusal to look into voting irregularities doesn't sit very well with me. This guy calls himself an "R" but his torpedo of Bush just to add spectacle to a partisan kangaroo "investigation" for his perfectly legal dismissal was beyond the pale. I wouldn't vote for that bum if he was the last candidate on earth.

With 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.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 20, 2007 04:11 PM
2. McKay's behavior over the past few months has simply destroyed whatever credibility he might have had among Republican and conservative independent voters in Washington. He's made a political spectacle of himself and become a tool of the extremist left.

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.

Posted by: Calvinator on May 20, 2007 04:32 PM
3. I'm presuming he didn't act like the whiny punk the media has portrayed him to be?

Posted by: Hinton on May 20, 2007 04:57 PM
4. I think McKay is seriously into Amway and using this as a dodge until he can host a really big party.

Posted by: Doc-T on May 20, 2007 05:27 PM
5. I visited his website and am not impressed.

You say that like people are supposed to care.

Posted by: Mike H on May 20, 2007 05:43 PM
6. McKay is no Republican and I would do everything in my strength to defeat the bum if he ever dared to run, no matter what party he used to run under!!

Posted by: St Claire on May 20, 2007 06:04 PM
7. McKay is no Republican and I would do everything in my strength to defeat the bum if he ever dared to run, no matter what party he used to run under!!

Posted by: St Claire on May 20, 2007 06:04 PM
8. Gardner reports that, according to McKay, neither he nor the FBI have seen Stefan's evidence. I sent a CD of the evidence to the FBI in 2005 and a copy of the transmittal letter including examples of evidence to McKay. Either he didn't read his mail, has a faulty memory, or is lying.

McKay 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 PM
9. Allow me to extend my previous comments. McKay appears to have limited himself and the FBI to investigating "public corruption" as if that were the only federal election crime. Why did he refuse to investigate criminal acts by private parties?

Posted by: Bob Edelman on May 20, 2007 06:45 PM
10. Hi David,

I 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 PM
11. Hey DM, there's a reason you're not impressed with the prof. from Central WA. He's a heavy thinker, something your ilk can't grasp in its current mental state of politics.
Now 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
12. Stefan, David Mathews is going overboard in his posts. He keeps going off topic and his comments are absolutely stupid and extremely long. Is there any chance you could restrict the length of posts? Or better yet can we vote again to kick him off this site???

Posted by: DaveG on May 20, 2007 07:40 PM
13. Okay, folks. It's easy enough to ignore David Mathews when he asks one stupid off-topic question. But when he starts posting numerous off-topic rants, I'm happy to flush him.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 20, 2007 07:44 PM
14. Stefan: THANK YOU!
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
15. Stefan, did you extinguish his torch and send him off the island? Is this "The tribe has spoken"?

Posted by: PC on May 20, 2007 07:48 PM
16. Thank you Stefan

Posted by: DaveG on May 20, 2007 07:51 PM
17. Me Two! David really has to get a life! On some other blog. It is rediculous to try and read when every other post is his "Sky is falling" BS.


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

Posted by: GS on May 20, 2007 08:29 PM
18. thanks for flushing David Matthews~! yesssss

Posted by: Michele on May 20, 2007 08:53 PM
19. Thanks Stefan for removing the DM posts. The off topic rants are ridiculous, and beyond any reasonable commenting policy.

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 PM
20. I can't wait to hear McKay's responses to your questions Stefan.
A 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
21. John McKay had his chance to do the right thing.

Posted by: murtz on May 20, 2007 10:18 PM
22. It also appears from the 2 articles Stefan referenced that McKay is intent that he can only pursue FRAUD. Is that really true? What about Criminal Activity that doesn't rise to the level of FRAUD???

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 PM
23. It also appears from the 2 articles Stefan referenced that McKay is intent that he can only pursue FRAUD. Is that really true? What about Criminal Activity that doesn't rise to the level of FRAUD???

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 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 PM
24. Guys (and gals) -- don't shoot the messenger. When McKay says there needs to be evidence of "intent" to charge a conspiracy type crime (or fraud) he's right. Evidence of incompetence/laziness/sloppiness is simply not enough. Maddening, huh? From the comments, I sense that most of the participants on this post believe that the rotten handling of the election is sufficient proof of said fraud/conspiracy (i.e., nothing could be handled this poorly BUT an intentional attempt to steal the election). One's "belief," however, and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," are vastly different things.

But 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 PM
25. Sorry seanod100, but when McKay claims he never saw Stefan's evidence, he is a liar. Even KCE saw Stefan's evidence as evidenced by the FOI emails.

McKay 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 PM
26. 19 jeff--couldnt have said it better--and Fund's voting fraud book scared the he** out of me. i'm no newbie--grew up in major machine politics city and didnt realize the size & extent of the issue.

1 & 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 AM
27. Isn't anyone else concerned that Rossi would attend this conference? If Rossi is associating himself with McKay, many conservative Republicans are not going to be enthusiastic about Rossi next year.

Posted by: Don on May 21, 2007 07:10 AM
28. Read the articles and the blogger followups, Don.

Totally 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 AM
29. Stefan...........

You dumped David M? HAPPY DAYS are here again. Yahoo! (-:

Thank you so much, he was such a bore.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 21, 2007 07:33 AM
30. I saw the Robert Mak Show.
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.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 21, 2007 07:44 AM
31. Thank you Stefan. Man it took a long time. I hope people, if there are any, who don't have a clue what a leftwing extremist looks like, know now.

David Matthews, the America hating NAZI traitor is gone. Hoo-ray......

Posted by: REBEL on May 21, 2007 08:28 AM
32.
I'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.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 21, 2007 08:59 AM
33. McKay was a political appointee. As such he was subject to removal from office at anytime for any reason. His fault was disobedience and lack of loyalty to the Bush Administration, its policies and programs. His response to his firing has been disingenuous at best. His performance alone should disqualify him from further political involvement as a Republican

Posted by: Paddy on May 21, 2007 10:51 AM
34. Paddy:
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
35. Nope: You are profoundly ignorant about civics. The Justice Dept is part of the Executive Branch, not Congress nor the Judiciary. Justice is obliged to follow the law, but is also a primary source of their interpretation, (Attorney General's opinions). There is no law granting tenure or civil service status to appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President, not Congress.

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 PM
36. So (NOPE) When Clinton fired all of them, did he break any laws?

Gezzzzzzzz.

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 PM
37. I'll stand by my previous post---McKay will turn and run as a Democrat like that creep Rodney Tom did in the 48th.

Posted by: John425 on May 21, 2007 12:51 PM
38. I have it on very good authority that John McKay has accepted a position as Senior Vice President and General Council at Getty Images in Fremont.

Posted by: DunnerMeister on May 21, 2007 02:04 PM
39. Wow.
Paddy: please put your profoundly written talking points down.

Posted by: Profound on May 23, 2007 09:15 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?