October 24, 2007
The uninspiring King County Prosecutor's Race (III)

I asked Dan Satterberg whether he would prosecute P-I columnist Dorothy "D." Parvaz for illegally filing a false voter registration form, as he had earlier prosecuted Jane Balogh for filing a false voter registration form.

Satterberg explained his decision not to prosecute:

This is less like the Jane Balough [sic] case and more like the voter residency challenges of 2005, where, as you recall, we did not use the criminal law to punish the unsuccessful challenges, despite the call from partisans that we do so.
The insinuation is that Lori Sotelo, who merely made a mistake which she promptly corrected, is equivalent to Parvaz, who deliberately broke the law for her personal convenience. Geez.

This sounds less like consistent law enforcement than a political balance sheet: rejecting a Republican call to prosecute a Democrat because he once did the opposite, the particulars being irrelevant.

Or does everybody now get a free pass to register to vote at a fake address?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 24, 2007 12:38 AM | Email This
Comments
1. 1. I still think you should get over it. I really would like to know the "inside scoop" as to why you are now eating one of your own.

2. I wouldn't have prosecuted Ms. Balough, she should have gotten a medal as the system has some really big loopholes. I know newly minted dem Pope will add his analysis, but the two situations are different. As much as I love Aussies and think Duncan the dog is probably smarter than many people I know, Ms. Balough knowly registered a non-human to vote. Whether it was done to point out the flaws in the system or not, it was done knowingly. It would be hard to prove Ms. Parvaz did so knowingly. Also, the infraction while technically illegal does not seem of the same magnitude as registering Duncan.

3. You may be friends with Ms. Sotelo and think that she was given a bum rap and thrown to the wolves. That is what makes partisan politics such a blood sport, you should know, you are an ace practictioner. Sorry to say the issues in this one are not about Ms. Sotelo as much as you would like to make it so. The issue is who is better for the job. Still would love to know what the real reason is for this tirade, anything you would care to share?

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 01:08 AM
2. There's a practical problem here, obviously, in the extent of prosecution. Looking up the average Mailboxes Etc. shows that a lot of people didn't read the form enough, or hold it in reverence. Obviously few people are radical enough as to want to charge them all with filing false information on a voter registration form (a felony, I believe). A misdemeanor false statement to a public official count also seems somewhat excessive to me without notification.

I hear a lot of complaint about this, but little about what to do. Notification? Prosecution if they don't update their registration form?

It's not that I condone letting this fly. But, at the same time, the guy at the restaurant where I get my monthly falafel fix is illegally registered. I doubt evil intent. But when are elected officials going to realize that there are middle grounds between charging these folks with felonies and passively condoning a breach of the law?

Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on October 24, 2007 01:09 AM
3. SIMPLE SOLUTION - EDUCATE THEM AS TO THE EXACT LAW, AND MOST WILL COMPLY

WHERE DOES THIS HEAVY HANDED STALINISM COME FROM, SOMETHING LIKE THE MOST INNOCENT MISTAKE OF THE CITIZEN GETS YOU SENT TO SIBERIA, GEEZ, YOU ARE SO HARCORE

Posted by: Raphael on October 24, 2007 01:27 AM
4. Raphael: she knew the law. She signed her name attesting to the fact that she knew that she had to put her actual address on there.

I know we don't think highly of the intelligence of P-I writers, but let's not think THAT poorly of her. She knowingly broke the law because she just didn't want to follow it, for her own benefit.

Contrast that to Balogh who knowingly broke the law in order to alert the public to a real problem.

I would have prosecuted Jane Balogh, whom I greatly admire, for violating the law. And I would prosecute Parvaz for violating the law. Both did so willingly and knowingly. The only difference is in motive, and Balogh's was far better than Parvaz's.


Benjamin, this is just utterly bizarre to me: Obviously few people are radical enough as to want to charge them all with filing false information on a voter registration form (a felony, I believe). A misdemeanor false statement to a public official count also seems somewhat excessive to me without notification.

If it was an accident, sure. But if there is intent, as in Parvaz's case, then ... what? Yes, I absolutely do want them all to be prosecuted. Parvaz absolutely should be charged with a felony. That is why the law is there, and the only way to get the people who don't respect the law to do so is to enforce it. Not enforcing the law is the same as telling people it is OK to violate it, and it is not OK to violate it.


It's not that I condone letting this fly.

Since you say that holding them accountable for their actual crime is "extreme," I think you come pretty close to condoning that.


But, at the same time, the guy at the restaurant where I get my monthly falafel fix is illegally registered. I doubt evil intent.

So? He likely would have been more careful if we had been enforcing the law all this time.


But when are elected officials going to realize that there are middle grounds between charging these folks with felonies and passively condoning a breach of the law?

There isn't. There is enforcing the law, or condoning the law being broken.


Remember, every illegal vote takes away the rights of other legal voters to vote. This is not a small thing. This is one of the biggest thing there is in a democracy.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2007 02:05 AM
5. Technical registration snafus and other misc. are NOT illegal votes or illegal voters.

Pudge, you like to toss felony accusations around like gumdrops. That creates a lack of respect for the law.

I cling to education and warnings and other attempts to correct this and that, using goodwill, and persuasion and thinking.

The felony charge should be a rare incident. indeed.

Posted by: Raphael on October 24, 2007 03:58 AM
6. Technical registration snafus and other misc. are NOT illegal votes or illegal voters.

Pudge, you like to toss felony accusations around like gumdrops. That creates a lack of respect for the law.

I cling to education and warnings and other attempts to correct this and that, using goodwill, and persuasion and thinking.

The felony charge should be a rare incident. indeed.

Posted by: Raphael on October 24, 2007 03:59 AM
7. Stefan,

Haven't you learned by now? If you are not a left wing looney liberal, you WILL be prosecuted. The left has consistenly shown that they do not want democracy at all. They do not want free speech.

They are the party that has consistently tried to stifle free speech whether it is by threatening to cut off the FCC license if they don't like the content or if it is trying to censor a citizen's free speech rights.

That they would selectively prosecute for the same violations based on ideology shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 06:01 AM
8. "I really would like to know the "inside scoop" as to why you are now eating one of your own."

WVH, sssssspt. Come here and I will tell you the secret reason. I know that for someone such as yourself, a stalwart ideological robot whose level of inquiry ends at the D or the R in front of a candidate's name, this must seem like a foreign concept. It really is quite simple to understand why Stefan can criticize a politician regardless if he shares some of the same beleifs as he does or even the same party monikker.

Google the word INTEGRITY.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 06:08 AM
9. Sorry, Rafe. Have to disagree with you there. Registering at Mailbox, Inc. is an invitation for voter fraud. If you don't have to provide your legal residence there are no checks to see if you are a real person. I think they should be taken off the rolls.

As a conservative, I believe everyone has a right to cast a legal vote. If you don't follow the rules, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I also think you should register a month or more before you vote.

And, I know you won't like this, you should only get one vote and you shouldn't be allowed to vote often and you shouldn't be allowed to vote for your dead relatives and unborn children. I know, I know, that makes it tough for a Democrat to win an election, but as I prefaced my opinion that it was the wild 'conservative' side of my liberal leanings that made me do it.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2007 07:32 AM
10. pudge,

I think the (clear?) implication of my post was that I have no sympathy for those who are knowingly illegally registered and do not correct it because it is "inconvenient". I have no problem with prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. But do you support felony prosecution for everyone who is illegally registered with no notification at all?

Of course this would represent a great deterrent. But if you've spent enough time fiddling with the voter rolls, you'll know the sheer number of people illegally registered at businesses. That's a lot of new felons, most of whom are probably guilty of not thinking about the legalistic meaning of "Washington Resident Address" (which is all the form has to say about the matter). I don't want to punish those who are playing the system any less than you do, but a felony conviction for not knowing the legal definition of "resident address" is, as our caps-friendly friendly friend put it, "hardcore."

Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on October 24, 2007 07:39 AM
11. I am still trying to understand why the gub'mint insists on knowing my exact residence address, which I value the privacy of dearly, and expose it to the sheeples, just to exercise my right to vote.

Still dunno what the poor schmuck who lives in his car does, to keep from committing a felony.

And a FELONY???? GEEZUSHKEERICED!!!! I thought that was like, for killing folks, not for trying to keep the gub'mint out of your face.

The Geezer has spaketh.

Posted by: The Geezer on October 24, 2007 07:42 AM
12. The fact is that if a few of them were prosecuted, and the prosecutions were publicized, how long would it take for the remainder to fix their registrations?

If someone registering to vote is too ignorant to understand what the phrase "resident address" means, then first, they shouldn't be printed in a newspaper, and second, they're too damned dumb to vote.

For Mr. Satterberg, there is only one standard: it's legal... or it isn't. And failing to prosecute this woman for her willful, deliberate and KNOWING lie on her voter registration does nothing to address the problem.

I wouldn't want a prosecutor whose decisions to prosecute were driven by political reasons, as Satterberg's obviously are, and his failure to prosecute THIS case shows a cowardice that would force me to vote for his opponent.

Posted by: Hinton on October 24, 2007 07:54 AM
13. Geez, see #9 above.

I still think Satterberg is the better choice, but I wouldn't be disappointed if he loses, either. Thanks for the expose.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2007 08:18 AM
14. @13...Swatter...

You'll most certainly be disappointed if Satterberg loses! You'll also probably have to change your name to "Defendant" since a hard-left, uber-partisan PA Bill Sherman will troll SP and similar venues looking for heretics, wingnuts, and all who disagree with Democratic Party orthodoxy to prosecute.

I'm here to tell you, an increasing number of the attorneys and others in the PAO are becoming disgusted to the point of ill at the campaign tactics and rhetoric of what appears to be the nearly-knows-nothing Bill Sherman.

Yeah, it matters...Unless, that is, you don't mind getting your mail forwarded to Monroe.

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on October 24, 2007 08:32 AM
15. The real reason for not prosecuting Parvaz is that it would create undesirable publicity. Imagine the outcry. This race is alleged to be close. Why bother? Say something about it being a minor violation in the context of the big scheme of things.

In retrospect, they must regret having prosecuted the owner of the dog because it shows their inconsistent application of the law.

Posted by: Luigi Giovanni on October 24, 2007 08:34 AM
16. Maybe we should all register to vote using D. Parvaz's home address.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 24, 2007 08:38 AM
17. pbj:

You said:

"WVH, sssssspt. Come here and I will tell you the secret reason. I know that for someone such as yourself, a stalwart ideological robot whose level of inquiry ends at the D or the R in front of a candidate's name, this must seem like a foreign concept. It really is quite simple to understand why Stefan can criticize a politician regardless if he shares some of the same beleifs as he does or even the same party monikker.

Google the word INTEGRITY."

You dolt, I have said many times, I am an indie and don't belong to either party as both are full of ideological dolts like you.

1. I don't think that posters who disagree with you are condoing voter fraud and you are showing your ideological bent by claiming we do. Every prosecutor has prosecutorial discretion to prosecute cases or not. That is a judgement call.

2. The following questions have not been answered by you or other posters:

a. Why are you eating one of your own?

b. Is the impeteous for this little tussle the fact that a donation was returned? Is the principle you are putting forth that there is no discretion on the part of a candidate as to which donations he or she will accept?

c. Ms. Sotelo is probably a decent person who is likely been chewed up by the partisan political process. She wasn't the first of either party and she won't be the last. So, are you ideologues focused on this particular incident and is this little thread more about feelings of loyality for what happened to her?

3. As you suggested, I did google integrity:

integrity
One entry found.

integrity


Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
Date: 14th century
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
synonyms see honesty

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/integrity

Now, to illustrate how stupid ideologues like you are. Are you now suggesting you will have to vote for Sherman because Satterburg lacks integrity as a prosecutor? You idiot.

As an outsider and an indie, I observe the machinations of both parties. On both sides, the ideologues are so driven that they leave their common sense at home. My theory is that the site owner is a friend of Ms. Sotelo and felt that the return of the donation was both a personal affront and a hit to her reputation. So, we have a couple of threads about the lack of options in the race. The bottom line is the parties served up two candidates, you can either pick one of them or write in Micky Mouse. You, idiot deserve the choice you make. Of the options, the better choice is Satterburg. So, get over it already.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 08:40 AM
18. Stefan,

You really should stop burning bridges. You lose a lot of credibility with this pointless complaining.

Posted by: jacob on October 24, 2007 09:00 AM
19. Sometimes, you have to burn a bridge to get reconstruction.

Posted by: swatter on October 24, 2007 09:03 AM
20. Geezer, the reason we need to know where you live is that only residents of a jurisdiction may lawfully vote in that jurisdiction's elections. Hence, while every US citizen may vote in a presidential election, you have to actually be a resident of WA to vote for our governor, of King County to vote for the County Council, etc.

Surely this can't be that hard to understand.

Posted by: Kirk Parker on October 24, 2007 09:12 AM
21. Swatter said:

"Sometimes, you have to burn a bridge to get reconstruction"

1. Some people in politics hold grudges for centuries, others it is always what can you do for me and for the right price or favor they will be your "friend" or ally. I don't know that there have been any bridges burned.

2. I would like to address the point of whether there is reconstruction after a bridge has been burned. At some point, cities like Philly, Newark, Gary, and Chicago had a tipping point. When a culture of corruption sets in, there is no reconstruction, there is only treading water until the next scandal. My analysis is this, a non-partisan office of the prosecutor is one of the things that prevents that culture of corruption from taking hold. So, I still would love to know the full story on why these posts. Sotelo is one part of the puzzle, I'd love to know the other pieces.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 09:13 AM
22. So, does the lack of prosecution create legal presidence?

I wonder what can of worms Dan has opened. Does someone have the RCW's handy? I see a business opportunity here....

Posted by: Chris on October 24, 2007 09:15 AM
23. Chris:

This is the definition:

"PRECEDENT - Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm

The key point is court decision.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 09:21 AM
24. Another example of the long term Progressive stranglehold on Puget Sound politics. Republicans here aren't even really Republicans. They are career politicians and lawyers who will flip parties at will (Pope), or do anything needed to stay in the good graces of those who control the reigns of power. It's funny because on the left, there was all this praise for Maleng, which translated, could easily be summed up as: "He never rocked the boat."

Satterberg has his eyes on the Maleng legacy. A comfy legal job, that gives him a politician's role, without ever having to deal with the dirtiness of leftist attacks from the likes of HorsesAss if he dares do anything "conservative."

The law? What's that? What matters to all of these smarmy lawyers, is a a lifelong take from the trough.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 24, 2007 09:23 AM
25. Rafael:

Technical registration snafus and other misc. are NOT illegal votes or illegal voters.

But they are an open invitation to such, especially when we have a Democratic legislature that actively campaigns against our collective ability to challenge illegal registrations.


Pudge, you like to toss felony accusations around like gumdrops. That creates a lack of respect for the law.

Um. Wow. You have things completely backwards. The people decide what the law should be. When that law is ignored by law enforcement, THAT is what creates a lack of respect for the law.


I cling to education and warnings and other attempts to correct this and that, using goodwill, and persuasion and thinking.

That is nonsense. They are educated. They have all been warned, every single one of them, when they signed their name.


Benjamin:

... do you support felony prosecution for everyone who is illegally registered with no notification at all?

They have all been notified, every single one of them, when they signed their name.


Of course this would represent a great deterrent. But if you've spent enough time fiddling with the voter rolls, you'll know the sheer number of people illegally registered at businesses.

Yes. That is why such a great deterrent is necessary.


That's a lot of new felons, most of whom are probably guilty of not thinking about the legalistic meaning of "Washington Resident Address" (which is all the form has to say about the matter).

No, that is not true. You have not looked very closely. When you sign your name, you declare that "I will have lived in Washington state at this address for thirty days immediately before the next election at which I vote ... ."

Don't tell me there's any reasonable confusion about that for normal people. If you can honestly make the case you did not understand the phrase about living at this address, because you have some significant mental retardation or somesuch, fine. Otherwise, ignorance is no excuse, because it is just far too plainly obvious.


The Geezer: see RCW 29A.08.112.

Posted by: pudge on October 24, 2007 09:23 AM
26. And let me translate the Progressive doublespeak of Satterberg for anyone who is confused:

The difference between the Balogh case and this one from Parvaz is that Balogh had the guts to become and example and make poor authentication of the elections system look as foolish as it is, and she's just an average Jane conservative citizen. Whereas if we attacked Parvaz, then we'd really be confronting a voice of media power, that would probably raise a huge stink, and make us look really bad. So, instead, we'll just look the other way, and regurgitate some equivalency to attempt to fend off folks like Sharkansky."

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 24, 2007 09:35 AM
27. Jeff B said:

"Satterberg has his eyes on the Maleng legacy. A comfy legal job, that gives him a politician's role, without ever having to deal with the dirtiness of leftist attacks from the likes of HorsesAss if he dares do anything "conservative."

The law? What's that? What matters to all of these smarmy lawyers, is a a lifelong take from the trough."

I have to leave, so I will respond later.

But, what exactly is your point, three weeks before an election? Do you think that you suddenly will get a new choice of candidates.
Do you think that someone who could get elected in a strong Republican county in Texas is actually going to get elected in King County?

I don't belong to either party, but I think that one of the things that deters corruption is a strong two-party system. People have to run in this time and space and not some idealized utopia that exists only in your imagination. In some parts of the country, conservative democrats are acceptable. Zell Miller was a very successful dem in Georgia. Unless your ideological test for purity is so strong that you never want your party elected to any office, you will have to run in the locale where the election is held.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 09:36 AM
28. pudge,

I suppose we'll have to respectfully disagree about this. I just don't think Joe Citizen considers all the full ramifications when signing a voter registration form. Not everyone thinks of it as a contract as you (very rightfully) do. I think that's a shame, but creating thousands (that is what it would be - trust me, there are a LOT of business registrations) of new felons because of this seems excessively punitive to me. I grant you, though, that legally, you have very solid ground to stand on. I just support more discretion in the approach than you do.

Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on October 24, 2007 09:50 AM
29. WVH:

You said:
"Now, to illustrate how stupid ideologues like you are. Are you now suggesting you will have to vote for Sherman because Satterburg lacks integrity as a prosecutor? You idiot.

As an outsider and an indie, I observe the machinations of both parties. On both sides, the ideologues are so driven that they leave their common sense at home. My theory is that the site owner is a friend of Ms. Sotelo and felt that the return of the donation was both a personal affront and a hit to her reputation. So, we have a couple of threads about the lack of options in the race. The bottom line is the parties served up two candidates, you can either pick one of them or write in Micky Mouse. You, idiot deserve the choice you make. Of the options, the better choice is Satterburg. So, get over it already."


First you complain about everyone being idealogically driven and then complain because Stefan "eats one of his own". You are just a damn complainer who doesn't add ANYTHING to the process.

Calling yourself an "indie" means you stand for nothing, and given your posting history you are decidedly leftist. I can't blame you for not wanting to call yourself a liberal aka "progressive" because you realize how indefensible that makes your silly statements.


If you don't like the choices, get your butt on the ballot and stop your complaining. There aren't any hooks in your ass preventing your from running.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 10:18 AM
30. WVH - In your ongoing vendetta against Stefan, you totally ignored his point. No matter who the hell is running, D,R or "Indie" they damn well should enforce the law. That Stefan would not hold back on his criticism just because Satterberg is an "R" proves his integrity.

But you were too busy engaging in the personal attacks which you so "abhor" from other "idealogues" like yourself.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 10:27 AM
31. WVH, you made my point in your latest response. The issue is that there is too much ideological homogeneity here in the Sound. I'm not expecting Texas, but like Stefan and most of the SP commenters, we are not going to sit by idly and not mention the hypocrisy and dangers of such far left groupthink that pervades this region and prevents precisely the kind of two party ideas that you are supposedly espousing.

The point is that Satterberg should apply the law equally, regardless of party or the political ramifications and intentions of different election law cases. As it is, we basically have a don't ask don't tell registration system that allows any normally anonymous voter to register wherever they want, thus completely nullifying the paper thin authentication on which the system is based.

If all we are going to do to secure voter registration is rely on trust of the voter's residence affidavit, and we don't then vigorously challenge ALL variances that come to light, then there is zero real authentication to protect against fraud. And so we get what we saw in 2004, which is many mailbox and storage facility votes, that influenced the totals, and that no one will ever really know if they were double votes, or simply people who can't read basic instructions or have no regard for laws that they believe won't be enforced anyway.

Dan Satterberg makes is clear that there won't be any attempt to enforce the law in such ambiguous cases. And so if we have another close election, it will once again be sort of an arbitrary outcome within some margin of error that we really can't determine. If we are going to do such a poor job of administering election law, then we ought to at least save the taxpayers the recount dollars and flip a coin instead to decide the outcome.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 24, 2007 11:12 AM
32. Hello pbj:

Indies stand for quite a bit, they just don't like the current party apartatus which run to its logical conclusion often denies common sense.

You said:

"given your posting history you are decidedly leftist. I can't blame you for not wanting to call yourself a liberal aka "progressive" because you realize how indefensible that makes your silly statements."

Idiot, I doubt if you have read much of what I have posted. I have been posting here for about a year. There is a body of work, I suggest you read it. I support children's health care, so if you came in on that thread, I suppose you have one view. I continue to support children's health care, but on a host of issues my philosophy is more akin to Zell Miller's. I suppose idiots like you think he is a flaming liberal too.


You said:

"If you don't like the choices, get your butt on the ballot and stop your complaining. There aren't any hooks in your ass preventing your from running."

Twit, I never said I didn't like the choices. I'm voting for Satterburg, what about you idiot?

You said:

"WVH - In your ongoing vendetta against Stefan, you totally ignored his point. No matter who the hell is running, D,R or "Indie" they damn well should enforce the law. That Stefan would not hold back on his criticism just because Satterberg is an "R" proves his integrity."

Now, lame brain, what leads to the conclusion I have a vendetta against Stefan. Because I said he should get over it? I still say he should get over it. Other than comments on this particular topic, I really don't recall saying much of any thing about Stefan. I will say something now. Stefan is a republican partisan, so what. There are plenty of democratic partisans which are equally committed to their cause and their ideology. Partisans are just that, they attempt to advance their perceived cause by any means. Because I asked the questions why are you eating your own and what are the other parts of the puzzle you equate that with a vendetta against Stefan. Oh, grow up.


Now, as for running for something, not interested. My interests are in seeing that poor children receive a good basic education and that is where I spend my time. Too, bad some one didn't spend time with you in that department.

For some one who is so opinionated and so sure that they are correct, my but aren't we a wee bit touchy.
ta. ta.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 11:49 AM
33. Jeff B:

You said:

"WVH, you made my point in your latest response. The issue is that there is too much ideological homogeneity here in the Sound. I'm not expecting Texas, but like Stefan and most of the SP commenters, we are not going to sit by idly and not mention the hypocrisy and dangers of such far left groupthink that pervades this region and prevents precisely the kind of two party ideas that you are supposedly espousing."

Ok, there is too much ideological homogeneity in the Sound. On a practical level, what do you intend to do about it? First, I don't belong to your party, so I won't be making any decisions. Just curious, what do you and the others think should happen in this current election? Should Satterburg lose and then you would have the opportunity to remake the party more to your ideologicl liking? I can assure you that should he lose this election, you probably won't have a chance for this office for the next twenty or so years and probably King County will be solidly in democratic hands for the foreseeable future. There is a good chance that presidential elections for the foreseable future will be decided for the democrats because of the huge population advantage of King County.

Now, from a practical standpoint, what is your plan for this election? Do you plan to vote against Satterburg to make the point that you don't like the way he excercises prosecutorial discretion? You said you don't want to sit idly by. OK, do you have a plan that will attract voters to your party and your ideology? Unfortunately, every party if they are to remain viable has to win elections, otherwise there will be one party run and I don't think you will like that better.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 12:02 PM
34. WVH said:

"Now, as for running for something, not interested. My interests are in seeing that poor children receive a good basic education and that is where I spend my time. Too, bad some one didn't spend time with you in that department."


In other words, you are too lazy to get off yoru ass and run. Thanks for clearing that up.

Once again, you did not answer my point that you complain about idealogues and then go after Stefan when he criticizes a Republican. Instead, you just chose to throw out petty childish names. You must be a public school employee. No wonder you are so narrow minded.


WVH said:

"For some one who is so opinionated and so sure that they are correct, my but aren't we a wee bit touchy. ta. ta. "

Dude, you are the one hurling the childish schoolyard insults. I think you need to attend anger management. Does the WEA offer that under your plan? Washington State does cover mental health now so I do hope you get help. Ta.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 01:35 PM
35. WVH said:

"Now, lame brain, what leads to the conclusion I have a vendetta against Stefan. Because I said he should get over it? I still say he should get over it. Other than comments on this particular topic, I really don't recall saying much of any thing about Stefan. I will say something now. Stefan is a republican partisan, so what. There are plenty of democratic partisans which are equally committed to their cause and their ideology. Partisans are just that, they attempt to advance their perceived cause by any means. Because I asked the questions why are you eating your own and what are the other parts of the puzzle you equate that with a vendetta against Stefan. Oh, grow up."

Stefan may be partisan, be he doesn't let that drive his reaction to violations of the election laws. His criticism of Satterberg is evidence of this - something apparently a "lame brain" such as yourself is unable to comprehend.

Everyone should be outraged by King County's conduct in that last election - even "indies" that stand for nothing such as yourself. Felons voting, "finding" votes long after the count has occurred. Bogus registrations. Is that truly how you wish to run our electorial process?

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 01:42 PM
36. WVH said (LINK: http://blog.usefulwork.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=9459 ):

" I am an indie, so I suppose that I am not supposed to get it. I actually do vote for Micky Mouse and I have voted twice for Nader. I think I may vote for him again, anyone heard from him, is he still alive?"


Anyone that votes for Nader and then tries to come back and claim he or she is not leftwing is a 60's leftover that didn't give up the weed. "Indie", yeah right dude.

Posted by: pbj on October 24, 2007 02:05 PM
37. And WVH, you want to know what motivates Stefan in critiquing Satterberg? Why don't you read his own words "> from the Postman Blog on the subject:

"My critique of Satterberg has been about judgment and principles, not about partisanship or lack thereof."

Posted by:
pbj on October 24, 2007 02:44 PM
38. "I've found Satterberg to be decent, fair, accessible and a highly competent public servant, one of the best we have. I can't say I've agreed with everything the Prosecuting Attorney's Office has done while he was its chief of staff, but he's been forthright and honest when asked to explain the office's decisions."

Posted by: Come On' Stefan on October 24, 2007 03:33 PM
39. "Come On' Stefan":
he's been forthright and honest when asked to explain the office's decisions.
I believed that at the time that I wrote it. I wouldn't say that he's consistently lived up to that since then.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 24, 2007 03:46 PM
40. Pbj:

1. I vote for Nader because he is in effect none of the above, the same with Micky Mouse. Before I would vote for some one like you, I would vote for Micky Mouse. It says nothing about my beliefs other than I don't like idiots.

2. Tou quoted and said:

""Now, as for running for something, not interested. My interests are in seeing that poor children receive a good basic education and that is where I spend my time. Too, bad some one didn't spend time with you in that department."


In other words, you are too lazy to get off yoru ass and run. Thanks for clearing that up."

It has nothing to do with lazy. I have been lucky enough to have had a very privledged life, it has to do with giving back. The reason everyone posts on this site is they have an agenda, including you, birdbrain. Yeh, you mean there is politics going on in this establishment, well duh. Here is my agenda making sure that poor children have a good basic education. That will come about through competition in education and that will include a variety of tools including vouchers and charter schools. Since a major consituency in the dem party is education unions, the push will come from republicans unless there is a Nixon goes to China scenario and some dem breaks ranks. So, I have no interest in running for office, my interest is in education.

3. Now, I am an independent because I actually try to analyze each issue and I will vote for quality candidates of either party. You don't understand the concept of none of the above which is the subject of a prior thread. We don't have a none of the above option, I've created my own protest, that is what indies do, unlike some brain dead ideologues. Too bad you have just one note to play, that of the angry and uninformed ideologue.

Posted by: WVH on October 24, 2007 09:39 PM
41. WVH:

Once again you totally avoid answering my point. Stefan should never "get over it". Undermining Democracy by thwarting the will of the people through ballot manipulation, such as occurred at KCE, is an affront to all thinking people (no wonder it doesn't bother you). So why you are asking your butler for more Grey Poupon, others are out actually trying to DO something to change things. Stefan is one of those people. The best you can do is hop online and start criticizing.

Do you think the piss poor state of our education system will EVER change if the corrupt Tamany Hall style politics of the Democrats is allowed to continue? Or do you just prefer to sip your champagne from a golden goblet in your Ivory tower, an past yourself on the back while you repeat the same tired phrases to make you feel good about yourself? You are too damn lazy to run for anything and take responsibility.

Posted by: pbj on October 25, 2007 09:39 AM
42. Pbj:

1. First, your lameness how is the will of the people thwarted by the failure to prosecute one case? The bigger issue is reforming the actual election system, making sure the internal procedures are correct and that the individual actully in charge of the office is non-partisan and runs the office with integrity.

2. I support a vigorous two-party system because all areas that I am of aware of where there is one-party rule have a measure of corruption and that is true of both parties.

3. You are not going to prevent corrupt one-party rule here by, in my opinion, electing Sherman. In my opinion, he will sucumb to the politicization of the office and you will get the very thing that you fear.

4. I think that you are a follower who is not questioning your leader enough on this one and yes, I still think Stefan should get over it.

5. I think the education system can be made effective, but it will take massive institutional change and that it where I choose to spend my time.

6. You said:

" You are too damn lazy to run for anything and take responsibility"

You keep repeating the lazy statement, any clue how I spend my time or is this just how you view all people of color? I have read a wonderful book by Rick Warren, maybe you have heard of it-It is called the Purpose Driven Life. It is not the purpose of everyone to run for office, that doesn't make them lazy, it just means that their talents are better used elsewhere. I am an educator. Maybe you should read this book.

Stefan still should get over it.

Posted by: WVH on October 25, 2007 10:01 AM
43. Benjamin:

I suppose we'll have to respectfully disagree about this. I just don't think Joe Citizen considers all the full ramifications when signing a voter registration form. Not everyone thinks of it as a contract as you (very rightfully) do. I think that's a shame, but creating thousands (that is what it would be - trust me, there are a LOT of business registrations) of new felons because of this seems excessively punitive to me.

The problem is that if we want people to take it seriously, the way you do that is by taking it seriously. And I think that not taking it seriously only makes people disrespect the law even more: Parvaz is a great example of that. She knows the government doesn't take it seriously, so she doesn't. And if Parvaz is not held accountable, that will cause MORE people to not take it seriously.

The solution is to take it seriously.

Posted by: pudge on October 25, 2007 12:20 PM
44. 1. First, your lameness how is the will of the people thwarted by the failure to prosecute one case? The bigger issue is reforming the actual election system, making sure the internal procedures are correct and that the individual actully in charge of the office is non-partisan and runs the office with integrity.

Well, your ignorance, it is not "one case". If you actually had a brain, you'd KNOW that this same KCE crookedness goes back to the Cantwell Gordon race. Perhaps if we had dealt with it THEN instead of just ignoring it, as your magnanimous ignoramus suggests, the 2004 debacle wouldn't have happened, Rossi would be governor and the "mission to get poor children quality education" would be closer to being accomplished as Rossi isn't beholden to the teacher unions.

"2. I support a vigorous two-party system because all areas that I am of aware of where there is one-party rule have a measure of corruption and that is true of both parties."

Yeah and I support world peace, wtf has that to do with the conversation???

"You are not going to prevent corrupt one-party rule here by, in my opinion, electing Sherman. In my opinion, he will sucumb to the politicization of the office and you will get the very thing that you fear."

Beg pardon Sir Ignoramus, has ANYONE said that they want Sherman elected? Please post the links where this has been said.


"I think that you are a follower who is not questioning your leader enough on this one and yes, I still think Stefan should get over it."

Sir Ignoramus, Iggy for short, you don't think. That is the problem. Stefan can criticize ANY politician no matter the party even if that is his OWN party. You are the one that needs to get over it, not Stefan. It is called the first amendment - get over it already.


"I think the education system can be made effective, but it will take massive institutional change and that it where I choose to spend my time."

Please tell us all what "institutional changes" you have made.


"You keep repeating the lazy statement, any clue how I spend my time or is this just how you view all people of color?"

Self identifying yourself as a minority isn't going to get you any sympathy or a pass for your ignorant posts. Playing the race card is something you should go try over at HA, not SP. Don't expect to substitute the race card for sound argument here.

"I have read a wonderful book by Rick Warren, maybe you have heard of it-It is called the Purpose Driven Life. "

Oooh , you read a book over Brie and Champagne. Do you want an award for it?

I am still waiting to hear what institutional changes you have made that can match what a State Governor has the power to accomplish.

"I am an educator. Maybe you should read this book."

Good lord, they haven't let you loose on young minds have they? As an "educator" it might help if you were educated. Succumb has two c's not one. You are a textbook example of someone who shouldn't be let near a young mind.


Posted by: pbj on October 25, 2007 03:38 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?