Sound Politics: The Evidence Against Fred Walser

August 17, 2008

The Evidence Against Fred Walser

I realize that not everyone has followed all that we've written about Democratic Senate candidate Fred Walser, and we've written so much, and made so many serious claims, that some people think that some of what we've said isn't true (some have claimed it's a bunch of lies). I assure you, every word we've claimed is true.

But it is, of course, understandable that people want to see the evidence without digging through the thousands of words we've written, so here's a summary of the major claims, with direct links and quotations. If there's anything in there you believe is not well-sourced enough, or if you have any questions, please let me know, and I will provide whatever information is required.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at August 17, 2008 11:36 PM | Email This

Comments

1. His infractions are apparently minor and all seem to be linked to sexual (mis)conduct.

Hey, he's a Dem - this expected behavior. Doesn't this qualify him for higher office. Why is he only running for State Senate?

Posted by: deadwood on August 17, 2008 11:51 PM

2. Pudge is wrong. Fred Walser did not sue the City of Sultan. He merely filed a tort claim, which is a prerequisite for suing the government. No lawsuit was ever filed in any court.

If I made this kind of factual error, Pudge would call me a LIAR and say that everything else that I said in the given post should be disregarded.

Posted by: Richard Pope on August 18, 2008 12:46 PM

3. Distinction without a difference in the context. He called it a lawsuit, and the mayor called it a lawsuit, and KIRO TV called it a lawsuit.

Fine, he filed a "$10m civil claim." If you think this makes an actual difference to the point -- that Walser attempted to extract $10m from the City of Sultan for HIS wrongdoing -- you're the only one.

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 01:02 PM

4. Nope, I think he was just pointing out someone's legal abilities, expecially after the hammering Pope receiving from said "legal" beagle.

Posted by: swatter on August 18, 2008 01:08 PM

5. Correction made. And Richard, you are a lawyer, you make these kinds of "errors" all the time, and you almost never correct them. And often, it is clear that you do it intentionally, such as when you asserted that Jane Hague had received a jail sentence, when you obviously knew she had not, since anyone with even a passing knowledge of criminal law should have known that. Now that IS a big difference.

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 01:08 PM

6. Pudge, you asked if any item wasn't sourced enough, or if there were questions.

Why not just do the correction that he filed a tort claim, making the information more accurate than it was before, and be done with it.

Never had an editor?

Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 01:23 PM

7. "BA":

Fifteen minutes after I said I made the correction, you asked why I don't make the correction?

Really?

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 02:14 PM

8. swatter, no, he wasn't. I do not attack Richard Pope for making irrelevant "errors," but highly relevant ones. So by comparing his response to my error (which was repeated by the Mayor, KIRO, and Walser himself) to my responses to his many "errors," he was saying that my error was relevant, when obviously it is barely of any significance.

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 02:18 PM

9. You said that you'd made the correction. I was commenting on the paragraph following your statement that you'd made the correction.

Graciousness when you're responding to criticism is a sign of maturity.

Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 02:32 PM

10. The bottom Line is this POS took the fith ammendment on a depossesion when questioned conserning his duties he performed as a Police Officer that was sworn to protect the city we was employed by. Does this give you a clue about his integerty. Is this the type of person you want representing you in the Washington State Senate?

Jimbo

Posted by: Jimbo on August 18, 2008 03:10 PM

11. The bottom Line is this POS took the fith ammendment on a depossesion when questioned conserning his duties he performed as a Police Officer that was sworn to protect the city we was employed by. Does this give you a clue about his integerty. Is this the type of person you want representing you in the Washington State Senate?

Jimbo

Posted by: Jimbo on August 18, 2008 03:11 PM

12. BA: what you say was not "graciousness when you're responding to criticism" was, in fact, not a response to the correction itself, but the other things he said, and the tone he used, so your criticism of me is quite misapplied.

Jimbo: no, he certainly is not!

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 03:16 PM

13. The facts about Walser are compelling and disturbing. Even Democrats need be leery of Fred Walser as it is clear he has no problem stabbing a fellow Dem in the back to get what he wants. He certainly did it to Patrick Murphy. Imagine Walser's mindset and evil methods at the Senate level. He is clearly not a team player nor a leader. The Democrats need to understand this guy is a cancer within their own ranks.

Walser has "Trouble" stamped all over him!

Posted by: Valentina Heart of a Lion on August 18, 2008 03:19 PM

14. Pudge, you've made my point.

Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 03:20 PM

15. BA:

So when you said I should accept the correction graciously, you meant I should also accept Pope's personal attacks graciously? Really? That's what you meant? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it. Feel free to clarify, kthx.

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 03:25 PM

16. I'm not your mother, so what you choose to do is your business and not mine.

I know though that when I ask an employee to correct something, I don't what a long story as to why its wrong.

I try to resist doing that when I'm wrong and need to correct something too. The tit for tat seems to generate a lot of smoke, and not much light.

Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 05:54 PM

17. BA: Do you abuse your employee when you correct him?

If you did, would you find it reasonable if he responded in kind?

If not, wow, I am glad I am not your employee. If so, then you have no issue with me.

Either way, I don't really care what you think. I just find it odd that you criticized me for something I didn't do -- you said I didn't take a correction with graciousness, when it was not the correction itself that I was responding to, that you disliked -- and then you pretended you didn't do that.

Whatever, man. You're not my mother, but even if you were, I wouldn't accept that nonsense from her, either.

Posted by: pudge on August 18, 2008 06:05 PM

18. Whatever Pudge.

Posted by: BA on August 18, 2008 07:03 PM

19. BA, pudge has every right to rip Pope up, down and sideways. Pope is the biggest idiot I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with. Go ahead, Google his name. The Republicans hate him. The Democrats hate him. Women hate him. Judges hate him. It's a surprise he hasn't been tossed in the can for contempt. He trolls this blog nitpicking at every t that isn't crossed or i that isn't dotted when he himself, in all the BS he writes, doesn't even write in English.

Posted by: WFP on August 19, 2008 07:59 AM