Decmoratic State Senate candidate Fred Walser was in the Washington State Patrol for 28 years. Let's review his final few years at the Washington State Patrol and let his superiors speak, from Walser's own personnel records. For example:
"Your actions ... cost the department and the Snohomish Police Department several thousand dollars, lessened the public's confidence in the department's operation and training, and was motivated by your friendship to Patrick Slack, Sr."
"Fred has made serious allegations resulting in no significant findings. Fred's credibility will be affected by this action."
"It is my opinion that Fred's motives are completely self-serving without regard to the internal damage his allegation causes."
"Fred's self-discipline, integrity and conduct are in doubt."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Email ThisGrander aspirations in bringing this out and staying on it like a pit bull.
Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2008 11:51 AMOr, were these part of an action that made them lose confidentiality?
I'm surprised this is possible.
Posted by: BA on August 22, 2008 12:40 PMNote that some significant portions of what I received was redacted, which implies a public records request, such as a record of all recent personnel changes (when Walser was promoted to sergeant, I think), which had all names but Walser's blanked out.
Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2008 12:43 PMThey look authentic, and the risk of disseminating forged documents makes the cost exceed any political benefits.
I'm surprised that they're available though.
Posted by: BA on August 22, 2008 01:05 PM Are you talking about Dan Rather?
BA: I scanned them in myself, and gave them filenames. OTOH, I am the 39th GOP chair, so you could say that they do come from the Republican Party, since they come from me!
I am just curious. There just has to be ulterior motives, but then again, it just may be the "pugilist" not being able to "let go". This character trait is not a good one for the party to be condoning.
Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2008 01:35 PMThat said, given what else I've read about this race anything new doesn't seem to add anything that should change one's mind now if they've made up their mind with the information out there.
Maybe enough is enough in terms of throwing more details out there. Reading one of the evaluations, there are a lot of quotes that are as positive as the negative ones pulled out.
It wouldn't be politics if we behaved like our mothers taught us now would it.
Posted by: BA on August 22, 2008 02:24 PMReading one of the evaluations, there are a lot of quotes that are as positive as the negative ones pulled out.
Of course Fred wasn't flawed in every single possible way. Find me any person you dislike and see if I can't find many positive things to say about them, that you would agree with.
Last month we found out that a woman in Arlington, that everyone had glowing things to say about, had embezzled over $775K from the city. Oh, and she had an illegal marijuana business. But hey, she was punctual and worked hard!
I don't see how pointing out that Fred Walser was a hard worker in any way ameliorates his many flaws.
Maybe you had another point and I missed it.
It wouldn't be politics if we behaved like our mothers taught us now would it.
You seem to imply you think I am doing something wrong. I don't see it that way at all. Fred Walser would make an absoultely terrible Senator and I am trying to save myself and my family and my district from him, and I am doing it by spreading truth about him. How is this bad, in any way?
Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2008 02:52 PMI don't think that spreading truth is always a good defense though - sometimes the truth is irrelevant or hurtful to others that don't sign up for the scrutiny.
It never ceases to amaze me how we often end up with poor choices in our political races, from either side of the aisle. I'm not defending Waiser (I don't vote in this race) you'd think there must be a more qualified candidate from his party - and a more competitive race would serve the community more.
I don't think that spreading truth is always a good defense though - sometimes the truth is irrelevant or hurtful to others that don't sign up for the scrutiny.
Sure. But that's obviously not the case here, since his flaws I am highlighting all speak directly to his ability to function as a Senator, and he certainly signed up for the scrutiny. Maybe it hurts his family and so on, but he should have thought of that before he ran for office with his clear record of "unbecoming behavior."
If he shuts down his campaign, I'll stop posting the truth about his flaws. I am not interested in harming Walser, I am only interested in making sure he doesn't become my Senator.
you'd think there must be a more qualified candidate from his party - and a more competitive race would serve the community more.
Probably. But if I do say so myself, I think the work we're doing is a big part of the reason why it is apparently not competitive.
Stevens is winning the primary with a bigger percentage than both Reps. Pearson and Kristiansen ... and Pearson, who is extremely well-liked in the 39th, doesn't even have a real candidate opposing him (second election in a row the Dems have not backed an opponent to him). But Stevens still has more of the vote than Pearson does. Two no-name, no-money, no-chance Rep. candidates have more of the vote than Walser does.
And this is abnormal. They targetted Stevens because they thought she was vulnerable, because she typically polls UNDER both Kristiansen and Pearson (in 2004, she got 54 percent to Dan's 56 and Kirk's 60). Now she's got 58, with Kirk 56 and Dan 54. Obviously, you can't compare 2004 general to 2008 primary, but you can compare somewhat how well these three did in each relative to each other.
So the word's getting out, obviously, because there's little other reason to explain why she would be doing much better than Kirk and Dan. And I am not going to stop until it's actually over. Apart from the Monroe and Sultan papers, the rest of the district doesn't really get any information about Walser, other than the web sites and the mailer, so we're likely having an effect here.
Note that I am not doing this sort of thing against other Dems in my district. It's not about making stuff or digging up dirt to win. This is about how Fred Walser is a terrible candidate for Senate and if I did nothing and he won, I would feel completely awful, and largely responsible for that.
Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2008 04:09 PMHow can we have a lawbreaker making laws? What would keep him from betraying confidences and acting in the interests of his friends/family rather than the 39th?
This information is important and needed to see the light of day.
I will remind everyone that when Patrick Murphy ran for office, Fred Walser was one of the most aggressive people in trying to tack misdeeds on Patrick.
Patrick suffered greatly at Walser's hands, knowing fully what kind of a man Walser was.
Isn't is ironic that Walser,the person who most wanted to see Murphy prosecuted, IS guilty of many of the things he falsely accused Murphy of? The truth is seeing the light of day.
I'm just sorry that Patrick wasn't able to be here to see the truth finally be told.
Posted by: peppermintmom on August 22, 2008 05:50 PMThe Dem's always bring in these people with backgrounds that suck. Why people don't stand up and say NO is way beyond me.
You as a BIS owner should known better, has the dem's ever helped your company???
I came from family who parents owned a carpet and watched as CALIF kill their company....
I don't get it Swatter?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 22, 2008 06:37 PMNow, some jurisdictions give it more easily.
I got the goods on all three candidates for Kingco Sheriff two years ago. She-riff Sue Rahr gave up more than was required, Seattle gave up way plenty on Greg Schmidt (who I supported) and the Kingco Sheriff gave up enough on Jim Fuda for me to determine that his diploma was from a diploma mill.
The public records act is a beautiful thing.
The Geezer
Fuda story about his diploma mill diploma here:
http://thespinmeister.blogspot.com/2005/09/blue-code-alive-and-well-with-jim.html
The information reported from the many documents posted by the Republicans has come from documents obtained via public disclosure requests. Many are from the various investigations.
Bear in mind, Walser refused to talk with investigators regarding the criminal charges against him. He refused to talk to investigators for a REASON. An innocent person would not hesitate to lay it all out for investigators so the truth is evident.
Unfortunately for Mr. Walser, he had some skeletons in his closet! His record do tell!
Posted by: Valentina Heart of a Lion on August 23, 2008 08:13 PM