The Democrats are sending out lies about Republicans, on behalf of Democrat Geoff Simpson -- like Fred Walser and Liz Loomis before him. This piece of slime is accusing Mark Hargrove of accepting a donation from a sex offender.
That's pretty terrible stuff, but at least the basic facts are true, that such a contribution did come in. Implying that the fact that someone donated $100 to him means he is bad on combatting sex offenders is clearly dishonest, but it's what the WA Democrats do these days.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 26, 2008 05:04 PM | Email ThisThen, the offenders must register with local county sheriffs and keep their registration up to date.
It would appear to me that the problem is two fold - 1. when an offender fails to keep their registration up to date with the sheriff in the county they first registered - which doesn't seem to be the fault of the Governor. 2. when an offender moves to a new county and doesn't register with the sheriff in that new county - which looks like it might be a missing link in the law.
However, there also appear to be times when an offender is also subject to state monitoring - that might be the governor's fault if adequate effort is not being made to keep track of offenders.
Seems the number of offenders not being adequately tracked is down in the last four years - should be easy enough in four years to see how the "next" governor performs in this regard.
Seems this election cycle has set the bar for tracking offenders much higher - great - let's see what the next governor can do.
Posted by: BA on October 26, 2008 06:20 PMActually, I did defend Ron Paul from such attacks. I didn't post a story about it, but I bothered for this one because no one else is reporting this story about a local politician. The Ron Paul thing was widely discussed elsewhere.
Posted by: pudge on October 26, 2008 09:04 PMI agree that we can't consider someone guilty just based on charges (that have since been dropped, no less), which is why, when I wrote this article, I did not mention the charges against Simpson, nor did I mention the dropped charges against Loomis' supporter (only the substantiated charge of using a police computer).
However, I certainly cannot take YOUR word for anything either, since nothing you say -- including that you know the Simpson family, but more importantly, that his wife made anything up -- can be verified. Your say-so surely does not give us any firsthand knowledge.
Simpson is running for office and unless he comes clean with the whole story, he invites people to come to their own conclusions.
You like to Off-Road? (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 27, 2008 09:23 AMWhere's the lie? Or is your post in itself a lie? And does that make you the liar?
Hargrove took money from an online sex predator and kept it after he found out the guy was charged with 7 felonies for trying to have sex with a teenage girl.
And you're whining about the Democrats? This Hargrove character must be a real piece of slime.
Posted by: Just Wonderin' on October 27, 2008 09:48 AMYou're a good reader.
Where's the lie?
Oops, I take it back. You're not a good reader at all. I explicitly stated what the lie was. I will repeat it here, verbatim, in the hopes that this time you won't miss it: Implying that the fact that someone donated $100 to him means he is bad on combatting sex offenders is clearly dishonest.
Hope that helps! Have a nice day!
Posted by: pudge on October 27, 2008 09:54 AMHargrove is supported by a sex offender. And Hargrove knew he was supported by a sex offender and did nothing about it.
If you knew you had gotten money from a middle aged man who tried to fly across the country to have sex with a 13 year old girl for your political campaign, would you have kept it?
If you want to be seen as a liar, you are succeeding.
Where's the lie in Simpson's mailer?
Posted by: Just Wonderin' on October 27, 2008 10:01 AMAgain, you've already been told.
The mailer says, "... we need a state representative who cracks down on sex offenders. Not a politician supported by one."
The mailer directly implies that the fact that someone donated $100 to him means he is bad on combatting sex offenders. That's a lie.
Seriously, what is your problem that you can't read English sentences?
Posted by: pudge on October 27, 2008 10:12 AMSimpson's apparently been cracking down on sex offenders in the legislature. Hargrove is a politician who is supported by a sex offender.
But the mailer "implies" something that you, as a partisan hack think might be wrong.
I don't recall ever reading an entry where you complain about what Dino or the BIAW "imply" about Gregoire, much less one in which you call them liars.
So who's the liar Pudge?
Posted by: Just Wonderin' on October 27, 2008 10:20 AMLet me simplify. The presidential, legislative and governor races all have paid financial and treasurers. But, these tiny state offices? Usually, the financing is run by the candidate or an unpaid friend/volunteer. No way and no how does a person have the wherewithal or the time to delve into the source of their contributions. However, company donations or other PAC contributions are quite noticeable. An individual donor? Hardly. I never checked on the mom and pop donor and did a criminal or other background check. Give it a rest.
Posted by: swatter on October 27, 2008 10:34 AMNo. It implies something that is a clear logical fallacy. It's a lie. It asserts that "IF A, THEN B" is true, even though A is logically unrelated to B.
I don't recall ever reading an entry where you complain about what Dino or the BIAW "imply" about Gregoire, much less one in which you call them liars.
I know of no examples where Dino or the BIAW implied anything false about Gregoire. If you have an example, let me know. I do know of many lies told by Gregoire against Rossi, however. But I am open to hearing of the opposite.
However, I did criticize an anti-Obama ad for what I said was a false implication about Obama, even though I agreed with the substance of the issue. I attacked a CNN piece that was unfair to Obama. I've also, in other venues, complained about other anti-Obama pieces and arguments.
And again, I didn't attack Simpson for his dropped charges, or Loomis' endorser for his.
I think my record on being fair is pretty good ... and far better than any of our local neighbors on the left.
So who's the liar Pudge?
You and the Democrats who put out or defend this dishonest piece.
Mark Hargrove took money from a sex predator and failed to send the money back to disavow association with him ("IF A") so;
Hargrove will be weak on sex offenders ("THEN B")?
I read it to say that Hargrove took money from a sick (but not so unusual) GOP pervert who flew all the way across the country to have sex with what he thought was a girl who was barely old enough to be in junior high school and failed to return it ("IF A"),
so Mark Hargrove's campaign is supported by a sex predator because Hargrove, who knew the truth about his soulmate Andrew Franz didn't return the money ("THEN B").
I'd list the dozens of examples of Rossi's lies about Gregoire but fail to see the point if you can't even admit that your post in this case is a lie.
Once again - where's the lie the Democrats told about Hargrove? Oh, that's right - there isn't one. Liar.
Posted by: Just Wonderin' on October 27, 2008 12:43 PMHows about you naming just one. Not dozens. One.
Ready ... go!
Posted by: jimg on October 27, 2008 01:23 PM