You know, everybody assured me at the outset of this race that Dan Satterberg was a decent guy, but I dunno, this sort of statement sure does strike me as beyond disingenuous:
“It is ironic that I’m getting help from the Republican Party even though they are well aware of my desire to make the office nonpartisan. I do expect they would rather have me running a nonpartisan office than Mr. Sherman running a partisan office.”
“Ironic” huh? Really? Did he say that with a straight face? What sort of fucking idiots does he take us for?
I hate people who think they’re smarter than me, unless they really are. (And then, I only just mildly resent them.)
Goldy, did you set your clock back today? My computer says it is 8:12 a.m. right now, but your comment was posted at 9:02 a.m.
Anon @1,
Oops. I set my own clocks back, but hadn’t set the GMT adjustment on the blog. Fixed it.
@2…Goldy…
Please explain how Dan Satterberg was responsible for your clock malfunction…
The Piper
You are a fucking idiot Goldy. You crossed a line this time, and you just don’t see it. A libel suit would be the least of your worries. If you do not enjoy spending the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, I suggest you quit blogging and move back to cushy Bala Cynwyd. You have crossed the wrong people, and it will not take a nod from Mr. Satterberg or Mr. McKenna to throw the book at you if you ever come within one hundred feet of the criminal justice system. We are gunning for you and we always get our man. If you have ever lied about your income on a loan application, or missed a child support payment, or voted in the wrong precinct, or any other brush with the law, we will find it and bring you to justice. The day you get gang raped in prison is the day we will all have a good long laugh about how smart you think you are.
http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/11/4/10535/6670
I don’t understand the process, but what will happen if it’s found that Satterberg’s campaign violated state law?
If it’s too late for Sherman, maybe at least voters will remember this in 3 years.
@5…YP…
The irony? It’s not a violation of the law…it’s a violation of leftylynchmob thinking.
The only violation is against the egos of those who think theirs is the POV that should govern.
The Piper
YellowPup @5,
Well, the PDC could fine them about $3,000, or they could pass the case on to the AG’s office for higher penalties. Yeah. Like that’s gonna happen.
So essentially, nothing happens to Satterberg, the voters will forget about it, and the newspapers will refuse to report it three years hence because by then it will be “old news”, just like the Nuprecon case and the baby raper who got only 6 months. Old news. And Satterberg is so non-partisan, why dredge up that stuff?
Piper @6,
It IS against the law to earmark these contributions. And anybody who thinks that Skip Rowley didn’t give that final $50,000 for the express purpose of transferring it into the Satterberg campaign is a fool.
Goldy,
I certainly try not to make the difference in our respective intellects an issue between us.
4 Rhamnusia
Yeah, you’re pretty tough behind that keyboard, aren’t you? You better go before your mama finds you looking up porn again while posting on blogs.
4 – Welcome back Puddybud.
@7…Goldy…
You made the allegation…you prove that they contributions to the state party were earmarked…Evidence, evidence, evidence!!!
What you’re seeing is the flower of Sherman wilting like the weed it is; the guy is seen by PAO insiders as a menace, and by those on the outside as a demagogue and political hack.
But since he’s running as a Democrat he is without sin among politicians and blessed as being chief among the virutuous…like His Popiness, Richard XI (soon to be XII).
If this ain’t the political equivalent of an exploding cigar, I don’t know what is.
The Piper
Piper @11,
So what you’re saying is that despite the fact that we have a $700 contribution limit, it’s just dandy that Skip Rowley, Martin Selig and Bruce McCaw earmark a combined $100,000 to the Satterberg campaign, as long as they can get away with it? Essentially, their voices are more important than mine or yours, because they have lots of money?
Satterberg is running for fucking PAO for chrisakes! It shouldn’t be up to me to prove he broke law! He should be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety at any cost. Instead, he’s conspired with the likes of Rowley to buy this campaign, and the media stays quiet. No… the voters don’t deserve to have this information and judge it on their own.
Re: Goldy’s comment #7
This is the discouraging thing. People do unethical — and illegal — stuff because it works and because they can easily predict and manage the consequences. Break the law (or skirt it), win the prize, suffer the minor consequences.
Pour huge amounts of funds into a close campaign at the last minute, and you swing a bunch of votes. Even if it’s clearly illegal, all you get at the end is a fine.
The public forgets. It forgets partly because the Republican Party has cluttered the political scene with so many dirty tricks and smears that the impression is left in the public mind that all politicians cheat, lie, and steal and that both parties are equally shameful. The complex truth — that there really are differences between different candidates and between the parties — is lost. And later, when past bad behavior is brought up, it’s portrayed as pettiness or negative campaigning — or partisanship.
And so we move into 2008 with the possibility of a highly-partisan prosecutor who has shown that he refuses to investigate very clear appearances of illegal voter disenfranchisement — with races that are going to be close — and with a state and county GOP that has shown it wants to suppress the vote.
ok, somehow this darkness has got to dissipate. I know we have it in us, as human beings, to be much better than this. We’ve got to get publicly financed campaigns. Let the goodness in human nature shine through! But for now, get out the vote calls are needed for this campaign. Can anyone make them? They do make a difference in turnout….
Rhamnusia @4,
The Greek goddess of vengeance needs to hide her IP through a proxy server in Amsterdam? Who knew?
Eat me.
Rhamnusia,
You’re not doing anything for Republicans with a stupid post like that. Threats and innuendos such as yours are not shared among us in your party. Please fade away.
Piper: I took a look at your website. You might want to change the picture of yourself. It looks like you are choking the chicken.
Also, your tone of voice has descended into shrill stridency. I almost miss your Thurston Howell III mien.
@12…Goldy…
Same set of rules apply to Sherman and the Democratic Party…
So far you haven’t produced any EVIDENCE. What you have are OPINIONS, and those aren’t admissable.
As to appearance of impropriety? Based upon what I’ve heard from PAO attorneys and other employees, Sherman should be charged with impersonating competence then thrown into the bowels of the KC Jail in order to become acquainted with defendants that Satterberg’s office can try and convict but Sherman’s office would screw up and have released.
Conspiracy? Yeah, right! Like all these contributions were handed off on a grassy knoll in Big “D.”
EVIDENCE!!!
Just because it offends your liberal sensibilities to see a race upon which you pinned so much hope get shaky doesn’t make it a criminal matter. If the show were on the other foot, you’d be touting another story about how good Democrats are supporting the party who, in turn, is supporting good Democrat Sherman.
Problem is…Sherman ain’t to all that much support in the party!
Times are tough all over…
The Piper
@13…NM…
Unctuous breast-beating and obfuscation, like Goldy’s discovery of just how high, tight, and inside political pitches sometimes get, just make you sound like Miss Balbrick from the Porky’s movies.
“Darkness has got to dissipate…” You get that phrase from one of those bad writing contests? Was it a dark and stormy night?
So…tell me…how is anything the Republicans or Satterberg have done a violation of the law? And all that different from what Democrats do all the time?
The law allows exactly what happened. You don’t like what happened irrespective of the law, so you get on a high horse and decry the awfulness of it. Woe is you…woe is you!!!
Then you hide behind the age old vestige of political losers: publicly funded campaigns.
Your side can’t raise the dough, so now for all you want to ruin the show!
If you’re so outraged by the ostensible screwing being accorded to Bill Sherman, esq., then you pony up $50K to the Democratic party…Sell or mortgage your house, cash in your 401(k), hock granny’s jewelry, loot the kids college money…whatever it takes.
Still…your entertainment value is priceless…And we have an entire week to go!
The Piper
@16…Harry Poon/Pine…
It’s not a chicken, it’s a shrunken head.
I’ll take my shrill stridency over your fingernails on a chalk board any day.
Just to allay your concern? I’m having more fun with this than I would donating $100K to the Washington State Republican Party.
The Piper
Goldy @7 and noemie @13:
I have a Pollyannaish streak, but I have a feeling that in terms of remembering stuff like this in 3 years, time is on the side of the bloggers. The newspaper business is grinding down, and I wonder what the media landscape will look like at the end of the decade. There could be a lot more information sources about local politics by then to counteract the moribund political news establishment and its assumptions.
In terms of 08, if Rossi fizzles out as expected and Giuliani is on the ballot for president, maybe the races won’t be so close.
Best to call everyone we know, who hasn’t voted already, for Sherman in any case.
You still do not get it Goldy. We do not just know where you live, we know everywhere you have ever lived. Your whole life is discoverable. Everybody makes mistakes and you will pay the price for yours. Then maybe you will think twice before accusing others.
And, Piper, the entertainment value of watching a pompous ass like you squirming and squealing as the Republicans nationally are decimated in 2008 will quite rewarding. Judgemental, hypocritical assholes like you are a dime a dozen, but very few are so obnoxiously self-assured and so ponderously conceited; and for you to criticize someone else’s writing style is to induce debilitating, hysterical laughter in us, your victims.
Rave on. Your stridency would seem to indicate your undergarments were tightening around your balls, if we thought you had any.
You’ll do anything for a laugh, right?
But, Piper, we do think you have the credibility and awesome, fear-inducing demeanor of your fellow poster, Rhamnusia.
re 18 — “Unctuous breast-beating and obfuscation….”
THAT’S the Piper we’ve all come to know and love! Unctuosity and breast- beating seem so disparate. When combined with OBFUSCATION, we are presented with a tour-de-force of behaviors so at odds with each other that one can only imagine Tony Randall in his role as Felix Unger — only on Orange Sunshine!
To quote Felix: “Cheese it, Oscar!”
@22…Chad T….
My day is complete…The Chadman cometh to move his rhetorical ones in the HA blogosphere…
I’m a historical inevitablist, which means I’m confident in the end victory. Don’t forget…we’ve got an entire year to go before election day ’08, and a ka-jillion things can happen between now and then. And there are elections after that, then even after that…
The histrionic umbrage against this latest turn in the PAO race is illustrative of my point. It ain’t over till it’s over.
The difference between me and you (plus many of your chums) is that I see the absurdity in all of it; I can laugh and have a grand time while you stew in your juices thinking it’s the end of the world. This undoubtedly is an ancillary benefit of one of my central premises about the difference between conservatives and liberals: liberals think conservatives are inferior, while conservatives merely think liberals are wrong.
A liberal can’t stand to be bested or even equalled by an “inferior,” but a conservative appreciates the sport of it all. I offend your moral sensibility, while you merely cause me to laugh. How are them grapes, Chad? Pretty sour?
The Piper
@24…Harry Poon/Pine…
I read books, you know; I’m dangerous that way…And my vocabulary isn’t limited to below-the-waist functions.
The Piper
Amnesia @21,
Ohmigod… a teenager with access to Google! I’m scared!
So what you are suggesting is that you want a prosecuting attorney who throws the book at enemy bloggers, but lets well-connected baby rapers plea down to a six-month sentence? Right? Then I guess Satterberg is your man.
@24
Are you suggesting that Piper is a cheesy wannabe?
It’s hard to imagine Piper getting anyone to befriend him, but even so, squeezing a dead sheep seems beyond the pale to me.
Maybe it’s more than just personal habit: his tenacity in clinging to the Republican party seems indicative of incipient necrophilia.
The plaid skirt thing seems consonant with the latest Republican fashion statement in the better porn salons of Spokane.
@25 Piper .. some of us actually think government is more than a stupid game.
I am not a Democrat. I PO Goldy and others by Blogging about Gregoire the Feckless and expressing my hope for a better Republican Guv than Dino.
BUT
Satterberg has violated MY trust. I was torn. But as the cmapaign wore on, Saterbeg violated his most essential claim .. that is that he was running as a non partisan.
Unlike others here I have NO problem if Repricans like the guy, BUT, overt party support is not acceptable AND will color every goddamn case he is involved with!
He may well win Tuesday. If so, the message to Goldy and others here is clear .. we need to grow the movement until liberal activism, using the blogs, provides a viable alternative to the current buy-an-election psuedo democracy we live in.
I disagree with David Goldstein on one point in all this. It seems to me that DL/HA whatever it should be called is .. at its base … non partisan. It only looks partisan to couch potatoes who think politics is a football game or to any one inane enough to think that the current radical right republicans are fit to govern.
Bottom line .. how can we grow the biosphere locally so it becomes a real power?
SeattleJew:
Could you please provide a link to something in which Satterberg says he is running as a nonpartisan? All I’ve been able to find are quotes in which he states that he wants the office of Prosecuting Attorney to be nonpartisan. Those appear to be two different things. Thanks.
Take the exact same issues and facts, then place a “D” next to Satterberg’s name and Goldy would be defending Satterberg and bitching about Republican “corruption” and their attempts to “steal” the election.
Seattle Jew- find me anything in print or otherwise where Dan said he was “running as a non-partisan”. What he has said is that he wants the OFFICE to be non-partisan, and there’s a huge difference between the two.
And by the way, Bill has agreed that the office should be non-partisan, yet he trumpets his party affiliation and one-liners like “my Republican opponent” at every opportunity. Where’s your outrage at that?
Both candidates are in it to win it, and both candidates are getting money from their parties. They’d be fools not to accept any legitimate contributions, and just because Goldy cries foul doesn’t make it so.
And just because we’ll get a Republican pawn doesn’t make it desirable, either.
Re @6: Piper and his fellow WingNuts (TM) wouldn’t know an election law violation if it bit them in the ass. roof roof*
* Imitation dog bark by Fake Animal Sounds, LLP; no royalties paid.
So now we have idiots who defended Balogh’s registering her dog to vote to prove there’s “election fraud” in King County defending GOP money laundering and unethical campaigning by Satterberg to prove, what, that Satterberg is “nonpartisan”????
Q: How can you tell a Republican is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
So, if Satterberg is elected with illegal contributions that he knowingly took, who is going to prosecute the donors? And, more to the point, who is going to prosecute Satterberg? Doesn’t Satterberg now have a conflict of interest, since he makes the decision whether to file charges against himself and his contributors?
GOP = crooks, liars, and election thieves
@14, 15 — Um, guys, I think that post was satire.
@38 But then again, maybe not. Republicans are capable of anything and everything that’s slimy, creepy, and criminal.
@16 That’s not the only problem with Piper’s web site. He’s advertising free legal advice, but he’s not licensed to practice law. He could get 5 years for that if the bar association finds out.
What we have here, folks, is a guy who practices employment law under the rubric of “Human Resources Consulting” to get out of paying $500 a year in bar dues and getting 15 credits a year of continuing legal education. Instead of charging legal fees, he charges “consulting fees.” The kind of dodge a guy like Satterberg loves. Yeah, I see why Piper wants Satterberg to win. It has to do with breaking the law without fear of prosecution …
What a slimy bunch these moralizing I’m-better-than-you pubbie cheaters are …
Piper: I’ve changed my opinion of you. You remind me more of Sideshow Bob than Thurston Howell III.
As for reading, I have five books going right now. I’d love to conversate with you, but the NY Times book review section beckons.
AVAST and AWAY!
Speaking of irony, the fishwrapper ran a story today headlined, “What sex scandals say about politics,” that concludes,
“In the long run, says David Domke, who studies political communications at the UW, the Curtis scandal hurts not only Republicans, but politicians of every stripe. ‘I think the public is going to eventually say, “We don’t trust politicians — we’re going to stop listening to you,”‘ he says.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....is04m.html
The irony here is that VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE SEX SCANDALS INVOLVE REPUBLICANS. The fishwrapper’s attempt to tar all politicians, including Democrats, is so … well … WingNutty (TM).
RR is responding to his own posts. Congrats RR, you have taken your lack of a life to a new level.
At least Postman is reporting the illegal contributions to Satterberg, and also linking them to the GOP-controlled PAO’s past refusals to prosecute people who are now making big contributions to Satterberg, but this stuff is buried deep in his column under several column inches of fluff, when it ought to be headline news. http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....an04m.html
Do I smell Republican corruption in the PAO? Naaaawwww, that’s just dust mites …
Piper @19: I’m having more fun with this than I would donating $100K to the Washington State Republican Party.
Cheap, huh?
@43 Golly, thanks! I always appreciate getting fan mail from my WingNut (TM) admirers. It’s good to know I’m getting to you, asshole!
Roger Rabbit says:
GOP = crooks, liars, and election thieves
11/04/2007 at 11:57 am
Wabbits projecting again. roof roof.
Irony of Ironies!
The fishwrapper, which most of the time is only good for wrapping fish guts in,* must be reading HorsesAss because their editorial today memorializes many of my arguments against Prop. 1:
” … [O]ur first … reason for opposing Proposition 1: It is wasteful. Our second reason is … the sales tax is the wrong tax. A tax for transit improvements should be tied to use of the road. … And further, at 9.5 percent, and 10 percent at restaurants, … [a] tax that high is not good for retail business or the consumer, and particularly not good for people with low income. Our third reason … is that so much of the light-rail investment goes to places that even the supporters of light rail privately agree make no sense. That includes the segment from Sea-Tac Airport to Tacoma, and from Northgate more than halfway to Everett. … All good reasons to vote ‘no.'”
Quoted under fair use; for complete editorial and/or copyright info see http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....eed01.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Here’s how to make light rail work: First, it must go where people need to go. Second, the cost needs to be reasonable. Third, it must actually be BUILT … with Prop. 1’s 20-year construction schedule, you’ll get there faster by walking. Fourth, it must be paid for in the right way — and that doesn’t mean using the most regressive tax possible, and taxing people who won’t use the system. Light rail should be paid for primarily by the commuters who will use it and benefit from it financially by reducing their car usage. Much of the shrill shilling for Prop. 1 that I’ve seen in this blog seems to come from folks who may have a motive to transfer to avoid car ownership costs by transferring their transportation costs to others. It’s reasonable for people who will save thousands of dollars a year in car expenses to put money into the farebox insteading of expecting other people to pay for transportation costing $25 to $30 a ride.
In a previous thread, I said the logical time and place to build a Tacoma-to-Everett light rail line is in the I-5 right-of-way, which the public already owns, when the aging freeway is rebuilt. That’s gonna have to occur in a few years, and it’s going to be another huge expense to regional taxpayers.
Reading the fishwrapper’s comments about running light rail lines across the I-90 bridge (in a portion of the editorial I didn’t quote) gave me another idea. The editorial writers complained about taking 2 lanes out of commission on the bridge. But why would you have to? Why can’t you have concrete and rails on the same real estate? It would work like reversible lanes. Light rail will run primarily during rush hour to move commuters. The lanes with rails could be blocked off the vehicle traffic during those periods, just like the existing reversible express lanes are. The rest of them time, they could be open to vehicle traffic.
Also in a previous thread, I wrote that a lower-cost possibility than a $500 million-a-mile tunnel from the U. District to Northgate is running rail on the 5th Ave. NE right-of-way. Sure, you would lose an arterial, but not much car traffic capacity; 5th NE is effectively only 1 lane in each direction, because of the left turn lanes and parking on both sides. Possibly you could, by getting rid of the parking, run one lane in each direction alongside the tracks, with appropriate barriers. But another possibility might be to have part-time rail on 5th NE. The street would have to be closed to traffic (and cross-traffic) during rail hours, but except during the morning and afternoon commuter times, it could continue to function as a vehicle arterial.
I’m just throwing out ideas here, and I don’t know if all of this stuff is workable from a traffic design or engineering standpoint. I’m not qualified in those fields. My point is, why was the most expensive option — a 5-mile-long tunnel — the automatic choice? Why weren’t less expensive alternatives considered? Why did the people who designed this system assume we taxpayers could afford so much gold-plating? It’s a real slap in the face to the people with limited incomes who are being arm-twisted to pay for all this.
And it deserves a slap back at the ballot box.
@47 At least I put an asterisk (*) on MY fake “roof roof”s.
Even that dog’s barking is fraudulent.
@30 @332
The GAME of equating legal guilt with Unethical Behavior
Mr. Satterberg us runninf for an office he can NIT win without Demcratic votes. To do that he states he is running as a non partisan BUT he is runnign as a candidate of the R party.
Is it legal ..yes.
Does ir suck … yes.
Botom line, I might have voted fro him all things being equal. I would NOT care if he was a Republlican. I DO care that he is running as the official, party funded representative.
Normjn Malhleng was the Prosecutor, he was also a Republican. Satterberg has made it lcear he will eb a Republican Prosecutor. There is ahuge difference.
BTW .. it is a cheap trick to suggest that an office in a Demo dominant are be non partisan. I would be a hell of a lot more impressed if Mr. Satterberg had come out against the abuses of his party in partisan issues. I wonder ifg he would take stand for ALL prosecutor positions ihn the State to be non partisan?
A good place to start would be for Satterberg to decry the party’s abuse of the election system four years ago. I supported Dino. Dino fucking lost!! LOST. The trumped up effort to blame that loss on King Coubnty Elections was as abusive and the Bush-Baker-Rove victory over democracy in Florida.
If Satterberg is really non partisan, I would expect him t speak out for non partisan fairness on all issues. He has not.
don’t dodge the issue, at 53. Show me ONE time or place Dan ever said HE was non-partisan. You can’t, because he hasn’t. And if you can’t see the difference between someone saying “I am non-partisan” (as you allege) and “I want the office to be non-partisan”, then I can’t help you.
@53
Yeah, that’s what I thought. He has never said he is non partisan. You still fail to understand the distinction. Then again, after reading your last post, the spelling and grammar make me realize you probably don’t understand a lot of basic concepts.
Goldy says:
Rhamnusia @4,
The Greek goddess of vengeance needs to hide her IP through a proxy server in Amsterdam? Who knew?
Eat me.
Goldy you wouldn’t be playing a game of blatant sock puppetry? Do you believe that making up conspiracies will benefit the voting public? Today when you leave your home that the Republicans are following you in black helicopters?
Satterberg is running for fucking PAO for chrisakes! It shouldn’t be up to me to prove he broke law! He should be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety at any cost. Instead, he’s conspired with the likes of Rowley to buy this campaign, and the media stays quiet. No… the voters don’t deserve to have this information and judge it on their own.
Goldy in this country you are not guilty until found so by a court of law. You made the acquisitions where is the proof of your statement?
Piper,
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the conservative mind refuses to see reality. Bush and Rove have done 20 years of damage to your party. Folks like Delay and Curtis have simply piled on more shit onto the manure pile.
The fact of matter is the coming sweep is going to be swift and PAINFUL for you. You have congressmen quiting in record numbers. Some because “being in the minority is not fun”. What the fuck does that mean? Conservatives are fine when they are in power, and total babies when they are not. Your shrill rantings here are evidence of you having the (dis)honor of being the biggest baby of all.
Of course you will some races, Satterberg for one. Big deal. When you have the Governor’s mansion, the state senate, both US Senate seats and a majority of the House of Representatives, let me know. Until then shut the fuck up.
Next November your whining about President-elect Clinton will be music to my ears. When Rossi gets pasted that will be the encore.
#56 — Guilty! You mean like Scooter Libby was found guilty and sentenced to jail? That kind of justice.
Well, klake, that’s Republican justice. Which is none at all.
@19 You don’t have $100,000 to donate to the Republican Party, loser.
klake — Go walk off a cliff.
@50 * If I want to end an independent clause in a preposition, I will, and if you don’t like it, FUCK YOU!!! Complain to my dead English teacher about it.
@53 Good call, SJ. The fact something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it right. But when did illegality ever stop Republicans? They do stuff that’s both unethical AND illegal every day.
GOP = morally bankrupt
@54 Belay the bullshit, Toady Dog! Satterberg is playing the same game McGavick and every other GOP candidate is playing — you don’t see or hear the word “Republican” in his advertising. He’s trying to mislead voters into thinking he’s independent or nonpartisan. Why? Because the “Republican” label is about as reputable as “Made in China” — the public has learned that Republican politicians, like Chinese toys, contain toxic materials. If you go to Satterberg’s website, all you see is a little “R” next to his name … and the blurb tries to convince you that Democrats AND Republicans support him … note he uses the word “Democrat” first. This guy is not above trying to bamboozle people into thinking he’s actually a Democrat! Why? Because he doesn’t want voters to realize he’s actually a partisan hack who will protect his party’s election crooks and use the office to tilt elections in Republicans’ favor. He’s a party hack and will run the PAO like one. Fuck him, and fuck you! I voted for the only true nonpartisan in the race, Bill Sherman.
Things are so bad for Republicans the only way they can get elected is by pretending not to be Republicans.
@59…RR…
Never said I did…
But thank you for illustrating how you’re typical of HA regulars who read into words and statements whatever suits them.
Big diff between non-partisan and bi-partisan. Satterberg has bi-partisan support, while Sherman’s stridently partisan support seems to be shringing.
Satterberg pledged to maintain the Maleng legacy of running a non-partisan office ONCE ELECTED. Norm was always a Republican; if I had a nickel for every time I saw him are party functions I’d have that $100K ol’ Rog accuses me of not having.
To date, Sherman has shown nothing but hard, one-way partisan tendencies. Where’s his bi-partisan support? His pledge to have a non-partisan administration?
Then again he couldn’t get financial support from HA regulars and have his candidacy pimped harder than a hooker at harvest time by the HA hierarchy if he did either.
The Piper
@55 “the spelling and grammar”
SJ has previously stated on this blog that he is dyslexic. My understanding is he’s a college professor (working for a university that doesn’t discriminate against people with disabilities). In any case, I daresay his brainpower is multiples of yours, because no one with more than 1 live brain cell would be a Republican or shill for Republicans.
@62…RR…
Bill Sherman calling himself competent to run the PAO is unethical.
The Piper
klake is a nazi
@66
If SJ is truly dyslexic, then I apologize for the remark. Nevertheless, a college professor, and the rest of you, should be able to distinguish between saying you are non partisan (which Satterberg has never said) and running an office in a non partisan manner. It’s not that tough to grasp. Just seems that nobody here wants to accept that distinction.
@65 “Satterberg pledged to maintain the Maleng legacy of running a non-partisan office ONCE ELECTED.”
So what? So did Sherman.
@65 Why should we believe Satterberg? By word and deed, he’s been highly partisan on the canvassing board and whenever the PAO got involved with election issues.
@67 Who are you, an ex-lawyer who surrendered his license to practice law, to judge Sherman’s ethics?
@69 And you should be able to distinguish between what Satterberg says and what he’s done in the past.
@73
You’re right. That’s why I’m voting for him.
@72…RR…
I didn’t surrender my license; like many who don’t actively practice, I elected to go in-active. There is a difference. But then again you constantly seem to have tremendous difficulties in discerning differences, hence your support of the hard and stridently partisan Bill Sherman and your feigned and furry outrage over the candidate of the Republican Party accepting support from the party.
Take a look at Sherman’s PDC filings, and you’ll see he’s taken money and in-kind contributions from Democratic Party organizations.
As an aside…that Dwight Pelz contributed as little as he did to Sherman might be more of an indication of Dwight’s low level of enthusiasm for a Sherman candidacy since Dwight is about as Democratic a guy as there is in the state.
On the theory that a little bit guilty is just as bad as a whole lot guilty, Sherman has committed the same sin as Satterberg…the difference is but one of degree.
The Piper
# 69 — That’s weasely hairsplitting. He’s accepting money from people he may well be duty bound to prosecute at some point in the future.
It’s a conflict of interest.
And Satterberg has already proven (in the 2004 governor’s election) that he’s a partisan Republican before he’s an enforcer of the law.
The Sucky Politics spin is interesting, to say the least:
“Breaking: Republican Party Supports Republican Candidates
“A batch of blog coverage from David Postman, Goldy, and Josh Feit expresses varying degrees of concern about the fact that Republicans donors understand that giving money to Republican party usually means the party organization is going to use it to support Republican candidates. …
Postman’s coverage includes mention of the fact King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg bills himself as a relatively non-partisan fellow yet is receiving party support. In a world where Dave Reichert – neither a lion heart of the conservative movement or a bloodthirsty partisan – receives ample support from party organizations this shouldn’t be a surprise.
As much as some liberals would like to proclaim otherwise, Reichert’s deviations from the mainstream of conservative thought on environmental/energy policy as well as on a number of social welfare issues is substantial.”
Quoted under fair use; to read Earling’s entire ridiculous diatribute and/or to find out if this drivel is copyrighted, see http://soundpolitics.com/archives/009554.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: In other words, the new GOP campaign tactic is that Republicans aren’t Republicans any more, they’re actually liberals at heart.
Yup, I knew these guys would come around to our way of thinking, if they ever got to thinking about it.
# 75 — Stepping on a bug and murdering your neighbor are both acts of killing — the only difference is in degree.
I’m sure a discerning fellow like yourself can see that!
None of this — Satterberg’s nonpartisan pose, Earling’s absurd definition of partisanship — is surprising. In today’s political climate, trying to sell a Republican candidate is like peddling Chinese toys: The product can be harmful to your children’s health.
@76
By your reasoning, candidates should be prohibited from accepting any donations from anyone as they may be in the position to prosecute them in the future. Not very realistic.
OK, you folks are all slinging turds at one another and ignoring the more important question. Mr. Satterberg must have his own reasons for accepting such questionable largesse (for which he must realize there’s gotta be a payback some day) and making himself appear rather foolish. Beyond a certain point, who cares?
The real question, kids, is that if in principle the King County Prosecutor’s office is expected to be run in a “non-partisan” manner, why is the Republican Party making such a frenzied effort to assure that “their guy” gets elected? What’s so special about this particular race to make it worth their while to spend money they might have channeled to other campaigns and risk getting in hot water once again for campaign-finance improprieties?
Republicans collectively might be crooked, dishonest, obnoxious and more than a little creepy, they ain’t stupid. There’s a reason for this, and it’s probably something bad.
@75 And that’s not surrendering your license? You used to have a license to practice law. You don’t know. Unless they took it away from you — which I haven’t alleged — you surrendered it. But apparently you’re still practicing law, since you offer “free legal advice” on your website. Of course, the “legal advice” is “free” only to your paying clients — you’re not running a legal aid shop there. Maybe what you’re offering isn’t actually “legal advice” and the “free legal advice” blurb is just puffery for your “human resources” services. But it doesn’t look good on its face, friend. I’m not going to turn you in. If they come after your ass, someone else ratted on your. I’m just offering you a friendly suggestion to fix your advertising so it doesn’t look like your holding yourself out as a lawyer when you’re not.
erratum
You don’t now.
@75 “the candidate of the Republican Party accepting support from the party”
This isn’t what the row is about, and you know it! The issue is whether the donors and party illegally funneled earmarked contributions to Satterberg’s campaign, and whether he accepted them knowing they were illegal. And this guy wants us to trust him to enforce the criminal laws against campaign violations? I don’t think so.
Plus the fact Satterberg is dishonestly trying to position himself as a “nonpartisan” candidate when, in fact, he is highly partisan and his party is trying to buy the office as protection against prosecution for the kind of crimes committed by their vice chair, Lori Sotelo.
Plus the fact that Republicans all over the country are running a well-funded and highly-coordinated campaign to get control of key public offices — attorneys general, prosecutors, secretaries of state — so they can commit election crimes with impunity and use governmental powers to harass their political opponents. Satterberg might not stoop to the malicious prosecutions that Republicans have brought elsewhere, and pushed for here, but how do we know that? At a minimum, he has already demonstrated he puts party loyalty above loyalty to truth and fidelity to the principle of even-handed enforcement of the laws. He is no less strident a partisan than Sherman. If we must have a partisan hack in the PAO, then I prefer our hack to your hack. If you don’t like it, suck on it.
But wait! I’ve got a solution! Write in Roger Rabbit for prosecutor! If elected, I promise to seek the death penalty against dogs who register to vote! No mercy for canine election cheats! I will administer the animal euthanasia laws impartially, without regard to party affiliation, fur color, or breed! If a dog registers to vote, he’ll be executed, period! Remember, elect Roger Rabbit for prosecutor.
@80 What a thin, sorry, excuse for illegal campaign contributions. What a pathetic cover for a candidate for prosecutor who’s breaking the law even before being elected! Why should we trust someone like that with our community’s most important law enforcement job? Satterberg can’t be trusted. He’s dishonest.
@81 See #86.
re 80 — Accepting a lot of small contributions from citizen supporters of your candidacy is one thing. Accepting large contributions from a few influential Republican businessmen is another — especially when the source of the money is laundered.
So, by your logic, all contributions are equal regardless of source or amount.
Can he be impeached? He’s already a scoflaw.
86 Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
And….don’t assume their plans are just directed at next year–the Publicans may have written this election cycle off. They may be planning to let the Dems spend four years wallowing in, and taking the blame for, all the problems BushCo created, and then the public won’t give a shit if they steal everything back.
I imagine sex with a Democrate would be very complicated. They’d keep changing positiond for no apparent reason and every few minutes they’d ask you if you think things were moving in the right direction. Sometimes, in the heat of passion, they’d yell out someone else’s name, like “Generic Democratic Candidate” or “Anyone But Hillary!” Republicans belive in negotiating from a position of strength. Democrats belive the first step in negotiations is to lay down their arms. Whom would you rather be ravaged bt?
Goldy is that how Democrats have sex? Who wrote this Statement? John Kerry? Edwards? Chris Matthews? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter? Maybe Dan Satterberg? Roger how is that new silk prayer working out? How is Goldy doing with the prayers?
Plus the fact that Republicans all over the country are running a well-funded and highly-coordinated campaign to get control of key public offices — attorneys general, prosecutors, secretaries of state — so they can commit election crimes with impunity and use governmental powers to harass their political opponents.
Why not, dems have been doing this for years. I guess I would be crying fire if I was a commie lib and knew the gig is up. hehehe
klake:
For someone who has never had sex, you sure talk a lot.
86
True.
95 Sure, Klake’s had sex. He masturbates in front of the mirror every morning.
@94 JBG
Judging from the quality of your insults and the cleverness of your delivery, I’d guess you are in the 8th grade, right?
You’re Klake’s best buddy?
He clearly has brain damage, but what are YOU going to be like if you grow up?
98
I can’t help it if liberals sound like 8th graders. This is a liberal blog and you have to communicate at a level people will understand.
JBG, Piper and Rhamnusia – Is this the best the republicans can do?
rhamnusia- you are just a psycho threatening goldy on here is just absurd.
Piper: Your act is wearing thin. While you try to sound intelligent – you really don’t make any forceful arguments to refute the fact that:
a. Satterberg is lying that he is non-partisan after taking all that money
b. He is duplicitous and
c. This has a very bad taint – with last minute donations that are hard to trace from the repub. party and specfic donors.
JBG: Go back to grade school and learn to actually argue with facts instead of invective. You just add to the view that Republicans are the noisy know-nothings who can’t support their arguments without name-calling and jingoism (look it up if you don’t recognize it). You don’t have anything worthwhile to say so you try to insult anyone who does.
@100 ummm, to repeat the questions that have been asked–but not answered–when did Satterberg every say he was non-partisan? He’s going to lose literally tens of thousands of votes on Tuesday for NO OTHER REASON than because of the (R) that follows his name on the ballot.
He said he wanted to make the office nonpartisan. Which would force many people to look a little deeper into the candidates qualifications. That’s a good thing. And if Satterberg wins but fails to follow through on his promise to change the office to a nonpartisan one, you can be assured that his Democratic challenger in 2010 will beat him up for it badly.
I am a prosecutor. I work with prosecutors. Every prosecutor I know is praying that Bill Sherman, an inexperienced hack who has left our office twice to try and jumpstart his political career, doesn’t take over. He has tried very few cases, has never supervised another prosecutor, has never spoken with the family of a murder victim or worked with a kid who has been sexually abused. He has used our office for his own political gain, and he is riding the partisianship game as far as it will take him. If he is elected, he will abandon our office in a few short years to try something else to satiate his ambition.
Rabbit at 63 and Jew everywhere- you still haven’t followed up with proof of the issue YOU raised: find me ONE time or place Dan said he was non-partisan. You can’t, because he hasn’t, and now you have boxed yourself in with ignorance.
The fact that Dan doesn’t trumpet his party in his ads or on his website like Bill does means two things: 1) he has something to offer besides the letter next to his name (unlike Bill) and 2) he MEANS it when he says he wants the office to be nonpartisan (unlike Bill).