Martin Ringhofer wanted me to post something about his efforts to recall Secretary of State Sam Reed. I promised him that if I did, I wouldn’t say anything nice, but apparently Martin subscribes to the Tim Eyman school of PR: all coverage is good coverage… even the really, really bad coverage.
I can’t begin to tell you how stupid I think this recall is. It’s not just misguided and ill-conceived, it’s also totally hopeless. In fact, the recall is so hopeless, that even Stefan of (un)Sound Politics — our state’s leading promoter of hopeless efforts to unseat elected officials through the courts — went out of his way to distance himself from this particular futile exercise of partisan anger and frustration.
You see, in Washington, you can’t just recall an official because you decide you don’t like him anymore. You actually have to prove that there was some malfeasance or misconduct. And what really pissed off hardcore Rossi supporters about Reed, is that he so narrowly followed the law, not that he broke it.
Look, I didn’t vote for Reed. I thought he did little to recommend himself during his first term, and I was disappointed that he didn’t provide more leadership during the first couple weeks following the November election. But more than any other elected official in this state, Reed managed to remain mostly non-partisan at a time when non-partisanship was most needed. And that is really what Martin and his handful of cohorts are angry about… Reed could have used his office to Rossi’s advantage, but he didn’t.
For that, Reed should be praised, not recalled.
So Martin, don’t let anybody ever say I’m not a man of my word. I promised to say unkind things about your recall effort, and I delivered. I appreciate the fact that you have always been polite in your emails, and welcome you to continue contributing to HA’s comment threads.
I recall when Ringerhofer was a student-politician-gadfly at U-Dub, and he hasn’t improved with age. I hope Democrats will close ranks behind Reed and support him if the Repugs go after him for putting the law above partisan loyalty. Sam wasn’t my first choice for SoS either, but he could have done a lot worse by the citizens of our state. We all owe Reed a debt of gratitude for not being a Blackwell or Harris. (Isn’t this a sad commentary on these times? That we have to feel “grateful” for politicians who aren’t right-wing raving lunatics?)
Certifying an election that does not reconcile is not leadership in the land of fact and reason.
Oh here we go again on the Fantasy Merryground. (sigh) :/
angryvoter @ 2 stated authoritatively, “Certifying an election that does not reconcile is not leadership in the land of fact and reason.”
Do you have any idea how many certified elections in November, nationwide, perfectly reconciled? I’m asking because I don’t, but I don’t think you do either. Knowing what we know now, it is reasonable to believe that many of them didn’t reconcile. Would you attribute that to widespread fraud, or the realities of reconciling votes and ballots, and the need for better election procedures and laws?
Don, do you ever do anything but name call and come up with innuendo that suggests you are everywhere[ and no where] at once?
“I recall when Ringerhofer was a student-politician-gadfly at U-Dub, and he hasn’t improved with age.”
And Daniel K….
I’m happy for you that playing down to the lowest common denominator is okay with you….so fraud and innacuracy are fine with you because they happen everywhere?
May I suggest you forego all vaccinations in the future because in the past we didn’t have them?
Come on…common sense surely must kick in for some of you, sometime, doesn’t it?
And that IS a rhetorical question……….
I disagree with the recall process I think it is getting in the way of the true issue which is a poorly executed election, not messed up by one hand but by many who were either lazy, ignorant or______ (you fill in the blank.)
Having said all that I feel that Reed was not as you say “non-patisan,” I feel that he pandered more toward the left this time around so that he would seem to be non-partisan.
He reminded me of a kid walking over to another click and trying to fit in by speaking their lingo and even throwing insults about his friends, it was pathetic.
The court coverage of the dismissed recall on SOS Reed carried a profound message that was clear cut. Here it is: “You can’t recall a person for doing what they law mandates they must do.” Pretty dam clear. Reed had no option but to certify by regulated date set by regulated law. It simply means what it says. Certify. No matter what. Nothing to do with rumble, mumble, grumble or other mumbo-jumbo. Asking the judge to reconsider the recall is utterly ridiculous. What part of no does the recall ringleader not understand?
Goldy, you were too kind.
The only good that may come out of the recall effort is a further clarification of the role of the SecState in receiving and then delivering to the legislature the official election returns from the county canvassing boards.
I don’t believe Reed could have done anything more than he did. It was the legislature’s responsibility to look behind those returns. See: RCW 29A.60.190(2) for a “relic” from the old days, when the legislature understood its proper role.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/inde.....on=section
I don’t know if I am illustrating anything unknown here, but when Gov. Grey Davis of California was recalled, the popular support for him was close to 30%, and that was on the high-end. Reed likely enjoys numbers above 50% (I don’t have a poll handy). Even if the number was in the 40s, for a SoS, one of several state-wide elected officials, that makes dissatisfaction within the same range, due to the undecideds. Couple that with the money involved…and not mentioning the lack of malfeasance…
Mr. Ringhofer, St. Jude awaits your prayers…
@ 5
What’s your problem, never met a tough liberal before?
I don’t think it’s a matter of never meeting a tough liberal, he just doesn’t care for belligerent liberals.
ChristmasGhost @ 5–“Common sense” is an oxymoron, and I’m not being facetious. What most people call “common sense” is nothing more than conclusions based on unexamined assumptions. The logic itself isn’t all that flawed, but the assumptions, having been unexamined, can well be, and often are, out in left field (nay, at times, not even in the parking lot outside the stadium). The differense between “reason” and “common sense” is that “reason” is based on examined assumptions.
That said, both you and Adriel are equivocating. The issue isn’t perfection vs. imperfection. Perfection is unattainable. The issue is whether or not the election was “close enough” given normal human frailties. Isolated cases of error and individual instances of fraud (e.g. dead people voting) are quite likely to happen at some level in any election. Why? Because it’s not humanly possible to forestall all possible cases; or, at least, it’s not possible without placing a significant, disenfranchising burden on at least some voters.
To take this back to examined vs. unexamined assumptions, one assumption that has to be made in any discussion about election accuracy is whether or not the right to vote, in a democracy, is a fundamental right. In other words, do we require that people jump through hoops in order to establish their right to vote, or do we consider that people have a right to vote unless there is evidence that, under the law, would deny them the right to vote?
The examined assumption would likely tend toward the latter: in the absence of evidence to the contrary, people are presumed to have a legitimate right to vote. This is the assumption that you’ll find the courts apply to election contests, so I see no reason why we shouldn’t adopt the same assumption with respect to policy discussions.
Given that assumption, then an important policy goal is to place as little burden as possible on the right to vote. One of the ways this policy goal manifests itself is in the principle of a secret ballot. People should be free to vote for whomever their conscience dictates without any fear of recrimination. A failure to uphold this principle would give people an incentive to vote for whom they think will win an election rather than vote according to their conscience. This, too, has to be considered an undue burden on the individual’s right to vote, so we uphold the principle of secret ballot.
Take these two principles together, and the well-reasoned conclusions we might reach regarding this past governor’s election are a bit murky at best. The ability to reconcile a secret ballot, for example, isn’t anywhere near as easy as it is to reconcile, say, a bank transaction. And, as many studies have shown, the margin of victory in this election is just too far within the common margin for error that we might expect given present law and voting technology.
Now, does that mean we should try to improve on the process? Absolutely not. Several reforms are reasonable, we should discuss them. It does, however, mean that attempting to revisit this past governor’s election isn’t going to lead us anywhere fruitful.
That, by the way, is why many people, including people who don’t consider themselves liberal or members of the Democratic Party, look askance upon the Republicans’ attempts to call for a revote and attempt to contest this election. There is little chance they can overcome the burden of proof they need to meet, and the posturing about the alleged “messiness” of this election is little more than plain old demagoguery. It’s the kind of thing we’ve come to accept as “politics as usual,” but something we should really learn to reject out of hand regardless of our political views or affiliations.
Having said all that, you’re quite welcome to give a reasoned response. If, however, your response consists of name-calling, or uses some version or synomym of the word “spin,” then I’ll categorically dismiss your response as being in the same category of the Republicans’ response to the election.
So, please, if you’re going to come back at me, come back with something more than an empty pop-gun. The level of discourse in these comment threads has degenerated rather rapidly, and I’m honestly hoping that your response will serve to elevate rather than further degenerate the discussion.
Mark @ 9. State of Washington has one of the tightest recall laws. I personally know Jack Shit. He talked with St Jude who said the recall doesn’t have a wing or a prayer.
@ 6 To say that Sam Reed was going to the left is ridiculous. Sam Reed should be commended. Once again another renditoin of republican sour grapes…
Chee @13
I agree with you. On ALL points.
A little off topic here, but has anyone see Rep. Jeannie Darneille (famous for using her dead father as a political pawn in the post election mess) is now proposing to have felons voting rights automatically restored at the end of their sentence? Next she will be proposing that we automatically waive all their restitution fees as well when they get out of jail. It’s a legal process to get in to jail and lose your right to vote, so why not the same in reverse? Like Hillary, Commie Libs Democrats want the felon vote. Along with “guvment” union hacks [DON et al], blacks, and welfare losers, felons can be counted on to ALWAYS vote Democrat.
“It does, however, mean that attempting to revisit this past governor’s election isn’t going to lead us anywhere fruitful.” – Rick Schaut
Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, but I guess you may not think that is fact.
Washington’s jobless rate hits four-year low…Thank you, President Bush!!!
Doing a recall in Washington is nothing more than a way to get your name in the paper. It is nearly impossible to get a recall even when someone is caught lying, cheating and stealing. Remember, it was politicians that wrote the rules.
Some R’s are pissed at Reed for not playing politics. Each office holder has a set of rules they are supposed to play by. The problem is nobody has any authority to enforce any of those rules.
Our election system has some real problems. Every reform seems to add more. The biggest issue that I have seen is that nobody is accountable. You can’t blame Reed for that. Blame your lawmaker. There are plenty of watchdog groups that have pointed out how to fix things. Problem is the parties don’t want it fixed.
JCH @16,
You’re right… it is off topic (and packed with nonsequitor insults) but at least I’d like to note that you actually mentioned a real issue. Good for you.
No less than the American Correctional Association has recommended automatically restoring the voting rights of felons upon release from prison. Studies have shown that former felons who vote have a lower recidivism rate.
19…..VC, “Problem is the parties don’t want it fixed.” Hell, Hillary, Don and the Democrats want more voter fraud!! More illegals, more felons, and more “double” voters equal more Democrat votes!!!
Goldy,
Start a thread on felons — starting with this statute:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/inde.....on=section
RCW 9.94A.637
Discharge upon completion of sentence — Certificate of discharge — Obligations, counseling after discharge.
(1)(a) When an offender has completed all requirements of the sentence, including any and all legal financial obligations, and while under the custody and supervision of the department, the secretary or the secretary’s designee shall notify the sentencing court, which shall discharge the offender and provide the offender with a certificate of discharge by issuing the certificate to the offender in person or by mailing the certificate to the offender’s last known address.
(b)(i) When an offender has reached the end of his or her supervision with the department and has completed all the requirements of the sentence except his or her legal financial obligations, the secretary’s designee shall provide the county clerk with a notice that the offender has completed all nonfinancial requirements of the sentence.
(ii) When the department has provided the county clerk with notice that an offender has completed all the requirements of the sentence and the offender subsequently satisfies all legal financial obligations under the sentence, the county clerk shall notify the sentencing court, including the notice from the department, which shall discharge the offender and provide the offender with a certificate of discharge by issuing the certificate to the offender in person or by mailing the certificate to the offender’s last known address.
(c) When an offender who is subject to requirements of the sentence in addition to the payment of legal financial obligations either is not subject to supervision by the department or does not complete the requirements while under supervision of the department, it is the offender’s responsibility to provide the court with verification of the completion of the sentence conditions other than the payment of legal financial obligations. When the offender satisfies all legal financial obligations under the sentence, the county clerk shall notify the sentencing court that the legal financial obligations have been satisfied. When the court has received both notification from the clerk and adequate verification from the offender that the sentence requirements have been completed, the court shall discharge the offender and provide the offender with a certificate of discharge by issuing the certificate to the offender in person or by mailing the certificate to the offender’s last known address.
[And it goes on from there — I haven’t pasted it all here.]
How much more automatic can the restoration of rights get?
Rick @12 Fingers tired? War and peace was shorter than that one. How can I start? You are wrong in so many ways.
Now, does that mean we should try to improve on the process? Absolutely not. We need to continually work to improve democracy and the voting process unless stagnation and loss of liberty is the preferred state of being? …look askance upon the Republicans’ attempts to call for a revote… Hardly. This call for a revote is not only legitimate, it is well deserved and encouraged by principled people. If it’s only impact is to strengthen the voting process, then it will have been wildly successful. And should an evil despot or two be thrown from office, so much the better. it’s not possible without placing a significant, disenfranchising burden on at least some voters. Is requiring that each voter produce picture identification to great a constraint? Is asking each voter to periodically re-register to confirm their right to vote too much to ask? It is the least that we can do to preserve liberty. There is little chance they can overcome the burden of proof they need to meet, and the posturing about the alleged “messiness” of this election is little more than plain old demagoguery What part of “appears” do you not understand? This is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it only requires a preponderance of the evidence. And the reason for that is exactly your argument point, to avoid unduly disenfrachising a significant portion (read:all) of the electorate. The nearly 400 provisional ballots that were illegally counted is far larger than the margin of victory. The number of felon voters in Pierce county alone was more than half the margin of victory. Sam Reed has admitted that he doesn’t know who really got more votes. Dean Logan agrees with Sam Reed. I think that the Ukranians had it right. Have we truly lost our zest for freedom and democracy? Are you that afraid of allowing democracy to truly function? for the true will of the people to be known? To have an election where the outcome is actually known? If so, then you are clearly more interested in political power than in strengthening democracy and freedom.
JCH @16.
The American Civil Liberities Union has been working on a bill for a long time now that will automatically restore a felons rights upon their release. About time. Our law is archaic. If you do your homework, you will find the present law is over-burdensome. The right to vote law in some states never lets a released felon, called x-felon, ever vote again. This discrimination is a punishemnt placed upon a right to vote. Everyone has right to start their lfe over once they have served their sentance out. Many X-felons voted cause they thought they could; no inten of fraud.
Rick Schaut @12
“Now, does that mean we should try to improve on the process? Absolutely not. Several reforms are reasonable, we should discuss them. It does, however, mean that attempting to revisit this past governor’s election isn’t going to lead us anywhere fruitful.”
Only addressing the obvious omission of ‘should “not” try’…Fraudian…oops! Freudian slip…
Adriel @17 addressed the truly pertinent area…
Marks @ 13. Thanks for the three up. :-)
Vince Callaway @ 19. Great post.
Chee @ 24
“Many X-felons voted cause they thought they could; no inten of fraud.”
Correct me if I am wrong but I heard this somewhere “Ignorance to law is no excuse.”
JCH @ 16.
If you know Democrats get the felons votes, you know who they voted for. Call Rossi. He is having trouble with that.
Chee does your lack of grey matter know no bounds? try adding to the conversation instead of being an extremely lame/ ignorant critict.
Adriel@ 28. Law takes into consideration intent. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we agree there. Intent is the key word that enters into law and the courts deal with; intent must be shown and proven. That is often hard to prove.
Chee @ 31
So you are saying that all I have to tell a cop after running a red light is “woops that wasn’t my intent”? Hell I’ll have to remember that one, the word “intent” will help me out alot in life.
Adriel @ 30. “Does my grey matter know no bounds?” You have it all backwards. My bounds know no grey matter.
Adriel @30
I do not defend. I only point out that Chee has a right to post comments. Sublimation of that would not be in the best interest of somebody.
I never have come upon more liberal Democrats who are sooo ready to go to bat for the felon vote!! Classic!! Hillary, Don, Chee………suck up to the criminal vote! [The backlash should be 2 or 3 to one as outraged NON felons cop a clue!]
Adriel @33
You seem to be one of the ignorant name callers.
Intent is crucial in some, not all, criminal offenses, e.g. perjury, **knowingly** telling a lie under oath, premeditate murder, etc.
Similarly,
“RCW 29A.84.140
Unqualified registration.
A person who KNOWS that he or she does not possess the legal qualifications of a voter and who registers to vote is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.” (empasis added)
So lack of intent and ignorance by an ex-felon could relieve him of criminal liability under this statute.
Goldy @ 20
Studies have shown that former felons who vote have a lower recidivism rate.
What studies show this? Where is the cause and effect? Are you suggesting that the reason they don’t become repeat offenders is because they have their voting right restored? If this were truly the case, then why not just turn all felons into more responsible citizens by restoring their right to vote? ;-} Obviously, there are other factors. What does the study say?
Adriel @ 17 What, exactly, are we going to learn from further examining the facts that we haven’t already learned?
Zapporo @ 23 Yes, my fingers are tired, but that doesn’t mean I can’t type more:
Your first sentence is an appeal to authority. If it’s reasonable, one should be able to articulate an argument that makes it reasonable.
As for the impact, when people start talking about a “stolen” election, clearly the impact has gone well beyond simply examining the process in order to strengthen it. Moreover, it’s entirely possible to examine the process and strengthen it without calling for a revote.
The same argument can be made with respect to catching any official who has acted impropertly. That end can be accomplished without a call for a revote.
No, the call for a revote can have no objective save purely political ends. It serves the interests of one of the political parties, but one cannot show how it serves an legitimate public end that cannot be accomplished through less inflamatory means.
Regarding the burden the Rossi camp faces:
I understand both the general dictionary definition of the word “appears” and the meaning that attaches to the word “appears” when it is used in law. The two are not the same, and conflating them is equivocation.
You’re also confusing the difference between the facts that must be proved and the level of evidence that the court would deem necessary for them to have proved those facts. The phrase “preponderance of the evidence” refers to the level of evidence, not to the facts that need to be proved.
As for disenfranchising the entire electorate, again, you’re equivocating. Everybody who voted clearly wasn’t denied the right to vote.
To clean up a few details, the nearly 400 provisional ballots were not illegally counted. They were improperly fed into into tabulating machines. In order to say that they were illegally counted, you have to show that none of them were valid. You’ve made an error in fact, which nullifies any conclusion you’d want to reach based on that alleged fact.
I think just about everybody agrees that we don’t know who really got the most number of votes. What we disgree about is whether it’s even possible to know, in an election with a margin of victory this small, who got the most votes. Start from that question. Convince me that it’s even possible to know. Until you do that, then there really isn’t much for us to talk about.
marks @ 25 Thanks for the correction. You’re quite right. I managed to omit the word “not” in that sentence.”
P.S. Goldy, since you’re considering a different blogging system, can I ask that you consider one that provides a comment preview feature? It’d be nice to have a quick way to check all the links and HTML I’ve used.
JCH- do you have a Hillary obsession? What does Senator Clinton have to do with this thread? And if there is a nexus with the US Senate, doesn’t the problem stem from the republicans who have run the place for some time now? Or is this another lame attempt at “humor”?
rick@# 12….Oh, where to begin?
Common sense may be an oxymoron in your world…but not mine. Actually “common sense” is usually based on the many experiences of many people over quite a bit of time..hence the term “common sense”.
But that was very ZEN of you………
And to tell me in advance that you are defining the parameters of my reply to you ,other wise, basically, I wouldn’t be worth listening to…is the height of arrogance.
That being said…and all of us admitting that perfection is never attained……..I don’t think it is a minor thing when dead people vote and their signatures match,do you?
If so, we have established that you have rather low standards and expectations here. So, am I to assume that if a surgeon operated on the wrong part of you, you would not be upset because these things happen? Of course you would, and don’t take this the wrong way, but that would only affect you and perhaps your family. A botched election ,and the acceptance of it, affects us all in very many ways. None of them good.
And yes, I personally do think we should make people jump through hoops if that’s what you call making people show I.D. so that we can have an accurate and reliable election process.
Maybe we should make them jump through the same hoops that we make people buying alcohol jump through.
When a cop stops you for speeding he asks to see your proof of insurance, right? Does that bother you also?
But when someone votes, we are not required to show i.d. and proof of citizenship. i’m sorry…but that just doesn’t cut it anymore.The sanctity of our Democracy rides on the sanctity of our elections….we can’t afford to play Cook County anymore. As this election proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You said…
” The examined assumption would likely tend toward the latter: in the absence of evidence to the contrary, people are presumed to have a legitimate right to vote. This is the assumption that you’ll find the courts apply to election contests, so I see no reason why we shouldn’t adopt the same assumption with respect to policy discussions.
Given that assumption, then an important policy goal is to place as little burden as possible on the right to vote.”
Wrong.
People are not assumed to have the right to vote…that’s why the problem with the provisional ballots being fed directly into the machines. If people automatically were presumed to have the right to vote a “provisional ballot” would be the true oxymoron.
Rick @38 – I think that you have done a fine job of helping me make my point clear. If you have any questions, please re-read my rejoinder, contemplate a bit, and then read your last paragraph aimed in my direction. I think that you are relying a bit too heavily on word parsing and not on strength of conviction or plausible argument. I certainly have no desire to muck in the word parsing depths to which you have so blatantly descended. Now convince me that you are not equivocating for the sake of political power, that you honestly care more about freedom and democracy than somehow justifying the results of an obviously flawed election.
K……”JCH- do you have a Hillary obsession?”….Hillary is introducing a bill to ensure all felons can vote, as many of her closest friends are felons [Craig Livingstone, all the dead bodies in AK, and DON!]. With the illegal vote, the dead vote, the NY City/Miami Democrat “double” votes, and the felon vote, Hillary stands a better chance in 2008. Due to the hundreds of illegal felon votes in the WASH election, this topic [Queen Hillary] is relevent and germaine.
“ignorance of the law” and “intent” are not really the point. The point is, there was no conspiracy. Shit happens. Felons get absentee ballots and they stupidly think they can use them. Oops! Each such vote swings the election by 0.000036%, just like your vote or my vote. BFD. I know there are various theories to the contrary, but is there any real evidence that such votes are at all out of proportion to the total vote? And, the handfull of felons who spoke up don’t convince me–even if I like the fact that most such extroverts admitted they voted for Rossi. Who the hell knows what biases we get by drawing inferences from the small sample of folks who admit they voted illegally (if inadvertantly).
Here is a conjecture: far more people voted for the wrong candidate because they had a brain fart while selecting a candidate than the total number of felon votes. Anyone care? Not me. . . brain farts afflict Dems and Repugs equally. It might have resulted in 5 or 6 excess votes in one camp or the other. Same with felons, but on a much smaller scale–probably resulted in a net of 2 or 3 votes total to the wrong camp.
Anyone care to prove me wrong with actual data?
I think there is a preview plug-in available that I can use in WordPress 1.5. But there’s some other stuff I may have to program myself.
JCH- this thread is not the first time you have introduced Senator Clinton into the discussion. And is that humor again referring to Miami “double” votes? I seem to recall last time that was in question (2000) it did not fall the democrats way.
k 39
http://www.nypost.com/postopin...../41479.htm
The conclusion is that Hillary’s plan for national felon voting will give her (or any democrat) a whoppingly high percentage of the additonal votes in 2008. If this study is on the level, it seems to be contrary to the oft-expressed opinion around here that Gregoire gained no advanatage from the illegal felon votes in 2004. No Don, I have no proof.
Adriel @ 11
Oh please!!! Bottle your sanctimonious lecture and send it to your Aunt Matilda because I’m not buying it. The GOP makes an art form of belligerence. The Republican Party are deliberately belligerent, and invest millions in belligerence. Belligerent Republican trolls come on this board looking for trouble, and engage in name-calling and insults to stir the pot. And you accuse ME of belligerence? You’ve GOT to be kidding me. What you’re really accusing me of is fighting back, which Democrats aren’t supposed to do — we’re supposed to roll over and kiss your ass. Well, I don’t play politics that way. Get used to it.
I bet this entire “felons voting” argument sounds pretty sickening to
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
Reserve Affairs
Army Reserve
Navy Reserve
Air Force Reserve
Marine Reserve
Coast Guard Reserve
National Guard
Air National Guard
Army National Guard
ESGR
Merchant Marine
who’s votes were not mailed on time or were recived 1 day late.
blather on & on about that r. schault and try to explain the difference in honor v law breakers.
Don
You haven’t posted anything but belligerent venting for ages. Ok we get it, you’re a “fighter” hurrah for you.
And Don, “The GOP makes an art form of belligerence.”? Compared to who, Carville Berendt and Begala? Both parties have enough hacks wiling to say anything in the press to get a rise from their base.
Rossi didn’t do much to recommend himself?!!! Where were you when he balanced the budget by bringing both sides of the aisle together for one of thiose rare times it ever happens? And if you wan to talk about narrowly following the line–what about Comrade Gregoire? Aiding and abetting and minimizing the importance and dangers of felon votes–a felony in and of itself. She can’t plead ignorance of the law either–Attorney General, my eye! And before you accuse me of just being a sore loser, let’s ask how many of BOTH sides were cheated by an unfair vote count (or was it several?–Oh, yeah–the first time in history that ONE out of three was enough). At leas tRossi has not asked that it be GIVEN to him by the courts. He has shown the integrity that Gregoire never had by asking only for a revote so there is no doubt left in the minds of the cheated. Any REAL governor would have done as much to save face, This woman is too stupid to know she is beaten and too crooked to care she had to cheat to get there. When the crash comes it is going to be a big one. If she somehow manages to squeak through this “term” without being arrested for fraud and insurrection, then I predict she won’t ever be able to be elected for soap girl at the local carwash! Have fun folks–and get a white cane with a red tip! You don’t when you’ve been screwed.
50…Steve, Well put!! [Steve, have you had the pleasure of meeting [49] DON??]
JCH, remember, they are victims now, in the minority, abused, give them a break. But just for a few minutes, then get back on task dammit. did the Times mention the next court date?
For example of Republican troll belligerence see #16; or how about this one: “Goldy, Has General Patton ever slapped you? Don, same question? Comment by JCH— 2/28/05 @ 6:21 pm.” This is hate speech. You don’t say that to an honorably discharged U.S. war veteran, period. It crossed a line, in a big way. Don’t talk to me about belligerence, because you have nothing to say on that subject.
Steve O’dell @ 50 Rossi has Integrity? What planet are you living on? 180 degrees of on that comment
Hate speach? OMG, what is it called when you do it don, self defense. LOL
How to win an argument 101.
zap @ 23
“This call for a revote is not only legitimate, it is well deserved and encouraged by principled people. If it’s only impact is to strengthen the voting process, then it will have been wildly successful. And should an evil despot or two be thrown from office, so much the better.”
How so, when there is no provision for a revote in either the state constitution or statutes? The “revote” is nothing but a publicity stunt. Are you saying Gregoire is an “evil despot” because she won a close recount? If so, explain.
someone call the A.C.L.U., N.A.A.C.P. or N.O.W., this is serious. We better get the secret service to stand guard at the door of the tavern at these chapter meetings.
52,Don’t know, but the Sharkman at SP will have the details. Botton line: When the courts find fraud and flip this election, the GOLDY’s and DON of the Democrat libs will become unglued!! They will howl like a stuck boar!! They will scream racism, and sexism, and look for blood. [kind of like a welfare hack who just received his last [termed out] “guvment” check] “It’s not fair!!” they will scream! Oh yeah…….look for police cars turned upside down, and commie libs marching through downtown Seattle breaking windows [again!] DON may lose his “guvment” job and be forced to find productive work in the private sector. [He will quickly find out how valuable he really is!] 52…Democrats: “victims”. How true!!!
Don @53 I can only hope you were defending the recruiters that were treated so abysmally and chased off campus over there. Toerance, my backside–there is no such thing as a tolerant liberal–right up there with Santa. And may I add, Sen. McCarthy was RIGHT!
Don,
I was responding to “The GOP makes an art form of belligerence. The Republican Party are deliberately belligerent, and invest millions in belligerence.” That has nothing to do with troll belligerence.
My point is that there is enough belligerence from jerks like Michael Moore, Carville, move-on org, and every full of himself 20-something lefty that tore up Seattle in the WTO riots to paint the democrat kettle black too. You don’t call the ALF or Earth First belligerent? The college kids that blocked 520 a few years ago were pretty belligerent too, Don. So don’t try to say the GOP has a monopoly on belligerence.
Adriel @ 30
Chee made a valid point. The ex-felons who have talked to the media overwhelmingly supported Rossi.
For another example of right-wing belligerence see post #30.
Don @56 Close recount? Close, yes, but was it an honest recount? I have to wonder why this is the first time in history that 1 out of 3 is enough and why the legislature wanted the courts to handle it and then 2 days later when they heard the courts WOULD be handling it, the shoe was on the other foot again and they wanted the legislature to handle–crying foul. This a classic textbook case–just like John Kerry in his lawyer mode–tell the jusry whatever the circumstances call for, right or wrong, but let’s win at any cost. You guys are so transparent you should be named Windex!
Adriel @ 32
Proving intent would be necessary in a criminal prosecution for illegal voting, but for purposes of the election contest statute, it doesn’t matter whether the illegal vote was cast because of mistaken belief, deliberate intent, or confusion. Whether the contestor must show who the illegal votes were cast for, is yet to be decided by Judge Bridges, but the language of the contest statute points in that direction.
JCH @ 35
Please cite to the post in which I defended illegal felon votes.
64, Steve, O’Dell……….Could you provide details for Chardonnay me on the 300 votes all signed by the same hand? And, could you get a sample of DON’s handwriting for comparison? GOLDY’s, too? Thanks in advance, JCH
The recall Reed matter already used up their two chances in court. Now they want to get the judge to reconsider based on new discovery after Rossi’s last hearing. The most significant factor in filing a motion to reconsider in the matter of recall of Sam Reed is that you can not add extra laundry, the case will have to be reconsidered as was presented previously. This weekend Pres. Bush met with all the state governors at a conferance. It was not by accident but by design that Bush significantly singled out only our Washington governer and said, “Welcome Washington’s new Governor, Christine Gregoire. Clear messsage to Rossi. At the National Party level, the fuss over a no win situation has rubbed too much fur the wrong way. Rossi may be looking for a way to bow out gracefully; heap big smoke, no fire.
steve @ 63
for the record, John Kerry’s real name is John Kohn. little FYI for ya. aka “onestitch” John F Kohn, just doesn’t sound presidential.
JCH @ 68, would you stop, my eyes are watering.
K B @ 37
Here is the American Correctional Association resolution on restoration of voting rights: http://www.aca.org/pastpresent.....ons.asp#15
71…Chardonnay….Thanks. That was one of my best posts!!!
oh for God’s sake, Reed is the goddam smoking gun. Why do you think Vance defended him this morning on KTTH? He is the man who is going to cite all the WACS in court. The WSRP and Rossi have not joined the recall bandwagon for a reason. You liberals are being thrown off track, smoke and mirrors. It doesn’t take much obviously. The DC attorneys are not like (I wont mention) they have loads of evidence, some non of you even know about, for a reason. Disclosure???? they are not letting the durkins have anymore time than neccesary.
Don @ 61
Ok, if you won’t read the NY Post article I linked in #49, try this:
http://www.soc.umn.edu/%7Eugge.....ASR_02.pdf
Look at Table 1 (page 11). If the felon vote went to Rossi, it would go seriously against the national data these researchers cite. All the speculation about felons not voting for Gregoire is totally opposite the results of this study.
Rick @ 38
Here’s my two cents on zap’s comment @ 23, “What part of ‘appears’ do you not understand?”: At this point no one understands what its legal meaning will be in this election contest lawsuit.
Rick Schaut @ 38:
Very well put. Move to the head of the class. :-)
Don @ 61
Since when is one person an overwhelming majority? and since when did you start believing felon?… oh yeah that’s right since they started supporting your side of the issue. Keep barking Don your notting fooling anyone even your blind yes men.
Ghost @ 40
“People are not assumed to have the right to vote”
You’re damn right they are, and all the burdens are on him who wants to take that right away.
DON……Don’t miss post 68. [We are on to you!]
ChristmaGhost @ 40
Let’s start with your last point first. The fact that people whose name doesn’t appear in a list of registered voters for a given precinct is evidence of a presumptive right to vote. Were that not the case, people would get no ballot, provisional or otherwise.
Actually, no, I don’t think it’s a “minor thing.” In fact, I think those who can be proved to have done this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don’t think those votes should overturn this election simply because they happened, nor do I think that isolated cases of individual fraud, not the kind of wholesale fraud we’ve come to associate with Illinois’ Cook County, ought to be considered ground to recall Sam Reed.
Neither of those situations bother me in the least. Neither purchasing alcohol nor driving an automobile fall into the same fundamental category as the right to vote as it relates to democracy.
Lastly, I understand entirely why “common sense” is perceived to be “common.” It has everything to do with shared experience, and so long as people give little weight to the views of those whose experience differs substantially from their own, the assumptions that arise from that body of common experience remain unexamined.
I suggest you track down a copy of William Hatcher’s book, “Minimalism.” Just google for “minimalism hatcher,” and you should find it. He discusses this very subject at length.
chee @ 69
there you go underestimating GW again. You think he is stupid, fine, but when Rossi is awarded the new election, gregoire will have a really nice glamour shot look on her face. And I highly doubt she accepted his “nice words” as sincere as had they come from former Gov Booth or Mayor Rudy Guliani. Did she take those magazines w/Rudy on the cover in the AGO over to the GOV office?
Chardonnay…..I just voted for “JCH” on the TROLL vote. Bottom line”: I’m only at 20%!! I figured DON would find a way to vote, say, 300 times!! [He does have the experience!!]
White Whine @ 48
The military vote argument doesn’t go very far. There’s certainly a problem to fix, mostly having to do with the Federal Government’s system of delivering mail to military personnel overseas, but one really has to stretch in order to turn this into an argument in favor of either a revote or recalling Sam Reed.
By the way, my last name dosn’t have an “l” in it.
Isn’t there a way we could fit the recall, military and felons into one balanced topic?
Don @ 72. The toughest part of the cerification process is that if convicted in a state other than Washington where you are residing and seeking to vote, you have to get your certification from the state convicted in and that can be an ordeal. My take is that being we vote statewide in the presidential election, would be easier if all states had uniform laws on their books regarding restoring voting rights but it has been left up to each state to make their own rules. I really think the issue is a strange mix. Why make it so difficult. The right to vote is a take away, we all understand that when in prison you lose your rights and same if in a mental facility. I favor automatic restoration and think it is a less complicated and more plausible way to go. Those that aren’t ranting over felons are not saying they support uncertified voting, they may see the solution differently.
Rick @81…..Thanks…I will.Do you happen to have a publish date?
And ,no, I don’t think the election should be overturned “merely” because of the dead vote, but I do think that combined with all the other irregularities that occurred it would be extremely foolish to not have another vote. I, personally, have no doubt that fraud occurred and I am not alone in this feeling.When a majority of Washington residents feel that their election was terminally flawed, I think it is in the State’s best interest to have another election. The four million dollars that it would cost would be money well spent.
Yes, it’s alot of money..but to put it in perspective, Christine Gregoire almost doubled the staff of the AG’s office during her term and their salaries alone[including her husband, Mike] amount to half a billion dollars a year.That is salaries alone……
Think about that.By all rights we should be the most crime free State in the nation………..
I for one, would like a little accountability from my government.
zip @ 75
Interesting. . . one of the authors of this research was a colleague of mine in the mid-1990s. I have a copy of the seminal research article in front of me (from Uggen and Monza (2002) American Sociological Review, volume 67, number 6 page 777-804.
Bottom line: in the 2000 election, there was a 27% turnout (for presidential election) of felon voters whose voting rights had been restored. Uggen and Monza estimate that 69% voted for Gore. If we extrapolate to the WA 2004 election, of course, a handy majority of Washingtonians voted for Kerry, whereas it was a dead even split for Gov. The whole basis of the estimates in this research was the proportion of black felon voters (who, as a group, tend to vote Democratic).
But, the overall proportion of black felons is, roughly, 50% nationally (based on Department of Justice Statistics, for Jan 1 2001). In lilly-white Washington, however, only about 15% of felons are black. Washington’s low proportion of black felons is offset by states like Mississippi, where the figure is closer to 70%.
Take-home message: don’t take national statistics and try to apply them to regional/local politics. The “felon-voter effect” does not appear to be beneficial to Democrats in Washington.
christamsghost, “half a billion dollars”? That can’t be right.
zapporo @ 41
Well, you were the one who asked me whether I knew the meaning of the word “appears.” If you don’t want to parse words, then don’t base an argument on one.
As for “descending” into any kind of “depths” in any sense, I’d say the only depth to which anyone has descended is the depth of using words or phrases in one sense, and then turning an argument based on a different meaning for the same words or phrases. That’s what equivocation is. However, since you’ve avowed to not care to engage in such careful parsing of people’s words, you can scarcely accuse me of being equivocal.
I have no idea what “depth of conviction” has to do with a well-reasoned argument. To me the phrase connotes irrational emotionalism. If one is wrong, one’s “depth of conviction” doesn’t magically make one right. It might make one more shrill, but it does nothing to improve the quality of one’s argument.
Lastly, it would seem that the only possible way I can convince you that I care about democracy is to just drop the argument and agree with everything you’ve said. Clearly the fact that I am here spending valuable time as I strive to put forth coherent arguments in favor of my point of view has been insufficient evidence for you to conclude that I actually care. One might as well ask if you care.
But, to be absolutely clear of my view, I think the Republicans’ call for a revote, and all the empty rhetoric that’s been behind it, serves no purpose but to actually subvert democracy. It has no demonstrably valuable effect that cannot be achieved through other means, and has served only to fan the flames of hatred among people not at all unlike yourself. We shouldn’t stand for it, regardless of what our political views are. It’s about time we called a halt to this kind of crap, and demanded that our politicians got back to trying to get into office based on their views with respect to the issues we face in our daily lives rather than trying to get into office through outright demagoguery.
Don…..Please note the “Lame Ass Poll” on the Front Page of this website. Could you vote, say, 300 times for “JCH”? It don’t matter if you are a convicted felon or are an illegal, DON. I figure if anyone would know how to rig an election and vote multiple times, it would be you! Thanks in advance, JCH
Goldy,
Your compliment to Stefan is nice. However, after reading his post on the matter to which you link, he seems very agreeable to recalling Reed. He just, gosh, doesn’t think the timing is all that good:
3) Is a recall of Sam Reed the highest priority use of limited time and resources after the governorship is settled, or are there other higher priority issues, such as a ballot initiative for sweeping election reform that would work around Sam Reed?
dj @ 88
Does the same study not state that there was a 76% democratic vote among felons in Senate races? That’s a pretty big number to explain away on racial composition. The fact is that the national trend is contrary to the speculation we have read on this site about the felon votes favoring Rossi. Whether the national trend held up here or not is just more speculation.
Zip@89…That’s what I thought when i was given the number so I checked it again….that’s what it is. Frightening isn’t it?
christmasghost @ 87 You wrote:
“Christine Gregoire almost doubled the staff of the AG’s office during her term and their salaries alone[including her husband, Mike] amount to half a billion dollars a year.That is salaries alone……”
WOW! By my calculations, they must have hired 2,500-5,000 new employees! Is that right? Where did you get the 1/2 billion dollar figure? Just curious.
Chardonnay @ 82. Leave no felons behind was Governor G.W’s motto. While governor of Texas he enacted to allow felons voting rights be restored automatically. Noone’s all bad including G.W. Didn’t know an awards ceremony was coming up for Rossi, my personal invite must still be in my stack of fan mail.
zip @ 75
We’ve already talked about that study, which near as I can tell makes a major mistake in assuming that felon voters share no common profile. They admit up front they have no survey data on how felons might have voted. They simply tally up their other characteristics (race, education, gender), make an adjustment for lower TURNOUT because they’re felons–but they leave untouched the possibility that felons vote as a group in a different pattern from non-felons. Ignoring that possibility casts doubt on their conclusions.
DJ@95…From the State’s records. You would not believe how much most of those people get paid.I know, I know……it sounds unbelieveable but those employees are not making the pittance that the legislators are.Her husband Mike made almost twice as much as a legislator does working as an investigator in the office.AND he was one of the lower paid people there.
zip @ 93
Yes, it does estimate 76.1 Democratic vote for the U.S. Senate race with the same (29.7%) turnout. But, this is an estimate of percent democratic vote–and that estimate is based on the racial composition (not the other way around). Their estimates probably work fine as a national average, but not for WA, which has a substantially lower percentage of black felons.
BTW: In Washington, 52.8% voted for Kerry, 54.9% for Murray, and only 48.9% for Gregoire. The 2000 national felon vote (based on an estimate of ~50% black felons) is 68.9 Gore, 76.1 U.S. Senate. Since WA only has about 15% black felons, the estimate of Democratic voting felons would be substantially lower.
zip @ 46
The N.Y. Post is a tabloid paper with a conservative editorial slant, which would normally provoke my skepticism, but they did cite specific research from Northwestern University and the University of Minnesota to back up their factual assertions. I have neither the time nor inclination to read the academic studies. A summary of findings is available at http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/FD_summary.htm Among other things, Uggens and Manza found a “strong” correlation between voting and recidivism; i.e., ex-felons who voted were only half as likely to be rearrested as those who didn’t.
I think the NY Post is over the top to suggest Sen. Clinton and other Democrats support restoring voting rights to ex-felons to get more Democratic votes. This ignores and demeans the legitimate arguments for such a policy, including reduced crime.
Obviously, as individuals we have philosophical differences over how society should deal with criminals. You won’t get me to support chopping off hands for stealing; branding the letter “A” on the foreheads of adulterers; or forcing ex-felons to wear the mark of Cain and be subject to public hatred and harassment. Revenge is counterproductive and not a respectable basis for social policy or the rule of law.
As a practical matter, the vast majority of inmates were convicted of drug or property crimes and will be released after serving a couple years. Many are young and will live among us for decades to come. After they’ve done their time and returned to the community, if you forever treat them as criminals and deny them a place in society, you’re probably going to get a career criminal for your efforts. This approach also is inconsistent with Jesus’s teachings. In the entire New Testament, we find only one instance where Jesus promised an individual he would go to Heaven, and that person was one of the criminals who was crucified along with Him. Christianity teaches that God’s capacity for forgiveness is boundless, and He rejoices in the redemption of sinners. If you support a revenge-based social policy toward ex-felons, you are not a Christian, no matter what you call yourself.
As in all things, I would have to see the specific provisions of a proposed policy or legislation, before I could comment on it. I wouldn’t like it if someone burglarized my home or stole my car, but I don’t think they should spend life in prison for that, and I don’t think they should be denied voting rights for life, either. On the other hand, for murder or rape of a family member, I would want to throw the key down the deepest well I could find. In other words, I believe in punishment proportionate to the crime, and because all crimes are not equally harmful, I don’t think you should throw thieves or people convicted of drug crimes into the same basket as murderers and rapists for voting rights purposes. If you keep the worst criminals in prison forever, then there is no voting rights issue. If the crime isn’t serious enough to lock them up forever, then it isn’t serious enough to take away their voting rights forever, either. That’s my view.
ChristmaGhost @ 87
I introduced my father-in-law to the book, and he hasn’t relinguished it since. Unfortunately, he’s now back in Wisconsin, and I no longer have a copy of the book on hand. I don’t have a publication date, but the publisher is Juxta Publishing.
Even if we take all the various “irregularities” and combine them, I’m not sure we get any kind of conclusive result. I quote the word “irregularities,” because, in terms of occurrance, they actually appear to have been rather regular on the scale that we’ve observed in this past election. I don’t know any way to get around the bottom line that we can’t know who really won the election in terms of the greatest number of legal votes.
But, we certainly part company with respect to the advisability of a revote. If, as the evidence very strongly indicates, all of the “irregularities” that occurred in this past election fall within the general rubric of “human error,” and we have a revote without any changes in procedures designed to reduce the element of human error, what assurance do we have that a revote won’t be plagued with just as many problems as this past election? Unless we enact some kind of election reform, a revote is nothing more than stirring the pot and hoping the potatoes come to the top before the carrots this time.
tj @ 97
Implying that the felon vote in 2004 favored Rossi is just speculation based on an assumption that they will dis-favor the AG. How many of the felons who voted even knew that Gregoire was the AG, or what an AG is for that matter? We’ll never know will we? We don’t even know what their characteristics (race, education, gender) are. My point is that speculating a Rossi outcome from our felon votes is contrary to this study. By a wide margin.
christmasghost @ 98
Thanks for the reply! These numbers really are remarkable. Can you share a URL or other reference that provides the raw number of new AJO employees under Gregoire? And, do you know where I can find state salaries–I know this is public information, but I don’t know where one finds it.
dj
try here:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/100.pdf
and brew a pot of coffee.
Chardonnay @ 489
First of all, I firmly believe our military personnel (especially those serving overseas) deserve the first place in line to vote, and everything possible to enable them to vote should be done.
Having said that, it’s a fact that Washington is the easiest state to vote in if you’re serving in the military away from home. Washington bends over backwards for military voters. They don’t even have to be registered, as long as their Home of Record is in this state. All of the counties mailed all of their military ballots by October 8, the date required by federal law. Any service member who didn’t get a ballot on time could request a Federal Write In Ballot from his/her Unit Voting Assistance Officer. They didn’t even need to know the name of the candidate, they could vote for a candidate simply by designating a party — “Republican” or “Democrat” or “Libertarian,” etc., and that vote would be counted for Rossi, Gregoire, Bennett, or whoever.
Despite all the hoopla raised by the GOP for PR purposes, it’s a fact that King County received over 14,000 ballots from military and overseas voters, and only 16 of these were not counted because they were received too late. That’s right — 16 out of over 14,000. There was a total of approximately 250 or so military/overseas ballots that weren’t counted for other rasons which so far as anyone knows were legitimate reasons (e.g., domicile in another state).
The alleged disenfranchisement of military voters is a spurious issue. It’s a lie.
zip @ 49
I don’t think this merits a reply. Every Democrat reading this board is aware of GOP belligerence, and no Republican reading this board will admit it.
chardonnay @ 55
JCH called me a coward in the military. I have posted crude remarks, but nothing remotely like that.
chardonnay — everything has limits, but apparently you’re too stupid to know that.
JCH @58
“When the courts find fraud and flip this election, the GOLDY’s and DON of the Democrat libs will become unglued!!”
My prediction is that when they don’t, you’re going to look like the ass you are.
dj @ 95
I’d taken White Whine’s remark to be hyperbole. If that number is serious, it’s rather difficult to square it with the AGO’s overall budget of $75 MM. I think White Whine overstates the amount for salaries by at least an order of magnitude. $50 MM would be just about right.
Steve @ 59
I oppose harassing military recruiters, and I also oppose giving military recruiters desks in high school guidance counseling offices. I think recruiters should be honest with prospective recruits about what military life is really like, instead of seducing them with Fun/Travel/Adventure bullshit, so they can make an informed choice.
Don 105
Cripes Don, I admitted it in #49. All I’m saying is that there is plenty of belligerence coming out of the extreme elements of this country, many of whom are Democrats. I listed a few in #60. There are belligerent party hacks on both sides, and there are extremists on both sides. Living in the Northwest, we witness more than I’d like to see of the left belligerent extremists. So don’t try to get away with spouting off about the GOP having a monopoly on belligerence. It makes it seem like you’re just trying to pick (another) fight.
chardonnay @ 55
If somebody called you a coward after you had honorably served your country in a shooting war, what would you call it, asshole?
zip @ 103
Thanks for the reference, zip, I really appreciate it. But, if I am reading the chart correctly, the sum of the total salaries for the 177 individuals listed is $9.1 million dollars/year (that is like 2% of the 1/2 billion figure you mention). The average salary is $50,056 (maximum: $111,300). There must be about 6000-7000 more employees in the AGO at that level.
Feel free to check my calculations, though–I didn’t have any coffee on hand when I did this :)
zip @ 60
“My point is that there is enough belligerence from jerks like Michael Moore, Carville, move-on org, and every full of himself 20-something lefty that tore up Seattle in the WTO riots to paint the democrat kettle black too. You don’t call the ALF or Earth First belligerent? The college kids that blocked 520 a few years ago were pretty belligerent too, Don. So don’t try to say the GOP has a monopoly on belligerence.”
Michael Moore has committed intellectual dishonesty. Happy now? So has George W. Bush, and a lot of other people on the political scene, both sides. You’re lying when you imply that Democrats “tore up Seattle in the WTO riots.” All of the violence and property damage was caused by an organized band of anarchists. These people had nothing to do with the Democrats, and Democrats had nothing to do with them. The ALF and Earth First groups are not Democrats, either, nor are these domestic terrorists supported in any way shape or form by the Democratic Party or rank-and-file Democrats. Democrats repudiate violence and terrorism. I don’t know what you’re referring to in regards to 520, unless you’re going back to the Vietnam era. I wasn’t here (for that matter, I wasn’t in town during WTO either) and don’t know anything about it because I was in Vietnam at the time.
Steve @ 63
“was it an honest recount?”
Yes. I observed both recounts, every day, all day, and saw nothing remotely apporaching fraud. In the machine recount, every “enhanced” or “duplicated” ballot was examined by a Republicabn, who could challenge it, and the few that were challenged went to the canvassing board. In the hand recount, every ballot was counted by a Republican and a Democrat, and their counts had to match. Even the Republican lawyers in the election contest suit don’t allege fraud or claim the recount was dishonest. They’re basing their case on illegal votes, which is extraneous to the counting process.
Steve @ 64
Please, Steve, we’ve all heard the talking points on Carlson’s show — many times. If you’re going to make an accusation like that, support it with facts. Otherwise, it’s just garbage.
Steve @ 67
Is there a germane point in there somewhere, or are you just venting?
chardonnay @ 74
You’re kidding yourself if you think the GOP attorneys will be allowed to present anything in court they didn’t disclose to the Democratic attorneys in discovery.
dj,
actually I’m not the half billion dollar man, you confused me with an earlier poster. I look at the same list and see total employment in the AG office of 1,200 or so and figured the total payroll can’t even be 120 million.
Don,
Be glad you weren’t here for the WTO riot, it was a mess. If we had any way to settle the bet, I’d win a bet that most of those WTO and other jerks I listed above voted for Kerry. Just like the “belligerent GOPers” voted for Bush.
zip @ 75
Number one, I read the article, and number two, how does this contradict what the local news media reported about felon votes for Rossi?
Adriel @ 78
Where do you get the “one person” from? I think you’re confusing the felon votes with the dead votes. Only one “dead voter” told the media who he voted for — Rossi — but a number of “felon voters” told the media they voted for Rossi and as I recall there was one “felon voter” who said she voted for Gregoire.
JCH @ 80
Your comment is cute — for a third grader.
char @ 82
Under what scenario do you visualize Rossi being awarded a new election, given that Judge Bridges has already ruled that he lacks authority to order one?
Xmas @ 87
“I do think that combined with all the other irregularities that occurred it would be extremely foolish to not have another vote.”
That expectation is highly unreasonable unless it’s shown the irregularities changed the outcome.
dj @ 88
Interesting point, and one I hadn’t thought of, thanks for bringing it up. I’ve said previously that I don’t think you can accurately extrapolate the KC illegal felon vote by using the county-wide 57-40 Gregoire-Rossi split because you have a much higher proportion of males in the felon population than in King County as a whole, and males are more likely to vote Republican. This seems to be borne out by the anecdotal evidence gathered by reporters that most felons willing to talk about it voted for Rossi.
xmas @ 87
The Attorney General Office’s budget for the current biennium is $92 million a year, and staffing is about 1,080 employees. In 2000, the earliest year for which I have numbers, the budget was $78 million a year and staffing was 1,034 employees — almost no increase in staffing and a growth in dollar-spending of 18% over 5 years. That’s about 3.5% a year, and as state employees haven’t received a COLA since 2001, most likely the bulk of that is inflation in the cost of employee health insurance benefits.
JCH @ 91
I’m not interested in voting for you for anything even once.
tj @ 97
If that’s the case, the study’s conclusions are unreliable at best, and quite possibly completely wrong.
zip @ 119
I doubt very much the anarchists voted for Kerry or anyone else. They operate outside the system.
I love the stench of Republican desperation in the evening. It smells like, victory (oh wait, that happened months ago
after the manual recount – you sore losers are like chickens with your heads cut off, and are about as dumb).
Yes Matt, it is rather nice…but oh so normal…the illiterates rallying around the ‘House’ point of view. Nothing more, nothing less…just like lemings following eacho other over the cliff…ie…JCH, Xmas, Zip, Idiot, chardonayvinegar, it is really kind of funny, no one with their own views…just posting the ‘partyline’, oh well, see them again in ’06
Also, just imagine what a beautiful color of red, the ‘rednecks’ will proffer when the WS Supreme court rules the elections stands….all of their hard earned money (by not paying normal taxes) will have gone to WASTE. LMAO at ALL OF EM
don @ 122
You put your trust in felons? You poor individual, they may be lying if that is so one voted for Rossi all the other voted Gregiore. So Don really can you trust a criminal?
Don @ 100. Good words Don. You touched on a little Bible philosophy also. Threads of social law and truth run through all great religions. I always liked the story about the age old custom of stoneing; throwing rocks at people. Jesus said, “He (modernized version..she too) that is with out sin, cast the first stone.” Then a huge stone came flying, Jesus turned to see who had thrown it. Jesus said, sometimes Mother you really piss me off. In keeping with the Bible quote, what sow is what you reap, Australia invented the boomerang; what goes around comes around. :-)
Adriel @ 134. What Don said, is not what you heard. Don never mentioned he put his trust in felons or anyone else for that matter. His statement was about who felons said they voted for. Trust is earned whether a felon or not and felons are not the only liars. Politicians make an art of talking out of both sides of their mouth at once.
Chee @ 136
So Don was just trying to “stir the pot” by throwing out random things?
refrence from angry post at 47 (hipocryte)
Rick Schaut @ 101. Really have enjoyed reading all your educated analysis. Refreshing to say the least. That said, I agree with your opinion on a revote which is equivalant to fixing with baling wire, bandaids and bungy cords.
Adriel@ 137. Scrolled back to your referance to Don and post 47. What is reflected there is.. the donkey is not angry but ain’t gonna roll over and play kiss with the elephant.
Talking to Chee and some other dems in here is just like talking to a horses ass, all you get in response is a bunch of worthless shit.
Adriel @ 140
You’re projecting. If your idea of a good conversation is just agreeing with all your crap.. well go over to (un)Sound Politics, you’ll be happier.
We won’t miss you.
No, I’m just tired of dumb answers to valid questions, and rebuttling debates with unintelligable things like: “What Don said, is not what you heard. Don never mentioned he put his trust in felons or anyone else for that matter. His statement was about who felons said they voted for. Trust is earned whether a felon or not and felons are not the only liars. Politicians make an art of talking out of both sides of their mouth at once.”
Tired of them not being able to debate me, so they effectively start a debate against themselves and come out feeling great because they won (the debate against themselves that is.)
Adriel@140:
Whether conservative or liberal, the views on this site for the most part are simply an informational exhange between thinkers. There always will those naysayers, stinkers who vear off, dumbfounded by intelligance. Eleanor Roosevelt had a great saying. “Noone can insult me without my permission.” Says it all. I don’t recall Goldy giving out permission slips either.
Speaking of “naysayers stinkers who vear off (the subject.)” how is everything CHEE?
zip @ 102
When did I ever imply that Rossi won more of the felon vote? Let me answer for you: never. What I said was that I have grave suspicions about the utility of the study that was cited. I am calling their conclusions (and the applicability of their conclusions to WaGov, as someone else pointed out) potentially misguided–I’ve not offered any opinion on how I think felon voters may have voted. And that’s for a reason: I don’t think we have any idea. Which is part and parcel of why I don’t think proportional allocation of illegal ballots is a good idea, nor do I think the court will choose it as a method of determining the result.
Don @ 129
That’s basically how I read it, yes. They evaluated felons based on everything ELSE we know about them, but were not able to offer any insight into voting patterns particular to felons.
Thank you Torridjoe, damn! We finally agree on something, you can’t trust a guy proven to be a *law breaker* to tell the truth about how he *illegally* voted.
adriel @ 146
so you agree as well that Rossi is fucked when it comes to making an issue of felon votes in his contest petition, because asking them how they voted is an unreliable gauge?
We can’t ask them how they voted that is absurd, however I think the fact that there were so many poses the question as to wether or not misconduct and neglegence had a role in the election. You are dwelling on the surface & not looking further than the end of your nose (your view of reality.) Many poll workers and ballot counting staff said they were given little to no directions or even a hand book, to brush these accusations off is to burry your head in the sand and say “what sun? I don’t see any sun.”
what do felon voters have to do with poll workers? Nothing, that I can tell.
How do you know that there were “so many?” What’s that based on? What if there were HALF as many felon voters in 2004 as 2000?
Posing the question is fine. The problem is, after the question has been sufficiently answered, you simply won’t accept it. Rossi alleges no misconduct by officials, so that’s a dead issue in this contest. I don’t know how you can claim negligence, when elections officials apparently canceled all registrations for which they were notified that they should cancel them. You can claim insufficiency of the statutes to prevent felon voting, but that’s not at all the same thing as negligence under current statute.
Ask the question, but for God’s sake LISTEN TO THE ANSWER.
Adriel @ 148
Actually, that question has been examined. In fact changes in procedures along with a state-wide database of criminals who ought not be allowed to register to vote have been scheduled to come on line for some time now. (Is it slated for the 2006 election–someone posted some details in another thread, but I can’t find them now.)
Looks like the problem has been recognized, and a solution is being implemented as we speak. I have no idea what this has to do with recalling Sam Reed, though. Are you saying that Sam Reed hasn’t acted quickly enough to resolve the problem? That would be an interesting argument provided one could make it. How long do you think it ought to take to develop a master database, and establish procedures to ensure that the data in the database is both accurate and up-to-date?
Rick @110…….Why do you keep referring to me as white whine? Am I missing something here?
And in 2003 [they come out with the new numbers every two years] the AG’s office had 1,194 employees.The total salary number is 578,101,172.32. There are 43 people over…some well over…100,000 a year, there are 65 between 90-100,000, there are 98 between 80-90,000, there are 91 between 70-80,000.
Those are just a few. And we haven’t even gotten to overhead, perks ect.
When you see how many assistant AG’s she had ….you have to wonder how in the world she ever missed any deadlines…..
Xmas @ 151
So less than 4% of an agency full of LAWYERS makes 100K or more in one of the most expensive cities in the country, and that’s an outrage? Do you have any idea what lawyers make in the private sector?
jpgee @ 132
Lemming to buddy as they run like hell to the cliff: “I don’t know where we’re going either, but 53 million lemmings can’t be wrong.”
Adriel @ 134
Why would they lie about something like that? But if, as you say, we can’t believe anything a felon says then Rossi can’t prove Gregoire didn’t win the election, can he?
Joe @152……..One of the most expensive cities in the country? Olympia? I realize that you are in Oregon..but do you realize we are not talking about Seattle, right?
And what I find appalling is the NUMBER of employees and the lack of anything being done by all those lawyers…….
In a State this size…both land and population wise I think the number of employees alone is appalling. I think i’ll check out what California’s stats are today…you know that big state that has the 7th largest economy in the world. What do you want to bet they don’t even remotely compare. What about Oregon? Why don’t you check that out….let’s see what we find…….
I do actually know what lawyers make in the private sector…depending on what they do….but what does that have to do with this? These guys weren’t drafted against their will you know……..
Chee @ 139
But I’ll pet their elephant if they’ll kiss my ass. :D
Rick Schaut @ 150
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to set it up as an automated system just like online businesses have been doing for years. The felon is incarcerated the system updates to take him/ her off the rolls, the felon regains voting right he/ she is automatically re-added (saying that they have a permanent residence in WA state.)
torridjoe @ 149
“Rossi alleges no misconduct by officials, so that’s a dead issue in this contest.” That maybe good enough for the Rossi camp, but I think outside the box of believing everything the government does is in our best interest. “You can claim insufficiency of the statutes to prevent felon voting, but that’s not at all the same thing as negligence under current statute.” Failure to update the rolls isn’t neglegance? Sounds like passing the buck to me.
Once aian Torridjoe Why do you care what happens in WA? what is your vested interest? Why not concentrate that energy on OR politics?
Adriel @ 148
Your arguments for a revote boil down to speculating that maybe Rossi won but you’re just guessing as there’s no way to know. Just curious, why didn’t you argue for revotes of the presidential election on the same basis? The principle is the same.
White whine @ 151
White Christmas + Whiner = White whine, get it?
Squeezing $578 million of salaries out of a two-year budget of $178 million is a good trick if you can pull it off. You should be able to make a lot of money as a management consultant if you know how, as your unique expertise will be in great demand. Here’s a link to the 2003-2005 Attorney General Office’s budget as originally proposed by Gov. Locke: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget03/recsum/100rs.htm These figures were subject to modification by the legislature and the 2004 supplemental budget, but are not very far off the final numbers, and unfortunately the enacted budget is not available in a convenient format like this; you have to plow through the ponderous wording of the appropriations bill. I think we can safely assume the legislature didn’t arbitrarily increase the governor’s spending request for this agency from $178 million to $578 million (for salaries only, plus the non-salary costs such as building leases, IT services, equipment, vehicles, etc.).
I posted this to show you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Adriel @ 157
It very much appears you think inside another box: The blind ideology that believes government can do no good and the private sector can do no wrong.
Xmas @ 155
you don’t really believe most employees live in Thurston County, do you? Seattle is the 2nd largest office for the over 400 attorneys employed by the AG.
If you don’t understand the relationship between hiring good employees and the standards of remuneration, I can’t help you.
Me @ 159
Ooops a typo, it’s not $178 million, it’s $174.6 million.
Adriel @ 157
What evidence do you have that there was failure to update the rolls? None, that I know of. You appear not to know how the process works. King County was given a list of possible King citizens who had lost their voting privileges, and so far no one has asserted that King failed to cancel every registration that they could match to the list they were given, over 600 in all. Negligence is not doing something you were supposed to be doing. What were King officials supposed to do, SPECIFICALLY, that you allege they did not?
Why do you care why I care about what happens in WA?
Don@ 159………
Wow…you clever devil. White whine…once again, WOW. Are you amswering for Rick now? I find that hard to believe, as he seems to be rational and you? Well, I’m trying to be polite about it, but you usually can’t string three words together without an insult or foul language.
And those numbers are the actual numbers from the AGO’s office. Salaries often in public agencies have very little to do with the budget. If you have a problem with the numbers, and you are a Washington resident, BIG IF on this forum, complain to them.
tj @ 161
How can you “help” someone who posts “the lack of anything being done by all those lawyers”? It’s useless to tell the White Whiner that citizens file 1000s of legal actions against state agencies and officials every year, some of which are pure bullshit (e.g., Ringhofer’s recall against Sam Reed). This is a person who does not want to be helped or educated in any way. The White Whiner wants only one thing: Affirmation of, or agreement with, his ideological beliefs because adhering to those beliefs (despite any facts to the contrary) fulfills this person’s emotional needs. Facts and logic have nothing to do with WW’s thought process, and no amout of reason will alter his thought process.
Xmas @ 164
You don’t have to be polite to me. I’ll be more than happy to trade insult-for-insult with you. I don’t feel Republicans should have that market to themselves. As for your $578 million figure for AGO salaries, show me where you got that number. SHOW ME. That number is wrong, period. The entire agency doesn’t spend $100 million a year, and never has. Did you sit down with a calculator and spend all night adding up the salaries on OFM’s list? If you did, it appears you messed up a decimal placement. $57.8 million I could believe.
Don @ 160
well if that is my crutch Then what is yours? maybe it is looking at the people and thinking that they are animals in a zoo that need to be caged for their own protection.
I believe People can do wrong but I will resound the words that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” that is why I don’t look at the goverment as my saviour.
JOE @161…….Nice try at a save there. Good employees…heh heh heh……..
As a resident of Oregon maybe you should stick to rationalizing Oregon’s bad behavior……
I take it you aren’t bickering about the amount of salaries anymore?
Don @166….why would I want to be anything but polite to anyone?
I don’t know why you think that your hostility does anything but make you look…well, hostile. Hostile is a by-product of fear. It sounds like you have some real problems with anyone that doesn’t agree with everything you do.
I don’t have that problem.
And the assumptions you make are more than ludicrous. If someone doesn’t agree with you, or provides facts that don’t fit into your way of looking at things…then they are automatically worthless human beings in some way? Did no one ever tell you that after the age of 5 the average person does realize that the world does not revolve around him/her?
Your not-so-clever morphing of my name, along with all the petty insults does nothing to me at all….but it makes you look very foolish.
I will be happy to send you a copy of the figures from the AG’s office if you would like. Go to my website and email me and I will gladly send them to you. But you obviously don’t know much about the agency and aren’t interested in learning anything….just repeating the trite old “facts” you have all along.
You know, sometimes in life Don, you don’t really know who you are playing with….do you?
ghost @ 168
you bet I am. Most live in an expensive area of the country, many of them in one of the most expensive cities in the country, and many of those hold juris degrees. That doesn’t come cheap, unless you want sadsack, suckass lawyers…and of course if that’s what they had, you’d inevitably complain about how shitting government workers are.
ChristmasGhost @ 151
Actually, I think I only referred to you once as ‘White Whine,” and that was by mistake (for which I apologize). “White Whine” refers to “Chardonnay.”
Now that we’ve corrected my mistaken reading, can we correct your errors in arithmetic? If we assume that the top range salary averages $120,000, and that the rest of the ranges average in the middle (i.e. 80,000-90,000 range averages out to $85,000), the numbers you’ve given account for somewhere around 26.5 milliondollars.
If we assume that the average salary of the remaining 897 employees is $50,000 (probably rather high if salary distribution matches the rest of society), then the total salary bill for the AGO tops out at just over 71 million dollars.
Even if we give every one of those 897 employees a salary in excess of $500,000.00, we still come up with a figure that’s well less than the $578 million you claim.
The only way to come up with a total salary figure in excess of $578 million for the AGO is to toss in a liberal dose of very bad arithmetic.
Joe…Wow, your anger is barely concealed…why?
The quality of government employees, especially when it comes to professionals is often lacking. The truly great go into private practice so they can make the big bucks, and have the personal freedom to avoid all the beaurocracy. This is not a new or unproven theory.
As for quality…it seems to me that they went for quantity not quality at the AG’S and my question is…why? And how could you ever miss a deadline with that many lawyers working under you? Just once I would love to have one of you over reaching liberals actually step up to the plate and not rationalize someting irrational just because the person doing it is on your team…although you being from Oregon I still can’t figure out your intense interest in our governor’s race.I am not trying to be dense here….I really don’t get it. Don’t you have any of these issues in Oregon?
And when someone goes to foul language ,name calling, and insults they have already lost the argument.
BTW….can anyone tell me if don and rick are one and the same?
ChristmasGhost @ 169
You can throw ad hominems at Don all day, and those ad hominems won’t make your numbers add up any better than they do now. Glass houses; throwing stones; you get the idea.
I’ll just say that I think it’s a very good thing that you don’t have Dean Logan’s job.
ghost @ 172
Anger? I haven’t gotten angry yet. Sadness, maybe. There is a whole lot of emotionalist ignorance driving the contest, and no one who displays it seems the slightest bit interested in freeing themselves of it.
When you say it’s not a new or unproven theory–so you have some proof of it? Because it’s the first I heard, and it sounds pretty ridiculous. I have no idea what connection you are trying to imply between “greatness” and the desire to make as much money as possible.
As for your other unsupported allegations about the size and quality of the AG’s office–have you done any research that hasn’t been laughed off the comments yet? Your salary review was a disastrous exercise, as we’ve seen.
On foul language and name calling–I agree, which is why I have refrained with you, despite the indication that you seem to richly deserve it.
Rick @171…..you are more than welcome to clear up the math, I would be the last person to presume to do the math part…not my forte…as I’m an artist.
BUT….it’s the AG’s dept. that did the math in the first place. I am just quoting their numbers.
May I ask why Don was answering for you? Are you one and the same? I find that rather hard to believe but……..
And so far as the numbers go…in this thread alone we have had various people from the left leaning tribe pronounce that the AG’s office had no more than 177 employees, that the whole budget was only 92 million then that changes to 178 million….all over the place……
As I said…I’m just quoting their numbers.Maybe I’m reading it all wrong…but I don’t think so.I was pretty shocked when I got the info too.
174……TorridJoe….”On foul language and name calling–I agree, which is why I have refrained with you, despite the indication that you seem to richly deserve it.” Really let him [ghost] have it!! Throw your purse at him!!! Hit him with yout high heel!!
Rick/Don @ 173…actually I would be much better than Dean at his job. He stated to me that Pierce county had such an easy time counting votes because they only had a population of 200,000 people. Now do you see why not only does hardly anyone believe Dean, but he shouldn’t be in that job? I wish I could repeat [without sounding like Don] what the pierce county people had to say about that.
Not interested in seeing AG’S document?
Joe@ 174…….Ah, so are you county counsel there in Portland?
Joe @174…said…..”On foul language and name calling–I agree, which is why I have refrained with you, despite the indication that you seem to richly deserve it.”
Joe, can you point out rationally why I so richly deserve to be verbally abused? Because I disagree with you?
$5,161,617.61 = ago salaries
copy past the list to excel and you can sort it anyway you like.
Don, would you calm down. it sure takes very little to get you going. You prove our point about govn’t attorney’s, posting all day on tax payers money, yet asking for additional tax money so you can have a raise. Is it fair Don to sit all day and post on HA when you are hired to work for the people?
The WSRP has not disclosed anything yet have they? My point was that they have disclosed alot, but not everything.
And, you took JCH’s comment way to literaly, you once again go overboard.
My point about felons vs military was that, you spend so much time discussing felons as does the legislators. I here nothing from Olympia or KC about making sure the military ballots get mailed on time. And, I think there was proof from postal records that KC did not mail a batch on time. There are dated reciepts.
Don, you need to get some sleep, I see you were up all night.
Adriel @ 167
“maybe it is looking at the people and thinking that they are animals in a zoo that need to be caged for their own protection”
I think in terms of caging them for our protection, but have it your way; I won’t split hairs over this one.
ghost @ 178
No, because you refuse to take in new information, or accept the accuracy or veracity of it when it is clearly presented to you. Your own responses are fraught with unsupported allegations, scurrilous generalizations, ad hominem attacks, and general written noise. Your disagreement with me is in fact your most redeeming feature.
chard @ 179
If you have proof they didn’t go out on time, you’d better contact the SoS immediately. I personally hold a copy of the mailing log that indicates they did go out on time, and just today the Asst SoS reiterated to me that ALL military ballots went out on time. The direct quote was, “we got ’em all out on time.”
Adriel @ 167
Trust me, bureaucrats in state government don’t have “absolute power.” They can’t even spit unless they do it according to the manual. Creative thinking and individual initiative are severely punished.
white liar @ 168 et seq.
You’re so full of shit it isn’t funny.
P.S., I’m actually a very friendly guy who will go out of his way to help anyone. I only get hostile around shit-for-brains Republicans.
And snakes.
adriel @ 140 YOU get what YOU deserve……lol
JCH @ 176
again my eyes are watering.
ya, T-Joe hit the ghost with your purse, toughen up. Boy, you and Don just freak when someone talks about govn’t salaries. Is it because the average taxpayer doesn’t make what you hacks do and that the whole “poor” excuse is a cover? people have no money because you theives steal it from us and do nothing to earn it.
Ghost, Don has to work for the Govn’t because his temper gets him in trouble in the court room.
Don, you’re afraid of snakes, LOL
and joe @ 181, can you fax me copies of those mail receipts? I’ll bet you a beer at the next chapter meeting you are wrong and I am right, no pun intended.
chard @ 188
My copy is unfaxable; ask Carla–I had to mail her one. If you’d like one, why don’t you ask for one like I did?
I’ll save you the beer. You’re flatly wrong, and no evidence has surfaced yet to support you. If you are willing to bet a beer, you must already think you know what’s on the log. Apparently you don’t, or you wouldn’t be betting.
ChristmasGhost @ 175
You made the claim. You fix up the math.
As for the budget figures that have been bandied about, Don’s been quoting biannual figures. I quoted an annual figure from the brochure that’s on the AGO’s web site. Both are consistent, and certainly not demonstrably off by more than an order of magnitude.
White Whine @ 179
Your figure of $5,161,617.61 is fully two orders of magnitude smaller than the ChristmasGhost claims, and clearly a full order of magnitude too small. Do you folks just make this crap up as you go along?
WOW Rick…so you and Don are one and the same….interesting……
Ghost @ 191
I don’t think I’m anywhere near as surprised to see that you’ve run out of argument as you seem to be at the prospect that Don and I are the same person. For the record, we aren’t, but I’ll take your confusion as a compliment.
While we’re on the subject of dual pseudonyms, I have begun to wonder whether or not you and chardonnay are the same person. That would certainly explain my earlier error in referring to you as “White Whine.”
Rick @192…okay, whatever you say.I was confused because he was answering for you and you both used the very childish, and unimaginative ‘white whine’ line. Can’t you do better than that? When I first read some of your posts you seemed to be a well reasoned and thoughtful person…..the polar opposite of Don [and no Don..that is not a slam, just an observation on your style versus Rick’s]should I rethink that?
Chardonnay and I are not the same person, as I am sure you are quite aware. But thank you for the compliment as she is a very funny, and incredibly smart person. So i’ll take that as a compliment.
As far as the math goes……..I am more than willing to send you the document, just email me with your email address and I will do my best to send it off promptly. I would fix the math, as you put it, if I thought it needed fixing….but as I already stated I am just giving you the info they gave me.And as I also already said..I may have read it wrong, and I am open to that. I just wish I could find a liberal thinker here that is also open to new facts…..
For instance, can any of you tell me why a pissant State like this would need 1,194 employees in the AG’s office ? And then having that many, why there are good reasons for not filing things on time? This is why a majority of voters, both Democrat and Republican, wanted Dino Rossi in the Governor’s office. Because the Democrats had their chance and they ran the State right into the ground.
This site sure does not lack for kool aid drinkers, does it?
Rick @ 19?
i copied the AGO salaries right from the OFM and pasted in excel, there are 1100+ employee’s and when I @sum came up with the $5mil
do it your self, go to the state web site, OFM, reports, by agency, salaried. Go ahead, do it.
Now, I also have the GOV salaries in an excel format. The salaries are also available on http://www.lbloom.net
what I did was sorted them in alphabetical order. when scroling down I saw the gregoire name TWICE! I was freaked a bit that Mike, her husband, was employed by his wife. As an investigator, I wondered where, exactly, his qualifications came from, beinga VET and all. Does anyone have the stats on the Vet vote in the Nov Gov election. Is it legal for spouces to work in the same office? I know alot of private sector biz that frown upon that.
here is the link, i recommend converting it to excel or lotus.
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/100.pdf
It is stupid to have to recall
by Martin Ringhofer 03/02/2005, 6:00 PM
I don’t know Tim Eyeman. I don’t know what “good” or “not good” PR might be. PR to Goldy, and candidly, it doesn’t matter. PR is irrelevant. As to nice: that is slanted ~ also of no importance.
Goldy can’t begin to tell how stupid he thinks the recall is. He can’t begin to tell how stupid it is because he can’t tell how stupid he thinks the recall is.
Goldy says it’s not just misguided and ill conceived, but it’s also totally hopeless. Goldy leaves no clue why it is misguided. As to hopeless, so have countless endeavors been labeled over millennia. One can only imagine how the King’s inner circle must have laughed at the hopelessness of the Boston Tea Party.
Goldy says the recall is so hopeless, that even Stefan of (un) Sound Politics went out of his way to distance himself from the recall effort.
While true that Stefan wants no part of the recall effort, Stefan’s POV is irrelevant to the recall effort. I have met Stefan and I find his Sound Politics light years ahead of any main or minor media on the botched election. It is of no consequence how Stefan feels on the recall. In fact, Stefan, Rossi, Kirby, John Carlson, and other “partisans” being opposed to the recall effort is a good thing. It points to partisans who base their POV on partisanship, while our recall Reed effort does not. The Recall Reed Team is not angry, nor frustrated.
Goldy says “… in Washington, you can’t just recall an official because you decide you don’t like him anymore.” Agreed. This is the only state with such a policy. Has nothing to with like or dislike. Has to do with job requirements; job responsibilities; oath of office; and such things. No point in listing RCW’s: MICAJAH would only post them right back arguing his POV.
Goldy says, “You actually have to prove that there was some malfeasance or misconduct.” Not so. The court is not given the authority to decide this; that is left to the people, in a recall vote; after the petitioners collect 660,000 valid voter’s signatures are collected. It is a fact, according to Sam Reed, that 20% of registered voters who sign initiatives are not –registered ~ leave alone the dead, the illegal aliens who are not citizens and should not be voting, the felons who have not have their voting rights restored, the out-of-state, the double and triple dippers, the provisional, and all the rest who will continue to pull the shenanigans until we get past a 100% re-registration of only voters who are eligible to vote.
Goldy said: “And what really pissed off hardcore Rossi supporters about Reed, is that he so narrowly followed the law, not that he broke it.” Goldy may have a good point here. I am not really sure what Goldy had in mind but I see it like this: if my bank told me I had $60,000 more in my account then I knew I had in it: I might love the idea for a while. If my bank told me I had $60,000 less in it then I knew I had in it, I would not like that one bit. The “right thing” to do in either event – is to head for the closest local branch and have a come-to-God session with “somebody” at the bank and get it straight. The last thing I would expect from the bank is to argue they have it 99.8% right, so call it good –if they could prove I did NOT have the extra $60,000 in my account. Right is RIGHT, and WRONG is wrong.
Goldy said: “I didn’t vote for Reed. I thought he did little to recommend himself during his first term, and I was disappointed that he didn’t provide more leadership during the first couple weeks following the November election. “ Fair enough. Goldy is a man of HONOR. Since he reveals his vote, I will likewise. I voted for Sam Reed, and as candid as I can be: I mirror Goldy’s sentiment wholeheartedly.
Goldy said: “But more than any other elected official in this state, Reed managed to remain mostly non-partisan at a time when non-partisanship was most needed.”
Might be a surprise to Goldy and the rest of you: I agree with Goldy; except I am one of about 80% of the people of this state with an opinion: DO YOUR JOB, and like Larry the Cable Guy from the Blue Collar Comedy Show says… “ GEEEEET ‘R DONE!”
Goldy said: “… what Martin and his handful of cohorts are angry about… Reed could have used his office to Rossi’s advantage, but he didn’t.”
There are no cohorts. Anger doesn’t enter the equation. We don’t believe Rossi could have or would have used his office to Anyone’s advantage. Reed did as he did because he believed he did the right thing. Quite probable Sam Reed had no intent to do anything wrong, and “wrong” as “wrong” is defined has nothing to do with any of this. It is quite likely that Sam Reed has his “feelings” hurt because anybody would question what he did, or didn’t do. Yet, if the man does not have a job description, an oath of office, and rules, regulations, RCW’s, WAC’s, to follow: exactly WHAT do we need a Secretary of State for?
Goldy said: ”For that, Reed should be praised, not recalled.” Agreed. Reed is unlikely to have done what he did, and not done what he didn’t and should have ~ to Rossi’s advantage, or Gregoire’s. It is highly probable he did the best he knew how and just did it.
Goldy said: “So Martin, don’t let anybody ever say I’m not a man of my word. I promised to say unkind things about your recall effort, and I delivered.”
Goldy: I can’t see how anything you sad is unkind. You have a great blog and by the near 200 comments this thread has attracted in one day, your readers and trolls are a passionate band of patriots who are not afraid to say what they mean, and mean what they say. Congratulations, Goldy.
Goldy said: “I appreciate the fact that you have always been polite in your emails, and welcome you to continue contributing to HA’s comment threads.”
Goldy: Horses Ass Org has carved a big place for itself in the paradigm shift we are phasing through. Without a question, you have created a forum for tens of thousands who look to your blog as a source of badly needed fresh air in this foggy political arena. In the end, it is not whether we agree, or not: in the end it is how we treat each other as Americans.
Don@156.
Only if I can watch. :-)
char @ 194
If you’re looking at
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/100.pdf
, you have to multiply by 12. The list has monthly salaries.
[THIS MESSAGE WAS A SPOOF, AND ITS CONTENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED]
@ 197. What Goldy said has been read. But thanks for repeating. Being of sound mind, not un-sound politics, Goldy’s words were well worth repeating. Thank you so very much. And Reed says thank you too.
My humble apologies. I went over 130 words in my post. There must have been at least 250 praising GOLDY. I will leave those out next time. :o)
Goldy@200.
Deepthroat might work as a blog name. Or try what the illustrious poster @ 197 mentioned, “come to God session.” Than there is Golden Stein. You can’t beat the name horsesass.org, it’s a daring name that catches attention. Caught mine.
Martin @202,
That was not me telling you to keep your word count down. The vandals have gone to new extremes, and have broken one of the basic rules of blog etiquette.
Clearly, there are some people here who do not share my belief in free speech, and would like to destroy this forum. It is a shame, because the technological fix will inconvenience everybody.
Goldy – Oh come on. Your loyal readership knew it was a spoof. And it marginally managed to stay on topic. While the comments about the Shark may have been offensive to you (conservative envy and all), the ones about Mrs. Cynical were right on target. You chuckled. i know you did.
zapporo @205,
You do not spoof other user’s alias… and you especially do not spoof the blog’s owner. And you especially, ESPECIALLY do not spoof the blog’s owner when you are doing so from a static IP.
Until further notice, your comments will be held for approval.
chard @ 188
Wrong, I’m not afraid of you and your kind.
ghost @ 172
“The truly great go into private practice so they can make the big bucks, and have the personal freedom to avoid all the beaurocracy.”
Interesting theory. Maybe this explains why all of Bush’s AG and judicial appointments are retards.
Goldy – Ok, I understand. My intent was not to break “blog ettiquette”. Look at how long this post was – 205 comments. That’s pretty damn popular. People don’t come just for erudite conversation but also to be entertained. People are not going to hang out if they aren’t having fun. I took a chance to make this a bit more entertaining, not to piss you off. And it was funny – just look at the response. So if you are truly offended, I will post no more. Just let me know.
ghost @ 175
“I would be the last person to presume to do the math part…not my forte…as I’m an artist.”
Is this also why you can’t draw a straight line between two dots?
chard @ 179
I blog on the graveyard shift. So what? I’m retired and sleep until noon every day. I waited a long time to be able to do that.
chard @ 94
Since that list gives you their monthly salaries, the figure you got is the monthly payroll. Not annual. Pretty basic stuff.
I presume if the AG’s Office is indeed overstaffed that rising republican star Rob McKenna will propose to cut it. I do believe I heard him propose increases (PDA issues)but no cuts so far.
zip @ 199
$ 61,939,404.00 annually? holy crap, it’s worse than I thought.
ok, can you say performance audits?
martin ringhofer@197
Goldy, is that your Dad?
this is AGO data
$5,161,617.61 monthly
$61,939,411.32 annualy
$51,875.55 average salary based on 1194 AGO staff
what do you think the Dept of Ecology looks like?
What about the Gov office? Where are the new reports?
Goldy @ 204
Appears to me like people posting find it difficult to stay focused. They ought to lay off the juice. :-) What happened to stay on topic?
Chuck @215
Don’t you have better things to do with your life then post stupid questions?
ChristmasGhost @ 193
If you thought it needed fixing? Exactly how much math does one have to employ based on the numbers you gave would be sufficient to convince you that the total you gave cannot possibly be correct?
Apparently, the word “new” includes facts that are plucked out of thin air and demonstrably false. If you get your facts straight, you might actually find a more receptive audience.
More than likely due to the fact that they keep having to defend state officers against idiotic lawsuits like the attempt to recall Sam Reed. Given these kinds of lawsuits, 1200 employees doesn’t seem all that out of line. Do you have the figures for other states so that we might make reasonable comparisons?
There’s never a good reason for missing a deadline, but, then, people are human. They make mistakes. Now, if there had been a pattern of missed deadlines, we might actually have something worth discussing.
Um. The election was a virtual tie. Saying that a “majority of voters…wanted Dino Rossi” contradicts the facts. What was that about “new” facts?
We’ve been skeptical of the number you’ve bandied about, and that makes us kool-aid drinkers?
chardonnay…what, exactly is your point?
That the government cost money to run? OK…
That government lawyers are paid more than government secretaries? OK…
Is there anything contributory about those? Should we sit and ring our hands over the costs or should we take the initiative of getting off our behinds and doing something about it?
Or is it just easier to point out selective flaws indignantly?
How does the AGO’s budget compare to other department budgets? To other state AGO offices? It might be helpful to draw some relevant comparisons so a real conversation could follow.
Don’t ya think?
Somebody please cite the simple guidelines of staying on topic>
Okay..here is a stay on topic. Might want to read the recent Asssociated Press article by Matthew Daly about The National Governor’s Association dinner. I am sure it can be read online by searching Google. Title of article is “Landslide Gregoire” gets status boost from president. Here is a meaty scrape….”President Bush may have done more to raise Christine Gregoire’s status simply by calling her governor.” It went on to say that Bush “singled” out Washington’s new Democratic governor and welcomed her while others, both Republican and Democrats alike congradulated her and welcomed her. Later, Missy Lane, spokesperson for Rossi covers for Rossi by trying to take the edge off the sword that struck to Rossi’s belly by being flip, saying…”the President is a gentleman. so of course he would say that.” Take a bow Lane, you are not being paid by Bush to cover up the message by saying the messanger was a gentleman, your being paid by Rossi. Bush knew exactly his purpose as to why he singled Gregoire out and so do those that were there. Rossi is small peanuts in the bigger flock, the sacrificial lamb who has gone astray
Post @ 217.
Example cited: “they ought to lay off the juice” is not the topic.
Post @ 218. Another example cited: “don’t you have better thing to do with your life than ask stupid questions” is not the topic.
Rick Schaut @ 219.
Right on Rick. Half cocked legal challenges are costing us taxpayers plenty of money. Not free. The driving force behind challenges is more for ego than out of general concern for the public. We are the ones paying to defend a stupid recall that has failed and will continue to fail. The couple who started this should pay the all freight. In Cal-E-fornia, it costs big bucks to get a recall filed and off the ground. Washington may need to reform their recall fees, raise the ante higher than the recall bar to ward off frivilous lame recalls.
But Chee…in California they are still FREE to actually get a recall off the ground if they want to.The only way the incompetent idiots in this state stay in office is to take away the people’s rights to things such as a recall, by making it almost impossible to do…and all under the lame theory that they just wanted to protect all the small town mayors. Oh yeah…that’s the message we really get from you people in Seattle[ or is it Portland???]….you are so concerned about the rural voters in small towns.
And Rick/Don whatever your name is……..
I didn’t see you fixing the math and you could have anytime, right? I wondered how long it would take for someone to do it…..and it was Chardonnay…not you. And not only that….but do you even say, as any honest person would…wow…you are right…there are so many people working there? Oh nooooooo…what you do instead is start making excuses for WHY they all have to be there….
God…you guys are just too easy……and dense.
I wouldn’t be calling Chardonnay any names any time soon….she is alot smarter than you are. You took the bait like a striper.
How many times did I say why don’t you check it out? heh heh heh
chard @ 116
AGO salaries work out to about $10 per state resident per year. Ringhofer’s bullshit recall petition probably cost the state at least 10 grand so that accounts for 1,000 of us right there.
OH YEAH DON/RICK…SPIN SPIN SPIN………LOL. And are you a Washington resident or just a pain in the ass from Oregon or Texas?
Xmas Xonfused @ 226
“And Rick/Don whatever your name is…….. I didn’t see you fixing the math and you could have anytime, right?”
First of all, my name is not Rick nor am I the person who posts here under the name “Rick.” For your information, I have never posted on HA under another name.
Secondly, what on earth are you talking about? I did fix your math! You posted your absurb statement that Gregoire had increased AGO salaries to half a billion a year at 11:14PM Tuesday night (#87 above), and I posted the AGO’s actual budget numbers at 2:30 AM Wednesday morning 2 hours 16 minutes later (#127 above).
You not only can’t do arithmetic, you can’t read either, and you sure as hell can’t write. Looks like you flunked all three R’s. That’s quite an accomplishment — even for an ignorant Republican with his head stuck up his ass. Certainly nothing to be proud of.
“The Attorney General Office’s budget for the current biennium is $92 million a year, and staffing is about 1,080 employees. In 2000, the earliest year for which I have numbers, the budget was $78 million a year and staffing was 1,034 employees – almost no increase in staffing and a growth in dollar-spending of 18% over 5 years. That’s about 3.5% a year, and as state employees haven’t received a COLA since 2001, most likely the bulk of that is inflation in the cost of employee health insurance benefits.”
I’m so glad you “fixed” the math.
Here are the real numbers from Chardonnay……..
$5,161,617.61 monthly
$61,939,411.32 annualy
$51,875.55 average salary based on 1194 AGO staff
ALMOST no increase in staffing? 1,194 is the actual number of staffers.Versus your 1,034.
Maybe this is why Democrats can’t count when it comes to votes either? But you are right up there on the COLA’S, huh? That figures……..
And then ,of course, there are your enlightened verbal exchanges…..WOW, it’s so impressive, keep up the good work.heh heh heh
GOV SALARIES
$324,458.57 monthly
$3,893,502.84 annually
$49,284.85 average per person -79- employees
Now go take a quick look at the
Dept of Ecology’s 1660 employees, it is a 10 page report.
The entire point is, that this is just the tip of the iceberg, waste!
How can you support such huge departments? DSHS needs more money, DOT needs more money, yet the state spends a fortune on other things. The problem is, everyone says their dept is needed, everyone! It takes someone with balls to say NO, cut back.
KIGA, F CHIEF OF STAFF $10,889.00
LOCKE,G GOVERNOR $11,857.00
it look like being chief of staff is a nice job, no campaigning required.
there is no Revenue shortfall, it is a spending problem.
GREGOIRE, MICHAEL J AGO INVEST/ANL 1 M 0
100 $4,428.00 Office of Attorney General
O GRADY-GREGOIRE, CH ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 M
0100 $10,779.00
what is this “O GRADY-GREGOIRE, CH”, is that like
Rodham-Clinton? LOL
Yes, and the list goes on and on. And the really funny part is that none of these hipper-than-thou liberals can figure out that this State does not have enough money because it has way too many employees[ that don’t do their jobs like they should….DSHS comes to mind]….not because the people aren’t taxed enough. I wonder how many home grown Torridjoe’s we have that spend all day playing on the computer instead of working?
Can you imagine what would happen to a private sector company that ran things the way this State does?
And another question none of them will answer is if the Democrats are so great at running things…why don’t they explain the state of Washington right now?
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/alpha.htm
Employment security 2578 employees
the list goes on and on. I know when you call these agencies you do not talk to a human. And, employment security is 100% paid by employers. Does it take 2578 people to hand out a few paychecks? How many total State employees are there? Was Dino Rossi going to change the status quo in Olympia? YES! If liberals would just go start their own business and keep their noses out of everyone elses, we would not need such a huge govn’t. You liberals create the services based on all your “studies” most of which have been rigged. All this creates is a dependant-on-government society. Is that your goal?
I did some checking on Hillary, seems Hillary’s idol was Saul Alinsky, great believer in communism. Is this where all this is headed? Because O Grady-Gregoire is a follower of Rodham-Clinton.
So quiet little guppies? I would ask you if you would like pellets or flakes for lunch, but we all KNOW you want FLAKES…….LOL
Chee @ 225
Not half cocked; full cocked. Right you are: letting the dead, the convicts and the illegal aliens is costing us plenty of money. You are right: you are paying for the botched election. Only anarchists love botched elections and support the dead, the convicts, and illegal aliens, voting. It undermines an open dialogue and promotes anarchy, a la the WTO Riot downtown a few years. Everything costs big bucks in Cal-E-fornia thanks to Grey Davis who bankrupted the state. They’ve got millions of illegal aliens sucking the life out of Cal-E-fornia. That’s why the needed the GOVERNATOR to clean it up. You are right: Washington needs to reform the recall process back to what it was BEFORE Sam Reed changed it back in the 1984.
Christmas ghost @ 226:
Anyone can file a petiion for recall in Washington State, they are free to do that, no different than California. The grounds for the recall will be examined by the court and if the grounds are not sufficiant and according to law it will fail for lack of merit. The judge rules before it is allowed to proceed forward. California recall was based on entirely different matters. The first step did not fail and the gathering signatures could begin. You just can’t go leaping into a recall. Not a shuck and jive.
Chardonnay @ 231.
Government has been and is top heavy. Everyone that works eight hours should get paid for eight hours work. You can only do eight hours work in an eight hour day. Forget overtime here, the thing that grips people is that manual labor does not pay as well as sitting on your ass and kissing ass in the higher eschalan. Not that some have not had to pay their way through college to get there. I respect that but let’s not go hog wild. Wage equalization would be a good reform. Then the unions would be down our throat. It is harder to dig a ditch than to suffle paper, so pay ditch diggers more. Minimum wage is a sick joke.
chee @ 238, I don’t know what you post has in common w/mine @ 231.
wage equalization? what does that mean? That sounds very socialist.
I believe that talented people should be compensated accordingly. I do not believe in paying everyone the same. That is insulting to the person that works hard and watches the slacker do nothing and get away with it. Under that system, we have ineffeciency, like in Govn’t. “to many chiefs, not enough indians.”
Minimum wage is basically for McDonald type jobs, high school kids working part time. what do think someone should be paid for zero experience and zero knowledge? You have to learn a skill first.
My entire beef with the humungo staffs in these agencies is…where are the improvements in our lives because of them? Let me see some real productivity before you come crying to me about more taxes.
There is a huge connection between humungo govt agencies ESD, and unemployment. Govn’t continues to suck business owners (even small biz) dry which leads to layoffs. You cannot use the CEO salaries as an argument when we see 1st hand what these big fat cat Gov heads take home in wages & bennies.
chardonnay@239. In essance, I have agreed with your major issue. What else you read into it is another thing. Government is top heavy and the cats are get the fat while we get the lean. Or maybe I should say..get the shaft.
I think the subject here is recall. Oops!
I have heard said that the Reed recall will take it up the ladder; shove it up the ying-yang. I can’t recall but I think the unwritten law recalling recalls that lack foundation goes like this, dismissed. dismissed and dismissed.
Chee @242
Inform youtself before you reveal your utmost IGNORANCE and stupidity. :-)