If wishes were horses, Chris Vance would ride

The Seattle P-I reports that King County prosecutors have identified 93 more felons from a batch of 100 names on the GOP’s felons list. Hmmm, 93 percent… not bad, I guess… not as good as KC Elections, but not bad.

Not that it matters as far as Rossi’s contest is concerned:

In pretrial rulings, Bridges has said it won’t be enough for the Republicans to establish that the number of illegal votes exceeded the margin of victory; they would have to show that Gregoire owed her win to illegal votes.

Um… which I suppose is why GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance is so confident:

“We have a slam-dunk case.”

Yeah… right Chris.

FYI, the P-I also has an article on the new statewide voter registration database, that should go a long way towards enabling election officials to properly purge the rolls of felons in the future.

Comments

  1. 1

    Chee spews:

    Goldy you would start that all over again. You know how I hate to discuss my love for Rossi. Maybe tomorrow. :-)

  2. 3

    jpgee spews:

    Damn, It has been so peaceful listening to the wingnuts like anoninmyass go on and on spewing the same rhetoric for the past few days. I guess it is back to Lossi et al again

  3. 4

    angryvoter spews:

    Are any of you even remotely concerned that these felons voted? Whether you “feel” they should be able to, current law says no dice.

  4. 5

    chardonnay spews:

    I’m concerned.
    Should we lock them up again, or fix the problem that allowed this to happen?
    Are you as concerned about black box fraud also?

  5. 6

    Nindid spews:

    Angry@4 Of course no one wants illegal votes. Has anyone said they do? The issue is that the Republicans (I am guessing you are one?) are trying to whip up outrage over whatever illegal votes there were into overturning a valid election. I am all for looking for ways to improve our electoral process, but I don’t like trying to be manipulated.

  6. 7

    Goldy spews:

    Zip @2,

    Fixed the link (and a typo in the headline, for that matter… that’s what I get for blogging when exhausted.)

    angryvoter @4,

    Yes, I am concerned that felons voted (though only because it was illegal, not because I think felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote.) But I don’t believe it likely changed the outcome of the election, and I also understand that this was problem the state already knew about, had passed legislation to fix, and was in the process of fixing with the statewide database that is scheduled to go live on Jan 1, 2006. There’s no KC scandal here.

  7. 8

    swatter spews:

    Hate to rain on your Easter weekend, but there is another explanation that doesn’t go as far as the Dems think it is- having to interview under oath each and every felon (ha! that’s a joke) and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a Gregoire vote does not count. I don’t think anyone really believes that scenario.

    However, the judge just needs to prove a likelihood. He needs to be shown there was a likelihood the discrepancies caused the wrong person to temporarily inhabit the mansion. Since the problems occurred in a Democratic election machine, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out and reach the conclusion the majority of the folks in Washington believe- Rossi won.

    I, too, think it is a slam dunk case. Durkan and Gregoire (D&G chicks) definition just doesn’t cut it.

  8. 9

    Nindid spews:

    Angry… just to make it clear I did not mean that you were personally. After reading what I wrote I thought it might be read that way.

  9. 10

    Nindid spews:

    So is this whole conversation going to turn to an attack a corrupt judiciary if and when the Rossi case gets tossed? Poor victimized Republicans….

  10. 11

    Diggindude spews:

    At scrounge politics, shar(litan) wrote about how he “googled” a critic, to get somepersonal information on that person.
    Is this supposed to impress?
    He then goes on to post what he claims is what this person does for a living, and possibly where the person works.
    This is their hero?

    another reader doesn’t:
    SHARKANSKY NOT SO MUCH

    DEAR EDITOR: I’m writing in response to Stefan Sharkansky’s big scoop of b.s. in the SoundBite piece entitled Time for a New County Executive [March 17].

    Stefan describes Ron Sim’s role in eight years of service as King County Executive with words like arrogant, scandals, and missteps. The fact is Ron Sims is human and so are all the people who work for or with the county. However, when compared to any other county in this great nation, King County is a shinning example of thoughtful, uncorrupt, state-of-the-art, local government.

    Stefan’s piece is simply part of the propaganda machine that began several months ago in an effort to discredit Sims in order to get a republican in office.

    Stefan, is also lying about King County’s role in the last gubernatorial election. We are lucky to have arguably the best election system in the country. King County residents are reality-based voters. Better alternatives are always welcome, but Lies won’t cut it.

    Lorn Richey

    Speaking about “reality-based voters”, the only Lorn Richey I found on Google makes low-budget movies about drug-addicted vampires.

    Posted by Stefan Sharkansky

  11. 12

    Mark spews:

    Goldy,

    When you cited the comment about Bridges’ requirements, you failed to include the next sentence:

    “But Bridges has not determined how the GOP could show that.”

    It is absolutely true that Vance is a blowhard and it is far from a “slam-dunk case,” but all is also not lost. As we see time and again, the judiciary makes all kinds of interesting rulings. Bridges wouldn’t have allowed the case to continue if he wasn’t at least slightly moved by the GOP’s idea of proportional voting, etc.

  12. 13

    jim spews:

    nindid@10

    Of course it will turn into an attack on the judiciary. Anytime a judge rules againt the republicans, they are accused of overzealously writing new law instead of properly interpreting existing law. They are called “activist judges,” used in the way they use “liberal” to mean bad.

    Anytime they rule in favor of the republicans, they are objective, just jurists.

    The republicans are very impressive using this technique. All in all they do better toeing a line and staying in step than the democrats ever do.

  13. 14

    dj spews:

    Republican “distributed voter fraud” in Colorado?

    About 2.1 million votes were cast in Colarado last November. You may recall Colorado was a “battleground” state in which Bush won by about 100,000 votes. And, what is this? Felons voting, double votes, extra provisionals, dead voters! Must be distributed voter fraud!

    Mark spews:

    Goldy @ 7

    “not because I think felons shouldn’t be allowed to vote”

    If they complete their sentences — including restitution and fines — they absolutely can. Maybe you could argue that the process needs to be easier or simpler or whatnot, but there needs to be some incentive for a criminal to pay restitution.

    Were you aware that only a fraction of the millions and millions of dollars of restitution owed is ever collected?

    Not just court fines, but this is money that pays for the medical bills of assault victims, etc. If the felons don’t pay it, we taxpayers do. And that budget is in serious trouble and is/was on the verge of shutting down the whole program.

  14. 16

    Nindid spews:

    Mark @15 For my information, are felons who complete restitution and their time automatically eligible to vote? Or do they have to file some sort of appeal or the like?

  15. 17

    Mark spews:

    Nindid @ 16

    I believe they have to file some sort of documents or appeal to show that they completed their sentence. As I said, I am not against that being a simpler or easier process. I just am firmly against restoring voting to someone that hasn’t set right what they did wrong.

    I would imagine if the courts’ computer system properly tracked jail time ordered/served and fines/restitution assessed/paid, it would be a simple matter of filing a one-page request document that the courts could double-check against their records.

  16. 18

    bj spews:

    Regarding the apportioning of illegal votes, just for discussion purposes —

    1. I would assume that most of the voting felons are men.
    2. I would assume that men voters generally favored Rossi in the election by some margin, however small (and that women voters favored Gregoire).
    3. So, assuming there are felon votes scattered around the state, not just in King County, isn’t any “re-apportioning” due to felons voting just going to take votes away from Rossi?

  17. 19

    Nindid spews:

    Thanks Mark… I don’t know enough about the process to have too strong of an opinion either way, but I suppose I would lean towards automatically allowing people to vote after completing their sentences.

    Just anecdotally, it seems that a good number of these folks convicted of felonies seem not to have understood that they were not eligible to vote. I have no idea if this is a matter of personal ignorance or poor explanations from corrections, but again it seems to contradict the Republican’s line that this is some sort of King County conspiracy.

  18. 20

    Nindid spews:

    Setting aside our desired outcomes for a moment, is anyone at all happy about how this is going down? In an abstract world, would anyone be happy if a judge decided to impose proportional analysis to determine the outcome of a vote? Would anyone support undermining one of the central elements of our democratic system for partisan gain? (if it was not your partisan gain that is of course!)

    I suppose I just wonder how much of this has degenerated into a win at all costs mentality without regard to the consequences.

    And if we factor in the possible consequences and precedents here without the idea that our opponents must be evil because they disagree with us, does it change anything?

  19. 21

    Mark spews:

    Nindid @ 16

    I did a bit of checking and found that it appears to be a rather simple process already. For the benefit of those on this blog (or their friends) that might need it, here is the form:

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/forms.....8_0600.doc

    Apparently, you need to gather some photocopies at the courthouse that show you paid your restitution, etc.

    If your conviction is more than 20 years old, for a federal crime or for a felony out-of-state, the process is different.

    What is scary is that the ACLU is fighting tooth-and-nail to remove the restitution requirement. They cite all kinds of statistics about completed jail time vs. restored voting, but not once do they explain what the restitution money goes for. They pass it off as “legal financial obligation,” as though it is just a court penalty payable to the state. They should properly refer to it as “the money to fix the battered woman’s jaw that you broke.”

  20. 22

    Mark spews:

    Nindid @ 20

    At this point, CG isn’t totally screwing up the office, though I fear that after the court case pressure is off, she might feel more beholden to her party.

    I’m torn on the idea of setting aside the whole election. Ignoring any potential proven monkey business, the gross incompetence factor is what troubles me most. I think the “they’re just human and elderly and volunteers and…” excuse doesn’t hold water. Would that be a valid excuse for the results of letting half-blind little old ladies drive Metro buses?

  21. 23

    Nindid spews:

    Mark @21 Do you have any sense of how much the restitution usually is and how possible it might be for people to pay it off?

    I suppose I could imagine a situation where someone had been in prison for 10 years or the like and comes out with working in a minimum wage job with little ability to pay back a huge restitution figure.

    If that is the case, then restitution requirements for voting would simply be a back-door way of prohibiting many felons from voting at all. This is something that I think would be quite counterproductive and the ACLU’s case would then make sense. (I presume say that presuming that they still require efforts be made to pay restitution where possible, just not prohibit voting in the meantime.)

  22. 24

    prr spews:

    Nindid @ 23

    I fail to see your point.

    Some scmbag committs a felony and is imprisoned, loses their ability to vote and after realease attempts to pay off whatever restitiutiion via working a minimum wage job and we are supposed to feel guilty for them?

    The mistery of felons voting is not one at all, they don’t have the right unless they have fought to ammend this situation.

    Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

  23. 25

    Nindid spews:

    prr @24 You did not see my point because you missed it. I was trying to establish the actual situation when it came to restitution and process for reinstating your right to vote.

    I tend to believe that a people who paid their debt to society, served their time, and want to reintegrate into society should be allowed to do so where possible. It is good for society as it reduces recidivism rates and it is good for the person as well. Some guys will not want to do so, will commit some crime in the future and go back to prison. Some see their mistakes and honestly want to make good. Maybe you believe that violating the law should permanently remove you from society, I don’t.

    As for ‘feeling guilty’… my religious beliefs teach compassion towards the poor, downtrodden, and, yes, even scumbag criminals. Perhaps your religion does not, or you have no such beliefs. Fine, but that is where I am coming from.

  24. 26

    Nindid spews:

    prr @24 Oh yes, I forgot to address your last point….

    You are right that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and you are right. But ignorance does undermine the Republican conspiracy theories about felon votes. I think that the substantial reforms already in the pipeline will likely address the problem.

  25. 27

    Don spews:

    AV @ 4

    They shouldn’t be allowed to rob 7-11s or steal cars, either. Shit happens. Too bad we didn’t have more cops on the streets when they committed their crimes, and a better voter registration system that would have kept them from voting for Rossi. Sure, let’s try to do better. Better late than never.

  26. 28

    torridjoe spews:

    Mark @ 22
    We don’t let half blind people drive anything, so I don’t get the comparison. If you don’t like old ladies running the election, pony up for the money to pay better trained people. But quit complaining about the last one, because it was done under standing law at the time.

    The level of incompetence seems mighty low. All indications are that whatever problems occurred, they were of an infinitesimal number. It seems like the number keeps shrinking at SP, too. It’s gone from 3000 to 1800 to about 800, from over 1000 provisionals to 700 provisionals, from 1000 felons to a couple hundred…

  27. 29

    Don spews:

    Nindid @ 10

    Count on it. If Bridges rules against Rossi they’ll attack him as a liberal activist corrupt judge and Democratic Party tool.

  28. 30

    concerneddem spews:

    You bet us Dems are very concerned about all the felons that voted. All of the objective evidence indicates that a majority of those felons voted for Rossi, thereby narrowing Gregoire’s legitimate margin of victory. In addition to being unhappy with illegal votes in general, we are concerned that Rossi and his BIAW backers might somehow be able to bamboozle the courts through statistical manipulation that those felonious Rossi votes should be subtracted from Gregoire’s vote total.

  29. 31

    spyder spews:

    Two very important aspects to keep in mind regarding the voting rights of persons convicted of felonies.

    First, the monies derived from prison labor, though ridiculously small, are proportionately counted towards the restitution, the more they work the more valuable the work is in terms of reducing that which is owed. The actual number of felons who still owe restitution to victims is remarkably small in comparison to those convicted of victimless crimes and those whose owe amounts to courts for fines(paid by prison work). And we so easily overlook those whose felonies involve very large sums of money, who pay exceedling small percentages in comparison to others–money talks. Thus there are numerous and relatively simple avenues to regaining ones voting rights after one is convicted of a felony. We don’t need to focus the discussion on one subgroup of that.

    Secondly, and more important, the felon lists in Ohio and Florida(and other states) included the names of people who had the same name as a convicted felon in that state. In fact, in Florida in 2000 those lists ran names at a factor of 5:1 to 7:1 nonfelons to felons, linked by name and state residence. There were a number of situations where a person whose name was the same as a felons was on the list because they had bad credit and thus appeared to be the felon who had not properly paid back their moneys. There were Florida residents on the list whose name was the same as felons in other states who were not residents of Florida. Thousands upon thousands of people were put on the list and only a modest fraction actually were ineligible to vote. Washington needs to make every effort to properly document its lists, clarify for all convicted felons the steps and processes for regaining voting rights, and restore confidence in the civil public that those eligible and registered to vote have their proper votes counted.

  30. 32

    Nindid spews:

    I can speak a bit about the FL felons list as I lived in the state at the time. The most stunning element about the whole thing was that it was originally brought up as a tactical maneuver to counter voter drives in predominately black neighborhoods prior to the 200 election. This was not said secretly even. It was publicly discussed by then SoS Katherine Harris, who was quite open about it then.

    Frankly, I was stunned at my introduction to Southern politics. I was equally shocked by the imported Republican mob that stormed my county’s canvassing board that same year. Being a nice boy from the northwest, I never imagined that such things happened in my country.

    I feel for the folks who want to remove any corruption from government, and if you find any I will gladly be on your side to remove it. But I have not seen any mobs run by the Democratic party out to attack election officials doing their jobs. Sadly, the Republicans can not say the same thing. Lets try and stop that sort of ‘politics’ from coming up to this part of the country.

  31. 33

    smoke spews:

    Rossi DOESN’T have to prove how which candidate each felon (or any other fraudulent voter) voted for.

    Saying he does is a big D’oh! The vote is secret and the felons will not be deposed…..get real

    They DO have to prove that the number of “errors” is enough to have an effect on the outcome of the election.

  32. 34

    prr spews:

    Nindid @ 25

    I hear what you are saying but the bottom line is that is not the law.

    Bitch, moan, dream, whatever….. You need to look at this from a real perspective, not an imaginary one where all the prisons are filled innocent victims, who have been set up by corporations and big brother.

    Usually, convicts actually are guilty and do not deserve a second chance.

  33. 35

    prr spews:

    concerneddem @ 30

    But where are you getting your information?

    If it’s out of the king county election office, reverse what you have heard.

  34. 36

    Mark spews:

    NINDID @ 23

    I don’t have the average number at hand. However, there are two points I want to make. First, the restitution money owed is to make good on a (usually violent) crime that one person has committed upon another. Shouldn’t the criminal be held responsible for his/her actions? Second, there are provisions for waiving all or part of restitution (and having us taxpayers foot the medical bills) “in the interest of justice” when the criminal has no possible chance of paying it back.

    SPYDER @ 31

    “number of felons who still owe restitution to victims is remarkably small in comparison…”

    Since you think you know the answer, why don’t you tell us how much money you think is owed in restitution to victims.

  35. 37

    Chris spews:

    concerneddem@30 – “All of the objective evidence indicates that a majority of those felons voted for Rossi, thereby narrowing Gregoire’s legitimate margin of victory”.

    It would be interesting to know how you arrived at this conclusion. None of us have a clue how the “Majority” of felons voted and never will. To say otherwise, by either side, is opinion only, not fact. You have heard of secret ballots, I assume. Nobody knows how you voted, even if you tell them, they still do not really know for sure. Asking a felon how they voted after you just told them they were caught breaking the law… does it seem likely to you that you are going to get a credible answer? You have no means to confirm their answer, no point in even asking.

  36. 38

    prr spews:

    mark @ 36

    I agree with your points on this completely.

    The position of protect the innocent criminals is just pathetic.

    An undertsanding dialogue, warm hugs and juicy wet kisses are only going to get you raped in prison.

    Possibly it may be an idea to have a scared straight program for liberlas in this state. Let these Think-Tank wannabes go to Mcneil Island and be released into general population and see how long the attitude of the injustice of jail holds up.

  37. 39

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Don @ 29–
    I’m willing to accept Judge Bridges ruling…whatever it is.
    Are you?
    C’mon now Don…a clear YES or NO answer to a straight forward question.
    You, LEFTIST HACK LOSER DON claim that if Bridges rules against Rossi, Republicans will attack Bridges as a “Liberal activist corrupt judge and Democratic Party tool”. Those are your words a$$hole. I’m calling your bluff. I will NOT attack his decision. Now loser…will you commit to the same???

    I didn’t think so Don. You are a pathetic 30 year Democratic State Guv’mint hack attorney who is full of shit (and ugly too!).
    You talk blah, blah, blah.
    I’m calling your bluff loser.

  38. 40

    Nindid spews:

    prr@34 I was actually presuming that all these felons were in fact guilty. The issue of a second chance is where we disagree. You seem to believe that if a person commits a crime that makes them ‘scumbags’ in some irredeemable way.

    I don’t. I have no delusions about the high recidivism rates or the overall character of many of the people behind bars. But I also tend to think that if someone serves their time and wants to rejoin society we should not only allow it, but also encourage it. As I said above, this is not only to the benefit of the individual, but also to the greater good of society.

    I guess I just don’t understand your logic here. If everyone who has committed a crime has no chance for redemption, why don’t we just execute them all right now and save everyone the time and trouble? Sorry, but I think you need to think this through a bit more.

  39. 41

    Goldy spews:

    Mark @12,

    We’ve been through this before. Bridges allowed the case to continue because the GOP met the statutory requirements for allowing a contest to continue. As we have see time and again, the courts tend to rule on the law.

    Smoke @33,

    Keep smoking it. They have to prove that errors or illegal votes did change the outcome.

  40. 42

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    The other interesting development is the fixation only upon illegal voters (felons, dead persons, multiple votes etc.) but you have all but ignored the poll book and absentee reconciliation issues and the growing number of illegally counted provisional ballots.

    The CUMMULATIVE impact of all the issues swamps the 129 vote margin…you LEFTISTS can’t accept that. LEFTISTS try to keep isolating individual issues and say those don’t add up to 129. But Bridges will look at each issue raised, the impact and rule based on the CUMMULATIVE impact.

    I forgot LEFTISTS can’t add…they think Gregoire has promoted a great budget when it is the ultimate shell game (ie intentionally underfunded mandatory pensions forcing some Governor in the future to deal with her “shell-game”).

  41. 43

    Nindid spews:

    Mark@26 Thanks for the information. I do understand what restitution is for and I really have no problem with it as long as it is reasonable. We only seem to disagree whether a person should have his/her voting rights restored in the meantime.

    As said above, I am willing to listen to an argument that the drop in recidivism might outweigh the lessening of punishment, as I seriously doubt it has any real deterrent value whatsoever.

  42. 44

    Nindid spews:

    Cynical@41 Any chance we could get rid of the personal insults here? Just no need for them in adult conversation….

    Anyway, Gregoire was actually quite upfront about the ‘shell game.’ She recognizes that this is an unstable situation and it will have to be addressed.

    From my well-traveled shoes, Washington has one of the most messed up tax structures I have ever seen and at some point we are going to have to deal with it.

    The most practical and stable tax structure nationwide seems to be a combination of sales tax, income tax, and property tax. I know that there is a historical antipathy towards income tax, but having a broad based tax structure seems to work for most of the other states in the union.

  43. 45

    steven spews:

    Nindid~

    You must be new here. Cynical isn’t interested in adult conversation. He mostly likes to show that he knows how to use the CAPS key.

  44. 46

    Don spews:

    prr @ 35

    I’m sure he’s referring to anecdotal reports in the press. Of the handful of felon voters who talked to reports, nearly all said they voted for Rossi. Is this a statistically valid sampling? Do we know they’re telling the truth? No to both. But it tends to corroborate what one may surmise from “proportional analysis” (a.k.a. proportional guessing) — most felons are males, and the male vote favored Rossi.

  45. 47

    Don spews:

    Cynical @ 38

    I will accept the ruling of the court having final jurisdiction over the matter. Will you? C’mon now, Cynical, a clear yes or no to a straightforward question.

  46. 48

    Don spews:

    Nindid ~

    We can’t do anything about Cynical. It’s the full moon. He gets like this every month. You know — grows hair and howls in the dark …

  47. 49

    angryvoter spews:

    Don @ 27

    They arent allowed to rob 7-11, that is why they are not eligble to vote in the first place. Circular logic is pretty easy to stick holes through… More cops on the street dosent have a damn thing to do with the intial premise upon which their rights were revoked. They commited a crime, they were convicted and now society is punishing them by taking away things. You know, kind of like when your mom would take away your binkie when you started acting up in class at High School. Crime=punishment.

  48. 50

    Chris spews:

    Don@45

    At least you agree you don’t know if they are telling the truth. What a great way to increase the lead for your candidate. Vote illegally (nullifying a valid vote) and then when confronted say you really voted for the person you want to lose, with the hope you’ll be believed and have another vote taken away from the other candidate.

    All of these votes could have gone for one candidate or the other and not impacted the statistical breakout of the vote result. I think proportional analysis by county trend would be more accurate then by gender (opinion). I think the area you live in tells more about your voting habits then your gender and that neither are really viable tools to determine anything, except where you live and what sex you are.

    Using your (a.k.a. proportional guessing) you must know if the male vote favored Rossi in the counties with identified felon voters?

  49. 51

    Adriel spews:

    Goldy why do you feel felons should be able to vote? you like the sounds of anarchy? I mean if they have proved that they are socially irresponsable on issues like theft, murder, or assault, then why should we trust them to be socially responsable with our freedoms?

  50. 52

    Chee spews:

    SMOKE@33. Wait a minute. What you saying is not a fact YET. No determination has been made yet BY BRIDGES as to how it will be played out.

  51. 54

    Chee spews:

    Cynical@ 38. Your trashing Don for no other reason but to act cute and that is your only point.

  52. 55

    torridjoe spews:

    adriel @ 50
    Tell me you didn’t just suggest that felons will be VOTING for ANARCHY. I’m not sure I can think of two words more oxymoronic.

  53. 56

    marks spews:

    Mark @52

    That vote by income/yr was interesting:

    Less Than $100,000 (78%) 48% 50% (Rossi @50%)

    $100,000 or More (22%) 53% 45% (Gregoire @ 53%)

    The Governor was placed in office by the elite? Wow…

  54. 57

    Chee spews:

    Don@47. Have you noticed the likness of posts under varied stage names maybe– one. Check it. Easy read by phrasing. “Coward,” “Yes or NO,” “Answer this,” Name calling and so on.

  55. 58

    Adriel spews:

    Retard joe @ 54

    No I was asking him if he likes the idea of chaos that would come from Thousands of irresponsible voters taking to the polls. Why don’t you quit trying to twist my words and look for ways to belittle my points and start being civilized and debate the issues, don’t distort them.

  56. 59

    GS spews:

    Actually I think the depositions will be very interesting, as to the simple fact that two different people so close to the King County counting should be telling the same story. Depositions are very well planned. The truth is never hard to remember or tell over and over. I hope they are made public! A 129 vote lead in this election is not huge to overcome! And I am sure since you are all so willing to trust the judges in the Terri Schiavo case, that you will also trust the findings of the judge in this case.

  57. 60

    marks spews:

    Adriel @58

    Perhaps a start would be for you to not call tj a retard?

    Retard Joe – :)

    I did not read that from Adriel’s post. Not that I am averse to twisting words by someone…

  58. 61

    jpgee spews:

    Idiot @ 42 “but you have all but ignored the poll book and absentee reconciliation issues and the growing number of illegally counted provisional ballots” Yes, us leftis liberalist facists have all but ignored it….but we have totally ignored you and your pussy foot rantings and incoherent drivel “all hail the mighty Idiot and his consort Delay”

  59. 62

    Nindid spews:

    Adriel @ 58

    Are you in middle school…. grow up. What is next? Calling someone a homo? Sheesh….

    As it is, my understanding is that thousands of ex-felons who served their time, paid restitution, and are now honest citizens actually do vote now. Oh, the anarchy!!!!

  60. 63

    Adriel spews:

    ninid @ 62

    Spun like a true liberal hack, if they have their voting rights restored they are no longer felons right? so therefore I wasn’t talking about them. Wow if you would have thought before you posted you wouldn’t have looked so dumb.

  61. 64

    torridjoe spews:

    Adriel–
    “Goldy why do you feel felons should be able to vote? you like the sounds of anarchy?”

    You’d have to twist words to NOT interpret the second statement as a result of the first. Otherwise, what’s your point?

    Your thesis (what I can make of it) is absurd. Felons who have no interest in legitimate society aren’t going to bother to vote–voting is a validation of society.

  62. 66

    torridjoe spews:

    adriel @ 65
    Given that you’ve offered nothing but poor rhetoric and name calling to support your statements, I don’t need to tell anything. On what basis do you claim that felons who vote, vote for anarchy or chaos?

  63. 67

    Don spews:

    prr @ 24

    I suppose if they want to vote badly enough they can always go out and knock over another 7-11 to get money for restitution.

  64. 68

    Don spews:

    prr @ 49

    Silly me, I thought cops on the street = less 7-11s getting robbed. That explains why the Law and Order Party is cutting funding for 100,000 street cops in the latest federal budget. Well you’re right, we gotta eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in guvmint spending to get those deficits under control.

  65. 69

    Don spews:

    Chris @ 50

    Of course I don’t know if they’re telling the truth — and Rossi and his lawyers don’t know that he won. They’re just guessing, or maybe wishing is a better word here. Courts base decisions on facts, not speculation or wishful guessing. That’s why Rossi’s prospects don’t look so hot.

    If Judge Bridges goes for proportional analysis, are you willing to agree to a methodology that takes BOTH gender and geography into account?

  66. 71

    Don spews:

    Chee @ 57

    Yes, that has occurred to me. I have a fan out there — you know, the kind that stalks stars.

  67. 72

    Don spews:

    Adriel @ 58

    “No I was asking him if he likes the idea of chaos that would come from Thousands of irresponsible voters taking to the polls.”

    Why stop at thousands? Why not millions? If you want to see the chaos that results from 54 million* irresponsible voters look no farther than the Banana Republic of America.

    (* Totals include hacked votes)

  68. 73

    Don spews:

    Adriel @ 63

    “if they have their voting rights restored they are no longer felons right? … Wow if you would have thought before you posted you wouldn’t have looked so dumb.”

    You’re saying if their voting rights are restored they’re not felons anymore? Maybe if YOU had thought before you posted YOU wouldn’t look as DUMB as you do right now.

  69. 75

    Adriel spews:

    Don @ 73

    Don your IQ is showing and it’s not pretty. So you are saying once a felon always a felon? that’s not very Democratic of you, don’t they deserve a second chance?
    Once they have paid their debt to society and have had all rights restored they aren’t felons they are citizens, yes they still have a record but they have made ammends.

  70. 76

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Nindid–
    So using the term LEFTIST is a “personal insult”??
    I thought you were proud of your LEFTIST roots.

    And Don–
    It sounds like you are not willing to accept Judge Bridges ruling after ranting & raving how the Republicans would trash him. I’m willing to accept Judge Bridges ruling..whatever it is. You obviously aren’t. I just succeeded in busting your sorry, BS’ing rear-end.

  71. 77

    Chee spews:

    DON. Gee Don, I never took you for the kind of guy who exposes himself. That is against the law. Be glad you do not live in Florida, where Jeb has the power slip in after the fact. Chardonny thinks everything is criminal, favors the lock-up process, be glad Char isn’t in power. If Char were it would be a criminal offense to have a brain let alone use it.

  72. 78

    Chee spews:

    Mr Cynical. Political mud-slinging is not he same as personal mud-slinging and pre-school remarks. You missed the lesson, Goldy’s past thread and topic about childish remarks.

  73. 79

    Chee spews:

    Don@71. Re: Nit-wits stalking your wit and humor gives another star in your blogger crown. They are little green people, I’ve seen them.

  74. 80

    Chris spews:

    The short answer is yes.

    The long answer is using proportional analysis; regardless of the criteria used, really cannot tell us who won this election. We will never know who won this election. And it is my opinion that the only resolution is to have a new election. Neither candidate can hold this office with any true sense of legitimacy based upon the problems that occurred in this election. Which ever candidate is in office, you have a 50% chance that it is the wrong one. A new election does not tell us who won in November ’04, but it will give us a chance to do it right (or hopefully a hell of a lot better) and give legitimacy to the office holder, yes even Gregoire. If Rossi were to hold the office, under these questionable circumstances, I would be happier then Gregoire doing so. Forced to have a questionably elected Governor, I would take Rossi just as you take Gregoire. But I’d admit he was in office without certainty as to his deservedness. And I would understand the complaints and concerns coming from the left, questioning his right to the position.

    I know that Judge Bridges does not have the authority to order a new election but I hope that the resolution involves Brad Owen taking the position over until a new election, ordered by the legislature, takes place. I believe this can happen by Judge Bridges ruling Rossi the winner (due to the evidence of errors, lack of confidence in the result, etc), Rossi does not take office (or does and immediately resigns) and the legislature orders a new election for later this year. The cleanest way would be for Bridges to rule it impossible to know the true winner and toss out the election and not pick a winner. Then the Legislature would have to then order a new election. I don’t know, but I doubt he can do that either (rule the election indeterminable & toss it out). I think he has to make an actual determination of who won, based upon the evidence presented.

    So a new election is how I would accept either candidate as the legitimate Governor. If Gregoire won a new (clean) election I would accept that as the will of the voters, just as I did Gary Locke.

  75. 83

    spews:

    Chris @ 80

    I would have far more respect for complaints coming from the right if they hadn’t been preceeded by calls for Christine Gregoire to “do the honorable thing” and concede the election when Rossi was ahead in the vote count.

    Ariel @ 75 and elsewhere,

    Given that people who clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word “felon” have a right to vote, It’s not at all clear why I should be concerned about felons who actually choose to vote.

  76. 84

    Chris spews:

    Rick@83

    Please don’t pretend that the dems, and possibly yourself, would have asked the same of Rossi if the roles were reversed. That is what either side would do, please be realistic. It is just a common political move, tell your opponent they should concede, knowing that they won’t. Are you not calling on Rossi to concede now? Or do you agree that he is doing the right thing by not giving up yet? Were you not one of those calling on him to give up (concede) after the hand re-count and before the filing of a contest? I am sure you have never thought of him as a sore loser that should just “move on”.

    I am making assumptions, since you and I have never discussed this topic before. Please correct me, if I am in error, but I doubt that I am.

  77. 85

    Diggindude spews:

    Another thing to remember, when gregoire was down to her last recount op., she said count all, or dont count any.
    Now that the repubs are looking for votes, they seem to be much more selective in where they will or will not look.

  78. 86

    Chris spews:

    DD@85

    The Republicans are not looking for votes, they are looking into the validity of counted votes.

    It is the dems that are now nervous and are back to looking for new votes, looking into ballots that were rejected and never counted.

  79. 87

    jpgee spews:

    Chris, looks like you have it backwards. The Rep’s have to show some type of acceptible proof, so far they are failing at a high percentage rate. The Dem’s have the upper hand in this one.

  80. 88

    Diggindude spews:

    The Republicans are not looking for votes, they are looking into the validity of counted votes.

    Comment by Chris

    Oh contraire, chuckie, They are DEFINITELY looking for votes.
    You can call it whatever you like, but by disqualifying a vote for gregoire, they gain a vote.
    Same way they LOOKED for a judge, in a friendly county.
    Sneaky bastard that vance.

  81. 89

    Chee spews:

    Today’s republcan leadership will go down in history as a short shelf-live bunch of turkeys, fanatical addicts, pushers and peddlers that don’t know when to quit when they are behind; can’t quit judge shopping and pushing and peddling their own religious drug.

  82. 92

    Diggindude spews:

    I think they should be disqualified, but not just “selectively” disqualified, which is what rossi and vance are doing.
    And if we are to match every vote to voter in this state, then lets get the ball rolling, and disect all the discrepancies around the country.
    I cant wait to get into florida and ohio.
    The problem I have, is the double standard, which is trademark of the republican party.
    They want to hold everyones feet to the flame, as long as its not their own.
    Bush lost the election, in both florida, and ohio, if we apply this same level of scrutiny.
    Why aren’t you up in arms over the malfeasance in those elections?
    You cant honestly argue validity, while defending the crimes of the republican party.

  83. 93

    dj spews:

    Chris @ 91
    Ideally, illegally cast votes would be disqualified. The problem is, how can anyone do this? Votes are secret. With a few exceptions, it is impossible to disqualify votes after the election.

    This is why validity of voters must be ascertained BEFORE the election.

  84. 94

    spews:

    Chris @ 84

    You certainly are presumptive, particularly starting out with the presumption that I might have any pretense as to what Democrats might or might not have done had the roles been reversed. We aren’t talking about any hypotheticals, we’re talking about what actually happened, and I’ve never been impressed with attempts to justify clearly reprehensible behavior on the basis that one’s opponents would have, or even have, done the same thing.

    As for this being some standard political ploy, let’s not forget the argument that underlied the notion that conceding the election would have been the “honorable” thing for Christine Gregoire to do: that prolonging the process would have undermined public confidence in the electoral process itself. Releasing a list of names of more than 1000 alleged felon voters to the press can’t possibly have any impact on a legitimate contest of the election results. Dino Rossi have gone well beyond simply exercising a legal right to contest the results of an election, and have moved into the realm of undermining public confidence in the electoral process by attempting to contest this election in the court of public opinion as well as in courts of law. And don’t even get me started on the numerous other red herrings fished out of the sea by people like Stephan Sharkansky.

    You spoke of respect, Chris. If you want my respect, then I’d say that you need to stop pointing fingers and rid yourselves of the hypocricy. And, if you hurry, you might just garner my respect before the Democrats do.