HorsesAss.Org

During the 2004 gubernatorial contest in Washington state, the Republicans, as part of their “election fraud” propaganda campaign, needed an enemy with a name and a face.

Their primary victim was King County Records, Elections and Licensing Director Dean Logan, who was mercilessly vilified through the contest, court case and even afterward. They might have gone after our Secretary of State, Sam Reed, except that he’s a Republican. (They did go after him to a lesser extent after losing the lawsuit).

In Minnesota, it looks like Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is going to be the Republican’s first target. TPM Muckraker has obtained a three-page “backgrounder” put out by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

The NRSC origin of this memo highlights one big difference between the Washington state 2004 gubernatorial election and the Minnesota 2008 Senate race—the addition of an important target audience for the latter. Ultimately it is the Senate who will seat either Franken or Coleman. The election results, certified by Secretary of State Ritchie, will be used to guide the Senate (as per Article I of the U.S. Constitution) in seating the winner.

One long-shot strategy for the Republicans is to discredit Ritchie enough to cast doubt on his impartiality in certifying a close Franken win. The Republicans would challenge the election in the Senate (as sometimes happens) with the aim of not seating Franken.

Light blogging this morning, as I head down to Olympia, where the Public Disclosure Commission is holding a “Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Internet Lobbying.”  Considering some of the questions that will be addressed, I think I’m what one might describe as a stakeholder:

Lobbying Blogs (Web logs)?
o       Are lobbying postings and responses on blogs reportable?
o       Are funds provided to “tip jars” (donation links) on lobbying blogs reportable?

Um… hell no.

If the PDC were to adopt such rules, they would instantly become a playground for harassing bloggers, with organizations and individuals filing PDC complaints willy nilly.  Such rules would also be a major lawsuit waiting to happen, as I’m going to make it clear that under no circumstances would I comply with such rules should they pass… unless, of course, they apply the exact same regulations to Frank Blethen and his staff of paid lobbyists.

I’ll report back from the meeting, but in the meanwhile, the PDC’s Lori Anderson is soliciting public comments, and you can send her an email here.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early to enjoy the cuisine.

Tonight’s activity?

Gloating.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, McCranium shoud have the scoop on the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

The fledgling right-wing propaganda war continues in the Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken. As of yesterday’s midnight deadline, Franken trails Coleman by 206 out of 2.9 million votes.

The latest error-prone Wingding propaganda piece comes from Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. writing an opinion piece for Fox News. Lott, a right-wing academic, begins his article by insinuating something sinister behind the changing vote tallies:

[On Wednesday morning,] Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 — a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount.

It is hard to know if this is genuinely spin or whether Lott is simply unaware of elementary elections procedures. Changes in vote totals are almost guaranteed in the days leading up to initial certification. There are numerous reasons for this, including ongoing tallying of absentee and provisional ballots, correction of tabulating and reporting errors, and resolution of disputed ballots. In Minnesota, however, the changes are mostly corrections of tabulating and reporting errors because absentee ballots must be received by election day, and with election day registration possible, provisional ballots are not used. (In 2006, Minnesota had no provisional ballots cast. I am unclear whether provisional ballots play any role in Minnesota’s new voter challenge procedures.) Some ballots do remain uncounted at the time the polls close on election day:

Ramsey County found 55 absentee ballots which arrived on time to be counted on election day, but which were not. Those results have now been included in the new totals.

Counting these ballots will obviously affect subsequent reporting.

Contrary to Lott’s insinuations, the only thing unusual about these changes is that people are paying attention:

…county auditors are finding minor errors as they’re proofing their unofficial numbers before shipping them to St. Paul, said John Aiken, spokesman for Secretary Mark Ritchie.

“The counties are trying to be as accurate and transparent as possible. You’ll see fluctuations here and there,” Aiken said.

It happens all the time in every election, he said. The only difference is that for most elections, the margin is much wider and the election less prominent. Here, he said, “The eyes of the nation are on this Senate race.”

Lott goes on to “analyze” the errors, and he offers alarmist rhetoric that overlooks the specifics of known cases. For example, one case of an additional 100 votes for Franken simply reflected a typo:

In Pine County, an election official accidentally entered 24 votes for Franken on Tuesday night instead of the 124 he actually received. The mistake was caught on Thursday and the numbers changed, said Jim Gelbmann from the Secretary of State’s office.

In another case, the change reflected a failure to report any result at all:

In northeastern Minnesota, the town of Buhl’s ballots had been cast but not counted in statewide totals. It turns out election officials there counted the votes but never called them in. […]

Election official Mike Buchanan said that when Buhl election officials arrived a work at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, “we received a phone call from St. Louis County — they wanted our election numbers.”

They got them.

Coleman received 152 votes in Buhl and Franken got 343, for a difference of 191 in the Democratic candidate’s favor. Not enough to change the results, but enough to tighten the contest even more.

Sinister! Sinister, I tell you!

Lott’s specifics-free discussion of the precincts from which Franken’s votes came ends with this bit of factually challenged, pure Wingnut propaganda:

It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

This is the kind of statement that somehow seems authoritative—I mean, using words like “statistically more likely” and all. But it is bullshit technobabble. Statisticians use the term “statistically more likely” to refer to a result that exceeds some benchmark by an amount that is (probabilistically) outside of the sampling error. When the entire population is surveyed (as, say, when all voters in an election are considered), there is no sampling error. A difference is just a difference (or every difference is statistically significant). So Lott either doesn’t understand statistics (doubtful) or he is trying to bullshit us.

Lott offers more sloppy propaganda:

The recent Washington State 2006 gubernatorial recount is probably most famous for the discovery of ballots in heavily Democratic areas that had somehow missed being counted the first and even second time around. Minnesota is already copying that, though thus far on a much smaller scale, with 32 absentee ballots being discovered in Democratic Hennepin County after all the votes had already been counted.

In fact, the 32 absentee ballots in Hennepin County (and the 55 absentee ballots found in Ramsey County) are part of the first count. Even so, it is possible additional ballots will be found in the Minnesota recount. What of it? The whole purpose of a recount to ensure that every ballot is counted and counted correctly. Ironically, it was Republican Dino Rossi’s campaign in the 20064 Washington state race that ended up hunting down additional ballots—after the second recount.

Lott then goes on to downplay expectations that the recount will affect much about the election. He poo-poos an AP article about the magnitude of the undervote, and its possible significance. He incorrectly suggests that voters are warned about undervotes in Minnesota. This is simply incorrect—overvotes are flagged, not undervotes.

Optical scan machines do make mistakes. Minnesota estimates this error rate after each election by conducting audits in about 5% of precincts. The 2006 results gave a rate of 53 errors in 94,073 votes cast. Indeed, in Ramsey County yesterday, the machine audit found Franken gaining one vote out of 7,700 counted.

Lott uses his misunderstanding of the optical scanning machines to raise the same old tired talking points against “voter intent”:

There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.

Yes, there really is a role for discerning voter intent—it’s the law. Minnesota, as a voter intent state, provides clear guidelines on how voter intent is to be discerned.

Finally, Lott offers a Wingnut taking point that has no place in this discussion:

With ACORN filing more than 43,000 registration forms this year, 75 percent of all new registrations in the state, Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election. Even a small percentage of those registrations resulting in fraudulent votes could tip this election.

Un-huh. I suppose it is possible that Lott has been in a vacuum and actually believes this crap. More likely, he knows better, but just throws this out as Wingnut bullshit designed to cast doubt on the election. Specifically, he is exploiting the widely publicized fact that some ACORN employees have made up registrations (i.e. they have defrauded ACORN, who pays them for registering new potential voters)—information that has come to light in some cases because ACORN has reported what they believe are fake registration forms. Unless Lott believes that dishonest workers subsequently go on to recruit people to go vote as Micky Mouse, there is no link between real people registered by ACORN and “vote fraud problems” at the polls.

So…that is the latest in wingnuttery over this race. Get ready for the howls of “election fraud” when the voter crediting numbers turn out to be less than the numbers of ballots cast.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter defends her newspaper’s biased and crappy reporting on WA-08:

Not only do Northwesterners have a built-in disdain for people who name-drog [sic] fancy colleges, she should not have gotten twisted up in a dispute about a great degree.

Uh-huh.  First of all, that’s the sort of attitude one might expect from somebody who would have gone to a “fancy college,” had she been gifted enough to get in.  But more importantly… talk about blame the victim.  Darcy was totally fucked by the Times over the trivial, front page parsing of a college degree, and Joni’s defense is, well, she shouldn’t have flaunted that sexy education.

I mean, really, Joni?  Darcy deserved to have her political career destroyed over this?  That’s your analysis of the race?  This from the women who argued to my face that it was totally irresponsible for the press to report, just weeks before an election, that David Irons hit his mother?  I’m sensing a double-standard here.

To put this all in perspective, here’s a question for you Joni, and the rest our local media, which I’m guessing neither you nor colleagues have the balls to even acknowledge, let alone answer:  Did Dave Reichert catch the Green River Killer?

Come on… did he?  He sure as hell has taken credit for catching the Green River Killer… over and over and over and over and over again.  In fact, it is fair to say that he has built his entire political career on what is no doubt a shamelessly self-serving exaggeration, if not an out and out lie.

So really, how dare you attack Darcy’s credibility when you and your colleagues not only refuse to debunk the biggest lie in Washington state politics, but were actually complicit in creating and promoting this myth in the first place?

I’m just sayin’…

If we’re going to be stimulatin’ and subsidizin’ the construction industry, an admittedly wise step considering the scope of the financial scandal and related crash, could we pretty please with sugar on top have basic consumer protections in return?

Is there something I don’t understand here? You buy a new car, you get a warranty and you’re covered by the lemon law. If the wheels fall off you have options.

You buy a new house and the plumbing fails, well, sorry pal. Caveat emptor.

It doesn’t make any sense, and it really won’t make any sense if we inject hundreds of millions of dollars into a sector without providing basic consumer safeguards. This socialism stuff has to be about all the people, not just the bidness guy socialists. Otherwise it’s Chi-Com Socialism!

This past week saw the passage of nearly every drug law reform initiative on ballots across the country. Among the big ones, medical marijuana is now legal in Michigan. Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts and replaced with a $100 civil infraction. And Hawaii County, Hawaii residents made marijuana enforcement the lowest priority for the police. All three initiatives were landslides. In fact, the percentages of people voting for the initiatives in Michigan and Massachusetts were higher than the percentages who voted for Obama.

The result was clearly not from a lack of opposition. Drug Czar John Walters even traveled to Michigan in October to beg people not to vote for medical marijuana (which is probably a violation of The Hatch Act of 1939). In Massachusetts, law enforcement officials actively campaigned against the decriminalization measure. Now that the voters have loudly stood up for more sensible drug policy, law enforcement officials are throwing temper tantrums over it. Let’s break down five of the dumbest things said this past week by those who can’t figure out why voters are giving them the finger.

1. Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association representative Jim Carnell

“Few people, if any, who were arrested for simple possession were ever in any real jeopardy of a serious nature, provided they learned from past transgressions.”

The initiative in Massachusetts has law enforcement officials all twisted around. After complaining that the initiative was unnecessary because pot smokers never really had anything bad happen to them, they’re now complaining about how there’s no teeth to the marijuana laws any more. It’s been comical to watch them try to have it both ways.

The major reason why this initiative was needed was because people with an arrest for even minor marijuana possession will have a lifelong criminal record that makes it difficult for them to obtain housing and jobs, even if there wasn’t a conviction. In 2006, nearly 7,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession. Now, the vast majority of those people would only be written a $100 ticket (although there’s an interesting question as to whether police can ask for a person’s ID to be able to write that ticket).

2. Holyoke, MA Police Chief Anthony Scott

“It’s basically telling young people that it’s okay to possess an ounce or less of marijuana, after we have been spending millions of dollars trying to tell kids to say no to drugs, not to drink, and to quit smoking.”

This is totally ridiculous. Alcohol and cigaretters are legal for adults. Does that mean that we have to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal in order to tell kids that they shouldn’t drink or smoke? There’s nothing dangerous about treating marijuana the same way we treat alcohol or cigarettes. In fact, cigarette smoking among young people has been dropping. We didn’t have to make it illegal to accomplish that.

3. Six Michigan Law Enforcement Officials

“How do law enforcement officers respond to marijuana growing operations when the owners claim that they are “caregivers” who must cultivate marijuana for their customers?”

It’s very simple. You should find out if they’re telling the truth, and if they are, let them be.

It never ceases to amaze me that law enforcement officials think that when they bust a marijuana grow operation that they’ve somehow completely eradicated marijuana from their area. They actually believe that they’re some “front line” against marijuana, and that if they didn’t do what they do, all hell would be breaking loose. It’s just another example of the great adage that “a man will never understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.”

Whenever a grow operation is busted, another one that doesn’t get busted just gets richer. In the end, organized criminals end up controlling the entire trade and getting filthy rich. Not exactly a smart way to protect people in a community, but for reasons that continually amaze me, law enforcement officials will fight tooth and nail to keep doing it this way.

4. Hawaii County, HI Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna

“If you’re pro-drug, or pro-marijuana, you’re automatically pro-terrorist.”

What a moron. I don’t even know what to say.

5. The Drug Czar’s new ad campaign

“Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads.”

Actually, there a quite a few jobs out there for pot smokers. For one, President. The last time we had a President who’d never smoked pot before was 1992. There’s a video here with the many, many other people who smoke pot and have jobs, including scientists, businessmen, and entertainers. Personally, I know of doctors, lawyers, corporate executives, and people of all walks of life who enjoy smoking pot. The myths about this drug are dying. Hopefully, prohibitionists will figure this out and stop making asses of themselves.

There’s no question the economic downturn has been hard on house builders. But at least one BIAW-affiliated official is optimistic. Here’s David Roewe, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Clark County, the local unit of the BIAW, in a Columbian business section article:

Roewe predicted home sales would improve after the first of the year and continue to pick up in the second quarter of 2009.

“Springtime is when you’ll see the release of money, with the new (presidential) administration in office,” he said.

See, even some BIAW folks are rooting for President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress to succeed. Now that’s refreshing.

Seattle Times editorial page editor Jim Vesely is deeply disappointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire’s reelection, so much so, that’s he’s taken to bad mouthing his own readers:

Democrats are doing well on the Eastside of metropolitan Seattle, either through onslaughts by good candidates or the inevitable party-switching that represents tidal change. Yet before the Republican majorities in the far Eastside are snuffed, something remains of their efforts: a general sense that self-absorbed Seattle is not the definer of metropolitan life, that political independence is not the sponge to be soaked up by King County Democrats, and that a way of life on the exurban Plateau has meaning beyond Seattle’s persistent, and effete, condemnation.

“Self-absorbed” and “effete”…?  Really?  This is the sort of profound disaffection Vesely ironically holds for the city whose name is featured in his paper’s masthead?  Wouldn’t it be more honest to rename the paper “The Sammamish Times”?  Is it possible for subscribers to sue the Blethens for false advertising, based on the so-called “Seattle” Times’ blatantly misleading name?

Honestly, how can the Times editors claim to represent the interests of Seattle when they hold such obvious contempt for the city and its residents? And how can their holier than thou exhortations against partisanship be taken the least bit seriously when they prove so eager to fan the flames of such petty and divisive sub-regional factionalism?

I’m just askin’….

I happened to recently see a replay of a documentary entitled “Liquid Assets-The Story of Our Water Infrastructure.” The film is part of a project at Penn State.

There’s a lot of talk right now about funding infrastructure as both a sensible investment in our future and as a means of stimulating the economy, although as Robert Reich pointed out on-air today on CNN, critics will point out large projects can take a while to get going.

But as the documentary mentions, there are projects all over the country involving water and sewer that need funding, and while they may not be as um, sexy, as light rail or big bridges, they are no less vital. And the film doesn’t just focus on big city projects like Atlanta and New York, it also features a small town in Pennsylvania that simply has no sanitary sewer. The lines just empty into the creek, or even worse, back up into lawns and streets. In 2008. Despite a decade or more of efforts to fund a sewer system, little progress has been made. And nobody should care whether these are “real” Americans or “fake” Americans, they’re Americans for crying out loud.

These are the kinds of nuts and bolts issues that Republicans have ignored with their endless and robotic attacks on government and taxes. Sure, nobody wants to pay more taxes, but poop backing up into lawns and streets isn’t exactly a neat thing either.

So as we move into the next administration, it would be wise for the Congress to fund basic water and sewer projects, not only to help the environment but to help our country compete on a global stage. It’s kind of hard to attract business without clean water and sewer systems.

I’m in the midst of writing a rather longish post-election analysis of the gubernatorial race, attempting to explain Gov. Chris Gregoire’s decisive victory in what most observers expected to be a nail-biter of a rematch, but I thought I’d take a moment to quickly share a rather heretical observation:  Gregoire not only ran a better campaign, her winning strategy was exemplified by her much maligned ads attacking Dino Rossi for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Of course it is true, as many critics have pointed out, that few if any voters would cast their ballots based on an issue the Seattle Times angrily argued had “nothing to do” with the job of governor, but that critique misses the broader symbolic value of the issue.  What the Gregoire campaign accomplished with these ads was something they failed to even attempt in 2004:  they defined Rossi as a religious conservative, a strategy that ultimately pays off big dividends with our state’s politically split, but decidedly socially libertarian electorate.

In fact, I’d argue that the Gregoire campaign borrowed an earmarked page from the Republican playbook, successfully portraying the Governor as the candidate who best represented the values of the majority of voters.  And toward that end, these stem cell ads proved to be an extremely effective if subtle tactic.

One could have attacked Rossi on his opposition to legal abortion, but a lot of people oppose abortion on moral grounds, and we tend to be a religiously tolerant nation.  One could have attacked Rossi on the pharmacist rule or abstinence only sex education, but these are complicated issues not easily explained in a 30-second spot.  But the stem cell research issue proved to be a perfect proxy, defining Rossi as a candidate who would impose his own conservative religious values even into the realm of science, adversely affecting the ability of individuals to make health care decisions for themselves.  In effect, these stem cell ads defined Rossi as too conservative for Washington, along the lines of Ellen Craswell and John Carlson.

Indeed, this values theme was repeated throughout Gov. Gregoire’s paid media, for example, on the issues of education and children’s health care.  Even on the issue of our state’s projected multi-billion dollar revenue shortfall, the Gregoire campaign focused on her pro-children values, emphasizing that Rossi attempted to cut health care for 40,000 children while the Governor expanded the rolls, and that Gregoire had increased spending on education while Rossi’s transportation spending proposal would come at the expense of our schools.  Who do you best trust to balance our budget, Gregoire asked, leaving it to voters to choose the candidate who best represented their values.

By comparison, the Rossi campaign was for the most part value free, attacking Gregoire on her performance in office—taxes, spending, budget deficit, etc.—while failing to even attempt to define the Governor as too liberal, apart from a half-hearted last ditch effort to claim she would impose an income tax.  Likewise, following 2004’s successful Tabula Rossi strategy—in which voters read moderation into his refusal to discuss social issues—Rossi even declined to define himself.  Only this time around, the Gregoire campaign did it for him.  As Stuart Elway noted in his October poll:

“Gregoire has an edge on values among those who care most about those issues.  Gregoire is seen as Moderate Liberal.  Rossi is seen as conservative.  He wasn’t in 2004.”

This shift in public perception of Rossi’s values proved to be one of the major differences between 2004 and 2008… and it didn’t happen by accident.  Score one for the Gregoire campaign.

The King County Sheriff’s Department, prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement officials have sounded the alarm over impending budget cuts, warning that they could result in a significant adverse impact on public safety.  And no doubt that’s true.

But as municipal governments statewide struggle to cope with the economic downturn and its resulting decline in sales and property tax revenues, it is important to remember that the criminal justice system comprises over 70 percent of the general fund of nearly every county in the state, and thus any substantial decline in local tax revenues is going to inevitably impact public safety.  You simply cannot effectively address substantial budget shortfalls without addressing the largest part of your budget.

Washington Democrats have every reason to be cheered over last Tuesday’s election results, but as far as I can tell our party leaders have no plan in place to address our long term state and local structural revenue deficit… a deficit that when adjusted for good and bad economic times, assures that tax revenues cannot possibly keep pace with economic growth, and thus cannot possibly keep pace with growth in demand for public services.

If what we want is a dramatically smaller government, we can elect Republicans, or, apparently, we can elect Democrats, and just gradually get to the same place by default.  If that’s what voters really want, just don’t complain when the Sheriff’s Department starts laying off officers.

Right Wing Nut House proprietor Rick Moran writes at American Thinker:

No one is saying that the Democrats are trying to steal the Minnesota senate race between GOP incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic clown Al Franken – yet

And after citing an article comparing the Minnesota Senatorial election to the Florida 2000 debacle, Moran goes on to suggest that the election is being stolen, but in a slightly different way:

This is shaping up more and more like the transparent way the Washington state governor’s race was stolen by Democrats in 2006 when hundreds of ballots were suddenly “found” in Democratic King County – many of them coming from people (it was later determined) with unverifiable addresses.

Here we see the seeds of the type of propaganda effort, based on twisting of the truth and downright factually incorrect information (what is called, in less polite company, fucking lies), that occurred during the previous Washington state gubernatorial contest.

Interestingly, the the previous bullshit propaganda is cited as “evidence” to bolster the new propaganda efforts. I guess this is what Bush meant by “catapult the propaganda.”

Let’s ignore the first error—the race in question was 2004, not 2006. That’s an honest mistake that any out-of-state Wingnut could make.

The propaganda begins by the suggestion that ballots were “suddenly ‘found,'” in King County, as if nobody had any idea where the ballots came from. The implication, of course, is that they were manufactured after the election and thrown into the mix to change the outcome

There were several batches of “found” ballots in King County. The first batch resulted when elections workers put aside ballots from people whose signatures had not been previously scanned into the computer system. The workers were supposed to check the signatures against the paper records, but they didn’t. This was only discovered because King County Councilman Larry Phillips was one of the victims. A total of 561 absentee ballots were “found” this way.

The other source of found ballots came from the insides of secured voting machines and trays stored in a secure warehouse. There were 723 ~160 of these ballots literally found. But they were valid ballots cast during the election, and the voters who cast them were entitled to have them counted. The Republicans sued to prevent these ballots from being canvassed. The state Supreme Court rejected that idea.

The other implication in Moran’s statement is that, somehow, King County stood out as the source of “found” ballots. There were other counties that also “found” ballots. In fact, King County did not have the highest “error rate” in the state—there were four counties with higher rates. King County did have errors, but only at a rate slightly higher than the background rate for the whole state. King County also had a substantially higher voter load, with the same amount of processing time as other counties, so this is hardly surprising. The Republicans lost the election contest lawsuit in every way—except for the propaganda wars.

The final bit of propaganda in Moran’s statement is an irresponsible falsehood. He states that the “found” ballots in King County had “unverifiable addresses.” Um…no.

I don’t know where this notion came from. Perhaps Moran is confusing the 2004 election contest with a 2005 Republican scandal in which the senior vice president of the King County Republican Party, Lori Sotelo, challenged 1,944 voters days before the election, based on some sloppy attempts to find voter addresses that were not real residences (mailbox outlets or storage facilities). The challenges were potentially perjurious, fradulent, and hugely error prone (only 58 ballots of 1,944 challenges were disqualified). The episode had nothing to do with the contested 2004 election.

In sum…Moran doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about.

He probably doen’t care…truth and accuracy are not what it is all about. It’s the early stages of a shameless propaganda effort.

Let’s hope the politicians, the political parties, the media, and the bloggers do a better job with fighting Republican bullshit about election-fraud in Minnesota in 2008–2009 than they did with Washington state in 2004–2005.