King County Executive Ron Sims has rejected proposals by Southwest and Alaska Airlines to fly passenger service out of Boeing Field. Sims had originally been enthusiastic about exploring the Southwest proposal, arguing that consumers would ultimately benefit from cheaper airfares. But when evaluating the Southwest and Alaska proposals together, it quickly became apparent that the county airport could not support the higher traffic while meeting the impact criteria he had set forth.
“I have said all along that I would not endorse any proposal from any airline if it led to significant traffic and noise impacts,” Sims said.
Sims had also promised that he would never approve a deal that required taxpayer subsidies. According to Sims spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik, a preliminary analysis had suggested that Southwest might be able to operate up to 85 flights a day while meeting FAA noise regulations, and with little or no road improvements in the area. But once the Alaska proposal came in on September 30, the calculus changed. The two proposals combined would have operated 185 daily flights from 16 gates, requiring substantial road improvements and generating significantly more noise.
After receiving legal advice that the county must give both proposals equal consideration, county transportation staff concluded last Friday that it was impossible to open Boeing Field to passenger traffic while meeting Sims’ criteria. Sims was formally briefed at a meeting yesterday, in which staff stepped him through the analysis, and laid out the costs that would be required to proceed with due diligence… including an Economic Impact Analysis and a half-million dollar Environmental Impact Study. Sims decided that it was pointless to proceed with the time and expense of continuing to study the proposals when it seemed exceedingly unlikely that either would be approved in the end.
And so today, Sims announced that he had rejected both proposals.
Personally, I’m glad Sims nixed the deals. I live near Boeing Field, and for purely selfish NIMBY reasons I didn’t relish the thought of increased traffic. I am also relieved to eliminate this issue from the current election debate, as it seemed likely that it might hurt Sims at the polls.
But I think it is important to reiterate in the wake of the issue’s demise, that Sims had never endorsed the Southwest proposal… he had merely expressed enthusiasm about studying it. As I reported last week, even in the midst of a wonkish policy debate at Drinking Liberally, Sims repeated his mantra:
The gist of Sims argument is that the Southwest deal would be good for consumers, while adding jobs to South Seattle. He wants to study the proposal, but would only approve it if noise abatement and traffic concerns can be adequately addressed with no public subsidy.
And the gist of Sims decision to reject the proposal was his conclusion that noise abatement and traffic concerns cannot be adequately addressed without public subsidy.
Now I’m guessing that the more cynical amongst you might dismiss the background information I provided, and accuse Sims of merely bowing to political pressure, and to that I say… so what? No doubt Sims heard from many constituents who were unhappy or even angry about the potential impact increased flight traffic would have on their Seattle neighborhoods. I know for a fact that he heard from me and other unabashed Democrats last week at DL. If public opposition helped influence his decision, that’s a good thing, right? We want our elected officials to listen to voters.
But one thing I’m confident Sims didn’t do was bow to political pressure from the Port Commission or Alaska Airlines or Southwest Airlines lobbyist (and former Sims’ staffer) Tim Hatley. Josh Feit in The Stranger tries to make a big deal over Sims reaction to being questioned about Hatley during his meeting before the editorial board, but this is just a load of something about nothing.
First of all, say what you want about Ron Sims, but I have never seen anybody seriously allege that he has ever used his office to line the pockets of himself, his friends or his family. Disagree with him on policy, criticize him on execution, despise him on ideology… but this is a man who entered public life for all the right reasons. If Sims took offense at efforts to insinuate Hatley’s lobbying into something sleazy, well… he had every reason. (Oh… and Josh… Hatley was hired to lobby reluctant members of the County Council, not Sims. Think about it… why spend your money lobbying the one guy who has expressed enthusiasm about considering the proposal?)
Second, while Sims was not at liberty to comment because he had yet to be formally briefed by staff, he was already aware that they had concluded the proposals could not meet his criteria… before he went before the editorial board last Friday. So I think that puts Sims’ reaction in its proper context… he was essentially accused of being unduly influenced by a lobbyist in favor of a deal that he knew he would likely soon kill.
Personally, I buy the story I previously laid out — that Sims found it pointless to pursue an expensive study of a proposal that clearly wasn’t viable — but whatever the motive I applaud his decision. Southwest came to him with a deal that promised to benefit both consumers and the county, and Sims enthusiastically proceeded to conduct due diligence. In the end, the numbers just didn’t work out, and so he rejected the proposal, based on the criteria that he set forth when the news first broke.
No scandal, no backtracking, no shady dealmaking. Just the sort of tough decision a county executive must make every day, regardless of the political consequences.
Thanks for the post. My only question then, is why “he had merely expressed enthusiasm about studying it” knowing he’d probably kill it? Why, since many in his base were against this from day one, did he show any enthusiasm?
I don’t question his motives; I’m asking why he didn’t kill this right away. We all knew that this proposal was going to take a sizeable public investment….
Funny, it may be Alaska that really pulled the plug. Once you are forced to consider all proposals you have to deal with the same issues that Ron was concerned for… and could never be adressed. Smooth move by Alaska?
Oh that is just that nasty conspiracy theorist in me!!! har har.
Jon @1,
I thought I addressed that. Preliminary analysis of the original SWA proposals suggested that the existing road infrastructure around Boeing Field might be sufficient to handle the projected traffic, and that the airport could meet FAA regulations with little or no noise abatement. So it was worth pursuing to see if this was born out by further study and analysis. But with the Alaska proposal in the mix, they concluded there was no way to meet the criteria.
Even without Alaska, this was never a sure thing. The preliminary analysis merely suggested it was possible, and warranted further study.
@4, actually, the preliminary analysis of the road traffic was a load of bunk. If you read the preliminary study, it said nearly all of the traffic would travel up and down airport way into Seattle and they didn’t anticipate increased traffic along I-5. If you buy that reasoning, then you must agree along the lines of someone traveling from Northgate would hop off I-5 into downtown Seattle and then make their way on surface streets to reach Boeing Field. Not very likely. The study never addressed the issue of increased traffic on I5 during commute hours.
But, I must say I am happy with Sims decision. I still think the timing is suspect since I had a conversation with his chief of staff last week on the subject of public hearings and was told that they were waiting for studies and they wouldn’t have these in hand until November so it would be pointless to have a meeting without any data. So, they are either stretching the truth on when these new studies would be ready to delay a public hearing until after the election or they are claiming that the preliminary studies they had back in July/August are ‘new’ so they can get out of the heat of the SWA lobbyist connection. Oh well, water under the bridge as far as I am concerned now.
It still won’t change my vote against Sims since this was just one of my reasons for not voting for him but now I feel like I can vote for the Green candidate instead of the Republican. A small victory of sorts.
Goldy said previously:
One of my favorite moments of the night was an extended and contentious back and forth between Sims and a DL regular on the merits of Southwest Airlines controversial proposal to move to Boeing Field. Personally, I oppose the Southwest deal, mostly for my own selfish, NIMBY reasons. (I live near Boeing Field, and don’t particularly welcome the extra road or air traffic.) But what struck me most was the vigor with which Sims argued his position, not just with a constituent, but with a supporter. Sims already had this guy’s vote, and he knew it. And yet he not only dove into the debate with the passionate abandon of… well… just some guy at DL… he clearly had a great time doing it.
This was an expression of joy from a man who clearly loves diving into the nitty-gritty of politics and policy.
In case you’re interested, the gist of Sims argument is that the Southwest deal would be good for consumers, while adding jobs to South Seattle.
Only a Horses’s Ass couldn’t get the gist of Josh Felt’s blog post.
Only a blitering idiot couldn’t figure out that David Irons just raised the temperature of this proverbial potato just high enough to make Sims fumble it.
Atta boy, Irons. Atta boy. Just one more month and you’ll be Executive-Elect.
Come on Josef, did you read Irons’ waffling on this topic?
So now David Irons and/or Josh Felt are responsible for the decision Sims made?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Jimmy @ 2
That’s not a conspiricy theory – that’s exactly what happened. Southwest moving to Boeing would give them a huge, and unfair advantage over the other airlines. Alaska said that they wanted in on the same action, knowing that either they’d get a sweet new deal at Boeing – or they’d end up putting the kibosh on the deal for their competitor. Turns out they called Sims’ and Southwest’s bluff and put the kibosh on a bad idea.
Sims talked about this being about competitiveness, but what it really would’ve done is given one or two airlines an unfair competitive advantage (with lower gate fees, etc).
I kinda liked Dwight Pelz’s line: “Airlines should compete with each other, airports shouldn’t” (quote might be a bit off).
And all those jobs that would’ve entered South Seattle – probably would’ve been taken from Seatac – for a net gain of zero.
Goldy @ 4: “Preliminary analysis of the original SWA proposals suggested that the existing road infrastructure around Boeing Field might be sufficient to handle the projected traffic…”
Sorry, Goldy, but I agree with Jennifer @ 5 here, anybody with eyes could see Airport Way couldn’t handle the load as it’s currently built, and let’s not forget, King County has had an unfortunate history with underestimating traffic volumes. Sims and his staff are smart; I have a hard time believing they couldn’t see it too right from the get go.
Roger @ 9: C’mon, Roger, you honestly believe that if this wasn’t an election year, and the fact that Sims wasn’t getting his base mad, that this proposal wouldn’t have gone further?
What’s up with my comment not showing up? Don’t get me wrong, I like Ron Sims, but I didn’t like the SW proposal.
God knows, I’m not voting for that short-bus riding Irons.
In light of “global warming”, no airlines should fly into Seattle. Not until years of environmental impact reports can be reviewed. All airlines [and their jobs] must be asked to leave the state. The world depends on ALL of us doing our part! [hehe]
Jennifer @ 5, would you agree that it will take a miracle for the Green candidate to pull more than 5 percent of the vote?
Now, in a blow-out Sims victory I suppose you could argue that elevating the Green party’s visibility is a good thing, particularly if it sends a message to mainstream Democrats not to take the left for granted. But what if the race is close, and the Green candidate essentially throws the election to Irons? Can you live with that?
Seems to me that the Greens are putting the cart before the horse. Until they manage to pass some variation on proportional voting, the Greens effectively play into the hands of the Republicans by splitting the left-of-center vote.
I hear ya Green. As a repubulican I still can’t forgive Ross Perot for what he did to us in 1992. He siphoned way more than 5% though. He got Clinton elected with a mere 42% of the popular vote.
Jon @11,
You and Jennifer seem to be under the mistaken impression that Ron Sims had endorsed the SW proposal. He hadn’t. The preliminary analysis merely suggested that it might make sense, and Sims supported exploring it further. Further analysis, which included the Alaska proposal, suggested that it wouldn’t work, and so Sims decided not to study it any further.
I see in the news that Senator Frist LIED when he claimed his stock was in a blind trust.
Now, how about putting Paine Field in Everett back on its original track? For those that don’t know, it was a WPA project that was supposed to create a regional super-airport.
Who knows? Maybe if there was an international airport in Everett, the Sounder North train might get a few passengers!
Could it be Don Ron Sims Study went something like this:
SWA Greenback potential vs. Kingco Executive Salary & Benefits
Would like to have both.
However salary & benefits in serious jeopardy if Ron doesn’t back down immediately.
Ron chooses the “bird in the hand”.
I can just see the Sims smoke-filled war room gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands over this predicament.
Sims still lost votes and support for ever opening his big mouth on this one.
Goldy is Der Schpinmeister trying like hell to put a smiley face on a toothless old hounddog but the “bird” may still be slippping from Ron’s grasp….what will the ugly Erection Dept. situation and Sims Critical Areas Ordinance debacle.
This is good stuff!!
re 19: And what would have been your PRAYER BREAKFAST MAFIA RANT if Sims had rejected the proposal out of hand. It’s so obvious that any fool can plainly see that by insisting that KINGCO would not pay for any infrastructure that that put the kibosh on the project from day one. “Private” business depends heavily , it would seem, on freebies from the public.
I don’t see that Sim’s motivation matters that much. I’m glad this issue is put to rest.
Cynical @19,
I know that “cynical” is in your name, and that I’ve surely said this to you before… but fuck you.
This was never about Sims’ personal interests, and you know it. Sims thought such a deal might be good for consumers, and could bring jobs to South Seattle (not the ritziest part of town by the way.) He was also required by federal law to consider such proposals. So that’s what he did.
Looking on this Sims thread anything about the “Green card” voter in the news this morning..
Is Ron courting the alien vote?
re 23: You should thank your lucky stars that you are permitted to comment on this blog. Not all blogs (uSP) are that generous with minutiae hounds like yourself.
Has Rove been indicted yet?
@11
“Roger @ 9: C’mon, Roger, you honestly believe that if this wasn’t an election year, and the fact that Sims wasn’t getting his base mad, that this proposal wouldn’t have gone further?”
Yes, as a matter of fact.
Reply to 23
See the preceding “Drinking Liberally” thread for comments about the so-called “Green Card” voter.
Hey Wrong Headed — a Green Card is a government-issued ID, and as such, is acceptable ID for voting purposes. Possession of a Green Card is NOT proof the voter is unqualified — the voter may have become a naturalized citizen entitled to vote! Furthermore, that was a PROVISIONAL ballot dummy — pollworkers have to accept provisional ballots from people whose names don’t appear on poll books and it’s up to election officials — not pollworkers — to decide whether a provisional vote should count. God, you are a dumb shit!
A new poll shows 50% favor impeaching Bush if he lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, while 44% oppose. This is eerily reminiscent of Nixon, who also presided over a questionable and unpopular war. Nixon, like Bush, was re-elected by a public skeptical of his leadership but reluctant to change horses in midstream (so to speak), but halfway through his second term Nixon was history as evidence of lies and coverups grew from a trickle to a waterfall. Will history now repeat itself? Will Bush be gone by August of 2006? With DeLay already indicted, Rove facing indictment, Frist under investigation — the GOP house of cards is unraveling and such a denouement now looks possible!
Speaking of accused-felon DeLay, his lawyers tried to subpoena the prosecutor to answer questions about alleged prosecutorial misconduct! This is all-too-reminiscent of the SLAPP suits big corporations use to harass environmental watchdogs. Intelligent people understand that a defendant who resorts to attacking the prosecutor probably is guilty.
Roger;
You mean I can show my high school ID card and since it “doesnt’ prove” i’m not valid, its ok?
Why not: No valid ID, no vote! (not even provisional, no phony baloney, i left my driv license at the gym excuses)
Roger @ 27: “Will Bush be gone by August of 2006?”
….and who will be president then? and then? and then?
Roger Rabbit-26 ‘..up to election officials – not pollworkers – to decide whether a provisional vote should count.’
They did count it. Has all the makings of another illegal vote.
righton-29 ‘..since it “doesnt’ prove” i’m not valid, its ok?’
Now you are finally getting it. What took so long?
The “count every vote” mantra is masked in tears of pity for the so-called repressed masses in the US. The “wink-wink” part is the knowledge that if only legal votes are counted the dems go down in flames.
If the dems thought the repubs would stoop to their tactics they would support laws to purge illegal votes from the system.
@29
Go read the fucking rules, jackass.
@30
President Cheney will still be running the country — unless he’s indicted and impeached too, in which case the acting president will be whoever’s left in the line of succession after all the indictments and impeachments come down.
Since it’s hard to tell who, of the most corrupt administration and Congress in history, will survive the legal proceedings I can’t give you a specific name in the event President Cheney should be indicted, impeached, and removed.
Reply to 32
If you don’t like people voting go back to North Korea, they don’t voting there.
Without illegal votes the Dems will never win!! Blacks must NOT be asked any questions or be required to register OR have an ID because that would be racist. [hehe]
Goldy@22–
Just to refresh your memory, as a matter of fact you have said Fuck You to me on numerous previous occassions. Hopefully you mean it in a non-sexual way you freak!
I think KingCo is ripe for a change of Administration. Not just the SWA issue but an overall sense of lack of well-being by a lot of KingCo residents. Sims has a long record to be held accountable for. People are frustrated with traffic, the cost of living and huge waste’s of dollars on many levels studying shit. Even though Sim’s doesn’t control a lot of the transportation planning spending while building nothing….Sims will still get tagged.
It’s really a sense of despair and wanting a new face to give them some hope. Know what I mean?
Roger Rabbit-35 ‘..don’t like people voting..’
Proof that having only legal votes = not wanting people to vote.
I’m glad Ron’s opposing the SWA proposal. As far as I could ascertain, the proposal benefited SWA, but was of no benefit to King County. Ron tends to be too Seattle-centric for my taste; he needs to remember sometimes that he is the KING COUNTY Executive, not the mayor of Seattle. I think he was focusing solely on the benefit of bringing those airport jobs to south Seattle; sure, that’s a laudable goal – for the mayor of Seattle or a Seattle city councilmember. But it’s ultimately a loss for King County, and that’s where his focus needs to be.
roger; whose rules? Sims/Logan, legislature, what is right? Lots of ways.
If legislation lets illegals votes, then we need to fix that.
re 37: You’re not going to repeat Florida and Ohio in WA state, so why don’t you all go to a state that meets your standards of honesty and rectitude, (not).
“LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!” Sucker!!!!!!!!!
Headless moron @ 41
what are you talking about?
By the comparrisson of washinfgton state to Florida & Ohio, I am suspecting you are on some random chain of thought about a rigged election.
@16
c’mon, ‘Sims hadn’t endorsed it.’ Please. I get that you really like Sims, but this is straining credibility. This proposal didn’t come out of the blue. SW and Sims have obviously talked about this for a long time, and Sims initial enthusiasm for the project is tacit endorsement. You’re affection for the guy (and his ‘leadership’ abilities) is clouding your judgement. Sims was behind this from day one, ushered it along until the hue and cry bacame so loud that he had to bag it. Don’t try to pretend that he was an innocent bystander.
lesjom–@43-
I’m with you.
Sims & Goldy would have us believe Don Ron Sims King was sitting their takin’ a dump and this SWA proposal just appeared in front of him out of thin air. He couldn’t immediately dismiss it….it just stuck to him inadvertently like used toilet paper stuck to Ron’s shoe!!
@40 et al.
Before you fools go ballistic show me some illegal votes. Your side spent $2 million in legal fees on a specious lawsuit and have nothing to show for it except 4 illegal votes for your guy.
Roger; didn’t we find thousands of ballots with no voters?
Ah, man this is easy
righton @ 46
short answer=no.
Roger Rabbit-45 ‘..show me some illegal votes.’
How soon we forget:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....rnor_x.htm
“The election — decided by an amazingly narrow margin of 129 votes out of 2.9 million cast — included 1,678 illegally cast ballots, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges found.’
And then the others only the coomonfolk would consider illeagal:
– 6 individuals in Pierce County voted despite being excluded via mental incompetence exclusions.
– 19 ballots cast in name of deceased persons. No evidence who cast or for whom ballots were cast.
– Approx. 875 absentees in King County in excess of those received and verified.
– 190 more in Clark than voters credited with voting.
– 14 more in Kittitas than voters credited with voting.
-77 more in Spokane County than voters credited with voting.
– 20 more in Island County than voters credited with voting.
– 45 more ballots in Stevens County than voters credited with voting.
– 45 more in Cowlitz County than voters credited with voting.
– 14 more in Adams County than voters credited with voting.
– 135 approx in Pierce Count in excess of number of registered voters
And then the 300 to 400 new ones:
http://www.thestranger.com/sea.....?oid=23500
Will it ever end?
Curtis
Correct answer is yes. 6,000 or more in KC..
Roger Rabbit-45 ‘..show me some illegal votes.’
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....rnor_x.htm
“The election — decided by an amazingly narrow margin of 129 votes out of 2.9 million cast — included 1,678 illegally cast ballots, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges found.’
Plus –
– 6 individuals in Pierce County voted despite being excluded via mental incompetence exclusions.
– 19 ballots cast in name of deceased persons. No evidence who cast or for whom ballots were cast.
– Approx. 875 absentees in King County in excess of those received and verified.
– 190 more in Clark than voters credited with voting.
– 14 more in Kittitas than voters credited with voting.
-77 more in Spokane County than voters credited with voting.
– 20 more in Island County than voters credited with voting.
– 45 more ballots in Stevens County than voters credited with voting.
– 45 more in Cowlitz County than voters credited with voting.
– 14 more in Adams County than voters credited with voting.
– 135 approx in Pierce Count in excess of number of registered voters
Only a donk would look at a 120,000 vote win with suspicion while looking the other way after a third recount in which thousands of provisional ballots just happened to show up. HEhehehehe
righton @ 48,
I have a copy of the data set that was used by the Republicans, Democrats, and the court during the election contest.
And, you know what, righton? You are wrong!
There were not thousands of ballots with no voters. You have been bamboozled by uSP.
Oh, the oracle of dj has spoken.
Everybody, its all ok, no extra voters, extra ballots, unreconciled reports… dj (dean logan) tells us its ok
Did you get those from the phony baloney committee Sims created?
righton @ 53
“Everybody, its all ok, no extra voters, extra ballots, unreconciled reports… dj (dean logan) tells us its ok”
Wow…I though Roger Rabbit was Dean Logan and I was Ron Sims? (I met Ron Sims for the first time at Drinking Liberally a couple of weeks ago, and I would be proud to be him.)
“Did you get those from the phony baloney committee Sims created?”
Did I get what from where?
duh, did you get the mystery data you are claiming from the do-nothing committee.
If you have data proving no extra votes and extra voters, pls send it to Shark.
“The election — decided by an amazingly narrow margin of 129 votes out of 2.9 million cast — included 1,678 illegally cast ballots, Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges found.’
The Democrats lawyers wanted to depose these people to find out who they voted for rather than rely upon the shady porportional analysis. Republicans opposed doing that. Why? Because they did a quick survey of the illegal voters on their lists and discovered they’d lose a *lot* of votes if they were deposed. The illegals list was mostly men and men went for Rossi. Not exactly startling.
It’s pretty telling all the people who actually were deposed (including a card carrying Republican child molester who exclaimed it’d be “fraud” to say he voted for Gregoire) voted for Rossi.
It doesn’t matter that Sims never endorsed the Southwest proposal.
Sims entertained this proposal, and that alone shows that he is disconnected from his electorate. Nobody in Seattle wanted this change, everyone was railing against it, and Sims was meanwhile supporting it as something which should be considered. Dwight Pelz was quoted speaking eloquently to the Seattle PI months ago about how Southwest’s plan did not deserve contemplation and how Sims was out to lunch.
The issue apparently was that Sims’ former campaign chairman Tim Hatley now works for Southwest and his wife now works for Sims. The last time Hatley worked for Sims was one year ago, during his failed attempt to run for Governor.
So Sims apparently put the patronage concerns ahead of sanity and what is right for the city.
Passing off concerns about this stupid proposal as “NIMBY” is just butt-kissing toward Sims. There are good reasons not to want a a bad idea. NIMBY usually refers to some project that must be built somewhere (like a waste dump) and nobody wants it built anywhere. This proposal was about a corporation wanting to move into backyards that would have been better for its purposes. That’s not a needed project like a waste dump, and we’re all getting along just fine with Southwest Air located 10 miles further South at Seatac where they belong.
The real reason this deal got killed is the action of the Federal Government. Last week, it was clear that the Feds were pushing Alaska and American into a “me, too!” game of chicken with Southwest. Thank god their apparent point was to block this dumb Southwest idea.
As for why the Feds got involved: Between Boeing Fields’ runway 13R and the Duwamish R. is E. Marginal Way. Between E. Marginal Way and the river is all federal property that hooks up to Military Rd. Done the math yet? The real Powers That Be use Boeing Field for something that they don’t care to move — for good reason, no doubt.
Ron Sims has still lost my vote. His hand was forced by Federal action, local news sources are trying to spin this into a populist victory because he ‘reconsidered.’ I don’t believe he reconsidered, I’m convinced he got his wings clipped. I’ve completely lost trust in Sims.
righton @ 55
“duh, did you get the mystery data you are claiming from the do-nothing committee.”
Ahhh … no.
“If you have data proving no extra votes and extra voters, pls send it to Shark.”
I don’t even read Sharkanksy’s blog (well…very rarely anyway). Why would I send him data that are part of the public record of the trial?
More importantly, if Sharkansky had the data (and he may well have ’em), why would he publicize that they contradict his tin foil hat theories? Or did you mistakenly believe that Sharkansky is about objectively analyzing evidence on all sides of the issue?
this is like men are from mars… we must be 2 different species…
Shark has page afte page of double votes, headless voters, green card voters, blah blah blah
You guys think cuz the earring judge made a narrow ruling (had to show there were gregoire votes that should have been rossi) is not enough to say the past election was correctly held and votes correctly counted.
righton-59
The lefties lean on the laws and the ruling, yet do not comprehend how easy it is to cheat within the law. To have 1900+ illegal votes in a 133 vote margin race is OK with them, as long as they won.
Because they did a quick survey of the illegal voters on their lists and discovered they’d lose a *lot* of votes if they were deposed. The illegals list was mostly men and men went for Rossi. Not exactly startling.
Yeah- I wonder who did the quick survey…. um let me guess… the same people who defended Gregoire. Most if not all of the illegal voted came from districts which vote democratic.
It’s pretty telling all the people who actually were deposed (including a card carrying Republican child molester who exclaimed it’d be “fraud” to say he voted for Gregoire) voted for Rossi.
You mean as opposed to a card carrying democratic child molester (AKA-Public school teacher)
Rufus, you confuse me…
Just when I thought Roger was Dean, you appear to be his pissed off alter ego…
FYI;
63 posts as of Friday 101405 at 10:21AM.
Roger Rodent has 10 I counted.
=15.9% of total posts.
=loser that has nothing better to do that post on this shitty liberal site all day.
Oh, PUHLEEEZEEE…
Ron Sims was shut down by the Port. Got greedy. Started at looking to shift landing fees, airport taxes, and increase of power from the Port to himself, and got called on it.
Am absolutely sure that the 800 lb gorilla, Alaska, worked with the Port to put Ron in his place, hence the announcement. Alaska knows where the power is, and probably got some under the table concessions for their support of the Port in this matter. I am sure that it’s no coincidence that Southwest’s fairly minor proposal (limited additional air traffic, complete Boeing fleet) was suddenly made into a high impact proposal with Alaska’s demands. Oh yeah, that killed the deal.
And, it’s the ONE Check/Balance that exists in this state, that between the sparation of powers between county and port. I see the Port has wisely decided to elminate ANOTHER floor from public parking, thereby limiting space and is no doubt going to jack up fees based on ‘demand.’ I am just thankful that the Port cannot take the next step and eliminate the off airport parking areas, although I am sure that they will try at some point. (just like the local/state government’s attempts to use the GMA to do it on an even grander scale)
And to those in Snohomish county: You aren’t getting an airport in Everett for passengers. The Port of Seattle told Ron no, and he will tell you no. Despite the fact that Southwest wants a cheaper place to operate from. If Ron can’t have it, you can’t either. The Port has made it’s position clear, and you will comply.
How can anyone seriously believe that Sims’ statement rejecting the SWA proposal wasn’t politically motivated? It is three weeks till the election, he finds himself in a neck-and-neck race to keep his job and suddenly he is against it? Why wasn’t he objective when he announced the SWA proposal as a “good idea” months ago? He took a position – without consulting with the D’s on the counsel (read about L Phillips rants!) and without talking to the affected communities. Sims is arrogant and concerned with his special interest groups (and by the way, that IS an allegation that his cronies benefit; if you haven’t seen the claim before you’re not reading much outside of your own posts)and needs to be booted. Irons has been endorsed by unions, for goodness sakes – he….is…..a…..moderate. He is qualified, hard working and on the ballot. Vote for him.
Hmmmm…when I try to post a comment that says Irons is a good guy and Sims is shifting positions to get re-elected it doesn’t post. Wow…censureship on a blog. Expected better of you, guys. What happened to open debate?