The Gregoire/Kerry/Muckleshoot campaign is now threatening to sue every last one of us unless all of the previously disqualified ballots are counted again. Then again, you know that they'll still sue every last one of us if Gregoire loses for the third time, and maybe, for that matter, even if she wins.
The mantra, of course, is "Count every vote". But thanks to a Democrat commenter on this blog, we have a few more insights into how the Yanukovych-style Democrats really operate. All of these comments are from the same mystery commenter, who identifies himself only as "X". His claim to fame is that he helped Bawling Berendt collect affidavits from the King County voters whose provisional ballots had been rejected:
I talked to a couple of Rossi voters. One woman was thoughtful enough about this whole thing that she decided not to visit the Records & Election office and correct her ballot -- she was pretty thankful of the Gregoire supporters for letting her know. Another woman who supported Rossi chose to travel on her own to the Records office in order to correct the problem. So you got 1 vote from me, but it was only fair to tell her why I had dropped by, I'm sure you agree.In other words, he asked these people how they voted and when he didn't like the answer he didn't help ensure that their votes were counted.
But now it seems that not all of the 400 or so affidavits (and associated ballots?) can be accounted for.
I think 225 was the vote delta that the 400 provided. So x+225+x=400; 2x = 175; x 86 or 87. Makes me think we carried 86 or 87 Rossi signatures out of the 400 or so.Hmmm. On the other hand, some of those Bawling Berendt Ballots are believed to be bogus.Although, truly, I saw more than 400 come in. So I was bummed that something else apparently went wrong with the signature-delivery effort. I have a feeling the signed affidaivits were vetted by someone.
I don't think more than about 4 of those affidaivits packets might have been from someone over-exuberant, and I would wager most of the people being over-exuberant were spouses of people who shouldn't be voting, not canvassers.Well now that this whole mess is likely to be thrown into court, I'm sure Mr. X will volunteer to testify about the "about 4" over-exuberant perps who committed voting fraud. Because it's about counting every legitimate vote. Right? Riiiiiiiiiight. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 02, 2004 11:21 PM | Email This
The side that likes to bandy about words like 'fair' and 'balanced' apparently also likes to make selective mis-quotations and also cast about reinterperetations of statements.
You can't be righteous while you are stealing my words and lying with them, Sharkansky.
I remained anonymous from your audience because I didn't trust your type. I trusted you, up to this point, because you do have access to who I am, through your web site logs.
I never, for one second, said that I thought 1 affidaivit was fraudulent. I have no first-hand knowledge of that. I have heard the media account of 1 such affidaivit, by reading soundpolitics. I was supposing my worst-case estimate of how much corruption there actually could possibly have been at 'four'. That was a hypothetical maximum for the purpose of rhetoric.
Every signature I have personal knowledge of was done by a person whose driver's license I had just checked and the actual voter with whom was had a normal conversation.
I think the 'vetting' process I mentioned was actually done by government officials, disqualifying ballots that were never in question due to any mere technicality. The Dems received a list of _all_ disqualified ballots, not just those which could possibly be corrected. It looks like the right thing happened later, where those that were signature problems were corrected and the rest was wasted effort.
I'm sorry you have such hard feelings about my attempt to let you in on some truth that you would choose to misrepresent my statements. In particular, your attack on my choice of anonymity from your readers is disingenuous now that you've decided to demonize me.
You, Stefan Sharkansky, are some kind of un-American freak who is against Democracy, Truth, and Freedom of Speech. I would have expected you to welcome a first-hand report, especially when you must realize that I am actually not particularly anonymous when it comes down to things. For goodness sake, I wrote my own name on many of these affidaivits, as a witness. You know, like a sworn legal statement and all that jazz. You think you can steal another person's words and create an untrue reality that suits your fantasies better. You are a weak-minded ideologue who would never go bust ass to collect signatures from disenfranchised constituents. I laugh at your petty feelings, but from now on I'll take my information elsewhere.
I don't think "Project Blood Red Washington State" and crew should claim such a lofty hold on "Sound" thinking and "values." You really come across as people who cherish destructive values, emotions, and ideas. I am hardly anonymous with my signature on a variety of submitted legal documents already. I am just anonymous from you amped-up partisans.
The two Rossi voters made a point of telling their previous or maintained preference for Rossi.
As I have stated before, out of the 13 people with whom I spoke, 2 told me they had voted Rossi. Looking at your numbers and mine, I am guessing that 1 or 2 more of the people who didn't say also were Rossi voters. I offered to carry everybody's affidaivit. One Rossi voted did not trust me and said she would take care of it in person at the office.
If the numbers you have posted on your web site and what I saw gibe, 87/400 = ~22% Rossi support out of the zip codes we covered, which is about what I would expect knowing where those were. If my areas were 24%, then I contacted 3 Rossi voters, of whom 1 chose to not correct her ballot (maybe she knew something I did not, such as a prior felony conviction or something), 1 chose to correct it on her own, and 1 would have chosen to have me carry her correction. Or possibly I carried 2 and the woman who didn't trust me never got around to going in.
Who knows. The point is, I don't know how many Rossi voters' signatures I carried.
Posted by: X on December 3, 2004 12:21 AMNo, that is not what I wrote. I trust you to read at a comprehension level such that you reading it back in such a misstatement is dishonesty and not stupidity. I was making a wild worst-case guess in order to pooh-pooh your hysteria, and you turned what I wrote into some kind of purported testimony.
> Well now that this whole mess is being thrown into court, I'm sure Mr. X will volunteer to testify about his over-exuberant friends who committed voting fraud. Because it's about counting every legitimate vote. Right? Riiiiiiiiiight. At least he's smart enough to remain anonymous.
I don't believe for one second that anybody I know committed voting fraud. I would not want to accuse you of a crime, SS, but my understanding is that a false or unmerited accusation of committing a crime is, itself, a crime. I do not mean to tell you that you accusing my friends of committing vote fraud is itself a crime, but watch your back, name-calling genius.
To: Sam Reed, et. al.
Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Democratic Party (that lost big in 2004 and is looking to save face at any cost), we don't like the fact that Christine Gregoire is still behind after two counts. We also don't like the idea of another recount that is just a tabular recount where we don't get to determine intent of the voter like we did in King County.
All the courts too are pretty much in agreement with us that "count every vote" is a wonderful liberal mantra.
We're going to ignore common sense that indeed there are some votes that are improper and try and count anything that we can somehow pass as a vote. Heck, there might even be some votes that King County has yet to discover.
If a ballot, or provisional ballot even has a drip of ink on it, and could in any way be construed as a vote for Gregoire, then we want to count it. Even if there was no signature, even if the signature did not match, even if the voter's signature did not match because they were so old and then they died while we were trying to drive them down to the canvassing board to try and drum up one more vote for Gregoire.
Because, nanny, nanny you can't prove any fraud, then there must not have been any fraud and therefore all those provisional ballots that were thrown out for all of the normal reasons that provisional ballots get thrown out should now be counted.
Expecting people to vote properly, to produce a legible ballot and to get it to the correct precinct is inexcusable, horrifying, a national crisis, tear jerking (snif) and a clear example of voter disenfranchisement.
We really screwed up in that we didn't manufacture enough votes for Gregoire to overcome all of the deadlines, gaming of the counting and votes from all the Red Counties that went for Rossi, so what better time to correct this then during the next recount.
As you know, we really wonder why in the heck you would be interested in trying to conduct a fair election as our primary intent is to get Christine Gregoire elected at any and all costs. If you can read through our thinly veiled threat, we intend to sue the bejesus out of you and just about anything that moves if there's anything at all that we don't like about how you run your recount.
Sincerely,
David J. Burman
Big Wig Lawyer at Perkins Coie that has no bias whatsoever for Christine Gregoire.
> I don't think more than about 4 of those affidaivits packets might have been from someone over-exuberant [...]
That means: I think that the maximum number of suspect packets returned was no more than four, and even those are 'might have beens' that I am giving you as leeway for your lame argument.
Anyway, you wrote "about 4" as though you were quoting my prediction. You can choose to take two words in a row that I wrote. When you put them in the middle of your lie, it means you are being what's called disingenuous. This is a big word for lying by misrestating another person's word and attributing it to them, or for stating things that are deliberaly meant to be misunderstood, among other things. Disingenuity is a form of lying that some clever people think is OK. Typically, these types think they are more clever than the people around them, are superior, and make better choices. We also find that Republican voters actually tend to come from the middle of the pack in terms of standardized testing -- neither the bottom nor the top.
Why didn't you quote "no more than about 4" instead of "about 4"? Would that have made your Blood Red Case, SS? Wouldn't five words in a row have been more honest, rather than two words that mean something different?
Maybe you did not understand I meant "no more than 4 out of the 400" but I did, after all, write this also in the context of the 1 case we heard about out of the 400.
If we get tin-foil-hat and suspect that 3 more of the packets were suspect, that is 0.75%. Compared to my prediction that 24% were apparently Rossi voters:
24% Rossi
1% suspect, at most
75% Gregoire
You see? I am not at all saying the things you claim I am saying.
I know of zero actual suspicious affidaivits, other than the one from the news. I saw literally hundreds and hundreds that were not faked. I volunteered time in a role where I interacted with canvassers, who are people like you, me, and our neighbors. These are forty and fifty-somethings who are not so overzealous as to commit felonies over 1 or 2 votes here or there. Remember that we thought we were going to make up some 1000+ votes and surmount a much larger Rossi lead.
I propose the Right be called the Rong from now on. It can still start with R for the sake of filing. Goes with "regurgitate" and "recycyle" which will be handy.
An error occurred: BEGIN not safe after errors--compilation aborted at /home/httpd/uw/blog/lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 11.
I'm not into wasting my time, so this will be my last visit here too (the rest of y'all who write that kind of commentary can flame me to your little hearts' content, I won't be around to read it). I'm sure there are Republican and other right-of-center blogs around here offering the perspective without the invective.
X, you might find HorsesAss.org to be a better place for posting your experiences; there seems to be a lot more thoughtful discussion and and a lot less partisan hysteria over there.
Posted by: David on December 3, 2004 03:42 AMAlso known as "people I disagree with."
Remember, Stefan is "some kind of un-American freak who is against Democracy, Truth, and Freedom of Speech," not that making that claim is cynical, dogmatic, misinformed, paranoid, incoherent, disingenuous or (heaven forbid!) scornful.
Goodness gracious people, grow up. If you can't handle a little political invective, get out of politics. Stick to something more friendly like NBA basketball or something.
Posted by: Timothy on December 3, 2004 07:13 AMAs for the HorseAss Blog, well the name says it all.
The story contains all kinds of flowery rhetoric about how this is for the people, and how she would not want to cherry pick the counties and leave the voters with doubts, etc.
She is intentionally tying to prime the public, who usually tune in via the MSM as the last moment, to position herself as the good gal who is doing the right thing.
But, there's no mention at all of the Perkins Coie lawyers waiting in the wings with their lawsuits and other machinations that may be needed to swing the election.
Kudos to KOMO TV for at least mentioning the lawsuit.
And Stefan, I congratulate you on the fact that your website does a much better job of spinning than mine does (and that, after all, is what we're both doing)... but I have to ask you... do you really believe all this stuff you're posting? Do you really believe that Democrats are so totally corrupt (and by inference, R's are not)...? Do you really believe that you posted an honest analysis of X's comments, or were you just cherry-picking to make a rhetorical point?
Please feel free to answer me privately, if you want to keep your reply off the record.
David
Posted by: David Goldstein on December 3, 2004 10:20 AMIt is also a demonstration why large X-files type consipiracies don' t happen. Once you get a certian number of people involved, some moron has to shoot their mouth off to demonstrate how well connected they are, or how they are superior to their listeners. The comments quoted in the main posting are just its little way off showing contempt for readers of this site by seeing if we are gullible enough to fall for this troll's lies.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Posted by: John on December 3, 2004 10:56 AMCongratulations, you guys must be very, very, good readers to deduce I conjured up the number 'four.' You could probably tell that because I wrote: 'four.' Phonics does work, I see.
What you don't seem to get is this: I was arguing with you in a thread, and you were hysterically claiming that the affidaivits were fraudulent. I was saying that: out of the four hundreds of them, I don't think there is any way that more than 1% of them could be suspect. That 'four' was a HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER devised to MAKE FUN OF YOUR DUMB ARGUMENT.
And Stefan Sharkansky went off and compared me to Yanukovych and my friends to felons based on your combined misunderstanding of what I had written.
You seem rabid, as if possessed of dog-level intelligence.
I don't think I'm going to bow out, after all. I think this is exposing you all as being completely unworthy as a news or editorial source.
You can't be qualified to express opinions if you aren't even competent at reading comprehension as well as being intellectually honest. This site is self-discrediting and getting better at that.
Actually, this isn't "David's" first time posting. If Stefan checked his web logs and did some connecting of the dots, I'm sure he'd find that "David" visits quite often under many aliases.
"Actually," Jeff, you're just wrong! I don't post lies. Stefan is welcome to check his logs and verify I've never posted here before. The only reason I'm not leaving my first post as my last post, too, is the delicious irony of your false certainty. Actually, goodbye.
--David (not David Goldstein, either)
Posted by: David on December 3, 2004 11:09 AMActually, this isn't "David's" first time posting. If Stefan checked his web logs and did some connecting of the dots, I'm sure he'd find that "David" visits quite often under many aliases.
Jeff B... I visit daily, and never under an alias... always with my full name: "David Goldstein". Since you find it so hard to believe that somebody who disagrees with you could actually be honest and forthright, go ahead and have Stefan check his logs and vouch for me.
And I thought I was a cynic....
Posted by: David Goldstein on December 3, 2004 11:15 AMI've no proof, but there sure are a lot of sympathetic, and similar comments timed just perfectly from certain posters.
Call me paranoid, cynical, anything you want, that doesn't change the fact that folks here can post anonymously under multiple monikers.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2004 11:51 AMThe rest of you- David Goldtein, or Goldy, is a pretty stand-up guy with whom I enjoy disagreeing. And he ALWAYS stands behind his posts. I guess in our fields, as long as you spell our name right, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Unless you cry in public...
Posted by: Jim King on December 3, 2004 11:55 AMCall me paranoid, cynical, anything you want
Jeff, you're paranoid and cynical.
(I tried calling you a few other things, but apparently Sound Politics has some kind of obscenity blocker.)
Posted by: David Goldstein on December 3, 2004 12:02 PMTrue enough, Jim. In that spirit, I really would have preferred that you identify yourself as a paid lobbyist and mention the groups for whom you lobby. There's nothing wrong with being a paid lobbyist. Some of my favorite comment-posters are paid lobbyists. But I do prefer that people who are paid to influence the political process simply disclose that fact when they post here, as others have done.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on December 3, 2004 12:06 PMAnyone who wants to know my client list can go to the PDC website and look it up- however, none of the opinions I have posted here reflect anything my clients have said or believe- they are all my personal opinions. In that regard, my status as a lobbyist is no more relevent than the occupation, employer, etc., of anyone else who is posting. The implication that lobbyists are only hired guns is inaccurate and offensive, as I have expressed to Mr. Cynical in the past.
I do not seem to recall being anything other than open about who I am, what I do, what kind of interests I have been involved in, or what axes I might have to grind- all of which is far more than most of your posters do...
Posted by: Jim King on December 3, 2004 12:21 PMAnd speaking as somebody who has actually received death threats (yes, death threats) in response to public comments I have made, I would like to voice my support for those who choose to remain anonymous when engaging in highly partisan public debate.
Posted by: David Goldstein on December 3, 2004 12:24 PMIn this comment thread: "which of Dino's platform planks were YOU behind? I can claim one... And am excitdely awaiting the $125 million a biennium for State Parks!"
That's all good and fine. Jim King is a registered lobbyist for a group called "Citizens for Parks and Recreation", on whose behalf I believe he created the platform plank. No problem, just disclose these agendas and relationships so we all know who is who.
You, Stefan Sharkansky, are some kind of un-American freak who is against Democracy, Truth, and Freedom of Speech.
Shouldn't you at least separate the complaint about being demonized from your own demonizing of others by a paragraph? Maybe another post?
The hypocrisy around here has reached the level of a very foul stench, much like that generated recently by College Republicans.
It can become a very real embarrasment to the GOP.
Posted by: Jim King on December 3, 2004 02:55 PM