Sheesh. There's so much happening, we need to do recount roundups several times a day now.
--
 | Mac at the "Pull On Superman's Cape" blog has a report from Dino Rossi's "Don't Change the Rules" Rally this evening |
--
The AP's Rebecca Cook tells us the Gregoire campaign's response to Attorney General Gregoire's 1996 opinion that state law does not permit disqualified ballots to be reconsidered in a recount:
[Democrat Party spokeswoman Kirstin] Brost said that memo referred to legal advice from previous state attorneys general, not from Gregoire.Is that like pleading with your teacher that "You can't flunk me for getting the wrong answers, I copied them off somebody else's exam"?
--
The Gregoirian Chant used to be "count every vote". Now that Jim Miller has been giving them grief about it, they're now saying "count every legal vote". Kirstin Brost again:
"An election isn't a test for voters - government should ensure that all legal votes are counted."Yes, but what the Democrats still won't add after "count every legal vote" is "and only the legal votes". Some might say that it doesn't sound very big-hearted to insist that only legal votes are counted. But they're wrong. For every illegal vote that is counted, somewhere a legal voter is disenfranchised. And we don't want to disenfranchise our legal voters. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 07, 2004 11:58 PM | Email This
Seems a pretty far reach that the memo was talking about anyone other than AG Christine Gregoire.
Let's hope the math of our Supreme Court Justices is better than that of Paul Berendt and the other Kleptocrats.
Rob McKenna takes over the AG office in January. What do you think might come up after Gregoire cleans out her office??? I understand she has quite a few folks who don't much care for her or the job she did...especially after she tried to blame that staffer for the $18 million gaff and then was forced to settle for 800,000 more taxpayer dollars and claim a VICTORY for us taxpayers. This recent development was a good one, don't you think Zev??? I'll bet when the next shoe drops folks will really be glad she ain't the next Governor. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 8, 2004 02:22 AM
--Ralph Munro didn't ask for an opinion?
--He asked for an opinion before 1992?
--The Attorney General's office recycled an opinion from before 1992?
Or...are you just trying to muddy the waters?
And, of course, recounts are statistically pointless in determining who actually got the most votes. Any statistician will tell you that. Runoffs are the only things that make sense.
Why are there so many things wrong with our system? Is it because those who ultimately get elected owe themselves to the *existing* rules -- and would never overturn those bad rules that help them?
PS...I didn't evey talk about campaign finance issues....
Posted by: tom on December 8, 2004 07:34 AMOne possibility, though not very probable, is that they didn't actually ask the AG, they just wrote what they thought the law was, put it in the AG's mouth, and expected that nobody would check with the AG's office; Gregoire would either never find out, or if she did find out she could simply stay mum and pretend not to know.
Another possibility, one that might well actually be true, is that on some previous occasion when this question came up (and it does come up with some frequency), the State Dept asked the AG for an official opinion, the then-AG gave an opinion, and that's been the standard operating procedure at the SecState's dept ever since. When it came up again this time, someone asked about it, and someone in the State Dept put out a memo, explaining the procedure, and citing as authority the advice received from the AG many years ago. No need to keep asking for an opinion every single time the question comes up. I mean, if you have a legal question, and consult a lawyer, do you consult again every time it comes up, or do you go on relying on the advice you received before? Especially if you know for a fact that the statute hasn't changed?
Posted by: Zev Sero on December 8, 2004 07:34 AMAre you guys ever going to make up your minds? First you criticise Gregiore for saying "Count every vote" and not saying "Count every legal vote." Now that they're adding the word legal, you want yet another modifier.
Now that Jim Miller has been giving them grief about it, ... I sure am glad Jim Miller has such great influence on the Democratic Party.
This really is a fishing expedition. I am beginning to feel like the disenfranchised voter: because I did it right the first time.
Posted by: Rae on December 8, 2004 08:48 AMNote that all of Zev Sero's comments are based on hypotheticals that are less plausable than what I have suggested.
Given that Gregoire had been attorney general for at least four years when the memo was produced, and that it is unlikely that one would recycle comments of a predecessor without at least noting who made the comments, it is much more likely that Gregoire made those comments.
Regardless, the reasonable doubt that is left in the minds of intelligent readers regarding this question is more than enough to be very damning for Gregoire. When coupled with her already low public opinion after having lost the initial count. Then, having lost an autmatic recount, and now dragging the citizens of the state who when polled made it clear that they prefer that the election end now, there is no doubt that Gregoire's legitimacy is severely strained.
Zev's defensiveness is however quite amusing.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 8, 2004 10:56 AMNone whatsoever. Gregoire has her story, it's entirely possible, and I have no reason to doubt it, but also no particular reason to believe it. She'd tell the same story whether it was true or not, so the fact that she tells it is neither here nor there. The only way to find out for sure would be to get someone involved in preparing the memo to talk.
While I have no proof that the memo was referring to attorney general comments that were made at least 5 years before the date of the memo, common sense says that it is unlikely that this is the case.
What comments? The memo cites a AG's legal opinion. No mention of when this opinion was obtained. BTW, I think you mean you have no proof that it was not referring to an old opinion. And proof, or at least some reason to believe that that is the case, is what you need to establish this charge.
Given that Gregoire had been attorney general for at least four years when the memo was produced, and that it is unlikely that one would recycle comments of a predecessor without at least noting who made the comments, it is much more likely that Gregoire made those comments.
Once again, what 'comments' are you talking about? Do you have the least idea of what you're talking about? The opinion cited in the memo might have been obtained for the purpose of that memo, but if the Dept of State had already obtained an opinion the last time the question came up, or on some previous occasion, why would they ask again?
Your position would make some sense if the memo in question were produced by the AG's office. But it wasn't. Gregoire had nothing to do with the memo. So trying to stick her with what it said is a waste of time. She may in fact be lying, but without any proof of that she gets away with it, as she should.
Regardless, the reasonable doubt that is left in the minds of intelligent readers regarding this question is more than enough to be very damning for Gregoire.
Reasonable doubt works in her favour. You're the one accusing her of contradicting a position she had taken previously, so the onus is on you to show that she had in fact done so. All she has to do is say she never said that, and she wins the point. She doesn't have to prove anything, because there's no rational reason to suppose one way or the other. Saying she's a habitual liar isn't enough, even if it's true, because you still have to show that she's likely to be lying in this particular instance, and you haven't done so.
Zev's defensiveness is however quite amusing.
Defensiveness? Why would I be defensive? What do you think I have to defend here? I have no dog in this fight.
She may in fact be lying, but without any proof of that she gets away with it, as she should.
Spoken like a true Kleptocrat.
no lie too bad to try to explain away or cover up....
Posted by: Lee on December 8, 2004 04:54 PMThe researcher at the Rossi campaign should be summarily fired- and all of you ought to just shut up, because you continue to prove you have no clue what you are ever talking about, but you prove to be mightily embarrassing to the Republicans of this state. But I doubt a one of you is willing to post a "Sorry, Christine- was WRONG on that one..."
You just don't make elaborate mistakes like that at this critical juncture.
Try trumpeting that Hugh Spitzer is on Sam Reed's legal team, instead. One of the top state constitutional lawyers in the state- and he's a liberal Democrat.
Oh, he's a liberal Democrat- couldn't know anything, and couldn't be honest, right...?
Posted by: Jim King on December 8, 2004 07:38 PMWhy does my conclusion that "the attempted explanation that the AG of 1996 does not have to stand behind the sec of state's 1996 quoting of an AG opinion will not fly with the public" make me an idiot? Just curious.
So you're concluding that opening up all the rejected ballots during this recount is the proper, leader-like and legal thing for the governor wanna-be to support? Seems like Gregoire should have been able to figure that out during her AG tenure before now.
Posted by: zip on December 8, 2004 08:09 PMAnd zip, go do your research before attributing opinions to me. You would then know, from postings here and at David Goldstein's, that I am very opposed to Gregoire's lawsuit, and believe that the law in this state is quite settled- which is why there is no formal (or even informal) AGO on the issue. No one has ever litigated this, because the law WAS so settled.
But you don't set yourself up for a "gotcha" to backfire so easily. This HURTS Rossi's image, and he is owed much better staff work. And all of you look stupid for taking what was spoonfed you and running with it, without doing any checking or verifying. You make Kayne McGladrey look good...
Posted by: Jim King on December 8, 2004 08:22 PMOur opinions differ in that I believe Gregoire's response to the memo "piled on" the hurt she has already invited throughout this recount. Time will tell if the origination of the AG "advising" Munro is considered a gotcha by anyone other than insiders. I still believe the memo caused a major hurt for Gregoire, made her look more like Gore than she already had. And eroded her support even further regradless of whether she today has a valid legal point or not.
Posted by: zip on December 8, 2004 08:38 PMHowever, if the same memo had been used to point out the settled state of the law (Hey, look, back in 1996 we were laying out the same process we are using today, and that was based on advice we were given in 1990, which was based on the settled practices of this state going way back- and, gee, all these years Gregoire was AG, she never saw anything wrong with this state's recount practices, but NOW...). It is a more accurate approach, it doesn't let her wriggle out ("well, why were you NOT interested in protecting voters' rights until YOUR desires were at risk" becomes the response if she does try to wriggle), and it keeps her right in the crosseyes where she can give that spotlighted deer look...
But she successfully wriggled, the reaction I heard from the public was not positive once the truth was out, and the Republicans lost some credibility, all from overreraching.
Posted by: Jim King on December 8, 2004 09:19 PMJim, the memo actually does refer to an opinion by the AG: "We are advised by the attorney general that state law makes no provision for the challenge of ballots or voters during the recount". But it doesn't say when this advice was obtained, and as far as I can see it could just as easily have been 1976 as 1996; there's just no way to tell. Or it might have been never, and whoever wrote the memo was misinformed, mistaken, or just making it up; how can we know?
Lee, I don't appreciate being called a liar, and have no interest in debating you. Jeff, the same goes for you - I don't care for being called a kleptocrat either. Making baseless accusations doesn't reflect well on your credibility.
Posted by: Zev Sero on December 8, 2004 09:55 PMI don't understand the canine devotion to a questionable cause. RATS have gone past arguing the meaning of the word "is."
Posted by: South County on December 8, 2004 10:44 PM