January 10, 2005
Pray For Chris

In a piece titled, "If You're Pro-Choice, Pray For Gregoire," Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Susan Paynter today trots out the stale left-of-center shtick that Washington's Republican Governor To Be (?) Dino Rossi could somehow manage to get overturned a voter-approved state initiative securing a woman's right to abortion. How exactly? Well, she's not really sure, but.....

....for one thing, the governor does control a powerful bully pulpit. And, once elected, the cloak of moderation can easily slip off to reveal a naked agenda.

Then there's veto power. And budget power. And the fact that Rossi still may be inches from plopping into the governor's chair at a chilling time for choice nationwide.

Voters, including many moderate suburban women, didn't go for this tired cant during the campaign, and for good reason. I'm pro-"choice" but not pro-abortion, and believe that Paynter's emphasis on "choice" as a sacred cow is part of what's wrong with the Democratic Party today. As Deputy Editor Sarah Blustain writes in the noted liberal magazine, The American Prospect.

...fully one-third of pro-choice Americans voted for George W. Bush, according to NARAL....To this generation, the "choice" of a legal abortion is no longer something to celebrate. It is a decision made in crisis, and it is never one made happily....liberalism's vocabulary of "rights" when it comes to abortion rings a little hollow.

As Old School Liberal Rhetoric continues to suffuse the crumbling political monoculture of Seattle, Puget Sound's urban conservatives and suburban moderates will keep re-shaping the state's politics. Whomsoever becomes governor this time around.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 10, 2005 08:29 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Matt, I rmemeber a snarky comment reported here from a newspaper editor, dismissing what goes on here at SP as "not news."

Is this what the editor had in mind as an example of "news?"

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 08:46 AM
2. ON reflection...if I were a lefty, I would bristle at this blatant attempt to breach the wall of separation "If You're Pro-Choice, Pray For Gregoire." Sinnce I'm not, I'd conclude someone is trying to whip up the troops.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 08:50 AM
3. This article is a revote campaign slavo to whip up the lefty base - nothing more.

Posted by: Cheryl on January 10, 2005 08:55 AM
4. Yesterday the papers wanted me to get to know Gregoire better and maybe I'd like her more...

Today they want me to pray for her???

What's next, asking me to help her move out of the governor's mansion in a few months?

Posted by: Joe on January 10, 2005 09:05 AM
5. Funny, but I didn't see abortion as one of Rossi's "Forward Washington" agenda items.

Maybe Susan could show us where that was??

Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2005 09:10 AM
6. OH, and one really priceless item in Susan's story was where she mentions that Planned Parenthood's christmas card said "Choice on Earth". PUH-LEEZE

Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2005 09:15 AM
7. There's a 'c' in Schtik!

Posted by: david b on January 10, 2005 09:16 AM
8. Isn't it interesting how the MSM have pretty much ignored or denigrated the idea of a re-vote, and now that a re-vote seems like a possiblity, they have slipped back in to their campaigning for Gregoire mode without skipping a beat?

Posted by: Huckleberry on January 10, 2005 09:16 AM
9. Just another "scare" tactic from the party of the "scare" tactics. It motivates the base and irritates the rest of us. It is time to rename the "Democratic" party to the "FUDocratic" party.

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 10, 2005 09:16 AM
10. OK OK I'll get on my Knees! Dear Lord, please give us the chance to vote in a clean election! I know it is not possible in King County, but you have the power to make anything happen!

Revote

Amen!

Posted by: GS on January 10, 2005 09:23 AM
11. David B, thanks, I have corrected the spelling to "shtick." My Webster's actually has the last "c" as mandatory, and a "c" after the beginning "s" as optional. It is an important word to know how to spell, as Gregoire and her minions tap dance around the increasingly ugly circumstances of the election.

Posted by: Matt R. on January 10, 2005 09:24 AM
12. This tactic works. I have friends who will vote for or against a candidate based solely on their view of abortion. If the candidate even hints of being against it, my friends will not support them. All other views that the candidate holds become irrelevant.

Posted by: Janet s on January 10, 2005 09:31 AM
13. I think this voting technique accounts for the composition of the Washington State supreme court, and most King County judges, right?

Posted by: Huckleberry on January 10, 2005 09:41 AM
14. Well, now we've gone from denial of problems in the election, to resisting a revote, and now into full campaign mode from the 2 major Seattle rags.

Watch them pick up the pace in the coming weeks as they dive into the tank for Gregoire. They're going to help us all get to know her "better" with more fluff pieces, more avoidance of her record, more unchallenged quotes from her campaign.

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 10:08 AM
15. Pray that her day(s)in office will be very short.

Posted by: JG on January 10, 2005 10:25 AM
16. As one of the pro-choice, not pro-abortion voters who donates to Planned Parenthood AND voted for both George W. and Dino Rossi, I'll share what my Christmas card from PP says: The cover has a lit candle over which the word HOPE is written; The inside is verbal only: All of us at Planned Parenthood of Western Washington thank you for your support and wish you peace in this holiday season and the New Year.

Posted by: Rae on January 10, 2005 10:33 AM
17. It's funny...substitute the names of the Presidential candidates into the above comments and you have entered reactionary forums like DemocraticUnderground...

There were *mistakes* and *irregularities* all over the nation in this last and more than likely all previous elections...

The standard Republican line in any case they won the election is to *get over it*...it wasn't *stolen*...

Why is this case different?

Fix the system(s) nationwide...make them transparent, verifiable and accessible...

Until that happens, isn't this simply a case where the Republicans came up with the short straw and should just *get over it*?

G Davis
Seattle, WA

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 10:39 AM
18. GDavis, do you believe that Christine Gregoire won honestly? Does the presence of thousands of illegal ballots in a contest won by 129 votes bother you?

Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 11:04 AM
19. G Davis,

Here's the simple difference between Ohio and Washington: the margin of victory in the election is eclipsed by even a portion of the irregularities. Whether or not voters were disenfranchised in Ohio is a valid question. However, even the most partisan folk at democraticunderground know that they cannot prove that their alleged disenfranchisement would alter the election.

Not so here in Washington.

Posted by: Kristan on January 10, 2005 11:13 AM
20. GDavis-

Do you suggest that, because you believe there were irregularities in other areas, that Washington voters should ignore irregularities here? You seem to suggest that Republicans should be working to make elections more honest. Isn't that EXACTLY what's happening here?

Posted by: Darrell on January 10, 2005 11:14 AM
21. Do I know CG won? No...no more than I know that the many other very close elections all across the nation were accurately recorded...

No one does and no one ever will until the entire voting system in this nation is overhauled and made transparent, verifiable and accessible...

That's my only point...

And with all the expertise, energy and majority power displayed here and every other Republican site on the net, I'm saddened that more energy isn't being spent on fixing the system(s) rather than picking and choosing which elections should be overturned...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 11:15 AM
22. I'll "get over it" when I get to see the results of the revote. As long as the counting is done in the sunlight, I'll live with either result.

As for the other states, they have problems sure, but injecting them into our problem does not help in any way.

And our "straw" was only short after some very questionable recount tactics in a VERY blue county. Before that our "straw" was not too short but it was a "tie", but now it is a Dem win? Give me a break.

Let's fix Washington's problem. Then we will be (hopefully) the model on which other states fix their problems.

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 10, 2005 11:16 AM
23. G Davis,

"Why is this case different?"

Do you really need a rehash of all the information previously ignored (until late) by the Seattle press?

350 provisional ballots co-mingled with regular ballots, in violation of current election regulations;

Numerous dead people still on the voters rolls, some years after their passing - some already confirmed to have voted (after death);

Felons without proper authorization allowed to cast votes;

Late mailing of abstentee ballots to military/overseas voters;

Improper ballot 'enhancement' by KC elections;

What else do you need?

I guess the difference in this case is that there is an avalanche of evidence growing daily, that the margin of mistakes greatly exceeds the margin of victory in this state's gubernatorial election. Your attempts at comparison with other election discrepancies in other parts of the country fails to pass anything but sound-bite scrutiny.

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
24. G Davis,

Overturning a fradulent election here in Washington might lend more energy and vigor to the election reform movement. Showing how corrupt and flawed the current system is through the illegitimacy of a major election will be a lot more effective than simply crying foul.

Case in point: the conservative/moderate base here in Washington (Rossi included) has been energized for serious election reform as a direct result of these shenanigans.

Posted by: Kristan on January 10, 2005 11:28 AM
25. Shaun...did all those questionable votes go Dem?

Jim...that's the biggest problem facing this nation, IMHO...the NIMBY syndrome...

No one is willing to stand up and say the entire system is broken and needs fixing...the current system of each state, district and even precinct following it's own independent guidelines makes the entire system untenable and completely unworkable...that is unless there is such a huge disparity of favor that it wouldn't matter...

My point is the country was founded on one man one vote...that system is no where to be seen anywhere across the nation...

We should revote in Washington despite state law indicating such a thing is not allowable because it was a close race and the Republican lost?

Why?

Why not in every close election all across the nation? Where's the Republican outrage for all the others?

The selectivity of the Republican party (not necessarily y'all) is what's got me in a dither...they hold all the power...they alone can affect real change...

So why are they (the party) not working for transparency, validity in all those other elections that didn't oust their guy?

Try to look at this from a nonpartisan view...if this sort of willy nilly process were to happen in any other country on the face of the earth, we here in the ever so superior US would scoff....

Until the party in power recognizes that the entire system is broken, I think they should heed their own advice and *get over it*...

Fix the system(s)...

G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 11:36 AM
26. One thing that I find absurd about this article is that she suggests that it's the Media's job to point out Dino's position on Abortion...

"And, when it came to the issue of abortion, much of the media pretty much gave him a pass."

It's not the media's job to do that, it's the candidates job to make those points.

Posted by: Mikey on January 10, 2005 11:52 AM
27. Please point out where Washington state law says that a revote is "not allowable".

What does the state law say about a contested election that is thrown out by the courts? Is Gary Locke still our governor then, 'cause neither Christine or Dino are at that point. What is the state to do? How is the issue resolved?

If I remember my American Government classes correctly, the Congress is charged with ensuring that everyone has an equal and unhindered right to vote (once you reach 18). But that actually administering elections is in the perview of the individual states. Granted the Congress can create laws that force the states to do certain things to ensure that no individual in dis-enfranchised (see "Provisional Ballots"). But the Congress, in my opinion, will be reluctant to micro-manage vote tallying and rules on recounts and legal challenges and will defer to individual states to come up with their own set of rules.

The problem stems from the "States rights" issue that continually gets brought up. What can a state do and what should the Congress do.

Do we have a massive problem with elections in this country? Yes. Can it be fixed? I doubt it. Too much partisan politics involved. Any solution rising from the current mess (and previous solutions) will be at best a compromise that will fix some problems but create new ones or make current ones worse.

I am writing letters to my representatives (state and federal) to ask them to begin the process of repairing the system. That is just one small step in getting true election reform. We all need to impress upon our representatives that this is an issue that must be addressed and not just with words. We need action.

On a grassroots level, you are seeing action in Washington. The voting public (some portion thereof) have voiced concerns about the validity of the current (and past) elections. Problems have been identified and contests to the governors election have been filed. Now it is up to the courts to decide what will happen. At some point we need to accept the outcome of this election and "move on" (I hate that term). But not give up on election reform.

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 10, 2005 11:53 AM
28. Jim in Clark County: Thanks for writing what I was going to write.

Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 10, 2005 12:04 PM
29. Jim...it is my understanding that state law prohibits revotes without proof of fraud...

It is my understanding that the Rossi backers are not claiming fraud, but simply *mistakes*...

If both those things are true, then there are no grounds legally for a revote...

And I agree with you that writing (hounding if necessary) of our local reps is the first small step we should all take to get the system(s) fixed...

But does that not include expressing our outrage that the party of power today, the Republicans, are being incredibly selective in their fight to correct ill doings?

If elections are allowed to stand that blatantly violate state laws such as the one I linked, how are the Republicans to have any credibility if they only choose to fight the battles where their boy lost?

And why are all the national grassroots movements such as the one evident here not reaching out across the internet to other grassroots movements across the nation to affect change for the good of all of us?

Is that just?

G Davis
G Davis

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 12:15 PM
30. GDavis,

"Shaun...did all those questionable votes go Dem?

It doesn't matter. "Questionable" votes are beginning to look like illegal votes, and it makes no difference what candidate they went for as far as I am concerned (or the law, for that matter).

"But does that not include expressing our outrage that the party of power today, the Republicans, are being incredibly selective in their fight to correct ill doings?"

What state do you live in? Or are you speaking of the other Washington?

All we can do in our state is work to correct things here locally...starting with enforcing the existing laws. But if you're statisfied with the results, then sit and do nothing.

"Jim...it is my understanding that state law prohibits revotes without proof of fraud..."

No, I think that's incorrect. All that has to be done is prove that a larger # of illegitimate votes were cast, exceeding the margin of victory. But that is what the courts will eventually have to decide.

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 12:46 PM
31. Shaun, I suspect you are correct that the courts will have to decide this one...

But will they decide it on KC votes or irregularities alone, or will they look to all the other counties in the state?

How will they rectify Snohomish votes or irregularities?

Or will the Republicans even ask for that process?


Guess we shall see, huh?

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 12:57 PM
32. Yep, we'll be seein'.

Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 01:31 PM
33. I smell lefty lawyer.

Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 02:03 PM
34. LOL...well at least in this thread I've been pegged a leftie lawyer rather than plain old trash troll...

Good grief...I'm a taxpayer in this great state that is aghast at the lack of concern with transparency here and across the nation...

Is that such an alien concept?

Rossi wants a revote, why should I pay for it and STILL not know if it was fair?

Why should I pay for this one selective *redo*? Why not revote all the races?

That's good government?

Were there no discrepancies in any other county? Will we ever know in those counties that don't have paper trails?

Why should we not *get over it*?

Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 02:35 PM
35. Praying is not typically a staple in the lives of those who vehementally support abortion rights.. so far as I can tell anyway. If it is I envision the communion being of the nature of one of those customary non-denominational secular-friendly sort of recitations done before the big game or concert or something like that.

Posted by: Jim on January 10, 2005 05:42 PM
36. and yes I know I spelled 'vehemently' wrong.

Posted by: Jim on January 10, 2005 05:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?