 | Several readers sent me this e-mail to constituents from Rep. Jeannie Darneille(D-27) who represents parts of Fife and Tacoma. I don't say it lightly that her reasons for opposing a revote would have to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen come out of the office of any elected official. If Rep. Darneille is not an imbecile herself, then she would have to believe that her constituents are all imbeciles if she thinks this e-mail is not going to cause severe and permanent damage to her reputation in the district. |
Thank you for sending me a follow-up letter regarding the need for a re-vote of the recent election. At the request of some constituents, I will be clear about why I oppose what is being called a “re-vote” process.The residents of the 27th district would do well to raise the bar for sending people to represent them in Olympia. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 31, 2005 05:38 PM | Email ThisFirst, as I said, “I'm sure we will pass an election reform package in this session to address some of the issues that you and others have raised. As you know, this will take time and considerable analysis.” I meant by this statement that I am committed to evaluating the issues that inserted conflict into this process and will work to change those systems for future election processes.
Second, I have stated that I am opposed to a re-vote process unless one is imposed by the courts. It will be impossible to recreate the confluence of situations that existed on November 2nd. A re-vote could, in fact, never exist…it would be a new vote. The premise that “every vote should be counted and every vote should count” will never exist again. I know this from personal experience….bear with me as I explain.
On election day, 2004, when my own name was on the ballot, I was not waving signs or calling voters as I had planned. Instead, I was in vigil at the side of my father Chuck Darneille, who ultimately died on the afternoon of November 3rd. I stayed awake until midnight on the night of Nov. 2nd to make sure that my dad lived through the day so that I could defend his ballot, which was cast by mail a week before his final illness. My dad’s name is on the “Wall of Honor” at the Pierce County Auditor’s Office that recognizes people who had been voting for over fifty years. In fact, my dad had over sixty years of not missing a major election – and over thirty of those were spent in the active military, living in six states, four foreign countries, and a territory. He took his responsibility and opportunity to vote very seriously. If there is a “revote”, Chuck Darneille will not be able to vote again.
A week after the election, my poll worker of over 20 years, Bob Robertson, died after a short illness. Bob and his wife had volunteered tirelessly for those many years at our precinct polling place. I know that Bob took his right to vote very seriously. If there is a “revote”, Bob Robertson will not be able to vote again.
The Center for Health Statistics reports that every month an average of 3,700 residents die in Washington State. A significant number of these are of voting age. This means that since the November election, approximately 11,100 residents have passed away – they do not get a chance to vote again.
I want their votes in this Governor’s race to count. I don’t think it is appropriate to eliminate their voices.
Finally, I don’t think it is appropriate to ADD voices in a “revote” process. My son who is now turning eighteen was not eligible to vote in November, 2004. If there is a “revote”, there is the probability that new voters (those persons now 18, people who have returned to the state or moved here, people who did not vote in the original election, etc.) would come to the polling place.
There is never a perfect time to have an election, but I believe we must live with the certified elections of November, 2004 unless the court demands otherwise.
Thank you for sharing your views on this important subject and for respecting mine.
Rep. Jeannie Darneille
I received almost the same thing and NO I will not
vote for here again!!!
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:48 PM>>> There are also 700 voters both dead and ineligible felons who will not be able to vote again ...BBWWhaaaaaaa Posted by: Baynative on January 31, 2005 05:50 PM
We add and subtract voters in every election. The registered voters ranks change daily. Her concerned Demoncrat ballots will NOT be counted in a revote!!!
"There is never a perfect time to have an election, but I believe we must live with the certified elections of November, 2004 unless the court demands otherwise."
Dah! What a brilliant thinker!!! I never thought I would pull for the courts to decide anything but this legislature is brain dead.
Posted by: Norm on January 31, 2005 05:53 PMDoesn't this go back to her statement about a "new vote" vs. a "revote". Call it what you like. It means the current tally is faulty and must be discarded. Revote, new vote, whatever.
And I can give her a nod of condolence for the loss of her father and poll worker, but she also gives the proper solution to that in her letter as well. New "of age" voters. Does she honestly think that all of the 11,100 residents that passes away are; (1) All Democrats, and (2) not replaced by younger folks turning 18?
I don't say much here but I lurk and troll daily. Keep it up one and all.
Posted by: dkm on January 31, 2005 05:55 PMI am reconsidering....Oh, my conscience...dang...
How does this stuff happen (meaning - why are dolts elected into office)? Are we just dolts for electing her? She appears to think so...
Perhaps the strain of losing her father affected the staff that put that letter together...
Posted by: smegma on January 31, 2005 06:00 PMI live in the 27th. Now you know why I can say: I don't have any representatives in Olympia.
Posted by: Marsha Richards on January 31, 2005 06:10 PMHer father is dead, who cares if he can't vote in a revote? He surely doesn't.
The "new voters" can be handled easily. The cut-off can be Nov. 2, 2004. But, who cares if new people are voting? The only implication is that a re-vote would more accurately reflect the desires of people alive and living and of age in WA on the date of the re-vote and thereafter for the remainder of the term. Seems like an improvement to me.
Ever wonder why we end up with so many dumb laws? It's because of dumb people like this woman.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:36 PMDuh! Need we remind her that other dead folks voted in this election? Also, didn't we have a new vote when they included the additional ballots nine different times that were not counted in the first two machine counts? Posted by: Gil on January 31, 2005 06:39 PM
Typical Democrat argument - trying to appeal to people's emotions and sentimentality instead of logic.
Sort of like the smoking ban, come to think of it.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:39 PMOur County Assessor, elected in 2002, resigned earlier this month. His successor was appointed by the County Commissioners on the recommendation of the Republican PCOs. This November, he will have to run for election to retain his office. No one who died since the 2002 election will be able to vote in that election (well, they're not supposed to be, anyway). Is that supposed to be some sort of massive injustice?
Perhaps it would have been semantically preferable to call it a "new election," rather than a re-vote, but who the hell cares? She knows what we mean.
Posted by: ScottM on January 31, 2005 06:47 PMThe question is whether Gregoire the Pretender is rightfully in the governor's office as the duly elected governor. If that question is answered "no," then we don't have a duly elected governor -- and there must be another election to choose a governor. (And the Pretender must vacate that office while we await the election of a governor.)
She assumes the Pretender was duly elected, then argues that it isn't right to chose a replacement in another election, since some of the people who voted in 2004 won't be able to vote in 2005.
She calls the election result "certified," but the certification of the election of the governor was done arbitrarily by the legislature when the certificate of election was issued without first deciding the contested election -- despite the obviously material discrepancies in the election returns from King County. By calling the election "certified," she is assuming that the Pretender was duly elected.
"Beg the question" -- to use an argument that assumes as proved the very thing one is trying to prove. -- Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed.
Posted by: Micajah on January 31, 2005 06:51 PMI suppose people like you are the reason the state is lowering educational standards. Smart, educated people make it difficult for the totalitarians to rule.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:57 PMOh My God.
Eliminate their voices?? Ummm....heh...
(These people are dead. They no longer have a voice...shhh - don't tell anyone!)
"If there is a “revote”, there is the probability that new voters (those persons now 18, people who have returned to the state or moved here, people who did not vote in the original election, etc.) would come to the polling place."
Okay..... She want's the will of the *now deceased* to be realized - but NOT the will of those who actually have to live...(one more time)... LIVE under the Governorship in question?
Incredible!
This one has given me whiplash from shaking my head in disbelief!
D'oh! Sorry about that last post. I meant Dumbest Woman in Politics! -Posted by W.C. Varones at January 31, 2005 06:36 PM
Clearly Rep. Jeannie Darneille is positioning herself for the Patty Murray senate seat. She could easily achieve the title of 100th smartest US Senator, currently held by Patty. -Posted by iconoclast at January 31, 2005 06:55 PM
If it wasn't so darn sad, you could almost laugh at the feminist darlings of the good ol' Washintgon libs!
It's amazing and dastardly that she'd write something like that. Definitely won't get my vote (not that she ever had it to begin with). I'm ashamed to be in her district.
Posted by: Brent Overman on January 31, 2005 07:37 PMYep, just had this discussion over at the HA.orgy:
Yeah, that’s why progressives and liberals have been losing — it’s not enough to hate Bush, you have to articulate why, make it simple (reduce it to its essence) and connect it to a moral framework. -Comment by David— 1/31/05 @ 4:17 pm
NO! NO! NO! NO!
You still don’t get it.
“Progressives and liberals have been losing” because ALL you are offering is hatred of Bush. People cannot be convinced of something or anything through a NEGATIVE. You can articulate the whys and wherefores of your Bush animosity till the cows come home but you will not woo one single fence-sitting voter until your team offers BETTER ideas for America.
So please, please, please keep hating Bush, keep encouraging the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros, and the Hollywood nutburgers, please clap loudy, early and often at the rants of Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Kucinich, and please, God, PLEASE, please please, please, let team DNC choose Dean as chair.
Comment by HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS— 1/31/05 @ 4:38 pm
I know, I know, don't give 'em any hints. The fact is that it really doesn't matter if we tattoo it on their foreheads in dayglow pink because, knowing EVERYTHING as they do, THEY DON'T LISTEN ANYWAY! ;-)
Posted by: HowCanYouBePROUDtobeAnASS on January 31, 2005 07:38 PMAlso, would like you to know that the lefty website Drudge Retort is censoring the voices from the right and conservatives because they do not like to hear differing opinion so I will not be able to update others via that site anymore. Maybe you can all flood them with topics at the bottom left of the front page.
New Vote, revote, call it what you want, it WILL happen. Your Florida or should I say one of your Florida supporters.
Posted by: niceville on January 31, 2005 07:53 PMRasmussen has committed politcal suicide in my opinion. Not even giving a damn about her constituants.
Posted by: Cascadekid1974 on January 31, 2005 08:23 PMI am sorry about her loss, but she shouldn't bring that into her work. And I dont think her dead father should vote either. Did anyone check out to see if he "expired" prior to his ballot being signed, maybe she "voted" for him, she certainly has the intelligence, just read her Email...
I believe she just put the last nail into her political coffin...
Posted by: Chris on January 31, 2005 08:44 PM
But little different than the drivel by so many others on the subject.
Sadly, it would seem that such ideals and ideas are accepted, if not desired, by the populace of these districts. Obviously. These people continue to be elected to 'represent' the public.
I can't say much. The group that 'represents' me isn't much better, in tune, or responsive. They do so without my vote or support, however.
I see what she tried to say, and I respect her personal opinion on the subject. However, she didn't represent herself well, and her representation of the citizenry leaves a great deal to be desired.
Perhaps we need a Sharkansky's list to compete with Emily's list, and work for the election of intelligent statesmen, rather than mindless robots beholden to Berendt. I'd toss a couple of bucks that way, I believe.
Be well,
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/darneille
to post comments about what an idiot she is in the e-mail form. You have to put in a Tacoma address if you want her staff to look at it.
Posted by: W.C. Varones on January 31, 2005 09:05 PMSame for Geoff Simpson - who only won HIS seat by 135 votes in a recount not very long ago.
Hmm, now why does THAT sound familiar?
I don't want to sound mean or petty. And I can't blame her for feeling that way (that her dad had to survive the election for his vote to count) when her father was dying.
However, the Honorable lady is a state legislator, after all. She has written a letter to her constituents pretending to be educated on election matters. She shouldn't be showing such a misunderstanding of the law at the present time.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 31, 2005 09:10 PMYou know, loopy lib lefty Bagdad Jim Mcdermott has his email set up so that if you DON'T have the proper zipcode the email won't process. The same for phone calls - the first question out of his secretary's mouth is "What's your address?"
They seem to have conveniently forgotten that although they may be ELECTED by their districts, their PAYCHECKS come from ALL THE TAXPAYERS.
I called Jennifer Dunn's office and simply asked what zipcodes are in Bagdad Jims district. After she stopped laughing over my reason for asking, she gave me several.
I use 98199 or 98091.
GO FOR IT LETTER WRITING PALS!
But really now, this email is ....well....lame
Heck, my dad in Calif. cast his vote for AH-NOLD a couple weeks before he died. But if there'd been a revote for that I wouldn't be crying because he couldn't 'vote' again. (unless he lived in King County, I suppose)
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:37 PMSadly, it appears once again time to bring out one of the most appropriate labels in our vocabulary to describe Ms. Darnielle:
MS. DARNIELLE IS A DOOFUS!!!
And she kind of looks a bit like the former WWF Female Wrestler named CHYNA!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 31, 2005 09:42 PMThat reminds me of a David Letterman show where they were discussing how much he and Cher don't get along. And then Paul made him say something nice about Cher. Here was Letterman's very dry response:
"Well, Cher has never robbed a convenience store."
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:43 PMWhich makes me wonder.......why doesn't she want her son, who became of age to vote after Nov 2nd... to vote?
Posted by: Deborah on January 31, 2005 10:01 PMMr. Rosenberg, take note, I don't think she would do well selling forehead space for advertising.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 10:12 PM--If Rep. Darneille is not an imbecile herself, then she would have to believe that her constituents are all imbeciles---
Posted by: Sandy P on January 31, 2005 10:55 PMI be writing the Rep. back to let her know how poor her argument is. It's an appeal to guilt. Sad that she would use her dying father as a political pawn.
And it addresses nothing of the real issues that concern more of the posters at SP. We know a new contest would contain a different set of voters, heck what about the voters who voted in November but who will change their minds if their is a new vote. It's not about trying to duplicate the last election, in fact given the absurdity that ruled in November, that is the last thing we want is another similar election.
What is wanted here is some justice. It's not right that all of Washington is deprived of an accurate election because of the slopiness of King County and a few other counties.
I find the liberal argument that we should just sweep this under the rug and turn our gaze to liberal approved election reforms that have no real bite, apalling.
Earth to liberals, the election was a failure. Honest people would like to see a new contest and then meaningful reforms to make sure that all future contests are fair. And by fair, we don't mean the liberal doublespeak meaning of the word, we mean the original English meaning.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 11:40 PMwhich can be further reduced to: we stole it fair and square, so buzz off.
she'll have plenty of time to reflect upon the unfairness pandemic in the world after the next election cycle.
Posted by: scott158 on February 1, 2005 12:45 AMOh how noble, ya thats what I would be doing too if my father was dying....what a cheap and sleazy statement. To use this man's passing as a political tool is beyond the pale.
Posted by: BlueKnight on February 1, 2005 02:31 AMI, like a lot of folks, are watching from afar. I'm in Nevada.
After reading Ms. Darneille's comments, I have just doubled my contribution to your Blog.
If you want to use it to have a coupla drinks, I would not blame you a bit.
Keep up the good work.
If you have grand parents / parents whom have shown up in the obits. Thanks to the Dumocrats, their votes have probably 'canceled' yours for all of the years their vote has been 'available'.
Food for thought.
Is it that he wouldn't 'follow the party line'!?
Posted by: Arky on February 1, 2005 05:20 AM
I am watching this with great interest from across the country. Thanks for keeping me updated.
Posted by: Andy in NY on February 1, 2005 07:18 AMAfter reading the pile of rubbish this lady wrote, I am now convinced that my dog should run for politics.
He's a sophisticated Chow Chow, very clean and smart, and would absolutely think of better arguments as to why there should be no re-vote; something like “because the cats would really like it if things were run fairly and in a non-corrupt manner, therefore I oppose a re-vote. Do the math on that one- there are more cats than dogs, and we’d all lose our jobs. Woof!”
I mean, that actually makes more sense than that garbled mess of ideas that appear to have been pilfered off the mathematics section in the WASL “If a basket of 250 million apple picked in November was sold in the following May, how many apples would be rotten if the rot-ratio of the apples is 11,100 per 3 months, but new apples are added at a rate of 10,250 per 3 months? And would it still really be a basket of apples or become a whole other fruit?”
Oh my gosh, I could go on and on – at least this lady offered us all some entertainment and comedy during these troubling times. Maybe she should sign up for standup comedy and just quit her post.
I tried to keep my reply to her polite but told her in no uncertain terms the flaws in her thinking. I doubt she will *get it* though.
How sad,
Posted by: Margo on February 1, 2005 09:26 AMA large part of this inbreeding is due to who backs and endorses these candidates. Our district's senator, Debbie Regala, has a daughter who ran for a non-partisan city council position three years ago. She participated in one of our candidate forums, and we found her to be a bright and attractive candidate, well versed on her district's issues. Even she, though, was amazed and disappointed when she interviewed with the Firefighters union for their endorsement. When she noted the fiscal problems facing Tacoma, she was told the fire union had no intention of being "reasonable" in wage negotiations. I'm not sure if publicly voicing her disappointment or if having above average intelligence is at fault, but we haven't heard from this candidate since then. Because candidates are routinely told that once bought they should stay bought, I'm assuming she's moved onto a more rewarding and honest career.
It's taken a lot of bad publicity for the City of Tacoma, and untold millions of dollars and lost freedoms down the rat hole, before we've even started to see a shift in public opinion about public safety unions (fire and police). They've been instrumental in weeding out candidates who look out for us in favor of their own needs.
It's good to have a forum to voice these ideas and findings. However, it's not enough to sit behind a computer and throw rocks at stupidity if you don't get out in your community and get involved. Often there are more politicians in attendance at public forums than voters. Learn to see past the emotional dust in the air that replaces disciplined thought about your community and checkbook, and do something in addition to just talking about it.
I replied to my original email to her asking just that, how making sure the dead can have representation, yet us honest people are the ultimate victims here of disenfranchisement by cheaters. I anxiously await her reply.
Posted by: Brent on February 1, 2005 10:39 AMHow many people died vs how many people turned 18 or moved here is no ones fault and probably works out to be even. Is she totally missing the point or is this spin? Nice try though Jeannie Posted by: chardonnay on February 1, 2005 01:28 PM
I have no problem with that...they can't.
Posted by: South County on February 1, 2005 02:23 PMKeep on making posts like this. You're neutering yourselves of any relevancy whatsoever.
Posted by: Joshua H on February 1, 2005 05:30 PMBoy, oh boy, you Gregoire trolls are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find your arguments, aren't you?
I'm not making fun of Rep. Darneille for writing about her late father. I'm pointing out the foolishness of argung that we can't have a revote without counting the votes of dead people. Give me a break.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 1, 2005 06:00 PMI know it's semantics but there's no reason to dip as low as you all do. But then again, that's what we've come to expect from the right....
I always thought name calling was the first resort of the weak-minded, you prove that daily. (yes I see the irony in me calling you all weak-minded) Posted by: rwb on February 1, 2005 06:34 PM
That's great! I'm cracking up.
I know, we're making fun of what Darnielle wrote -not the person, but what was written -big difference...
The logic is like a bad WASL question, mentioned earlier:
If a basket of 250 million apples picked in November was sold in the following May, how many apples would be rotten if the rot-ratio of the apples is 11,100 per 3 months, but new apples are added at a rate of 10,250 per 3 months?
And would it still really be a basket of apples or become a whole other fruit?
Bless her heart, I knew what she meant, but it dragged on for so long and got really personal. It would technically be a "new vote" but the phrase "re-vote" was already adopted and we all know what it means... it means that what we had was bullarky and we're not going to tolerate it.
Posted by: M on February 1, 2005 09:25 PMOn the other hand, if an umpire calls a baserunner safe in the 5th inning and after the game the tape shows the second basemans tagging the runner in between the bases, guess what happens? The result stands. You don't get a regame.
Posted by: Joshua H on February 1, 2005 11:50 PMAnd how many thousands of military personnel serving overseas were not able to vote because of King County's failure to mail out ballots in time? I'm sure they take their responsibility to vote very seriously too.
Posted by: Duane on February 2, 2005 09:42 AM
Sorry, but the fact is Republicans do not constitute a majority in the state, and a Democrat who insists that we do something silly like follow the law, is probably re-electable.
Your unstated assumption here that Rep. Darneille's constituents really all wanted Rossi as governor is simply unfounded; we had an election, he lost. Your second assumption that everyone wants him to be Governor so badly that they want our officials to violate state law and constitution to install him is also unfounded.
Try something new like saying something you can prove.
Posted by: Bill on February 2, 2005 10:19 AMConservatives should thank liberals for their "right to choose." As they continue to choose death, there will be fewer of them around, like this dingbat legislator. Kind of a Darwinian method for cleaning up the gene pool.
Posted by: Woody on February 2, 2005 05:50 PMThis really disgusts me. I can see it now: "Please, Dad, don't die yet. It's not midnight yet, and I need your vote!"
Is that all she cares about? My Dad died suddenly, so I had no opportunity for a vigil, but had I had one, I would have stayed at his side for no reason other than that I loved him, and would have wanted him to spend his last hours surrounded by his loved ones.
Posted by: Mike D in SC on February 11, 2005 08:07 AM