The headline of today's Seattle Times article about yesterday's Rossi press conference "Rossi declares himself winner in latest round of court fight" Declares himself? After Judge Bridges denied every single one of the Democrats' motions to dismiss the contest? It sounds like David Postman might be taking a few too many cues from the Baghdad Jenny spin machine.
Over on the "news" page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer there is an article from Neil Modie. (Witnesses tell me that Modie once got into a shoving match in an elevator with Tim Eyman, who Modie was supposed to be interviewing, objective journalist that he is). Modie's fixation was that
Dino Rossi, stumbling over an earlier vow to refuse to become governor by court decree, suggested yesterday that he might do so -- but minutes later said he wouldn't.Actually, all Rossi has ever said all along was that he wants a new election as soon as any other institutions that have to agree to one (courts and legislature) will agree to one. Somehow Modie manages to spin consistency into inonsistency.
Today's P-I editorial page declares that "Revote rightly rejected"
The notion of a "do-over" was simplistic enough to be wildly popular in some circles. But the simplistic was hardly simple. A revote raised questions as profound as the one it proposed to answer.If anybody can write the book on "simple" and "simplistic" it would be the P-I editorial writers. Unfortunately, profundity is not their long suit and they never tell us what are the "profound" questions that a revote raises. Are they troubled by the prospect of an election being decided by legitimate voters instead of by inccompetent county election workers? Or have they bought the Jeannie Darneille argument that a revote is bad because dead people won't get to vote? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 08, 2005 10:55 AM | Email This
In his news conference yesterday, Rossi at first left reporters confused about where he stood on that question. If a judge reversed the election outcome and declared him the winner — which the law says the judge could do — Rossi said, "The first thing I'd do as governor is go to the Legislature and find a way to order a new election."
But moments later, after he had left the news conference and his spokeswoman Mary Lane fielded questions about whether that was a softening of his position, Rossi returned to clarify and said he would not accept the office unless he was elected.
It sounds like Lane needs to spend some time with Rossi on consistent messages.
Rossi's problem is that the court has the (small) chance of declaring him something he vowed not to be, the governor by court appointment.
Posted by: Erik on February 8, 2005 11:22 AM(ring ring)
Pot: Hello Kettle?
Kettle: Yeah?
Pot: This is Pot. You're black!
I disagree. If the court appoints Rossi, he will not resign his seat and then approach the legislature as a citizen. Yeah right.
He will do as he said he would (and then had to explain) and go to the legislature "as the governor."
Rossi is trying to win the governor's seat. He's not going to let some prior statement stop him.
Posted by: Erik on February 8, 2005 11:43 AM"We have a legitimate, functioning governor, even as the judicial mechanisms challenging the election that put her in office are turning. The processes that the state's founders put in place to preserve the orderly transition of power are at work."
So the PI declares that our governor is legitimate and that makes it so? This fight is not over, even though the PI is trying to say that it is. The potential for a revote is still very much alive, regardless of the disinformation being spread by newspapers like the PI. I did not hear the "giant hissing sound" that the PI folks mentioned in the opening sentence. Sure, it is cute and clever, but it is also wrong.
Gary
Posted by: Gary on February 8, 2005 12:10 PMNancy - I cut and pasted the direct headline from the Seattle Times article. Took me by surprise too!!
And from the newsrag: "Rossi at first left reporters confused"
Does anyone think that Erik and the news reporters are the ones who are confused? It seems to me that Rossi has kept the same position all along, but the left-leaning among us just don't understand consistency.
Erik, a question for you: Do you believe that had Gregoire lost the hand-recount she would have given up? She would have contested the election just like Dino, as sure as the sun rises in the East.
I predicted this a month ago - that if somehow the court overturned the hand recount and installed Dino as Governor (highly unlikely in my opinion), his first act of office would be to reach out to the Legislature and Gregoire and ask for a re-vote.
You guys must hate a noble and honorable person, especially in a politician. Why can't there be more Jim McDermotts, huh?
Posted by: Larry on February 8, 2005 12:22 PMRossi will be consistent with his past actions if he would refuse to take the office of governor altogther.
However, the chances of Rossi being able to prove he prevailed is neglible so the entire issue is really moot.
I would even go one step further and say while he is in the position, he needs to push for voter reform prior to the new election and hold the people in charge responsible for the conduct of a fair election.
Posted by: Gil on February 8, 2005 01:06 PM
What a lame story quibbling about how Rossi will not accept the court appointing him gov. I heard the audio and it's obvious he was just saying he wouldn't accept appointment as a remedy, not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening anyway.
You may as well have just asked Kristin Brost to write the story for you. The 3 readers this paper has left can't be so dumb as to actually be intrigued by this total non-story.
He will do as he said he would (and then had to explain) and go to the legislature "as the governor."
Rossi is trying to win the governor's seat. He's not going to let some prior statement stop him.
I suppose being a liberal has made you cynical, Erik...don't you understand what PROJECTION means? Repubs wouldn't allow Rossi to go back on his word. He would lose his base.
Stick around conservatives for awhile, you may learn to look at the world in a new way.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2005 01:13 PMWhy would he lose his base? Where would they go?
Posted by: Steve on February 8, 2005 01:20 PMRossi's comment that his first act as governor would be to call on the legislature for a re-vote may have been inconsistent with the letter of his earlier vow not to take office if the court ruled that he was the rightful governor, but it didn't conflict with the spirit of it. His clarification brought his position back in line with the letter of his vow. Big deal, so what. It didn't deserve the first nine grafs of a story, and it certainly didn't deserve its own headline and subhead.
Modie ignored the really salient part of the press conference--that Rossi was, on average, pleased with the outcome of Friday's hearing--and instead focused on a trivial bit of apparent inconsistency that was almost immediately recanted. Is it any wonder conservatives see bias in the P-I?
Hopefully Ambra will be able to bring a little bit of balance the the leftist old rag.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 8, 2005 01:21 PMWhat I don't appreciate in your rantings is calling my governor(he won twice), Dino Rossi, a liar!
Now if you want to spout that kind of garbage on some liberal blog...go for it...they would appreciate your opinion..they have no measure for honesty either.
Posted by: Susu on February 8, 2005 01:43 PMMy point was that a Seattle Time's headline writer most likely wrote that little gem, not necessarily David Postman, so we shouldn't be too hard on Postman, who wrote a fair article overall.
Hmmmm, by pointing out that you may be a little on the ignorant side yourself proves I'm ignorant. Okey dokey. Good for you.
Posted by: Losing Faith on February 8, 2005 01:53 PMI still felt compelled to email David anyway... Seems like a headline stating someone "declared" something should be able to be backed up by a quote from that person, no?
Erik
Posted by: Erik (no not that one) on February 8, 2005 01:56 PMI doubt it. Nethercutt went back on his pledge not to seek re-election after running on a platform of term limits. His "base" gleefully supported him again.
Here's what Nethercutt said:
"Make no mistake, I remain committed to term limits, but experience has taught me that six years may be too short," he said in a statement issued in February. In a follow-up interview, Nethercutt said that if the voters in Washington's Fifth District clamored for him to stay, he would consider it.
Nice.
I suspect Lane and Rossi will come up with some sort of jusitification along the lines of Nethercutt such as:
"I was going to resign and refuse the seat but so many people across the state told me to take the governor seat. I didn't ask for it, the court forced me to be in this position. I don't want to, but I bend my will to the voters."
Good question.
I could find nothing in the RCW or in the State Constitution that would prevent Rossi from running should he resign. He won't have to resign, however, as the office would become vacant if he merely refused to take the oath of office.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 8, 2005 02:24 PM- Who should run? The same candidates? Just Rossi and Gregoire? Anyone who files? These scenarios are all different, and it's far from clear which is most fair. Clearly, the first scenario would give the best re-creation of the voters' desires as of Nov '04. A runoff would make more sense, but that's not the system under which this governor was supoposed to be chosen.
- How would we prevent a recurrence of the same problems that (might) justify a re-vote -- voting by felons, dead people, and non-residents? Hopefully officials would try harder to avoid screw-ups like the improperly rejected King County ballots and the mishandled provisional ballots, but while I know you soundpolitickers are still worked up about those issues, face it: a court is unlikely to overturn the election on those grounds. On the other hand, everyone (despite your rhetoric) agrees that the illegal voters should not have voted. But it's far from clear that we could stop many of them from voting again in 4 years, let alone in a few months. What specific steps would you have the counties or state take to make a re-vote any better? How long would this take?
- Stefan has argued that the election should be invalid because county officials can't reconcile the number of voters and ballots. Hey, it sounds great to make the numbers identical. But welcome to the real world. What specifically should officials do to make them identical? What if they're still different?
Posted by: Bruce on February 8, 2005 02:53 PMA few years ago, I thought Babs Boxer had provided us an insurmountable lead in the knucklehead league, senatorial division. But then Patty Murray opened her mouth, again and again.
For years, we had you bested in the governor's mansion. Then we threw out Gray Doofus Davis and you "elected" Christine "Il Duce" Gregoire in a contest that Putin is no doubt studying intently. Damn, you guys are good.
As for Congress, we still have you hands down in total number of wingnuts. We have continued to elect such hardy perenials as Nancy "Botox" Pelosi, Pete Starkravingmad and Diane "Chimp McBushitler" Watson. But it's not been good enough to overcome the Babe Ruth of imbeciles, Jim "Give Me Some Tongue Saddam" McDermott. His combination of raw stupidity, dishonesty, cowardice and arrogance is simply insurmountable.
So, thanks, guys. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Stu on February 8, 2005 02:58 PMDirect quote from Postman's second paragraph. Looks like he did say Rossi "declared victory" in the text of his article.
Posted by: J Barker on February 8, 2005 04:05 PMI used to have hope for the Seattle Times, and I even wrote a letter to the owners on my blog about the importance of differentiating from the competition, but they seem to be intent on trying to out-do the PI in placating the lunatics that live on the streets of Capital Hill.
Thankfully, we now have citizen driven news outlets like Sound Politics.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 8, 2005 05:33 PMWhy would he lose his base? Where would they go?
They would go away. If he ran for re-election he wouldn't make it out of the primary.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2005 06:26 PM"I was going to resign and refuse the seat but so many people across the state told me to take the governor seat. I didn't ask for it, the court forced me to be in this position. I don't want to, but I bend my will to the voters."
This would be viewed differently than that; Rossi's character is his selling point. I didn't follow Nethercutt, his activities weren't regularly reported on the west side. I know he broke the term limit pledge.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2005 06:31 PMI absolutely can't comprehend how the number of voters doesn't equal the number of ballots. I would hope that those extra (what's our current number?) 2500 ballots came from human beings, but that can't really be verified.
I have voted at the poll site in Thurston county 4 or 5 times now since my retirement from the Army. All of the poll workers were in their sixties or more and they were all very helpful, well organized and dilligent. Yet, we are supposed to believe that in one county over 2500 forgot to sign the poll book???
What I don't believe is that workers from over 400 or 500 poll sites in King County were negligent and didn't know or care what they were doing. That is what we are supposed to believe from the politicians who want more money for better trained employees.
There is something dreadfully wrong as was proven by Stefan's anyalsis of the numbers. The truth is there and there are employees who work in the elections dept of King County who know what the the truth is, but they probably don't want to lost their jobs. Stefan posted a email from a worker who was obviously scared to death of losing her job a few weeks ago. The one thing that I remember most about the letter was her saying that the additional 10,000 ballots came into the warehouse over the weekend when the workers weren't there.
Absentee ballots are linked to a name that voted also; along with provisional ballots. The check for fraud is that the numbers must match or explain each over or undercount. If the 2500 magical ballots are employee errors, every one of them must be fired along with the supervisors who quite obviously arn't supervising.
It is imperative that if the illegal votes are
adequately proven, that the election is nullified and the remedy is voting AGAIN. Anything less will have long lasting negative effects for all of us in Washington.
That's my dime, Have a Great night!
Posted by: sgmmac on February 8, 2005 06:32 PMAgainst a reasonably strong candidate, I think he would win 54+% in a re-election. He's a smart guy politically and the politically smart thing to do is force a vote, next fall if necessary. He gains so much for doing that.
Posted by: South County on February 8, 2005 06:34 PMIt's no wonder that politicians, right and left, are afraid to answer questions honestly! The slightest slip of phrase, or the least dropping of one's guard, results in a storm of accusations from the opposition.
Remember when Trent Lott said that the country would be better off had Strom Thurmon (sp?) won the Presidency? That statement was made at a party for Thurman, but the left wing immediately seized on the statement as support of racism! I'm no fan of Lott's, but the guy was simply offering compliments to Thurmon... not advocating slavery.
In this case, Rossi answered a question honestly. Give the guy some credit for being willing to give an unguarded answer. We're doing ourselves a huge disservice if we condition all the political class to analyze their every statement. The opposition clutches at every miscue, lowering the discourse until the important subjects are never broached.
Posted by: Darrell on February 8, 2005 07:53 PMIs it true Postman was booted from the hearings on Friday because he was talking on his cellphone?
His entire article smelled of sour grapes!
Posted by: Deborah on February 8, 2005 08:17 PMBruce asked:
Stefan has argued that the election should be invalid because county officials can't reconcile the number of voters and ballots. Hey, it sounds great to make the numbers identical. But welcome to the real world. What specifically should officials do to make them identical? What if they're still different?
Mr. Sharkansky is welcome to correct me, but I think that we're dealing with two points here.
First, while we may be stuck with having a few discrepancies, the total number here boggles the mind. If this is, indeed, business as usual, then we've got real problems.
Second, the biggest problem with considering this election to be a valid gauge of the "will of the people" is that the number of discrepancies exceeds the margin of victory.
Had the margin of victory exceeded the number of discrepancies, we would have a clear winner. The chances of another election being this close are miniscule.
Since I agreed with Ms. Gregoire when she stated that the earlier counts were "too close to call" I've got to use the same gauge for the current one. "Third time's a charm" just doesn't cut it.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 9, 2005 09:50 AM"is that the number of discrepancies exceeds the margin of victory."
Hmmm sorta like Florida 2000? Huh. Gee, I guess the Dems will just have to get over that and you'll eventually have to get over this.
Posted by: Losing Faith on February 9, 2005 11:58 AMLosing Faith wrote:
Hmmm sorta like Florida 2000? Huh. Gee, I guess the Dems will just have to get over that and you'll eventually have to get over this.
I thought it was wrong in 2000, and still think it's wrong today. Elections aren't some kind of game, where we can say "you got away with it last time, so now it's our turn."
Now, I also believe that Mr. Rossi passed up his chance for the high ground in this debate, when he was more than willing to take office with a 42 vote lead. Even had this election been the model of efficiency that some pundits want to call it, 42 votes was certainly within any reasonable margin of error.
Had he, upon looking at a 42 vote win, said to Ms. Gregoire "this is absurd. Let's both agree to a runoff election" then his claims would carry far more weight. He chose not to do so.
On the other hand, Ms. Gregoire could have claimed the same "high ground" by saying "third time's a charm" doesn't count in elections. Let's find a way to do a runoff to clear this up. She also chose not to do so.
Still, high ground or no, the point that the actual will of the voters is currently unknown is beyond question. I'm just hoping that some additional candidates jump into the race. I'll have to hold my nose to vote for either of the two we've got now.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 9, 2005 02:02 PMI just noticed your reply to my post. You're missing the point. Nowhere in Postman's article does he quote Dino saying, "I declare a victory!" The second paragrapgh of the article you direct us to is actually a David Postman quote (if we had to assign the sentance to anyone). If it were a quote from Dino it would have been in quotations, like the third para.
Dino Rossi's quote is the third paragraph:
"The case can move forward, and we'll be able to have a trial, we'll be able to present our evidence, and we'll be able to get to the bottom of these problems with this election," Rossi said.
Where does Dino say, "I am victorious!" or use the word "victory" anywhere?
Posted by: Erik (no not that one) on February 10, 2005 02:02 PM