April 13, 2005
If it quacks like a Democrat ...

Cheryl Scott, the Sims/Gregoire big-money campaign contributor who was asked by Sims to chair his personal "independent" elections review panel, says she's not exclusively Democrat, she swings both ways:

"The irony is I've also donated to Republicans," Scott said. "It's a difficult thing to be described as a Democrat or a Republican when I've tried to think about my political contributions as a private citizen and also as someone who cares about the issues, not just the people. ... I don't identify as a Democrat nor as a Republican."
This chart illustrates the breakdown of her contributions to partisan candidates in WA state

[a search of federal campaign database shows a similar partisan skew]

The stated goal of this commission is to help restore trust and integrity to the elections. If Cheryl Scott thinks she can mislead the public about something as basic as her own political habits, then how can we believe what the commission reports back to us? The other people who agreed to serve on this charade of a panel should be starting to feel some embarrassment about lending their good names to help cover-up Ron Sims' worsening scandal.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2005 12:51 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Oh dear. Bullpaddies!

and Stefan, your last paragraph just sums it up perfectly.

Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 01:51 AM
2. So it looks like the wheels are coming off already, even before it starts~!

Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 01:55 AM
3. Sim should just be ashamed!

When is he going o get it? The people are no longer stupid.....

I couldn't believe the buzz in the community today over his *Blue Ribbon* committee! There was a collective groan! People just want a national agency to audit everything! No more hand-picked nonsense committees.... Everyone I spoke with just want the Feds to lock everything down and bring out boxes for an audit!

Posted by: Deborah on April 13, 2005 02:04 AM
4. I don't have a problem with Cheryl Scott being a Democrat, but I have a terrible problem with her lying about it.

The other nine people on the election reform commission all appear to be people of good character, with a lot of political diversity and various backgrounds.

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2005/04/11ElectionsCommissionMems.htm

I think Cheryl Scott should step down or be removed, and that the other nine folks that Ron Sims appointed should handle the job.

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 13, 2005 02:49 AM
5. I'm not worried.
So far, one SHARK has trumped the whole DNC Dog pack, no matter what 'bread' they 'claim'!


BRING IN THE FEDS . . BRING IN THE FEDS . . .

When the gavel falls on this case, it will 'reverb' nation wide!

The Sun is rising on a Brand New DAY!! [;-D

Hat tip & wink to you Stefan \;-D

Posted by: Arky on April 13, 2005 04:47 AM
6. Sims has a history of packing committes and boards to suit his purposes. While I believe all these people may be very reputable, it doesn't follow they are good appointments to this committee.

Posted by: South County on April 13, 2005 05:38 AM
7. Why is it that Liberals/Democrats can never admit that they are what they are. Is the shame of being so liberal that bad? Must be. Just like a little child that denies taking the cookies when caught with crumbs all over his shirt. He's not a cookie thief and Cheryls not a Dem.

As to the question of bring the feds in be careful what you wish for. A federal investigation could lock everything up for years where no one will be able to gain access to all the damning evidence that is coming to light thru Stefan's hard work. The end result would be a public with a short memory forgetting all the details. No real action would be taken to fix the problems because it's under investigation.

Posted by: GPat on April 13, 2005 06:00 AM
8. It doesn't matter how "reputable" these people are. If the purpose of this latest sham of a "commission" is to whitewash the KC election mess, that's what will come out. The old GIGO philosophy.

Look at the results of the sham of an "electoral reform" commission that Commissar Reed headed up to run interference for Fraudoire. The whole purpose of that was to put on a show, to legitimize Fraudoire and play the role of "see, we're serious about doing something". What came of that, aside from a waste of time and taxpayer dollars? Crap! Pure, unadulterated crap. Anyone out there stupid enough to think that this latest dog-and-pony show will be any different?

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 06:22 AM
9. Did Cheryl Scott ever think anyone would actually look into her campaign contributions?
Apparently she is as arrogant as Dean "Weird Al Yankovic lookalike" Logan.

Scott should have made no comment at all about her donations rather than such a misleading one. That comment speaks volumes when compared with the reality of published donations. She is obviously part of the whitewash crew.

NO GO!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 13, 2005 06:23 AM
10. The reason she has to dissemble about her political affiliation is that she knows it's a conflict of interest. It is in the interest of the Democratic Party (and Ron Sims, and Christine Gregoire) to find as few problems as possible.

The end result will be a whitewash, and the Democrats and the media will naturally be inclined to accept the committee report as gospel truth, even if they know it's not.

If Sims were truly interested in the truth, he would have appointed a partisan Republican and Rossi supporter to chair the commission. Yes, such a chairman would have been inclined to find as many problems as possible, but King County would have had every opportunity to defend itself (abetted by a friendly media) against any allegations, and anything which wasn't true would have been quickly knocked down.

Surely it would have been better to have a chairman who was overenthusiastic about finding problems than one who would prefer to find no problems at all.

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 06:42 AM
11. The comission won't be a total whitewash - it's gone too far for that. It's at the stage where Sims has to give someone up to save his own neck. Logan would seem to be an obvious choice, but Sims so far has moved heaven and Earth to protect the guy...wonder what Logan has on the Generalissimo?

Posted by: Steve on April 13, 2005 06:58 AM
12. Are the committee members taking this on as volunteers?

Posted by: Julie on April 13, 2005 07:13 AM
13. Note: I tell people "I'm not a Democrat or a Republican" (I don't consider myself either) but my record of donations would show NONE going to Democrats (though some do go to non-Republicans)

So it is quite possible for both to be true. She's not a Democrat, but she leans that way.

Posted by: Sarah of WA on April 13, 2005 07:27 AM
14. Steve, throwing a few (relatively) low-level flunkies overboard to protect The Big Cheese (Fraudoire) would still be a whitewash IMO. I'm not impressed with the spectacle of leading a few sacrificial lambs to the slaughter. The lousy Rats may indeed end up ditching Logan or some other poor slob(s), but then they'll turn around and throw them a lifeline (behind the scenes) so they'll end up landing on their feet in the end.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 07:36 AM
15. BRING IN THE FEDS!

Posted by: BrianD on April 13, 2005 07:38 AM
16. According to that chart, she has given more to the Republicans than 10X all of you combined. Just thought I would point out the irony...

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 07:52 AM
17. The only way public confidence could be restored by Sims use of a committee, would be if Sims found a "real" Republican (not a Rino like Sam Reed)to head a committee and gave him a blank check to "make changes" within the department of elections.

For example, if Ralph Monroe were to be brought in, given a budget, and told to clean house by firing whoever he felt should be let go for whatever reason and to set up procedures for what remains and hire competent staff and then train them in "best management practices" used by other counties in the counting of ballots; I might just have my confidence restored.

Short of that, this is all part of another Ron Sims coverup.

Posted by: Bob on April 13, 2005 07:59 AM
18. CandrewB - Explain the "irony" if you will.

No, wait, I see:

Not only does she have extremely poor judgment, but that she has deep pockets to go with it!

Thanx for illustrating that for us ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 13, 2005 08:03 AM
19. Candr,

Full of crap as always. Idiot.

Posted by: Amused by idiot liberals on April 13, 2005 08:09 AM
20. It’s not just their ‘Blue Ribbon Committees,’ ‘Non-partisan Panels,’ ‘Independent Investigators’ who the Democrats have relied on to cover for them. They have appointed the heads of damn near every agency in the State including the law enforcement arm and in doing so have had a ‘cover-up’ machine in place for decades. If you think I exaggerate take a look at the findings of ‘no criminal wrongdoing’ in the State Patrol’s 'independent' investigation of Catherine Woodard’s activities in the Brame homicide scandal. Or how about the case of Council member Wendal Brown’s claim that he was doing his own ‘private investigation’ of prostitution when he was picked up soliciting same. Or how about a good portion of the Seattle City Council being found to have committed no crime even when caught red-handed taking bags of cash from a strip club operator with ties to ORGANIZED CRIME. Yes folks ORGANIZED CRIME, this Carbone fellow’s father was CONVICTED along with HIGH LEVEL PIERCE COUNTY OFFICIALS of ARSON and CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ARSON and more IN A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION that is right A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION, not a hack 'non-partison' 'investigation' (white-washing by a local front for the Democrat party) back in the 70’s and 80’s. There is and always have been a connection between the Seattle/Tacoma/Pierce/King Democrat political machine and ORGANIZED CRIME that the msm has not exposed. You think I exaggerate, do the research.

As long as the msm was the sole source of information and as long as no one broke omerta they could get away with almost anything, the only time the truth got out was when they had it in for one of their own, but as long as everybody involved was still in their good graces anything could be AND WAS swept under the carpet.

Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 08:13 AM
21. CandrewB: Of course, most people post here under screen names, so you have no way to know how much "all of [us] put together" donated to political candidates (not that I think you did any checking at all before making that statement).

But it sounds good, and that's enough, isn't it? Why worry about such a petty thing as truth?

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 08:15 AM
22. Stefan, shouldn't that be "if it brays like a donkey, then it must be a donkey?"

If Ms. Scott has all this loose cash, why don't she donate it to a shelter to help the people out directly?

Posted by: Anna on April 13, 2005 08:25 AM
23. Candrew,
Prior to this last political cycle that was kinda true of me, I had the Washington State Republican Party 'on probation, I don't like my hard earned money being pi55ed down a rat hole by a bunch of cowards that would never stand up for principal. My Political giving was to groups that would not waste my money, the NRA in particular. The Party has changed and so have my giving habits though, so your statement isn't quite factual smart guy.

Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 08:30 AM
24. Ms. Scott is part of the angry women coalition of the democratic party. She gives a small amount to Republicans as a practicle matter, because as a business person (well, as a person in business that was able to advance entirely and only due to affirmative action) she might need their ear from time to time.

But, her heart lies with the democrats. Gregore in particular and she wants desperately to save this election as a result.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 13, 2005 08:36 AM
25. Who was the RINO (I mean Republican) anyway?

Posted by: Dogbert on April 13, 2005 08:54 AM
26.

"she swings both ways"

Well, she'll fit in just perfectly...don't all Demo-RATS "swing both ways" and I'm not talking politics

Posted by: No Phony's Allowed on April 13, 2005 09:33 AM
27. Cheryl Scott made a business decision, with business dollars--nothing more, nothing less. She would rather influence liberal politicians than conservative ones because liberals are far more subject to influence and corruption. However, she is smart enough to always grease both sides if possible. Just smart business.

Scott likes Gregoire for business reasons, and if she helps the liberal cadre keep its power, she gains more power for herself and makes lots of money, and she knows that she will be appointed in the future to influential posts on committees that make public policy--especially about health care. Just smart business.

That's why Washington State is becoming a worse place for working people to live--inbred influence and corruption. They are coming after your pursuit of happiness next. Let's force you to pay through the nose--both up front and in property and hidden employment taxes--and then require you to wait in line behind illegal immigrants (who pay nothing) for health care. Why not?

Ask Cheryl Scott, she's CEO of the largest Health Care Cooperative in Washington State. Where do you suppose the dollars for services and facilities come from for illegal immigrants? And what do you suppose Cheryl Scott would like for the Governor and State Legislature do, cut funds for Health Care? Cut government intrusion into peoples lives? Force illegals to pay for their own care? Encourage enforcement of immigration policy? Of course not.

How many apartment dwelling Seattle liberal troglodytes are going to pay the bills for these illegals? None--it's funded mostly by business property taxes and private residential property taxes. Sure liberals have to work here too, but they are the enlightened ones who don't believe in property ownership, so what the hell, tax it into oblivion. Then get unions to strangle business into financing jobs and "social justice" too. Works for liberals, and Gregoire too.

Cheryl Scott is a good choice for Washington State Health Care Czar . . . I mean Independant Elections Review Chairperson.

Posted by: Amused by obvious liberal corruption on April 13, 2005 09:38 AM
28. I'm sorry JDH, I didn't realize you gave $200,000+ to conservative causes. Once again, I apologize.

Amused, you don't sound too amused. You use the name Amused to imply you are so far above and intellectually superior to liberals that you find it all, well, amusing. But the vast majority of your posts sound downright angry and are abusive. That is a very unique response to amusement. Lighten up.

Scott, it is entirely possible I am wrong, hardly probable, but entirely possible.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 09:54 AM
29. CandrewB:

You exhibit the typical liberal's inability to interpret data.

First off, nobody is claiming that they donated $200,000+ to Republican causes. Take another long look at the chart. She has only donated $2,000.00, not $200,000.

Secondly, you are only looking at half the data. She has donated 7.5 times more money to Democrats. Or, stated differently, 88% of her donations are to Democrats. So what if she has thrown a few scraps to Republicans when she needed some vote or something?

She is obviously partisan. If she voted 88% of the time for Democrats, would you call her non-partisan? Can you see the 'irony' in that?

Posted by: Larry on April 13, 2005 10:10 AM
30. Unbelievable. In the home of the brave and the land of the free it is absoutely SHAMEFUL what has occurred concerning our State's Gubernatorial farce. Enough is enough. It's time for a Tea Party Ladies and Gentleman. Get these crooks out of office. It is past time to REVOTE. Our SHAME will continue to fester in the hearts of our citizen's until a REVOTE happens.

Demand a Revote, step down Chris, and let's move onto a semblence of decent and honest government that is "By the People and for the People!!!"

Posted by: A Concerned Citizen on April 13, 2005 10:11 AM
31. Amused, I would be surprised if Scott made these decisions for business reasons. It probably helped to have access, but don't the stories say she's retired?

IMO she and Gregoire share a vision of what government involvement in health care should be. Like Gregoire, she's willing to impose it on us. Mere corruption would be much cleaner.

Posted by: South County on April 13, 2005 10:16 AM
32. "I'm sorry JDH, I didn't realize you gave $200,000+ to conservative causes. Once again, I apologize."

CandrewB, you should apologize, and then schedule an eye exam. The chart indicates donations of $2,000 to Republican candidates, not $200,000. Where did you get that figure? Admit to an honest mistake and we'll go on, but don't cover it over. You shot from the hip, and were wrong. Now be a man and own up to it.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 10:27 AM
33. Interested: actually I was reading that as $2 million to the Republicans and over $14 million to the Dems. Which is where the 10x figure came about;

I stand corrected.

When I hear "big money" I think Enron and Soros.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 10:36 AM
34. Her $375 'contribution' to Rossi's campaign was listed in the article as an "In-Kind" contribution----that is...not even cash, per se.

And I have voted for Brian Sontag in the past. The rest of my votes go all to republicans. Is that 'irony'? Or does it mean that I'm a diehard Republican who once voted for a democrat? Come on, it's the latter, of course!

Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 10:38 AM
35. Candr,

Don't worry there feller, you amuse me plenty. Especially when you supply every reason for me to believe that I am so far above and intellectually superior to liberals.
Why not take a stab at accuracy out of a concern for truthfullness for a change, you might find it refreshing. Your delicate sensibilities are not my concern. Tighten up.

Larry,

As usual, spot on.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2005 10:39 AM
36. The first judge selected to preside over the election contest took himself off the job because his WIFE donated to Rossi. Now we have Cheryl Scott who herself has donated money to Gregoire saying she shouldn't be held to the same standard as the judge held himself to? She is somehow going to set aside her personal politics and conduct an honest and thorough investigation? Maybe she could. But every time she makes a decision to either investigate or not investigate some small detail, (and let's face it, this investigation will get down to details), she will be second guessed by every skeptic in the state. So, even if she's totally honest in her intent, she will fail on apperances. This investigation needs to be done by the Feds.

Posted by: Scott on April 13, 2005 10:40 AM
37. Is it just me or is history perpetually repeating itself here. Constant demands of reviews, blue-ribbon committee’s, special commissions, hark the choir, “Bring in the Fed’s”. When will “we” as a society (Republican’s and Democrat’s alike) quit being a reactive society? When something goes wrong, or appears to have gone wrong, what is our first reaction? We need to assemble independent people to investigate; does anyone truly believe that someone, who would have the time to be on one of these committees doesn’t already have an allegiance?

When will our government switch from reactive to proactive? Its like the 9-11 commission, great, we investigated how it happened so we can stop it from happening again, however that’s the nature of the problem. Terrorist aren’t going to fly a plane into one of our buildings again, because while we’re investigating the how’s and the why’s they’re out thinking up the new what’s. And low and behold, we never have another plane fly into another building and we pat ourselves on the back and we’ve done a great job. The problem is, we’ve investigated, spent tax dollars, and now stopped something that was never going to happen again in the first place.

Great, so bring in the Feds from Washington to Washington, they can hunker down for two years and tell us everything we already know, yes, this election was flawed, felons voted, for both parties, absentee ballots weren’t counted, for both parties, provisional ballots were erroneously counted for both parties. Whether you’re a democrat or republican the fact that we had a flawed election is easy to agree with, however as a society, this is our reaction, and this is why politics in this state and in pretty much every other corner of our (un)United States has the same problem, its tough to ever move forward when both sides are always concerned about the others beaten path.

Why not join together as Republican and Democrats and realize, we don’t need to spend tax payer dollars to fund a commission to figure out our election process is broken. We don’t need tax payer dollars trying to think up patches we can implement. We need to scrap it all!!! Start over, I’d much rather have my money used to create a entirely new system of voting then for someone to report back to me that what I already did didn’t work. Why not have voting occur over a week instead of a day when its for such positions as President and Governor? You would think this State could think up something new.

Regardless, in the end it is not a government of the people, for the people and by the people, it a government made up of rich people, regardless of color, regardless of sex, regardless of party, money runs politics and special interests have money. Look at Tom Delay, why should any government official be able to accept a trip from anyone. Our CPA Auditor’s can’t accept gifts from anyone anymore because they would not be independent, shouldn’t our government officials be as transparent and independent as anyone?

Stephen, I don’t have readily available access to the information you seem to, but maybe when this mess is all cleared you can find this out for me, what percent of U.S. Senators, U.S. House Members and U.S. governors were in the top 5% of wealthiest American’s prior to winning office? Why is that? Why do you need to be rich to be able to get your message out and to govern?

Posted by: JC on April 13, 2005 10:40 AM
38. A Concerned Citizen,

My friend, the time is close, but not yet. We must try the court case first, show the facts, make the argument, and see what justice does.
If the courts fail us, there are just a few other avenues to take. If that fails, yes the system has failed and than its in the peoples hands to act. Only armed with the truth and facts can we act in a proper manor. The courts have failed us so many times before. The rode to revolt is narrow and dangerous, it is best to be fully armed in a factual and honest way.

Posted by: Son of Liberty on April 13, 2005 10:45 AM
39. C'mon Amused, you're going to make me bust out crying.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 10:49 AM
40. Thank God this has been corrected, my fiancé (a New York Times, The Progressive etc reading ultra lib) already has a kitten with a wire tail every time I fire off another political contribution.

Good God ya might have done her in (and beleive me she is one of your own), be more careful next time.

Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 11:00 AM
41. CandyB: How embarassing for you.

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 11:10 AM
42. I voted for Dixy Lee Ray in 1976. See? I'm not partisan!

Posted by: Dogbert on April 13, 2005 11:24 AM
43. Sims is the at the root of all that ails King County. This is just another fine example of his self serving ways. The "Ron Sims King County Grievance Tour" rolls on. It's time Mr. Sims understands fully how fed up people are with his "politics as usual" approach. Sims is speaking to the 34th Distictx Democrats tonight at 6:30. A "Ron Sims King County Grievance Tour" protest rally will be taking place outside the event beginning at 6:00p.m. at the Hall at Fauntleroy, 9131 California Ave. S.W. in West Seattle. The theme is "orange". We have signs and ribbons for those that want to come on down and join us.

Posted by: mimi on April 13, 2005 11:49 AM
44. CandrewB, OK, good man. Hey, happens to the best of us. If I had a dime for every graph I have misread on a computer screen...

It is true that George Soros has very deep pockets. But, he is free to give his money (waste it) to the political causes he chooses. That is his right. Soros has been nothing if not generous to the MoveOn.org gang and various other left-leaning causes.

The Ken Lay/Enron disaster crosses party lines all over the place. Ken Lay is a certified Friend Of Bill and has donated to various Clinton-related funds. He has also supported and cozied up to George Bush. Both sides have been tarred with that brush.

I do not advocate limiting the rights of individuals to spend their money on candidates or parties of their choice. But the point here is that the head of this latest "commission" is by no means an impartial, non-partisan individual, as evidenced by the "voting with one's wallet" indications.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 13, 2005 11:55 AM
45. I've been going by Scott but will add a C to my name to distinguish myself from several Scotts on the site.

JC, you are missing one critical point in your assessment of the situation and the "let's all get together" approach. The Democrats are in control, and are benefitting from the lack of control over the elections system. They're not interested in solving the problem. They ARE the problem. Did you see the animated movie "NEMO"? There'a scene in there where some (normally fish eating) sharks are having a "fish eaters annonymous meeting, promising not to eat their fellow fish. Suddenly the shark leader gets a whiff of blood from the movies fish star and goes into a feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats got a whiff of blood from the closeness of this election, and went to work to change the result.
I know Stephan doesn't want to use the word "FRAUD", but all the indications are there. Where there's smoke there's fire, and the Feds are the Firemen. No one else will do. And the "FIX" to this problem can't be addressed until there is a house cleaning of all guilty parties.

Posted by: ScottC on April 13, 2005 12:01 PM
46. Great job, Stefan! Follow the money. Actions speak louder than words. Two simple ideas that the media want you to gloss over. When people part with their money voluntarily, it speaks volumes about their true interests and beliefs.

Posted by: Jimmie--howya-doin on April 13, 2005 12:18 PM
47. mimi--
You just reminded me...
Whatever happened to the Gregoire "Healing Tour"??
Did she heal us telepathically?? While we were sleeping?

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 13, 2005 12:21 PM
48. Actually the solution is to hold all politicians to the same standard that the military is held to. In the military you dont just get brought up on charges for an unreported conflict of interest; you are slso brought up on charges if you don't avoid the appearance (whether real or not) of a conflict of interest and they do procecute you equally for both. Unless you are a high ranking or politically connected officer of course. Of course I am just dreaming here. That day will never come

Posted by: lesterman on April 13, 2005 12:29 PM
49. One thing is guaranteed...this will be exposed as well.

With every attempt at cover-up, ignorance, number reconciliation, etc., it just seems to damage Sims, Logan, and KC further. which inturn, further shines the (il)legitimacy spotlight on Gregoire.

What appears to be (yet another) attempt to divert attention away from the (choose your own word) fraud, incompetence, ignorance, or all of the above, it only seems to draw a bigger bullseye on this county and it's (mis)management.

Regardless of what happens in Chelan, this issue will come up again and again when it comes to Sims and Gregoire's attempted re-elections. Both want to move on (and who could blame them), but the mounting evidences, cannot and will not let them.

Posted by: flexnfx on April 13, 2005 01:12 PM
50. Can you get this contribution graph in the Times?

Posted by: susie rowe on April 13, 2005 01:53 PM
51. Amused:

Just wanted to make a quick point on an earlier post of yours. You imply that apartment dwellers don't pay property tax. This is, of course, not the case. Any property owner/management company will factor property tax into the rent the tenant pays.

The sad fact is that many renters don't realize this and will vote for property tax increases in November, and complain about their rent increase in March..with no clue that they basically "shot themselves in the foot."

Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 01:54 PM
52. This is one sad site. A bunch of whiners who use a single lens for everything. The gross misconduct of the republicans throughout this election process is greater than anything the democrats are accused of here (e.g. yelling FRAUD over and over when the accusation isn't only groundless, it's downright evil).

Grow up republicans...share blame for what you have wrought.

Posted by: Susan Tyne on April 13, 2005 01:55 PM
53. Yah..My first ever blog post!!! This one makes two.

Love the site and Stefan's hard work.

Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 01:56 PM
54. Susan, the difference between you and the people who run this site is that they present actual evidence for their assertions, while you and your kind merely bloviate and call names.

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 02:01 PM
55. Scott, I presented a specific example, that you refused to respond to, and then suggest that I bloviate yet this site presents facts.

Seems like you have it exactly backwards. Instead of responding to my specific point, you claim I didn't suggest any.

That's classic republicanism. Ignore facts when they (often) don't support your case and make up facts when they do (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE HERE: The republicans, nationwide, claimed the democrats faked a politicial memo about Schaivo but in the end it was a republican staffer who wrote it and gave it to a republican senator who gave it to a democratic senator.)

This site is another great examples of ALLEGING democratic malfeseance (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE -- yelling "FRAUD" in a crowded election) when the exact opposite is true.

You guys are GREAT at talking off the GOP talking points and repeating thsese types of lies OVER AND OVER again to assume those with little minds will believe they're true!

It works! Lies, retold and retold, are believed by many with limited faculties. Thank God we live in state where those with thinking skills outnumber those that relie upon others to tell them "the truth."

Posted by: Susan Tyne on April 13, 2005 02:11 PM
56. Susan Tyne wrote:

"ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE HERE: The republicans, nationwide, claimed the democrats faked a politicial memo about Schaivo but in the end it was a republican staffer who wrote it and gave it to a republican senator who gave it to a democratic senator.)"

When more facts were reveled, specifically that the republican staffer wrote the memo, the staffer was fired and republicans denounced the memo. What is so wrong with that?

Unlike...Oh, let's say any one of Michael Moore's movies that dem's still propagate as fact (still site propaganda from F-911 to me all the time as fact in conversation) even after evidence to prove otherwise was produced. Overwhelming evidence at that for almost every point made.

Posted by: MarkD on April 13, 2005 02:27 PM
57. Susan, you are using the typical Democrat (and former USSR) tactic of accusing your enemies of doing what YOU have done, and of deflecting the discussion to an unrelated topic, or two in this case; Delay and Schivo. What Delay did or didn't do, or what someone said about the Schivo case has absolutely no connection with whether Ron Sim's hand appointed investigators are actually going to perform an independent and un-biased investigation. Now, why not go back to the original point of this thread and defend your postion on THIS ISSUE?

Posted by: Scott C on April 13, 2005 02:38 PM
58. ScottM,
Don’t you know that it isn't facts that determine whether something is true or not, it's how the self described sensitive among us feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel about it.
Get with it man

Posted by: JDH on April 13, 2005 02:55 PM
59. Susan Tyne,

I must have missed the news that UBL was captured just before the election, when did that happen. I'm sure glad my daughter isn't old enough to have been drafted in November after the election. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm not sure of your point. All of these have nothing to do with the local gov. election.

Please explain what you mean about fraud and the opposite is true (only if it is on topic)

Posted by: Fred on April 13, 2005 02:57 PM
60. Susan, I assume that your little comment about "yelling fraud" is what you think constitutes a "specific example" of Republican electoral "misconduct."

I'm not sure quote how you think making accusations of fraud (true or not) unjustly changes the vote totals in an election, which is what the rest of us are talking about.

This is why I didn't respond to your "specific example." It has nothing whatever to do with the kind of misconduct we're talking about here.

Do you understand now, dmubass?

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 03:09 PM
61. "How many apartment dwelling Seattle liberal troglodytes are going to pay the bills for these illegals?"

All of them.

And why is Bush pushing for amnesty for those very same illegals you find so amusing?

Interested: Agreed, the smart money is donated to whomever is in charge. Of course Enron donated to Clinton; in the '90s you better had, ask Microsoft. I don't think Lay would have been a friend of Bill if he was just a retired Governor from Arkansas?

Scott C:
Admittedly, appointing Scott as the nonbiased chairperson does not look good.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 03:19 PM
62. ScottM: I think she understands now.

How embarassing for you.

Which should have been with two r's by the way.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 03:58 PM
63. If you're reduced to playing typo cop, I'll point out that you seemed to have missed "dmubass."

Posted by: ScottM on April 13, 2005 04:13 PM
64. Dmubass was a typo.
Embarassing was a misspelling.
Both of which are unfortunate during a zing.
It's OK though.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 13, 2005 04:24 PM
65. Yep, that Healing Tour got cancelled when 'ol X-tine started to figure out that it quickly could become a hotbed for protesters at every stop!

Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 04:38 PM
66. MarkD,

You are absolutely correct; until they catch on, liberals will initially indirectly pay some of the cost.

But only until they find a way to pass it back to property owners through subsidies and/or rent control measures. This is already commonly done in many areas of the country for this very reason. Class warfare and the ignorance of victim mentality on parade. No matter what, liberals will never take direct responsibility for anything. Classic liberal generosity: Take someone else's stuff without their permission and give it to another so you can take credit for being generous.

Liberal socialism is a corrupt but easily apprehensible idea that consumes everything and diminishes everyone involved. Requiring very little effort to understand, liberalism is highly popular and thus common. Ignoring obvious consequences as a commonly accepted liberal practice is nothing to be proud of because it makes unaccountable tyrants of those who presume to be its leaders, and foolish lazy children of all those who follow them. While they shoot themselves in the foot, they insist on shooting you and I as well.

Look at the liberal arguments presented on this thread.

Thanks for the observations.


Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 13, 2005 05:08 PM
67. If she was the head honcho at Group Health you can bet your bottom dollar that she was a liberal Democrat. That's the only kind of person who's running the show at GH. And, it looks like she isn't even truthful. What a waste of time and effort.

Sims has been true to his home training which was always appoint a committee that will see things your way. The committee doesn't have many people on it who even know what to look for. It will be a white wash from the git-go.
Sims ought to be ashamed of himself, but like all DemocRATS he believes that the end justifies the means.

I hope that judge who's hearing the case for Rossi throws the book at the Democrats and Gregoire.

Posted by: Clean House on April 13, 2005 06:09 PM
68. Susan, the misguided leftist wrote:
This site is another great examples of ALLEGING democratic malfeseance (ATTENTION ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE -- yelling "FRAUD" in a crowded election) when the exact opposite is true.

The proof contradicts your assertion. You sound like the Queen of Denial and I don't mean Cleopatra. Alleged will be demonstrated over the next several weeks in the courtroom, dear.

"You guys are GREAT at talking off the GOP talking points and repeating thsese types of lies OVER AND OVER again to assume those with little minds will believe they're true!"

What lies are you referring to ? Come on, be specific and cite your proof. You just divulged some strategy out of the Socialist Democrat playbook...You assume conservatives to be of lesser mind - maybe so, but you leftists have NO common sense !

"It works! Lies, retold and retold, are believed by many with limited faculties. Thank God we live in state where those with thinking skills outnumber those that relie upon others to tell them "the truth."

You know that it works, because you leftists have succeeded in pulling the wool over the common people's eyes like the sheeple that you take them to be. That is changing to your dismay - we have called bull-bleep on your little leftist mantra because it is sadly lacking in substance. Keep quacking away - but we know your game... That goes for you Ron Sims and your ilk.

Posted by: KS on April 13, 2005 08:25 PM
69. Sims insisted that "King County held an election that any bank would envy....."

Yet - He didn't choose ANY Bankers to be on his *Blue Ribbon* election committee.......? Go figure....

I would LOVE to have access to all of the King County election data! I know many fellow Bankers in King County who would love the opportunity to audit that mess....

Posted by: Deborah on April 13, 2005 08:53 PM
70. Excellent point Deborah! I'd love to watch Sims squirm as a MSM reporter asks him "why not?"

Posted by: bob's yer uncle on April 13, 2005 10:12 PM
71. Obsevation from afar:

Looking forward to an "Orange Ribbon Committee".

Posted by: dan0841 on April 13, 2005 10:59 PM
72. Maybe I missed it, but are these people being PAID to participate in this thing? Or are they just volunteers (who are now probably wishing they'd just said no to begin with).

Posted by: Michele on April 13, 2005 11:37 PM
73. CandrewB, do you know if the State of Washington has any laws on the books regarding limits on how much money individuals may donate, either to specific candidates or parties? I'm wondering if they don't have a state version of the McCain-Feingold law?

You know, I don't care who Cheryl Scott donates her money to. Anyone is free to donate to whatever cause they choose. It's the American way. Put your money where your mouth is. I don't care that she's a Democrat. Generally speaking, I'd say, being from Washington state, that is more likely to be the case than not. What I don't like is the disingenuineness of trying to claim some measure of impartiality, when it is clear what her political leanings are. Just be honest with yourself and you can then be honest with those around you. A good thing for Ms. Scott to remember, as well as anyone else.

Posted by: Interested Observer on April 14, 2005 05:10 AM
74. Interested:
Washington does have a law on contribution amounts. I am not sure of the exact amount but I believe it is in the neighborhood of $1650 per individual, per election cycle. For example, you can contribute that amount for the primary and then do it again for the general election. I think it is the same for organizational contributions, but I am not positive on that.

Posted by: CandrewB on April 14, 2005 07:55 AM
75. South County,

I’m somewhat surprised that you would be surprised that Scott would make political contributions for business reasons. Do you know Cheryl Scott personally or something more about her than her open public record provides about her? Ron Sims asks Cheryl Scott to chair his personal "independent" elections review panel and this doesn’t raise a flag for you? Do you think Cheryl Scott would chair such a politically charged panel out of civic magnanimity?

It is naive to look at the wall and ignore the writing on it. This is what politicians do, retired or not, and this is precisely how they do it. Of course Gregoire and Scott share a (liberal socialist) vision, that’s the point, and you are correct to observe that they would “impose” this “shared vision” on us, because they are liberals who believe socialism is best. What is so amusing is how easily people are fooled into this liberal idiocy.

PLAY PRETEND and many will buy into it. This is how corruption works best because it is easiest—right there in front of everyone, just like the utterly worthless 911 commission. All that the 911 commission accomplished was to gloss over Bill Clintons failed responsibilities, and allow a forum for democrats to spew subterfuge and propaganda about Bush. Now, liberals have a codified lie (911 Commission Report) to cite in their continuing support of lies and deceit for partisan purposes to show they are sincere. In the mean time the real issue important to all of us except the partisan liberal bu22$hitters took second place.

Sound familiar?

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 14, 2005 11:17 AM
76. Interested,

There are limits depending on the office being sought. My mom ran for a WA house of representatives seat and the max an individual or organization could give her was $675 per election cycle (i.e I could give $675 for primary and $675 again for general).

Posted by: Teresa on April 14, 2005 11:24 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?