 | The state patrol detail assigned to protect Mrs. Gregoire1 from the imaginary death threats from "these talk show radios" has undergone mission creep -- "Governor's protective detail extends to keeping wildlife from dog": "If you have a small dog like the governor's dog, two raccoons could tear it up," he said. "It could be a serious situation. They can weigh up to 30 or 40 pounds."I'd bet this wouldn't have been a problem if Dubya were living in the Governor's Mansion. |
1 Of the two candidates for Washington governor in 2004 whose vote totals were within the margin of illegal votes as determined by a trial judge, Mrs. Gregoire is the candidate whom most surveyed state residents believe received the smaller number of legal votes. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 04, 2006 09:38 AM | Email This
Notice the copout by Gregoire- they didn't ask for the extra security, but was given it by the State.
I bet if she said no way, they would not have done it.
Maybe the queen can do what the rest of us have to do- kennels and fences when we are not around.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 10:02 AMI WONDER... DOES OPOSSUM TASTES OK WITH HUMAS?
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 4, 2006 10:13 AMHowever, this person(s) feels personally demeaned by this assignment.
Do you suppose he/she got caught taking pens or paper clips, or maybe harassing women on the job?
A thirteen pound pomeranian should be smart enough not to pick a fight with a couple of raccoons. Talk about a waste of my tax money
Posted by: Mike H on January 4, 2006 10:37 AMSeriously, Where did she live prior to the governor's mansion that was free of wild life? Even downtown Seattle has rats that could be a threat to a Pomerianian. Posted by: Miles on January 4, 2006 10:51 AM
The footnote you've added speaks more to your disconnect from reality than any salient point about the current state of the political world.
Posted by: Ben on January 4, 2006 11:01 AMNobody is denying the judge ruled against Rossi. No one is denying Gregoire is governor. But we are not going to let you forget that King County only just recently released documents that proved that the election was fraudulent.
We can't take it to court because there are strict time frames for filing. And also, Rossi didn't want the State to be without a figurehead, no matter if it were fraudulently obtained.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 11:08 AMhttp://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/europe/4489792.stm
(note I had to put a couple of spaces in there in order for it to post)
Posted by: Mike H on January 4, 2006 11:51 AMHave a nice day!
Posted by: Doug on January 4, 2006 11:53 AMMy mom loses cats periodically, but she has a bigger problem. Her place is adjacent to BLM land. The government has reintroduced wolves to her area. She refers to them as "government dogs". Apparently, they are thriving, and she has noticed a drop in the number of coyotes. She also says her dogs (Australian shepherds) hide in the house when the wolves howl at night.
Posted by: Peggy U on January 4, 2006 11:53 AMAccording to the AKC, the ideal weight for a Pomeranian is 4-6lbs, and Gregoire's dog is 13lbs? Are our tax dollars going to feeding her fat little dog Kobe beef or something? Does PETA consider this abuse to stuff a dog so much?
Posted by: Marc on January 4, 2006 12:05 PM(posted by Ben "Technology Director of the Gregoire for Governor campaign" Krokower)
Reality has many components, Ben. Part of the reality that seems difficult for you to accept is that there's a disconnect between Mrs. Gregoire's legal status and the fact that many (most) people in the state do not believe that that status was fairly procured. Our system is not founded on laws as such but on the social compact that the government follows its own laws consistently. When enough of the citizens perceive that that is not the case, government suffers from diminished legitimacy. You might feel good about that in this instance because your team prevailed this time, but it is not healthy for the body politic and I don't think that any of us will benefit in the long run from this sad situaiton.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 4, 2006 12:09 PMSo, I don't want to debate (at least not here) whether the documents released "proved fraud".
What I'm saying is that these silly little insults ( e.g. "Not my Governor", "MRS. Gregoire, not Gov. Gregoire") really make you look petty and silly and do nothing to bring your points home.
All it does it make you look whiny and futile. I'm liberal and I hate when my colleagues start saying dumb things like "Not my president" and the like. Gov. Gregoire IS your Governor. She WON the election, regardless of your sniping.
How about acting like a grown-up?
I'll speak up as one of the many out here who realize that although Mrs. Gregoire is in office, and she obtained the office under the current laws, that it's also quite obvious for any casual observer to see that there were a number of improperly handled ballots in King County in November 2004, and that the number was far greater than the margin of victory.
It's unfortunate that many partisan Democrats in our legislature, media and in Mrs. Gregoire's own administration are not more forthcoming about the inadequacy of our election laws to resolve extremely close elections and the inadequacy of those laws to protect us from the errors of partisan, appointed election employees who fully acknowledged that there were votes that they should not have counted.
If you truly want to appear unbiased, you need to acknowledge the real controversy behind the sniping and whining.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2006 12:28 PMLiberalism equates to the blind, leading the blind. How Sad!
Posted by: Susu on January 4, 2006 12:36 PMThat doesn't look like a purebred pomeranian. It's probably a mix with a larger dog.
Posted by: Mike H on January 4, 2006 12:38 PMHa! I've been outed...good one...
First off: I don't feel good about the election. Find me a person who feels good about the way the election went I'll find you a local right-wing talk radio host....
All your high falutin' talk of "social contract" and "diminished legitimacy" is raised into question when I know that it's rooted in simple partisan hatred of the other side. Why don't you take those same principles and apply them towards other situation where the partisan affiliation is switched?
Seriously: have you ever written about something the GOP has outraged you the same way? Is there one single example of the State or National GOP violating this "social compact" that would cause you to disagree with them?
Us Dems are, if nothing else, self-evaluating to a fault. Whenever there is a criticism we level at others, we see it as our duty to level it at ourselves as well. Your writings on this blog demonstrate this and if you're unwilling to call 'em like you see 'em in ALL situations, regardless of party affiliation, then, well, the rest of what you have to say is suspect, to say the least.
p.s. If you have written criticism of the GOP, then I'll read them and retract certain of my statements accordinly. But I can't remember seeing any on your site....
Posted by: Ben on January 4, 2006 12:40 PMHowever, I resent the implication that somehow the threats are greater for Gregoire than they have been for other higher office holders, or past residents of the mansion. And it was deeply unethical and illogical for Gregoire to casually implicate talk radio as the source for any individual's thoughts, actions or threats. Gregoire has had a career in public office, any one could dislike her for any number of reasons.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2006 12:41 PMHow about, I deserve that, I'll take it any way I can. Even if I have to have someone steal it for me.
Then I'll just ignore the story til it goes away.
Now, that's acting like a grown-up. (covering ears and singing)
Posted by: dan on January 4, 2006 12:42 PMAre you serious?? I assume you are speaking for the party?? On May 23, 1979, Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing his attorney general to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order. I didn't hear much from you, Ben, or your party in protest.
On February 9, 1995, Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing his attorney general to approve physical searches without a court order..searches that would allow the government to observe people inside their homes, using techniques such as infra-red sensors. Again, we heard nothing in protest.
Now, your party is all over President Bush because he wants to keep us all safe from more terrorist threats..9/11...remember??
From now on, I must refer to you as "Blind Ben"!
Posted by: Susu on January 4, 2006 12:58 PM"Starting this September, Snohomish County voters will no longer go to the polls.
Voting will be done by mail.
In a 3-2 split, Democrat county Councilmen Kirke Sievers, Dave Gossett and Dave Somers this morning outvoted Republican Councilmen Gary Nelson and John Koster."
So you don't feel good about the election. Good for you. But what matters is when Democrat leadership, and the representatives in our legislature and executive branch, etc. acknowledge what happened.
I think it would go a long way towards solving the problem if your boss admitted that she doesn't feel good about the election, and took some serious actions to make sure that it does not happen again.
And Stefan is right, in the long run, it's in your best interest to see that the elections are handled properly. At some point in the not too distant future it could very easily be the Republicans in power here in WA, and then I'm sure we will hear all kinds of cries for election reform from the Democrats.
It cuts both ways.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2006 01:03 PMI have my own list of grievances against the Clinton presidency, but overall, I think he did a fantastic job. My criticisms don't diminish my support. This goes for any number of Democratic politicians. Do you have any grievances of your own against the GOP? If not, don't you think that's a bit weird?
Posted by: Ben on January 4, 2006 01:09 PMThat is the funniest damn thing I've read in a week. Sadly though, you believe it.
Posted by: jimg on January 4, 2006 01:12 PMdeflect, minimize, marginalize
You don't feel good about the election?
Baker Sierra
If you and the Queen's advisors wanted a legitimate election that everyone could agree with then you would have called for a re-vote, demanding the KCE clean up it's act. You act if all the flaws in KCE are inconsequential.
The Queen's court like the dems in general care more the power than the service in the public interest.
Gregoire as AG had a duty to make sure the law was upheld. Her duty is to the Law. It has been chronicled the multiple ways in which KCE failed to follow the law. She had a duty as the States chief attorney to uphold law.
She failed in her duty.
She shirked duty in favor of power.
Robert E. Lee
A Letter to His Son
You must study to be frank with the world. Frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do, on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right. If a friend asks a favor, you should grant it, if it is reasonable; if not, tell him plainly why you cannot; you would wrong him and wrong yourself by equivocation of any kind.
Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so is dearly purchased at the sacrifice. Deal kindly but firmly with all your classmates; you will find it the policy which wears best. Above all, do not appear to others what you are not.
If you have any fault to find with any one, tell him, not others, of what you complain; there is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back.
We should live, act, and say nothing to the injury of any one. It is not only for the best as a matter of principle, but it is the path of peace and honor.
In regard to duty, let me, in conclusion of this hasty letter, inform you that nearly a hundred years ago there was a day of remarkable gloom and darkness -- still known as "the dark day" -- a day when the light of the sun was slowly extinguished, as if by an eclipse.
The Legislature of Connecticut was in session, and as its members saw the unexpected and unaccountable darkness coming on, they shared in general awe and terror. It was supposed by many that the last day -- the day of judgment -- had come. Some one, in the consternation of the hour, moved an adjournment.
Then there arose an old Puritan legislator, Davenport, of Stamford, and said that, if the last day had come, he desired to be found at his place doing his duty, and therefore moved that candles be brought in, so that the House could proceed with its duty.
There was quietness in that man's mind, the quietness of heavenly wisdom and inflexible willingness to obey present duty. Duty, then, is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things like the old Puritan. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less. Never let your mother or me wear one gray hair for any lack of duty on your part.
Posted by: JCM on January 4, 2006 01:21 PMFirst off - you're absolutely right. Election reform is critical and not just for our state, but the whole country. And the best way to effect the change we want nationally is to be an example here in our locality. So we agree on that. We should be able to have an extraordinarily close election like we had without devolving into what it ended up devolving into. I would like to see the Dems stand up and do some meaningful and drastic election reform, both on the State level and nationally. I don't think the current reforms go far enough and I don't think the GOP's answers are the right ones either.
We probably disagree a bit on the form that the reform should take, but that's a debate for another day.
My original point was: the childish insults, the unfounded allegations of fraud and stealing and general odor of bitterness is just lame. However, I know that going onto SoundPolitics and decrying the lack of decorum is a little like going to Cananda and moaning about all the Canandians. I just couldn't help myself and felt like stirring it up a little....
Posted by: Ben on January 4, 2006 01:26 PMThe woman has embarrased herself enough. She should exhibit a little class and pride.
In her heart she KNOWS the truth and I hope it eats at her....
I am a Republican because I agree with the Platform..and my core values line up with it.
I'm sure that there have been Republicans who don't always please me with their actions/votes, but in all my 60+ years, I've found that noone is 100%, and people disappoint, but politically speaking, if they follow the platform of the party, then the people are served well.
Posted by: Susu on January 4, 2006 01:30 PMHow about, the founded allegations that Bush won,
that there actually were WMD's,that DeLay might be innocent, that the media is biased, that Dean Logan didn't follow the law.
Any of it ring true to you, Mr Ben?
Posted by: dan on January 4, 2006 01:37 PMShould read; Whenever we level criticsm at others, we see it as our duty to deflect attention away from our indiscretions.
Posted by: bwk on January 4, 2006 01:39 PManimals that eat (kill) their young. Posted by: mark(Zoo Keeper) on January 4, 2006 01:41 PM
Maybe Mrs Gregoire (her husband) could watch
over the little fella. Posted by: Mark(Zoo Keeper) on January 4, 2006 01:43 PM
a 13 lb Pom is no big deal. It is Toy Poms that average 6-7 lbs.
Posted by: Danny on January 4, 2006 01:51 PM"However, I know that going onto SoundPolitics and decrying the lack of decorum is a little like going to Cananda (sic) and moaning about all the Canandians (sic). I just couldn't help myself and felt like stirring it up a little...."
At long last, a bit of candor from this liberal putz. As is the case with most trolls, he has no intentions beyond disrupting things here (hopefully not while on the taxpayers dime ;'}
ben, I see from reading your "blog" that you have little that you could teach Shark regarding decorum (or anything else).....
But if I can't call her a queen, as in royalty, when she has special servants for her dog, then Ben needs to reevaluate.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 02:25 PMPull foot out of mouth.
The courts decided the election so everyone lost.
Gregiore is in power.
Get a life.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 4, 2006 03:24 PMShe remembered that one till she was over 90 years old and that was about fifteen years ago, so it had to be at the turn of the century.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 03:28 PMYeah, just move on. Nothing to see here but fraud, corruption, and incompetence. Nothing to see here, Ronnie gave his home boy Deano some good home training and KCE is right as rain.
Just move on, nothing to see.
Posted by: JCM on January 4, 2006 03:29 PMI for one am sick and tired of our flag being used as clothing. You aren't supposed to wear the flag, it is only appropriate to have the flag on your clothes if it is part of an emblem or insignia.
Maybe it's just me, but I notice that the worst offenders seem to be Democrats. They don't treat the flag as something special. Maybe it's a deep-seated need to prove that they are patriotic, I don't know. Republicans and Democrats are all guilty of using the flag as a prop for this purpose. It's just that I see more and more Democrats using it in ways that don't seem appropriate to me.
It's our nation's symbol, don't:
-use it for underwear,
-wear it as a bandanna,
-cloth your pets with it,
-use it for pants (do you really intend to sit on our flag ?)
C'mon people, have some respect!
Posted by: tcj on January 4, 2006 03:48 PMYou phrased it differently than I would have, but the point is clear.
Posted by: South County on January 4, 2006 04:02 PMCan an air-conditioned doghouse be far behind?
Posted by: South County on January 4, 2006 04:25 PMAnd South County, what the paper didn't report was the valet service for the dog.
Posted by: swatter on January 4, 2006 04:35 PMBen has been eating too much of his own ice cream and he has brain freeze. Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 4, 2006 06:52 PM
A couple of questions came to mind as I watched this happy and joyous scene unfold.
Why would they need a dog trooper if the first daughter and first husband were watching over the first dog while he chases butterflies and dodges extinction?
The additional support provided by the dog trooper says to me that they are incapable of handling the situation correctly and responsibly and therefore should not own a dog. I mean, come on, I have a dog too. I want a dog trooper.
Is the governor’s mansion public property? If so, I didn't see a leash on the first pet and therefore the overseers are out of compliance with:
http://www.jointanimalservices.org/pubs/ordoly.pdf
NEW SECTION 6.04.050
C. Pet animal on public property. Such person's pet animal is on property such as a public park, beach, or school ground and not on a leash held by a person who is able to maintain physical control, or proper safeguards have not been taken to protect the public and property from injury or damage from said animal, or is in
violation of additional specific restrictions which have been posted. Such restrictions shall not apply to cats, guide dogs for the visually impaired, service animals for the physically handicapped, or to dogs on public property leash. Pet animals on public property is a class 4 infraction.
I also noticed they displayed no means of picking up after the first pooch should it “dooty”. If that is the case, they are again out of compliance with:
NEW SECTION 6.04.050
E. Failure to possess removal equipment or to remove fecal material. Such person (1) fails to possess in a public park the equipment or material necessary to remove animal fecal matter when accompanying a pet animal, or (2) fails to remove animal fecal material when accompanying a pet animal off the owner's property. Failure to possess removal equipment or to remove fecal material is a class 4 infraction.
These are very serious issues folks and should be treated accordingly under:
NEW SECTION 6.04.100 Impoundment and redemption.
A. Impoundment. An officer may impound any pet animal involved in violations of
Section 6.04.050(A) through (D) and (F) through (H), or any other pet animal at large
as defined in Section 6.04.030(D).
To help protect the queen's ankle biter, we all better drop off a buck or two to the next WSP revenue enhancement officer we see. Hint: Be sure to check your local radar/laser trap, as you probably won't find many actually patrolling the highways.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 5, 2006 06:52 AM"For those of you who think that the recount was won because of fraud are simply wrong; it was won because a whole hell of a lot of smart Democrats worked their asses off to make sure that every single vote that could be counted was counted. This includes lawyers, canvassers and, yes, data guys like me. If the GOP had spent more time on how to actually win and less time on how to pump up their talk-radio ratings, they would have won. But they didn’t, and it’s because Sharkansky and his cadre of misinforming goons simply weren’t smart enough to win."
Sounds like fraud to me !!!!
Posted by: Chris on January 5, 2006 07:01 AMJust another example of how the elites think they can get away with anything!
Posted by: bill on January 5, 2006 08:53 AMYou sure seem proud that rigging elections by double voting, counting felon/cemetary/non-citizen votes and circumventing state regulations handed you the keys to the Governor's mansion. That is what differentiates the Defocrats from us. It would disgust most Republicans to see ANYONE doing those things, whereas you guys place no value on honesty and integrity. You, sir, have no shame. I pity you.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 5, 2006 09:06 AM....every single vote that could be counted was counted.
Ben, that is crux of the problem, you and the rest of the democrat machine cannot, will not distinguish between legal and illegal votes, legal and illegal tabulation, legal and illegal reconcilliation reports, etc... ad nauseum.
Here's a hint for the legally, morally, ethically and legitimate vote challengned:
A mark on a ballot is not a vote.
A mark on made on a ballot by a legally registered voter who vote once is a vote. It is a valid vote when the law is followed in handling, storing, counting, and reconciling the vote and rolls.
Count every vote is code for FRAUD.
Posted by: JCM on January 5, 2006 09:36 AMYou sure seem proud that rigging elections by double voting, counting felon/cemetary/non-citizen votes and circumventing state regulations handed you the keys to the Governor's mansion. That is what differentiates the Defocrats from us. It would disgust most Republicans to see ANYONE doing those things, whereas you guys place no value on honesty and integrity. You, sir, have no shame. I pity you.
Posted by Saltherring at January 5, 2006 09:06 AM"
Saltherring.....Please RE Read my post.....I was referencing "Ben's Blog", and if you read the last line (that is not included with the " marks), you will see that my only response was "Sounds like fraud to me !!!!
Please don't pity me, I think we are on the SAME SIDE..... :)
My apologies, Sir. I was seeing RED and read past the "Sounds like fraus to me!!!" postscript. We are indeed on the same side!
Posted by: Saltherring on January 5, 2006 11:06 AMHave a Great Day :) Posted by: Chris on January 5, 2006 11:11 AM
These creatures are protected, so if you want to remove them you are kind of over a barrel. And the wildlife folks are under no obligation to relocate them for you. In fact, I was told by Fish and Game that relocating animals usually results in their demise, so it is forbidden. It does look as if there is a double standard here for what applies to ordinary citizens vs. government officials.
Posted by: Peggy U on January 5, 2006 06:26 PMThe dog is cute though. I'd rather they spend their time with it than with the Queen.
Posted by: megs on January 5, 2006 06:35 PMGovernor Chistine Gregoire (D) has a 55% Job Approval rating among the state's voters. Forty-two percent (42%) disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Washington%20Senate%20January%202.htm
Posted by: JDB on January 6, 2006 11:28 AMYou emulate your cronies from the ACLU (American Criminal Liars Union) which will ultimately end up in the trash heap of history.
Posted by: KS on January 7, 2006 07:05 PMI have tried using ammonia, PineSol, and Avon Skin-so-soft (all recommended for discouraging skunks). I also tried the boom box (they don't like noise). I have not yet tried putting a high-intensity light under there. I'm not sure how I'm going to do that.
I've heard you can tempt them into a live trap by baiting it with mayonnaise. I think I might try that. If you all smell something wafting from up north, you'll know it's me.
Posted by: Peggy U on January 9, 2006 01:35 PMI think Democrats are skunks of a different stripe. Don't believe they will be enticed by mayonnnaise, but perhaps a little pork ....
Posted by: Peggy Uppiano on January 9, 2006 05:30 PM*Did you know that the Rossi dog bit their youngest son Joseph.
*Their oldest boy did not want a dog. He was upset they were getting a dog, so Dino and Terry bought him a turtle.
*The story on the Rossi website was written by Jim Troyer, not Julianna as claimed.