Here's my wrap-up of my interview with John McKay, the recently fired Seattle U.S. Attorney. After his speech to the Mainstream Republicans, the (relatively) liberal wing of the state GOP, he spent nearly an hour answering questions from a small group of reporters and bloggers. The audio and partial transcript of the interview are here. The speech audio is here.
I was particularly interested in McKay's investigation of the controversial 2004 governor's election, perhaps the most high-profile and contentious of the possible reasons for his termination. (McKay asserts that he still doesn't know why he was fired). Despite mounting evidence of illegal voting in that election that has come out since the 2005 trial (now at nearly 500 illegal votes, nearly 4 times the 133-vote margin of "victory" in the governor's race), McKay has maintained for nearly two years that he saw no evidence of a crime. This has left many in this state wondering about the details of his investigation and some had demanded his termination since 2005. McKay's remarks on Sunday did contain a lot of new information on this topic -- more substantive detail than I've read in the press up to this point about the specific steps he took to investigate the election. He also, for the first time, I think, explained the threshold of evidence he insisted on obtaining before sending FBI agents to interview election workers -- i.e. a first-hand account of a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the election. This is a higher threshold, I think, than many people would expect the feds to demand for commencing a proactive investigation, and probably helps explain the lack of apparent progress that has led many to question the adequacy of the investigation.
McKay's statements about the absence of evidence of a crime have been trumpeted by partisan Democrats and many in the media to suggest that he thought that the election was just fine. But he clarified on Sunday that "there was no evidence" means one thing, but that he won't say "there was no crime committed" And he stated some personal opinions on the election that he refrained from saying as the U.S. Attorney. He said he "didn't like the way the election was handled", describing it using phrases such as "incompetence", "troubling", "smelled really, really, bad" and "stinky, nasty". He commended me for researching the irregularities, agreed with me that there needs to be a review of the processes that allowed the illegal votes to be counted, and said that he and I were "kindred spirits" in believing that state election laws "didn't serve us very well".
The main difference in viewpoint between McKay and myself was over the appropriate role of the federal government in investigating the election and specifically the threshold of evidence that he was demanding before he would conduct a more active criminal investigation into the illegalities that occurred. And those issues are important for the public to consider when evaluating the adequacy of McKay's investigation and/or how it might have factored into his termination.
He explained in the interview that the threshold of evidence he was looking for was for an informant to come forward with an eyewitness account of a conspiracy to change the outcome of the election. Short of that, he would not even send FBI agents to interview election officials about illegal ballots. That is an extraordinarily high, and I would argue, unreasonable, hurdle to overcome. Clearly there can be serious crimes by individuals which do not constitute a conspiracy yet corrupt the election, and there can be serious crimes that no eyewitness would ever come forward on his own to report.
He explained that the main thing his office did to investigate the election was to monitor the civil contest trial in the first half of 2005. The judge ruled in the end that "No testimony has been placed before the Court to suggest fraud" and McKay concurred with that finding. But that is not the same as concluding that no crimes were committed. The civil trial had a fixed and relatively short time schedule. Discovery was limited by the litigants' time and resources and the willingness of county election officials to comply with discovery requests. Civil discovery is not an adequate substitute for an investigation by law enforcement. Civil litigators deposing fact witnesses do not have the same skill set or legal tools as do law enforcement agents. And King County, in particular, was motivated to conceal evidence of illegal vote counting from the court. County officials ran down the clock, stonewalling discovery requests and public records requests for information that could have been useful to the litigants. It was only months after the trial that I managed to uncover, through public records requests, the documentary evidence that county election officials counted nearly 500 illegal votes, which were not known to the court. I showed McKay a few examples of the illegal votes that I uncovered. He called this information "troubling", and acknowledged that he had not been aware of it. Of course, some or all of these 500 illegal votes could have been tabulated through mere garden-variety negligence and not out of criminal intent. However, it is highly unlikely that anybody can establish whether there was criminal intent without sending an investigator to interview the election workers involved. I certainly can't claim to establish intent solely by examining documents. And election workers are reluctant to risk retribution by going to law enforcement. (In his speech, McKay mentioned that his former office is going to trial with a case against the Hells Angels using only circumstantial, not direct evidence, because Hells Angels members rarely testify against one another. Yet he seemed to miss the irony that he was asserting that the circumstantial evidence of hundreds of illegal votes was not sufficient to merely dispatch an agent to interview election workers who fear retribution and aren't likely to come forward on their own)
I also showed McKay a specific example (one of dozens of similar cases that I found) where a voter had submitted both an absentee ballot and a provisional ballot, where both were counted [example]. The provisional ballot envelope was clearly marked that the voter's absentee ballot had already been processed. Yet the provisional ballot was tabulated anyway. These could all have been careless mistakes. Or, some of them could have been instances of a biased election worker stuffing a few extra ballots from voters who fit a demographic profile that tends to support the worker's party. I posed the latter hypothetical scenario to McKay. He said that if that election worker had come forward to incriminate him/herself he would investigate. But that he would not send FBI agents to even interview election workers to find out whether such things might have happened unless a state or local investigation had made such a finding first.
I'd be unpleasantly surprised if federal investigators required confessions or local investigations before interviewing suspects or witnesses in, say, organized crime or terrorism cases.
McKay seemed to place heavy reliance on state and local prosecutors. I asked him whether voting by non-citizens was a federal crime. (Two non-citizens were identified as voting in King County when they cancelled their own registrations after the election). He indicated that this should be a state matter, not a federal matter.
More generally, McKay claimed that "[King County Prosecutor] Norm Maleng looked really hard [at the election] from the King County standpoint". "Looked really hard" is a subjective description, but the actual record doesn't meet the "really hard" test in my opinion. This letter from Maleng's chief-of-staff describes in great detail what his office actually did to investigate election illegalities. It reports that out of the hundreds of illegally cast ballots that have been discovered in King County since 2004, Maleng prosecuted all of 8 individuals for illegal voting in 2005. Numerous cases of unlawfully cast ballots were excused away because the voter was believed to be too old or insufficiently proficient in English to understand what they were doing. But few reported cases were seriously looked at. One voter, who was registered twice and voting twice in King County, falsely claiming residence at a private mail box while also registered and voting in California, was not prosecuted. There is no indication that Maleng's office investigated any non-citizen voters, even though I reported that information to his office more than two years ago. Nor is there any indication that Maleng looked into the hundreds of illegally counted votes that are primarily attributable to violations by election workers, as opposed to voters.
In summary, I do appreciate McKay taking the time to meet with me and answer my questions and present this new information for the public to consider. I personally remain disappointed by the federal investigation of the 2004 election. As I've stated before, I don't know whether or not any crimes occurred in that election or whether all of these illegal votes are attributable to simple negligence. But it's undeniable that the number of ineligible votes that were counted unlawfully is sufficient to have conceivably decided the occupant of the Governor's Mansion differently than the wishes of the majority of legal votes. The people and processes that created that situation need to be remedied. If the problem is inadequate processes, those processes should be corrected. If somebody committed a crime, there should be a legal remedy. We're not going to determine how this happened or what the proper remedy is without at least talking to the election workers to ask them to explain what happened. There were enough violations of law, followed by official misinformation and cover-ups that it would seem foolishly naive to rule out the possibility of intentional misconduct. I'm not certain whether the high threshold of "self-incrimination of a participant in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the election before we send the FBI to interview anybody" is normal operating procedure for federal prosecutors, or if it was McKay's own prosecutorial discretion, in light of his limited resources and competing priorities. But I suspect it's more the latter. This document about federal election crime by Craig Donsanto of the U.S. Department of Justice (who McKay mentioned in the interview as being in the loop on his investigation) says nothing about self-incrimination of a conspiracy as being a necessary condition for the FBI to start interviewing potential witnesses.
After reviewing the interview transcript, Jonathan Bechtle, J.D., an expert on election administration for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, e-mailed:
Either way, there's a disconnect between how McKay defined his role and what I think many voters expect the federal government to do to safeguard their civil rights to a fair and honest election. I've heard nothing from McKay or anyone else to indicate that higher-ups at the Justice Department ever directly encouraged McKay to investigate this particular election more aggressively, and at least interview election workers about the hundreds of illegal votes that were counted. But it wouldn't strike me as inappropriate if they had done so.
McKay kept insisting that he needed evidence of a conspiracy in order to reach the Federal threshold for election crimes. The lack of such obvious evidence appears to be his reason for not pursuing any prosecutions, even with all the evidence of potential individual crimes like the felon voting and double voting. He seems to even have gone to the extent of saying there were no federal crimes because no conspiracy was found.He's incorrect. As a prosecutor he had the discretion to set such a threshold personally, but neither federal law nor the Justice Department mandate such a limit. For example, [this article ] and [this report ] chronicle the efforts of a Wisconsin task force (headed by US Attorney Steve Biskupic) to investigate the same kinds of problems in their 2004 election as we had in Washington: felon voters, double votes, and more votes than voters. The task force spent thousands of hours doing the same kind of research Stefan did here--comb through boxes of documents looking for irregularities. The article below states their conclusion that there was no organized conspiracy: "Nothing in the cases that his office has examined has shown a plot to try to tip an election, Biskupic said...."
Refuting McKay's claims by his actions, Biskupic prosecuted 14 people for felon and double voting, convicting six of them (as reported in later news stories), despite no evidence of an organized conspiracy.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
McKay presented himself to the Mainstream Republican group as a partisan Republican. He recounted his work for Republican candidates since he was a young adult and pledged to support Dino Rossi's anticipated gubernatorial rematch campaign in 2008. At the same time, he expressed tough criticism of the Bush administration, and Attorney General Gonzales in particular, on the specific issue of the U.S. Attorney terminations. Reasonable people can debate the merits of his criticism, but those who expect him to play the Bush official turned Democrat activist in the mold of, say, Joseph Wilson, are likely to be disappointed.
Although he sounded like a potential candidate for public office, he strongly refuted recent media speculation to that effect and maintained that he had no plans to run for anything in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it was announced the next day that he was accepting a job as a corporate general counsel in the private sector. But it shouldn't be a huge surprise if he runs for office in the future.
McKay stated that he still doesn't know why he was fired, but if his handling of the election investigation was the principal reason, that would be an "entirely improper and perhaps illegal reason". I remain unconvinced that his termination was in any way illegal. Nothing has come out to suggest that anybody attempted to either obstruct McKay from conducting an investigation, or pressure him to conduct a baseless investigation. He made a good point in his talk about the importance of preserving the independence of federal prosecutors from political pressures. He stressed that although U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, it is rare in recent history for U.S. Attorneys to be fired in the middle of a presidency. But that is custom, not law. It might be politically imprudent for an administration to depart from custom and terminate U.S. Attorneys in mid-term without giving a good explanation. But political imprudence is not the same thing as impropriety or illegality.
McKay said he did examine the documents presented by the BIAW as evidence of forged signatures on voter affidavits (the documents mentioned in this news article, but did not consider the documents to be sufficiently strong evidence. The BIAW sent me the same documents in early 2005 and, as a layman, I also wasn't persuaded that they were particularly compelling evidence of forged voter signatures. As I recall, in most of the cases where the signatures didn't match, the voter affidavits were signed by one person and the BIAW's checks were either sent to the wrong address, or signed by a different member of the voter's household. I think the BIAW's attempt to prove forgery was clever and valid, but I don't think the documentation that came out of the effort proved the intended point.
McKay claimed that the BIAW's documents were the only instance of someone coming forward with a substantive claim of evidence. But Bob Edelman says he sent this letter and a data disk to the local FBI in December 2005, cc:ing McKay. It included documentation of many of the illegal votes that I had found by that time, and which McKay indicated he had seen only for the first time when I showed him examples during the interview.
McKay said that federal and county prosecutors worked together to explore prosecuting ineligible felon voters who voted illegally. Ultimately they concluded that such prosecutions were not likely to be successful, because it was the state that sent ballots to the felon voters, who could claim they didn't know they weren't eligible to vote. This is consistent with an account given by the King County Prosecutor's office in the aforementioned letter. But it ignores two important points.
First, the felon voters would not have been issued ballots unless they first registered to vote. The declaration on the voter registration form has long included the statement (as on the current version of the form):
I am not presently denied my civil rights as a result of being convicted of a felonyUnless all of these felon voters had voted under their pre-conviction registration and none of them had registered after their conviction (which seems unlikely) and that none of those who newly registered had been informed that they had lost the right to vote, at least some of the felon voters would have committed perjury by signing that declaration. Second, not all of the felon voters simply returned ballots that had been mailed to them by the state, some of them came to polling places and asked for ballots. Nevertheless, none were held accountable for registering and voting illegally. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2007 12:08 PM | Email This
Like McKay is apparently suggesting today, that deputy US Attorney placed the burden on us to make the case before he would authorize the investigation. I didn't understand that logic back then in our case either. And while the evidence of wrongdoing was more than substantially backed by evidence and records obtained via the PDA, our failure to demonstrate a provable motive was the excuse he used to decline our request. A provable motive being like a video of bags with cash exchanging hands.
I suspect that like that US Attorney's office we dealt with, McKay ran that office as a political operation, and not a law enforcement operation. With the FBI at his disposal to perform an investigation into the 2004 debacle, he apparently declined to authorize it, despite the available evidence and the significant consequences and threats to our elections process, including both state and federal election impacts.
Being so obviously contrary to the assumed direction of the administration to uphold the integrity of election law, he demonstrated extremely poor performance, albeit in the implementation of his discretion, if not actual performance of his daily duties.
Posted by: MJC on May 23, 2007 12:40 PMi agree with many of your opinions. smoke usually means fire. dont have to be a lawyer to know that. and yes--many do not come forward to report any crime. (heck--look at how fast people want to be dismissed from juries or go home while on one.)
like immigration, most will ignore the problem until it becomes an unbearable burden. but then, maybe not.
my 3 beefs: 1--continued voter apathy; 2--credit card companies get it right with huge volumes but state/local elections still can't; 3--why are Mexico's voter i.d. cards & verifications superior to anything we have here?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 23, 2007 12:52 PMWhere there is smoke, there is fire and there was so much smoke from this stinking mess that it was nauseating. And yet, McKay refused to send in even one FBI investigator to check out the source of the smoke.
It is my hunch that McKay was more sympathetic with a Democrat victory than he lets on. If I were Dino, I wouldn't want McKay anywhere near any planned future campaign.
Posted by: Paul2 on May 23, 2007 12:58 PMWhat should concern us for the future are the precedents that were set. Judge Bridges ruled that errors, or illegal votes in excess of the margin of victory do not trigger a new election. That is not the law in other states, and is not what we believed the law to say here. The Bridges ruling, however, will now guide future cases.
To successfully contest an election, therefore, you have to prove who would have actually won if illegal votes are subtracted, or you have to prove criminal fraud. I can tell you that proving either of those things under the timeline of an election contest is virtually impossible. This state does not have a meaningful election contest process.
At the same time, all law enforcement officials who have talked about this case have said the same things John McKay said: a criminal prosecution without clear evidence of a conspiracy to commit fraud would be virtually impossible.
Setting such a unreachably high bar for civil election contests or criminal investigation/prosecution will only undermine public confidence in future ultra-close elections.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 23, 2007 02:22 PMPosted by: Rocketdog on May 23, 2007 02:56 PM
I predicted precisely what Bridges ruling would be: that he would rip King County for sucking terribly, but that there wasn't sufficient evidence to throw out the result. It's also what I predicted McKay would say, if he got around to commenting on it.
I am a huge fan of Rossi, and I doorbelled for him and contributed and did what I could, but as a matter of law and justice and democracy, I think throwing out an election based on anecdotal evidence and innuendo is unreasonable.
The one part of Bridges' ruling that I found to be utterly ridiculous is the extra votes he gave to Gregoire, as a result of felons saying they voted for Rossi. It is absolutely unreasonable to take the word of those felons as to who they voted for and adjust the count accordingly. There is no reason to think they were telling the truth. I am not saying they were lying, of course, I am just saying we cannot know and cannot take their word for it.
I think the best solution is not to go contesting all close elections in court, but to have much better elections departments, with much stiffer penalties for errors, whether intentional or not. Fix the problem on the other end. That's why I've gotten to know the Snohomish County Auditor and kept a close eye on the process. And let's make the elections supervisor in King County an elected position ...
I think that's the best way to get public confidence back: to have a good process to begin with. Sam Reed has done an OK job of pushing some reforms, and many of our county auditors have been instrumental too, even fighting against the Democrats in the legislature on some issues. We've got a long way to go, but I think it's the only way to go.
Maybe he only meant that his personal discretionary standard was not met, I don't know, but it seems to me he was saying more than that.
Right now you have a box of 500 illegal ballots. Do you see any patterns? Are they from any one leg district? Is there a pattern from PCO's? Does crosstabbing PDC records indicate support of any one candidate or party? Are they all union members?
If you could find some strong pattern that would link most of the voters, then maybe you could persuade the Feds that there was probable conspiracy.
Also, I think you are placing too much blame on McKay and not enough on Maleng and perhaps even McKenna. And what were Sheriff Reichert's Detectives doing? Why do you want an US Attorney and the FBI to run the principal investigation? It should have been done locally.
Elections are run under state and county law ... not federal law. Do you really want the Feds to enforce state and local law? If you do, then you want to empower the Feds to run our lives. Not me, I like local government better.
I agree with McKay that unless he got evidence of a conspiracy to subvert an election to federal office from a local investigation or court trial, discovered forensic evidence or received an informant he had no business sending federal agents into county offices. As Republicans we can't have it two ways: local government with a limited federal government and sending FBI agents out to investigate violations of county run elections. Where do you draw the line?
But, bottom line: you have done a tremendous service by digging out the evidence you have. You've persuaded me that if these illegal votes had not been counted then Dino Rossi would have very likely been elected governor. And the Democrat machine in King County run by Ron Sims stinks. Having said that, there's no evidence of a conspiracy yet. I hope you can uncover one.
Posted by: Mark Gardner on May 23, 2007 03:12 PMMcKay also repeatedly passed the buck to State & Local Prosecutors & Officials. This does not jive with the fact their were Federal Elections as well on that Ballot. McKay did have a "dog to hunt" in that Election....McKay CHOSE to set the bar to an unattainable level.
McKay claims to have spent countless hours on this investigation. If so, SHOW ME THE FILE! And if he did spend countless hours looking at documents, what harm would their be in spending a few days more interviewing Election Dept. Workers???? It doesn't make any sense.
Stefan, do not stop. Take McKay up on his idea that you should meet with his replacement & various FBI Agents. You have invested so much time & money in this. McKay had plenty of "RED FLAGS" to launch a more formal investigations & do interviews. He CHOSE not to. Bad Choice. All he had to do was offer Immunity to underlings and encourage them to tell the truth. He CHOSE not to.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 23, 2007 03:20 PMI am not an attorney like the above, but this sure looks like a conspiracy existed.
Tough battle, Stefan, but what about your sources? Do they still want their jobs or are they willing to "whistleblow"?
Posted by: swatter on May 23, 2007 04:27 PMIt wasn't politically expedient for him and his future in King County/Washington.
He is just a go along/get along political hack.
Posted by: Norm on May 23, 2007 04:32 PMPatterico has picked this up.
Posted by: Huey on May 23, 2007 05:51 PM(Does anyone really think it would be hard to find 500 bad ballots from the last statewide election in Texas?)
Sure, there was incompetence. Sure, it's troubling. (This is one more reason why the rest of the country should follow Oregon's lead and switch to vote-by-mail elections.) But when even a dogged conspiracy theorist like Stefan is still unable to find even the tiniest shred of evidence of deliberate voter fraud after more than two years of searching, it's time to fold up the tinfoil hats and rejoin reality.
Either there was a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of poll workers at hundreds of polling places, all of whom have managed to keep this a complete secret, or there were the normal errors that we see in every state in every election as part of the underfunded, chaotic American elections process. Occam's Razor suggests that it is the latter.
After reading this post, I come away more convinced than ever that John McKay made the correct decision.
Posted by: Oregonian on May 23, 2007 06:40 PMThere may have been, but to my knowledge there was alot of hand waving but nothing specific stated. Perhaps it was just a policy of the Bush Administration - for political reasons, which gives me more reason to believe how ineffectual the White House really is or that is just the way McKay operated.. No further comment on the Bush Justice Department - as I am not impressed.
I have a problem believing the election results and all of the research done by Stefan would not lend itself to an investigation. However, the shoddy way the Republicans presented the case in Wenatchee shot a hole in the hard work Stefan had done, which is a shame. It should not have prevented a Federal investigation though - as it is the Federal Government showed its true colors - very difficult to trust when the chips are down !
Posted by: KS on May 23, 2007 07:01 PMNow just a dang minute here. The law enforcement officials who haven't talked about this case might very well be able to grasp the evidence that Stefan has acquired AFTER the feeble case before Judge Bridges was washed away. It clearly points to bad behavior by both voters and election officials. What's to prevent a serious investigation - not yet a prosecution, mind you, but a professional one with supoena powers - to see if there were enough evidence to establish whether or not there had been deliberate flouting of the numerous election laws which were battered and bruised and bitch-slapped, if not broken, in the counts and 'recounts' of 2004. If so, bring the case. But we'll never know until such an investigation is mounted. McKay has skirted all around this, but if we care about honestly run elections, we need this knowlege, and an investigation is the minimum action needed to establish it in the murky doings of KCRE.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 23, 2007 07:03 PMOne fact for you to try to explain: Those convicted of vote fraud and elections manipulation are all Democrat.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on May 23, 2007 07:09 PMThis is all so pathetically thin, it's laughable ... In fact, for a walk-in election involving hundreds of thousands of registered voters, 500 errors by poorly-trained pollworkers seems pretty... normal.Well, "Oregonian", it's laughable easy to dismiss facts that you don't bother to look at, as your comment demonstrates.
If you look at the documents I found, you'll see that the illegal votes I'm referring to have absolutely nothing to do with a walk-in election and poorly-trained poll workers -- they were all mail-in and provisional ballots and the violations occurred at the elections office under the supervision of county professionals.
"This is one more reason why the rest of the country should follow Oregon's lead and switch to vote-by-mail elections." -- yeah, whatever.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 23, 2007 07:12 PMThe FBI was called in to once again look at SPD officers after Kate Pflaumer, SPD Office of Accountability Auditor, didn't like the way the case smelled.
Hmm, Kate Pflaumer? Kate Pflaumer? That name rings a bell. Oh yes, Kate Plaumer; John McKay's predecessor as US Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
Even though they were political appointees under different adminstrations it's good to see Kate and John both see the need for high thresholds and priorities when calling in the FBI.
One fact for you to try to explain: Those convicted of vote fraud and elections manipulation are all Democrat.
Lie as you might, the FACT remains - Democrats are routinely convicted of election malfeasance and vote fraud. The issue is one-sided. Answer that. You want to posture like you want clean elections? Then support getting rid of the current Democrats running this corrupt state, county, and city.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on May 23, 2007 07:46 PMA few other thoughts:
1. If McKay's standard for even having the FBI INVESTIGATE election problems at the state level stands (let alone prosecution), unless a group of election workers are totally and deliberately stupid it is indeed hard to see how a serious Federal investigation would ever be launched in the real world.
2. The events and result in WI stand in stark contract to what played out in WA.
3. I agree with Chris Vance, when he said:
''This state does not have a meaningful election contest process.''
And I would add:
We're NOT gonna get one out of the Legislature as long as the urban-core (D)s are firmly in control.
Sooo...:
Given that sad reality:
How about an initiative effort in 2008 to seriously amend Chapter 29A.68 RCW (Contesting an election) ??... I did a test fit on a blank petition sheet master: All of Chapter 29A.68 can fit on the back and still be readable... and not all of the sections need to be amended.
And besides a necessary change to the RCWs, maybe an initiative campaign highlighting the stink of how the current occupant of the Gov's mansion got there would be a good ''bookend'' to a Gregoire-Rossi rematch ??..
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 23, 2007 08:09 PMMy hat's off to you Stefan, for all you do!
If there was a known rapist on your block and committed crime after crime but the police willfully do not arrest them, at what point are the police guilty of a crime?
Like McKay, they would be fired. Wish that were true for KCE.
Posted by: Andy on May 23, 2007 09:14 PMWhat's even more incredible is that the WSRP is actually listening to him.
Can anyone here say "IRONY"?
I don't know who is more pathetic in this little dance- that incompetent ass McKay seeking a future in politics, or the leaders of the Washington State Republican Party for actually helping Mackay achieve one.
Does anyone need any more proof that the leaders of YOUR Washington State Republican Party are nothing more than a collection of pathetic, ineffectual, self-extinguishing brown-sky mouth breathers?
This is classic, man.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 23, 2007 10:12 PMI need a voluntary unelicited confession of a conspiracy before I can start an investigation.....
Really? He said that with a straight face?
People, take 10 steps back and look at that sentence a few times.
Stephen, you are a modern day hero. My gratitude.
True, that seems extraordinary - there was a reason for it - there is a law that states that a signed affadavit can do this and the Democrats used it to their advantage & the Republicans who could have done the same ignored it ! To most, this is an absurd law, but as it was shown - it is a law that can be and was legally applied here and I agree with Judge Bridges decision. Ridiculous that this state has laws like this, yet almost an unreachable standard to be able to contest an election - what is wrong with this picture ? There is an inherent lameness in election laws in this state, which explains the frustration many including myself felt in 2005. What will it take to change these laws ? A new governor for one - time for a rematch.
Please do a big favor - let's get the FBI and the new US Attorney to investigate this thing for before the 2008 election and get a ruling. This will make it possible for the correct person can be elected Governor this time, especially if Dino Rossi runs, which I hope he does.
Posted by: KS on May 23, 2007 10:27 PMAnd that's really the crux of the average Washingtonian's frustration with the 2004 election. On the Left, there is this irrational tolerance in many areas. You often see the left casually dismiss serious cultural, personal and structural defects on the grounds that it would be cruel to punish people for mistakes. And thus the general tone of the Left response to the 2004 election, is that it was flawed, but that flaws are to be expected.
The antidote to this, and the problems of the WSRP leadership is more conviction, not less. Rules are rules. Process is process. WA needs election reform so that incompetence, negligence and individual malfeasance don't lead to enough ambiguity and mistrust in our public elections.
And the WSRP needs to learn that standing up for what is right, regardless of personal setbacks or partisan loss is the Conservative ideal. That's why conservatives don't believe, for example, that affiramative action will solve past racism.
Hopefully there will still be a whistleblower to come forward at KCE, and expose the breakdown in process that allowed so many improperly registered absentees and provisonals to be counted. Especially when that improper counting occured near the certification deadline, when tabulation results were already known, and where the final ballots in King County, were the deciding votes in a close race.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2007 01:01 AMWhat are you afraid of?
The problems in Washington State are just a grain of sand on a beach of election fraud crimes by the GOP.
Simple word. Knowing something is wrong but afraid of the consequences if things don't go your way is not courage.
Stefan has courage. McKay doesn't.
I don't know how many times (on a much smaller scale) where I have come across people who have had to make the 'decision'. Sometimes, the person blinks and nothing happens.
However, most of the time, that person defies all odds and takes on the impossible task and fights the impossible battle. And, they win. Maybe not what they expected, but they win. Stefan has won; the battle isn't over but he shook up the system and helped get rid of the 'cowards'.
Again, thanks, Stefan.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 07:14 AMIn 2005 we worked with the King County party to challenge hundreds of voter registrations. Remember? That wasn't very popular with the MSM.
Take a look at the WSRP's web page today and every day. Luke is doing his job, aggressively challenging the Gregoire administration.
Republicans certainly have problems in this state, but the WSRP has absolutely not lacked "conviction."
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 24, 2007 08:17 AMSorry Chris, but I think the damage to WSRP has already been done, and will take years to heal. Many conservatives are prepared to walk. I have no idea where in the hell we will walk to... wander in the wilderness I suppose, but this state's republican machine does not seem familiar with conservative principles. Best of luck, mainstreamers.
Hey, check out this group.
Posted by: huckleberry on May 24, 2007 09:00 AMThe presidential race will not be decided in Washington, but rather in Iowa, NH, and SC.
In terms of Washington, do you plan on supporting Dino? Assuming he runs, that will be be job one for the WSRP.
And Mainstream is not part of the WSRP.
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 24, 2007 09:05 AMKind of reminds me of getting City of Seattle endorsements for School Board from all the tiny "groups" out there. They don't represent anybody. They are just private individuals giving themselves fancy names.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 09:05 AMThe punchline of the joke is "worst case of suicide I have ever seen" said by a corrupt official after viewing a victim shot 5 times in the back. Guess that sums up my feeling on this whole outlandish political episode.
I recall that any number of registration and ballots originated from a mysterious address in downtown Seattle. And what about the little people living in mailboxes. Quite an adventure in duplicity and absurdity.
The sad part is that these parasites actually get re-elected and continue to suck the life forces from the people they govern. They are embolden to a point that they no longer masks their sucking sounds.
Yes it is the worst case of suicide.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 24, 2007 09:06 AMDid anyone ask McKay about his attempts to pry into NICS (gun purchase background check) data, which by law he wasn't allowed to do, in the Tom Wales murder investigation?
Apparently, those repeated attempts were why the Administration was looking to fire him as long as 18 months ago.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on May 24, 2007 09:29 AMYou are a poor leader. Thanks in large part to you, the WSRP is a dead fish. I have disavowed myself of any party affiliation and I have encouraged my other Republican friends to do likewise. With leaders like you, who needs Democrats?
Posted by: ERNurse on May 24, 2007 10:04 AMElections are run under state and local law, and under the 13th and 14th amendments to the federal constitution bolstered by the voting rights acts of 1963 and 1967, and the help america vote act.
The *duty* of the federal government to intervene when the state's election process has become irretrievably corrupted has been codified into case law as well as statute at least since the federal government intervened against Huey Long in 1936. Not to mention federal intervention into southern elections "just because" they systematically excluded blacks.
BTW, I don't remember in those cases that there was a specific coming forward and claiming criminal conspiracy by election officials. Maybe all of that activity in the 50s and 60s was improper under Mr McKays criteria.
I can't imagine how the hijinks of the last few elections could fail to qualify as iretreivably corrupt. Clearly the system in this state is a one party, failed democracy. (think Zimbabwe)
Posted by: bfr on May 24, 2007 10:22 AMYou know, you can disagree with what Vance did without being a jerk. You do know that, right?
The biggest problem with the party today is not that Chris Vance did things you dislike, it's that you and others care more about attacking fellow Republicans than you do about coming together to achieve common purpose.
I assume you are criticizing our legal team's strategy. Can you be more specific as to what you think we did wrong so we can have a reasonable discussion?
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 24, 2007 10:47 AMYou are talking about the GOP nominating process, not the general election, right? How do you feel about supporting a party and participating in a process where a state has, as you put it, no affect on the outcome of the national nominating process?
As for Dino Rossi, there is a difference between voting for and actively supporting. Rossi's conservative credentials have been questionable, and the only reason I see for voting for him would be to rebuff the alternative. That might be good for Rossi and the mainstreamers, but it is hardly a good platform to build a party around.
And finally, from my prespective, as regarding the ownership of WSRP, the Mainstreamers are WSRP. That makes me sad.
You said:
The Rs are supposed to troop over there during every election and kowtow to an old white man who either gives a thumbs up or down. Kind of sickening, if you ask me.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I am curious why the thought of seeking the council of "an old white man" is so sickening to you. Can you explain that? But putting my personal feelings aside, I am not sure what you are saying in general. Are you criticizing the Conservative Party of New York because they endorse candidates in other political parties rather than fielding candidate of their own? You compare them to local groups with fancy names who don't represent anybody. I am sorry you feel that way, but this is how democracy works. People align themselves into interest groups, and candidates seek endorsements, and more importantly, financial support. You may wish things worked differently, but that is not how things are done.
I guess I just don't get where you are coming from, swatter. Can you try again to enlighten me?
What is the common purpose that you feel links yourself, and Chris Vance, and ERNurse, and me? Electing Rossi and turning out Gregoire? Turning out Democrats whenever and however we can? Do you define our common purpose as mere opposition to Democrats?
How about we start with defining the party in terms of principles, conservative for my money, and we field candidates who abide by those principles? Where is the flaw in that thinking?
The problem is that once registrations are approved & voted....you must live with those votes. All you can do is try to ferret them out before the next election AND try to prevent any more from entering the Voter Registration Rolls.
Not an easy task, is it.
I believe the Republican Party should take 2 or 3 Highly suspicious Democratic Precidents & validate every registered Voter in that Precindt as a test sample. Set up criteria for Foot Soldiers to attempt to validate. If they cannot, put them on the "Questionable" list and challenge them like the Lori Sotelo did. It's the only way under current law. I mean if you have the Registered Voters ADDRESS, knock at the door and find out he moved out of state or never lived there....it's kind of suspicious.
Then if you cannot find a Phone Number to contact that person....even more suspicious.
It's TIME-CONSUMING & EXPENSIVE....but there are no shortcuts.
The R's need concrete evidence that there are still illegal voter registrations in the King County System.
I recall several downtown suspicious precindts where all the homeless had registered. Start there. There were also others where the votes & voters were way off.
Stefan needs some help....foot soldiers with courage to knock on a door and ask!
No shortcuts.
Some of the discussion here has been about the election contest. I compare it to the 100 yard dash where the Republicans had one leg amputated and then tripped. It was a dash because Rossi wanted (I agree) a quick decision. But that dash made it nearly impossible to form a proper defense, especially discovering info from King County.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2007 12:10 PMAnd you, on the other hand, are more interested in attacking Republicans instead of working to accomplish those goals that we all share.
I do not know much about the Conservative Party of New York, but they seem to be a nascent party slowly building a stable of state and local candidates who, by definition, cannot run from conservatism. It's in the name! It looks like when party candidates cannot be found, then candidates from other parties are endorsed. Without digging any deeper, this sounds like a good approach to me. The age and race of the party leaders does not strike me as relevant, although those might be important to some, nor does the size of the party seem all that important as long as they stick to their principles, and their numbers are growing.
Pudge has started a good conversation on principles @ 56. We'll see where that leads. I'll try to ignore his unkind words about my character and motives, and stick to principles.
Posted by: huckleberry on May 24, 2007 02:46 PMI was very much in favor of I-912, a 2005 initiative to roll back fuel tax increases by $0.065, and I-933, a 2006 initiative to require state governments to simply implement just compensation for takings guaranteed in the federal constitution. Both measures were rejected by Mainstream Republicans. I-912 lost 45% to 55%, and I-933 lost 40% to 60%. Why did the Mainstream Republicans not support these initiatives? How might the numbers have been different if they had?
The first was intended to limit government, and the second to protect property rights. What went wrong? I'm only askin'.
Posted by: huckleberry on May 24, 2007 03:06 PMWe cannot come together again until some agreed to principles are developed, and I'm not sure the MSR's have many principles beyond cranking up the economy and keeping the taxes low. I agree with those goals, but I cannot develop much affection for people who think that way. The era of the cheap date is over, and I'm lookin' for a new beau.
Now what did you mean by personal liberty? Or is that "too yesterday" too?
Posted by: huckleberry on May 24, 2007 03:47 PMI traced it through your signature web link.
I'm only askin'.
Posted by: huckleberry on May 24, 2007 03:57 PMI am not going to enumerate what personal liberties we have. I'm sure you and I agree on most, if not all, of them. If you want to go off and complain about individual liberties you think the "MSR's" don't believe in, I won't stop you: I am just saying hyperfocusing on our differences is not productive toward actually accomplishing any of the political goals you have, unless your goals are to see Democrats win.
And yes, that's me in the video. I recorded it this morning. I wrote the song last month and did a studio version, and this morning added a new verse and made the video. Do you like it?
It is difficult to craft a statement of agreed upon principles that are not readily tossed aside. That is why conservatives are so guarded against the undermining policies of libertines and progressives. Those people act on emotion without regard to likely long term consequences. That's what you called personal responsibility. And that is my point... MSR's are too willing to break bread with libertines and progressives, without regard to the likely consequences in the future.
At this point, all I can do is refuse to make nice with progressives, and wait until the rafters start falling in around our ears. If anything is left standing, hopefully enough grown up people will have re-learned the difficult lessons of the past and start voting conservative.
I will continue to vote for the more conservative of candidates, which admittedly, is still overwhelmingly Republican, but I will not pretend that there isn't a rift between me and the MSR's.
And the more people who "feel" the way I do, the harder it will be for Republicans, in general, to win. To repeat, I am wide awake, my hangover is gone, I am going home now, and I am re-thinking my fling with WSRP. I do feel cheap.
Chris, you were at the helm when the ship hit the rocks. Are you claiming not to have anything to do with the direction of the legal challenge? You were carping about the process every flippin' day on KVI. Under your and subsequent leadership, the party has continued to fall to the liberals and stiffarm conservatives. So yeah, you deserve to be the target for conservative ire. You campaigned to be the Head Dude, did you not? Take your lumps like a man.
And this "common purpose" stuff: what would that purpose be? Defeating liberalism? Not when the GOP has spent the last three years capitulating to liberals and elevating liberals to influential positions while staffarming conservatives. Is that your idea of common purpose?
And the whole "fellow Republican" tack is about as legit as a three-dollar bill. The only "fellow Republicans" the WSRP is interested are those who won't rock the boat or push conservative values. "Fellow Republicans", my lily-white arse.
I busted my butt during the 2004 election, and the GOP sold conservatives down the river. Screw the GOP. I'm going indie.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 24, 2007 05:11 PMOh wait ... do you think the video is SERIOUS? It's a JOKE. It's making FUN of people who actually call Bush "Hitler." Honestly, you really didn't get that it was a joke? Not sure how it could have been made more plain.
And ERNurse: no, that is not my idea of common purpose. That's the sort of things Republicans need to come together to STOP. It's not the "Mainstream Republicans" who are to blame for capitulations, it's YOU and ME. It's the constituents who are not keeping tabs on their representatives, calling them, demanding that they vote the way a Republican should, and then are willing to withdraw support if they don't.
It's not the GOP or the WSRP that's the problem, it's the constituents. And you leaving the GOP only means that the few Republicans in office don't have to bother answering to you anymore. So congratulations for making the problem worse!
Pudge, don't worry about people like me abandoning you. God only knows how few of us there are. But it's not you have much of a margin to deal with in the first place, is it? Oh well, maybe in 5 or 10 years we'll be dating again.
Closing thought... is McKay your kind of Republican? Is he as good as it gets in the Mainstream?
We deserve to have a better choice than that. If the WSRP expects me to get out and bang on doors for them like I did in 2004, they're going to have to do better than the goobers they dredged up for the last election. They don't have to agree with everything I believe right down the numbers in order to inspire me to vote for them. They just have to have the moral courage to stand up against liberal Democrats and hold up the values upon which the GOP was formed in the first place. I don't think that's too much to ask.
But God forbid I should challenge a WSRP leader or the liberal weenies they expect me to settle for when they cower before the beast of liberalism and I tell them to stop being a whiner and grow a pair. That's being too extreme.
I'll tell you what, Pudge: If the WSRP has the guts to promote a candidate that dares to stand up against the liberal assault on our Constitution and our foundational values, I will back that person one hundred percent, come hell or high water. You have my word on that. But as long as the party continues down the path laid down by whining, ineffectual leaders who snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and ride roughshod over the traditional conservatives, I'll take my time, money, and effort elsewhere. Furthermore, I'll take every opportunity to light the little martinets up.
Chris Vance is history. He's out like last night's five-alarm chili. If anyone is to be applauded for their work in bringing the election fraud to light and keeping the fire burning, Stefan is the guy. But not Chris Vance.
And Chris: in case you haven't guessed, you aren't the only person who has not gotten over the 2004 Great Rape of the Democratic Process. But I hold you in part responsible for the outcome because you did not press through.
Regarding the topic, I want to see the WSRP distancing themselves from that negligent, lazy SOB McKay. And you mark my words, sir: the moment that the WSRP embraces McKay, the GOP in this state is officially dead, dead, DEAD.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 24, 2007 06:41 PMAll of us could have done, and could be doing, more.
Posted by: pudge on May 24, 2007 07:06 PMHopefully most people will understand your humor better than I. But it is certainly no big deal whether I understand you or not. Don't you agree?
It will be nice if we can get back to discussing principles. And even further, what I liked about the web page of the Conservative Party of New York was that they were very specific about what their legislative priorities were. For example, on abortion, there was some slight wiggle room, but clearly, they were out gunning for abortion. They left just enough of a toehold for those conservatives who, like Guiliani, claim to not personally like abortion, but do not feel any particular calling to do anything about it. A very small toehold. Now that's conservatism!
Conservative candidates can and do win elections. Supporter are not looking for paybacks from the taxpayers. They are expecting conservative thinking and commonsense for the people they send to office. They will continue to win elections if they don't betray their base of supporters.
There in lays the tale.
Worst case of suicide I have ever seen.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 24, 2007 10:33 PMI'm glad you've done work in the past, but it's not getting anything done now.
Is there something SPECIFIC you think we did wrong during the election contest?
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 25, 2007 09:42 AMStill, my animosity towards the party was not really kindled until 2005, when the Republicans that we worked so hard for (even when threatened with violence by Democrats) promptly abandoned their promises and set about capitulating to the Democrat minority on every major issue. Then, rather than explaining themselves, they distanced themselves from their constituents and began accusing voters who dared challenge them of being "extremist," or "radical religious right wing."
How dare we expect the people we got elected to be accountable for the promises they broke! What unmitigated gall we have! The GOP and WSRP are responsible for the marginalization of traditional conservatives. It happened under the leadership of liberal Republicans, among whom I include you, Mr. Vance.
Conservatives WANT to be involved. The party leadership does not want us to be involved. We're angry because the party has locked us out.
The truth is that the WSRP is not at all interested in "coming together" for a common purpose. What they really want is for conservatives to shut up and sit in back. This has been plainly demonstrated in the consistent dismissal of conservatives by Party leaders as fringe extemist whackos. Conservatives are shouted down, dismissed as lunatics and dinosaurs, and accused of being religious nuts by the moderates who have taken over the Party at all levels.
Republicans were warned about the potential outcome of ignoring their base. They were warned about the price they would pay for refusing to be held accountable. They ignored us. We threefore carried out our promise to throw them out and we chose to be more skeptical of the nominees.
The GOP did not lose because the American people want liberalsm. The GOP lost because the American people were taken for a ride in 2004, and we saw no reason to expect any differently in 2006.
Americans are not stupid, Mr. Vance. We have a longer memory than you think, and we won't put up with being ignored by the people we work hard to elect.
The changes in party leadership after the debacle of 2006 have proven that the GOP has learned nothing, but instead chooses to continue down the path that got them tossed out of majority in the first place- while continuing to marginalize conservatives and doctor the process in their favor to the detriment of conservatives.
Now you tell me, Mr. Vance: why the hell should I waste my time, money and effort on the GOP?
Posted by: ERNurse on May 25, 2007 04:56 PMI don't disagree that many Republican electeds have let us down, especially at the federal level. But that is not the PARTY letting you down, it's the electeds letting you down, and the only solution to that problem is to become more active in the party to get better elected representation.
And especially when you blame the WSRP for any of this, it boggles my mind. What role does the WSRP have in giving us the leadership we have in DC? We have pretty good conservative leadership in the state legislature, though it could be better. But what do you expect the WSRP to do about DC?
Saying the "moderates" control the Party at all levels makes no sense to me. Snohomish County's party is very conservative, though welcoming of moderates/mainstreamers. And we aren't treated poorly by the WSRP (and indeed, the WSRP just voted to give Snohomish County more representation at the state level: doesn't sound like oppression of conservatives to me).
Bottom line, as I've already said: you should spend your time and money and effort on the GOP if you want to a. fix the problems you see in the GOP and b. accomplish any of your political goals, which won't be accomplished by Democrats, and won't be accomplished by the GOP if conservatives like you abandon the party.
I won't consider running for public office because I firmly believe that I am doing the most good where I am at. I am not a politician. I am not tactful enough to be a politician. I would never survive in the Capitol- either Capitol- because withing the first week I'd be censured for telling either Christine Gregoire or Nancy Peloci to go stuff themselves with a crowbar.
Your argument makes sense. But I am in no position to seek public office at any level. I have other projects going right now at policy level that preclude any thought of being a politician because of possible conflict of interest. And I believe that for now, what I am doing is more pressing because it will do more good for the community than I could ever do as a mere politician.
And as I said before: if a candidate comes around that has substance and character, I'll back him with all my might. I don't see one yet. Let me know when one shows up.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 26, 2007 08:10 AMAnd still, even without being a PCO, you could go to caucus and be a delegate to the conventions.
We did contest the found ballots. The felon votes were one of many aspects to our case, it just happened to be the one that received the most attention.
All I will say about the moderate v. conservative struggle is this: both sides vehemently believe the other is winning and is now in firm control of the Party. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Chris Vance on May 26, 2007 09:22 AMMy father-in-law was very involved in KC politics during the 60-80's and told the same stories. He finally moved to Arizona.
People have long memories. Republican "leadership" disowned its own for the promised bigger tent. The contract with America was a conservative statement that drew wide national support which overwhelmed the Democrats. Why, oh why didn't Republicans follow through.
Check out the current Republican canadidates. The front runners are not close to being consrvatives. The Arizonia Senator more than once introduced bills that ultimately provide ammunition to cripple consrvatives. Ask Kirby and John about their last go around that ended up in the Surpreme Court. Now you expect me to support a party endorsing candidates that proactively step on free speach. I think not.
Locally, Snohomish County, Republicans once had a vibrant party capable of winning offices. That was till office holders started to support the outlandish schemes of the Democrats. I watched in Everett first hand the deciding vote cast by Mr. Republican in support of Sound Transit . If he voted NO Sound Transit may not have been the boondoggle it is today. 1 Vote, His Vote made the difference. The really sad part is that he doesn't shruggs his shoulders and moves on. I will not ever shake his hand again.
You see Pudge, when one spends hundreds of hours of their time and thousand of dollars in supporting a party and candidates; one expects the candidates to at least excercise common sense and some conservative values and not be the Republican the Democrats referred to as "bi-partisian" like Dave who supported the 9 cent gas tax thus providing cover for the Democrats.
It is a cultural battle in this country between Conservatives and Liberals. There is little common ground between the two.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 26, 2007 09:32 AMMy father-in-law was very involved in KC politics during the 60-80's and told the same stories. He finally moved to Arizona.
People have long memories. Republican "leadership" disowned its own for the promised bigger tent. The contract with America was a conservative statement that drew wide national support which overwhelmed the Democrats. Why, oh why didn't Republicans follow through.
Check out the current Republican canadidates. The front runners are not close to being consrvatives. The Arizonia Senator more than once introduced bills that ultimately provide ammunition to cripple consrvatives. Ask Kirby and John about their last go around that ended up in the Surpreme Court. Now you expect me to support a party endorsing candidates that proactively step on free speach. I think not.
Locally, Snohomish County, Republicans once had a vibrant party capable of winning offices. That was till office holders started to support the outlandish schemes of the Democrats. I watched in Everett first hand the deciding vote cast by Mr. Republican in support of Sound Transit . If he voted NO Sound Transit may not have been the boondoggle it is today. 1 Vote, His Vote made the difference. The really sad part is that he doesn't shruggs his shoulders and moves on. I will not ever shake his hand again.
You see Pudge, when one spends hundreds of hours of their time and thousand of dollars in supporting a party and candidates; one expects the candidates to at least excercise common sense and some conservative values and not be the Republican the Democrats referred to as "bi-partisian" like Dave who supported the 9 cent gas tax thus providing cover for the Democrats.
It is a cultural battle in this country between Conservatives and Liberals. There is little common ground between the two.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 26, 2007 09:54 AMYesterday was yesterday. You can wallow in self-pity or try to make tomorrow better than today.
Pudge: My family is a big consideration because 1) I work night shift; and 2) I am working on an important project involving disaster and mass casualty response policy, which takes up still more of my time. Another iron in the fire of politics just would not work, and would conflict with the project AND my family. as far as being a member of the caucus, I'll consider it.
As far as wallowing in self-pity is concerned, I'm not doing that at all. Ultimately, when conservative abandon the DOP one of 2 things will happen: either the GOP will die or it will be absorbed into the DNC- which it has already all but done, given the actions of Republican politicians. Either way, Conservatives will continue to be the people who stand in the way of liberalism and vote their consciences instead of voting down a straight party line.
I've been spat on enough by the GOP. My tomorrow is always brighter. And I am not feeling sorry for myself because I am still free to vote for whoever I please. The troubles the GOP has have been brought on by the people who have taken it over and not by people like me. The Party will be better only after they abandon the liberalism that has poisoned it. Until that happens, I will not support it. Maybe going bankrupt will convince the party leadership that they have lost their way.
Posted by: ERNurse on May 27, 2007 08:54 AMWhat's true is that the party is controlled by the people who show up, and that they exert little control over the elected officials.
Is that fair?
/ERN clear
Posted by: ERNurse on May 28, 2007 08:28 AMI was just listening to someone talk about Michael Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate. If the GOP were as "liberal" as you seem to think, why would that make any sense? There's clearly a struggle right now in the GOP, but from where I sit, the conservatives are doing most of the winning of that struggle, while still trying to maintain a big tent, and I think that's a great thing, and I want all the help I can get from anyone who wants to help the GOP win some elections.