June 05, 2008
What I Said About Sam Reed's Race
Perhaps you've had a chance to check out the Politicker WA news site, which as you might guess, is heavy on Washington state political news...and a handy resource at that.
At the site is an anonymous opiner named "Wally Edge." His/her writing strikes me as that of a decidedly left-of-center soul who sometimes comments forcefully with a regretably insufficient understanding of relevant facts. That being said, there is only so much time in the day so I haven't responded to that.
Now, however, Wally has put words in my mouth that must be corrected.
First, Democratic Secretary of State candidate Jason Osgood has not "earned the endorsement of right-wing bloggers" anywhere because I, one contributor at a group blog, said "count this voter as one interested in hearing what Osgood has to say." Construing that statement as an endorsement defies logical thinking.
Second, at the risk of speaking for Osgood, who I don't know and who I presume can speak for himself, he's not a "so-called democrat" as Edge describes. One does not have a gig at Washblog, a notable liberal presence in the local blogosphere, by having weak partisan leanings.
The entire reason that David Postman spoke to Osgood's bi-partisan, election integrity credentials was that Osgood has actually earned them. His reputation from election watchdogs on both sides of the aisle is known to be strong.
Finally, this question of GOP concern with Sam Reed isn't some conjuring of conspiratorial Republican grievances. Regardless of what one thinks actually happened with the 2004 Governor's race, the King County Elections office made repeated and serious errors in election administration. The King County Election Commission was not formed just for kicks - nor was the King County Citizens' Elections Oversight Committee.
King County has had some substantial problems with handling elections, as indicated by the fact mail-only balloting has yet to be implemented. Osgood has been at the forefront of scrutinizing that process, in the public interest. That doesn't meaning he's "running to the right" of Reed. It means he's likely to run on the same election integrity issues on which he earned that bi-partisan reputation. As such, he has the makings of a credible candidate though will have to prove himself on the trail.
Who knows, maybe after all this I'll end up voting for Sam Reed. Yet, it is more than fair to note that many Republicans were aggrieved by Reed's multiple, public defenses of King County's conduct that proved to be misplaced and had to be corrected as more evidence of error trickled out in to the public realm. That's why Osgood may well earn some Republican votes.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 05, 2008
08:01 PM | Email This
1. I will not be voting for Sam Reed. I don't think he even understands why clean elections are necessary; he certainly doesn't care. The man is far more interested in defending his fellow members of the governing class than he is in doing his job. He is simply not competent.
The fact that Osgood opposes all-mail elections is a good thing, and I wouldn't rule out voting for him (possibly the first time that I would have voted for any Democrat). If he'd come out for a statewide return to poll voting with no permanent absentee status, I'd definitely vote for him.
2. Nope.
Since Reed went thought that around-the-state dog and pony show shortly after 04 election, and then refused to implement the reforms the people demanded; namely, he failed to act to require proof of citizenship to register to vote; he failed to require proof of identity TO vote, and he's been a whiney, sniveling punk over how hard it is to screen the rolls for convicted felons... he's disqualified himself from holding the office.
I am ashamed I ever voted for him... and he's further reason I've ceased being a Republican and have, instead, become fully independent.
I never in my life thought I would ever say or believe that... but there it is.
3. The 2004 race left the winner up a tree. The corruption was visible in every dark crevice where votes were discovered, in every mail drop where the little people lived, in prisons, nursing homes, graveyards and the voters created by ACORN as previously organized by OBamarama. And Sam Reed and company defended this corruption and sleaze emanating from King County. Integrity and honesty were not known nor wanted. Let's not mince words. The errors that "trickled" out were more than enough to defeat the winner. Many hundreds of questionable votes decided the election. Proving yet again, it is not the votes that count. It is the counters that matter, comrade.
4. Sam Reed is a poster child that should illustrate for one and all who are conservative why the WSRP is has now jumped the shark and gone from being irrelevant to being a MENACE.
5. You all need to pull your heads out of your rears and read a little thing I like to call the Washington State Constitution and RCWs. I think you'll find that Sam Reed did all he could (and BTW, did quite a bit). Could he have been a bit louder? Yes. Could he have refused to certify the results from King County? No. He was legally required to certify those results. It's time to get over yourselves. If Dino Rossi, who has more reason than anyone to be bitter about '04, is endorsing Sam Reed, then you need to let the past go as well.
That's not to say Osgood isn't worthwhile. He seems like a pretty sensible Democrat. However, I suspect that much of who he's going to say is pretty much along the lines of what Sam is already saying and any stones he might be throwing are unwarrented because, again, Sam is bound by Washington State law to execute certain duties, whether he likes them or not. This is similar to certian legal battles Rob McKenna has had to fight contrary to what he and the Republican party believes in, simply because he is the state's head attorney.
6. Not like it's hard to run to the right of Reed. If he is what you say, I expect he'll get a few Republican votes, too.
7. OH BS WFP. If what you say is true, Sam Reed could have said "I gotta do this, but I also know there is corruption." He never said that.
You get over yourself WFP. We are free thinking people, not a bunch of sheep that look for the "R". Sam Reeed was a disgrace to justice.
Throw out the bum!
8. I second calling BS on WFP. "Could he have refused to certify the results from King County? No. He was legally required to certify those results." Since the king county numbers were far from reconciled, he was legally required to NOT certify the king county results per the RCWs and the constitution, and require a full and accurate reconciliation by king county as required. That did not happen. All I ask is that the RCWs and constitution be followed, which did not occur. He has lost the vote of this usually republican voter.
9. I do not endorse Josh Osgood, I am just voting for whomever is running against Sam Reed. It is high time for Reed to get a real job and quit living off the taxpayers from the state of which he does not uphold their laws. He is a complete wimp and I cannot think of a single thing he has accomplished in 8 years, which puts him in the same company as Gregiore.
10. Ditto to #9. Sam Reed's opponent has my vote - Reed lacks the integrity necessary to perform this job.
11. Sam Reed is the best example of integrity you could hope to find. Integrity is not "doing what the party wants you to do." It's "doing what the law requires." He's won awards, repeatedly, for the efficiency and efficacy of his dept. Difficulties in King County Election Dept are not his direct responsibility, but his office did make numerous recommendations for improvements. Had those recommendations been followed, King County would have had fewer problems.
Since 2004, with the state wide data base finally interactive and available, Reed's office has removed thousands of improper voters from the rolls. He could not have done this effectively any time sooner, as the access to data bases did not exist.
Party loyalists need to get past their anger over Rossi's loss, something Reed could not have prevented, and realize that Reed is fulfilling the obligations of the office as well as anyone could expect. I agree with one of the earlier statements, if Rossi has endorsed Reed, party loyalists need to do the same thing. I, for one, have never lost faith in Reed.
12. Sam Reed being referred to as "the best example of integrity" is at best laughable, to give a no-bid sole source 1.5 mil contract to VoteHere whose chairman of the board at the time was his former boss Ralph Monroe screams of a serious lack in integrity, let alone the precedent he would set be single handedly doing away with the secret ballot by implementing such a system. In my opinion he should be under investigation for fraud.
AR
13. Ok - Ralph "Monroe" is Munro and Sam never worked for him. Second - you need to get your info right - as with other issues surrounding the Govs race. What was Sam supposed to do - not certify the race - even though he does not legally certify the race in the first place - or maybe he was supposed to make up laws - even though Republicans get tired of judges and politicians who do this. Lastly, AR and Mr. Osgood - I know this for a fact - run in the open - and get your facts straight. Do away with vote by mail - in this state - be real! That is going to win you a lot of support in a place that before it became mandatory in some counties - voted 75-85% by mail - by choice. Also - your hatred of the top two and love for the pick-a-party will also not win you a lot of converts - as a matter of fact - you may not even make it to the top two if you keep this up. So run a good race - talk about concerns and the facts - don't tear Sam Reed down to build yourself up and be an example to others as opposed to a sounding box to the insider few.