Democrat Fred Walser's campaign against Senator Val Stevens in the 39th LD has been filled with lies. But the latest lie, told on his behalf from his campaign's largest direct contributor, the Senate Democrats, is perhaps the worst yet.
In a mail piece, the Senate Democrats falsely accuse Val Stevens of "condoning or excusing domestic violence" and "blaming the victim" of domestic violence. But it's a lie: they rely on an out of context comment about something completely different.
Stevens said that women, in a random telephone survey, can "have PMS" which results in them saying they were the victim of domestic abuse, even if it never actually happened. The Senate Democrats claim she was saying that women can "have PMS" which results in them being abused.
As usual, we have all the evidence, including the complete comments in context, and scans of the mailer.
Raise your hand if you're surprised the Senate Democrats are lying on behalf of Fred Walser, a convicted liar. Yeah, me neither.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 20, 2008 11:08 PM | Email ThisHer evidence for this remarkable observation is her own personal life?
Her opponents didn't need to do anything but quote her accurately on this remark.
Posted by: BA on September 21, 2008 07:24 AMSo you concede your fellow Democrats are vile liars?
[big assumption on your part that I'm a democrat].
I am amazed at times what comes out of politician's mouths - this one of Stevens is absurd.
Posted by: BA on September 21, 2008 08:08 AMI never said "all." I meant these Democrats in particular.
I am amazed at times what comes out of politician's mouths - this one of Stevens is absurd.
Yes, so perhaps you could tell your fellow Democrats to stop saying such absurd things of Stevens.
You wrote "Stevens said that women, in a random telephone survey, can "have PMS" which results in them saying they were the victim of domestic abuse, even if it never actually happened."
Then you suggest in your last post that it was democrats that made this quote up. Did they? Did you?
Or, do you just want to be obtuse this morning.
Posted by: BA on September 21, 2008 09:11 AMNo, of course not.
Then you suggest in your last post that it was democrats that made this quote up.
No, I suggested no such thing. I stated that the Democrats clearly lied when they accused Stevens of "blaming the victim" and "exusing or condoning domestic violence."
And then you appeared to agree that they lied about Stevens, when you said "this [lie] of Stevens is absurd."
Are you now saying they did NOT lie about Stevens? Did they lie, or did they not lie, about Stevens?
I watched the video and no, Stevens didn't say victims of domestic violence were to blame, not did she excuse domestic violence.
She only said that if you ask a woman a question only once in time, you run the risk that the answer is a lie because women get pms, give false answers and can become "out of control".
As I said the first time, just quoting her accurately would have been sufficient for an opponent - no need to miss-characterize her statements as the mailing does.
I wonder if our new Vice-Presidential candidate shares Stevens' view on PMS and its effect on women? Somehow I'd bet not.
Posted by: BA on September 21, 2008 09:47 AMPudge, see the trick about understanding what people say or write is when you quote them back and add a [word] to their text so that you can justify your confusion you're probably on the wrong track.
Um. You used the pronoun "it." Nothing in the direct context implied specifically what "it" meant, so I assumed you were talking about the TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION, which is the lie told of Senator Stevens.
If that is not what you meant, then you should have been more clear. I have nothing to apologize for there.
I watched the video and no, Stevens didn't say victims of domestic violence were to blame, not did she excuse domestic violence.
Then you admit the Democrats are lying. Thank you.
Oh, and I meant to add to the last post, you often seem to me to be defending Democrats and attacking Republicans. It could simply be my false impression that stuck with me due to something you said, and at the very least, you're probably right to say that I had no serious justification for saying it.
Besides, given the extraordinary turn of events this week where our government is purchasing vast interests in private companies who's to know what party represents their convictions now anyway?
I mostly find interesting topics where pure partisanship is trumping the truth, or thoughtful discourse, or where the comments are jumping to opinions about some topic in advance of anyone actually reading the piece they're commenting on.
For example I'm waiting for the AG's filing of lawsuits against the Master Builders and a subsidiary of the BIAW to become a topic here - seems ripe for discussion - but maybe silence about this on this blog about this is what we should expect?
As for this race in Snohomish County, where I don't vote, I don't really care - an extraordinarily weak democratic candidate running against an oddball republican - there must be better choices from both parties for representation - what happened?
Posted by: BA on September 21, 2008 12:03 PMI've never posted much about the builders. I don't really care. They had bad ads that hurt John Groen, my favored candidate for Supreme Court. They don't represent me, and I have more important things to care about. I will say that the uproar from the left is terribly weak, since the Democratic Party and its candidates have done worse in recent years, assuming the builders actually did anything wrong.
If I were to post about it, I'd make both that point, and the point that many on the left are lying and blaming Dino Rossi for the builders' apparent misdeeds, just like they tried to blame Groen for the bad ads of the builders.
Val Stevens is a fantastic Senator. I can't imagine a significantly better choice for representing our District. And Fred Stevens is beyond weak, he is a dishonest criminal, and the Democrats are propping up his campaign, which all Democrats in this state should be ashamed of.
I couldn't believe that a republican could buy such a loaded pile of crap from the most anti-family lobby in existence.
Hey Val- your chickens are coming home to roost. You've made many a divorce attorney get rich for yet another year and this is your reward.
Posted by: Andy on September 21, 2008 01:11 PMa. Val Stevens has never, ever, asserted or accepted that any father who fights for custody of his child is a wife beater. Period. And you know it.
b. Even if she had, which she absolutely did not, it would not justify these disgusting lies against her. But since you are telling a lie about Senator Stevens, too, I guess it should come as no surprise that you are justifying lies about her.
But I do know you are attributing to Stevens views she has never held, and there's no excuse for that.
I was dumbfounded too that we were sold out by a Republican. My posse spends weeks and months pounding on doors in Olympia and have great reception by a lot of Senators and Reps on both sides of the aisle. It was another senator that gave us the back channel scoop of why the bill was going to die (again).
Since then, Val won't take meetings on the subject.
The bill is needed and hated by the women's lobby AND by divorce attorney's. Over the years- there has been so many damned concessions to the women's lobby on the bill that nationwide our version of Shared Parenting is considered toothless by our peers in other states.
I invite anyone from Val's staff to prove me wrong on this assertion as we desperately want the bill to get a vote in the Senate and the house where we are fairly certain there are enough votes to pass it.
Val's assistant's response when I said she would get lots of phone calls in the coming months
"Are you threatening us?"
Come on Val- If you're not going to stand up for family and you're going to stonewall your constituents and cut deals with femi nazi's- what the hell are you good for?
Val's on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. This is the thanks the other side of the fence is giving her.
You who were not in Olympia to witness how the hearings for this bill unfolded, were not with us to know who takes meetings on it and who won't, were not in the communication channels on what support was there and what support was not, were not there to see who from the divorce industry (which includes the DV lobby smearing Val now) lined up to oppose this bill assert to know Val's dealings and feelings on this subject- but I who was there am putting words in Val's mouth?
Yes- the assertion that fathers who fight for custody of their kids are wife beaters sounds insane and it absolutely is...but that's the crowd that rules in Olympia and that's the crowd Val got in bed with and that's the crowd going after her now.
Be VERY afraid of the DV lobby- these are the harpes that got 11 positions in L&I this last session to go around and fine businesses for not giving time off for DV issues.
Yes, you are doing precisely that.
Val Stevens has stated publicly that she supports shared parenting, and would support the bill. However, the roll call for the vote in 2007 shows that she voted against it. See http://washingtonsharedparenting.com/?p=286 for the roll call.
When Val Stevens was asked about her voting no, she was embarassed by a local member of a large Union. Seems she supports the unions, and this Union worker had her committment that she would support shared parenting. She was embarassed that there was an official roll call, as she thought there wasn't, and thought she had gotten away with one.
I have no opinion on Val Stevens, and I'm only speaking from seeing the roll call, and what a member of a local union said after speaking to her about not support the bill.
Andy is right, radical feminist state to the legislature each year that only abusive fathers want shared parenting. Val Stevens should know better - the bill has language specically written to protect children of families with abuse.
What excuse is there now for voting no on this important legislation. We need to change the bias - 93% of dads divorced deserve more than 4 days a month.
Before you vote for Val, or anyone else, ensure they will truly vote yes for Shared Parenting.
Posted by: Joel Johnston on September 21, 2008 06:05 PMI have no idea about this bill. It is not on my radar. Regardless, Val Stevens never did, and never would, believe that "any father who fights for custody of his child is a wife beater." Whatever her vote, that was a false accusation by Andy, period.
Posted by: pudge on September 21, 2008 07:43 PMHowever, since you bring it up again - The shared parenting bill has been butchered by the DV queens for 11 years now. There testimony is what Andy has stated - it is in the official record.
I can't vouch for what Val Stevens has said about the bill - but her record of voting against it makes it's own statement - she opposed shared parenting. She effectively opposes fathers having equal shared parenting of their children after divorce - men do not become monsters after divorce - any more than women do.
As a divorced man, I would have to recommend that all men not vote for her, unless and until she comes out with some strong language to support a fathers right to equal access to his children, and unless and until she shows that she supports strong family values and a change in the bias of the courts.
Val - Standup and show your support for family - instead of the DV Queens that profit from Family Abuse.
Posted by: Joel Johnston on September 21, 2008 08:29 PMAs Joel points out- she submarined TWICE in one session.
So two options for Val- neither are flattering.
1- She doesn't believe kids deserve access to 2 parents.
2- She believes dads (and some moms) who get wiped out in court w/out any proof of abuse or neglect really are abusive.
Pudge- you know who else comes out against this bill every year? JUDGE CHRIS WICKHAM or other Thurston county court surrogates of the court. You remember ol' Chrissy- he ruled talk radio had to register all of their time talking about the gas tax was a campaign contribution- later overturned 9-0 by the State Supreme Court.
Down here in Thurston Chrissy and many others in the court (Mrs Nick Handy aka Paula Casey for example) rule on custody battles and divorce arguments w/out even hearing arguments.
I invite Val to set the record straight with actions instead of stonewall. Bet your ass she takes meetings with DV lobby.
Since when did a woman have to have some physical affliction to spout a lie?
That was just one example Val gave. Of course, as any social scientist will be able to tell you, people do lie in surveys for any number of reasons.
Unless they are accusing a man of abuse, then they never lie? Oh wait, they are lying if they tell the truth later and say the abuse didn't happen. So women can only lie to protect a man? This is the DV lobby's mentality. I don't think Val Stevens should be replaced by Walser. I think he is worse than her when it comes to believing that stuff. People really need to open their eyes about Biden's VAWA funded feminist misinformation campaign.
Posted by: shaydo on September 22, 2008 04:17 PMUnless they are accusing a man of abuse, then they never lie?
No one I know of is saying that. Not me, and not Val.
Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2008 08:32 PMMost people are naive to what the DV lobby has implanted into the legislators, prosecutors and judges minds. You and most folks who have never seen it naturally believe that kind of stuff could not be happening in our supposed unbiased courts and hallowed halls. I hate to break it to you but it is and based on Val's past history with the shared parenting issue she has been accepting what they say without actually thinking it through. Don't feel bad, she's not the only one. Once again I think Val is a better choice than Walser. That does not mean she is right on every issue and surely you can't be saying she is.
Posted by: shaydo on September 23, 2008 09:03 AMMost people are naive to what the DV lobby has implanted into the legislators ...
I am not disagreeing with anything that you or anyone else said about this issue, except for the false attribution of certain views to Senator Stevens.
If you say she signed off on a bad bill, fine, I don't know. Maybe she did. I have no knowledge of the bill in question. But if you say she thinks "unless they are accusing a man of abuse, women never lie," or as Andy did, that "any father who fights for custody of his child is a wife beater," then I will say you are wrong, because, in fact, you are.
Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2008 09:13 AMI actually said, "Unless they are accusing a man of abuse, then they never lie?"
Yes, that is what I said you said. And no, Val Stevens does not believe any such thing.
I don't know what Val thinks exactly and I'm not sure how you do
I don't know what she thinks exactly. I know she thinks nothing close to that statement, or the one Andy made, because I know Val.
Here's your proof.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Posted by: WADVPress on September 23, 2008 10:38 AMHere's your proof.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Posted by: WADVPress on September 23, 2008 10:38 AM