This is one of those developments that just makes you want to leave a place and never come back. I'm so glad I don't live in Washington State.

I've been following this trial closely for months now, checking on the SoundPolitics site daily for updates. The trial was a slam-dunk for the Repubs. They had all the evidence on their side, as well as the statutes. The judge was openly amazed at the idiocy and lunacy of the Democratic attorneys and "expert" witnesses. Democratic witnesses openly admitted in court to falsifying vote reconciliation documents, improperly handling votes and to NOT EVEN KNOWING HOW MANY VOTES THERE WERE!

The judge clearly didn't have the balls to make the correct ruling. His findings of facts acknowledged that there were almost 2000 illegal votes, and legal requirements for tabulating and documenting vote totals were completely disregarded.

What a pathetic cesspool of incompetence and fraud.

The Washington electorate was repeatedly polled since the election, and a strong majority consistently believed the Republican candidate won. However, because the legislature and the courts are so liberal and stacked with Democrats, it was obvious that the Repubs had a near-impossible task.

It really makes me wonder about the Bush administration's interest in stopping vote fraud. Wisconsin was openly stolen by the Dems in both 2000 and 2004, and the Justice Dept. is doing nothing. Washington has now been shown to be hopelessly corrupt, and the Justice Dept. has done nothing there as well.

Welcome, Senator Rossi.

Wow. A judge agreeing with a Democratic lawyer. What are the odds of that."

I dunno, why don't you ask the lawyers that argued for the recounts in Florida 2000?

Oops, probably don't want to bring that up.

Keep working #14.)  Fraudulent Elections

"The burden of proof is not met," said Bridges, who dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.

It's over. At least until the sore-loser Republicans appeal.

Or is it only dems that are sore losers?

Obviously, someone didn't bother reading the article. Rossi said he won't appeal.

So, yeah, only Dems are sore losers.

It's interesting, though, that the judge issued a finding of fact that 1,678 votes were illegal, in a race that was decided by 129 votes. Yet, he couldn't find a reason to order a re-vote.

In fact, the judge went as far as to ORDER that the 1,678 votes be stripped from the official vote total. Except, how the fuck are they going to strip them, if they don't know WHO to strip them from????

Only a blue state could come up with a clusterfuck of that proportion.

Only a blue state could come up with a clusterfuck of that proportion.

Yeah, sure ... republicans NEVER clusterfuck anything.

Except for the environment.

And Iraq.

Our international standing.

Nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

The seperation of church & state.

Terri Schiavo.

Doing away with house ethics rules.

Military preparedness.

I'm getting tired of typing.

"Protect their own."?

The Republicans brought this suit. They picked the venue. Not King County (of course). Not Pierce, nor Snohomish, nor Island. No, they picked Red-as-Kansas Chelan county. Fine. You still lost.

Get over it. Right? Isn't that what you are supposed to to? I learned that from you guys so maybe I have the derivation wrong.

Quill. Yawn. Your talking points are tired.

Oh, and as for "good sport" Rossi,

Rossi said he isn't appealing the decision because of the "political makeup of the Washington State Supreme Court." Not because he is a good sport.

Said another way: "If I had a chance in hell of winning you'd better believe I'd be appealing. Unfortunately since I lost in Chelan County, I haven't a prayer in Olympia."

What a baby. If he's got the goods, it doesn't matter who's on the court. You either have the law on your side or you don't. He doesn't.

Well, let's see. The Repubs won't appeal the verdict, and they won't file any complaints with the Feds.

And, of course, no Democrat election challenge of Bush's 2000 and 2004 wins ever actually uncovered any illegal votes.

Three significant differences.

Thune got the last laugh the last time the Dems pulled a stunt like this. Hopefully, Rossi will run for a Senate seat. We'll see.

Cripes, Ace...did you piss off someone at Democratic Underground? What's with all the trolls?

Except for the environment.

Uh-huh

And Iraq.

Please, go on

Our international standing.

Because we should always try harder to impress people like this.

Nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

Note who is helping Iran get nukes.

The seperation of church & state.

Good thing Democrats wouldn't, say, hold a political rally at a church.

Terri Schiavo.

Yeah, trying to keep people alive is just such a charlie foxtrot on the part of the Republicans.

Doing away with house ethics rules.

Democrats never break the rules.

Military preparedness.

Huh?

Qill's post just needs a response.

"Only a blue state could come up with a clusterfuck of that proportion.

Yeah, sure ... republicans NEVER clusterfuck anything."

We were discussing vote fraud. All of the recent cases seem to a) happen in Democraticly controlled districts, and b) end up favoring democrats, and c) get ensconsed by liberal judges. If you've got an example we're waiting. And don't bother trying to bring up Florida 2000, cause that was another attempt where the Dems tried to steal a state through counting tricks and failed. All the SCOTUS did was reafirm the Rep's claim that they couldn't change the counting rules after the vote because they didn't like the result. Live with it.

"Except for the environment." Got any examples? I live in the West where our forests have been burned out in record levels because of the Clinton/Gore forestry policies.

"And Iraq."
Do you have an actual point, or did you think you were on the democratic underground? In case you haven't heard, Iraq was the most successful land war campaign in history, the Iraqi people have regained democracy for the first time in decades, and people in other fascist states are marching with Bush's picture asking for us to free them too. But, if you do have an actual point, I'm all ears. Just don't expect any informed conservative to buy anything you use from the MSM to support your argument.

"Our international standing."

Ummm. In case you missed it, all of the nations that we allegedly snubbed over the Iraq issue a) signed the resolutions requiring action, and b) were illegally supporting Hussein with the knowledge and cooperation of the UN. And now they are paying for it with their own electorates. Good riddance too. The sooner "nuanced" means something other than "on the take" the better for everyone.

"Nuclear non-proliferation treaties."

Ummmm. Once again you seem to forget that your boy was the one who gave away the farm with North Korea and lost decades of hard won diplomacy. Kind of reminds one of the Carter years when we threw Israel under the bus and got Sadat assassinated for going along. Yeah, that was some serious diplomacy there.

"The seperation of church & state."

Is a liberal myth. If you find it in the Constitution, I'll eat this post.

"Terri Schiavo."

On what planet do Republicans have anything to do with Terri Schiavo? Unless you think they should have thrown out the seperation of powers for the sake of a fluke case? Face it, the MSM pushed this story nation-wide because it got people worked up. I didn't see the dems offering to do anything constructive that would have helped Terri.

"Doing away with house ethics rules."

I have to agree with you here. I certainly preferred the ethics of the Clinton administration. Especially the part where I got to explain to my 8 year old daughter what oral sex was. That was special.

"Military preparedness."

Are you sure you want to go here? Kerry personally voted against every weapon system the military requested. The dems have gutted our national security, and your fellow travelers at the NYT have outted the covert transportation companies that attempt to secure the very military preparedness you claim the Rep's have compromised. You're more than welcome to move to Canada you know, where the entire military budget is less than the cost of one super carrier. Oh, I forgot. They don't want you. Sorry.

"I'm getting tired of typing."

Sore wrists?

Now, on to a relevant point to Ace's post...

The truely amazing thing is that Rossi won the vote, he won the recount, and if the Democratic National Party and Kerry had not ponied up the money for a hand count, they wouldn't have been able to steal it in the first place. So 1600 new votes turn up in the most Democratic county in Washington and are ruled to be illegal, but the judge can't figure out how the new votes altered the outcome? My 10 year old could see this one from a mile away. The only possible explainations are that either the judge is just incredibly stupid, or he willfully ignored the obvious truth in his findings of fact and gave the election to Gregiore despite the evidence.

Presumably Quill has forgotten that prior to 1995 there was no such thing as "House ethics."

Ace,

I have never seen so many trolls come out to play at the same time. You must be doing something right.
All I have to say to the trolls is this. The Dems are fighting hard against requiring photo I.D.'s to vote. Enough said!

Ace didn't do anything right. Unless you count getting on the Daou Report doing something right.

http://daoureport.salon.com/default.aspx

Don't worry. We shall all move along tomorrow.

Hey, I thought you guys were the ones who were against the activist judges. If he had decided the election was invalid, that would have been activism of the most blatant sort, since the law requires an extraordinarily high burden of proof to overturn an election. But I guess they're only activist when they make decisions you don't like.

Wow, forget about the crazy blog money--you got mentioned on Salon! It's just too bad that all your awesome, intellectual new readers "shall all move along tomorrow."

But, still...Salon!!! Just, wow!

"If he had decided the election was invalid, that would have been activism of the most blatant sort, since the law requires an extraordinarily high burden of proof to overturn an election."

Total BS.

"Extraordinarily high burden of proof"? Republicans met that here, in spades. Confirming 12 illegal votes for every vote in the margin of victory certainly qualifies. But dismissing assigning the beneficiary of illegal votes according to the proportion in the community - a system that has been repeatedly used in both national and local elections all over the country - as "scientifically unsound" was the most crass judicial activism you can get. And demanding that Republicans prove not just that there were illegal votes, but that those votes actually went to Gregoire, isn't merely an "extraordinarily high" burden of proof, it's "absolutely, utterly, totally freaking -impossible-" burden of proof.

Oh - one last thing. That proportional voting? That was generous as hell of the Republicans to agree to use that standard, cause as Democrats insisted over and over again, ad nauseaum, between 2001 and 2004, those "disenfranchised felons" in Florida 2000 reliably vote 70-80% Democrat, regardless of how the community they live in votes. Felons vote overwhelmingly Democrat, consistently. We know it. You know it. You brag about it when it suits you. And that's how we all know that Rossi really, truly won this election.

Qwinn

No, the Florida felons who were disenfranchised don't vote 70-80% democrat, it's 90%+.

The right is just irresponsible, trying to trump up phony cases and undermine democracy.

Any reasonable person knows Gore really won in 2000 for a variety of reasons, just one of which is the undeniable accidental loss of votes to Buchanan of votes meant for Gore on the infamous butterfly ballot.

People who care about democracy feel bad it's undermined. The right feels fine about it.

The only thing the right recognizes is power. They play dirty.

Hopefully the country will return to responsible leaders, whether that means reclaiming and repairing the republican party, or, preferably, the democrats.

"Wow. A judge agreeing with a Democratic lawyer. What are the odds of that."

Probably the same as a Republican getting caught cheating on his wife with a 20 year old man, spending the retirement money on dodgey rare coin schemes, taking bribes from indians while secretly working against them, lying about threats to national security to foment a war, ducking the draft for "other priorities", and taking bribes (oops! I already mentioned that. But Republican reallly like bribes.)

Any reasonable person knows Gore really won in 2000 for a variety of reasons, just one of which is the undeniable accidental loss of votes to Buchanan of votes meant for Gore on the infamous butterfly ballot.

Aside from the fact that reasonable people can disagree about this, what do you propose? Ignore what people actually marked on a ballot and assume they actually meant to vote for Gore? Maybe the butterfly ballots sucked, but it was, afterall, Democrats who created it.

The only thing the right recognizes is power. They play dirty.

BS. Most on the right want to be left alone by government. That's why we don't want Democrats in power.

Any reasonable person knows Gore really won in 2000 for a variety of reasons, just one of which is the undeniable accidental loss of votes to Buchanan of votes meant for Gore on the infamous butterfly ballot.

You know, 'we really won because our voters were too stupid to figure out a ballot' is a pretty bad argument.

And I love how liberals always say it's only the right that wants power. Because we all know the left cares nothing about power - they just want to serve humanity and give everyone a flower or some crap like that.

Spare me the sanctimonious nonsense. Both parties want power. And if you want to talk dirty politics, I've got some slashed tires in Wisconsin to show you.

What Slublog said...both times.

Nicely said Slublog. Put WA state governor's race down with WI electoral totals on your list of things not to forget. It will happen again, you can be sure.

It just boggles the mind how you can have an election in which party A wins the initial vote count, but it is close enough for a recount. So they do the recount. Party A wins again. But it's close... oh so very close... so they do another recount... and party B wins the second recount. Party B wins!!!! The folks running the election finally got the result they wanted!!!

Why should party A win the initial vote and the first recount, only to have party B take the election on another recount? Even leaving aside any questions about fraudulent votes for party B suddenly popping up, it STILL doesn't make any sense. You would think they would at least try to carefully do another recount to put to rest any doubts about the conflicting results. Best 3 of 5 anyone?

Let's say you are a member of party B in the example above. Say it never happened in real life. I would be truly ashamed if I were a member of party B and my party took an election that way. Even without the mere allegation of fraudulent votes. What a disgrace.

Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Washington voters vote differently next time as a result of this. Most rational people, who are willing to accept a certain "normal" level of political corruption couldn't even "hold their nose" and knowingly vote for a party that has reached such an unusual and disgusting new low in corruption.

Let's say you are a member of party B in the example above. Say it never happened in real life. I would be truly ashamed if I were a member of party B and my party took an election that way. Even without the mere allegation of fraudulent votes. What a disgrace.

Exactly. And you didn't even mention the silly rhetoric by the Dems - Rossi's 287 vote victory was a "tie." But Gregoire's razor-thin 130-vote margin of victory after the third recount was enough reason for Rossi to concede.

Is it fraud? Might be, might not be. Is it disgusting double-standard BS?

You be the judge.

Another point- the Repubs didn't want the judge to give the election to Rossi, unlike the Dems in prior contests.

We only wanted a clean re-vote, since it was proven conclusively that the margin of error was something like 12 times the margin of victory.

Gregoire's defenders must be aware of two additional facts:

(1) She has the LOWEST approval rating of any Democratic governor, at somewhere around 40%; and

(2) Over 55% of Washington voters believe she lost.

Considering all this, wouldn't it be reasonable for Democrats to support a re-vote? After all, if she really won the first time, and she's now got a track record as acting governor to run on, wouldn't another vote give her a better chance at a mandate?

Heh...

Any reasonable person knows Gore really won in 2000 for a variety of reasons, just one of which is the undeniable accidental loss of votes to Buchanan of votes meant for Gore on the infamous butterfly ballot.

So how did Gore win in 2000 when he didn't even carry his own state of Tennessee?

Idiot.

Mark - The three recounts are the result of Washingting election law. The first, machine, recount was automatic because the margin of victory was less the mandated margin (I forget what law says, .1%? .5%? ...anyway, the first recount was automatic). That recount lowered Rossi's advantage from 261 votes to 42. Then, as specifically called for in Washington election law, the Dems ponied up the money, again I forget how much, maybe $2 million, to hand recount all the precints. In this process all sorts of new votes were discovered and in the end Gregoire was certified to have 129 more votes than Rossi.

I do think that it is rather funny to watch people, such as Ace, who derided "Sore/Loserman" and those who complained about the lack of paper trail in Ohio's computerized voting systems now bitch and moan and claim fraud when they lose. Karma baby.

In the actual trial the Repubs were allowed to present what evidence and arguments they wished; the judge was very lenient in that, but he was quite clear from the beginning that the burden on the Repubs was to show that Rossi would have won if not for the voting problems. The Repubs failed to come close to this proof. The Repubs argued that the number of illegal votes should be subtractd based on the vote proportions in the illegal vote's precints, an argument that makes good sense to me since we generally cannot know who anyone actually voted for, the ballot being secret and all. But the Dems showed that if one applied this standard to ALL the illegal votes, not just the Repub cherry picking of heavily Dem precints, Gregoire still won.

So, the Repubs were forced to try a hail-mary of insinuation that things were "very suspicious" and "sinister" in hopes the judge would take the bait and rule in their favor based on the possibility that a conspiracy to committ voter fraud existed. The judge saw through that, if their was such evidence that would have been the main Repub argument, not some cherry picking accountancy formula to apportion illegal votes.

As I said, it's great theater to watch the gnashing of teeth from those formerly so disdainful of such conspiracy driven teeth gnashers.

The first sentence in my post above is incorrect; there were only two recounts. I mixed up my correction of the "three recount" misconception with my timeline of the actual vote-machine recount-hand recount.

Another very amusing thing to see is the rights complete dismissal of anyone in the judiciary who behaves in any way independent of the right's political agenda. Apparently the only good judiciary, like the only good legislature, is one that exhibits lock-step party discipline. Otherwise they are obviously protecting their own, no matter who actually appointed the judge.

Bottom line: The judge identified 1,678 illegal votes in an election decided by 129.

Perhaps if we could find a total non-partisan, perhaps an alien from Mars, even they would recognize the problem with that.

Ditto on vonKreedon's correction. My above post mistakenly makes reference to a 'third recount.'

"But the Dems showed that if one applied this standard to ALL the illegal votes, not just the Repub cherry picking of heavily Dem precints, Gregoire still won."

I don't think this is true. If you have a cite, please provide it.

The judge refused to allow proportional correction, despite its use in numerous other election disputes, both federal and state (other states, not Washington). If he had allowed it, Rossi's vote total would have been higher than Gregoire's.

If the proportional analysis would have confirmed Gregoire's victory, the findings of fact would back up your claim. However, they don't.

Another very amusing thing to see is the rights complete dismissal of anyone in the judiciary who behaves in any way independent of the right's political agenda. Apparently the only good judiciary, like the only good legislature, is one that exhibits lock-step party discipline. Otherwise they are obviously protecting their own, no matter who actually appointed the judge.

And it's this love of an 'independent' judiciary that has Harry Reid and the Democrats filibustering nominees, right? The left could never have a political agenda at all.

Sure. Keep trying to convince me that your crap smells like roses.

The same hypocrisy our guests have derided exists in their very presence here, so let's get some things straight. The Dems stole one in Washington, we all know it. We also know this is SOP for Dems, and they have no shame whatever for it.

We know in order to actually be declared the winner in these things we just have to go out and beat the pants off of these cheats. Fine. Unfair but fine.

But don't give of this shit we're involved in some whinefest here. We're involved in a learning process--how you guys cheat and how to bring your cheating to light.

I've seen whining over elections from the Left now for 5 years. It's pathetic and unbecoming. We have our decision, it sucks and we'll move on. You guys should try it.

When Daschle cheated to win his last election, we did the same thing we're doing now-- we learned from it. What's Tiny Tom doing these days?

So savor your little governorship, because you will pay big for it.

Wow, this has degenerated into left vs. right name calling. How surprising for The Ace of Spades HQ!

I'm a Washington voter that voted for Rossi. The thing that sunk Rossi was the crazily high burden of proof that we had to meet. We had to show fraud, not just that the election errors could have swayed the election our way. My question is, why didn't we just interview the illegal voters and see who they voted for and then discount their votes? The names were posted online, why didn't we do this? And why didn't we call Ron Sims, or Gregoire? If there was fraud these two should have been called. I would have loved to hear them flub all over themselves. And I really thought that getting a consevrative judge in Chelan county would have helped (Gergoire only got 35% of the vote there). Oh well.

Dogstar, you wanted the source cited. Please look at day #4 of the court transcripts in regards to the results of porportional response if applied to all votes in separate counties equally.

In any case, Gregoire is shooting herself in the foot. She's pretending that she has a mandate and is passing an ambitious agenda. People won't like that when they go to vote in 4 years. Rossi in 2008!

Sirius - Here is a cite for the proportional deduction of illegal votes still resulting in a Gregoire victory. The source is the Dem statistician Handcock. Some quotes from the article:

Even if you did apply those methods, Handcock said, Gregoire would still win under several varying combinations of illegal votes included in the formula, which he adjusted for the gender of the felons to reflect the greater likelihood of men voting Republican.

Now I know that you all like to assume that felons are a core constituency of the Dems, but I'm not aware of a scientific basis for this assumption. Also, of the five felon voters whose votes were actually identified four voted for Rossi.

Sponge - Of course the left has a political agenda and a desire for the judiciary to support this agenda. However, it is the right that is engaged in a campaign to vilify the judiciary as a class, to assert that any ruling the right dislikes is the result of an out of control, or perhaps more accurately a leftist controlled judiciary that must be purged and replaced by judges who can be counted on to toe the party line. Liberals tend to be more discriminating and less revolutionary in their political goals for the judiciary.

The judge punted plain and simple. He figured Rossi would appeal and he'd be off the hook. Surprise! Rossi doesn't and the judge looks like an incompetant hack. Although it seems that its the rare judge who doesn't nowadays.

Also, what does the finding of fact that 1600+ votes were illegal in an election decided by 129 mean? Does it trigger some provision of Washington election law? Does Washington have a recall mechanism like California? If the govenor resigns in Washington what are the succession/special election rules?

Sirius... LOL!

But Sirius-ly, the cite you gave me was just a Democrat expert witness claiming one thing, followed in the next paragraph by a Republican expert witness claiming the opposite.

What should have happened was a court-appointed, unbiased expert should have crunched the numbers, using a mandated standard, based on existing case law from the numerous other cases on record.

I have no idea how that would have turned out, but it is far better than trying to figure out if one rented dog and pony show was a little better than another one.

The fact that the number of illegal votes was many times the margin of victory, combined with the testimony of King County election officials that they didn't come close to following the laws re: accounting for the number of votes, is enough for any impartial observer to recognize that the election was fatally flawed.

I noticed also that the judge blasted the King County election officials in his findings of fact for their incompetence and disregard of the law. Doesn't sound like anything resembling a believable resolution to a totally fucked up election.

Sponge - Of course the left has a political agenda and a desire for the judiciary to support this agenda. However, it is the right that is engaged in a campaign to vilify the judiciary as a class, to assert that any ruling the right dislikes is the result of an out of control, or perhaps more accurately a leftist controlled judiciary that must be purged and replaced by judges who can be counted on to toe the party line. Liberals tend to be more discriminating and less revolutionary in their political goals for the judiciary.

Again, I call BS.

Senator Kerry, during the campaign, assured women voters that he would nominate only judges who support Roe v. Wade.

That sounds like a politically-motivated litmus test to me.

Maybe it's time to get used to the fact that all of the high-minded rhetoric you're using to defend the left just doesn't match the gutterball politics they've played for decades.

In other words, I don't smell roses yet.

Loose shit, my last post should have been addressed to Slub.

This one is addressed to

Sponge - You say:

...so let's get some things straight. The Dems stole one in Washington, we all know it. We also know this is SOP for Dems, and they have no shame whatever for it.

Fascinating, let's compare and contrast that sensible statement with one made by raving moonbats, from DU:

More than 6 million people are on your side, the majority of the voice was denied on Nov 2. 2004, the dark day mechanical machines became our democracy.

It's almost like a total eclipse.....The nation knows it was a rigged hacked election, and is afraid to speak up and throw out the little lying fundie.

As I've said before, the real political struggle is not between left and right, but between extremist and moderate. By their rhetoric you will know them.

Iblis, You're just being silly. Judges show their biases, left and right. They do a job that I'm sure very few people on this board could do as well as they do.

A lot of people here don't seem to understand that there needs to be a reason more than just the possibility of a flawed election, accoring to state law, to trigger a new election. I think it is a flawed state law, and Secretary of State Sam Reed should change it. We lost this one, unfair but square.

it is the right that is engaged in a campaign to vilify the judiciary as a class

Make that double BS.

What exactly would you call the smear campaigns against Bush judicial nominees? Oh, wait...let me guess. "A fair examination of their records," right?

You guys are such kidders.

Judge Charles Pickering made a ruling that the left didn't like - so he was smeared as a racist.

Judge Bill Pryor said some things the left didn't like, so he was attacked as a religious zealot.

Yeah, you guys are so tolerant of independent judges.

The Upper Left Washington is not California. The law here says that a recall can only be in response to actual illegal activity while in office. She's safe.

As for "activist judges". All I'd like is some consistency. This ruling came down on the same day that the US Supreme Court says in ruling on so-called medical marijuana and the ADA on cruise ships that judges can be as activist as they'd like if it furthers micromanagement of our lives.Judges can find emanations from penumbras to justify their unilateral imposition of so-called gay marriage, but when there is obvious illegality and malfeasance by Dems, it suddenly becomes of utmost importance to follow the law exactly.

von, your comment about the moderates vs. extremists is right on, on both sides of the spectrum.

"Liberals tend to be more discriminating and less revolutionary in their political goals for the judiciary"

vonK,

Lol! Were you able to type that with a straight face?

Also, from John Funds "Stealing Elections":

"Both the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post found that, if anything, county officials were too permissive in whom they allowed to vote, and that this largely benefited Al Gore. An analysis by the Post found that 5,600 people whose names matched the names of convicted felons who should have been disqualified were permitted to cast their ballots. "These illegal voters almost certainly influenced the down-to-the-wire presidential election," the Post reported. "It's likely they benefited Democratic candidate Al Gore. Of the likely felons identified by the Post, 68 percent were registered Democrats."

This was the closest gubernatorial (sp?) race in history. Given that any result other than a new election was going to fall inside the margin of error. The judge applied the law, apparently applied the law dilligently enough that the Repubs decided appealing as expected would not be useful.

Here's a difference between moderates and extremists; moderates, such as myself, would have accepted any ruling as the way the judiciary works, extremists would have (and are) attacked the judge himself for any ruling that did not meet their goals.

Ok, I really have to concentrate on work.

Work? What are you talking about?

You obviously didn't get your official Ace-of-Spades secret decoder ring.

"W" changes to "P".
"k" changes to "n".

Mr. Ortega, Yes, that is the role of the judiciary branch: to follow the law exactly. The commerce clause gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce and that law is being applied to cannibis. The ADA applies to foreign countries operating on US land, why shouldn't it apply to foreign companies operating on US waters? In all cases that you mention, the judge was "follwing the law exactly", as you said. If you don't like the result, challenge the law, not the judge!

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the decoder ring. I clipped the tag off of my shirt and sent it in along with the oddly high 'membership fee.'

And I'm not sure why admission to the club requires that Ace know my social security number, date of birth and at least three creditors.

Oh well, the ring will look cool.

Hey, what's going on here?

I had to submit a complete set of hi-res starfish close-ups.

Hmmm...

Well, that explains that "collapsing black hole" hoax Ace played on me.

Fucker had me going all right.

Boy, I'd really love to take the time to debunk everything all you rethugs are spouting, but there's just not enough time in the day. With all the cherry picking the GOP had to do to try and make this look like a legit case (including cherry picking the county for the apparent bias) you guys should really be ok with this decision. Only rethug partisans are upset by this, but not Ohio or Florida.

HE LOST! GET OVER IT!

Hmmmm, does it feel like a satisfactory response coming from "the left" (as I'm sure that's what I'll be lumped in to)? Well it hasn't been satisfactory coming from the right either. Maybe a little more undserstanding, objectivity and trying to see it from the other side is in order instead.

I'm sorry..."rethugs?"

Maybe you're on the wrong board, but we speak english here, not moonbat.

Speaking for myself (and Dogstar, apparently) I am already "over it" and have moved on (back) to squeakhole jokes.

Only rethug partisans are upset by this, but not Ohio or Florida.

First off, Florida had problems, but none of them were a part of some nefarious plot by Republicans. Most were just typical problems that are made obvious in close elections but don't matter much when the margin of victory is much larger. And while I haven't followed the Washington state case closely (and as such am already over it), I suspect that much the same happened there.

Second, nothing happened in Ohio. Maybe you should take your own advice and "GET OVER IT!" The charges were all simply bogus from day one.

Speaking for myself, I'm just hoping and praying one of the girls here wants to know what a starfish is...

read it:

http://billmon.org/archives/001878.html

I'm so sick of the inane comments by and sterotypical thinking of people who don't know anything about Washington State -- and that, unfortunately, includes too many Republicans who live in the state.

The Republicans in this case chose the venue for the trial and basically CHOSE the judge. This is the guy they WANTED. He presides in a heavily Republican part of the state. He is not an "activist" judge. No one has ever suggested he is a liberal. In fact, he most likely is a Republican.

The judge was fair-minded and gave the Republicans every opportunity to prove their case -- but they didn't have a case to prove.

Were there mistakes and various kinds of human error based "irregularties" in the vote counting? Yes. But these were, in the overall scheme of things, minor, no different from what is typical in any election, and no more beneficial or detrimental to one side than to the other. When you consider that our state's elections, like most others, depend heavily on the work of a generally extremely elderly group of volunteers, it is close to a miracle that they run as efficiently as they do. And they do run efficiently -- because even though the extreme and intense scrutiny that resulted from the closeness of this election may have made it seem otherwise, the incidence of error in this election was minor.

Furthermore, when you consider that close to 30% of Washington state's ENTIRE population lives in just one (out of 39) county -- King County -- then you realize that there is nothing strange or partisan about the fact that that one county experienced the most difficulties.

And what can you make of people who, as I've encountered on many forums like this, make the dumb assertion that in a county with a lower percentage of people living in poverty than the state at large, with an African American population of only a little more than 5% (and statewide barely more than 3%), in a state with a prison population that is, by overwhelming majorities, white and male, it is logical to conclude not only that the votes of most ex-felons who voted illegally would precisely mirror the voting patterns of the much more diverse (and slightly majority female) voting population as the county as a whole, but, that those ex-felon voters would miraculously turn out to be, unlike the county population as a whole, poverty stricken and, unlike either the county or the prison population as a whole, African Americans?

Thank the Lord the judge wasn't as logically challenged as many of the people who object to his ruling.

Now please, Yellow Rose, explain to me how if I grow cannabis in my own back yard and use it at home (or sell it to a "medical" cannibas club IN STATE) that qualifies as interstate commerce?

Not that I have any personal experiences like that or anything.

Just more big government, bullshit, reinterpretation of "Interstate commerce" to mean "your asses belongs to us" (which both parties and ALL branches are guilty of nowadays).

Why is it a violation of my privacy "rights" and a matter of Federal jurisdiction for Texas to outlaw sodomy or gay marriage (both of which involve other people,so at least there is some interest for the state to make sure theres actual informed consent involved and they're still alive afterwords), but outside of the state jurisdiction to make it legal to grow MJ in my basement and then take it upstairs to smoke, ALONE.

Or why should it be a matter of federal jurisdiction to put to death a 17 yo felon. The only real age qualifiers in the constitution are for polticians.

Oh wait, I was looking at the US Constitution, not the Sri Lankan one. Silly unenlightened me.

esmense, others...

I'm sure you'll find that the right side of the blogosphere will pretty much vent for a few more days, then we'll start figuring out ways to beat Gregoire or Cantwell in Washington and Dems in other states.

We won't still be whining about Washington four years after the election - unlike some on the left who are still going on about Florida, Ohio, etc.

"And what can you make of people who, as I've encountered on many forums like this, make the dumb assertion that in a county with a lower percentage of people living in poverty than the state at large, with an African American population of only a little more than 5% (and statewide barely more than 3%), in a state with a prison population that is, by overwhelming majorities, white and male, it is logical to conclude not only that the votes of most ex-felons who voted illegally would precisely mirror the voting patterns of the much more diverse (and slightly majority female) voting population as the county as a whole, but, that those ex-felon voters would miraculously turn out to be, unlike the county population as a whole, poverty stricken and, unlike either the county or the prison population as a whole, African Americans?"

Do you realize that is just one sentence? Can you help me out? Are you saying that it is a dumb assertion to assume that the illegal felon voters would vote like the rest of the population, or that the illegal felon voters are likely to be poor, AM, and more likely to vote Democrat.

Didn't the republican lawyers argue to assume that they would vote like the rest of the county (proportional)?

Facts are to moonbats as fish are to bicycles.

I have never seen so many trolls come out to play at the same time.

Neither have I. Perhaps you've been targeted by the Left because you are too effective against them. They must be very nervous about this election and the power of blogging to call attention to it! If they were so secure in the truth of their position, they wouldn't be so angry. Let's keep up alive as long as we can!

Selected Not Elected!
Selected Not Elected!
Selected Not Elected!
Selected Not Elected!

No esmense, the problem many of us outside observers have is that the vote margin is 129.
~1,600 votes were illegal.
Hundreds of votes were "found", under questionable circumstances, during the final recount (And the first count too.
King County, where many of the shenangians occured, has voters who registered in 1904 still voting, and 8000 more votes than people recorded as having voted.

It might just be an urban myth that convicted felons are more likely to vote Democrat, and that when hundreds of votes are found at the last minute in a Democrat controlled county that they'll go to the Democrat.

Or perhaps living in Illinois the Daley's just made me cynical, though somehow I picture Old Man Daley as being a bit more subtle though.

What happened to the Dems- they used to steal elections in the shadows, now they do it out in the open (WI & WA 2004 the attempt in FL 2000).
Do they not realize the benefit of the internet and shadow media in getting the word out? Or do they just assume that the people don't mind as Dems look out for the "little man".

Jeez, all. Look, we lost this one. If there had been a case to prove we would have proven it. I know some of you extremists can keep on making groundless claims, but we need to move on. I don't know whether the truth is on our side, but I know that the evidence isn't.

Honestly, I have no idea whether Rossi or Gregoire won the election because the "victory" is within the margin of error . State law says that isn't enough to justify an election. We need to change the law, not whine about it!

HowardDevore, in response to your comment about cannibis: the SCOTUS decision didn't affect the personal use marijuana law. It said that since Medical Marijuana is dispensed through commerce, the federal government could exercise its control. For the record, I don't agree with the restrictions on pot. If you want to go smoke a bowl upstairs, I don't care. You want to go have sex with your gay partner, I don't care. I think its a violation of personal freedom for thr government to decide either of those issues for me.

But the Federal goevernment does NOT have control over commerce- just interstate commerce.
IF we were dealing with an imported substance (say cocainefrom Brazil) the Fed does have the right to tarriff or regulate it.
If we were dealing with a cross state issue (say KY moonshine driven up to IL) then the fed has legal authority.
But within a state the fed should have no jurisdiction (assuming the Supremes were literate)

HowardDevore,

Here is the decision, so you can see their justification: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf

They held that because the federal govermnet controls drug law via the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and Control Act of 1970, it has the authority to regulate it as a Schedule I substance (which it shouldn't be because it is not 'highly addictive' and it does have 'medicinal benefits' as the statue requires) in the states because it affects the federal government's abilty to regulate it nationally. I think it's thin logic, and I agree with the dissenters. But I see their point. I think we should write our representatives to get MJ classified the same as Tobacco, which is more addictive and has no medical benefit.

Master of None -- Yes, I am saying that it is dumb to assume, with absolutely no proof (nor logic) that an extremely narrow demographic group with many characteristics in common -- almost exclusively male for one thing -- would vote precisely like the much broader, more diverse (much more female, for one thing) voting population of the county. (Especially when you consider that one of the candidates is female.) We know for instance that the voting patterns of other demographic groups within the larger voting population -- frequent church attendees, affluent men, single women, various ethnic and racial minorities, etc., etc. -- differ from each other and from the overall, general voting pattern . Why assume, without study, that ex-felons do not, as a group, also show some distinctive voting patterns? And, yes, I am saying that it is dumb -- especially dumb -- to assume that ex-felon voters in Washington state are most likely to be poor African Americans and therefore Democrats. This is an EXTREMELY white state (3.2% of the population is African American) -- and, even though minorities are, as elsewhere, imprisoned at higher rates than whites, our prison population, and therefore our ex-felon population, is still overwhelmingly white. And, white or black, there is little reason to assume that those ex-felons who vote are poorer than the voting population in general -- which tends to be more affluent than the population in general. People who make these kind of assumptions, most especially about Washington's "urban" voters, are working from stereotypes that simply don't apply to this state. Seattle isn't Detroit, Cleveland or Chicago. Its economic history, demographic makeup, political history, etc., etc., are very different from those old industrial citites. King County is not some post-industrial wasteland blighted by "white flight" and economic decay. It is the most affluent county in a mostly poorer, more rural state. Seattle is, in fact, an extremely middle class city with little history of the kind of corruption and "machine" politics associated with the large industrialized urban centers of the Northeast. And, primarily because it has little racial diversity, Washington state's political process hasn't suffered under the kind of racially inspired political corruptions found in the South either. Our "good government' political traditions -- in both parties -- compared with many other places in the country, have always been something we could be extremely proud of. When Rossi and his cohorts, egged on by an increasingly corrupt national party, dishonestly trash those tradition for personal gain it is an outrage.

esmense,

You're pretty accurate about the history and demography of Seattle and of Washington, its nice to know that someone on this board knows at least a little of what they're talking about.

But I don't think Rossi trashed those traditions for personal gain. There was legitimate cause for challenging the election, even if it couldn't be proven enough to trigger a new election. I mean really, 129 votes? And after being ahead of the first two counts? Heck yes he should have contested the election!

Rossi had fewer votes. Beginning, middle and end of story.

Everything else is just getting mad, because someone who is Republican isn't getting his way.

How about, instead of complaining, you put forward a candidate who actually commands the respect of the voters?

And while you're at it, deciding whether or not you want activist judges would help.

Just pick it one way or the other. We Dems will play. Either a) all judges should always be completely impartial, and be picked for their lack of partisan bias, or b) everyone with any power should pick the most partisan judge they can find.

Which is it?

"How about, instead of complaining, you put forward a candidate who actually commands the respect of the voters?"

Duh, you mean a candidate that most of Washington thinks won the election?

And a candidate most of Washington now prefers?

That would be Rossi, the popular choice.

"jim," at the beginning, and the middle, of the story, Rossi had more votes.

Fortunately, you were able to write yourself an end that floats your boat. Congratulations, I guess.

But I'm also gonna guess that you're the type likes to trumpet Chimperalissimo El Busho's low approval numbers as a blight both on him and the prospects of the republican party.

Weeeel, Madame Governor is starting out from field position noticably worse ... and that's before she's had a chance to really do anything. You might hope she'll win people over. I have to say I doubt it.

Study Daschle, study Carnahan, study. Mene mene tekel uSouthPark.

Be careful what you wish for. If we let after-election poll numbers decide who should be in office now, Bush wouldn't be in the White House.

Gregoire's low numbers are a sign that they don't like Gregoire, not that they like Rossi.

Yellow, polls are consistent in showing the majority of Washington voters:

(a) think Rossi won, and

(b) would vote for Rossi in a rematch.

Although Bush's approval ratings are low, no poll ever showed Americans either thinking Bush lost or preferring Kerry in a rematch.

Knemon,

It is pretty obvious that you have no clue about Washington politics. Gregoire has pursued an ambitious agenda with pretty substantial success, especially given her ratings and her perceived illegitimacy. She's pretending that she has a mandate, which of course she doesn't.

Dogstar,

They say that given a choice between the two, they would choose Rossi. That they think Rossi won the election is immaterial to the likability of the current Governor.

It does not _neccessarily_ mean that they like Rossi, just that they prefer him over Gregoire. To declare otherwise is making an assumption without evidence. I am trying not to do interpret the poll numbers, simply relay the facts. You can interpret them however you like, but please don't pass them off as fact.

That said, you're likely right, which bodes well for Rossi in 2008. :)

The close election was a sign that neither candidate inspired much real support from the public.

Even now, aside from the most partisan in either camp, few Washingtonians care passionately about which of these non-entity candidates actually won.

In fact, neither candidate is very representative of their party's base in this state -- Rossi even less so than Gregoire. He's the bland, false face of "moderation" for a party that has simply become too extreme to win statewide elections with a genuinely representative candidate. (One that, furthermore, has been losing more and more voters to the Libertarians -- and therefore losing more and more elections to the Democrats.)

There's a lot wrong with Washington politics -- but its not corruption. It's chronic stalemate and lack of political courage.

Frankly, Gregoire has surprised a lot of us by her willingness to be unpopular. If she gets some things done that need to be done and begins to break up the politics of timidity and stalemate that have come to characterize this state, she'll be doing a good thing. Even if it costs her re-election.

YR - I won't pretend to be an expert, but my wife is from Seattle, her best friend's dad is a contributor to Sound Politics, so while it might be **wingnut blogger** WA politics, I think I have a bi more than no clue.

Her success in implementing an agenda is not the kind of success that counts when it comes to getting re-elected (see Clinton, 1996).

You're right, Bush's numbers (though a full 10 points higher in some polls) might result in a loss today. So what? Bush is a crappy president (won't win me any friends on this site, but it's true) who has been truly blessed by his opponents, twice in a row (well, three times really, but it's mean to pick on poor miss richards).

IOW, either Rossi .... or some Republican less pathetic/unacceptable than the Bastard Child of Gore and Kerry ... shouldn't have trouble next time around ...

I will demonstrate my more-than-no-clue by ending on this caveat : The WAGOP has more than once shown it doesn't understand the whole electoral politcs thing. In a way, it's the Howard Dean of west-of-the-mississippi republican politics. So if the yahoos get cranky or uppity, all bets are off.

Since you do know more, what are the infomatics of Rossis' 08 chances vs. a senate run in 06? Thune switched opponents but not the position sought; which is harder?

"There's a lot wrong with Washington politics -- but its not corruption."

Heh. Well, it's either corruption or incompetence. King County violated every elections law in the book. Employees admitted to forging documents. The elections staff admitted to not following procedures and not knowing how many votes were cast. Over seven hundred provisional ballots were fed directly into the ballot boxes, voter signatures were forged in log books, the number of unaccounted-for over- and under-votes was over 2000 just in King County, the number of errors was huge compared to 2000 (when a different elections commission was in place) and Judge Bridges blasted Sims and company for their refusal to acknowledge the scope of the blunders.

In a word, clusterfuck.

I'm also hearing about a revolt among Washington citizens against Gregoire's gas tax, which violated a campaign promise. Sounds like a meltdown in progress.

Knemon, I think Rossi will stick to the 2008 governor race, and not try for Cantwell's seat in 2006 for 3 reasons: money (Cantwell has a $2 million dollar head start ), family (he'd spend a lot of time in DC), and Republican competition. I think in the primary he'd have to go against Chris Vance, the WAGOP chair. That could get ugly and if it does it will work in Cantwell's favor. Even so, she is vulnerable in 2006. I apologize for saying you know nothing about WA politics- you do know something.

Dogstar, in your first whole sentence you said the truth: "corruption or incompetence" I think it has become pretty clear that it was gross incompetence that mattered little when the race was decided by 50,000 votes, but mattered a great deal when it was only 129.

Gregoire's gas tax was definitely a political screw-up on her part, and she'll pay for it later. On the bright side, as a Seattle resident, I will get to see the benefits of my extra $2 at the pump: a new Viaduct, 520 bridge, 509 extension, and maybe they'll fix that frickin pot hole on my street. She doesn't have a very good chance at reelection.

Also, please clean up your language. You undermine you entire position when you talk like that.

You didn't get the memo? Profanity, an addiction to Internet porn, obscure 80s TV/movie references, bad poetry, revealing horribly embarrassing secrets about your past and over-the-top flaming are requirements for posters here.

Kinda like gun ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia.

Yeah, I missed that memo. I thought this was a place for discussion and debate.

I'm gonna go do some TPS reports now.

It's is a place for discussion and debate...about profanity, obscure 80s references, bad poetry, etc...

Starfish? huh?

Oh, you sweet flower of all that is soft, gentle, fresh, virginal, warm, loving, tender, sexy, inviting, delicious and curvy.

I'm so, so, so tempted...

(blushing) Oh Dogstar, it's just a cute little sea creature...right?

OK, cracking up here, you win, pleeease don't explain. I'm 90% sure I know.

:)

90%? I guess that's close enough.

No need to talk about one of those all-glass coffee tables that you can see right through, and someone, well...

Yeah, no need at all. Nope, not necessary.