The Democrats continue their theft in broad daylight:
After a bitter and protracted recount fight in the Washington governor’s race, elections officials announced Wednesday that the Democratic candidate, Christine O. Gregoire, was leading her Republican opponent by 10 votes – a minuscule margin but a stunning reversal of the Nov. 2 election results.
The preliminary results elated Democratic Party officials and came only hours after the party scored another victory, when the State Supreme Court agreed with the Democrats’ contention that more than 700 newly discovered and erroneously disqualified ballots in heavily Democratic King County should now be considered.
Since those ballots came from a county where Ms. Gregoire, 57, already had a solid lead, the ruling could allow her to increase her extraordinarily tiny edge in a race that is the closest in state history and one of the closest in the nation’s history.
The day’s events dealt a serious blow to state Republicans and Dino Rossi, 45, a businessman and former state senator, who had been certified the winner of the Nov. 2 vote after eking out a margin of 261 votes out of almost three million cast. He later won a machine recount by 42 votes.
Got it, now? Demand a recount, then run around and contact only Demcrats who have challenged ballots. Then ‘find’ some uncounted ballots in King County. Demand another recount. Shit. Still short. Recanvas, find some more ballots in King County. Insist on hand recount, despite it being much less reliable. Just in case you still don’t have the lead, make sure there are a couple hundred more King County ballots ‘found.’
This was their vision for Florida in 2000. This is what they wanted in Ohio this year. At least the Republicans are fighting back:
Whatever the final results, they are almost certain to be contested.
“This count, this election, is not over,” said Chris Vance, the chairman of the state Republican Party. The Supreme Court, he said, “basically threw the door open to start all over again. I think that’s crazy.”
He said Republicans planned to “show up at 9 a.m.” on Thursday “on the doorstep of every county auditor with people whose votes weren’t counted for Dino Rossi.”
Again- ‘count every vote’ really means ‘count thevotes until the Democrat wins.’
BTW- why do the Democrats feel so confident with the results of the third recount? Why should this one be considered accurate and final? The first two weren’t.
Pernell
Why do the republicans fight NOT to count votes? Do they know the results before they are counted?
Here, I am sure you missed this while you were busy defending democracy.
http://460design.net/ohio/
bg
Evan though I’m a Democrat, I’m with John. This stinks. I want it to be an accurate count, but now there’s just no way to know what that might be.
Slartibartfast
Yep, that’s evidence of Republicans scheming to deny Democrats the vote, all right.
Not. There’s nothing shown by the videos that indicates anything more than incompetence. Plus, either those who made the film are equally incompetent, or they’re being deliberately negligent in not, for instance, querying Michael Hackett about what happened, why there were too few machines, and why the whole process was as screwed up as it’s portrayed as being. It’s almost as if the people making this pseudo-documentary are unaware that Democrats are part of the process.
Kimmitt
Again- ‘count every vote’ really means ‘count thevotes until the Democrat wins.’
I look forward to your eager denunciation of every Republican request for a recount in a close election.
Slartibartfast
A recount would be just that: a repeated counting of the same ballots. One of these things is not like the other.
Ralph Gizzip
Recounting votes is one thing. When the Dems come up weeks later with “Ooh, look what we found! We gotta count these, too!” is another thing altogether.
Willie B. Goode
You Lost. GET OVER IT! Sore loser. Give it up. Any of this sound familiar.
Ralph Gizzip
Well lookee here. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
Kimmitt
Why, it’s almost as though both sides are trying to win the election! This cannot be allowed — only Republicans are allowed to try to win elections!
space
Here is the fundamental problem with the Republicans. They have become so good at disseminating spin that they actuall believe it themselves.
Is there anyone who believes that if the shoe was on the other foot, that John Cole wouldn’t be demanding – DEMANDING! – that these “found” ballots be immediately counted? That John Cole wouldn’t be questioning exactly why perfectly valid ballots simply disappeared in a heavily Democratic district?
I think the questions answer themselves. Sadly, I have no doubt John Cole actually believes – without any evidence – that Democrats placed a bunch of phony ballots to be “found”. Whatever.
All I know is that intellectual honesty requires – no, DEMANDS! – a certain amount of logical consistency that John Cole lacks.
space
That should be “heavily Republican district.”
John cole
So Space’s excuse for Deomcratic chicanery is to say that in the future, I might try the same thing.
Cute, anddy. Called me a hypocrite and ignored the Democratic malfeasance.
Gary Farber
Absent either an as-yet imaginary (so far as I know) set of specific accusations, supported by evidence, or a detailed chain-of-evidence set of affadavits provided by people trusted to be impartial, I can’t see any factual basis for declaring that the ballots under question as “found” are either phony or valid by either you or me. I don’t see how it’s knowable to us at the moment; do you have some uncited information I’m unaware of that leads you to “know” the election is being “stolen” by allowing in said votes? I mean, if you merely said you strongly suspected this, you’re home free. But your phrasing is absolute; you don’t suspect a theft, or think it immensely likely, you seem to suggest you know. How do you support that?
Aaron
In 3 months, after Gregoire is in office, what happens when they find 50 more ballots?
And let’s see if we can all agree on one thing:
King County election officials should be FIRED. The Dems should be firing these people (they run the County.)
Count every vote…if that’s their mantra they should try to do that the first time around.
Now we are counting unsecured ballots with no guarantee there are not more “lost” ballots floating around.
Leaper
FWIW, I think the comment about “accurate and final” is a reference to the fact that this is the last recount allowed by WA law. Whatever the count is, is it.
Not that the Republicans don’t have options, of course.
Kimmitt
King County election officials should be FIRED. The Dems should be firing these people (they run the County.)
Good Lord, yes. We wouldn’t have even had this problem if they’d’ve done a good job in the first place.
Chris Muir
You’re all missing the point-ALL elections have statistical errors that occur at the time of the voting.The point is that whatever the vote is, it is final at that time.One cannot go back and change the rules to favor one’s party until you get a result you like, otherwise EVERY election would be endless.This is the Pandora’s box that Democrats seem bent on opening.COUNT every vote, but ONLY when the election takes place.If you screw up your vote,or the election officials do, tough luck-statistically,it happens all over.
Geez!
Kimmitt
One cannot go back and change the rules to favor one’s party until you get a result you like,
Er, the whole point of CURRENT LAW as it is WRITTEN ON THE BOOKS is to engage in recounts using successively more sensitive processes if the election is close. This entire statement represents both a profound ignorance of the process and a contempt for Washington law.
space
John Cole you are a fool.
Here is what happened. There was an election. It was close. As Kimmitt said, THE CURRENT LAW, allows and even mandates recounts. DURING THE RECOUNT PROOCESS, new votes were found.
Now, one of two things occurred. Either those votes were fraudulently planted, in which case you are correct to call it Democratic chicanery, or they were valid and misplaced.
Now, the problem is that there is absolutely no fucking evidence for the former. You are simply blowing hot air.
If the latter is true then you are just an asswipe who is demanding that people’s votes not be counted based on a perceived technicality. Since the Supreme Court of Wash. has ruled that technically the votes must be counted, you don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
Now that the GOP has said that the election is not over and have proclaimed their intention to find “lost” ballots in GOP-leaning counties, I await your condemnation of their attempts at “theft in broad daylight”. Not. Hypocrite.
Chris Muir
“using successively more sensitive processes “-Kimmitt, can you define what those processes are? Can King County?
Why do these processes ‘on the books’ require judicial interpretation at the time of election?
“Now that the GOP has said that the election is not over and have proclaimed their intention to find “lost” ballots in GOP-leaning counties”.
-Space, meet Pandora’s box,courtesy of the Democrat’s attempt to litigate victory from the 2000 election.
Enjoy, cretins!
Kimmitt
Hey, y’all had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. You could’ve headed this off way in advance if you’d’ve cared.
chris muir
Afraid we tend to follow the rule of law.
Kimmitt
What an incredibly cute idea.
Chris Muir
Strange New World,huh?
S.W. Anderson
It’s worth noting those “found” votes you see as so irksome weren’t lost. They were wrongly set aside and forgotten or misplaced, or were erroneously disqualified by poll workers.
Please note that with Christine Gregoire the apparent winner, Republicans are as busy as can be saying and doing the very same things they’ve whined and complained about Democrats doing, at the same time seeking to throw legal roadblocks in the way.
That is to say, the shoe is on the other foot, so everything looks different to Republicans.
Maybe what’s eating them most right now is that they haven’t been able to pay “volunteers” to come in from other states to raise hell and create a chaotic spectacle to ratchet up public disgust and, they would hope, increase calls to just give to the GOP candidate and be done with it, so it’s finally over.
That worked for Bush in 2000, in Florida. In Washington, the reoc#nt process has been orderly, civil and fair. It’s open to public viewing and there’s relatively little of the hanging chad nonsense.
All that said, the best resolution is to hold another election. As things stand now, witht he margin so slim and both sides claiming “if only these few additional votes could/would be counted. . .” whichever candidate comes to office does so under a cloud. That’s bad for everyone.
Kimmitt
Strange New World,huh?
More Brave, really.
But seriously, the idea of the Republican Party as being hampered by its careful code of conduct . . . it’s really charming, like your aunt who’s seriously into pyramids and crystals. So far removed from reality that it’s funny rather than frustrating.
Slartibartfast
I note that this question goes unanswered. I’d wager Mr. Kimmitt is as ignorant of Washington state as he was of Florida statute.
I’m a bit mystified as to what the United States House and Senate (much less, the President) have to do with anything at all, relevant to Washington state electoral laws. Care to enlighten me?
So, you know what they aren’t, but not what they are. Well, I’m sure you have you convinced.
Kimmitt
Kimmitt, can you define what those processes are? Can King County?
Sorry, it didn’t even occur to me to address this question, seeing as it has been thoroughly explored in the media. But, since the all-knowing Slartibartfast is apparently without this knowledge, we ought to begin. References found here.
RCW29A.64.021:
(1) If the official canvass of all of the returns for any office at any primary or election reveals that the difference in the number of votes cast for a candidate apparently nominated or elected to any office and the number of votes cast for the closest apparently defeated opponent is less than two thousand votes and also less than one-half of one percent of the total number of votes cast for both candidates, the county canvassing board shall conduct a recount of all votes cast on that position.
(a) Whenever such a difference occurs in the number of votes cast for candidates for a position the declaration of candidacy for which was filed with the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall, within three business days of the day that the returns of the primary or election are first certified by the canvassing boards of those counties, direct those boards to recount all votes cast on the position.
(b) If the difference in the number of votes cast for the apparent winner and the closest apparently defeated opponent is less than one hundred fifty votes and also less than one-fourth of one percent of the total number of votes cast for both candidates, the votes shall be recounted manually or as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
The first recount was mandatory under Washington law and lead to a Rossi victory by 42 votes. The second recount has no precedent in Washington State history but is obviously provided for under section (b) above. The various lawsuits centered around the eligibility of various ballots; the law is complicated enough (check it out yourself at the link) that there were arguments on both sides. I am not familiar enough with Washington State election law to evaluate the State Supreme Court’s rulings. There is a nice timeline here.
S.W. Anderson
Go, Kimmitt! Excellent comeback.
Chris Muir
” I am not familiar enough with Washington State election law to evaluate the State Supreme Court’s rulings.”
Neither am I,Kimmitt.Yet my point remains the same:Why have election laws if they are changed during the election itself? As John Fund (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/) notes,
“On Friday, Stephanie Arend, a local judge in neighboring Pierce County, stepped in and blocked the counting of all 723 new ballots. She said state law clearly stipulated that a recount was only supposed to count ballots already ruled valid, not add any more ballots to the mix.”
And;
“The actual hand tabulation of the rest of the ballots in King County also saw a change in procedures midway through the count last week. Officials announced that they were overturning the policy of not counting ballots that had ovals filled in for both candidates (“over votes”) and now would send these ballots to the canvassing board for final review. Officials said this represented no change in the rules, but the fact is that ballots are now being treated differently depending at what point in the recount they were examined.”
This is the Pandora’s Box conundrum; where elections are fluid, and results litigated. And which party is known for litigating in the judicial for what they cannot achieve through the legislative?
Here’s the interesting part:
” the votes shall be recounted manually or as provided in subsection (3) of this section.”
That’s fine.This is a nation based on the rule of law, not of men.However, laws written require ethics-an understanding of the agreements, the civil compacts between the citizens of the nation by the men enforcing them, or they mean nothing-as in Clinton’s perjury, for example.
Democrats supported this felony wholeheartedly.What message did that send? Or when Daschle blocked judicial nominations from even getting an up-or-down vote in the Senate?
Democrats have been pushing an ends justifies the means to the limit and beyond for years,counting on Republicans to follow the rules.
The answer to the Democrats’ message was sent Nov. 2nd,2004.
Rules-and laws-apply to both parties. If you try to change same during elections, you will be in for a fight. Better get used to it.
Comeback, SW Anderson? More like a wakeup call.
Kimmitt
Again, do you have any source other than one guy writing for a WSJ editorial page on any of this? I cannot find corroboration for any of his claims on Google News, and fish are insulted when they are wrapped in WSJ editorial pages.
You may wish to return to the more friendly confines of your comic, where you can keep liberals from defending their opinions by authorial fiat.
Kimmitt
And which party is known for litigating in the judicial for what they cannot achieve through the legislative?
The Democrats, the Party of Brown v. the Board of Education. Freedom means something more than the tyrrany of the majority, something the Right has long ago forgotten.
Chris Muir
Freedom indeed does mean more than the tyranny(one r)of the majority. It also means more that the tyranny of the minority-Something the Founding Fathers (and as Toqueville mentioned) were very careful to install in the form of the Electoral College.
History.Of.The.United.States.
Try it, you’ll like it.It’s about the country,not the parties.
You perhaps may care to retreat to the friendlier confines of your paranoid world
where Democrats Do No Wrong.
The rest of are chillin’ out here in the USA.
Chris Muir
Well, that was smooth.
Corrections below:
“-were very careful to avoid, by installing the Electoral College.”
and:
“The rest of us are chillin’ out here in the USA.”
sigh.
Chris Muir
” tyranny(one r)”
My own petard,etc.
Kimmitt
It also means more that the tyranny of the minority-Something the Founding Fathers (and as Toqueville mentioned) were very careful to install in the form of the Electoral College.
This was an awesome dodge. So can I can put you down in favor of Plessy v. Ferguson or not?
Also, what does this have to do with your advocacy of ignoring Washington State Law regarding recounts if the Republican wins?
Chris Muir
“Also, what does this have to do with your advocacy of ignoring Washington State Law regarding recounts if the Republican wins?”
I am (again) pointing out that laws mean nothing if the people carryng them out have no ethics and do not follow them-as in the Washington election, where they are making up the rules as they go.
I am saying that Democrat-controlled canvassing board there are absent of ethics and twisting the election for their own gain.
As for a ‘dodge’…this is fascinating in a sense. My point, being the close relationship of ethics, law, and citizenship is something you honestly cannot see, it is a ‘dodge’…well, this would explain your wandering off, quoting disparate cases, such as Plessy vs Ferguson.As to your referencing of this case as being about the minority?Below:
The ‘tyranny of the minority’ that Hamilton, Madison, and others feared wasn’t based on skin color-it was based on the fear that high population states would always have more say than the rest of the country, thus the Electoarl College.
Looking through a narrow lens of liberal bias reveals a small picture of what this country is truly about.
It is more than an assemblage of rights.It is responsibilities, as well.
One being, know your nation’s history, and how it functions.
Chris Muir
It might also be being able to spell, I swear I am getting dyslexic here.
Kimmitt
I am saying that Democrat-controlled canvassing board there are absent of ethics and twisting the election for their own gain.
And you posted a single article by a non-credible source, which I have, despite some effort, been completely unable to corroborate. Do you have any news articles, including news articles from the WSJ news section?
Chris Muir
“and you posted a single article by a non-credible source”
At least I posted one relevant to the discussion!
So, anything countering your view must ergo, be ‘non-credible’.Therefore, I must prove sources that match your qualification as ‘accurate’? That about right?
Wrong.
Sigh. The standard Paranoia Game of liberals, prove a negative, get the opposition to do your research to fit your needs. Haven’t you heard? We don’t play that game anymore after the 2000 election.
You still evade the entire point of the argument, listing completely non-relevant cases, vis-a -vis “Plessey vs Ferguson, etc.
I may as well ask you, have you any corroboration from ‘credible’ sources that Democrats aren’t changing the rules? No? And, who would be the ‘credible’ sources that would match my level of acceptance?
If you read almost any paper on the election and come away satisfied that the election is above board…well, then you certainly have the government you deserve.The problem is, many of your fellow citizens don’t see it that way at all.
So far,you simply avoid the argument and yell ‘non-credible!”
The difference is, these days, we don’t spend our time to fit your paranoias-it’s time YOU stepped up to the plate and debated one-on-one.
Kimmitt? Frankly, you’re a waste of my time, and any argument based in logic.
Kimmitt
So, anything countering your view must ergo, be ‘non-credible’.
No, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is not credible. Look, this isn’t your comic — you don’t get to make up the arguments the liberals use and throw them up as straw men. Give me one source other than a partisan hack piece. Seriously, just one.
If you read almost any paper on the election and come away satisfied that the election is above board…
Again, show me one news piece which supports the claims of the editorial you posted. I have already posted in the Comments section of the previous post on the topic news articles which point out glaring omissions in the WSJ editorial. The credibility of the piece is obviously in question. So back it up.
I may as well ask you, have you any corroboration from ‘credible’ sources that Democrats aren’t changing the rules?
Do you have any corroboration from credible sources that you aren’t sneaking into polling places at night and changing the vote totals? No? Then why should I believe you, other than the fact that people who allege wrongdoing have to actually support their allegations?
Kimmitt? Frankly, you’re a waste of my time, and any argument based in logic.
And you’re an intellectually dishonest hack whose loathing of the Left precludes any interesting thought. Your “logic” is simple: If someone somewhere says that a Democrat did something bad, it must be true. Keep with the comics; your art is very good, even if your politics are trite.
russ
500 out of 700 people at a precinct downtown gave their address as the King County Building, records office…
Shades of dim-witted Dems buying homless votes for cigs?
Daryl McCullough
It’s amazing the symmetry between the accusations made in both directions. Each side considers the concerns of the other side as paranoia. Each side considers the other side’s dismissal of those concerns to be an effort to steal the election. This is stupid.
What this really shows is that “fair elections” are impossible in the absence of mutual respect among political adversaries, and there is no such thing any more. (It actually is a rare condition—if you go back through history, in a large number of elections in the US there were accusations of stealing the election by one side or the other).
I have no faith in the honesty of any Republicans at all. That’s the sad state of affairs. And I’m sure that many Republicans feel the same way about the Democrats. So what to do?
Slartibartfast
Looks as if I missed quite a bit. I do note that Kimmitt’s references lack anything at all to do with “successively more sensitive processes”. Your scorn notwithstanding, I think you’ve dodged the question without much agility.
Which, as you’ve noted, isn’t a credible source. Next, please.