The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |

Politics & Government

Our network sites | Advanced

Postman on Politics

Chief political reporter David Postman explores state, regional and national politics.

E-mail| About the blog | From the archive| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

June 16, 2008 4:27 PM

Rossi, but not all supporters, confident of clean vote count

Posted by David Postman

Visitors to Eastern Washington report seeing Dino Rossi for governor signs emblazoned with this line:

Don't Let Seattle Steal This Election!

That seemed at odds with what I've heard Rossi say about changes implemented since the problematic 2004 governor's election count. He assures voters that Secretary of State Sam Reed has purged the voter rolls of felon voters and names of deceased voters.

Rossi spokeswoman Jill Strait says the signs are not an official product of the campaign. And she says they do not reflect Rossi's view.

Dino wouldn’t be running again if he thought it was going to be the same playing field.

Since the last election, Secretary of State Sam Reed has created a statewide voter database and wiped off thousands of registrations that shouldn’t have been on the voter rolls. This is a good thing and we are confident that the election will be managed properly.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by Timothy

4:56 PM, Jun 16, 2008

It's a travesty that the Republicans in Washington State, in their own self-interest, have created the erroneous perception that the 2004 election was somehow stolen from Rossi. They were never able to prove that, even with their entirely cherry-picked court charade.

Playing loose with the facts, as Rossi has done repeatedly since 2004 (even if he is claiming differently now) should be a huge strike against him.

Even the subtle suggestion that felons and deceased voters somehow played a primary role in his 2004 loss, now, is disingenuous at best.

Posted by Particle Man

5:13 PM, Jun 16, 2008

So I'm sure Jill and Dino would have no issue if I were to use some of his signs and add
"vote for Dino so he can have his pockets lined with cash by lobbyists just like last time he was in office"
"vote for dino because corruption pays better when your in office"

In fact, I doubt they would look the other way, and this is why their response to you David falls flat.
This is a tactic supported by the campaign and you David should not let Jill and Dino off the hook so easily.
This is just but one example of the do anything and say anything campaign Dino and his employee Jill are running. Pumping up the radicle folks with unsubstantiated lies about the last election may help Dino raise money but it does this state no good at all.

Posted by jacob

5:30 PM, Jun 16, 2008

How is this news?

Posted by Turbine

5:48 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Wow, I guess only Democrats are qualfied for higher office in Olympia. They have taken graft and corruption to it's highest level. Gregoire not only has a TRIBE BRIBE problem, but the exact same issues with WEA and SEIU. Selling off official favors and Government actions for campaign donations. Pathetic.

Posted by Michael Mortenson

6:13 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Man: Corruption plays better when you're in office? This is ridiculous! The special interests are playing for Gregoire's camp for more prevelantly than they are for Rossi. Between the unions and the good ol' "quid pro quo" tribes, Christine is sitting pretty. So special interests are only legit if they're paying of a Democrat, is that what I gather?

I think Dino and who ever it was that paid for those signs are on the exact same page. Both realize he's going to win with a RECOUNT PROOF majority this time, so there will be no opportunity for Seattle to steal it again.

Posted by Samson

6:40 PM, Jun 16, 2008

I have to agree with Jacob, this isn't news. Although, it is amusing to read how detached from reality (and the story) Timothy and Particle Man appear to be. Attacking Rossi for wanting legitimately registered voters deciding elections in Washington State connotes an underling fear of who the illegitimate registrants had been voting for.

Posted by Amber

6:44 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Let the voters of Washington State, not ACORN, decide our next governor!

Posted by Dave Gibney

6:51 PM, Jun 16, 2008

"I wauz robbed, so I deserve it" is the only issue Dino has to run on. Chris Gregriore is the best Govenor this state has had in a long time. The State is in great shape.

Dino's toast, he'll be lucky to break 40% in November.

Hey, Particle, missed ou over here this weekend, but it was a productive convention anyway :)

Posted by Daniel K

7:08 PM, Jun 16, 2008

"Rossi spokeswoman Jill Strait says the signs are not an official product of the campaign."

David, have you been able to determine who is behind the signs and what connection they might have, if any, with the campaign? I think that would be of great interest.

Posted by The Truth Hurts

7:44 PM, Jun 16, 2008

You are right David, Washington is in great shape. With our Ferries sinking, traffic in and around Seattle in constant gridlock, early released felons murdering cops and re-raping victims, what more could we ask for other than more taxes?

Funny that "Chris Gregoire is the best Governor this state has had in a long time," seeing how we haven't had a Republican governor since 1984.

Oh, and your 40% prediction is interesting. If I were a betting man, I would go with the candidate who's already won 2 out of 3. Hope you're ready to "discover" a whole lot of ballots this year.

Posted by NoConfidence

8:18 PM, Jun 16, 2008

I have ZERO confidence this election will be honest.
The reason....ZERO consequences to people who attempt to vote illegally.
Read this story from SP nearly 16 months ago:

No charges have been filed to date.
Democratic Party activist.
Read the story.
Rumor has it charges will be filed...finally.
Only after a bunch of folks screaming foul!

David Postman will never even mention the story because the guy involved is one of David's beloved New Age Secular Progressives. The end justifies any means.

As long as lefty's know there are ZERO consequences for illegal acts...they will cheat.
The Rossi Camp are fools for making a public statement about this. They took the pressure off.

Posted by Defender

8:21 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Dino,won twice the bitch one once.
You tell me wo one Idiot!

Posted by defender

8:23 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Wow! Got so excited I can't spell.
Dino won twice the bitch won once.

Posted by elmo fan

8:29 PM, Jun 16, 2008

This whole post is bs as it perpetuates the election was stolen meme. For all the blather on talk radio and other quarters, what was the result in a real court of record: Gregoire wins. I would be really curious in hearing how Dino is going to solve transportation, save the sonics and what are his plans for the viaduct.

Posted by Turbine

8:38 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Dino's plans will probably not be nearly as interesting as Gregoire's payola scandals. Selling out the people of Washington for campaign cash should be the stuff of prize winning investigative reporting, instead the local media settles for access to the Governor and cocktail parties with their buddies.

Posted by AD

9:34 PM, Jun 16, 2008

I love it when some Democrats act as if the very idea that something was wrong in 2004 is just a fairy tale concocted by radical right-wingers.

I think many people wish it was.

The fact is that in King County 895,660 voters cast ballots. 899,199 votes were counted.

Where did those 3,539 extra votes come from? Are the Republicans just crazy for thinking that counting 3,539 extra votes was a problem? If Dino Rossi had won, would Democrats be okay if 3,539 extra votes had shown up in Okanogan County?

Let's get real.

Posted by Pale Rider

9:45 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Anyone who thinks Sam Reed's glorious voter registration database will solve all the election problems obviously hasn't looked at the data in it. They've got voters from the same Precinct mapped to as many as FIVE different Legislative Districts within the same County!

They've made a real hash of things. I only hope this piece of crap isn't considered the official record. They obviously didn't do any quality control checks on it.

It's amusing to listen to the right-wingers bring up the bogeyman of stolen elections and illegal voters, when they have never been able to demonstrate any instance of it. And I notice none of them ever mention the highly irregular voting patterns in Snohomish County in 2004 that gave Rossi a several-thousand vote edge. If you want to know what the Republicans are up to, just listen to what they accuse their opponents of doing.

Oh, and NoConfidence, when you talk about "no consequences" I assume you are referring to Lori Sotelo's 2000 counts of perjury that the beknighted Norm Maleng declined to act on.

Posted by Irish Jim

10:00 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Why does Postman write about this stuff and not about Gregoire getting over $600,000 from the Indian tribes after she ruled in favor of their casinos. Is this because the PI broke the story??? Come on Postman, get on this story, if a Republican had collected over $600,000 from any industry it would be head line news and you would be writing about it everyday. Don't let her get away with this!!!

Posted by upchuck

11:07 PM, Jun 16, 2008

i might be willing to take the dino-maniac claims of fraud seriously as legitimate concerns from citizens who want to see a fair election system until i realize that they don't give a damn about the 10's of thousands of legitimate voters who were denied the voting franchise in florida in 2000 because they were black and therefore likely to vote dem.

seriously you guys, you need to reach out a bit more - although i am fiercely progressive i and most other libs and progressives i know also believe that elections need to be fair even if we loose. and we also share a healthy skepticism of those in power. the integrity of elections should not be a partisan issue. so if you really want fair elections you should be doing something other than mounting a partisan witch hunt.

Posted by Gene

11:15 PM, Jun 16, 2008

I don't see how anyone can deny that there weren't instances of malfeasance in the 2004 election. You don't just turn up several hundered additional votes in just a couple counties primarily for one candidate over the course of two recounts - it just doesn't happen.

And if it does happen by some miracle, you sure have another recount afterwards, don't just stop counting once you get the results you want.

But regardless, if Dino and Gregoire both feel confident there won't be any misconduct in counting for this election, I trust that assessment. From everything I've heard, I think enough has been done to deter cheaters and make it harder than it's worth. I think Dino will get a fair shake this time.

Posted by Gene

11:18 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Upchuck: Dino-maniacs? Really? I mean, really?

Posted by JimD

11:33 PM, Jun 16, 2008

Back to the original story, if I dare...

"Don't Let Seattle Steal This Election!"

It's both a figure of speech (...don't lose this opportunity for us to win...don't let the more powerful majority deny us a voice...), AND a subtle reinforcement of the perception that Rossi actually won.
And not unlike the attitude of many democrats regarding the way Bush "stole" the 2000 election, by the way.

I was driving through eastern Washington today and finally saw my first Rossi sign.
It must have been an official campaign version; "GOP"
Property owners sporting these dark (literally, gold on black) campaign signs should hold on to them when it's over.
They will be novelty collectibles from crazy Dino's final, failed attempt to turn our beloved Washington State into something much less.
Good riddance...

Posted by Jeff

5:27 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Seattle won't steal the election; Crybaby Rossi will lose by an even larger margin than before.

Posted by nwgal

6:14 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Once again, Republicans are up in arms over an issue that exists only under their tinfoil hats.
No wonder they have such a dismal record dealing with real issues. They're spending their time and energy chasing down phantom ones! And no wonder we wound up with an idiot in the White House. Republicans are so easy to manipulate, it would be funny if it didn't have such serious consequences.

Posted by NoConfidence

6:40 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Interest how the left-wingers ignore the fact that Election Laws in 2004 allowed so many highly questionable practices, particularly no reconciliation process whereby Precindts could have more votes than voters...essentially stuffing the ballotbox.
The Judge was appalled by what happened, even though he felt compelled to deny any relief.
Amazing that Rossi may have one had Republicans gone out and gotten enough affadavits from felons that they voted for Gregoire.
When you see things like the ACORN debacle where a left-wing group tried to register phoney voters, it causes pause. The only reason they were caught is that they stupidly sent these phoney registrations via UPS not mail. Otherwise they would have been buried. Also, it was BIAW that did Public Records requests to blow the lid off this fraud.
Do you really think this was the only time ACORN did this stunt?? How many times were they successful?
I would have had some confidence had the entire state been forced to re-register.
Again, the Rossi Camp is premature stating this Electionwill be managed properly.

Posted by redraider2x

7:30 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Sam Reed's roles aren't pristine yet:

Posted by Paul

8:58 AM, Jun 17, 2008

How is this news? It seems far more newsworthy that Governor Gregoire renegotiated, ahead of schedule, a compact with the tribes that both expanded their state-granted gaming monopoly and eliminated the entire tax on gaming, followed by the tribes cutting a $600,000 check to the state party, which then transfered $600,000 to the Gregoire campaign.

But maybe Postman is right. Maybe graft, bribery, and money laundering fall into the same ballpark as some angry people in Eastern Washington writing on Rossi signs.

Posted by Mag00

9:22 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Support Black Box voting - - These are the people who unveiled the evil pranks the Republicans pulled in Bush's first stolen election. Don't let it happen again. Ballot boxes CAN and ARE tampered with. Take your own pen to the polls, don't use the ones they give you. The ink can be "washed" just like an altered check.

Posted by factsRfacts

10:35 AM, Jun 17, 2008

If the election was fair and without fraud then where did the election officials go? Why is the Sec of State's office revamping the entire process? Why were voter rolls purged? How did Gregoire "find" just enough "misplaced" ballots immediately after Sam Reed announced the numbers to beat? Had Reed said 200, she would have found 250. Had he said 500, she would have found 550. There are many honest Democrats - and they are voting for Rossi - because their personal integrity is more important than political corruption. Don't blame Rossi when he wins - blame Gregoire and her crew - they created the backlash.

Posted by JimD

10:42 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Rossi and his supporters have their work cut out for them.
It will be virtually impossible to convince the voters to throw Gregoire out in favor of a republican who couldn't muster more than 50% the first time, when he had a more plausible argument that Gregoire would be a disaster.
Now that those dire warning have been proven wrong, he has even less credibility than before.
Don't worry - Gregoire isn't going to "steal" the election.
She will win by a majority so overwhelming that no one will take claims of ballot fraud seriously.

Posted by NoConfidence

11:03 AM, Jun 17, 2008

Gregoire must explain her unexplainable actions with the Tribes....and just coincidentally getting $600,000+++ of Campaign Contributions. Can you say Quid Pro Quo!!!
She must also explain the hiring of 8000 more State Loafers at a time of economic the face of a $2.4 BILLION Budget deficit SHE created.
The Buck stops with Gregoire JimD.
Also, the $5 BILLION+++ underfunded State Pension Fund.
And how about the State Ferry debacle?
Is traffic any better?

You seem to be counting on the presumption that voters are sheep and too stupid to look at what Gregoire has created for us.

The Buck stops with Gregoire.
Gregoire is the mistress of shell-game finances.
Unfortunately, it

Posted by JimD

11:58 AM, Jun 17, 2008

No confidence,
Yes...well..that's a nice little temper tantrum.
But the Governor doesn't HAVE to do anything you demand.
She will do what we've elected her to do (not bad, considering the situations she's facing) and the voters will re-hire her for another four years because Rossi offers NOTHING but complaints and mis-truths in the tired-old republican mold that's virtually destroyed this country.
The tribes is a red herring.
We don't have a problem with her interpretation of the state's taxing authority or the donations they've made to her campaign.
They show considerably more common sense that those sporting ROssi signs in their front yards.

Bottom line - she's going to win by a wide margin, fair and square.
if you want a new governor, come-up with something better than the '04 model that couldn't get past 50% when he had a reasonable chance.

Posted by Turbine

12:12 PM, Jun 17, 2008

"But the Governor doesn't have to do anything you demand". Unless you pay her enough to make it worth her while. Same pattern with SEIU, WEA and political patornage hacks like Jim Luce ( Who now has us in WSSC spending thosuands to defend his corruption.), thanks Christine.

Posted by JimD

12:18 PM, Jun 17, 2008

If voters find Gregoire's pros and cons a lesser NET evil than Rossi, so be it.
This is a democracy.
Not everyone has to agree with you, or are too stupid to consider the negatives Rossi brings with him, which most voters will decide in-total are far worse than Gregoire's policy and performance to date.
By all means, give it your best shot. The governor could use some sunlight and pressure, for sure.
But don't assume voters will conclude Rossi represents anything better, particularly with the kind of campaign he's running and the style of commentary his supporters spew on sites like this.

Posted by P

12:18 PM, Jun 17, 2008

JimD, you're a bit of a hypocrite. You are here day in and day out coming up with one conspiracy theory or another concerning the Bush administration, but when it comes to crooks like our phony governor, you are completely blind to the facts.

She has run through the surplus and now our state is facing a HUGE deficit starting next year. And you don't believe she and King County stole the election last time? What a baffoon you are! No wonder this state is going down the tubes, what with liars like you supporting the crooks in Olympia.

Posted by JimD

12:27 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Case in point above /\

Sorry, you'll have to come up with a more substantive, pro-active agenda than simply hating Gregoire and democrats as a whole.
Ain't gonna cut it this time.
Good luck re-building your party - and I mean that.
Good policy requires vigorous, creative tension which we're not getting with such lop-sided representation.
But when republicans finally hit bottom and can start re-building from the ground up, I suggest they build their new conservatism movement around a positive, functional vision - not simply whining about democrats.

Posted by Particle Man

12:41 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Michael Mortenson and Tribune while David's base story covers evasion by Dino Rossi and his campaign about any connection with the signs and Dino's denial of having any influence over the signs staying up (all of which we know to be pure BS), the chat in these comments about corruption is more interesting.
Many have suggested that our states tribes which represent hundreds of thousands of voters and residents here in Washington State have a less legitimate right to make political contributions than the BIAW, big oil and the cigarette companies. I do not hold this view.
On some level though, all political contributions can be considered bribery, but this is the system we have for electing our leaders and candidates of both parties have their big supporters.
So while it may score points to liken our system to the record industry "payola" or to suggest that illegal acts are related to contributions to campaigns or political parties, all of these actions pale when comparison with the actions of Dino Rossi both while in office and following the 04 campaign.
While in office and chair of Senate Ways & Means Rossi entered a large real-estate deal with two of the states more powerful lobbyists which netted him hundreds of thousands more than his "partners" even as they lobbied his committee for their clients. Was this graft, influence peddling or bribery?
GRAFT - a form of political corruption whereby someone profits personally from the public budget.
INFLUENCE PEDDLING or TRAFFIC OF INFLUENCE- is the illegal practice of using one's political influence in government in return for payment.
In 2006 and 2007 Dino took over $100,000 funded by the BIAW as he campaigned for governor under cover of his foundation. While he successfully skirted the PDC laws, has direct taking of money from this political supporter is an act voters should be far more concerned about that where the campaigns contributions come from.
Anyone thinking about supporting this guy should think about how corrupt he would be as governor given his past comfort with using his influence to line his own pockets.

Posted by P

12:58 PM, Jun 17, 2008

JimD, what a bozo you are! I can't believe you're this much of an ass. Tell me of the positive Democrat agenda, there isn't one. Tell me about Obama's "change", there isn't any. He is simply Jimmy Carter Two. He doesn't have any kind of agenda other than to raise taxes and redistribute other peoples' wealth and tear down the best medical delivery system the world has ever had.

As to the Republican agenda, JimD, I can go down the list of very proactive, positive positions the Republican Party nationally and locally have that you cannot address other than with lies and misrepresentations.

Gregoires administration has been a total disaster for this state. All she has done is line the pockets of her contributors, the Indian gaming industry, signed into law the largest tax increases in the state's history and left us with a deficit larger than any other in our history. Yes, I am complaining, stupid, because she has done this to us and our children and she has to answer for it, as you do for supporting her.

Don't worry about Republicans, JimD, in November we are going to have a Republican in the White House and the governor's mansion in Olympia.

Gregorie has been a joke of a governor, making sure her rich cronies get more and more of our tax dollars so they can kick back money to her campaign. Too bad it won't work.

Posted by P

1:04 PM, Jun 17, 2008

ABC News's Jake Tapper reports:

On the same day that he was extolling the need to shake up the "status quo" in education, Obama also defended his opposition to school vouchers.
"We don't have enough slots for every child to go into a parochial school or a private school. And what you would see is a huge drain of resources out of the public schools," Obama said.
[John] McCain advocates giving every parent a voucher to essentially choose which school they'd like to send their child. Obama, whose two daughters attend private school, said that idea would crush the public school system entirely.
"But what I don't want to do is to see a diminished commitment to the public schools to the point where all we have are the hardest-to-teach kids with the least involved parents with the most disabilities in the public schools," he said. "That's going to make things worse, and we're going to lose the commitment to public schools that I think have been so important to building this country."

Typical of liberal-losers, they want our children to suffer under the dictatorship of the WEA and NEA, but they send their children to private schools. What hypocrites you liberals are!

Posted by Mister B

2:27 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Re: No Confidence post from 6:40 am on 6/17:

The ACORN forms weren't caught because of how they were mailed to the elections office.

They were TOO LATE to be entered into the database for the November 2006 election because of how they were mailed to the elections office.

They were caught and cancelled because so many of them were filled out in similar writing, because so many of them showed homeless shelters as addresses AND because quite a few of them used the names of famous people (Speaker of the US House and several current and former NBA players, as just a few examples)

Also, it wasn't BIAW that "blew the lid off this fraud", it was the workers in the elections office that knew something was wrong with those registration forms.

Forcing everyone to re-register wouldn't prevent any future mistakes with regards to voter-registration data entry.

As for felons voting in November of 2004, five of them were asked under oath during the post-election trial how they voted. Four of them said Rossi and one said Bennett. At that point, no more felons were asked.

Sure, one could say "Why should anyone trust what a felon says under oath?" but then again, why would anyone assume that a felon (most likely a man) would vote for a woman (who was also the state's head lawyer) over a white male?

It's my opinion that NoConfidence is premature in assuming that the November 2008 election will not be managed properly.

Posted by NoConfidence

3:05 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Mister B--
You are a bit off here.
The Election folks merely set aside these phoney ACORN registrations because they did not arrive in time as they were sent via UPS not mail.

The Election folks did nothing with them UNTIL BIAW forced the issue via a Public Records request...which took a loooooong time to get.

The Election Folks never even looked at the registrations Mr. B...they only set them aside....they looked at them AFTER the BIAW Records Request.

Regarding Felons are highly misleading here as well. The 5 you refer to were asked alright...but not by the Court. They were "asked" as you put it by GREGOIRE'S LEGAL ANIMALS!!

Bad Try Mr. B!

Posted by NoConfidence

3:12 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Did it ever dawn on you Mr. B that perhaps the GREGOIRE LEGAL ANIMALS or their minions perhaps talked with some Gregoire voting felons but choose not to get signed affadavits from them?? Just the Rossi/Bennett voters.
What you referred to were signed affadavits submitted by the GREGOIRE LEGAL ANIMALS!

And regarding those phoney ACORN registrations, did it ever dawn on you that these would have never been reviewed by the Election Folks unless BIAW requested them?

Do you really believe Mr. B that this was the 1st & only time ACORN pulled this stunt??
How convenient...and how unlikely.
A statewide re-registration would clean up a whole bunch of past stunts like this. Why would you not want this?? Unless you know I'm right.

Posted by upchuck

7:34 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Gene, the point of my post was that the folks crying fraud on the 04 wa gov election only appear to be mounting a partisan witch hunt and not at all concerned with fair elections across the board

sorry if the uncreative label i applied to them disappoints you, i agree i should have been able to do better. maybe some other progressives on the blog can help me out here???

Posted by JimD

7:48 PM, Jun 17, 2008

You should learn what hypocrite means before using it in a sentence.
It means someone who says one thing and does another.
Obama didn't say parents shouldn't send their kids to private school with their own money like he does.
He said the GOVERNMENT shouldn't pay for private school tuition in lieu of funding public education - which is exactly what the school voucher program would do.
Obama spends his own money to send his girls to private school while ALSO funding the education they'd otherwise get in public schools through his tax dollar.
What he's saying is - if you want to send your children to private schools, pay for it yourself (like he does)instead of asking the government to do it.
Because if you institute a school voucher program, it will effectively eliminate public education in all but the most desperate and disadvantaged communities where no one's going to want to set-up a private school.
There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, but they do not involve and hypocrisy from those who choose to pay for private school in addition to paying their fair share to support public schools.
To the contrary - Obama is paying TWICE for his daughter's education because he believes (as many of us do) that government shouldn't take money away from public schools to pay for private schools.

As for the November election culminating in some last minute republican ground-swell that will beat Democrats locally and nationally....that's just delusional.

Posted by TheTruth

8:25 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Of course they will steal it. They stole it before 2004 for Cantwell too. It was only in 2004 that a sharp blogger named Stefan Sharkansky kept on their heels despite their attempts to cover it up.

Now that they forced all mail, their fraud will be all too easy.

Posted by NoConfidence

8:30 PM, Jun 17, 2008

Obama & his wife both dine at the public trough.
Can't wait to see Mrs. O's huge salary increases after her hubby was elected to the Senate be publicly vetted.

The Obama's use high salary's from the public trough JimD to send their daughters to private schools.

In addition, Public Schools are funded by the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled. Therefore, the Obama's are taking money away from the public school district in which they reside.

Not a very good spin tonite JimD.
Off your game.

Posted by C. Calloway

10:03 PM, Jun 17, 2008

It is obvious there were problems in Florida. Just as it is obvious there were problems in King County. No point in arguing this point. But the state can make a positive change.

I recommend the following:

1. Every voter must show a valid Washington ID or Drivers License in order to vote.

2. Each ballot has a detachable portion that can be tied via UPC code to each ID card. As a voter casts his ballot, the detachable portion is fed into one machine, the actual vote is fed into a second machine. At the end of the night there is an electronic record indicating who voted and how many ballots were received. The totals could be easily reconciled.

As added benefit, the data could be printed online so I could look up my driver's license number and ensure my vote was counted. Of course the detachable portion ensures the privacy of the vote.

Posted by JimD

2:12 AM, Jun 18, 2008

No, Michelle's entire career was NOT public "trough", but in the private sector - where her ivy league legal education allowed her to make a great deal more money than her husband's public salary, by the way.
The majority of their more recent income comes from Obama's books and their investments in the private sector.
In short - a relatively small portion of their disposable income has ever come from his public salary.
Michelle worked for many years before achieving her promotion, and there's no reason to believe she didn't earn it on her own merits (unless you believe a black woman can't be that successful on their own).
Her husband's election to the Senate probably did help, just like white men have enjoyed the privilege of family, community and social connections in the advancement of their careers.

Your point about individual school funding based on enrollment count is valid.
However, the Obama's receive no discount on the taxes they contribute to education along with everyone else.
They're paying for their daughter's private education in-full, without a school voucher government subsidy.
Doing so while defending public education is no more hypocritical than an individual with health insurance promoting universal coverage for the less fortunate.
Republicans have to realize that not everyone argues from a position of trying to screw others to get theirs.

Posted by C. Calloway

9:28 AM, Jun 18, 2008


The facts are the following:

Michelle was making approximately $150k for a hospital in Chicago the year Obama was elected to the Senate.

During that year, Obama requested an earmark for the hospital in the amount of $1.5 million

The following year, Michelle was promoted and her salary increased to $350k.

Odds are that the two are unrelated. However, it does not look good on any level. The well known phrase "independence in fact and appearance" applies.

Posted by JimD

1:50 PM, Jun 18, 2008

No, those are NOT the facts.
The earmark request was for 1 mil (not 1.5) and it was killed by Congress.
The hospital never received that funding.
There was absolutely no money to trace from his earmark to her salary, let alone a promotion as reward for securing the earmark that was never granted.
This "news" is three months old.,%20Christopher
"... Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president...."

Posted by C. Calloway

5:29 PM, Jun 18, 2008


My sources are wrong on the earmark. Kudos.

As I noted, the raise and the earmark (request) are probably unrelated.

But again, the appearance does not look good. He requested $1 million for her employer, the following year she got a 100% raise. Do you think it looks good?

Posted by JimD

7:04 PM, Jun 18, 2008

I don't think the actual facts look bad.
I don't think the hospital lobbyists should have to discontinue their regular petitioning for funding just because a junior manager (at the time) is married to an elected official.

Posted by Michele

11:30 PM, Jun 18, 2008

Particleman sounds as though he hasn't heard about Gregoire giving the tribes a total sweetheart deal while receiving hundreds of thousands from them in campaign contributions.
I'm very confident Dino will run a much more ethical administration than Gregoire has.

Posted by Michele

11:33 PM, Jun 18, 2008

..and Timothy sounds in denial about all that came out in the last election---more votes than voters! And illegal fatal pends ballots counted, ballots lost and never find until after it was too late, all the many unchecked provisionals, double and dead voters (oh yes), felons voting who shouldn't be voting. Yes, he was robbed. For sure.

Posted by JimD

8:34 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Like Rossi' recent ad buys, these are distortions of the facts, prejudicial innuendo (as if the tribes aren't citizens worthy of free speech and full political expression) and in some cases, just plain lies.
Denial is believing a candidate who promotes such blatant dishonesty to his shrinking but gullible support, would run an ethical administration..
Why would "Dino" suddenly turn into an ethical person upon election?

Posted by C. Calloway

9:26 AM, Jun 19, 2008


It sounds like we are willing to take the discussion of lobbyists of the table entirely?

Considering each campaign has advisers (paid and unpaid) who have acted as lobbyists, I am a bit relieved we can fore go the dissection of every campaign staff.

The concern with Michelle Obama and the hospital earmark is

1. Her salary increased from $150k to $350k the year after the earmark request. (not a common increase for a regular old junior manager, she must have been a well known star among the staff).

2. Based on these relationships, why did Barack not have the good judgment to reject the earmark. Or at the very least pass it on to Dick Durbin?

Its a question of good decision making. The basis of his entire campaign.

Posted by JimD

10:41 AM, Jun 19, 2008

Hospital administrations typically don't attract double-platinum, ivy leaguers.
They were lucky to get someone like Michelle, and even luckier she stayed in her 150k position for so many years before they finally promoted her to a position most Princeton/Harvard law graduates would would achieve much sooner - somewhere - if not for their need to stay in Chicago and a desire to serve the community in healthcare - a well known priority of the Obama's.
Indeed - it's ironic she got the promotion after the earmark failed.
Clearly there was no reciprocation for being married to the Senator who couldn't pull it off.
Clearly none was anticipated, as the hospital employs lobbyists to do that bidding anyway.
There's simply nothing there, C.Calloway.

Good judgement?
Perhaps Obama had the good judgement to support the earmark on its own merits.
Maybe he didn't pass it off to Durbin because THAT would look like he was covering-up a conflict of interest that didn't exist.

Look C.Colloway - nothing personal, I'm going to address you as a generic "type" for the purpose of this argument;
First you buy this false disinformation which you picked-up from someone who depends on folks to spread these lies to falsely discredit Obama.
Then you backed-off and admitted it's only looks like a conflict.
And now you compare this tempest in a teapot to the likes of McCain conflicts, who's political ethics are off the charts - not just in appearance but in fact.
Did you know he fly's around in his wife's company's private jet - a clear violation of McCain/Feingold except for the provision McCain HIMSELF added to the bill excluding corporate aircraft owned by a Senator's spouse.
That is FACT.
And there's a lot more.
If McCain and Obama go toe-to-toe over ethics, bring it on.
This little falsified scandal about Michelle Obama's promotion - a job she promptly resigned to work on her husband's campaign for POTUS, btw - should be an embarrassment to those who simply can't come-up with anything substantial, yet support a guy who's arguably the most compromised rep in the Senate by the company he's kept and the deals he's managed all these years.

Posted by Bothsides

12:24 PM, Jun 19, 2008

"And now you compare this tempest in a teapot to the likes of McCain conflicts, who's political ethics are off the charts "

JimD, even for you, this is quite the stretch, you have anymore examples other than McCains "wife's employers airplane" crap, I mean his wife doesn't even come close to someone like John Kerry's. If this is all you have, maybe you should debate the issues.

Let's get back on the subject of the blog, I have zero confidence that this election will be any better managed in King County, Ron Simms puppets are still running it, obviously it won't be as close as last time, at least the odds are against it and an incumbent has the upper edge. Rossi has plenty to run on, and I think the people of Washington will recognize that. BTW, if it was an R that was taking all this money from the tribes, you guys would be all over it, special interests are just fine with the left, as long as the donations go to them.

Posted by JimD

6:21 PM, Jun 19, 2008

John Kerry isn't running for President this time. (??)

The issue I was debating with C.Colloway (not you but you're welcome of course) was conflict of interest "in fact and appearance" as it relates to Obama vs McCain.
Do you have an opinion on the specifics we were discussing you'd like to share?

It's interesting you're now turning on your candidate Rossi, who's made it clear he believes past voter qualification and vote count problems have been resolved.
This conflict was the basis of the story on this thread, to which Postman observed that Rossi's supporters do not necessarily have confidence in Rossi's judgement on this matter.
I'm heartened and optimistic that you've challenged Ross' position and are not totally satisfied with his wisdom.

Posted by C. Calloway

8:39 PM, Jun 19, 2008


You make the mistake of assuming I am comparing McCain to Obama. I am well aware of McCain's affiliation with lobbyists. I also know that he has been a long opponent of earmarks. I don't try to fool myself that he has not learned to compromise in Washington. In fact I deem it necessary.

I dislike the assumption that Obama is above it all or can bring an enlighted nobility to Washington. It is true that over the last 10 years Rebuplicans have been courted by Lobbyists more heavily than Democrats. But now that the tide is turning, lobbyist money is tilting toward the left. This might have something to do with Obama's numerous earmarks. In fact, would you be so kind as to provide a list of earmarks for each candidate over the last 4 years for comparisons sake? (where would you find that?)

Obama, if he is efficient, will need to learn how to balance the needs of Congress, Lobbyists, and his eventual re-election with his personal set of ethics. History teaches us his conscience won't win every time.

Being as he has disavowed numerous friends and promises, I think he is figuring it out. My pet peeve is the assumption that he is as pure as a summer's day.

Regarding me buying into the lies, I read MSNBC, CNN, and National Review. Like the majority of the populace, I have limited time to delve into the minutia of McCain's roll in the Boeing debacle or Barack's affilaition with Rezko. I trust the sources I read and welcome new information that can bolster or discredit my understanding (I wish Bush was as willing to adapt to new information!).

Character is important to me. Despite anything else I hear about McCain (his wife's plane, lobbyists on staff), I trust a guy who had a chance to leave a POW camp but refused to leave his fellow soldiers, resulting in 5 years of hell. Unless he is a pedophile, nothing will alter my faith in his character. In addition, I support his views on foreign policy (generally) and the economy. And there is plenty I disagree with.

All I know about Barack is that he is a good family man, has some odd role models (don't we all), has not accomplished much in politics (actual policy), has no record of working across the isle on significant legislation, appears to prefer a socialist agenda by limiting the earnings of corporations and wealthy families. He is also an incredible and motivating orator.

I appreciate your fervor.

Posted by JimD

9:46 PM, Jun 19, 2008

And I appreciate your dignified candor.
I personally don't believe Obama is all that pure.
I hope not, as I'm counting on him to play the game to the advantage of his (our) policy priorities.
My biggest concern with him - and the reason I preferred Clinton - is that he may be inclined to negotiate away our agenda in service to a new era of bipartisan compromise.
I had more confidence that Clinton would fight tooth and nail for the best Supreme Court nominations and universal healthcare, for example.
I think part of Obama's intentional vagueness is a calculated set-up for truly reaching across party lines and administering consensus politics like we've never seen before - the foundation of the 'change" he's promising us.
Obama's message makes it clear he has no intention of perpetuating gridlock when there's a possible compromise at hand.
I'm not all that sure some Obama supporters have truly figured this out yet.
Never the less, we still find a compromising Obama better than McCain's iron-firm commitment to the status quo in just about every policy area.

In any event...I think we share the same frustration with each other's opposition.
You think Obama is assumed to be more ethical than he really is by starry-eyed political newbies and old-guard democrats whom you truly believe may take us on a yellow brick road to hell.
I think McCain is held in too high POLITICAL esteem for his courage in Vietnam, which has nothing to do with any qualifications to be POTUS.
They certainly represent commendable characteristics for a soldier (to say the least), but are irrelevant to managing a country, in my opinion - even in time of war.
I think McCain supporters give too much credit to inflexible, single-minded strength, while under-valuing the more traditionally managerial characteristics Obama offers in spades (excuse the pun).

All I can say is that I think the vast majority of true Obama supporters are more realistic about what Obama is, than the attitude the media and others want to define as a romantic "movement" somehow hypnotized beyond reason by inspirational oratory.
The rather unromantic truth is - we DO know he's a politician, we ARE paying attention to his specific policy proposals....and while we love the theatre and eloquence of his high-minded idealism, we know there's a gritty reality behind him - behind BOTH these remarkable men.
They're running for President, not Pope!

Posted by Bothsides

8:29 AM, Jun 20, 2008


You said "And now you compare this tempest in a teapot to the likes of McCain conflicts, who's political ethics are off the charts ".

I said, please tell me all the political ethics problems McCain has that are "off the charts". You said, nothing...

It's not that I don't support Rossi, nor do I really disagree with him. I believe if he is to be succesful, he has to distance himself from 2004, in other words, quit whining about 2004 and focus on today. Which he has done. I think in the coming months there will be plenty of contrast between Dino and Chris for voters to see the best choice, which is Rossi.

Posted by JimD

9:44 AM, Jun 20, 2008

Twenty years of news stories do a better job detailing McCain's reputation and behavior in office than I can on this blog.
Beginning with his ties to the Keating Five scandal in the 80's, to his most recent problem with lobbyists - which he hadn't completely thrown off the bus (dismissed) until a few weeks ago - he typifies the republican Washington insider who shamelessly promotes the corporate interests of those who buy access.
He's flip-flopped on virtually every major issue for political advantage - the latest a windfall profit tax on oil companies, which he wasn't for, then was, then wasn't, then was again just a few weeks ago...and now isn't again after Obama announced his support of one.
Christian conservative leaders were 'the purveyors of hate and intolerance", then he loved 'em and sought their support..then rejected it.
The list is need to stay informed with a variety of news and opinion if you want to educate yourself any further.
A steady diet of conservative, high-opinion commentary may make you feel good, but is an incomplete serving of facts and information, as evidenced by how little you claim to know about McCain.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of democrats who operate similarly.
We're dealing with a deeply intrenched system of corporate governance.
But to claim McCain is somehow above all this, that he's free of scandal and tainted relationships, represents any new "change" what-so-ever, or should be necessarily trusted to negotiate through his most blatant conflict of interest situations (Boeing tanker deal)...just because he had the fortitude to survive five years of torture in Vietnam when he could have gone home... is absurd.
The two virtues are totally unrelated.
And while I admire and respect McCain for his service, his unashamed support of corporate governance - my main disagreement with republicans - is a disgrace to the values this country was founded on, and is in fact partly responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today.

The facts about John McCain's conflicts of interests are facts.
How you interpret them and whether you think they're a problem, is opinion.
If you want the country run by and for the best interests of corporations (trickle down), fine.
I happen to aspire for something I consider to be better, and given how deep we've dug ourselves into this s@$^hole, a clean-slate newbie like Obama is a better vehicle to that my opinion.

Posted by Bothsides

12:03 PM, Jun 20, 2008

Some of your points are taken, however, you seem to be confusing "politics as usual" with what you say are "ethical problems", if you think BO will be any less tarnished by special interests, you are kidding yourself. It's not an R or D issue that causes that, it's the system that is built on raising enough money to get / stay elected, which by the way, disgusts me.

As for the tanker deal, you need to do some research, I could say I would have benefitted by Boeing getting that contract, however, McCain blew the whistle on a corrupt process, people went to jail, he did the right thing and had absolutely nothing to do with the latest award, so not sure how he could have a conflict of interest there, if anything the opposite. He's a Senator from a state that has a Boeing facility.

Posted by JimD

3:11 PM, Jun 20, 2008

The tanker deal is several separate events.

I obviously am glad the Boeing and Air Force folks involved in the fraud were prosecuted.
But McCain did not "uncover" it.
Boeing uncovered the fraud in an internal audit, and spearheaded the investigation.
So right off the bat - McCain is taking credit for saving taxpayers the money, when in fact it was Boeing that uncovered the fraud.

Now here's where you have to follow the timeline:
Boeing quickly re-built its development group minus the crooks (as did the Air Force) and negotiations resumed.
But as this week's new GAO report discovered - and McCain now reluctantly admits - the process then heavily favored Grunmond/Airbus with falsified numbers and projections, and a host of other deliberate acts by the Air Force to take-out Boeing long AFTER the fraud had been resolved.
Here are some of report's findings:
The GAO said the tanker contract decision was flawed because the Air Force:

• Used criteria other than those stipulated to assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes.

• Erroneously concluded that Northrop offered lower total program costs, when Boeing's cost was lower.

• Improperly gave the larger Northrop plane extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters.

• Failed to prove that the Northrop plane could refuel all the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.

• Conducted "misleading and unequal discussions" by providing Northrop with more information than Boeing.

• Gave Northrop an improper break by dismissing its failure to sign a required aircraft-maintenance plan as just "an administrative oversight."

In short - Boeing did indeed produce the a cheaper plane that met more specs than Grunmond/Airbus, and now the bid will start from scratch again so Boeing can have a fair and proper shot at the contract.

How does all this tie-in with McCain?
Well, in addition it falsely taking credit for "uncovering" something he had no part in actually uncovering, he was in an advisory position over the new contract process which was rigged to ensure Boeing wouldn't get it - even though Boeing clearly had the better and more efficient product by the Air Force's own stats. (above)
And who was running McCain's office at the time?
Grunmond/Airbus lobbyists - who also happened to be feeding him UNPRECEDENTED campaign contributions FROM Grunmond and it's French parent company Airbus.
The French funneled hundreds-of-thousands of dollars through McCain's office to lobby the contract award (that's what lobbyists do, you know) and the contract negotiators under McCain's watch broke a bunch of rules and falsified all manner of the bidding to make sure they did.

Furthermore - McCain implies in his pathetic acknowledgement that he and the Air Force screwed it up, that Boeing somehow deserved not getting the contract because of the earlier fraud he claims to have uncovered - when in fact Boeing itself uncovered it and promptly opened all their books and procedures to demonstrate they'd removed even the slightest link to or hint of scandal in pursuit of the tanker contract.
And folks who never followed the story and have no idea what they're talking about, actually believe that.

There's the GAO report link above, Bothsides.
It is not a republican or democratic office.
GAO is arguably the most respected and neutral office in DC.
Even McCain can't claim GAO bias, and has accepted the report.
And the report says - in stronger language than anyone expected - that Boeing was screwed.

McCain was in charge.
McCain accepted money to lobby for the French Airbus parent company.
McCain's employees were simultaneously employed by Grunmond/Airbus for the express purpose of securing the contract.
The contract was improperly negotiated and awarded to Grunmond/Airbus.
No conspiracy theory or rumors here - those are simple FACTS.

Hello? You find this "politics as usual" acceptable?

Posted by JimD

4:05 PM, Jun 20, 2008

...additional McCain facts for Bothsides:

"...McCain finance chairman Tom Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left Loeffler's lobbying firm to be McCain's finance director, both began lobbying for the parent company of Airbus in 2007, Senate records show...
William Ball, a former secretary of the Navy and frequent McCain surrogate on the trail, also lobbied for Airbus, as did John Green, who recently took a leave from Ogilvy Public Relations to serve as McCain's legislative liaison...
McCain has steadfastly said his role in the process has been one of a neutral arbiter. Tuesday, McCain said he had "nothing to do" with the winning Airbus contract other than insisting on a fair process...
Airbus parent EADS North America more than tripled its contributions to U.S. lawmakers after 2004, as they pursued the Air Force contract, according to an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). McCain was the TOP INDIVIDUAL RECIPIENT of contributions from the company in the 2008 election cycle...
McCain has acknowledged sending two letters to Defense Department officials urging... officials (2006) to change their criteria for evaluating bidders for the tanker contract..."
Note: That mid-negotiation criteria change requested by McCain was one of the "improper" flaws in the contract process according to GAO, which now necessitates re-bidding.
Nice try, McCain.

Posted by John

9:41 AM, Jun 21, 2008


To accuse anyone without justification of saying that about Senator John McCain is indecent.
I’m calling on Mr. Postman, if he has any integrity to ban you from this site.
You’re disgusting little kid who hides behind a keyboard and drops bombs.
I plan on monitoring this site to make sure your banned!
If not, I’ll proceed with further action against you and the Times.

I insist MR. POSTMAN you have JIMD apologize to me then banned him.

I don’t want to leave this malice open ended.

Posted by Bothsides

11:51 AM, Jun 23, 2008


I applaud your ability to "cut and paste", however, why don't you just post the link and let everyone read it rather than pull out just what YOU think is important (even though it is from the fair and balanced Washington Post! NOT). You omitted this: "On the campaign trail, McCain hails his involvement in the years-long search for a modern tanker as evidence of his commitment to rooting out special interests. In 2004, he led the congressional investigation that uncovered a bribery scandal in which top Boeing and Air Force officials landed in jail or were forced to resign.

That contradicts what you have been spewing about him taking credit for killing the tanker deal, McCain was blowing the whistle on the deal long before there was any "scandal" at Boeing as the "lease" would have cost the taxpayers a bunch of money, so he in effect did "kill" the deal with his vigorous opposition. Also, if you read the last paragraph of the article it says how smart EADS was to target his aids for their lobbying power along with their campaign donations.

To say:
McCain was in charge.
McCain accepted money to lobby for the French Airbus parent company.

Is a blatant lie.


JimD can blog however he'd like, not sure why you think Postman should ban someone for expressing their opinion, no matter how twisted and wrong it is.

Posted by JimD

4:55 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Of course EADS was smart to employ his aids to hand out money while giving their largest campaign contributions - ever - to John McCain during the contract negotiation.
They got the contract! (duh!)
But that doesn't mean it's right - at least not to me.
Just because someone can buy the political result they want, doesn't make it good politics - let alone in the best interests of our country.
Boeing actually proposed the superior plane. Period.

John McCain says he "uncovered" and "investigated" the previous fraud to the Air force and Boeing (totally unrelated to the bidding and contract we're now discussing, by the way) - which is true, but only after Boeing "uncovered" it first.
Had Boeing not come lean with what it had found, McCain would have had no details to uncover or investigate.
McCain's version of events is as disingenuous as calling his interference on behalf of EADS an attempt to "level the playing field".
The U.S. Government Office of Accountability says otherwise, in the strongest of terms.
And John McCain HIMSELF identified his role as "arbitrator" of the contract.
How much more "in charge" do you want, out of McCain's own mouth no less.

You can deny the GOA findings, support "smart" payoffs to politicians as right and proper politics, and even dis the greatest airplane maker in the world in favor of their French (FRENCH!!!) government subsidized rival if you wish....well, you have done that, so I guess that proves your right to do so.
But no one is obligated to twist the truth to some Never Neverland fantasy under penalty of being called a liar if we don't agree with some perverted version of the facts.
McCain either sold us out to EADS for an inferior plane - for our military no less - or was an amazingly incompetent "arbitrator" (his word) of the contract.
Take your pick.
I think McCain is pretty 'smart", myself.

The GOA strongly faults his mid-negotiation criteria change that he himself called for IN WRITING - among a host of other blatant contract flaws in a process McCain proudly says he arbitrated.
I can only imagine what else he arbitrated off the record to similarly earn that money from EADS.

Posted by Bothsides

5:16 PM, Jun 23, 2008


How can you twist the fact so badly. Here's the quote "McCain has steadfastly said his role in the process has been one of a neutral arbiter. Tuesday, McCain said he had "nothing to do" with the winning Airbus contract other than insisting on a fair process." NEUTRAL arbiter, he was not negotiating the contract, he DID NOT ask that the contract be chanmged to allow an inferior Airbus plane to be accepted, he asked that the criteria for allowing bidders be changed so there would be competition. You need to go back to the beginning on this one. in 2001/2002 Boeing was selected WITHOUT competition and it was a bad deal for the taxpayer by billions of dollars, that's not a problem for you? McCain raised hell about that and the house of cards fell when all the scrutiny was being applied, Boeing had no choice but to come clean becasue McCain was digging and digging. I don't want Airbus to build these planes, and clearly the contract award was not correct, but McCain did not make those decisions, nor did he have any influence over them. If the facts were as you suggest it would be front page news for weeks, keep trying to tie him to this decision, I'll be waiting for the banner headlines.

Posted by JimD

6:27 PM, Jun 23, 2008

Bothsides wrote:
"Here's the quote "McCain has steadfastly said his role in the process has been one of a neutral arbiter. Tuesday, McCain said he had "nothing to do" with the winning Airbus contract other than insisting on a fair process." "

Well..what else would you expect him to say?
The process was far from NEUTRAL or FAIR or a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, according to the GOA.
He's also said, "I hope the Air Force goes back and gets it right this time..."
Hopes THEY get it right?
Isn't it the job of an arbitrator to make sure they do?
To make sure the process isn't corrupted by impropriety and blatant flaws?

One of those process components the GOA goes after was the improper change of criteria mid-process, which McCain requested at least once in writing in a 2006 letter to the Air Force.
The GOA says this did not NOT help create a level playing field.
To the contrary, they said;
"Used criteria other than those stipulated to assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes."
You can find the connection in detail by reading the report.

McCain is no dummy. He's basically claiming incompetence - blaming the Air Force, blaming Boeing's previous problems...
But the fact is, it's his word that he acted in good faith against a mountain of evidence to the contrary - including but not limited to a good portion of his staff handing out money on behalf EADS, personally accepting the highest campaign donations ever from EADS and it's French parent corp, a letter he sent in 2006 asking the Air Force to change the criteria against the process already agreed to (according to GOA), and a scathing critique by the GOA of the contract process he arbitrated on behalf of the American people.

It's amazing this isn't front page headlines - well actually it was and still is from time to time, and it will come up again as it continues to plague his campaign.
And the final blow is - the process he arbitrated was so flawed - so NOT a level playing field according to GOA - it now has to be renegotiated from scratch, which puts our military preparedness at risk with aging fuelers that we'd hoped to put out of service in the nick of time, but will now have to continue flying well beyond their already obsolete life expectancy.

Thanks a hell of a lot, John McCain.
I'll always admire you for your service in uniform.
But your service on this one suks, you money-grabbing, two-bit pimp for foreign corporate interests who sold-out our military and the American people while stuffing your pockets.
(sorry, but I've gone several thousand words without one and I'm over-due)

Posted by Bothsides

5:51 AM, Jun 24, 2008

You fail to understand his role, he was not an arbitrator over this process (officially), and, the request in '06 had nothing to do with the "criteria", it was about "who" was involved in the bid, period. You can sling it all you want, it just won't stick.

Posted by JimD

9:20 AM, Jun 24, 2008

Well...McCain HIMSELF calls his participation as "the arbitrator" of the contract, and McCain HIMSELF uses the word "criteria" to describe what he requested changed in writing to supposedly level the playing field to disadvantage Boeing.
McCain now admits the process he arbitrated was bungled.
He does not dispute the GOA's scathing report which explains in detail why it must be done over.
(you should read it)

Your version of McCain's role and the GOA report is at odds with what each has said.
I think your argument is with McCain and the GOA.
I'm just reporting the facts as they stated them.

Posted by Bothsides

11:39 AM, Jun 24, 2008

Wrong, you're just twisting the facts to support your argument, which is futile, McCain didn't run this show. Also, it is GAO (General Accounting Office) not GOA. And again, you'd prefer that Boeing recieve an unchallenged contract, no competitive bid?? So I assume you're okay with Halliburton too in Iraq too!

Posted by John

12:29 PM, Jun 24, 2008

Your right, jimd post stand by themselves on what type of individual he is. He's a great poster child for change.

Recent entries

Jun 24, 08 - 07:01 AM
Two Republicans with two views of one meeting

Jun 23, 08 - 04:46 PM
FOX News on Republicans shying away from party brand

Jun 23, 08 - 02:32 PM
Weekly newspapers look for new revenue in big campaign year

Jun 23, 08 - 11:52 AM
Republicans overthink race, while black voters go elsewhere

Jun 23, 08 - 10:11 AM
Councilman moves to challenge Sims







Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Browse the archives

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008


Buy a link here