1. Couldn't he at least pretend that he cared about the public interest?
2. Dow whatever, Susan is a meat puppet.
3. Wait a second here. The Public Disclosure Request from Ervin is dated 10-20-09. So why is the "blah-blah-blah" e-mail dated 10-16-07? Two years PRIOR to the PDR? That's because this e-mail is totally unrelated to the supposed allegation of whatever you are supposing that Dow Constantine did. This is a totally disingenuous post, because it creates the suggestion that Constantine's "blah blah blah" is related to this allegation that he sexually harassed someone when it clearly was made years earlier. Maybe this is why bloggers are not considered serious journalists -- because they aren't. Bloggers deal in inference.
By the way, I think the protection order is totally fishy. Washington State law requires a response to a PDR in writing within five days; Ervin should have received a response by King County before Jane Doe filed for the restraining order (since the order is dated 10-27-09 and no other pleading was filed before that date).
4. That's correct Todd it's totally unrelated, it simply points out the fellow in question doesn't think much of PDR's in general. The only one making an inference is you.
5. Well, since I am the only one dealing in inferences, perhaps a better title to this thead would be "CONSTANTINE'S HIGH OPINION OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS TWO YEARS AGO." Clearly, by posting that e-mail today, you were trying to connect it Dow Constantine's current scandalette. If that isnot an inference, I would ike to know what is an inference, and why that two year-old e-mail became suddenly relevant.
6. The article merely points out that Mr. Constantine has had a long standing distain for PDR's. Dow's stated position which is directly opposite his written reply found in this post can be seen in it's original video form in the post prior to this one. He says one thing in front of the cameras and does another when he thinks people are not watching.
7. Maybe you should write you own post Todd. Clearly the author was establishing a pattern of Dow saying one thing in front of the cameras, as in the previous post with video on the question of transparency and behaving in a completely different manner when he doesn't think people are watching. Dow can't help himself, he needs to lie to cover-up the previous lie.
8. Sorry for the double post.
9. "Todd it's totally unrelated, it simply points out the fellow in question doesn't think much of PDR's in general."
Really? Can you cite more than one random email?
11. Of course a sex predator like Dow Constantine disregards Public disclosure records requests. What predatory superior preying on his female subordinates wouldn't? The thing here is that both are public employees and as such, all records are subject to review by ALL of the public. Just as Constantine said, "Everything I've done as a public official is a matter of public record". A 2 week restraining order to release the facts surrounding his 'creepy boss' dalliances is simply a stall tactic by a judicial shill of the Democrat party. Any sane person can recognize this fact.
12. Wow! Judged and convicted on unsubstantiated evidence. Hope you avoid jury duty. :)
btw: I'm a Hutchison fan...
13. @ 13. All the more reason for Constantine to ask that this matter be addressed. His silence is deafening only points to guilt. Air the grievances and let the cards lay where they may.
Public officials = Public disclosure. Don't like it? Find employment in the private sector.
14. If you read any of the statement's from Dow's campaign spokesman clearly, you'll see he has never actually, eh, you know DENIED the claims of sexual harassment. Instead, he deflects by calling Griswold "unreliable," etc. Just saying.
15. How about a haiku instead
Dow Constantine said
"Blah blah blah", dismissing that
Which keeps him honest.
16. demo punk @11 - is that the best you can offer? A story "according to several (unnamed, unidentified) people who worked for KIRO at the time" from a rag whose primary source of revenue comes from GL&T dating ads?
Once again, you offer nothing of substance here. Stick to the point and cite legit sources - then, maybe we'll listen.
17. @17: It's right on point... in that BOTH are irrelevant! This is intra-office mail about a public records request about annexation in Auburn, and it is completely unrelated to anything else Mark has posted on this board.
A little silly... but nothing more.
But hey... you tell me. How precisely IS this relevant?
18. On the sidenote, I wonder why at my business in Mukilteo, we are receiving "Vote for Dow Constantine" pre-recorded messages? Why would they be blanketing all of the Northend phone numbers? Sure, at a business, there might be some folks that live in King County (not true in our company) but I doubt these calls are exclusive to businesses in the area. We are what, 10 miles away from King County?
and FYI, no, I don't share "your" values as your ad asserts, not that it impacts me one bit.