And what was the name of the Republican with legal standing to pursue a claim and what did he do with his claim?
Surely if that Republican would simply run against her 4 years later that Republican could win, no?
No doubt the Republican State Attorney General took that "yeoman [sic] work" of the (un)SP boss and did something with it, no?
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 8, 2013 04:43 PMAnd as we all have learned from radical islam, when you're a religious fanatic(s), to them the ends justify the means.
Posted by Rick D. at January 8, 2013 06:04 PMAnd like Chrissy's masters in DC, WA is spending more than it takes in.
The liberals that voted them in got the exact government they wanted and that they certainly deserve.
But hey, Chrissy and the kids got some great trips on our dime.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 8, 2013 06:37 PMUm, Ron, you seem to have left out the part where you had your butts handed to you in court before a conservative judge who increased her winning margin. Details. Facts. I imagine that they only get in the way when a wingnut needs to whine.
You might have mentioned how in the article she lamented that her "Cinderella moment", the honeymoon accorded presidents and governors until the likes of you came along, ended before it began with Republican politicians turning their backs to her at her inaugeration, and then with rude and crude remarks made to her face by people like you and your angry, even unhinged readers. Yeah, for some reason you left that part out too, Hebron.
"Poor Christine Gregoire." As though she needs the pity of someone who still weeps such bitter tears as do you. You know, Ron, "get over it" really was good advice. You might want to consider taking that one to heart yourself.
Posted by Doctor Steve at January 8, 2013 06:49 PMGood to know, RickyD. If you'll keep a close eye on those Mormons and Southern Baptist types then I'm sure we'll all sleep a wee bit better at night. And don't forget the Papists!
Hmm, riddle me this, RickyD. If the end doesn't justify the means, then what does?
Posted by Doctor Steve at January 8, 2013 06:59 PM
Shall we expect you to still be crying about Dino's 2004 defeat in 2024? 2044? 2112?
ps. What was the name of the guy and what is his party affiliation who certified the 2004 election?
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 8, 2013 08:10 PMJudge Bridges devastated their smug and stupid arguments with cold, hard facts:
"There is no evidence in this record that Ms. Gregoire received any illegal votes," Judge Bridges said. He noted that the only illegal votes that had been proved during the trial were five cast by convicted felons; four were for Mr. Rossi, and one was for a Libertarian candidate, Ruth Bennett.
Their entire "argument", which we can elegantly summarize as. "ha ha felon libs prefer Democrat party duh duh derp derp," failed when the deep and abiding sympathy of lawbreaking felons was shown to favor the Republicans and Libertarians. Even in liberal King County, the felons who cast illegal votes did so for Mr. Rossi. Having seen every one of their claims which was tested in court to be "dismissed, with prejudice," the losers at Sounds Delusional wasted many years and many delicious tears, thereafter whining about non-existent "voter fraud" in King County, never once mentioning the felons who voted for Rossi.
While the embittered whining of hopeless losers brings joy to the heart of this Seattle liberal, it's worth wondering why the complete and total failure of this site to validate any of the claims it had made did not cause the local adherents to abandon it. Perhaps failure is the new success to our local wingnuts? The 2012 elections would seem to agree.
Ron, please keep bawling out your hopeless, hapless, fact-free misery; we Seattle liberals will continue to lap it up in a most sybaritic manner.
Posted by tensor at January 9, 2013 01:02 AM"A revote would be the best solution for the people of our state and would give us a legitimate governorship" Dino Rossi December 29 2004
Christine Gregoire - 53.24%
Dino Rossi - 46.76%
Interesting fact, each time Rossi runs in a statewide election he gets worse results.
Go GOP!
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/cavuto/index.html
Posted by Politically Incorrect at January 9, 2013 02:40 PMWhen we pay off the cost of the wards he started, I think we can let him off the hook.
Posted by demokid at January 9, 2013 05:06 PMI imagine sometime after the costs of rebuilding The World Trade Center, repairing the Pentagon, fighting two failed wars, and unproductive tax cuts for the rich have all finally stopped damaging said economy.
Accountability, how does it work?
Posted by tensor at January 9, 2013 05:10 PMSo nothing the current President has done in four years has had a negative impact on the economy? I'm glad the legalization of marijuana is going well for you guys.
Posted by Leftover at January 9, 2013 05:50 PMBut, by all means, keep whining about how we evil libs are daring to hold you people and your "leaders" accountable for your many expensive failures. Bitter, inconsolable Wingnut tears taste very good right now, no matter the exact reason you're bawling this time.
Posted by tensor at January 9, 2013 06:12 PMIt'll be even better this time around!
"I am a retired operations researcher - that's using math and discrete-event simulation to solve business problems - in Lake Forest Park, Washington, which is the Seattle area."
I hope the simulated reality for which his clients/employer paid was better than the crappy one he presented in this post.
Posted by tensor at January 9, 2013 08:47 PMStefan Sharkansky would be a better spokesman for this post. However, I tend to agree with Duffman, what good does dredging this stuff up do at this time ? Stefan has the evidence locked up in his archives which is good enough for me.
Posted by KDS at January 9, 2013 10:11 PMDoes Roger Rabbit's comment @39 fit your definition of cheering for people to die?
Posted by Leftover at January 9, 2013 10:49 PMWhich is why most American's wonder why Bill Clinton let Bin Laden go years before when the Sudan was offering up on a silver platter. Looks like the Hillbilly from Arkansas was too busy chubby chasing to worry about 3K American deaths caused by his inaction/incompetence.
Needless to say, the Prog-lodytes conveniently suffer from selective amnesia when this fact is pointed out to them. Then again, it just reinforces my earlier comment on the perils of religious fanaticism from the left. Feigned ignorance is still ignorance and the prog-lodytes have perfected this particular art form.
Posted by Rick D. at January 9, 2013 11:06 PMAssertions made without evidence are dismissed without evidence. (See how easy that was?)
Stefan has the evidence locked up in his archives which is good enough for me.
Feeling bitter, lonely, defeated, hopeless, humiliated, and lost? You should be! Luckily, the proprietor of this site will still cheat you out of whatever you have left -- it's in his nature, after all -- and he is very delighted to see he still has at least one willing mark whom he can fleece with total impunity.
Does Roger Rabbit's comment @39 fit your definition of cheering for people to die?
Demokid can see when something is intended as a joke. You can't, because the only jokes in your life come courtesy of the candidates who repeatedly take your votes without delivering anything you claim to want. And when the joke is clearly, obviously, and constantly upon you, it can be very, very difficult to 'get'.
Posted by tensor at January 9, 2013 11:09 PMMeanwhile, who really ignored clear evidence of a pending terrorist attack?
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1]
I can see why you repeatedly handed your vote over to W. blindly, with no questions asked: his keen perceptive insights far exceed your own. But voting for the most miserable failure in US presidential history does not really qualify you to comment on a thread about a successful political CEO. Thanks for playing, and please don't let the door whack you in your brains on the way out.
Just read that 2012 is the hottest year so far. So I stopped by to see how the climate change denial is holding up. This was an expected treat.
Thanks Ron!
Posted by Jason Osgood at January 10, 2013 04:26 AMThen why do you come here knowing you voted for this miserable failure Barack obama not once, but twice? By any metric used, Obama has not been a "successful political CEO" unless you live in the prog-lodyte fantasy world of David Goldstain. Can you say delusional?!
But thanks for posting it anyway, I needed a good belly laugh.
Posted by Rick D. at January 10, 2013 07:03 AM
Assertions made without evidence are dismissed without evidence. (See how easy that was?)
@45 - It was easy, vacuous and stupid ! You proved my point. As correctly predicted, you did not even bother to try and bring any evidence to contradict my assertion. You also labeled yourself as a leftist wingnut. My evidence of his big government grab speaks for itself.
The rest of your post is simplistic and apathetic nonsense. Either keep trying or fughetaboutit !!
Posted by KDS at January 10, 2013 10:04 AMOf course not. Evidence, how does it work?
Posted by tensor at January 10, 2013 11:55 AMDefinition of the word CANARD: A false or unfounded report or story; especially: a fabricated report. Here's an example of its use in a sentence:
Ron raised the old canard that Gregoire did not really win the 2004 election in order to aggravate both liberals and conservatives.
Posted by dorky dorkman at January 10, 2013 11:55 AMCrazy libtards.
What's it like, being this bitterly miserable for eight long, lonely years? I guess having Governoire Gregoire welcome Governor-Elect Inslee, while your candidates repeatedly lose, must really, really hurt right now. I honestly can't think of any other reason you guys would still flog a story which a Republican judge in a Republican county dismissed l
Posted by tensor at January 10, 2013 01:39 PMGood work belittling those that try to recall what happened - as George Santayana wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Posted by the Democrat Playbook at January 10, 2013 02:44 PMThe link to the playbook seems to be broken. Please provide it.
"Many were well documented by Mr. Sharkansky..."
If only his efforts had been tested, or maybe tried in a courtroom somewhere. Somewhere dom
in the year following our 2004 'victory', but since our associates in the media helped cover it up, most low-information voters have no idea of the methods of our success.
Posted by tensor at January 10, 2013 02:51 PMThe Republican House is off to a great start, what with useless zygote personhood and the repeal of ACA bills.
You're going to lose again in 2014 and it's going to be your own damned fault. Will there be lessons learned? No. Obviously.
KDS, I assert that you have repeatedly had carnal relations with chickens. I will patiently await the presentation of any evidence you might have that will contradict my assertion. Until then, you will stay away from chickens.
Posted by Doctor Steve at January 10, 2013 03:27 PMOf course, they howl when we remind them they got exactly what they voted for in with their win. They don't like to hear the consequences, they don't want to hear that in winning they actually lost. My absolute hands down favorite example of that this week (so far) is the squealing the did when they got their paychecks. The next will be when the dictator wannabe they elected hustles and lies to take guns.
They'll never claim it, but it would be fascinating to witness their Pastor Martin Niemoller moment.
Are we to believe that you believe Zombie Breitbart is a spokesperson for liberal Obamabots?
And yes, both Gregoire's and Obama's electoral victories are only perceptions. It never really happened. I got this from former Gov Rossi and President elect Romney.
You're babbling. Gregoire is irrelevant. Obama is all yours.
Enjoy it ... while you can.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 04:27 PMAs one so good at mocking I'm surprised you couldn't/refused to recognize it. Or you didn't read the article.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 04:29 PMOf course I didn't click thru to the wingnut site link you provided. Why would I? Because you claim the site best known for scams and fraud claims to know how Obama supporters felt about something?
Cripes Rags, right before that asshat died he claimed at CPAC
I've got videos, by the way. This election we're going to vet him. I've got videos - this election we're going to vet him - from his college days to show you why ... racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008,"
How'd that go? LOL
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 04:41 PMIt's your favourite example because, of course, you're an idiot. The payroll tax holiday was carried through by Democrats, not Republicans, and meant as a short-term stimulus. The fact that it expired had little to do with the current budget negotiations. You might as well talk about people complaining that they didn't get a stimulus check every year.
Posted by demokid at January 10, 2013 04:49 PMAnd I suppose that in losing, the GOP has actually won.
Brilliant! And it explains a lot regarding the decades-long losing streak of the WSGOP. Their supporters seem to think you score an election like a round of golf!
Heres to many more years of GOP "wins"!
Posted by scottd at January 10, 2013 04:58 PMToo bad. You missed the utterly hilarious quotes from the Obama voters slapped in the face with the CONSEQUENCES of their new reality.
You must have been afraid.
It's your favourite example because, of course, you're an idiot. The payroll tax holiday was carried through by Democrats, not Republicans, and meant as a short-term stimulus. The fact that it expired had little to do with the current budget negotiations. You might as well talk about people complaining that they didn't get a stimulus check every year.
It's my fav because I did indeed know that. However, the hapless hopey, changey sheep didn't. The term for these voters is LOW INFORMATION voters. At least some of you loud SP lefty's are informed - if ill-informed or only half the story informed...
And I suppose that in losing, the GOP has actually won.
Not at all.
Heres to many more years of GOP "wins"!
And here's to the consequences of yours. Again, we won't witness your Martin Niemoller moment ... are you honest enough to tell us when you do? Ha!
There is no doubt the pendulum of politics is swinging to the left right now. But the key word is 'swinging'. It won't be sustained and while we might suffer during it, it will be highly entertaining, if for no other reason than watching liberals and loud lefty's imitate a pretzel in trying to defend and explain it.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 05:15 PMHowever, the hapless hopey, changey sheep didn't. The term for these voters is LOW INFORMATION voters.
1) What are the names of these people?
2) Where do they live?
3) Are these people more or less real than Zombie Breitbart's vetting videos showing "racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008"?
4) As someone who frequently cites the flim-flam Zombie Breitbart as a news source, how sure are you that your are not the " LOW INFORMATION voter"?
Evidence, how does it work? (h/t tensor)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 05:45 PMI guess I thought you were better than that lame argument.
Clearly I was wrong.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 05:49 PMit will be highly entertaining, if for no other reason than watching liberals and loud lefty's imitate a pretzel in trying to defend and explain it.
You know, if you replaced "liberals" & "lefty's" with "RagnarDanneskold and the (un)SP peanut gallery" you'd be on to something.
ps. An apostrophe used with noun is used to show possession and is improper use for showing the plural of the noun.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 05:52 PMI read an anonymous commenter on a blog declare you an idiot, so that must be true. Right?
Evidence, how does it work? (h/t tensor)
were documented all over the net STARTING At the Democrat Underground.
Can you provide the link to the post at http://www.democraticunderground.com where this is all documented?
I'm betting not.
Maybe they are located near the Zombie Breitbart's vetting videos showing "racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008"?
A 'low information' voter is the one who watches reality TV. They are the ones Leno mocks when he does his man on the street bit. The know the most popular celebrities but not the name of the VP.
I recently read a study about the political affiliation of those who are more interested in the celebrity culture rather than what's going on in the world.
Frankly I think this country's problems are less ideological and far more cultural. That pendulum will swing back too. That's what lefty's always forget in their celebration of debauchery. Humans naturally like order. We are on the edge of too much disorder.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 06:04 PMAll those couples who got married at Seattle City Hall last month might not agree with you on that, Rags. You see, when she took office, homosexuals in our state could lose their jobs and homes without recourse, and could not marry. Those injustices ended because Gov. Gregoire made it her priority to end them. That's called "leadership", Rags, and it comes as no surprise that you didn't even come close to recognizing it when you saw it.
"There is just no point in relitigating her legitimacy ...."
Heck, Rags, it's not even possible. After Judge Bridges mercilessly dissected and rejected every last claim the Republicans put before him -- including that of voter fraud -- he dismissed their lawsuit "with prejudice," meaning it can't ever again be litigated.
"... the opportunity it affords our loud lefties to do what they enjoy most - rubbing their opponents noses in what they perceive as their victories."
Yeah, that evil lib, Mr. Hebron, dredging up yet more miserable conservative failure. It's not like there's a shortage of it right now, is there?
And yes, we liberals regard winning an election -- and then having our margin of victory increased at our opponents' cost -- as a victory. What wacky thing will we think up next?!?
Posted by tensor at January 10, 2013 06:06 PMNice try. We all know the hapless dupe that posted it pulled it. Put a little effort into it, you'll find the screen shot.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 06:07 PMWere you trying to prove anonymous commenter on a blog declaration that you are an idiot to be true with that answer?
Evidence, how does it work? (h/t tensor)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 06:12 PMI guess we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court for that.
And really with all the other problems we have, that's what she focused on? Pardon my yawn and incredulity.
And yes, we liberals regard winning an election -- and then having our margin of victory increased at our opponents' cost -- as a victory. What wacky thing will we think up next?!?
I never disagreed. Enjoy it - and the consequences of it.
I just don't understand why the 'left' is as angry in winning as it is in losing.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 06:13 PMPlease provide a coherent translator for that ramble.
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 10, 2013 06:15 PMI guess we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court for that.
We'll just assume you already know that there is no case either on the docket of the Supreme Court or in any court that seeks to invalidate the WA marriage equality law pushed and signed by Governor Gregoire. That's the marriage equality law which was endorsed by a majority of WA residents at the ballot box.
So just what issue do you think the Supreme Court would rule upon regarding the marriage equality in WA?
Try to do better than you did @75.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 06:20 PMI truly am sorry Rags. I realized that was not a well written sentence as soon as I hit "POST".
Let me provide a straight up easy to understand translation for you.
Citing a single person's comment that does not exist by itself is enough to show you are an idiot.
Citing Zombie Breitbart's site with its claim of a single person's comment that does not exist as proof of anything is fricking hilarious!
Evidence, how does it work? (h/t tensor)
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 06:26 PMI've called you on this before, please get it correct. Per Richard Clarke, President Clinton's Terror Czar, by the time the Bush Administration started it was already too late:
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
CLARKE: No.
Sorry, even Clinton's own terror czar absolves the Bush Administration for 9/11. It rests squarely on the Clinton administration - per the Clinton administration.
Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 10, 2013 06:45 PMYou're as dense as RagnarDanneskold.
Which administration was Richard Clarke working for on January 25, 2001?
What were the January 2001 recommendations of Clarke and how does that relate to the August 6, 2001 CIA daily report delivered to President Bush?
Posted by MikeBoyScout at January 10, 2013 06:59 PMDo try to learn who Richard Clarke is, and what the Blue Sky memo was before posting. It would help to cover your ignorance.
Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 10, 2013 08:08 PM