Friday,
December 31 2004
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND OHIO:
About 2,400 miles and 118,328 votes. That's the difference
between Christine
Gregoire's 129-vote victory over Dino Rossi in the Washington
governor's race (achieved after one machine recount and
one hand recount) and George
W. Bush's 118,457-vote victory over John Kerry after
the recently completed recount in Ohio.
On
Wednesday Rossi
sent a letter to Gregoire asking her to join him in
calling for a revote. Not surprisingly, Gregoire brushed
the request aside. Yesterday afternoon Gregoire
was offically declared the state's Governor-elect -
at least for now.
Rossi
is considering challenging the election results in court.
If you've been following Soundpolitics
you know there looks to be some evidence to support a legitimate
legal challenge. This
article in today's Seattle Times (which, by the way,
shows the growing power of the blogosphere by crediting
Soundpolitics' Stefan Sharkansky) ends by quoting state
GOP Chairman Chris Vance on the status of a legal challenge:
"We've
got to put something together that is rock, rock solid,"
he said. "It's going to take awhile; everybody needs
to be patient."
This
is absolutely right. Republicans need to tread lightly here.
They should only go to court if and when they have incontrovertible
evidence of fraud, manipulation or error that is certain
to change the outcome of the election back in Rossi's favor
or of generating a revote. Otherwise, if Republicans do
challenge the election without producing the goods, they
run the risk of looking like sore losers with no respect
for the process.
Ohio
is a good example of what I'm talking about. After the recount
initiated by Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik and
Green candidate David Cobb, Bush's lead shrunk by only 300
votes to 118,457. Now the AP reports the
Green-Libertarian-Dem axis is calling for yet another recount.
There
is not a single piece of serious evidence of vote fraud,
only complaints of long lines and faulty machines, etc.
- in other words a list of garden variety election day issues
that happened in places all across the country. Neverheless,
David Cobb, the Green Candidate, claims
in his latest press release that:
"We
have done our utmost to protect the integrity of our right
to vote in court and through the recount process, yet
a cloud of suspicion still hangs over the election results.
We cannot sit back and allow our rights to be violated."
A 118,457
vote margin is some cloud of suspicion. And, by the way,
from the
same press release:
Cobb
will be speaking at rallies in Columbus, Ohio and Washington,
DC on January 3 and 6, respectively. The Columbus rally
is at 1 p.m. at the Capitol Theater, 77 S. High Street,
and is sponsored by the Reverend Jesse Jackson,
Rainbow/PUSH, the Cobb-LaMarche campaign and
many other organizations.
Separately,
the Cincinnati
Post reports:
A
group of 37 Ohio voters, backed by the Rev. Jesse
Jackson of Illinois, have filed a complaint with
Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer asking that the election
results be overturned. The complaint alleges a host of
flaws with the election, ranging from long lines at polling
places in inner city neighborhoods to results that did
not square with exit polls.
In
addition the motion to overturn the election, Democrats
filed a motion to disqualify Justice Moyer himself:
The
chief justice of the state Supreme Court refused Wednesday
to remove himself from a case challenging the results
of the presidential election.
A
group of voters had claimed Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
"wittingly or unwittingly acquired knowledge of deliberate
national and statewide election fraud" and should
step aside.
Moyer
called the voters' claim "wholly without foundation."
He added that he has no reason to remove himself since
the challenge doesn't involve his own election and he
has nothing to gain by a change in the results.
In
Wednesday's ruling, Moyer said the challengers have provided
"nothing suggesting that Ohio election officials
are engaging, or will engage, in illegal conduct,"
and called their documents "woefully inadequate."
Cliff
Arnebeck, an attorney representing the voters, said Wednesday
said he was reviewing the documents Moyer referred to.
If
Mr. Arnebeck is representing the voters, should he already
be aware of the documents he filed? Just asking. And it
doesn't stop there. Democrats have also filed
a separate motion challenging the results of Justice Moyers
recent election:
"The
allegations of fraud in the presidential election are
similar to those made in a separate challenge
to Chief Justice Moyer's election over Democrat C. Ellen
Connally, a retired Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge.
The
challenge to the chief justice's election, currently being
weighed by Justice Maureen O'Connor, suggests the Bush-Cheney
campaign included him in its alleged pattern of fraud
because it wanted the Republican in a position to rule
on any subsequent challenges."
In
other words, between the Green party candidate, Jesse Jackson,
and the lawyer/co-founder of the far-left Alliance
for Democracy we're seeing a full frontal assault designed
to undermine the legitimacy of a clear Bush victory in Ohio
based on conspiracy theories and on flimsy, if not wholly
unsupported allegations.
THE
LAST WORD OF 2004: What a remarkable year. From
the snows of Iowa in January to the waves of Asia in December,
2004 has been jam-packed with the sort of monumental events
that had the entire country sitting on the edge of its seat.
It's been a great year to be the proprietors of a political
web site and we'd like to thank all of the readers who were
with us along the way. Best wishes to all in the year to
come. - T. Bevan 10:30 am Link
| Email |
Send
to a Friend
Wednesday,
December 29 2004
THE PATHETIC ETHICS OF JIM McDERMOTT: It's
bad enough that Jim McDermott went
to Baghdad in October 2002 and called the President
of the United States a liar. Or that the following month
the voters of Washington state's 7th Congressional District
added insult to injury by reelecting McDermott with 75%
of the vote.
This
year, in an October 22 court decision over the question
of McDermott's involvement in leaking the transcript of
an illegally intercepted phone call in 1997, Judge Thomas
Hogan held that
McDermott's "willful and knowing misconduct rises to
the level of malice." McDermott, who is appealing
the decision, has been ordered to pay a $60,000 fine and
all the legal costs in the case, which could run close to
$600,000. Once again, voters didn't seem to care: two weeks
after the judge's ruling McDermott won reelection to a ninth
Congressional term with
81% of the vote.
As
most of you probably remember, the case against McDermott
involves the now famous 1997 conference call regarding the
ethics
investigation of Newt Gingrich that was surreptitiously
recorded off of the cell phone of Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio)
by a couple in Florida. The couple then passed along a transcript
of the illegally taped conversation to McDermott who promptly
leaked it to The New York Times and The Atlanta
Journal Constitution. At the time McDermott was the
ranking member of the House Ethics Committee.
The
Florida pair who taped the phone call eventually pleaded
guilty to violating wiretapping laws and received fines
of $500 each. McDermott denied leaking the transcript and
was never charged with a criminal offense, but he did resign
his seat on the Ethics Committee.
Joel
Connelly of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports today
that in the wake of the recent court decision McDermott
fired off a rather odious fundraising letter titled, "Newt
Gingrich Yesterday, Tom DeLay Today:"
"Exercising
his First Amendment rights," [the letter] says, "McDermott
used the press to expose Gingrich's deceptive behavior
in violation of an agreement with the ethics panel."
The
McDermott letter claims that the GOP leadership "continues
to use the courts" to "pursue" him.
It
is a dubious claim. Boehner is no longer in the leadership.
Gingrich and then-majority leader Dick Armey are long
gone from Congress.
Instead,
the letter takes after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay,
and invites givers to "help continue the fight for
Democratic values."
Only
indirectly is the letter's real purpose disclosed: Its
goal is not to fund any campaign, but to pay McDermott's
legal fees. "We cannot allow Republican leaders to
financially destroy a member of Congress who has a proven
track record of standing up for endangered democratic
values," it states.
The
truth is far different. McDermott could have settled with
Boehner. The Ohioan simply asked for an apology to the
House, an admission of wrongdoing and a $10,000 donation
to charity. Instead, McDermott is appealing the latest
judgment, and wants donors to foot the bill.
Thanks
to the recent court decision, after seven long years the
House Ethics Committee has finally decided to launch an
investigation into McDermott's behavior. Let's hope
they concur with Judge Hogan, conclude the obvious and charge
McDermott with violating the standards of conduct and the
ethics rules of the House. And let's hope the voters of
Washington state's 7th district take notice this time and
go find themselves a better representative. - T.
Bevan 9:45 am Link
| Email |
Send
to a Friend
Tuesday,
December 28 2004
A CONTRAST WORTH RECOGNIZING: Just hours after
one of the worst human tragedies in recent memory, leaders
of the United
States, Britain,
Australia,
France,
Germany
and many other governments from around the world released
statements offering their condolences for the passing of
so many innocent souls and pledging to marshall the resources
of their respective governments to assist stricken countries
in feeding and clothing the homeless, treating the wounded,
burying the dead, and rebuilding shattered communities.
Yesterday
Osama bin Laden released
a different kind of statement. In an audiotaped message
bin Laden demanded Iraqis boycott the coming elections and
threatened that "everyone who participates in this
election will be considered an infidel."
Bin
Laden also bestowed the title of "amir" (deputy
or prince) upon Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and said he was "pleased"
with Zarqawi's efforts in Iraq. The last time the world
saw Zarqawi he was slicing the head off an innocent person
on videotape.
Obviously,
the contrast couldn't be greater. On one hand you see an
army of compassion; governments and citizens banding together
to help one another in the aftermath of a devastating tragedy.
On the other hand you see an army of tyranny and death;
a group of thugs and murderers who spend every waking moment
trying to prevent people from living in freedom.
As
we all ponder the meaning of what happened on Saturday and
how such tragedy could befall so many on one of the holiest
days of the year, I'd humbly suggest that perhaps a great
contrast is what God had in mind. Not a contrast between
Christians and Muslims, but rather between the display of
a massive global outpouring of heartfelt compassion and
the sinister threats of a group of heartless terrorists.
A contrast, in other words, between good and evil. And in
the battle between good and evil we can rest assured, to
borrow a phrase from a rather well known Texan, that "God
is not neutral between them." - T. Bevan
11:45 am Link | Email
| Send
to a Friend
