The law that makes it a felony to run for office if your name matches another famous person who's running is kinda wild. I have trouble seeing how that would stand up to legal scrutiny.

@1 Maybe Hamas used Israeli spyware to do it? That would be a great irony. And it's not like we (or Israel for that matter) have the moral high ground about spying on people protesting the government.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-middle-east-israel-software-spyware-9e698beb06f16ce8fa2f2ac4100e44ef

@2, @3, I have seen a couple candidates with same names before, so this is a law specifically aimed at spoofing legitimate candidates to cause electoral confusion. In this case, some joker publicly and proudly recruited the Bobs for this exact reason. The first time is funny, but as a playbook to bring down elections….yeah let’s back away from that. It’s like the founder foresaw how dysfunctional our political system would get…

@4 I definitely get the reason for the law. But it's also predicated on someone joining the race specifically to capitalize on the other candidate's name recognition, which seems like it would be hard to prove. Well, except in this case, when the person who recruited them said the quiet part out loud. Even so, there's a lot of First Amendment issues with the law. IANAL.

@3 One thing we learned in the Trump era was that Bob Ferguson was very careful to bring lawsuits that he was pretty sure of winning. His record speaks to that--he won far more often than he lost. He deliberately passed on a bunch of lawsuits that other states brought that were on shakier legal ground.

[Eds note: To quote a wise man, "Fuck you to death."]

Bruh.

RE: Bobs

https://youtu.be/OwfNjGxa_D4?feature=shared

Baby steps.

boatgeek@5: “His record speaks to that--he won far more often than he lost.”

Certainly, you can make that argument; Trump did a lot of crap that needed to be sued over. My beef with Ferguson was that all those Trump lawsuits came at the expense of the caseload in other areas and taxpayers are on the hook for it.

I am very upset about this garlic bread event. This event is a blatant example of the ongoing erasure and marginalization of those of us who suffer from celiac disease. While the event might seem innocent and fun at first glance, it perpetuates a culture of gluten ignorance and insensitivity. As a celiac sufferer, I constantly face the challenges of navigating a world where gluten is omnipresent, and gatherings like this only serve to further isolate and exclude us.

This gathering should have been inclusive of all dietary needs, but instead, it focused solely on a food item that many people cannot safely consume. This exclusion is a microaggression against those with celiac disease and gluten intolerances, and it demonstrates a lack of awareness and empathy from the organizers. Events like these need to prioritize accessibility and inclusivity for everyone, not just those without dietary restrictions.

Moreover, the article's casual tone and failure to address these issues reflect the systemic ableism ingrained in our society. By glorifying an event centered around a common allergen, we are ignoring the lived experiences and struggles of a significant portion of the population. It's time for organizers and journalists alike to acknowledge their privilege and work towards creating events that do not alienate or harm marginalized communities. #CeliacVisibility #EndAbleism #InclusionMatters

I'm glad the two other Bob Fergusons stepped down from the Washington gubernatorial race.
The whole episode reeked of willful RepubliKKKan conspiracy to deliberately confuse voters.
I'm surprised loony Loren Culp didn't think of this latest GOP Ponzi scheme.
Go, AG SuperBob, GO!! Here's hoping you call, "Checkmate!" this Roevember.

Everybody hates Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's housing plan, or rather, a lack thereof.....even all the profiteering developers raking in mega-$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for every luxury condo at $5 + million a pop? That's certainly telling.
My question is, if Harrell gets ousted, who will his replacement be if the Seattle City Council is currently in such a state of chaos? Sara Nelson hasn't been much help.

@9/10 You both shouldn't be surprised at Ferguson's actions. He has consistently shown over the years that he is a petty idealogue who uses his office to forward his own ambitions. His office has been caught withholding evidence on several occasions and paid fines costing taxpayers, they have done little to take on egregious issues to protect WA voters like the legislature's attempt to circumvent transparency or the blatant overvaluation of vehicles by ST and he pursues politically motivated cases designed to make himself look good like Eyman and Trump (note - those are both assholes but the vigor in which he pursued them was way over the top). If he becomes governor you should expect more of the same.

@2 There's a bit more to the law than that. It also has to be clear that the intent is to cause confusion. If either of these Bob's had been active as politicians previously, and therefore had an established name even in small town politics, it would be different. If either of these candidates had been running campaigns that were actively trying to establish why they were not the more famous Bob Ferguson, and why the difference makes them the better Bob for the Job, things would be different. And, you know, had they not registered their campaigns with the same office, they might have also looked legit. It wasn't a very smart move, because regardless of politics, one has to recognize that AG Ferguson is an effective lawyer.

@6 Another way to legally infer intent is by how the candidates act. If the candidate is aware that the person who encouraged them to run has encouraged other people of the same name to run, that makes it more obvious they were not recruited because of their unique policies. Another way to infer intent would be if they were actually mounting a reasonable campaign for the office. If one is not mounting a state wide campaign for the office of Governor, it is safe to infer that they are not a serious candidate. If they are also not attempting to make their differences know to the voters, then it is safe to infer that confusion actually was the goal.

@11 Wins today's creative snark award!

@14 Thanks for making the case for why Bob Ferguson will make a great governor, or at least better than any of the ass-clowns the GOP has to offer.

@14: Eyman lined his own pockets from the Initiative process. He laundered money, via kickbacks from the paid signature gathering companies. His ass should sit in prison, not just get kicked in civil court. Ferguson was really lenient with Eyman.

@15 thanks Bob!

ideologies are impossible to target.

capnblinky @11, capnblinky @18, I salute you. You have won Slog today. And twice.

@17 Eyman was a moron. No one is disputing that but think of the resources that AG used to not only convict him but continually go after him in bankruptcy court. Was that really a good use of the public's money? There was also more than enough circumstantial evidence that Sawant was giving herself kickbacks via SA and did the AG even bother to open an investigation to check? Eyman was easy pickings and politically motivated to grab positive headlines for Ferguson because no one really likes him. Ferguson doesn't apply the law equally and that's where he loses me.

@21 What prosecutor(s) in your opinion apply the law equally?

Republicans are horrible people. The only way they can win is by cheating, since their positions are horrible and their candidates are ridiculous. No decent person wants to be associated with the GOP.

Public hearings on the SPOG contract would be pointless. The city already reached a TA with the union and if they went back and demanded any changes now, the union could make a bad faith bargaining claim that the city's negotiating committee wasn't empowered to make bargaining commitments for the city which is required. The SPOG contract is subject to binding arbitration which would result in a worse contract for the city. I go back and forth on whether Morales is just a virtue signaler and knows better, or is genuinely inept.

@22 How many are the AG for WA state and want to be the next governor?

@25 Ah, OK. So by definition nobody meets your criteria. Or you don't want to answer the question and have someone pick apart your ideal candidate's selective prosecution record.

If you're going to troll, at least pretend to have the courage of your convictions.

When someone's ethos is to justify killing babies en masse, and I show them a mirror of that, banning me for saying the exact thing you just wrote and deleting all my posts proves what, exactly? I would hope the people who justify the Holocaust like Ahab and might makes right would be held to account in the strongest language imaginable how fucked up they are and to fuck off forever. Eating shit would give their breath an upgrade with how vile their utterings are. The stuff you tolerate kills.

@26 I think your the one trolling by pulling out the old whataboutism deflection. Bob Ferguson is the subject of the discussion not all the other prosecutors in the world. Let's assume for a second though that every prosecutor executes their office with political bias designed to advance their own career (which is what I assume your question is implying), does that make how he acts ok? I would still say he is more extreme than the "average" prosecutor and that due to the nature of his position and the office he seeks his actions warrant additional scrutiny.

@28 No it was a serious question, though I would have put your answer at the bottom of my to-vote-for list. Sort of like not wanting to watch a movie that your coworker likes if their taste in movies is opposite of yours. I more or less expected you to respond with Davison or something about Reichert enforcing the law evenhandedly.

Once you declared that you can’t give a positive review of anyone, just a negative review of Ferguson, I felt like you were just trolling. Anyway, there’s a finite number of candidates for governor and attorney general, so you’re going to have to choose someone if you vote. If everybody chooses cases based on advancing their career, then that isn’t a terribly useful criterion to use to evaluate candidates, regardless of whether it’s good public policy or not.

@29 But not wrong. Any Trump voter is OK with all of the evil he is, as long as they get something they want.

@30 in the spirit of good faith then I’ll tell you I thought McKenna did a good job of remaining non-partisan and doing the job on behalf of the voters and not himself.

I think the one thing we can all agree on (other than Poor Dear Raindrop, who is a special case) is that Republicans are horrible people.

@21: You want me to defend CM Sawant? OK, strange bedfellows &c.

Eyman intentionally violated campaign finance and disclosure laws, to operate an illegal kickback scheme. Washington State's Public Disclosure Commission asked for the Attorney General prosecute Eyman for these violations. (https://pdc.wa.gov/news/2017/pdc-commission-chair-anne-levinsons-remarks-ago-lawsuit-against-tim-eyman-campaign-finance) You think pursuing his assets was too much? He should have been in prison.

CM Sawant received a salary from the City of Seattle. Per capitalism, she could pretty much spend that money as she pleased. She decided to spend it on a fund which supposedly benefited other candidates. She made a really big show of how much of a sacrifice this was for her, while all along, Socialist Alternative was paying her husband more money than Sawant was 'sacrificing.' While all of that was completely dishonest and wonderfully sleazy, nothing about it was illegal.

"Ferguson doesn't apply the law equally and that's where he loses me."

A prosecutor who picks and chooses? Oh, my stars and garters, what are we coming to?

It's (probably) going to come down to either Noted Sears Catalog Underwear Model Dave Reichert - who twists in the wind when it comes to positions - or Recalled Richland School Board Member Semi Bird (think what an incompetent boob you have to be to be recalled from the Richland School Board)

Oh dear. What I meant to say was that ON THE REPUBLICAN side, it will come down to the pale imitation of the late Leslie Nielson or the Richland School washout. We will have a Democratic candidate, and it will likely be Ferguson.

Mrs. Vel Du-Ray regrets the error.

@34 I'm not disagreeing with you in general, just adding a shade of gray around the issue of the recruiter. If there's an email where the recruiter says something like "Haha, wouldn't it be fun for you to run to split the pro-Ferguson vote?" and the prospective candidate replies "Sure would. I'm in!" you'd have a clear evidence of intent. The recruiter was so ham-handed about it that I wouldn't be surprised if that email exchange exists. I am guessing that the recruiter didn't know about the law in question when he started recruiting candidates.

Of course, if all that happened via phone conversation or encrypted message, it would be nearly impossible to prove, as you noted above.

@27
yes. it
Almost
seems as
if there's a
Double Standard

one for pro-Genocide
and one for the Staff
including R. Smith
and his band of
Merry Writers

@2: “Maybe Hamas used Israeli spyware to do it?”

Maybe try reading the article, which says absolutely nothing about spyware, let alone Israeli spyware? The article describes a bog-standard classic One-Party Surveillance State, the kind which lived and died entirely within the 20th Century. (None of those regimes had spyware, either — you’ll just have to trust me on that.)

I know you’re just going for a two-fer deflection combo of bothsiderism and whataboutism, but is there any abuse Hamas can inflict upon Gazans which might merit actual criticism from you? Or do the Israelis just have to be involved, even in a totally fictional manner you simply make up, for that to happen?

@23, @36, @38, and @39 Catalina Vel-DuRay: +4 for the WIN!!!
And bless you for so consistently telling it like it is.