On The Road To 2008 - Commentary on issues as we countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

Saturday, February 12, 2005

Gregoire's Feb 3rd Death Threat Comments Revealed

Ever since it was reported that Christine Gregoire had received a death threat, conservative blogger Stefan Sharkansky at Sound Politics has been bloviating about his outrage. Not his outrage that a person had made a death threat against the Governor of Washington. No, Stefan and those that he influences have been outraged because when Gregoire revealed she had received a death threat, she also made a comment about the level of rhetoric within talk radio circles, that bloggers like Shark participate in.

Since February 3rd when the story first broke, until now, Shark and his supporters have gone even further and made the following additional claims:

- That Gregoire said "These talk show radios are trying to kill me" (his latest headline).

- That she planned the announcement to generate sympathy.

- That it was not a serious death threat, and even "bogus".

- That she wanted to dominate the news to drown out the Rossi court case rulings.

- That she "staged the announcement of the unserious death threat in a calculated attempt to crowd out the news of the revote petition".

- That they are "keeping her schedule a secret merely in order to avoid embarrassing protests".

- That she is trying to "delegitimize and stifle dissent" and "to subtly discredit the legitimate opposition".

- That all of this was a political stunt.

Since February 3rd, Shark has written six separate commentaries on all this. All of these farfetched allegations have been based on less than three minutes of a press conference, and only the last of his commentaries was based on much more than a very incomplete account from an article by Dave Ammons, an AP reporter who participated at the press conference.

Things got clearer when on Thursday a certain "Darcy" indicated that the video of the entire press conference could actually be found at the TVW Web site. This prompted Shark's latest sensationalist blog entry on the matter, in which he presents his own transcription of the Governor's comments. I place emphasis on the words his own, because you need only watch and listen to the video yourself to see that he took some editorial liberties that misrepresent the remarks in a number of significant ways.

For those unable to view the video, let me present a more accurate transcript:

[Following questions on various topics...]

Unidentified Reporter: Governor, several of us have asked your office to publish your daily schedule including your private meetings, with the understanding that if you're doing a job interview that name might be redacted. The word came back I think last week that you would not be doing that, that you'll put out a daily schedule of your public appearances but not the people you're meeting with. I'm wondering if you made that decision, if you stand by that decision and what your reasoning is.

Gregoire: What I asked of you all is to give me six months. And I'm doing this at the request of the chief of the state patrol.

[pause]

Unidentified Reporter: Can you explain what the request has to do with?

[Gregoire displays a pained expression]

Gregoire: I'm going to honor when the chief of the state patrol says for my personal security that we need to maintain some procedures internal that at some point in the future we may not need to. So at this point in time I'm going to honor the suggestion of the chief of the state patrol. So I've only asked you folks if you could give me six months. At that point I'll be happy to open it up. But if you could just allow me these six months I'd appreciate it.

Unidentified Reporter: Does that apply to people who are coming to your office to meet with you, constituents, others that that is a security issue, if...

Gregoire: This has to do with when I go outside the office.

Unidentified Reporter: What I'm... you know... I don't care really when you go to the grocery store, but I do want to know who you're meeting with...

Gregoire: [joking] Oh maybe, you know you never can tell.

Unidentified Reporter: ... who you're meeting with, and clearly you have public appearances on a daily basis but there are people that you meet with behind closed doors.

Gregoire: Inside the office?

Unidentified Reporter: Inside the office.

Gregoire: Oh, I'll be, I'd be happy to, I'd be happy to, that wasn't brought to me. I'll be happy to take a look at that for you. Yeah.

Unidentified Reporter: Ok.

Gregoire: Oh no, I'd be happy to take a look at that.

Unidentified Reporter: Ok.

Dave Ammons (AP): Have there been any death threats or things that have caused, given the patrol reason for concern?

[long pause - Gregoire sighs and displays a somewhat pained expression and appears to be considering her words]

Gregoire: The level of ummm...discussion on some of these talk show radios ahh... is believed to be a bit concerning, with respect to some people. Not those people who are actively engaged in the system. That's not the issue. It's others out there. And I'm not going to deny I haven't had one real death threat at this point. But you know I'm not going to be deterred by any of that. I got death threats frankly when I was attorney general. So I've got a job to do. But I'm also going to be smart. I owe that to the citizens of the state. And I'm going to listen to the chief of the patrol.
Shark's transcript is missing some sentences. He suggests Gregoire is "fumbling" at one point when she is not and instead simply weighing her words carefully. He fails to categorize her as obviously reluctant to talk about this.

He also inserted punctuation in such a way as to change the entire meaning of her words. "I'm not going to deny. I haven't had one real death threat at this point." should not have been transcribed as two sentences. Gregoire did not pause here - this was one unbroken sentence. Her turn of phrase may appear awkward, but she's not saying she hasn't had a death threat, and of course when he transcribed this we all knew she had.

Let me return to the multitude of accusations I previously enumerated, that have been leveled at Gregoire base on her comments.

The most outrageous perhaps is the statement that Gregoire basically said, "These talk show radios are trying to kill me". Coming from a self-proclaimed man of the press this is such a blatant falsity and distortion of what was said that a real journalist might, and probably would, lose his job over it (which is one reason a blogger like Shark cannot be considered anything more and a political pundit - not a newsman). Gregoire stated that the Chief of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) had asked for tighter security. When pressed to explain the reason for the tighter scheduling procedures and security she explains that there is a heated climate of discussion that may be cause for concern. She says, "The level of discussion on some of these talk show radios is believed to be a bit concerning with respect to some people", she doesn't say "I believe", which suggests that she's speaking of the WSP's concerns, not her own. In fact this is further supported by her own admission a few sentences later that she has received death threats before, which shows an understanding of what being in such a situation is like and means. These are not the comments of a person playing the sympathy card. If anything, she's being strictly businesslike in her assessment of her situation. Nowhere in any of this does she come out and say she thinks talk radio is purposely inciting people to commit violent acts against her, as Shark suggests, but it cannot be argued that talk radio, and the rhetoric surrounding the election has not stirred emotions. All of Shark's blog entries on this trivial matter, and the fact I've felt compelled to write this one to rebut them, are ample proof of how over the top things have become.

The claims that relate to her "staging" the announcement to drown out other news is also unsupported by anything other than a reference to an event that didn't take place until a full day later (the court rulings), and alluding to an event that was related to the election protests that same day. The fact is, events related to election protests are happening on almost a daily basis. If the death threat news came out on another day during the past few weeks, one could surely find an election protest/Rossi court case news item from that same day that detractors could try to use to make the same hollow accusation. If Gregoire really wanted to make a buzz about this she would have made it the entire focus of her press conference, to a much larger group of reporters, and probably in a more public forum, which would have made it much bigger news. Instead it wasn't until the end of the press conference that a reporter asked her the questions that brought out the information, and even then she only answered the questions reluctantly, obviously uncomfortable about having to do so. If you watch the video you'll notice that not only does the death threat topic last less than three minutes, the press conference quickly moves on to other items of concern. The whole matter is practically over just as quickly as it began. This is not the stuff of a "political stunt". If anything, everyone in the room appears to find the topic uncomfortable to dwell on further and seem to be eager to move on to other items of discussion.

As for the allegations that this is all just a bogus death threat, or she is trying to profit from it to keep her schedule secret "merely in order to avoid embarrassing protests", and to "delegitimize and stifle dissent", do not forget that what the questioning is about is not whether she would be keeping her public schedule secret, but rather who she might be meeting with. How would this stifle dissent or limit protestors from protesting? I remind you again, as she explicitly states herself multiple times, that she is acting according to the recommendations of the Chief of WSP, based on their concerns. Capt. Jeff DeVere of the WSP said, "If somebody was to be stalking the Governor or something like that -- and I'm not saying that's occurring now -- that would give them an opportunity to know when, and where might be their best opportunity to [do] something or cause some harm." In another article he confirmed the death threat and talked in general about the need to protect Gregoire and Rossi. Both the Governor's office and Rossi's office are responding to directions from the WSP. It is so easy for people to dismiss these concerns when they themselves are not the target, or responsible for the safety of the Governor. Need I remind them that the Governor is our State's highest ranking official? This is not a game being played to simply inconvenience protestors or to stifle dissent. When high ranking officials are targets of death threats they, and we, need to be extra careful about their safety. The protests can and will surely go on despite the inconvenience. Free speech and dissent is obviously alive and kicking judging by the activity on talk radio and the blogosphere. If anything it is bloggers like Shark who are trying to drum up sympathy by making themselves out to be the victims here, instead of the Governor. That should be the outrage.

Shark obviously has an agenda here. He once tried to convince us that his concern was to uncover the election problems so that they could be fixed. Unfortunately that appears to no longer be the case. He quickly turned his efforts into a revote crusade and a campaign to get Rossi appointed Governor via the courts, while looking to discredit Gregoire whatever way he could. If he is pretending to be a journalist then he is doing his audience a disservice by concocting unsubstantiated allegations and making wild accusations, while twisting the facts. He reveals his true colors when he writes, "Gregoire deserves all of the ridicule and derision her comment will inspire on talk radio for weeks to come", and if anything gives credence to the concern that the WSP had voiced.

1 Comment(s):

Comment by: Anonymous marks

Daniel K,
"He suggests Gregoire is "fumbling" at one point when she is not and instead simply weighing her words carefully.” I saw the tape, and I could make an argument that Stefan characterized the way I viewed it. Such things are subjective, and bloggers are particularly such…
If anything it is bloggers like Shark who are trying to drum up sympathy by making themselves out to be the victims here, instead of the Governor. That should be the outrage."I appreciate your hard work, but I think you are over the top on this one.
The SP posts on this subject have not garnered much time on my part. The simple reason is that I don't particularly care what CG is doing minute-by-minute. However, I do appreciate humor, and any time a politico (either party) slips up and starts talking about “talk show radios” being behind the (insert claimed defamation here____), I laugh. Should the Shark spend much time on it? Hey, it's his blog...
I didn’t notice if you had included today’s post, but I think it is at an end…unless there is more funny stuff in the offing.
Respectfully,
marks

2/13/2005 5:08 PM PT  

Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< On The Road To 2008 Home