Archives for October 2006

Yesterday I abused the Yakima School District for canceling a student production of The Laramie Project, a play that explores the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, WY, and the impact the ensuing controversy had on the community. Like the media reports at the time, the play largely portrays the murder as a hate crime… a vicious, premeditated attack on the openly gay Shepard.

District administrators halted the production out of concern that some in the community might perceive the play as promoting homosexuality… you know, in the same way a recent broadcast of the movie Mississippi Burning caused so many of Yakima’s youth to suddenly turn black.

Well apparently, (un)Sound Politics contributor Matt Rosenberg agrees with the district’s decision. Rosenberg suggests that such a “pro-tolerance” play might be inappropriate subject matter for a high school production, stating that “there is a legitimate question of whether we want public schools instead of families teaching tolerance.” Yeah, because we wouldn’t want to offend the values of those anti-tolerance families, I guess.

But Rosenberg’s biggest complaint is that the details of the incident as portrayed in the play — which was based on over 200 interviews conducted in the immediate aftermath of Shepard’s 1998 murder — differs from those presented in a 2004 segment of ABC TV’s 20/20. Rosenberg writes:

The reasons for his killing are highly disputed, in fact. There is no certitude to it whatever. True, the play’s script echoes dubious claims by the killer’s girlfriend and the killer himself that his rage about a purported gay come-on from Shepard led to the fatal attack. However, an in-depth report on ABC-TV’s “20-20” casts that claim as likely manufactured to aid the killer’s defense and pegs drug-money robbery and a methamphetamine-induced rage as the likely motivations in the killing.

Uh-huh.

Okay. Let’s just forget for a moment that the play’s hate-crime premise — a premise based on extensive, year-long interviews starting just 5-weeks after the murder, on contemporary news accounts, and, oh yeah… on the courtroom testimony of both the killer and his girlfriend — is so dismissively rejected by Rosenberg simply because it is contradicted by a single TV newsmagazine segment produced six years after the fact. Forget all that. It’s entirely besides the point.

The point is, Matt… it’s a fucking play!

It’s not a documentary. It’s not a history book. It’s not even a Wikipedia entry. It’s a play. A work of art. It’s theater.

The Sound of Music by comparison is a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the real von Trapp family, yet high school productions run nationwide without protest. The Miracle Worker? An historically iffy stage adaptation of an autobiography of a deaf and blind girl, for chrisakes. Amadeus? A complete and utter load of bullshit. And Shakespeare’s much lionized histories? Each and every one a work of fiction.

If Rosenberg had bothered to see the The Laramie Project before criticizing it he might understand that it doesn’t matter what the primary motivation of the killers really was, for the play isn’t about Shepard or his death, it’s about the people who survived him. The play is about the Laramie community coming to grips with the possibility that two of their own committed a brutal hate crime, and about how this experience changed their lives. The play is about how intolerance can tear communities apart, and about how unspeakable tragedy can sometimes bring communities together.

And whatever the truth about Shepard’s murder, the undisputed fact is that hate crimes do occur, and that in America — like all over the world — people are indeed discriminated against, ostracized, brutalized, even killed because of their race, their religion, their politics and their sexual orientation. Thus in its heart, The Laramie Project would be a truthful play, even if it were a total work of fiction. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand art.

So when I read a piece like the one Rosenberg posted to (un)Sound Politics yesterday, I have to ask myself: what the fuck is wrong with these people? Why would they go so far out of their way to trivialize a play that does nothing more than dramatize the tragic consequences of intolerance? What are they defending?

If the students of the Davis High School drama department had elected to perform The Diary of Anne Frank, and the production was halted out of concerns that some in the community might perceive the play as promoting Judaism, would Rosenberg jump to the defense of district administrators? Would he criticize the play for its historical inaccuracies? If 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas were to deny the Holocaust, would Rosenberg insist that any staging must include a post-production discussion forum to fully air the differences between Frank’s diary and that of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf?

An absurd analogy?

Rosenberg closes by writing about “the Leftist meme of ‘politically constructed realities,'” a hefty turn of phrase intended to dismiss the very notion of hate crimes as some sort of lefty political construct. Whatever. I suppose I understand the legal arguments of those who insist that hate crime laws are unnecessary. But I simply can’t comprehend how a fellow Jew like Rosenberg could deny that hate crimes exist at all. Still… I’ll try to be tolerant.

UPDATE:
It turns out that David Neiwert over at Orcinus thoroughly debunked the 20/20 segment, way back around the time it first aired. Neiwert also debunks Rosenberg’s apparent opposition to hate crime laws in general:

This myth arises from one of the realities about hate-crime laws: they only exist on the books as laws dealing with a special category of crimes with which we already are well familiar (murder, assault, threatening, intimidation, vandalism, etc.) — that is, a hate crime always has a well-established “parallel” crime underlying it, upon which is added the layer of motivation by bias (racial, ethnic, etc.). Thus, opponents argue, the laws for those parallel crimes should be adequate for punishing perpetrators. (If this argument sounds familiar, it is; the identical points were raised in the 1920s and ’30s by opponents of the anti-lynching legislation that was the NAACP’s raison d’etre during its early years.)

Are hate crimes truly different from their parallel crimes? Quantifiably and qualitatively, the answer is yes.

The first and most clear aspect of this difference lies in the breadth of the crimes’ effects. Hate crimes attack not only the immediate victim, but the target community — Jews, blacks, gays

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

From Katherine Harris’s web site:

TAMPA, FL- Congresswoman Katherine Harris, the Republican candidate for the United States Senate, soundly defeated Bill Nelson this evening by a 54% to 45% margin in the straw poll conducted at the Lakeland Bi-Annual Politics in the Park. The Harris campaign continues to build momentum, engendering tremendous grassroots support throughout the state with a pro-growth, pro-family message that resonates across the political spectrum.

Congresswoman Harris commented, “I appreciate the strong support of a majority of voters who are disillusioned with Bill Nelson’s lack of leadership and his record of voting against Florida’s best interests. I will fight for Florida in the United States Senate.”

The Lakeland Bi-Annual Politics in the Park straw poll illustrates the widespread support that exists for Harris’ consistent message of cutting taxes, eliminating wasteful spending, protecting the institution of marriage and opposing amnesty for illegal citizens. Congresswoman Katherine Harris is the only candidate with a demonstrated record of leadership who will fight for Florida’s values in the U.S. Senate.

See, this is what they mean by “Katherine Harris Crazy.” You can’t make this shit up.

UPDATE:

Really… you can’t make this shit up.

The new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests an ass-kicking in the making:

Four weeks before congressional elections, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Democrats hold a 23-point lead over GOP candidates. That’s double the lead Republicans had a month before they seized control of Congress in 1994.

President Bush’s approval rating was 37%, down from 44% in a Sept. 15-17 poll. The approval rating for Congress was 24%, down 5 points from last month.

[…]

On the question of which party’s candidate would receive their vote if the election were held today, Democrats held a 23-point lead over Republicans among every type of person questioned

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

I was dragged to a production of The Laramie Project a couple months ago at Shoreline Community College. I say “dragged” because while I love theater — I spent the middle twenty years of my life immersed in it — I am an exceptionally tough critic, and find bad theater to be extraordinarily painful. I especially hate maudlin, poorly-acted, amateur productions of artsy-fartsy experimental bullshit. But I had a nephew in the cast, and so there I was.

And it was great.

The acting was actually pretty damn good (though due to the family connection, I’d pretty much have to say that even if it wasn’t.) But the play itself was surprisingly gripping and moving, the surprise stemming not from the subject matter — the murder of Matthew Shephard and the community’s reaction in the aftermath — but from the unusual process in which it was written and the dramatic device it relies on. But quite simply, it’s a great play.

And so I was disappointed (but not shocked) to read that Davis High School in Yakima has canceled its production of The Laramie Project, apparently because some members of the community find it too controversial.

Let’s be clear. This play is not about homosexuality. It’s about prejudice, and it actually treats the Laramie community quite evenhandedly. It is also entirely appropriate for a high school audience.

No doubt it is a challenging play that may make some audience members feel a bit uncomfortable about their own prejudices. But if the Yakima community finds it controversial for high school students to stage a production of a play that laments the brutal murder of young gay man, then I’d say the community needs to be challenged.

I am not afraid, I’ve had people point guns at me.
— Rep. Dave Reichert

“He desecrated the victims. The public ought to know that.” Tomas Guillen is describing Republican 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert and his manipulation of the Green River murder investigation and the arrest of Gary Ridgway to climb up into party politics.

Guillen’s no political firebrand, he’s a respected Seattle University journalism and criminal justice professor. But as a Seattle Times reporter, he covered the Green River story from its beginnings and has written two books on the subject.

His academic text, Serial Killers: Issues Explored Through the Green River Murders, and Ridgway attorney Mark Prothero’s Defending Gary, both written after Reichert’s 2004 election, tell a starkly different story than does Reichert’s ghost-written autohagiography, Chasing the Devil, My Twenty-Year Quest to Capture the Green River Killer.

Reichert’s record as sheriff was exposed in last week’s devastating reporting by the P-I’s Lewis Kamb who found plenty of former colleagues who’d reveal him to be “an ambitious self-promoter, an inexperienced manager prone to poor decisions, even a close-minded detective more obstacle than asset to a serial murder investigation.”

Reichert refused to be interviewed in person for the P-I’s piece, preferring to answer the reporter’s questions in writing. He did not return our attempts at contact.

(The written material, and people we’ve talked to use some strong adjectives to describe the former Sheriff’s professional behavior: manipulative, self-serving, amateurish, ambitious, creepy, bungling, inappropriate, opportunistic, egotistical, voyeuristic, and stubborn. These are quite different from the descriptives we’ve been hearing for years: heroic, gracious, sensitive, muscular, chivalrous, well-mannered, brave, clean and reverent. You decide).

Sheriff Reichert became the public face of the sensational arrest of the serial killer by elbowing his way in front of the cameras on November 30, 2000 when the sensational collar was announced.

Everyone knows Reichert is the guy who caught the Green River killer- Why? Because he reminds us in every introduction; every speech, interview, and on his website.

It helped get him elected in 2004 in his race against KIRO radio host, Dave Ross; and he still flogs it every time he opens his mouth in his race against Darcy Burner.

Recently, on KUOW’s Weekday with Steve Scher, (in a rare appearance in a venue where he might be seriously questioned) he referenced serial killers no fewer than three times in one hour on the local NPR talk show despite being asked no questions on the subject by Scher, who’s unused to politicians who drop blood instead of names.

Here’s an example: Why is Reichert against abortion? He told a interviewer recently, “I have a great respect for life. I’ve seen a lot of death in my career, worked Green River, seen lots of dead bodies.”

Back in Washington, the Honorable Mr. Reichert is known as the Man from Green River- his longest speech on the House floor during his lackluster first term was about “capturing” Gary Ridgway.

The release of Chasing the Devil, in late July, 2004 was exquisitely synched-up with his primary campaign which was a difficult one with a crowded Republican field anxious to replace the retiring Jennifer Dunn.

Bolstered by both his publisher’s marketing and his own political campaign, it was a perfect PR storm. Reichert’s face was thrust onto the front pages of local papers. He was interviewed on CNN and Court TV in full dress uniform (and every hair present and accounted for) talking about “capturing” the killer.

“Reichert used the serial murder case to move forward,” Guillen told BlatherWatch. “It was a travesty.” Photos released when Ridgway was arrested show Reichert in a suit posing in the bottom of a ravine near the Des Moines Highway.

“He used the grave site of a murder victim for personal ambition,” he says.

Meanwhile, his opponents, Bellevue Councilman Conrad Lee, State Sen. Luke Esser and (now GOP State Chairman) Diane Tebelius were lucky if they made page B-1 with their little coffee klatches, blah-blah press releases, and cheesy meet & greets.

(Chasing the Devil was neither a literary nor a popular success. P-I books critic, John Marshall wrote that Reichert painted himself as “muscular, charismatic, devoutly Christian, a dogged mix of Dudley Do-Right and the Lone Ranger.” Not exactly a bestseller: you can now buy a like new copy on Amazon for $1.74.)

Although otherwise a failure, his book as a political instrument was inspired. Media was flooded with pictures of the sheriff in a hunky muscle shirt sifting for bones at a body dump site, or in full Sheriffian regalia sternly leaning into and staring down the cowering serial killer from across a table. Reichert won the primary easily and got a tremendous knee-up in the November election.

(There’s his hair. It’s magnificent. Dave Ross told us: “He’s got great hair, he’s acknowledged he’s got great hair.” He’s known in legal circles as “Sheriff Hairspray.” [Reichert’s hair]… is always ready for the next photo opportunity,” says Prothero).

“My standing orders were that we were going to campaign on issues,” says Dave Ross. “Rumors I got about Dave or the Green River killer or the release of the book- we weren’t going to touch them.”

But there’s more than a little resume inflation going on in Chasing the Devil. There’s some obfuscatin’. Reichert had been “lead detective” in 1982 as the first bodies surfaced in and around the Green River. His book, however, would let you believe he held the title until 1990, never mentioning that several other detectives led in later murders.

The book is more than three quarters done before he makes passing reference to the fact that the task force had commanders over the “lead detectives.” Former Detective Bob Keppel told the P-I, Reichert was “one detective among many,” and never led discussions about the direction of the task force as a true leader would have.

Actually, he had little to do with the investigation having left the task force in 1990 to climb the bureaucratic ladder in the Sheriff’s Department. What’s more, these new accounts show how Reichert’s tremendous ego was responsible for early police blunders that stalled the investigation and let Gary Ridgway continue killing for decades.

But great hair or not, “He got elected based on Green River, when in fact, he didn’t solve it and he didn’t win against Gary Ridgway,” says Guillen.”

The fact is: technology caught the killer, not Detective Reichert’s dogged shoe-leather sleuthing as his press so dramatically implies. Even then, on Sheriff Reichert’s watch, the saliva sample that could have busted Ridgway as early as 1996 when the DNA technology became available, was not tested until 2001.

Women died in that interim.
~
Read It’s the Green River, Stupid: Part 2, the really creepy parts here.

Friday evening I challenged my readers to raise an additional $1200 by the end of the weekend for Peter Goldmark, so that we could bring the total raised for him via my Act Blue page past the $7,000 mark. Well, once again you beat the target, raising nearly $1,400, and bring Goldmark’s total to $7,172.53.

Thank you all for your continued generosity. Together we have now raised nearly $16,000 for Goldmark and Darcy Burner. That is truly amazing.

The Seahawks are off today and I’m back with a vengeance, so strap on your helmut and get ready to butt heads with me on an action-packed “The David Goldstein Show” tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: Is the Republican Party in the midst of major meltdown? University of Maryland associate professor of political science Thomas Schaller joins me to discuss the latest developments in the Mark Foley House Page scandal, and the impact it is having on Capitol Hill and in congressional races nationwide. Schaller’s just released new book, “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South” seems downright prescient in light the suddenly competitive races in WA-05, ID-01 and other supposed Republican strongholds in the rural West.

8PM: Peace activist Cindy Sheehan joins me to talk about her new book, “Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey through Heartache to Activism.” Sheehan’s dramatic month-long vigil outside President Bush’s “ranch” in Crawford, TX transformed her from a grieving mom into the symbol of a nascent anti-war movement, ultimately focusing national attention on the moral implications of our war in Iraq. Sheehan is one of those unusual figures who generates both heartfelt praise and sometimes vicious, hateful criticism. If you’ve got a question for the controversial activist, here’s your chance.

9PM: Lock your desk drawers KIRO colleagues, for local radio’s most hated snoop is in the building! Michael Hood of the much-despised, inside-radio blog blatherWatch will join me in the studio… but we won’t be engaging in any radio industry rumor mongering. Instead we’ll be discussing Rep. Dave Reichert, and his undeserved, self-inflated, law enforcement reputation. Fresh on the heals of the Seattle P-I’s excellent exploration of Reichert’s record in the King County Sheriff’s department, Hood will give us a sneak peak at his long awaited expose on “The Sheriff’s” real role in catching the Green River Killer.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

President Bush’s approval ratings are plummeting across the board, with the latest Newsweek poll dropping 3 points to a pathetic 33 percent. Meanwhile, the Democrat’s generic advantage in the race for control of Congress has climbed to a three-month high, with Dems now preferred on every major issue, including the war on terror. And of course the House Page scandal continues to spin out of control, with new revelations about Foley’s follies and the multi-year coverup coming out daily.

If you don’t think national events are having an impact on local races, then you’re spending too much time talking to Diane Tebelius. The last three public polls in WA’s 8th Congressional District (all conducted before the Foley scandal broke) have shown a dead heat between incumbent Republican Dave Reichert and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner, while the Reichert campaign remains suspiciously silent about its own internal polling. In light of this and the larger political climate, the respected Cook Political Report has just upgraded the race from “Lean Republican” to “Toss Up.”

Meanwhile, the WA-05 race between incumbent Republican Cathy McMorris and Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark is starting to turn some heads. On Friday the campaign released its own poll showing the race within the margin of error, while again, the McMorris campaign remained quiet about its own internal numbers. I’ve talked to a number of Democratic and Republican politicos over the past few days, and the unanimous consensus is that Goldmark is closing… and fast. The combination of a dynamic candidate, an effective advertising campaign, a solid ground game — and of course, a favorable political climate — is setting the stage for what could be one of the biggest upsets of the season.

What we’re seeing is a Republican Party in the midst of meltdown, and the impact is being felt in local districts nationwide. Yesterday, the Spokesman-Review endorsed Democrat Larry Grant in Idaho’s 1st CD, and while their stated reasons were varied, the final sentence stands out as a warning beacon of a potential political sea change:

Not only will Grant be in a good position to help Idaho if the Democrats regain the House, but he would work better with Republicans than Sali would if they don’t.

This is a rationale that will pop up in editorials nationwide. Absentee ballots start dropping a week from Tuesday, and barring some kind of October Surprise (or massive election fraud) a Democratic takeover of at least one house seems almost certain. While I don’t expect the S-R editorial board to apply the same logic to their home district, some voters will, recognizing that a populist pragmatist like Goldmark can better represent their interests in a Democratic majority than a socially conservative McMorris can in a Republican minority. We’ve reached a tipping point.

That said, Goldmark is still the underdog; he can’t win unless he can afford to get his message out… and he can’t afford to get his message out without your help. Friday I challenged my readers to take my Act Blue page past the $7,000 mark for Goldmark by the end of the weekend, and right now we’re still about $700 short. We’ve got a unique opportunity to put a Democrat in the 5th CD seat — the kind of Democrat that can hold the seat for years to come. So if you haven’t already given, please give now.

I think it is fair to say that as a blogger, I cut my teeth and made my reputation covering the 2004 gubernatorial election contest. In fact I probably spent more time researching, analyzing and covering Borders v King County than the lawyers arguing the case. And so it was with some amusement that I read an email from my friend Richard Pope (a man for whom I do indeed hold an odd affection) about the outcome of the race for Republican Precinct Committee Officer in Seattle’s 43rd Legislative District Precinct 2064.

It turns out that Timothy Borders, the namesake for the Republican plaintiffs in the election contest lawsuit, narrowly lost his bid to become SEA 43-2064’s Republican PCO. To add insult to injury, he lost by only a single vote. His own.

52 ballots were cast in last month’s SEA 43-2064 primary — 47 with a Democratic preference, four without party preference and only one Republican. And of that single Republican ballot, Borders received exactly zero votes.

According to King County rules, a PCO must receive at least 10 percent of the total votes cast for the precinct’s top vote-getter in his or her party’s primary. And since there was only one Republican ballot cast, a single vote for Borders would have gotten him the job.

Or should I say, a single vote from Borders, since apparently Borders either didn’t vote, chose a Democratic ballot, or cast the sole GOP ballot in the precinct… but declined to vote for himself.

Hey Tim, if you decide to contest this election too, I promise I’ll be all over it.

I’ll be on stage at Town Hall tonight, and oh yeah… Janeane Garofalo, Atrios, Matt Stoller and David Postman will be there too. The event will be moderated by Angie Coiro of Mother Jones Radio, and we’ll be discussing “Politics and the Press: Fair and Balanced or Lazy and Cowed?” (I suppose the Seattle Times’ Postman will be arguing the “fair and balanced” side of the debate.)

Anyway, it’s a benefit for Foolproof, tickets are $25, $45 and $75 (all but 10 bucks tax deductible) and it’s gonna be a lot of fun. So please show up, cheer me on, and show your support for Foolproof.

A newly released poll conducted by Lake Research Partners shows incumbent Republican Cathy McMorris leading Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark by a 7 point margin, 45% to 38%, in Washington’s 5th Congressional District. This is actually incredibly encouraging news for Goldmark, especially when you consider the survey was conducted way back in mid-September… and man, things have changed since then. 350 likely voters were surveyed, with a sampling error of +/- 5.2%.

Despite her incumbency and name recognition advantage McMorris remains mired well below 50%, and her job performance rating comes in at a 13 point negative, 37% to 50%. That’s not a place an incumbent wants to be. The pollsters conclude:

With enough resources to communicate Goldmark’s strong messages, inform voters about McMorris’ voting record, and drive home the potent contrast between Goldmark’s priorities and Cathy McMorris’ special interest agenda, this seat is winnable.

“Resources”… that means money. And Goldmark needs whatever you can afford to send him. The campaign has raised $750,000 as of September 30, $80,000 ahead of their target. But they still need another $300,000 between now and election day to keep Goldmark’s ads on the air and give him a chance to win.

So… if you haven’t already given to Peter, please give now. 124 HA readers have already given over $5,800 via my Act Blue page. Let’s see if we can push that up over $7,000 by the end of the weekend. (And while you’re there, please feel free to throw some money to Darcy Burner as well.)

Oh man, it’s been a brutal media day for the candidates at the top of WA’s Republican ticket. But while the shiny-haired Dave Reichert is only getting his tires ass kicked in the local press (more on that later,) US Senate wannabe Mike?™ McGavick’s well-deserved beating is taking place on a national stage.

McGavick was absolutely savaged in the Washington Post this morning, subjected to the kind of blunt analysis and verbal thrashing only the deliciously acerbic Michael Kinsley can deliver:

If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude either that he is a moron or that he thinks you are a moron.

Hmm. I’m betting on the latter.

Kinsley deconstructs the McGavick campaign with devastating efficiency, highlighting the inane absurdities and “fog of generality” through which the candidate has chosen to present himself to voters. McGavick accuses Sen. Maria Cantwell of “following party over state interests.” To which Kinsley asks the obvious:

Why would she do that? Why would she put her party’s interests over those of her constituents? Who cares enough about either party to actually put their own political futures in peril? Answer: no one. Taken literally, the charge is absurd. But it’s not meant to be taken literally. It is just part of the miasma of themes and images that political professionals create around candidates. Cantwell is popular, partisanship is not. So blame partisanship and not Cantwell. Be for “families.” Be for “change.” Be against “Washington, D.C.” and “lobbyists.”

[…]

In a radio spot this week called “Not Paying Attention,” McGavick says, “Folks in Washington, D.C., you know they must not think we are paying attention” to “some of the things they are getting away with.” In a rare particular, he blames “automatic pay raises” for creating bad incentives for members of Congress. “We’ve got to have change,” he says, “but the only way to do that is to change who represents us.”

Maria Cantwell hit it big in the dot-com boom and is a very rich woman. She has spent tens of millions of dollars on her election and reelection campaigns. Whatever her flaws, she cannot possibly care about a pay raise. Taken literally, the notion that any national politician assumes that the voters and media and opposition party are “not paying attention” is equally ridiculous. So what is her motivation? What is McGavick’s, for that matter? (He’s rich, too, having struck gold in just a few years in the insurance business.)

Following up on McGavick’s charges, Kinsley logically asks, “Is Cantwell devoting her life to betraying the families of Washington just for the fun it?”

McGavick has no explanation, except to say that “this stuff is nuts,” that it is “partisan nonsense” and so on. But Maria Cantwell is not nuts. “Nuts” is not a plausible explanation. And without any specifics or a plausible explanation, McGavick’s complaints are exceptionally empty.

Knowing virtually nothing about McGavick, I saw one of his 30-second spots last week and took an instant, personal and possibly unfair dislike to him. And I wonder why everyone doesn’t have the same reaction to these patronizing, insulting commercials. Maybe some do — McGavick is going to lose, apparently — but more must be turned on than are turned off, because McGavick is not nuts either.

Of course we all know why McGavick hides himself behind a fog of generalities — because if he actually ran on the issues, he’d surely lose. This has never been more clear than in his recent spat with the Seattle Times’ David Postman over a months-old post about McGavick’s stance on social security privatization. McGavick didn’t dispute Postman’s reporting at the time. In fact, he even cited it from his own campaign website. Only after Democrats started citing the post did McGavick claim that Postman got it wrong.

As it turns out, Postman’s interview was somewhat prompted by a contest on Talking Points Memo seeking to get a straight answer from McGavick on whether he did or did not support phasing out Social Security and replacing it with private accounts. So it’s no surprise that TPM’s Josh Marshall chose to weigh in on the current dispute:

And now he says Cantwell has to take down her ad because it doesn’t reflect his true position. At least after changing it for the tenth time. Can anyone take this dude even remotely seriously? And how am I supposed to run Social Security contests with any sense of predictability or finality when we’ve got serial bamboozlers like Mike McGavick out there constantly changing their positions?

I need Regis here to give McGavick one of those, “Is that your final answer?” lines.

(ed.note: In private McGavick is known for supporting hardline privatization of Social Security. He just fibs about his position in public.)

Late Update: Maybe give a holler to the Postman guy at the Seattle Times and thank him for braving the hot swamps of McGavick’s bamboozlement.

Hey… thanks Dave.

And thanks Mike, for transforming a Senate race widely touted as the Republicans best shot at unseating an incumbent Democrat… into a national joke. No wonder McGavick recently traveled to a big DC fundraiser only to come back empty handed.

Brian Deagle, a senior attorney at Microsoft, was unanimously appointed to fill a vacancy on the Issaquah School Board. But it almost didn’t happen.

The board initially deadlocked: two in favor of candidate Leigh Stokes and two in favor of candidate David Irons.

After further discussion in closed session, the board returned with undivided support for Deagle.

I understand that Irons‘ next attempt at a political comeback will be a run for dogcatcher.

You can’t get much more old school than Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly, the curmudgeonly dean of Washington state’s political press corps, and a walking history book of the region’s political lore. So when this old media stalwart throws the new media a compliment, you can bet that he didn’t toss it off lightly.

In today’s column — “Democrats show signs of life in inland West” — Connelly laments how the Democratic establishment abandoned once-blue, rural, Western districts. But he sees a ray of hope.

Lately, prodded by blog sites, the party has begun to notice the 5th District in Eastern Washington — where rancher Peter Goldmark is opposing freshman GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris — and the open 1st District in Idaho.

Connelly sees a trend, in which “rural, moderate-to-conservative Democrats” might be brought back from the brink of extinction. Some of this renewed opportunity is being generated by a crop of extraordinary candidates like Peter Goldmark and Larry Grant, and some of it represents a backlash to hard-line Republican ideology and congressional corruption. But Connelly also credits the netroots.

The re-emergence of Democrats in the inland Northwest has a number of rich ironies.

The region was initially ignored by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its chief, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill.

One who did notice was Markos “Kos” Moulitsas Zuniga, cheeky proprietor of the popular DailyKos Web site. It is read by thousands of Democrats across the country and has helped Goldmark and Grant raise the bucks needed to contend.

While the national Democratic establishment may still look on the netroots movement with suspicion, local observers like Connelly, who live and breath local politics, clearly see our impact. Democrats may not pick off McMorris, Sali, Pombo and Doolittle in this cycle, but the fact that these races are so competitive is a confirmation of the 50-state strategy the netroots have championed. Every dollar the NRCC spends protecting supposedly safe Republican districts is a dollar they’re not spending fending off Democratic challengers like Darcy Burner.

Sure, as Connelly makes clear, it’s only a “trend.” But as trends go, it’s a pretty damn good one.

[Cross-posted to Daily Kos, please recommend.]