HorsesAss.Org

Goldy

I write stuff! Now read it:

My vigil is over: P-I gets Irons on the record

by — ,

[NWPT63]

“When mobility, traffic congestion and thousands of local jobs are at stake, we’d hope for stronger leadership.”

I’m packing up my virtual tent, heading home and celebrating a successful end to my vigil. David Irons is now officially on the record opposing Initiative 912, but in the worst possible way: weakly, weasly, and without conviction.

Of course I never expected Irons to directly respond to my queries, but as Cindy Sheehan proved in Crawford, TX, persistence can have its rewards, especially if the MSM takes up the fight. When the Seattle P-I finally forced the issue, Irons was forced to respond, but only dug himself a deeper hole by answering my very simple question with a rambling equivocation. As the P-I correctly observes in a Monday editorial, it was not exactly a display of the kind of strong leadership we need in a county executive.

Gas-tax Politics: Irons in the fire

David Irons, King County councilman and Republican candidate for county executive, seems uncomfortably balanced on the razor’s edge of the gas tax issue, teetering between the interests of the GOP’s traditional business supporters and the passions of the anti-tax elements of his conservative constituent base.

David Goldstein’s horsesass.org blog started the humming with claims that Irons earned the nod from the Alki Foundation by proclaiming opposition to Initiative 912, which would roll back the gas tax increase. Asked to clarify, Iron’s campaign office responded with the following: “In principle, I believe all major tax increases should go to a vote of the people. Personally I am voting no on Initiative 912. This is not the package that I would have put together. I believe it should have done more to reduce congestion. That’s why we need new leadership in King County that will advocate for more congestion relief.”

So, I-912 — essentially a vote of the people on a “major” tax increase — is a good idea, but he’s going to vote against it?

But will Irons, as a council member and executive candidate, actively campaign against I-912 to defend the billions of dollars in new gas tax-funded construction projects headed for Seattle and King County?

Irons — through his campaign office — says that the prepared statement “speaks for itself.”

When mobility, traffic congestion and thousands of local jobs are at stake, we’d hope for stronger leadership.

Sure… Irons’ statement “speaks for itself”… but with a kind of rhetorical aphasia that’s likely to confuse and bewilder audiences out on the hustings. While I suppose his “its a bad package but I oppose repealing it” stance was intended to give him an all-things-to-all-people appeal, I’m guessing it’s likely to leave I-912 supporters and opponents equally unsatisfied. Perhaps Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson will strategically avoid the issue the next time he appears on their shows, for I can’t imagine how Irons can defend his position without either defending the transportation package, or coming across as arbitrary and… well… stupid.

Leaving aside the question of whether the transportation package constitutes a “major” tax increase (it doesn’t) or whether all such increases should be put directly to voters (they shouldn’t), Irons’ statement is clumsy in its misdirection, when not entirely incomprehensible. Irons says that he would not have put together the transportation package in its current form, but then, neither would I… so get over it. The fact is we both recognize that, whatever its flaws, the package is good for the state and good for King County, and that it adequately funds the priorities laid out in the RTID proposal that Irons himself helped put together. That’s why we both oppose I-912… because repealing the gas tax hike would indefinitely delay desperately needed transportation improvements and maintenance.

But the statement’s most utterly ridiculous assertion is that the transportation bill’s shortcomings reflect on the need for “new leadership in King County.” If Irons actually believes this deliberate misrepresentation of the legislative process, then he clearly needs a refresher course in School House Rock.

I can only assume (hope?) that his “prepared statement” wasn’t written by Irons himself. So here’s a tip to the campaign staffer or consultant responsible: if you’re going to refuse to give a coherent explanation, don’t give one at all. I asked a very simple question: “Do you support I-912?”… and you could have simply responded “No.”

Or, you could have shown me the courtesy of responding directly to my queries, and taken advantage of my generous offer to post your complete reply, unedited, here on HA. This would have afforded you the opportunity to fully explain your position, outside the P-I’s editorial prism… while shutting me up in the process. Yeah, I know that according to Irons’ own internal polls, a full two-thirds of his core supporters are reflexively anti-tax… but hell… it’s not like these people are reading my blog anyway.

So if there is any lesson to be learned from the way Irons mishandled my vigil, it is that while some issues can’t help but generate controversy, there is one policy that is always popular with voters: honesty.

Bill Gates supports intelligent design?!

by — ,

[NWPT62]Rather than relaxing with a pot of coffee and a copy of the Sunday Times (the New York Times, not the Seattle Times… the latter wouldn’t last me longer than a thimbleful of joe)… I am seething. Literally seething. Torrents of cartoon steam are shooting out of my ears, as my eyes spin round like an old time slot machine.

(Okay, maybe I’m metaphorically seething, but you get the point.)

Splashed across the front page is a lengthy piece on the driving force behind so-called intelligent design: Seattle’s very own Discovery Institute… which apparently draws the name “Discovery” from its concerted efforts to squash it. That the institute should get well-deserved scrutiny in the NY Times, rather than its home town paper, is another story for another day. But what really pissed me off was the following little tidbit of information about another Seattle area connection to Discovery’s zealous efforts to dumb down the nation’s science curriculum — for in addition to such well known right-wing patrons as Richard Mellon Scaife….

A closer look shows a multidimensional organization, financed by missionary and mainstream groups – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides $1 million a year, including $50,000 of Mr. Chapman’s $141,000 annual salary…
…
The institute also has support from secular groups like the Verizon Foundation and the Gates Foundation, which gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003.

I do not care that this particular grant pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates Foundation gives to eminently worthy causes, or that it is supposedly targeted exclusively towards the institute’s Cascadia project on regional transportation. In giving money to Discovery, Bill Gates not only provides financial support, but lends credibility and respectability to an organization whose primary activities are antithetical to the principles of scientific discovery on which Microsoft — and Gates’ unparalleled personal fortune — was built.

Gates would do better to follow the lead of more experienced Seattle area philanthropists, such as Bullitt Foundation director Denis Hayes, who describes Discovery as “the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell,” saying, “I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today.” Indeed, that the world’s most powerful technologist should provide any support, financial or otherwise, to an organization that describes its goal as “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” in favor of a “broadly theistic understanding of nature,” is absolutely unacceptable.

There is no dispute that Gates is a brilliant man and that his foundation achieves great social good. But as has been proven by Microsoft’s missteps over its flip-flopping support for the gay civil rights measure, HB 1515, both he and his subordinates can make mistakes. And has also been proven by that PR fiasco, the full force of the progressive blogosphere can be successfully applied to convince Gates to correct his errors.

Gates’ support of the Discovery Institute — a vital cog in the right-wing propaganda machine… and an enemy of science — is an outrage and a scandal. And I call on my fellow members of the blogosphere to hammer this issue, and make clear to Gates that the only acceptable remedy is to instruct his foundation to pull its funding immediately.

The US has built its economic and military prowess on our scientific and technological leadership, and if organizations like Discovery are permitted to continue their Talibanization of our once proud educational system, the consequences for the American people and our standard of living will be catastrophic. A generation from now, when the economies of Europe and China are kicking our devoutly unscientific butts, we will have only ourselves to blame. And when the next Microsoft arises not in Silicon Valley or in Redmond, but in Paris or Beijing, it would be sadly ironic if the seeds of our own technological collapse were unwittingly nurtured by Bill Gates himself.

[Cross-posted at Daily Kos… please recommend!]

I-912/Irons Vigil: Day 5

by — ,

Or is it Day 6…? I’ve lost track.

So here’s where it stands… Dave Irons record strongly suggests that he opposes Initiative 912 and strongly supports the state transportation package and its 9.5 cent gas tax increase over four years. Reliable sources tell me that Irons privately made clear his opposition to I-912, in earning the endorsement of the pro-business Alki Foundation. And the two people listening to the Mike Siegel Show Wednesday morning report that Irons stated he would vote against I-912.

So it seems pretty clear: Irons opposes I-912 and supports the gas tax. I guess I should end my vigil, right?

I’m not so sure.

While I appreciate the fact that Irons actually answered Siegel’s question — if in a tortured and round about way — as a candidate for King County Executive he needs to show leadership, and get out in front on an initiative that would have a hugely negative impact on the ability of our region to fix its looming transportation crisis. This is not just about the personal safety of the few hundred people who might be unfortunate enough to be driving on the AWV at the time it inevitably pancakes. This is about providing the necessary infrastructure to permit our region’s economy to grow and prosper.

And the thing is… Irons seems to understand this.

This is about leadership… leadership that Irons refuses to deliver on the most important issue facing voters this November. If I-912 is going to be defeated, prominent Republicans need to be as much a part of the coalition opposing it as they were a part of the coalition that passed the transportation package in the first place. It’s not enough for Irons to mumble to a handful of listeners that he’ll vote against I-912. He needs to start explaining to the public — including his own supporters — why I-912 is such a bad deal for King County… the county he says he wants to lead.

Sheehan vigil marks the end of Bush’s war

by — ,

My trolls don’t seem to get it. The right-wing screaming heads don’t seem to get it. President Bush and his evil-genius puppet master don’t seem to get it. But the Seattle Times editorial board gets it exactly right: “Cindy Sheehan’s symbolism.”

The Times expands on a sentiment that I expressed in a comment thread yesterday, that Cindy Sheehan is a symbol — nothing more, nothing less — and as such, she and her vigil represent a nascent anti-war movement, that will surely grow in boldness and popular support.

Advisers and supporters of the president have tried to ignore Sheehan or downplay her protest as a mother’s unseemly grief. This is both wrong and a mistake.

So far, 1,853 Americans have died in Iraq. The cost of the war, in lives and dollars, will only grow. Sheehan is the human face behind the daily toll. She has become the symbol of growing frustration over the war.

America’s purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places. When and how it is done is not Sheehan’s call to make, nor should it be.

In the minds of many Americans, the tide of the war has turned. Sheehan didn’t turn the tide. She is a symbol of the sea change. Expect this symbol to grow in significance and importance.

Whether Bush meets again with the mom standing sentinel in Crawford is not the point. The point is that the president must understand what this mom represents.

In focusing on Cindy Sheehan the person, rather than Cindy Sheehan the symbol, President Bush and his surrogates have missed the point entirely. Even if they could succeed in destroying Sheehan’s reputation, there are plenty of other grieving mothers ready to take her place… with Bush’s war creating more every day. What Sheehan started cannot be stopped by a mere smear campaign.

As Frank Rich brilliantly observed in the New York Times last Sunday, the war is over… and somebody should really tell the President.

A president can’t stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won’t stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend’s Newsweek poll – a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.’s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents’ overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.’s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn’t seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.

But our current Texas president has even outdone his predecessor; Mr. Bush has lost not only the country but also his army. Neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout “don’t ask, don’t tell” and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.

Gays in the military? What’s next… Jews in the Air Force Academy?

I’ve never quite understood the right’s reluctance to use the hated homosexuals as canon fodder, but as has been the case throughout the history of our nation’s military, expediency has a way of overcoming bigotry’s divisive barriers, where reasoned pleas for tolerance cannot. Still, with nearly 1,900 dead soldiers and many thousands more permanently maimed and mutilated — and with no clear mission or exit strategy coming from our “leaders” in the White House — no influx of gay recruits or high school dropouts can maintain our military at levels necessary to continue our occupation of Iraq, or our ever emptier threats against incipient nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.

Only a draft could procure the human resources necessary to continue the Bush administration’s military misadventurism, but forced conscription would cost the President some of his most loyal supporters: the chicken hawks and yellow elephants who are willing to sacrifice everything to subdue Iraq, except their tax breaks and their lives.

The war is over in Iraq, not because of Cindy Sheehan’s vigil or Bush’s plummeting poll numbers… and certainly not because our troops have failed to perform as valiantly and courageously as circumstances allowed. The war is over because Americans have inevitably tired of a war whose endgame was always left as ill defined as its purpose.

There is little doubt that a quick American withdrawal will be as disastrous for the Iraqi people as was the initial invasion; but so would be the near-permanent occupation that seems to be the only other choice… an occupation that the American people simply do not support. As Rich bluntly concludes:

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war’s inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq.

WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson’s March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we’ll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.

Thus the president’s claim on Thursday that “no decision has been made yet” about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president’s preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its “last throes.” The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We’re outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.

The war is over because when a President is unwilling or unable to lead the American people, the American people lead the President.

Cindi Laws… Oy!

by — ,

I’m not much of a monorail supporter, but I had been impressed with the reasonable and forthright statements of Monorail Board member Cindi Laws during the project’s dramatic collapse. Um… until now: “Candidate accused of anti-Jewish talk.”

I’ll leave it to the fervently anti-Monorail folk to rake Cindi over the coals, but I was particularly amused (saddened?) by how she managed to spin her “apology” about as well as a flat-bottomed dreidel.

Interviewers said Laws apologized and, in trying to explain her remarks, said, “It probably is a poor reference,” but that Joel Horn, former executive director of the Seattle Monorail Project, used to joke that he and another staffer were the only Jews who supported the project.

They said she went on to say that Horn would refer to the opposition as “Jews Against the Monorail,” but that she was not anti-Semitic and that she once was engaged to a Jew.

Oy. A “poor reference”…? Ya think?

Cindi… a couple tips. First, I suspect your broken engagement might be perceived as more enlightening than you intended. Second, if you ever come across a group of African Americans boisterously expressing their camaraderie by calling each other “nigger”… don’t feel free to join in.

Does Cindi hate Jews? Probably not. But such clumsy, thoughtless and earnest repetition of ethnic stereotypes fuels the paranoia of people who do. Us Jews do not own all the downtown real estate… we do not own all the banks… we do not control the media… and we do not vote as a block. And we most certainly do not make political contributions based solely on whether there is a “berg” or a “stein” at the end of the candidate’s name.

(Though come to think of it… we do control the region’s most influential political blogs. Hmmm.)

I-912/Irons Vigil: Day 4

by — ,

My lonely vigil may be coming to a close!

A fellow blogger (from the right) emailed me that he thought he heard Dave Irons on the Mike Siegel Show yesterday, saying he planned to vote against Initiative 912. So I emailed Siegel’s other listener, producer David Boze, and asked for confirmation… and yes, that is apparently what Irons said. I’m hoping to get an audio clip, or confirmation from Irons himself, before I pack up my virtual camp and end my virtual vigil.

Without further explanation from Irons, one can only assume that if he plans to vote against I-912, it is because he supports the gas tax increase and the transportation projects it finances. I just wish he’d bluntly come out and say so.

In case you’re wondering why a right-leaning blogger would forward me this tip… well… it’s because one needn’t be unprincipled in support of one’s principles. As I wrote back in thanks, “I don’t particularly like it when politicians (from either party) attempt to ride two sides of an issue,” to which my correspondent replied “I agree 100%.”

From my perspective, Irons’ record on transportation issues has actually been rather responsible, and so his refusal up until now (at least, I think up until now) to publicly support a transportation package he clearly believes to be critical to the economy of the county he wants to govern, strikes me as hypocritical and disingenuous. He talks about the need to provide leadership, yet punts at the opportunity to demonstrate it. If his candidacy is truly about King County’s future, and not just his own, he should use his soapbox to educate voters about the true impact of I-912.

I have emailed Irons, at both his campaign and council address, to ask him to explain his position, and have extended the courtesy of offering to reprint his reply, unedited and in its entirety, here on HA. He has yet to respond.

UPDATE:
Ooops. Forgot to link to this amusing and pointed letter from Carl.

Sound Slanderous Politics

by — ,

Ah. Just noticed the latest libel from Dave Irons’ webmaster, Stefan Sharkansky:

Ron Sims re-election strategy is now becoming apparent.

The centerpiece is to turn the county elections office into a de facto subsidiary of the re-election campaign organization.

Specifically, that entails putting the non-team player (= honest) employees on administrative leave, and filling their chairs with Sims loyalists from other agencies who are really good at papering over their incompetence and malfeasance if nothing else.

Let’s be clear about what Stefan is saying: the fix is in. According to Stefan, Ron Sims is attempting to fraudulently steal the November election. There is no other way to interpret this. And this is slander.

But I’m guessing this is less a clumsy attempt to influence the outcome of the election than it is a humorless, pathetic effort to inoculate himself against the inevitable result… for in Stefan’s black and white world, a free and fair election could never possibly result in a Sims victory.

It is also a raving, paranoid fantasy of the Nth degree… exactly the sort of angry, over-the-top rhetoric that has destroyed Stefan’s credibility with the MSM. And in the course of trying to tear down Sims with vicious lies and innuendo, Stefan also attempts to tear down King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, one of the region’s few, truly thoughtful and electable Republicans.

After all, why should Ron Sims undermine his own re-election campaign by releasing any evidence of malfeasance and incompetence in his own agencies when there’s a team of lawyers on the public payroll at the Prosecutor’s Office who will abet his evasion of the Public Disclosure Act at no cost to Sims.

There are few WA politicians more widely respected and admired — from both sides of the aisle — than Norm Maleng. I have had the opportunity to meet Maleng, and he came across as a nice man, an honest man, and a dedicated public servant. And while I may not always agree with his politics, I always trust his intentions.

I cannot say the same for Stefan, and neither should the KCGOP. While the Republican faithful may enjoy Stefan’s stinging attacks on Sims and other Democrats, they should be aware that he is a scorpion in their midst, and could strike one of their own indiscriminately, and without warning. He is also, in my opinion, a little bit nuts… so embrace him at your own risk.

Peace vigils

by — ,

Tonight, tens of thousands of patriotic Americans in hundreds of communities across the nation held Peace Vigils in solidarity with Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX. I’ve been struck with a vicious summer cold (or possibly, the plague) so I was unable to attend my local gathering, but David at HomesteadBook.com has a nice account (and pictures) of the vigil at Sunset Hill Park in Seattle’s Ballard neighborhood.

I would love to hear more first hand reports of vigils from around the state and beyond, so if you attended one, please post in the comment thread. And if you have posted an account on your own blog, please let me know, and I’ll update my post with a link.

UPDATE:
It’s front page, above the fold, in both the Times and P-I. Thousands of people turned out for over 50 vigils across the Puget Sound region, including an estimated 400 at Greenlake and 200 in Bellevue. (The P-I has also posted an excellent photo gallery from the various gatherings.) MoveOn.org estimates that over 50,000 people registered to attend 1,627 vigils, nationwide.

NWCitizen.com reports on the vigil at Fairhaven Village Green in Bellingham, where several hundred people attended. In the comment thread, Danny reports on the Olympia vigil, while Greg and Rujax briefly mention Bellevue Square and Seacrest Park respectively.

If you have more reports, post them, and I’ll keep posting the links.

I-912/Irons Vigil: Day 3

by — ,

Day 3 of my lonely, virtual vigil dawned cool and rainy, with still no official word from David Irons as to where he stands on the anti-roads initiative, I-912. I had hoped that I might take advantage of my close working relationship with Irons’ webmaster, Stefan Sharkansky, to get my question in front of the candidate himself, but Stefan proved as resolutely silent as his tongue-tied boss. So yesterday I emailed Irons’ campaign directly, and eagerly await his response.

As long as Irons refuses to publicly endorse or oppose I-912, the best we can do is try to divine his position by reviewing his prior public statements on related issues. For example, about a year ago Irons came out resolutely behind the Regional Transportation Investment Districts’ $13.4 billion plan for critical transportation improvements in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties… a package that placed a high priority on replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge.

“Our transportation problem has grown beyond the ability to solve it with any one fix,” said Councilmember David Irons, an alternate on the RTID Executive Board. “But we must solve it for the mobility needs and economic survival of our region. Raising taxes is not politically popular, but the alternative of doing nothing is unthinkable. We must demonstrate leadership and make some tough decisions, and we need the guidance of our citizens in order to make the best choices for our residents, our businesses and our future generations.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Irons that “we must demonstrate leadership and make some touch decisions”… and I congratulate King County Executive Ron Sims for once again showing such leadership in opposing I-912. Yes, “raising taxes is not politically popular,” which I suppose is why Irons refuses to publicly support the gas tax increase that I-912 would repeal.

And what of his statement that “we need guidance of our citizens”…? He was referring to the advisory ballot measure on the RTID proposal which King County voters passed by more than a two-thirds margin… a margin which Irons himself trumpeted as a mandate.

“We have debated this question long enough, and the voters have told us they are tired of talk,” Irons said. “These poll results give us a mandate to move forward.”

But then, that was before Irons declared his candidacy for King County Executive, and before KVI fired up the anti-government crowd with misleading rhetoric in support of I-912. I suppose its possible that Irons now believes that our transportation problem has not grown beyond our ability to solve it with one fix, and that doing nothing is now eminently thinkable. Perhaps Irons now believes that leadership is unnecessary, that tough decisions need not be made, and that we have not debated this question long enough.

As long as Irons remains silent on this issue, I suppose voters are free to suppose whatever they want. Which I suppose may be exactly what Irons hopes to be the result of his silence.

Negative ads work

by — ,

I’m all on board with the thesis of today’s Seattle Times’s editorial lauding Judge Richard Jones ruling that last September’s unprecedented $1.5 million anti-Senn ad campaign violated WA’s public disclosure laws. Our Open Government Law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1972 — via citizens initiative — and the Times reminds us of one of its core tenets:

“The public’s right to know of the financing of political campaigns and lobbying and the financial affairs of elected officials and candidates far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private.”

But in writing their editorial, the Times repeats an unfortunate myth that has gained far too much credence in the MSM, while providing absolutely no research or analytical data to back it up:

In Washington, the television smear campaign might have backfired, because Senn won the primary handily.

Oh, that’s right… we’re living in Upside-Down World.

Get real. Senn won the primary despite of the smear campaign, not because of it, and if not for the intense onslaught of negative ads, she likely would have beaten Mark Sidran by an even larger margin. Furthermore, the ads forced Senn to empty her campaign treasury fighting a primary battle that shouldn’t have been, leaving her unable to mount an effective campaign against Rob McKenna in the general election.

People spend money on negative ads because they work, and there is no doubt that the negative ads substantially chipped away at Senn’s approval ratings — which the US Chamber of Commerce’s own internal, pre-primary polling showed to be an astonishing 3 to 1 margin among Democratic voters. Indeed, internal documents obtained by Senn’s attorneys during the court proceedings show that the US Chamber conducted extensive polling on how to drive down Senn’s positives… polling which formed the basis of their $1.5 million campaign.

To suppose that Senn’s primary and general election prospects weren’t damaged by these ads not only defies common sense, it defies decades of research and real-world experience. And let’s be honest… the US Chamber certainly would not have spent $150 million over the past five years (more on that later) running negative ads in judicial and attorney general elections across the nation, if they weren’t satisfied with the results.

While it is impossible to know for sure, it is more reasonable to speculate that McKenna rode into office on the back of an illegal, $1.5 million smear campaign, than it is to speculate that the ads backfired. It might be comforting to the Times editorial board and others to suppose that somehow, WA voters are savvier than their counterparts elsewhere, and thus immune to the pernicious influence of negative advertising. But this is a fantasy, totally unsupported by fact.

The ads intentionally misled WA voters, not just in content, but in provenance. And for that, the Times and I are in total agreement: the US Chamber, and not just its fake front organization, deserves to be punished directly for arrogantly flouting our state’s public disclosure laws.

Cantwell, Gregoire look good in new poll

by — ,

According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, both Sen. Maria Cantwell and Gov. Christine Gregoire are basking in the adoration of WA voters, enjoying 57 percent and 51 percent favorable ratings respectively. Both numbers are up from Rasmussen’s February survey.

(A grudging thanks to that damned OR blogger, TJ of Also Also, for scooping WA’s blogosphere and MSM in reporting the latest numbers.)

While head-to-head surveys show Cantwell whipping the political asses of political asses Chris Vance and Rick White, putative GOP nominee Mike McGavick avoided an equally poor showing… on the strength of being inexplicably left out of the poll entirely. Um… not sure why.

Anyway, according to Rasmussen:

Cantwell’s prospects have improved since Dino Rossi indicated he will stay out of the Senate race in 2006. Rossi was nearly elected Governor last November before a controversial recount determined that Christine Gregoire won the closest election in state history.
…
Cantwell also benefits from the fact that President Bush’s Approval Rating has dipped to 39% in the state of Washington. Just 25% believe the country is headed in the right direction.

Absolutely. As I’ve said before, Cantwell should focus on campaigning against Bush, Cheney, Delay, Frist, Rove and the rest of the Republican rogues gallery, regardless of who the GOPolitburo appoints as her official opponent. This election is about cloture, and WA voters who gave John Kerry and Patty Murray substantial margins last November are going to be very reluctant to hand the far-right absolute power in the other Washington. If the Bush administration keeps self-destructing, and Cantwell can maintain her favorable ratings a notch above 50 percent, then she’ll be unbeatable in 2006.

TJ also focuses a bit on Gregoire’s surprisingly good showing in light of the unprecedented BIAW/GOP PR campaign to discredit and delegitimize her election.

Perhaps the most stunning number is almost buried in this story: Christine Gregoire’s approval rating in this poll sits at 51%, a far cry from SurveyUSA’s pegging of her in the low 40s/high 30s since May. SUSA is not known to have any real partisan leanings, and is a robopoller like Rasmussen, so I find the latter number quite curious. There is no August report from SUSA that I can find (they just released Bush’s state by state numbers though, and they almost uniformly suck!), so it’s possible that this is improvement by Gregoire, or noise, or a combination of the two.

In any case, given how early she is in her term, and how clouded the first six months were by negative press over her election, I don’t think Gregoire’s approval ratings tell us much at the moment about her prospects in 2008. But the Rasmussen survey certainly isn’t discouraging.

Thinking about “think tanks”

by — ,

I’ve been thinking… us WA state progressives… we need to buy ourselves one of those fancy new think-tank-like thingies that are so popular with the conservative folk these days.

No, I don’t mean some lofty institute where pointy-headed intellectuals earnestly work to develop effective public policy. We have plenty of those… they’re called universities.

What we need are some of those fake think tanks… you know, like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, or the Washington Policy Center, or the driving force behind “intelligent design”, Seattle’s very own Discovery Institute, which apparently takes the name “Discovery” from its concerted efforts to squash it.

The other side has these shamelessly partisan propaganda mills, and so should we. They’re very effective. So if you’re rich and you’re liberal, and you’re looking for something fun and effective to do with your money, drop me an email… we’ll talk.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.