On Saturday I documented some ways that the Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal—the extra-judicial Tribunal under which Saddam Hussein was convicted—was a sham. The root of the problem is that the U.S., while acting as an occupying power, needed to create the Tribunal for ideological reasons: to avoid the International Criminal Court so despised by Bush, and to ensure that capital punishment would be on the menu. The Tribunal was a sham in numerous ways:

1. The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions
2. The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law)
3. The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution)
4. The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial

My point wasn’t to defend Hussein. Rather, I argued that the U.S. and Iraqis, in prosecuting a dictator for his abuse of judicial power, should have taken the moral and legal high ground, and set an example for the world of good democracy. The prosecution of Hussein should have been unimpeachable—not for Hussein’s sake, but for the sake of restoring some credibility for American democracy (you know, after illegally invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses) and to empirically establish legitimacy for the new Iraqi government.

So, we missed that badly needed opportunity.

Today’s New York Times further documents illegitimacy in carrying out the sentence:

The American role extended beyond providing the helicopter that carried Mr. Hussein home. Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom—and justice—of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

Uh-huh. The U.S. government had concerns and questions about what was going on. But, in the end, they handed over Hussein anyway.

That works for me about as well as the excuse “but…but…but, Your Honor, I really did have concerns and questions about the legitimacy of robbing that bank….”

One political concern was realized during the execution. A video of the hanging showed an…

…unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”

Of course, the issue isn’t about dignity for Hussein. The concern was that by coming off as a Shi’ite lynch mob, the execution further contributes to the sectarian divide in Iraq. It will fuel the civil war. It will translate into more dead and maimed Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. And that Hussein came off as dignified in the face of a lynch mob is a symbolic failure for the U.S. in “fostering democracy” in the Mideast.

The U.S. was correct when it…

…counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.

It was Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who pushed for an immediate execution. The largest snag for Maliki was that, by the Iraq constitution, he needed

…a decree from President Jalal Talabani, signed jointly by his two vice presidents, upholding the death sentence, and a letter from the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court that tried Mr. Hussein, certifying the verdict. But Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, made it known that he objected to the death penalty on principle.

Rather than adhering to the Iraqi constitution and law, Maliki developed a work-around.

The Maliki government spent much of Friday working on legal mechanisms to meet the American demands. From Mr. Talabani, they obtained a letter saying that while he would not sign a decree approving the hanging, he had no objections. The Iraqi official said Mr. Talabani first asked the tribunal’s judges for an opinion on whether the constitutional requirement for presidential approval applied to a death sentence handed down by the tribunal, a special court operating outside Iraq’s main judicial system. The judges said the requirement was void.

Apparently, everyone was willing to be convinced by the Tribunal judges who opined that the legislation creating the Tribunal (Law No. 10, passed on 9 Oct 2005) took precedence over Article 70 of the Iraqi constitution that requires the President to “[r]atify death sentences issued by the competent courts.” But, the Tribunal cannot override the Constitution; Article 92 prohibits “Special or exceptional courts.”

Without presidential ratification, the hanging violated the clear rule of law (as codified in the Iraqi constitution). It really was a lynching.

The fact that Iraqi law prohibits executions on holidays was never fully addressed. Instead, the Iraqis used simple psychological tricks on us to secure Hussein:

‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’”

To this, the Iraqis added what has often been their trump card in tricky political situations: they telephoned officials of the marjaiya, the supreme religious body in Iraqi Shiism, composed of ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf. The ayatollahs approved.

It is untrue that there would be no damage to the U.S. The U.S. needed the trial and execution of Hussein to be above reproach. There is only one way that the U.S. can achieve something resembling a “victory” in Iraq, and that would be to leave behind a functioning democracy.

Instead, we have replaced a lawless Sunni dictator with a lawless Shi’ite theocracy. And Iraq is led by a Prime Minister who has now committed one of the crimes that Hussein was guilty of: a lawless execution.

And to what end? What difference would it have made if Hussein’s execution had to wait for a week or wait for several years until a new President was elected?

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait.
[…]

But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”

Hey, well, you know…whatever it takes for Happy Holidays.

Saddam Hussein was hanged early this morning in Baghdad. (He was hanged, not hung—big difference there.)

President Bush said he was “executed after receiving a fair trial.”

Fair trial, my ass.

Hussein was found guilty of crimes against 148 Iraqis from al-Dujail who were accused of trying to assassinate him in 1982. The people were convicted, sentenced to execution, and then executed. Hussein admitted that he ordering the trial of the 148 individuals, but argued that he was entitled to do so under the laws of Iraq. Apparently, Hussein’s crime was to use his powers as dictator to deny justice to these individuals. The 149 people were convicted by a court that likely failed judicial independence—in short, a kangaroo court.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending Saddam for any of his crimes. Hussein had a well-deserved reputation as a murderous and brutal dictator. It seems likely that he committed numerous crimes that warrant execution.

My problem with Hussein’s conviction and execution is that he was tried in a kangaroo court. The judicial process that Hussein was tried and executed under was highly flawed—essentially, little better than the kangaroo court Hussein used to execute other people.

Let me take a moment here for a preemptive strike against our treasured Wingnut readers. My arguments here involve complex issues of international law and the Iraq legal system. If you are not willing to read this essay carefully, just shut the fuck up and go smoke your little green footballs or whatever it is you do to maintain a postmodern haze over reality. If you read carefully, you will learn that this essay isn’t about Hussein. Rather, it is about flaws in the process used to convict him—a process ill conceived by the arrogance and stupidity of the Bush administration. They fucked up another opportunity to offer Iraq some semblance of legitimacy.

All Americans have common ground in wishing for a peaceful, legitimate Iraq. It would solve our collective needs to get the hell out of Iraq and stop hemorrhaging money and American lives in support of the Bush administration’s past mistakes. Until late 2006, the Neocons wanted to pretend that Iraq was stabilizing, that the government was achieving legitimacy within and outside of Iraq, and that the U.S. had made the right decisions for post invasion Iraq. No more.

Last July when Bush held a joint press conference with Putin, he said (video):

I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same.

To which an incredulous Putin sniped back:

We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq…quite honestly.

Free press and free religion is a joke for a nation under the grip of violence and chaos. (That Bush would even suggest something so idiotic to Putin is beyond belief!)

The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT or Tribunal), likewise, has caused harm to any semblance of legitimacy that the Iraqi government may have had. There are many reasons for this. Some reasons result from the execution of the Tribunal itself, but ultimately the problems boil down to (1) uninformed decisions made under the rule of the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. while the U.S. occupied Iraq), (2) prior “issues” the Bush administration had with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and (3) rotten decisions made under the fog of wingnuttery.

The realization of the Tribunal was a debacle from the get-go. We all cringed in embarrassment as Hussein managed to make a mockery of the court’s early proceedings. The whole world squirmed as events unfolded. We squirmed as two defense lawyers were killed—not just because the murder of a defense lawyer is unconscionable (although “spraying” one in the face with bird shot can be pretty darned entertaining), but because replacement of a defense lawyer threatens the integrity of the defense. Didn’t we all want to take the high-road by convicting Hussein through an unimpeachable process? We squirmed when one judge was killed. Finally, we flinched in embarrassment as the Iraqi government removed the chief judge in a second Tribunal for making minor statements that appeared sympathetic to Hussein. What integrity remains knowing that the government removed a judge for some minor statements? Can we really believe that judges in the first trial were completely free to weigh the evidence for and against Hussein with judicial disinterest?

In fact, the SICT was established outside the normal Iraqi judicial system. It was enacted on 10 Dec 2003 as the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) under Order No. 48 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Iraqi government later abolished the IST and reestablished it, nearly wholesale, as the SICT under Law No. 10 on 9 Oct 2005.

The IST is at the root of the court’s kangarooness. The laws under which Hussein was tried were, largely, a U.S. concoction that fails standards of international law, Iraqi law, and even U.S. law.

You may recall an awkward period following the capture of Hussein when the Coalition had no idea what to do with their prized prisoner. Would there be an international tribunal in The Hague (a la Bosnia)? Would there be an Iraqi tribunal with assistance of the International Criminal Court (a la Rwanda Sierra Leone)?

In fact, neither of these happened. The Coalition (i.e. the U.S.) could not accept oversight by an international court for a number of political reasons, like the fact that the Bush administration had been openly hostile to and attempted to undermine the ICC, and eventually withdrew from the treaty. Perhaps the most important political consideration, though, was that any oversight by the ICC would exclude the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. That was “unacceptable to the Iraqi people,” as the Bush administration told us. But more importantly it was unacceptable to the Bush administration.

Instead of relying on the ICC, BushCo decided to “roll their own” and they established a Tribunal that took an unprecedented, and legally questionable, track: they established an Iraqi national extra-judicial process to prosecute Hussein and others for international crimes. This had never been done before. In fact, such special additions to a national judicial system by an occupying power are explicitly prohibited by article 23 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Convention IV of the Fourth Geneva conventions of 1949. The short story is that these binding international conventions prohibit occupying powers (i.e. the U.S. at the time) from changing the legal system, changing the status of judges, changing the penal system, changing any tribunals, or even prosecuting anyone for acts committed prior to occupation. In legal parlance, the construction of the IST effectively made it an instrument of victor’s justice, the very thing that international laws attempt to prohibit.

Finally, the Tribunal violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that requires fairness, openness, and competence in trials, requires independent and impartial justice, that is conducted by established applicable law (i.e. it explicitly prohibits special tribunals). As I explain below, the Tribunal bore no real resemblance to Iraqi law.

The Tribunal’s difficulties began immediately. Salem Chalabi, nephew of the infamous Ahmed Chalabi, was appointed General Director of the IST upon its establishment in May of 2004. He, in turn, created the structure for the IST, and appointed the initial panel of seven judges and prosecutors. Whether or not Salem Chalabi was qualified for the position (he is a U.S. educated lawyer), his appointment by the Executive branch, and the nepotism, certainly gave the appearance that the U.S. was running the show. This was confounded by serious conflicts of interest in his U.S. business and ties to “Neocon Central”—The Project for a New American Century. In August, 2004, an arrest warrant for suspicion murder was issued against Salem Chalabi while he was in London. The charges were later dropped, but Chalabi resigned as the IST General Director. The U.S. took over administration for the duration of the IST, a clear violation of judicial independence that further undermined any sense of legitimacy.

With much fanfare, Paul Bremer announced that the IST would be funded by $75 million from the U.S., a figure that was to double. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently provided teams of investigators and prosecutors to collect evidence and develop legal strategies. The U.S. trained all the Iraqi judges and prosecutors.

In 2005, the Iraqi government took the IST decree and passed it legislatively as the Iraqi Special Criminal Tribunal, thus lending the Tribunal some legitimacy. The damage was done, however. A Tribunal initiated in violation of international and domestic law is a pariah, and can, at best, achieve bastard status in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community after being patched. Unfortunately, the ISCT was not changed to be consistent with the Iraqi system of laws. Nor did it correct other legal problems as they existed in the IST. As the courtroom drama played out, there was nothing to dispel the perception that the victor’s justice was being served.

An immediate concern with the Tribunal law was that Iraqi law had no prior provisions for crimes against humanity, war crimes, or some other crimes that the Tribunal was charged with investigating. Thus, the Tribunal violates the nullum crimen principle that is fundamental to every modern legal system. This principle prevents retroactive application of criminal laws against a defendant. If the laws were not on the books prior to 2003, Hussein and his henchmen cannot be prosecuted for violations of a law decreed (by the occupying power) in 2003 and passed legislatively in 2005. Note that if the ICC had prosecuted the case, this would not be an issue, since these laws were established internationally. But, international prosecution would have excluded a capital sentence. Here is a clear example where a Bush administration political requirement undermined the integrity of the process.

A huge difficulty with the Tribunal is that its procedures bear no resemblance to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, it is based on the U.S. legal system. Iraq’s laws are based on the Egyptian legal system which, in turn, is modeled after the French legal system. Under the French inquisitorial system, the judge acts as an investigator, using evidence provided by prosecutors prior to trial. The U.S. legal system is an adversary-accusatorial system complete with introduction of new evidence and cross-examination occurring during the trial. The roles of judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer differ significantly under the two systems.

It can hardly be surprising then that the Tribunal started off with an air of incompetence. None of the participants had any experience with the American-style legal system. And it showed. As one scholar described it:

The proceedings were choreographed as an American hearing where an investigative judge read an indictment and asked the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty, and was thus more American than Iraqi. There is no such procedure in the Iraqi criminal justice system. The investigative judge, sitting behind a table facing Saddam, was obviously uncomfortable. On the table where he sat facing Saddam Hussein was a copy of the 1971 Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not provide for such an American-style arraignment procedure. The investigative judge asked Saddam to enter a plea, something unknown in the Iraqi system, and Saddam, who has a law degree, realized this.

As a result, Hussein not only succeeded in disrupting the proceedings, but he succeeded in undermining the court’s credibility. Imposing a system so foreign enforced the idea that this was a kangaroo court. When the arraignment took place on 1 Jul 2004, both supporters and detractors saw an illegal concoction, created by an occupying power, and designed simply to convict and execute Hussein and other Ba’ath party officials.

This view was reinforced by numerous anomalies in this case. For example, the indictment against Hussein was apparently not handed down until 15 May 2006, almost two years after the arraignment and seven months into the trial. This violates all legal principles (including International and Iraq domestic law). Due process demands that a defendant be promptly notified of the charges brought against him prior to the start of trail.

It is easy to say that Saddam Hussein got what he had coming to him. However, the Tribunal, to be successful, had to administer real justice in a way that lent credibility to the fledgling (but now failing) Iraqi government. Instead, Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed under a cloud of illegitimacy not unlike that he used to execute 147 residents of al-Dujail in 1982. Sadly, his execution will make him a martyr to some and will deepen the civil war.

What bothers me about this is that it could have been done correctly. An international court exists and has the experience and mandate to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes. A conviction in that court (with the likely outcome of permanent incarceration) would have avoided making Hussein a martyr and likely would have been far less disruptive of the Iraqi government. Now it’s too late.

Chalk it up to another massive fuck-up by a Bush administration driven by incompetence and ideological extremism.

Because relatives are visiting from New York this week, the cellulose-based legacy media is finding its way into my house. I spotted this interesting introduction to an Op-Ed piece by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann in today’s New York Times:

HERE is the redacted version of a draft Op-Ed article we wrote for The Times, as blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions. Agency officials told us that they had concluded on their own that the original draft included no classified material, but that they had to bow to the White House.

Indeed, the deleted portions of the original draft reveal no classified material. These passages go into aspects of American-Iranian relations during the Bush administration’s first term that have been publicly discussed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; a former State Department policy planning director, Richard Haass; and a former special envoy to Afghanistan, James Dobbins.

These aspects have been extensively reported in the news media, and one of us, Mr. Leverett, has written about them in The Times and other publications with the explicit permission of the review board. We provided the following citations to the board to demonstrate that all of the material the White House objected to is already in the public domain. Unfortunately, to make sense of much of our Op-Ed article, readers will have to read the citations for themselves.

The term redacted is, of course, a euphemism for censored. The Times printed the Op-Ed with the censored sections of text blacked out.

Why the White House feels so threatened by a series of facts contained in the original draft—all drawn from public sources— that they would engage in such gratuitous censorship is beyond me.

I suppose it could be because the article documents how Bush double-crossed Iran after a period of fruitful cooperation in the early years of the war in Afghanistan. I suppose the White House was a little miffed by being exposed as squandering opportunities to get Iran’s help in fixing the Iraq civil war quagmire. But neither of these reasons justifies government censorship of the press or the free speech rights of the authors. It is clear from numerous sources—the censored Op-Ed, the authors’ statement, the statement of CIA Publication Review Board, and the cited sources—that the Op-Ed contained no classified information or information that compromised national security.

Simply put, the only rationale the White House had for censoring this article was to save the Administration a little embarrassment. And that is outrageous. Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be alarmed by the realization that the White House even bothers to intervene in newspaper Op-Ed pieces, not to mention that they gratuitously censor embarrassing material.

I first heard about Gov. Gregoire’s viaduct “punt” last Friday following the big wind storm right as I was in the middle of a two-hour commute from Redmond to U-Dub. (Yeah…I know I should have stayed home, but I didn’t really have a choice.) Normally, my commute is 25 minutes by car or an hour by bus. On Friday, however, the SR520 floating bridge was shut down to repair wind damage. At about the one hour mark, crawling along at under 10 mph on I-405, I was contemplating the many ways my quality of life would decline if the SR520 bridge decided to sink. And then the news broke about Gregoire’s statement.

Frankly, I was irritated by another delay in replacing a failing piece of critical infrastructure. Gregiore had her chance to be The Decider™ and she decided to punt. Or so I thought from the media account.

After the sting of a painful commute faded, I looked into Gregoire’s statement and it became clear to me that she had, in fact, made nearly all of the important decisions. She decided that all options were out except the tunnel and the rebuild. Essentially, Gregoire validated (politically and practically) the engineering, environmental, and fiscal analyses found in DOT’s Supplemental Draft, Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that rejected all but these two options. And eliminating the fringe options is a good decision.

The DEIS dealt with each fringe option in turn. I’ll only mention the so-called no-replacement option because, I believe, Goldy disagrees with me on it. The DEIS finds that the no-replacement option isn’t viable:

• Replacing the viaduct with a four-lane surface street would substantially increase congestion for most of the day and part of the evening on I-5 through downtown Seattle, downtown streets, and Alaskan Way. These congested conditions are predicted to occur even if improvements were made to downtown streets and transit ridership substantially increased.
• I-5 through Seattle doesn’t have room for additional trips since it’s already congested through much of the day and into the evening. However, under the No Replacement concept, many trips that currently use the viaduct would shift to I-5, causing it to become even more congested.
• Downtown street traffic would increase by 30 percent, though traffic increases to specific areas like Pioneer Square and the waterfront could exceed 30 percent.
• With a four-lane roadway, traffic on Alaskan Way would quadruple to 35,000 to 56,000 vehicles per day compared to about 10,000 vehicles today. This traffic would make it difficult for patrons to get to waterfront businesses and would create more conflicts between vehicles and the many bicyclists and pedestrians that use Alaskan Way.
• Neighborhoods west of I-5 (Ballard, Queen Anne, Magnolia, and West Seattle) would have less direct connections to and through downtown; therefore, travel times for trips to and through downtown would increase for drivers from these areas.

A four-lane Alaskan Way would create more congestion on I-5 and downtown streets than the Surface Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS. The project partners dropped the Surface Alternative because it didn’t meet the AWV Project’s purpose, which is to “maintain or improve mobility, accessibility, and traffic safety for people and goods along the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor.”

More congestion, longer trip times, and greater susceptibility to accidents, construction, and events? No thanks. The no-replacement option would make a trip to (or through) downtown Seattle less desirable than a field trip through a rendering plant. If anything, it’s a plan to slowly strangle downtown Seattle.

I’m also not convinced by reports that other cities have removed capacity with minimal long term effects. Such decisions are generally not made randomly—there is engineering judgment that precedes such a drastic move. With I-5 at capacity and downtown already too congested at peak times, the engineering judgment suggests that the Seattle waterfront is not a good candidate for capacity reduction.

Gregoire made another important decision. She decided that the decision between the tunnel option and the rebuild option would come down to a vote of the people. But not just any people. She put it up to a vote by the people who would gain the greatest benefit. Oh…and the people who would have to pay the price difference for a tunnel.

The Seattle Times editorial board refers to this as Gregoire’s pragmatic punt.

Effectively, Gregoire is saying, “we will go with the rebuild option because the State has an obligation to replace an important and failing part of the highway infrastructure and, by the way, Seattle, if you want a tunnel instead let us know (soon!) and, if so, include your credit card number.”

What some consider a “punt” is really an offer of an upgrade option for Seattle.

The tunnel upgrade option for Seattle is good politics, too. If the voters decide to spend a couple billion of their own dollars for the tunnel, who can deny them? Or if the voters cheap-out and decide that a rebuilt monstrosity along the waterfront is good enough, then…well, then let them lie in their own noise pollution.

This morning on KUOW’s Weekday, Joni Balter and Joel Connelly had a mini-debate over the Governor’s decision. Balter considered the decision strategically sound. Why? Because Gregoire knows that House Speaker Frank Chopp will do everything he can legislatively to kill the tunnel. And Mayor Nickels will interfere with any attempt to implement the rebuild option. As Balter points out, there is one power higher than Gregoire, and that is the voters.

Joel Connelly, on the other hand, felt that Gregoire offered a shanked punt. We pay her to be The Decider™, and she ought to decide. In case you haven’t figured it out, I find Balter’s arguments more compelling.

Clearly, Gregoire favors the rebuild option; she probably expects Seattle to fail in coming up with either the public support or the funding for a tunnel. The ball is now in Nickels’ court to both build public support and convert his fantasy funding plan into something grounded in reality.

The DEIS prices the tunnel at between $3.6 and $4.3 billion, and the elevated rebuild from $2.5 to $2.9 billion. Funding for the rebuild is almost in place, as there is now $2.45 billion committed to the project, including $2.2 billion from the State, $0.24 billion from the Feds, and $0.016 billion from Seattle.

The tunnel option would likely draw an additional $500 million from Seattle and $200 million from the Port of Seattle. Other potential funding sources include a local improvement district (actually, this was proposed by Goldy) that could provide $250 million, a regional ballot measure (i.e. new taxes), additional Army Corps of Engineers funding for the seawall part of the project, and additional Federal highway and emergency relief funding.

In the long run, the tunnel option offers significant advantages. Most importantly, it will remake the downtown Seattle waterfront. Have you ever walked from the Pike Place Market to the waterfront? Man…talk about an unpleasant experience! A tunnel would …

…dramatically decrease noise levels by about 12 A-weighted decibels (dBA) along the waterfront. This would sound like cutting the noise level by more than half. Noise along the central section of the project corridor is currently loud and would not change much if the Elevated Structure Alternative is built.

The way I see it, the tunnel option is a long term investment, and one that will be appreciated by generations of Seattleites. I can imagine thirty years from now, two lovers will be strolling down to the waterfront, hand in hand. Under one scenario they’ll excitedly discuss their future life together as they take in the pleasant views. Under the other scenario, one will bellow at the other , “I can’t believe they built a fucking freeway through the waterfront!”

So I hope Seattle goes for the option…who knows what kind of difference it could make. I’m just sayin’.

I was just thinking….

The last big windstorm was known as the Inauguration Day Storm because it fell on the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated.

The worst windstorm ever in this region is known as the Columbus Day Storm because it happened on Columbus day in 1962.

Maybe we should call this one the Rummy Retirement Day Storm?

Speaking of So many pastors and so little time, ex-pastor Ted Haggard, now in deep therapy, might have a new therapy buddy:

On Sunday, Paul Barnes, founding pastor of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel in this Denver suburb, told his evangelical congregation in a videotaped message he had had sexual relations with other men and was stepping down.
[…]

On the videotape…Barnes told church members: “I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy … I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.”

But, but, but, all Barnes needed to do was put himself into the hands of Jesus! (Um…so to speak.) I mean, God hates homos doesn’t he? You would think an ordained pastor would have figured that out from the 15th chapter of the Gospel according to the Apostle John, verse 16: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

Failing that, he could always go for the 10-day solution with Anita Bryant’s Homo No-Mo.

Tim Eyman gets another notch in his belt—his belt for losses. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that I-776 cannot repeal a prior Sound Transit motor vehicle excise tax (MVET).

The Sound Transit MVET was authorized some four years before I-776 passed in 2002, and resulted in the issue and sale of Sound Transit construction bonds. But I-776 stated “Any motor vehicle excise tax previously imposed under the provisions of RCW 81.104.160(1) shall be repealed, terminated and expire on the effective date of this act.”

In other words, I-776 attempted to retroactively repeal a tax enacted by a regional taxing authority for a regional transportation project, even though the construction bonds were sold in 1999 and matured in 2028.

The lower courts held that this part of I-776 was unconstitutional because the bonds were an “obligation of contract” and that laws impairing such obligations are prohibited by the State Constitution. Thus, it should be no surprise that the Supreme Court voted to uphold the lower court ruling :

The intervenors (Salish Village Home Owners Association, one of its members, and Permanent Offense, sponsor of the initiative) seek reversal of the trial court ruling, contending, among other arguments, that the bonds are not impaired. The crux of the intervenors’ argument appears to be that the people, through initiative, have the right to repeal taxes, pledged as security for capital intensive projects such as highways and bridges, when they no longer want to pay such taxes. However, the contract clause of our state constitution guarantees that “No . . . law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be passed.” Wash Const. art. I, § 23.

The intervenors ask this court to ignore the contract clause and long-standing case law in order to repeal MVET taxes securing Sound Transit bonds. Unfortunately, the intervenors point to no authority for their contentions which are contrary to well-settled law and the plain language of our constitution.

Pretty solid logic. But, over at (un)SoundPolitics, there is an “alternative” interpretation of the ruling. Said Stefan,

The statist Alexander Court again upheld executive preference to ignore the will of the voters

I’m not sure what he means by the phrase “executive preference,” but it is very interesting that Stefan used the word statist. Statism refers to government meddling in “personal, social or economic matters.” But the real statism in this case comes from initiative (I-776)—a statewide initiative that prohibits people in smaller (regional or local) tax districts from taxing themselves. Initiative 776 attempted to retroactively repeal a regional tax that was supported by 57% percent of the voters in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Furthermore, I-776 lost by 57% in the Sound Transit Taxing district.

“Will of the people,” indeed, Stefan. I suppose Stefan meant the will of people outside of the Sound Transit taxing district. But, why the hell should the will of people in, say, eastern Washington be considered?

The “statist Alexander Court,” by the way, is made up of eight justices including Justice Charles Johnson. (Oops…I grabbed the wrong Justice Johnson. Justice Jim Johnson didn’t rule on the case.) Only Justice Sanders dissented.

The bizarre theory that Justice Sanders offered in his minority opinion is that

Sound Transit lacked authority to pledge to levy MVET notwithstanding possible repeal.
[…]

The State authorized Sound Transit to levy MVET. Former RCW 81.104.160(1) (1998). And it authorized Sound Transit to pledge MVET revenues. RCW 81.104.180. But it did not authorize Sound Transit to pledge to levy MVET for all time notwithstanding repeal. Accordingly, Sound Transit’s pledge to levy MVET in the future was ultra vires [beyond their power] and invalid.

Uh-huh—Like we should be surprised that a regional transit authority, with billions of dollars in transportation projects would have to issue 30 year construction bonds. In fact, the minority opinion contradicts the notion that Sound Transit’s bonds overstepped authority of the authority:

In RCW 81.112.030, the legislature authorized two or more contiguous counties each having a population of more than 400,000 persons or more to establish a “regional transit authority.” Such authority is to “develop and operate a high capacity transportation system as defined in chapter 81.104 RCW.” Id. The regional transit authority is responsible for planning, construction, operations, and funding of transit system within its area. See, e.g., RCW 81.104.070(2). The regional transit authority is authorized, after receiving voter approval, to levy taxes and issue bonds to finance the transit system. See, e.g., RCW 81.104.140, 81.112.030, .130.

More than anything else, this case brings up a perplexing political issue: since when did the Wingnuts decide that big government should override local control of taxation and spending? This seems paradoxical to me (just as I find their professed interest in small government and fiscal responsibility dripping with paradox as the federal government grows and accrues unprecedented debt under the Republicans). I mean, aren’t Wingnuts supposed to want control of taxation and spending at lower governmental levels?

I can only conclude that the disapproving tone of Stefan’s post is little more than contrarianism.

From a KIRO TV report this evening:

According to booking records, Larry Corrigan, the former director of operations and budget for the King County Prosecutors office, was arrested Wednesday in an online sting.

Corrigan, accused of attempted child rape and communication with a minor for sex, was released Thursday on his own recognizance, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.
Corrigan was allegedly using an Internet messenger service to contact what he thought was a 13-year-old girl to meet for sex.

Police arrested Corrigan Wednesday afternoon at a Capitol Hill video store where he had arranged to meet the teenage girl.

Corrigan had worked as the director of operations and budget for 25 years before leaving nearly two years ago to pursue business interests, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reported.

Oh, man, a 25 year employee of King County…and in operations and budget. No doubt the Wingnuts will be up our liberal asses claiming Corrigan—a long term King County bureaucrat—is a typical Democrat. They’ll accuse the King County Dems of harboring and nurturing child predators. No doubt the righties will use this as an example of why Ron Sims is corrupt, and use it to claim King County steals both children and elections.

No doubt this will ultimately be blamed on…Dean Logan!

Oh wait a minute…It looks like Larry Corrigan is a big cheerleader for Republicans. I mean, he endorsed Sam Reed, and he is one of Bret Olsen’s distinguished supporters. The PDC shows him contributing mostly to Wingnuts like Luke Esser and Bret Olsen.

So, suck it Wingnuts. He’s one of yours.

(Man…what is it with these King County Republicans, anyway?)

The Republican Party used to have a reputation as “the Party of Fiscal Responsibility.” At the national level, however, Republicans gave that up when they heard the Siren song of Reaganomics

Initiative 920 will be on the ballot this fall.

What will happen if I-920 passes? Funds for primary and secondary education will be eliminated. Specifically, funds used for reducing K-12 class size, learning assistance programs, financial aid for Washington low- and middle-income college students, and about 8,000 enrollment slots at state universities will be eliminated. All that comes about through a repeal of the Washington State Estate Tax (or the Blethen Tax as Goldy likes to call it).

Dennis Falk is the sponsor and campaign director of I-920. Last June, Neil Modie of the Seattle P-I gave this brief biographical sketch of Dennis Falk,

…I-920’s sponsor, campaign manager and chairman, Dennis Falk, a former Seattle police officer and a longtime leader of the ultraconservative John Birch Society.
In 1978, Falk co-chaired Save Our Moral Ethics, an unsuccessful initiative campaign to repeal a Seattle law barring housing and employment discriminations against gays and lesbians.

“I think it certainly raises eyebrows that some of the leading corporate citizens in the state are funding a John Birch Society organizer, who is paying himself,” Christian Sinderman, a spokesman for the opponents and a veteran Democratic campaign operative, said Thursday. Falk is paying himself $950 a month from campaign funds to manage I-920.

So this initiative is being run by a homopobe who is the lead Bircher for Washington State. (Goldy previously profiled Dennis Falk and his Bircher ways.)

But, Dennis Falk is not just your ordinary ultra-right wing, anti-commie, homophobe, UN conspiracy theorist. Nope…Dennis Falk has a long history of involvement with more extremist groups. In 1986, before being kicked off the Seattle Police Force for “for shooting to death a fleeing, mentally retarded man,” Falk was involved in another movement.

From the Seattle Times (“Group Hoping For End To Income Tax,” Dee Norton. Feb 12, 1986. pg. D.2):

A group of Seattle police officers and firefighters who call themselves constitutionalists want the city to stop deducting federal income tax from their paychecks.

Seattle police officer Dennis Falk and Sgt. Keith Engstrom have joined with 15 to 20 other officers and firefighters in the effort. The group hopes a federal appeals-court case scheduled to be heard in Seattle starting today will bolster their position.
[…]

The income-tax war for Engstrom, Falk and the others became confrontational several years ago when they submitted their income tax withholding forms to the city. Falk said he was exempt from paying income taxes.

The group claimed that, because of punctuation, capitalization and spelling changes when the 16th Amendment was being ratified by the states, the federal income tax is void. The courts disagreed.

Who are the “constitutionalists?” At worst, the “constitutionalist anti-tax movement” includes the Freemen movement (originally in Montana) and the Posse Comitatus.

I’ve found no evidence that Falk is personally involved in any citizen militia or other violent movements (except…um…in his former capacity as a cop), but he is more broadly involved in the Christian Patriot movement, as this 1996 article suggests .

What is the Christian Patriot movement all about? From Wikipedia:

The Christian Patriot movement is a loose association of groups and people in the United States. These groups share common interests including conspiracy theories, a Christian theology which places special emphasis on eschatology and apocalyptic matters, and unorthodox interpretations of law, economics, and the United States Constitution. The movement is generally considered to be part of the political far right in the United States, and is best described as a movement which bridges the gap between the more mainstream evangelical Christianity and the more extremist Christian Identity movement, two movements which otherwise have little in common with each other.
[…]

The origins of the movement are debated. Some researchers believe the movement is rooted in a wide array of American populist and xenophobic movements, including the Know-Nothing movement, the Ku Klux Klan, Father Coughlin and U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s anti-Communism, America First, George Wallace‘s segregationism, and Barry Goldwater‘s conservatism and libertarianism. Other researchers more specifically locate the movement’s origins in the rural economic depression and overwhelming debt in the 1980s combined with a feeling of disenfranchisement and anger among White males in response to the Civil Rights movement, and Feminism. The movement proper began in the late 1970s or early 1980s, with especially strong followings in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, with the foundation of the Christian Patriot Association in Oregon and book publishers such as Emissary Publications. Posse Comitatus was a somewhat related albeit more radical movement which was also active at the time.
[…]

Some views commonly associated with The Christian Patriot movement, sometimes considered synonymous with the Militia Movement, are generally organized around a belief that world events are secretly controlled by some group such as the Illuminati, the Council of Foreign Relations, international banking families, Communists, Jews, the United Nations, or some combination of the above, and that conspiracy will culminate in a new world order conspiracy, which is either present or impending.

Christian Patriots hold to a strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and are closely associated with the tax revolt movement. They may encourage people to get rid of their Social Security Number, believing it to be an unconstitutional national identity card, and to stop paying income taxes, based on their belief that the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is illegitimate.

Uh-huh…not just your ordinary tax dodger. We can probably best describe Dennis Falk as an ultra-right wing, anti-commie, homophobe, biggot, whack-job UN conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, citizen activist.

It’s unbelievable that a right-wing wack-job like Dennis Falk could actually inspire a grassroots movement to get an initiative on the ballot.

It is unbelievable because…it’s not true. Initiative 920 is not based on anything resembling a grassroots movement. The majority of the funding or I-920 has come from Martin Selig who has given $807,500 to the I-920 campaign . Big bucks, to the tune of $357,500, have also come from Michael Dunmire (a.k.a. Eyman’s Sugar Daddy). And, as Goldy mentioned, $25,000 came from John N. Nordstrom for the signature drive.

Given Mr. Falks extremist views, one has to wonder whether these people actually know about Mr. Falk and his movement. Or are they part of the movement, too?

(Bonus question: Given the common connections through Dunmire, what is Eyman’s involvement in the Birchers and the Christian Patriot movement?)

Update: I was wrong about Dunmire donating to I-920—I searched the PDC database and got all results thinking they were restricted to I-920. Dunmire dumped his pile-o-money into I-917. I guess that lets Eyman off the hook. Also John N. Nordstrom’s contributions to I-920 to date have trippled to $75,000 from when Goldy wrote his earlier post. I had more to say about that at Jesus’ General Sunday night.

Here we go! Josh at Talking Points Memo finds this NRCC document showing expenditures of almost $2 million being used to fund production and placement or mailing of “issue ads.” (Of course, the term “issue ad” is a euphemism for “attack ad“).

The expenditures, being used against 20 Democratic congressional candidates, are nicely summarized by mcjoan at Daily Kos.

I’m not surprised to find that Darcy Burner is one of the 20 NRCC targets. Here is the entry for the Washington State 8th Congressional district race:

MAJORITY COMMUNICATIONS INC.
274 MARCONI BLVD.
SUITE 260
COLUMBUS, Ohio 43215

Purpose of Expenditure: Mailing Service
This Committee OPPOSES The Following Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives
State is Washington in District 08
Date Expended = 09/15/2006
Person Completing Form: CHRISTOPHER J. WARD
Date Signed = 09/15/2006
Amount Expended = $25586.91
Calendar YTD Per Election for Office Sought = $41861.91

Let’s see…we had a visit by Bush and a visit by Karl Rove to raise money for Rep. Dave Reichert, the NRCC has Darcy Burner on their top twenty hit list, and they have targeted $42,000 for the race to date. Anybody dismissing Darcy Burner’s chances in this race is simply in denial. Darcy was leading in the last public poll, but the Republican attack ads will turn that around if left unanswered.

You know where this is going…. If you haven’t yet given (or even if you have), please consider a small donation to counter the NRCC’s attack. Even $5.00 will help.

Click here to tell the NRCC to shove it!

The Seattle PI today reports that Sheriff-turned-Congressman Dave Reichert has finally broken his long silence over the problems uncovered in the King County Sheriff’s Office.

And now, as you might expect from a man of his integrity and credibility, Reichert has taken full responsibility for the failings in the Sheriff’s office under his leadership.

Just kidding! I mean you didn’t really expect that, did you? He is up for reelection, you know. No, Reichert did the right thing here…he found someone else to blame:

“Many of the issues the [Blue Ribbon investigation panel] identifies are issues that I worked to solve when I was sheriff and it is gratifying that many of their proposed solutions echo those that both I and Sheriff (Sue) Rahr have put forward,” Reichert said.

Reichert’s statement said some of his own efforts to improve officer supervision and oversight were stymied by a lack of support from other county officials. In particular, Reichert mentioned King County Executive Ron Sims.

“I worked as sheriff to address these issues and others but was often prohibited from doing so by successive years of $1 million to $2 million budget cuts,” Reichert said. “I repeatedly expressed to the county executive the need for an increased budget to effectively implement oversight of the behavior of the organization, to ensure policies and procedures are complied with and to create an ongoing auditing process in the Sheriff’s Office.”

Uh-huh…so it was Ron Sims’ fault!

Well…kind-of. You see the budget for the Sheriff’s Office increased every year from 2000 to 2004.

A spokesman for Sims said Friday that, other than a request for six more sergeants in 2001, the executive’s office could not find any requests by Reichert for the funding the statement described.

“We don’t have evidence of that,” Sims spokeswoman Carolyn Duncan said.

Duncan added that the Sheriff’s Office budget consistently has fared better than budgets of other departments over the past several years. Since 2000, the sheriff’s budget has grown by $32 million.

“The bottom line was, their budget has increased every year when other departments were taking cuts,” Duncan said.

The PI cites budget figures from 2000 to 2004 as $84.8, $95, $99, $101, and $106.7 million. In fact, in 2001 the Sheriff’s Office under-spent its budget by nearly $1.5 million.

So…it hardly seems that the underlying problems could really be about money. The series of articles published by the Seattle P-I documented problems with morale, discipline, and officer misconduct—the kinds of things that money affects only superficially in the hands of a real leader; so, maybe we can still pin this on Ron Sims….

The P-I‘s series led to the formation of the blue-ribbon panel, which issued its final report Monday. That report described multiple “longstanding” problems with officer supervision and oversight. It detailed 43 findings, six major recommendations and 36 other suggestions the panel said need to be implemented to repair a broken officer accountability system.

Though it did not single out any past administrations, the panel specifically noted among its recommendations that employee performance evaluations, which were eliminated under Reichert, should be reinstituted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so, how would eliminating employee performance evaluations cause accountability and morale problems? I mean, isn’t it simpler to just say that it was Ron Sims’ fault? After all, Reichert can show how he was instrumental in changing the culture in the Sheriff’s Office…

In his statement, Reichert also noted his administration “established the core values of the Sheriff Office, leadership, integrity, service and teamwork.”

Former County Executive Randy Revelle, who served as chairman of the blue-ribbon panel, said just having such core values isn’t enough: “It’s one thing to have them posted on a wall. But the real test is, are they guiding and influencing the character of your employees? We didn’t get the impression they were.”

But, but, but, it was Reichert who got the policy down on paper, put up the posters, and made sure everyone got the memo…see? So it must have been Ron Sims’ fault that things didn’t “take”…right?

It sounds like the only thing missing was…you know…that leadership thing.

So…um…I hope you will join Dave Reichert and me in pointing out the obvious implication: the lack of leadership in the King County Sheriff’s office was Ron Sims’ fault!

Today is a big day over at Sound Politics! Goldy’s good friend Stefan actually influenced the press! The Seattle Times published a story on a new scandal that Stefan broke!

The story stems from an event described last Thursday by Andrew at NPI. The event, held at the Redmond Town Center, was a benefit called “Women in Leadership, Addressing the Challenges of a Changing World.” Christine Gregoire was one of the speakers…

The Governor ended her remarks by announcing a surprise, instant auction to raise money for Darcy Burner. She offered a dinner for two at the Governor’s Mansion in December and kicked off the bidding at $100. The winning bid ended up being nearly $4,000.

As a result of this post, perennial political candidate and HorsesAss participant Richard Pope filed this complaint with the Attorney General. Not surprisingly, Stefan picked-up on the complaint and suggested some form of “corruption.”

Today’s Seattle Times picked up on the “scandal” that…

…raised an uncomfortable question for Gregoire: Is she selling access to the publicly owned mansion?

[…]

The complaint, filed by a Bellevue attorney who lost two elections to Gregoire, accuses the governor of misusing the mansion in violation of state law that bars state employees from using state facilities “for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election.”

The complaint, which will be investigated, could break new ethics ground in Washington. The Executive Ethics Board has never been asked to rule on use of the mansion for political fundraising, said Susan Harris, the board’s executive director.

But Harris and Gregoire’s staff say the mansion does not appear to fall under the law cited in the complaint because the building is also the governor’s home.

“We’d look differently at it if she was not required to live there,” Harris said.

Holly Armstrong, Gregoire’s spokeswoman, said the governor has not held fundraisers at the mansion. When Gregoire holds private dinners, which is how she sees the auctioned-off dinner, she reimburses the state for food and her chef’s time, Armstrong said.

“It’s where she lives,” Armstrong said. “She can invite anyone over for dinner she wants. She just can’t use public funds.”

Pope’s complaint does raise an interesting question, because in some circumstances the State of Washington is in the landlord business. In addition to the Governor, who is required to reside in the executive mansion, university presidents, faculty in university housing, students living in campus dorms, and residents of state-owned care facilities are all people whose residence is state-owned. Do all these people give up their right to political speech while in their residence?

In other words, does the law (RCW 42.52.180) that prohibits use of state property for political campaigning by state employees apply to a resident (tenant) in their state-owned home? I spent some time this morning looking through the RCW, WAC, university housing handbooks, the Ethics Board FAQ, and Washington State case law. I found very little relevant material. Apparently the question has not been generally addressed in this state.

The issue ultimately comes down to whether RCW 42.52.180 trumps the constitutionally protected rights to privacy, free speech, and free association for citizens in state-owned residences. It seems unlikely—even for people who, unlike the governor, have options for their landlord—that the law could be viewed as applying to an individual’s residence.

If the Governor and her family are not allowed to privately invite guests into their home for the benefit of a political campaign then it logically follows that a university student (who happens to work for the state) living in a state-owned university dorm, cannot legally make political campaign signs or solicit campaign contributions while in their own room.

Nope…the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution take precedence here.

In the specific case of the executive mansion, there are already guidelines in place, as Andrew reports from his communications with the Governor’s office:

…the Governor is perfectly entitled to hold private events at the mansion. The office added that there is actually historical precedent for this—dating from the Evans administration, when the issue was first raised.

The mansion has hosted many private events in the past, the Governor’s office says, including non-political functions (like a reception for the Boys & Girls Club).

No funds from the state treasury are used to put on private events, and guidelines from the State Auditor’s office are carefully followed.

So, congratulations to Stefan for actually getting noticed by the press (he seemed to be in something of a dry spell). But, in keeping with his record during last year’s gubernatorial election contest, I’m guessing that Stefan will end up on the wrong side of this issue.

As long as we’re on the topic of Karl Rove today….

Lynn Allen from Evergreen Politics saw Jim Hightower last night and got an interviewed with him. She asked him about his experiences with Karl Rove.

It’s payback time!

(Via David Postman.)

Maria Cantwell has weighed in on the Karl Rove visit. I’ll just reprint the entire letter that she sent to supporters today. As the letter suggests, it is unusual (and, frankly, remarkable) that a senatorial candidate in the middle of an important race is actually asking you to send money to another candidate! In this case to Darcy Burner.

Dear Friend,

Karl Rove is here

There’s a major political upset in the making here in Washington state – one that could tilt the balance of power in Congress to the Democrats. Today, Karl Rove is here to stop that from happening.

In our 8th Congressional District, Darcy Burner is on the verge of defeating her Republican incumbent in one of the most hotly contested races in the country. Darcy has been surging in the polls and has the Republicans scrambling. They know they can’t afford to lose this seat and they are pulling out all the stops: George Bush has been here, Dick Cheney has been here, and now it’s Karl Rove’s turn.

Today, Rove is headlining a huge high-dollar fundraiser for Darcy’s opponent. This is a big moment for the Republicans and they will raise a lot of money today. But, if we act right now, we can turn this into a big moment for Darcy.

Contribute to Darcy Burner now

You know that I am currently in a tough battle for my own reelection and that my race has also been targeted by the national Republican Party and the White House. Given my situation, I hope the fact that I’m asking you to help Darcy serves as an indicator of how important this race is to our country. Today, with Karl Rove here working for her opponent, I don’t think there is anything more important than helping my friend fight back against what is coming her way.

Contribute to Darcy Burner now

Darcy is going to be an outstanding Congresswoman. She is smart, experienced, and courageous. She will stand up to the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, big oil companies, and special interests. She will stand up for us and for our values. We not only need to win back Congress, but we need to win it back with people like Darcy Burner.

When Dick Cheney came to town you came through for me. When Bill Frist came to town you came through for me. Today, with Karl Rove in town and control of Congress hanging in the balance, we need to come through for Darcy.

Thank you,

Maria Cantwell

Another thing I find remarkable is that Maria has added Darcy to her ActBlue page. This further goes to show (as does the Rove visit itself) that the 8th CD race is an extremely important and competitive race.

Please listen to the Senator from Washington State and give what you can to Darcy!

Update: The Cantwell campaign issued a press release at around 4:45 pm:

In an email appeal, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell urged her supporters to contribute to U.S. House candidate Darcy Burner’s campaign. In just four hours, Team Cantwell has raised more than $31,000 for Burner’s campaign.