From: David Goldstein
Date: July 7, 2006 12:18:09 PM PDT
To: Tim Eyman
Subject: Your Show on KTTH
Congratulations on your guest spot filling in the next two weeks in the 5AM to 9AM slot on KTTH. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Since you seemed so eager to come on my show for the entire three hours, I’m sure you would be just as excited to have me come on one of your shows for the entire four hours. You just name the day, and I’ll show up. (Don’t worry, I have my own pass card to the Entercom studios, so I’ll just let myself in.)
I look forward to an “extended debate on the issues.”
“Politics as unusual.”
“The David Goldstein Show”
Newsradio 710-KIRO, Sundays 7-10PM
I just sent the following email to Tim Eyman. Think he’ll accept my olive branch?
From: “David Goldstein” email@example.com
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:38:53 AM US/Pacific
To: “Tim Eyman” firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Please join me in supporting SHJR 4205
I can’t tell you how much it saddens me that we haven’t been able to develop a more constructive, working relationship. Indeed, some might even describe us as downright adversarial.
For example, you sponsor an ill-conceived, boneheaded initiative, and I oppose it. You send out a deceptive, misleading press release, and I refute it. You cook the books to hide the fact that you are using initiative campaign contributions to fund your personal compensation committee, and I file a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission.
And then, of course, there was that whole “Tim Eyman is a Horse’s Ass” initiative. While I’m sure we both had a good laugh at that one, I’m guessing we were probably on opposite sides of the issue. (I was for it.)
But I think I have finally found an issue we can both support.
This week the state House passed by a 73-25 margin, a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the 60% super-majority required by local school levies. The amendment faces a tougher challenge in the Senate, but if it passes by two-thirds, it will be sent before the people for their approval.
As a self-proclaimed champion of direct democracy, you have time and again admonished our elected officials and judges to honor the will of the people. In defense of your own initiatives — even the really, really stupid ones — you have argued that voters, not politicians, should be trusted to choose the kind of government they want. Thus I am confident that you will agree with me that the super-majority amendment can and should be decided directly by the voters… for to contend otherwise would be hypocritical.
That’s why I urge you to join me in asking the Senate to approve SHJR 4205. I suggest we draft a joint letter, instructing our respective supporters to contact their state senator, and demand that the people be given the opportunity to decide this important issue for themselves. Since I happen to have a copy of your list, I’d be happy to directly email your supporters on your behalf.
This is a terrific opportunity, not just to strike a blow for direct democracy, but for you to jump-start your stalled initiative career by supporting something that actually has a chance of passing. You’ve had two consecutive years without an electoral victory, and you’ve got to admit, this year’s performance audits initiative was dead on arrival. (Oh man… what were you thinking?) This is a chance for you to briefly be relevant again.
Given the opportunity to work together, I believe we can make a positive impact on all of Washington’s citizens, as well as learn a little something from one another. For example, I could teach you how to directly answer a reporter’s questions… and I understand you could teach me a few creative accounting tricks.
I look forward to our new partnership, and eagerly await your reply.
Well, I figured if I couldn’t get the media to stop repeating Eyman’s lies, then I would have to go straight to the horse’s… uh… mouth. Following is an email I sent to Tim Eyman today, and CC’d to the media:
I was hoping you could help me set the record straight in the media regarding the provision of I-892 that funds treatment of problem gambling.
You have repeatedly claimed that based on $1.15 billion in net revenues, I-892 would generate $11.5 million to treat problem gambling… which amounts to 1% of net revenues. However, Section 8 of I-892 clearly states that 1% of tax receipts are dedicated to treat problem gambling — about $4 million based on your revenue projections — or roughly one-third your claim.
I can only assume that you were unaware of your mathematical error, and would not knowingly repeat such grossly inaccurate information for fear of damaging your otherwise unsullied reputation as an honest and impartial arbiter of the truth.
Now that I have pointed out your mistake, I trust that you will revise your talking points to include the accurate, smaller number, as surely a citizen activist of your standing would never sacrifice the truth for the sake of a rhetorical advantage.
I continue to enjoy our close working relationship. Once this issue has been settled, I look forward to working with you to explicate the analytical basis of your revenue projections, which up until now appear to have simply been pulled out of your butt crack.
Hugs and kisses,