HorsesAss.Org

For a great example of how the righties are trying to weave innuendo and selective quotation into a massive, Democratic, vote-fraud conspiracy, take a look at the exchange over a recent blog on Sound Politics.

An “anonymous” poster, X, who had helped D’s collect signed affidavits in King County, had posted a series of comments explaining the process, assuming he was contributing to a reasoned public debate. And Stefan chose to twist his words into evidence of malfeasance.

I encourage you to read the rightfully indignant response from X, who begins with:

Well, congratulations. You got rid of me.

[UPDATE: Oh man… and now they’re equating voting with murder: Count Every Murder]

Growing up a Philadelphia Eagles fan, I have been conditioned to always expect disappointment. Even in this 10-1 season, with the rest of the NFC playing like… well, the Seahawks… I can’t help but expect a sudden collapse. Up 21 points at the two minute warning I sit there calculating how much time it would take for the other team to run three touchdowns and two onside kicks.

And so I have some empathy for the Mad Aluminum Hatters at conservative blog Sound Politics, whose wailing and gnashing over evil Democratic plans to “steal” the election grows louder the longer Dino Rossi holds the lead. WA Republicans are also conditioned to expect the worst, and so they’ve been following this election the way I watch football: a paranoid delusional yelling at the refs for every imagined transgression, cursing the fact that 10am is just too damn early to crack open a beer.

Take the latest brouhaha over the letter Democratic attorneys sent to Secretary of State Sam Reed. As reported in the Seattle P-I:

Meanwhile, Republicans are fuming about a letter the Democrats sent to Secretary of State Sam Reed on Wednesday.

The five-page letter threatens legal action even before the recount begins if Reed does not “make it clear in (his) hand recount guidelines that ballots previously rejected by canvassing boards or election staff should be reviewed again.”

Speaking on the behalf of Rossi and the Republicans, former Gov. Dan Evans said both the request and threat were outrageous.

“This is not a letter from someone who wants to find the truth; it’s from someone who desperately wants to change the results,” Evans said.

Hmmm. Could it be possible Dan, that Gregoire wants to find the truth and desperately wants to change the results?

Yeah, I know, Dan’s just being a loyal Republican, but I wonder if he’d be so comfortable playing the spin game if saw how dizzy things were getting over on the conservative blogs? For the past few weeks they’ve been describing Democratic efforts with words like “steal”, “illegitimate”, “corrupt”, and yes… “haruspex.” He’s before my time, but I’m familiar with the phrase “Dan Evans Republican” being used to describe a moderate member of the state GOP (you know, like what Rossi pretended to be during the campaign.) So by “moderate” are we talking about the following hyperbole from our friend Stefan at Sound Politics?

In short, by attempting to overturn the decision of Washington’s voters with a less accurate vote count, Christine Gregoire and the Democrats have declared a form of civil war on the people of this state. They are morally equivalent to the corrupt Ukrainian autocrats who have tried to steal the election from its rightful winners in the opposition.

Yeah, whatever, aluminum hat boy.

And if you think the conservative bloggers are incendiary, you should see the comments they generate from readers, like the following reasoned piece of discourse posted yesterday:

If the Democrats really want a war over who’s the next Governor of Washington, they might want to remember that the nation’s military overwhelmingly supported President Bush….

Uh-oh. I better check the weather forecast for Guantanamo.

Anyway, as to that “threatening” letter from Democratic attorneys… here, read it for yourself. Ooooh… scary!

Now, I’ve received some threatening letters, and this one doesn’t even come close. (Hell… I’ve even been sued by Christine Gregoire!)

This is what lawyers do. It’s just standard operating procedure, trying to squeeze the most favorable counting rules they can get out of a Republican Secretary of State. And you can be sure Rossi’s people are attempting the same.

Indeed, the Rossi campaign has not ruled out legal challenges if he loses the hand count.

“I don’t know exactly what would happen if the election results were overturned,” Lane said. “It would be highly unusual, and we would have to explore all our options.

As they should.

In the meanwhile, the righties can yell all they want about us evil, election-stealing Democrats. If the tables were turned, and God forbid my candidate was winning instead of theirs, I’d be screaming bloody murder too. But then, I’m an Eagles fan… so I’m nuts.

With a hand recount looming in our historically close gubernatorial election, there has been much debate over the relative accuracy of hand counts versus machine counts, and the error rate of vote counting technologies in general… most of it uninformed.

In my typically wonkish fashion I decided to dive into the most technical research I could find, and tediously share my gleanings with you. My primary source is the CalTech/MIT Voter Technology Project, and much of my data is drawn from the following reports:

Using Recounts to Measure the Accuracy of Vote Tabulations: Evidence from New Hampshire Elections 1946-2002

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Technology

Conflicting numbers regarding the error rate of voting machines have been tossed about in partisan blogs, the news media, and the John Carlson Show (which doesn’t really fall into either category.) On the one hand, the certification standard for voting machines in Washington state is indeed one failure in one million. But it is also true that the residual vote rate — the primary statistical measure of the performance and accuracy of voting technologies — is one to two votes in one hundred.

The residual vote rate is the difference between total ballots cast, and votes counted for a particular office, such as president or governor; these residual votes represent the “over” and “under” votes we hear about. And it is this measure that is significant in comparing competing technologies.

The fact that the counting machines themselves are virtually flawless is meaningless in the context of the larger discussion, because they are only flawless in counting flawlessly prepared ballots. For example, both optical scan and punch card machines will test to the same high certification standards, yet the average residual vote rate for punch card ballot systems is nearly double that for optical scan.

The large performance difference between the two systems is due, not to mechanical failure, but to a higher rate of “human error” by those voters using the punch card ballot system versus those using optical scan. This is a reflection of the way people relate to the particular technology… a concept that should be well familiar to user interface designers, or anyone who has ever manned the technical support line at a software company.

Indeed, Direct Recording Electronic devices (DREs) — including the touch-screen voting machines to which many counties are switching — have amongst the highest residual vote rates of all existing technologies, despite the fact they are programmed to make over-votes (voting for multiple candidates in the same race) impossible, and always tabulate ballots with 100% accuracy. (Or so Diebold tells us.) Meanwhile, hand-counted paper ballots, which provide no safeguard against over-votes, and risk introducing human error into the counting process, have one of the lowest residual vote rates.

Thus it is not the counting machine that introduces statistically significant error into the voting system, but rather the interface by which voters are asked to mark the ballot. It has become popular for bloggers and columnists to criticize voters for not following instructions, but when one voting technology produces error rates twice that of another, the technology deserves part of the blame. And clearly, voters in counties using punch card systems are being disenfranchised at rates nearly twice that of those in counties using optical scan… and at a rate well outside the margin of error in our gubernatorial election. (I’ll get to that in a moment.)

As to the relative accuracy of the various voting technologies, the CalTech/MIT studies found that voting systems fell into two clusters: paper ballots, lever machines and optical scanned ballots produced residual voting rates of one to two percent. Punch card and electronic voting methods produced rates of approximately three percent.

So, are hand counts accurate? According to the studies, hand counts are at least as accurate as lever machines and optical scanners, and significantly more accurate than punch card and electronic voting systems. In fact, when looking at counties that switched from one technology to another and comparing the resulting residual vote rates, the study found that while the overall results were consistent with other analyses…

Paper might even be an improvement over lever machines and scanners.

CalTech/MIT also explores a second measure of accuracy, tabulation validation rate — the agreement between initial counts and recounts of ballots in contested elections. This metric is less useful as a comparative tool, because it cannot be used to measure mechanical (lever) and electronic voting machines, as there are no ballots to recount. And the study in question only compared hand-counted paper ballots with optically scanned ballots.

The study found the tabulation invalidation rate was .83 percent for paper and .56 percent for optical scanning. Thus the discrepancy between the initial count and the recount was less for optical scan than for hand-counted paper.

To be honest, I’m not sure what, if anything, this says about the relative accuracy of hand recounting optical scan ballots, let alone punch cards. And here’s the part that might piss some people off… I’m not sure it even matters.

For what this study does tell us is that even the most accurate voting technology still is not accurate enough:

Considering these tabulation errors, how confident should we be in vote counts, and when should we have a recount? The tabulation invalidation rate was low, especially for optical scanning. However, it was not trivial. In a US House election with 250,000 votes, the invalidation rate of .005 for scanners amounts to 1250 votes. The tabulation errors may swing toward any of the contestants in a recount. Assuming a uniform distribution of tabulation errors, any race decided by less than .5 percent of the vote will have a non-trivial probability of being reversed in a recount.

A .5 percent invalidation rate in a gubernatorial election with over 2.8 million votes cast amounts to 14,000 erroneous votes! With only 42 votes separating the two candidates, no counting method can accurately tell us who really got the most votes.

Republicans scoff at Gregoire calling this election a tie, but statistically speaking, it is. This election is so far within the margin of error, that there is no practical way to accurately determine the winner.

Thus, the results of the third count — whether hand or machine — will be just as meaningless as the results of the first two.

Republicans argue that “winning” the first two counts gives Rossi legitimacy. It doesn’t. It’s like flipping a coin and having it land on heads two times in a row.

And Democrats argue that a hand recount will more accurately determine the winner. It can’t. This race is simply too close to call. We’ll never know who really got the most votes.

Fortunately, the law does prescribe an endgame. Gregoire will request a hand recount, and whoever “wins” that, will be governor.

And who do I think is gonna win? Flip a coin.

[Linking here from (un)Sound Politics? You can comment directly on Stefan’s critique, or join a discussion here: “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”]

According to a “reliable source” several tribes have agreed to contribute about $100,000 to the Gregoire campaign to help cover the costs of a hand recount.

(Hmmm… do you think Tim Eyman would have ponied up some of his hard earned panhandled cash to help Rossi pay for a recount?)

Now I’m sure folks like Timmy and the aluminum milliners at Sound Politics are going to whine about the tribes trying to “buy an election” or some bullshit spin like that. But it’s a political contribution like any other, and I don’t hear the righties complaining when the BIAW spends half-a-million putting a justice on the State Supreme Court.

Anyway, the point is, despite Paul Berendt pleading poverty, the D’s are on their way to raising the money necessary; news reports claim the Democratic Governor’s Association, EMILY’s List and the Democratic National Committee have also made financial commitments. Whether the D’s ask for a full or partial recount depends on how much money they raise by the Friday deadline.

Either way, there is definitely going to be a hand recount.

[Hey visitor from Sound Politics, take a gander at this: Heads or tails… why we’ll never know who really won the governor’s race]

The Seattle Times reports today that outgoing Gov. Gary Locke has said there should be a full, statewide recount in the race to succeed him.

And once that count is done, he said, all sides should agree the race is over.

Um, Gary… once that count is done, state law (Chapter 29A.64 RCW) says that the race is over.

In other news, Secretary of State Sam Reed has apparently certified the results of the election, declaring Diana Dino Rossi the governor-elect. Whether or not he actually becomes governor will inevitably depend on the outcome of the hand recount.

With a statistically meaningless 42 vote margin out of 2.8 million votes cast, the governor’s race is still a crap shoot.

The following label really does appear on laptop bags, briefcases and backpacks from Port Angeles and Seattle based Tom Bihn Designs:

The French care instructions translate as follows:

Wash with warm water
Use mild soap
Dry flat
Do not use bleach
Do not dry in the dryer
Do not iron
We are sorry that
Our President is an idiot
We did not vote for him

A precinct-level analysis by the Seattle Times revealed that President Bush’s support slipped from 2000 in Eastside suburbs, including some of the ritzier neighborhoods. [Bush’s Eastside support slipped]

This is not just a local phenomena; even while Republicans have cemented their hold on an ever expanding red exurbia, close-in suburbs have been gradually shifting Democratic. For example, in Philadelphia’s affluent Main Line — a longtime bastion of “Rockefeller Republicanism” — Kerry carried some precincts by historic margins as Republicans finally seemed to realize that the national party left them years ago. And in traditionally Republican Mercer Island, Democrats now hold two out of the three legislative seats.

To me, this is one of the few hopeful signs that came out of an otherwise bleak election season. And it suggests a strategy for rebuilding a Democratic majority.

Just like the Democrats lost their base in the South with their support of civil rights legislation in the sixties, the GOP risks alienating their moderate, suburban base by abandoning fiscal conservatism to focus on right-wing social issues at home, and military and economic imperialism abroad. The neo-cons may dominate the national Republican leadership, but they do not represent the majority of suburban voters.

Families move to places like Mercer Island for better public schools, cleaner streets, safer neighborhoods, and all the other public services that a higher property tax base provides. These are people who believe in government because they benefit from it every day, and they routinely tax themselves to pay for the services they want.

These are people with whom urban Democrats have common ground, and we have an opportunity to exploit the wedge the neo-cons have provided, to expand our base politically and geographically. For in addition to a shared belief that good government is necessary to maintaining a high quality of life, suburban and city voters have a mutual interest in maintaining an economically and culturally vibrant urban core.

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia, yet I always considered myself a Philadelphian; it is this larger sense of community that Democrats must encourage in metropolitan areas around the nation if we are to have a hope of expanding our political base. To do so we must continue to be a party of progressive ideals, while remaining tempered by fiscal responsibility. We must focus on efficiently providing the level of public services voters demand, by maintaining an adequate and fair tax structure.

And urban Democrats must do a better job of reaching out across the city line to work with our suburban neighbors on solving our regional problems. I’m not suggesting compromise as a political expediency, but rather the type of collaborative engagement that fosters consensus and creativity. We’re both trying to improve education, reduce traffic, increase public safety, etc… if throwing money at a problem isn’t the only solution, then perhaps Seattle has something to learn from Mercer Island?

On the larger, divisive social issues that Republicans all too often successfully exploit to their advantage, Democrats must learn a rhetorical lesson from the opposition, and deconstruct these debates to the real world choices that people understand. For example, if the abortion debate remains a choice between dead and mangled fetuses versus a vague and unwritten Constitutional “right to privacy”, abortion foes will win. But when the public is faced with a choice between dead fetuses and young women dying of sepsis from back-alley abortions… well… that’s the kind of brutally compelling argument that led to legalized abortion in the first place.

But Democrats must also recognize that there are some issues on which we are clearly in the minority, and we must not replicate the Republican leadership’s penchant for arrogantly ramming an unwanted social agenda down the throats of the public. Political leadership is not about giving voters what they want, or what we want. It is about patiently and persuasively building a consensus where none existed before.

Democrats must not shy away from voicing their support for issues like gay marriage — if that is what they truly believe — but to attempt to impose gay marriage on an unwilling public through legislation or litigation is to invite the sort of costly political backlash we saw in the November election. The legal protections of civil union may be the least we can offer to committed, unmarried couples… but at the moment, it may also be the most.

Of course, a precinct-level analysis can be a little like reading tea leaves or entrails, and I wouldn’t want my right-wing friends at Sound Politics to label me a political haruspex. In the end, voters tend to vote for candidates, not issues, and so divining demographic trends from a single election can be misleading. After all, our state GOP is making a big deal about the so-called “Dinocrats” who may have cost Gregoire the gubernatorial election, but few are suggesting that this portends Washington turning red in 2008.

What I do know is that moderate suburban Republicans are increasingly willing to buck party loyalty and vote for Democratic candidates, representing a clear opportunity for Democrats to permanently expand their base. There is an urge to look at the huge swath of red on the electoral map and ask if we need to redefine the Democratic Party to appeal to this disaffected middle America.

But for a party firmly rooted in our nation’s urban centers, a potential Democratic majority can be found much closer to home. In fact, it’s just across the city line.

In the unlikely event I ever run for office, I’m likely to rue my penchant for criticizing the opinions of the Seattle Times editorial board. (Hell, I’m likely to rue half of what I write here.) I just hope they give me credit for the times I highlight my agreement with them.

Like today’s editorial: “Congress overreached in IRS oversight gambit.”

The bill gives agents of appropriations chairmen access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and “any tax returns or return information contained therein.”

Now that is scary.

It certainly is. In the words of Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But then, loyal Republicans shouldn’t worry, as I doubt the Republican leadership intended to use this arrogant abuse of power against them.

[Speaking of corruption, it’s just a lame-ass internet poll, but I find it amusing that in my poll of “Who is more corrupt?”, “corrupt people” is currently coming in last, behind both Republicans and Democrats. I think that says something about how much the two sides trust each other.]

Of all the many strategic weaknesses that currently disadvantage the Democratic Party, perhaps the greatest is the fact that it is so… democratic. I don’t know that party leaders actually value dissent from within, but they certainly seem incapable of squashing it.

Republicans on the other hand, have no such problem. And as the NY Times reveals, the current GOP leadership is taking party unity to a new extreme through rule changes in both the House and the Senate. First Tom DeLay maneuvered to make his position as majority leader ethics-proof, and now his counterpart in the Senate, Bill Frist, has passed rule changes designed to gag the few remaining Republican moderates. [Senator Frist Tightens the Screws]

The rule undercuts members’ independence by giving Dr. Frist the power to fill the first two vacancies on all committees. This hobbles seniority, which has been the traditional path to power. The leader now has a cudgel for shaping the “world’s greatest deliberative body” into a chorus line. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, chronic Republican maverick, got to the heart of the matter in skewering her leader’s accomplishment: “There is only one reason for that change, and it is to punish people.”

Washington State GOPolitburo chair Chris Vance has clearly displayed the same ham-handed penchant towards rigid party unity as his national counterparts (if not the same aptitude). So all you self-proclaimed “Dinocrats” get ready for some disappointment should Rossi win the re-recount. Even if Rossi were really as moderate as his soft-spoken ads made him out to be (he’s not), the GOP and its right-wing backers don’t tolerate marching to the beat of a different drummer. I expect a Rossi administration to cheerfully goose-step along.

I’m taking a break from the debate over recounts and re-recounts, to talk for a moment about something a little less on the minds of most voters… my eternal damnation.

In a piece reprinted today in the Seattle P-I (“It’s sure to get tougher for secular liberals“), NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes about a subject that I’ve touched upon a couple of times (here and here), the fact that millions of evangelical Christians believe that I am going to Hell… and soon.

Well, not just me, but all nonbelievers. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, atheists, (and I’m guessing, Democratic-voting evangelicals too)… in short, just about anybody who doesn’t believe what they believe.

And not only do they think we’re all going to Hell, but when I hear them talk or write about it, I often detect a bit self-righteous gloating.

What does this have to do with politics? Well, just a word of caution to my Republican friends about their political allies in the Christian right, who many analysts believe swung the presidential election: it’s not just us secular liberals who need to worry… they believe you are going to Hell, too!

That’s right, all you conservative bloggers over at Sound Politics, Christ is coming back to toss you howling and screeching into a pit of eternal fire. (Well… maybe not Marsha.)

See you in Hell.

Yesterday I asked readers to try to convince me why Gregoire shouldn’t pay for a manual recount. The fact that none of you succeeded isn’t surprising, but I was disappointed by the lack of honesty.

The GOP isn’t asking Gregoire to concede for the good of the state, or out of honor or decency. They’re asking her to concede because they want Rossi to be governor, and they know that with a 42 vote margin out of 2.8 million cast, a manual recount would be a crap shoot.

Which, of course, is why Gregoire should ask for a manual recount. She could actually win, legally, and fair and square.

Not enough of an argument? Try these:

A) Manual counts are more accurate than machine counts. That is why WA, like every other state (I’ve looked at), either mandates a manual recount when the vote falls within a very close margin, or allows the candidates to request one. Machines are used because they are faster and cheaper, not because they are more accurate. Random errors tend to be statistically distributed among the candidates, thus a 1-2% error rate is acceptable in most elections… but not when the margin is less than 0.000015%.

B) This is not a “best out of three” series. It is utter bullshit to argue that Rossi won the first two counts, and that Gregoire winning on a third count would not be legitimate. The accuracy of machine counts fall outside the margin of this election; the only thing the recount proved was that a manual count is necessary to accurately determine the winner.

C) It’s the law. This isn’t a game… this is about who will be the next governor, and it would be irresponsible of Gregoire not to avail herself of any measure the law allows to assure her victory. Rossi’s BIAW backers used the law to their advantage when they pumped hundreds of thousands of workers comp dollars into his partisan campaign, and you can be sure they explore every avenue of the law each time they want to pave a farm or drain a wetland. Gregoire has a responsibility to her supporters to use the law to protect their interests.

The Seattle P-I makes the argument that Gregoire should indeed seek a manual recount, but pay for it statewide, rather than in selected precincts: “Count ’em again, Sam.”

I don’t buy the P-I’s argument that there is some moral or ethical imperative that the D’s should pay for a statewide recount. But strategically, I say they should ask for a full statewide manual recount regardless. It wouldn’t be bad PR either.

After all, this is the only way we’ll ever know who actually won this election.

King County just posted their (first) recount results: Gregoire picked up 593, Rossi picked up 348, for a net Gregoire gain of 245 votes.

Surprisingly, Ruth Bennett picked up 1,317,792 votes to become the nation’s first Libertarian governor!

(Just kidding.)

Actually, this leaves Rossi with a lead of 42 votes out 2.8 million cast.

Now really… convince me why the Democrats shouldn’t pay for a hand recount?

Sometime later today King County will report final results from their recount in the governor’s race, just minutes before one side or the other announces that they will seek a second recount.

What… you were expecting a concession speech?

That’s what GOPolitburo chair Chris Vance would prefer, but then, his candidate is currently leading by 287 votes, so you can’t blame him for wanting to quit while he’s ahead. However, you can blame him for being such a whining, hypocrite about it:

“If Chris Gregoire is behind at the end of the day tomorrow, she should do the decent thing, the honorable thing, and concede the election,” Vance said yesterday.

Eat me.

Sorry for the strong words, but then, us D’s apparently aren’t “decent,” “honorable” people. Certainly not straight shooters like Chris Vance:

Vance did not rule out requesting a recount if Rossi falls behind. But he said Rossi is in a “fundamentally different position” than Gregoire

Yeah, that’s right… he’s winning. Watching Republicans count votes is kind of like watching Princeton play basketball… score first and they try to run out the clock.

The candidates spent $16 million on this race, and out of over 2.8 million votes counted the difference is still within the statistical margin of error. Whoever is behind at the end of the day (and I’m assuming it will be Gregoire) would be nuts not to ask for a recount.

Here’s how it works. Either side can pay for a hand recount in selected precincts, at a cost of $0.25 per ballot. If the results change the outcome of the election, the cost is refunded and a hand recount is performed statewide.

According to Chris Vance, a second recount would invite chaos:

“She’ll be dragging the state into uncharted territory,”

Actually Chris, it is charted quite thoroughly in Chapter 29A.64 RCW… a section of the law I’m sure you will be intimately familiar with in the unlikely event Rossi is trailing at the end of the day.

One other bold prediction… if today’s King County results, or those from a subsequent hand recount, do in fact reverse the outcome, we’re going to hear a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from R’s accusing D’s of stealing the election. In fact, we’ve been hearing it for the past couple weeks, even as their candidate has steadily held the lead. And yet the vote count, recount, and re-recount will all have occurred under the bright lights of party and media observers, particularly in heavily Democratic King County.

Meanwhile, somebody like me questions discrepancies in faraway Ohio or Florida, and suddenly, we’re all wearing “aluminum hats.” But take a look at this commentary in the Philadelphia Inquirer from a mathematics professor at Temple University — “Errors in exit polls still a puzzle to many” — and tell me that we don’t deserve to be at least a little suspicious.

As of 4:50PM, with about 64 percent of the recount in, Rossi has expanded his lead by 55 votes to build an eye-popping 316 vote margin. I haven’t bothered to do the math myself, but according to the OCD people at Sound Politics, this actually represents a net shrinkage in Rossi’s projected margin. Go figure.

While I find their continued implication that a corrupt King County might throw the election to be, well, silly, Sound Politics still gets credit for the obscure vocabulary word of the day: “haruspex“.

Anyway… still waiting for King County to report.

(FYI… I’m just pulling the latest results from the Secretary of State’s web site, whenever I get around to it.)

I’m a little wary of Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, but he certainly made the right call by rejecting a deal that would have leveraged only $50 million in private money to secure $300 million in public financing to build a NASCAR track near Marysville. [Snohomish County out of the race for a NASCAR track]

Believe it or not, Tim Eyman and I do agree on some things, not the least of which being public financing of stadiums. Both of us opposed Seattle’s stadium binge, and both of us were rather pissed when the Legislature put up the money for Safeco Field despite a rejection at the polls.

I remember once hearing an interview with Ed Snyder, at the time the owner of the Philadelphia Flyers, being asked about why he was building a new arena with private money (albeit on public land.) He said that if a stadium or arena doesn’t make business sense, it doesn’t make business sense, regardless of who’s paying for it.

I’m sure there are a lot of disappointed local NASCAR fans, but Reardon should be congratulated for his business-like decision.