HorsesAss.Org

Speaking of lying sacks of shit, how about David Fretz, president of Great American Gaming, a wholly-owned subsidiary of loanshark-infested Great Canadian Gaming of Richmond, B.C., who operates four of Washington’s largest non-tribal casinos. When The Seattle Times asked him to comment on Initiative 892, he blustered:

“Why don’t you talk to Tim Eyman? It’s his initiative, OK?”

Ewwww… what’s that smell?

As I’ve previously explained, hiring Tim to front this steaming pile of legislative excrement may have been a clever exercise in branding, but I-892 has always been more a Great Canadian initiative than an Eyman one.

Great Canadian is I-892’s biggest financial backer… $210,000 thus far (that we know about.) Great Canadian has the most to gain from I-892… over $20 million a year from slots, at their four existing casinos. And Great Canadian has been pushing virtually identical legislation for the past three years, as one of the dominant forces behind the Recreational Gaming Association and the Entertainment Industry Association.

Great Canadian CFO Anthony Martin brags to investors that their Washington casinos were “purpose built” with a special raised floor, in the expectation that I-892 would introduce slot machines into their “local community casinos.” Really. It’s on video.

But it’s not simply the opportunity to expand their addictive wares into Washington neighborhoods that excites Great Canadian, it’s the fact that our ass-backwards gambling taxes would make Washington slots nearly three times more profitable than those north of the border.

In British Columbia, a monopoly market with limited licenses, the taxation rate is 61 percent on table games, and 75 percent on slots. Washington, with unlimited licenses and local gambling tax rates of up to 20 percent, is a land of opportunity by comparison.

By comparison, under I-892 the state taxes slots at 35%, cutting out local gambling taxes entirely.

The Canadian tax model is more the norm than the exception. Indeed, taxpayers in neighboring Oregon get 71% of the take from video poker machines, more than twice what I-892 gives Washingtonians.

Think about it. If this was truly an “Eyman initiative”, he could have doubled the promised tax break, by cutting taxpayers a larger share.

Instead, for a $47,000 salary he sold out to I-892’s real sponsor, Great Canadian. They got a sweet deal. But it sure does stink.

I got an interesting prerecorded phone call tonight from the King County Republican Party, warning me that Washington’s morality is at risk due to liberal judges appointed by Democrats who have controlled the state for forty years. The message highlighted cases regarding same sex marriage and so-called “partial-birth abortion.”

A woman named “Jennifer” urged me to vote Republican in the upcoming election… presumably because Republicans are more moral than Democrats, and will thus appoint moral judges.

Of course, I think honesty is an integral part of morality, and problem is… we don’t appoint judges in Washington state! We elect them.

Now personally, I think we should appoint judges — I’m a pretty smart, informed guy, and God knows I’m not qualified to elect a judge.

But I am qualified to spot a lying sack of shit when I sniff one, and ewwww… what’s that smell? It’s the KCGOP!

(If you are fortunate enough to find this message on your voicemail, please save it and send me a transcript. Thanks!)

Well, I’d like to think that I kicked Tim Eyman’s ass on the “Dave Ross” Show this morning, but the truth is, I didn’t get a chance. Guest-host Allan Prell beat me to it.

I think the majority of the state’s talk radio hosts have become so accustomed to Tim’s routine refusal to answer questions directly (or honestly), that they just throw up their arms and let Tim have his rhetorical way… a kind of Tim-will-be-Tim resignation.

Allan, on the other hand, was totally unfamiliar with Tim (he even called him Tom once), and got genuinely pissed when Tim refused to answer his questions. There was one particularly amusing exchange where Timmy refused to name I-892’s biggest financial contributor, and Allan simply wouldn’t let Tim continue without first giving a direct answer. Tim even threatened to hang up.

Of course, when my turn came around, I was more than happy to directly answer the question for Tim: the Great Canadian Gaming Corporation!

And once again, the callers were overwhelmingly opposed to I-892.

I know the vote on I-892 is supposed to be close. And it probably will be. But I have a feeling that if progressives vote their minds, and conservatives vote their heart, I-892 could garner less than 40% of the vote… a crushing defeat.

All in all, not Timmy’s best performance.

I’m not sure who the host is, or whether Timmy will actually show after the ass-whooping I gave him Monday morning on the Mike Siegel Show, but I’m booked on the historically named “Dave Ross Show” this morning in the 10am hour, to discuss I-892.

I think I’ll take a break from attacking one evil corporation, to go back to attacking another. (So many evil corporations… so little time.)

I’ve already blogged a couple times about Sinclair Broadcasting, and their blatantly propagandistic plans to pre-empt primetime programming on their 62 network affiliates to air a 90-minute documentary-cum-infomercial attacking John Kerry, a week before the election. Most recently, I deconstructed Collin Levey’s pathetic defense of Sinclair (Ein gef

So here’s a hypothetical… if the media came across a couple of sworn depositions from former employees of a tribal casino, alleging… oh… let’s say… loansharking, racketeering, profit skimming, prostitution, drugs, rape, illegal cigarette sales and other crimes… don’t you think the local media would be all over this scandal?

Damn right they would!

So why won’t they touch the allegations leveled at I-892’s biggest financial backer, the Great American Gaming Corporation?

Because they’re chicken shit.

I’ll give them a couple more days to prove that our local press cares enough about the First Amendment to exercise freedom of the press despite the risk of a frivolous Canadian libel suit.

And if they refuse to act, then it is time to force their hands.

Anybody interested in joining me in a fun little stunt, send me an email. I need about a dozen volunteers who can give me a couple hours in the middle of the day.

[WARNING: CANADIAN CITIZENS ARE EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM READING THIS BLOG. YOU DON’T LIKE IT? GO GET A REAL CONSTITUTION!]

Yesterday I told you the story the mainstream media is too chicken-shit to cover: the Great Canadian Gaming Corporation and allegations of loansharking, racketeering, prostitution, profit skimming, rape, drugs, and nuclear terrorism. (Just kidding about the nuclear part.) If you haven’t yet read the sordid tale, scroll on down or click here.

I plan to follow up with some more details, including Great Canadian’s cowardly and dangerously undemocratic use of Canadian libel laws to squash public debate about Initiative 892. But first I want to explain why it is so important that Washington voters learn the truth about the company that plans to dominate the state’s gambling industry.

So let’s cut to the chase and take a gander at the following clip:

(Can’t view the clip? Try here.)

That was Great Canadian CFO Anthony Martin talking about their strategy of “community based gaming” in Washington state. According to Tony, people tend to game “in close proximity to where they live,” and so they have placed their casinos in the “bedroom communities” surrounding Seattle. As Tony explains, I-892 will introduce “slot machines” into these “local community casinos.” Indeed, all of Great Canadian’s Washington casinos have been “purpose built” to include slots.

You see, I-892 isn’t an “Eyman” initiative. It’s Great Canadian’s.

Great Canadian owns six properties in Washington state, including four of the Seattle area’s largest mini-casinos. It is also the largest financial backer of I-892 — for the $210,000 they have put into the campaign (that we know of) they stand to earn over $20 million a year.

In fact, Great Canadian has really been the driving force behind I-892 all along. As one of the main backers of the Recreational Gaming Association, Great Canadian has been instrumental in pushing virtually identical legislation during the past three sessions.

Eyman tries to sell I-892 as property tax relief for homeowners, and equal treatment for non-tribal businesses. But Tony tells a different story… about an initiative that legalizes slot machines and puts them into our neighborhoods. I-892 is about gambling, and the enormous profits it will bring its Canadian sponsor.

A Canadian company has used Canadian dollars to put a self-serving initiative on the Washington ballot. And now they are using Canadian libel law to abrogate our Constitutional rights to free press and free speech. Voters have a right to know what kind of company is sponsoring the most massive expansion of gambling in state history.

And if the mainstream media won’t tell you, I will.

[Don’t trust my excerpt? View the full B-TV infomercial.]

If Tim Eyman were to be judged by the company he keeps, he could be looking at significant jail time.

As reported today by Neil Modie in the Seattle P-I, the Richmond, B.C. based Great Canadian Gaming Corporation — the biggest contributor ($210,000) to Initiative 892’s campaign to legalize slot machines — is facing allegations of loansharking, prostitution, profit skimming and other criminal activities at their casinos in B.C. and abroad. [I-892 backer fights loan-sharking allegations]

The allegations come in sworn depositions from two long-time employees Proka Avramovic, a former Surveillance and Security Manager, and Boki Sikimic, the former Supervisor of Surveillance and Security for all of Great Canadian’s casinos… including those in WA state.

The allegations leveled at Great Canadian are shocking. But perhaps more shocking is the cowardly and un-American way they have been using Canada’s ass-backwards libel law to keep this information away from WA voters. Local media have been sitting on this story for months… indeed, I first blogged on it back on June 26 (“Sign this petition or I’ll break your leg! I-892’s biggest backer accused of loansharking“). As the P-I reports, Great Canadian has already filed a number of libel suits, including one against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. This is what is known in the media as a “libel chill” strategy, and it has been quite effective.

While The P-I deserves credit for being the first WA media outlet (other than me) to cover this story, libel chill has clearly influenced their coverage. It took months to get this story in print, and in my opinion, the editors chickened out by burying the story on Saturday, when it would have the least impact. And while I appreciate all the hard work Neil Modie put into this story, Hearst attorneys obviously must have limited him to following the letter of Canadian law, which only permits news organizations to publish those allegations repeated by Great Canadian as part of the libel proceedings.

Great Canadian’s attorneys are counting on WA’s media to make the rational decision to keep quiet, so as not to risk the huge expense of defending even a frivolous libel suit. Unfortunately for Great Canadian… I’m not rational.

And so I choose to exercise my First Amendment rights, by excerpting some of the juicier sections of the depositions… which at times read like a bad dime-store crime novel.

Be aware that I have edited the excerpts for the sake of clarity, removing objections, redundancies and extraneous comments. But as a service to readers and my friends in the media, I am making the full text of the depositions available for download.

Avramovic deposition

Sikimic deposition

The depositions are from a lawsuit filed by Texas based Allegiance Capital over a failed investment in a Hong Kong floating casino, the China Sea Discovery. The lawsuit accuses Great Canadian of fraud, conspiracy and racketeering.

But first, let’s start with the girls.

Proka Avramovic took over surveillance and security for the China Sea Discovery while the regular manager went on vacation. The many “irregularities” onboard became apparent at his first briefing:

A. The very first thing that he mentioned to me was that couple of days before my arrival they had a problem with girls that were working on the ship, and he call them prostitutes.
Q. Okay. And what was the problem?
A. Somehow those girls were working on the ship and they had the room. He showed me the room. And one of the girls weren’t part of the crew, she was trying to work on her own, so that’s why he kick her out.
Q. “Wasn’t part of the crew”, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, my understanding was somebody arranged those girls to be on the ship and work. I also been told by him that one of the staff employed by Great Canadian has been having a service and paying for the service.
Q. What service?
A. Well, I guess those girls are prostitutes. I mean, we can just imagine what kind of service.
Q. Oh, well, okay. You mean service from the prostitutes.
A. Yeah.

Certainly a public company like Great Canadian would never arrange to have prostitutes onboard their ship, would they? Or knowingly tolerate an employee frequenting the prostitutes? Surely these are the accusations of a disgruntled former employee.

As a matter of fact, Great Canadian has filed a libel suit against Mr. Avramovic, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and Allegiance Capital for repeating these and other allegations. They haven’t, however, filed a libel suit against Boki Sikimic, Mr. Avramovic’s former supervisor, so we can assume Great Canadian has no dispute with what he says in his testimony on the incident:

Q. Did you receive any other reports concerning prostitutes?
A. No. Other ones are okay — they didn’t make any problem.
Q. You received no actual reports other than that one concerning prostitution?
A. That was the only one that we — they have a problem.
Q. Okay. Have a problem — Oh, you mean the only one that was acting up?
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. Were these other women permitted to remain on the ship?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they permitted to continue their operations as prostitutes?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you report these communications made to you concerning prostitutes to anyone?
A. I report to Adrian and Brian, but they knew that they was on the ship before, so they probably knew that there was —
Q. Did they tell you they knew it?
A. No, no, but they told me that it’s normal. It’s like massage.

It’s like massage, right… like massaging your penis.

Anyway, “Adrian and Brian” are Great Canadian President & COO Adrian Thomas, and Executive Vice-President Brian Egli. All the Surveillance and Security Managers reported directly to Mr. Sikimic, and Mr. Sikimic reported directly to Mr. Thomas and Mr. Egli. So it is clear that top executives were at least aware of reports of illegal or improper activities, if not complicit.

Indeed, later in the deposition Great Canadian’s attorney seems unconcerned with refuting the prostitution allegation, instead focusing on whether it negatively impacted profitability.

The Allegiance attorney is also focused on profitability, and takes a particular interest in a Hong Kong company called Mexteam, who they claim Great Canadian contracted to supply and operate the ship. Under questioning, Mr. Avramovic reveals a potential conflict of interest:

A. I saw couple of business cards of Howard Blank and Tom Bell. They had the business cards with their name on it and the company name was —
Q. Mexteam?
A. Yeah, Mexteam.
Q. Are you telling me that Howard Blank had a business card with Mexteam on it?
A. Yeah.
Q. Is there anything else you can tell me about Mexteam?
A. To my impression, all purchase for the ship went through that company.
Q. Mexteam?
A. Yeah.

Howard Blank is Great Canadian’s Director of Media & Public Relations, and the company spokesman most often quoted in news coverage of their expansion into the WA market. Tom Bell is their Executive Director of Corporate Development. So what are two Great Canadian directors doing with Mexteam business cards? Well, according to Mr. Sikimic (again, not accused of libel,) they’re not the only Great Canadian principals involved:

Q. Okay. What do you know about Mexteam, if anything?
A. They’re in Hong Kong. Those guys, the one there, I think they had an office there, Walter and other people. They’re in some connection, but for the record I don’t know what exactly.
Q. Okay. Some connection, you mean connection with the ship or what? What do you mean by that?
A. I think with the ship and Great Canadian. Probably it’s Charles’ company. I don’t know. I think it’s his company.

“Walter” is Walter Soo, Great Canadian’s VP of Gaming Development, who developed the whole China Sea Discovery project, and ran the operations in Hong Kong. “Charles” is Charles Ming, a Great Canadian Director and major shareholder who, according to Washington State Gambling Commission documents has twice been charged with bribing public officials. (Although his conviction was overturned on a technicality. Presumably by a public official.)

So you can see what Allegiance is getting at. The China Sea Discovery lost money throughout its operations, yet the “independent” contractor operating and supplying the ship — presumably at a profit — is controlled by Great Canadian directors and shareholders. No conflict of interest there, huh?

But still, business ventures sometimes fail. It’s not like people were just walking into the casino and grabbing wads of cash.

A. Specifically that there is a tape and report that we see the person unknown to me comes and grab the money from the pile of the money in the cash cage. You see the guy grabs the money and walk. That’s on the tape.

Oh. According to the non-libelous Mr. Sikimic, they were just grabbing wads of cash. And it’s on tape. But surely that’s an isolated incident of theft, right? Not according to Mr. Avramovic:

A. Surveillance just receive a phone call and we’ve been telling by Dennis Kwan or someone from the cage that they’re going to be giving them some sum, like some money to them. We didn’t know who those people are. We didn’t know if they return the money later on or not.
Q. Well, where was the money given to them?
A. Well, that was the funny part because we were there not to ask questions. We had a problem because we didn’t know exactly names who —
Q. You didn’t recognize these individuals? Is that what you’re saying?
A. Well, most of the times the money was given to the individuals that we didn’t know.
Q. Okay. Where did they go to get it, though?
A. They went to the cash cage and they’ve been paid by cashier person, and sometimes they go and play and sometimes they just go and disappear.

See why Allegiance is a tad suspicious? Mr. Sikimic’s testimony corroborates that this practice was the rule, not the exception, and both depositions make it clear that contrary to normal casino operations, no receipts or markers where ever signed, nor proper records of these transactions kept. So was this just sloppy bookkeeping, or as Allegiance contends, deliberate profit skimming sanctioned by Great Canadian executives?

Well remember Dennis Kwan, mentioned above? He was the ship’s Casino Manager (not to be confused with Director of Operational Systems & Controls, Grace Chow, who was apparently having an affair with project director Walter Soo.) Mr. Sikimic (libel-free) recounts the following incident involving Mr. Kwan:

A. I received phone call that money was stolen, that manager stole the money.
Q. The manager stole the money.
A. Yeah. I said send me something in writing, you know. He send me in writing that Dennis Kwan took — amount I’m not sure, so I can’t tell you is it 30 or 40,000. And I went with that to Brian Egli, report that. I says, what are we going to do? We’ve got a guy stole the money, you know. So we called Adrian. Adrian told me that he didn’t steal the money, that he told him to take the money. That’s explanation and no question ask.

Okay, so the Casino Manager is walking out of the cage with wads of cash stuffed down his pants, unaccounted for, and Great Canadian President & COO Adrian Thomas says, that’s okay, I told him to take it. Hmmm. One can see how Allegiance might misinterpret this as “profit skimming.”

So, as Allegiance Capital is losing its entire investment in the China Sea Discovery, Great Canadian is apparently staffing the ship with its own employees, and sub-contracting management of day-to-day operations to Mexteam, a company which, coincidentally, is owned and operated by Great Canadian shareholders, directors, and executives. (It’s very possible that Walter Soo quite literally sold himself a bill of goods.) Meanwhile, cash is constantly walking out of the casino in the pockets of Great Canadian managers… or even total strangers.

And all these questionable (in my opinion, clearly illegal) activities are happening with the knowledge and consent of Great Canadian executives: the improper business relationship with Mexteam, the undocumented cash disbursements, the apparent profit skimming. Not to mention the prostitutes and Chinese mobsters.

Oh. Did I forget to mention the Chinese mobsters?

The depositions occasionally mention the mysterious Mr. Y, whose posse was known to carry guns onboard the ship during his frequent visits. At some point the business relationship went sour, as evidenced by Mr. Avramovic’s amusing testimony of the ship’s ignominious escape from China:

Q. Wait a minute. You ran away from China, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, we had an unpleasant experience in China like I mention before. We had real trouble with Mr. Y, that mob guy. He’s been threatening some of the Great Canadian employees there, to be more specific, Walter Soo, Grace Chow, Tyrone White and Dennis Kwan. They, I mean, literally ran off the ship.
Q. They literally did what? I’m sorry.
A. Like ran off the ship.
Q. They ran off the ship?
A. Yeah.
Q. Because of Mr. Y?
A. Mr. Y was making some demands about the money that he invest and Walter Soo tried to resolve the issues, then Walter Soo’s being threatened by him. Mr. Y wanted money back in order to free the ship from China. Right after that meeting, the whole GCC crew just disappear, like ran off. The only guys who’s staying on the ship were myself and my assistant.

Apparently, Allegiance wasn’t the only unhappy investor, but Mr. Y wasn’t about to hide behind lawyers like those girly boys from Texas. He made great Canadian an offer they couldn’t refuse, and eventually the China Sea Discovery limped towards safe harbor in Taiwan. Where according to Mr. Avramovic it sat idle, because the floating casino no longer had its “float.”

Q. When you say you didn’t have a float, would you tell me what that means for the record?
A. Well, float means casino float. It’s operating funds that casino would operate. To open a casino for business, you have to have some certain amount of money to back up the chips that you have on the floor. So that’s what we call a float.
Q. Okay. When did the float disappear?
A. The float disappear together with — when GCC staff took off.

The China Sea Discovery didn’t just lose money… it literally lost the money. The casino’s float disappeared entirely!

Damning allegations I admit, but let’s not jump to any conclusions. Perhaps Great Canadian’s attorney is correct when he suggests that these questionable activities — the fraudulent relationship with Mexteam, the undocumented cash disbursements, the profit skimming, the prostitution and the mob connections — are all just normal business practices for a Hong Kong casino.

And why should we care anyway? What happens in China stays in China. None of this translates to illegal activities in Great Canadian’s B.C. and WA state casinos, right?

Well, that’s where the loansharking at B.C. casinos comes in, which Mr. Avramovic explains was his main reason for leaving his job.

A. The main purpose of me leaving Great Canadian Casino was I didn’t want to get involved in some stuff that they were illegal.
Q. Okay. What are you talking about specifically?
A. Loan sharks activities, selected barring of loan sharks.
Q. Okay. What was your problem with these activities?
A. Well, I notice that the company and some people at the head office, including my director, were very selective who they’re going to bar. So some loan sharks were allowed to stay and some small-timer loan sharks were asked to leave. We also collect evidence that one of the casino lead managers was involved in this transaction and he was borrowing money of them. We also report that one of the loan sharks rape one of the dealers which never been report to authorities, never been investigate. I’ve been reporting that illegal cigarettes have been selling at the Holiday Inn concession casino.

Oh that’s right, I forgot to mention the unreported rape and the illegal cigarette sales.

But apart from the fraudulent Mexteam relationship, the undocumented cash disbursements, the profit skimming, the mob connections, and the loansharking, rape and illegal cigarette sales at B.C. casinos… Great Canadian is an upstanding corporate citizen, right?

A. The guy who supposed to take Boki’s position, Patrick Ennis, he was the guy who offered me drugs.

Yeah… well… it turns out that Patrick Ennis, the current Supervisor of Surveillance and Security for all of Great Canadian’s casinos, allegedly offered Mr. Avramovic cocaine on several occasions. A fact that was dutifully reported to management, before they promoted Mr. Ennis.

That doesn’t look so good.

But perhaps this is all due to a couple of bad apples. Surely, if top management knew about illegal activities in their B.C. casinos, somebody would have put a stop it. Mr. Avramovic continues:

A. One of the security/surveillance managers meeting, I’ve been advised by my director, who was Boki Sikimic, that I supposed to direct my people to turn their heads the other way when they see those big loan sharks around because that’s good for business. I also been advised by — someone else was present on that meeting. It was Carl Bolton, who’s sitting right there.
Q. You mean Carl Bolton in this room?
A. Yeah. He’s been explaining how to avoid to report everything to the authorities.
Q. To what authority, for instance?
A. For instance, British Columbia Lottery Corporation and GPEB.

And who is this Carl Bolton who explained how to avoid reporting everything to authorities? None other than Great Canadian’s Director of Compliance. So top management not only knows about the illegal activities, but they ask security and surveillance to look the other way, because loansharks are “good for business.”

Perhaps it’s the language barrier, but I can’t help but infer that the job of the “Director of Compliance” is to assure that the company actually complies with all British Columbia Lottery Corporation and Gaming Policy Enforcement Branch (GPEB) regulations and reporting requirements.

Not that it apparently would have mattered. Mr. Avramovic claims that he made numerous formal and informal reports of illegal activities directly to B.C. authorities, to little avail.

A. I’ve been told by both agencies that that information is going to be processed. All those discrepancy that I mention, not on the ship, that I mention about the drugs, rape, selling the illegal cigarettes, loan sharks problem, they’ve been telling me that they were going to look into it but that right now it’s not good time because it’s expansion of the gaming industry there, so definitely somebody will look after that and somebody will contact me.

No, you wouldn’t want allegations of drugs, rape, illegal cigarette sales and loansharking at B.C. casinos to be made public at a time you are massively expanding the gaming industry there.

That would be irresponsible.

However here in America we believe voters have the right to know what kind of company is sponsoring the most massive expansion of gambling in state history. So here’s all you really need to know about Richmond B.C. based Great Canadian:

It has given at least $210,000 to I-892, more than any other contributor.

It stands to earn $20 million a year from slot machines at its 4 WA casinos.

It intends to expand its presence in WA, dominating the market like it does back home.

It can be expected to bring the same ethical standards to its WA casinos that it brought to its loanshark-infested B.C. casinos, and its Hong Kong based floating brothel.

Personally, I’m not willing to roll the dice on Great Canadian or I-892.

(Note: tomorrow I will post a video clip of Great Canadian boasting about its plans to put slot machines into WA’s “bedroom communities”.)

Local media has been sitting on this story for months, but finally, it’s in The P-I! [I-892 backer fights loan-sharking allegations]

There are two important issues here… allegations of criminal activities by one of the largest casino operators in the state… and the cowardly, un-American way they have been using Canadian libel laws to scare local media into hushing up the news.

Please check back in couple hours, for a very detailed account of these allegations, including extended excerpts from the legal depositions. I will also make the depositions available for download.

See, the thing about Collin Levey that really bothers me is that she is obviously smart. So when she spins and twists and grotesquely distorts her arguments to suit her own political and ideological agenda, she knows exactly how untruthful she is being.

I wonder… when she pens one of these whoppers, does the writer in her feel a little pang of angst, knowing that some equally bright colleague or cocktail acquaintance might casually and devastatingly deconstruct her column to reveal little more than a steaming pile of clever sloganeering atop a “Bush for President” bumper sticker?

Take, for example, yesterday’s column in The Seattle Times: “Dems walk a dangerous path with anti-Kerry-film complaint“. Collin attacks Democratic senators for complaining about Sinclair Broadcasting’s plan to preempt prime-time, network programming to air an anti-Kerry film on its 62 stations, many of them in swing states.

If “Stolen Honor” is anything like it’s been characterized, then the Sinclair broadcast essentially amounts to a 90-minute political infomercial on the eve of the presidential election. Even Collin makes little effort to dispute the bias of the film… although you can safely assume that neither one of us has actually seen it.

Collin equates “Stolen Honor” with “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and in her typical, arrogant fashion, attempts to sell her argument by trying to make her readers feel stupid:

With apologies for the remedial observation, broadcast networks and movies in the theaters operate on two different business models

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Watching the pundits and reporters after last night’s Kerry-Bush debate, you’d think it was a tie. A lot of verbiage was devoted to pointing out how much Bush has improved since the first debate… he’s a great “closer”… he “connected” with voters… he made a “strong case” for a second term… blah, blah, blah.

But once again, viewers weren’t buying. Instant polls clearly showed Kerry the victor on points, which means he won politically too.

A CBS poll of “uncommitted” voters (if you ask me, if you’re undecided at this point, you ought to be committed) showed Kerry the winner 39-25 percent, with 36 percent calling it a tie. And a Gallup poll found Kerry won 52-39 percent, nearly the same margin as after the first debate.

Even the ABC poll, which on the surface showed Kerry with a statistically insignificant 42-41 margin, suggested a more decisive victory, that was otherwise skewed in Bush’s favor by the fact that 38 percent of respondents were Republican, and only 30 percent Democrat. More significant, “independents” gave Kerry a 52-43 edge.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that these instapolls are an even bigger load of crap than those tracking polls the media breathlessly reports. But I find it curious that reporters who are so emotionally invested in polling, stubbornly continued to proclaim the debate a tie in the face of their own numbers to the contrary.

The fact is, voters perceived Kerry to have won not one… not two… but all three debates. More importantly, he won be giving a consistent performance. Sure Bush may have come across as a little more likable (assuming you like snarling, mean-spirited drunks,) and Kerry may have come across as a little stiff. But that stiffness also translates into steadfastness, and Bush’s personal attempts to characterize Kerry as a “flip-flopper” fell flat in the presence of the senator’s rock-steady demeanor.

In the end, Americans may not want to go out drinking with Kerry, but they now view him as a reasonable alternative as president. So the election has become what it should have been from the start, a referendum on George Bush’s dismal performance, at home and abroad.

I really only see one way Bush can win this election: he cheats.

With that in mind, it’s still too close to call.

The burden of proof is on President Bush’s shoulders if he wants to capture the undecided vote. And according to the latest tracking poll by Zogby International, it is quite a heavy burden:

Pollster John Zogby: “The two candidates go into the third and final debate tied. TIED!!! There is no major sub-group movement to report, but the undecided voters give us the real key to what is happening behind the scenes. Today’s three-day track reveals that only 11% of the undecided voters feel that President Bush deserves to be re-elected. That is the lowest figure yet. Two in five — 40%– feel it is time for someone new and 49% are undecided about his future.

In the first two debates, John Kerry has more than proved himself a reasonable alternative, and I fully expect him to do well again tonight. For Bush to create any sort of movement in the polls in his favor, he’s going to have to erase some of his negatives with undecided voters. After four years in office, I’m not sure he can.

Of course, the real story behind the polls is how they are underestimating voter turnout nationwide. While both sides have launched aggressive voter registration campaigns, new Democratic registrations have far outstripped GOP efforts in nearly all the “battleground” states. If D’s can turn out these new registrants, the vote will clearly break in Kerry’s favor.

So how’d my debate with Tim Eyman on the John Carlson Show go?

Let me start off by saying that I like John Carlson. I disagree with almost everything he has to say, but I like him. He’s smart, he’s engaging, and when you meet him in person, he just comes across as a really nice guy.

That said… man, did John have a bug up his ass today about the tribes. He didn’t really seem to want to talk about I-892, but rather seemed intent on backing me into a corner, forcing me to try to defend the tribes.

I wouldn’t oblige. I don’t work for the tribes, and I don’t support expanding gambling anywhere. Furthermore, I wasn’t about to waste my precious airtime talking about the tribes, when the important task is to inform voters that I-892 legalizes slot machines. I stayed on message as best I could, and then listened to John fill the final 20 minutes of the hour urging listeners to “stick it to the tribes.”

Personally, I think that sentiment is rather childish (and perhaps a touch racist), but… well… it’s John’s show. I can still like John, even if I disagree with him.

Oh yeah… Tim Eyman.

Tim spouted the usual bullshit: tax cuts, yada-yada-yada… tribal monopoly, yada-yada-yada… raised by wolves, yada-yada-yada. One thing Tim doesn’t like to talk about is slot machines — specifically the 18,225 slot machines I-892 would put into over 2000 neighborhood bars, restaurants and bowling alleys. That’s because if voters understand this, Tim would stand a better chance winning at slots than winning on the ballot.

I disagree with nearly everything Tim says, just like I do with John. But Tim, I’m not so sure that I like. Still, I suppose it might be interesting going out with him for a couple of beers (or an upside-down margarita) and talking one-on-one, with no reporters around. Though if I do, I’ll be sure to leave mention of it on my blog, just in case I disappear.

Anyway, the most interesting thing about my hour with Tim was that it only lasted 30 minutes. Half way through the show Tim had to bag out due to “cell phone trouble.” Yeah right.

See you Monday morning at 7 on the Mike Siegel Show, Tim. I suggest using a land line.

For those listening to me whoop Tim’s ass on the John Carlson Show, here are the links I promised:

Office of Financial Management: Potential Financial Impact of I-892
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/2004/892/

TaxSanity.org: The Truth About Property Taxes in Washington State
http://www.taxsanity.org/media/TaxMyths.pdf

Vote No on I-892 Campaign
http://voteno892.org/

Tune in to The John Carlson Show this afternoon at 4pm, and listen to my strident punditry live! I’ll be debating failed watch salesman Tim Eyman on the total lack of merit behind his “Slots for Tots” initiative, I-892.

I’ll post a full report later today…