HorsesAss.Org

Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility, but if they want to walk the walk, they might want to stop wasting taxpayer dollars filing frivilous ethics complaints against Gov. Gregoire.

Back in April, Washington State Republican Party chair Luke Esser filed an ethics complaint alleging the Governor used public funds to campaign for reelection, specifically citing a survey conducted on behalf of the Washington Learns Commission, a six city “listening tour,” and a public relations contract.

Five months later, after the Governor’s office spent countless hours at taxpayer expense providing hundreds of documents to investigators, the Washington State Executive Ethics Board has delivered a 16-page report unanimously dismissing the complaint as “obviously unfounded or frivilous.”

Jesus, Luke… the Washington Learns survey you cited wasn’t even paid for with taxpayer money.  Do your goddamn homework.

The Dino Rossi campaign will no doubt be crowing tomorrow morning about the state’s revised revenue forecast, which now predicts a $3.2 billion budget shortfall for the 2009-2011 biennium, but it should be remembered that the projected deficit is a revenue problem not a spending one, stemming from a long-term structural deficit and a weakening economy.

State spending as a percentage of the total economy has in fact remained flat for much of the past decade, while our antiquated tax structure has continued to rely on an ever shrinking portion of our economy.  Our media and political elite have thus far studiously avoided and serious discussion about tax restructuring—the Democrats out of fear of a voter backlash, and the Republicans secure in the knowledge that to do nothing virtually assures their vision of a dramatically smaller government by default.

No doubt the Governor and the Legislature face tough short term choices during the next session, as they do during every economic downturn.  But if we want to solve our long-term structural deficit while maintaining the quality of life Washingtonians have come to expect, then we need to rely on more than mere tough talk and a rainy day fund.  We need to start talking about an income tax, or some other broad based tax designed to fit the realities of our twenty-first century economy.

By now you’ve likely heard about Sen. John McCain’s bizarre interview with a Spanish language radio station in Miami yesterday, where he repeatedly gave vague answers about Latin America when asked about President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain.

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/cadenaser_mccain_spain_080918a.mp3]

Josh Marshall, who broke the story on Talking Points Memo, reports on the reaction in the Spanish press:

In Spain, there seem to be two lines of thinking. The great majority appear to think the McCain was simply confused and didn’t know who Zapatero was — something you might bone up on if you were about to do an interview with the Spanish press. The assumption seems to be that since he’d already been asked about Castro and Chavez that McCain assumed Zapatero must be some other Latin American bad guy. A small minority though think that McCain is simply committed to an anti-Spanish foreign policy since he’s still angry about Spain pulling it’s troops out of Iraq.

Listening to the audio, I can’t help but side with the Spanish majority in attributing McCain’s apparent snub to momentary confusion, but I don’t think it had anything to do with a lack of adequate preparation.  In fact, an interview McCain gave in April to a Spanish newspaper pretty much blows holes in both of the theories offered above:

Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, is ready to change the policy of estrangement with the Spanish government that was put in place for four years now by George Bush. He declared that he was ready to fully normalize bilateral relations and that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was invited to the White House. In an interview on board his plane, which had just left Memphis, where he had participated in a ceremony honoring the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, and en route to his home en Phoenix, McCain said that “it’s time to leave our differences with Spain behind us” and he added: “”I would like President Zapatero to visit the United States. I am very interested, not only in normalizing relations with Spain, but in developing good and productive relations that address the many issues and challenges that we need to be addressing together,” he said.

McCain surely knows who Zapatero is, and that Spain is part of Europe… that is, when he’s lucid.  But listening to that interview again and again, it sure does sound like the 72-year-old McCain was suffering from a transitory senior moment.

Repeatedly, the interviewer asks him whether he would be willing to invite President Zapatero of Spain to the White House, an invitation McCain had publicly extended months before, and repeatedly McCain wanders off into discussions about Latin America.

INTERVIEWER: Senator finally, let’s talk about Spain. If elected president would you be willing to invite President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, to meet with you?

McCAIN: I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion.

And by the way President Calderone of Mexico is fighting a very, very tough fight against the drug cartels. I’m glad we are now working with the Mexican government on the Merida Plan, and I intend to move forward with relations and invite as many of them as I can, of those leaders to the White House.

Okay… but she was asking about Spain, not Mexico.  Maybe he’s just being evasive?

INTERVIEWER: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government? To the president himself?

McCAIN: Uh, I don’t, I, ya know, I, honestly, I have to look at the situations and the relations and the priorities. But I can assure you, I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

Uh-huh.  Spain is, of course, a NATO ally.  You know, one of “our friends.”  So let’s try rephrasing that question.

INTERVIEWER: So you have to wait and see. If he’s willing to meet with you, would you be able to do it? In the White House?

McCAIN: Well, again, I don’t — All I can tell you is I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that’s judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region.

Yeah, but you know… Spain is not in “the hemisphere” (unless, even more bizarrely, he’s referring to the northern hemisphere).  At this point the interviewer clearly senses his confusion.

INTERVIEWER: OK, what about Europe? I’m talking about the president of Spain.

McCAIN: What about me what?

INTERVIEWER: OK. Are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

McCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those who are not.

Don’t just read the transcript, listen to the audio, and listen to his halting words, the obvious fatigue in his voice and the confusion in his answers.  He wasn’t simply being evasive or vague, he was disoriented, and while this may have only been a transient episode it should be alarming nonetheless.

There are those who caution that making age an issue in this race could hurt Obama with senior voters, but honestly… it would be irresponsible not to.  McCain may very well have no underlying condition apart from the normal effects of aging—he may even be sharp for his age—but experience tells us that the mind ages just like the body, and anyone who has closely compared the John McCain of 2008 to the John McCain of 2000 has surely noticed an obvious decline in mental acuity, as well as a possible alteration in temperament.

Whether John McCain’s passing señor moment has a permanent impact on this campaign, remains to be seen.  But it should.

It’s good to see some effective advertising coming out of Gov. Gregoire’s campaign.  I’ve long insisted that if voters really understood who Dino Rossi is, and what he stands for, this election shouldn’t be close.  This new series of ads goes a long way toward introducing the real Rossi to voters, at least on one substantive issue.

No doubt state Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) is facing a tough reelection fight, what with the press gleefully trumpeting his arrest on suspicion of domestic violence, yet quietly chirping like crickets when the case was quickly dropped without charges being filed.  But it’s not just his bad press that’s made Simpson vulnerable this election cycle, it’s also his stalwart opposition to all things BIAW, which has made him the target of some very powerful enemies.

And when the BIAW goes after you, they fight dirty, unimpeded by the law, let alone the Queensberry Rules.

Take for example an email sent out recently to a number of lobbyists by Drew Stokesbary, the campaign chair for Simpson’s Republican opponent Mark Hargrove… an email so inappropriate that even lobbyists were disgusted, prompting several to forward copies directly to Simpson and his campaign.

I noticed that one of your clients, [REDACTED], has contributed to Geoff Simpson. I’d like to encourage you to see if you can get Simpson’s opponent, Mark Hargrove, a similar contribution from [REDACTED].  I understand there are political reasons for that contribution, but the dynamics of the race of have been shifting lately.

[…] The caucus is making a significant hard-dollar contribution, and probably a larger soft-dollar contribution.  Builders, construction, insurance, pharma, NFIB, ag, and others are jumping in now.

You gotta appreciate young Stokesbary’s eagerness to take the initiative, if not his respect (or lack thereof) for our state’s campaign finance laws, for three things immediately jump out from both his email and his public record:  A) Stokesbary is clearly using Simpson’s PDC reports to solicit funds, which is illegal; B) Stokesbary clearly implies that he is coordinating soft-dollar expenditures with his state caucus, which is illegal; and C) Stokesbary is… well… an asshole, which isn’t illegal per se, but turns out to be quite pertinent to the rest of this post.

For in addition to being Hargrove’s campaign chair and son-in-law, Stokesbary turns out to be an employee of both the BIAW and Attorney General Rob McKenna, a bigot, a racist, a George W. Bush fan, a teacher-hater, a sycophant, a hothead and, well, an asshole.

Hmm… where to start?  How about with the most damning of the epithets I just tossed Stokesbary’s way, his association with the lying, cheating, equally assholic bastards at the BIAW, where according to their annual report, he was employed at least through 2007.  And it was with a fellow BIAW employee Tom Kwieciak, that Stokesbary most visibly displayed the organization’s unique approach to public discourse, by notoriously heckling professional golfer Curtis Strange from the hospitality box of the 2007 Boeing Classic.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Drew Stokesbary, 22, of Olympia yelled from the Canyon Club. “Be a man.”

Strange, 52, took his time while he surveyed the troublesome hole. His expression didn’t change.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Stokesbary repeated loudly, seated at a table. “Hit it like a man.”

Choosing the conservative route, Strange swung and put one in the fairway. Another verbal assault followed him off the tee.

“That’s what the ladies’ tour is for, Curtis,” Stokesbary chided as the golfer passed in front of the box.

[…] “I heard on the radio that he’s considered a hothead, which is why I singled him out, and he proved it,” Stokesbary said, referring to Strange.

I mean… what an asshole.

That is the sort of antisocial behavior Stokesbary has displayed throughout his short life, which of course makes him perfect BIAW material.  According to a blog post by a Chinese classmate of his at Duke, Stokesbary used to intentionally “stir up trouble with his incendiary arguments” during history class…

Once, when he made a remark about how if immigrants wanted to keep their traditions alive, they shouldn’t have come to the US in the first place, my friends had to literally restrain me from knocking him over.

And in his Amazon review of Gordon Park’s classic 1964 “The Learning Tree,” a novel about growing up black in a white man’s world, Stokesbary displayed his usual racial sensitivity:

this was about the worst and slowest-paced book i’ve ever read. In english class we had to read a book by a black author and my teacher thought i might like it. but i didn’t. it was terrible. by the time you get about halfway through the pace picks up, but by then it’s pointless. don’t buy this book or read it. please.

Yup.  Nothing worse than being forced to read a book by a black author.

I don’t know much about Hargrove, but if I were him I’d be more than bit uncomfortable having this unrepentant fratboy chair my campaign, let alone marry my daughter.  And as for Rob McKenna, I think he needs to answer a few questions about whether Stokesbary was acting on his authority, since the email certainly appears to give that impression.

This email, in which Stokesbary warns lobbyists that clients who have given to Simpson better give to Hargrove too, was sent from a RobMcKenna.org email address, and signed by Stokesbary with the title “Field Director, Re-Elect AG Rob McKenna.”  The clear impression left with some recipients was that this was a direct request from McKenna, the most powerful Republican in the state, and a man in a position to impose political fealty.

So why would McKenna risk putting his name on such a legally and ethically dubious email?  After obtaining a copy of Stokesbary’s email from a political consultant, I contacted Rep. Simpson and asked him for his response.  Not surprisingly, he seems to believe it all comes down to the BIAW:

“Why are they coming after me? They want existing taxpayers to pay for the roads, schools and fire stations their new development requires and I think  the developers should pay their fair share through impact fees. They are one of the state’s most powerful political group but I stand up to them and am one of the biggest obstacles to them getting what they want in Olympia. They want growth without regulation. I want controlled and planned growth. They want to maintain their ability to skim industrial insurance money to use for political purposes but I worked to stop them.  Hargrove hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s already sold out to the BIAW.”

If so, expect this campaign to get much nastier.  And, less legal.

So Goldy’s post about having his video commentaries removed from YouTube, presumably at the request of the Association of Washington Business, reminded me that their president, Don Brunell, puts out a column that is faithfully carried every week by The Columbian. Usually I ignore it, but this week’s version is particularly entertaining given the wider economic situation. I’m not sure how many other outlets print it, so now and then it’s worth examining, if for no other reason that to enjoy Brunell’s sheer chutzpah.

Brunell’s column is headlined “Brunell: EU businesses find southern comfort,” and he gazes wistfully at at all the automotive plants being built in the south.

There is a virtual bidding war between southern states for modern vehicle manufacturing. Foreign-based companies now operate 13 assembly plants in the U.S., most of which are in the South.

The Associated Press reports Alabama offered $385 million to VW for the same plant, while Mississippi gave Toyota $294 million in 2007 to build at Blue Springs, and Kia received $400 million worth of incentives from Georgia.

A senior executive at Fiat, the Italian industrial conglomerate, told the Financial Times, “With the amount of money U.S. states are willing to throw at you, you would be stupid to turn them down at the moment. It is one of the low-cost locations to be in at the moment.”

Apparently nothing turns on a free-marketeer like government handouts.

But the most interesting bit is when Brunell sets forth on what is likely his true motivation, attacking unions in Washington state. I’ll only quote a couple of paragraphs, although I’m not clear on whether the AWB can sue people for quoting their corporate socialism agit-prop when they give it away free to traditional media outlets. (Bold added.)

The most attractive states are “right-to-work” states in which individual workers can decline union membership. Washington is a compulsory union state, so if people want to work at Boeing as a machinist, they have to join the union. When the union votes to strike, as the Boeing machinists did, they cannot cross the picket line even if their family is hurting for money.

Incentives and right-to-work laws are part of the decision matrix. A pool of trained and willing workers is important as well. Companies need people who know what they are doing when the factory powers up, and many states are spending millions to train workers for new factories and growing businesses.

Hmmm…so the government needs to educate the population, provide cash and other incentives to global corporations and also pass laws making unionization impossible? Is there a little box in Brunell’s “decision matrix” that reads “destroy the unions?” ‘Cause that seems to be what he’s getting at.

Such a vision reminds me of a certain large country in Asia that vacuumed up an Olympic-size portion of our jobs and currency. In the midst of a huge public backlash against conservative hypocrisy on economic issues, here’s good old Don Brunell admiring statism.

So if we peel away all the ridiculous rhetoric about markets over the last twenty-eight years, what Brunell and progressives might agree upon is this: government plays a key role in the economy. As Atrios observed yesterday about some of the commentary on CNBC:

People who prattle on about “the free market” are usually too stupid to have a clue how complicated and pervasive the “rules” had to be to to get a well-functioning modern market system: sophisticated concepts of contracts and enforcement, property rights, legal entities, proper accounting, bankruptcy, limited liability, etc… etc…, did not descend from the heavens but were, in fact, created.

To be fair to Brunell, he doesn’t seem very free-market oriented in his column at all, so I don’t think the “stupid” part applies. Atrios’s larger point is a great one, though, because societies create markets over time, and the best way to do that is through the expression of popular will, with respect to minority rights, through a truly democratic system. It’s not magical and mystical.

But many Republican candidates, lacking any other message, continue to “prattle” about the evils of government and taxes.

The real argument, as Brunell’s column reveals, is over who benefits from state actions. Brunell seems to like laws that make unionization impossible, meaning he would deny workers the right to collective bargaining, virtually the only means of allowing workers to negotiate on a somewhat even footing with multi-national corporations. In other words, he wants the playing field stacked in favor of business.

Unfortunately for Brunell and the anti-union management at The Columbian, they don’t get to wish away rights earned by our ancestors. For now this is an allegedly free country, and as the people come to understand the economic crimes that have been committed against them in the name of “freedom,” they will likely begin to grow more impatient with those who would tread on them.

Yesterday, Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey seemed puzzled:

I am trying to figure out the argument not to drill for oil.

Um.. okay, Bruce, how about this…?

The Arctic Ocean’s sea ice has shrunk to its second smallest area on record, close to 2007’s record-shattering low, scientists report. The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Look, nobody’s saying don’t drill any new oil wells (well, some people probably are, but nobody’s listening)… but the Republican campaign slogan, “Drill, Baby Drill,” is just plain crazy.  Opening up environmentally sensitive coastal areas to more drilling and exploration won’t do anything to lower short term prices at the pump, and in the end is little more than a twentieth century solution to a twenty-first century problem.

Drill if you want.  Potentially sully some shorelines or damage a few more fisheries.  But for McCain to put offshore drilling at the center of his energy proposals may make for some effective election year sloganeering (or not), but it does nothing to address our long term environmental and energy crises.  The future is in wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and yes (gasp), even nuclear (if we can deal with the waste issue)… not to mention the most promising technology of them all:  conservation.

The call for more drilling is nothing but a distraction… an empty promise that perhaps six years from now, gasoline might only be $7 a gallon instead of $8 or $9.  Meanwhile, we’ll all be enjoying the consequences of an iceless Arctic sea.

Over the weekend I posted a videoblog entry critiquing some comments made by Attorney General Rob McKenna in a video voters guide posted online by the Association of Washington Businesses.  And tonight I discover that YouTube has pulled the video.

Why?  I can only assume that the cowards at the AWB complained to YouTube that I had violated their copyright by including clips from their video.  And at this point, I’ve had so many bogus complaints filed against me by the likes of the BIAW, the AWB, the Washington Association of Realtors and other Republican front groups, that YouTube just automatically yanks my videos assuming I’m a shameless pirate.

Whatever.

So, I’d like to offer the AWB the same deal I offered the Realtors:  sue me. Really.  Sue me.  Because every time you have my video yanked, I’m just going to repost it somewhere else, as is my right under the fair use doctrine.  So if you think you have a case, take me to court.

Or don’t you have the balls?

UPDATE:
And apparently, I’m not the only one who has trouble seeing John McCain as an agent of change.  According to the latest NY Times/CBS poll:

Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

And that Palin bounce?

[T]he Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general.

[…] This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s running mate. More than 6 in 10 said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.

The Times/CBS poll shows Obama leading McCain 48 to 43, which is right in line with the latest Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, that shows a 48 to 44 margin.

Free market!

Goldman Sachs, which Washington Mutual has hired, started the process several days ago, these people said. Among the potential bidders that Goldman has talked to are Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC. But no buyers may materialize. That could force the government to place Washington Mutual into conservatorship, like IndyMac, or find a bridge-bank solution, which was extended to thrifts in the new housing regulations.

All Citizens will not panic and will maintain order and respectfulness to the proper authorities. A special commemorative bottle edition of Victory Gin honoring our glorious banking regulatory framework will be distributed with new accounts. Large investors depositing over €300,000.00 qualify for a spot on the DNC platform committee.

Face the telescreen and smile. Please to return to your duties immediately.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down almost 450 points today, at 10,609.66… only 22 points higher than where it stood on January 20, 2001, the day George W. Bush took office.

Adjusted for inflation, a $100 investment in a DJIA index fund just before Bush took office would now be worth only $81… but that’s still better than the approximately $69 a similar investment would be worth, had you invested in the broader S&P 500, which now stands down 186.15 points, or almost 14% off its pre-Bush close, or the inflation adjusted $55 value of a $100 investment in the NASDAQ Composite, down a stunning 32% over President Bush’s seven and a half years in office.

But, you know, John McCain bills himself as “the greatest free trader” and “greatest deregulator” ever, so who better to trust to fix the underlying causes of this unprecedented financial crisis?

I’ll be posting a story in a few hours. By “story,” I mean a more traditional news story than you typically read on HA. 

This is all part of the grand experiment Goldy and I are up to: Goldy assigned me to cover the local ’08 races—Gregoire vs. Rossi, Reichert vs. Burner, and some of the statewide contests further down the ticket like the actually-kind of-thrilling race for Commissioner of Public Lands.

In addition to the hard-hitting analysis and dogged partisan offense that you’ve come to expect on HA, we want to add some original news reporting to the mix to see if we can turn this new media thing into a full-fledged new media thing, man. That’s a translation of me and Goldy after a few drinks.  

First, though, here’s something I came across while doing the reporting for my story (an outtake, I guess): Along with voting for a voucher school program; voting to cut $7 billion in student aid; voting to freeze Pell Grants; and voting to repeal the estate tax (which would have torpedoed education funding) to earn his lowly C rating from the National Education Association after his first term in office, Rep. Dave Reichert also voted for this.

The successful amendment to the 2005 bill reauthorizing Head Start funding repealed established civil rights protections by allowing federally funded Head Start programs with religious affiliations to hire and fire teachers and staff and volunteers based on religion. 

At the time, an alarmed  ACLU fired off this letter to protest the amendment.

I’m a little suspect of the polls right now in the wake of the national conventions, but as Lee just pointed out, the latest KING5/SurveyUSA poll on Prop. 1 is sure to dishearten the anti-rail crowd that maniacally trolls HA’s comment threads.

When asked about Sound Transit’s proposal to expand rail and bus service, 49% of respondents said that they were certain to vote yes, while only 16% said they were certain to vote no.  And when the uncertain respondents were asked whether they lean toward one side or the other, Prop. 1’s advantage expanded to a whopping 65% to 20% margin.

But perhaps more interesting…

Among those who describe themselves as conservatives, those voting or leaning “no” slightly outnumber those voting or leaning “yes.” Among those who identify themselves as Republicans, “yes” slightly outnumbers “no.” Among all other groups, the measure passes by no fewer than 31 points.

So Prop. 1 seems to have pretty damn broad support, even within the constituencies where you would expect the strongest opposition, a finding that is consistent with some internal polling numbers I heard whispered about a few weeks back.  Of course, unlike the actual ballot language, the SurveyUSA question didn’t include the $17.9 billion estimated cost, so I’d be surprised to see Prop. 1 pass by such a large margin… but I’d be even more surprised to see it fail.

There are several major differences between this year’s Prop. 1 and last year’s failed measure of the same nomenclature:  the proposal, the electorate and the economic reality.

This Prop. 1 is not tied to an unpopular and controversial road expansion package that split the environmental community and dramatically escalated the costs.  This Prop. 1 will benefit from the significantly larger and more progressive electorate that tends to turn out in this region during presidential election years.  And most of all, this election will occur with memories of $4.50/gallon gasoline still fresh in everybody’s minds… so fresh that bus and commuter rail ridership continues to grow even as gasoline prices have temporarily stepped back from their historic highs.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, the era of cheap gasoline is over, and that means that 2008 is most definitely not 2007:

I know conventional wisdom still suggests that now is the wrong time for Sound Transit to come back with a ballot measure, just one year after the defeat of Prop 1, but the conventional wise men are missing the point: 2008 isn’t 2007. The era of cheap gas is over, and Americans—even Seattle-Americans (and yes, I know, Seattle is different from every other city in the world)—are beginning to change their behavior in response. Voters get that, even if our politicians and editorialists don’t.

Traffic congestion has far from disappeared as a volatile political issue, but public demand for affordable transportation alternatives is rising at least as fast as the price of gas. And the thing is, whether it’s cheaper and more efficient or not, when current drivers envision their future mass transit commute, they much prefer to envision themselves riding on a train, than on a bus. People like trains; that’s a fact. And if I were an elected official, I’d probably want to focus on delivering the services that the people want.

Many of our region’s political and media old timers still seem mired in the auto-centric transportation vision of the 1950’s.  But I’m guessing we’ll find out on November 4 that the majority of voters are not.