HorsesAss.Org

I’m watching C-Span right now. They’re showing the recent “March for Life” on the Capitol Mall. Republican congressman after Republican congressman are declaring that the “pro-life” movement is gaining ground.

How can this be true?

South Dakota recently rejected an abortion ban. If you can’t pass an abortion ban in a conservative state, where can you? South Dakota doesn’t even have a full-time clinic, so what gives?

Maybe the anti-abortion movement will succeed somewhere else. Mississippi is basically without an abortion clinic. Perhaps Alabama should be next. Or South Carolina. When the rubber hits the road, lots of conservative are unable to ban abortion. Some ideas are great in theory, but pictures of doctors being put in jail (and women too, right?) isn’t something the GOP wants in the nightly news.

All those GOP congressfolk, elected to oppose abortion, must feel guilty. They promise a lot for the anti-abortion folks, but they deliver little. Vote for “pro-life” laws, receive a capital gains tax cut, as Thomas Frank said in his famous book.

As a Democrat, I hope these folks don’t come to their senses. As a someone who honors dignity, I hope the “pro-life” movement realizes that it has been taken advantage of for far too long.

Join me tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. I like to go with the flow, so things could change, but here’s what I have lined up for tonight’s show:

7PM: TBA

8PM: Will a rebuilt Viaduct sink the Marshall Islands? And should we care? The Marshall Islands stand an average 7-feet above sea level, and risk being submerged by global warming. King County Executive Ron Sims suggested this week that any replacement alternative for the Alaska Way Viaduct should consider the impact of carbon emissions. Can we afford to? Can we afford not to?

9PM: Is the initiative process perfect? You’d think so, hearing professional initiative sponsor Tim Eyman defend the current system as inviolate, but over thirty legislators have already signed on to a bill banning pay-per-signature signature gathering. Fellow blogger Andrew Villeneuve was at the hearing Friday morning and joins me in the studio for a first hand report. And TJ from Loaded Orygun will call in to tell us how a similar law is working down in Oregon.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a nation consisting of twenty-nine atolls and five isolated islands, about 69-square miles of land scattered over 3/4 million square miles of the western Pacific. Settled by Micronesians about three thousand years ago, the inhabitants have managed to survive German, Japanese and U.S. protectorates, the latter during which their “protectors” detonated 67 nuclear weapons, contaminating a number of atolls with nuclear fallout.

Having survived all that, sometime over the next century or so, the Marshall Islands may disappear completely, swamped by rising sea levels.

Marshall Islands President Kessai Note was in Seattle this week to sign a Statement of Shared Action with King County Executive Ron Sims, the first such agreement signed between his nation and a U.S. municipal government. The agreement calls for sharing scientific and technical expertise, coordinating activities to advise international and U.S. policy makers, and developing a “shared international network of action to help slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas pollution.” It also recognizes shared interest in mitigating the impact of global warming.

But the impact on King County is nothing compared to projected impact on the Marshallese.

Majuro Airport, Marshall Islands

The Marshall Islands stand an average 7-feet above sea level, with the highest point on the highest island rising to only 20-feet. In describing the Marshallese relationship to the land President Note stated that “even the loss of a few acres is devastating to every aspect of life.” Even if sea levels rise only a few feet, entire atolls will disappear or become uninhabitable. The 20-foot sea level rise predicted by a partial melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would completely inundate the nation.

The Marshallese will be amongst the world’s first global warming refugees.

What does any of this have to do with King County?

At the press conference on Friday President Note emphasized that the story of climate change in the Marshall Islands is a story of how both local actions and local inaction has global consequences, while Sims strayed from his prepared text to talk for a moment about the Alaska Way Viaduct. Absent from our tunnel vs rebuild debate, Sims said, has been a discussion of the impact on carbon emissions, the primary cause of global warming. Both of our political establishment’s preferred alternatives are ones that increase traffic capacity. But if we were really interested in reducing carbon emissions — if we were really interested in acting globally — then we should at least be studying how we might meet our region’s transportation needs while reducing capacity and pushing more trips into public transit.

But we don’t have these debates in the U.S., not even in liberal, “metro-natural” Seattle.

Meanwhile, as we find it too difficult to even imagine getting out of our cars once and while, an entire island nation with a three-thousand-year-old culture is about to slip beneath the seas, largely due to our own environmental pollution.

As President Note said, local inaction has global consequences.

There’s a wonkish yet curiously fascinating AP story in the Seattle Times today about an FCC ruling that limits local government authority and oversight in negotiating cable TV franchises. Critics complain that FCC chairman Kevin Martin deliberately misrepresented facts while pushing through the new rules, which the Republican dominated commission passed on a party-line vote.

Supporters of the policy change — giant phone companies like AT&T and Verizon — provided dozens of examples of local governments making unreasonable demands on new competitors. And Martin repeatedly cited these claims without making any effort at independent verification.

It was one of those claims that raised the ire of David L. Smith, the city attorney in Tampa, Fla. He said the FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, made a “blatantly inaccurate allegation” about Tampa’s conduct during franchise negotiations with Verizon Communications Inc.

Martin was quizzing an agency employee during a commission meeting before casting his vote when he asked: “Is Verizon still required to film the tutoring classes for the math classes in Tampa, Florida in order to get a franchise?”

Rosemary Harold, a deputy chief in the FCC’s Media Bureau, answered, “Yes, Mr. Chairman.”

In fact, Tampa never imposed such a requirement. Tampa gave Verizon a $13 million “needs assessment,” required by law to obtain contributions for equipment used in public access production. The assessment may have included video cameras for filming math classes, but nothing like this was ever mentioned in the franchise agreement. Tampa’s existing cable franchise had already committed $6.5 million towards the needs assessment, and under Florida law a competitor would have been required to match that amount to obtain a franchise.

So how did such a “blatantly inaccurate allegation” get read into the public record by the chairman of the FCC himself?

The Tampa allegation outlined by Martin first appeared in a Wall Street Journal story in October 2005 that painted a sympathetic portrait of Verizon’s travails in gaining franchises.

The account said Verizon, seeking permission to offer TV service in Tampa, was presented with “a $13 million wish list” of items it needed, including “video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids.”

The story stated that “Verizon lawyers saw it as a demand.”

Uh-huh. Martin read it in the Wall Street Journal — a respectable newspaper — and that was good enough for him.

I have friends in the newspaper biz, journalists who I truly respect, who I think it is fair to say look down a bit at what me and my fellow bloggers and advocacy journalists do. They insist that it is their job to objectively report the story, not become a part of it. But of course, that’s impossible.

Even if the WSJ reporter’s mischaracterization was an honest mistake (as opposed to being the result of intentional or unintentional bias,) the very act of reporting it influenced public policy. Despite a growing level of public cynicism, newspapers are still generally presumed to be credible sources of objective information, and thus not only shape public opinion, but routinely inform lawmakers as they shape public policy. This is just one of innumerable instances where getting the story wrong actually helped change the story.

Lacking the resources or journalistic training (or the desire for that matter) to do much original reporting myself, much of what I engage in as a blogger is media criticism. In the process I have come to know and like many of the journalists I cover, and so it bothers me more than a little bit to learn that they so often take personal offense at they way I critique their reporting and their publications. It wouldn’t surprise me if at this point in the post, some of my friends in the press angrily mutter something about how us bloggers have a track record that is certainly no better, if not considerably worse, than theirs. Hmm. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is entirely beside the point.

As a blogger, I’m not generally considered to be a credible source. As a newspaper reporter, you are.

When FCC Chair Martin wanted to authenticate the veracity of an anecdote, he cited the WSJ. On the other hand, when former FEMA director Mike Brown and his attorney wanted to discredit the Arabian Horse Association story, they cited the fact that it originated on (gasp) a blog.

So to my friends in the press who question who the hell I am to criticize them, I freely acknowledge that yeah, well, we all make mistakes. But the point is, yours matter more than mine.

(At least for now.)

With 71 readers contributing almost $2,400, we’re now over two-thirds of the way towards my $3,500 goal. Thank you all for your generosity.

Of course, if you don’t want to just give me money, you can always support HA by purchasing an ad via BlogAds. Advertising on HA is a great way to reach a targeted local audience at an affordable price, while demonstrating your support for emerging progressive media. Ads start at only $15/week. Click here to learn more.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give liberally.

It’s double the fun on the AM dial, as “The David Goldstein Show” officially expands to two nights a week! Join me tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. I like to go with the flow, so things could change, but here’s what I have lined up for tonight’s show:

7PM: Did the state GOP really elect a pulled-pork sandwich as party chair? No, of course not. They elected former state Senator and political satirist Luke Esser to replace Diane Tebelius, while the Dems reelected Dwight Pelz. Joining me for a little inside politics is The Stranger’s Josh Feit, who had a chance to chat with the victorious sandwich Esser.

8PM: Did you march for peace? And if not, why? I was at the march in Seattle today and ran into fellow bloggers Lynn Allen and Geov Parrish. They’ll join me in the studio to talk about the war and the anti-war movement.

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

In what can only be called the upset political victory of the year, Diane Tebelius was defeated in a vote of 71-43 for the position of party chair. The winner? A pulled-pork sandwich from Seattle area restaurant Longhorn Barbeque.

While the biggest challenge to Tebelius was thought to come from former state Senator Luke Esser, the sandwich from Seattle was able to convince wavering delegates that was time for a different form of leadership.

“I don’t care if he’s from Seattle, that sandwich has what it takes,” said Earl Murtt from Tonasket.

“The GOP got whomped last year. I figure a hamburger bun stuffed with delicious meat could get out the vote better than (Tebelius and Esser),” said Fay Wingenhauser from Liberty Lake.

Some aren’t excited that the Washington State Republican Party will be lead by an entrée. Former chair Chris Vance said, “I know a sandwich sounds good, but will it be able to appeal to swing voters in the suburbs?” State Senator Pam Roach had questions too. “I’ll do what I can to work with the sandwich, but as we all know, savory meats have a well-known liberal bias. Who’s hungry for that? Certainly not me”

Not every Republican insider was as skeptical. Radio host (and 2000 candidate for governor) John Carlson noted, “When I ran for governor, I was told- repeatedly, by great numbers of people- than a potted plant had a better chance to unseat Gov. Gary Locke. While a pulled-pork sandwich doesn’t have the media skills of a ficus, I’m excited to see what the little guy can do.”

Visit Horse’s Ass in the next several days for an exclusive interview with the pulled-pork sandwich.

For other updates on the pulled-pork sandwich, visit Longhorn Barbeque.

You’d think that in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal Sen. John McCain’s commitment to campaign finance reform would be stronger than ever. Well, not exactly, according to former TNT correspondent Ken Vogel, now writing for the Capitol Hill startup The Politico, who reports that McCain has been vacillating on his signature issue as he tries to thread the political needle of his presidential campaign.

Last session McCain co-sponsored a bill cracking down on 527 groups, but this session seemed to be backing away from it. Then all of a sudden, he’s sponsoring it again. And that’s not his only wavering.

This session, however, McCain has declined to support two other campaign finance measures that reformers consider priorities: one would expand the public financing system for presidential elections, and another would require grassroots organizations to disclose their funding and expenditures.

His lack of support for both worried campaign finance reformers who have considered him a champion of their cause.

McCain “has been supporting reform efforts for so long and has taken on the whole world when it comes to reform drives in Congress, so I’m convinced he truly believes in it,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist on campaign finance for Public Citizen.

“But it’s very unfortunate that when it comes around to his presidential bid he’s suddenly backing off, especially at such a critical moment. This is the year in which we’re actually going to get some sweeping lobbying and ethics reform legislation, and he’s not working with us on that,” Holman said, adding that McCain’s staff over the last few months had become unresponsive to entreaties to support campaign finance reforms.

[…] One campaign finance reformer who has supported McCain’s campaign finance efforts said his recent equivocation should be understood in the context of the campaign. The people whose support McCain needs don’t count campaign finance as among their top issues, the reformer said, adding “some of the people hate McCain-Feingold and he’s not going to run from it. I don’t think he could, but he won’t try to.”

“There’s going to be ongoing tension between his interest in campaign finance reform and the political reality that some of the people he’s trying to reach are not interested in that issue.”

Well, so much for the Straight Talk Express.

61 readers have now given over $2,000 during the first two days of the first annual HA Pledge Week, bringing me more than halfway towards my $3,500 goal with five days remaining. That’s a very encouraging start, and I thank you all for your generosity.

It is particularly gratifying to see so much grassroots support, but I have noticed that my list of contributors does not yet include a single elected official, potential candidate or representative of a high-profile progressive organization. Hmm. These are of course the people who have the most to lose should I some day be forced to give up blogging. You’d think they’d want to help me sustain and expand my efforts.

I suppose one explanation might be that these public figures want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. For example, if I were to write something good about them — or nasty about their opponent — it might not look so good for it to be known that they had previously given me money.

Well, first of all, nobody needs to know. This is not a charitable contribution, and HA is no PAC. I am not required by law to reveal my donors, and I have no intention of doing so. Anybody who fears some repercussion from contributing to HA may rest at ease. I will not reveal your identity.

In fact, I don’t even need to know who you are. I’ve been encouraging donors to give through PayPal because there are no preset contribution limits, but you may completely shield your identity from me by making a donation via the Amazon Honor System. Personally, I think I’m at least as capable as the Seattle Times of maintaining editorial independence from my advertisers and subscribers/donors, but if you want to avoid even the possibility of influencing my future coverage, you can always give anonymously.

So there you have it. No ethical quandaries. No more excuses. If you think HA is worthy of support, then please give what you can today.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give liberally.

I suppose if I had this guy’s job I wouldn’t need to ask you all for money. But I don’t. So I do.

It’s Pledge Week at HA.
Please give generously liberally.

There is a hearing in Olympia this morning before the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs on HB 1087, which would prohibit paying initiative petition signature gatherers on a per-signature basis.

Word is that the hearing room is packed with opponents of the bill, a crowd organized by Tim Eyman and his signature gathering contractors at Citzens Solutions. Of course they’re crowding the hearing room. This isn’t democracy or free speech that’s at stake for them, it’s their livelihood.

I’d thought about heading down to the hearing myself, but it’s hard to make an 8:00 AM hearing in Olympia when my daughter doesn’t walk out the door to school until 9:00 AM. Besides, I already know what the Eyman folks are going to say, so why not just refute them here?

There are really only two arguments against HB 1087. 1.) There is no evidence of signature fraud in WA state, and thus this bill is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech; and 2.) this bill is intended to destroy the initiative process.

Both arguments are complete and utter loads of shit.

As to the first argument, a similar Oregon law was recently upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, precisely because the state of Oregon presented gobs of evidence of signature fraud conducted by signature gatherers, incentivized by their pay-per-signature compensation.

That’s Oregon. Just across the border. Does anybody really believe that Washington state is somehow immune to the same sort of shenanigans, especially when you consider that most paid signature gatherers are mercenary migrant workers traveling from state to state during the signature gathering season? Gimme a break.

Some have argued that our Secretary of State has reported no fraud of this sort here in WA, but just because the SOS hasn’t found this fraud (or even looked for it) doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And it is more than a touch ironic that these people who would vociferously argue against simple safeguards protecting the integrity of the initiative process, are the same people who vociferously argue for requiring photo ID at the polls… when they can provide absolutely no evidence of polling place voter fraud! What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Signature fraud was rampant in Oregon, and they just got away with it until watchdog organizations did their own investigations and presented their evidence to the government and the press. No doubt similar fraud occurs annually in WA state and across the nation… which, um, could explain the extraordinarily high signature rejection rates here and elsewhere. Eyman himself, the grand defender of the initiative process that has so lavishly supported him and his family, has filed petitions with a rejection rate pushing 20 percent, and I’m told that at least one petition in another state last season was thrown out after the signature rejection rate exceeded 50 percent!

As for the second argument, that this bill is intended to kill the initiative process, well that is simply refuted by reality. A similar bill is law in Oregon, and the same folks who fought it in court there are still managing to qualify initiatives for the ballot. Perhaps it’s a touch more expensive, I don’t really know. But nobody ever said that qualifying an initiative for the ballot should be easy.

Hell, if it was up to me, I’d lower the signature threshold in exchange for banning paid signature gathering altogether. This would make it harder for self-interested professionals like Eyman to qualify an initiative simply on the merits of a big check from Michael Dunmire, while at the same time making it easier for initiatives with real grassroots support to come before voters.

But, well, anything that takes the profit motive out of the initiative process is sure to draw opposition from initiative “champions” like Eyman.

In the 24 hours since I launched my first annual HA Pledge Week, 38 readers have contributed nearly $1,400, bringing me more than a third of the way towards my one-week goal of $3,500. That’s an amazing start, and I thank all 38 of you for your generous support. (As for the other 2100 readers who visited HA today, well… you know who you are.)

Still, not everyone reacted so positively to my pledge drive. I expected the usual personal attacks belittling me as stupid or lazy or a societal leech, and my trolls didn’t disappoint. But by far the nastiest comments came via email, where one pseudonymous righty lectured that my “shameless panhandling” made me an “unfit parent,” and claimed to have copied the email to DSHS along with my street address and phone number.

Whatever.

Of course, if I were a righty blogger with a comparable impact on local politics and media coverage (and yes, I know that requires a leap of imagination on both counts) I probably wouldn’t be reduced to begging — at least not publicly. The right has developed institutions to nurture and support up-and-coming talking heads, and help build and promote their profiles. Faced with the prospect of losing a right-wing voice like mine, a faux-think-tank like the EFF might find me some cushy job, or a friendly publisher might offer me a generous book deal. Nobody on the right would expect me to continue doing what I do for as long as I’ve done it without some sort of steady income.

And yet that’s exactly the status quo on the left. This despite the fact that us netroots bloggers have not only become an integral part of the Democratic Party’s messaging machine, but have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for Democratic candidates.

Chris Bowers writes about the “one-way flow of progressive movement money,” and he comes off sounding rather pissed. And rightly so.

In a painful and disturbing irony, the same Democratic political consultant structure that the netroots seek to reform–and which Markos and Jerome called “The Consultant Con” in Crashing the Gate–is actually being funded, reinforced, and strengthened by the netroots. Roughly one-third of the money that went to Democratic campaign consultants in the 2003-2004 election cycle came from netroots activists….

[…] While I don’t think the netroots should regret any of the money it raised for Democratic candidates during 2003-2006 […] we needed to do more to help support the underfunded people, institutions and ideas that make the progressive movement possible. Just lining the pockets of already well compensated consultants is no way to build a movement over the long term.

My partner at BlogPac, Matt Stoller, has previously written about examples of full-time progressive movement activists who receive little or no compensation for their work. Maria Leavey, who did not have health insurance, passed away last month as the result of a heart attack a doctor could have identified. […] Local progressive bloggers typically lose money on blogging every year, even as they help transform local media and activist scenes. Even a prominent blogger such as myself, who helped raise around $2 million for Democratic candidates and committees in the 2005-2006 cycle (and transfer another $3 million into competitive races through Use It Or Lose It), spent the entire 2005-2006 cycle without health insurance. Quite frankly, it is pretty brainless for someone such as myself to help so much money flow into the hands of a small number of highly paid consultants without simultaneously raising money to meet my own basic needs, such as health insurance. What the hell was I doing?

But I am not just angry at myself, or the general lack of funding currently available to the people, institutions, and ideas that make the progressive movement so vital. I am also pissed off at the Democratic and progressive establishment that is funded with our dollars, but which refuses to fund us in return.

I’m not ashamed to be asking for your contributions, but I don’t particularly relish doing it, and I realize that long term this is an unsustainable way to support my work. My personal goal is to integrate my blogging and activism into a fulltime radio gig or some other kind of paid media venture. But my personal finances aside, the larger deficit is institutional, and if we want the progressive blogosphere to continue to grow in size and influence, the progressive community is going to have to step up and find a way to support bloggers of merit. This means labor, environment, pro-choice and all the traditional private and institutional backers of progressive candidates and causes are going to have to dedicate resources to funding bloggers like me. You can’t expect us to do this work, unpaid, indefinitely… and in the long run, you get what you pay for.

But in the meanwhile, I need your help. If you value what I do, if you would miss this blog if it were to suddenly go away, if you look forward to the impact I might have on future elections, I ask you to please reach into your pocket and throw a few bucks my way. I don’t do what I do for the money, but the bank that holds my mortgage does.

Six days and $2,100 to go. Thank you in advance for your generous support.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation attorney Rob McKenna made a splash in the other Washington last week arguing before the US Supreme Court against the rights of unions. (McKenna also apparently freelances as our State Attorney General.)

Why would such an ambitious politician (he wants to be President) calling from one of the most pro-union states in the nation risk political capital defending the union-busting EFF? University of Washington Political Science Professor David Olson has a theory:

Olson described the case as one that will “nail the base” of state GOP voters because it gets “the red-meat juices flowing.” And although it’s likely to anger the trade-union base of Washington Democrats, Olson believes the case is likely to “fly below the radar screen” of most of the state’s independent voters whom McKenna courts.

“McKenna has calculated that the net gain to his base from supporting this case is greater than his net loss of pro-union support,” said Olson, who has been tracking McKenna’s political career for the past 20 years since his days as student council president at the University of Washington.

Yup, that’s McKenna for you, a shrewd political operator willing to play to his conservative base when he can get away with it, while masquerading as a centrist when it suits his purposes. McKenna’s also done an incredible job courting the press, who have largely rewarded him with uncynical and uncritical coverage. As such, he has become the most dangerous Republican in the state.

The state Dems need to hire somebody full time just to track McKenna and stick a few wrenches in his slick, professional PR machine. It’ll be an investment well worth the time, effort and money.

1. “Them libruls are stealin’ our tax money!”

Here’s a fancy little nugget from my favorite sociopathic troll at Postman on Politics:

KingCo has already sucked up most of the transportation money with that rip-off called a gas tax.
Now Seattle believes the rest of the state should pay for their harbor beautification project?
Screw that.

Posted by Hinton at 04:28 PM, Jan 24, 2007

Nevermind the fact that King County exports gas taxes to less populated counties. This is a common refrain among the wingnut “flying monkeys.”

2. “The Democrats control the ________!!”

Unless you’re talking about government in Washington state, what do Democrats really control?

Let’s face it, Washington is a tough state for Repubs because the Dems own the newspapers, the universities, the non-profits, ects.

Posted by thatcher at January 24, 2007 06:53 PM

Do Democrats “own” these things? Granted, most colleges have lots of liberals. But current UW President Mark Emmert was a college buddy of Mike McGavick, and they were still pretty close as of the beginning of McGavick’s campaign.

Washington state’s newspapers are owned by right-of-center families (like these two) or they are owned by big corporations. The Seattle P-I is liberal, but the Times? As if!

(I don’t know why this douche mentions “non-profits”, but the WA-based think tanks skew heavily to the right.)

3. The Seattle P-I and “Sound Off”

The P-I has a great little feature that is currently not available at the Fairview Fanny. What is it? Well, at the bottom of many articles, readers are invited to give their two cents. There are some gems, including…

A film about the Iraq occupation is nominated for an Oscar:

Posted by red-wind at 1/24/07 10:54 a.m.

Should clean up if it shows the US as the enemy, that type of story-line wins all the time!

Apparently, “the left” is intolerant for trying to teach science:

Thanks again for showing the tolerance and open-mindedness that the left demands of others, but seems unwilling or incapable of giving. That gives me such confidence that you are also better judges of science.

Finally, this in response to a P-I editorial blasting Bush’s SOTU speech just makes me giggle:

it was too funny watching the media after the speech. poll after poll after poll scored a very very high positve result for our president from those who watched the speech. even more interesting is that more democrats watched the speech than usually would. it was obvious the media wanted president bush to fall flat on his face, but instead, he came out quite well indeed.

It’s awesome that entire blogs have been dedicated to find these pearls of wisdom shit. Amazing.

A bit of gambling advice for Gov. Gregoire and my Democratic friends in the state legislature: don’t take the wager that you can let the proposed Spokane Tribe gambling compact slide through without much debate or opposition. It’s a sucker’s bet.

This compact is a bad deal for everybody except the Spokanes, and would inevitably lead to a massive expansion of gambling statewide. If well publicized, it would also be immensely unpopular with voters, and could lead to real political repercussions.

The WSRP has been grasping at straws these past couple years looking for an issue that holds traction with voters, and in their opposition to the Spokane compact they have found one that crosses party lines. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly defeated I-892 — Tim Eyman’s slot machine initiative — by a 61 to 39 percent margin. (It failed 63 to 37 percent in Spokane County.) Yet the Spokane compact would essentially do for tribal casinos what I-892 hoped to do for card rooms and bowling alleys.

By federal law the Spokanes have the right to negotiate the same terms offered the other tribes in Washington state, but the same is true in reverse. If the Spokanes get 4,700 Las Vegas style slot machines, every tribe in the state is going to reopen their compact looking for the same deal. The same is true of the increased betting limits offered the Spokanes.

State Republicans sense the enormous political opportunity this proposed compact gives them, and they don’t even have to resort to lies, hate-mongering and obfuscations to make their point. So hot is the WSRP on this issue that they even made it a primary focus of a recent conference call with journalists and (mostly) right-wing bloggers.

With little else to spark widespread voter ire at their Democratic colleagues, the R’s are prepared to make this one of the signature issues of this session. Don’t let them.

Voice your opposition now. Oppose this compact and instruct the negotiators to go back to the table. It’s not only good for the state, it’s good politics.