HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m hoping Patrick comes back so he can give a full report on what a “Mike McGavick Drunk” hangover feels like.

Today is Primary Election Day in Washington State, and we’ll be closely following the results all night long… as will, I’m guessing, 43rd LD candidate Bill Sherman, who has chosen the Alehouse as the location of his “Victory” party. If there’s only two victory parties you attend tonight, you’ll definitely want to visit Bill’s second.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. Here’s a full run down of WA’s ten Drinking Liberally chapters:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	September 27
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	September 21
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	October 11
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	October 2
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	September 19
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	September 20
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	September 20
Tri-Cities:	Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	September 19
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	September 26
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	October 6

BBC Radio 4 is broadcasting a weekly series, Meet the Bloggers, and today “Programme 4: It’s Political“ hit the airwaves and the Internet. Featured in this week’s segments are two of America’s most influential bloggers, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and… um… me.

Why HorsesAss.org? Producer Mark Savage told me he was looking for two bloggers, one national and one local, who also represent the opposite ends of the political spectrum. But the average listener might assume that Savage failed in his quest, for while I proudly lay claim to my liberal Democratic bias, Reynolds once again dances around Instapundit’s true ideological slant, describing himself as a “small ‘L’ libertarian” who before the Iraq War might have been identified as a “quirky lefty.”

Yeah. Right.

One of the advantages blogging has over other forms of journalism is that we get to free ourselves from the shackles of feigned objectivity, thus enabling our readers to judge us within the context of our openly embraced bias. But if, like Reynolds, we couch our political slant in half-hearted half-denials, we’re really no better than Fox News.

As for me, I’m not sure if the segment sheds much more light on who I am or what I do than the few minutes allotted allows. Of more interest might be the extended, unedited interview clips of both me and Reynolds that the BBC has posted to the program’s web page.

And of course, if you can’t get enough of my melodious voice, I invite you to tune in or live stream “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO (Sundays, 7-10PM), and download our weekly, beer-soaked, political blabfest from Podcasting Liberally.

Today is primary election day, so if you have not already voted, please, please do so today. But if you are an absentee voter who does not plan to mail in your ballot, or if you are a polling place voter with no intention of going to the polls, well then… fuck you. People who choose not to exercise their right to vote have absolutely no right to complain about the shitty government elected by those of us who do.

I have decided not to make any primary endorsements or predictions, mostly out of laziness. But I’ll make an exception for the one statewide election today for which the primary is the general — the race between state Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander and handpicked BIAW candidate John Groen.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to cast your ballot for Justice Alexander. But quite frankly, I fear it is hopeless. In fact, I fear for the independence of our entire judiciary.

Here’s what it comes down to: if you are perfectly comfortable having our courts sold to the highest bidder (ie wealthy corporate interests) then by all means vote for Groen, or don’t vote at all. Because whatever you think of his ideology (and it’s awful,) that’s what Groen’s victory will represent.

There is a reason why the BIAW and other right-wing groups have spent $2 million electing Groen — that’s the only way an extremist like him could ever get elected. If he was a well qualified centrist candidate, a couple hundred thousand dollars might have done the trick. But if you want a justice who is absolutely guaranteed to rule in your favor no matter what the issue or case, well, it costs a lot of money.

In fact it costs so much money that unless we reform campaign finance, or change the way we select judges, pretty soon our entire court system will be dominated by judges beholden to or ideologically aligned with wealthy corporate interests. What the BIAW cannot achieve via the legislature or the initiative process they will soon achieve through the courts… you know, like totally dismantling our state’s growth management laws.

And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, because quite frankly we will never be able to come close to matching the right, dollar for dollar. There simply are no special interests who stand to make huge sums of money electing liberal or centrists judges, and so organizations like the BIAW will continue to outspend us four, five… ten to one. Whatever it takes, as long as they can be guaranteed a return on their investment, they can come up with the money. If it’s worth two million dollars it’s worth three, and if it’s worth three it’s worth four or five. That’s where we’re headed.

And once they’ve bought a comfortable majority on the state Supreme Court they’ll move on to the Appeals and Superior Courts. How can I be so sure? Because that’s what has happened in Texas and other states.

But if that’s okay with you, then don’t bother voting.

The Republican Party used to have a reputation as “the Party of Fiscal Responsibility.” At the national level, however, Republicans gave that up when they heard the Siren song of Reaganomics

I haven’t spent much time following the race in Washington’s 4th Congressional District where Democrat Richard Wright is challenging incumbent Republican Rep. “Do Nuthin’ Doc” Hastings, but sources plugged into the district tell me I may have to rewrite this lede come Tuesday night. It turns out that Hastings is facing a surprisingly tough challenge from Benton County Commissioner Claude Oliver, and some Republican insiders are even predicting an Oliver upset in tomorrow’s GOP primary.

Quite frankly, I find this hard to believe, but if Oliver even comes close to Hastings tomorrow it will speak volumes about the degree to which even the Republican base is just plain sick and tired of corruption, incompetence and intransigence from their own national leaders. And if a potential primary upset really is brewing in the 4th CD, with nary a peep from the local media, it will also speak volumes about the failure of our traditional press to connect to voters and report on what’s really happening on the ground instead of just what the political establishment tells them is happening.

A Hastings primary loss would generate national headlines the next day, while catching the local papers with their pants down. Kind of the same position the Spokane media is going to find itself in by ignoring the surging campaign of Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark in the 5th CD.

UPDATE:
Mcjoan has just posted a profile of Peter Goldmark on the front page of Daily Kos, the kind of national netroots attention most local candidates would kill for. And yet… the Spokane media continues to virtually ignore this race, and the buzz that’s building behind the rancher from Okanogan. I guess they the SR likes being scooped.

After months of silence, Rep. Dave Reichert has finally issued a statement regarding reports of mismanagement of the King County Sheriff’s department under his watch:

Reichert’s statement said some of his own efforts to improve officer supervision and oversight were stymied by a lack of support from other county officials. In particular, Reichert mentioned King County Executive Ron Sims.

“I worked as sheriff to address these issues and others but was often prohibited from doing so by successive years of $1 million to $2 million budget cuts,” Reichert said. “I repeatedly expressed to the county executive the need for an increased budget to effectively implement oversight of the behavior of the organization, to ensure policies and procedures are complied with and to create an ongoing auditing process in the Sheriff’s Office.”

What a load of crap. Reichert never had to deal with a budget cut — indeed, his budget grew faster than that of the County as a whole every single year of his tenure.

But you can’t really blame Reichert for his confusion, as he apparently never understood his own budgets in the first place. The truth is, Reichert’s budgets were a mess, repeatedly forcing him to come to the County Council and Executive with unplanned, supplemental budget requests… at a time when the county was struggling to meet revenue shortfalls without raising taxes. And apparently, not a single one of those requests were for increased supervision and oversight.

But what really irks me is the way he trods out the KCGOP’s tired old saw of blaming everything on Ron Sims… the man who appointed him to the Sheriff’s post, launching Reichert on his political career. (If you want to blame Sims for a poor decision, that one’s a doozy.) So much for loyalty.

Reichert’s unprovoked attack on Sims is a slap in the face of the undeserved comity the Executive has shown his former appointee. Ironically, the Seattle P-I had asked Sims to comment on Reichert’s tenure as Sheriff, and Sims declined. In the words of a miffed Sims staffer, the Executive explained that “he wouldn’t be able to say anything good about Reichert’s leadership of the department, and he didn’t want to lie.”

Now that Reichert has fired the opening salvo I hope that Democrats on the Council and in the Executive’s office embrace a little realpolitik. Reichert has a documented record as Sheriff, and voters deserve to know what it really is.

Yup, that’s Sen. Joe Lieberman’s car, and yes, it is parked in a handicapped spot. Campaign ad courtesy of The General.

And speaking of The General’s site, Darryl‘s posted a letter to John N. Nordstrom, thanking him for his contributions to the Christian Identity Movement.

It’s BIAW-Bashing Night, tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, 7PM to 10PM. The lineup could change in response to breaking news, but here’s what I think I’ll be talking about tonight:

7PM: Few right-wing groups are more vocal than the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), which is in the midst of shattering campaign finance records by spending millions of dollars to put their hand-picked candidates on the state Supreme Court. But one hot-button topic they’ve been silent on is the issue of illegal immigration… and now we know why: as the Seattle Times reports today anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of residential construction workers are Latino immigrants, many of them illegal. Did the BIAW bust the unions and replace them with low cost, illegal workers? Are you willing to crack down on immigration if the result is dramatically higher food and housing costs?

8PM: Over $1.8 million has already been spent on behalf of right-wing Supreme Court challenger John Groen, most of it viciously characterizing Chief Justice Gerry Alexander as a senile, baby-killing boozer. What if anything can be done to prevent wealthy special interests like the BIAW from buying the bench? Terry Sullivan from Washington Public Campaigns joins me to discuss public financing of elections, an idea whose time may finally have come. Are you willing to pay to get big money out of local politics?

9PM: We continue our evening of BIAW-bashing when Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly joins me in the studio. In addition to discussing our disgraceful judicial elections, I’m guessing we’ll also touch upon GOP evil-mastermind Karl Rove’s visit this week on behalf of Rep. Dave “Rubberstamp” Reichert, and the state of the US Senate race between Sen. Maria Cantwell and challenger Mike?™ McGavick.

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

Initiative 920 will be on the ballot this fall.

What will happen if I-920 passes? Funds for primary and secondary education will be eliminated. Specifically, funds used for reducing K-12 class size, learning assistance programs, financial aid for Washington low- and middle-income college students, and about 8,000 enrollment slots at state universities will be eliminated. All that comes about through a repeal of the Washington State Estate Tax (or the Blethen Tax as Goldy likes to call it).

Dennis Falk is the sponsor and campaign director of I-920. Last June, Neil Modie of the Seattle P-I gave this brief biographical sketch of Dennis Falk,

…I-920’s sponsor, campaign manager and chairman, Dennis Falk, a former Seattle police officer and a longtime leader of the ultraconservative John Birch Society.
In 1978, Falk co-chaired Save Our Moral Ethics, an unsuccessful initiative campaign to repeal a Seattle law barring housing and employment discriminations against gays and lesbians.

“I think it certainly raises eyebrows that some of the leading corporate citizens in the state are funding a John Birch Society organizer, who is paying himself,” Christian Sinderman, a spokesman for the opponents and a veteran Democratic campaign operative, said Thursday. Falk is paying himself $950 a month from campaign funds to manage I-920.

So this initiative is being run by a homopobe who is the lead Bircher for Washington State. (Goldy previously profiled Dennis Falk and his Bircher ways.)

But, Dennis Falk is not just your ordinary ultra-right wing, anti-commie, homophobe, UN conspiracy theorist. Nope…Dennis Falk has a long history of involvement with more extremist groups. In 1986, before being kicked off the Seattle Police Force for “for shooting to death a fleeing, mentally retarded man,” Falk was involved in another movement.

From the Seattle Times (“Group Hoping For End To Income Tax,” Dee Norton. Feb 12, 1986. pg. D.2):

A group of Seattle police officers and firefighters who call themselves constitutionalists want the city to stop deducting federal income tax from their paychecks.

Seattle police officer Dennis Falk and Sgt. Keith Engstrom have joined with 15 to 20 other officers and firefighters in the effort. The group hopes a federal appeals-court case scheduled to be heard in Seattle starting today will bolster their position.
[…]

The income-tax war for Engstrom, Falk and the others became confrontational several years ago when they submitted their income tax withholding forms to the city. Falk said he was exempt from paying income taxes.

The group claimed that, because of punctuation, capitalization and spelling changes when the 16th Amendment was being ratified by the states, the federal income tax is void. The courts disagreed.

Who are the “constitutionalists?” At worst, the “constitutionalist anti-tax movement” includes the Freemen movement (originally in Montana) and the Posse Comitatus.

I’ve found no evidence that Falk is personally involved in any citizen militia or other violent movements (except…um…in his former capacity as a cop), but he is more broadly involved in the Christian Patriot movement, as this 1996 article suggests .

What is the Christian Patriot movement all about? From Wikipedia:

The Christian Patriot movement is a loose association of groups and people in the United States. These groups share common interests including conspiracy theories, a Christian theology which places special emphasis on eschatology and apocalyptic matters, and unorthodox interpretations of law, economics, and the United States Constitution. The movement is generally considered to be part of the political far right in the United States, and is best described as a movement which bridges the gap between the more mainstream evangelical Christianity and the more extremist Christian Identity movement, two movements which otherwise have little in common with each other.
[…]

The origins of the movement are debated. Some researchers believe the movement is rooted in a wide array of American populist and xenophobic movements, including the Know-Nothing movement, the Ku Klux Klan, Father Coughlin and U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s anti-Communism, America First, George Wallace‘s segregationism, and Barry Goldwater‘s conservatism and libertarianism. Other researchers more specifically locate the movement’s origins in the rural economic depression and overwhelming debt in the 1980s combined with a feeling of disenfranchisement and anger among White males in response to the Civil Rights movement, and Feminism. The movement proper began in the late 1970s or early 1980s, with especially strong followings in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, with the foundation of the Christian Patriot Association in Oregon and book publishers such as Emissary Publications. Posse Comitatus was a somewhat related albeit more radical movement which was also active at the time.
[…]

Some views commonly associated with The Christian Patriot movement, sometimes considered synonymous with the Militia Movement, are generally organized around a belief that world events are secretly controlled by some group such as the Illuminati, the Council of Foreign Relations, international banking families, Communists, Jews, the United Nations, or some combination of the above, and that conspiracy will culminate in a new world order conspiracy, which is either present or impending.

Christian Patriots hold to a strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and are closely associated with the tax revolt movement. They may encourage people to get rid of their Social Security Number, believing it to be an unconstitutional national identity card, and to stop paying income taxes, based on their belief that the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is illegitimate.

Uh-huh…not just your ordinary tax dodger. We can probably best describe Dennis Falk as an ultra-right wing, anti-commie, homophobe, biggot, whack-job UN conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, citizen activist.

It’s unbelievable that a right-wing wack-job like Dennis Falk could actually inspire a grassroots movement to get an initiative on the ballot.

It is unbelievable because…it’s not true. Initiative 920 is not based on anything resembling a grassroots movement. The majority of the funding or I-920 has come from Martin Selig who has given $807,500 to the I-920 campaign . Big bucks, to the tune of $357,500, have also come from Michael Dunmire (a.k.a. Eyman’s Sugar Daddy). And, as Goldy mentioned, $25,000 came from John N. Nordstrom for the signature drive.

Given Mr. Falks extremist views, one has to wonder whether these people actually know about Mr. Falk and his movement. Or are they part of the movement, too?

(Bonus question: Given the common connections through Dunmire, what is Eyman’s involvement in the Birchers and the Christian Patriot movement?)

Update: I was wrong about Dunmire donating to I-920—I searched the PDC database and got all results thinking they were restricted to I-920. Dunmire dumped his pile-o-money into I-917. I guess that lets Eyman off the hook. Also John N. Nordstrom’s contributions to I-920 to date have trippled to $75,000 from when Goldy wrote his earlier post. I had more to say about that at Jesus’ General Sunday night.

Here we go! Josh at Talking Points Memo finds this NRCC document showing expenditures of almost $2 million being used to fund production and placement or mailing of “issue ads.” (Of course, the term “issue ad” is a euphemism for “attack ad“).

The expenditures, being used against 20 Democratic congressional candidates, are nicely summarized by mcjoan at Daily Kos.

I’m not surprised to find that Darcy Burner is one of the 20 NRCC targets. Here is the entry for the Washington State 8th Congressional district race:

MAJORITY COMMUNICATIONS INC.
274 MARCONI BLVD.
SUITE 260
COLUMBUS, Ohio 43215

Purpose of Expenditure: Mailing Service
This Committee OPPOSES The Following Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives
State is Washington in District 08
Date Expended = 09/15/2006
Person Completing Form: CHRISTOPHER J. WARD
Date Signed = 09/15/2006
Amount Expended = $25586.91
Calendar YTD Per Election for Office Sought = $41861.91

Let’s see…we had a visit by Bush and a visit by Karl Rove to raise money for Rep. Dave Reichert, the NRCC has Darcy Burner on their top twenty hit list, and they have targeted $42,000 for the race to date. Anybody dismissing Darcy Burner’s chances in this race is simply in denial. Darcy was leading in the last public poll, but the Republican attack ads will turn that around if left unanswered.

You know where this is going…. If you haven’t yet given (or even if you have), please consider a small donation to counter the NRCC’s attack. Even $5.00 will help.

Click here to tell the NRCC to shove it!

The Seattle PI today reports that Sheriff-turned-Congressman Dave Reichert has finally broken his long silence over the problems uncovered in the King County Sheriff’s Office.

And now, as you might expect from a man of his integrity and credibility, Reichert has taken full responsibility for the failings in the Sheriff’s office under his leadership.

Just kidding! I mean you didn’t really expect that, did you? He is up for reelection, you know. No, Reichert did the right thing here…he found someone else to blame:

“Many of the issues the [Blue Ribbon investigation panel] identifies are issues that I worked to solve when I was sheriff and it is gratifying that many of their proposed solutions echo those that both I and Sheriff (Sue) Rahr have put forward,” Reichert said.

Reichert’s statement said some of his own efforts to improve officer supervision and oversight were stymied by a lack of support from other county officials. In particular, Reichert mentioned King County Executive Ron Sims.

“I worked as sheriff to address these issues and others but was often prohibited from doing so by successive years of $1 million to $2 million budget cuts,” Reichert said. “I repeatedly expressed to the county executive the need for an increased budget to effectively implement oversight of the behavior of the organization, to ensure policies and procedures are complied with and to create an ongoing auditing process in the Sheriff’s Office.”

Uh-huh…so it was Ron Sims’ fault!

Well…kind-of. You see the budget for the Sheriff’s Office increased every year from 2000 to 2004.

A spokesman for Sims said Friday that, other than a request for six more sergeants in 2001, the executive’s office could not find any requests by Reichert for the funding the statement described.

“We don’t have evidence of that,” Sims spokeswoman Carolyn Duncan said.

Duncan added that the Sheriff’s Office budget consistently has fared better than budgets of other departments over the past several years. Since 2000, the sheriff’s budget has grown by $32 million.

“The bottom line was, their budget has increased every year when other departments were taking cuts,” Duncan said.

The PI cites budget figures from 2000 to 2004 as $84.8, $95, $99, $101, and $106.7 million. In fact, in 2001 the Sheriff’s Office under-spent its budget by nearly $1.5 million.

So…it hardly seems that the underlying problems could really be about money. The series of articles published by the Seattle P-I documented problems with morale, discipline, and officer misconduct—the kinds of things that money affects only superficially in the hands of a real leader; so, maybe we can still pin this on Ron Sims….

The P-I‘s series led to the formation of the blue-ribbon panel, which issued its final report Monday. That report described multiple “longstanding” problems with officer supervision and oversight. It detailed 43 findings, six major recommendations and 36 other suggestions the panel said need to be implemented to repair a broken officer accountability system.

Though it did not single out any past administrations, the panel specifically noted among its recommendations that employee performance evaluations, which were eliminated under Reichert, should be reinstituted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so, how would eliminating employee performance evaluations cause accountability and morale problems? I mean, isn’t it simpler to just say that it was Ron Sims’ fault? After all, Reichert can show how he was instrumental in changing the culture in the Sheriff’s Office…

In his statement, Reichert also noted his administration “established the core values of the Sheriff Office, leadership, integrity, service and teamwork.”

Former County Executive Randy Revelle, who served as chairman of the blue-ribbon panel, said just having such core values isn’t enough: “It’s one thing to have them posted on a wall. But the real test is, are they guiding and influencing the character of your employees? We didn’t get the impression they were.”

But, but, but, it was Reichert who got the policy down on paper, put up the posters, and made sure everyone got the memo…see? So it must have been Ron Sims’ fault that things didn’t “take”…right?

It sounds like the only thing missing was…you know…that leadership thing.

So…um…I hope you will join Dave Reichert and me in pointing out the obvious implication: the lack of leadership in the King County Sheriff’s office was Ron Sims’ fault!

Today is a big day over at Sound Politics! Goldy’s good friend Stefan actually influenced the press! The Seattle Times published a story on a new scandal that Stefan broke!

The story stems from an event described last Thursday by Andrew at NPI. The event, held at the Redmond Town Center, was a benefit called “Women in Leadership, Addressing the Challenges of a Changing World.” Christine Gregoire was one of the speakers…

The Governor ended her remarks by announcing a surprise, instant auction to raise money for Darcy Burner. She offered a dinner for two at the Governor’s Mansion in December and kicked off the bidding at $100. The winning bid ended up being nearly $4,000.

As a result of this post, perennial political candidate and HorsesAss participant Richard Pope filed this complaint with the Attorney General. Not surprisingly, Stefan picked-up on the complaint and suggested some form of “corruption.”

Today’s Seattle Times picked up on the “scandal” that…

…raised an uncomfortable question for Gregoire: Is she selling access to the publicly owned mansion?

[…]

The complaint, filed by a Bellevue attorney who lost two elections to Gregoire, accuses the governor of misusing the mansion in violation of state law that bars state employees from using state facilities “for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election.”

The complaint, which will be investigated, could break new ethics ground in Washington. The Executive Ethics Board has never been asked to rule on use of the mansion for political fundraising, said Susan Harris, the board’s executive director.

But Harris and Gregoire’s staff say the mansion does not appear to fall under the law cited in the complaint because the building is also the governor’s home.

“We’d look differently at it if she was not required to live there,” Harris said.

Holly Armstrong, Gregoire’s spokeswoman, said the governor has not held fundraisers at the mansion. When Gregoire holds private dinners, which is how she sees the auctioned-off dinner, she reimburses the state for food and her chef’s time, Armstrong said.

“It’s where she lives,” Armstrong said. “She can invite anyone over for dinner she wants. She just can’t use public funds.”

Pope’s complaint does raise an interesting question, because in some circumstances the State of Washington is in the landlord business. In addition to the Governor, who is required to reside in the executive mansion, university presidents, faculty in university housing, students living in campus dorms, and residents of state-owned care facilities are all people whose residence is state-owned. Do all these people give up their right to political speech while in their residence?

In other words, does the law (RCW 42.52.180) that prohibits use of state property for political campaigning by state employees apply to a resident (tenant) in their state-owned home? I spent some time this morning looking through the RCW, WAC, university housing handbooks, the Ethics Board FAQ, and Washington State case law. I found very little relevant material. Apparently the question has not been generally addressed in this state.

The issue ultimately comes down to whether RCW 42.52.180 trumps the constitutionally protected rights to privacy, free speech, and free association for citizens in state-owned residences. It seems unlikely—even for people who, unlike the governor, have options for their landlord—that the law could be viewed as applying to an individual’s residence.

If the Governor and her family are not allowed to privately invite guests into their home for the benefit of a political campaign then it logically follows that a university student (who happens to work for the state) living in a state-owned university dorm, cannot legally make political campaign signs or solicit campaign contributions while in their own room.

Nope…the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution take precedence here.

In the specific case of the executive mansion, there are already guidelines in place, as Andrew reports from his communications with the Governor’s office:

…the Governor is perfectly entitled to hold private events at the mansion. The office added that there is actually historical precedent for this—dating from the Evans administration, when the issue was first raised.

The mansion has hosted many private events in the past, the Governor’s office says, including non-political functions (like a reception for the Boys & Girls Club).

No funds from the state treasury are used to put on private events, and guidelines from the State Auditor’s office are carefully followed.

So, congratulations to Stefan for actually getting noticed by the press (he seemed to be in something of a dry spell). But, in keeping with his record during last year’s gubernatorial election contest, I’m guessing that Stefan will end up on the wrong side of this issue.

The latest SurveyUSA poll shows incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) leading Republican nutcase challenger Katherine Harris by a comfortable margin of 53 percent to 38 percent. SurveyUSA concludes that Nelson is well positioned to hold his Senate seat.

By comparison, the most recent SurveyUSA poll of WA’s Senate race shows Democratic incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell leading Republican challenger Mike?™ McGavick by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin.

Hmm. That means that after more than a year of campaigning and nine months of television ads, McGavick is still drawing a smaller percentage of voters than the controversial and bitterly divisive Harris… a candidate who has become the butt of jokes nationwide.

I’m just saying.

As long as we’re on the topic of Karl Rove today….

Lynn Allen from Evergreen Politics saw Jim Hightower last night and got an interviewed with him. She asked him about his experiences with Karl Rove.

It’s payback time!

(Via David Postman.)