HorsesAss.Org

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.)

Maria Cantwell has weighed in on the Karl Rove visit. I’ll just reprint the entire letter that she sent to supporters today. As the letter suggests, it is unusual (and, frankly, remarkable) that a senatorial candidate in the middle of an important race is actually asking you to send money to another candidate! In this case to Darcy Burner.

Dear Friend,

Karl Rove is here

There’s a major political upset in the making here in Washington state – one that could tilt the balance of power in Congress to the Democrats. Today, Karl Rove is here to stop that from happening.

In our 8th Congressional District, Darcy Burner is on the verge of defeating her Republican incumbent in one of the most hotly contested races in the country. Darcy has been surging in the polls and has the Republicans scrambling. They know they can’t afford to lose this seat and they are pulling out all the stops: George Bush has been here, Dick Cheney has been here, and now it’s Karl Rove’s turn.

Today, Rove is headlining a huge high-dollar fundraiser for Darcy’s opponent. This is a big moment for the Republicans and they will raise a lot of money today. But, if we act right now, we can turn this into a big moment for Darcy.

Contribute to Darcy Burner now

You know that I am currently in a tough battle for my own reelection and that my race has also been targeted by the national Republican Party and the White House. Given my situation, I hope the fact that I’m asking you to help Darcy serves as an indicator of how important this race is to our country. Today, with Karl Rove here working for her opponent, I don’t think there is anything more important than helping my friend fight back against what is coming her way.

Contribute to Darcy Burner now

Darcy is going to be an outstanding Congresswoman. She is smart, experienced, and courageous. She will stand up to the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, big oil companies, and special interests. She will stand up for us and for our values. We not only need to win back Congress, but we need to win it back with people like Darcy Burner.

When Dick Cheney came to town you came through for me. When Bill Frist came to town you came through for me. Today, with Karl Rove in town and control of Congress hanging in the balance, we need to come through for Darcy.

Thank you,

Maria Cantwell

Another thing I find remarkable is that Maria has added Darcy to her ActBlue page. This further goes to show (as does the Rove visit itself) that the 8th CD race is an extremely important and competitive race.

Please listen to the Senator from Washington State and give what you can to Darcy!

Update: The Cantwell campaign issued a press release at around 4:45 pm:

In an email appeal, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell urged her supporters to contribute to U.S. House candidate Darcy Burner’s campaign. In just four hours, Team Cantwell has raised more than $31,000 for Burner’s campaign.

I imagine “Turd Blossom,” George Bush’s nickname for Karl Rove, refers to Rove’s ability to take a pile of shit and make something out of it. In any case, watch where you step today, because Turd Blossom is coming to town. He will be here to raise money for freshman Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington’s 8th congressional district .

Of 435 House races potentially up for grabs this November, the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert has attracted an extraordinary amount of attention. Just a few months ago, Karl Rove sent George W. Bush to raise money for Reichert. The plan may have backfired a bit , as Reichert raised less money, and Burner more money, than expected.

Now, Karl Rove, himself, has taken on the task of turning Reichert’s turd of a campaign into a blossom.

By almost all measures, Reichert is in big trouble. In an ordinary year, an incumbent with widespread name recognition and a good head of hair would be pretty safe. Reichert should particularly be safe against a political newcomer. But this year isn’t an ordinary year. This year there is the smell of voter dissatisfaction in the air.

The dissatisfaction is coming from three places: (1) a general dissatisfaction with incumbents, (2) a specific backlash against Bush Republicans, and (3) from candidates with the scent of corruption and Abramoff about them. Unfortunately for Reichert, all three are at work against him: he is a Bush Republican incumbent with a little bit of the stench of corruption and Abramoff after taking money from convicted former Congressman Duke Cunningham and the newest member of the Convict’s Club, Bob Ney.

And it doesn’t help that Richert is rather inarticulate, slow off the mark, and politically naive, running against an exceptionally bright and energetic Darcy Burner.

Reichert’s tenuous position is clear from the two most recent public polls, the first showing Reichert ahead and the second showing Burner ahead. The race is now rated a toss-up by the New York Times; and both CQ Politics and the Cook Political Report have upgraded the race from Republican to a more precarious leans Republican.

The most remarkable sign of Darcy Burner’s momentum in this race is that she has out-fundraised Reichert for the last three quarters!

These things just shouldn’t happen—not in an ordinary year.

The big question now is whether the net effect of Karl Rove’s visit will be to help or hurt Reichert. It is telling that the event is a private affair for some 100 wealthy donors and was not publicly announced. The Washington State Republican’s chief political clairvoyant Chris Vance (you know, the guy who could tell us just how the election contest would turn out) sees no problems for Reichert:

“In my view, there are no pitfalls (to a Rove visit) because the voters out there who have very strong feelings about this one way or the other have already made up their minds,” said Chris Vance, a former state Republican Party chairman and now a public affairs consultant with the Gallatin Group.

“Having Karl Rove here will not change anybody’s mind. But it will raise a bunch of money,” Vance said.

The trouble with Vance’s theory is that that when Bush came to raise money for Reichert, Burner also got a big fundraising boost. Naturally, when Rove’s fundraiser became public, the Darcy Burner campaign responded with a special fundraising drive focused on the visit.

I think an even bigger problem is that this visit will highlight and solidify the relationship between Reichert and the Bush administration. Who in their right mind can now believe that a reelected Reichert would vote against the administration’s interests when both Bush and Rove personally flew in to save his bacon? If Reichert had some semblance of independence during his current term (based on a couple of non-critical and pre-authorized votes), he loses it entirely by his new obligations to Bush and Rove. Indeed, in this political climate, and this particular congressional district, Karl Rove may leave more damage than can be fixed by the money he brings in.

I mean, if you try growing flowers on a turd, the wrong environment will leave you with just a stinking pile of shit.

(Send a message that Washington State will not support candidates beholden to the failures and incompetence of the Bush administration. Give something to Darcy Burner today. Remember, the number of donors is an important measure of success, so even if you can only afford five bucks, your donation strengthens the message considerably.)

I will be coastally impaired this weekend, so Darryl from Hominid Views will be supplementing my meager posting with his own unique brand of wit and wisdom. I expect you all to show him the same kindness and respect in the comment threads as you’ve always shown me.

Well, at least Mike?™ McGavick is finally making an effort to talk about an issue:

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Mike McGavick has proposed mandatory substance-abuse screening for welfare recipients with children.

In a speech to the Pasco-Kennewick Rotary on Wednesday, the former Senate aide and Safeco Insurance CEO proposed a “three-strike” requirement that could lead to mandatory drug-abuse testing and treatment, reduction of direct cash benefits and, in some cases, removal of children from the home.

Yeah… because… most people who have gone through the foster care system would tell you that they’d much rather do that than be with their parents and siblings.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for providing more treatment to parents with substance abuse problems, and I certainly recognize that there are times when removing the children from the home is in their best interest. But this “three strikes” crap is exactly the kind of pandering, simplistic campaign rhetoric that gets turned into pandering, simplistic law.

Washington state’s own assistance programs already include substance abuse screening, and uncooperative clients can be removed from the rolls. And of course Child Protective Services can already remove children from the home if the caseworker believes substance abuse is endangering their welfare.

Leaving aside the obvious irony of Mike?™ calling for a crackdown on substance abuse, I guess my biggest question for the candidate would be whether he has a dollar figure attached to his proposal, and how he expects to pay for it?

UPDATE:
The Seattle P-I editorial board chimes in:

He talks about help for states that would implement his ideas. That’s fine, except that states are overwhelmed with foster care challenges without mandating that more children be taken from their homes. Then there’s the shortfall in mental health care and treatment for all forms of abuse (including alcohol, which he overlooks). We’d like to see McGavick confront those politicians who slight these needs.

(The emphasis is mine.)

Yesterday I mentioned that I’ll be joining a panel discussion with Janeane Garofalo and fellow bloggers Atrios and Matt Stoller, at Town Hall on Oct. 7. Well, I’ll also be appearing at Town Hall next week, emceeing the Seattle Follies:

Seattle Follies: The Jeopardy Edition
Thursday, September 21 , 7:30 PM

Seattle Follies opens its fourth season with special guest Ken Jennings, the record holder of the longest winning streak on the TV quiz show Jeopardy. He faces off against Nicole Brodeur, columnist for the Seattle Times; Steve Scher, host of KUOW’s Weekday; and The Stranger’s associate editor and Police Beat columnist Charles Mudede. Channeling Alex Trebek is David Goldstein, KIRO radio host and the Seattle Weekly Readers’ Pick Best Political Blogger. Fifth Avenue Theatre stars Billie Wildrick and Candice Donehoo, with David Armstrong, producing artistic director, provide musical entertainment, accompanied by Seattle’s favorite cabaret performer and composer Rich Gray. Beer, wine, and copies of Brainiac, Jennings’ personal tour through the seamy underside of television trivia, will be available for purchase. Presented with University Book Store. Downstairs at Town Hall, enter on Seneca Street.

Tickets are $10-$12 through Brown Paper Tickets, or $13-$15 at the door. Please take pity on me and pack the house. It’ll be fun. I hope.

And while we’re on the subject of Town Hall, don’t forget that Jim Hightower will be there tonight at 7PM, speaking about just and sustainable economic development. Amongst many other things, Hightower is a pioneer in liberal talk radio, and a bit of a personal hero of mine… so I’m really pissed that I can’t make it.

Majority Action just bought a week of cable in the Seattle market. There’s blood in the water.

To Vicki Rippie – Executive Director
Phil Stutzman – Director of Compliance
Washington State Public Disclosure Commission

Sept. 14, 2006

Dear Ms. Rippie,

I am writing to request that you add my name to the complaint filed on Sept. 13, 2006 by Steve Zemke of Majority Rules, alleging that Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse is hiding the source of its funding in violation of PDC rules and Washington state statute.

Now that record amounts are being spent on judicial races — an astounding $1.7 million on behalf of challenger John Groen, weeks before the primary — it is more important than ever that voters be promptly and accurately informed of which special interests and individuals are providing the money. Anything less would make your Commission’s mandate virtually meaningless.

Thank you for your time,

David Goldstein

I sent this email this morning, and I encourage you all to copy my letter, modify it as you wish, and email it to Ms. Rippie.

That said, I’m rather discouraged that we can do anything to block far right-wing interests from completely taking over our courts over the next few years. We simply don’t have the financial resources to compete with moneyed interests who have so much to gain by buying Supreme Court justices. And pretty soon these right wing justices will have a firm enough majority to block any legislative reform that might limit the cash flow.

Once they have the Supreme Court, they will start focusing their efforts on Superior Court races. You think I’m being paranoid? Well, this is exactly what has already happened in a number of states around the nation, where the US Chamber of Commerce alone has spent $250 million on local races.

The Alexander-Groen race is the most important contest in Tuesday’s election; since there are only two candidates, there will be no general. I know I should have more faith in voters, but I simply can’t see how Alexander can survive the overwhelming tide of negative ads that have painted this Dan Evans Republican as a radical, senile baby killer.

And I find it ironic that there are those in the media who continue to express outrage at what they see as irresponsible muckraking on the part of bloggers like me, yet shrug off $1.3 million $1.7 million of vicious lies by powerful and wealthy business groups as nothing more than politics as usual. Fuck that.

UPDATE:
A combined $1.7 million has now been spent on behalf of Groen. I’ve updated this post accordingly.

Token-Republican Jim Nobles showed up at Drinking Liberally last night, as promised, breathalyzer in hand. Now all we needed was a victim test subject to conduct our scientific experiment to see exactly how many drinks it takes to score a .17 blood-alcohol level — what the Urban Dictionary will one day define as “Mike McGavick Drunk.”

Sandeep’s years at The Stranger certainly left him well trained for the event, but he was too sleight of frame to approximate a 35-year-old McGavick, whereas as Nigel, at 240 pounds, was definitely too big. As for me, I’m too much of a pussy; I don’t think I could get through a six pack with throwing up.

Then in walked a newbie, Patrick: about 30-years-old, 185 pounds, and brashly proud of his Irish heritage (“I could drink McGavick under the table,” he bragged when I challenged him to donate his liver to science.) Best of all, he arrived with his own designated driver, his wife Tara. We’d found our man.

Patrick raised his first Mac & Jack’s at 8:25, and determinedly worked his way through four pints over the next hour with nothing but a hummus plate and some roasted garlic to buffer the alcohol. “I’m definitely drunk… I shouldn’t be driving” he told us at 9:25, before he courageously knocked back another pint.

At 9:35, five beers and an hour and ten minutes into the experiment, Patrick blew a 0.125, well past the legal limit of 0.08, but far short of McGavick’s state title.

At this point, I should take a moment to talk about what constitutes “a beer” or “a drink.” In my earlier posts on McGavick’s DUI I pointed out that all the online blood-alcohol calculators and charts suggest that it would take 8 to 9 drinks over the course of any hour for a 200 pound man to reach a 0.17, but of course, different beers have different alcohol content. For example, a Pyramid Snowcap might pack a 7.0% alcohol wallop, while it may surprise you to learn that at 4.0% Guinness has one of the lowest alcohol contents of any beer.

McGavick claims to have been drinking beer that fateful night, and we can be pretty damn sure that back in circa 1993 DC, he wasn’t drinking hopped up microbrews. Corona and Rolling Rock were pretty hip with the East Coast in crowd back then, both of which come in at 4.5% alcohol, while imports like Becks, Heineken and St. Pauli Girl top out at about 5.0% (as do standards like Coors, Budweiser and Miller.) So for the sake of comparison, let’s just assume that McGavick was drinking a 5.0% beer.

Patrick on the other hand was drinking a heftier, 5.5% alcohol Mac & Jack’s… at least he was until 9:48 when half-way through a sixth pint he switched to whiskey because he was getting too full.

10:05, halfway through a generous double Jack & Coke, Tara notes that her hubby of four months was “gettin’ loud,” and at 10:12, 1 hour and 37 minutes, and 7.5 drinks into the evening, Patrick blew a disappointing 0.14.

Patrick was clearly having trouble keeping up with his liver’s alcohol-processing capacity. Squinty-eyed, he started to question the test results

“I’m drunk… I’m so drunk you don’t even know,” Patrick slurred. “If I got in your car right now, I’d hit the car in front and behind me. FURTHERMORE, we need to look at how far he drove, because I couldn’t even make it a block.”

But drunk as he clearly was, he still wasn’t Mike McGavick Drunk, because he still had the common sense to know that he shouldn’t drive.

Still, nothing gets an Irishman’s Irish up like a challenge unmet and a drink undrunk, and so Patrick soldiered through yet another Jack & Coke. Finally, at 10:55, two hours, 30 minutes, and 8.5 drinks into our experiment, Patrick blew a .216.

Considering that McGavick blew his .17 nearly 90 minutes after being pulled over, we considered Patrick’s goal to have been met. Plus, we started to feel sorry for him, so we called the experiment a success.

Adjusting for alcohol content, I’d say Patrick’s 5 and a half nearly-topped-off pints of Mac & Jack’s was approximately equivalent to about 7 12-ounce bottles of Heineken, giving Patrick a McGavick-adjusted total of 10 drinks over 2 and a half hours. But what makes McGavick’s accomplishment all the more impressive is that he maintained his BAC over several hours, and still managed to blow a .17 at least an hour and half after he stopped drinking.

But however you want to compare the two’s alcohol consumption, there is one thing our little experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt: .17 is stinking drunk… well beyond the level of intoxication that even a drunk man would consider to be within the safe driving range. McGavick had been quoted as saying that he knew he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel the minute he was pulled over. But I’m pretty sure he knew he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel the minute he got behind it.

As for me, after my usual three Manny’s (5.5%) over a typical two and a half hour evening, I blew a .039%, less than half the legal limit. So there.

Foolproof Performing Arts is bringing actress, comedienne and liberal radio talker Janeane Garofalo to Seattle’s Town Hall to headline a panel discussion:

Janeane Garofalo and friends* discuss Politics and the Press:
Fair and Balanced or Lazy and Cowed?

October 7, 2006 — 8:00 PM
Tickets: $25.00 to $75.00

Janeane’s “friends” include bloggers Atrios, Matt Stoller and, um… me.

Well, actually, I’ve never met Janeane, but I wouldn’t mind counting her as a friend. I’ve always had a thing for funny women.

Anyway, I’m not sure I really belong on a panel like this, but I guess I’m there to give the local angle. The discussion will be moderated by Mother Jones Radio host Angie Coiro, and I expect it not only to be a fascinating evening, but damn entertaining.

This is a special fundraising benefit event for Foolproof, and I expect it to sell out, so buy your tickets soon. And oh yeah… most of the cost of your ticket is tax deductible.

The results are final, and of the 266,034 signatures Tim Eyman submitted for I-917, the Secretary of State’s office rejected 46,859, leaving Tim 5,705 signatures shy of the 224,880 signature threshold. That’s a rejection rate of 17.6 percent… a pretty typical number.

As the Seattle Times’ David Postman reports, Sec. of State Sam Reed will have to ask the Legislature for a supplemental appropriation to cover the $125,000 cost of I-917’s month-long signature verification process. There has been some discussion in Postman’s comment thread about how we might raise the revenues to pay for Tim’s folly. My suggestion is an excise tax on the sale of fraternity watches.

Although I have a reputation as one of the state’s most vocal Eyman-bashers, I’ve actually been rather unenthused about covering Timmy’s latest debacle, leaving the task to other, equally-abled bloggers. There was a time when I thought the steady weight of bad (ie. accurate) press could crush Eyman’s operations by drying up his fundraising, and as Emmett posts over at Olympia Time, the number of contributions to Timmy’s campaigns have indeed plummeted from over 5,000 with 2001’s I-747, to around 700 for I-917. But just last year Tim picked up a sugar daddy in the form of multi-millionaire investment banker Michael Dunmire, and as long as he has one really rich guy willing to personal bankroll Tim’s initiatives (and rather comfortable lifestyle,) there’s really no way to keep him off the ballot. That is, unless Tim fucks up.

Which leads me to a post over at NPI, in which Andrew speculates on exactly how Tim managed to fuck up I-917. The most plausible explanation, Andrew thinks, is that Tim, well… fucked up. He thinks Tim simply miscounted, and by the time he discovered his mistake it was too late.

I think another plausible explanation is that Tim had a track record of $30 Car Tab initiatives to go on, and he simply stopped paying for signatures in early June because he assumed a certain quantity of volunteer signatures would pour in by the end of the month, like they had in the past. But believing his own press releases, Tim didn’t count on the degree to which his grass roots support had collapsed over the intervening years (as evidenced by the collapse of his grassroots fundraising,) and the expected signatures simply never materialized.

Of course, we’ll never know the truth because, at the risk of restating the obvious, Tim Eyman is liar — a simple fact of life reinforced when Andrew once again catches Timmy in yet another lie.

Tim stubbornly sticks by his claim that he really turned in over 300,000 signatures, and in a recent email to supporters he attempts to back this up by producing a week by week log of signatures gathered. For example, his weekly report shows that way back on June 6th of 2006, Tim had already collected 200,694 paid signatures, and 63,032 from volunteers.

Problem is, as Andrew astutely observes, Eyman gave a press conference back on June 6th in which he told a rather pissed off throng of reporters that he had successfully gathered exactly 142,613 signatures at that point in time.

As far as “Save Our $30 Tabs” Initiative 917 is concerned, in the past 4 months, our thousands of supporters have successfully gathered 142,613 signatures. We need an additional 140,000 signatures in the next 4 weeks. Reaching the halfway point in signatures is a huge milestone but it’s clear that we’ve got our work cut out for us. We need one last big blitz of signatures from our supporters before July 7th to qualify for the ballot.

He was either lying then, or lying now, or as I’m guessing, lying both times. But any way you look at it, Tim’s a liar.

Not that this is news or anything. But is does make you wonder why a supposedly respectable businessman like Michael Dunmire would continue his business relationship with Tim when he has so clearly proven to be both incompetent and dishonest?

Admittedly, I’ve been a little tough on Mike?™ McGavick recently, so as a gesture of good will (kinda a bipartisan PSA,) I thought I’d pass along this message that recently went out to Eastside Republicans:

Mike McGavick will be taping a TV commercial today, Tuesday, September 12, at 2:00 p.m. at the Downtown Bellevue Park just south of Bellevue Square. They’re looking for a big crowd of people to be “extras” in the commercial. If you have time that afternoon and can come on down for the taping, I’m sure it will be fun! We’re asked to wear “nice” clothes, preferably not T-shirts and jeans. Hope to see you there!

So if you happen to be in the area, stop on by — it’ll be fun! But remember, no T-shirts. And especially, no T-shirts that say things like “Maria Cantwell for Senate” or “Bush Lied,” because that would just be inappropriate. I also wouldn’t wear a T-shirt advertising Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or WSDOT’s “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” campaign. Hats and T-shirts advertising beer or liquor products also probably wouldn’t be a good idea… though I’m told Mike?™ has a fondness for Guinness (who doesn’t?) so maybe he’ll make an exception for that?

And whatever you do, don’t show up and set off air-horns every time the cameras start rolling, like those bastards gleefully did some years back at a Hillary Clinton rally, drowning out the speech so that none of us in the back could hear a word she was saying. That would be just plain rude.

I’m just saying.