HorsesAss.Org

Open thread

by — ,

It’s a beautiful summer day, so go outside and play.

Or you could sit at your computer and argue about stuff like… let’s see now… the fact that Mike!™ McGavick supports teaching all theories in publics schools, even really bogus, nonscientific ones like Intelligent Design. Or maybe that the Eastern Washington news media just absolutely refuses to cover Democratic congressional challengers. Or maybe that the oil industry is so desperate to create some grass roots buzz to counter Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” that Exxon actually invented an amateur filmmaker.

Centrism is for suckers

by — ,

It is times like this when I really curse the New York Times for putting it’s columnists behind a paid subscription firewall.

Paul Krugman’s latest column — “Centrism Is for Suckers” — is an absolute must read for those “moderates” in both parties who take issue with the aggressive, take no prisoners partisanship of HA and much of the liberal blogosphere. It is also an important lesson for those independent minded voters who believe they can still afford to pick and choose candidates regardless of party affiliation, at a time when our Republican controlled Congress steadfastly refuses to exercise its constitutional obligation to act as a check and balance on one of the most authoritarian and ruthless administrations in American history.

If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.

The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren’t even in Congress when the vote took place.

Oops. But the bigger question is, aren’t business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?

The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections.

[…]

Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club’s executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, “We choose people, not parties.” And it’s true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.

But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naive today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.

Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.

Perhaps I’ve already blockquoted more than the Fair Use Doctrine allows, but it would be a worse transgression not to include Krugman’s final paragraph:

The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.

I for one do not wish to be a “useful idiot” and that explains why I work so hard to elect Democrats — not because I have any particular allegiance to the Democratic Party, but because I understand it is the only way to enact progressive policies while fending off political attacks from the right. This is the political world we live in, and those who ignore the letter next to a candidate’s name on the ballot are ignoring political reality.

I’m not saying this is a good thing — it’s just the way things are.

Reichert “push-poll” smears Burner

by — ,

How scared are Dave Reichert’s folks about facing Democratic challenger Darcy Burner? Scared enough that they conducted extensive polling in June, yet didn’t leak a single drop of data to the media. Scared enough that even the NRCC publicly admits he’s vulnerable. And apparently, scared enough that they’re already running Karl Rove-style push-polls… a full three months before the election.

I’ve heard from three constituents who are just absolutely pissed off about being subjected to a telephone ad campaign masquerading as a political survey… a push-poll clearly designed to pump up Reichert while spreading misinformation about Burner. Push-polling is dirty politics at its worst, but the only thing surprising about Reichert’s efforts is that it comes so early — normally we don’t see these sort of dirty tricks until the final weeks of the campaign.

The caller starts by asking to speak to the “male, voting, head of household,” though the three respondents I’ve heard from are all women. It starts innocently enough with “right direction/wrong direction” questions and stuff like that, but after the respondents say they intend to support Burner, the “ifs” start coming out.

“If you knew that Darcy Burner had voted in only 11 of 22 elections, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner held stock options, including stocks in oil companies and Enron, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner supported using aborted fetuses for medical research, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

“If you knew that Darcy Burner wanted to penalize the middle class by raising taxes, would you be more or less likely to vote for her?”

I probably have the specific phrasing off, as the respondents weren’t taking notes, but all three came away with the clear impression that this was an intentional “smear job” designed to mislead voters about Burners stance on the issues. In fact, one so-called “pollster” was openly apologetic about the biased nature of the questions, whispering into the phone: “I’m just trying to earn a living.”

The firm conducting the push-poll is obviously from out of state — one caller couldn’t pronounce “Issaquah” or even “Reichert”, while another admitted she was calling Texas the day before and another southern state the day before that. No doubt other Democratic challengers are being equally smeared in other districts nationwide by a Republican Party increasingly fearful of the coming purge, and willing to stoop to any level to cling to power.

Unfortunately, one of the things that makes push-polls so popular is that journalists tend to be reluctant to write about them, because there’s rarely a recording to verify the details.

So here’s want I want all of you to do: be prepared. If you think you’re in the process of being push-polled, take detailed notes, or better yet, record the conversation. And if you’ve already been push-polled, drop me an email and let me know so we can corroborate the details as much as possible.

We all expect the Republicans to stoop to dirty tricks in defense of Reichert. But let’s not allow them to get away with it without consequences.

Cantwell: no permanent bases in Iraq

by — ,

Last night the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell and Joe Biden, that prohibits the US Government from establishing permanent military bases in Iraq, and from exercising control over Iraq’s oil resources.

Actions speak louder than words. But Sen. Cantwell’s words speak pretty loud too:

“I do not support having a permanent military presence in Iraq,” said Cantwell. “I want our troops home as soon as possible. We need to encourage the Iraqis to take complete control of their own security as soon as possible so U.S. troops can come home. Building permanent bases in Iraq would not get us closer to this goal and it would send the wrong message to the Iraqi people, our allies, and the world.”

Hmm. I wonder if Mike!™ would have voted for this amendment? (I just sent an email off to the campaign asking; let’s see if I get a straight answer.)

Poll shows McMorris vulnerable in WA-05

by — ,

I’ve spent a lot of time hyping up the Burner/Reichert race in the WA’s 8th Congressional District, which is steadily sliding towards the toss-up category as the election approaches. But as it turns out, Dave Reichert isn’t our only Republican incumbent who should be looking over his shoulders.

Over in the 5th CD (the Eastern half of Eastern WA) Rep. Cathy McMorris is proving to be a lot more vulnerable than her friends in the local media seem ready to admit. Indeed, the latest round of internal polling conducted by Lake Research Partners suggests that this is a winnable seat for Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark… given the financial resources to communicate his message.

Here are the survey’s main conclusions:

  • In the initial ballot, incumbent McMorris receives less than a majority of the vote against Goldmark despite a vast name recognition advantage. After both candidates get their messages out, Goldmark pulls into a virtual tie with McMorris

Meriwether Goldy is back

by — ,

I know there are history buffs who question if Meriwether Lewis actually died by his own hand as the record contends, but after visiting some of the landmarks along the final stage of his epic journey of discovery, I’m not one of them. From Dismal Nitch to Point Distress to Cape Disappointment, I was constantly struck by the depressing names Captain Lewis assigned to places of such natural splendor.

This was clearly not a happy fella. I kept imagining the expedition struggling down the mighty Columbia, rounding a jagged outcropping they believed to be the final obstacle before the Pacific, only to discover that they were still miles away from their goal. Named on the spur of the moment, that place of utter beauty would forever be known as Point Sonofabitch.

Anyway, I’m back from my own epic journey of discovery and I want to extend a big thanks to Darryl of Hominid Views for keeping HA going in my absence. It’s nice to know that if I ever commit suicide by, say… shooting myself first in the head and then in the chest, before cutting up my body with razor blades, HA — like Lewis’ diaries — might survive me.

Maria Cantwell blogs about the GOP minimum wage/inheritance tax bill

by — ,

Maria Cantwell is now a blogger!

Check this out at the Northwest Progressive Institute’s Official Blog.

I cannot support what amounts to a minimum wage penalty for over 122,000 Washington minimum wage earners. Why would the federal government work to lower the maximum wage rather than setting a minimum protection?

I am not buying this cynical Republican ploy.

And blogging with an edge!

Am I politically motivated?

by — ,

In my absence there has been some speculation over my role in the shareholder lawsuit challenging former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick’s golden parachute. I suppose I should have clarified things the day the story broke, but my dog and daughter and I have been chasing birds in Long Beach the past couple days, mostly out of cell phone range, and entirely without Internet access but for brief morning visits to a local WiFi hotspot. (Long Beach Coffee has great java by the way… but rather spotty Internet service.)

Besides, there’s not really much to clarify, as Robert Mak pretty much got the sequence of events right in his Tuesday night report.

Here’s what I happened. A couple months ago I was talking to Knoll Lowney about his lawsuit overturning Initiative 747 when he mentioned the shareholder lawsuit he was working on. From the sounds of it he was fairly far along, and rather confident that he had a strong case that at least some of McGavick’s compensation package was illegal, which all sounded pretty good to me. I offered to help him find plaintiffs, and about a week later put up a short post on HA looking for pissed off SAFECO shareholders.

I got one firm response, Ashley Bullitt, and after a brief email exchange I passed her contact information on to Knoll. Her daughter Emma Schwartzman ultimately became the lead plaintiff in the case. Essentially, if not for me, Knoll likely would have ended up with a different plaintiff. (It’s not like pissed off SAFECO shareholders are all that scarce in Seattle.)

That’s pretty much the extent of my involvement. In fact, considering how little Internet access I’ve had the past few days, most of you probably know more about the details of this case than I do. I’d love to take more credit than I have, but truth be told, if Knoll had posted a notice on Craig’s List, he’d probably have gotten a bigger response than I did on HA.

Now, I understand that the McGavick campaign is trying to dismiss this lawsuit as nothing but dirty, partisan politics, and that my good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics is pointing to my bit part as confirmation. But, well… unfortunately for the R’s, reality tends to be a tad more nuanced.

Was my role in this case politically motivated? Of course it was. Nearly everything I do is political. Hell, when I take a dump I wipe my ass with Dave Reichert’s franked mail. (It has less literary value than toilet paper, and is twice as plentiful.)

I’d have to be an idiot not to see the partisan, political value in what Knoll was doing, and that’s why I offered to help. Duh-uh.

But to conclude from that, as (u)SP’s Eric Earling does, that the entire lawsuit is baseless… well, that either shows a lack of critical thinking on his part… or a total lack of respect for his reader’s intelligence.

The facts of this scenario speak for themselves in showing not only is the lawsuit entirely political, but that it doesn’t have any merit even as simply a shareholder complaint.

Uh-huh. What a brilliant legal analysis. But then, that’s typical of (u)SP’s oeuvre, lazily hawking dismissiveness rather than relying on inconvenient things like facts or, um… thinking.

“The facts of this scenario” don’t speak to the merit of the lawsuit at all. In fact — and I know this might be a difficult concept for some of my rightie trolls to wrap their minds around without their heads exploding — it is absolutely possible for this lawsuit to be both politically motivated and entirely with legal merit.

I can’t speak for either Knoll or Emma, but it would surprise me if their involvement was entirely unmotivated by partisan politics. They’re suing a candidate for U.S. Senate for chrisakes. They’re not dumb; they know they’re shoving some bad publicity McGavick’s way. But I also believe that their outrage over McGavick’s golden parachute is as absolutely genuine as my own.

Legal or not, the fact is that McGavick’s golden parachute is an absolute disgrace, and at the very least presents the kind of perception of impropriety that simply should not be acceptable from our highest elected officials. And no, the fact that other executives have been similarly overcompensated at customer, employee and shareholder expense is not an excuse.

Further adding to the outrage is the fact that McGavick had already made millions at SAFECO, and had a generous termination package in place. By rewriting his termination agreement after he announced his voluntary retirement, handing McGavick many millions more than he was contractually due, SAFECO has potentially performed an end-run around our campaign finance laws, indirectly dumping truckloads of cash into this Senate race via McGavick’s own unlimited, personal contributions.

This is just plain wrong, and deserves public attention for moral and ethical reasons alone. But Knoll believes it is also illegal, and considering his legal track record, Knoll’s opinion is good enough for me. Yes, Knoll has a reputation for working on behalf of liberal causes, but remember, both he and Steve Berman are sinking their own money and resources into this case, and they don’t make a dime unless they win. Bloggers like me may be foolish enough to work for free, but lawyering is a business.

As for Emma, anybody who simply dismisses her as a political hack isn’t paying close attention. Her involvement isn’t just about politics, and it certainly isn’t about the money. It’s about respect for an institution in which generations of Bullitts obviously take great pride.

Emma inherited fewer than 50 shares of SAFECO stock, but as she makes a point of stating, these are “original” shares, passed down through generations from her great, great grandfather, a SAFECO founder. Monetarily, the shares are a pittance. But to Emma and her relatives they are a family heirloom… a proud connection to their family’s role in building Seattle into the great city it is today.

That Emma views SAFECO as something more than the sum of its market valuation might be hard for some people to understand, but she is clearly proud to be part of a family that has played a historic role in Seattle’s business and philanthropic community. Emma may not have inherited Bullitt family millions, but she’s certainly inherited her family’s acute sense of social justice.

But that said, all this speculation over the motivations of Knoll or Emma or myself misses the point. McGavick’s golden parachute was improper, if not downright illegal, and since none of the facts in the case are really in dispute, responsible reporting would focus on getting some expert legal opinion to analyze the points of law in dispute. Who cares if my primary motivation was to stick it to McGavick if in fact he and SAFECO broke the law or in some other way violated the trust of shareholders?

McGavick is, after all, running for U.S. Senate, and thus voters have a right to know if he is beyond reproach, or merely straddling its edge. And unlike the state Dems, Knoll didn’t just issue a hotly worded press release… he laid out all the facts and arguments in a legal document that will win or lose on its own merits. Indeed, if there is to be a shareholder lawsuit, the time for it to be filed is now, before the election, so that voters can learn the truth. In that sense, political motivation is a good thing.

Oh, and one final comment on the R’s feigned outrage over this lawsuit: gimme a fucking break.

McGavick’s midlife conversion to “civility” is a joke to anybody who remembers the vicious campaign he ran on behalf of Slade Gorton, and absolutely absurd coming from the party of Karl Rove. Accusations of dirty politics? This coming from the party that swift-boats war heros and slanders multiple amputee veterans as traitors and cowards?

This isn’t dirty. This is just a lawsuit. And whatever its motivation, the facts do indeed speak for themselves.

Goldy comes to terms with the break-up of his marriage

by — ,

The Seattle media is All Goldy All the Time this week!

This time Goldy writes for The Stranger about the real reason for his failed marriage:

All this time I thought my marriage had dissolved due to selfishness or immaturity or a failure to communicate, but now I no longer blame myself. I blame the gays for gnawing away at the institution of marriage and tearing asunder my daughter’s once-happy home.

But mostly, I blame Dan Savage.

Read the whole thing here.

Open thread—busy news week edition

by — ,

There’s lots of news besides the McGavick lawsuit to talk about….

Update: This week’s Podcasting Liberally was hosted by Will with guests Mollie, Gavin, Nick, and Carl. The 57:06, 39.4 MB show is available here (mp3). The show was recorded at Seattle’s Drinking Liberally and produced by Confab creators Gavin and Richard.

You really, really like Goldy!

by — ,

Today is a day full of accomplishments for Goldy. The only problem is, he is largely unplugged and off in the boondocks somewhere trying to vacation or something.

First, he has the distinction of appearing in two pieces in the Seattle Weekly today. The Weekly came out with their Best of Seattle issue, and it looks like, once again, HorsesAss has been voted the Best Local Blog.

David Goldstein’s HORSESASS.ORG blog is the one you like best, presumably because it is reliably liberal, ruthless, and funny. Goldstein also helps host and promote the local Drinking Liberally club gatherings at the Montlake Alehouse, where pols and wonks make regular appearances. Those events are recorded and disseminated via podcast. And this year, Goldstein expanded his liberal empire to the airwaves of KIRO-AM (710), where he holds forth Sunday evenings.

“Liberal empire.” Cool!

Last year, Goldy ran something of a campaign to win the honor. This year, however, I didn’t hear a peep out of Mr. Goldstein about it.

I noticed that Tim Eyman was voted Best Fish Market this year. Oh…wait… that was Best activist/hell-raiser. WTF? I guess voting took place before the I-917 debacle. Feel the love:

TIM EYMAN? You voted for Tim Eyman? The washed-up, citizens-initiative-addicted watch salesman whose obsession with monkey-wrenching worthy public spending knows no bounds? The guy who recently delivered petitions in Olympia wearing a Buzz Lightyear costume? This is some sort of counterintuitive subliminal message you’re sending, right?

Given his spectacular string of failures lately, I suspect this will be Tim’s last “activist award” for awhile. Well…unless he uses The Force….

Speaking of Hell Raisers! Goldy also made the front page of the Weekly online edition for another reason:

Democratic activist, blogger, and KIRO-AM radio host David Goldstein confirms that he played a role in the lawsuit filed on Tues., Aug. 1, against Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. KING-5’s Robert Mak first reported that Goldstein had provided a crucial nexus in the lawsuit.

Wow…Goldy is now a “crucial nexus!”

David Postman at the Seattle Times follows the story up with some incredible journalism!

(Speaking of Postman, he was awarded the Weekly’s Critics’ Pick for Best Mainstream-Media Blog. Congratulations!)

Back to Goldy. If all that isn’t enough, I noticed today that sometime within the last 24 hours, HorsesAss had its millionth visitor (937,000 tallied visitors plus an estimated 63,000 before Sitemeter was installed).

Man…you guys really do like Goldy!

Cantwell’s bigger lead

by — ,

Rasmussen released a new poll yesterday showing Maria Cantwell up by 11% points over Mike!™ McGavick.

The poll dated July 17 has Cantwell at 48% and McGavick at 37%. Cantwell’s lead over McGavick is outside of the 4.5% margin of error, meaning that she has fully pulled ahead of McGavick after being in a statistical tie (although numerically leading) for three months. At 37%, Mike!™ is exactly where he started last November, down from his peak of 41% in May. Cantwell has gained 4% since last month. Additionally, her favorability has increased three points to 56% since last month.

Apparently, Cantwell’s new campaign ad is largely responsible:

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll of 500 likely voters was taken a week after the launch of the 30-second television spot, “First,” which touts Cantwell’s accomplishments on behalf of Washington state’s families.

Wow…a four point rise after a one week media blitz!

Surely, McGavick will respond by unleashing his own media blitz very soon. Oh…wait…what was it Goldy was saying just last month?

McGavick has been running a paid media campaign

McGavick’s “stolen parachute”

by — ,

In some sense, Mike McGavick took his first political bribe before he even swung into full campaign mode earlier this year. McGavick resigned last year as the CEO of Safeco Insurance Company in order to challenge Maria Cantwell for her Senate seat. In the process, he walked off with $28 million in bonuses and stock options.

Think about it. McGavick—a former lobbyist for the insurance industry—is paid by the insurance company he heads some $28 million to quit his job and become a Senator. “Win-win,” right?

To you and me that kind of a deal has the stench of corruption, both because of the potential for back-room agreements and because of the way it cleverly bypasses campaign finance laws:

Technically, Safeco is constrained by the same campaign finance limits as you or I, but insurance industry lobbyist cum CEO cum senate candidate McGavick is free to spend as much on his own campaign as his new-found personal fortune affords him. How convenient.

But not everyone sees this as a political scandal. Take, for example, 27 year old Emma Schwartzman. Today she filed a lawsuit against McGavick over his “excessive” severance package.

To Ms. Schwartzman this is not about politics. Instead, it is about theft. And it’s about family honor. Specifically, it’s about McGavick stealing from Safeco—a company founded by her great, great grandfather—and its shareholders.

In her own words:

Our lawsuit alleges that Mike McGavick didn’t earn the $28 million, he knew he wasn’t entitled to it, but he took it anyway.

I have brought this lawsuit to protect the assets and integrity of Safeco Corporation—a company that is important to me, my family, and my community.

My great, great grandfather was a founder of General Insurance Company, which later became Safeco. My great grandmother sat on the board and was an adviser to the company in its early years—at a time when most women had little role in corporate affairs. I own original shares passed down to me from my great great grandfather.

I have always been proud of my family’s role in building Safeco into a major employer in our state and a trusted member of the business community.

But under Mike McGavick’s leadership, Safeco lost its ethical compass. His greed has diminished the value of my investment and, more importantly, the ethical values of this great company.

As expected, the McGavick campaign responded with charges of “Political Smear!”

This is a politically motivated character attack. The allies of the incumbent senator have found yet another avenue to continue their daily personal attacks on me. […] These allegations regarding my compensation are without merit and obviously politically inspired.

Are the charges politically inspired, or contractually inspired? Here is the rationale for the lawsuit given by Ms. Schwartzman’s lawyers:

When McGavick became Safeco’s CEO in 2001, he drove a hard bargain. In addition to an annual compensation package worth as much as eight million dollars, McGavick also bargained for a “golden parachute” provision. This meant that if McGavick were fired, he would receive a multi-million dollar termination payment.

But Mike McGavick did not get fired from Safeco; he voluntarily resigned. And his employment contract clearly stated that if he resigned he would forfeit his right to a big payout. He would forfeit all compensation, including bonuses and stock options, and would get only his last paycheck. These employment contracts are quoted in the complaint, included in your packets, and posted on our website.

Instead of resigning from Safeco with his final paycheck, as his contract clearly provided, McGavick walked away with $28 million.

This lawsuit will prove that this $28 million payment was improper and fraudulent on numerous counts, and McGavick acted dishonestly and unethically in bargaining for and receiving this payment.

Ouch!

Just how did the bribe severance agreement circumvent McGavick’s contract?

Fraud

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.