HorsesAss.Org

A fellow blogger (from the right) emailed me that he thought he heard Dave Irons on the Mike Siegel Show yesterday, saying he planned to vote against Initiative 912. So I emailed Siegel’s other listener, producer David Boze, and asked for confirmation… and yes, that is apparently what Irons said. I’m hoping to get an audio clip, or confirmation from Irons himself, before I pack up my virtual camp and end my virtual vigil.

Without further explanation from Irons, one can only assume that if he plans to vote against I-912, it is because he supports the gas tax increase and the transportation projects it finances. I just wish he’d bluntly come out and say so.

In case you’re wondering why a right-leaning blogger would forward me this tip… well… it’s because one needn’t be unprincipled in support of one’s principles. As I wrote back in thanks, “I don’t particularly like it when politicians (from either party) attempt to ride two sides of an issue,” to which my correspondent replied “I agree 100%.”

From my perspective, Irons’ record on transportation issues has actually been rather responsible, and so his refusal up until now (at least, I think up until now) to publicly support a transportation package he clearly believes to be critical to the economy of the county he wants to govern, strikes me as hypocritical and disingenuous. He talks about the need to provide leadership, yet punts at the opportunity to demonstrate it. If his candidacy is truly about King County’s future, and not just his own, he should use his soapbox to educate voters about the true impact of I-912.

I have emailed Irons, at both his campaign and council address, to ask him to explain his position, and have extended the courtesy of offering to reprint his reply, unedited and in its entirety, here on HA. He has yet to respond.

UPDATE:
Ooops. Forgot to link to this amusing and pointed letter from Carl.

Ron Sims re-election strategy is now becoming apparent.

The centerpiece is to turn the county elections office into a de facto subsidiary of the re-election campaign organization.

Specifically, that entails putting the non-team player (= honest) employees on administrative leave, and filling their chairs with Sims loyalists from other agencies who are really good at papering over their incompetence and malfeasance if nothing else.

Let’s be clear about what Stefan is saying: the fix is in. According to Stefan, Ron Sims is attempting to fraudulently steal the November election. There is no other way to interpret this. And this is slander.

But I’m guessing this is less a clumsy attempt to influence the outcome of the election than it is a humorless, pathetic effort to inoculate himself against the inevitable result… for in Stefan’s black and white world, a free and fair election could never possibly result in a Sims victory.

It is also a raving, paranoid fantasy of the Nth degree… exactly the sort of angry, over-the-top rhetoric that has destroyed Stefan’s credibility with the MSM. And in the course of trying to tear down Sims with vicious lies and innuendo, Stefan also attempts to tear down King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, one of the region’s few, truly thoughtful and electable Republicans.

After all, why should Ron Sims undermine his own re-election campaign by releasing any evidence of malfeasance and incompetence in his own agencies when there’s a team of lawyers on the public payroll at the Prosecutor’s Office who will abet his evasion of the Public Disclosure Act at no cost to Sims.

There are few WA politicians more widely respected and admired — from both sides of the aisle — than Norm Maleng. I have had the opportunity to meet Maleng, and he came across as a nice man, an honest man, and a dedicated public servant. And while I may not always agree with his politics, I always trust his intentions.

I cannot say the same for Stefan, and neither should the KCGOP. While the Republican faithful may enjoy Stefan’s stinging attacks on Sims and other Democrats, they should be aware that he is a scorpion in their midst, and could strike one of their own indiscriminately, and without warning. He is also, in my opinion, a little bit nuts… so embrace him at your own risk.

I would love to hear more first hand reports of vigils from around the state and beyond, so if you attended one, please post in the comment thread. And if you have posted an account on your own blog, please let me know, and I’ll update my post with a link.

UPDATE:
It’s front page, above the fold, in both the Times and P-I. Thousands of people turned out for over 50 vigils across the Puget Sound region, including an estimated 400 at Greenlake and 200 in Bellevue. (The P-I has also posted an excellent photo gallery from the various gatherings.) MoveOn.org estimates that over 50,000 people registered to attend 1,627 vigils, nationwide.

NWCitizen.com reports on the vigil at Fairhaven Village Green in Bellingham, where several hundred people attended. In the comment thread, Danny reports on the Olympia vigil, while Greg and Rujax briefly mention Bellevue Square and Seacrest Park respectively.

If you have more reports, post them, and I’ll keep posting the links.

As long as Irons refuses to publicly endorse or oppose I-912, the best we can do is try to divine his position by reviewing his prior public statements on related issues. For example, about a year ago Irons came out resolutely behind the Regional Transportation Investment Districts’ $13.4 billion plan for critical transportation improvements in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties… a package that placed a high priority on replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge.

“Our transportation problem has grown beyond the ability to solve it with any one fix,” said Councilmember David Irons, an alternate on the RTID Executive Board. “But we must solve it for the mobility needs and economic survival of our region. Raising taxes is not politically popular, but the alternative of doing nothing is unthinkable. We must demonstrate leadership and make some tough decisions, and we need the guidance of our citizens in order to make the best choices for our residents, our businesses and our future generations.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Irons that “we must demonstrate leadership and make some touch decisions”… and I congratulate King County Executive Ron Sims for once again showing such leadership in opposing I-912. Yes, “raising taxes is not politically popular,” which I suppose is why Irons refuses to publicly support the gas tax increase that I-912 would repeal.

And what of his statement that “we need guidance of our citizens”…? He was referring to the advisory ballot measure on the RTID proposal which King County voters passed by more than a two-thirds margin… a margin which Irons himself trumpeted as a mandate.

“We have debated this question long enough, and the voters have told us they are tired of talk,” Irons said. “These poll results give us a mandate to move forward.”

But then, that was before Irons declared his candidacy for King County Executive, and before KVI fired up the anti-government crowd with misleading rhetoric in support of I-912. I suppose its possible that Irons now believes that our transportation problem has not grown beyond our ability to solve it with one fix, and that doing nothing is now eminently thinkable. Perhaps Irons now believes that leadership is unnecessary, that tough decisions need not be made, and that we have not debated this question long enough.

As long as Irons remains silent on this issue, I suppose voters are free to suppose whatever they want. Which I suppose may be exactly what Irons hopes to be the result of his silence.

“The public’s right to know of the financing of political campaigns and lobbying and the financial affairs of elected officials and candidates far outweighs any right that these matters remain secret and private.”

But in writing their editorial, the Times repeats an unfortunate myth that has gained far too much credence in the MSM, while providing absolutely no research or analytical data to back it up:

In Washington, the television smear campaign might have backfired, because Senn won the primary handily.

Oh, that’s right… we’re living in Upside-Down World.

Get real. Senn won the primary despite of the smear campaign, not because of it, and if not for the intense onslaught of negative ads, she likely would have beaten Mark Sidran by an even larger margin. Furthermore, the ads forced Senn to empty her campaign treasury fighting a primary battle that shouldn’t have been, leaving her unable to mount an effective campaign against Rob McKenna in the general election.

People spend money on negative ads because they work, and there is no doubt that the negative ads substantially chipped away at Senn’s approval ratings — which the US Chamber of Commerce’s own internal, pre-primary polling showed to be an astonishing 3 to 1 margin among Democratic voters. Indeed, internal documents obtained by Senn’s attorneys during the court proceedings show that the US Chamber conducted extensive polling on how to drive down Senn’s positives… polling which formed the basis of their $1.5 million campaign.

To suppose that Senn’s primary and general election prospects weren’t damaged by these ads not only defies common sense, it defies decades of research and real-world experience. And let’s be honest… the US Chamber certainly would not have spent $150 million over the past five years (more on that later) running negative ads in judicial and attorney general elections across the nation, if they weren’t satisfied with the results.

While it is impossible to know for sure, it is more reasonable to speculate that McKenna rode into office on the back of an illegal, $1.5 million smear campaign, than it is to speculate that the ads backfired. It might be comforting to the Times editorial board and others to suppose that somehow, WA voters are savvier than their counterparts elsewhere, and thus immune to the pernicious influence of negative advertising. But this is a fantasy, totally unsupported by fact.

The ads intentionally misled WA voters, not just in content, but in provenance. And for that, the Times and I are in total agreement: the US Chamber, and not just its fake front organization, deserves to be punished directly for arrogantly flouting our state’s public disclosure laws.

(A grudging thanks to that damned OR blogger, TJ of Also Also, for scooping WA’s blogosphere and MSM in reporting the latest numbers.)

While head-to-head surveys show Cantwell whipping the political asses of political asses Chris Vance and Rick White, putative GOP nominee Mike McGavick avoided an equally poor showing… on the strength of being inexplicably left out of the poll entirely. Um… not sure why.

Anyway, according to Rasmussen:

Cantwell’s prospects have improved since Dino Rossi indicated he will stay out of the Senate race in 2006. Rossi was nearly elected Governor last November before a controversial recount determined that Christine Gregoire won the closest election in state history.
…
Cantwell also benefits from the fact that President Bush’s Approval Rating has dipped to 39% in the state of Washington. Just 25% believe the country is headed in the right direction.

Absolutely. As I’ve said before, Cantwell should focus on campaigning against Bush, Cheney, Delay, Frist, Rove and the rest of the Republican rogues gallery, regardless of who the GOPolitburo appoints as her official opponent. This election is about cloture, and WA voters who gave John Kerry and Patty Murray substantial margins last November are going to be very reluctant to hand the far-right absolute power in the other Washington. If the Bush administration keeps self-destructing, and Cantwell can maintain her favorable ratings a notch above 50 percent, then she’ll be unbeatable in 2006.

TJ also focuses a bit on Gregoire’s surprisingly good showing in light of the unprecedented BIAW/GOP PR campaign to discredit and delegitimize her election.

Perhaps the most stunning number is almost buried in this story: Christine Gregoire’s approval rating in this poll sits at 51%, a far cry from SurveyUSA’s pegging of her in the low 40s/high 30s since May. SUSA is not known to have any real partisan leanings, and is a robopoller like Rasmussen, so I find the latter number quite curious. There is no August report from SUSA that I can find (they just released Bush’s state by state numbers though, and they almost uniformly suck!), so it’s possible that this is improvement by Gregoire, or noise, or a combination of the two.

In any case, given how early she is in her term, and how clouded the first six months were by negative press over her election, I don’t think Gregoire’s approval ratings tell us much at the moment about her prospects in 2008. But the Rasmussen survey certainly isn’t discouraging.

No, I don’t mean some lofty institute where pointy-headed intellectuals earnestly work to develop effective public policy. We have plenty of those… they’re called universities.

What we need are some of those fake think tanks… you know, like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, or the Washington Policy Center, or the driving force behind “intelligent design”, Seattle’s very own Discovery Institute, which apparently takes the name “Discovery” from its concerted efforts to squash it.

The other side has these shamelessly partisan propaganda mills, and so should we. They’re very effective. So if you’re rich and you’re liberal, and you’re looking for something fun and effective to do with your money, drop me an email… we’ll talk.

I’m back after a two-week hiatus, and I’m damned thirsty. So see you all there.

O’Reilly: “Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she’s just trying to gain publicity and doesn’t speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they’re black.”

Hannity: “Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!”

Limbaugh: “We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!”

Malkin: “I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself.”

Hannity: “Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!”

O’Reilly: “To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It’s ridiculous that they think they don’t have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.”

Coulter: “Rosa Parks is a dyke!”

Drudge: “MY SOURCES TELL ME THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME ROSA PARKS HAS EVER SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS. A whole life of sitting in the back of the bus and now this woman claims all of a sudden she wants to sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”

Blitzer: “Ms. Parks left the bus in disgrace today after it was confirmed that some members of her family did not agree with her, she had ruined her credibility by working for the NAACP before the bus incident, and she had in fact sat in the back of the bus on previous occasions. Now back to the emotionally wrenching story of the girl missing in …”

Maybe a funnier idea than it was in execution, but it makes a salient point.

Mr. Stefan Sharkansky
Sound Politics

Aug. 16, 2005

Dear Stefan,

As the webmaster of David Irons official campaign website (SoundPolitics.com), I was hoping you could quickly ask your boss to settle a question of great interest, both to his supporters, and to the voting public at large. Specifically: does he or does he not support KVI’s anti-roads initiative, I-912?

It has been widely suggested (in the comment threads on your own blog, for example) that in securing the endorsement of the pro-business Alki Foundation, Irons privately expressed to board members his opposition to I-912 — a position that would be consistent with his prior, pro-transit, public statements and votes as an RTID board member and King County Councilman. And yet, he refuses to take a public position on an initiative that will have a huge impact on the ability of the County Executive to address our region’s growing transportation problems.

As a matter of political expedience, Irons’ equivocation is understandable, as his own internal polling shows that while two-thirds of his base supports the initiative, a large majority of King County voters do not. But I have been led to believe that you are a strong proponent of demanding openness and transparency from the King County Executive, and so I trust that you will join me in urging Irons to be as open and transparent about this important issue as his opponent, Ron Sims.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. In the interest of promoting an informed public debate I have posted a copy of this correspondence to HorsesAss.org, and look forward to posting your prompt reply.

Yours fondly,

David Goldstein

UPDATE:
Stefan responds! Um… sort of:

From: Stefan Sharkansky
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:48:20 -0700
To: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Open Letter to you

I’m in the middle of a number of projects right now and responding to a silly email that knowingly includes obviously false assertions is not high on my list of priorites. I already commented on the David Irons/I-912 issue here.

“Silly”…? Hmmm. Is it just me, or was Stefan being uncharacteristically dismissive? I guess for Stefan, openness and transparency are standards that need only be demanded of Democrats.

Anyway, in the linked comment he provided, Stefan writes:

I am not “dismayed” by your plausible yet unconfirmed speculation that David Irons opposes I-912 … I doubt that Irons’ (or any other candidate’s) position on I-912 would have much influence on that vote one way or the other.

No I don’t suppose it would. But Iron’s position on I-912 might have quite a bit of influence on his own race… which I can only assume is why Irons refuses to publicly state his position. Irons needs the fervent support of his conservative Republican base if he’s to have a snowball’s chance of coming close to Sims, and he’s not going to get that by opposing their anti-government initiative du jour.

Ah well. I suppose the vigil will move on to day three.

For those of you righties who insist that WSDOT projects are always late and over budget, I just thought I’d post the above chart from page four of WSDOT’s quarterly performance report, the Gray Notebook. (Don’t complain to me that it’s too small to read… go download the original for yourself.)

The chart shows the 12 projects that have been completed thus far from those in the package financed by the 2003 nickel gas tax increase. Eight projects were completed early, and only one late, while six of the projects came in under budget, and only one over.

I apologize in advance for any cognitive dissonance I might cause by inserting actual facts into the public debate.

UPDATE:
I guess I should have mentioned the obvious typo in the chart above… the figures are of course in thousands, not millions as stated. Silly me… I hadn’t imagined that folk would try to use a little typo to drive the debate off topic.

And for those of you who insist that we can’t trust any of the audit numbers coming out of WSDOT, well here’s a little more cognitive dissonance to stick in your craw… a list of the performance audits conducted since 1991:

Performance Audits at WSDOT: Inventory (as of April 2005)

So why the change of heart? Joel Connelly suggests that problems in KC elections, and Sims’ backing of Southwest Airlines’ proposed move to Boeing Field, may have had a lot to do with it. But from what I hear, what put Irons over the top with the Alki board members was his private assurances that he opposes the gas tax rollback initiative, I-912.

Both Alki and the Chamber, like most of the region’s pro-business groups, understand how vital these transportation improvements are to the local economy. Indeed, Alki refused to endorse either Steve Hammond or Reagan Dunn for county council, because both support I-912.

“These gentlemen support Initiative 912. Transportation improvement is such a central issue to the business community that we decided to make no recommendation.”

While Irons has repeatedly refused to take a public position on I-912, my sources tell me that he has been much more talkative in private. This is a very important issue to Alki members, and to earn their endorsement Irons apparently told them what they wanted to hear.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that Irons hasn’t been privately telling I-912 supporters what they want to hear, too.

Irons can easily settle any lingering doubts over where he stands on the initiative, simply by clearly stating his position the way Ron Sims did. (Sims opposes it.) Indeed, he must come clean. I-912 could have a huge impact on the economy of the county he wants to govern, so reporters owe it to their readers to keep Irons feet to the fire, by bluntly asking him where he stands, and at every opportunity.

If Irons believes that the county can get by without replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge — both past the end of their useful lifespan — or if he believes we can replace both structures solely with local funds, then he needs to explain how. But if Irons supports the statewide transportation package and acknowledges that the gas tax hike is a reasonable way to finance it, then he needs to be upfront with voters.

Yes, Irons is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. His own polling shows that while two-thirds of his own base supports I-912, a large majority of King County voters do not. Still, running a county as large as King often requires taking unpopular positions on controversial issues… something Sims has had to do repeatedly throughout his tenure.

I find it ironic, but not surprising, that even Irons’ official campaign website (soundpolitics.com) saw fit to ask US Senate candidate Mike McGavick to clarify his position on I-912, but refuses to demand the same of its own candidate. It is absurd to believe that Irons doesn’t have an opinion on an initiative that will have such a huge impact on King County’s quality of life. And it is even more absurd to believe that he should be allowed to keep it to himself in such a dishonest and disingenuous effort to walk both sides of a controversial issue.

In upholding the regulatory actions of the Public Disclosure Commission, the judge soundly rejected the VEC’s claims that they had a First Amendment right to keep secret the corporate funding. The judge ruled that WA voters are entitled to truthful and accurate information in ads designed to influence the vote.

Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

In a press release issued this morning, Deborah Senn said that the legal victory sets the stage for legal proceedings against the VEC and the US Chamber of Commerce that could impose stiff financial penalties for the illegal ads.

“This is an important victory for the voters’ right to know and to protect the electoral process against massive last minute negative campaign ads funded by out of state interests who are attempting to illegally sway voters in Washington State.”

According to Senn’s attorney, Mike Withey, the anti-Senn ads were part of a national campaign by the US Chamber to defeat judicial and attorney general candidates nationwide who had a record of being pro-consumer and protecting the preservation of the jury trial.

“The VEC was nothing more than a catchy but misleading name, a local “sleeper cell” which the US Chamber used to manipulate an election while standing in the shadows, free from public disclosure and accountability. This was a US Chamber operation from start to finish.”

Senn and Withey are holding a press conference today at 10 am.

Apparently, the anti-Senn campaign was only the tip of the iceberg. The US Chamber has secretly dedicated tens of millions of dollars to swaying local races nationwide. The money is strategically spent in normally low-profile, low-cost judicial and attorney general races, upsetting the balance with huge sums of out-of-state, “independent” expenditures.

If there was ever an argument for imposing campaign contribution limits on judicial campaigns, this is it.