HorsesAss.Org

“I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here.”
– Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.

“Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White House if they didn’t have the president’s confidence.”
– Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.

Sometimes I think I should stop blogging on national issues, and just provide a permanent link to Frank Rich’s columns in the NY Times. He’s not only one of the finest writers in the business, he also has a unique talent for using historical and cultural references to hack through the thicket of “facts” and “opinions” that tend to obscure most major news storys. In his latest piece, “Follow the Uranium,” Rich once again makes an ironic comparison to Watergate to illustrate that the “cover-up” is not the core issue in the outing of Valerie Plame. Rich sweeps away the “subplots,” and gets to the heart of the matter:

This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit – the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes – is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

Yes, Rich acknowledges, “of course, Karl Rove did it.” Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper is now talking about his grand jury testimony, and he not only names vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby as his second source, he also apparently contradicts Rove’s testimony. It was Rove who told Cooper about Plame, and that she was a CIA operative… and in so doing, perhaps even Rove knew that he was crossing a line:

“Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don’t know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.”

While unmasking Plame may not in the end prove to be a prosecutable offense, it is clear that Rove’s goal was to trash the Wilsons the way he has previously trashed John and Cindy McCain or Ann Richards or any number of other political adversaries. And maybe Rove perjured himself, maybe he didn’t… but as Rich points out, to focus on Rove is no more illuminating than to focus on Judy Miller or Matt Cooper or Robert Novak.

This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

Libby and Rove and other White House henchmen and surrogates went after Wilson — destroying his wife’s career — because he dared to ask a single question:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

As we’ve subsequently learned from the Downing Street Memo, and from our own post-invasion intelligence on the ground in Iraq itself… the answer is yes.

Follow the uranium, as Rich suggests, and we can come to only one conclusion: the President of the United States led us into war under false pretenses. That is the scandal that makes this affair worse than Watergate.

Ken Vogel of the Tacoma News Tribune has done the legwork on the likely Senate candidacy of Safeco CEO Mike McGavick.

With Dino Rossi officially declining to run for U.S. Senate in 2006, leading Republicans are coalescing around Safeco CEO Mike McGavick.

He has remained silent publicly as political speculation has mounted that he’ll emerge as the leading Republican challenger to freshman U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Edmonds).

But he’s quietly laid the groundwork for a campaign, making the rounds of GOP leaders in both Washingtons and rounding up endorsements from some of the state’s top Republicans. Some who’ve met with him expect him to declare soon.

While McGavick hasn’t publicly announced his candidacy, he’s certainly learned how to talk like a politician. In an April 19 quarterly earnings report conference call with security analysts, a Lehman Brothers analyst asked him about press reports that he was thinking about running for the Senate. McGavick first assured investors that Safeco was well prepared for succession, whatever the circumstances… and then gave a classic non-denial denial:

Having said that, this is all a bunch of media speculation. It’s been going on since I got here it seems to me, and I kind of regard it that way. When people come to you and say, gee, you have a chance to help the country, you have to be flattered and you have to listen to them. But I tell them all the same thing, that the thing I’m focused on right now is running Safeco and that’s kind of where it stands.

Hmm. Yeah. Well, it apparently wasn’t just “a bunch of media speculation,” as McGavick must have been hard at work lining his ducks up during that time frame. His answer was clearly meant to calm the legitimate concerns of securities analysts over potential instability in Safeco’s leadership, and while his prevarication may not rise to the level of an SEC violation, it speaks volumes about the kind of politician we can expect him to be. McGavick had a legal and ethical responsibility to provide shareholders with accurate information, and I just don’t think he answered the question honestly.

Sounds like a candidate to me.

McGavick recently sent an email to many prominent Republicans, touting his endorsements and seeking more. He claims support from Slade Gorton, Jennifer Dunn, John Carlson, Bill Finkbeiner and others. McGavick’s goal is apparently to lock up endorsements and money early, so as to scare off other potential challengers and thus avoid a primary fight. But according to the TNT, at least one other GOP hopeful, Diane Tebelius, doesn’t sound like she wants to cooperate with this strategy.

Tebelius rejected that reasoning Friday. A primary fight can help each candidate hone a message and allow voters to decide which candidate best represents their views, she said, dismissing McGavick’s list of endorsements.

“The support of a group of people is not the support of voters. You have to earn the voters’ confidence,” said Tebelius, who’s forming an exploratory committee and has been traveling the state for more than a month seeking support.

Pierce County Republican Party Chairman Deryl McCarty supports her and said so do other grass-roots activists and business leaders. If she continues to get that type of feedback, Tebelius said, “then it’s very likely I’m going to run.”

At some point, don’t you think Tebelius is going to tire of faithfully putting all that hard work into the party, only to be screwed over by GOP kingmakers come election time?

Whatever.

Whether the nominee is McGavick, Tebelius, Rick White or HA-exclusive-dark-horse-candidate Rob McKenna, I just don’t think defeating Cantwell will be as easy as the Republican faithful think it will. Apart from Rossi, all other GOP hopefuls trailed Cantwell by double digits in a recent Republican poll… and after a slow start, the Senator now reports a $3 million head start in her campaign account. And it doesn’t really matter who the GOP throws up against her, if she’s smart, Cantwell herself will all but ignore her opponent, choosing to run against Frist, DeLay, Rove, Bush and the right-wing Republican hegemony in DC.

It is true that Cantwell has not been the most visible of senators… mostly because she is simply a policy wonk, genuinely uncomfortable with shameless self-promotion. She is also a true moderate on most issues, and as such simply can’t generate exciting headlines like some of her more liberal (and, um… media savvy) colleagues. But her moderate politics and understated style work both ways, making her very difficult to attack. As tough as it is for Cantwell to generate real passion within some progressives, it will be equally tough for her opponent to generate passion against her, outside of the core Republican base.

Democrats will rally to Cantwell because they understand what is at stake nationally, and WA’s moderates and independents who gave both Patty Murray and John Kerry decisive victories last November, will need to be given a good reason to dump Cantwell in 2006.

I’m not sure a multimillionaire Safeco CEO can give them that reason.

A memorial service for voting rights activist Andy Stephenson will be held Saturday, 2PM at Town Hall, 8th and Seneca. Will Pitt of truthout.org will be Andy’s keynote eulogist.

The following obituary was forwarded to me:

Andy Stephenson 1961-2005

Voter Verified Paper Ballots NOW!

Andy Stephenson would have appreciated this rallying cry as a fitting tribute to his life and work. Surrounded by his life partner, Ted Edmondson, and mom, Dorothy, both of his sisters, and his dearest friends, Andy passed away on Thursday, July 7, at Seattle’s Virginia Mason Medical Center. Andy was 43.

Walter Andrew Stephenson was born on October 14, 1961, in El Paso, Texas. He had a loving and lively Texas childhood with his mom Dorothy, and his dad, Wesley, who passed away in 1974. Andy attended the University of Texas (UTEP), and later met his life partner, Ted Edmondson, in Dallas. Through their 18 years together, Andy and Ted renovated houses, built barns, managed properties, raised puppies, owned a restaurant, and loved life. Andy adored his adopted hometown of Seattle, while remaining a true Texan at heart.

Andy also loved the Democratic Underground internet message board, where he became concerned about issues surrounding electronic voting and ballot security in 2002. He soon became a tireless advocate for transparent elections and voter verified paper ballots as the official record of an election. Paper Ballots, not Vapor Ballots! was his rallying cry. Andy ran as a Democratic candidate for Washington secretary of state, on a platform calling for a voter-verified paper ballot.

If Andy loved his internet friends, he would learn that his internet friends truly loved him back. When Andy fell ill with what would be diagnosed as pancreatic cancer this past spring, he faced the cost of medical care without insurance. Andy’s cyber-space friends, many of whom only knew him through e-mail, raised $50,000 in 11 days to pay for his cancer surgery. These generous spirits gave us more time with Andy, and we will be forever grateful.

Andy didn’t lose his fight with cancer

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Here’s your weekly sandbox. Shit in it if you want.

Um… a federal district judge has tossed out the “top-two” primary enacted by Initiative 872.

In a 40-page ruling, Judge Thomas Zilly said the state cannot allow voters to skip back and forth along party lines as they pick a favorite candidate for each office. Nor can it allow candidates to identify themselves by party without that party’s approval, the ruling said.

More when I know more….

UPDATE:
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but here’s a link to the ruling.

I’ll join my friend Stefan in making the editorial statement, “good.”

Well, it’s not exactly breaking news, as it seemed pretty clear he wasn’t going to run, but Dino Rossi has just issued a press release putting an end to the speculation:

Seattle, WA

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

And editorial in today’s Seattle Times endorses the inevitable: moving to all mail-in voting. Mail-in ballots are unquestionably popular with voters, accounting for about 70 percent of ballots cast statewide in last November’s election, and one by one, counties are eliminating polling places in an effort to save money and streamline the process.

The mushrooming popularity of absentee voting has made elections a cumbersome, two-tier process. It only makes sense to embrace the method endorsed by voters.

It might make sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the editorial prompted a pissy response from our friends at (un)Sound Politics, who seem to view any effort to increase voter convenience and participation as a threat to democracy. Truth is, I’m not a huge fan of mail-in voting myself; I love going to the polls, and I’m not entirely comfortable with the electoral implications of extending voting day over a period of several weeks. I also share some legitimate concerns over the integrity of mail-in ballots. But despite my misgivings, a move to an all mail-in election would have some huge advantages, not the least of which being the elimination of electronic voting machines, and the opportunity for massive, untraceable fraud that they represent.

Regardless of the pros and cons, the move is inevitable; once WA extended mail-in voting to all comers, there was no turning back, and voters are quickly making polling places obsolete. WA will eventually follow Oregon and become an all mail-in state, so rather than whine about change I don’t like, I’ll just have to accept the “will of the people” and focus on making mail-in voting as secure, accurate and accessible as possible. I’d suggest critics of mail-in voting from the other side of the ideological spectrum do the same.

UPDATE:
Surprise! Yet another prediction comes true: Stefan posts a pissy response to the Times!

Today’s Seattle Times editorial endorsing all-mail balloting is so intellectually dishonest and detached from reality it makes me wonder who these people are that write this nonsense and why the Seattle Times keeps them on the payroll…

He tries to make some kind of point or another about King County’s problems reconciling absentee ballots, but in so doing, purposefully avoids the Times main argument: we have a “cumbersome, two-tier process” that needs to be streamlined. By eliminating the labor intensive polling places, the counties can focus their resources on mail-in ballots.

The NY Times reports today that Karl Rove spoke with Robert Novak as he was preparing his column outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, but that he claims he merely confirmed Novak’s information. Novak had credited two unidentified White House officials as the source for his story.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak’s account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: “I heard that, too.”

Of course, the White House had previously said that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Rove had leaked information on Plame, and now it has apparently been confirmed that he was a source for both Novak and Time Magazine’s Matt Cooper. Whether Rove’s testimony contradicts that of others (or other evidence,) remains to be seen.

But again, regardless of whether Rove was the primary source, or technically violated any laws, there is little question that he played a part in blowing the cover of both a CIA operative and a front corporation, as part of a campaign to discredit and punish Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. This is not the sort of behavior that should be acceptable from a top White House official.

UPDATE:
Americablog points out that Novak’s previous public statements contradict Rove’s reported testimony:

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

So somebody’s lying.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a statement today saying he has no plans to retire, and will continue on the bench “as long as my health permits.”

“I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement.”

Of course, rumors of his imminent death will be harder to put to rest. The 80-year-old Rehnquist is battling an aggressive form of thyroid cancer, and has suffered several complications from his radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Whether he steps down this year or the next, it seems unlikely the Chief Justice can survive President Bush’s second term. (Hell… I wonder if any of us can survive Bush’s second term.)

Then again, the U.S. Supreme Court has a well-deserved reputation as one of medical science’s most effective life-support systems. Sitting justices seem to live forever, but Rehnquist has seen several of his former colleagues step down, only to die within months. It kind of reminds me of the Old Testament story of the death of David… as long as Rehnquist continues studying the Constitution, the Angel of Death can’t take him.

The day of the London bombings I asked how the war on terror was going, and few of you responded just fine… with the single caveat that it would be going even better if I were to somehow fall victim to it. Heartwarming. Conventional MSM wisdom (such as it may be) seemed to say that Americans would rally to President Bush in the aftermath of the London attacks… and one of my righty regulars even suggested that public support for Bush’s policies would increase “ten fold.”

Well, excoriate me as a coward, appeaser and traitor if you want, for questioning U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere, but it turns out a majority of Americans share my concerns. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken in the days following the attack, Bush’s job approval rating has dropped to its lowest level in over a year, with respondents disapproving of the President’s performance by a 49% to 46% margin.

Even worse for Bush, only 41% of respondents agreed that Bush was “honest and straightforward” — his lowest rating since becoming president, and a drop of nine percentage points since January. I guess that’s what happens when you constantly lie to the American people. And get caught.

Remember, this is no liberal gotcha poll… this the Wall Street Journal, the flagship of the right-wing press. And the poll was conducted just before the Karl Rove allegations exploded in the MSM, so the current controversy isn’t even represented in Bush’s sagging honesty ratings.

Interestingly, support for the President is eroding faster than support for the Iraq War. By a 57% to 42% margin, respondents say it is important to maintain a military presence in Iraq until we finish the job… whatever that may be. Yet Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war by a 55% to 39% margin. Clearly, Americans are starting to question the administration’s honesty about, and execution of the war. And that leaves me in good company.

Washington Defense has relaunched its website devoted to opposing the KVI anti-roads initiative, I-912. While part of the broader coalition opposing I-912, Washington Defense maintains its independence, and is a good source of information and resources regarding the initiative, including a comprehensive, county-by-county breakdown of the projects that I-912 would scuttle.

The following letter was sent by all nine Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, urging President Bush to suspend Karl Rove’s security clearances pending a thorough investigation.

July 13, 2005

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one of our critically important responsibilities is to support the individuals who risk their lives as undercover intelligence officers for the United States.

In recent days, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has acknowledged, through his attorney, that he disclosed the identity of an intelligence officer to Matt Cooper, a reporter for Time Magazine. Because this officer was undercover, her identity could only be known through access to classified information.

We abhor the disclosure of the identities of undercover officers. Former President Bush has called those who expose our human sources “the most insidious of traitors.” Ten former intelligence officers signed a letter calling the disclosure of this particular officer’s identify a “shameful and unprecedented event in American history.”

There is ample precedent for suspending the security clearances of people under suspicion of leaking classified information. In addition, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating whether the leak in this case was a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. His investigation is still ongoing.

In light of the above and Mr. Rove’s status as a senior official, we urge you to suspend any and all of Mr. Rove’s security clearances at least until the Fitzgerald investigation is complete.

Sincerely,

Jane Harman
Alcee Hastings
Silvestre Reyes
Leonard Boswell
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr.
Anna G. Eshoo
Rush D. Holt
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
John F. Tierney

It’s really hard to argue with this modest, reasonable request… though I’m sure my righty readers will try.

Just got a press release from Congressman Jay Inslee’s office:

On Thursday morning, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee(WA) will join U.S.Rep. Rush Holt (NJ) and other Members of Congress at a press conference to discuss the introduction of a time-limited Resolution of Inquiry into the compromise of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame. The Members will also call for a comprehensive Congressional investigation into the incident and its impact on American intelligence operations.

Finally, at least some attempt to launch a Congressional investigation into this incident, which for the moment appears to be the result of White House dirty tricks… and it’s good to see a WA congressman taking the lead.

If you happen to be hanging around the U.S. Capitol tomorrow morning, the press conference will be in the House TV/Radio Gallery, H-321, from 10:15 am – 10:45 am Eastern.

After its infamously failed effort to spend billions of dollars building five nuclear power plants during the 1970’s — at a time when Washington state was awash in cheap hydro-power — the “Washington Public Power Supply System”, now renamed Energy Northwest, is back proposing another mega-project…” a roughly $1 billion 600-megawatt Western Washington power plant” that would burn coal and petroleum coke.

The emphasis on the word “roughly” is mine, and considering WPPSS history, it’s well deserved. The cost of WPPSS nuclear folly ballooned many times over original projections before it was shut down by voter initiative in the 1980’s, and was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds. So despite a recent record of apparently sound management, the financial underpinnings of this project must be closely scrutinized.

But I’m also disturbed by Energy Northwest’s willingness to embrace coal, at a time we need to be investing more heavily in renewable energy resources like wind. I’m not qualified to prejudge the proposed plant’s new technology, but there seems no dispute that without sequestration, carbon emissions would be twice that of a traditional natural gas powered plant. Considering the growing impact of global warming, wouldn’t it make better sense to invest “roughly” $1 billion in a proven, carbon-free technology like wind power, rather than testing a new technology for burning coal and oil refinery waste?

Energy Northwest deserves some credit for its financial turn-around, and for investing in some green technologies, but a lot of questions remain… not the least of which concern the power consumption projections on which it is justifying the need for this new mega-plant. And a lot of questions need to be answered before we break ground on a new coal-fired powered plant in Western Washington.

President Bush concluded meetings with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore yesterday, by signing the tersely titled “Strategic Framework Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Singapore for a Closer Cooperation Partnership in Defense and Security.” In a joint statement the two hereditary dictators described the Agreement as “a natural step in the expansion of bilateral ties.”

It was born out of a shared desire to address common threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which called for even closer cooperation between the United States and Singapore. The Agreement recognizes Singapore’s role as a Major Security Cooperation Partner and will expand the scope of current cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, joint military exercises and training, policy dialogues, and defense technology.

And just to show how important this “strong U.S.-Singapore partnership” really is, President Bush also took the time yesterday to nominate a new ambassador to Singapore, with unparalleled experience in the areas of counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, joint military exercises and training, policy dialogues, and defense technology… former King County Republican Party chair Patricia Herbold.

Looking at Pat’s resume, it is hard to imagine another person more qualified to serve as ambassador to a strategic partner in the fight against terrorism and WMDs. In addition to a two-year stint as chair of the KCRP, she has also been active in the Bellevue Senior Coed Softball League.

Previously Pat has served as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Clermont County, Ohio, City Councilmember and Mayor of Montgomery, Ohio and was Vice President and General Counsel for Bank One in Dayton, Ohio. Since moving to Washington State she has given her support as a Board Member to the Seattle Art Museum, Long Live the Kings (salmon recovery program), Performing Arts Center Eastside, Downtown Bellevue Tomorrow and other worthwhile causes.

And oh yeah… she’s also served on the steering and/or finance committees for President Bush and ex-Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn… not that this could possibly have had anything to do with her nomination.

UPDATE:
Oh… according to the Seattle Times, maybe this “plum ambassadorship” did have something to do with money after all…

The Herbolds are both important GOP fund-raisers. Patricia Herbold is one of the founding members of The Club for Growth, a powerful national business coalition that supports changes in Social Security. That group collected more than $20 million for Republicans in 2004.

Herbold’s own record is substantial. She has given more than $100,000 to GOP candidates and the state party since 1998, including $25,000 to the joint state victory committee last September.

She contributed more than $61,000 to individual candidates, including Bush. And she gave $17,000 to GOP committees in other states. She was on Bush’s finance committee in 2000.

Robert Herbold has given nearly $20,000 since 1997; he also has been an active fund-raiser.

Ah well… I guess being a major contributor and fundraiser for one authoritarian leader might make you qualified to be ambassador to another.