Search Results for: ’

Exactly a month ago, after the Seattle Times editorial board transparently feigned bipartisanship by endorsing Barack Obama, I wrote:

As expected, the Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States, paving the way for endorsements of Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, all the while leaving their vaunted bipartisan principles intact.  At least, in their own minds.

In fact, with the possible exception of the race for Commissioner of Public Lands, I can’t imagine a single additional closely contested statewide or federal race in WA state in which the Times endorses a Democrat.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong.  But I wouldn’t bet on it.

So, how did my predictions turn out?  As of today, the Seattle Times has endorsed Republicans Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Allan Martin, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, while Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark did indeed get the ed board’s nod for Commissioner of Public Lands.  I ran the table.

Of course, the Times will publish meaningless endorsements of Democratic incumbents in the virtually uncontested races for Lt. Governor, Auditor and Insurance Commissioner (nominally Democratic in the case of Owen and Sonntag), but with the exception of Obama and Goldmark, the editors of the self-proclaimed paper of record for one of the bluest cities in America are once again backing a full slate of Republicans for every high profile contested statewide or federal race.

As is their right, I suppose.

But how thoughtful and meaningful are editorial endorsements when they can be so easily predicted a month in advance?

I’d say, not very.

UPDATE:
I want to be clear that I did not attempt to predict the Seattle P-I’s endorsements, because I couldn’t. No doubt the P-I’s ed board tends to lean significantly more liberal than the Times, but they are still media establishment types who overwhelmingly favor incumbents.  And, as naive a notion as it is, the P-I seems to genuinely embrace nonpartisanship as a lofty ideal, whereas the Times merely manipulatively embraces it as useful rhetoric.

Nir Rosen has an amazing account in Rolling Stone of his journey into Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan. Rosen discovers some expected things, for instance, that it’s still a dangerous region where foreigners are not welcome and coalition forces only engage from the air. But he also finds some unexpected things, like that the ranks of the Taliban are not so much the religious fundamentalists that they once were. Their movement is once again driven primarily by nationalism, as was the mujaheddin that drove out the Soviets in the 1980s.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said they’d send more troops to Afghanistan, but they should also listen to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen:

But Mike Mullen added bluntly that military means alone were no longer sufficient. “We can’t kill our way to victory,” he declared. “Afghanistan doesn’t just need more boots on the ground.” The keys to success, he explained, were “Foreign investment. Alternative crops [to replace poppy cultivation]. Sound governance. The rule of law… No armed force anywhere — no matter how good — can deliver these keys alone.”

This is why I’ve cringed when Afghanistan has come up at the debates. Obama hasn’t even dared to challenge John McCain on whether or not the surge in Iraq worked. The reduction in violence in Iraq came from reaching out to former insurgents, improved tactics on the ground, building walls throughout Baghdad, and the fleeing of millions of Iraqi’s who’ve seen their prospects for a better life dwindle. Having greater numbers of troops was certainly helpful, but it was far from being the main thing that quieted down the insurgency. And Mullen is warning us not to take such a simple-minded approach to Afghanistan, even as John McCain keeps talking about bringing “the surge” there as well. That Obama appears to be the one candidate more willing to listen to Mullen’s advice is just one of the many reason why he’s getting my vote this year.

As part of the new push in Afghanistan, NATO recently authorized coalition forces to target the drug trade more directly by going after traffickers, labs, and drug lords, but leaving the farmers alone. Afghanistan still produces a majority of the world’s heroin which, despite being illegal, accounts for over 50% of the country GDP. And it’s because Taliban forces have provided protection for the industry that they’ve become such a well-funded and well-armed fighting force threatening to topple the coalition-led leadership across the county. Now the coalition will be trying to go after the people who’ve been paying the Taliban:

The alliance is not in the business of crop eradication, [Sec. of Defense Robert] Gates said, “but if we have the opportunity to go after drug lords and … labs — to interrupt this flow of cash to the Taliban — it seems like a legitimate security endeavor.”

Up until now, the only method being used to eliminate the opium crop was to have Afghan-led eradication teams tour the countryside and plow over opium fields. This approach has been totally ineffective. The teams were easily corrupted, often being used by a local drug lord (who would often happen to also be within the government) to eliminate a rival’s crops. Considering that individuals within the Bush Administration and the C.I.A. openly accept that even Hamid Karzai’s brother is involved in the trade, it’s easy to see why trying to enforce this law has been pointless.

Hard-core drug warriors in the Bush Administration and Congress continually pushed for aerial eradication (including Joe Biden, who helped push a bill to allow dangerous toxins to be dumped on Latin American fields). Our NATO allies and the Afghan Government both opposed us. What’s happening now is clearly a different approach, but it’s every bit as pointless. What we’re trying to do is similar to what we’ve been trying to do in Mexico for years. And when you’re dealing with an industry that accounts for half of a nation’s economy, destroying a few labs and killing some of the drug lords is not going to put a dent in the profiteering.

Instead, Taliban forces will shift from guarding the opium fields to guarding both the labs and the drug lords themselves. The more effective the coalition becomes at eliminating the elements of the trade, the more money will be spent for protection. While it seems like a legitimate security endeavor to Bob Gates, it’s actually one that will completely backfire. As with every anti-drug initiative we undertake in our foreign policy, we forget that the source of the money cannot be uprooted by eliminating the supply. As long as the demand for that supply exists, the best we can ever do is move it, as we once moved it in the 1970s from Turkey to Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, was done in part by allowing Turkey to legally grow it).

The foreign policy discussions in the Presidential debates have rarely deviated from the belief that we defeat our enemies across the globe through fear and intimidation. And in Iraq, our attempts in the early stages of the occupation to use the military alone to quell the insurgency just fanned the flames until we got smart and sat down with the leadership in Al-Anbar and other dangerous areas. Human beings tend to react one way or another to overly authoritarian approaches. Some submit, others rebel. How much of each group there ends up being tends to rely on whether the authority is trusted. In Iraq, we’ve gotten to a point where the vast majority of Iraqis are never going to see us as legitimate occupiers in their nation. It’s possible to keep a rebellious population under wraps if you have the resources, but it doesn’t provide security in the way that the proponents of that policy hope for. Israel has been lost in this psychological quagmire for decades when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza.

In Afghanistan, our unwillingness to dial back our air offensives, which even Hamid Karzai has questioned, is only part of why we’re losing ground there. It’s also because we believe that the drug trade is a form of defiance in much the same way that refusing to accept the coalition’s right to be there and rebuild the country is a form of defiance. It’s not.

The case of Bashir Noorzai is a good indication of how this misunderstanding will only make matters worse there. Noorzai was a wealthy drug lord who came to New York in the hopes of working with Americans to improve the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. It was all a ruse. He was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now the strategy is to go after these guys all over Afghanistan. But people like Bashir Noorzai don’t break the law because they hate us or because they support the Taliban. They break the law because it allows them to be rich and powerful. Our decision to go after a heroin trade that we will never be able to stamp out aligns those whose motivation is profit and power with those whose motivation is to get the foreigners out of their country. This will just accelerate the defeat of Karzai’s fragile regime. We are hooked on a bad policy that just gets exponentially worse as we ignore the real roots of the drug trade and blame those trying to profit from it. While I’m eager to vote for Barack Obama in two weeks, I worry that this mess could eventually be his undoing.

The Columbian newspaper, which in 2004 endorsed George W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama.

But as we examined leadership qualities of both men, we saw Obama’s massive strides in uniting his own Democratic party, even reaching beyond his party to speak to all Americans. McCain, in stark contrast, continues to slog through a fractious Republican Party that often is his worst enemy.

It takes strong leadership skills to enlist record numbers of volunteers and to continually explore new heights in the polls, as Obama methodically demonstrates.

As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain’s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members? Which candidate in recent weeks has shown a presidential demeanor? Which could best restore worldwide respect for the U.S.? Which man has tried to soothe — not stoke — rancor in the homestretch of this campaign? Clearly, that man is Obama.

Wow. This endorsement will make the righties howl, if they have any howling left in them.

It’s been a pretty big day for Obama in newspaper-endorsement land, for what it’s worth. From Editor and Publisher:

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 16 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.

This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to over 3-1 so far, at 56-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.

The readership of the 53 newspapers backing Obama now stands at well over 7 million. He gained two biggies yesterday in The Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle, and today picked up the Modesto Bee in addition to the larger papers.

An interesting footnote: the Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president. Ever. Something about that Abraham Lincoln guy I think.

Is the political re-alignment of the United States very nearly complete? If you look at the maps Darryl has posted below, it would seem that way. The Republican’s Southern Strategy of 1968 has come to its final and logical conclusion, confining the GOP Party to the South and states that are rather southern in culture. (This isn’t my thinking, it’s put forth by none other than the mastermind of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in his book “American Theocracy.”)

It would be nice if we get past our history some day, but the racist incidents and histrionics we are currently enduring in this campaign show we still have a ways to go. I know it’s going out on a limb to try to speak for most Americans, but you have to be pretty tone deaf not to pick up on the genuine longing for a leader who will do a good job and get this country working on the severe challenges we face.

After a brief hiatus, the Podcast is back—and with a special guest.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels starts the conicnversation on Seattle “inside baseball ” politics Sound Transit’s Prop. 1 ballot measure and mass transportation. The conversation then turns to the piles and piles of money dumped (sometimes illegally) into in the Washington state gubernatorial race. Will Rossi and surrogates succeeded in unifying the haters? And why hasn’t the BIAW been enjoined from spending more money on the race? Goldy laments the lack of editorial outrage from the traditional media over flagrant violations of election financing laws. The panel chit-chats about other races, like the presidential race and the Burner–Reichert race. Goldy, in response to the PI’s endorsement of Reichert, offers the proposition that the Seattle media establishment suffers from mediocrity. With two journalists on the panel, the comment triggers something of a group therapy session….

Goldy was joined by Chairman of the Sound Transit Board of Directors and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Publisher of the Group News Blog, Jesse Wendel, HorsesAss reporter Josh Feit , and Seattle blogging pioneer N in Seattle.

The show is 65:16, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_oct_14_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Whenever we pass a ballot measure lowering taxes or limiting government in some way, or reject a measure proposing the reverse, the wise old sages of our media and political establishment always caution that we must follow “the will of the people.”  Yet I have noticed a curious pattern to Dino Rossi, who criticizes Gov. Gregoire for raising the gas tax, advocates for reducing the minimum wage and eliminating the estate tax, and has voted to defund initiatives raising teacher pay and reducing class size… all actions contrary to the will of the people as expressed at the polls.

I-920: Rejected, 38-62
This measure would repeal Washington’s state laws imposing tax, currently dedicated for the education legacy trust fund, on transfers of estates of persons dying on or after the effective date of this measure.

I-912: Rejected, 45-55
Initiative Measure No. 912 concerns motor vehicle fuel taxes. This measure would repeal motor vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents in 2005 and 2006, 2 cents in 2007, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2008, enacted in 2005 for transportation purposes. Should this measure be enacted into law?

I-728: Approved, 72-28
Shall school districts reduce class sizes, extend learning programs, expand teacher training, and construct facilities, funded by lottery proceeds, existing property taxes, and budget reserves?

I-732: Approved, 63-37
Shall public school teachers, other school district employees, and certain employees of community and technical colleges receive annual cost-of-living salary adjustments, to begin in 2001-2002?

I-688: Approved, 66-34
Shall the state minimum wage be increased from $4.90 to $5.70 in 1999 and to $6.50 in 2000, and afterwards be annually adjusted for inflation?

And Rossi’s disregard for the will of the people doesn’t end there, with the candidate promising to build an Alaska Way tunnel that Seattle voters rejected by 70-30 margin, while constantly attacking Gov. Gregoire for failing to build a new Sonics arena that 74% of voters rejected at the polls.  And that’s just off the top of my head.

Huh.  If that’s the way Rossi honors the will of the people while running for office, imagine how much respect he’ll show us once he’s in it.

It’s tomorrow in Europe!

The Chancellor will move to take control of the Royal Bank of Scotland today by injecting £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.

The Government is also expected to take over HBOS in the most dramatic extension of state ownership in the British economy since the war. The bank’s rescue takeover by Lloyds TSB appeared to be on the brink of collapse last night.

As governments around the world scramble to prevent the collapse of the global financial system, Alistair Darling will unveil plans for a £40 billion “recapitalisation” of the banking sector.

I’m going to need a chardonnay sugar scrub. You’re taking a bath but the AIG folks already took theirs– in white wine.

(Props to Eschaton for the first link.)

Last week, the Houston Texans had an epic meltdown with Quarterback Sage Rosenfels fumbling twice at the end of the 4th Quarter to allow the Colts to come back from 17 points down and win 31-27. The Texans are now 0-4. After watching the end of the game, I checked out Battle Red Blog, a Texans blog, to see if anyone was calling for coach Gary Kubiak’s job yet. I stumbled across the Open Game Day Thread, which gave a pretty good summary of the Texans fans’ emotional ride last Sunday afternoon:

Eerie Foreshadowing – 1:07PM CDT

I’ve got a feeling that…

Once again, this game is going to come down to our butter-soft end of game defense. The Colts look very beatable of course, but how will our guys respond late in the 4th?

Swagger – 2:17PM CDT

Agressive – even with a ten point lead in the fourth. LOVE it.

Counting Chickens Before They’ve Hatched – 2:27PM CDT

Hey motherfuckers

We’re going to win this game.

Hubris – 2:41PM CDT

We are gonna have to get a first down!!!! Stop playing like we are running the clock out with 20 secs left

Within a minute of that last comment being posted, Rosenfels kept the ball and tried to run for a first down. But instead of sliding, tried to leap over several defenders. Predictably, he fumbled, the Colts recovered and ran it back for a touchdown to close the lead to 3. Dumbest play I’ve seen all year (other than DeSean Jackson dropping the ball right before he scored a touchdown for the Eagles).

The thread continued:

Bewilderment – 2:41PM CDT

What the flying fuck was that shit?

The Colts then kicked off to the Texans again, where they ran the ball for one yard on first down, taking 40 seconds off the clock.

Not Learning From Earlier Mistakes – 2:45PM CDT

they have got to fucking get a first down. 2 yards a clip won’t cut it

With 2nd and 9 from Houston’s 21, the Texans call two pass plays in a row. Why!?! Run out the fucking clock, dummies. Karma delivered on 3rd and 9 as the Colts stripped the ball from Rosenfels again, giving them the ball at the Houston 20 with 2:36 still left. Manning eventually threw the game-winning touchdown to Reggie Wayne.

Rage – 2:46PM CDT

FIRE THEM ALL

Insanity – 2:50PM CDT

lxkjvlkdjsfvkajflaksdmvsfdjvmglskjv

Defeat – 2:54PM CDT

Gutted.

I think sports may finally have broken me entirely.

Dude, I’ve been there.

Less than 24 hours after The Columbian newspaper reported it is in deep financial shit and will have to move back to its cruddy old building while trying to sell or lease its new, $30 million tower across from Esther Short Park, the city of Vancouver is making noises about purchasing the new building and making it into a new city hall.

The newspaper building at 415 W. Sixth St. could be an ideal resolution to the city’s decade-long effort to consolidate city operations under one roof, said Eric Holmes, the city’s economic development director. He said the building is the right size, in the right place and the price is in line with the $35 million to $40 million the city expects to spend redeveloping the Esther Short Building into a new City Hall.

And it might make sense in more ordinary times.

However, right now this trial balloon is likely to be met with widespread catcalls if not pitchforks. The idea that taxpayers would jump in to save publisher Scott Campbell’s skin in the midst of an historic economic collapse is outrageous on the face of it.

If the city is actually serious, they should wait a year or two and see how much the property is worth, ’cause there’s likely to be a lot of space up for lease in downtown Vancouver. As I’ve noted before, most commercial activity downtown other than the growth industry of criminal justice seems to center around development and related fields, like banking, insurance and engineering. Plus some restaurants who feed the developers on weekdays.

Maybe the new Columbian building would make a nice judicial annex for our fellow prisoners.

State Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R- Ridgefield and ranking minority member of Ways and Means, responding to criticism of his 2007 “Convergence Northwest” conference that featured extreme-right speakers and Knesset members:

Zarelli said the conference was open to the public but told The Columbian he did not invite Muslims to make presentations because, “It’s not my purpose or goal to understand why somebody wants to kill Americans.”

I wish I could report that Democrat Jon Haugen was a worthy adversary for Zarelli in the 18th LD, but unfortunately Haugen is about as wingnutty as they come too.

I have submitted Initiative to the People 997

Initiative Measure No. 997 concerns valuation of single-family residences
for property tax purposes. I have spoken with Tim Eyman about this idea
and discussed the uniformity clause of the Washington State Constitution.

This measure would limit tax valuation of single-family residences to the
assessed value on December 31, 2005, adjusted annually for inflation but
not greater than two percent higher than the previous year’s valuation.
Should this measure be enacted into law?

Great. An end of times candidate or a Tim Eyman candidate. Some choice.

So not only has The Columbian endorsed Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire in her re-election bid, but in Vancouver’s 17th Legislative District, traditionally a swing-to-leans-Republican district, all three Democrats have drawn the endorsement of the newspaper as well.

None of the endorsements are especially surprising, but perhaps the one that will draw the most notice elsewhere is the ringing endorsement of political novice David Carrier over long-time Republican state senator Don Benton.

David Carrier for state senator — You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who provides a greater contrast to blustery incumbent Don Benton than Democrat David Carrier, a soft-spoken political newcomer, avid outdoorsman and holder of a doctoral degree in economics from Notre Dame. Carrier is working tirelessly in the campaign. It paid off in the primary when he won 45.6 percent of the votes, a surprising showing against Benton, a 14-year legislator with three terms as state senator.

Voters, though, must have been familiar with those 14 years. He once missed 17 consecutive meetings as a member of the Higher Education Committee. Benton’s bellicose collisions with colleagues raised eyebrows as far back as 2000 when Republican leaders demanded his resignation as state chair. Through the years, he’s become an inveterate “Dr. No,” opposing sensible ideas that draw popular support, such as all-mail voting and abolishing the supermajority for school levies. He is even opposed to the proposal for replacing the decrepit and dangerous Interstate 5 Bridge.

Ouch. It’s kind of too bad the Washington State Labor Council has endorsed Don Benton for state senate in this, of all years. It’s not as if a bridge project would provide prevailing wage jobs or anything.

In the race to replace Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, who was defeated in the primary by Joseph James, it’s also no contest, according to The Columbian. Democrat Tim Probst may never have held office, but the newspaper notes his far superior experience.

Few rookies are better prepared for elected office than Tim Probst. He currently works as leader of a statewide work force training group and has solid experience as state policy analyst, legislative liaison and assistant to Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar in the 1990s. Bolstered by 48.2 percent of the primary votes, Probst has the momentum and the expertise to help 17th district voters forget about Dunn.

And last but not least, incumbent Deb Wallace justifiably garners the endorsement over culture warrior Micheline Doan.

You have to be realistic, of course, about newspaper endorsements. They don’t count at the ballot box, and Republicans never, ever give up, but it’s a sign of the times that Republicans have fielded such poor candidates in a swing suburban district, while Democrats have come up with much better candidates. If the landslide really does happen, it’s going to be very tough sledding for Republicans everywhere.

The New York Times editorial board is appalled by the tone and content of the McCain/Palin campaign.  And it takes an awful lot to appall a New Yorker…

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

It is a sorry fact of the news biz that editorialists too often attempt to balance the transgressions of one candidate by pointing to the transgressions of their opponent, even when there is no reasonable comparison.  But in recent weeks the McCain/Palin campaign has simply slipped too far over to the dark side to make such journalistic equivalency even remotely believable.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

They called the sound man a “nigger” and commanded him to “sit down, boy.”  But then, that’s the sort of visceral response Palin is shooting for.

In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.

But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.

No, probably not.  What we are seeing is the logical conclusion of the Rovian strategies that secured narrow electoral victories by exploiting the cultural tensions in an otherwise closely divided nation.  As the failures of the Bush administration and his Republican Party have become too overwhelming to ignore, and have started to impact the day to day lives of average Americans, large segments of the electorate are shifting to the Democrats, even if only because they are not Republicans.  Thus as the political divide widens, the obvious Rovian response is to turn up the divisive rhetoric in a last ditch effort to keep swing voters in line through their weapons of choice:  fear, anger and hate.

It will be interesting to see how Republicans respond to a second straight cycle of devastating congressional losses, and a likely Obama victory.  It would be best for both them and the nation if they abandon Palin, and the dangerous fascistic streak she clearly embodies.

The McCain/Palin campaign might want to think twice before heading down that dangerous path toward guilt by association, as the candidates at the top of the Republican ticket have plenty of guilty associations of their own, some of which might even be fresh news to even the most attentive voters.

For example I had no idea about John McCain’s shady associations with the Iran Contra scandal until reading about it this morning in Politico, where former Tacoma News Tribune reporter Ken Vogel (one of the few ex-reporters around here to move up in the biz instead of moving out) sheds new light on McCain’s association with John Singlaub and the US Council for World Freedom.

Since the mid-1980s, there’s been almost no attention paid to John McCain’s long-ago association with a controversial group implicated in a secretive plot to supply arms to Nicaraguan militia groups during the Iran-Contra affair.

But now, with the Republican presidential candidate stepping up his negative blitz against Democratic opponent Barack Obama, some Democrats are hoping that the group – the U.S. Council for World Freedom, and its founder, John Singlaub – will become for McCain what Bill Ayers has become for Obama: a fleeting past association used as ammunition for political broadsides.

[…] “This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign,” Democratic strategist Paul Begala said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization, it was the U.S. Council for World Freedom, it was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran contra scandal. It was an ultra conservative, right-wing group.”

McCain later claimed that he “disassociated himself” from the group after learning of its secret program to arm the Contras, circumventing a Congressional ban on aiding the rebels, but he never informed authorities of these illegal activities.  And he never seemed too bothered by the group’s known anti-Semitic leanings.

Singlaub founded the council in Phoenix in November, 1981, as the U.S. branch of the World Anti-Communist League, which he also helped run for a time. The league billed itself as a supporter of “pro-Democratic resistance movements fighting communist totalitarianism.” But the Anti-Defamation League in 1981 alleged that the anti-Communist league also had had “increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact, for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.”

An aide to McCain told Politico that “McCain has a long and consistent and strong record on issues involving Israel and he would never be associated with anything that was anti-Semitic in any way,” but, as Sarah Palin’s church has proven, being pro-Israel and pro-Jew are not the same thing.

After being sparked by a brief comment Sunday from Democratic strategist Paul Begala on NBC’s Meet the Press, the Singlaub story is quickly gaining some media traction on a path McCain may soon regret choosing.

Shortly after receiving a complaint in Utter vs. BIAW this morning alleging illegal collaboration between Dino Rossi and the Building Industry Association of Washington, a King County Superior Court judge has issued an  order approving the plaintiffs’ request to immediately subpoena witnesses and begin taking depositions.  Subpoenas will be served by October 7, and depositions will begin October 15.

In a press release, plaintiffs’ attorney Knoll Lowney said:

“One of the purposes of this suit is to learn Dino Rossi’s precise role in this fundraising effort, which the State Attorney General has deemed illegal.  We obviously have substantial evidence that Rossi assisted in this fundraising, or the Justices could not have proceeded with their lawsuit.  Now that the Judge has allowed us to begin discovery immediately, we will learn how deeply he was involved.”

Indeed we will.  Though, even under this expedited process it unlikely injunctive relief can come soon enough to prevent the BIAW from spending the remainder of its illegal warchest.

Of course, Rossi and the BIAW could attempt to resist the subpoenas by requesting a protective order, but if, as they claim, they have nothing to hide, why would they want to do that?

The Buildergate scandal takes a new twist this morning as former Washington State Supreme Court Justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter filed notice with Attorney General Rob McKenna of their intent to bring suit against Republican gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi, alleging illegal campaign coordination with the Building Industry Association of Washingtion (BIAW) and its political committees.  They also filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court claiming that the BIAW’s coordination with Rossi disqualify it from making “independent” expenditures in the 2008 gubernatorial.

These dramatic legal developments could have a huge impact on the gubernatorial race.  The BIAW has already spent over $2 million on behalf of Rossi this year, mostly smearing Governor Chris Gregoire, and plans to spend an additional $700,000 during the final weeks of the campaign.  The justices are asking that further “over limit” expenditures be barred by court order.

These suits are just the latest in a widening Buildergate scandal for which the BIAW is already being prosecuted, in a case stemming from Utter and Ireland’s original October, 2008 complaint.  But while McKenna is pursuing the BIAW for numerous “egregious” campaign finance and reporting violations, he took no action on the assertion that the BIAW improperly coordinated its activities with Rossi, thus prompting Utter and Ireland to bring suit on their own.

In a joint statement, the two retired justices—both appointed to the bench by Republican governors—outline both the evidence behind their allegations, and their motivation for seeking enforcement.

The evidence upon which we base our legal action can be construed to show that Dino Rossi was not just a beneficiary of these illegal activities, but was a knowing and active participant.  The evidence shows, moreover, that the attack ads of the BIAW are not really “independent” of their beneficiary Dino Rossi.  This is because Dino Rossi helped the BIAW to amass the war chest for these attack ads.

This is an important issue for all races.  Special interests are increasingly supporting candidates through “independent expenditures” that are not subject to contribution limits.  These “independent” campaigns also tend to contain the most vicious and dubious negative attacks, since the benefitting candidate can say that they have no control over these messages.  It is critical to enforce the law that prohibits candidates from providing fundraising assistance to or otherwise coordinating with “independent” committees.

The fact that Dino Rossi had not publicly declared his candidacy when this alleged coordination took place is not a defense.  A person becomes a candidate when he helps a political committee to amass a war chest to support his candidacy.  And the evidence suggests this is what happened here.

If this coordination took place, then the BIAW’s expenditures would not qualify as an independent expenditure, and would be legally limited to $2,800.  The millions of dollars of attack ads that have blanketed our airwaves would be illegal, and further expenditures should be enjoined.

Washington campaign laws are in place to ensure our elections are fair, that all candidates know what they are facing from their opponents in terms of campaign financing. These rules are there to ensure that special interests cannot buy their way into a legislative process designed to serve and protect the interests of all citizens. Without enforcement our laws are meaningless.

When the Buildergate scandal broke last week, the Rossi campaign tried to dismiss it as frivolous, partisan electioneering, a sentiment that seemed to ooze into some of the press coverage (the Seattle Times, for their part, ignored the story entirely), but remember, these are two retired Supreme Court justices making the charges, and like their original complaint, for which the BIAW is now being prosecuted, their legal arguments seem to be fairly airtight.

In fact, Rossi has publicly admitted the action at the heart of this scandal, that he called board members of the Master Builders Association in May of 2007, when they were considering a request to contribute to the BIAW’s “fund for Rossi.”  Rossi excuses his actions:

“I didn’t ask them to put money anywhere but it would have been perfectly OK for me to do that because I wasn’t even a candidate.”

But as Utter and Ireland point out in a FAQ posted to the website of attorney Knoll Lowney, Rossi’s claimed defense is little more than a distinction without a difference.  State law and prior Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) advisories make it clear that a candidate does not have to ask for a specific dollar amount to be involved in fundraising, and the very act of participating in such activity, even on behalf of a so-called “independent” campaign, automatically makes one a candidate by definition.

Indeed, back in June of 2004, the BIAW asked the PDC for an opinion on this very issue, to which the commissioners replied without equivocation:

One of the most fundamental ways a candidate could encourage a person to purchase political advertising supporting that candidate is to help make sure that person has sufficient funds to undertake an effective advertising effort. Assisting a PAC in fundraising fosters that committee’s ability to make the political advertising expenditure benefiting the candidate. As such, the PAC expenditure is not sufficiently removed from the candidate to qualify as an independent expenditure.
…
That collaboration disqualifies any resulting expenditure from the definition of independent expenditure.

You really can’t get any clearer than that.

Buildergate is shaping up to be a classic political scandal, and like most such scandals, it’s the coverup that will eventually bring down the perpetrators, for had the BIAW properly reported its activities like it knew it should have, we may never have known about Rossi’s illegal coordination.

With most of the BIAW’s warchest already spent, there may not be time for the courts to impose any meaningful sanctions, so the only question remaining is whether Rossi will suffer the consequences of his unethical and illegal behavior before the election, or after?  I await to see if our local media will fulfill their obligations as public watchdogs, or merely resort to the kind of half-hearted stenography on this scandal we’ve seen thus far.