Search Results for: ’

The NY Times highlights John McCain’s gambling problem.  And it’s a problem on two levels.

As a two-time chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain has done more than any other member of Congress to shape the laws governing America’s casinos, helping to transform the once-sleepy Indian gambling business into a $26-billion-a-year behemoth with 423 casinos across the country….

“One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming” is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called Mr. McCain.

The Times describes McCain as a “lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.”  No shit, Sherlock.

But I’m curious if our local press, who has silently sat back (when not actively collaborating) and allowed Dino Rossi to slander Gov. Gregoire as “Casino Chris” for rejecting a tribal gaming compact that would have led to a tenfold increase in WA’s gambling industry… I wonder if they’ll ask the Republicans that ironic question about how they feel about the man at the top of their ticket, the “founding father of Indian gaming”…?

Probably not.

The Matt Millen era came to an end in Detroit this week, as the Lions’ General Manager was finally canned after a reign of ineptness that made Lions fans feel like the Bush Administration was running their team. Here’s how some of the fans celebrated:

A Detroit radio station gave the Matt Millen era a proper burial Friday, complete with a motorcycle-drawn carriage lugging a “Fire Millen!” sign in a custom-painted Lions casket.

“This is a special moment for us as we say good-bye to a legacy, to a reign of a general manager that brought us frustrations, brought us tears, brought us everything but a trophy,” DJ Spike, from the “Mojo in the Morning” program on WKQI-FM (95.5), said as the funeral lined up at 8 a.m. at Eastern Market.

An $85,000 Harley-Davidson hearse led the procession south on Gratiot Avenue to Ford Field. Inside the gleaming Honolulu blue-and-silver casket was a photograph of Millen’s face on a white, padded, silk pillow.

As about 30 people standing around the casket snickered, Spike invited fans to put mementos in the casket “to be buried forever along with the bad memories of seven years of Matt Millen’s reign.”

Like the Lions, the Seahawks have their bye this week. And also like the Lions, the Seahawks have their own fans who go a little too far (ok, in that case, a lot too far).

Watching last night’s presidential debate at the jam-packed Montlake Ale House (a horde of DFAer’s pushing us DL regulars into the nooks and crannies), there was little question about who won the contest.  Both the boisterous crowd and the CNN dial test audience agreed: it was no ass whooping, but Barack Obama came off as knowledgable, likeable and more in touch with average Americans than the often angry and ornery John McCain. And with this being the debate that focused on McCain’s alleged strong suit, foreign policy, that constitutes a win for Obama.

But afterwards, I stopped off at house filled with angry Irishmen, and the reaction was quite different.  Strong Democrats all, they were drowning their sorrow in whiskey at what they saw as a pathetically weak performance by Obama, who failed to fight back against McCain’s frequent attacks.  Almost as a chorus they complained that if Obama had said “I agree with Sen. McCain” one more time, they would have thrown a bottle at the TV set (and the Irish don’t waste the contents of bottle lightly).

They went into the debate smelling blood after McCain/Palin’s week of disastrous missteps, and they expected Obama to go in for the kill.  He didn’t.  And their initial and unanimous post-debate reaction was that this was big win for McCain.

Huh.  Had we watched the same debate?  So I went online to catch the spin and was fascinated to watch the consensus evolve over the next few hours.  The early threads on the liberal blogs more closely matched the angry Irishmen than the cheerful DFAers, with many commenters lamenting the same lack of backbone and aggression, a sentiment echoed by a handful of CW pundits who quickly jumped to set the frame by calling the debate for McCain.  But it wasn’t long before this spin got spun around, with McCain’s ornery demeanor, his refusal to even look at Obama, let alone make eye contact, and his failure to mention “the middle class” even once beginning to dominate the conversation.

Then the instant polls and focus group results came in, and the notion of an Obama win quickly took hold amongst a majority of the media commentators.  By pretty convincing margins both independent and undecided voters consistently gave the edge to Obama, both in his performance and in his positives.  Obama talked about issues and connected with voters, whereas McCain appeared “antagonistic”, even “contemptuous,” and while the latter may play well with McCain’s antagonistic and contemptuous Republican base, the folks in the middle… um… not so much.

I don’t know if Obama’s cool and collected debate demeanor is a strategy or simply who he is, but as much as I would personally like to see our candidate punch back as good as he gets—and better—I think last night’s approach ultimately serves him well.  Not because voters don’t want to see their presidents appear strong—they most emphatically do—but Obama, perhaps uniquely, must carefully avoid appearing too strong.  If you know what I mean….

Ahem… um… as McCain might phrase it, “the point is“… while we may have come a long way toward fulfulling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, white America doesn’t much like its big, black men to appear aggressive or threatening… and in case you hadn’t noticed, Barack Obama is a big, black man.

Oh sure, on the football field or the basketball court such aggression is accepted and even celebrated, but in the political arena the standards are quite different.  Yes, in politics, we still like our big, black men to be orderly and loyal, like Colin Powell, or quiet like Justice Thomas… or even a sweet, dumb, gentle giant like that character in The Long Green Mile.

But threatening?  No, Obama can’t afford to come off as threatening, let alone contemptuous of an elderly white man like McCain.  So as much as I’m with the brawling Irishmen on what I’d personally like to see from our candidate, I understand I’m not the typical swing voter, and nowhere near the mindset of an undecided independent.  No, as much as it may pain me, Obama needs to show McCain respect, even when it is totally unreciprocated, if he is to win the hearts, minds and votes of the uncommitted.

He may not have stirred any passions in his base, but I’m guessing more voters than not came away from the debate with a greater sense of comfort in the notion of Obama as commander in chief, and that’s all he needed to achieve last night.

So I’ve scored this one for Obama.  And now I’m going sit back and watch to see if my post-debate analysis is supported by the daily tracking polls.

UPDATE:
John Cole at Balloon Juice aptly sums up the dilemma facing McCain over the emerging too contemptuous to make eye contact narrative:

SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate). And if McCain does not tone down the contempt, it will simply feed the narrative. Or, if we are really lucky, as someone suggested in another thread, McCain will overcompensate and spend the entire time comically and creepily attempting to make eye contact with Obama (think Al Gore walking across the stage to stand next to Bush, and Bush looking at him as if to think “WTF are you doing?”).

This should be terrifying for the McCain campaign for two reasons. First, the base will not understand it. To them, a sneering, contemptuous jerk is a feature, not a bug. When they try to tone down McCain, it will turn off the diehards. Look at the reaction of the base to Palin’s RNC speech- they LOVED that she was, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an asshole the entire speech. They loved the “zingers” that were written for her. The rest of the country recoiled in horror, and Obama raised ten million the next 48 hours.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
I feel like I’m in pretty good company when James Fallows posts a pretty similar analysis:

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes — cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways “safe” and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more “likeable,” the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. Update: though he doesn’t have to say “John is right…” ever again during this campaign.

Writing in the National Review Online, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker calls for Sarah Palin to bow out:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

[…] When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

And Parker’s conclusion?

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

Ouch.

JP Morgan Chase to acquire struggling Washington Mutual. I suppose that means I shouldn’t continue to expect 3.75 percent interest on my savings account, should I?

UPDATE:
Okay, now the NY Times is saying that WaMu has been “seized” by the FDIC, and its retail banking and “other pieces” sold off to JP Morgan Chase.  But…

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a statement on Thursday evening promising a seamless transition. “For all depositors and other customers of Washington Mutual Bank, this is simply a combination of two banks,” said the F.D.I.C. chairman, Sheila C. Bair, adding that for Washington Mutual’s customers, it would be “business as usual come Friday morning.”

I just checked, and I still have access to my account.  Not so sure about that sweet interest rate though.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Largest.  Bank failure.  Ever.  (We’re number one!)

The Public Disclosure Commission voted to concur with a staff report today, finding the Washington State Republican Party guilty of numerous egregious violations of our state’s campaign finance and public disclosure laws, including at least $150,000 of illegal expenditures on behalf of Dino Rossi in the weeks leading up to the August primary.  Lacking the authority to impose a large enough penalty proportionate to the violations, the PDC has referred the case to Attorney General Rob McKenna for further prosecution.

This is the second time in as many weeks that McKenna has been handed an investigation of close political allies, following the PDC ruling that found the Building Industry Association of Washington guilty of failing to report at least $1.2 million in campaign contributions.  There is no word from McKenna as to when he might take action on either of these cases.  But don’t hold your breath.

As first reported here on HA, the WSRP flagrantly used “exempt” soft money contributions to illegally finance direct advocacy, specifically a pro-Rossi/anti-Gregoire direct mail smear campaign.  And as I wrote at the time, the case against Rossi and the WSRP was pretty cut and dry:

This isn’t rocket science.  It’s Campaign Finance 101.  All the political candidates, consultants, committees and parties know damn well what is or is not allowed.  And yet the WSRP chose to blatantly violate campaign expenditure laws that have been in place for the past 16 years.

[…] Let’s be clear, this is no mistake or accidental oversight; WSRP chair Luke Esser, allegedly a lawyer, deliberately and knowingly violated the law, feebly attempting to disguise these illegal expenditures by mislabeling them as “member communications” (a label that would not make these expenditures exempt, even if true.)  The WSRP could have run the mailing past the PDC ahead of time—campaigns do this all the time—but they knew the answer they would get.  Which of course is why they never asked.

The distinction between “exempt” and “non-exempt” funds is clear.  The former are “exempt” from normal campaign contribution limits, and may be used for party building, organizing and get out the vote efforts, but not for direct advocacy for or against a candidate.  The latter may be used for any purpose, but are subject to strict contribution limits.  Buy using exempt funds for non-exempt purposes the WSRP has intentionally violated the law, using large lump sum contributions from GOP fat cats like Rufus Lumry ($80,000) and Eastside developer Skip Rowley ($30,000), and from powerful special interests like the National Electrical Contractors Association ($50,000) and Walmart ($25,000) to illegally finance Rossi’s campaign.

But, well, I guess Esser just figures that breaking the law, and the inevitable fines, are just part of the cost of running an effective campaign.

No doubt the WSRP fully understands that it faces a substantial penalty for such a flagrant and deliberate PDC violation, but that won’t come until after the election, so no harm done.  No, if there’s a penalty to be paid ahead of this election it will have to come at the hands of the local media, but whether they’ll give this story the scrutiny it deserves, or merely brush it off as another “he said, she said” between two feuding camps, remains to be seen.

Personally, I don’t have much faith in our local media to express the outrage such deliberate flouting of our campaign finance laws rightly deserves, and I’m afraid that McKenna, now with two major cases on his plate, against his two biggest financial backers, won’t substantively move on either case until well after the November election.

And if my fears are proven correct, that means the WSRP and the BIAW will well learn the lesson that crime does indeed pay.  Voters will never know about the extent of these violations because our amen editorialists can’t be bothered to muster up the outrage, and the fines, however large, will simply be paid with more lump sum contributions from the same wealthy Republican benefactors.

What they hope to buy with all their illegal money is the governor’s mansion.  And you can be sure that they’ve already made the calculation that even a hefty post-election fine would be money well spent.

Founded in 1877, the nonpartisan Humane Society has never endorsed anybody for president it its entire 141 year history.  Until now.

I’m proud to announce today that the HSLF board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them.

And yes, this did have something to do with the endorsement:

(Hat tip Crooks & Liars.)

And of course, it’s more than just the economy on which John McCain mimics George W. Bush; you can learn more at Third Term:  The Movie.

Voters should keep McCain’s role in the savings and loan debacle in mind as they’re asked to once again to pick up the pieces from yet another financial crisis largely created by the free trade/deregulatory policies McCain has ideologically championed throughout his entire career.  Sure, the markets are soaring this morning, but taxpayers’ spirits won’t be when they hear the reasons why:

Congressional leaders said after meeting Thursday evening with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that as much as $1 trillion could be needed to avoid an imminent meltdown of the U.S. financial system.

[…] “We’re talking hundreds of billions,” Paulson told reporters. “This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get to the heart of the problem.”

A trillion dollars of taxpayer money to buy up the bad debt whose accumulation made Wall Street executives rich beyond your wildest dreams.  And for this we’re supposed to reward McCain with the reins of government?

Those guys with the booze in the funny hats?  That’s McCain partying with Charles Keating in the heady days before McCain pressured regulators to lay off Lincoln Savings, and the S&L’s collapse subsequently cost taxpayers a couple billion dollars, and Keating a few years of his freedom on a fraud conviction.

And this is the guy we’re supposed to trust to keep an eye on Wall Street?  The guy who bills himself as “the greatest free trader” and “the greatest deregulator” ever…?

A trillion dollars, folks.  $1,000,000,000,000.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” said lawmakers were told last night “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications, here at home and globally.”

For all you McCain-style free traders out there, this is what we call a market failure.  Your economic philosophy—your religion—that the market always makes the most efficient allocation of resources, and that it always corrects itself, as if guided by the invisible hand of God?  Well, it’s just been proven wrong.

Again.

And the impact on the rest of us, I mean beside the recession that will bring undue economic hardship on billions of people worldwide, while Wall Street executives become honored philanthropists for giving away a fraction of their ill-gotten golden parachutes?

The solution being proposed by the Bush administration is the most expensive bailout in the nation’s history, sharply curtailing the ability of the next president to push for tax cuts or new spending.

Well thanks a fucking lot.  Once again a Democratic president will be forced to spend his entire eight years, shoving progressive policies like universal health care aside so that he can clean up the mess of the previous administration.

That is, assuming, voters aren’t stupid enough to elect John McCain.

No doubt state Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) is facing a tough reelection fight, what with the press gleefully trumpeting his arrest on suspicion of domestic violence, yet quietly chirping like crickets when the case was quickly dropped without charges being filed.  But it’s not just his bad press that’s made Simpson vulnerable this election cycle, it’s also his stalwart opposition to all things BIAW, which has made him the target of some very powerful enemies.

And when the BIAW goes after you, they fight dirty, unimpeded by the law, let alone the Queensberry Rules.

Take for example an email sent out recently to a number of lobbyists by Drew Stokesbary, the campaign chair for Simpson’s Republican opponent Mark Hargrove… an email so inappropriate that even lobbyists were disgusted, prompting several to forward copies directly to Simpson and his campaign.

I noticed that one of your clients, [REDACTED], has contributed to Geoff Simpson. I’d like to encourage you to see if you can get Simpson’s opponent, Mark Hargrove, a similar contribution from [REDACTED].  I understand there are political reasons for that contribution, but the dynamics of the race of have been shifting lately.

[…] The caucus is making a significant hard-dollar contribution, and probably a larger soft-dollar contribution.  Builders, construction, insurance, pharma, NFIB, ag, and others are jumping in now.

You gotta appreciate young Stokesbary’s eagerness to take the initiative, if not his respect (or lack thereof) for our state’s campaign finance laws, for three things immediately jump out from both his email and his public record:  A) Stokesbary is clearly using Simpson’s PDC reports to solicit funds, which is illegal; B) Stokesbary clearly implies that he is coordinating soft-dollar expenditures with his state caucus, which is illegal; and C) Stokesbary is… well… an asshole, which isn’t illegal per se, but turns out to be quite pertinent to the rest of this post.

For in addition to being Hargrove’s campaign chair and son-in-law, Stokesbary turns out to be an employee of both the BIAW and Attorney General Rob McKenna, a bigot, a racist, a George W. Bush fan, a teacher-hater, a sycophant, a hothead and, well, an asshole.

Hmm… where to start?  How about with the most damning of the epithets I just tossed Stokesbary’s way, his association with the lying, cheating, equally assholic bastards at the BIAW, where according to their annual report, he was employed at least through 2007.  And it was with a fellow BIAW employee Tom Kwieciak, that Stokesbary most visibly displayed the organization’s unique approach to public discourse, by notoriously heckling professional golfer Curtis Strange from the hospitality box of the 2007 Boeing Classic.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Drew Stokesbary, 22, of Olympia yelled from the Canyon Club. “Be a man.”

Strange, 52, took his time while he surveyed the troublesome hole. His expression didn’t change.

“Go for it, Curtis,” Stokesbary repeated loudly, seated at a table. “Hit it like a man.”

Choosing the conservative route, Strange swung and put one in the fairway. Another verbal assault followed him off the tee.

“That’s what the ladies’ tour is for, Curtis,” Stokesbary chided as the golfer passed in front of the box.

[…] “I heard on the radio that he’s considered a hothead, which is why I singled him out, and he proved it,” Stokesbary said, referring to Strange.

I mean… what an asshole.

That is the sort of antisocial behavior Stokesbary has displayed throughout his short life, which of course makes him perfect BIAW material.  According to a blog post by a Chinese classmate of his at Duke, Stokesbary used to intentionally “stir up trouble with his incendiary arguments” during history class…

Once, when he made a remark about how if immigrants wanted to keep their traditions alive, they shouldn’t have come to the US in the first place, my friends had to literally restrain me from knocking him over.

And in his Amazon review of Gordon Park’s classic 1964 “The Learning Tree,” a novel about growing up black in a white man’s world, Stokesbary displayed his usual racial sensitivity:

this was about the worst and slowest-paced book i’ve ever read. In english class we had to read a book by a black author and my teacher thought i might like it. but i didn’t. it was terrible. by the time you get about halfway through the pace picks up, but by then it’s pointless. don’t buy this book or read it. please.

Yup.  Nothing worse than being forced to read a book by a black author.

I don’t know much about Hargrove, but if I were him I’d be more than bit uncomfortable having this unrepentant fratboy chair my campaign, let alone marry my daughter.  And as for Rob McKenna, I think he needs to answer a few questions about whether Stokesbary was acting on his authority, since the email certainly appears to give that impression.

This email, in which Stokesbary warns lobbyists that clients who have given to Simpson better give to Hargrove too, was sent from a RobMcKenna.org email address, and signed by Stokesbary with the title “Field Director, Re-Elect AG Rob McKenna.”  The clear impression left with some recipients was that this was a direct request from McKenna, the most powerful Republican in the state, and a man in a position to impose political fealty.

So why would McKenna risk putting his name on such a legally and ethically dubious email?  After obtaining a copy of Stokesbary’s email from a political consultant, I contacted Rep. Simpson and asked him for his response.  Not surprisingly, he seems to believe it all comes down to the BIAW:

“Why are they coming after me? They want existing taxpayers to pay for the roads, schools and fire stations their new development requires and I think  the developers should pay their fair share through impact fees. They are one of the state’s most powerful political group but I stand up to them and am one of the biggest obstacles to them getting what they want in Olympia. They want growth without regulation. I want controlled and planned growth. They want to maintain their ability to skim industrial insurance money to use for political purposes but I worked to stop them.  Hargrove hasn’t even been elected yet and he’s already sold out to the BIAW.”

If so, expect this campaign to get much nastier.  And, less legal.

UPDATE:
And apparently, I’m not the only one who has trouble seeing John McCain as an agent of change.  According to the latest NY Times/CBS poll:

Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

And that Palin bounce?

[T]he Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general.

[…] This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s running mate. More than 6 in 10 said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.

The Times/CBS poll shows Obama leading McCain 48 to 43, which is right in line with the latest Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, that shows a 48 to 44 margin.

I’m a little suspect of the polls right now in the wake of the national conventions, but as Lee just pointed out, the latest KING5/SurveyUSA poll on Prop. 1 is sure to dishearten the anti-rail crowd that maniacally trolls HA’s comment threads.

When asked about Sound Transit’s proposal to expand rail and bus service, 49% of respondents said that they were certain to vote yes, while only 16% said they were certain to vote no.  And when the uncertain respondents were asked whether they lean toward one side or the other, Prop. 1’s advantage expanded to a whopping 65% to 20% margin.

But perhaps more interesting…

Among those who describe themselves as conservatives, those voting or leaning “no” slightly outnumber those voting or leaning “yes.” Among those who identify themselves as Republicans, “yes” slightly outnumbers “no.” Among all other groups, the measure passes by no fewer than 31 points.

So Prop. 1 seems to have pretty damn broad support, even within the constituencies where you would expect the strongest opposition, a finding that is consistent with some internal polling numbers I heard whispered about a few weeks back.  Of course, unlike the actual ballot language, the SurveyUSA question didn’t include the $17.9 billion estimated cost, so I’d be surprised to see Prop. 1 pass by such a large margin… but I’d be even more surprised to see it fail.

There are several major differences between this year’s Prop. 1 and last year’s failed measure of the same nomenclature:  the proposal, the electorate and the economic reality.

This Prop. 1 is not tied to an unpopular and controversial road expansion package that split the environmental community and dramatically escalated the costs.  This Prop. 1 will benefit from the significantly larger and more progressive electorate that tends to turn out in this region during presidential election years.  And most of all, this election will occur with memories of $4.50/gallon gasoline still fresh in everybody’s minds… so fresh that bus and commuter rail ridership continues to grow even as gasoline prices have temporarily stepped back from their historic highs.

As I’ve repeatedly argued, the era of cheap gasoline is over, and that means that 2008 is most definitely not 2007:

I know conventional wisdom still suggests that now is the wrong time for Sound Transit to come back with a ballot measure, just one year after the defeat of Prop 1, but the conventional wise men are missing the point: 2008 isn’t 2007. The era of cheap gas is over, and Americans—even Seattle-Americans (and yes, I know, Seattle is different from every other city in the world)—are beginning to change their behavior in response. Voters get that, even if our politicians and editorialists don’t.

Traffic congestion has far from disappeared as a volatile political issue, but public demand for affordable transportation alternatives is rising at least as fast as the price of gas. And the thing is, whether it’s cheaper and more efficient or not, when current drivers envision their future mass transit commute, they much prefer to envision themselves riding on a train, than on a bus. People like trains; that’s a fact. And if I were an elected official, I’d probably want to focus on delivering the services that the people want.

Many of our region’s political and media old timers still seem mired in the auto-centric transportation vision of the 1950’s.  But I’m guessing we’ll find out on November 4 that the majority of voters are not.

A new poll in the Washington state gubernatorial race between Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) and Dino Rossi (“G.O.P. Party) has been released by Elway Research. I mentioned the poll in yesterday’s poll round-up, but I had not seen the full report.

It turns out the polling was somewhat complex. The poll sampled 450 registered voters between 6-Sep and 8-Sep. The overall margin of error is 4.5%, although in the most interesting analyses, they split samples in half, giving a margin of error within a group of 6.5%.

Elway split the sample into two groups. Group one was asked to chose between “Republican Dino Rossi” and “Democrat Christine Gregoire.” Group two was asked to chose between labels as they appear on the Washington state ballot. That is, they were asked to chose between Rossi, “who prefers the GOP party” and Gregoire, “who prefers the Democratic party.”

Subgroup one gave Gregoire a 50% to 41% lead over Rossi. Group two gave Gregoire a 48% to 44% lead. With a 6.5% margin of error, the differences in these findings are nowhere near achieving statistical significance. In other words, the differences between the two subgroups could simply reflect sampling error.

Just for fun, let’s analyze these as separate polls and combine them later. As usual, I use a Monte Carlo analysis, consisting of one million simulated elections, drawing from the polled population.

The weakest results for Gregoire come when Rossi is introduced as preferring the “G.O.P. Party.” Following a million simulated elections, Gregoire wins 660435 times and Rossi wins 321369 times. This suggests that, if the election was held now, Gregoire would have a 67.3% probability of beating Rossi. Here is the distribution of vote outcomes from the simulations:

When Rossi is called a Republican, his chances go down a bit. Now, after a million simulated elections, Gregoire wins 834,999 times and Rossi wins 153,178 times. This subsample, treated as its own poll, gives Gregoire an 84.5% of defeating Rossi (if the election were held now).

I would argue for using both samples. First, because the difference is not significant. It may be that Washington voters react negatively to Rossi as a Republican. Or not. The sample size was not sufficient to statistically support the idea. Secondly, because I have a difficult time believing that come November the voters will not think of this as a race between the state’s top Democratic candidate and the state’s top Republican candidate.

In the pooled analysis Gregoire wins 838,346 times. Rossi wins 153,042 times. If the election were held now, based on this poll alone, Gregoire would have an 84.6% probability of defeating Rossi. Here is the distribution:

Let’s consider one more permutation. The new Elway poll actually falls between two other recent polls, so lets pool all the recent polls. The recent Rasmussen poll was conducted on 10-Sep. It gave Rossi a 52% to 46% lead over Gregoire. And the slightly older SurveyUSA poll was conduted from 5-Sep to 7-Sep. It gave Rossi a 48% to 47% lead over Gregoire.

When the Elway results are pooled with the Rasmussen and SurveyUSA results, Gregoire wins 451,469 times and Rossi wins 541,349 times. In other words, these recent polls suggest that, if the election were held now, Gregoire would have a 45.5% probability of winning and Rossi would have a 54.5% probability of winning.

<

One final note. In my previous analysis of this race I pointed out that both the SurveyUSA and Rasmussen “polls show a surprising decline in Obama’s standing against McCain—a post-convention decline that is larger than anything I’ve seen in other blue states.” The suggestion was that, perhaps, both polls, by chance, drew samples that were favorable to both Rossi and McCain. There were some hints of this in the cross-tabs of both polls (like a surge in women chosing McCain in the Rasmussen poll).

The Elway poll lends a bit more support for the idea. In a McCain–Obama match-up, Obama came out ahead of McCain, 45% to 38%. The +7% advantage for Obama is more in line with other polling than is the +2% found in the Rasmussen poll and the +4% found in the SurveyUSA poll.

But without additional evidence, I’m forced to take the pooled results and giving Rossi a very narrow lead over Gregoire right now.

(Cross posted at Hominid Views.)

With all the hoo-hah over Sarah Palin’s documented desire to ban books from the Wasilla public library, and her vindictive effort to fire a popular city librarian who openly expressed her opposition to mayoral censorship, perhaps we should have been focusing less on the books Palin wanted to ban, and a bit more on the books she actually reads.

As New York Times columnist Frank Rich astutely pointed out on Sunday, Americans should find Palin’s apparent reading list downright scary:

This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.”

[…] There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler.

Palin, who lies with ease about her own record, misrepresented Pegler’s too. He decreed America was “done for” after Truman won a full term in 1948. For his part, Truman regarded the columnist as a “guttersnipe,” and with good reason. Pegler was a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists.

So… exactly how right-wing was Pegler?  As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out today on the Huffington Post, so right-wing as to have publicly called for his father’s assassination.

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist who Sarah Palin approvingly quoted in her acceptance speech for the moral superiority of small town values, expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

When a vice presidential candidate can admiringly quote a fascist, racist, anti-semitic hate-monger like Pegler—in her acceptance speech no less—and America barely bats an eye, it tells you a lot about where our nation is potentially going.