Search Results for: ’

Darcy Burner issued the following statement on the fire that destroyed her Ames Lake home:

“As many of you may be aware, early this morning my home was destroyed by a fire. It appears to have been caused by a faulty lamp in my son’s room. Unfortunately, our home and all of the possessions in it are a total loss, but I am so grateful that my family and I escaped safely. We may have lost our home and our possessions, but for the most part they can be replaced, and I feel like a true tragedy was narrowly avoided today. Please rest assured that while we have been a bit shaken by what happened, Mike, Henry and I are all okay.

“Particularly, I am grateful to the wonderful men and women of the Redmond and Kirkland Fire Departments, and the investigators from the King County Fire Investigation Unit. Their rapid response and incredible professionalism brought the fire under control and kept it from spreading to our neighbors’ homes. And these brave first responders even miraculously rescued my son’s puppy, who we initially thought had perished in the flames. Sadly, our cat, Charlotte, did not survive the fire.

“I am also deeply grateful for the expressions of support from friends, supporters and others who have called to express their condolences and offer their generous and heartfelt assistance. I am so moved by all of the offers of a place to stay, or clothes to wear, or all of the other offers of help that have poured in throughout the day. While we are fine for now, your kind expressions of support and concern have helped to sustain me through what has been a long and difficult day.

“For those who would like to do something to express their support, let me suggest making a contribution to your local humane society or animal shelter in memory of Charlotte, or to the Washington State Council of Firefighters Benevolent Fund.

“Thank you all for being there for us in my family’s time of need.  It means so much to us.”

I’ve added in the links, but feel free to choose your own charities that fit the spirit of the request.

The preliminary 60-day supply limits for medical marijuana patients in Washington have been released:

Patients authorized to possess or grow marijuana for medical reasons under Washington law would be limited to 24 ounces of harvested marijuana, plus six mature plants and 18 immature plants, according to an official draft rule filed by the state Department of Health today.

The filing of the draft rule starts a rule-making process and a public-comment period. A hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 25 in Tumwater, Thurston County.

As I mentioned below, this is lower than earlier numbers proposed by the DOH, but it’s also higher than the 3 ounces that law enforcement considered “reasonable.” Why these numbers? Probably because they’re exactly the same as what Oregon allows.

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, the prime sponsor of the bill tasking the State Department of Health to set the limits, has released a statement:

We have a responsibility to stay true to the values of compassion and empathy that are at the basis of this law, which was passed by voters in 1998. While I appreciate the Department of Health’s efforts to address this complex issue, I am concerned that today’s proposed rule is more restrictive than what had been previously discussed and may be unclear regarding a physician’s role in making a recommendation for a patient’s use of medical marijuana. Since the rule is not yet final, I encourage all stakeholders to continue providing written input and participate in the upcoming public hearing on August 25 to ensure a full consideration of their concerns.

Mankind has witnessed a number of horrors in recent decades—the Rwandan genocide… the ongoing tragedy in Darfur… DOE’s stormwater regulations—but none, according to Seattle Times editorialist Kate Riley a few weeks back, matched that of a state Democratic Party press release criticizing Dino Rossi for deliberately attempting to hide his Republican affiliation:

Oh, horrors! Stop the presses. Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is trying to “rebrand” himself as a member of the Grand Old Party. How sinister.

The real horror here is the state Democratic party’s attempt, in a press release today, to invent a scandal out of nothing — and, worse, the premise for their argument is founded on an apparent belief that voters are too ignorant to know that “GOP” and “Republican” are the same thing….

Really, Kate? Well, I hate to say “I told you so”… so I’ll just let Postman say it for me:

Dino Rossi’s rebranding effort may pay off with voters who say they don’t know what it means when a candidate declares himself a member of the “GOP Party.” […] A recent poll by Stuart Elway says that about 25 percent of respondents didn’t know what GOP meant.

Elway asked respondents which party they thought a candidate who “prefers GOP Party” is associated with. 15% didn’t know, 7% said Democratic and 3% other. And of that 25% who didn’t know or got it wrong, 27% identified themselves as Independents and 26% as Democrats. Only 18% of Republicans were confused.

This came as no surprise to Postman, who adds:

That’s where the greatest benefit of rebranding could come for a Republican trying to buck a 24-year gubernatorial losing streak for the party.

And you can trust Postman on this, because he’s one of those credible corporate media bloggers.

Anybody who knows anything about initiatives knows that a good ballot title can mean a couple extra points at the polls, and no doubt Rossi took advantage of the new top-two primary to jigger the ballot to his advantage. You can’t really blame Rossi, I guess, for this calculated deception—he is a politician after all—but neither can you blame the Democrats for their efforts to educate voters by pointing it out.

It is at the very least ironic then, that Riley, a member of an editorial board that has argued persuasively for government openness, should so vehemently defend Rossi’s deliberate obfuscation, while hyperbolically attacking a Democratic press release on the subject. But as I wrote at the time…

[T]hat’s the sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” partisanship we’ve come to expect from an amen editorialist who applauded Dave Reichert’s sexist dismissal of Harvard grad Darcy Burner as a ditzy blond, while condemning Burner as the reincarnation of Karl Rove.

No doubt I can be just as much a partisan propagandist as Riley and her colleagues on the Times ed board. The difference is, I admit it.

Earlier this morning, Postman wrote:

I was talking to a smart friend over the weekend who bemoaned the oh-so-careful approach Gov. Chris Gregoire is taking to governing. He’s a supporter. But he worries that out of fear of alienating someone, somewhere, Gregoire has traded activism for near-paralysis.

The topic of that post had nothing to do with drug policy, but with the deadline for having the State Department of Health establish the 60-day supply limits for medical marijuana patients coming up tomorrow, I find myself in the same boat as Postman’s unnamed friend – if not even more critical of the Governor.

As of my typing this, I still have no idea what the released limits will be. Earlier this year, it was revealed that preliminary numbers of 35 ounces and a 100 sq ft growing area caused the Governor to get more involved in the process and demand more feedback from law enforcement and medical professionals. Many patients and advocates within the medical marijuana community saw this as an attempt by the Governor to derail the process in support of the state’s law enforcement union, while the Governor’s dishonesty about why the process was derailed didn’t exactly convince people that she was acting in good faith.

At the follow-up meeting (which the DOH attempted to keep closed to the public, but failed), the two parties who the Governor claimed were underrepresented in the initial round of workshops were in attendance. The law enforcement officials again iterated that the decision should be left up the medical professionals, and the one medical professional who showed up said that 35 ounces might be too low of a limit for some patients who ingest it within food. Law enforcement officials also asserted that the limit shouldn’t be so high that criminals could hide behind it, but believing that someone with a small growing area in their basement could launch a massive criminal enterprise is more than a little absurd, considering that marijuana is already the most lucrative cash crop in the state of Washington.

The released limits tomorrow (if they’re even released) will go a long way towards showing whether or not Governor Gregoire is someone who can put politics and special interests aside and do what’s right for the citizens of this state.

Earlier this month, I visited a partially disabled medical marijuana patient in Tacoma who spent over a week in jail this winter. She was kept from receiving the special liquid meals she requires for nearly the entire time. In her mid-40s, she was a former nurse who told me she was staunchly anti-drug before discovering that marijuana worked best for her illnesses. She and her husband then became active in helping other registered patients learn how to grow for themselves.

Stories like that one are common. The list of other patients being hauled into court across the state has been growing. At Drinking Liberally and other events, I occasionally talk to people close to the Governor, and they rarely seem to understand that this is more than just a number. It could be the difference that causes someone to lose their house, their livelihood, or what’s left of their health, should they be sent to jail without adequate medical needs being met. Hopefully, the Governor herself doesn’t suffer from her own paralysis on this one.

I thought I’d done my job yesterday straightening out the confusion over the Spokane gaming compact, and who did or did not “hit the jackpot,” but then somebody forwarded me Ted Van Dyk’s confused and hyperbolic post on Crosscut, and I realized our state’s solemn guardians of the public interest required a little more hand holding.

Van Dyk was “shocked” by the initial newspaper reports, which I suppose shouldn’t come as such a surprise considering how misinformed he is; it isn’t hard to be “shocked” by things one knows nothing about. My instinct is to snarkily fisk Van Dyk’s post, ripping it to shreds line by line, but while that might be joyfully cathartic, I’ve decided a more informative approach would be to simply reprint the heart of my lengthy post from February of 2007, in which I sought to understand and explain the Spokane compact at a level of detail no other commentator has yet attempted. Sure, I could just provide a link, as I did yesterday, but our press corps has proven so lazy on this subject already, I just can’t trust them to bother to take the effort to click through.

To understand the compact and its potential impact one must first understand the basic legal principles governing tribal gaming. Federal law states that tribes may engage in the same gambling activities already legal in the state, and that if requested by a recognized tribe, the state must negotiate a governing compact in good faith. Furthermore, unless otherwise waived, each individual tribe retains favored nation status, meaning they have the right to reopen compacts and negotiate the same terms and conditions granted any other tribe in the state.

The existing tribal compacts grant each tribe an allocation of 675 slot machines each, and with one exception (we’ll get to that later) a maximum of two casinos. As has been widely reported the proposed Spokane compact authorizes the tribe to operate up to 4,700 slot machines at as many as five locations. This would appear to set the stage for a massive expansion of tribal gaming as the other tribes reopened their compacts to demand the same deal: more casinos, more slots, more gambling.

Well… not exactly.

While each tribe is allocated the right to own 675 slot machines, some are authorized to operate as many as 2000 at a single facility using machines leased from smaller tribes that do not operate casinos of their own. In fact the number of casinos and machines authorized in the Spokane compact is actually quite similar to the terms of the compact granted the Colville tribe, which is authorized to operate 4,800 machines at as many as six locations.

So why can’t the other tribes use their favored nation status to demand a similar number of casinos and authorized slot machines? Because they can’t meet the same conditions.

Both the Spokanes and the Colvilles have sprawling reservations, and their compacts stipulate that their casinos be located at least twenty-five miles apart. Fitzsimmons implied that no other tribe can meet that stipulation, and thus no other tribe can demand the same deal. (Though looking at the map, I wonder about the Yakimas.)

Where the Spokane compact does depart from previous compacts is the fact that it grants an allocation of 900 slot machines, not 675. The 27 other recognized tribes can reopen their compacts to obtain the same 900 machine allocation, potentially increasing the total number of tribal slot machines statewide by about a third, from 18,225 to 25,200. In fact, that’s the whole point.

See, most of the existing allocation is already spoken for, so by coming to the table late, the Spokanes would otherwise be unable to lease additional slot machines to fill their casinos. They already operate about 500 Las Vegas style slots (illegally), but there is little the state can do to remove them, so there would be no incentive for the Spokanes to agree to a compact that doesn’t give them the opportunity to expand their operations. It’s not the extra 225-machine allocation that makes the deal work for the Spokanes, its the thousands of additional machines that will now be available for them to lease.

In addition to the increased allocation, the Spokanes have negotiated a number of other new goodies into their compact. Currently, slot machines are limited to a maximum $5 bet, but the Spokanes would be allowed to raise this betting limit to $20 on as many as 15-percent of their machines. Existing compacts require that players use coupons or cards to initiate play, but the Spokane compact for the first time permits using US coins and currency. And finally, the Spokanes have negotiated higher betting limits (essentially, none) at five gaming tables in one facility during a specified time period of up to 120 days each year.

Like the higher 900-machine allocation, the other tribes would have the right to reopen their compacts to obtain the same terms.

But… only if they agree to the same conditions. Like other compacts the Spokanes have agreed to pay 2-percent of net receipts into a local mitigation fund, and to contribute another 1-percent to charity. But the Spokanes have also agreed to contribute 0.13-percent to problem gambling treatment and prevention programs (the same contribution now required of commercial card rooms,) and have the option of either contributing an additional 0.13-percent to smoking cessation programs or make all of its facilities smoke free.

So… what does all this mean?

When it comes to the number of facilities and authorized machines, the Spokanes demanded the same sort of deal negotiated by the Colvilles. Given the Spokanes’ favored nation status, the state really couldn’t do anything about that. But this authorization would be totally worthless to the Spokanes without a larger universe of slot machines from which to lease, so while nothing requires the state to bump up the allocation from 675 to 900, there’s a certain irrefutable logic to doing so.

And you can be sure that the 27 other tribes will most definitely reopen their compacts to obtain the higher allocation, even if it means agreeing to the new problem gambling and smoking cessation contributions. Slot machines are the lifeblood of the gambling industry, accounting for the overwhelming majority of casino profits. This is money in the bank.

What the state gets from this is an end to the Spokanes’ illegal operations, relatively uniform compact terms across all 28 tribes — and assuming all the tribes seek the same deal — about $2.6 million a year in additional funding for problem gambling treatment and prevention programs.

This is what Gov. Gregoire gave the Spokanes: in number of locations and slot machines per location, essentially the same deal enjoyed by the Colvilles… as she was required to do by federal law. And anybody who understands the economics of the gaming industry will tell you that it’s all about the slot machines, which account for the vast majority of casino profits.

Van Dyk and others talk about the 22 states that have negotiated revenue-sharing into their compacts, but leaving aside a discussion of whether or not this is good policy (it isn’t), that horse left the barn long before Gregoire became governor. The state has absolutely no power to reopen compacts unilaterally, and Washington’s tribes have no incentive to give up a portion of their profits without receiving substantial concessions in return. And indeed, this is exactly what the rejected 2005 compact would have done: establish revenue-sharing in exchange for a dramatic expansion of gambling statewide.

How dramatic? Instead of a maximum of 2000 slot machines per location the Spokanes had negotiated 4000, and instead of a 675 or 900 slot machine allocation the Spokanes had secured a staggering 7,500! And that’s in addition to zero betting limits, casino credit, 24-hour operations, off-reservation casinos and more. Now that’s what I call “hitting the jackpot.”

Again, like the issue of revenue-sharing, there is a legitimate public policy debate to be had over the pros and cons of permitting such a dramatic expansion of gambling, but there is no question that in rejecting the 2005 compact—one which would have increased the number of permitted slot machines more than tenfold—Gov. Gregoire acted consistently with the will of voters, who just a year before had overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have merely doubled the number slot machines statewide… as they did similar slot machine initiatives twice before. Washington voters simply don’t want to turn our state into Nevada, not even in exchange for $140 million a year in shared revenue, and that’s why Gov. Gregoire wisely rejected the 2005 compact.

I’ve actually read the two compacts and the federal statutes, as well as numerous scholarly and government studies on the economics and impact of casino gaming, and I suggest that Ted Van Dyk, Chris McGann and other media know-it-alls either do the same and prove me wrong on the facts… or publicly apologize to Gov. Gregoire for misrepresenting her record and unfairly attacking her ethics.

It’s a Drinking Liberally double feature for me tonight as the Columbia City chapter meets from 6PM to 8PM at the Columbia City Theater, 4916 Rainier AVE S. (next door to Tutta Bella’s), followed by the Seattle chapter which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM onward at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Gov. Chris Gregoire is up on Daily Kos again with another diary, this time exposing to a national audience cozy relationship between Dino Rossi and his Orca-killing buddies at the BIAW:  “Obama and all Democrats face attacks from all directions.”

Each election year, we see more ads from these groups, generally negative attacks, and I have a feeling that 2008 is going to set records.  It’s a safe bet that John McCain’s campaign, unable to compete with Sen. Barack Obama’s broad, grassroots support, will receive millions in support from 527 groups in this election.

In Washington state, my Republican opponent has already given the green light to his special interest friends.  The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) is the most powerful special interest lobby in Washington. Despite their benign name, the BIAW’s tactics and policies are anything but.

The BIAW’s values don’t match up with the voters of Washington. As you can see here, here, and here, local bloggers agree.  The BIAW has opposed cleaning up toxics in the Puget Sound, opposed fighting global warming and even opposed protecting orca whales.  My opponent voted with them 99% of the time while he was a State Senator.

This special interest lobby is my opponent’s biggest backer, and has already spent spent $500,000 on radio attack ads that distort my record, and challenge my integrity as a governor and a mother – and it’s only June.

Please read the whole thing and take the time to recommend Gov. Gregoire’s diary; the longer we keep this in the recommended list, the louder her message.

Yesterday I was driving back to Seattle from the Eastside. I hopped on SR-520 at north Bellevue, and immediately took my place in the line of cars waiting to cross the bridge. The freeway was at a total standstill.

Without AC, my ’88 Chevy POS was getting hotter and hotter. At the same time, I was getting more and more pissed off. I never got this pissed off when riding the commuter bus across the lake. The longer I waited in traffic, the more my mind started to wander.

Right-wingers see transit as an attempt by the “elite” to “force” people into making choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. In the Puget Sound region, our two options are bus or car (or commuter train, for some people). Since our transit system is built on buses which get stuck in traffic, there is little incentive to leave your car at home. Because of this, I’ve been “socially engineered” back into my Chevy. So it’s really the anti-transit folks who take away my choices, and limit my freedom.

We lose productivity and efficiency when we have people in hour-long backups on our freeways. The absence of real alternatives to driving takes away freedom from hardworking folks. Looking at the Sound Transit maps of East Link, I would have been 3/4 of a mile away from a train station, easily in walking distance from my Eastside starting point. Studies show that people will walk much further to a train station than they will a bus stop. From that still-only-on-paper light rail station, it would have been a scant 20 minutes to downtown Seattle.

When we spend big bucks on transit infrastructure, we increase freedom, not decrease it. And you know who understands this better than any Seattle lefty? Try a born-again culture warrior:

Various free market think tanks state that Americans love their automobiles and do not desire rail systems as an alternative. Really?

Each year Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), D.C.’s subway and bus system, reaches a new high in ridership. I have an employee who drove to work. He often was upset upon his arrival. He now lives less than one block from a Metrorail station. He comes to work smiling and continually points to the virtues of the Metrorail system. Metrorail carries close to 600,000 riders per day. Some are tourists but most are workers. If these riders were stranded on the streets of Washington there would be gridlock beyond comprehension.

Many of Free Congress Foundation’s visitors live in the suburbs and take Metrorail and Metrobus. They sing the praises of mass transit. Sure, Americans love their cars. But cars are only good when they are moving.

In this episode, Goldy and his panel take on the BIAW, say “amen” to overly-sensitive journalists, explore issues of secret ballots and voter integrity, note how the top-two primary leads to absurdities like a “Grand Old Party Party,” and tackle our region’s tough mass transit problems.

Goldy was joined by Democratic candidate for Secretary of State Jason Osgood, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ blogger emeritus Will.

The show is 49:31, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_june_10_2008.mp3]

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

Gov. Chris Gregoire has another post up on Daily Kos:  “Republicans refuse to take on climate change.”

Another Republican failure of leadership on renewable energy and climate change happened yesterday in the U.S. Senate. The “drill first and ask questions later” policy of Big Oil and Republicans has not served citizens paying at the pump and won’t in the future. We need to think bigger. What’s wrong with investing some of those wind-fall profits into renewable energy? Energy independence and a cleaner environment sound like things we should be trying to achieve.

[…]

My Republican opponent’s environmental record shows his commitment to fighting climate change is simply political lip service. John McCain came to our state touting the need to fight global warming, but George Bush Republicans like my opponent and those in the U.S. Senate killed the climate change bill and killed a bill today to make Big Oil invest in renewable energy.

While fighting climate change should be a nonpartisan issue, Republicans in Washington have shown us that if we really want to fight climate change, we need to elect Democrats in November.

We are a nation of innovators, and we are in a crisis. I am confident that with a Democratic partner in the other Washington, we can work together to develop the next generation of clean technology and put policies in place that will move us to a greener tomorrow.

Gov. Gregoire makes a blunt point that too many in our media refuse to acknowledge:  in the current political climate, if you care about climate change, if you care about the environment, then you can’t trust the Republicans to get the job done.  On this, as on many other progressive issues, and with few exceptions, the most important thing you need to know about a candidate is the little “D” or “R” next to their name on the ballot.  (You know, except here in WA where our bullshit top-two primary doesn’t even give voters that important piece of information.)

Help Gov. Gregoire get her message out to a wider audience, and recommend her post on Daily Kos.

According McCain campaign internal polling, the Iraq war remains the number one issue for northwest voters:

Davis says that campaign polling shows that nationwide, the economy is the top issue voters are concerned about, with the Iraq war No. 2, and energy and gas costs in third place. But in the northwest, the war is the top issue. That’s true in only a few regions in the country, according to the McCain campaign. Here, the economy is second and gas prices are third.

One of the taunts routinely launched at Darcy Burner and her Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq, is that she’s still running the last campaign, foolishly focusing on a war that most voters really don’t care all that much about anymore.  But Darcy has never stopped talking with voters since narrowly losing in 2006, and she’ll be the first to tell you that this is the issue voters most often bring up when talking with her.

Huh.  Turns out, they’re telling the same thing to McCain’s pollsters.  Who’d a thunk?

From the Bellingham Herald:

Less than a week after he swore off earmarks, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert visited the new 911 dispatch center for eastern King County, where he was publicly thanked by local officials for helping secure $1.7 million in earmarks for the center.

The Washington state Republican announced in March that he wouldn’t seek any earmarks this year, because the system was out of control and in need of serious overhaul. But he says that doesn’t mean he wasn’t going to take credit for the $27 million in earmarks he secured last year.

“You’re doggone right I was there,” said the two-term congressman, who faces what’s expected to be a tough re-election campaign. “I am not ashamed to take credit for something we worked hard on. Shoot, I’d be stupid not to.”

So let me get this right… Dave Reichert takes credit for swearing off earmarks, and securing them, at the same time… and nobody laughs in his face? No journalist asks him to explain why, if earmarks are so valuable and justifiable, he’d deny them to his district for the sake of a rhetorical gesture; or if earmarks are such a waste of taxpayer money as to warrant his pledge, why he’s not a tiny bit ashamed to take credit for them?

And Kate Riley accuses Darcy Burner of a “lack of authenticity” …? Dollars to donuts when Riley writes the second in her series of viciously dishonest Reichert endorsements, she’ll cite his bullshit earmark pledge in lauding him for his fiscal responsibility. But then, what do you expect from the amen editorialists at the Seattle Times?

It takes the UK’s Daily Mail to report on the presidential campaign story the US media refuses to cover:

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier … In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

And so McCain did what any honorable, loving, family man would do: he immediately started cheating on his faithful wife before eventually dumping her to marry a beautiful heiress 18 years his junior.

For her part, Carol McCain sounds philosophical:

“My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.”

But former friends and acquaintances are not so forgiving….

They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

Of course this is America, where everyone has the right to pursue happiness, and if McCain couldn’t be happy married to a woman who wasn’t tall, beautiful and wealthy, then perhaps it was best for him, Carol and their children to end the marriage. But really… enough of this family values character crap for a man who abandoned his crippled wife when she needed him most. One can assume the only reason he’s remained married to Cindy this long is that she’s managed to retain her height, looks, wealth and bladder.

In the words of Ross Perot (who paid Carol’s extensive medical bills while her husband was a prisoner of war):

“McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

“After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.”

A history most Americans will never learn.