Search Results for: ’

With a Sound Transit ballot measure looking more and more likely, Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels fires a preemptive shot at the Master Of Asphalt, Kemper Freeman Jr.:

We know who is behind the curtain of the Eastside Transportation Association – the same people whose only answer to the problems of climate pollution and congestion are more freeways, more traffic, and more frustration. Under Sound Transit’s new proposal, light rail would be extended to Bellevue, as well as Lynnwood and Federal Way. Those who are lining up against this common-sense measure are stuck in their own personal Oz, a place where our most pressing challenges can be wished away by laying more asphalt. This November, we look forward to presenting our bus, commuter and light rail solution – a way forward that will cost the average driver the equivalent of one tank of gas a year. Because we know building a better future takes more than clicking your heels and hoping our gridlock will go away.

“Roads and Transit” was a much easier target, and Kemper’s radio ads raised the “tax” argument pretty effectively. But it’s 2008, and gas is even more expensive than it was last year. This time, voter turnout will be huge. This time, the “pro” campaign will be smaller, leaner, and tougher. This press release is just a first shot.

When you’re the 419th 401st most powerful member of the House of Representatives, chances at the national limelight are few and far between. You must carefully weigh which, of the many pressing issues facing the body politic, you can expend your limited political capital advocating for. You don’t get many chances to shine; you gotta make ’em count.

So it’s sorta fascinating, in a gruesome car wreck kind of way, to see Rep. Dave Reichert (“Conscience Driven Independent™”-WA) in the pages of The Hill’s Congress Blog on Friday, taking a bold stance against the impeachment of President Bush:

As one of the nine Republicans crossing party lines yesterday on the vote moving Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, I cast my vote not to hold hearings, but to move the bill off the House Floor so the House could focus on more important issues….

There are less than 30 legislative days left in the Congressional calendar. And this is what we are voting on? No wonder the country has lost faith in Congress. There are so many things that we need to take action on and impeachment votes that are guaranteed not to pass is not one of them.

Now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the assertion that members of the House of Representatives should, you know, do stuff. Although a reasonable observer might add that, with fewer than 30 legislative days left in his fourth year of Congressional service, Sheriff Dave has thus selected as good a time as any to start. Had he actually started to do anything.

Plus, to be sure, no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush cabal has committed — and they are undoubtably legion — genuine impeachment, based on a full accounting of those crimes, at this point isn’t even physically possible; Republicans and Democrats alike have so run the clock out on Bush’s second term without mounting any sort of serious investigation of their crimes that at this point none could be conducted in time. Politically, it’s preposterous to think it could or would happen anyway. Neither party’s leadership is interested in turning over that rock.

So why is Reichert wasting his time writing about it?

More to the point, why is Reichert wasting his miniscule influence defending a widely reviled administration he’s supposed to be independent of? (Except for fundraisers.) (And his voting record.) And why does he think it’s a waste of time to investigate some of the crimes that have helped create those crises (illegal wars, soaring energy costs, an economy crippled by deregulated and corrupt financial dealings) he’s failed to help address for four years?

And if crimes leading to multiple crises crippling the country aren’t worth tying up the House’s time, why did his party think impeachment over lying about a blow job was worth bringing Congress to a full stop for over a year?

You’d almost think Reichert was using a meaningless vote to try to score exactly the sort of cheap political points he was allegedly deploring, on behalf of an administration he is allegedly independent of. But then, that’s exactly the sort of expediency-driven political hackery we’ve come to expect from the Seattle Times’ favorite “moderate.”

I get email:

For someone who doesn’t want to be tied to Bush, Rossi is doing a shitty job of defense. Sending out press releases talking about the Governor talking about how you named your dog after Bush?!?! Are you fucking serious?

The emailer is referring to a press release sent by the Rossi campaign in response to this quote by Gregoire:

“In fact, he is so enamored with George W. Bush he has named his dog [Dubya]. I feel sorry for the dog.”

When Rossi should be trying his best to show voters that he’s not in league with Mr. 28 Percent, this release shows he’s not taking taking that advice. What a bunch of whiners.

And this photo above, well… let’s just say that campaigns pay people 4k a month to keep them from happening.

SurveyUSA has come out with their July poll in the Washington state gubernatorial contest. The poll shows Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) leading challenger Dino Rossi (GOP-Party) 49% to 46%. The poll of 666 people was taken from July 13th to July 15th.

The new poll follows the release of two other polls within the last week. A few days ago, Moore Information released a poll in this race that was taken from July 9 to July 10. It showed Gregoire and Rossi tied at 45%. The Moore Information poll was paid for by the Rossi campaign.

Last Friday, a poll was released by Rasmussen Reports, showing Gregoire leading Rossi, 49% to 43%. That poll was taken on July 9th. Gregoire led Rossi by single digit margins in all three June polls, including last month’s SurveyUSA poll that gave Gregoire a +3% advantage.

I’ll offer two Monte Carlo analyses using the new poll. First is an analysis of the poll numbers in the new SurveyUSA in order to estimate the probability that Gregoire (and Rossi) would win an election held right now. I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 666 voters each, where each voter had a 49% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 46% chance of voting for Rossi and a 5% chance of voting for neither.

Gregoire won 780,736 of the simulated elections and Rossi won 11,542 times. This suggests that, in an election now, Gregoire would have a 79% probability of winning and Rossi would have a 21% probability of winning. A statistician would point out that Gregoire’s lead in this poll is within the margin of error (i.e. her probability of winning is less than 95%).

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections (blue bars are wins for Gregoire and red bars are Rossi wins):

The second analysis combines the polls from Rasmussen Reports, Moore Information, and SurveyUSA. Since the combined responses were all taken within one week, from July 9th through the 15th, we could look at the combined polls as the best evidence available for who would win the election now.

The combined polls yield a pool of 1,565 polled people, of whom 751 (48.0%) voted for Gregoire, 703 (44.9%) who voted for Rossi, and 111 (7.1%) who voted for neither. Again, I simulate 1,000,000 elections, this time with 1,565 people.

Gregoire won 893,646 of the simulated elections and Rossi won 101,700 times. The results suggest that, if an election were held now, Gregoire would win with an 89.9% probability, and Rossi would win with a 10.2% probability.

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections for the combined polls:

SurveyUSA also polled for the presidential election in Washington state. Sen. Barack Obama (D) leads Sen. John McCain (R) 55% to 39%. Obama’s lead is well outside the 3.9% margin of error for the poll.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

This week the panel was briefly joined by Democratic Candidate for Washington State Attorney General and current Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, who discusses Sound Transit’s next moves and that Washington State is second worst in the nation for consumer fraud. Next Goldy seeks free legal advice from John on whether current Attorney General Rob McKenna has thrown our primary election into chaos through incompetence.

The discussion then gets all touchy-feely over the Doug Sutherland sexual harassment scandal and contemplates Peter Goldmark as Sutherland’s replacement. The local political races add a wonky finish to the podcast.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, John Ladenburg, The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett, HorsesAss blogger Will, and Eat the State, KEXP and occasional HorsesAss contributor Geov Parrish.

The show is 50:12, and is available here as an MP3:

[Audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_15_2008.mp3]

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

If a statewide elected official were to humiliate a young female employee in front of her coworkers and supervisors by inappropriately touching her—twice—while lewdly remarking on her breasts, and ultimately leading to her resignation… you’d think that might generate a few headlines from a local press corps proven oh so sensitive on matters of perceived personal offense. But apparently, not if that elected official is a likable, grandfatherly type, like Commissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland.

The incident dates back almost three and a half years, and while hushed whispers have been making the rounds for nearly as long, it was not until March of 2008 that the allegation was substantiated through a public records request that produced a 62-page document detailing a number of eyewitness accounts. (The name of the victim is redacted throughout.) Yet even with this document in hand, multiple news organizations have declined to inform voters of an undisputed incident that portrays a shocking lapse of judgment on the part of Commissioner Sutherland, a management style disruptive to the operations of his agency, and a clear violation of his department’s anti-harassment policies, if not the law itself.

On January 15, 2005, a young, female employee, recently hired by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was introduced to Commissioner Sutherland at a state meeting in Pacific, WA. Following is a description of the initial encounter, as transcribed from the woman’s handwritten notes:

Jon introduces me to the commissioner. “Doug, this is [REDACTED], the new public use forester.”
I shake his hand. [REDACTED] great to meet you.”
We resume to positions in tight circle.
Commissioner reaches across circle (& Doug M.) w/ his hand & grabs my left shoulder. Feels it, then twists me around so that my back is facing him & he holds me w/ one hand & feels my back (open palmed) from my neck down to my waist, shoulders, etc. Says something about “just looking.”
I am incredulous & half-smiling w/lack of reaction & blush v. red.
Doug Mc. (I made eye contact wi/ him @ some point during the inappropriate touching) & he made a comment like “We hire them strong.” or “Strong back.”
When commissioner returned to his position in the circle he said “Could have felt… up front” or “could have felt the other side”
“Wouldn’t be right.”

No, it wouldn’t have been right for the then 68-year-old Sutherland to feel this young woman’s breasts, but then, in the unanimous opinion of those who witnessed his actions, it clearly wasn’t right for him to rub her neck, shoulder, back and waist either. And for those who might question the recall of a young woman who at times appears teetering on the edge of shock, her contemporaneous notes are not only corroborated by various eyewitnesses, but at times elaborated on in ways that make Sutherland’s behavior appear all the more more inexcusable.

For example, the “Doug M.” in the transcript above is Doug McClelland, a division head at DNR, and a longtime aide to Sutherland. In a January 18 memo, McClelland provides a similar description of that first encounter:

Doug said hi to all and when I got to introducing [REDACTED] he put his arm around her and rubbed the back of her jacket a few times. I said she is strong because it seemed uncomfortable in what he was doing. Doug said something like: “she has other nice parts too!” All heard it and [REDACTED] was obviously embarrassed.

McClelland provides additional details in handwritten notes that appear to have been taken during an oral interview:

Shook Jesse’s hand, then got to [REDACTED], instead of shaking hand he turned her slightly and ran his hand all over back.

I was uncomfortable, & made joke: “And she’s quite strong too.”

Doug turned her to front: “And she has some other great parts also.”

[REDACTED] was very embarrassed. Taken aback.

Sure, McClelland’s two accounts differ slightly, and “could have felt the other side” and “she has other nice parts too” are two entirely different phrases, but regardless of the discrepancies both he and the victim describe the same basic event: Sutherland grabbed the young woman, turned her around, rubbed her back, and then made a suggestive comment about her breasts. And McClelland’s added description of Sutherland turning the young woman first to the back, and then to the front, not only clarifies that McClelland understood the offending remark to be a reference to the woman’s breasts, it also presents a clear visual image of Sutherland physically manipulating the victim as if she were an object. And a sexual object at that.

Multiple accounts have Sutherland cordially shaking hands with everyone in the circle, while the victim was “singled out” according to McClelland, because she was a “bright, smiling female,” and the only woman in the small group. Indeed, even Sutherland confirms the victim’s account, writing in a postmortem Q&A:

“The incident, as [REDACTED] describes it, is essentially what happened. The disconnect is in how she felt and what my intent was.”

But if there was a “disconnect” it was purely Sutherland’s, as all the witnesses appeared uniformly shocked and appalled at the Commissioner’s inappropriate behavior. In his January 18 memo, McClelland describes a brief conversation with Jon Byerly, the young woman’s immediate supervisor:

At the next break I had a chance to let Jon know that his employee [REDACTED] was uncomfortable from her encounter with Doug S. and Jon said “I thought his actions were very unprofessional and couldn’t believe he had acted that way.” I agreed with Jon’s observation.

Later that evening, Byerly called the woman at home to express his shock and support. From her handwritten notes:

Very upset following my departure. Spoke to my friend(s) & family for support.
Jon called @ 7:15 pm.
He says that he is shocked by what occurred.
References strict standards that we must abide by when it comes to harassment, but that the commissioner answers to the public.
He says that he’s embarrassed.

And again from the victim’s notes (and later corroborated by McClelland), even Sutherland acknowledged at the time that his actions had caused the young woman distress:

When the commissioner resumed his “position” in the circle he looked at me & said “Oh look, I’ve embarrassed her.”

Embarrassed her, yes. And much, much more than that, for as the documents show, this incident (and those that followed) caused the young woman such distress, that it eventually led to her resignation a few weeks later… a cause and effect that once again, even Sutherland ultimately acknowledges:

“I’m sure this incident contributed to her feelings about leaving and I’m really sorry for that.”

At this point I imagine that there are some who might seek to dismiss Sutherland’s actions as little more than an overly-friendly massage and an off-color remark, and the victim’s resignation as an unfortunate overreaction. (Is that why our male dominated press corps seems so uninterested?) But I urge you to try to put yourselves in the shoes of a young woman in a new job, forced to endure a very public humiliation at the wandering hands of a man, 45 years her senior, who is not only her boss’s boss, but a prominent, statewide elected official. DNR has and enforces anti-harassment policies specifically designed to prevent incidents like this and the hostile work environment it obviously created.

I also urge you to consider that while the facts in this case are clearly established, a typed transcript alone cannot possibly convey the full emotional impact of the events therein. For example, while the young woman clearly notes the waves of anger washing over her just minutes after the incident, her clipped phrasing contains little of the emotion she attempts to describe.

Doug Mc. said “He oftentimes says the wrong thing.”
I said “That was not okay. That was not right.”
[…] I was very upset as I replayed the moment; (the commissioner’s action, & comment) in my head — w/ anger coming in waves. Realizing that what had just occurred was NOT right.
At one point wiped away tears.
Closed my eyes. Talked myself out of becoming more upset.

The added emphasis in her handwritten notes is much more revealing, but even that doesn’t do justice to the pain and confusion that ultimately led to her resignation just a few weeks later.

And compounding the injury was the insensitive manner in which the woman’s supervisor, Jon Byerly attempted to excuse Sutherland’s actions just minutes after the encounter. Indeed, the following transcript could be used in sexual harassment training sessions everywhere as a textbook example of exactly how not to deal with a sexual harassment complaint.

Jon came to “sit down next to his little lady.” He sat one seat away to my left. Chris M. still sitting to my right.
Before Jon said anything else he motioned to his shirt at the top of the neck.
I did not know what he was referencing & asked “What?”
He made the motion again & I said “My button?” and he said “Your button.”
I was shocked. Again blushed as I buttoned up the top button (not the neck snap) on my uniform. I was wearing my uniform shirt, loose gray slacks, tank beneath my uniform & a fleece long-sleeve zip up over top, along w/ a skarf around my neck. My shirt was not low & did not show excessive decolletage. I had buttened my shirt up to the same button for the previous 8 days of work & did not in an way feel as if my dress was inappropriate.
Jon then leaned over close & said “I want you to know that I noticed (that action/comment?) that occurred.”
I was taken aback about the shirt button & did not respond except to say “That was not right.”
Jon proceeded to lean very close in once again & tell me that the commissioner has a reputation of just being a regular guy & that he does not think before he speaks.”
I looked at Jon & said “There is no excuse.”
Jon said “I’m not trying to make an excuse for him”
I said “That was very inappropriate & very, very, bad.”
I began to get visibly upset but no tears but conveyed the seriousness of the situation.
Jon Stood up & said “We need to eat or we will insult them.”

Oh Jesus. I’m guessing had Byerly first consulted Human Resources before attempting to calm the woman, blame the victim would not have been their preferred response. And according to the notes from McClelland’s oral interview, he too felt Byerly’s incredibly ham-fisted and insensitive counseling was totally inappropriate.

Jon came up and told me he had spoke to [REDACTED] and used it as a teachable moment to button her shirt up.

[I] told him that wasn’t appropriate.

In [my] opinion, she was dressed professionally.

Five days later, the victim was “temporarily assigned” a new supervisor.

Imagine you are a young woman, excited to embark on your chosen career, only days on the job at DNR. Imagine you are surrounded by peers and supervisors at your first statewide meeting, about to be introduced to the Commissioner of Public Lands, a statewide elected official. And now imagine the 68-year-old Sutherland spins you around, fondles you, and dismisses you with a sexually suggestive comment… only to have your immediate supervisor imply that you somehow brought the harassment upon yourself. How could your day get any worse?

Jesse & I were standing near our “lunch seats” when the commissioner returned to that area, placed his right hand on the right side of my lower waist & ran his hand across my waist (would have been just above my belt) to the left side of my waist.

Oh. My. God.

He (Commissioner) asked if I would be working out of the Olympia office or the regional office. I told him that I would be focused in Elbe Hills, trying to get that off the ground.
I do not believe Jesse knew of this inappropriate touching.
I held onto my water bottle tightly in front of me & did not reach out to shake his hand.
The commissioner then said that he would like to come to Elbe to see our work & what we’ve been up to.
Doug McClelland flew across the room & began shaking the commissioner’s hand.

Flew across the room? Yeah, I bet he did.

Could Sutherland have been more clueless? Or was he really clueless at all? He’d already acknowledged that he’d “embarrassed her” with his first round of inappropriate touching; could he possibly have expected a second round would be any more welcome?

Jesse said “I notice things.” “And I notice you do too.”
Chris joined our stance but not our conversation somewhere in here.
I said something to the effect of “If you’re referencing what just happened that was not okay.”
I said “You can’t do that.” “It is 2005!” “You can’t touch my waist like that.”
Jesse said “He just touched your waist?”
I said “Yes.” Seething.
Jesse said “Hold on [REDACTED] we’ll talk about this later.” “Slow down.”
I was irate, esp. that it had occurred again.

Did she really misunderstand Sutherland’s intentions, as he contends, or were his intentions absolutely clear from the start? (Ironically, if Sutherland had any questions about what does or does not constitute sexual harassment, he could have always consulted his own daughter Karen, an employment and labor attorney who specializes in, you guessed it… sexual harassment suits.)

This was no minor incident, the victim’s complaint throwing DNR into a frenzy of damage control. Meetings were held, testimony taken, statements given, memos written, supervisors reassigned, counseling given, and reminders on appropriate workplace behavior sent department wide. According to notes from a January 24 meeting, it was determined that the incident was a violation of DNR policy, that disciplinary action was warranted, and that it was in fact sexual harassment… but that due to the fact that it was “isolated,” “not hostile,” and involved no “quid pro quo,” it did not rise to the level of “illegal” sexual harassment.

Well, maybe. I discussed the case with a former county prosecutor who insisted that had their executive been involved in an incident like this, they would have settled in a heartbeat rather than risk going to trial. Whatever. The victim never filed suit, so we’ll never know.

What we do know is that the shockingly inappropriate behavior of Commissioner Sutherland led directly to the resignation of a young female employee, and the disruption and distraction of a number of managers who otherwise might have carried out the actual business of DNR… you know, trivial things like preventing timber companies from clearcutting unstable slopes.

We also know that while Sutherland ultimately apologized to his victim, he was never subjected to the sort of disciplinary action a lower level manager would surely have faced for similar misconduct. What kind of discipline might Sutherland have expected had he not been the Commissioner himself?

Well, as it so happens a public record exists of a contemporaneous incident involving a DNR manager and a female subordinate:

On February 7, 2005, Appellant sent [COMPLAINANT] a joke to her work e-mail. The joke was a fake advertisement for a pill called “Fukitol,” which in part stated, “When life just blows … Fukitol!” The subject line of the e-mail read, “I think I already overdosed.” At the time, [COMPLAINANT] was undergoing therapy to alleviate stress she was experiencing at work, and she perceived the joke as an attempt by Appellant to make fun of her stress and communicate to her that that he could get away with whatever he wanted. The [COMPLAINANT] also found the joke “menacing,” and she forwarded a copy of the e-mail to Ms. Dzimble.

Although DNR ultimately concluded that the manager had not intended to create a hostile work environment, that was the result of his actions nonetheless, and disciplined him by temporarily reducing his salary two steps for a period of two months. The manager challenged the penalty, but the Washington Personnel Appeals Board rejected his appeal, concluding amongst other things:

… the issue here is not Appellant’s intent was when he sent [COMPLAINANT] the e-mail, but what impact the e-mail had on [COMPLAINANT] when she received it…

… Appellant’s conduct violated Respondent’s Harassment Prevention policy by creating an offensive and intimidating work environment…

… As a supervisor, Appellant is held to a higher standard of professionalism, accountability and judgment.

A higher standard, apparently, than the Commissioner himself.

If this was the penalty for emailing an offensive joke, just imagine the disciplinary action had this DNR manager inappropriately touched his subordinate while making a sexually suggestive comment. Well, you’ll have to imagine it, as Sutherland was subjected to no disciplinary action at all for just such an offense.

Then again, we wouldn’t expect the department he runs to be able to discipline Sutherland. No, as the victim’s supervisor Jon Byerly appropriately put it: “The Commissioner answers to the public.“ But you know, only if the public learns about the incident.

Which brings us back to my lede, and my utter surprise at the incomprehensible decision of multiple news organizations to refuse to run with what is clearly a compelling and relevant story. With all the petty reporting on ads and polls and fundraising that has dominated political coverage of late, why would a reporter or editor sit on such an explosive story for over four months?

Is it just another one of those ethically challenged “he said/she said” stories? No, it’s a “he said, he said, he said, she said story…” and they all said the same damn thing!

Could Sutherland’s actions reasonably be interpreted as professional, appropriate or excusable? The victim didn’t think so. Nor did her supervisor. Nor his. These aren’t mere allegations; HR made a determination of sexual harassment based on undisputed facts.

Is sexual harassment itself an illegitimate subject to be raised in a contest for Commissioner of Public Lands? The press had no qualms about reporting on sexual harassment allegations against Gov. Mike Lowry and Sen. Brock Adams… allegations that generated hundreds of headlines and ultimately drove both men from office. More recently, I didn’t see the news media holding back their coverage of state Rep. Jim Dunn, who was stripped of his committee assignments after making a single “inappropriate” remark to a woman at a legislative function.

“We want to have zero tolerance for our members for inappropriate comments,” said House Republican leader Richard DeBolt.

So we have zero tolerance for the indiscretions of a two-bit, part-time legislator, but the inappropriate behavior of a likable, grandfatherly, statewide elected official we just hush up?

Or are our media gatekeepers concerned that the story is somehow tainted because it was being shopped around by individuals who would like to see Sutherland defeated? (For the record, I received my copy of the documents from the same source the other news organizations received theirs.) No doubt the person who requested these public records is at least as partisan as I am… but that doesn’t make the facts of this story any less true.

Whatever his intent, Doug Sutherland sexually harassed a young female employee, creating a work environment so hostile that she quit a few weeks later. That is a fact. And it is a fact that voters have the right to know.

The Stranger’s Eli Sanders slogs today about Gov. Gregoire’s last minute endorsement of Barack Obama, just before the WA caucuses…

It was a coup for Obama and smart politics for Gregoire. […] It also established an IOU with the Obama campaign, one they’re paying back—or beginning to pay back—this week. It may be too cynical to cast this as a purely financial transaction, but if you’re wondering how much Gregoire’s endorsement was worth to the Obama campaign the answer, so far, seems to be about $320,000.

Political payback? Huh. Okay, maybe. I suppose that’s how this game is played.

But if a funder with a nominee’s wife is payback for a crucial endorsement from a sitting governor, it makes you wonder what the hell Dave Reichert did to earn payback funders from Tom Delay, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, George Bush, Laura Bush, John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani?

But then, Reichert is a conscience driven independent, so I guess it’s inappropriate to ask that question.

Check out the cover that will adorn Monday’s The New Yorker:

The Politico reports:

[Obama] Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

Not to be outdone…

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

For crying out-fucking-loud! This is political correctness gone amuck on the part of both campaigns. The caricature is clearly satire, and done in the best tradition of editorial cartooning. It mocks those who are truly tasteless offensive and, frankly, un-American: those right-wing retards who actually spread the “Obama is a radical Muslim who hates our freedoms and his wife is an angry psychopath who hates America” bullshit.

You know, Wingnut retards like the Clark County Republican Party and the Island County Republican Party.

If you want to express outrage (or even take mild offense), go after the assholes who disseminate such lies…not a magazine using satire to belittle them.

Update: The artist who drew the cover (Barry Blitt) responds.

Go to this:

Join Friends of Seattle for a Celebration of Summer!

Now that summer is here, Friends of Seattle wants you to come out and play. We’re having a Summer Meet ‘n’ Greet to say thanks and to let you know what we’re up to in ’08.

And, with Friends of Seattle working to get the Pro Parks Levy on the 2008 ballot, we’re excited to celebrate in one of our exceptional City parks.

Need more reasons to come? We’ll have hot dogs and veggie dogs, it’s supposed to be 79 degrees and sunny, and it’s free! This is our way of saying thank you for your support.

Where: Golden Gardens Park , Shelter #2
When: Sunday, July 13th, 3:00-5:00 PM
Who: Members and non-members alike
Questions? Contact events@friendsofseattle.org

Hope to see you there!

A month ago, I briefly mentioned a visit I’d made to some medical marijuana patients near Tacoma who went through an arrest ordeal that was so over-the-top I felt compelled to follow up. Brad and Kristie Choate are a married couple who live in the Spanaway area. Brad, who is in his late 20s, lost his leg in a diving accident and Kristie, who is in her mid 40s, is partially disabled with a number of serious ailments. After I met with them and recorded an interview, I was told by a patient advocate not to write anything until they put something up online themselves. On Wednesday this week, that happened, as Kristie recounts what happened:

[Read more…]

The episode begins with an air of disappointment and disgust as the panel anticipates today’s Senate FISA/Telco-immunity bill vote. The topic changes mid-stream to Plum Creek and the raping of the Montana environment. From there, they take up rural land use issues in Washington. The panel revisits the assisted suicide death with dignity initiative, and then switches tracks to a discussion of light rail. Next they reveal the secrets behind the not secret ballot currently in use in some Washington state counties.

This week Goldy was joined by HorsesAss’ and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ (and now Slog’s) blogger Will, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, DailyKos uber-blogger Joan McCarter (mcjoan), and Mr. Tim White.

The show is 61:31, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_8_2008.mp3]

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

Via Think Progress:

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.”

I’m guessing Osama is sending a big bouquet of flowers to George W. Bush, without whom none of this would be possible.

In this episode, Goldy and friends offer condolences to congressional candidate Darcy Burner over the loss of her house (and cat) earlier in the day. Next they dive into a multi-threaded discussion of the Washington state gubernatorial rematch, surrogate attack dogs, fake scandals and all. The podcast ends with a brief (roughly…seven word) tribute to the late George Carlin.

Goldy was joined by Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, Seattle’s blogging pioneer N in Seattle, HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ former blogger emeritus Will.

The show is 51:19, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_july_1_2008.mp3]

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

In 2004, Washington state witnessed the closest gubernatorial election in history, as then Attorney General Christine Gregoire defeated then real estate broker salesman Dino Rossi by 129 votes (later changed to 133 by a court).

A year and some later (April, 2006), the now defunct East Side King County Journal asked about Rossi What’s his shelf life?:

The charismatic and smooth conservative came within a whisker of winning the governor’s mansion in 2004 and is widely expected to seek a rematch with Democrat Chris Gregoire in 2008. Will it be “Dino Who?” by then?

In politics, it is said that a year is an eternity. So what does that make Rossi’s four-year hiatus with no political office or bully pulpit while Gregoire relentlessly dominates news cycles week after week?

It was an interesting time to ask the question. At the time, Rossi was leading Gregoire by 51% to 38% in a Strategic Vision poll asking about the 2008 election. In fact, Rossi had led Gregoire by more than 50% to Gregoire’s less than 40% in the five other polls taken after the election contest and before April 2006.

The Republicans resoundingly lost the legal battle in the election contest of 2005, but they won the PR battle. Governor Gregoire began her first term polling as less popular than the loser of the election. After a highly contentious, close election, followed by a multi-million dollar Republican dis-information campaign (a.k.a. the election contest), Gregoire’s approval–disapproval spread started out strongly negative, and remained in negative territory for her first year in office. Then, after a 6 months period of nearly even approval (Jan 2006 until June 2006), Gregoire emerged from negative approval-disapproval territory.

Starting from a very bad position, Gov. Gregoire genuinely won over the electorate.

But what about Rossi? When he launched his 2008 gubernatorial campaign (umm…for the second time), Rossi routinely quipped:

“Last time I started with a 12 percent name identity statewide. Most everybody thought Dino Rossi was some kind of wine at that point. A cheap wine at that,” Rossi said….

But name recognition isn’t enough. On the public’s perceptional palette, had Rossi matured into a vintage wine? Or had Rossi’s cheap wine turned to vinegar?

In 2005, Pollster Stuart Elway pointed out:

“’We wuz robbed’ won’t be a strong campaign theme, and Dino will have to present a credible challenge to an incumbent this time. It won’t be like he’s a challenger coming from out of nowhere, but my question is how he stays on the radar screen when he doesn’t hold any office.”

Elway’s concerns were prophetic. Rossi was never able to remain an important player in Washington politics. (Hell…he wasn’t much of a player in Washington state Republican politics, either.) For example, Rossi refused to take a stance in Initiative 912 that would have repealed a state gas tax increase. Neither has Rossi grown in the interim. His campaign stump speech has evolved minimally since 2004. And, at least early in the campaign, Rossi was still running on the “We Wuz Robbed” platform.

The inevitable result is that Rossi has squandered his position of great strength from 2005 and 2006. Just look at the polling. Here is a compilation of every publicly-released head-to-head Gregoire–Rossi poll for the 2008 election:

(Note: different pollsters probe undecided voters to very different degrees. To make the numbers comparable, I have normalized the results so that the Gregoire% + Rossi% sum to 100%.)

After leading in the first 15 polls in a row (through November 2006), Rossi has lost all but one of the most recent 15 polls. A running average puts Rossi about 7% below Gregoire. At this time during the 2006 election cycle, senatorial candidate Mike McGavick, running against an incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell, had just peaked at 9% below Cantwell. In other words, beginning with a huge advantage in 2005, it looks like Rossi’s residual advantage of the 2004 election (and contest) has shrunk to, roughly, a 2% advantage over McGavick’s unimpressive performance.

The electorate just isn’t taking a liking to the Rossi-brand whine. (Perhaps Rossi shouldn’t be building a campaign on sour grapes.)

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)