Goldy

In a nation that impeached a president for lying about a blow job, and in a state where confusion over the wording of a Harvard diploma qualifies as a front page scandal, you’d think our local media would jump on evidence that Dino Rossi perjured himself just days before the gubernatorial election, right?  Well… not so much.

Two new depositions of Master Builders Association board members were released over the weekend, and so far our local media has turned a blind eye, despite the fact their testimony directly contradicts that given by Rossi, and sheds new light on the Republican’s role in the ever expanding Buildergate scandal.  And no doubt the most damaging testimony relates to a phone call Rossi made to MBA President Doug Barnes in May of 2007:

LOWNEY: How long was your conversation with Mr. Barnes.

ROSSI: I don’t recall.

LOWNEY: Do you recall talking about any financial contributions.

ROSSI: That, I don’t think so. No, I don’t recall that.

LOWNEY: Did you talk about the 2008 governor’s race?

ROSSI: No.

Well, that seems pretty cut an dried. Amongst the many things Rossi couldn’t recall during his deposition was any conversation about financial contributions. But when asked whether he even talked about the 2008 governor’s race during his telephone call with Barnes, Rossi definitively replies: “No.”

Unfortunately for Rossi, that’s not the way Barnes recalls the conversation:

LOWNEY: And what other issues did you speak with him about?

BARNES: Discussed the latest wedge with BIAW’s approach to us on this funding for the governor’s race.

LOWNEY: And what did he say about that particular issue?

BARNES: Mr. Rossi didn’t have specific — he listened and talked with me about what our differences were. There was no real: Okay, here’s a conclusion, here’s an answer, here’s a — it was more just listening: What are the issues that you have?

Huh. So Rossi claims they didn’t talk about the 2008 governor’s race, while Barnes says they not only did, but they even talked about funding for it. And just as important, Rossi “listened,” which contradicts his insistence that he had absolutely no idea, during the spring of 2007, that the BIAW was raising money for the governor’s race:

LOWNEY: So in 2007 in the April, May and June time frame, did you have any idea that the BIAW was trying to create a pot of money for the 2008 governor’s race?

ROSSI: I know they were trying to come together on supporting all candidates across the state that were pro small business candidates. … It was for supporting all small business candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, and in a very general sense.

Okay, Rossi didn’t really insist that he had no knowledge the BIAW was raising money for the governor’s race, he just kinda sorta implied it by claiming the effort was for all pro small business candidates… not that legally, that is any excuse if he knew that one of those candidates might be himself.  But we’ll get to the legal stuff later; for the moment, let’s go back to Barnes’ deposition, where he further details his conversation with Rossi.

LOWNEY: And how did you describe this latest wedge issue to Mr. Rossi?

BARNES: I said it was another example of BIAW – kind of “my way or the highway” is how I typically described it – and that I had two or three major objections with what they were trying to do and that it was way too early; there’s no need for us to even be having this discussion at this point in time. And that was the extent of that.

LOWNEY: And what do you mean, “it was too early”?

BARNES: They were trying to raise funds for an election that was going to happen 15, 18 months from now.

When Rossi is asked if he knew the BIAW was raising money for the governor’s race, he prevaricates; when he’s asked if he even discussed the 2008 governor’s race during his conversation with Barnes, he says “no.”  Indeed, since the day this scandal first broke, Rossi has insisted that his numerous phone calls and meetings with MBA officers during the spring and summer of 2007 were merely intended to close the growing rift between them and the BIAW.

But as Barnes makes clear throughout his testimony—testimony that is corroborated by the official minutes of MBA meetings—the “wedge” that was causing this rift was largely focused on the BIAW’s efforts to pile up a “fund for Rossi,” and the MBA’s reluctance to earmark contributions to this fund at such an early date.

BARNES: I didn’t think that we needed to identify a specific funding source for something like this. If we wanted to contribute to a local political race or whatever, we would designate that funding source at that point in time. There’s no need to earmark funds in our budget.

Rossi also denies that he talked about the race for governor at a lunch meeting with MBA officers, yet MBA President-elect John Day, who set up the lunch, testifies in his deposition that this was the whole purpose of the meeting:

DAY:  I wanted to get the chair officers together with Dino so that we could have an opportunity to try to convince him to run for governor.

Whether Rossi’s sworn testimony rises to the level of perjury, well, I’m no attorney, so I don’t know.  But the depositions make clear that Rossi was much more involved in the BIAW’s illegal fundraising scheme than he has heretofore admitted, and that what little active participation he does acknowledge puts him and the BIAW in direct violation of WA’s campaign finance and disclosure statutes.

Rossi’s fallback position has always been that he wasn’t aware of BIAW’s efforts on his behalf and that he never helped them raise any money for the gubernatorial race, but that even if he did, that would have been okay, because he wasn’t officially a candidate at the time.  But that’s not what the law says.

RCW 42.17.020, Definitions

(9) “Candidate” means any individual who seeks nomination for election or election to public office. An individual seeks nomination or election when he or she first:

(a) Receives contributions or makes expenditures or reserves space or facilities with intent to promote his or her candidacy for office;

(b) Announces publicly or files for office;

(c) Purchases commercial advertising space or broadcast time to promote his or her candidacy; or

(d) Gives his or her consent to another person to take on behalf of the individual any of the actions in (a) or (c) of this subsection.

And even Rossi testifies that at the same time he was talking with MBA officers—conversations these same officers testify focused on the 2008 gubernatorial race and the BIAW’s efforts to raise money for it—he was indeed considering a run for governor:

ROSSI:  I was about 75 percent sure I wouldn’t run…

Of course, no astute observer of Washington state politics believes for a minute that in May of 2007, there was only a one in four chance that Rossi would run for governor, but even that admission is enough to establish that he was in fact considering a run at that time, which would have barred any participation in the BIAW’s fundraising efforts.  Indeed, under state law, the very act of coordinating with the BIAW on their “fund for Rossi” made Rossi a legal candidate, and thus made such coordination illegal.

But I’m guessing you won’t read any of this on the front pages of our local newspapers, because you know… they wouldn’t want to play politics so close to an election.

Throughout the fall of 2006 the polls showed Darcy Burner steadily closing in on Dave Reichert.  While her internal polling never showed her with a lead, several other polls showed the race within the margin of error during the final weeks, and momentum seemed to be on her side.  Even on election night, trailing by a few thousand votes, there were some experienced vote counters who projected a narrow Burner victory, with late absentee ballots shifting the race her way.

Well, it didn’t happen.  Throughout most of the district late absentees trended toward Dave Reichert, who gradually expanded his lead as votes were tallied.

In retrospect it seems clear that Burner’s momentum stalled around mid October, with the race breaking slightly toward Reichert during the final two weeks of the campaign.  No doubt there were a number of factors responsible for Reichert’s victory, but many observers credit his sexist and demeaning “job interview” ad… and the Burner campaign’s failure to adequately respond.

Will 2008 be a replay?

Once again Burner closed sharply on Reichert, with several polls showing her with a small but significant lead by mid October.  And once again the Reichert campaign has attempted to swing the race his way with a demeaning and dishonest ad.

No doubt the “Harvard Hoax” ad is effective; there is plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that many viewers come away believing that Burner never earned a degree from Harvard at all.  But this time the Burner campaign has directly responded with an ad of its own, calling Reichert’s lies “pathetic”, and assuring voters that she did indeed graduate from Harvard.

But perhaps the real game changer this election season is the diminishing opportunity for a game changing ad at all, when viewed in the context of the unprecedented torrent of negative advertising that has flooded our airwaves in recent weeks… much of it courtesy of the $7 million the BIAW and RGA dumped into the governor’s race at the last minute.

In the context of this tidal wave of negativity, the “Havard Hoax” ad comes across as just another ripple… just another attack ad lost in the deafening roar of a sea of attack ads.  Add to that the general distraction of the presidential race, and it becomes harder and harder for any one political ad to make a difference.  Even the NRCC’s predictably effective “she’s gonna raise your taxes” ads get lost in the noise of “she’s gonna raise your taxes” ads launched against Gov. Gregoire.

“Yeah, we know already…” the vast majority of voters must be screaming to themselves, “She’s a Democrat.  She’s going to raise our taxes.  We get it.”  Who exactly “she” is, and in what race, well, what’s the difference?

Compare that to the 2006 cycle, when the biggest race on the ticket, Cantwell vs. McGavick, had already effectively been over for weeks, and McGavick shifted toward softer ads to preserve his reputation.  In that context the job interview ad could stand out.  In 2008… well… not so much.

I’m not claiming victory or anything, or making any predictions, but I do think it reasonable to suppose that Reichert has faced a much greater challenge this year in his efforts to close out the campaign trashing Burner’s character and reputation.  And for that, the BIAW and RGA’s seemingly bottomless warchest deserves at least some of the credit.

See, it’s not just me.  Everybody from Philadelphia talks this way.

Sarah Palin:

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

That’s right, the biggest threat to our First Amendment rights is a free press.  George Orwell would be proud.  And appalled.

Politico has put together a list of potential appointees in an Obama administration, and the two names being bandied about by Beltway insiders for Secretary of the Interior are Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Jay Inslee.

That would be a great resume and profile boost for Inslee, who we all assume aspires to the governor’s mansion, and a well earned reward for his leadership on environmental and alternative energy issues.  But it would throw WA-01’s political scene into turmoil, as there’s no obvious heir, and there’s no reason to count this a safe Democratic seat without Inslee in it.

Let the jostling begin.

UPDATE:
I asked Inslee’s office if they would comment on this speculation, and Torie Brazitis promptly responded:

“Nope.  Mr. Inslee is focused on the election and making sure that Senator Obama gets elected to be our next President.”

Just a few minutes ago on KUOW’s The Conversation, Seattle Times editorial board member Joni Balter kvelled over her paper’s editorial independence and quirkiness, boasting:

“You’d have to open our paper to figure out who we are going to endorse.”

Uh-huh.  And yet, back on September 21, I accurately predicted the Times’ endorsement in every single contested federal and statewide race:

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

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

So if your ed board is so unpredictable, Joni, how do you explain my prediction?

Political prognosticator Larry Sabato just updated his House Outlook for 2008 to project a minimum Democratic net pick-up of 26 seats… including a Darcy Burner victory in WA-08.  That’s a big shift for a race he’s rated as “leans Republican” throughout the campaign.

Democrat George Fearing’s campaign is touting a new internal poll showing that he’s closed to within 52-47 against “Do Nuthin’ Doc” Hastings in central Washington’s 4th Congressional District… a truly stunning margin in this very Republican district.

Voters in Washington’s 4th Congressional District are clearly unhappy with the direction of the country (79% wrong track).  […] On the question of “Are you happy with the performance of your Congressman”, 65% of voters said ‘No’.

I’ve met Fearing a couple times, and he’s come across as a great guy who would make an excellent congressman, but given his lack of resources, the dearth of media coverage and his district’s Republican leanings, nobody really expected this race to be that close.

Still, this is a pretty cranky electorate (and with good reason), so while I wouldn’t bet money on Fearing, I wouldn’t entirely dismiss this poll either.  Who knows… perhaps we have the biggest upset in the nation brewing in our own backyard?

UPDATE:
Of course, Jon had this earlier, but I just wanted to add my own two cents.

In response to Wednesday’s expulsion of me and Josh from a Dino Rossi press conference, I wondered out loud if our friends (and enemies) in the traditional media would stand up for the rights of their new media colleagues:

I don’t know if there are some in the old press who applaud these efforts to exclude new media journalists like me, but they certainly don’t seem to be standing up for us.

Well, it turns out that at least a few print journalists have stood up, and I want to thank them for their support.

Over at The Stranger, Josh’s former co-worker Erica C. Barnett slogged on Josh’s plight, remarking that she’s “still pissed” about the one time she was asked to leave a press conference.  She offers this sage advice:

People who work with the media need to learn that you get better press by letting the media (even the partisan media!) in than by excluding them.

Meanwhile, Bellingham Herald political reporter Sam Taylor offers his own defense of both me and my medium:

I would strongly wager that, while my page views are pretty dang big here in our area, Goldy’s make mine look like a tiny, female Chinese gymnast (of legal age to compete, of course) in a Sumo wrestling contest. Blogging is the new journalism, my friends. Mark my words.

But I was most heartened to read Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey’s first hand account of the incident, not only vouching for my description of the events, but defending my media credentials, partisan or not:

Being an employee of a big paper, I have hardly ever had that happen to me. The one time I remember was in the 90s as a business reporter being denied entry to a stockholder meeting of the Fisher Companies, which was then under SEC rules a public company. I was furious–shaking–and a good deal less polite to the Fisher vice-president who kicked me out than Goldy was yesterday–and I don’t regret anything I said to that Fisher man, or about him, thereafter. My experience wasn’t exactly the same as Goldy’s, but close enough.

Obviously, a lawyer holding a press conference in his private offices may let in who he likes and exclude who he likes. It may well be, as Goldy suspects, that they excluded him because he’s anti-Rossi, and because his style of expression is less than genteel. Maybe even the name of his blog has something to do with it. But for the record: Goldy is part of the media in Seattle. People who follow politics know who he is. They read him. Whether Feit is paid, or how much he is paid, is beside the point. We are not media because of how much money we make, or that we make any at all. We are media because of what we do.

Goldy, or his man Feit, should have been let in.

As Ramsey clearly explained in the comment thread of a previous post, the Times op/ed page is opinion, and as such “is not bound to be evenhanded”… and I’d argue that yesterday’s Rossi apologia certainly wasn’t.  That was the sort of partisan editorial the Rossi campaign wanted and expected from the Times, and that is the sort of partisan editorial Ramsey delivered.  There is this convenient fiction that journalistic partisanship is a vice unique to the blogs, and that it inherently diminishes our credibility, but in this particular race it is fair to suggest that Ramsey and I are equally partisan… only in favor of different candidates.

In the end, Josh and I were excluded from the press conference not because we are partisans, and not because we are bloggers, but because Rossi’s handlers feared the difficult questions we might ask in the presence of a roomful of reporters.  The “partisan blogger” label was just a bullshit excuse.

Four years ago when I first started blogging, I didn’t really consider myself a journalist either, but over time both my blog and my thinking has evolved.  As Ramsey unequivocably argues, we are a legitimate part of the media, and it is in the public interest that we be treated that way. For as more and more traditional media moves online while blogs like mine expand the quantity and quality of our coverage, the line between the two will continue to blur, making any effort to ghettoize mere bloggers nothing more than a convenient excuse to deny access to journalists who produce unflattering coverage.

And when subjects get to pick and choose the reporters covering them rather than the other way around, our democracy loses.

UPDATE [Lee]: If there’s anything I take issue with in this post by Josh Marshall, it’s that “Disgrace” may not be a strong enough term for what the McCain campaign is pulling with respect to Rashid Khalidi.

Remember a couple months back, in the midst of an apparent “Palin bounce,” when liberal bloggers like me were warned that our personal attacks against Sarah Palin were backfiring?  Well, guess what…

A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said that Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up 9 percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said that the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favored Senator Barack Obama.

In a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said that they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people to serve in his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

What we did was soften her up… sowed the seeds of doubt.  And when Palin got out on the campaign trail and proved herself to be a one trick pitbull, totally incapable of fielding even a few simple questions from Katie Couric, Palin’s approval numbers collapsed faster than the stock market.

Palin is not qualified to be vice president, and it would have been absolutely stupid and self-destructive to refrain from relentlessly pointing that out, simply because she’s a woman.  Perhaps McCain gambled that in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s narrow defeat, the Dems would be too timidly PC to go there.  Well, we weren’t, and we did.  And now McCain is paying the price for the most irresponsible VP pick since Spiro Agnew.

TPM reports that the McCain campaign is now sliming WA state of all places with it’s latest, ridiculous robocall:

[audio:http://blip.tv/file/get/Tpmtv-AntiObamaMcCainCampaignRobocallRunningInArizonaOctober29555.mp3]

Yup, according to McCain, we Democrats are dangerous, because we want to “give civil rights to terrorists and talk unconditionally to dictators.”  What an asshole.

And, what an idiot to waste even a fraction of a cent per call in a state he has no chance of winning.  Good thing McCain is about to get his ass kicked, because if he ran this country in any way near as disastrously as he’s run his campaign, he’d make George Bush look like George Washington.

I rode up the elevator with Seattle Times editorial board member Bruce Ramsey, as we both headed to wait with the press for Dino Rossi’s news conference.  The difference was, he was escorted into the press room while I was escorted out.

Why?  I’m a “partisan blogger” I was told, while he is a legitimate member of the press.  You can read the Times’ totally, nonpartisan, impartial, objective, fair and balanced editorial here.

I don’t know if there are some in the old press who applaud these efforts to exclude new media journalists like me, but they certainly don’t seem to be standing up for us.  Josh Feit, when he was credentialed by The Stranger, had the same kind of access as Ramsey, but yesterday, a working reporter in the employ of HA and its readers, was also escorted from the building because, I suppose, he wasn’t paid by the right kind of people.

Over time, more and more journalists will be employed by nontraditional outlets like HA, and if the subjects of our reporting get to pick and choose who is a journalist and who is not, it really isn’t honest to call it “journalism” anymore, is it?

My Phillies have just won only their second World Series in 126 years.  So be patient.