HorsesAss.Org

Sorry to email you anonymously but I can’t have my name attached to this. I am a journalism student at EWU and we had the editor of the Spokesman Review, Steve Smith, in our class with Professor Steve Blewett, former editor of the Spokesman. He spoke to us about the endorsement of Cathy McMorris and told us point blank that the editorial board had voted to endorse Peter Goldmark with with an almost unanimous vote (I believe he said 5-1). However, the decision of the editorial board was overturned by owner Stacey Cowles. Now the rest of what I say is purely speculation, but I had heard that the Cowles were staunchly Republican. If this is true (I don’t doubt the editor but rather my own speculation) would this not be completely improper and something that should be screamed from the heavens?

Hmm.

UPDATE:
In the comment thread S-R Editor Steven Smith says the anonymous journalism student got it wrong — not only did the board vote to endorse McMorris, but the vote was not close. Fair enough.

But he leads off with an interesting statement:

Well, so much for the accuracy of the blogosphere and the anonymity it provides.

Um… I think Smith misses the point.

My post was entirely accurate. An EWU journalism student did indeed anonymously send that email. It was rumor, and I presented it as such, without comment.

And as a result, the editor of the S-R came into my comment thread and set the record straight, thus proving the accuracy of the blogosphere.

So thanks Steve, for participating in the discussion and helping to make the blogosphere a better, more informative place.

Dollars and cents.

That is what the plan to close public schools in Seattle was supposed be about — how to save money, fix a cash crunch and improve classrooms.

Yet something else is there — something that Seattle, for all of its liberal pride, has trouble grappling with.

Race.

No doubt.

As a white male raised in relative privilege, I am uncomfortable attempting to speak with authority on issues of race, but from my personal experience fighting to save my daughter’s school from closure it became abundantly clear that the district is at times crippled by this issue, and the pervasive educational disparity that follows Seattle’s racial lines. Though I doubt it was intentional, there is no question that the district’s original school closure plan overwhelmingly and disproportionately impacted children of color. And yet at the same time, the district cynically raised the issue of racial disparity as a tool to drive a wedge through my daughter’s own school, in an effort to justify its closure. While racism is a sledgehammer that predominantly falls on one side of the divide, it can swing both ways.

Jamieson says that the closure plan was only supposed to be about dollars and cents, but I say that the district should have seen this coming. The closure process inherently pitted school against school and neighborhood against neighborhood; why shouldn’t we expect a bitter fight over shrinking resources to bring out the worst in us? That’s human nature.

Which brings me to my biggest criticism of Raj Manhas and the current school board’s attempt to lead our district through our current, dire fiscal straights — their inability to provide effective leadership towards solving the district’s real problem: inadequate funding.

School closures are nothing more than a band-aid on a gangrenous wound, a half-measure that can only lead to further cuts and closures down the road. While Manhas speaks bluntly of the Legislature’s stunning failure to adequately fund K-12 education, he never made an effort to unite the city’s parents in a drive to pressure their elected officials for more money. Instead, in a Vichy-like acquiescence to the political needs of a handful of timid legislators, he made school closures the centerpiece of his reform efforts, thus turning the district’s parents against each other. For all of his business acumen, and for all of his good intentions, Manhas simply could not provide the leadership our school district desperately needs. And neither can the current school board.

It has become politically unfashionable to throw money at a problem, but that is exactly what our schools most desperately need at the moment — specifically, a thousand dollars per student per year more, granted directly into the classroom. How did I come up with that number? I didn’t. The “free market” did. For that is how much the parents of our most affluent North Seattle and Eastside schools raise each year to pay for smaller class size, teaching assistants, art, music, foreign language and other enrichment programs that they deem necessary for their own children’s academic success. That is what the children of our poorer, predominantly minority neighborhoods are being denied.

On the surface, Washington state has one of the most equitable school funding systems in the nation, with only about a quarter of any district’s operating budget coming from local taxpayers. But over the years, as the state has failed to live up to it’s financial obligations, and per-student spending has steadily shrunk in real dollars, parents who could afford to make up the difference through PTA fundraisers, did. In Seattle, that has only exacerbated the disparities that already existed, creating a handful of affluent North End schools that are public in name but half-private in nature.

There is a stunning lack of equity between Seattle schools, and all the parents see it. So while it is unfortunate that the anger and frustration generated by the closure process should boil over into racial epithets, it is entirely understandable. Those of us faced with closure were asked to sacrifice our schools and the educational stability of our children for the good of all the district’s children, but deep down, we understand that it just doesn’t work that way. Some children simply benefit more from the current system than others, and nothing in the closure process suggests that this will change.

If like me, you believe that all children should have access to a quality public education, regardless of race, income, geography or individual special needs, then you must believe that all our public schools should be adequately and equitably funded. And until we meet this very basic need, no amount of well-intentioned reform will quell the rancor displayed at last week’s School Board meeting.

Congressman Norm Dicks of the 6th CD responded positively to the calls that folks made to ask him to contribute money from his campaign chest to Democrats running in more competitive districts. He donated $100,000 + according to Chris Bowers, reporting back on his “Use It or Lose It” program. This was on top of the nearly $600,000 that he raised yesterday for the DCCC from the lunch he hosted downtown for Al Gore. Also today, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy each donated $500,000 to the DSCC. This program is working. We may not get the entire $15 million we are looking for but it will be close.

Thanks Norm.

As Lynn reports, Dicks had already contributed a considerable amount of money to fellow Dems, and helped raise quite a bit more. But when the Netroots called and asked for one last effort, Dicks was one of the first to respond. We’ll remember this.

Why are McMorris and the Republicans resorting to such desperate tactics? Because, well… they’re desperate.

As reported this morning by The Hill, the NRCC just sent to donors its “Final Push List” of the 33 GOP members and candidates “most in need of support right now.” And lookie who’s on it.

In an e-mail to congressional officials, NRCC PAC Director Jenny Sheffield states, “…it’s crucial at this point to send in some late money to some [of] our campaigns. The funds our candidates receive now will allow them to increase their TV buys and will make the difference on Nov. 7.

“I have attached our Final Push list for those Members and candidates most in need of support right now. If your boss has not maxed out to those on the attached list, please ask him or her to consider sending a check from a leadership PAC and/or reelection account … IMMEDIATELY!”

Republicans have also sent the list to lobbyists, seeking donations. The NRCC list (see chart) has many endangered Republicans, including four each from Ohio and New York, and three from Pennsylvania. It also contains some surprises, such as Rep. Cathy McMorris (R-Wash.), whose seat was considered safe earlier this month.

I’m not one to say “I told you so,” but… no wait… I am. I told you so. I’ve been warning the Spokane media for months that one of the biggest stories of the ’06 midterms was developing in their own backyard. Well, welcome to the party guys.

Other at-risk Northwest Republicans on the Final Push List? Well, Dave Reichert in WA-08 and Bill Sali in ID-01 of course. As The Hill points out, it’s gonna be an awfully long election night for House Republicans if they’re so worried about protecting seats in conservative districts in places like Idaho and Eastern WA.

Still don’t believe me that Goldmark can win? Then perhaps you’ll believe McMorris:

In Washington’s 5th Congressional District, where former speaker Thomas S. Foley (D) famously lost in 1994 when Republicans seized control of the House, confirmation of an unexpectedly strong Democratic challenge emerged in recent days from a well-placed source: the Republican incumbent, Rep. Cathy McMorris.

“It’s a closer race than I first imagined,” she told Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), according to the Spokesman-Review, a newspaper in Spokane. Changing voter attitudes in her conservative, mostly rural district, she said, have been “pretty dramatic.”

McMorris and Craig apparently thought they were speaking privately before the start of a campaign teleconference with veterans. But an operator had connected Spokesman-Review reporter Jim Camden, who was on mute and could not announce his presence.

Craig, who is not up for reelection, told McMorris that she was not alone in feeling Democratic heat. “The new numbers are just devastating,” he reportedly said.

McMorris’s Democratic opponent is Peter Goldmark, a rancher whose surprising strength has attracted the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which last week began spending $323,000 on television ads opposing McMorris.

That said, Republicans are sinking millions of dollars into Washington state in a last ditch effort to save McMorris and Reichert’s asses, and we can’t let Peter and Darcy become victims of their own success. This is the final push, and if we want to win we need to stay competitive dollar for dollar.

299 of my readers have now contributed $22,969.38 via HA’s Act Blue page, but we need to do more. If you care about the future direction of our nation, please give whatever you can to Darcy and Peter so that they can afford to get their message out to voters and respond to their opponents’ lies. And if you’ve already given all you can, then please personally plead with your friends and family to give whatever they can afford.

We’ve got the issues. We’ve got the candidates. We’ve got the wave. The rest is up to you.

I’ve got no idea if any special guests are scheduled to stop by tonight, but I’m guessing that with the election only two weeks away, it should be a pretty good crowd.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities and Vancouver. Here’s a full run down of WA’s ten Drinking Liberally chapters:

(And apparently there’s also an unaffiliated liberal drinking group in Olympia that meets every Monday at 7PM at the Brotherhood Lounge, 119 N. Capital Way.)

Hour 1: Are we on the brink of an historic military defeat in Iraq? Philip Gold is a former Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the conservative Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. He predicted a Jihadist terrorist attack on US soil months before 9/11, and was one of the first prominent conservatives to warn that an Iraq invasion would lead to disaster. Now he fears that our current foreign policy could lead to our biggest ground defeat since the loss of the Philippines in 1942. Tune in and find out why this “former lifelong Republican” will be voting a straight Democratic ticket.

Hour 2: Q&A with Darcy and Peter. Two of the hottest House races in the nation are right here in Washington state, and both Democratic challengers, Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark, joined me to talk about the election and their legislative agenda.

Hour 3: Do you believe what you read in the papers? Well, maybe the comics. Former Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish came into the studio to give his kiss-and-tell account of the alt-weekly’s recent political purge, and to join me in ragging on the local media in general. Believe it or not, we had some harsh things to say about the Seattle Times editorial board. Go figure.

We will soon make full archives available online at PodcastingLiberally.com, where you can always find my weekly podcast for the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

And don’t for a moment think that Times publisher Frank Blethen wouldn’t do it.

(Apologies to National Lampoon for bastardizing their classic cover.)

“After careful consideration, I have decided that this year will be my final year as superintendent of Seattle Public Schools,” he said. “This is a personal decision I have made in the interests of my family.”

Manhas’s resignation is in the interests of all of our families, I’d say. As my regular readers know I was quite involved this summer in a campaign to save my daughter’s school from closure, and while we were ultimately successful the entire experience left a very bitter taste in my mouth. The more I learned about the closure process the more I grew disenchanted with both the school board and the district administration. While I do not doubt Manhas’s intentions, I completely lost confidence in his ability to lead the district.

Perhaps the best decision of his three-year administration was the one he made today — to announce his resignation far enough in advance so as to give the board time to conduct a proper search for his replacement. After the failed leadership of both Manhas and his immediate predecessor Joseph Olshefske, I think it is time for the board to stop hiring bean counters, and search for a true education professional.

Seattle is a liberal city, a big “D” Democratic city that has not sent a single Republican to the state legislature in years. It’s congressman, Rep. Jim McDermott, is amongst the most liberal members of the House, and he hails from one of the safest seats in the nation. Likewise, in statewide elections Seattle voters can be relied upon to vote for Democrats and against right-wing initiatives in overwhelming numbers.

But Seattle is not just a dark blue island in the midst of a sea of red, for over the past decade the nearby suburbs have grown solidly Democratic too. Republican elected officials are becoming a dying breed in former GOP strongholds like Mercer Island, Bellevue and other communities across the Eastside and to both the North and the South of the city. Map election trends out over the past 20 years and what you see is a blue tide inexorably spreading out from the city center as population densities increase throughout the metropolitan region, and the Republican Party abandons the values and concerns of both urban and suburban voters.

This is the region the Times serves. These are the readers who fork over their fifty cents a day, and who patronize the Times’ advertisers. This is the community whose interests the Times is supposed to represent.

Yet even in a year when the Times editorial board has acknowledged that the Bush White House and its rubber stamp Republican majority in Congress are leading our nation towards disaster, Republican candidates have somehow managed to make a clean sweep of the Times endorsements in every contested congressional race. Reichert, McMorris and McGavick — all Republicans who would vote for a leadership that would guarantee the Bush administration a free hand to stay the course in Iraq — all of them endorsed by the editorial board of a newspaper that claims to serve one of the most solidly Democratic markets in the nation.

In obsessively leading the fight to repeal the estate tax, in articulately opposing media consolidation, and in relentlessly pursuing his efforts to drive the competing Seattle P-I into oblivion by severing the two papers’ Joint Operating Agreement, Times publisher and owner Frank Blethen has passionately argued that the community is better served by a local, family-owned newspaper than one operated by a faceless, corporate, absentee owner.

To which I now ask Frank: exactly which community are you serving?

It certainly isn’t Seattle.

Oh, Frank can speak loftily about the unique role five generations of Blethens have played in safeguarding our democracy and fostering civic discourse, but with the McGavick endorsement it has become abundantly clear that the only community Frank Blethen is truly dedicated to serving is the one that consists of him and his heirs. If not for the mean-spirited tone and over-the-top one-sidedness of the Reichert endorsement one could have reasonably written off that and the McMorris endorsement to the usual, establishmentarian, unimaginative, pro-incumbent mindset that tends to take hold of most editorial boards. But with the ridiculously postured and embarrassingly argued logic of the McGavick editorial it is now impossible for the Times to deny that their criteria for endorsement consists of anything more than support for estate tax repeal.

It is tempting to deconstruct the absurdity of the McGavick endorsement line by line, but others have already done so, perhaps none as thoroughly as the Stranger’s Josh Feit. On issue after issue, on gay marriage, assault weapons, net neutrality, drilling in ANWR and teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, the Times has previously editorialized in support of the position opposite to that which McGavick holds. And on the biggest issue of the day, the steadily deteriorating war in Iraq, the Times has repeatedly argued against a course a Republican controlled Senate would surely vote to stay. But according to the Times:

Some see this election as a referendum on George W. Bush. If we did, we would be for a solid Democratic ticket. But like most Washington voters, we take our candidates one at a time.

I’d read on further but I scratched my corneas scraping the bullshit off my eyes.

This election is a referendum on President Bush and the Republican leadership, and unless you’re itching for a catastrophic ground war with Iran it is deeply irresponsible to approach it any other context. If Sen. Maria Cantwell had voted for estate tax repeal she’d have had the Times endorsement, and the fact that Frank would use his paper to prop up a failed Republican majority over this single, selfish issue is morally and ethically reprehensible.

The Times editorial board has become a joke. I have not spoken to a single professional journalist who has not rolled his eyes or derisively laughed at the Times‘ contorted logic and unmitigated gall. Even some of Frank’s own employees have expressed their disgust to me.

Not that any of this really has any impact on the actual election. David Postman writes:

Critics on both sides like to say that MSM newspaper endorsements don’t matter much in this age of New Media. But they must mean something given how much of the blogosphere was filled up with discussion about them the past week.

But David misses the point. Us bloggers and journalists and political activists do care about the role the op/ed pages should play in promoting public discourse — and passionately — and that is why it pains us so much to see Frank trivializing the opinion pages of the state’s largest newspaper. But why the fuck would the average Seattle voter give a Times endorsement an ounce of credence when the paper consistently supports candidates and issues contrary to the interests of their community? Us bloggers aren’t the average reader, and the truth is, the average reader no longer gives a shit about what that estate-tax-repealing, labor-busting, dog-shooting Frank Blethen thinks is best for them.

Local newspaper industry observers tell me that it was the bitter newspaper strike that radicalized Frank and flipped him over to staunchly supporting the GOP and its anti-Labor agenda. At the time, Frank threatened to move the newspaper’s editorial operations out to Bothell to join its new production facility, but stayed in Seattle fearing a public backlash.

Well as far as I’m concerned, good riddance. Go ahead and move your operations out to Bothell, Frank, and while you’re at it, you might as well change the name of your paper to “The Bothell Times.” At least that way your readers can rest assured that there will always be at least one honest piece of information printed in your newspaper daily: the masthead.