June 29, 2007 by Alpha.

Today I caught, a little belatedly, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin’s editorial about the recent dust-up around Dino Rossi’s Forward Washington Foundation. The story, if you haven’t been reading along, is that a number of highly placed Democrats are grumbling about whether Rossi might just be, in the U-B’s words “using his nonprofit Forward Washington Foundation to finance an ongoing campaign for governor.”

Of course, Rossi has said he isn’t running for anything, and he hasn’t done anything wrong, which totally puts the issue to bed. The quote from Rossi is priceless: “Gregoire is clearly scared about something.” Yes, Dino. She’s clearly terrified that you aren’t running against her again. Yet.

The people of Washington, the U-B chides Dems, “want to know where Gregoire and Rossi (should they choose to run in 2008) stand on everything from education to corrections to tax policy.” Indeed! Washingtonians don’t have a stomach for scandals involving Republicans. Proven fact.

Now, hold the phone. Can we roll this whole thing back to the actual story, the one that underlies this editorial? You know, the story where a former gubernatorial candidate, who has been heavily rumored for either a repeat against Chris Gregoire or a US Senate run against Patty Murray, may be routinely and repeatedly misusing a non-profit that he runs? And maybe, just maybe, it’s worth noting the the only explanation that Rossi has for us is a flat denial and a refusal to hand over any real evidence that he’s running the Forward Washington Foundation above board.

Oh, yeah. One last point. You may have noticed that the URL for the Forward Washington Foundation is misspelled. I thought it interesting, so I looked it up in the OED. It turns out that just one hundred years ago it would have been totally normal to spell “www.forwardwashington.org” as “www.dinorossi.com.”

The more you know…

PS: Click here and look at the top result. Would Google lie to you?

Posted in Elections, Washington, Campaigns | No Comments »

June 26, 2007 by Alpha.

Whereas the Republican Presidential nomination is developing into something approaching a cohesive narrative (Giuliani and McCain collapsing, Fred Thompson fizzling, and Mitt Romney picking up the proverbial spare) the Democratic picture remains murky. Here are the national polling numbers:

Six Months Ago/Today
Clinton: 35% / 34.4%
Obama: 18% / 22.6%
Edwards: 12% / 12.4%
(Gore): 12.5% / 15.9%

Hillary Clinton has a huge cash-on-hand advantage, that should serve her well as February 5th approaches. Her fundraising numbers for Q2 are rumored to be low, but my gut tells me her campaign is sandbagging. Her campaign has, however, started showing signs of “fruntrunnerosis,” from the quirky selection and announcement of her “campaign theme” to the downright strangeness of the Clinton webteam’s own Drudge-style newsfeed. And although she leads decisively in national polls and holds leads in New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida, she’s lost traction in South Carolina and Iowa. If her national ad machine can’t make Super Duper Tuesday a big victory, Hillary might face big troubles.

The biggest present threat to Clinton comes from Barack Obama, who shows a recent but sizeable lead in South Carolina and who beat Clinton’s mark for primary-funding in Q1. He is hugely popular with younger voters, and has the netroots support to drive that crowd to the polls. The big questions hanging over Obama now are ones that only he can put to rest: Is America ready for a President with a black dad? Is Obama ready for the White House?

John Edwards, though locked in third for the last several months, is still sitting on more than enough cash to mount an effective advertising blitz going into February. He has an excellent staff and he enjoys a significant lead in grassroots organizing in many states, particularly Iowa, where he leads in polling. Edwards certainly has everything he needs at this point to be a contender, but if he wins it will be a thrilling race.

And then there’s the rest of the pack. These five candidates are all strong(ish) but are more marked by question marks than by exclamation points. Will Joe Biden let Sam Brownback steal his Three-State Solution for Iraq? Will Chris Dodd impress, well, anyone? How did Dennis Kucinich land his wife? Is Mike Gravel older than Bob Dole? What’s Bill Richardson’s strategy for dealing with the fact that he is hispanic in the middle of a truly ugly immigration debate? Finally, just how long is Al Gore going to continue getting asked if he’s running? If he’s said it once, he’s said it a thousand times: “Well, not right now, no.”

I strongly doubt that, with the amounts of money being raised by the top three candidates, any of the second-tier fellows will make it through the end of the year. That said, a certain Arkansas governor made quite a splash in 1992, have been ranked as low as 13th in primary polling. Who the heck knows what will happen?

Edwards has raised enough to keep up the fight till the end, no matter how bitter. But realistically, his numbers can’t compare to the $20M+ Clinton and Obama have raised, especially given the frontloading of next year’s primaries. The Obama/Clinton fight is going to be an ugly one: Clinton’s certitude against Obama’s optimism; Clinton’s cold calculation against Obama’s apparent improvisation; Clinton’s triangulation against Obama’s guesstimation; Clinton’s ineptitude against Obama’s inexperience.

Then there’s the elephant in the room. A woman? Competing against a man? Who is only half white? This is madness. You’d think that the Democratic party had turned into some kind of heathen land, where people who weren’t white men could, maybe, just maybe, have a shot at the Presidency.

In all seriousness, we have to ask ourselves which prejudice is more entrenched, and getting liberals to freely discuss a quantitative or even qualitative comparison of racism and sexism isn’t my job. If it were, I’d demand a big raise.

I’ll cut right to it: Hillary has a lead among women, but she trails among men. Obama looks good among African-American voters, but that difference is smaller. Is it possible that women like a woman who frequently gets called masculine more than blacks like a man who is… mulatto? I think so, unfortunately.

During the 2000 election, a friend asked me who I thought the United States would elect first: a black man or a white woman. As I said then, I say now that sexism runs deeper than racism. The big problem with that is that Barack Obama apparently isn’t qite black enough. The mulatto problem, one which has been close to my heart for some time, won’t be solved by Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Barring a significant mistake by the Clinton campaign, or an unprecedented act of sheer genius by the Obama camp, I’m picking Hillary Clinton to face off against Mitt “the Glove” Romney next year.

Posted in Elections, Presidential, National, Campaigns | 6 Comments »

June 25, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

I’ve had a lot of thoughts going through my mind recently as far as local politics go, but nothing in the upcoming election strikes me as terribly important. What is important is why Spokane Democrats have had so many problems being successful, and I think all signs point to an all around lack of unity. Democrats in this area are highly organized, yes, and the number of volunteers who turn out for the cause impresses me, but there is constant bickering and squabbling because of a few stubborn members of the community who refuse to pull together for the common good, or even listen to other’s opinions.

There are members of the progressive community who insist that their way is the only way, and if others don’t like it, take a hike. They take this attitude instead of being tolerant and bringing others, whose viewpoints may differ slightly, into the fold. To get past this we need to have open forums for the discussion of ideas, luckily Spokane presently has a place for that, it is called Drinking Liberally (information can be found here). Events like this allow everyone an equal voice to profess their views and to build on our shared views, rather then dividing on the few we differ on.

As Alpha pointed out, coalitions are what majorities are built on without them we would scatter to the four winds and the Republicans would once again have control. Coalitions however are not just important on the national level, they are important on all levels, and they start here on the local level. So please Spokane, put aside your differences, reach out and embrace your fellow progressives, and together we can make Eastern Washington a better place.

Posted in Washington, Spokane | No Comments »

June 24, 2007 by Bravo.

Planning for the future is a good thing. Let’s hire a consultant, pay him a chunk of money, set up a citizen committee, organize four community walk-arounds and three public hearings, and then ignore everything he says.

Sound crazy? That’s what Southeast Washington appears to be doing after a comprehensive plan for the future was presented last week in Walla Walla (see U-B article). Community members attending the meeting seemed to turn a cold shoulder to nearly every new proposal.

Among the ideas discussed, what about consolidating the city governments of College Place and Walla Walla with the county? Or maybe we’re all just happy with myriad elections, the fights over library funding and water rights, the endless negotiations, the bidding wars for big-box stores that have come to characterize this community.

Or what about some sort of planning for development zones that might begin to tie our commercial areas together? Nope. Guess we’re all too happy with stores popping up wherever.

The best outcome of a comprehensive plan is the discussion that is taking place and will continue over the next months. But what if we started from the premise that not every new idea is a bad one?

Posted in Walla Walla, Rural | 1 Comment »

June 22, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

I want to start this post with an apology. I realize that I haven’t properly posted a blog in a week and only two others have been posted. I’ve had some things come up this week that have kept me away from writing, but they are over now and I’m back for good.

Every year, State Reps send a “Report from the Legislature,” I’ve had the opportunity to read a few of them from the various different districts from around the area. The 4th Districts Reps stood out above the rest for their clear lack of intelligence. The fourth is represented in the State Legislature by Larry Crouse and Lynn Schindler, both of whom are members of the do nothing Republican Minority.

They gave their regular update, how it was hard for them because the big bad Democrats had control… Blah, Blah, Blah. For the most part the update has been the state Republican’s mantra for the last couple of year, that Democrats are taxing and spending this state into the stone age and that we are wasting money.

On page three however, it starts getting juicy, Crouse and Schindler really start showing their true colors with articles with titles like “Alert to parents: state-mandated sex education on the way!” and “Mandatory paid family leave.” Oh my god, I think these must be some of the scariest things Republican’s have ever heard in their life. That their children might have to learn about safe sex, so that when the inevitable happens they know how to use a condom, and you know, maybe prevent a teen pregnancy or two. Unfortunately Repuglicans think of this as “graphically sexual” education. I’m sorry Lynn, Larry but this just doesn’t cut it, read the numbers, check your facts, “abstinence only” education does absolutely nothing, except increase the likelihood that teenagers will have unprotected and unsafe sex. Thanks for working to increase teen pregnancy!

The two Repuglican’s don’t stop there, they prove not only do they want more kids on the street, but that also hate families. They complain that a bill passed by the legislature forces companies to provide five weeks of paid leave when a family has a child or adopts, at $250 a week. It doesn’t stop there though, it forces the company to hold their job open for them. That’s a hardship right? Forcing the good companies of Washington to keep jobs open for those evil little family loving people? Schlindler and Crouse go on to talk about how this is a “very expensive plan that only benefits relatively few workers.” Wait, families don’t work? How do they support their families? The only people I don’t see this benefiting are CEOs who will have to pay out $1250 for a kid and leave a job open so the family can continue to support the child. Lynn, Larry, I don’t know where you guys stashed your mother ship, but you might want to just head back to Pluto.

Posted in 4th LD, Spokane GOP, Washington, Spokane | 2 Comments »

June 22, 2007 by Alpha.

Every once in a while I tune and watch a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s show. I find it comforting to listen to Papa Bear imparting wisdom and defending the Folks.

When I tuned into his television show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” yesterday here are the first few sentences I got.

I choose not to give money to political causes or candidates because my beat is to watch all these people, not pay their bills. But I see nothing wrong with journalists donating money to people they believe will serve the country well. What is definitely wrong is for the media to beat up those with whom they disagree politically.

Since I don’t have Mr. O’Reilly’s address I can’t be certain whether or not he has contributed to any Federal level campaigns. I’ll take his word for it, this once. Let’s dissect that block of text a bit, shall we?

By way of disclaimer I want it noted that Bill O’Reilly is not a journalist and he should stop telling people he is. He’s a commentator, just like most of us filthy unwashed bloggers.

If you swing your hammer at enough screws you’re bound to pound one in eventually. O’Reilly scores when he reminds the Folks that journalists ought to be looking in every direction and maintaining professional distance from their sources and subjects. But wait! He doesn’t expect all those mortal journos to match the high, high standards he sets for himself! Not every reporter has the intestinal fortitude to be a Bill O’Reilly, after all.

So it doesn’t matter if journalists give money, just so long as they keep their reporting Fair and Balanced. Okay, I can see that. After all, the reporting’s the important thing. And once again, BillO and I agree! Only we agree in exactly opposite directions.

It’s that last bit that really worries me. The big problem, O’Reilly would have us believe, is that all those mean liberal reporters are dragging conservatives through the mud because they disagree with them on abortion, immigration, Iraq or other political issues.

Would that it were that simple. The larger problem facing our democracy today is that too many commentators, like O’Reilly himself, pass themselves off as journalists, then fail to act as critical and independent members of the Fourth Estate. The long-term health of our Republic demands an oppositional media in exactly the same way it demands an oppositional system of justice.

It may well be that as television becomes more and more concerned with entertaining viewers the Internet will develop as a stronger and more rigorous Fourth Estate 2.0. Here’s hoping.

P.S. Not only is BillO wrong, he’s also a hypocrite. Less then ten seconds after the block quote above he refers to “hateful Air America Radio Network” which was “loved” by the print press “before it went bankrupt because of low ratings.” Of course, Air America is solvent again, and is beating O’Reilly in markets all over the country.

P.P.S. My prediction package for the Democrats is coming, I promise.

Posted in Rants, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

June 20, 2007 by Bravo.

Every other Sunday, a group of peace advocates meets in downtown Walla Walla. They wave signs saying, “Peace Now,” “Wage Peace,” and “Honk for Peace.” They flash the peace sign to passing motorists for half an hour or so, then they gather in a small circle to read and honor the names of American military personnel who have died in the war during those past two weeks.

Last Sunday that list totaled 45 names. A Vietnam veteran reads the names from his wheelchair with his hand to his heart and tears in his eyes.

During the reading of names this past Sunday, a man approached and walked directly into the center of the group during the reading of the names. Then he said with a voice of disdain, “I’m a veteran and I fought to protect the rights of losers like you.”

At that same time, a woman walking outside the circle chimed in, “Yeah, see how you like it in Iraq.”

They walked on. The reading of names continued.

But I had to ask myself, in what way is the American presence in Iraq protecting our rights of expression? Is our goal to turn Iraq into a little America? What is our goal in Iraq? What are we fighting for? How will we know if we’ve accomplished it?

In many ways, I think the man interrupting that peaceful demonstration and Vietnam veteran reading those names want many of the same things. We want to live free from the threat of terror. We want to protect each individual’s right of self-expression and self-determination. We want to support the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms.

But how is fighting in Iraq doing anything but breeding future generations of terrorists? How is the surge doing anything but providing more targets of opportunity? Is it not supporting our troops to provide them with clear military objectives and then bring them home rather than placing them in an indefinite role as an army of occupation?

No—I wouldn’t like to live in Iraq, thank you—especially the Iraq we have created.

Posted in Walla Walla, Iraq, Rants | 2 Comments »

June 20, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

Sorry for the lack of posts this week folks. I’m having technical trouble getting the blog upgraded and things at my normal job have been fairly hectic. Things should even out towards the end of this week.

-Stuck

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

June 17, 2007 by Alpha.

The fine folks over at Pollster.com are much better stats wonks than I am. Plus, they make pretty charts! I encourage you to keep an eye on their site in coming months, as their coverage of the 2006 election was excellent.

One of my favorite things to do is look at the trends they estimate for various polls. The set of these that excite me most are the aggregated poll results for the upcoming Democratic and Republican Presidential nominations.

On the Republican side, the big story of the last six months is a man who isn’t even in the race (yet). At the first of the year, Fred Thompson was polling right around zero. His rise since then has been meteoric, and has been accompanied by losses for Giuliani, McCain and Gingrich.

Here are the scores for the first of the year (approximate) and the current trend for the five major Republican candidates:

Six Months Ago            Today
Giuliani:                 32%                      27%
McCain:                 24%                      17%
Gingrich:               10%                      7.3%
Romney:                7%                       9.9%
Thompson, F.:        1%                     16.3%

Fred Thompson is rapidly approaching the level of political rockstar, which is interesting for three reasons. First, he hasn’t discussed seriously his positions on any of the key issues. Second, he has spent most of the last decade in Hollywood, where he hasn’t been speaking publicly (until recently) or, again, publicly taking any positions on any of the issues this Republic faces. Third, the only paper record we have of Thompson’s behavior in government, from his time in Congress, seems to indicate that he was a knee-jerk conservative and a lousy statesman. Of course, George Bush had had less success in his life when he was nominated and elected, so who really knows what this all means?

Here’s my prediction: Thompson will waste no time in embarrassing himself through some series of gaffs or through a total lack of Presidential aptitude. As Thompson’s campaign fades, so to will McCain’s: his conservative  bona fides are all there but there’s only so far anti-war Republicans will follow John “the War Candidate” McCain. I see a Giuliani/Romney horserace coming to a crescendo right around next February, with Romney ultimately getting to nod. Mitt’s got the looks and the bearing, and as long as he can stop alienating working class Republicans he should secure the nomination.
I’ll get the companion piece to this entry, complete with some predictions about the Democratic nomination, in the next couple of days.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

June 17, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

Condos are good for Spokane and so is urban development.

That’s what we keep being told by everyone; city council members, the mayor, the newspaper, and quite literally anyone else who has the ability to influence public perception. Yet at the same time, the city pushes the slogan near nature, near perfect. Part of that appeal is that Spokane, despite it’s growth, has still maintained a somewhat “small town” appeal. This shift in tactics by the city will eventually lead to the destruction of this atmosphere and Spokane will be just one more urban sprawl.

Recently Spokane has had three controversial condominium developments receive approval from the city of Spokane. First there was the Peaceful Valley fiasco, where the city backed down because they were worried about lawsuits from the property owners, and decided instead to destroy one of the oldest neighborhoods in Spokane. Next up was Kendall Yards, the city decided it must act or risk the growth and redevelopment of downtown Spokane.

But making downtown a non-affordable yuppy-ville is not enough. The city wants to force more people out, and to do so they’re willing to force people to spend massive amounts of money to maintain their houses, or risk destuction. That’s exactly what will happen if the city allows Yong Lewis to move ahead with his “Tuscan Ridge” project.

Tuscan Ridge is a development that has just received approval from the city. It is a 30 building development just off of 57th and Hatch Road. An area that has had it’s fair share of structural problems. The hillside is one of the most erosive in the area and several houses in the vicinity have needed shoring up due to erosion. So if housing further up, on more stable ground already required shoring up, what will happen to housing built halfway on the hillside need? What will happen in 10 years with increased traffic, and more wear and tear on the hillside? It will cause accelerated erosion that will require the residents of the area to spend far more money to keep their houses on the hillside rather then roadside to Highway 195.

So folks, if your looking for a quick ticket out, the City of Spokane has just the place for you, head to Tuscan Ridge.

Posted in Spokane | 1 Comment »