July 29, 2007 by Alpha.

The most recently surfaced critique of Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign is that he isn’t sticking to a message. He’s shown that he’s pretty willing to contradict himself depending on the crowd he’s with, not unlike the charges leveled against President Bush in his campaigns. Unfortunately for the former Governor of Massechusetts, attendees of Romney events aren’t screened as strictly as those attending Bush events. The gravest danger, Team Bush must have recognized, is a combination of video cameras and tough questions, which can add up to explosive moments, like then-Senator George Allen’s infamous “Macaca Moment.”

The “bad” moment in this sequence was what may be cordially described as a telling gaff at a campaign stop in South Carolina. Romney was shouldering up to some of his (tremendously impolitic) supporters. A sign gets shoved in his hand, and of course there’s a camera around. Here are the photos (via):
Now, I won’t go into my particular problems with the sign (though they be legion). I actually feel that the thing has a sort of folksy, down-home feel to it, that should really appeal to that coveted angry, racist, nationalist, chauvinist demographic. Their so-called “base.”

But then, that’s the problem, isn’t it. Whether he meant to be or not, there’s simply no way around the fact that he is materially supporting an ideology that is poisonous to the harmony of our republic.

And whether or not he had any idea what he was doing when he hefted that poster-board, there’s only one sensible solution. It’s a pretty obvious one, I’d think: declare that you had no idea what was on the sign, lifted it simply to be cordial and apologize profusely for hurting anyone’s feelings. This way you neutralize the event without totally alienating conservative Republicans.

Of course, if the Romney campaign had figured out how to deal with this situation properly, I probably wouldn’t be commenting. If the story stops there, it’s no story at all. Instead of eating a bite of humble pie and making an ugly face, Romney did the unthinkable: he moved to position himself to the right of the patriot demographic.

At one of his “Ask Mitt Anything” listening tour events in South Carolina shortly thereafter, Romney jumped on it. With both feet. The question came from a polite but persistent young man named Jarid Kurtz, who writes for the remarkably homey Buckeye State Blog. “I still remember where I was on 9/11,” Kurtz said. “I still don’t understand how you can compare any American to Osama bin Laden.” It’s a leading question, one with a hideously potent trap in the middle of it.

Romney jumped in with both feet: “Uh, nice try…. But I don’t really spend all that much time looking at the signs and the T-shirts and the buttons. I don’t have anything in particular to say about a sign somebody else was holding.” Then he made it worse. “I don’t stand for all the things I get my picture taken next to.”

After some words of encouragement and/or extreme frustration from the audience, Romney continued “You know what? Lighten up slightly. Lighten up.There’s plenty of jokes out there and I’m not responsible for every sign that I see, that I’m with. And just lighten up.”

I’d like to briefly respond to the claim at the center of this poorly executed pivot move. Romney argues that he is not responsible for every button, shirt or sign that happens to be near him. I disagree. Any Presidential Candidate has the responsibility to do the right thing. Or at the very least, appear to do so. Romney should not have been allowed anywhere near that sign, unless it was for the express purpose of asking the sign-bearer to consider a slightly more positive message.

Either Romney wasn’t properly coached for either of these occasions or he simply blew it or both. In any case, this signals a major mistake on the part of the Romney campaign, and not one that appears easy to fix. Sure, you might be able to prevent another gaff of this caliber with some staff changes, but that won’t put the kittens back in the sack. Romney just finished principal shooting on one of the best attack ads I’ve seen in a while.

Some of you playing along at home may wonder whether this event upsets my predictions about the Republican Primary race. I rate this a definite maybe. If this story sticks to Romney, it’ll hurt. With McCain in sharp decline and Giuliani wavering, we may see just the opening that Fred Thompson is looking for. And if Thompson turns out to be an empty suit, that may leave the way clear for Candidate Gingrich, which just might be the silver bullet Republicans need so badly right now.

The only certainty is that the Republican race just got a lot less certain, and I’m not sure anyone will make it out of the swamp without some mud on them.

To see the entirety of the Kurtz, et al. v. Romney exchange in New Hampshire, courtesy YouTube, click here. I warn you, it’s brutal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

July 26, 2007 by Alpha.

Last Monday, something interesting happened. Real people got to ask questions of the Democratic Presidential candidates. While the sheer volume of candidate makes a proper debate a practical impossibility, Anderson Cooper did a relatively good job pointing the questions at candidates whose answers would prove interesting.

The big one, for me, wasn’t that important until I started seeing the direction the public response was taking. Here’s the short version of the most popular narrative: Obama’s naive, Hillary’s commanding, and Edwards is the guy we all wish were leading the pack. I want to challenge that narrative, but first, the details.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat (then-President of Egypt) traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: ….Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: ….Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America’s moral leadership in the world. It’s not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

Apologies for the massive quote block, but I think the juxtaposition is excellent. The candidates are asked “Will you meet with people who are avowed enemies of the United States?” Obama says: “Yes, because not doing so has been disastrous.” Clinton says: “I’d like to, but I’m not going to let these people screw America over with it.” Edwards says: “Bad diplomacy is a leadership problem, and if we want to regain a position of leadership we have to earn it.”

I want to be absolutely clear about this: Any of these three would represent a massive improvement over the Bush Administration’s “diplomatic” “policy.” However, they represent three different degrees of change.

Clinton’s position is the most Bush-esque on this topic. I appreciate that she is wary of foreign leaders who have a bad track record of playing along with American interests, but she leaves herself an awful lot of room to ease away from actively engaging Kim, Chavez, Castro, et al.

Edwards’ position is the classiest pivot I’ve seen in a while, and positions him squarely between Clinton and Obama. He refuses to commit to anything other than the lofty goals of doing good things. I like Edwards a lot, but I’ve never enjoyed him in a wonkish way. He hits me more like puppies and kittens and rainbows.

Obama takes the strongest position, and holds it. Unfortunately, since the debate his staff have done an incredible job of making it look like he really meant to say whatever it was that Hillary and John said. It’s a real shame that someone with a strong and principled stand on international relations is scared he’s going to look weak. The right response to all the accusations of naivete, in my book, is to say simply “Of course I’m not going to let Kim Jung-Il walk out of here with the keys to Air Force One. Come on. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to say no when one of the most anti-American leaders in the world asks for a sit-down.”

Anyone who’s taken a basic introduction to International Relations will recall a little thought experiment called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I urge to to familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia page, or the rest of this might sail over your head. The conclusion is this: in any indefinitely repeating, iterated two-player game absent reliable communication, both players will seek to maximize self-interest over seeking to maximize the interest of the group. With high frequency, players will go so far as to “shoot themselves in the foot in order to stab another player in the back,” as my Intro IR professor put it.

The key to any Prisoner’s Dilemma situation is that players have little or no idea how any other player will behave, and they are unable to collude or cooperate actively. As a result, each player develops the defensive assumption that the other will betray him, and they simultaneously prove one another correct.

I love peace. And if we want to make it, keep it, and share it, we must be willing to talk to anyone. We must especially talk to those who would destroy us if they could. Peace can only be found through dialogue and through the intertwining of common interests.

Comments, as always, are encouraged.

Posted in 2008, Presidential, Rants, Campaigns | 1 Comment »

July 22, 2007 by Alpha.

CNN reports that Sen. John McCain (R-Crazyland) had this to say: “I’m not going to talk about my campaign anymore. I’m finished with talking about it. I’ve talked about it for two weeks. I will not discuss it or any aspect of it. Thank you.”

It is possible that War Candidate McCain is simply tired. Pulling all-nighters will have that effect on a man his age. But let’s face the facts: McCain’s campaign is coming apart. His staff are fleeing, his fundraising sucks, and now, finally, he has done the one thing no candidate can ever do–he’s told the media he doesn’t want to talk to them.

The last man to be elected President without mounting a campaign was Abraham Lincoln. Mr. McCain, you are no Abraham Lincoln, and if you don’t have something incredible to report in the next month, we will simply stop talking about you. And you, sir, will lose.

Posted in 2008, Presidential, Rants | 1 Comment »

July 19, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

Some of you may have heard this, or read it in the paper, but for those who don’t here it is. Peter Goldmark was involved in a fairly bad accident on Monday night, it was with a tractor that made an unexpected turn when Peter was trying to pass the tractor near Nespelem. Wendy Goldmark was also in the car, both were checked out at a local hospital and released. The driver of the tractor, Lloyd Olbright, however was airlifted to Sacred Heart Medical Center and was listed in serious condition. Please keep them all in your thoughts/prayers/whatever you do, and hope that Mr. Olbright has a speedy recovery and that Peter and Wendy don’t have any complications.

Source: Seattle PI Article

Posted in Peter Goldmark | 1 Comment »

July 18, 2007 by Bravo.

In a recent fit of insomnia, I happened upon the C-SPAN coverage of the all-night Senate debate over funding for the war in Iraq. I caught the arguments of a Republican Senator from Oklahoma pressing the panic button repeatedly over an early withdrawal of troops. Early withdrawal, he said, would place the troops in grave danger.

Am I missing something? Seems to me that staying in Iraq longer is the grave danger for troops. Maybe our leaders would be better served to get some sleep before the next vote.

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | No Comments »

July 17, 2007 by Alpha.

Yesterday we broke the news that Dr. Peter Goldmark is will mount a campaign against incumbent Doug Sutherland (R - Lacey) for the post of Commissioner of Public Lands for the great state of Washington.

I will readily admit that until very recently I knew very little about what the Commissioner does, and even less about Mr. Sutherland. I am familiar with Dr. Goldmark’s qualifications for the job, so in an effort to paint a deeper picture of the race, I spent today in research mode.

Here’s what I’ve been able to find out about Mr. Sutherland. According to his official bio, he was born in Helena, MT then lived briefly in Vancouver, WA before settling in Spokane in 1946. In 1959, he received a B.A. in History from Central Washington University. He worked for Boeing from 1960-71, then bought up the Tacoma Tent and Awning Company, which he passed to his son in 1989.

Sutherland served on the Tacoma city council in 1980-81, before being elected Mayor of Tacoma. He held that post until the end of 1989, when he took the job of City Manager in the newly incorporated SeaTac. He was there until 1992, when he took over as Pierce County Executive. That post he held through the end of 2000, when he began his first term as Commissioner of Public Lands. In his first campaign he defeated former Governor Mike Lowry, after successfully painting Lowry as a left-wing eco-nut. I recall that election season in Eastern Washington for the great deal of hysteria about endangered owls and whether they “really mattered” to “real Washingtonians.” In 2004 Sutherland fended off a challenge from Democrat Mike Cooper.

The big confusion for me, concerning what the Commissioner of Public Lands does, precisely, was greatly clarified when I realized two things. He is (1) the manager of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and (2) the chairman of the Board of Natural Resources.

Once I rightly placed the Commissioner at the pinnacle of the DNR I realized just how tremendously important this job is, no matter where in the state you live. In fact, I grew up with a plot of DNR grazing acreage literally next door. From the same biography of Doug Sutherland, we get this: DNR oversees over 2.8 million acres of public lands, and over 2.4 million acres of “aquatic lands,” helpfully enumerated as creeks, river, shorelines, and a whole mess of “land” under Puget Sound.

I’d always known how important DNR policy was east of the Cascades, but I didn’t realize that they, well, owned the Sound. Now maybe Mr. Sutherland has done his part to keep the Sound healthy, but if the policies we’ve seen on the east side are anything to go by, we’ve all got reason for concern.

The problem isn’t that Sutherland is stupid, though I can’t vouch for his intelligence. The problem isn’t that he’s corrupt, though I can’t speak to his integrity. The problem is that he sees his job as balancing the interests of industry (particularly timber, mining and land development interests) against the understandable urge to conserve and protect our limited natural resources.

I remember toward the end of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” there’s a sequence where he discusses a relatively recent high-level conference on environmental protection. The conference banner featured an image of a scale balancing, on one side several bars of gold and on the other a nice blue-green Earth. This, sadly, is how Sutherland sees his job. He takes his task as one of extracting as much revenue as possible from Washington’s forests, mountains, rivers and pastures. The problem is that, from his past behavior, there are long-term costs that he hasn’t factored in.

What is the spotted owl worth? How much would we be willing to pay to bring back the dodo? Which is worth more: a gold mine that may produce a few tons of the stuff, or a system of lakes and streams that supply water, irrigation, habitat and recreation forever?

From the framing of those questions, I’ll bet you can see where I’m at. One last thing: I’d like to see someone ask Mr. Sutherland who he’d rather see take the position of Commissioner of Public Lands: a man with a B.A. in History and a background in municipal government, or a man with a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and a background in ecology and agriculture?

For God’s sake, Dr. Goldmark has a lab on his ranch. He grows his own strain of wheat. The guy’s what you would get if you crossed Wyatt Earp and Reed Richards.

Ask Commissioner Sutherland what he thinks. Here’s his work contact info:

Commissioner of Public Lands
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 47001
Olympia, WA 98504-7001
Phone: 360.902.1004
Fax: 360.902.1775

[Ed. to remove even more idocy] 

Posted in 2008, Commissioner of Public Lands, Elections, Washington, Campaigns | 5 Comments »

July 16, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

As many of you have read, I met with Mary Verner shortly after I started the endeavor that is Spokompton. I did so because I had it from a source close to her, that she had filed a police report in regards to harassing email she had received. I met her at the Starbucks on 14th and Grand, and had a witness present with me for a large part of our conversation. During the course of this meeting she repeatedly insisted that she had filed a police report because she felt threatened by an emails she had received from someone other then myself, and that my blog was violating Washington States new Anti-Cyber Stalking laws, wrong Ms. Verner, it does not. I was reporting first had information of an event that you even admitted occurred.

I asked Mary repeatedly for the case number for her police report so that I could call and speak to the detective in charge of the investigation personally and set matters straight. She outright refused to provide me the case number, claiming that it was a private number and that I would be contacted (I gave her my phone number) by the detective. I was suspicious of this and gave her the benefit of the doubt, I even offered her the opportunity for an on the issues interview and that I would post information regarding her campaign, she stated that she would appreciate that. It has now been more then a month since that meeting, I have never been contacted by a police detective, and I have emailed with Ms.Verner a couple of times, only to be told that she is “to busy” to complete her position papers which she has listed on her website.

To set my suspicions aside I decided to go into the police station and find out for sure. I met with a detective who retrieved the police report. I told him that I was an interested party as Mary Verner had stated that my pseudonym was listed in the report. I gave the detective my real name, my handle, my email address and another email address that could be of interest in the case, he repeatedly told me in crystal clear tones that none of this information was contained in the report and that the report had nothing to do with Mary’s political activities and that further more it was not a criminal report, but merely an informational report.

Other sources outside of the police station told me that the report was related to her children and that she had filed it so that the police department would have record of it.

Mary, it just goes to show, lying to intimidate a poor college student doesn’t pay and that the truth shall will out. You do not deserve to be the mayor of Spokane, much less a city councilwoman, I have no doubt that the people of Spokane will tell you much the same thing in little over a month. Despite what some groups and individuals are saying you are NOT the candidate of the people, you lie and repress everyone who disagrees with you.

Once again I find myself saying this. Shame on you Mary Verner!

Stuck in Spokane

Posted in Washington, Spokane, Mayor, Campaigns | 5 Comments »

July 16, 2007 by Alpha.

I received a press release from an email list managed by Betty Fry. It is floating around the Intarwebs announcing that Dr. Peter Goldmark, rancher, former WSU regent, State Director of Agriculture and Congressional Candidate, is running for Director of State Lands.

I honestly cannot think of a better candidate for the job. Peter’s been a rancher all of his adult life, in part because he loves the land so much. He’s from Okanogan, a town (and county) that is very sensitive to the importance of protecting Washington’s resources. The last decade has been one drought year after another there, with declining snowpacks leading to ever-increasingly short supplies of water for people, livestock and crops.

I see public land use policy as an important opportunity to invest in the future. By using and maintaining our state land wisely, we can be certain that it continues to provide revenue and balance our region’s ecology. By thinking long term, we can get a win-win situation. Or we can sell off our pulic lands, license them to irresponsible logging firms and basically cash out. Sure, we might be able to forestall some budget deficits, but what are we getting in return? Increased erosion, degrading water quality and a future that looks bleaker than ever.

Dr. Goldmark’s website hasn’t been updated yet, and still wears the sad (but hopeful!) face it put on last November. Soon, no doubt, that location will be a hub of knowledge and activity around the new campaign.

Posted in 2008, Commissioner of Public Lands, Elections, Washington, Campaigns | 3 Comments »

July 4, 2007 by Alpha.

Dear President Bush,

I have tried, I really have, to give you the benefit of the doubt. I started trying when evidence surfaced in 2000 that your aide, Mr. Rove, had run some remarkably offensive push-polls indicating that Senator McCain might have had some scandalous interracial dalliances.

But today, sir, I am truly glad that I never doubted you. I never, not for one delirious moment, doubted that you were exactly the scum-sucking would-be tyrant you have shown yourself to be.

The true shame of what you have done may, if you are very lucky, die with me and my generation. This is unlikely. Your many misdeeds have been so brazen and heinous and cowardly that you are most likely to go down in history as the most shamefully wanting “leader” that this nation has ever had. I sincerely hope that you wear that mantle for many, many years.

Now, just before America’s birthday, you have shamed her again.

You swore to the American people that whoever was responsible for the public release of Valerie Plame’s identity would see hard justice done to them. That you took that disclosure as a serious crime, worthy of severe penalties.

Now that a man has been found guilty in precisely that treason, you find that time in prison, any time in prison at all, is simply too cruel, to inhumane to lay on his head.

Sir, Mr. Libby is guilty. He lied while under oath and he lied to the FBI, obstructing an investigation that would very likely have buried Vice-President Cheney, another whose notoriety will hopefully serve as a lesson to future generations.

What is the pursuit of justice worth, Sir? You once claimed that we would find justice in Iraq. Surely, if the ugly shadow of justice that breathes in Baghdad is worth the lives of a few hundred thousand men women and children, then some real justice in Washington, D.C. must be worth a guilty man at least visiting a prison cell.

But no. Mr. Libby has been isolated, he has been terrorized, and he must now be rewarded for his loyalty. Of course, he can’t be pardoned, because then he could not claim his Fifth Amendment right to refuse self-incrimination.

Sir, I am truly disgusted.

My disgust notwithstanding, I try to be a benevolent man. In that spirit I will offer to you some guidance.

First, you must accept that the deception has failed. You have turned back into a pumpkin, and the wheels have fallen off of your Presidency. I know that you crave respect. What man does not? But you can no longer manufacture or demand that respect. If you want any more respect, you will have to earn it.

I urge you, I ask you, I beg you to tell the people of the world the truth. The real truth. No matter how ugly. Tell us who was responsible for what happened in 2000 and 2004. Tell us who was on that Energy Policy task force back in 2001. Tell us who gave you the forged documents that you used to propel the United States into Iraq. Tell us why. Tell us where the bodies are buried and show us the skeletons in your closet.

Sir, enough lies. Perhaps truth will change your legacy.

You concluded your statement on the occasion of the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence  thusly: “The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.”

This gets at the crux of your dysfunction as an American President. You have repeatedly pursued those uses of your power which are “appropriate,” or “justified.” This standard is unacceptably low. You are not just the “Commander Guy.” You are the most powerful man in America, and you are responsible for her health. I know that responsibility has never been your strong suit, but the time has come when you have only two options.

You must either spend the rest of your Presidency taking responsibility for your past actions and working to exemplify the kind of stewardship that this nation so badly needs after six years of your lies and manipulation, or you must simply go down in history as an excellent example of the excesses of power.

The choice is yours, sir.

Alpha

Posted in Presidential, National, Rants, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »