December 30, 2007 by Alpha.

Iowa is a three-way toss-up between Clinton and Obama and Edwards. The biggest question is one which I have no good way to answer: who has more rural support in Iowa? Not a clue. Although I expect that Clinton has higher rural negatives she has an excellent ground game. She also has more at-large delegates endorsing her. I’m going to play it safe and take Clinton first, followed by Obama and Edwards.

New Hampshire has a larger percentage of undecided voters than Iowa, Obama has more momentum and a much closer margin on Clinton. Barring a disastrous showing in Iowa, I expect Obama to take New Hampshire, followed by Clinton then Edwards.

After a Clinton victory lap in Michigan I anticipate Nevada to go Clinton/Obama/Edwards, assuming Edwards is still in the race.

South Carolina is Obama’s firewall state, and I think he will win it.

The exhibition match in Florida is a toss-up, and so is February 5th, but I personally think that Senator Barack Obama is the candidate to beat, or as John Madden might say “Al, there’s a guy who controls his own, ah… his um… his future.”

PS The Huckster now leads in national polling. Is this story making itself? Discuss!

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

December 20, 2007 by Alpha.

Here’ s my best guess about what will happen in the early Republican primaries. This is based largely on my own analysis of polling data and my own gut feelings about where things are going.

I expect former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa Caucuses. His appeal seems to be broad-based and his Iowa campaign has practically caught fire. The response that he has gotten in polling there has been dramatic, if not especially predictive. Take a look at this image from Pollster.com for a good sense of how hot Huckabee’s mojo is. I suspect that Huckabee is playing well with rural Iowa Republicans particularly those who really liked Romney or Giuliani five or six months ago. Of course, at that point Rudy and Mitt really were the only game in town. These days in Iowa you might as well be a McCain fan. Seriously, take a look at that graph again: two candidates’ curves have positive slopes; Paul, in last place; and Huckabee, in first. At this point, anyone other than Romney spending money in Iowa is wasting their contributors’ money. Call it Huckabee, then Romney, then the also-rans.

Wyoming is a tough call. They like ‘em good and conservative in Wyoming–but a number of the precincts in Western Wyoming are heavily Mormon. I suspect that Romney will end up with about half the delegates, with Huckabee picking up four or five delegates, with a few going to McCain for old times’ sake. Of course, in the case of anything other than a Romney blowout the story will be not about how huge his win was but on how little it counts for.

Romney, Huckabee and McCain all have some momentum in New Hampshire. Romney has a healthy lead, but if Huckabee hits Iowa hard, he could well a victory. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that both Romney and McCain will collapse in New Hampshire, with the finish going: Huckabee, Romney, McCain.

I anticipate the continued deflation of Guiliani’s campaign, and I suspect that Romney’s money will run out. Either one might make some hay in Michigan ad Nevada, but I expect South Carolina and Florida’s primaries to fall to Huckabee.

If he can keep the winner’s smile on and make a big show when FEC time comes up, Huckabee has the best shot. He seems to have the religious thing and the spunky underdog thing going for him.

Huckabee’s biggest worries aren’t small: He needs Romney and Giuliani to go down like a pair of wounded U2’s over Russia. If they manage to muddy the waters as they go down or if they manage to raise enough money to keep at it once they start losing they could wound him. Lastly, if he doesn’t pick up Nevada or South Carolina or Florida his position on February 5th is tenuous.

These fears notwithstanding, I expect Huckabee to be the candidate to beat going into Super Duper Tuesday.

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

December 18, 2007 by Alpha.

About a week ago, it entered my mind to try to lay out what the big variables would be in the first part of the primary kerfluffle. I figured that if I could tease out some details I might find that one or another candidate might have some kind of procedural advantage. On the Republican side I found some pretty clear victory conditions for each of the candidates. If you haven’t seen that post, it can be found here.

While any of the Republican candidates has about a 50/50 chance of making it through the 8 contests they’ll have before February 5th and thence into the madness of Super Duper Tuesday, the Democrats seem committed to, well, not committing. My first topic: The Phantom Primaries!

Everyone in politics is aware that those who work for a state party ought to refrain from dissing the national party. Unfortunately for Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, some of the Democratic leadership in their states seem to have missed that point. Both states moved their primaries up, both were warned of sanctions coming, and neither have done anything about it. The way it looks right now, neither of those primary votes will count: Michigan’s 157 delegates and Florida’s 210 delegates will be disqualified.

Both of these early winner-take-all primaries would likely have significantly aided Senator Clinton. The poll results may still give her a boost, but she may take some heat, too: she is the only major candidate to reject the national party’s rulings and campaign in those states.

This takes us into the Early Primaries!

In all, the Democrats will have 6 contests before Feb. 5 including those in Michigan and Florida. Here’s how I expect them to shake out:

• Iowa looks extra-exciting, with Edwards, Obama and Clinton all looking at picking up between 13 and 16 delegates. More here than in any other contest before Feb. 5, the candidates need to woo superdelegates (federal level elected officials and high-level party officials) who get to choose for themselves. Clinton has the most endorsements from superdelegates, so she might look to run away with Iowa. But if Obama or Edwards wins the people of Iowa, I have a hard time seeing those superdelegates turning on them.
• New Hampshire is similarly messy. While Clinton maintains a healthy lead in terms of the trends, Obama is picking up a head of steam even showing a lead in recent polling there. Edwards is again a sound third place.
• Michigan, whose delegates will likely not count at the nominating convention, is very likely to go to Clinton, as she holds a 25 point lead on Obama. That could well change, however, if Obama and Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa and if Obama wins New Hampshire.
• Nevada’s caucuses favor Clinton as they favor Giuliani and Romney. I anticipate that as the date approaches we will see some significant movement in polling. She currently stands to pick up about twice as many delegates as Obama (and four times as many as Edwards), but depending on how things shake out in Iowa and New Hampshire Obama or Edwards could have the exposure and money to pick up some rural delegates.
• South Carolina’s primary will probably narrow the field significantly. It’s likely that both Biden and Richardson will be through at this point. I anticipate that no more than two candidates will survive to participate in the festivities of February 5th.

On Super Duper Tuesday, the Democrats will assign another 2,064 delegates. On the Republican side I estimated that the odds of multiple candidates surviving the sheer volume of voting were slim. However, given the massive bankrolls of the top three Democratic candidates and the fact that (Clinton aside) they’re faced with at most four contests before Feb. 5, I wouldn’t be surprised if the votes were more or less split.

Once again, to the big finish: Keys to Victory!

• Clinton needs to show even with Obama in Iowa. She scores bonus points if she wins (no matter how narrowly) and if Edwards does well. A tight pack gives her maximum momentum going into New Hampshire. Her likely, albeit symbolic, victory in Michigan would put her in position to run the table. There’s a reason Senator Clinton’s name gets mentioned first.
• Obama needs to win Iowa. The bigger the victory the better. It appears as though the momentum is swinging his way at the moment, but the loss of the Register’s endorsement is a major one if only for the size of the story itself. A win, especially with poor performance from Clinton (and even Edwards) might put in over the top in New Hampshire. Even in this scenario, a Michigan loss seems unavoidable, but if Obama can pick up Nevada or South Carolina there’s a good chance he can win (or at least stay in the game) through Feb. 5. In that case, things will get very interesting.
• Edwards needs a perfect storm. If he can win in Iowa, and he must, he seems to be out of options. The simple fact is that he runs third in all the other contests before Feb. 5. Short of some kind of political Hail Mary (or maybe Statue of Liberty?) Edwards’ goose is cooked. I would suggest a Ciceronian treatise on the value of justice in a manifestly unjust world, but that’s just me.
• Biden needs… well, I’ve never been certain that Biden was really running for President. He certainly has all the foreign policy experience to make sense when he talks about ‘the Iraq,’ but he was never able to gain much traction on domestic issues. I’m thinking he’s really running for Secretary of State.
• Richardson… Richardson has his sights set higher. As Bob Russell joked, “If you squint real hard and tilt you head just so, it looks an awful lot like the Seal of the President of the United States.”

That’s it, boys and girls. My well-considered analysis of the Democratic and Republican primaries through February 5th.

I’ll post my Up/Down predictions in the next couple of days.

Posted in Democrats, 2008, Presidential, Campaigns | 3 Comments »

December 15, 2007 by Alpha.

A few days ago I realized, with a touch of humility, that I knew astonishingly little about the nuts and bolts of the Pesidential primary process outside of a vague understanding of how nominating conventions work. Quickly! to Wikipedia!

There are actually two remarkably informative Wikipedia entries: one for the Dems and another for the GOP. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find (properly filed) pages for the Green Party or the Constitution Party or the Communist Party, so I don’t know that I’d call this a thorough digest, but some interesting notes arose regardless.

First off, a topic I haven’t heard mentioned much: The Phantom Primaries!

The Republican Party of the great state of Wyoming, no doubt in a riotous fit of pique, decided in late August to get out in front of the bus, so to speak. The National Party penalized them–half of their 28 delegates. They’ve earned the right to be an early bump in the road, but it will be an awfully small one: 24 days later Florida will assign 57 (out of a possible 114 rating a D-).

This takes us into the Early Primaries!

The Republicans will assign just 229 delegates in 8 states before February 5th. The way the polling looks right now, here’s what that means in terms of the numbers of delegates we can expect to see early on:

• Iowa: Huckabee takes 11, maybe more. Romney needs to get 10 to have any juice going into the stretch. If any of the other candidates takes more than 5 delegates, it will probably be because another candidate got the ol’ goose-egg.
• Wyoming: I still haven’t seen any polling here. The Wyoming caucus will end up doling out over 6% of the pre-Feb. 5 delegates, more than the number New Hampshire will yield. And since I’ve seen no polling, I can’t help but see Wyoming as a chance for someone in the pack to make a big splash.
• New Hampshire is big because it’s the first winner-take-all contest. Even though it’s the smallest state (in terms of delegates) before Feb. 5, New Hampshire is the first opportunity for a deathblow to be dealt. The trend in polling favors Romney, though Huckabee leads in some recent polls. A win here for either may establish a clear front-runner, but if either finishes beyond third it could spell curtains.
• Michigan could pose a problem for Huckabee, as his gains of late have only just gotten him out of the cellar. Romney carries a hefty lead, followed closely by Giuliani, then McCain who is just now freefalling past Huckabee.
• Nevada’s caucuses favor Giuliani and Romney as well, but over the last several weeks every candidate other than Huckabee has been losing support, while he gains.
• South Carolina’s primary will depend very heavily on what happens leading up to it. Right now both Romney and Huckabee have significant momentum, but the road to SC could cripple either of them.

Then on February 5th, another 1,081 delegates will be assigned, and that flood seems likely to wipe away most of the competition.

That brings me to the big finish: Keys to Victory!

• Huckabee needs to perform in Iowa. Not just do well at the caucuses, but to do well gracefully. Then he will need a strong performance in Wyoming, or a miracle in New Hampshire or Michigan.
• Giuliani needs to survive till the Feb. 5 with some dignity intact. That may be impossible, as he trails in every primary state before Florida on Jan. 29. If Giuliani is still standing on Jan. 30, he may start to see daylight.
• Romney needs to put the pedal to the metal, especially in New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina-even narrow wins in those three states would launch him ahead of any competition and make him the clear favorite going into Florida, which would be his to take from Giuliani.
• McCain is bleeding. As far as I can tell, the only reason he’s still in the race is because if he drops out, he’ll be asked to endorse someone, which might disqualify him from a shot at the VP slot. A sudden shift in Iraq might help him, but I can’t imagine what sort of event it would take.
• Thompson would need to clean up in Wyoming, then make an articulate, direct, moving acceptance speech. Only if Jan. 5 is very very good for him does he pose a threat on Jan. 8 or later.
• Paul would need a series of scandals so tawdry as to offend even the Republican base–no mean feat for someone without a D after his or her name. Of course, anything is possible… Maybe a volcano? Or landsharks?

Well there you have it. I’ve handicapped to Republican race through Florida… Sort of. A similar breakdown for the Dems is on its way!

Okay, now you go.

Posted in Republicans, 2008, Presidential, Campaigns | 2 Comments »

August 28, 2007 by Alpha.

So there’s more coming down the pike on Senator Larry Craig’s current situation.

1. Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate GOP leadership will ask the Senate Ethics Committee to open a file on Senator Craig. While I wouldn’t expect any serious repercussions, this is certainly going to keep the story circulating. It also indicates that the Republican Party has no plans to rally around Craig - it looks very much like they’re cutting him off and hoping the stink won’t spread.

2. Speaking of smelly things, Craig has resigned his post as Senate co-chair for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s Presidential race. This could be an issue going forward for Romney, as he was no doubt banking on southern Idaho’s heavy Mormon population for long-term support. Will he be able to get the backing of another major conservative leader in the west?

3. Michelle Malkin’s readers (not usually me, I swear) think Craig should get gone. Malkin herself called Craig “a supremely arrogant lying crapweasel” which may actually enter my personal lexicon. Thanks Michelle, you “supremely arrogant lying crapweasel!” Awesome.

4. Conservatives are jumping all over themselves to give Craig the hairy eyeball, from Malkin (above) to Ari Fleischer to Sam Brownback. And to think that just yesterday I was worried that Dems would look bad for piling on. Since when do Republicans do Democratic dirty work?

5. Finally, Craig on Craig: it’s the Statesman’s fault. That’s right, Senator, blame that notorious left-wing media for all of its, you know, investigative journalism.

In other news, Rep. Brian Baird threw a town hall last night. Brian’s a pretty charismatic guy, alright, but what anti-war Democrat holds a town hall the night after announcing that President Bush’s surge might be helping? Jon Soltz, of VoteVets, showed up and called Baird out on his support for a clearly failing policy.

My question is what Rep. Baird thinks he’s doing here. I’v met the man and most of his staff, and he doesn’t seem to put up with a lot of foolishness. So where’s the percentage here? He took heat for voting against the Iraq war, he took heat in the ‘06 cycle for not being anti-war enough for his more liberal constiuants, and now he’s taking heat for saying we need to give the surge another 6-12 months.

Brian, please. Pick a stance, and stay with it. And if you’re going to pick the least popular of all possible stances, do it with some finesse!

Posted in Idaho, Elections, Washington, Iraq, Campaigns | 1 Comment »

August 22, 2007 by Bravo.

The McMorris Rodgers 2008 campaign is out of the gates more than a year early this time. And she’s making full use of our tax dollars to pay for it. McMorris Rodgers visited Walla Walla on Wednesday (August 22) for a town hall meeting.

Of course meeting announcements were printed in full color and mailed on the congressional franking privilege at taxpayer expense. She brought a staff of four to the meeting (at whose expense?). The meeting was held at 1:30 p.m. on a Wednesday afternoon for the convenience of workers in the area. And she took the opportunity to collect names and addresses for her monthly newsletter.

But more than 120 locals skipped work and turned out, most with some bone to pick—from vets and peace activists to medical marijuana users and reproductive rights advocates.

McMorris Rodgers took questions in writing only, so she could pick and choose which to respond to. And to her credit, she has learned to dance lightly around a number of issues with the help of Frank Luntz and his political bromides—working in references to the “death tax” and the “Healthy Forests” initiative.

And she gave us, once again, the “happy Iraq” story, praising benchmarks that have been set and met there and promising no long-term military presence.

One of the toughest questions came from a Planned Parenthood representative who asked why she had voted to cut funding for the organization. McMorris Rodgers responded that she’s pro-life and doesn’t support federal funding for these types of organizations. The questioner persisted asking where the 3,000 people who currently use Planned Parenthood services in the area were supposed to go. McMorris Rodgers just buried her head in the next card.

Posted in 2008, Walla Walla, Campaigns, Fifth CD, Cathy McMorris | 1 Comment »

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 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 »