Washington State Congressional Campaigns Heating up!

Interest has been picking up on the internet in the 3 Congressional House seats in Washington state where Democrats are challenging Republican incumbents.

These are the :

WA 8th CD - Democrat challenger Darcy Burner vs incumbent Dave Reichert

WA 5th CD - Democrat Peter Goldmark vs incumbent Cathy McMorris

WA 4th CD - Democrat Richard Wright vs incumbent Doc Hastings

In the 8th Congressional District Democratic candidate Darcy Burner (WA 8) is literally burning a hole in the seat of the pants of incumbent Dave Reichert. You have to have your pants on fire to call President Bush in to help you these days, considering Bush's low approval ratings. Yet this is just what Reichert has done.

In an article written by Neil Modie of the Seattle PI, it is confirmed that Bush will be coming to attend a private fundraiser for Reichert on June 16 th at the home of Microsoft executive Peter Neupert. It will cost $1000 a head to see President Bush close up. For only $10,000 you can get a picture with Bush. That money will be donated to the state Republican Party.

Neil notes that this is the President's only stop in the state. As such I am sure that the President is officially taking time off from his busy job at the White House and that the cost for the plane, secret service time and all the rest will be paid for by the National Republican Party or come out of campaign funds raised, since attending a political fundraiser is not an official duty of the President of the United States.

And I am also sure that Washington State taxpayers will not have to pay for any additional local police and security forces due to the President attending a private political fundraiser on his own time. After all we're already paying billions of taxpayer dollars for the President's private war for oil in Iraq that he pawned onto a gullible Congress and American taxpayers.

Darcy Burner, meanwhile had a fundraiser yesterday with Congressman Rahm Emanuel -Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.see writeup at the NPI Blog.

• Swing State Project - Darcy Burner Added to Netroots Page
• mydd - My next Netroots Candidate
• Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - Darcy Burner WA -08
• WashBlog - Interview with Darcy Burner

In the 5th Congressional District race in Eastern Washington, Democrat Peter Goldmark held his official kickoff in Spokane last week and did a three day tour of events to reach out to voters. A series of articles and blogs document the increased interest in this race.

• Clip of Goldmark Kickoff Speech
  MajorityRulesBlog- Democrat Peter Goldmark Rides into Spokane to Kickoff his Campaign for Congress
• Seattle PI "AP Newsmaker: Goldmark running for 5th District seat"
• Evergreen Politics - "On the campaign Trail with Peter Goldmark"
• dailykos - Peter Goldmark Rides for Democrats in WA 5
• the Daily Evergreen - Former Regent Enters Congressional Race

In the 4th Congressional District more attention is emerging for Democrat Richard Wright who is running against incumbent" lack of action" House Ethics Committee Chair Doc Hastings.

• McCranium - Candidate Interview - Richard Wright - WA 4th Congressional District
• Evergreen Politics - Interview with Richard Wright - Running in the 4th
• NW Progressive Institute - Q & A Richard Wright

McCranium.org to the Rescue - My Honor is Saved!

Seems Tri-City Herald reporter and blogger Chris Mulick last Friday lumped me in the same category as Tim Eyman when I pointed out in a recent blog on Referendum 65 how the news media is in bed with Tim Eyman. Referendum 65 is an attempt to repeal recently passed legislation in Washington state banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mulick touted back in his blog that I'm the one in bed with Tim Eyman. Now isn't this getting interesting?

Jim McCabe over at McCranium caught Chris Mulick's blog, entitled "Eyman, Zemke agree on one thing, maybe" He responded with an excellent rebuttal entitled "Chris Mulick, Ya Gotta be kidding me..." Jim does an excellent job of clarifying what the issue is really about. It's not that the media is the enemy, its that they help Eyman by giving him coverage many other issues and campaigns never get.

Now I've been in a few beds but not Tim's. See I'm old fashioned and I believe in love before going to bed and Tim and I have no love for each other. I like to at least think that the other person I'm in bed with is sincere and honest and won't lie before we crawl under the sheets, while we're under the sheets or afterwards.

Now the news media, that's a different story. The thing is I'm not calling the news media liars. You've probably heard the phrase of "putting the paper to bed". It's newspaper vernacular such as used in this interesting aside if you really want to get diverted from this story at this point. See The Morning News "Talking Dirty with the Gray Lady"

Anyway, on my blog post last week entitled, "Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65" my point was that there is a narrow line between reporting news and making up news or believing something is news because a press release is put out. And this is the case with Referendum 65. By writing about Eyman's reaching out to the churches to save his bacon and keep his initiative business going, trhe media winds up promoting his efforts. They have got another story "to put to bed" hoping that it will grab their readers tomorrow when they open their morning paper.

There have been many other initiatives that have struggled to get signatures but because Eyman is such a mediagenic guy, he becomes a story for some of the media in this state just because he said something. Frequently its an easy story because they quote verbatim from an Eyman press release and don't even bother to check whether what he is saying is true or not. Opposing vierwpoiunts get short shift. He may get contact information while the other side isn't even mentioned.

Others reporters have, over time, taken a different position, realizing that writing about any of Eyman's campaign struggles or stunts before he has gotten his signatures would be helping him get his signatures by giving him increased exposure and credibility.

I can remember in the past numerous comments from reporters in the press and media that an initiative wasn't a story until you turned in your signatures. They basically had a hands off policy on an initiative only being a major story when the initiative campaign actually secured enough valid signatures. It didn't matter how many endorsements you released or testimonials and studies you supplied supporting your campaign. If you didn't have the signatures to show then you hadn't reached the required threshold level of public support to get media attention. These days it seems some reporters ignore that distinction regarding Eyman's campaigns and give him coverage no matter what, while at the same time ignoring other initiative campaigns that are worthy and could use media attention.

They do this partly because Eyman can be obnoxious and taunting to the media and he captures their attention. But he doesn't hate the media as Chris Mulick seems to suggest. In fact he loves the media because they are an integral part of his initiative business. He has worked them enough so they know him. In fact I'm sure some like him because he is irreverent to them. Meanwhile Eyman loves the attention he gets and it works to get him the exposure he needs to keep his for profit initiative mill going.

He knows that by being respectful and matter of fact, he isn't going to get coverage. But his "in your face" showmanship sound bites fit just what the media wants. It helps them to sell papers. It also makes for 30 second sound bites. One could call it media grabbing theatre.

All I said in my blog, and this is what Jim at McCraniyum.org responded to, is that the media is really doing Eyman's work for him. How many other campaigns are also struggling to get signatures? Do they get a front page headline in the Seattle PI or a large story in the Yakima Herald? No. They aren't showman Tim Eyman. Some in the media seem to need Eyman as much as he needs them it seems.

To connect to those who oppose Eyman's effort to place Referendum 65 on the Washington ballot this November go to Washington Won't Discriminate.

Republicans Continue to Give Away our Children's Future

Republicans in the US Senate are beginning a final push to abolish the estate tax. They could commence action as soon as next week. It's part of the continuing Republican plan for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The US House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the estate tax.

As reported on OMB Watch on Wednesday,

"Senate aides said yesterday that estate tax repeal will likely be the third order of business to come up when the Senate returns after the Memorial Day recess. The Senate will vote on full repeal, and after that likely fails, it is Senator Jon Kyl's (R-AZ) intention to bring his "reform" plan up for a vote. His plan is little better than full repeal as it would attain very little of the actual revenue garnered from the estate tax."

We join with OMB Watch and urge that you "Take action on this issue! Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on repeal and no on Kyl's fiscally irresponsible alternative."

Americans for a Fair Estate Tax have sent a letter to all Senators urging them to vote no.
A copy of the letter can be seen here: FairEstateTax.org letter .

The following Washington State organizations have signed the letter.

Washington Tax Fairness Coalition
Kids Northwest
Statewide Poverty Action Network
Washington State Association of Churches
Northwest Federation of Community Organizations
Washington Citizen Action
Children's Alliance
Northwest Health Law Advocates

The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition represents some 73 organizations in Washington State working for fair taxes. The following are some facts taken form an e-mail they sent to their members:

3 Vital Facts About the Estate Tax:

· Repealing or drastically cutting it would cost $1 trillion over 10 years.
· Now, only 1 in 200 estates of people who die owe any estate tax; in 2009, when estates worth less than $3.5m ($7 million for couples) are exempt, only 3 out of 1,000 people who die will owe the tax.
· If the tax rate is dropped as proposed,* more than half the benefits will go to 700 estates worth more than $20 million each - they'll each get $9 million in tax handouts in 2011 alone. Sheesh. (*serious proposal would drop rate from 45% to 15%)

3 Vital Facts About America:

· The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing. The wealthiest one percent own more than the bottom 90 percent - and it's been getting worse over the past 15 years, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
· The U.S. faces major new costs for retirement and health care over the next decades. Over the next 25 years, Medicare will grow from 8% to 14% as a share of the economy. Not a good time to lose trillions.
· We have already started to cut federal funding on health care, education, child care, job training, and so many other services.

Wealth in America is not distributed equally. According to Wixipedia "In the United States, 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controls 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% own less than 1% of the total wealth. "

This disparity in income distribution has continued to increase over recent years. One strong proponent of the estate tax is William H Gates, Sr - the father of Microsoft's Bill Gates. Several years ago he and Chuck Collins wrote a book entitled Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes, Beacon Press (2003) .

The Solution to Global Warming - Just Call it "Life"

The latest attempt by the conservatives and corporate interests is to mimic a proven tactic from the Bush and Rove notebook of deceit. Remember when they tried to solve the Hanford radioactive waste problem in Washington State. Simple, just rename toxic waste as non-toxic and you no longer have a problem.

Its a variation of the Healthy Forests Initiative - read timber cutting and Clear Skys Initiative -read reduce air pollution restrictions. Its called branding.

Others call it framing.

Well it seems the Competitive Enterprise Institute also likes these ideas of Bush and Rove.. You may have seen the two ads they have just started running on TV. The latest corporate solution to solve the global warming problem is to rename it. Don't call CO2 a pollutant. Call it life. I kid you not. They will just advertize the problem away.

Watch the ads for yourself. Unfortunately they are right. Global pollution and global warming from CO2 will be your future life all right if they get their way.

Here's the first ad:

"There's something in this picture you can't see.
Its essential to life.
We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth and the fuels we find it in.
It's called CO2 . The fuels that produce it have freed us from a world of backbreaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love.
Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.
Imagine if they succeed.
What would our lives be like then
Carbon dioxide, they call it pollution, we call it life."

My version:

There's something in this picture you can't see.
It's essential to corporations.
They gather it in. It's called wealth and power.
Now corporations want to accumulate as much as they can.
They want you to believe global warming is a myth.
They'll tell you again and again.
Imagine if they succeed
What would our lives be like then?
Global warming, they call it a myth.
We call it greed.

Plug - Get more informed on this issue - Watch "An Inconvenient Truth"

Democrat Peter Goldmark Rides into Spokane to Kickoff His Campaign for Congress.

Okanogan rancher and former WSU Regent Peter Goldmark is hoping to steal a page from Ronald Reagan as he officially kicks off his campaign for Congress. With horse and supporters Goldmark rode into Spokane on the Centennial Trail for a rally and the official campaign announcement this morning.

Goldmark is a Democrat running for the 5th Congressional District seat currently held by Republican Cathy McMorris. He has been a rancher for 30 years in the Okanogan area of Northeastern Washington. The 5th Congressional District goes from the Canadian border down to Oregon and from the Cascades to the Idaho border.

In prepared comments, Goldmark said, "It's important for me to listen to the concerns of the people. After watching the crowd back in DC turn a tin ear to the needs of Spokane, our small towns and family farms, I plan to ride in with some common sense and make some needed reforms."

"It's clear we need bold new leadership in areas like health care, jobs and economic development," said Goldmark. "We've seen the incumbent politicians deliver nothing but happy talk instead of progress, and I look forward to challenge."

Goldmark would bring a much needed perspective to Congress on a number of issues. One is the perspective of the farming community across the country. Besides ranching on an 8000 acre farm for some 30 years, an article in last Saturday's Seattle PI notes that he served as state Agriculture Director in 1993, was a co-founder of Farming and the Environment and a member of the Washington State Biodiversity Council.

A second perspective he would bring is from the educational viewpoint. He has been a regent of Washington State University in Pullman since 1996, until he recently resigned to run for Congress.

And the third perspective he brings is that of a scientist. He has a PhD in molecular biology from the University of California and did post doctoral work at Harvard University. Such a perspective is badly needed in a time when Bush and most Republicans are doing their best to undermine the credibility of science and scientific research. You name it- stem cell research, global warming, ecosystem integrity, fisheries biology, forestry, air pollution, toxic pollution.

The Seattle PI article notes that Goldmark "has published numerous scientific papers on biology, often based on research he performs in a lab at his 8,000 acre ranch. In the past decade he has concentrated on finding new wheat varieties."

Compare this to Bush's time on the ranch cutting brush.

The time is ripe for a change in Congress. Peter Goldmark represents a new voice.

Besides including the city of Spokane, the 5th CD includes Walla Walla, Pullman, Cheney and Colville.

The 5th CD covers 12 of Washington's 39 counties -Spokane, Lincoln, Adams, Whitman, Walla Walla, Columbia, Asotin, Garfield, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan and Stevens.

For many years the 5th CD was Democratic. Speaker of the House Tom Foley represented the 5th CD for 30 years, from 1965 to 1995. Democrats hope to return the seat to the Democratic column this year as part of their national campaign to win control of Congress.

Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

I doubt it because the guy has already made up his mind on global warming. The AP yesterday said Bush "doubts" he will watch Gore's movie. That's what he said on Monday and he probably won't change his mind. Bush is really pretty busy still trying to figure out how he should respond to Hurricane Katrina. And after that there's what to eat for lunch.

Today Gore said Bush should watch the documentary he has produced. The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, opens Wednesday at selected theaters across the country. It opens in Seattle, Washington on June 2nd at the Guild and Pacific Palace Theaters. (Click here for other locations and times.)

Gore offered to personally come to the White House and view the movie with Bush. Maybe even shake hands and ask how the brush clearing is going on Bush's ranch. Maybe talk a little baseball.

But unfortunately Gore has already blown any chance of that by saying

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that is true"

Oops Al, you don't question the President or say things that are not nice.

No, I don't think Bush will accept Gore's invitation. Besides it's against protocol. The President runs this old country and he invites you to the White House. How gauche of Gore. You don't invite yourself to some else's house. Bush might have to worry about the guy not leaving because Al is certain to start talking about global warming at some point. And he might want to keep on talking. Too much talking - that would cause a ruckus, of course.

No, Bush has it all figured out.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Yes Pollyanna George has it all figured out. He saves time for important things by not reading or watching movies coming from dubious characters like Gore.

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

Good question.

Washington State Attorney General's Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Seems the Washington State Attorney General's Office is eager to get their spin out on why they did not join the California lawsuit challenging the weak fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Bush Administration for light trucks and SUV's. When I received their response I was not surprised that they really did not seem to comprehend the need for Washington state to be a leader on this issue.

Washington State last year passed ESHB 1397 - the Clean Car Act - patterned after California's. Instead of joining with other states that have passed Clean Car Legislation to help reduce global warming, Attorney General Rob McKenna has decided to sit on the sidelines and not participate.

The issue of reducing global warming and reducing oil consumption which contributes to global warming requires aggressive action, not excuses.

My previous posts on this issue started with "Missing in Action - Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna , and four updates , here, here, here, and here.

The AG's Office says they are involved and reference a case regarding the EPA saying it was not going to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant from cars. The interesting point here is that this lawsuit was initiated by Attorney General Rob McKenna's predecessor Christine Gregoire in 2003 before McKenna took office.

While I attacked Rob McKenna for his lack of leadership in this area I must also, if he has correctly stated it, say that he shares this lack of action with the Governor's Office. McKenna belongs to the Republican Party which has not shown any initiative over many years in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency standards, beside Bush's token effort this year.

But the Seattle Times, in an editorial today, entitled "Democrats on Energy, Still a Zero", points out that nationally the Democratic Plan on Energy released last week, was just as silent on raising fuel efficiency standards, in this instance as a way of saving energy.

The Seattle Times attributes the Democrats timidity to the influence of states with automotive workers and unions. The irony is that with rising gasoline prices, foreign carmakers that emphasized fuel efficiency, with hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, are busy selling lots of cars.

Whether its reducing global warming or saving energy, both political parties need to be more aggressive on pursuing real solutions to real problems. This includes making serious efforts to increase Federal fuel efficiency standards to both decrease global warming and save energy.

Below is the response I received from the Washington State Attorney General's Office.


Dear Mr. Zemke,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the state of Washington's decision not to intervene in Cal. et al. v. NHTSA, challenging the federal fuel efficiency standards published in April 2006. The state of Washington, including the Attorney General's Office, is concerned about the impacts of climate change and supports the states in their efforts to urge federal agencies to fully consider the environmental impacts of CO2 emissions from cars.
In fact, Washington is currently involved in another key case - led by the state of Massachusetts -which we believe more directly addresses concerns about the regulation of CO2 emissions from cars. Last month in Mass. v. EPA, the states, including Washington, asked the Supreme Court to review EPA's decision not to regulate CO2 emissions from cars as an air pollutant. View the cert petition here.
When this office was asked to consider joining the suit against NHTSA, Attorney General McKenna authorized review of the case and directed that our agency clients be consulted. The main claims of the states' case relate to whether NHTSA complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Washington State Attorney General's office, Governor Gregoire, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Washington State Department of Ecology carefully evaluated the request to join the lawsuit. Based on a variety of factors -including Washingnto's involvement in Mass. v. EPA- we jointly concluded that this is not a case that Washington should join at this time.
The Attorney General's office is frequently asked to join lawsuits and file "friend of the court" briefs in support of parties to lawsuits. We evaluate such requests carefully and make decisions based on a variety of factors, including:
· Our ability, in the time provided, to fully consider the legal merit of the claims and the impact of the arguments being advanced on the interests of the state of Washington and its agencies;
· The role and timing of the requested participation;
· The best use of the legal resources of the office; and
· Which states may be most familiar with the legal issues and arguments.
Multi-state litigation presents unique challenges, both substantively and procedurally. Decisions to join a lawsuit or file a brief are made for a variety of reasons, and decisions not to participate should not be construed as taking a formal position on the issues in that case.
To provide further background, there are three multi-state lawsuits currently dealing with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Two are related to cars and one is related to power plants.
The two related to cars are:
· The Massachusetts-led case related to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA's) authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA)(United States Supreme Court); and
· The California-led case challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards that were just adopted (Ninth Circuit).
The third case deals with the validity of newly updated New Source Performance standards (NSPS) that EPA adopted for emissions from power plants. This is the New York case you reference in your blog.
Here's a quick description of the state's involvement in each of those cases:
(1) Mass. et al. v. EPA re: EPA authority to adopt CO2 emission standards for cars. On Oct. 23, 2003, Washington joined a number of states and environmental organizations that filed a Petition for Review under Section 202 of the federal CAA challenging EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 and other motor vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' three judge panel issued its decision on July 15, 2005, denying the petition. The states, including Washington, filed a Petition for Certiorari on April 7, 2006, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
(2) Cal. et al. v. NHTSA re: the CAFE rule, alleging that the standards rule should not have been adopted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) without preparation of an environmental impact statement because the rule's impacts are significant.
The 52-page statement you reference presents an argument that states are preempted from setting their own vehicle emission standards for CO2. However, the rule is about NHTSA, a federal agency, setting fuel efficiency standards for cars, not about whether states can adopt their own standards. Thus, we do not consider the reference to preemption of state law to be relevant to the challenged rulemaking action and understand that it will not be a main focus of the challenging states' case.
3) New York et al. v. EPA re: EPA regulation of power plant emissions including CO2. We considered joining this case when it was filed last month, but after careful evaluation and because of its relationship to Mass. v. EPA, we opted to wait and monitor the case instead. We determined that if Mass. v. EPA is accepted for review, a decision in that case could resolve a key issue in New York's power plant case. We continue to evaluate whether to intervene in this case before the deadline.
Thank you very much for your letter and please feel free to call or e-mail if you continue to have questions regarding the Attorney General's Office and the cases in which we are involved.
Sincerely,
Janelle Guthrie, APRDirector of Media RelationsWashington State Attorney General's Office1125 Washington Street SEPO Box 40100Olympia, WA 98504-0100Phone: (360) 586-0725Cell: (360) 584-3046E-mail: janelleg@atg.wa.govJoin Attorney General Rob McKenna's Listserv for the latest news from the AG's office or visit our Web site at http://www.atg.wa.gov/

Evangelical Churches and News Media Aid Eyman on Referendum 65

A headline in the Seattle PI this morning blares out that "Eyman, Churches Link Up - Initiative King seeks out evangelicals' help to repeal gay-rights law"

The story behind the story is that the news media once again teams up with Eyman to support his business and right wing issues. Eyman's picture and proclamation that he is some "Initiative King" is all part of the myth building that the media does to sell newspapers and get viewers and listeners.

I first heard the story yesterday on, of all places, KUOW. Google pulls up KIRO TV, KATU-Portland, and KEPR in the Tri-Cities as links.

A more truthful headline might read "Bigot Teams up with Right Wing Religious Fanatics in Effort to Repeal Law Banning Discrimination"

The measure in question is Referendum 65 filed by Tim Eyman. Below is the official ballot title and summary as listed on the Secretary of State's website

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2661 (ESHB 2661) concerning Washington human rights commission jurisdiction and discrimination law revisions [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise description: ESHB 2661 would add "sexual orientation" to the state's law against discrimination in employment, housing, credit, insurance, and certain contracts. "Sexual orientation" includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and gender expression, identity, appearance and behavior. Should this bill be: Approved [ ] Rejected[ ]

Ballot Measure Summary
ESHB 2661 amends the state's law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation" in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. "Sexual orientation" includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.

Click here to read the complete text of Referendum 65.

Referendum 65 is an attempt to overturn HB 2661 passed in the last session of the Legislature.The key to understanding this issue is simple - the law passed would "prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation" in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists."

Now what is confusing is what you must do if you support this ban on discrimination.

1. You must not sign Referendum 65 . Signing it would place it on the November ballot.

2 If Referendum 65 gets on the ballot you must vote to "approve" it. By voting to "approve" it, you will keep in place ESHB 2661 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This may seem confusing but Eyman and the right wing churches need signatures to place Referendum 65 on the ballot. Once on the ballot you must vote to "approve" Referendum 65 to keep ESHB 2661 state law.

For more information on the campaign opposing getting Referendum 65 on the ballot go to Washington Won't Discriminate.

Referendums only need half the signatures initiatives do to qualify for the ballot. R-65 only needs some 112,440 valid signatures. The deadline is June 6th.

Remember it is perfectly within your rights to engage in public discussion with other citizens regarding Referendum 65. If someone is asking people to sign the referendum, you can ask them not to sign.

As in any other conversation do not harrass, threaten or intiminidate anyone, including the petitioner. You only hurt your cause and rightfully can be subject to laws regarding harrassment. That is the last thing you want on this issue.

The petitioner is exercising his right to ask people to sign the measure. Respect that but you don't have to give up your First Amendment right of free speech if you disagree with what they are saying.

"The fish are dying...Kill the fish for California...We want dogs to die"

A reminder of the scum that was Enron!

Below is my transcription of part of one taped conversation beween traders on Enron's West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. See below to hear audios and see transcripts of other taped conversations. Thanks to the Snohomish PUD in Washington State for fighting to make these recordings public.

Excerpt from Stupid Enron West Coast Trader Desk Conversation:

I know, me too Sonny, you know see, you should be the Senator or some kind of Congressman there in California because it, it, you know what I hate, Sonny
I hate when people are talking stupid. Ha ha

I do too, heh, heh

What we, because you know the more water…. I don’t think they have much water left, Bonneville doesn’t.

Oh really?

It’s getting hot up here. The thing that saved us is it’s never been hot up here.

Uh, Huh.

It’s fucking 90 degrees up here.

Oh!

So they‘ve got to keep all their power here. Nothing forced them to keep their power here so they said oh, California here you come and –it’s beautiful.

Oh, man.

And so my thing is, is you know these guys are just fucking loving it because they’re just getting paid 250 but we’re like, you’re killing the fish, you know, by sending all this water down there. We’re trying to get the fish agencies to rally around us – to keep the water up here.

Oh, oh you’re literally killing the fish?

Yeah man, you’re taking the water out of the river man, and not covering the eggs. Now, you know, the fish are dying cause, you know

The salmon you mean or what?

The salmon. Yeah. You push that button up here…

Oh yeah you got to go with the tree hugger button …

Yeah, exactly our motto is Do you save the Californians or do you kill… kill the fish for the Californians? That is basically the motto.

Oh yeah, you want to ….you kill the Californians huh?

That’s what I’m pushing for…

Heh, heh

I won’t ... you know. Our motto up here is we want the dogs to die.

That’s mean, isn’t it?

No that’s true. But that’s a big conflict is, you know, they think short term to keep the lights on in California. We’ll do anything to keep the lights on in California. We like, even kill the fish? Then the fish people, oh yeah, that’s right. So then we rally around that.

So is that going to work?

Aah trying to …

We’ll find out next week, huh?

Yeah. So this is kind of look … That’s my life man.

Yeah, that sounds exciting.


The above is part of just one taped conversation between traders on Enron's West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. Some other conversations have gotten a lot of play but I thought this one was of local interest to Washington ratepayers. In total some 24,000 hours of tapes exist. The Snohomish PUD sued to make the tapes available. They are still not all available, and Enron and FERC have opposed making more available.

Senator Maria Cantwell handed out a CD that included this conversation at her press conference last month where she challenged Enron's paltry compensation proposal on electricity contracts that Enron overcharged the Snohomish Public Utility District. She also argued that all the Enron se tapes need to be made public, not suppressed and hidden away.

Thanks to the Seattle Times you can hear the rest of the above conversation at
http:
//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001945474_
webenronaudio02.html
There are a number of other audios and transcripts. This one is part of the one that starts "The big conflict is ..." near the bottom of the page.

You can also read the posted Seattle Times transcript of this conversation at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/enron-240.pdf

Federal Election Commission Clarifies Rules on Internet Blogging and Federal Candidates

On May 12, 2006 the Federal Election Commission's amended rules on the use of the internet in Federal election campaigns went into effect. Bloggers in Washington State have been very active blogging on candidates for US Senate and Congress, like Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark running for Congress and Maria Cantwell running for re-election to the US Senate..

The new rules are in response to a recent US District Court decision that said the Commission could not give a wholesale exemption from reporting for all internet activity.

The FEC, in adopting new rules, clarified a number of issues involved but basically exempted all blogging and internet communication from campaign reporting except for paid advertisements placed on another person's website.

Suprisingly this exemption for bloggers even included the rabid, rapidly growing in number, rapacious, not so vacuous and insipid as to make you cry bloggers here in Washington state and the Northwest. That doesn't mean they aren't busy over at the NSA trying to decipher what it is we're saying.

The 26 pages of clarification and rules were published April 12, 2006 in the Federal Registery. They make for interesting reading for all bloggers and anyone interested in the free and unregulated use of the internet under the First Amendment.

"Through this rulemaking, the Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach. The Internet's accessibility, low cost, and interactive features make it a popular choice for sending and receiving information.

Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility. Whereas the general public can communicate through television or radio broadcasts and most other forms of mass communication only by payingsubstantial advertising fees, the vast majority of the general public who choose to communicate through the Internet can afford to do so.

When paid advertising on another person's website does occur on the Internet, the expense of that advertising sets it apart from other uses of the Internet, although even the cost of advertising on another entity's website will often be below the cost of advertising in some other media.

These final rules therefore implement the regulatory requirements mandated by the Shays District decision by focusing exclusively on Internet advertising that is placed for a fee on another person’s website. In addition, these rules add new exceptions to the definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" to protect individual and media activity on the Internet. As a whole, these final rules make plain that the vast majority of Internet communications are, and will remain, free from campaign finance regulation. To the greatest extent permitted by Congress and the Shays District decision, the Commission is clarifying and affirming that Internet activities by individuals and groups of individuals face almost no regulatory burdens under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The need to safeguard Constitutionally protected political speech allows no other approach

The FEC noted in its decision that the number of people who relied on the internet for campaign information increased from 30 million in 2000 to 63 million in 2004. They cited reports that some 11 milion people in 2004 looked to blogs as their main source of information and some 18% of American citizens in 2004 viewed the internet in general as their main information source in deciding on who to vote for as President.

Regarding blogging specifically, the Commission noted that:

In light of the evolving nature of Internet communications, the Commission is not explicitly excluding from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ any particular software or format used in Internet communications. The final rules already exclude ordinary blogging activity from the definition of ‘‘public communication’’ because blog messages are not placed for a fee on another person’s Web site. Thus, an explicit exclusion focused on ‘‘blogging’’ is not only unnecessary but also potentially confusing to the extent that it implies that other forms of Internet communication, such as ‘‘podcasting’’ or e-mailing, might be regulated absent an explicit exclusion for each different form of Internet communication.

The commission also exludes e-mail as a form of political advertising subject to regulation and disclosure. It bases its decision on the fact that e-mail is basically a free activity with no cost involved.

Posting a video is also excluded from regulation and disclosue unless it is placed on another website for a fee.

How Congressman Reichert Uses Advantages of Incumbency to Reach Voters

Monday night US Representative Dave Reichert's Mercer Island office was open until 9 PM helping seniors sign up for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits Program. Congressman Reichert is running for re-election in Washington's 8th Congressional District. He is facing a strong challenge from Democrat Darcy Burner.

Reading his press release from Last Thursday one almost could conclude that the Republicans in Congress passed this program as part of their re-election strategy. Make the program so complicated that Congressman Reichert has to have an:

"ongoing effort to assist seniors during the sign-up period. In addition to keeping his office open late, Congressman Reichert has sent over 125,000 pieces of mail to constituents that explains the program and provides sign-up information. He has made over 40,000 phone calls to seniors in his District about the program. He has held 16 workshops, helping seniors to sign-up and giving them access to the program's experts.

"

In an April 10, 2006 press release he announced workshops in Eatonville, Orting, Carnation, Bellevue and Boney Lake.

On May 3, 2006 , he announced additional workshops in Eatonville and Renton.

All this of course is paid for by the taxpayers. What I found intriguing was that "He has made over 40,000 calls to Seniors in his District" One has to wonder how he was able to get anything else done during this time in Congress or even have any time to spend with his family.

Assuming he only spent 2 minutes per constituent, which is short considering how absurdly complicated the program is, it would comprise some 1333 hours of his time. At 8 hours a day that's some 166 days. If he did this for 5 days a week, he's now spent some 33 weeks talking to Seniors or over half a year just on this one issue.

He must be getting tired. Maybe that's the reason his press release makes no mention of extending the sign up time without a penalty. In fact one has to wonder why there is any penalty at all for signing up later. Isn't this program supposed to benefit Seniors or is it meant to punish Seniors?

Of course we all know this program wasn't really meant to help Seniors that much or it would have allowed for bulk buying of drugs to reduce costs to Seniors. Because in point of fact, the legislation is really a Prescription Drug Company Price Guarantee Act.

HorsesAss.org Once Again Makes the Headlines -this Time in the Seattle PI

Horsesass.org is an irreverent in-your-face political blog that originates out of Seattle, Washington. This morning, the face and name behind Horsesass.org, David Goldstein, aka Goldy, was staring me in the face as I opened the Seattle PI. I was just getting ready to drink some coffee but David's mug gave me the same jolt. You see, his picture was covering about a sixth of the page.

The story, Political bloggers step in to rally the troops. Sites create buzz, raise funds for the candidates is a well deserved tribute to David who has doggedly pursued his passion of writing and writing and writing and saying whatever he is passionate about at the moment. Some 2000 people visit his site every day looking for his pearls of wit and and satire and sarcasm as he engages his readers in a "tell it as he sees it" conversation.

The article notes the increasing role of bloggers in political campaigns. The Darcy Burner campaign is discussed from the perspective of the help bloggers have given her in building up her campaign and in critical fundraising. Burner is a Democrat running for Congress against first term incumbent Republican Dave Reichert.

Reichert has tried to represent himself as a moderate but as Daniel Kirkdorfer points out in his blog On the Road to 2008 blog, Reichert has voted some 94% of the time with the majority Republican position. You can visit the site for a more detailed analysis.

David recently celebrated his 2nd birthday as a blogger. He has posted some 1624 times. Rumor has it that neither Michael Brown or David Irons sent him a congratulatory card. Whatever happened to Emily Post etiquette?

If You Disagree with Tim Eyman he Wants to Send You to Jail

Poor Tim Eyman. Things must really be getting tough for his getting signatures on his anti- government type initiatives. Now he wants that same government to protect him whose funds and services he keeps trying to cut with his initiatives. Tim files lots of initiatives in Washington State. It's his business.

As he puts it, he doesn't want people who oppose his initiatives to be "pushing, shoving, touching, spitting, or throwing objects, yelling, screaming, or being verbally abusive, blocking or intimidating" him when he asks them to cut government services like libraries or fixing roads or keeping fire and police stations open.

And he means business because, gasp, he's filed another initiative. More business.

Anyway, there are already laws against "pushing, shoving, touching, spitting, or throwing objects, yelling, screaming, or being verbally abusive, blocking or intimidation" Its usually goes under the definition of harassment. All you need to do is call 911, Tim. That's one of the services our tax dollars provide. And fortunately your effort to reduce local tax dollars with Initiative 864 failed so you didn't further force us to cut local police services.

But existing laws aren't good enough for Tim it seems. He wants special protection because he is such a special and important person carrying out his, I mean, the people's business. He also doesn't want anyone who disagrees with him "being within twenty feet of any person gathering signatures and any person trying to sign a petition."

In other words Tim wants to abolish free speech, you know, like void the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Well good luck Tim. You've joined hands and minds (sic) with President Bush who likewise wants to remove anyone who disagrees with him. But you're one upping him. He only moves them a mile or two away.

And your penalty for being within 20 feet of Tim Eyman while he's getting signatures and you say something like "Are you kidding? I won't sign your initiative and I urge anyone else who can hear me, also not to sign." A class C Felony. You know like the felony where you lose your right to vote. Oh and a class C felony sends you to jail for at least 1 year and up to 5 years. Tim also wants you to be fined up to $10,000.

Welcome to Tim's world. Tim, say Hi to Karl the next time you see him.

BIAW Kills Proposed Rule that "Drinking Water be Available at all Times for Farm Workers"

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), according to KPLU, is bragging how they stopped an emergency rule that required that " drinking water be available at all times" for farm workers and other outdoor workers. The proposed rule also would have required a shaded rest area and education efforts for workers and supervisors about the danger of heat stress.

My wife last night mentioned that she had heard the story on KPLU and this morning I went to their website and listened to it. I am just as appalled as she was in listening to it. Click here to listen to the broadcast "Heat Stress: The Politics Behind State Rule-Making"

BIAW Human Resources Analyst Amy Brackenbury in the KPLU newscast indignantly retorts, "Are you serious with this? Another, you know, this is just another thing that we are going to have to do. This is very frustrating."

Oh how horrible it is, how frustrating it is that people sweat in the sun, harvesting crops, so we can have food to eat and they need to drink water. What is the matter with these people? Drink water? Isn't it enough that we let them work for us?

Well what are the consequences of not providing water? Like maybe death? KPLU reports that last summer a 64 year old farm worker died from heat stress in Washington State. No drinking water was available. Four deaths were also reported last year in California, including a Kern County, California farm worker. And many workers can suffer heat related illnesses that do not result in death but still are serious.

Unless the BIAW doesn't read what it links to on its own website, it should be well aware of the dangers.The BIAW links to the "Heat Stress" information page of the Washington State Bureau of Labor and Industries .

In an EPA document on that page entitled "Heat Stress in Agriculture" it says that

"High air temperatures and humidities put agricultural workers at special risk of heat illness. Worker Compensation claims for heat illness among agricultural workers are among the highest of any occupation. ...

Heat stress is the buildup in the body of heat generated by the muscles during work and of heat coming from warm and hot environments. Heat exhaustion and heat stroke result when the body is subjected to more heat than it can cope with.

When the body becomes overheated, less blood goes to the active muscles, the brain, and other internal organs. Workers get weaker, become tired sooner, and may be less alert, less able to use good judgment, and less able to do their jobs well.

As strain from heat becomes more severe, there can be a rapid rise in body temperature and heart rate. Workers may not realize that this is happening because there is no pain. Mental performance can be affected with an increase in body temperature of 2oF above normal. An increase of 5oF can result in serious illness or death.

The most serious illness is heat stroke. Its effects can include confusion, irrational behavior, convulsions, coma, and even death. Heat stroke can make survivors very sensitive to heat for months and cause varying degrees of brain and kidney damage. More than 20 percent of people afflicted by heat stroke die, even young and healthy adults. An average of nearly 500 people are killed each year in the United States by the effects of heat.

During hot weather, heat illness may be an underlying cause of other types of injuries, such as heart attacks on the job, falls, and equipment accidents arising from poor judgment.

What do workers need in terms of water? The AgSafeWorker on the same "heat stress" page says:

Research in sports, exercise, military and some industrial settings has yielded lessons about heat stress that are very applicable but not widely understood or easily applied in agricultural workplaces.Not surprisingly, the single measure that these studies suggest as most important for reducing risks of heat stress is to steadily replenish the fluid that the body loses as sweat. Because thirst is a late signal of a water deficit, drinking based on what we know is a safer strategy than drinking based on what we feel. Chugging to quench an intense thirst is no more timely than pouring water on a wilted plant.

The amount of water needed to replace sweat loss is a function of workload, weather, and personal physical attributes. A military guideline recommends drinking one quart per hour when performing hard work and wearing protective gear in 90+ degree temperatures and resting for 50 minutes per hour!
For moderate work in temperatures of 82-90 degrees, the standard is about 3/4 quart and only 20 minutes of rest per hour. Of course, few if any businesses can afford to follow those rest guidelines, but all can strive to help workers meet the fluid replenishment advice.

Washington's current regulation covering farmworkers and heat stress was written over 33 years ago. It is printed below:

WAC 296-62-09013 Temperature, radiant heat, or temperature-humidity combinations.(1) Workmen subjected to temperature extremes, radiant heat, humidity, or air velocity combinations which, over a period of time, are likely to produce physiological responses which are harmful shall be afforded protection by use of adequate controls, methods or procedures, or protective clothing. This shall not be construed to apply to normal occupations under atmospheric conditions which may be expected in the area except that special provisions which are required by other regulations for certain areas or occupations shall prevail.[Order 73-3, 296-62-09013, filed 5/7/73.]

I highlighted the second sentence because one could easily interpret the second sentence as voiding the weak first sentence because farming is a "normal occupation in Yakima and it is usually hot in the summer" so there is no need for regulation.

At the request of the United Farmworkers, the Department of Labor and Industries was asked to implement an emergency rule to help protect farmworkers from heat related illnesses and death. California, after four deaths of farmworkers last year, put just such an emergency
regulation in effect at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger.

United Farmworkers proposed that Washington State implement a similar three part rule: to prevent heat stroke and other heat stress illness:

1. Make drinking water available at all times.
2. Provide a shaded rest area.
3. Educate employers and employees about the dangers of heat stress.

Labor and industries started the review process to put in place a new rule.

In the truest sense of showing concern for farmworkers, Amy Brackenbury of the BIAW showed the BIAW's keen sense of compassion and concern for fellow human beings by opposing the rule change. ON KPLU she responded, "We made it very clear from the very beginning. If Labor and Industries continued down this track they were headed, we would challenge it in court. If not successful there, we, you know, would take it to the people like we did with the ergonomics rule several years ago."

Labor and Industry, like true cowards, cowered by the mighty BIAW, caved in. Who needs water anyway? They have keep the present rule as is, supposibly made some change in a rule for indoor workers and decided to push education.

Meanwhile I heard the BIAW has removed all drinking water access from their organization's building in Olympia, saying that if its good enough for the farm workers, its good enough for them. Employees are responsible for bringing their own water. They are strictly monitored for any abuses. They said it was a show of their solidarity for the farmworkers.

Meanwhile in the real world The United Farm Workers are continuing their campaign for farm worker water and shade requirements and urge that Gary Weeks, the Director of Labor and Industry, not accept the final rule modification adopted but instead implement the earlier proposed rule, specifically requiring water and shade be available for all workers. By clicking here you can go to the United Farm Workers Action page and send an e-mail to Labor and Industry asking whether they are a tool of the BIAW or if they represent workers in this state.

The BIAW is the same BIAW that in the last several elections has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into its PAC's to skirt campaign finance laws limiting direct contributions to candidates. Their candidates receiving this so called "independent"' support have include Rob McKenna in his race for Washington State Attorney General and two Supreme Court Justices - Justice Jim Johnson and Saunders.

On election night the BIAW reported in its own newsletter that McKenna had called them and said "if it were not for the BIAW I wouldn't have been elected." The BIAW had spent some $275,000 on 1200 TV ads attacking McKenna's opponent.

The BIAW gave some $100,000 directly to Jim Johnson's race for Washington State Supreme Court in 2004. The Washington State Legislature this year passed legislation limiting such direct contributions in the future to Supreme Court Justices. This year the BIAW is planning to do like it did with McKenna and spend the money on it's own as it works to elect more BIAW type Supreme Court Justices. I wonder if their candidates will agree with the BIAW that farmworkers don't need water or shade?

Press Release Attorney General Rob McKenna Should Join Federal Lawsuit on Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards

Press Release May 8, 2006
For Immediate Release
For More Information Contact
Steve Zemke 206-999-6095

Why is Attorney General Rob McKenna not Defending Washington’s Clean Car Act?

Is over $36,000 in campaign contributions from automotive interests affecting Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna decision not to join a Federal lawsuit?

Last Tuesday the State of California and 9 other states plus New York City and Washington, DC filed a Federal lawsuit challenging the Bush Administration’s fuel economy standards for SUV’s and light trucks. They alleged that the standards were too weak, were costing consumers money and failed to address global warming and other environmental concerns.

Attached to the regulations issued in March was a 52 page memorandum from the Bush Administration alleging that the Federal Government, not states, have the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This is despite the Federal Clean Air Act saying states could choose either Federal clean air standards or California’s.

Here is a lawsuit that follows the intent of Washington’s Clean Car Act passed last year by the Washington State Legislature and which in part is a direct response to President Bush’s challenge to a state’s right to regulate dangerous car emissions. Yet our Attorney General fails to join with other states, which have passed Clean Car Legislation modeled after California’s pioneering legislation, in challenging Washington State’s right to protect its citizens from harmful emissions and global warming

“One has to wonder just whose interests our Attorney General is representing. Is it the citizens of Washington State? Is it laws passed by our state Legislature? Or is it the interest of campaign contributors?” asked Steve Zemke, who writes the MajorityRulesBlog.

Zemke continued, “Is there a desire of the AG not to challenge the policies of the Bush Administration because they are from the same political party? Or is it because the AG doesn’t feel we need to reduce emissions contributing to global warming?”

On Wednesday Steve Zemke e-mailed and called the Attorney General’s office asking for an explanation of why Attorney General Rob McKenna hadn’t joined the lawsuit. Late Friday, after inquiry by the media started, the Attorney General’s Office contacted Steve Zemke of MajorityRulesBlog to say that they would respond to his request for an explanation.

They said there would be a written statement on Monday afternoon explaining Attorney General Rob McKenna’s position. “All the Attorney General has to do is say he is joining the lawsuit,” said Steve Zemke


Resources:


MajorityRulesBlog Missing in Action - Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRulesBlog - Update on Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Asleep at the Wheel
MajorityRulesBlog 2nd Update - Still Waiting to Hear from Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRules Blog 3rd Update –Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Washington Post - 10 States Sue over Fuel Economy Standards

Oregon Attorney General's Press Release - Governor, Attorney General Sue Feds over Fuel Efficiency Standards

New York Attorney General Press Release - State and City Sue For Better Fuel Efficiency Standards

Washington's Clean Car Act HB 1937

3rd Update -Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit.

Last Tuesday the Attorneys General of 10 states filed a Federal lawsuit urging stronger fuel efficiency standards for SUV's and light trucks. Lead by California, the other states on the lawsuit included Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Conspiciously absent from the lawsuit was Washington State. Almost all of the states filing the lawsuit have passed Clean Car Legislation patterned after California's. Washington State passed such legislation last year. The Federal Government when it issued new fuel efficiency standards in March asserted that only the Federal Government, not the states could regulate CO2 emissions.

Majority Rules Blog has posted 3 times in the last week asking the question of why Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna is missing in action in defending Washington's Clean Car Act. We called the Attorney General's office and e-mailed the Attorney General's office asking for an explanation. Finally late Friday we got a call back saying that a formal response was being written and would be reviewed by the Attorney General and available on Monday afternoon.

While we will be interested in seeing what explanation Attorney General Rob McKenna may come up with for not initially joining the lawsuit, we believe that Rob McKenna should act now to join the lawsuit. Washington State needs to join with other states in efforts increase fuel efficiency in new vehicles which will save consumers money, as well as increase efforts to reduce CO2 emissions which are a main contributor to global warming.

Rob McKenna is a Republican Attorney General and had received over $36,000 from automotive interests in his campaign for Attorney General. Republicans as represented by the Bush Administration have long resisted efforts to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards and President Bush has vigorously resisted efforts to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.

We urge Rob McKenna to step outside the Republican rhetoric if this has affected his decision not to join in efforts of other Attorneys General to increase car fuel efficiency, save consumers money nd reduce global warming. McKenna needs to act in the best interests of Washington State citizens and fight for their needs, not the needs of an intransigent car industry that is fighting needed change.

references:

MajorityRulesBlog Missing in Action - Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRulesBlog - Update on Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Asleep at the Wheel
MajorityRulesBlog 2nd Update - Still Waiting to Hear from Attorney General Rob McKenna

2nd Update - Still Waiting to Hear From Attorney General Rob McKenna

Since I both called and e-mailed Attorney General on Wednesday, I still have not received a reply. My question - Why didn't Rob McKenna join with the lawsuit filed on May 2, 2006 by California and 9 other states questioning the fuel efficiency standards issued by the Bush Administration?

One issue of particular concern is the 52 page memorandum attached by President Bush to the standards issued at the end of March which challenged the right of states to regulate CO2 emissions. This was saying the Federal Government overrode any standards set by the Clean Car Act HB 1937 passed by the Washington State Legislature.


I speculated it might have something to do with a number of his campaign contributions coming from people who worked in the automotive industry. But maybe its something even more basic. Rob McKenna is a Republican. Republicans in general don't believe in regulation and support the concept of free enterprise - even when it threatens the lives and health of people in Washington state. Rising gas prices are just part of business as usual. Companies can charge whatever they want. They can make whatever profit they can gouge out of consumers.

Maybe Rob McKenna doesn't think that we know enough about global warming to act to try to reduce greenhouse gases. That what Bush says and McKenna would be a disloyal Republican to challenge the beliefs of his Commander in Chief. That despite the fact that almost all scientists believe that we are facing a real problem and that it is fair to call it a crisis.

In the preamble to HB 1937 it says:

(2) Air pollution levels routinely measured in the state of Washington continue to harm public health, the environment, and the economy. Air pollution causes or contributes to premature death, cancer, asthma, and heart and lung disease. Over half of the state's population suffers from one or more medical conditions that make them very vulnerable to air pollution. Air pollution increases pain and suffering for vulnerable individuals. Air pollution imposes several hundred million dollars annually in added health care costs for air pollution-associated death and illness, reducing the quality of life and economic security of the citizens of Washington;
(3) Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources are necessary, and it is equitable to seek such reductions because reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have already been initiated in other sectors such as power generation

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in his press release announcing joining the lawsuit stated:

"At a time when consumers are struggling to pay surging gas prices and the challenge of global climate change has become even more clear, it is unconscionable that the Bush administration is not requiring greater mileage efficiency for light trucks," said Attorney General Spitzer. "The failure of this Administration to lead on vital environmental issues like this will burden our nation for generations to come."

Meanwhile Rob McKenna, according to the the Attorney General's website, is busy monitoring gasoline pricing.

"Recent actions in participation with other state attorneys general The Washington State Attorney General's Office works in close cooperation with other Western states to review the factors influencing the price of petroleum products in the West. This office has and will continue to work with other state and federal agencies to insure petroleum prices remain competitive."

In the past several weeks, gasoline prices in Washington have reached record levels. The Attorney General's Office regularly monitors gasoline pricing to determine whether price increases indicate possible anticompetitive behavior or reflect normal market forces....Current high prices appear to be a reflection of a tight supply/demand balance. Furthermore, all indications are that prices will tend to remain high.

It is instructive to note that while a number of action were taken against oil companies to protect Washington consumers during Gregoire's tenue, there is a conspicious absence of action since 2002.

My concern is the role of the Attorney General in protecting Washington citizens from rising gas prices and global warming, issues addressed partially by HB 1937. By all indications we not being represented by Rob McKenna. It appears he is being loyal to the Bush mantra by following the failed policies of President Bush. When the largest oil companies are reporting record profits while consumers are being hit with record gas prices, how is that just "normal market forces". Our economy and people's jobs are dependent on a gasoline run car society. What choice do people have?

It would be one thing if oil companies were making profits somewhere in the middle of U.S. companies, but people are feeling real pain. When an oil company like Exxon Mobil breaks a record $36 billion last year, making the most profit of any US company, and sets another record for the first quarter of 2006, exceeding last years 1st quarter, with a profit of $8.4 billion this is I'm supposed to believe according to McKenna, just "normal competition."

Conoco Philips and Chevron also came in with huge profits.They're not feeling any pain are they, unless it their aching muscles rakeing in all the dough Americans are giving them by inflated prices at the gas pumps?

Let's face it. Rob McKenna is doing the little feel good things with his public service ads promoting himself but he is just another Republican. Republicans represent corporate interests like autoimotive companies and oil companies, not the average citizen. Two days ago he had posted on the state website that no price gouging was occurring with gasoline prices. Today I can't find it. Maybe he had to go out and fill up his car.

Update on Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Asleep at the Wheel

On Tuesday I speculated aloud about why Washington State was not a party to the Lawsuit filed by California and 9 others states plus the city of New York and the District of Columbia challenging the weak Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards issued in March.. I wondered if it could have been because McKenna received some 28 contributions over $1000 each (over $36,000)from automobile interests when he ran for Washington State Attorney General.

To be fair I have a call into the Attorney General's Office asking why Washington State is not a party to this lawsuit. When the Bush Administration issued the fuel efficiency standards in March it also included a 52 page statement saying that only the Federal Government could regulate CO2 emissions from cars and trucks.

Such an action would override the Clean Car legislation the Washington State Legislature passed last year. It seems that from consumer protection, health protection and environmental protection Attorney General Rob McKenna is not protecting Washington State's interests.

In addition to trying to get their response verbally I have just sent them the following e-mail entitled "Why is Washington State not a party to the Lawsuit filed by the California AG to increase fuel efficiency standards for SUV's and light trucks?

Dear Attorney General Rob McKenna,

Yesterday the California Attorney General and nine other state Attorney Generals and the District of Columbia and New City filed a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the Federal fuel efficiency standards set in March for light trucks and SUV's. See press release http://ag.ca.gov/news alerts/release.php?id=1299#attachments

Almost all of the states in the lawsuit have passed Clean Car Legislation patterned after California's. Washington State passed such legislation last year.And Oregon is in the process of enacting similar rules.

As part of the final standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a 52 page memorandum was added by the current administration stating that the Federal Government, not the states , have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions.

It would seem to me that the state of Washington needs to respond to this issue, not just because it challenges legislation passed by the Washington State Legislature, but also because of the need for Washington State to do all it can increase fuel efficiency and cut gases that contribute to global emissions.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,
Steve Zemke

In addition I have contacted the California Attorney General's Office on this matter.I asked them if they had asked McKenna about being on the suit. A person in their press office responded that “the protocol is to reach out to a wide variety of states.” They do this through their national organization - the National Association of Attorney Generals.

She said they communicated regularly with other states to make it possible to join the lawsuit. "Lots of communication goes on”. She said I should check with the Washington AG’s office and said” it was a fair question to ask” when I wondered if his decision was affected by our Attorney General getting donations from automotive interests.

Missing in Action - Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna

Where is Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna? Is he asleep at the wheel? It certainly seems that is the case. In the story reported today in the Washington Post Washington state is conspicuously absent from the list of states today filing a suit to enforce and protect Washington citizens from rising gas prices and global warming.

Today California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and nine other states filed suit against the Bush Administration. Joining the California Attorney General in the lawsuit were Attorney Generals from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

They are challenging the Bush Administration's recently issued weak fuel economy standards for SUV's and light trucks. Weak standards contribute to wasting gasoline, rising gas prices and global warming.
Lockyer states that:

"With gas prices skyrocketing, we must substantially increase fuel efficiency in new vehicles, not only to protect the pocketbooks of working families, but also to reduce vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming," said Lockyer. "These rules fail that test by not requiring enough from the auto industry. The Bush Administration once again has missed an opportunity to promote new technology, fuel economy and conservation by issuing fuel economy goals that are status quo."

In addition Lockyer noted that when Bush issued the fuel efficiency rules, Bush attached a 52 page discussion that asserted only the Federal Government, not individual states, could regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing carbon dioxide is crucial to reducing global warming.

President Bush and his Administration have spent most of their time in office representing corporate America and the oil and gas industry and car manufacturers while arguing that global warming is only a theory. He refused to sign the international Kyoto Protocol to help reduce worldwide global warming.

Washington State last year passed HB 1937 - changing vehicle emission standards. The vote in the House was 55 to 42 and in the Senate 29 to 19. The preamble to HB 1937 noted that

"motor vehicles are the largest source of air pollution in the state of Washington, and motor vehicles contribute approximately fifty-seven percent of criteria air pollutant emissions, eighty percent of toxics emissions and fifty-four percent of greenhouse gases"

Washington State is one of 10 states that have adopted Clean Car Legislation. The other states are California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The state of Oregon is currently adopting California style clear air standards by administrative rule. The Dept of Environmental Quality just won a lawsuit opposing their action in March and will present the recommendationsions to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission in June for adoption.

In a previous letter to the National Highway Safety Administration, the states suing asserted that the NHTSA,

"failed to consider alternative approaches that would have promoted energy conservation, made meaningful contributions to increased fuel economy and encouraged technological innovation. In addition, the letter said, NHTSA failed to consider the environmental consequences of its proposed overhaul of light truck standards, failed to consider the changes in the environment since the 1980s, when NHTSA last assessed the environmental effects of the standards, and failed to evaluate the impact of carbon dioxide emissions despite identifying the threat of CO2 and global climate change as new information concerning the environment."

Now here's a question for you. In looking at Rob McKenna's 2004 Attorney General campaign contributors, it turns out that a number are employed by auto industry firms. Maybe a third of his contributors appear not to have an employer listed as required by law so I'm sure the number is higher. But of those that do, here is a list of employers, who were easily identified, of the contributors, who gave McKenna $1000 or more. You can see yourself by going to www.pdc.wa.gov.

Titus Will $2700
Honda Auto Center $2500
Toyota of Puyallup $1350
Bob Bridge Auto Center $1350
Enterprise Rent a Car $1350
Lexus of Bellevue $2700
Pignataro Volkswagen $1350
Sound Ford $1350
United Services Automobile Assoc $1350
Washington Oil Marketers Assoc PAC $1250
Sound Ford $1150
Brotherton Cadillac $2000
Downtown Toyota $1000
Honda Auto Center $1000
Volvo of Tacoma $1000
Lexus of Tacoma $1000
Lexus of Bellevue $1000
Jaguar of Tacoma $1000
Dick Hamak Dealership $1000
Chevron Texaco $1000
Acura of Seattle $1000
Volkswagen Hyundai $1250
Richland RV Park $1350

So while almost all of the other states which have passed Clean Car Legislation, joined the suit to try to force the Bush Administration to come up with standards to increase fuel efficiency and reduce global warming, Washington State's Attorney General has not done so. Can it be because of his automobile industry friends and contributors?

McKenna also did not represent Washington citizens last year in a similar case. Washington state was not among 10 states suing the EPA over greenhouse gases. Is Rob McKenna representing our interests or the interests of corporate America? Maybe he doesn't believe in global warming? Or maybe he can still afford to fill up his car?

If you would like to ask Rob McKenna why he hasn't filed on this lawsuit you can contact him at:

Attorney General Rob McKenna
1125 Washington St. SE
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA. 98504-0100
Telephone: 360-753-6200

Fax: 360-586-7671

E-Mail: Contact the Attorney General Online.
http://www.atg.wa.gov/ago_contact.shtml#38 click not listed for a response form

"I am the Law," says George W Bush. "I am the Judge, Jury and Executioner..!"

UpperLeft yesterday caught one of those mind numbing articles that even shakes us hard core live in the rain Seattle types. He picked up on a Boston Globe story by Charlie Savage.

Everyone knows that Bush ignores a law here or there but over 750 is what the Boston Globe found when it looked more closely!

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Bush will sign bills in public but it is what is happening quietly afterwards that is disturbing. When queried Bush's represerntatives have told the Boston Globe that "the President wil execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution." What the Boston Globe says happens next is that

Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed

The Boston Globe article continues at length and is well worth reading. As the Globe notes at the end:

Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."

Additional commentary on this article can also be found at TheBradBlog