Strike Two on Eyman's Initiative 917!

Last Friday Tim Eyman's Initiative 917 did not pass the random sampling test to qualify for the November ballot. As reported first by the blog Postman on Politics a random sample of 4% of the signatures turned in, showed that I-917's error and invalid rate was 17.96%. This included 24 duplicate signatures.

This means that the Washington Secretary of State will have to check every signature on I-917 against state voter registration lists, one by one, until more than 224,880 are found valid. To get onto the November ballot, as I have previously discusssed, means Eyman must have an invalid rate on I-917 which is below 15.46%.

He has never previously qualified an initiative with that low an invalid rate. Looks like a strikeout is coming.

Strike one was not turning in enough signatures.

Strike two was not validating with a 4% random sample.

Get ready for Strike Three!

Initiative 917 would seriously cut existing funds for transportation improvements in Washington State.

You can read more on this story at

"Secretary of State to Conduct Full Signature Check on Initiative 917"

Seattle Times "Initiative 917 Faces Count of Signatures"

Seattle PI "Odds against car-tab initiative"

"Secretary of State Begins Signature Count on Four Initiatives"

Congressional Candidate Peter Goldmark Needs our Help!

Peter Goldmark is a refreshing independent Democrat running against a Bush loving first term Republican in Eastern Washington. He is a candidate any Washington district would be proud to have as their Congressman.

And you know what, you can have him as your Congressman, because guess what? Goldmark's vote in Congress would carry the same weight as Jay Inslee's or Rick Larsen's or Brian Baird's or Jim McDermott's or Darcy Burner's or Adam Smith's or Norm Dick's.

And a Goldmark vote in Congress would be one less Republican supporting the sell out of America to the large corporations and oil companies. Because to stop the continued Republican steamroller that is turning back years and years of progress to help the citizens of America, Democrats need to win back control of Congress. A Goldmark in Congress will fight for the people in the 5th Congressional District in Washington State and also for the rest of us.

I consider Peter Goldmark a dark horse candidate. He is fighting to get recognition and respect as a viable candidate because even people like PI reporter Joel Connelly continue to repeat what some so called "national pundits" and so called professional Congressional ratings newsletters speak in their infinite wisdom. They say that the 5th Congressional District is a "safe" Republican seat.

But as Peter Goldmark responds ""Just because they don't think it winnable doesn't mean it's not winnable."

For 30 years, the 5th Congressional District, which includes Spokane, was represented by Democrat Tom Foley. And Tom Foley rose to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Spokane area also elected Democrats to the state Legislature.

Connelly continues:

Curiously, in an era of authoritarian, centralized government, Peter Goldmark is stressing what used to be bedrock conservative values.

"The fiscal irresponsibility is absolutely intolerable. It is immoral to saddle future generations with the enormity of our current debt," he said, speaking to the Bush administration's $400 billion budget deficits.

Goldmark wants a Congress that would again act as a check on the White House. He promises to get a seat on the House Agriculture Committee and be "a voice of moderation, working across party lines."

He recalls the bipartisan cooperation that gave us such laws as the National Environmental Policy Act.

McMorris was the chairwoman of a stridently partisan House Resources Committee task force on the act, whose "streamlining" proposals were unveiled before a Washington, D.C., lobbyists' breakfast.

"There are more important issues for Eastern Washington than throwing away protections that have helped our air, sea and land," Goldmark said.

Republicans have used social issues to get a lock on the inland west. In bread and butter terms, however, they've done little to help rural communities and rural families.

What makes Peter Goldmark different is that he is truly eastern Washington. He understands eastern Washington. He is eastern Washington. He is a wheat and cattle rancher in rural Okanogan County. But he also served as a Regent at Washington State University for almost 10 years, resigning this year to run full time for Congress. And he has a science background, a PhD in Molecular Biology, which he has put to use on his ranch, developing varieties of wheat.

Peter Goldmark needs our support to get elected. MajorityRulesBlog has a goal of trying to raise $5000 for Goldmark. You can help by making a contribution today. MajorityRulesBlog has a link set up with ActBlue so it is easy to contribute. Please click on MajorityRulesBlog ActBlue -

Thanks for your help.


links to read more about Peter Goldmark:

Peter Goldmark's Campaign website

Congressional Candidate Peter Goldmark Starts Galloping in Eastern Washington - MajorityRulesBlog 7/16/2006

Peter Goldmark - Eastern Washington's Dark Horse Congressional Candidate - MajorityRulesBlog 6/26/2006

On the Campaign Trail with Peter Goldmark - Evergreen Politics 5/24/2006

Peter Goldmark Officially Announced his Campaign for Congress - npr radio 5/24/2006

Democrat Peter Goldmark Rides into Spokane to Kickoff his Campaign for Congress - MajorityRulesBlog 5/23/2006

Goldmark hopes to round up change - Spokesman Review 5/25/2006

Former Regent Enters Congressional Race - The Daily Evergreen 5/25/2006

Rural Democrat Mounts an Uphill Battle - Seattle PI 3/27/2006

Believe it or Not. Eyman Weights Initiative Petitions to Determine Count.

Tim Eyman's Initiative 917 to cut transportation funding in Washington State is in deep trouble because he literally weights his boxes of petitions to determine how many petitions, and I guess signatures, he has. It seems he has trouble with large numbers so counting and weighting boxes is his alternative.

While Eyman claims he turned in 300,353 signatures, the Secretary of State tallied the signatures they received and found only 266,006. This means I-917 is in danger of not being validated.

Eyman claims he has no count of the actual number of petitions for I-917 he turned into the Washington Secretary of State. He says he never did that for any of his campaigns. He has no photocopies of the petitions. Instead he weighs his I-917 petitions but then didn't keep any record of what they weighed. .

It's fine with me. I'm glad Eyman still hasn't figured out how to do initiative campaigns after all these years. I'm just laughing. I thought he was stupid when he printed up petitions a few years ago that had the incorrect text on the back. I thought he was stupid when he printed up petitions this year that had an almost impossible to find declaration on the back of the petition that petitioners needed to sign.

Then Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna came to his rescue a month ago to help him by saying the law the Washington State Legislature wrote really meant the opposite of what it said. I wonder if Rob McKenna also advised Eyman about this bizarre procedure of weighting petition boxes to qualify an initiative.

Eyman claimed he weighted the boxes and wrote the weight on the boxes he turned into the Secretary of State, but Eyman kept no record of those weights. The Secretary of State recycled the boxes, not knowing anything about Eyman's unique way of "knowing" how many signatures he had. Who would?

I have turned in petitions for a number of campaigns before, including I-394, I-61, I-547, I-97, I-99, and others but have never thought of weighting boxes of petitions to figure out how many petitions and signatures we had. But we did keep a tally of petition sheets and numbers of signatures.

Somehow Eyman got a signature count which he claims was 300,353. To "verify" it, he did what many conservative think tanks do. They manipulate the media. They know their figures are inaccurate or made up or questionable if coming directly from them. . But they only need one media source to quote what they said. Then they claim the media who quoted them as the source of the information next time they talk about it. You know, "Today the Seattle Times said ....." . Now the Seattle Times is the source of the inaccurate or misleading information.

Eyman, obviously knowing he did not have enough signatures, used a hand written note with his purported signature count on it. He asked the receptionist in the Washington State Secretary of State's office to hand stamp the note when he turned his petitions in with the signatures. He had the media photograph it. Now he could claim that the Secretary of State's Offices had accepted that many signatures. It's a pretty cheap trick.

You can actually see this bogus receipt that Eyman claims in the Spokane Review article by Rich Roessler. But he and everyone else knows this is not a receipt with any legal standing. The receptionist is just that, a receptionist. She didn't make any count of the signatures nor does she have any legal standing to sign any receipt. Eyman knows that. The signature count is his, not hers.

The whole thing thing is a fool's play. It's a con game. Eyman's turned in enough petitions before for initiative campaigns to know how it works. He knows full well the Secretary of State's office doesn't count the signatures the day you turn them in. What they do is publicly count the number of petition sheets that actually get turned in and you get a receipt for that.

The petitions are then copied and counting of actual signatures is done the next day. All transfer of petitions for copying and counting is accompanied by a member of the State Patrol.

If Eyman knew how many signatures he had, he would also have an idea of the minimum number of petition sheets he had to turn in. Not every petition sheet is full,butIf every sheet were full of signatures, at 20 a page, he needed to turn in a minimum of 15,177 sheets to reach 300,352. The 34,346 signaturesof this count that Eyman claimed to have turned in, but didn't, would equal some 1728 sheets if every sheet had 20 signatures. But Eyman hasn't been saying the petition count he got was wrong. Seems he wasn't paying any attention to this.

What is disturbing about this is that Eyman gets so much media play for this little farce of his. Any fool with enough money can get an initiative on the ballot but Eyman, even with a sugar money daddy named Michael Dunmire, still stumbles around, bungling simple recordkeeping. This a guy who likes to criticize state government, but he can't even run his small 3 person campaign.

At some point more of the media will see Eyman for the fool he is, but giving any credence to his false claim that the signatures were stolen, is no more than Eyman continuing to play with the media.

He is trying to keep his campaign business alive and knows that the media loves drama. How interesting would it be to say: "I messed up and can't even add up how many petitions and signatures I have. I have trouble counting and keeping track of large numbers, like over 100,000, so instead I weight boxes." ?

But the press will surely bite on: "I turned in enough signatures and they stole them." The lie gets you more coverage than the truth. Yell loud and cry foul. It worked for Rossi.

But Eyman's day of reckoning is coming this week. Verification of a sample of signatures on I-917 should be done this week. As I posted recently, Eyman needs to have less that 15.57% of his signatures invalid. He's never done that. It's been noted that his previous initiatives have had invalid rates of 16% to 23%. If we're lucky, wonder boy Eyman will show us once again what incompetence really is.

You can also read more at Postman on Politics and Andrew over at NPI Blog and Michael Hood at Blatherwatch. Blatherwatch is particularly interesting in that Eyman is meeting with a lot of skepticm on rightwing radio, eg John Carlson and Dori Monson.

It's Not Sonic Green or Seattle Green - It's Money Green

In the end Howard Schultz of Starbucks and the other owners of the Seattle Sonics choose the new team color to be not Sonic Green or Seattle Green but Money Green. What is one to expect from the owner of a coffee company that includes the word "bucks" in its name.

So who really thinks the Seattle Sonics will be here after this next season?

Art Thiel has a good column in the Seattle PI today. It's titled "Hey Howard, we're not morons" The fact is that Oklahoma City will have a vacant stadium in one year and that is exactly the same time commitment that the Sonics new owners agreed to stay in Seattle. After that they can buy out the last couple years of their lease at Key Arena and pack the moving vans.

Howard Schultz and company just packed their wallets with some $80 - $90 million dollars. Knowing that there were lots of cities like Oklahoma City, willing to pay big for a basketball team, what real incentive did they have to strike a deal with Seattle?

The problem was more one that Schultz and Company did not look at the Sonics as a community asset in the end or feel a sense of civic commitment to keep the team in Seattle. If they had, they would have involved the city more in the discussion of what to do before asserting their business perogative to sell whenever they wanted to whoever they wanted, without consulting the very same people they were putting down for not freely opening the public coffers to a private business.

As I said, in the end they showed their true colors - not Seattle Green or Sonic Green but Money Green.

Sonics Owners Slam Dunk on Seattle - Sell Team to Oklahoma City.

The Sonics Basketball team has been in Seattle for 40 years. This is where they started but in 12 months they may be gone. Today Starbucks magnate Howard Schultz announced that the Sonics have been sold by the Basketball Club of Seattle to the Professional Basketball Club LLC. headed by Clay Bennett of Oklahoma City.

So much for Howard Schultz and local ownership's civic commitment to Seattle. Could you see Green Bay sold to Kansas City? I don't think so.

But is any of this a surprise? The PI on July 8, 2006 had a story headlined "Plenty of cities waiting in line for NBA teams". In the story they even noted that "It's no secret Oklahoma City wants a permanent franchise, having sold out games last season when it was host to the New Orleans Hornets after Hurricane Katrina."

What are they saying in Oklahoma. Its "Hornets will leave, but Sonics will come"

Buy up that Hornets memorabilia, Oklahoma City.

All of it's about to become collector's items.

Sure, the New Orleans Hornets still call Oklahoma City home, and Seattle Sonics still call the Pacific Northwest home, even though their new owners call Oklahoma City home. (Got all that?) But after an ownership group headed by Oklahoma City businessman Clay Bennett purchased the Sonics on Tuesday, it's difficult to believe all of this will end any differently.

The Hornets will go back to New Orleans.

The Sonics will come to Oklahoma City.

Could be in a year. Could be two. But eventually, the moving vans will arrive in Oklahoma City, some ferrying the Hornets out, others carrying the Sonics in.

Mayor Nickels held a press conference saying he was "disappointed". He noted the importance of local ownership in a team's success in a community. Local ownership was a big factor in both the Seattle Mariners and Seattle Seahawks staying in Seattle. But it didn't help the Sonics.

The City of Seattle had made 3 different offers to the Sonics in trying to meet their concerns about the Arena and their lease. One offer was for a $198 million dollar area expansion with the owners paying $49 million. The second offer was for a $149 million expansion with the owners paying 4#7 million Both of these deals would have gone to a public vote The third offer was for a $50 million renovation with no public vote.

The Seattle Times quotes Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis as saying "They never did respond to us on those three offers."

Not mentioned by Howard Schultz was what the team was sold for. Previously the team claimed it has lost $40 million. (Update - the Seattle Times reported the team was sold for $350 million. Several sources says this leaves a profit of $80 -$90 million for a 5 year investment). The sale was noted as a business decision. So much for commitment to the local community and Sonics fans.

Something is wrong with the process when Schultz demanded a public handout for a revamped Arena with no return to Seattle financially. The decision to sell the team was not a public decision or was it debated by the owners publicly or with civic leaders.. It was done out of the public's eye - so that Mayor Nickels and Governor Gregoire were only first informed today before the press conference. It was a business deal.

It seems that the fans and the public who supported the team by buying tickets and attending games and supporting the team for 40 years are just pawns in the process subject to business decisions, not public or community decisions.

The Sonics owners seemed to fear a public vote for the use of public money to support them. It was not that long ago that Seattle taxpayers put money into fixing up the Arena. Where's the public share of any profits? Maybe you want to think twice before buying your next Starbucks coffee because maybe next it will be Howard Schultz and Starbucks moving to Chicago.

Sure is nice to have some dedicated business people involved in the Seattle community.

Eyman's Initiative 917 Skating on Thin Ice

With only 266,000 signatures, Washington State Initiative 917 will probably require a complete check of its signatures. To qualify for the fall ballot, 224,880 valid signatures are needed. The number is equal to 8% of those who voted in the last governor's race.

Eyman could still validate I-917 if some 41,125 signatures were invalid because of voters not being registered, registered at the wrong address or signing more than once.

An initial 10,000 signatures will be sampled by the Washington Secretary of State. The signatures will be randomly selected by a computer. The percentage of invalid signatures for
I-917 must be below 15.46% for 224,880 signatures to be valid.

The Secretary of State's Office has said that last year the signature invalid rate ranged from 13% to 26%. One factor that would affect Eyman's invalid rate will be how actively his paid signature gatherers asked people if they were registered to vote.

My guess is that because paid signature gatherers are paid by the signature, there is not a huge incentive to be careful. David Goldstein over at Horsesass.org in his post stated that last year's signature invalid rate was 13%, 16%,17%, 19%, and 26%. That's sort of like a 1 in 5 chance of making it with the number of signatures Eyman has on I-917.

Initiative 917 is another slash and burn initiative based on the concept of individual greed. Since it does a significant repeal of existing weight fees, big cars and trucks up to 10 tons would pay the same as small cars. Tabs would be all the same at $30. Yet big cars and trucks tear up roads to a greater degree.

Eyman somehow thinks that road and transit maintaince are free, that someone else pays to keep it all going.

I-917 would repeal a major part of the transportation package the Legislature passed in 2005. Last year's attempt to repeal the gas tax lost at the polls. This measure goes after the other part of that transportation package and would remove $2.7 billion targeted to meet transportation needs in the state. I-917 also would repeal funding for Sound Transit, which is one of Eyman's pet project. He would rather see more cars on the road than pay for transit.

If by some fluke I-917 squeaks past the Secretary of State by having enough valid signatures, it could still be challenged in court on the basis of not having enough petitioners sign their declaration that they personally collected the signatures. Some 3000 petitions, according to Goldstein's article did not have the petitioner's signature.

We posted on this issue last week. McKenna's legal opinion on Ballot Petitions Aids and Abets this Year's Right Wing Initiative Campaigns. The issue could be ripe for opponents to file a court challenge based on the those 3000 petitions without the signatues of paid signature gatherers.The combination of invalid signatures of voters and petitions not signed by those who gathered the signatures as required by law would be a lethal combination.

Congressional Candidate Peter Goldmark Starts Galloping in Eastern Washington

Democrat Peter Goldmark, running in eastern Washington's 5th Congressional District, has raised more money than his Republican opponent during the latest reporting period. Goldmark reported to the Federal Elections Commission that for the April, May, June 2006 reporting period he has raised over $200,066. His opponent, Cathy McMorris, has only raised $125,945 during this same time period.

McMorris is the incumbent. Her campaign has already spent $648,922 she previously raised and only has $466,955 in cash on hand. This is not a lot of cash on hand for an incumbent. Meanwhile Goldmark has not frittered away what he's raised and has $134,911 in cash on hand. Considering this is Goldmark's first quarter of raising funds, he has made an impressive start.

When I had a chance to ask Congressman Jay Inslee on Friday how he thought Goldmark was doing, Inslee said that Goldmark's campaign is picking up momentum. He called Goldmark "a great fit for his district".

Inslee noted that he had recently gone to a major fundraiser for Goldmark in eastern Washington . Over 200 people were in attendance. Inslee will soon be doing a mailing for Goldmark.

There are a lot of good signs his campaign is picking up momentum. Goldmark brings to the 5th C.D. a strong background in ranching, education, public service and science. He has a forward looking agenda to help the district. You can read more about Peter Goldmark by going to his official campaign website - Vote Peter Goldmark.

Majority Rules Blog has previously posted on Peter Goldmark several times See:

Peter Goldmark - Eastern Washington's Dark Horse Candidate

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

Goldmark is a great candidate and is working hard but he needs your support. I have set up a link through ActBlue - a Democratic fundraising site - where you can easily make an on-line contribution to Peter Goldmark's campaign. Click here MajorityRulesBlog ActBlue .

Our goal is to raise $5,000 for Peter Goldmark's campaign through MajorityRulesBlog ActBlue.

Clicking on the ActBlue link will show both how much has been raised and also what other blogs and sites have raised for Goldmark using ActBlue. You can also link to other Democratic campaigns across the country

Looking at the finance report of Goldmark's opponent reveals that almost two thirds of the money McMorris raised this last quarter has come came from special interest PAC's. Some in particular, like Labor Ready and Wal-Mart shows insight into her recent vote opposing raising the minimum wage. Most of Goldmark's money has come from individual contributions.

Her are some of McMorris's largest donors. The first number is their most recent contribution and the second number is their total contribution to her campaign.

Altira Group Inc PAC, NY $2500 ($5000)

American Health Care Association PAC $1000 ($5000)

American Road and Transportation Builder PAC, Washington, DC $1000 ($1000)

Assoc General Contractors of America PAC, Alexandria, VA $1000 ($4000)

Avista Corp Employees Effec Govt PAC $1500 ($5750)

Boeing PAC, Arlington, VA $2000 ($7000)

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Co. Rail PAC, Washington, DC $1000 ($3000)

Fair Credit Council PAC, Washington, DC $250 ($6363)

Growth and Prosperity PAC, Washington,DC $4500 ($9500)

Int Council of Shopping Center, Inc. PAC, Alexandria, VA $1000 ($2000)

Labor Ready Inc,PAC, Tacoma, WA $1000 ($6000)

Mine PAC (American Mining Assoc.), Washington, DC $1000 ($2000)

Nat. Assoc. of Insurance and Financial Advisors PAC, Falls Church, VA $1000 ($4500)

NelNet Inc PAC, Washington, DC $3000 ($5000)

Old Castles Materials Inc, Washington, DC $2000 ($4000)

Paccar Inc Employees Org for Pol Leadership, Winston Salem, NC $1000 ($3000)
RJ Reynolds PAC, Winston Salem, NC $1000 ($4000)

Road to Victory PAC, Alexandria,VA $5000 ($5000)

United Parcel Services Inc PAC, Atlanta, GA $2500 ($10,000)

Wal-Mart Inc PAC , Bentonville, Alabama $3500 ($3500)

Washington Group Int PAC, Arlington, VA $7000 ($7000)

Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America, Inc PAC $2500 ($2500)

With this type of special interest money funding McMorris's campaign, one can clearly see the type of interests she has and will support in Congress. Just some more reasons why to help get Peter Goldmark elected. Again you can click on MajorityRulesBlog ActBlue to make a contribution today to Peter Goldmark. Thanks.

A Question of Character - Groen Kicks Justice Alexander and Washington Voters in Groin!

John Groen, the Building Industry Association of Washington's (BIAW) candidate for Washington State Supreme Court Justice running against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, is playing street politics, where anything goes. As noted in an article today by Neil Modie of the Seattle PI, despite the Washington State Legislature passing campaign contribution limits for Supreme Court races, Groen has collected over $300,000 in contributions with some eleven contributions over the new $2800 limit. A large chunk of this came before the new law went into effect, thereby ignoring the limits and the spirit of the new law.

The campaign contribution law (3SHB 1226) went into effect on June 7, 2006. Groen collected most of his contributions and spent them after the Legislature passed the law and but before it went into effect. The legislature 3SHB 1226 on March 8, 2006 and Governor Gregoire signed it on March 30, 2006.

Justice Alexander supported the contribution law and did not accept contributions over $2800 ($1400 for the primary and $1400 for the general election). He reported raising $76,645 compared to Groen's $301,115.

Before the Legislature passed the new law, Washington State was one of only four states that elected judges, that did not have limits on campaign contributions. But in the last two elections the BIAW has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting 2 conservative right wing candidates who won, Jim Johnson and Richard Saunders. The BIAW is trying to add Groen as their third anointed Supreme Court Justice.

The Washington State Legislature responded to the out of control contributions of the BIAW by passing the new campaign contribution limitation law. The law is an attempt to try to limit the influence of special interest money.

As reported in the Seattle PI today, Groen's campaign finance chairman and partner in Groen's law firm, Charlie Klinge, said the contributions were legal and "complied with the law in all respects." Technically he's right because the Legislature should have added an emergency clause to have the law go into effect immediately.

Unfortunately the Legislature probably thought that no one running for State Supreme Court would go ahead and collect contributions hugely exceeding the limits once they passed the law. After all, these are people running for the Washington State Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the spirit and intent of state laws. One would expect that these people would have the highest respect for the law and would comply with the wishes of the voters of Washington as expressed through their elected representatives.

Unfortunately the Legislature was wrong. But the public has just learned a very valuable piece of information about the character of John Groen. He was more interested in what personally benefited him than in voluntarily complying with the spirit of the newly passed campaign contribution limitation law. It says he will do whatever it takes to get elected. One can expect that he will probably also do whatever it takes to represent the special interests of his contributors before he considers the interests of Washington State voters.

As the Seattle Times has previously reported, most of Groen's big contributions before the June 7th deadline came from BIAW members and affiliated building interests. The Seattle Times quotes Lynnwood homebuiler Larry Sunquist, who with his wife gave $25,000, saying he "supports Groen because of his work as a property rights litigator" Translate that to mean opposition to growth management and zoning.

Contributions over $2800 to Groen before June 7th iinclude:

6/02 John Spadara SDS Lumber Co, Bingen, WA $25,000
6/02 Fremont Dock Company, Seattle, WA $5000
6/02 One Pacific Corporation , Camas, WA $25,000
6/02 Thomas Cam, Underwood Industries, Underwood, WA $25,000
6/05 Pacific Lifestyle Holdings, Inc, Vancouver, WA $5000
5/22 Amo Construction, Inc, Vancouver, WA $15,000
5/20 John Cheney, SDS Lumber Co, Bingen, WA $12,5000
5/20 Lana Cheney, SDS Lumber Co, Bingen, WA $12,500
5/17 G.G. One Inc., Vancouver, WA $5000
5/13 Larry Sunquist, Sunquist Homes, Lynnwood, WA $12,500
5/13 Diane Sunquist, conquistador Homes, Lynnwood, WA $12,500
5/9 Bill Connor, Bellevue, WA $5000

So some $160,000 in contributions were for amounts exceeding $2800 per contributor.
Subtracting a maximum of $2800 from each contributor or $31,600 would leave a total of $128,400 exceeding the limits under the new campaign finance laws. This exceeds the sum total of contributions received by Justice Alexander during this same period.

Notice that most of these and many other contributions of lesser amounts reported to the PDC come from building industry groups.

You can help equalize the playing field for Justice Gerry Alexander and show your opposition to the building industry trade groups trying to exert special influence in this election by going to his Justice Alexander's website at www.justicealexander.com and making an on-line contribution today.

Is Karl Rove Laughing his Head off at Washington's Progressives?

Of course! If Karl Rove wanted to misdirect progressive Democrats away from the national strategy of taking control of the U.S. Senate and/or House, what better way than to have the Democrats fighting each other over, of all things, Bush's never ending War in Iraq.

It's time for those Democrats who question Senator Cantwell's position on Iraq to realize that Iraq is not her war. She did not start it but she is part of the dialogue looking for a solution. She is a member of a minority party. Republicans run Washington, not Senator Cantwell or any other Democrat.

Democrats are fighting amongst themselves about a war they didn't start and about which they and the American people were lied to by Bush. Meanwhile these same Democrats ignore other things the Republicans and Bush are dismal on, like not raising the minimum wage over the last 10 years or not fighting global warming or not aggressively working for energy independence from foreign oil or Bush's giving tax breaks that only increase the share of the money the very rich have.

This issue was discussed several weeks ago in MSNBC's Newsweek Politics.Rove's Trap
The president's strategist is politicizing the Iraq war for partisan political gain. Will the Dems figure out how to fight back?

Lets pick just one quote from that article : "....It's very Rovean; they're trying to turn a weakness into a strength." Another Democratic strategist noted the irony that after four years of no accountability on the mistakes made in prosecuting the Iraq war, the administration was hanging Democrats out to dry. This strategist called it "reverse accountability" shift the blame to those not in charge."

"shift the blame to those not in charge" Can it be any clearer?

Left wing peace and progressive Democrats in Washington State are falling into this trap. They are doing Karl Rove's dirty work by attacking Senator Maria Cantwell on Iraq. They are dividing the Democratic Party because she is not willing to sign off on some left wing purity test which one commenter on my previous blog post phrased as having her say "she was either duped, pressured or just flat wrong" when she joined 29 other Democrats in the US Senate who voted in 2002 to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.

Frankly I don't know what this would do to get us out of Iraq. As I've said before this is George Bush's war. Republicans control the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and the Presidency. Democrats are the minority party and do not control any committees and can not conduct any hearings on the Iraq War.

And yet some progressive Democrats continue to attack Senator Maria Cantwell like this is her war and she has some kind of stronghold over what happens? If Senator Maria Cantwell suddenly changed into a Russ Feingold Democrat, what would that do to end the war? Nothing - because it does nothing to change the fact that the Democrats are the minority party and do not have the votes to do anything. Congressman Jay Inslee has commented in the past how Democrats in Congress are not even consulted on bills the Republicans run - there is no bipartisanship going on in Washington DC. We have a one party government and that is a Republican Party controlled government.

For the life of me why aren't these progressive Democrats putting pressure on Mike McGavick about his position on Iraq. Am I missing something here? Because if there are some of you who do like you say and won't help Cantwell get elected and won't vote for her then you are supporting McGavick for Senate and are acting to support Karl Rove and George Bush and the Iraq War as it now stands.

Strategic thinking is important. What is it you want to accomphlish? Will you do that by the tactics you are using or are you falling into a Rovean trap?

Lets look at what Cantwell's opponent says on Iraq.

Going to McGavick's website there is scant information on Iraq: I could find only these two written statements.

The U.S. cannot retreat from the War on Terror or countries like Iraq will turn into the worst hotbeds of terror the world has ever witnessed.

U.S. forces will come home from Iraq when the job is finished. Setting a timetable for troop pullout gives the advantage to America's terrorist enemies.

These statements say very little except that McGavick supports Rove and Bush and Rumsfeld. The reality is McGavick is a vote for Bush's War in Iraq. This is the alternative to Senator Maria Cantwell?

Some people are upset that Mark Wilson is no longer challenging Senator Maria Cantwell in the Democratic primary. I would argue that there really was not much of a challenge going on in the first place. Wilson publicly stated on the David Goldstein show on KIRO 710 radio that he never really intended to file for the Democratic Party primary but was trying to give a voice to opposition to the war. Huh?

While I can appreciate Wilson trying to raise important issues in the Democratic Party - maybe he was just a little bit dishonest in trying torepresent himself as a serious candidate for U.S. Senator. Or maybe he is just trying to put a face saving spin on the fact that his campaign didn't get the support he needed to run a successful race and he didn't want to be known as the Democrat who helped Mike McGavick get elected.

But to anyone looking at the state Democratic Convention in Yakima last month it was obvious that Wilson never stood a chance. While I support progressives and consider myself one, there really is no organized unified progressive movement in Washington state. That was obvious when the "Progressive Caucus" met at the state convention.

There was no organized game plan of how to increase the influence of progressives in the party and when volunteers were asked to help recruit more, the hands raised were few. Mark Wilson attended the caucus but he did not seem to have a vision of how to organize the state. It appeared that he was waiting for others to put it together.

I mention this because any organized movement is difficult. But it does need leaders and it does need a plan. It needs vision and it needs people ready and willing to help. I saw well intentioned good people involved but it was not going to help Mark. He was on his own.

As a result Mark Wilson never was a really viable candidate, having neither the money or volunteers or widespread backing to run a statewide campaign against the incumbent.

I believe it's time for progressives to move on. A few vocal voices and bloggers do not make a movement. We need to not make Washington a swing state in the Senate race, so national Democratic resources need to be directed here, at the expense of other Democratic candidates.

Besides helping Senator Cantwell get re-elected, we need to assist in races where new Democrats can win - like Darcy Burner (WA-8) and Peter Goldmark (WA-5). Picking up seats in Congress to give Democrats a majority in at least one branch of Congress will be the best strategy to end the War in Iraq.

Asking Senator Maria Cantwell to submit to some progressive purity test right now won't mean anything if Democrats don't win control of the U.S. House and/or Senate.

This election is certainly a referendum on Iraq for Bush. Unfortunately if Democrats don't pick up seats in Congress, it will be used as an confirmation by Bush that the American people support his position on Iraq. And we will have missed our best opportunity in 6 years to change American politics for the better.

Iraq is Bush's War, not Senator Maria Cantwell's!

President Bush started the Iraq War, not Senator Maria Cantwell. It was a preemptive war that was started based on false and erroneous information. Senator Cantwell has previously acknowledged that, "If we knew then what we know now there probably never would have been a vote by Congress to go into Iraq." At the time the majority of Democrats voted 29 to 21 to support Bush.

Mark Wilson, who was an anti-war candidate running against Cantwell on the war, ended his campaign on Sunday. He has joined forces with Cantwell, believing that they share similar goals of ending the war. In a Seattle PI article he is quoted as saying they agree that "there must be no permanent American bases in Iraq."

Mark Wilson position is welcomed by those of us that believe the primary objective of this election year must be for Democrats to gain control of the Senate and the House. Politics is the art of compromise and practicality. Mark Wilson has realized that while he has made the Iraq War a campaign issue he did not have the resources or supporters to mount a serious challenge. Continuing his campaign would have done more to hurt efforts to end the war than help.

Senator Cantwell has not been a lover of Saddam Hussein, and in fact voted to support the current President's Father in what is now known as the "Gulf War". There is no way a thinking, caring person is going to say that they supported the type of dictator Saddam Hussein was or the murderous way he kept power in Iraq.

Cantwell took a tough vote along with many other Democrats in 2002. As CNN noted on Oct. 11, 2002 , "the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. ....The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. "

As we now know this rationale, has since been discredited and was based on faulty information. But at the time many Democrats joined with the Republicans in voting to give Bush authority if necessary to invade Iraq based on what they were told by the Bush Administration. In fact 29 Democratic Senators voted yes, not just Maria Cantwell.

Here is a list of those Democrats: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Breaux (LA), Cantwell (WA), Carnahan (MO), Carper (DE), Cleland (GA). Clinton (NY), Daschle (SD), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Edwards (NC), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Hollings (SD). Johnson (SD), Kerry (MA), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Schemer (NY), and Torricelli (NJ)

If you still really feel passionate about this issue log onto Act for Change and send Cantwell an e-mail about how you feel about her vote. But at some point we literally need to move on. Cantwell has and is looking for solutions to get us out of Iraq. Cantwell's Republican opponent is not going to oppose Bush's war policies. If Cantwell loses it will be an affirmation for the war, not a vote against the war. A Republican win is another vote to support Bush.

Senator Cantwell is calling for setting milestones for getting out of Iraq. On David Goldstein's show Sunday night on KIRO 710 she said that "This year is the time to turn the sovereignty and security issues over to Iraq"

She emphasized that last year's 79 to 19 vote by Democrats and Republicans calling for starting to bring the troops home this year was a turning point. It was a contrast to Bush's "head in the sand approach."

Sound leadership means setting goals and expectations. Cantwell is committed to a structured withdrawal from Iraq based on setting milestones , holding people accountable and ending Bush's blank check policy of war in Iraq.

Because that is what the Republicans just voted for in opposing a timetable to get out of Iraq. They voted for blank check warfare.

Iraq has become the never ending war George Orwell wrote about in 1984. A perpetual war keeps the people in fear and allows for their domination. War is Peace was a Government slogan. . When you say it, "war is peace", isn't this what Bush is saying because otherwise to him the only alternative is "cut and run".

Senator Cantwell is opposed to this idea of a never ending war that the Bush lack of leadership is foisting on the American people. Cantwell sees' "lots of twists and turns" and acknowledges that there is less water, less electricity and less oil than before the war. Yet she sees optimism in the recent vote of Iraqis for their government. She called it "impressive." She witnessed people bringing their children with them as they voted. Children were sticking their fingers in the blue ink, taking part in the process.

The number one priority Senator Cantwell sees is to get the Iraq Security Forces trained, which she says General Casey has said will be happening by the end of the year.

In addition Senator Cantwell believes more effort needs to be made to get other countries who pledged support to follow through. She noted some $13 billion of outstanding commitments from other countries exists. "Let's get it into Iraq" says Cantwell.

She believes our countries best interests are served by trying to get more more countries involved and supports a bipartisan effort by previous Presidents Bush and Clinton getting involved.

Listening to Senator Cantwell speak on Goldstein's show let's one see why Mark Wilson would quit his candidacy to support Cantwell. On the radio Mark Wilson acknowledged to Goldstein that his chances had been a long shot. He also reached the conclusion that working to elect a Democratic majority in the U S Senate would more likely happen by working to re-elect Senator Maria Cantwell than by continuing his efforts to debate the issues. Besides he noted, he's not independently wealthy nor was there a large enough network of moneyed supporters for him to wage a serious primary challenge.

God is Not in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights

Neither God or Jesus are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Nor are they mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Satan also doesn't show up. Colin McGinn was on Bill Moyers special series on Faith and Reason on PBS last night and mentioned that God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

So I checked this morning and could not find God or Jesus or any of his disciples, or for that matter Satan, in the U.S. Constitution. I guess I just never looked that closely before because to hear all the debate from the right wing evangelicals and Bush conservatives I could have sworn it had to be there somewhere or what was all the fanatical noise about - like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

It's like if you don't say "under God" when you say the Pledge of Allegiance you willl never be able to run for public office or if in public office you shall be voted out. There are probably people who think you shouldn't even be allowed to vote, unless you believe in God.

The current President Bush's Father, George G.W. Bush seemed to believe that, when he told an atheist that,
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Curiously Article VI Section (3) of the U.S. Constitution is the only reference to religion in the original Constitution and it says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution: but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.

The framers of the Constitution were saying said that there shall be no test as to whether one shall be a Catholic, or a Protestant or other member of a religious community to hold office.

But wait a minute. There is also the test of public opinion. What does the Pledge of Allegiance say?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Um, isn't this some kind of religious test? Seems to me my very own Congressman, Jim McDermott was skewered for not saying "under God" in the past. It seems to me that some people are and have made this a religious test of sorts and that they are out of step with the U.S. Constitution. Evangelicals want people to profess support for a statement which singles out a specific belief system.

More clearly, there's the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: ..."

By singling out" under God," as distinct from eliminating this phrase and going back to the previous version before 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance is a statement affirming a specific religious belief that a Christian God exists, as distinct from other religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court has previously said that no one shall be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but public pressure and ostracism awaits anyone you doesn't. It is in fact a form of religious discrimination and bigotry.

All this pressure to recite the words, under God, in the Pledge of Allegiance are contrary to what America should represent at it's best. It is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a sign that we still have to go a lot further to go eliminate religious intolerance.

Interestingly enough but not suprisingly, there have been attempts to add God and Jesus to the US constitution. Christian attempts to amend the US Constitution occurred in 1864, 1874, 1896 and 1911.

The original version of these amendments stated "We, the people of the United States recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wisely Congress never passed this or similar amendments . But that doesn't mean God didn't creep in in other ways. For example, there is our current national moto which is printed on our money.

Wikipedia notes that "In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States of America. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, One) according to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.[1

McKenna's Legal Opinion on Ballot Petitions Aids and Abets This Year's Right Wing Initiative Campaigns

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna has written a nonsensical legal opinion on ESHB 1222 that will help right wing initiatives this year. ESHB 1222, "to increase the accountability of ballot measure petitions", was passed last year by the Washington State Legislature to require that petition gatherers sign a declaration on the back of each petition signifying they got the signatures. The reason was to reduce fraud.

McKenna's opinion is that the bill does not really require an initiative signature gatherer to sign each petition, even though that is what the bill says. McKenna's opinion, unless challenged, will allow this year's crop of mostly right wing initiatives to avoid the consequences of having any petitions rejected that do not have signed declarations.

McKenna's opinion was in response a request for an opinion by Republican Representative Toby Nixon at the time it was revealed that Tim Eyman's first printing of I-917 contained a declaration by the petitioner that could be easily overlooked and not signed. At the time we commented that the petitions would need to be carefully checked to ensure that the petitioners actually signed the sheets.

McKenna's opinion is a tortured exercise in how to help your friends like Tim Eyman (Initiative 917 to cut transportation funding), Denis Falk and Martin Selig (Initiative 920 to repeal the estate tax that goes to education funding in this state) and the Farm Bureau and Colorado based Americans for Limited Government (Initiative 933 to overturn neighborhood zoning and growth management).

It would not surprise me if McKenna ran his opinion by his in house BIAW lawyer he hired and also the lawyer who wrote the biased ballot title for Initiative 933. They may be the same person. Why do I say that? I can only speculate, but McKenna's opinion is that Engrossed House Bill 1222, passed by last year's Washington State Legislature, really doesn't mean anything. And I find that hard to believe.

Mc Kenna has gone out of his way, to circumvent the will of the Legislature, to try to prevent this bill from being implemented as written. One has to wonder if Eyman messed up so bad that the only way not to invalidate hundreds of petitions was to try to bypass this law. Or maybe its just that McKenna's heart is not in really protecting the initiative process from fraud but is instead in protecting the right wing petition factory industry.

As passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire, ESHB 1222 specifically says that

The following declaration must be printed on the reverse side of the petition:
I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, and that, to the best of my knowledge, every person who signed this sheet of the foregoing petition knowingly and without any compensation or promise of compensation willingly signed his or her true name and that the information provided therewith is true and correct. I further acknowledge that under chapter 29A.84 RCW, forgery of signatures on this petition constitutes a class C felony, and that offering any
consideration or gratuity to any person to induce them to sign a petition is a gross misdemeanor, such violations being punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

That seems pretty straight forward and Secretary of State Sam Reed thought so also. He posted on his website the required language and said it would make the law meaningless to require the provisions of the new law and then accept petitions with unsigned declarations

In his booklet , Filing Initiatives and Referenda in Washington State, he said

"On the reverse side of every petition page, must be the declaration by the signature gatherer as required by RCW 29A.72.110, RCW29A.72.120 or RCW 29A.72.130. This act takes effect January 1, 2006 and requires the following declaration:

I,_______________________, swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, ..."

Reed has a line instead of dots so it is much more obvious that there is a place for someone to sign, and also says"declaration by the signature gatherer..." How can there be a declaration if one doesn't sign?

But believe it or not McKenna somehow spends 12 pages arguing that no signature is required. McKenna says that he looked at the legislative record to reach his conclusion but he did so selectively. He tries by length to argue his position. But in this case length does not denote legal brilliance but rather tortured twisted reasoning. For example he ignores the statements posted on the Washington State Legislature's bill history page for ESHB 1222 that seem to tell a different story about the intent of the bill.

For example, the bill digest says:

Requires that the following declaration must be printed on the reverse side of the petition:
I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition, ..."

Was I being confused by what these words meant? I decided to look up what the legal definition of "declaration" was. Here is the definition from law.co:

declaration - "a written statement made "under penalty of perjury" and signed by the declarant, which is the modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit, which requires swearing to its truth before a notary public."

I think it is key that it says a declaration is signed. McKenna says the "2005 amendments do not include a place to sign. Nor do the 2005 amendments contain any language expressly requiring that the declaration be signed ..."

Really. It certainly looks and reads like one is expected to sign. That is what a declaration is. And that is how the Secretary of State interpreted it also.What is not clear? Is McKenna mimicking Bush's signing statements where Bush says he does not intend to comply with selected bills as written by Congress? Is McKenna doing the same with this legislation?

McKenna says that the amendments do not specify "the consequences of failure to fill out and sign the declaration" That I can't understand at all because failure to sign means the petitions are not as required by the new law. Without a signatureby the petitioner, they would not have a declaration. They thus would be rejected. This is how Sam Reed read it and I think his logic is clear.

McKenna argues that because previous bills in prior sessions contained versions of signed and notarized declarations, then the Legislature choosing a non-notarized procedure meant their desire was to have a statement on the petition that was not meant to be signed. Come again?

As the law.com definition noted, notarized statements are cumbersome and an added burden and the written signed declaration was the "modern substitute for the more cumbersome affidavit" according to law.com.

McKenna also argues that since two sponsors of the bill made contradictory statements on the House floor that they canceled each other out. Maybe it just that the prime sponsor understood the legal aspects of the bill and Rep Nixon did not.

Rep McDermott is quoted on the House floor as saying, "...the Senate has amended this bill to require that the person gathering the signatures actually has to sign the back of the petition...".

Meanwhile Rep Nixon did not seem to be clear on what the bill did and thought that "It also does not invalidate the petitions forms if the signature is not provided by the circulator" So McKenna, seemingly because of erroneous statements by Rep Nixon as to what the bill did, uses those erroneous statements to say no signature is required?

It seems to me that the words speak for themselves." I, ____________, swear or affirm under penalty of law that I circulated this sheet of the foregoing petition,..." What is not clear about these words?

Ironically, McKenna at the end of his discussion mentions a Colorado law, upheld in the Federal Courts, which threw out petitions because a signed affidavit by petitioners did not include the required language. McKenna agrees on this point and says the Secretary of State can reject petitions if they do not have the required language, but it is OK if they are not signed. I do not understand this reasoning and feel that if this issue goes to Court that McKenna's opinion will be voided. His line of reasoning is flawed when one reads the actual wording and reads what is posted on the Legislative website about this bill.

You're Kidding? Rumsfeld Approved Photos?

No, I kid you not. The Republican war hysteria noise machine pulled a fast one on the American people and the news media. New York Times photogragher Linda Spillers told Glenn Greenwald in an e-mail that:

"Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission."

Greenwald wrote a detailed scathing commentary on the bogus Republican hit on the New York Times Travel section, that included pictures of Rumsfeld's vacation home, entitled "Conservative pundits reveal murderous plot by the Travel Section of the NYT! "

As Greenwald reports in a new post today entitled, "What is Left of Malkin,Hinderkaer and Horowitz's Credibility?"

"The reprehensible lynch mob hysterics - Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Red State, David Horowitz - spent the weekend screaming that the Times was guilty of gross recklessness and/or a deliberate intent to have Rumsfeld killed, by virtue of publication of this article. That bloodthirsty frenzy caused other bloggers to
publish the home address and telephone number of Spillers and urged that other NYT editors and reporters be "hunted down." Other followers of Malkin and Hinderaker suggested to their readers that this was yet more evidence of the unpatriotic recklessness of the NYT.

All along, Don Rumsfeld gave his express permission to the NYT for these photographs to be taken. How can anything other than complete scorn be heaped on Malkin, Hinderaker, Horowitz, Red State, and all of the uber-patriotic copycat accusers who spent the weekend spewing the most dangerous accusations possible based on completely false premises? Who would think that any of them have a shred of credibility after seeing how irresponsible and impervious to facts they are -- even when knowingly catalyzing lynch mobs against people?"

Once again the Republican's have succeeded in diverting attention from the real issues by putting up a smokescreen and changing the topic away from issues they can not justify. Instead of questions being pursed about Bush's Predsidential authority to go through bank records in pursuit of terroists, the issue becomes the New Times Times and patriotism. Then it becomes trumped up charges of trying to kill Rumsfeld. Again noise, noise, noise and the media follows the noise like children following the Pied Piper.

Where is the backbone of the press? Is our countries destiny to have a press approved by Presidential fiat only? Say bye, bye free press, unless everyone wakes up and sees the lies and deceit of an arrogant President and his followers who believe they are above the law. The issue here is one of Presidential power and a free press.

The Republican noise machine is in full force. Divide and conquer. The Republican answer to any questions of Constitutionality and Presidential power is to say we are in a war and that trumps all else. But if we give up a free press we have lost the war anyway.

Dirty Dog New York Times and Free Press are Traitors!

The right wing Republican Noise Machine has jumped into hyperdrive this last week. The hysteria is foaming. Like the rapist accusing his victim, they have mounted an assault on the New York Times that explodes with venom and war time hysteria. They are attaching the very idea of a free press as unpatriotric.

Several others have done excellent posts on the issue and I recommend them to you.

Dave Neiwert of Orcinus - The Drums of Elimination

"Documenting the mounting drumbeat of eliminationist rhetoric from the American right has long been a staple of this blog. But even I have to shake my head in wonder at the turn of events this past week -- most of it in the wake of the New York Times' publication of stories detailing the Bush administration's use of banking data in its search for terrorists.The upshot has been a significant escalation in this rhetoric, coming not just from the usual rabid quarters but coming over the national airwaves from figures who supposedly represent mainstream conservatism -- and it is aimed not just at the usual "liberal" targets, but at the entire institution of the free press."

Paul Waldman at Media Matters - "A Declaration of War"

"This week, the conservatives declared war.
Not on The New York Times.
Not even on the media in general. No, this week the entire conservative movement -- from the White House to Republicans in Congress to Fox News to right-wing talk radio to conservative magazines -- declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
They declared war on the idea that journalists have not just the right but the obligation to hold those in power accountable for their actions. They declared war on the idea that journalists, not the government and not a political party, get to decide what appears in the press. They declared war on the idea that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name."
This is a profound threat to our democracy, and we underestimate it at our peril.

Glenn Greenwood at Unclaimed Territory - "Conservative Pundits reveal murdeous plot by the Travel Section of the NY Times"

"I learned today from Michelle Malkin, Powerline's John Hinderaker, Red State, and David Horowitz, among others, that The New York Times not only wants to help Al Qaeda launch terrorist attacks on the United States, but that newspaper also want to do everything possible to enable The Terrorists to ssassinate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That is the conclusion which these sober leaders of "conservative" punditry drew after reading

this article in the Times' Travel section, which features the tiny, charming village of St. Michaels on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where both Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes."