Next live chat HERE
Sunday 6/5 at 6 pm Pac/7 pm Mtn

Cantwell-McGavick?

Now that former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi has definitively taken himself out of consideration for the 2006 Senate race, Republicans have a job to do in trying to oust an incumbent Democrat, Maria Cantwell.

The key to do that, GOP chief Chris Vance has accurately noted, lies in uniting behind a single candidate right from the beginning. That was what the state Republicans did with Rossi's run for governor, and it came right to the edge of working. The approach was sound.

Whether that will happen in this case is not yet clear. Cantwell is perceived by many Republicans to be vulnerable (though she may prove tougher than some now acknowledge, her razor-close 2000 win notwithstanding), and so there is some attraction to the race. Diane Tebelius, an attractive candidate last year in the 8th House district, is one possibility, and she now seems likely to run. Vance himself is another.

But the most interesting news report on all this, in the Tacoma News Tribune, suggests that Republicans might line up quickly behind Mike McGavick, CEO of SafeCo. Though quiet in public, the story notes, "he’s quietly laid the groundwork for a campaign, making the rounds of GOP leaders in both Washingtons and rounding up endorsements from some of the state’s top Republicans. Some who’ve met with him expect him to declare soon."

These races get earlier and earlier. 07/16/05 11:21 [comment / reprint]

Primary redux

So toss all those calculations about how the new top-two Louisiana-style primary will affect Washington politics. Looks now as if it won't happen, and we're back to the Montana (or Idaho) style. Washington voters, in other words, still will not have to register by party, but will be limited in primary elections to selecting one party within which to vote. Traditionally, Washington voters have been able to cherry-pick among parties.

The decision by Judge Thomas Zilly sides with the odd bedfellows of the state Republican and Democratic parties (and even the Libertarian, which also joined in). They had contended, as Zilly recounts, "that Initiative 872 is unconstitutional because the
Initiative prevents voters who share party affiliation from selecting their party’s nominees. The Republican Party also alleges that Initiative 872 forces the Party to be associated publicly with candidates who have not been nominated by the Party, who will alter the political message and agenda the Party seeks to advance, and who will confuse the voting public with respect to what the Party and its adherents stand for."

Zilly is evidently aware he's overturning the will of the voters here; he expressly says that in passing Initiative 872 "The voters were forced to choose between voter choice and party nominations, and the voters chose voter choice." In this case,

The State of Washington argues that Initiative 872 does not “nominate” political party candidates for public office, and does not create a nominating primary. Rather, the State contends that Initiative 872 makes “party nominations . . . irrelevant to qualifying candidates
to the ballot.” See State Response, docket no. 65, at 12. The State urges that unlike a “nominating” primary, Initiative 872 is a “winnowing” primary in which the primary voters do not choose the party’s nominee. Changes by the Initiative to Wash. Rev. Code
§ 29A.04.127 revised “nominating” to “winnowing.”15 The Republican Party argues that calling the primary a “winnowing primary,” rather than a “nominating primary,” does not distinguish the Initiative 872 primary system from the blanket primaries rejected in Jones and Reed, and does not change the fact that Initiative 872’s primary nominates candidates.

The state is exactly right: "winnowing" is what the Louisiana-style approach does. In many cases the system may result in a Republican and Democrat running head to head in November, but in many other - in many Seattle districts, and in many rural eastern Washington areas - it may result in two members of the same party battling it out in November. It winnows, doesn't nominate. It does have the effect, most likely, of weakening the party structure as a result, but that wasn't a key argument here.

Zilly's take was that this "transforms the party’s right to 'nominate' into a right to endorse," and he said the right to "nominate" is a constitutionally-protected right. There's probably some truth in that, but one wonders at the value of another central point the judge makes: "The association of a candidate with a particular party may be the single most effective way to communicate to voters what the candidate represents." Washington voters may have been conteding, in their vote for I-972, that that's exactly what's wrong with much of our politics: Domination by ideological purists, instead of the centrist pragmatists who led Washington so well for so many decades. 07/15/05 14:03 [comment / reprint]

The ever-deepening incident

If you have a single situation and from it draw conclusion A, that doesn't mean you can't also draw a non-conflicted conclusion B. That point may be about to come home in the never-ending battle over charges in the 2003 Boise mayoral race, and could possibly open it to levels of interest hitherto unforeseen.

That race for a nonpartisan open seat featured two identifiable Republicans, developer Chuck Winter and Ada County Sheriff Vaughn Killeen, and an identifiable Democrat, legislator David Bieter. Prevailing speculation pre-election day was that Winder, who seemed to be getting the larger share of the Republican support, and Bieter would end up in a runoff election.

Winder had been dogged by allegations that he had a sweetheart property management deal with the city of Boise. The whole situation - contracts, payments, various parties involved - was complex. Both city officials and Winder delivered explanations of the deal which may have been fully explanatory or, depending on one's point of view, maybe not. The Boise Idaho Statesman has written about the matter, but not in depth - not depth sufficient to resolve the various questions.

Just before the election, a wave of anonymous calls swept around Boise focusing on the Winder-city deal. Since the city was then just coming off a big scandal in the Brent Coles administration, these calls had resonance. The end result put Bieter in first place and with just enough of a lead - by a few hundred votes - to avoid a runoff.

The election settled the leadership of Boise's city hall, but it left behind a web of mysteries.

The first and most obvious is: Who was responsible for the last-minute calls?

That part has begun to emerge into the light. Winder, understandably, has wanted to find out, and because the failure to report those political expenses probably was a violation of city code, the city would like to know too. (Ironically, the beneficiary of the activity - Mayor Bieter - never has been seriously accused of being involved, and as details have developed his innocence seems clear.) Tax activist Laird Maxwell (whose partisan work has involved badgering Republicans to be ever-more conservative) has said he was responsible for the ads. Boise attorney Bill Litster, who also has worked on Republican efforts, was associated with the effort (as an intermediary at least). From this we can reasonably put together the identity of the backers.

As that spotlight has brightened, another aspect of the tale has re-emerged: Winder's relationship with the city and their property management agreement.

A couple of weeks back another Republican Boise attorney, Jim Harris, sent to Boise-area news organizations (Ridenbaugh Press was among the recipients) a packet of materials - letters, transcripts, contract copies - which he said resulted from his inquiry into the Winder lease deal in the fall of 2003. Winder said that he was not involved with the last-minute ads but "became interested in this situation during the early fall of 2003 after several rumors circulated about Winder's dealings with the City and the Boise Depot property. As a private citizen, I undertook a rather thorough review of the public documents and an investigation into the involvement of Chuck Winder and his Boise City related business, particularly the issue of how he discharged his 'management duties' at the Boise Depot. To my knowledge this was the only relatively complete investigation ever done (to this date)."

He said he concluded that, whatever one thinks of the last-minute telephone campaign, "there is significant factual substance to the message delivered ..." What he proposed is an investigation into the whole issue, to get to the bottom of it.

Harris' documentation is extensive makes a substantive case - whether conclusive may be another matter.

He most especially blasted the Idaho Statesman, which he said had ignored the substance of the phone calls and did not fairly report the Winder lease situation. That point has been re-upped in a new piece by the Boise Weekly looking at the situation. It noted that

Following the last-minute calls on the eve of the election, Statesman writers Dan Popkey and Brad Hem consistently described the content of the ad as "erroneously," "inaccurately" or "unfairly" linking Winder to City Hall and Gary Lyman, the former mayoral chief-of-staff ousted during the Brent Coles spending scandal of 2003. In a May 12, 2005, editorial, the paper also called Citizens for Trustworthy Government, the then-anonymous group behind the call, "a secretive band of rogues" who "duped" and "lied to" voters. This is where Harris's complaints begin.

And when Popkey ventured on radio, Republican conservative Rod Beck asked him about the Harris report; Popkey (according to the Weekly) said he'd not seen it - that the real issue is the legal violation of campaign laws and the shrouded people behind it. That's an issue, all right, but why necessarily is it the only one? As to the new developments in the substance of the ad, the Statesman hasn't substantially reported on it all, either, leaving the Weekly a free field. Which seems odd.

More questions emerge ...

Why did the Harris materials emerge almost exactly at the time when the "John Does" responsible for the ads were becoming uncovered?

How serious is, or was, the situation? Harris seems to be referring to a loss to the city of about $4,000 in office space rental, hardly an enormous amount, especially since there's no indication that Winder enriched himself. But Harris does suggest a pattern of lawbreaking - is there more to this than meets the eye? Is something more going on here than a single, small-scale, lease deal now seven years old?

From a political standpoint, at least, something surely is.

Winder was the candidate of choice for much of the Boise Republican establishment, but he has remained the focal point of criticism for an apparently substantial number of conservatives for long after his candidacy has ended. Why? What's the real war going on here - and what really are the stakes?

The "John Does" may be emerging, but the work of solving the attendant mysteries apparently is only beginning. 07/14/05 13:34 [comment / reprint]

Protection

Local elected officials traditionally have as part of their job the promotion of their communities - mayoral presence at ribbon cuttings being one of the visible examples. They also have the slightly less visible role of protecting their communities from external threats.

That is the counterpoint to what may be a Wal-Mart complaint against the top elected officials of the city of Milwaukee: That those officials have prejudged Wal-Mart's case in its attempt to build a mega-store, grocery included, on the borderline between Milwaukee and Portland.

Milwaukie Mayor Jim Bernard went on record on the subject July 5, when he wrote :Portland Mayor Tom Potter on the development. He warned that the new store would "drain the life out of our downtown core, as Wal-Marts have done all across this country."

Protests have swept through nearby Portland neighborhoods as well.

The location and spread of Wal-Marts is becoming a more overt political issue and on a plane distinct from most conventional planning and zoning matters. Growing numbers of officials and constituents seem to be pointing out that a Wal-Mart is not just another store, but can constitute an economic neutron bomb eradicating important local businesses. In such a circumstance, the role of community protector is not out of reach. 07/12/05 13:34 [comment / reprint]

Disclosure, and non

In private business interests, information and assets have to be protected in a variety of ways, and contracts are often the means of choice. In years past I've signed nondisclosure agreements and once signed a non-compete agreement, all with private companies which were paying me for work I was doing. I made no complaint; those requirements were reasonable on the part of the private business.

Government operates differently, or is supposed to. Since the "owners" are the public, the bulk of what government does is supposed to be open to general inspection anyway. And limitations on employees and contractors are generally spelled out in law and regulation, not contracts. (Yes, there are exceptions; and those exceptions are often problematic.)

In Kitsap County, we now have something new, or nearly so - employees of a government entity signing non-disclosure agreements intended for the benefit not of their boss - the people of the county - but for the benefit of a private corporation, International Speedway Corp., which wants to build a NASCAR racetrack in the county.

News reports say that 13 county officials signed the non-disclosure agreements. This is breathtaking, and it should generate furious revolt in Kitsap.

The concept - the explanation - no doubt would be that International wanted its negotiations kept confidential for business and competitive reasons. That's understandable. And the Kitsap officials who were - negotiating? assisting? go-fering? we don't really know - involved, doubtless figured that luring the facility to the county would be a big boon to the area. And maybe it would.

But signing those agreements was a statement that the corporate interests of International would supersede the right to know of the people of the county. It was an implicit statement of who the real boss is.

Washington State Police and others are investigating whether the contracts amount to a serious violation of law on the part of the officials. It seems a good possibility. But even if no legal charges issue, Kitsap's voters now have a very clear sense of who calls the shots at the courthouse - and what they need to do if they want to regain control. 07/08/05 13:34 [comment / reprint]

Whither Risch?

The new Dan Popkey column in the Idaho Statesman does something unusual and dangerous: It makes a flat, unqualified prediction about something a politician will do. In this case, in discounting the rumor mill swirling around Boise, it says that Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch will run for governor in 2006.

And maybe he will. But this space wagers not a cent on what Risch will do.

Popkey quotes Risch several times in his column, but the language the lieutenant governor uses is - and this is not unusual for him - a little elliptical. The key quote: "You've only hit the tip of the iceberg on the rumors ... The whole thing's a result of this getting started so early. I've said all along, 'We have a plan and we're sticking to the plan.' Until then, I'm not doing interviews, and I'm not going to comment on rumors."

You can keep looking for a while for the "I'm running for governor - period - end of story" in there, but you won't find it. (If Risch told Popkey something like that, Popkey didn't use it, which suggests the words weren't spoken.)

And if the rumors are rampant, the reason isn't entirely limited to the summer political doldrums. And if the argument for Risch doing something next year other than the governor's race has gained attention, there's plenty of reason for that too.

Risch would like to be governor, no doubt, and there's little doubt that he sought and won his current office with the idea he would move up, either through election in '06 or succession before then, if Governor Dirk Kempthorne lands an outside job. Succession still could happen, but it grows ever less likely with time. If it does - if Kempthorne really does leave sometime in, oh, the next seven or eight months - then a Risch candidacy for governor would make a great deal of sense. He'd be running as an incumbent, and probably a powerful one.

Meantime, he has a problem named Butch Otter. Otter is a former lieutenant governor and now the three-term congressional from the 1st U.S. House district. Otter may not have formally announced for governor but he's done everything short of that: raising money, putting together a campaign (including, as Popkey notes, his best possible choice for campaign manager, Debbie Field), staffing an office, touring the state, building bridges. He has held events linking himself to up and coming Republicans, especially in eastern Idaho - his weakest area, and Risch's strongest. For all practical purposes, the Otter campaign has been moving solidly ahead for half a year, lining up support and exhausting the political oxygen. He still has plenty of critics in Eastern Idaho (for reasons that relate both to lifestyle and his 1978 run for governor in opposition to Blackfoot leader Allan Larsen), but he's even made some inroads there. He is very strong in the big and fast-growing Ada and Canyon County areas (where Risch did poorly in the 2002 elections), and he has a strong base up north as well. Risch's reference to the unusually early campaign start is obviously correct; it is also a relevant strategic fact.

Meanwhile, Risch has yet to kick off a campaign. Conventional wisdom in Boise is that the train has already left the station: Otter already is too far ahead to catch.

This space does not adhere to political absolutes: No one is elected until the ballots are certified. (Or sometimes, in Washington state, even then.) Is a Risch win out of reach altogether? It seems highly improbable, but maybe Risch - who is a fine political strategist, one of the best in the state without doubt - has a plan for turning it around. Could be. But day by day, that seems ever less likely.

Jim Risch is liked in some quarters and not in others, but almost everyone who knows him will agree on this: He is a pragmatist. He is no chaser after windmills. He does what he thinks he can do. He does not live in a fantasyland.

And a lot of people will also tell you this about him: He hates to lose.

So when you match the reality of the situation with pragmatism and a serious distaste for loss ... The talk about Risch not running for governor has, at least, a logical coherence to it.

Added to which, there are options. One is seeking reelection. He could stay in his office for the asking. That would likely not interest him, but it could be easily done.

Then there's the loud chatter about a Risch entry into the 1st congressional district campaign, to replace Otter there. Risch would enter as a strong contender if he ran for that seat. All kinds of tea leaves to that effect have been read in the political and journalistic community in Boise in recent weeks, various indicators suggesting that Republican Party honchos interested in avoiding a Risch-Otter face-off for governor might be steering Risch toward a congressional run. Another consideration is that the 1st CD race at present has no statewide figure in it; all the candidates are still at work trying to make themselves known around the district.

On the other hand, Risch is said to have little interest in uprooting himself from his life at Boise, and that makes perfect sense too. At 62, he'd have to start a new way of life, living half of it on airplanes, if he won a seat in Congress. And once there, he would be a freshman with no real clout, assembly of which would take quite a few years..

So what will Risch do? We're curious to find out. 07/07/05 10:51 [comment / reprint]

Longer and longer

The Oregon House has adjourned until 5 p.m. on Sunday - an unusual hour for a convening of a legislative body - in large part, House Speaker Karen Minnis said, because so little work will be ready for action until then. At least.

In the meantime, she added, budget negotiations by the Republican House with the Democratic Oregon Senate will go on. And, maybe, on.

All this is raising awful specters of the summer of '03, when the Oregon Legislature ran a record 227 days nearly to the end of summer, to August 27. (The latest previous had been August 5.) The issues this time are simpler and the sides not quite so far apart. But they do seem to be dug in, and an unusually large amount of legislation of substance still awaits action. No one even wants to contemplate the extended possibilities.

The situation also has brought forth the idea of annual sessions for the Oregon legislature, and that may be worth some additional contemplation.

The Oregon Legislature traditionally has met at the start of odd-numbered years only, with sessions running more or less through the first half of the year. "More or less" is operative here, because the sessions have gradually grown in length over time. Not until 1931 did the Oregon Legislature run longer than 50 days, but since it has grown steadily. In the 40s it adjourned in March or April, in the 50s generally in May, in the 60s in May or June. In the 70s it stretched into early July, finally extending over into August in 1993. All the hopeful talk earlier this year about a June adjournment has little basis in historical trends.

So the idea has arisen about annual sessions - and more, the idea has gained some traction. It has been opposed editorially in the last week by the Portland Oregonian and the Salem Statesman-Journal, but the Medford Mail-Tribune suggests the idea is "worth a look." But Governor Ted Kulongoski and a clutch of leading legislators of both parties in the legislature are in favor.

The experience of nearby Idaho is instructive. The Gem State has biennial sessions up to 1968, when that legislature went annual - running similar sessions each year. The system seems to have general approval, and most people around it now probably would oppose any return to biennials. The biggest reason is that annual sessions allow for annual budgeting. Asking legislators to estimate the financial picture very far ahead is asking for trouble, and the Idaho Legislature usually has come close to the mark in estimating revenue and budget needs. Ask an Idaho legislator to budget ahead for two years instead of one, through, and they'd shudder.

That is what Oregon budgeters have to do, though. Senate President Peter Courtney's main argument for annual sessions is budgetary: More precision would go into the system. What he didn't overtly suggest, but might also be true, is that the emotionalism that surrounding budgeting in Oregon might be cranked down a little if lawmakers felt they were budgeting for one year instead of two, and if lawmakers felt that, in their (House anyway) terms, they would get more than one crack at the numbers.

Idaho's example is instructive in other ways as well, because this space has long been a proponent of scaling back its sessions. Too often, ideas defeated one year are re-run, over and over, and lawmakers become worn down in resisting bad ideas. Sessions running long in election years have a frantic air about them; seldom do lawmakers do their best work on the even years. Our proposal is that in each two-year term, lawmakers should meet in one full-on session in the odd-numbered year, and one mostly budget session (with emergency items added by governor's call or a supermajority) in shorter even-year sessions.

That's not very different from the proposal in Senate Joint Resolution 9, proposed by Senator Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin. (Two Republicans, Jackie Winters of Salem and Bruce Starr of Hillsboro, were among the co-cponsors.) Its summary description says it "Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to require annual
sessions of Legislative Assembly. Provides that session in
odd-numbered year may not exceed 120 calendar days, and session
in even-numbered year may not exceed 45 calendar days. Allows
extensions by affirmative vote of two-thirds of members of each
house."

That measure passed the Senate July 1 on a 24-5 vote. House action awaits.

The editorials arguing against note correctly that the change would not shorten this year's session. But it could have some shortening effect in years to come. 07/06/05 10:24 [comment / reprint]

Independence Day

Where better to spend Independence Day, or part of it at least, than Independence, Oregon?

With the completion of its civic amphitheater, which has been given a classy classical design facing down toward the Willamette River, this small city (population about 7,500) is well set for public events of various sorts.

Best of all, perhaps, for celebrations. This July 4th the city combined a fair with its holiday fireworks, together with a music concert (a mix of patriotic and light rock) that worked agreeably. The fireworks were a good match for any produced in Portland - among the best in the region. All this in a small down atmosphere.

The one catch they'll still have to work out: Traffic and parking. Word about the event apparently got out (a spread in the Oregonian probably helped) and the city was jam packed with cars and people.

But they now have the material to work with for next year. 07/04/05 23:57 [comment / reprint]

An unhappy "right to terminate"

You don't get decisions out of the Washington Supreme Court or many other courts that sound as sad as this one: "We recognize this day is not a happy day in the ongoing story of Seattle as
a two-newspaper town." Oh well.

The court has finally weighted in on Hearst Communications v. Seattle Times in the Times' long-running attempt to bust the joint operation agreement it has with the other Seattle daily, the Post-Intelligencer - and handed the Times a major win.

The results may not come to full fruition for some years yet, but the court clearly said that the Times can use its finances over a recent three-year period to invoke a clause in the papers' contract to allow it to opt out. The details were remanded back to lower court.

In the decision's conclusion:

We genuinely hope that both the Seattle Times and the Seattle P-I will continue to serve our communities and prosper. While a happy ending to the story of Seattle as a two-newspaper town is very desirable, our duty is clear. That duty is to uphold the law and to enforce lawful agreements parties bring before us. We conclude that the Joint Operating Agreement between Hearst and the Times is subject to only one reasonable interpretation. Extrinsic evidence offered by the parties is not relevant to our inquiry. By the plain terms of the agreement, labor costs, including those occasioned by strikes, are 'agency expenses' under the terms of the contract. The Times may use those 'agency expenses' to calculate 'agency revenues' for application of the loss operations clause, which permits either party the right to terminate the agreement after three consecutive years of losses.

Hearst Communications, which owns the P-I, said it will continue the legal battle on other issues in lower court. But the question of whether the P-I continues for the long haul has abruptly become more stark.

A sad day, as the court notes, for anyone who would rather see their city have two newspaper voices rather than one. 06/30/05 09:56 [comment / reprint]

The wrong endorsement?

Word has been for a long time that the job Idaho Senator Mike Crapo would most like would be that of federal judge. He said a couple of years ago that his plans are to stay in the Senate and not seek a judicial appointment when one arose. But most likely he didn't see this one coming.

An endorsement by the other party. For the United States Supreme Court.

This one is loaded with implications.

First, some background. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist is in poor health, and his time on the court may be nearing its end. When time comes to replace him, President Bush would have the option to appoint a new chief from outside, or name a chief from among the current justices and then replace that justice with a new associate. The latter option seems more likely.

It is this appointment, primarily, that was the real subject of the dustup over the filibuster earlier this year. The filibuster remains, and would likely be used by Senate Democrats if Bush appoints a sufficiently objectionable nominee to the court. That puts some pressure on the Republicans, but some on Democrats, too - they don't want to look simply like obstructionists. If they do, the filibuster deal worked out some weeks back, among other things, could fall apart.

Evidently in an effort to get ahead the curve and demonstrate that Bush actually could name a nominee who wouldn't spark a fight, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has named four people - all Republican U.S. senators - who each have solid conservative credentials but also would be acceptable to him and the bulk of the Senate Democratic caucus. One of them is Crapo; the others are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, and Mike DeWine of Ohio. Reid said that all are smart and capable attorneys, well regarded and well qualified for the high court. (He did not mention some other Senate Republican attorneys.)

This is, of course, a suggestion to Bush from the opposition, and as such has to be considered with suspicion. Still: From Bush's standpoint, why not a Crapo? He has been as loyal to party and president as Bush could want; his conservative cred is above reproach. He is in fact a highly regarded attorney, and though he's been in partisan political office for a couple of decades, he still has more of a judicial than a partisan mien to him. He probably would be a good justice. He is liked and is centrist within the conservative Republican caucus - this would not be nominating, say, Lincoln Chaffee. And by naming him as acceptable, Reid has foreclosed the possibility of a serious Democratic challenge. This could be a Supreme Court appointment that could fit Bush ideologically but also run through without a hitch.

Nah. Too easy. 06/29/05 13:16 [comment / reprint]

Bush pro, Bush con

There's really not much surprise in this, but it should be duly noted anyway.

Survey USA has polled in the 50 states to check on support for President George W. Bush, asking whether his job performance is approved, or disapproved. In the Northwest region, for polling conducted earlier this month, it comes out this way.

In context, Idaho ranks fourth highest in support (behind Utah, Nebraska and Wyoming), Montana is fifth, and Alaska is seventh-highest. Washington ranks 35th (15th highest disapproval) and Oregon 30th.

Again, no surprises here, but it does help keep matters in context. 06/28/05 18:34 [comment / reprint]

International incident

We get accustomed to the idea that congressional races in our various states are matters of concern only within the state, certainly not in the rest of the country. And in other countries? Please.

Turns out that the candidacy of Robert Vasquez is getting as much attention in Mexico as it is in Idaho.

The Canyon County commissioner, running now for the Republican nomination the the U.S. House in the 1st district, has one major issue, that of immigration and of stopping the arrival of people from south of the border. In a June 22 Associated Press article, Vasquez was quoted as saying, "My people - as I'm often accused of turning my back on them - my people are American. I've got an American flag hanging in my office, not the Mexican chicken-and-worm or whatever it is."

Imagine the reaction in the United States if a Mexican candidate for major office had made a similar remark about the U.S. flag.

I've exchanged emails in the last few days with Jorge Antonio Sivillá Costales, a Mexican national who lives and works in Monterrey, and he is not pleased. Here's his comment:

I am looking for the right place to show my opinion and complain about the recent declarations shown in Mexican newspapers from the Republican candidate Robert Vasquez saying that he has an American Flag in his office and not the one with the chicken and the worm on it, refering like this to the Mexican flag which for his information has not a chicken but an EAGLE and not a worm but a SNAKE, he seems to be lacking of the intelligence and education to know what the flag of its neighbour country bears on it, or maybe he was trying to insult my country, in either case this person is making a big mistake. No politician should do such type of comments that instead of helping to build a better relationship between two countries, it tends to make things worse. I hope that not all American people think like this, I respect the USA just as much as I expect them to respect my country, showing respect for others should be part of the characteristics of a decent person and this man is not showing any respect for our National emblem, I hope for the good of America that people notice who is respectful enough as to show him respect and who does not deserve it by showing his lack of it.

He said that the article appeared in a daily in Monterrey which is part of a newspaper group with major papers in Mexico City and elsewhere, so the story seems to be picking up major play in Mexico.

11 months until primary day. Lots of time for lots more sound bites. 06/26/05 17:11 [comment / reprint]

Over there?

The idea, floated some months back, of a NASCAR race track in Skagit County made a good deal of surface sense at least, and maybe more than that. It was to be located not only close by a major population center but also easily accessible from that center and a couple of others (Vancouver, B.C. and Portland), planned as it was for a spot just off I-5. Issues concerning the impact on the local community were real and legitimate, but not overwhelming. If the numbers and assignment of responsibilities could be worked out, the idea could fly.

It didn't, of course, in large part because local negotiations with International Speedway Corp. broke down. The notion of a Northwest speedway probbly does, as it did, make economic sense, so you can easily understand ISC pursuing another site. One that comes to mind here would be the Centralia/Chehalis area, but that was not the spot ISC zeroed in on.

It spotlighted Kitsap County - near Bremerton.

What to say about this? Mainly, look at the maps of the area. Bremerton is awkward to get to from the Seattle area, and even from Tacoma - there's one bridge connection, and a ferry line, and can you imagine how jammed they could get? Major, massive roads would be needed to handle the crowds, and that would be only the beginning. The area's tourism infrastructure would have to be revoluntionized; it is nowhere near enough to support the facility now.

Kitsap is in the middle of trying to boost its economy; this is one of those parts of Washington the boom of the 90s left behind, and it is still struggling. But officials there will have to look at this proposal warily. And don't be surprised if, some months from now, ISC continues its search for the right location to somewhere else. 06/26/05 10:32 [comment / reprint]

Rooster

We usually don't make much note of anniversaries here, but this one had an impressive visual attached to it. Plus, it was a reminder of substantial current events.

The current event is the water situation in the Northwest: dire, though less so than it might be. The location of the event, at Lucky Peak Reservoir a few miles northeast of Boise, showed it visually: A desert landscape, and a massive dam storing vast quantities of water.

In recent years, the dam has run quietly and without much show, going about its business of generating power and diverting water to appropriate Ada-Canyon water systems. Those who have been around Boise for a few years recall something else here: A huge plume of water that would often be unleashed, localled called "the rooster tail." And at the conclusion of ceremonies today honoring the dam's 50th anniversary, the rooster tail was unleashed again, to many oohs and ahhs. It looked like this.

Yes, there's still enough water in the Northwest to do that. 06/24/05 12:42 [comment / reprint]

Embarassing

As I was buying a copy of the Boise Idaho Statesman at a Council, Idaho, supermarket yesterday, the clerk glnced down at the headline atop the page, pointed at it and said, "They must feel like morons!"

This from a small town two hours away from Boise, about events at the Ada County jail, in which a very dangerous offender - one accused of violent offenses- slipped out of jail.

You can imagine what people are saying in Boise.

There's only so much to say, actually, about the escape of Harlan Hale, whose charges include "Attempted Murder, Robbery (a charge out of Twin Falls), Eluding a Police Officer, Assault/Battery on a Police Officer (3 counts), Receiving Stolen Property, Unlawful Possession of a Weapon, Possession of a Controlled Substance." This is not, in other words, a parking ticket case that got out of hand.

Investigations are underway, but they're unlikely to illuminate much that isn't already clear. The jail facility itself was evidently secure enough, but any secure facility is no more secure than the personnel manning it. In this case, two (maybe more) officers screwed up, apparently through complacency, and Hale took advantage. Human error will happen, however much we may try to avoid it.

Is there a political issue in it? Maybe not a big one. On that front, Ada Sheriff Gary Raney seemed to get out in front of matters, outlining what had happened in a straightforward way; there was no apparent odor of coverup. Still, while escapes happen, this one was so spectacular it will not likely be forgotten soon. 06/22/05 16:41 [comment / reprint]

UPDATE: Hale was recaptured on the morning of June 27 in Wyoming.

Time and money

Falls into the category, perhaps, of "something's wrong with the system."

The latest formal twist in the sad Spokane spectacle of Mayor James West, outed as gay and accused of a number of related improprieties by the city's Spokesman Review, has to do with the attempt to recall him. That attempt is moving forward, limping a bit perhaps, after its local court hearing; a Supreme Court review will occur soon. Washington has tight restrictions on recall, requiring more than simple dislike or disagreement: In Washington, you have to provide evidence of specific wrongdoing. Those kind of restrictions are useful. Recall should be difficult; too many small communities get wrapped up in endless rounds of recalls based on nothing more than petty personal feuds. Washington's law, which would be a reasonable model for adoption in Idaho and Oregon, puts a stop to that nonsense. There, you have to have a compelling case to even get to the recall election.

But in the instance of West, the case gets ever more compelling, and the odds rise that if an election is held, West may be recalled. The latest coal on the fire was added by city officials and (naturally) the Spokesman speculatiing on why West hasn't yet resigned.

Clearly, although thepre-scandal West had been a highly effective mayor and one of the best in the city's recent history, he no longer can function that way, and as long as he stays in office, his personal troubles will dominate a city that would dearly love to put all this behind it. So why not resign?

Here's the Spokesman today: "Every month West remains in office means another $11,000 in salary. It also increases the size of his retirement checks from both Spokane and Olympia, where he was a longtime state legislator."

The paper also calculated, " If West serves out his full four-year term – as he has said he intends to – his state pension at age 65 would be about $1,600 a month, instead of the $900 a month he'd get if he steps down now. His city pension, which he's already old enough to collect, would more than triple, from roughly $275 a month to $975 a month."

And City Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers remarked, "I think he's staying because of the money."

West, through spokesman, has naturally denied that, saying that he wants to continue to lead the city and push his projects. And, as we have here a policy of avoiding mind-reading, we won't speculate on the mayor's motivation.

We will speculate, though, that this issue is likely to become an important political piece if a recall election soon materializes.

And it raises a systemic question: Should we be rewarding public employees in such situations based simply on how long they can hang on to their job? This might be an area for some policy review. 06/20/05 11:24 [comment / reprint]

Cool pics

For those interested in pictures of lightning, KATU-TV in Portland has put up a page you might want to see.

Sunday night a spectacular thumberstorm cruised over northwest Oregon, with some of the most striking skies and lightening seen around these parts in years. KATU collected a batch of viewer photos which give a good idea what the region was seeing. 06/20/05 11:02 [comment / reprint]

Civic self-esteem

For a quick take on the image issues surrounding Washington's three largest cities, you can't do better than the latest column by Peter Callaghan in the Tacoma News-Tribune (reporting from, arguably, the most troubled of the three).

Shows again that you'll often find more bitter truth in humor than in hand-wringing. Great opening bit:

"Seattle: My name is Seattle. Most people know me as the Emerald City. I’m most livable. Tacoma: I’m Tacoma. But my friends call me T-Town. Spokane: I’m Spokane. I don’t have any friends."

Worth the read. 06/19/05 10:13 [comment / reprint]

The Salem jumper

Yes, there do seem to be a few lessons to be learned from the case of Shawn Dell Reeves, aka The Salem Jumper.

If you live outside Salem, you probably didn't hear about it. But if you do live there, or were (as I was Friday afternoon) driving through, you were probably talking about nothing else.

Salem, like Portland, is bisected by the Willamette River; in contrast to Portland, which has an impressive collection of bridges spanning the river, Salem has but one tight pair, one with lanes headed to West Salem and the other headed east to downtown. On this west-bound bridge, midday Friday, Reeves tied one end of a rope around a cement barrier and the other around his neck, and indicated he was considering jumping into the river below, assuming he didn't hang himself en route. He stayed on the bridge, threatening a jump, for 15 hours until police finally grabbed him early this morning.

Police and other emergency personnel soon responded. One of their responses was to block all three lanes, all traffic, from the bridge to West Salem. han Traffic in Salem is usually tightly calibrated; during busier hours a lot of vehicles run through the downtown area, many crossing the bridge, but ordinarily it works well - barely. The bridge closure threw downtown into gridlock, which grew into waves of traffic congestion stretching halfway across town. I was caught in the middle of it, making about two miles in an hour, with no explanation - until you were about to reach the bridge - that it was closed. The nearest river crossing options were about 15 miles away Independence to the south (that road was promptly clogged) and the Wheatland ferry (jammed up much worse) to the north.

The Salem paper, the Statesman-Journal, opened a reader forum on the jumper, and it was swiftly filled with reaction. There was some reaction to the effect of, what's a little inconvenience when a man's life was at stake?

But this was a minority view. Most turned the issue around: What right had this guy to disrupt the lives of thousands of people, costing them time and money? It's not a consideration to be dismissed quickly, simply because mental problems seemed to be a factor.

After all, time, covenience and money were not the only considerations. Consider this response to the Statesman-Journal forum: "My grandfather was stuck in the traffic for 5 1/2 hours going into West Salem along with the rest of you. He is on oxygen full-time and his supply ran out a few hours into the incident. Luckily he was close to a medical supply store were he was able to purchase another tank. But just a few hours later, he ran out yet again. I realize that many of you were inconvienced by this guy. I also understand that there is a nessecary level of response by the police involved in with this type of situation. This is an example of how this man's lack of respect for his life, and the police allowing that lack of respect to become a circus, could have cost my grandfather his life."

Considerations: More thought is needed for handling "situations" on the bridges (not just jumpers, but the wide array of other circumstances that may arise); the emergency crews weren't thinking this one all the way through. And maybe Salem needs another bridge, a thought given consideration discussion on Friday. 06/17/05 17:57 [comment / reprint]

The blindside annex

The dispute over annexation by the city of Beaverton of properties nearby has been dominated by issues of scope and of partculars. But there is an issue of process that should be considered more widely as well.

Beaverton, now a city of about 80,000 on the west side of Portland, has around it a large number of people and businesses living in unincorporated areas, many of whom take advantage of city services. (In some cases, they do pay for them.) The city has contemplated a growth plan stretching out over two decades, which at the end would result in a city of more than a quarter-million people, second-largest in Oregon. Many of these people don't want to join up, which has led to some conflict.

Among the reluctant urbanites are the central operations of Nike, Oregon's largest employer; it would be a big taxpayer in the larger Beaverton. It would rather not be.

Legislation passing through the Oregon Legislature, and approved now by the House, has been read in considerable part at reflecting these pressures, and notably lobbying pressure from Nike. That's no doubt a factor here. But there is more to the story.

The legislation (Senate Bill 887) was co-carried in the House by Representative Mitch Greenlick, Democrat whose mostly-Portland district includes some of the affected area, but also by Republican Representative Bill Garrard of Klamath Falls: The bill may have been locally-targeted, but this was an indicator the concern was statewide.

At the floor debate on the measure Greenlick used a map showing one of the most specific concerns the bill was intended to address: Annexation by street.

Oregon allows about a dozen ways for cities to annex territory. Most of the time, it's done by election: If a city wants to annex a neighboring tract, the city and the people in the tract each vote on whether they want to be annexed; if both do, the annexation is done. But a city encountering resisting has another - a rather eerie - option, which lies in its ability to unilaterally annex, without local permission, any unincorporated area that's an "island" within the city. Beaverton has used that power in a shrewd/underhanded way. The city can - and thisone has - unilaterally annexed a roadway, and then another roadway, and then another, spinning a web around the perimeter of a larger, populated, tract of land. Once the perimeter is drawn the land within becomes an "island" and the city can annex it without asking permission.

That approach doesn't seem to be well understood around the region, where SB 887 has been regarded as in essence a Nike protection bill. Again, that corporate interest probably is a factor. But so is a city that sees a pettern for the future in the spinning of clever webs rather than forthright growth and development. 06/17/05 17:03 [comment / reprint]

Senate popularity

How popular is your Northwest U.S. senator? Thanks to Survey USA, got your data right here.

The most popular in the region continue to be two re-elected overwhelmingly last year: Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon.

None look to be in horrible shape.

Some minor trend lines here, though. Note that in Idaho, Republicans Craig and Crapo have moldly bolstered their standing, while in Oregon Smith has diminished a bit. And the Democrats in Washington and Oregon have all improved their standing (most notably targered Maria Cantwell).

Some evidence for the Reds getting redder and Blues getting bluer. 06/13/05 17:57 [comment / reprint]

The Vasquez entry

The feel of the 2006 race for the Idaho 1st congressional district just changed with the announced entry of Canyon County Commissioner Robert Vasquez. In a race filled already with decidedly distinct people, Vasquez is the most distinctive of all.

He is the Hispanic candidate who runs (and has spoken for a long time) on an anti-immigrant and almost anti-Hispanic platform. He has won election in Canyon County, one of the places in the state with a strong Hispanic population. And border issues - on which his he has been so strongly-worded that he has accused Idaho Senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo of being traitors - are probably quite potent with the Republican primary voting population. He is likely to be the most controversial candidate in the field.

So what are Vasquez' chances?

He's a wild card, drawing to some extent (probably) from the right. But he lacks a real base, and there may be some concern about him. That was expressed well by a reader who suggested "He is seen as someone who eats his young [of course, in a political, not literal sense] and that tends to make 'loyalists' look over their shoulder at him with rather pensive expressions." There's something about the idea of "turning on your own" that's disquieting even if the side he's turning to is yours. Initial take: He's going to have a tough road.

Maybe all the more so if what we've started to hear comes to fruition: There may be another major player, not to date visible, in this race before long.

The 1st District page has been updated, so check it out for the broader picture. 06/13/05 11:15 [comment / reprint]

- Randy Stapilus