I should preface this by saying that I don't feel that strongly about gay marriage. But I do feel strongly in favor of democracy and allowing votes to stand and I don't understand the basic framework of the gay marriage legal debate as it was argued in Perry v. Schwarzenegger before Judge Vaughn Walker. Well, I understand it -- I am a lawyer -- but I don't understand why the pro-prop 8 people bought into the legal framework.
As I see it, the issue should not be whether marriage should be considered a fundamental right or whether states have a rational basis to infringe that right. The case should never even reach that issue. The first issue for me is whether a right is being infringed at all. I don't see how gay people have a different right than straight people. Rights are held by individuals and as far as I can tell everyone has the same right to marry which is now and always has been severely restricted. Every unmarried person over 17 years of age has the right to enter into a legal state of matrimony with another person if that person is:
- Human
- Of the opposite sex
- Unmarried
- Over 17
- Not a close relative
- Not taking part in a sham marriage for immigration purposes
- Present for a ceremony
- Medically compatible and
- Willing to marry them
Everyone has the same right, gay or straight. Love has nothing to do with it legally. No one has ever had the right to "marry whomever they love." Moreover, no one asks whether you are gay when you get married. All gay people have the right described above.
So if everyone has the same right how is it that gay people are being discriminated against because they're gay? How are they being discriminated against at all?
If people want to create a new right to marry people of the same sex, that could be done in the legislature which is the branch of government designed to make the tough ethical calls. But that has not been done.
So what I don't understand is why the defense team at trial accepted the framework of the plaintiffs and argued about whether there was or was not a rational basis for infringing on the rights of gays. Why even concede that any right has been infringed?
Putting that aside and addressing the reasoning the court did conduct, one thing seems quite clear which is that society has a "rational basis" for constructing marriage the way it has. The reason society has marriage and preserves it for people of the opposite sex is to celebrate the kind of relationship that society has traditionally been built on -- an often tough relationship that is worth celebrating. It's done a lot for us, so we want to celebrate it. That is its rational basis just as the rational basis of Columbus Day is to celebrate the achievements of Columbus, the celebration of which is neither irrational nor intended to discriminate against people who prefer Ponce de Leon.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Should we be trading with China?
I just got back from a trip to China. I already love Hong Kong, and I wanted to get a first hand look at mainland China as it emerges as a major player on the world economic stage. The business press often presents an alluring view of China. I had read it all and was eager to learn more.
When I got to my hotel room in Shanghai I fired up the laptop to visit Facebook and Twitter and let everyone know I was here. Facebook and Twitter did not load. I tried to Google and was redirected to Google Hong Kong. I realized that the government was watching, and manipulating, the information I was able to receive in my hotel room. That was my first reminder that China's form of government has a substantial dark side. In general, China in person proved to be much less exciting and much more depressing than I had hoped. I have been thinking a great deal about our relations with China since then and have come to some conclusions below.
Over the past twenty years, the consensus view was that we should trade with oppressive states such as China because trade would help them down the path toward economic and political freedom. In the end, the political systems of all countries (more or less), would come to resemble western free market democracies and we would achieve a prosperous global peace. Richard Pipes postulated a direct connection between economic freedom and political freedom in Property and Freedom. Francis Fukuyama foretold global progress toward a universal acceptance of capitalist liberal democracy in The End of History and the Last Man. We enthusiastically embraced trade with China on these theories.
Our trade deficit with China has ballooned from $2 billion in 1989 to $250 billion in 2009. In that space of time, China rose to become the second largest national economy in the world. For perspective, our deficit with Japan was $45 billion in 2009 and was ~$88 billion pre-recession (it has been above $50 billion per year for 20 years). Our deficit with South Korea was $20 billion in 2009. (Trade data here.) So we are borrowing $250 billion per year to support the Chinese economy. China has been almost humorously unsubtle in devising the unfair and self-interested policies that govern foreign businesses in China.
We have accepted trade deficits with partners to help them grow. We wanted Japan to thrive after World War II so we supported it. We wanted South Korea to be a shining example in Asia of the virtues of capitalist liberal democracy so we have accepted trade deficits with them. We do this from time to time to effect change in the world. In the cases of Japan and South Korea, their economies were small enough that the US economy could tolerate a deficit with them without suffering undue stress.
Economists have varied opinions about the impact of trade deficits, but it cannot be denied that in the broad sweep of history every country with substantial trade surpluses (Japan, Korea, Germany, the United States before 1970) has gotten stronger and more prosperous while countries with substantial deficits have not. So perhaps despite theoretical debate we can say that, for practical purposes, the proof is in the pudding.
The size of our trade deficit with China is unprecedented. Because it is unprecedented, its effects are hard to predict. Economists and economic observers offer conflicting assessments of our deficit with China and our trade deficit in general. Some say that trade deficits drive growth. Almost all agree that trade deficits create currency insecurity. Some, including Andy Grove, say that deficits, by exporting jobs that would once have been held by America’s middle class, change America’s basic class structure, enriching the elite and undermining the middle class (here), and will ultimately stifle America’s ability to continue to innovate (here). There is a good overview by Tim Duy here of these lines of reasoning. These are not AFL-CIO representatives who are self-interestedly seeking wage protection for their union members. These are intelligent, disinterested American observers and they have become “free trade heretics.”
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heretics are right: working within China’s mercantilist trade scheme – which requires not only a massive flow of capital to them but also a massive flow of technical know-how to them -- may be a horrible strategic error with significant negative implications for our basic social structure in the United States as well as on our ultimate ability to remain globally competitive. The theories that led us to trade with China in the first place were, it appears, sadly mistaken. The clash of civilizations theory of Samuel Huntington appears, in the end, to have been closer to the mark. Instead of capitalism influencing nations, nations appear to have inherent cultural predilections that do not change, whether they are heavily engaged with international business or not. International business can make them a wealthier version of whatever they were before, but it does not appear to change them otherwise. Certainly it does not appear to be changing China with respect to political freedoms.
At the very least, we can conclude that open trade (one way open trade) with China is economically risky.
In addition to the economic issues though, there is an ethical issue here. China controls the information available to and the basic freedoms of its workers, it oppresses its workers and by trading with China we help the governing regime do that. The government controls its currency, preventing currency markets from correcting trade imbalances. The average new college graduate in China makes 2,000 yuan per month. That’s about $300. Factory workers make less than $200 per month. These people are very poor and, despite some limited signs that they are starting to speak out and strike for higher wages (but primarily against foreign companies), they have very limited political freedom. At the same time, there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai. The Chinese elite are getting rich. The Chinese elite make their millions off the sweat of the Chinese people. And then they control what those people think, what they say, what they can see and what they make. By refusing to increase the value of the Yuan, China keeps its workers’ wages low (measured on an international scale), keeping the elite in business.
When does labor become slave labor? If we do not believe that trading with a country tends to make that country more free, when is a country so oppressive that we should not trade with them? Especially when that trade makes the regime more secure and creates risks for our economy? Should we trade with countries that keep millions of workers in conditions of poverty, oppression and ignorance? How oppressive does a regime have to be for trade to be ethically wrong and politically counter-productive? What we have in China is a massive population enslaved by an elite that keeps them in ignorance and keeps their wages low. What should we do now that Plan A hasn’t worked?
I believe we need to explore putting China on a trade balance program where we adopt a trading scheme designed explicitly to yield a balanced trade relationship that does not allow uncompensated technology transfer from the US to China. Our goal should be to achieve a balanced trade relationship within 5 years.
My second choice would be to declare defeat in our quest to influence China and withdraw from China trade altogether. It would be an economic shock but we were affluent before trading with China. We can be affluent again without someone sucking all of our capital and technology out of our country.
When we look back on this period economically, strategically and ethically I believe we will conclude we should have acted sooner.
When I got to my hotel room in Shanghai I fired up the laptop to visit Facebook and Twitter and let everyone know I was here. Facebook and Twitter did not load. I tried to Google and was redirected to Google Hong Kong. I realized that the government was watching, and manipulating, the information I was able to receive in my hotel room. That was my first reminder that China's form of government has a substantial dark side. In general, China in person proved to be much less exciting and much more depressing than I had hoped. I have been thinking a great deal about our relations with China since then and have come to some conclusions below.
Over the past twenty years, the consensus view was that we should trade with oppressive states such as China because trade would help them down the path toward economic and political freedom. In the end, the political systems of all countries (more or less), would come to resemble western free market democracies and we would achieve a prosperous global peace. Richard Pipes postulated a direct connection between economic freedom and political freedom in Property and Freedom. Francis Fukuyama foretold global progress toward a universal acceptance of capitalist liberal democracy in The End of History and the Last Man. We enthusiastically embraced trade with China on these theories.
Our trade deficit with China has ballooned from $2 billion in 1989 to $250 billion in 2009. In that space of time, China rose to become the second largest national economy in the world. For perspective, our deficit with Japan was $45 billion in 2009 and was ~$88 billion pre-recession (it has been above $50 billion per year for 20 years). Our deficit with South Korea was $20 billion in 2009. (Trade data here.) So we are borrowing $250 billion per year to support the Chinese economy. China has been almost humorously unsubtle in devising the unfair and self-interested policies that govern foreign businesses in China.
We have accepted trade deficits with partners to help them grow. We wanted Japan to thrive after World War II so we supported it. We wanted South Korea to be a shining example in Asia of the virtues of capitalist liberal democracy so we have accepted trade deficits with them. We do this from time to time to effect change in the world. In the cases of Japan and South Korea, their economies were small enough that the US economy could tolerate a deficit with them without suffering undue stress.
Economists have varied opinions about the impact of trade deficits, but it cannot be denied that in the broad sweep of history every country with substantial trade surpluses (Japan, Korea, Germany, the United States before 1970) has gotten stronger and more prosperous while countries with substantial deficits have not. So perhaps despite theoretical debate we can say that, for practical purposes, the proof is in the pudding.
The size of our trade deficit with China is unprecedented. Because it is unprecedented, its effects are hard to predict. Economists and economic observers offer conflicting assessments of our deficit with China and our trade deficit in general. Some say that trade deficits drive growth. Almost all agree that trade deficits create currency insecurity. Some, including Andy Grove, say that deficits, by exporting jobs that would once have been held by America’s middle class, change America’s basic class structure, enriching the elite and undermining the middle class (here), and will ultimately stifle America’s ability to continue to innovate (here). There is a good overview by Tim Duy here of these lines of reasoning. These are not AFL-CIO representatives who are self-interestedly seeking wage protection for their union members. These are intelligent, disinterested American observers and they have become “free trade heretics.”
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heretics are right: working within China’s mercantilist trade scheme – which requires not only a massive flow of capital to them but also a massive flow of technical know-how to them -- may be a horrible strategic error with significant negative implications for our basic social structure in the United States as well as on our ultimate ability to remain globally competitive. The theories that led us to trade with China in the first place were, it appears, sadly mistaken. The clash of civilizations theory of Samuel Huntington appears, in the end, to have been closer to the mark. Instead of capitalism influencing nations, nations appear to have inherent cultural predilections that do not change, whether they are heavily engaged with international business or not. International business can make them a wealthier version of whatever they were before, but it does not appear to change them otherwise. Certainly it does not appear to be changing China with respect to political freedoms.
At the very least, we can conclude that open trade (one way open trade) with China is economically risky.
In addition to the economic issues though, there is an ethical issue here. China controls the information available to and the basic freedoms of its workers, it oppresses its workers and by trading with China we help the governing regime do that. The government controls its currency, preventing currency markets from correcting trade imbalances. The average new college graduate in China makes 2,000 yuan per month. That’s about $300. Factory workers make less than $200 per month. These people are very poor and, despite some limited signs that they are starting to speak out and strike for higher wages (but primarily against foreign companies), they have very limited political freedom. At the same time, there is a Ferrari dealership in Shanghai. The Chinese elite are getting rich. The Chinese elite make their millions off the sweat of the Chinese people. And then they control what those people think, what they say, what they can see and what they make. By refusing to increase the value of the Yuan, China keeps its workers’ wages low (measured on an international scale), keeping the elite in business.
When does labor become slave labor? If we do not believe that trading with a country tends to make that country more free, when is a country so oppressive that we should not trade with them? Especially when that trade makes the regime more secure and creates risks for our economy? Should we trade with countries that keep millions of workers in conditions of poverty, oppression and ignorance? How oppressive does a regime have to be for trade to be ethically wrong and politically counter-productive? What we have in China is a massive population enslaved by an elite that keeps them in ignorance and keeps their wages low. What should we do now that Plan A hasn’t worked?
I believe we need to explore putting China on a trade balance program where we adopt a trading scheme designed explicitly to yield a balanced trade relationship that does not allow uncompensated technology transfer from the US to China. Our goal should be to achieve a balanced trade relationship within 5 years.
My second choice would be to declare defeat in our quest to influence China and withdraw from China trade altogether. It would be an economic shock but we were affluent before trading with China. We can be affluent again without someone sucking all of our capital and technology out of our country.
When we look back on this period economically, strategically and ethically I believe we will conclude we should have acted sooner.
Why You Don't Hear Much about the Shanghai World Expo
Why you don’t hear much about the Shanghai World Expo
I recently spent some time in China and went to the Shanghai World Expo. Before I went to the Expo, I had wondered why I hadn’t heard more about it in the Western travel press. It’s supposed to be a world expo, right? Surely there was something remarkable about it?
Well, the reason you don’t hear much about it is that it’s an awful experience and perhaps also because it suggests some uncomfortable truths about the government of China that many people would like to sweep under the rug. Not only is the experience awful but the very concept of it is awful. So my advice is: don’t go.
Here’s why the experience is awful. It is, as you know, in Shanghai, on the East side of the Huangpo. So at this time of year it’s quite balmy. The new subway doesn’t conveniently connect to the expo. The closest you can get by cab is maybe three quarters of a mile from the expo itself. So you trudge through the heat, buy your tickets and finally get to the area where the pavilions are. The pavilions are large buildings that each country has set up. The general idea is that you go in the buildings and see whatever it is each country wants you to see. We got in line for the Australian pavilion. I had heard something good about it. It was a long line.
So this is the main problem: the lines are absurdly long and the Chinese are not good at lines. 99.999% of the visitors to the Expo are mainland Chinese. Some cultures are queuing cultures (US, UK, Canada, Japan) and some are not (Mexico, Italy, apparently China). So you have thousands of sweaty people in a long line trying to somehow get past you or get a two foot edge so they can get into the pavilion 30 seconds before you. When the line is over an hour long, that gets extremely tiresome.
Then you get inside and find the second problem. Inside, there is another long line that, in the case of Australia, leads up to a theater where you see a movie on a rotating screen. The movie is about how Australia is a nearby island that is a nice place whose people care about the environment and want to be good friends with China. It’s about 5 minutes long and, yes, is as insubstantial as it sounds. So the second problem is that you have waited all this time for nothing. Unlike expos in centuries past, where people have demonstrated new technology and products, this is apparently one where people share fatuous movies about how much they like China.
When you’re done with the movie, you go to the souvenir stand where they have stuffed koala bears. That’s probably the best part.
So, who’s up for the Saudi Arabia pavilion? Uhmmm…how about nobody. We realized after Australia that you could go into the gift shops without waiting in line so we just went to a few gift shops.
OK so the Expo is not a great experience for Western tourists. What of it?
Here’s the ethical problem with the Expo. The audience for the expo are the Chinese people. The Expo is not about the world coming together to share ideas, it is about the Communist Party of China, abetted by the nations of the world, making a statement to the Chinese people. Look at this in context: the Chinese people only get the information that the Communist Party wants them to get. You can’t get Facebook in China. You can’t get Twitter in China. Certain Amazon.com detail pages are blocked in China (like this one). They imprison people who speak out against the government. The goal of the Communist Party (which is no longer “communist” in any economic sense and should really be called the Chinese Fascist Party), is to stay in power. They want to avoid another Tiananmen Square incident and they want to avoid getting kicked out like their cousins the Communist Party of Russia. So they also manage a year round propaganda effort communicating the idea to the Chinese people that the Party is taking the country to new heights. The Expo is part of that effort.
This may be an elaborate metaphor, but imagine a villain who falsely imprisons some innocent people. At first a few try to escape, but they are killed. The remaining innocent people hope that the sheriff will find out about this and save them. One day the villain has the sheriff over to tour his house and have dinner, just to show the prisoners that everyone who might save them is friends with the villain, and they might as well get on board. (In the movie version, one of the prisoners would slip the sheriff a note as he leaves the dinner – “HELP US!”)
I am not saying that most people in China consciously hate the regime there. Like the people of North Korea, they are to a large extent brainwashed. They are not a free people, and they do not have access to information the government does not provide. So they might think they love the regime or if they have complaints they might not voice them. There is no way to know what they think, or what they would think given information and the freedom to speak. They are prisoners of a ruling junta which is sad. The junta has done some things that have helped the Chinese people, but still the people are prisoners.
Should we be party to that? Should we be party to the manipulation of the Chinese people? Should we, as the sheriff, tour the villain’s house and smile, showing the prisoners that everyone in the world, including the world’s flagship for freedom, supports the villain? The Expo is a way to pander to the Communist Party of China by helping it manipulate the Chinese people. In my view, we should not be a part of it.
I recently spent some time in China and went to the Shanghai World Expo. Before I went to the Expo, I had wondered why I hadn’t heard more about it in the Western travel press. It’s supposed to be a world expo, right? Surely there was something remarkable about it?
Well, the reason you don’t hear much about it is that it’s an awful experience and perhaps also because it suggests some uncomfortable truths about the government of China that many people would like to sweep under the rug. Not only is the experience awful but the very concept of it is awful. So my advice is: don’t go.
Here’s why the experience is awful. It is, as you know, in Shanghai, on the East side of the Huangpo. So at this time of year it’s quite balmy. The new subway doesn’t conveniently connect to the expo. The closest you can get by cab is maybe three quarters of a mile from the expo itself. So you trudge through the heat, buy your tickets and finally get to the area where the pavilions are. The pavilions are large buildings that each country has set up. The general idea is that you go in the buildings and see whatever it is each country wants you to see. We got in line for the Australian pavilion. I had heard something good about it. It was a long line.
So this is the main problem: the lines are absurdly long and the Chinese are not good at lines. 99.999% of the visitors to the Expo are mainland Chinese. Some cultures are queuing cultures (US, UK, Canada, Japan) and some are not (Mexico, Italy, apparently China). So you have thousands of sweaty people in a long line trying to somehow get past you or get a two foot edge so they can get into the pavilion 30 seconds before you. When the line is over an hour long, that gets extremely tiresome.
Then you get inside and find the second problem. Inside, there is another long line that, in the case of Australia, leads up to a theater where you see a movie on a rotating screen. The movie is about how Australia is a nearby island that is a nice place whose people care about the environment and want to be good friends with China. It’s about 5 minutes long and, yes, is as insubstantial as it sounds. So the second problem is that you have waited all this time for nothing. Unlike expos in centuries past, where people have demonstrated new technology and products, this is apparently one where people share fatuous movies about how much they like China.
When you’re done with the movie, you go to the souvenir stand where they have stuffed koala bears. That’s probably the best part.
So, who’s up for the Saudi Arabia pavilion? Uhmmm…how about nobody. We realized after Australia that you could go into the gift shops without waiting in line so we just went to a few gift shops.
OK so the Expo is not a great experience for Western tourists. What of it?
Here’s the ethical problem with the Expo. The audience for the expo are the Chinese people. The Expo is not about the world coming together to share ideas, it is about the Communist Party of China, abetted by the nations of the world, making a statement to the Chinese people. Look at this in context: the Chinese people only get the information that the Communist Party wants them to get. You can’t get Facebook in China. You can’t get Twitter in China. Certain Amazon.com detail pages are blocked in China (like this one). They imprison people who speak out against the government. The goal of the Communist Party (which is no longer “communist” in any economic sense and should really be called the Chinese Fascist Party), is to stay in power. They want to avoid another Tiananmen Square incident and they want to avoid getting kicked out like their cousins the Communist Party of Russia. So they also manage a year round propaganda effort communicating the idea to the Chinese people that the Party is taking the country to new heights. The Expo is part of that effort.
This may be an elaborate metaphor, but imagine a villain who falsely imprisons some innocent people. At first a few try to escape, but they are killed. The remaining innocent people hope that the sheriff will find out about this and save them. One day the villain has the sheriff over to tour his house and have dinner, just to show the prisoners that everyone who might save them is friends with the villain, and they might as well get on board. (In the movie version, one of the prisoners would slip the sheriff a note as he leaves the dinner – “HELP US!”)
I am not saying that most people in China consciously hate the regime there. Like the people of North Korea, they are to a large extent brainwashed. They are not a free people, and they do not have access to information the government does not provide. So they might think they love the regime or if they have complaints they might not voice them. There is no way to know what they think, or what they would think given information and the freedom to speak. They are prisoners of a ruling junta which is sad. The junta has done some things that have helped the Chinese people, but still the people are prisoners.
Should we be party to that? Should we be party to the manipulation of the Chinese people? Should we, as the sheriff, tour the villain’s house and smile, showing the prisoners that everyone in the world, including the world’s flagship for freedom, supports the villain? The Expo is a way to pander to the Communist Party of China by helping it manipulate the Chinese people. In my view, we should not be a part of it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Convention Impressions II: What and Who Can Win in Washington State in 2010
At the recent convention, candidates and speakers broke into three groups -- unity people (Sam Reed, Doc Hastings), jobs people (Rossi, Romney) and rights people (Malkin, Didier). What issues will work in Washington in 2010?
We all like jobs and we all like rights. I'd like to order a jobs and rights sandwich. But it's worth thinking about what sort of rhetoric is likely to lead the party out of the cold electoral penalty box in which it resides.
Washington State
One fact worth noting up front: if we get the votes of 100% of the Republicans in the State of Washington, and no one else, then we get our heads handed to us on a platter. And that's a lot worse than winning. In this respect, our highly educated blue state is most similar to California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
In light of that, it is also worth learning from the fact that Scott Brown, who recently won the kind of victory we want here in the Senate, was a pretty middle of the road conservative. He was not, for example, adamantly pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, he was practical, he endorsed conservative values. But he did not campaign with red-faced speeches about "reversing the slide to tyranny." He was not an angry candidate. Chris Christie, who beat Corzine in New Jersey by four points to win in that Democratic state, also did not run as pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, otherwise pretty middle of the road and appealed to centrist voters who wanted to get the budget under control. Carly Fiorina beat Chuck Devore in her California primary with a middle of the road campaign that was long on fiscal issues and pro-business.
Now, I support Rubio over Christ (not Jesus, but Charlie). I am a Reagan conservative. And, like Reagan, I like to win. Here's my analysis from the point of view of succeeding with the Washington electorate as a whole (and remember firing up 1,000 die hard Republican delegates is not similar to firing up the electorate as a whole).
Bad and Good Issues in Washington
Bad issues and tendencies --
1. True anger is unpopular. Angry candidates always, always lose. Be positive. It can work to be offended or to get steely or to get your back up, but if you are a political candidate and you come off as white knuckle angry, you're going to be making speeches to your family in the kitchen for the next couple of years and not on C-SPAN. Americans tend to elect people who appear to be in control of themselves and who have a positive view of fellow Americans and our shared future. They don't elect people who grip the podium and yell "when I get to DC, there's going to be HELL TO PAY!!!"
2. As an issue in blue states, Abortion is a vote loser. Sorry but it's true. Neither Scott Brown nor Chris Christie ran pro-life campaigns. As a practical matter, Roe v. Wade is just not going to be overturned. Let's not sacrifice our whole national future for this will o' the wisp. The thing about dying on your political sword is that at the end of it, you're dead. If you want to run like Jim DeMint or Sam Brownback, you are going to have to move to South Carolina or Kansas.
3. Hyperbole is bad. If you say "we're here in defiance of tyranny" the average voter doesn't know what you are talking about. This is simply not China, it's not the Soviet Union and no one in the middle 80% of the electorate thinks it is. So if you say it is then you come off as crazy or as a manipulator. Candidates can and should argue for liberty and criticize Democrats for paying insufficient attention to liberty and for being utilitarians, but keep it realistic. Point out specifically where liberty is being violated, and do so in a realistic way. Oh and by the way, the word "defiance" sounds a lot like the word "defence" if you speak quickly (if you have a tendency to speed up in your delivery when making speeches), consider another word. Or better yet, skip it entirely and go for one of the winner issues (below).
4. Small point but something to watch out for -- it appears to be popular to discuss how you or your parents achieved financial success. This can cut both ways in a stump speech. What it can sound like is that you have made your bundle and now you want to keep it, and that is why you want low taxes. That is, it can appear that you are opposed to high taxes for selfish reasons. The better approach is to favor low taxes because they create opportunity and they create jobs. Like, for other people! The most successful wealthy candidates have been Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.).
5. Fringe issues are losers. Don't talk about auditing the Federal Reserve. You sound like you want to go back to the days of Andrew Jackson. And no one wants to go there with you or really knows what you're talking about.
Good issues and tendencies --
1. The economy -- jobs, low taxes, bailouts and health care -- is a great issue. This is a strong point for GOP candidates, as usual. The Dems will say they are just trying to clean up Bush's mess but I think that's wearing thin. However, I would warn that Bush is not totally forgotten and many candidates are leaving open a hole in their argument by following the traditional playbook. They are saying they want lower taxes and a lower deficit but they aren't saying how they want to cut spending. Reagan was able to get away with that by saying he was going to cut waste. But after Reagan, Bush and Bush II all dramatically increased deficits, I think the electorate has caught on here and...it certainly blew up in the face of John McCain. His tax-cutting rhetoric simply didn't sell to a public made skeptical by the Bush formula of tax cuts and huge deficits. GOP candidates have to start owning up to what spending they want to cut if they want to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit." Mark Ryan has some good thoughts here. Also, candidates who speak against bank bailouts should be prepared to say whether they would have allowed the banks to go under. Still, this is a good issue.
2. This year, candidates should hammer corrupt public sector unions and their connections to Democrat politicians, including the card check issue. In general, there appears to be a growing recognition that the benefits enjoyed by state employees are out of whack, and that the system of having unions elect politicians who then make deals with the unions simply does not work. I personally think that SEIU and ACORN overstepped and that the public is starting to really resent them. I would campaign against SEIU all day long.
3. Very closely related issue: School choice and merit pay for teachers could work well. Teachers are certainly tarred by the government union brush now.
4. Homeland Security should be strong for GOPers this year. Obama and his Antiterroist chief John Brennan are weak on this issue. They insist on pretending, for PC reasons, that Islam has nothing to do with it. They will never mention Islam even in the Hassan case. It's insane and the public knows it's insane (see a good run down of the issue by Joe Lieberman here). We have to recognize that Islam is at the heart of the global terrorism problem today, even as we remain open and fair to moderate Muslims.
Wildcard issues --
1. Immigration. I think we need to get tough on this, but it can be a difficult issue depending on the district. Anyway, no one spent a lot of time on this.
CANDIDATES
SENATE
CLINT DIDIER had a strong personal appeal. He is just a charismatic guy. And he certainly seems like he's giving it to you straight from the heart. However, he is deeply embracing Bad traits 1 (anger) and 3 (hyperbole). If anyone could scare Washington into re-electing Patty Murray, it would be Clint Didier. Not to mention the fact that, for better or worse, being from East of the Cascades is a real weakness in a state wide race. My hope is that Clint can mature his rhetoric a bit and play an important role in state or national politics one day because he is very likable, like a Reagan. But for now this is one of the angriest guys I've ever seen. I thought he was going to burst like Bruce Banner turning into the Incredible Hulk. That's fun, but it doesn't win political races, certainly not in Washington. Against Patty Murray I would say he is a twelve point loser.
PAUL AKERS doesn't fit into the above rubric very well because he spends 60% of his speech talking about lean manufacturing. I'm sorry, are we electing a VP of Operations here? It's bizarre he's still in the race. Drop out Paul. You're not a natural politician. Try to get appointed to something.
DINO ROSSI came off well and had a lot of fans in the audience. A reporter at the Seattle Times said he thought most people supported Didier. I didn't see that. I thought the majority supported Rossi. But it was probably within ten points. Dino talked about the economy, earning good points for going to Good issue #1. Unfortunately, he had to spend some time talking to the audience about why he didn't get into the race earlier. I would drop that part of the speech. Maybe he didnt' get in earlier because the race is not until November. Why bother? Anyway, Dino was effective on the economy and healthcare and communicated a passion for running for Senate. He effectively went after Patty Murray for being weak on the budget and for indulging in too many earmarks. I think if he goes against Patty Murray, he will win by at least 4 points. I expect Dino will win the nomination but Clint will run Dino down a bit before he does.
House of Representatives --
I'm not going to cover every race, but I will comment on the 3rd because it seems most interesting. There the major candidates appear to be Jamie Herrera, David Castillo and David Hedrick. Herrera had a lot of support around the convention (or a lot of stickers anyway), and she's attractive. I take it she is the frontrunner. However, In this blogger's view she didn't deliver a strong performance. Her delivery seemed young as if she was a candidate for student body president. Her policies seemed pretty mainstream but with a tinge of Bad trait #3 (hyperbole) when she talks about our nation being on the precipice (I believe it was that our "freedoms are imperiled" but she said it a few different ways). Finally, the whole thing just seemed a bit canned. Some candidates come off as having a great deal of intellectual depth that informs their speeches. She does not. She sounds like someone you would hire into a very junior position. Not congress. I'll tell you, those arguments sounded a lot more sincere coming from Clint Didier. I thought he was going to kill the next person who taxed him.
David Castillo came off fairly well but no slam dunk. Scored some solid points on economics, then veered off to tell us about how he made money (risky point, see Bad #4) and a bunch of details about his sympathetic family life (that stuff never works well on me, I always find it manipulative). He then talked about his government experience assuming we had heard of him and knew what it was. He should work on that. But he came off as passionate without being angry and he hit the economics points (Good #1). So he did pretty well.
Davdi Hedrick was just a wild card libertarian. He violated Bad rules #3 (hyperbole) and 5 (fringe) by focusing on the Federal Reserve. That said, he was funny, seemed smart and seemed to believe in what he was saying. He was not angry. He said "I have heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Good one. That may have been the best line not uttered by Mitt Romney. He was a very engaging and passionate speaker. I think he has a future even though I suspect Castillo will win this primary in a squeaker.
Other Quick Impressions --
James Watkins -- Watkins came off as a very promising newcomer. Level headed but passionate, strong on Good issues and making an efective case for residents of the 1st district. Inslee has taken 66%+ the last few elections, so it will be tough but maybe this is the year.
Doc Hastings -- Very good. I had never heard him speak but he was a unity speaker. He compared 2010 favorably to 1994 for the Republicans. He was very specific with detailed facts. That was much more compelling than some of the high level speeches most people were giving. If you bring some statistics and details to a speech it will be much more compelling. Doc Hastings knows that and it showed.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers -- Her speech seemed very polished and strong. Glad we have her.
Doug Cloud in the 9th came off as angry. He used too many violent images in his speech (grabbing taxes by the back of their heads and smashing their faces into concrete? Holy cow...).
I wish all the candidates success and hope the party enjoys another 1994!
We all like jobs and we all like rights. I'd like to order a jobs and rights sandwich. But it's worth thinking about what sort of rhetoric is likely to lead the party out of the cold electoral penalty box in which it resides.
Washington State
One fact worth noting up front: if we get the votes of 100% of the Republicans in the State of Washington, and no one else, then we get our heads handed to us on a platter. And that's a lot worse than winning. In this respect, our highly educated blue state is most similar to California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
In light of that, it is also worth learning from the fact that Scott Brown, who recently won the kind of victory we want here in the Senate, was a pretty middle of the road conservative. He was not, for example, adamantly pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, he was practical, he endorsed conservative values. But he did not campaign with red-faced speeches about "reversing the slide to tyranny." He was not an angry candidate. Chris Christie, who beat Corzine in New Jersey by four points to win in that Democratic state, also did not run as pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, otherwise pretty middle of the road and appealed to centrist voters who wanted to get the budget under control. Carly Fiorina beat Chuck Devore in her California primary with a middle of the road campaign that was long on fiscal issues and pro-business.
Now, I support Rubio over Christ (not Jesus, but Charlie). I am a Reagan conservative. And, like Reagan, I like to win. Here's my analysis from the point of view of succeeding with the Washington electorate as a whole (and remember firing up 1,000 die hard Republican delegates is not similar to firing up the electorate as a whole).
Bad and Good Issues in Washington
Bad issues and tendencies --
1. True anger is unpopular. Angry candidates always, always lose. Be positive. It can work to be offended or to get steely or to get your back up, but if you are a political candidate and you come off as white knuckle angry, you're going to be making speeches to your family in the kitchen for the next couple of years and not on C-SPAN. Americans tend to elect people who appear to be in control of themselves and who have a positive view of fellow Americans and our shared future. They don't elect people who grip the podium and yell "when I get to DC, there's going to be HELL TO PAY!!!"
2. As an issue in blue states, Abortion is a vote loser. Sorry but it's true. Neither Scott Brown nor Chris Christie ran pro-life campaigns. As a practical matter, Roe v. Wade is just not going to be overturned. Let's not sacrifice our whole national future for this will o' the wisp. The thing about dying on your political sword is that at the end of it, you're dead. If you want to run like Jim DeMint or Sam Brownback, you are going to have to move to South Carolina or Kansas.
3. Hyperbole is bad. If you say "we're here in defiance of tyranny" the average voter doesn't know what you are talking about. This is simply not China, it's not the Soviet Union and no one in the middle 80% of the electorate thinks it is. So if you say it is then you come off as crazy or as a manipulator. Candidates can and should argue for liberty and criticize Democrats for paying insufficient attention to liberty and for being utilitarians, but keep it realistic. Point out specifically where liberty is being violated, and do so in a realistic way. Oh and by the way, the word "defiance" sounds a lot like the word "defence" if you speak quickly (if you have a tendency to speed up in your delivery when making speeches), consider another word. Or better yet, skip it entirely and go for one of the winner issues (below).
4. Small point but something to watch out for -- it appears to be popular to discuss how you or your parents achieved financial success. This can cut both ways in a stump speech. What it can sound like is that you have made your bundle and now you want to keep it, and that is why you want low taxes. That is, it can appear that you are opposed to high taxes for selfish reasons. The better approach is to favor low taxes because they create opportunity and they create jobs. Like, for other people! The most successful wealthy candidates have been Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.).
5. Fringe issues are losers. Don't talk about auditing the Federal Reserve. You sound like you want to go back to the days of Andrew Jackson. And no one wants to go there with you or really knows what you're talking about.
Good issues and tendencies --
1. The economy -- jobs, low taxes, bailouts and health care -- is a great issue. This is a strong point for GOP candidates, as usual. The Dems will say they are just trying to clean up Bush's mess but I think that's wearing thin. However, I would warn that Bush is not totally forgotten and many candidates are leaving open a hole in their argument by following the traditional playbook. They are saying they want lower taxes and a lower deficit but they aren't saying how they want to cut spending. Reagan was able to get away with that by saying he was going to cut waste. But after Reagan, Bush and Bush II all dramatically increased deficits, I think the electorate has caught on here and...it certainly blew up in the face of John McCain. His tax-cutting rhetoric simply didn't sell to a public made skeptical by the Bush formula of tax cuts and huge deficits. GOP candidates have to start owning up to what spending they want to cut if they want to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit." Mark Ryan has some good thoughts here. Also, candidates who speak against bank bailouts should be prepared to say whether they would have allowed the banks to go under. Still, this is a good issue.
2. This year, candidates should hammer corrupt public sector unions and their connections to Democrat politicians, including the card check issue. In general, there appears to be a growing recognition that the benefits enjoyed by state employees are out of whack, and that the system of having unions elect politicians who then make deals with the unions simply does not work. I personally think that SEIU and ACORN overstepped and that the public is starting to really resent them. I would campaign against SEIU all day long.
3. Very closely related issue: School choice and merit pay for teachers could work well. Teachers are certainly tarred by the government union brush now.
4. Homeland Security should be strong for GOPers this year. Obama and his Antiterroist chief John Brennan are weak on this issue. They insist on pretending, for PC reasons, that Islam has nothing to do with it. They will never mention Islam even in the Hassan case. It's insane and the public knows it's insane (see a good run down of the issue by Joe Lieberman here). We have to recognize that Islam is at the heart of the global terrorism problem today, even as we remain open and fair to moderate Muslims.
Wildcard issues --
1. Immigration. I think we need to get tough on this, but it can be a difficult issue depending on the district. Anyway, no one spent a lot of time on this.
CANDIDATES
SENATE
CLINT DIDIER had a strong personal appeal. He is just a charismatic guy. And he certainly seems like he's giving it to you straight from the heart. However, he is deeply embracing Bad traits 1 (anger) and 3 (hyperbole). If anyone could scare Washington into re-electing Patty Murray, it would be Clint Didier. Not to mention the fact that, for better or worse, being from East of the Cascades is a real weakness in a state wide race. My hope is that Clint can mature his rhetoric a bit and play an important role in state or national politics one day because he is very likable, like a Reagan. But for now this is one of the angriest guys I've ever seen. I thought he was going to burst like Bruce Banner turning into the Incredible Hulk. That's fun, but it doesn't win political races, certainly not in Washington. Against Patty Murray I would say he is a twelve point loser.
PAUL AKERS doesn't fit into the above rubric very well because he spends 60% of his speech talking about lean manufacturing. I'm sorry, are we electing a VP of Operations here? It's bizarre he's still in the race. Drop out Paul. You're not a natural politician. Try to get appointed to something.
DINO ROSSI came off well and had a lot of fans in the audience. A reporter at the Seattle Times said he thought most people supported Didier. I didn't see that. I thought the majority supported Rossi. But it was probably within ten points. Dino talked about the economy, earning good points for going to Good issue #1. Unfortunately, he had to spend some time talking to the audience about why he didn't get into the race earlier. I would drop that part of the speech. Maybe he didnt' get in earlier because the race is not until November. Why bother? Anyway, Dino was effective on the economy and healthcare and communicated a passion for running for Senate. He effectively went after Patty Murray for being weak on the budget and for indulging in too many earmarks. I think if he goes against Patty Murray, he will win by at least 4 points. I expect Dino will win the nomination but Clint will run Dino down a bit before he does.
House of Representatives --
I'm not going to cover every race, but I will comment on the 3rd because it seems most interesting. There the major candidates appear to be Jamie Herrera, David Castillo and David Hedrick. Herrera had a lot of support around the convention (or a lot of stickers anyway), and she's attractive. I take it she is the frontrunner. However, In this blogger's view she didn't deliver a strong performance. Her delivery seemed young as if she was a candidate for student body president. Her policies seemed pretty mainstream but with a tinge of Bad trait #3 (hyperbole) when she talks about our nation being on the precipice (I believe it was that our "freedoms are imperiled" but she said it a few different ways). Finally, the whole thing just seemed a bit canned. Some candidates come off as having a great deal of intellectual depth that informs their speeches. She does not. She sounds like someone you would hire into a very junior position. Not congress. I'll tell you, those arguments sounded a lot more sincere coming from Clint Didier. I thought he was going to kill the next person who taxed him.
David Castillo came off fairly well but no slam dunk. Scored some solid points on economics, then veered off to tell us about how he made money (risky point, see Bad #4) and a bunch of details about his sympathetic family life (that stuff never works well on me, I always find it manipulative). He then talked about his government experience assuming we had heard of him and knew what it was. He should work on that. But he came off as passionate without being angry and he hit the economics points (Good #1). So he did pretty well.
Davdi Hedrick was just a wild card libertarian. He violated Bad rules #3 (hyperbole) and 5 (fringe) by focusing on the Federal Reserve. That said, he was funny, seemed smart and seemed to believe in what he was saying. He was not angry. He said "I have heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Good one. That may have been the best line not uttered by Mitt Romney. He was a very engaging and passionate speaker. I think he has a future even though I suspect Castillo will win this primary in a squeaker.
Other Quick Impressions --
James Watkins -- Watkins came off as a very promising newcomer. Level headed but passionate, strong on Good issues and making an efective case for residents of the 1st district. Inslee has taken 66%+ the last few elections, so it will be tough but maybe this is the year.
Doc Hastings -- Very good. I had never heard him speak but he was a unity speaker. He compared 2010 favorably to 1994 for the Republicans. He was very specific with detailed facts. That was much more compelling than some of the high level speeches most people were giving. If you bring some statistics and details to a speech it will be much more compelling. Doc Hastings knows that and it showed.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers -- Her speech seemed very polished and strong. Glad we have her.
Doug Cloud in the 9th came off as angry. He used too many violent images in his speech (grabbing taxes by the back of their heads and smashing their faces into concrete? Holy cow...).
I wish all the candidates success and hope the party enjoys another 1994!
Sunday, June 13, 2010
2010 Washington State Republican Convention: First Impressions
I was hoping that this weekend’s Republican State Convention would be a good opportunity to meet other Republicans and get fired up for the upcoming election season. It was. Luke Esser and team did a great job accommodating 1,179 delegates (a 100% increase in attendance over the previous non-presidential convention), which reflects the enthusiasm of Republicans across the state in 2010. There were many first time delegates and there was a legion of great candidates; everyone thinks we can win in 2010.
In forthcoming notes I want to discuss the rhetoric of the candidates and the candidates themselves. For now, let me briefly recap the events and comment on just one issue, which is the schedule of the convention and what it tells us about the purpose of the convention. This sounds dry but it became an important issue for many.
In terms of their ideas of what the convention was about, delegates seemed to break into two groups. One group essentially saw the convention as an opportunity to see candidates firsthand, network with other grassroots Republicans, and plan for the upcoming year. I’ll call these people the Conventioneers. The other group hoped the convention would be more like a constitutional convention or a debating society where a platform would be drafted and negotiated in detail. I’ll call these people the Debaters.
If you’ve been to political conventions before, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Debaters were somewhat disappointed by the amount of actual debating that occurred.
Here’s how the whole thing worked, which is fairly representative of these things generally. On the first day, there were classes -- how to use new media, how to manage a political campaign, etc. This is learning time and social time. That night, there was a dinner. Dino Rossi was there and Michelle Malkin set the audience on fire. After dinner, prominent candidates hosted open gatherings in hotel rooms. As a friend of mine said, “this is where the fun begins.” Well, truth be told it doesn’t get very crazy but prominent elected officials are around and they were all very friendly and approachable. Rob McKenna had a room and was very friendly to everyone. Dino Rossi had a big room and, with his wife Terri, was very social and tirelessly posed for photos with delegates and guests. Clint Didier had a “tailgate party” to which he wore his two (three?) superbowl rings (which look huge even on his huge hand). Cathy McMorris Rodgers was there. Don Benton was there. I’m sure there were a hundred important people I didn’t even recognize. People took this time to meet each other, share ideas and compare notes from different parts of the state.
The next day, Saturday, is/was the big meeting where candidates give speeches, the keynote speaker speaks (Mitt Romney was great; his speech is accurately recounted here http://wp.me/pjvHX-Te) and the platform is passed. Then everyone goes home. The platform part starts in earnest around 2. Then the whole thing ends at 5 sharp. So there isn’t much time to debate the platform. Thus the disappointment among the Debaters.
In fact, precious little real debate occurred at all since mostly we debated the rules that would govern the debating and then we debated which issues we should probably set aside to debate later and then after that we basically ran out of time. Oops!
Trust me, I don’t want to hear again about Robert’s Rules of Order for quite a while.
Here is my perspective, though. My perspective is that the Debaters are not being realistic about the schedule or about the true importance and purpose of conventions. To debate the platform from the ground up, including every amendment, would require weeks. Even a single proposition could take hours to debate among over a thousand participants. We could have spent a summer in Vancouver and, while Southwestern Washington is a nice place, we’ve all got other plans this summer.
Some argued that debating the platform was “the people’s business that we were sent here to do.” I would disagree. Everyone knew that there was a platform committee. They took months to draft a platform. Everyone knows that it is unrealistic to draft a new platform on the spot in open debate. Our actual responsibility is to elect sensible people to the platform committee and then to accept their work unless they have clearly failed to represent the party well. Really there is no other way to do it. I think 90% of the delegates thought that the document was representative of the state of the party today and that relitigating all the various issues that were no doubt debated in the platform process would be pointless. The fact that large groups are bad at crafting documents is, after all, why the convention has a platform committee (and is why legislative bodies generally have committees).
So I think the Debaters were being unrealistic about the schedule and about our role. But also I would argue that the Debaters have an unrealistic understanding of the real purpose and true potential of conventions in general. The reality is that state platforms are not read by normal human beings (the kind of voters who actually wind up swinging elections in the real world). Therefore, platforms do not generally have a major impact on elections in the United States. That’s the fact.
What does have a major impact? The energy and message of the grassroots party organizers and influencers These are the people who are going to have and distribute yard signs, donate money, doorbell, speak with their neighbors, write blogs, organize events, tweet and in a thousand ways help the party actually win.
What matters coming out of a convention is that those influencers are fired up, informed, have plans, and perhaps have made a few new contacts in the party with whom they can coordinate. That is the important thing about a convention. The platform, assuming it does an adequate job representing the party, is not.
So my conclusion is that the Debaters both had an unrealistic idea of what can be accomplished at a convention and a very weak sense of the real life relative importance of the things that happen at a convention. The Debaters might think the social part of the convention was annoying or irrelevant (compared to the “substantive issues” of the platform) but they’re missing the point. The mingling may be “where the fun begins,” but it may be the most impactful part of the event, too.
That said, I do think the platform process can be improved. It might be better to make drafts of the platform public on WSRP.org at various stages. Feedback could be solicited from the community. Conceivably a system could be set up to track delegates, systematically tally their feedback to early drafts and expand the circle in some formal way. I would be all for that. I would also support moving from a system with one representative per Washington county, which is absurdly antidemocratic, but I’ll talk about that in my next post. Finally, I think the rules should just call for an up or down vote on the platform. We should be straight about whether we want extensive debate or not. If it’s just not on the table, then the Debaters shouldn’t be teased by rules suggesting that the broader community can reopen and debate every issue.
Thanks for reading, pals, and, as Secretary of State Sam Reed said at the convention, “stay united!”
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
McGinn lame ducks himself
Honestly, I voted for Mike McGinn. I did so because he seemed much smarter, frankly, than his opponent. Having a dumb mayor certainly seems bad. But smarty pants has unfortunately decided that being an outsider is what he wants to be, and that he would like to go back to being a gadfly instead of being mayor.
He laid the groundwork by alienating the city council on the seawall issue and coming off as a guy who doesn't play well with others.
He finished the job on April 22 by vetoing Tim Burgess's anti-aggressive panhandling measure, which said that people, in the words of the PI, "can't block someone, use threatening or aggressive gestures or profane language, solicit someone using an ATM or repeatedly solicit someone who has already said 'no.'"
Seems pretty reasonable and inoffensive, no?
McGinn then brought together all the ACLU and other apparatchiks, who represent about 5% of the vote, to celebrate his veto. This is going to go down very poorly in the next election. You can't completely abandon the regular person. And the regular person wants to be able to walk around downtown without being accosted.
The rest of McGinn's term will be a lame duck waiting game trying to figure out who the next mayor will be. Perhaps Tim Burgess?
He laid the groundwork by alienating the city council on the seawall issue and coming off as a guy who doesn't play well with others.
He finished the job on April 22 by vetoing Tim Burgess's anti-aggressive panhandling measure, which said that people, in the words of the PI, "can't block someone, use threatening or aggressive gestures or profane language, solicit someone using an ATM or repeatedly solicit someone who has already said 'no.'"
Seems pretty reasonable and inoffensive, no?
McGinn then brought together all the ACLU and other apparatchiks, who represent about 5% of the vote, to celebrate his veto. This is going to go down very poorly in the next election. You can't completely abandon the regular person. And the regular person wants to be able to walk around downtown without being accosted.
The rest of McGinn's term will be a lame duck waiting game trying to figure out who the next mayor will be. Perhaps Tim Burgess?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Exposed: Democrat Dirty Tricks in Olympia
The Seattle Times reports today that the Public Disclosure Commission has reported that there is "no evidence" that in 2008 Dino Rossi in any way coordinated his campaign with the election spending of the Building Industry Association of Washington and that the claims against him and their timing were, clearly, politically motivated.
The Times: "when either party abuses the public trust it should be called out. This was a case of the Democrats abusing the legal and regulatory process, not once, but several times."
I couldn't have said it better myself. I only wish the paper could have dug a little more to determine who was behind the strategically timed dirty trick. Presumably King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas was in on it, at least implicitly, since with no evidence at all she approved the Rossi deposition to be scheduled days before the election. Kallas certainly should not be re-elected, but how much further does this go?
Well at the very least it's fair to presume that the claimants (Washington legal insiders Robert Utter and Faith Ireland) and their attorney, ambulance chaser Mike Withey were in on it. But they're essentially tools, apparatchiks with little to lose.
Wouldn't it be surprising if Christine Gregoire and her 2008 campaign manager Kelly Evans knew nothing about this?
The Times: "when either party abuses the public trust it should be called out. This was a case of the Democrats abusing the legal and regulatory process, not once, but several times."
I couldn't have said it better myself. I only wish the paper could have dug a little more to determine who was behind the strategically timed dirty trick. Presumably King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas was in on it, at least implicitly, since with no evidence at all she approved the Rossi deposition to be scheduled days before the election. Kallas certainly should not be re-elected, but how much further does this go?
Well at the very least it's fair to presume that the claimants (Washington legal insiders Robert Utter and Faith Ireland) and their attorney, ambulance chaser Mike Withey were in on it. But they're essentially tools, apparatchiks with little to lose.
Wouldn't it be surprising if Christine Gregoire and her 2008 campaign manager Kelly Evans knew nothing about this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)