Mike McGavick's position on Social Security has become the issue, or really the question, of the week. Getting an answer has even become a contest on one of the most popular political blogs in the country.

I can understand some of the curiosity because McGavick's campaign material doesn't say much about his position. On his Web site he says there should a system that allows people to give back Social Security money they don't need.

But I just finished a lengthy interview with McGavick about Social Security and he has a much more expansive platform. Here's his main three points.

1. He supports means testing, voluntarily at first but if people don't turn back enough money he'd support making it mandatory and creating income limits for benefits.

2. Benefit levels must be guaranteed for people at or near retirement age.

3. He wants a phased-in system of individually controlled, privately managed retirement accounts that could provide a higher yield than the government-run system, but would come with a lower guaranteed payment.

Does this mean he supports what President Bush proposed last year?

"I do not think the president's program was that well designed or that well promoted. But I think something like this with some hard bipartisan work could create a lasting solution for a problem that has cyclically dogged us for decades."

Here are some details. On means testing, McGavick said that each year Social Security recipients would be given the chance to send money "back into the trust to extend the life of Social Security for the good of society." He said it should be promoted as a "patriotic endeavor." But if people weren't willing to give back benefits, he'd support mandatory means testing.

McGavick said that would save money at the front end of the transition to individual accounts. Bush, he said, "didn't do anything at the front-end to shrink the problem."

McGavick said he knows that people will refer to his talk of personally controlled accounts as privatization. He said financial institutions would be involved, but would not control, the investments. "I'm not turning it over to banks to run. I'm turning it over to the individuals for them to run." The accounts would be similar to 401 K programs, with investment choices "that could provide a higher yield than the current Social Security investment strategy." But with individual control would come a lower guaranteed benefit.

McGavick says partisanship has made it impossible to fix Social Security. He said it may take a bipartisan commission with a proposal given to Congress for an up or down vote to get anything done. He said he'd support anything "to get this out of the political world and into a thoughtful space."

President Bush said this week he's going to keep trying to change Social Security. But McGavick says he doubts anything will happen until after the next presidential election.

"I don't think there's enough juice left in this administration to push that through. That's just my own opinion."

You can credit Josh Marshall for the pressure to get answers about McGavick's Social Security position. He has decided to "start tracking some positions here on Social Security", and several of his loyal readers have e-mailed me in the past two days asking me to follow up.

The Democratic Party has also been pushing this angle since last week's D.C. fundraiser with the Financial Services Roundtable.

This is the part that seems to bug McGavick. He says it's insulting to suggest that because the roundtable held a fundraiser for him, and those firms supported the president's plan, that he would follow in lock step.

So what about Maria Cantwell's position? I'll be asking for more details, but here's what she says on her campaign Web site:

Maria opposes Social Security privatization because she believes this critical program must serve its original purpose as a safety net for seniors. Her innovative legislation, the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers Act, would base Social Security cost of living increases on a more realistic assessment of how much elderly Americans need to get by each month. By taking into account the rising cost of health care and its unique impact on seniors, Maria's plan would make a real difference for retirees.

UPDATE:

Joshua Micah Marshall seems less than impressed with McGavick's answers. (But do I get a mug?) Marshall wrote, "For now, McGavick seems like he just wants the issue to go away." I'm sure, but McGavick answered all the questions I had and I'm confident he'll put up with the inevitable follow-ups. Isn't anyone impressed with McGavick's line that there isn't "enough juice left in this administration to push" Social Security through?

• The business-backed Liability Reform Coalition has endorsed Supreme Court challengers Steve Johnson and John Groen who are running against incumbent Justice Susan Owens and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. You can see the coalition's review of Supreme Court justices, as well as a list of its members, here.

  The business group has gone with incumbents, though, in court of appeal races, endorsing judges Mary Kay Becker, Joel Penoyar and Christine Quinn-Brintnall. LRC executive director Dana Childers told me that with those judges "the LRC believes that although they have challengers that appeal to the LRC, the incumbents appear to be balanced and fair judges and therefore deserve re-election." 

• If you want to know what is going on with taxpayer-funded sports facilities and the government's refusal to tell us what's happening with the money, you've got to read Peter Callaghan in The News Tribune. His column yesterday looks at the Seahawks new headquarters and practice facility. Is it part of the return on the investment taxpayers made in Paul Allen's team?

  Allen has used the tax money to transform a franchise he bought for $200 million in 1997 into one worth $823 million, according to numbers denied taxpayers but leaked to Forbes magazine. That makes it one of the few Allen investments making money. But without the taxes, there would be no profit. So is the new headquarters privately funded or publicly funded?

  Probably both. It's a classic example of the public-private partnership in which the public takes all the risk and the private takes all the profit.

• Linnea Noreen may be making her first run for public office in a long-shot try as an independent against Congressman Jim McDermott. But she's already learned a trick of the most veteran pols - the straw man.

  Her campaign staff sent out excerpts from a speech Noreen gave at one of the conventions shes holding to collect 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot. It included this passage, which the campaign said "drew cheers from the crowd":

  "Let's talk about those who say it can't be done. To quote: 'I don't have a chance in hell.' The ones who say I'm too young, too female, too Independent, too under-funded, or too naive."

  OK, I know there is the cleavage controversy over at The Slog, but Linnea, really, who is saying these things?

• Eli Sanders reports in The Stranger about two women's rights leaders trying to talk Stephanie Pure into dropping out of the 43rd District Democratic primary - to boost the chances of Lynne Dodson, the only other woman in crowded race:

  As for why a race with four men and two women should have fewer women involved, NWPC's Mitchell said: "I want to see a woman win that seat. And when voters are offered a choice of two great women, then it limits each woman's chances of winning."

  Meanwhile the Balkanization of the race continues. Bill Sherman who won the endorsement of the Sierra Club last week now has the nod from the Washington Conservation Voters, too. He now claims the mantle of "The Environmental Candidate."

The day after Sen. Maria Cantwell voted against a telecommunications bill in the Commerce Committee because of concerns about net neutrality, she turned the move into a fundraising pitch.

In an e-mail to supporters today, Cantwell asks people to sign an online petition in favor of net neutrality and makes a pitch to "protect the Internet now."

In the p.s., she reminds people of the "end-of-the-quarter fundraising push" and says, "This issue is a perfect example of why — if we had the majority on the Commerce Committee, we wouldn't have to have this fight. If you can contribute please do it now: https://contribute.cantwell.com."

Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics has his latest Crystal Ball report out this morning and Washington's Eighth Congressional District has dropped off the "Dirty Thirty" list of competitive House races.

In February the race between Republican Congressman Dave Reichert and political newcomer Darcy Burner made the list and was labeled "Leans Republican." It's gone today, though, and relegated to the list of the next 20 races to watch around the country.

Sabato is one of the country's leading political prognosticators and widely considered an expert on Congress. David Wasserman, the House editor for the Crystal Ball, told me the race was downgraded not because of anything that happened in the Eighth, but because other races around the country became more competitive.

Sabato's Web site now lists the race as "Likely Republican" but Wasserman said that is a mistake that will be fixed soon, and listed as "Leans Republican" once again. Wasserman said he's been impressed by Burner's fund raising. But he looks at more than just money in deciding how to rate a race.

"The kind of candidate Darcy Burner is will have the biggest impact on how well she is able to out-perform what Dave Ross was able to do two years ago. ... They'll certainly be following her around waiting for her to slip up."

On the national picture, Sabato's assessment echoes what Burner's pollster, Celinda Lake, told me last month needs to be done to win in the Eighth. Sabato says:

"Democrats have succeeded in placing national issues of great consequence front and center in individual races for the House, but they have thus far failed to establish a truly national narrative to frame the battles in each of their targeted districts within a single, compelling context."

And overall, he says:

"The Republican margin in the House of Representatives may be more tenuous this year than it has been in any election cycle since its inception in 1994, but a larger wave than currently exists must build in order to completely erode the GOP's 15-seat edge, and by no means has the party in power already been swept out to sea."

UPDATE: By e-mail Sabato adds a bit more about Washington's hottest congressional race and how it will follow national trends.

"There's no question WA-8 will be competitive, but it will take more than the micro-wave for the Democrats we now see to wash out Reichert. Political conditions have stabilized for the Republicans, at least for now. But if the macro-wave develops in October, Reichert could be swept away."

UPDATE: Speaking of rankings, Republican Mike McGavick's campaign draws my attention to the National Journal's Hotline rankings of Senate races that reports a "slightly improved climate" for McGavick against Sen. Maria Cantwell.

There's no big change, but there are some good tidbits for McGavick in the rankings. Hotline calls him "the GOP's best Senate challenger in the country." There's a cautionary note that the race could slip from its position as the seventh hottest Senate race. But I bet this line is on the wall of McGavick headquarters this morning:

"But right now, we can't imagine ever viewing any other Democratic incumbent as more vulnerable than Cantwell."

Secretary Sam Reed this morning said he has canceled the voter registrations of 848 felons. It's the latest move in cleaning up state elections following the record-close, and problem-plagued, 2004 gubernatorial election.

In a press release Reed said, "These felons, who are incarcerated or supervised by the Department of Corrections, will not receive a ballot in the 2006 elections. This aggressive screening of our state's registration system is long overdue and imperative to the conduct of secure elections."

The felon voters were found through the state's new database that matches voter registrations with information from the Department of Corrections.

UPDATE: Katie Blinn, the assistant director of elections, said the 848 includes people in prison and still under supervision by the Department of Corrections.

The state cannot bar from the polls felon voters who have completed their sentences but still owe court-ordered fines and payments. A Superior Court decision in March struck down that part of the law. Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna were unable to get a stay on the decision from either the Superior Court or the Supreme Court and as of now that group is eligible to vote.

After a failed attempt at an anti-gay rights referendum, Joseph Fuiten and the Faith and Freedom Network are turning their attention to judicial races.

A letter dated today says the network "is teaming with Walk for Washington" to hire part-time workers to do door-to-door campaigning:

Do you want to help elect conservative judges to the Supreme Court and get paid to do it? Here is your chance.

(snip)

Using the latest technological advances, your work will help elect candidates with a pro-Constitution and free-market philosophy towards governing.

UPDATE: Religion and business are teamed up together on this effort. Faith and Freedom Network is working with Walking for Washington, a business group focused on voter identification.

That group is funded and administered by the Building Industry Association of Washington. The BIAW has donated at least $118,000 this year, according to the Public Disclosure Commission. The business PAC United for Washington has donated $10,000. BIAW is the largest donor to United for Washington, having given $20,000 in March. Other recent big donors include $10,000 from Philip Morris and $10,000 from the Washington Restaurant Association PAC. Elliot Swaney, BIAW's political director, told me that donations to Walking for Washington have also come from the Farm Bureau, the Restaurant Association and a timber industry group.

UPDATE: At the Seattle Weekly, George Howland is writing about this, too. He says Walking for Washington is doing the hiring and Faith and Freedom is pitching in to help recruit the troops.

UPDATE: Jon Russell, Faith and Freedom's field director, e-mails to say that his group is, in fact, just doing recruiting for Walking for Washington. His solicitation asks people to contact him and sends them to the F&F Web site. But the hiring will be done by the Walking for Washington business folks, who also will cut the paychecks.

This is an interesting match up. While Chrisitan conservatives and business groups like BIAW share common interests, I don't recall seeing many efforts with this sort of coordination and cooperation. F&F felt burned by its ad-hoc partnership with Tim Eyman. Clearly that experience is not turning Fuiten and Gary Randall, the group's president, away from the world of electoral politics.

There's another anti-war candidate running against Maria Cantwell, and this one looks like he'll be on the November ballot, too.

Libertarian Bruce Guthrie says on his campaign blog that he's gotten more than the 1,000 signatures needed on nominating petitions to secure a place on the ballot. A lot of the signatures came during last weekend's Seattle Pride Fest where, according to the campaign blog, "Bruce's campaign issues like marriage equality, ending the ban against gays in the military, and ending the occupation of Iraq resonated with Pride Fest attendees."

Guthrie has been an instructor at Western Washington University and is getting his certification to teach high school. He's run for Congress in the 2nd District twice as a Libertarian, getting 2.5 percent of the vote in 2004 and about 2 percent in 2002.

Tonight in Washington, D.C., political action committees have an opportunity to help out Maria Cantwell's re-election campaign, despite her pledge to refuse PAC money.

The invitation to the "Washington Senate Victory Reception Honoring Senator Patty Murray & Senator Maria Cantwell" solicits PAC money as well as individual donations.

It doesn't go directly to Cantwell's re-election account. But some of the money is sure to end up helping her in the race against Republican Mike McGavick. Washington Senate Victory, according to the invitation, is a "joint fundraising committee authorized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc. and the WA State Democratic Central Committee."

The money raised tonight will be split according to a formula spelled out on the invitation. But it also says, "Any contributor may designate his or her contribution for a particular participant." That means a donor, whether a PAC or an individual, could say "Put it all on the DSCC." And this year if the DSCC is looking to use its "Washington Senate Victory" money for a victory in Washington, that means using it to help Maria Cantwell.

I asked Karl Frisch, a spokesman for the DSCC, about how the money would be used. He e-mailed to say, "The DSCC has a policy of not discussing fundraising strategies in the press."

Cantwell swore off PAC money in her self-financed 2000 campaign. That doesn't mean she doesn't take money from lobbyists or employees of the same corporations that run the PACs, but she has said rejecting PAC money is a piece of self-imposed campaign finance reform. It's been pointed out before that Cantwell's no-PAC pledge has holes, and makes raising money more difficult. Some supporters wish she'd drop the PAC ban.

• On his state government blog at The Olympian Adam Wilson explains the attorney general's view of religious exemptions to joining the state employees' union. And more union news from Wilson, about the failure by the public employees' union to "tell nonunion workers they had a right to vote on contracts that made union dues mandatory."

• The state Republican Party has a new spokeswoman, Carrie Howard Shaw. I spoke to her during the medical malpractice ballot fights when she was working for Doctors for Medical Liability Reform. She worked in the Office of Congressional Liaison in the Reagan Administration, on the presidential campaign staff of Jack Kemp and with Kemp's son, Jeff, at Families Northwest.

• Linnea Noreen is a young woman who wants to run against Congressman Jim McDermott as an independent. To do that she needs 1,000 signatures by the end of the week. She kicks off the campaign tomorrow at the Columbia City Theater, which is kind of late for a kick-off given that the campaign could end Saturday if she doesn't get the signatures. Noreen doesn't come right out and say McDermott is too old, but her campaign is a generational one:

  "We need an innovative approach to solving the problems facing our country and I believe that my generation has the answers. We can either start the conversation now and accelerate the process, or resign ourselves to wait for yet another generation to come of age, propose the idea, and start again. I'm here to prove that this generation is standing up, and I'm saying let's start the process!"

  Young Josh Feit at The Stranger said it was an "insane pleasure" to meet her.

  UPDATE: At the Seattle Weekly, George Howland is less than impressed with the latest "vanity candidate.

• Lary Coppola, editor of the Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal, gives his take on the McGavick-Cantwell race on his personal blog, West Sound Politics. He's a fan of McGavick's, but the candidate probably doesn't need friends saying things like this: "Meanwhile, McGavick hasn't really taken any positions on anything controversial or of any real substance. His strategy is extremely smart." (Thanks for the tip, Sengali.)

• At washblog, Noemie Maxwell supports her fellow librarians.

The King County Bar Association is looking for help in evaluating judicial candidates who refuse to participate in the bar's evaluation and ranking process.

Supreme Court candidate Steve Johnson and Court of Appeals candidate Jeffrey Teichert have said they won't cooperate with the bar, whose ratings are generally the most prominent in judicial races. The conservative candidates say they don't think they'll be treated fairly by the bar's review panel.

Johnson told the bar association earlier this month: "The Supreme Court is a nonpartisan office, yet the people you choose to evaluate candidates for the Court are themselves partisan activists — and heavily tilted toward one side of the partisan scale at that!"

The bar association disagrees the panel is partisan or biased. And it will go ahead and rate Johnson and Teichert. Last week the bar sent out e-mails to local lawyers looking for information about the candidates' "experience, ability, fitness, judgment and/or professional integrity."

The messages say each candidate has "declined to participate in the Committee's evaluation process. The Committee, therefore, is attempting to gather information about him through other available sources, including attorneys who practice in King County." The responses will be confidential and given only to members of the evaluation committee.

Judicial races in Washington are non-partisan. Candidates are restricted in what they can say about issues that might come before them on the bench. Philosophy is OK. Politics aren't. In a recent letter posted at the Faith and Freedom Network Web site, Teichert said, "Unfortunately, voters cannot be solely concerned with the qualifications of a judicial candidate. In America today, a candidate's judicial philosophy matters immensely."

Teichert is running against Court of Appeals Judge Mary Kay Becker. He talked in the letter about his judicial philosophy and a little of his own spiritual journey during a recent sabbatical:

"During that year, I spent a great deal of time studying theological influences on the development of rights theory. That year away from active law practice provided me with an invaluable opportunity to take stock of everything I believed and everything that I had learned."

Candidates from all philosophical persuasions find ways to signal their world view to potential supporters. As Teichert put it:

"For those of us who value our families, our faith, and our freedom, this election is a very serious matter."

At 2:30 Tuesday afternoon the state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on an important felon voting case. Madison v. Washington is an appeal of a King County Superior Court ruling that said
Washington's law that bars felons from voting until they pay off all court-ordered payments violates the state and U.S. constitutions. In that March decision Judge Michael Spearman wrote:

"It is well recognized that there is simply no rational relationship between the ability to pay and the exercise of constitutional rights."

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of three four felons who were unable to pay their court-ordered fines and payments argues that Washington's law "has made affluence a voter qualification."

In its brief to the Supreme Court the state argues instead that felons make a personal choice in committing a crime, so they choose to give up the right to vote.

"Commission of a felony, unlike other potential barriers to the exercise of the franchise, is at root an individual choice. Disenfranchisement resulting from a felony conviction stems ultimately from a 'conscious decision to commit a criminal act for which they assume the risk of detention and punishment.' Wesley, 791 F.2d at 1262. It hardly is irrational to require a person who chooses to commit a felony to complete the terms of their punishment — to fully pay their debt to society — prior to being restored to their civil rights and allowed to again participate in the political process. A person who makes the conscious decision to break the law can fairly be regarded as having abandoned the right to further participate in making the law, or in electing officials who do so. Green v Bd. Of Elections, 380 F.2d at 451."

The ACLU says in its brief that the state has created a "wealth-based classification."

"The State's invocation of a Lockian social contract theory may explain the reasons for felony disenfranchisement, but it is not a rational basis for selective vote restoration. On the state's theory, both rich felons and poor felons are 'perpetrators of serious crimes' who have 'proven themselves unwilling to abide by the laws' and thus 'can fairy be regarded as having abandoned the right to further participate in making the law.' Brief of Appellants at 21. It is not rational to deem Plaintiffs unqualified to vote for these reasons, while deeming other ex-felons qualified to vote simply because they had the financial resource to pay their LFO (legal financial obligations) balance in full."

The case has gotten a lot of national attention. The New York Times said in an editorial that Washington's law was an example of Dickensian Democracy.

There are three friends of the court briefs filed on behalf of the felons. One filed by, among others, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of law, the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and minority bar associations, argues:

"Washington's law is exceptionally harsh, even within the domestic spectrum, and the United States enforces some of the most restrictive felony disenfranchisement laws in the world. Washington's law also has a severe disproportionate impact on the state's minority communities. Felony disenfranchisement is tainted by racial oppression in this country, and the continuing disproportionate impact of the practice reflects this history."

You can watch the oral arguments Tuesday at 2:30 on TVW.

You can read more at the Secretary of State's site, the ACLU of Washington and the Brennan Center.

Gov. Christine Gregoire's push for independence continued last week with a Spokane speech where she urged Washington residents to think globally.

According to Jim Camden at The Spokesman-Review, "The governor suggested that the people who have the most trouble thinking of Washington as a small nation are some of its own residents."

At the Seattle Weekly, Knute Berger says if you've heard Gregoire speak recently "you might get the impression that instead of being chief executive of a medium-sized state in a far corner of the continental U.S., she's prime minister of an independent country."

And Berger doesn't like Gregoire's trade policy. (Or the fact that she recycles speeches.)

"She didn't even attempt to address the potential downsides of globalization, instead smearing it with a progressive, Panglossian gloss."

To read more words like Panglossian, Berger has his own blog as part of the Weekly's jump into blogdom.

UPDATE: This from the governor's office this morning, showing that the governor does deal in the international realm:

The flag of Mexico is flying at the Flag Circle on the Capitol Campus to welcome a delegation of officials from Mexico. Doctor Irma Gomez, Undersecretary of Foreign Relations of Mexico, is meeting with Governor Chris Gregoire this morning to continue the trade discussions Governor Gregoire had with President Vicente Fox last month.

And the governor definitely has security befitting a head of state.

The Seattle librarians who went to the American Library Association meeting in New Orleans to push for a resolution calling for President Bush to resign or be impeached were unable to get the measure introduced. But they'll try again when the ALA comes to Seattle in January. Seattle librarian Lynn Lorenz, who was not in New Orleans but has been involved in the effort, told me that the group ran into procedural problems stemming from their lack of experience in the ways of ALA. (And ALA officials have told me it is a complicated process.)

Here's what Lorenz e-mailed me tonight:

"What we did do, was gain a lot of support for the resolution from colleagues, including some on the ALA Council, who have offered advice and concrete help to get the resolution introduced at the ALA Midwinter Meeting to be held in Seattle in January. We would've loved for it to be introduced and passed, especially in New Orleans, because we are arguing that the situation is urgent: Every day that Bush is in office brings a new violation of national and international law and human decency. However, we have every intention of following this through and feel the resolution will have a better chance of passage at this next ALA national meeting.

"Though such a resolution has no precendent, the main sentiment my colleagues ran into at the ALA is that the evidence exists and is well-documented to build a reasoned, factual case for why George W. Bush should no longer hold the office of the President."

Mike McGavick's campaign just issued a press release to announce that Senate Republicans will maintain the state sales tax deduction from the federal income tax:

In a meeting yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee told Mike that state sales tax deduction provisions will be included in upcoming tax legislation.

Grassley also just hosted a fundraiser for McGavick. And this is the second time that McGavick's friends among GOP senators have helped him take credit for D.C. action. He's trying to become the non-incumbent incumbent, getting credit for the good things while continuing to criticize the dysfunctional nature of Congress.

Just like with his letter to Ted Stevens in March about oil tankers, McGavick says the Senate is doing what he asked.

From the release:

Mike sent a letter to Senator Grassley last month asking that the deduction be included in a future tax package.

"There have been reports that in the near future, the Senate intends to take up a second tax package and that extension of the state sales tax deduction may be included," Mike said in his letter. "Inadvertently raising taxes on Washingtonians and the residents of the other seven states who would benefit from the extension is not the right course to keep local economies growing."

The deduction had earlier been removed from pending tax legislation, prompting Washington's Democratic senators to speak out. "Patty Murray blamed Republicans for making no commitment to what she calls an issue of fundamental tax fairness," the AP reported, and Cantwell called the decision "outrageous."

McGavick's grab for the spotlight may not sit well with Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, either. He has been the state's foremost proponent of keeping the deduction and is credited with saving it for the previous two years.

The issue has come up in a Senate race before, and caused tension among the delegation.

UPDATE: Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman says by e-mail that Canwtell and Baird were responsible for extending the deduction and have been fighting to make it permanent.

"Anyone who knows this issue knows that a permanent deduction is the only way to ensure Washington families truly get tax fairness. They have been working with their colleagues on both tax committees to make sure Washingtonians will continue to receive this tax deduction. It's a shame that it's become a political toy on the other side of the aisle, but the important thing is Washington families get the tax cut they deserve."

By declaring that his campaign is all about civility, Mike McGavick was inviting close scrutiny of any criticism he levels at Sen. Maria Cantwell. And a shot he took at Cantwell on her environmental record falls short.

The Yakima Herald Republic this week ran a short story about Cantwell's introduction of a bill to increase fuel efficiency standards and included a response from McGavick:

"Cantwell's likely opponent in November, former Safeco Insurance executive Mike McGavick, said he's long supported increased vehicle fuel efficiency and suggested Cantwell is late to the issue. 'The senator's been on the energy committee so she's had plenty of time to work on CAFE standards. Too bad it didn't come up six years ago,' he said."

This set off a pretty thorough fact checking on the liberal blog Hominid Views that showed Cantwell's history of support for increased corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and raised questions about what McGavick has done to show the long support he told the Yakima paper about.

It all grew out of a few sentences in a small story, but Hominid Views and the liberal bloggers who have been picking up the post clearly see this as an opportunity to put McGavick on notice.

I asked McGavick about the claims and he told me:

"I wasn't saying that Sen. Cantwell hasn't had a view on CAFE. But I do find the timing of the introduction of the bill, in the last six months of her term, relatively late. ... All I've said is this is interesting; a lot of introduced bills and a lot of press releases as of late, as opposed to a lot of steady action over the years that might have seen results."

Hominid Views points to a speech Cantwell gave on the subject in 2002 and a vote against an amendment that would have eliminated CAFE standards. But, in fact, Cantwell has a much deeper record than that on the subject. She has co-sponsored CAFE legislation since 2001, her first year in the Senate. This is easy to check by going to the Library of Congress' site and searching for "Cantwell and fuel" to find the bills.

McGavick told me that he has spoken about CAFE and thinks its "part of the puzzle."

But there's not much of a record of that. In January McGavick gave a major environmental speech in the Tri-Cities. He doesn't mention CAFE or fuel economy. On his Web site there is a video of McGavick talking about energy and again there is no mention of CAFE or fuel economy, except in relation to electric- and hydrogen-powered cars.

McGavick's speeches may not include references to the need for more fuel efficient cars, said his spokesman, Elliot Bundy, but the subject comes up often during Q&A sessions.

He did mention it at an appearance in Gig Harbor last month with former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman. The News Tribune reported that "He suggested pursuing alternative energy sources and higher vehicle fuel economy standards."

That doesn't really back up the claim that McGavick is a long-time supporter of increased CAFE standards, or more importantly the implied claim that he has a better record on the issue than Cantwell. But maybe that starts today. McGavick is the keynote speaker at the Washington Energy and Convenience Store Conference and Bundy says "it will be a topic in his remarks this morning."

In New Orleans, Seattle librarians are lobbying delegates at the American Library Association conference in the hopes of getting their call to impeach President Bush adopted as an official ALA policy.

If you read the comments in the post below you can see the debate between those who think this is an important stand for librarians to take and those who wonder what difference it could make and what, if anything, impeachment has to do with libraries.

I asked those questions of Lynn Lorenz, a Seattle librarian and member of the AFSCME local that adopted the resolution.

"Libraries don't exist in a bubble. As stated by the ALA, democracy is the core value of libraries and we're talking about unprecedented and sweeping changes by the Bush administration that, taken as whole, comprise a radical remaking of society, a society that will no longer be a democracy. ... Is it radical? It's actually what the majority of people in this country and the world would like to see. So we said it."

But in addition to seeing some special role that librarians play, Lorenz argues that more professionals should do the same.

"I think the political terrrain and the political discourse in this country would be very different if people from all walks of life, all professions, all organizations, were making strong statements that repudiate the political direction being led by the Bush administration. Right now, things are way too silent and people are beginning to get used to things they would've never found acceptable just a couple years ago. Those of us who voted in favor of the resolution want this to help break the silence and paralysis that are setting in. It's every citizen's responsibility to not conciliate with the Bush administration's crimes."

  The ALA has 65,000 members worldwide and about 18,000 expected in New Orleans, Larra Clark, the ALA's spokeswoman told me. She said it's not unusual for the ALA to consider political issues at its conferences.

"Our membership is very diverse, so there are many, many kinds of resolutions that are considered; literacy issues to school libraries, destruction of libraries in other countries, issues in the news," she said.

The group has adopted resolutions about propaganda and disinformation related the Iraq war and the Patriot Act at conferences earlier this year and in 2005.

There's a process the Seattle librarians have to follow to get their resolution debated before the ALA'a governing body. Lorenz, who is not attending the convention, said she thinks they have gotten support from members of the ALA council, which is necessary to get the issue introduced and debated. She said the ALA's Social Responsibilities Round Table is supportive and that other groups will be proposing similar resolutions that she hopes results in "one unified resolution calling for the impeachment or resignation of President Bush."

UPDATE:
To see if librarians in New Orleans were talking about the Seattle librarians' campaign, I reached Jim Rettig, a veteran member of ALA and a research librarian at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

He has served 14 years on the ALA's council, which is the 180 or so member governing board that acts on resolutions. He says he hadn't heard much about the impeachment move but that librarians are really just starting to get to town.

The ALA is set up to foster debate and discussion, he said. "We truly are committed to freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. There's no hindrances to that within our governance structure."

He said the council has been "criticized by some groups as a tool for the left. But I'm completing my third term and I would describe most of its actions as very centrist." He also said the actions are rooted in the ALA's principles.

The librarians are split on their view of the president just like the rest of the country, he said, and there was no way to predict what would happen when business meetings get underway.

"I can't think of a good precedence for this to base a good guess on," he said.

The U.S. Senate, as expected, has rejected two Democratic resolutions calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Washington's Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray voted for the Levin amendment, a non-binding resolution that called on the Bush Administration to begin withdrawing troops but with no specific deadline for withdrawal. That failed on a 60-39 vote.

John Kerry's plan for a July 1, 2007 withdrawal failed 86-13.

As I watched the debate on C-Span Wednesday I was struck by these comments by Murray:

"The men and women of our military have done everything we have asked them to do. We've looked for weapons of mass destruction and found none. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We helped the Iraqis hold elections and set up their government and security forces.

"So what is our mission today? Right now our nation's policy on Iraq is adrift. Instead of addressing this head on, the administration and this Congress continue to build on miscalculations and incompetence of the past and are dismissing any serious discussion of the challenge the American people now face."

That rang a bell. It sounded similar to what Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner says. I heard Burner at the Democratic State Convention earlier this month and was struck by the cogent summary that allowed her to criticize the Republican leadership of the war while at the same time showing support for the troops.

Here's what Burner said in Yakima:

"We asked our men and women to go take out this government that we told them was a threat to us. And they did it in less than three weeks. We asked them to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and they did that. We asked them to maintain stability in the region while the Iraqis adopted a constitution and elected a new government and they did that. "And now they are sitting over there getting shot at because the Republicans in control in Washington, D.C., cannot figure out what their plan is to finish the job and bring them home and that has got to stop."

I am not suggesting plagiarism here. It's not anywhere close enough for that. But was Murray influenced by Burner's take on Iraq, was Burner influenced by someone else, or was this a passage from a Democratic talking point?

Burner's spokeswoman, Jaime Smith, said Burner has always used that approach in talking about Iraq and it did not come in some Democratic guide for talking about the war. "We were not fed that by anybody," Smith said. "It is probably a good way to communicate the frustration people are feeling," she said, adding that Murray and others may have found that it "is an effective message to pick up."

"We're happy to share with Patty," Smith said.

Murray spokeswoman Alex Glass said the senator focused on the theme of the troops having accomplished their goals by going back and looking at the original 2002 Iraq war vote that laid out what Congress was authorizing. It was clear, she said, that what the troops had been authorized to do had been done and the question became, "did we authorize them to do what they're doing there right now?"

UPDATE: I just spoke with Murray. After reading what I wrote above she said I should have been listening more carefully as she's traveled around the state in recent months.

"You have not been with me. I have been saying that for some time now," she said. Murray said she's met Burner but has not seen her speak. "I don't think it's surprising that we are saying something very similar. ... I think that's a reflection of what a lot of people are saying."

Murray said people tell her, "I don't understand why we are there now."

Murray voted against authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2002. But she has supported the supplemental appropriations for the war and occupation. While she was an early, and somewhat lonely at the time, Democratic voice against the war, she says the Kerry plan for a specific withdrawal date is the wrong approach.

"I had to work my way through that. I clearly understood that a date-certain could put our troops in jeopardy, simply by telling our enemy 'hold your breath we'll be out of there.' "

UPDATE UPDATE: You know, in the state House at least sometimes great minds just think alike.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: An alert reader with a better memory than mine just reminded me about something I wrote in 1999.

On Jan. 6, Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane, introduced a minor bill to rename the federal courthouse in Spokane after Foley. Here is what he said in remarks printed in the Congressional Record:

"Mr. Foley personified the high ideals to which all of us aspire as members of Congress. First and foremost he was a gentleman who sought consensus. . . . He loved Congress, believing it to be the best forum for democracy in the world."

What a speech! The words were so inspiring, apparently, that a month later, when Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced the companion bill in the Senate, here is what she said:

"Mr. Foley personified the high ideal to which all of us aspire as public servants and members of Congress. First and foremost he was a gentleman who sought consensus. . . . He loved Congress, and believed it to be the best forum for democracy in the world."

Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick issued a statement tonight saying the new TV commercial criticizing Sen. Maria Cantwell for voting against repeal of the estate tax is a personal attack and he says the Free Enterprise Fund should take it off the air.

"I have said over and over that my campaign will be a civil one that does not attack Senator Cantwell personally. While campaign finance laws prohibit me from coordinating on advertising with organizations such as the one sponsoring this particular ad, nothing prevents me from stating publicly that I disagree with the personal nature of it and I hope that it is taken off the air."

The ad, which I wrote about below, features Cantwell's head superimposed on a vulture's body.

It is not unheard of for a candidate to call on an outside group to pull an ad attacking an opponent. I can't recall an instance, though, of an ad actually being taken off the air in response.

Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman said Cantwell will not support a full repeal, and said of the senator:

"She's taking the issue more seriously than how this group is treating it. Fortunately, the creepiness of an ad isn't going to be a factor for her while trying to come up with the best estate tax reform policy Congress can."

UPDATE: Phil Kerpen, policy director for the Free Enterprise Fund, says the group has no plans to take the ad down. He says the TV spots have nothing to do with the Senate race, and he doesn't think they are personal attacks.

He said versions of the vulture ad have run in other states with no complaints. "Certainly nothing like this where a Republican complained," he said.

In the Senate just now Patty Murray said she did not support Sen. John Kerry's proposal to set a July 31, 2007 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Instead, Murray backs the proposal by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin to begin "redeploying" troops by Dec. 31, but sets no deadline for complete withdrawl.

The Senate today is debating the two Democratic resolutions. Murray has been a strong opponent of the war and voted against the initial congressional authorization for the invasion. But she said she could not support the Kerry plan.

"Like all of us I want the troops home as soon as possible. In fact I think they should start coming home this year. It is absolutely time for a new strategy in Iraq. An arbitrary specific date for full withdrawal, however, could force us to ignore facts on the ground, facts that have a direct impact on the security of our troops or the interest of our nation."

Murray, though, accused the Bush administration of playing politics with the war and being dishonest about it with the American public.

"Right now our nation's policy on Iraq is adrift. Instead of addressing this head on, the administration and this Congress continue to build on miscalculations and incompetence of the past and are dismissing any serious discussion of the challenges the American people now face.

"Instead of working to unite this nation behind a common purpose in defense of our security and freedom, the president and his aides are using the war as political fodder for the next election cycle, instead of being honest with the American people about the costs of our efforts and the sacrifice necessary to support them."

On the question of troop withdrawal, this puts Murray in the same vicinity as Maria Cantwell, who has rejected calls for an early, date-certain, withdrawal. It'll be interesting to see if Cantwell gets a break from the anti-war wing of her party now that she is more aligned with Murray, who has superior anti-war credentials.

At the American Library Association's annual conference that opens Thursday in New Orleans, the union representing Seattle library employees will introduce a resolution calling on President Bush to resign or be impeached.

The resolution says that "Librarians are among the preeminent defenders of intellectual freedom and government openness in the U.S." and includes a list of offenses by Bush, "many of which are indictably criminal" and include the "illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq," torture and domestic eavesdropping. The librarians specifically note the U.S. Patriot Act, which they say allows the government to snoop on library patrons.

The librarians will also introduce the resolution at their union's national convention in Chicago in August and have pledged to join the anti-Bush group, The World Can't Wait, which is calling for a "Day of Mass Resistance" against Bush in October.

Grandpa didn't work, so now come the vultures. The Free Enterprise Fund, a business lobby group with solid GOP ties, is running a new TV ad in Washington state today attacking Sen. Maria Cantwell for her vote against permanent repeal of the estate tax.

The ad features vultures circling, feasting on a carcass and then superimposes the senator's head on a vulture, because, as the ad says in case the metaphor is lost, "It's a vulture of a tax." Last month the group aired a commercial showing an old man and a young boy going fishing with sentimental music as the soundtrack to the anti-tax entreaty.

The group was founded by Stephen Moore who used to lead the Club for Growth, a major source of Republican campaign money, and has been dogging Cantwell since last year.

There have been many national reports that Cantwell is one of the Democratic senators that Bill Frist is looking to for a possible vote on another run at estate tax repeal. It's not clear how sticking Cantwell's head on a vulture will affect that effort, but the Free Enterprise Fund isn't interested in a compromise that has been talked about as a way to get Democratic votes. The group's communications director, Todd Schorle, told me this morning, "We are still in this for the full repeal and we want to educate people about Cantwell's vote and that she has a second chance to do right here and vote for repeal."

It is not clear how many times the ad will air here. It is part of a $3.7 million nationwide campaign. Schorle would not say how much of that has been spent on TV time here, but did say "the only way you would not see this ad is if all you watch is PBS."

UPDATE: It's not just pro-business, conservative groups that dislike the idea of a compromise on repealing the estate tax. From the other side of the spectrum, and the other side of the country, the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, issued a paper with its critique of the plan by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, which has been touted as a possible compromise to win Democratic votes.

Rick Day, director of the Washington State Gambling Commission, has responded in the comments about the post below about the crackdown on Internet gambling. His comments include these on how the state views online players, as opposed to operators of the casinos:

"As for players, gambling on the Internet, whether playing poker, slots or another gambling game, runs a risk of a felony conviction. However, there is not going to be an active campaign against regular players. If players' names appear in an operator's seized records, the Gambling Commission would likely send the player a warning letter, notifying them that betting online is a felony. If a player's name reappears again, charges may be filed."

Day's comments have spurred more discussion and I wanted to draw attention to it.

Remember John Pennington? He's the regional FEMA director who got caught up in Brownie-gate following Hurricane Katrina with a story here about his thin resume for the job, which helped propel him to the No. 2 spot in The New Republic's list of the Bush Hackocracy (subscription required).

Frankly I'm not sure he deserved that dishonor, having carried out the job without crisis, even if he did get the gig on his bona fides of running a mom and pop coffee company and being a Republican state legislator. But he was in the wrong job at the wrong time to have a diploma from a questionable college and no experience in the field.

But a year later it hasn't hurt his ability to get a job. He's been appointed director of Snohomish County's Department of Emergency Management. He's still at FEMA until July 10 and has to be confirmed by the county council for the new job.

County officials told the Herald they were well aware of Pennington's background, including his degree from a diploma mill, and county executive Aaron Reardon says Pennington's "references from state disaster officials are impeccable."

Pennington took some shots because he was a former Republican lawmaker hired by a Republican president with a series of questionable appointments. Now, though, Pennington has that experience and Reardon's hiring decision can't be seen through the same political lens given that the county executive is a Democrat.

(I removed a link here, and comments related to it, because in consultation with my editor it was decided it didn't meet our standards.)

Gov. Christine Gregoire's announcement that she'll back property tax relief if Tim Eyman's Initiative 747 is ruled unconstitutional is yet further proof of something smart Eyman once said: His initiatives can carry political power even if they are stripped of any legal power.

And I'm sure he takes comfort in that, given how many court fights he has lost.

The best example of this Eyman rule is Initiative 695. The 1999 initiative that eliminated the state car registration tax was opposed by Democrats as a devastating blow to transportation funding. But the day the initiative was ruled unconstitutional by a King County Superior Court judge, Democrats were in a tizzy as they rushed to protect the tax-cutting measure. Then-Gov. Gary Locke demanded "the Legislature act in special session to remove any doubt in voters' minds that the cheap, flat-tax car tabs are here to stay."

Eyman had some heartburn with seeing Locke become the champion of the lower car taxes, but in the end he said he didn't care how it happened.

"There are a thousand different ways to skin this cat, whether it's the court approving of 695, or the legislators getting off their duffs, or us running another initiative in the future."

Opponents of I-747 said the 1 percent cap on property tax increases was a threat to "basic local services," including fire protection and hospitals. They argued that taxes were not overly burdensome and "lower than many similar states."

Gregoire's comment Monday that "We need to make sure that people can afford to pay their property taxes" is a mild version of Eyman's voter's pamphlet statement that the initiative was needed "so working class families and senior citizens, and not just rich people, can afford to buy and own homes."

There are no details on what Gregoire or Democratic lawmakers will offer for property tax relief. But one wonders what the firefighters, nurses, librarians and others who fought against I-747 think about their friends in the Democratic party joining Eyman's cause. I'll ask them and see.

UPDATE: The Washington State Council of Firefighters, the most visible piece of the anti-I 747 campaign, has a note of caution for politicians rushing to replace unconstitutional property tax limits. The union's legislative liaison, Bud Sizemore told me:

"Our organization would hope that the Legislature does not just react to 747 and slap another 1 percent on there when local governments have already been hurting over the last several years trying to deal within that 1 percent."

And union president Kelly Fox said he hopes that the governor will include firefighters and other 747 opponents in any discussions about new property tax limits.