Sen. John Kerry got a chance yesterday to face one of his accusers. Sam Fox, a Missouri businessman and big-time GOP donor, was at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a hearing on his confirmation as ambassador to Belgium.

Fox gave $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 group that in the 2004 presidential campaign attacked Kerry's Vietnam service record. (The group later paid nearly $300,000 in fines to the FEC for failing to register as a PAC and other violations. )

The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers says Kerry asked Fox what he thought about the level of "personal destruction in politics":

Fox replied that he was "very concerned" that politics have become too "mean and destructive," especially with the participation of independent 527 groups. He subtly alluded to the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry and not-so-subtly tried to redirect Kerry's line of questioning by saying (with a straight face) to Kerry, "Senator, you're a hero," adding that no 527 group "can take that away from you."

A hero? That couldn't be more different than the image that the Swift Boat campaign Fox helped fund wanted Americans to see. How did Fox come to be involved in the campaign? He couldn't remember. Someone asked him to give money, but doesn't know who. From the Post:

KERRY: And you don't know who asked you.

FOX: No, sir, I really don't. I do not know who asked me.
If you were to take our 1,000 contributions and go right down the list, I
bet you I couldn't give you five percent of them, of who asked me.

KERRY: Do you recall whether it was somebody in Missouri or
was it in person? Was it is by telephone?

FOX: I have no recollection.

KERRY: No recollection of how that came about.

FOX: No, sir.

KERRY: Do you recall thinking about it at all?

FOX: No more than that somebody must have asked and I gave.

KERRY: Boy, no wonder so many people are here to embrace your
-- what about now?
How do you feel about it now, knowing what you know today?

FOX: Mr. Senator, let me say this. Be it 527 or anything
else, if I thought what they were printing was not true, I would not
contribute to it.

But I personally have no way if knowing generally when I give.

Danny Westneat talked to Congressman Jay Inslee for a column this morning about the state Senate Democrats' hearing tomorrow on impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Inslee has made his opposition clear before, but he told Westneat that one reason impeachment is not a good idea is because it would tick off Congressional Republicans.

"These are my friends," he says, "so this is difficult to say. But all impeachment would do is rally support for George Bush. Among Republicans, it would make him a hero. And it would make it that much harder to end this war."

...

But he also acknowledged what anti-war activists won't: Republicans are key to getting American troops out of Iraq.

"We're trying to get them to vote against the war," Inslee said from Capitol Hill Tuesday. "They're coming around. You don't hear them singing the virtues of George Bush like they used to. But nothing will turn this into a partisan lockdown faster than impeachment."

Westneat was covering D.C. for The Times when Bill Clinton faced impeachment. What he saw then has him siding with Inslee and others who say impeaching Bush would do more harm than good.

I saw the atmosphere become so hostile that Republicans and Democrats wouldn't even get on elevators together, let alone cooperate to do anything important.

Regardless of whether Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying under oath about an affair, there's no question the proceedings turned Congress into a dysfunctional mess.

Chad Shue has heard that before. He writes at The Left Shue about attending Congressman Rick Larsen's town hall meeting last weekend:

During the Q&A he was asked if he would support impeachment hearings against George W. Bush. The short answer was "No" but in his explanation it became clear why this, as with all things in government over the past six years, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Larsen said that he felt that the bar for impeachment should be set extremely high and that, while he felt the Republicans had lowered the bar significantly for the Clinton impeachment, he believed that impeaching Bush would only make the Democrats (paraphrasing) 'appear to be seeking revenge and not justice and, therefore, simply returning the favor.'

...

So there you are. Damn you Bill Clinton! Because you were impeached for sex, Bush walks free for lying to Congress, illegal wiretapping of American citizens, violations of international laws against torture and kidnapping — all of this while ordering thousands to their deaths in a "war of choice."

Gov. Christine Gregoire said in Washington, D.C., Tuesday that she thinks the state Senate's Bush impeachment efforts are a waste of time, according to the AP (via The Columbian):

Gregoire called the Iraq protests a distraction, adding she was "not going to bring up Iraq at all" in her talks with Washington state's congressional delegation. Instead, she said she would talk about federal budget cuts, health care and a bill to reauthorize the federal No Child Left Behind education law.

...

Asked about a move by some Democrats in the state Legislature to call on Congress to investigate and consider impeaching Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, Gregoire said she agrees with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. Both federal lawmakers have told their state colleagues that such efforts are a distraction and a waste of time.

"I don't disagree with that," Gregoire said.

I frequently read Lynn Allen's Evergeen Politics(it should be on the new blogroll) and I often learn things there.

She has an interview with Gov. Christine Gregoire which is worth a read. But for some reason the interview is stirring reactions from the left as if the governor signaled something new about her thinking on the viaduct. Here's an excerpt:

As a resident of Seattle, I will have to ask if there is any way the surface and transit option would be entertained by the state.

Gregoire: Absolutely. We did entertain it earlier but couldn't make it work. We have a set of criteria we have to meet. We have to maintain safety. We have to meet capacity for both moving freight and people in that corridor.

We're not accommodating increases in capacity if we either rebuild the viaduct or build a new tunnel. There won't be an increase in today's capacity. It's now somewhere in the neighborhood of 110,000 per day.

So, no matter what we do, we still have to maximize transit and surface. No matter what happens, there has to be a comprehensive transit component. We will need to be able to increase the capacity for moving the increase in population we are expecting.

Then, too, what we decide to do has to be fiscally responsible and friendly to urban design.

That's why we're working with Ron Sims.

This prompted Andrew at the Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog to write:

Here's a bit of welcome, refreshing news: Governor Christine Gregoire told Evergreen Politics' Lynn Allen in a just published interview that the state hasn't completely shut the door on a surface plus transit option, despite whatever her communications staff might have said recently.

...

Since this is directly from Gregoire herself, this must be the Governor's position. It's a much more reasonable and sensible approach than what has been conveyed in recent traditional media stories, and we strongly applaud it.

Josh Feit at The Stranger says it shows "Gregoire puts surface/transit in a secondary role to the rebuild or the tunnel" but that "she strikes a more politically conciliatory tone about the idea than I've heard before." He writes:

As you know, it's hard to pin down Gregoire on a viaduct position, and she seems to be telling anybody and everybody whatever they want to hear. So, with surface/transit gaining some momentum ... I'm not surprised Gregoire told Seattle's Allen she's "working with Ron Sims" (a staunch and popular advocate of surface/transit.)

Huh? This is exactly what Gregoire said last week to a roomful of reporters. There's no more conciliatory tone, she's not just now saying she's working with Sims and this is certainly not an example of Gregoire "telling anybody and everybody what they want to hear."

I realize that some may have gotten a different message from Gregoire's media availability last week and thought the governor had absolutely ruled out a surface option. But that's not what she said. As we reported last week:

Gov. Christine Gregoire hasn't completely ruled out a surface-street replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct but said Monday that "I have yet to see any surface option that works."

I just listened to the recording of the availability again. Here's more:

Q: Governor, there is some talk in the Senate, Seattle senators say it's time to look at the surface option. The mayor has said this could be a fall-back position. Ron Sims advocates the surface option. Speaker Frank Chopp says it could be a fall-back position. Are you willing to be the only leader in the state to say 'No way'?"

Gregoire: I didn't say that. What I said was, show me; show me. The only viable option on the table right now that meets my criteria — safety, fiscally responsible and capacity and will be done in a timely way — is the elevated structure. I have yet to see any surface option that works.

...

Ron and I have had really good conversations and he hasn't said to me 'This is the option.' He has just said, 'Let's just work as hard as we can and see if there's anything there at the end of day.' That is what Ron is saying and I agree with him. Let's go forth and see. But the fact of the matter is today there is no viable option other than an elevated structure.

To see both supporters and critics latch on to Gregoire's comments as something new I think shows the frustration over what has been a less than crystal clear message from the governor. But in this case it's not right to bash her for flipping or flopping or to give her credit for saying anything new.

The more important news related to the viaduct is likely Peter Steinbrueck's decision not to run for re-election. The Stranger's Erica C. Barnett was there last night when the city councilman made the announcement:

"I feel like this era's come to an end," a visibly emotional Steinbrueck said, turning away briefly as he battled tears. "A new era is beginning, and it's going to be focused on defeating the rebuild of the viaduct, first of all. ... I want to put all my time and effort toward an environmentally responsible, sustainable solution for the waterfront that is not auto-dependent. ... that godawful thing has simply got to come down." (Later in his comments, Steinbrueck quoted an article about the viaduct in the latest Economist, which alluded to a "mudwrestling match" between the 'bulky' Nickels and the 'honey-haired' Gregoire.)

UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me that Gregoire's spokeswoman said last week that the governor isn't open to the surface. And that I guess is supposed to be why the governor's new comments are big news. But to be clear, Gregoire told Lynn Allen almost exactly what she told the Capitol press corps last week. There may be different spin from staff and others. You may be able to read in whatever you want. But I'm willing to bet if anyone follows up they'll find that the governor's position as reported in Evergreen Politics is the same — whatever you want to call it — as it was one week ago.

The Sonics still aren't sure if they'd agree to a public vote on their subsidy package. It'd be problematic, Clay Bennett told lawmakers Monday. But as The Times reported, he does seem to be softening on his objections, saying he was open to "whatever leadership recommends and whatever is right for this region and however that decision needs to be made."

Meanwhile, NASCAR thinks they know what needs to be done. This morning Great Western Sports said it had agreed to put the racetrack financing plan to a local vote. The vote would be within a Public Speedway Authority district that could include up to three contiguous counties. The authority would own the track and lease it to Great Western Sports. Grant Lynch, president of the company, said in a release:

"We are prepared to listen to the will of the people on this important project and we strongly believe that it stands on its own merits."

The bill hasn't been rewritten yet to include the public authority language. But when it is, I'll be interested to see how it reads to The News Tribune's Peter Callaghan, who says the legislation that gave the Seahawks its stadium hasn't been enforced as should have been. Callaghan wrote last year:

When the Seahawks and nearly every other NFL team take hundreds of millions of tax dollars, how do we know where public money stops and private money begins?

Well, we might have known had state Attorney General Rob McKenna not given Seahawks owner Paul Allen a pass on disclosing the team's financial statement. That was one of the requirements in the 1997 law that turned over $300 million in public money for Questionable Accounting Practices Field.

But McKenna bought the pitch from Allen's lawyers that the Legislature didn't really mean what the Legislature meant.

As Seattlest imagines it..

A major effort to draft Al Gore into the 2008 presidential race will soon launch from Everett. It's an all-volunteer effort, but close Gore advisors are involved as well as a leading Democratic PR firm. Dylan Malone, chairman of "The People, Not The Powerful '08," which runs the draft Gore Web site told me:

"Until now we've been almost completely flying below the media radar. We wanted to get our organization in place first to take full advantage of the interest press coverage generates. We're turning that corner now, and when the new site goes live we've an ambitious earned media campaign planned for the spring."

Malone met Gore during the 2000 campaign. Malone and his wife, Christine, then had a 6-month old son, Ian, who had been born with brain damage. He couldn't swallow and needed constant medical attention. But the family's insurance company refused to pay for a nurse to help, saying the family could take care of Ian.

Gore took on the family's cause and the insurance company relented and agreed to pay for the care. The Malones credited Gore with saving Ian's life. They spoke at the Democratic National Convention that year and were featured in a Gore campaign commercial.

Ian died in 2004 when he was 4 ½ years old. Dylan Malone said Gore was the first person to call him that day. And they have continued to stay in touch.

"He and Tipper have always been there for us, and it's been an honor to call them friends."

The Politico reported yesterday on Gore's Academy Award win, which raised questions about whether a presidential campaign could follow for Gore:

No draft movement is being authorized or encouraged, and there are no internal discussions of a campaign, the friends insist. But they say he has deliberately not closed the door. It just doesn't feel right to him and he's only 58.

Malone hasn't talked to Gore about the draft effort, and says it has to be independent from the would-be candidate. But the Draft Gore movement is not just a thankful Everett couple. Malone's involvement in the 2000 campaign connected him with Gore aides and supporters around the country. (Malone was one of the people Gore called in 2002 when he announced he would not run for president in 2004.) Malone said by e-mail:

"I often telephone the Gore 'inner circle' people from his days at the White House or the 2000 campaign when I'm stumped on a tough decision, or just want to brainstorm on a topic. Overwhelmingly these folks are of the opinion that he's sincere in his public sentiments about '08, but a thriving draft effort coupled with these flawed front-runner candidates could potentially bring him into the race in late summer or early fall."

The campaign is also working with CivicActions.com, a prominent Berkeley-based firm, that is working on a new Web site. When that launches this spring, Malone says it'll be clear that this is a serious effort to get Gore into the race.

"We're deploying a completely new Web site to enable true distributed campaigning — beyond anything that has been done before on the Web by a grassroots organization. Because a draft campaign does not have the resources to open physical offices in the early primary states, we're incorporating most of the functions of a traditional campaign directly into the site. Gore supporters in key states will soon be able to phone bank, print walking lists, etc. directly from the Web site."

To test whether Democrats were interested in creating Gore committees, the draft Gore campaign went to MeetUp.com, which had proved to be a successful organizing tool for Howard Dean in 2004. As of today there are 100 Gore groups, 48 for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and 31 for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Malone says:

"The next generation AlGore.org site includes sophisticated social networking tools that go beyond Meetup.com and will allow us to coordinate thousands of local groups nationwide."

The campaign's "near term projects exploit Al Gore's schedule throughout the spring," Malone said. The first part of that was Sunday night's Academy Awards. Next month Gore will be the sole witness before House and Senate committees holding climate change hearings. In May he releases his new book, "The Assault on Reason," and launches a nationwide book tour. In July, Gore has helped organize Live Earth, 24 hours of concerts on seven continents designed to highlight the dangers of global warming.

Said Malone:

"I suspect you'll be seeing more of Al Gore, and the Draft Gore movement, than many of the official candidates this summer."

• Chris Mulick of the Tri-City Herald writes:

  Longtime Richland state Rep. Shirley Hankins has repeatedly used the power of her office in the past five years to muscle state and local officials into directing business to her two daughters' struggling tire baling company.

  A Herald investigation shows the Republican lawmaker's efforts to promote Northwest Tire Recycling have ranged from carefully indirect to downright blunt, and the tactics raise questions about abuse of power.

  Hankins denies any wrongdoing or applying excessive pressure. Her hometown paper says that the work on behalf of the company included lobbying the state Department of Ecology.
  
  

  Her overtures have been heavy-handed enough that agency Director Jay Manning, in a December letter to her "implied that she is pursuing tire interests on behalf of her kid's recycling business," according to an e-mail he later sent fellow staffers.

  Hankins has been even more direct at home. She's told city regulators the company's licensing hurdles would be overturned by legislation in Olympia, and she has told volunteer members of two Richland advisory boards that she could secure grant funding for the city if they used tire bales in their projects.

  There is a sidebar here with links to a long list of documents.

• Steven Gardner follows NASCAR developments at the Kitsap Sun's Tracking the Speedway blog. It's topped today with a post about a letter House Finance Committee Chairman Ross Hunter sent outlining what would have to happen for him to move the NASCAR bill from his committee. The requirements include that the "proposal makes financial sense for the state and local governments. This should not require believing more than one or two impossible things, or drinking copious quantities of Kool-Aid."

  Local legislators must also want the project, Hunter wrote, and "I must believe that the plan has enough support to pass the legislature and be signed by the governor."

• At Eye on Olympia, Rich Roesler says Spokane is looking for a bit of glory in the fine print of legislation this session. Now if you could just fit "Spokane, biggest city in the Yukon-to-Yellowstone conservation initiative (except for Calgary)" on a bumper sticker.

Senate Majority Lisa Brown says she personally disagrees with her colleagues' push to impeach the president. Brown talked to Sen. Patty Murray and Congressman Jay Inslee last week about a hearing scheduled Thursday on Sen. Eric Oemig's call for Congress to investigate and consider impeaching Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"They think impeachment is the wrong focus," Brown said. The two Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation wanted to talk about what Democrats in D.C. are doing to hold the Bush administration accountable. And Brown says she agrees:

"Personally I feel that they're doing a pretty good job in ... Congress, of investigating the Bush administration and really focusing on the problems in the Bush case for the war. I think they're on task in Congress right now on those issues."

Brown has said that the impeachment resolution, and a second one opposing the Bush troop increase, would get a hearing. But a vote will only come on the floor if there is strong Democratic support for it. So far it's unclear whether there is enough support among Senate Democrats.

Before Thursday, Brown said she will talk to the bills' sponsors to let them know that she hopes the hearing doesn't become any sort of platform for national voices for and against Bush and the war in Iraq.

"I would prefer that the focus be on hearing from people from Washington state, on both sides of the issue. That's the main reason to have a hearing in the Washington State Legislature."

At the Slog Josh Feit is following up a tip he got that some of the new owners of the Sonics and Storm are major backers of an anti-gay marriage group.

It turns out that in 2004 and 2005 Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward — principals in the ownership team — were the top two donors to Americans United to Preserve Marriage, according to records at PoliticalMoneyLine. The group is led by conservative Christian activist and former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer.

McClendon gave $625,000 in 2004. Ward gave $475,000 in 2004 and 2005, with the most recent donation coming in a $100,000 chunk in December 2005.

Feit focuses on what the reaction will likely be from Storm, not Sonics, fans. And (if you didn't know) for good reason, as The Times wrote last year:

Anyone who's been to a Storm game knows the crowd is decidedly female. Women hold hands; some hands wear matching wedding bands and are, on occasion, tethered to some Storm-attired tot.

...

They're as much a fixture of the city's lesbian community as they are a destination for straight people.

But the Oklahoma group's decidedly conservative political bent is likely to be of concern to many more in liberal Seattle than just Storm fans. And that could matter at a time when the team is looking to the Legislature to approve a taxpayer subsidy for a new arena. That's the same Legislature that is expected to approve benefits for domestic partnerships this year. And the NBA is the same league that recently banished a former player from All Star weekend because of his anti-gay comments.

At Sound Politics Eric Earling issues this challenge:

Off the top of your head, name a prominent Republican in Washington State who talks a good game on the environment. You know, someone who has stood on the proverbial stage with Democrats and offered a compelling case for Republican positions on related issues

I can't think of one.

I can think of a few that could if they wanted to, but none that currently fit the bill. This can hardly be considered a good thing.

Commenters there, including Stefan Sharkansky, have suggestions of some who Earling has overlooked. (Meanwhile, just one post down Stefan continues his campaign to show that cold weather in winter disproves global warming.) But in comments on Earling's post you can see one reason why the Republican Party has not embraced the environment: Some on the right see it as a danger. As Doug Parris wrote:

Like Primordial Islam, "Environmentalism" cannot be assimilated; it cannot be accomodated; it must be crushed.

Sen. Patty Murray and Congressman Jay Inslee are lobbying legislators to cancel this week's hearing on a resolution calling on Congress to investigate and consider impeaching President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Inslee and Murray, both Democrats who voted against the war, think state lawmakers holding hearings and voting on impeachment is a distraction from what Democrats are doing in Congress, including their efforts to end the war.

Murray spokeswoman Alex Glass confirmed that Murray told Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown last week that the impeachment resolution was a bad idea:

"Senator Murray's message was, 'I have two words for anyone who wants to impeach the President: Dick Cheney.'"

"Jay called and he said, 'Darlene, don't do this,'" said Sen. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park. She is chairwoman of the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee, which is scheduled to hold a hearing on two measures Thursday. One is Sen. Eric Oemig's joint memorial calling for Congress to investigate and consider impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The other is Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles' measure opposing Bush's troop increase in Iraq.

"I said, 'Jay it's all over YouTube. I can't un-ring that bell,'" Fairley said. There are a number of videos posted to the site featuring Oemig and the impeachment measure.

Inslee has been busy with a family matter and unavailable. But he earlier told The Stranger's Josh Feit why he opposes impeachment.

As much as I despise what this president has done to the country, my job is to find a way to end the war in Iraq, which I voted against. We should do nothing whatsoever to hinder our effort to end the war. Grandstanding that prevents us from growing a coalition against the war is a luxury we cannot afford. We don't have the votes to remove Bush from office. Bush is leaving office. We need to make sure our troops are leaving Iraq.

The hearing at 3:30 p.m. Thursday is looking to be a major spectacle. The Washington Legislature's anti-Bush moves have become, at least temporarily, a center of attention of anti-war forces around the country. At an impeachment forum in Olympia last week where Oemig spoke, according to reports, the audience included Rachel Corrie's parents, Lt. Ehren Watada and James Yee.

Coming to Olympia to testify in favor of Oemig's impeachment resolution are Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a growing voice in the anti-war movement, and Mary Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel who resigned from the U.S. State Department in 2003 to protest the invasion of Iraq. She has since worked closely with Cindy Sheehan and others in the peace movement.

AP

Rocky Anderson at D.C. anti-war rally.

Kohl-Welles told me she invited retired Chairman of the Joint Chief Gen. John Shalikashvili, who lives near Gig Harbor, and actor and activist Sean Penn. She said she was waiting to hear back from Penn's publicist.

The hearing is turning into just what Democrats in Congress worry about. Fairley said that in a Feb. 14 telephone call with Inslee:

He said it sent the wrong message and 'detracted from the good things we are doing with education and health care.' I agree with him, as I said, but there is a large group of people who want to have a say on these two things and this gives them a venue.

Truly, I think both he and Patty feel that people would compare what the state of Washington was doing with what D.C. was doing — to their detriment.

STEVE RINGMAN/THE SEATTLE TIMES

Sean Penn outside Ft. Lewis

Best answer I can give, I'm on their side. They should help me help them. As soon as Congress starts issuing subpoenas or indictments 8016 will go away.

A very large crowd is expected Thursday. There will be a rally at 1 p.m. that day on the Capitol steps. The Eastside Fellowship of Reconciliation is also raising money to "keep this valuable campaign alive."

Writer Dave Lindorff, who spoke at the Olympia impeachment forum last week with Oemig, wrote:

It seems likely that if Washington passed Oemig's bill (it currently has eight co-sponsors), or if one of the ones moving through the legislatures of Vermont or New Mexico were to pass, the other states might follow suit. As well, representatives in Congress could feel emboldened to submit their own bills of impeachment.

In other words, the dam will burst, and impeachment will be underway.

Lindorff is co-author of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office." Writing about this week's hearing, Lindorff said the plan is to "have hundreds — perhaps thousands — of backers on hand to make sure it gains committee approval."

Fairley is expecting a huge crowd for the two measures. And she plans to keep tight control. There will be a little more than two hours to take testimony on both bills. Each bill will get a pro-panel designated by the sponsor and a con panel chosen by Senate Republicans.

The panelists will each get three minutes to talk. The rest of the time Fairley wants reserved for citizen testimony — not questions or speeches from senators. And she's willing to have legislators, or anyone else, removed if they don't follow the rules.

I'm restricting questions from the members to one question per panel speaker without follow-up. Hopefully, we won't have a lot of questions because this is the time to listen to the public's testimony. Some of the committee members want to make floor speeches instead of asking questions. Normally, I don't believe in gaveling people quiet, but I will if I have to. And, if I have to, I'll resort to using the sergeant-at-arms to escort people from the room.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and everyone will be treated with
respect. Period.

SIDEBAR: Murray's vote against the Iraq war doesn't seem to mean much today to anti-war activists. Last week, while Murray was meeting with a group of local police chiefs in Bellevue, protesters asked the chiefs to arrest the senator for war crimes.

They didn't do it, but in a just world they would have.

There's a low quality video of it here.
The demonstrators were from Stand Up Seattle and the Green Party of Washington State, which are part of the local Occupation Project.

TO BE CLEAR: The above line about a just world, is a quote from the Occupation Project folks, not my thoughts. That's why it is indented, as quotes and excerpts are on the blog. That statement was not from me.

The campaign against a new elevated viaduct has a TV commercial ready to air against Measure 2.

The 30 second spot is called "Bigger, Uglier, Noisier," which is the campaign's theme. It's up on YouTube. I've asked the campaign when it will begin airing.

UPDATE: Campaign spokeswoman Lee Keller says the ad will begin airing Tuesday on cable.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Army's top medical official seem divided on the question of conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Gates today, according to the Washington Post, announced the formation of an independent panel to look into what he called an "unacceptable situation" with outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and he vowed that those responsible will be held accountable.

He said he briefed President Bush this morning on the situation and described him as "understandably concerned and emphatic in wanting the best possible care for our wounded soldiers and for their families."

Gates also said some people "directly involved" with the outpatient facilities have been relieved of their duties.

Noting that the recovering soldiers have paid a high price for defending the nation, Gates said, "They should not have to recuperate in substandard housing, nor should they be expected to tackle mountains of paperwork and bureaucratic processes. ... They battled our foreign enemies; they should not have to battle an American bureaucracy."

But as Gates expresses the president's concerns, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, chief of the Army Medical Command, said today he wants to "reset the thinking" about Walter Reed after a Washington Post investigation this week found disturbing conditions in outpatient facilities. Kiley said at a press conference at the hospital today:

"While we have some issues here, this is not a horrific, catastrophic failure at Walter Reed.

He criticized the Post's coverage, though it's not exactly sure what his concerns are. At one point he said of the stories, "I'm not sure it was an accurate representation." But after the press conference he told the Post, "It's not the accuracy I question, it's the characterization."

Sen. Patty Murray this week called for an investigation of Walter Reed and other military outpatient facilities. She said today she was glad to hear Gates' response to the Post series.

"He understands the tremendous responsibility that they have. And it's not just the fact that it happened, but that no one reported it, no one said anything, no one came to Congress and said 'We need additional resources' and that is really wrong."

Murray, who was visiting Olympia today, was also hoping the Walter Reed stories would help reset thinking some.

"This has helped us really raise this issue in a much larger picture," she said. And it's not just about treatment of injured soldiers. "I hope to use it to really highlight a lot of other issues," she said.

Some of that will be evident Monday when the Senate debates a bill implementing recommendations from the 9/11 commission. Murray said it will also be evident Tuesday when the Senate Appropriations Committee hears from Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Murray said they will face hard questions about the administration's request for a $100 billion appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She said the administration has so far gotten its military funding "with no strings attached" because "they say they need the flexibility and that is going to change."

But Murray said there aren't the votes in the Senate to cut off funding for Iraq operations. Democrats continue to work on a "caucus-wide strategy to change the mission of this war."

The Boston Globe has a story today about bloggers' fears that political operatives will "infiltrate" their blogs to promote presidential candidates.

For now, bloggers must be their own police. Participating in online political discussions without disclosing financial ties to a candidate would violate the unwritten rules of the blogosphere, Web site operators said.

"Campaigns and organizations promote their candidates and efforts, obviously," Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos.com, a prominent liberal blog, said in an e-mailed response. "If they do it openly, it's well accepted. If they use sock puppets ( create aliases to hide their identities), then it's a big deal."

My question in the post below about commenters' expectations of anonymity set off worries that I'm on a witch hunt. I'm not. Just asking and hoping that some reasoned responses could help my thinking on this.

But this issue is obviously a serious one and will become more so as the 2008 campaigns are launched. There is a distinction between a politician using an alias to post a comment, even if it calls someone "stupid," and a politician or someone on his or her behalf posting comments under phony names as either an attempt to show wide support or to discredit an opponent. I would hope that doesn't happen here, and so far I have not seen any obvious attempt to do that. But it happens.

From the Globe:

In 2006, a staff member for former representative Charles Bass , a Republican from New Hampshire, was caught posing as a Democrat and writing negative comments about Bass's Democratic opponent. Bass lost to Democrat Paul Hodes. In Canada last fall, online attacks against a candidate for leader of the Liberal Party were linked to a political consulting firm employed by one of his rivals.

Bloggers and campaign consultants said the fear of getting caught should be a major disincentive for campaigns considering the use of underhanded tactics. Many blogs check IP, or Internet protocol, addresses to catch people opening multiple accounts, one of the ploys used by public relations firms to give the appearance of widespread support for a candidate or position. In addition, blog commenters are quick to accuse others of deception and led the effort to expose the deceptive posts in the Hodes-Bass race.

Arizona Sen. John McCain speaks in Seattle at noon in what's being billed as a major foreign policy speech. He's appearing at a joint meeting of the Seattle City Club and the World Affairs Council.

He's not yet an official candidate for president, but it must be getting close.

Certainly the opposition is treating him as a candidate. State Democrats put out a release today saying "JOHN MCCAIN WORSE THAN GEORGE W. BUSH ON IRAQ."

And a liberal D.C. group, the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, has been promoting an on-line petition asking McCain to boycott the luncheon today because one of the co-sponsors is Seattle's Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute has been instrumental in promoting intelligent design and it has become the group's most prominent and controversial cause. Discovery is one of 10 groups listed as "co-presenting organizations" for today's meeting. Others include the Municipal League of King County and the University of Washington's Jackson School of International Studies.

DefCon, as the group calls itself, says Discovery is "responsible for spearheading the religious right's war on science education."

None of our elected officials should lend credence to this organization, especially a ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Last week, Think Progress described the event as McCain being "the keynote speaker for the most prominent creationism advocacy group in the country." Certainly Discovery would object to the use of "creationism" to describe intelligent design.

And that clearly overstates Discovery's role in today's event. I don't think the lunch has anything to with intelligent design. But no one should be surprised that McCain will be unconcerned about a connection to the Discovery Institute. He supports teaching ID in schools, something even the Discovery Institute claims it's not interested in. He appears to also support teaching creationism in schools along with evolution.

In 2005 McCain was asked about intelligent design during an editorial board interview with the Arizona Daily Star. You can find a video of this here at the paper's site. I watched it and made this transcript.

Q: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?

McCain: I think there have to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. And to say you can only teach one line of thinking ... or one belief, on how people and the world were created, I think, there's nothing wrong with teaching others schools of thought.

Q: Does it belong in science?

McCain: Well, there are enough scientists who believe that it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented. We have never been exclusive in that.

Think Progress says that in 2006 McCain reversed himself and said it doesn't belong in science class. But that's a misreading of what McCain was reported to have said. The Aspen Times story cited shows the question McCain was asked was about creationism, not intelligent design.

In the final question of the evening, an audience member asked McCain to outline his stance on teaching evolution and creationism in schools.

"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view," he said. "I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not."

More on McCain's visit:

The AP's Dave Ammons has the scoop today on Attorney General Rob McKenna's planned endorsement of McCain.

"John McCain is an impressive leader with a record of public service that's beyond reproach," McKenna said. "He understands the difficult challenges our country faces. He has the experience and fortitude to bring people together for solutions we need."

McKenna is the first statewide elected official in Washington to make an endorsement in the 2008 presidential campaign. It's interesting that he is getting so far out ahead, though if there is a frontrunner on the GOP side it'd have to be McCain. I think being an early adopter can bring McKenna some national attention.

In 2004 Congressman Adam Smith did well by being the first member of Congress to endorse John Kerry. Even though Kerry lost, and his reputation has not recovered, I don't see that Smith has been hurt, and at the time he looked smart for having early on picked his party's nominee.

Any Washington politicians signed up with any presidential candidates yet that I've missed? Let me know.

UPDATE: Adam Smith is an Obama backer. Smith spokesman Derrick Crowe
said the congressman met recently at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with other House Democrats who have signed up with Obama's campaign and "he is on the team."

Stefan Sharkansky wondered who it was who identified himself as "PDC expert" on Sound Politics earlier this month and left comments saying, among other things, "your ignorance is stunning" and "I love it when you demonstrate your stupidity."

It looks like it was state Rep. Geoff Simspon, D-Kent.

The comments came in response to a Sharkansky post Feb. 3 about Tim Eyman's battle with Secretary of State Sam Reed over moves to regulate paid signature gathering.

For example, the Secretary of State's spreadsheet claims that the WEA's "Protect our Public Schools" referendum campaign used only volunteer signature gatherers. But as Eyman notes, the campaign self-reported to the PDC that the WEA made a $211,000 in-kind contribution to the campaign for signature gathering.

Among other comments, PDC expert wrote:

Reporting in-kind contributions is a way that campaigns have of making it look like they've raised more money than they actually have because they report the fair market value of the service as if it were a contribution. Keep talking though because I love it when you demonstrate your stupidity.

And:

Eyman is a liar and the sheep on this blog will believe any lie he tells them. Show us the form that shows the payment of $211,000 by the WEA Tim. Show us the money. Oh, that's right. You can't because there never was any money. An in-kind contribution of volunteer time was all they contributed. Idiots.

How does Sharkansky know that Simpson is PDC expert? Because he tracked the IP address used to post the comment. It was part of the King County network and he made public records request that led to the City of Kent, and this response from Arthur "Pat" Fitzparick, deputy city attorney:

Please be advised that the city's network is designed to randomly assign IP address that change from user to user throughout the city's system. The city system does not record who is assigned particular IP addresses from day to day. As such, we were unable to locate the records that you requested in the manner that you requested them. However, based on other records maintained by the city, it has been determined that a shared computer at Fire Station No. 74 was used to access the blog in question, and although the exact computer is not identifiable, the user who posted the blog is identified as Kent Firefighter Geoffrey Simpson.

Simpson responded on Sound Politics yesterday:

Interesting that when Stefan doesn't like something someone says (even when they are correct as I was in each of my posts) he investigates them and violates the personal privacy afforded to all the posters on this blog by the ability to post anonymously. Poor baby. Make sure you don't disagree with Stefan or he'll open an investigation on you too... Posted by: Geoff Simpson

Simpson told me that he doesn't often post comments on blogs. But he does have a running e-mail debate with Eyman, and that's what pushed him to post his "PDC expert" comments.

A question for commenters. When you post here or elsewhere using a pseudonym, do you have an expectation of privacy? Should that standard be the same for a public official? I've had occasion to wonder about these things myself, but so far have not yet outed any commenter.

NASCAR legends Richard Petty and Darrell Waltrip and current powerhouse driver, and Washington state native, Greg Biffle made the rounds in Olympia today trying to help the International Speedway Corporation lobbying for a racetrack financing plan.

They made their way around the Legislative Building and lawmakers' offices with a throng of press, security, PR people and NASCAR fans. They visited supporters, opponents and the undecideds. At the Ways and Means Committee office, they sang "Happy Birthday" to Chairwoman Margarita Prentice.

"I told them, 'Boy, you guys were well briefed,'" said Sen. Don Benton, R-Vancouver, a NASCAR fan who had photos autographed for his sons.

The drivers said Prentice opposes the Kitsap site for the track, but said if Lewis County or another site was used she may be able to support it.

"She may disagree with us, but at least she knows we're charming," joked Waltrip.

That really was the point of the visit. These guys were here for a charm offensive. They weren't expected to do any heavy lobbying, but just to be Petty, Waltrip and Biffle.

Waltrip, now a racing analyst for Fox Sports among his other NASCAR activities, said told reporters that the track was a no-risk deal for taxpayers.

"This is a great opportunity to not just build a track and maybe we'll come, this is to build a track and we'll definitely come. And that's like money in the bank, folks. Trust me. I've been involved in a lot of racetracks, a lot of deals. If y'all are not going to build a track I think I'll just build it myself. I think me and Greg and Richard will go in together and we'll build it and well have the race out here for you."

That's precisely what some lawmakers have suggested. NASCAR, they say, should build the track without a public subsidy as it was able to do elsewhere. I asked Waltrip why they don't do it with their own money.

"You know what, it's math. My two and your two makes five. ... With your help and with our help, everybody works together, this is a win-win. And it is a win-win in a much faster pace and a win-win with everyone involved."

Waltrip and Biffle could have blended into the Capitol surroundings. But not Petty, with his giant black cowboy hat, wrap-around shades and a hubcap-sized belt buckle.

That's how he met the press in the morning. I asked what he thought about being called by the House Speaker, "the guy who got picked up for DUI," though there's no evidence that ever happened.

"No, not DUI. That's driving, drunk, right? I don't drink, ok? Now I'm not saying I don't run over people when I'm sober, OK. That's one thing. If you'll go back and look at NASCAR history, the drivers' history and then you look at baseball, football or basketball, the cleanest sport period, as far as drunk driving or drugs and stuff like that, is NASCAR drivers, because our life is on the line every time we get in a race track, so our folks can't afford to do things like that, because we're responsible not only for ourselves but 42 other race car drivers on the race track. So if you look at role models, then, the role models would be NASCAR drivers."

Petty sounded like the Southern politician he once was when he said skeptical state residents need to take a far-reaching view of the money NASCAR is asking for.

"None of us like change and that's what this would be. And as I get older and I look around and stuff, what I like is not necessarily what the next generation's going to need. So we need to look beyond our nose. We got to go a little further out than one year or five years, 10 years. We got to look at the next crowd coming through, what can our crowd do to make it better for them.

"Because from past experiences, , a lot of things we do, our grandkids are going to have to pay for. So now we're trying to say, 'Let's do something for those people that can generate interest for their state and also bring in money for them."

Walking through the Capitol, Waltrip told me that the reception NASCAR's gotten here is different from what he's seen elsewhere in the country.

"If you tell someone NASCAR wants to build a track, they'll be out there with a parade, saying, 'Where do you want to put it?'"

Biffle, who grew up in Clark County and still has a home in Camas, felt the culture shift when he went left the Northwest to race. And he knows people here don't get NASCAR like fans elsewhere.

"They have this picture in their head that there are these Southern people just burning up all this gas. I recognized the difference right away. I have been unable to say 'y'all.' I just can't put it in a sentence."

Grant Lynch, vice president of International Speedway Corporation, said he will travel to Lewis County next week to look at a possible site for a track there. Gov. Chris Gregoire suggested the other day that might be something that could get enough political support to secure a financing plan.

But Lewis County will be a tough sell for ISC.

"It is a little far away from what we said we needed to be here, and the fact that we wanted to be within 50 miles of Seattle, have 25,000 hotel rooms. And also if you get too far south down I-5, and people start staying in Oregon, our model kind of breaks down a little bit because we want them staying in Washington and spending their dollars in the state of Washington."

UPDATE: Chopp issued this apology today for his comments about Petty:

"This morning I personally apologized to Richard Petty for a comment I made yesterday. It was inappropriate and wrong.

"I appreciate his willingness to meet with me."

UPDATE: At the Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog, stilwell writes about Petty, too. And he seems to make a case that there is a legitimate political, not just cultural, argument against NASCAR.

However, if we are going to talk about Richard Petty in a political context, let's briefly examine his history. Petty was a Republican candidate for state-wide office in North Carolina, his home state.

...

So Petty isn't just a rank and file Republican, he ran for state-wide office. Which is his right as an American, but clearly he is more than a race car driver.

Stillwell also says that "Chopp was most likely remembering a reckless driving charge rather than a DUI involving Petty."

Postman says he searched hard for anything involving Petty and a DUI and came up empty. Fair enough, maybe Postman didn't think to search for other traffic offenses. It happens. Postman is still one of our favorite reporters.

No my friend, and one of my favorite commenters and bloggers, I did think to search. And I found that. Or rather one of our researchers did. As well as a speeding ticket, too, from 1982. Both were sent to me last night while I was at the movies. I thought about putting them in, too, later. But neither were what Chopp alleged. Neither had anything to do with alcohol, and Chopp's apology doesn't seem to try to say he was thinking about that reckless driving charge, which I'm sure you know was pled down to a tailgating citation.

We don't want any of them tailgaters here, that's for sure.

This is from a USA Today story on the incident:

Asked by The Associated Press to explain what happened, Petty said, "I run up behind this cat. He slowed up beside a car to block me at about 60 miles an hour. I blinked my lights and he put on his brakes and slowed down to about 50. And I didn't slow down.

"This was a situation that would have come up with anybody at
any time. Instead of shooting each other or throwing rocks at
each other, he retaliated by putting on brakes."

Later, Petty told a TV station, "Now, if it had been a NASCAR
showdown, he would have been over in the ditch somewhere."

NASCAR greats Richard Petty and Darrell Waltrip are in Olympia today and tomorrow pushing for state help in building a new track in Kitsap County.

House Speaker Frank Chopp is unimpressed. When Chopp was asked about Petty's presence today, he told reporters:

"I was going to make a bad joke about, 'Who's he.' But then I decided, You mean the guy who got picked up for DUI, that guy?"

He added a few seconds later:

"By the way, on that last point? I was told that, so I'm not sure. You better check to make sure it's accurate. But he's not a member of the House last time I checked."

I find no record of Petty being "picked up" for driving drunk, or anything else related to a DUI. I searched everywhere I could. Chopp said he heard it from someone else, and maybe they know something that I don't. A Chopp staffer said they didn't have any more information. The only reference to alcohol I can find is a bit of NASCAR lore that Petty won't allow alcohol advertising on his cars because of a promise he made his mother. He's reportedly passed up racing awards named after beer companies to keep that promise. Oh yes, he's also involved in a campaign to combat drunken driving.

Grant Lynch, vice president of International Speedway Corporation, told me he had never heard anything about Petty and a DUI.

"I know Richard has been a great ambassador for our sport for many, many years and he's a solid citizen in South Carolina and he has received numerous awards from across the country. He's a class guy in a class family."

The Petty family has started a camp for disabled children in memory of one of Richard's grandsons.

Chopp's comments were clearly an attempt to discredit Petty, and the NASCAR lobbying effort. This is not about me being a Petty fan. I'd think the same if someone in Chopp's position had said the same thing about a professional baseball, football or basketball player.

But it wasn't any of those. In fact I never heard anything like that when the Mariners, Seahawks and Sonics were looking for public money for their facilities. Instead the critics talked of "millionaire players and billionaire owners." Some make similar charges against NASCAR. But others talk about the fans and now the character of its stars; it has become something of a class issue. (To be clear: There are many people, citizens in Kitsap County included, who oppose the NASCAR track for traffic reasons, public financing issues and many other very legitimate concerns. But it is the tone of comments by lawmakers that I'm writing about here.)

Chopp has said repeatedly that no House Democrats have pushed him to support the NASCAR track. He says he doesn't hear from anyone about it. At a press availability earlier this month, when asked about NASCAR — as the Longview Daily News reported —

he pulled out a Wall Street Journal article sent to him by a legislator describing the rowdy crowds at the Talledega Speedway in Alabama.

The article reported that "hard-drinking" fans "whoop it up for days."

"This is an example of the kind of contact I've had from (House members) about NASCAR," he said.

In the Times today, freshman Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, was quoted calling the corporation pushing for the track a "terrible corporate citizen." But the words he used to elaborate didn't sound like he was talking about a corporation:

"These people are not the kind of people you would want living next door to you," Seaquist said. "They'd be the ones with the junky cars in the front yard and would try to slip around the law."

To give a lot of credit to Seaquist, he called reporter Ralph Thomas today to say he misspoke, but was not misquoted. "It wasn't my finest moment," he said, and only meant to criticize the way the corporation has handled its lobbying efforts.

Lynch said he has noticed a tinge of what I'd call elitism in some of the opposition to the track.

"I think when you're building a stadium of this magnitude anywhere you're going to have people in the local community who are against it.

"But I have felt that for some folks, and I'm not saying it's everybody, there is a little bit of thinking that this is an old southern sport where they ride around in gas-burning cars and it doesn't fit in the Northwest. And I really would beg to differ."

Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, the sponsor of the Senate NASCAR bill, said he's seen the same thing:

"I've heard a lot of that. Apparently, we have a new class of people that we can discriminate against."

NASCAR fans elsewhere are paying attention. A man from Atlanta e-mailed Thomas today and said:

The libs are afraid it might bring in too many conservative, beer drinking, Bush loving, true Americans who care about this country and all it stands for. Hope they build it!

When I was in D.C. last month Democratic Rep. Adam Smith and Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers were starting off the session with a bit of bipartisanship cooperation on a medical technology bill.

When Republicans were in control, McMorris was the prime sponsor, Smith the co-sponsor. Now, under Democratic rule, she still will have the top spot, the two decided last week.

"It's her bill," Smith said. "We need to be inclusive."

It's his bill now.

This isn't a case of Democratic bullying. It is strategy, and McMorris Rodgers thinks it's a good idea, and still sees it as a bipartisan effort:

"I think it's best for Adam to be the prime. It will have a better chance. D.C. in my opinion is much more partisan than Olympia, and I thought Olympia was pretty partisan."

McMorris Rodgers is in Olympia today meeting with her former legislative colleagues. She stopped by the office on her way to talk to the House Republican Caucus. She had one term from the 5th District in the majority. Now in the minority, she is thinking a lot about the surprising amount of partisanship in D.C. And she's not saying that's just something Democrats do. "It happens both ways," she said.

McMorris Rodgers said she wants to be less partisan herself. She has met with her staff and told them to look carefully at the substance of the bills, not just the sponsors. Her goal is at the end of the year to be able to look at vote tallies and see that she increased the number of times she voted in what could be described as a bipartisan fashion.

Which raises a good question: What is a bipartisan vote?

McMorris Rodgers said she voted for two bills on the Democrats' "Six for '06" agenda, the pieces of legislation at the heart of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans for the first 100 hours of Democratic control.

The first of those was a bill implementing recommendations from the 9/11 commission. McMorris Rodgers was one of 68 Republicans who voted for the bill. Voting against a majority of the people in your party is a rare thing in Congress. It's the sort of vote I think does show independence from party labels.

The other was a student loan bill. On that, though, just 71 Republicans voted against it, so McMorris Rodgers' vote for it was not a vote against leadership. Bills that get most everyone to vote yes are less of an indicator of a willingness to "reach across the aisle," as they love to say in D.C. and Olympia.

Looking at the Washington Post's excellent vote tracker, I see one more vote this year where McMorris Rodgers voted with a majority of Democrats, not Republicans. That was a continuing appropriations resolution that got just 57 yes votes from Republicans.

She was joined on that with the other two Republicans in the state delegation.

Most things that get overwhelming bipartisan votes in the House are pretty lightweight fare. This year they have ranged from House Resolution 39, "Commending the University of Florida Gators for Their Victory in the 2006 Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and for Winning the National College Football Championship" that got one Republican no vote, to the more substantive vote for an "additional temporary extension" of some small business programs, with two GOP no votes.

I asked McMorris Rodgers how much pressure she gets to vote with leadership.

"It varies. There are times when caucus leaders will say, 'We want to take a stand — this is a defining moment."

But, she said, House Minority Leader John Boehner tells Republicans to be independent and has told the caucus, "The American people couldn't care less which party is in control."

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, has the same voting record so far as McMorris Rodgers.

Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, looks like the most bipartisan member so far this session. I counted seven votes where he voted against Republican leadership. He was one of nine Republicans voting against a GOP move to stop a student loan bill and one of 18 on a stem cell vote.

I know Democrats don't like to hear it, but those sorts of votes are why people in D.C. look at Reichert as a moderate. It is true that may be faint praise. Congratulating him on those votes may say as much about the culture of D.C. as it does about his independence. But there's no argument that Reichert is taking votes that most other Republicans don't.

On the Democratic side, Reps. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, and Brian Baird, D-Vancouver,
took the most votes against leadership, though all were on the same issue — three votes on amendments to an alternative energy bill. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, voted against one of those amendments, as did Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton.

Smith and Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, did not vote on that bill so are maintaining 100 percent records of voting with a majority of their Democratic colleagues.