Kimberly Cadena, Congressman Dave Reichert's spokeswoman, is leaving to be press secretary for the ONE Campaign, an effort to build support in America to fight global poverty and AIDS. She has been with Reichert for 18 months and before that worked for Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez.

Cadena's new employer says on its website:

The ONE Campaign derives its name from the belief that allocating an additional one percent of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world's poorest countries. We also call for debt cancellation, trade reform and anti...quot;corruption measures in a comprehensive package to help Africa and the poorest nations beat AIDS and extreme poverty.

The ONE Campaign is staffing up a lot like a political campaign. Last fall the campaign hired Susan McCue, Harry Reid's former chief of staff, as CEO.

It is going to be somewhat of a political campaign. Cadena told me that the group will have a high profile in the early primary states and then later in swing states. ONE wants to push candidates to agree to the one percent budget increase and its other priorities.

The group has a long list of prominent partners, including Oxfam, World Vision, United Nations and religious groups. As the Hotline reported:

Yes, it's the Bono thingie.

And George Clooney, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts and Don Cheadle, too.

A new report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism on news coverage of the firing of federal prosecutors says:

While journalists appear fascinated by this battle between Congress and the White House, the public has yet to evince great enthusiasm for it.

PEJ say the U.S. attorneys story was the biggest story in the press last week and "it really amounts at this point to a mega story. " Mark Jurkowitz of PEJ writes:

Filling 18% of the overall newshole, it was the second-biggest story of the year. The only one to receive more coverage was the debate over the Iraq war, which filled 34% of the newshole the week in January when President Bush announced his troop "surge" plan.

Already the level of coverage of the U.S. attorneys flap has substantially exceeded that of two other major Washington scandals — the Scooter Libby trial and conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital.

No news outlet has focused as much on the story as Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall says that he has gotten a lot of questions about why the site has dug into the story so much, and some that he thinks were sincere. He does an admirable job explaining his reasoning. And that includes:

We all understand that politics and the law aren't two hermetically sealed domains. And we understand that partisanship may come into play at the margins. But we expect it to be the exception to the rule and a rare one. But here it appears to have become the rule rather than the exception, a systematic effort at the highest levels to hijack the Justice Department and use it to advance the interest of one party over the other by use of selective prosecution.

During House debate on the budget Monday, SEIU was working the doors hard, summoning legislators out one at a time to be lobbied to put another $15 million in for nursing homes. The union was working alongside nursing home operators trying to make good on their agreement to get at least $40 million more in Medicaid reimbursements. That's what's spelled out in a draft agreement between the union and the operators that my colleague Ralph Thomas wrote about earlier this month.

But House leaders of both parties had agreed that no one would offer budget amendments during floor debate and SEIU could not get a lawmaker to try it anyway.

So SEIU wanted lawmakers to kill the entire budget. This e-mail went out to lawmakers moments before the final vote on the budget:

Subject: SEIU 775: Vote No On State Budget

Importance: High

Dear Legislator:

On behalf of the 30,000 long-term care workers represented by SEIU 775, I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposed House budget unless it is amended to improve funding for nursing homes. The budget fails to meet the needs of vulnerable elderly and disabled residents in our state's nursing homes.

Nursing homes are under-funded by $60 million a year, which has led to low wages and poor benefits, high turnover among workers, and difficulty finding and training enough staff to provide quality care to vulnerable residents. The proposed budget does not adequately address this shortfall in funding and prevents nursing homes from keeping up with the rising cost of care — especially care for low-income residents.

We strongly urge you to reject this budget unless amended and adopt a budget that meets the needs of our most vulnerable. SEIU 775 members will be counting this as an important vote in our legislative scorecard.

Sincerely,
David Rolf
President
SEIU 775

In D.C., Congressman Jay Inslee spoke on the House floor Monday afternoon to defend fired U.S. Attorney John McKay. Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, sent a letter to President Bush saying McKay should be re-appointed as U.S. attorney for Western Washington until an investigation into the firings of prosecutors is complete. The letter says:

As you know, forced resignation under the guise of "performance related" issues, is a permanent blemish on a person's employment record. Mounting information is surfacing in this case, providing evidence that the resignation of John McKay, and others, was not based on lack of performance other than a lack of partisan prosecutorial bias. You have the opportunity to set the record straight by offering John McKay another chance to serve in this important post where he already has dutifully served the state of Washington.

"We have witnessed now in the last few weeks the unpeeling of a scandal where the executove branch fired eight well-performing U.S. attorneys because they would not do the political dirty work of the White House."

He said that McKay fell out of favor with Republicans in Washington state and then in D.C. solely because he refused to empanel a grand jury to investigate the 2004 election.

"It was apparent they were learning on him and when he did not collapse, he was fired. ... This thing smells like a mackerel in the moonlight and it needs to be resolved. And until it's resolved the Congress is going to be investigating."

(UPDATE: See this post by Eli Sanders about German news reports about Ken Hutcherson telling Latvian officials he was visiting their country on behalf of the Bush Administration. They believed he was an official representative of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Rev. Ken Hutcherson is using his claimed "special commission" from the White House to work against U.S. policy in Latvia designed to lessen discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians in the Eastern European country.

It's hard to find anyone willing to talk about Hutcherson's relationship to the White House. You'll remember, he claims the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives made him a "Special Envoy for Adoptions, Family Values, Religious Freedom, and Medical Relief." (The claim was first reported and questioned on The Stranger blog, and Eli Sanders has followed the story here and here.) The White House denies that, but won't say any more.

Hutcherson, pastor of Redmond's Antioch Bible Church, said last week he has proof he was deputized. But he has not yet shared the video tape he said will show he's telling the truth. I'm waiting for a call back from him.

The controversy grows out of Hutcherson's visits to Latvia. There he has aligned himself with conservative politicians and conservative religious leaders to combat a nascent gay rights movement. In particular, Hutcherson is upset at what he claims is money the United States Embassy in Latvia has given to a Latvian group, Mozaika, a gay rights organization founded in February 2006.

Details of the funding have been hard to pin down. Mozaika, reached by e-mail, wouldn't say. Anna Reynolds, the group's office manager, wrote:

Thank you for you letter. Yes we have heard of Reverend Hutcherson and his claims. I wonder why he feels the need to come to Latvia to talk. Perhaps no one is listening at home?

As a rule, we don't give out information about our sources of funding. If you have questions about the U.S. Embassy, I suggest you contact them directly.

The U.S. Embassy in Riga won't comment, though it is my understanding that such grants would be public information. A spokeswoman said by telephone:

"I understand your question sir. Unfortunately at this time we have nothing for you. I'm afraid that's it."

And spokespeople at the State Department in D.C. say the question would have to be answered by the Embassy in Riga.

The Latvian newspaper Ritdena reported last week that the Embassy gave Mozaika $956 in July 2006 to help organize events in Riga, and $7,179 in September to publish pamphlets and produce an amateur theater performance designed to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians. The paper said the pamphlets were titled: "Discrimination at Work", "Homosexuality and Healthy Sex (HIV-AIDS prevention)", and "Help - My Child is Gay!"

Hutcherson has complained about the Embassy's work with Mozaika in speeches while in Latvia, in interviews once back home and in e-mails he sends to "Prayer Warriors" among his supporters and parishioners.

He says that supporting Mozaika goes against American values as well as against the wishes of a majority of the Latvian people. In a speech in Riga earlier this month Hutcherson is reported to have said:

Latvia is a Christian country ... and we need to do everything to ensure that even in the European Union it does not loose its principles. It is a holy right of any nation to decide (in) what society to live.

That is from a translation done by ILGA-Europe, a non-governmental organization that represents some 200 gay rights groups. The original report was in Russian on the New Generation Web site. The same report made clear that Mozaika is suspect in the eyes of anti-gay forces in Latvia:

This topic was developed by Cardinal Janis Pujats. He touched upon the subject how Latvia is faced with fact of indoctrination of homosexual culture in widest layers of society. We learned that organisation of sexual minorities Mozaika developed a national programme of tolerance and calling on a state level to educate on civil tolerance, respect towards people of different sexual orientation.

By joining in an alliance with the New Generation church and conservative politicians in Latvia, Hutcherson is working against U.S. policy. The Embassy has helped organize events with Mozaika to promote tolerance of lesbians and gays — as has the embassies of the UK and Sweden — and the ambassador and Embassy staff have worked to protect gay rights activists when violent anti-gay protests broke out in Riga last year.

The United States has documented anti-gay activities in Latvia. A report on Latvia's 2006 human rights record was released March 6 by the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. It confirms what gay activists say, that Latvia has seen "societal violence and occasional government discrimination against homosexuals."

Under the "Freedom of Assembly" section, the report shows the government treated a pro-gay event differently from other gatherings:

Numerous demonstrations took place peacefully and without government interference during the year. However, in July authorities denied a permit for a gay pride parade on grounds of unspecified security threats to the marchers. Parade organizers attempted to host a private event at a local hotel as an alternative to the denied march. This event was disrupted by protesters who opposed homosexuality (see section 5).

And in Section 5, "Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination," the report offers more details:

Societal violence and discrimination against homosexuals was a problem. On July 19, the Riga city government, after coming under pressure and criticism from various political parties and religious groups, denied a permit for a gay pride parade. The reasons cited for the cancellation were security considerations, although the specifics were never made public and all court hearings were closed to the press and public. On July 22, parade organizers attempted to host several private functions as alternatives to the cancelled march. Demonstrators opposed to homosexuality surrounded and harassed participants outside these events, throwing eggs, shouting aggressive insults, and dumping human excrement on them. Police arrested 14 people for public disorder. In late August the Riga Vidzeme District Court and Riga Central District court fined seven opponents of the gay pride events charged with causing public disorder. In addition all seven faced prosecution for inciting public disorder. These cases were outstanding at the end of the year. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission all voiced their concern during the year over the failure of authorities to protect the gay pride event participants as well as the imposition of a ban on the originally planned parade.

During those protests, Mozaika leaders were in touch with U.S. Embassy personnel who helped monitor the protest. Gaston Lacombe, chairman of the Mozaika board, wrote a report about the events.

As the gay rights activists were surrounded in a Riga hotel by angry protesters from the anti-gay group No Pride, Lacombe was regularly on the phone with someone he identifies as "our friend from the American Embassy." Lacombe wrote:

He told me that he had seen large black jeeps, with tinted windows and No-Pride signs on them, patrolling the old city, driving slowly, as if looking for something. He said it looked very scary, like something from a film and we guessed they were looking for any sign of LGBT people or supporters in the center of the city.

The organizer of the pro-gay rights event had to be whisked away by armed guards. Others snuck out of the hotel, as protesters hurled eggs and excrement. Lacombe wrote that the "American Embassy had to interfere to protect American citizens" and Swedes contacted their embassy for help.

In the meantime our friend from the U.S. Embassy called me, this time to say the Prime Minister's office was accusing my colleagues from other LGBT organizations in Latvia, Imants and Gabriels, for announcing they were going to arrange an illegal march in Vermanes Park. The Prime Minister's office was very angry and condemning. There was an article on the portal tvnet.lv about this illegal march. Within 2 minutes I found Imants and Gabriels, and they assured me that they never advertised anything such and that the news was false. I called our friend at the U.S. Embassy right away, and that situation was cleared. It seems that it was provocation of some sort, but that is still not clear.

The Embassy also has played a more formal role in helping to organize events during the pro-gay rights "Friendship Days" last July and the U.S. ambassador spoke to the Latvian government about security concerns. That's according to an article in the newspaper Diena. This translation comes from Latvian blogger Peteris Cedrins:

The U.S. Embassy in Latvia will participate in the organization of the Friendship Days being held by sexual minorities this week, and Ambassador Catherine Todd Bailey met with the Minister of Interior, Dzintars Jaundžeikars, (Latvia's First Party) on Monday with regard to security concerns related to the parade.

(Cedrins has written critically of the anti-gay forces in Latvia and the New Generation church that is aligned with Hutcherson.)

Hutcherson sent an e-mail to the Prayer Warriors March 9
saying:

I will be having a difficult meeting with Ambassador...I just found out that our Embassy in Latvia has been supporting gay groups monetarily to come into this country.

Continue to pray for strength and stamina.

On March 12 he wrote:

It went extremely well with American embassy ... they aren't very happy right now, because I had to lay it out, they are not representing American values well.

Hutcherson didn't have much to add when we spoke last week. He said that Embassy officials told him that they only fund established organizations, but that Mozaika received a grant within months of forming. He said he told an Embassy official "you are still a visitor over here" and no help should have been given because a majority of Parliament opposes gay rights.

"They turned around and gave the money and that almost started a riot in the country. ... We have some real serious problems in that embassy, and we want a full report."

These were among Katie Couric's questions to John and Elizabeth Edwards on 60 Minutes last night:

And I think some people wondered if you were in denial, if you were being realistic about what you were going to be facing here. ...

And some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition." ...

Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this. ...

Some people watching this would say, "I would put my family first always, and my job second." ...

I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. ...

Even those who may be very empathetic to what you all are facing might question your ability to run the country at the same time you're dealing with a major health crisis in your family. ...

SOME MORE: At the Huffington Post, Nora Ephron writes about "some people."

"Some people" are saying that Katie Couric went too far on 60 Minutes. I don't actually know who those people are, because I haven't done any reporting on it. Why bother? "Some people" must be saying it. "Some people" will say anything. And there's no real need to mention their names, because I can just say that "some people" are saying it and get away with it.

Ephron says: "I kept waiting for John or Elizabeth Edwards to ask her who 'some people' were exactly, but they didn't."

That's what they should have done, says Rich Galen, a former press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. At his "cyber-column" Mullings, he says that when a reporter started a question with something like "Some people say," he'd always respond this way:

"Who. Who is saying that? Give me a single person - not in your newsroom - who is saying that." And, of course, the reporter couldn't quote anyone and I had the upper hand from that point forward.

Galen says:

If you are a grownup interviewer you ask: "Senator Edwards, aren't you putting personal ambition ahead of your family's needs?"

And a friend reminds me that President Bush has his own version of "some people."

This AP story from last year was the first of several takes on Bush's use of the straw man.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Mr. Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees," conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

There's more in this Dan Froomkin column in the Washington Post. (Scroll down to the "Rhetoric Watch.")

Democrats are getting downright giddy with the growing speculation that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may soon be out of a job.

The Homestead Book blog sums up the feeling best:

Hee hee.

Liberals here are looking at the deepening controversy as the thread to unravel the conservative machine in Washington state. It's a bit ergo propter hoc for my taste, but follow along on the morning's thinking.

In an earlier post at the Homstead blog, it was suggested that Stefan Sharkansky and his focus on the 2004 governor's election should get the credit/blame if Gonzales resigns.

It is now clear that Sharkansky's obsession led to a call to the office of Congressman Doc Hastings, who had one of his lackeys phone the U.S. Attorney John McKay to ask when he was going to start investigating the election. This eventually led to the firing of McKay and now will lead directly to the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.

At washblog, Emmett O'Connell says the thread doesn't end there.

Now with the latest Bush scandal being connected directly to the 2004 gubernatorial election, can Rossi shake the McKay firing, or is he way too close?

...

Rossi may not have been personally involved in getting McKay fired, but the situation is starting to surround him to the point that he at least has some explaining to do.

But it's also from a liberal blog where I read the first question from any source about a Democrat's role in McKay's application for a federal judgeship. Much has been made in the press about the role of the three Republicans on the six-member bi-partisan panel that did not include McKay on its list of finalists for the judgeship.

J. Vander Stoep, an advisor to Rossi in the 2004 campaign and subsequent election controversy, was the Republican co-chair of the judicial review panel. He has said that McKay's reluctance to investigate election fraud had nothing to do with why he was left off the list of finalists for the job. Instead, Vander Stoep said, it was McKay's lack of trial experience and the fact that he did not reflect Bush's judicial philosophy.

A writer at Evergreen Politics, shoephone, is concerned about Vander Stoep's role, but also wonders about Democratic co-chair, Jenny Durkan.

Vander Stoep's participation on the commission, after his deep involvement with the Rossi campaign, raises a blazing red flag. It's common knowledge by now that the entire state GOP hierarchy was on the warpath for McKay because of Rossi's election loss. On the other hand, I have to wonder why Durkan was chosen too, considering her deep involvement with the court case over the vote counts. Plus, she's a childhood friend of McKay's. I think there's at least the appearance of conflict of interest for both, due to the fact that McKay, as U.S. attorney for Seattle, was an obvious choice for the judgeship short list.

On Meet the Press today fired U.S. Attorney John McKay said that the very first question he was asked in his White House interview for a federal judgeship was about angry Republicans back home.

But he told Tim Russert his decision not to delve deeper into the 2004 governor's election was backed by the local FBI office and he expected that his superiors in D.C. would back him, too.

RUSSERT: You looked into the case, decided you did not find voter fraud. When you applied for a federal judgeship, that issue was raised with you. Correct?

MR. McKAY: That's correct. I, I was able to go into the White House in a meeting with Harriet Miers and her deputy Bill Kelly, and the very first question that I was asked was, was in reference to the 2004 governor's election.

MR. RUSSERT: And did they ask you why you did not go forward with an investigation or with indictments?

MR. McKAY: No, they actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me. And, of course, all of the actions taken by the federal government, which were not publicly discussed, were well-known to, to my supervisors and, and those who follow our work in Washington, D.C. So I was a little surprised that they would ask me about that, since our office had carefully reviewed the evidence, and really, in the case of the 2004 governor's election here, the lack of evidence. And the decision that I made not to go forward was a really unanimous decision with the Seattle division of the FBI. So, so from our standpoint, it wasn't controversial from an evidentiary standpoint, even though it was very controversial in the state of Washington. And, you know, we expected to be supported by people in Washington, D.C., when we make tough decisions like that. And I think that's a, a really important problem here that folks who, who raise their hand and take — took the same oath I did to support and defend the Constitution didn't do the same thing we did, which was focus on the evidence and not allow politics into the work that we do in, in criminal prosecutions.

The Washington Post today sees significance in the wording McKay chose to describe the conversation on Meet the Press.

McKay's disclosure of an explicit White House question about the damage his decision caused to his standing among party loyalists added new detail to his previous statement that Miers accused him of having "mishandled" the voter fraud inquiry.

The use of the phrase "mishandled" left open the possibility that White House officials — who last September were weighing whether to recommend McKay for a federal judgeship — merely disputed McKay's professional judgment. McKay's statement yesterday instead lent new credence to suspicions that partisan political concerns weighed heavily in his subsequent firing.

The Post is making too much of those few words today. And that's probably because thte paper missed something when McKay talked to reporters after he testified in Congress March 6. Our story March 7 said he was asked to explain criticism that he mishandled the election investigation. McClatchy reported it the same way.

But the Post reported just that McKay was asked to explain how he mishandled the investigation.

In remarks after the hearings, McKay said that officials in the White House counsel's office, including then-counsel Harriet E. Miers, asked him to explain why he had "mishandled" the governor's race during an interview for a federal judgeship in September 2006.

You can read the full Meet the Press transcript here.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said today there was nothing improper about the firing of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. In an interview on 710 KIRO, Gonzales tried to turn around the story of the prosecutors purge, saying repeatedly that the only thing improper are the allegations that anyone at the Department of Justice did something wrong.

KIRO got Gonzales on the phone as part of his media tour about keeping children safe on the Internet. Kudos to Jane Shannon and Tony Miner for making sure they got to ask questions about McKay and the larger controversy before getting to the AG's PR agenda. (You can listen to the interview here. What follows is what I transcribed from the recording.)

Shannon: Seattle as you know, is home of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. Mr. Gonzales, why was he fired?

Gonzales: Listen, we made a decision at the department as to the appropriate way forward. And there was nothing improper about the decision here. The president of the United States has the authority to hire and remove political appointees for any reason. Obviously the question here is whether or not, were these political appointees removed for improper reasons?

People may have a disagreement as to those reasons. But so as long as they're not improper, the president has the authority and the discretion based upon the recommendation of a cabinet official to make changes with respect to personnel. There is no evidence whatsoever and it is reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives

Shannon: Was it a matter of McKay's performance?

Gonzales: Again, the question is whether or not it was improper. It was not. We will be communicating with the Congress about specifics going forward. We've already provided a lot of documentation. I've offered to make DOJ officials available for interviews and for testimony. So at the end of the day, the story's going to be out there about what happened here. We have nothing to hide. ... If I felt that anyone at the department was involved in making this decision to retaliate or to interfere with ongoing investigations, I would have fired that person immediately. There's no room for that in the department. I would not stand for it.

Miner: Mr. Attorney General, as a way to diffuse this controversy now, why not just come out and tell the American people exactly why these prosecutors were fired? What did they do?

Gonzales: Well, of course that's something we're engaged with in a dialogue with the Congress. Some of the information is already out there. Some of that information is available in the documents. But I want to remind your listeners about one thing, whatever those reasons are, and people have subjective views as to whether that person should go or should that person not go, there may be disagreements about that, but the president has the authority and the discretion to make that decision. And whether or not you agree with it, he has the authority and it is OK for him to do so based on my recommendation.

What we should all be concerned about is, whether or not were the firings, the removals, based in improper motives, and I am saying to the American people and to your listeners, that the answer to that is no.

And it is irresponsible and reckless to continue to insist that this great Department of Justice was involved in something improper.

Shannon: Well you can certainly understand some confusion, sir, when in August of last year one of your deputies recommended McKay for federal judgeship and just a month later McKay's name was put on a list, basically, of prosecutors to be pushed out. This is according to e-mails obtained from your department. What changed in that short period of time?

Gonazles: Listen, the fact that someone may have had an idea or a discussion, that does not necessarily represent the view of the department or represent my view.

ALSO: On Sunday, McKay will be on Meet the Press along with fellow former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico.

Congressman Dave Reichert's close re-election race last year has Republicans wanting to give him an early boost for 2008. The Hill got a copy of the list of Republicans who will benefit from the House GOP's "Regaining Our Majority Program (ROMP), seven of whom are veterans who nearly lost their seats last November."

Reichert is one of 10 Republicans who will be featured at the first ROMP event of the year April 25. The Hill reports:

There are usually four ROMP events in each cycle. The first two raise funds for the most endangered incumbents, while the third allows for members and fundraisers to raise money to go on the offensive. The fourth tends to be a final push to raise money for members in desperate need of campaign funding.

ROMP was created by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and has proved to be a powerful fundraising tool for the GOP.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee amended a retirement bill Tuesday to boost the death benefits given to the widow of an Army reservist killed in Iraq. Under the changes to House Bill 1266, Victoria Johnson will get the contributions her husband, Maj. Alan Johnson, made to his retirement plan as well as what the state contributed during his years as a Yakima prison guard.

I wrote earlier about this here and here.

There's another bill pending to help families of soldiers. Skip Dreps, government relations director for the Northwest Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America stopped by the other day to point out Senate Bill 5002. It would require state colleges and universities to waive tuition for families of soldiers killed or disabled in action.

The bill passed the Senate early in the session and now awaits a vote in the House Higher Education Committee. The Olympian, in an article yesterday, points out:

Under existing law, state schools can waive some or all of tuition and fees for children and spouses but are not required to do so.

All Washington colleges and universities provide the waiver, and some waive up to 50 percent of tuition and fees, state documents show.

Democrats and Republicans could not agree this morning on what would be the best date to ignore the results of a presidential primary. The Presidential Primary Date Selection Committee met this morning in the Capitol, but it could not agree on anything other than to adjourn.

There are nine members on the committee. A two-thirds vote is required to pass a motion, so any date would have to get bipartisan support.

Democrats, represented by party officials and legislative leaders, wouldn't support any date earlier than March 18. By then, at least 35 states will have had their say by caucus or primary. Before voting on a motion by Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, to set the March 19 date, the four Democratic members of the committee insisted on leaving the public meeting to discuss the matter in a short private caucus. Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican who chairs the committee, urged them to have the discussion at the table with their Republican counterparts. But they insisted.

Hunt is the sponsor of a bill to cancel the 2008 primary, though that effort has lost steam in recent days and appears unlikely to pass this session.

Rep. David Buri, R-Colfax, suggested Washington join a long list of other states and hold the primary Feb. 5.

At this point, leaders of both parties say they do not want to use the primary results to allocate any presidential delegates. Final decisions will be made next month, and Hunt said that it would make more sense to set a primary date after it is known what the parties plan to do.

Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, representing the Senate on the committee, said lawmakers should not be doing the parties' bidding.

"As legislators, and as a Legislature, we are separate from the party. We represent the people."

In D.C., House Democrats are more confident that they have the votes today for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan to approve funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and set a deadline for the U.S. to be out of Iraq by September 2008.

Liberal Democrats have opposed the bill as a weak response to President Bush's Iraq strategy. But in recent days more anti-war Democrats have said they will vote for the bill, or at least not work against it. Congressman Jim McDermott, the Washington delegation's most vocal war critic, said on the House floor Thursday that he will back the plan. But he's not enthusiastic about it.

Speaker Pelosi has given us a plan — not as strong as I want, but one I will support as the bare minimum, because it has a timetable and demands accountability from Iraqi leaders.

Bare minimum, but dramatically better than what we have today, which is a war without end, from a President capable only of escalation, not negotiation.
Conservative and some moderate Democrats don't like Pelosi's plan because they object to setting any deadline for withdrawing troops.

The AP story in The Times this morning said while liberals are falling into line, "More conservative Democrats said they remained opposed." But Congressman Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, said Thursday that nearly all of the members of the moderate Democratic caucus, who call themselves the New Democrat Coalition, will vote for the bill today. Smith is the New Dem whip, and part of House Majority Whip James Clyburn's team of vote wranglers.

Smith told me Thursday that the moderate Democrats he has been assigned to lobby are not necessarily supportive of the Bush strategy, but are "more willing to see a military role in Iraq" and do not feel "we can pull out every last single troop from Iraq in two weeks."

To get that sort of Democrat to vote for the Pelosi plan, Smith said he focuses on the need to battle terrorism around the globe, not just in Iraq. That is the same argument he has made as chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism. He says that al Qaeda is a real threat in parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America. He describes his lobbying pitch this way:

"The argument starts with the fact that, yes, we withdraw in a responsible way. ... But when you're trying to battle al Qaeda, does it make sense to have 150,000 troops in Iraq? Is that the wisest use of resources to defeat our clear enemy? If you want to be tough, if you think we need to go after al Qaeda because they are a threat to us, then you have to start thinking about how to get us out of Iraq in a responsible manner. ...

...

Our message isn't, 'Oh my goodness, we've lost. We better get out right away.' We need to strategically redeploy."

As of Thursday the strategy seemed to be working. Smith said that all but two of 61 members of the New Democrat Coalition are expected to vote for the Iraq bill.

Smith said one person outside the House has had a significant impact on the debate and helped encourage conservative Democrats to back the bill: New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. In a column Wednesday, Friedman offered the patriotic argument for setting a deadline for withdrawal. (Subscription required.)

I hope the Democrats, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, keep pushing to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, because they are providing two patriotic services that the Republicans failed to offer in the previous four years:

The first, Friedman wrote, was "policy discipline," asking tough questions of the administration. The other patriotic service, he said, is "to give the president and Gen. David Petraeus our commander in Iraq, the leverage of a deadline without a formal deadline."

The surge can't work without political reconciliation among Iraqi factions, which means Sunni-Shiite negotiations — and such negotiations are unlikely to work without America having the "leverage" of telling the parties that if they don't compromise, we will leave.

UPDATE: The bill passed the House on a close vote of 218 to 212. Washington's delegation voted along party lines. Congressman Jay Inslee voted for it, and sent out this statement:

"It would be preferable to have an earlier date to end the war, but this bill sets a concrete, enforceable timeline rather than continuing our open-ended commitment. We should take this opportunity to rein in the president's incompetent policies in Iraq."

UPDATE: And from the no side, this Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers:

This emergency supplemental bill sends the wrong message to our troops and our enemies. Our troops need to know that America stands behind them and the cause for which they are risking their lives. What we need is a plan for victory in Iraq. Establishing arbitrary timetables, restricting funding, and micromanaging the war is not a plan for victory. This bill jeopardizes the ability of our troops to do their job, while simultaneously emboldening the enemy.

A fight among medical marijuana advocates has gotten to the point that some patients say they will protest tomorrow outside the Seattle office of the ACLU. The ACLU is siding with Sen. Jeanne Kohl Welles, who sponsored SB 6032, a medical marijuana bill, and has amended it to end opposition from police and prosecutors. It passed the Senate last week and will be heard in the House Health Care Committee Monday at 1:30 p.m.

On the other side are some vocal critics among patients, their attorneys and marijuana advocates. "It's a prosecutors bill now, not a patient's bill," said Steve Sarich. He runs the Everett-based CannaCare that sells growing supplies and teaches people how to grow marijuana.

The split comes over the changes Kohl-Welles made that she said were necessary to get the bill passed this year. In its original form, SB 6032 would have provided extra legal protections for people possessing marijuana with a no-arrest provision and would have authorized growing cooperatives that could help distribute pot to patients.

Both those provisions were removed. Rather than growing cooperatives, the bill now takes a much smaller step forward. It would ask the Department of Health to adopt a rule defining what would be a presumptive 60-day supply of pot for a patient.

Kohl-Welles said the changes were necessary to get around opposition from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. She said the bill still includes many other provisions that would help protect users of medical marijuana:

"We've been trying to deal with this for a long time. Do you hold out for perfection, or do you try to get what is realistic?"

Alison Chinn Holcomb, director of the ACLU's Marijuana Education Project, said the bill still has "some really important protections built in for patients and providers."

"It's moving medical marijuana in the right direction. It provides clarity both to patients and providers and law enforcement about this vague term, 60-day supply, that is built in to the law. That has been a real concern, a source of fear for patients and their providers that ... someone is going to set some arbitrarily low amount for 60 day. And they're really afraid of government getting involved. And rightfully so — the federal government says there's no such thing as medical marijuana."

But Holcomb and Kohl-Welles say they trust the Department of Health to come up with good guidelines that later will provide greater protection to patients. Kathleen Taylor, executive director of the ACLU of Washington, sent a message out on the HempNet listserve — which is getting heavy traffic on the subject — explaining her organization's continued support.

These are good changes even though they are not all that we want.

Having watched the state legislature for 25+ years, I know that change comes slowly — too slowly. But that is the way the legislature works.

It is a long and grueling process.

Sarich says it's already been too long and will now only get drawn out further. He's afraid that involving the Department of Health will just be a delay tactic for those who don't want to strengthen protections for medical marijuana users.

"Look," he says, "the Department of Health doesn't tell your doctor how much medication you can have. But they want to tell us how much medicine we can have. I didn't think the bill was particularly strong to begin with but there were a couple of things in there. Now there's nothing in there that is good for patients."

He says that there will "a lot of angry medical marijuana patients with signs in Olympia" when the House Health Care Committee hears the bill. And he said he is organizing a protest for tomorrow at the ACLU, a group he holds particularly enmity for.

"We have been personal friends with a lot of those people at the ACLU and they are just absolutely screwing us. And they know they're doing it."

In the News Tribune Sean Cockerham reports that state Democrats are no longer trying to kill the 2008 presidential primary. He quotes state party Chairman Dwight Pelz saying there will be a primary.

But that doesn't answer the question of whether Democrats will count any of the votes toward selecting delegates to the national convention next year. Pelz has said the party won't count the votes, though some party members hope that at least a portion could be used to apportion delegates. Cockerham writes:

Olympia Democratic Rep. Sam Hunt, the main sponsor of the bill to cancel the 2008 presidential primary, wouldn't go so far as to say his bill is dead. But he indicated Tuesday that it likely won't move forward.

Hunt attributed the bill's fate to the feeling among members of the House Appropriations Committee. Several people who testified last week said a primary is better for participatory democracy than caucuses.

The date of the primary will be set tomorrow by a committee of party officials, legislators and Secretary of State Sam Reed.

MORE: And the PI says Republican Party leaders say they now don't want to count the primary toward delegates.

Stefan Sharkansky today has a post at Sound Politics I keep reading over and over again. I'm mystified why he wrote it. He draws some connection between people involved in the story of Larry Corrigan, the former Norm Maleng staffer who pleaded guilty to trying to arrange sex with people he thought were underage girls, and the story about John McKay, the fired U.S. attorney for Western Washington.

Sharkansky wrote:

At first I dismissed this as a creepy coincidence, but then it occurred to me that it's quite significant.

I hope Sharkansky believes that I respect a lot of work that he has done. I link to him often. But this strikes me as an incredible stretch of logic.

And no, I have absolutely no reason to believe that anybody else is implicated in Corrigan's sick sexual behavior. It's a general problem with a senescent clique of political insiders, Democrats, Republicans and careerists who are indifferent to party. These are people who have been in and around government for decades and who have either lost the ability to smell the stench of corruption, or to act promptly if they do smell it — whether the corruption is the personal acts of a creepy pervert and embezzler who happens to be a long-term employee, or whether it is the public corruption in the county election office.

Yikes. Some of the players are the same. But we're talking about two stories involving high-profile events in Seattle's legal community. Who should be surprised that some of the names are the same?

Instead of comparing the McKay story to the Corrigan case, he could have just as easily connected it to the Green River killer. Norm Maleng was the prosecutor. John Wolfe was on the panel that chose Judge Richard Jones for a federal judgeship. Jones was the judge in the Gary Ridgway case. Dave Reichert was the lead investigator in the Green River case. A creepy coincidence?

It's a problem from the start to use the sordid tale of Corrigan to draw any parallel with other players.

Because Sharkansky believes McKay should have investigated the 2004 governor's election, that to him has become some moral equivalent of Corrigan's crimes. Wolfe is one of the people Sharkansky lists as a player in both stories. He's Corrigan's defense attorney. Is that in any way a sign that he has "lost the ability to smell the stench of corruption"? You may not like attorneys who defend admitted sex offenders, but that's Wolfe's job. And his link on the McKay story is that he served on that judicial panel where five of six members named Jones as their first choice. McKay was an applicant for the job, too. And while he didn't make the list of finalists, there are unconfirmed reports that Democrats on the panel, including Wolfe, supported his candidacy.

Then there is Mike McKay. Sharkansky writes, "he was treasurer of Maleng's campaign from which Corrigan embezzled $70,000." And his connection to the John McKay story? The McKays are brothers. And that is the sole piece of evidence that Mike McKay can't smell corruption in the King County elections office.

And what about Reichert? He makes Sharkansky's chart because a) he says Corrigan worked on Reichert's campaigns, and b) Reichert defended McKay.
The Seattle Times stories on the Corrigan case say only that he was active in Reichert's campaigns. But the real issue here is Sharkansky's strenuous advocacy for Reichert's re-election last year. Does he really believe the congressman is part of some ethically-challenged clique that is indifferent to party? If so, how could he have been so enthusiastic about his re-election? And if not, then his chart of connections starts to unravel pretty quickly as a bit of runaway rhetoric.

Washington's anti-Iraq war resolutions are unlikely to be heard again after one Senate hearing. But in Oregon, a non-binding measure continues to make its way through the Legislature, though it needed to be watered down to win passage in the House.

The House voted 33-25 Tuesday for House Joint Memorial 9, urging President Bush not to increase troops in Iraq and calling for U.S. troops to leave the country by early 2008. The wording is similar to what is in Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles' SJM 8003.

The Oregonian reported this morning:

Although the House resolution is purely symbolic, state representatives debated it for two hours in one of the most tense and emotional discussions this year. Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver, took 20 minutes to read the names of more than 80 Oregonians who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He included their ages, hometowns and family information.

Kohl-Welles' measure and a call for impeachment sponsored by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, had well-attended hearings March 1. There is little expectation they will be considered this session. Nonetheless, anti-war Democrats keep hoping. Last night the 43rd Legislative District Democrats voted to endorse Oemig's measure.

That's House Speaker Frank Chopp's district. He has said he doesn't see a need for the resolution. His seatmate, freshmen Rep. Jamie Pederson, says he'd vote for it if it came to a vote. Charlie Bendock, a 43rd Dem, e-mailed Pederson asking him to support Oemig's measure. He got this e-mail in response:

Dear Charlie --

Thanks for your message and for taking the time to write to me about impeaching President Bush. If it were up to me, President Bush would have been impeached long ago. I'm outraged by his flagrant disregard for the US Constitution, from warrantless wiretapping to military tribunals; from his defense of the use of torture to his abuse of signing statements.

Unfortunately, we have passed the point in the session at which new legislation may be considered in the House. If Senator Oemig's bill comes to the House floor, I will vote for it. That's what I can do to help at this point in the session. In the meantime, I will be focusing my efforts on the many issues of enormous importance to the state and our district that need to be resolved this session.

Thank you for your advocacy. I trust that you will continue to keep me informed about issues that are important to you.

Best wishes,

Representative Jamie Pedersen

Writing about Maria Cantwell's personality has been a feature of political coverage for years — dating back at least to the time when Republican Slade Gorton held that Senate seat and he was the focus of personality-defect stories.

But nothing about Cantwell was as cutting as what Mike Seely wrote in the Seattle Weekly last year. He worked for Cantwell in her 2000 campaign and came away with harsh feelings for the candidate. There's much to choose from in the piece to illustrate that, but I'd say this line sums it up as good as any:

Her lack of gratitude and common human decency were simply repulsive.

Now the Weekly is taking a more nuanced look. Aimee Curl, a former Hill person herself, writes this week about "Mellowing Maria."

The lighter side of Sen. Cantwell is something few on her staff ever get to see. Yet some who were once in her inner circle say that her boss-from-hell reputation is unfair; that they had great experiences working for Cantwell; that she's smart and driven.

But as she begins her second term as the state's junior senator, one wonders how long Cantwell's newly hired legislative director, 27-year-old Harvard Law grad Courtney Gregoire, daughter of Gov. Christine, will last (she's the fifth legislative director in six years) — and whether Cantwell's reputation for being hell on wheels will truly become a thing of the past.

What I like best about the piece is I see only one quote from an unnamed source. Former staffers aren't all blind defenders of Cantwell or her management style and Curl managed to paint what looks to be a fair picture with nearly everyone on the record. I think I would have quoted Seely's column, though. Certainly he is one former staffer unafraid to speak his mind on the subject. His piece is already a piece of journalistic/political lore in Washington. I've heard this line repeated by people like something out of a favorite movie. Cantwell, he wrote, was a:

"paranoid hellcat of a boss who rolls through staff like toilet paper ..."

I doubt even Curl's description of Cantwell doing ballet exercises in a Central Washington diner will be remembered as well as that.

Snohomish County Sheriff Rick Bart dropped out of the race against County Executive Aaron Reardon. The Herald has the story. Bart has spent two years trying to build a campaign but hasn't been able to raise enough money to make serious run. The Herald says he's raised $21,000 and Reardon has $222,000:

There just isn't enough support among Snohomish County Republicans, he said.

"I feel like my political capital in this county has been spent," Bart said.

County Republicans are looking for a new candidate. County Councilman John Koster's name comes up first. But at Sound Politics, Eric Earling points out something that would likely make it tough for Koster to do any better.

More specifically, the problem is Reardon's strong support — at least financially — from the business and development community that traditionally support Republicans in such Snohomish County races. Reading through PDC reports one sees a lot of the same donors filling Reardon's coffers that also supported Republicans John Koster and Jeff Sax in their 2005 County Council campaigns. That was always a challenge for Bart.

I expect Republicans will find a candidate. They don't want to give Reardon a free ride to a second term. Already he's looked at as a rising figure in the Democratic Party; a New Democrat kind of Democrat. I don't know what his long-term plans are, but an easy walk to a second term would give him plenty of time to think about it.

Eli Sanders is keeping on the story of Rev. Ken Hutcherson's claim that the White House made him a special envoy that gave him authority to act on the administration's behalf in Latvia.

Sanders has an audio clip at The Slog of what seems to be Hutcherson saying in Latvia that he had "the power and the commission" that gave him some official standing.

He also has this about a Seattle attorney asking the FBI to investigate Hutcherson.

I have not heard back today from Hutcherson, who said he was getting a videotape that would prove he was telling the truth, or from the White House, which I've asked more questions about Hutcherson's claims.

Former U.S. Attorney John McKay still had friends in high places a few months before he was fired. When McKay did not make a list of three finalists for a Seattle federal judgeship, officials in the White House and the Justice Department came to his defense and he had backing from the state's Democratic senators and former Republican office holders with White House ties.

Soon after a bipartisan judicial review committee forwarded three names to the White House — without McKay among them — Justice Department official Kyle Sampson e-mailed Robert Hoyt in the White House Counsel's office. The Aug. 8 e-mail: said

I heard our U.S. Attorney, John McKay, got screwed by Washington's judicial selection commission. What do you know? Can we let them know that we want to consider him along with the recommended candidates?

(Sampson is the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who resigned over his handling of the recent firing of McKay and seven other U.S. Attorneys around the country.)

What Hoyt did next apparently was call J. Vander Stoep, the Republican co-chair of the six-person committee that made the recommendations. Vander Stoep told me today:

"I received a call from the White House Counsel's office, indicating that a high Justice Department official had asked him to make a special inquiry and I confirmed, yes, McKay had applied but he didn't receive a majority of votes on the panel."

Hoyt wanted to know why McKay didn't make the cut.

"I said first of all in his interview Mr. McKay indicated he had taken through trial fewer than 10 cases. In my mind that was a disqualification to sit on the federal district court bench."

Those 10 were cases McKay personally tried during his career, Vander Stoep said.

Vander Stoep went further than that, though. He told Hoyt that he didn't think McKay shared President Bush's judicial philosophy. He concluded that, he said, from McKay's interview with the panel. The question, according to the committee's printed list of questions asked each candidate, was: "If as a judge you were confronted with a case where you believed that the right result based on policy or fairness indicated one outcome but the legal precedent pointed in a different direction, what would you do and why?"

"He answered it, in my judgment, both ways," Vander Stoep said. He said the answer that would have reflected Bush's philosophy would have been, "Follow the precedent. The law's the law. He gave an answer which I thought would not match the president's judicial philosophy."

At about the same time as the Hoyt call, Vander Stoep also heard from his former boss, former Sen. Slade Gorton. Gorton also wanted to know why McKay hadn't made the final list.

Meanwhile, the White House and the Justice Department were working to see if McKay could get back into the running for the judgeship.

On Aug. 9, Debra Wong Yang, then the U.S. Attorney in Southern California, e-mailed Sampson. The subject was: "Follow-up on McKay."

Additional info regarding the district court position in WDWA (Seattle). Two Dem Senators from the state strongly support his being interviewed. They will also support his nomination. Especially since all Ds on bi-partisan committee voted for him. They will also call WH to request interviewing the three plus McKay.

Local GOP members will also call WH expressing support for McKay and indicating he had strong Rep ties and credentials. Also, the 2 prominent Rs in the state, former ------ and ---- strongly support him.

Let me know what you think his chances are. Also let me know if you need more info.
D

(The names of the prominent Republicans are blanked out in the e-mail.)

Sampson told Yang, "re John, it's highly unlikely that we could do better in Seattle." He forwarded Yang's information about McKay's support on to the White House the same day.

Then on Aug. 17 Yang followed up with a longer e-mail to Sampson.

Subject: John McKay

Kyle:

Sorry we've been playing phone tag. Completely sleep deprived today and trying to get a million things done. Both of us have been too busy. Anyway, I wanted to forward some additional inside information to you re John's situation. Apparently, the Seattle paper is about to run an article that would be embarrassing to the Republicans, saying essentially that they have dissed one of their own in the their ranks. I think the sentiment up there is that if John gets to be interviewed, it's one way of combating that issue. However, more importantly is the issue of seeing if he can get the nod for the district court. To that end, here's some local info from Seattle that might help.

It was three (Republicans) of the six committee members who declined to support John. They pointed to the fact that he "lacked trial experience" when in reality John once served as the head of the litigation department in a very well-regarded law firm in Seattle. As you know, this is the local gamesmanship that goes on, when in actuality it should always be the White House making the final decision whether its U.S. attorney has the trial experience to be a federal judge. In addition, John also has strong political credentials (e.g. he took a year off between college and law school to manage a Republican congressional campaign and served as a fulltime volunteer at the 1996 GOP convention in San Diego). Should John be nominated, it is the understanding from people close to (redacted) that they will support this choice.

I'm not sure what newspaper story the e-mail refers to. The P-I reports today that Bush administration officials were unhappy with McKay about comments he made to the paper in an August 2006 story about budget problems at the U.S. Attorney's office.

In November, The Seattle Times wrote a story that sounds more like what Yang was worried about. The headline was: "Political motives suspected as jobs on bench go unfilled." The story looked at selections for judicial openings in Tacoma and Seattle. As for Seattle, the Times reported:

T