I filled in for Dave Ammons this week as the host of TVW's Inside Olympia. On the show that airs tonight -- and repeats through the weekend -- I interview two veteran journalists, John Hughes and Bryan Johnson. Hughes is editor and publisher of the Daily World in Aberdeen and Johnson is a senior correspondent and analyst at KOMO TV. Together they have more than 90 years experience in Washington state media. Both have worked their careers almost entirely at the places they work today.

For me it was an interesting hour. Johnson and Hughes are great story tellers and every day work harder than many journalists half their age.

TVW

Inside Olympia airs tonight at 7 on TVW.

Former Vice President Al Gore will be in Seattle Monday evening to promote his new book, "The Assault on Reason."

(UPDATE: The event is sold out and there will not be tickets available at the door.) Tickets to the event at Town Hall are $5 and available on-line starting at 10 a.m. today. You can get more information here.

From what Gore and reviewers say about "The Assault on Reason," it strikes me as a book-length elaboration on something Gore said when he was in Seattle last year.

In describing the state of the union, Gore quoted German philosopher Theodor Adorno on the rise of the Nazis.

Adorno conducted a kind of autopsy on the Third Reich and he said the first sign of this descent to hell was when this happened, and these are his words: All questions of fact became questions of power.

...

And I'm not drawing an analogy to what happened there. I'm not. But it's dangerous when we allow questions of fact to become questions of power.

Gore obviously was directing his comments at Republicans. But I've often thought about the Adorno quote since then. I think it can be said of partisans on both sides that way too often emotion and ideology trump facts. A lot of what I read from the left and right too readily blurs the line between questions of fact and questions of power.

At MSNBC, Howard Fineman writes this morning about running into Gore outside the cable channel's D.C. studio. They talked about the new book and the state of politics. Fineman says Gore is worried about the "collapsing political ecosystem of America" and that in the book, "he sees nothing less than a nation succumbing to blind stupidity."

As we chatted, I offered the thought that emotion in politics can be a good thing. It supplies energy to the never-ending debates that define and inspire us. We're sort of like a nuclear reactor. "Yes," he said, "but the facts are the control rods!"

Good point. But the analogy raises more questions than it answers. Who decides what "the facts" are? Will the voters take "the facts" into account even if they are told them? And will our country destroy itself if the voters ignore "the facts?"

I don't think the facts need to be in quotes as Fineman does above. Yes, there's often debate about facts. But many times there are clear facts, an objective truth, that can be found. Reporters need to try to remember that and keep looking for the facts — not "the facts" — even if ideologues confuse that with questions of power.

I've tried reading some of Adorno's work since hearing Gore's speech last year. I didn't get far. It is difficult reading, to say the least. The quote Gore used, though, has gained at least some renewed currency on the left. It's included in Mark Crispin Miller's book, "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)."

Here is the passage that includes the line Gore paraphrased. It's from what is considered Adorno's masterpiece, "Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life."

Lies have long legs: they are ahead of their time. The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power, a process that truth itself cannot escape if it is not to be annihilated by power, not only suppresses truth as in earlier despotic orders, but has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false, which the hirelings of logic were in any case diligently working to abolish. So Hitler, of whom no-one can say whether he died or escaped, survives.

You can see why Gore was quick to say last year that he was not drawing an analogy between Republican control of D.C. and the rise of the Third Reich. Adorno clearly saw the blurring of truth and power as Hitler's legacy.

Adorno was from the Frankfurt School of philosophy that was influential in the post-war years in Germany. He said one other thing that I had heard previously, though I didn't know who said it or in what context. And that, too, comes from Minima Moralia: "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."

That was seen as Adorno's comment on the fascists' destruction of culture in Germany as well as his own survivor guilt. It's a statement that has been pretty much discredited and even ridiculed in some corners.

One might just as well cast a skeptical eye toward the Frankfurt School and contend that "To write theory during Auschwitz is absurd." A few months before his death, Adorno was lecturing at the University of Frankfurt when three members of a radical separatist student group rushed the podium, bared their breasts, and "attacked" him with erotic caresses. As he left the stage, angered and humiliated, the women declared that "as an institution, Adorno is dead."

Gore has revived Adorno, at least a little, and I doubt he worries about any similar "attack" on him.

I have some things to do for the paper and a little TV, too. I'll be around the rest of the week, though. If you want to help out, please feel free to post links in the comment thread for stories or posts you think would be of interest to PoP readers. No debates, here; just share with us what you're reading that you'd like to share. A quick line of description and a link is all that's needed.

The grim reality of increasing war casualties is creating a logistical problem for the Army. Michael Gilbert at The News Tribune has the story:

Fort Lewis, which this month has suffered its worst losses of the war, will no longer conduct individual memorial ceremonies for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Instead the post will hold one ceremony for all soldiers killed each month, the Fort Lewis acting commanding general, Brig. Gen. William Troy, wrote in a memo to commanders and staff last week.

"As much as we would like to think otherwise, I am afraid that with the number of soldiers we now have in harm's way, our losses will preclude us from continuing to do individual memorial ceremonies," Troy wrote in the memo, according to a copy obtained by United for Peace Pierce County and posted on the group's Web site.

The peace group has Troy's memo here. Peace Pierce County says Fort Lewis is suffering "casualty fatigue."

Sen. Ted Stevens may be feeling some pressure from the federal corruption investigation in Alaska now that the Anchorage Daily News has confirmed the FBI and a federal grand jury are looking at the remodeling of the Stevens home.

But in D.C. he is still a cherished GOP icon. Last week he was the guest of honor at a social dinner at the White House.

The First Lady's office confirmed this morning that the May 23 dinner hosted by President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush was a "social dinner" to honor Stevens' service in the Senate. He is the most veteran Republican member of the Senate.

The office staff was going to forward me the guest list and menu. When I get that I'll add more here.

The Anchorage Daily News has the story this morning about the FBI's interest in work done on Stevens' home south of Anchorage. The investigation involves the role of Veco, the oil field service company already implicated in the widening Alaska corruption scandal.

Richard Mauer writes:

Three contractors who worked on the project said in recent interviews with the Daily News that the FBI asked them to turn over their records from the job. One said he was called to testify about the project before a federal grand jury in Anchorage in December.

The remodeling work, which more than doubled the size of the house, occurred in the summer and fall of 2000. The four-bedroom home, about two blocks from the day lodge parking lot at the Alyeska ski resort, is Stevens' official residence in Alaska.

And it's all on the record with names attached:

Last year, some six years after the project was completed, Paone said, "the FBI came over to me and I gave them all the paperwork I had on it." When he was questioned by the FBI, he said, agents seemed particularly interested in Veco and its officials. The government already had copies of most of his invoices on the Stevens home, having obtained them from Veco files, he said.

Paone said he followed that up by testifying before a federal grand jury in December.

About a year ago, Hannah, the house mover, came to work at his yard in South Anchorage and found an FBI agent's card on his office door, he said. When he called the agent, he was told the government was going to subpoena his records on the project. He said he sent his father downtown with all the files. He hasn't gotten them back, he said.

MORE: Now that we know that Ted Stevens' home is at least part of the Alaska corruption scandal, it's worth revisiting the news from last fall about the unusual way in which the new U.S. Attorney in Alaska was chosen. Unlike most of the previous ones, the appointment of Nelson Cohen happened without advice from Stevens himself. And Stevens says he's still looking for an Alaskan to replace the Pittsburgh native with.

The senator's son, former state Sen. Ben Stevens, has already been named in the corruption scandal. His office was one of six lawmakers' office raided by federal agents last year. Ben Stevens has not been charged. But the plea agreement with Veco officials say ben Stevens improperly took money from the company for lobbying fellow lawmakers and other questionable chores.

As I wrote last fall, the investigation was so sensitive that Ted Stevens was cut out of his customary role in choosing U.S. attorneys in the state. The Daily News reported that Stevens had been pushing to give the job to an Alaskan, but the Department of Justice brought in an Outsider instead. A Stevens aide told the paper that the senator was "furious at the way the attorney general handled this."

It sure seemed like the feds were working hard to keep Stevens from having any influence. An investigation that came even close to Ben Stevens was certainly a matter of some sensitivity for the Administration. Wev Shea, a former Republican U.S. Attorney in Alaska, told me at the time that he was confident that the raids on Ben Stevens' office and the others likely didn't happen until President Bush himself was briefed and gave his OK.

Today's Daily News story says that one of the contractor's on Ted Stevens' home remodeling testified before a grand jury in December. What I wonder is whether at the time Stevens was cut out of selecting a U.S. attorney whether the feds already knew that the senator could become involved in the case.

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has been urging supporters to demonstrate against the war at Memorial Day parades. The Hill reported a week ago that Edward's anti-war Web site, supporthetroopsendthewar.com, suggested that people make signs that say: "SUPPORT THE TROOPS -- END THE WAR." The paper quoted the Edwards site as saying:

Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We'll include it in a 'Democracy Photo Album' on our site."

But the Web site is a little different now. After much criticism of the call for Memorial Day protests, Edwards' site now says Monday should be off limits for such demonstrations.

Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say "SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR." Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Many parades are held on Saturday or Sunday. If your parade is on Monday, however, we ask that you choose another action to honor the fallen. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We'll include it in a "Democracy Photo Album" on our site.

I am assuming that The Hill did not just edit out the lines about the Monday parades. (The same thing was quoted elsewhere as well.) I've asked the Edwards campaign about the change and I'm waiting for an answer.

I originally went to the Edwards site to read what he was urging people to do. I'd like to know what all of you think about anti-war protests at local Memorial Day parades. Is it better to do it on Saturday or Sunday than Monday? Is it inappropriate to mix honoring the military dead with a protest against the Iraq war?

There are plenty of people who didn't like the idea, including some Democrats and anti-war activists. There also are plenty of more conservative critics. The Hill story includes comments from veterans who don't like it. At Salon, Joe Conason didn't like it either. And it's not because he likes the war or dislikes Edwards. He said it would be "an act certain to infuriate many veterans, embarrass others and delight the Republican right."

His call to protest risks offending the sensibilities of everyone who believes the holiday should be solemnly commemorative rather than politically noisy. Even many vets who have come to despise the Bush administration believe that antiwar displays on that day are at best insensitive, reviving bad memories of the Vietnam era.

So while most of what Edwards proposes on his Web site is laudable, it is neither kind nor smart to wave protest signs on Memorial Day.

Protesting at parades was just one of 10 things that Edwards is suggesting people do this weekend to protest the war. He also urges people to pray, write letters and circulate petitions.

So what made Edwards change his mind about Monday? I'll let you know if I hear back.

And enjoy the weekend, however you choose to spend your time. I'll be back Tuesday morning.

UPDATE: There were changes made since Edwards' site first went live, including a clearer statement about the call for Memorial Day weekend protests. Edwards campaign spokesman Mark Kornblaue told me this morning:

"From the beginning of this effort John and Elizabeth Edwards wanted to make it clear while Americans should support the troops while speaking out against the war in the days leading up to Memorial Day, on Memorial Day we all find out own ways to respect the fallen and treat the holiday with respect."

Greg Overstreet, Attorney General Rob McKenna's top deputy for public records and open meetings, is leaving to start a private practice concentrating on open government. McKenna announced this morning that the new open government ombudsman will be Deputy Solicitor General Tim Ford.

The ombudsman job was created by McKenna when he took office in 2005. And with Ford's appointment, it continues to be a job held by attorneys who worked for the Building Industry Association of Washington. Ford and Overstreet both were attorneys for the builders' lobbying group, an organization that has often fought open records battles with state officials.

Overstreet was well received in the job. The Washington Coalition for Open Government — a group that includes the media and activists like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation — recently gave him one of its "Key Awards" for his work at the AG's office. He wrote the Attorney General's 2006 Model Rules on Public Records and was editor-in-chief of the Washington State Bar Association's Open Records Desk Book.

Ford, 42, left the BIAW in 2005 to join the AG's office.

Here's the final order and ballot summary for the Pat Davis recall petition. There are a few changes in there from what had been proposed yesterday.

Everyone knew the same Norm Maleng. There was no public face put on for politics. No mask of nice, no off-stage temper tantrums or ego that had to be massaged or restrained for public consumption. If you read — and you should — the fine story written this morning by Jennifer Sullivan and Steve Miletich, you will find various descriptions of a serious lawyer who handled the most challenging cases with a calm compassion, a man with personal kindness that unfortunately is so rare in our time it surprised people to experience it first hand, and a public official whose mark on criminal justice will be felt for decades to come.

There's a lot of talk these days about restoring civility to politics. Maleng never lost it. He had a small-town way about him. That served him well in his years as King County prosecutor. It wasn't much of a benefit the three times Maleng ran for statewide office. On that stage, one needs a little flash, a little strut even.

When Maleng made his last statewide run — for governor in 1996 — he finished a distant third in the Republican primary. The results came in on the night of his 58th birthday. "Norm is always everybody's second choice," his campaign manager said that night. That doesn't get you elected statewide. But it's a testament to Maleng's character and humanity — people who couldn't agree on much else could agree on him.

I spent a day with Maleng at the end of that 1996 primary campaign. We were in Aberdeen. Maleng, as I recall, had driven the 2 ½ hours by himself to attend a forum by the League of Women Voters.

He arrived early to shake hands, but there were none. When it came time to take the stage last Thursday, the only other candidate was Democrat Mohammad Said, a little-known Eastern Washington physician campaigning largely on a platform of Middle East trade, tourism and peace. There were about 25 people present — including the Girl Scout troop standing by to collect audience questions, surrogates representing three other candidates and two reporters.

"I am really happy to be here," Maleng said, facing about 425 empty seats in the Grays Harbor College theater.

I believed he really was happy to be there. He was happy to see people, to make his case, to talk about growing up on a dairy farm, about what he would do as governor and had done for years as prosecutor. Norm Maleng was being Norm Maleng.

He will be missed.

Presidential candidate Bill Richardson just finished talking to a small crowd of Democrats at the Westin. Before the event began, Party Chairman Dwight Pelz asked for a show of hands to see how many people came from outside King County. It looked to me like it was about half.

On the way out I ran into Jeff Smith, the veteran Democratic Party activist and former party executive director. He says that support from the outside-Seattle-crowd is a big part of Richardson's appeal.

"The people in Seattle and King County could vote for any of the candidates and feel good about it. But when you look out at the state, people have different needs. He plays well, very well, in Eastern Washington and not just with Hispanics. To all those people who are looking for a Democrat they can feel good about voting for, he's really the best candidate."

JOHN LOK/THE SEATTLE TIMES

Gov. Bill Richardson speaks in Seattle.

Richardson, the New Mexico governor, is now in a private meeting at the hotel with state labor leaders affiliated with the Washington State Labor Council, president Rick Bender told me. He then will meet with local presidents from the SEIU, says David Rolf. That's a bit of scheduling that tells you a little bit about the current state of local union politics.

Earlier in the day Richardson visited the Microsoft campus.

I need to write a story for tomorrow's paper on the Richardson visit. But here's some quick takes.

Richardson was tough on his Democratic friends in congressional leadership. He was critical of their decision to drop withdrawal timetables form the Iraq funding bill and for the emerging immigration bill.

On Iraq, Richardson said, "I am not in a good mood on this." He said Congress should vote to "de-authorize" the use of force in Iraq. He said that could not be vetoed by President Bush.

"It's the Congress' right to initiate war, and to stop war."

He said Democratic leaders are "worried about being called weak." But he said the public supports ending the war. His plan would have all troops out of the country by year's end, replaced with an all-Muslim peacekeeping force.

On immigration, Richardson said he couldn't support a bill like the one Senate Democrats propose that would have a guest worker program with no labor protections for those workers.

He also doesn't like what is being called the "touchback provision." That would require illegal immigrants to return to their home country and get a visa before being able to return here legally. Richardson said that congressional Democratic leaders told him that provision was put in the bill to satisfy Republican leadership.

Richardson didn't mention any of his Democratic primary opponents by name. But at least a couple of times I was pretty sure who he was talking about when he said things like, "This race should not be about celebrity status or money or legacies."

His push is for a race based on qualifications and experience. He says he is an "insurgent" candidate.

He appears later today. He's in the news today. The New York Times has this interesting look at the Democratic presidential candidate's decision to oppose Congress' immigration reform proposal.

Mr. Richardson initially said he would support the immigration compromise announced earlier this week. But on Wednesday, he said that after reading it in detail, he had decided to oppose it, saying the measure placed too great a burden on immigrants -- tearing apart families that wanted to settle in the United States, creating a permanent tier of second-class immigrant workers and financing a border fence that Mr. Richardson had long opposed.

"This is fundamentally flawed in its current form, and I would oppose it," he said. "We need bipartisanship, but we also need legislation that is compassionate. I'm not sure that this is."

Mr. Richardson said he did not want to be pigeonholed as the immigration candidate, but the moment is forcing him to take a stand on a volatile issue that carries major risks for all the presidential candidates. In aligning himself with the view that the bill is insufficiently compassionate, he is in agreement with a key segment of his party, including many Hispanic voters, that want more focus on reuniting families.

King County Superior Court Judge Charles Mertel is scheduled this afternoon to consider the proposed "ballot snynopsis of recall charges against Port of Seattle Commissioner Pat Davis."

Last week Mertel cleared the way for recall sponsor Chris Clifford to begin collecting signatures for the recall. From the bench, Mertel edited what Clifford had offered, changing some language, adding some clarifications and striking some allegations.

Mertel now needs to approve a final order based on what he said last week. Here's what the proposed order says, as prepared by King County Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tom Kuffel, and of course subject to change.

Shall Pat Davis, Port of Seattle Commissioner, be recalled from public office because, as alleged by King County registered voter, Christopher Clifford:

1. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance when she signed an agreement to provide Mic Dinsmore, an outgoing Port of Seattle employee, with a gift of approximately $239,000 of public money outside of his employment contract.

2. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance by signing an October 10, 2006 memorandum addressed to the former chief executive officer of the Port, which had the potential effect of obligating the Port of Seattle to pay monies not voted on or approved by Port of Seattle Commissioners at a regularly scheduled public hearing.

3. Commissioner Davis committed acts of malfeasance by voting in executive session on or about January 10, 2006 and June 8, 2006, in violation of the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (Ch. 42.30 RCW).

4. Commissioner Davis committed an act of malfeasance by knowingly exceeding the purposes for executive session in the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (Ch. 42.30 RCW) by negotiating and voting on a gift of public money in executive session.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will be in Seattle tomorrow for a quick campaign visit. The newly announced Democratic candidate for president will meet with party supporters at the Westin in the afternoon.

Barack Obama is scheduled to be in Seattle June 1 for what the campaign bills as its Seattle kickoff. Shouldn't that be the Washington state kickoff?

The Democratically-controlled U.S. House Tuesday stopped a potential reprimand of a senior Democratic member accused of bullying a Republican and threatening "earmark revenge." It was the first chance the new Democratic majority had to show how it would handle such complaints. They voted mostly in unison — including all Washington Democrats — to table the complaint against Rep. John Murtha and prevent any debate.

The L.A. Times sets the scene:

This debate played out this month in a vivid exchange between Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a former FBI agent, and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), an ex-Marine, after Rogers led a failed bid to scuttle $23 million for a project in Murtha's district. Rogers charged that Murtha confronted him on the House floor a week later and shouted something like: "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bill, because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

"I replied to him that threatening retribution is not the way we do business in Congress," Rogers said in the Republican radio address last weekend. "To which he replied, 'That's the way I do it.' "

Rogers introduced a resolution that said Murtha had violated House ethics rules. As Dana Milbank writes:

Apparently, the credulous Rogers took seriously the quaint provision in the Code of Official Conduct stating that a member "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a Congressional earmark . . . on any vote cast by another member." "There's not going to be any more go-along-to-get-along, 1950s-style American politics around here," Rogers told The Post's Jonathan Weisman. "I've had enough."

But Tuesday afternoon Majority Leader Steny Hoyer moved to table the resolution before anyone could get up to speak about it. More Milbank:

Republicans erupted in jeers and shouts of "Debate!" Murtha, in his usual seat in the back corner of the chamber, enjoyed a chuckle and accepted handshakes from well-wishers as they left the chamber.

The New York Times said squashing the debate still "offered something to members of both parties."

It allowed Democrats to avoid taking a position on whether Mr. Murtha is truly undignified or dangerous, and it enabled Republicans to enjoy the discomfort of their opponents across the aisle.

The Post's Capitol Briefing blog looked at the 219 to 189 vote to table the motion:

The most revealing aspect of the final vote tally might well be those few members who crossed party lines, including those who voted "present". Three Republicans chose their personal relationship with Murtha over party affiliation, while five Democrats from rural districts voted against the anti-war leader.

Only two Democrats actually voted against tabling the motion. The other three officially avoided a vote either way by voting "present." One of the no votes is not a rural Democrat. The Post slips up by listing Rep. Earl Blumenauer as coming from North Dakota. He's from Oregon and represents Portland and the suburbs.

The LA Times said Blumenauer issued a statement saying his vote was not a "judgment on the allegations since I don't know the facts about what happened, and that's exactly the point."

Citing a pledge the Democrats made, he continued: "A discussion of a potential violation of House rules is in order if we are going to be the most ethical and transparent Congress in history."

Because there is potential for a complaint to the House Ethics Committee, most of the members of the committee, including Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, voted "present."

When the story of Murtha's threat first emerged, Congressional Quarterly acknowledged everyone knew the outcome of any complaint against the veteran lawmaker:

Boehner will ask the House to rebuke Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha, whom Republicans accuse of threatening a GOP lawmaker in a specifically prohibited manner.

No one expects the Republicans to prevail on such a vote, but the minority leadership sees a chance to frame a picture of Democratic arrogance.

And as Talking Points Memo reminds us this morning, late last year Murtha said of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans for ethics reform:

"Even though I think it's total crap, I'll vote for it and pass it because that's what Nancy wants."

UPDATE: And how's that ethics reform coming? Not so great, says the NY Times.

The Democratic leaders were forced to scrap a promise to double the current one-year lobbying ban after lawmakers leave office. Now, they are struggling to pass legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose the campaign contributions they "bundle" -- collect and deliver -- to lawmakers. Failing to deliver on both measures would endanger similar provisions already passed by the Senate.

Other House rules changes this year appear to have done little to alter business as usual on Capitol Hill.

Greg Roberts at the P-I has the latest on the Port and the saga of Commissioner Pat Davis and executive director Mic Dinsmore.

In an April 22 e-mail to Tay Yoshitani, who succeeded Dinsmore in March, Commission President John Creighton wrote that he believed Davis "committed an illegal act" in signing the memo on her own. Creighton said he was sorry the mess landed in Yoshitani's lap in his first month with the port, then added, "But the quickest way out of the mud is for Pat to submit her resignation."

A week earlier (before the matter became public), Commissioner Lloyd Hara had e-mailed Creighton and said he also saw Davis' action as illegal. And, Hara wrote, "I agree with you (that) if Pat was in cahoots with Mic, Pat should be admonished or possibly censored (sic) by the Commission. I can't believe that they felt that they could pull a fast one ... and no one would catch it."

Dan Savage says Davis is "Seattle's Paul Wolfowitz." He offers that without comment. I'm not so sure. But I don't think this is a case of what could be called "pulling a Wolfie," or maybe "the full Capone."

Peter Callaghan makes two very good points in his TNT column this morning about Gov. Christine Gregoire's recent fundraising solicitations. And I know they are both difficult for partisans to accept.

Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser issued a press release criticizing Gregoire for soliciting donations while she still had legislation to sign. Callaghan said that was a "political shot."

But taking political advantage doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

And while there doesn't seem to be a question that what Gregoire is doing is legal, Callaghan adds:

Just because what used to be illegal is suddenly legal doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Gregoire, though, sees it differently. She says her critics need to prove she's been influenced. She was asked about it at a press conference Monday:

"I'm not starting the campaign. I've heard some of this criticism. I really don't know what they're talking about. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that has influenced my signing of bills, other than trying to figure out what's the right policy for the state of Washington. Period. So, those who say there's some influence — prove it."

Sometimes, of course, the appearance of a conflict is to be avoided. And whether or not her re-election campaign has officially started, there is no doubt it is underway. Gregoire has already raised nearly $1.7 million. I'm not sure what difference it makes whether she has held a formal kickoff.

Lawmakers, though, should resist criticizing Gregoire on this. The change in law that gave Gregoire the ability to send out the invitations was an unintended consequence of legislation to end a 30-day post-session freeze on legislative fundraising.

That was done as an enticement to lawmakers to vote to set an earlier state primary date. Earlier bills to change the primary failed. Late primaries tend to favor incumbents. So if lawmakers were going to give up that advantage, they wanted to be able to start raising money earlier in the campaign season.

City Council candidate Venus Velázquez kicks off her campaign tonight with an endorsement from Peter Steinbrueck, the councilman she wants to replace.

The Velazquez campaign sent out an advisory this morning saying Steinbrueck would appear with the candidate at Pravda Studios on Capitol Hill tonight to make the announcement.

Congressman Jim McDermott says he will continue to reach out to a broad spectrum of Iraqis as he tries to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. I talked to McDermott on Friday about a New York Times story that said a member of the Iraqi Parliament visiting D.C. as the congressman's guest had ties to the Sunni insurgency and has been accused of complicity in a murder.

Muhammad al-Daini, a Sunni Arab member of the Iraqi Parliament, wants the U.S. out of his country and said in D.C. that Iraq's problems today are caused by the American invasion and occupation. McDermott met al-Daini on a trip to Jordan. He said he found him articulate and proficient in English and wanted to bring him to D.C. to meet with members of Congress. McDermott told me:

"I think members of Congress have a responsibility to try to hear from all sides. I know that we're not dealing with saints, here. I'm not carrying any luggage for any of them. I just want to hear that they have to say."

McDermott has been working to bring al-Daini and other Iraqis to the U.S. with wealthy businessman, peace activist and now presidential candidate Dal LaMagna. The two traveled together to Jordan after last fall's election.

When I read the New York Times story last week and heard some of the familiar criticism of McDermott from the right, it struck me that he has never considered Iraq the enemy, even those the U.S. administration and the new Iraqi government consider opponents.

I asked McDermott if he sees Iraq as the enemy. He thought about it for a few moments, then said:

"I didn't think it was a war that should have happened. Certainly Saddam was not a nice man, and his regime was not a benevolent one. But I did not see that the Iraq people should have thousands and hundreds of thousands of casualties as we tried to take over.

"This is one of the more advanced countries in the Middle East. Baghdad was among one of the better cities. ... I think Saddam was kind of a useful target to get people stirred up. It's pretty clear that he's now gone and still we have a mess and we still don't want to get out.

"I never have viewed the Iraq people as either being our enemy or being unable to govern themselves. I really think it's time for us to withdraw."

There is a political agenda to his efforts to get Iraqi's like al-Daini to America. McDermott says that helps counter what he calls the administration's "very one-sided propagandist presentation on what's going on over there."

And McDermott wants to influence the American media.

"The American public, who get their information off television primarily and a little bit from the print media, simply are not getting a broad exposure to this. My feeling is only as they get more and more restless, then Republicans will get more and more restless, and finally they'll go the president and say, 'Get us out of there.' ''

And it's not just Iraq that McDermott is worried about. He is active in the House Dialogue Caucus, a bi-partisan group now trying to open conversations between America and Iran. He said a video conference was scheduled this week to allow members of Congress to talk to Iranian officials.

The group, led by Republican Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Democrat Gregory Meeks of New York, was born of the sense that "we didn't use diplomacy first" before invading Iraq. But McDermott said the group is not trying to usurp the administration's role in foreign policy.

"We're not conducting diplomacy, we're conducting dialog."

LaMagna's work with the Iraqis has become central in his new candidacy for president. But McDermott, who applauds the businessman's commitment to ending the war in Iraq, says he won't be backing him for president. McDermott is waiting for Al Gore to join the race.

"I want Gore and Obama. That's my dream team."

He said he realizes that a lot of Gore backers "were folding" but he is still holding out and "thinks that's a real possibility."

Fired U.S. Attorney John McKay will be an executive at Getty Images. Here's the story from Editor & Publisher.

And here's the AP version.

From Joel Connelly's column in today's local Hearst paper:

In Bushspeak, he was our most "misunderestimated" president, but Harry Truman was guided by a motto he kept on his Oval Office desk: "The Buck Stops Here."

Also, see:

It's time for me to fess up to my misunderestimations

...

Instead, it's time to fess up to what this columnist "misunderestimated," as President Bush would put it, in 2006.
Connelly, Nov. 10, 2006

They, and everybody else, "misunderestimated" -- in Bush-speak -- the talents and burning ambition of a young Microsoft manager named Darcy Burner.
Connelly, Nov,. 3 2006

To use a famous Bushism — coined as self-description by the president — Gov. Gregoire should not be "misunderestimated."
Connelly, Dec. 9, 2005

A wartime president should never be, to use a Bushism, "misunderestimated."
Connelly, Nov. 11, 2005

Neighbors in Need had "misunderestimated" — to use a modern Bushism — demand for food.
Connelly, January 1, 2005

In The Northwest: Murray shouldn't 'misunderestimate' Nethercutt

...

By challenging Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Nethercutt is taking on a tenacious politician underestimated — "misunderestimated" in Bushspeak — since she was a preschool teacher lobbying in Olympia.

...

At this point, a reverse argument should apply: George Nethercutt should never, ever be "misunderestimated."
Connelly, May 14, 2004

Of course, to use a favorite Bushism, the resurgent Democrats cannot be "misunderestimated."
Connelly, March 12, 2004

The highest volume of letters, pro and con, came over a New Year's Day column. It argued that President Bush should not be (to use his word) "misunderestimated" and that some strident anti-Iraq war protests in Seattle play into his hands.
Connelly, Jan. 13, 2003

As this desk tries constantly to tell condescending Seattle liberals, George W. Bush is not a man to be — as he puts it in classic Bushspeak — "misunderestimated."
Connelly, Nov. 8 2002

The president raised spirits when he visited CIA headquarters, but also brought smiles by repeatedly vowing he would not be "misunderestimated."
Connelly, April 1 2002

He still mangles words, telling CIA employees the United States should not be "misunderestimated" and reopening Washington, D.C.'s, airport by promising that "ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Reagan airport."
Connelly, Jan. 30, 2002

Former U.S. Attorney John McKay spoke to the Mainstream Republicans conference Sunday in Wenatchee. I didn't cover the meeting, but from reading this morning it appears he was well received by the moderates.

In a speech yesterday morning McKay gave the most detailed public description of what his office did to investigate alleged fraud in the 2004 governor's race. According to Richard Roesler's report in The Spokesman-Review, McKay thought the election "smelled really bad."

"As a citizen and as someone who watched it, I didn't like it," the Republican former official said. "I didn't like what happened at all. Through incompetence, through a mistake, whatever it was, I didn't like the way the election was handled." But a public-corruption case, he said, needed "conclusive evidence of a conspiracy" — something the federal task force was unable to find.

After his speech, McKay met with reporters and bloggers. Roesler says that Sound Politics' Stefan Sharkansky showed McKay what he claimed were 500 illegal votes.

McKay declined to review the data, saying that it's no longer his job. He called Sharkansky's findings "very troubling stuff" and suggested that Sharkansky present the evidence to the FBI and to the current U.S. Attorney, Jeff Sullivan. But he repeatedly cautioned that an improperly cast vote, or errors, or incompetence aren't enough to trigger federal corruption charges. That, he said, takes conclusive evidence of a conspiracy — like a whistleblower inside an elections office. And that, McKay said, is exactly what his task force was unable to find.
"Votes that were not in compliance with the law don't mean that a crime's been committed," he said.

At the P-I, Neil Modie said McKay referred in his speech to

"cybercowards," apparently meaning conservative bloggers who have criticized the lack of prosecution, and scorned the purported evidence of election fraud alleged by Tom McCabe, the aggressive, conservative executive vice president of the Building Association of Washington and a Rossi supporter.

...

McKay said the evidence McCabe presented was "a joke from an evidentiary standpoint that a crime had been committed. ... Every FBI agent who looked at the evidence and every federal prosecutor who looked at the evidence that the BIAW sent in concluded that it was completely, utterly insufficient to move forward in an investigation."

Sharkansky has not weighed in yet on his meeting with McKay. He said he appreciated the time and that McKay's answers were "candid and informative." He will post his comments, and audio of the gaggle, later.

Another blogger who was there has a different take than the MSM on McKay's sit-down with writers. Mark Gardner puts this headline on his post at Whackynation:

McKay indicates federal investigation of 2004 election could reopen

Only Gardner has this:

"The case is still open," McKay said.

And he writes:

McKay said that a federal case has to show criminal intent to fraudulently influence a federal election, i.e., races for Congress and the Presidency. If there was voter fraud in the governor's race, then there was probably voter fraud for the federal races.

McKay said Sharkansky should take his investigatory work and speak with FBI Agent Joe Quinn, the lead investigator for election fraud in 2004. "Joe is the best guy for document cases," McKay explained.

I don't know if McKay's speech will do anything to assuage critics like Sharkansky. But just as a reader this morning, it doesn't look like McKay did much to build confidence in the '04 election. Don't be surprised to hear renewed calls for a federal investigation.

CORRECTION: Sean Cockerham at the TNT also has the McKay quote about the case being open. He quotes McKay saying:

"There is still a case on this election," he said.

I'm sure I'm just not seeing it, but I can't find Cockerham's story online, which is why I missed this. He has the most thorough story on McKay's comments about the '04 election and when I find a link I'll add it here. (Here's the story.)

Cockerham also has response from McCabe about how the BIAW's evidence was treated.

McCabe, who urged the White House to fire McKay, said in a Sunday interview he's not surprised that McKay called the evidence a joke.

"That's certainly how he treated it," McCabe said.

He and BIAW general counsel Tim Harris said McKay should have investigated the discrepancy in those signatures. The FBI has the power to do that, they said, not the builder's association. McCabe and Harris charged McKay instead ignored it.

Superior Court Judge Charles Mertel ruled today that the sponsor of a recall petition against Port Commission President Pat Davis can start collecting signatures. Josh Feit has the news of Chris Clifford's victory in the latest turn in controversy over former Port CEO Mick Dinsmore's contract buy-out:

The judge even changed some of Clifford's language, making it more damning. The judge, for example, added the word "knowingly" into the accusation that Davis entered into a pay out contract with Dinsmore.

Clifford needs 150,000 signatures, which won't be easy. And an appeal to the state Supreme Court would be the likely next move for Davis' attorney, Suzanne Thomas.

Feit has taken to calling Clifford "good government activist Chris Clifford." He's certainly active. Even a cursory search of his gadflying ways is exhausting to read. Since the 1990s he has run unsuccessfully for city, county and state offices about a half dozen times. He's a former law student, former GOP state legislative staffer. He's recently been involved in a Valley annexation fight, and previously a critic of the King County elections office, objected to a homeless encampment, sued to get a fellow Republican off the ballot to help his longtime ally Sen. Pam Roach, fought the location for a state home for sex offenders, fought what he said was Seattle officials' unfair treatment of some local bars, opposed closed city meetings following the Mardi Gras riots, filed an unsuccessful federal suit claiming city police conspired to close his downtown club because it catered to blacks, pushed for pipeline safety, was hailed as a "fiery bar owner" by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, promoted an unsuccessful initiative to create a one-strike-you're out sex offense law, filed lawsuits that delayed Boeing's redevelopment of the old Longacres site and that tried to stop the Seahawks from moving.

He was the subject of a profile in the Times in 1993 where he was blamed/credited for "almost single-handedly thwarting the state's most powerful company and its high-paid Seattle lawyers." He was described as a lifetime NRA members, former seimi-pro football player, lover of wildlife, had Chinese pheasants as pets, was a licensed falconer and "once had a bloodhound he used on volunteer missions for local police agencies."

Clifford loves politics and would still like to run for office but sees himself as unelectable: "I'm too outspoken and too blunt."

And, I'd add, too busy.

I taped a segment this morning for KING 5's Up Front with Rober Mak. I was on with David Goldstein and Stefan Sharkansky. (Spoiler alert: David and Stefan disagree a lot.)

We talked about this, this, this, this, and even this.

The show airs Sunday at 9:30 a.m. on KING and at 8 p.m. on KONG.

There is plenty I don't know about politics, particularly that strange strain of Seattle politics. (For example, why is Peter Steinbrueck going to quit the city council to focus on his anti-viaduct work? Wouldn't most people who felt passionately about a major city project think maybe they should get on the council if they feel so strongly about a civic project?)

But knowing what I don't know, I was still surprised to read Colby Underwood described as one of the most powerful forces in city politics. That comes from O. Casey Corr at Crosscut. As a city council candidate, Corr used young Underwood to help him raise money. Corr gives an insider's view of how this apparent financial wunderkind operates:

Today, he is a unique power in Seattle politics. It might be nice to get the endorsement of Peter Steinbrueck, Norm Rice, the Sierra Club, or the dailies. And it's a big help if the mayor backs you with his organization. But Colby is a special force, because his participation gives you instant credibility. With Colby, the big boys and girls in politics know you have a shot at raising the $150,000, $250,000, or perhaps even $300,000 needed to mount a serious run. That possibility terrifies incumbents and intimidates potential rivals.

Underwood has gotten brief mentions in the dailies, in part from his work raising money for The Committee for a Two Newspaper Town. He was mentioned in this 2001 Jim Brunner story about "The Boys" who ran Nickels' campaign. In hindsight, one sign that Underwood was gaining in prominence in city politics came in a 2005 column by Joel Connelly at the PI when he used the money man to try to paint Corr as "hizzoner's man."

On May 31, Neighbors for Nickels paid $10,111 to Colby Underwood for consulting and fund raising. On the same day, Underwood received $2,000 from Corr's campaign. Greg and Sharon Nickels have given Corr $500. Corr has given $375 to Nickels.

(Ah ha!)

Underwood also raised money for Darcy Burner last year, and has already signed on to help her in her 2008 race. Corr says he's also being courted by the Obama and Clinton presidential campaigns.

I've wondered how Corr would do migrating from journalism to politics and now back. It seems to be working pretty well. I hope to see more of these sorts of true tales of the city. It'd be silly for Corr to ignore his political past or try to avoid writing about it. Instead Casey, embrace your inner Dominick Dunne. Tell us what goes on in the salons of Seattle.

Jeff Switzer at The Herald reports that Snohomish County Republicans have found a candidate to run against County Executive Aaron Reardon. But county GOP chairwoman Geri Modrell wouldn't tell Switzer, or anybody else, who the man is.

Modrell said only she and two other people are aware of the mystery candidate's plans to run in the November election.

They remain tightlipped.

"He needs one more week of relative quiet to firm up the business project he's working on," Modrell said. He can't afford the distraction of reporters and others calling with questions about his campaign, she said.

(And in case you didn't get the joke in the April Fool's Day post, Eric Earling says he is not the candidate.)

Any guesses on who the mystery man is? I don't know anything about the candidate other than what I read in the Herald, but my longshot guess is Doug Roulstone. I know he says he's going to run for Congress again next year, but if called to dut