Wednesday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer applauds the Thurston County judge who ruled that John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur have to report their air-time in support of I-912 as an in-kind contribution "Gas-tax Talk: Jabber over journalism"
the on-air hosts are directly campaigning on their programs. They're acting as political activists, not journalists. ... They've been active in the creation and promotion of the I-912 campaign.So the P-I editorial board members want to be treated as "journalists" who can promote candidates and initiative campaigns without limitation, while suggesting that Carlson and Wilbur be treated as "activists" whose freedom needs to be curtailed. Whatever.Carlson and Wilbur crossed the line, not by expressing their support of a public policy issue, but by having a vested interest in it.
I'm not sure I understand how the P-I editors define "having a vested interest" in an issue, or why it should even matter. For example, they seem to think it's okay for them to campaign for tax hikes to subsidize Kitsap County Ferries "Ride the waves; pass Kitsap Proposition 1" when they have a vested interest in having more ferries in Kitsap County (Trahant and Shapley both live in Kitsap and tell us they rely on the ferry system). On the other hand, is it somehow noble for them to rail incessantly in favor of, say, making Seattle residents pay through the nose for a Monorail that they themselves won't have to pay for?
No, it doesn't make any sense. Not that you expect the P-I editorial page to ever make any sense. Just enjoy the P-I's nutty sense of humor while it lasts. Just collect a few more signatures for the No New Gas Tax campaign and be sure to get them in by the end of the week.
"Wilbur co-chaired the ill-fated 2000 state Republican Party Convention." (second to last paragraph)
Actually, Kirby Wilbur was the Chair of the 2000 state GOP convention, and also the Chair of the 2000 King County GOP convention.
But when it came to November 2000, Wilbur took a quite different position when it actually came to supporting the state GOP's candidates.
In two out of the eight Washington statewide office races, Wilbur endorsed candidates other than the GOP nominees from his pedestal at KVI. (Both of the GOP nominees opposed by Wilbur in November 2000 received considerable funds from the state GOP in their campaigns.)
I would agree with the Seattle P-I that Wilbur has "crossed the line" in what he says on KVI. But not by endorsing the NoNewGasTax.Com initiative 912.
Wilbur has "crossed the line" by using his GOP leadership positions to build his listening audience at KVI, and then betraying the GOP by backing candidates of other parties, over those nominated by the party whose conventions he chaired.
And the most "ill-fated" thing about the 2000 state GOP convention, IMHO, was choosing a pompous hypocrite to chair the proceedings, instead of a long-term (or even a short-term) party loyalist.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 5, 2005 09:50 PMCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that the press is expressly mentioned. Like it or not Kirby and John are "Press." When the Constitution was signed in 1787 and the Bill of Rights in 1789 the only media was printed, hence press. The founders supporting documentation also makes clear that they were particularly concerned with keeping the Government out of Political and Religious speech.
KVI is media, Wilbur and Carlson are actively participating in Political Speech on a Political matter, which is expressly protected by the First Amendment.
The judge's ruling displays Constitution ignorance, and political favoritism sufficient to get him impeached.
As for the PI we all know moonbat froth when we see it.
Posted by: JCM on July 5, 2005 09:50 PMAgain, they only care if it is speech or press that agrees with them. OTherwise, they are more than happy to suppress all opposition with the power of the government.
Posted by: Janet S on July 5, 2005 09:59 PMHis rulings rarely have any semblance to reflecting the intent of the law. Get this thing appealed at a higher level ASAP.
Posted by: Andy on July 5, 2005 10:06 PMGreat Work to all of you !!!
Proved them all wrong we did !
Posted by: Jim L on July 5, 2005 10:07 PMPerhaps Kirby and John should take a completely opposite approach and start talking up (tongue firmly planted in cheek, of course) Keep Washington Rolling, the Seattle Monorail and several democratic candidates. After which they would then report their in-kind contributions and force those campaigns and candidates to report all their donations.
This is nuts.
Posted by: Snake on July 5, 2005 10:15 PMThis will come back to haunt the PI later (if they are still around), when the shoe is on the other foot, and it is a candidate who is being helped by them, rather than an inititive.
Posted by: Dogbert on July 5, 2005 10:20 PMI haven't publicly endorsed a Democrat over a Republican in six years, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for Kirby Wilbur.
If you go to the PDC website, you will see that "WA ST REPUB PARTY" gave $2,500.00 to my campaign for State Attorney General and $12,575.00 to the campaign of J. Richard ("Dick") McEntee for State Auditor in 2000.
Kirby Wilbur endorsed the Libertarian candidate for State Attorney General in 2000 and the Democrat candidate for State Auditor in 2000.
Unlike myself, Dick McEntee has been a committed Republican his entire life and was never a Democrat. But Wilbur still managed to endorse his Democrat opponent.
As for the allegation that I didn't have any support in 2000, look at the official results for statewide offices in November 2000:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/results_report.aspx?e=20&c=&c2=&t=&t2=2&p=&p2=&y=
Gregoire beat me for Attorney General by 409,885 votes. However, Gary Locke beat John Carlson for Governor by 461,913 votes.
I spent only about $4,000 on that election and did very little campaigning. Carlson spent $3 million in hard money (plus a million or more spent to help him in soft money), campaigned full-time for eight months, and a lot more people knew him (and Kirby Wilbur also endorsed him) -- and just compare how well he did.
In any event, if the GOP wants to get anywhere in Washington, we need to pick people we can count on to support GOP candidates to lead our party. When a party leader decides to endorse candidates of other parties, that cannot be any good at all.
It is far more honorable for a former GOP candidate to leave the party and join a different party, than it is for a current GOP party leader to endorse the candidate of a different party over the Republican nominee.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 5, 2005 10:21 PMYou stated,
‘Actually, Kirby Wilbur was the Chair of the 2000 state GOP convention, and also the Chair of the 2000 King County GOP convention.
But when it came to November 2000, Wilbur took a quite different position when it actually came to supporting the state GOP's candidates.’
This can be easily construed as him acting impartially as a “Chairperson” and still being independent as an individual. He obviously did not betray his own beliefs.
Your statement at 10:21 PM did not explain the statements by Legast. It is too easy for a rational voter to view a candidate that runs as a Republican in 1996, as a Democrat in 1998, and then again as a Republican in 2000 as an opportunist. In essence, running under a party label that one thinks may get them elected.
You then state,
‘It is far more honorable for a former GOP candidate to leave the party and join a different party, than it is for a current GOP party leader to endorse the candidate of a different party over the Republican nominee.’
It is honorable for a candidate to switch parties if their new party is closer to their beliefs. Are your beliefs so fluid that you felt it necessary to switch and then switch back? And is it dishonorable for a party member to support a party because their stances/candidates are closer to their beliefs than other parties, and to still disagree on some of their stances/candidates? Do not take my questions negatively toward you, I do enjoy and respect your posts. I just don’t think you have adequately responded to Legast.
As for the PI article - no suprise there. "Do as I say, not as I do" is the way of Seattle liberals.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on July 5, 2005 11:38 PMTypical liberal sense of fairness-- "I support freedom to opinion... so long as I agree with it"
Hypocrites.
Posted by: Mike H on July 5, 2005 11:40 PMUsually you've got very insightful and objective comments here, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.
Candidates and Issues should be chosen based on their merits. While true that we live in a de-facto two party system, there are plenty of examples of good Democrats who should be Republicans, and bad Republicans that should be Democrats, etc.
Kirby Wilbur can and should endorse anyone whom he wants to, regardless of his status in any party.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
As for the PI, won't be around to complain about much longer. I'm looking forward to the last article from Joel Connelly so I can mop up the oil with it after changing my car's oil.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 5, 2005 11:47 PMOkay, maybe some people will view me as an opportunist for being a Republican in 1996, a Democrat in 1998, and a Republican in 2000 and later.
Personally, I see it as making a mistake in 1998 and later correcting that mistake in 2000 -- and not making the same mistake again since then.
I would view a GOP party leader who regularly decides to publicly endorse Democrats and candidates of other parties over the nominee of the Republican party in a far more negative light than a candidate who makes a mistake once, and then corrects it.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 5, 2005 11:49 PMThat should read: Typical liberal sense of fairness-- "I support freedom to speach... so long as I agree with it"
Posted by: Mike H on July 5, 2005 11:50 PMOh and btw? I feel a LOT more unhappy about a candidate that keeps switching parties (not, mind you, ONE switch, when it is obvious their original party is drifting farther and farther away from them. But two switches! In 4 years!) than an individual who will vote the person instead of the party.
Perhaps part of this is because that is how I am -- I vote the candidate, not the label.
But it is going to be a VERY extreme circumstance before I vote for you. I simply do not trust you. Sorry.
I trust Kirby. (In fact, I find myself MORE in align with his choices for voters than Carlson's, in most cases). But I don't even go in to the polls and vote the "Kirby ticket" I vote the "Sarah" ticket. The one *I* choose after listening to the candidate debates on the radio, reading their literature (barely, frankly I trust VERY little that has that much money and time put behind it. But I do use it as an indication of who NOT to vote for in certain cases.), going out to websites for the candidates (and especially judges). Reading what is said by various interest groups. Checking into what they have actually done in the past. Seeing who endorses them. Etc.
Some races I can find more information about than others, of course.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on July 6, 2005 12:02 AMOkay, I got a smaller percentage of the vote than John Carlson. But Gary Locke got an even greater percentage of the vote than Christine Gregoire. There were nearly three times as many third party votes cast for Attorney General than for Governor -- maybe some people took Kirby Wilbur's suggestion to vote Libertarian seriously.
Locke beat Carlson 58.38% to 39.68% -- a margin of 18.70%. Gregoire beat me 55.98% to 38.23% -- a margin of 17.75%.
Jeff B @ 11:47 p.m.
The real problem is the GOP putting Kirby Wilbur into party leadership positions, and Wilbur then being disloyal to the party -- even in the very same election year. If Wilbur wasn't a party official, it wouldn't matter who he endorsed.
Sarah of WA @ 12:02 a.m.
Instead of saying "I made a mistake and corrected it", would be it better for me to say "Kirby Wilbur thinks that the GOP label is a joke, so I do too"?
Even if you don't think I am sincere, how does that make me any worse than Kirby Wilbur? I have changed political parties -- twice as a matter of fact. But I have NEVER used my standing in any political party, directly or indirectly, to publicly oppose the candidates of that same political party.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 6, 2005 12:14 AMYou state,
‘I would view a GOP party leader who regularly decides to publicly endorse Democrats and candidates of other parties over the nominee of the Republican party in a far more negative light than a candidate who makes a mistake once, and then corrects it.’
That did not answer this question;
‘And is it dishonorable for a party member to support a party because their stances/candidates are closer to their beliefs than other parties, and to still disagree on some of their stances/candidates?’
Keeping this statement in mind;
‘This can be easily construed as him acting impartially as a “Chairperson” and still being independent as an individual. He obviously did not betray his own beliefs.’
Can you respond with your thoughts more directly?
However, it seems to me that John and Kirby were... well... looking for a fight on this one. Maybe it was a response to Dave Ross's on-air campaign, but they seemed to be toeing the line in what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to get a response.
I guess it got one. They played with fire and got burned.
Posted by: JB on July 6, 2005 12:46 AMI sent in seven filled sheets for 912 today. I work at a truckstop near the stadiums, and we grabbed as many truck drivers, taxi drivers, longshoremen and delvery people as we could get in a quick as a time as we could. (We got the petitions a week ago.)
I have never participated in an initiative like this before, but I can no longer sit idly in the shadows hoping for the best. I think the Washington State Democratic Party made a far bigger mistake than they realize when they caused this fiasco. And come November, I will LAUGH at them as they cry (hopefully on camera) and wring their hands and wonder just what happened. I am tired of the utter hypocracy I see from the likes of Sims, Logan, Brendt, Gregoire, et al.
I, and many others are awake and angry. Big mistake.
DOMO
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 6, 2005 01:53 AMhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138
Posted by: Andy SW on July 6, 2005 05:48 AMNazis!
Posted by: ScottM on July 6, 2005 05:50 AMBeing an independent voter myself, I couldn't care less what the Republicans did as a party, in theory; however, since I generally find that their candidates more closely fit with my values, I would appreciate it if they had their act together, and in that sense, I say they should be a little more careful about whom they select for various high profile positions.
As for Mr. pope himself: Dispite the fact that I think you are making a correct observation, you are entirely the wrong messenger. I don't care that you switched parties since I, myself am not a party loyalist; however, you have no moral authority when it comes to the issue of party loyalty at this time. It could be that you erred is switching, but in doing so, you lost the initiative on this point. Maybe in another 5-10 years you can use this episode as a badge to demonstrate how disloyalty is bad.
Posted by: Eyago on July 6, 2005 06:54 AMI just sent a short letter to the editor regarding the PI article. Basically, I asked them if they were reporting their commentary as in kind contributions...I also asked if free speech is only free speech when you agree with them...
Interestingly, they currently have a poll at the end of this article regarding this issue.....
Posted by: bf on July 6, 2005 07:02 AMI just sent a short letter to the editor regarding the PI article. Basically, I asked them if they were reporting their commentary as in kind contributions...I also asked if free speech is only free speech when you agree with them...
Interestingly, they currently have a poll at the end of this article regarding this issue.....
Posted by: bf on July 6, 2005 07:02 AMI just sent a short letter to the editor regarding the PI article. Basically, I asked them if they were reporting their commentary as in kind contributions...I also asked if free speech is only free speech when you agree with them...
Interestingly, they currently have a poll at the end of this article regarding this issue.....
Posted by: bf on July 6, 2005 07:02 AMMcCain Feingold was and is an abomination. While have a lot of respect for McCain's military career, his political career has me fed up with him.
On a related subject American Hero, Medal of Honor Recipient, Vietnam War Veteran, 7 year Prisoner of War, Vice Presidential Candidate James Stockdale has passed away. American was richer because of him, and poorer with his passing.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment was free, open political discourse. A majority of which took place in the press of the time. Back then newspapers where openly partisan. Up until WWII most towns had partisan papers, one Republican, one Democratic. The debate took place in the papers. Now we have a radio station doing exactly what is traditional and would have been completely understood by the founders. Just because moonbat radio isn't financially successful does mean you limit the other-side out of some warped idea of "fairness." I think moonbats would should ask themselves why liberal loony tunes doesn't play well to audiences.
Just ask what would the PI's response be to anyone trying to limit their candidate endorsements?
Posted by: JCM on July 6, 2005 07:38 AMThe no new gas tax intitiative will be turning in 232,000 signatures today!!!!! We still need an additional 50,000 signatures to ensure a "cushion" to the signatures being turned in today. So once again it looks like the initiative will qualify and we will make the ballot!
Posted by: TrueSoldier on July 6, 2005 07:40 AMI am listening to the stream right now.
The web site is down, but the stream is running. The stream is hosted by a different service.
There are numerous problems with the state GOP, and Kirby Wilbur is just one of them. There is very little desire to promote the state party as an organization, or to formulate a meaningful platform that the state GOP will actually rally support to. Instead, the state GOP is a bunch of factions acting in their own self-interest, and not hesitating to back a Democrat or support a position contrary to the general party platform when they see it to their advantage.
The state GOP should take a position on the gas tax increase, especially since it is the largest tax increase in state history, and since the three cents taking effect last Friday already have us at 31 cents -- the highest in the country -- with 6.5 cents more to be phased in over the next three years. Obviously, with more highway money per capita than any other state in the country, we have serious problems in state government administration if increasing the money pie by another 21% (over today's 31 cents) still won't even provide half the money to fund allegedly needed critical projects.
My next great example of disloyalty by a GOP party leader is Mike McKay, the former US attorney in Western Washington from 1989-1993. McKay was made Chair of the Bush campaign in Washington in 2000 and 2004, at the insistence of GOP leaders such as Chris Vance and Jennifer Dunn. He is also head of the GOP patronage committee in Washington, which recommends people for political appointments by the Bush administration.
But Mike McKay had no problems supporting Democrats in partisan races at the same time he was heading the Bush campaign. In 2000, he gave money to Christine Gregoire's re-election campaign and to Ron Sims' re-election campaign. In 2004, he gave money to Mark Sidran, a Democrat who was running for state Attorney General.
Why should any loyal Republican get overly worked up when the next presidential campaign rolls around? You attend your county and state GOP convention, and party leadership chooses a hypocrite to be master of ceremonies, who is going to publicly endorse Democrats or others over the GOP nominees for several offices in November. You try to get enthusiastic about supporting the presidential nominee. But party leadership chooses a hypocrite to run that person's campaign in this state (and to dispense patronage after the election), who is also going to publicly endorse a few Democrats while supposedly trying to get Washington's electoral votes into the GOP column.
It is unfortunate that you feel this way, but it is a common reaction by anyone who opens up their eyes and sees how things are actually going. I don't see the state GOP rising out of the self-serving hypocrisy that currently plagues and divides the party.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 6, 2005 08:57 AMSo what!!!!
It is politcal speech, which is expressly protected.
This is really only the beginning of what is to become an even bigger fight. The left's strategy here, and eventually elsewhere, is to destroy talk-radio by whatever means necessary (the FEC is also considering going after blogs - watch out Stefan). It's vitally important that we stand up and fight them here before they make free speech only applicable to them.
The best way for Fisher and I-912 (besides appealing the decision) to fight this is to list any news coverage whatsoever as a campaign contribution. It will look awfully funny when the Seattle-PI is listed as the single biggest donor to I-912.
What's at stake.
Nothing less than our Freedom to speak, defend ourselves, own our property, control government's ability to tax us.
Which are exactly the issues that lead to the revolution. Apparently the left is not versed in history, and it's propensity to repeat itself.
Posted by: JCM on July 6, 2005 10:11 AMDon't know you, don't have anything personal against you but....
I'll trust a man that endorses a democrat long before I trust a man that becomes one for the chance at an election victory
Jim
Posted by: Jim L on July 6, 2005 10:16 AMI have never collected petition signatures before, but after hearing the Thurston Judge's decision and the PI opposition to I912, I turned in 5 full sheets of signatures and have more coming. So I thank them both for their ability to motivate my new-found activism.
I am eagerly anticipating the squealing misinformation from those in opposition to I912.
Posted by: Shaun on July 6, 2005 01:40 PMI just turned in 324 signatures that are headed to Kirkland at the moment.I know of another 4000 going with them and I heard Clark County was sending another 4500
Don't stop till the deadline so we can be sure and avoid being disqualified for a few mistakes and the like
Dave Ross only left his show after he filed papers to run. He announced that he was running long before he officially filed for the race, but continued to stay on the air. I think that is why folks are (rightfully) torqued over it.
Posted by: Mike H on July 6, 2005 03:20 PMMike McKay was an official in the first Bush administration and with the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns. He also has a law firm (McKay-Chadwell) and I think that's what's caused Pope to be so confused. I doubt that McKay himself has ever given to Democrats, but businesses have different priorities (namely, they need to work with whoever wins). That's why it's common for a business to give money to both parties and even to opposing candidates. I think the business that Mike McKay is a partner in gave money to Democrats.
I can understand not trusting Pope for the simple reason that he switches parties based on his own ambitions, but I don't trust him because he tries to start these little intra-party spats. Nobody buys it.
Posted by: Aaron on July 6, 2005 04:51 PMIt's pretty easy to see why someone with as much integrity as Kirby would refuse to endorse an immature, disloyal blowhard like Richard Pope.
Posted by: Richard Pope sux on July 6, 2005 05:04 PMHowever, Richard would be wise to not engage in an argument about whether Kirby Wilbur is a loyal Republican. Richard, you really stepped into a huge mountain of hot steamy dung here. Hopefully you will patiently wait for the helicopter to pull you out and rescue you rather than suffocating yourself by trying to march out on your own!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on July 6, 2005 05:46 PMThe PDC database shows Mike McKay's personal name listed in relation to contributions of to Ron Sims of $300.00 on August 2, 2000 and to Mark Sidran of $300.00 on March 20, 2004 and $200.00 on March 26, 2004.
The contribution of $200.00 to Christine Gregoire on May 29, 2000 does happen to be solely in the name of McKay Chadwell PLLC -- the corporate entity for McKay's law firm.
The timing of that contribution is interesting, since it was one day after McKay's law firm received a $50,000 contract on May 28, 2000 from the State Attorney General's office to do a whitewash investigation over the missed $18 million appeal deadline. This McKay Chadwell whitewash investigation falsely blamed a low level assistant AG (who had nothing to do with appealing the judgment), who Gregoire then publicly humiliated and forced to resign. The wrongly fired attorney then sued Gregoire and the State for wrongful termination and defamation, and received a substantial out-of-court settlement in the summer of 2004.
I would hardly say my position on this matter has been discredited. I campaigned against Gregoire's incompetence back in 2000 when I was running for her job -- although of course the general public did not know back then that the McKay Chadwell investigation report was a bogus whitewash.
This bogus McKay Chadwell investigation report was heavily covered in the media during the first six or seven months of 2004, prior to Gregoire settling the lawsuit out of court. Groups supporting Rossi (and probably the Rossi campaign itself) used these facts to attack and discredit Gregoire in the Governor's race last year.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 6, 2005 06:11 PMhttp://www.metrokc.gov/elections/vp0998/kcpa.htm
And you expect us to believe that you can attack a man of integrity like Norm Maleng (and accuse him of racism, no less) and still be a Republican? But Mike McKay is somehow not a real Republican because maybe 5% of his personal contributions are outside the party? I think the hypocrisy is glaring....
Posted by: Aaron on July 6, 2005 08:32 PMI stand by the statements that I wrote for that 1998 King County Voter's Pamphlet. They were indeed true at the time. Fortunately, the relevant facts in 2005 are significantly different. I am glad that Norm Maleng runs his office significantly better now than he did seven years ago.
Titled "Radio is modern equivalent of press."
Posted by: JCM on July 7, 2005 05:39 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2002367642_kirbyed08.html
P.S.: They would have to end the file name for the URL with "kirbyed08.html". Still a great editorial.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 8, 2005 12:28 AM>>>I guess it got one. They played with fire and got burned.
Got BURNED? LOL you are forgetting one thing.... we WON big time!! And these idiots suing and ruling against John and Kirby don't have a leg to stand on... take a look at our Constitution... and fired up John's and Kirby's KVI pals to go out and crawl through the bushes to get more signatures. :)
Posted by: Sue on July 10, 2005 05:35 AM