**Make sure to read the update at the end of the original post**
A trusted source in Republican circles points out a funny thing about that big story in the P-I recently about the robust appearance of a political quid pro quo between Christine Gregoire and our state's Native American tribes: a certain other paper in Seattle hasn't covered the news...at all.
Not only did the P-I story run last Friday (with our own discussion here), the AP picked it up as well. The wire version ran in papers across the state, including in Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, and Yakima. This is after all one of the biggest news stories of the year on THE political race to watch in the Evergreen State.
One can understand not granting newsprint to a rival's story. Yet, when every other major paper in the state is picking it up off the AP wire, one would think the Seattle Times could at least link to that version on their website.
Not that they really understand how to use that medium either, but that's a post for another day. And for now, we can rest assured the Times apparently doesn't think an obvious case of policy making having an unhealthy link with huge campaign contributions is worthy of attention - especially when it involves a Governor up for re-election.
UPDATE: some commenters are pinning the lament above on David Postman. I wouldn't take it to that level. Individual reporters are often less responsible than one would think at times for what stories do and do not appear in the paper or online.
More importantly, I'm informed by a journalistic source that the AP has rules against competitors picking up wire stories based heavily on their rival's work. Thus, the Times would have been precluded from picking up the AP story based on the P-I's work, even if they so desired. Why they might be choosing or not choosing to run with their own such story is probably another matter.
UPDATE II: the AP policy discussed in the update above is more proof the AP still doesn't quite have a firm grasp on the whole age of the blogosphere thing.
Cross-posted at the Examiner.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 17, 2008 08:03 AM | Email ThisSo you can see how this story of potential government corruption might slip through the cracks. You have to keep your priorities in order.
Posted by: Some Guy on June 16, 2008 10:56 PMCantwell and Dotzauer getting jiggy a week before his wedding and the Junior Senator to be being named as a co-respondant in his divorce action. And then slipping him unreported money while he was stiffing the wife and kid on support money. Heck Cantwell still gives Dotzauers company Government Contracts, I wonder what else she is giving him. Postman says "No story".
Ron Sims in a Multi-Million dollar no-bid back door deal In Maple Valley that finally had the light of day cast upon it in a front page story by some of Postman's buddies at the TIMES. Postman's response "I don't need to cover it".
Now Christine is caught with her hand in the cookie jar with the Tribes, Postman remains the silent stalwart, the "Protector of the Liberal Faith".
We could go on, but you get the picture. I am sure that Postman will have another exciting article about Darcy Burner before the week is out.
Posted by: Huh? on June 16, 2008 11:24 PMMaybe someone at the PI figured a way to increase readership, and possibly even subscriptions.
"It could happen."
Posted by: pyotr on June 17, 2008 04:59 AMI'm certain Edward R. Murrow would have done the same thing. /sarcasm.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 17, 2008 07:09 AMRossi and Johnnie Mac are both Bush.
And Hitler.
And so am I.
Posted by: Independent Voter on June 17, 2008 09:29 AMI am racking my brain, and yes, it is somewhat scrambled from some of the commenters here. It was kind of like the Aflac duck after talking to Yogi, but below is the best I got.
Because "for profit" is evil, because Republicans are evil, because conservatives are evil and this is bred into journalists, perhaps that is the ideological reason they can't report the news fairly. I know if I were in Nazi Germany (and some of these journalists think we are today), I wouldn't be reporting on anything positive or shed a bad light on my cause no matter what. Is this the mindset?
It just can't be they have small differences anymore.
Posted by: swatter on June 17, 2008 09:48 AMWith all the hype the Times has given it's new-found righteousness, HOW did they miss this one?
I wonder how much revenue comes to the Times from tribal casinos?
If the Seattle P-I could wait 17 months or so to write a story on it, then why criticize the Seattle Times for waiting a couple of extra days (or weeks) to write their own story based on their own investigation and point of view?
And this conspiracy theory allegation against the Seattle Times for supposedly spiking the story? Hogwash! The Times endorsed Rossi last time, while the P-I supported Gregoire. And the Times management evidently continues to be strong Rossi supporters. When the Times prints their story on this, I would expect it to be even more damaging against Gregoire, to be followed up by a prominent anti-Gregoire editorial.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 10:14 AMOn January 30, 2007, David Goldstein of Horse's Ass criticized the proposed tribal gaming compact under the headline: "Proposed Spokane compact is bad for WA… and bad for the Governor"
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=2478
It was not until 39 days later, on March 10, 2007, that Stefan Sharkansky of Sound Politics got around to criticizing the tribal gaming compact -- and only AFTER it had been approved by the state Gambling Commission, under the headline: "Sewer of Corruption (XXXI):
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008184.html
So why did Sound Politics wait for well over a month to criticize the gambling compact (only after approval), when a Democratic blogger was outspoken in his condemnation of the compact before it was finally approved?
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 10:27 AMBack when the gambling pact was approved by the state Gambling Commission in early March 2007, the Republican condemnation of the pact focused solely on the provisions allowing for expansion of tribal gambling (such as cash operated slots, more machines, more tables, and no-limit tables). The Republicans said NOTHING about the fact that the gambling pact did not provide the State of Washington with any revenue sharing:
http://www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Ericksen/newsroom/070309.htm
It took a so-called "liberal" newspaper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, to "discover" that the gambling pact gives the state no revenue sharing. The Seattle P-I also "discovered" that almost every other state negotiated revenue sharing with the tribes (somewhere around 15% of gambling revenues on average, from what I can tell).
So why weren't any Republicans smart enough in early 2007 to notice that (1) the Washington gambling pact gave no revenue sharing to the state, (2) almost every other state gambling pact had revenue sharing, and (3) Washington stood to lose $140 million per year as a result?
You can criticize Gregoire as much as you like, but at least Gregoire and the tribes were smart enough to realize all this at the time. :)
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 10:38 AMThe real problem is that, after the compact, the tribes cut the state party a $600,000 check, and two weeks later, the state party cut Governor Gregoire a $600,000 check. Let's just say, if she were the CEO of a fortune 500 company rather than the governor of a state, the justice department would call this bribery and money laundering.
Posted by: Paul on June 17, 2008 11:52 AMSo she gives up an estimated $140 million in annual revenue for the state, and then sticks it to consumers by imposing internet sales taxes. I don't know how anyone can be stupid enough to vote for this woman.
Posted by: Palouse on June 17, 2008 12:32 PMWhile we are looking, we should look at the Tribe, Prentice, Gov. and the racing commission too!!!
All you get from the Press...pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain...
Even if there is no other evidence or testimony, and even if we give both the Gov and the tribes the maximum possible benefit of the doubt (I don't), at the VERY LEAST this situation presents a massive appearance of conflict of interest.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 17, 2008 12:54 PMTheir members are frequently 1/16 indian and 15/16 anglo.
You've seen their photos. Many are blue-eyed, red haired people wearing woven reed hats at "traditional ceremonies".
The largest indian casino in the world is Foxwood on the East Coast. It's owned by a Malaysian. The site was that of a camp of the long extinct Pequa tribe. There were no living members of the tribe at the time of Foxwood's opening.
Casinos are therefore not mostly some kind of reparation to the sovereign and abused "tribes", but largely a golden goose for a select group of anglos.
If this Gregoire-tribes daylighting gets some traction, then I hope it extends to Maria Cantwell who has been shamelessly courting the tribes for years. She can spot a pile of money better than most, but is even more adept at making beneficial promises for her contributors.
She is chair of the of the Indian Affairs Committee.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 17, 2008 02:50 PMPequot tribe, not Pequa, as I stated above.
Good treatment of their history on Wiki.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 17, 2008 02:55 PMMy interest in the Pequot was inspired by the following book.
"Without Reservation" by Jeff Benedict, 2000, Harper Collins.
Benedict is a tribal protagonist who suffers some perplexing questions about the indian gaming world.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 17, 2008 02:59 PMYesterday, the headline was when either of the Presidential candidates take office the tribes believe that they will increased grants.
Gary
Posted by: gary on June 17, 2008 03:51 PMYesterday, the headline was when either of the Presidential candidates take office the tribes believe that they will receive increased grants.
Gary
Posted by: gary on June 17, 2008 03:51 PMYesterday, the headline was when either of the Presidential candidates take office the tribes believe that they will receive increased grants.
Gary
Posted by: gary on June 17, 2008 03:51 PMYou can blame all this on that wonderful Republican, Ronald Reagan. Reagan signed the law in 1983 to recognize the Mashantucket Pequot, without their having to prove descent from the original Pequot tribe. (Don't blame this on a "Democrat"-controlled Congress, since the Republicans did have a majority in the Senate at the time.)
"On October 18, 1983 (when President Reagan signed the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act), the Mashantucket Pequot became the eighth American Indian tribe to gain federal recognition through congressional approval.[13] By contrast, in 2005, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation of Lantern Hill, North Stonington, Connecticut lost their bid for federal recognition following a challenge by the State of Connecticut that left the Mashantucket Pequot as the only federally recognized Pequot tribal government. The different outcomes can be attributed to the fact that, because their tribal recognition was granted by a direct act of Congress, the Mashantucket Pequots never went through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process which would have required them to prove that they were descended from the historical Pequot tribe. The Eastern Pequots did have to go through the BIA procedure and were found to have failed to meet the necessary criteria for recognition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashantucket_Pequots#Federal_Recognition
By the way, the legal battle against the Pequot's claims of original descent was led by Connecticut Attorney General Joseph Lieberman, who was a Democrat at the time. Lieberman was successful in the courts against both Pequot groups, but Reagan signed legislation to give one of the Pequot groups federal recognition anyway.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 03:58 PMYesterday, the headline was when either of the Presidential candidates take office the tribes believe that they will receive increased grants.
Gary
Posted by: gary on June 17, 2008 04:26 PMYesterday, the headline was when either of the Presidential candidates take office the tribes believe that they will receive increased grants.
Gary
Posted by: gary on June 17, 2008 04:26 PMInteresting about Leiberman since his sidekick McCain wants to re-write NAGPRA to prevent any study of pre-columbain human remains, including those of vikings.
As one with knowledge of tribal legal issues, can you tell me why perpetuities such as indian treaties can not be re-written to reflect the circumstances of the modern world?
A 1/16 indian tribesman can shoot elk from his truck window in Mt. St. Helens National Monument, or harvest salmon with endangered species status.
Seems like the indian has superior rights to anyone else in this country.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 17, 2008 04:47 PMI would think that the provisions of any Indian treaty could be altered, simply by Congress passing an appropriate law to that effect, and the President signing it. The constitution basically gives the federal government power to regulate the Indian tribes.
There are, of course, strong political reasons why these sorts of things don't happen very often as a general rule.
So how many whales have the Makah been able to harvest under their treaty in the last 10 years? Perhaps two, the last done under highly doubtful legality. Obviously, federal laws can limit or even override treaty rights.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 05:27 PMHey, the real problem is that we live in a nation with a national media dominated by liberals, and working to help Democrats steal power and hold onto it. This same media biases, filters, and even omits news damaging to the left, while working to foster a perception that Republicans are evil, conservatives are wrong, and liberal Democrats are the only hope for the planet.
There is no shortage of corruption on the left. It, frankly, is everywhere. Not just corruption of actions, but of truth, the public trust, and decency. What there is is a shortage of media attention, criticism and outrage. And while people focus on the minutia of specific scandals, the media just continues to go about their business of twisting the public perception, distorting the truth, and burying what every American needs to know to make an informed vote. And whenever they can get away with it, they don't hesitate to just make stuff up to help their allies on the left.
My God, a simple majority of liberal judges on the US Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have struck a fatal blow to the institution of marriage, given our most vicious enemies the right to sue our government in civilian courts, and now allowed illegal aliens to remain in this country despite their illegal status. They've ignored the constitution to do it, and done it despite clear and overwhelming opposition by the American people. But the media treats each one of these grotesque decisions like progress, and parades all the interest groups before their cameras praising the actions. They don't portray the outrage, and exhibit none themselves. Almost overnight they make the outrageous appear beneficial and everyone moves onto the next outrage.
And conservatives debate the merits of one blatantly inappropriate action, like one more scandal can hurt our Democrat governor? She got elected by 129 votes with over 1,760 illegal votes counted. How much more evidence does anyone need that Democrats have Teflon coating, and its called the mainstream media?
Here's a thought. What to you think the minority of Romans who saw the destruction of their empire, from within, were thinking 50 years before their empire fell? I'm sure they thought they could save the empire by fighting all the individual cases of wrongdoing and scandal too. History records that nothing they did mattered.
So what do we do in a society increasingly manipulated by media and educators? At my daughter's graduation today I heard one of the young kids giving one of the speeches proclaiming her generation's goal to save the planet from crises like Global Warming. Is the battle lost already? Are we the frogs and the water has started to boil?
Posted by: Reality on June 17, 2008 06:15 PMIf Gregoire was taxing the Indian's Gambling monopoly, it would pay for one Hell of a lot of roads and buses.
Say Hell No to these Democraps! No More!
Posted by: gs on June 17, 2008 07:41 PMThe supreme courts of California and Massachusetts are both appointed by the state governors. California justices are subject to periodic retention elections after their initial appointment, and every 12 years thereafter, where the people can vote them out. Massachusetts justices serve until they have to retire at 70.
The vast majority of the judges on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors -- who were in office from 1983 to 1999 and from 2003 to the present.
The vast majority of the judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors -- who were in office from 1991 to 2007.
I believe your post complained about "a simple majority of liberal judges" who authorized marriage between couples of the same gender. Exactly what states were you referring to?
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 17, 2008 08:18 PMBeing part-White myself, I understand the question. Until I was 18 I was Indian, with all the racist treatment that the south Seattle suburb where I grew up had to offer. (This was back in the 50s and 60s.) Then I went to college (as a working student; that is, I worked to pay my own way) where nobody knew me, and suddenly I was identified as an "evil White man."
Since then, of course, I created a predecessor to the modern blog where in 1996 I published something I published in my former 'zine that "White Canadian and American men are among the finest, noblest, most caring and responsible people in the world."
You can imagine how the politically correct mainstream vilified me for that, even though I publicly identified myself as American Indian.
In fact, it was while speaking to a women's studies class at the University of Washington in 96 or thereabouts that the young feminists there made me realize just how deeply they hate American Indians.
But I digress.
Being Indian and being a member of an Indian tribe are about a lot of things and there is a lot of overlap between the two, of course. Being Indian is about race, culture and heritage. Membership includes that but an essential difference is that tribal membership also includes inheritance and citizenship.
In other words, politics and property rights.
I'm a citizen in an Indian nation. Why nation? Because my ancestors, many of whom lived in what, were they from ancient Greece would have been called "city states," governed a territory that was larger than some European nations. Nations forge alliances, and my ancestors forged an alliance with the United States. Hence, I have dual citizenship. I also live in a city, hold a regular job and pay taxes.
Tribal property rights include an inherited relationship with the United States. It's not about measuring race by pints and quarts anymore than determining who Bill Gates' rightful heirs are 4 or 6 or 10 generations hence would be based on their "Bill Gates blood quantum."
Lots of Indians in ancient times had white skin. Graham Greene (the actor) was initially rejected for his role in Dances With Wolves because he has white skin. His ancestors were forest dwellers who, as he described it, "turned white as a frog's belly" during the winter.
In addition to being part-European I'm of mixed Indian descent and some of my American Indian ancestors had white skin.
So all the rhetoric about Indian blood quantum is ignorant at best and racist at worst. No I don't believe Bart Cannon is racist nor am I saying his comments were racist, just ignorant.
Bottom line is this: The logic used to attack Indian property rights is the same logic used to attack all property rights. There are lots of leftists in King County and Seattle who oppose inheritance of any kind and want to abolish property rights. Wittingly or not, anybody who attacks the property rights of Indian tribes puts themselves squarely in the same camp with those socialists.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on June 20, 2008 09:09 AM