Month: April 2019

Posted on

Violence Against Women Act Renewal & CMR

Dear Group,

On McMorris Rodgers’ congress.gov website you can read about her pride in “…Secur[ing] the Violence Against Women Act Extension” in an article posted on September 16, 2018. She casts herself as a “…warrior for human dignity and human value…” and writes of the VAWA as “…critical legislation to provide resources, support, and justice for victims of harassment and assault.” The VAWA authorization expired again February 15 this year. It is peculiar that on April 4 McMorris Rodgers voted against the new reauthorization bill, H.R.1585. H.R. 1585 passed the House 263-158. McMorris Rodgers joined 156 other Republicans and one Democrat voting against, while 33 Republicans voted for the bill, including CMR’s protege, Jamie Herrera Beutler (SW WA, CD3). The bill advanced to the Senate (where it faces an uncertain future).

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) became law in 1994 with bipartisan support (House 235–195, Senate 61–38). According to Wikipedia (a great background article): “The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.” The next year Republican tried to slash its funding, supposedly on fiscal grounds.

So why McMorris Rodgers’ change of heart? I called her Spokane office on Tuesday April 9 to inquire. It was clear the staffer had been asked before. She quickly responded, “She voted against because the Democrats changed it. It became a ‘partisan’ bill.” 

What did she see as a partisan poison pill? Was it guns, money, something else?

National coverage of the vote suggested the major quandary for Republicans was the closing of the “boyfriend loophole” in the H.R. 1595. Under the existing law a convicted abuser who was only a boyfriend did not forfeit his gun rights, whereas a convicted abuser husband would lose his. [See below in the P.S. a quote from Doug Muder for more detail.] McMorris Rodgers might find that objection to the bill hard to defend to anyone not a gun rights nut, although I imagine she is quietly advertising this reason to the rabid parts of her base.

I did not expect a fiscal argument. Exploding the deficit by voting in and crowing about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act certainly would put her thin ice cutting a program on fiscal grounds she had said was “critical legislation to provide resources.”

When I asked for more specifics the staffer went on to say McMorris Rodgers objected to a clause in H.R. 1585 that would “allow biologically male transgender individuals who identify as female into women’s shelters.” McMorris Rodgers, the staffer said, wanted to “protect the women in these shelters.” This is a characterization of biologically male transgender individuals as predators. It excludes them from consideration as victims of domestic violence (the VAWA itself does not exclude men from such consideration.) This is McMorris Rodgers’ shelter version of an anti-transgender bathroom bill.

I am not a lawyer, but neither is McMorris Rodgers. Anyone can read the text of the entire reauthorization bill here. I word searched the text for the term “transgender” using CMD-F (a very useful tool). The word transgender appears seven times. Only once [Section 4051(b)(2)(B)] the term appears in a clause concerning placement of transgender individuals. In that instance the clause pertains only to prison placement, and in that setting the bill mandates consideration “on a case-by-case basis whether a placement would ensure the prisoner’s health and safety.” 

I submit that McMorris Rodgers’ stated reason for voting nay on VAWA reauthorization is governed by her partisan Republican political handlers, not by any critical reading of the actual text of the bill. They may be struggling with their justification: as of today they are two weeks behind in posting their “How I Voted” page on CMR’s website, something I was told by her staffer I would see up by yesterday, Wednesday, April 10.

I encourage you to call McMorris Rodgers’ office and ask for the details of her justification for her nay vote:

Spokane Office       (509) 353-2374

Colville Office         (509) 684-3481

Walla Walla Office  (509) 529-9358

D.C. Office              (202) 225-2006

She may be in area during next week’s recess. If she holds a snap town hall in some outlying village this would be a good question in that setting as well.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Below I’ve copied Doug Muder’s sober analysis of the typical Republican justification for voting against reauthorization of the VAWA:

“The next time somebody tries to tell you that both parties are the same, remember Thursday’s [April 4] vote in the House to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act [H.R.1585]. It passed 263-158. The No votes were 157 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The bill faces challenges in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Here’s the main point of contention:

Under current federal law, only people convicted of domestic violence offenses against spouses or family members can lose their gun rights. The [new version of the] VAWA would add people convicted of abusing their dating partners, closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” It would also prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses from owning or buying firearms, as well as abusers subject to temporary protective orders.

That provision is too much for the NRA, and so for the Republicans the NRA controls. The gun rights of stalkers and abusers should be protected, even if that means more women will die.

A study comparing abused women who survived with those killed by their abuser found that 51 percent of women who were killed had a gun in the house. By contrast, only 16 percent of women who survived lived in homes with guns.

Even if you don’t care about women, there’s still good reason to support adding this provision to the VAWA: When you look at mass shooters and ask “How could we have known what he would do?”, one strong clue is a history of domestic violence. Keeping guns out of the hands of abusers would probably save a lot of men’s lives too.”
Posted on

Trump’s Media War

Dear Group,

Trump and his media act in synergy in a war for power. (The Republican faithful and corporate interests gleefully aid and abet because they see their narrow interests can ride along.)

On Monday I posted “Nadine Woodward” and discussed the strikingly positive bias with which the Spokesman announced her candidacy. I had just read a series in the New York Times Magazine on the Murdoch media empire, a series that set the stage for my irritation with the Spokesman bias. The NYTimes series is a must read.. It comes in three parts:

How Rupert Murdoch’s Empire of Influence Remade the World

Part 1: Imperial Reach

Part 2: Internal Divisions, Inside the Succession Battle for the Murdoch Empire

Part 3: The New Fox Weapon, The Future of Fox: An Even More Powerful Political Weapon

[There is even a streamlined version: 6 Takeaways From The Times’s Investigation Into Rupert Murdoch and His Family. 

And a Video presentation: The Night Fox News and Trump Became One]

If you are a subscriber to the NYTimes.com electronic version these articles are available to you right now. if you are not a subscriber, reading this series is reason to become one. Rupert Murdoch and his sons Lachlan and James play by different rules than the rest of us. By steady application of power, influence, and propaganda over decades they make the rules. I have long been curious about the Murdoch media dynasty. These articles bring all the material together in a readable narrative. Get to know the players. 

I consider this NYTimes series on Murdoch second only to Jane Mayer’s epic work “Dark Money” (See below under References/Deep Background). The NYTimes series covers much less territory and is less well referenced than “Dark Money,” but it is more readable in a shorter time frame.

As if the NYTImes weekend deep dive into the Murdoch media dynasty and Fox “News” weren’t enough on April 6 I received an email from DonaldJTrump.com (a Trump 2020 campaign website to which I am  subscribed) with the subject line “FINAL FAKE NEWS FOUR” looking for a donation and announcing a context to name the most egregious “fake news” outlets pushing the “witch hunt” led by “liars” and naming CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as suitable exemplars for the “FAKEST NEWS.”

That Trump continues to work his base by stoking conflict with all media that do not bow down to him I found profoundly chilling, particularly on the heels of reading the NYTimes article on the Murdoch propaganda and influence machine. This is no way to run a country. This is a way to discord and consolidate autocratic power. The Spokesman announcement of Nadine Woodward’s candidacy for City of Spokane mayor is a microcosm of the greater story of the media wars.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. After reading the story of the Murdoch media dynasty I find the Republican propaganda machine’s incessant flogging of George Soros, the right’s favorite wealthy liberal whipping boy laughable. “George Soros” has become a mantra for Republicans, a trigger meant to elicit disgust at the mere mention of his name. Ask the average Republican (including Rep. McMorris Rodgers, who uses the Soros name as a mantra) what exactly they know about the man. You will likely get a blank stare or some mumbling about Nazis. Fox focuses on Soros’ teen years as a Jew in Hungary during the Nazi occupation and on his wealth accumulation as a hedge fund manager, conveniently avoiding mention of the Open Society Foundations and the rest of his long life supporting democracy in reaction to what he lived through as a youth. I urge you to click and read the Wikipedia articles on George Soros and his foundations. You will never hear a Fox commentator discussing the Murdoch media empire or the cozy synergistic relations the Murdochs now maintain with Trump. Read about both and decide who you would rather meet.

Posted on

Nadine Woodward

Dear Group,

The big local news last week was Nadine Woodward’s announcement she is running for Mayor of the City of Spokane. On Wednesday, April 3, the Spokesman published a front page article entitled “Woodward campaigning for city’s highest post”. On the same front page, shoulder to shoulder with Woodward’s announcement, was another article entitled “TV Anchorman Won Mayor’s Office In ’70s.” This gratuitous bit of history, as if to offer a parallel, presents Ron Bair’s accomplishments as a one term mayor (4 years from 1978-82). It starts with another parallel; both Woodward and Bair were, immediately prior to their campaigns for mayor, long term news anchors at KXLY. I see those juxtaposed articles as tantamount to endorsement. (If you have a digital subscription you can see that front page here. As separate articles they can be seen here and here.)

The mayoral race is nominally non-partisan, but Woodward’s bona fides as a conservative Republican could hardly be more clear. The Spokesman article says, “She had long been rumored to be interested in running for office and has been encouraged to run by some prominent conservatives.” Not only has she already received the endorsement of perhaps my least favorite local politician, Michael Baumgartner (now Spokane County Treasurer), but his wife, Eleanor Baumgartner, is managing Woodward’s campaign. KXLY, where Woodward was anchor for eight years, is conservative, owned by Morgan Murphy Media,a company based in Wisconsin and owning stations there and in Texas, Missouri, Kansas, and eastern Washington. 

Woodward has name and face recognition from KXLY (and 19 years at KREM). Does Woodward have a platform? Well, not that you could tell from the Spokesman article. “Consensus building” sounds like the extent of the substance, while she simply mentions all the usual local concerns: homelessness, public safety, hiring more police (without raising taxes, she says). Solutions? Actual proposals? …not yet, not so much. 

Luckily we’re blessed in this town with another newspaper, The Inlander, a weekly that doesn’t require a subscription. Further we have Daniel Walters, who ought to be given a bigger platform. His article is entitled “Nadine Woodward is running for mayor on a platform of ‘Spokane Solutions,’ but doesn’t yet have any” You can read the original here for free, but I’ve copied it below for convenience:

Right there, on the baby blue section of her campaign sign, was the slogan of Nadine Woodward’s long-anticipated mayoral campaign: “Spokane Solutions.”

For nearly three decades, Woodward reported on the problems of the city of Spokane for KREM and KXLY. In that time, Woodward says, she got a “close-up view of the real challenges before us.”

Flanked by the Riverfront Park pavilion and the clocktower, Woodward offered up a familiar checklist of goals for the city.

Spokane needs less property crime, chronic homelessness and drug addiction, she argued, and more vibrant neighborhoods and thriving businesses. Streets still need to be repaired and stormwater infrastructure still needs to be invested in.

When it comes to solving these challenges, she said, Spokane needed to move away from “second-hand ideas copied from somewhere else.”

“We are not California,” Woodward said. “We are not Seattle. We are Spokane and we’re proud of it.”

Instead, Woodward says, Spokane needs to come together to develop “Spokane Solutions.”

“I’m not here to give you the answers to all the city’s problems,” Woodward said. “I’m telling you that I’m going to work my heart out to find the best solutions to Spokane’s problems.”

But when asked to identify any specific “Spokane Solutions” she was proposing, Woodward repeatedly declined to name anything.

“I have no solutions to propose right now,” Woodward said, “because they’re not mine. We’re going to work together to bring people to come up with Spokane Solutions.”

So why not come up with any solutions before announcing her run for mayor, the Inlander asked.

“We will develop Spokane Solutions,” Woodward said. “I’m not coming to the table with Spokane Solutions.”

Woodward is offering less of a platform as much as a philosophy. She wants to be a nonpartisan consensus builder who rejects “bickering,” “political posturing” and “grandstanding.”

Her vagueness made for a sharp contrast with City Council President Ben Stuckart, Woodward’s most high-profile opponent. A year ago, Stuckart announced his mayoral campaign with a blend of specificity, rhetorical intensity and willingness to wade into politically dicey territory. (Woodward, for example, did not mock an email from an indignant constituent who was angry with a building code allowing for flat roofs.)

“He’s been in office for seven years,” Woodward said about Stuckart. “My approach obviously is going to be a lot different. I’m not going to come here and tell everybody what I’m going to do. I’m going to involve people. We’re going to come up with answers together.”

While her supporters include former City Councilman Steve Corker, a Democrat, most of her supporters lean to the conservative side of the spectrum. Eleanor Baumgartner, wife of snarky Republican politician Michael Baumgartner, is running Woodard’s campaign.

Better Spokane, a conservative-leaning pro-business lobbying group, has already thrown its support behind Woodward.

“She’s got a great resume,” Better Spokane Executive Director Michael Cathcart says. “She knows the issues. She knows the community. She’s trustworthy. A complete contrast to Ben.”

But how does he know that her eventual solutions would be better than Stuckart’s?

“Well, you don’t have to go far to get a better solution than Stuckart’s,” Cathcart says. “She’s at least going to consult a broad group of people.”

Woodward was the most specific when it came to what she wouldn’t do. She promised she will “never embarrass this city.” She said she wouldn’t be “abrasive.” She wants less drama. She said she was opposed to the City Council’s decision to ban Border Patrol from the Intermodal Center. She suggested that opening up City Hall all day to the homeless and other members of the public was a mistake.

Last month, Woodward encouraged Spokanites to watch a controversial KOMO documentary on drug addiction and homelessness in Seattle. Toward the end, the KOMO reporter suggests turning the largely abandoned prison on McNeil Island into an involuntary drug treatment center for addicts.

But at her press conference today, Woodward insisted that she hadn’t praised the video.

“We’re not Seattle,” Woodard said. “But we need to get a handle of the situation before we become a Seattle.”

When pressed, Woodward didn’t identify anything that Spokane should do to avoid that fate, besides working together.

“We’re going to work together to find solutions,” Woodward said. “We’re going to bring people together. There’s no silver bullet, Daniel. But anyone who tells you they’re going to solve it right now — there’s just no way. It’s going to be a collaboration of people, who work one-on-one with the homeless who are going to help come up with a solution.”

Other than her objection to opening up City Hall, Woodward doesn’t identify any mistakes the city of Spokane has made in handling homelessness.

“I can’t think of anything right now, exactly,” Woodward said. “But I think we’ve seen it get out of control. You can’t just throw money at a problem and think that it’s going to, you know, resolve itself.”

I asked her to identify what she saw as the biggest mistake the city of Spokane has made in the past decade. She declined.

“Daniel, I’m not going to go that route,” Woodward said. “I’m not going to berate what the city has done. I love this city.”

Still, some of Woodward’s comments appeared to allude to the sexual harassment scandal involving former Police Chief Frank Straub.

“No one should be bullied or harassed at work, and that includes City Hall,” Woodward said. “I intend to take a hard look now at the ethics and employment standards to protect city employees, especially women, from bullying and harassment.”

Woodward once sued her former employer, KREM, over age and sex discrimination.

Still, the former reporter largely refused to be pinned down on issues by the city’s current reporters. Woodward refused to say how she voted on a city initiative — supported by Stuckart but opposed by Mayor David Condon — to raise property taxes in order to pay for firefighters and police officers.

After a handful of questions, Woodward excused herself.

“I’ve got to go to the bank,” Woodward said. “We’ll do it another time, how about that.”

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry