Minutes ago, Tim Eyman’s treasurer uploaded campaign finance reports for the latest incarnation of Eyman’s “Voters Want More Choices” committee for the month of April, which is serving as the repository for the money Eyman is raising for I-1185, his latest destructive initiative, which is essentially a carbon copy of I-1053 from two years ago. Of the $247,285.59 raised for I-1185, more than eighty percent – $200,000 – came from BP and ConocoPhillips, which sent Eyman matching checks dated April 11th and April 30th, respectively.

This isn’t the first time BP or ConocoPhillips have contributed to Eyman’s initiative factory. As regular readers no doubt remember, both companies were big donors to I-1053 two years ago, and prior to their just-revealed April contributions, they were already among Eyman’s top ten all time wealthy benefactors.

As a result of its April 11th contribution, BP has now moved into the fifth spot on the all-time wealthy benefactors list, ahead of deceased helicopter logging magnate Wes Lematta. And ConocoPhillips has now gone from being tied for ninth place in the rankings to seventh place with its own $100,000 check.

Eyman has already funnelled some of his new oil money into the coffers of his friends Roy Ruffino and Eddie Agrazarm, who run “Citizen Solutions”, the firm that has brought in most of the signatures for all of Eyman’s recent initiatives. In fact, the very same day that BP’s check arrived (April 11th), Eyman wrote a check for an identical amount to Citizen Solutions, records show.

If history is any indication, contributions from other corporations are sure to follow. Eyman doesn’t have to report what he hauls in for the month of May until June 10th. That’s several weeks from now.

Back in January, Eyman told his followers that he and his cohorts – Mike and Jack Fagan of Spokane – hadn’t decided what their initiative would be for 2012. We interpreted that announcement (or non-announcement) to mean that Eyman didn’t have money lined up to do a signature drive.

But evidently he had some conversations with powerful lobbyists as the year wore on, and secured a financial commitment from BP to launch I-1185.

We have long said that anyone willing to put up half a million dollars to run an initiative can buy themselves a spot on the ballot. BP and ConocoPhillips alone could make sure that Eyman’s I-1185 qualifies by sending the Mukilteo profiteer a few more checks. It’s possible they already have sent Eyman more money and we don’t know it yet.

For the last few weeks, we’ve been gearing up to fight I-1185, operating under the assumption that Eyman had the money to buy the signatures he needed to get it on the ballot. It’s clear that our assessment of the danger was spot-on.

Now we must shift into higher gear.

Washington simply cannot afford for Eyman’s unconstitutional, undemocratic “two thirds for tax increases” scheme to remain in place. It’s choking our common wealth and the public services our common wealth pays for.

We at NPI will do all we can to defeat I-1185. But we’re going to need your help. This is going to be an extremely difficult battle. But we can’t afford not to fight. Nothing less than Washington’s economic security is at stake. We have to stop Tim Eyman and the powerful interests that are using him as a puppet from winning. We have to protect our state’s future.

Feit’s farewell post, which went live just before 3 PM, didn’t mince words.

“I’ve got a serious afternoon Jolt: PubliCola is going out of business. Sort of,” Feit wrote. He added:

While PubliCola has been successful producing influential, must-read news coverage and building a loyal readership (more than 400,000 monthly page views during the election season and currently more than 10,000 Facebook and Twitter followers), we haven’t been successful as a business. Advertising revenue has been limited and inconsistent.

Consequently, the site is shutting down, thought Feit says its main features will continue to live on for the time being at Crosscut, another local news startup. Feit and fellow PubliCola writer Erica C. Barnett have already moved into Crosscut’s offices in Pioneer Square, and may ultimately wind up as beat writers for Crosscut – though no long-term agreement has been reached yet.

Feit and Crosscut founder David Brewster have reportedly been in discussions about a tie-up for weeks and are still talking.

Feit sounded optimistic that something will get worked out.

We don’t know where this Crosscut PubliCorner, if you will, is going to lead. But there do seem to be some exciting possibilities: A combo of these two prominent local news sites—with Crosscut’s in-depth, analytical weekly articles and PubliCola’s on-the-ground, breaking news—could be awesome. And we’re considering it. Plus we could use their infrastructure, editors, and  copy editing (they’ve got all that too). And they could use our younger readers and progressive voice. This could end up being a real win for the community.

Brewster, for his part, told The Stranger’s Dominic Holden he is working on raising money to allow Crosscut to afford the new hires.

There is an ambitious effort to raise this money over a two-year period to allow us to hire an impressive figure as leader of the company… I and the board want to see Crosscut operating at a considerably higher level of funding in order to have more stability, more impact, and more full-time reporters.

Brewster is also trying to bring aboard former Seattle P-I managing editor David McCumber to run Crosscut and oversee its team of writers. The Seattle Weekly reports that discussions between Brewster and McCumber are still ongoing.

While we never much cared for PubliCola’s gossip-laden, horse-race driven features (Morning Fizz and Afternoon Jolt) we did appreciate the legislative session coverage the site offered, as well as the guest posts and more lengthy stories it published.

We wish Josh and Erica the best as they decide whether joining Crosscut’s stable of writers is what they want to do long-term.

The people of France ousted incumbent president Nicolas Sarkozy today in a runoff election, denying the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (Union for a Popular Movement) leader a second term in favor of Socialist François Hollande, who has called for more investment in France’s public services and fewer austerity measures. The closely-watched election is expected to have significant repercussions, particularly in Europe, which is still trying to shake off a fiscal crisis.

Socialist supporters of President-elect Francois Hollande celebrate victory outside The Bastille in Paris (Photo: Rodrigo Sepúlveda Schulz, reproduced under a Creative Commons license)

“My dear countrymen: On this day, May the 6th, the French have chosen change, and have elected me to the Presidency of the Republic,” Hollande told supporters in a victory speech in Tulle. “I am keenly aware of the honor done to me and of the greatness of the task ahead of me. And, here before you, I undertake to serve my country – with the devotion and the exemplariness required of this high office.”

Sarkozy, meanwhile, conceded defeat. He accepted “total responsibility” for the results and wished Hollande well, acknowledging him as the President-elect of the Republic. “My involvement in the life of my country will be different now,” Sarkozy told supporters. “But time will never weaken the ties between us.”

For those unfamiliar with French politics, Sarkozy’s party, the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), and Hollande’s party, the Parti socialiste (PS), are the two major political parties in France. They are, to some extent, the equivalent of the Republican and Democratic parties here in the United States, though not quite as dominant (France’s minor parties are stronger than America’s minor parties). Ideologically, the UMP is considered to be right wing (though not far right) and the PS is considered to be left wing (though not far left).

The just-concluded presidential election has been characterized by many observers as a referendum on Nicolas Sarkozy, who came to power five years ago and, for a time, enjoyed widespread support. His popularity has since tanked, in part due to his embrace of ineffective austerity measures as a response to the the worldwide financial crisis and accompanying economic downturn.

The White House announced that President Obama had already reached out to President-elect Hollande. According to Press Secretary Jay Carney, the two men spoke briefly by telephone after the outcome of the election became known.

President Obama called President-elect Francois Hollande of France to congratulate him after the results of the French election were announced today. President Obama indicated that he looks forward to working closely with Mr. Hollande and his government on a range of shared economic and security challenges. President Obama noted that he will welcome President-elect Hollande to Camp David for the G-8 Summit and to Chicago for the NATO Summit later this month, and proposed that they meet beforehand at the White House. President Obama and President-elect Hollande each reaffirmed the important and enduring alliance between the people of the United States and France.

Hollande has also spoken with the democratically-chosen leader of the United Kingdom, a spokesperson for Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed:

The Prime Minister called President-Elect Hollande this evening and congratulated him on his victory. They both look forward to working very closely together in the future and building on the very close relationship that already exists between the UK and France.

Hollande, who will be sworn into office very soon (possibly a week from tomorrow) is expected to travel to Berlin to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel, like Cameron, had supported Sarkozy’s reelection campaign, but will now have to get used to working with Hollande, who will be France’s president for at least the next five years. Sarkozy’s defeat isn’t the only loss Merkel will be ruminating over during the course of the next few days; her own party is performing poorly in local elections today in Germany.

Today, Obama/Biden 2012 campaign finalized the main fundraising event – a luncheon plus a concert at the Paramount in downtown Seattle – and began sending out invitations to past donors and local supporters.

The event will feature the Dave Matthews Band, and will begin at noon on Thursday, May 10th. Tickets to the event start at $100 for general admission.

Lunch costs ten times that amount ($1,000), and access to the photo reception beforehand costs fifty times that amount ($5,000).

Young Obama supporters with money to spare, however, can buy lunch for $500 or premium theater seating for $250 (these are known as “Generation44″ rates).

A separate event for even wealthier donors is also undoubtedly being planned.

Past such events have been held in Madrona and Medina at the homes of Rob Glaser (founder of RealNetworks), Jon Shirley (former president of Microsoft) and Jeff Brotman (cofounder of Costco Wholesale).

No official events, whether open to the public or not, have been announced.

If history is any indication, the President’s stop here will be brief, and won’t involve an overnight stay. As in the past, he will likely arrive and depart from Boeing Field, as he has on all of his other visits (except the most recent one back in February, when he flew in and out of Paine Field in Everett).

Obama has made four previous visits to Washington as president: two in 2010, one last year, and one just a couple of months ago. He also visited Washington in 2008 when he was a candidate for president.

He did not endorse Mitt Romney, who now appears to be a lock for the Republican nomination, nor did he indicate whether he would release delegates already pledged to him. Instead, he kept his remarks focused on his gratitude for his family and his supporters, who he credited with helping keep his campaign alive.

In a message posted to his website, Santorum stuck to the same theme.

“Today I announced that I am suspending my campaign for the President of the United States. This has been one of the hardest decisions Karen and I have ever had to face together,” he wrote. “And it has been hard in large measure because of you. I know that my candidacy has offered you a way to fight for your convictions, and I do not want to let you down.”

However, Santorum did indicate (briefly) that his campaign team had recently come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney’s delegate lead was insurmountable.

“Our good friends in Texas have been working non-stop to make sure that they have a say in the choice of our nominee, but without the state changing its delegate allocation to winner-take-all, I do not see a path forward that does not risk our shared objective of defeating Barack Obama in November.”

To be competitive with Romney going forward, Santorum would have needed more than just a win in Pennsylvania and a win (plus a rules change) in Texas. He would have needed to find a way to convince voters in regions of the country where he has done pretty poorly to back his candidacy.

(Delegate-rich states on the coasts like New York and California have not yet weighed in and were expected to be pro-Romney).

Ironically, Rick Santorum’s other rival, Newt Gingrich, continues to say that he is staying in the race. Gingrich has won just two states so far – his home state of Georgia and its northern neighbor, South Carolina – but in other states, he has effectively helped propel Mitt Romney to victory by splitting the conservative vote.

Had Gingrich left the race after New Hampshire, or even after Super Tuesday, Santorum might have been a position to keep going, at least for a while longer. Santorum probably could have captured South Carolina and Georgia had Gingrich called it quits in advance of those states’ primaries.

It’s also possible Santorum could have won in Alaska, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin had Gingrich allowed he and Romney to battle it out alone.

Conservative activists reacted to Santorum’s announcement with dismay. On FreeRepublic, a popular conservative message board, posters expressed strong anti-Romney sentiment. Here’s a sampling of some of the comments.

I’ve seen 3 freepers who I have hardly seen in one minute post unite behind Romney lets beat Obama

The Romney bots have been waiting for some time to get on here and tell us to unite and they will use the usual crap of us hating Obama and we have to unite to beat him.

All of his paid staffers will be here soon you watch.

Oh well, time for me to start looking for a different political party. Still not voting for Romney.

—  kreitzer

I hope he does not endorse Romney…..

— sheikdetailfeather

The Tea Party/Independents need to field a presidential candidate this fall because I hope the GOP/Romneyites lose this election.

— upsdriver

This particular comment, left by a disgruntled Gingrich supporter, was my favorite:

well… Santorum succeeded in clearing the way for Mittens *sigh*

now that his job is done, time to quit.

I hope everyone that supported Santorum is happy with the result!

If you had just gotten behind Gingrich, we could of had a REAL conservative as our nominee.

— TexasFreeper2009

Yeah, that’s right. If only conservative activists had coalesced around Newt Gingrich – the epitome of family values – Mitt Romney would be the one out of the race by now! You tell ‘em, Texas Freeper! Tell ‘em how wrong they were!

Santorum’s rivals, of course, had a very different reaction to the news. On Twitter, Mitt Romney briefly saluted Santorum, saying, “Senator Santorum is an able and worthy competitor, and I congratulate him on the campaign he ran.”

Meanwhile, Ron Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, released a brief statement urging Santorum supporters to coalesce around Paul’s candidacy. “Congratulations to Senator Santorum on running such a spirited campaign. Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. We plan to continue running hard, secure delegates, and press the fight for limited, constitutional government in Tampa,” said Benton.

Gingrich also wasted no time in making a play for Santorum’s supporters.

“I am committed to staying in this race all the way to Tampa so that the conservative movement has a real choice,” Gingrich announced in a statement. “I humbly ask Senator Santorum’s supporters to visit Newt dot org to review my conservative record and join us as we bring these values to Tampa. We know well that only a conservative can protect life, defend the Constitution, restore jobs and growth and return to a balanced budget.”

Considering that Paul has won no states and that Gingrich has won only two, the likelihood of either of them being able to prevent Mitt Romney from sewing up the Republican presidential nomination in advance of the national convention in Tampa seems remote. They can continue campaigning if they want.

Romney, of course, won’t regard either of them as a serious threat. Neither will the traditional media, Beltway pundits, or the Republican establishment.

In a five-to-four decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas – collectively, the court’s conservative wing – declared that it’s okay for police to require any person they detain to undergo a “close visual inspection while undressed” (in other words, a strip-search).

Justice Breyer filed a strongly worded dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. (Together, they comprise the court’s liberal wing).

“A strip search that involves a stranger peering without consent at a naked individual, and in particular at the most private portions of that person’s body, is a serious invasion of privacy,” Breyer wrote. “We have recently said, in respect to a schoolchild (and a less intrusive search), that the ‘meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions.’”

“Even when carried out in a respectful manner, and even absent any physical touching, such searches are inherently harmful, humiliating, and degrading,” Breyer added later in his opinion. “And the harm to privacy interests would seem particularly acute where the person searched may well have no expectation of being subject to such a search, say, because she had simply received a traffic ticket for failing to buckle a seatbelt, because he had not previously paid a civil fine, or because she had been arrested for a minor trespass.”

Breyer’s dissent goes on to completely destroy the the flimsy rationale Anthony Kennedy used to prop up the majority’s decision. He notes that neither the Supreme Court’s conservative majority nor the respondents in the case (who were sued by the plaintiff for violating his Fourth Amendment rights) have cited any examples where reasonable suspicion requirements for strip-searches have interfered with preserving order inside prisons, or preventing contraband from being smuggled into prisons. Breyer further notes that at least ten states have actually codified restrictions on strip-searches into law… including Washington.

The relevant RCW is 10.79.130:

Strip, body cavity searches — Warrant required — Exceptions.

(1) No person to whom this section is made applicable by RCW 10.79.120 may be strip searched without a warrant unless:

(a) There is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a strip search is necessary to discover weapons, criminal evidence, contraband, or other thing concealed on the body of the person to be searched, that constitutes a threat to the security of a holding, detention, or local correctional facility;

(b) There is probable cause to believe that a strip search is necessary to discover other criminal evidence concealed on the body of the person to be searched, but not constituting a threat to facility security; or

(c) There is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a strip search is necessary to discover a health condition requiring immediate medical attention.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a reasonable suspicion is deemed to be present when the person to be searched has been arrested for:

(a) A violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 or any successor statute;

(b) An offense involving escape, burglary, or the use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) An offense involving possession of a drug or controlled substance under chapter 69.41, 69.50, or 69.52 RCW or any successor statute.

[1986 c 88 § 2.]

Breyer concluded: “I have found no convincing reason indicating that, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, involuntary strip searches of those arrested for minor offenses are necessary in order to further the penal interests. And there are strong reasons to believe they are not justified.”

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement criticizing the decision.

“Today’s decision jeopardizes the privacy rights of millions of people who are arrested each year and brought to jail, often for minor offenses,” said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU.

“Being forced to strip naked is a humiliating experience that no one should have to endure absent reasonable suspicion. Jail security is important, but it does not require routinely strip searching everyone who is arrested for any reason, including traffic violations, and who may be in jail for only a few hours. ”

We concur. Allowing the police to strip-search anyone they have arrested, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, is not constitutional. The Fourth Amendment, reproduced below, is hardly ambiguous.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons… against unreasonable searches and seizures… shall not be violated. The people of this nation cannot be secure in their persons if they can be arrested on some pretext and then strip-searched without a warrant, or without even justification of any sort.

That’s what happened to Albert Florence, the plaintiff in this case. And unfortunately, thanks to this ruling, that’s what is going to continue to happen all over the country. The Supreme Court could have put a stop to such egregious civil liberties violations, but instead, they have given police forces all over the country the okay to strip search anybody they arrest. Including protesters. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision such power being abused.

Fortunately, Washington has a law explicitly forbidding suspicionless strip-searches, which state and local police are be bound by. Our state law doesn’t seem to be affected by today’s decision, since the court’s opinion concerns only whether suspicionless strip-searches of arrested individuals violates the Fourth Amendment. While that is comforting, we nonetheless believe this decision could have far-reaching consequences. It isn’t merely a bad decision, it is a dangerous decision. If it cannot be overturned in the near future, we hope it can at least be mitigated.

Current’s cofounders published a letter to viewers announcing their decision.

To the Viewers of Current:

We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet.  We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.

Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

We are moving ahead by honoring Current’s values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily — especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.

As we move toward this summer’s political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press (“Full Court Press” at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller (“Talking Liberally” at 9 am ET/6 pm PT).

We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Gov. Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.

All of these additions to Current’s lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal — the goal that has always been central to Current’s mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voices are too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.

Sincerely,

Al Gore & Joel Hyatt
Current’s Founders

The New York Times, which broke the news of Olbermann’s ouster, reports that Current’s managers unanimously agreed that the network should fire him, indicating that the relationship had gone pretty far south.

Incidentally, this isn’t the first time that Olbermann has been fired. His tenure at each of the other major networks he has worked at (MSNBC, Fox Sports Net, ESPN) ended in acrimony after tension between Olbermann and his bosses boiled over. Olbermann’s last gig, with MSNBC, lasted over half a decade, but his partnership with Current has now ended after less than a year.

Though we don’t know what happened behind the scenes at Current that led to the falling-out between Olbermann and Current TV leadership, it’s probably safe to conclude that Gore, Hyatt, and their executive team found Olbermann difficult to work with, and ultimately concluded the souring relationship was irreparable.

Within an hour of the publication of the open letter above, Olbermann had begun lashing out at Current on Twitter, and vowing a retaliatory lawsuit.

In a series of tweets, he wrote:

I’d like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.

Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.

It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain.

In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.

Several assertions in this statement strike us as odd.

First, Olbermann claims that “for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally.” But Olbermann’s deal with Current was only finalized in early February 2011.

If this claim is true, then it means Olbermann’s problems with Current began just about the millisecond the ink was dry on their contract – or not long after.

Olbermann is basically saying he never had a good relationship with Gore or Hyatt. Well, whose fault is that? It takes two to tango, but Olbermann has made a reputation for himself as being tough to work with. He’s been described as passionate onscreen and ill-tempered offscreen. He’s reportedly missed a lot of work lately, which precipitated his removal.

Second, Olbermann claims that he has “not [been] publicizing my complaints” with Current TV leadership. But that’s not true. Olbermann has talked on the record to entertainment industry reporters about his gripes with the network. Has Olbermann forgotten this story filed by The Hollywood Reporter?

Third, does Olbermann really expect us to believe he was ousted because Gore and Hyatt thought it would be more “economical” to get rid of him? Countdown was pulling in Current’s highest ratings. Earlier this month, Hyatt characterised Olbermann as “the big gun in our lineup” to the New York Times, and even described Current itself as “all on top of his shoulders”.

If Current thought they could depend on Olbermann, why would they axe him? Certainly not to save money. No competent network executive would sack its most valuable personality just to save a few bucks.

If Olbermann insisted on retaining control of the “Countdown” name and brand in the contract he signed with Current last year (MSNBC allowed him to take those marks with him when he left), it’s possible that the show will be continuing in some form on another network… though we wonder what television executive would want to take a chance on Olbermann now.

If Olbermann wants to continue to be a broadcaster, perhaps he should relaunch Countdown as an Internet television show. That way, he can be his own boss, and continue to discuss news, sports, and politics in his trademark style on his terms.

We remain excited about the future of Current TV even without Keith Olbermann. A network has to be bigger than one person or personality. To garner good ratings, it needs a compelling lineup. And Current has put together some good new shows, like The War Room with Jennifer Granholm. Time will tell if it can be competitive with more established news networks like MSNBC and CNN.

“Jim has spent more than two decades working to improve conditions in developing countries around the world,” said President Obama in a statement released by the White House. “The World Bank is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living around the globe, and Jim’s personal experience and years of service make him an ideal candidate for this job.”

At a press conference in the Rose Garden, standing alongside U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama introduced Kim and explained why he thinks the World Bank needs a new kind of leader:

Now, despite its name, the World Bank is more than just a bank. It’s one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living in some of the poorest countries on the planet. And in a world that is growing smaller and more connected every day, that’s a critical mission -– not just for those who are struggling, but for all of us.

When we reduce hunger in the world, or help a farmer recover from a flood or a drought, it strengthens the entire world economy.  When we put an end to a preventable disease, all of us are safer because of it.  When an entrepreneur can start a new business, it creates jobs in their country, but also opens up new markets for our country.  And ultimately, when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes the world stronger and more secure for everybody.

That’s why the World Bank is so important.  And that’s why the leader of the World Bank should have a deep understanding of both the role that development plays in the world, and the importance of creating conditions where assistance is no longer needed.

I believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission than Dr. Jim Kim. It’s time for a development professional to lead the world’s largest development agency. And that’s why today, after a careful and thorough search, I am nominating Dr. Jim Kim to be the next president of the World Bank.

Emphasis is ours.

We strongly agree, and we thank President Obama for making this nomination. The world community will be well served with Dr. Kim at the helm of the World Bank.

Dr. Kim has spent years fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa and working to improve humanity’s defenses against infectious diseases. Prior to becoming president of Dartmouth College in 2009, Dr. Kim was involved with the college’s Center for Health Care Delivery Service (which he founded), as well as Partners in Health (which he helped launch) and the U.N.’s World Health Organization (where he served as the head of the Department of HIV/AIDS). He holds degrees from Brown and Harvard and belongs to the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine.

Distinguished economist Jeffrey Sachs, who recruited himself for the job (and was nominated by several other countries) in the hopes of encouraging President Obama to pick someone like himself or Dr. Kim, said he was thrilled.

“Dr. Jim Kim is a superb nominee for the World Bank presidency,” Sachs said in a statement released to the press announcing that he was withdrawing his candidacy. “I congratulate the administration for nominating a world-class development leader for this position.”

His spokeswoman, Erin Trowbridge added: “Professor Sachs supports Dr Kim one hundred percent and with complete enthusiasm.”

Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (one of America’s best progressive think tanks, which studies issues affecting the world community) described the nomination as historic and unprecedented.

“This is a huge step forward. If Kim becomes World Bank President, he’ll be the first qualified president in sixty-eight years,” Weisbrot said.  “Kim’s nomination is a victory for all the people, organizations, and governments that stood up to the Obama administration and demanded an open, merit-based process.”

The White House was reportedly considering nominating discredited economist Larry Summers – who advised President Obama on economic issues during his first two years in office – but apparently dropped that idea after encountering resistance from other countries, members of Congress, and NGOs.

The World Bank has never had a president who wasn’t either a political insider or a banker, so Kim’s nomination is indeed historic, and welcome. Already it is drawing praise from around the globe. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda had this to say after learning of Dr. Kim’s nomination:

I was delighted to learn that Jim Kim has been nominated for this post, as he is a true friend of Africa and well known for his decade of work to support us in developing an efficient health system in Rwanda. He’s not only a physician and a leader who knows what it takes to address poverty, but also a genuinely good person. President Obama’s nomination of Dr. Kim as President of the World Bank is a welcome one, and should resonate well with the many men and women who are working to transform lives around the world.

Kim is not guaranteed to become the next World Bank president. However, someone from the United States has always held the post, and Europe and Japan will likely back Dr. Kim’s nomination, thereby ensuring that the job goes to him.

At least one other credible candidate has been nominated: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who serves as Nigeria’s Minister of Finance. Iweala will likely make the short list of candidates that the World Bank’s board will choose from.

The board is expected to make a decision by April 21st.

The rally was held before a pre-scoping meeting held to explain how the environmental impact statement of the proposal will take place.

A full house greeted the representatives from the Whatcom County, Department of Ecology, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Attorney General’s Office at Bellingham High School as they came to talk about the scoping process of the Gateway Pacific-Cherry Point coal terminal. The first three are co-leads for the scoping process in order to ease the process for the public and prevent the redundancies which would be created by making parralel reports under federal and state laws.

Scoping determines what will be the focus of the environmental impact statement, and the meeting explained how the public, other agencies, and tribes will continued to be engaged, how the public can get notified of the progress, as well as what sort of comments are useful in the scoping process (ways to mitigate adverse impacts, methods of analysis to be used, etc.).

The Cherry Point project would take coal mined from the Powder River Basin and ship it overseas. Coal would be transported through three other states, the Spokane metro area, the Columbia River Gorge, and Seattle metro area before ending up near Bellingham, in what would be the largest coal port in North America.

Explanation was also made at the meeting as to where final decision-making power for the project rests, and the environmental impact statement’s use in aiding the decision which will be made the Whatcom County Council.

The general sentiment in the audience illuminated the opposition against the proposed terminal at Cherry Point, and applause broke out at various points in the meeting after anti-coal statements were made during the question and answer portion of the meeting. It is clear that a majority of Bellingham’s residents are against the coal terminal, both through the audience and the large attendance at previous meetings regarding the coal terminal.

It looks like the Whatcom County Council will not make a decision for another two years, so councilmembers are sure to hear about this project, and the terminal will continue to be a hot regional issue for some time to come.

For more information on the proposed coal terminal, see Whatcom County’s project page and the Washington Department of Ecology’s project page.

The amendment, to Senate Bill 1813, needed sixty votes to pass; it received only forty-one, with fifty-seven senators voting no and two senators not voting.

Several Republicans joined most Democrats in voting no; three Democrats joined the remainder of the Republicans in voting yes.

The Republicans who voted against drilling were Scott Brown, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Marco Rubio. Democrats who voted for drilling were Mark Begich (of Alaska), Claire McCaskill,and Joe Manchin.

Surprisingly, Big Oil’s favorite Democrat, Mary Landrieu, voted no on the amendment – perhaps she was lobbied to cast a sensible “no” vote by her good friend Maria Cantwell, who has been in the vanguard of fights to protect the Arctic Refuge in our nation’s capital.

The Pacific Northwest’s delegation voted as follows:

AYE on the amendment (for drilling): Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska); Mike Crapo, Jim Risch (Idaho)

NAY on the amendment (opposed to drilling): Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray (Washington); Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden (Oregon); Jon Tester, Max Baucus (Montana)

Senator Cantwell’s office has not yet issued a statement on the vote. We’ll be in touch with her staff tomorrow to get her reaction, and will update this post accordingly. We’ll also check in with our friends at the Alaska Wilderness League to see if they have any comment.

Last week, the Senate defeated another bad amendment aimed at allowing TransCanada to build its proposed Keystone XL pipeline without having to undergo environmental review and public scrutiny. That amendment, offered by John Hoeven, received the unanimous support of Senate Republicans, plus a handful of Democrats, but it still failed because it did not reach the sixty-vote threshold.

After Hoeven’s amendment failed, 350.org founder Bill McKibben congratulated the forty-two Senate Democrats who stood up to the oil industry and warned that the battle to stop Keystone XL is far from over.

“Today’s vote was a temporary victory and there’s no guarantee that it holds for the long run,” he said. “But given that this thing was a ‘no brainer’ a year ago, it’s pretty remarkable that people power was able to keep working, even in the oil-soaked Senate. We’re grateful to the Administration for denying the permit and for Senate leadership for holding the line.”

“The reason this fight has been so hard is because of the financial power of the fossil fuel industry, so that’s what we’re going after now,” McKibben added. “We’ve been playing defense for months, now we’ve got to quickly go on offense. Going forward, we’ll be working with the huge majorities of Americans who want to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. We’ve learned a lot, not all of it savory, about how the political process works, and we’re going to put that to use.”

We at NPI strongly believe that more drilling is not the answer to our energy security problem. That’s why we oppose the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as risky onshore and offshore drilling schemes, especially in protected areas like the Arctic Refuge.

We need to be investing in renewable energy alternatives, developing a a smarter electric grid, and stepping up conservation – not perpetuating our fossil fuel addiction. Extracting and burning hydrocarbons worsens air quality, creates more pollution, and makes the climate crisis worse. We’ve known for a long time that fossil fuels are dirty and finite. Yet the industry that extracts and sells them continues to dictate our nation’s energy policy. It’s time for that to change.

Rick Santorum scored a pair of primary victories in Alabama and Mississippi, according to network projections, bolstering his credibility as Mitt Romney’s top challenger and denying the former Massachusetts governor an opportunity to solidify his status as inevitable nominee.

“We did it again,” Santorum declared at an election night rally in Louisiana, saying his underdog campaign was about “ordinary people doing extraordinary things.”

The races were among the first high profile contests in which both Newt Gingrich and Santorum, who have alternated wildly between surges and collapses, were competitive at once.

Santorum’s twin victories tonight will unquestionably bolster his campaign in a big way. Up until just a few hours ago, Santorum has only been able to win in states from one region – the Midwest. (He gave Mitt Romney a run for his money in Michigan and Ohio, but couldn’t quite close with voters in either state). By winning in Mississippi and Alabama, he has managed to strengthen his own candidacy whilst simultaneously ruining Newt Gingrich’s plans for a comeback.

Gingrich needed to win in both Alabama and Mississippi tonight to keep his campaign alive. He didn’t. He can choose to stay in the race if he likes, but he won’t be able to compete with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. He might be able to cause enough trouble for Rick Santorum to ensure that Romney ends up getting the nomination, but he himself isn’t going to end up as the nominee.

As of around 8:30 PM Pacific; here were the results in Alabama’s Republican primary (twenty-two of sixty-seven counties completely reporting):

Michelle Bachmann		0.27%	1,178
Newt Gingrich		29.45%	127,692
Jon Huntsman		0.18%	765
Ron Paul		5.09%	22,084
Rick Perry		0.28%	1,226
Mitt Romney		29.26%	126,845
Rick Santorum		33.92%	147,059
Uncommitted		1.54%	6,676

And in Missisippi, as of 8:30 PM Pacific, with 1,800 of 1,889 precincts reporting:

Newt Gingrich		31%	86,068
Ron Paul		4%	12,160
Mitt Romney		30%	83,278
Rick Santorum		33%	90,386

Incidentally, in Mississippi, the political parties themselves run the primaries – meaning that Democratic and Republican activists serve as poll workers and election supervisors. However, the Magnolia State’s primaries are open, so voters may participate without having to register in advance as a member of a particular political party. Alabama also has an open primary.

Over at FreeRepublic, one of the Internet’s best-known right wing message boards, the mood seems to be celebratory. Here’s a sampling of the comments left in response to the news that Santorum is projected to win Alabama and Mississippi:

I’m a Newt supporter, but if this pans out, I really think Newt ought to put his support behind Santorum and we supporters can hope/expect Newt to get a good cabinet position to effect change once elected.

— risen_feenix

Newt looks like an dolt standing next to his wife while she talks. No WAY can he win no matter what! He should endorse Santorum.

— RightLady

Conventional wisdom had Rick showing up 2nd or 3rd tonight. Not anything like this. The D.C. Beltway types are very unhappy tonight.

— LazloinPA

Newt REALLY needs to pick party over ego. He’s not polling well in any state that’s left. I am sure he feels he can win a brokered convention, and the chance of that is unlikely. Very unlikely as the GOP supports Mittens, and writes the rules. Newt knows this…

— JohnD9207

Congrats Rick.

Looks like the two races wasn’t quite close enough for Rove, Boss Hogg and the GOPe [sic] to steal, like they did in Ohio.

It also appears that Newt’s Southern Strategy has failed. Even though he had tons of money from that Casino Owner.

— tennmountainman

Judging by the comments excerpted above, it seems Rick Santorum has solidified his base of support and is starting to win over Newt Gingrich’s fans as well. Santorum really needs Gingrich to quit the race so that he can go head to head with Romney in the states that haven’t held their nominating events yet.

But Gingrich has given no indication that he is thinking about quitting. At least not yet. Maybe if his sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson decides to turn off Gingrich’s cash spigot, Gingrich will decide to throw in the towel. We’ll see.

The new ballot title is considerably better than the one drafted by the career attorneys who presently work for Rob McKenna. It uses more neutral language and is simpler to read. Because Judge McPhee’s order cannot be appealed, this ballot title is final and it is what voters will see in the fall if the right wing collects enough signatures to qualify Referendum 74 (they’ve got ninety days).

Here is a comparison of the original ballot title and the new, final ballot title:

Gone is the odious “redefine marriage” phrasing, and gone is the clunky sentence structure present in the original ballot title.

The new title is more objective and straightforward, which is a good thing.

“We had serious concerns about the ballot title that the Attorney General’s staff drafted and proposed,” Washington United for Marriage said in a statement released after the decision was handed down.

“Although the Attorney General has publicly announced his opposition to marriage for same-sex couples, as Attorney General his first responsibility in ballot measure elections is to make sure ballot language is balanced and neutral.”

“Those opposed to civil marriage equality brought in Tea Party attorneys to argue for language that was even more inappropriate. The League of Women Voters and PFLAG made a strong argument that the court need to remove prejudicial language, explain the law, and make the title easier to understand. We have a lot of respect for the voters of Washington and are grateful the Court helped to make sure the ballot language is fair.”

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jay Inslee also praised the ruling.

“I applaud the Judge’s decision to remove Rob McKenna’s politically charged language from the ballot title. It’s unfortunate that it took a judge to stop Rob McKenna from playing politics with marriage. Washington is a forward-thinking, fair-minded state. Granting equality to all will bring fairness to the state of Washington. I believe this is a value worth fighting for.”

Now that the ballot title has been finalized, opponents of marriage equality can begin printing referendum petitions for circulation. Signature gathering could begin in a matter of days. We’ll be keeping a close watch on what’s going on.

If you observe signature gathering taking place for Referendum 74, we ask that you let us know using Permanent Defense’s reporting tool. This will allow us to better track what opponents of marriage equality are doing and saying in their attempt to overturn this historic civil rights advance in Washington State.

“Today we are welcoming a very talented group from Posterous to Twitter,” the microblogging giant said in an announcement. “This team has built an innovative product that makes sharing across the web and mobile devices simple—a goal we share. Posterous engineers, product managers and others will join our teams working on several key initiatives that will make Twitter even better.”

“The opportunities in front of Twitter are exciting, and we couldn’t be happier about bringing our team’s expertise to a product that reaches hundreds of millions of users around the globe,” Posterous’ team said in a blog post. “Plus, the people at Twitter are genuinely nice folks who share our vision for making sharing simpler.”

They stressed that Posterous’ service would continue to operate.

“Posterous Spaces will remain up and running without disruption. We’ll give users ample notice if we make any changes to the service. For users who would like to back up their content or move to another service, we’ll share clear instructions for doing so in the coming weeks.”

Many Posterous users left comments in response to the post expressing skepticism or outright opposition to the deal.

“Don’t like the sound of this at all,” wrote Mark Zahn.

“Twitter ruined TweetDeck. Better not happen to Posterous. I just spent a ton of time moving everything I had from Tumblr.”

Randal Matheney was even more blunt. “Not good. Not at all. Twitter will be the death of Posterous. You had a good thing going and now you’ve ruined it.”

“This may sound odd because it’s a free platform but I feel slightly betrayed by all this,” agreed Ian Cummings.

“I am happy for the Posterous guys, they get new stuff to play with and I don’t begrudge them that, but I have an emotional investment in my blogging platform. I don’t blog much and it’s only for family, but it took me a long time to start and Posterous got me going. It’s great to use and now it’s just going to disappear and I’m left to sort out the mess. This is the sort of thing that keep people away from startups and going to Blogger or WordPress cos they’re going to be around in 5 years time. Anyway, good luck guys, and thanks for all the fish.”

A Seattle-based web developer, Eric S., was less harsh.

“Don’t like. I really liked the Posterous platform before the SPACES model emerged, and I thought the mobile services available for iPhone was a good direction for the platform. I have even considered purchasing the third-party iPad app Blogsy which supports blogging for Posterous, but I’m less likely to do so now. Thanks for offering the service while it lasted, and best of luck to all of you.”

Others struck a more hopeful tone.

“What’s all this pessimistic talk about Twitter ruining Posterous?” asked Francois Guite. “I say let it be the other way around and hope you guys will improve Twitter. Congrats on your work and many thanks for the great service.”

Hundreds of user Posterous users, meanwhile, reacted positively to the news by “liking” the announcement.

But those users who are unhappy have well-founded concerns. Twitter has made it clear that the acquisition was about securing quality talent, not adding Posterous Spaces to its product portfolio. Spaces will undoubtedly continue to operate for at least a few more months. But then what? If the Posterous team is focused on improving Twitter’s service, who will be left to develop Posterous?

Nobody, and that will probably result in Posterous’ demise. History tells us that startups that get bought up by bigger companies for talent tend to either go downhill or get shut down. For instance:

• Gowalla, which Facebook bought back in December, just announced that it would cease operations a couple of days ago. Users will be able to download their data for a limited time.
• Jaiku, a microblogging service similar to Twitter, was purchased by Google in late 2007 and subsequently neglected. It was shut down earlier this year.
• Going, a hyperlocal news network, was shut down by AOL around a year ago, less than two years after AOL closed a deal to buy it.
• GeoCities, bought by Yahoo during the dot-com boom, was unceremoniously dismantled and destroyed in late 2010 after Yahoo decided it couldn’t be bothered to keep it online.
• Delicious almost got shut down after Yahoo decided to dispose of it, but a buyer for the service was found, so Delicious continues to operate.

An “acquisition FAQ” posted by Posterous all but confirms that Spaces will ultimately be going the way of the dinosaur, once Twitter decides to pull the plug. It contains questions like “How can I backup or export the content of my Space(s)?”, “What happens to my content if I don’t do anything to my Posterous account?” and “I bought a custom domain from Posterous – what happens to it?”.

When Posterous closes down, it will hardly be the first blogging platform to set its users adrift. For example, Google alienated a number of longtime Blogger users when it decided to discontinue FTP publishing a couple of years ago. (We used to publish The Advocate this way, but now we have our own WordPress installation, which is totally under our control. We couldn’t be happier).

And Microsoft pulled the rug out from under its users when it discontinued MSN Spaces (later Windows Live Spaces) – though it did provide Spaces users with the ability to transfer their blogs to WordPress.com, Automattic’s hosted WordPress service, for a limited period of time.

We actually considered using Posterous to power our microblog, In Brief, before we launched it in 2009, but we ultimately went with Tumblr, which has experienced phenomenal growth since we began using it back in 2009.

However, our experience with Tumblr hasn’t been that great. Tumblr simply hasn’t improved its service to the extent we were hoping it would. We plan to move In Brief over to WordPress as soon as WordPress has better microblogging support, which will hopefully be the case with the next release, or the one after that.

Along with Reuven Carlyle and Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Dickerson represents the 36th LD, one of the most Democratic districts in the state, which is comprised of several Seattle neighborhoods, including Ballard, Phinney Ridge, Fremont, and Belltown.

Gael is officially announcing her candidacy today, though she has spent the last couple of days raising money to get it started. She already has $20,000 in cash and commitments after just forty-eight hours of fundraising. Undoubtedly that number will be much higher by the time this week is over.

Her campaign has just issued a press release announcing her candidacy. In it, Gael explains that she is running because she thinks the Legislature needs to be doing a better job of advancing important policy directions like economic security, environmental protection, education, and healthcare.

And like the rest of us here at NPI, Gael is a believer in that timeless Hopi saying, We are the ones we have been waiting for.

“We need to carry the accomplishments and legacy of Representative Dickerson forward,” she says. “I have a proven track record of protecting and creating jobs, fighting for women and minority-owned businesses, protecting the environment and championing Washington’s higher-education community.”

Gael has previously run for office twice, both times for the same county-wide position (Seattle Port Commissioner). In 2007, she defeated incumbent Bob Edwards to become the third woman ever elected to the Port Commission. She sought a second term just last year and won in a landslide, with nearly sixty percent of the vote. A few weeks ago, at the commission’s first meeting following the new year, her colleagues tapped her to serve as Port Commission President for 2012.

Besides serving as NPI’s President and as President of the Port Commission, Gael is a member of the National Women’s Political Caucus and NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. For the past eight years, she has also worked as a strategic advisor for the University of Washington’s Institute for National Security Education and Research. She is a co-founder of the U.W.’s Citizen Roundtable on Politics and Democracy, which is trying to reignite interest in civics.

She holds two degrees from Georgetown University: a B.S. from its School of Foreign Service, and an M.A. in government and national security studies.

As longtime readers and supporters know, NPI is not a political action committee and does not engage in any electioneering in contests for public office. So as an organization, we will have no involvement in Gael’s campaign.

However, we wish her the best as she undertakes this journey.

Washington is currently grappling with some enormous structural problems that are only going to get worse in the months and years ahead. Perhaps the biggest challenge the Legislature needs to address (but hasn’t) is our broken, regressive tax system, which isn’t bringing in enough revenue to pay for the essential public services Washingtionians want and need.

Unfortunately, the Legislature itself seems to be broken, which explains why little to no progress has been made in the years since NPI was founded. Before headway can be made in addressing our state’s problems, the Legislature as an institution will need to be reformed. Fortunately, Gael has some experience in that area, having helped end Mic Dinsmore’s era of corruption at the Port of Seattle.

But I’m guessing that she will find reforming the Legislature to be a much more difficult challenge. Governing a state is one of the hardest jobs there is. But Gael’s real job, if elected, won’t be governing. It will be making our plan of government work for us again. Because that’s what is standing in the way of us getting the moral budgets and economic security we deserve.