Mielke: negotiable on casino?

So wait a minute: what's Tom Mielke's position on the proposed Cowlitz casino?

Back in the very first primary debate, he criticized Chris Gregoire for not rejecting it and said it would bring mostly low-paying jobs. My notes aren't comprehensive, but at the time we reported that he opposed the idea of a casino; it seemed to clearly be the thrust of his remarks.

This would have put him in line with Commissioner Marc Boldt, who simply says the casino is bad and wants to do everything he can to block it.

At the time, Mielke didn't object.

But tonight, talking about the big money that casino developer David Barnett is spending to defeat him, Mielke said this:

"I'm not opposed to the Cowlitz casino, I'm opposed to the deal - MOU - that they're trying to follow."

Say wha?

Mielke went on to say that if the casino would at least pay the full cost of the roads, schools and sewers it would require, then he'd drop his opposition.

Those provisions would be "the minimum," he said. I pressed him on this; he confirmed it twice.

Meanwhile, Mielke's opponent, Pam Brokaw, said Friday that she supports all those standards for a casino deal ... plus unspecified mitigation for the environment, social services, police and lost revenue.

Brokaw's the one who's caught heat from The Columbian's editorial board for not opposing a casino outright. She's also the one that, um, the casino's developer is spending tens of thousands of dollars to support.

She said she was confused by Mielke's statement Friday.

"That's a real departure from where he's been out on the campaign trail," she said. "It just seems like a real flip-flop to me."

Here's Mielke's Web site:

"I remain opposed today, as I have been for years, to the placement of a huge casino complex anywhere within Clark County until all legitimate issues raised are adequately and realistically addressed."

You be the judge.