Archives for January 2006

Because I spend so much time whining and pontificating about politics, and telling our elected officials how to do their job (I’m a blogger… that’s what we do,) I feel have a special obligation to directly participate in the political process. And so from time to time I venture down to Olympia to testify on bills I feel strongly about one way or another.

Yesterday I dragged myself out of bed and drove down for an 8 AM hearing before the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections, to testify on behalf of SB 6362, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells bill to reform voter registration challenge provisions. It was one of those odd moments, where you had a distinguished panel consisting of Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger (representing the Assoc. of County Auditors,) Secretary of State Sam Reed, and… um… me. And we were all pretty much in agreement, supporting the bill.

SB 6352 has a number of major provisions, summarized as follows:

• Major political parties may file a contact name with the county auditor to receive notice of voter challenges. Challenged voters will also receive contact information of party representatives. Parties who object to the challenge may present testimony and evidence to the canvas board.
• Challenges against voters who registered more than 60 days before the election may be filed no later than 45 days before the election; challenges against voters who filed less than 60 days before the election may be challenged no later than ten days before the election.
• A challenged voter may transfer or re-register until the day before the election.
• Party observers may challenge the qualifications of any absentee voter who registered to vote less than sixty days before the election at the time the signature on the return envelope is verified and the ballot is processed.
• A registered voter challenging the registration of another based on residency must provide the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
• A challenged ballot shall not be counted if the challenge is based on felony conviction, mental incompetency, age, or citizenship, and the canvassing board sustains the challenge. If the challenge is based on residency and the canvassing board sustains the challenge, then the challenged voter shall be permitted to correct his or her registration and any races or measures on the challenged ballot that the voter would have been qualified to vote for had his or her registration been correct shall be counted.
• Voters who lack a traditional address will be registered at the location provided, but have the option of using the address of a county courthouse or other public building.

That’s a lot of stuff, but really, most of it shouldn’t be all that controversial. Sam Reed said he had some reservations about the provisions creating a role for the political parties… he was afraid it would inject “partisan politics” into a heretofore nonpartisan process. But as Sen. Adam Kline pointed out in response, the GOP already injected politics into the process when they made their highly partisan last-minute challenge in King County. I’ll get back to that later.

Both Reed and Terwilliger specifically voiced their support for changing the deadlines for filing challenges, noting that last minute challenges could present a huge procedural hurdle as elections departments prepare to administer an election. Hard to argue with that. Besides, nothing in the law prohibits a party or anyone else from presenting information about improperly registered voters without filing a formal challenge. If the information was truly compelling, public pressure would force elections officials to act.

But for me, the most important provisions are the ones that allow a challenged voter to change their registration up to a day before the election, and which allows the ballots of voters whose challenges were upheld to be counted in all applicable races for which the voter was otherwise eligible. It should be remembered that the purpose of our voter registration laws is to maintain the integrity of our voter rolls, not to disqualify otherwise eligible voters on a gotcha.

Of the nearly 2000 last minute registration challenges filed by Republicans last October, only a few dozen ballots were disqualified, and of these there was not a single piece of evidence indicating voter fraud. Rather, these were voters improperly registered at mail boxes and other non-residential addresses, likely because the voter was unaware that this was prohibited. (The voter registration form does not specifically instruct the applicant that a residential street address must be used.) I cannot imagine a compelling moral or social argument for disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters if their registrations can be corrected before certification.

If we continue to allow ballots to be disqualified due to registration technicalities, then partisan groups will continue to attempt to exploit these technicalities for partisan gain.

As to my own testimony, well, I was kind of winging it, but I’ll try to reproduce it here to the best of my memory. I had expected others to testify on the specifics of the bill, so I decided to focus on the rationale.

As Sen. Kohl-Welles had explained in her own testimony, this bill was largely prompted by the GOP’s massive, last-minute voter registration challenge just days before the November election. I told the committee that I was one of the few people in the room yesterday who also attended the King County Canvas Board hearings in November, and who witnessed the challenger, Lori Sotelo, repeatedly admit that she had no personal knowledge of the challenged voter, their residence, or their eligibility. And so I wanted to take the opportunity to briefly read some excerpts from a transcript in which an attorney representing a challenged voter confronted the challenger:

ATTORNEY: You filed a challenge to the voting residence of Catherine Ann Herold, who lives at 234 30th St. NW; is that correct?

CHALLENGER: I did.

ATTORNEY: And have you ever been to that residence?

CHALLENGER: No.

ATTORNEY: Do you know Catherine Ann Herrold?

CHALLENGER: No, I don’t.

ATTORNEY: You have indicated in this challenge form that you believe that she does not live at that residence; is that correct?

CHALLENGER: That’s correct.

ATTORNEY: Do you have any personal knowledge as we stand here today that Ms. Herrold does not live at the address…

CHALLENGER: Only that which was my impression…

ATTORNEY: And who gave you that impression?

CHALLENGER: Attorney Jim Simon… He’s an officer of the party.

ATTORNEY: An officer of which party?

CHALLENGER: The Republican party.

Anybody who attending the canvass board hearings — who heard Sotelo admit that her “personal knowledge” often consisted of little more than a Google search conducted by an intern or a volunteer — would find this transcript very familiar. “However…” I told the Committee, dramatically waving the transcript in my hand, “This was not a transcript from the King County Canvas Board in November of 2005, but rather a transcript from a similar proceeding in Summit County, OH in October of 2004,” in which the OH state GOP challenged thousands of voters in the weeks before the election, having conducted little or no due diligence. (All the challenges were thrown out.)

In fact, what we witnessed this past election was not an isolated incident, it was not unique to WA state politics, and it was not even a direct response to our excruciatingly close 2004 gubernatorial election. This was part of a coordinated, national voter suppression and intimidation campaign conducted by the GOP and their surrogates, who have set up similar “Voter Integrity Projects” nationwide.

And it is only the tip of the iceberg. State GOP chair Chris Vance has all but promised additional challenges, and KC GOP chair Mike Young was overheard boasting that they had an additional 20,000 challenges waiting in the wings. Waiting for what? Well… the final days before the 2006 election I presume.

Unless the major provisions of SB 6362 are enacted into law.

Well… almost.

In a truly despicable act of political grandstanding, the state GOP is robo-calling voters, accusing Democratic legislators of supporting sex offenders by blocking legislation that would put child molesters in jail for life. Calls have been reported in the following legislative districts:

26th: Reps. Kilmer and Lantz
17th: Rep. Wallace
47th: Reps. Simpson and Sullivan
25th: Rep. Dawn Morrell
28th: Rep. Tami Green

This is a complete and utter load of crap, and an offensive and heavy-handed politicization of a bipartisan issue. The GOP should be ashamed of itself. (Of course, it never is.)

Here’s what really happened. On the first day of session the Republicans set up a procedural motion to call for a vote on 116-page legislative package that absolutely no one had read… not prosecutors, not police officers, not victim’s advocates, and of course… not a single member of the state legislature. (I bet you even the bill’s sponsors hadn’t read it entirely.)

To vote on such a bill under those circumstances would be totally irresponsible, and the GOP knew it. That’s why they had TV ads and robo-calls in the can, waiting for Democrats to reject the motion. This was nothing more than a stunt… a stunt that cruelly preys on the emotions of victims and their families.

UPDATE:
KUOW’s Austin Jenkins has more on the larger story.

I haven’t written about GOPolitburo Chairman Chris Vance stepping down from his post, because I thought I had a good joke in the making, but I just couldn’t come up with the punch line. Vance and outgoing Dem Chairman Paul Berendt stepped down within weeks of each other, both announcing that they were seeking “other opportunities.” Both also seemed extraordinarily gracious in remarking on the other’s departure.

The joke, I thought, was that they would be going into business together… but as what?

A professional juggling team? A standup comedy act? Amway salesmen? A road production of the Vagina Monologues?

Well… punch line or no, it turns out the joke may be on me. The hot and heavy rumor around lobbying circles is that Vance is joining the Gallatin Group as a lobbyist. But Gallatin also apparently is claiming that they’ll be bringing on a “Democratic heavyweight.”

Could that be Berendt?

Hmm. Vance and Berendt as a lobbying team. Strange… but not funny.

While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:

NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.

NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.

NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.

NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.

NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.

NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.

COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.

It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.

Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.

And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)

Yeah, yeah… “liberal media” and all that. You know, liberal like the National Review Online:

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff’s skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country’s most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff’s recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

Ooops. Somebody strayed from the GOP talking points.

I don’t want to litter my other threads with Alito debate, and I don’t feel like covering it myself at the moment, so here’s an open thread where you can all have at it.

So… have at it.

So I go to the list of applicants for the open seat on the Seattle City Council to try to figure out what time I might get my three minutes to speak tomorrow, and what do I find? I’m not on the fucking list!

Are they arrogant, incompetent, or just plain stupid?

I’m sure the Council received my letter — it was quoted in The Seattle Times. So what’s the deal? Did they reject me on some unwritten technicality? Did the downtown-centric members mistakenly believe that my South Seattle neighborhood was outside city limits? Did they simply choose not to take my candidacy seriously? Did they have that right?

We all know there are only a handful of serious contenders, and us other ninety-some applicants are mostly a bunch of crackpots. Yet the one crackpot to whom they choose to summarily deny consideration, is the one crackpot with the loudest voice. I mean, what do they possibly have to gain by dissing one of the most widely read and influential bloggers in the state? (Um… that would be me.)

“Oh sure,” they might say, “he wasn’t a serious candidate. He used the words ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, ‘prick’, and ‘asshole’ in his application.”

Well… fuck that.

Not a serious candidate? I see they’re giving Al Runte his three minutes, and yet when I personally suggested his name to Jean Godden a couple weeks ago, she actually laughed! I mean sure, Al’s got a funny last name and all, but Jean literally waved me off laughing at the thought of appointing him to the open seat. Really.

So Al they’ll humor, but me… not so much.

Which, from a media outreach perspective, is just plain dumb, because that private exchange between me and Jean is exactly the type of incident I wouldn’t have blogged on… if the Council hadn’t just given me the finger. (Fair warning to Peter Steinbrueck: next time you’re at the Intiman, you better start of all your sentences with “off the record”… you never know who might be seated near you.)

Yeah, I know I wrote an irreverent, foul-mouthed application letter, but that still didn’t give them the right reject it. And if the Council really didn’t want me to speak due to concerns about time, decorum, or anything else… all they had to do was politely ask.

For the irony is, I wasn’t even planning to speak tomorrow anyway. When I saw how many crackpot 3-minute speeches they’d have to sit through, I decided not to burden them with my own. Why? Because I had too much respect for the council members.

“Had” being the operative word.

UPDATE:
I just received a reply from the Council in response to my inquiry:

The application process, described on the Council’s web page and in press releases, required that applicants send both a Letter of Interest and a resume. There is no record of receiving a resume from you; therefore, you were not considered an eligible candidate.

Well, really, that’s a load of shit… an excuse to keep me out of the process. When I first sent my application, they emailed back that they couldn’t print it out properly. If they technically needed a separate piece of paper with the word “Resume” on it, they could have told me, and I could have given them that too. Not that I would have put anything else on it.

As far as I’m concerned, this is just like the time the Attorney General sued me because my initiative was “outside the scope” of the initiative process, when they let some filings stand that weren’t even complete sentences.

As far as I’m concerned, the Council, like much of government, is filled with a bunch of fearful, self-serious, humorless drones. They need to lighten up.

The Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat sticks it to the editorial boards… including his own:

So our state’s senior senator, Patty Murray, is keeping $35,000 in campaign donations she got from clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Good for her. She’s one of the few politicians or pundits who understand what this corruption scandal is really about. Since Abramoff copped to a congressional bribery scheme last week, fearful politicians, including our other senator, Maria Cantwell, have been skittering to toss back hundreds of thousands of dollars in perfectly legal contributions from Indian tribes that once used Abramoff’s lobbying services.

Now, the editorial boards of three local newspapers, including my own, are pounding on Murray to do the same.

“It is simply not OK to profit from ill-gotten gains,” scolded The Columbian of Vancouver, Wash., telling Murray to return the “tainted money.”

But Murray is going with her gut. Her contributions were not from Abramoff, she says, and were “legally given, legally reported and legally spent.”

In comments that will have her colleague Cantwell squirming, Murray says returning the money is a hollow stunt to make politicians look good.

“I will not rush to scapegoat those tribes who have already been victimized by Jack Abramoff,” Murray wrote in a letter to The Seattle Times. “Your easy answer would be fine if all I wanted was to score cheap points on being ‘clean.’ “

I was getting pretty sick and tired of hearing self-righteous editorialists playing into the GOP propaganda mill, preaching to Democrats to give back these campaign contributions. Such admonitions would lead you to believe that Dems were somehow involved in this scandal. They weren’t.

Not a single Democrat received a dime of money from Abramoff. Not a dime.

This is a GOP scandal, and to attempt to shame Dems into giving back unrelated contributions from tribes, simply because they also happened to be Abramoff clients, is a misleading, disingenuous, and absurd game of blame the victim.

Abramoff and his GOP buddies screwed the tribes… they defrauded them, bilked them, robbed them blind! And as a result, the public should be led to believe that all tribal contributions are tainted?

What a load of crap.

Thanks, Danny, for calling it what it is.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. A couple of special guests are scheduled to stop by tonight: 8th Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner, and King County Bar Association President Roger Goodman.

Darcy, of course, is the woman who’s going to kick Dave Reichert’s sorry ass next November, and Nick’s email describes Roger as “a strong advocate of drug enforcement reform.” I think that means legalization. So come on down, get a few drinks into you, and then argue with Roger about the dangers of legalizing intoxicating substances.

The New York Times editorial board draws the obvious conclusion from Tom Delay’s fall:

The only surprise about Tom DeLay’s decision to finally drop out of the House leadership is that it took so long for Congressional Republicans to realize that they needed to untie that rope from around their collective necks. Mr. DeLay’s welcome decision to abandon his effort to remain the House majority leader came just as his colleagues were circulating a petition calling for his ouster.

But it wasn’t a sudden fit of ethics that seized the House Republicans. It was last week’s guilty plea to corruption charges by Jack Abramoff, the Republican megalobbyist, and fear about which names Mr. Abramoff would drop in cooperating with federal prosecutors. The remaining questions for Mr. DeLay are whether he will be snared by Mr. Abramoff’s net, whether he can beat the other criminal charges pending against him and whether his home district voters will do the rest of the country a favor in November and send Mr. DeLay back to private life.

Republican Congressional leaders are now jousting over whether to support Roy Blunt of Missouri or John Boehner of Ohio for Mr. DeLay’s old job – neither of them likely to be the people’s champion of bipartisanship or ethics. So mired are the Republicans in Mr. Abramoff’s web that Mr. Blunt’s and Mr. Boehner’s first task will be to convince their colleagues that they won’t be the next ones caught up in the scandal.

Of course, as the NY Times notes, any focus on ethics would be more effort than that from the House Ethics Committee under Rep. Richard “Do-Nothing Doc” Hastings’ chairmanship. DeLay installed Hastings not just for his loyalty, but for his well-earned reputation for doing absolutely nothing during his long tenure in Congress. The disgraced DeLay certainly got his money’s worth.

So I’m guessing one of the new majority leader’s first tasks in any effort to restore a perception of congressional ethics will be to dump Hastings from his post. Perhaps 4th CD voters might do the same, if like me, they read the NY Times, and thus understood what a national embarrassment Hastings has been to their district and our state?

Or… perhaps they’d understand this if our local papers actually bothered covering Hastings abject failure as Ethics chair? The Yakima Herald has gently pushed Hastings on ethics issues from time to time, but where’s the booming voice of The Seattle Times, which aspires to be the state’s paper of record? Where’s the editorial chastising Hastings from for his lack of action, or the expose on his ties to DeLay?

Hell… the Seattle Times editorial board once expended precious op/ed space to take a swipe at lowly me. If a political prankster was worthy of an editorial, you’d think a WA congressman embarrassing our state by shutting down the Ethics Committee while the House is in the midst a raging ethics crisis… just maybe might be worthy of a scathing editorial or two, huh?

Whatever.

The “Do-Nothing Doc” deathwatch is on. I suppose the Seattle Times will content itself with covering Hastings ultimate demise as chairman, rather than taking the lead in urging it on.

What with their low-bid ground crew constantly driving trucks into airplanes, it looked for a moment there like once proud Alaska Airlines was going to the dogs. Apparently not:

Saturday night, just a day after Alaska Airlines increased its monitoring of ramp operations at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a baggage worker threw a crate containing a border collie into the cargo hold of a plane instead of using a conveyor belt.

The dog’s owner, Lisa Ross of Woodinville, was watching from inside the terminal around 11 p.m. when a ramp worker picked up the crate holding her 40-pound dog, Jace, tipped it at a 45-degree angle and then heaved it over his head into the jet.

Fortunately, her 50-pound Australian shepherd, Tucker, was spared the trauma because the baggage handler couldn’t lift the crate.

Ross complained to an Alaska gate agent, who went down to the tarmac and spoke with the workers. They admitted throwing a dog but said it was a different one, Ross said.

Oh. Well, that’s okay then. I mean, as long as it was a different dog, then no harm done.

An Alaska supervisor told Ross that the airline would pay for any veterinarian bills, according to the Alaska incident report. “I do not know why the ramp agents didn’t use a belt loader when boarding the first dog except they must of [sic] been in a hurry,” the supervisor wrote in the report.

Or perhaps, they just really like throwing dogs.

Last May, Alaska fired its unionized ground crew and replaced them with low-priced contractors from Menzies Aviation. But as long as the Airline can keep its ticket prices down, I’m sure passengers will forgive the occasional dog tossing or sudden decompression at 22,000 feet.

Um… what the headline says. Sen. Bill Finkbeiner has confirmed to reporters that he intends to vote for the anti-discrimination bill when it is reintroduced this session.

Last session HB 1515 failed by a single vote, and Finkbeiner’s reversal should assure passage. However, insiders expect at least one to four additional senators to flip now that they can’t be accused of being the deciding vote.

UPDATE:
Finkbeiner has released a public statement:

“I want to take this opportunity to let you know that I plan to vote for House Bill 1515 this year.

“There are two strong reasons that have swayed me to support House Bill 1515 for the 2006 state legislative session. First of all, I’ve had a number of conversations over the past year that have led me to more fully understand the level of discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I now find it is both appropriate and necessary for the state to make it clear that this is not acceptable.

“Secondly, I believe that, unfortunately, this issue has become a political football used by both parties. This bill failed year after year, even in years when Democrats have held strong majorities, because it motivates some party activists on both sides. And the issue has become one of many “wedge’ issues used to split our communities and divide us. Real people are affected by this issue: our friends, our co-workers, our family members, our neighbors. I don’t agree with the politicization of people’s personal lives and I think it is time to move on.”

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Not that it really matters, but there had been some speculation that state Sen. Dave Schmidt (R-44) would reverse his vote on HB 1515, following Sen. Bill Finkbeiner’s lead. So I thought… why not just ask?

His legislative aide, Becky, promptly replied:

Thank you for your letter David, Senator Schmidt has received it. Historically the 44th legislative district has not supported HB 1515, likewise, Senator Schmidt will not be supporting HB 1515. Initiative 677

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

I was wondering when the shit would hit the fan regarding Mercer Island right-wing radio-rabbi Daniel Lapin, and his long and shady relationship with GOP scandal-monkey Jack Abramoff. Um… today in the Seattle Times:

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff funneled money through a Mercer Island religious foundation as he tried to influence a top aide to Republican congressional leader Tom DeLay, according to his guilty plea last week to corruption charges.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin confirmed Sunday it was his foundation, Toward Tradition, that took $50,000 from two Abramoff clients and, at Abramoff’s suggestion, used it to hire the aide’s wife to organize a conference for the group.

Lapin said he and his board had no idea the money was part of Abramoff’s vast scheme to influence Congress and, in this case, stop bills to raise postal rates and ban online lotteries.
…
“We were innocently hiring someone to do a job and not being aware that it was part of something else,” Lapin said.

Hmm. Well… maybe. But it’s hard not to judge a man by the company he keeps, and Lapin, the “The Republican’s Rabbi-in-Arms,” has been hanging out with crooks and liars.

Michael at blatherWatch has done a great job chronicling Lapin and his close relationships with the likes of Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and Pat Robertson. I’m looking forward to what Michael has to say about the latest news.

UPDATE:
The Seattle Weekly has also spent a ton of ink on Lapin, Abramoff and Co., and I had missed a Jan 4 roundup that provides links to much of their coverage. Great reading.

I believe a good chunk of Michael’s information also comes from coverage in the old Eastside Weekly, which unfortunately is not archived online. Perhaps the Weekly could post that for its online readers?

It should come as no surprise to those who know me well that I can be a touch arrogant and egocentric. For example, this time last year, as HA suddenly rose to prominence during the gubernatorial election contest, I stepped up my blogging efforts for fear of what the progressive community might lose should I stop. HA had quickly grabbed a dominant position in the local political blogosphere, both in terms of raw traffic and perhaps more importantly, in media attention. If I were to suddenly stop blogging, I wondered, would my traffic simply dissipate? Was there anybody else who could fill my role?

I’ve got no idea if those concerns were ever warranted, but I certainly don’t hold them anymore. I was in Olympia this weekend attending a conference of Northwest progressive bloggers, and if I have any fear now, it is that some other talented, energetic, local blogger is going to overtake me and knock me from my throne.

Organized by the NW Progressive Institute and sponsored by the SEIU, Progressive Majority for WA and the Institute for WA’s Future, the conference attracted over thirty bloggers from Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Friday afternoon and evening we held panel discussions and a reception at the Capitol, attended by Democratic legislators and their staff, as well as several members of the “traditional media.” Yesterday, us bloggers gathered for workshops and discussions that extended well beyond the scheduled 9 AM to 5 PM program.

Lynn Allen and John Stahl of Evergreen Politics did a great job facilitating the events (complicated by the constant need to shut me up and prevent me from speaking out of turn.) And of course, Andrew Villeneuve of NPI deserves a ton of credit for being the driving force behind organizing the event.

I’ll leave it to other attendees to blog on the details of the conference, but I just wanted to briefly comment on the incredible growth in size and effectiveness of the local progressive blogosphere. Last year at this time, our friend Stefan and his right-wing, nutcase, fellow travelers at (un)Sound Politics were the undisputed kings of the local blogs, consistently pushing headlines, and at their peak drawing twenty times my traffic. While I had more than respectable stats, I was a distant number two, and no other local liberal blog even came close to my traffic.

My how times have changed. (u)SP is still the number one local political blog in raw stats, but on most days barely doubles my traffic. And while much of the rest of the local blogosphere’s right wing has stagnated, growth on the left has exploded. The number of NW progressives now blogging is astounding, and the quality and impact of their writing truly impressive. Much as we have done on the national level, local progressive bloggers have overcome the right’s head start, surpassing them both in total traffic, and in influence.

Stefan now routinely whines about his failure to move his conspiracy theories onto the front pages, while my colleagues and I have notched a string of successes in moving headlines and influencing the opinion makers. While (u)SP’s claim to fame was their role in helping to shape public perception after an election, it is safe to say that 2005 was the first election cycle in which bloggers actually influenced the outcome… and quite frankly, we kicked ass.

Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Bloggers are by their nature a bit rebellious, unruly… even subversive. The fact that so many of us would gather in one place, with such unity of purpose, is as encouraging and exciting as the progress we’ve each individually made thus far. We certainly didn’t all agree on every issue, candidate or strategy, but we absolutely share the same goal: to dominate state and local politics, and to take our nation back from the far right. And this weekend’s conference was an important step in that direction.

Day late and a dollar short, but here’s your sandbox.