Archives for March 2006

Former Nixon aide John Dean says that President Bush’s illegal domestic spying surpasses the crimes that got his former boss impeached.

“Had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented,” Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it.”

How can we force Congress to be a check and balance on the White House? Help the Democrats seize control. And how do we do this? Help Darcy Burner meet today’s fundraising target. Click here to contribute.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my good friend Stefan for booking me on the Dori Monson Show yesterday, where I had the opportunity to repeatedly plug Podcasting Liberally. Downloads have gone through the roof, and I’m getting lots of positive feedback. Hey thanks, Stefan.

If you’re wondering what I’m talking about, go check out Stefan’s post, in which he once again proves that when it comes to media savvy, he’s as clueless as he is humorless. (With enemies like him, who needs publicists?) Meanwhile Dori, apparently with nothing better to talk about, decided to take a shot at spinning political scandal out of a barroom conversation between a bunch of political junkies. So a few minutes before airtime, I get a call asking me to come on the show and defend myself.

I’m not sure what Dori expected. Did he think I’d be apologetic? Flummoxed? Embarrassed? Hell… did he read the blurb I wrote promoting this week’s podcast? Not only didn’t I edit out the exchanges in question… I highlighted them!

Famously outspoken WA State Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz joined us last night, and we didn’t manage to get him to say the word “fuck” once. (Although Carl did make up for it by talking about sticking green glowsticks up people’s rectums.)

Judging from Stefan’s post, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib aren’t the only ones with a glowstick up their ass, but I expected more from Dori. This is a guy who hangs out in pro sports teams locker rooms, and yet Dori incredibly told me that he never uses “the f-word.” Ever. Yeah, sure Dori… and I suppose you never fart either.

Dori spent most of my segment going after Sandeep Kaushik, implying that it is somehow scandalous for an aide to King County Executive Ron Sims to be caught on tape saying the word “fuck.” Oh please. If you ask me, Dori was hoping to get Sandeep fired… but… um… Sandeep used to write for The Stranger for chrisakes, so I’m pretty sure Ron knew he had a few four-letter words in him when he offered him the job. As former colleague Josh Feit put it over on Slog:

What? Our Sandeep, at a bar cussing? Horrors! Bars? Cussing? And I thought the Democratic party was the effete elitist party.

I guess in Dori and Stefan’s world, it’s okay for the Vice President of the United States to say the word “fuck” on the floor of the Senate, or for a Supreme Court justice to make an obscene gesture in church… but heaven forfend if Sandeep cusses… in a bar. Yeah, in Dori and Stefan’s world, Carl talking about sticking glowsticks up people’s rectums is offensive… but actual US soldiers sticking actual glowsticks up the rectums of actual prisoners at Abu Ghraib isn’t.

I mean… what the fuck?

Forget for a moment how incredibly dishonest it is for Dori to spend an hour disparaging the Democratic Party based on the barroom conversation of a handful of bloggers. The very fact that Stefan and Dori have decided to ignore the very serious topics we discussed and instead focus on our less than solemn language tells you how desperate they are to change the subject from the failed Bush administration and the rubber stamp Republican majority that props it up.

Well, fuck them. The whole point of recording the podcast in a bar is to try to capture the kind of spontaneous conversation and debate that makes Drinking Liberally such an intellectually satisfying and entertaining event. If Dori wants to get all sanctimonious with his screened calls and his feigned outrage, that’s up to him. Hell… he’s the “professional.”

But personally, I’d rather be brutally honest than politely lie.

8th Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner earned two posts on Slog today, the first from Eli Sanders pointing to the national Dems growing confidence in her campaign, and the second from Dan Savage asking you to help put her over the top of her quarterly fundraising target. I agree with both, but especially want to emphasize the latter.

The national Dems are paying attention to Darcy Burner’s race and they’ve got a bunch of money to dump on her

I’m out for most of the day, so talk amongst yourselves. Or chew on this.

Secretary of State Sam Reed has decided to appeal a King County Superior Court ruling that the state’s felon re-enfranchisement laws unconstitutionally violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Hmm. I am disappointed, and not just because I think it is the wrong decision, but because I’d hoped that Reed might be a bit more pragmatic.

In announcing his decision, Reed made a joint statement with Attorney General Rob McKenna.

“We believe a rational basis does exist for the Legislature to deny felons the right to vote until they have completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including payment of criminal penalties, victim’s restitution, and legal fees, rather than separating out various sentencing aspects,”

Maybe, maybe not. I’m not saying that Judge Spearman’s decision is a slam dunk, but it is very compelling. The practical impact of our re-enfranchisment statutes is that we have created two classes of ex-felons: those who can afford to pay off their legal financial obligations, and those who cannot. The former have their voting rights restored, the latter are banned from voting for life.

Personally, I find this morally objectionable, but it is also a distinction that has proven to be extremely troublesome and expensive to administer and enforce… a fact that Reed himself acknowledged in the midst of last year’s controversial election contest.

In Washington, Secretary of State Reed said, the simplest way to fix confusion over tracking felons would be to automatically restore voting rights when people are released from prison, regardless of whether they’ve paid all their court debts.

And yet, given the opportunity to simplify our state’s re-enfranchisement system by adopting the model used in most other states, Reed has instead chosen to spend tax dollars defending a system that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars… and with uneven results.

But there is another practical consideration that is rarely discussed.

More than 250,000 ex-felons are currently ineligible to vote in WA state, about 3.7 percent of the state’s population, and 24 percent of African American men. About 46,000 of these ex-felons would have their voting rights restored if Judge Spearman’s decision is upheld.

So… exactly what is the social benefit of denying a substantial portion of our population the right to vote?

I’ve heard opponents of re-enfranchisement passionately argue that if we fully restore the civil rights of felons upon release they would have no incentive to make restitution to their victims. But in fact, the majority of the LFOs have nothing to do restitution.

For example, one of the plaintiffs in the case, Beverly DuBois, was convicted on a marijuana charge, and was ordered to pay LFOs totaling $1,620: a $500 victim assessment fee, $110 in court costs, and $1,000 to the Stevens County Drug Enforcement Fund. Unable to work due to injuries sustained in a car accident, DuBois has nonetheless made regular payments of $10 a month since her release… a court approved payment plan that doesn’t even cover the accrued interest. Since she was convicted in 2002, her outstanding LFO has actually increased to $1,895.69, and under current law, she will never be eligible to vote again.

Reed now argues that there is a “rational basis” for denying DuBois the right to vote, but I fail to see it. A permanently disabled woman gets ensnared on a marijuana charge, serves her time in prison, but due to onerous court fees she can never afford to pay off, she permanently loses the right to vote. Meanwhile, a more affluent ex-felon convicted of a similar crime, pays off his fines and has the franchise restored.

Perhaps a higher court will ultimately rule that a system that re-enfranchises ex-felons based on their ability to pay is somehow constitutional. But it certainly isn’t fair, and it does absolutely nothing to integrate these people back into society.