Archives for March 2006

Um… exactly which party’s nomination is U.S. Senate candidate Aaron Dixon seeking?

“We welcome his candidacy,” state Republican Chairwoman Diane Tebelius said.

Dixon, a community activist and co-founder of the Seattle chapter of the Black Panther Party, announced earlier this week that he would challenge Sen. Maria Cantwell on the Green Party ticket… and boy are Republicans excited!

“I think that the Republican Party has learned from its excesses in the past that it’s not good to have a third-party candidate out there who could siphon away votes from their main candidates,” Tebelius said. “So I would think it could be a problem for the Democrats.”

For his part, Dixon seems to totally understand his role in this election:

If both he and Cantwell lose, Dixon said: “I won’t feel bad at all. Maria votes like a Republican.”

Uh-huh. No wonder the National Republican Senatorial Committee is absolutely kvelling over Dixon’s candidacy, ironically suggesting that the way to beat Cantwell is to “challenge her from the left.”

Dixon’s entry into the race means that Cantwell is going to have to fight for her Democrat base. He has the potential to peel away liberal votes from Cantwell, thereby boosting McGavick’s.

Sure, I suppose. But first McGavick is going to have to close the gap enough for Dixon to make a difference… something McGavick has so far proven incapable of doing.

Which leads me to believe that the best strategy for both Dixon and the Republicans would be to simply drop the pretense, dump McGavick, and put Dixon on the GOP ticket.

UPDATE:
I could swear I just heard Dixon on KUOW say that he was being paid by the Green Party to run for the Senate. Sweet. I could use some extra cash. Perhaps I’ll run for the Green Party nomination too?

And if you can’t think of anything to chat about, why not show your love, link over to Wampum and cast your vote for HA in the Koufax Awards:

Best State & Local Blog
Best Series (on Mike Brown & FEMA)

If you only have time for one, do the Best State & Local Blog category; just leave “HorsesAss.org” in the comment thread. This round of voting closes Sunday. Thanks.

I like Joel Connelly. I respect him. Hell… I’m one of those geeks who actually enjoys having Joel regale me with longwinded tales of Washington’s political history.

But this morning’s column… well… he simply has it wrong.

Late in the campaign, Sims’ advisers fed to a local liberal blog site updated news about the ongoing feud within Irons’ family. An old news story was given new legs, and fueled by new accusations. Sims won easily.

I have previously laid out the genesis of my story on the Irons’ family feud in excruciatingly boring detail, and I stand by my account. It was a Joni Balter column that initially piqued my interest in the story. It was longtime activist Steve Zemke who suggested I talk to Brian Derdowski. It was Brian who put me in touch with Di Irons, and it was Di who put me in touch with her mother. I did not know where this journey would lead me when I started down the path.

I put a ton of work into this story. Nobody fed me anything. It was a damn effective bit of muckraking, and I’m proud of it.

In a 7-2 decision released today, the Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the last four election contest lawsuits stemming from 2004’s disputed gubernatorial election.

Three of the contests were dismissed because they “fail to state a cognizable claim under the election contest statute.” The fourth contest, that filed by Suzanne D. Karr of Snohomish County was ruled to be identical to that already decided by Judge Bridges (you know… the one dismissed “with prejudice,”) and thus was barred under “the doctrine of res judicata.” The BIAW’s justices, Jim Johnson & Richard Sanders, both dissented on the fourth dismissal.

I’m not an attorney, and I haven’t studied the issue, so it’s really hard for me to comment on the validity of the dissenting opinion. But it does seem rather obvious that it would be unfeasible to allow multiple lawsuits on the same issues.

But as to the first three contests, well… they were downright silly. One contest argued that the constitutional guarantee of a “free and equal” election was violated by allowing Democrats to “purchase the right to a hand recount.” Uh-huh. Another contest argues that Gov. Gregoire is unfit for office because the petitioner’s severely autistic son was abused in foster care while Gregoire was AG. Okay. And the third contest asked the court to nullify the election because:

“The delta value of votes given to both candidates is exponentially within the tally’s margin of error, to the point that error must be assumed as a certainty, as given by three separate counts resulting in three different outcomes.”

Not that I should be dismissive. These arguments are at least as compelling as those brought forth by Dino Rossi’s attorneys.

But perhaps the most interesting tidbit in the decision is that which came in its conclusion:

The parties in the contests of Coday, Goodall, Karr, and Stevens have not raised the issue of this court’s jurisdiction to decide an election contest for governor. Article III, section 4, of the Washington Constitution says that election contests for statewide executives, including the governor, “shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law.” We have assumed, without deciding, that chapter 29A.68 RCW confers jurisdiction on this court to decide the present election contests. We reserve the right to consider the question of whether the constitution gives the legislature exclusive jurisdiction over governor’s election contests if it is properly raised at some future time.

So… the Court is expressly leaving open the question of whether any court actually had the jurisdiction to hear this contest in the first place. Hmm.

Rant and rave on whatever you want. As long as you do it here.

Former Black Panther Aaron Dixon has announced he will challenge Sen. Maria Cantwell as the Green Party candidate.

(Sigh.)

People who know him tell me that Dixon is a dedicated activist and an all around nice guy. But let’s be honest… the only impact he can possibly have on the outcome of the November election is to draw enough votes away from Cantwell to give the seat to Republican Mike McGavick.

(Sigh.)

Much to the distress of some of my readers, I have written quite passionately in the past about the left’s self-destructive obsession with marginal third party candidates and futile primary challenges… and I expect I’ll rant a bit on Dixon in the future. But for the moment, I’d like to ask my Green readers (assuming I still have any)… um… so exactly how “green” does a Democrat have to be before you decide there’s no difference between them and the Republican? I mean… take a look at Sen. Cantwell’s ratings from some very green organizations:

• 100% from NARAL (2005)
• 100% from the ACLU (2004-05)
• 100% from the Leadership Conference On Civil Rights (2001-05)
• 100% from American Association Of University Women (2001-04)
• 100% From Brady Campaign (2001-03)
• 100% from Children’s Defense Fund (03-04)
• 100% from Sierra Club (03)
• 98% from US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) (2004-05)
• 95% from NAACP (2005), 100% (2003-2004)
• 95% “liberal quotient” from Americans For Democratic Action (2005)
• 93% from Human Rights Campaign (2001-04)
• 90% from the League of Conservation Voters (2005)
• “Wildlife Hero” from Wildlife Action Fund

Sure, I was as disappointed as anybody over Sen. Cantwell’s vote on the Iraq war authorization, but even my reliably liberal Congressman Jim McDermott occasionally casts votes with which I disagree. Besides, if anybody deserves blame for the Iraq war, it sure as hell ain’t Cantwell… it’s the deluded Nader voters who helped put George W. Bush in the White House.

Yeah, I know, I know… the Greens voted on principle. And as a result, thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are now dead.

(Sigh.)

On his campaign website Dixon writes: “We need and should have more than just a two-party system.”

Yeah… maybe. But we don’t. And I don’t quite see how lazily running an obscure candidate in a high-profile race is going to overthrow the two-party system?

As Kermit the Frog once sang: “It’s not easy being green.” But then, politics is hard.

On my first visit to Seattle back in 1989, my future ex-wife took me on a tour of her beloved hometown, which of course included the downtown waterfront. Walking hand-in-hand through the shadows of the clamorous and crumbling Alaska Way Viaduct, I subtly remarked on how the structure dominated the sites and sounds of an otherwise charming tourist trap:

“I can’t believe they built a fucking freeway through the waterfront!” I gently screamed in her ear… to which she quizzically replied: “What?!”

Of course, I understand the historical circumstances that led to this gashing, open wound through a neighborhood that would otherwise enjoy some of the highest property values in the state. And I certainly share the pragmatic, financial concerns of those who oppose a more expensive tunnel replacement.

But really… can anybody honestly tell me that rebuilding this monstrosity is the preferred alternative, especially after we now learn that a replacement Viaduct would have to be 50 percent wider than the existing structure, with columns twice as thick, just to meet current seismic and traffic safety standards?

Let’s put this in perspective. Imagine the Viaduct had never been built, and SR 99 currently passed through the waterfront at grade, traffic lights and all, like any other street. (You know… the way it currently runs through much of Seattle.)

Now suppose we wanted to alleviate local traffic snarls by allowing 99’s thru-traffic to bypass Alaska Way. Do you believe for a moment that any politician in their right mind would propose plunking down a massive, double-decker, view-destroying, elevated freeway, essentially cutting off the waterfront from the rest of the downtown? Do you believe a single editorial board would come out in support of such an outrageously ugly, noisy and expensive transportation folly? Do you really think our state Legislature would have provided $2 billion of taxpayer’s money towards such a controversial proposal?

Of course not! Financial priorities, aesthetics, and common sense simply would not allow it.

A lot has changed since the Viaduct was constructed over 50 years ago, and modern, world-class cities no longer wall off their waterfronts with massive freeway projects; indeed, any urban planner who proposed such a project would be laughed out of the profession. Yet it’s the rebuild boosters who seem to be laughing as if their opponents are out of touch with reality: money is tight they patronizingly explain to us… we simply cannot afford a tunnel.

Right.

Over the last decade taxpayers have spent a billion dollars building and refurbishing stadia and arenas to the benefit of billionaire sports team owners, and maybe, just maybe, the bonds on the now demolished Kingdome will finally be paid off before the next round of extortion begins. Yet we’re told we can’t afford the extra billion dollars for the tunnel alternative, despite its estimated life-span of at least 100 hundred years… twice that of an elevated viaduct.

I find that hard to believe. And besides, it shouldn’t be up to state legislators to make that decision. The state has ponied up it’s $2 billion bucks, and if local voters want to tax themselves to turn our waterfront into a world class destination, well then, that’s up to us. Now that the Monorail has been permanently derailed, let’s give voters the opportunity to use the local MVET to help finance the tunnel and other road improvements. And why not start talking about a special taxing district — much like the one financing South Lake Union development — so that those property owners who stand to reap the biggest rewards from the Viaduct’s removal, also pay a higher percentage of the cost?

And if we still can’t find the money to pay for a tunnel, well… we can’t do what we can’t do. But that still doesn’t make a replacement viaduct the preferred alternative.

It’s time for our state and local civic and political leaders to get their heads out of the 1950’s, and start imagining the city with a fresh perspective. It’s time to start giving serious attention to a third replacement option, one which I would argue is far preferable to replacing the existing Viaduct with a new, bulked-up model: the waterfront boulevard.

That’s exactly what San Francisco did after the double-decker, Embarcadero Freeway collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake… a change that revitalized the waterfront. And citizens liked the results so much that they just opened a new 6-lane boulevard to replace a portion of the Central Freeway, right through the heart of the downtown.

I believe that much of the legislative opposition to the tunnel stems both from institutional timidity, and urban Democrats’ justified fear that their opponents will seize on the tunnel as a symbol of out-of-control, profligate spending on the part of the party in charge.

But I also think that opposition stems from a lack of imagination. The generation in power now grew up with a loud, ugly, double-decker freeway cutting through an otherwise spectacular waterfront, and they simply cannot envision the city without it.

Well not me. I came to this city as an outsider, and I’m here to tell you that the Viaduct sucks. And you know what…? Rebuilding it 50 percent wider can only make it suck at least 50 percent more.

Remember… this is where all the off-topic stuff goes. Really.

The latest installment of Podcasting Liberally is now available for your listening pleasure… or whatever emotion you feel when listening to a bunch of lubricated, Seattle liberals talk politics.

Joining me this week is Carl, Mollie, Will, N in Seattle, and former Stranger reporter Sandeep Kaushik (apparently, the only one amongst us who can afford a full name.) Listen in as we talk about the Oscars, Seattle’s tunnel vision, and the Bush administration’s forward thinking initiative to threaten journalists with execution. We also calmly and cogently answer the question posed by Will’s Republican friends: why are Republicans so rational and logical, while us Democrats are rely so much on emotion? (Short answer: “Fuck you.”)

KUOW radio (94.9 FM) will preempt its regular NPR programming tomorrow to bring you a recording of last week’s Ron Sims v. Ken Hutcherson debate, followed by a live call-in show. The debate will air from 11 am to 12:30 pm. Calls will be taken from 12:30 pm to 1 pm.

I don’t expect the airing on KUOW to change any more minds on gay civil rights than the live debate did, but it will be informative and entertaining nonetheless, so I highly recommend tuning in.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’ll be there, knocking back a couple of pints of Manny’s, and recording the latest edition of Podcasting Liberally.

Oh… and if you happen to be on the other side of the mountains, please join Jimmy at the Tri-Cities chapter of DL, every Tuesday from 5:30 onwards, Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland.

As the state Legislature enters the final days of the session, one of the pressing issues they are addressing is SB 6533, which would provide restaurants a B&O tax credit on fifty percent of the $1/gallon tax on carbonated soft drink syrup?

WTF?

Not only would this tax break drain $10 million a year from state coffers — money that could be used, say… to provide health coverage for 10,000 children — it would incentivize businesses to sell and market a product that is harmful to children’s health.

This is not just a classic example of special interest tax legislation, it is just plain stupid… and the Children’s Alliance wants you to tell your legislators to vote no. They’ve set up a Take Action form that makes it easy for you to send an email to Gov. Gregoire and your own district representatives, asking them to oppose thus unnecessary tax credit. It is always more effective if you write your own personal message in the available field, but all you really need to do is just fill in your address information and click send.

Let’s send a message that if businesses want to talk about tax breaks, they need to do so in the context of broader tax restructuring. I’ve sent my email. Please send yours.

Some big changes are coming to HA over the next few weeks, and in preparation I’ve decided to introduce the first change now: the daily open thread.

This is the place where all totally off-topic comments should go. I don’t mind if comment threads organically drift onto tangents, but if you have something entirely unrelated to say, post your comment here.

For now I’m merely asking you to politely follow these guidelines, but in a couple weeks we will be switching to software where these rules can and will be strictly enforced… not by me, but by your fellow members of the HA community.

Who says the Bush administration doesn’t learn from its mistakes? After being whipped by a public backlash over leaked information about illegal domestic wiretapping, the Bushies have come upon a sure fire solution to all their problems: execute journalists.

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

[…]

In a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper.

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

“There’s a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public’s business risk being branded traitors,” said New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a statement responding to questions from The Washington Post. “I don’t know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values it professes to be promoting abroad.”

A tone of gleeful relish over the prospect of imprisoning those perceived to be the political opposition? Man… we’ve never heard that coming from the right-wingers before. Though.

At Langley, the CIA’s security office has been conducting numerous interviews and polygraph examinations of employees in an effort to discover whether any of them have had unauthorized contact with journalists. CIA Director Porter J. Goss has spoken about the issue at an “all hands” meeting of employees, and sent a recent cable to the field aimed at discouraging media contacts and reminding employees of the penalties for disclosing classified information, according to intelligence sources and people in touch with agency officials.

“It is my aim, and it is my hope, that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information,” Goss told a Senate committee.

The Justice Department also argued in a court filing last month that reporters can be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for receiving and publishing classified information.

As if the so-called “mainstream” media hasn’t become timid enough under the yoke of its corporate ownership, now the Bush administration wants reporters to face the threat of being tried as spies. Nurses are being investigated for sedition… reporters are being investigated for espionage… I guess cheap consumer goods aren’t the only thing we’ve been importing from China.

I’m flying in from Philly today (and boy will my arms be tired.) So chew on an open thread in my absence.