Archives for June 2007

The rats are jumping ship:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced tonight that he is quitting the Republican party and changing his affiliation to independent.

The announcement came after Mr. Bloomberg gave a speech denouncing partisan gridlock in Washington, stirring renewed speculation that he is preparing to run as an independent or third-party candidate in 2008.

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before switching parties to run for mayor in 2001. He is also a kajillionaire, with more than enough personal wealth to self-finance an independent campaign. Hmm.

Via The General.

For the past couple weeks I’ve been hearing rumors of Republican wags bragging that Dan Satterberg has a $180,000 head start in the race to replace the late Norm Maleng as King County Prosecutor. Seemed like an awful lot of money to raise so quickly. But now I understand what they were talking about.

According to a press release issued today by the Washington State Democratic Party:

Top Democrats today responded to widespread rumors that the Republican Party is planning to funnel the $194,000 remaining in the campaign coffers of late King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng into partisan attacks intended to influence the special election this fall to name Maleng’s replacement.

Under state law, it is illegal to transfer so-called “surplus” campaign funds – the money left over after retirement, loss, or death – from one candidate’s accounts directly to that of another candidate. It is, however, legal to donate to charity, or to a party organization— but if the funds do go to a political party, any quid pro quo understanding that the funds will then be donated to or spent in support a particular candidate would run afoul of Washington State’s campaign finance laws.

In the case of the prosecutor’s race, State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz says that if large amounts of cash from Maleng’s campaign coffers are funneled through the Republican Party back to the GOP nominee for the position, Republican Dan Satterberg – as some Satterberg backers have been whispering is likely – it would be tantamount to the sort of illegal and unethical political money laundering that Republicans have become known for on the national level.

“A fair minded leader like Norm Maleng should not have his campaign cash laundered through a Tom Delay-style money machine,” said Pelz, who worked with Maleng during his eight years on the King County Council. “Out of respect for Maleng’s legacy, that money should rightfully go to charity, not to fund attack ads or earmarked to help anoint a partisan replacement.”

Maleng gets a lot of well-deserved credit for having kept politics out of his office, and both Satterberg and Democratic frontrunner Bill Sherman have promised to build on that legacy. But I don’t see how Satterberg can fulfill that pledge if he allows his handlers — such as two-time Bush-Cheney WA State chair Mike McKay — to help him win office by sullying Maleng’s memory through creative accounting.

On the other hand, the rumor I heard may only be just that. Maleng was the co-chair with Gov. Chris Gregoire of the Seattle chapter of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network (CAN). Seattle CAN is holding a long-scheduled fundraising breakfast next Tuesday, June 26, at the Washington Athletic Club, and I’ve also heard rumors that Maleng’s wife Judy will not only be attending in his place, but will announce a “large donation” in his honor.

Now that would be a non-partisan use of surplus campaign funds worthy of Maleng’s legacy.

FYI, tickets for the Seattle CAN breakfast ($100 to $5000) are still available.

UPDATE:
Mike McKay responds:

“No money will be spent directly or indirectly to help (acting prosecutor) Dan Satterberg,” Seattle attorney Mike McKay said unequivocally Tuesday. He said Judy Maleng, the late prosecutor’s widow, “has made that clear.”

That’s good to hear.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA5) likes to pitch herself as a family values candidate. In fact, she values her family so much that she’s paid her brother and father almost $60,000 out of campaign funds over the past two elections. Sweet.

That’s according to a new report, “A Family Affair“, issued by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which found that 41 Democratic and 55 Republican representatives have put family members on their campaign payroll over the past three election cycles.

Although it is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members on their official staff, nothing stops them from paying them from campaign funds. So I guess it’s okay because, like, everybody’s doing it, right? Just take a look at the Washington state delegation, where Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff) paid his nephew Todd $4,281 out of campaign funds, and… um… well… that’s it, apparently. Just McMorris and Reichert.

Yeah, so when I ask for contributions to help pay for the enormous amount of time I put into this blog, I’m a deadbeat. But when McMorris’s father gets paid to work on his own daughter’s campaign, well, I guess he’s just being entrepreneurial.

I suppose that’s the difference between being a Democrat and a Republican.

For a second week in a row, I report on the bullshit that just won’t report itself. And in fact it’s been a bit of a banner week for bullshit. Locally and nationally.

First, Kemper Freeman thinks that transit is for terrorists.

According to the Discovery Institute conservatives are more generous than liberals. They have one source for this who is a bit suspect and who relies on surveys that are inherently difficult to judge, so that’s good. Then they cite a study showing that foreign born people living in the United States give a lot of money to their relatives in the old country to show that Americans are generous with our foreign aid.

Jim Miller shows his unfamiliarity with the concept of time. See, Al Gore said that Saddam was a bad person in 1992, so that’s totally proof that he’s a hypocrite for opposing a war in 2003.

Nationally, Oh my. Oh. So. Um. Yeah.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit wouldn’t like the British press to be censored. But if those wacky Brits are going to do it, well, they brought it on themselves didn’t they?

And as awful as bloggers can be, I keep hearing that you need a background in journalism to know anything about anything blah blah blah. But you know what, if being a columnist for the Seattle Times for a few years can let you think that installing foot sinks in a Midwestern airport leads to Holocaust denial, count me the fuck out.

Also, us wild and crazy lefty bloggers don’t, um, go out of our way to write letters defending outing a CIA agent and obfuscating the investigation.

When I first glanced at the headline of today’s Seattle Times editorial opposing pre-ballot review of Tim Eyman’s stunningly unconstitutional Initiative 960 (“Careful, initiative tampering is dangerous“), I was initially pleased. I had predicted this unselfconscious fit of hypocrisy. And there’s nothing I like better than being right, especially at the Times’ expense.

Indeed, the only surprise in this entirely predictable piece of sanctimonious sophistry, was how genuinely angry I got reading it. I was personally offended. And you should be too.

The editorial was sparked by a lawsuit filed by Futurewise and SEIU 775, seeking to keep I-960 off the ballot because it is outside the scope of the initiative process. The Times argues such pre-ballot review is dangerous:

We believe their lawsuit should fail because it would undermine the rights of the people to petition their government.

The courts have an obligation to rule on the law, not policy or public opinion, and the fact that the Times once again attempts to influence a judicial decision tells you everything you need to know about how deeply flawed our system of electing judges really is. But that’s a subject for another post.

What I find most offensive about this editorial is not the arrogant judicial bullying or the inherent hypocrisy, but the fact that the Times chooses to shamelessly lie to its readers in order to score a cheap rhetorical point.

A few initiatives have been tossed off the ballot. […] The only statewide example was an initiative years ago that tried to change the U.S. Constitution.

That is simply untrue. There was another, more recent example of a statewide initiative tossed off the ballot on a scope challenge, and the Times knows it. In fact, four years ago they editorialized in support of using pre-ballot review to deny the people the right to petition their government.

Of course, I’m referring to I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass. The Times wrote:

David Goldstein has accomplished something. The Seattle computer programmer has successfully placed the phrase “horse’s ass” into dozens of family newspapers.

As if I held a fucking gun to their heads. But I digress.

Goldstein calls I-831 an attempt to reform the initiative process by highlighting Eyman’s abuse of it. Goldstein abuses it himself. The sort of law that names a citizen and condemns him by proclamation is called a bill of attainder. It has been forbidden for 200 years. Calling someone an animal part may not strictly be called a bill of attainder, but it leans that way. Taken seriously, a court would have to throw out I-831.

The Times knew that I-831 was tossed out on a scope challenge. It was cited as precedent in the Futurewise/SEIU complaint. The Times editorialized in favor of the scope challenge, and reported on the court’s decision. Just last month I even challenged the Times:

I dare you to prove me wrong. Four years ago you editorialized against a joke initiative, urging the court to bar I-831 from the ballot simply because it offended your delicate sensibilities. Do you have the balls to stand by your defense of pre-ballot scope challenges as a legitimate legal exercise?

They knew that I knew that they knew all about Goldstein v. Gregoire — and they surely must have known that I would publicly excoriate them if they pretended it never happened. And yet, they simply didn’t give a flying fuck.

I have in the past attacked Times editorials for lies of omission, but this was an out and out, deliberate lie of fact. They wrote that the “only statewide example” was the Philadelphia case, when they knew that it was not, and they did so because it was more convenient than acknowledging the truth. It was a rather trivial lie, but a lie nonetheless, and in telling it they disrespected me, and they disrespected their readers.

Not that the rest of the editorial is a paragon of virtue, consistency or logic.

There is a contrary idea that initiatives are junk that somebody wrote on the back of a napkin. They may start that way, but all of them go to the Code Reviser’s office, where they are put into legal language. The ballot title comes from the Attorney General’s office, and is subject to challenge in court.

I-831 went through the Code Reviser’s office, without a single change suggested, and its ridiculously non-descriptive ballot title came out of the Attorney General’s office and a court challenge. Yet according to both the Times and the court, my initiative was perfectly ripe for pre-ballot review.

The Times ridiculed me by name for attempting “to reform the initiative process by highlighting Eyman’s abuse of it,” while the AG spent pages warning against the dangers of using the initiative process merely to send messages. Yet that is exactly what the Times now lauds Eyman for with his wildly unconstitutional I-692:

That is how car tabs were lowered: the people voted to lower them, the court threw the measure out, and the Legislature lowered them anyway. The political message got through.

Surely the Times couldn’t be arguing that some people should get to use the initiative process to send political messages, and some should not?

And while the Times now frets that the lawsuit seeks to expand scope challenges “from a narrow set of voter initiatives” to those that “violate the Constitution in other ways,” that was exactly what they urged the court to do in regards to I-831:

The sort of law that names a citizen and condemns him by proclamation is called a bill of attainder. It has been forbidden for 200 years. Calling someone an animal part may not strictly be called a bill of attainder, but it leans that way. Taken seriously, a court would have to throw out I-831.

Hell, the Times didn’t even argue that I-831 should be tossed out because it was unconstitutional, but simply because “it leans that way.”

(And FYI, I never called Eyman “an animal part,” I called him a fool. Anybody who doesn’t know the difference between metaphor and analogy doesn’t deserve to be writing op-eds for a major American newspaper. And anybody who intentionally blurs the difference doesn’t deserve to be either.)

The Times claims to “defend the right of initiative,” arguing that the lawsuit “would expand the power of political groups to shrink the people’s choices before an election.”

Yeah, right. Because apparently, the only people who should have the right to “shrink the people’s choices before an election” are stick-up-their-ass assistant AGs and the sanctimonious serial liars at the Seattle Times.

Glenn Greenwald’s new book is now available for pre-order. The book is called A Tragic Legacy – How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. Anyone who’s ever read Greenwald’s fantastic blog knows that he’s one of the sharpest critics of the Bush Administration, and this book appears to be aimed right at the heart of why this band of fools has done so much damage to the country. From his post today:

The central purpose of the book is to examine what has happened to the United States for the last six years under the Bush presidency. That is the “Bush legacy” — our national character and national identity have been fundamentally degraded, our moral standing and credibility in the world eroded to previously unthinkable depths, our government engaged in the very behavior which, for decades, we have collectively deplored, our trust in America’s governmental and journalistic institutions reduced virtually to zero, and our country placed on a plainly unsustainable course as a result of the militarized, imperial role we are choosing to play in the world.

At the heart of this process lies a binary moralistic view of the world, one which seeks to define every conflict and political challenge, both foreign and domestic, as a battle of Good versus Evil. The crux of this mindset is the continuous identification of an Enemy, one which embodies Evil and which must be stopped, typically destroyed, at all costs. No competing considerations, no rational arguments, no counter-balancing objectives, not even constraints of reality or resources, can compete with the moral imperative of this mission. The mission of destroying Evil trumps all.

In support of this ideology, they’ve been masters of using fear to rally support for their particular causes, regardless of whether that fear is valid. They used 9/11 to get us to fear Saddam and support the most boneheaded military excursion in U.S. history. They use the fear of drugs to fill our jails with minorities and strip away our 4th Amendment rights. They use a fear of “socialism” to try to dismantle government safety nets. They’ve won elections by using the fear of immigrants and gays to rally a nativist base that identifies with the Good vs. Evil mentality. But it’s finally backfiring as the administration is forced to deal with the nuances of the immigration problem and the high percentages of younger voters who are appalled by homophobia and sick of neverending wars. I’m looking forward to seeing how Greenwald put together this narrative.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

Well… the guests I wanted fell through, so I’m kinda going for a mish-mash of topics tonight including the lack of adequate mental health care for Iraq War veterans, unsafe drugs being imported from China and India without inspections, the Justice Department’s inability to fill vacant US Attorney positions, and a new wave of slightly weird, fringe terrorism.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Our favorite conservative blogger, Jesus’ General, took a little break this weekend and turned over the keys to some of us Frenchmen. Darryl and I have both sent out some letters.

James Vesely has 1500 words in the Seattle Times this morning on the ST2/RTID rail and roads proposal, and as I breathlessly slogged through it, I couldn’t quite figure out exactly where Vesely stood.

Then, in the very last sentence: “Consider the $18.9 billion a sin tax.”

We seem to like sin taxes in Washington state. So… um… I guess that means Vesely supports the proposal?

Don’t get me wrong, Vesely presents a useful discussion of our region’s woeful history of transportation planning (or lack thereof,) but while he criticizes “the way decisions are made about roads and transit” his rather thoughtful internal dialogue is in fact a perfect example of the sort of endless deliberation and second-guessing that has killed regional transportation projects for decades.

A concluding estimate of costs and benefits written by the sages over at Sound Transit poses unanswerable questions framed as answers, but they are not. The report cites as benefits questions such as, “What is the value of a human life saved from a needless traffic accident? What is the value of having the contribution of senior citizens in community activities?” These and other epistolary questions are, again, about the sins of our fathers in doing so little for 30 years.

The ST2/RTID plan is far from perfect, and includes funding for plenty of projects whose justification relies more on politics than smart transportation planning. But should it collapse, how long will it be before the region reaches a consensus on building the transit infrastructure we should have started constructing thirty years ago?

Sins of our fathers? Sure. And on this Father’s Day it is important to remember that we are fathers too, and if we do nothing, future generations will look back just as critically on our inability — or unwillingness — to plan for the future.

Since filing to run as a Democratic candidate for the King County 6th District seat, Richard Pope has been a big hit with both Democrats and Republicans. Wait…I mean, he has gotten big hits from both parties. Goldy recently shared some of the love shown Pope by the King County Democrats.

Last Wednesday, King County Republican Chairman Michael Young, in a weekly e-news update, offered his own moving tribute to Mr. Pope:

I was a bit surprised to see that Republican incumbent County Councilmember in the 6th District, Jane Hague, drew a rather infamous opponent in gadfly [hey!], Richard Pope. Ever since 2002, Pope has been a Republican PCO, only recently discontinuing this status when he didn’t run for reelection in 2006. You can probably understand my bewilderment when he filed as a Democrat against well-liked and longtime King County and national leader, Jane Hague. But then again, his antics over the last decade have proven his willingness to do almost anything for the purpose of self promotion and adulation. I have great disdain for those who cannot pick a side and stay with it. Richard Pope is no friend of the Republican Party and has only succeeded in further diminishing his reputation with both political parties.

(Come on…is it really possible for anyone to “diminishing their reputation” by dropping out of the Republican party? I mean, ‘specially here in Washington state?)

I think the subtext of Michael’s message is, “Thank you, Richard, for your four years of service as a PCO. And thank you for helping us get our finances in order.”

One thing is absolutely clear: Nobody brings people of all political persuasions together in King County as effectively as Richard Pope.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour: Will Josh kick Will’s rhetorical ass?
The Stranger’s Josh Feit argues that “anyone who fills in the bubble for 50 new miles of light rail … is also filling in the bubble for sprawl and environmental degradation.” Fellow HA blogger Will thinks that makes Josh an uppity urbanite with “too much passion.” Josh joins me for the hour to talk roads, transit, and the local political races.

8PM: Are the righties gonna get sick over Sicko?
I had the privilege of watching a preview of “Sicko” this week, and when I posted some brief observations of Michael Moore’s new documentary (shorter, shorter Goldy: the film is funny, touching and infuriating,) I got just the sort of bile-spewing, anti-reform comment thread I expected. Why does the thought of universal health care make righties so angry? Does wanting the same sort of health care security available in the rest of the industrialized world really make me a dirty, America-hating commie?

9PM: TBA.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Josh Feit:

Supporting the $904 million on I-405 expansion in this November’s regional transportation plan (the same plan that Seattle voters must vote for if they also want to expand Sound Transit light rail) GOP King County Council Member Reagan Dunn told the Seattle Times:

The I-405 project, especially, will improve traffic for people who must “drive until you qualify” for affordable suburban homes, said King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn. “The benefits are real. It will help young people; it will help our future,” he said.

His point is: People can’t afford to live (“live” meaning big houses, big yards, two car garages) in the city and so, to provide affordable housing we have to provide roads for them.

Josh must not get off the “Hill” much. “Drive Until You Qualify” is not some GOP trick. It’s exists. My folks bought land in what was rural King County, built a house, and raised two kids. My parents weren’t rich; my mom was working in social services, and my dad worked at the gas company. Even back then, gas company wages didn’t get you a house in Seattle. Or Bellevue. Or lots of other places. If they wanted a safe places to raise children, they had to look further away to unincorporated King County.

More Josh:

It’s a clever bit of demagoguery because it plays to the truth that yes, housing is becoming more and more expensive in Seattle. However, the GOP solution is a Catch-22. The more you drive people out to the ‘burbs, the more you keep Seattle from addressing its housing and transportation crisis, because suburban development takes dollars and developers away from transit and in-fill density.

No matter how much Josh Feit protests, young families are not going to buy “in-fill density” in Seattle. Maybe some will, but they are the exception that proves the rule. You can’t force young families into condos. Not when they can buy a house in Algona for the same price.

You can, however, give people options. Let’s build transit- lots more- in the city and elsewhere. Let’s expand HOV lanes. Let’s spend a little less time telling people what they should want and more time giving them options.

Josh has too much passion for correcting other people’s behavior (except when it comes to smoking indoors, in which case Josh is a flaming libertarian!). If Josh thinks the winning strategy is to lecture suburban folks, and to accuse them of defiling the environment, then he’s got another thing coming. People can only be “lectured to” so much. They can, however, be convinced. Perhaps we should try to convince people instead of just pointing fingers at them.

UPDATE (Goldy):
Josh will be joining me on “The David Goldstein Show” tonight at 7PM on 710-KIRO. Will knew that when he posted this. But I guess Will’s not man enough to come down to the studio and say to Josh’s face. He’s afraid of Josh’s passion.

The rumors from Washington are that Rep. Dave Reichert (WA-8) is absolutely miserable, being a bit player in a fractious, fractured, and demoralized minority party. Perhaps Reichert has aspirations for bigger and better things…