Archives for November 2012

Goldy is right that Sam Reed is wrong about the ballot deadline. Most ballots were in before election day, and fewer ballots were counted than were in, so the backlog was due to the time it takes to count the ballots, not the fact that they were still in the mail somewhere.

Of course, not all of the ballots were in on time. As someone who put his ballot in the mail the last possible day, I for one am glad to know what the firm deadline was. And I’m not sure why the tradeoff between that and having the ballots counted, say, on the same day would be a good one even if it was true.

It’s kind of annoying not having election night be quite the same event it is in the rest of the country. And I imagine if we’re ever a swing state again, it’ll drive people from out of state who aren’t used to it up a wall watching it in a close election. But really, we count all the ballots in plenty of time to get them certified and possibly do several recounts, as was discovered in 2004. As long as that’s the case, there’s no reason to push the deadlines forward.

The Seattle Times has more on Rep. Dave Reichert’s (R-WA-8) role in the Petraeus affair.

Humphries took Kelley’s concerns to the FBI cybercrime division, but later was worried that the FBI was dragging its feet — possibly for political reasons — and took his worries to U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert.

My read: Shortly before a presidential election, a renegade FBI agent is annoyed with how slowly the FBI is investigating the incumbent President’s CIA Director. He decides to leak information about the investigation in a way that might affect the election.

Reichert is duped into playing the intermediary. Rather than taking the disgruntled FBI agent to the House leadership (you know, the leadership position as defined in the Constitution), Reichert connects the man with Eric Cantor, who is the G.O.P. leader.

Clearly, this was an attempted political hit. But, Cantor isn’t as stupid as Reichert, and decided to not meddle in the investigation.

Chris Grygiel reports on Governor Gregoire’s meeting with the feds over I-502:

Gregoire met with Deputy Attorney General James Cole in Washington, D.C. She told Cole she would prefer to know “sooner rather than later,” because Washington state is getting ready to decriminalize pot, which is still illegal under federal law.

“I told them, ‘Make no mistake, that absent an injunction of some sort, it’s our intent to implement decriminalization,’ ” Gregoire told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to spend a lot of money implementing this if you are going to attempt to block it.”

The cynical side of me wonders if Gregoire sought this meeting as a way to fish for excuses to block the implementation of I-502. Whenever I discuss Gregoire and her history with drug policy, I’m always reminded by folks that she’s a potential contender for Eric Holder’s job. And maybe just having this meeting is enough for her to play nice with an Obama Administration that’s been more mute than I expected so far.

But for the potential marijuana entrepreneurs here in Washington, there’s a much bigger concern about moving forward with the regulations only to have the federal government come in later. I-502 requires state licensing of all retailers, producers, and processors. If the state starts licensing all these people for a year, there’s a danger that the feds now have a good list of names to start with if they decide to crack down. I’m sure that’s not Gregoire’s biggest concern, but it’s certainly a much more serious one.

UPDATE: Governor-elect Inslee put out a very positive statement about supporting and defending the implementation of I-502. I was definitely disappointed that he didn’t support this initiative during his campaign, but I’m cautiously optimistic he’ll start to recognize how drug law reform is as important a pillar of good progressive governance as clean energy, health care, public education, and equal rights.

I guess it’s good for Washington that Representative McMorris Rodgers will be the House Republican Conference Chair. I mean she’s terrible but so would anyone the GOP would pick for that role. So sure, she’s a bit better than the average GOP member at going on the Sunday shows and explaining why their garbage positions are totally awesome. So sure, good on her.

McMorris Rodgers was named chair of the House Republican Conference in a secret-ballot contest. She was vice chair.

McMorris Rodgers defeated Tom Price of Georgia, who was endorsed by vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as well as Jeb Hensarling of Texas, McMorris Rodgers’ predecessor as conference chair.

– Congrats to Ed Murray for being elected Majority Leader.

– Congrats to Representative DelBene.

– A FAQ from SPD on what I-502 will mean for people who want to smoke marijuana in Seattle.

– Obama kicked ass in Indian Country.

– Andrew Johnson was a monster, but I would so sit in that chair.

– Keep throwing.

One of the key reasons why I saw tremendous value in passing I-502 had little to do with what would actually happen here in Washington, but with what would happen across the globe:

The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.

But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.

On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.

The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.

The United States doesn’t just follow these treaties, they’re very aggressive about ensuring that other countries follow them as well. A good example of this effort is how we’ve been expanding our military presence in West Africa, as a way of stopping smuggling from South America to Europe. Despite the fact that this trafficking doesn’t start, travel through, or end in the United States, American taxpayers are paying to stop it. America’s drug war has long been more than just an attempt to keep Americans from obtaining drugs, it’s been an effort to stop drug trafficking globally, and marijuana has always been part of that.

With that in mind, it’s also important to remember that marijuana use was legal and socially acceptable in many parts of the world before the US stepped in with pressure. And now, people are starting to point that out:

NEW DELHI: What two American states, Washington and Colorado, have decided to do – legalize recreational use of marijuana – was the norm in India until 1985. All cannabis derivatives – marijuana (grass or ganja), hashish (charas) and bhang – were legally sold in this country. As a matter of fact, most state governments had their own retail shops to sell these drugs. India has known, consumed and celebrated ganja, charas and bhang for millennia.

Their consumption was never regarded as socially deviant behaviour any more than drinking alcohol was. If there was any bias against ganja or charas, it was that these were often viewed as the poor man’s intoxicant by the upper classes. But come Holi, these prejudices would melt away as rich and poor savoured the joyous high of bhang. Even now, despite a legal ban, recreational use of these drugs is widespread in India.

Keeping marijuana legal was actually an enlightened view. It is now medically proven that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. In fact, the good weed has medical uses (as many as 19 US states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes). However, moderation is the key. While excessive and sustained consumption of alcohol can cause severe liver damage leading to death, excessive use of marijuana too can cause some damage, mainly to our sensory abilities. In moderation, marijuana is a gentle mood-altering relaxant.

So, if there is a rational policy towards intoxicants and we allow the sale and consumption of liquor, there is no good reason to not similarly allow sale and consumption of marijuana, hashish and bhang. For years, India has held this position. For 25 years since 1961, it has withstood American pressure to keep marijuana legal. Which brings us to the story of why it was banned in India.

Since 1961, the US has been campaigning for a global law against all drugs, both hard and soft. Given that ganja, charas and bhang were a way of life in India, we opposed the drastic measure. But by the early ’80s, American society was grappling with some drug problems and opinion had grown against the “excesses” of the hippie generation. In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government buckled under the pressure and enacted a law called the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The rest of the world has been understandably sheepish about challenging a policy that they’ve known was dumb, but was so aggressively sought by the country with the world’s most powerful military. Thanks to the voters here and in Colorado, that sheepishness might finally be wearing off.

There’s an unseemly moment now looking at petitions for secession.* I don’t mean the secessionist talk. That’s a few assholes being assholes; it’s not a movement. If people are going to write about it, put it in some context. I mean way more people voted for Obama in states where those stupid petitions exist than will sign the petitions. Hell, he won some of the states.

And while I’m fine with calling this bullshit out, it’s unhelpful to just point and laugh, especially to imply that it says something about these states. I’m a 50 state strategy person, so it’s up to the Democrats to organize in Texas and in Alabama and in the Dakotas. Maybe the next election won’t make the difference, but we have a duty to keep pushing because there are plenty of people there who would never sign those sorts of petitions. Painting those states as a bunch of backwards yahoos sort of defeats that.

It discourages Democrats from trying and it shows an unseriousness to the people you’re trying to get to vote Democratic, and support liberal causes. It implies there’s nothing you can build on when there’s plenty. It looks back to the secession movements of, and before, the Civil War instead of forward.

So here’s some of the context I want in these stories: How many Obama voters live in those states compared to the number of people who signed the petitions? What are the efforts to reach out to those states? What are the demographics of the states?

Look, I know after the election there’s still a news hole to fill. And that ultimately this story doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things. But this is the wrong way to write the story.

[Read more…]

Please join us tonight for a pint and a post-election gloating and celebration at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, WA chapters meet. On Wednesday, the Bellingham chapter meets, For Thursday, the Spokane chapter and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meet. And next Monday, the Yakima and Olympia chapters meet.

With 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including fourteen in Washington state, four in Oregon, and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.

The Seattle Times published a dreadful Op-Ed by Joe Delmore, a Seattle-based freelance writer. Delmore is mourning the defeat of Rob McKenna:

…it will continue what amounts to one-party rule of the governor’s office. Not since 1980, when an almost-forgotten John Spellman won the governorship, has a Republican gained the state’s highest office.

Because of this three-decade dry spell, Washington has gone longer than any other state in the union without having a Republican governor, according to The Weekly Standard.

Delmore does recognize part of the problem:

Like the national party, the state’s GOP has become more conservative, even reactionary, on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage.

…but then he fails in trying to draw a parallel to the Democrats:

It’s also true that the Democratic Party has become rigidly partisan on these same cultural issues.

The Democrat’s position on abortion and gay marriage are pretty much mainstream positions, with a bit of forward-thinking social policy thrown in. In contrast, the position of many state Republicans amounts to going backward to the social policy of the 1950. Hardly equivalent.

Are there solutions? Delmore points out:

Secretary of State Sam Reed, one of the few Republicans to win statewide office, says the party must learn to appeal to more centrist voters. Former Republican state chairman Chris Vance said the party needs to know what it takes to win independents and win elections. “It is not enough to appeal to the base,” he asserted.

Both men are spot on. Moderate Republicans have become increasingly irrelevant in this state as the Clint Diddiers and John Kosters have become noisier and angrier.

But Delmore doesn’t buy it:

Those are views of a big-tent party, but won’t solve the problem for Republicans. Republicans must still remember their pragmatic conservative roots based on the fundamental values of hard work and enterprise, a belief in God and fiscal conservatism. Those quite valid ideas still attract people from all walks of life.

Ignoring that positions of the current crop of noisy Republicans bear no resemblance to true conservationism, Delmore’s prescription for Republicans seems to be, “more of the same, except for social issues.”

But isn’t this precisely what voters rejected in this past election? McKenna has always downplayed social issues. And before McKenna, Dino Rossi tried, albeit less successfully, to do the same thing. And Mike!™ McGavick, who the Seattle Times’ Joni Balter labled as taking a limited pro-choice stance, was all about hard work and enterprise. Washington voters weren’t buying what these Republicans were selling…even without the social issues.

Two closing comments. First, Delmore’s lamentations about “one party rule” ring hollow. We have these things called elections where (typically) a Republican and a Democratic candidate ends up facing off in a General election. Each candidate puts their ideas forward. The people vote for what they find compelling.

Republicans have a thirty year gubernatorial losing streak because their ideas and candidates have not resonated with the voters. The ideas and candidates from the Democratic side have.

Republicans aren’t going to start winning by embracing and shoring-up their conservative creds, while downplaying social issues. They’ve been there, done that. And failed.

Lastly, I found Mr. Delmore’s biosketch a bit odd (my emphasis):

Joe Delmore, a registered Independent, is writing a book on contemporary politics….

A “registered independent,” huh? I wonder what state he’s living in?

– Happy Veterans Day.

– You have decades upon decades to contemplate what you did. But after today. After this moment. Here and now. Gabby and I are done thinking about you.

– In total, all the profiles, stage-managed and controlled by the Pentagon’s multimillion dollar public relations apparatus, built up an unrealistic and superhuman myth around the general that, in the end, did not do Petraeus or the public any favors.

– It’s pretty sweet how horribly Karly Rove and the NRA performed.

– And I think it’s a nice counter-narrative that Romney did worse with Mormons than George W. Bush.

– It’s strange to read Lindy West review a film positively, but I agree with everything she says about Lincoln.

When Obama won four years ago, the Washington state rumor mill started swirling tales of a cabinet post for the newly re-elected Gov. Gregoire.

It didn’t happen, and it was never realistic to think it would.

With Obama’s re-election and Gregoire’s retirement from her two-term gig as Governor, this rumor come off as more realistic:

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire may wind up as Secretary of the Interior after President Obama completes an expected Cabinet reshuffle for his second term.

I hope so. Gregoire has been an excellent steward of Washington’s environs in her eight years at the top.

We declared R-74 a definitive winner (yay!!) on Thursday. Rob McKenna conceded to Jay Inslee (yay, yay!!) on Friday. Yesterday, soon after we asserted that Kim Wyman had won (boo!) the Secretary of State race, Kathleen Drew issued her concession statement. That left only I-1240 as an undecided statewide issue … barely undecided, as it looked increasingly bleak for the opponents of greedy school privatization charter schools.

After Saturday’s vote-count updates (only 6 counties, only 93,955 additional ballots), little has changed but much has changed. As on Friday, Yes on I-1240 is in the lead by a 50.8% to 49.2% margin. As on Friday, the estimation model suggests that those same numbers will be the final tally.

That’s the case even though Yes did worse on Saturday than its previous cumulative percentage in King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties. In other words, in every county that updated on Saturday, the day-specific percent Yes was lower than the previous percent Yes. In fact, the No side got more votes than Yes on Saturday, thereby narrowing the absolute margin between the two sides. Unfortunately for those of us who oppose profiteering by Gates, et al. charter schools, the absolute margin decreased by … 33 votes. In percentage terms, that’s 49.98% Yes to 50.02% No.

Obviously, it would take a long, long time to beat I-1240 if you’re eating into its lead (43,860 as of Saturday) by 33 votes per day. Over 1300 days, as a matter of fact.

Let’s look at it in a different way. The SoS estimates that there are still 275,250 ballots remaining to be counted, which would result in overall turnout of 79.8%. To overcome Yes‘s through-Saturday margin, the No side would have to win 58.0% of those votes. In the counting thus far, neither side has ever done better on a single day than 54.4% (No on Thursday, when just over 300,000 votes were tallied), so a percentage large enough to reverse the outcome is beyond implausible.

Now suppose the SoS’s estimate of remaining ballots is low. If there were actually 400,000 more ballots to be counted (turnout would then be 83.0%), No would need 55.5% of them to win the race. In the highly unlikely scenario where the estimate is way-low — 500,000 left to be counted, 85.6% turnout — it would still require 54.4% to overtake the Yes lead.

Thus, while the possibility of reversal cannot be ruled out in a mathematical sense, in the real world it can’t be done. To the detriment of public education in Washington, Gates ($3 million) and Walton ($1.7 million) and Allen ($1.6 million) and Bezos ($1 million) and Hanauer ($1 million) bought themselves an initiative.

For the record, Approve R-74 had a banner day on Saturday — 62.2%. Governor-elect Inslee picked up 56.1% of Saturday’s votes. And although she has conceded, Kathleen Drew won 54.1% of the day’s count.

Thus ends this series of daily updates. I hope to be back with more thoughts after it’s all said and done.

Last week’s contest was won by Clara. It was Langley, BC.

For this week’s contest, we’ll once again switch over to using Google’s new 45 degree views. This is a random location somewhere on earth, good luck!

Genesis 37:8
“Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us?” So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.

Discuss.

The tale of Petraeus’ resignation now involves two jealous women, a threatening note from one to the other and, ultimately, an FBI investigation of intimate relationships and potential security breaches.

The F.B.I. found no security breaches.

But one F.B.I. employee wasn’t convinced:

Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said Saturday an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus’s affair and a possible security breach in late October, which was after the investigation had begun.
[…]

Mr. Cantor talked to the person after being told by Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, that a whistle-blower wanted to speak to someone in the Congressional leadership about a national security concern. On Oct. 31, his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, called the F.B.I. to tell them about the call.

Here is what I don’t understand. If the whistle-blower wanted to speak to “Congressional leadership,” shouldn’t Reichert have taken this person to Speaker Boehner? Reichert brought this person to Majority Leader Cantor, who is only the leader of the House Republicans, not Congress.

What’s wrong with Reichert? Is the man brain damaged or something?