Goldy

With about 50,000 ballots left to count, Democratic challenger Mark Begich has pulled ahead of Alaska US Senator Ted Stevens by an insurmountable 3 vote margin.

Well, no, 3 isn’t really an insurmountable number, but from what I’m hearing from the people on the ground in Alaska, the trends most likely are.  So perhaps Alaskans really haven’t reelected a convicted felon.

UPDATE:
Oops.  Begich now leads by 814 votes.

I’m sitting in the PDC meeting right now, courtesy of Toby Nixon, who reminded me of it when he stopped by Drinking Liberally last night, and I realize I forgot to report that Toby has announced that he will not be running for the now elected position of King County Elections Director.

Toby was one of the forces behind changing the position from appointed to elected, and given his interest in the elections process (and his failure to win back his seat in the state House), many of us just assumed he’d run for the post.  Well… no.

Given our conversation last night, I wouldn’t rule out another run for the legislature, but as for now, we won’t have Toby Nixon to kick around anymore.

Light blogging this morning, as I head down to Olympia, where the Public Disclosure Commission is holding a “Stakeholder Meeting Regarding Internet Lobbying.”  Considering some of the questions that will be addressed, I think I’m what one might describe as a stakeholder:

Lobbying Blogs (Web logs)?
o       Are lobbying postings and responses on blogs reportable?
o       Are funds provided to “tip jars” (donation links) on lobbying blogs reportable?

Um… hell no.

If the PDC were to adopt such rules, they would instantly become a playground for harassing bloggers, with organizations and individuals filing PDC complaints willy nilly.  Such rules would also be a major lawsuit waiting to happen, as I’m going to make it clear that under no circumstances would I comply with such rules should they pass… unless, of course, they apply the exact same regulations to Frank Blethen and his staff of paid lobbyists.

I’ll report back from the meeting, but in the meanwhile, the PDC’s Lori Anderson is soliciting public comments, and you can send her an email here.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter defends her newspaper’s biased and crappy reporting on WA-08:

Not only do Northwesterners have a built-in disdain for people who name-drog [sic] fancy colleges, she should not have gotten twisted up in a dispute about a great degree.

Uh-huh.  First of all, that’s the sort of attitude one might expect from somebody who would have gone to a “fancy college,” had she been gifted enough to get in.  But more importantly… talk about blame the victim.  Darcy was totally fucked by the Times over the trivial, front page parsing of a college degree, and Joni’s defense is, well, she shouldn’t have flaunted that sexy education.

I mean, really, Joni?  Darcy deserved to have her political career destroyed over this?  That’s your analysis of the race?  This from the women who argued to my face that it was totally irresponsible for the press to report, just weeks before an election, that David Irons hit his mother?  I’m sensing a double-standard here.

To put this all in perspective, here’s a question for you Joni, and the rest our local media, which I’m guessing neither you nor colleagues have the balls to even acknowledge, let alone answer:  Did Dave Reichert catch the Green River Killer?

Come on… did he?  He sure as hell has taken credit for catching the Green River Killer… over and over and over and over and over again.  In fact, it is fair to say that he has built his entire political career on what is no doubt a shamelessly self-serving exaggeration, if not an out and out lie.

So really, how dare you attack Darcy’s credibility when you and your colleagues not only refuse to debunk the biggest lie in Washington state politics, but were actually complicit in creating and promoting this myth in the first place?

I’m just sayin’…

Seattle Times editorial page editor Jim Vesely is deeply disappointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire’s reelection, so much so, that’s he’s taken to bad mouthing his own readers:

Democrats are doing well on the Eastside of metropolitan Seattle, either through onslaughts by good candidates or the inevitable party-switching that represents tidal change. Yet before the Republican majorities in the far Eastside are snuffed, something remains of their efforts: a general sense that self-absorbed Seattle is not the definer of metropolitan life, that political independence is not the sponge to be soaked up by King County Democrats, and that a way of life on the exurban Plateau has meaning beyond Seattle’s persistent, and effete, condemnation.

“Self-absorbed” and “effete”…?  Really?  This is the sort of profound disaffection Vesely ironically holds for the city whose name is featured in his paper’s masthead?  Wouldn’t it be more honest to rename the paper “The Sammamish Times”?  Is it possible for subscribers to sue the Blethens for false advertising, based on the so-called “Seattle” Times’ blatantly misleading name?

Honestly, how can the Times editors claim to represent the interests of Seattle when they hold such obvious contempt for the city and its residents? And how can their holier than thou exhortations against partisanship be taken the least bit seriously when they prove so eager to fan the flames of such petty and divisive sub-regional factionalism?

I’m just askin’….

I’m in the midst of writing a rather longish post-election analysis of the gubernatorial race, attempting to explain Gov. Chris Gregoire’s decisive victory in what most observers expected to be a nail-biter of a rematch, but I thought I’d take a moment to quickly share a rather heretical observation:  Gregoire not only ran a better campaign, her winning strategy was exemplified by her much maligned ads attacking Dino Rossi for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Of course it is true, as many critics have pointed out, that few if any voters would cast their ballots based on an issue the Seattle Times angrily argued had “nothing to do” with the job of governor, but that critique misses the broader symbolic value of the issue.  What the Gregoire campaign accomplished with these ads was something they failed to even attempt in 2004:  they defined Rossi as a religious conservative, a strategy that ultimately pays off big dividends with our state’s politically split, but decidedly socially libertarian electorate.

In fact, I’d argue that the Gregoire campaign borrowed an earmarked page from the Republican playbook, successfully portraying the Governor as the candidate who best represented the values of the majority of voters.  And toward that end, these stem cell ads proved to be an extremely effective if subtle tactic.

One could have attacked Rossi on his opposition to legal abortion, but a lot of people oppose abortion on moral grounds, and we tend to be a religiously tolerant nation.  One could have attacked Rossi on the pharmacist rule or abstinence only sex education, but these are complicated issues not easily explained in a 30-second spot.  But the stem cell research issue proved to be a perfect proxy, defining Rossi as a candidate who would impose his own conservative religious values even into the realm of science, adversely affecting the ability of individuals to make health care decisions for themselves.  In effect, these stem cell ads defined Rossi as too conservative for Washington, along the lines of Ellen Craswell and John Carlson.

Indeed, this values theme was repeated throughout Gov. Gregoire’s paid media, for example, on the issues of education and children’s health care.  Even on the issue of our state’s projected multi-billion dollar revenue shortfall, the Gregoire campaign focused on her pro-children values, emphasizing that Rossi attempted to cut health care for 40,000 children while the Governor expanded the rolls, and that Gregoire had increased spending on education while Rossi’s transportation spending proposal would come at the expense of our schools.  Who do you best trust to balance our budget, Gregoire asked, leaving it to voters to choose the candidate who best represented their values.

By comparison, the Rossi campaign was for the most part value free, attacking Gregoire on her performance in office—taxes, spending, budget deficit, etc.—while failing to even attempt to define the Governor as too liberal, apart from a half-hearted last ditch effort to claim she would impose an income tax.  Likewise, following 2004’s successful Tabula Rossi strategy—in which voters read moderation into his refusal to discuss social issues—Rossi even declined to define himself.  Only this time around, the Gregoire campaign did it for him.  As Stuart Elway noted in his October poll:

“Gregoire has an edge on values among those who care most about those issues.  Gregoire is seen as Moderate Liberal.  Rossi is seen as conservative.  He wasn’t in 2004.”

This shift in public perception of Rossi’s values proved to be one of the major differences between 2004 and 2008… and it didn’t happen by accident.  Score one for the Gregoire campaign.

The King County Sheriff’s Department, prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement officials have sounded the alarm over impending budget cuts, warning that they could result in a significant adverse impact on public safety.  And no doubt that’s true.

But as municipal governments statewide struggle to cope with the economic downturn and its resulting decline in sales and property tax revenues, it is important to remember that the criminal justice system comprises over 70 percent of the general fund of nearly every county in the state, and thus any substantial decline in local tax revenues is going to inevitably impact public safety.  You simply cannot effectively address substantial budget shortfalls without addressing the largest part of your budget.

Washington Democrats have every reason to be cheered over last Tuesday’s election results, but as far as I can tell our party leaders have no plan in place to address our long term state and local structural revenue deficit… a deficit that when adjusted for good and bad economic times, assures that tax revenues cannot possibly keep pace with economic growth, and thus cannot possibly keep pace with growth in demand for public services.

If what we want is a dramatically smaller government, we can elect Republicans, or, apparently, we can elect Democrats, and just gradually get to the same place by default.  If that’s what voters really want, just don’t complain when the Sheriff’s Department starts laying off officers.

Yesterday, I was watching President-elect Barack Obama’s first post-election press conference, when Will called, and I scolded him for interrupting me while I was watching “my President.”  And I suddenly realized how long it’s been since I was able to utter the phrase “my President,” without throwing up in my mouth.

A historic election indeed.

Darcy issued the following brief statement:

“It is likely at this point that Congressman Reichert has won re-election, and while we will certainly ensure that every valid vote is counted, we accept the decision of the voters.

“I would like to thank the thousands of people who put so much time and effort into the campaign, as well as the countless thousands more who went beyond voting to actively participate in our democratic process this year. The election of Barack Obama as our new President will ensure that the change to the direction of our country called for in this campaign is realized in the new year.”

I will write my own analysis later, but for the moment, I can’t disagree with Joan’s comments over at Daily Kos:

The Seattle Times spurious attack on Darcy’s character, calling her a liar because she accurately described her Harvard degree, apparently worked. So they succeeded in re-electing an already ineffective incumbent who will be even more so mired deep in the minority, with a Democratic president.

Congratulations, Emily Heffter and the Seattle Times. You just assured progress on key issues like transportation and environmental protection in the 8th District won’t have an effective proponent in the House. At least we’ve got good Senators.

I want to thank all of you here at HA who contributed so much time, money and support to Darcy during her two campaigns.  And I want to thank Darcy for dedicating four years out of her life to this cause.  I don’t know if she’ll ever serve in Congress, but I sincerely doubt that this is the last we’ve heard of Darcy Burner.

I’ve read a number of analyses attempting to explain Gov. Chris Gregoire’s decisive, 8-point victory over Dino Rossi in what has long been heralded as a nail-biter of a race, and I find it curious that everybody seems to miss the obvious:  voters were largely satisfied with the Governor’s job performance during her first four years in office.

Everybody was so focused on casting this race as a rematch of 2004’s virtual tie, that they seemed to ignore the dramatically different circumstances.  Four years ago this was a race for an open seat, pitting two contrasting personalities against each year.  The state decidedly leans Democratic, but Rossi came off as more personable, while an over-confident Gregoire campaign failed to challenge the Republican’s vague mask of moderation.  Meanwhile, Rossi’s “she’s too liberal,” “she’s gonna raise your taxes,” “she’s an Olympia insider” attacks resonated enough to make Gregoire appear a risky choice to many crucial swing voters.

But over the past four years Washington voters have come to know Gov. Gregoire… not as well as they should have, but well enough.  And as it so happens, it turned out she wasn’t too liberal, she didn’t ignore Eastern Washington, and apart from the gas and estate taxes—both approved overwhelmingly at the polls—Gregoire didn’t raise our taxes.

Fear of the unknown is a powerful force, but this time around Gregoire was known… and she just didn’t come off as all that scary, no matter how many times that asshole pitchman poured gasoline on a flaming stack of money.

This isn’t rocket science.  This was a referendum on the Governor’s job performance.  And on that measure, Gregoire won hands down, increasing her margins in 30 of 39 counties.

Of course, the strategy and execution of the two campaigns also came into play, as did various other external factors, and I’ll have more to say on that a little later.  But with even the post-election analysis of Gregoire’s own campaign manager failing to mention Gregoire’s job performance as a critical factor, I just wanted to give a little credit where credit was due.

For all our differences on policy and strategy, and there are more than a few, Chris Gregoire has proven herself to be an excellent governor… and in reelecting her, our state’s electorate has proven itself to be an excellent judge of both character and competence.

Initiative 1029 is passing by a lopsided 73-27 percent margin, and how do the editors at the Seattle Times celebrate this exercise in direct democracy?

The Legislature and the governor should exercise their right to overturn this initiative immediately. That’s a tall order, because it would require two-thirds vote of both houses if lawmakers opt to do it within two years of passage.

Hear that?  The Times thinks three quarters of its readers are idiots, easily deceived by an “artfully worded ballot measure.”

I’ve long argued that the intiative process is a crappy way to write legislation, and I don’t doubt that I-1029 might have benefited from a more deliberative process.  But for a paper that routinely defends anti-tax, anti-government, anti-labor initiatives as inviolate expressions of “the will of the people,” this editorial reads as a masterful stroke of unselfconcious hypocrisy.

Had the execrable and unworkable I-985 passed on Tuesday, even by the slightest of margins, would the Times have demanded that the Legislature exercise its “right” to overturn the initiative?  How about the blatantly unconstitutional and anti-democratic I-960, that passed by a narrow 51-49 percent margin, yet requires a two-thirds majority for any tax or fee increase?  Would the Times cheer a legislative effort to exercise their “right” to overturn that initiative?

I don’t think so.

So be forewarned.  The next time the Times editors defend an initiative or the initiative process by cynically appealing to “the will of the people,” I’m going to shove today’s editorial so far up Fairview’s fanny they’ll have newsprint coming out of their mouths.

Um… it doesn’t look good.  Again, we don’t know where the ballots are coming from, or if they’re being counted in any particular temporal order, but Reichert won the last King County drop by a large margin, and it’s beginning to look like a trend.  It’s too early to concede, but unless things go substantially in Darcy’s favor in today’s count, it’ll be time to start crying in my beer.

The AP’s Curt Woodward has written his post-election analysis of the governor’s race, in which he largely credits (blames?) Obama’s “Superman-style” coattails and the economic meltdown for Gov. Gregoire’s big, election night victory.  And let’s not forget that “high-stakes politically motivated lawsuit.”

In fact, the only non-external factors Woodward credits to the campaign itself were Gregoire’s performance in the final debate, a few “half-truths” about Rossi’s stance on the minimum wage, and a last minute text message to Pierce County voters. That said, Woodward points out, “Gregoire’s campaign definitely had its flaws…”

She allowed Rossi to define her early on, and took some time to formulate a “change” theme that tied her campaign to Obama’s.

Even in victory, there were perplexing missteps. Gregoire’s campaign, for instance, didn’t provide the governor – or even a senior campaign official – for an interview Tuesday night or Wednesday with The Associated Press, which has the widest statewide reach of any news organization.

Yup, the most glaring flaw in Gregoire’s campaign was its failure to show proper deference to the AP… or so says the AP.  I guess that explains the glowing post-election analysis.