Goldy

In the months leading up to an election, candidates vie against each other for political and media endorsements, and in the liberal-eat-liberal world of Puget Sound politics none is more keenly prized than the non-endorsement from my good friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics. For example, yesterday Stefan publicly threw his support behind Bruce Harrell for Seattle City Council, and today Harrell’s opponent, Venus Velazquez, triumphantly issued a press release touting her victory.

Congratulations Venus, your win in November is virtually assured.

Since rising to prominence with his feverishly paranoid coverage of the 2004 gubernatorial election contest, Stefan has proved a cannily accurate inverse bell weather of local politics, earning his endorsements the well deserved reputation as a political kiss of death. Indeed, considering his track record, the only thing more feared than Stefan endorsing your victory is him predicting it.

Amusingly, Stefan relies on a clip of Velazquez at the Hate Free Zone forum to justify his endorsement of Harrell, arguing that her appeal to minority voters to vote for leaders “who look like you … who come from you,” is inherently and unforgivably racist. Yet Stefan fails to inform his readers that Harrell — who was always Velazquez’s main opponent — is himself half-Asian, half-African American, so that any such appeal would apply to him as much as it does to her. How typically Stefan.

I’ve had the chance to talk one-on-one with both Velazquez and Harrell, and to be honest, I wasn’t excited by either one of them. But to her credit Velazquez actually argued with me about issues rather than just trying to win me over. I’ve heard that Velazquez has a reputation as being a bit brash and hard to work with, and Stefan warns that she’ll be a “shrill… divisive and… toxic presence on the Council.” But… well… that may be exactly the type presence the Council needs to shake things up and provide a little balance to our sometimes imperious mayor.

UPDATE:
Will just called me to remind me of his wise words to Harrell from way back in April:

Don’t let Stefan endorse you. Don’t email him campaign updates. Hope he doesn’t write about your campaign in any way favorable. Make no mistake, Stefan is the “Kiss of Death”. Just ask Robert Rosencrantz and Casey Corr, who both got hammered (Rosencrantz twice!) in city races. I’m amazed that Seattle’s preeminent wingnut blogger doesn’t understand how radioactive he is. Republican Jim Nobles, the first “out” Republican to run for city office since the 1980’s, is too smart to embrace Stefan and his mean–spirited, petulant, race-baiting politics.

While we’re somewhat on the subject, and in the interest of full disclosure, I thought I’d let it be known that I made a public records request this morning regarding the handful of performance audits that Ted Van Dyk seems so jazzed about:

Later this month, state Auditor Brian Sonntag will release such audits of the Washington State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit and, shortly thereafter, of the Port of Seattle. All three audits will precede fall elections and could have important impacts on voter decisions about the Sound Transit-RTID regional transportation package and Port of Seattle Commission races.

The more I re-read that paragraph the more suspicious I got, especially in light of recent rumors and hints that the anti-transit crowd has been leaked information regarding the upcoming reports. Van Dyk seems to think it a great thing that performance audits be timed for release just weeks before crucial votes regarding these agencies, but I can’t help suspect it an overtly political maneuver. It is also potentially the death knell for performance audits as a useful tool in Washington state.

Performance audits are not comparable to financial audits in either scope or purpose. You don’t just bring in a third party to examine the books in search of waste, fraud or abuse, but rather, you observe and analyze the performance of an agency and its procedures for the purpose of recommending changes that could lead to greater efficiencies. While in a worst case scenario a performance audit could conclude that an agency does not fulfill its mission at all, it is mostly meant as a productivity tool, and as such requires the full cooperation of the management and staff being audited if it is to be effective. If instead, performance audits are used as a means to politically punish and embarrass an agency — including, say, influencing elections — then future audits on other agencies will never gain the inside trust and cooperation necessary to conduct them.

Yes, voters deserve to know how well Sound Transit and WSDOT are spending our money before we vote them more of it, but if these audits are perceived to be politically motivated hatchet jobs, their reports won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. And if officials within the auditor’s office or the outside contractors have been improperly communicating with opponents of the Roads & Transit measure, soliciting their input and leaking results, then I can’t see how these so-called “performance audits” can be understood to be genuine performance audits at all, let alone impartial and unbiased.

My hope is that Brian Sonntag’s office has been scrupulous in overseeing these audits and in hiring contractors who are equally scrupulous and unbiased, but the timing of these audits and their reports does give me pause. I’m generally loathe to investigate my sneaking suspicions at taxpayer expense, but I didn’t really see any other choice. My fingers are crossed that my public records request turns up nothing of interest.

I don’t know what’s gonna be worse for WA Republicans… Dino Rossi running, or not running?

According to today’s Seattle Times, the FBI finally has a plan to combat WA’s epidemic of bank robberies:

Special Agent Larry Carr plans to work with Washington state lawmakers on legislation that would forbid banks from doing business with customers who wear hats and sunglasses while inside the bank.

Carr, who heads the FBI’s bank-robbery division in Seattle, said that most bank robbers cover their heads “with a hat, sunglasses or a hoodie [hooded sweat shirt]” to avoid being identified by surveillance photos. With most bank security cameras positioned in front of and above customers, the disguises are often successful because the cameras capture the bill of a cap or brim of a hat, he said.

Yeah, sure… or, they could just, you know… move the cameras. I mean, cameras can be incredibly tiny these days. You could unobtrusively install one at every teller window — from an angle looking up at the customer — and a would be robber would never know it’s there. And I’m not exactly sure how this new dress code would effectively avoid scenarios like this:

Teller:	Excuse me sir, but bank policy and state law require that you remove your sunglasses and hoodie.
Bank Robber:	Put all your fucking money in this bag, or I’ll blow your head off, bitch!

Personally, I wear sunglasses all the time, summer and winter, rain or shine, and as I get older (and balder) I’m more frequently wearing hats to protect my naked scalp from sun and cold. It’s only polite to remove one’s sunglasses when engaged in conversation, and I try to remember to de-accessorize indoors, but I sometimes forget they’re even on. I doubt my personal eyewear habits would eventually lead me to a brush with the law, but one can easily imagine such uncomfortable situations, like when a devout Muslim woman refuses to remove her head scarf.

Hmm. I wonder if the vehemently anti-gun control folks have any problems with law abiding citizens like me being told we can’t wear hats and tinted glasses in banks? I know my sunglasses aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it strikes me that eroding our civil liberties, even minor ones, should be law enforcement’s last resort.

Maybe some day, when I’m old and curmudgeonly and stuck in the past enough to get a job writing a column for a major daily newspaper, I can be just like the P-I’s Ted Van Dyk…

One of the most difficult things to do, in any part of life, is to make judgments on the basis of facts and principles rather than on our feelings about personalities.

Yeah, and when you’re talking about facts and stuff, it might be a good idea to actually research them, rather than just kinda-sorta drawing from your personal recollection. Take for example Van Dyk’s defense of Tim Eyman, whose initiatives he both criticizes as “arbitrary” and “disruptive”, and lauds as resonating with an angry electorate.

But wait a minute. Why do Eyman’s proposals gain broad public support, even when losing?

Um… in a democracy, isn’t “losing” an election kinda the opposite of “broad public support”…?

It is because they resonate in an electorate just plain fed up with undisciplined and even mischievous state and local spending and taxing decisions. Eyman’s ballot measures become send-a-message blunt instruments for ordinary citizens.

Eyman’s initiatives resonate with voters? Really? Let’s take a look at Eyman’s electoral performance over the past few years and see how Van Dyk’s assumptions hold up:

	2006:	I-917 — YATDCTB ("Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative") Eyman spent nearly $738,000 — most of it Michael Dunmire’s money — yet failed to collect enough signatures to qualify this dog for the ballot.
	2005:	I-900 — Performance Audits Passed with 56% of the vote.  By comparison, the other two winning initiatives that year, the "Indoor Clean Air Act" and the totally unsexy "Commission on Judicial Conduct," pulled in 63 and 68 percent of the vote respectively.
	2004:	I-892 — "Slots for Tots" Failed with only 38% of the vote, the worst of that year’s five statewide measures.  Eyman’s I-864, which would have cut local property tax levies by 25% across the board, failed to qualify for the ballot after five months of canvassing.
	2003:	I-807 — "Super Majority for Tax & Fee Increases" Sounds familiar?  Well without Michael Dunmire’s money, this first incarnation of I-960 failed to qualify for the ballot.

So… um… how exactly do you “gain broad public support, even when losing,” initiatives that never even get far enough to lose? Van Dyk imagines he has his finger on the pulse of Washington voters, but if he did, you’d think he might have noticed that Eyman politically flat-lined years ago. Eyman didn’t even manage to qualify a single anti-tax initiative over the previous four years, let alone pass one, and since 2002 has relied almost exclusively on sugar daddy Michael Dunmire and the gambling industry to finance his paid signature drives. In the interim, voters have overwhelmingly rejected both gas tax and estate tax repeal, while local levies routinely passed throughout the state. Yeah… voters are clearly “just plain fed up.”

Van Dyk goes on to berate the rail portion of the coming Roads & Transit measure, warning it will “snarl traffic and harm the economy,” and yet polls consistently show that light rail is exactly the portion of the measure most popular with voters. What exactly is Van Dyk’s definition of an “ordinary citizen”…? Kemper Freeman Jr.?

With logic like that Van Dyke almost makes Eyman seem sensible. Almost.

UPDATE:
Andrew’s got a more comprehensive Eyman Failure Chart up at Permanent Defense.

Courtesy of SeattleJew.

Is Dino Rossi running for governor? He says not. In fact he looks a reporter straight in the eyes and tells him that his actions as a non-candidate now — traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda — “are very different” from his actions as a declared candidate in 2004… traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda. Yet it’s the exact same policy agenda, and indeed, the exact same stump speech that he delivered as a declared candidate. The only difference is that back in 2004 his campaign was held to all the contribution limits and public disclosure requirements of any other candidate, whereas now he claims his bullshit foundation can launder unlimited contributions in secret, and with impunity.

This is more than just an issue of whether Rossi has found some technical loophole that allows him to skirt our campaign finance and public disclosure laws simply by not officially declaring his candidacy. This about Rossi lying… to the public and to the press. He looks the reporter straight in the eyes and lies. And I hope my friends in the media remember this as the campaign progresses.

Last time around Rossi got a free pass from many in the media, who repeatedly failed to press him when he refused to give direct answers on questions about abortion, stem cell research and other defining issues. Rossi, holding one of the most conservative voting records in the Legislature, was allowed to pass himself off as a moderate. Rossi, a man with a history of running such mean-spirited campaigns that several of his primary opponents refused to endorse him, was allowed to pass himself off as a nice guy. Rossi, a man who lies to reporters, was allowed to pass himself off as honest and credible.

The public has a right to know who is funding Rossi’s non-campaign. And the media has an obligation to relentlessly press Rossi to disclose his contributions.

The Stranger announced its Political Genius awards today, and apparently, I’m not one. That’s okay. I don’t like cake. Besides, how could I possibly hope to compete with such tough competition? Hell, just look at one of the runners-up:

Political consultant Sandeep Kaushik, 60, displayed his first signs of genius in 2005 when he quit The Stranger, where he’d been a political reporter for three years.

King County Executive Ron Sims recognized Kaushik’s smarts and stole him away from us, hiring the dazzling Jim Beam drinker as an election strategist.

Jim Beam? Hah! Sandeep’s moved on to Makers Mark. Shows you what Josh knows.

Kaushik is poised to cap his rise as a political whiz with two major campaigns: He’s advocating for the biggest tax increase in state history, the $17.8 billion Roads and Transit initiative (hoping to expand light rail with 50 new miles of track) and, in a prime-time spot, he’s heading up spin for Darcy Burner, the Democrat who’s trying to knock off GOP Eastside incumbent Congressman Dave Reichert. Kaushik already chased Burner’s Democratic primary rival out of the race.

In 2000, little-known consultant Christian Sinderman emerged as a star by helping get Maria Cantwell elected. Sinderman is now the hottest political guru in the state. If Kaushik sends Burner to Congress, he’ll be the new Sinderman.

No doubt Sandeep’s political instincts and media connections are fast making him a political powerhouse — as Postman well knows, Josh pretty much writes whatever Sandeep tells him to write. So why did Sandeep have Josh write him a measly runner-up citation instead of the big award?

Well really, who deserves to take home the cake more than Cary Moon, the woman who somehow took the idea of a surface alternative to the Alaska Way Viaduct from lunatic fringe to political consensus?

Moon’s political genius is her ability to see the long-term picture; when others laughed at her for supporting what many called a ridiculous, long-shot option (“But where will all the cars go?”), Moon ignored them. While leaders bickered over whether to replace the viaduct with a larger viaduct or expensive tunnel, Moon quietly bided her time, consciously threading the needle between the two opposing positions. Over time, she gained the confidence of opinion leaders such as Council Member Peter Steinbrueck, an environmental advocate who saw the surface/transit option as a way to save billions and improve the climate in the bargain.

Then came last March’s vote against both waterfront freeway options. That “no/no” vote wasn’t just a defeat for the mayor’s tunnel and the governor’s bigger, uglier new viaduct. It was also a major victory for Moon and others who supported the surface/transit option, which emerged as the most affordable, environmentally sustainable option, and the officially “preferred” option of both the mayor and the city council and all the current council candidates.

Of course, there could be one more reason for Cary’s triumph over Sandeep:

Yesterday Joel Connelly gave The Stranger a little heat for their coverage of the Seattle City Council race between incumbent David Della and challenger Tim Burgess. I didn’t really understand Joel’s First Amendment argument, but I suppose I kinda-sorta got his outrage at political purity, even if I disagree with it.

Should Burgess’ less than firmly pro-choice history, and past record of working for vehemently anti-choice groups disqualify him from serving on the city council? Joel says no. The Stranger apparently says yes. Well now WA’s leading advocate for reproductive rights comes in on the side of The Stranger, endorsing Della over Burgess.

“Typically we don’t make endorsements in Seattle City Council races because, in the past, all candidates were clearly pro-choice,” explained Karen Cooper, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. “But questions and concerns arose over this specific race after we learned of Tim Burgess’s longtime association with Concerned Women for America, a virulently anti-choice, anti-woman organization,” Cooper added.

I talked with Cooper this afternoon, and she went even further than the press release, describing Concerned Women for America as “a hate group.”

The couple of times I’ve met Burgess I liked him. He seems like a reasonable, competent guy. But in the end we tend to vote for people who reflect our values, and when we don’t we’re bound to be disappointed.

Should Burgess’ years of working for Concerned Women for America absolutely disqualify him from office in this very blue city? I suppose not… at least not absolutely. But voters have a right to know the candidate’s entire biography, and our local media has a responsibility to report it. My guess is that if voters understood about Burgess what The Stranger and NARAL Pro-Choice WA understand about Burgess, he wouldn’t stand a chance in November. Perhaps that’s unfair to Burgess. But to keep that information from the public would be unfair to voters, and counter to the Democratic process.

There are actually ten different versions of this ad, each targeted to specific geographic communities. This is the kind of smart campaign that helped defeat I-912, by informing voters what the money raised specifically does for them. Makes it a lot harder to defeat the measure with broad generalities. And you know… lies.

Ever read a comment by one of the trolls in HA’s threads, and wonder if the author is brain damaged? Well, apparently….

The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.

In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain’s cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.

The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.

“Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there’s a detour and you need to override your autopilot,” said NYU psychologist David Amodio. “Most people function just fine. But there’s a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course.”

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

Of course the study evoked outrage from conservative pundits… what do you expect from folks who are so rigid, closed-minded, fearful, aggressive, and less tolerant of ambiguity and new experiences? But not to worry, just like with evolution and climate change, conservatives have the perfect answer to science that challenges their rigid ideology… they reject it.

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmm. I could readily accept that conclusion.

UPDATE:
I’ve already received a couple angry emails, and I apologize. It was at the very least insensitive if not downright hurtful, and certainly inappropriate of me to make fun of people who suffer from organic brain disorders like conservatism. And so I’d like to shift gears and ask your help in coming up with a more appropriate label for this debilitating disease, that both honors the humanity of its sufferers and recognizes the love and joy that they can bring into our lives, despite their crippling disability.

In the comment threads, SeattleJew has suggested Conservative Brain Defect (CBD), though I believe Conservative Brain Disorder might be more value neutral. I’ve also suggested that we might just refer to conservatives as the “cognitively challenged.” Or perhaps maybe “differently ideological abled”…? “Hannitycapped”…? “Poliplegic”…?

Please add your suggestions in the comment thread and we’ll conduct a poll later this week.

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

7PM: Is Gen. Petraeus “dead flat wrong”…?
Gen. Petraeus will testify before Congress tomorrow, and dollars to donuts he’ll tell America that progress is being made on the ground in Iraq, the “Surge” is working, and that he expects troop levels to start coming down next spring. I’ve already lost faith in President Bush’s newest military scapegoat… have you?

8PM: Can Richard Pope, um… win?
Perennial candidate Richard Pope is taking on drunk driving Jane Hague for King County Council… a classic battle between a gadfly and a barfly. Richard Pope joins us for the hour to explain how he can win, and what we can expect from him in office.

9PM: TBA

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

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

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh and Erica
Charles Mudede previews the Genius Awards.

8PM: Time to cut taxes in WA?
Should FlexCar drivers pay 19% tax? Should a two-thirds majority be required for all tax and fee increases?

9PM: The Blogger Hour with Will

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

I guess, what I don’t understand about newspaper editorial boards could fill a book:

We were startled today to get a request for an editorial board meeting with Darcy Burner, the Democratic challenger itching for a rematch next year with Eighth District U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert.

It’s way too early, we told Burner’s eager scheduler. Call us next year.

“Startled”…? Really? They were actually startled? You know, like when somebody sneaks up on you from behind, or like when Jason Michael Myers from Halloween suddenly comes at you with a knife?

I dunno, I’d think it should be pretty obvious that Burner would want to start talking to opinion makers now that she has dispatched her only rival for the Democratic nomination, and I’d also think TNT editors might be eager to talk with her considering that many of the issues at the heart of her campaign are issues they’ll surely be editorializing about over the next fourteen months. If Reichert, a sitting congressman, were to come to them and ask for a meeting, would they tell him to “call us next year” as well? Would they be just as startled? (Well, probably, but only because Reichert carefully avoids unscripted conversations with the press.)

It is not uncommon for journalists to bitch about their lack of access to one public official or another. You’d think TNT editors might want to extend to candidate Burner the same sort of courtesy they’d expect a Rep. Burner to extend to them.

I’m just sayin’.

At last, I have vindication, and oddly enough I somewhat have Tim Eyman to thank for it. Back in 2003 Assistant State Attorney General Jim Pharris priggishly and selectively brought a scope challenge against I-831, my initiative to officially proclaim Tim Eyman a horse’s ass, and got an equally priggish Thurston County Superior Court judge to unconstitutionally bar me from delivering petitions to the Secretary of State. Pharris assumed that I would lack the financial resources to appeal the case, and he was right.

But this morning, in unanimously rejecting a pre-ballot review of Eyman’s clearly unconstitutional I-960, the Washington State Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that it would have rejected the lower court’s “unwarranted judicial meddling” and allowed the people to decide on Eyman’s well-documented horse’s assedness.

Preelection review of initiative measures is highly disfavored. The fundamental reason is that “the right of initiative is nearly as old as our constitution itself, deeply ingrained in our state’s history, and widely revered as a powerful check and balance on the other branches of government.” Given the preeminence of the initiative right, pre-election challenges to the substantive validity of initiatives are particularly disallowed. Such review, if engaged in, would involve the court in rendering advisory opinions, would violate ripeness requirements, would undermine the policy of avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions, and would constitute unwarranted judicial meddling with the legislative process.

That Pharris would selectively and vindictively prosecute a scope challenge against I-831, and then argue the reverse a few years later in defending I-960, just shows what an ethically rudderless, stick-up-his-ass hypocrite he really is. But then, he’s a lawyer, so that’s his job. The Seattle Times editorial board on the other hand has no such excuse for their blatant hypocrisy. They smugly urged I-831 be tossed out, and then bemoaned a similar challenge to I-960. I expect an apology any day now.