Goldy

Score one for Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Seattle) in his decade-long legal battle with House majority leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH).

A federal appeals court has agreed to hear new arguments in a case involving an illegally taped telephone call leaked to reporters by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash.

In an announcement late Monday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said all nine judges will hear McDermott’s appeal of the taped call case, which dates back nearly a decade. Arguments will be heard in September, the court said.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in March that McDermott violated federal law by turning over the tape recording of a 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

In granting a new hearing the appeals court vacated the panel’s 2-1 ruling that ordered McDermott to pay Boehner $60,000 in damages and over $600,000 in legal fees.

McDermott tends to spark a lot of emotion from both sides the political spectrum, and thus most people seem to approach this case from a partisan perspective. Republicans would be thrilled to see one of their most outspoken critics punitively pushed into bankruptcy by this case, while many Democrats defend McDermott as a whistle-blower who exposed Gingrich’s double-dealing and ultimately led to his resignation.

But the issue at stake here is really much more fundamental; it is about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I for one receive unsolicited information all the time — sometimes anonymously — and I can never be sure of its provenance. If McDermott ultimately loses his case it means I could be sued or prosecuted for publishing information that may have been obtained illegally, even if I had no part in, or even knowledge of the crime.

Wanna put me out of business? Slip me an illegally obtained legal document and then sue away. Imagine the chilling effect if journalists, bloggers and private citizens risked financial ruin for passing on information of vital public interest.

Here’s hoping that both McDermott and the Constitution prevail.

I’ve made no secret that as I pursue a career in radio, I look to John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur as role models of sorts. But Rush Limbaugh, not so much…

Sources have confirmed to CBS4 News that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been detained at Palm Beach International Airport for the possible possession of illegal prescription drugs Monday evening.

Limbaugh was returning on a flight from the Dominican Republic when officials found the drugs, among them Viagra.

Limbaugh entered a plea deal back in April in a previous case where his charge of fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions was dropped under the condition he continue undergoing treatment for addiction.

Limbaugh had admitted to being addicted to pain killers on his radio program and had entered a rehabilitation program prior to that arrest.

I hope Limbaugh finally gets the addiction treatment he needs, and comes away with a newfound respect for human frailty. (Hat tip to Raw Story.)

Jim Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies writes a comprehensive essay on global warming for The New York Review of Books, in which he references three books on the subject, Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers, Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe, and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. This is a weighty essay of some length, so if you don’t have the time to read it in its entirety, check out Lynn’s excellent synopsis over Evergreen Politics.

Hmm. So why is it that supposedly sound people still ridicule global warming in the face of such an overwhelming scientific consensus? And why does Hansen feel it necessary to preface his essay with the disclaimer that his opinions are expressed “as personal views under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution”…?

I actually cringed reading the piece on Rep. Dave Reichert in this morning’s Seattle Times. It starts out so fawning and trite, I would have shredded the paper to pieces if I wasn’t reading it online. But as the piece continued, it started to reveal the real Reichert to readers. I just hope most people read as far as I did.

I don’t know if it was the reporter’s fault or that of the editor, but if you only read the headline and the first half of the article you’d think Reichert was a rising superstar, instead of the fumbling, pretty-boy loyalist he’s proven to be during his first term. But in that sense this piece is kind of the perfect metaphor for Reichert himself: all hairdo, no head.

While you may have trouble keeping your breakfast down reading about Reichert’s supposed “courage” and “old-fashioned grit,” keep reading until you get to the heart of the piece:

Tall, with a strong resemblance to actor Leslie Nielsen, his demeanor reflected “suave” and “aw, shucks” simultaneously. Capitol Hill papers called him a potential star.

“He’s right out of central casting,” Peter King, R-N.Y, said.

But Reichert’s shiny finish began wearing off almost as soon as he was sworn in.

He was late setting up his office, and finding advisers and issues

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

It’s 90 degrees in Seattle today, but it’ll be even hotter tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM. (Actually, it’s pretty chilly in the studio… that “hot” thing was just a stupid figure of speech.)

7PM: Can senate challenger Mike McGavick really run as a “moderate” and “independent” when he’s filling his campaign coffers from mining, oil, insurance and the rest of the GOP’s usual suspects? We get a totally unbiased, objective, nonpartisan answer from WA State Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz.

8PM: What will it take for Democrats to win in Eastern Washington? We’ll get the answer from rancher, microbiologist, and Democratic candidate for congress (WA-05), Peter Goldmark.

9PM: If I spoke out in favor of poisoning Supreme Court justices and killing congressman, or attacked 9/11 widows as “witches” and “harpies”… I’d be pretty damned marginalized. Whereas when Ann Coulter does it, she simply sells more books. Local author and blogger (Orcinus) David Neiwert has been tracking the steady drip of violent, right-wing extremist rhetoric into the mainstream, and he joins me for the Blogger Hour to try to answer the question: Why won’t Republicans disavow Ann Coulter?

Tune in tonight and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Yet another inconvenient truth: the LA Times reports that Greenland’s ice sheet has defied computer models, and is now sliding into the ocean three times faster than previously recorded.

I think I’ll go check out some beach-front property… in Tukwila.

I’m blogging on the radio tonight (7 PM to 10 PM, 710-KIRO), so you all talk amongst yourselves.

In addition to my normal Sunday night slot, I’m subbing for Frank Shiers tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM.

7PM: How do we achieve energy independence in WA state and nationwide? Rep. Jay Inslee joins us to discuss the New Apollo Project and the Renewable Energy Initiative (I-937), plus a congressional update.

8PM: Can Seattle afford to fix its transportation problems? Can we afford not to? The Stranger’s Erica C. Barnett drops by to give us the latest on the Viaduct, the 520 Floating Bridge, expanded bus service… and how we’re gonna pay for it all.

9PM: Can politicians continue to lie in the age of the blogosphere without looking like, um… liars? We’ll be talking to Darryl of Hominid Views about how his debunking of a Mike McGavick fib managed to quickly wend its way through the newspapers, and how this might change political campaigns for the better.

Tune in or, um… don’t.

I do not know much about University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill other than the headlines. Apparently, he’s produced some questionable research and some unquestionably offensive remarks, and some in the right-wing punditocracy have cynically tried to paint him as a left-wing standard bearer. (Um… he’s not.)

So I was curious to learn of his recent speaking engagement at Western Washington University, and surprised to read the following account:

When he finished with his speech, Churchill invited Aaron Dixon, co-founder of the Seattle Chapter of the Black Panther Party and a Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, to the stage.

Dixon said he supports Churchill’s ideas and treasures the camaraderie they shared after living through the aftermath of their mutual friend, [Fred] Hampton’s, death.

Um… personally, I tend to fall on the side of academic freedom no matter what the political perspective, but if I were a serious candidate for U.S. Senate, I don’t think I’d be publicly stating my unqualified support for the ideas of a man who infamously described the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns.”

I dunno. Just seems like a lapse of political judgement on Dixon’s part.

Way back in November I proposed that one of the funding mechanisms for coming up with the extra bucks to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct with a tunnel should be a “special taxing district,” much like the local improvement district that is funding half the costs of the South Lake Union streetcar line. And just for good measure I repeated the suggestion again in March.

Well, whatever his inspiration, it is gratifying to see Mayor Greg Nickels asking property owners who stand to benefit most from the tunnel alternative to consider exactly that — a local improvement district that could defray as much as $250 million of the project’s cost. According to Office of Policy and Management deputy director Michael Mann:

“It’s an appropriate way to help fund it,” he said “There are clearly properties that will benefit, so that’s what we’re working on.”

Sure, this is a pretty obvious piece of the funding puzzle so I’m certainly not suggesting that the Mayor is getting his budgeting cues from the pages of HA. (Though he could certainly do worse.) Still, you can’t blame me for patting myself on the back for being so far out in front on such a creative revenue proposal.

And it wouldn’t be the first the time.

After the recent ruling invalidating Initiative 747’s property tax revenue limits, Governor Christine Gregoire and other elected officials were quick to reassure voters that they would restore some sort of property tax relief should the decision survive appeal. But before Olympia jumps to re-legislate Tim Eyman’s ridiculous one percent cap — or even some higher, more reasonable figure — I hope they carefully consider a proposal I have been pushing for nearly three years: a Property Tax Homestead Exemption.

The concept is simple; every homeowner is offered a flat exemption on their primary residence — their “homestead” — while property tax rates are increased to offset any lost revenues. Because the proportion of property exempted declines the higher the relative price of the home, the amount of relief provided, both in real dollars and percent of total burden, declines accordingly. Essentially, the lowest priced homes see the greatest tax relief while the highest priced homes would see a modest tax increase.

Sound confusing? Link on over to TaxSanity.org where a handy chart shows the impact a $30,000 homestead exemption would have had on average property taxes back in 2004. Forget about the actual numbers, as that part is up for negotiation. The point is that only the top 4% of homeowners would see a rise in property taxes, while owners of low priced homes would realize substantial tax relief.

Like my proposal for a local improvement district to help pay for a tunnel, the Property Tax Homestead Exemption is not some harebrained idea I pulled out of my ass… indeed 37 other states already have a similar exemption, credit or circuit-breaker to help protect low- and middle-income homeowners from the tax impact of rapidly rising property values. Over the past few years such an exemption was twice introduced to the Legislature, and was an integral part of Ron Sims’ tax restructuring plan when he ran for governor.

I raise the issue again now because if lawmakers are going to consider tax relief, they need to start considering tax fairness as well as total tax burden. Washington state has the most regressive tax structure in the nation, and it is interesting to note that all that separates us from number two, Florida, is the fact that they happen to have a homestead exemption on the books.

Even if the state Supreme Court eventually upholds I-747, the lower court decision has given us an opportunity to have a reasoned public debate over the wisdom of tax cutting policies that inevitably give the greatest benefit to our wealthiest citizens while heaping the greatest impact on those who can afford it least. Many local taxing districts, particularly those in rural areas, are on the verge of insolvency due to unrealistic revenue growth limits that fail to accommodate for inflationary pressures on fire, police, public health and other vital public services, let alone increases in demand. And while the promise of “tax relief” surely has great political appeal, any policy that ignores adequacy and fairness is irresponsible.

It is time for our elected officials to stop reacting to anti-tax demagogues like Tim Eyman, and start proposing proactive, creative solutions. It is time for a little leadership.

When the New York Times bestseller list comes out on July 2, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth will sit in the number one spot atop the Paperback Non-Fiction category… that according to publisher Rodale Inc. Meanwhile the hit film of the same name has just become the tenth highest grossing documentary of all time, with $7.3 million in sales after only four weeks in release.

Gitesh Pandya of BoxOfficeGuru.com calls the film a sleeper hit that he predicts will continue strongly as it expands into theaters.

Pandya says the audience for the movie skews older, and adult ticket-buyers don’t always rush out to a film on opening weekend.

Brandon Gray of BoxOfficeMojo.com says Truth could “could double what it has” by the end of summer and cross into the top five documentaries of all time, surpassing Super Size Me, Mad Hot Ballroom and Winged Migration. […] Few documentaries make more than a couple of million dollars in theaters before moving on to DVD and television.

An Inconvenient Truth may not become a blockbuster like Fahrenheit 9/11, but both the film and the book are certainly achieving their goal of educating a large, mainstream audience about the scientific consensus over global warming. If you haven’t already seen it, I urge you to see it now.

I’ve got mixed feelings about polling data. On the one hand, when they say what I want, I like them. On the other hand, when they don’t say what I want… not so much.

The truth is that this far out from the race, reporting polling data is more useful at shaping public behavior than predicting it. That’s why Republicans have been so keen on waving the latest Rasmussen Reports poll that shows the contest between Sen. Maria Cantwell and Republican challenger Mike McGavick narrowing to a 44 percent to 40 percent margin. Rasmussen calls it “a tossup.”

Yeah… whatever.

Forget for a moment that Rasmussen is widely considered to be a partisan Republican pollster, and that computerized, auto-dial polls in general aren’t considered to be all that accurate. Yeah, ignore the fact that many news agencies, including The Associated Press, The Hotline and Roll Call have a policy of not reporting on robo-polls, and that CNN polling chief Keating Holland says he finds them unreliable:

Rasmussen Reports uses another questionable technique to gather its polling data: interactive voice technology (IVT), in which a computer does the calling and the interviewing. Though Rasmussen himself said that it is “easier to get people to talk to a computer than it used to be,” polling units that use IVT have a reputation for low response rates. “It’s a far cry from having an interviewer,” Belden said. Holland does not let CNN report results from IVT polls. “I find [IVT] polls unreliable,” he said. “I’ve actually been polled, and it was far too easy to screw around with it, which I did.” He added, “People feel a bigger obligation to tell the truth to a real person.” SurveyUSA, another prolific polling organization, also uses IVT.

Yeah, forget all that. And while your at it, forget the fact these polls tend to swing all over the place. (Does anybody really believe that Gov. Christine Gregoire’s approval margin has swung 11 points in the past month? Um… because of what?) And forget the fact that despite all the ups and downs, Strategic Vision’s May 2006 poll has Sen. Cantwell almost exactly where she was last August.

Go ahead… ignore all of that. It’s not the point. Let’s just accept the Rasmussen poll as cold, hard fact.

And in that context what leaps off the page at me is: how the fuck does McGavick expect to win with only 40 percent of the vote?

I don’t need a poll to tell me that Cantwell’s refusal to throw her base a bone on the Iraq war is hurting her support amongst anti-war Democrats. We all know that. What’s surprising to me is how little traction McGavick is managing to generate despite a yearlong campaign and hundreds of thousands of dollars of unanswered advertising. Back on April 4, Rasmussen had him at 40 percent. That’s exactly where they have him today. Big whoop. The McGavick folks can talk all they want about “closing the gap”, but they haven’t closed anything — it’s Cantwell’s numbers that have moved, not McGavick’s.

Let’s be honest, these aren’t much better than Will Baker numbers… just a few points higher than what you automatically get for sticking an “R” next to your name. Sure, some angry Democrats are awfully pissed at Cantwell, but there’s absolutely no indication that this is leading anybody to vote for McGavick.

And when it comes right down to it, does anybody really believe that more than a handful of anti-war Democrats are going to vote for McGavick just to punish Cantwell? For that matter, does anybody believe that Green Party candidate, scofflaw, and first-time-voter Aaron Dixon can possibly draw much more than a couple points? I don’t think so.

McGavick is going to have to give the public a reason to vote for him if he’s to have a chance of winning in November, and his cynical “civility” campaign is just not gonna do it. Meanwhile Cantwell is sitting on a $6 million war chest she hasn’t even started to spend, and if McGavick doesn’t hurry up and define himself, she’s gonna do it for him.

So believe the polls if you want. But if you do, I suggest you believe the entire poll.

Oh my gosh! Paid signature gatherers lying about an initiative..? Who knew?

As King County Council President Larry Phillips predicted Sunday night on “The David Goldstein Show” (Newsradio 710-KIRO, Sundays 7PM-10PM), the council voted Monday to approve a move to all vote-by-mail elections once certain conditions are met.

I’ve found it difficult to muster up the enthusiasm to write about the council’s vote because it was totally expected, and really should not have been controversial, and as much as I’ll personally miss the civic ritual of going to the polling place, I simply cannot defend maintaining two distinct elections systems when 80 percent of voters (and climbing) routinely choose one over the other. Anybody who closely followed the controversy generated by the near-tie in the 2004 gubernatorial election understands the operational advantages of consolidation, and it is disingenuous of KCRE’s most vocal critics to advocate for reform, and then stand in its way.

It is particularly difficult to square the strenuous objections of Republicans with the party’s general apathy towards towards all vote-by-mail in 34 other, mostly rural (i.e. Republican) counties. Apparently, Republicans can be trusted to conduct vote-by-mail elections, but Democrats cannot… at least that’s the only logic I can come up with.

In the end, vote-by-mail passed along strict party lines. The GOP reaction?

Ordinance passes 5 Democrats, 4 Republicans. Oh well. Nothing partisan here.

A partisan vote? No shit, Sherlock.

But then, that’s what you get when you provoke a partisan battle in a jurisdiction in which your party is in the distinct minority.

The Seattle Weekly has joined the blogosphere, and I love the name, “The Daily Weekly.” Now that you’re a blog, does this mean you no longer pay any of your writers?