Goldy

• The Seattle Weekly’s Geov Parrish on Aaron Dixon’s voting record: “Totally clean — nonexistent. His driving record, not so clean.”
• The Seattle Times on the Burner buzz: “Dems’ hopes rise in 8th, along with rookie’s fortunes”
• The Stranger’s Cienna Madrid on Darcy Burner’s fundraising prowess: “I would have built a fort of money and then had sex in it.”
• Carl Ballard on Darcy Burner at Drinking Liberally: “What Cienna said except without the sex in a fort made of money.”

Two events have been scheduled and they’re open to the public:

Friday, April 7th, 7:00 p.m.
Seattle Labor Temple
2800 1st Ave, Hall 1
Seattle

Saturday, April 8th, 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Marymoor Park
6046 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy NE
Redmond

Markos and Jerome will talk about their new book and do the book signing thing. This is a great opportunity to meet two national figures who are changing the face of grassroots politics… plus show to them the enormous enthusiasm of our own local, liberal “netroots.” I hope to see you all there.

MEDIA ADVISORY:
I’m the volunteer publicity flak for this event, so if you want to arrange some one-on-one time with the authors, please contact me. Friday is tight, but there’s still some room on Saturday. There’s also an event down in Olympia on Saturday evening, the details of which are just now being set.

Darcy tells me about the really big fundraising week she had, thanks in part to an outpouring of grassroots (and netroots) support, and then we talk about why she really is the perfect candidate to represent the working class families in her district. (She really is.) Afterwards, regulars Carl, Mollie and Will join me, Bruno, and of course, the Professor, in a round of our usual witty banter. Topics include the fucking language police at (u)SP, Tom DeLay and the imminent GOP collapse, Matt Rosenberg’s superior writing skills, and why Mollie and I are offended by people who hate atheists.

The show is 48:31, and is available here as a 34.3 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.]

In reading through Connelly’s column I think it becomes clear that the most fervent Cantwell haters are operating under two basic misconceptions, that a) engineering a Cantwell defeat will somehow pull the Democratic Party further to the left, and b) that Cantwell is actually pro-war.

Connelly correctly concludes that to Cantwell’s fiercest critics, her Iraq war authorization vote and her failure thus far to recant it, trump all other issues. But I agree wholeheartedly that there are other issues — like global warming — with a far greater impact on a far larger number of people. Yet while Cantwell has been one of the Senate’s most outspoken and effective leaders on energy and the environment, she continues to be vilified by some on the left.

This prompted one of Cantwell’s supporters to ask, “What are these people thinking?”

A clue was provided in an e-mail entitled “Progressives MUST defeat Cantwell” from reader Donald Suppner.

“Cantwell is Lieberman Lite,” he wrote.

“One more DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) corporate whore.”

Alluding to the Green Party’s candidate, Suppner added: “If progressives vote for Aaron Dixon in numbers that would have elected Cantwell, and the D.C. Dems fall one seat short of taking the Senate, THEN the cowardly Dem politicians will realize that they MUST deal with our issues. It worked for the right-wing religious perverts. Bushco kisses their feet on cue.”

Uh-huh.

See, the problem is, people like Suppner have it backwards. The “right-wing religious perverts” have influence within the GOP far exceeding their strength in numbers because they helped Republicans seize power, not because they threatened to undermine them. Indeed, at the national level, the theocrats essentially seized control of the Republican Party by working from within.

Compare that to Ralph Nader and the Green Party’s success in pulling the Democrats to the left by handing the White House to Bush. How’s that goin’ for you?

(And let’s be blunt: while there were many other factors, Al Gore would have won in 2000 if not for Nader. So all you unrepentant Naderites out there should be blaming yourselves for the Iraq war, not Cantwell.)

In short, you want to make the Democrats more progressive? Make yourself an indispensable part of Democratic success. That’s what me and my fellow progressive bloggers are in the process of doing.

But all that strategery stuff aside, I’m convinced that the most vitriolic Cantwell critics are all talking out of their asses when they attempt to portray her as a hawkish war monger.

Yes, Cantwell voted for the Iraq war authorization… as did most of the Democratic leadership. And no, she has not stood up and given a mea culpa asking for our forgiveness.

But neither is she a defender of the Bush administration’s war policy.

The truth is, she’s actually said relatively little publicly about the war, and what she has said has admittedly been rather muddled. It is easy for those of us on the left or the right to view the war with all the clarity of a passionate ideologue, but my guess is that like the majority of Americans (and the majority of Washingtonians she directly represents,) Cantwell is genuinely conflicted about the war and the best way to extract our nation from it, while honoring our commitments to both the Iraqi people and our own troops.

It is easy for me to condemn President Bush for lying to the American public and the world in selling his cynical, misguided war, and for the incompetent, immoral, and ultimately disastrous way he has conducted it. But I’m not a U.S. Senator. I don’t have to worry about how my public statements will be interpreted by our allies and enemies abroad, or about what impact they may have on the morale of our troops and their families. Cantwell does.

I don’t know if Cantwell does or does not regret her vote for authorization, and I’m not sure she’ll ever come out and tell us. But either way, she can’t take back that vote, and her actions and words in its aftermath must now be calculated to make the best of a very bad situation.

You and I can rail against the war all we want — and we should — but we don’t have to look a soldier’s mother in eye and tell her that her son died in vain.

There are no simple solutions to the war in Iraq, and I don’t expect any from Cantwell. But what I do know is that I’d rather have Cantwell and a Democratic majority in the Senate providing a check and balance on the Bush administration, than yet another Republican rubber stamp like McGavick.

Burner will report over $536,000 raised thus far, $320,000 in the last quarter. More important, her $355,000 in cash-on-hand comfortably beat the threshold required to qualify for $250,000 from the DCCC’s Red-to-Blue program.

But perhaps most impressive was the way in which she exceeded her targets, raising over $150,000 in the last ten days, and an astounding $90,000 in the final 48 hours of the quarter.

The campaign credits much of this fundraising surge to the grassroots support Burner received from local bloggers, and if that’s true, we not only helped her campaign reach “the next level” as campaign manager Zach Silk told The Stranger, but such an impact would suggest that the local progressive blogosphere has reached the next level itself.

We’ve got a competitive race, my friends. More later….

In the meantime, stop by Drinking Liberally tonight and meet the candidate herself; 8pm, Montlake Alehouse, 2307 24th Avenue E.

He’s Piggy in Lord of the Flies: a living victim, whose reason for being is, apparently, to shoulder public ridicule and pain (or, come to think of it, he’s Squealer from Animal Farm). He’s the person nobody would ever choose to be.

Great piece. Gosh, I love Vanity Fair.

Joining us tonight will be the next congressperson from Washington’s 8th Congressional District, Darcy Burner, who has some exciting news to share about her first-quarter fundraising totals, and the role the “netroots” played in helping her exceed her target. Burner campaign manager Zach Silk told The Stranger’s Eli Sanders that “the blogosphere was instrumental in taking us to the next level,” and she’s coming to DL to thank us all personally.

Unfortunately, Burner won’t be able to join us on our weekly podcast, because producers Gavin and Richard have fled to Europe. So unless some kind-hearted stranger stops by with a shit-load of recording equipment, Podcasting Liberally is on a one-week hiatus.

In other DL news, our host Nicholas Beaudrot is offering free beer to volunteers with a high-powered staplegun willing to post up flyers promoting this weekend’s Seattle area stop on Markos & Jerome’s “Crashing the Gate” book tour. (FYI: Friday April 7, 7-9 pm at the Seattle Labor Temple, 2800 1st AVE, and Saturday April 8, 11:30am-2pm at Marymoor Park.) And of course, for those of you on the other side of the mountains, please join Jimmy at the Tri-Cities chapter of DL, every Tuesday from 5:30 onwards, Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland.

Felons should have their right to vote restored after serving their sentences. Time in prison, not money, should be what counts. But this decision should be decided by the state, and not a judge.

Yeah, I agree, in the sense that the responsible thing for the Legislature to do would be to fix our unfair and unmanageable felon re-enfranchisement laws by bringing WA in line with most other states, and restoring civil rights to felons upon their release from prison. But, in the real world we understand that the Legislature doesn’t have the balls to touch this issue with a ten foot pole… and the Times is as much to blame for their timidity as anybody else.

For months, during last year’s gubernatorial election contest, and for some time thereafter, the Times joined the rest of the local media in eagerly playing into GOP hype over illegal felon votes without providing any context as to the relative moral and pragmatic merits of disenfranchising 3.7 percent of WA voters, and a stunning 24 percent of black men. The result is that disappointed Dino Rossi supporters have vilified felon voters as the boogiemen of the 2004 election, and would perceive any attempt to re-enfranchise them as little more than a cynical Democratic ploy to gain an electoral advantage.

Ironically, during the contest trial itself there was no convincing demographic data presented to suggest that in Washington state, ex-felons as a whole leaned towards Democrats; indeed anecdotal information suggested the opposite. So the Democratic majorities in Olympia have absolutely nothing to gain politically by sticking their necks out for a reviled, powerless constituency like ex-felons. And they won’t.

(One can just see the latest round of Kevin Carnes postcards now: “Rep. X voted to give this rapist the right to vote!”)

That’s political reality, and I’m guessing the folk on the Times editorial board were smart enough to understand this when they decided to tepidly endorse re-enfranchising ex-felons at the same time they lauded AG Rob McKenna for squashing the one sure-fire path towards achieving this commendable policy objective.

By appealing this ruling, Attorney General Rob McKenna is properly defending the right of the people of Washington to make this decision, and not have it taken away by a judge. After McKenna wins his appeal, the Legislature should exercise its power and allow all released felons to vote.

What a load of crap. What don’t you just drop the pretense and endorse McKenna now for governor or senator or whatever office it is this calculating, ambitious, cynical, BIAW mole intends to run for next?

And for chrissakes will you stop it with your incessant, whining attacks on judges for (gasp)… interpreting the law?! The “right of the people” to selectively re-enfranchisement ex-felons based on their ability to pay wasn’t “taken away by a judge”… it was taken away by the Constitution! That’s the court’s job — to interpret the state and federal constitutions — and “the people” have absolutely no right to enact laws that violate these supreme documents without first amending them.

Don’t get me wrong… I welcome the Times endorsement of ex-felon voting rights… better late than never and all that. But now that they’ve come out against the obtainable means of achieving this policy goal, I fully expect them to put the time and effort into aggressively educating the public on this issue. (You know, the way the New York Times has.)

Otherwise, one might think this lone editorial little more than a transparent effort to put Democrats between a rock and hard place… a cynical attempt to brow-beat Democrats into supporting sensible legislation with which the Republicans can beat them senseless come election time.

The decision came just three days after his former deputy chief of staff, Tony C. Rudy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges, telling federal prosecutors of a criminal enterprise being run out of DeLay’s leadership offices.

Anybody working on the “Ten Little Indians” parody?

“I think what we’ve really created is a culture in politics where you’re not even allowed to fart in public,” Gillis said. “Any mistakes he’s made in the past have been so overwhelmed by what he’s done for his community. I think there’s nothing in his past that regular people haven’t run into at some point.”

Oh. Well then… I guess I’m not “regular people,” because in addition to being a devout voter, I also haven’t “run into” any of the following obstacles:

• Owes more than $2,800 in traffic fines, including four counts in the past 18 months of driving without insurance;
• Was accused by his estranged wife in a 1994 divorce case of having problems with marijuana use and threatening to kill her;
• And had two liens placed on him by King County officials for allegedly failing to pay child support in 1989 and 2003.
• In 1980 he was convicted of embezzlement from a medical supply company in Oakland, Calif., and served six months in a California prison.
• And that in 1984 he was convicted of check fraud and “served a short prison sentence.”

Look, I don’t mind if the guy farts in public, and I’m willing to put his past in his past. But it’s hard to shrug off Dixon’s long record as an unrepentant scofflaw, especially when his latest legal run-in occurred as recently as last year.

Dixon wants to put this all in perspective:

“At a time when our government spends $100,000 a minute to occupy Iraq,” Dixon wrote, “this entire media frenzy has been but a distraction to my campaign and me.”

Exactly. Which is exactly why Dixon should have never declared his candidacy.

Uh-huh.

Thing is, R-65 has absolutely nothing to do with preferential treatment, quotas, or same-sex marriage. The referendum would repeal ESHB 2661, which is accurately described in the small print of the statutorily mandated Ballot Measure Summary… mere inches below Tim’s intentionally dishonest headline.

ESHB 2661 amends the state’s law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. “Sexual orientation” includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.

A few weeks back I suggested a number of initiative process reforms, and near the top of the list was a proposal to ban all editorial content on petitions. Clearly, it damages the integrity of the initiative and referendum process to have sponsors intentionally mislead voters… but censorship would be impractical, if not downright scary. Thus the only way to prevent sponsors from lying on their petitions is to prevent them from printing anything but the statutorily mandated components.

In the absence of such a sensible reform, Tim is free to be… well… Tim. And so he boldly lies to voters, right there in the headline of the R-65 petition. Why? Because polls show that a majority of Washington citizens oppose discrimination… even against (gasp) gay people. If voters understand what R-65 actually does — make it legal to discriminate against gays — most would decline to sign the petition. And so once again, Tim lied.

Which of course raises a question I’ve been meaning to ask of editorial page editors around the state: “Why the hell do you still give a lying sack of shit like Tim Eyman free access to your op/ed pages?” The guy doesn’t print opinion in his guest columns… he prints lies!

Just wondering.

Bloggers, for all the benefits they might bring to both parties, have proved to be a complicating political influence for Democrats. They have tugged the party consistently to the left, particularly on issues like the war, and have been openly critical of such moderate Democrats as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Uh-huh. As Aravosis correctly points out, to characterize Sen. Lieberman as “moderate” is to imply that the rest of the Democratic senate caucus is substantially left of center. In fact, Lieberman is a conservative Democratic… by his voting record and public statements, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. It is Lieberman, Aravosis says, who is out of step with the mainstream, not the bloggers who criticize him:

Tug the party to the left? You mean, the 60-some percent of the American people who agree with Democratic/progressive blogs that the war in Iraq is a disaster are now “lefties,” all 60-some percent of them? That is simply absurd.

But I think Nagourney has myopically missed a larger point. No doubt us liberal bloggers have created more heartburn for the Democratic establishment than our right-wing counterparts have for the Republicans… but that is because we’re more relevant. The conservative blogosphere mostly operates as a redundant organ of a well established right-wing media echo chamber, whereas the liberal blogosphere — the “netroots” — is making up for decades of Democratic neglect, by organically building an entirely new media infrastructure, virtually overnight.

Essentially… the right wing blogs are just another hammer in the GOP establishment’s toolbox, whereas the liberal blogs are not only providing a new and powerful media tool to the Democrats… we’re in the process of taking over the party.

The GOP has their corporate controlled media and their right-wing talk radio, so while the blogs are useful, they’re not essential to getting their message out. But us liberal bloggers are quickly becoming indispensable to the Democratic Party. And as we play a larger and larger role in communicating the message, we’ll also inevitably play a larger and larger role in shaping it. Our goal is to help the Democrats win… and then enact the policies we want.

How indispensable have the liberal blogs become? I’ll follow up in a later post, in which I’ll point out another fact that Nagourney missed: how quickly the liberally blogosphere has grown to eclipse the blogs on the right, both in terms of readership and impact… a trend that has not only played out nationally, but quite clearly in WA state as well.

Which raises a question: why is it that conservatives tend to be so damn humorless? Can anybody name me one top-notch, overtly conservative humorist or comedian? (I mean, with the obvious exception of the always brilliant P.J. O’Rourke.)