Search Results for: Hutcherson

While Tim Eyman this week was flooding local media with press releases touting an inane new initiative (but not touting the State Supreme Court’s thrashing of his I-776 appeal), a far more dangerous ideologue was filing an initiative of his own.

Rev. Ken Hutcherson, of the Eastside evangelical powerhouse Antioch Bible Church, has three things that Eyman no longer has: money, followers, and (at least in some circles) credibility. In the wake of Eyman’s bungling this year of a slam-dunk initiative to overturn Washington’s new gay civil rights law, Hutcherson and other evangelical leaders promised such an initiative — which Eyman essentially stole from them — would be back.

Now it is.

Hutcherson quietly filed exactly such an initiative late last week, a fact only reported yesterday. Maybe that’s because the initiative is purely symbolic and is going nowhere. Hutcherson would need to gather 225,000 signatures by the end of December. The state has not even reviewed the initiative’s language yet or given it a title and number, essential steps before Hutcherson can even start gathering signatures. It really would take an act of someone’s God for this initiative to qualify for next year’s ballot.

Except that by refiling the identical initiative on Jan. 2, with the initiative language already approved, Hutcherson gets a few extra days in 2007 to gather signatures, and four extra weeks this month to organize his anti-fag army. Hutcherson is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

He will be a far more formidable opponent than Eyman, who, contrary to the preenings of the coalition optimistically self-named “Washington Won’t Discriminate” (Really? Asked any farmworkers lately? Or Afirican-Americans with a family member shot by SPD?), was stopped by Eyman’s own incompetence, not by any liberal opposition. It will take far more than a smug (and white) group of Seattle libs launching a web site and handing out flyers to derail Hutcherson. It will take money — a lot of it. It will take a prolonged statewide media campaign featuring a bipartisan roster of Washington’s political, business, and cultural leaders. And it will take serious outreach into Hutcherson’s religious base of support, speaking with pastors, other religious leaders, and their congregations about, for example, Jesus’ teachings on discrimination, forgiveness, and the judging of others. There’s a lot more of that in the Bible than there is gay-bashing.

Or perhaps we should launch an initiative banning cotton/polyester fabrics, on both religious (Leviticus) and purely aesthetic grounds. Both are just about as improbably random, Biblically speaking, as the demented fundamentalist Christian fixation with same-sex couples.

It turns out, Rev. Ken Hutcherson never had a boycott organized to pressure Microsoft, Boeing and other corporations that support anti-discrimination legislation. But yesterday he told the AP that he did have a plan all along: to urge people to buy up the companies’ stock and then dump it all on May 1, to drive prices down.

Uh-huh.

[Rev. Hutcherson] says he wants to use the stock market to make a political point. But one market expert laughed at the idea.

“The chances of him being successful with that are slim to none, and slim just left town,” said Hans Olsen, chief investment officer at Bingham Legg Advisers.

Yeah, but the chances of him becoming the target of an SEC investigation are pretty darn good; such a conspiracy to manipulate the market is likely illegal. Whatever.

“For me to ask people not to buy their product would be stupid,” Hutcherson said. Instead, he wants his supporters to buy one or two shares over the next few months.

Yeah… sure… because that would be, um… “smart.” Forget for a moment that by Hutcherson’s own logic, if selling Microsoft stock en masse would drive the stock price down, then buying the stock en masse should drive the price up, resulting in a net impact of… nada.

But the most obvious problem with Hutcherson’s plan is that Microsoft has over 10.6 billion shares outstanding, with a total market valuation of about $280 billion. Over 63 million Microsoft shares are traded on a typical day. Large institutional traders would never “gamble their money on a political statement,” and even if Hutcherson’s fantasy stock boycott could manage to dump a few million shares (and it can’t,) the market wouldn’t even notice.

Apparently, Hutcherson is not only a bigoted, blustering liar, he’s also an idiot… and he’s being roundly skewered for his latest plan. John Aravosis at Americablog quips that the Right Wrong Reverend is “not exactly a walking billboard for intelligent design,” while Eli Sanders of The Stranger wonders if Hutcherson’s followers “may come to constitute one of the dumbest classes of investors in the market place.”

Last year, at the height of his anti-gay celebrity, eastside Rev. Ken Hutcherson told the New York Times that his grand ambition was to become ” the most feared man in America.”

Would he settle for the most laughed at man in America?

I suppose there’s always the maxim that all press is good press, but when it comes to publicly making a horse’s ass out of himself, Hutcherson is beginning to make our old friend Tim Eyman look like a fucking statesman.

Well, it’s confirmed… Rev. Ken Hutcherson is a liar. The Stranger’s Eli Sanders talked to AP correspondent Rachel La Corte this morning, regarding her report that Rev. Hutcherson planned to announce a major boycott on national radio. And….

“I stand by the reporting in my story,” La Corte told me.

She’s since talked to Rev. Hutcherson about all this and says: “He insists that I misunderstood him. I don’t feel that I misunderstood him.”

La Corte told me that before she spoke to Hutcherson on Monday, “He’d been trying to get ahold of me all weekend to let me know something he was going to do.” When they finally connected, he told her that he was going to be leading a national boycott of every single company (Microsoft, Boeing, Hewlett-Packard, Nike, Corbis, Vulcan, and RealNetworks) that signed a letter recently supporting Washington’s gay civil rights bill. She asked when he was going to make this announcement, and she says he replied:

“I’m going to be on the Focus on the Family show on Thursday.”

Sanders, who has been tracking down this story, also questions Rev. Hutcherson’s claim that his “boycott” has the support of several major national organizations — including the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Focus on the Family — claims which neither Sanders nor La Corte have been able to verify. Hmm. I wonder why?

So here’s an interesting thought. Last spring, when The Stranger broke the story that Microsoft pulled its longtime support of anti-discrimination legislation after being threatened with a boycott by Rev. Hutcherson, Microsoft’s denials seemed disingenuous and transparent in light of Hutcherson’s loud and self-aggrandizing claims of credit.

But in light of Rev. Hutcherson’s proven record of lying to the media, um… perhaps Microsoft was telling the truth? Perhaps pressure from Hutcherson had little if anything to do with Microsoft’s decision? Perhaps Hutcherson just seized the opportunity to make headlines for himself? Perhaps he’s just been playing the media for fools all along?

And if so, then the joke’s on him, for whatever his actual influence, Rev. Hutcherson certainly played the lead role in generating the backlash that not only prompted Microsoft to quickly restore its support of the anti-discrimination bill, but to lobby for it harder than ever. Microsoft reportedly applied pressure to several key lawmakers, and while former state senate minority leader Bill Finkbeiner denies they influenced his decision to flip his vote, you can be sure that the largest employer in his district weighs heavily on all his deliberations… of conscience or otherwise.

So if Rev. Hutcherson lied about his role in pressuring Microsoft — just like he lied about this latest fictional boycott — then perhaps the credit he really deserves is for creating the media storm that will ultimately lead to the anti-discrimination bill’s passage after nearly twenty years of close defeats?

I think WA’s gay community owes Rev. Hutcherson a big, wet kiss, smack dab on his lovely, lying lips.

UPDATE:
The Stranger’s Eli Sanders continues to kick the legs out from under the Right Wrong Reverend Hutcherson, who claimed his boycott had support from the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family.

Um… not according to the Family Research Council:

Amber Hildebrand, a spokeswoman for the conservative Family Research Council , tells me that FRC is not supporting Rev. Hutcherson’s boycott of companies that support Washington State’s gay civil rights bill.

“Hutcherson is a good friend of FRC,” Hildebrand told me. “FRC opposes laws protecting people based on the language of “sexual orientation.’ But FRC is not participating in the boycott . We don’t participate in any boycotts.”

And as for the Southern Baptist Convention?

Jill Martin, spokeswoman for the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, tells me that the SBC is not backing Rev. Hutcherson.

“We have no record of the SBC having a position on the boycott,” she says.

The AP’s Rachel La Corte is a good reporter. There’s no way she could have gotten all this wrong unless Hutcherson intended for her to get all this wrong. He lied. He dissed her.

And when you diss one reporter like this, you diss all reporters. I hope my friends in the media remember this the next time Rev. Hutcherson tries to grab some free press for himself.

I’m pretty open about the fact that I view my success as a blogger mostly in terms of how well I influence the mainstream media. My goal is to inform, inspire, cajole, even manipulate my friends in the press corps. Nothing wrong with that. That’s what PR is all about.

But one thing I never do is lie or trick journalists into reporting something I know to be false. That would not only be rude and inconsiderate, it would destroy my credibility. “Traditional journalists” are suspicious of us bloggers, and rightly so; the first time I dupe a reporter into making a fool out of himself, is the last time that reporter will ever take me seriously.

For a good example of the Fool Me Once Doctrine in action, just witness our friends at (un)Sound Politics and their declining impact on political coverage. But I wonder if the same harsh standard by which reporters and editorialists judge us bloggers will also be applied to other prominent media manipulators, like say… a certain gay-bashing, Redmond reverend?

On Monday, Rev. Ken “The Jews Killed Christ” Hutcherson celebrated MLK Day by announcing plans to use an appearance today on Dr. James Dobson’s nationally syndicated radio show, Focus on the Family, to call for a boycott of Microsoft, Boeing and other companies that oppose discrimination of gays and lesbians. Despite the inherent absurdity of a consumer boycott of commercial aircraft and Microsoft Windows, Rev. Hutcherson managed to generate an Associated Press headline out of his carefully staged bit of grandstanding.

Well, The Stranger’s Eli Sanders was curious to see how our local Rev. Hutcherson might take advantage of his moment on the national stage, and so he tuned in today and listened. And listened. And listened. And listened… but no Rev. Hutcherson. So he called Focus on the Family’s headquarters, and you know what? Rev. Hutcherson was never scheduled to appear on the national program.

So… Sanders asks the question the AP and the dozens of newspapers who carried the original story should now be asking of themselves:

Does this “national boycott” actually exist? Or did Rev. Hutcherson trick the press into splashing his name nationally when he knew even his buddy Dobson wasn’t going to?

Rev. Hutcherson now claims he never said he was going to announce a boycott today, and I suppose that AP reporter Rachel La Corte could have gotten it wrong. But if she didn’t, my question for her and the rest of the press corps is: “Are you ever going to trust Rev. Hutcherson again?”

Prefixing one’s name with “Reverend” or “Rabbi” or some other title of ordination should not amount to instant credibility. If La Corte had been a tad less trusting she might have called Focus on the Family herself to follow up on Rev. Hutcherson’s claims… and in so doing, either would have corrected a misunderstanding, or stumbled upon an even larger story… that of a self-righteous, moralizing local minister who blatantly lies to reporters.

Yesterday, the Rev. Ken Hutcherson celebrated MLK Day by threatening to boycott companies that oppose discrimination. As it turns out, this spirit of inclusiveness, tolerance, and sensitivity to minority communities is entirely in character.

In a radio interview with the Australian Broadcast Corporation back in February of 2004, Rev. Hutcherson spoke effusively about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, describing how it “totally impacted my whole faith….”

“I think it’s going to be controversial to those believers who don’t want to admit the suffering that Christ had to go through to pay for our sins. I think it’s going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That’s just plain truth… that’s Biblical truth.”

So… the Jews killed Christ, huh? That’s the type of preaching we can expect from Rev. Hutcherson?

Hmm. From my reading of the New Testament, I kinda came away with the impression that it was the Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross. But even if you want to pass the blame by arguing that Jews “did push to have Christ crucified,” one should at least make the distinction that it was some Jews, not the Jews or all Jews, or even most Jews. And certainly not any Jews I’ve ever met.

See… it’s not a literal reading of Scripture that Jews like me object to, but rather that self-righteous blowhards like Rev. Hutcherson have chosen to pound it into their congregant’s heads for the past 2000 fucking years! Surely, some parishioners, constantly reminded that it was The Jews who murdered their savior, can’t help but feel a little pissed at all us Golds and Steins walking around denying their faith.

And what is it with this “the Jewish nation” crap, anyway? Exactly what “Jewish nation” is Rev. Hutcherson talking about? Israel?

I don’t think so. In the context of this interview, I believe Rev. Hutcherson is talking about the international nation of Jews that lives amongst us (well… amongst you,) but is never really, truly a part of us (well… you.) By referring to “the Jewish nation,” I think that Rev. Hutcherson is making a clear distinction between real Americans (you know, Christians) and us Christ-killing, Messiah-denying, hell-bound nonbelievers who also happen to live here too.

Or maybe I’m reading too much into this?

What I do know is that for Rev. Hutcherson to fight so hard to maintain the legal right to discriminate in housing, employment, and insurance against a minority group that practices a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of his faith, shows a total lack of tolerance for anybody who might stray from his interpretation of the Good Book. As I’ve written before on the subject (“Am I the Antichrist?“), if Christians like Rev. Hutcherson so fervently believe that my sins have surely doomed me to suffer the eternal fires of damnation in the next world, how can I expect them to respect my rights as an American in this world?

The truth is… I can’t.

We’ve come a long way, baby! Over the past decade, and particularly over the last couple of years, public opinion polls have increasingly found a majority of people in support of marriage equality. But nothing says, “the bigots will lose,” like this:

Dick Cheney is quietly lobbying at least one Maryland state lawmaker to back marriage equality, the Baltimore Sun reported on Thursday. Since leaving the vice president’s office, Cheney has been increasingly vocal in his support for same-sex marriage, but the extent of his engagement on the issue was not previously well known.

The man without a heartbeat finds his heart. Cheney’s change of heart (no pun intended) is, no doubt, about his daughter Mary Cheney.

In New Jersey, a marriage equality bill passed the New Jersey Assembly yesterday, and was sent to Gov. Chris Christie today. Christie has vowed to veto the bill.

Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a more long-term view. […]

…[T]hey plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — 52 percent for gay marriage, 42 against it, in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.

“We do have two years,” said Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who sponsored the bill in the Assembly and who is one of two openly gay state lawmakers. “We changed a lot of views in the last couple of weeks. Give us two years and we’re going to change a heck of a lot more.”

Here in Washington state, opponents of our new marriage equality bill have launched a campaign to collect 120,577 valid signatures to get Referendum on the ballot. If they succeed, the law will be put “on hold” so that voters can approve or reject it.

The new referendum drive is not unlike the 2009 signature drive that resulted in R-71, asking voters to approve or reject the state’s domestic partner registration law. The signature drive was successful, and voters ended up supported the “all but marriage” law by a healthy 53% to 47% margin.

There is one big difference between the 2009 signature drive and the current effort: we now know that petitions are public documents. That is, if you sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot, you cannot hide the fact. The Supreme Court says so.

Just yesterday, a searchable database of those who signed R-71 went live at whosigned.org. You can search by names, streets, cities, zip codes, etc. One justification for the page is to assist in spotting fraud. Did someone sign a petition in your name? Go find out.

The other reason for putting the name on-line is so that you can learn about the bigots in your neighborhood. Got acquaintances who are closet homophobes? Check out whosigned.org.

Want to know who to NOT invite to your next Christmas party? Check out whosigned.org.

I looked up who signed from Redmond. I didn’t sign it. Few of the people in my immediate neighborhood signed. I couldn’t find any friends or acquaintances who signed it. Unsurprisingly, Redmond’s famous bigot, Ken Hutcherson, did sign—as did his wife Patricia and daughter Avery.

So…folks who sign petitions to put Washington’s marriage equality law on the ballot should know: we will know you signed. You won’t have to make crude fagot jokes for us to know you are a bigot. Your signature on that petition accomplishes the same thing.

We will put your name and address in an open, searchable web page.

We will encourage your friends, neighbors, and acquaintances to learn that you signed.

We WILL express our disappointment in you and our disapproval of your ignorance and bigotry.

And we will (when we can, legally) discriminate against you.

I’m not talking violence…I’m talking about stigmata: loss of reputation, public humiliation, and withdrawal of personal and social support.

You’ve been warned.

I’m not ashamed to admit I that I like Joel Connelly. Sure, he’s a curmudgeonly old curmudgeon with a penchant for repeating the same old jokes and stories again and again (and again), and yeah, as a writer, he’s one of those persnickety old-timers who apparently believes that Strunk & White was carved in stone by the almighty hand of, well, Strunk & White. And then there’s his wistful nostalgia for the mythical days of statesmanlike bipartisanship. Oy.

But Joel’s also a walking encyclopedia of Northwest political lore and a deft practitioner of the lost art of the follow-up question, and unlike the rest of our local media’s persnickety curmudgeons and curmudgeonly persnickets, he respects us unruly whippersnappers enough to actually engage with us… sometimes passionately.

Take for example his column today at SeattlePI.com (or, “coloooom” as Dwight Eisenhower used to pronounce it), in which Joel attempts to slap me and Erica for our “anti-religious bigotry.” At least it shows he cares.

Militant secularists in the Internet estate are demonizing the former KIRO-TV anchor and candidate for King County executive. David Goldstein, on his Web site Horsesass.org, sneered at Hutchison for her Honolulu prayers, and witness that the prayers were answered with the message that God wanted her both “professionally ready” and “spiritually ready for the next step.”

“What is this thing with Christians praying for touchdowns, and lottery tickets and news anchor jobs, and thinking that God doesn’t have more important things to do than answer their petty, materialistic prayers?” Goldstein wrote.

Huh. I think I snickered more than “sneered” at Hutchison getting down on her knees and asking God “Why aren’t you doing this for me?” in regards to a coveted job promotion that wasn’t happening, but regardless, I think I raised a valid theological question.

I mean, what is it about this Santa Clausification of God in which earthly rewards are lavished upon those who pray (to the right God, in the right way), and at what point does this brand of religious devotion border on mere magic?  I’ve read my Max Weber, and I understand the Calvinist ethos in which our material success here in this life is supposedly a reflection of our eternal glory in the next, but I don’t need to accept or respect it. Praying for a weeknight anchor job just strikes me as petty and narcissistic, and voicing that opinion is not an act of religious bigotry. Perhaps Hutchison is one of the millions of her fellow Christians who absolutely believe that I am going to burn in Hell for all eternity, simply because I refuse to accept Christ as my savior; would it be religious bigotry for me to question that particular religious tenet as well?

Whether Hutchison actually talks to God, and whether He actually answers back in His own voice—as in, “And He told me something then that I have never forgotten…”—or whether her reported conversation with the Lord was merely meant as a metaphor for her own internal dialogue, I don’t know. But when she uses this anecdote to talk about how being “spiritually ready” is more important than being “professionally ready,” I think it a reasonable springboard to a discussion of how professionally unready she is for the job she seeks.

If Joel wants to get his undies in a knot over such blunt theological discourse, that’s up to him, but when he argues this Christians-as-an-oppressed-minority bullshit, I’m totally unapologetic.  First of all, to even imply that my opposition to Hutchison is based on religious bigotry is patently ridiculous when I’ve been such a famously unrepentant fanboy of Ron Sims, an openly devout Christian himself. It’s not their faith that sets them apart in my mind, but how Hutchison, through her association of with the Discovery Institute, endorses the dominance of a Christian theistic world view in the public sphere.

Second, from my perspective as a non-Christian in a nation dominated by Christians, Joel, I’m not sure you understand how incredibly overbearing, intrusive and insulting your people’s incessant proselytizing can really be.

Missionaries are allowed to come to my door to tell me that I’m going to burn in Hell for not believing what they believe, and that’s okay. Preachers are allowed to go on television and tell me that I’m going to burn in Hell for not believing what they believe, and that’s okay. Rev. Ken Hutcherson is allowed to come on my own radio show and tell me that I’m going to burn in Hell for not believing what he believes, and that’s okay. But publicly critique their crazy religion, and apparently that’s off limits.

Or, God forbid, publicly embrace my own atheism, and that makes me, in Joel’s eyes, a “militant secularist.” Talk about a double standard.

The truth is, Joel, as both a Jew and an atheist, I’m the oppressed minority, not you or Hutchison or any of your Christian brethren. I’m the one your people are so convinced is condemned to hellfire (except, technically, for the Catholics, who officially grandfathered us Jews into Heaven under Vatican II), and honestly, if they believe their benevolent Lord would have me tormented for all eternity in the next world, how can I trust them to treat me with respect in this one?

Tell me Joel, in all your years of covering politics, how many overtly open, self-proclaimed atheists have you ever known to be elected to Congress? And how many Bible-thumping Christians? Now tell me, in the political realm, who is the real victim of bigotry here?

As for Joel’s other critique, that I am a brazen sexist:

Goldstein is also brazenly sexist in his treatment of Hutchison. He calls her “Suzie” and headlined his commentary: “Susie talks to God.”

That’s just plain silly. As Erica pointed out in her own response to Joel, that’s what Suzie’s close friends call her, and in fact I was merely mimicking what her close friends and fellow far-right-wingers David and Peggy Boze called her on air (as in, “Hey Suzie… you are our Sarah Palin”). Similarly, my close friends call me “Goldy,” which is an admittedly faggy nickname for a grown man, yet I don’t consider it anti-gay to hear it come from even total strangers.

In referring to Hutchison’s job as director of the Charles Simonyi Fund for the Arts and Sciences, he has called her a “philanthropic kept woman.”

Yeah, sure, that snide quip comes off as a little sexist, I’ll give Joel that. But it sure was funny, so I stand by it 100 percent.

But all this misses the point, which is: are Hutchison’s religious beliefs pertinent to her campaign for King County Executive? Joel emphatically says “no.” Erica and I say “yes”… not because we are religious bigots, but because we rightly fear that Hutchison would attempt to use the office to impose her values on others in a way that the equally Christian Ron Sims never did. Indeed, even those issues, such as Intelligent Design, which on the surface appear to have no bearing on the duties of the county executive, offer voters a useful glimpse into the candidate’s character and competency, yet Joel would apparently consider such a discussion off limits if she came to the issue from of a position of faith.

Had Hutchison rejected the science of evolution due to a cognitive deficit resulting from an unfortunate boating accident, I suppose even Joel would agree that voters had the right to know, and the right to reasonably question whether her head injuries might similarly impact her capacity to grapple with other complicated issues. But reject evolution from a position of faith….

Yeah… I better pull back from that analogy before I prove Joel’s premise.

The point is, Hutchison’s presumed opposition to abortion, her rejection of evolution, and her financial support of candidates who oppose even birth control, are pertinent campaign issues, however relevant they are to the duties of the executive, because they speak to her values, her intellect, and most of all her willingness and ability to decide complex issues based on the facts, rather than her faith.

Ironically, for all his fury, I think it’s safe to say that Joel, Erica and I are on the same side in this race, and that none of us wants to see the woefully unprepared Hutchison win office. Which briefly brings us to one last point of Joel’s, that of strategy.

Charles Darwin is not an issue in deciding how King County will better deliver services, cope with budget deficits and manage growth in a place of great beauty where 1.6 million people live.

[…] Instead, we should ask a question she didn’t answer at Thursday’s debate: Will Hutchison try to change (read dismantle) King County’s urban growth boundaries? Will the Building Industry Association of Washington find in her a willing ally? Hutchison has excoriated the county’s Critical Areas ordinance as a scourge on rural residents. “It tells citizens who own land how they will use it,” she told a Bellevue debate on Thursday.

OK, but how do you protect endangered salmon populations and keep building in flood plains?

Problem is Joel, people don’t vote for issues, they vote for people. And with the latest poll showing Hutchison still attracting support from 28% of Democrats and 18% of liberals, there are clearly plenty of voters who haven’t yet gotten to know Hutchison well enough.

So you stick to the issues Joel, it’s the responsible thing to do, while I do my thing and drag Hutchison through the muck. My muckraking may not be as noble as your pursuit, but after all, it’s the only time the persnickety curmudgeons seem to pay much attention to anything I write. Even, alas, lovable persnickety curmudgeons like you.

Well… not really. I hate live-blogging. And besides, I don’t plan to stay for the whole thing. (It’s Darryl’s birthday!) But I thought I’d share a few thoughts as they come to me.

And my first thought is… where the hell is Susan Hutchison? (Apparently, she declined her invitation.)

THOUGHT:
It’s an impressively full house for a summer night at Town Hall. Not full full—I mean, not Sims vs. Hutcherson packed to the rafters full—but about as full as you’re likely to see it. (The largest audience they’ll face the entire campaign, according to Fred Jarrett.) All the more reason for Susan to show up and introduce herself to one of the most passionate and active communities in the county.

THOUGHT:
From the very first question Dow Constantine stands out from the rest… mostly as being the only candidate up there without gray hair. Otherwise, it’s all a bunch of middle aged white guys. Again… all the more reason for Susan to show up and throw a middled aged white woman into the mix.

THOUGHT:
Ross Hunter starts off by making a process argument—that he’s the most capable of bringing folks together to achieve the vision we all share—which is a pretty savvy opening response considering that there really isn’t all that much that separates the four on environmental policy.

THOUGHT:
Dow raises tax reform as an issue, blaming the legislature for failure to act. That wins brownie points with me.

THOUGHT:
It’s kinda funny to do a debate format where each candidate gets a “rebuttal” per se, when the candidates don’t really seem to disagree with other.

THOUGHT:
More on Dow’s raising the tax issue, as it appears to reflect a smart strategy on his part. Dow and Larry come in at a bit of a disadvantage as longtime council members, as to some extent they’re forced into defending county government, while Ross and Fred go on the attack. But our regressive and inadequate tax system presents legitimate grounds for Dow and Larry to attack the legislature, and thus put Fred and Ross on the defensive. Particularly Ross, who serves as chair of the House Finance Committee.

THOUGHT:
I’m doing a lot more live-blogging than I planned, but I suppose that means I don’t have to go through the effort of writing up my thoughts after the fact.

THOUGHT:
Fred once worked as a gandy dancer. (Look it up.) Who knew?

THOUGHT:
All four think it’s important to buy the Eastside BNSF rail corridor, but none seem too urgent to turn it into commuter rail. (Though Fred thinks the price is too high, and needs to be renegotiated, and as a gandy dancer, he should know.)

THOUGHT:
With nearly every answer, Larry starts off by talking about something he’s done or some board or whatever he’s served on. I suppose it’s okay strategy to highlight one’s resume, but it kinda sounds like he’s running for student body president.

THOUGHT:
Ross has the most engaging debating technique. But I’m not sure if focusing reducing overhead and squeezing waste out of the budget is going to engage this particular audience.

THOUGHT:
The biggest contrast here tonight is between Dow and Ross. At least on matters of substance.

THOUGHT:
NOTE TO STAFFERS: Please tell Larry not to talk so fast, and tell Fred not slouch (though to be fair, that may be the natural shape of his back). Oh… and this goes for all four candidates… it wouldn’t hurt to crack a smile once in a while. If Susan were there, I bet she’d be smile. (Except when she’s angry. Or maybe even then too.)

THOUGHT:
It’s not really fair to seat Fred next to Larry. It makes Fred look small.

THOUGHT:
Ross said “poop.” He has my vote.

THOUGHT:
Dow argues for a $1.50/barrel tax on petroleum to raise $100 million to help clean up Puget Sound. Ross and Fred talk about being smarter with the money we have.

On cleaning up the sound, is now the time to push for funding from the state… Fred: “Now is not the time to push for funding.” Dow: “Puget Sound can’t wait… fund this now.” Ross: “You are electing a King County Executive, not a King County lobbyist.” (Didn’t answer the question.) Larry: “Now is the time to raise the revenue.”

Do you support a county property or sales tax increase to help clean up the Sound? Fred:  “No.” Dow: “I’m not willing to dismiss this out of hand, but it is not the time for sales or property.” (Wants a progressive tax from the legislature.) Ross: “I don’t support this year adding a property or sales tax.” (And he “knows” that the people don’t support it.) Larry: “I’m not opposed to raising money locally.”

Again… this is the real conflict in this race… the council members think we need more funding or more (and more progressive) taxing authority, and the legislators think we need to spend what money we have more wisely.

THOUGHT:
I’m out of here.

I found this glossy flier while going through my pile of mail this week. It came from the Timberlake church in Redmond…

“No weird stuff”?

That a church would place such a comment at the top of their advertisement is telling about the public perception of religion in America.

A couple of decades ago, Christians were just…Christians. But this changed with the rise of televangelism. A relatively small segment of the fundamentalist Christian right proclaimed themselves the “moral majority” and openly pushed a political agenda. To the majority of Americans this unholy commingling of religion and politics was uncomfortable at best, bordering on weird.

Over the last couple of decades the weirdness has accelerated to the point that it seems everything we hear about “religion” in the mainstream media now comes off as weird. If there isn’t something criminal being discussed then there’s probably politics involved. The “revolutionary suicides” of Jonestown and the Branch Davidians showdown were specular specimens in their day.

Today the weirdness has become a lot more normalized, so that “weirdness” seems to underly most of the media’s coverage of religion. We learn about the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” protests, Sarah Palin receiving a blessing of protection against witchcraft, Rev. Hagee’s holocaust comments, Rev. Wright’s damnation of America, Rev. Rick Warren’s anti-gay crusade, Pastor Ted Haggard’s male prostitute problem, almost everything coming out of William Donohue’s mouth (like the evils of a Chocolate Jesus last year). The list goes on and on. Locally, we’ve even had our own special strain of weird in a homophobic Rev. Ken Hutcherson and his “Prayer Warrior” communiqués.

So we get “no weird stuff” from a church apparently trying to distance itself from the contemporary stereotype of American religion. And some Christians are becoming sensitive about how they are labeled.

I don’t think the labels are the real problem. Rather it’s the commingling of religion and politics that has nudged the image of religion out of the mainstream.

Normally, I deal with the stupidest of the stupid posts from up here in the northwest over at my other playground, but every once in a while, a special occasion rolls by and it just belongs here at the Ass. This is one of those times. Eric Earling at Sound Politics has completely lost all contact with reality over the past week. First by displaying some world-class hypocrisy by attacking those who criticized Ken Hutcherson, then having a 5-alarm freakout over Jeremiah Wright because of his “bigotry” (psst, Eric, paranoia is not bigotry). Second by still attempting to maintain that the Republicans still have credibility when it comes to national security and Iraq.

I’ll post about Wright after this weekend, but to help with the latter point, here’s a rundown of the recent polling on the war in Iraq. Despite what Earling has convinced himself to believe, public opinion on how things are going in Iraq has not changed over the past few months. The American public still overwhelmingly believes the following:

– The Iraq War was a mistake
– Any kind of “victory” in Iraq is not still possible
– We should withdraw from Iraq within the next year

Somehow, though, Earling still attempts to refute this by linking to this set of polling, which shows that a lot of Americans still buy into the belief that we’re actually keeping a lid on things while our troops our there. Even with that, however, a plurality of Americans still believe that we’re more likely to be attacked by terrorists if we stay in Iraq than if we leave. This is a pretty extraordinary rejection of the GOP propaganda that has been almost universally adopted within the traditional media. And it should be a strong indication that the folks that John McCain is pandering to have become “the fringe” when it comes to Iraq.

With that said, I want to wander through his post and hopefully help our friend from across the aisle wrap his head around this stuff:

Dear Local McGovernites with Modems,

A couple of your blogging comrades were kind enough to enunciate some thoughts at a recent post of mine discussing everyone’s favorite Netroots candidate, Darcy Burner.

Daniel K and thehim, at #1 & 2 as well as #24 & 25 respectively, noted they didn’t quite agree with my take on the matter.

Hey, that’s me! I was kind enough to point out to Eric that his last post indicated some faulty logic on his part. For instance, the unpopularity of the Democratic Congress is not a result of their being too far to the left on the war, but instead is a result of their being too wishy-washy in their opposition to the President on both the Iraq war and his attacks on our civil liberties. I also pointed out to him that Americans trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, something even the GOP-leaning Rasmussen Reports has indicated.

thehim in particular, while kindly offering modest praise of my intellect, argued I have it all wrong on the topic of Democrats, Iraq, national security, and this fall’s election.

Certainly, no one can predict the future, but this claim from Earling’s earlier post was several light years out into La-La-Land:

Coming out of the gate talking about Iraq is peculiar given the degree to which the Democratic Presidential nominee isn’t actually going to want to focus on national security issues.

Exactly why would the Democratic Presidential nominee not want to focus on national security issues? Not only do Americans clearly trust Democrats more when it comes to Iraq, but the Republican nominee is openly expressing a desire to continue an occupation that the American public overwhelmingly wants ended. And according to the poll that Eric himself linked to, the American public even thinks that staying in Iraq will actually increase the chance of a terrorist attack. Somehow, I don’t think the Democrats are going to be shy about this topic this year.

Back to the most recent post:

Indeed, he asserted that the public is displeased with the current Congress because Democrats are “not antagonistic enough” in confronting Administration policy toward Iraq.

Exactly, and that’s why Darcy Burner, and a growing number of Democratic candidates are supporting the Responsible Plan, a plan for getting ourselves out of Iraq efficiently and responsibly. And while the netroots certainly like it, the good people in the 8th Congressional District who are understandably frustrated by the fact that they’ve been represented by an empty suit who has brainlessly cheered on the Iraq fiasco for the past 3 years, have good reason to like it as well.

But Earling is only getting warmed up here. This gets much better:

With that in mind, I have a request. Please do encourage all your favored candidates to be more “antagonistic” about Iraq. Please do raise a ruckus to keep them running to the left of the current Democratic Congress, especially on that topic.

Not to go too far above Earling’s head here, but people who want us to leave Iraq to the Iraqis are not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. They are those who have a more libertarian view on foreign policy. Principled isolationist conservatives like Ron Paul are sure as hell not “to the left” of the current Democratic Congress. These kinds of “live and let live” views on foreign policy have not been very widespread until recently and it appears that this phenomenon is one that Earling is trying his best to both ignore and mislabel. The occupation of Iraq has re-shaped many Americans’ views on the limits of our military might, and shown the wisdom of taking a more hands-off approach to the Middle East. This is happening not just on the left, but across the political spectrum. In fact, the two candidates receiving the most donations from members of our military in this election cycle have been Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

By all means, as Iraq steadily fades from the eyes of the news media and the public, please make this your issue du jour. Don’t worry, that part where Americans say they aren’t too keen on the “get out now!” strategy is probably just a bad polling sample…or something.

Amazingly, as much of an unpopular disaster as the Iraq War still is, it won’t be the Democrats trump card this year. The economy will be.

Also, you may recall this blogger doesn’t have the warmest feelings for John McCain. Please don’t let that dissuade you from encouraging your candidates to challenge him on Iraq – and all manner of national security issues too for that matter. I think I might like to see that.

I’d love to see it. Especially since the old geezer once again demonstrated how little he knows about what’s happening in Iraq by actually trying to claim that Iran was training Al Qaeda forces. Exactly how does someone who purports to be the “war candidate” and is set to become the Republican nominee for President have such a piss-poor knowledge of what’s actually going on over there? We’re five years into this thing. How does he not know that the Iranians and Al Qaeda are ideologically opposed to each other? How does Earling think that someone with such basic misunderstandings of the region and the players involved is going to solve any of these serious problems?

Lastly, while you’re at it, and if I’m not being too impertinent, could I beseech you to insist that candidates earning Netroots support also run to the left of the current Congress on domestic issues too? Especially on taxes and healthcare. I think that would be bracing, perhaps even cathartic.

Absolutely! If there’s one thing I’ve learned about voters in the 8th District, they’re terrified of universal health care. They love overpaying for prescription drugs. And they really enjoy the thrill that comes with knowing they could lose their life savings because of an illness. It’s so exhilarating!

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration of this request. In the meantime, I remain your faithful and eager antagonist,

My hat’s off to you, sir. Most people as smart as you would have had enough pride to stop doing this to yourself by now.

P.S. If you could accomplish even part of this, I really would be happy to buy you a pitcher or two at a Drinking Liberally gathering in the future. Since I no longer drink (grumble) thanks to family health history, that’s more beer for you!

Any time.

Lots of people, myself included, thought that Gov. Gregoire would oppose Sound Transit going back to voters in ’08 if the Roads and Transit measure failed. We didn’t think Democrats would want to share the ballot with a big transportation measure.

Turns out I was wrong.

Gregoire has signaled that a ballot measure this fall has her OK, even if she has reservations about the area interest groups’ willingness to “saddle-up” for another campaign. Sound Transit chair Greg Nickels isn’t standing in the way, either. He’s cajoling his fellow board member to vote for a revised ST2 package, one that ditches light rail to Tacoma and puts that money into going east and north. It’s the kind of package that is aimed at the areas that vote “yes” on transit. It’s a good rebound package, something that could pass, on it’s own, this fall. Just when transit fans are stepping on the gas, some are riding the brake.

Namely, Ron Sims.

Yeah, that Ron Sims, the same Ron Sims who pledged, in ’07, that he’d fight to put a better transit-only package on the ballot this fall:

Is he willing to lead the fight and come back next year with a revised light rail package?

The answer was an unequivocal yes. “I’m into that. I’m back. I’m fully engaged. No question,” he said. “I don’t believe in letting waters stagnate. I want to come back with a package that reduces our impact on global warming that is less expensive. Yes. Light rail is a big part of that package. I will spend a lot of time and political capital on that.”

But Ron is willing to let the waters stagnate.

The most depressing thing is that he used to be one of Sound Transit’s biggest defenders. But ever since Sims left the post of Sound Transit chair, he’s shown his disdain for any public transportation investment that isn’t controlled by his office. Instead of light rail, Sims advocated for buses (or bus rapid transit). He even preempted Sound Transit’s bid for the ballot with a measure of his own.

“Transit Now,” an expansion of bus service paid for by a sales tax hike, took the place of light rail on the 2006 ballot. Like the dumbass liberal that I am, I voted for it, all the time thinking that this was just Sims’ opening salvo of transportation investment. It wasn’t, which makes Sims’ ’07 comments on light rail all the more vexing.

**********

The local blogosphere cut it’s teeth on the 2004 election battle, and a year later Goldy used the new medium to destroy the candidacy of Ron Sims’ opponent. I remember sitting in the audience as Ron debated Ken Hutcherson on the issue of gay marriage, and I was amazed at how Sims took him apart in a most dignified manner. When Sims, the bloggers, and the Stranger writers all went out for drinks afterwards, Ron put his arm around me and recalled specific blog posts I had written. The guy cared, and he impressed me in a way other local pols didn’t.

**********

As quoted in Erica’s great article about the board’s deliberations, several members are still undecided:

Opinion on the Eastside is reportedly more divided, with several representatives waiting to make up their minds. Redmond Mayor John Marchione, who took his seat on the Sound Transit board just two weeks ago, says he’s been busy “talking to other board members and constituents” about their concerns with the proposal. “I’m very cognizant of the economy and what it might do this year—bad economies don’t produce positive votes on tax increases.” Marchione says he’s “disappointed that light rail doesn’t reach all the way to Microsoft,” but adds, “it might be a political necessity. People want to build this system in smaller bites and they want to see some success” before moving forward. Fred Butler, the deputy council president of Issaquah, meanwhile, says he’s “not really prepared to say one way or another,” although if pressured, “I’d probably say I lean just a little bit more toward 2008. But I have certainly not made up my mind and probably will not do so until I have to, in late March.”

No plan is perfect. In fact, one board member’s perfect plan is somebody else’s nightmare. Light rail won’t get to Redmond without getting across the lake first. Light rail won’t get to Everett without going to Northgate (and 145th St) first. I understand guys like Marchione and Butler. They’re looking out for their constituents, but Sound Transit has a regional mission.

Larry Phillips, from the Stranger’s story:

The only outliers among the King County delegation are reportedly King County Council Member Julia Patterson (who did not return a call for comment) and King County Executive Ron Sims, who has not been attending Sound Transit meetings. “He’s waiting for the perfect plan,” Phillips says derisively. Sims did not return a call for comment.

It was Ron himself who once said:

“You cannot tell people sitting in congestion that we’ll have another year of planning”

Time will tell if this is one more thing Ron has changed his mind about.

I’m filling in for Dave Ross this morning (and through March 6) on News/Talk 710-KIRO. Here’s the show as it’s shaping up:

9AM: Does God hate me?
Sure, I’ve got a thing for women, but God knows I’m not the most macho guy in the world. So… does God hate me? Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Kirkland’s Antioch Bible Church joins me at the top of the hour to explain why “God hates soft men,” and what lies in store for inveterate softies like me. Also, a new Pew study shows more and more Americans switching religious affiliation, with barely 51% of Americans identifying as Protestants, just 43% amongst 18 to 29-year-olds. Hmm. I wonder why?

10AM: Could John McCain lose over the Iraq War?
Better question: could John McCain be more out of touch with the American people? McCain told reporters yesterday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that US policy in Iraq is succeeding. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton blasts Barack Obama as unready to be Commander in Chief due to his “naive” statements on foreign policy, while Obama points to Clinton’s vote authorizing the war as evidence of the limits of experience.

11AM: Are you ready to clear cut the Fun Forest?
Plans are emerging for a $600 million redo of the Seattle Center that would clear cut the Fun Forest in favor of a splash park and an ice skating rink, replace Memorial Stadium with an amphitheater, and renovate the Center House to meet ritzy, 21st Century dot.com Seattle standards. Is it worth the price tag and worth what we’re losing?

11:30AM: Do teens and driving mix?
[Time Permitting] More and more teens are putting off getting their drivers license? Is that a good thing? Should we raise the driving age? And if so, what do we need to do to help teens achieve a carless existence.

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

I’m filling in for Dave Ross this morning (and for the next 9 days) on News/Talk 710-KIRO. Here’s the show as it’s shaping up:

9AM: Does God hate “soft” men?
If so, I’m in trouble. Valerie Tarico, a Seattle psychologist and former fundamentalist Christian will join us by phone to tell what kind of preaching she’s heard in her survey of local churches. We’ve got a call out to Rev. Ken Hutcherson, hoping he can come on the show and explain to us his controversial take on gender roles: “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.” Because… um… Jesus loves you.

10AM: Is a “virtual” fence a real solution?
A $20 million, 28-mile, Boeing built “virtual fence” is ready for service along the US/Mexico border near Nogales, Arizona, and the Minutemen outraged, saying “virtual fencing is virtually useless. Minuteman National Executive Director Al Garza joins me by phone to make his argument for a double-layered physical barrier along our entire Southern border.

11AM: Ralph Nader is running! (Who cares?)
Ralph Nader announced yesterday that he is running for president, surprising absolutely nobody. The man credit by some with playing spoiler and throwing the election George W. Bush, claims that he is to “shift the power from the few to the many,” but netroots activists like me remain dubious. 100,000 Washington voters cast their ballot for Ralph Nader back in 2000, and one of them was former Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck; he joins us to give us his current opinion of Nader and his candidacy.

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

From a recent sermon by the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church, preaching on gender roles:

“God hates soft men … God hates effeminate men … If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.”

Well, that explains the alarming number of one-armed doormen at some our city’s upscale drugstores.

I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar, having only read the New Testament cover to cover once (and let me tell you, the sequel isn’t nearly as entertaining as the original)… but could somebody please point out the scripture where Jesus advocated tearing the limbs off polite people?

At some point, one of Hutcherson’s congregants is going to commit a hate crime, and when they do, I hope the victim or his family sues the hell out of Hutcherson and his “church.”