HorsesAss.Org

Some Congressional Democrats are fretting over sliding poll numbers for health care reform, with some opinion surveys showing support falling from the 60-percent range to somewhere in the 40’s over the past couple months. To which I say, fuck public opinion. I mean, really… fuck it.

Honestly, why should Congress pay any closer attention to today’s numbers than they did to those before all the lies about death panels and socialized medicine from hopped up, orchestrated mobs of armed teabaggers started spreading fear and doubt? In fact, why should Congress pay much attention to the poll numbers at all?

The is a republic, goddamnit, where we don’t pass legislation by plebiscite, and where our representatives’ job is to do the right thing not do the thing they think might be most popular with voters at this particular point in time. The majority of Democrats understand that meaningful health care reform is absolutely critical to our nation’s future prosperity and economic security, so they should just caucus amongst themselves, put together the best package possible, and then use any means possible to enforce the party discipline necessary to get the damn thing passed.

That’s leadership.

As for public opinion, I’d worry more about what voters have to say about the reforms after they’re passed and implemented rather than the voluble opinions blowing around the eye of our current bullshit storm. And I’d worry a helluva lot more about public opinion should the Democrats fail to fulfill their campaign promise of passing a substantive package.

The podcast emerges from it’s summer hide-away in the San Juan Islands for a special one-on-one edition with Washington State Senator Ed Murray. Goldy kicks off the podcast asking Sen. Murray about his decision not to run as a write-in candidate for Seattle Mayor. The mayoral topic naturally leads to the proposed deep-bore tunnel replacement for the viaduct and other regional and statewide transportation issues. The discussion touches on the status of the SR520 floating bridge replacement, that other tunnel idea, and transit over the bridge.

Sen. Murray then offers his reflections on Referendum 71, and what needs to happen to ensure passage of the referendum that will preserve the “everything but marriage” law. (Please visit Washington Families Standing Together to find out what you can do to help.)

The show is 21:26, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_sep_01_2009.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Carl and I met up with Demo Kid last night and made it out to the big event. So did Eli Sanders.

There are ppl we don’t know here inciting trouble about public health care option
about 1 hour ago from txt

Obviously it’s the dastardly work of the Ilwaco chapter of ACORN.

UPDATE–Here’s another tweet from the same GOP official:

Also ONLY known dems (small town) received yellow feedback forms for Baird
about 4 hours ago from txt

But I thought there were people there she doesn’t know? I’m so confused.

Obviously Twitter needs an “internal consistency” hashtag.

Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm.

Rumor has it that Washington Sen. Ed Murray will make an appearance to tell us about not running for mayor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ3Q0Z2d8Do[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 335 other chapters of Drinking Liberally for you to shoot for.

America’s clickety-clackety, not-so-silent killer is at it again:

Authorities say a man carrying a bag of beer has been struck and killed by a coal train in Spokane Valley.

Oh when will we stop this madness and finally recognize that building rail is the moral equivalent of murder?

State Sen. Ed Murray will be stopping by Drinking Liberally tonight (8PM onwards at the Montlake Ale House), and I suppose one of the topics of conversation will likely be this:

“While I am deeply concerned for the future of our city and Michael and I are honored to have been approached by so many people and organizations we admire and respect, I am also a realist: write-in campaigns are extremely difficult, and time is short.  Also, the recognition yesterday that Referendum 71 will appear on the fall ballot galvanized my decision.

I considered a write in campaign because I was concerned that one candidate wanted to reopen a fight with the state when we need to work together. The other candidate who seeks to become our civic leader has failed to engage in civic activities including on the most basic level, voting, something Americans in the south have died for in our lifetime .

I considered running because I believe Seattle is greater than the selfish conversation in the Mayor’s race. Missing are issues and leadership on social justice. Issues of poverty and civil rights.  This campaign to date has been about one bridge and one neighborhood. Issues such as our schools, neighborhoods and diversity are missing from this debate .

I urge the candidates to broaden their messages and address the critical issues facing our city and look forward to working with one of them as our next mayor. “

Ah well. A Murray write-in campaign would have at the very least made the mayoral race a helluva lot more interesting. Now I guess I’ll have to either do the pragmatic thing and get behind one candidate or the other… or, you know, maybe just drop out for a while.

State GOP executive board member whines that Rep. Brian Baird, D-WA-03, will not hold a town hall meeting at her house.

I’m so old I remember when reporters looked at you as a questionable source if you blogged, but apparently having over one hundred thousand thousand Twitter followers makes you a trustworthy source.

Where would she get the time to set up for a town hall at her house?

AND– As someone points out to me, how the hell is it a town hall if the GOP official gets to do the invites, even if she did promise to invite “all sides?” Geebus. That’s not a town hall, it’s a garden party.

Via DailyKos, US Sen. Maria Cantwell makes the argument for the public option, in summary:

(1) Health care costs must be brought under control or they will overrun the federal budget; (2) The public option is a critical tool for keeping health care costs down; (3) The public option will work because it (a) inserts more competition into the system and (b) delivers health care for the cost of health care.

As Jed Lewison notes, if we use reconciliation, we don’t need any Republican votes in the Senate to pass health care reform, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be rubbing their faces in our arguments.

What Robert Reich says.

Adding, for overly obvious emphasis, that to have message discipline you need to have a message in the first place.

We’re getting our butts kicked out here, and the people who get paid to do this stuff need to get out the belt. I’m looking at you, Barack Obama.

The latest R-71 data release shows that the signature verification process is all but complete. A total of 137,881 signatures have been examined (a little more than the 137,689 they thought they had).

Total of 121,617 signatures have been accepted, giving a margin of 1,040 signatures over the 120,577 needed for the referendum to qualify for the ballot. I don’t believe all of the third-stage checks have been completed, so the number of valid signatures may increase some more.

Some 16,198 invalid signatures were found, for an cumulative rejection rate of 11.75%. The invalid signatures include 12,710 that are not found in the voting rolls, 2,093 duplicates, and 1,395 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 66 signatures still pending, so the number will change a bit.

The certification is scheduled for Wednesday.

What this means is that R-71 will (almost certainly) be be on the ballot, asking Washington citizens to confirm or deny the “everything by marriage” law that was passed last session.

In other words, if you want the law to take effect, you would vote YES on R-71. A NO vote is a vote to scrap the domestic partnership law.

There is one snag that may keep R-71 from the ballot. There is a pending lawsuit challenging two aspects of the signature verification process:

Arguments by supporters of the new law centered around the acceptance of over 35,000 signatures without a full declaration on the petitions signed by the signature-gatherer, and whether it is valid to accept signatures of people who signed up to become voters at the same time they signed petitions. The Elections Division has accept signers who are found on current lists of registered voters, and has not rejected voter signatures on petitions without the full declaration by the solicitor.

A ruling is expected on Wednesday morning.

An interesting thing about this case is the lawyers involved. The challengers are being represented by David Burman. You may remember him as one of the lawyers representing Gov. Gregoire in the 2004 gubernatorial election contest. Or maybe you recall him from the 2008 senatorial election contest in Minnesota.

The lawyer representing R-71 sponsors is Stephen Pidgeon. Last year Pidgeon represented a group that sued Sam Reed challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. The case (Broe v. Reed) was dismissed by the Washington State Supreme Court in early January.

I don’t think these particular successes and failures have much bearing on the success or failure of the R-71 court challenge, but they sure spice things up!

Is the Yelling Marine, David Hedrick, going to run for Congress against incumbent Democratic Brian Baird in WA-03?

There appears to be a place-holder web site up for Hedrick.

Wonder if he’ll show up in Olympia tonight?

Meanwhile, 3rd District Rep. Brian Baird has moved tonight’s town hall to a new location: Washington Center for the Performing Arts, 512 Washington St. SE in Olympia. It will run from 7 to 9 p.m.

Personally I hope Hedrick does run for Congress, and appears at forums and debates. Hard to say what the reaction might be from the two announced Republican candidates, David Castillo and Jon Russell. What’s also not known is what party Hedrick might ultimately decide to list, as his place-holder site doesn’t specify.

If Hedrick has the right stuff, he’ll do well. If not, he’ll quickly find out it’s not quite as easy as yelling into a microphone for three minutes and having someone put up a YouTube video so the right wing noise machine can fluff it.

People will want to know all sorts of stuff about the views a candidate holds. Fifteen minutes only lasts, well, about fifteen minutes.

UPDATE 8:48 PM– A friend of mine at the town hall tonight in Olympia reports that Hedrick did indeed show up, and apparently asked Baird to read the 10th Amendment from the Constitution. Hedrick wanted to know where in the Constitution it says Congress can oversee health care reform, or words to that effect.

Baird’s response, according to my friend, was to read the amendment for the crowd and point out different people (ed note-like perhaps the Supreme Court?) interpret it differently, and pointed out to Hedrick the Constitution also says nothing about veteran’s health care.

My friend reports Hedrick’s face “went dead” and he had nothing else to say, and that Hedrick left a short while later.

My friend is not a reporter, nor a blogger, so I’ll be interested to see how the traditional media reports this exchange.

Still no word, official or otherwise, if Hedrick really intends to run for Congress.

UPDATE TWO–9:21 PM–Brad Shannon of The Olympian has this initial nugget in a breaking news post.

One man who said he is a U.S. Marine from Camas insisted that reforms such as House Resolution 3200 are unconstitutional. He said, when quizzed by Baird, that he also believes Medicare is unconstitutional.

Well, okay. As one commenter at The Olympian put it, you’d think that if Medicare is actually unconstitutional, someone would have proven it in a court of law by now.

UPDATE THREE–9:57 PM– A fuller account comes from Brad Shannon of The Olympian, via the News-Tribune:

Baird took a more conciliatory approach in his evening event, and although a few critics got heated in their remarks, Baird urged the audience not to interrupt and to let speakers have their say – including David William Hedrick, who questioned the legality of the reforms.

Hedrick, who said he was a U.S. Marine from Camas, said members of Congress “have no right” to mandate coverage, and he challenged Baird to pull out his pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, then read from Article 10, which Baird did.

“I presume you are saying Medicare is not constitutional,” Baird said. “Correct,” Hedrick replied.

Baird said there is much debate but many scholars believe Medicare and similar programs are within the scope of the Congress’ powers. “You are not the only person who gets to interpret the Constitution, sir,’’ Baird added.

Wonder if Baird’s rejoinder will be on Fox Noise? Yeah, right.

Isn’t it at least a little ironic that while Dave Reichert may have won a third term in Congress, Darcy Burner is actually having a greater impact on the all important health care reform debate?

An organizer for liberal House Democrats says the bloc “isn’t bluffing” as it prepares to take a reputation-defining stand to protect a public insurance option in the health care overhaul.

Darcy Burner, executive director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, said the health care debate has rallied traditionally disparate Congressional liberals to hang together, while galvanizing support for their position from an array of left-leaning outside groups. The result, she said, is that Democratic leaders will not be able to clear a package through the House if it does not include the public plan.

“We have never had the Progressive Caucus organized the way it is right now,” Burner said during a Friday roundtable with Roll Call. “This is not the normal scenario. And Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] knows it.”

Not that you’re likely to read anything about Darcy’s efforts in a local press that made up its mind about her early on, and is about as likely to reevaluate her as it is to admit the truth that Reichert did not really catch the Green River Killer.

What a bunch of crybabies:

GOOGLE is a wonderful thing. It is also a dangerous thing, as it keeps demonstrating in its quietly rapacious way.

The latest is from Italy. The Italian newspapers are complaining that Google News Italia is using their content without permission, and without payment. Under Google’s rules, they can withhold their work from Google News Italia only at the price of excluding their pages from all Google searches.

You let us use your work for free, or we don’t let our customers find your Web page.

That is Google’s take-it-or-leave-it deal — in Italy and here, too. Google’s paid minions make this arrangement sound like philanthropy, but its fairness is more apparent to Google than to anyone else. The statements that count most are financial, and what they tell is a story of market dominance.

Google has two-thirds of the market in search — a share more than three times bigger than the No. 2 in the market, Yahoo. In the Bush administration, this seemed to bother regulators only on Wednesdays and Fridays. They blocked Google’s deal with Yahoo, which stopped Google from increasing its dominance. The Bush people did little to deprive Google of the dominance it already had.

The book publishers did get together and sue Google over the theft of their content by Google Book — and, last November, Google agreed to pay them for their property. Maybe the newspaper publishers need to do the same.

Hey Seattle Times, I just used your work for free… why don’t you sue me too? Come on… I dare ya!

First of all, perhaps I missed it, but I don’t ever remember the Times editorializing in favor of breaking up any of hometown Microsoft’s monopolies, and few companies in recent American history have acted more intentionally monopolistic than our neighbors in Redmond. To dismiss Microsoft as “so last century” is to miss the point; the Times had no problem with Microsoft’s monopoly as long as our local economy benefited from it.

But the larger issue here is: quit your whining!

Again with the Google is stealing our business crap; indeed far from it. Google doesn’t steal readers, it drives them to your site, as evidenced by the Times own bullshit “1.4 million people read The Seattle Times newspaper” banner they’ve been plastering at the top of every page. You think the bulk of these individual readers has bookmarked the Times, or intentionally typed in its URL? No, the bulk of them have clicked through links on Google and elsewhere, teased by the exactly the kind of “theft” about which the Times so vociferously complains.

The Times and most of the rest of the newspaper industry isn’t suffering because search engines and bloggers are stealing their content, but because of poor business decisions and an inability/refusal to adapt to changing technologies and tastes. And the quicker they come to terms with this, the quicker they’ll halt, and possibly even start to reverse, the appalling collapse of the local press.

I have some family in town this weekend, so I haven’t had any time to blog, but something happened today while driving out to Snoqualmie Falls that just baffled me. We were driving south on I-5 past the 45th/50th St exit when an SDOT-type vehicle (the ones with the big flashing signs on top) got on the freeway and immediately started to swerve wildly across the four lanes of traffic back and forth. Somehow, the vehicle didn’t crash into anyone, but the cars on I-5 were all slowed to well below the speed limit. I quickly got over to the left lane and took 520 instead of 90 so I don’t know if there was anything ahead on the freeway. Does anyone know what the fuck was going on?

UPDATE: Response from SDOT here.