HorsesAss.Org

The polls have closed and it wasn’t even close, with Sen. Ken Jacobsen capturing a commanding 40% of the vote in a five-way race to determine the incumbent, Seattle state senator most deserving of a serious challenge in 2010.  And once again an anti-incumbency sentiment appeared to guide the results.

	Votes	Pct.	Years
Ken Jacobsen	78	40%	26
Jeanne Kohl-Welles	51	26%	17
Adam Kline	38	19%	12
Joe McDermott	18	9%	8
Ed Murray	11	6%	14

The table above shows total years of service in Olympia, both House and Senate. And once again the top vote getters are those who have served the longest.

How the sentiment of HA’s rather insular audience translates into broader public opinion, I’m not sure, but I think it’s safe to speculate that it does show a growing frustration with the performance of the Seattle delegation as a whole.

That said, good luck challenging Sen. Jacobsen, who despite his reputation for being a little out there is perhaps the king of Seattle retail politics, with an unsurpassed lifetime D/Y ratio (Doorbells rung to Years of service).

Coming up, the final House runoff between Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney.

Overheard today on KUOW’s Weekday:

Steve Scher to his panel of journalists: If there was a fly in the room, would you swat it?

Knute Berger: Yes!

Alwyn Scott: Sure. Absolutely.

Lynne Varner: I would cradle it in my hands, take it outside, and say, “be free!”

Joel Connelly: I’d toss a salmon at it.

Today is the national Parade of Reason organized by Fuse and other progressive organizations, in which thousands of Americans will stop by their Congressperson’s local office and drop off a small memento illustrating their personal reasons for urging Congress to act now on climate change. You can get more information and find your local Congressional office here.

Oil and coal interests did some real damage to the climate change bill in committee, but there are still a lot of good provisions left, and… well… we gotta start somewhere, and soon. We all know Rep. Jay Inslee is a driving force on this and other environmental issues, but most of the rest  of the Western Washington delegation appears to be standing on the sideline. That’s why we need to urge Jim McDermott, Brian Baird, Adam Smith and Rick Larsen to get behind this bill now, help strengthen it on the floor, and get it passed when it comes up for a vote in a couple weeks.

And then there’s Rep. Dave Reichert.

Reichert likes to portray himself as moderate. The Seattle Times likes to portray him as a moderate. And faced with two tough, well financed challenges from Darcy Burner, Reichert occasionally found himself last session pushed into a few moderate votes, if only to save his own skin in November.

Of course, I’ve always insisted Reichert’s alleged “conscience driven independence” is a fraud, his votes against the party line always coming after the conclusion was foregone, and only after consistently opposing the measure in numerous procedural votes. So here’s his chance to prove me wrong.

Indeed, not only does Reichert have the chance to cast one of the only Republican votes for this legislation, he has the unparalleled opportunity to be the lone Republican getting out in front of this bill and leading the way. He and his handlers must know that climate change legislation has overwhelming support in his district—a pro-environment, hydro-powered district less economically dependent on fossil fuels than nearly any in the nation—so if he really wants to prove his moderation and independence (not to mention his legislative competence), now’s the time to show a little leadership and help shepherd this important piece of legislation through Congress.

But I’m not holding my breath.

From TPM:

So what are some of the biggest names of the Republican Party up to, now that the GOP is itself in the dumps? Well, some of them are hitting the circuit as motivational speakers.

Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Forbes have joined up with the “Get Motivated!” seminars run by Peter and Tamara Lowe, and are traveling the country to speak to business groups.

And get this — according to TPM, it would have cost over $2,000 to see Rudy two years ago, but now you can see him for $4.95 (or send your entire office for $19.)

I once knew someone who was sent to a motivational speaker type thing as an office punishment. You’d have to do something pretty bad I guess.

What I don’t understand is what people are being motivated to do. Sell out their principles for expediency? Oh, wait, now I get it.

Can’t actually abide liberals.

One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama — i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as “the Left” rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim. It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post — at least according to Politico’s Patrick Gavin — just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

Personally I blame Craigslist and non-objective bloggers. Luckily there are so many liberal voices in today’s national media.

In addition to his Rupert Murdoch perch at Fox, Krauthammer remains as a regular columnist at the Post, alongside fellow right-wing Obama haters such as Bill Kristol, George Will, Jim Hoagland, Michael Gerson and Robert Kagan — as well as a whole bevy of typical, banal establishment spokespeople who are highly supportive of whatever the permanent Washington establishment favors (David Ignatius, Fred Hiatt, Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Howie Kurtz, etc. etc.). And that’s to say nothing of the regular Op-Ed appearances by typical Krauthammer-mimicking neoconservative voices such as John Bolton, Joe Lieberman, and Douglas Feith — and the Post Editorial Page itself.

What we really need more of now is establishment Washington ideas, that will be wonderful. Maybe then we could have some Goldman Sachs alums fix the economy and some big pharma and AMA folks could pitch in with health care reform.

Meanwhile we can keep the rabble distracted with immigration, abortion and guns.

They fall for it every time.

Over at Crosscut (motto: “News from the great beyond”), Ted Van Dyk proclaims: “Peter Steinbrueck hurls some thunderbolts at Mayor Nickels.”

“Thunderbolts”…? Really?

Look, I like Peter well enough, but Zeus he ain’t. And the fact that Van Dyk would characterize him as such, even if only metaphorically, tells you a lot about Seattle’s bizarrely passive political culture.

If a board member of a not-for-profit—say, a prominent arts organization—were to use the organization’s internal email list to invite folks to a political fundraiser for a fellow board member running for local office… that would not only be inappropriate, but an obvious violation of IRS rules, right?

Somebody from the real press might want to look into that. There could be a story there.

This is exactly the sorta tone deaf and indecisive mismanagement that frustrates parents and forces many of the more affluent ones out of the Seattle School District:

Parents at a Seattle School Board meeting Wednesday night protested a proposed new assignment plan that — at least during its transition phase — would not guarantee that younger siblings could go to the same school as an older brother or sister.

[…] The School Board voted to move forward with the new student-assignment plan, but postponed a decision on the sibling issue until a detailed transition plan is developed along with new attendance boundaries in the fall.

Accepting the new assignment plan but postponing the sibling issue is the worst of both worlds, a half-assed move that leaves affected families in limbo for many more months. How many more kids are going to come back to school next September not knowing if this is their last year in that building? Does the board know? Do they care?

And in making this half-move, the board also telegraphs an incredible lack of confidence in its own decision making process, and perhaps, a lack of preparation to boot. I mean, shouldn’t the assignment maps be drawn and the sibling issue be settled before springing the new plan on parents, let alone approving it? And if the board doesn’t have enough confidence in the plan to settle the sibling issue up front, how can parents have confidence in the plan as a whole?

One abundantly clear lesson that was learned from our recent rounds of school closures is that despite all the press about failing schools, most families are not only satisfied with their children’s education (at least at the elementary school level), they love their schools so much that they’re willing to ferociously fight to save them.

Yes, our schools are underfunded. Yes, there are a handful of bad teachers and bad principals to whom the system just doesn’t seem capable of giving the boot. And yes, yes, yes, there are some curriculum issues—like slavishly teaching toward the WASL—that have proven a disservice toward teachers and students alike. Seattle schools aren’t perfect. Far from it.

But while we all want to improve the level of education in Seattle schools, it’s the complete and utter lack of stability that drives parental dissatisfaction levels sky high. How do you build a functional school program and community when from year to year you never know how many FTEs you’ll lose due to budget cuts, which principal will be rotated in or out of your school, which school your kids will be assigned to, or even whether your child’s school will remain open at all?

Nobody wants that for their child, and many of those who can afford better choose thusly.

There’s a reason why parents like those opposing the new assignment plan have taken to vociferously protesting school board decisions: we don’t trust ’em! And, we’ve learned that the board has so little trust in itself, our protests have a good chance of being successful.

A brief note to local journalists who insist on introducing conversations with or about Susan Hutchison by proclaiming that she is the “front-runner” in the county executive race or that polls show her with “commanding lead” or “far out ahead.” Stop. It just makes you sound stupid.

Yeah, sure, Hutchison is far ahead of any other individual candidate, but she’s the lone Republican in a crowded field featuring four Democratic elected officials. 35 percent is what any Republican would poll under similar circumstances. These are Will Baker numbers.

So by failing to provide any context, you give an impression that is clearly not true. And when she loses in a landslide in November, you’re only gonna sound dumb for trotting out the front-runner label in June.

Free! Free! Well… free seltzer, that is, at least, almost.

After decades of being yoked to the international seltzer cartel, I have finally broken free, assembling the home carbonating system pictured above. Some might find the initial $240 investment (with tax and shipping) a little extravagant, but consuming about a 2 liter bottle a day, at an average cost of a buck a bottle, this little baby will pay for itself in well under a year. After that, the cost of CO2 and water will come to less than a nickel a bottle.

Such a bargain.

Plus, this setup is environmentally friendly. No need to waste fossil fuel shipping carbonated tap water around the nation (or for me to drive to the store and lug it home), and I get to reuse these two liter bottles I’ve collected dozens of times before tossing them in the recycling bin.

Man do I feel quenched.

It’s time for round two of our legislative deadwood competition, in which you, the HA faithful, get to tell the incumbent members of Seattle’s legislative delegation which of them is most deserving of a serious intra-party challenge. (We used to call them “primary challenges” back when we still had primaries that meant anything.)

Unlike the recently concluded state representative qualifying round, in which you were encouraged to vote for as many incumbents as you wanted out of a primary field of twelve, this poll pits Seattle’s four Democratic incumbent state senators up for reelection in 2010 against each other in a final, loser-takes-all, sudden death competition. Criteria to consider in making your choice should include ideology, effectiveness and vulnerability… essentially, if the Seattle progressive community were to target one incumbent senator in 2010, which challenge would have the best chance of improving our delegation?

The poll is now live at the top of HA’s home page. You get a single vote, so make it count.

MY BAD:
Man is my face red. I’d originally put together the poll by pasting in the list of senators who last ran in 2006, which included Erik Poulsen in the 34th, but who since has been replaced by Joe McDermott. I’d caught the error, and thought I’d fixed it in PollDaddy, but apparently forgot to click the update button or something, so when the poll went live it included Poulsen’s name, not McDermott’s.  So we’ll subtract two votes from McDermott’s total at the end.

DOUBLE BAD:
As N points out in the comment thread, Sen. Ed Murray is up for reelection too.  Not sure how I missed that. Seltzer intoxication, perhaps?  Anyway, I’ve added him in rather than starting over, as the poll isn’t exactly scientific, but if he comes anywhere near the top I guess we’ll just have to have a runoff.

Susan Hutchison officially kicked off her campaign for King County Executive yesterday at a press conference where she made cutting the Business and Occupation Tax the centerpiece of her plan for fixing county government. Which is curious because A) cutting tax revenues seems a counterintuitive means of dealing with King County’s growing revenue shortfall, and B) King County doesn’t levy a B&O tax.

The best comeback of the day came from one of her opponents, Rep. Ross Hunter, the chair of the House Finance Committee, the committee from which a B&O tax cut would originate:

“If Hutchinson wants to change the B&O threshold she should run for the Legislature, not King County Executive.”

It’s good to see Hutchison finally talking specifics, but I mean, really… is this the best she can do? So intent on being the pro-business candidate she’s reduced to focusing on taxes the county doesn’t even charge?

Look, I’m all for local elected officials taking the lead in advocating for our region in Olympia—we could certainly use more of that around here—and I’m the first to tell you that the B&O tax is a ridiculous, 75-year-old kluge that disadvantages small businesses and startups. But adjusting the B&O threshold does little to address the broader problem with the way we tax businesses in Washington state, and does absolutely nothing to fix county government.

At best, this whole theme is just clever electioneering, allowing Hutchison to campaign as a tax-cutter while pushing a proposal that wouldn’t actually reduce revenues to a county government already struggling in the grip of the Great Recession. At worst, this focus shows a lack preparedness for coping with the immediate problems at hand, and a vague (if any) understanding of our broader tax structure mess, and the central, historical role the B&O tax plays within it.

Of course, we can never have a real conversation about fixing the B&O tax until the business community comes to the table to talk about the more rational corporate and/or personal income tax that would inevitably replace it. If Hutchison wants to take the lead on that effort, I’ll gladly reevaluate my opinion of her as a political lightweight.

But I’m not holding my breath.

So Rick Steves’ decision last year to go to Iran and try to get a sense of the place looks pretty smart now, huh? He caught a lot of flak at the time from some quarters.

What I appreciate about Steves is his robust intellectual honesty and curiosity. He didn’t pretend to be doing anything but what he does, which is to see the world and tell folks how to get around in it. Certainly, he acknowledged the conditions imposed on him and didn’t stray all that far into politics, but he didn’t pretend to know stuff he didn’t.

Then he learned stuff about Iran.

I say good on him.

It’s Tuesday evening, which means that the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by early for some dinner.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz0GebBeTP4[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 334 chapters of Drinking Liberally sprinkled liberally across the globe.

The “slippery slope.” It’s a favorite argument of reform opponents everywhere, from all segments of the ideological spectrum, but one which has been particularly exercised by Republicans in recent years in arguing against any number of reforms.

“It’s a slippery slope,” we were told for years by those who blocked legislation to extend our anti-discrimination laws to gays and lesbians. This seemingly innocuous civil rights legislation was an integral part of a calculated gay agenda, opponents insisted, that would inevitably lead to gay marriage, or worse. Likewise, when some state senators dared to even broach the idea of a high-earners income tax this past session—perhaps merely a percent or two on incomes over $1 million—Republicans dutifully warned against the slippery slope that would inevitably lead to a broad based income tax with higher rates and lower income thresholds.

And now that President Obama appears to be leaning toward a “public option” as a lynchpin of his health care reform proposal, opponents are of course trotting out the slippery slope rhetoric one more time, arguing that merely offering consumers the option of buying into a government run health insurance plan takes us an unsteady step toward an inevitable tumble into (gasp) “socialized medicine.”

And you know what? They’re absolutely right.

Modest reforms such as these do serve as slippery slopes toward more substantive policy initiatives, at least if done right. Indeed, that, for the most part, is the intent of their backers.

For more than two decades Washington Republicans steadfastly held off gay civil rights legislation, but within a few years of its passage a series of incremental expansions of domestic partner benefits has created same-sex marriage rights here in virtually everything but name. And the name will come too, not much further down the line. That was the strategy, and it’s working.

Likewise, there are many tax reform advocates like me who couldn’t care less which income tax variation is first to make it onto the books, as long as it can stand up to a vote of the people. A millionaire’s tax? Fine by me, even if it doesn’t generate much money. For I fervently believe that once Washingtonians become accustomed to a personal income tax, rates will creep up, and the exemption creep down, adding a broader based income tax to our revenue portfolio.

And of course, the health insurance companies should fear a government run public option, for if they can’t compete—ie, they can’t provide comparable coverage at a comparable price—the market will inevitably move toward the single payer-like model they dread most.

Now some might characterize this admission as cynical and dishonest, but good policy done right is inherently a slippery slope toward better policy. As it should be. And it’s a slope we slide down only with the approval of a majority of voters.

Only a decade ago a strong majority of voters opposed gay marriage, but today, not so much. The more we normalize the so-called “gay lifestyle”… the more we become comfortable with our friends and family and neighbors living openly gay lives with all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy, the more we shrug “so what” at the notion of teh gays calling their state sanctioned unions “marriage” too. This slippery slope is what folks like State Sen. Ed Murray counted on when they embraced the incrementalist strategy that has been so successful in Washington state. There was nothing dishonest or deceitful about it, and as we’ll learn by the imminent failure of Referendum 71, the voting public has slid at least as far down that slope as the state legislature.

And neither should the public fear the slippery slope of tax reform in Washington state. Would most backers of a high-earners income tax like to see higher rates and lower income thresholds? Sure, but since every tax increase inevitably comes before the people via referendum or initiative, it makes absolutely no sense to get too far ahead of voters. Start with 2% on household incomes over $1 million, and eventually we’ll inch toward 3% on incomes over $250,000. After that, who knows, though with voters holding a veto, I doubt we’d ever see the household income threshold fall much below $150,000, (nor would I personally support such a low threshold without substantial reforms elsewhere in our tax structure.)

The point is, the slippery slope isn’t something imposed on an unsuspecting public, but rather the natural trajectory of public opinion in response to well crafted, well executed public policy. You see, the reason insurance companies and their surrogates oppose the public option—the reason they fear it to be a slippery slope—is that they’re afraid it will work. And that when we see that it can work, and that it can provide more access and equal or better care at a lower cost than the private sector, that voters will demand an expansion of this program too.