HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle Times has a front page article on Darcy Burner and her ties to “liberal bloggers” like me, and while I have no argument with the piece itself, I wish reporter Emily Heffter had managed to get a hold of me.  (We played telephone tag last week, but never connected.)

One of the main points I would have emphasized to Hefter is that this popular notion that the netroots represent some sort of radical-left fringe, is nothing more than a Republican meme that has been eagerly embraced by old media stalwarts who understandably fear the very real threat we bloggers pose to the media and political establishment.

Sure, there’s a fringe element to the netroots, but then everything (except perhaps, a black hole) includes a fringe, and as inclusive as we try to be there are often times when pragmatists like me roll our eyes or pull out our hair at the counterproductive and shortsighted antics of our own wacky left.  (And yes, personally, I am nothing if not a political pragmatist, a self-described “1970’s centrist” who, while occasionally radical in my methods and my writing style, is far from revolutionary when it comes to policy.)  Reichert would point toward Darcy’s mere attendance at Netroots Nation as evidence that she’ll do our “bidding” instead of that of 8th CD voters, but in embracing this classic Rovian divide and conquer strategy, who exactly is Reichert branding as “the other”?  As I reported from Austin back in July, we’re not exactly the “dirty fucking hippies” we’ve been made out to be:

I had planned to get to bed relatively early last night, but somehow found myself at 1:30 AM, sitting in an IHOP with Darcy Burner and a bunch of veterans. Vote Vets co-founder and chairman Jon Soltz sat across the table, passionately detailing the Veteran Administration’s many bureaucratic nightmares as he relentlessly made his way through an enormous, whipped cream topped stack of chocolate chip pancakes. On his own unexpected politicization Soltz described heading to Iraq a true believer, only to have reality—political, military and otherwise—rip the veil from his eyes. “It was like learning that your parents are not really your parents,” Soltz explained as he tried to relate the sense of betrayal that accompanied his own disillusionment.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for those who don’t know squat about the liberal blogosphere might be that while 20-year-old slackers in bathrobes are in short supply here at Netroots Nation, veterans and military personnel are out in full force. At last night’s keynote, Gen. Wes Clark called out various groups one by one to stand up and be acknowledged… teachers, medical professionals, candidates, first responders, social workers, etc…. but by far the largest group in attendance were the veterans, and it was for them that the crowd reserved its loudest and longest round of applause.

It is an inside netroots joke that we sometimes refer to ourselves as “dirty fucking hippies,” the inherent punchline being that this description couldn’t be further from the truth. If we are radicals, we are the radicalized middle, a segment of the population historically loathe to forsake economic security for the sake of a mere cause, yet somehow provoked into producing a populist uprising. That veterans like Soltz and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provide two of our most outspoken voices should come as no surprise from a broad movement that draws support from nearly every corner of American life.

For those who hope or imagine that Darcy’s close connections with the netroots will ultimately prove to hurt her standing with her district’s suburban voters, well, you should have been at IHOP last night, where Darcy was literally embraced by veterans who trust that she will deliver the kind of leadership, respect and support that they deserve. Yet more evidence that we are in fact a netroots nation.

I’ve watched Darcy hugged by bleary-eyed veterans at 2AM, not because they believe she will do their “bidding,” but because they know that as a congresswoman she will always be there to listen to their concerns, and then do the right thing.  If that’s the sort of embrace that’s supposed to alienate Darcy from 8th CD voters, then I guess our critics are right, and “liberal” bloggers like me really don’t know the district.

Dow down 230 points at the moment.  Go figure.

My crystal ball is at the pawn shop, but I bet the Dow goes up eleventy billion points in one minute tomorrow morning. That will prove that “ANY PLAN OH MY GOD JUST PASS SOMETHING” is worth it because the very serious bidness people are in a very fragile state right now. They’re perfectly willing to make sure you suffer as well if they don’t get what they want.

There were lots of practical ways to ensure liquidity, but the Emotional Rescue Way was to lard things up with pork and pretend it will all work. It might work, but it might not, and the only thing standing between this lipstick pig and passage is the People’s House of Deputies.

Awesome.

“My calls are still running 10 to 1 against the bailout, which sounds like a lot and is a lot,” said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who voted no on Monday. “But before the vote, it was 30 to 1. After the vote, especially that afternoon as the market fell, our calls were about 50-50.”

Good to know CNBC has such um, leverage. You really don’t want delegates Congress-critters listening to their citizens, that’s dangerous and, at least in my lifetime, simply not something that is done.

Conventional notions of party affiliation and outdated “left versus right” archetypes are vaporizing before our eyes. You’re either with the people or you’re with the kleptocracy, it’s that simple.

Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, MILFs.

Rock on, America!

It’s not particularly what I want to do during dinner, but I just turned on the gubernatorial debate on Channel 9.  It was tough choice, between that, and Two and a Half Men.  Ugh.

Anyway, I don’t really expect to do much live-blogging as, well, I’m eating.  But we’ll see.

UPDATE (7:04):
Ryan Blethen needs a shave.  Or perhaps to fully grow out that beard.  I’m not sure.

UPDATE (7:05):
Dino Rossi is a liar and an asshole.  I’m just sayin’.  (I mean, really.  Did you hear that opening statement?  What a prick.)

UPDATE (7:12):
Would you have voted for the House bailout.  Gregoire said she didn’t know about that one, but she would have voted for senate bill.  Rossi wouldn’t answer at all, and went straight back on the attack.

UPDATE (7:18):
Is this effective?  I mean, every single one of Rossi’s answers is an attack on Gregoire.  All of them.

UPDATE (7:31):
Clearly, Dino Rossi is going for the angry voter vote.  I dunno, maybe that’s a good strategy.  But he comes off as, well, angry.

UPDATE (7:34):
Two and a Half Men is really looking appealing right about now.

UPDATE (7:35):
There’s a question on water rights.  Let’s see how Rossi turns this into an attack on Gregoire….

UPDATE (7:38):
Yup.. the water issue is about “changing the culture in Olympia,” and replacing folks there with “reasonable, responsible people”… you know, unlike that goddamn unreasonable, irresponsible Gregoire.

UPDATE (7:40):
Question on gang violence in Eastern Washington… Rossi attacks Gregoire for releasing sex offenders and violent criminals, blaming her for the death of three police officers.  You know, because she’s a bad person.  Gregoire answers the question by talking about anti-gang legislation, and focusing on education.

UPDATE (7:46):
Buildergate question!  Rossi… allegations were false, but if they were true, there’s nothing wrong with what, you know, I didn’t do.  Rossi switches the conversation to talk about voter fraud.  Gregoire turns the conversation to the BIAW… Rossi voted 99%… then to her “one Washington” speech.

UPDATE (7:48):
Rossi’s fans in the audience are as angry and rude as he is, trying to shout down the governor.

UPDATE (7:49):
Did I mention that Rossi is a liar and an asshole?  Dems were trying to disenfranchise military voters by trying to get him to cop to being a Republican?  What bullshit.

UPDATE (7:52):
Now he’s lying about the Spokane compact, and accusing Gregoire of “laundering” money.  And this to a question about whether driver licenses should be limited to US citizens.  (And by the way, to my friends in the media, Rossi’s ability to lie about the Spokane compact is all your fault.  You got it wrong.  I told you.  And you’ve refused to correct it.)

UPDATE (7:53):
It’s almost over, thank God.

UPDATE (7:56):
Oh god I feel sorry for the governor to have to stand on stage with that prick.  I mean really.

UPDATE (7:59):
This was the first gubernatorial debate I watched live, at one sitting.  I feel dirty.  I need a beer and a shower.  Maybe sandblasting.

FINAL THOUGHTS:
You know, the media old timers seemed to think that Rossi won the first two debates, but if so, and he was anywhere near the asshole in those debates as he was in this one, then I just have to assume our media is filled with assholes too.  What else could explain it?

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against assholes, if they’re on my side.  But I’m not normal.  I’m not the typical voter.  And I just have trouble believing that most voters want an asshole as governor.

It wasn’t a great debate, but Gregoire at least made an effort to answer some of the questions when she didn’t get distracted by refuting Rossi’s slander.  Meanwhile, Rossi just concentrated on being a dick.  “Culture of Olympia” my ass.

And people tell me he’s likable.  If Rossi’s likable, I’m the most popular kid in school.  I just don’t get it.

The TNT reports that Sen. Patty Murray will vote yes on the the bailout package coming before the US Senate tonight, while I believe Sen. Maria Cantwell just spoke on the floor indicating that she would vote no.  I’ve emailed Sen. Cantwell’s office asking for confirmation and comment.

UPDATE:
As expected, the bailout passed the Senate by a wide margin, 74-25.  Murray voted yes, Cantwell no.

Click here to register to vote in WA state.

In defending her boss from allegations that he engaged in illegal fundraising months before he officially announced his candidacy for governor, Dino Rossi’s ironically named spokesperson Jill Strait reaches back to a December, 2007, Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) ruling to establish Rossi’s innocence:

“The PDC staff after a three-month investigation found no evidence that Dino Rossi had decided to run for governor before Oct. 11, 2007. Prior to that date, Dino made clear to the Master Builders, and anyone else who asked, that he had not decided whether or not to run for office. He was free to say whatever he wanted, to whomever he wanted, and he certainly did not ask anyone to do anything illegal or unethical.”

Um… that is not exactly true Jill, and I really don’t think you want to go there.  For if reporters study the extensive documentation from last year’s PDC investigation in light of the newly revealed evidence, they may very well come to a strikingly different conclusion.  Indeed, while the staff report concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to legally prove that Rossi had been operating as a candidate within the technical definition of the statute, or that his Forward Washington Foundation was merely a proxy gubernatorial campaign, there was more than enough evidence to convince two of five commissioners to vote in favor of referring the case to the Attorney General’s office.  As for the other three commissioners, according to the minutes of the December 6, 2007 meeting, they all expressed reservations about Rossi’s activities:

Commissioner Brumsickle commented that while he may wonder about the intent of the activities at issue, five months of investigation did not show facts determining an enforcement action should proceed in this matter.

Commissioner Schellberg commented that the staff recommendation is proper and although the activity in question was political activity, it is not regulated political activity.  He suggested that Forward Washington voluntarily disclose its donor list.

Commissioner Tilly commented that while this matter was difficult and troubling, it has been determined by staff that the statutes were satisfied so as not to proceed with an enforcement action.  Commissioner Tilly stated that in the future, the statutes may need to be amended by the Legislature to address this loophole.

And these were the comments of the commissioners who voted to dismiss the complaint.  Not exactly the legal and ethical clean slate that Strait and Rossi claim.

Rossi has vehemently denied that he was campaigning for governor prior to officially filing his C1PC in October 2007, and yet we now know that he was calling board members of the Master Builders Association in May of 2007, urging them to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to “a fund for Rossi” that was expressly created by the BIAW with the intent of influencing the 2008 gubernatorial race.

In talking to the press yesterday, Rossi tried to have it both ways, both defending his actions and kinda-sorta denying them at the same time:

“This was in 2007, long before I was a candidate for governor. I didn’t ask them to put money anywhere but it would have been perfectly OK for me to do that because I wasn’t even a candidate.”

To which I ask my friends in the media:  define “OK.”  Was it “OK” because as a technically undeclared candidate there was no technical prohibition on him raising money for a technically undeclared independent expenditure campaign?  Or was it simply “OK” for Rossi, who we all knew was running for governor, and who had been giving his same campaign stump speech around the state for two-plus years under the guise of the Forward Washington foundation, to raise unlimited, unreported contributions for a fund specifically intended to spend millions of dollars in support of his impending official candidacy… in flagrant violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of the campaign finance and disclosure statutes overwhelmingly passed via citizen initiative?

In recommending dismissal of last year’s complaint, the PDC staff report expressed the opinion that there was “insufficient evidence” to determine that Forward Washington was a political committee, but tell me, does the relevant law the report cites really not apply to the known activities of Rossi and the BIAW?

RCW 42.17.020(38) defines a “political committee” as any person (except a candidate or an individual dealing with his or her own funds or property) having the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.  To qualify as a “political committee,” an organization must have as one of its primary purposes “to affect, directly or indirectly, governmental decision making by supporting or opposing candidates or ballot propositions.”

And really… regardless of whether Rossi managed to skate through and around a legal loophole (a determination that won’t be made until months after the election), was it really ethically “OK” for him to be directly involved in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond legal campaign contribution limits to finance so-called independent expenditures?

Dino Rossi has a long established track record of running dirty political campaigns, so why should our local media, which seems almost proud of its deeply profound cynicism toward politicians in general, accept Rossi’s explanations unskeptically?  This thing just stinks, and you all know it.

There’s a lot more shit left to uncover in this Buildergate scandal, if only you look for it.  And my advice is… follow the money.

Jim Horn, the ornery chair of the Eastside Transportation Association and former state senator, just hates Prop 1’s expansion of light rail:

“It costs too much. It does too little. It is too late. And there is a better solution,” Horn said. […] “We can have people carpooling for virtually one-tenth of the cost and we can carry 50 percent more riders than the light rail does,” he said.

Yeah… carpooling.  (Or, as long as we’re proposing creative solutions, perhaps we could just follow the lead set by the grandfather of fellow transit-hater Kemper Freeman Jr., and just lock up the Eastside’s large Asian population in internment camps.  That’ll clear a lot of cars off the roads.)

And how does Horn propose we achieve this epic increase in carpooling?

The key to increasing carpool numbers across the region is in aggressive advertising, Horn said.

Aggressive advertising.  Now that’s a transportation solution I’m guessing Horn expects our struggling local media to get behind.

At his blog Politics Is a Blood Sport, Aneurin notices an idea put forth by locally well known Camas investor David Nierenberg, whose investing skills are frequently covered by Motley Fool, which last month referred to him as a “master small cap investor.” Aneurin excerpts comments Nierenberg made to The Oregonian in a Sept. 23 article:

David Nierenberg, a Camas, Wash., investor, went further, calling for “clawbacks” that would allow the government to recover compensation paid to former executives and directors who were in charge when companies moved into subprime mortgages and other high-risk securities that put them in harm’s way.

“It’s harsh, it’s blunt, it’s bloody,” Nierenberg said. “But that’s the way it should be.”

Nierenberg also urged the government to take equity positions in the companies receiving federal aid, as it did when it bailed out Chrysler in 1979. The government ended up making money on its investment in Chrysler.

“If the government is going to put all this money of ours at risk, it should get equity, warrants and options to get repaid first,” he said.

Aneurin goes on to write:

The notion of “clawbacks”, where CEO’s give up their golden parachutes, is exactly what’s needed to sway detractors of the bailout plan. No one wants to hear about CEOs making $20 million for 17 days worth of work. In order to sell this thing politically, taxpayers need to know that they’re not the only ones taking it in the shorts.

What doesn’t seem to be happening with the bailout is serious consultation with business and economic realists. While Nierenberg was a supporter of Mitt Romney and now John McCain, and once worked for Romney, Nierenberg is quite the heavy hitter in state political circles, contributing large sums to candidates and committees of both parties. He also serves on the Governor’s Economic Council and the Washington State Investment Board.

So if a tough-as-nails, realistic capitalist like Nierenberg thinks “clawbacks” are a good idea, then why isn’t that part of the discussion? The people know they’re getting ripped off big-time, and there’s no reason that executives who ran companies aground should escape with millions of golden parachute dollars.

Full Disclosure: I volunteered on a campaign committee headed by Nierenberg called Evergreen Citizens for Schools from about 1998 or to about 2001, so I know him. I haven’t had the pleasure of speaking with him for about a year, so the point is he’s not pushing his “clawback” idea with me. I just thought it was an interesting idea.

So… does Sarah Palin really believe we’re living in the “End Times”?  And if so, can we trust her to have her finger on the button?

Don’t you think that those are legitimate questions to be asked of a Vice Presidential candidate?

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Bainbridge Island) was one of just 95 Democrats who broke ranks and voted against Monday’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout.  

Inslee was the only member of the Washington State Democratic delegation to vote against the bill. Indeed, one of his Democratic colleagues, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Tacoma), said: “Failure to act by Congress could turn a severe economic slowdown into a panic—a run on banks and all financial institutions that could plunge us into a deep and lasting recession.”

I spoke with Rep. Inslee on Tuesday to ask him about his rebellious vote. For starters, given that he voted ‘No,’ I asked him if he thought Rep. Smith was wrong? Did Inslee think it wasn’t really 1929? (His aide jumped in to let me know the stock market was up 485 points.)

Inslee said, “There is a risk that is real. We could have a substantial reduction in availability of credit. I think that risk exists. But that doesn’t mean any bill will do.” 

So, what was wrong with the bill, and did he have an alternative plan?

More important: If the Democrats couldn’t even pass a tempered Democratic rewrite of Bush’s original bailout, did Inslee really think they’d be able to pass something that a diehard liberal like himself could eventually support?

Inslee laid out three problems with the bill. 

1. He said it was “based on deficit spending,” and he could not support any more of Bush’s “exploding” deficit.

“It’s strike three,” Inslee said, adding it to a list that included Bush’s war in Iraq ($600 billion) and the Bush tax cuts.  

2. He said the bill was missing any “hard provisions” to guarantee that the public would get a return on the $700 billion loan. “We’re increasing the value of these corporations,” he said. “When we do that we should have defined shares, a defined X number of dollars in equity. This bill does not do that. And knowing the history of the Bush administration, they’re not going to be aggressive about ensuring [we get a return].” 

3. Finally, he said the bill didn’t address the real losers in 2008, not Wall Street , but middle class homeowners who were facing foreclosures. “The only way to do that is through bankruptcy courts,” Inslee said.  “We have to change the rules,” so borrowers, in concert with lenders, are able to rearrange the terms of loans. 

And is there the will or the votes on the Democratic side to do any of this?

Inslee said: “We get more Democratic votes if we do that.”

Monday’s vote was 228 to 205. 133 out of 198 Republicans voted against the bill. 95 out of 235 Democrats voted against it. One Republican didn’t vote. So, technically Inslee is right: The Democrats have numbers. 

Chastising Democratic leadership, Inslee said:  “A decision was made to get 100 or 80 Republicans to vote for it [65 Republicans voted for the bill]. That eliminates the necessity to do a good bill.” Inslee asks rhetorically: “And did we have a good bill?”

Inslee went on to say, in fact, that the Democrats had the leverage at the moment because “the President has to sign” a bill. “We have the power to negotiate with the White House.” 

Asked to distinguish his ‘No’ vote from the 133 Republicans who voted against the bill, including all three Washington State Republicans—Reps. Dave Reichert (R-Auburn), Doc Hastings (R-Pasco), and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Spokane), Inslee said he couldn’t speak for his GOP counterparts. 

However, a consistent theme on the GOP side was an aversion to big government. In a statement to the press, Doc Hastings, for example, said: “On the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace.” 

Inslee wants more regulation, not less.  

Later in the day, I asked Inslee if the idea being pushed by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain—higher limits for insured bank deposits—an idea that’s breathed life into a Senate version (and that’s intended to make the House reconsider)—would win him over.   

His aide gave me this response: “That would be a step in the right direction, but he says he will make final decisions on his vote only after he sees the whole package. Higher FDIC credits could be an element of the new deal, but the Congressman and his colleagues are wrestling with a lot of other promising suggestions out there right now, too. His vote will depend on what the final package includes.” 

•••

Rep. Inslee’s webcasting bill (a bill that clears the deck so Internet radio sites can re-negotiate royalty rates with the recording industry) passed the Senate today. It passed the House last Saturday. It’s off to President Bush’s desk for a signature.  

Once again there is this irritating “off the hook” tone emanating from somewhere around my house. It’s not coming from inside my house, rather I think from the vicinity of the telephone pole right outside my back door.  I’ve noticed this tone periodically over the past couple months, and while perhaps it’s only a coincidence, it only seems to occur a couple minutes after I hang up my phone, usually after talking to one of my many terrorist comrades.  Weird.

Also, damn annoying.  So since I figure if somebody is tapping my phone they must also be reading my blog… could you please send a technician by to fix this damn thing?  It’s giving me a headache.

UPDATE:
The tone has stopped.  Thanks for the prompt service.

Politico’s Daniel W. Reilly, in an article speculating about which twelve Congress-critters might be persuaded to change their minds and vote for the Wall Street bailout, mentions a member from Washington state:

Rep. Doc Hastings(R-Wash.)

A moderate Republican, Hastings told the Yakima Herald that he was undecided until Sunday night. In the end, he said he voted no because there were still “too many concepts” and not enough details about taxpayer exposure.

Why, Hastings is not only moderate, I’d say he’s downright mavericky. From a quick interest group ratings search at Project Vote Smart:

2007 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 92 percent in 2007.

2007 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 74 percent in 2007.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Consumer Action 0 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 100 percent in 2006.

2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 100 percent in 2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the American Forest and Paper Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the Associated General Contractors of America 90 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the International Warehouse Logistics Association 100 percent in 2005-2006.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers 100 percent in 2005-2006. The following ratings indicate the degree that each elected official supported the interests of the organization in that year.

2005-2006 Representative Hastings supported the interests of the National Electrical Contractors Association 88 percent in 2005-2006.

Yep, that’s pretty darn moderate. If he gets any more moderate he’ll be duty bound to support mandatory $18 million golden parachutes for all executives of failed companies. The New Bi-Partisan American Capitalist-Communism has its own internal imperatives, after all.

Essential truthiness requires that “moderate” Republicans be identified to get this thing passed (NOW!!!!) on behalf of our “moderate” masters on Wall Street, at NAM and the Chamber, et al. Any delay will result in the threat of unreceived paychecks and the inability to satisfy consumer lust for luxury automobiles through 72-month loans. The latter is a prospect so terrifying that the only proper course is to curl into a fetal ball and start screaming “9-11” at the top of one’s lungs.

You know the drill by now. Duck and curl, as it were.

Don’t worry about the voters, most races for the House of People’s Deputies Congress are not truly competitive anyhow. Despite economic uncertainty please note the price of Victory Gin has remained unchanged for two weeks, and credit cards charging as little as 21% APR are now accepted at liquor control outlets.

Long live the Glorious People’s Bank of the Republic, where our friendly but oddly familiar-sounding motto is “You pay, we decide.”