HorsesAss.Org

So what explains Dave Reichert’s pro-oil industry energy agenda in the face of skyrocketing fuel costs and the dire consequences of carbon-induced climate change?  Well, maybe we should just ask some of Dave’s pals who set up that lucrative K Street funder for him… you know, energy industry lobbyists like Dan Maloney (American Petroleum Institute), Brett Shogren (Exelon Corp.), Mike Chappell (Edison International) and Matt Lapinski (Frontier Oil)?

I’m just sayin’.

So… Dave Reichert, struggling to keep pace with Darcy Burner’s overwhelming support from individual contributors, turns to a group of high-powered lobbyists for a quick infusion of cash—including lobbyists representing Airbus parent EADS against Boeing in the controversial tanker deal—and what’s the headline in the Seattle Times? “Words fly over lobbyist for Boeing rival at Reichert fundraiser.”

That’s right, EADS lobbyist Mike Chappell writes Reichert a $500 check and the main story here is the accusation itself, with the Times emphasizing that “Burner spokesman Sandeep Kaushik leaked the EADS lobbyist tie to the online political newspaper Politico.”

“Leaked…?” Really?

leak -verb
9. to disclose secret, esp. official, information anonymously, as to the news media

A) Kaushik is Burner’s communication director; it’s his job to pass information on to the press, even damaging information about her opponent; and B) How exactly do you “leak” information that had already appeared in an article in Roll Call?

All Kaushik did was call Politico’s attention to the fact that an article in Roll Call contradicted editorializing that had appeared in their own publication, causing Politico to write a follow-up story when they determined that the info in Roll Call checked out. And that added tidbit about Chappell writing Reichert a check? That came from good, old fashioned “sleuthing” on the part of the Times reporter Emily Heffter. That’s some “leak.”

Reichert goes begging to lobbyists paid to oppose the interests of his district, and it’s “words flying” that makes the headline, and the Burner campaign’s role in publicizing Reichert’s Airbus connections that makes the lede. And Reichert gets a check from Airbus, but that’s okay, because he says he plans to return it, you know… after he was caught. Jesus… could the Times pedal any softer?

But then, Reichert is the Times’ favorite “conscience driven independent,” so I guess we’re unlikely to see a piece criticizing Reichert for publicly posturing in defense of Boeing against the Alabama/French Connection, and then going back to the other Washington to quietly solicit support from the very people he’s supposedly opposing… folks like EADS lobbyist Chappell, Alabama Aircraft Industries lobbyist Chris Cox, former Tom DeLay henchman (and co-conspirator) Drew Maloney, and the rest of the K Street crowd.

The Times knows damn well how damaging this story really is—hell, it’s exactly crap like this that has destroyed the Republican brand. The “K Street Project,” the “Culture of Corruption,” the cozy relationship between the Republican leadership and their corporate patrons… this is why Democrats took control of both houses in 2006, and this is why they are poised to expand their majority in 2008. And whatever his intentions when he first headed off to Congress, Dave Reichert now finds himself smack dab in the middle of everything that is wrong with the Beltway establishment, totally reliant on (and indebted to) lobbyists and PACs in his desperate efforts to fend off Burner’s challenge.

Darcy Burner on the other hand, with her people-powered politics and her thousands upon thousands of small contributions from individual donors, is indebted to nothing but her own conscience. So if 8th CD voters really want to send somebody to Congress who can truly challenge the corrupting influence of the K Street crowd in both parties, they need to elect a representative who doesn’t have to rely on these very same lobbyists to fund their campaigns. They need to elect Darcy Burner.

Dino Rossi has been doing a lot of whining about attack ads. But then he literally goes on the attack. It almost justifies something like this…

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early for Dinner.

Tonight’s activity will primarily consist of manhandling and tossing out anyone trying to videotape our activities tonight.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Update: We had a couple of unannounced visitors at Drinking Liberally tonight:

Demo Kid breaks out WhackyNation bingo.

Apparently fearful that their bitter and genuinely mean-spirited candidate might embarrass himself with his own devastating macaca moment, Dino Rossi’s campaign staffers and supporters have resorted to increasingly aggressive tactics to keep opposition cameras out of public events, and thus the real Dino Rossi out of the public eye. And as the Seattle Times reports this morning, this resulted last week in a Democratic Party cameraman being forcibly dragged out of a press conference at the Seattle Police Officers Guild, and physically restrained by off-duty cops.

“We don’t allow them in to collect attack video,” Rossi spokeswoman Jill Strait said.

But we do allow event organizers to attack the videographer, apparently.

Guild members threatened the cameraman with arrest, but no charges were filed and no fine or penalty issued… because, of course, no laws were broken (except, perhaps, by the off-duty officers). This wasn’t a private fundraiser or other such event, it was a press conference, which by its very nature is an inherently public event, and thus the cameraman had every expectation that he would have the same right to record the proceedings as the several other cameramen in attendance.

“We’re sorry that it had to end that way,” Strait said of Thursday’s incident. “But he wouldn’t have to be escorted off the premises if he had just left when he was asked to. I really think he was trying to provoke an incident by refusing to leave.”

Yeah… it “had to end that way;” he was, after all, “provoking an incident” by quietly standing in the back with all the other cameramen, so I suppose he was lucky to walk away with only a bruised sternum. As one die-hard Rossi supporter enthusiastically suggested in the threads over on Postman’s blog, his response would have been “a bullit [sic] between his eyes, no questions asked.” I guess that’s why Republicans pride themselves as the “law and order” party.

As for the Democrats? Well, I guess we’re just all a bunch of pussies…

A Republican Party worker videotapes appearances by Gregoire, so Steele said it’s hypocritical for Rossi to kick out Akers. Strait said it makes no difference to the Rossi campaign if Gregoire allows herself to be taped by the opposition.

FYI, here’s the video of the rough reception the Republican cameraman gets at Gov. Gregoire’s events:

Jesus Christ… they did everything but offer him milk and cookies. Pussies.

It is great to see this story picked up in the news section of the Times, but I can’t help but wonder if their editorial board—champions of sunshine and open government—will see fit to comment on Rossi’s stunning lack of openness when it comes to endorsement time. This is a candidate who has cameramen forcibly ejected from public events, sometimes even from public property, and who routinely brushes off questions about issues on which he is out of step with Washington voters by curtly responding that “I’m not running on that issue.”

Well, he may not be running on issues like reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education or school vouchers, and he may have carefully avoided taking a public position on gas tax repeal and other controversial initiatives, but voters have a right to know where Rossi stands on all these issues, not just those his pollsters and focus groups tell him best work to his political advantage. And our local press have an obligation to inform the public by relentlessly following up on these questions, rather than just allowing Rossi to shrug them off with a quip like they did in 2004.

In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been doing a little light posting recently, and that’s because my daughter and I have been out of town this past week visiting my family in Philadelphia. Well, the phone rang tonight during dinner at my sister’s house, and when she checked the caller ID a little while later it read the following:

PLANE CRASH INF
18004483543

Curious, and a bit bewildered, my sister called the number back, only to get the automated phone system of “American Red Cross Blood Services,” with no option to reach a live person after hours.

I sure hope this is some kind of a mistake rather than a calculated effort to get people to pick up the phone or return the call, but spooky as it was at the time, imagine my family’s reaction had this call been received 48 hours later, when my daughter and I would indeed have been on an airplane heading back to Seattle.

Holy crap.

First there was email spam, and then comment spam. Is caller ID spam the next big thing?

Horses Ass and Sound Politics… The yin and yang of Washington’s political blogosphere? Or, maybe, fighting the same battles from slightly different perspectives?

Crosscut reports, you decide.

I suppose it would be nice for the United States to have the moral authority to condemn Russia’s unprovoked, full scale invasion of Georgia, a sovereign nation, but you know… we don’t.

Sure, I suppose there is a sizable chunk of voters out in Washington’s 4th Congressional District who fully understand that Rep. “Doc” Hastings isn’t really a doctor, but despite persistent claims on his resume that he attended both Central Washington University and Columbia Basin College, it turns out Hastings isn’t even a college graduate, a biographical tidbit the local news media apparently never thought relevant, but which screamed out to Jimmy at McCranium after reading news accounts of a commencement speech Hastings recently gave at CWU:

“I remember the winter,” said Hastings. “It got to 23 below in Ellensburg one day — and that alone could be reason enough to leave college. But, no in reality my grades were less than stellar and I chose to leave school after the fall quarter. I ended up in California for several years, where I met my wife, before returning to Pasco to run our family business.”

Yeah, nothing makes one prouder of the four years of hard work and thousands of dollars of student loans one just spent earning a college diploma than a commencement speech given by a US Congressman without one. But then, I guess you can forgive the folks at CWU for choosing a college dropout as their commencement speaker when Hastings has done such a masterful job of obscuring his lack of a formal education.

(Hastings opponent, George Fearing, by the way, has a BA in Business Administration from Walla Walla University and is a graduate of the University of Washington Law School. Fucking elitist.)

It is interesting to note that all six of WA’s House Democrats have earned post-graduate degrees (McDermott and Baird can even claim to be actual “doctors”) while Cathy McMorris-Rodgers is the academic superstar of the Republican delegation, earning a four-year BA from an unaccredited Christian college and an EMBA from the UW. For his part, Dave Reichert has a two-year AA degree from a small Christian college (at least it’s accredited) and… well… that’s it. (By comparison, Darcy Burner has a degree in computer science and economics from some podunk school called “Harvard” or something.)

Not to be an academic snob or anything, but well, I am, and while I’d be the last to claim that a prestigious degree or even a college education is a prerequisite for success in life, it does tell you something about the person… something Hastings went to lengths to hide in his earlier runs for Congress. So you’d think the local media might have remarked on Hastings’ remarkable lack of education… but apparently, they were just as uncurious as he was.

Seattle’s new 20-cent plastic bag fee is clearly the most important issue facing America today. It was so important that Glenn Beck had Seattle City Councilwoman Jan Drago on his show to discuss how Seattle residents are ready to overthrow the oppressive nanny state that is Seattle city government. If Nickels, Conlin, and the others aren’t stopped, it’s a certainty that this will be copied across the country and we’ll all soon be knitting our own cloth bags out of our children’s clothes.

Of course, I’m being silly here. While I’m not wild about the fee, it’s really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. And I’m curious whether or not either Beck or Drago figured out that the interview they did made both of them look ridiculous, primarily because Beck had Drago on to complain about arriving at an “oppressive” solution to this problem, while Drago would have been fine with a total ban, something which likely would have caused Beck and his 7 viewers to have a seizure.

There are a couple of things that I’ve found frustrating in trying to evaluate this issue, which certainly pulls at the cracks in that intersection between liberalism and libertarianism that I inhabit. The main source of frustration is that I find it very difficult to quantify the goals of the policy or the expected results. While my wife and I personally recycle our bags or use them as either trash-can liners or for discarding of the waste produced by our feline masters, I obviously know that not everyone disposes of these bags properly. How serious of a problem is that?

Both Mayor Nickels and Richard Conlin see this as being part of their effort to be as environmentally conscious as possible:

“It’s about the use of scarce resources, about pollution of our environment, about litter in our streets and parks and the costs, both economically and environmentally, of throwing away a piece of Earth we have an opportunity to protect and preserve,” Conlin said at the news conference, which Councilmembers Tim Burgess and Sally Clark also attended.

Playing Devil’s Advocate to the Council, Danny Westneat references a local expert on ocean-based pollution, who says that plastic grocery bags are a miniscule part of the overall pollution problem. Is that missing the point? Is there another area where improperly disposed plastic bags require the city to spend extra money to clean it up?

If you follow the logic being presented in order to justify the fee, there must be. But it’s not clear from anything I’ve read. From Kathy Mulady in the PI:

The 20-cent-per-bag “green fee” is expected to raise about $3.5 million each year. Seattle Public Utilities needs about $500,000 to run the program. The remainder will be used to offset expected increases in the city’s solid-waste rates.

Are the increases in the city’s solid-waste rates coming from problems with plastic bags? Somehow, I doubt it. But that’s where the money will come from. It’s like tolling to offset the costs of a new 520 bridge, except that you’re only tolling the single occupancy lanes.

In the end, all of this is moot if it’s completely painless and inexpensive for everyone to just start using the reusable bags. Richard Conlin continues to insist that no one will have to pay the fee because they can use the reusable bags. This is something I just can’t quantify right now. How much groceries can they hold? How convenient are they when getting large amounts of groceries? How easy are they to clean? And while many may attempt to look at the reduction in plastic bag use within Seattle grocery stores, will we know how many people are going to do what my wife plans to do (do her grocery shopping in the suburbs where she works instead of coming home to Seattle first)? As long as we continue to reuse our bags for our normal trash, we know we’re not contributing to the garbage problem. Will there be a way to measure not just plastic bag usage, but also the level of improper disposal?

And that leads to me to my last point. Is this policy really nanny-statism? I continually hear this over and over again that the bag fee is a blatant example of Seattle’s out of control nanny-statism. Nanny-statism is when government tries to protect people from their own decisions – because they see people as children incapable of caring from themselves. Once you start defining it more broadly than that, the term loses its meaning. Jaywalking, the 4 foot rule in strip clubs, drug laws, helmet laws – those are all examples of nanny-statism because those laws are attempting to protect people from their own moral or public health choices. The bag fee isn’t about making people’s moral or public health choices for them. It’s about a way to reduce the amount of plastic bags in circulation.

I sympathize with Drago that maybe the policy should have been implemented first without the fee, as I wonder if it will end up putting the burden for offsetting the city’s increased solid waste expenses on the people who can least afford to give up the extra cash, but it’s sure as hell not some slippery slope to oppressive government. Calling this fee nanny-statism is no different than saying that tolls to pay for the 520 bridge is nanny-statism. I’m often wary of Nickels and his belief that part of his role as mayor is to come up with ways that cities across the world can save the planet, but this issue has caused that wariness to really send some folks flying off the deep end here. Hopefully, by next summer, we’ll have a better idea whether or not this was good policy or not.

You win some and you lose some I guess, as the Seattle Times balances out an endorsement for Democratic Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler with an endorsement for the deceptive and undemocratic King County Initiative 26. Using our NHL-style scoreboard (two points for a victory, one point for a tie), that brings our current standings to Republicans 11, Democrats 7.

Sure, Bruce Ramsey may find it annoying, my arbitrary declaration of I-26 as a Republican initiative, but it really isn’t all that arbitrary. I-26 would turn the county council, executive and auditor into “nonpartisan” positions, essentially allowing Republicans to hide their party affiliation, thus becoming more competitive in races they’d otherwise never have a snowball’s chance in because, you know… they’re Republicans. As I’ve said before, nonpartisanship is the last refuge of Republicans in a region where Republicanism has become a dirty word, and in that context I-26 is most definitely a Republican initiative.

It is also a small “d” undemocratic initiative because it gives voters less information about the candidates and thus leaves them less able to choose those candidates who best reflect their own political leanings. That, after all, is what party labels are about… a political shorthand by which we compare one candidate to another. I wish every voter was as engaged in politics as me and Ramsey, but they’re not, and so party identification is a useful tool for those who don’t embrace politics as a vocation or a hobby.

And finally, I-26 is a bad initiative because nonpartisanship is essentially a lie… a mythical ideal just as fictional as the objectivity and impartiality for which Ramsey’s newspaper supposedly strives. Stripping the “R” off Pete von Reichbauer won’t make him any less of a Republican, but it will make him more electable in a district that is steadily trending Democratic. And that’s exactly I-26’s point.

Seattle Times Endorsements	GP	W	L		T	Pts
Republicans	9	4	2		3	11
Democrats	9	2	4		3	7
Third Parties	9	0	9		0	0

For the record, I love Jim McDermott, and am going to vote for him in the general election. He’s been the conscience of the House on important issues like the war and universal health care. He’s been a leader on things like eliminating poverty around the world, and here at home. He’s had the trust of his colleagues to earn an important spot in the Ways and Means committee, and chair of its Income and Family Support subcommittee. His push on the extension of unemployment benefits alone is worthy of reelecting him.

But since it’s a given that he’s getting to the general election with the crazy top-two, McDermott’s supporters can chose his opponent. So, I’m hoping you’ll join me in casting a ballot for perpetual candidate, and harmless crazy Goodspaceguy Nelson, because unlike the Republican in the race, he’s probably aware that Saddam Hussein is dead.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey takes issue with my running scoreboard of his ed board’s candidate endorsements (Republicans 9, Democrats 5 at last count… 11-5 if you count the Times’ endorsement of I-26), and since nobody has bothered to post a comment in his thread, I thought I’d add my own comment here:

Oh… boo-hoo.

Of course, my scoreboard is tongue-in-cheek, and my determination of who is and who is not a real Democrat somewhat arbitrary, but however you score it there’s a larger point to made about the Times’ tendency to be out of step with their own readers, a tendency not easily explained away by Ramsey:

Is the Times Editorial Board Republican? In 2000 we endorsed George Bush—and Gary Locke. In 2004 we endorsed Dino Rossi—and John Kerry. Maybe we are conflicted, but party-line we are not.

Conflicted, no doubt, and I’ve never implied that the Times endorsements are party-line Republican, but I think that an ed board that inexplicably endorsed Mike McGavick’s self-immolating campaign while agreeing with Maria Cantwell on every issue but one, and that viciously smeared Darcy Burner in lieu of any reasonable defense of her mediocre opponent… well, I think they have a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. I suppose Ramsey might consider a Rossi/Kerry endorsement split a proud sign of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship, but to me this bi/non crap is just the last refuge of Republicanism in a region where the Republican brand isn’t worth the bumper sticker it’s printed on.

Oh… and as for Ramsey’s description of HA as “howling-left”… as long as he’s railing against labels, I’d love for him to give me a definition of exactly what that means. On which issues exactly are we so extreme? Unless, of course, he’s merely referring to our rhetorical style, in which we promote rather center-left policies but in an occasionally “howling” manner.

No doubt HA’s choice of language isn’t you’re average “family newspaper” fare, so I was curious to see a reference on Slog to a Blog Readability Test, which rates Slog’s prose at a “High School” level. Unscientific as it may be, HA scores at a “College (Postgrad)” level, while Postman on Politics and Ramsey’s own Ed cetera blog join Slog at the “High School” level, and the tediously non-profane scribes at (un)Sound Politics are apparently writing toward a “Junior High School” audience. Figures.

As a post-grad level blogger, I think I can eloquently say: nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah.