HorsesAss.Org

Mark Baerwaldt, creepy Belltown millionaire/Monorail supporter/Sound Transit hater weighed in on KUOW the other day with this gem:

“The relief cannot be provided by Sound Transit; it takes decades to complete their mission”

See, this is the trouble with weirdo rich guys. They spend their way into the public debate, and onto our public airwaves, into the studio of KUOW, only to give out totally bullshit information. It takes years to build new infrastructure, that’s true, but Sound Transit had had commuter trains up and going for years now. If voters pass Sound Transit 2 (if it gets to the ballot), a great many projects will be implemented within only three or so years.

Add service to existing 11 bus routes serving the north, south, and east side corridors

Start new bus route between downtown Bellevue, Overlake and Redmond

Expand the bus fleet (obviously)

Break ground on Tukwila Sounder station

Break ground on expansion of Sumner, Puyallup & Everett Sounder stations

Fund Burien park & ride expansion

Finalize agreement with BNSF to expand Sounder service between Seattle and Tacoma

* Open Link light rail between Seattle and SeaTac Airport*

* Break ground on Link from downtown Seattle to UW via Cap Hill*

* And get going on design & engineering of the LRT extensions*

* Currently funded under phase 1

Compare this to Mark’s plan, which is…

Does Mark even have a plan?

I know some of you thought it was a particularly dry piece of satire, but I really am debating conservative kingpin Grover Norquist tonight at an Outback Steakhouse. If you’re interested in cheering me on, you can call the folks at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (360.956.3482), and see if they still have room.

Anyway, I’m spending the rest of the afternoon prepping for the debate, reading up on Norquist’s close connections to Jack Abramoff’s web of corruption, so don’t expect much posting from me the rest of the day. Likewise, I’m taking the train down to Vancouver tomorrow afternoon ahead of a Wednesday morning speech before the Washington Education Association, so again, expect light posting from me over the next couple days.

In what’s turning out to be a parallel to the presidential race, the Reichert campaign is once again pushing the experience meme to the local media, picking up where they left off with their sexist job interview ad from 2006. (As I’ve mentioned before, Reichert’s dismissive comments about powerful and capable women, combined with his staunch opposition to reproductive rights, suggests a less than modern attitude toward the opposite gender.)

The Seattle P-I’s Gregory Roberts is the latest journalist to ask the question of whether experience will play a decisive role in this campaign, and over all, I think he answers it in a pretty evenhanded manner. Though of course I’d think that, considering much of that answer included an extensive conversation with me.

Burner established her credibility as a candidate with her ability to raise money. She caught on quickly with the “netroots,” the informal community of left-wing bloggers that was emerging as a political force.

“She’s one of us,” Seattle blogger David Goldstein said recently. “Deep down, she’s a geek.”

Goldstein solicited donations for Burner’s campaign on his horsesass.org Web site. He met Burner in 2005 at a training program for would-be progressive political candidates and activists.

“She’s one of the smartest politicians I’ve met,” Goldstein said. “She is an incredibly hard worker. She is just absolutely relentless.”

Burner’s political ideology makes her more appealing to the left than Reichert: She wants immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while he wants to fight to victory; she’s pro-choice, while he’s anti-abortion; he supports the Bush tax cuts, and she thinks they wrongly favor the rich.

But beyond that, Goldstein said, Burner’s background is a plus.

“Congress could use a little bit of Microsoft, and coming from this district, that kind of makes sense,” he said.

“What we don’t have in Congress are people like Darcy Burner who truly understand high technology and the industries that are driving our economy and our region,” he said.

Besides, Goldstein said, Reichert’s experience didn’t prepare him especially well for Congress, where he’s rated as the 401st most influential House member by congress.org.

“He wasn’t a lawyer, she’s not a lawyer. He wasn’t a legislator, she’s not a legislator,” he said.

“This idea that she should have been a city councilperson first and then moved on up — that’s an argument for incumbency,” Goldstein said. “That says the only experience for public office is public office.”

Reporters who have interviewed me know that not only do I like to talk, I can sometimes get pretty damn tangential, so if anything, Roberts has me coming off a bit more concise and focused than I probably did on the phone. That said, I can pretty much sum up my thoughts on this issue by restating my belief that holding elected office should be an act of public service, not a reward for it.

Campaign spokesman Mike Shields likes to point toward Reichert’s long career in law enforcement as a prerequisite for office: “Dave has done this since he was a cop on the beat — helping people solve problems.” But while I certainly honor and respect the hard and sometimes dangerous work of all our first responders, it is not especially relevant to what goes on in the halls of Congress, as evidenced by Reichert’s own ranking as the 401st most powerful person in Congress, ahead of only 34 other representatives, some of whom aren’t even retired, indicted, behind bars, or dead.

It is understandable that in 2004, Reichert ran as “the Sheriff”—that is how most voters knew him, and that was the experience, however irrelevant to the task of legislating, that best recommended him for the job. But after two terms in Congress, it is past time for him to start running as “the Congressman.” And if voters find his job performance in that capacity wanting, then it’s time for them to give Darcy Burner a second, closer look.

Reload turned 4 this weekend.

The easiest way to see if campaign management is for you is to manage a campaign. And that’s exactly what I did.

I left Horsesass.org at the end of April to manage Rep. Geoff Simpson’s re-election campaign. If you are a regular consumer of web-based news, then you know what happened. This, and then a month later, this. (It learned that in the news business, the arrest gets front page treatment while the story about the charges being dropped gets buried. Then again, I’m just another “amen blogger”, so who cares what I think, right?)

But less than a month later, I’m back here, blogging. Turns out, the tough job of campaign management probably isn’t for me, and I’m glad I found that out sooner rather than later. I feel blessed to have had the opportunity, that’s for sure.

Now, back to blogging (at least for the time being).

The Governor’s big night out:

When Seattle Times political reporter David Postman sat down with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently, talk turned to the difficulty Dems have had sticking to their agenda in light of the narrow majority they hold in the Senate. But Pelosi told Postman that they were working harder, particularly on Iraq. (The emphasis is mine):

“This time we just said, ‘What do we want in this bill? What is the statement that needs to be made?’

Part of that statement has been to reflect what is in a document called the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Created by Burner and a team of experts, the plan calls for a rapid troop withdrawal and an increased diplomatic and humanitarian effort in Iraq.

The plan has been endorsed by other Democratic congressional challengers, as well as some retired military officers.

Big threads of the plan include legislation that already existed in Congress but failed to pass under two years of Democratic control.

“You could think of a million things you could do better in terms of Iraq, probably at least a million,” Pelosi said. “But it’s a question of where you put the focus. And yes, indeed, what she has done helped focus that.”

And Burner got other candidates to sign on. “That drumbeat isn’t lost on Congress.”

There are some who have attempted to dismiss Burner’s efforts on the Responsible Plan as mere political calculation, while others have attempted to dismiss the effort itself. When asked to comment on the Plan, Dave Reichert routinely brushes of the questioner, claiming matter-of-factly that Burner didn’t even write it.

As usual, Reichert couldn’t be further from the truth. Indeed, the back story on the Plan is at least as revealing as the Plan itself.

The Plan was conceived during the heady days of Burner’s remarkable Internet fundraiser, when she raised an astounding $123,000 in small donations from 3,200 contributers over a weekend in August. As President Bush was stopping traffic in Bellevue to raise money for Reichert, Burner and a handful of experts assembled at a hotel down the block to livestream an innovative, online “town hall meeting” on the war in Iraq. And near the end of the broadcast, Burner made a surprise announcement that Gen. Paul Eaton had agreed to work with her to create a comprehensive proposal to responsibly draw down our troops and bring them home.

Burner’s bold announcement drew little coverage, even here on HA, because quite frankly I thought she might have gotten a little caught up in the moment. This is not the kind of thing that mere congressional challengers do—or are even capable of doing—and I winced at a promise I thought she would have a tough time delivering in a credible manner.

Burner’s staff and advisers were even less enthusiastic. A candidate’s primary job early in a campaign is to raise money, and the consultancy class frowns upon nearly anything that might distract the candidate from precious “call time.” It is also generally accepted campaign wisdom that challengers are usually best off avoiding specificity on issues so that it is the incumbent’s record that draws the scrutiny of voters.

Throughout the fall of 2007 advisers suggested Burner reconsider the project, and I had more than one conversation with nervous staffers who worried that her efforts were costing the campaign far too much in time, focus, and financial resources. The DCCC, whose favor Burner couldn’t afford to lose, was equally unenthusiastic, and while I’m told they never asked her to abandon the plan, they never encouraged her either… and they certainly didn’t encourage other challengers to sign on.

But Burner proved undaunted. No doubt personal ambition drives all politicians to some extent—like blogging, it is an inherently narcissistic profession—but Burner’s political ambitions have always been motivated by what she sees as an extraordinary opportunity to make a difference. For Burner, most of the elements of what eventually became the Responsible Plan were obvious; in fact many had already been proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission or in existing legislation. What Burner hoped to produce was a comprehensive proposal that could serve as a framework for enacting a realistic legislative agenda over a relatively short amount of time.

And that is what Burner eventually willed into creation, a Responsible Plan so credible that it has drawn the endorsement of over 50 other House and Senate challengers along with numerous military and national security experts, and has, in the words of Speaker Pelosi, “helped focus” the agenda of the Democratic leadership.

One thing that remains clear is that by sending Darcy Burner to the other Washington, 8th CD voters will not only get a reliable vote on the issues they care about most, but a remarkably smart, independent and creative leader who through hard work, determination, and sheer chutzpah will quickly rise up the Democratic ranks. Burner doesn’t want to go to Congress to be a rubberstamp for Nancy Pelosi, she wants to go there to solve problems.

That is what she has done with her Responsible Plan. And that is what Burner will do as the elected representative from Washington’s 8th Congressional District.

It’s not like politicians have never lied or flip-flopped in the past, but it’s one thing to compare and contrast the printed word, and entirely another to do it via video. John McCain just can’t continue to contradict his prior recorded statements, pretending that YouTube doesn’t exist, and still expect to maintain his credibility with voters, especially now that he’s already damaging his reputation with reporters.

This reveals a fundamental difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain:

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt and that Mr. Obama and his wife had put more than $200,000 into college funds for their daughters.

Yeah…the circumstances differ. When you leave your wife to marry a fabulously rich heiress, a quarter million of debt comes off as chump change—even “at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate.” And squirreling away a couple hundred thousand for your kids future isn’t really necessary. But the fiscal report betrays a rather caviler fiscal attitude in the McCain residence.

This strikes me as a metaphor showing a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans—the self-anointed party of “fiscally responsibility”—have intentionally outspent their means. They’ve piled unprecidented debt onto the backs of Americans for generations to come.

George W. Bush came into office with a $5.7 trillion federal debt. Today that figure has ballooned to $9.5 trillion, which means that every American has their own $31,100 credit card charge.

Contrast this to Bill Clinton, who took office with $4.4 trillion in federal debt and left office with $5.7 trillion. And with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton pushed hard to invest in the future, a vision captured in his farewell address:

First, America must maintain our record of fiscal responsibility. Through our last four budgets we’ve turned record deficits to record surpluses, and we’ve been able to pay down $600 billion of our national debt–on track to be debt-free by the end of the decade for the first time since 1835. Staying on that course will bring lower interest rates, greater prosperity, and the opportunity to meet our big challenges. If we choose wisely, we can pay down the debt, deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, invest more in our future, and provide tax relief.

Instead…we got George W. Bush and the Big Credit Card.

This fall we will have a choice between Candidate A, whose household finances show a credit card debt of $225,000 and Candidate B whose household has saved $200,000 to invest in their children’s future.

Pretty easy choice, huh?

So, state Sen. Curtis King (R-Yakima) won his special election last year with 81-percent of the vote… and yet this year he’s putting up signs without any party identification, but with an Obamaesque logo dotting his “i”. If you ask me, that’s a pretty bad sign for Republicans, both literally and metaphorically.

It used to be that candidates were required to identify their party on all their campaign materials, but I’m guessing that rule was thrown out when the top-two primary came in. So now Republicans are permitted to campaign without identifying themselves as Republicans. So much for a well informed electorate.

What a bunch of weasels.

I just flew in to Spokane (and boy are my arms tired), only to learn that NBC’s Tim Russert has died of a heart attack, at age 59 58.

I’ve got an admittedly sick sense of humor, so I have to admit that a couple not mean, but inappropriate headlines immediately popped into my mind, but it’s times like these that reminds us that all of us, even people whose actions we disagree with, are human beings, and thus mortal. So my condolences to Russert’s family and friends.

[via Slog]

US Airways is joining other major carriers in charging additional fees for checked baggage, turning an already tense boarding process into a Darwinian death match for scarce overhead luggage resources. And…

The Tempe, Ariz.-based carrier also said it would cut domestic flights, shrink the size of its fleet, slash 1,700 jobs and add a $2 fee for nonalcoholic drinks during flights.

So let me get this right… we’re already prohibited from carrying beverages through security due to some bullshit, Bush scare tactic, and now the airlines want to charge us table-service prices for a fucking can of seltzer? As if flying at 30,000 feet isn’t dehydrating enough?

Better carry a shitload of quarters with you the next time you fly folks, just in case the plane loses cabin pressure and you have to feed the goddamn coin slot on the oxygen mask.

For those of you too young to remember, flying wasn’t always such a miserable experience. There was a time when airlines treated passengers as more than just those things they pack into the space above the cargo hold. There was a time when airlines focused on service, and treated even us plebs crammed into coach like paying customers, instead of just an inconvenience.

There was a time when flying from Florida to Seattle, if I missed a connecting flight in Houston due to “thunderstorms in Boston” or some bullshit excuse like that, they’d reticket me on the next available flight, even on a competing airline, instead of just shrugging their shoulders and leaving me and a small child to fend for ourselves in an airport for 24 hours or longer.

That’s because there was a time when airlines were in the business of actually moving passengers and their luggage to their final destination. You know… back before deregulation.

I’m not saying consumers didn’t benefit from deregulation; ticket prices dropped dramatically due to increased competition—hell, at under $300 round trip coast to coast, I don’t think I paid a profitable fare for years—but holy crap, enough is enough already!

Perhaps it’s time to consider a little reregulation, to stabilize the industry and bring a modicum of service and reliability back into the flying experience. Perhaps consumers might benefit if the fare didn’t routinely fluctuate between $749 and $404 and back again, depending on which minute you logged into Expedia? Perhaps something other than “the free market” is necessary to fix an industry that has collectively lost $15 billion since deregulation?

Because if the airlines are so willing to cut corners above deck, where the paying customers can see it, I’m damn frightened to learn what they’re cutting behind the scenes.