HorsesAss.Org

It hasn’t been 24 hours since Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic challengers introduced their Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, and we’re already seeing a surge of new challengers signing on. Blue Jersey reports both Dennis Shulman (NJ-05) and Tom Wyka (NJ-11) have endorsed the plan, while Darius Shahinfar (NY-21) announced his support in a post to The Albany Project. Closer to home, Larry Grant (ID-01) marks the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion by signing on to the plan, while Left in the West reports that Lt. Col. Jim Hunt (MT-At Large) is on board too.

Meanwhile, down in Washington’s Mexico, where Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick are in a battle for the Democratic nomination to face off against Republican incumbent Gordon Smith in Oregon’s US Senate race, the two candidates issued dueling endorsements just minutes apart.

Novick lauds the Responsible Plan and its creators:

“I am proud to throw my support behind this new effort to build a progressive consensus on ending the war in Iraq in a way that will help that nation rebuild, while reversing the damage the war has done here at home,” said Novick. “Many of the ideas contained in the plan are not new and, indeed, I and others have been advocating for them over the past months. But with this clear set of objectives, I believe that Darcy Burner, Major General Eaton and others are laying the foundation for a coalition that I believe can bring our troops home with honor.”

Meanwhile, Merkley stresses a point that holds as true in WA-08 and other districts as it does in the Oregon Senate race:

“I opposed this war publicly from the very beginning. It’s now long past time to bring our sons and daughters home, repay the debt we owe our veterans, and restore America’s standing in the world,” said House Speaker Jeff Merkley said. “Gordon Smith and the Bush Administration led us into this war and have never offered a plan to get us out. Smith has manipulated and confused the media and the public and done nothing to bring an end to this war.”

That’s a theme that Burner could easily push in her district where Dave Reichert talks about wanting to get out of Iraq, while voting 100% with President Bush on the war. In response to the Plan, Reichert aide Mike Shield even told the Seattle P-I, “I think both sides would agree we have the same plan: We want our troops home as soon as possible.” The difference is, Burner is actually doing something about it, her efforts made even all the more impressive by the fact that she’s not the one in Congress. And in talking to the Seattle Times, Shields sticks his foot yet further in the congressman’s mouth…

A spokesman for Reichert said the congressman believes military leaders on the ground — not candidates for political office — should make decisions about when and how to end the war.

Huh. Last time I checked, civilian control of the military was a cornerstone of our democracy, and a sacred principle that has guided our officer corps for better than two centuries. But, you know, if an independent military works so well in Pakistan, I suppose it would work here too.

So far, Republican efforts to refute or dismiss the plan have been rather feeble, but I sure hope they keep trying, for as long as Republicans keep championing the status quo, the more voters will start looking elsewhere for leadership. The GOP has long attempted to brand itself as strong on defense, but as Julie points out over on Red State Rebels, voters have already started to redefine the notion of national security: “It’s the Iraq recession economy, stupid.”

That in the end is one of the Responsible Plan’s greatest strengths. It does look to the generals on the ground to determine the logistics of the pull-out, but it doesn’t get bogged down in the logistics itself; the generals will receive instructions to initiate a withdrawal, and as they have done throughout our nation’s history, the generals will follow their orders to the best of their ability. Meanwhile, the Plan broadens the conversation to include the political, diplomatic and economic efforts absolutely necessary to achieve stability in the region, to repair the economic, political and constitutional damage done at home, and to prevent a policy fiasco like this from happening again in the future.

If Reichert and his fellow Republicans have better ideas on how to give the American people what they clearly want, I suggest they come up with their own plan, rather than dismissing this one out of hand. In the meanwhile, Democratic challengers, recognizing an opportunity to change the conversation on national security from the current narrow (and pointless) debate over the outcome of “the surge,” will continue to sign on to the Plan in droves.

UPDATE:
The Oregonian reports on the Merkley and Novick campaigns squabbling over who was first to sign on to the Responsible Plan, but the real money quote comes from the Smith campaign:

And as for the incumbent, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.? “I went to the executive summary and thought Gordon Smith wrote it,” said the senator’s campaign spokesman, R.C. Hammond.

If the immediate goal of the Plan is to change the conversation on national security, then they hit a home run in Oregon. Meanwhile, Merkley elaborates on his endorsement over on Huffington Post.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

-The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as passed by Congress. The above version is currently on the books.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

-The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. This version, with different capitalization and two fewer commas, was the version sent to the states that ratified the amendments.

I’m fascinated by the Constitution in general, and I think the Second Amendment is particularly interesting. I love to argue about the amendment. If I’m arguing with Goldy, the exchange sounds something like this:

Me: What is it about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” that you don’t understand?

Goldy: There’s a comma! There’s a fucking comma, you hillbilly! [Storms off in disgust]

The recent deliberations by the Supreme Court over the legality of Washington D.C.’s handgun ban is great stuff. Believe it or not, this will actually be the first time the Supreme Court will rule on gun control, specifically, whether a gun control measure violates the Second Amendment.

It’s weird to listen to Democrats talk about Bush violating civil liberties, only to witness Democrats treat gun rights as a civil liberty worth giving away.

Now, I think the 2nd makes it pretty clear that the government has the ability to see that our militia is well-regulated (background checks, waiting periods, concealed and carry permits), I think the 2nd is obvious in declaring that, fundamentally, Americans get to own guns.

We are not some subsection of German Bavaria, after all, where our rights are given to us by some potentate. We’re Americans, where our rights come from our Creator. Thomas Jefferson once said:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

I’m no gun nut, but I’d rather D.C. residents has too much freedom than too little.

Yup… you read the headline. And all I can say at the moment is that I’m both surprised and disappointed.

“Wow!” Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed said when told of the decision. “That’s terrific! It means the people of the state of Washington are going to be able to control who gets elected through this process.”

Reed said the top-two system will take effect with the August primary election.

“This is a victory for the state of Washington,” he said in an interview.

Reed said the ruling sets a precedent that will allow other states to break political party control on primary elections.

Yeah, well, be careful what you wish for Sam. Now that the parties have lost all control over the nominating process, their only influence can come from raising and spending huge gobs of cash on their favored candidates. That means rather than being hands off a primary battle, the party bigwigs will be forced to pick a candidate early, and the role of money (and the wealthy people who have it) only becomes more pronounced.

In fact, primary elections in Washington state have just become a big, fat waste of time and money. The whole purpose of a primary election is to enable the parties to choose their candidates through more democratic means, rather than via smoke filled rooms. Now that you’ve done away with that, and entirely removed the parties from the nominating process, we might as well skip the primary and go straight to a general election… that way the ultimate winner can be chosen on a ballot that folks actually turnout for.

Dumb fucking Washingtonians and our pathological need to be different. And dumb fucking party leadership for challenging the old blanket primary, which may have sucked, but was a helluva lot better than what we’re stuck with now.

“I think we’ll see it around the country,” [Reed] said.

Hey Chris Vance and Paul Berendt… how’s that working out for you?

It’s almost funny, really, but if it weren’t for his organization’s attack on the scientific method, I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it. More faith-based transpo-logic from the Discovery Institute:

Some transportation experts say I-90’s middle lanes could be converted to “hot lanes” or “zip lanes” for single-occupancy drivers willing to pay tolls, as well as toll-exempt buses. This could provide an interim approach to light rail and provide a better picture of transit demand, plus help pay for transit improvements on both trans-lake corridors, said Bruce Agnew, director of the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a Seattle think tank.

If only I could get some rich dorkwads and corporations to back me with cash, then I could get my loopy ideas quoted in the newspaper. If only!

[UPDATE: The presentation is now over. Learn more at ResponsiblePlan.com.]

Darcy Burner and nine fellow Democratic challengers release their “Responsible Plan For Ending The War In Iraq” today at the Take Back America conference in Washington DC. The presentation is scheduled to begin at 2:30PM PT (though don’t be surprised if it’s a few minutes late), and you can download a PDF of the Responsible Plan here.

Yes HA was down for well over an hour, and no, I don’t know the cause. But the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Overheard at a DC restaurant, one Beltway insider to another on learning that Dino Rossi had once again hired GOP hatchet man Scott Howell to do his media:

“You think Dino Rossi knows that Gregoire isn’t a black man? Because that’s the only kind of race Scott wins lately.”

Howell is a notoriously vicious ad man who learned at the feet of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. His credits include the notoriously race-baiting ads against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee’s 2006 US Senate race, and the infamous campaign against Sen. Max Cleland, who left both legs and an arm on the battlefield in Vietnam, only to see Howell run an ad morphing him into Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Howell also produced an ad for Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn that accused Democrat Brad Carson of being soft on welfare while showing two black hands counting cash, and ran an ad in Virginia claiming Gov. Tim Kaine wouldn’t have used the death penalty against Hitler.

As Max Blumenthal wrote on Huffington Post back in 2006:

If a political attack ad crosses boundaries of good taste, is emotionally manipulative, excessively ominous, twists facts, exploiting hot-button issues of race, sex and terror, and winds up being condemned by civil rights groups, the chances are that ad has been produced by Republican hitman Scott Howell.

Howell had a banner year in 2004, winning nearly every major race except Rossi’s. In 2006… not so much, the Tennessee race being his biggest victory. That Dino has hired Howell once again speaks volumes about Rossi and the the tone we can expect from his campaign.

UPDATE:
A source inside the Rossi campaign tells me that they have not in fact hired Howell: “I don’t want to get too deep into our negotiations, but we decided to go a different direction.”

Huh. I guess Rossi does know that Gregoire is not a black man. Good for him.

Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic challengers will introduce their “Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq” today at 2:30PM PT in the nation’s capital. And I sure hope our local media is paying attention, else they find themselves scooped. The Kennebec Journal (Maine) already writes:

“It is not just to separate myself from the pack,” [Chellie Pingree] said. “We candidates are coming in with what we hope will be a very strong mandate for change.”

Pingree said the candidates want to “get elected on a wave of change” and “send a signal to Democratic leaders that there are a lot of candidates who are frustrated that the Congress does not look responsive to the public.”

[…] Burner drafted the manifesto while the candidates contributed thoughts and edited drafts, Pingree said.

When the Republicans announced their “Contract For America” in 1994, it was a top-down affair led by then-Minority Leader Newt Gingrich, in which the NRCC urged their candidates to sign on. But the Responsible Plan is a grassroots effort, initiated by Burner, drafted by her, her fellow challengers and their military advisers, and organized outside the purview (and wishes) of the DCCC. If that’s not political leadership, I don’t know what is.

“I wholeheartedly endorse this plan as a responsible and forward looking plan for ending the war in Iraq. As Burner and her colleagues correctly note, bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again,” said Dr. Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. “This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush Administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction. I applaud their efforts on this ambitious and sound strategy. This is progressive strength on national security in action.”

Darcy Burner has long been a netroots superstar. The rest of the nation is about to discover why.

Tonight’s Sonics’ score is not a misprint. They lost to Denver 168-116. Only one other team has given up that many points in a regulation game since 1962. At least Northwest hoops fans can still root for Wazzu, a 4-seed in the NCAA Tournament, Gonzaga (7 seed), Oregon (9 seed), or Portland St (a 16 seed playing Kansas). Both Wazzu and Gonzaga play Charlotte area teams, Winthrop and Davidson. Unfortunately, Gonzaga has to play Davidson in Raleigh. Wazzu plays in Denver. The fun starts Thursday.

Between a Monday St. Patrick’s Day and the first round of March Madness, this will be the most unproductive work week in our nation’s history.

Nervous yet? The world’s central bankers certainly are, as the sudden collapse of Bear Stearns, the nation’s fifth largest investment firm, raises fears of a financial collapse unseen since the days of the Great Depression.

Bear Stearns Cos. reached an agreement to sell itself to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., as worries grew that failing to find a buyer for the beleaguered investment bank could cause the crisis of confidence gripping Wall Street to worsen.

The deal calls for J.P. Morgan to pay $2 a share in a stock-swap transaction, with J.P. Morgan Chase exchanging 0.05473 share of its common stock for each Bear Stearns share. Both companies’ boards have approved the transaction, which values Bear Stearns at just $236 million based on the number of shares outstanding as of Feb. 16. At Friday’s close, Bear Stearns’s stock-market value was about $3.54 billion. It finished at $30 a share in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading Friday.

Wow. A 93% discount off of Friday’s close. Now that’s what I call a bargain, especially considering that Bear Stearns’ Manhattan office building is valued at around $1.2 billion, more the five times the price of the buyout. So… how much liability is J.P. Morgan assuming?

JPMorgan said that in addition to the loans extended to Bear on Friday, the Fed had agreed to fund up to $30bn of Bear’s less liquid assets – a move that will alleviate the need for a fire-sale of mortgage-backed securities.

That means you, dear taxpayer, are picking up the bulk of the risk, not J.P. Morgan. That’s the way things work in America: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Of course the Fed claims that Bear Stearns’ problems were unique, and that no other major US financial institution is on the verge of collapse, which I suppose is why they also cut interest rates a quarter point. On a Sunday. Ahead of an expected 1-point cut in the discount rate this Tuesday. And still, Asian markets and the dollar continue to fall… I wonder why?

As Bonddad wrote on Friday:

The only way to prevent this mess from happening again is to let some of the big banks fail. Then in the future when someone says, “let’s stop performing due diligence on borrowers” someone can respond with, “Bear Stearns tried that and they went belly up.” Now in 10 years, someone will say, “Let’s stop performing due diligence” someone will respond with “that’s a great idea. After the borrowers default, the Federal Reserve will bail us out.”

I guess that pull yourself up by your bootstraps, free market, rugged individualism stuff is only meant for us little guys.

UPDATE:

In Tokyo, the region’s largest stock exchange, the benchmark Nikkei 225 index was trading at an almost three-year low. By midday, the index dropped 4.2 percent to 11,726.99, falling below 12,000 for the first time since August 2005.

[…] The declines in Tokyo came even as the Japanese central bank, the Bank of Japan, moved to shore up financial markets by injecting $4.1 billion into short-term money markets.

Ten Democratic challengers have joined forces with top military generals to create “A Responsible Plan For Ending The War In Iraq,” a document Brig. Gen. John Johns describes as a “well reasoned… broad framework for getting out of Iraq responsibly.” The list of challengers who have embraced the Responsible Plan now include:

Darcy Burner (WA-08)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Tom Perriello (VA-05)
George Fearing (WA-04)
Larry Byrnes (FL-14)
Steve Harrison (NY-13)
Sam Bennett (PA-15)

Monday at 2:30PM PT, Darcy Burner and her fellow “Responsible Challengers” will introduce the Responsible Plan at the Take Back America conference in Washington D.C.; the event will be live streamed on Burner’s website, here on HA, and on dozens of websites nationwide. In addition to drawing down US forces, the Responsible Plan calls for a diplomatic, political and economic surge to help establish stability in Iraq and the surrounding region, addressing humanitarian concerns created by our invasion and occupation, restoring our constitution, our military and the independence of our media, and creating a US-centered energy policy that eliminates our dependence on oil.

This is an ambitious plan, particular coming from a group of congressional challengers, and these candidates deserve to be rewarded for their leadership. To this end a new Act Blue page has been created — Responsible Challengers — where you can show your support either by giving to the individual challengers of your choice, or by splitting your contribution evenly across the entire slate. If you’re unhappy with failure of Congress to move decisively toward ending the war, send a message by showing support challengers who have shown their willingness to take this issue into their own hands.

Please give today, and tune in tomorrow for the release of the Responsible Plan.

It’s been a bad week for Republicans…

It started with the loss last weekend of the seat held for two decades by former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). It got worse when Republicans lost potentially strong challengers to Democratic senators in South Dakota and New Jersey, and failed to field anyone to oppose the reelection bid of Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

The latest blow came with the revelation that the former treasurer of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) had allegedly diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars — and possibly as much as $1 million — from the organization’s depleted coffers to his own bank accounts.

If Republicans needed any more evidence of how difficult this fall may be, the past week had it all, analysts said. The Illinois race demonstrated new levels of disaffection, the party’s efforts to go on offense elsewhere were thwarted by recruiting failures, and the NRCC scandal will divert campaign resources and could frighten off badly needed contributors, they said.

And where did the elephants go wrong?

“It’s no mystery,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). “You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He’s just killed the Republican brand.”

Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan analyst of congressional politics, said: “The math is against them. The environment is against them. The money is against them. This is one of those cycles that if you’re a Republican strategist, you just want to go into the bomb shelter.”

Oh, there are so many snarky things I could write, but why bother? When it comes to making the GOP into a laughingstock, Republicans are doing a fine enough job on their own.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) addresses the House on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and a lawless executive:

(There are some seventy other media clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

I suppose I’ve been unfair to Rep. Dave Reichert. In a bold political move, Reichert struck a forceful blow against the abuse of earmarks by, you know… issuing a video news release. And how did I respond? I teased him about being the 419th most powerful member of the House.

Well that’s the sort of deceptive rhetoric that simply isn’t worthy of the name “Horse’s Ass”. It was mean spirited. It was cynical. And well… it was downright wrong. For it turns out that Reichert is not the 419th most powerful member of the House — those were the old rankings. The new rankings came out a few weeks ago, and Reichert has climbed all the way up to 401st. That’s better than 34 other congressman, some of whom aren’t even dead, retired, indicted or behind bars. Congratulations Dave. Another 18 years of attrition and you might actually discover some real influence.

Of course, that still leaves Reichert distantly mired in last place relative to the rest of the Washington state delegation, but when you have a political powerhouse like Rep. Doc Hastings in your ranks, that’s to be understood.

House Power Rankings by Overall Score
Name	Rank in State	Overall Score	Rank in House
Rep. Dicks (D-WA 6th)	1	39.01	22
Rep. McDermott (D-WA 7th)	2	34.06	39
Rep. Inslee (D-WA 1st)	3	29.57	72
Rep. Baird (D-WA 3rd)	4	16.48	212
Rep. Larsen (D-WA 2nd)	5	14.92	236
Rep. Smith (D-WA 9th)	6	13.69	258
Rep. Hastings (R-WA 4th)	7	11.97	301
Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA 5th)	8	9.73	356
Rep. Reichert (R-WA 8th)	9	6.45	401

So how did Reichert do it? How did he climb 18 rungs on that 435-rung DC power ladder in just one year? Well, of course, all those deaths, retirements, indictments and convictions might have made a little bit of room for him at the top (of the tenth decile), not to mention his impressive use of video news releases. But a closer analysis of the numbers reveals that Reichert’s meteoric rise to the top (of the bottom) is largely based on his growing facility with, you guessed it: earmarks!

Reichert may just be 401st amongst House members in terms of overall power, but his 36 earmarks totaling over $27 million last year ranks him 73rd in terms of “member projects.” But even more impressive, Reichert climbs from a distant 9th place in the overall power rankings within the WA delegation, to a comfortable 3rd place when it comes to their “Earmark Scores”. Again, congratulations Dave! It looks like you’ve finally figured out at least one part of the legislative process.

House Power Rankings by Earmarks Score
Name	Rank in State	Earmark Score	Rank in House
Rep. Dicks (D-WA 6th)	1	2.51	7
Rep. Larsen (D-WA 2nd)	2	1.43	39
Rep. Reichert (R-WA 8th)	3	1.01	73
Rep. Baird (D-WA 3rd)	4	0.98	82
Rep. Hastings (R-WA 4th)	5	0.96	84
Rep. Smith (D-WA 9th)	6	0.95	86
Rep. McDermott (D-WA 7th)	7	0.75	152
Rep. Inslee (D-WA 1st)	8	0.74	155
Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA 5th)	9	0.70	167

Of course, Rep. Norm Dicks remains by far our state’s earmark champion, but then, Dicks has never been shy about bringing home the bacon and proudly frying it up for his constituents. I mean, if Dicks were to suddenly take a principled stand against earmarks, well, that might be interpreted by the press as the height of hypocrisy. But Reichert, he was the sheriff you know, and so his sudden conversion from needing an appropriations seat “now” to promising his video camera that he’s gonna give up earmarks (during an election year)… well… I guess we should just take him at his word.