HorsesAss.Org

Walt Crowley, 1947-2007. More here.

Sorry for adding to the OJ noise surplus, but this video was too funny not to post:

Small-world side note: I once played a round of golf with Yale Galanter’s father’s golf clubs (although I’ve never met either one). And much like OJ, I was unsuccessful in locating the real killers.

At least that’s the message I’m hearing from light rail opponents with Sierra Club.

“I think it’s not the most efficient use of tax dollars,” local club Chairman Mike O’Brien said during a campaign debate over this fall’s multibillion-dollar Proposition 1.

He called the Tacoma line a “political decision” made to satisfy elected officials in Pierce County. “If transportation planners were in charge, they would come up with a more efficient solution,” he said.

Mike is right about one thing. It’s not as efficient to build light rail in the poor part of town. Or the racially diverse part of town.

This arguement reminds me of how white liberals form the north end are still miffed that blacks, Asians, hispanics in the south end are getting light rail before they will. Truth is, light rail could have skipped SE Seattle and headed north sooner to Mike’s neighborhood of Fremont, and the U-District, and to whiter, more affluent neighborhoods further north. But they didn’t. A decision was made to put light rail through a part of town they usually gets the shaft. Instead of ignoring the south end, we invested in it.

After the debate, O’Brien said South End trains would take too long to reach Seattle, because of the system’s slow surface segment currently under construction through South Seattle’s Rainier Valley. He suggests building separate lines outward from downtown Everett and Tacoma, serving local riders into those urban centers.

O’Brien (and Sierra Club) are ill served by their Seattle-centric view. Folks in Fife are just as likely to be taking the train to Tacoma, Federal Way, or Sea-Tac, as they are to Seattle. The city leaders of Fife are getting really excited about light rail, even if urban Seattle liberals aren’t. Besides, where was the Sierra Club on the issue of route alignment? What studies have they done? Where are their ridership statistics?

See, this is what “lying” looks like.

Last week Republican King County Councilmember Jane Hague blamed staff for repeated errors in which published questionnaires and profiles claimed a four-year college degree she had not earned. But even if Hague won’t admit the truth, the document above, uncovered in a front page story in today’s Seattle Times, pretty much speaks for itself. As the Times explains:

The Municipal League, which publishes annual candidate evaluations, sent a letter to Hague in 1993 asking her to proofread the biography she had submitted: “Please review this information for accuracy and sign your name at the bottom of this page to indicate that you have approved the information … ”

The document was amended in several places to indicate that Hague had lived in the area for 24 years, was an active volunteer, and was on unpaid leave from her job as King County’s elections manager while running for the County Council.

But no correction was made to the sentence that stated she had earned a bachelor’s degree.

Just look at Hague’s attention to detail in amending the document. Then look at the detail she left unchanged. Now reread what she told the Times last week about circumstances surrounding her failure to be awarded a degree:

“About 20 years ago,” when Hague contacted her alma mater in an attempt to document her credits and get a degree, she learned that credits from the law class hadn’t been transferred to Western Michigan and by then it was too late. She said she never tried to portray herself as a college graduate.

That’s right, she learned she never received her diploma “about 20 years ago.” That would be “about” 1987. And yet she portrayed herself as a college graduate in 1991. And in 1993. And in 1996, 1997, and again in 2000.

In the end, this is not about a little white lie from 15 years ago, it’s about a long pattern of prevarication and blaming others that continues today. It is about whether Hague deserves voters’ trust, regardless of who her opponent might be.

Tonight on Countdown Keith Olbermann offered a Special Commentary about President Bush getting his undies in a bunch over that MoveOn.org ad:

[Sen. Brian Weinstein comments below, clarifying that while he likes Edwards, he has not endorsed him. The Democrats mentioned below were announced as being in attendance at the event, and their attendance should not necessarily be construed as an endorsement. -Will]

That was the theme of John Edwards’ visit to Seattle yesterday. In contrast to other Democrats in the race for president, John Edwards made it clear that he’s not interested in half measures.

He’s for universal health care, not “we’ll get to the other 15 million uninsured someday.” He’s upfront about how expensive it’ll be, and how he’ll pay for it (rescind the Bush Tax Giveaway for folks making over 200k a year). Edwards talked about the divide between rich and poor, and how this isn’t good for the health of our country. Whether it’s helping kids go to college, attacking global warming, or the war in Iraq, Edwards did not shy away from straight answers. He did not parse words.

After Edwards spoke, I had the chance to talk to Jenny Durkan, Edwards campaign chair in Washington state. Joel Connelly quoted her earlier this year:

“I will be honest: Hillary has impressed me. But we have seen that movie: It was called John Kerry. I hated the ending,” said Seattle attorney Jenny Durkan.

“I cannot think of a time when a person won the presidency by persuading people they were wrong. That’s what Hillary needs to do — persuade a lot of people who do not like her that they were wrong about her.”

Like I told Jenny, Edwards will help down ticket races in a way few candidates can. Sheriffs and county commisioners from conservative areas will be able to stand on the campaign stage with Edwards in a way they might not with other candidates.

Edwards’ overtly populist message plays well in the pointy-headed liberal precincts of Seattle, but also does well in the rest of the state. In Washington, Edwards gets the support of Democrats from all over the state, from Sen. Brian Weinstein to Sen. Brian Hatfield, from Dick Kelley to Yvonne Ward.

Last but not least… John Edwards is an compelling public speaker. There’s a reason why he went from 2% in Iowa to second place back in ’04. Joel Connelly again:

On the Friday night before Iowa’s 2004 caucuses, Gov. Tom Vilsack hosted a reception in Des Moines for the “bigfoot” pundits.

A gang of journalistic middle-feet, myself included, headed out to nearby Madison County — and witnessed Edwards’ campaign on fire. He packed American Legion and VFW halls with blue-collar crowds like Democrats used to attract.

…and ought to attract again in 2008.

I just got a text message from someone down at the Seattle City Club event where Kemper Freeman, Jr. is speaking. You know, the Kemper Freeman who thinks mass transit is for Communists:

Kemper just said he “loves” mike o’brien at the city club.

If I was a road warrior from Bellevue, I’d love Mike O’Brien too.

[UPDATE]

I get an email update about Kemper’s man-crush on the Sierra Club’s Mike O’Brien:

He also said “Mike is my new best friend.” Mike smiled uncomfortably.

Nice.

It may not be his best known play, but Harold Pinter’s “Betrayal” is by far my favorite, and the 1983 film version starring Jeremy Irons, Ben Kingsley and Patricia Hodge has stuck with me like few others. The play moves backward in time, starting with a reunion of sorts between two lovers, Jerry and Emma, and ending a decade earlier at the party where they first meet. Jerry is the best friend of Robert; Emma is Robert’s wife. And as the play unwinds (or rewinds,) we learn that Robert has perhaps betrayed his friend and wife as much as they have him.

The play is sad, funny, a bit of a mystery, and brilliantly written — and its simple, one word title turns out to be as much a question as it is a statement. Who is betraying whom? Are they betraying each other? Their families? Themselves? And what is the nature of betrayal itself?

Man is a social animal; we crave personal relationships and the positive reinforcement of society at large. We even rely on social institutions to physically survive. All our interactions with our fellow humans are at some level built on trust, and that is what makes “betrayal” one of the most powerfully evocative words in the English language. There is no wrong greater than an act of betrayal, and nearly every wrong has an act of betrayal at its core. It is not murder that is the original sin, but betrayal; it was Adam and Eve’s betrayal of God’s trust that got man evicted from the Garden of Eden.

This I think explains the tempest in a DC teapot over what is, after all, only an ad. Moveon did not even accuse anybody of betrayal, but merely asked the question: “Will Gen. Petraeus betray us?”

And I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I have any reason to believe that Gen. Petraeus himself is not a man of honor, or because I believe him capable of treason in any way. But because it raises the question of what the word “betrayal” means in the context of this war, this White House and our current political climate.

Indeed for years Republicans have cheapened the word, brandishing it against anybody who would oppose their policies at home or abroad. Karl Rove and his cohorts have constructed a monochromatic political discourse in which you are either with us or against us, in which you either support the President, his war of aggression, and his unconstitutional assault on our civil liberties, or you are as much a threat as the terrorists themselves. How many times over the past few years have politicians and pundits on the right accused those of us on the left of being traitors? And why should the right maintain exclusive ownership over this powerful meme?

For all the heat Moveon is taking from the political class, the ad was both obvious and effective, and the more Republicans desperately attempt to turn the debate from their ill-conceived and disastrously executed war to, well, just an ad, the more they help us establish our frame. “Petraeus”… “betray us”… it is more than just a rhyme or silly pun, it is an unavoidable verbal linkage that inevitably asks the question every time somebody mentions the general’s name.

What is the nature of betrayal? Is it using the tragedy of 9/11 to push through tax cuts for the very wealthy? Is it lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify a war? Is it violating FISA while publicly claiming you are adhering to FISA? Is it leaving New Orleans to drown in its own toxic floodwaters? Is it spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq, and then nickel and diming our permanently disabled veterans at home? Is it running as a fiscal conservative but creating record federal budget deficits? Is it politicizing the Justice Department and the federal bench? Is it presiding over the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history, but defiantly leaving the consequences to the next administration?

Or is it an ad?

The American people aren’t dumb, and if constantly reminded of the word “betrayal,” they’ll sort this one out for themselves. It’s not Moveon who has betrayed the trust of the American people. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not liberal bloggers like me.

If, like in Pinter’s masterpiece, we run the past six years backward to the emotional days following 9/11, when the American people first embraced this president, the true scope of Bush’s betrayal becomes all the more apparent. It is a sad story, sometimes funny, even a bit of a mystery. And in hindsight, just as inevitable.

Eric Earling responds to my post from earlier today. Let’s see if we can make some sense out of this thing:

I would like to personally thank Lee over at Horse’s Ass for so ably proving my original point on this topic.

You’re very welcome, sir. For those who haven’t been following, here are what appear to be the points he made in that post:

– MoveOn.org and the netroots community – including our own local friends in that following – have lost touch with political reality

– Their attack against Giuliani in Iowa after his response to their Petraeus ad is a blessing of the first order for Team Rudy

Eric is exactly right that I “proved” the second of these points. Why? Because I somewhat agree with it. And I even said so in the original post:

Giuliani may very well be able to use this as a way to make him look tough to the 29% of Americans who are still inhabiting the fairy tale world where Bush is a great president and victory in Iraq is just around the corner.

The first point was the one I took issue with. MoveOn has not “lost touch” with political reality in any way. Rudy Giuliani took out a one-page ad in the New York Times attacking them, so they responded. That’s politically smart. When someone challenges you, you fight back. Americans actually want more of that from Democrats and left-leaning groups, not less.

Eric’s just warming up though:

His frothy indignation over the fact MoveOn.org attacks against Rudy Giuliani are actually helping his candidacy is a delightful exhibition of all that is lovable and cute about the netroots.

Actually, as I mentioned above, my “frothy indignation” was over the accusation that MoveOn and the netroots have lost touch with political reality, not that any of this helps Giuliani. While I’ve been very outspoken on why I think Giuliani might be the worst of the Republican candidates, I have little interest or ability to influence who the Republicans pick as their nominee. MoveOn arguably has some more interest and ability, but anyone who thinks that that’s the main consideration for why they responded to his attack is silly. Giuliani went after them. If this helps Giuliani, it was because he was the one who picked the fight (any of the candidates could have responded to the original MoveOn ad). What was MoveOn supposed to do? Respond to Mitt Romney or John McCain instead? The fact that it might be helping Giuliani is not an indication of MoveOn not understanding political reality, it’s an indication that the Republican Party is an embarrassment and that they seem eager to nominate someone who can’t possibly win next fall.

He continues:

His core point seems to be: “Earling is wrong because the American public isn’t happy with the situation in Iraq.” Thanks for the newsflash. Too bad I don’t dispute that point about the American public’s feelings and it has nothing to do with the post in question.

That’s pretty far from obvious if one reads that post again. The mistake I made is that I didn’t realize that when Eric was talking about “political reality,” he was talking solely about the fantasyland that Republicans are living in now – where they’re looking for a candidate who appears tough enough to keep themselves from wetting their beds – and not the political reality that the rest of us are dealing with, where we’re appreciative of anti-war efforts with some spine.

The reality of national public opinion doesn’t for a minute change the fact that attacking Rudy Giuliani in a Republican primary by saying he didn’t stand up to George W. Bush on Iraq isn’t going to have the desired effect.

Except that it is going to have the desired effect. MoveOn isn’t responding to Rudy solely because they’re trying to take him out in the Republican primary. They’re responding to Rudy because they’re sick and tired of watching Democrats in the same situation fail to respond to attacks.

Who the attack is coming from doesn’t help either. MoveOn.org has about as much credibility with Republican primary voters as Pat Robertson does with their Democratic counterparts.

Exactly, so why would they care about how die-hard Republican voters react? Their message is for those whose minds actually work. If none of those people are voting for Republicans any more, then it doesn’t matter. But a recent survey showed that a majority of Iowa Republicans want a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq in six months. That’s the political reality. If this ad still helps Giuliani in the primary, it arguably hurts the Republicans severely in November 2008.

Put a different way; imagine the Club for Growth running ads in the primary attacking a Democratic candidate for not standing up to organized labor on free trade. Same effect.

If the Democratic candidate attacked the Club for Growth, I would expect them to fight back. But whether or not this helped the particular Democrat would not be based upon the response, but whether Democratic voters agreed with the original attack.

Such attacks from MoveOn.org’s might – stress might – have some potential in the right swing states in the general election, depending on where things are at a year from now. But that’s not exactly what MoveOn.org is trying to accomplish right now is it?

Is he kidding? Is he really saying that when MoveOn responds to an attack on them by a Republican, it could make them look bad? What? [Actually, no he’s not, see below]

It’s certainly theoretically possible that a particular MoveOn.org position can be seen as extreme enough that an unprovoked attack (like the original Petraeus ad) could alienate people. But if a majority of Americans strongly agree with their message, it won’t. And when it comes to some of the basic stuff MoveOn.org is fighting for, the majority of the American public agrees with them.

As I said in the earlier post, am I really sharing a planet with this guy?

UPDATE: After re-reading, I definitely misinterpreted Earling’s last paragraph. He’s saying that an attack like this could help defeat a candidate like Giuliani in the general election. Of course it could. In fact, it most definitely would, and it’s part of the reason why these ads are appearing already. I’m still not sure Eric really grasps how unpopular this war has become.

I love a good beer and I love talking politics, so I’m especially excited to welcome to my neck of the woods the new Southeast Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, which meets tonight (and the 3rd Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Ale House, 4914 Rainier Ave S.

I’m told Bill Sherman might take a break from the campaign trail to chat up us Southies, and I should be getting there a little after 9PM. I look forward to seeing all my South End friends.

There are times when I’m not sure I inhabit the same planet as Eric Earling, let alone the same city:

Behold more evidence that MoveOn.org and the netroots community – including our own local friends in that following – have lost touch with political reality. Their attack against Giuliani in Iowa after his response to their Petraeus ad is a blessing of the first order for Team Rudy.

Giuliani is hitting back with an ad that drives home his feisty willingness to confront obnoxious liberalism that endears him to conservatives…even those otherwise skeptical of him.

Exactly who is out of touch with political reality here?

There were two high-profile media events about Iraq last week: The top U.S. commander testified before Congress and President Bush delivered a prime-time speech. What impact did they have?

Very little, according to two polls taken at the end of the week.

Before the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and the President’s speech, 26 percent of Americans polled by CBS News approved of President Bush’s handling of Iraq. After the speech, 25 percent approved.

Before the testimony and the speech, 41 percent of Americans believed the United States did the right thing to take military action in Iraq. After the speech, 39 percent said it was the right thing.

And also consider from a month ago:

In another poll taken August 6-8, 53 percent said they did not trust Petraeus to report “what’s really going on” in Iraq. The survey interviewed 1,029 adult Americans. The results from the Petraeus question had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

So let’s recap. A majority of Americans in early August did not trust General David Petraeus to report the truth from Iraq. General Petraeus comes back last week and does not report the truth from Iraq. Instead, he continues to maintain that the “surge” is working, even though a majority of Americans think that he’s wrong and the evidence doesn’t back him up. Even if you somehow manage to convince yourself that this isn’t some sort of betrayal by a military official who we expected to be truthful, a majority of Americans still think that Petraeus went in front of Congress and fed us a pile of bullshit. And Americans sure as hell care more about that than about an ad in a newspaper that riled up the right-wing PC police.

Giuliani may very well be able to use this as a way to make him look tough to the 29% of Americans who are still inhabiting the fairy tale world where Bush is a great president and victory in Iraq is just around the corner. But for the majority of Americans whose heads are not up their own asses, the political reality is quite different.

In Lou Guzzo’s latest LouBoob installment, Dino Rossi’s “idea” man decries organic farming: “It’s as much a national hoax as the fantasy over what has been called ‘global warming.'” Guzzo is apparently fond of ingesting petrochemicals. That explains everything.

You’re gonna be hearing a lot over the next few days about the new Elway Poll that just came out, focusing on this November’s $17.8 billion Roads & Transit measure (shorter Elway: it’s damn close,) and I’ll be adding my own spin to the cycle as soon as I’ve had time to digest the numbers. But I wanted to quickly comment on another survey Elway summarizes, almost as an afterthought: that showing that when it comes to making the Director of Elections an elected office, voters aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as most of us assumed.

According to Elway only 45% of respondents favored an elected director, with 26% opposed and 29% undecided. No doubt proponents would rather have those numbers than the other way around, but it is never a comfortable position to have your measure under 50% this close to an election. It’s a small sample with a relatively high 6.4% margin of error, but dollars to donuts these numbers are raising a few eyebrows.

While I firmly believe the proposed charter amendment is politically motivated bad policy, pure and simple, I never thought there was much of a chance of defeating it at the polls. I could write essays refuting the opponents’ arguments… but arguing the facts is rarely a winning strategy, and I’ve publicly despaired the rhetorical challenge of convincing voters that “more democracy” can be a bad thing.

But perhaps voters don’t need all that much convincing? What the Elway Poll tells us is that voters are sufficiently skeptical of the measure that an adequately funded and competently crafted “No” campaign would stand a good chance of defeating it at the polls. Of course, there is no “No” campaign, and I can’t think of an organization with both the financial resources and the financial stake to fight one.

But if there was, they could win.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here. And a heads up… the Southeast Seattle chapter meets tomorrow night (and the third Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Alehouse. Come join me and my neighbors for a pint of Manny’s a few miles closer to its source.

No matter your politics, this is not good:

COLLEGE STATION, TX — Traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of all sizes, creating a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel—that’s 105 million weeks of vacation and 58 fully-loaded supertankers.

[…]

Worsening congestion, the study notes, is reflected in several ways:

* Trips take longer
* Congestion affects more of the day
* Congestion affects weekend travel and rural areas
* Congestion affects more personal trips and freight shipments
* Trip travel times increasingly are unreliable

Researchers spent two years revising the methodology using additional sources of traffic information, providing more—and higher quality—data on which to base the current study.

The report identifies multiple solutions to the congestion problem that, researchers say, must be used together to be effective. These include:

* Get as much service as possible from existing infrastructure
* Add road and transit system capacity in critical corridors
* Relieve chokepoints
* Change usage patterns
* Provide choices
* Diversify the development patterns
* Keep expectations realistic

“Congestion is a far more complex problem than is apparent at first glance,” Lomax said. “The better the data we use to define the problem, the more successful we will be in addressing its root causes.”

Roads and Transit, baby.