HorsesAss.Org

Independent pollster Research 2000 conducted a recent poll of Connecticut voters:

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

	Lieberman	Lamont	Schlesinger
All	49	42	9
Dem	34	62	4
Rep	67	10	23
Ind	53	41	6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

	Lieberman	Lamont	Schlesinger
All	40	48	10
Dem	25	72	3
Rep	69	7	24
Ind	38	49	9

The main takeaway from this survey is obvious. If the 2006 election were held today, Ned Lamont would be the U.S. Senator from Connecticut and Joe Lieberman would be getting ready for afternoons of chasing the neighborhood kids off his lawn. But beyond that, the survey also reveals the continuing disintegration of the frames that have defined (and misconstrued) the reality of our current political debates.

What’s interesting about this slow changing of opinions is that the biggest shifts come from independent and Democratic voters, but there’s almost no difference at all from Republicans. I think Democrats in Connecticut have clearly been disappointed at how Lieberman hasn’t just abandoned Democrats, but is still actively fighting against them. But for independents, there are likely other reasons for the shift. Independent voters tend to see themselves as moderates. They see themselves as being appalled by both extremes and parties and look for candidates with the courage to stand somewhere in the middle. But while there’s certainly extremism at both ends of our political spectrum, the extremism that drove the Iraq War has become the overriding divide in recent elections, and especially in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. Being somewhere inbetween the two parties was no longer the most anti-extremist position.

As this divide has taken shape, Joe Lieberman occupied a fairly unique space, and his example is a good way to understand the shifting views of independents and moderates. He’s gone from being the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee to losing a Democratic Senate primary in the span of less than 6 years. But his overall view of the world hasn’t really changed that much. He’s always been a staunch authoritarian. But back before 9/11, his main targets weren’t Iran and Syria, they were video games and the music industry. As a college student during this time, it helped cultivate for me the image of left-wing extremism through political correctness.

The Bush Administration’s war in Iraq then completely shuffled the deck on what we consider to be left and right. The right-wing in this country pre-9/11 was defined more by their free market economic outlook, but following the attacks, it began to redefine itself through the war on terror. Joe Lieberman went from being an authoritarian left-wing nanny who threatened the bottom line of big business to seeing his authoritarian outlook fall perfectly in line with a party eager to drop bombs on the enemies of Israel. But while his political philosophies were always rooted in authoritarian extremism, his diversion from the Democratic Party was painted as “moderation” for being willing to stand up to the supposed “far-left”.

And thus the “moderate” Lieberman was seen by voters as being the centrist candidate – a bi-partisan independent who could relate to both Democrats and Republicans – and defeated Ned Lamont. But being a centrist does not make you a moderate. A moderate is just the opposite of an extremist. And a growing number of independents in Connecticut now realize, as Joe continues to cheer on this deeply unpopular war, and begging for another, that he’s no moderate at all. He’s the same crazy extremist he’s always been, and now his extremism is promoting an agenda much more dangerous than restrictions on video games. And in the new political climate we find ourselves in – defined greatly by how we view what’s happening in Iraq – the “left” is where all the moderates are, while the “right” is where all the extremists have ended up.

Locally, the Burner-Reichert 2006 Congressional race took on a lot of the same frames as the Senate race in Connecticut. Reichert was portrayed by many as a moderate and as having an independent streak. He appealed to independent voters in the district and won re-election. Burner, like Lamont, was a young and inexperienced candidate tied closely to the netroots community through their high-tech backgrounds, and was continually portrayed as an extremist, simply by adhering fairly closely to the Democratic Party platform. Yet Dave Reichert has now just returned from Iraq and is still enthusiastically supporting a war that has become deeply unpopular. He has never voted against the president, nor has he spoken out against any of the extremist tactics (secret prisons, warrantless spying, pre-emptive warfare) he’s employed for fighting terrorism. Darcy Burner has never taken any position even close to as extremist as what Dave Reichert now currently supports. Yet I’m sure we’ll continue to hear from the Republicans about how Burner is the more “extremist” candidate. As independent Connecticut voters have started to figure out that the labels of who was a moderate and who was an extremist in 2006 were reversed, it’s not hard to imagine that the independent voters in the 8th District of Washington are doing the same.

ABC News has a new report that displays architectural visualizations of major American cities before and after a 3 to 16 foot rise in sea levels. Here’s Seattle as it currently exists:

And here’s Seattle after a 3 meter rise in sea level:

Downtown Seattle itself is fortunate to be built mostly uphill, but we lose our entire waterfront, including the port and surrounding industrial areas that are so important to our economy. (I say if we build the Sonics a new arena, we put it somewhere in there.)

We can argue all we want about whether climate change is primarily caused by human activity (although the overwhelming scientific consensus is that is,) but even the most vehement, ideologically driven deniers are beginning to admit that our climate is warming. If indeed the climate continues to warm (as opposed to say, shutting off the oceans’ thermohaline circulation, suddenly plunging us into another ice age,) sea levels will rise, and our children and grandchildren will have to deal with consequences.

You’d just think, maybe, we all might want to start planning for this possible future, rather than sticking our heads in the sand, or accusing “alarmists” like me of being dirty commies.

FYI, King County has performed its own analysis of the impact of a sea level rise on the region, which I reported on way back in May of 2006. Take a look at the image showing the Duwamish flooding all the way to Southcenter, and explain to me why the best and most prudent approach to this threat is to simply ignore it.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins me for our weekly round up of the week’s news, and a look ahead to coming headlines. Tops for tonight include post-hangover report from last night’s Genius Awards, the education of Jane Hague, and Dino Rossi’s non-campaign. But mostly Josh just wants to talk about the Saturday Night Massacre.

8PM: Mandatory sentencing or “tailored” justice?
A Burien family got the justice they asked for when their 15-year-old son avoided a prison sentence for the accidental shooting of his 16-year-old brother. Prosecutors insisted the shooter needed incarceration for his “serious violent crime,” but in sentencing the boy to 24-months of home detention, King County Superior Court Judge Harry McCarthy said that justice “has to sometimes be tailored for each person.” Should justice be blind, or tailored to the circumstance?

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Oopsy…

King County Councilmember Jane Hague, in the midst of an already troubled re-election campaign, said Friday she takes full responsibility for widely circulated reports that she has a college degree that she doesn’t have.

But Hague denied intentionally providing incorrect information and initially said she was puzzled at how several “Who’s Who” books, The Seattle Times, the Municipal League of King County and the National Association of Counties all reported erroneously that she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan University.

“What is the point here? Are you trying to call me a liar?” she asked at one point.

Um… yeah.

“I’m willing to say that if there were erroneous reports, then you may call me guilty. You can call me guilty because the buck stops here,” the Bellevue Republican said.

Actually, the “buck” never quite “stops” with Hague. It drunkenly weaves for a few miles first, before getting pulled over and blowing a 0.14.

Asked why several “Who’s Who” books said she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan, Hague said at first, “Beats me.” She then speculated that her staff members may have inadvertently filled out forms with incorrect information.

Because of course, when she says “the buck stops here,” “here” apparently refers to her incompetent staff.

If that happened, she said, “I didn’t check it closely enough. There you have it. My fault. I should have been a better proofreader. I should have been more careful about it.”

Sober translation: “I’ve got sucky staff, and it’s my fault for not keeping a closer eye on them when they fill out candidate questionnaires I’m supposed to be filling out myself.

“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, Hague never tried to portray herself as a college graduate, except, you know… in a 1993 Municipal League candidate questionnaire, in the 1991, 1995 and 1996 editions of “Who’s Who”, in Seattle Times campaign profiles in 1993 and 1997, and in a published story in the National Association of Counties online newsletter in 2000… all of which occurred after she claims she first found out she never got a diploma. But other than that, never.

I suppose the kerfluffle over a “BS in Business and Economics” that Hague claimed to receive, but never did, wouldn’t be such a big deal if it wasn’t part of an established pattern of disingenuity and blame shifting over the past 15 years. Indeed, as the P-I reports, Hague has a documented history of blaming others.

After being pulled over for weaving dangerously on the 520 bridge, and then twice blowing nearly double the legal limit, Hague verbally berated the arresting officers, blamed her husband, and is now contesting the DUI. After a 2001 collision with a Metro bus, Hague blamed the bus driver, despite his account and those of witnesses, including an off-duty police officer. When found guilty of ethics violations in 1999 she blamed it on bad advice from a county attorney, who denied having given her any advice at all. And just a few weeks ago, in responding to a campaign disclosure violation complaint, her campaign blamed a “volunteer treasurer” for failing to meet state requirements.

Anybody who has ever run for office or worked closely on a campaign knows how candidates labor over their answers on questionnaires and in interviews — and how closely they scrutinize the write-ups, endorsements and evaluations they get in response. For years Hague knew that publications and organizations were crediting her with a BS she did not earn, and she did nothing to correct the record. For years Hague lied about her resume… part of a pattern that clearly suggests that she lacks the integrity and forthrightness voters usually demand from their elected officials.

Actually paying money to have your name printed in “Who’s Who” is embarrassing enough, but exaggerating your profile is just plan pathetic. Are voters ready to remove this embarrassment from the King County Council?

In the weeks leading up to the big arrests by the SPD at Seattle nightclubs, pro-nightclub folks like Tim Hatley and Josh Feit were saying that Seattle had all the laws it needed to go after bad nightclubs. No need to license the clubs, they said.

Then came the “Saturday Night Massacre.”

Now The Seattle Police Department, the Mayor, and others are getting knocked for enforcing the law. Go figure.

Josh will be on Goldy’s show tonight at 7:00pm.

[UPDATE]

Uh oh… So I’m getting email about how totally unbelievably wrong I am on this. I think it’s good that clubs are scrutinized, but arresting bartenders and doormen in “political” raids is not good policy.

[UPDATE]

Good points from Paddy Mac in the comments:

Your post also does a great job of ignoring the context. The Mayor has been pushing for vast new powers over nightclubs (in part because the city did a such a chronically poor job when permitting the growth of nightclubs in residential neighborhoods), and then the police just so happen — a total coincidence, really — to delay their arrests until a big sting assists his PR campaign, complete with a show of force utterly inappropriate to the situation.

In the months leading up to an election, candidates vie against each other for political and media endorsements, and in the liberal-eat-liberal world of Puget Sound politics none is more keenly prized than the non-endorsement from my good friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics. For example, yesterday Stefan publicly threw his support behind Bruce Harrell for Seattle City Council, and today Harrell’s opponent, Venus Velazquez, triumphantly issued a press release touting her victory.

Congratulations Venus, your win in November is virtually assured.

Since rising to prominence with his feverishly paranoid coverage of the 2004 gubernatorial election contest, Stefan has proved a cannily accurate inverse bell weather of local politics, earning his endorsements the well deserved reputation as a political kiss of death. Indeed, considering his track record, the only thing more feared than Stefan endorsing your victory is him predicting it.

Amusingly, Stefan relies on a clip of Velazquez at the Hate Free Zone forum to justify his endorsement of Harrell, arguing that her appeal to minority voters to vote for leaders “who look like you … who come from you,” is inherently and unforgivably racist. Yet Stefan fails to inform his readers that Harrell — who was always Velazquez’s main opponent — is himself half-Asian, half-African American, so that any such appeal would apply to him as much as it does to her. How typically Stefan.

I’ve had the chance to talk one-on-one with both Velazquez and Harrell, and to be honest, I wasn’t excited by either one of them. But to her credit Velazquez actually argued with me about issues rather than just trying to win me over. I’ve heard that Velazquez has a reputation as being a bit brash and hard to work with, and Stefan warns that she’ll be a “shrill… divisive and… toxic presence on the Council.” But… well… that may be exactly the type presence the Council needs to shake things up and provide a little balance to our sometimes imperious mayor.

UPDATE:
Will just called me to remind me of his wise words to Harrell from way back in April:

Don’t let Stefan endorse you. Don’t email him campaign updates. Hope he doesn’t write about your campaign in any way favorable. Make no mistake, Stefan is the “Kiss of Death”. Just ask Robert Rosencrantz and Casey Corr, who both got hammered (Rosencrantz twice!) in city races. I’m amazed that Seattle’s preeminent wingnut blogger doesn’t understand how radioactive he is. Republican Jim Nobles, the first “out” Republican to run for city office since the 1980’s, is too smart to embrace Stefan and his mean–spirited, petulant, race-baiting politics.

While we’re somewhat on the subject, and in the interest of full disclosure, I thought I’d let it be known that I made a public records request this morning regarding the handful of performance audits that Ted Van Dyk seems so jazzed about:

Later this month, state Auditor Brian Sonntag will release such audits of the Washington State Department of Transportation and Sound Transit and, shortly thereafter, of the Port of Seattle. All three audits will precede fall elections and could have important impacts on voter decisions about the Sound Transit-RTID regional transportation package and Port of Seattle Commission races.

The more I re-read that paragraph the more suspicious I got, especially in light of recent rumors and hints that the anti-transit crowd has been leaked information regarding the upcoming reports. Van Dyk seems to think it a great thing that performance audits be timed for release just weeks before crucial votes regarding these agencies, but I can’t help suspect it an overtly political maneuver. It is also potentially the death knell for performance audits as a useful tool in Washington state.

Performance audits are not comparable to financial audits in either scope or purpose. You don’t just bring in a third party to examine the books in search of waste, fraud or abuse, but rather, you observe and analyze the performance of an agency and its procedures for the purpose of recommending changes that could lead to greater efficiencies. While in a worst case scenario a performance audit could conclude that an agency does not fulfill its mission at all, it is mostly meant as a productivity tool, and as such requires the full cooperation of the management and staff being audited if it is to be effective. If instead, performance audits are used as a means to politically punish and embarrass an agency — including, say, influencing elections — then future audits on other agencies will never gain the inside trust and cooperation necessary to conduct them.

Yes, voters deserve to know how well Sound Transit and WSDOT are spending our money before we vote them more of it, but if these audits are perceived to be politically motivated hatchet jobs, their reports won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. And if officials within the auditor’s office or the outside contractors have been improperly communicating with opponents of the Roads & Transit measure, soliciting their input and leaking results, then I can’t see how these so-called “performance audits” can be understood to be genuine performance audits at all, let alone impartial and unbiased.

My hope is that Brian Sonntag’s office has been scrupulous in overseeing these audits and in hiring contractors who are equally scrupulous and unbiased, but the timing of these audits and their reports does give me pause. I’m generally loathe to investigate my sneaking suspicions at taxpayer expense, but I didn’t really see any other choice. My fingers are crossed that my public records request turns up nothing of interest.

I don’t know what’s gonna be worse for WA Republicans… Dino Rossi running, or not running?

According to today’s Seattle Times, the FBI finally has a plan to combat WA’s epidemic of bank robberies:

Special Agent Larry Carr plans to work with Washington state lawmakers on legislation that would forbid banks from doing business with customers who wear hats and sunglasses while inside the bank.

Carr, who heads the FBI’s bank-robbery division in Seattle, said that most bank robbers cover their heads “with a hat, sunglasses or a hoodie [hooded sweat shirt]” to avoid being identified by surveillance photos. With most bank security cameras positioned in front of and above customers, the disguises are often successful because the cameras capture the bill of a cap or brim of a hat, he said.

Yeah, sure… or, they could just, you know… move the cameras. I mean, cameras can be incredibly tiny these days. You could unobtrusively install one at every teller window — from an angle looking up at the customer — and a would be robber would never know it’s there. And I’m not exactly sure how this new dress code would effectively avoid scenarios like this:

Teller:	Excuse me sir, but bank policy and state law require that you remove your sunglasses and hoodie.
Bank Robber:	Put all your fucking money in this bag, or I’ll blow your head off, bitch!

Personally, I wear sunglasses all the time, summer and winter, rain or shine, and as I get older (and balder) I’m more frequently wearing hats to protect my naked scalp from sun and cold. It’s only polite to remove one’s sunglasses when engaged in conversation, and I try to remember to de-accessorize indoors, but I sometimes forget they’re even on. I doubt my personal eyewear habits would eventually lead me to a brush with the law, but one can easily imagine such uncomfortable situations, like when a devout Muslim woman refuses to remove her head scarf.

Hmm. I wonder if the vehemently anti-gun control folks have any problems with law abiding citizens like me being told we can’t wear hats and tinted glasses in banks? I know my sunglasses aren’t specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but it strikes me that eroding our civil liberties, even minor ones, should be law enforcement’s last resort.

Maybe some day, when I’m old and curmudgeonly and stuck in the past enough to get a job writing a column for a major daily newspaper, I can be just like the P-I’s Ted Van Dyk…

One of the most difficult things to do, in any part of life, is to make judgments on the basis of facts and principles rather than on our feelings about personalities.

Yeah, and when you’re talking about facts and stuff, it might be a good idea to actually research them, rather than just kinda-sorta drawing from your personal recollection. Take for example Van Dyk’s defense of Tim Eyman, whose initiatives he both criticizes as “arbitrary” and “disruptive”, and lauds as resonating with an angry electorate.

But wait a minute. Why do Eyman’s proposals gain broad public support, even when losing?

Um… in a democracy, isn’t “losing” an election kinda the opposite of “broad public support”…?

It is because they resonate in an electorate just plain fed up with undisciplined and even mischievous state and local spending and taxing decisions. Eyman’s ballot measures become send-a-message blunt instruments for ordinary citizens.

Eyman’s initiatives resonate with voters? Really? Let’s take a look at Eyman’s electoral performance over the past few years and see how Van Dyk’s assumptions hold up:

	2006:	I-917 — YATDCTB ("Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative") Eyman spent nearly $738,000 — most of it Michael Dunmire’s money — yet failed to collect enough signatures to qualify this dog for the ballot.
	2005:	I-900 — Performance Audits Passed with 56% of the vote.  By comparison, the other two winning initiatives that year, the "Indoor Clean Air Act" and the totally unsexy "Commission on Judicial Conduct," pulled in 63 and 68 percent of the vote respectively.
	2004:	I-892 — "Slots for Tots" Failed with only 38% of the vote, the worst of that year’s five statewide measures.  Eyman’s I-864, which would have cut local property tax levies by 25% across the board, failed to qualify for the ballot after five months of canvassing.
	2003:	I-807 — "Super Majority for Tax & Fee Increases" Sounds familiar?  Well without Michael Dunmire’s money, this first incarnation of I-960 failed to qualify for the ballot.

So… um… how exactly do you “gain broad public support, even when losing,” initiatives that never even get far enough to lose? Van Dyk imagines he has his finger on the pulse of Washington voters, but if he did, you’d think he might have noticed that Eyman politically flat-lined years ago. Eyman didn’t even manage to qualify a single anti-tax initiative over the previous four years, let alone pass one, and since 2002 has relied almost exclusively on sugar daddy Michael Dunmire and the gambling industry to finance his paid signature drives. In the interim, voters have overwhelmingly rejected both gas tax and estate tax repeal, while local levies routinely passed throughout the state. Yeah… voters are clearly “just plain fed up.”

Van Dyk goes on to berate the rail portion of the coming Roads & Transit measure, warning it will “snarl traffic and harm the economy,” and yet polls consistently show that light rail is exactly the portion of the measure most popular with voters. What exactly is Van Dyk’s definition of an “ordinary citizen”…? Kemper Freeman Jr.?

With logic like that Van Dyke almost makes Eyman seem sensible. Almost.

UPDATE:
Andrew’s got a more comprehensive Eyman Failure Chart up at Permanent Defense.

Courtesy of SeattleJew.

Is Dino Rossi running for governor? He says not. In fact he looks a reporter straight in the eyes and tells him that his actions as a non-candidate now — traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda — “are very different” from his actions as a declared candidate in 2004… traveling the state and promoting his policy agenda. Yet it’s the exact same policy agenda, and indeed, the exact same stump speech that he delivered as a declared candidate. The only difference is that back in 2004 his campaign was held to all the contribution limits and public disclosure requirements of any other candidate, whereas now he claims his bullshit foundation can launder unlimited contributions in secret, and with impunity.

This is more than just an issue of whether Rossi has found some technical loophole that allows him to skirt our campaign finance and public disclosure laws simply by not officially declaring his candidacy. This about Rossi lying… to the public and to the press. He looks the reporter straight in the eyes and lies. And I hope my friends in the media remember this as the campaign progresses.

Last time around Rossi got a free pass from many in the media, who repeatedly failed to press him when he refused to give direct answers on questions about abortion, stem cell research and other defining issues. Rossi, holding one of the most conservative voting records in the Legislature, was allowed to pass himself off as a moderate. Rossi, a man with a history of running such mean-spirited campaigns that several of his primary opponents refused to endorse him, was allowed to pass himself off as a nice guy. Rossi, a man who lies to reporters, was allowed to pass himself off as honest and credible.

The public has a right to know who is funding Rossi’s non-campaign. And the media has an obligation to relentlessly press Rossi to disclose his contributions.

The Stranger announced its Political Genius awards today, and apparently, I’m not one. That’s okay. I don’t like cake. Besides, how could I possibly hope to compete with such tough competition? Hell, just look at one of the runners-up:

Political consultant Sandeep Kaushik, 60, displayed his first signs of genius in 2005 when he quit The Stranger, where he’d been a political reporter for three years.

King County Executive Ron Sims recognized Kaushik’s smarts and stole him away from us, hiring the dazzling Jim Beam drinker as an election strategist.

Jim Beam? Hah! Sandeep’s moved on to Makers Mark. Shows you what Josh knows.

Kaushik is poised to cap his rise as a political whiz with two major campaigns: He’s advocating for the biggest tax increase in state history, the $17.8 billion Roads and Transit initiative (hoping to expand light rail with 50 new miles of track) and, in a prime-time spot, he’s heading up spin for Darcy Burner, the Democrat who’s trying to knock off GOP Eastside incumbent Congressman Dave Reichert. Kaushik already chased Burner’s Democratic primary rival out of the race.

In 2000, little-known consultant Christian Sinderman emerged as a star by helping get Maria Cantwell elected. Sinderman is now the hottest political guru in the state. If Kaushik sends Burner to Congress, he’ll be the new Sinderman.

No doubt Sandeep’s political instincts and media connections are fast making him a political powerhouse — as Postman well knows, Josh pretty much writes whatever Sandeep tells him to write. So why did Sandeep have Josh write him a measly runner-up citation instead of the big award?

Well really, who deserves to take home the cake more than Cary Moon, the woman who somehow took the idea of a surface alternative to the Alaska Way Viaduct from lunatic fringe to political consensus?

Moon’s political genius is her ability to see the long-term picture; when others laughed at her for supporting what many called a ridiculous, long-shot option (“But where will all the cars go?”), Moon ignored them. While leaders bickered over whether to replace the viaduct with a larger viaduct or expensive tunnel, Moon quietly bided her time, consciously threading the needle between the two opposing positions. Over time, she gained the confidence of opinion leaders such as Council Member Peter Steinbrueck, an environmental advocate who saw the surface/transit option as a way to save billions and improve the climate in the bargain.

Then came last March’s vote against both waterfront freeway options. That “no/no” vote wasn’t just a defeat for the mayor’s tunnel and the governor’s bigger, uglier new viaduct. It was also a major victory for Moon and others who supported the surface/transit option, which emerged as the most affordable, environmentally sustainable option, and the officially “preferred” option of both the mayor and the city council and all the current council candidates.

Of course, there could be one more reason for Cary’s triumph over Sandeep:

April 19, 2001, Washington DC – Wanted terrorist Timothy McVeigh released another video today from his hideout in the wilderness of northern Canada. The video promised more attacks from Christian Identity terror cells throughout the United States. In the six years since 4/19, there have been no attacks like the original bombing in Oklahoma City, but Clinton Administration officials warned Americans once again to be vigilant. But people have grown increasingly skeptical of the once popular president, ever since the threats that postponed the 2000 Election are believed by many to have been just a political stunt to maintain power.

Clinton’s approval ratings reached another record low recently as he continues to defend his record. He’s touted success in fighting the militias in Montana and Michigan, and claims that his landmark Secular Conformity Act, enacted in 1996 to give him more powers to spy on Americans without oversight, is working. “These tools were necessary in order to prevent another 4/19. Next time it could be a mushroom cloud in downtown Chicago,” the President said in recent remarks to a convention of atheists.

The stress on the President has been enormous as he feels the nation simply doesn’t understand the kind of unique threat the United States faces from domestic terrorism. In the wake of 4/19, President Clinton declared the threat from Christian Identity followers to be a “unique threat, one that America has never had to deal with before.” During the 1996 election, he derided those who disagreed with his “war on terror” as irresponsible apologists for the militias. Since his re-election, the National Guard has rounded up thousands of “enemy combatants” in 12 different states, most of whom are held indefinitely without access to an attorney, one of the powers given to the President at the beginning of his second term. Hundreds of church groups have had their assets frozen for having links to Christian Identity members.

In eastern Montana, however, Christian Identity militias have taken over many towns and the violence in Billings has reached record levels as the National Guard struggles to keep the peace. President Clinton sees all of this as success in the overall war. His main Homeland Security official will be testifying in Congress this week about how former anti-government militia members in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are now starting to turn against the more radical fundamentalists.

The opposition in Congress has been too weak and ineffective for most Republican voters. The main voices speaking out, Congressmen Bob Barr (R-GA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), feel that America has been fooled by the President into believing the threat from McVeigh and his Christian Identity followers is worse than it really was, and that his decision to send in the National Guard to forcibly disarm them is just expanding their ranks. The President’s strongest supporters, such as California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, dismiss that as the rantings of unhinged and unpatriotic lunatics. Anchors on Hound News have been referring to Barr as “Billings Bob,” and plan to have another interview with the head General in charge of defeating the Christian extremists right after his Congressional testimony. The General has come under intense fire from conservative groups for his methodology in concluding that the violence is down from last year.

The main question being asked today is how it’s been 6 years since the bombing and yet McVeigh still remains free to make videos to send to his followers. Blaming his accidental release after a traffic stop in 1996 on “bad communication with the FBI”, Clinton later seemed disinterested about whether McVeigh would ever be caught. He claims to be working with Canadian authorities to locate McVeigh, but no one seems to know where he’s at. The new ‘4/19 Truth’ movement, led by transsexual author Ann Coulter, now has millions of followers nationwide who believe that Clinton himself planned and carried out the attacks.

Democrats seemed eager to use the latest tape as proof that the nation was still facing an existential threat from terrorism and once again accused groups like the ACLU and the NRA of helping the terrorists. The President’s supporters on talk radio also sought to defend the President. Host James Carville noted how similar McVeigh’s message was to those of Clinton’s main critics, especially his strong defense of the right to bear arms and his opposition to abortion.

Meanwhile, a number of retired CIA and State Department officials warned that this focus on homegrown militias was distracting us from even more dangerous threats from overseas. Former Clinton Administration official Richard Clarke, who was pushed out after strong disagreements with the White House in early 1996, said, “How are we ever going to defeat international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda if we can’t even defeat these kinds of groups here? We’ve continually expressed to Clinton’s folks that defeating terrorism is a matter of law enforcement and not a war. They just don’t listen. God help us if we try to do this in the Middle East.”

As I wrote earlier, opponents of the “Roads and Transit” package have been lying like crazy about light rail. What’s more, they’ve been doing it illegally.

You see, they’ve been campaigning against the measure without filing as a campaign. From the complaint:

Since May 2007, individuals and organizations have made expenditures in opposition to the Regional Transportation Improvement District/Sound Transit 2 ballot measure, commonly referred to as the “Roads and Transit measure.” These individuals and organizations have not formed a ballot/political committee and have failed to file a C1 form with the Public Disclosure Commission as well as other required regular reports required under Washington State law (RCW 42.17.040).

I’m a rookie at this stuff, so I may get some things wrong, but no one in the traditional media has focused in on this stuff. Not only are these guys lying, but they’re doing it in a way that is a flagrant abuse of our campaign laws.