HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle Times is unhappy with the choice King County Council District 6 voters have between gadfly Richard Pope and barfly Jane!™ Hague. And typically, they blame the Dems:

State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz or King County Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Sheary failed voters in a significant way.

Even before the June 2 driving incident, both knew that although Hague was a leader on the county budget, she was not the most compelling councilmember. They knew, too, that her campaign office had difficulties with contributions and that her district is turning more Democratic every day. Where were these two when there was a chance to mount a strong challenge against her?

Truth is, I haven’t been shy about criticizing my party for failing to be in a position to take advantage of this opportunity, and have openly ridiculed the hopeless primary write-in campaign. But in all fairness, the blame deserves to be spread more broadly, and shared not just by the party leadership but also by the unimaginative field of potential challengers who refused to take a fly at the unimpressive if well-funded Hague.

The most heavily recruited challenger was state Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48), who might have decided to run had he received a little encouragement from key Dems on the council who rightly perceived him as a threat to their ambitions for the executive’s office. Not that it would have mattered, as his relapse of lymphoma would have pulled Hunter out of the race well before the filing deadline. I also know that an effort was made to recruit Darcy Burner, who surely would have kicked Hague’s drunken ass, with or without the public scandal… that is, if Burner wasn’t already running for Congress, and, um, you know, if she actually lived in the district.

Those are the only names I know for sure, but I can think of at least three or four state legislators who stood a decent shot at winning, while risking little damage to their careers in a loss. It would have been nice to see somebody like, say… Rodney Tom take one for the team. But not a single Dem stepped up to the plate.

That said, there is a choice in this election, and I hope both the Times and my fellow Dems eventually focus back on this race with a fresh perspective. Richard Pope may be more than a little odd, but he’s smart, well-informed, and he doesn’t drink let alone drive drunk. If you actually sit down and talk with Pope about the kind of issues that routinely come before the council, he does generally come across as both reasonable and a Democrat, and his personal experience fighting for an education for his autistic daughter should make him a powerful advocate for adequate state funding of our schools.

I don’t expect the Democratic Party to embrace or support Pope, but I do strongly encourage my fellow Dems not to work against him. I’ve heard some talk of launching a write-in campaign in the general, to which I say “show me the money,” for unless Dems come up with a few hundred thousand dollars and a compelling candidate, any such effort would be counterproductive. Instead, I suggest the party and its surrogates focus all their efforts on attacking Hague, and educating voters on her blatant disrespect of both the law and our law enforcement officers.

And if we somehow stumble into Bizarro World and Pope actually wins an election, what’s the downside for Democrats? Nobody is going to blame the Dems if Pope’s antics cause embarrassment, and what would the Dems rather face in 2011, a general election battle with Jane Hague (or more likely, her incumbent, appointed replacement,) or a primary battle against Richard Pope? I’d choose the latter.

Of course, there is the Doomsday scenario: Pope not only wins, he turns out to be no worse than your average councilmember. Now that would be an embarrassment to both parties, and to the many journalists, editorialists and bloggers who have had so much fun poking fun at Pope over the years.

With much of our foreign policy focus on the Middle East these days, we haven’t been looking that much at what’s been happening closer to home:

Alarmed by rising threats to Mexican law and order from ever-more-brazen drug lords, the Bush administration is quietly negotiating a counternarcotics aid package with the Mexican government that would increase US involvement in a drug war south of the border.

The fact that Mexico – which has historically been averse to any assistance from the US that could be construed as a breach of its sovereignty – is seeking the increased aid shows how serious a threat President Felipe Calderón sees drug gangs posing to his country.

When Calderón took office last year, he immediately sent troops into areas where drug trafficking was common and attempted to disrupt the organizations that control the pipeline of drugs that make their way into the United States. The effort was so successful that the country’s powerful drug cartels are now trying to figure out whether or not they will work together or fight each other for the massive profits. The reality in Mexico is the same as it always has been. The drug cartels are too powerful to take down. They will always have the money to buy out law enforcement officials in both Mexico and the United States. The $40 million dollars we’ve been giving them annually in aid is a drop in the bucket compared to the money that the cartels have to spend on weapons and bribes.

As a result, Calderón is trying to get a much heftier aid package from the United States in order to wage his war. To his credit, he’s been placing the blame where it needs to be placed:

Mexico already appears to be laying the groundwork to frame the plan not so much as an aid package but as the United States facing up to problems that are a consequence of American drug consumption. Calderón, often a cautious public speaker, has sternly called for the United States to pay more to combat the cartels.

“The language that they’re using is that the U.S. has a large responsibility for this problem,” said Ana María Salazar, a former high-ranking Clinton administration drug official who was involved in implementing the U.S.-funded program for Bogota, known as Plan Colombia.

There’s no question that American drug consumption is driving this problem. For years, we’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that the drug trade is the case of a foreign enemy trying to “poison” us with their dangerous wares. But that’s never been an accurate picture of what’s happening. Millions of Americans choose to use illegal drugs. They’re not being coerced by shifty foreigners trying to get us hooked. Only a small percentage of them are addicts. And as domestic drug law enforcement has driven many of the supply networks south of the border, the cartels have generated the kind of wealth and power than make Al Capone and his gang of bootleggers look like a Girl Scout troop.

The Nixon and Reagan Administrations laid the foundation for this disaster, but the Clinton Administration followed right in their footsteps. They launched Plan Colombia in 2000, the multi-billion dollar initiative in South America’s most prolific coca growing nation that failed to decrease cocaine production, increased corruption in the Colombian government, and actually lowered the price of cocaine in the United States. It’s often jokingly said that the Bush Administration’s policies were determined by looking at Clinton Administration policy and doing the opposite, but I only think that applied to the things that Clinton was doing that were actually smart.

Colombia’s problems have been around for decades, even before we started throwing money and weapons at them to fix them. Leftist guerrillas have waged a bloody civil war for over 40 years, in part because cocaine profits have kept their movement afloat while similar ideological movements in other countries have become an ignored fringe. Today, though, the Uribe government has been winning the military battle against these rebel groups, but finding that more and more of the drug trafficking is just occurring within its own ranks.

Another aspect of the damage being done in Colombia is their current emigration problem:

In the last decade, large-scale emigration has marked Colombian society, with roughly one of every 10 Colombians now living abroad. Internally, the country has been confronted with a major humanitarian crisis, as forced displacement has reached alarming proportions during the same period. Political, social, and economic problems, coupled with widespread insecurity, have fueled both voluntary and forced migration, while the same factors have acted as powerful deterrents for immigration to the country.

Considering that Plan Colombia gave money to American companies who sprayed dangerous chemicals across vast coca growing regions, killing all crops, not just coca; introduced more sophisticated weaponry into the already brutal civil war; and essentially thumbed their noses at any civilian concerns; the fact that millions of people have been fleeing the country shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. What should be a surprise is why anyone thinks that this is a good thing to try in Mexico right now.

Granted, there would be some major differences between Plan Mexico and Plan Colombia. Mexico is more of a transit point for drugs, rather than a source. No aerial eradication is going to happen in Mexico. However, there will certainly be an investment in high-tech weaponry that is sure to escalate the violence that has already been sending millions of people north in search of opportunity and relative peace. Mexico’s (and other Central American) drug cartels haven’t been tied to the country’s leftist guerrilla movements in the same way that exists in Colombia. What seems likely to happen is that the extra weaponry will be used to squash Calderón’s leftist political opponents, while he remains in a permanent stalemate with the drug lords. Corruption will be inevitable, and the drug smugglers will end up having some amount of Plan Mexico’s weapons bounty to maintain control of border towns like Laredo and Juarez where much of the country’s drug shipments enter the United States.

Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? Mainly because we don’t allow ourselves to see the alternatives. American drug consumption is not going to go away, no matter what we do. Three decades of trying to scare Americans out of doing drugs by filling our prisons to record levels hasn’t worked. In the process, we’ve wasted over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money and accomplished nothing. Now, as we look out at the massive drug war failures in Afghanistan, in Colombia, and even here at home in our ravaged and violent inner cities and meth-addled small towns, can we finally get past our fear of what a bunch of plants grown in foreign countries can do to us and start doing something that actually makes sense? Can we finally accept the fact that a certain percentage of America’s population can and does use illegal drugs without the kinds of negative repercussions that require us to lay waste to the rest of the world to prevent it? Can we start distinguishing between drug use and drug abuse and stop thinking that a person who uses marijuana or even does a line of cocaine on the weekends is not a danger to himself and others?

These questions are ones that politicians fear having to answer. Many of them know the right answers, but can’t say them out loud. The paranoia over drugs has been built up over the years to the point where moderate, reasonable ideas are portrayed as the rantings of a radical fringe and still get political figures labeled as crackpots. But we’re nearing the point where we’ll no longer be able to afford the charade. Plan Mexico is expected to cost over $1 billion. That would just be another billion dollars that could have been spent more wisely on other things. A mistake that this country has made more than a thousand times over.

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

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh and Erica
The Stranger’s Josh Feit and Erica C. Barnett join me for our weekly roundup of the week’s news, and look forward to coming events. Tonight’s topics will surely include a discussion of Monday’s presidential fundraiser for Dave Reichert Darcy Burner, Ted Haggard’s family values fake charity, and of course, our good friend Stefan’s brilliant ham-fisted PR coup disaster.

8PM: Are you rooting for a housing slump?
Washington state’s housing market continues to defy gravity and national trends, with prices continuing to increase even as other markets tumble in the midst of a spreading credit crunch. Seattle/Bellevue scored an impressive 9.89% increase, while Wenatchee (yes, Wenatchee) led the nation with an astounding 23.54% gain. Um… is this a good thing? Are you cheering our housing market on, or quietly rooting for a slump so that you can swoop in and scoop up a bargain? And why are so many folks so eager to live here in a place that is steadily being destroyed by liberal Democrats like me? (Or so I’m told.)

9PM: The Blogger Hour with McJoan
Idaho native and Daily Kos front page blogger superstar Joan “McJoan” McCarter joins me for the hour to discuss the Craig Affair, the Warner retirement and other issues of national import.

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

As expected, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig announced his resignation today after losing support from fellow Republicans in the wake of his arrest and guilty plea for lewd behavior in a public restroom. Craig will be remembered as much for his wide stance on the toilet as his narrow stance on social issues.

Joan “McJoan” McCarter, a native Idahoan and front page Daily Kos blogger, will join me in the studio tonight during the 9PM hour of “The David Goldstein Show” on News/Talk 710-KIRO to discuss the Craig affair and other issues of national interest. You can stream live at 710KIRO.com.

UPDATE:
Julie from Red State Rebels live blogs the Craig resignation on Daily Kos.

The Sierra Club is suing for the chance to attack the Roads and Transit in this fall’s Voters’ Guide. They’re unhappy that anti-transit guys Kemper Freeman Jr. and others are behind the wheel on the “No” campaign.

My question: “Did you even ask to be on the voter statement during the public process?”

I don’t think it was on their radar. Other groups have been bird dogging RTID since the Sen. Jim Horn era. The Sierra Club is just late to the dance.

I don’t like the Voters’ Guide idea in the first place. Who’s the official “Yes” side, and who’s the “No” side, and who decides? The Sierra Club doesn’t want the “No” campaign to be dominated by road guys. Does that mean that John Stanton, Reagan Dunn, and Shawn Bunney are going to split from the “pro” campaign so that they can tell their side of the story? After all, these guys could give a rip about light rail. Do they sue to give their reasons why Roads and Transit is awesome? It’s ridiculous. These sort of measures probably shouldn’t be included in the Voters’ Guide in the first place.

And to kick off the weekend in style, I give you the Inaugural Marvin Stamn Highlight Reel.

The Seattle Times calls for Idaho Sen. Larry Craig to resign, and I couldn’t disagree more:

Craig could stand for election next year, and be slaughtered at the polls. That would be grossly unfair to his Republican Party.

Actually, a doomed Craig campaign is exactly what his Republican Party deserves. Craig’s sexuality has long been Idaho’s worst kept political secret, and yet he and his party continued to present him as a “family values” candidate, a champion of the divisive, anti-gay, uniquely Republican jihad that actually perpetuates the restroom cruising culture that ultimately brought him down. As Dan Savage points out over on Slog, “The overwhelming majority of men cruising toilets .. are desperate, pathetic closet cases.” You know, desperate, pathetic closet cases like Sen. Craig.

Think about it. I find it a little gross to even pee in the typical mens room, let alone have sex in one. Regardless of sexual preference, how much shame and self-loathing must a man have to sit down in the filthy, stinking stall of a public restroom, and get turned on by the thought of the stranger taking a dump in the stall next to you?

So hang in there Sen. Craig. By firmly standing your ground and refusing to resign, you will finally give Idaho the kind of US Senator it deserves. A Democrat.

UPDATE:
Just listen to Craig get all hot for that “naughty, naughty” Bill Clinton:

See, this is why we need to repeal the estate tax.

A couple years ago I first snagged an invite to one of those parties where the political and media hoity-toity hang out together over booze and barbecue. I knew of most of the folks there, but knew few of them personally; I was just some blogger and well, I just kinda felt out of place. So I grabbed myself a plate, a beer and a chair, and fell into a long and ranging conversation with a nice, somewhat grandmotherly woman camped out at the kitchen table. I found her easy to talk to and endlessly interesting, but there seemed to be an awful lot of VIPs milling about, waiting to make their hellos, so I moved on.

“I see you met Karen,” one of the hosts said to me later, pointing back at the table where she appeared to be holding court. “Karen who?” I replied. My host looked at me like I was some country bumpkin. “Karen Marchioro,” he said, “… the most powerful woman in the state.”

I have no idea if Karen knew who I was, but I was certainly clueless about her. The name didn’t even ring a bell. I guess I was a country bumpkin.

As Washington State Democratic Party chair from 1981 to 1992, and until her death this morning from cancer, Karen Marchioro helped reshape the party into the powerhouse it has become today. She was 73.

Secretary of State Sam Reed has issued a press release comparing voter turnout rates throughout the state in WA’s first ever August primary, and well, it really doesn’t contain any surprises.

The 2007 State Primary demonstrates that the people of Washington prefer to vote at home.

Among the poll-site counties of King, Kittitas, and Pierce, the projected overall turnout is 25%. Turnout in the state’s two largest counties, King and Pierce, was driven down by poll voters. Combined turnout for poll voters in King and Pierce is expected to reach only 8%, while combined turnout for those voting by mail is likely to reach 33%.

“When voters receive their ballots at their homes, they are more likely to vote,” said Handy. “The 25% turnout difference between poll voters and vote-by-mail voters in King and Pierce really underscores why counties in Washington are moving to vote-by-mail.”

It also underscores why many Republicans, like our good friend Stefan, adamantly oppose King County’s proposed move to all vote-by-mail, as the status quo clearly gives Republicans a demonstrable advantage in statewide elections by depressing the turnout in the state’s most populous and Democratic county. And they seem totally unconcerned by the hypocrisy of bemoaning King’s status as the only county without an elected elections director, at the same time they fight tooth and nail to make it the only county without all vote-by-mail.

I’m guessing there might be a Republican-championed election reform whose goal or effect hasn’t been to depress or even suppress the vote, but none immediately comes to mind.

“My original goal was to … to spare my wife and son the embarrassment of having this ridiculous story get wider dissemination.”
— Stefan Sharkansky, 8/28/07

Yeah, sure. And what better way to prevent wider dissemination of an obscure post on an obscure website than to splash it all over the front page of the most widely read political blog in the state? How’s that working out for you Stefan?

Apparently, not so well.

Downtown Seattle is getting a grocery store:

As downtown Seattle’s residential population swells, plans are in place to build one of the few full-size grocery stores ever to serve that area.

The Kress IGA Supermarket, at 1423 Third Ave., will occupy the 18,000-square-foot basement of the building that for more than 50 years housed department store S.H. Kress & Co.

The building’s owners, brothers Don and Paul Etsekson, have signed a 35-year lease with Whidbey Island-based Myers Group to run the store, which is set to open by February. Construction permits for the $2 million renovation are expected within a month.

Tearing out a maze of mesh walls now dividing the floor into rented document-storage areas will begin before that, said Tyler Myers, vice president of Myers Group.

The store is intended to serve not only the increasing number of nearby condo and apartment residents, but also workers in the area and passers-by.

About time. About effin’ time. For downtown area residents, grocery choices are slim. There’s Whole Foods (too expensive), Pike Place Market (closes by 6pm every day), Dan’s Belltown Grocery (ok if you’re a AIS student, but I rarely shop there), Ralph’s (too fancy, expensive). A good grocery store can really tie a neighborhood together. The big boys, like Safeway and QFC, are too chicken to go downtown. They have stores in Uptown (Lower Queen Anne) and Broadway, but that’s a hike, especially if you’re in need of just a few items.

Daniel K suggested that I do the EffU thing on the President’s Bellevue speech. Here it is.

Ezra Klein:

One other bit of McMegan’s post that bugged me was her elevation of single-payer as goal in and of itself, as if what interests reformers isn’t the health of the populace or the sustainability of the system but the aesthetics of the financing structure. “Look at that funding mechanism,” we’ll one day whisper in awe. “It’s just so redistributive.”

You get this occasionally from libertarians, and it’s always struck me as an availability bias error: Because the shrinkage of government is an end unto itself for them, they assume the expansion of government is an en unto itself for liberals. Liberals are just libertarians, but backwards, and without the “rtarian.”

That, however, isn’t true. Liberals want greater public involvement in health care because they’ve concluded the profit incentive doesn’t create optimal outcomes in this particular case. You can’t comparison shop during a myocardial infraction. You can’t walk away from the table while on a gurney. You don’t want to be in the position of second-guessing your doctors. You don’t want your neighbors going bankrupt because they failed to adequately save in their HSAs, not suspecting they’d get cancer at 32.

Health care isn’t like flat screen televisions — if I don’t have the former, I can die. If I lack the latter, I’ll be watching Entourage in slightly lower definition. On the other hand, I really wouldn’t want the government taking over the provision of flat screen televisions, as there the market works pretty damn well. The relevant variable isn’t the economic theory, but the good in question.

What she said.