HorsesAss.Org

Tuesday’s Drinking Liberally with Mayor Greg Nickels was a hoot. If you missed it, I’m sorry. This is the first time Nickels has graced our presence at the Montlake Ale House, and it was worth the wait.

I asked Hizzoner, “how do you keep a straight face on your Seattle Channel call-in show? I mean, the questions people ask, they’re nuts sometimes. Somebody called in about moving sidewalks or something.”

Nickels said, “You have to respect what folks have to say.”

I don’t know if politicians get enough credit for putting up with the Richard Lee’s of the world. I can tell you that if I was heckled by morons on a public TV show, I’d drop the f-bomb and resign my office.

************

Also, it turns out the mayor knows my grandfather. Just like Phil Talmadge, Nickels is a longtime West Seattle Democrat. My grampa was a PCO for years and years in White Center.

Me: “This may seem like a weird quesiton, Mr. Mayor, but I was wondering if you knew my grandfather. His name is Bill Kamp.”

Hizzoner: “Bill, yeah I remember Bill. His wife was…”

Me: I’m about to say “Mildred”, but Nickels beats me to it.

Hizzoner: “Yes, I knew them.”

I turn to Nick and say, “it’s a good day, a good day indeed.”

************

My grampa and grandma had six kids, and none of them have the interest in politics that I share with my late grampa (he passed away in 1998; my grandmother in 2003). I was only 17 when my grandfather died, so I didn’t have a chance to learn from his experience when I started in Democratic politics. I’m convinced there is a generation of politicians and old-time Democrats who knew my grandfather well. Only now am I learning that my grandfather knew Greg Nickels before he was mayor (and perhaps even before he was elected to the King County Council).

Not only did my grampa know Greg Nickels and Phil Talmadge, but (according to my family) also Mike Lowry, who was active in King County politics for a long time, and was in Congress from the 7th district for a few terms. My grandfather also knew Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Since Scoop and my grandfather have passed on, I’m out of luck in gaining a little insight in Washington’s more controversial figures.

************

As I get more involved in Democratic politics, I can look forward to discovering more about my grandfather’s involvement. I’m sure there are old timers out there with stories about my grandfather, the kind of things you don’t always learn form family. Which side was he on when the Democratic Party went through serious turmoil during the 1970’s? How did my grandfather, a Catholic with traditional cultural views, not bolt the party like so many others during the the 70’s and 80’s?

My grandfather, Bill Kamp, passed away during the summer of ’98, but he lives on in the memories of the Democrats who knew him.

From the one story, two headlines department:

Seattle Times: “Seven charged in vote-fraud scheme”
Seattle PI: “Voter-registration workers charged with submitting bogus registrations”

Of course, the Seattle PI headline is more accurate. It was voter-registration fraud, not vote fraud. There was never any attempt or intent to actually cast a fraudulent ballot, and to suggest otherwise is simply hyperbole.

That said, I’m glad the perpetrators are being prosecuted. But rather than celebrate the permanent disenfranchisement of seven more US citizens, I thought I’d just use this story as a springboard to talk about one of my personal pet peeves: paid initiative signature gathering.

But the scheme had nothing to do with an attempt to manipulate elections and everything to do with the workers’ efforts to keep their $8-an-hour jobs, prosecutors said.

[…] “The defendants … cheated their employers to get paid for work they did not actually perform,” Satterberg said. “The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets.”

And if you think this sort of cheating never occurs in the $2-$5 per-signature world of the highly profitable initiative industry, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. In WA state it is not uncommon for 20-percent of initiative signatures to be rejected on closer review, and in some states the rejection rate has exceeded 50-percent. There is no evidence we even come close to catching all the fraudulent signatures, and we have no mechanism for tracing them back to individual, paid signature gatherers.

We have created strong economic incentives for cheating, and the result is a nationwide initiative industry that is rife with fraud and corruption. But for some reason the “clean elections” hawks on the right, who would gladly wipe 100,000 legitimate voters from the rolls in hope of eliminating a couple felons, consider it anti-democratic to suggest any reform that might better protect the integrity of initiative petitions.

Go figure.

Max Blumenthal hangs out with the craziest people on earth (thanks to FishinCurt for the link).

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is posted, and reigning champion N in Seattle is out of town, so you all have a chance.

What kind of craziness do you get when you combine a Reagan-appointed former commandant of the Marine Corps with a former lawyer in the Reagan White House and give them space in the Washington Post to commenting on George W. Bush’s recent Executive Order on detainee treatment?

Let’s begin with the title: War Crimes and the White House.

What the…?

And the subtitle: The Dishonor in a Tortured New ‘Interpretation’ of the Geneva Conventions.

Ouch!

It gets worse for Bush from there:

But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
[…]

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to “interpret” Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program “fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3,” provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.”

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not “done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual” — even if that is an inevitable consequence — the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.”

It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in “good faith” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America’s clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.

Clearly, the Bush administration is finding itself sitting off in its own isolated corner of Neoconlandia.

Bush’s Executive Order is worthless under two circumstances. First, it is meaningless in the Hague and 192 other countries. War crimes are war crimes, regardless of any “Executive Order” whether from George Bush or Adolph Hitler (about which, more later).

Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are “war crimes” for which everyone involved — potentially up to and including the president of the United States — may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

Secondly, the Executive Order is meaningless if a U.S. court declares it unconstitutional. Torturers torture at their own risk. After all, there will eventually (most likely sooner rather than later) be a new administration that isn’t driving under the influence of Cheney. And some of us expect—and will demand—that war criminals be prosecuted whether at home or abroad.

But why must we even be debating the limits of torture in America? Why do we have a President who dishonors all Americans—who injures our national sense of honor, who trashes our moral standing with the rest of the world—by parsing the Geneva Conventions in order to justify inhumane treatment of prisoners?

We’ve seen this kind of thing before–dismissal of international law in the name of national security. On 6 June 1941, Adolph Hitler signed an “Executive Order” called Instructions on the Treatment of Political Commissars (my emphasis):

In the struggle against Bolshevism, we must not assume that the enemy’s conduct will be based on principles of humanity or of international law. In particular, hate-inspired, cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners can be expected on the part of all grades of political commissars, who are the real leaders of resistance…To show consideration to these elements during this struggle, or to act in accordance with international rules of war, is wrong and endangers both our own security and the rapid pacification of conquered territory…Political commissars have initiated barbaric, Asiatic methods of warfare. Consequently, they will be dealt with immediately and with maximum severity. As a matter of principle, they will be shot at once, whether captured during operations or otherwise showing resistance.

So, replace Bolshevism with “Islamofascism,” replace political commissars with “enemy combatants,” replace Asiatic methods of warfare with “terrorism,” and you pretty much have a Bush stump speech. Of course, sometimes we ship ’em to detention centers and torture them instead of immediately shooting them, but the parallels are stunning.

I find it disgusting that my President of my America is justifying the torture of prisoners using the same rationale that Hitler used to ignore international law.

Given today’s Washington Post commentary, it looks like there are some Righties with significant concerns, too.

ThinkProgress explains. This is an open thread.

When blogging, I can be a little harsh without realizing it. I’m not actually as big an SOB as I sometimes seem. So in this post I want to take note of folks I may have been too harsh on.

1. BUS DRIVERS

If you read this Seattle Weekly article, you’ll see what they have to put up with. While I knock Metro and their fleet of stinky, smelly, slow buses, I’m not knocking the drivers. Most of them are decent folks who put up with a lot.

2. JOEL CONNELLY

Everyone I know disagrees with Joel on something. I think this is what makes him a good columnist. He gets taken to task by lefties and righties. Joel sticks up for Old Seattle, and does it better than others. Also, he showed up to Drinking Liberally before it was cool popular.

3. PHIL TALMADGE

I bashed Phil for his goofball anti-light rail opinions. As it turns out, Phil was close to my grandfather, who was a long time PCO from the 34th legislative district. Phil even showed up at my grandparents 50th wedding anniversary back in the late 80’s. Very classy.

4. THE GOP

Ha! Not!

Yesterday, Congress voted on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment would have prevented the Federal Government from spending taxpayer dollars to arrest and prosecute medical marijuana patients in the states where it’s already been made legal (Washington is one of them, of course, passing a law via voter initiative in 1998). Now I expect the Republican Congressmen of this state to vote against it. We already know that Reichert, McMorris-Rogers, and Hastings don’t give a rats ass about the voters of this state. But three two Democratic Congressmen also voted against this bill. And one of them, Norm Dicks and Adam Smith, changed their vote from last year. Can we have an explanation from their offices for why they’ve decided in the past twelve months that the people of Washington State need to be protected from their own decisions? Can someone from either Norm Dicks’ or Adam Smith’s office explain why it’s so important for them him to have the federal government come here to overturn our laws? The second question also goes for Rick Larsen, who has consistently voted against this bill.

We are long past the point of where the old notions of “we need to protect the children” hold any water. In states where medical marijuana has been legalized, the numbers of underage marijuana users has actually decreased more than in other states. I think we deserve an explanation from our Representatives on this. There is absolutely no rational justification for voting against this bill, and they know it. The old days where votes like this aren’t noticed are over. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or not. When you vote against the sick and dying to advance the special interests of those who benefit from having more people flowing through our criminal justice system, we should know why.

UPDATE (–Goldy):
I just received an email from Derrick Crowe, Communications Director for Rep. Adam Smith:

We noticed the vote this morning and have a submitted a statement for the record to correct the error. Adam should have been a Yes on Rollcall vote 733, the Hinchey Amendment to HR 3093, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. Adam has consistently voted Yes on the Hinchey Amendment in years past.

So in fact, Rep. Smith voted for Hinchey-Rohrabacher. Not sure exactly how common it is for the House Clerk to get these things wrong, but apparently this time around he did. Apparently, Smith misheard the reading of the bill, and has since corrected his vote. Not sure how common that is either.

UPDATE 2: Dominic Holden has more, but still no word from Congressman Dicks…

The General has found a way to rid the nation of the homosexual scourge, and he’s asking our help to pass the following resolution in state legislatures nationwide. (Too bad Luke Esser is no longer in the state senate; this is exactly the type of resolution he would have sponsored.)

Whereas homosexuality is an abomination before God;

whereas Senator Tom Coburn has identified toilets as being critical habitat for homosexuals;

whereas it is common knowledge that homosexuals fear robots;

whereas Jim Naugle, the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, is using this knowledge to exclude homosexuals from the city’s beaches by installing robot toilets;

whereas the rest of our heterosexual nation would benefit if a similar approach were applied universally;

whereas Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to coin money and pay debts;

whereas official memos written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Fred Fielding transfer all of the legislative powers found in Article I Section 8 to the President of the United States;

whereas the Vice President of the United State, using the blood of his hunting companions as ink, affixed his initials and a smiley face upon each of these official memos;

we, the citizens of the various states, beseech the President to order the demolition of all analog toilets, both public and private, and thereby destroy the homosexuals’ critical habitat;

furthermore, we, the citizens of the various states, respectably ask the President to command the Secretary of the Treasury to fund the construction of replacement pay toilets by a contractor of the Vice President’s choosing at a cost that shall not exceed 1.8 million dollars per unit.

Emory Bundy writes at the ‘cut:

[W]hat about the environmental costs and benefits of rail transit? Surprisingly, rail’s environmental costs are quite adverse.

The anti-light rail guys have been flogging this thing for so long that their arguments are changing. Only recently have they been employing certain Al Gore-like rhetoric to try to put the kibosh on rail. It’s funny, really.

Emory Bundy, Kemper Freeman Jr., and other anti-rail guys like to say they’re pro-transit. The like buses, they say. Or bike lines and van pools. Just anything but a train!

You can sometimes judge an argument by who flocks to it’s banner. You see, it’s no wonder why the lunatic right wing hate site Free Republic loves Bundy and his anti-rail screed. So don’t fall for the “we like transit” routine from the anti-rail folks.

Whoops. Rodney Tom supporters were likely buoyed by the list of endorsements his campaign emailed out last week when he announced his candidacy for Dave Reichert’s congressional seat in WA-08, but that list seems to be shrinking day by day. First King County Democratic Chair Susan Sheary denied she had endorsed Tom, and now 48th LD Chair Doug Hightower tells me he too should not have been included on the list.

I talked to Hightower today to get his take on the primary race between Tom and Darcy Burner, and he told me that he was “neutral,” and didn’t know how his name got on the endorsement list. Hightower insisted it was “too early” for party officials like him to take sides.

Consultant John Wyble graciously offered to “take the fall” for the erroneous email announcing Tom’s “run for Congresss [sic],” and I suppose it is only a minor embarrassment for both Tom and his campaign. Still, a candidate running mostly on the strength of his five years of experience in the state legislature should probably have enough campaign experience to know that it’s not such a good idea to claim endorsements until, um, you know… you actually have them.

King County Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Sheary attended his campaign-kickoff announcement, and Tom — erroneously — claimed her endorsement, too.

He said later that support for him is obvious “when you’ve got the King County Democratic chair behind you,” and added, “She is fully behind me.”

Not so, Sheary said: “I have not endorsed anyone and will not. I was there only as a party leader because he had invited me. But I will stay neutral in the (primary) race.”

By the way, I’ve been talking to political insiders, pundits, wags and other members of the courtier class, trying to get a gauge on the conventional wisdom surrounding the Burner/Tom primary, and Hightower’s take was pretty much in line with the consensus: it’s good for the Democrats and a bad, bad sign for Reichert. Two term incumbents are usually unbeatable, yet Democrats are champing at the bit to take him on — compare that to Jennifer Dunn, who basically ran unopposed for much of her career.

And while Burner may not have wanted a primary opponent, almost everybody I’ve spoken with believes the challenge will be good for her… you know, with the possible exception of those few deluded folks who actually think Burner might lose.

At a campaign stop an “Idea Bank” forum in Longview yesterday, Republican gubernatorial candidate nonpartisan Forward Washington Foundation founder Dino Rossi “primed the pump” with his own ideas on how to turn around Washington’s fifth best business climate foundering economy. At the top of his list? Repealing Washington’s estate tax.

“It chases entrepreneurs out of our state,” he said. “It is better to die in any other state of the union than in Washington.”

He also called for reinstating the spending limit voters passed by initiative in 1993, which he said the Legislature repealed in 2005. He said the newest budget passed in Olympia had a 33 percent spending increase, which is unsustainable.

“I spent seven years in Olympia,” he said. “You’ll find a whole lot of people there who think they know all the answers. But the real solutions will come from people closest to the problems. We need an agenda that is people-driven, instead of coming from the top down.”

A “people-driven” agenda, huh? You mean like last year’s estate tax repeal initiative, I-920, which was rejected by voters in 36 of 39 counties, and by an overwhelming 62-percent to 38-percent margin statewide? Um… what exactly doesn’t Rossi understand about a 24-point landslide? “If he keeps talking like that,” one political wag quipped to me, “Rossi is going to become awfully familiar with the figure ’38-percent.'”

Rossi is pitching a solution voters have already rejected, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. And apparently, he sees absolutely nothing inconsistent — or “top down” — about calling for reinstating a 1993 initiative at the same time he ignores the results of a ballot measure from 2006.

Talk about somebody who thinks he knows all the answers.

While sounding very much like someone on the campaign trail at Tuesday’s forum, Rossi said he is not a declared candidate for the 2008 gubernatorial race and won’t announce until December whether or not he will run.

Take your time, Dino. Take your time.

If there’s any lingering doubt that the U.S. Department of Justice is in a serious state of disrepair, this video from TPM of the Attorney General’s testimony from yesterday should put that to rest.

UPDATE: This is also an open thread.

There can be little disagreement that the Bush administration is badly tarnishing the Republican brand. But does this damage actually affect whether or not people identify themselves as a Republican?

That is the question I examined at Hominid Views using current and historical poll data that reports party affiliation of respondents. At the national level the fraction who claim to be Democrats has been relatively stable over the last 3.5 years. But the fraction claiming to be Republican has been declining with a corresponding increase in the number of independents.

In Washington state, however, a subtly different pattern emerges over the last two years. Democratic party identity has increased substantially while both Republican and independent identity have declined. The most recent SurveyUSA poll recorded a Democratic affiliation for 40% of the respondents and Republican affiliation for 21% of the respondents. If real, that is a remarkable 2:1 advantage for Democrats!

Is this just an outlier? Perhaps this is the consequence of damage brought on by BushCo? Or maybe the Washington State Republican’s antics are causing real damage to the party?

I report, you decide. The graphical tour begins here.

I had the chance to hear Rodney Tom speak before the 48th District Democrats last week, and while he touched on education and the Iraq war, he led off his nascent stump speech by arguing that the primary race was mostly about beating Dave Reichert. One of his main critiques of Darcy Burner’s 2006 campaign was her relatively poor showing in Pierce County, where she garnered only 42.6 percent of the vote. Tom argues that he is a better fit to this more conservative, blue collar part of the 8th Congressional District. (Apparently because these voters strongly identify with wealthy, Lexus-driving, Medina realtors, I guess.)

The Tacoma News Tribune picked up on this theme yesterday with an article titled “Pierce vote important to Reichert challengers.”

Last year, as she prepared to challenge Republican Dave Reichert for the U.S. House, Darcy Burner said it would take significant Pierce County support for her to win.

She was right. Burner received only 304 fewer votes than Reichert out of over 200,000 cast in King County. But the Pierce County part of the congressional district remained loyal to the Republican, giving Reichert some 7,000 more votes than his Democratic challenger.

Hmm. I know this may sound counterintuitive, but the fact is, Burner lost the race in King County, not Pierce, where despite losing by more than 7,000 votes, she came pretty damn close to meeting or beating expectations. It was the King County results that proved disappointing, and a look back at previous elections explains why.

In 2006 Burner captured 42.6 percent of the vote in Pierce County, more than any other 8th CD Democrat since 1990. In 2004 by comparison, Dave Ross received only 39.1 of the Pierce vote, less than a half-percent better than the best effort by the much maligned Heidi Behrens-Benedict. Burner knew that to beat Reichert she had to do substantially better than previous Democrats in Pierce County. And she did.

In fact according to campaign insiders, Burner’s 3.5 point improvement over Ross (and nearly 7 point improvement over the ten-year average,) was right on target. All it would have taken to win the race was a very attainable 51.8 percent of the vote in the more Democratic King County portion of the district. But it didn’t happen. Late absentees broke decidedly towards Reichert, and Burner ended up losing King County by a few hundred votes out of over 200,000 cast.

Clearly, Tom is more conservative than Darcy, but then so was Ross, and to argue that this somehow makes Tom more electable simply isn’t supported by the facts. Burner did relatively well in Pierce County, a Republican stronghold, and with high name ID, increased turnout and presidential coattails, she’ll likely do even better. Unless, of course, I’m totally underestimating Pierce County’s Lexus-driving Medina realtor vote.

And one more balloon to burst before I go:

Tom supporters note the anti-Republican wave that swept the nation last year and say Burner had her chance to ride it to victory.

What a load of crap. Republicans held 232 House seats going into the 2006 election, and only 22 incumbents lost. Only 22. The GOP poured everything it had into defending Reichert; Karl Rove made WA-08 his number one target. And yet a total unknown with no prior campaign experience came within a silver hair of defeating “the Sheriff.”

Underestimate Burner at your own risk.