I’m filling in for Frank Shiers tonight from 9PM to 1AM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. Guests will include Democrat George Fearing, who is challenging Rep. Doc Hastings in Washington’s 4th Congressional District, and TRex from Firedoglake.com.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
Not exactly seppuku, but…
Japan’s agriculture minister died Monday after hanging himself just hours before he was to face questioning in a political scandal, officials said, dealing a powerful blow to the increasingly beleaguered government ahead of July elections.
Hmm. Such a dramatic response to personal scandal could never become the fashion amongst corrupt Bush administration officials and other top Republicans, as D.C. area Home Depots would quickly run out of rope.
Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Are the Sonics making a “good faith effort” to keep the team in Seattle?
The Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat chronicled today the changing moods of two Sonics bloggers, who have gone from working with Clay Bennett’s ownership group to secure arena financing to criticizing his efforts as “a complete and 100 percent zero.” Blogger Brian Robinson of SonicsCentral.com joins me in the studio to discuss the state of the Sonics. Is Bennett making an honest effort to keep the team in Seattle? Westneat doesn’t seem to think so.
8PM: Do you believe?
According to a new Gallup Poll, nearly one in three Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Um… I’m betting nowhere near one in three Americans have actually read the Bible cover to cover. Meanwhile, tomorrow marks the grand opening of the Creation Museum in Peterburg KY, which argues that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and I suppose that the dinosaurs didn’t fit on Noah’s Ark. Even if you’re a person of faith, is this something we should be proud of, that so many Americans reject science?
9PM: TBA?
And update on the food safety crisis, plus other issues of the day.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
From the Washington Post:
War opponents dismissed the bill as a capitulation to Bush and said they would seek to hold supporters in both parties accountable. But backers said the bill’s provisions — including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid — represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.
Bush, who had vowed to veto any legislation with restrictions on troop deployments, announced he would sign the $120 billion package, which was approved 80 to 14 last night in the Senate, after a 280 to 142 House vote.
Surrendering to a president who manages 30/70 approval ratings is amazing to me. Amazingly stupid.
The message Democrats sent is…
It frustrates me that Democrats buy into the idea that they’ll be blamed, somehow, for not giving the President exactly what he wants. It is absolute bullshit, and political malpractice, to chicken out in such a obvious way. Democrats had real momentum, and they gave it away when they blinked.
Democrats initially showed real toughness by sending Bush a bill that funded the troops and ended the war. Predictably, Bush vetoed that bill (and vetoed funding for his own war!). Instead of realizing the vast storage of political capital they have on hand, Democrats folded quickly, and sent Bush a “clean” bill, which funded the troops without any real accountability.
And you know what? Maybe, at some point this summer, the coalition of Democrats standing up to Bush was going to break down.
But it didn’t have to happen this soon, this early, and in such a gutless manner.
A fellow liberal blogger asked me at last weeks’ Drinking Liberally if I too was quitting the Democratic Party… I had to smile, as I knew he was joking. I told him, “what the fuck else am I going to do?”
Some Democrats constantly throw in the towel in a way conservative activists don’t. First it was Bankruptcy Reform legislation, then it was John Roberts, then Sam Alito, then this. Certain lefties always threaten to ditch the party, to “work down ticket”, to stop doing whatever it was they were doing to support the candidates who have let them down. This goes on until the pain goes away, but is soon reignited by the next great “letdown.”
If I’ve managed to glean a difference between blogger activists and regular activists, it’s that the blogger activists are way too quick to throw in the towel. These so-called reality-based freedom fighters of the blogosphere are nothing more than fair-weather friends. It’s an odd thing to say, considering I’m a “blog-guy,” but the lack of resolve shown by liberals on the web illustrates why blogs are only good for so much.
The Democrats who know nothing of blogs are often the toughest. These Democrats know that the road is long, and it is hard, and that you can’t explode in outrage at every opportunity. Even if Democrats keep voting for more funding for Bush’s war, I’ll still be around. Somebody has to be, if only to tell them that they’re wrong.
Gee… and I thought Republicans were for “open government.” But you wouldn’t know that from the way some of the righty trolls responded to my post about WA Attorney General Rob McKenna appointing Tim Ford to be his new “Open Government Ombudsman.”
Apparently, it is “insulting” to point out that Ford is not only a former (un)Sound Politics contributor, but like his predecessor, he’s also a former attorney for the right-wing BIAW. And apparently, it is antithetical to the spirit of “open government” to reveal the political biases of those tasked with safeguarding it.
All I did was point out McKenna’s penchant for packing his office with ruthless partisans, but I guess if that can be portrayed as an attack on the very notion of government oversight, then critiquing Ford’s analytical and legal skills must be downright anti-democratic. Which is exactly what Carl at Effin’ Unsound has done with his thoroughly entertaining fisking of some of Ford’s posts over at (u)SP.
I particularly enjoyed rereading Ford’s analysis of Judge Bridge’s Feb. 4, 2005 ruling that the court, not the Legislature, was the proper venue for hearing an election challenge. Ford gloated:
It was predictable. Even Democrat Legislators admit the election contest belongs in a court and not in the Legislature.
But that didn’t stop the Democrat party from trying to dismiss the election contest. They claimed that the Legislature is the proper venue.
Not only was this motion based on questionable legal arguments, but now there will be a “perception” that momentum has shifted to Dino Rossi. The newspapers will report on the Democrats’ loss, and the story will gain fresh interest. Keeping the story alive in the media is necessary to fight voter apathy, and the Democrats are helping the Republicans with questionable lawyering based only on the transparent desire to throw the election contest to a partisan tribunal in the Legislature. While the Democrats motion to dismiss doesn’t sink to the frivolous, public opinion will continue to favor Rossi because of bad lawyering by the Democrats.
Uh-huh. I love Carl’s response:
First, it’s called the Democratic Party, and you sound like an asshole.
But to the substance, lawyering by the Democrats won the case. Ultimately the lawyering was just so bad that Dino Rossi decided not to press ahead and appeal his bullshit case. So good call. And momentum? Really? It’s bad enough when sports commentators do it, but hiring someone who believes that lawyers should take it into consideration is kind of a demonstration of failing up ain’t it?
Of course, it is easy to criticize Ford’s legal analysis in hindsight. Anybody can do that. Who knew the way this case would play out? Who knew the Republicans’ evidence would be so weak? Certainly not Ford, who at the time was an attorney for the BIAW, the organization providing Rossi’s legal team with the bulk of their investigative and financial resources. If only there was a contemporaneous example of somebody getting the legal analysis right, where Ford got it so wrong, then we could really make fun of him.
Well… um… it turns out that three days before Judge Bridge’s ruling, I nailed it right on the head:
While conservative talk radio attacks the Democrats as hypocrites for now arguing that Art. III, Sec. 4 of the state Constitution gives the Legislature jurisdiction over a contested gubernatorial election, everybody has missed a very clever — and possibly decisive — piece of legal strategy. Remember, in Foulkes, the court also wrote:
Such jurisdiction would exist even without such recognition by virtue of Const. art. 4, sec 6, unless it were “by law vested exclusively in some other court.”
And as Lawyer X explains:
The GOP and Secretary of State argue that the Legislature has delegated its decision making power to the courts by means of RCW 29A.68.020 et al. If that argument is sustained, the court may have jurisdiction to decide this matter, but only within the confines the legislature has set up by its contest statute–not under any general equity jurisdiction.
“Not under any general equity jurisdiction.”
See, that’s the real reason Democratic attorneys are playing the Art. III, Sec 4 card. Unlike other elections, the Constitution clearly grants to the Legislature jurisdiction over contested elections for executive offices, and any such powers not specifically granted to the courts by statute, remain with the Legislature. If the Democrats win this one point, then the court must rule entirely within the narrow confines of existing statute… and that would be the final nail in Rossi’s legal coffin.
Brilliant attorney that he is, Ford ridiculed Democrats for “bad lawyering” that he predicted would shift the momentum to Rossi, but entirely missed the clever legal strategy on which the entire case turned… a strategy I had outlined just days before.
The Democrats never wanted this contest settled in the Legislature; that would have been a political disaster. The Democratic strategy was to force the GOP to argue — and Judge Bridges to determine — that the Legislature had specifically delegated such jurisdiction to the courts, thus forcing him to rule within the narrow confines of the statute without the possibility of resorting to any “plenary powers.” And that’s exactly what happened. The result? A new election was eliminated as a possible remedy, and Rossi’s attorneys were forced to meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof as defined in the contest statute… a burden they never had a snowball’s chance of meeting.
Again, one could argue, how was Ford to know? Well how the fuck was I to know? I’m not an attorney — much to my mother’s everlasting shame — and yet I was able to figure it out with a little help from Lawyer X. And not after the judge’s decision, but three days before!
Yet Ford, with all his legal training and experience, couldn’t see through his Rossi-colored glasses to understand what was perfectly clear to an amateur like me. No wonder the Republicans and their BIAW patrons lost this case so badly. And no wonder that watching the same trial, our friend Stefan predicted that Rossi would prevail, whereas I predicted that he would lose. I had better legal advice than he did. (And I wasn’t delusional.)
So what does this rehashing of the 2004 election contest have to do with Ford’s cushy new job? Well, nothing. And everything.
No, there’s nothing wrong with McKenna appointing like-minded attorneys to top positions in his office, as long as they represent some of the top talent available for the job… and their primary qualification isn’t their BIAW pedigree. For if the AG’s Open Government Ombudsman is merely a partisan shill for an organization that hates government and absolutely despises the Democrats running it, then it calls into question the credibility and impartiality of the office.
It’s not for me to judge whether Ford is otherwise qualified, as once again, I’m not an attorney. But I’m just sayin’….
Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Dal LaMagna
Dal LaMagna, a successful entrepreneur, well known backer of progressive causes, and Poulsbo resident, is running for the Democratic nomination for President. Really. LaMagna joins us by phone to tell us why. Later, I’ll talk a bit about my meeting this week with another presidential hopeful, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
8PM: Was Norm Maleng the last sane Republican?
King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng died suddenly Thursday night, after serving 28 years in the office… a popular Republican in a very Democratic county. In addition to being remembered as a kind man and an effective prosecutor, Maleng has been eulogized as one of the last of the moderate Republicans, a dying breed that used to dominate WA politics. What will the KCGOP look like without Maleng as a moderating force? Can Republicans possibly hope to hold the seat?
9PM: Are hate crimes “thought” crimes?
That’s what right-wing opponents of hate crime legislation want you to think, but David Neiwert of Orcinus argues that hate crime laws protect our basic civil liberties, rather than threatening them. Neiwert, the foremost authority on the Northwest’s right-wing militia movements, joins me in the studio for the hour.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
Goldy the new Elections Director? Well, no… not really. But imagine if King County Executive Ron Sims did indeed appoint me, a muckraking partisan blogger, to a key post in the elections department? Think that might generate a little outrage from suspicious righties?
So forgive me for not cheering at the news that WA Attorney General Rob McKenna has named Tim Ford, a former BIAW attorney and Sound Politics contributor as his new “Open Government Ombudsman.” Yeah… nothing instills confidence in the AG’s open government initiative like having it overseen by a ruthlessly partisan Republican.
Of course, the outgoing ombudsman, Greg Overstreet, was also a BIAW attorney, though, not to worry, we’re told:
Overstreet was well received in the job. The Washington Coalition for Open Government — a group that includes the media and activists like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation — recently gave him one of its “Key Awards” for his work at the AG’s office.
Oh well, if the EFF applauded Overstreet, that should be good enough for me. After all, it was EFF President Bob Williams who during the 2004 election controversy repeatedly called for KC Elections Director Dean Logan to be jailed. Yeah, that’s the EFF’s idea of open government… imprisoning your political opponents. What a prick.
But you know, as long as reporters continue to pretend that organizations like the BIAW and EFF (not to mention uSP) are just nonpartisan civic groups, there will be absolutely no political cost to McKenna packing the AG’s office with partisan party operatives.
Hmm. Sounds familiar.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was in Seattle yesterday, making his case to various constituent groups and power brokers. In between a speech before WA State Democratic Party committee members and a series of meetings with labor officials, he squeezed in a half-hour to sit down with me and some of my fellow local bloggers… a much appreciated opportunity to speak face-to-face with one of the many qualified candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for President.
In fact, if you look at his resume and experience, Richardson is arguably the most qualified candidate running from either Party — a sitting governor, former UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy, who also served seven terms in the US House of Representatives. He has the administrative experience required of our nation’s top executive, and the legislative know-how to work with the folks on Capitol Hill. And at a time when our nation’s global prestige has ebbed to an all time low, he has the diplomatic skills and track record to patch up relations at home and abroad.
If Richardson could successfully negotiate with the North Koreans, he can certainly deal with the homegrown variety of warmongering crazies who sit across the aisle.
I’ve admired Richardson for years, and would be proud to elect him our nation’s first President of color. (His mother is Mexican.) And after having the opportunity to talk with him about energy, transportation, immigration, habeas corpus, health care and the Iraq war with a specificity few other candidates seem willing to engage in these days, I came away from our meeting more impressed than ever.
But, I remain uncommitted.
And therein lies the rub for Richardson, John Edwards and other Democratic hopefuls trying to break the lock Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton seem to have on frontrunner status. The very grassroots and netroots activists Richardson might rely upon to generate the kind of buzz and excitement necessary to shift the playing field, at least locally, seem frozen in indecision.
Partially this is due to an embarrassment of riches… a diverse field of qualified candidates who, from an electoral perspective, nearly all stack up well against any Republican nominee. And partially this is due to, well… Al Gore.
Perhaps spoiled by last November’s big blue wave, I, like many of my blogger friends, remain on the sidelines wishing and waiting for a Gore candidacy. As much as I admire Richardson and the rest of the Democratic field, a President Gore would be immensely more satisfying in so many ways: ideologically, intellectually, emotionally and symbolically. A President Gore would be a signal to the rest of the world that America regrets the previous eight years, and would be the ultimate redemption for the man who won the 2000 popular vote and was possibly cheated out of the White House.
There are only two problems: 1) Al Gore is not running for President; and 2) he refuses to say that he won’t.
The result is to freeze supporters like me, and in so doing freeze the status quo in the race for the Democratic nomination. Slowly, the Gore faithful are flowing in dribs and drabs to the other candidates, but his refusal to definitively say “No” prevents us from unreservedly investing our passion and enthusiasm elsewhere.
We all expect that if Gore were to suddenly enter the race, the current dynamics — essentially a showdown between Obama and Clinton — would instantly change. By if done soon enough, the dynamics could also change if Gore were to announce that he would absolutely not seek the nomination. Such an announcement would be an opportunity for one or more candidates to pick up the enthusiastic support of a wave of party insiders and grassroots activists who have thus far remained on the sidelines. If effectively exploited, it could be an opportunity to catapult a Richardson or Edwards into the top tier.
But as long as Gore remains publicly ambivalent about his own presidential ambitions, he makes it virtually impossible for the second and third tier challengers to dramatically move up the field.
This is a clever strategy if Gore in fact expects to seek the nomination, as it prevents other challengers from gaining traction. But if in his heart of hearts Gore really has no plans to run, then he owes it to his supporters, his party and his nation to make his intentions absolutely clear, so that this race can play out as it will. I cannot speak to the rumor that Gore’s interest in running is in part fueled by his discomfort with the notion of a Clinton nomination, but I do believe that the unfulfilled prospect of a Gore candidacy makes Clinton’s nomination more likely.
In the meanwhile the current dynamics of the race, and the nature of how our media covers it, leaves capable, qualified candidates like Richardson flying way too far below the radar. Yesterday Richardson, the half-Mexican governor of a border state, emphatically came out against the compromise immigration bill, much to the consternation of Democratic leaders in Congress. And yesterday Richardson, the candidate with by far the most extensive foreign policy credentials, came out strongly in opposition to the supplemental Iraq war funding bill, bluntly stating that Congress should simply de-authorize the war. If either Obama or Clinton had stated similar opposition with similar language and specificity, it would have made headlines. But because Richardson is not considered a top-tier candidate, and because he has no swarm of bloggers to echo and champion him, the average voter has little familiarity with the positions of the candidate who probably has the best resume for the job.
If the netroots really want this race to be about issues, rather than just about personalities, we’re eventually going to have to stop waiting for Gore.
On April 24, 1967, a group of college friends join together to form “Choose an Effective City Council” (CHECC) to reform Seattle City Government. CHECC members believe that incumbent Council members had been in office too long and had failed to effectively solve city problems. Besides city government reform, CHECC members were interested in inspiring like-minded younger people “with energy and vigor” to run for Seattle City Council positions. The citizen group would elect numerous City Council members through 1973, but its influence faded and it disbanded in 1977.
Might a slate be a good idea? Seattle politics were transformed by such an approach in 1967-77, when Choose an Effective City Council (CHECC) adopted such an approach, endorsing one Democrat and one Republican in each race and fairly quickly transforming and dramatically improving the council.
[…]
The advantages of a slate are that it induces better people to run for office (they can be more effective since there are supporting votes), provides a screening that produces better candidates, rewards working together, and gives greater consistency to policy over the years.
David Brewster has been around along time. He started the Seattle Weekly, which I’m told used to be better than The Stranger. He was also a big backer of Paul Schell for years and years. He currently publishes the online “newspaper” Crosscut and is also advocating for a big remodel at the Seattle Center.
But his “slate” idea is a relic of the past, and it ought to be killed off before somebody tries it again. Besides, the slate Brewster wants seems to be the one already on the job.
If there is any broad-based civic reform that ought to happen, it’s this one. Seattle Districts is supported by rightwing bloggers (Stefan!) and lefties too (like me!). Just like the old CHECC days when Republicans and Democrats worked together… But instead of electing different councilmembers, we’ll be electing councilmembers differently.
CHECC is so 1966.
Of an apparent heart attack. This is from his bio at the county:
Within the State of Washington, Norm has led legislative efforts which culminated in the passage of a number of critical bills, including restoration and expansion of the crime victim compensation system, and establishment of our state’s presumptive sentencing system (the Sentencing Reform Act), which has brought uniformity and certainty to the state’s criminal justice system.
In 1989, Norm was selected to chair the Governor’s Task Force on Community Protection after several outrageous crimes were committed by repeat predatory sex offenders. The Task Force recommendations became law, and Washington’s laws regarding registration, notification, and civil commitment of sex offenders have become national models.
Norm helped strengthen laws in 1994 aimed at juveniles who carry firearms without adult supervision. He also worked to pass the Becca Bill in 1995, which has re-enforced the state’s truancy laws and established expectations for dealing with runaway children. In 1997, Norm was a leader in the 1997 Juvenile Justice Act, which provides an improved framework to intervene in the life of a troubled youth.
Maleng was, to my knowledge, the only Republican who ever got his start in the office of Senator Warren Magnuson (D-WA). He was always more moderate than the GOP of the state, and caused controversy when he declined to seek the death penalty against Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer.
Whenever I heard him speak, I got the sense that he was a decent guy.
UPDATE: (–Goldy)
I first had the opportunity to meet Norm Maleng when we both were working to defeat I-892, Tim Eyman’s slot machine initiative. I attended a couple meetings of a rather broad and bizarre coalition (for example, me sitting next to Jeff Kemp) and came away impressed with the way Maleng ran the proceedings. He struck me as kinda grandfatherly. I liked him.
To be honest, I don’t remember if I voted for him or not in his various races, but this was one Republican whose victories I never lost any sleep over. I hope his fellow Republicans appreciate what a huge loss this is to their own party.
On a more personal note, 68 is just too damn young. My heart felt condolences to his family.
 Jack “the Magic Genie” Turk, and his running-mate Doodle |
For weeks now, Snohomish County Republicans have built up the suspense surrounding their “secret candidate” to challenge County Executive Aaron Reardon. Um… now we know why they kept it such a secret.
Jack “the Magic Genie” Turk announced his candidacy at the Snohomish GOP convention last night, where he was “unanimously anointed” the party’s nominee. Turk told his fellow Republicans he wasn’t afraid of losing, which, while a perfectly realistic perspective, doesn’t exactly make for a compelling fundraising pitch.
“I’m certainly different. I’m definitely out of nowhere,” said Turk, 50, of Snohomish. “I’ll make my appearances fun.”
Yeah, well, as long as he shows up at events wearing a sequined turban and carrying his bird puppet, “Doodle,” I think we’ll all have a little fun with this campaign.
Turk is a former Microsoft technical writer, program manager, and group manager, and, you guessed it… a professional magician, who performs up to 20 shows a month, mostly for children. No wonder he wowed the folks at the county convention.
Earlier this week (un)Sound Politics Eric Earling speculated about the identity of the secret candidate, posting six tantalizing clues based on details provided by County GOP Chair Ger Modrell. Surprisingly, none of the biographical facts had anything to do with magic tricks or puppets, leading Eric to post the following wise piece of analysis:
Fact Six: His current business’s core focus is enabling individuals to achieve their dreams of success. Isn’t that the kind of leader we’re looking for?
Uh-huh.
It’ll take a magician for the R’s to pull this election out of a hat. As one political wag put it: “And we thought incumbents had it easy in King County…”
UPDATE:
Eric informs me that I misread his post. The Six Facts were a copy and paste from a GOP press release, not Eric’s own analysis. So it is the Snohomish County GOP who deserves my ridicule, not Eric. My apologies.
At a Rose Garden press conference this morning, President Bush had harsh words to say about “these people.”
These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq. And they’ve been attacking ever since.
Who are “these people”…? Muslims, I guess. And does that make President Bush an anti-Muslim racist? Rick Perlstein of Campaign for America’s Future seems to think so:
The President of the United States is a racist. Or at the very least, an anti-Muslim bigot.
In Iraq, Shi’ites and Sunni are fighting each other to the death. Under what possible logic can they be joined by a common identity?
There is no “these people” except in their common Middle East-ness.
Iran and Iraq fought a decade-long war – Shia against Sunni. They are, to our president, “these people.” “They” attacked us. “They” continue to attack us. Iran, Iraq: all the same.
The people who attacked us on September 11 were from a group called “al Qaeda.” According to U.S. intelligence, Iraq was one of the few countries in the Middle East where Al Qaeda did not have a beachhead.
If by “these people,” Bush was referring to Arabs or Muslims, then I suppose it is fair to characterize him as a racist, or at the very least, one who uses racist rhetoric.
If on the other hand, he was referring specifically to al Qaeda, it is fair to characterize Bush as dishonest for once again implying a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
I imagine Mary Cheney is still a virgin. In any case, she bore a son today.
Cheney and Poe, a former park ranger, have been together for 15 years and live in Great Falls. And no, there’s no more word on how the pregnancy came about.
How, indeed! I wonder if the answer is parthenogenesis? (Hey…I’m not trying to imply that Mary Cheney is a shark—even considering who her father is.) You know, some kind of biological response to prolonged female-female cohabitation? Oh…wait…it can’t be parthenogenesis, because that would always result in a female offspring (two X chromosomes).
Nope…nothing of scientific interesting going on here.
This is just another typical case of a virgin Mary giving birth to a son.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!