HorsesAss.Org

Yet another stupidly conceived, stupidly written Tim Eyman initiative was tossed out by the courts last year, I-747, which capped the revenue growth from regular local levies at 1-percent a year. And now I hear that House Dems are stupidly caucusing today to discuss the stupid idea of reinstating I-747.

Oy.

I’ll come back later with a more substantive post on the issues involved, but I just want to take a moment here to discuss the politics. I have been told by more than one legislator that there is a real concern that failing to reinstate I-747 would create the opportunity for Eyman to come back with an even more damaging initiative, thus reinvigorating his flagging career, and I just have to respectfully say that this is the most heads-up-your-ass, mind-numbingly backwards analysis that I have ever heard in my life.

If you are desperate to breathe new life into Eyman, go ahead and prove to the world that you fear him, by reinstating I-747. He’ll claim credit for your boneheaded, reactionary blunder, and the Capitol press corps will give it to him, because… well… he’ll deserve it. Hell… why not just abdicate your responsibilities entirely, boot Frank, and elect Tim as Speaker?

Or, of course, you could calmly explore the policy alternatives, impose a more reasonable cap of say, inflation-plus-population with a 4-percent max, and then address the growing regressivity burden by creatively passing a property tax homestead exemption or an income-sensitive circuit breaker.

And you know how Tim will respond? He’ll send out a couple of angry emails to a list whose most avid readers include a handful of email-weary journalists and some anti-Tim activists like me. Maybe Dave Ammons will quote him in an AP story. And that’s about it.

You see, in case you weren’t paying much attention, Eyman really hasn’t done much these past five years, his last tax-cutting initiative having passed way back in November of 2002. He has no organization to speak of, no grassroots, and apart from the deep pockets of Michael Dunmire, an anemic and ever-shrinking fund raising base that barely brings in enough cash to pay for mailing his many fund raising appeals.

The legislature has nothing to fear from Tim Eyman. He’s toothless. He’s a paper tiger.

No… I take that back. To call Tim Eyman a paper tiger would be to grossly overestimate his chance of delivering a political paper-cut. With his dwindling support and our shifting political climate, Tim is at most a toilet paper tiger… the soft, 3-ply, fluffy kind my grandmother buys, not that coarse, off-brand variety you find in the Capitol restrooms. Provoke Tim, and at most he might leave behind a political dingleberry or two. But come back with a killer initiative? Not likely.

So my advice to the House caucus is please… take your time and carefully evaluate all the implications of reinstating I-747 — the stupid political implications as well as the stupid policy ones. And please remember that Tim Eyman is a toilet paper tiger, so the last thing you want to do is feed him. No, you just want to wad him up, wipe your ass with him, and flush him down the toilet.

White House adviser Karl Rove will be the guest speaker at the King County Republicans annual Lincoln Day Dinner on April 14. (Does it strike anyone else as curiously ironic that the day they choose to celebrate the life of our most revered Republican president is the anniversary of his assassination?)

King County GOP Chairman Michael Young said he expects Rove’s remarks to focus on the future of the Republican Party, and — keeping with White House policy — be off-the-record, behind closed doors, and not under oath.

“In the past, when he’s come out to do these kinds of things, they’re very optimistic, forward-looking speeches for the most part,” Young said.

Following the KCGOP’s standard accounting procedures, proceeds from the event will be reported 300 days late, and without occupation or employer data.

Young says that Rove’s visit “shows a commitment of the national party to our state and our county.” Uh-huh. It also shows the close affinity the two criminal organizations the national and local parties have for one another. Karl Rove represents everything that has eroded the faith of the American public in the Bush administration and the Republican Party. And yet the KCGOP embraces Rove, and proudly welcomes him as the keynote speaker at their annual dinner.

That should tell local voters something very important about the political allegiances and philosophy of the King County Republicans.

Speaking of which, take a gander at this old clip of a very young Karl Rove from his early days as a dirty trickster for Richard Nixon’s infamous 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President. No wonder Rove refuses to to testify under oath — he learned a valuable lesson from his old boss, Jeb Magruder, who served seven months for his role in the Watergate break-in and subsequent coverup.

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

I won’t be there, but I suspect Goldy and the usual suspects will be.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

The headline in today’s Daytona Beach News-Journal says all you need to know about International Speedway Corp.’s attitude towards local government: “ISC gives Washington officials green flag on track taxes.”

“Yee-hah!” our state legislators must be exclaiming, “ISC has given us the green flag to give them money!” And talk about a major concession:

Daytona Beach–based International Speedway Corp. has agreed to let local officials in Washington State have more of a say in how tax revenue from a proposed racetrack in Bremerton, Wash., would be divided.

Wow. ISC is willing to let local officials have a say in how to spend their tax revenue. How can the Legislature possibly say no to a deal like that?

The latest iteration of the bill would provide at least $164 million of public financing to build a NASCAR track near Bremerton, while exempting from property taxes only 750 of the site’s 950 acres. ISC claims sales taxes would mostly be levied on out-of-state fans, and that economic and development benefits would lead to lower property taxes on area residents… but local officials dispute these claims. And in fact, most of the these new, so-called concessions merely represent a willingness to negotiate some of the final terms with local officials, rather than having them mandated in the legislation.

Whatever. ISC can issue all the press releases it wants, but the fact remains that we’re talking about giving a huge public subsidy to an extremely profitable out-of-state corporation that wants WA to build it a new track in a relatively remote location, that would require many millions more in transportation improvements on top of the millions being sucked out of state and local coffers. To hear ISC spin it, they’re doing charity work here, and all they want from us is a matching grant. If we want a NASCAR event in Washington state — and all the prestige and tourism that supposedly comes with it — well, this is the only way they can financially swing it. Take it or leave it, Washington state.

Yeah… um… except, that’s a load of bull.

This isn’t about bringing NASCAR to Washington state, this is about crafting a sweetheart deal for ISC and the family that controls it. For if they really wanted to bring NASCAR to Washington, there is better alternative, near the heart of our state’s population center, that would require little if any public subsidy: Pacific Raceways, near Kent.

Pacific Raceways is located on a 330 acre site just outside of Kent, a quarter mile off Highway 18, with its own dedicated off ramp. Just 20 miles from both Seattle and Tacoma, there are plenty of hotel rooms in the region, and no major transportation improvements would be needed. The site is already zoned, and has been operating as a racetrack since 1960. And perhaps best of all, the local owners have plans to privately finance a $135 million upgrade and expansion that would be capable of attracting NASCAR, IRL and CART racing events.

So why would NASCAR lobby for a new $344 million facility in Bremerton, when they could be running events at a more conveniently located racetrack in Kent? Because the France family, which controls NASCAR, also controls ISC, which is in the business of building and operating racetracks. The Bremerton facility, with its huge public subsidy, represents a financial windfall for the France family, whereas a NASCAR event at Pacific Raceways, well… that would only bring in revenues from a NASCAR event — revenue they would have to share with the owners of Pacific Raceways.

The Bremerton proposal is not about bringing NASCAR to Washington state — it is about the France family leveraging its control of NASCAR to grab $164 million in direct public subsidies for ISC, plus additional tax breaks. If NASCAR really only wanted to expand its market by bringing high profile events to Washington, it has a willing and eager partner at Pacific Raceways, a facility that would require little or no public subsidy… and no legislative action. NASCAR already runs races on road courses like Watkins Glen and Infineon — nothing is stopping them from running major events at an upgraded Pacific Raceways in Kent.

Nothing, that is, except greed.

We have repeatedly been told that only a brand new, taxpayer subsidized racetrack will do, but that simply is not true. Racing enamored legislators would be wise to buckle up and strap on their helmets before letting ISC/NASCAR take them for a ride.

The Seattle Times David Postman thinks that ousted U.S. Attorney for Western Washington John McKay added few new details in his interview yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, and accuses the Washington Post of “making too much” of McKay’s choice of words. But I think both Postman and the Post underplay the most significant word choice of all: “illegally.”

I think that what happened here, because the stories have changed so frequently, what happened here has to be investigated. Those who either acted unprofessionally or even illegally have to be held accountable for what they did.

One of the unquestioned assumptions that has run through the media coverage of this growing scandal is that although the firings may have been improper, they were not illegal. Since the U.S. attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the President” we are told, he has the legal authority to fire them at will, whatever his motives. I myself have been guilty of repeating this snippet of common wisdom.

But it is simply not true.

As Adam Cohen pointed out recently in the NY Times, if the motive behind a firing was to punish an attorney for not misusing his office, or to interfere with a valid prosecution, that may well be illegal.

In law schools, it is common to give an exam called the “issue spotter,” in which students are given a set of facts and asked to identify all the legal issues and possible crimes. The facts about the purge are still emerging. But based on what is known — and with some help from Congressional staff members and Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University — it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.

Cohen goes on to suggest that some of the crimes a special prosecutor might look into involve misrepresentations to Congress, undue influence by representatives under Sarbanes-Oxley, witness tampering, and outright obstruction of justice. This sort of legal analysis runs counter to the oft repeated “at the pleasure” meme that has permeated our news coverage, but is beginning enter the public debate. And I think the fact that McKay specifically referenced it in his nationally televised interview Sunday morning, represents quite a significant and deliberate choice of words.

David Sirota on the 60 Minutes interview:

Perhaps the most disturbing display of all, however, was 60 Minutes’ Katie Couric. She spent most of her interview with the Edwardses behaving like a prosecutor, cross-examining them about why they are going forward with the presidential campaign. And when I say “interrogate” I mean interrogate. This was no ordinary interview – this was a televised guilt trip. She stated as fact to John Edwards that he is supposedly “putting your work first, and your family second.” She also pulled the “some say” technique, claiming that an unnamed “some” say that in making this decision, Edwards is displaying “a case of insatiable ambition.”

I think the “some say” device is a dishonest interview tactic. It’s a dumb trick best used by FOX News. It allows an interviewer to ask a question even if that question has no relevance. It’s lazy, and I’m glad I haven’t seen it much in the local media. Rush Limbaugh’s bullshit musings do not deserve to be cloaked by Couric with the phrase, “some say.”

The decision to continue their campaign belongs to John and Elizabeth Edwards alone. Their decision not to surrender to cancer is admirable. As Elizabeth said, “we’re all going to die someday.” No amount of interview spin can hide that fact.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska):

“The president says, ‘I don’t care.’ He’s not accountable anymore. He’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don’t know. It depends how this goes.”

Coming up tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Where is Sound Transit going?
Ric Ilgenfritz, executive director of policy and public affairs joins me to talk about Sound Transit’s current projects and future plans, and what a proposal for a regional transportation commission might hold for light rail in Seattle and beyond. Is Seattle’s light rail on track? Will it ever reach to the Eastside? Give Ric a call and ask for yourself.

8PM: Were the U.S. attorney filings illegal?
Ousted U.S. Attorney for Western Washington John McKay appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press today, where he suggested that those involved in the scandal may have not only acted improperly, but “even illegally.”

9PM: TBA

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

Coming up tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: How much is a baby worth?
A Texas legislator has proposed offering women consider abortion $500 not to end their pregnancies, while at the same time college students will see the cost birth control triple as the federal government ends a subsidy to college health systems.

8PM: TBA

9PM: TBA

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

A caller to the show last night seemed unconcerned with the government snooping into every aspect of his personal life. “I’ve got nothing to hide,” he told me, insisting that secret wiretaps and other intrusions were a small price to pay during “a time of war.” Of course the Bush administration and its strongest backers expect the war on terrorism — or “The Long War” as some administration officials have frighteningly called it — to go on indefinitely, resulting in an indefinite suspension of some of our most basic personal liberties… rights like habeas corpus, which actually predates our Constitution.

Well, for those who are less sanguine than my caller about our ever eroding civil liberties, an anonymous guest column in this week’s Washington Post is a disturbing illustration of how our government’s expanding program of secret domestic spying intrudes on the personal lives of average, law abiding citizens.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand — a context that the FBI still won’t let me discuss publicly — I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

[…] I recognize that there may sometimes be a need for secrecy in certain national security investigations. But I’ve now been under a broad gag order for three years, and other NSL recipients have been silenced for even longer. At some point — a point we passed long ago — the secrecy itself becomes a threat to our democracy.

The NSL received by the author was only one of more than 140,000 the FBI issued between 2003 and 2005, without prior judicial approval or showing of probable cause, seeking sensitive, private information about U.S. citizens and residents.

If you support this and other similar provisions of the USA Patriot Act, then you must support the notion that the author of this column, should his identity be revealed, be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for speaking publicly about his experiences under the law. And if you support that, then I’m not quite sure what it is about America that you are hoping to defend. Or, as Benjamin Franklin more eloquently put it: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I’m filling in again for Frank Shiers tonight on 710-KIRO from 9PM to 1AM. Call in and give me a piece your mind: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Oh man was I jealous yesterday to learn that 710-KIRO colleagues Jane Shannon and Tony Miner had scored an interview with embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, but I certainly wasn’t disappointed with the result. Jane and Tony lobbed follow-up after follow-up as Gonzales ducked and dodged. Give a listen to the proper way to conduct an interview, no matter how important or uncooperative the interviewee.

[audio:http://sea.bonnint.net/2007/0323gonzalesARC.mp3]

Of course, Gonzales knew he was going to be asked these questions, and he had no intention of answering them. The very premise of this PR tour — an educational campaign about online sex predators — was cynically designed to give Gonzales the excuse to evade reporters by accusing them of focusing on the politically trivial, while he was out their focusing on “protecting our children.” So it came as no surprise when Gonzales answered every question by rephrasing it.

Jane: Seattle as you know, is home of former U.S. Attorney John McKay. Mr. Gonzales, why was he fired?

Gonzales: Listen, we made a decision at the department as to the appropriate way forward. And there was nothing improper about the decision here. The president of the United States has the authority to hire and remove political appointees for any reason. Obviously the question here is whether or not, were these political appointees removed for improper reasons?

No… the question here is “Why was McKay fired?” I thought Jane made that pretty damn clear.

Gonzales went on to emphasize that it is “reckless and irresponsible to allege that these decisions were based in any way on improper motives,” an allegation Jane never implied. So she tried to ask the question more specifically:

Jane: Was it a matter of McKay’s performance?

Gonzales: Again, the question is whether or not it was improper. It was not.

And again, no… that was not the question.

Perhaps it was a bad phone connection, so this time Miner steps in and puts the same question another way:

Tony: Mr. Attorney General, as a way to diffuse this controversy now, why not just come out and tell the American people exactly why these prosecutors were fired? What did they do?

Gonzales: Well, of course that’s something we’re engaged with in a dialogue with the Congress.

Yeah… a dialogue they want to have behind closed doors, off the record, and not under oath.

Gonzales: Some of the information is already out there. Some of that information is available in the documents.

And some of the information we’ll never know, because White House and DOJ officials refuse to testify in public, on the record and under oath.

Gonzales: But I want to remind your listeners about one thing, whatever those reasons are, and people have subjective views as to whether that person should go or should that person not go, there may be disagreements about that, but the president has the authority and the discretion to make that decision. And whether or not you agree with it, he has the authority and it is OK for him to do so based on my recommendation.

Well, he may have the legal authority, sure… but, um, once again, that was never the question.

Gonzales: What we should all be concerned about is, whether or not were the firings, the removals, based on improper motives, and I am saying to the American people and to your listeners, that the answer to that is no.

Oh. Well, I guess that answers all our questions. Well, at least that answers the one question Gonzales keeps posing to himself. But wait, there’s more…

Gonzales: And it is irresponsible and reckless to continue to insist that this great Department of Justice was involved in something improper.

Hmm. I think I heard that sound bite somewhere before.

So Jane bravely tries one more time:

Jane: Well you can certainly understand some confusion, sir, when in August of last year one of your deputies recommended McKay for federal judgeship and just a month later McKay’s name was put on a list, basically, of prosecutors to be pushed out. This is according to e-mails obtained from your department. What changed in that short period of time?

Gonzales: Listen, the fact that someone may have had an idea or a discussion, that does not necessarily represent the view of the department or represent my view. These U.S. attorney positions … are on the front lines protecting our kids, they’re out there today talking about this ad campaign that I want to talk with your listeners about with respect of what we can do to further protect our kids from predators. And so this an issue that’s very important for me, and we will continue to focus on the work for the American people, and that’s what I’m focused on as Attorney General.

Translation: “I’m not going to answer your question because I’m busy protecting our children from predators. Hmm. Maybe you’re a sex predator yourself. Are ya Jane? Huh, are ya?”

We all knew Gonzales would show up ready to play dodge ball. Kudos to Jane and Tony for continuing to wing ’em at his nuts.

[And a special thanks to David Postman. I was halfway through laboriously transcribing the interview, when I discovered that he had already done most of the work. You can read a full transcript over at Dave’s place.]

[Update: The AP is reporting:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

That’s got to hurt! — Darryl]