HorsesAss.Org

This from Andrew at the NPI:

An under-the-radar bill that would profoundly alter Sound Transit and other municipal agencies currently tasked with planning, building, and operating transportation systems throughout Puget Sound is quickly moving through the state Senate[.]

SSB 5803 originates from an idea proposed years ago by the Discovery Institute, anti-transit ideologues, and conservative billionaire John Stanton, who was a key Dino Rossi supporter in 2004.

What SSB 5803 does is complicate and confuse the existing decision making process, which is already hard for many citizens to understand. The proposed law would stomp all over home rule and local control by essentially consolidating existing transportation agencies into one larger entity.

Basically, all of our regional transportation projects would be routed through this new mega-agency. Projects like light rail expansion or lane additions to I-405 would go through these new transportation gatekeepers. The board members would be elected from super-districts:

These new districts would be much larger than county council districts. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for candidates with grassroots campaigns to compete. But the elections would be a bonanza for big business, which would have an opportunity to try and sell handpicked loyalists to voters.

The positions would all be nonpartisan, allowing right wing ideologues to stealthily mask what they actually stand for in the hopes of getting on the commission. And once on, they wouldn’t have to worry about listening to constituents – the terms are six years, except for at the very beginning, when three commissioners would serve two year terms and another three would serve four year terms.

And with unanimous consent of the commission required for forwarding any future plans on to voters, one or two right wing, anti-transit members could refuse to sign on to any proposal not to their liking.

I don’t see this policy shift as benefiting transit. I see it as a calculated shift to balance the recent surge in transit support in the region. There’s a reason the RTID folks tied their roads package to Sound Transit 2: transit is actually more popular than roads these days.

Today the bill passed the Senate. Maybe Murray can explain why this change will benefit his district, a district that wants more transit, not less.

One of the arguments we repeatedly made during the late stages of the 2006 midterm election was that with Dems poised to take over the House, the region would be better served by a freshman Darcy Burner in the majority than a two-term Dave Reichert in the minority. Well that thesis was just neatly illustrated by Congress.org’s annual Congressional Power Rankings, which show The Sheriff dropping from a ranking of 166 in 2006 to a pathetic 419 in 2007.

That’s right, there are only handful of representatives with less power than Reichert, which if you look at his Power Point Breakdown, is mostly due to the fact that he scores giant goose-eggs for both Influence and Legislation. By comparison, his fellow WA Republican Cathy McMorris, who also arrived in Congress in the class of 2004, manages to maintain a more respectable ranking of 231.

In cynically concluding their unmitigated, lying load of bullshit endorsement of Reichert, the Seattle Times wrote:

“His goal should be to expand his influence and be a stronger voice for change.”

Hey Frank… how’s that working out for you?

Via Slog…

If this is how Tacoma police respond to a peaceful anti-war protest — tear gas and rubber bullets — imagine what might happen should protesters eventually be provoked into more aggressive actions?

This was a peaceful sit-in with the crowd chanting “give peace a chance.” The appropriate response to such a classic act of civil disobedience would have been to handcuff and arrest the protesters, carrying them off one by one. Instead, the police chose to respond with a physically violent short cut.

Authorities should be forewarned: violence breeds violence.

The Seattle P-I headline asks the rhetorical question, “Will Dino Rossi run again for governor?” — and then pretty much provides the answer in the lede:

As Dino Rossi ponders a possible 2008 election rematch against Gov. Chris Gregoire, he’s doing everything, at a state level, that a Republican candidate for president might do at the national level.

Everything, that is, except actually talk about issues.

For a man who promised to bring bold new leadership to the governor’s mansion, and whose 2008 campaign essentially kicked off in December of 2004, Rossi has been resolutely silent on absolutely every single contentious issue that has wracked the state these past few years.

The gas tax, I-912’s effort to repeal it, gay civil rights, the inheritance tax, the Viaduct, I-933’s attempt to dismantle land use regulation, and nearly every other editorial inducing issue… Dino Rossi, the titular leader of Washington Republicans, has refused to weigh in by publicly lending his voice of authority to one side or the other. You’ve got to admire his discipline and consistency.

But then, we shouldn’t really expect anything less from a man whose 2004 campaign was long on the promise of new leadership but short on any prior history thereof. After a legislative career distinguished mostly by the nastiness of his campaigns, Rossi adopted as his singular accomplishment his personal authorship of the 2003-2005 state budget, a bit of GOPropaganda repeatedly echoed by his patrons on the Seattle Times editorial page, though clearly contradicted by the Times’ own contemporaneous reporting:

The Republican budget has much in common with the all-cuts plan that Democratic Gov. Gary Locke unveiled in December. In fact, Rossi opened a press briefing yesterday with a PowerPoint presentation titled: “Following the Governor’s Lead.”

Yes, Rossi’s budget was a tad more draconian, eliminating health care for 46,000 children, but as Rossi made perfectly clear at the time, the fiscally conservative budget adopted that session was largely authored by a Democratic governor.

Apart from his business-friendly pronouncements and promise to shake up the state bureaucracy, Rossi’s 2004 campaign was short on substance, while his personal beliefs and political ideology were intentionally obfuscated. Even on abortion, the emotional issue that most vividly defines our nation’s Red/Blue divide, Rossi, a devout Catholic, refused to take a public stand. “None of us are running for the U.S. Supreme Court,” Rossi quipped, brushing aside the thorny issue by insisting that the governor had little power over Roe v. Wade.

That kind of non-denial denial is simply not going to fly in 2008 — and not just on the issue of abortion, which a far-right-wing Supreme Court is preparing to throw back to the states. Rossi and his advisors are relying on resentment over his narrow 2004 loss and the circumstances surrounding it, to cement his Republican base and bring back many of the independent and crossover voters who almost carried him to victory. But his bitterly fought election contest also gave rise to what is perhaps the most active, organized and influential local political blogosphere in the nation, and while our tactics may not always be appreciated by our friends in the legacy press, our reporting and our media criticism cannot be ignored.

The media landscape has changed — somewhat thanks to Rossi himself — and he simply will not be allowed to run the same sort of tabula rasa campaign that almost snuck him into the governor’s mansion in 2004. The danger in attempting to be all things to all people is that if you leave yourself undefined, your opponent will define you for you. The Gregoire campaign failed to do that in 2004, but I doubt they’ll make the same mistake twice. And this time around she will be aided by a maturing progressive media infrastructure that will push the political press corps to force Rossi to take a stand on substantive issues, or look foolish refusing to do so.

The 2004 Rossi campaign provided the boilerplate strategy for how Republicans might run and win in Washington State — specifically, try not to look so much like Republicans. That David Irons and Mike McGavick failed to successfully ride this strategy to victory is not necessarily due to the fact that they are inferior salesmen (though, they are,) but rather, an indication that both reporters and voters have grown hip to the strategy.

But even given a media time-warp Rossi would be hard pressed to duplicate his 2004 near-success in a 2008 campaign governed by an entirely new set of political dynamics. This time around Governor Gregoire has a record, and in attacking the specifics, Rossi will be forced to specifically enunciate what he would have done differently. Would he have brokered a gas tax increase, or allowed our transportation infrastructure to languish without it? Would he have vetoed the gay civil rights and domestic partnership bills? Would he have fought to put more money into education and children’s health care, or argue that fiscal constraints just don’t allow it? Would he have supported repealing the estate tax, and if so, what would he have cut from the budget to offset the loss of revenue?

Rossi’s conservative legislative record and political ideology puts him outside of the mainstream of Washington voters — and outside of the mainstream of many of the independents and so-called “Dinocrats” who voted for him last time around. I look forward to playing a small role in finally introducing the real Dino Rossi to Washington voters.

Get those ballots postmarked by the 13th (this Tuesday), people!

Governor Gregoire and WashDOT don’t care how you vote in this election, but I sure as hell do. After all, the Olympia Freeway Pimps are pro-freeway. Don’t listen to them.

Don’t listen to Bruce Carter of the Municipal League of King County. His idea to vote a ‘blank ballot’ is bullshit. The best way to “rethink” this project (as the Muni League wants) is to vote No-No.

Instead, listen to Ron Sims:

“[The Surface plus Transit option], which could potentially open up the waterfront while providing an affordable, environmentally friendly means of moving traffic through the city, has not yet been studied. The surface option that WSDOT briefly examined contained no transit element and bears little resemblance to what surface-transit advocates are proposing.

“If we are going to position Seattle as a vibrant world-class 21st century metropolis, we need to proceed with boldness and vision. We need to think beyond present-day categories, with an eye to the long-term. How we decide on the Viaduct today is a profound test of our commitment to a better, more enlightened future. The right sort of transit-friendly surface proposal could meet that test.”

This Tuesday, tell Olympia that you want better options.

It’s a busy lineup tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Run Darcy, run!
On Friday, Darcy Burner officially filed to take a second shot at Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Sheriff) in WA’s 8th Congressional District, and tonight she joins me on the show to explain why. What are we likely to see from Burner for Congress v2.0? Give us a call and ask Darcy yourself.

8PM: The Patty & Joel Show
Sen. Patty Murray calls in at the top of the hour with the latest on the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, and the conditions at Madigan Army Medical Center at Fort Lewis. Then Seattle P-I political columnist Joel Connelly joins me in the studio for the remainder of the hour to talk about local and national politics, and I suppose, what Sen. Murray had to say.

9PM: TBA
Tunnel vs. Sonics, Halliburton moves to Dubai, hate-mail highlights and other rantable topics.

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

This one.

I know it’s not supposed to happen, and it’s probably not in my self-interest to admit it, but every once in a while a great idea gets generated on the Seattle Times op/ed pages. If only indirectly.

Today the Times treats its readers to two status quo editorials, one in favor of a new Sonics arena, the other opposed to replacing the Viaduct with a hybrid-tunnel. According to the Times it is a good deal for local taxpayers to fork over $400 million in extortion money to build a hoops palace in Renton, but a bad deal to spend the extra $600 million required to bury the Viaduct and reclaim our downtown waterfront. Of course, the Times editorialists grew up with an NBA franchise and an elevated freeway, and apparently if that’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for our children.

My problem is not so much with their opinions — they’re entitled to being wrong — it’s with the arguments they use to support them. For example, in opposing the tunnel the Times contends that “the average citizen’s budget … is not unlimited,” but when it comes to a $400 million giveaway to a consortium of wealthy Oklahoma City businessmen, well, there are endlessly creative ways to tap our tax base:

The bill extends taxes mostly directed at tourists who are already being used to pay for Safeco and Qwest fields, and commonly used sales-tax credits to pay for the arena.

The tax with the most impact on residents, a restaurant tax, would stop in 2015, the year it was scheduled to end. The tax has preformed well enough to retire its portion of the bond payment for Safeco Field three years early and is expected to raise $75 million for the arena in its final three years. The Washington Restaurant Association supports the tax.

Hmm. Which got me thinking.

Ignore for the moment the Times’ deceitful insistence that “the state is not on the hook for the new arena,” when in fact those “commonly used sales-tax credits” come straight out of state coffers. And overlook the bullshit support of the Restaurant Association for a tax their members don’t actually pay. (Um… we, the customers, pay it.)

For if we cut to the chase, the Times has just inadvertently articulated a brilliant plan to pay for the extra cost of the hybrid-tunnel option: simply extend those apparently painless taxes already being used to pay for Safeco and Qwest fields… and put the revenues towards the tunnel. Combined with a couple hundred million dollars raised by levying a Local Improvement District tax on those property owners who stand to profit the most from opening up the waterfront, and Mayor Nickels Seattle taxpayers can easily afford a tunnel.

The Times argues that “no acceptable plan exists for paying cost overruns on the tunnel” but Clay Bennett and his partners refuse to assume responsibility for cost overruns on their publicly-financed, privately-owned arena, so it’s really a wash. If there are cost overruns on the tunnel (and the Times ominisciently insists that “there will be”,) then we’ll just do what we’d do for the arena: extend those stadium taxes some more. Hell, we’re only taxing “tourists”, so really, what’s the big deal?

I totally agree with the Seattle Times when they argue that “this is a decision that should be made locally.” The Legislature should grant King County the authority to extend the current stadium taxes, but only if it also grants the county the authority to spend that money as its voters deem best. Now that we have a funding mechanism in place, let’s put it on the ballot and have voters decide how to spend the $400 million — an up or down vote, not between a hybrid-tunnel and an elevated freeway, but between a tunnel and a new Sonics arena.

So to my friends on the Seattle Times editorial board, I invite you to stand by your eloquent defense of local control, and join me in championing the Tunnel vs. Arena ballot measure. After all, it was your idea. Sorta.

Lewis Black on religion:

Darryl thought I’d find this amusing. I did.

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

7PM: Rant-a-rama Bush wants more troops, Scooter wants a pardon, and Dori wants me to stop teasing his girlfriend… those and other rants tonight at 7PM.

8PM: What do sex ed, children’s healthcare and dogs in bars have in common? While Seattle focuses on the fight over the Viaduct, lot’s of legislation is being passed in Olympia. Jon Gould from the Children’s Alliance joins me to talk about a huge legislative victory, as I do a roundup of the some of this session’s most important and controversial legislation

9PM: What’s up down in Oregon? Gordon Smith tells an audience that Iraq’s top general gives a 25% chance of success… Oregon’s Legislature gets ready to pass an anti-escalation bill, while Washington squelches theirs… and the rainy day fund that wasn’t, then was, then wasn’t again, and looks like it might be after all…or not. All that and more as Blogger TJ from Loaded Orygun joins me for our monthly update on what’s going on south of the (WA) border.

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

Following up on Goldy’s earlier post, I considered titling this “The body of contemporary conservatism.”

This is part II of Max Blumenthal’s unauthorized CPAC documentary:

When the Nevada Democrats and FOX News decided to host a debate for the Democratic candidates, some folks wondered… why? FOX is openly hostile to Democrats. They are biased against Democrats, and go out of their way to lie about Democrats.

So John Edwards told them to fuck off.

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada — and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking back at John for saying no. (There’s a surprise – Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes – the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel – said that any candidate “who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake” and “is impeding freedom of speech and free press.”

[…]

Fox News has already proven they have no intention of providing “fair and balanced” coverage of any Democrat in this election.

In recent weeks they have run blatant lies about Senator Obama’s background. And Fox was only too happy to give Ann Coulter a platform to spew more hate a few days after her bigoted attack on Senator Edwards and the gay community.

Now it’s time for Democrats to stand together and send a clear message to Roger Ailes, Fox News and all the rest of them: bias isn’t balance, but turning tables is fair.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, when faced with the facts, weren’t able to decide before the debate was canceled. Bill Richardson accepted the debate invitation only to decline hours before the Nevada Democrats pulled the plug. While I understand Richardson’s hesitation (he’s betting the farm on a good showing in his neighbor state), Obama and Clinton have no excuse. FOX News has called Obama a Muslim terrorist, and their crimes against the Clinton family are well known.

I’m an Edwards guy, but I hope all the candidates get some clarity about who’s on our side and who’s not. Or maybe they’ll just get some “brass ones.”

Hmm. And all this time I thought people like Zell Miller were angrily opposed to abortion because they thought it was morally wrong.

“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asked. “Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed.”

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been ‘killed’ since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

“If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” he asserted.

(note: this is my two cents on Goldy’s earlier post)

I hope Ross Hunter runs for Congress. I’m guessing that Darcy Burner will give it another shot, too [UPDATE BELOW]. Tony Ventrella is already saddled-up and on the trail. Unlike Goldy, I’m not committed to supporting a single candidate. At least not yet.

I think Ventrella is going to have to really earn the support of Democrats. Being a celebrity is not enough to win. Hunter has the resume, but is a “moderate” guy like him going to “fire up” liberal suburban Democrats while reaching out to “guns and butter” conservative Democrats? Does Burner even want to run again, considering her biggest opponent wasn’t even Reichert, but the lying-sack-of-shit Seattle Times editorial page?

I’m excited to see how this thing plays out. It seems all the big shots are lining up behind Hunter, with Andrew and Goldy (and more) with Burner. Tony Ventrella… well, what about Tony? Come to Drinking Liberally, Tony!

In other news, the GOP has a 2-to-1 “precinct committee officer” advantage in the 8th Congressional District. Perhaps this might be more important than the horse race stuff.

UPDATE:
Darcy’s in, according to Postman.

It seems like the 2006 race just ended, and already the Democratic field is coming together to take on Rep. Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

I ran into Tony Ventrella last night at Chocolate for Choice, and immediately asked him if he was really running for Congress in WA-08, and he gave the kind of definitive, confident reply a real candidate is supposed to give: “All the way through November, and beyond,” he insisted. Well, he’s got that part down pat.

Yesterday was also the day DraftRossHunter.org kicked off an effort to draft state Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) for a run against Reichert. I suppose calling it a “Draft” campaign might suggest to some an aura of grassroots activism, but I’m told it is largely the initiative of King County Democrats Finance Chair Sharon Mast. Ross was informed of the effort, and didn’t object, but said he couldn’t deal with it until after the session. When asked for his biographical information, Hunter pointed Mast to his consultants at Moxie Media, who gave her what she needed. It’s not exactly grassroots provenance — and there’s nothing wrong with that — but it certainly doesn’t represent a broader movement.

Also at Chocolate for Choice last night was the 2006 Democratic nominee, Darcy Burner, and like the experienced politician she’s become, she would neither confirm nor deny her candidacy for a second run at “the Sheriff”. (A self-designation Reichert reminds us at the start of nearly every sentence, as in: “If I can look Gary Ridgeway straight in the eyes, I can look you in the eyes and tell you that I want a tall, double-shot, low-fat latte.”)

So where does that leave us? Perhaps my allegiance is showing, but if I were a betting man, I’d guess Darcy will run. And if Burner runs, I’m pretty damn confident we’ll be looking at a Reichert/Burner rematch in 2008.

Tony’s a nice guy and all, and from our brief conversation it sounds like his politics are a good match for the district, but I’m not sure he fully groks the immense amount of hard work and begging fundraising required to make a viable run. Sure, he’s the only one of the three who can go on Dori’s show without being totally trashed, but Dori isn’t exactly known as a Democratic primary kingmaker. There is a finite reservoir of political dollars, and the unfortunate reality is that money in the bank is the primary yard stick by which donors judge political viability. Sometimes newcomers surprise you (ie, Darcy’s $3 million-plus in 2006), but I’m guessing Tony will be out of the running by this time next year, if not sooner.

As a several term legislator, Ross is the most experienced politician of the three, and if he had run for the nomination in 2006, he might have kicked Darcy’s ass. But this ain’t 2006.

After running an insurgent, come-from-nowhere campaign that raised unprecedented money, and coming within a few thousand votes of an incumbent despite the more than $6 million spent against her, Darcy is undoubtedly the frontrunner, and by far. Darcy has the advantage over Tony and Ross in almost every category: she has the district-wide name ID, the media exposure, the volunteers, the professional organization, and perhaps most importantly, the fundraising list. She also has the advantage of having been thoroughly vetted, with no skeletons exposed, despite the best efforts of Karl Rove and his evil minions.

And finally, Darcy not only has the support, but the love and respect of the netroots, a growing political force that only began to flex its muscles in 2006. If Darcy runs, she will have the bloggers on her side, almost to a one.

Nothing against Tony or Ross. I like both of them. But that’s just the way it is.

As for the general election I remain confident that the Democrats have a decent shot at unseating Reichert regardless of the nominee. The political landscape should remain tilted towards the D’s in a district that is growing bluer year by year, and Reichert won’t have a majority party leadership to puff up his profile during an election year. A presidential election will also greatly increase Democratic turnout in a district that has gone strongly Democratic the past few presidential elections.

And while the conventional wisdom is that Reichert should be harder to knock off now that he’s established in a second term, Darcy’s prospects are also buoyed by a pattern of challengers winning on their second try. Melissa Bean, Brian Baird, Stephanie Herseth, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Boyda, Joe Donnelly and others are all candidates who built on their first campaigns to come back and win the second time out. And knowing what I know about Darcy, how dedicated, hard-working, and most of all, how incredibly smart she is, I’m confident that she has what it takes to learn from her mistakes, and come back and win.

All she has to do is tell us she’s running, and the race is on.