HorsesAss.Org

Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck is taking Tuesday’s election results and he’s running with them:

The outcome of the advisory vote will likely add momentum to a third choice that politicians kept off the ballot: the so-called surface option that would tear down the viaduct and route traffic onto downtown streets along with beefed-up transit.

Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who favors that option, said he’ll submit legislation today to effectively kill a tunnel by shifting $8 million in city funds that had been budgeted for a tunnel to work on designs for a surface plan.

“This clearly opens the door to an alternative solution,” said Steinbrueck, who recently announced he would not seek re-election so he could dedicate more time to fighting a new viaduct.

Now that the tunnel is toast, Steinbrueck is pushing hard to make the “surface plus transit” option the city’s official preferred option. I, like Peter, am estatic that Seattle voters dumped two bad choices in favor of some new ideas.

But Seattle is not an island, politically. At the big press conference after the election with Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels, all the parties decided to work together. (Read more about this presser here, here, and here)

What Steinbrueck is doing may be good public policy, it ain’t necessarily in the spirit of a “collaborative” “consensus-based” discussion.

While us city folk can do all we want about the viaduct, there are folks like Mary Margaret Haugen who want to punish Seattle residents by tearing down the viaduct tomorrow. While Frank Chopp isn’t off the deep end in the same way. (He has to answer to Seattle voters, a great many of which are dead-set against rebuilding the viaduct)

The big fear is that Olympia decides to strip Seattle of the ability to issue permits for viaduct construction, essentially taking away our leverage. I would hope that Peter does not make the same mistake Nickels and Co. did with the tunnel by being too single-minded and not playing ball with other parties.

A longtime advisor on Al Gore:

“He has lost a few pounds, and Hillary can read into that what she wants,”

I’ll be having a happy but way too sober St. Patty’s Day celebration tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:

7PM: Will WA’s 2004 contested election bring down US AG Alberto Gonzales?
Attorney Jenny Durkan was a key member of the legal team that successfully defended the legitimacy of our 2004 gubernatorial election, and she’ll be joining me at the top of the hour to discuss the growing scandal surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, why it matters, and how this scandal and the 2004 election dispute might all be linked. Was the Bush administration subverting our justice system for partisan political purposes? Call in and let me know what you think.

8PM: Is the state Democratic Party undemocratic?
A bill was introduced in the state legislature this week to cancel our April presidential primary and have the parties choose all their delegates through caucuses. Does this shut most people out of the primary system, or encourage voters to get involved and participate? Is a crowded room of neighbors arguing and debating less democratic than a TV advertising fueled beauty pageant?

9PM: TBA

Plus, occasional live reports from my half-Irish daughter Katie on her family’s annual St. Patty’s Day bash down in Olympia.

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

It is hard to believe this didn’t make the local papers, but the Public Disclosure Commission issued a report yesterday citing the King County Republican Central Committee of numerous and serious reporting violations, and recommending action by the state Attorney General.

Staff Recommendation — The investigation conducted by PDC staff demonstrates multiple apparent violations during 2006 by KCRCC of RCW 42.17.080, 42.17.090, and WAC 390-16-034. Staff recommends that in accordance with RCW 42.17.360(5) and 42.17.395, the Commission report the apparent violations to the Attorney General’s Office. The staff recommendation is appropriate because the remedies the Commission could impose statutorily are insufficient given the number and significance of the apparent violations.

The PDC investigation — prompted by a formal complaint filed by Republican gadfly and HA regular Richard Pope — concluded that the KCRCC filed a total of 56 reports from 5 to 306 days late, many of them after the election in question, and failed to provide required employer and occupation data for 90-percent of the 114 contributors giving over $100. Lacking the statutory power to adequately penalize the KCRCC for such pronounced and prolonged violations, the staff recommends handing the investigation over to the AG’s office for further action.

I’m not sure what argument the KCRCC could use in its defense — either they were grossly incompetent or willfully heedless of the law. Or both. So considering the severity of the violations — and the reputation AG Rob McKenna is attempting to carve for himself as “Mr. Sunshine” — I would expect the AG’s office to uphold the integrity of our public disclosure statutes by levying a six-figure fine.

I have an email correspondence going on with AG Rob McKenna’s office on a number of questions regarding former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and what if any role McKenna might have played in both the dismissal and the search for a replacement. McKenna’s communications people are good. Their response was prompt, concise and deftly worded in a way that does not exactly provide a direct answer to some of my questions. I’ll report back after they reply to my follow-up.

To be fair, McKenna was heading out to Montesano and Grays Harbor this morning, so my answers were provided secondhand by Communications Director Janelle Guthrie. But she did manage to offer one direct quote from her boss:

“We had a good relationship with John McKay. He was an excellent attorney, highly respected by other prosecutors as well. I think President Bush made a mistake.”

Hmm. I didn’t actually ask what McKenna thought about McKay’s job performance or President Bush’s decision to fire him, so the fact that he chose to offer his opinion unprompted is telling. (Not to mention a display of political savvy that is apparently beyond the reach of fellow Republican Dave Reichert.) For by publicly defending McKay and criticizing Bush, McKenna would appear to be separating himself from both the widening scandal, and the slow-motion implosion of the Bush administration itself.

But taken at his word, his statement also does something else that I hope levelheaded voters will take to heart: it hammers yet another nail in the coffin of the oft-repeated GOP meme that Democrats somehow stole the 2004 gubernatorial election.

As the New York Times points out in an editorial today, “phony fraud charges” were at the center of the U.S. attorney firings:

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud.

[…] John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”

So if McKenna, fully aware of McKay’s public comments, is now vouching for McKay’s performance and criticizing his firing… isn’t he also vouching for the integrity of the 2004 gubernatorial election?

McKay refused to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury, which is of course exactly what many Republicans wanted him to do. That is what the EFF’s Bob Williams and the BIAW’s Tom McCabe angrily demanded. That is what all six Republicans on the King County Council demanded when they wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. That is what our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics continues to demand today. When then-WSRP Chair Chris Vance describes speaking with McKay and complaining to the White House, he appears incredulous that good Republicans wouldn’t subvert our supposedly impartial judicial system for partisan political purposes:

“We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything.”

Not to mention a Republican state Attorney General, Rob McKenna. In 2004 the entire investigative, prosecutorial and administrative apparatus was controlled by loyal Republicans, and yet there were no indictments, there were no prosecutions, and there were no grand juries. Why? For the same reason a cherry-picked judge in a Republican county dismissed “with prejudice” all allegations of fraud: there was no evidence.

I believe a sort of mass psychosis set in to our state’s Republican establishment in the wake of Dino Rossi’s incredibly close and understandably frustrating loss to Gov. Chris Gregoire — a mindset of dark thoughts in which party stalwarts cynically determined that absolutely everything and anything was possible at the hands of their enemies across the aisle… and that absolutely everything and anything was permissible in response. Fed by the paranoid fantasies of the right-wing blogs, and the ruthless partisanship of the BIAW and EFF, the state GOP not only pursued a hopeless legal contest, but set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to McKay’s firing. The WSRP made the biggest political mistake possible — it came to believe its own propaganda — and in so doing played a major role in instigating a national scandal that threatens Gonzales himself, and further tarnishes the Republican brand.

“President Bush made a mistake.” Absolutely, and in more ways than one. It remains to be seen if McKenna’s efforts to separate himself from this mistake after the fact are entirely supported by the record of his own actions and statements at the time.

Blethen the Younger is all pissy ‘cos voters didn’t vote his way:

Seattle voters gave politicians a free pass to spend more political capital on a one-mile stretch of highway, when a vote for the elevated rebuild could have ended the debate. All Seattle voters had to do was use reason on a nonbinding vote to let Olympia, the Seattle City Council and the mayor’s office know that a rebuild is the best option for the city and region.

What a load of garbage! Seattle voters saw their options, and they said “we can do better.” Some folks want a surface option that uses transit and other improvements to move freight and people. I know several voters who chose “No-No” because they want to retrofit the viaduct. Neither was on Tuesday’s ballot.

The Seattle Times Editorial Page has a history of treating their readers like retarded children, but this column is just too much.

Of course I was only joking when I suggested that Rep. Dave Reichert should recommend “Major” to replace John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington. That would be ridiculous. Major doesn’t even live in Western Washington, and like Rick White, he isn’t currently eligible to practice law in the state. And, oh yeah… he’s a dog.

But if Reichert really wants to live up to the Seattle Times’ absurd assertion that he possesses “a conscience-driven independent streak,” then I have a serious suggestion that would not only put the U.S. attorney’s office in the hands of perhaps the most qualified candidate out there, but would absolutely cement our local media’s love affair with the notion that Reichert is a political moderate. Reichert should recommend replacing McKay with a candidate who has years of prosecutorial experience, a demonstrated respect for the Constitution, and an unchallenged reputation for rising above the political fray. Reichert should nominate John McKay.

Really.

Politicians are often faced with a choice between good policy and political expedience, but this is one of those rare occasions when doing the right thing would also qualify as a stunning act of political savvy. Think about it. Who is best qualified to fill out the final two years of the term? A six-year U.S. attorney with excellent performance reviews, or a one-time bankruptcy attorney with expired credentials who would have to bone up on the legal profession itself, let alone learn the job on the job? If Reichert wants to nominate the best qualified candidate, McKay is the hands-down winner.

Plus, a McKay nomination would not only inoculate Reichert from the growing scandal surrounding Gonzales, Rove and the teetering Bush administration, it would in a single stroke forever establish his credentials as the conscience-driven independent he pretends to be. A Republican congressman sticking it to the Justice Department like that would make national headlines, while transforming Reichert into a local hero.

From a purely political perspective, it would be fucking brilliant. Which I suppose explains why you’re more likely to see Reichert nominate Major than McKay.

UPDATE:
Dave Neiwert at Orcinus is also calling for John McKay’s name to be resubmitted.

Rep. Dave Reichert
US House of Representatives
1223 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Rep. Reichert,

I understand that you have submitted three candidates to the White House as a replacement for John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and while I understand that at least two of the candidates have adequate legal credentials, I fear that in conducting your search you may have overlooked the most important qualification: loyalty.

It wasn’t McKay’s legal expertise or prosecutorial skills or even his investigative shortcomings that cost him his job (hell, it’s not like it took him 18 years to catch a serial killer who was a prime suspect from day one,) it was his lack of loyalty that got him fired. What President Bush and your fellow Republicans need most in this office is not a top-notch legal mind, but a faithful and loyal companion.

And who could be more faithful and loyal than Major, who is not only looking for a new home, but could use a high-paying government job as well? Here is his CV:

Hi, I am Major. Well yes I do know I am gorgeous but please… try not to gush. I am indeed a big friendly golden boy but be aware I do have just a touch of a stubborn attitude (perhaps there is some chow in me?) and I just might believe that I am as smart as you are. I do have a great sense of humor and will prefer that in my human as well. Other dogs are great but I am really more of a people dog. If you are looking for a loving, devoted, intelligent companion I am your man. Take me home and lets make mischief together.

Yeah, sure, Major might believe that he’s smarter than you, but then who doesn’t? And you yourself can attest to how being a “big friendly golden boy” can take you far in politics.

So please, add Major to your list of candidates for U.S. attorney. Major desperately needs a new home, and Attorney General Gonzales desperately needs a loving, devoted companion, who enjoys making mischief. It’s a perfect match.

Respectfully yours,

Goldy

UPDATE:
When in the above letter I quipped that “at least two” of the candidates were qualified, I was of course implying that Rick White was not. Well, HA regular Richard Pope has more on that in the comment thread, pointing out that White was suspended from practicing law in 2003, and is currently not eligible to practice law in Washington state.

But he is a loyal Republican, and really, that’s all that matters.

Kos has knocked both candidates on this. Here are both headlines:

Hillary unable to say homosexuality isn’t “immoral”

Obama also can’t say: “Homosexuality is not immoral”

Hillary said “I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” and while Obama answered “no,” he did so through his press guy, and not in person.

I don’t think it’s important for Democratic candidates to believe homosexuality is “moral.” I think it is more important for Democratic candidates to believe in full civil rights for gays and lesbians.

It’s like Dan Savage said:

No one has to like homos. You can sign off on full civil rights for gays and lesbians without having to think we’re nifty or be all that comfortable with the idea of sharing a locker room with us. (Hell, I’m sometimes not comfortable sharing a locker room with other gay men.) The gay and lesbian civil rights movement would make more strides if we could separate the issue of liking us from the issue of not discriminating against us.

[…]

No one wants to change your mind about homosexuality. You can think we’re naughty, you can think we’re sinful. And you know what? You can sign off on granting us our full civil rights, tolerate our living openly, marrying, having families—and go right on hating us! Heck, you can go right on trying to talk us out of being gay.

So, I think the question put to both Obama and Clinton is a poor one, not to mention irrelevant.

Via Kos:

I saw this Saturday night on Mad TV, and I gotta admit it took me a moment to catch on to the joke. I was hoping somebody would put it up on YouTube, so quick… watch it before Fox has it pulled.

Well, duh-uh…

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military for the first time Wednesday said in a new report that some of the violence in Iraq can be described as a civil war.

In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.

Tim Eyman and I met with the Seattle P-I editorial board this morning to discuss initiative reform. I don’t think he likes me. Was it something I said?

The P-I describes the confrontation as “Initiative Fireworks!” Listen to the podcast and judge for yourself.

Tim asked for the meeting, but apparently expressed some reluctance once he learned I would be representing the opposing view. So I want to personally thank you Tim, for keeping our date — I’m always happy to let you ride my coattails.

No matter how you spin it (and God knows our friend Stefan is trying,) backers of both the rebuild and the tunnel were big losers yesterday, when Seattle voters decisively said “No” to both options of replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. And I’m not sure if surface-plus-transit supporters could declare victory either, as I’m guessing that might have been rejected too by an ornery electorate.

But there was one big winner yesterday: the election itself.

For all the effort to rile up a controversy over King County’s move to all vote-by-mail elections, yesterday’s first ever of that genre was a huge success, with election officials projecting a 55-percent turnout — a stunning number for a special election, let alone a non-binding advisory vote. And by all accounts, things went smoothly. Wasn’t it a treat to get election results by 8:15 PM, instead of waiting until the wee hours to be told that we wouldn’t really know for several more days?

Personally, I just couldn’t completely give up election day, and dropped my ballot off at the Rainer Community Center. (Saved a stamp, too.) But that’s just me, and I’m guessing that just like the vast majority of voters, I’ll adjust in time.

In decisive fashion, Seattle voters voted against putting another freeway on the waterfront.

I spent much of the night at the Spitfire. I’ll wait until tomorrow to weigh-in in depth, but here are some thoughts.

How much bigger would the “No Elevated” vote have been if Mayor Nickels had read the writing on the wall? The tunnel plan was blown away, over two-to-one. If the Mayor had pulled his support for the tunnel (an embarrassing thing for the Nickels team, I’m sure), they could have run up the score.

Stefan is funny. This is perhaps the “spinniest of spins” I’ve read thus far. A close second is Nick Licata:

City Council President Nick Licata, who supports another viaduct, called the nearly 45-percent vote in favor of it “a pretty solid base.”

It’s like when the Seahawks are down by three points at the end of the game. They didn’t really lose, they just have a good base, you know? It’s the new math, people.

In my humble opinion, here are the big political winners:

Cary Moon Does she want run for City Council? Folks at the Spitfire party said she’d be a shoe-in after going toe-to-toe with the big boys and kickin’ ass. Eric Earling As much as it pains me to say it, he was one of the first of the GOP to realize that the top two options were bad and worse. Cynara Lilly (and everyone else at Friends of Seattle) After fighting the monorail, she redeems herself by torpedoing the rebuild option. All is forgiven, says this old monorail die-hard. Enviros who ditched the tunnel for the surface option You know who you are. Gutsy. Peter Steinbrueck MVP (Most Valuable Pol) for standing up to Olympia without wavering. Danny Westneat Even though the Times endorsed a rebuild, Danny didn’t fall in line. Good on ya’.

Here are some political losers:

David Della He’s vulnerable, and he favors a rebuild. He’s up this year. The viaduct will be an issue. Greg Nickels Well, at least 30 percent agreed with him. Frank Chopp Will he ignore the vote and rebuild the viaduct? While Frank’s bulletproof, his viaduct ideas get weirder and weirder. The Seattle Times Editorial Page They’re wrong- again- on an issue concerning local Seattle politics. They guy aren’t even trying anymore. Cue a Joni Balter column on how “goofy” the vote was and how Gregoire should “be tough” on Seattle and build that freeway. Puh-leeeaze. Joel Connelly, Nick Licata, and Gene Hoglund These guys see rebuilding the viaduct as a part of Seattle’s “class struggle,” meaning we have to build another viaduct or the “little guy” gets screwed. While only five percent of the traffic on the viaduct is freight, you’d think it was a thousand percent. Sheesh. After all, Steinbrueck wants to give freight much higher priority in the surface plus transit plan.

Some folks who neither win, nor lose:

The Governor She got her vote, and now she’s heard the answer. It’s up to her to decide whether to cooperate with Seattle or fight it right up until Election Day. Here’s to hoping a little birdy by the name of Ed Murray or Ron Sims whispers in the Gov’s ear and says, “go with the third option.” Dino Rossi He’s too busy beating his kids at basketball to weigh-in. Remember, he’s not running for Supreme Court (they handle viaduct stuff, right? Right?) People who drive cars in the city Honestly, over time, things won’t change that much for folks who decide they can’t live without their cars. Traffic jams happen in other big cities. But those big cities tell complainers to take the fucking train (I really heard that from a local pol, seriously) Waterfront businesses Let’s face it: Ivar’s fish and chips will be delicious no matter what happens to the viaduct. It’s full of tourists now, and always will be. God bless’m!

Oh, and I forgot: David Sucher is neither a winner nor a loser. He’s just irrelevant. His odd comments (such as accusing Goldy of being for the tunnel) and cryptic personal attacks (read any Slog post on the viaduct to find one) have put me off to his argument (“Repair and Prepare”, which is actually quite good). If you want to win people to your side, to get them to think the way you do, do the opposite of everything Mr. Sucher has done concerning the viaduct.

Stay tuned!

Here are some numbers:

Tunnel:

Yes: 30.12%
No: 69.88%

Rebuild:

Yes: 44.52%
No: 55.48%

I’ll be drinking a “victory beer” with the winning team (No Elevated) and then with the Friends of Seattle.