HorsesAss.Org

Anybody who has a question about how Mike McGavick would vote on divisive social issues, take a gander at today’s Kitsap Sun:

He said he’d prefer that states handle the gay marriage issue, but if courts continue to require it be allowed in some places, he’d then vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

Um… the states are handling the issue; all of the court decisions he’s referring to (like the one pending here in WA state) are state court decisions. So what he’s really saying is that if the state legislatures don’t outright ban gay marriage, and the state courts continue to uphold it, then he would vote for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

That’s right, Mike McGavick wants to amend the Constitution of the United States to actively deny rights to a class of citizens.

Just thought you’d all want to know.

As was correctly pointed out on NPI’s blog, I was never a knee-jerk supporter of Darcy Burner. I first met her nearly a year ago at Camp Wellstone, and while I personally liked her, and always believed she would make an excellent congressperson, I had legitimate questions about the ability of a novice like her to run an effective congressional campaign.

There would be many important races and initiatives before voters this year, and I was not about to waste either my energy or my credibility aggressively promoting a candidate who could not win. Of course, Burner eventually earned my enthusiastic support, but it was a long time coming. Indeed, as recently as January — even as Burner was proving to be a surprisingly adept campaigner and fundraiser — I contacted a local politician whom I particularly admire, and asked if he/she might consider jumping into the race.

I didn’t hold much hope that Politician X would say yes, but I didn’t quite get the rejection I had expected.

“The truth is that I’m too old to run for Congress,” Politician X wrote me. “It would be a waste of the state’s time.”

Politician X went on to explain that the state needs to embrace a “seniority strategy” like that which has enabled Southern states to dominate our national legislative agenda. We needed somebody in their early to mid 30’s, forty-ish at most, who could eventually grow to be “Norm Dicks’ replacement.”

This very pragmatic strategy certainly made sense at the time — and in fact served to make my support for the 35-year-old Burner even stronger — but its full significance was brought home this week when Knowlegis, a firm serving lobbyists, published its list of congressional “Power Rankings” after months of sifting through legislative records, committee assignments, news articles and other documents.

As might be expected, many of the most powerful congressman and senators are Republican, as that is the party that controls both committee assignments and the legislative agenda, and thus that is party most courted by lobbyists. But not in the WA state house delegation, where, you guessed it… the long serving Rep. Norm Dicks is by far the most powerful congressman in the state.

Republicans Reichert, Hastings and McMorris are middling at best, their ranking pumped up by plumb committee assignments, but with little legislation or influence to show for their efforts. But Dicks, in the minority since 1994, is nonetheless ranked as one of the most powerful men in the other Washington, largely on the basis of his seniority.

There is no doubt that the demographic changes in Washington’s 8th Congressional District favor Democrats over the long run; in fact, it already has become nominally blue. Thus it’s hard to imagine the 50-somethingish Reichert as anything more than a temporary placeholder.

Now is the time to pursue our own “seniority strategy,” and Darcy Burner is the perfect place to start.

I’m busy. So go read Molly, the Liberal Girl Next Door. I don’t always agree with her, but she writes good stuff.

Last night was the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Graham Hill Elementary PTA, but we didn’t manage to stick to the scheduled agenda. For only minutes before, the Seattle School District released its preliminary list of recommended closures, and our children’s school — our school — was on it.

I do not think it possible for most of my fellow parents and teachers in attendance last night to fully communicate to the district their sense of shock, disappointment and anger… but I can. I’ve got a soapbox politicians and journalists actually read, and I intend to use it.

So at the risk of being accused of NIMBYism, I want the district to understand in no uncertain terms: NOT MY SCHOOL!

Not this school… not the most racially and ethnically balanced school I’ve ever seen outside of the UN Headquarters’ on-sight pre-school. Not this jewel of the neighborhood… this incredibly tight-nit community of parents and teachers who have struggled through a half-decade of benign neglect from the district to create a school that would be the pride of all but the most affluent suburban districts.

Not this parent-driven experiment in education that could be used as a model for innovation, but instead is being tossed on the dung heap because district officials never bothered to take the time to understand its programs and its community.

Graham Hill Elementary is home to the district’s first and only pre-K through 5 Montessori program — essentially, a charter school within the school, but without all the unnecessary, politically destructive bullshit of the charter schools movement.

It may come as a surprise to many Seattle families that they even have a Montessori option. And considering the total lack of support we’ve received from the district in recent years, I’m guessing it might come as a surprise to some district officials as well.

But what won’t come as a surprise to educators and parents who have studied the literature or have an iota of real-world classroom experience is that those children who pass through Graham Hill’s pre-K program are incredibly more prepared to learn, at all grade levels, than their schoolmates who did not.

But all this is lost on a district that bases its decisions on demographics and statistics and goddamn WASL trends rather than the heart and the mind and thoughtful observation. 60 percent of Graham Hill students qualify for free or reduced price lunch, and nearly 20 percent qualify for English as a Second Language (ESL). This is not an easy population to educate, and our test scores reflect the many challenges of our students. But by looking only at our numbers and our address the district has always only viewed Graham Hill as “just another South End school,” oblivious to our unique educational offerings, and our incredibly strong and diverse community of families.

Why close Graham Hill instead of more obvious choices like the struggling programs at Dunlap or Ranier View, or the aging building at Van Asselt? Well, apparently, we’re just another South End school, so what’s the difference?

The difference is the parents. While many South End schools struggle to get any parental involvement at all, Graham Hill boasts one of the largest and most active PTA’s in the district. Out of a current enrollment of 360 students, we have 113 paid PTA members, plus many other non-paying members who routinely volunteer their time. Despite the preponderance of low-income families we manage to raise nearly $40,000 a year to pay for basic services, supplies and amenities the district no longer covers, as well as fund tuition scholarships to the pre-K program.

My daughter, now finishing up third grade, has attended Graham Hill since she was three years old, and during that time the district built a beautiful $4.8 million addition that they now want to scrap. It was during that time that parents took the expanse of broken asphalt that surrounded the building, and through $400,000 worth of fundraisers and grants — and a helluva lot of backbreaking labor — we transformed the schoolyard into gardens and playgrounds and a play field that is now used by the entire community.

Just last Saturday I spent hours laying pavers, putting the final touches on a playground studded with our children’s artwork, that the district now wants shutter. No other school in the South End could have done what we have done at Graham Hill, especially under the circumstances we endured.

For we have not only been the victims of benign neglect, we have been royally screwed by a district that has left us leaderless for most of time my daughter has been there.

Graham Hill has had 9 principals over the past 6 years… and they want to shut us down because of low test scores? I don’t want to hear anybody on the CAC telling me that our school is failing… for it is the district who has failed us, year after year after year!

It was with trepidation that we toured the school 7 years ago, but we were won over by a fabulous principal who had overseen a transformation at Graham Hill during her nine-year tenure. But between the day we enrolled our daughter and her first day of class, the district, in its wisdom had transferred our principal to another school, leaving Graham Hill virtually leaderless ever since.

Every time a principal leaves, be it due to sexual harassment or incompetence or personal health, the parents and teachers of Graham Hill have pleaded with the district to give us a voice in choosing the next principal… and nearly ever time the district just plugs in whoever is most convenient for them.

After the most recent disaster — the sudden resignation of a principal the teachers adamantly didn’t want, and who through mismanagement and neglect left our school budget in tatters and yet another interim principal “in charge” — we had an angry meeting with District Education Director Walter Trotter, at which he promised to make up for the lack of support and attention Graham Hill has received. In a follow-up letter signed by Raj Manhas, the superintendent assured us that “meeting current and future school leadership needs of the Graham Hill community is a top priority for both Mr. Trotter and me.”

Priority my ass!

There is no question that a round of school closures is long overdue in a district that has seen decades of steadily declining enrollment. But as they prepare to cut the heart out neighborhoods throughout the city, I hope that Superintendent Raj Manhas and his advisors give some serious thought not just to reacting to declining enrollment, but to considering its causes. For if today’s list of proposed school closures is any indication, educated middle and professional class parents will continue to flee the district in ever larger numbers while our schools continue their seemingly inexorable return towards 1950’s style segregation.

That is what is going to happen to the core of the Graham Hill Community, the families who have fought to maintain this program through years of district neglect. Many of us can afford to move to suburbs or even to send our kids to private schools. But we choose to live in the South End, and we chose Graham Hill because we wanted our children to grow up in a diverse and balanced community that is more reflective of the outside world.

But these are our children, and we’re only willing to put up with so much shit.

Should the district close Graham Hill, many of us will leave the district, and some the neighborhood. This will be yet another step towards the ghettoization of the South End schools, a process that hurts all our children.

I can and will write much more on this subject, but I’m volunteering in my daughter’s school this morning. While she still has one.

I’ve long appreciated The Stranger for its stable of quirky, entertaining writers. But I gotta say that with this week’s feature on the Bush administration’s domestic spying programs (“Using the F-Word“), they sure have upgraded the talent level over that boring blogger guy they had writing this time last year.

Really. Give it a read. It’s good stuff.

If Republican challenger Mike McGavick manages to win election to the US Senate, I’m guessing he’s in line for a plum assignment on the Budget Committee, what with the creative accounting skills he’s demonstrating in his own campaign.

Yesterday The Stranger’s Josh Feit broke the story of how McGavick dramatically inflated his campaign’s financial health at the end of the much-watched first quarter reporting period, and today the Seattle P-I’s Neil Modie adds a few details. As it turns out, McGavick erroneously reported $896,261 cash-on-hand when he only had $748,975.

Oops.

So how’d he manage this impressive sleight of hand?

McGavick spent over $266,000 on a TV advertising blitz in the final weeks of March, but only reported $119,000 during the quarter. FEC rules require advertising expenses to be reported when the contract is booked, but as Feit explains, McGavick used the unusual 30-day terms he received to improperly push much of the expense off into the second quarter.

The idea that a campaign could buy political ads on credit shocks people who are familiar with political advertising. For starters, credit, by definition, is a loan. Traditionally, loans need to be reported in campaign-finance reports. No account of a loan for the TV buy appears in McGavick’s report. “Buying on credit would be very peculiar. It can be considered an in-kind contribution. So stations have campaigns pay in advance,” says Catherine Herrick, a longtime political media buyer in Washington, D.C. who owns the firm Buying Time. (Her clients include the Democratic National Committee.) “I can understand it with a corporate client, but it’d be perplexing for a station to do that with a political campaign.” Herrick’s point is that political campaigns are based on fundraising. How does a TV station know a campaign is going to meet its fundraising goals? Obviously, some candidates are richer than others, and are good for it

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

It was a special, bipartisan edition of Drinking Liberally last night, as we welcomed King County Journal reporter and self-described righty Don Ward to the podcast. Don comments as "Reporterward" (get it?) on HorsesAss.org and (un)Sound Politics, and happily reports that none of us liberals smell. Well… except for Will.

Joining me, Don and Will in our weekly game of "Left, Right and Joel" were Mollie, Carl, and Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, who has lost his designation as a "special guest" by pretty much becoming a regular. Topics of discussion included Bush’s plan to demilitarize our borders by sending troops there, what’s the matter with Spokane, vote-by-mail, and the blog wars.

The show is 58:20, and is available here as a 36.7 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

Republicans have reached a new low in the current Washington Post/ABC News poll. Voters now overwhelmingly prefer Democrats to deal with gas prices, health care, education, the budget, the economy, protecting privacy, Iraq, immigration, taxes and terrorism.

But all’s not lost for the GOP. Voters still prefer Republicans by a comfortable margin when it comes to making arrangements to bring in the hookers.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Please join us for cheers, jeers and beers as we discuss this week’s political happenings.

I’ve been on a deadline all day, so I’m real thirsty.

And if you happen to be a liberal drinker on the other side of the mountains, the Tri-Cities chapter of DL also meets Tuesday nights, 7 PM, Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd., in Richland. Go ask Jimmy for more details.

With our good friend Stefan continuing to pound the anti-vote-by-mail meme, I thought it might be time to clarify the issue with a little visual aid. Following is a map of King County from the September, 2005 primary election, showing the percentage of votes cast at the polls, versus those cast by mail, broken down by council district:

The small text is fuzzy, but a couple of patterns quickly emerge. First, it is clearly apparent that vote-by-mail has proven to be overwhelmingly popular countywide, with between 75 and 86 percent of voters choosing that option, depending on the district. Second, vote-by-mail has proven most popular in the more rural districts that comprise the heart of the county’s Republican base.

What Stefan and other vote-by-mail critics would like to do is cast the current debate as a contest between vote-by-mail and traditional polling places… but that is a battle the marketplace has already settled. Thus, the decision before the King County Council is not whether to choose one or the other; it’s whether to consolidate elections operations by largely eliminating the option that an increasingly tiny percentage of voters choose to use.

Stefan would like to eliminate vote-by-mail entirely, except for legitimate absentees, but that is a politically unfeasible option that simply is not on the table. Every election is in a sense a referendum on vote-by-mail, and it is hard to imagine the Council ignoring the clear sentiments of 85 percent of their constituents.

For better or worse, vote-by-mail is here to stay. The decision before the Council is not whether to expand it — that’s happening organically — the decision is whether to continue to bear the cost and complexity of maintaining polling places that most voters no longer use.

And with all the posturing from Stefan and his cohorts that this is all part of some Democratic conspiracy to maintain an unfair electoral advantage, I point back to the map to show that if any party is reaping turnout benefits from vote-by-mail, it’s the GOP.

So by all means, debate the issue fully, for any discussion of potential security concerns can only help to make the final implementation more robust and secure. But lets be honest about the decision before the Council.

Our sage friend Stefan lays into The Stranger‘s Eli Sanders for repeating a blog report stating that Karl Rove would be indicted.

Hmm. Since Stefan has such a low tolerance for faulty predictions, I was wondering when he might get around to apologizing for this doozy…?

As I’m trying to predict how Judge Bridges might rule on Monday morning, I’m going to make a call that is contrary to the MSM. He will either use the proportional analysis as proposed by the Republicans or punt on the issue by using an even more generous standard for tossing out illegal votes that will help the Republicans.

Or perhaps, this one…?

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m predicting that Judge Bridges will set aside the election.

Just curious.

Hmm. Looks like I’m turning HA into a political events calendar.

President Jimmy Carter and First Lady Rosalynn Carter will be at Seattle’s Town Hall next Thursday, May 25th, 5:00 – 7:00 PM, as part of a fundraising event for their son Jack Carter, the Democratic candidate for US Senator from Nevada. Please RSVP to cartertownhall@yahoo.com

This isn’t one of those ritzy, high-roller fundraisers… suggested donations are only $50.00 per person, $25.00 for seniors and students. So it’s a terrific opportunity to meet one of our nation’s truly great statesmen, while doing your part to help Democrats take back the Senate.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold needs your help in taking back the US Senate, and he’s coming out to Seattle this week to personally ask for it.

Sen. Feingold will join local elected officials at a rally on Saturday, May 20th, 12:30 PM, at Whittier Elementary School, 1320 NW 75th Street. Afterwards, volunteers will canvass the neighborhood. (Please RSVP rsvp@wa-democrats.org if you’re planning to attend.)

With his vocal, anti-war stance and his bold proposal to censure the President for illegal wiretapping, Sen. Feingold has become a darling of progressive Democrats nationwide. So I’m hoping some local progressives will take notice that Sen. Feingold is taking time from his busy schedule to come out to WA state to stump for Sen. Maria Cantwell. (He’ll also be joining her at a fundraiser on Sunday.)

Sen. Feingold gets the bigger picture, and if you want to help him achieve his agenda, then you need to help him win control of the US Senate. And the best way local Democrats can contribute is to help reelect Sen. Cantwell.

If you think I’ve got this wrong, then Saturday is your chance to ask Sen. Feingold yourself. See you there.

Am I a great dad, or what? I mean, really… how many dads manage to get a picture of their daughter’s beloved teddy bear into the local paper? Sure, I’m somewhere in the picture too, but well… been there, done that.

Of course, the accompanying story isn’t about my daughter’s teddy bear at all… it’s about how us local bloggers are beginning to impact local politics.

Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner can’t match the public-service record of her Republican opponent, Rep. Dave Reichert, but she can make one claim in their contest that’s hers alone: She used to be a blogger.

That experience, and the Internet savvy that goes along with it, has led Burner to reach out actively to the regional left-leaning blogger network — a connection that may have played a key role in helping her meet a crucial fund-raising target. The Burner-blogger relationship could point the way to the political future, in which Web-based activism exercises a growing influence over regional, statewide and even national elections.

The Seattle P-I‘s Gregory Roberts describes how WA state’s emerging local blogosphere is beginning to inch from advocacy to full blown activism, and I remain convinced that if the “netroots” are going to have a major impact on local politics, it’s going to happen here first.

The Burner fund-raising drive could signal a change in the blogs’ role, Goldstein said.

“We’ve been doing advocacy; now we’re finally going to see some sort of impact in terms of activism,” he said.

“The blogosphere is just maturing to the point where we can get people out there moving, and digging into their pockets.”

Man, that David Goldstein guy really knows what he’s talking about.

No doubt Burner deserves most of the credit for her strong fundraising and growing buzz, but it’s clear we’ve contributed something to her early success. And while I don’t want to over-hype the impact of bloggers in the current election cycle, I do think that some critics are missing the larger picture:

To Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor in the Interactive Telecommunications Program at New York University, the larger question is whether blogs can change voting patterns.

Their rabid partisanship attracts mostly true believers, and they end up screeching to the choir.

“Blogs are good for motivating the base,” Shirky said. “They’re not good for convincing swing voters.”

Yeah, well… maybe so. But motivating the base is exactly what Burner needed in the early going. Her task was to convince Democrats that she could excite people… that she could raise money… that she could win. And with our help, Burner did exactly that.

Convincing the swing voters, well, that’s Burner’s job. But at least now she’ll have a chance to do it on a more equal footing.

UPDATE:
I just saw a PDF of the P-I‘s front page, and all I can say to Stefan is: mine’s bigger than yours. (Also, both Apple Computer and the fisherman glove industry owe me a promotional fee.)

Stream courtesy of Crooks and Liars.