HorsesAss.Org

It is the human condition to fear what we do not understand, which I suppose explains why President Bush is so afraid of science. Meanwhile, his presidency keeps slip slidin’ away.

I don’t disagree with the Seattle Times editorial board on this one, but it’s kind of a “duh-uh” moment:

We have been warned. State and local government, and even businesses, must be ready to respond to a bird-flu pandemic because the federal government says it can’t be relied on to deliver all necessary services in the event of “multiple simultaneous outbreaks.”

“Can’t” be relied on, and won’t provide an effective response, because the Bush administration simply does not believe that little things like public health and emergency management fall into the proper role of the federal government. Good thing then that our local leaders are so far out in front of this life and death issue.

Way back in September, King County Executive Ron Sims was the guest of honor at a fundraiser to benefit Red Cross relief efforts for victims of Hurricane Katrina. But rather than talk about New Orleans, he spent most of his time talking about the county’s own disaster preparation efforts. By far their primary focus? Not earthquakes, not terrorist attacks… but avian flu. It was a sobering talk with zero political upside for a man who was in the midst of what was supposed to be a tough fight for reelection, and I came away wishing every voter had the opportunity to talk with Sims one-on-one.

Well, Lynn Allen of Evergreen Politics has had the opportunity to chat with Sims one-on-one, and last week she posted a very in depth piece on avian flu and King County’s preparation for it, which the county outlines in a 45-page Response Plan that Lynn accurately describes as “an astounding document.”

It includes the purpose of the plan, assumptions about the possible pandemic, the likely phases of a pandemic, the responsibilities of the various state and local agencies, and discussions of how direction will be provided, communications maintained, schools run, people quanantined, and social distancing strategies implemented. (Note that phrase, social distancing. You’ll be hearing a lot about that as we begin to talk more about preparing for living with a flu pandemic.) They talk about many aspects of the public health system and responses and then how the recovery from the pandemic can proceed.

They also have a section on maintenance of essential services, something I’ve personally been very interested in since my assumptions about the availability of services has a lot to do with my personal preparations. Can we count on having water, even intermittently? Electricity? Bus service? I was reassured and incredibly impressed by the obvious thought that has gone into thinking this all through and developing agreement to it.

Of course, critics (and you know who you are) will likely argue that this is all a bunch of fear-mongering grandstanding… that chances are, avian flu will never make the jump to human-to-human transmission, and that this is all a waste of taxpayer money. But if it does make the jump, thousands of people may die in King County alone… and if it doesn’t make the jump, some other pandemic strain eventually will.

For its part, the Times comes off as rather understated about what needs to be done. After noting that the federal government is unwilling and incapable of leading a response, the Times suggests that the feds “at least ought to help pay the bills.”

Damn right.

Washington state has already received its one-time $2 million allotment from the federal government for avian flu preparation… a pittance to protect the American people compared with the $300 million a day we’re spending in Iraq. It’s time we all started demanding that the Bush administration takes the threat of flu pandemic more seriously, and provide the funding necessary for local governments to meet this crisis head on. Your life could depend on it.

Why won’t Attorney General Rob McKenna do his job? Last I heard, McKenna was Washington state’s top lawyer, and his job, as I understood it, was to defend the citizens and laws of WA state.

And yet as Steve Zemke has revealed over on Majority Rules (here, here and here) McKenna has refused to join 10 other state Attorneys General in defending our recently passed fuel economy standards from unconstitutional federal intrusion.

WA is one of ten states to have adopted Clean Car Legislation… legislation that is now at risk of being overturned by new Bush administration fuel efficiency rules that assert that only the federal government can regulate carbon emissions. California has since filed suit, and nine other Attorneys General have signed on.

But not McKenna.

Why? Well, maybe it’s because McKenna received 28 contributions over $1,000 each (totaling over $36,000) from automobile interests? Or maybe it’s because McKenna only chooses to defend the laws he likes?

Or maybe, it’s simply because McKenna is a Republican — and a conservative one at that — who is more than willing to sacrifice the interests of the people of WA at the behest of the GOP leadership?

I’d like to know the answer. And I’m wondering when my friends in the traditional media are going to pick up the phone and ask him?

Hmm. Perhaps we also need a “Committee for a Two-Newspaper Union Town“…

Members who attended Saturday’s closed-door union meeting said most Times employees in attendance voted to cut ties with the committee, while most P-I employees voted to continue support.

Way to stick together guys.

AP political writer David Ammons, the dean of our state Capitol press corps, focuses most of this week’s column on the tight race in WA’s 8th congressional district.

Washington already has a heavily Democratic congressional delegation, but hungry national Democrats are hoping to pick up at least one more House seat here.

They’re taking on The Sheriff, freshman Rep. Dave Reichert, in the increasingly independent 8th District east of Seattle. As President Bush’s poll ratings fall, Democrats say Reichert could be the most visible victim in Washington this year.

From the opening paragraphs a clear theme emerges… that changing demographics and crumbling national support for President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have conspired to put Reichert’s hold on office at risk.

And no doubt, these two factors are huge.

But I think many analysts and pundits have largely overlooked two additional, important factors: challenger Darcy Burner’s surprising strength as both a fundraiser and a campaigner… and incumbent Reichert’s surprising weakness in those very same areas.

The most obvious evidence that Burner is running an exceptional campaign is the very fact that she’s now garnering so much attention. That wasn’t the case a few months back, when only a handful of local bloggers were touting the race as a nail-biter. And yet, the two contributing factors that everybody cites most — WA-08’s changing demographics and the anti-Republican political climate — have both been in play since well before Burner announced her candidacy.

What’s changed in the district to suddenly throw the race into the “toss-up” category? The Burner campaign, that’s what.

When people like me started talking up Burner on the blogs, it wasn’t just wishful thinking. We repeatedly met with the candidate, we argued policy and strategy… and we grilled her mercilessly when she showed up at a NW progressive bloggers’ forum in Olympia this past January.

I personally have known Burner for nearly a year, yet I didn’t start actively promoting her campaign until February, after I became absolutely convinced that she was not only a candidate who could win, but who would well serve the interests of the 8th district and the citizens of WA state. During that time I’ve watched her grow from just another passionate Camp Wellstone classmate, into a compelling campaigner and a formidable fundraiser. And the more I learned about her personal story, the more I became convinced that she was the perfect candidate to represent the demographically diverse 8th district.

“I’m very confident. Not nervous at all,” [Reichert] says. After a pause, he laughs and adds a postscript, “Maybe I should be.”

Well, he should be nervous, because he and his handlers have underestimated his opponent from day one, and that’s the worst mistake a politician can make in a swing district like WA-08, regardless of the political climate.

On the flip side, I’ve become convinced that most observers have overestimated Reichert, the “Hollywood-handsome sheriff” who claims to have tracked down the Green River Killer. His infamous temper, his inability to think on his feet, his stunningly poor public speaking skills when forced to talk off the cuff… all of this detracts from the notable advantages of incumbency.

But even more damning is his stance on the issues and his first-term voting record, both of which are out of touch with the majority of 8th district voters despite Reichert’s relentless efforts to recast himself as a moderate. Reichert is an extremist on reproductive rights, stem cell research and other social issues, while his legislative record on votes that count marks him as a near-rubberstamp for the disgraced Tom DeLay.

As voters learn more about Reichert, they will learn that he is part of the problem in Washington D.C., not part of solving it.

So yes, the race for WA-08 could never be so tight if not for the current political climate and the changing demographics. But the fact that it is so tight six months out from the November election is directly due to Burner’s strengths, and Reichert’s weaknesses.

Just wanted to give credit where credit is due.

I’m guest blogging again on Jesus’ General today. Check out my latest post: “Supersize your soul.”

CIA Director Porter Goss resigned suddenly today… so suddenly that neither he nor President Bush seemed to have time to come up with a coherent reason.

Maybe it was the growing bribery scandal, or maybe it was the hookers, but his resignation after less than two years on the job certainly suggests this is more than just a routine shake up. In 2004 Goss left his powerful post as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and it’s hard to imagine he expected his tenure at the CIA to be so short.

What we do know is that the GOP’s years of absolute power have corrupted many of its most powerful members absolutely. And it’s finally beginning to catch up with the party as a whole.

The other night on Charlie Rose, prominent Republican consultant Ed Rollins seemed almost beside himself with the predicament his party was in. Much to the surprise of his fellow panelists, he predicted as many as 15 congressman could be indicted before this year’s midterm elections. He said there might be a couple Democrats in there, but he made it clear that this is largely a Republican problem.

Rollins talked about all the promises his party had made in 1994 to do things differently, to sweep out the corruption and end the influence of the K Street lobbyists. But all that quickly went out the window. According to Rollins, the Republicans have become as corrupt and entrenched as the Democratic leadership ever was… and “probably worse.”

I wondered at the time if Rollins knew something about the unfolding scandals that his fellow panelists didn’t know. Goss’ sudden resignation makes me wonder anew.

Congratulations to Rep. Dave Reichert for being named the GOP Crony of the Week. The honor was bestowed on Reichert by the DCCC in recognition of his pandering to special interests, and close ties with disgraced members of the corrupt GOP establishment. For example….

• Rep. Reichert voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging.
• Rep. Reichert voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries.
• Big oil and gas industries have given Rep. Reichert $42,166. Any surprise?
• Reichert received $15,000 from House Majority Leader John Boehner’s “Freedom Project” PAC.
• Reichert received $20,000 from GOP Whip Roy Blunt’s “Rely on Your Beliefs” PAC.
• Reichert voted with President Bush 86% of the time.
• Reichert voted the GOP party line 88% of the time.
• $20,000 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC.
• $5,000 from Bob Ney, the first congressman to be implicated based on the Jack Abramoff guilty plea.
• $1,000 from Duke Cunningham’s PAC.
• Voted to weaken House ethics rules when DeLay proposed doing so as GOP Majority Leader.
• Voted with Tom DeLay 91% of the time (through 3/31/2006)

And much, much more.

Reichert tries to sell himself as an independent-minded moderate, but when you look at his record, he’s about as Republican as they come. No wonder Dick Cheney comes out here to campaign for him.

The Seattle P-I reports today that the Sonics are flirting with moving to Bellevue or Renton, to which I say (yawn…) “Who cares?”

I guess their suburban flirtation is supposed to prick Seattlites civic pride, but as far as I’m concerned, if we big city folk can manage to keep the Sonics in the region without personally footing a $200 million tax bill, it makes me all the prouder. I mean, it’s not like they’re gonna change the team’s name to the Renton Supersonics, for chrisakes.

Lots of sports teams don’t actually play within the limits of the city whose name they bear. The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington, the Detroit Pistons play in Auburn Hills… hell, both the New York Jets and Giants play in New Jersey.

So if it makes financial sense for Renton or Bellevue to build a new stadium, and it makes financial sense for the Sonics to move there, more power to them… especially if they can do it without screwing over local taxpayers.

Developer Kemper Freeman, the man behind Bellevue Square mall, has suggested that the $400 million necessary to build a Bellevue arena could be raised without asking for tax money.

Really? I hadn’t realized stadium economics is that much different in Bellevue than it is in Seattle, but, well… a great civic leader like Kemper Freeman would never stretch the truth. It just makes me wonder why the Sonics insist that private financing is off the table for a Key Arena rebuild, but would consider a similar package in Bellevue?

But if it doesn’t make financial sense, then I sympathize with the local Renton or Bellevue taxpayers forced to foot the bill, though as a Seattle resident, that’s not really my problem.

Of course, it is possible — even likely — that neither Renton nor Bellevue will come through with a several hundred million dollar gift to the Sonics’ billionaire owners, forcing Starbucks chair Howard Schultz to either come back to Seattle with a reasonable proposal, or follow through on his threat to move the team out of the region entirely. And to show there’s no hard feelings if he chooses the latter, some local fans have organized a Sonics Farewell Party, Thursday May 11, noon, at City Hall.

As far as I’m concerned, out of state, out of mind.

You mean to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld lied? Heaven forfend.

Chris Grygiel is reporting in the Seattle P-I’s blog, Strange Bedfellows, that the latest Elway Poll shows Sen. Maria Cantwell holding a huge lead over challenger Mike McGavick.

In a head to head match up, Cantwell leads 52 percent to 23 percent, the April survey found. Twenty-six percent of those queried were undecided. The poll of 405 registered voters in Washington state had a margin of error of 5 percentage points. In February, the poll found Cantwell ahead 55 percent to 25 percent, with 20 percent undecided.

When Aaron Dixon, Green Party candidate, is included in the April poll, Cantwell leads 47 percent to 25 percent, with 2 percent going for Dixon. Twenty-six percent were undecided.

Hmm. Other recent polls seem to show Cantwell with a lead of less than half that, so I’m not exactly sure what explains the discrepancy. If I get my hands on a copy, I’ll provide further analysis. (Hey… I’m always open to some wealthy benefactor buying me a subscription.)

Former NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman spoke at Town Hall last night. She spoke of her own transforming moment in the late sixties, when as a practicing Catholic and a stay-at-home mom with three young daughters, she was suddenly abandoned by her husband, with no financial support… only to discover she was pregnant.

Michelman spoke of her own internal struggle, her responsibility not just to care for her daughters, but to provide them with a sense of stability and security, and how a pregnancy at that time, under those circumstances would surely have turned “a crisis into a catastrophe.” She spoke of her decision to go against the teachings of her church, and for the good of her daughters, terminate her pregnancy.

Michelman spoke of the “choice” women in her situation faced back then in Pennsylvania: between a dangerous, illegal, back-alley abortion… or seeking approval from an all-male panel of doctors for a “therapeutic” hospital abortion. She described the humiliation she was subjected to under multiple interrogations… how they pried into every aspect of her private life to determine if she was “unfit” to bear the child. And she spoke of the ultimate degradation… how she was required by law to obtain the signed permission of the husband who had abandoned her and her children.

Of course, she went on to talk about the history and future of the reproductive rights movement, and the political imperative we are facing today, with a conservative Supreme Court prepared to eviscerate the right to privacy… and one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade entirely. So I urge you all to read her book — With Liberty and Justice for All: A Life Spent Protecting the Right to Choose — and to listen to her entire talk when it is eventually broadcast on KUOW.

But Michelman told one other anecdote which I believe is very relevant to voters here in Washington state today.

She talked about how angry she was when it became apparent that the strongly anti-choice Bob Casey Jr. would be the Democratic candidate to challenge Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and how many friends and colleagues urged her to run as an independent. She was so angry, that she actually seriously considered running, consulting with her closest political advisors.

But eventually she realized that such a bold stand on her principles couldn’t win her the election… it could only lose it for Casey and the Democrats… and she didn’t want to become Pennsylvania’s Ralph Nader. To run against Casey, she realized, would have been an act of hubris that may have been cathartic, but which the nation simply couldn’t afford.

While Casey’s position on choice is abominable to her — and intractable — she understood that there are other issues, even on reproductive rights, where she could work with Casey. And of course, there are many issues unrelated to her cause on which Casey is downright progressive. In the end she decided that Democratic control of the Senate — and thus control of both the agenda and the confirmation process — was more important than where Casey stood on this single issue… even an issue to which Michelman herself has passionately and tirelessly devoted most of her adult life.

That is a lesson in maturity and pragmatism from which some of the loudest members of the anti-war camp could learn.

Sen. Maria Cantwell voted for authorizing the Iraq war, a vote she cannot take back, and for which she is unlikely to apologize. In a guest column today in the Seattle Times, Sen. Cantwell calls 2006 “a year in transition,” a year in which the Iraqi government must take control and we start to bring our troops home. But we all know that’s not enough to silence most of her anti-war critics… what they want is a public mea culpa, a call for an immediate withdrawal, and a fierce denunciation of the Bush administration lies, policies, and incompetence. And even that won’t mollify many on the angry left.

Yes, there are some on the left who feel it is more important to “send a message” to Cantwell and the Democrats than it is to win the Democratic majority necessary to change our nation’s course. These purists… these living, breathing examples of the aphorism the perfect is the enemy of the good… claim to be standing on principle. But I think Michelman would recognize it as good ol’ fashioned hubris.

For her part, Michelman is in Seattle today campaigning for Sen. Cantwell, not only because the Senator is a strong supporter of reproductive rights and liberties, but because Michelman knows that the only way to protect these rights, along with the broader right to privacy, is for Democrats to seize control of the Senate’s judicial confirmation process.

My only hope is that come November, all my fellow progressives can bring themselves to act as strategically and pragmatically as Kate Michelman.

A couple of people recently asked me if I knew anything about rumors that 48th LD Democratic Rep. Ross Hunter was sick. Well, I checked out his website this morning and found the answer:

As you may have heard I am undergoing chemotherapy for a slow-growing lymphoma we found last year. I am feeling fine, and will finish treatment in June. The new hairstyle is amusing, but I’m looking forward to having my hair back by August.

Well, chemo’s a bitch, and I’m sure the treatment is tougher than he makes it sound… but I’m told he expects a full recovery, and has absolutely no plans to interrupt his legislative career.

Best wishes to Ross and his family.

Green Party Senate candidate Aaron Dixon distributed a flyer at the immigration rally, claiming to be “the husband of a naturalized citizen,” which, uh… is a lie. And that’s got Geov Parrish rather pissed off:

It’s one thing to make a possibly innocent mistake in the early stages of a campaign. It’s another to say “fuck you” to the public by repeating it, in a clear ploy for political advantage, after that mistake had been widely publicized. I’d like to see Aaron run a good campaign. Really, I would. But as of now, painful as it is to admit, I’d have to say this is the worst, most flagrantly dishonest statewide campaign for elected office I’ve ever seen.

Dixon claims to be running on principles… but I guess truthfulness isn’t one of them.

Yesterday was the deadline for turning in petitions in Idaho, and it didn’t exactly go as pundits expected in this solidly red state. A much hyped initiative to limit property taxes to 1 percent of total assessed value fell well short of the 47,881 signature threshold, while a teachers union initiative to increase education spending 20 percent by raising the sales tax a penny, turned in nearly 80,000 signatures.

That’s right, Idaho voters refused to sign an initiative limiting property taxes, but enthusiastically supported a sales tax increase to raise money for education. Not exactly what us snotty city folk expect from a state like Idaho, huh?

Meanwhile, sponsors claim an initiative to tighten eminent domain laws will easily qualify for the ballot after paying canvassers $2.00 per signature, but Secretary of State Ben Ysursa sounded skeptical:

“I’d be surprised if eminent domain was on the ballot,” Ysursa said.

For its part, the Idaho Education Association successfully used a 14 person staff to organize 3,400 volunteer signature gatherers. If approved by voters, the initiative would raise the state’s sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent, providing an additional $200 million a year to fund education.

Of course, successful signature drives owe at least as much to the proficiency of the organizers as they do to the issues, so I’m reluctant to read too much into this. But I think it does prove that even traditionally conservative voters cannot be counted on to be reliably knee-jerk when it comes to tax issues. Even in Idaho.