HorsesAss.Org

So, hypothetically… if you were a former insurance industry super-lobbyist running for the US Senate, and you wanted to downplay your lucrative past to voters, would you…

A) Have the American Insurance Association throw you a big fundraiser in Washington D.C.?
B) Rake in over $275,000 in campaign contributions from the insurance industry (more than any other industry)? or
C) Invite AIA President Marc Racicot to fundraise for you in your home state?

Well, if you’re Mike McGavick, you apparently do all of the above, with Option C having been accomplished just yesterday.

According to the Spokesman Review, Racicot, the former RNC chair and current AIA president, was out in Spokane raising money for McGavick, who himself was a top AIA lobbyist back in the 90s, and until recently, its vice-chairman.

Hmm. Funny way to distance yourself from your lobbying days. But then, McGavick and Racicot have a lot in common.

Both cashed in on their political connections to earn big bucks lobbying for wealthy corporations and against the public interest… Racicot as “the star of Enron’s Western states ‘advocacy team,” in which role he once lobbied Gov. John Kitzhaber of OR without revealing his connections to Enron… and McGavick as the AIA’s top lobbyist on Superfund cleanup legislation.

And both have well deserved reputations for running political smear campaigns. As RNC chair, Racicot was intimately involved with misleading, negative attack ads nationwide, and earned a reputation for sharply partisan rhetoric during the Florida recount in 2000. And McGavick’s reputation for political shrewdness is large based on running Slade Gorton’s 1988 campaign, which according to the Seattle Times is “still remembered for negative TV ads.”

One Gorton ad suggested opponent Mike Lowry wanted to legalize marijuana, and others compared his appearance with that of Yasser Arafat.

Yikes. And this from the guy who says he wants to restore “civility” to the Senate.

You’d think McGavick would want to keep as far away as possible from characters like Racicot, who might remind voters of his history as a political hatchet man and lobbyist. But I guess it’s kind of hard to run from your past when it’s financing your campaign.

Democratic challenger Richard Wright wants Rep. Doc Hastings to step down from the chairmanship of the House Ethics Committees. Of course, Hastings won’t step down, but then what do you expect from a man who ran for office in 1994, pledging to limit himself to six terms, but is now, oops… running for his seventh.

MoveOn.org co-founder Joan Blades and environmental activist and feminist author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner will be at Town Hall tonight plugging their new book, The Motherhood Manifesto, and kicking off MomsRising.org, a grassroots movement to get women more active in changing legislative and workplace policies regarding women and families. (Lynn has some more info over at Evergreen Politics.)

Tickets are $5 at the door, Town Hall, 8th & Seneca, 7:30 PM. Kids are both welcome and free, so bring the whole family.

I intend to be there, and hope to bump into Mr. Rowe-Finkbeiner to wish him the best of luck in his new endeavors, and to thank him for supporting his wife in hers.

Live by the shield, die by the shield, that’s what I say.

Rep. Dave Reichert has fashioned a comfy political career out of flashing his badge and campaigning as the “the Sheriff”… the man who took all the credit for tracking down the Green River Killer. But if he’s going to claim his experience running the King County Sheriff’s Office as his primary qualification for representing Washington’s 8th District in Congress, then he owes it to voters to answer questions about his tenure as the county’s top cop.

The Seattle P-I continues its series today, “Conduct Unbecoming”, exposing a history of mismanagement in the Sheriff’s Office, and once again, Reichert refused to cooperate:

Although two lower commanders recommended Saulet be fired, then-Sheriff Dave Reichert decided to suspend him for eight days.

Reichert, now a U.S. congressman, declined to comment.

Throughout the P-I‘s months-long series of investigative reports, Sheriff Reichert has refused to answer questions from reporters, even though he was the man in charge during much of the time covered. It was Reichert who ultimately failed to properly discipline or fire deputies who had committed serious crimes and conduct violations… and as the latest P-I installment reveals today, his lax attitude towards bad cops has cost taxpayers millions. And yet still, Reichert refuses to talk to reporters.

This is totally unacceptable, and our local media should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to let Reichert get away with his shrewd silence.

I don’t blame the P-I reporters covering this growing scandal; the most they can do is continue to badger him and then report his intransigence… and that they have done. But their colleagues at other local media outlets, and the editorialists on their own Op/Ed pages have fallen down on the job.

This is a major story in which Reichert played a major role, and he can’t be allowed to simply escape comment because it is politically inconvenient.

That reporters, columnists and editorialists continue to puff him up by touting Reichert’s experience as Sheriff — and yet refuse to hold him accountable for the job he did in that office — is a disgrace.

If Reichert has nothing to hide he should talk to the press, for voters have a right to know what kind of job he really did as Sheriff. But if he continues to suspiciously maintain his silence, voters have a right to know that too.

It was two years ago today that I transformed my old initiative campaign website into a political blog… and 1624 posts later I’m still not exactly sure where I’m going.

Re-reading my first blog entry, “Comedy is easy, politics is hard,” I’m a bit embarrassed by my naivete, yet proud of how firmly I’ve clung to my original vision. It is also clear that I underestimated the willingness of my friends in the media and the political establishment to see through my sarcasm and irreverence to the serious political dialog at HA’s core… not that it didn’t take some hard work.

It was easy, I suppose, for our friend Stefan to initially imply a certain degree of credibility by naming his blog “ClearSkies.com” (or whatever he calls his Orwellian-named hokum,) but turning “HorseAss.org” into a respectable brand… well that took some doing.

Of course, nothing I write would have any impact whatsoever if nobody read it, and so I didn’t want my “blogoversary” to pass without thanking all my readers for giving me a reason to write every day. Except for the handful of right-wing pricks who litter my comment threads; you can go fuck yourselves. But the rest of you… thanks.

Apparently, Florida Republicans have a Katherine Harris problem: she’s so divisive and hateful that she can’t possibly win the general election for US Senate… yet the GOP faithful are still so thankful to her for helping to steal the 2000 presidential election for George Bush, she’s nearly impossible to beat in the primary.

At least, that’s the analysis of the folk at The New Republic, who also reveal this breath-taking fit of honesty on the subject from a member of WA state’s GOP royalty:

Meanwhile, a Fox News analysis of the race this morning delivered a real gem. Former Republican Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn of Washington was sticking up for Harris, whom she described as a friend. Among her talking points was that Harris had done “yeoman’s service for president Bush”* during the 2000 recount. Of course, the official GOP talking point has always been that Harris served no one but the law. “I was just doing my job,” Harris likes to say. Nice to hear someone finally say what we know they’re thinking.

Oops. That’s the sort of thing you’re allowed to think, but not say. And Dunn used to be so shrewd.

Let that be a warning to other elected officials looking forward to a cushy, lazy semi-retirement as a high-priced lobbyist — it addles the mind.

In a tremendous show of support for a congressman who has risked his personal finances to defend the First Amendment, former President Bill Clinton will join Rep. Jim McDermott on stage, for a town hall style, grassroots discussion, on June 3, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.

Unlikely the ritzy, high-priced events former presidents usually headline, general admission seating is only $50.00, while a limited number of VIP seats will be available for $100.00. All proceeds will benefit Rep. McDermott’s campaign committee, Friends for Jim McDermott Committee.

Why is President Clinton going out of his way to raise money for a popular congressman who would likely win 80 percent of the vote this November without spending a dime? Because Rep. McDermott is in the midst of a multi-year legal battle that will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees if he wins, and well over a $1 million if he loses.

McDermott could have settled with little more than an apology years ago, but that would have meant selling out the Constitution. Unlike some congressman, McDermott has never been one to use his office to enrich himself, and now he stands to lose his own house, even if he ultimately prevails in court.

But however you feel about Seattle’s congressman, this event is a rare opportunity for average folk to interact with a President… especially one who reminds of us of an era when we actually liked our President.

Wow. Things got a little wild at Drinking Liberally last night. 43rd LD candidate Dick Kelly showed up with a marching band, and The General stopped by to party righteously. And Dave Neiwert — perhaps the nation’s leading authority on right-wing extremists — actually lost his virginity.

Of course, I’m talking about his Podcasting Liberally virginity, as Dave joined me, Will, Mollie, Carl, and Lynn for our usual mix of inside politics, witty banter, and tedious, technical legislative deconstruction sage analysis. Topics of discussion included Net Neutrality Internet Freedom, Sen. Maria Cantwell’s problems with anti-war Democrats, Joni Balter’s boner for allegedly moderate Republicans, Porter Goss’s boner for hookers, plus hate crimes, the Sonics’ bluff, and of course, right-wing bloggers.

The show is 56:23, and is available here as a 36.2 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.]

What a putz.

I’d like to talk about Net Neutrality Internet Freedom… the core principle that we the people should be able access the tiniest local blog (like HA) as easily as we can the largest corporate website. This is an issue of vital importance both to the economic viability of the Internet, and to the future of our democracy.

But I’m not going to talk about it here.

Instead, I’d like to take this opportunity to point you towards my discussion of this issue in my inaugural entry on Huffington Post, whose distinguished lineup of bloggers I am flattered to have been invited to join.

Here’s a teaser:

It wasn’t so long ago that I couldn’t get local party officials to reply to my emails, so I took it as a sign of how far us bloggers have come when I received a phone call from Rep. Jay Inslee’s (D-WA) office, asking if I could meet with the congressman.

The subject: Net Neutrality Internet Freedom. The simple message: keep the pressure on Congress.

That Rep. Inslee would seek out the help of a local blogger on an issue of national importance is a testament to the power of the Internet to both democratize the media, and enable grassroots activism. But it is also a testament to what is at risk should we fail to prevent a handful of corporate telecommunications giants from becoming gatekeepers over content distribution.

Please read the whole thing.

I’m not sure how often I’ll post at Huffington, but I am grateful to have a national outlet for my occasional ramblings on national issues.

Our good friend Stefan over at (un)Sound Politics is gloating over a report in The Hill that 8th CD challenger Darcy Burner did not make the Democrats “Red to Blue” program after all. But The Hill got it wrong, and not surprisingly, so did Mr. Lazypants Sharkansky:

The Nutroots might not understand this, but grown-up campaign operatives apparently do: The most promising place to invest scarce resources is not with a candidate who has no relevant accomplishments and whose only selling point is that she’s not a Republican.

Well, Stefan and his readers may not understand this, but the best way to determine who is or is not in the DCCC’s program is to, um… call them up and ask them. That’s what I did (it’s called “reporting,” Stefan) and regional press secretary Kate Bedingfield told me that The Hill’s (and uSP’s) report was based on a “lack of understanding of how the program works.”

The DCCC always intended to roll out the program in staggered waves, so as to concentrate the focus of donors on small groups of candidates, thus maximizing contributions. And the chronology of the rollout has absolutely nothing to do with the priority of the individual races.

Bedingfield confirms that Burner most definitely is in Red to Blue — a program she describes as “very exclusive” — and that Burner is scheduled to roll out on June 1st… perfectly positioned to extract the maximum benefit from the program during the crucial, end-of-quarter, fundraising push. Burner has been personally assured by DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel that WA-08 remains a top priority, and that she will receive all of the support she has been promised.

And if that’s not clear enough, DCCC communications director Bill Burton just emailed me the following:

Darcy Burner is running one of the strongest Democratic campaigns in the country. The DCCC has included her in our Red to Blue program as a sign of our confidence that she is the candidate for change who will unseat Dave Reichert in the fall. The Red to Blue program is staggered in order to direct as much donor attention as possible to each qualifying campaign. Darcy Burner’s extraordinary campaign qualified easily for the program and will receive the full force of DCCC financial and strategic aid.

So as much as the head-in-the-ground wing of the local GOP might want to deny it, Burner really is a strong candidate, and the DCCC knows it. Even some Republican operatives have privately told me that if Reichert’s not worried, he sure as hell should be.

As for Stefan, well… I know from personal experience that sometimes, us bloggers just get stuff wrong. But let’s see if he’ll follow my lead and be man enough to admit it.

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.

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

Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post that Stephen Colbert’s performance at the White House correspondents’ dinner wasn’t funny… and he’s entitled to his opinion, wrong as it may be. But of more interest are the 3,500 angry emails he got in response.

But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble — not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before — back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that’s going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice — once because they couldn’t stop it and once more at the polls.

Can’t say I disagree with Cohen on this one.

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.