HorsesAss.Org

Looking for something to chat about? Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) will introduce a resolution today to officially censure President Bush for breaking the law (specifically, FISA) by conducting illegal, domestic wiretaps… and he writes about it in a diary on Daily Kos.

As Jon Stahl points out on Evergreen Politics, Emmett O’Connell is just jonesing for 8.5 x 11 inch initiative petitions. Current state law dictates the minimum size of petitions as 11 x 17.

O’Connell argues that allowing petitions on standard, letter size paper would democratize the process, allowing anybody to just print off a petition and start collecting signatures… making signature gathering all the more affordable to grassroots organizations.

Sure would. And it would also make signature gathering less expensive to profiteers like Tim Eyman, partisan propaganda mills like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, and right-wing, pro-business front groups like the Washington Farm Bureau.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against letter-sized petitions as part of a broader initiative reform package. In fact, I-831 (my “Tim Eyman is a Horse’s Ass” initiative) was one of the first initiative campaigns to make PDF versions of its petition available for download, and I lamented at the time the hassle of meeting the paper-size requirement. But anything that makes it easier to gather signatures without forcing sponsors to be more honest and responsible, is simply going to multiply the number of dishonest and irresponsible initiatives.

I recently suggested a number of reforms to the initiative process, and it would certainly be worth adding O’Connell’s proposal to the list. But enacting this change on its own will only serve to make our existing initiative industry more efficient and profitable.

Every once and a while I write a post pointing out the parallels between current political trends and those in 1920’s Germany… not suggesting that we are on our way to becoming a fascist dictatorship, but that the possibility is certainly not out of the question. And when I do, I do so in the full knowledge that I will be subjecting myself to ridicule from my righty trolls, who dismissively reject any historical comparisons as pure paranoia.

Well, look who’s paranoid too.

Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party’s rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

[…]

Ms O’Connor, nominated by Ronald Reagan as the first woman supreme court justice, declared: “We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary.”

She pointed to autocracies in the developing world and former Communist countries as lessons on where interference with the judiciary might lead. “It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.”

Go ahead… dismiss O’Connor as a wacko too. Though I’m guessing those of you who do, probably wouldn’t mind a dictatorship all that much… assuming you had the right man as dictator.

Here’s an idea for discussion… how about McGavick’s support for oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, because as we all know, with modern technology, there’s nearly zero change of a massive oil spill threatening enivronmentally sensitive areas.

King County Election Director Dean Logan sent out a press release yesterday, reminding voters that they do not need to re-register in order to vote this fall. Why would Logan feel the need to remind voters of something that they shouldn’t need reminding of?

This week, King County received phone calls from a handful of alarmed voters who received blank voter registration forms in the mail with a notation suggesting that they were not registered to vote. Election officials across the state have received similar calls from voters concerned about the status of their registrations.

“The voters we’ve heard from are properly registered,” said Logan. “They participate in every election and haven’t moved or changed their voting information so the message in the mailing is particularly disconcerting.”

In one incident, a King County voter reported receiving a recorded phone call from a national political campaign committee stating their records indicate she might not be properly registered at her address. The county’s official voter registration records show the woman properly registered.

In fact, I’ve been hearing scattered reports of these robo-calls for the past couple weeks, and it’s not exactly clear what the motive is. Is this some kind of incompetent GOP GOTV campaign? Or is it yet another ham-fisted example of Republican voter intimidation and suppression?

We’ve all heard about the Republican National Committee’s “sophisticated” data mining operations, but if they are trolling for unregistered households with GOP-leaning demographics, they sure seem to be hitting an awful lot of registered Democrats. And whether the intent is voter registration or voter intimidation… March seems to be an awfully odd time to attempt either.

Whatever. Here’s a transcript of the phone message that’s been going around Washington State:

“This is the Republican National Committee with an important alert. Our records show that you may not be properly registered to vote in your district. These elections are very important.

You have the opportunity to vote for republicans who will stand up for your values or liberals who will fight for their own special interests.

Please take a moment to look into whether or not you are properly registered to vote, and if you are not, please take the time to fill out the form and send it in.”

A number of county auditors from around the state have reported receiving angry phone calls from confused voters, wondering why they need to re-register… and in most every case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their registration.

And it’s not just happening in Washington State. The DNC has recently received reports of the same robo-call message hitting registered Democrats in Nebraska… and the RNC apparently tested a similar campaign in 2005 during the closely contested governor’s race in Virginia.

Hello, this is an important election alert. Our records indicate that you may not be properly registered to vote at this address. The race for Virginia’s next governor will be close. Every vote will count. That’s why it is so important that you are properly registered to vote. You’ll be receiving a form in the mail in the next couple of days. Please, take a moment to fill it out and return it by October 11 so you can exercise your right in the upcoming election on November 8. Paid for and authorized by the Republican National Committee 05077. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Regardless of intent, these calls can’t help but sow confusion. Listen to the audio; no wonder this robo-call had dozens of Virginians calling registrars, elected officials, and attorneys to find out if some change in the law required them to re-register to vote. And considering the recent noise here over plans by the GOP propaganda mill Evergreen Freedom Foundation to run an initiative requiring exactly that, it’s no surprise this recent round of robo-calls has WA state voters coming to the same conclusion.

Considering last fall’s voter registration challenge debacle, it is reasonable to be suspicious of any GOP outreach on such issues. Perhaps there really is no nefarious intent behind these robo-calls, but if you’re going to warn voters that they may not be properly registered, the least you could do is cross-check your list with the publicly available voter registration records.

In any case, it doesn’t seem to bother the GOP that their efforts are leaving hundreds — possibly thousands — of voters unnecessarily confused about their registration status. It’s the type of callous gamesmanship we’ve now come to expect from a party that views voter suppression as just another tool in their arsenal.

[Cross-posted to Daily Kos]

And just a reminder, today’s the last day to vote for HA as Best State & Local Blog in the Koufax Awards. Just link on over and leave “HorsesAss.org” in the comment thread. (Hey… the other contestants are campaigning, why not me?)

Um… exactly which party’s nomination is U.S. Senate candidate Aaron Dixon seeking?

“We welcome his candidacy,” state Republican Chairwoman Diane Tebelius said.

Dixon, a community activist and co-founder of the Seattle chapter of the Black Panther Party, announced earlier this week that he would challenge Sen. Maria Cantwell on the Green Party ticket… and boy are Republicans excited!

“I think that the Republican Party has learned from its excesses in the past that it’s not good to have a third-party candidate out there who could siphon away votes from their main candidates,” Tebelius said. “So I would think it could be a problem for the Democrats.”

For his part, Dixon seems to totally understand his role in this election:

If both he and Cantwell lose, Dixon said: “I won’t feel bad at all. Maria votes like a Republican.”

Uh-huh. No wonder the National Republican Senatorial Committee is absolutely kvelling over Dixon’s candidacy, ironically suggesting that the way to beat Cantwell is to “challenge her from the left.”

Dixon’s entry into the race means that Cantwell is going to have to fight for her Democrat base. He has the potential to peel away liberal votes from Cantwell, thereby boosting McGavick’s.

Sure, I suppose. But first McGavick is going to have to close the gap enough for Dixon to make a difference… something McGavick has so far proven incapable of doing.

Which leads me to believe that the best strategy for both Dixon and the Republicans would be to simply drop the pretense, dump McGavick, and put Dixon on the GOP ticket.

UPDATE:
I could swear I just heard Dixon on KUOW say that he was being paid by the Green Party to run for the Senate. Sweet. I could use some extra cash. Perhaps I’ll run for the Green Party nomination too?

And if you can’t think of anything to chat about, why not show your love, link over to Wampum and cast your vote for HA in the Koufax Awards:

Best State & Local Blog
Best Series (on Mike Brown & FEMA)

If you only have time for one, do the Best State & Local Blog category; just leave “HorsesAss.org” in the comment thread. This round of voting closes Sunday. Thanks.

I like Joel Connelly. I respect him. Hell… I’m one of those geeks who actually enjoys having Joel regale me with longwinded tales of Washington’s political history.

But this morning’s column… well… he simply has it wrong.

Late in the campaign, Sims’ advisers fed to a local liberal blog site updated news about the ongoing feud within Irons’ family. An old news story was given new legs, and fueled by new accusations. Sims won easily.

I have previously laid out the genesis of my story on the Irons’ family feud in excruciatingly boring detail, and I stand by my account. It was a Joni Balter column that initially piqued my interest in the story. It was longtime activist Steve Zemke who suggested I talk to Brian Derdowski. It was Brian who put me in touch with Di Irons, and it was Di who put me in touch with her mother. I did not know where this journey would lead me when I started down the path.

I put a ton of work into this story. Nobody fed me anything. It was a damn effective bit of muckraking, and I’m proud of it.

In a 7-2 decision released today, the Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the last four election contest lawsuits stemming from 2004’s disputed gubernatorial election.

Three of the contests were dismissed because they “fail to state a cognizable claim under the election contest statute.” The fourth contest, that filed by Suzanne D. Karr of Snohomish County was ruled to be identical to that already decided by Judge Bridges (you know… the one dismissed “with prejudice,”) and thus was barred under “the doctrine of res judicata.” The BIAW’s justices, Jim Johnson & Richard Sanders, both dissented on the fourth dismissal.

I’m not an attorney, and I haven’t studied the issue, so it’s really hard for me to comment on the validity of the dissenting opinion. But it does seem rather obvious that it would be unfeasible to allow multiple lawsuits on the same issues.

But as to the first three contests, well… they were downright silly. One contest argued that the constitutional guarantee of a “free and equal” election was violated by allowing Democrats to “purchase the right to a hand recount.” Uh-huh. Another contest argues that Gov. Gregoire is unfit for office because the petitioner’s severely autistic son was abused in foster care while Gregoire was AG. Okay. And the third contest asked the court to nullify the election because:

“The delta value of votes given to both candidates is exponentially within the tally’s margin of error, to the point that error must be assumed as a certainty, as given by three separate counts resulting in three different outcomes.”

Not that I should be dismissive. These arguments are at least as compelling as those brought forth by Dino Rossi’s attorneys.

But perhaps the most interesting tidbit in the decision is that which came in its conclusion:

The parties in the contests of Coday, Goodall, Karr, and Stevens have not raised the issue of this court’s jurisdiction to decide an election contest for governor. Article III, section 4, of the Washington Constitution says that election contests for statewide executives, including the governor, “shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law.” We have assumed, without deciding, that chapter 29A.68 RCW confers jurisdiction on this court to decide the present election contests. We reserve the right to consider the question of whether the constitution gives the legislature exclusive jurisdiction over governor’s election contests if it is properly raised at some future time.

So… the Court is expressly leaving open the question of whether any court actually had the jurisdiction to hear this contest in the first place. Hmm.

Rant and rave on whatever you want. As long as you do it here.

Former Black Panther Aaron Dixon has announced he will challenge Sen. Maria Cantwell as the Green Party candidate.

(Sigh.)

People who know him tell me that Dixon is a dedicated activist and an all around nice guy. But let’s be honest… the only impact he can possibly have on the outcome of the November election is to draw enough votes away from Cantwell to give the seat to Republican Mike McGavick.

(Sigh.)

Much to the distress of some of my readers, I have written quite passionately in the past about the left’s self-destructive obsession with marginal third party candidates and futile primary challenges… and I expect I’ll rant a bit on Dixon in the future. But for the moment, I’d like to ask my Green readers (assuming I still have any)… um… so exactly how “green” does a Democrat have to be before you decide there’s no difference between them and the Republican? I mean… take a look at Sen. Cantwell’s ratings from some very green organizations:

• 100% from NARAL (2005)
• 100% from the ACLU (2004-05)
• 100% from the Leadership Conference On Civil Rights (2001-05)
• 100% from American Association Of University Women (2001-04)
• 100% From Brady Campaign (2001-03)
• 100% from Children’s Defense Fund (03-04)
• 100% from Sierra Club (03)
• 98% from US Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) (2004-05)
• 95% from NAACP (2005), 100% (2003-2004)
• 95% “liberal quotient” from Americans For Democratic Action (2005)
• 93% from Human Rights Campaign (2001-04)
• 90% from the League of Conservation Voters (2005)
• “Wildlife Hero” from Wildlife Action Fund

Sure, I was as disappointed as anybody over Sen. Cantwell’s vote on the Iraq war authorization, but even my reliably liberal Congressman Jim McDermott occasionally casts votes with which I disagree. Besides, if anybody deserves blame for the Iraq war, it sure as hell ain’t Cantwell… it’s the deluded Nader voters who helped put George W. Bush in the White House.

Yeah, I know, I know… the Greens voted on principle. And as a result, thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are now dead.

(Sigh.)

On his campaign website Dixon writes: “We need and should have more than just a two-party system.”

Yeah… maybe. But we don’t. And I don’t quite see how lazily running an obscure candidate in a high-profile race is going to overthrow the two-party system?

As Kermit the Frog once sang: “It’s not easy being green.” But then, politics is hard.

On my first visit to Seattle back in 1989, my future ex-wife took me on a tour of her beloved hometown, which of course included the downtown waterfront. Walking hand-in-hand through the shadows of the clamorous and crumbling Alaska Way Viaduct, I subtly remarked on how the structure dominated the sites and sounds of an otherwise charming tourist trap:

“I can’t believe they built a fucking freeway through the waterfront!” I gently screamed in her ear… to which she quizzically replied: “What?!”

Of course, I understand the historical circumstances that led to this gashing, open wound through a neighborhood that would otherwise enjoy some of the highest property values in the state. And I certainly share the pragmatic, financial concerns of those who oppose a more expensive tunnel replacement.

But really… can anybody honestly tell me that rebuilding this monstrosity is the preferred alternative, especially after we now learn that a replacement Viaduct would have to be 50 percent wider than the existing structure, with columns twice as thick, just to meet current seismic and traffic safety standards?

Let’s put this in perspective. Imagine the Viaduct had never been built, and SR 99 currently passed through the waterfront at grade, traffic lights and all, like any other street. (You know… the way it currently runs through much of Seattle.)

Now suppose we wanted to alleviate local traffic snarls by allowing 99’s thru-traffic to bypass Alaska Way. Do you believe for a moment that any politician in their right mind would propose plunking down a massive, double-decker, view-destroying, elevated freeway, essentially cutting off the waterfront from the rest of the downtown? Do you believe a single editorial board would come out in support of such an outrageously ugly, noisy and expensive transportation folly? Do you really think our state Legislature would have provided $2 billion of taxpayer’s money towards such a controversial proposal?

Of course not! Financial priorities, aesthetics, and common sense simply would not allow it.

A lot has changed since the Viaduct was constructed over 50 years ago, and modern, world-class cities no longer wall off their waterfronts with massive freeway projects; indeed, any urban planner who proposed such a project would be laughed out of the profession. Yet it’s the rebuild boosters who seem to be laughing as if their opponents are out of touch with reality: money is tight they patronizingly explain to us… we simply cannot afford a tunnel.

Right.

Over the last decade taxpayers have spent a billion dollars building and refurbishing stadia and arenas to the benefit of billionaire sports team owners, and maybe, just maybe, the bonds on the now demolished Kingdome will finally be paid off before the next round of extortion begins. Yet we’re told we can’t afford the extra billion dollars for the tunnel alternative, despite its estimated life-span of at least 100 hundred years… twice that of an elevated viaduct.

I find that hard to believe. And besides, it shouldn’t be up to state legislators to make that decision. The state has ponied up it’s $2 billion bucks, and if local voters want to tax themselves to turn our waterfront into a world class destination, well then, that’s up to us. Now that the Monorail has been permanently derailed, let’s give voters the opportunity to use the local MVET to help finance the tunnel and other road improvements. And why not start talking about a special taxing district — much like the one financing South Lake Union development — so that those property owners who stand to reap the biggest rewards from the Viaduct’s removal, also pay a higher percentage of the cost?

And if we still can’t find the money to pay for a tunnel, well… we can’t do what we can’t do. But that still doesn’t make a replacement viaduct the preferred alternative.

It’s time for our state and local civic and political leaders to get their heads out of the 1950’s, and start imagining the city with a fresh perspective. It’s time to start giving serious attention to a third replacement option, one which I would argue is far preferable to replacing the existing Viaduct with a new, bulked-up model: the waterfront boulevard.

That’s exactly what San Francisco did after the double-decker, Embarcadero Freeway collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta quake… a change that revitalized the waterfront. And citizens liked the results so much that they just opened a new 6-lane boulevard to replace a portion of the Central Freeway, right through the heart of the downtown.

I believe that much of the legislative opposition to the tunnel stems both from institutional timidity, and urban Democrats’ justified fear that their opponents will seize on the tunnel as a symbol of out-of-control, profligate spending on the part of the party in charge.

But I also think that opposition stems from a lack of imagination. The generation in power now grew up with a loud, ugly, double-decker freeway cutting through an otherwise spectacular waterfront, and they simply cannot envision the city without it.

Well not me. I came to this city as an outsider, and I’m here to tell you that the Viaduct sucks. And you know what…? Rebuilding it 50 percent wider can only make it suck at least 50 percent more.

Remember… this is where all the off-topic stuff goes. Really.

The latest installment of Podcasting Liberally is now available for your listening pleasure… or whatever emotion you feel when listening to a bunch of lubricated, Seattle liberals talk politics.

Joining me this week is Carl, Mollie, Will, N in Seattle, and former Stranger reporter Sandeep Kaushik (apparently, the only one amongst us who can afford a full name.) Listen in as we talk about the Oscars, Seattle’s tunnel vision, and the Bush administration’s forward thinking initiative to threaten journalists with execution. We also calmly and cogently answer the question posed by Will’s Republican friends: why are Republicans so rational and logical, while us Democrats are rely so much on emotion? (Short answer: “Fuck you.”)