HorsesAss.Org

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Joining us tonight will be the next congressperson from Washington’s 8th Congressional District, Darcy Burner, who has some exciting news to share about her first-quarter fundraising totals, and the role the “netroots” played in helping her exceed her target. Burner campaign manager Zach Silk told The Stranger’s Eli Sanders that “the blogosphere was instrumental in taking us to the next level,” and she’s coming to DL to thank us all personally.

Unfortunately, Burner won’t be able to join us on our weekly podcast, because producers Gavin and Richard have fled to Europe. So unless some kind-hearted stranger stops by with a shit-load of recording equipment, Podcasting Liberally is on a one-week hiatus.

In other DL news, our host Nicholas Beaudrot is offering free beer to volunteers with a high-powered staplegun willing to post up flyers promoting this weekend’s Seattle area stop on Markos & Jerome’s “Crashing the Gate” book tour. (FYI: Friday April 7, 7-9 pm at the Seattle Labor Temple, 2800 1st AVE, and Saturday April 8, 11:30am-2pm at Marymoor Park.) And of course, for those of you on the other side of the mountains, please join Jimmy at the Tri-Cities chapter of DL, every Tuesday from 5:30 onwards, Tuscany Lounge, 1515 George Washington Way, Richland.

Even when I kinda, sorta agree with the Seattle Times editorial board they manage to piss me off.

Felons should have their right to vote restored after serving their sentences. Time in prison, not money, should be what counts. But this decision should be decided by the state, and not a judge.

Yeah, I agree, in the sense that the responsible thing for the Legislature to do would be to fix our unfair and unmanageable felon re-enfranchisement laws by bringing WA in line with most other states, and restoring civil rights to felons upon their release from prison. But, in the real world we understand that the Legislature doesn’t have the balls to touch this issue with a ten foot pole… and the Times is as much to blame for their timidity as anybody else.

For months, during last year’s gubernatorial election contest, and for some time thereafter, the Times joined the rest of the local media in eagerly playing into GOP hype over illegal felon votes without providing any context as to the relative moral and pragmatic merits of disenfranchising 3.7 percent of WA voters, and a stunning 24 percent of black men. The result is that disappointed Dino Rossi supporters have vilified felon voters as the boogiemen of the 2004 election, and would perceive any attempt to re-enfranchise them as little more than a cynical Democratic ploy to gain an electoral advantage.

Ironically, during the contest trial itself there was no convincing demographic data presented to suggest that in Washington state, ex-felons as a whole leaned towards Democrats; indeed anecdotal information suggested the opposite. So the Democratic majorities in Olympia have absolutely nothing to gain politically by sticking their necks out for a reviled, powerless constituency like ex-felons. And they won’t.

(One can just see the latest round of Kevin Carnes postcards now: “Rep. X voted to give this rapist the right to vote!”)

That’s political reality, and I’m guessing the folk on the Times editorial board were smart enough to understand this when they decided to tepidly endorse re-enfranchising ex-felons at the same time they lauded AG Rob McKenna for squashing the one sure-fire path towards achieving this commendable policy objective.

By appealing this ruling, Attorney General Rob McKenna is properly defending the right of the people of Washington to make this decision, and not have it taken away by a judge. After McKenna wins his appeal, the Legislature should exercise its power and allow all released felons to vote.

What a load of crap. What don’t you just drop the pretense and endorse McKenna now for governor or senator or whatever office it is this calculating, ambitious, cynical, BIAW mole intends to run for next?

And for chrissakes will you stop it with your incessant, whining attacks on judges for (gasp)… interpreting the law?! The “right of the people” to selectively re-enfranchisement ex-felons based on their ability to pay wasn’t “taken away by a judge”… it was taken away by the Constitution! That’s the court’s job — to interpret the state and federal constitutions — and “the people” have absolutely no right to enact laws that violate these supreme documents without first amending them.

Don’t get me wrong… I welcome the Times endorsement of ex-felon voting rights… better late than never and all that. But now that they’ve come out against the obtainable means of achieving this policy goal, I fully expect them to put the time and effort into aggressively educating the public on this issue. (You know, the way the New York Times has.)

Otherwise, one might think this lone editorial little more than a transparent effort to put Democrats between a rock and hard place… a cynical attempt to brow-beat Democrats into supporting sensible legislation with which the Republicans can beat them senseless come election time.

Rep. Tom DeLay has decided to step down from the House, rather than face an unwinnable reelection campaign.

The decision came just three days after his former deputy chief of staff, Tony C. Rudy, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and corruption charges, telling federal prosecutors of a criminal enterprise being run out of DeLay’s leadership offices.

Anybody working on the “Ten Little Indians” parody?

Richard Roesler of the Spokane Spokesman-Review has followed up on the Aaron Dixon story, and surprisingly, Green Party spokesman Mike Gillis told him that they “absolutely” vetted the candidate. He characterized my original post as a “partisan smear,” and downplayed the significance of Dixon’s legal problems:

“I think what we’ve really created is a culture in politics where you’re not even allowed to fart in public,” Gillis said. “Any mistakes he’s made in the past have been so overwhelmed by what he’s done for his community. I think there’s nothing in his past that regular people haven’t run into at some point.”

Oh. Well then… I guess I’m not “regular people,” because in addition to being a devout voter, I also haven’t “run into” any of the following obstacles:

• Owes more than $2,800 in traffic fines, including four counts in the past 18 months of driving without insurance;
• Was accused by his estranged wife in a 1994 divorce case of having problems with marijuana use and threatening to kill her;
• And had two liens placed on him by King County officials for allegedly failing to pay child support in 1989 and 2003.
• In 1980 he was convicted of embezzlement from a medical supply company in Oakland, Calif., and served six months in a California prison.
• And that in 1984 he was convicted of check fraud and “served a short prison sentence.”

Look, I don’t mind if the guy farts in public, and I’m willing to put his past in his past. But it’s hard to shrug off Dixon’s long record as an unrepentant scofflaw, especially when his latest legal run-in occurred as recently as last year.

Dixon wants to put this all in perspective:

“At a time when our government spends $100,000 a minute to occupy Iraq,” Dixon wrote, “this entire media frenzy has been but a distraction to my campaign and me.”

Exactly. Which is exactly why Dixon should have never declared his candidacy.

Andrew at Permanent Defense (et al) recently pointed me towards the petition for R-65, Tim Eyman’s cynical and mean-spirited referendum to repeal the gay civil rights bill recently passed by the state Legislature. Tim has a history of shamelessly lying in the headlines of his petitions… but this one’s a doozy:

Uh-huh.

Thing is, R-65 has absolutely nothing to do with preferential treatment, quotas, or same-sex marriage. The referendum would repeal ESHB 2661, which is accurately described in the small print of the statutorily mandated Ballot Measure Summary… mere inches below Tim’s intentionally dishonest headline.

ESHB 2661 amends the state’s law against discrimination to prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in employment, housing, credit, insurance, health maintenance contracts, public accommodations, and commercial boycotts or blacklists. “Sexual orientation” includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. State marriage laws are not modified, employment goals or quotas are not required, nor any specific belief, practice, behavior or orientation endorsed. Religious organizations and owner-occupied dwelling units are exempt from this law.

A few weeks back I suggested a number of initiative process reforms, and near the top of the list was a proposal to ban all editorial content on petitions. Clearly, it damages the integrity of the initiative and referendum process to have sponsors intentionally mislead voters… but censorship would be impractical, if not downright scary. Thus the only way to prevent sponsors from lying on their petitions is to prevent them from printing anything but the statutorily mandated components.

In the absence of such a sensible reform, Tim is free to be… well… Tim. And so he boldly lies to voters, right there in the headline of the R-65 petition. Why? Because polls show that a majority of Washington citizens oppose discrimination… even against (gasp) gay people. If voters understand what R-65 actually does — make it legal to discriminate against gays — most would decline to sign the petition. And so once again, Tim lied.

Which of course raises a question I’ve been meaning to ask of editorial page editors around the state: “Why the hell do you still give a lying sack of shit like Tim Eyman free access to your op/ed pages?” The guy doesn’t print opinion in his guest columns… he prints lies!

Just wondering.

Darryl asks “Dino Who?,” Mollie asks “What God?,” and Goldy asks “Is that really Mollie’s father?“

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog slams the NY Times Adam Nagourney for partisan editorializing in his supposed news report on the impact of the internet on politics: “Internet Injects Sweeping Changes Into U.S. Politics.” Throughout the piece Nagourney seems to reserve criticism for the Democrats and their use of blogs, but Aravosis is particularly annoyed by one glaring mischaracterization:

Bloggers, for all the benefits they might bring to both parties, have proved to be a complicating political influence for Democrats. They have tugged the party consistently to the left, particularly on issues like the war, and have been openly critical of such moderate Democrats as Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Uh-huh. As Aravosis correctly points out, to characterize Sen. Lieberman as “moderate” is to imply that the rest of the Democratic senate caucus is substantially left of center. In fact, Lieberman is a conservative Democratic… by his voting record and public statements, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. It is Lieberman, Aravosis says, who is out of step with the mainstream, not the bloggers who criticize him:

Tug the party to the left? You mean, the 60-some percent of the American people who agree with Democratic/progressive blogs that the war in Iraq is a disaster are now “lefties,” all 60-some percent of them? That is simply absurd.

But I think Nagourney has myopically missed a larger point. No doubt us liberal bloggers have created more heartburn for the Democratic establishment than our right-wing counterparts have for the Republicans… but that is because we’re more relevant. The conservative blogosphere mostly operates as a redundant organ of a well established right-wing media echo chamber, whereas the liberal blogosphere — the “netroots” — is making up for decades of Democratic neglect, by organically building an entirely new media infrastructure, virtually overnight.

Essentially… the right wing blogs are just another hammer in the GOP establishment’s toolbox, whereas the liberal blogs are not only providing a new and powerful media tool to the Democrats… we’re in the process of taking over the party.

The GOP has their corporate controlled media and their right-wing talk radio, so while the blogs are useful, they’re not essential to getting their message out. But us liberal bloggers are quickly becoming indispensable to the Democratic Party. And as we play a larger and larger role in communicating the message, we’ll also inevitably play a larger and larger role in shaping it. Our goal is to help the Democrats win… and then enact the policies we want.

How indispensable have the liberal blogs become? I’ll follow up in a later post, in which I’ll point out another fact that Nagourney missed: how quickly the liberally blogosphere has grown to eclipse the blogs on the right, both in terms of readership and impact… a trend that has not only played out nationally, but quite clearly in WA state as well.

I’m too lazy to do an April Fools post, so instead I’ll just point you to Stefan’s. My favorite comment in his thread thus far comes from RWGal, who wonders “It IS an April Fools thing I hope?” (I suppose it’s the lack of actual humor that she finds confusing.)

Which raises a question: why is it that conservatives tend to be so damn humorless? Can anybody name me one top-notch, overtly conservative humorist or comedian? (I mean, with the obvious exception of the always brilliant P.J. O’Rourke.)

The final numbers aren’t tallied yet, but the last I heard from the campaign was that Darcy Burner expects to exceed her fundraising target for the March 31 reporting deadline. The DCCC had set her a goal of $320,000 cash on hand by the end of the quarter, and by beating it, Burner becomes eligible for $250,000 in new funds from the national Dems.

For those who understand how the DCCC functions, this is big, big news, and DC insiders tell me that Burner has raised quite a few eyebrows with her fundraising prowess and grassroots support. For example, Burner has raised over $130,000 during the last ten days alone, with the overwhelming majority of her contributions thus far coming from individual donors.

I am particularly gratified by the support shown by my own readers. I routinely tell candidates that blogs are a crappy means of achieving any kind of call to action, so don’t expect us to raise you any money… and so when I started attempting exactly that just a few days ago, my expectations were low.

And yet over the past week 32 HA readers have donated $1,176.33 through my Act Blue link, with several others telling me they have contributed directly to the campaign. I thank you all for your generosity, and for your willingness to get involved this early in the election year.

Burner is also grateful for all the support shown on all the local blogs, and will be dropping by Drinking Liberally this coming Tuesday to thank you all personally. This will be a great opportunity to raise a toast to the next congressperson from Washington’s 8th Congressional District. I hope to see you all there.

UPDATE:
I keep getting emails and comments from readers saying they contributed directly through Burner’s campaign web site. Perhaps I should rethink my assumption that blogs aren’t much good at raising money?

Former Nixon aide John Dean says that President Bush’s illegal domestic spying surpasses the crimes that got his former boss impeached.

“Had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented,” Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it.”

How can we force Congress to be a check and balance on the White House? Help the Democrats seize control. And how do we do this? Help Darcy Burner meet today’s fundraising target. Click here to contribute.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my good friend Stefan for booking me on the Dori Monson Show yesterday, where I had the opportunity to repeatedly plug Podcasting Liberally. Downloads have gone through the roof, and I’m getting lots of positive feedback. Hey thanks, Stefan.

If you’re wondering what I’m talking about, go check out Stefan’s post, in which he once again proves that when it comes to media savvy, he’s as clueless as he is humorless. (With enemies like him, who needs publicists?) Meanwhile Dori, apparently with nothing better to talk about, decided to take a shot at spinning political scandal out of a barroom conversation between a bunch of political junkies. So a few minutes before airtime, I get a call asking me to come on the show and defend myself.

I’m not sure what Dori expected. Did he think I’d be apologetic? Flummoxed? Embarrassed? Hell… did he read the blurb I wrote promoting this week’s podcast? Not only didn’t I edit out the exchanges in question… I highlighted them!

Famously outspoken WA State Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz joined us last night, and we didn’t manage to get him to say the word “fuck” once. (Although Carl did make up for it by talking about sticking green glowsticks up people’s rectums.)

Judging from Stefan’s post, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib aren’t the only ones with a glowstick up their ass, but I expected more from Dori. This is a guy who hangs out in pro sports teams locker rooms, and yet Dori incredibly told me that he never uses “the f-word.” Ever. Yeah, sure Dori… and I suppose you never fart either.

Dori spent most of my segment going after Sandeep Kaushik, implying that it is somehow scandalous for an aide to King County Executive Ron Sims to be caught on tape saying the word “fuck.” Oh please. If you ask me, Dori was hoping to get Sandeep fired… but… um… Sandeep used to write for The Stranger for chrisakes, so I’m pretty sure Ron knew he had a few four-letter words in him when he offered him the job. As former colleague Josh Feit put it over on Slog:

What? Our Sandeep, at a bar cussing? Horrors! Bars? Cussing? And I thought the Democratic party was the effete elitist party.

I guess in Dori and Stefan’s world, it’s okay for the Vice President of the United States to say the word “fuck” on the floor of the Senate, or for a Supreme Court justice to make an obscene gesture in church… but heaven forfend if Sandeep cusses… in a bar. Yeah, in Dori and Stefan’s world, Carl talking about sticking glowsticks up people’s rectums is offensive… but actual US soldiers sticking actual glowsticks up the rectums of actual prisoners at Abu Ghraib isn’t.

I mean… what the fuck?

Forget for a moment how incredibly dishonest it is for Dori to spend an hour disparaging the Democratic Party based on the barroom conversation of a handful of bloggers. The very fact that Stefan and Dori have decided to ignore the very serious topics we discussed and instead focus on our less than solemn language tells you how desperate they are to change the subject from the failed Bush administration and the rubber stamp Republican majority that props it up.

Well, fuck them. The whole point of recording the podcast in a bar is to try to capture the kind of spontaneous conversation and debate that makes Drinking Liberally such an intellectually satisfying and entertaining event. If Dori wants to get all sanctimonious with his screened calls and his feigned outrage, that’s up to him. Hell… he’s the “professional.”

But personally, I’d rather be brutally honest than politely lie.

8th Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner earned two posts on Slog today, the first from Eli Sanders pointing to the national Dems growing confidence in her campaign, and the second from Dan Savage asking you to help put her over the top of her quarterly fundraising target. I agree with both, but especially want to emphasize the latter.

The national Dems are paying attention to Darcy Burner’s race and they’ve got a bunch of money to dump on her

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

I’m out for most of the day, so talk amongst yourselves. Or chew on this.

Secretary of State Sam Reed has decided to appeal a King County Superior Court ruling that the state’s felon re-enfranchisement laws unconstitutionally violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Hmm. I am disappointed, and not just because I think it is the wrong decision, but because I’d hoped that Reed might be a bit more pragmatic.

In announcing his decision, Reed made a joint statement with Attorney General Rob McKenna.

“We believe a rational basis does exist for the Legislature to deny felons the right to vote until they have completed their entire court-ordered sentences, including payment of criminal penalties, victim’s restitution, and legal fees, rather than separating out various sentencing aspects,”

Maybe, maybe not. I’m not saying that Judge Spearman’s decision is a slam dunk, but it is very compelling. The practical impact of our re-enfranchisment statutes is that we have created two classes of ex-felons: those who can afford to pay off their legal financial obligations, and those who cannot. The former have their voting rights restored, the latter are banned from voting for life.

Personally, I find this morally objectionable, but it is also a distinction that has proven to be extremely troublesome and expensive to administer and enforce… a fact that Reed himself acknowledged in the midst of last year’s controversial election contest.

In Washington, Secretary of State Reed said, the simplest way to fix confusion over tracking felons would be to automatically restore voting rights when people are released from prison, regardless of whether they’ve paid all their court debts.

And yet, given the opportunity to simplify our state’s re-enfranchisement system by adopting the model used in most other states, Reed has instead chosen to spend tax dollars defending a system that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars… and with uneven results.

But there is another practical consideration that is rarely discussed.

More than 250,000 ex-felons are currently ineligible to vote in WA state, about 3.7 percent of the state’s population, and 24 percent of African American men. About 46,000 of these ex-felons would have their voting rights restored if Judge Spearman’s decision is upheld.

So… exactly what is the social benefit of denying a substantial portion of our population the right to vote?

I’ve heard opponents of re-enfranchisement passionately argue that if we fully restore the civil rights of felons upon release they would have no incentive to make restitution to their victims. But in fact, the majority of the LFOs have nothing to do restitution.

For example, one of the plaintiffs in the case, Beverly DuBois, was convicted on a marijuana charge, and was ordered to pay LFOs totaling $1,620: a $500 victim assessment fee, $110 in court costs, and $1,000 to the Stevens County Drug Enforcement Fund. Unable to work due to injuries sustained in a car accident, DuBois has nonetheless made regular payments of $10 a month since her release… a court approved payment plan that doesn’t even cover the accrued interest. Since she was convicted in 2002, her outstanding LFO has actually increased to $1,895.69, and under current law, she will never be eligible to vote again.

Reed now argues that there is a “rational basis” for denying DuBois the right to vote, but I fail to see it. A permanently disabled woman gets ensnared on a marijuana charge, serves her time in prison, but due to onerous court fees she can never afford to pay off, she permanently loses the right to vote. Meanwhile, a more affluent ex-felon convicted of a similar crime, pays off his fines and has the franchise restored.

Perhaps a higher court will ultimately rule that a system that re-enfranchises ex-felons based on their ability to pay is somehow constitutional. But it certainly isn’t fair, and it does absolutely nothing to integrate these people back into society.

Former FEMA director Michael Brown on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report: “Horse’s asses can be a absolute handful.“