HorsesAss.Org

Yesterday, the Rev. Ken Hutcherson celebrated MLK Day by threatening to boycott companies that oppose discrimination. As it turns out, this spirit of inclusiveness, tolerance, and sensitivity to minority communities is entirely in character.

In a radio interview with the Australian Broadcast Corporation back in February of 2004, Rev. Hutcherson spoke effusively about Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, describing how it “totally impacted my whole faith….”

“I think it’s going to be controversial to those believers who don’t want to admit the suffering that Christ had to go through to pay for our sins. I think it’s going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That’s just plain truth… that’s Biblical truth.”

So… the Jews killed Christ, huh? That’s the type of preaching we can expect from Rev. Hutcherson?

Hmm. From my reading of the New Testament, I kinda came away with the impression that it was the Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross. But even if you want to pass the blame by arguing that Jews “did push to have Christ crucified,” one should at least make the distinction that it was some Jews, not the Jews or all Jews, or even most Jews. And certainly not any Jews I’ve ever met.

See… it’s not a literal reading of Scripture that Jews like me object to, but rather that self-righteous blowhards like Rev. Hutcherson have chosen to pound it into their congregant’s heads for the past 2000 fucking years! Surely, some parishioners, constantly reminded that it was The Jews who murdered their savior, can’t help but feel a little pissed at all us Golds and Steins walking around denying their faith.

And what is it with this “the Jewish nation” crap, anyway? Exactly what “Jewish nation” is Rev. Hutcherson talking about? Israel?

I don’t think so. In the context of this interview, I believe Rev. Hutcherson is talking about the international nation of Jews that lives amongst us (well… amongst you,) but is never really, truly a part of us (well… you.) By referring to “the Jewish nation,” I think that Rev. Hutcherson is making a clear distinction between real Americans (you know, Christians) and us Christ-killing, Messiah-denying, hell-bound nonbelievers who also happen to live here too.

Or maybe I’m reading too much into this?

What I do know is that for Rev. Hutcherson to fight so hard to maintain the legal right to discriminate in housing, employment, and insurance against a minority group that practices a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of his faith, shows a total lack of tolerance for anybody who might stray from his interpretation of the Good Book. As I’ve written before on the subject (“Am I the Antichrist?“), if Christians like Rev. Hutcherson so fervently believe that my sins have surely doomed me to suffer the eternal fires of damnation in the next world, how can I expect them to respect my rights as an American in this world?

The truth is… I can’t.

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

Michael Hood of blatherWatch will be bringing along his new best friend, longtime talk radio host Allan Prell. After a brief tenure in the morning slot on 710-KIRO, Prell was suddenly fired, much to the dismay of his growing audience. Back when Prell was substituting for Dave Ross during the summer of 2004, I had the pleasure of debating Tim Eyman on his show, and man did he stick it to Timmy for not answering the questions. It was loads of fun.

I’ll be bringing a special guest too, who insists on making an early evening of it (out by 9 PM,) so I hope Prell shows up in a timely fashion.

Redmond Rev. Ken Hutcherson celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day by promoting discrimination of gays, announcing that he would use an appearance Thursday on the national theo-con talk show, Focus on the Family, to call for a boycott of Microsoft, Boeing and other companies who support gay rights legislation.

“We’re tired of sitting around thinking that morals can be ignored in our country,” he said. “This is not a threat, this is a promise.”

Yeah… sure it is, Ken. In fact, I betcha that not a single member of your Antioch Bible Church will buy a Boeing jetliner this year. That’s gotta be bad for business.

As for Microsoft, well… asking people to boycott Microsoft is pretty much like asking people to boycott oxygen.

But good luck there too Ken. I’ve seen a better than 1000 percent return on my Apple Computer stock over the past few years, and I’m all for anything that bumps it even higher. (Though once your parishioners dump their Windows boxes and buy Macs, I’m wondering what word processor or spreadsheet they’re gonna use?)

One question though…

Hutcherson said he’s not telling companies to change their own internal policies on gay rights. He just doesn’t want them influencing lawmakers with their support.

“Don’t step in our world, we won’t step in yours,” he said.

Um… so… your world, Ken, is influencing lawmakers? And I always thought church had something to do with, you know… religion.

Former Vice President Al Gore, gave a major speech today before the American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition, in which he compared the current wiretapping scandal to the secret surveillance of Martin Luther King Jr. that partially prompted the FISA legislation President Bush has ignored. Gore also called for the appointment of a special counsel to conduct a thorough investigation. A complete transcript is available at Raw Story, but here are a few excerpts that particularly struck me.

At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA’s domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution – our system of checks and balances – was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution – an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

…

The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.

…

Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well. And the next President may be someone whose values and belief you do not trust. And this is why Republicans as well as Democrats should be concerned with what this President has done. If this President’s attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.

…

But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power.
…
The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.
…
It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re supposed to be.

Al Gore has transformed himself into one of the few, true statesmen we have on the political scene today. This is an important speech that will most likely be ignored by the mainstream media. So please, read it for yourself.

UPDATE:
Crooks and Liars has video clips of some rousing excerpts. Man… I hope Gore runs for president in 2008.

Dr. Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (the “Intelligent Design” propaganda mill,) and the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth, one of the primary “textbooks” with which Discovery promotes ID into schools.

And according to a post by DarkSyde over on Daily Kos, Dr. Wells is also a Moonie:

[Link] Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

The “Father” Wells is referring to is none other than Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Well’s education at both Yale and Berkley was funded by Moon’s Unification Church. He’s been a devout ‘Moonie’ for decades.

Hmm. When I was a kid, the Unification Church was considered to be some sort of dangerous, wacky cult; real Christians would actually hire “deprogrammers” to kidnap their kids out of the clutch of the Moonies and reverse their brainwashing. Nowadays, the billionaire Rev. Moon, with all his money and media (he owns The Washington Times and United Press International) has become an integral part of the Republican power structure.

Now, as a Jew, I’ve always had a tough time distinguishing one Christian sect from another; they all seem a little cultish to me. (I mean, transubstantiation… that’s just plain weird.) So the mainstreaming of Moonism doesn’t strike me as all that shocking. But wouldn’t you have thought that the right-wing Evangelicals and Catholics who have embraced Rev. Moon as a political ally would have been a little more put off by the fact that, say… he claims to be the Messiah?

In any case, the fact that one of the main scientists at the heart of ID theory is a devout Moonie who under Moon’s guidance chose to “devote my life to destroying Darwinism” doesn’t say much for the intellectual underpinnings of the theory. As expected, DarkSyde quickly and easily picks apart Wells’ logic and lies. Give it a read.

Dear Chairman Vance,

I cannot tell you how sorry I am to see you step down as chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, as you and I have worked so well together over recent years, apparently pursuing the same goal (you know… electing Democrats.) But the end of your political career is an opportunity for a new chapter in mine, and so I am pleased to officially put my name in for consideration as the new state GOP chair.

A Democratic partisan like me leading the state Republicans? Why the sudden change of heart?

Well, I can’t say that my recent snubbing by the Seattle City Council hasn’t impacted my decision to switch sides, but mostly it’s because I’ve always enjoyed the challenge of tilting at windmills, and I can’t think of anything more quixotic than seeking to turn around the state GOP’s fortunes after your disastrous leadership. Besides, I could use the money.

While a stridently liberal and foul-mouthed, Democratic blogger like me may not seem like the obvious choice to lead the state GOP to victory, I believe that I would bring to the chairmanship a unique and valuable strategic prospective sorely missing from the lobbyists-in-training and anti-scientific knuckle-draggers who have come to dominate the party’s leadership. For example, I doubt any other candidate is willing to tell the central committee the blunt truth… that state Republicans simply cannot win on the issues… that party leaders are too far out of touch with reality, let alone the mainstream of public opinion, to ever have hopes of gaining a majority.

What would Chairman Goldstein do to change this? Well, I suppose state Republicans could just start listening to voters, but hah… we both know that’s not going to happen. So I suggest that if the GOP wants to avoid achieving permanent minority status, the next chairman is going to have to start playing dirty.

No, stop laughing. I know you think you’ve been playing dirty all along. But I’m talking real dirty. Rolling in the muck, swallowing it, shitting it out, and eating your own excrement dirty. You know… Karl Rove dirty.

The King County GOP’s last-minute voter registration challenge was a good start and all, but the new state chair has to start thinking bigger and, well… dirtier. And if you ask the righties in my comment threads, they’ll tell you there’s nobody more qualified for that job than me.

So here are a few of the proposals and policy initiatives I intend to implement to promote the GOP’s proud agenda, should I be elected the new chairman of the Washington State Republican Party:

Katherine Harris for Secretary of State.
I mean, really… what’s the use of electing a Republican Secretary of State if when it comes to administering close elections, he’s just going to follow the law for chrisakes? Us Republicans need an SOS who understands that party loyalty always comes before petty, bureaucratic dictates like, say, the RCW, the state Constitution, or “personal ethics.” If we’d had a party stalwart like Katherine Harris in charge instead of that pussy Sam Reed, Dino Rossi would be governor today. Hell, with Harris as SOS, Will Baker would likely be State Auditor!

Purge the rolls.
And I don’t just mean the voter registration rolls. I mean every roll that produces any sort of official ID: driver’s licensing, library cards, Costco memberships… you name it. Combine that with a provision that requires photo ID to register to vote, and voila… we’ll have finally cleaned the voter rolls of all those pesky voters.

Institute a Poll Tax.
Man, those Democrats sure do love raising taxes, don’t they? Just dedicate a Poll Tax towards some knee-jerk, liberal, pork barrel, waste-of-money like education or health care for sick children, and those dumb schmucks Frank Chopp and Lisa Brown will do our dirty work for us. The Dems disenfranchising their own voters? It’s like taking candy from a baby… only sweeter.

Lynchings.
Anne Coulter’s got it right. Nothing like hanging a few aging hippies from the Fremont bridge to keep all those uppity liberals in their place.

As you can see, what I lack in party loyalty, conservative ideology, and qualifications, I more than make up for in sheer ruthlessness. I look forward to being invited to participate in a vigorous debate with my fellow candidates, and the opportunity to give the Washington state GOP the kind of leadership it deserves.

Sincerely,

David Goldstein
HorsesAss.org

Whooh. Just got the Friday open thread in before midnight. Have at it.

Because I spend so much time whining and pontificating about politics, and telling our elected officials how to do their job (I’m a blogger… that’s what we do,) I feel have a special obligation to directly participate in the political process. And so from time to time I venture down to Olympia to testify on bills I feel strongly about one way or another.

Yesterday I dragged myself out of bed and drove down for an 8 AM hearing before the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Elections, to testify on behalf of SB 6362, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Wells bill to reform voter registration challenge provisions. It was one of those odd moments, where you had a distinguished panel consisting of Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger (representing the Assoc. of County Auditors,) Secretary of State Sam Reed, and… um… me. And we were all pretty much in agreement, supporting the bill.

SB 6352 has a number of major provisions, summarized as follows:

• Major political parties may file a contact name with the county auditor to receive notice of voter challenges. Challenged voters will also receive contact information of party representatives. Parties who object to the challenge may present testimony and evidence to the canvas board.
• Challenges against voters who registered more than 60 days before the election may be filed no later than 45 days before the election; challenges against voters who filed less than 60 days before the election may be challenged no later than ten days before the election.
• A challenged voter may transfer or re-register until the day before the election.
• Party observers may challenge the qualifications of any absentee voter who registered to vote less than sixty days before the election at the time the signature on the return envelope is verified and the ballot is processed.
• A registered voter challenging the registration of another based on residency must provide the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
• A challenged ballot shall not be counted if the challenge is based on felony conviction, mental incompetency, age, or citizenship, and the canvassing board sustains the challenge. If the challenge is based on residency and the canvassing board sustains the challenge, then the challenged voter shall be permitted to correct his or her registration and any races or measures on the challenged ballot that the voter would have been qualified to vote for had his or her registration been correct shall be counted.
• Voters who lack a traditional address will be registered at the location provided, but have the option of using the address of a county courthouse or other public building.

That’s a lot of stuff, but really, most of it shouldn’t be all that controversial. Sam Reed said he had some reservations about the provisions creating a role for the political parties… he was afraid it would inject “partisan politics” into a heretofore nonpartisan process. But as Sen. Adam Kline pointed out in response, the GOP already injected politics into the process when they made their highly partisan last-minute challenge in King County. I’ll get back to that later.

Both Reed and Terwilliger specifically voiced their support for changing the deadlines for filing challenges, noting that last minute challenges could present a huge procedural hurdle as elections departments prepare to administer an election. Hard to argue with that. Besides, nothing in the law prohibits a party or anyone else from presenting information about improperly registered voters without filing a formal challenge. If the information was truly compelling, public pressure would force elections officials to act.

But for me, the most important provisions are the ones that allow a challenged voter to change their registration up to a day before the election, and which allows the ballots of voters whose challenges were upheld to be counted in all applicable races for which the voter was otherwise eligible. It should be remembered that the purpose of our voter registration laws is to maintain the integrity of our voter rolls, not to disqualify otherwise eligible voters on a gotcha.

Of the nearly 2000 last minute registration challenges filed by Republicans last October, only a few dozen ballots were disqualified, and of these there was not a single piece of evidence indicating voter fraud. Rather, these were voters improperly registered at mail boxes and other non-residential addresses, likely because the voter was unaware that this was prohibited. (The voter registration form does not specifically instruct the applicant that a residential street address must be used.) I cannot imagine a compelling moral or social argument for disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters if their registrations can be corrected before certification.

If we continue to allow ballots to be disqualified due to registration technicalities, then partisan groups will continue to attempt to exploit these technicalities for partisan gain.

As to my own testimony, well, I was kind of winging it, but I’ll try to reproduce it here to the best of my memory. I had expected others to testify on the specifics of the bill, so I decided to focus on the rationale.

As Sen. Kohl-Welles had explained in her own testimony, this bill was largely prompted by the GOP’s massive, last-minute voter registration challenge just days before the November election. I told the committee that I was one of the few people in the room yesterday who also attended the King County Canvas Board hearings in November, and who witnessed the challenger, Lori Sotelo, repeatedly admit that she had no personal knowledge of the challenged voter, their residence, or their eligibility. And so I wanted to take the opportunity to briefly read some excerpts from a transcript in which an attorney representing a challenged voter confronted the challenger:

ATTORNEY: You filed a challenge to the voting residence of Catherine Ann Herold, who lives at 234 30th St. NW; is that correct?

CHALLENGER: I did.

ATTORNEY: And have you ever been to that residence?

CHALLENGER: No.

ATTORNEY: Do you know Catherine Ann Herrold?

CHALLENGER: No, I don’t.

ATTORNEY: You have indicated in this challenge form that you believe that she does not live at that residence; is that correct?

CHALLENGER: That’s correct.

ATTORNEY: Do you have any personal knowledge as we stand here today that Ms. Herrold does not live at the address…

CHALLENGER: Only that which was my impression…

ATTORNEY: And who gave you that impression?

CHALLENGER: Attorney Jim Simon… He’s an officer of the party.

ATTORNEY: An officer of which party?

CHALLENGER: The Republican party.

Anybody who attending the canvass board hearings — who heard Sotelo admit that her “personal knowledge” often consisted of little more than a Google search conducted by an intern or a volunteer — would find this transcript very familiar. “However…” I told the Committee, dramatically waving the transcript in my hand, “This was not a transcript from the King County Canvas Board in November of 2005, but rather a transcript from a similar proceeding in Summit County, OH in October of 2004,” in which the OH state GOP challenged thousands of voters in the weeks before the election, having conducted little or no due diligence. (All the challenges were thrown out.)

In fact, what we witnessed this past election was not an isolated incident, it was not unique to WA state politics, and it was not even a direct response to our excruciatingly close 2004 gubernatorial election. This was part of a coordinated, national voter suppression and intimidation campaign conducted by the GOP and their surrogates, who have set up similar “Voter Integrity Projects” nationwide.

And it is only the tip of the iceberg. State GOP chair Chris Vance has all but promised additional challenges, and KC GOP chair Mike Young was overheard boasting that they had an additional 20,000 challenges waiting in the wings. Waiting for what? Well… the final days before the 2006 election I presume.

Unless the major provisions of SB 6362 are enacted into law.

Well… almost.

In a truly despicable act of political grandstanding, the state GOP is robo-calling voters, accusing Democratic legislators of supporting sex offenders by blocking legislation that would put child molesters in jail for life. Calls have been reported in the following legislative districts:

26th: Reps. Kilmer and Lantz
17th: Rep. Wallace
47th: Reps. Simpson and Sullivan
25th: Rep. Dawn Morrell
28th: Rep. Tami Green

This is a complete and utter load of crap, and an offensive and heavy-handed politicization of a bipartisan issue. The GOP should be ashamed of itself. (Of course, it never is.)

Here’s what really happened. On the first day of session the Republicans set up a procedural motion to call for a vote on 116-page legislative package that absolutely no one had read… not prosecutors, not police officers, not victim’s advocates, and of course… not a single member of the state legislature. (I bet you even the bill’s sponsors hadn’t read it entirely.)

To vote on such a bill under those circumstances would be totally irresponsible, and the GOP knew it. That’s why they had TV ads and robo-calls in the can, waiting for Democrats to reject the motion. This was nothing more than a stunt… a stunt that cruelly preys on the emotions of victims and their families.

UPDATE:
KUOW’s Austin Jenkins has more on the larger story.

I haven’t written about GOPolitburo Chairman Chris Vance stepping down from his post, because I thought I had a good joke in the making, but I just couldn’t come up with the punch line. Vance and outgoing Dem Chairman Paul Berendt stepped down within weeks of each other, both announcing that they were seeking “other opportunities.” Both also seemed extraordinarily gracious in remarking on the other’s departure.

The joke, I thought, was that they would be going into business together… but as what?

A professional juggling team? A standup comedy act? Amway salesmen? A road production of the Vagina Monologues?

Well… punch line or no, it turns out the joke may be on me. The hot and heavy rumor around lobbying circles is that Vance is joining the Gallatin Group as a lobbyist. But Gallatin also apparently is claiming that they’ll be bringing on a “Democratic heavyweight.”

Could that be Berendt?

Hmm. Vance and Berendt as a lobbying team. Strange… but not funny.

While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:

NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.

NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.

NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.

NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.

NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.

NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.

COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.

It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.

Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.

And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)

Yeah, yeah… “liberal media” and all that. You know, liberal like the National Review Online:

The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff’s skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country’s most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff’s recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

Ooops. Somebody strayed from the GOP talking points.

I don’t want to litter my other threads with Alito debate, and I don’t feel like covering it myself at the moment, so here’s an open thread where you can all have at it.

So… have at it.

So I go to the list of applicants for the open seat on the Seattle City Council to try to figure out what time I might get my three minutes to speak tomorrow, and what do I find? I’m not on the fucking list!

Are they arrogant, incompetent, or just plain stupid?

I’m sure the Council received my letter — it was quoted in The Seattle Times. So what’s the deal? Did they reject me on some unwritten technicality? Did the downtown-centric members mistakenly believe that my South Seattle neighborhood was outside city limits? Did they simply choose not to take my candidacy seriously? Did they have that right?

We all know there are only a handful of serious contenders, and us other ninety-some applicants are mostly a bunch of crackpots. Yet the one crackpot to whom they choose to summarily deny consideration, is the one crackpot with the loudest voice. I mean, what do they possibly have to gain by dissing one of the most widely read and influential bloggers in the state? (Um… that would be me.)

“Oh sure,” they might say, “he wasn’t a serious candidate. He used the words ‘fuck’, ‘shit’, ‘prick’, and ‘asshole’ in his application.”

Well… fuck that.

Not a serious candidate? I see they’re giving Al Runte his three minutes, and yet when I personally suggested his name to Jean Godden a couple weeks ago, she actually laughed! I mean sure, Al’s got a funny last name and all, but Jean literally waved me off laughing at the thought of appointing him to the open seat. Really.

So Al they’ll humor, but me… not so much.

Which, from a media outreach perspective, is just plain dumb, because that private exchange between me and Jean is exactly the type of incident I wouldn’t have blogged on… if the Council hadn’t just given me the finger. (Fair warning to Peter Steinbrueck: next time you’re at the Intiman, you better start of all your sentences with “off the record”… you never know who might be seated near you.)

Yeah, I know I wrote an irreverent, foul-mouthed application letter, but that still didn’t give them the right reject it. And if the Council really didn’t want me to speak due to concerns about time, decorum, or anything else… all they had to do was politely ask.

For the irony is, I wasn’t even planning to speak tomorrow anyway. When I saw how many crackpot 3-minute speeches they’d have to sit through, I decided not to burden them with my own. Why? Because I had too much respect for the council members.

“Had” being the operative word.

UPDATE:
I just received a reply from the Council in response to my inquiry:

The application process, described on the Council’s web page and in press releases, required that applicants send both a Letter of Interest and a resume. There is no record of receiving a resume from you; therefore, you were not considered an eligible candidate.

Well, really, that’s a load of shit… an excuse to keep me out of the process. When I first sent my application, they emailed back that they couldn’t print it out properly. If they technically needed a separate piece of paper with the word “Resume” on it, they could have told me, and I could have given them that too. Not that I would have put anything else on it.

As far as I’m concerned, this is just like the time the Attorney General sued me because my initiative was “outside the scope” of the initiative process, when they let some filings stand that weren’t even complete sentences.

As far as I’m concerned, the Council, like much of government, is filled with a bunch of fearful, self-serious, humorless drones. They need to lighten up.

The Seattle Times’ Danny Westneat sticks it to the editorial boards… including his own:

So our state’s senior senator, Patty Murray, is keeping $35,000 in campaign donations she got from clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Good for her. She’s one of the few politicians or pundits who understand what this corruption scandal is really about. Since Abramoff copped to a congressional bribery scheme last week, fearful politicians, including our other senator, Maria Cantwell, have been skittering to toss back hundreds of thousands of dollars in perfectly legal contributions from Indian tribes that once used Abramoff’s lobbying services.

Now, the editorial boards of three local newspapers, including my own, are pounding on Murray to do the same.

“It is simply not OK to profit from ill-gotten gains,” scolded The Columbian of Vancouver, Wash., telling Murray to return the “tainted money.”

But Murray is going with her gut. Her contributions were not from Abramoff, she says, and were “legally given, legally reported and legally spent.”

In comments that will have her colleague Cantwell squirming, Murray says returning the money is a hollow stunt to make politicians look good.

“I will not rush to scapegoat those tribes who have already been victimized by Jack Abramoff,” Murray wrote in a letter to The Seattle Times. “Your easy answer would be fine if all I wanted was to score cheap points on being ‘clean.’ “

I was getting pretty sick and tired of hearing self-righteous editorialists playing into the GOP propaganda mill, preaching to Democrats to give back these campaign contributions. Such admonitions would lead you to believe that Dems were somehow involved in this scandal. They weren’t.

Not a single Democrat received a dime of money from Abramoff. Not a dime.

This is a GOP scandal, and to attempt to shame Dems into giving back unrelated contributions from tribes, simply because they also happened to be Abramoff clients, is a misleading, disingenuous, and absurd game of blame the victim.

Abramoff and his GOP buddies screwed the tribes… they defrauded them, bilked them, robbed them blind! And as a result, the public should be led to believe that all tribal contributions are tainted?

What a load of crap.

Thanks, Danny, for calling it what it is.