HorsesAss.Org

On Wednesday, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly criticized the efforts of Republicans in Congress to turn Puget Sound into an oil super-port, by repealing the Magnuson Amendment’s 28-year ban on supertankers. The subterfuge came in the Orwellian named Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005, a cynical effort by the oil industry to exploit the post-Katrina surge in gas prices to shrug off decades of environmental regulations.

Today Connelly writes that the provision has been axed, after bipartisan pressure from WA state’s congressional delegation.

Before the provision’s eleventh hour deletion, Jimmy at the Tri-City based blog McCranium reminded us that Eastern Washington has a stake in protecting the environment too, suggesting that it was an opportunity for Rep. Doc Hastings, who sits on the House Rules Committee, to “show some real leadership.”

But alas, Hastings was silent as usual, leaving it to Western Washington’s lone Republican, freshman Rep. Dave Reichert, to join Reps. Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks in pressuring the Republican leadership. And no doubt House Speaker Dennis Hastert also found Sen. Maria Cantwell’s threat of a Senate filibuster quite persuasive.

Lifting the restrictions, Cantwell wrote, “would expose Puget Sound waters to an unacceptably increased risk of future oil spills.”

Cantwell reminded Hastert that federal law allows Washington to import only enough crude oil to serve state needs. In reality, the state refines slightly more than it needs and exports most of the surplus to Oregon and California.

“It would be a most outrageous result were the House to pass legislation that puts the Puget Sound at risk, for the benefit of oil companies who seek only to export the additional supply needed to lower domestic fuel costs,” Cantwell wrote “Such a result would take the notion of post-hurricane profiteering to a whole new level of shamefulness.”

And in case Hastert missed the point, she added: “I want to stress to you, Mr. Speaker, that because this issue is extremely important to me and to millions of constituents that live around the Puget Sound, I will use all tools in my power to stop this provision from becoming law.”

As Connelly writes, “it still pays to raise hell,” and fortunately, WA’s congressional delegation still has a few hell raisers.

Like most major corporations, Microsoft has a habit of covering its bases by giving to both parties; the goal is to have access to the halls of government, regardless of who holds power. But Microsoft has been decidedly one-sided this election season, giving $25,000 to the WA State GOP and $5,000 to the King County GOP… while giving the Democratic Party zilch.

I find this awfully curious in light of the Gates Foundation’s inexcusable support of the Discovery Institute, and Microsoft’s embarrassing flip-flop-flip on HB 1515, a bill that would have extended protections against discrimination in housing, lending and employment to gays and lesbians… a bill that failed by one vote. I also find this favoritism ironic, considering that Microsoft’s only other contribution was $10,000 to oppose I-912, an initiative the WA State GOP has officially endorsed.

In a political system so heavily influenced by money, Microsoft has the financial might to completely skew the balance of power in WA state. Considering its recent political track record, and its close ties to conservative Republican operatives like Ralph Reed, I think it’s time that Microsoft’s customers, employees and shareholders start questioning how Gates & Company plans to wield this power.

From President Bush’s speech today before the National Endowment for Democracy:

“Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.”

Amen.

The other day I received an email from Dean Nielsen of Progressive Majority for Washington, announcing an exciting, 7-month long political training program for young progressives age 21 to 35.

The Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF) is now accepting applications for the Class of 2006, it’s 9th class.

IDF was founded in 1997 by young people seeking to educate, motivate and inspire future Democratic and civic leaders in Washington state. Since graduating its first class in 1998, IDF has emerged as a forward thinking institute dedicated to assisting 25 emerging leaders each year expand their skill and knowledge of critical issues and the political process.

Graduates of the program include State Representative Derek Kilmer ’02, WashTech Founder Marcus Coutney ’98, former Seattle City Councilmember Judy Nicastro ’99, current Brier City Councilmember Sasha Doolittle ’01, State Representative Aaron Peterson ’00 (MN), and numerous legislative assistants, party activists, young professionals, non-profit organization executives and political campaigners.

Shit. I am so old. But if you are serious about pursuing a political career — and you’re not an old fogey like me — I highly recommend you visit the IDF website and download an application today. Applications must be postmarked by Nov. 8, and will be considered on a rolling basis.

Last night’s Drinking Liberally was quite a gathering. A large crowd showed up to meet King County Executive Ron Sims and pepper him with questions on everything from light rail to avian flu… and Sims enthusiastically threw himself into the debate. And Sims wasn’t the only candidate in attendance; both Dwight Pelz and Al Runte distinguished themselves by being the first politicians to actually make a return visit… though when I congratulated Runte on this feat, the retired history professor objected to being labeled a politician.

Sorry Al… that’s the sort of mud people are going to sling at you when you run for office.

One of my favorite moments of the night was an extended and contentious back and forth between Sims and a DL regular on the merits of Southwest Airlines controversial proposal to move to Boeing Field. Personally, I oppose the Southwest deal, mostly for my own selfish, NIMBY reasons. (I live near Boeing Field, and don’t particularly welcome the extra road or air traffic.) But what struck me most was the vigor with which Sims argued his position, not just with a constituent, but with a supporter. Sims already had this guy’s vote, and he knew it. And yet he not only dove into the debate with the passionate abandon of… well… just some guy at DL… he clearly had a great time doing it.

This was not the run-of-the-mill retail politics all candidates must master in order to win — though Sims is good at that sort of stuff too. This was an expression of joy from a man who clearly loves diving into the nitty-gritty of politics and policy.

In case you’re interested, the gist of Sims argument is that the Southwest deal would be good for consumers, while adding jobs to South Seattle. He wants to study the proposal, but would only approve it if noise abatement and traffic concerns can be adequately addressed with no public subsidy… a stance that he repeats in Bruce Ramsey’s column in today’s Seattle Times. Sims also points out the irony of him being attacked by members of the business community for considering such a free market proposal.

“I thought government’s role was to establish infrastructure so that wealth could be made by the private sector,” Sims says. “This is so anti-free enterprise.” He pauses for a moment. “I’m a Democrat,” he says. “For the first time in my political life I’m unabashedly on the free-enterprise side and being criticized by the people who are supposed to be on that side.”

Ramsey for his part, is consistent in his pro-business stance:

The Southwest offer is the real thing. And in keeping his door open to real competition, rivalry and choice, Ron Sims is on the side of the traveling public.

Agreed. While I sure hope Sims eventually shuts that door, it’s hard to blame him for opening it in the first place.

From today’s Seattle P-I:

A recount in the King County sheriff’s primary race revealed 18 ballots that weren’t counted in the initial tally — an embarrassing misstep for an elections department trying to repair its image after a troubled 2004 election.

And embarrassing misstep. Hmm. But is it?

A new state law passed since last fall allows elections officials to include ballots discovered in the count, Bascom said.

“There’s no question that the errors are unfortunate. They’re the kind of thing we don’t like to see.

“But there have been a lot of improvements since the last election,” Bascom said. She added that election workers discovered the ballots during the county’s reconciliation process and counted them.

So actually, the ballots were counted after all. The reconciliation process worked. That’s a good thing, right?

I dunno… just doesn’t seem all that embarrassing to me.

UPDATE:
One clarification… the ballots were found during the recount, not because of it. These ballots were discovered during the reconciliation process, due to new, stricter controls. Thus, these ballots represent no error rate at all, as they were counted during the normal procedures that are now in place.

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

King County Executive Ron Sims will be joining us for some good beer and even better conversation. If you have any questions for Ron, I urge you stop on by and weigh in. Should be a great evening.

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay is once again getting his money’s worth from the man he installed as chairman of the House Ethics Committee. In an interview published today in The Yakima Herald, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Pasco) responded to questions about DeLay’s indictment on conspiracy charges, by actually quoting the disgraced, former House Majority Leader:

“The majority leader has said this is a political vendetta […] if you look at Ronnie Earle’s background, he’s done these things.”

Uh-huh.

The normally low-profile Hastings’ — who has pocketed $5,930 of ARMPAC cash, and who has his own potential ethics problems — was best known for accomplishing little if anything in office… a track record of non-accomplishment and inaction that made him perfectly suited to chairing an Ethics Committee the GOP leadership would prefer remain marginalized by partisan bickering. All DeLay demanded in return for the plum assignment was absolute loyalty, and that’s exactly what Hastings plans to deliver.

Whatever the ethics panel does with DeLay, it will not pursue the same line of inquiry as the Texas district attorney, Hastings said.

“We don’t have the resources,” he said, adding that historically, panels have not tried to duplicate outside investigations.

As he has done consistently, Hastings declined to comment on anything the committee might be considering with regards to DeLay, citing House rules.

Yeah, that’s right… Hastings declined to comment on what the Committee might do in regards to DeLay… except to say that DeLay is a victim of a “political vendetta”, that Ronnie Earle has a history of blatant partisanship, and that the committee doesn’t plan to investigate the conspiracy charges.

Hey Doc… ever hear of the phrase “No comment”…?

What we have under Hastings and Republican control, is a House Ethics Committee that has totally abdicated it’s responsibility to monitor and regulate the ethics of House members. Given his prior statements, it is hard not to be cynical when Hastings tells the Herald:

“All of us are aware we have to do what is ethically right.”

The question is whether Hastings and his colleagues will actually do what they know to be ethically right? And Hastings’ answer to the Herald was apparently, “No.”

[Cross-posted to Daily Kos]

The Seattle P-I’s Chris McGann has an article on Initiative 912, and in addition to the usual mean-spirited lying bullshit from the likes of GOPolitburo chair Chris Vance and I-912 spokesman Bret Bader, it also includes some mighty fine political analysis:

David Goldstein, founder of the liberal blog horsesass.org, said a big part of the grass-roots support for Initiative 912 was anger about the gubernatorial vote.

“They really sold it from Day One as getting back at Queen Christine,” he said. “It was a great move in terms of keeping their ratings going, because they moved from one big issue and used that to create another.”

Goldstein said the issues have snowballed.

He said polls show if Rossi, who as a state senator voted for a nickel-per-gallon gas tax in 2003, would come out in support of the gas tax, I-912 would fail.

Man… that Goldstein guy really knows what he’s talking about.

For weeks, Goldstein has been calling for Rossi to take a position. Rossi’s spokeswoman, Mary Lane, said Goldstein shouldn’t hold his breath.

“This is Christine Gregoire’s baby,” she said. “It’s her job to defend it.”

Lane said Rossi is “taking a well-deserved break from politics.”

Yeah… that’s right… if you’re going to take a break from politics, the first thing you need to get yourself… is a spokesperson.

Gimme a break. We all know Rossi’s running for governor in 2008, and when his spokesperson smugly refers to the controversy surrounding I-912 as “Christine Gregoire’s baby,” what she’s telling us is that her boss cares more about politics than policies.

If Gov. Gregoire had won by a couple thousand votes instead of a couple hundred… if there’d been no recount, no election contest, and no dishonest PR campaign designed to convince voters that the election was stolen… then there’d be no initiative. I-912 is Dino Rossi’s baby, and if it passes because its patron saint shrewdly and cynically remains silent, then the consequences are on his head.

And so I ask once again: “Where’s Rossi?” Here’s hoping this time, Lane lets her boss speak for himself.

Well… he might have nominated the disgraced, former FEMA director, but Mike Brown lacked the one crucial qualification needed for this particular appointment: a vagina. And so in his ongoing quest to fill the government with appointees even less qualified than himself, President Bush has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers — a woman with absolutely no judicial experience — to the “girly seat” being vacated by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Apparently, in the Bush administration, the only prerequisite for appointment to high office is to have none.

Undoubtedly, Bush intended Miers to be a stealth nominee, with no judicial record to trip her up during confirmation hearings. But it’s funny how these things work out, and clearly, Republicans are a helluva lot more pissed off by her nomination than Democrats. Over on Daily Kos the early talk is about a political and judicial win-win for the D’s. One thread describes the upcoming confirmation hearings as “pure gold“, an opportunity to explore Miers’ involvement in a number of White House controversies, from Bush’s service (or lack thereof) in the National Guard, to PlameGate, to the administration’s illegal and immoral use of torture. And Kos himself writes:

Several Democrats, including Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision.

I reserve the right to change my mind, but Miers’ biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that’s the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I’m willing to pay it.

And that “right-wing meltdown” appears well under way. Former White House speechwriter David “Axis of Evil” Frum was so scathing in his comments on his blog at the National Review, that he actually went back and excised the middle paragraph:

Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is impossible to me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse – or resist the blandishments – that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.

She rose to her present position by her absolute devotion to George Bush. I mentioned last week that she told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. To flatter on such a scale a person must either be an unscrupulous dissembler, which Miers most certainly is not, or a natural follower. And natural followers do not belong on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Nor is it safe for the president’s conservative supporters to defer to the president’s judgment and say, “Well, he must know best.” The record shows I fear that the president’s judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters.

And I couldn’t be more cheered to read that William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, is “disappointed, depressed and demoralized“…

the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn’t. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

I’m demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

Where does Miers stand on the issues of the day? Who the hell knows. But, if you really want the nitty-gritty dirt on Miers, Wonkette dishes up the kind of personal profile you aren’t likely to find in the MSM:

• She is immensely, perhaps irrationally, into birthdays: “She always remembers everybody’s birthday, and has a present for them. She’ll be finding a present for somebody in the middle of the night…. ‘Can’t it wait until next week?’ ‘No,’ she’d say, ‘It has to be done now.'”
• She has dated Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht “over the years.” [NOTE: Absolutely no other article online mentions this fascinating fact.]
• She’s nit-picky micromanager who failed upwards at the White House: “She failed in Card’s office for two reasons,” the [former White House] official says. “First, because she can’t make a decision, and second, because she can’t delegate, she can’t let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.”
• Not even the president can think of much interesting to say about her: In 1996, at an Anti-Defamation League Jurisprudence Award ceremony, Bush introduced Miers as a “pit bull in Size 6 shoes,” a tag line that has persisted through the years, in part because colorful anecdotes or descriptions about Miers are notoriously difficult to find.

We’re not even that excited about her being gay.

I’m guessing we’ll get a lot clearer picture of the nominee over the next few days as Democrats leak the reasons for their early support, and GOP right wingers turn on their own in a cannibalistic fury. This nomination could be fun.

Oops. It looks like Pete von Reichbauer has had one of those Cindi Laws moments. The King County Journal reports that the councilman offended several leaders of the Asian-American community when an unfinished draft of his campaign website “accidentally” went live, displaying a list of endorsements that included “various and sundry Asian people”… twenty-one times.

The campaign has since wiped the site clean, but WashBlog has been courteous enough to provide a screen shot as a public service.

Von Reichbauer appeared unfazed by the controversy, displaying an air of bored disinterest, while assuming the buck-stops-somewhere attitude recently adopted by Republicans nationwide.

“This is the first time I’ve ever had a Web site,” von Reichbauer said. “You’ve inspired me to take some interest in it.”

Hey Pete… here’s a little free political consulting for you. The correct answer was: “I’m sorry.”

Von Reichbauer blamed a legislative aide named Viet Nguyen for having a “cute” sense of humor. Nguyen said he and fellow council staffer Joe Fain were developing the site, but that it was a rough draft not meant for public consumption.

Which of course raises another question entirely: um, exactly how many council staffers does von Reichbauer have working on his campaign… and are they doing it on the taxpayer’s dime? Perhaps we can inspire the councilman to take some interest in this issue as well.

UPDATE:
As it turns out, Viet Nguyen actually works on the council staff for Raymond Shaw Reagan Dunn. Council staffers working on political campaigns? Hmm. This is exactly the sort of potential scandal our friend Stefan would dive into… that is, if it involved Democrats.

Tony and Pulitzer prize winning playwright August Wilson died today of liver cancer, at Swedish Hospital in Seattle. A Seattle resident since 1990, Wilson will be remembered as one of the greatest American playwrights of the last quarter century. He will be missed.

Damn you Seattle Times…! Damn you all to hell!

First they dump columnist Collin Levey, ending my months-long obsession with the bar-hopping, right wing echo chamber apparatchik. (I love you, Collin!) And now the editorial board starts publishing editorials I actually agree with. What’s next… Frank Blethen championing a state income tax?

In fact, I don’t just agree with today’s editorial asking voters to reject both Initiative 330 and Initiative 336… I wholeheartedly agree with its core thesis.

THE rhetoric surrounding Initiative 330 and Initiative 336 is testament to why such complex issues

Share:

• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print

Yesterday I mentioned an Arizona Republic article that documents former FEMA chief Mike Brown’s rocky, litigation strewn tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association, and the “sham” legal defense fund that eventually led to his resignation. In an open letter to Brownie’s attorney, Andy Lester, Darryl at Hominid Views focuses on a part of the story I’ve pretty much ignored thus far: what exactly happened to the money in the fund? Darryl writes:

You and I know that Brownie was more than happy to add the following clause to section III paragraph I of the separation agreement between Brown and the IAHA, “[b]y October 1, 2000, Mr. Brown will cause to be contributed from the Michael D. Brown Legal Defense Fund Trust to the IAHA Legal Defense Fund the sum of $25,000.”

The only thing that puzzles me, Mr. Lester, is that it appears you took the money instead. It is probably just malicious misreporting by the liberal media when The Arizona Republic reports that:

Brown’s resignation agreement called for him to turn over the balance of the defense fund, which then totaled $25,000. Although a public accounting has not been given, Lester said the balance went to him in payment for legal services.

Don’t worry, Andy, even if you did take the money and run, I don’t think anyone will really notice. I mean, who would really connect the dots that the person who wrote an impassioned and indignant defense of Brownie, citing that he is “good, honest, compassionate, [and a] competent leader” could possibly be the same person who screwed the IAHA out of $25,000?

I’m not exactly sure what “the balance” refers to, but despite the fact that he was indemnified by the IAHA, Brown raised much more than $25,000 for his private legal defense, including a single $50,000 donation from one of the wealthy breeders who had a stake in his actions as commissioner. I have received emails from several IAHA members who have questioned whether Brown actually pocketed much of this money, though nobody has evidence one way or the other, as there has been no public accounting.

But as Darryl points out, the only person we know for sure to have profited from this “sham” fund was Brown’s attorney, Andy Lester. Which I guess made him the perfect, objective observer to defend Brown (and impugn my reporting) on the pages of Accuracy in Media. Uh-huh.

Whatever.