HorsesAss.Org

I’m back in Seattle, and I think my house has fleas. Just thought I’d let you know. Talk amongst yourselves.

Oh man… I’m moving:

Shocking news: granola-munching, monorail-worshiping, gay-rights-preaching, church-shunning, flannel-wearing, book-devouring, vegan-dining, obsessively recycling, salmon-protecting, pinot noir-sniffing, latte-sipping, war-protesting, bluer-than-blue-voting Seattle is not America’s brightest beacon of liberalism.

Not even close. Not even in the top 10. Not even the top 15.

As reported by Neil Modie in the Seattle P-I, Seattle ranks as only the 16th most liberal city according to a study by the Bay Area Center for Voting Research.

Personally, I’m not surprised. As a transplant, I’ve always found Seattle politics rather schizo, and never understood the common perception that it was especially liberal compared to other cities. But you know, the righties have their spin, and far be it from me to contradict it.

I’m blogging from Philadelphia this morning, on my way back to Seattle, and the top story in the papers here is, of course, T.O.’s meltdown and suspension from Eagle’s training camp. Reading the sports pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer, I was amused to read the comments of columnist Frank Fitzpatrick, who has a few suggestions should T.O. need to seek a new line work.

Blogger: He’s already extremely well-qualified. After all, he runs around in short pants, won’t leave his house, has no time for anything but his lone obsession (in this case, himself) and is committed to disseminating his own skewed version of the truth.
…
Radio talk-show host: Again, a natural. He’s already cruelly questioned the sexuality of one Pro Bowl quarterback, the heart and ability of another. He possesses the two major requirements for any good rabble-rouser – speaks without thinking and easily provokes rage.

Ouch.

Hmm. I’m wondering if I maybe I should pursue a career as a wide receiver?

One of the bizarre things about blogging is the amount of influence one can have with the MSM. Reporters and columnists routinely mine the blogosphere for ideas and information, and it is always a little odd to find my rhetoric or phrasing turning up in an op/ed piece several days after I blog on the same subject.

Well here’s a chance for you, my loyal readers, to join me in the exciting field of web punditry. The Seattle P-I is asking for your input on three subjects before publishing editorials on Monday, Aug. 15: (1) student education, (2) Rachel Corrie, and (3) car theft. If you have an opinion on these issues I strongly urge you to go to the page and add your comments.

This “Virtual Editorial Board” could be a very interesting experiment in open source journalism, and I’m curious to see the result. So if you could, please cross post your comments in this comment thread, so we can take a look back and so how you all did in influencing Monday’s editorials. Have at it.

From the Denver Post:

Renowned journalist Bob Woodward predicts Dick Cheney will be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2008 and that the vice president could face Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton in a dramatic partisan showdown.

Speaking in the Paepcke Auditorium as part of the Aspen Institute’s McCloskey Speaker Series, Woodward on Tuesday listed a number of reasons it is “highly likely” President Bush might implore Cheney to seek the Oval Office.

“He would be 67 if he ran and was elected. Reagan was 69. Republicans always like the old warhorse. … Nixon was 68 […] Both parties like to nominate vice presidents. … Cheney would do it, and I think it’s highly likely, so stay tuned.”

I echo the sentiments of Armando on Daily Kos: “God, please let it be true.”

Sure, I know some of you are thinking the Republicans couldn’t actually be so stupid as to put up Cheney as the nominee, but I would look at it as more an act of arrogance than stupidity. They might actually believe they could put up anybody and win. (Hmm. They may be right. But Republican efforts to fix elections is a subject for another post.)

I also think that a Cheney or Jeb Bush nomination would be a clear indication of how those in power need to maintain a tight control on power, so that the crimes they’ve committed are never allowed to come to light. You know, a President McCain might actually tattle on them.

I just had to say a few words about state Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders’ guest column yesterday in the Seattle Times: “Judge-election system works well.”

Um… no it doesn’t. For some unfathomable reason, WA is one of just four states that elects judges, yet places no campaign finance limits on judicial elections.

But if some elites of the Washington State Bar Association and political insiders have their way, this all could change. First on the agenda is capping individual contributions to judicial campaigns. Second is eliminating judicial elections altogether.

I’ll start with his second point first… nobody is talking about eliminating judicial elections altogether. Well… okay… maybe I have… but nobody of any significance is talking about it, as such a reform just wouldn’t fly with voters. (FYI, I would prefer a system of judicial appointments, with regular retention votes.)

Second (or is it first?), his attempt to pejoratively paint supporters of contribution limits as “elites” and “political insiders” is simply dishonest. I can tell you that I have heard talk of a possible initiative that would subject judicial campaigns to the same limits as other offices… and it hasn’t come from the Bar Association. It’s coming from citizen activists who are justifiably concerned about the fact that median spending on judicial races has more than doubled since 2000, with no end in sight.

As I’ve pointed out before, the BIAW spent over half a million dollars during the past two campaigns electing Justice Jim Johnson… nearly $200,000 in 2004. Now that one business group has bought itself a seat on the state Supreme Court, you can bet that other business groups will want to buy one too. And the same national organizations that launched a multimillion dollar smear campaign against Deborah Senn in the last election, is also spending tens of millions of dollars a year electing conservative, pro-business judges across the nation. We are only beginning to see the inevitable explosion in judicial campaign spending.

Justice Sanders’ arguments are filled with red herrings, especially his contention that contribution limits would encourage “independent expenditures.” There are limits on the content of independent expenditures, making them less useful to a campaign than direct contributions… but that’s beside the point. The real issue here is not whether contribution limits are good or bad, but whether there is any practical reason why judicial candidates should be exempt from the same campaign finance restrictions as every other elected official.

Indeed, one could argue that judicial campaigns are more in need of contribution limits. In its talking points on campaign finance reform, the King County Bar Association highlights the disturbing example of Cruise Specialists, Inc., which made political contributions totaling $112,000 in 2004, all of it to Justice Johnson’s campaign. The founder and president of the company was a defendant in a lawsuit, and found liable to the plaintiff for $18 million. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in a decision written by Judge Mary Kay Becker… Johnson’s campaign opponent.

It can’t be said for certain that the Lantermans gave $112,000 in order to defeat the judge who had affirmed a major jury verdict against them. But it is the case that these are the only contributions by this company in 2004 and that the contributions were made after the primary when it was clear that Judge Becker would face Johnson in the general election.

The CSI contributions send a chilling message to judges who must decide cases involving wealthy litigants. They illustrate the possibility that a disgruntled litigant can target a sitting judge. Campaign finance limits should be extended to judicial races for this reason if for no other. Judges must be insulated from the threat of overwhelming campaign contributions to their opponent as a method of revenge.

I find Justice Sanders argument that contribution limits would make judicial elections even more prone to influence from wealthy individuals and special interests to be convenient, but silly. I sincerely hope his judicial decisions are better reasoned that his op/ed pieces.

Carla over at Preemptive Karma has given our friend Stefan a sound spanking over his latest efforts to create a military ballot controversy where none exists. Last week, Stefan claimed he had documented proof that King County Elections sent out military ballots late. Carla responds:

No Stefan…you really don’t. I’ve been looking over your “documentation” at length. What you have is akin to a big roll of toilet paper.
…
I contacted both the Secretary of State’s office and King County Elections today to give them an opportunity to respond to your findings. My results were much different and infinitely more factual than yours, it appears.

Additionally and for future reference…just because someone doesn’t call you back to “dispute your findings” doesn’t make your findings correct. Brad Pitt has never contacted me to dispute my finding that he wants to put me up in a new home on the beach in Malibu. But I harbor no delusion that my “finding” is correct, either.

Yeah… ain’t that typically snarky rhetoric, huh? When Stefan writes that “King County did not dispute my findings,” what he really means is that they didn’t reply to his email. (Hmmm… come to think of it, Stefan never did respond to my post in which I repeatedly accused him of being an arrogant prick.)

Carla doesn’t bother to fisk Stefan’s spreadsheet, because quite frankly, it’s Stefan’s spreadsheet, so there’s no way of knowing whether the data is accurate once he’s finished futzing around with it. But while Stefan contorts the data in an effort to prove nefarious goings on in King County, he conveniently ignores documented evidence of problems with military ballots in five other counties… including Island County, which clearly failed to meet the federal deadline.

Why does Stefan focus solely on King County? Well apparently, he couldn’t give a rat’s ass about whether overseas military personnel really received their ballots on time (and they did,) or about whether the DOD or DOJ received any complaints from disenfranchised soldiers (they didn’t.) Clearly, Stefan’s main concern is discrediting King County Executive Ron Sims during the months leading up to the November election. I suppose that explains why 8 out of the last 10 posts to (u)SP are either direct attacks on Sims, or in some way disparage King County Elections.

It’s getting to the point where Stefan may want to report his web hosting fees as an in-kind donation to David Irons. That is, if he’s honest.

The Hunting of the Snark, Fit the Second

TJ over at Also Also piles on with his own recounting of Stefan’s documented history of poor predictions and shoddy, partisan analysis. As TJ points out, Stefan’s latest analysis isn’t any better:

I’m largely going to leave the military ballot thing to Preemptive Carla, because that’s been her gig from the start, and frankly it’s a pointless exercise of speculation on Stefan’s part that barely merits attention. I did review the materials to a certain extent, but it’s not currently fathomable why Stefan assumes that the only overseas ballots mailed out were in October and not before–since over 1,300 names appear to have been pulled from KC’s database by September 23. Carla gets the core issue correct: “It’s over Stefan. You lost. Deal with it.” That’s also the response he got from Nick Handy at the SoS, who didn’t seem to find a need to review Stefan’s materials, either.

TJ turns most of his attention towards Stefan’s latest round of attacks on Ron Sims, this time accusing the King County Executive of aiding and abetting his nephew in casting fraudulent votes. (Yes… that is what Stefan is implying.) Stefan doesn’t ask for comment… he doesn’t even wait until he has all the information he’s requested before publishing his “conclusions.” He just jumps right out there and slanders a public official and his relatives.

Hey… I’ve got an admission for you Stefan. I lived in New York City for almost four years, and during much of that time I continued to vote in Philadelphia. I had always intended to move back to Philly, but never did. Please… please investigate and see if you can get somebody to press criminal charges, because by your reckoning, I clearly voted illegally.

Seattle’s very own Rep. Jim McDermott will be stopping by Drinking Liberally, which meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Damn. I’m still on the other coast. But I hope lots of you show up to down a few beers with my favorite congressman.

When a June 14 earthquake off of California set off tsunami warnings up and down the coast, the sirens in Ocean Shores WA remained silent due to a faulty phone line.

Gov. Christine Gregoire on Monday announced a plan to ensure that coastal residents have enough time to get to higher ground.

Gregoire said much of the work will be done in coordination with federal plans for tsunami preparedness, but she also said that she will seek federal funding and money from the Legislature next year to install additional alert broadcasting systems along the coast.

This isn’t really much of a news story, but I was just curious to see how the righty trolls would turn this entirely nonpartisan, uncontroversial act of responsible governance into some kind of vicious attack on Gregoire. Have at it.

Cindy Sheehan became an antiwar activist after her son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year. She wants to tell President Bush to pull American troops out of Iraq now, and she wants to tell him to his face. So she drove down to his ranch in Crawford, TX.

Blocked by police a few miles down the road from the ranch, she and growing number of supporters vow to camp out until Bush agrees to meet with her — or until police drag them away — whichever comes first. Apparently, it will most likely be the latter, as she has been warned that if she’s not gone by Thursday (the day Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch,) she and her companions will be arrested as a “national security threat.”

Interestingly, as the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, this would not be her first meeting with the President.

The White House has released few details of such sessions, which Mr. Bush holds regularly as he travels the country, but generally portrays them as emotional and an opportunity for the president to share the grief of the families. In Ms. Sheehan’s telling, though, Mr. Bush did not know her son’s name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as “Mom” throughout the meeting.

By Ms. Sheehan’s account, Mr. Bush said to her that he could not imagine losing a loved one like an aunt or uncle or cousin. Ms. Sheehan said she broke in and told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be like sending them off to war.

“I said, ‘Trust me, you don’t want to go there’,” Ms. Sheehan said, recounting her exchange with the president. “He said, ‘You’re right, I don’t.’ I said, ‘Well, thanks for putting me there.’ “

Hmmm. Perhaps if President Bush could imagine losing a loved one, he might have thought twice before sending nearly 1,800 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq.

UPDATE:
Cindy Sheehan has posted a first-hand report to Daily Kos. Amongst the many interesting topics she touches upon, is this:

Another big story that was going on today was about my first meeting with Bush in June of 2004. For you all I would like to clarify a few things. First of all, I did meet with George, and that is not a secret. I have written about it and been interviewed about it. I will stand by my recounting of the meeting. His behavior was rude and inappropriate. My behavior in June of 2004 is irrelevant to what is going on in 2005. I was in deep shock and deep grief. The grief is still there, but the shock has worn off and the deep anger has set in. And to remind everybody, a few things have happened since June of 2004: The 9/11 commission report; the Senate Intelligence report; the Duelfer WMD report; and most damaging and criminal: the Downing Street Memos. The VERY LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS IS: Why do the right wing media so assiduously scrutinize the words of a grief filled mother and ignore the words of a lying president?

And if you ask me, it’s the lying president who should be considered the national security threat, not Cindy.

Read the comments from a few of my regular righty trolls, and you’d think this was a black and white world in which Republicans are purely on the side of good, and Democrats are dark allies of evil. So I guess there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance this morning among those in the trolling community who read Joel Connelly’s expose on how Republican “revolutionaries” like Jennifer Dunn, Slade Gorton and George Nethercutt are cashing in by joining “the great GOP patronage machine and permanent government.”

Wait a minute! Wasn’t it Gorton who won a third term on the slogan, “He works for you”?

Wasn’t it Nethercutt who argued that House Speaker Tom Foley had become a creature of the capital? Who mocked Foley for building a home there? Who claimed Foley had lost touch with Spokane?

Um… yeah, it was. It was also Nethercutt who campaigned on term limits, only to break his own solemn pledge to voluntarily limit himself. What a liar.

But let’s not be distracted by Republican lies; it’s Republican greed and abuse of power that is the focus of Connelly’s column. Like Tom Delay’s fascist efforts to make our nation a one-party state by denying access to any lobbyist or trade group that hires or contributes to Democrats. Or the unmitigated gall that sends $37.74 per person in homeland security dollars to Utah, while 9/11 target New York only gets $5.41. Or the pork-barrel politics that provides only $220 million for the Alaska Way Viaduct, while Alaska gets $941 million for bridges to nowhere.

I’m not saying Democrats are pure as driven snow; never have, never will. And while I don’t tend to waste pixels on my own party’s foibles (quite frankly, that’s not the job of a partisan, progressive blogger,) no doubt there are some bad Democrats.

But those of you on the right who look the other way at the corruption and abuse of power that is rife within your own party — or who blithely dismiss the “business as usual” policies that enrich your so-called “revolutionaries” at taxpayer expense — simply aren’t living in the real world. Or perhaps you are living in the real world, and your just as much a bunch of lying hypocrites as your Republican party leaders.

[NWPT60]The Seattle Times’ James Vesely and I don’t often see eye to eye, but since his latest column is more observation than opinion, there’s not much for me to disagree with. Vesely reports on the growing frustration of federal officials over our region’s apparent inability to prioritize our regional transportation planning… and stick to it.

No kidding.

Vesely is absolutely dead-on when he writes that our “confusion and indecision about transportation… [is] not imposed on us in Olympia or Washington D.C.” But then, neither is it imposed on us by our local elected officials. Let’s face it, our voters are more than a touch schizo when it comes to transportation issues… after all, where else but Seattle could a truly grassroots project like the Monorail be four times approved by voters, only to be vilified as a product of an arrogant and out-of-control bureaucracy? I know it’s fashionable to blame politicians for failing to respect “the will of the people,” but really, how can you respect a will that’s about as steadfast as that of a toddler who’s missed his nappy time?

Perhaps a dictatorial regime like that of New York’s Robert Moses wouldn’t quite play well with voters accustomed to the nicey-nice “Seattle way”… but at least Moses got things done. The closest we’ve come is Ron Sims unshakeable support for voter-approved light rail, an act of political courage that has earned him the passionate scorn of opponents, a reaction typical of a region that seems to confuse leadership with arrogance. The result is a political gridlock that’s far more intractable than the transportation gridlock we’re trying to fix. And as Vesely points out, it’s not just our own congressional delegation that’s growing frustrated at voters’ mixed messages.

Even more pointed was the statement from transportation chairman Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who told Seattle Times Washington, D.C., reporter Alicia Mundy, “Anyone who thinks of repealing the gas tax is not thinking.”

Young said in The Times of July 1: “Your problem won’t go away just by wishing it away. It’s going (to) cost and you’re going to have to pay for it.”

Again… no kidding.

Initiative 912 backers — like backers of all initiatives — talk about sending a message to Olympia… but I think most legislators don’t need another initiative to tell them that voters would prefer to get something for nothing. The fact is, the gas tax hike was part of a comprehensive transportation plan, that carefully prioritized transportation projects based on a number of criteria, the most important being immediate public safety. Legislators understood that a tax hike would be unpopular, but in this case necessary, and if voters reward their boldness by repealing the increase, the Legislature will likely respond by giving the public the only available alternative… absolutely nothing.

Such inaction would surely cost lives and economic growth… but there can be no statewide transportation planning without statewide funding.

If, as every poll and instinct predict, voters will not hesitate to pass the initiative repealing the added tax on gasoline, the next logical step would be an effort for counties to keep all the tax revenue they raise within the county and not spread it around the state, giving rise to the islands of isolation known as the state of Washington.

This would be bad public policy, but if I-912 passes, it may be the only way to provide a stabile funding source for desperately needed transportation improvements. Anybody want to sponsor an initiative?

The 2005 Rolling Thunder Democracy Festival rolls into Magnuson Park next Saturday, Aug 13th from 12 noon to 8pm, and amongst the many notable speakers — including US Rep. Jim McDermott and special guest, Ed Begley Jr. — will be… me. I’ll be speaking from the main stage at 4:50pm, and I invite you all to join me for a day of live music, fiery speechifying, workshops, food, fun and good old fashioned, grassroots political agitation.

Tickets are $10 at the gate (kids under 12 are free), but you can save time and avoid the long lines by purchasing in advance from Brown Paper Tickets or Elliot Bay Book Company. Or if you don’t have the cash to spare, Seattle Thunder is still looking for volunteers on festival day; email Annarose Lilly for more information.

Bring the whole family and help us put the party back into politics.

Who can afford to live here? My daughter better hope her parents die young, so she can inherit a house.

While I’m watching one of those cool, East Coast thunderstorms, you guys talk amongst yourselves.