HorsesAss.Org

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

I’m back after a two-week hiatus, and I’m damned thirsty. So see you all there.

In looking at the way Fox News and the rest of the rabid, right-wing, media attack dogs have tried to viciously disembowel Cindy Sheehan — a grieving mom who lost a son in Iraq — Cenk Uygur writing on The Huffington Post imagines what the news coverage of Rosa Parks might have been had this pack of wolves been around during the civil rights era. Here are a few excerpts:

O’Reilly: “Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she’s just trying to gain publicity and doesn’t speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they’re black.”

Hannity: “Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!”

Limbaugh: “We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!”

Malkin: “I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself.”

Hannity: “Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!”

O’Reilly: “To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It’s ridiculous that they think they don’t have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.”

Coulter: “Rosa Parks is a dyke!”

Drudge: “MY SOURCES TELL ME THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME ROSA PARKS HAS EVER SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS. A whole life of sitting in the back of the bus and now this woman claims all of a sudden she wants to sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”

Blitzer: “Ms. Parks left the bus in disgrace today after it was confirmed that some members of her family did not agree with her, she had ruined her credibility by working for the NAACP before the bus incident, and she had in fact sat in the back of the bus on previous occasions. Now back to the emotionally wrenching story of the girl missing in …”

Maybe a funnier idea than it was in execution, but it makes a salient point.

I’ve decided to start my own virtual vigil to demand that KC Executive wannabe David Irons comes clean with his own base about his strong opposition to the anti-roads initiative, I-912. But since I don’t really feel like dragging my vigil on too long, I thought, why not settle this once and for all by going straight to the source? So following is an open letter that I just emailed to our good friend Stefan:

Mr. Stefan Sharkansky
Sound Politics

Aug. 16, 2005

Dear Stefan,

As the webmaster of David Irons official campaign website (SoundPolitics.com), I was hoping you could quickly ask your boss to settle a question of great interest, both to his supporters, and to the voting public at large. Specifically: does he or does he not support KVI’s anti-roads initiative, I-912?

It has been widely suggested (in the comment threads on your own blog, for example) that in securing the endorsement of the pro-business Alki Foundation, Irons privately expressed to board members his opposition to I-912 — a position that would be consistent with his prior, pro-transit, public statements and votes as an RTID board member and King County Councilman. And yet, he refuses to take a public position on an initiative that will have a huge impact on the ability of the County Executive to address our region’s growing transportation problems.

As a matter of political expedience, Irons’ equivocation is understandable, as his own internal polling shows that while two-thirds of his base supports the initiative, a large majority of King County voters do not. But I have been led to believe that you are a strong proponent of demanding openness and transparency from the King County Executive, and so I trust that you will join me in urging Irons to be as open and transparent about this important issue as his opponent, Ron Sims.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. In the interest of promoting an informed public debate I have posted a copy of this correspondence to HorsesAss.org, and look forward to posting your prompt reply.

Yours fondly,

David Goldstein

UPDATE:
Stefan responds! Um… sort of:

From: Stefan Sharkansky
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:48:20 -0700
To: David Goldstein
Subject: Re: Open Letter to you

I’m in the middle of a number of projects right now and responding to a silly email that knowingly includes obviously false assertions is not high on my list of priorites. I already commented on the David Irons/I-912 issue here.

“Silly”…? Hmmm. Is it just me, or was Stefan being uncharacteristically dismissive? I guess for Stefan, openness and transparency are standards that need only be demanded of Democrats.

Anyway, in the linked comment he provided, Stefan writes:

I am not “dismayed” by your plausible yet unconfirmed speculation that David Irons opposes I-912 … I doubt that Irons’ (or any other candidate’s) position on I-912 would have much influence on that vote one way or the other.

No I don’t suppose it would. But Iron’s position on I-912 might have quite a bit of influence on his own race… which I can only assume is why Irons refuses to publicly state his position. Irons needs the fervent support of his conservative Republican base if he’s to have a snowball’s chance of coming close to Sims, and he’s not going to get that by opposing their anti-government initiative du jour.

Ah well. I suppose the vigil will move on to day three.

For those of you righties who insist that WSDOT projects are always late and over budget, I just thought I’d post the above chart from page four of WSDOT’s quarterly performance report, the Gray Notebook. (Don’t complain to me that it’s too small to read… go download the original for yourself.)

The chart shows the 12 projects that have been completed thus far from those in the package financed by the 2003 nickel gas tax increase. Eight projects were completed early, and only one late, while six of the projects came in under budget, and only one over.

I apologize in advance for any cognitive dissonance I might cause by inserting actual facts into the public debate.

UPDATE:
I guess I should have mentioned the obvious typo in the chart above… the figures are of course in thousands, not millions as stated. Silly me… I hadn’t imagined that folk would try to use a little typo to drive the debate off topic.

And for those of you who insist that we can’t trust any of the audit numbers coming out of WSDOT, well here’s a little more cognitive dissonance to stick in your craw… a list of the performance audits conducted since 1991:

Performance Audits at WSDOT: Inventory (as of April 2005)

• Washington State Ferries (WSF) Vessel Construction Audit, Booz Allen, 1991
• Environmental Organization Study, WSDOT, Transportation Commission, 1994
• Environmental Cost Savings and Permit Coordination Study, Legislative Transportation Committee, 1994
• Procurement Audit WSF, Federal Audit, 1995
• Department of Transportation Highways and Rail Programs Performance Audit, Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC), 1998
• Department of Transportation Ferry System Performance Audit, JLARC, 1998
• Public Private Initiatives Audit, Transportation Commission, 1999
• WSF Risk Assessment, Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation 1999
• Standards Review Team Report to Governor Locke, Transportation Commission, 2000
• Triennial Review WSF, Federal Audit, 2000
• Performance Audit of the Washington State Ferry System Capital Program, Office of Financial Management, 2001
• Washington State Legislature’s Joint Task Force on Ferries, 2001
• Washington State Ferry System Capital Program, OFM-Talbot, 2002
• WSDOT Aviation Division Study, JLARC, August, 2002
• Statewide Agency Capital Construction Practices (limited scope performance audit), OFM – KPMG, January, 2003
• Statewide Agency Performance Assessment, OFM-KPMG, January, 2003
• Personal Services and Purchased Services Contracting, (limited scope performance audit), OFM, January, 2003
• Department of Transportation Highways and Ferries Programs Performance Measure Review , TPAB-Dye Management Inc (November 2004)
• Department of Transportation Capital Project Management Pre-audit, TPAB-JLARC: Gannet-Fleming (January 2005)
• Environmental Permitting for Transportation Projects Pre-audit, TPAB-JLARC (January 2005)
• Business Process Review of Environmental Permitting for Transportation Projects, TPAB-JLARC; currently underway, April 2005
• Business Process Review of Accountability Oversight Mechanisms and Project Reporting for WSDOT TPAB-JLARC, April 2005
• Review of Port Angeles Graving Dock Project TPAB-JLARC; planned as of April 2005

Other Regular Audits:

• Annual WSDOT Financial & Legal Compliance audits (State Auditor)
• Internal Financial Audits (Internal Audit Office)
• IT Security Audit-( Internal Audit Office)

David Irons had some rare, positive news last week when the Alki Foundation, the political wing of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, awarded him their “recommendation” in the race against sitting King County Executive Ron Sims. Sims had received the foundation’s endorsement in 2001, and has always enjoyed fairly strong support from the region’s business community.

So why the change of heart? Joel Connelly suggests that problems in KC elections, and Sims’ backing of Southwest Airlines’ proposed move to Boeing Field, may have had a lot to do with it. But from what I hear, what put Irons over the top with the Alki board members was his private assurances that he opposes the gas tax rollback initiative, I-912.

Both Alki and the Chamber, like most of the region’s pro-business groups, understand how vital these transportation improvements are to the local economy. Indeed, Alki refused to endorse either Steve Hammond or Reagan Dunn for county council, because both support I-912.

“These gentlemen support Initiative 912. Transportation improvement is such a central issue to the business community that we decided to make no recommendation.”

While Irons has repeatedly refused to take a public position on I-912, my sources tell me that he has been much more talkative in private. This is a very important issue to Alki members, and to earn their endorsement Irons apparently told them what they wanted to hear.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that Irons hasn’t been privately telling I-912 supporters what they want to hear, too.

Irons can easily settle any lingering doubts over where he stands on the initiative, simply by clearly stating his position the way Ron Sims did. (Sims opposes it.) Indeed, he must come clean. I-912 could have a huge impact on the economy of the county he wants to govern, so reporters owe it to their readers to keep Irons feet to the fire, by bluntly asking him where he stands, and at every opportunity.

If Irons believes that the county can get by without replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge — both past the end of their useful lifespan — or if he believes we can replace both structures solely with local funds, then he needs to explain how. But if Irons supports the statewide transportation package and acknowledges that the gas tax hike is a reasonable way to finance it, then he needs to be upfront with voters.

Yes, Irons is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. His own polling shows that while two-thirds of his own base supports I-912, a large majority of King County voters do not. Still, running a county as large as King often requires taking unpopular positions on controversial issues… something Sims has had to do repeatedly throughout his tenure.

I find it ironic, but not surprising, that even Irons’ official campaign website (soundpolitics.com) saw fit to ask US Senate candidate Mike McGavick to clarify his position on I-912, but refuses to demand the same of its own candidate. It is absurd to believe that Irons doesn’t have an opinion on an initiative that will have such a huge impact on King County’s quality of life. And it is even more absurd to believe that he should be allowed to keep it to himself in such a dishonest and disingenuous effort to walk both sides of a controversial issue.

Of course it’s probably too little — and obviously much too late for the 2004 election — but King County Superior Court Judge Richard Jones has ruled that the $1.5 million in vicious attack ads run against Deborah Senn on the eve of the Democratic primary for Attorney General, constituted “express advocacy” by urging voters to vote against Senn. The court also held that the so-called Voter Education Committee (VEC) illegally failed to identify its funding source (the US Chamber of Commerce) and register as a political committee.

In upholding the regulatory actions of the Public Disclosure Commission, the judge soundly rejected the VEC’s claims that they had a First Amendment right to keep secret the corporate funding. The judge ruled that WA voters are entitled to truthful and accurate information in ads designed to influence the vote.

Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

In a press release issued this morning, Deborah Senn said that the legal victory sets the stage for legal proceedings against the VEC and the US Chamber of Commerce that could impose stiff financial penalties for the illegal ads.

“This is an important victory for the voters’ right to know and to protect the electoral process against massive last minute negative campaign ads funded by out of state interests who are attempting to illegally sway voters in Washington State.”

According to Senn’s attorney, Mike Withey, the anti-Senn ads were part of a national campaign by the US Chamber to defeat judicial and attorney general candidates nationwide who had a record of being pro-consumer and protecting the preservation of the jury trial.

“The VEC was nothing more than a catchy but misleading name, a local “sleeper cell” which the US Chamber used to manipulate an election while standing in the shadows, free from public disclosure and accountability. This was a US Chamber operation from start to finish.”

Senn and Withey are holding a press conference today at 10 am.

Apparently, the anti-Senn campaign was only the tip of the iceberg. The US Chamber has secretly dedicated tens of millions of dollars to swaying local races nationwide. The money is strategically spent in normally low-profile, low-cost judicial and attorney general races, upsetting the balance with huge sums of out-of-state, “independent” expenditures.

If there was ever an argument for imposing campaign contribution limits on judicial campaigns, this is it.

Damn it, can’t the WA Department of Transportation do anything right? The Hood Canal Bridge was supposed to be closed for repairs through 4 am Monday morning, but reopened Saturday night, more than one day early! Sheesh… I betcha the lazy, incompetent government workers probably brought it in under budget too.

I mean, if we can’t trust the DOT to keep the bridge closed for as long as promised, how can we trust them to spend our gas tax dollars as promised?

[NWPT61]WA blogger Lietta Ruger of Dying Warriors has joined Cindy Sheehan in her vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX.

In our family, we have 2 young Iraq veterans, having served already extended 15 months in Iraq are facing 2nd Deployments now, in few short months. This is no longer an all volunteer military; it has become perpetural entrapment for many of the troops. Years more of war in Iraq and Middle East with multiple rotated tours in combat; when will we bring home our troops?

Lietta has posted several firsthand accounts, and deserves all of our support for her personal efforts to get this issue into the local MSM. This is grassroots politics at its most effective.

Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, has also posted another account of her vigil to her diary on Daily Kos, and at times, it is downright moving. She closes:

We had a rally downtown in Crawford. Then the people caravanned up to Camp Casey. I was told to come down to the point of the triangle to greet them. While I was walking down to the point, I had a great view of Prairie Chapel Road. There was car, after car, after car!!! I started sobbing and I felt like collapsing. The cars kept on coming. It took almost a full hour for them to all get to Camp Casey, it was a miraculous sight to see. It was identical to Field of Dreams. People came from all over the country to be here. We are building a movement and they are coming.

We don’t have a full count of all the people who were there, but I would say hundreds. It was amazing and awesome. I felt the spirits of all of our needlessly killed loved ones in the presence of Camp Casey. I felt their strength and the wisdom of the ages with me in that wonderful place.

Today was George Bush’s accountability moment, and he lost. Two young ladies from San Diego drove all night to get to the rally and they had to leave tonight to get back home. One of them said: “Wow, we can drive all the way from San Diego just to meet you and he can’t even come down to the end of his driveway to meet with you.”

George Bush: you work for me. I pay your salary. Come out and talk to me. Anyway, I have a feeling you are about to be fired!!!

Meanwhile, six more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq.

The Rolling Thunder Democracy Festival rolls into Magnuson Park today from 12 noon to 8 pm, and I hope to see many of you there. I’ll be dragging my dog Feisty around, and am scheduled to speak at 4:50 pm, half an hour before featured speaker, Ed Begley Jr.

Tickets are $10 at the gate, children 12-and-under are free. So please join me for sun and fun, food and music, and some energizing speechifying.

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.