Search Results for: ’

Hmm. And all this time I thought people like Zell Miller were angrily opposed to abortion because they thought it was morally wrong.

“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?” Miller asked. “Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed.”

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been ‘killed’ since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

“If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security,” he asserted.

Some upcoming events of interest:

• Chocolate for Choice — Join me at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s annual fundraiser tonight (March 8,) 6-8PM at Safeco Field’s Ellis Pavilion. I’ll be the one shoving chocolate into my face.

• Joe Conason at Third Place Books — Reporter, columnist and frequent radio and TV commentator Joe Conason will be signing his new book It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, Friday March 9, from 6:30PM to 8PM at Third Place Books, 17171 Bothell Way NE in Lake Forest Park. In his 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis wrote “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” Conason argues it can happen here, and presents a frightening and infuriating thesis. I’ve read the book, and highly recommend it.

• Saturday Family Science: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ — Lisa Shimizu, of KEXP 90.3 FM and The Climate Project, presents a 40-minute slide show (based on Al Gore’s presentation) especially designed for children 8-12. Local 5th grade science teacher Laura Maier leads an interactive experience that graphically demonstrates the principles of climate change. Every family will receive a copy of The Low Carbon Diet, a how-to guide showing easy ways for families to reduce their carbon footprint. Saturday March 10, 11AM and 1:30PM at Seattle’s Town Hall. (I’m going to the 1:30PM presentation; I’ll be the one with the 9-year-old girl.)

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign sent out a press release this morning touting support from seven state attorneys general, including our very own Rob McKenna.

Both McCain and McKenna are often portrayed in the media as the kind of straight-talking, moderate Republicans who tend to appeal to WA’s independent and cross-over voters… when in fact they are both ruthlessly partisan political opportunists whose conservative credentials are well established with all but the most far-right-leaning elements of their already far-right-leaning party.

Take for example the quote McKenna provided for McCain’s press release:

“Senator McCain continues to garner support among legal and law enforcement leaders because of his stances on state rights and his role in brokering the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito,” said McKenna. “I’m honored to give John my support and I appreciate his leadership on the issues that count.”

The issues that count.

No, it’s not campaign finance reform that McKenna lauds — the issue that originally earned McCain his faux-maverick status — it’s his role in confirming Justices Roberts and Alito, two of the most far-right-leaning justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court… justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, uphold the President’s suspension of habeas corpus, and vastly expand executive power. These are partisan, right-wing, Republican justices — darlings of the Federalist Society. And McKenna thinks they’re just grand.

I suppose coming from a state GOP that includes the likes of Val Stevens, and has nominated Ellen Craswell and John Carlson for high office, McKenna might come off as a relative moderate. But while our state’s editorialists seem intent on talking up the carefully crafted McKenna and his prospects for governor or the US Senate, they willfully ignore the shrewd realpolitik that has defined his career. How can McKenna be constantly lauded for bipartisanship without mentioning his extraordinarily close relationship with the viciously partisan political thugs at the BIAW? And how can the media continue to accept McKenna’s mildly pro-choice statements at face value, when he applauds McCain’s efforts to confirm Supreme Court justices who would take that choice away?

McCain is the most conservative candidate running with a shot at the GOP nomination, and McKenna has enthusiastically endorsed him because he is the viable candidate who best represents his own values. And what are McCain’s self-proclaimed values?

“I am confident that this nation is not a center — I think they’re right. I think they’re basically conservative, the majority are basically conservatives, and I think that if we get back on our message, get back to the principles, philosophies and messages of Ronald Reagan and others, I think we’ll do just fine. But first we have to get over our state of denial.”

WA’s media has to get over its state of denial too. Rob McKenna is a conservative. That is how he would legislate. That is how he would govern. And as such, he is out of step with the mainstream of WA voters.

UPDATE:
Erica Barnett slogged that McKenna’s “no moderate” back on Feb 23, when the AP first reported he would endorse McCain. In that article, the AP matter-of-factly describes McKenna as “a moderate.”

That’s my point. It is not just the editorialists who should be held accountable for how they are misreporting McKenna’s politics, but the supposedly objective reporters. It is not an undisputed fact that McKenna is a moderate, and thus McKenna should not be described as such in a news report without attribution or citation.

From Talking Points Memo:

More bombshells: Rep. Doc Hastings’ (R-WA) then chief of staff called Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay to inquire about whether the feds were investigating allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington governor’s race, McKay testified. McKay said he stopped the chief of staff before he went too far with his questions, but was troubled enough by the call to discuss it with his top assistant.

Ongoing coverage on the hearings from TPM Muckraker.

UPDATE:
TPM Muckraker has streaming video of McKay’s testimony, describing how he was “pressed” by Hastings’ chief of staff Ed Cassidy on investigating WA’s 2004 gubernatorial election. As Jimmy (from McCranium) points out in my comment thread:

Ed Cassidy was the same guy Hastings tried to install as the Ethics Chief legal council which of course led to the complete shutdown of the committee itself because it violated committee rules. Looks like Doc doesn’t like to follow the rules and neither does his chief of staff.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, from 7PM to 10PM:

7PM: Is John Edwards a faggot? That’s what cuddly, conservative pundit Ann Coulter said at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) conference, where she was the featured speaker:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot–so….’”

The audience at this preeminent conservative event of the year gave Coulter an enthusiastic ovation. Does Coulter (who has endorsed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney) really represent, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, “the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism”…? And if so, what does this say about contemporary conservative activism?

8PM: Should Reichert and McMorris give back their terrorist money? 22 Republicans representatives have benefited from money the NRCC raised from indicted terrorist financierAbdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari — including WA’s Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris-Rogers — and yet none have offered to give the money back. Republicans talk tough on terrorism, but I guess even a federal indictment doesn’t make your money not good enough for the NRCC.

9PM: Is it wrong to boo? Apparently.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

If like me, you love politics and you love chocolate, than you don’t want to miss NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s annual fundraiser, Chocolate for Choice:

Chocolate as far as the eye can see—and all for the right to choose! While our guests eat chocolate to their hearts’ content, our panel of celebrity judges determines the winning dessert entries in various categories. The evening also features a silent auction of fun chocolate-themed items and a live auction of exquisite chocolate creations.

Celebrity judges include such political luminaries as Darcy Burner, Ron Sims, Greg Nickels, Sally Clark and, um… me! Cathy Sorbo is the Master of Ceremonies.

Tickets are still available! Thursday, March 8, 6-8PM at Safeco Field’s Ellis Pavilion.

In the comment thread on an earlier post, Steven writes:

Somebody around these parts had a pretty good suggestion a while back. If you want to see what the surface option looks like, let’s close the Viaduct for a month and see how traffic responds. Then let’s vote.

The implication being that with the Viaduct closed, I-5 will slow to a permanent crawl while the city’s side streets are choked with drivers seeking alternative routes.

Of course, that’s a completely bullshit analysis, no matter how many times people repeat it. First of all, the surface-plus-transit option is not the do-nothing option — it is the s u r f a c e – p l u s – t r a n s i t option, which means it includes a number of surface and transit improvements to move additional vehicles and people through our existing surface streets. Improvements which would presumably include, um, a new, multilane boulevard in the shadow of the existing Viaduct.

Replacing the Viaduct with $2.4 billion worth of transit and street improvements is not the same thing as simply closing it. Would the surface-plus-transit option, whatever it entails, match the vehicle capacity of the existing elevated structure? Probably not. But it would provide a helluva lot more capacity than doing nothing.

The second problem with Steven’s thought experiment is that one month isn’t nearly enough time for local commuters to change their driving habits, especially knowing that things will return to normal after 30-days. But faced with years of Viaduct closure and disruption, well, that’s when all that seemingly superfluous grey matter tucked behind our foreheads really starts to kick into gear. It may not seem like it while they’re blindly cutting you off in traffic, but the average driver is smarter than your average bear, and will eventually adjust their driving habits to fit the new reality. Just as new freeway capacity attracts more traffic, reducing capacity will discourage some trips and reroute others.

So, how long would it really take to conduct Steven’s thought experiment under objective, real-world conditions? Well, according to WSDOT, if we end up rebuilding a new elevated structure, SR 99 will be shut down in whole or in part for up to 10 to 12 years.

That’s right, drivers will be forced to live without the existing capacity for over a decade.

During this decade of disruption, a Downtown Seattle Association comparison matrix shows that SR 99 would close nights and weekends for 5 to 7 years, and be reduced to two-lanes in each direction for 7 years. Various southbound segments will be closed for periods of time ranging from 6 to 21 months, while the entire structure would be closed in both directions for as long as 9 months.

And that’s if everything goes according to plan.

So when surface critics talk about how Seattle’s economy is going to completely collapse if we lose the Viaduct’s current vehicle capacity, I wonder how they think we’re going to survive the decade or so it will take to rebuild it?

Last week I publicly fretted that Governor Chris Gregoire might eventually paint herself into a rhetorical corner via public comments over replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct. I worried that the Governor’s increasingly adamant insistence that a rebuild is the only viable option could put her in the unenviable position of either defying the will of the voters, or appearing to cave to big, bad Seattle just as she prepares to head into what could be a tough reelection campaign. But in an exclusive interview with Lynn Allen of Evergreen Politics, the Governor has allayed my concerns.

[Is there] any way the surface and transit option would be entertained by the state?

Gregoire: Absolutely. We did entertain it earlier but couldn’t make it work. We have a set of criteria we have to meet. We have to maintain safety. We have to meet capacity for both moving freight and people in that corridor.

We’re not accommodating increases in capacity if we either rebuild the viaduct or build a new tunnel. There won’t be an increase in today’s capacity. It’s now somewhere in the neighborhood of 110,000 per day.

So, no matter what we do, we still have to maximize transit and surface. No matter what happens, there has to be a comprehensive transit component. We will need to be able to increase the capacity for moving the increase in population we are expecting.

Then, too, what we decide to do has to be fiscally responsible and friendly to urban design.

That’s why we’re working with Ron Sims. The state is saying, “Show me what you’re talking about here”. We’d like to see what the possibilities are.

As HA co-blogger Will points out, Gov. Gregoire appears to contradict herself in her use of the word “capacity” — but that’s the sort of verbal nitpicking I choose to reserve for Republicans. Taken as a whole, and in the context of the entire debate, the Governor is clearly leaving the door open to a surface solution. And I tend to agree with David Postman that this interview is entirely consistent with her prior statements, representing at most a clarification rather than a shift in position.

The Governor has repeatedly drawn a line in the sand, demanding that any Viaduct replacement must maintain capacity, a criterion some have supposed to rule out a surface alternative. But the key to accepting the surface option as both a transportation and political compromise rests on how we define the word “capacity.” WSDOT’s Environmental Impact Statement describes the purpose of the project as one that “maintains or improves mobility and accessibility for people and goods” — language the Governor clearly echoes in talking to Lynn about capacity.

As I wrote last week:

Hard-nosed rebuild supporters have mocked King County Executive Ron Sims as some kind of enviro-whacko hippie for stating that we should be focused on moving people, not cars — but that’s exactly the stated purpose put forth in the EIS. And that’s exactly the language the Governor needs, to join former tunnel supporters in support of a surface compromise.

It’s not a matter of redefining the word capacity — “mobility” was always the definition from the start, and accepting an alternative that improves mobility, while perhaps decreasing vehicle capacity, is perfectly consistent with Gov. Gregoire’s line in the sand.

That is what the Governor essentially told Lynn — she is focused on moving “freight and people,” and she is willing to work with Ron Sims “to see what the possibilities are.” I had been concerned that in championing a rebuild Gov. Gregoire might eventually paint herself into a corner, but by her own words, she has clearly reiterated that she is willing to consider a surface option, if she can be convinced that it maintains mobility. I can’t see how one can read this any other way. And no, it doesn’t represent a shift in position.

No doubt a rebuild overwhelmingly remains Gov. Gregoire’s preferred option. But if in the wake of a No/No March 13 vote Mayor Nickels can abandon the tunnel he’s championed, and campaign for a surface option without losing face (and the smart money is on exactly that,) then surely the Governor can give surface proponents the opportunity to persuade her that they can develop an alternative that meets the criteria set forth in the EIS.

And once Seattle voters speak, and the political food fight comes to an end, that’s exactly what I expect the Governor to do.

Lynn Allen gets an interview with Governor Gregoire. Here’s the Governor’s answer concerning the “surface plus transit” option:

We did entertain it earlier but couldn’t make it work. We have a set of criteria we have to meet. We have to maintain safety. We have to meet capacity for both moving freight and people in that corridor.

We’re not accommodating increases in capacity if we either rebuild the viaduct or build a new tunnel. There won’t be an increase in today’s capacity. It’s now somewhere in the neighborhood of 110,000 per day.

Gregoire says she wants to move “both freight and people.” She then cites the number of cars that use the corridor, not the number of people. I don’t know if Governor Gregoire knows the difference between moving cars and moving people, or why that’s important. Also, I have no clue how she can say that “we’re not accommodating increases in capacity” by rebuilding a viaduct or a tunnel. I don’t believe the facts bear this out.

Read the whole interview (thankfully, it’s not all about the viaduct).

From the Times:

The trail would be designed as a “dual-use facility” that could accommodate a high-capacity passenger rail line sometime in the future, said one of the architects of the deal, County Executive Ron Sims.

If a final deal is reached in the coming months, the Port would pay $103 million for the rail line, then swap it with King County in exchange for county-owed Boeing Field.

The Port would also give the county $66 million to build a biking and hiking trail south of the Snohomish County line. Freight trains would continue to run between Woodinville and Snohomish.

The really important thing to remember here is this: before everyone starts arguing about what to do with the right-of-way, we had to acquire the right-of-way. Idon’t know if rail will be feasible, I don’t want the rail line eliminated in favor of a trail-only use. At least not right away.

Here’s what Goldy had to say about it back in January:

The pro-rail group wants the corridor to be converted to commuter rail now, using the existing tracks, but transit experts who have studied the route insist that it just isn’t economical. The tracks themselves have been neglected over the years and would require expensive upgrades, while current commuter patterns simply won’t support much of the route. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been privately told.

I wonder when the Joel “Global Warming Is A Problem” Connelly is going to meet the Joel “Let’s Build A New Freeway On The Waterfront” Connelly.

Just askin’.

I ALMOST FORGOT…

Joel’s a friend of the blog, so consider this post just friendly needling.

JOEL RESPONDS:

“When you unleash an additional 50,000 cars a day onto Seattle city streets, and onto I-5, they’re going to spend hours and hours a day belching pollutants into the atmosphere.
How do you square your position with its potential impact on Seattle’s airshed . . . and on Pioneer Square, the first Seattle neighborhood liberated from automobile culture.
‘Suggest you might devote some critical examination to the governor’s talk-it-over position on global warming rather than taking shots at those who have consistently urged action.”

Just kidding about the headline. I like David Postman. I think he’s a great reporter. And I don’t even know if he drinks. In fact, hypothetically, if I were developing my own online news venture to compete with our city’s two dailies, and I raised enough venture capital to do it right, Postman would be one of the first reporters I’d attempt to hire away from the Seattle Times.

But man can he be sensitive.

Yesterday I critiqued our two dailies’ coverage of the Sonics hearing in Olympia, posting the two ledes side-by-side. I thought it instructive that two papers covering the same hearing should come away with such different story lines. And to some extent, I think that Postman agrees:

I think it’s a good day for journalism when the Times and the PI take different angles or dig up different facts. That’s what makes having two papers important.

Absolutely.

So I’m not really sure why Postman understood my post to be a “baseless attack” on his colleagues, or why he felt the need to characterize me as “wrong-headed”, “fatuous” and, well… drunk?

David Goldstein crows about how he has no pretense toward objectivity. That’s the only way to explain his fatuous bit of journalism criticism today. Goldstein read stories about the Sonics in the Times and the PI, and as he often does, decides that the Times is showing bias.

Actually, I decided that both stories were biased. No doubt I prefer the P-I’s bias, but I never singled out the Times. Indeed, I thought I was rather specific:

I’m not implying any intentional bias on the part of the various reporters, just that bias inevitably exists, and inevitably seeps through every journalist’s work, no matter how hard they try to suppress it.

Um… how is this a “baseless attack” on the Times?

Postman is clearly offended, and goes to some length deconstructing my rather brief post in an effort to show how little I understand the facts reported, or the business of journalism in general. His main point?

But Goldstein just isn’t paying attention if he thinks the financing plan was the news of the day.

As for the Renton vs. Bellevue angle, that was, in fact, news. It wasn’t known before yesterday. It was new.

Actually, the “Renton vs. Bellevue angle” wasn’t exactly news either. The choice of the Renton site was leaked way back in December, and widely reported at the time. (I spent an hour on it while filling in for Dave Ross.) If you’re going to say that it is only news when Clay Bennett confirms it, then you might as well just reprint Sonics press releases.

Given the fact that the details were already widely known, I’d say that the news of the day was the hearing itself, and how legislators reacted to Bennetts demands. But then, that’s just one man’s opinion.

Which once again is my point. I don’t know how many times I need to explain it on my blog, or say it to Postman’s face: I love newspapers and admire his profession. But I simply don’t believe that objectivity is humanly possible. I repeat:

The “journalism generally practiced in America” today is an historical anomaly that grew out of the media consolidation that shuttered the vast majority of dailies early in the twentieth century. “Objectivity” was a necessary sales pitch required to reassure readers that one or two dailies could adequately replace the many different voices to which they had grown accustomed. It is also a wonderful ideal, though unfortunately impossible to achieve in reality, for as Woody Allen astutely observed, even “objectivity is subjective.”

I’m not one of those bloggers who long for the extinction of the legacy media, nor do I think this modern American model of an objective, fair and balanced press will ever perish at the hands of us advocacy journalists. But there’s certainly more than enough room for both models to coexist, and to some extent, converge. Both models can be equally honest and informative, as long as the practitioners remain true to themselves, and to their slightly divergent ethical principles…

But in the end, how is my openly biased blog really any different from the op-ed section of any major daily? Facts are facts, and when I get them wrong my readers abrasively taunt me in my comment threads. The rest of what I write is nothing but personal spin and opinion…

Postman writes that “alleging bias in a newspaper reporter is a serious matter,” and he spiritedly defends his colleagues from what he assumes to be a personal insult. But I didn’t allege bias in a reporter or a newspaper or even his profession. I alleged bias in our entire species. That is the human condition. We are all biased. Each and every one of us will experience the same event somewhat differently, shaped by our own unique personal histories and perspectives. Two different ledes were written off the same hearing, and yes I do think it instructive to highlight the difference.

Postman refers to my Tuesday night Drinking Liberally festivities and jokingly implies that I should have slept off my hangover before writing. In truth, the post was admittedly rushed as I was late for a meeting. Perhaps Postman would have been less offended had I taken the time to pen my intended closing: an attack on Times publisher Frank Blethen for his efforts to make Seattle a one-newspaper town.

I apologize, David, for not being more thorough.

As consumers struggled to cope with rising prices at the pump, the oil industry pulled in a record $101 billion in profits last year — about $11.6 million an hour — and according to Barb Flye of the Washington Tax Fairness Coalition, taxpayers are picking up the tab… twice.

“Individuals have to dig deeper to fill the gas tank and heat their homes, and collectively, all taxpayers will be covering the higher gas and heating costs for a host of publicly-funded services and institutions,” Flye said. “We’re paying more for heat at public schools and colleges, hospitals and nursing homes, courts and other government buildings, not to mention the higher cost of running school buses and public transit.”

This has prompted state Rep. Steve Conway to introduce HB 2128 a tax hike on excess oil industry profits. The bill would put a 3% B&O tax surcharge on gross receipts of companies with a refining capacity in excess of 10,000 barrels a year, whenever retail gas prices exceed $1.75 a gallon. The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition will be holding a press event at noon today in Olympia, in support of HB 2128.

HA co-blogger Will speculates about former state rep Toby Nixon and his political aspirations:

Maybe Nixon’s stoking the fires for a run at his old seat (won by Roger Goodman when Nixon ran for Senate). I’ve got a better idea…

Lieutenant Governor! Think about it, Toby… I don’t know anyone who’s “high” on Lt. Gov. Brad Owen. He’s got that ridiculous rock band which he takes across the state, trying to keep kids off drugs (If he had come to my high school, I would have STARTED smoking pot, just to spite him). He endorses right wing judicial candidates and wants to spend tax dollars on a NASCAR track. What a waste!

To which I say… do your homework Will. I’m guessing our friend Toby might be planning to run for King County Auditor, an obvious stepping stone to the Secretary of State’s office.

What’s that you say? I’ve got my head up my ass? Toby can’t possibly run for Auditor because it is an appointed position? Well, not if Toby has his way. Just last week Toby filed a C1 with the Public Disclosure Commission creating “Citizens for Accountable Elections,” a new PAC supporting a King County initiative to make the Auditor an elected position. Given Toby’s deep interest in election reform, and his admitted eye on the SOS office, this would seem to be an elected office tailor made for (and by) Toby Nixon.

Toby and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but he’s a standup guy and a great sport. I’m off this weekend, but Toby has agreed to come on my show on 710-KIRO the following weekend, when I’ll have the opportunity to ask him the tough questions, and he’ll have every opportunity to respond.

UPDATE:
Via email, Toby elaborates on his initiative and his plans:

The proposal is not for an elected “auditor”, but an elected “elections director” – it wouldn’t include the full range of auditor responsibilities, but just the election functions. There have been folks trying to encourage me to seek the office if it were to become elected, and I haven’t told them flatly No. I haven’t told them Yes, either, but I haven’t ruled it out. I do believe an important part – maybe the most important part – of the responsibility of the office would be to exercise leadership to create a culture of excellence, accountability, integrity, accuracy, and transparency in elections, and anyone who knows my legislative record knows that I am strongly committed to those things. But you also know that my interests cover a wide range of topics, and I’d have to think hard about whether I’d want to forgo other opportunities to serve where I could have an influence in those broader areas in order to focus specifically on the elections office.

Toby will join me on 710-KIRO in the 8PM hour, on Sunday Feb. 25.

Here’s a couple of columns well worth reading, in case you missed them.

In today’s Tacoma News Tribune, Peter Callaghan rips Tim Eyman a new one: “Tim Eyman, professional victim for hire.”

How do we know he’s telling the truth now? We don’t, of course. Given his history, I find it best to assume everything he says is a lie until proved otherwise.

As Callaghan reminds us, Timmy is an admitted liar, with a well documented and steady string of deceptions. And yet our state’s editorial pages continue to give him free reign (and hundreds of thousands of dollars of free press) to run his lying, self-serving guest columns. Amazing.

Meanwhile, over at the Seattle P-I, Joel Connelly had a great column Friday comparing the shrinking reputation of the self-absorbed Ralph Nadar with the growing global stature of Al Gore: “Nader has withered; Gore has grown.”

Connelly contrasts how Nadar has self-destructed under the weight of his own ego, while “the man ridiculed by Nader in 2000 has attained new and global stature.”

Al Gore has watched his early global warming warnings be vindicated by a landslide of scientific evidence.

With the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” he has found a way to outflank the political press and make complicated material accessible to the public. The film is up for an Oscar, and Gore has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

What a transition: While Nader worships at the altar of his own unappreciated brilliance, Gore speaks to the world.

Man, do I hope Gore runs for president.