Goldy

It’s been pointed out that I’ve been imprecise in my use of the term “primary challenge.”

Of course, that’s old language, that doesn’t really fit Washington’s ridiculous top-two primary reality, especially not in districts like those here in Seattle, where one party or the other is impossibly uncompetitive.  Challenge a Seattle incumbent in the August primary and it’s really just an exhibition game, that at most suggests a likely outcome for the November general election.

So I guess what we’re really talking about here is an intraparty challenge, in which a Democratic incumbent is challenged by a fellow Democrat. Same idea, different words.

Speaking of which, the results of the House intraparty challenge elimination round poll have so far been unsurprising.  Of course, the overwhelming winner (loser?) thus far is Frank Chopp, though as speaker, he’s not exactly a ripe target for a serious challenge. But the next three highest vote getters are also the three names I’ve heard mentioned most often as being in need of an early retirement.

We’ll see if that holds up once all the votes are tallied.

From the AP:

RICHLAND — Workers cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation are going after radioactive wasp nests.

I think I’ve seen this movie, and it didn’t turn out well.

Susan Hutchison is clearly running as an anti-tax candidate for King County executive (I won’t say “the” anti-tax candidate, as Fred Jarrett and Ross Hunter seem to be vying for that vote as well), what with her vague, nonspecific talk about “bloated government” and the county needing to live “within its means.” And exactly what experience does she have cutting all that waste, fraud and abuse?

Hutchison said she solved a significant budget shortfall as chairwoman of the Seattle Symphony board of directors. “I solve problems and I fix things,” she said, “and King County needs a fix.”

Except… she helped solve the Symphony’s budget shortfall largely by raising more money. That’s what not-for-profit arts board members do.

Jesus… you’d think somebody might want to ask a follow up question or do a tad of digging before reprinting her rhetorical bullshit unchallenged.

I’ve apparently pissed off more than a few Democratic Party establishment types in recent weeks. Oh, it’s not my reaction to the past legislative session that’s causing consternation; most rank and file Democrats were disappointed, if not downright disgusted at the cowardly all-cuts budget, and leadership’s generally pro-business/anti-progressive agenda. Some legislators too.

No, apparently, where I’ve crossed the line, is not in criticizing the Democratic caucus, but rather in suggesting what I think is an obvious solution: specifically, that if we’re not being adequately served by our Democratic legislators, perhaps it’s kinda, sorta, maybe time to replace them.

Judging from some of the comments and emails I’ve received, the mere suggestion of primarying a Democratic incumbent in a safe Democratic district brands me as traitor, a blowhard, an idiot or some combination thereof. Yeah, the establishment hoo-hahs love me when I’m raking muck on Republicans or doing my best to squash the conservative frame on some manufactroversy or another. But attempt to be taken seriously on a policy issue or dare to dip our toes into electoral politics and… well… we lowly bloggers are scolded to know our place.

The irony is, we all know there’s a fair share of deadwood in the Seattle delegation, along with a handful legislators who simply aren’t as progressive as their constituents on a number of important issues, such as pay day lending, the homebuyers bill of rights, tax restructuring, and more. Indeed, start this conversation at nearly any political gathering, and the same names keep popping up again and again, the usual suspects of Democratic incumbents who deserve a serious, well-financed primary challenge, and who just might not survive should they face one.

So why don’t I name names, as some in the comment threads have challenged me to do?  Oh God, I’m tempted, but coming from a lowly blogger like me it would only come off as a personal hit list, and do little more than earn me animosity from those legislators on it, some of whom I personally like, even if I think it past time for them to move on and give somebody else a chance at getting stuff done before Republican Rob McKenna seizes the line-item veto pen.

No, the names have to be named by you, so that everybody knows that everybody knows who the weak links in the Seattle delegation truly are. And that’s why starting today I’m launching a series of polls to enable you in our local Democratic community to name these names yourself, and help pick the Seattle legislators most in need of a primary challenge.

Our first poll, now live at the top-right corner of the home page, pits all 12 House incumbents from Seattle’s 11th, 34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd and 46th Legislative Districts against each other in an open primary. Feel free to vote for more than one; the top House vote-getters will face off against each other in a “loser takes all” general election of sorts, as will the four Seattle state Senators up for reelection in 2010.

Oh, and don’t everybody just vote for Frank out of a sense of retribution; pick the reps who you genuinely think are most out of step with their district and/or have proven themselves least capable of bringing home the bacon for Seattle and the progressive community at large.  And as a tie-breaker, I’d also suggest considering which incumbents would be most vulnerable to a serious challenge, should one materialize.

There might not be much room to elect more Democrats to the Washington state legislature, but after this last session, I think we can all agree that we could certainly elect better.

Political recluse and King County Executive wannabe Susan Hutchison finally showed up at a candidate forum, though apart from boldly vowing to fix county government by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, she was by most accounts, short on details:

In a conversation with reporters afterwards, she said more of her positions would be known in the coming weeks.

You know, after her positions have become known to her.

As Publicola reported yesterday, Dow Constantine went on the offensive in the King County Executive race (or at least as offensive as the mild-mannered councilman can get), insisting that the politically reclusive Susan Hutchison has “an obligation to voters” to explain her positions to voters.

Calling her “pleasant” but “far to the right of the electorate of King County,” Constantine said, “that’s fine, everybody has a right to their political opinions, but if you’re holding yourself out as a candidate for the highest office in King County, you have an obligation to voters to tell them where you stand.”

Constantine wanted to know where Hutchison stood on a women’s right to choose—which he said was a relevant issue for King County Executive because King County Health runs health clinics, like one in White Center, that counsel low-income women on pregnancy issues.

Not surprisingly, Hutchison took umbrage at Constantine citing her many conservative Republican bona fides, loudly complaining to the Seattle P-I’s Chris Grygiel:

“This is inexcusable. In sum total he’s accused me of being an extremist and I’m a moderate.”

But when asked what she would say to voters to demonstrate her self-proclaimed moderation, Hutchison demurred:

“I don’t have to say anything to the voters,” said Hutchison, a long-time local television personality. “They’ve known me for 20 years on the air. They’ve known me for another seven years as someone who has served in the community.”

Really, Susan? You’re running for countywide office… essentially the equivalent of being the governor of a small state… and you honestly believe that you don’t have to say anything to the voters? That’s your final answer?

On second thought, perhaps holing Hutchison up in an undisclosed location is in fact the best political strategy her Republican handlers can reasonably devise, considering the arrogant, haughty and uninformed candidate they’re working with.

The World Health Organization declared a swine flu pandemic today, raising the global H1N1 alert level to six, on a six-point scale. It’s been 41 years since the last pandemic, the Hong Kong flu, killed about a million people worldwide.

While WHO is urging people not to panic, emphasizing that the declaration represents the virus’s global spread, not it’s severity, DemFromCT (in a lengthy post on Daily Kos that is really worth the read) argues that we should take full advantage of this teaching moment:

While the media includes “don’t panic’ overtly or subtly in every message they put out, complacency is a bigger danger than panic, and the right thing to do is to keep talking about it and bore the hell out of everyone until it’s routine to wash your hands, cover your cough and stay home for seven days from onset (or 24 hours of no fever if longer than seven days) before you go back to work or send your kids out to infect everyone else. And if you think ahead, you’ll stock up on what you need to stay in the house for a week (or two) in case you’re too sick to go out.

Even if, as it appears at the moment, H1N1 proves no more severe than the typical seasonal flu, its novel make up gives it the potential to infect many more people. Seasonal flu typically kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people worldwide; if the number of flu cases were to double or triple, the number of fatalities would rise proportionately.

Wash your hands.

I upgraded to Safari 4 last night, and at least on my MacBook, it’s like getting a whole new computer for free. Really.  It’s that much faster.

I don’t normally write about tech stuff here on HA, but I mean, wow.

A while back, Will set up a Facebook group for Friends of the King County Fairy District, motto: “Making King County FIRST in mythical sprite-based transportation solutions.” Silly, but kinda funny.

Well today he gets an email from King County asking him to remove the county logo, as it’s for “official county use only.” Sheesh.

Will’s planning to comply, though personally I’d be more afraid of a midnight visit from Disney stormtroopers; the Mouse doesn’t take too kindly to folks tinkering with Tinker. But, well, whatever.

Following up on yesterday’s post comparing the cojones of Oregon Democrats to the relative lack thereof in their Washington counterparts (“Oregon Dems play ball; Washington Dems lack ‘em“), the Oregon House passed two bills yesterday raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. The two tax increases would bring in a combined $733 million over the 2009-2011 biennium, softening cuts to education by filling in a sizeable chunk of Oregon’s estimated $4 billion revenue shortfall.

The bills have already passed out of committee in the Senate, where they are widely expected to pass. And…

Pleased by the votes, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said the measures “will not solve our budget shortfalls, but they will help thousands of Oregonians during this very trying economic period. … I look forward to signing these measures into law.”

It is interesting to note that by raising income taxes from the current top rate of 9 percent to 10.8 percent on household incomes over $250,000 a year, and 11 percent on household incomes over $500,000, Oregon’s HB 2649 will have a similar impact on the wealthy as would have the high-earners income tax pushed by advocates like me during Washington’s previous session, which in most iterations would have imposed a 2 to 3 percent tax on household incomes over $250,000 a year.  Likewise, Oregon and Washington both have super-majority requirements for passing tax increases, both have an initiative and referendum process that would likely subject any tax increase to a vote of the people, and both faced similar sized deficits as a percentage of their overall budgets.

Yet Oregon Democrats chose to raise taxes to help soften devastating budget cuts—never a popular thing to do—while Washington Democrats refused to even seriously debate the option.  Huh.

I’m not sure how to explain the cultural differences between the Democratic caucuses in these two neighboring Northwest states, that leads one to legislate boldly in the interests of their constituents while the other remains timidly enthralled to the status quo. But I am increasingly becoming convinced that there is only one option available to Washington progressives who seek accountability and responsiveness from the Democratic legislators we work so hard to elect. And it’s a lesson, ironically, we may need to learn from Oregon’s Republicans.

The Oregon tax bills passed by 37-23 margin, just barely within the three-fifths majority necessary. But with one Dem voting nay, the measure would have failed without the support of two Republicans who crossed over to approve the measures.  And as Carla reports on Blue Oregon, such breaks in party discipline don’t sit well with Oregon Republicans who are now on the warpath against their two traitorous colleagues.

“I think they’ve left the team and it wouldn’t surprise me if they have strong opponents in the primary” next year, said Oregon Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan.

On top of that, Tiernan said it was “probably likely” that the state GOP would actually wind up helping defeat Smith and Jenson in next year’s party primary.

Tax activist Russ Walker, who heads the Oregon chapter of FreedomWorks and is vice chairman of the state GOP, has helped take out two Republican incumbents in past years who voted with Democrats in primary. Rep. Vic Backlund, R-Keizer, was beat in 2004 and Sen. Charles Starr, R-Hillsboro, lost in 2006.

“I swear to God they will not come back to this building,” said Walker. “Those guys are not reflecting the values of those who put them in those seats.”

Not that moving the state party even further to the right is the best electoral prescription for what ails Oregon Republicans, but from a Machiavellian perspective you gotta at least admire the GOP’s traditional enforcement of party discipline. Perhaps Greg Smith (R-Heppner) and Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton) believe their party is too weak at the moment to extract its usual revenge, or perhaps they truly care enough about education to risk the inevitable, but there’s a reason so few Republicans tend to cross the aisle on contentious votes, particularly those involving tax increases.

Democrats, on the other hand, we’re all over the place, which is partially due to the fact that we really are a big tent party (herding cats and all that), and partially due to the fact that progressives tend to be, by nature, substantially less vindictive than our counterparts on the right. Organized labor got absolutely screwed by Dems during Washington’s recent legislative session, but talk to them about their threats to withhold money from caucus committees and it’s like… you know… we’ll see how the 2010 session goes.

Way to hold their feet to the fire, guys.

The fact is, Democratic legislators, at least here in Washington state, simply aren’t afraid of disappointing the progressive base of the party because they know that there aren’t any consequences. Serious, well-financed Democratic primary challenges come less often than Seattle snowstorms, and they are never backed by the Party itself. Hell, we can’t even take out Sen. Tim Sheldon. So what does a Democratic incumbent have to fear?

I heard plenty of grumbling during the past session about conservative stances from swing district, suburban Democrats, or about the BIAW-toadying leadership of House Speaker Frank Chopp, but honestly, they’re not the main problem. Swing district Dems come from swing districts, and when averaged together, broadly tend to represent the often conflicting interests of their broad constituencies. And as Speaker, Chopp’s job is in fact to build and maintain a strong Democratic majority, a job he’s admittedly done efficiently, even if progressives like me have legitimate complaints about his failure to use it.

No, the legislators who have most let down the progressive base are generally those who hail from safe, Democratic and overwhelmingly progressive districts. You know, mostly Seattle and other largely urban strongholds. Whatever their values or their votes, as a block, they simply aren’t delivering, either within caucus deliberations or on the floor. And whether this failure is due to caution, competence or ideology, this block will continue to disappoint until we either replace them with legislators who are willing and able to effectively represent our interests, or the fear of such replacements forces them to step up their game to the next level.

Of course, our main focus should be on recruiting and supporting strong candidates in races for open seats—not the annointed or the same-old, same-old party faithful who would only deliver more of the same, and not the politics as usual kinda  single-issue advocates who so often fail to be effective on the broader progressive agenda. (One can’t help but admire Chopp’s passionate advocacy on behalf of affordable housing, but… well… you know.) No, what we need are smart, passionate, creative, fearlessly independent progressives, unbeholden to the party or any particular faction thereof, who are eager to use the safety their districts provide to pursue a broad and boldly progressive agenda.

You know, the kinda legislators who aren’t afraid to talk taxes regardless of how loudly the leadership yells “Shhhhhh!”

But… seats don’t open up all that often, so if we progressives really want our Democrats to be responsive to our needs, we need to primary a few of our own, and we need to do so with such an overwhelming show of force that future primary threats are taken damn seriously. When safe Democrats understand that they’re only safe from Republicans, perhaps they’ll start paying more than just lip service to our concerns.

This isn’t a tactic to which I’ve come lightly, and I fully understand the logistical and electoral challenge it represents. Way back in 2004 I ridiculed SEIU for failing to take out a little old lady in what I thought at the time was a misguided effort to primary Rep. Helen Sommers.  (But then, I also described Joni Balter as “one of Seattle’s more thoughtful and evenhanded political commentators,” so what did I know?) But a lot of things have changed since then, not the least of which being the near super-majorities Democrats have since won in both the House and the Senate.

With plenty of cushion and few opportunities for expansion, spending electoral resources primarying Dems in safe districts does not represent the same sort of politically self-destructive in-fighting it might during leaner times. Indeed, without a viable Republican opposition to pick off the weak links and keep Democrats on their toes, one can reasonably argue that we’re in desperate need of a little intramural competition to keep our party lean and fit. In politics as in other pursuits, combatants tend to rise to the level of the competition; the Republican caucus is currently in a woeful state, and the Democratic majority has arguably responded accordingly.

So while I know Frank, Lisa and others might not like my harsh prescription, they’ve done little to convince me it isn’t needed nonetheless.

The Oregon Senate passed SB 519 yesterday, by a 16-14 margin, a bill that prohibits employers from holding mandatory meetings to discuss religion, politics or union organizing. Sound familiar? It was a similar bill that got Washington Democratic leaders so flustered last session that they actually called the cops on the unions in the cynical, insulting and cowardly ploy they used to justify tabling the controversial measure.

It’s not clear what prospects the bill faces in the Oregon House; more than a few Democratic senators only voted for it reluctantly, and Oregon Democrats don’t hold nearly the majority their counterparts enjoy in the Washington legislature. But at least they let it come to the floor for a vote instead of fucking over one of their core constituencies.

Over the past few weeks one house or the other of the Oregon legislature has voted to increase taxes, close corporate tax loopholes, and protect worker privacy… all agenda items that were strictly off the table in Olympia during our recently ended session? Why? Well, I can only assume that, metaphorically speaking, Oregon’s Democratic leadership has balls, and ours doesn’t?

Or perhaps Frank is waiting for Gov. Rob McKenna before attempting to enact a progressive agenda?

In teasing the Seattle Times about its recent spate of noncontroversial and/or opinion-free editorials, I jokingly asked:

What’s next? A bold, sharply worded editorial arguing that puppies are cute?

Well today, in a rare signed editorial, Lynne Varner comes pretty damn close, pushing the edge of civil discourse by editorializing in favor of Camp Fire Girls. I’m almost tempted to write a scathing, profanity-laced attack on the entire Camp Fire movement, just out of sheer boredom.

Jesus Christ folks, throw me a bone here, before I’m reduced to reading (shudder) Crosscut.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yehfgeLvfos[/youtube]

I occasionally meet with foreign journalists through a program with the World Affairs Council, and near the end of a recent meeting, German TV and radio journalist Richard Gutjahr interviewed me on camera for a minutes on the craft of blogging. You can watch the results above.

Gutjahr interviewed activists, bloggers and legacy journalists at the New York Times, Washington Post, Seattle P-I, Des Moines Register and elsewhere, producing a series of brief videos on The Future of Newspapers , Better Blogging and Understanding New Media . In addition to me, other Seattleites interviewed include Jonathan Lawson of Reclaim the Media, Robert Jeffrey of Colors NW, SoundPolitic’s Jim Miller and the Seattle P-I’s Mark Trahant, who, right around the time of the paper’s final print edition, gives this spot on answer to the question of what he would have done differently:

“I would experiment like crazy. My frustration being in legacy media the last two years is that we didn’t fail enough. We kept trying to do things the way we’d always done them, and we should have been out there on the edge, just, what’s the wildest thing we can think of and try it, and we didn’t do a lot of that. I think if I had to do it all over again I’d argue more for total experimentation, because if you’re going to go down, at least go down and make it interesting.”

Hear that Ryan Blethen? Wouldn’t it be “wild” to put me on your editorial board? I mean, if you’re going to go down….

It’s an interesting series of interviews, and worth a look.

I wasn’t trying to be mean to Jan Drago in writing yesterday about her less than exciting public speaking performance. Not every politician is great a public speaker, just like not every talk radio host wields Dave Ross’s mellifluous baritone. Given her inability to differentiate herself from Mayor Greg Nickels on values and issues, I just don’t think she has what it takes defeat the incumbent, and, well, I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

But rather than hearing from angry Drago supporters, the most defensive comment in the thread came from Mike McGinn booster Craig, who objected to my focus on Drago and mention of Joe Mallahan while ignoring the McGinn campaign entirely:

On the other hand, Michael McGinn has stood up and challenged the political status quo (NO tunnel!), has dedicated his life to our City and his beliefs (fighting RTID, leading the Green Legacy Coalition to develop and pass last years Parks levy, serving as the local Sierra Club leader, founding Great City and serving on numerous City boards, commissions and oversight groups), has a vision for our city and understands what it takes to get it done (better schools, improved transit service and technology infrastructure), and, most importantly, has a fast-growing base of dedicated volunteers (what really wins elections). He’s also got the whole “smart, articulate and positive thing going” as well.

Let’s start talking about the real buzz in this year’s campaign, Michael McGinn.

Okay Craig, if you insist, let’s talk about the “real buzz” surrounding McGinn, which unfortunately for him has so far centered around his anemic campaigning.

Yeah, sure, whatever buzz Mallahan has (if any) is entirely self-financed, but if McGinn has all this organizing experience and grassroots support working for him, why hasn’t he translated it into a little do-re-mi of his own? By my estimates McGinn has raised a little more than $30,000 from less than 150 contributors, a pretty pathetic total after three months of campaigning.

No, politics isn’t all about the money, nor should it be, but fundraising can be a useful measure of both a candidate’s political competency and support. And what does it say about a challenger who made his mark as a leader in the environmental community when most of the major environmental endorsements are going to his opponent?

Successfully running for office, especially against an entrenched incumbent, is a near full time job, yet the last couple times I saw McGinn, he was just out riding his bike.  Not doorbelling, not fundraising, not working the crowd, just out enjoying the sunshine and riding his bike.  Good for him, I suppose. It’s a healthy passtime. But with that kinda political work ethic, I don’t think that’s a buzz you hear coming from his campaign, Craig, but rather the hiss of the air slowly escaping from McGinn’s political tires.

Again, I’ve got nothing against the guy. I just calls ’em as I sees ’em.

Um… this is an editorial? I hate to belabor the point, but aren’t opinion pages supposed to contain actual opinions?

I mean, if the Times’ editors aren’t going to write anything stupid, selfish, misleading or downright dishonest, what the hell am I going to blog about?