Goldy

From the one story, two headlines department:

Seattle Times: “Seven charged in vote-fraud scheme”
Seattle PI: “Voter-registration workers charged with submitting bogus registrations”

Of course, the Seattle PI headline is more accurate. It was voter-registration fraud, not vote fraud. There was never any attempt or intent to actually cast a fraudulent ballot, and to suggest otherwise is simply hyperbole.

That said, I’m glad the perpetrators are being prosecuted. But rather than celebrate the permanent disenfranchisement of seven more US citizens, I thought I’d just use this story as a springboard to talk about one of my personal pet peeves: paid initiative signature gathering.

But the scheme had nothing to do with an attempt to manipulate elections and everything to do with the workers’ efforts to keep their $8-an-hour jobs, prosecutors said.

[…] “The defendants … cheated their employers to get paid for work they did not actually perform,” Satterberg said. “The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets.”

And if you think this sort of cheating never occurs in the $2-$5 per-signature world of the highly profitable initiative industry, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. In WA state it is not uncommon for 20-percent of initiative signatures to be rejected on closer review, and in some states the rejection rate has exceeded 50-percent. There is no evidence we even come close to catching all the fraudulent signatures, and we have no mechanism for tracing them back to individual, paid signature gatherers.

We have created strong economic incentives for cheating, and the result is a nationwide initiative industry that is rife with fraud and corruption. But for some reason the “clean elections” hawks on the right, who would gladly wipe 100,000 legitimate voters from the rolls in hope of eliminating a couple felons, consider it anti-democratic to suggest any reform that might better protect the integrity of initiative petitions.

Go figure.

The General has found a way to rid the nation of the homosexual scourge, and he’s asking our help to pass the following resolution in state legislatures nationwide. (Too bad Luke Esser is no longer in the state senate; this is exactly the type of resolution he would have sponsored.)

Whereas homosexuality is an abomination before God;

whereas Senator Tom Coburn has identified toilets as being critical habitat for homosexuals;

whereas it is common knowledge that homosexuals fear robots;

whereas Jim Naugle, the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, is using this knowledge to exclude homosexuals from the city’s beaches by installing robot toilets;

whereas the rest of our heterosexual nation would benefit if a similar approach were applied universally;

whereas Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to coin money and pay debts;

whereas official memos written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Fred Fielding transfer all of the legislative powers found in Article I Section 8 to the President of the United States;

whereas the Vice President of the United State, using the blood of his hunting companions as ink, affixed his initials and a smiley face upon each of these official memos;

we, the citizens of the various states, beseech the President to order the demolition of all analog toilets, both public and private, and thereby destroy the homosexuals’ critical habitat;

furthermore, we, the citizens of the various states, respectably ask the President to command the Secretary of the Treasury to fund the construction of replacement pay toilets by a contractor of the Vice President’s choosing at a cost that shall not exceed 1.8 million dollars per unit.

Whoops. Rodney Tom supporters were likely buoyed by the list of endorsements his campaign emailed out last week when he announced his candidacy for Dave Reichert’s congressional seat in WA-08, but that list seems to be shrinking day by day. First King County Democratic Chair Susan Sheary denied she had endorsed Tom, and now 48th LD Chair Doug Hightower tells me he too should not have been included on the list.

I talked to Hightower today to get his take on the primary race between Tom and Darcy Burner, and he told me that he was “neutral,” and didn’t know how his name got on the endorsement list. Hightower insisted it was “too early” for party officials like him to take sides.

Consultant John Wyble graciously offered to “take the fall” for the erroneous email announcing Tom’s “run for Congresss [sic],” and I suppose it is only a minor embarrassment for both Tom and his campaign. Still, a candidate running mostly on the strength of his five years of experience in the state legislature should probably have enough campaign experience to know that it’s not such a good idea to claim endorsements until, um, you know… you actually have them.

King County Democratic Party Chairwoman Susan Sheary attended his campaign-kickoff announcement, and Tom — erroneously — claimed her endorsement, too.

He said later that support for him is obvious “when you’ve got the King County Democratic chair behind you,” and added, “She is fully behind me.”

Not so, Sheary said: “I have not endorsed anyone and will not. I was there only as a party leader because he had invited me. But I will stay neutral in the (primary) race.”

By the way, I’ve been talking to political insiders, pundits, wags and other members of the courtier class, trying to get a gauge on the conventional wisdom surrounding the Burner/Tom primary, and Hightower’s take was pretty much in line with the consensus: it’s good for the Democrats and a bad, bad sign for Reichert. Two term incumbents are usually unbeatable, yet Democrats are champing at the bit to take him on — compare that to Jennifer Dunn, who basically ran unopposed for much of her career.

And while Burner may not have wanted a primary opponent, almost everybody I’ve spoken with believes the challenge will be good for her… you know, with the possible exception of those few deluded folks who actually think Burner might lose.

At a campaign stop an “Idea Bank” forum in Longview yesterday, Republican gubernatorial candidate nonpartisan Forward Washington Foundation founder Dino Rossi “primed the pump” with his own ideas on how to turn around Washington’s fifth best business climate foundering economy. At the top of his list? Repealing Washington’s estate tax.

“It chases entrepreneurs out of our state,” he said. “It is better to die in any other state of the union than in Washington.”

He also called for reinstating the spending limit voters passed by initiative in 1993, which he said the Legislature repealed in 2005. He said the newest budget passed in Olympia had a 33 percent spending increase, which is unsustainable.

“I spent seven years in Olympia,” he said. “You’ll find a whole lot of people there who think they know all the answers. But the real solutions will come from people closest to the problems. We need an agenda that is people-driven, instead of coming from the top down.”

A “people-driven” agenda, huh? You mean like last year’s estate tax repeal initiative, I-920, which was rejected by voters in 36 of 39 counties, and by an overwhelming 62-percent to 38-percent margin statewide? Um… what exactly doesn’t Rossi understand about a 24-point landslide? “If he keeps talking like that,” one political wag quipped to me, “Rossi is going to become awfully familiar with the figure ’38-percent.'”

Rossi is pitching a solution voters have already rejected, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. And apparently, he sees absolutely nothing inconsistent — or “top down” — about calling for reinstating a 1993 initiative at the same time he ignores the results of a ballot measure from 2006.

Talk about somebody who thinks he knows all the answers.

While sounding very much like someone on the campaign trail at Tuesday’s forum, Rossi said he is not a declared candidate for the 2008 gubernatorial race and won’t announce until December whether or not he will run.

Take your time, Dino. Take your time.

I had the chance to hear Rodney Tom speak before the 48th District Democrats last week, and while he touched on education and the Iraq war, he led off his nascent stump speech by arguing that the primary race was mostly about beating Dave Reichert. One of his main critiques of Darcy Burner’s 2006 campaign was her relatively poor showing in Pierce County, where she garnered only 42.6 percent of the vote. Tom argues that he is a better fit to this more conservative, blue collar part of the 8th Congressional District. (Apparently because these voters strongly identify with wealthy, Lexus-driving, Medina realtors, I guess.)

The Tacoma News Tribune picked up on this theme yesterday with an article titled “Pierce vote important to Reichert challengers.”

Last year, as she prepared to challenge Republican Dave Reichert for the U.S. House, Darcy Burner said it would take significant Pierce County support for her to win.

She was right. Burner received only 304 fewer votes than Reichert out of over 200,000 cast in King County. But the Pierce County part of the congressional district remained loyal to the Republican, giving Reichert some 7,000 more votes than his Democratic challenger.

Hmm. I know this may sound counterintuitive, but the fact is, Burner lost the race in King County, not Pierce, where despite losing by more than 7,000 votes, she came pretty damn close to meeting or beating expectations. It was the King County results that proved disappointing, and a look back at previous elections explains why.

In 2006 Burner captured 42.6 percent of the vote in Pierce County, more than any other 8th CD Democrat since 1990. In 2004 by comparison, Dave Ross received only 39.1 of the Pierce vote, less than a half-percent better than the best effort by the much maligned Heidi Behrens-Benedict. Burner knew that to beat Reichert she had to do substantially better than previous Democrats in Pierce County. And she did.

In fact according to campaign insiders, Burner’s 3.5 point improvement over Ross (and nearly 7 point improvement over the ten-year average,) was right on target. All it would have taken to win the race was a very attainable 51.8 percent of the vote in the more Democratic King County portion of the district. But it didn’t happen. Late absentees broke decidedly towards Reichert, and Burner ended up losing King County by a few hundred votes out of over 200,000 cast.

Clearly, Tom is more conservative than Darcy, but then so was Ross, and to argue that this somehow makes Tom more electable simply isn’t supported by the facts. Burner did relatively well in Pierce County, a Republican stronghold, and with high name ID, increased turnout and presidential coattails, she’ll likely do even better. Unless, of course, I’m totally underestimating Pierce County’s Lexus-driving Medina realtor vote.

And one more balloon to burst before I go:

Tom supporters note the anti-Republican wave that swept the nation last year and say Burner had her chance to ride it to victory.

What a load of crap. Republicans held 232 House seats going into the 2006 election, and only 22 incumbents lost. Only 22. The GOP poured everything it had into defending Reichert; Karl Rove made WA-08 his number one target. And yet a total unknown with no prior campaign experience came within a silver hair of defeating “the Sheriff.”

Underestimate Burner at your own risk.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels will be stopping by tonight, so please join us for some hot conversation, washed down with some icy cold brew.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

Yesterday I announced a break from my longstanding (near) zero-moderation policy, warning that blatantly off-topic comments, copyright violations and sock puppetry would no longer be tolerated. Today Slog announced a “new” comment moderation policy of its own:

The Stranger’s Blog Comments Policy

We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

Define “threatening.” But other than that, that’s pretty much the same standard we intend to follow here on HA. Repeat violators will be banned, joining the infamous JCH in comment thread purgatory.

I’d say the HA community has been very cooperative, and overwhelmingly supportive. I’ve personally only deleted a single comment thus far… and that was a mistake. Thanks.

One of things that has always distinguished HA from most other blogs is the unmoderated, no holds barred nature of the comment threads, and the nasty, brutish and often profane political bloodsport that they produce. No stranger to vitriol and foul language, I never felt it my place to impose more solemn standards on the HA community.

But really, enough is enough. It is one thing to abuse me personally, but it is entirely another to abuse the whole HA community by hijacking threads with intentionally off-topic comments. I have no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to continue to tolerate this deliberate trolling, and the deliberate disruption of legitimate debate on important issues of the day, especially in the face of the constant and baseless accusations that I have been blocking comments. (TIP: I don’t have the time to read most of my comments, let alone censor them.)

So as of this moment I am imposing new policies regarding comment thread moderation. The following type of comments will no longer be tolerated:

• Deliberately off-topic comments (except in “open threads”), as well as pointless comments on these comments.
• Deliberately repetitive comments, particularly those intended to repeat and a reinforce slander that has already been sufficiently debunked.
• Large chunks of cut-and-paste from copyrighted works or other blogs and comment threads.
• Blatant sock puppetry.

Each of my co-bloggers are now free to delete comments on their own posts based on their own arbitrary interpretation of these standards, while Darryl and I have global moderation privileges. Repeat offenders will be banned. And don’t be surprised to see these standards imposed sporadically and selectively. This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.

My advice to the rest of you is please don’t feed the trolls. Ignore the off-topic comments and the abusers who post them. When you comment on this garbage, you only encourage them. Comments on deleted comments will likely be deleted too, so as not to disrupt the flow of the thread. And if you absolutely feel the need to discuss some off-topic issue, or announce some sort of breaking news, please save it for an “Open Thread,” which will now be graciously provided on a daily or more frequent basis.

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

7PM: Is nothing sacred?
Politics is a dirty business, but are there any areas of a candidate’s life that is absolutely off limits? Writing on Slog, Josh Feit frets that it is “tacky to report on a politician’s religion,” before proceeding to report on Rep. Dave Reichert’s active membership in the ultra-fundamentalist Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. If Reichert’s religion is off limits, why not John Edwards’ haircut or Bill Clinton’s sex life… or the fact that Laura Bush killed her boyfriend?

8PM: But what about the pie crust?
King County bans Crisco! Oh no! Erika Nuerenberg, Senior Advisor to King County Council member Julia Patterson, and Trent House, Dir. Government Affairs for the Washington Restaurant Association, will join me for the hour talk about the county’s ban on trans-fat, and new nutritional labeling requirements for chain restaurants.

9PM: Prison overcrowding: supply or demand?
We’re running out of space in our region’s local jails. Is it time to start building more prisons, or maybe start treating drug addiction as a public health problem rather than a criminal one?

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

Apparently, our region’s prisons are running out of space:

Starting in 2012, King County plans to no longer house most drunken drivers, prostitutes, small-scale drug users and other misdemeanor offenders, prompting cities south and east of Seattle to start planning to build new jails in their communities.

Officials in Snohomish, Pierce and Spokane counties may follow suit and keep misdemeanor offenders from being booked into their main county jails. Although King County’s two jails in Seattle and Kent still have room for offenders, projections show the jails reaching full capacity in about a decade.

The region’s cities currently contract with the counties to house many of their misdemeanor offenders, but will soon be faced with the expense of building more jail space of their own. Or… perhaps we might want to consider not locking up misdemeanor, nonviolent drug offenders?

Whatever you think about the dangers of illicit drug use, few would argue that the “war on drugs” is working. Drug use is primarily a public health issue, not a criminal one, and studies show that it would be much more effective and less expensive to treat it as such. And apart from the obvious ill effects of smoking, there is little science to suggest that casual marijuana use is any more dangerous to the individual or society than casual drinking.

Cities pay King County $197.23 for each misdemeanor inmate booked into the jail, plus $103.17 per inmate, per day; drug treatment, by comparison, is a relative bargain. Throughout the state, over 70-percent of each county’s general fund is spent on their criminal justice system, and politicians who have made a career of railing against high taxes and wasteful government spending, are also typically the first to demand a “tough on crime,” “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach to all sorts of social ills, real and perceived.

But if prison overcrowding is an issue of both supply and demand, it might behoove us as a society to examine both sides of the equation.

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

7PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins me for the hour for a round-up of the week in state and local politics, including bikes, developer loopholes, and pot, plus

8PM: President Dick Cheney?
President George Bush underwent a colonoscopy today, which meant that for several scary hours, Dick Cheney was acting president. What did they find in Bush’s colon? Is Tehran still standing? Also, old-line Republicans warning we need to impeach Bush/Cheney now, or risk becoming a “dictatorial police state.” Scared yet?

9PM: Do you want to recycle Richard Conlin?
Seattle City Councilman Richard Conlin joins me for the hour to talk about the city’s new mandatory food waste recycling program, and to take your calls.

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

Over at the Seattle Weekly (yeah, the Weekly,) Aimee Curl has been digging through recent PDC filings, and they don’t look so good for state House Republicans. Sixteen months before the next election, the House Dems’ official campaign committee already has over $450,000 in the bank, compared to the Republicans’ measly $40,621. Wow.

The organizing committees are the party machines that give campaign funds directly to candidates. “It’s amazing how big the disparity has become,” marvels former state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance. […] Vance credits this year’s Democrat cash explosion in part to House Speaker Frank Chopp’s machine. “In terms of Olympia that’s the shadow that looms over everything,” he says, adding that Republican challengers are as good as on their own in 2008.

“The financial advantage is so massive it will put the Republicans completely on the defensive,” Vance says. “The Democrats can force the Republicans to have to worry about their incumbents. Now you have to take whatever money you’ve got and defend them and you’ve got no other money to help challengers.”

Progressives like me sometimes question Chopp’s willingness to use his near-super majority, but we have no qualms about his ability to build and maintain it. Folks smarter than me about these things tell me that House and Senate Dems have stretched the limits of attainable majorities given current electoral realities, but I wouldn’t expect a GOP comeback in 2008.

Still, I’m not entirely comfortable with Chopp’s incrementalist approach, and can’t help but wonder if he took away the wrong lesson from the Republican landslide of 1994. Conventional wisdom asserts that voters punished state Dems for overreaching during the previous session, and it is hard to argue that this didn’t play some role, at least in the rhetoric of the 1994 campaign season. But I think that the important lesson to learn from the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 — and the Big Blue Wave of 2006 — is that electoral politics can shift dramatically, seemingly overnight, and sometimes for reasons apparently beyond your control.

If Chopp thinks Dems can sustain a working majority indefinitely, he’s deluding himself. And even if he does maintain control of the House, that’s no guarantee that the Senate or the Governor’s mansion won’t suddenly fall into GOP hands. Sure, there’s no compelling reason to toss out Gov. Gregoire in 2008, but in this notoriously fickle and ticket-splitting state, voters don’t need one. The Dems are always just one bad campaign away from finding themselves mired in gridlock… or worse.

I suppose one can imagine a rosier political scenario than the one currently facing state Dems. But one would be foolish to expect it.