Goldy

What really went on at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, the preeminent conservative gathering of the year? Michelle Malkin goes unhinged, Ann Coulter defends her privacy, a “curiously pale black Republican” explains why black Republicans can’t get elected, and Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and “Flipper,” the anti-Romney dolphin, discuss the conservative movement. A must-see bit of film-making from Max Blumenthal of The Nation.

And get this gem from right-wing hate-mongerer David Horwitz:

“The left is driven by envy, resentment and a ferocious hatred of anybody on the other side. And that’s because it’s a religious movement which believes that the world can be redeemed, we can end world poverty, we can end racism, sexism and homophobia, if only those damned conservatives would die. And so every leftist has in his heart, is consumed with hate.”

Pot, meet kettle.

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 urged concrete aficionados to move to Florida, where road-enamored state and local governments seem to operate under the democratic principle of “one car, one vote.” But if your idea of responsible transportation planning is paving your way out of every traffic jam, then you only need to look as far as Arizona to find your Freeway to Heaven.

That’s a crosscut of Arizona’s I-10, which state transportation officials propose to expand from twelve lanes to twenty-four between Tempe and Phoenix. That’s right… twenty-four lanes. And yes, we’re talking about a freeway, not a bowling alley.

Just imagine this baby running along Seattle’s waterfront… and a hundred feet or so out into Elliot Bay.

This is what comes from trying to build your way out road congestion, instead of adopting integrated solutions that include mass transit and rational urban planning.

Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen may be our region’s most famous dog hater, but his colleagues over at the P-I don’t seem to possess much puppy love either, seeing fit to squander yet more precious column inches editorializing against dogs in bars and restaurants.

It probably says something about our legislators, and us, as a community, when we’re further along in the debate as to whether to let dogs into restaurants than we are with such issues as delaying the WASL until 2010 (ah, it’s only our education system, folks) and lowering the cap on payday loans from 391 percent down to 36 percent (the poor can wait another year). Clearly, those concerns aren’t as urgent as being able to take dogs to bars.

Or, maybe what this bill’s legislative progress says is exactly what the P-I’s editorial says by example — that it’s a helluva lot easier to encapsulate and move on a simple issue like dogs in bars than say… reforming education?

What exactly is the P-I suggesting? That the Legislature prioritize every issue in order of importance, and not move on down the list until the top-most issue is settled? If we had to wait until we reached a legislative consensus on reforming education before we moved on to any other issue, we might as well just disband the Legislature.

What a silly argument. At least as silly as the issue itself.

I’m doing some system maintenance. If things go down, or look strange, don’t complain. Yet.

UPDATE:
Well how about that. WordPress 2.1.1 requires mySQL 4.0. Which I don’t currently have.

Anyway, everything should be back to normal. If it’s not, let me know.

Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Hypocrite) makes a weasly argument for maintaining the 60-percent supermajority requirement on school levies:

Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said that Republicans are leery of making it easier to raise property taxes. She noted that the supermajority requirement stems from a 1932 citizen initiative.

And, um… of course, we should honor the will of these voters, despite the fact that nearly all of them are now dead.

I see this argument trotted out a lot — that because a measure was approved by voters by whatever margin however many years ago, its provisions are now somehow inviolate. But of course, this is just an argument of convenience to be used whenever it suits ones needs. For example, the 1932 property tax initiative that Holmquist venerates also capped levy rates at 40-mill, rather than the much lower 10-mill cap now in place. And it was just one part of a larger tax reform package that included a measure creating both a personal and corporate income tax… a citizens initiative that passed with 70-percent of the vote, but was thrown out a year later in a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

So I don’t suppose there’s something so special about that 1932 election that Sen. Holmquist would be willing to support an income tax and a 40-mill levy cap? Or that there’s something so insufficient about modern voters that they shouldn’t be given the opportunity to amend a provision passed by their counterparts 75-years ago?

Initiatives enact laws like any other law, and once the two-year moratorium is up, they can and should be amended to fix poorly thought out provisions or address changing times. It is true that initiatives are voted on directly by citizens, but then, so are our representatives.

Over on his blog, Postman asks “What really doomed Senate vote on school bill?” — and while he presents an interesting exploration of the politics that led to its failure, the simple answer is: Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle).

As a constitutional amendment the bill requires 33 votes to pass. (It would then need to be approved by a simple majority of voters at the polls.) The bill failed 30-17 after Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) shifted her vote in a procedural move that enables her to recall the measure for a later vote.

Sure, the Republicans reneged on a deal that would have assured passage, but the only vote that really matters now is that of Sen. Jacobsen. A careful observer will notice that only 48 votes were cast, with Sen. Paull Shin (D-Edmonds) absent on a trip to Korea. One can reasonably expect that should the measure come up a second time, both Senators Shin and Brown will vote for the bill. Assuming no other senator switches sides, that leaves Sen. Jacobsen with the deciding vote.

Jacobsen says he’s holding out for a measure giving Seattle schools an extra $30 million, and no question I hope he gets what he’s asking for. But I’m not willing to scuttle our best shot at removing our ridiculous 60-percent supermajority requirement for school levies. And hopefully, when push comes to shove, neither is Sen. Jacobsen.

Time to start pushing and shoving.

The state House Finance Committee is considering two bills this week, and committee members need to hear from you immediately.

The first is HB 1827, a bill requiring a “tax expenditure report” to be part of the biennial budget process. What does this mean? Very simply it requires an accounting of all tax exemptions, credits, loopholes etc., so that legislators (and voters) can quantify what they are costing the state in lost revenues. Hard to argue with that… unless of course, you simply don’t want the public to know how much corporate tax breaks are costing us.

The second bill — and this one really gets my goat — is HB 2117, which would codify the one percent annual limit on increases in property tax revenues, that was recently tossed out along with Tim Eyman’s I-747. Let’s be clear… re-imposing this 1 percent cap would not only be incredibly harmful to local communities — particularly those in slow-growing, rural regions of the state — it would be downright cowardly and idiotic.

There may be a cap rate that makes sense, but one-percent is nonsensical and vindictive — it can’t even keep up with inflation, let alone growth in population or growth in demand for public services. All across the state local taxing districts are on the verge of insolvency, and face a potential collapse in essential public services (police, fire, EMS) unless something changes, and quick. I-747’s court defeat is an opportunity to reexamine the issue and create a reasonable cap, while targeting some real property tax relief to those who need it most. (Hmm… a Property Tax Homestead Exemption comes to mind.) But to simply regurgitate Tim’s bullshit would be a total abdication of legislative responsibility.

So let your representatives know that you want them to vote YES on HB 1827 and an emphatic NO on HB 2117. The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition has made it easier for you; just scroll to the bottom of this page and submit the form.

And do it now.

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.

State Sen. Janea Holmquist (R-Moses Lake) just introduced SB 6142, which very simply reads:

A member of the legislature may not introduce as prime sponsor more than fifteen bills during a legislative session, excluding committee substitute bills.

Hmm. Perhaps Sen. Holmquist has a point, considering this is the sixteenth bill she’s primed thus far this session.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join me for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.

In honor of Al Gore’s victory Sunday night at the Oscars, we’ll be screening An Inconvenient Truth tonight — the perfect antidote to the usual hot air that tends to emanate from us DL regulars.

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.

Come on… can anybody other than a newspaper editorial board or a stadium-struck state senator really take Sonics owner Clay Bennett seriously? Yesterday Bennett unveiled sketches of a proposed $500 million Renton arena, but….

Bennett said team owners won’t pay for any cost overruns [… and] he did not say how much owners would contribute…

So let me get this straight. The Sonics want a $500 million arena of their own design, financed by $300 million in state money, plus $100 million or so in land and cash from the city of Renton. Renton would own the arena, and be responsible for major maintenance and repairs, but the Sonics would keep all revenues from all events, and not be responsible for a penny of construction cost overruns. Of the remaining $100 million not covered by taxpayers, that would mostly be offset by naming rights, seat licenses and other such deals, bringing Bennett and his partners’ total contribution to… just about nil.

And Bennett calls a public vote on the proposal “problematic”…? No shit, Sherlock.

Given the political reality (you know… that state Sen. Margarita Prentice of Renton only has one vote,) you’d think Bennett might have tried to sweeten the pot instead of announcing that taxpayers would be stuck with the inevitable cost overruns. But then, I’ve never believed that Bennett ever seriously wanted to keep the Sonics in the Seattle area, but rather has always intended to move the team back home to Oklahoma City, where he will be welcomed as a conquering hero. In that admittedly cynical scenario the arena proposal must be just believable enough to keep gullible fans (and editors) in their seats until the Key Arena lease runs out in 2010, but outrageous enough to make the deal politically DOA.

That Bennett now says he might accept a public vote on his proposal fits in quite nicely with that strategy, dragging the process out even further while virtually assuring that such a grandiose act of corporate welfare is rejected at the polls.

So enjoy the Seattle Sonics while you can. That is, if you can enjoy a team that can’t be bothered to put a quality product on the court, even while supposedly in the midst of fight to gain public support for a new, taxpayer-funded arena.

TANGENTIAL UPDATE:
After a similar Sonics “announcement” a couple weeks back, I compared the contrasting coverage in the Times and P-I, much to the irritation of Times reporter David Postman, who accused me of being a wrong-headed, fatuous drunk.

I like Postman, and think he’s a great reporter. But he’s more than a little bit sensitive, and he took my critique as a personal attack on the Times and his colleagues. No doubt I preferred the editorial slant of the P-I’s coverage (I often do,) but whether Postman accepts my explanation or not, my main goal was to point out that different papers covering the same event often impress in readers dramatically different perceptions of the key issues at hand.

So considering our previous media criticism brouhaha, it is only fair to compare and contrast the Times and P-I in their coverage of yesterday’s Sonics “news.”

Seattle Times: OLYMPIA — Sonics owner Clay Bennett on Monday unveiled early sketches of a proposed $500 million Renton arena and softened his stance on whether it should go to a public vote. But Bennett said team owners won’t pay for any cost overruns. And with a Legislature skeptical over the $300 million-plus bill to taxpayers already sought, it’s not clear whether the building will ever become more than ink on paper. At a hearing before the House Finance Committee, Bennett offered few new details about the proposed arena beyond the sketches. He did not say how much owners would contribute and said many details would have to be worked out in a lease with King County.

Seattle P-I: OLYMPIA — After months of conjecture, Clay Bennett and his partners put a visual face on their new arena concept Monday with the release of architectural drawings of the proposed Sonics facility in Renton. “I’m open to whatever the right answer is, whatever leadership recommends and whatever’s right for this region,” Bennett told lawmakers. The public — as well as lawmakers — can now picture the 20,000-seat building Bennett has planned for the site, which was announced two weeks ago.

Readers of the P-I were presented with a lede that pretty much tells the story Bennett wanted to tell: a politically conciliatory Bennett released architectural drawings that enable the public and lawmakers to envision the new, proposed arena. In fact, the P-I article never even mentions anything about cost overruns or owners contributions.

The Times lede is quite a bit more nuanced… and appropriately cynical. It too starts with the visual — the sketches of the new arena — but quickly dives into the political deep-end of the story: the team won’t pay for cost overruns or commit to a contribution, and legislators remain skeptical. While the P-I says the public “can now picture” the new arena, the Times ephasizes that “Bennett offered few new details.” And though the P-I leads with a propitiative Bennett quote, the Times merely describes the Sonics owner as having “softened his stance.”

My only formal journalism training occurred way back in high school, but I’m pretty sure the admonition to put the most important information near the top, hasn’t changed much these past twenty-five years. (A rule, by the way, which I often break.) Many readers never get past the first few paragraphs, so when it comes to the release of the architectural sketches, those who picked up the P-I this morning will simply learn what happened, while those who picked up the Times will learn what it all means. Score one for the Times.

As I’ve said before: one hearing, two newspapers, two ledes.

And all the more reason to keep this a two newspaper town.

The Tri-City Herald’s Chris Mulick digs up the dirt on state Rep. Shirley Hankins (R-Richland):

Longtime Richland state Rep. Shirley Hankins has repeatedly used the power of her office in the past five years to muscle state and local officials into directing business to her two daughters’ struggling tire baling company.

A Herald investigation shows the Republican lawmaker’s efforts to promote Northwest Tire Recycling have ranged from carefully indirect to downright blunt, and the tactics raise questions about abuse of power.

[… Hankins] denied she’s ever used her office to promote the daughters’ business […] but multiple interviews, letters, e-mails and other documents reveal that Hankins has actively promoted Northwest Tire Recycling in Olympia and the Tri-Cities.

Great reporting by Mulick, but will his paper follow up? Central WA blog The Other Side demands that both Hankins and the region’s editorial boards do the right thing.

The papers in the region should call for her resignation. And, of course, the only honorable thing for her to do……resign.

Hmm. I dunno. I mean, all Hankins really did was abuse the power of her office to benefit her daughters’ business, and as far as editorial-worthy scandals go, that pales in comparison to this session’s notorious Dogs-In-Bars Controversy.

As for my colleagues on the right — who fancy themselves watchdogs of government corruption — you just know that if Hankins were a Democrat they’d be screaming for her political necklacing. But I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for cries of outrage from my friends over at (u)SP.