HorsesAss.Org

It’s been almost two weeks since the audio of National Rifle Association lobbyist Brian Judy went viral, drawing broad condemnation of his comments equating universal background checks to Nazi Germany, and calling Jews “stupid” for supporting Initiative 594. “These people,” exclaims Judy, “you come to this country and you support gun control? … Hello! Is anybody home here?”

So far, neither Judy nor the NRA have had the balls to give an official response. But on her Facebook page, Judy’s co-speaker at the July 23 event, NRA campaign field representative Adina Hicks, has come to his defense, lauding Judy for “speaking the truth and giving a history lesson.”

Hicks herself has a prior history of buying into the NRA’s bullshit “background checks equals Hitler” meme. Introducing herself in a forum on WaGuns.org, Hicks wrote: “When I found out about [I-594] and read the initiative, my first thought was Nazi Germany, Hitler’s gun registration and eventual confiscation.” Because, of course, having to fill out a form to purchase a gun is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust.

But then, that’s the sort of sharp legal reading of I-594 that you’d expect from a disbarred attorney. Adina Hicks is actually registered to vote as Adina Atwood, who was disbarred in 2004 for “multiple acts of misconduct” including abandoning clients and failing to return their fees. Not sure what the circumstances are surrounding her name change, but it seems to be recent, as both names appear on NRA websites, but with the same phone number.

Whatever.

The point the “I-594 equals Hitler” crowd is making is that the Nazis used gun registration records to disarm the Jews, leaving them unable to defend themselves from the state. Which is both a perversion of history, and downright offensive.

First of all, it was the Weimar government that instituted tight gun registration laws after World War I, not the Nazis; Hitler actually loosened gun control laws for everybody but the Jews. The eventual confiscation of the few guns held by German Jews wasn’t an act of gun control as much as it was an act of anti-Semitism. Big difference. And to characterize it as anything but anti-Semitism is insulting.

Second, the very suggestion that disarming the Jews was a significant event on the timeline to the Holocaust is blame-the-victim historical revisionism of the worst kind. Forty-two million well-armed Frenchmen just rolled over in the face of the German blitzkrieg, as did 35 million Poles and much of the rest of Europe. The very idea that Germany’s 500,000 Jews—about 0.75 percent of the population—armed with handguns and hunting rifles, could have defended themselves against the Nazi regime is downright crazy!

Besides, German Jews represented only a fraction of the estimated 6 million European Jews the Nazis exterminated. So to argue that Nazi gun control laws led to the Holocaust is tantamount to arguing that all the horrors of World War II could have been avoided if only German Jewry had the guns and the balls to defend themselves. It is an argument that if taken to its logical conclusion essentially blames World War II on the Jews!

And finally, whatever their logic or their twisted view of history, what the likes of Hicks and Judy refuse to acknowledge is that the “I-594 is Hitler” equation is transitive. I-594 merely requires filling out some paperwork before purchasing a gun. So if I-594 equals the Holocaust, then the Holocaust must equal paperwork. Thus to rhetorically equate I-594 with the Holocaust is to equate the genocide of European Jewry with a mere inconvenience.

I don’t know if Hicks and Judy just lack the empathy to understand why Jews might find this over-the-top rhetoric offensive, or if they just don’t care?

http://youtu.be/PlrZIr8zSgY

Now that the TV ads supporting universal gun background checks are starting to air in WA, I can’t wait to see the the ads comparing gun background checks to Hitler. Go for it NRA—I double-dare you!

I’m not sure what they’re suing about if even the International Franchise Association acknowledges that franchises are different from “local small businesses”:

“Who in their right mind wants to become a franchisee in Seattle now? They are immediately placed at a competitive disadvantage to local small businesses,” said Matt Haller, a spokesman for the International Franchise Association, based in Washington, D.C.

As I understand the English language, to assert that franchisees are at “a competitive disadvantage to local small businesses” inherently implies that franchisees are not local small businesses. Which of course runs counter to the IFA’s entire legal argument. Haller didn’t say “other” local small businesses, because franchisees are clearly different. If it was a slip, it was a Freudian one.

Regardless, this motion for a preliminary injunction is just grandstanding. A) Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law doesn’t go into effect until April. The lower court will almost certainly decide the underlying suit before then, so there’s no chance for “irreparable harm.” And B), to grant an injunction the court would have to determine that the IFA has a decent chance of prevailing on its hilarious claims, and that just doesn’t seem likely given the past 80 years of legal precedent.

In responding to a recent National Labor Relations Board recommendation that franchisors and franchisees be designated as “joint-employers,” the IFA responded by claiming that this would “threaten the sanctity of hundreds of thousands of contracts between franchisees and franchisors.” It is a similar legal argument to what the IFA has been making against Seattle’s $15 minimum wage ordinance.

Indeed, the IFA is banking on nothing less than returning to the pre-New Deal legal framework of the Lochner era, in which the right of parties to enter into private contracts trumps the right of government to regulate business. Under this framework, not only would Seattle’s minimum wage be unconstitutional, but all minimum wages would. As well as most other federal, state, and local business regulations.

I wouldn’t put anything beyond the schemes of the right-of-right Roberts court, but until that happens, it’s hard to imagine a US District court judge viewing the IFA’s radical claims as being credible enough to warrant an injunction.

Normally, I eagerly await King County’s 4:30 pm day-after-Election-Day ballot drop in order to spot election-changing trends in late ballots, but in a nod to the total lack of drama in Tuesday’s results, I instead chose to go hiking yesterday afternoon. And as expected, in the one race that was truly being decided in this election, Seattle Proposition 1 (Metropolitan Park District) slightly expanded its comfortable election night lead from 52.4%-47.6% to an even more comfortable 52.7%-47.3%.

That shift may not sound like much, but it pretty much plunges a stake through heart of any chance that the No side might prevail through a surge of late ballots. Of the 14,107 Seattle ballots tallied yesterday, greater than 54.9% of them voted Yes on Prop 1. And while two data points isn’t generally enough to plot a trend, given the fact that ballots are generally counted chronologically, first in/first out, these late-ish ballots (mostly arriving Monday and Tuesday) safely indicate that late voters were at least modestly more supportive of Prop 1 than those who mailed in their ballots over the prior three weeks.

In any case, there just aren’t that many ballots remaining. King County Elections reported 138,929 Seattle ballots had arrived by 8pm yesterday. That number won’t dramatically increase. Yet 113,928 have already been counted. That means the No camp would have to win better than 62 percent of the remaining ballots in order to overcome their current 6,158 vote deficit. Not gonna happen.

So, yeah, Prop 1 wins. And probably by about an eight-point margin.

No wonder the Seattle Times editorial board is almost aphasic in its apoplexy.

If the Seattle Times editorial board is going to put so little time and effort into writing this editorial, then I’m not going to bother to put much time and effort into fisking it.

SEATTLE Proposition 1 appears headed for passage. No surprise, since the campaign to form a Seattle Park District was heavy on the “everyone loves parks” rhetoric and light on the governance details about the creation of an entirely new taxing authority.

As opposed to the No campaign, which was heavy on the lies and light on the… wait… what’s so wrong about a Park District campaign being heavy on the “everyone loves parks”…?

Taxpayers must remain vigilant.

Against dishonest editorials.

This new taxing authority is permanent. Voters will no longer be asked every few years whether they approve of how their money is being spent on parks through levy renewal measures.

Like they had been since Seattle was founded back in 2000.

Prop. 1 hands oversight of the district and about $48 million in its first year — twice the amount of the expiring parks levy — to the Seattle City Council, which will serve as the Park District’s board.

Oh no! We’ll be handing oversight of the parks over to the same people who already have oversight of the parks!

If City Council members want to raise property taxes from the initial rate of 33 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value to 75 cents per $1,000 for parks, they may do so without asking voters. The current levy rate is about 20 cents per $1,000.

It’s called representative democracy. Look it up in the Constitution.

An agreement preserves at least in annual general-fund dollars for parks, but the city’s obligation can be reduced or diverted in an emergency.

For the life of me, I can’t parse this sentence.

Voters should demand that the mayor and council keep their $89 million general-fund promise to parks.

I’m guessing this sentence was supposed to be set up by the previous incomprehensible one?

The transparency, specific asks and expiration dates contained in previous park levies are why 59 percent of voters passed the last parks levy in 2008 and 55 percent supported a similar levy in 2000.

That’s three one-sentence paragraphs in a row.

Wednesday’s ballot count showed about 53 percent in favor of the Park District.

And another one! Jesus, I know print loves short paragraphs, but try stringing a couple coherent thoughts together for a change.

Voters, take a look at your neighborhood parks. Are those dirty bathrooms and leaky pipes getting fixed? Or is the money going to public-private ventures such as the Woodland Park Zoo, the Seattle Aquarium or the planned waterfront park?

The fear-mongering didn’t work before the election, so I don’t see how it’s going to work after. But at least they’re done with the one-sentence paragraph thing.

The council gets to decide.

Spoke too soon.

“Woodland Park Zoo has paid lobbyists. How do you as a citizen or a community organization compete against that?” warns Don Harper, a parks advocate who opposed Proposition 1 and supports a levy.

Don Harper also warned that Prop 1 would build an airstrip atop Cal Anderson Park. Because he’s a lying liar.

A citizens committee is supposed to provide nonbinding recommendations to the district. It must act independently and serve as a vocal counterbalance to the council.

A council composed predominantly of members the Seattle Times endorsed.

The only other tool left for citizens to voice their displeasure is City Council elections. Beginning in 2015, most members will be elected by district instead of at-large. Incumbents will be vulnerable to challengers.

Um, the Park District doesn’t even begin to start collecting taxes until 2016, but the editors threaten to hold council members accountable for their misuse of funds in 2015. Because they’re from the future!

Remember that if the Park District fails to live up to its many promises.

That closing sentence might have been stronger if it didn’t read like it was left unfinished. But in their defense, after such a bitter campaign, I can understand it if they just ran out of.

– Oh hey, Park(ing) Day is coming up.

– The Real I.R.S. Scandal

– The Parks District looks even more like a thing than election night.

– There is something truly awful about the people who worked so hard to make the ACA work worse than as designed complaining about how it works.

– Whatever happens next with Sports On Earth, the need for a place like that on the Internet is still around.

– SIFF is eventually going to own ever movie theater in this city. I’m looking forward to the reopened Egyptian.

Via Charles, ThinkProgress has the story of a Florida man who will escape prosecution for fatally shooting an unarmed man in the back, under the state’s dangerously stupid “Stand Your Ground” law:

In early July, 20-year-old Colt Thriemer shot dead a one-time friend in a Wal-Mart parking lot, saying he feared for his life. Witnesses gathered for a truck meet that night say victim Thomas James Brown, 21, was walking away toward his car when Thriemer fired ten shots. Some say Brown had threatened to kill Thriemer over the course of several weeks. The story as told by prosecutors in a detailed legal memo suggests drug transactions, addiction, and monetary debts all played a role in the scenario leading up to Brown’s death.

But these facts will never play out in a trial, because prosecutors have decided not to charge Thriemer citing Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

“The Stand Your Ground statute makes no exception from the immunity because Brown may have been walking away from Thriemer at the time the deadly force was used,” the memo from the State Attorney’s office states. “The Stand Your Ground law does not require Thriemer to wait until Brown in fact retrieved a gun before he fired. Under the current state of the law and the facts of this case, Thriemer was legally allowed to use deadly force based on a reasonable belief that his life was in danger and that he was about to become the victim of an armed robbery.”

Okay. So let’s play this legal standard out to its logical conclusion. If, under Stand Your Ground, a reasonable belief that your life is in danger gives you the right to shoot an unarmed man—say, me—in the back, then my reasonable belief that you believe that I present a mortal danger to you, should give me the right to stand my ground and preemptively shoot you first. Note that your belief that I present a danger doesn’t even have to be reasonable—I just need to reasonably believe that you believe it reasonable, to give me a reason to shoot first under Stand Your Ground!

Of course, if you were to believe that I might act upon a belief that you believed that I posed a mortal threat to you, then that might be all the reason you need to shoot me before I preemptively shoot you. And so on.

In this scenario, the very belief that the other party might stand their ground becomes a reasonable defense under Stand Your Ground. And if you don’t believe that the “I believed he believed I was going to shoot him” defense won’t inevitably be tested in court, then you don’t know Florida.

Let’s be honest: most editorial boards mostly endorse incumbents, and the same is as true of the pot-addled Stranger as it is of the Blethen-addled Seattle Times. Hell, even I mostly endorsed incumbents in my caveat-asterisked endorsement post. So if you’re going to measure the influence of an editorial board, it is best to do it in open (or otherwise competitive) races, as well as those in which the editors stuck their neck out to endorse the challenger.

So by this metric, how many elections did the editors at our state’s paper of record sway? Not many:

Prop. 1, Seattle’s Park District measure

The same city government that neglected parks for years now wants voters to approve a new tax that gives them twice as much money and the power to raise rates without voter approval. Voters should reject Proposition 1, a measure to create the new Seattle Park District. Vote against the formation of a metropolitan park district.

With about 60 percent of ballots counted, Prop 1 appears to have won. Seattle Times: 0, Voters: 1.

Legislative District No. 1, Representative Position No. 2

Edward Barton, Republican
Edward Barton, first-time candidate for office, displays the intellect and moderation to be a strong lawmaker from the 1st Legislative District, which straddles the King-Snohomish line. He is the better option for voters over the incumbent, state Rep. Luis Moscoso, D-Mountlake Terrace.

Incumbent Democratic Rep. Luis Moscoso is leading Barton 44 percent to 43 percent, but fellow Democrat Dave Griffin has another 14 percent of the vote, so Moscoso looks good for November. Seattle Times: 0, Voters: 2.

Legislative District No. 21, Representative Position No. 1

Scott Whelpley, Democrat
Scott Whelpley is a former Navy aviator who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq and was awarded a Bronze Star. The Mukilteo Democrat who holds a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Washington would be learning on the job. But he holds the clear potential for independence from powerful interest groups and his Democratic caucus.

Whelpley has come in third behind Republican Allen McPheeters and Democrat Strom Peterson, so he won’t even make it past the top-two primary and into November. Seattle Times: 0; Voters: 3.

Legislative District No. 31, State Senator

Cathy Dahlquist, Republican
State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, the longtime lawmaker best known for her fiery temper, faces a sharp and seasoned opponent this year from within her own party. State Rep. Cathy Dahlquist is the easy choice for the 31st District Senate seat.

Can’t really blame the editors for endorsing challenger Cathy Dahlquist over crazy, crazy Pam Roach, yet as of last night, Roach holds a slight 0.9 percent lead. If I were charitable, I’d call this a tie. But I’m not charitable. Seattle Times: 0; Voters: 4.

Legislative District No.31, Representative Position No. 1

Drew Stokesbary, Republican
For the open state House seat in the 31st District, Republican Drew Stokesbary of Auburn is the candidate most likely to be a voice for fiscal responsibility. The incumbent, Cathy Dahlquist, is vacating the seat to run for state Senate.

Stokesbary is a total douchebag. But he is winning over 51 percent of the vote for this open seat. Score one for Team Blethen. Seattle Times: 1; Voters: 4.

Legislative District No. 32, State Senator

Chris Eggen, Democrat
Shoreline Deputy Mayor Chris Eggen, a Democrat, is the better choice over the incumbent, state Sen. Maralyn Chase, D-Shoreline, who is seeking a second term. Challenger Eggen is rated “very good” by The Municipal League of King County, compared to Chase’s “good” rating. Eggen knows what is ahead, especially with education.

Democratic incumbent Senator Marilyn Chase has over 51 percent of the vote, and if last night’s results hold up, third-place Eggen won’t even make it out of the primary and into November. Seattle Times: 1; Voters 5.

Legislative District No. 37, State Senator

Pramila Jayapal, Democrat
In a crowded contest for Seattle’s 37th Legislative District state Senate seat, Pramila Jayapal stands out for the breadth and depth of her civic involvement. The Democrat is a passionate and effective social-justice activist, armed with an MBA and experience in the private financial sector. That said, her election would test her ability to balance a progressive streak with pragmatism and the ability to reach across the aisle to find compromise.

Not sure how to score this one. It was technically an open seat, sure. But Jayapal was a shoo-in. Nearly everybody endorsed her. Hard to divine any influence out of this race. So I’m arbitrarily awarding a point to each side. Seattle Times: 2; Voters: 6.

Legislative District No. 37, Representative Position No. 1

Daniel Bretzke, Republican
The 37th Legislative District’s Position 1 needs a legislator willing to compromise and represent the best interests of a diverse district where many schools are struggling and persistent achievement gaps threaten to leave students behind. That means turning out the incumbent, Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, in favor of the promising political newcomer, Daniel Bretzke of Seattle.

Bretzke barely got 9 percent of the vote, pathetic even for a Seattle Republican. Seattle Times: 2; Voters 7.

So there you have it: another spectacularly unimpressive demonstration of influence meddling on the part of the Seattle Times editorial board!

 

I suppose folks are expecting some sort of morning-after primary election analysis, and since it’s the morning after, and I’ve got nothing better to do at the moment, I guess I’ll write it. But there really isn’t that much to analyze.

Of course the big race—and the only one with any immediate impact on how we live our daily lives—was the apparent victory of Proposition 1, authorizing the formation of a Metropolitan Park District with its own dedicated regular levy authority. Hooray! But even if Prop 1’s lead modestly grows as the late ballots are counted (we’ll know more about whether there is any late ballot trend this afternoon at 4:30), the measure’s relatively narrow 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent lead should make good government liberals nervous.

By all rights, Prop 1 should have passed by better than 60 percent of the vote. The outcome never should have even been in question. But an incredibly dishonest No campaign combined with a complicit Seattle Times editorial board, came way too close to burying the MPD under a mountain of anti-government Eymanesque bullshit. Had the other side the money to heavily outspend the Yes camp, amplifying their lies on TV, Prop 1 likely would’ve lost. And that’s a recipe I wouldn’t be surprised to see in future elections. I’m particularly concerned about pro-business forces concentrating their spending into one or two council district  elections, patiently buying themselves a GOP-lite council, one district at a time.

So yay for Prop 1, but beware the process.

In the other Seattle race that got a fare bit of attention, I’m not sure that there is anything to learn from long-term incumbent Democratic speaker of the state house Frank Chopp’s 80 percent to 19 percent primary victory over Socialist Alternative challenger Jesse Spear. It wasn’t a great showing by Spear, but in context, it wasn’t awful. In fact with just over 19 percent of the vote she got more than any Republican running in a Seattle legislative district. In fact she got more than any other second place finisher other than Brendan Kolding’s 19.86 percent in his Dem-on-Dem challenge to incumbent Joe Fitzgibbon in the 34th.

Spear should do better in November—whether she’ll do better than Kshama Sawant’s 29 percent showing in 2012, I don’t know. But throughout much of the city Socialist Alternative is well on its way to establishing itself as Seattle’s second party. And while it’s not likely to win many elections from this position, the fact that 19 percent of Seattle primary voters are willing to cast their ballot for a self-avowed Socialist deserves a little attention and respect.

As for the only open legislative seat, I stayed out of the race in my own 37th, because I didn’t really see the point of alienating any of my neighbors. The second Pramila Jayapal declared her candidacy it was all over. She’s a good fit for the district, and enjoyed nearly all of the Democratic establishment and constituent group support.

If I feel like it, I may offer some thoughts on some non-Seattle races in a subsequent post. But mostly I’m just relieved that enough Seattleites saw through the lies to give the city the extra taxing authority it needs on parks.

8 pm: Polls just closed, and King County Elections should be dropping tonights results around 8:15 pm, so I’ll be madly reloading their web page between now and then. I’ll update this post with the results of the only truly important race tonight—Seattle Prop 1—and then a few times more with other results and analysis. Stay tuned!

8:11 pm: Omigod, the truth wins (maybe), with Prop 1 (Metropolitan Park District) up 52.4% to 47.6%! Yay!

8:18 pm: Incumbent Democratic House Speaker Frank Chopp is leading leading Socialist challenger Jesse Spear 80% to 19%, which I’m guessing is a little disappointing for the Spear campaign. She’ll do better in November, and I don’t suppose she was ever expecting to win, but it would’ve been nice to see her over 20% in the primary.

8:19 pm: In what will set up a very tense week for State Senate watchers, incumbent Democratic turncoat Tim Sheldon is in a too-close-to-call three-way in the 35th LD. Real Democratic challenger Irene Bowling leads with 34.2%, followed by Sheldon with 33.7%, and then Republican Travis Couture with 32.1%. The top two are up for grabs! That means depending on late ballots, it is a realistic possibility that Sheldon could be out of a job, potentially shifting control of the Senate back to the real Democrats!

8:34 pm: Republican moneybags Microsoftee Pedro Celis (the GOP’s Great Off-White Hope), is actually coming in third in his top-two challenge against Democratic incumbent Microsoftee Suzan DelBene. DelBene 52%, Republican Robert Sutherland (who?) 16%, Celis 15%. Wow. Republicans sure do hate immigrants.

9:13 pm: So just to be clear, I’m not quite declaring victory for Prop 1. With a 4.8% lead, it will likely win. And the Yes campaign says that they phone banked 40,000 voters late, and they were breaking their way. But it’s close enough that late ballots could turn it the other way. We’ll have a better idea tomorrow at 4:30 pm.

– Light on a dark moment in U.S. history: Bainbridge Exclusion Memorial

– All on social media, people kept telling me I should vote today, but I voted several days ago.

– If people don’t want to be accused of waging a war on women, maybe they should stop.

– TV news sure is car-focused. And specifically angry drivers focused.

– Photos from the Mars Hill Church Protest in Bellevue

– NPI’s 11th anniversary picnic is coming up.

– Good job, Lego.

This isn’t Socialist firebrand Kshama Sawant, or “near insane” zillionaire Nick Hanauer, or tour d’ivoire economist Thomas Piketty, or even some do-gooding liberal thinker at some do-gooding liberal think tank talking—this is Standard & Fucking Poor’s, the non-partisan for-profit ratings service whose job it is to provide reliable research to big-money investors! And they’ve concluded that extreme inequality is hurting the US economy:

Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world’s biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population.

[…] The challenge now is to find a path toward more sustainable growth, an essential part of which, in our view, is pulling more Americans out of poverty and bolstering the purchasing power of the middle class. A rising tide lifts all boats…but a lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing.

Modern capitalists are producing their own gravediggers. The question remains whether mainstream politicians and journalists can admit what mainstream economists have already concluded—that trickle-down economics has failed—before it’s too late to save our economy from steady decline and eventual collapse?

We can argue over the numbers—what kind of rate is too high or too low—but it is now clear that it is in all of our interests to both raise the minimum wage, and to raise the top marginal tax rates on income and wealth, as well as invest in the public infrastructure necessary to support and maintain economic growth.

Seriously not satire. This isn’t The Onion. They mean it:

http://youtu.be/gVbENkHr6sY

“Do you think because they’re blind, they’re gonna start shooting in every direction and kill everyone? Fact is it’s been proven that people who lack vision have an increased awareness of their hearing and spatial surroundings.”

“Yeah,” my daughter astutely noted as I played the video, “but they still can’t fucking see!”

It is remarkable how truly lopsided the gun debate is in America, that the NRA feels free to focus on advocacy like this.

[ HAtip: ivoter.net]

This video has been making the rounds, and it’s pretty awful/amazing on a number of grounds. Two young immigration activists approach Republicans Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Steve King at an Iowa fundraiser, offering to let them tear up their Dream Act cards. Rep. King is just the stupid, fucking, immigrant-hating asshole he always is, but watch how Paul—a presidential hopeful—just runs away from the table before he can even swallow his mouthful of food:

Gotta wonder, as president, what else Sen. Paul might run away from if he can’t even look in the face two young Americans he wants to deport to countries they’ve never known?

With the “ballot deadline” just 12 hours away, I thought I’d just string together a few final observations about the dishearteningly dishonest campaign against Proposition 1, which would create a Metropolitan Park District to provide an adequate and stable level of funding to Seattle Parks & Recreation.

• “No on Parks” is a Republican campaign largely funded by Republican donors, being run by a Republican political consultant, and endorsed by the Republican editorial board of the Seattle Times. So if you are a Republican, vote no on Prop 1. But if you are a Democrat, don’t kid yourself that voting “no” would do anything other than advance the Republican agenda of drowning government in a bathtub.
• There is an unspoken class warfare aspect to the No on Parks campaign. In their guest post on Slog, campaign co-chairs Don Harper and Carol Fisher pin their credibility on the fact that they have “volunteered thousands of hours and raised over $2 million for neighborhood parks.” Good for them. And good for their neighborhood parks. But that sort of volunteerism just can’t be relied on in neighborhoods where most folks are working two or three jobs just to scrape by. The same way Southend school children can’t benefit from PTA fundraisers the way more affluent North Seattle school children can. This No campaign just reeks of geographic factionalism—not sure what the particulars are, but opponents sure do seem determined to maintain a status quo that does okay by them.
• Playing dirty works. This has been an incredibly “dirty campaign.” Even Joel Connelly says so, and he’s been covering political campaigns for the PI since the Garfield administration. And if folks are willing to play this dirty in a campaign over how we fund our parks, just imagine how dirty these people are going to play in two years, when all nine city council seats are up for reelection. I warned you about Faye Garneau during last year’s districts campaign, but did you listen, Seattle? No. Speaking of which…
• Our Democratic establishment has totally failed to explain to voters how taxes work, and that has created an uninformed electorate that is an invitingly ripe target for those deliberately attempting to misinform (I’m looking at you, Seattle Times editorial board). If there is a lesson to learn from this campaign it’s that if we ever want to fix our tax structure into something that is both fair and sustainable, educating the public about the way taxes work is a project that our political leaders must pursue at every opportunity—24/7, 365 days a year—and not just during those campaign seasons when we have a tax measure on the ballot. If at that.
• Unforgivable. If you vote No on Prop 1 you are either a Republican or an idiot or regrettably misinformed (not all Republicans are idiots, some are just mean-spirited, selfish, or wrong). That happens. But as for No on Parks’ principals, you have earned my permanent enmity by running such a dishonest and disrespectful campaign. This isn’t about a policy disagreement—I’ve had plenty of those, and have still been able to work with the folks on the other side. This is about tactics and context. You simply cannot be trusted ever again. And any campaign you touch in the future will be tainted by association.

As for what will happen when the ballots drop tonight, I’ve no idea, but I’m bracing myself for disappointment. That said, unless it’s a decisive margin one way or another, who the fuck knows which way the late ballots might break, so it’s likely we won’t be able to confidently call this election for at least a few more days.