HorsesAss.Org

Can’t actually abide liberals.

One of the rarest commodities in the establishment media is someone who was a vehement critic of George Bush and who now, applying their principles consistently, has become a regular critic of Barack Obama — i.e., someone who criticizes Obama from what is perceived as “the Left” rather than for being a Terrorist-Loving Socialist Muslim. It just got a lot rarer, as The Washington Post — at least according to Politico’s Patrick Gavin — just fired WashingtonPost.com columnist, long-time Bush critic and Obama watchdog (i.e., a real journalist) Dan Froomkin.

Personally I blame Craigslist and non-objective bloggers. Luckily there are so many liberal voices in today’s national media.

In addition to his Rupert Murdoch perch at Fox, Krauthammer remains as a regular columnist at the Post, alongside fellow right-wing Obama haters such as Bill Kristol, George Will, Jim Hoagland, Michael Gerson and Robert Kagan — as well as a whole bevy of typical, banal establishment spokespeople who are highly supportive of whatever the permanent Washington establishment favors (David Ignatius, Fred Hiatt, Ruth Marcus, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Howie Kurtz, etc. etc.). And that’s to say nothing of the regular Op-Ed appearances by typical Krauthammer-mimicking neoconservative voices such as John Bolton, Joe Lieberman, and Douglas Feith — and the Post Editorial Page itself.

What we really need more of now is establishment Washington ideas, that will be wonderful. Maybe then we could have some Goldman Sachs alums fix the economy and some big pharma and AMA folks could pitch in with health care reform.

Meanwhile we can keep the rabble distracted with immigration, abortion and guns.

They fall for it every time.

Over at Crosscut (motto: “News from the great beyond”), Ted Van Dyk proclaims: “Peter Steinbrueck hurls some thunderbolts at Mayor Nickels.”

“Thunderbolts”…? Really?

Look, I like Peter well enough, but Zeus he ain’t. And the fact that Van Dyk would characterize him as such, even if only metaphorically, tells you a lot about Seattle’s bizarrely passive political culture.

If a board member of a not-for-profit—say, a prominent arts organization—were to use the organization’s internal email list to invite folks to a political fundraiser for a fellow board member running for local office… that would not only be inappropriate, but an obvious violation of IRS rules, right?

Somebody from the real press might want to look into that. There could be a story there.

This is exactly the sorta tone deaf and indecisive mismanagement that frustrates parents and forces many of the more affluent ones out of the Seattle School District:

Parents at a Seattle School Board meeting Wednesday night protested a proposed new assignment plan that — at least during its transition phase — would not guarantee that younger siblings could go to the same school as an older brother or sister.

[…] The School Board voted to move forward with the new student-assignment plan, but postponed a decision on the sibling issue until a detailed transition plan is developed along with new attendance boundaries in the fall.

Accepting the new assignment plan but postponing the sibling issue is the worst of both worlds, a half-assed move that leaves affected families in limbo for many more months. How many more kids are going to come back to school next September not knowing if this is their last year in that building? Does the board know? Do they care?

And in making this half-move, the board also telegraphs an incredible lack of confidence in its own decision making process, and perhaps, a lack of preparation to boot. I mean, shouldn’t the assignment maps be drawn and the sibling issue be settled before springing the new plan on parents, let alone approving it? And if the board doesn’t have enough confidence in the plan to settle the sibling issue up front, how can parents have confidence in the plan as a whole?

One abundantly clear lesson that was learned from our recent rounds of school closures is that despite all the press about failing schools, most families are not only satisfied with their children’s education (at least at the elementary school level), they love their schools so much that they’re willing to ferociously fight to save them.

Yes, our schools are underfunded. Yes, there are a handful of bad teachers and bad principals to whom the system just doesn’t seem capable of giving the boot. And yes, yes, yes, there are some curriculum issues—like slavishly teaching toward the WASL—that have proven a disservice toward teachers and students alike. Seattle schools aren’t perfect. Far from it.

But while we all want to improve the level of education in Seattle schools, it’s the complete and utter lack of stability that drives parental dissatisfaction levels sky high. How do you build a functional school program and community when from year to year you never know how many FTEs you’ll lose due to budget cuts, which principal will be rotated in or out of your school, which school your kids will be assigned to, or even whether your child’s school will remain open at all?

Nobody wants that for their child, and many of those who can afford better choose thusly.

There’s a reason why parents like those opposing the new assignment plan have taken to vociferously protesting school board decisions: we don’t trust ’em! And, we’ve learned that the board has so little trust in itself, our protests have a good chance of being successful.

A brief note to local journalists who insist on introducing conversations with or about Susan Hutchison by proclaiming that she is the “front-runner” in the county executive race or that polls show her with “commanding lead” or “far out ahead.” Stop. It just makes you sound stupid.

Yeah, sure, Hutchison is far ahead of any other individual candidate, but she’s the lone Republican in a crowded field featuring four Democratic elected officials. 35 percent is what any Republican would poll under similar circumstances. These are Will Baker numbers.

So by failing to provide any context, you give an impression that is clearly not true. And when she loses in a landslide in November, you’re only gonna sound dumb for trotting out the front-runner label in June.

Free! Free! Well… free seltzer, that is, at least, almost.

After decades of being yoked to the international seltzer cartel, I have finally broken free, assembling the home carbonating system pictured above. Some might find the initial $240 investment (with tax and shipping) a little extravagant, but consuming about a 2 liter bottle a day, at an average cost of a buck a bottle, this little baby will pay for itself in well under a year. After that, the cost of CO2 and water will come to less than a nickel a bottle.

Such a bargain.

Plus, this setup is environmentally friendly. No need to waste fossil fuel shipping carbonated tap water around the nation (or for me to drive to the store and lug it home), and I get to reuse these two liter bottles I’ve collected dozens of times before tossing them in the recycling bin.

Man do I feel quenched.

It’s time for round two of our legislative deadwood competition, in which you, the HA faithful, get to tell the incumbent members of Seattle’s legislative delegation which of them is most deserving of a serious intra-party challenge. (We used to call them “primary challenges” back when we still had primaries that meant anything.)

Unlike the recently concluded state representative qualifying round, in which you were encouraged to vote for as many incumbents as you wanted out of a primary field of twelve, this poll pits Seattle’s four Democratic incumbent state senators up for reelection in 2010 against each other in a final, loser-takes-all, sudden death competition. Criteria to consider in making your choice should include ideology, effectiveness and vulnerability… essentially, if the Seattle progressive community were to target one incumbent senator in 2010, which challenge would have the best chance of improving our delegation?

The poll is now live at the top of HA’s home page. You get a single vote, so make it count.

MY BAD:
Man is my face red. I’d originally put together the poll by pasting in the list of senators who last ran in 2006, which included Erik Poulsen in the 34th, but who since has been replaced by Joe McDermott. I’d caught the error, and thought I’d fixed it in PollDaddy, but apparently forgot to click the update button or something, so when the poll went live it included Poulsen’s name, not McDermott’s.  So we’ll subtract two votes from McDermott’s total at the end.

DOUBLE BAD:
As N points out in the comment thread, Sen. Ed Murray is up for reelection too.  Not sure how I missed that. Seltzer intoxication, perhaps?  Anyway, I’ve added him in rather than starting over, as the poll isn’t exactly scientific, but if he comes anywhere near the top I guess we’ll just have to have a runoff.

Susan Hutchison officially kicked off her campaign for King County Executive yesterday at a press conference where she made cutting the Business and Occupation Tax the centerpiece of her plan for fixing county government. Which is curious because A) cutting tax revenues seems a counterintuitive means of dealing with King County’s growing revenue shortfall, and B) King County doesn’t levy a B&O tax.

The best comeback of the day came from one of her opponents, Rep. Ross Hunter, the chair of the House Finance Committee, the committee from which a B&O tax cut would originate:

“If Hutchinson wants to change the B&O threshold she should run for the Legislature, not King County Executive.”

It’s good to see Hutchison finally talking specifics, but I mean, really… is this the best she can do? So intent on being the pro-business candidate she’s reduced to focusing on taxes the county doesn’t even charge?

Look, I’m all for local elected officials taking the lead in advocating for our region in Olympia—we could certainly use more of that around here—and I’m the first to tell you that the B&O tax is a ridiculous, 75-year-old kluge that disadvantages small businesses and startups. But adjusting the B&O threshold does little to address the broader problem with the way we tax businesses in Washington state, and does absolutely nothing to fix county government.

At best, this whole theme is just clever electioneering, allowing Hutchison to campaign as a tax-cutter while pushing a proposal that wouldn’t actually reduce revenues to a county government already struggling in the grip of the Great Recession. At worst, this focus shows a lack preparedness for coping with the immediate problems at hand, and a vague (if any) understanding of our broader tax structure mess, and the central, historical role the B&O tax plays within it.

Of course, we can never have a real conversation about fixing the B&O tax until the business community comes to the table to talk about the more rational corporate and/or personal income tax that would inevitably replace it. If Hutchison wants to take the lead on that effort, I’ll gladly reevaluate my opinion of her as a political lightweight.

But I’m not holding my breath.

So Rick Steves’ decision last year to go to Iran and try to get a sense of the place looks pretty smart now, huh? He caught a lot of flak at the time from some quarters.

What I appreciate about Steves is his robust intellectual honesty and curiosity. He didn’t pretend to be doing anything but what he does, which is to see the world and tell folks how to get around in it. Certainly, he acknowledged the conditions imposed on him and didn’t stray all that far into politics, but he didn’t pretend to know stuff he didn’t.

Then he learned stuff about Iran.

I say good on him.

It’s Tuesday evening, which means that the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets for an evening of politics under the influence. The festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at 8:00 pm. Or stop by early for some dinner.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz0GebBeTP4[/youtube]

Not in Seattle? The Drinking Liberally web site has dates and times for 334 chapters of Drinking Liberally sprinkled liberally across the globe.

The “slippery slope.” It’s a favorite argument of reform opponents everywhere, from all segments of the ideological spectrum, but one which has been particularly exercised by Republicans in recent years in arguing against any number of reforms.

“It’s a slippery slope,” we were told for years by those who blocked legislation to extend our anti-discrimination laws to gays and lesbians. This seemingly innocuous civil rights legislation was an integral part of a calculated gay agenda, opponents insisted, that would inevitably lead to gay marriage, or worse. Likewise, when some state senators dared to even broach the idea of a high-earners income tax this past session—perhaps merely a percent or two on incomes over $1 million—Republicans dutifully warned against the slippery slope that would inevitably lead to a broad based income tax with higher rates and lower income thresholds.

And now that President Obama appears to be leaning toward a “public option” as a lynchpin of his health care reform proposal, opponents are of course trotting out the slippery slope rhetoric one more time, arguing that merely offering consumers the option of buying into a government run health insurance plan takes us an unsteady step toward an inevitable tumble into (gasp) “socialized medicine.”

And you know what? They’re absolutely right.

Modest reforms such as these do serve as slippery slopes toward more substantive policy initiatives, at least if done right. Indeed, that, for the most part, is the intent of their backers.

For more than two decades Washington Republicans steadfastly held off gay civil rights legislation, but within a few years of its passage a series of incremental expansions of domestic partner benefits has created same-sex marriage rights here in virtually everything but name. And the name will come too, not much further down the line. That was the strategy, and it’s working.

Likewise, there are many tax reform advocates like me who couldn’t care less which income tax variation is first to make it onto the books, as long as it can stand up to a vote of the people. A millionaire’s tax? Fine by me, even if it doesn’t generate much money. For I fervently believe that once Washingtonians become accustomed to a personal income tax, rates will creep up, and the exemption creep down, adding a broader based income tax to our revenue portfolio.

And of course, the health insurance companies should fear a government run public option, for if they can’t compete—ie, they can’t provide comparable coverage at a comparable price—the market will inevitably move toward the single payer-like model they dread most.

Now some might characterize this admission as cynical and dishonest, but good policy done right is inherently a slippery slope toward better policy. As it should be. And it’s a slope we slide down only with the approval of a majority of voters.

Only a decade ago a strong majority of voters opposed gay marriage, but today, not so much. The more we normalize the so-called “gay lifestyle”… the more we become comfortable with our friends and family and neighbors living openly gay lives with all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy, the more we shrug “so what” at the notion of teh gays calling their state sanctioned unions “marriage” too. This slippery slope is what folks like State Sen. Ed Murray counted on when they embraced the incrementalist strategy that has been so successful in Washington state. There was nothing dishonest or deceitful about it, and as we’ll learn by the imminent failure of Referendum 71, the voting public has slid at least as far down that slope as the state legislature.

And neither should the public fear the slippery slope of tax reform in Washington state. Would most backers of a high-earners income tax like to see higher rates and lower income thresholds? Sure, but since every tax increase inevitably comes before the people via referendum or initiative, it makes absolutely no sense to get too far ahead of voters. Start with 2% on household incomes over $1 million, and eventually we’ll inch toward 3% on incomes over $250,000. After that, who knows, though with voters holding a veto, I doubt we’d ever see the household income threshold fall much below $150,000, (nor would I personally support such a low threshold without substantial reforms elsewhere in our tax structure.)

The point is, the slippery slope isn’t something imposed on an unsuspecting public, but rather the natural trajectory of public opinion in response to well crafted, well executed public policy. You see, the reason insurance companies and their surrogates oppose the public option—the reason they fear it to be a slippery slope—is that they’re afraid it will work. And that when we see that it can work, and that it can provide more access and equal or better care at a lower cost than the private sector, that voters will demand an expansion of this program too.

Publicola has been giving ink (pixels?) to one health care advocate’s disappointment with Darcy Burner’s performance as Executive Director of ProgressiveCongress.org. Okay, fair enough. But as long we’re critiquing HA’s favorite twice-failed congressional candidate, I thought I’d give voice to one of Darcy’s most prominent fans, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation:

When it comes to the big issues of our time — like healthcare, energy and climate change, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and building a more just economy — I’ve long believed it will require a strong inside-outside strategy to push progressive solutions through Congress. That’s why I was so pleased when Darcy Burner was recently named Executive Director ofProgressiveCongress.org. (Full disclosure: I’m a board member.)

The organization’s purpose is to bring together progressives both inside and outside of Congress to craft strong policies and work cooperatively to implement them. Burner knows the grassroots, netroots, and political landscape as well as anyone, and her close Congressional races in Washington state against a Republican incumbent in 2006 and 2008 are a testament to that fact. A former Microsoft manager, she was also the architect of the “Responsible Plan to End the War In Iraq“.

Vanden Heuvel pretty much kvells over what Darcy has achieved at ProgressiveCongress.org in her few weeks on the job at the startup organization.

Last month, ProgressiveCongress.org asked people to submit and vote on questions regarding healthcare reform via its website. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) then answered the questions on the House floor, where proceedings are broadcast on C-SPAN and entered into the Congressional Record.

The results exceeded all expectations.

Tens of thousands of people responded and Caucus members were “very enthusiastic” about “having more direct interaction with normal Americans out there who are interested in [these] issues.” Then this past week there were approximately 47,000 votes on which Energy Bill questions to ask — a response Burner called “unbelievable.” (Caucus members answered those questions on the floor this past Thursday and video will soon be available.)

“This was an experiment,” Burner said. “My tech background tells me you try ten things, eight of them will fail, and the other two will succeed. The catch-though, is you can never predict ahead of time which two things it’s going to be. So, this being our first foray in trying to connect some of the progressive grassroots to the Caucus… it has succeeded spectacularly.”

This is exactly the kind of creative experimentation people can expect from Burner and ProgressiveCongress as it works to connect progressives outside of the beltway with those on the inside — leveraging the strength of both.

And this is exactly the kind of creative experimentation that got netroots progressives so excited about Darcy’s potential in Congress.

I don’t think Josh or Sandeep or most in the legacy media ever really grokked the Darcy thing, preferring to write it off as some kinda naive self-deception on the part of the netroots, or even worse, a cult of personality. Oh, please.

I like Darcy well enough, and consider her a friend, but her quirky eggheadedness doesn’t exactly inspire a cult-like devotion, and to be honest… ideologically… she’s rarely the most progressive person in the room. No, what we saw in Darcy was something we see in ourselves: the passion, creativity, and willingness to fail that is so often missing in a political culture that at times appears to be totally defined and constrained by the electoral cycle.

(And, oh yeah, she’s smart. Damn smart. I don’t hear anybody saying that about Dave Reichert.)

It would have been exciting to see how well those qualities served her in Congress.  And I guess, her service there will be exciting, if in a slightly different capacity.

It’s sunrise in Iran, and whatever the coming day brings is likely to be both inspiring and ugly.

Monday’s march in Tehran is reported by ABC (via HuffPo) to have been five miles long. Another is scheduled for today, as well as a general strike, amidst numerous reports of dissension among some ruling hardline clerics and countless smaller protests. Some miscellany:

* The violence could have been, and may still become, much worse. And we know very little about what’s happening in cities and towns outside Tehran, 19 of whom were also set to have Monday demonstrations.

* Almost all of our knowledge is coming via Twitter. (#iranelection is the go-to feed.) Iranians are beating the censors — who’ve shut down cell phone operation as well as Internet access — by phoning out of the country to proxies who are tweeting for them. And you, yes, you, can help: go here to find out how to become a proxy.

* Lest you think this phenomenon is an accident, the Mousavi campaign has been promoting the slogan “One person = one broadcaster.” And the international connections thus made are themselves a major, unprecedented phenomenon likely to have important political and cultural consequences.

* American media on this has been just dreadful, when it’s cared at all. A lot of print media today had a tone similar to this appalling NYT “news analysis” that treated the election as a done deal and the protests as essentially irrelevant. (They don’t involve official spokespeople, you know.) To repeat: these protests are no longer about the elections. They’re about the legitimacy of the regime. It scarcely matters whether the reported election result was accurate or not; millions of Iranians don’t think so and have had enough. That’s what matters.

Meanwhile, I heard an ABC Radio “national newscast” this afternoon (on KOMO-AM, Seattle’s self-billed only all-news radio station) that, just before the end of the newscast, devoted one sentence and about five seconds to a story that is riveting the world concerning a country the U.S. has major foreign policy issues with. And CNN’s Larry King, always with his finger on the pulse, devoted his show tonight to….American Idol.

* The always-astute BooMan makes a useful point:

The 1979 revolution in Iran took over a year to unfold….each clash with protesters that resulted in fatalities led to new more impassioned protests as people gathered for funerals and memorials. It’s often said that the revolution advanced in 40-day stages, as forty days is the traditional period of mourning in Iran’s culture. Americans are not accustomed to such slow-motion revolution with massive (over month-long) pauses. Add to this, the new 24-hour news environment, and this feature of Iran’s political and religious tradition should solidly flummox most analysts….Even if things calm down and appear to settle out over the next few weeks, forty days from now you could see a seemingly spontaneous re-eruption of street protests….This attempt at revolution cannot be considered as over until we seem calm sustained for a very long time.

The poll has closed, and there were no surprises.

I listed all 12 state House incumbents from districts touching Seattle, Democrats all, and asked which was most deserving of a serious challenger. Of course Speaker Frank Chopp came out way ahead with 28% of the vote (though being deserving of a challenge and being even the teeniest-tiniest bit vulnerable to one are two different things).

But of more interest was the trio of Sharon Tomiko Santos, Mary Lou Dickerson and Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, who finished well ahead of the rest of the pack in a near dead heat of 13% apiece. These are the three names I hear come up most often when the topic is raised amongst Seattle’s politiscenti, and these were the three names you voted for most. Again, no surprise there.

That said, a glance at the results does show an interesting pattern. Yeah, sure, after Chopp, the four highest vote-getters are women, with Rep. Eileen Cody scoring a distant fifth place behind our winning trio, but I don’t think gender is the major factor it at first appears. Rather, the five names at the top of the list also happen to be the Seattle incumbents who have served the longest in the House, accumulating an impressive 68 years of service between them, compared to only 27 years total for the other seven representatives.

	Votes	Pct.	Years
Frank Chopp	162	28%	15
Sharon Tomiko Santos	79	13%	11
Mary Lou Dickerson	75	13%	15
Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney	74	13%	12
Eileen Cody	44	8%	15
Jamie Pedersen	42	7%	3
Reuven Carlyle	39	7%	1
Scott White	19	3%	1
Eric Pettigrew	17	3%	7
Bob Hasegawa	14	2%	5
Zack Hudgins	11	2%	7
Sharon Nelson	10	2%	3

Perhaps Santos, Dickerson and Kenney’s position near the top of the list really is due to job performance. Or perhaps it merely reflects their years of incumbency, and a sense that Seattle Dems are growing impatient with legislators who after years of service have failed to deliver the progressive reforms we want and need.

But I’m not sure it matters.

Eliminating Chopp as an outlier, we’ll pit Santos, Dickerson and Kenney against each other in a general election of sorts later this week, to determine who is the best target for a serious challenge. But coming up first, we’ll do the same for the four Seattle state senators up for reelection in 2010.

UPDATE:
Apparently, the poll didn’t close quite when I thought it closed, and the numbers have changed a touch since I wrote this post, but not enough to change the general results.

President Obama strolled into the lion’s den today, giving a speech on health care reform to the American Medical Association, historically one of the most vocal and effective organizations opposing past reform efforts.

Despite the AMA’s stated opposition to Obama’s “public option” proposal, the President’s carefully worded speech drew frequent rounds of applause from the Republican-leaning audience. Indeed the only smattering of boos Obama reportedly received came when he restated his long-held opposition to caps on medical malpractice awards. Which raises an idea…

If the government is going to offer a public option for health insurance, perhaps one way to soften doctors’ opposition would be to also offer a public option for medical malpractice insurance to those doctors who choose to participate in the plan and accept the negotiated fees for services? Seems to me that such a system where the same entity is insuring both doctors and patients might balance the incentive to keep costs low with the incentive to avoid outcomes that could result in expensive lawsuits.

Just thinkin’ out loud…