HorsesAss.Org

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…

It turns out, I’m not the only Democrat frustrated with the recent performance of the Democratic-controlled Washington State Legislature in general, and the relatively toothless Seattle delegation in particular. Indeed, similar frustration is being expressed by some Democratic legislators themselves:

Further complicating matters is Seattle’s legislative delegation, many of whom enjoy near elected-for-life status, who choose to focus on statewide policy issues as opposed to parochial matters.

“We have no united voice,” [State Sen. Ed] Murray said. “Whether it’s Spokane or Bremerton, or Vancouver, the council and the chamber of commerce come down united. We come down fighting amongst ourselves. That is not the way to get things accomplished.”

Huh. That kinda criticism sounds much more credible coming from a state senator than it does coming from a DFLB like me, doesn’t it? And it’s echoed by Rep. Deb Eddy, one of the few legislators who routinely dares to tread in the cesspool that is HA’s comment thread, who confirms that a lack of cohesiveness is not a problem of the Seattle delegation alone.

I absolutely agree that we fell short of the mark this year … the House’s overall work product was not particularly cohesive.

But Sen. Murray’s and Rep. Eddy’s blunt critique is nothing compared to Rep. Brendan Williams’ scathing comparison of Washington legislators to their more progressive and proactive colleagues across the border in Oregon:

As legislative political careerism trumps vision, Washington may only be able to follow its smaller southern neighbor’s lead. Even its emulation falls short, though.

[…] Unfortunately, it’s increasingly clear the far-right homebuilders’ lobby rules Washington in a feudalistic fashion that perhaps only has parallels in the most conservative southern states. Their most recent newsletter celebrates “excellent relations” on “both sides of the political aisle” as the key to stopping taxes, consumer and workers’ rights, and any significant environmental gains. So long as that control persists, I’ll have to keep coming down to Portland to see progress in action.

I doubt either Sen. Murray, Rep. Williams, or Rep. Eddy take much pleasure in criticizing their own colleagues; these are folks they have to work with after all, and under fairly cramped and intimate conditions. And I don’t particularly enjoy criticizing fellow Democrats either.

But it’s hard to look at what happened in Olympia this year, compared to the recent accomplishments of Oregon’s Democratic legislative majority, and conclude that our legislature as a whole is good enough, or that it did the best job it could given the dire circumstances. You know… unless you’re a Republican.

And if we’re not satisfied with the performance of the legislature as a whole, it’s time to start thinking about replacing some of its parts.

There are still a few hours left to vote in our poll on which Seattle representatives most deserve an intra-party challenge. It’s unscientific, sure, but it doesn’t have to be to make a point.

UPDATE:
Via email, Sen. Murray clarifies:

The issue I was referring to in PI this morning had nothing to do with the Seattle legislators or really with the Mayor. The consistent problem during my fourteen years in Olympia has been the inability of the council to speak with a single voice on projects they want form Olympia. I have worked with Rice, Schell, and Nickels, and again and again a group of council-members will attempt to undermine what ever the city position is. You just don’t see this sort of disunity from other cities in the state.

Okay, but I think it’s fair to say that the Seattle delegation has no united voice either.

Via Alternet comes this:

First, from an American media perspective, here was another great moment for folks to demand what they wanted to see covered on national news media. What a moment of media dissonance: As protests erupted — and in some cases, turned violent — in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, major broadcast media in the U.S. had little to no news on the events at all. By using the hashtag1 #CNNfail to collect all of the dissatisfaction on Twitter, Americans were able to shift the focus of the conversation and eventually influence CNN’s decision makers to start covering stories by Sunday.

Okay, I’ll admit I haven’t really seen the point of Twitter until now. Those crazy kids and their desire to change things, both here and in Iran!

Good on them.

UPDATE from Geov (9:12 AM)

Translations from: http://twitter.com/alirezasha

“I just talked to my cousin in Azadi Sq., there are more than three million people there.”

Azadi Square is a famous main square in Tehran, a city of about ten million people. Make no mistake — these protests are a serious threat to the regime.

At 4 PM Monday Iran time (or, about when it gets light here), anti-regime marches have been called in 20 Iranian cities. This is to be followed by a general strike Tuesday. The main flow of information out of Iran right now is not coming through traditional media — and especially not U.S. media — but via Twitter. Check the #iranelection Twitter feed for continuous updates. Stateside, the blog of the National Iranian-American Council has also been a good source.

Expect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in the streets Monday. And expect crackdowns. The regime is in a hard place. They can’t give quarter to the protesters, but they also don’t want to create martyrs; the escalation of protests since Friday is very similar to the arc that brought down the Shah in 1979. This is already no longer about a disputed election, but about the legitimacy of the rule of the mullahs.

It’s also worth noting that Iran’s 2005 general presidential election was similarly suspect. Ahmadinejad was expected to finish third out of the four leading candidates, but slipped into second under dubious conditions, and then won the runoff. Is it any wonder the fundamentalists thought they could get away with fraud again this time? (After all, it worked even better for fundamentalists in Ohio in 2004 than it did in Florida in 2000…)

And speaking of American neo-cons, spiritual cousins to Ahmadinejad’s patrons, how despicable is it that the emerging narrative on wingnut sites seems to be that this stolen election is wonderful news, because it ruins Obama’s overtures and makes it more likely that Israel or even the US will launch military attacks on Iran? Rather than support the people in the streets in dozens of Iranian cities, demanding freedom and democracy, our wingnut friends want first to abandon them to Revolutionary Guard thugs (whose acts of violent suppression they’re clearly rooting for), then to bomb them. These cretins sure know how to win friends and influence people.

As someone who grew up in Kansas (and we got the heck out of there as soon as we had the means to do so,) I would just like to say I’m sorry that some Kansans are so messed up and they’re really not all like this.

The protesters targeted Mount Zion Baptist Church in Seattle during the worship service, shouting and waving placards saying “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates Fags.”

Jonathan Phelps, one of the protest ringleaders, said Mount Zion and other churches are spreading lies.

“They’ve preached that lie from hell that God loves everybody – that you can live like the devil and have any hope of heaven at all,” Phelps said.

The Phelps clan is a real piece of work, that’s for sure. I realize it’s easy to dismiss “flyover country” but there are lots of good folks back in the Midwest who have to battle the crazy folk while still managing to deal with business. The fellow who taught us high school biology, for example, wound up as a leading force fighting the Discovery Institute’s attempts to impose their ideology on Kansas high school students.

Once up on a time Kansas was almost progressive, but it’s kind of gone to hell now politically, despite the gains by Democrats under Kathleen Sebelius.

It’s too bad because when Kansans aren’t buying into Discovery Institute creationism, they tend to have an admirable emphasis on education and child welfare. Think “Minnesota nice” with a southern Plains flair, all but obscured now on the national scene by hate and craziness.

Steve Clemons has some interesting posts about the unraveling situation in Iran. Brad DeLong has a collection of updates as well.

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was White’s Ferry near Leesburg, VA. And commenter ‘rhp6033’ gives us an interesting history tidbit related to this area north of DC.

Here’s this week’s contest. Good luck!

From today’s Seattle Times:

A man suspected of shooting his 4-year-old Rottweiler and abandoning it to die off a Forest Service road near North Bend has turned himself in.

[…] Intentionally shooting a dog and leaving it to suffer is a Class C felony, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Curiously, the Times fails to name the identity of the dog shooter, which just struck me as an odd editorial decision. I mean, what kind of an asshole would shoot a dog?

Oh.  Yeah.

– Nicholas Kristof takes on the drug war in the New York Times. Senator Jim Webb takes on the drug war on Capitol Hill.

– The ACLU has set up a centralized portal page for news and updates on the investigation into the Bush Administration’s torture policies.

– The Feds have frozen or seized the bank accounts of 27,000 online poker players.

– Dave Neiwert was on CNN to discuss the rising amount of far-right violence since Obama has taken office.

– Back in 2006, a SUNY New Paltz student named Justin Holmes was elected President of the Student Association. Holmes also happened to be a member of NORML and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. After his election, the University zealously tried to get Holmes expelled. They briefly succeeded before a judge reinstated his enrollment. Holmes now has a new blog set up (and an 85-minute documentary).

– Transform writes about how the U.S. successfully censored a WHO study on cocaine in the mid-90s

I’m certainly no expert on Iran, but it is kind of striking that if you want to find out anything about what is going on you have to seek sources other than U.S. based news outlets. This is obviously a very serious situation that impacts not only our foreign policy but thousands of immigrants from Iran now in the U.S. And there’s nothing on the cable tee-vee because it’s the weekend.

So much for the oft-repeated axiom that “at least television covers breaking news well.”

Anyhow, you can check out this BBC story if you wish.

The BBC’s John Simpson saw secret policemen being attacked and chased away by protesters, which he says is extremely rare.

Some of the protesters in Tehran wore Mr Mousavi’s campaign colour of green and chanted “Down with the dictator”, news agencies report.

Four police motorbikes were set on fire near the interior ministry, where votes had been counted, our correspondent says.

Yes, it’s a fluid situation and this doesn’t mean there is necessarily a revolution in the offing. But three decades after the “Islamic Revolution,” a hotly contested election and apparent public outrage over the results might warrant some satellite time.

Well, you would expect coverage if there are any American correspondents anywhere in position, which I don’t imagine there are. Your liberal media in inaction. I’m not saying they should risk their lives, but you’d expect some live coverage from somewhere in the region, maybe send Rick Santelli to the UAE or something.

Juan Cole is skeptical about the results of the Iranian election yesterday, pointing out what appear to be some rather glaring red flags. The big question that’s on a lot of people’s minds is the effect that Obama is having on this and other recent elections in the Middle East. I’ve been fairly pleased with Obama’s approach to the region so far. His speech in Cairo was well-timed and struck the right chords. But I also tend to agree with Josh that it’s wrong to give him all the credit for Hezbollah’s poor showing in the Lebanese elections earlier in the week.

That said, I disagree with this:

Let’s rewind with a little context: Contrary to all conventional wisdom (even conventional wisdom in Israel), Israel’s war on Hezbollah in 2006 was actually successful. It was not, as everyone reported, a sort of mini-Vietnam for the Israeli army. I’ve been arguing this for a while. And anticipating Hezbollah’s troubles.

Check it out: Israel routed Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon.

I think this AP report provides better context for what happened there. While the author contends that Obama actually did weigh on the minds of Lebanese voters, concerns over Iranian influence were the main impetus behind the rejection of Hezbollah.

Lebanon is a nation used to being caught in the middle of larger battles, between Israel, the U.S., Syria and Iran. The Lebanese Civil War on the 80s splintered the country into a number of factions, many of which became specifically aligned with one or more of those outside powers. The recent trend in Lebanese politics has been to oppose whichever faction appears to be taking the hardest line within those larger conflicts and raising the temperature in Beirut. When that faction was Israel in 2006, Hezbollah gained in strength. Today, that faction appears to be Iran. And while I agree that Obama’s speech in Cairo didn’t necessarily directly inspire Lebanese voters to vote one way or another, the perception of change that Obama’s election has brought to how the U.S. will deal with the region most likely altered the perceptions of who many Lebanese see as a greater threat to their stability.

UPDATE: Gary Sick has an interesting post on what’s happening in Iran.