HorsesAss.Org

I made it out to last night’s debate between Goldy and Grover Norquist at the South Lake Union Outback Steakhouse. The event was videotaped by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and will be available sometime next week. I was hoping to live-blog as it was happening, but there was no available wi-fi for me to use. So instead I drank some Toohey’s and enjoyed the spectacle.

My take on the debate was that Goldy had an advantage in that he knows Norquist much better than Norquist knows Goldy (and Washington State politics). Goldy used this edge to provide some local examples of why Norquist’s ideas of taxation being antithetical to freedom don’t quite match up with the history of this region, while Norquist could only respond with some lame strawman arguments and occasional outbursts of yelling that gave his appearance an unhinged quality at times.

I imagine the EFF folks who were in attendance saw things differently, but Norquist looked bored and annoyed while Goldy generally made his points and easily responded to the wild accusations from Norquist that people on the left are parasites.

Probably the most striking point that Goldy made was pointing out that Norquist’s support for having government provide money to families to use towards school choice seemed to fly in the face of his overall opposition of wealth re-distribution. Even following the debate, a group of EFF members continued to argue this point, totally unable to grasp it. One man in his twenties finally tried to make the point that educating kids could conceivably be a matter of national security. Thankfully, none of the EFF people stuck around long enough to ride that train of thought to its logical conclusion and watch their entire ideology unravel in front of them.

Norquist was also there to plug his new book “Leave Us Alone.” The title of his book certainly sounds like a political sentiment I can go along with. I strongly feel that government at all levels in this country has gotten too big and has accrued far too much power for its own good. I worry that we don’t exercise enough oversight over how government spends our money and that we’re starting to believe in false choices between security and freedom that will end up with us having neither. But Norquist sees both demons and virtue where none of either exist. It’s hard to take seriously a man who helped elevate the current Bush Administration into power but is still convinced that the threat of big government is unique to the political left.

Even during the debate, there were a number of issues that Norquist brought up that I agreed with (and even Goldy made it clear that he agrees with Norquist on our sugar policy), but by seeing those on the left as “parasites,” he remains lost in a world that exists only in his own mind. Yes, there are unions backed by the left that don’t act in the best interest of the greater public and screw taxpayers. But there are corporations backed by the right who do it as well. And in recent years, corporations that have acted irresponsibly have screwed taxpayers out of far greater sums of money that every single welfare recipient in the country combined.

Both sides of the political divide in this country are driven by interests that – when left unchecked – can end up with attempts to curtail our freedom or to divert taxpayer money towards foolish or dangerous things. Believing that a desire to use taxpayer money in the first place is inherently foolish is the false notion that leads Norquist (and not to mention Jonah Goldberg in his recent laughable book) to conclusions that fall far outside the realm of common sense. Norquist wants to equate the desire for 51% of the population to enact a levy to the desire for 51% of the population to strip individuals of a particular moral choice or to subjugate a subset of the population. When it comes to regulating an economic system that everyone must share, the system’s rules must be determined by the aggregate of the population’s moral outlook, whether that means more government involvement or less. However, when it comes to individual liberty, that should never be subject to a “tyranny of the majority.”

This distinction is crucial for understanding why those, like Norquist, who view taxation as being akin to prison, seem unconcerned and oblivious to the fact that the people who’ve been promising lower taxes for years have now built up the largest prison system in the world. I’m sure he’s convinced himself that the people being locked up are just parasites and need to be taken out of society. When one believes that only the other side is a threat to our freedom, it just makes it easier for his side to become the greater threat to our freedom. This is Norquist’s legacy, and it’s why he’s gone from being a key political player in this country to getting slapped around by a local blogger in a small room at the Outback Steakhouse.

The BIAW plans to spend a shitload of cash, circumventing campaign finance laws in an attempt to open up a second front against Gov. Chris Gregoire’s re-election campaign. But don’t take it from me:

If you’ve listened to drive-time radio in recent weeks, you’ve doubtless heard an anti-Gov. Chris Gregoire radio spot sponsored by an outfit called “ChangePAC.” It’s really the BIAW in disguise.

On a June 2 report, ChangePAC reported a $245,000 donation from the BIAW, enough to more than pay for a radio campaign that to date has totaled just over $200,000.

The BIAW has since brought that number up to $500,000. That’s a half million in radio ads in June. I haven’t heard much about this from the legacy media; I know that “pointing things out” and “drawing conclusions” is icky icky blogger stuff, but when a special interest group flaunts campaign finance rules, I expect to read about it. You know, in the paper.

Yesterday I was driving back to Seattle from the Eastside. I hopped on SR-520 at north Bellevue, and immediately took my place in the line of cars waiting to cross the bridge. The freeway was at a total standstill.

Without AC, my ’88 Chevy POS was getting hotter and hotter. At the same time, I was getting more and more pissed off. I never got this pissed off when riding the commuter bus across the lake. The longer I waited in traffic, the more my mind started to wander.

Right-wingers see transit as an attempt by the “elite” to “force” people into making choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. In the Puget Sound region, our two options are bus or car (or commuter train, for some people). Since our transit system is built on buses which get stuck in traffic, there is little incentive to leave your car at home. Because of this, I’ve been “socially engineered” back into my Chevy. So it’s really the anti-transit folks who take away my choices, and limit my freedom.

We lose productivity and efficiency when we have people in hour-long backups on our freeways. The absence of real alternatives to driving takes away freedom from hardworking folks. Looking at the Sound Transit maps of East Link, I would have been 3/4 of a mile away from a train station, easily in walking distance from my Eastside starting point. Studies show that people will walk much further to a train station than they will a bus stop. From that still-only-on-paper light rail station, it would have been a scant 20 minutes to downtown Seattle.

When we spend big bucks on transit infrastructure, we increase freedom, not decrease it. And you know who understands this better than any Seattle lefty? Try a born-again culture warrior:

Various free market think tanks state that Americans love their automobiles and do not desire rail systems as an alternative. Really?

Each year Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), D.C.’s subway and bus system, reaches a new high in ridership. I have an employee who drove to work. He often was upset upon his arrival. He now lives less than one block from a Metrorail station. He comes to work smiling and continually points to the virtues of the Metrorail system. Metrorail carries close to 600,000 riders per day. Some are tourists but most are workers. If these riders were stranded on the streets of Washington there would be gridlock beyond comprehension.

Many of Free Congress Foundation’s visitors live in the suburbs and take Metrorail and Metrobus. They sing the praises of mass transit. Sure, Americans love their cars. But cars are only good when they are moving.

I’m heading down to Vancouver for a day, and hope to use the train ride to write up a few observations on last night’s debate with Grover Norquist. No doubt my co-bloggers will help fill the void during my travels.

UPDATE:
BlatherWatch has a review of last night’s debate.

Early Sunday, on Father’s Day, my daughter and I awoke to a distressing break from our normal morning routine, which typically begins with a changing of the guard at the kitchen door as our dog and our cat tentatively pass each other in opposite directions. The dog went outside as usual, but Wompus, our smallish, nine-year-old black cat, was nowhere to be seen, failing to return from his usual nocturnal rounds.

This in itself would not have been so alarming if not for the evidence of a commotion throughout our property. A jerry-rigged section of fence had been pushed over from the outside, apparently ripped from its posts; paw marks were clearly visible where the moss appeared to have been scraped at high speeds from what passes for a front lawn; and the “bee cooler” had been knocked several feet from the side of the house, the lid having slammed shut on the angry hive inside. (Yes, we have Coleman cooler filled with bees… but that’s another story.) For her part, the dog sniffed ferociously throughout the crime scene, occasionally peeing on invisible scraps of evidence, an obvious sign of unwanted canine intruders.

All this, combined with recent news of cat-killing coyotes in Seward Park, led us to immediately fear for the worst. I kept reassuring my daughter that it was too soon to jump to conclusions, that the cat would sometimes come home a little late, but that hadn’t really happened in years, and I never really believed it. I followed the dog for a while, hoping at least she might sniff out the remains, but nothing. By noon my daughter had dug a small grave for the cat’s spirit, and tearfully marked it with a stone.

When you adopt a cat from the animal shelter they make you promise to keep it indoors, sternly repeating the grim statistic that the life expectancy of outdoor cats—exposed to disease, cars, and wild animals—is fully half the 14-year average span of those that live their lives entirely indoors. Wompus was a Christmas kitty, and I honored my promise through the winter and spring, but as the sun came out during the early days of summer, so gradually did the cat. At first he just joined us in the garden, before eventually enjoying longer yard adventures on his own. But his annoying, relentless, door-side yowling, and growing proficiency as a mouser, soon earned him permanent in-and-out privileges.

We loved Wompus, and always understood that our permissiveness would likely cut his life short, but it seemed to me a reasonable quality of life trade-off. I had previously owned an indoor cat, from ages 11 through 25, a beautiful calico who proved as neurotic and bored as she was pampered and beloved. As affectionate and playful as cats can be, they are also natural born killing machines, thus locking them indoors condemns them to a life that runs counter to their very nature. I found it impossible to do this to Wompus, especially against his very loudly expressed will.

Wompus had a job—to rid my garden of rats and other rodents—and he joyfully executed his mission with brutal efficiency. On one fall morning alone, after setting the clocks back for daylight savings, we let the cat in to discover five rats laid out by the back door… an incident that came to be mythologized in our family as the “Fallback Massacre.”

And now the predator had become prey, which I told myself was a more noble death for a hunter—a circle of life kinda thing—than being crushed by a car… and far quicker than that of my childhood cat who at the ripe old age of fourteen simply stopped eating, slowly starving herself before dying in my arms, a veterinarian’s needle stuck in her leg. Nine years old—two years past the average life expectancy of an outdoor cat. But at least it was a happy, productive, cat-like nine years, we consoled ourselves.

And so depressed and wracked with guilt (I could have heeded the coyote warnings, though I don’t live all that close to the park, and we’ve heard rumors of coyotes before), I sat down at my computer to write Wompus an appropriate memorial… when in he walks through the open back door, disheveled and agitated and six hours late, but surprisingly, very much alive.

What really happened in those early morning hours we’ll never know, though the physical evidence, the cat’s sudden reluctance to head outdoors, and his renewed nervousness around our dog (who has a more than passing resemblance to a coyote) suggest that our original supposition might not be far off the mark. For now Wompus will remain indoors, at least at night, but once his PTSD wears off and his late-night demands for egress once again escalate into a struggle between life and sleep deprivation, no doubt he’ll return to his usual nocturnal routines, perhaps wiser and more wary, but with every passing year a little slower and less agile. Some might argue with my decision to let him choose life over longevity… but not my cat.

After the jump, the memorial I had planned to post in celebration of Wompus’ life and death, a poem he had inspired me to write for my daughter back in 2002: “The Little Black Cat’s Big Catch.”

[Read more…]

Mark Baerwaldt, creepy Belltown millionaire/Monorail supporter/Sound Transit hater weighed in on KUOW the other day with this gem:

“The relief cannot be provided by Sound Transit; it takes decades to complete their mission”

See, this is the trouble with weirdo rich guys. They spend their way into the public debate, and onto our public airwaves, into the studio of KUOW, only to give out totally bullshit information. It takes years to build new infrastructure, that’s true, but Sound Transit had had commuter trains up and going for years now. If voters pass Sound Transit 2 (if it gets to the ballot), a great many projects will be implemented within only three or so years.

Add service to existing 11 bus routes serving the north, south, and east side corridors

Start new bus route between downtown Bellevue, Overlake and Redmond

Expand the bus fleet (obviously)

Break ground on Tukwila Sounder station

Break ground on expansion of Sumner, Puyallup & Everett Sounder stations

Fund Burien park & ride expansion

Finalize agreement with BNSF to expand Sounder service between Seattle and Tacoma

* Open Link light rail between Seattle and SeaTac Airport*

* Break ground on Link from downtown Seattle to UW via Cap Hill*

* And get going on design & engineering of the LRT extensions*

* Currently funded under phase 1

Compare this to Mark’s plan, which is…

Does Mark even have a plan?

I know some of you thought it was a particularly dry piece of satire, but I really am debating conservative kingpin Grover Norquist tonight at an Outback Steakhouse. If you’re interested in cheering me on, you can call the folks at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (360.956.3482), and see if they still have room.

Anyway, I’m spending the rest of the afternoon prepping for the debate, reading up on Norquist’s close connections to Jack Abramoff’s web of corruption, so don’t expect much posting from me the rest of the day. Likewise, I’m taking the train down to Vancouver tomorrow afternoon ahead of a Wednesday morning speech before the Washington Education Association, so again, expect light posting from me over the next couple days.

In what’s turning out to be a parallel to the presidential race, the Reichert campaign is once again pushing the experience meme to the local media, picking up where they left off with their sexist job interview ad from 2006. (As I’ve mentioned before, Reichert’s dismissive comments about powerful and capable women, combined with his staunch opposition to reproductive rights, suggests a less than modern attitude toward the opposite gender.)

The Seattle P-I’s Gregory Roberts is the latest journalist to ask the question of whether experience will play a decisive role in this campaign, and over all, I think he answers it in a pretty evenhanded manner. Though of course I’d think that, considering much of that answer included an extensive conversation with me.

Burner established her credibility as a candidate with her ability to raise money. She caught on quickly with the “netroots,” the informal community of left-wing bloggers that was emerging as a political force.

“She’s one of us,” Seattle blogger David Goldstein said recently. “Deep down, she’s a geek.”

Goldstein solicited donations for Burner’s campaign on his horsesass.org Web site. He met Burner in 2005 at a training program for would-be progressive political candidates and activists.

“She’s one of the smartest politicians I’ve met,” Goldstein said. “She is an incredibly hard worker. She is just absolutely relentless.”

Burner’s political ideology makes her more appealing to the left than Reichert: She wants immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while he wants to fight to victory; she’s pro-choice, while he’s anti-abortion; he supports the Bush tax cuts, and she thinks they wrongly favor the rich.

But beyond that, Goldstein said, Burner’s background is a plus.

“Congress could use a little bit of Microsoft, and coming from this district, that kind of makes sense,” he said.

“What we don’t have in Congress are people like Darcy Burner who truly understand high technology and the industries that are driving our economy and our region,” he said.

Besides, Goldstein said, Reichert’s experience didn’t prepare him especially well for Congress, where he’s rated as the 401st most influential House member by congress.org.

“He wasn’t a lawyer, she’s not a lawyer. He wasn’t a legislator, she’s not a legislator,” he said.

“This idea that she should have been a city councilperson first and then moved on up — that’s an argument for incumbency,” Goldstein said. “That says the only experience for public office is public office.”

Reporters who have interviewed me know that not only do I like to talk, I can sometimes get pretty damn tangential, so if anything, Roberts has me coming off a bit more concise and focused than I probably did on the phone. That said, I can pretty much sum up my thoughts on this issue by restating my belief that holding elected office should be an act of public service, not a reward for it.

Campaign spokesman Mike Shields likes to point toward Reichert’s long career in law enforcement as a prerequisite for office: “Dave has done this since he was a cop on the beat — helping people solve problems.” But while I certainly honor and respect the hard and sometimes dangerous work of all our first responders, it is not especially relevant to what goes on in the halls of Congress, as evidenced by Reichert’s own ranking as the 401st most powerful person in Congress, ahead of only 34 other representatives, some of whom aren’t even retired, indicted, behind bars, or dead.

It is understandable that in 2004, Reichert ran as “the Sheriff”—that is how most voters knew him, and that was the experience, however irrelevant to the task of legislating, that best recommended him for the job. But after two terms in Congress, it is past time for him to start running as “the Congressman.” And if voters find his job performance in that capacity wanting, then it’s time for them to give Darcy Burner a second, closer look.

Reload turned 4 this weekend.

The easiest way to see if campaign management is for you is to manage a campaign. And that’s exactly what I did.

I left Horsesass.org at the end of April to manage Rep. Geoff Simpson’s re-election campaign. If you are a regular consumer of web-based news, then you know what happened. This, and then a month later, this. (It learned that in the news business, the arrest gets front page treatment while the story about the charges being dropped gets buried. Then again, I’m just another “amen blogger”, so who cares what I think, right?)

But less than a month later, I’m back here, blogging. Turns out, the tough job of campaign management probably isn’t for me, and I’m glad I found that out sooner rather than later. I feel blessed to have had the opportunity, that’s for sure.

Now, back to blogging (at least for the time being).

The Governor’s big night out:

When Seattle Times political reporter David Postman sat down with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently, talk turned to the difficulty Dems have had sticking to their agenda in light of the narrow majority they hold in the Senate. But Pelosi told Postman that they were working harder, particularly on Iraq. (The emphasis is mine):

“This time we just said, ‘What do we want in this bill? What is the statement that needs to be made?’

Part of that statement has been to reflect what is in a document called the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Created by Burner and a team of experts, the plan calls for a rapid troop withdrawal and an increased diplomatic and humanitarian effort in Iraq.

The plan has been endorsed by other Democratic congressional challengers, as well as some retired military officers.

Big threads of the plan include legislation that already existed in Congress but failed to pass under two years of Democratic control.

“You could think of a million things you could do better in terms of Iraq, probably at least a million,” Pelosi said. “But it’s a question of where you put the focus. And yes, indeed, what she has done helped focus that.”

And Burner got other candidates to sign on. “That drumbeat isn’t lost on Congress.”

There are some who have attempted to dismiss Burner’s efforts on the Responsible Plan as mere political calculation, while others have attempted to dismiss the effort itself. When asked to comment on the Plan, Dave Reichert routinely brushes of the questioner, claiming matter-of-factly that Burner didn’t even write it.

As usual, Reichert couldn’t be further from the truth. Indeed, the back story on the Plan is at least as revealing as the Plan itself.

The Plan was conceived during the heady days of Burner’s remarkable Internet fundraiser, when she raised an astounding $123,000 in small donations from 3,200 contributers over a weekend in August. As President Bush was stopping traffic in Bellevue to raise money for Reichert, Burner and a handful of experts assembled at a hotel down the block to livestream an innovative, online “town hall meeting” on the war in Iraq. And near the end of the broadcast, Burner made a surprise announcement that Gen. Paul Eaton had agreed to work with her to create a comprehensive proposal to responsibly draw down our troops and bring them home.

Burner’s bold announcement drew little coverage, even here on HA, because quite frankly I thought she might have gotten a little caught up in the moment. This is not the kind of thing that mere congressional challengers do—or are even capable of doing—and I winced at a promise I thought she would have a tough time delivering in a credible manner.

Burner’s staff and advisers were even less enthusiastic. A candidate’s primary job early in a campaign is to raise money, and the consultancy class frowns upon nearly anything that might distract the candidate from precious “call time.” It is also generally accepted campaign wisdom that challengers are usually best off avoiding specificity on issues so that it is the incumbent’s record that draws the scrutiny of voters.

Throughout the fall of 2007 advisers suggested Burner reconsider the project, and I had more than one conversation with nervous staffers who worried that her efforts were costing the campaign far too much in time, focus, and financial resources. The DCCC, whose favor Burner couldn’t afford to lose, was equally unenthusiastic, and while I’m told they never asked her to abandon the plan, they never encouraged her either… and they certainly didn’t encourage other challengers to sign on.

But Burner proved undaunted. No doubt personal ambition drives all politicians to some extent—like blogging, it is an inherently narcissistic profession—but Burner’s political ambitions have always been motivated by what she sees as an extraordinary opportunity to make a difference. For Burner, most of the elements of what eventually became the Responsible Plan were obvious; in fact many had already been proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission or in existing legislation. What Burner hoped to produce was a comprehensive proposal that could serve as a framework for enacting a realistic legislative agenda over a relatively short amount of time.

And that is what Burner eventually willed into creation, a Responsible Plan so credible that it has drawn the endorsement of over 50 other House and Senate challengers along with numerous military and national security experts, and has, in the words of Speaker Pelosi, “helped focus” the agenda of the Democratic leadership.

One thing that remains clear is that by sending Darcy Burner to the other Washington, 8th CD voters will not only get a reliable vote on the issues they care about most, but a remarkably smart, independent and creative leader who through hard work, determination, and sheer chutzpah will quickly rise up the Democratic ranks. Burner doesn’t want to go to Congress to be a rubberstamp for Nancy Pelosi, she wants to go there to solve problems.

That is what she has done with her Responsible Plan. And that is what Burner will do as the elected representative from Washington’s 8th Congressional District.

It’s not like politicians have never lied or flip-flopped in the past, but it’s one thing to compare and contrast the printed word, and entirely another to do it via video. John McCain just can’t continue to contradict his prior recorded statements, pretending that YouTube doesn’t exist, and still expect to maintain his credibility with voters, especially now that he’s already damaging his reputation with reporters.

This reveals a fundamental difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain:

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt and that Mr. Obama and his wife had put more than $200,000 into college funds for their daughters.

Yeah…the circumstances differ. When you leave your wife to marry a fabulously rich heiress, a quarter million of debt comes off as chump change—even “at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate.” And squirreling away a couple hundred thousand for your kids future isn’t really necessary. But the fiscal report betrays a rather caviler fiscal attitude in the McCain residence.

This strikes me as a metaphor showing a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans—the self-anointed party of “fiscally responsibility”—have intentionally outspent their means. They’ve piled unprecidented debt onto the backs of Americans for generations to come.

George W. Bush came into office with a $5.7 trillion federal debt. Today that figure has ballooned to $9.5 trillion, which means that every American has their own $31,100 credit card charge.

Contrast this to Bill Clinton, who took office with $4.4 trillion in federal debt and left office with $5.7 trillion. And with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton pushed hard to invest in the future, a vision captured in his farewell address:

First, America must maintain our record of fiscal responsibility. Through our last four budgets we’ve turned record deficits to record surpluses, and we’ve been able to pay down $600 billion of our national debt–on track to be debt-free by the end of the decade for the first time since 1835. Staying on that course will bring lower interest rates, greater prosperity, and the opportunity to meet our big challenges. If we choose wisely, we can pay down the debt, deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, invest more in our future, and provide tax relief.

Instead…we got George W. Bush and the Big Credit Card.

This fall we will have a choice between Candidate A, whose household finances show a credit card debt of $225,000 and Candidate B whose household has saved $200,000 to invest in their children’s future.

Pretty easy choice, huh?