HorsesAss.Org

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?

So, state Sen. Curtis King (R-Yakima) won his special election last year with 81-percent of the vote… and yet this year he’s putting up signs without any party identification, but with an Obamaesque logo dotting his “i”. If you ask me, that’s a pretty bad sign for Republicans, both literally and metaphorically.

It used to be that candidates were required to identify their party on all their campaign materials, but I’m guessing that rule was thrown out when the top-two primary came in. So now Republicans are permitted to campaign without identifying themselves as Republicans. So much for a well informed electorate.

What a bunch of weasels.

I just flew in to Spokane (and boy are my arms tired), only to learn that NBC’s Tim Russert has died of a heart attack, at age 59 58.

I’ve got an admittedly sick sense of humor, so I have to admit that a couple not mean, but inappropriate headlines immediately popped into my mind, but it’s times like these that reminds us that all of us, even people whose actions we disagree with, are human beings, and thus mortal. So my condolences to Russert’s family and friends.

[via Slog]

US Airways is joining other major carriers in charging additional fees for checked baggage, turning an already tense boarding process into a Darwinian death match for scarce overhead luggage resources. And…

The Tempe, Ariz.-based carrier also said it would cut domestic flights, shrink the size of its fleet, slash 1,700 jobs and add a $2 fee for nonalcoholic drinks during flights.

So let me get this right… we’re already prohibited from carrying beverages through security due to some bullshit, Bush scare tactic, and now the airlines want to charge us table-service prices for a fucking can of seltzer? As if flying at 30,000 feet isn’t dehydrating enough?

Better carry a shitload of quarters with you the next time you fly folks, just in case the plane loses cabin pressure and you have to feed the goddamn coin slot on the oxygen mask.

For those of you too young to remember, flying wasn’t always such a miserable experience. There was a time when airlines treated passengers as more than just those things they pack into the space above the cargo hold. There was a time when airlines focused on service, and treated even us plebs crammed into coach like paying customers, instead of just an inconvenience.

There was a time when flying from Florida to Seattle, if I missed a connecting flight in Houston due to “thunderstorms in Boston” or some bullshit excuse like that, they’d reticket me on the next available flight, even on a competing airline, instead of just shrugging their shoulders and leaving me and a small child to fend for ourselves in an airport for 24 hours or longer.

That’s because there was a time when airlines were in the business of actually moving passengers and their luggage to their final destination. You know… back before deregulation.

I’m not saying consumers didn’t benefit from deregulation; ticket prices dropped dramatically due to increased competition—hell, at under $300 round trip coast to coast, I don’t think I paid a profitable fare for years—but holy crap, enough is enough already!

Perhaps it’s time to consider a little reregulation, to stabilize the industry and bring a modicum of service and reliability back into the flying experience. Perhaps consumers might benefit if the fare didn’t routinely fluctuate between $749 and $404 and back again, depending on which minute you logged into Expedia? Perhaps something other than “the free market” is necessary to fix an industry that has collectively lost $15 billion since deregulation?

Because if the airlines are so willing to cut corners above deck, where the paying customers can see it, I’m damn frightened to learn what they’re cutting behind the scenes.

In this episode, Goldy and his panel take on the BIAW, say “amen” to overly-sensitive journalists, explore issues of secret ballots and voter integrity, note how the top-two primary leads to absurdities like a “Grand Old Party Party,” and tackle our region’s tough mass transit problems.

Goldy was joined by Democratic candidate for Secretary of State Jason Osgood, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ blogger emeritus Will.

The show is 49:31, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_june_10_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

It turns out it wasn’t just us amen bloggers who got caught up in TVW’s imaginary copyright infringement dragnet. The Spokesman-Review’s Rich Roesler blogs on his own Keystone Kafkaesque run-in with TVW Security:

On Friday, the network started contacting bloggers, including me, who use excerpts from its recordings. TVW has long allowed TV and radio reporters to edit and use its content and apparently still does.

But the network, which copyrights its work, says it’s worried about its streaming-video clips turning up in campaign attack ads. That could presumably draw official ire that could threaten the goodwill and access the network has worked hard to gain.

It’s not hard to imagine the content being put to attack-ad use. TVW cameras and microphones have inadvertently caught lawmakers falling asleep at their desks, stammering foolishly in floor speeches and ranting at each other.

Which, um, you’d think would be things it might be in the public interest for voters to know. But Roesler continues:

As I mentioned to TVW, it seems like there’s a fair-use argument to be made here. The fair-use doctrine allows reviewers, reporters and so on to quote or broadcast short snippets of a copyrighted work under certain circumstances.

Damn straight. And to illustrate his point, Roesler joins IP pirates like me by embedding my reposting of the video clip that apparently kicked off the whole brouhaha.

(©2006 TVW. View full source here.)

Ahoy, ye matey! Way to hornswaggle those bilge-sucking scallywags at TVW! Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!

Roesler spoke with TVW President Greg Lane, who assures him that the “embed widget” Lane and I discussed earlier this week will be made available shortly, and function along the lines promised, allowing bloggers to set a start and stop time. That’s great, and I expect most bloggers to adopt the TVW widget if only for the sake of convenience, though I’m not exactly sure how that addresses TVW’s concern about political ads. And, there’s still a larger principle at stake here—our well established rights under the fair use exemption—and so I intend to continue to pursue my challenge of the YouTube pull-downs regardless.

Of course, I’ll keep you posted.

Republican GOP apologist Kate Riley has her undies in a knot over Democrats’ efforts to taunt Dino Rossi for refusing to embrace the “Republican” label.

The real horror here is the state Democratic party’s attempt, in a press release today, to invent a scandal out of nothing — and, worse, the premise for their argument is founded on an apparent belief that voters are too ignorant to know that “GOP” and “Republican” are the same thing — or that they will live in a cave between now and the general election, missing what will likely be another tortuous high-profile campaign where each candidate is thoroughly dissected.

Uh-huh. I’ve read a lot of horribly written press releases in my day, but I can’t think of any that I’d call a “horror.” (I mean, it’s just a press release for chrissakes, Kate. Get a grip.) But then that’s the sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” partisanship we’ve come to expect from an amen editorialist who applauded Dave Reichert’s sexist dismissal of Harvard grad Darcy Burner as a ditzy blond, while condemning Burner as the reincarnation of Karl Rove.

As for her “voters are smart” defense of Rossi’s petty gamesmanship, her and her paper’s professed faith in our electorate is not only conveniently selective, it entirely misses the point. This isn’t about the top-two primary or the tone of a state Dem press release, it’s about Dino Rossi cynically seeking to avoid his party’s damaged brand—unlike every other Republican running for statewide office—because he believes the “GOP” designation gives him a slight advantage over, well… being plain-spoken honest.

That said, Riley’s apparent assertion that actual words have little meaning is, I suppose, understandable, given the quality of the prose we’ve come to expect from her editorial board.

With unemployment jumping at the fastest rate in 22 years, the US House just passed a 13 week extension of unemployment benefits. Kudos to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Seattle) for sponsoring the bill and shepherding it through the House.

Curiously, while news of the bill’s passage currently graces the electronic front pages of both the New York Times and the Washington Post, at the time of this posting neither the Seattle Times nor the Seattle P-I have bothered to update their web sites to report on the legislative accomplishment of the congressman who represents their district.

Hmm. I wonder if slights like this have anything to do with McDermott’s undeserved reputation in some circles as a less than accomplished legislator?

David Sirota’s new book The Uprising, has hit the New York Times non-fiction bestseller list just in time for tonight’s discussion and book signing at Seattle’s Elliott Bay Books, 7:30PM, 101 S. Main Street.

Sirota, whose nationally syndicated column appears weekly in the Seattle Times, chronicles the rise of a new populist movement that is changing the face of American politics, and is just, well, fascinating to talk to. I wish I could be there tonight, but I’ve got my own speaking engagement at the same time, in which I get to play second-fiddle to Dan Savage. Ah well.

The Seattle Times rails against Tent City, showing stunning ignorance at the same time:

“Tent City,” which camped in Kirkland in late winter, and is in Bellevue now, is scheduled to move to Mercer Island Aug. 2. This encampment has been on the Eastside since 2004, migrating from one church or temple to the next, 100 people living rent-free in camping gear. What is the point?

[…]

As a protest, it had whatever impact it is going to have. Now it becomes tiresome. There are shelter beds. There are opportunities for work.

Itinerant tent camps are not acceptable in a modern city. We didn’t have them before the 1990s, and most other American cities don’t have them now. They look at us and wonder why we ever allowed it.

Many of the homeless folks who live at Tent City have jobs. What they don’t have is first and last month’s rent, or don’t qualify for public housing.