HorsesAss.Org

Ten Democratic challengers have joined forces with top military generals to create “A Responsible Plan For Ending The War In Iraq,” a document Brig. Gen. John Johns describes as a “well reasoned… broad framework for getting out of Iraq responsibly.” The list of challengers who have embraced the Responsible Plan now include:

Darcy Burner (WA-08)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Tom Perriello (VA-05)
George Fearing (WA-04)
Larry Byrnes (FL-14)
Steve Harrison (NY-13)
Sam Bennett (PA-15)

Monday at 2:30PM PT, Darcy Burner and her fellow “Responsible Challengers” will introduce the Responsible Plan at the Take Back America conference in Washington D.C.; the event will be live streamed on Burner’s website, here on HA, and on dozens of websites nationwide. In addition to drawing down US forces, the Responsible Plan calls for a diplomatic, political and economic surge to help establish stability in Iraq and the surrounding region, addressing humanitarian concerns created by our invasion and occupation, restoring our constitution, our military and the independence of our media, and creating a US-centered energy policy that eliminates our dependence on oil.

This is an ambitious plan, particular coming from a group of congressional challengers, and these candidates deserve to be rewarded for their leadership. To this end a new Act Blue page has been created — Responsible Challengers — where you can show your support either by giving to the individual challengers of your choice, or by splitting your contribution evenly across the entire slate. If you’re unhappy with failure of Congress to move decisively toward ending the war, send a message by showing support challengers who have shown their willingness to take this issue into their own hands.

Please give today, and tune in tomorrow for the release of the Responsible Plan.

It’s been a bad week for Republicans…

It started with the loss last weekend of the seat held for two decades by former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). It got worse when Republicans lost potentially strong challengers to Democratic senators in South Dakota and New Jersey, and failed to field anyone to oppose the reelection bid of Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

The latest blow came with the revelation that the former treasurer of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) had allegedly diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars — and possibly as much as $1 million — from the organization’s depleted coffers to his own bank accounts.

If Republicans needed any more evidence of how difficult this fall may be, the past week had it all, analysts said. The Illinois race demonstrated new levels of disaffection, the party’s efforts to go on offense elsewhere were thwarted by recruiting failures, and the NRCC scandal will divert campaign resources and could frighten off badly needed contributors, they said.

And where did the elephants go wrong?

“It’s no mystery,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). “You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He’s just killed the Republican brand.”

Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan analyst of congressional politics, said: “The math is against them. The environment is against them. The money is against them. This is one of those cycles that if you’re a Republican strategist, you just want to go into the bomb shelter.”

Oh, there are so many snarky things I could write, but why bother? When it comes to making the GOP into a laughingstock, Republicans are doing a fine enough job on their own.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) addresses the House on freedom, liberty, the rule of law, and a lawless executive:

(There are some seventy other media clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

I suppose I’ve been unfair to Rep. Dave Reichert. In a bold political move, Reichert struck a forceful blow against the abuse of earmarks by, you know… issuing a video news release. And how did I respond? I teased him about being the 419th most powerful member of the House.

Well that’s the sort of deceptive rhetoric that simply isn’t worthy of the name “Horse’s Ass”. It was mean spirited. It was cynical. And well… it was downright wrong. For it turns out that Reichert is not the 419th most powerful member of the House — those were the old rankings. The new rankings came out a few weeks ago, and Reichert has climbed all the way up to 401st. That’s better than 34 other congressman, some of whom aren’t even dead, retired, indicted or behind bars. Congratulations Dave. Another 18 years of attrition and you might actually discover some real influence.

Of course, that still leaves Reichert distantly mired in last place relative to the rest of the Washington state delegation, but when you have a political powerhouse like Rep. Doc Hastings in your ranks, that’s to be understood.

House Power Rankings by Overall Score
Name	Rank in State	Overall Score	Rank in House
Rep. Dicks (D-WA 6th)	1	39.01	22
Rep. McDermott (D-WA 7th)	2	34.06	39
Rep. Inslee (D-WA 1st)	3	29.57	72
Rep. Baird (D-WA 3rd)	4	16.48	212
Rep. Larsen (D-WA 2nd)	5	14.92	236
Rep. Smith (D-WA 9th)	6	13.69	258
Rep. Hastings (R-WA 4th)	7	11.97	301
Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA 5th)	8	9.73	356
Rep. Reichert (R-WA 8th)	9	6.45	401

So how did Reichert do it? How did he climb 18 rungs on that 435-rung DC power ladder in just one year? Well, of course, all those deaths, retirements, indictments and convictions might have made a little bit of room for him at the top (of the tenth decile), not to mention his impressive use of video news releases. But a closer analysis of the numbers reveals that Reichert’s meteoric rise to the top (of the bottom) is largely based on his growing facility with, you guessed it: earmarks!

Reichert may just be 401st amongst House members in terms of overall power, but his 36 earmarks totaling over $27 million last year ranks him 73rd in terms of “member projects.” But even more impressive, Reichert climbs from a distant 9th place in the overall power rankings within the WA delegation, to a comfortable 3rd place when it comes to their “Earmark Scores”. Again, congratulations Dave! It looks like you’ve finally figured out at least one part of the legislative process.

House Power Rankings by Earmarks Score
Name	Rank in State	Earmark Score	Rank in House
Rep. Dicks (D-WA 6th)	1	2.51	7
Rep. Larsen (D-WA 2nd)	2	1.43	39
Rep. Reichert (R-WA 8th)	3	1.01	73
Rep. Baird (D-WA 3rd)	4	0.98	82
Rep. Hastings (R-WA 4th)	5	0.96	84
Rep. Smith (D-WA 9th)	6	0.95	86
Rep. McDermott (D-WA 7th)	7	0.75	152
Rep. Inslee (D-WA 1st)	8	0.74	155
Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-WA 5th)	9	0.70	167

Of course, Rep. Norm Dicks remains by far our state’s earmark champion, but then, Dicks has never been shy about bringing home the bacon and proudly frying it up for his constituents. I mean, if Dicks were to suddenly take a principled stand against earmarks, well, that might be interpreted by the press as the height of hypocrisy. But Reichert, he was the sheriff you know, and so his sudden conversion from needing an appropriations seat “now” to promising his video camera that he’s gonna give up earmarks (during an election year)… well… I guess we should just take him at his word.

Apparently, earmarks weren’t much of a problem before the Democrats took over Congress, but now things have gotten so out of control that Rep. Dave Reichert has been forced to take the most dire and resolute action the U.S. Constitution affords a duly elected member of the House of Representives: he’s issued a video news release. That’s the sort of bold move we expect from the 419th most powerful man in the House, just weeks after being denied a lucrative seat on the appropriations committee (you know… the seat he needed “now“), and days after his district lost the biggest contract in Air Force history.

Shorter Reichert: I was in favor of earmarks before I was against them, but “I want to be clear… I am in favor of earmarks.”

BONUS: Guess how long it takes for Dave to remind us he was the sheriff?

Here’s a website where citizens can leave feedback and provide ratings for the police officers in their community. As you might have guessed, this site has generated some controversy, but it’s still up, and I definitely think it can be a good instrument for improving relations between communities and their police officers. I’ve gone through the listings for SPD and see a mix of both positive and negative feedback. If only I knew the name of the officer who broke up an obnoxiously loud UW graduation party on my street at 4am last June I could give him a 5 star rating.

Back in August, Democratic challenger Darcy Burner concluded her unprecedented $123,000 netroots fundraiser with an innovative, Internet town hall meeting on Iraq. Hundreds of concerned citizens from around the nation tuned in to the live stream that afternoon, to hear Burner announce her intention to work with military experts to develop a coherent plan for both pulling out of Iraq, and reconstructing that shattered nation in the absence of our armed forces. On Monday, March 17, Burner will present the fruits of her labor to the Take Back America conference in Washington D.C., along with an impressive group of military experts and fellow challengers.

Joining Burner at the unveiling of the Iraq strategy document will be Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Donna Edwards (MD-4), Jared Polis (CO-2), and Tom Perriello (VA-5). Eric Massa (NY-29), Larry Byrnes (FL-14) and George Fearing (WA-4) have also signed on to the plan, with many more to challengers come. It is an impressive and ambitious plan that calls for the sort of diplomatic and economic surge that the Bush administration has ignored for all too long. It is anything but “cut and run.”

One of the criticisms routinely launched at Burner is that she lacks the experience and accomplishments to recommend her to Congress… as if a prior legislative career was ever a prerequisite for higher office. But if this is the type of energy and leadership Burner displays as a mere candidate — bringing together retired generals and other military experts along with congressional challengers from across the nation on such a difficult and divisive issue — just imagine what we can expect from Burner as the congresswoman from Washington’s Eight District.

Yesterday we learned that the NRCC illegally obtained an $8 million loan in October 2006 based on fabricated audits and other financial documents, at the same time it was dumping money into tight races like WA-08. So how much did Rep. Dave Reichert benefit from his party’s shady financial doings?

Between October 9, 2006 and election day, the NRCC reported $2,268,255.08 of independent expenditures on behalf of Reichert, the bulk of it in the form of attack ads on challenger Darcy Burner. That’s $2.3 million they might not have had available to spend, if they hadn’t falsified their books. Every document, every loan, every transfer and every expenditure was signed for by Christopher J. Ward.

All those TV ads portraying Burner as a fiscally irresponsible liberal who couldn’t be trusted with taxpayer money…? They were authorized with the signature of an embezzler who was cooking the books to fraudulently obtain loans.

I’m just sayin’.

“Whatever happened to creative destruction?” That’s the question Sean-Paul at The Agonist asks in response to news that Bear Stearns, the nation’s fifth largest securities firm, is getting an emergency bail-out from the Federal Reserve.

It really is socialism for the big boys but cutthroat capitalism for the little people in this country. In my opinion, Bear Stearns, more than any other firm on Wall Street should be allowed to fail. No handouts, or bailouts from the Fed. If this were 1998, well, we all know what happened when Bear declined to aid in the bailout package of LTCM. So, that’s one reason. But the other is this: the more the Feds prolong a real shakeout the worse it will be when it finally comes.

Democratic efforts to provide universal health care are decried from the right as “socialized medicine,” but for some reason we hear nary a whimper from the free market ideologues when banks and brokerage firms are propped up with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Sign the dotted line on a predatory, sub-prime mortgage, and you’re told to live with the consequences of your mistake… but blow tens of billions of dollars buying high-yield — yet worthless — sub-prime loans, and the Fed rides to your rescue.

Huh. Who exactly are the socialists?

Some folks are asking me what I think about this, so here goes:

First off, I’m not surprised. The Sierra Club’s campaign against Proposition One was predicated on an anti-global warming message as much as it was a “we’re lukewarm on light rail” message. When I went to the No on Prop 1 kick-off last year, few of the participants were actually excited about light rail. They were more excited to punish people living in Eatonville. Different strokes.

During the Prop. 1 campaign, the Sierra Club went into the campaign basing their opposition on the package’s increase in highway miles. Over time, their opposition shifted in part to a financial one. They attacked the Seattle to Tacoma line, saying it cost too much. (But they did that with numbers from Ron Sims’ budget office, numbers no transportation planner ever signed off on.) Re-reading Ron Sims’ Op-Ed against Proposition One, it seemed more like an anti-light rail screed than anything else. The fact that the Sierra Club is following Sims off a cliff is no surprise to me.

However…

I do think they have a point about parking spaces. Sound Transit shouldn’t be building a large number of additional parking spaces for any of their stations. That said, whenever Sound Transit does outreach to suburban communities, the first response is always, “where’s the park and ride?” You have to understand the folks you’ll serve with this stuff.

Park and Rides, of course, are necessary to get people onto buses. You have to coax and cajole people to get on the bus. You don’t have to do much to get people onto trains. Nerdy transit studies have shown that people will walk much further to get to a train station. I do. People don’t walk that far to the bus stop. I sure don’t. I’d much rather walk than ride on a bus that’s stuck in traffic.

In the first place, many of the proposed light rail stations are sited on current Park and Ride lots. Sound Transit should do like they do in DC, where the parking lots at suburban Metro stations are pay-to-park. That’s a perfectly reasonable option.

So I wish Mike O’Brien well on his soul-searching. I spent all of the campaign telling people that coming back to the ballot with a transit-only package in 2008 was an impossibility. I’m glad I was wrong (so far). How ironic is it that the very groups who promised us a 2008 transit-only vote are the same ones who are now dragging their feet?

Want to have your say? Join me and others at:

Post-Proposition 1: The Future of Transportation in Seattle

Thursday, March 20, 2008
5:30-7:30PM
Spitfire (2219 4th Avenue, between Bell and Blanchard)
$10 suggested donation includes a drink

Members from both sides of the Prop. 1 debate, including…
*Seattle City Councilmember Jan Drago, Chair of the Transportation Committee
*Rob Johnson, Transportation Choices Coalition’s Regional Policy Director
*Mike O’Brien from the Sierra Club
*Greg Walker, Sound Transit’s Policy and Planning Officer
*Moderated by the Seattle Channel’s C.R. Douglas

The General has more on Sen. John McCain’s spiritual adviser.

“The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf.”
— Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), former NRCC chair

Things are going from bad to worse for House Republicans, now that Christopher J. Ward — the “gold standard” of Republican campaign finance experts, and the treasurer of 83 GOP fundraising committees — is now suspected of embezzling millions of dollars from his clients. “Several hundred thousand dollars” were apparently stolen directly from the NRCC over a period of years in a financial fraud that could have far reaching consequences.

Ward is now alleged to have falsified numerous FEC filings. The NRCC apparently had nearly a million dollars less cash on hand than reported to the FEC at the end of 2006, and $740,000 less cash on hand than reported just a few weeks ago. But Ward wasn’t the only beneficiary of his crimes:

Officials told The Post that the NRCC’s problems may be more extensive. Republican lawmakers and former committee staff members now allege that Ward fabricated audits and other financial documents for 2003 to 2006, some of which were turned over to a Wachovia Bank branch in McLean in October 2006, when the NRCC borrowed $8 million in last-minute money for congressional campaigns.

That’s right, NRCC money spent on behalf of Dave Reichert in the final weeks of the 2006 campaign was obtained fraudulently, using “fabricated audits and other financial documents.” Loans obtained based on “outside audits” that were never conducted, were used to buy TV ads that helped put Reichert over the top.

And Republicans accuse Democrats of being the party of waste, fraud and abuse…?

UPDATE:
I’ve just started searching through the FEC reports and already found this NRCC expenditure from Oct. 13, 2006:

STRATEGIC MEDIA SERVICES
1023 31ST ST. NW
4TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20007

Purpose of Expenditure: Issue Ad Placement
Name of Federal Candidate supported or opposed by expenditure: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives
State is Washington in District 08
Date Expended = 10/13/2006
Person Completing Form: CHRISTOPHER J. WARD
Date Signed = 10/13/2006
Amount Expended = $424948.80

Notice the name on the form: “Christopher J. Ward”. So Ward falsifies audits and other documents to obtain an $8 million loan, and then turns around and spends nearly half a million dollars of it attacking Darcy Burner. And I’m guessing there’s another million or so more where that came from spent during the following weeks.

Congratulations Frank Blethen… you just won yourself a tax break!

Yesterday the state Senate joined the House in overwhelmingly approving HB 2585 (only Sen. Rodney Tom voted nay), a bill that redefines for B&O tax purposes the term “newspaper” to include its online editions. The result is that revenue from online advertising will now be taxed at the special discounted newspaper rate of 0.484 percent, instead of the standard 1.5 percent rate currently charged. Although this tax cut will cost the state $3 million in the next biennial budget, I’m guessing Gov. Gregoire will quietly sign it into law, rather risk the ire of the state’s editorial boards during an election year.

Kudos to Postman for risking his annual bonus by posting on this issue the other day, and extra special kudos to him for pointing out his bosses’ hypocrisy:

Allied Daily Newspapers, the newspaper lobbying group, has been making the case for the tax cut. Meanwhile, newspaper editorial boards have been urging lawmakers to save money this year to prepare for lean budget times ahead.

The Times said the state could set aside $1 billion-plus and that lawmakers should cut spending until they have reached that goal.” And the P-I, which is in a joint operating agreement with The Times, has said lawmakers have to prepare for hard choices, “even if that means holding back on some of the new spending being discussed …”

Our state’s newspaper industry already costs Washington state and local governments $40 million per biennium with their sales tax exemption for newspapers, so what’s another $3 million, huh? Meanwhile, we can make up the lost revenue by cutting health care for children, or the fat paychecks of our state’s teachers. It’s all about priorities.

But there’s one more nefarious aspect of this bill that Postman and other Olympia observers have missed (or didn’t seem to think it worthy enough to comment on.) Take a look at the language of the bill, and how it defines a newspaper:

What that means is the Times gets the discounted 0.484 percent rate on ads served on Postman’s blog, while dirty fucking hippies like me have to pay more than three times that!

Now, I don’t generate nearly enough ad revenue from HA to pay a B&O tax, but I hope to someday, and this 20th century definition of “newspaper” secured by industry lobbyists is intentionally anticompetitive. Crosscut bills itself as an “online newspaper,” and has gobs of venture money behind it, but because it doesn’t actually print on “newsprint in tabloid or broadsheet format folded loosely together without stapling, glue, or any other binding of any kind,” its owners must pay more than three times the tax rate as Blethen and his buddies. (That is, assuming Crosscut has any ad revenues. Or, um… readers.) Where is the sense in that?

Newspaper readership is relentlessly moving online, and there’s nothing the industry can do to stop it; it’s simply a more efficient and flexible way to deliver and consume content. But this shift in media consumption patterns also tears down longstanding barriers to market entry, creating the opportunity for bloggers like me to nibble away at the dailies’ audience and influence, and the potential for new online news ventures to seriously vie for ad dollars with relatively little upfront investment. And so the newspaper industry has convinced the legislature to discourage and disadvantage new competition by charging them more than three times their tax rate.

I am as good a writer as anybody at the Times or the P-I; it is the quality of my writing that has always been the key to HA’s success. That the Legislature should choose to penalize me and other entrepreneurs for publishing online rather than on dead trees is incomprehensible, especially in a state that has led the nation and the world in commercializing the Internet. It is offensive. It is insulting. And it will not stand.