HorsesAss.Org

With President Bush’s job approval ratings consistently hovering around 30-percent, the standard Republican retort is that the ratings of the Democratic controlled Congress are even lower. Of course, there are two parties in Congress, and so it begs the question whether voters are a bit more discerning in attributing responsibility for their profound sense of disappointment…

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008, only 41% of adults likely to vote this November say they would support the Republican candidate running in their congressional district. Fifty-five percent say they would vote for the Democratic candidate.

The current 14-point margin in favor of the Democrats among likely voters is one of the highest Gallup has seen in recent years, along with two others late in the 2006 campaign.

Of course the election is still a long way off, and that margin could fluctuate wildly between now and November, but a similar result during the final days of the campaign would almost surely predict significant Democratic pickups in the House. And with Democrats holding substantial advantages in both voter enthusiasm and party identification (the Republicans lowest score in 20 years,) a second wave election remains a definite possibility.

One of the knocks against Darcy Burner we’ve frequently heard from concern trolls and self-soothing Reichertphiles is that if she couldn’t ride the big blue wave to victory in 2006, she doesn’t stand a chance against the two-term incumbent in 2008, an analysis that purposefully ignores a host of factors working in her favor the second time around. Near parity in name ID, a widening fundraising advantage, shifting suburban demographics, presidential year turnout and potentially long coattails emanating from the top of the ticket all lead me to believe that with or without a wave, Burner will be in a significantly stronger position in November than she was during her 2006 nail biter. And now it seems likely that she’ll have a second chance to ride that wave.

Over the approximately three years I have participated in the comment threads at Horses Ass, I’ve frequently been called a Democrat. And my typical response has been something like, “Actually I am not a Democrat. When I have lived in states that require registration by party, I have always refused—even to extent of being excluded from voting in primaries.” It’s true. I’ve never joined the Democrats—even though it is obvious that my political sensibilities and sympathies are closely allied with the Democrats.

This explains, in part, why I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus. I didn’t participate in the Republican “caucus” either. In order to participate, the Democrats wanted me to “consider myself a Democrat” and the Republicans wanted me to be “a member of the Republican Party.”

But there was more to my non-participation. The fact is, I’d be equally happy with either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic nominee, so I had little reason to attend the Democratic caucus. I considered caucusing for Mitt Romney, but the bastard surrendered to terrorism while terrorizing his own supporters earlier that week. So I sat out that one, too.

Over the last week I’ve had a change of heart. I am ready to sign up for a party, for the first time in my life. And given how the Washington state Republicans are in shambles…I think they need me. Really. Yeah…maybe I’ll change my mind in a few days, but right now, I think the Republicans really need me, if only to boost their numbers. So I’m joining the Republicans and I’ll at least contribute half a vote to their primary on Tuesday.

I’m supporting Mike Huckabee. Given that McCain’s “victory” last Saturday was little more than a decree from Boss Esser, I think Mike Huckabee is entitled to a decree on Tuesday that arises from some sort of numerical system that proportionately reflects the make-up of the party faithful (like, um…me!).

I strongly encourage you to do the same thing. Sure…there will be the shame and humiliation of signing an oath that you are a Republican. And you might even feel like you’re lying a little bit. But, these days, the very act of lying pretty much fully qualifies you to be a card carrying Republican! Imagine the great opportunities in being a Republican…like, serving as a Research Assistant on Lori Sotelo’s Voter Suppression Squad™.

Think of your new membership as a trial subscription…. If you find it causes odd changes in your behavior, attitudes, or physiology like, say, a new-found desire to have sex in public toilets, or an unexplainable urge to knock your mother to the floor, or perhaps being turned on by falafel as a shower sex toy, then all you need to do is renounce your membership. Experiment over.

Hell…the trauma and uncontrolled trembling associated with casting your first ballot as a member of the Republican Party may be enough to cause an instant renunciation. If it induces vomiting, renounce immediately and completely; see a doctor.

How do you join the Republicans? Well…don’t go to the Washington State Republican Party web site. You won’t find any instructions on how to join there. That pretty much means you can join any way you want. The usual methods should work—kill a member of an endangered species, test drive a Hummer, drag a disadvantaged member of society down the road behind your pick-up truck, join the Ted Nugent fan club, shoot your neighbor’s dog…. If those methods are too much work, there is an easier way: leave a comment below stating that you are a member. Or, use an even easier method: simply do nothing except sign that poll-book or absentee ballot envelop declaration for Tuesday’s primary election. The WSRP explains (my emphasis):

You are eligible to participate in your local Republican precinct caucus if you are a registered voter in that precinct, show up at the caucus location at 1 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 9th, and sign a declaration indicating that you are a member of the Republican Party and have not and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party. It is not necessary for you to have previously declared that you are a member of the Republican Party.

If it works for the caucus, it works for the primary.

But what if you already participated in the Democratic caucus? Can you then vote in the Republican primary? The real answer is YES, although it is sure hard to tell from this piece in yesterday’s Olympian:

“What we’re telling people is just be honest,” said Pat McCarthy, Pierce County auditor. “You need to know that when you sign that oath you’re adhering to the statement of the oath.”

Or else … what?

“I’m not quite sure,” she said.

In fact, no one is, but everyone seems to have an answer that sounds plausible.

“It’s against the law,” said Joanie Deutsch, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s office. Deutsch dialed up RCW 29.19, relating to primaries, before determining that such acts constitute voter fraud.

But ask Nick Handy in the elections division of the Secretary of State’s office and you get another perspective: It’s a violation of the law for which the law provides no sanction.

Translation: Yes, it’s illegal. But since there’s no punishment assigned to it, you conceivably could break that law with abandon and not get any flak.

Here’s another interesting part, Handy said. Since caucuses are party-run affairs, only the parties knows who went last Saturday.

Aside from the parties, that is. And they’re not sharing.

For the final word, Handy suggested asking Jeff Even, deputy solicitor general in the Attorney General’s office and an expert on the matter.

His take: It’s hypothetically legally binding.

It would be almost impossible to prosecute someone for voter fraud, perjury, or the gross misdemeanor of false swearing for pulling a switcheroo, Even said.

And so the question becomes, if the oath creates a crime that’s impossible to prove, prosecute or punish: Why write one in the first place?

“Most people would take an oath seriously,” Even said.

Hypothetically legally binding, my ass. In fact, there is nothing in the RCW or the WAC that prevents you from participating in a Democratic caucus and a Republican primary. It’s true that you would be lying to both Parties in doing so, but lying to both the Democrats and Republicans seems like the perfect rite of passage for becoming a Republican.

I’m not a lawyer…so consider my reasoning but come to your own conclusions. The relevant law is found in RCW 29A.56 (not RCW 29.19 as the spokeswoman for the Secretary of State supposedly “dialed up”). Also check out the appropriate portion of the WAC.

You will not find anything dealing with an unfaithful oath to a party in the primary. The core issue is whether a violated oath could result in second degree perjury (RCW 9A.72.030) or false swearing (RCW 9A.72.040a) charges. But the language (found in WAC 434-219-140) states

(3) Each registered voter desiring to participate in the presidential primary of a major party that requires a declaration shall subscribe to the declaration.

As Sam Reed was so kindly pointed out during the SignatureGathererGate in May of 2006:

Both perjury in the second degree and false swearing require the statement be made under an oath “required or authorized by law”. This is a term defined in the statute:

“An oath is “required or authorized by law” when the use of the oath is specifically provided for by statute or regulatory provision or when the oath is administered by a person authorized by state or federal law to administer oaths[.]”

Apparently, by WAC 434-219-140, even the desire to participate in a party’s primary requires one to make an oath to the party! More importantly, the word “subscribe” in legalese simply means to sign one’s name. In other words, the oath is to a party, but the legal requirement is simply a signature on the oath provided by the party. The oath itself is meaningless (except as a way to join the Republican Party) for another important reason: because it doesn’t conform to the legal requirements for an unsworn oath. RCW 9A.72.085:

Unsworn statements, certification.
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person’s sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct”:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Date and Place) (Signature)

This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgement, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.

Finally, as Nick Handy points out, there are no provisions written into law to punish people who sign the oath but violate it.

All this is simply academic for me, since I didn’t participate in the Democratic caucus, and the very act of writing this post is my way of joining the Washington state Republican Party. I can sign in good conscience.

You can become an Insta-Republican too. It’s easy. Simply say so in the comment thread. Or sign that declaration on your ballot and mail it in.

And vote for Mike Huckabee—because real change comes out of joking about razor blades in each hand in a nice warm tub!

Don’t get in an accident in Prosser:

Ambulance response in three lower Yakima Valley towns may take twice as long if money doesn’t show up soon.

It’s a nice country, Central Washington. I like to visit, but I think the next time I drive out there, it’ll be in a borrowed ambulance. You know, so I don’t die waiting for one of the local ones.

The publicly funded Prosser Memorial Hospital owns Emergency Medical Services, he only ambulance program responding to 911 calls in the Grandview, Prosser, Mabton area. But hospital CEO Jim Tavary says they need public money by March 15 or the ambulance service may be cut back in a business decision.

Nine-one-one: I file it under “government services I don’t use but am glad I pay for,” right along with meat inspectors and the 82nd Airborne.

If there isn’t an influx of money, the hospital plans to reduce services by 70 percent starting May 1 — closing a station in Grandview and laying off employees. That will raise response times in emergencies.

But who cares, right? Like the GOP says, practice some goddamn personal responsibility. If you’re having a coronary, it’s your responsibility to swallow two aspirin and drive yourself the 30 miles to the hospital.

The ambulance program has faced a $425,000 shortfall since 2006 when government Medicare reimbursements were restricted. Voters in the hospital district also rejected a levy increase last November.

Ultimately, if folks don’t vote for the levy, it’s their own damn fault. Sure, their taxes are lower (better business climate!), but what’s that worth to you if you die waiting for emergency help?

Seattle Untimely explains the WGA strike (which ended recently) using video games:

Ryan Blethen says that Democrats should give up their constitutional right to freedom of association because it inconveniences his wife.

My wife’s frustration with the caucus and primary are emblematic of many who are sitting out this round of voting. The logistics of caucusing did not work for her on a Saturday with two kids at home and me out of town. She will not vote in the primary because the ballot requires her to sign a party oath.

First: Hire a babysitter. Second: It’s not unreasonable for a political party to insist that the people who participate in their nominating process actually be, at least nominally, members of that political party.

If the parties cared about democratic input from an energized public they would scrap the Tammany Hall caucus for the presidential primary, which the voters passed into law in 1988.

That’s really one of the more dumb things I’ve read in a while. I saw no party bosses at my caucus, no one telling anyone how to vote. All I saw were excited, energized Democrats expressing their presidential preference.

What this state needs is party registration at the polling place. We could do away with a caucus and just vote, but I’m sure some folks are turned off by the icky thought of actually having to register for a party.

Even if we do all of this, I get the feeling that Blethen (and others) would still bitch and moan.

Images from the Washington caucuses:

(These and some eighty other media clips from the past week in politics are now posted at Hominid Views.)

So how much weight does Rep. Dave Reichert carry with his Republican colleagues? Well, you know Rep. Jo Bonner… the guy they gave that coveted Appropriations seat to…?

On Feb. 11, Bonner publicly endorsed Airbus over Boeing for the contract to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet of air refueling tankers.

So not only doesn’t Reichert get the pork seat he needs “now”, they give it to someone who just 3 days before publicly endorsed sucking pork out of Reichert’s district. Um… what was that the Seattle Times wrote in endorsing Reichert in 2006?

His goal should be to expand his influence and be a stronger voice for change.

Hey Frank… how’s that working out for you?

Here are a few interesting items from this week:

Travel show host Rick Steves is helping to launch an initiative to get more people talking about this country’s marijuana laws, which he’s found in his travels to be incredibly counterproductive compared to how it’s dealt with in other countries. The 30-minute video he produced is available to Comcast Digital Cable On Demand subscribers and will hopefully also be shown on some of the local networks in the state. Scott Morgan and Dominic Holden have more.

With the help of The Daily Show, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) demonstrates the complete uselessness of the Senate by being more concerned over the destruction of taped football practices than over the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes because the Patriots beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl a few years back. And speaking of New England, Congress, and sports, the only Republican Congressman left in all of New England right now is Christopher Shays, whose district is the closest one in those 6 states to New York City. Now, because of his statements on Roger Clemens, New York City sports radio hosts Mike and the Mad Dog are going after him and trying to help his Democratic opponent, Jim Himes.

Yesterday’s tragedy at Northern Illinois University is being explained to us as a completely normal young person who just stopped taking his medications. Why is it that before we had these medications at all, we didn’t have people going on mass murder sprees all the time? There seems to be something very odd about how we view mind-altering drugs as being one of two extremes – those that make you crazy when you take them and those that make you crazy when you stop taking them.

And finally, I think this is what you get when you elect a president who spent much of the early 80s getting balls-out wasted and playing Space Invaders.

This is an open thread.

Whenever we post anything on the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert for WA’s 8th CD, my comment thread fills up, almost without exception, with nasty trolls belittling Burner and her chances this November. But yesterday’s posts were different. Only one comment out of 50 was even remotely trollish, and even at that expressed an uncharacteristic air of resignation…

So I’m going to have to endure at least 2 years of Dumbass Darcy. Yuck.

Now perhaps our trolls are just hopeless romantics, and as such were too busy serenading their sweethearts on Valentines Day to spew their usual bile into the threads. Nah… that can’t be it. No, I’m guessing that despite their rabid readership of this blog they claim to hate, and their obvious dislike of all things both Darcy and Democratic, that air of resignation is real — for even the whackiest of wingnuts can occasionally sense reality creeping up on them, and man, reality doesn’t look too good for the folks on the other side right now.

The typical defense of Reichert has always been an attack on Burner, but the trolls seem to be losing the heart even for that… and why shouldn’t they, as Reichert’s vulnerabilities as a candidate continue to be exposed outside the careful coddling of a Republican majority? But even more discouraging to local R’s must be the dawning realization that Burner isn’t a one hit wonder, and that her 2008 campaign is gonna be at least as competitive as her come from nowhere challenge in 2006.

Reichert’s fundraising numbers suck; he’s lazy and arrogant and unaccustomed to putting the kind of work into campaigning expected in swing districts, even of incumbents. We all know that. But Burner continues to impress, establishing herself as one of only a handful of Democratic challengers to achieve superstar status amongst both netroots activists like me, and the DC establishment.

“Dumbass Darcy”…? Not so much. Indeed according to Congressional Quarterly, Burner has made the list of Top Ten challengers from either party in both total receipts ($874,000 for 7th place) and cash on hand ($607,000 for 5th place.) And she’s one of only four Democrats to make it onto both lists. And, she’s done all that while garnering over 88% of her money from individual contributors (compared to only 59% for Reichert.)

It’s gonna be a tough reelection for Reichert… and even the trolls are starting to admit it.

Mr. 87 Percent:

In case you can’t read the small type, it says “If you can’t give 100 percent, 87 is just fine.”

Joel:

One feature of the four-year political struggle between Gov. Chris Gregoire and almost-Gov. Dino Rossi has been an abundance of suspect and self-serving opinion surveys.

At last comes a poll, albeit with a few weeks under its belt, that surprised its takers.

[…]

In a trial heat, the incumbent Democrat had 43 percent, her Republican challenger received 41 percent, and 16 percent were undecided. The poll was based on interviews with 588 likely general election voters. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Joel quotes a poll that was commissioned back in November, but an Elway poll done much more recently shows the race to not be as close:

Seattle public opinion researcher Stuart Elway has released a good-news, bad-news poll on this year’s gubernatorial election rematch between Democratic incumbent Chris Gregoire and Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

[…]

The good news for Gregoire is that while she defeated Rossi by only 133 votes in the 2004 election, she now has a 13-percentage-point lead over him in voter preference. Only 35 percent of the respondents said they definitely or probably are inclined to vote for Rossi. Eighteen percent said they were undecided.

I’m not knocking Joel. I think the newspapers, to a degree, have a bias in favor of making this race closer than it really is. I’m not saying it’s a shoo-in for Chris Gregoire, but I think local media flacks are going to go out of their way to frame this thing positively for Rossi.

Looking back at ’06, Joel went out of his way to pitch Mike McGavick as an “Evans Republican”, or at least in a much more favorable light. He’s doing the same for Dino:

Republicans used to be big-time greens, passing the state’s first package of environmental laws. They helped forge the Washington wilderness bill and legislation protecting the Columbia Gorge. Lately, however, the party has demanded repeal of the Growth Management Act.

Rossi might do well to get with tradition.

Republicans haven’t been leaders on enviro-issues for decades. Guys like Rossi, totally in league with the looney tune base of his party, doesn’t think global warming is even a big deal:

Q: “Where are you on global warming?”

Rossi: (scoffs) “Where am I on global warming? The uh, I mean it’s clear that the earth, the earth is warming. That is clear, I mean, I think if we were to count how many feet of ice we were under many, many, tens and hundreds of millions of years ago – right where we are standing, right here – the earth has been warming and it will continue to warm. Apparently we’ve hit, we’ve hit the same temperature that it, that it had increased to in about, oh, twelve hundred AD I think it was. So, I mean, it was warmer then too. Uh, there are cycles.

There are things that we can do obviously to, to make sure that the environment is clean. That the air is clean, that the water’s clean, all those sorts of things that need to be done.

I think you also need to make sure that you look at the real science of this too and make sure that it makes sense. And so, uh, well-uh I-uh there’s still a lot of debate going on this, we see it out there and there’s going to be a big debate coming up in the next two, three years. Because there are, you know, I’ve listened to other scientists who disagree with, you know, I know – why are people even bothering about long term planning if Al Gore says the world is going to end in ten years or fifteen years – but there are a lot of scientists that disagree. So, I mean, we’ll see how this debate goes, but I don’t think anyone should panic at this point.” [Rossi at Port Orchard Chamber, 3/08/2007]

The guy’s a lightweight on all sorts of issues, especially the environment. While I understand Joel’s impulse to give Dino an out, it ain’t going to happen. “Evans Republicanism” is as dead as Julius Caesar, and Rossi has absolutely no inclination to run under that banner in ’08.

Even though the Senate sold out America by passing a new wiretapping bill that includes retroactive immunity for telcos that broke the law, the House is standing firm. As a result, the Terrorist-in-chief is not amused. And he is threatening to postpone his trip to Africa in order to sit in a corner and pout:

Leaving aside the problems with the wiretapping portion of the bill, what’s with this telco immunity bullshit? If the telecom companies need retroactive immunity, why the fuck doesn’t Bush simply use his presidential pardon powers to pardon them? I mean, isn’t Bush just throwing a temper tantrum to get Congress to do his dirty work?

Yeah…maybe there has never been a pardon granted to a corporate “person” (I don’t really know), but Bush has played so fast and lose with the constitution that extending the presidential pardon powers to corporate “persons” is no biggie.

Really, what Bush is doing is dodging his own responsibility, and that of his administration, for sweet-talking (or, perhaps, threatening) the telcos into breaking the law. By getting Congress to pardon the telcos, he avoids the scrutiny and scorn that would accompany a presidential pardon.

Lets hope the House stands firm on this and the Senate gets a clue.

I think it’s worth noting to whom exactly they gave the seat on the Appropriation Committee.

Rep. Jo Bonner, Republican, from the 1st congressional district of Alabama. He represents Mobile in the SW corner of the state. His district borders Mississippi and Florida. What’s the most interesting thing about his district?

It has a Cook Partisan Voting Index (what is that?) of R+12. This means that the district is eleven points more conservative than the national average.

Dave-o’s district is a D+2.

Hmmm… So instead of giving the choice seat to the Republican in the “slightly more liberal than average” seat, they gave it to the guy who doesn’t need the help.

Talk about a “fuck you” from the party.

To put that into context, Wasington’s 5th CD (with a R+7) is actually less conservative than the Alabama 1st.

I think the GOP is hunkering down, ready to ride out life in the minority.

Crosscut is on fire today. I don’t know if our readers can handle it, so I won’t link to any of the stories, but here’s the rundown:

Knute Berger picks a coffee shop. (Tully’s)

David Brewster talks about skyscrapers. (A bland topic turned into a… blander topic.)

Ted Van Dyk talks about the caucus. (Light rail is not mentioned, but “blacks” are. As is Hubert Humphrey.)

It’s like they have the pulse of the city. Seriously, I haven’t been this tuned-in since Steve Scher dropped an f-bomb tirade on the rain barrel lady for talking through his bumper music. It’s like the Weekly, but before they got rid of everybody.

And what’s up with Crosscut having a blog? ‘splain that one to me. Department of Redundancy Department.

A hotly contested Republican seat on the House Appropriations Committee will go to Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, rebuffing a desperate plea from a cash-starved Rep. Dave Reichert that “I need a seat now.”

Coming off a disappointing pathetic fundraising quarter in which the two-term incumbent now trails challenger Darcy Burner $607K to $463K in cash on hand, Reichert had hoped an Appropriations seat would fill his campaign coffers with earmark goodies, while bringing home some bacon to hungry 8th CD voters, and argued that he needed the assignment to help secure his slipping hold on the district. Apparently, House Republican leaders don’t think he’s worth saving.

Also jilted in a bid for appropriations was NRCC chair, Rep. Tom Cole, the man Reichert will have to rely on for party cash. We’ll see if Cole, rumored to be miffed at Reichert’s challenge, comes through for Dave in the clutch, the way the NRCC did big-time back in the closing weeks of both the 2004 and 2006 campaigns.