Recently I was awarded a scholarship for a two-day conference in
Washington, D.C. to attend classes on the ins and outs of what the
Citizens United decision means for politics, and how I can find
data about campaign spending in this new arena.
On Saturday, though, I got a great primer from the group at
“This American Life.” As usual, the one hour provides so much
information without making you feel like you were sitting in a
class. It’s as entertaining as watching “Breaking Bad.” If you’re
into politics at all, or you just care about your country and your
government, take the hour you’ll need to listen to this.
We had a story Monday on state Rep. Drew Hansen, D-Bainbridge
Island, having written a book on the “I have a dream” speech and
his assignment to introduce a House resolution honoring King. Here
is the speech Hansen delivered, in which he states he makes the
case that King’s losses offer moments as instructive as his
victories.
Congressional redistricting appears to be close to a real
proposal within the state’s redistricting commission. Slade Gorton
and Tim Ceis said they have a proposal ready and will provide
drawings at 11 a.m. Wednesday.
Don’t be surprised if there is a significant change in what was
proposed earlier, but it’s worth noting that all four proposals had
the entirety of Kitsap County in District Six, currently
represented by Congressman Norm Dicks of Belfair.
Currently the county is pretty much cut in half between the
Sixth and First districts, with the Firsties being represented by
Congressman Jay Inslee, who wants to be governor. That candidacy
was likely what opened the door to combining all of Kitsap into one
district. Perhaps it shouldn’t have mattered, but these lines are
not completely drawn without consideration for where the incumbent
lives.
In California, it appears, efforts to depoliticize the process
may have failed this time around, with Democrats figuring out how
to game the system while Republicans sat on the sidelines. An
extensive ProPublica report tells
how.
Though all four proposals initially had the entirety of Kitsap
in one district, moving parts in one place requires moving them
elsewhere. So some of the county, particularly Bainbridge, could
find itself aligned with a Seattle-area district again.
Legislative maps that earlier included a call for uniting
Bainbridge with Port Townsend should be out later in the week. The
deadline is Saturday, or else it goes to the state Supreme
Court.
National political conventions haven’t mattered since 1980, when
the Democrats fought over rules about whether delegates should be
locked in. Even then, the outcome seemed pretty certain, as it has
in every convention since then and for quite a while before.
That could change this year, according to a piece written by
Michael Medved in The Daily Beast. In the column, Republicans, Dissatisfied with Their
Presidential Field, Dream of Deadlock, Medved contends
there is a slight chance the GOP nominee might not be picked until
the actual convention. Among the reasons is the lack of a true
“Super Tuesday” this year and fewer states operating with a
winner-take-all formula.
Of all the things Medved says, this to me is the most true:
This outcome appeals to all media outlets (which would relish
the high drama and corresponding high ratings) as well as party
organizers who would welcome the engagement of the grass roots in a
fiercely competitive race and a visibly open convention.
I salivate at the prospect of a convention that matters. I asked
my company to send me to both conventions in 2008, even offering to
take a bus and find homes to crash in. The response from my bosses
was that conventions are scripted infomercials. They were right. I
don’t plan on repeating the request this year, but I’ll enjoy the
festivities much more.
Where I disagree with the headline is that this is happening
because Republicans are dissatisfied. While true that there
probably is a lack of enthusiasm for any candidate other than Ron
Paul, if party members were generally excited about more than one
candidate the same scenario could exist. The truth is no one has
managed to pull away. (Again, like I’ve said before, that’s an
interesting expectation to have when there hasn’t been even a
single caucus or primary.) The point is that the race is even
enough that this next year offers the most promise we’ve seen in
years that a primary process might not deliver a clear winner.
Here are a few items of interest to a post-Thanksgiving America.
Excuse me, while I kiss this guy.
The Seattle Times reports the U.S. Department of
Justice believes the Seattle Police Department’s policy of letting
officers refuse to incriminate themselves is too broad and is
applied to too many situations.
The Washington Post reports on an effort to get a
middle-ground candidate on the 2012 ballot. The biggest question
for me is raised in the story. Who is out there now who would be
willing to sign on to this as a candidate running against someone
else in the same party. Only someone with nothing to lose,
methinks. That means someone who either doesn’t have a prayer of
ever winning anyway, or someone who doesn’t care whether the party
members get mad. A national version of Tim Sheldon, perhaps.
Obama’s campaign operation is working somewhat quietly in
Chicago. The Washington Post reports on some of the pros
and cons of being in Chicago and details a few of the efforts the
group is undertaking.
If you have time to sit by a computer and read news stories
between now and dinner on Thursday, allow me to recommend just two.
They have absolutely nothing to do with the Thanksgiving holiday
and the one story I did read about the holiday was boring. I saved
you from it. These two are interesting looking ahead to next year,
all next year.
First off comes the Washington Post story on Newt Gingrich’s candidacy. He
has two things Conservatives hate: an affair with Freddie Mac and a
woman who became his wife; and yet he is in the lead. The reason?
People see him winning in November.
Now that the Super Committee assembled to work out a deal on
debt has officially fizzled, I thought I’d give you a list of
stories worth reading. Only one deals with the Super Committee
itself.
The New York Times has a blog item offering reasons why
politicians on both sides may have been thinking the collapse of
the Super Committee would be a good idea. Capitalizing on Collapse.
The New York Times also offers this story, Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’
Startle the Census, about the growing number of people
who are not far from qualifying as impoverished. Many bristle at
the term “near poor,” but the data is telling.
We’re fans of public records in our circles. So it’s an easy
pick for me to deliver this story from The Seattle Times,
Seattle police must pay $129K for records
delay. According to the story the Seattle PD
has a history of stalling or denying requests on records in large
part because of agreements with the police union.
And yet another entry from the Seattle Times. This one shows how
the Legislature makes cuts in the state budget, cuts that never
happen because the courts overrule legislators. As state makes cuts, lawsuits are
flying
Shane Stoops, 23, is among those involved in the Occupy Wall
Street movement in New York City. He was profiled in an MSN photoblog and describes
himself as a “nomad” and “renaissance man” from Port Orchard, Wash.
He is also handing out resumes while in New York.
The movement is in broad terms a criticism of corporate America
and its power. Jon Stewart compares the group with the
Tea Party, and some of that comparison is apt. Those joined in the
effort clearly have an ideological slant, but they are reluctant to
be identified with one of the major parties.
State Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, offers a counterpoint to Texas Gov.
Rick Perry’s assertion that he’d like to make the federal
government as inconsequential as possible.
“I’m struggling to figure out how a person can be the Chief
Executive of a government he doesn’t understand the value
of.”
I’ll leave it to you to discern why Kilmer is answering a
national politician on a federal issue.
We have a new poll question for you. Warren Buffett, a
super-rich man himself, said people in his class should be taxed
more. He points out that he pays a lower tax rate than people
making, say, $200,000 a year. That claim is determined to be
true by
PolitiFact. If you really want to did into tax code
issues, you should also read the PolitiFact’s treatment of John Cornyn’s
statement that 51 percent of Americans paid no federal
income taxes in 2009. That was also determined to be true. Cornyn
is a Republican senator from Texas.
The PolitiFact pieces are great, because though each statement
is true, there is context to each worth considering.
In covering the Suquamish same-sex marriage
story, there were a few conversations that happened
after deadline had passed. The story itself appears to be more of
symbolic value than anything practical for now, because we haven’t
heard of anyone banging down the doors of the tribe’s offices to
actually get married.
Even Heather Purser said she just wants that option should she
choose to get married later.
Where the story takes on some importance that could matter later
is its place in the same-sex marriage movement generally and
specifically among Indian tribes.
Brian Gilley, associate professor of
anthropology at Indiana University, said the Suquamish Tribe is
probably only the second federally recognized tribe to recognize
same-sex marriage.
Some of the news that spread Tuesday was that most tribes don’t
address it. That might be true, but a large number of tribes have
actually passed measures similar to the federal government’s
Defense of Marriage Act. That act doesn’t outright ban same-sex
marriage, but it defines marriage as between one man and one
woman.
The Suquamish Tribe’s willingness to take a different path than
tribes nationally is in line with what tribes in the Pacific
Northwest do, Gilley said. “It’s just sort of been their history to
be different than the rest of Indian country,” he said.
Part of that, he said, is because the stakes are different for
them here than they are in other parts of the country. The culture
that surrounds the tribe and the possible consequences are
different in Washington than they are, say, in Oklahoma.
The issue was huge within the Cherokee nation when two women
received an application for a marriage license and were actually
married, but then the tribe denied them the opportunity to actually
register their marriage certificate. During that time is when
Indian Tribes across the country created their DOMA-like
standards.
Gilley figures largely in a story published on the
Indian Country Media Network website. The writer says gay couples
were not uncommon within tribes until Indians began adopting
religious principles taught (or demanded of) them by the white
people.
Leonard Forsman, Suquamish tribal chairman, said the issue that
reached finality Monday wasn’t that big a deal. He confirmed
Purser’s recollection that there was no opposition. That the
ordinance change proceeded slowly was more a fact that other issues
took precedence, not that there were any real naysayers.
“We had an existing marriage ordinance under code. It had to be
updated. We’ve got a lot of ordinances that need updating,” he
said.
Forsman said he hasn’t seen much written and there isn’t much
oral history about same-sex couples in Suquamish history. That
seems to be the case in other tribes, that there isn’t much
institutional memory of same-sex couples, but backers of a
“two-spirit” movement contend they had their role within the
community. That fact that there may not be much tradition or oral
passed along could be because tribes didn’t see it as a big deal
until their new religious beliefs cast negative light on them.
Forsman said that might be why there isn’t much said in
Suquamish history. “I think that tells us that it was not anything
that was extremely abnormal or judged in the past,” he said.
One question that remains is whether a marriage of a gay couple
will, in fact, be recognized in Washington. The state doesn’t marry
same-sex couples, but it recognizes those marriages performed
elsewhere. The question then becomes whether Suquamish, in this
case, is “elsewhere.” It will take someone actually getting the
Suquamish marriage to test that out.
Jose Antonio Vargas was part of the Washington Post reporting
team that won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting of the Virginia
Tech shootings and the first thing his grandmother said to him was,
“Anong mangyayari kung malaman ng mga tao?” (What will
happen if people find out?)
Vargas has been in the U.S. since he was 12. His mother sent him
here from the Philippines to have a better life. It was a few years
before he learned he was here illegally. At that point he became
complicit, but he kept it hidden for a long time.
He also managed to get help. And no one who ever knew about his
status, including a worker at the Social Security Administration,
ever turned him in to immigration authorities.
During his time here in the United States he has demonstrated an
amazing record as an achiever.
This is a very interesting story that challenges assumptions of
those who would send everyone back and those who would let everyone
stay.
I’ve launched a poll. You answer it. Leave your thoughts here,
including whether you think there is an option I have missed.
An interesting side note: He was able to buy himself eight years
by getting an Oregon driver’s license. He bought five more by
getting a license from Washington.
Another interesting side note: The story is in the New York
Times because the Washington Post passed on
it.
I recorded the conversation with U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks,
D-Belfair, for the Sunday story on his
position on U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. He is among Democrats and
a few Republicans calling for a quicker withdrawal of U.S.
troops.
I also asked him about Libya, Iraq and whether Anthony Weiner
should resign. I cut about a minute and a half from the recording,
but it’s still a bit more than 19 minutes long.
Last week we asked if all that celebrating of bin Laden’s death
was appropriate. If you want a little chuckle, guffaw or snort
about it and the related crackpottery, you might enjoy Eric D Snider’s treatment of the
subject. A taste:
There was no time for celebration in the country’s
newsrooms, where the mood was intense and serious. After three
years of being very careful not to write “Osama” when they meant
“Obama” and vice versa, now journalists faced their worst
nightmare: a news story that involved both men. TV anchors were
required to say “Osama” and “Obama” in the same sentence. It was a
situation fraught with peril. A few TV stations, newspapers, and
websites made mistakes along the lines of “Obama says Obama is
dead.” We assumed these flubs were the result of simple human error
— except when they happened on Fox News, of course, and then we
assumed they were deliberate.
Let me apologize right away for giving U.S. Rep. Dennis
Kucinich, D-Ohio, more play than he probably deserves on a blog
that’s mostly local to Kitsap County. This is a question, though,
that speaks more to a broader question about the celebrations
following the death of Osama bin Laden.
When Kucinich was first scheduled to speak on Bainbridge, I
mistakenly thought the event was Sunday night. Fortunately we
discovered the error on time. During the speech Kucinich was
critical of Obama and NATO for the strike on Muammar Gaddafi’s
home, which killed his son and three grandchildren. Kucinich had
earlier issued a statement about the strike.
“NATO’s leaders have blood on their hands. NATO’s airstrike
seems to have been intended to carry out an illegal policy of
assassination. This is a deep stain which can never fully wash.
This grave matter cannot be addressed with empty words. Words will
not bring back dead children. Actions must be taken to stop more
innocents from getting slaughtered.
“Today’s attack underscores that the Obama Doctrine of
so-called humanitarian intervention appears to be a cover for
regime change through assassination and murder,” said
Kucinich.
Had the Bainbridge even actually been on Sunday, I’m sure the
first item of discussion would have been bin Laden’s death. I
wonder how Kucinich and the audience would have responded to that
news given an opportunity to be in the same place at the same time
when the news broke.
I heard quite a few conversations following Sunday’s news in
which people thought the celebrations were somewhat creepy. Some of
the celebrators appeared more influenced by the presence of
television cameras, but not all of them.
In 2001 I didn’t think all of the flag waving was the blood lust
for revenge some deemed it to be.
Last Sunday night I didn’t read whatever celebration there was
as that either. In both cases I’m sure that sentiment was present,
but I don’t necessarily believe revenge it was the dominant
motivator for most people in the world.
If you believe the world one moment is better than it was the
moment before, what is an appropriate response? Maybe whooping it
up out on the street is not a bad answer.
Now go away or I shall
taunt you a second time.
Don’t you politicians give me garbage about how unfriendly I am or
how I’m hurting the public discourse. According to a Harvard
professor I’m just talking in a language you understand.
The Washington Post reports
more than a fourth of what comes out of a politican’s mouth (or
press release) is a taunt.
The earlier trifecta of political speak was always determined to
fall into three categories: 1. Taking credit, 2. Taking a position,
and 3. Advertising.
This might not be too different from how we all run our lives
anyway. Broadcasters always talk about having an “exclusive.” In
the workplace a well-placed bit of credit can pay off in the
wallet. Here is how the three, now four, categories could work at
home:
1. Thanks to my leadership, the garbage cans are empty. My son
took out the garbage and did so at my direction.
2. I am in favor of empty garbage cans.
3. Look at me, standing next to empty garbage cans.
4. My son hates his family, evidenced by his failure to empty
the garbage cans, despite my repeated warnings.”
Just today, Washington State Democrats re-tweeted this:
RT @glossolaliac: Tea Party shutdown means military won’t
get paid. http://ow.ly/4vx2z // Does the GOP hate freedom?
#govshutdown #p2 #wadem
That can’t be true, that Republicans hate freedom. In November,
new House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, said this:
“And we can celebrate when we have a government that has
earned back the trust of the people it serves. When we have a
government that honors our Constitution and stands up for the
values that have made America, America: economic freedom,
individual liberty, and personal responsibility.”
Even without the quote, the comment that almost anyone in any
American political party hates freedom is absurd. I think the
Democrat who posted that tweet probably knew that and made the
comment tongue in cheek.
I think.
Yesterday the Republicans took their shot:
#Democrat Rep. Norm Dicks admits in House floor speech that
the #budget mess is the fault of the #Dems.
http://youtu.be/3Ss5TDbdMn0
Here’s what Dicks said in the middle of a speech in which I’m
pretty sure he faulted Republicans as well for the current budget
stalemate:
“I will be the first to admit that it’s because we didn’t
pass, the Democrats didn’t pass, our bills last year that we’re
here working on this. So we have responsibility, too . .
.”
So, “We have responsibility,” becomes “It’s our fault,”
according to the tweet.
This doesn’t just permeate politics, it resonates everywhere. If
you admit any accountability, those who have any interest
in ducking blame will use that to say it’s all your
fault.
I contacted Dicks’ office to see if I could get the transcript
of the entire speech. Instead he called me back. He again admitted
that Democrats bear a lot of responsibility for the current budget
impasse, but pointed out that the same thing happened to
Republicans when they lost power in 2006. And he emphasized,
something he was getting into at the end of the video, that he and
the House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky, are
working to make the appropriations process more transparent.
Dicks also offered that Boehner is in a tough spot because of
the demands being made by some of the new Republicans in the House.
You can read that to include both conciliation and an insult to
Republicans.
Bear in mind this is only about politicians doing their day
jobs. As we look forward to the 2012 election (And who isn’t!) the
taunting or insulting language will jump from the 27 percent it is
during session to substantially more on the stump.
Expect to hear that Rob McKenna’s father smells of elderberries,
and Jay Inslee’s mother was a hamster.
For those of you with time to read I present you three pieces
that deal with federal spending. One says the government should be
spending on things that create income, like education and
infrastructure, instead of spending so much on benefits. Another
offers that saying the government is “broke” is not correct, that
deficit spending is a problem, but the U.S. is still in good
financial shape. The final piece says arguments that a $61 million
federal budget cut would be catastrophic is ridiculous, that $61
million is peanuts in comparison to the entire budget.
Over in the righthand column we now have a widget that offers
you the latest from PolitiFact.com’s Truth-O-Meter.
Some truth-o-metrics played a role in preparing the story for
this weekend that discussed possible local impacts of federal
budget cuts. One of the questions I ran across is how much cutting
is really going on. That started with the Washington Post The Fact Checker blog
piece titled
“Democrats keep misleading on claimed budget
‘cuts.'” The entry makes clear that Democrats are
not meeting Republicans halfway on budget cuts by offering $52
billion in cuts compared to Republicans’ $100 billion.
For one thing, the $100 billion figure Republicans are using,
such as in the quote I included from U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera
Beutler, R-Camas, is not correct either. For reasons I’m not sure I
can adequately explain, the Republican cuts are actually about $61
billion and Democrats are closer to $10 billion.
If you’re into math, you know that 10 is not really close to
half of 61 and that 61 is not 100. As a story in today’s Post
explains, though, that’s less of an issue than the fact that
Republicans and Democrats are about $50 billion
apart.
In preparing the story I wrote I did my darndest to get a
Republican voice in the story to respond to the comments by union
guy Ivan Weich. I wanted a voice from Congress to match the
comments from Norm Dicks’ spokesman. I first called Herrera Beutler
and got no response. I talked to someone in Dave Reichert’s office
who said he’d try to get someone, but that was the end of it. I
then called the offices of Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and
the Republican National Committee. No luck at any of those
places.
I was disappointed, but in the end I wasn’t surprised. We are,
after all, JUST the Kitsap Sun. None of those representatives have
voters in our districts so it benefits them nothing to call us.
They might have made an exception for the papers from Seattle,
Tacoma or Spokane, but that’s probably it. I can’t say I blame
them, and they are all probably just as happy that I pulled quotes
from their press releases rather than getting a specific answer
about potential closures at local Social Security Administration
offices. There might be a philosophical upside to calling us back,
but not one that translates into stronger re-election chances in
2012.
Boeing’s rival for the Air Force contract announced it wouldn’t
contest the decision Friday, prompting statements from nearly every
Washington politician we ever deal with.
Excuse the tardiness of this post. I was off work much of last
week.
For a glimpse of how one change can make such a major difference
in a thing like a contract, read Rob Hotakainen’s story from
the McClatchy DC bureau and you’ll get an education on politics in
government and how U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, pushed for one
change in the contract process that may have changed the entire
outcome.
From the story:
Dicks pressed the issue at the 2008 congressional
hearing after learning that the Pentagon was using a 25-year
timeframe to examine costs. After the hearing, the defense
subcommittee voted to require the Pentagon to consider the cost of
operating the new tankers over the longer 40-year
lifecycle.
And then later:
In a conference call with reporters, a top Boeing
official said the lifecycle costs were key to winning the contract,
which will produce 50,000 jobs nationwide, many of them in
Washington state and Kansas.
Abortion, which generates marches every year but has not been a
real campaign issue in ages, could very well find itself toward the
top of the issues list in the 2012 election.
A couple of weeks ago a reader here sent me a link to this column in
Salon, in which Sady Doyle is particularly critical of one element
in a U.S. House Republican bill, H.R. 3, more commonly referred to
as the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act.”
That element was one that would essentially redefine rape.
Instead of exemptions from the law provided for those who are
raped, they would have to be victims of “an act of forcible
rape.”
That, according to Doyle, meant those who were drugged or
unconscious, coerced, statutorily raped or an adult incest survivor
would not get federal funding to get an abortion. She said about 70
percent of those raped wouldn’t qualify.
That particular element was pulled from the bill, so I
mistakenly thought the abortion issue was kind of likely to drop
into the background again. I was wrong. For one thing, the overall
bill is still an issue.
Then there are the states.
In Texas the state Senate approved a bill that would require
women to have a sonogram and hear the
baby’s heartbeat before having an abortion.
In South Dakota legislators set aside a bill that
proponents said was designed to protect people who kill in defense
of an unborn child, because opponents said it could put abortion
providers at risk. Proponents said the bill had more to do with
“self-defense,” as in if someone was attacking a pregnant
woman.
Even Justin Bieber is getting in trouble for his
answer to a question about abortion.
More likely to have an impact to us locally, since I don’t think
the Washington Legislature is likely to jump into the issue anytime
soon, is what impact what has already happened will have in
2012.
Abortion rights activists, whose relevance had been waning
during elections fought over the war in Iraq and the Great
Recession, have found a toehold in politics again. The strategy has
three parts.
1) Wait for the pro-life movement, now at an apex of political
power, to do something stupid.
2) Pounce on the stupid thing that it just did.
3) Repeat.
I believe, in fact, that the “1,2,3” strategy is a pretty easy
method to follow. If your party or faction is in the minority, just
wait for your opponent to do something stupid, because it is an
inevitable truth that it will happen.
The energy spawned by the Tea Party was fervent during the last
two years, but over the long term I have seen little that generates
more emotional reaction than abortion. On both sides of the issue
the passion is intense. Should this issue continue to have legs,
and if you read the Slate piece it looks like Democrats hope it
will, you could be getting your first glimpse of what you will
talking most about next year.
