Like a sort of political Willy Loman, Brian Baird has announced his decision not to seek re-election to the US House of Representatives. Willy sacrificed himself so that Biff could collect on Willy’s life insurance policy; Baird steps out of the way so that another candidate can try to turn near certain defeat in WA-03 into a close race. It remains to be seen if Baird’s retirement has implications for the Democratic Party, but NRCC Chairman, Pete Sessions (R-TX), thinks it may.

The retirement of Brian Baird should send an alarming message to the Democratic Party on two fronts. First, it speaks to the shifting political environment that has led another multi-term Democrat to opt for retirement rather than face the oncoming political headwind. Secondly, Brian Baird was an advocate for openness and transparency within the legislative process, who co-authored bipartisan legislation that would require all major bills be posted online for at least 72 hours. The conduct of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not only shut the American people out of the process, but it has led to the erosion of her party’s political footing, leaving a number of incumbent Democrats vulnerable to Republican challenges.

With this being the third retirement by a swing-district Democrat in as many weeks, it is clear that members of the Majority are feeling the ground shaking beneath them. As the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high and Democrats continue on with their out-of-touch agenda, independent voters are rightfully fleeing the Democratic Party. Now, facing an angry and frustrated electorate, Democrats are quickly realizing that it’s time to throw in the towel.

On the Republican side, 18th District State Representative Jaime Herrera announced yesterday that she would seek Baird’s seat; today, 18th District State Rep, Deb Wallace, a Democrat, entered the race. Three additional Republicans had entered the race before Baird’s exit, Jon Russel, David Castillo and David Hedrick.

Baird’s political suicide was a long, ugly process.

Aug. 6 – 7:

Brian Baird shows his constituents how out-of-touch he really is and how much disdain he holds for them as he angrily name-calls them:

A Lynch Mob: “It’s a lynch-mob mentality out there,” Baird said. “There is an ugliness to it.” Baird is no stranger to town hall protests, having faced left-wing opposition to his support for the surge of additional troops into Iraq during the Bush administration. But he said protests have reached a ‘dangerous’ new level.” (Les Blumenthal, “Baird to skip town hall ‘lynch’ mentality,” The Olympian, 08/06/09)

Nazis: “‘What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics,’ Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. “I mean that very seriously. There is this national movement in blogs and on the Internet to go to town hall meetings solely to attack people,” Baird said.” (Michael Andersen, “Baird fears foes may plan ‘ambush’,” Columbian, 08/06/09)

Timothy McVeigh: “But Baird said a “coordinated national effort” to disrupt public meetings with shouts and demonstrations, which he said Republican leaders were “egging on,” was reminiscent of the kinds of things that drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. “He believed himself to be a patriot fighting against an oppressive government,” Baird said of McVeigh, whose act killed 168.” (Michael Andersen, “Baird draws heavy criticism,” Columbian, 08/06/09)

Extremists: “There is this national movement in blogs and on the Internet to go to town hall meetings solely to attack people and intentionally disrupt the ability to have a real discussion,” Baird said in a Wednesday telephone interview. “It’s not troubling to me personally; I’ve certainly been to tough town hall meetings in my time. But it’s troubling to those who come with the intent to have serious discussions but get badgered by disruptive tactics, where the sole purpose is to give extremists the chance to shout and make YouTube videos.” (Columbian Editorial, “Kitchen Too Hot?”, 8/07/09)

Aug. 7:

One of Brian Baird’s local papers writes a scathing editorial on the negative backlash he received from constituents and the way he merely surrendered:

“Brian Baird’s decision not to hold regular town hall meetings during a time when his constituents need them most is baffling and misguided. It looks more like surrender, or retreat, no matter how he tries to paint it as some kind of devotion to decorum…But who says his critics won’t be even more infuriated a few months from now, especially now that he’s aggravated them further by denying them public hearings?…He must know that, as tensions rise, as the rhetoric becomes more bombastic and as the volume soars, the best leaders will meet the challenge, not avoid it. (Columbian Editorial, “Kitchen Too Hot?: Baird takes wrong approach on town hall meetings, 08/07/09)

Aug. 12:

Another one of Baird’s local papers editorializes that his decision to not meet with his constituents during the recess would cost him his job:

“Rep. Brian Baird is taking a calculated political risk that voters in the 3rd District will accept his decision not to conduct in-person town hall-type meetings on health care reform during the monthlong summer recess by Congress.

“At the same time, Baird has to be careful not to isolate himself from his constituents, including the many people who, just like Baird, have legitimate questions and concerns about health care reform and what shape it should take.” (The Olympian Editorial, “Baird’s decision will linger long after news cycle,” 08/12/09)

Sept. 3:

Realizing that August didn’t go too well for his reelection campaign, Cook Report brings Baird’s chances of reelection down a notch:

“WASHINGTON | District 3: Solid Democrat to Likely Democrat (9/03/09)”

Sept. 1:

Politico calls Brian Baird a “casualty of the August recess:”

“While it’s not yet clear what the tumult of the August recess means for health care reform, the raucous town halls and intense media scrutiny have clouded the election prospects of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. But after nearly a month back home, some members will be returning to Congress with noticeable scars, and their experiences will surely color their approach over the coming weeks. [On] POLITICO’s list of recess casualties, members who took significant flak and who need to proceed cautiously to minimize the damage done to their political fortunes:

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.)

Earlier this month, Baird told the Vancouver Columbian that he wasn’t going to be appearing at town hall meetings because he thought protesters were using “brownshirt tactics” to disrupt events. His plan was to hold tele-town-halls instead. Naturally, the Nazi reference didn’t go over very well. Then Baird stepped in it again when he said the protesters’ demonstrations were reminiscent of the anger that led Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to perpetrate domestic terrorism. The approach was somewhat out of character for Baird — if anything, he’s known for regularly hosting town hall meetings back home during recess. But the result was that the congressman was forced on the defensive. He apologized for his remarks and subsequently scheduled public town hall meetings, but it hasn’t been enough to mollify his critics. A Marine who confronted Baird at a town hall has become a conservative celebrity, and radio host Rush Limbaugh played the clip of the confrontation on his radio show. The wave of bad publicity isn’t likely to threaten Baird’s reelection chances — he hasn’t faced a tough challenge in nearly a decade — but his seat isn’t so safe that it’s of no concern. The Olympia-based district has supported Republicans in the past — including former President George W. Bush, who carried the district in 2000 and 2004. (Josh Kraushaar, “The August recess casualty list,” Politico, 09/01/09)

Nov. 7:

Realizing that he is in trouble, Baird decides to vote against the Democrat’s government-run healthcare plan and hopes it helps him politically. (HRC# 887)

Nov. 19:

Brian Baird’s finger-in-the-wind approach appears to backfire on him as he is one of 39 “no” votes to create a Democrat civil war:

“In a tribe that does not tolerate any dissent from the party line, the gang of 39 had committed an unpardonable and unforgivable sin: They voted no on the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s domestic agenda. When they returned home to gauge their district’s reaction, they were greeted with a vendetta of e-mails, phone calls and crowds of protesters.

“But mounting attacks on these Democrats, from their party’s left, sends a threatening signal that they could lose much of their base in next year’s elections, improving the Republican Party’s chances of picking up a number of seats that they lost in recent elections.” (Donald Lambro, “Split over health care bill,” Washington Times, 11/19/09)

It’s ironic and rather sad that Baird’s political curtain call was prompted by a courageous decision to break with the Democrats and vote against the House health care reform bill. Sad, too, that voting in line with the wishes of his constituents, as best he understood them, would be seen by far left Democrats as an intolerable act of defiance, calling for punishment.

(Timeline courtesy of the NRCC)

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

I once had an acquaintance with two school-aged children. She and her husband were both professional people, earning good incomes. They lived in a custom home in one of the nicest neighborhoods in their town, drove luxury cars, enrolled their children in expensive activities, bought them lavish gifts and took frequent vacations, on which their children usually accompanied them.

On one occasion, they made a quick trip to Las Vegas for a wedding. Even though the husband was busy before the wedding with best man duties, they made an effort to fit in fun activities for the kids, including several hours at a water park. As they were leaving the park to head back to their plush, themed hotel, their daughter, who was nine years old at the time, said, “This is a really crappy vacation.” Who could blame her? Regular trips to Mexico, Hawaii and Disneyworld had left her feeling entitled to vacations that were non-stop childhood fun and entertainment. I was appalled when I heard this story and it occurred to me at the time how it’s often true that people who get everything they want rarely appreciate anything they have.

I was reminded of these spoiled children when I read this.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

President Obama is traveling nearly 4,000 miles to Norway to accept an award that he doesn’t deserve. Would it really hurt him to attend “a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.” Okay, he’s the President of the United States. I understand he’s busy; I understand there are security concerns but, please…turning down lunch with the King? I mean, he has to eat anyway, right? Did he stop to consider that the people of Norway might find a slight to their King to be rude and deeply offensive? And what’s he going to miss, really, by staying for lunch? A chance at another television appearance?

The President’s actions aren’t those of a man who’s humbled by a bestowed honor. They’re the actions of a spoiled and arrogant man who feels entitled to every honor that comes his way, just as he feels entitled to fawning coverage from the press and entitled to servile acquiesence from every member of the Democratic Congressional delegation. They are the actions of a man who doesn’t feel the need to be gracious in victory because feels entitled to win.

Here’s hoping that 2012 will relieve him of that sense of entitlement and provide a much needed lesson in humility.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Yes, even more excellent news.

In a stunning development (at least to me!) Brian Baird has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2010.

The time has now come to pursue other options, other ways of serving. Hence, I am announcing today that I do not intend to seek reelection to Congress in 2010…This is not an easy decision to be sure, but I believe it is the right decision at the right time.

Baird rather famously – or infamously – made some inflammatory comments about health care protesters late last summer

This is welcome news for Jon Russell and David Castillo, two Republicans already in the race. Cook rates WA-03 even.

Good things come in threes; I’m waiting…

Update 1: WSRP officials confirm that 18th Legislative District Representative, Jaime Herrera, will seek Baird’s seat.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

We have a contest; James Watkins, a Redmond entrepreneur, announced today that he is a candidate for Jay Inslee’s Congressional seat. Says Watkins:

I’m running against career office-seeker Jay Inslee because we can’t afford him any more. His voting record in Washington, D.C., shows he’s lost touch with our values.

We’re at a moment of clarity in our country. We the People are paying attention and following our representatives’ votes very carefully. We won’t let professional politicians like Congressman Inslee get away with voting for massive spending, bigger government and less freedom – and then come home and tell voters they’re looking out for us.

Congress is spending our nation into a black hole. They’re burdening us – and our children – with a crushing debt. They’re doing nothing to improve the economy or stimulate true job creation – in fact, they’re making things worse.

Instead of passing massive tax and regulatory burdens that kill jobs, Congress should create and foster an environment that encourages innovation, investment and job growth.

More from his press release:

Watkins said his career in the private sector will be put to good use in Congress. Currently a business development consultant for entrepreneurial startups and small businesses, he has spent 15 years in and around Microsoft as a partner, consultant and employee. Most recently, he spent five years at Microsoft running an internal startup business helping independent retailers compete against the mega-chains. Watkins has a long history of growing businesses and creating value, has won the Microsoft Partner of the Year Award and earned his MBA from George Washington University.

“I have a strong sense of service, a proven record of problem-solving and the leadership ability to get things done,” he said. “And unlike so many of the politicians in Congress, including Congressman Inslee, who have spent nearly all their adult lives on the government payroll, I know what it takes to create prosperity and private sector jobs.”
Watkins added that he is looking for support across the political spectrum.

“In times of crisis, Americans need to pull together,” he said. “That’s why I’ll be asking Republicans, Democrats, Independents and any voters who feel like they don’t have a voice to help me get our country back on track and restore the American Dream.”

You can learn more about Watkins at his website, www.watkinsforcongress.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

An unfortunate series of break downs in the criminal justice systems in both Washington and Arkansas culminated in the execution of four Lakewood Police Officers by habitual criminal Maurice Clemmons. Governor Christine Gregoire response was to direct “state Corrections Chief Eldon Vail not to accept any new parolees from Arkansas until matters arising from the Maurice Clemmons case have been addressed and resolved,” in order to “make sure that the system is appropriate to protect Washington residents.”

That’s quite a load of holier-than-thou attitude, but I guess I should just be thankful she’s finally taking an interest, given that Washington’s Department of Corrections has such a dismal track record under her leadership.

Consider:

In August of 2006, a Seattle Police Officer was killed; in November of the same year, another Seattle Officer and a King County Sheriff’s deputy were killed, all by parolees living under State supervision who had violated the terms of their parole.

Then, just a few months later, in February of 2007, 83 felons were released from King County jails, before an administrative-hearing officer could rule on how they should be punished for violating the terms of their parole – what is called a conditional release.

DOC spokesman Gary Larson defended the Friday releases, saying the agency had exceeded the number of inmates in the release program who could be housed at the downtown Seattle jail and the Regional Justice Center Jail in Kent.

In its contract with King County, DOC pays for 220 jail beds, Hayes said. The jail system housed 304 DOC inmates last week.

Larson said DOC reviewed each felon’s case before the release.

“We feel we are making responsible decisions. We didn’t just say ‘you, you and you are free,’ ” Larson said. “We had no choice but to do something about the situation in the jail. We couldn’t put any more violators in there.”

Among those released were Jordan Kingbird, 34, a Level III sex offender whose criminal history includes rape, drug possession, theft and four counts of failing to register as a sex offender.

Level III sex offenders are those considered to be a potential high risk to the community and a threat to re-offend if provided the opportunity. The DOC said other Level III sex offenders were also among those released, but a spokesman said he didn’t have further details.

As a result of that incident, Gregoire ordered that the DOC stop the conditional release of felons; however just two weeks later, the DOC had reinstated the practice.

In a memo to the DOC after the Feb. 23 releases, the governor ordered the agency to stop all conditional releases. Gregoire said that when offenders are returned to prison because of a violation, “the offender must serve the full term of custody. Anything less sends the wrong message to the violator and threatens public safety.”

But Gregoire said Tuesday that her concern was conditional releases done solely because of overcrowding.

“My point to them was you can’t let people out simply because there’s no room at the inn,” she said.

I wonder if Gregoire was able to deliver that little bit of excuse making with a straight face. More importantly, I wonder if she felt that the conditional release of felons was “appropriate to protect Washington residents.”

And who can forget the bizarre story of David Torrence, who, upon release from prison, was fitted with an electronic tracking device and, because of a lack of appropriate housing, was given a sleeping bag and told to sleep under a bridge near the town of Snohomish. Five miles from the home of the woman he was convicted of raping in 1995. That would be the woman who wasn’t notified of his release from prison, because forewarned is forearmed ignorance is bliss, right?

After only three days, Torrence cut off his tracking device and fled the state – in what is one of the most ironic twists imaginable – to Arkansas. He eventually turned himself in and returned to Washington to serve another year for violating the terms of his parole. Then, doubling down on the irony:

A sex offender who was allowed to live under a Snohomish County bridge when he could not find housing has been sentenced to a year in jail and given other terms that will allow him to move to Arkansas.

I couldn’t determine Terrence’s current whereabouts with any degree of certainty. I did find this information on the King County Sheriff’s Department website. As you can see, he’s “non-compliant” and his location is unknown. I hope the women in Arkansas are locking their doors.

Gregoire’s statement is brazenly hypocritical, intended to focus the blame on Arkansas, as if her administration and her Department of Corrections hadn’t granted early releases to thousands of felons and had a spotless record with regard to parolees and public safety. Arkansas’s parolees are the least of our worries.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words

It’s nice to hear a voice from another country say something nice about the United States and an encouragement to know that there are freedom loving people around the world who support us as we struggle to maintain that spirit of American exceptionalism that Nick Adams describes in such moving terms.

As I absorbed the impact of Adams’ words, I recalled another speech, calling on my parents’ generation to defend freedom.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what’s at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

snip…

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

Reagan’s words are particularly meaningful to me; when he speaks of “our children’s children,” I picture my three, beautiful grandchildren. The oldest is six; the youngest, one. They’re barely old enough to have bank accounts, let alone credit cards, but they’re already carrying a crushing load of debt.

For Congress to continue, and for the President to continue to campaign for, their course of reckless deficit spending is nothing short of selling our grandchildren – my grandchildren! – into slavery. I guess they wouldn’t be smiling if they could feel those chains.

How do you suppose it is that European countries can afford to provide health care to their citizens at levels that their governments consider acceptable?

Consider this tidbit from “The Threat to Medical Innovation,” appearing in The American Spectator.

…Between 1969 and 2008, 57 of the 97 Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology — or nearly 60 percent — were awarded to people who did their research in the U.S., and nine of the top 10 medical innovations between 1975 and 2000 were developed here.

Aside from rationing care, might it be that they’re taking advantage of U.S. medical innovations while scorning us as heartless and unenlightened for not socializing our own health care system? (Much like they rely on a strong US Military in lieu of fielding one themselves, then scorn us as uncivilized brutes?) I wonder how they’ll get along if the U.S. adopts an innovation-killing, European-style health care system?

And while I’m thinking about Europe, let’s get over the notion that it can be proven that Europe’s health care is somehow equal or even superior to what we have in the U.S. based on infant mortality rates. Ann Coulter sums it up nicely.

One factor contributing to the U.S.’ infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates — irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.

Even with a higher-risk population, the alleged differences in infant mortality are negligible. We’re talking about seven infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. compared to 5 deaths per 1,000 for Britain and Canada. This is a rounding error — perhaps literally when you consider that the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.

But the international comparisons in “infant mortality” rates aren’t comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks’ gestation are not considered “live births.” Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

Snip…

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call “infant deaths” in America as “miscarriages.”

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan — the infant mortality champion — don’t count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

I don’t have anything against Europe – I’d like to visit there someday – or Europeans (except the ones who look down their noses at us) but honestly, but I don’t want to live there. That’s mainly because I’m rather partial to the way we do things here, not because I think we’re perfect, but because we’ve provided the most opportunity to more people to control their own lives than any other civilization in the history of this planet we call home. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement, I’d just like to see those improvements come within the boundaries set forth in our Constitution and based on the free-enterprise system that has brought us so far.

You may remember Dr. Matthew Manweller. He’s the Central Washington University Political Science professor who rather shamefully suggested that Republicans ought not “go after” Blue Dog Democrats in 2010. Since I wrote this post castigating Dr. Manweller for taking such a naive stance, he’s pointed me in the direction of two articles which he felt were relevant.

The first was an op-ed at The New Republic, that opens with an excerpt from Federalist Number 10 penned by James Madison.

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.

So far, so good. Madison and I are totally on the same page. I even agree with the authors of the article that we’ve reached a point where our political system is on dangerous ground because of unbridled factionalism. Of course, it’s all down hill after that, as The New Republic article goes on to lay the blame for this alarming state of affairs solely on the Republican Party, with the last, precipitous slide having been caused by their stubborn refusal to embrace the Baucus health care bill.

The Republican reception of Baucus’s bill doesn’t so much represent a crisis for health care reform as it does a crisis for our system. The GOP is no longer representing interest groups; rather, it has become an interest group itself–and an implacable one. So that a compromise piece of legislation that achieves a rough consensus among the various factions in the debate fails to get even one vote from one of the two major parties.

Forget that the Democrats weren’t exactly wetting themselves with excitement over this bill. Ignore its questionable credentials as an actual bipartisan effort (just because there were Republicans sitting on the committee, doesn’t mean their ideas were incorporated into the bill; a true bipartisan effort should have garnered support from the GOP committee members). Forget that; just focus on the Republican opposition and make something sinister of it.

The second was a news story detailing the defeat of the Senate Medicare bill, where we learn that 13 Democrats voted against it.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.

Indulge me while I make an unrelated point. The Democrats’ failure to pass health care reform legislation cannot be attributed to GOP opposition, as much as I’d like to think there was something they could do stop this train wreck from happening. The truth is – and I’m certainly not the first to make this point but Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn, who wrote the article apparently have yet to be clued in – Republicans hold a minority of seats in both the House and Senate. If the Democrats want to pass their health care reform, all they need to do is, you know, pass it. The GOP can’t stop them.

Getting back to Manweller’s point…getting back to the point…yeah. Actually, I’m not sure what Manweller’s point is here.

Then on Saturday, I happened across this article about North Dakota Democrat, Earl Pomeroy. Here’s the part that immediately caught my interest.

Congressman Earl Pomeroy (photo) of North Dakota, a supposed Blue Dog Democrat fiscal hawk (emphsis added) demonstrated his peculiar brand of “hawkishness” this week when he quickly announced his support of Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill.

And now my point.

With very few exceptions, the Blue Dog Democrats aren’t conservative. Amongst the House Blue Dogs, over half support the conservative position less than one third of the time. In my estimation, that disqualifies them even as moderates. In the Senate, the list of ten so-called moderate Senators who pose a threat to the passage of health care reform legislation is even more revealing; only one, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, could reasonably be called moderate. The other nine? They support the conservative position less than one quarter of the time.

This tells me that the existence of conservative and moderate Democrats in the House and Senate is largely a myth created by the Democrat Party. Why? Because by changing the public perception of what constitutes a legislative moderate, they hope to force the Republican Party to the left lest it be characterized as extreme. And Stockholm Syndrome Republicans inside the beltway and elsewhere perpetuate the myth of the moderate Democrat and participate in their own marginalization by trying to make nice with the Blue Dogs.

You can’t count on Blue Dog support because they’re not conservatives or, for the most part, even moderates. If they occasionally vote in line with conservative principles, you can’t know or understand their motivations because they surely differ from those of real conservatives. The only way to ensure a return to government based on the Constitution and conservative principles is to elect as many conservatives as possible to the House and Senate, even in districts now represented by a Blue Dog.

The GOP leadership needs to show some fighting spirit going into the mid-term elections to help rebuild their brand. Taking a soft approach with the Blue Dogs is not the path to success.

I’m not sure how I got on every progressive e-mail list in the country but I managed it. It’s a constant source of entertainment. Here’s today’s missive from my good friend, James Carville.

Paula:

Remember all those socialist-hollering, Glenn Beck-worshiping, tea party wing nuts from this summer’s town hall meetings? If Sarah Palin gets her way, one of them could soon be a member of Congress.Next week marks one year since President Obama was elected. The amount of money we have in the bank will be used as an instant referendum on his first year.

With Sarah Palin out there raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to stack Congress with those tea party lunatics, the media is watching to see how Grassroots Democrats respond.

Help us raise $500,000 in response to Sarah Palin’s fundraising for the tea party nut jobs. For every dollar you give before Midnight Tuesday, a group of Democrats will match it with $2 of their own, tripling your impact.

Tuesday night’s deadline is a critical test of our muscle.

I’ve been getting calls all week from media pundits asking me if Palin’s fundraising means that all those tea partying members of the right-wing fringe finally have the upper hand in their fight to bring back the George Bush days of disaster.

I need you to help us respond in the strongest possible terms.

Help us raise $500,000 in response to Sarah Palin’s fundraising for the tea party nut jobs. For every dollar you give before Midnight Tuesday, a group of Democrats will match it with $2 of their own, tripling your impact.

Send a message to Sarah Palin and those tea party nutcases who think they can retake Congress. But we only have until Midnight Tuesday to act.

Thanks,

James Carville

Before you ask, yes! James and I are so close that we are, indeed, on a first name basis. It makes Mary just a little bit jealous sometimes.

But getting down to business, one thing I particularly like about this solicitation is the very clear and concise way my dear friend James lays out the issues that are at stake for our country. What are the important issues we face?

• Tea party Nutcases
• Glenn Beck
• Tea Party Wing Nuts
• Sarah Palin
• Tea Party Lunatics
• Right-Wing Fringe
• Tea Party Nut Jobs

Now you might be wondering on whose behalf James is writing; which far left, fringe organization would send out an appeal for funds based, not on any issues of importance, but rather on sterotypes and negative, knee-jerk reactions? MoveOn.org? CODEPINK? I wish. This fundraising gem is written on behalf of the DNCC. Yes, the Democratic National Campaign Committee. On behalf of the 250+ Democrats in the United States House of Representatives. Public employees. On behalf, as it were, of my U.S. Representative, Jay Inslee. The very same Jay Inslee who thinks that some constituents aren’t worthy of his time and consideration (and more on the same topic here). Jay doesn’t fall far from the Democrat tree, does he?

I understand that people on both ends of the political spectrum can hold passionate views that sometimes, maybe even frequently, devolve into name calling out of sheer frustration. But this is a written communication. Presumably it was reviewed and edited by numerous elected Democrats. That none of them saw any particular problems with this letter is very disturbing to me for two reasons.

First from the standpoint that I would expect elected members of Congress to show respect for all the citizens of this country. After all, we’re the ones paying their salaries. In theory, at least, they work for us. Second what does this letter say about their intended audience? If I were to receive a letter like this from the RNC, RNSC or the RNCC, I would consider it to be unacceptable and it would be highly likely that I would deliver a stinging rebuke.

I’m pretty sure the DNCC would be unaffected by my scorn so the only thing I can do is stiffen my resolve to do everything within my power to help unelect some of the folks who currently make up DNCC. Care to join in the fun?

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Okay, wow. When I called Dow Constantine a smarmy politician I was just referring to his apparent level of comfort with lying about Council colleague Kathy Lambert. It appears there’s so much more. Allegations have surfaced that Constantine has been accused of sexually harassing a County employee, as Mark Griswold writes about at Sound Politics.

Rumors of Dow Constantine’s inappropriate behavior have been swirling around the political cocktail circuit since his days in Olympia but until now they haven’t gotten much traction. Fair enough. As Baz Lurhmann says, “politicians will always philander.”

But now it seems that Constantine’s work place advances may be catching up with him.

I, along with Keith Ervin of The Seattle Times, was recently tipped off about a story involving a county employee and some of this inappropriate behavior. When Mr. Ervin filed a public records request all he was given was a restraining order between Ms. Jane Doe and King County, mentioning she feared for her job security should the information contained within documents related to the public records request be released.

For those who may not know, King County has stonewalled on records requests in the past and now Keith Ervin files a public records request gets a copy of a restraining order for his trouble. That in itself seems like a story to me but not to Ervin, who suffers from what should rightfully be a career-killing lack of curiosity. Ervin is the same reporter who apparently didn’t find it particularly disturbing that Constantine’s campaign treasurer is also the treasurer for Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, a “non-partisan” group that funded robo-calls against his opponent in the Executive’s race, Susan Hutchison.

I wonder how Jane Doe knew about Ervin’s request in time to file this restraining order. Would it be standard practice to notify all interested parties when a records request is received? If not, how did Jane Doe know about the request? Does she really fear the loss of her job if this information is made public? If so, what does that say about the employment environment at King County? Is she cooperating in protecting Constantine? If so, why? Was she pressured into doing so?

So many questions but one thing seems clear: if there were no truth to the allegation about a sexual harassment complaint, Ervin’s request would not have resulted in a restraining order being filed. And how convenient that the order will be in effect until after the ballot deadline.

Update: Speaking on the Kirby Wilbur Show, Mark Griswold states that the attorney who filed the restraining order, Tyler Firkins, has a track record of filing restraining orders on “behalf” of plaintiffs without their knowledge. So a new question arises: Who hired Firkins? Was it Jane Doe? A union interested in Constantine becoming King County Executive? Firkins’ old law school chum, Dow Constantine?

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Volume I

I was checking my blog stats and happened to notice that someone had stumbled across my other blog, It’s Only Words, after searching for “why i shouldn’t vote for patty murray.” I figure, Hey! If people are asking, I should make it as easy as possible for them to find out!

Yes. I’m just that helpful.

Here are a few old posts to get things rolling:

Is Patty Murray Really Pro-Choice? in which I take the Senator to task for valuing the rights of women seeking abortions over those of health care professionals who have moral objections to participating in abortion procedures.

Patty Murray, Hypocrite First Class in which I take the Senator to task for threatening AIG bonus recipients with an unconstitutional bill of attainder. (If you believe those AIG employees had it coming, please read this for another perspective.)

Where’s the Outrage, Senator? in which I take the Senator to task for failing to treat the news of Chrysler’s taxpayer-provided funds being used to pay lobbyists with the same outrage she managed to work up over the AIG bonuses.

Not to mention that Senator Murray is one of the most – if not the most – liberal members of Congress. That’s fine if you’re a died-in-the-wool progressive but if you value moderation at all…in anything…ever…well, you get my point. Check out her ratings.

At the National Taxpayer’s Union, Murray always fails to make the grade. Seriously. She’s received an “F” every year she’s been in the Senate. What, exactly does that mean?

The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a member of Congress voted to spend less money.

The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower or if the budget were balanced. A member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform….

A score significantly below average qualifies for a grade of “F.” This failing grade places the member into the “Big Spender” category.

(Read more…)

Uh-huh. It means Senator Murray is the quintessential tax-and-spend Democrat. Never met a tax she didn’t like. Really. Never.

Check out The American Conservative Union ratings, where Murray has earned a lifetime rating of just a 2.91. Yes. That’s out of 100. That’s a lower score than Senators Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd…yeah. Lower than everyone except the late Ted Kennedy.

The American Conservative Union tracks a wide range of issues before Congress to determine which issues and votes serve as a dividing line to help separate those Members of the U.S. House and Senate who protect liberty as conservatives and those who are truly liberal.

As a result, the ACU Ratings of Congress has throughout its 38 Editions included a wide variety of issues covering votes on taxes, wasteful government spending, cultural issues, defense and foreign policy.

And that’s a wrap for the first volume of “why i shouldn’t vote for patty murray.” Check back soon; I hope to make this a regular feature.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Rumor has it that Chris Widener will announce in the next few days that he’s forming an exploratory committee to determine the feasibility of a run against Patty Murray in 2010. As I outlined here, Chris is the founder of Positively Republican, a group that educates voters about the positive benefits of conservatism for people in every station of life.

From the Positively Republican Facebook page:

We will articulate and promote a positive vision for:

• Living the American Dream
• National Security
• Government Reform and Efficiency
• Economic Vitality and Growth
• Leadership in Moral/Social Issues
• Energy Independence
• Responsible Protection of the Environment
• Affordable Quality Health Care
• Excellence in Education

Our core values:

• Integrity
• Positive and Optimistic Attitude
• Servant Leadership
• Standards of Excellence

New poll results out today from SurveyUSA should help hurry his decision along; Murray’s job approval rating stands at 48%. Historically, Murray’s rating has stood well over 50%.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Wow, it feels like years ago that I wrote these words rather than a matter of months.

Chuck DeVore may look like your run of the mill Assemblyman from California, but I assure you, he has the heart of a dragon-slayer. Chuck has chosen to take on the daunting task of defeating Barbara Boxer in 2010 and giving conservative Californians a voice in the U.S. Senate…If you’re at all interested in politics, you probably know that Washington’s own Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, is also up for re-election in 2010 and I’m left wondering, where’s our dragon-slayer?

Here in Washington, we’ve been waiting patiently for St. George. It’s not that we have a shortage of candidates and potential candidates as Michelle Dupler writes in the Tri-Cities Herald.

Candidates who want to block a fourth Murray term include Seattle chiropractor Sean Salazar, who has family in Pasco and Kennewick, and former Tri-Citian Craig Williams, who ran for Congress against Democrat Jay Inslee in 1994 while Inslee represented central Washington and the Tri-Cities.

Add to the mix Clint Didier, a native of Eltopia and current Connell High School football coach, who announced at a recent Tea Party event that he’s forming an exploratory committee to study the feasibility of running against Murray.

A fourth opponent, Rodney Rieger, is from Marysville.

(A fifth candidate, Wayne Glover, of Spokane Valley, was not mentioned in the Herald article.)

Five men, all lacking one or more of the elements that would comprise a successful candidate. Last December, I wrote:

To mount a serious challenge to an entrenched incumbent like Patty Murray, a Republican challenger will need to be well-organized, well-financed and well-known. By starting now, that challenger could build grassroots support and momentum to carry into the campaign cycle. I don’t know who that challenger will be, I just know – we need a hero.

So I’ve been waiting…and waiting…and now, apparently, I’m not the only one who is tired of waiting. Andre Van de Hert has launched a Chris Widener for Senate 2010 campaign on Facebook.

I admit, Chris Widener may not be a household name yet, but the organization he founded, Positively Republican, has gained over 150,000 Facebook followers in just ten months. That tells me there’s an audience for the upbeat conservatism he’s promoting.

What’s more, his background as a speaker and author will go a long way towards getting that message out there in a way that the average voter can understand, as well providing him with a ready-made, well-developed network of potential supporters.

I think this is an excellent development that represents the first real opportunity to stop Patty Murray from winning a fourth term as Senator from the State of Washington. If you’re interested in supporting a strong, viable challenge to Patty Murray in 2010, I’d encourage you to stop by Chris Widener for Senate 2010 and join the group to encourage Widener to run.

Because, really, you’re not adding anything of value to the debate.

Even though Election Day 2010 is still over a year away, MoveOn.org Political Action is running ads targeting Dave Reichert (WA-08) and his “No” vote on H.R. 3200 in the Ways and Means Committee.

Congressman Reichert responded with the following statement.

Now is the time to come together and debate meaningful solutions to lower health care costs, improve quality, and preserve Americans’ choice of care, not to derail this vital process with shameful, partisan politics. Moveon.org can tell anyone they want that I voted against a $1.1 trillion government take-over of health care that would increase the cost of care, impose new penalty taxes on small businesses, and prevent Americans from keeping the care they have if they like it. That vote was in the best interests of my constituents and the American people, I stand by it, and I will continue to fight for common-sense reforms that incorporate the best ideas from both sides of the aisle.

What I won’t stand for is a divisive political attack that questions my integrity and prevents us from achieving the reforms American families need. This ad is completely dishonest and does a disservice to my constituents. It is yet another roadblock on the path to real reform.

In case you haven’t seen the ad, it’s rather dramatic and asserts that Congressman Reichert’s vote was purchased with $105,958 of campaign contributions from “health and insurance interests” and, quite possibly, the very lives of your children.

Wow. Damning.

Actually, there’s not much new there. It’s basically just the same old-same old from the left. If you’re not “For” the 1,000 page monster, you’re “Against” lower costs and quality care and you probably don’t care if poor people die as long as you get your blood money, you Judas, so why don’t you just go kill yourself in a field somewhere and rid the earth of the miserable scourge that is you.

The only thing even remotely interesting in the ad is the implication that evil “special interests” are pulling Reichert’s strings because of the vast sums of money they’ve contributed to his coffers. If that’s the case, one has to wonder why they weren’t pulling the strings of everyone else on the Committee because, yes, every single member of the Ways and Means Committee accepted campaign contributions from “health and insurance interests.”

In fact, when you look at contributions from health and insurance sources as a percentage of total contributions, Reichert comes in tied for dead last with 5%. Evil bastard.

I think it’s much more interesting to note that Pete Stark (D) of California received 49% of his contributions from “health and insurance interests.” It’s also pretty interesting that, overall, the Democrats received a higher percentage of their funding from those interests than Republicans.

Which is to say that MoveOn’s ad isn’t motivated by some high moral purpose, it’s just politics as usual. Reichert wasn’t targeted because he took an unusually large sum of money from relevant industries, he was targeted because he’s a Republican in an increasingly moderate district whom they perceive as being vulnerable in 2010.

In order for MoveOn’s argument to hold water, you’d have to believe that Democrats such as tax cheat, Charlie Rangel, are somehow morally superior to Dave Reichert or that the same industries that influenced Reichert to vote against H.R. 3200, somehow, miraculously, influenced 26 Democrats to vote for it.

I’m not buying it.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Disclaimer: I was not able to determine, in the time available to me, how MoveOn arrived at the $105,958 figure…I’m sure it somehow involved a swarm of lackeys and a database. Since I have neither lackeys nor database, I turned to OpenSecrets. Unfortunately, the good folks at OpenSecrets had no idea, when they were compiling their data, that I was going to write this blog post, meaning I wasn’t able to find the exact data I was looking for. For example, OpenSecrets data lists contributions from the insurance industry, but doesn’t break that data down by types of insurance so please keep in mind that I was working insurance figures that included all types of insurance. Additionally, I excluded contributions for the 2009 election cycle.

You can view my data by clicking the image below.

Because of his deep and abiding respect for his constituents and their opinions on the issues, Congressman Brian Baird (WA-03) has included a poll on his official website posing the question, “Do you believe there is a need to reform our current health care system?”

Excellent! Congressman Baird has managed to frame the question in such a way that it appears as though he’s interested in what his constituents think on this issue while ensuring that the results will be so ambiguous as to be virtually useless. Not to mention the fact that no steps have been taken to limit the voting to residents of his own district, so as a gauge of their thinking, it’s completely worthless by design. Bonus: Congressman Baird gets extra credit points for subtly reinforcing the White House meme that there are only two choices on the issue, my way or the highway. It takes no small talent to achieve all that with a single poll question.

Aside from all that, it appears as though someone has been hard at work gaming the results of Congressman Baird’s survey.

The first vote was recorded on September 10th. An observer reports that between that time and roughly 9:00 a.m. Saturday morning, less than 90 “Yes” votes had been cast, approximately 1/3 of the total votes cast. Then sometime on Saturday, the “Yes” tally mysteriously began to rise, roughly 3 votes every ten to 15 seconds until, by Sunday morning, the “Yes” tally was over 10,200 votes. This unusual voting pattern was brought to my attention yesterday evening. At that time the “Yes” tally was 10,219 votes; as I write this, at noon on Monday, the tally is 10,224.

I turned to my tech team (okay, I tossed the question out on Twitter) for possible explanations.

1. Somebody encouraged people to go vote in that poll on a forum or e-group…
2. The webmaster wrote a script to make it look as though there was human input increasing the tally…
3. Home hacker used a bot to vote but that would be considered non-trivial; bots require mad skills…
4. A level of activism uncommon in Washington.

I have no idea what happened behind the scenes to increase the total of “Yes” votes on Baird’s poll, who was behind it or why they did it. Assuming there’s no malicious intent on the part of the Congressman, common sense should tell him that the results have been tampered with. That being the case, we can hope he will disregard the worthless results he was going to ignore anyway.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words

(A new post from the blogger formerly know as paulag1955. I’ve changed my name to be consistent with my Twitter ID.)

Since I posted this piece at It’s Only Words about financially supporting conservative candidates and Erick Erickson posted a similar piece here the same day, I’ve seen a few comments based on the idea that if only candidates were “conservative enough” people would support them.

Whatever.

Didn’t your mother ever ask you, “What’s better, something or nothing?” When you’re talking about cookies, the answer seems fairly obvious but apparently it gets fuzzy when you’re talking about candidates. It would be nice to have “perfect” conservative candidates in every race at every level (and don’t even get me started on how we’d define “perfect”), but last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t even remotely interested in running for office. Meanwhile, we have to make do with actual humans. Humans whose views may not coincide exactly with our own on every issue.

Get over it.

I can understand the appeal of allocating your dollars based on principle, but in a two-party system, the time for that is in the primaries. (Although here in Washington, with our misguided top-two primary system, standing on principle even in the primaries may be a luxury we can no longer afford.) Now that the primaries are over, we need to identify the candidates who are most closely aligned with our beliefs and rally around them, where “rally around” means supporting them with our time and our wallets – even if those candidates aren’t really as conservative as we might like, because in the majority of cases, the alternative is far worse.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Imagine my surprise this morning when I saw this post of Erick’s while I was writing the following.

Despite holding a narrow lead in the polls, Susan Hutchison trails Dow Constantine in fundraising in the King County Executive race. The Seattle Times reports that since August 10, Hutchison has raised just $32,000 while Constantine has raised $102,000.

So, Conservatives, tell me…what’s the problem?

Here’s a bit of news for you. It’s not enough just to whine about the lack of quality, conservative candidates. Sometimes you actually have to “do something.” In this case, that something is showing your support for a conservative candidate by contributing to her campaign.

It’s not my intention to debate the merits of Hutchison as a candidate or a conservative. All you really need to know is that she is by far the more conservative of the two candidates. That should be enough. King County voters are lucky to have a conservative choice for Executive at all. If that statement confuses you, look at the Seattle mayoral race. And don’t think that you’re off the hook if you live outside of King County. Let me remind you, King County is the tail that wags the Washington dog. And if that statement confuses you, look at the current occupant of our Governor’s Mansion.

Check out this chart, taken from Open Secrets.

Throw out the 8th District. After all, it’s not every day you get a gift like Darcy Burner.

Focus on the districts with Democrat incumbents, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 and look at the fundraising disparity. As bad as this looks, for some of the candidates it tells only part of the story; over $19,000 of Larry Ishmael’s total contributions of $51,730 were self-financed.

The bottom line: I don’t care who you are or how righteous your cause, you simply can’t go after a $1.3 million juggernaut like Norm Dicks with $17,000 in your war chest. To put it another way, you can’t put out a five-alarm fire with a water pistol.

It’s a chicken-and-the-egg condundrum: conservatives would support a “quality candidate” but quality candidates are hard to attract if this is the level of support they can expect.

Candidates for public office are already risking a lot. They risk a public defeat. They risk a loss of privacy. They risk old skeletons coming back to haunt them. They risk vicious treatment by the opposition and the press and families are no longer off limits. On top of all that, it seems as though asking them to self-finance their campaigns is just asking them to risk too much. Conservative candidates need our financial support. No support, no candidates, end of story.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Here’s a comment from Jay Inslee’s health care townhall meeting in Edmonds, Washington, that doesn’t really have anything to do with health care.

Um, so, first of all, I wanted to say thank you to Jay Inslee personally because I always appreciate that you always write people back when they email you.

I’m just going to say that this woman has very low standards for what constitutes “writing back.” I’ve contacted Congressman Inslee on numerous occasions and, as I mentioned here, his responses bear more resemblance to self-serving campaign literature than any sincere attempt to engage in debate with his constituents.

Even taking this into consideration, the e-mail I received from the good Congressman yesterday is definitely a prize-winner for out-of-touch communications. I few weeks ago, I contacted Congressman Inslee via e-mail to voice my opposition to H.R. 3200.

The Honorable Jay Inslee
United States Representative
403 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Inslee:

I’m contacting you today to voice my strong opposition to H.R 3200. My research leads me to believe that this legislation would accomplish very little of what it claims to do in terms of controlling costs and making affordable, quality care available to more people.

Additionally, it appears to be likely that provisions of the bill would lead to many companies choosing to discontinue offering health care coverage, forcing many people into the government option, despite claims to the contrary.

I’m asking that you oppose H.R. 3200.

Sincerely,
It’s Only Words
##### ##th Ave SE
Snohomish, WA 98296

Inslee’s response:

Ms. It’s Only Words
##### ##th Avenue SE
Snohomish, Washington 98296

Dear Ms. Words:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and to express your support for health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.

I would like you to know that I have been strongly supportive of President Obama’s public health insurance option throughout the health care reform process, and I also concur with our President that we have a unique opportunity to bring real reform….

…Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures in the House cause delays in receiving postal mail. For more information on my activities in Congress, and for information on services that my office can provide, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/inslee. If you would like to subscribe to my email updates, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm.

Very Truly Yours,

JAY INSLEE

Member of Congress

Even though I do favor some sort of health care reform, I explicitly did not mention that in my e-mail to Inslee because I wanted to be very clear in my total opposition to H.R. 3200. It appears that was a wise move. If even my short e-mail could be construed by Inslee (or his staff) as supporting health care reform, one can only wonder what they might have deduced if I’d said anything even slightly in favor. Check out that first paragraph; he appreciates “hearing” from me but I have to wonder if anyone actually read my e-mail. I’m guessing that by Inslee’s reckoning, 99% of his constituents favor reform, with 90% backing. H.R. 3200.

The tone deaf opening paragraph was followed up with a lengthy description of Inslee’s valiant efforts to enact a public option; rectify some Medicare pay inequities; establish Accountable Care Organizations; eliminate co-pays for preventive care; enact a variety of other measures; and bind Jay Inslee as tightly as possible to Barack Obama, but nothing which addressed my concerns in a substantive way.

Then, to conclude, he invites me to contact him any time! Yes, I’ll get on that because I’m sure not feeling like every minute I spend writing to to you is a complete and total waste of my time, Jay.

I understand that Congressman Inslee is very busy and his staff is very busy but let’s be honest…these are all boilerplate responses. The fact that the “response” I received doesn’t seem to be appropriate makes it appear as though no one is even giving their correspondence a cursory review. If they were, why wouldn’t my opposition to H.R. 3200 have been acknowledged?

Congressman Inslee needs to remember who pays his salary and provides him with an office and a staff and the next time his employer calls, faxes or e-mails, he needs to actually know why they are contacting him before he responds. Otherwise, why should we bother?

Despite the concerns I voiced here, Sherrill Huff retained her position as Director of Elections for King County. In a move that initially allays some of those concerns, Huff has hired Evelyn Arnold as her Superintendent of Elections. Ms. Arnold is a CPA and has served as the Chelan County Auditor since 1990.

Arnold first came to notice in 2005 when she testified at the trial challenging the results of the 2004 gubernatorial election. The election results were contested due to shoddy ballot handling practices by King County. At the time, she impressed me as a person who took her work seriously; in her view, a ballot discrepancy of one was unacceptable. She has also been serving on the King County Elections oversight committee since 2005, making her well qualified to step in and make an immediate impact.

Ms. Arnold’s punctiliousness is exactly what is needed to restore confidence in the integrity of the King County Department of Elections, not only for King County voters, but for those of us in the rest of the state as well.

More about the Jay Inslee health care townhall meeting.

As was to be expected, one of the questions was, “…if this is such a good program, if you’re going to be on it.” Inslee’s response:

“[You] will be pleased to know that members of the US Congress will be subject to all of the rights and liabilities of this bill, every jot and tittle.”

This goes beyond disingenuousness and right into the realm of deliberate deception. I’ve already covered this bit of double-talk at The Sundries Shack.

“The problem lies not in Inslee’s answer, but in the question itself. Asking the question in such general terms allows him to skirt the issue, and do so with a clear conscience. “Yes, we’ll be subject to the same conditions as everyone else…” and then the unspoken caveat, “which will allow us to keep our current plan as long as our employer continues to offer it.”

It occurs to me that the real question is this: With a “perfectly good” public option in place, is Congress willing to abandon their current, privately underwritten plan and participate in the public option? Furthermore, are they willing to put it on the table during negotiations with SEIU?”

Unlike most of the rest of us, Congress is in the enviable position of setting their own salaries and benefits. Does anyone believe they’ll vote to discontinue their privately underwritten plan?

The most enthusiastically received question of the afternoon, “…in this atmosphere, in this climate of financial crisis with trillions of dollars of deficit we, we have, what is our confidence in the government estimates of both savings and spending? They’ve been wrong over and over and over and over [inaudible due to applause and cheers].”

What’s this? An opportunity to get in a dig at George W. Bush? As I said in my previous post, Inslee is not ashamed to pander to his base.

“You know, uh, you are, you are totally, totally accurate. Uh, I, for one, who has been concerned about the federal deficit for a long time, and I can tell you that you are totally accurate that the U.S. government has been wrong on its predictions of costs. When Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush told us [inaudible]…”

I’m assuming he went on to say something about the cost estimates for the Iraq war. It was hard to hear the specifics over the (roughly equal) cheers and jeers from the crowd. Frankly, I’m not sure why the there was any booing; while I was annoyed that Inslee felt the need to bring up Bush, he was also making the point rather nicely: the government does indeed have a dismal track record when it comes to cost projections.

When the noise died down, he continued:

“Those who are trying to shout me down on this subject, I want you to know, I’m not in-, intimidated by your shouting.”

I almost felt sorry for Inslee at this point. I’m sure he was hoping someone would show up packing a 54 caliber automatic or, at the very least, a really big finger so he’d have an exciting townhall story or two to share around the water cooler. Instead, he’s reduced to claiming that he’s not intimidated by shouting. How manly.

If you were interested in Inslee’s answer to the question that was asked, why the government should be trusted to estimate the cost of this program – sorry, he never answered it. How could he? There is no logical reason we should expect government cost projections to be even in the ballpark. Leaving aside the fact that we’re talking about a group of individuals who can’t even make a guess as to how many people will take advantage of rather generous rebates on new cars, this is an enormous program that’s being proposed. I’m not sure anyone could make accurate projections.

So in place of a real answer, Inslee gave a rambling discourse on the deficit and, well, just how great Jay Inslee really is; how concerned he is about the deficit; how much stuff he knows that you don’t know; how bold he was to defy his own party and vote against TARP (okay, I’ll give him that one…but he did vote for ARRA). It was really quite self-serving, even for a politician.

Cross-posted at It’s Only Words.