Evergreen Politics

"Deep Insight" Commentary on Election

Digby passes along an analysis of the upcoming presidential election from a friend she calls Deep Insight.  When the incomparable Digby says someone is sharp and a well-informed observer and participant, I listen eagerly.  Here are a couple of excerpts:

On some days, it appears George Bush could care less if he drives the GOP over the cliff in 2008. His pursuit of rightwing foreign and domestic policy continues unabated. Iraq will remain a mess for years and millions have already fled the country. Our wonderful ally, the President of Pakistan, declares martial rule while we funnel billions in cash to his military cronies. Meanwhile, the Taliban now controls parts of Northwest Pakistan. Bush’s decision to veto the Children’s health proposal cements a nice brand image for his party as reckless and incompetent on foreign policy and heartless on healthcare for kids.

But, lest we get too confident, our commentator goes into depth on the following:

The GOP remains confident, however, on its messaging ability and willingness of the mainstream media to carry its talking points.

The key is tying the Republicans tightly to George Bush, according to Deep Insight:

So far, the GOP race has been the gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats. But George Bush must be made into the GOP nominees’ political brother. 2008 will be a “change the course” election and the electorate is clearly not thrilled with Washington DC priorities or institutional arrangements. So, the Democrats need to ride this tide both on the Presidential and Congressional levels.

<snip>

Congressional Democrats, however, sometimes act as if it is still 2002 when they were still in the minority. The big bad Republicans will distract the country and beat them into submission. Bush has a 25% approval rating. There is absolutely no political price in opposing the initiatives of the GOP. On national security issues, the Democrats need to take the “kick me” sign off their backs. Bush has weakened our national security with this reckless war in Iraq. Bombing Iran will only add to the terrorist threat. This has to be clearly stated.

Wobbly Pakistan

Boggles the mind.  What is happening now in Pakistan is possibly of more concern than what is happening in Iraq or Iran.  The question - Are Pakistan's nuclear weapons safe from Islamic radicals?

When the history of this time is written and the failures of the Bush Administration ranked, it may well be the lack of attention to Pakistan that will prove to be at the top of what is likely to be a very long list.  Pakistan is particularly worrisome because it has the potential of combining the three most serious challenges to the West  - Al Qaeda, the Taliban and nuclear weapons.   

Putting the threads together

Let's start with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, a potent combination on their own.  Here's what the Washington Post  had to say six weeks ago in an article entitled "Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban and  Al-Qaeda" , just before the current crisis in Pakistan erupted. 

Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda and the Taliban more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.

The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.

Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe as well.

The article goes on to note that deals with insurgents, about staying put in the historically ungovernable Northwest Territories, have fallen apart.  As they did in Afghanistan in the early 1990's, the Taliban have recently taken much of the rural areas and are creeping closer to the more secular cities.

And the Nukes?

The NYT has an article up in the Sunday edition describing that problem.   The U.S. has apparently never been able to get a full understanding of the nature of Pakistan's nuclear network or the number of actual nuclear weapons, although it has been estimated at between 55 and 150. 

Three years ago, there was enough pressure on President Musharraf that he was forced to rein in Dr. A. Q. Khan, the leader of the hugely successful Pakistani nuclear program.  Khan's renegade activities included providing technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.  No one really knows if Musharraf was successful - or even tried to be successful - in reining in Khan.  Nor does anyone know if Musharraf's promise - that he has a team in place to safeguard the nuclear arsenal - is realistic. 

But the worst scenarios seem to be about times when the government is very wobbly, times like now:

If General Musharraf is overthrown, no one is quite sure what will happen to the team he has entrusted to safeguard the arsenal. There is some hope that the military as an institution could reliably keep things under control no matter who is in charge, but that is just a hope.

“It’s a very professional military,” said a senior American official who is trying to manage the crisis and insisted on anonymity because the White House has said this problem will not be discussed in public. “But the truth is, we don’t know how many of the safeguards are institutionalized, and how many are dependent on Musharraf’s guys.”

Even if it never comes to a loss of control over weapons or their components, the crisis carries another level of danger. Administration officials say privately that if the chaos in the streets worsens, or Al Qaeda exploits the moment, Pakistan’s government could become distracted from monitoring scientists, engineers and others who, out of religious zeal or plain old greed, might see a moment to sell their knowledge and technology.

Dr. Khan did just that. Some of his most profitable moments, including sales of centrifuge technology to Iran that the International Atomic Energy Agency is still investigating, took place at moments of great government weakness in Pakistan.

As I said, boggles the mind.  Have the Bushies been doing anything useful in the last seven years?

Keep the Dream Going

Emily's List has another ad up encouraging women to vote.  It's called "Dream".  Take a look. 

You might remember the series of ads with prominent actresses last year, called "The First Time" that had the same focus.  I love these ads.   If indeed, as Emily's List contends and polls back up, "when women vote, women win" they are right on target. 

It may be seen as politically incorrect but I'd also like to see a couple with dreamboat actors at card tables in front of grocery stores or health clubs asking startled, tongue-tied women if they vote.  Can you see it now?  Calling George Clooney, Sean Penn, Ben Affleck, all guys who are definitely on our side.  Come on, Emily's List, what do you say?

Boeing Spies on its Employees

For just a moment, let's put aside the knowledge that our government is relentlessly devising new ways of spying on us and focus on the fact that companies already have the intent and means to surveil their employees. By now, we should all know there's a reason to curb the use of personal emails through company accounts. But there are some things we don't expect our bosses to engage in -- like having someone tail us outside of work, just like a stalker.

Boeing, it seems, has given new meaning to the phrase "carte blanche":

One such team, dubbed "enterprise" investigators, has permission to read the private e-mails of employees, follow them and collect video footage or photos of them. Investigators can also secretly watch employee computer screens in real time and reproduce every keystroke a worker makes, the Seattle P-I has learned.

For years, Boeing workers have held suspicions about being surveilled, according to a long history of P-I contact with sources, but at least three people familiar with investigation tactics have recently confirmed them.

One company source said some employees have raised internal inquiries about whether their rights were violated. Sometimes, instead of going to court over a grievance on an investigation, Boeing and the employee reach a financial settlement. The settlement almost always requires people involved to sign non-disclosure agreements, the source said.

I find this exceedingly interesting. Avoiding public scrutiny. Financial settlements. Non-disclosure agreements. It's almost as if Boeing, rather than its employee, has something to hide. Reading further into the article is the story of the employee who was followed in his hours outside of work, based on company fears that he had talked to the media regarding Boeing's compliance (or non-compliance) with a 2002 reform agreement.

Whistleblowers have slightly more protections than the average Joe who's being followed around by investigators for who-knows-what. But while Washington State law has fallen behind in fending off company surveillance tactics, Boeing is not just a Washington company. Its corporate headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois, and it has manufacturing plants in other states across the nation. By any measure, Boeing's tentacles are long, reaching into Asia and Europe, where it has contracted with facilities there for 767 Dreamliner manufacturing. On top of all this, there are Boeing's military contracts with the federal government.

So, which laws cover employee surveillance? State laws? Federal laws? And what are the ramifications of Boeing's behavior in light of the fact that Hewlett-Packard got nailed two years ago for spying on its board members? The most obvious difference between the two situations is that the aggrieved parties at HP were willing to come forward in accusing the company. Of course, a board member has more power and autonomy than an employee. In addition, California law offers more protections than Washington's does. Boeing has, so far, dodged a bullet by encouraging (convincing? threatening?) its employees to avoid public condemnations of the company by promising pay-offs for their silence. But that was before the story broke in this morning's P.I. No doubt, there's more to come.

On the Road to the White House - Clinton Jujitsu

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 15 years, you know all about how Bill Clinton is the most famous people-pleaser on the planet and about how politically savvy he and Hillary are. But, this is just too wacky:

Bill Clinton is never at a loss for company. When he's not globe-trotting or charming audiences for as much as $400,000 a speech, he's often schmoozing visitors in his suite of offices in Harlem. Last July, the former president sat down with a billionaire impressed with the William J. Clinton Foundation's campaign against AIDS in Africa. The two men chatted amiably over lunch for more than two hours, and the visitor pledged to write Clinton's foundation a generous check. But there was something unusual, if not plain weird, about the meeting. NEWSWEEK has learned that the billionaire so eager to endear himself to the former president was Richard Mellon Scaife—once the Clintons' archenemy and best-known as the man behind a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy them.

<snip>

The Arkansas Project largely came up empty, and most of the stories were ignored by all but the most avid Clinton antagonists. But one Scaife-backed conspiracy theory got widespread attention. In 1993, White House aide and Clinton friend Vince Foster was found dead of a gunshot wound in a park outside Washington, D.C. Three official investigations concluded the death was a suicide. Yet Scaife dollars helped promote assertions that Foster had been murdered—the not-so-subtle subtext being that the Clintons had something to do with it. Scaife hired Christopher Ruddy, a reporter who doggedly pursued the conspiracy theory in a Scaife newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Though discredited, the story resonated with people who believed Clinton was hiding dark secrets. Scaife and Ruddy later started Newsmax, a Web site and magazine that attacks their enemies and lauds their heroes.

<snip>

Whatever the reasons for Scaife's change of heart, it's not hard to figure out why the Clintons would embrace a former nemesis. As they prepared for Hillary's presidential run, the Clintons made quiet attempts to disarm, or at least neutralize, some of their most vocal opponents. Last year Hillary accepted an offer from Rupert Murdoch (who always hedges his bets) to host a fund-raiser for her Senate campaign. The New York Times reported that the Clinton camp has also made efforts to open a line of communication to blogger Matt Drudge, who has served as a conduit for anti-Clinton GOP leaks.

Yes, there is something to be said for neutralizing the opposition, not to mention, forgiving your enemies. But this just seems so transparently opportunistic it makes me wonder if there is any line that can't -- and won't -- be crossed in the quest for power. I guess ambition trumps all. Considering that there seems to be a stable of Democrats willing to vote with Republicans and sell-out the U.S. Constitution and human decency at a moment's notice, it's probably just business-as-usual and I should relax and forget about it. Everything's fine, doc, it only hurts when I breathe.

What's next? Bill and Hillary spending Saturday nights making hot spiced cider and almond sandies with Newt Gingrich? Bill and Hill hosting a birthday party for Ken Starr? The possibilities are endless. 

George Fearing – The Other Democratic Challenger

Doc Hastings, the staunchest rightie of our three right-wing Republican Congresscritters, will have an opponent in his race next year – although most of us haven’t yet heard about him.  Over in central Washington, in the 4th Congressional District, George Fearing, a well-dressed lawyer, looks for all the world like he’d be a Republican himself.  Instead, George is running an early, determined race to unseat the ethically challenged Hastings.

George says he is meeting with LD and County Democratic Chairs, with Labor leaders and with just about anyone who wants to hear why he thinks he can defeat Doc Hastings next year.  He is talking about Doc’s wrong-headed, lockstep support of the Bush Administration, his willingness to take money from Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, and the increasing gap between Hastings and his constituents on crucial issues like the war, trade, and healthcare.

I had an opportunity to talk with him at YearlyKos this year.  George looked very much out of place there – dressed in a great suit in the midst of 1500 mostly dressed-down bloggers and activists.  But he was there, meeting the folks who came to our Northwest caucus, stealing into listen to as many of the Presidential candidates as he could, and asking Darcy questions about jump-starting his campaign.

That openness, that willingness to attend YearlyKos and see what the heck it was all about, especially when it was not his natural milieu, impressed me.

In the same spirit he drove over to Seattle one Tuesday evening to join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally and to introduce himself to the bloggers and activists there.  I was able to ask him some questions.  The interview, plus a reminder of just how bad Doc Hastings is, is over the fold.

Interview with George Fearing, Candidate for Congress from WA-04

Q:  Since this election is as much about throwing Doc Hastings out of office as electing you, why do you think Hastings is vulnerable this year?

GF:   I think it’s a combination of things.  Doc is on a list of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress to start.  He received money from Jack Abramoff and the firm he worked for at the time, Preston Gates Ellis, and never returned it, unlike many other Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen.  In 1996, Abramoff’s team worked closely with Hastings and secured his opposition to a key bill in the House Resources subcommittee that would have forced the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to adhere to American labor standards.  The billing records show that it was a day later that Abramoff donated money to his campaign. 

Hastings’s long-time Chief of Staff, Ed Cassidy, called former U.S. attorney in Washington, John McKay, shortly after the 2004 election, on behalf of Hastings, to inquire about McKay’s investigation of the Gregoire-Rossi gubernatorial election, a call that was highly improper and ended quickly after McKay pointed that out.

And, my favorite: Doc Hastings was the presiding officer of the House the night that the vote was kept open for an unprecedented 2 hours and 51 minutes for President Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act.  Normally votes occur in about 15 minutes. 

After the first 15 minutes, the vote stood at 210 in favor and 224 opposed with 17 Republicans voting with the Democrats to defeat the measure.  At the urging of the Republican leaders, Doc Hastings kept the vote open, over and over again, in the middle of the night, as the leaders - DeLay, Hastert and Blunt - worked the Republicans who opposed the bill.  They offering money for upcoming elections, threatened to withhold money and even run primary challenges against recalcitrant Representatives.   

They also allowed drug firm lobbyists to roam the halls making their own offers.  They brought in Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and then at 5:00 AM in the morning, got President Bush to call Representatives himself and plead his case. 

All that time, Doc Hastings refused to call for the vote.  Finally, Majority Leader Tom DeLay went to the floor and announced that they had 218 yeas to the 216 nays.  At 5:51 AM, the vote passed amidst Republican cheering by 220 to 215, taking twice as long as any previous vote in the history of the House.

Q: Given that Doc Hastings is not much of an asset to the folks of central Washington and is sometimes absolutely an embarrassment, why do they continue to vote for him?  And what makes you think they’ll vote for you?

GF:  The Democrats who’ve run against Hastings haven’t gotten into the race early enough or run hard enough.  They haven’t clarified just how bad Hastings is.  I will.

I’m spending a lot of time with the rank and file Democrats as well as with the Democratic leaders.  In the past, the leaders have supported the candidate but the regular people, who might consider a Democratic candidate, haven’t.

I’ve been going to talk with the legislative district chairs, county chairs, labor folks, anyone who’ll invite me.  I’m talking about who Doc Hastings is and about how closely he is aligned with President Bush and this administration and with the folks who have kept him in power.

In addition, Hastings has not stood for the interests of the people of the 4th CD and they are starting to notice. 

Q: How so?

GF: When I talk with the voters of this district, I say that no matter what party you are in, the role of Congress is to challenge and check the role of the administration.  Doc Hastings doesn’t do that.  He simply follows the Bush Administration on the Iraq War and on trade, neither of which resonate well with voters here. 

When I was walking in the Ellensburg Rodeo Parade in early September, I got treated like a rock star.  People applauded because of my stand on Iraq.   

Doc is in lockstep with the trade policies of Bush.  It hurts our farmers.  Free trade is fine but it needs to be fair. 

And the S-CHIP vote is big.  The state’s other two Republicans Representatives voted for the increase in money for insuring children (ed. – after voting “No” many times), but not Hastings.  He says no one should get their health insurance paid for, either by the government or their employer.  He says that if people paid out of their own pocket, they’d be a lot more practical.  That’s pretty extreme.

Nor does he believe in global warming, something farmers understand quite well.  They can see the impact of the warming we’re already experiencing on their crops.

So, people are paying attention.

Q: Tell us about the voters of the 4th CD.  They haven’t voted for a Democrat for Congress since they sent Jay Inslee to Congress in 1992 and then turned around and voted him out in 1994.  What are they thinking at this point in time?

GF:  In the 4th district, people pride themselves on being Independents.  They have typically voted Republican but I think that is changing.  I meet with a lot of Republicans and they are not happy.  They are upset at the scandals and tired of the large corporations giving so much money to members of Congress.  Even the so-called Religious Right are realizing that global warming is a real threat and they need to pay attention. 

Q:  So tell us something about yourself.

GF:  I worked as an intern for both Tom Foley and Warren Magnuson when I was younger.  I’ve been a lawyer in the Tri-Cities for many years; the firm is generally considered a Republican firm.  In fact, Doc Hastings is one of our clients.  I’ve been involved in Democratic politics and involved with my conservative church.  I’m a staunch believer in a clear separation of church and state. 

I look like a Republican (ed. – Yes, he does) but I think like a Democrat, albeit a Democrat from a pretty independent place. 

Thank you.  Best of luck.    

Washington State Supreme Court Declares I-747 Unconstitutional

This is big news.

I-747's challengers argue that the initiative failed to accurately set forth the law that it sought to amend in violation of Article II, section 37 because the text of the initiative claimed to reduce the general property tax levy limit from two percent to one percent, but in reality it reduced the limit from six percent to one percent. We agree.

Postman has a good, detailed post about it, including the history of I-722 which capped property taxes and was also thrown out by the court.

So far, many of Tim Eyman's intitiatives have scored with voters, but not with the law. Since the opponents of I-960 believe it, too, is unconstitutional, it will be mighty interesting to see how it fares in the courts since its passage earlier this week..

Eyman, who had a victory at the polls Tuesday with a measure designed to limit state tax increases, had predicted this morning that the court would rule in his favor. But, he said in an e-mail statment, if he was wrong and I-747 was tossed out

then local governments will go on a reckless rampage and radically jack up property taxes. It'll be like pigs at the trough.

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.

Post-Prop. 1

A quick thought on the imminent defeat of Prop. 1, the Roads & Transit Initiative:

If I was a mainstream environmental group, I'd want to do some quick-and-dirty survey and focus group research to understand whether my members voted against Prop. 1, and if so, why.

Were they concerned about the lack of climate accountability, as Eric de Place from Sightline suggests/hopes?  Do they simply not believe in transportation megaprojects period?  Or, were they dismayed at the amount of roadbuilding, and seeking a transit-only alternative?

Environmental organizations would be well served to find out where their constituents are heading, so they can get out front and lead.

Same goes for all you elected officials, too. ;-)

Cycling Update - Both Sides of the Coin

Good news: the Seattle City Council approved the Bike Master Plan yesterday.

Bad News: The P.I.'s Soundoff section displays the continuing ass-hattedness of arrogant (and ignorant) drivers.

Portland Moves Forward with City Bike Plans, Now it's Seattle's Turn

Seattle's Bike Master Plan finally comes up for a vote today in the city council. It adds about 200 miles of bike paths and trails and lots of other amenities that will make biking in the city safer. In the last month we've see two tragic bike-related incidents -- one where a biker was killed in a collision with a dump truck on Eastlake, and the other happened last weekend when a biker was shot through the lung with BB pellets as he rode home to West Seattle. One of the pellets narrowly missed his aorta, so he's lucky to be alive.

In a road-rage incident last week in Fremont, an SUV driver tried to intimidate a cyclist by following him from the bridge onto 34th towards Stone Way and driving straight for him. He tried to hit the biker twice but when the police questioned him he claimed it was all the biker's fault.

Hmm. SUV vs. bicycle. I'll let you be the judge.

If you spend any time at all reading through comments in the P.I.'s Soundoff sections you'll find ample evidence that some very sick people live among us. Apparently, they feel so annoyed and inconvenienced by having to share the road with cyclists that they actually cheer when someone is injured. They think it's teaching those dirty bike riders a lesson. Well, I warned you they were sick.

Hopefully, city officials will put the stamp of approval on the plan and hopefully, they'll do something to prevent the mayor's office from further altering elements of it. It's well past time for some leadership and vision. While we listen to them debating between sharrows and actual bike lanes on Stone Way, our neighbors to the south, in Portland, have already made the commitment to a city bike plan that has lots of fans. People use the system, and businesses benefit as well. According to Sam Adams, Portland's commissioner for transportation, everybody wins. But Portland, like Seattle, is still grappling with safety concerns.

“Our intentions are to be as sustainable a city as possible,” Mr. Adams said. “That means socially, that means environmentally and that means economically. The bike is great on all three of those factors. You just can’t get a better transportation return on your investment than you get with promoting bicycling.”

Although the city has worked to help drivers and riders share roadways, two cyclists were killed in October when they were hit by trucks, and questions persist over whether enough is being done to protect cyclists.

Mr. Adams said he was preparing a budget proposal that would spend $24 million to add 110 miles to the city’s existing 20-mile network of bike boulevards, which are meant to get cyclists away from streets busy with cars. Doing so could “double or triple ridership,” he said.

If you have the time and the inclination, the Seattle city council will be meeting to address the Bike Master Plan at 2 p.m. today. They'll be taking public comment at the beginning of the meeting.

Blog Wars

My blogging has been very sparse over the last two months due to a commitment to other projects. In that time I've had the opportunity (when I wasn't overwhelmed with work) to revisit what drew me to blogging in the first place, and why getting out of the habit can feed on itself, like a kind of intertia.

There's an interesting article in today's Seattle Times that parallels exactly what's been on my mind lately: The Blog Wars. Why we blog and what happens when disagreements transform sparks into flames.

It's not just happening on political blogs although a lot of them, naturally, set the stage for fireworks. It's happening on tech blogs and mommy blogs too. (Apparently, the debate over breastfeeding vs. formula has reached epic new lows.) And even on Craigslist, which isn't a blog, one can be hit with some of the worst flaming on the internet. While looking for a dog to adopt, I've been amazed at the hostility and dirty insults that get thrown around regarding "re-homing fees". It is utterly ridiculous.

One of the Northwest's best bloggers explains what he thinks makes blogging so appealing:

Seattle journalist David Niewert, who writes a blog called Orcinus, says the blogosphere is what you get when you mix an information-deprived public, an irresponsible mainstream media and the common-man power of the Internet.

But that common-man power is also what can make it so combusitible. Everybody is power-hungry to a certain degree. We like to think we have something important to tell the world and hey, it's great to have a platform. Since I've recently curtailed my own blogging I've been visiting a lot of other sites -- mostly national sites -- and more than anything else I've been watching the big, fat, insecure egos bouncing off the walls. It's not pretty. I've also seen a hefty dose of dishonesty, especially when it comes to the presidential campaigns. Oy, and then there were the threats. On one site, in particular, I witnessed a whole series of attacks on one candidate by an unhinged commenter whose anger eventually escalated into advocating that we destroy the candidate's life and use his family as "collateral damage".

It's gotten to the point where the bloggy anger is so uncontrollable that almost anyone who veers from the party line -- whichever party it may be -- gets demolished.

So, as the craziness of the presidential campaign heats up, the truly disgusting campaigning in the local Seattle races comes to a conclusion, and the state legislative session peeks its head around the corner, I'm seriously considering if this kind of blogging appeals to me at all. Because in between the food fights over which U.S. senator has the market cornered on moral bankruptcy, I'm probably going to be listening to Cassandra Wilson or Dexter Gordon or Wes Montgomery playing in the background and realizing that some things are more enduring, and ultimately, much more satisfying than others. Life is short. It may be time for a bit of prioritizing.

Opponents of Roads and Transit Package fall short of creating a vision for transit loving Seattle

Let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine what Seattle might look like with Sound Transit succeeding at the ballot, and rail transit running the length of Seattle, serving major dense neighborhoods and the places in between.  Just imagine a region with a network of light rail, express buses and commuter rail service connecting suburbs with Seattle to the North, South and East.

What if all the pro-transit advocates in Seattle were unified in our support for transit funding in the city and while celebrating the victory of light rail, and regional transit service, we were able to focus our energies on a plan for next year to expand the BRT routes in Seattle, building on the funding approved last year for Metro.  Many local Metro routes are still on 20 or 30 minute intervals in the city and the routes with more frequent service almost always shift to 30 minute intervals after 7 PM.  What if we were able to make the frequency of most local routes in Seattle a minimum of every 10 to 15 minutes and extend that frequency to 9 PM.  What about late night service, and very early morning service?  In other cities folks go out enjoying the nightlife and take a subway or bus home.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have major routes that had service 24 hours a day?  Serving late night partiers or early morning commuters.

Every time transit is opposed in Seattle, we lose momentum on the bigger picture of creating funding for a long term investment in rail, a system that rivals the capacity of highways.  At the same time we miss the opportunity for a short term investment in bus service to create a system with frequency that will serve us now. 

We have to think about the larger opportunity here, and the political dynamics of each election year.  With 2008 as a presidential election year, turnout will be especially strong for liberal voters, less concerned about taxes, and interested in service improvements to Metro routes serving the city. This is the perfect opportunity to upgrade our bus service in the city and add new BRT routes.  What are we waiting for?  The Alaskan Way Viaduct is coming down in years not decades.  Thousands of people are moving here each week and month.  Buses in the city are already beyond capacity.

The issue in this election and with this vote is the same political issue we face in Olympia, and in King County.  Liberals in the city are feeling beat up by the suburbs, who collectively dominate the city in terms of population and political power.  The suburbs are built inside a highway grid and they are at a choke point.  This measure is the perfect balance for the suburbs with an investment in transit connecting urban centers and an improvement in the roads infrastructure.  This is a regional measure and it makes sense as a whole for the region.

In Seattle, a city that in vote after vote has favored additional funding for transit, a city leading the nation in taking action against climate change, we need to chart our own course and clean up our own back yard before we can really focus on the suburbs.   We should really start focusing on I-5 and the bigger picture of what makes successful communities, where highways are designed as an integrated part of the landscape, integrated into the road grid and supporting the community and not creating barriers of concrete.  Imagine if I-5 was torn down, it’s crumbling anyway, and made into a beautiful European style boulevard, integrated into the community.

There is a different way to spin each issue,.  I’m looking at the roads and transit measure in today’s dollars, and not adding inflation and interest to the package.  I’m counting on environmentalists getting smart in the coming decades and focusing on how we can speed up getting this rapid transit built and paying this package off and putting additional funding in place as soon as we can for creating the transit system that we need.

Cross Posted on The Urban Environmentalist