"Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care Pressure On Congress"

Sam Stein (HuffPo):

In a reflection of a legislative strategy that has left no stone unturned, President Barack Obama on Monday called on like-minded bloggers to help his administration keep the heat on lawmakers to pass health care reform.

"It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington," the president said during an invitation-only conference call. "And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not... People have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help deliver that better than just about anybody."

In a roughly 25-minute session with a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, the president also asked for help combating disinformation about his health care plan.

"I know the blogs are best at debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets," he said. "And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come."

The call demonstrates just how heated the health care debate has become in recent weeks and how much ammunition the administration is willing to bring to the table. At various points in the call, the president offered a strikingly detailed synopsis of his political strategy and health care policy as a whole.

While he refused to insist that lawmakers stay in Washington during the August recess, he declared definitively that, "the time for talk is through."

"Now is the time for us to go ahead and act," Obama declared. "We are working as hard as we can and I have told Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that it is critical that we have seen serious forward motion before people leave [in August]."

Moreover, for the first time in recent memory, Obama floated the possibility that if it appears that health care reform lacks the 60 votes needed for passage, he might be open to reconciliation, which would allow for an up-or-down vote on budgetary and tax aspects of the bill.
Story continues below

"Keep in mind that the way we had structured the reconciliation issue several months ago, we moved forward on the basis of the assumption that we could get a bill through the regular order and the regular process by October," Obama said. "If I think that is not possible, then we are going to look at all of our options, including reconciliation. Not because that is my preferred option but because what I think would be unacceptable for the American people is inaction."

Perhaps sensing the ramifications that such a parliamentary maneuver could cause, the president added: "In fairness, I do think that what you are seeing right now is really serious hard work on the part of members of the Senate and those on the Finance Committee. And although I may not agree with every single decision that is made in any of the committees, I think that folks really are working overtime and I appreciate the work that they have done. And I feel confident that we could pass a bill in the absence of reconciliation."

The recruiting of blogger support comes at a particularly sensitive time for the president. While hoping to see legislation produced from Congress that carries bipartisan support, which can make its way through both chambers, the White House is cognizant that a watered-down bill could insult the progressive base. Especially at a time when the party has 60 caucusing members in the Senate. At various times during the call, not surprisingly, the president implored the participants not to let the perfect piece of health care legislation be the enemy of something fundamentally good.

"I know that there has been a lot of focus from a lot of people on keeping the bill strong and that continues to be a key focus for me as well," he said. "But there is also a primary point that can't be lost: The status quo is unacceptable... People who would defend doing nothing are defending the indefensible."

Along these lines, the president insisted on multiple occasions that he remained committed to a public option for insurance coverage and even threw a bit of cold water on one of the alternative proposals.

"I'm still looking at the details of a co-op approach. I will tell you that there are some instances of co-ops being set up and just having a very difficult time getting off the ground because they don't have the scale and the resources to compete effectively," Obama said of the approach advocated by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) "What I have asked my health care team to do is to look at what evidence we have that this could provide the kind of competition that drives or helps to promote insurance reform... If I can see some evidence that that would work then I would be happy to consider it.

Peppering the president with questions were some of the progressive community's most prominent netroots voices from Jonathan Singer of MyDD to John Amato of Crooks and Liars. As in interviews and public statements past, the president stressed that the White House had already made major steps toward achieving reform, including bringing key stakeholders in the private sector to the table. Repeating his statement on Monday criticizing the posture of some of his Republican opponents, Obama accused those who sought to delay the bill as trying to kill the prospects of reform and, by extension, his presidency.

"I think it was telling, some of you may have seen, a Republican senator this weekend saying, we are just going to delay and delay because if we can stop Obama on this one, this is going to be his Waterloo. We will break him," he said of the remarks made by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C). "That was a quote. And I think it indicates the degree to which a lot of folks may sincerely think that the more time we take the better off we are going to be but I also think there are some who deliberately want to delay this process because they know the longer the special interests have to run negative ads or lobby members of congress, the more difficult it becomes to get this done."

Howie P.S.: In the Northwest, we need to keep an eye on Cantwell.

Barack Obama

Monday Morning Health Care Roundup

"A Real Win for Single-Payer Advocates" (John Nichols):

Canada did not establish its national health care program with a bold, immediate political move by the federal government.

The initial progress came at the provincial level, led by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation's Tommy Douglas when he served from 1941 to 1960 premier of Saskatchewan. The universal, publicly-funded "single-payer" health care system that Douglas and his socialist allies developed in Saskatchewan proved to be so successful and so popular that it was eventually adopted by other provinces and, ultimately, by Canada's federal government.

For his efforts, Douglas would be hailed in a national survey as "The Greatest Canadian" of all time. But Douglas' regional initiative also offers a lesson for Americans.

Those of us who know that the only real cure for what ails the U.S. health care system is a universal public plan that provides health care for all Americans while controlling costs recognize the frustrating reality that there are many economic and political barriers to the federal action that would create a single-payer system. This makes clearing the way experimentation at the state level all the more important.

And, remarkably, the forces of real reform have won a congressional victory on that front, a victory that ought not be underestimated.

By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House's health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.

"There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world – the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer," explained Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who proposed the amendment. "Under a single-payer system everyone in the U.S. would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in the public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the U.S."

Votes for the amendment came from progressive Democrats who favor single-payer -- such as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey, of California, and Raul Grijalva, of Arizona -- as well as conservative Republicans who have no taste for single-payer but want states to be able to set their own agendas.

Opposition to the amendment came mainly from Democrats such as committee chair George Miller, of California, who have resisted moves to create more flexible, innovation-friendly legislation.

The Education and Labor Committee -- one of three in the House with jurisdiction over health care -- then apporved the amended America's Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200, by a vote of 26-22.

The campaign for to add the amendment was advanced by a number of groups, in particular Progressive Democratic of America, which mounted a last-minute campaign to sway Democratic members of the House committee. PDA Tim Carpenter is right when he says: "This is a victory for single-payer advocates. Our job in the ensuing weeks will be to ensure that this amendment does not get stripped from the final legislation."

And they will have powerful allies who will fight to preserve the amendment.

After the committee vote, Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, said, "This is a historic moment for patients, for American families, and for the tens of thousands of nurses and other single-payer activists from coast to coast who can now work in state capitols to pass single-payer bills, the strongest, most effective solution of all to our healthcare crisis."

De Moro gets it.

Allowing states to do what is necessary to provide high-quality yet affordable health care for all -- even as a federal plan falls short of that goal -- opens up vital new avenues for promoting, and actually implementing, single-payer systems.

"Why Obama Likes His Odds" (E.J. Dionne Jr.):

It was not the soaring rhetoric that is Barack Obama's signature, but he recently offered the sound bite that may define his presidency: "Don't bet against us."

There are reasons to believe that his confident words -- they were about health-care reform but have broader application -- were not the bombast of a bluffer exaggerating the strength of his hand. They reflect the high cards that Obama holds and has only now started to play.

Of course, no one ever thought passing a health-care bill would be easy, and the effort hit some bumps last week over costs and how to cover them.

But Obama doesn't quite see things the way his more nervous Democratic allies do because he missed the years in Washington during which his party was beaten down. Many Democrats had their perceptions of political reality shaped by the failure of Bill Clinton's health proposal, the 1994 Republican revolution and the GOP's triumphalism during President Bush's first term.

That world, however, turned upside down in 2005 -- the year Obama arrived in Washington. Bush's power dissolved in the failure of his Social Security privatization proposal, the Hurricane Katrina backlash and rising disillusionment with the Iraq war. By the end of 2006, less than two years after Obama's arrival, Democrats had seized control of both houses of Congress.

The paradox is that Obama's limited experience under Republican sway makes him more comfortable than many of his allies are with wielding the power that comes from large Democratic majorities.

And it's real power. Nothing made that clearer than the trajectory of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination battle -- or non-battle.

It has often been said that Republicans have not put up much of a fight against her, but the reason for their pacifism is rarely mentioned: Republicans were severely constrained simply because they lack numerical clout.

Had the Senate been more closely divided, the GOP might have mounted a more aggressive campaign that, if nothing else, could have raised the cost for moderate Democrats of supporting Sotomayor. But knowing they'd never get the votes to stop her, Republicans decided to wait for a more opportune moment to pick a real fight.

The numbers work Obama's way on other issues. Much was made of the 44 House Democrats who defected from the president's position by opposing the cap-and-trade bill last month. The more important fact is that Democrats have such a big majority that they could lose all those votes and still prevail, even if narrowly. The same numbers give Speaker Nancy Pelosi significant room to maneuver in selling the House health-care bill.

And with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats can, in principle, work their will on health care without any Republican support. Obama is bound to make compromises, partly to bring along moderate Democrats. But the size of the Democrats' Senate majority means they won't be able to blame the Republicans if health reform dies. This increases the pressure on moderate Democrats to get something done.

There is thus an irony to the game Obama must play. He will continue to speak in bipartisan terms to keep open the possibility of picking off Republicans if they're needed -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) already seems inclined to work with him -- and because such an approach appeals to moderate Democrats whose sensibilities he must soothe.

The open-to-the-other-side style also helps him hold support from political independents around the country. He needs them to preserve his good approval ratings, which are themselves a form of political capital.

But Obama must simultaneously convince Democrats that they are not living in the Republican congressional eras of 1995 or 2003 -- that if it's necessary, they have the strength on their own to win. This was the implicit message Obama conveyed to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to push him to conclude his frustratingly protracted health-care negotiations with Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee.

Getting Baucus to move this week is essential to maintaining momentum. If Obama seems likely to win, interest groups will be more forthcoming, his own party will be more likely to hold together and more Republicans will be inclined to cut a deal.

And that, finally, is why Obama wants to make sure his party bets with him, not against him. His core message to fellow Democrats is that the only things they have to fear are the fears and insecurities bred into them when they were a battered minority. Obama is free of those doubts because he never knew them.

"President Is Set to 'Take the Baton'" (WaPo):

Six months into his presidency, Barack Obama may have no greater test of his ability to translate personal popularity into a successful legislative agenda than the upcoming two weeks.

With skepticism about the president's health-care reform effort mounting on Capitol Hill -- even within his own party -- the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to dramatically increase public pressure on Congress: all Obama, all the time.

Senior White House aides promise "an aggressive public and private schedule" for Obama as he presses his case for reform, including a prime-time news conference on Wednesday, a trip to Cleveland, and heavy use of Internet video to broadcast his message beyond the reach of the traditional media.

"Our strategy has been to allow this process to advance to the point where it made sense for the president to take the baton. Now's that time," said senior adviser David Axelrod. "I don't know whether he will Twitter or tweet. But he's going to be very, very visible."

Another senior White House aide added: "It's time to raise the stakes on this."

But even as Obama returns to full-time campaign mode, he is facing increasing calls to show that his presidency can manage the tough, nitty-gritty of lawmaking by cutting deals with his allies to keep his health-care legislation moving in the House and Senate committees.

Conservative Democrats in the House are promising to vote against reform as it now stands, and are preparing two dozen amendments, including measures aimed at lowering the effort's long-term cost. In the Senate, members from both parties are urging the president to break his campaign promise to preserve the tax-free status of health benefits. And a chorus of weary voices from Capitol Hill is urging him to abandon his demand for passage of bills in the House and Senate by Aug. 7.

"I don't think we should be bound by a timetable that isn't realistic," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), a key swing-vote on health care, told Obama last week as she reminded him that President Lyndon B. Johnson took 1 1/2 years to pass Medicare.

Obama has not officially budged on the timetable, although he and aides notably have not mentioned the August deadline in recent remarks. But he is quietly working with conservative, Blue Dog Democrats in the House on an amendment to create an independent panel to govern Medicare reimbursement rates that could help reverse crippling health-care inflation.

Most difficult for Obama is the pressure to accept a tax on health benefits as a way of financing the massive insurance reform he wants.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," White House budget director Peter Orszag would not rule out support for the benefits tax, but he continued to promote Obama's preference for limiting deductions for wealthy taxpayers.

Some Democrats close to the negotiations say they think it is only a matter of time before Obama backs off. One proposal that has emerged would tax insurance companies, as opposed to beneficiaries, and is considered a potential compromise approach that he may be able to embrace.

Aides said Obama and his team plan a rapid response to new developments, as they did Thursday with a quickly arranged conference call to rebut assertions by the Congressional Budget Office that health-care costs would go up, not down, if the Democratic bills pass.

The effort began Friday with impromptu remarks by Obama from the Diplomatic Room, even as groups allied with the White House launched political ad campaigns this weekend aimed at wavering lawmakers. On Monday, his advisers say, he will do a round of interviews to drive the narrative for the week. Private meetings with lawmakers will become more frequent and urgent.

The decision to vault Obama to the front carries huge risks.

The decades-long drive to reform the health-care system now rests largely on Obama's ability to quell revolts among Democratic allies, many of whom have spent the past several weeks picking at pieces of his proposals.

If conservative House Democrats succeed in sowing fear of rising deficits, it will be seen as Obama's fault that he could not rein them in. If Democrats in the Senate do not agree on financing, Obama must explain the failure despite his party's majorities in both chambers.

The health-care debate was at the center of private discussions at the annual summer meeting of the National Governors Association over the weekend. The health-care legislation under consideration in Congress envisions a significant expansion in eligibility for Medicaid, whose costs are shared by Washington and the states. Their budgets squeezed by the recession, governors fear a costly mandate to cover the newly eligible. The governors devoted most of a private lunch to the issue Saturday and earlier voiced objections to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) over funding plans.

Obama's top strategists, including Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have repeatedly defended the administration's ambitious agenda by saying that success breeds success -- each legislative victory makes the next one easier to accomplish, they insist. The flip side, then, is that a health-care failure could doom the rest of Obama's agenda.

Obama's advisers express confidence that the setbacks of the past week can be overcome, and they insist they have spent "no time" discussing the impact on his political fortunes if health-care reform does not pass this year.

"We don't do doom-and-gloom," Axelrod.

But the president's top advisers also recognize that the sense of optimism about health-care reform that existed in Washington several months ago has largely evaporated.

Cable news programs repeatedly declare the president's health care program is "teetering" or "embattled," despite a week in which Obama's proposals were endorsed by the doctor and nurses associations and committees in both legislative chambers passed major bills.

"We're swimming upstream against a culture of failure on health care in Washington," said one adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's strategy.

The White House decided early in the year on a hands-off approach to health-care legislating.

"Had we put a plan out, the entire debate would have been changes to the plan," said Emanuel, a veteran of the failed Clinton health battle. "It would have been how the president is failing or succeeding."

But even as he shifts into a more active role, Obama must be mindful of his legislative allies. Rather than strong-arming these old bulls, the White House must tiptoe around them.

Baucus was a veteran lawmaker in 1994 when the Clinton plan ran aground. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is a leading health-care expert. Senate health committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is battling brain cancer, voted to create Medicare in 1965.

For health-care reform to succeed, Obama will have to carefully navigate between paying the appropriate respect to those men while exerting the leadership that many are demanding.

"It's getting hotter, and there are bumps, but we are closer to health-care reform than ever before," Emanuel said.

Barack Obama

Hutchison: 'I probably will vote against' Eyman spending initiative

From left, King County executive candidates Dow Constantine, Ross Hunter and Susan Hutchison participate in a debate sponsored by CityClub and The Seattle Times at Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue on Thursday.
Seattle PI:

Exec candidate also talks about the budget and why she won't discuss social issues--Judging from the frequency and the ferocity of the attacks against Susan Hutchison, you'd think she was a long-time elected official.

She's not. The former television broadcaster has never held public office, but now finds herself the frontrunner in the King County executive's race. Her four main opponents -- all elected Democrats who have served in government for years -- have slammed her, saying she's a stealth conservative candidate in a liberal county and that she has too often ducked a serious debate of the issues.

Hutchison, who does have Republican ties, dismisses such criticism as a smokescreen designed to obscure the problems the incumbents have created. She recently sat down with seattlepi.com to discuss the county's budget problems, why she avoids talking about divisive social issues like abortion and why she'll most likely vote against Tim Eyman's latest government spending initiative. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.

As you know King County's looking at a $50 million operating budget deficit next year. Tim Eyman has an initiative (I-1033) on this fall's ballot that could make it much tougher for governments like King County going forward by requiring that taxes collected above a certain rate go to property tax relief. Current government officials say such a measure would tie their hands at a time when maximum flexibility is needed. Do you support Eyman's initiative?

The voters would like property tax relief, especially with the value of their properties going down. A lot of them think it's going to mean they are going to pay less taxes this year, but of course because of the structure of the property tax that's not going to happen, so there are a lot of people who are going to be upset about it.

So it will be interesting to see how the citizens react to that initiative. I have talked to a number of county mayors, cities large and small, they're very concerned about it. So not just at the county level, but at the city level, folks who depend on property tax to fund various services are very concerned because they feel that government has to provide services, many of which are promised to their citizens. And it's based on a certain amount of tax revenue.

And of course this initiative, came about because there's this sense that government has abused the privilege of taxation. We need to have enough money to provide services or there will be such severe cuts that people will regret it. But at the same time it's a bit of a pendulum swinging right now where people are fed up with the size of government. Not to mention the attitude and the arrogance that we've talked about at these forums. I've talked about it continually since I got into the race. So, most of the time these initiative votes are protest votes. People are trying to say to government, 'I've had enough.' And I think that if this initiative passes, that's what they're saying. Whether or not it's good policy, I defer to these very conscientious and responsible mayors of some of our smaller towns who also say, along with county government, that this will be a disaster for them. So I think our voters need to be very careful. So my promise to the voters is that we are going to cut waste, eliminate duplication, increase government efficiency, which of course will improve productivity of government. We're going to implement performance audits, so we make the right decisions. We're going to get our priorities straight and we're going to make government work for the people.

So will you be voting for or against the Eyman initiative?

You know I haven't looked at it enough, but I probably will vote against it. Not because I wouldn't love to have my property taxes go down, but I do think that there is a enough of a strain, a significant strain on county government right now, that's going to force us to get our act together, to live within our means, to do what our citizens want us to do.

None of the candidates for county exec want to raise taxes and they pretty much all say public safety is the number one priority. If you cut all public health and human safety general fund spending that only solves $41 million of your $50 million deficit problem. Doesn't the county pretty much have to stop providing public health and human services?

I want to correct, first of all, your statement that nobody wants to raise taxes. We've got four politicians who are running, some of which have continually raised taxes to pay for bigger and bigger government. One of the reasons why some people don't want a tax hike on the November ballot is they are afraid of the people who would come out and vote against it, who would then vote for me, because I've been the one out in front from the moment I stepped into this race, talking about our first line of defense against budget deficits is not raising taxes.

I am delighted that some of my opponents are now on the record of not wanting to raise taxes, because when we've won the executive's race and I'm working with those council members I will hold them to their word.

Would you, though, support giving voters a say in November about a possible tax hike?

I've always said, I've talked about a levy....what I have said is that human services are an important part of county government. And the people need to decide, with a human services levy, what their priorities are. And I always think it's best to give that opportunity to the voters. I support a human services levy. Now, that said, there's no question that there are human services that the county provides that no one else has stepped up to.

And these are very important, because in the long run they're good public policy. It's spending a nickel now to save a dollar tomorrow. When we have intervention programs that help young people stay out of jail, for example, that saves taxpayers in the long run a tremendous amount of money. So we want to focused on those solutions in the community that really do save us money in the long run, that help the most vulnerable, that provide the services to our disabled community, that give them a chance at a job. However we've got a lot of duplication in our human services agency. For example there are six agencies that provide services related to homelessness and drug addiction and abuse. Each one of those agencies has their own leadership and staff. If we consolidated that, we could combine those staff people and cut the size of bureaucracy and save money.

So that's what I mean about duplication. It's a terrific opportunity to say, 'we can consolidate these services so that we don't have such a huge overhead.' Those of us who have served in the human services community, as I have for almost 30 years on various boards, know that the most important thing is not to be spending money on overhead. We want to get it to the programs and the people. I have a good perspective on that and I look forward to being able to do that.

		Joshua Trujillo / seattlepi.com
	From left, King County executive candidates Ross Hunter, Susan Hutchison and Fred Jarrett answer a question during a debate at Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue on Thursday.

One problem the county has is the state keeps mandating that it provide things to people that they want, but they don't provide any money for these things. If you're elected county executive, who is the first person you'd call in state government and what would you talk about?

I've gone to Olympia twice since I announced that I was running, and I've met with elected officials there. I paid a courtesy call to the governor, and we had a terrific discussion about issues that were related to both state and county government. And I think at the state level, what you want to do is talk to the people who are working on those specific issues.

My idea of leadership is to bring together the best talent with the most experience. And I keep saying everyone is going to have a seat at the table, because we have to get a better dialogue going between all the people who are affected by these issues. And I think that's been sorely lacking in county government. We will tap into the best minds and hearts - when you're talking human services you need minds and hearts - at the state level. And we'll also bring together the folks who actually provide those services and solve the problem.

The county executive's race is nonpartisan. But your opponents, all proud Democrats, have called you an arch Republican with values out of step for a county that almost always votes Democratic. Why won't you tell voters your views on things like abortion or teaching evolution in schools?

First of all, the social issues are not part of the executive's race. And I want to stay focused on those things that are very important for the executive to be dealing with. As I've said about abortion - the whole choice/life debate, and I've been very clear about this - it is not relevant to the King County executive's race. It's the most divisive issue in America today. There are strong opinions on both sides. I am not here to divide people. I'm hear to bring people together so we can solve our complex problems in the county. I think as soon as you get into these very divisive issues, they become overwhelming to certain people for whom they're very important. We want to get focus back on solving problems we can solve, at the county level.

Now on the evolution in schools, I run a foundation that funds science. I am a pro-science individual. And I would say that, again, these issues are just red herrings. It's silly.

I would love to talk science with any of my opponents who have criticized me. I spend a lot of time dealing with science and in fact fund the inquiry science program in Seattle Public Schools for middle school and high school. So, I've been deeply involved in science education and funding it through the Alliance for Education.

One of the things you talk about, proudly, is helping the Seattle Symphony get out of financial trouble. One of the ways you did that was by increasing the donor base. You got more money in there to help their problems. In some respects, the county is in a similar situation, why is the way you helped the symphony out - increasing the amount of revenue coming in - not the right way to go for the county?

If only we had donors who wanted to donate to government.

Actually, that was one means of solving the problem. When we built the symphony hall, a lot of people in the community saw that and had a vision for it and got on board and felt that was very important. We hadn't tapped into those sources in many years, so we went to them and said, 'you know, we need you to help us out.'

But that was just one group of people. We had to involve all the stakeholders. We had to get involved with the city. I asked Mayor Nickels, one on one. I said, 'we need your leadership. You own Benaroya Hall and we're your only tenant. We have to help this institution survive.'

There had been a bond revaluation. And so we moved quickly to make sure that that affected the symphony in a positive way. And I'm grateful to the mayor for stepping up. We worked with corporations as well. Because corporations understand how the arts institutions in this city affect their ability to hire, affect the quality of life, affect revenues in the city. So it's a total win for people support our culture institutions throughout the region because of the benefits it brings to tax revenues through commerce.

But we had other problems. We had labor/management problems. We had staff problems. We needed a new leadership at the staff level which required us hiring a new executive director...but we also worked with the stakeholders who are our patrons. When you're talking about bringing people together this is what we did at the symphony. We balanced the budget the first year, and we balanced the budget the second year. It helped to stabilize that institution and increase the morale of everybody associated and the reputation of the place.

I expect after a few years of leadership at the county there's going to be a new hope in the county and we're going to increase tax revenues by making it a better place to do business. It's through people having jobs and spending money that we get the tax revenues that fuel our services at the county level. That's what we've got to do. So this attitude, this disdain for business large and small that people feel in the county when they're trying to do business is unacceptable. That's going to change...we're going to be a county open for business.

If you're elected, you're going to have to have some tough conversations with the unions. As contracts are renegotiated they are going to have to be a part of fixing the problem. Organized labor is still a big part of King County. What would you say to people in the labor community who may be suspicious of you. What can the labor unions who work with King County expect from you?

From the time I stepped into the race I began meeting with labor leaders. I've probably met with six unions that have contracts with the county. And I sat for an interview with the King County Labor Council. I am the only person running who has been a member of a union, for 25 years. I've been on strike. I understand union issues, I would contend, better than anyone running for office. I have reached out to our unions and said 'we have to partner.' We've got an economic reality that we've got to deal with. And it's going to cost jobs, unions don't want to lose jobs. And I said it's going to cost jobs unless we can adjust to the economic reality that we're in. As you know the county employees have very good wage and benefits packages. And many people are astounded to realize that that benefits package - with that medical benefit where they don't pay any premiums - that was negotiated during the economic meltdown that we were all experiencing last year. It was signed in March of '09.

Now I've talked to the unions about it and I've heard their point of view. I appreciate the fact that union leadership's job is to the best they can for their membership. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the executive for having not demanded that the unions respond as everyone else was responding in our economic crisis. We have to tighten our belts, we have to live within a new reality, otherwise we're going to lose jobs, we're going to hurt our economy. So I've met with these union leaders and asked for their help...quite frankly our union leadership is very sharp, very smart and very profession. I assured them that we would have labor in our administration and I look forward to working with them.

Another thing your opponents rapped you for was missing many of the early campaign forums. Why did you miss so many of those debates and forums when this race started?

I put my hat in the ring in mid April. I had basically six weeks to get a campaign up and running. I'm not a professional politician - I didn't have a fundraising Rolodex, I didn't have a Web site. I didn't have a campaign staff. I needed to meet with many people in the county about the issues that mattered to the people.

And so my dedication for those six weeks was getting our campaign up and running. In that time I did a number of things. I did a number of candidate issues, I did a few media interviews, I spoke, I gave a few keynote addresses, I emceed an event that was almost a 1,000 strong. I felt like I was everywhere. I just didn't happen to be able to attend one of the forums because I had another commitment with Children's Hospital, a breakfast that I had committed to and they were counting on me for. I missed the other breakfast, which was a forum, and that was about a week after I stepped into the campaign.

When we filed, which was around June 5 I believe, I was off and running. I've attended eight forums in the last five weeks. And let me say this about the forums. For me, the forums are a place where we are birds on a wire, and we talk and we talk and we fill and hour and a half or two hours. I'm sitting in front of people who represent a wealth of experience and knowledge. I would love to flip the tables and be the listener. I want to hear their issues and their concerns. This is one of the reasons I've spent so much time meeting with so many people one on one to try do understand the broad picture.

I'm a journalist, I'm a listener, I'm an interviewer, that's what I know how to do. You may hear an issue portrayed one way, but it's not until you talk to all the stakeholders that you really understand the broad reasons why people act and do and want the things that they want.

So I've been working really hard since I stepped into this race to get to know the issues. I think it shows. I think it shows in my answers in the forums. As you know I've been out in front on a lot of things. I demanded a hiring freeze, I said it was the first thing I would do when I stepped into office in January. This week the county government is going to implement a hiring freeze - finally. What took them so long? It's the first thing business does.

When you get into economic trouble in business you implement a hiring freeze. That gives time to analyze your situation, regroup, figure out what you're going to do. Then you cut spending. So I've advocated for cutting the council and executive offices. That can be done very easily and very quickly. Streamline those offices. Nothing was done. Well now they're announcing they are going to make some cuts. I don't know how big those cuts are going to be, but it's a start.

I can understand, it's the hardest thing to do is to cut personnel. It's painful, it hurts. So I can understand that they've avoided it and why last year the whole budget deficit was borne on the shoulders of the sheriff's department and the prosecutor's office and the courts. But they've been cut substantially and it's time to look at the rest of county government.

It's going to be a hard time, but everybody's hurting. There are so many people who are unemployed, who've taken cuts in pay, who've taken unpaid vacations. It's a very hard time for all of us, and government is part of that, and until they take the steps that are needed citizens are going to resent the fact that they're on a steak diet when the rest of us are on meatloaf.

Last question. You were a longtime broadcast journalist. You talked to a lot of people. Who are some of the people who most impressed you and what did you learn in you years in front of the camera that would help you run the county?

You know, I met a lot of celebrities through the year. A lot of folks who are impacting our culture. I look back, and there's a wealth of wisdom in people who have lasted a lifetime. Our older citizens who are wise and have lived through a lot. Let me just throw out a few. One was Peter Ueberroth. Remember, he came in and turned around the L.A. Olympics. He was an amazing guy. Had private industry experience and he came to KIRO TV back around that time and I was fascinated by what leadership was required in order to take a mammoth organization like the Olympics and turn it around so that it was viable, it didn't lose money, it satisfied its mission and so forth. He was a real impressive guy.

You know I've met a lot of political leaders through the years. You know I've interviewed Jimmy Carter and Laura Bush and Ronald Reagan and some others who aren't political leaders but they've certainly been involved in the political scene, like even Billy Graham. And having that privilege it's been amazing to see how they bring to a time in history, a certain know how and knowledge of the needs of our society. And I thing I have taken away little bits and pieces from each one of them. Rev. (Samuel) McKinney of Mount Zion Baptist Church and I had a discussion at one of the political conventions I attended back in 80s, it might have been the '88 Democratic Convention. And he said, 'politics is about compromise. It's about taking two different points of view and finding the compromise position between them.' And then he added, as only a reverend can, 'but you cannot compromise with evil.' And I think that's a wise word. Because there are lots public policy positions we can find common ground on. And then there are some things in our society that we have to fight. And so that was, to me, I remember those words so very well so long ago, over twenty years ago, and those were important to me.

Thank you for your time.

Howie P.S.: Susie is pretty slick. She sounds like a cross between Tim Hill and Barack Obama here. Steve Zemke takes a look at Hutchison's political contributions over the last few years and finds a distinctly partisan trend. Another local election, another story: "Nickels is down, but his opponents aren't moving up" (Joel Connelly).

Howie comments...on "The Passion of Joel" (Connelly)

My comment on Goldy's post, "The Passion of the Joel":

In the fashion of many here, let me preface my own comment by saying many of you seem to be morons. My comment is that from the point of view of political strategy, I think it would be immensely helpful if there was more discussion in the media and blogosphere of Susie’s positions on the issues, and/or her unwillingness to share them with us.

Sam Seder Talks to Ryan Grim: "Your Country on Drugs" (video)

golefttv, with video Pt. 1 (08:11) and Pt. 2 (09:39):

Since the first use of the term "war on drugs" by Richard Nixon, the campaign to rid America of illegal substances has been a failure. Drug use has remained constant in the 40 years since the start of the war on drugs, and the only thing that seems to change is which drugs people are using at any given time. But there's a reason that this campaign has failed, and it has less to do with people wanting to get high, and everything to do with our failure to understand why people choose to use drugs. Air America's Sam Seder talks about this with Ryan Grim, author of the new book, This is Your Country on Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America.

WA State gov't. expands health care insurance, Sarah gets health care

From NY Times, "Defying Slump, 13 States Insure More Children":

The broadening of eligibility has made a profound difference for parents like Vicky and Dewayne McIntyre of Yakima, Wash. When their state lifted the income cutoff for its program to 300 percent of the federal poverty level (or $54,930 for their family of three) from 250 percent (or $45,775), the McIntyres learned that their 8-year-old daughter, Sarah, had become eligible for the first time.

Sarah, who endured lung surgery at 3 and heart surgery at 6 and now has asthma, had been uninsured for a year. “We were into credit card debt and payday loans,” said Ms. McIntyre, 41, who works part time in a store to supplement her husband’s income as a welder. “Her medicine at one point was $880 a month, and we had to pay cash, so we were struggling. It is such a relief now that I can just take her to the doctor if I need to and get her medicine.”

ED Show: "Democrats ignoring their mandate?" (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (13:55).

Howie P.S.: Rep. Joe Courtney (D-PA), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and NBC's Mike Viqueira join ED to discuss the effort to enact health care reform.

Barack Obama

The same four senators who want to slow down health care reform voted for 1.35 billion Bush tax cuts

David Kurtz:

Remember this?

President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years.

Of the six senators begging President Obama to slow down health care reform, four of them -- Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) -- voted for those huge Bush tax cuts.

Their votes were cast on May 26, 2001. Bush signed the tax cuts into law on June 7, 2001. Here we are in mid-July, eight years later, struggling to get health care reform passed by the end of the year.

So whatever these four foot-draggers are saying about why they want health care reform slowed down (and Nelson, for one, was all over the place yesterday warning against "rushing into this"), it's not really about wanting to be more deliberative or avoid ballooning the deficit. All you have to do is look back to 2001. Their records speak for themselves.

"Chuck Todd And Glenn Greenwald Debate Torture And The Media" (with audio/text)

Glenn Greenwald, with audio/text):

(click above for audio)

Yesterday, I voiced several criticisms of comments made earlier this week by NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd regarding potential torture investigations by the Obama Justice Department. Shortly thereafter, he emailed me to say that he wished I had contacted him before posting. In response, I invited him to participate in a podcast discussion with me of the issues raised by his remarks and my analysis of them, and, to his credit, he accepted.

This morning, I spoke with Todd for roughly 30 minutes about the relative significance of torture investigations, the implications of failing to prosecute high-level political officials when they break the law, the role of the media in these matters, and whether Todd was expressing his own views or merely repeating what the White House believes (the polling data I reference, along with the media's routine distortion of it, is documented here and here). The discussion can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below (it can be also downloaded by MP3 here or by ITunes here). A transcript will be posted later today.

UPDATE: The transcript is now available here.

Howie P.S.: Go to the Greenwald link at the top for the audio.

Dow Constantine for King County Executive

I am supporting Dow Constantine for King County Executive. As a West Seattle resident, I have met Dow on many occasions and have watched him in action. He's fresh, he's intelligent and as King County Executive I think he will look at county government through "new eyes." We need that.

Mallahan for Mayor of Seattle

In the upcoming primary election for Mayor of Seattle on August 18, I am supporting Joe Mallahan. I think Joe will offer the citizens of Seattle the best chance to hear a discussion of the challenges facing Seattle and the response of our city government to them.

"Pelosi’s Toothless ‘Commission’"

Joe Conason:

Very soon, congressional leaders are expected to announce the creation of a new commission to investigate the causes of America’s crippling financial disaster. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that this investigative panel will be modeled on the legendary “Pecora Commission,” which held a series of hearings on Capitol Hill in 1933 that arraigned the nation’s biggest bankers and stock swindlers before an angry and suffering people. Named for Ferdinand Pecora, the cigar-chomping New York prosecutor who oversaw the proceedings, those confrontations mobilized public support for the financial reforms of the New Deal—which curbed the excesses of Wall Street’s overclass until a decade ago when the reforms were undone.

But unless the speaker and her colleagues summon much greater courage than they have displayed to date, any comparisons to the Pecora investigation will only highlight the failure of the Democrats to live up to their heritage. The way to begin to understand that incipient disappointment is with a short history lesson, and the way to start that lesson is to note that the Pecora “commission” was not really a commission at all, in the sense that we have come to understand that term—meaning an excuse for politicians to avoid their responsibilities by palming them off on a group of unelected appointees.

No, the Pecora commission was nothing like that. The so-called commission was in fact the Senate Banking and Currency Committee itself, which under Republican leadership had undertaken a desultory investigation of the 1929 Crash and the onset of the Great Depression, an investigation that had dragged on for a year or so without much progress. That changed with the election of 1932, which sent Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the White House and gave control of the United States Senate, including the Banking Committee, to the Democrats. In January 1933, Pecora was appointed to write up the weak and incomplete findings of his three predecessors—but the Senate Democrats, with the encouragement of the new president, encouraged him to continue and extend the committee’s investigation.

Armed with full subpoena power, Pecora summoned many of the nation’s most important bankers, brokers and financial operators to the witness table, including J.P. Morgan II, where they endured his harsh and sometimes humiliating public examination. When Morgan confessed that he and many of his partners in the most powerful investment bank routinely paid no income taxes, the furious reaction of the public armed FDR with the political power to enforce reforms, despite the bitter opposition of the bankers. Tax avoidance by the wealthiest men on Wall Street was merely a tantalizing bagatelle in the trove of abuses uncovered by Pecora, whose findings ranged from the underwriting of bad securities to pay off unsound loans (which may sound familiar) to the inflation of banking stocks through deceptive practices (which may sound familiar, too).

What Pelosi and her colleagues appear to be preparing, with the apparent assent of President Obama, is much weaker stuff. She has said that we need to find out what really happened to the nation’s finances in order “to make sure something like this never happens again.” But if the stakes are so high, why should this grave responsibility be turned over to retired politicians, former federal appointees and academics, as now seems most likely? Reuters has reported that the new commission’s members will probably include former Sens. Fred Thompson, Jake Garn and Bob Graham, along with former Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born (the most impressive name floated so far) and Alex Pollock, a conservative economist from the American Enterprise Institute. Is anyone yawning yet?

By consigning this historic investigation to an unelected panel, the congressional Democrats are running away from the mission of change that they were elected to fulfill—and the president who popularized that message is implicated in that error as well. What the nation needs now is a serious investigation, backed by the full authority of a joint congressional committee and spearheaded by a professional prosecutor like the brilliant Pecora—not a cowardly evasion and a mush-mouthed “bipartisan” report.

"At Jail in Bagram, A Detainee Protest"

WaPo:

The prisoners at the largest U.S. detention facility in Afghanistan have refused to leave their cells for at least the past two weeks to protest their indefinite imprisonment, according to lawyers and the families of detainees.

The prison-wide protest, which has been going on since at least July 1, offers a rare glimpse inside a facility that is even more closed off to the public than the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Information about the protest came to light when the International Committee of the Red Cross informed the families of several detainees that scheduled video teleconferences and family visits were being canceled.

Representatives of the ICRC, which monitors the treatment of detainees and arranges the calls, last visited the Bagram prison on July 5, but inmates were unwilling to meet with them.

"We have suspended our video telephone conference and family visit programs because the detainees have informed us they do not wish to participate in the programs for the time being," said Bernard Barrett, a spokesman for the organization.

Although the prisoners are refusing to leave their cells to shower or exercise, they are not engaging in hunger strikes or violence. Ramzi Kassem, an attorney for Yemeni national Amin al-Bakri, said detainees are protesting being held indefinitely without trial or legal recourse.

"We don't want to hold detainees longer than necessary," said a U.S. military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We engage in regular releases and transfers when we feel a detainee's threat can be sufficiently mitigated to warrant being released or transferred. Of course, there will continue to be some detainees whose high threat level can only be successfully mitigated via detention, but we review their status regularly to assess whether other options are available."

Unlike at Guantanamo Bay, where detainees have access to lawyers, the 620 prisoners at Bagram are not permitted to visit with their attorneys. Afghan government representatives are generally not allowed to visit or inspect the Bagram facility.

President Obama signed an executive order in January to review detention policy options. The Justice Department is leading an interagency task force examining the issue and is set to deliver a report to the president on Tuesday.

In recent years, Bagram became the destination for many terrorism suspects as Guantanamo Bay came under more scrutiny through legal challenges. The last significant group transfer from the battlefield to the prison in Cuba occurred in September 2004, when 10 detainees were moved there; in September 2006, 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo Bay from secret CIA prisons. Since then, six detainees have been moved there.

The Bagram prison population, meanwhile, has ballooned. U.S. officials are building a bigger facility there that will hold nearly 1,000.

The Bagram facility includes inmates from Afghanistan as well as those arrested by U.S. authorities in other countries as part of counterterrorism efforts. The prison now holds close to 40 detainees who are not Afghan citizens, many of whom were not captured in Afghanistan.

In April, a D.C. district judge ruled that the Supreme Court decision that extended habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay also applied to a certain set of detainees held at Bagram -- those who were not arrested in Afghanistan and who are not Afghan citizens. The Justice Department has appealed the decision.

The indefinite detention of Afghan prisoners also has been a source of anger among Afghan citizens, human rights advocates say. "U.S. detention policy is destroying the trust and confidence that many Afghans had in U.S. forces when they first arrived in the country," said Jonathan Horowitz, a consultant at the Open Society Institute, which seeks to promote democracy around the world. Horowitz is in Afghanistan interviewing the relatives of Bagram detainees, as well as former Bagram prisoners.

Howie P.S.: This issue would seem to make our crucial task of "winning the hearts and minds" of the local citizens more difficult.

Connelly: Don't drag Hutchison "through the mud"

Joel Connelly takes on "some" liberal bloggers that would be (Goldy and Erica Barnett) for making an issue of her religious practices and accuses the "militant secularists" of sexism, name-calling, guilt by association, broad-brush smears and demeaning sarcasm. Joel's advice to the anti-Hutchison campaigners:

Nor should Hutchison get dragged through the mud over a discrimination suit -- later settled -- that she filed against KIRO-TV after it demoted her and a younger person was brought in to host the evening news.

Instead, we should ask a question she didn't answer at Thursday's debate: Will Hutchison try to change (read dismantle) King County's urban growth boundaries? Will the Building Industry Association of Washington find in her a willing ally? Hutchison has excoriated the county's Critical Areas ordinance as a scourge on rural residents. "It tells citizens who own land how they will use it," she told a Bellevue debate on Thursday.

Howie P.S.: As one who has publicly chided the local media (not Joel!) for their under-reporting on this race, I feel some responsibility to chime in here: I think Joel's advice is wise. There is plenty to talk about Susan on the secular issues. In Goldy's defense, he did post "Susan Hutchison: “I oppose legal abortion” --a legitimate political issue, but not one central to the King County Executive job, as far as I can tell. For evidence of Goldy's interest in Hutchison's religous views, see "Is Susan Hutchison a “wedge” candidate?"

"AMA backs House health-care bill"

First Read (MSNBC-Mark Murray):

In what appears to be a pretty significant development in the fight over health care, the American Medical Association has written House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel a letter supporting the $1 trillion-plus Democratic House health-care bill.

"On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,'" says Dr. Michael Maves, the AMA's executive vice president and CEO.

"This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House."

Maves concludes, "The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans."

Below is the full letter....

July 16, 2009
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Rangel:

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009." This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.

In particular, we are pleased that the bill:
• Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;
• Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;
• Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;
• Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;
• Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;
• Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;
• Strengthens the Medicaid program;
• Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;
• Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;
• Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and
• Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.

The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America's patients.

Sincerely,
Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA

Rep. Joe Courtney to Congress: "You Have Public Health Plan. Why Not American People?" (video)

Greg Sargent, with video (04:52):

It’s not every day that you hear a member of Congress call out his colleagues quite this aggressively.

Check out this video (above) of Dem Rep Joe Courtney, demanding that members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, explain why it’s okay for them to oppose a public health insurance option when they themselves enjoy exactly the same thing.

Courtney rapped his colleagues for opposing the public plan this way:

When I listen to the hysterical descriptions of what is in this legislation, I would remind many members to look at themselves in the mirror. Because what they are presently entitled to as members of Congress is exactly what this legislation is proposing to create for all Americans.

Courtney went on to blast opposition to the public plan as “hogwash,” and concluded: “At the end of the day, we must give the people of this country exactly what they give us.”

I’d only add that if Courtney wants a major breakout moment on the House floor, he might start naming specific colleagues who enjoy public health insurance but don’t want to extend it to the public at large. Still, it’s strong stuff, in an understated way, and I suggest you watch the whole thing.

Howard Dean Clears the Air on Health Care and Politics Today (video)

GRITtv, video.

Howie P.S.: This interview by Laura Flanders just posted online, is one of the best interviews with Howard Dean I have seen.

"Ask the candidates: King County executive webcast" (video)

Seattle Times, video (14:59):

On July 15, The Seattle Times' editorial board interviewed King County executive candidates during a live webcast. The candidates are Dow Constantine, Ross Hunter, Susan Hutchison, Fred Jarrett, Larry Phlilips and Alan Lobdell.

Howie P.S.: Reluctantly, I am linking to this publication because there is so little available information about this upcoming primary election. Check the side-by-side statements and draw your own conclusions.

"Key labor union backs Constantine in King Co. exec race"

Joel Connelly:

Three big locals of the Service Employees International Union are throwing their weight behind Dow Constantine's candidacy for King County executive, giving him a big boost for the Aug. 18 primary.

The locals have a combined membership of 65,000, with 20,000 of those members living in King County.

Constantine, a King County Councilman, has been in hot competition for labor support with council colleague and fellow exec candidate Larry Phillips.

"We feel Dow is the best person for the job, and the strongest candidate to take on Susan Hutchison in November," Adam Glickman, an SEIU spokesman, said Wednesday.

Hutchison, former KIRO TV news anchor, has Republican ties. She leads early polls, even though King County gave big margins to Democrats in last November's elections.

The SEIU Locals 6, 775 and 1199 represent hospital and mental health workers, long-term care workers plus janitors and security guards.

The SEIU is a forceful outfit in West Coast politics. It was a major presence in this state's 2004 and 200 gubernatorial campaigns. It backed Chris Gregoire in 2004 and helped fund a front group called Evergreen Progress that spent millions of dollars in 2008 attacking her GOP opponent Dino Rossi.

The SEIU has had one big setback. It blew away more than $250,000 in a 2004 primary challenge to Democratic state Rep. Helen Sommers, the most influential budger writer in the state Legislature.

Constantine has collared big union endorsements, even if Phillips does have backing from public employees unions. The Boeing Machinists endorsed Constantine last week.
Glickman said the SEIU will be contacting its members to tout Constantine as the best candidate.

In 2001, a concerted effort by organized labor to contact union families is credited with helping elect Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels by a narrow 8,000 vote margin. Unions may be losing clout nationally, but the remain a strong presence in King County politics.

"Hutchison leads in new county exec poll, Constantine second"

Joel Connelly:

As her opponents struggle to get recognized, former KIRO-TV news anchor Susan Hutchison maintains her lead in the race for King County Executive, according to the latest SurveyUSA poll taken for KING 5 news.

Hutchison is at 39 percent, down slightly from her 41 percent showing in a poll three weeks ago.

King County Councilman Dow Constantine is a distant second at 12 percent, unchanged from the previous poll. Constantine picked up two major union endorsements last week, including the Boeing Machinists.

Fellow King County Councilman Larry Phillips scored 8 percent, up one point from last month.

Still far behind, but on the upswing, is State Sen. Fred Jarrett, D-Mercer Island, who has criticized the number of King County employees earning more than $100,000 a year. He has climbed from 4 to 7 percent.

State Rep. Ross Hunter was at 6 percent, unchanged from June. Other candidates collectively took 5 percent.

In a mail-in election, held in a season when Northwest residents tune out politics, the SurveyUSA poll has taken on the status of an oracle.

The election has been fought in debates and endorsement battles before Democratic district organizations, unions and environmental groups.

While TV stations pay for polls, the race for King County's highest office has received little time on the evening news, nor has there been much coverage on the troubled condition of King County government.

One widely told joke is that, to get airtime, a county executive candidate would have to be injured in a bad car crash, be rescued while swimming, or be caught running a puppy mill.

Hutchison has Republican ties in a county that went two-to-one for Barack Obama last year. She has donated to such GOP candidates as 2008 presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee.

But the King County Executive post has become officially non-partisan. Hence, Hutchison is a heavy favorite to prevail in the Aug. 18 primary. Mail-in ballots will be mailed out on July 29.

The quartet of Democratic officeholders - Constantine, Phillips, Jarrett and Hunter - are left to compete for second place, and a spot on the November ballot.

The SurveyUSA poll was conducted July 11 to 13. It contacted a total of 1,350 adults in King County, 504 deemed likely to vote in the primary.

Howie P.S.: Once again our local media (not Joel!) has failed us so we need Goldy to educate the voters about Hutchison, like he did about David Irons.