Archives for April 2010

As in the last fundraiser, this post isn’t pre-approved by Goldy. I’m proud to write here, and I’m proud to give money every fundraiser (and last year when he said there would be a fundraiser that never materialized). It isn’t the only blog I’ve donated money to, but it’s by far the one I’ve donated the most to. Here’s why:

Even with my poor contribution bringing the quality down, HA is one of the best written blogs around. It’s fearless, fun, wonkish and whimsical. Sometimes all in the same day. Sometimes all in the same post. That’s a lot of work for just about every non open thread post, and there’s work keeping up the quality of the blog over several years. We’ve seen plenty of bloggers on the left and on the right bow out in the years that Goldy has been writing here. I value good writing, and contribute accordingly.

And while it’s true that there is good writing elsewhere on the web, another thing I value about HA is the impact it has here in Washington and in the Seattle/King County area. From Brownie to scaring the AG’s office and the proposed Chihuly museum, Goldy has been moving the narrative nationally — but mostly locally — for years. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he doesn’t. This blog has helped push the dialogue and frame the issues better than most elected officials and pundits in the area.

And having seen only a fraction of the work involved, I know that doesn’t come easily. As a poster here, I’ve been privy to various conversations and email exchanges about how to improve the site. And the back end is a lot of work: Despite being one of the least policed comment threads among blogs, just adhering to the minimum standards takes a good deal of work. There’s a whole host of coding and back end work that you (hopefully) never see, but that keep the blog running well.

Finally, we need an alternative to the mainstream media in general. There are things that the Seattle Times does well, including investigative reporting and, um, being on paper. But their editorials are biased toward the powerful, their print edition is tiny, and their online presence is a joke. The rest of the daily papers and TV news in the state are generally worse. While Goldy and the rest of the crew here do a pretty good job holding the Times’ feet to the fire, the best is when we cover stories where the Times and others drop the ball.

This kind of new media, even done right, may not be as expensive as the old was to create, but it’s by no means free. So please join me in giving to Goldy and keeping HA running.

Does this make you uneasy?

Sharp-eyed readers might have noticed something truly unusual in Gannett’s New Jersey newspapers. A new byline started appearing this month on articles about the New Jersey Devils hockey team, with a note under each piece stating that the author, Eric Marin, is employed by the Devils, not Gannett.

Newspapers struggling to plug the gaps in their newsrooms have been turning to outside organizations to supply articles, raising questions about their ability to vouch for the material they print. At the same time, professional sports teams, trying to make up for declining news coverage, have been hiring journalists for their Web sites.

Yeah sure, it’s only sports. But sports coverage and political coverage have so much in common, both in the character of the coverage and its gradual decline, so… well… it’s only a matter of time. Mark my words: candidates will start covering their own campaigns, and it will end up influencing coverage in the broader, legacy press.

And when that time comes, these professional editors — many of whom routinely dis the kinda activist journalism produced by openly biased bloggers like me — how will they justify this new business model?

“As long as it served our readers and we told them where that content was coming from, the readers were fine with it,” said Hollis Towns, executive editor of The Asbury Park Press, the largest of the state’s six Gannett papers. “I think journalists get hung up on certain lines of what’s ethical more than the readers.”

Welcome to my brave new world.

65 loyal readers have generously contributed $3,440 to the HA Fund Drive so far, plus one cynical donation of $0.33 from our friend Stefan at (un)Sound Politics. (I guess sucking off the public teat has only made Stefan even more ungenerous.) Not counting Stefan, that’s an impressive average of almost $53 per contribution, which brings us nearly a quarter of the way toward our $25,000 target when combined with SEIU 775’s $2,500 sponsorship pledge.

Noticeably light on the donor list so far are elected officials and other public figures, so I want to take a moment to reassure folks that I am not operating as a PAC or any other sort of regulated organization, and thus have no disclosure requirements whatsoever. Income from this fund drive will be reported as such to the IRS, but the names of my benefactors will remain confidential.

Is this legal? Absolutely. I’m nothing more than a crowd-funded, independent journalist. It’s a crappy business model, but a business of sorts nonetheless.

Is this ethical? You betcha. I’ve never, ever covered a story as part of a quid pro quo, and never will. Nor have I run away from an issue or an angle out of fear of the consequences, financial or otherwise. Everybody knows my bias, so if you’re one of those politicians or public employees whose candidacy or issues I’m biased towards, and you’d like me to continue in my role helping to shape the public debate, then please show your support by giving generously today.

Anybody else notice that the Seattle Times op/ed page has seemed to moderate a little bit in the wake of the reader backlash generated by their execrable and condescending defense of Rob McKenna’s grandstanding anti-HCR lawsuit?

Now I’m not suggesting that the Times editors consciously adjusted their bias in response to angry emails and canceled subscriptions, but then I’ve never believed that the bulk of media bias is conscious. But the page has seemed a bit more reasonable in recent weeks.

Or maybe, eternal optimist that I am, I’m just seeing what I want to see?

Apparently, the dozen or so declared candidates in the Republican contest to get one’s ass kicked by Sen. Patty Murray this November are just as much in the dark about Dino Rossi’s intentions as everybody else. Though a quick read between the lines sure does suggest that a Rossi v. Murray matchup is not likely to happen…

Among the people Republican Don Benton consulted before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in early February was Dino Rossi.

Rossi, a friend of Benton’s and arguably Washington’s most prominent Republican, gave no hint that he might have designs on running himself.

Chris Widener, a Preston motivational speaker and author, said he would drop his bid for the Senate if Rossi were to run. […] Widener and his wife, Lisa, have been friends with Rossi since they joined the same baby-sitting co-op as new parents in 1992. The two men have remained close, and Widener said he speaks to Rossi regularly.

Yet, Widener said, he’s just as much in suspense as anyone about Rossi’s intentions.

These are folks who know Rossi, who are friendly with him, and who are already in the race. So you’d think if Rossi really intended to run, he’d have the courtesy to give them a heads up.

And then there’s Clint Didier, who hopes to ride a mediocre pro-football career and teabagger anger through the August primary. His campaign offers a different kinda hint as to what the Republican rainmakers expect from Rossi:

“I am a true conservative Republican,” said Didier, who has recruited Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman Jr. as his finance chair.

Freeman and his wife gave $8,600 to Rossi for his two gubernatorial campaigns, and now he’s the finance chair for a candidate destined to be an also-also-ran? Doesn’t really sound like Freeman expects Rossi to run, and as a nutty as he might be, he’s pretty much a consummate GOP insider.

So, yeah, once again, I just don’t see it.

On this anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, it is important to note that, as always, the real threat of domestic terrorism comes from the left. Because unlike the peaceful, tea-sipping patriots above, we’re the ones constantly riling up our base with fantasies of armed marches on Washington.

So watch out America, we’re coming to take away your guns and turn your children gay, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us!

UPDATE:
My how quickly the teabaggers attempt to cover their tracks. The video quickly removed by the owner once he realized it was being used to show their true colors. Hopefully the folks at TPM downloaded a copy and will get it back online.

What Joel said….

Last week’s contest was won by mlc1us. It was Mattapoisett, MA.

I’m without internet access for the weekend as I’m in the middle of moving from North Seattle to Renton. And along with the change in my home base, I’m planning to add a new twist to these contests starting next week. In the meantime, this is contest #80 so far at HA, good luck!

Proverbs 11:25
The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.

Discuss.

Just two days into HA’s $25,000 Fund Drive, 47 loyal readers have already contributed a total of $2,225. Combine that with SEIU 775’s $2,500 sponsorship pledge, and we’re nearly one fifth of the way toward our target. Thank you all for your generosity.

As expected, the comment threads on these fund raising posts are filled with angry trolls telling me to quit my begging and just go get a job. Of course, they’d like nothing more than to see HA shut down; you don’t think they put so much time and effort into disrupting my comment threads because they welcome a vigorous, informed debate? But in fact, a blog like HA, if done right, is a full time job… just not one that provides much of an income.

I spend hours a day, most holidays and weekends included, researching and writing posts, and while my prose may often sound conversational or even improvisational, I’m actually a very careful, deliberate and excruciatingly slow writer. But the time it takes to write a post is nothing compared to the time I’ve invested in the several dozen videos I’ve created over the past few years.

Take for example the Susan Hutchison video above, which effectively eviscerates her attempt to explain away her $500 donation to Mike Huckabee as an impulse of somebody new to the world of political giving. Just figuring out how to fit the content to the 1:26 musical clip I’d picked out was a chore in itself; the entire video production took the better part of a night before it finally felt right. And this was my second video swipe at this particular Hutchison obfuscation.

The point is, keeping HA relevant, informative, effective, engaging and entertaining takes a helluva lot of work, and it’s just not something I can maintain anywhere near it’s current form on top of a 9 to 5 job. So if you enjoy HA, and want me to continue doing the job I do helping to keep our journalists and politicians honest, then I need more than your kind words. I need your financial support. So please give today.

No, really… this is an editorial from the Seattle Times:

LISTENING to Republican senators mouth scripted lines opposing financial regulatory reforms is to hear them auditioning for jobs as industry lobbyists after Congress.

… [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell and his colleagues do not offer any suggestions or ideas about how to rein in the most reckless — and lucrative — behavior by commercial and investment banks.

Nor do Republicans offer any leadership in providing American consumers and investors with trustworthy, accessible information about investment products, and their hazards to the treasury. How or why the GOP would oppose such elementary transparency must puzzle voters.

Huh. And on a similar note, how or why the Times would consistently endorse such Republicans must puzzle its readers.

The unsigned editorial goes on to laud U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell for her leadership on this issue, a Democrat whose candidacy the Times has twice opposed despite the fact that during the run up to her 2006 reelection the editorial board agreed with Cantwell on nearly every single issue except her opposition to repealing the estate tax.

Does anyone believe that had Times-endorsed, insurance industry executive Mike McGavick won the 2006 campaign, he’d cast anything but a party-line vote against financial regulatory reform, let alone provide the kind of effective legislative leadership we’ve seen from Cantwell? I don’t think so.

The Times’ endorsements have proven incredibly predictable in recent years, even the Democratic bones they toss readers in an effort to maintain a semblance of nonpartisanship. (This cycle it will be Patty Murray, even if Dino Rossi enters the race. Mark my words.) So if they’re going to complain about “Republicans missing in action,” shouldn’t they be focusing on Western Washington’s only congressional Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert, who recently voted against financial regulatory reform along with every single other House Republican?

No doubt when they endorse him again next October, the Times will praise Reichert for his moderation and bipartisanship — you know, his “conscience-driven independence” — but apart from some environmental issues, and that one vote on Terri Schiavo, when has he ever bucked his party leadership when it really mattered?

The Times implies that Republican opposition to financial regulatory reform stems from greed — the lure of an eventual windfall as a Wall Street lobbyist — and who am I to dispute such a cynical assertion? But given the bigger picture, one in which House and Senate Republicans vote as a unified block against nearly everything President Obama proposes or supports, one can only understand their uncompromising obstructionism as part of an even more cynical political strategy.

So the question is, at what point will Republican boosters like the Times editorial board hold the candidates they endorse responsible for the votes they cast? At what point, instead of simply castigating Republicans in general, will the Times call out Republican Reichert for his own lockstep politics and lack of leadership?

Personally, I’m not holding my breath.

(And you can find plenty more of the week’s best media at Hominid Views.)

Yesterday I asked for your financial support to help keep me blogging through the end of the year, and 31 loyal readers quickly responded with $1,515 in individual contributions over just the first 24 hours. And SEIU 775, the long-term care workers union, just became HA’s first institutional sponsor, pledging to purchase $2,500 in advertising over the remaining year.

Thank you all for generosity.

That’s a great start to my first fundraising drive in two years, but we’re still a long ways from our $25,000 goal. $25K may seem like a lot of money, but not when you’re living on it, and it’s the bare minimum I need to keep the lights on and the mortgage paid over the next 8 months.

Am I worth it? You decide. Was it worth having me blogging when I exposed failed FEMA Director Mike Brown’s emergency management “experience” as consisting of supervising horse show judges for the International Arabian Horse Association, a post that moved national headlines and ultimately led to his ouster? Was I worth your support when I knocked David Irons out of the 2005 King County Executive race with my exposé on his physically violent family feud?

Is it worth having me here to watchdog the out-of-touch and condescending editors at the Seattle Times, and to help set the media frame on any number of local issues?

If it is, then I need your support, because without it I simply cannot continue blogging. It’s not a threat, it’s not a complaint… it’s just a simple economic reality. So if you want to maintain HA as one of the best written, best read and most surprisingly influential local political blogs in the nation, please give generously today. And then badger your fellow travelers to do the same.

While Jon focused solely on the WA-03 money race, Publicola brings us the numbers from WA-08, where Republican incumbent Dave Reichert reportedly raised about $350,000 in the first quarter and is sitting on about $700,000, while Democratic challenger Suzan DelBene raised $225,000 in the quarter for $840,000 cash on hand.

But in attempting to clarify these numbers, Publicola only muddles things up:

Footnote on DelBene: She spent $160,000 this quarter and has almost $400,000 in liabilities, which means she actually has about $460,000 in cash after having raised $920,000 overall. Reichert, who’s raised about $1 million overall, has over $700,000 in cash after liabilities.

Yeah, well, not really. DelBene’s “almost $400,000 in liabilities” largely refers to a $350,000 personal loan. From a financial strength perspective, whether she pays herself back or not really isn’t an issue as long as she doesn’t pay herself back until after the election.

Reichert, although lacking the resources to self-finance, similarly benefits from loans of a sort, routinely spending his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt, which he eventually pays off with money raised for the next campaign. That’s why, while raising over $1.3 million this cycle (not the “$920,000” total Publicola reports), Reichert only has $715,000 cash on hand; most of the rest of the money went to paying off last election’s debt.

So an apple to apple comparison does indeed show that DelBene currently enjoys an $839K to $715K cash on hand advantage over the incumbent. As for fundraising strength and enthusiasm, yes, DelBene’s totals are inflated by about $534K in self-financing, but that’s roughly equivalent to Reichert’s advantage in big money contributions from PACs. Overall, Reichert has raised only slightly more in individual contributions, while DelBene enjoys more individual contributors.

In other words, it looks like Reichert is facing yet another competitive challenger, as opposed to our state delegation’s other seven incumbents, who by comparison, all currently enjoy a better than five to one money advantage over their closest opponent.

No, actually, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna isn’t filing a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s executive order mandating that all U.S. hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid funding (and that’s pretty much all of them) must extend visitation and other rights to same-sex couples, but if he was intellectually consistent, he would. I mean, how is this legally different from the HCR Medicaid mandates that McKenna disingenuously claims exceed the fed’s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment?

Or does McKenna only spend our state tax dollars on constitutional challenges to federal laws and regulations that he finds politically advantageous to challenge? In which case, a little free political advice to McKenna: considering the homophobic bent of the Republican primary voters you are clearly attempting woo, perhaps you should take the lead and file a lawsuit challenging the same-sex visitation mandate?  I guarantee you it would make you a star on Fox News, and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from hateful homophobes nationwide.