– I’ve said it before, but the HA servers ate that thread, so I’ll say it again. For goodness sake, you should really read Melissa McEwan’s primary updates.
– The school closure list.
– Mark your calendars, Chocolate for Choice is March 15.
– Soldier Beetles aren’t a plague.
– The Golden Rule is now bad. I can’t keep up.
Maybe we were all spoiled by the 2008 primary where Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and others had detailed policies on health care that they regularly defended. They had different plans for getting out of Iraq and other foreign policy positions. They differed on how to fix the over 4 dollar gas. In short, whatever silly nonsense distracted us throughout the campaign, the issues got discussed and hashed out in a meaningful way. I could tell people that even though I liked Clinton generally, I preferred Obama’s timetable in Iraq, etc.
Compared to the 2012 GOP contest, holy cow. I don’t know any of Romney’s plans. Well, that’s not entirely true: I know he put out a 523 (approximately, I didn’t look it up) point plan to fix the economy, but I can’t remember the last time he’s had to defend it, let alone speak intelligently about it. And I don’t know what’s in it. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think so: I’ve listened to several debates and read countless articles and blog posts about the campaign, so it isn’t like I’m uninformed.
And I haven’t heard any of the other candidates fill in the void. Newt Gingrich’s big plan seems to be to mine the Moon (a plan I’m fine with, but I don’t think it’s the easiest thing in space to get back to Earth once it’s mined) and he gets billed as their idea person. Huntsman was known (to the extent he was known for anything) for not thinking global warming was bunk, but he didn’t have a plan to fix it so far as I can tell. Perry is proud of Jesus, or something. No one really debated what it means to be a Republican or even basic policy other than Paul.
I’m not sure why that’s the case. Maybe an anti-incumbency mood in the Republican Party has pushed the candidates to explain why they hate Obama more than to explain their own policies. I mean we had a pretty anti-incumbent mood in 2008, but we knew he’d be out of the White House no matter what, so we could focus on issues a bit more. Maybe it’s the Romney inevitability, but Clinton’s health plan came out when she was still perceived in many circles to be inevitable. Maybe Democratic voters actually care about issues more than the Republicans. I don’t know, but after today’s 100,005th (approximately, I didn’t look it up) GOP debate, I still don’t know much about what kind of president Romney, or the other people running for the office would be or what policies they’re pushing.
There is supposed to be a Republican Primary debate starting at 6PM local. I haven’t got the streaming to work yet. I post what I can, when I can.
6:24: Okay…here is a working live stream.”
6:26: Santorum is all over Mitt right now…asking about whether felons who have served their time should get their voting rights back. “No,” says Mitt.
6:28: Mitt comes out against superPACs.
6:29: I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but things are a bit feisty. I tuned in while Santorum was attacking Mitt because a superPAC attacked him for voting to restore felon rights. Sounds like I missed some fireworks over Bain Capital.
6:36: Mitt is asked about flip-flopping and launches into a canned stump speech. Then the feed locks up.
6:39: I get tuned back in with Perry on a “war on religion rant.” Something about “sexually trafficing”
6:42: Newt speaks! “Unemployment should be tied to a job requirement.” Doh!
6:48: Again my feed cuts out and when I come back Ron Paul has, apparently, gone from making some point to descended into babbling mode.
6:50: Ron Paul wants 0 taxes for all..”just like we had until 1913.”
6:51: Did Mitt just agree to release his taxes in April?!?
6:54: Juan Williams as Santorum if he things there should be programs to help raise African Americans out of poverty. Santorum’s answer: “Work, graduate from high school, and get married before having children.” Yeah…sure. Just let know the magic formula and have ’em click their heels three times….
6:57: Ron Paul points out that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with him on the drug war and the war wars. Maybe they would agree on a couple of issues, but the paths to get there are very different.
6:59: Newt mentions doughnuts…and my dinner is ready, so I’m going to go eat. Pretty fluffy debate so far….
7:14: I’m back…and Ron Paul is in an anti-war rant…again.
7:15: Mitt is all about killing!
7:15: Mitt claims that Obama is negotiating with terrorists…you know, like he did with Osama bin Laden.
7:16: Mitt seems to forget (or, perhaps, never knew) that the Taliban isn’t al Qaeda.
7:17: Shorter Santorum: Obama caused the Syrian unrest by coming into office and opening up a U.S. embassy there.
7:19: Debate moderator asks a question of Rick Perry that paints Turkey as an enemy of the U.S. Perry, “we need to send a message to Iran, and Syria, and Turkey…” Holy shit, is Perry an idiot!
7:21: Perry: “When the Department of Defense Secretary….”
7:23: Ron Paul gives Mitt a lesson about the difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda.
7:23: Mitt claims our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Really?
7:26: Listening to the Mittster, Santorum, and Paul on the defense authorization bill (exp. detention of U.S. citizens), Santorum ends up the moderate, Mitt the extremist. And Ron Paul is the guy who reached so far to the right that he ends up on the left.
7:32: Gingrich begins an answer: “It is, as a historian, a fact based model….”
7:36: Mitt and Santorum have gotten so practiced at their stump speeches, that they can spit them out much faster than I can even track ’em.
7:39: Gingrich manages to point out in two consecutive answers that he balanced the federal budget four times.
7:40: Mitt says his Social Security plan is better because it doesn’t suffer the problem that Gingrich’s does: “Fiscal insanity.”
7:46: Mitt claims that he believes that Obama is trying to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. Really? How?
7:47: Mitt has been hunting for either elk or moose since 2008.
7:48: Santorum suggests that if there were no gun manufacturers in the U.S., our second amendment rights would, “de facto be gone.”
7:51: First Santorum was asking Mitt to “coordinate” with his PAC, now Newt Gingrich is asking him to “coordinate.” Mitt, in fact, spanks Newt by making him agree that calling up the PAC would be illegal.
7:54: Citizen’s United takes a bite out of the G.O.P. field: Mitt, “We all would like to see superPACs disappear, to tell the truth.”
7:57: The debate ends. I missed about 1/3 of the debate, but from what I see, Mitt wins yet again. He exits without a scratch. The post-debate pundits are talking about what an exciting debate it was, with so much “substance”. Not so much. The questions were about 50% fluff, and about 80% of all answers were candidates saying a sentence or two just to lead into a canned stump speech.
— Day of service honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
— Seattle marches in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
— Obama on MLK Day: It’s about service to others.
— January is usually the month I call my family in Wisconsin and complain about having to mow the lawn. This morning I woke up to a freakin’ Winter Wonder Land! Had to shovel the driveway!! Well…how about that forecast: five to eleven more inches by Wednesday!!!
— Speaking of Wisconsin, tomorrow is the day signatures are turned in for the Scott Walker recall drive.
— Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press/Northwest looks at House Bill 2500 that limits contributions for initiatives.
— You won’t have Jon Huntsman to kick around anymore.
— “Pro-life” candidate Rick Santorum: “…scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.”
Last week’s contest was won by Darryl. It was the hockey arena in Johnstown, PA, whose minor league hockey team in the 1970s, the Jets, became the inspiration for the movie Slapshot.
This week’s contest is a location somewhere in Washington state, good luck!
John 1:36
When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”John 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
A special puzzler edition of HA Bible Study. Find the hidden meaning, and then discuss.
Sorry if any of these links have previously been shared/discussed – I’ve been a busy fella…
– Not a big surprise that people who espouse bigotry don’t have the courage to explain their rationale to a public audience.
– This article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a great window into how the law enforcement community doesn’t understand the dynamics of drug markets. After 11 people were arrested in a drug sting in the small western Pennsylvania town of Clairton, the police chief foolishly expected crime to go down. Instead, the void was filled with a new wave of violence as new dealers fought to re-establish control of the trade.
– If the low-level war between Iran and Israel continues to escalate, none of us are ready for how crazy the 2012 election season will be. If the Obama Administration gets pulled into bigger conflict as the GOP (with right-wing Israeli allies) tries to defeat him in November, things are going to get ugly. Yes, this is probably obvious, but holy crap does it feel very ominous to me.
– TPM reported this week that Justice Scalia is being “boxed in” by his decision in Raich v. Gonzales when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (or for the yokels in the comment threads, “ObamaCare”). I’ve written about how GOP Gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna has also been exposed as a massive hypocrite over this. It looks like there might actually be a very big risk in hippie-punching.
A stranger rolled into town last week and left behind numerous IEDs—or improvised expression devices—subjecting commuters in our region to the terrors of unchecked free expression.
Once again FreewayBlogger left his marks all over the highways of Seattle:
After taking a few years off, FreewayBlogger is back at it, posting along the highways up and down the West Coast. These days he is blogging about corporate “personhood”, corporate greed, economic disparity, and anthropogenic climate change.
He is asking for your help.
During the later part of the Bush/Cheney regime, he blogged some great slogans like “Chimpeach”, “Osama bin Forgotten,” “Misery Accomplished,” and something with that silhouette of a wired Iraqi prisoner:
What he needs now are relevant, short, catchy slogans for his signs. Check out FreewayBlogger’s newer signs, and if you have ideas for new slogans, leave ’em in that comment thread.
Another way you can help is by doing your own freeway blogging. Check out FreewayBlogger’s videos “How To Reach 100,000 People For Under $1.00” and “How To Make A Sign In 5 Minutes.”
The last time FreewayBlogger was in town, we spent an enjoyable afternoon at my house making new signs—here is my report to The General back in the Summer of 2007.
ONN: Grover Norquist confesses to weeklong drug-fueled orgy with corporate income taxes:
Ed: MT Supreme Court takes on Citizens United.
Stephen discusses Superpacs on Monday Night’s “Rock Center”.
Gitmo: TEN MORE YEARS!
White House: West Wing Week.
Red State Update: Jackie Broyles Racist Newsletter.
Alyona: Barbour misuses pardon power.
Young Turks: Military torture tactics are creeping into civilian policing.
Jennifer Granholm: How Republicans get people to vote against their own interests.
Stephen: The Obama halloween scandal.
The Republican Primary Asylum:
Alyona’s Tool Time: TSA’s top 10 catches lacks terrorists.
Jon warns Iran.
White House: Michelle Obama Tweets.
Pap: Racism prevalent at GOP primaries.
Shuster with Lizz Winstead: Warren Buffett’s challenge to Congress.
ONN: MN braces for return of Michele and other news of the week.
Greenman: Climate and sea level: An emerging hockey stick:
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
Yes, I’m the person who thought he was going to get a solid 3rd place in Iowa, so what the fuck do I know? But seeing Perry screw up the what departments would you eliminate (h/t) question again I think he’s not in it to win it. I think the whole project is one of running for 2016.
Now hear me out: When he got into the race late, we all assumed he looked at that weak field, figured “all of these anti-Romneys are awful so it may as well be me.” But what if he saw that same weak field and thought, “there’s no heir apparent when Romeny loses, why not me?”
Now for this to work, you have to accept that the Republican party supports whoever it has felt it’s their time. This year it’s Romeny’s time because he lost to McCain in 2008. In 2008, it was McCain’s time because he lost to W. Bush in 2000. In 2000 it was Bush II’s time because the GOP will support a dynasty. Dole and Pops Bush had been VP nominees and thus it was their time when they were picked, etc.
That’s a bit esoteric, and not everybody buys it. But perhaps Perry looked at that crowd and thought Romney can fuck up in the general, and if I run and lose the nomination, I can be the next in line. Huntsman was never going to be next in line. Bachmann was never going to expand past her Tea Party base. Santorum and Gingrich left DC in disgrace, so it wasn’t going to be them.
And this actually explains a bit about the Perry campaign. The gaffs serve 2 functions: first they make sure he didn’t screw it up by winning this time. He doesn’t have the money or the organization to do his best in a general election, so he doesn’t want to win the primary and screw it up. It also sets the bar incredibly low next time. If he can count to 3, people will remark on how improved his 2016 version run is over 2012. It also explains why he ever went negative on Romney as fiercely as Newt. He doesn’t want to upset the insiders who support Romney this time around.
Of course, there are a few things that don’t fit. The most likely next in line is whoever Romney picks as VP. If it’s someone who can run successfully on their own, well, they’re the next in line. But, Palin, Cheney, Kemp, and Quayle haven’t run for President, so it’s not a given. The most likely answer to why he keeps screwing up may be as a friend of mine, a recent Austin transplant, explained to me, “he’s just dumb.”
Here is the Gingrich-affiliated hit-video against Mitt Romney. It is worth a look, but recognize it for what it is: propaganda from wingnuts.
A grenade has been lobbed. What we have here is Republican on Republican violence. It will probably hurt Mitt Romney even going into the general election. Nate Silver gives several cogent reason why.
It is amusing—particularly watching the battles, but is it right? Today the Washington Post Fact Checker gives the video Four Pinocchios:
Romney may have opened the door to this kind of attack with his suspect job-creation claims, but that is no excuse for this highly misleading portrayal of Romney’s years at Bain Capital. Only one of the four case studies directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.
The Fact Checker documentation seems pretty convincing. But, if you want a second opinion, and you haven’t written off PolitiFact, they promise to take a look. I suspect they will give a similar assessment.
This episode has an amusing lesson. We learn that the Republicans have turned their guns on themselves. The Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was a powerful weapon for the G.O.P, but they couldn’t manage that power. Are you surprised?
This episode fundamentally reflects the increasing acceptance by Republicans of sacrificing the truth, or ANYTHING, for political power. That alone, is a good starting point for attacking Romney, and the sleazy things he says and will say about Obama.
This is another lesson for Democrats: If you are going to do a hit piece, keep it real. Romney has plenty of negatives—some that might even be related to corporate raiding. So use the truth…. As much as I want Romney’s credibility as a presidential candidate destroyed, I cannot condone Swiftboating.
In the post for the start of the legislative session, I mentioned briefly a bill that would mandate that insurance providers cover abortions in Washington State. I haven’t seen anything approaching a whip count, so I don’t know if it stands any chance of passing, so feel free to contact your legislators.
Hopefully there are enough votes, because passing this would be a very positive thing. It would make sure that women (and trans men, I assume, but I can’t tell from the press release) who get pregnant have options. Like so much with health care, the goal, one hopes, is to make sure that people have the best options available to them, and that people not be priced out of health care.
Women in Washington ought to have the best access to health care including access to an abortion. And they shouldn’t have to buy a separate rider or pay out of pocket; that’s why we have health insurance in the first place, after all.
Additionally, a lot of people don’t have much choice in their health insurance: they have the choice the company they work for provides. This law will provide that a boss or a union that doesn’t think to provide that care doesn’t negatively affect them. And an anti-choice boss doesn’t get to make that decision for the women who work for them.
Washington state has a chance to do something good when so often we hear negative news from the states on abortion/reproductive rights issues.
Washington’s remodeled 1st congressional district is getting pretty damn crowded with congressional candidates.
Today Democrat Susan DelBene announced her run for Congress. She joins a pack of Democrats, including Darcy Burner, Laura Ruderman, state Rep. Roger Goodman, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Darshan Rauniyar.
DelBene ran against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) in 2010, narrowly losing. Burner has run for congress twice—2006 and 2008—narrowly losing to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) each time.
The Republicans in the race are John Koster and James Watkins. Koster ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), losing in 2004 and narrowly losing in 2010. Watkins lost to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2010.
Sometime in the next week, Larry Ismael is expected to formally declare as an independent candidate. Ismael ran as a Republican against Inslee in 2006 and 2008, losing to Inslee by a 3 2:1 margin each time.
It is hard to tell who the front runner is at this point. The closest thing we have to a poll is from the Burner campaign. Late last year, they ran it in the proposed first district in order to test the waters:
The pollster did a favorable/unfavorable on the possible female candidates: former state legislator Laura Ruderman, the top fund raiser in the current field; Darcy Burner; and Suzan DelBene, the Democrat who challenged Reichert in 2008, who has also talked about getting in this time.
Then the poll did a horse race check for all candidates; others include state Reps. Roger Goodman and Marko Liias, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Bothell business entrepreneur (and surprise fundraiser) Darshan Rauniyar.
Then there was a horse race question between Burner and James Watkins, the Republican whose going for Inslee’s seat.
The pollster released a highly abbreviated summary of the results:
- Darcy Burner has an overwhelming lead over all other declared Democratic candidates in the proposed new WA-01. In the primary election among Democratic voters, Burner leads with 47% of the Democratic vote, greatly exceeding the 12% the next Democrat receives, and is +7 points higher than the 40% garnered by the entire rest of the field.
- Among all voters in the primary election, Burner also leads all other Democratic candidates by huge margins—27% support Burner while the next closest Democrat draws just 7% of the vote. In fact, Burner draws greater support than all other Democratic candidates COMBINED (27% for Burner vs. 22% for the six other Democratic candidates tested).
- Fully 50% of Democratic voters have a favorable impression of Burner, while just 11% have an unfavorable impression, with 39% unsure. Four out of five (82%) Democratic voters who have an opinion about Burner have a favorable impression of her.
- Burner’s overall name recognition (55%) is much stronger than that of Laura Ruderman (14%).
These results must be tempered by the fact that the new 1st may not look anything at all like the polled “proposed 1st.” Also, the information missing from the polling summary may be missing for a reason.
My feeling is that Burner really is the front-runner, but its almost entirely because of name recognition following two media-intensive campaigns in years when Democrats were tuning into elections. DelBene’s run was more recent, but in a year that didn’t excite Democrats. Name recognition alone won’t translate into a win.
Burner has something else going for her. Publicola points out that she leads other candidates in fundraising*. DelBene can self-finance her campaign, but a dollar raised by a candidate is far more valuable than a dollar out of a candidate’s pocket, because it builds brand loyalty. Burner’s two month head start over DelBene may turn out to be important.
The Big Problem with so many Democrats (and some very good Democrats at that) in the race, is the possibility that two Republicans come out on top in our goofy top two primary system. With any luck, the field will start shrinking on the Democratic side, but not so much on the Republican and independent side….
*As Daniel K points out, I misread the fundraising statement in Publicola.
Oops!
– Does our status as a caucus state mean we’ll miss the aborted fetus ad at the Super Bowl? (Today in questions I thought I’d never ask.)
– For serious, fuck James O’Keefe and crew.
– The person behind the we still hate gay people initiative.
– I’d go in a second.
It’s about damn time! Within the last 24 hours, we have finally gotten the first new state polls of 2012, putting Obama head-to-head with Romney.
The first new one is a PPP poll from North Carolina that has Obama leading Romney by +1% (46% to 45%). The second poll, taken in Florida by Quinnipiac, isn’t quite as nice for Obama who trails Romney by -3% (43% to 46%). Obama led in the previous Florida poll taken in early December, by +7.
| Obama | Romney |
| 78.5% probability of winning | 21.5% probability of winning |
| Mean of 294 electoral votes | Mean of 244 electoral votes |
In this analysis employing 100,000 simulated elections, Obama won 78,482 times and Romney won 21,518 times (including the 996 ties). Obama received (on average) 294 to Romney’s 244 electoral votes. The results suggest that in an election held now, Obama would have a 78.5% probability of winning and Romney a 21.5% probability of winning.
Obama’s chances drop from 96% in the previous analysis.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!