Goldy

For months now I’ve been joking that the Democratic nomination would all come down to Washington, postulating an unlikely scenario in which the candidates come out of Super Duper Tuesday in a two-way (or even three-way) tie, and the nation looking to WA caucus goers to set the momentum heading into the next leg of the campaign. Well whaddaya know… many a truth is said in jest.

And so why aren’t I more excited?

I guess, it’s because unlike much of the campaign thus far, there isn’t really a lot of suspense about what’s going to happen on Saturday. Obama’s been kicking ass in the caucus states, and he’s likely to repeat that success both here and in Nebraska, while his overwhelming support amongst black voters should serve him well in the Louisiana primary. Then comes another caucus in Maine on Sunday, followed by another good day for Obama on Tuesday as Maryland, D.C. and Virginia voters go to the polls, and almost surely extend his delegate lead. Then on the 19th we get a caucus in Hawaii and a primary in Wisconsin… two more contests that seem to favor Obama.

Yup, it’s all downhill for Obama in February, until he slams headfirst into the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and their 389 delegates, and then Pennsylvania’s 188 delegates on April 22, leaving us with one of three scenarios. Either Obama picks up enough speed and delegates throughout February to lead him to some big upset victories in delegate rich states, and eventually the nomination, or Clinton retakes a delegate lead she never relinquishes. Which brings us back to Washington.

The challenge for Obama supporters is not simply to win this Saturday but to win big, which in a caucus scenario requires both turnout and persuasion. Washington state has been home to a lot of Edwards supporters and a lot of fence sitters, both of which currently describe me, and thus there are a lot of voters still up for grabs. I’m slightly leaning toward Obama for purely pragmatic reasons (I think he’d do better for down-ticket candidates) but on Saturday afternoon the Clinton folks in my precinct will have every opportunity to convince me. And if there’s an opportunity to convince somebody like me — a guy who usually has a strong opinion on pretty much everything — I’m guessing the situation is a lot more fluid than most people imagine. For Obama to have a chance of smashing through Clinton’s structural advantages in the big states, he’s going to have to win convincingly in February. And that all starts Saturday afternoon in Washington. I don’t believe Clinton can win WA, but if she makes it close, that’s more than good enough.

Which brings us to that third scenario, which no, I didn’t forget, and explains why I’m feeling a bit more anxious than excited this morning. There is now the very real likelihood that Obama does well in February, does okay, but not great, in the big states, and heads into the August convention with a small lead in pledged delegates, but not enough to overcome Clinton’s superdelegate advantage. I know “real” journalists are drooling over the possibility of a brokered convention, but this could be disastrous for the Democrats. If superdelegates and/or disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida end up determining the nomination contrary to the ultimate choice made by voters at the caucuses and polls, there could be a crisis of legitimacy that could damage Democratic prospects up and down the ballot. (A Clinton/Obama ticket would be the obvious solution, and a killer combination for November.)

How likely is this scenario? Certainly no more likely than the situation we’re in now. Which makes Saturday’s caucus all the more important.

So you rabid Obama supporters (yeah, I’m talkin’ to you Howie), it’s time to put up or shut up. You better kick ass on Saturday, or prepare to deal with the consequences.

On the Today Show this morning, Democratic strategist Paul Begala said, “If McCain wins, he’s running for a third term for Bush. He wants to make Bush’s Iraq war permanent, Bush’s economic program permanent.” To which Pat Buchanan responded, “He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” Think Progress has the clip.

One thing you gotta admire about Buchanan… he always speaks his mind.

Obama. Maybe I’ll change my mind once I sleep on it, but I’m pretty sure Obama was the big winner. Sure, maybe Clinton won a few more delegates — or maybe not, nobody seems to be exactly sure — but anybody who thought her nomination was inevitable certainly doesn’t anymore.

So yeah, it was Obama.

I’m live blogging from the Montlake Ale House, and the big news here is that Elizabeth is back. And oh yeah, Obama is the projected winner in IL & GA, and Clinton is the predicted winner in AR, OK and TN. Meanwhile on the Republican side (as if anybody cares) McCain has scored early victories in NJ, IL, DE & CT, but Huckabee is doing well throughout the south, with victories in WV and AR, while Romney’s likely going to pick up quite a few more states than MA and UT.

Oops, food arrived.

UPDATE [6:22]:
Finished eating. It was the Buffalo chicken burger. It was okay. Also, Clinton has been declared the winner in NJ and MA, two states where the early exit polls predicted a slight Obama lead. Clinton as gets NY, as expected, while Obama picks up DE and KS (and probably AL, though nobody’s called it yet.) Of course, what really matters is the delegate count and its unclear how that is breaking down thus far.

UPDATE [6:30]:
I does look like those early exit polls everybody was posting (including me) are not holding up. Both Romney and Obama have lost states the exit polls suggested they might win, while Obama’s margin in GA is turning out to be much narrower. Oh… and the networks haven’t done it yet, but I’m calling ID for Obama.

UPDATE [6:47]:
I’m sitting on pins and needles waiting for the Utah polls to close. Or maybe that’s just my sciatica….

UPDATE [7:00]:
Romney wins Utah! (I told you so.)

UPDATE [7:03]:
MSNBC calls ND for Obama. And UT.

UPDATE [7:05]:
The graphics on MSNBC are making me dizzy.

UPDATE [7:55]:
It looks like Obama is going to win a majority of states, but then, we don’t elect presidents by the square mile. We’ll see what happens in CA, but right now it’s looking like Clinton will win the delegate race tonight, the only question is by how much, and how that will be represented in the press.

UPDATE [8:00]:
CA has closed; “too close to call” for both parties. Meanwhile, Obama has claimed MN and ID. Is it interesting that Romney and Obama are winning many of the same states?

UPDATE [9:21]:
Clinton wins CA. But Obama will end up winning 12, maybe 13 of the 22 states in play tonight, so he wins, since of course, we elect presidents by the square mile. (Or so Republicans wished.) Or at the very least, Obama is still very much alive in this race.

UPDATE [9:56]:
Crowd is thinning out at the Ale House. Early night. Anyway, Obama got AK and MO (just barely) giving him 13 states to Clinton’s 9… unclear how that influences the media narrative, and no clear idea about the actual delegate count, as many of Obama’s wins were in caucus states. In fact, Obama kicked ass in the caucus states… that tends to indicate either a strong ground game, or an activist movement. Considering he was up against Clinton, I’m guessing the latter.

Romney wins Utah, and big!

Other than that, early, early exit polls suggest we’re gonna have a barn burner tonight, possibly in both parties. (Actually, if the early exit rumors are real, it could be a very good night for Obama, except if anybody says that publicly and it’s not a good night for him, then folks are gonna start yelling fraud again.) Use this as an election night open thread for now, and then I’ll probably live blog for a while from DL, until I get bored with it.

UPDATE (3:41):
Oh what the hell, here are the totally unverified “first wave” (so don’t get your hopes up or down) Democratic numbers making the rounds in DC:

Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37
Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45
Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26
California: Clinton 50, Obama 47
Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45
Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42
Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26
Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30
Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48
Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46
New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47
New Mexico: Obama 52, Clinton 47
New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43
Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31
Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41
Utah: Obama 61, Clinton 40

Matt and Tim explain the numbers over on OpenLeft.

UPDATE (4:10):
The polls closed in Georgia ten minutes ago, and CNN has already called it for Obama. No surprise there, no idea of how the delegates will be split, and no call on the Republican side, which is being reported as a three-way race. So far, consistent with the exit polling.

With the presidential candidates jetting around the nation today putting their final campaign touches on the Super Duper Tuesday, I thought “Jet City” voters might be interested in their transportation choices. Mitt Romney was spotted flying around the south on a Boeing 737-400 yesterday, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have chartered ATA Boeing 737-800s… and then there’s the familiar Ron Paul Blimp.

And what about that great American patriot, John McCain? He’s flying a French-built Airbus A320.

I’m just sayin’.

Yeah, I know most of you are focused on today’s Super Duper Tuesday contest, but with both the Times and the P-I ignoring Rep. Dave Reichert’s pathetic fundraising report (Really? It wasn’t worth a single mention?) it is apparently left to me to cover what could be the biggest local story of the election season: Reichert and the Republican’s slow-motion collapse in Washington’s 8th Congressional District. And while Seattle’s two dailies haven’t seemed to notice yet, the inside-Beltway media certainly has, with first The Hill placing Reichert amongst the most vulnerable GOP incumbents, and now The Politico warning that Reichert may not be able to count on the NRCC to pull his ass out of the fire this time around.

Six House Republicans holding seats that are being eyed by the Democratic majority are confronting the new, brutal reality of their party’s fundraising slump. They are limping into highly competitive reelection races with less cash than their Democratic challengers.

The latest fundraising reports are a gut punch for this six-pack of GOP incumbents: Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John R. Kuhl (N.Y.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio) and Bill Sali (Idaho). With the exception of Sali, all represent swing districts.

But it’s also a blow to a House Republican conference that for years has prided itself on using aggressive fundraising tactics and mandates to make sure all of its incumbents held a significant money edge for their reelection.

A senior aide to a prominent House Republican requested anonymity to explain the significance of this fundraising downturn. “You’re going to see all these members in tough shape,” the aide said. “You have all these seats out there that are so expensive because of the money we’ve put in in the past. We might not be able to save some of these guys that we brought back last time.”

In the deft political hands of the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn, WA-08 was a cash cow for the national party, a safe seat in a wealthy suburban district that reliably pumped dollars directly into the NRCC and other campaigns. But over the past two cycles, Reichert has transformed his district into a congressional money pit, a political fixer-upper in constant need of expensive repair and maintenance. That “anonymous” comment from a “senior aide” to a “prominent” House Republican…? That was meant as a warning to Reichert and the others: either get your house in order and start paying your own bills, or prepare to find yourself out on the street, sleeping under bridges with our nation’s veterans.

Really.

It seems inconceivable that the GOP would abandon a district that has never elected a Democrat, but facing a structural disadvantage that makes 2006’s Big Blue Wave look like a swim at the beach, Republicans are going to have to resort to triage.

These latest fundraising numbers, combined with a raft of Republican retirements, explain why many top Republicans are bracing for the possibility of losses in November that could stretch into double digits.

At a time when the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee needs incumbents to raise as much money as possible, members who fall behind financially cannot count on receiving assistance in the crunch.

The NRCC emerged in the black this month for the first time this election cycle and had $5.5 million at the end of the year. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, with over $35 million on hand, still has a sixfold cash advantage.

And the GOP committee, which traditionally spends money to protect its incumbents first, also will have to spend money in many of the 28 open seats where Republican incumbents have retired or resigned.

The first group of members who may not be able to count on NRCC support are the ones who posted weak fundraising numbers for the year. In the past, the committee has funded members with notoriously weak fundraising, such as former Indiana Republican John Hostettler. But given the party’s fundraising woes, that same support is unlikely to come this cycle.

In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign the NRCC focused its dwindling resources almost exclusively on “second tier” races like WA-08, winning most of them, but in the process losing almost every single first and third tier race. Unless Reichert reverses his fortunes and manages to keep pace with Darcy Burner, WA-08 could end up being one of those first tier races the GOP abandons. That is, if Reichert doesn’t abandon the race first.

UPDATE:
Fair is fair. The Times has apparently reproduced an excerpt from the longer AP story on Reichert’s fundraising woes. It hadn’t shown up in Google News at the time I wrote this post.

Cheer up Dave; you may have had another shitty fundraising quarter, but at least you’re not alone:

Nearly two dozen House incumbents were outraised by their opponents and another dozen candidates established themselves as early frontrunners for newly open seats late last week as fourth quarter financial reports were due.

Among the members on the short end of the fundraising battle in October, November and December were Republican Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)…

That sure does put Sheriff Dave in great company:

Young raised just $40,000 and spent more than $400,000 in the quarter on unexplained legal fees (he is under federal investigation for his ties to the Veco Corporation), while Democrat Ethan Berkowitz raised $120,000.

The longtime congressman still has almost $1 million in cash, but it is dissipating fast due to more than $800,000 in legal fees in 2007.

With GOP incumbents facing tough battles in places like Alaska and Idaho, it’s shaping up to be one tough year for Republicans.

Um… it’s the Republicans who are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservativism, right?

President Bush is sending Congress a $3 trillion spending blueprint that would provide a big boost to defense and protect his signature tax cuts.

It seeks sizable savings in government health care programs and puts the squeeze on much of the rest of government, but it would still generate near-record budget deficits over the next two years.

In the wake of 9/11, with the nation rallying behind him, President Bush used his political capital to slash taxes on the wealthy and ask Americans to go shopping. And folks wonder why our economy is heading toward a precipice?

I guess it is possible to be both green, and… um… green.

To reduce energy consumption, Costco is installing skylights and solar panels in its massive warehouse clubs. Six stores in California and Hawaii have the solar panels, and seven additional stores are to get them this year.

The installer of the Hawaii panels, California-based REC Solar, says the installations at Costco’s Kauai and Kona stores are Hawaii’s two largest solar arrays.

The panels cost about $745,000 per store, and Costco typically doesn’t make that money back for three to five years. But Sinegal said they’re a sign of the times: “We recognize, like all businesses, that we must continue to conserve and save the planet.”

They’ll make back their money in only three to five years? Solar cells last thirty years or longer, so with that kind of ROI you’d think this sort of investment would be a no brainer.

Oh wait… global warming isn’t real, and it’s obviously in both our economic and security interests to run our nation on imported oil, so what was I thinking?

I hate the Giants and the goddamn New York media elite who hype them. Hope they get their asses kicked.

[UPDATE by Will]

The fact that Eli Manning has found a place with the New York Football Giants is proof positive that retarded people can be productive citizens. Yeeeaaghghh!!!

Tom Brady bangs supermodels, while Eli Manning bangs into closed glass doors. Yeaaahghg!!!

[UPDATE by Will]

I just saw a clip of the Giants back-up QB, Jared Lorenzen. He’s a big boy, coming in at a stunning 285 lbs. When he’s in the huddle, he snacks on summer sausage and cheeze whiz.

[UPDATE by Will]

Wasn’t FOX supposed to do some sort of “football and politics” gimmicky feature? Pols talkin’ sports, while the jocks talk politics? I haven’t seen it yet.

[UPDATE by Will]

It’s Halftime! Superbowl Halftimes last about a week and a half these days.

Favorite commercials thus far:

IRON MAN preview

Justin Timberlake Pepsi ad

“Beer hidden in cheese” beer ad

[UPDATE by Goldy]
Anybody else notice during the last set of downs on the drive in which the Pats went up 14-10, that the Giants had two “injuries” that gave their defense a rest, only to have the player pop up and walk off the field with no limp or ill effect? What a bunch of pussies.

[UPDATE by Goldy]
Fuckin’ Giants. Ah well, it’s only football. And it could be worse. It coulda been the goddamn Cowboys.

Last week, in the wake of the Seattle Times’ endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president, I wrote:

Big deal. Next week they’ll also endorse Sen. John McCain on the Republican side. If the Times really embraces the kind of change they believe Obama represents, they wouldn’t endorse anybody for the Republican nomination, least of all a warmonger whose idea of straight talk is promising crowds “there will be other wars.“

Today, the Times endorsed Sen. John McCain.

No, I’m not a psychic. But the Times’ endorsements have become nearly as predictable as they are utterly dismissive of the intelligence of their readers. Take this beauty for example:

For all his supportive votes and rhetoric on Iraq, he would have the easiest time of any candidate to engineer a reversal of policy.

McCain the Annapolis graduate, McCain the naval aviator, McCain the prisoner of war does not carry the burden of heavily footnoted, nuanced stances on national security and defense policy. He opposes the use of torture by Americans and would close the prison at Guantánamo. Against years of grotesque double-talk from administration hacks, McCain does not equivocate.

For him to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would carry an imprimatur others cannot produce.

Jesus… talk about “grotesque double-talk.” So, let me get this right… “for all his supportive votes and rhetoric on Iraq,” and despite the fact that he is out on the trail telling voters that there will be more wars, and that we’ll be in Iraq for another 100 years, straight-talking McCain, who “does not equivocate” and who does not take “nuanced stances” … “would have the easiest time of any candidate” getting us out of Iraq? Uh-huh.

Yeah, sure, I get their point. If McCain decided to pull us out of Iraq, he would bring unmatched authority to the decision. The problem is, his support for the war has been… well… entirely unnuanced and unequivocal. “For him to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq” sure would “carry an imprimatur others cannot produce,” but it would also be utterly inconsistent with everything he has said for the past five years. The Times lauds McCain for his “capacity… to move in new directions,” but on this, the most important issue in the 2008 election, there is absolutely no indication that he would.

Touting McCain as the Republican most likely to get us out of the war in Iraq is like touting chocolate iced glazed as the variety of donut least likely to make you fat. So don’t be fooled by editorial sophistry; if you want to end this war and bring our troops home, your only choice next November is the Democratic nominee, whoever that might eventually be.

In reporting on Rep. Dave Reichert’s pathetic fundraising quarter (only $236K in 4Q, trailing Darcy Burner $607K to $462K in the all important cash-on-hand number,) I quipped:

“You immediately understand why Reichert is so desperate to get a seat on the House Appropriations committee: trading earmarks for campaign contributions is his only chance of staying on a level playing field.“

Well just so you know it’s not just partisan speculation on my part, the Seattle Times’ Alicia Mundy, who at times appears infatuated with Auburn’s brawny ex-sheriff, picks up on this theme in a Letter from Washington headlined: “Earmarks tiff spells trouble for Reichert.”

He’s in a tough re-election race against Democrat Darcy Burner, and last week Reichert told CQ Today, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that he needs a seat on Appropriations “now,” and that less-vulnerable candidates can wait their turn.

But….

A seat on a secondary “pork” committee might open Reichert to opposition campaign ads claiming that he is an old-style earmarker, while giving him little chance to direct real money back home.

Yeah, well, but when you’re as desperate as Dave, you take what you can get; even trading earmarks to out-of-district companies in exchange for lump sum contributions is a helluva lot easier than doing call time with constituents. But the question for the GOP leadership is not how desperate Reichert is for campaign cash, but rather, is he actually capable of taking advantage of an Appropriation’s seat in the first place? Given his anemic fundraising efforts thus far, one has to wonder what kind of leverage he has with his leadership — has he actually threatened to retire if denied, and would he actually follow through?

In 2006 House Republicans were forced to defend 21 open seats, compared to only 12 for the Democrats, an unbalanced playing field that surely factored into the Dems retaking the House for the first time since the Gingrich revolution of 1994. But in 2008 the GOP’s field position is dramatically worse, a lopsided 28 to 5 disadvantage… and it’s only February 2. Could Reichert make it number 29? That’s what some local pols are wondering, and if so it would be another big blow to Republican efforts to stave off further losses, especially given the DCCC’s $29 million to negative $1 million cash advantage over the NRCC.

It is hard to imagine the personal advantage to Reichert from exiting now versus rolling the dice on even an underfunded campaign, but he wouldn’t be the first Republican incumbent to have squeaked by in 2006, only to bow out this cycle in the face of a strong repeat-challenger. Either way, we’ll know pretty damn soon; the GOP leadership will announce their choice for the open Appropriations seat sometime over the next week or so, by which time we will be about half-way through the current quarter. If Reichert fails to get the post, and his fundraising efforts have failed to improve, that would be the time to choose between slogging on or pursuing a lucrative lobbying career. I wouldn’t bet money on a Reichert retirement, but if it’s gonna happen this cycle, it’s gonna happen now.

I’ve gotten a couple of emails today from friends at KIRO advising that I probably shouldn’t post publicly about my cancellation, and that I shouldn’t talk to the media… not if I don’t want to burn any bridges. Personally, I don’t think anything I’ve written or said could be characterized as vindictive or bitter, and I’ve gone out of my way to express my genuine gratitude to KIRO for the extraordinary opportunity they gave me. Unless some other gig comes along, I hope to have the opportunity to continue doing fill-in work for Dave Ross and others, and I suppose to that end my friends at the station are probably giving me very good advice.

But it’s not advice I can follow. I’m a blogger. That’s what I do. That’s what built my profile, that’s what got me a shot at KIRO, and now that I no longer have a show, that’s really all the platform I have left. To not blog about such a significant event in my life would be counter to the nature of being a blogger. And to not speak truthfully about my take on KIRO and the state of the radio industry would be a disservice to my readers.

So let’s be absolutely clear. I have no hard feelings toward anybody at KIRO, and have absolutely no reason to doubt the word or motives of management. I lament the loss of so many hours of live, local programming — especially my own — and do believe that in the long term, the trend toward syndication is bad for the station and for the community; I said as much on-air when I paid tribute to Frank Shiers after his show was canceled. And I also believe that management undervalued my potential contribution to the station. But I’ve never pretended to be any sort of radio industry expert, so while I regret their decision, there’s really not much I can say to challenge it.

As for what has been written elsewhere — even elsewhere on HA — well, I’ve never been in the censorship business, and I’m not about to get in to it now; if folks at KIRO want to hold me responsible for the words and actions of others, there’s nothing I can do about it. I appreciate the amazing outpouring of support I’ve received thus far, and hope to leverage it in pursuit of another show, on KIRO or elsewhere.

Rep. Dave Reichert’s year-end fundraising report just showed up on the FEC website, and man is it pathetic: only $236,612 net contributions for the quarter and $462,828 cash-on-hand at the end of the year. Compare that to Darcy Burner’s $339,495 for the quarter and $607,144 cash-on-hand, and you immediately understand why Reichert is so desperate to get a seat on the House Appropriations committee: trading earmarks for campaign contributions is his only chance of staying on a level playing field.

Two-term incumbents just simply don’t get out-raised, and certainly not by this margin. If he doesn’t turn things around and quick, the NRCC might just be better off cutting their losses and letting him sink or swim on his own.