by Carl Ballard — ,
– I honestly don’t know what’s stranger, that this was written at all, or that it was written in late January.
– I’m not sure I’m comfortable calling this the Backpage.com bill since it’s hopefully aimed at them and at anyone else who might pop up.
– An Immorality Tale in Three Acts
– OMG, Indiana.
– Damn you Hollywood values.
by Carl Ballard — ,
Here at HA, we’ve been pretty (and deservedly) tough on Rick Santorum. But there’s no animus, no political disagreement, no division that can bring any thing but sadness from this story (h/t).
The three-year-old daughter of Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has been admitted to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the candidate has cancelled his Sunday morning campaign events to be at her side.
Santorum campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley said Saturday night that the former Pennsylvania senator and his wife, Karen, were with Bella at CHOP. Gidley said Santorum planned to return to campaigning as soon as possible in Florida, where the Republican primary is Tuesday.
Bella Santorum has Trisomy 18, a genetic condition in which a child has a third copy of material from chromosome 18, instead of the usual two, causing a wide array of physical and mental problems.
Bella was not expected to survive until her first birthday – half of infants with Trisomy 18 do not survive their first week, according the National Institutes of Health. Some children have lived to their teenage years, but with significant medical and developmental issues.
I can’t imagine how difficult this is for his family. Here’s hoping Bella gets well enough soon enough that we can go back to making fun of her father’s horrible political positions shortly.
by Carl Ballard — ,
So, I know this is old news, but Rick Santorum is trying to ruin sweater vests. Oh sure, he’d say he’s just wearing them, sometimes. I’m sure he thinks he’s conveying a certain downhomieness, and campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire in winter, it makes sense to wear them. And who knows, he may genuinely like wearing them. But since they’re still fairly uncommon, if he goes far in the presidential nominating process, sweater vests may be associated with him. And that’s pretty terrible for those of us who wear them but don’t share his dipshit politics.
I am wearing one right now. I wear either a sweater vest or a sweater to work for most of the winter here in Seattle. Whoever the GOP nominates will be horrible on policy, but hopefully whoever they nominate doesn’t do to the sweater vest what Tucker Carlson did to bow ties.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– Jay Inslee’s piece on marriage equality in Washington State.
– Mitt’s Income vs. Your Income (h/t)
– I’ve been really grateful for these pieces by Ta-Nehisi Coates debunking the notion that slaveholders could have been compensated before the civil war to end slavery.
– There’s still some off season left, but next season maybe isn’t looking great for Mariners fans.
– SOPA
by Carl Ballard — ,
The Seattle Times has an editorial decrying the political ploys involved in Rob McKenna adding his name to the anti-health care reform lawsuit. Not McKenna signing up for a lawsuit that would overturn the entire law and claiming he’s only opposed to one part. Not McKenna going against the specific wishes of Governor Gregoire. No, the people who are writing a law that says the AG’s office has to have a client are the people engaging in a political ploy.
FOUR liberal Democrats in the state Senate have introduced a bill to strip the state attorney general’s power to challenge a law. Their proposal is blatantly political and would damage the balance of power in Olympia.
The senators are Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles, both of Seattle, Karen Keiser of Kent and Karen Fraser of Olympia. Senate Bill 6286 would allow the attorney general to challenge the constitutionality of a law only at the request of “the state officer with authority over the subject matter” — most likely the governor.
You know, the other day when Mike McGinn called The Seattle Times conservative, some of their reporters had their feefees hurt.* Might I suggest if you don’t want people pointing out how conservative your paper is, your paper might not want to take so many conservative positions (although in fairness, they’re much more pro-status quo and corporate power than they are pro one party over the other, that just generally coincides with conservatives). If you don’t want to be considered conservative, you might not want to have your editorial board use liberal as an insult. You might not want to have it go to the mattresses for a conservative attorney general.
Anyway, to the substance: Yes, this is a response to an out of control AG acting against the wishes of the governor. They’re responding to a blatantly political act by McKenna. Why doesn’t The Seattle Times condemn that?
Clearly this bill targets Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, who joined a lawsuit against the Obama health-insurance law despite the opposition of Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat. McKenna is running for her job, and these four senators don’t want him to have it.
Maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to try to use his office to unilaterally overturn a law that will benefit large numbers of Washingtonians for political reasons. In any event, some day The Seattle Times Ed. Board can explore how attempting to have 5 conservative justices overturn one of Obama’s signature issues has nothing to do with politics. But here’s the part that really got me:
They are free to campaign against him and to make issue of him putting the state’s name to a lawsuit led by the attorney general of Florida. But it is wrong to take away McKenna’s power and the power of future attorneys general, Republican or Democrat.
Wrong? Wrong! It’s wrong for legislators? To try to legislate?!??!
The Seattle Times doesn’t seem to understand the basics of our separation of powers. If members of the legislature feel the law could be improved, they are quite free to change the law (even for political reasons, they are politicians). If they feel a member of the executive branch is getting too powerful or is abusing the power given it by past legislatures, they have a duty to try to reign them in. Disagree with them if you like, but don’t pretend that legislators legislating is somehow underhanded.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– Rick Sntourm thinks being forced to carry a rapist’s child is a gift from God.
– While the title of this piece seems to imply that any gains for women are a loss for men, I think the overall the discussion of electing women in Washington, and across the nation, is worth having.
– Thomas Friedman is full of shit.
– The Oscar nominations. Some years I’ve seen none of the nominated movies; this year I saw Moneyball, so I guess I’ll root for that.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– Explains South Carolina as well as anything.
– When a politician declares the end of something, it’s almost always the beginning, not the end.
– Terrible tee shirts.
by Carl Ballard — ,
Gabrielle Giffords is going to step down from Congress this week. I certainly don’t want to tell her how to recover or what’s best for her. I wish her the best, and if this is what’s right for her, I support her doing it 100%. But surely Loughner got, if not what he wanted, a victory today. Surely whatever bounced around his twisted, anti-feminist, gun-fetishist, sick mind having her out of Congress was at the top of his list of his reasons to go on that shooting. And he got it today.
by Carl Ballard — ,
I’ll be live blogging the results. Because I’m blogging here at Horse’s Ass, I’ll probably do it as a mocking of the typical media style. So if a result doesn’t have a link, it’s probably just something I made up. Polls close at 7:00 SC time, but since I and most HA readers are on the West Coast, polls close at 4:00. All updates will be in West Coast time. It should be noted that I don’t have a TV box, so this might skew toward Internet results.
Update 4:02: Still no results in, but Gingrich is projected to win from the exit polls. Here are some sites I’ll be looking at. Kos NPR TPM The SC Election Commission.
Update 4:08: Newt Gingrich needed a win with the GOP’s critical jackass community. It looks like the jackasses pulled through. Still no actual results, but at the very least the jackasses who were willing to talk to exit pollsters liked the way he didn’t ever actually answer questions at the debates and the way he hates gay people. In addition to jackasses, douches, douche bags, and assholes have all broken strongly for Gingrich. Can he unite these disparate groups of Republicans going forward? We’ll see in Florida.
Update 4:17: Given how well Newt did right after revelations about an affair were brought to light, I think the other candidates should seriously consider leaving their wives for younger staffers. Does Santorum have time leave his wife before the Florida primary?
Update 4:24: Still no results, but CBS news has actual exit poll results.
Update 4:31: OK, real results, y’all. So far even though TPM is predicting Newt is the winner, Mittens has the most votes so far:
Mitt Romney…..1,857…….38.1%
Newt Gingrich…1,614…….33.1%
Rick Santorum…639………13.1%
Ron Paul………..454……….9.3%
Update 4:34: The SC Election Commission has even fewer numbers in and has Romney at 47%. You guys, either you shouldn’t trust small numbers from just a few precincts that just start to trickle in, or the exit polls are wrong. I have no way of knowing.
Update 4:54: An hour after the polls close, TPM has Newtron in the lead over Will.I.Ard:
Newt Gingrich…….7,149……36.5%
Mitt Romney………6,628……33.8%
Rick Santorum……2,958…….15.1%
Ron Paul…………..2,097……10.7%
Update 4:58: Among white voters, so far the results are:
Newt Gingrich…….7,149……36.5%
Mitt Romney………6,628……33.8%
Rick Santorum……2,958…….15.1%
Ron Paul…………..2,097……10.7%
I guess they haven’t counted Nikki Haley’s vote yet.
Update 5:03: Romney’s making a speech. He doesn’t like Obama.
Update 5:05: I think Romney thinks Gingrich is too much like Obama. He’s apparently made “a frontal assault on free enterprise” whatever the fuck that means.
Update 5:06: I won’t have the rest of the speech since NPR has cut it off.
Update 5:12: From Michael in the comments on Willard’s speech:
Romney’s clearly mistaken “free enterprise” with half the women in DC.
Update 5:18: With 94,442 votes in, Newtle is still up over Mittenz:
Newt Gingrich…….38,589……40.9%
Mitt Romney………25,525……27.0%
Rick Santorum……16,204……17.2%
Ron Paul…………..12,033……12.7%
Update 5:24: Joe Wilson is on NPR. He just said, “the health care takeover will destroy jobs.” You lie! It’s not a health care takeover and it won’t destroy jobs.
Update 5:37: All the news sources I see say Newter has won 17 delegates. I assume that’s all of them. Does anyone know if there are any delegates up for grabs?
Update 5:45: How many of the 2,353 so far votes for Herman Cain are for Cain and how many for Colbert? I’m going out on a limb and saying all of them are for Colbert. Every single one.
Update 5:52: Apparently Santorum is speaking and he’s still in it, but NPR isn’t breaking to it like they did for part of Romney’s. Here’s my guess: “I hate gay people. Boo women. Race baiting.”
Update 6:01: Looks like “Says You!” on KUOW.
Update 6:07: With 355,360 votes in Oven Mitt is still down to Out with the Old In With The Newt:
Newt Gingrich………….144,242……40.6%
Mitt Romney……………93,628…….26.3%
Rick Santorum…………63,475……17.9%
Ron Paul……………….47,712…….13.4%
Herman “Colbert” Cain…3,477……..1.0%
Update 6:13: I think we can all agree if you want to win an early primary it helps to have been an elected official from a neighboring state. So that bodes well for Newt in Florida.
Update 6:19: Does shutting down the government because you have a sad about seating assignments help you win a primary contest 12 years later? Answer: Maybe?!?
Update 6:22: I just found the NPR live feed and they said that Gingrich won 23 of 25 delegates. I assume Romney won the other 2, but I can’t find it anywhere.
Update 6:25: Newt Gingrich isn’t coming out to speak yet. 3 possibilities for why: 1) He knows coverage will stop after he’s done so he’s dragging it out. 2) He was surprised by the size of the victory and is rewriting his speech. 3) He’s having sex with future wife #4.
Update 6:27: OK, Newt is on stage now.
Update 6:32: Elites are trying to make us stop being American. What?
Update 6:34: The other candidates reflect the openness of the American system. Yes, 3 wealthy white Christian men show how anyone can run for president?
Update 6:35: Newt attacks New York and Washington. People chant “USA USA USA.” Um, New York and Washington are part of the USA.
Update 6:38: He’s making a TelePrompTer joke (as he’s reading off his script).
Update 6:39: Saul Alinsky. What?
Update 6:41: Now he’s talking about “anti-religious bigotry” as he defines opposition to Christian supremacy.
Update 6:44: Oh good, we’re back on food stamp president. Without food stamps a lot of the children of the working poor will starve, asshole. And make them janitors isn’t a fucking answer.
Update 6:45: The NPR feed just cut out the speech. Phew, now I can listen to E.J. Dionne and Matt Continetti. Thanks? NPR.
Update 7:04: OK, most of the votes are in, so this is the last update, probably:
Newt Gingrich……..209,218…….40.4%
Mitt Romney……….139,804…….27.0%
Rick Santorum………89,871…….17.4%
Ron Paul…………….69,360……..13.4%
I assume this means Newt has the lead in the delegate count (even assuming you can make up some guess for the Iowa delegate count). Hmm, I was more serious than I thought I’d be and left a lot of jokes on the table. Surprising given how it wasn’t even that close.
Now on to Florida.
by Carl Ballard — ,
I really dig the initiative by mayors across the country to support marriage equality (h/t). It pushes the issue forward and while it’s mostly symbolism, that’s all that they can do. Still, when I checked out the Washington entries on the list, I was a little disappointed.
Timothy Leavitt – Vancouver, WA
Mike McGinn – Seattle, WA
Marilyn Strickland – Tacoma, WA
Ava Frisinger – Issaquah, WA
That’s it. McGinn and Strickland are gimmies. I’m glad they signed on but it would be much more surprising if they didn’t than if they did, just based on the cities. But Everett isn’t on the list. No Olympia or Bellingham. No Bellevue and only one suburban King County city. No Spokane or any Eastern Washington cities.
Of course, gay people (and their allies) live outside those 4 cities. They live in Eastern Washington. I don’t know what the outreach there was to the mayors not on the list, but there’s more work to do.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– Are y’all digging yourselves out of the snow? I’m not generally a fan of Art Thiel, but I think this piece on Seattle snow driving is mostly right. But there are still some idiots who don’t know how to drive in snow.
– 6 years of tax returns seems like a plan for Mitt.
– Looks like we’re going to have a plastic bag ban for really. Get your canvas bags by July.
– This was my favorite SOPA protest (no offense to us).
– Dana Milbank gets it wrong on abortion and when the great recession started.
– Whoopsadoodle, Seattle Times.
– Emmett has a cautionary tale about the Hotel Olympia.
by Carl Ballard — ,
This David Brooks column has been making the rounds for this thing he said.
I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.
I don’t know when he started covering politics, but his sentiment would have been true since at least Nixon and probably further back. This, as I say, has been well covered in the blogs the last few days. But what struck me most when reading it was this:
The other pleasure of covering campaigns is getting to play American Idol judge, evaluating the political performances.
Look, I’m someone who tries to make politics fun. And on the one hand, if that’s what you like about politics, well fine.
But on the other hand, go fuck yourself David Brooks. How in God’s name can anyone find pleasure in judging — what — the theater aspects of stump speeches and town halls? To actually get pleasure from complaining that George HW Bush looked at his watch, or that Al Gore sighed, or that Kerry was stilted, or Hillary Clinton whatever the press made up about her crying before NH?
That’s a pleasure? Pleasure. Not a chore. Not something you feel you should do to give voters an insight into whatever made up bullshit about why that’s more important to cover than actual issues. A pleasure. Like good sex or good food? The most awful, the shittiest what-the-fuck-are-they-doingist part of political coverage brings David Brooks pleasure? I guess what I’m saying is it’s bad enough when journalists do this sort of coverage, but can’t they at least pretend it’s their job, and not say how fun it is.
I mean I always thought it was laziness: It’s easier to say this or that candidate talks funny (or elegantly) than to report on what foreign policy will look like if they’re president. But to say it’s pleasurable is even worse.
by Carl Ballard — ,
– 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.
by Carl Ballard — ,
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.
by Carl Ballard — ,
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.”
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!