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.

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!

Several weeks ago I gave an account of my niece Maria’s struggle to get a Wisconsin state ID card so that she could vote under Walker’s stricter ID voting laws. She made three trips to the Department of Motor Vehicles office and on the third trip they rejected one of her IDs—her birth certificate—because it didn’t clearly distinguish her middle name(s) from her last name(s). That she had two other forms of ID didn’t make any difference.

I mentioned in the comment thread that a memo was uncovered in which a top administrator directed DMV employees to NOT inform people that these IDs were free. There has been speculation that there is a more sweeping directive to obstruct people from obtaining these IDs in other ways as well.

It seemed pretty clear to me that Maria was a victim of some kind of obstruction. I don’t know if the employees were targeting everyone trying to get a free state ID or whether Maria, a young Hispanic woman with a disability, who produced a student ID as one of her three IDs, fit some profile of people for exclusion.

Either way, the results are identical—disenfranchising likely Democrats. The people who have no driver’s license are more likely to be at the margins of society: the young, the elderly, the poor, those with a disability, students, the unemployed, and so on.

The story continues. Last week, Maria’s mother (my sister) had some time off from work, and could personally transport Maria to the DMV during business hours. She had an idea…something to try before going through the trouble and expense (and possibly the legal procedures needed) to obtain a birth certificate that clearly specified whether her first (middle) and last names were “Maria (Elaine) Valdez Holman” or “Maria (Elaine Valdez) Holman” (…as if there is some big fucking ambiguity there).

The DMV office that Maria previously visited was on Madison’s west side. That would be the more well-to-do, lily-white side of town. Perhaps, my sister reasoned, Maria would have better “luck” going to the east side DMV. The east side of Madison is much more culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically heterogeneous.

So last week she takes Maria to the east-side DMV. Maria got her ID with no difficulties whatsoever. No problems with the birth certificate. Indeed, they gave a cursory glance to her three IDs and got down to business. Mission Accomplished!

Yeah…it took four freakin’ trips to two different DMV offices, but Mission Fucking Accomplished!

Maria was lucky. She is a determined young woman. She is particularly determined to vote against Gov. Scott Walker. So she got her ID through brute force perseverance.

Other people in a similar situation may not have the motivation, the time, the resources, the luxury to make four trips to the DMV, just to meet new bullshit administrative hurdles required to vote later this year.

I’m happy for Maria. I’m sad for my beloved Wisconsin. I’m ashamed for what the Republicans have done to her. A video of the experience of another Madison mother trying to get her son a voting ID (and some answers) can be seen here.

Since this is a Washington state blog…let me bring it home by repeating my warning: A Governor Rob McKenna will take actions to disenfranchise the Marias of Washington state.

McKenna, and the Washington state Republicans, have never gotten over the 2004 election. They are convinced the Democrats stole the governorship from them by systematic voter fraud. For them, Washington state is the the number one example of unchecked, rampant election fraud. And Governor McKenna will do something about it.

Besides Wisconsin, new laws that disenfranchise people by limiting registration periods, restricting registration drives, making stricter ID requirements, chopping early voting laws, or reverse felon voting rights have been have been passed in Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida, Maine, Georgia, Ohio, and Iowa. Coincidence? I don’t think so. It’s obviously part of a broader G.O.P. agenda.

Seriously…if Washington state gets a Republican Governor Rob McKenna, what do you think the chances are that our voting laws and rules will continue without some sort of assault?

It may be new voter registration ID requirements. It may be an attempt to reverse all mail-in voting. It could be new restrictions on voter registration drives. Perhaps it will include a reduced window for voter registration.

I hope the people and the press fully vet McKenna on “his” ideas for changing our voting systems before next November.

The headline “Romney and McCain: The GOP Frenemies’ Club” showed up on my news feed last night. It sounded like something written by TPM‘s Josh Marshall or Washington Monthly‘s Steve Benen.

In fact, it was former Seattle Times columnist, amateur cheerleader, and current political blogger-pundit Michelle Malkin:

Michael Corleone said to “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” But what, pray tell, do we do with our frenemies? This is the awful, election-year quandary of movement conservatives. And everything you need to know about our heartache can be summed up in one image…

When they’re together, they look like they’re holding each other (and the rest of us) hostage.

Malkin’s mini-photo essay brings to mind a recent photo-essay at TPM titled, “Get Off My Lawn!: Pictures Of John McCain Looking Miserable Next To Mitt Romney.” Yes…we have Michelle Malkin and Josh Marshall publishing the same sort of photo-essay “hit” pieces against Mitt Romney. What an amazing political world we live in!

Some Republicans now seem hell-bent on reelecting Obama. Newt Gingrich supporters are putting serious money and effort into it with this new anti-Romney film:

Entitled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” the film produced by Jason Killian Meath, a former Republican National Committee aide, is being funded by Winning Our Future, an organization run by longtime aides to Gingrich. Sheldon Adelson, chairman and chief executive officer of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS), and a Gingrich supporter, has given Winning Our Future $5 million to help air the film in South Carolina.

It’s an interesting gambit. Gingrich’s friends have done the calculus. They believe that the damage done to Romney (and to some extent, Republicans) is worth it.

Unlikely. They may slightly reduce Romney’s chances of getting the nomination. But not enough for a Newt nomination. Among other problems, his performance against Obama is substantially worse than Romney’s (RCP’s average gives Obama +1.5% versus Romney and +8.8% versus Gingrich using national polls). Republicans will, in the end, go with the candidate who performs best against Obama. That’s what happened with McCain in 2008, and it is very likely to happen with Romney in 2012.

At this point, only the “perfect storm” could sink Romney’s G.O.P. nomination prospects this year. That isn’t going to happen, if only because the anti-Romney wing of the party isn’t unified…

The tension is exacerbated by the deep divisions between two key GOP wings: tea party groups yearning for a pure small-government conservative, and evangelical Christians who want a loyal social conservative.

In one sign of their desperation, some activists are holding out for what they acknowledge is a spectacular long shot: a late-entering savior who could still qualify for enough state ballots and win enough delegates to force a brokered GOP convention this summer.

Without any clear alternative to Mitt Romney, this internal G.O.P. struggle is turning into a bloodbath, now with Gingrich’s friends putting millions of dollars into the Obama reelection effort.

Malkin picked the wrong aphorism: Mitt is no Godfather, and any frenemy-like alliances that really matter have already disintegrated.

The apt proverb here is, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and Newt Gingrich is Barack Obama’s new best friend.

Well, I made it to the Montlake Alehouse, and I hear the Mittster has already been declared the winner. The real battle is for second place.

Discuss.

5:12: Early returns suggest that the Newtster is in 4th or 5th place. What a tumble. Just yesterday the polls suggested he was in a three-way tie for second place.

5:16: Here were the last few polls from NH (via Real Clear Politics) to establish some benchmarks.

• Rasmussen: Romney 37%, Paul 17%, Huntsman 15%, Santorum 13%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 1%
• Suffolk: Romney 37%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 9%, Perry 1%
• WMUR/UNH: Romney 41%, Paul 17%, Huntsman 11%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 8%, Perry 1%
• Suffolk: Romney 33%, Paul 20%, Huntsman 13%, Santorum 10%, Gingrich 11%, Perry 1%
• PPP: Romney 35%, Paul 18%, Huntsman 16%, Santorum 11%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 1%

5:22: It looks like the current score is: Romney ~35%, ~Paul 25%

5:29: The Mittster speaks. It sure sounds like a “Hope and Change” speech to me…but, you know, full of Mitt.

5:31: “President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial”. Where the fuck does he get this bullmitt?!?

5:34: Mitt claims that Obama lost the tripple-A rating. I recall S&P literally singled out the uncertainty of the process in Congress for the downgrade. And we know what party in Congress led to the uncertainty.

5:36: During the 2008 campaign season, McCain found himself on the losing end of the issues as the economy crashed. Now, the Mittster seems to be campaigning against Obama on a platform of “restoring America”, being “hopeful for the future”, “best days ahead”, etc.

But given the recent acceleration of the recovery (that began in mid-2009), I cannot help but wonder if Mitt finds himself on the wrong side of the issues in 2012, but sort of the converse of the 2008 problem: an increasingly hopeful America being told that things suck and can be better. I think this is what happened during Reagan’s re-election year.

5:43: In the comment thread, Michael give the link to the AP scorecard here. Thanks Michael.

I’m listening to stuff on NPR on the radio, because all the teevees have basketball on them right now.

5:45: I love that the last 5 polls all have Rick Perry at 1% and the AP results have Perry at…1%.

5:46: Jon Huntsman is a disappointing 3rd place with 17% (so far). It is hard to see any reason for him to stay in the race. He is not competitive in any race that I can think of until Super Tuesday.

5:49: Here is the score so far:

• Romney 35%
• Paul 25%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 10%
• Santorum 10%
• Perry 1%

6:16: (*snicker*) Ron Paul said, “Intellectual Revolution.”

6:46: There are too many people here…I haven’t been able to listen to the coverage. Damn these social venues!

7:13: With 66 percent of the vote in (for the Republicans):

• Romney 38%
• Paul 23%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 10%
• Santorum 10%
• Perry 1%

Mitt gets a solid double-digit lead, which means it is all but over for the Republican primary contest.

10:00: With 95% reporting….

• Romney 39%
• Paul 23%
• Huntsman 17%
• Gingrich 9%
• Santorum 9%
• Perry 1%

Gingrich and Santorum fall into the single digits.

It’s the first primary of the 2012 election season! So please join us for an evening of primary politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

I’ll be live-blogging the New Hampshire returns starting around 5:00 PM. We meet at our usual spot, the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but I should be there shortly after 5:00 pm. (Note: there is a Huskey game that starts at 7:00 pm…it means the Montlake Alehouse will be plenty busy until shortly before the game. But join me early if you can.

Can’t make it to Seattle? There are also meetings tonight of the Tri-Cities, Bellingham, and Vancouver, WA chapters. On Thursday, Drinking Liberally Bremerton meets. And next Monday there are meetings of the Woodinville the Olympia, the Yakima, and the Shelton chapters.

With 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

Meh.

The bloodiest war in America’s history, on a per capita basis, took place in New England in 1675.

— Michael Tougias in King Philip’s War in New England (America’s First Major Indian War)

Things have turned a little ugly in the Republican primary reality show. Look at these recent headlines:

• Gingrich: Romney taxed the blind in Mass
• Anti-Mitt film attacks ‘corporate raiders,’ tells ‘a story of greed’
• Vendetta: Newt Gingrich has made it his personal mission to destroy Mitt Romney
• Santorum: GOP would suffer under Romney
• Ron Paul Attacks Santorum as Spendthrift in New Hampshire Swing
• Jon Huntsman blasts ‘stupid’ video by Ron Paul backers

What this means is that tonight’s New Hampshire GOP primary debate will be a veritable bloodbath. It’ll be streamed by ABC.

I’ll try to liveblog what I can. But feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment thread.

5:56: The pre-game show had devolved into a discussion of Rick Santorum fighting with an 18 year old girl. Santorum got some boos as he left the room, so obviously lost.

6:03: Santorum…”we need a leader, someone who can convey a positive image for the U.S.” “Someone who can paint a vision of what we are about”. He means Santorum?!?

6:05: Newt insinuates that Mitt’s ideological model is “the Wall Street model.”

6:09: Mitt takes credits for creating 100,000 jobs, “net—net”. But then must admit that he is talking about jobs that were created after he had nothing to do with it.

6:11: Mitt keeps suggesting that private sector is useful for creating jobs as President (or Governor). Let’s look at the stats (click for larger image)…

Hmmm…Clinton, Reagan, Johnson. Not big private-sector enterprise-builders.

6:20: At this point, the moderators are staying out of it and letting the candidates bludgeon and hack at each other.

6:21: The moderator tries to lure Huntsman and then Romney into a fight. They call for a ceasefire to turn the attack toward Obama.

6:25: Rick Perry gets a softball question about the military and babbles for a few sentences before his brain warms up.

6:26: Newt is no Chickenhawk! Because…his father served in the military.

6:27: The moderator asks Ron Paul if he would call Newt a Chickenhawk. “Yeah, I would.” He doesn’t.

6:29: Newt comes back and, essentially, calls Ron Paul a liar (“…long history of inaccurate statements”). Nice.

6:30: Ron Paul gets asked about his newsletters. If he had any balls, he’d walk out of the debate….

6:31: Paul asks, “how many times do you see a rich white person get the electric chair?” Perhaps Rick Perry could take that one?

6:34: During the break…the commentators are disappointed in the battle…not enough ganging up on Mitt.

6:37: Looking back at that chart…George W. Bush had lots of private sector experience. He destroyed lots of companies before trying to do the same to the U.S.

6:39: Mitt hearts Contraception. “It’s working just fine. Leave it alone.” Seems to not understand the Constitutional question being asked.

6:42: Ron Paul believes in a right of privacy guaranteed in the Constitution, which means that contraception is good.

6:43: Rick Santorum dodges the contraception question by talking about abortion. Whimp!

6:47: Santorum: Defining marriage is a federal issue, but adoption for same-sex couples is a state’s rights issue.

6:48: Mitt: Same sex relationships are fine…just don’t call it “marriage.” Because that somehow goes against thousands of years of human history.

6:53: Rick Perry claims that the Obama administration is engaged in a “war on religion.” What the fuck?!?

6:55: On withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Huntsman gives a thoughtful, analytical answer. The Mittster spews some talking points.

6:57: Newt: “Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess.”

7:00: Santorum engages in a babblefest…something about the first important thing in the war in terror is to de-sanitize our documents to get rid of political correctness. You could say, we should Santorumize them instead.

7:02: Newt want to outlaw “American Presidents bowing before Saudi Kings.” There is some bold foreign policy vision for you!

7:03: Ron Paul is in full babble mode. Mentions, “ping pong”, “pirates”, “”blow-back.”

7:07: Babblery must be contageous…I couldn’t really follow that last bit by Santorum leading up to the break.

7:14: Mitt claims Obama wants to turn the U.S. into a social welfare state. Funny…I’ve never heard Obama say anything like this.

7:17: Huntsman: “We need to stimulate confidence in the creative class of this country.” Santorum doesn’t want everyone to have the opportunity to go to college

7:20: Mitt slips into illiteracy, “our Democrat friends.”

7:21: Ron Paul slips into dementia claiming that the “Republicans stand for less spending.” Not in my lifetime!

7:26: First Perry, now Romney gets into a prepared speech. Low content.

7:27: Newt makes a funny.

7:28: …but I’m not sure what his point was.

7:28: Rick Santorum doesn’t believe in a middle class. Don’t panic, folks…it’s only semantic. “Middle Income group” is, apparently, okay. Problem solved.

7:30: Mitt claims the Obama administration has opened up no new trade relationships for foreign countries. I believe the fact checkers will have some fun with that one.

7:32: Mitt hits Huntsman for “implementing the policies of this administration in China.” Huntsman talks about Mitt’s lack of understanding of the trade relationship with China.

7:40: The fluff round has begun…and, mercifully, ended after about one minute.

7:43: As always, the pundits think Mitt Romney wins by not getting too beat up.

Last night I stumbled across Larry Ishmael’s YouTube announcement and campaign website for his bid for the open WA-01 congressional seat. Here is a little more information.

Larry was the Republican who challenged Rep. Jay Inslee (D) for WA-01 in 2006 and 2008. He lost both elections 32% to 68%. Should he seriously pursue the seat this year, his Republican competition^* will likely be James Watkins, Inslee’s challenger in 2010, and John Koster, who ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) in 2004 and 2010.

From Larry’s blog we learn:

I really am enjoying this year in South Africa. […] My singular focus has been the dissertation, but I also have to remember that there is an election year coming up and I need to be positioned for that now. So, I spent Monday working on my “unofficial announcement” that I will be running for the 1st Congressional seat again in 2012. I ran in 2006 and 2008, but took 2010 0ff to concentrate on my Ph.D. work. Now, as my dissertation work is starting to shape up nicely, I hope to be Dr. Ishmael by the time the election rolls around next year.

After pondering potential opponents, Larry clarifies his campaign announcement:

Now that I have informally announced, I can run my Congressional Exploratory Campaign until I have raised the limit for “testing the waters,” and then I will officially declare and register with the FEC. There is much work to assemble a team between now and then, and that means I need to start that process right now even though I’m still in South Africa.

On the issues, Larry sounds like a typical “shrink government” Republican, but with a big emphasis on environmental sustainability—sort of like Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) but probably smarter and without all the “I’ve stared down the business end of a gun,” sheriffy bullshit.

Even so, from his Twitter feed we learn he is a anthropogenic climate change denier^&:

@Fun2BTan @ishmael1stcdwa Just so you know, I have scientific evidence of the fact that global warming is not man made.

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) December 1, 2011

And, predictably, he is anti-cap and trade:

Thank God that the Senate stopped Cap and Trade. The House is a bunch of sheep!

— Larry W. Ishmael (@ishmael1stCDWA) July 25, 2009

The good news for Larry is that, unlike 2006 when he lived in WA-08, his current residence is in WA-01. In fact, Larry’s condo is near the center of Redmond, a short walk from my own residence.

One other thing I noticed on his issues page:

As a member of the Creek Indian tribe, Larry respects the wisdom of his Native American fore-fathers…

I look forward to having Larry in the race. I mean, if we are going to have more than one Republican going into the top two primary, we might as well have lots of Republicans. And if the voters force a Republican on me as my next Representative, at least we should have someone who will add diversity to Congress and provide a congressional voice for Washington’s Native American community.

So welcome to the race Larry!

^* In the comment thread Larry points out he is running as an independent this time.
^& In the comment thread Larry clarifies his beliefs.

Thom with even more Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Mark Fiore: Distract-O-Tron

Young Turks: Unemployment drops to 8.5%.

Thom with more Good, Bad and Very, Very Ugly.

Obama Fights Back:

• Young Turks: Obama makes recess appointment.
• Jon: Obama’s rogue recess appointment of Richard Cordray.
• Young Turks: Republicans react to Obama’s recess appointment.

Young Turks: KS Speaker of House’s “Mrs. YoMama”

Thom: MT Supreme Court says NO to corporate money.

Same Sex Marriage for Washington:

• Gov. Christine Gregoire (D-WA) will introduce same-sex marriage equality bill:
• Hypervocal: Washington Governor supports same-sex marriages

Thom on ALEC’s disturbing level of influence.

The 99% Nyan Cat.

Thom: voter fraud is voter fraud except for Republicans.

Greenman: Myth of the mini ice age.

Roy Zimmerman: Happy political new year.

The G.O.P. Primary Reality Show:

• Jon on the Republican Romspringa
• Rick Perry’s Strong Will
• Young Turks: Savage on 8 years of Googling Santorum.
• Alyona’s Tool Time: Santorum’s contraception license to do bad things in bed?
• Olbermann with Dan Savage: Perspective on Rick Santorum’s ascent.
• Sam Seder: Santorum will protect your tax dollars from Black people.
• Stephen: Santorum’s Iowa surge.
• Young Turks: Santorum covers for John Ensign.
• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News hides Santorum’s extreme anti-gay history again
• Ann Telnaes: If Rick Santorum were the GOP Nominee.
• Stephen on the fun funness of being Rick Santorum.
• Red State Update: Santorum almost wins.
• Ed and Pap on Romney’s Iowa victory
• Stephen on Mitt, Rick and the Iowa caucus.
• Thom: A surging Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed.
• Laid off worker says Mitt put profits before people.
• Alyona: Mitt Romney represents ‘worst aspects of capitalism’.
• Lowrence O’Donnell: Mitt’s pathetic attempt to rewrite America the Beautiful
• Which Mitt is McCain endorsing?
• John McCain sings the praises of President Barack Obama (via TalkingPointsMemo):
• Sharpton: Newt Gingrich intent on destroying Mitt Romney
• Young Turks: Newt’s laughable switch on Climate Change.
• Newt Gingrich has changes abortion policy hours before Iowa caucuses
• Young Turks: Newt Gingrich is an angry old man.
• ONN:Did media treat Bachmann differently because she is a crazy woman?
• One Minute News: You won’t have Michele to kick around anymore.
• Sam Seder: A farewell to Michele Bachmann
• Michele steps aside.
• Jon: Thus ends America’s interest in anything Iowa
• Who wants to pretend they’re not a millionaire?

Sam: Mr. 999 is Baaaaaack.

• Young Turks: Have Republicans stopped pretending that they’re not racist?.

Young Turks: Tech Blackout to protest SOPA?

Thom with The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Pat Robertson is declared by God Worst Person in the World.

Three Republican freshmen members of the New Hampshire state house are Worst Person in the World.

Stephen: Catch 2012.

White House: West Wing Week.

One Minute News: The most awkward landlord—tenet relationship ever.

Alyona’s Fireside Chat: Lobbying works…just ask corporations:

Young Turks: Citizens United overturned in MT and NYC.

Ed: Scott Walker’s latest problem.

Thom: Oil barons just threatened the President of the U.S..

Stephen takes a tip from Pat Robertson.

Lawrence O’Donnell: GOP campaign lights up comedians.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

This is a sad commentary about either (1) the state of the Washington state political press machine, or (2) Larry Ishmael’s PR abilities. Maybe both.

You may remember that Ishmael ran against Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2006 and 2008. According to his video, he was busy working on a Ph.D. in Economics in 2010 (at the University of Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa, according to his bio). He expects to finish his PhD in December, 2012.

But for now…Heeeeee’s Baaaaack!

The “breaking” news is that Larry Ishmael is running for congress again in the 1st CD!

The “not so breaking” part about it is that Ishmael announced his candidacy sometime in mid-December. His You Tube announcement is dated December 12th.

A Google news search in the past month on his name reveals:

No results found for “larry ishmael”.

No announcement in a blogosphere search either. Huh.

How did I find it? While working on my Friday Night video thingie, I stumbled across his trove of seven campaign videos released since his announcement.

Sheesh!

Yo! Media…let’s pick up the pace a bit! Or maybe it’s…Yo! Larry…get some PR help!

Ishmael’s entry probably means there will be three Republicans in the race.

As an aside, when he ran in 2006, Goldy noticed that he was living in the 8th CD. That doesn’t violate the laws of man or nature or anything…it just a sign of political tone-deafness. So…it’s probably the latter. Sorry about giving you a hard time Media! Love ya! xxoo

It will be worth listening to Governor Christine Gregoire on KUOW this morning at 9:00. Cool stuff is the table.

One big issue is yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that:

The State has failed to meet its duty under article IX, section 1 by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature recently enacted sweeping reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and it is currently making progress toward phasing in those reforms. We defer to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty, but the judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State’s plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. We direct the parties to provide further briefing to this court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction.

As Publicola points out, this feels like

…one of those damning federal court orders to put a bankrupt business or corrupt union in receivership

The real problem isn’t that lawmakers somehow dislike funding education. Rather, the education funding problem arises from four issues:

1. The worst economy since the Great Depression that has resulted in drastic shortfalls in projected revenue
2. Another Constitutional duty, a balanced budget, that has resulted in massive cuts in numerous state services
3. Republican obstructionism in adequately funding the government
4. Lawmaker’s inability to raise new revenues with a simple majority to a great extent because of the 2/3 majority requirement in Initiative 1053

Many of us believe I-1053 is unconstitutional, and a July court case is pending. The Supreme court has previously weaseled its way out of making a decision about whether an initiative can impose a standard on lawmakers that trumps the state Constitution.

Yesterday Gregoire announced that:

…she plans to bypass the state attorney general’s office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Gregoire says, “fuck you, Rob McKenna,” and goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Given that I-1053 is one of the biggest impediments for lawmakers to adequately fund basic education, and given that the Supreme Court is now playing an active role in forcing lawmakers to meet this Constitutional duty, Gregoire’s request is an offer the Supreme Court cannot refuse.

When Rep. David Wu (OR-1) resigned amid scandal last summer, Republicans smelled blood:

Several factors give newfound hope to the GOP: Wu resigned amid a sex scandal, damaging the Democratic image in the district. The party’s main candidate, Tualatin businessman Rob Cornilles, is returning as a more seasoned campaigner after losing to Wu last year. And Democrats face a potentially divisive primary race that could hurt their prospects in the January 2012 special election.

Yeah…not so much. Yesterday SurveyUSA released a poll for the race that shows Suzanne Bonamici (D) with 50%, Cornilles (R) at 39%, James Foster (L) at 2%, and Steven Reynolds (Oregon Progressive Party) at 2%.

Bonamici’s +11% lead shouldn’t be too much of a surprise…a mid-December Public Policy Polling poll also found Bonamici leading Cornilles by +11% (52% to 41%).

So…it looks pretty likely that Republican hopes in OR-1 will be dashed on January 31.

What Republicans just don’t get, is that, beyond the implicated politician, sex scandals tend to harm Republicans more than Democrats. The broader impact isn’t about what one person does. It’s about the fuckin’ hypocrisy.