You won’t have Buddy to kick around any more:
Frustrated and largely ignored, Buddy Roemer is ending his bid for the Republican nomination and will instead seek the presidency on a third-party ticket.
Let’s get real…America is not prepared for a “President Buddy.”
It’s been a while since I’ve done a good solid metacommentary piece, and I’ve been meaning to get back into it here. So even though this isn’t local, and plenty of liberal blogs made fun of this days ago, I’m going to give this crap a try.
What are women for?
Go fuck yourself. Jesus, I’m not even past the title and I’m just saying, “go fuck yourself.” This could be a long one.
In a simpler time Sigmund Freud struggled to understand what women want. Today the significant battle is over what women are for. None of our culture warriors are anywhere close to settling the matter. The prevailing answer is the non-answer, a Newt-worthy challenge to the premise that insists the real purpose of women is nothing in particular.
Maybe because it’s only a question a jackass would ask. Maybe, and I know this will sound silly, the billions of women are individual, autonomous humans and not “for” anyone or anything.
Also, did Freud live in a simpler time? Didn’t he live through the first World War? Oh, hey there’s a good chance you’ll have children who die before adolescence. Everyone is on cocaine. Simpler, simpler times!
Such an answer may or may not be a landmark in the progress of the human race, but it is anathema to most conservatives of any political party, and for that reason conservative folkways, prejudices, and ideals are once again on trial.
Are those even words? I feel like each of those words are words, but together, I don’t think any of them are, strictly speaking.
Rick Santorum may be easing up on the rhetorical throttle as his fortunes seem on the upswing, but everyone else feels their civilization is in peril, and the bile rises accordingly. On birth control, the Catholic Church is portrayed as the extremist fringe of its own faithful. On abortion, activists labor to extort Komen for the Cure.
Rick Santorum is still as much a jackass as ever, the Catholic hierarchy is out of step with its membership. And the Komen debacle was only about abortion insofar as they decided to make Planned Parenthood’s cancer screenings about abortion. If that’s the sign of civilization in peril, well good news, civilization isn’t in peril.
As MSNBC’s Chris Hayes observes, Republicans are being excoriated for voting against the Violence Against Women Act, for pushing transvaginal ultrasounds, and for holding an all-male hearing on birth control. Conservatives are even being reviled for “slut-shaming” sexy CPAC attendees. “Is there no one in the upper echelon of the GOP establishment,” Hayes wonders, “who can explain to them how all this looks when strung together?”
And, they’re all quite bad on their own. They wouldn’t get excoriated if they acted like women deserve respect and should be allowed to make their own choices. This isn’t a perception problem, it’s a human decency problem.
Alas, Carly Fiorina is not quite upper echelon. But before liberals ritually invoke the glass ceiling, they might want to conduct an agonizing reappraisal of their own. If the conservative movement’s nominal unity is actually belied by a stunning range of right-wing views on the status and purpose of women (and believe me, it is), the left’s alleged philosophical uniformity on the woman question is a complete fabrication — despite the fanatical discipline and norm-enforcement of much of the liberal cultural establishment.
Is the rest of this going to be an honest, thoughtful look at sexism in the Democratic party? If so, Meg Whitman might have been the better choice there. A writer who appreciates crafting a piece might then circle back to the time that she was called a whore. As a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, and someone who has tried to call out sexism in my own party, I would actually appreciate that effort. And while the Daily Caller isn’t really the best place to write that, it’s still a legit story. Or I’m wrong about all that and more nonsense:
The purpose of lifting the left’s Potemkin skirts is not to score tits for tats. Anyone serious about thinking through the role of women in today’s civilization is doing worthless work unless they take the controversies on the right hand in hand with the unsuccessfully suppressed tensions on the opposite side of the spectrum, where disagreements far more volatile in their profundity roil respectable liberalism.
OK, well that paragraph certainly feels like it’s only there to push up the word count. But is that a reference to Potemkin villages? The implication that nobody in the Democratic party actually is a woman? That they’re just fake women? Whaaaat?
Left opinion is no longer defined by the comfortably careworn liberal consensus that Sandra Day O’Connor conveyed in the abortive plurality decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, the metaphysical trouble kicked up by the elective killing of fetuses was relegated to the realm of life’s cosmic mysteries — a place liberals contemptuously deride as beneath human dignity when referenced in terms of the suffering of the crucified Christ. No judge, O’Connor and company concluded, could judge what it so much as meant to end fetal life.
I’m starting a band called “Abortive Plurality.” Also, is a Reagan appointee who was often the swing vote on the Supreme Court part of “the comfortably careworn liberal consensus” or is she a Potemkin skirt?
Lurking beneath this procedural non-judgmentalism was a stubbornly conspicuous judgmental end. Roe couldn’t be overturned, the plurality argued, because Americans might think the Supreme Court was bending to public pressure. The court’s solution was to bend to the public reality that millions of women had altered what it meant to be a woman — and what status that meaning conferred — by having or supporting abortions. On the bogus theory that all linear change is progress, the plurality embraced the immoderate view that a descent into barbarism is impossible.
I’m pretty sure the point of that argument wasn’t that we should all be barbarians.
Continued on Page 2 >>
Oh fuck, fine. I’ll press on.
Liberals, of course, generally and characteristically deny that abortion is barbaric. But the Casey decision substituted a progressive passivity for that very active moral claim. Today, the left is increasingly torn between old-school modern liberals who think like O’Connor and new-school postmodern liberals who find their cognitive elders in thrall to a haute-bourgeois conventionality that the deep premises of their own thought seem to strip of authority.
I. Well. Huh? You know. Um, use an editor next time.
So postmodern Cynthia Nixon, who used to be straight but now isn’t, tells The New York Times Sunday Magazine exactly what establishment liberals don’t want to hear when it comes to the sexual politics of women — “you don’t get to define my gayness for me.” As Laurie Essig understated it in The Chronicle of Higher Education: “Such talk is heresy among some people in the gay advocacy and the reaction was both immediate and predictable.” Nixon was swiftly accused by the left’s cultural policemen of “aiding and abetting bigots and bashers.”
I’m not sure what makes Cynthia Nixon postmodern, but whatever. She and the gay rights advocates all want the same thing (gay rights), so hell of a rift. She can define her sexuality however she wants, like any adult.
The piece forgot to define what the other side wants for her. Maybe say why it’s heresy instead of just quoting someone who says that it is. Then we can see for ourselves if these disagreements are actual disagreements on the left, and maybe how to resolve them.
Lip service is often paid to the impression that the point of empowering women is to empower them to do whatever they want, but much of the left stops well short of the more radical implications of that easy answer. The left’s culture of celebration is hamstrung by the very assertions of should and shouldn’t that contemporary women have inevitably come to make — as the ongoing debate over the advisability of marriage reveals. Reihan Salam has hinted that typically left-wing implications of academic theories like “erotic capital,” including mainstreaming prostitution, point in directions quite at odds with the dominant but failing framework of liberal sexual politics.
I don’t know what erotic capital means, but how about this: women do what you like. If you want to get married, great! If you want to stay single, great! If you’re for monogamy, great! If you want to still see other people while you’re in a relationship, great! If you want children, great! If you don’t, great! You know, like women are autonomous humans who know what’s best for themselves.
To the growing discomfort of many, that framework hasn’t come anywhere close to answering even the most basic questions about what women are for — despite pretty much universal recognition across the political spectrum that a civilization of men, for men, and by men is no civilization at all, a monstrously barbaric, bloody, and brutal enterprise. A few inherently meaningful implications about what women are for flow naturally from this wise and enduring consensus, but no faction of conservatives or liberals has figured out how to fully grasp, translate, and reconcile them in the context of our political life.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? Anyway, how about using ironically in a way that’s guaranteed to piss me off and then finish up with nonsense:
Ironically, one of the best places to look for a way out of the impasse is the strain of left feminism that insists an inherently unique female “voice” actually exists. That’s a claim about nature. Much good would come from a broader recognition that women have a privileged relationship with the natural world. That’s a relationship which must receive its social due — if masculinity in its inherent and imitative varieties (including imitation by quasi-feminized males of quasi-masculinized females!) is not to conquer the world.
Please join us tonight for an evening of Politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking liberally.
We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. We start at 8:00pm, but some of us show up even earlier.
Yesterday, SeattlePI.com’s Joel Connelly (who sometimes stops by DL) summarized the Republican war on women. The Partisans have their own take on it:
Can’t make it to Seattle? There is also a meeting tonight of the Tri-Cities chapter. And Wednesday evening, the Burien chapter meets.
With 227 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.
– The wealthy aren’t like you and me.
– You guys, the urbaniest hell hole of all urban hell holes.
– If we’re getting a couple new sports teams, this would be the thing to do. Of course they would be existing teams rather than expansion teams so you’re not starting from scratch. And the NBA and NHL don’t, as far as I know, have the same sort of history of fan involvement as soccer, so I don’t know what the challenges would look like.
– Austerity doesn’t look so great.
– If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that Darrell Isa is basically the MLK of hating women.
– As an expat Knicks fan, it’s nice to see the team doing well. On the other hand, the Lin puns have to stop.
| Obama | Santorum |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 356 electoral votes | Mean of 182 electoral votes |
Several weeks A week and a half ago, former Sen. Rick Santorum surpassed former Gov. Mitt Romney in the national polling to become the presumptive front-runner in the G.O.P. primary contest. In fact, Santorum has led Romney in the past six consecutive polls since February 9th. Santorum has led by double digits in the last two (here and here).
So why am I just now getting around to the first analysis of state head-to-head polls for a match-up with President Barack Obama? In fact, I’ve been ready to go for weeks now. The problem is that there is a scarcity of polling data for Mr. Santorum. It seems pollsters have, until very recently, considered Santorum one of the least likely nominees in what was once a crowded G.O.P. field.
To quantify it, I have one or more polls in 37 states (plus each of Nebraska’s three congressional districts) for Newt Gingrich. But, after throughly scouring the the intertubes for polls, I only find polling for 18 states that match up Obama and Santorum (and no polls for Nebraska’s CDs). I’ve been waiting a couple of weeks for more polling, and the wait has not gone unrewarded. In the past 9 days, 13 of 19 polls have included an Obama–Santorum match-up, some of those polls are state firsts.
What do we do with states for which there is no polling? As described in the FAQ, I average the 2004 and 2008 elections according to Democratic and Republican percentages. The winner wins the state in each of the simulations. What this rule means statistically is that the results are underdispersed—that is, the distribution of electoral votes is narrower (and lumpier) than it would be if we had polling data for the “missing” states. The problem will correct itself as more polling data come in.
Here’s the result for today. A Monte Carlo analysis using the state head-to-head polls gives Obama a victory in each of the 100,000 simulated elections. Obama receives (on average) 349 to Santorum’s 189 electoral votes.
Earlier today, I did similar analyses for Gingrich and Romney:
This summary shows that Santorum performs much better against Obama than Newt Gingrich, but a little worse than Mitt Romney.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations. That’s a pretty lumpy distribution, largely reflecting uncertainty in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania:
| Obama | Romney |
| 99.9% probability of winning | 0.1% probability of winning |
| Mean of 331 electoral votes | Mean of 207 electoral votes |
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by an average of 348 to 190 electoral votes and a probability of beating Romney of 99.989%—that is, Romney won 11 of the 100,000 simulated elections.
Now nine new polls weigh in on the race:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CA | Rasmussen | 08-Feb | 16-Feb | 500 | 4.5 | 57 | 35 | O+22 |
| IA | Iowa Poll | 12-Feb | 15-Feb | 800 | 3.5 | 44 | 46 | R+2 |
| MA | Suffolk | 11-Feb | 15-Feb | 500 | — | 53.0 | 39.3 | O+13.7 |
| MI | PPP | 10-Feb | 12-Feb | 560 | 4.1 | 54 | 38 | O+16 |
| NM | Rasmussen | 14-Feb | 14-Feb | 500 | 4.5 | 55 | 36 | O+19 |
| OH | Fox News | 11-Feb | 13-Feb | 505 | 4.5 | 38 | 44 | R+6 |
| TX | U Texas | 08-Feb | 15-Feb | 529 | 4.3 | 36 | 49 | R+13 |
| WA | Elway | 07-Feb | 09-Feb | 405 | 5.0 | 49 | 38 | O+11 |
| WA | SurveyUSA | 13-Feb | 15-Feb | 572 | 4.2 | 49.9 | 39.2 | O+10.7 |
The polls in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington are unsurprising in giving Obama double-digit leads. Same for Romney’s double-digit lead in Texas.
The New Mexico poll is, perhaps, a little surprising in giving Obama a +19% lead. But, really, Obama’s lead has been rock-solid in the four NM polls taken to date:
Romney leads Obama by +2 in Iowa. My hunch is that this is an outlier, given the polling to date and that this result comes from a non-mainstream pollster:
The Ohio poll, giving Romney a +6% edge over Obama, reverses the trend mentioned in the previous analysis (see the graph there). Overall, Obama still leads in Ohio because there are four current polls that, combined, give Obama a 51% to 49% edge. Indeed, Obama won Ohio in 85% of the simulated elections.
With the new polls, a Monte Carlo analysis (100,000 simulated state elections, each contributing to an electoral college election) has Obama winning 99,868 times. Now Romney wins 132 times, suggesting that Obama would win an election held now with a 99.9% probability. Obama receives (on average) 331 to Romney’s 207 electoral votes, a gain of +17 votes for Romney.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]
| Obama | Gingrich |
| 100.0% probability of winning | 0.0% probability of winning |
| Mean of 397 electoral votes | Mean of 141 electoral votes |
It has been over two weeks since the previous analysis of the Obama–Gingrich match-up using state head-to-head polls. This is largely because Newt Gingrich’s second lead over Mitt Romney in the national G.O.P. primary polls was rather transient—even more fleeting than his late-2011 lead.
As the life is sucked out of the Gingrich campaign, these analyses become less relevant. A telltale sign of a dying campaign is when pollsters no longer include a candidate in its state head-to-head polls. That has begun to happen for Gingrich. Rasmussen polled Romeny and Santorum, but not Gingrich, in its most recent Florida, New Mexico, and California polls. A Civitas poll in North Carolina and a WBUR poll in Massachusetts did the same. A recent Elway poll in Washington only reported results for Romney.
So, for President’s day, here is an analysis for Gingrich. This may be Newt’s last. I’ll also post an update for Romney, and post Santorum’s very first analysis.
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama with 100% probability of beating Gingrich, and leading by (on average) 421 to 117 electoral votes.
Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama still wins 100,000 times (i.e. Obama has 100% probability of beating Gingrich in an election held now). Obama receives (on average) 397 to Gingrich’s 141 electoral votes.
That newt gains in average electoral votes while losing steam in the primary is because polling is so infrequent at this point. We are now seeing the “fruits” of Gingrich’s surge two months ago.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]
A President’s Presidents Presidents’ day quiz.
The man behind the arena proposal.
Sen. Karen Keiser proposes holding a state garage sale to help fund financial aid for college students.
Are any of these gentleman your neighbor?
Moore’s law to the limit.
Air bags aren’t just for cars anymore.
Santorum surrogate on Obama’s, “Radical Islamic Policies”:
Last week’s contest was won by Liberal Scientist for his second win in a row. It was the brick tower in Scranton, PA that you see at the beginning of the intro for The Office.
This week’s location is somewhere in Washington state, good luck!
2 Samuel 13:10-15
And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.”“No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.
Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, “Get up and get out!”
Discuss.
Thom: The Citizens United showdown in Montana.
Stephen: The Left’s pro-safety agenda.
Obama in Everett, WA: Promoting American manufacturing and exports:
Thom with some Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.
Newsy: MSNBC and Pat Buchanan part ways.
The Republican War on Women:
Thom with John Nichols: Uprising in Wisconsin.
White House: West Wing Week.
Alyona: Three signs you might be a terrorist.
Young Turks: Asian actress from Hoekstra commercial apologizes.
Roy Zimerman: Another “Vote Republican” verse.
Focus on FAUX:
Newsy: Colbert Report goes off the air.
Thom: The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
Right-wing nut case Andrew Breitbart crazies his way to Worst Person in the World.
Jon: What. Congress did something wrong? (Via TalkingPointsMemo.)
Controversial racist Pete Hoekstra alternative advertisement.
Young Turks: Shit Erin Says’ about Iran—We’re not going to let you drive us into another.
Thom with The Good, The Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
The G.O.P. Comedy Show:
Again! Right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart falsifies, exaggerates, and distorts his way to Worst Person in the World.
Thom: When will the Grover Norquist bubble end?
Alyona: The voter fraud myth.
ONN week in review: Obama urges citizens to hide evidence of formerly prosperous lives from nation’s young children.
Roy Zimmerman: And another “Vote Republican” verse.
Jon: The conservative resonse to women soldiers.
Thom: Five Million people wiped off of voter rolls.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
The Washington caucus is coming up in early March [in the comments N in Seattle points out the GOP caucus is March 3 and the Dems are April 15], and it seems to me that liberals and moderates who want to get involved have a few options:
First, caucus for Obama. You’re not going to decide the nomination, but it’s still worthwhile to show your support.
It’s also your only real chance to change the platform. While most of the platform will be whatever Obama wants, there will be a push for a marriage equality plank. It probably won’t be a floor fight or anything like that, but every vote for delegates who support that plank is helpful. In any event, you don’t get to have your say on the final product unless you show up.
The second option is the chaos option. Goldy outlined it here. Vote for Santorum, and hope that it gives him the momentum to eat up Romney resources. The fight will ultimately hurt them.
I’m not convinced that this is a good idea for a few reasons. Primary elections are generally good for the party that has them. They get to test their message, they get to build organizations early. While this year may be different, it doesn’t seem like we need to take that chance with Obama already ahead in the polls. The other reason is I really don’t want Rick Santorum to win Washington. Even if he loses the nomination, every state he wins mainstreams his horrible philosophy. I for one, don’t want to say I helped increase his speaking fees, got him more TV time, or made outright opposition to birth control more mainstream in this country.
So if you’re looking to move the Republican party with your caucus vote, I’d like to recommend a third option: Fred Karger. No, he isn’t going to win. But voting for him sends a much more clear message than voting for Satorum, or even Obama. It says to the GOP enough with demonizing gay people and trying to push women’s rights back to where we’re arguing about birth control.
So I’m probably going to show up for Karger. Who knows? In Seattle, there might be few enough delegates that I can take that message to the next level.
We’ve come a long way, baby! Over the past decade, and particularly over the last couple of years, public opinion polls have increasingly found a majority of people in support of marriage equality. But nothing says, “the bigots will lose,” like this:
Dick Cheney is quietly lobbying at least one Maryland state lawmaker to back marriage equality, the Baltimore Sun reported on Thursday. Since leaving the vice president’s office, Cheney has been increasingly vocal in his support for same-sex marriage, but the extent of his engagement on the issue was not previously well known.
The man without a heartbeat finds his heart. Cheney’s change of heart (no pun intended) is, no doubt, about his daughter Mary Cheney.
In New Jersey, a marriage equality bill passed the New Jersey Assembly yesterday, and was sent to Gov. Chris Christie today. Christie has vowed to veto the bill.
Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a more long-term view. […]
…[T]hey plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — 52 percent for gay marriage, 42 against it, in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.
“We do have two years,” said Reed Gusciora, a Trenton Democrat who sponsored the bill in the Assembly and who is one of two openly gay state lawmakers. “We changed a lot of views in the last couple of weeks. Give us two years and we’re going to change a heck of a lot more.”
Here in Washington state, opponents of our new marriage equality bill have launched a campaign to collect 120,577 valid signatures to get Referendum on the ballot. If they succeed, the law will be put “on hold” so that voters can approve or reject it.
The new referendum drive is not unlike the 2009 signature drive that resulted in R-71, asking voters to approve or reject the state’s domestic partner registration law. The signature drive was successful, and voters ended up supported the “all but marriage” law by a healthy 53% to 47% margin.
There is one big difference between the 2009 signature drive and the current effort: we now know that petitions are public documents. That is, if you sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot, you cannot hide the fact. The Supreme Court says so.
Just yesterday, a searchable database of those who signed R-71 went live at whosigned.org. You can search by names, streets, cities, zip codes, etc. One justification for the page is to assist in spotting fraud. Did someone sign a petition in your name? Go find out.
The other reason for putting the name on-line is so that you can learn about the bigots in your neighborhood. Got acquaintances who are closet homophobes? Check out whosigned.org.
Want to know who to NOT invite to your next Christmas party? Check out whosigned.org.
I looked up who signed from Redmond. I didn’t sign it. Few of the people in my immediate neighborhood signed. I couldn’t find any friends or acquaintances who signed it. Unsurprisingly, Redmond’s famous bigot, Ken Hutcherson, did sign—as did his wife Patricia and daughter Avery.
So…folks who sign petitions to put Washington’s marriage equality law on the ballot should know: we will know you signed. You won’t have to make crude fagot jokes for us to know you are a bigot. Your signature on that petition accomplishes the same thing.
We will put your name and address in an open, searchable web page.
We will encourage your friends, neighbors, and acquaintances to learn that you signed.
We WILL express our disappointment in you and our disapproval of your ignorance and bigotry.
And we will (when we can, legally) discriminate against you.
I’m not talking violence…I’m talking about stigmata: loss of reputation, public humiliation, and withdrawal of personal and social support.
You’ve been warned.
Another poll in Washington state gives us another sign that Washington state will have a Republican Governor come 2013.
Today SurveyUSA released a new poll that covers the gubernatorial race and some presidential match-ups in the state. The poll surveyed 572 registered Washington voters (MOE 4.2%) from 13 Feb. to 16 Feb. The survey used a mix of home phone and cell phone respondents.
First the presidential match-ups:
Man, 22%! Gingrich sure has has some debilitating negatives!
In the gubernatorial race, A.G. Rob McKenna (R) leads Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-1) by 49% to 39% (+10).
A Monte Carlo analysis [FAQ] using a million simulated elections finds Inslee winning 34,472 times to McKenna’s 962,998 wins. This suggests that, in an election held now, McKenna would have a 96.5% probability of winning; Inslee, a 3.5% probability. Here is the distribution of electoral votes from the simulated elections:
The poll result is very similar to an Elway poll taken from 7 Feb. to 9 Feb. If we pool the samples from both of these polls and do the Monte Carlo analysis we find Inslee winning only 10,720 times to McKenna’s 988,657 wins. The evidence suggests that, at this point, McKenna would win with a 98.9% probability:
Denial is not an option for Inslee supporters. While there is plenty of time to turn it around, Inslee is definitely the underdog at this point in the race.
The most recent analysis for the Inslee—McKenna race can be found here.
Toward the beginning of this ridiculously condescending (even the parts I agree with) piece by The Seattle Times about Obama coming to town, we get this paragraph:
Never mind that Obama’s National Labor Relations Board went after Boeing a few years ago for moving part of its operation to South Carolina, looking stridently anti-business. It all worked out and last fall’s landmark labor agreement was win, win, win for workers, the company and the Northwest.
Of course we should mind it. It was one of the best things to happen because we elected him. The Seattle Times needs to get over this great thing that happened for the region!
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!