Last week’s contest was won by Darryl. It was the hockey arena in Johnstown, PA, whose minor league hockey team in the 1970s, the Jets, became the inspiration for the movie Slapshot.
This week’s contest is a location somewhere in Washington state, good luck!
John 1:36
When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”John 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
A special puzzler edition of HA Bible Study. Find the hidden meaning, and then discuss.
Sorry if any of these links have previously been shared/discussed – I’ve been a busy fella…
– Not a big surprise that people who espouse bigotry don’t have the courage to explain their rationale to a public audience.
– This article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a great window into how the law enforcement community doesn’t understand the dynamics of drug markets. After 11 people were arrested in a drug sting in the small western Pennsylvania town of Clairton, the police chief foolishly expected crime to go down. Instead, the void was filled with a new wave of violence as new dealers fought to re-establish control of the trade.
– If the low-level war between Iran and Israel continues to escalate, none of us are ready for how crazy the 2012 election season will be. If the Obama Administration gets pulled into bigger conflict as the GOP (with right-wing Israeli allies) tries to defeat him in November, things are going to get ugly. Yes, this is probably obvious, but holy crap does it feel very ominous to me.
– TPM reported this week that Justice Scalia is being “boxed in” by his decision in Raich v. Gonzales when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (or for the yokels in the comment threads, “ObamaCare”). I’ve written about how GOP Gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna has also been exposed as a massive hypocrite over this. It looks like there might actually be a very big risk in hippie-punching.
A stranger rolled into town last week and left behind numerous IEDs—or improvised expression devices—subjecting commuters in our region to the terrors of unchecked free expression.
Once again FreewayBlogger left his marks all over the highways of Seattle:
After taking a few years off, FreewayBlogger is back at it, posting along the highways up and down the West Coast. These days he is blogging about corporate “personhood”, corporate greed, economic disparity, and anthropogenic climate change.
He is asking for your help.
During the later part of the Bush/Cheney regime, he blogged some great slogans like “Chimpeach”, “Osama bin Forgotten,” “Misery Accomplished,” and something with that silhouette of a wired Iraqi prisoner:
What he needs now are relevant, short, catchy slogans for his signs. Check out FreewayBlogger’s newer signs, and if you have ideas for new slogans, leave ’em in that comment thread.
Another way you can help is by doing your own freeway blogging. Check out FreewayBlogger’s videos “How To Reach 100,000 People For Under $1.00” and “How To Make A Sign In 5 Minutes.”
The last time FreewayBlogger was in town, we spent an enjoyable afternoon at my house making new signs—here is my report to The General back in the Summer of 2007.
ONN: Grover Norquist confesses to weeklong drug-fueled orgy with corporate income taxes:
Ed: MT Supreme Court takes on Citizens United.
Stephen discusses Superpacs on Monday Night’s “Rock Center”.
Gitmo: TEN MORE YEARS!
White House: West Wing Week.
Red State Update: Jackie Broyles Racist Newsletter.
Alyona: Barbour misuses pardon power.
Young Turks: Military torture tactics are creeping into civilian policing.
Jennifer Granholm: How Republicans get people to vote against their own interests.
Stephen: The Obama halloween scandal.
The Republican Primary Asylum:
Alyona’s Tool Time: TSA’s top 10 catches lacks terrorists.
Jon warns Iran.
White House: Michelle Obama Tweets.
Pap: Racism prevalent at GOP primaries.
Shuster with Lizz Winstead: Warren Buffett’s challenge to Congress.
ONN: MN braces for return of Michele and other news of the week.
Greenman: Climate and sea level: An emerging hockey stick:
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
Yes, I’m the person who thought he was going to get a solid 3rd place in Iowa, so what the fuck do I know? But seeing Perry screw up the what departments would you eliminate (h/t) question again I think he’s not in it to win it. I think the whole project is one of running for 2016.
Now hear me out: When he got into the race late, we all assumed he looked at that weak field, figured “all of these anti-Romneys are awful so it may as well be me.” But what if he saw that same weak field and thought, “there’s no heir apparent when Romeny loses, why not me?”
Now for this to work, you have to accept that the Republican party supports whoever it has felt it’s their time. This year it’s Romeny’s time because he lost to McCain in 2008. In 2008, it was McCain’s time because he lost to W. Bush in 2000. In 2000 it was Bush II’s time because the GOP will support a dynasty. Dole and Pops Bush had been VP nominees and thus it was their time when they were picked, etc.
That’s a bit esoteric, and not everybody buys it. But perhaps Perry looked at that crowd and thought Romney can fuck up in the general, and if I run and lose the nomination, I can be the next in line. Huntsman was never going to be next in line. Bachmann was never going to expand past her Tea Party base. Santorum and Gingrich left DC in disgrace, so it wasn’t going to be them.
And this actually explains a bit about the Perry campaign. The gaffs serve 2 functions: first they make sure he didn’t screw it up by winning this time. He doesn’t have the money or the organization to do his best in a general election, so he doesn’t want to win the primary and screw it up. It also sets the bar incredibly low next time. If he can count to 3, people will remark on how improved his 2016 version run is over 2012. It also explains why he ever went negative on Romney as fiercely as Newt. He doesn’t want to upset the insiders who support Romney this time around.
Of course, there are a few things that don’t fit. The most likely next in line is whoever Romney picks as VP. If it’s someone who can run successfully on their own, well, they’re the next in line. But, Palin, Cheney, Kemp, and Quayle haven’t run for President, so it’s not a given. The most likely answer to why he keeps screwing up may be as a friend of mine, a recent Austin transplant, explained to me, “he’s just dumb.”
Here is the Gingrich-affiliated hit-video against Mitt Romney. It is worth a look, but recognize it for what it is: propaganda from wingnuts.
A grenade has been lobbed. What we have here is Republican on Republican violence. It will probably hurt Mitt Romney even going into the general election. Nate Silver gives several cogent reason why.
It is amusing—particularly watching the battles, but is it right? Today the Washington Post Fact Checker gives the video Four Pinocchios:
Romney may have opened the door to this kind of attack with his suspect job-creation claims, but that is no excuse for this highly misleading portrayal of Romney’s years at Bain Capital. Only one of the four case studies directly involves Romney and his decision-making, while at least two are completely off point. The manipulative way the interviews appeared to have been gathered for the UniMac segment alone discredits the entire film.
The Fact Checker documentation seems pretty convincing. But, if you want a second opinion, and you haven’t written off PolitiFact, they promise to take a look. I suspect they will give a similar assessment.
This episode has an amusing lesson. We learn that the Republicans have turned their guns on themselves. The Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was a powerful weapon for the G.O.P, but they couldn’t manage that power. Are you surprised?
This episode fundamentally reflects the increasing acceptance by Republicans of sacrificing the truth, or ANYTHING, for political power. That alone, is a good starting point for attacking Romney, and the sleazy things he says and will say about Obama.
This is another lesson for Democrats: If you are going to do a hit piece, keep it real. Romney has plenty of negatives—some that might even be related to corporate raiding. So use the truth…. As much as I want Romney’s credibility as a presidential candidate destroyed, I cannot condone Swiftboating.
In the post for the start of the legislative session, I mentioned briefly a bill that would mandate that insurance providers cover abortions in Washington State. I haven’t seen anything approaching a whip count, so I don’t know if it stands any chance of passing, so feel free to contact your legislators.
Hopefully there are enough votes, because passing this would be a very positive thing. It would make sure that women (and trans men, I assume, but I can’t tell from the press release) who get pregnant have options. Like so much with health care, the goal, one hopes, is to make sure that people have the best options available to them, and that people not be priced out of health care.
Women in Washington ought to have the best access to health care including access to an abortion. And they shouldn’t have to buy a separate rider or pay out of pocket; that’s why we have health insurance in the first place, after all.
Additionally, a lot of people don’t have much choice in their health insurance: they have the choice the company they work for provides. This law will provide that a boss or a union that doesn’t think to provide that care doesn’t negatively affect them. And an anti-choice boss doesn’t get to make that decision for the women who work for them.
Washington state has a chance to do something good when so often we hear negative news from the states on abortion/reproductive rights issues.
Washington’s remodeled 1st congressional district is getting pretty damn crowded with congressional candidates.
Today Democrat Susan DelBene announced her run for Congress. She joins a pack of Democrats, including Darcy Burner, Laura Ruderman, state Rep. Roger Goodman, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Darshan Rauniyar.
DelBene ran against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) in 2010, narrowly losing. Burner has run for congress twice—2006 and 2008—narrowly losing to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA-08) each time.
The Republicans in the race are John Koster and James Watkins. Koster ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA-02), losing in 2004 and narrowly losing in 2010. Watkins lost to Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2010.
Sometime in the next week, Larry Ismael is expected to formally declare as an independent candidate. Ismael ran as a Republican against Inslee in 2006 and 2008, losing to Inslee by a 3 2:1 margin each time.
It is hard to tell who the front runner is at this point. The closest thing we have to a poll is from the Burner campaign. Late last year, they ran it in the proposed first district in order to test the waters:
The pollster did a favorable/unfavorable on the possible female candidates: former state legislator Laura Ruderman, the top fund raiser in the current field; Darcy Burner; and Suzan DelBene, the Democrat who challenged Reichert in 2008, who has also talked about getting in this time.
Then the poll did a horse race check for all candidates; others include state Reps. Roger Goodman and Marko Liias, state Sen. Steve Hobbs, and Bothell business entrepreneur (and surprise fundraiser) Darshan Rauniyar.
Then there was a horse race question between Burner and James Watkins, the Republican whose going for Inslee’s seat.
The pollster released a highly abbreviated summary of the results:
- Darcy Burner has an overwhelming lead over all other declared Democratic candidates in the proposed new WA-01. In the primary election among Democratic voters, Burner leads with 47% of the Democratic vote, greatly exceeding the 12% the next Democrat receives, and is +7 points higher than the 40% garnered by the entire rest of the field.
- Among all voters in the primary election, Burner also leads all other Democratic candidates by huge margins—27% support Burner while the next closest Democrat draws just 7% of the vote. In fact, Burner draws greater support than all other Democratic candidates COMBINED (27% for Burner vs. 22% for the six other Democratic candidates tested).
- Fully 50% of Democratic voters have a favorable impression of Burner, while just 11% have an unfavorable impression, with 39% unsure. Four out of five (82%) Democratic voters who have an opinion about Burner have a favorable impression of her.
- Burner’s overall name recognition (55%) is much stronger than that of Laura Ruderman (14%).
These results must be tempered by the fact that the new 1st may not look anything at all like the polled “proposed 1st.” Also, the information missing from the polling summary may be missing for a reason.
My feeling is that Burner really is the front-runner, but its almost entirely because of name recognition following two media-intensive campaigns in years when Democrats were tuning into elections. DelBene’s run was more recent, but in a year that didn’t excite Democrats. Name recognition alone won’t translate into a win.
Burner has something else going for her. Publicola points out that she leads other candidates in fundraising*. DelBene can self-finance her campaign, but a dollar raised by a candidate is far more valuable than a dollar out of a candidate’s pocket, because it builds brand loyalty. Burner’s two month head start over DelBene may turn out to be important.
The Big Problem with so many Democrats (and some very good Democrats at that) in the race, is the possibility that two Republicans come out on top in our goofy top two primary system. With any luck, the field will start shrinking on the Democratic side, but not so much on the Republican and independent side….
*As Daniel K points out, I misread the fundraising statement in Publicola.
Oops!
– Does our status as a caucus state mean we’ll miss the aborted fetus ad at the Super Bowl? (Today in questions I thought I’d never ask.)
– For serious, fuck James O’Keefe and crew.
– The person behind the we still hate gay people initiative.
– I’d go in a second.
It’s about damn time! Within the last 24 hours, we have finally gotten the first new state polls of 2012, putting Obama head-to-head with Romney.
The first new one is a PPP poll from North Carolina that has Obama leading Romney by +1% (46% to 45%). The second poll, taken in Florida by Quinnipiac, isn’t quite as nice for Obama who trails Romney by -3% (43% to 46%). Obama led in the previous Florida poll taken in early December, by +7.
| Obama | Romney |
| 78.5% probability of winning | 21.5% probability of winning |
| Mean of 294 electoral votes | Mean of 244 electoral votes |
In this analysis employing 100,000 simulated elections, Obama won 78,482 times and Romney won 21,518 times (including the 996 ties). Obama received (on average) 294 to Romney’s 244 electoral votes. The results suggest that in an election held now, Obama would have a 78.5% probability of winning and Romney a 21.5% probability of winning.
Obama’s chances drop from 96% in the previous analysis.
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.
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:
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):
Mitt gets a solid double-digit lead, which means it is all but over for the Republican primary contest.
10:00: With 95% reporting….
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.
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!