HorsesAss.Org

As the image and the tweet make clear, Dino Rossi ran into Ben Stein at the Spokane airport last week, and got him to contribute some money.

Good for you, Dino. And I’m sure the support of one of Richard Nixon’s speechwriters will go a long way toward persuading both teabaggers and independents that you’re a different kind of Republican, rather than, you know, the run of the mill corporatist hack you generally come off as.

But apart from the rather desperate sounding plea for more money (“Anyone else? Anyone? Anyone!!!!?“), the tweet got me thinking: in addition to airports and money, what else do Rossi and Stein share?

For example, the Wall Street reform bill on which Rossi finally broke his monk-like, issue-related silence… where does Stein stand on that? Rossi opposes it, erroneously saying that would leave taxpayers on the hook for another financial bailout; he even calls on Murray to “stand up to big banks” and vote it down.

And Stein? Well it turns out that Wolf Blitzer recently asked him about the bill on CNN’s The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Do you like this bill, Ben?

STEIN: I like it pretty well but it doesn’t really — it isn’t really needed. This recession was caused largely by fraud on Wall Street. There are already antifraud laws all over the place. They’re just not being enforced. This law doesn’t end too big to fail. It just has an orderly process for it. You know what? Too big to fail is not a bad idea. Lehman Brothers was too big to fail. By letting it fail the former secretary of the treasury Henry Paulson created this recession. So I mean I don’t even — I don’t even see what the problem is with too big to fail frankly. I think we’re operating from a lot of false premises here. Too big to fail is not a bad idea.

BRAZILE: Ben, at least use their money to fail and not the taxpayers’ money to bail them out.

STEIN: Well, maybe sometimes you do need to use the taxpayers’ money to bail them out. If we had bailed out Lehman Brothers we wouldn’t have had this colossal recession. It would have cost 10, 15, $20 billion to bail them out. Instead we’ve lost trillions because of this recession. A stitch in time as they say saves nine. We should have saved Lehman Brothers. It was too big to fail. We let it fail anyway and we got a catastrophic recession that hurt the smallest and weakest among us.

So Rossi opposes Wall Street reform because he says it leaves taxpayers on the hook for another bailout — even though the bill includes a Patty Murray sponsored amendment that prohibits exactly that — at the same time he’s touting a contribution from Ben Stein, who likes the bill “pretty well,” but opposes it because “Too big to fail is not a bad idea… sometimes you do need to use the taxpayers’ money to bail them out.”

Uh-huh. So which candidate is it exactly who voters can best rely on to “stand up to big banks”…? It’s hard to imagine it’s a Ben Stein Republican like Dino Rossi.

With the support of Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senate has finally put together the bare minimum 60 votes needed to break the Republican filibuster on Wall Street reform, making passage a sure thing.

Meanwhile, Republican real estate speculator Dino Rossi has finally taken a position on an issue, telling the Seattle Times that he would have voted with his fellow Republicans to block the measure, because, apparently, preventing banks and other financial firms from doing the same sort of things that recently cost millions of Americans their jobs would “stifle job growth,” or something.

And if that sounds confused, just watch Rossi step in it when he attempts to dig into the details:

Rossi depicted Murray’s planned vote in favor of the measure — which could come as early as Thursday — as akin to putting taxpayers on the hook for another possible bailout of financial firms. He contends that it does little to discourage future risky behavior and called on Murray to “stand up to big banks” and vote it down.

[…] Murray’s campaign swiftly derided Rossi for overlooking the fact that Murray co-sponsored a successful amendment explicitly prohibiting using tax dollars to bail out troubled financial companies.

“It seems strange that Dino Rossi took weeks to take a position on this bill without apparently having read it,” said Julie Edwards, a Murray campaign spokeswoman.

But, you know, why bother reading something as big and as complicated as the actual bill when your heart’s not really in this campaign anyway?

From an article on the expected surge in tablet usage:

The research also highlighted the “instant on” functionality and all day battery life of iPad, features that can make it more attractive to businesses than notebooks. “This is in sharp contrast to existing PCs,” Goldman wrote, “which typically take 15-60 seconds to resume from a standby or sleep state.”

This has always baffled me. When I lift the lid on my MacBook, it turns on. When I close the lid, it turns off. Nearly instantly. This is the way Mac notebooks have always worked, for what… nearly two decades now.

And yet Microsoft and its partners have never managed (or bothered) to match the same basic functionality.

I don’t want to start a Mac vs. Windows flame thread here, but what’s the deal? Is it a patent thing?

Joshua Green at The Atlantic writes about the impact that marijuana legalization initiatives will have on partisan races:

I have a short piece in the current Atlantic about the marijuana ballot initiatives sweeping the country. (Paul Starobin also has an excellent cover story in National Journal.) But one issue nobody has examined is what effect these initiatives have on candidates’ performance at the polls. Acting on a tip from an Obama official, I found a few Democratic consultants who have become convinced that ballot initiatives legalizing marijuana, like the one Californians will vote on in November, actually help Democrats in the same way that gay marriage bans were supposed to have helped Republicans. They are similarly popular, with medical marijuana having passed in 14 states (and the District of Columbia) where it has appeared on the ballot. In a recent poll, 56 percent of Californians said they favor the upcoming initiative to legalize and tax pot.

The idea that this helps Democrats is based on the demographic profile of who shows up to vote for marijuana initiatives–and wouldn’t show up otherwise. “If you look at who turns out to vote for marijuana,” says Jim Merlino, a consultant in Colorado, which passed initiatives in 2000 and 2006, “they’re generally under 35. And young people tend to vote Democratic.” This influx of new voters, he believes, helps Democrats up and down the ticket.

I think it’s hard to argue with that. Younger people today are voting overwhelmingly for Democrats, so if you have an initiative that motivates more young people to vote, Democrats on the ballot will get a boost. But in California, where Proposition 19 will be voted on this fall, the picture may not be so clear.

The reason is because both Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, the two Democrats running for statewide offices this year, both came out against the initiative. And they didn’t just check some checkbox somewhere saying that they were against it. They went full-on drug warrior with their public statements.

Boxer’s campaign put out a statement saying that it would lead to an increase in crime, and that law enforcement costs would go up. Just to underscore how ludicrous that statement is, the official ballot argument for Proposition 19 was signed by a former police chief, a former deputy chief, and a former judge.

Jerry Brown put out an even more ridiculous statement in opposition to Proposition 19 saying that it would open the floodgates for Mexican drug cartels. Jon Walker does an excellent job here drawing the parallels to alcohol prohibition and explaining why Brown’s statement makes absolutely no sense.

The recent polling for both Boxer and Brown hasn’t been good. Brown is trailing Meg Whitman in the Governor’s race. And in recent months, Boxer’s favorability numbers have taken a hit and she’s in a dead heat with Carly Fiorina. Her decline probably has a series of factors, but her opposition to the marijuana initiative is likely playing some non-trivial role in it.

I feel confident in saying that for two reasons. One, it’s an issue that puts her in direct opposition to her base (69% of self-described liberals support it according to the latest Survey USA poll). And two, I tend to think that while very few voters consider marijuana to be a major issue, a lot more of them have a strong enough opinion about the issue (and understand it well enough) for it to play into their overall perceptions of how the candidates would deal with issues more pressing, like the economy or health care. Boxer is being painted as an out-of-touch DC insider who caters to government interests. Her position on marijuana just plays right into that stereotype.

So how is this going to end up? Will the benefits to California’s big ticket Democrats from additional young voter participation due to Proposition 19 be counteracted by both Boxer’s and Brown’s laughable public stances on it? Someone with more time and resources than me could potentially put together some good poll questions to explore that, or to do some statistical analysis from existing polls. But what’s clear is that even if Democratic consultants see the benefit of having marijuana initiatives on the ballot, they apparently still don’t see the benefit of actually endorsing them.

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting report in the San Francisco Chronicle about Boxer and her polling woes:

Boxer’s slight numerical lead masks potentially serious problems for the senator, starting with how 52 percent of the respondents hold an unfavorable view of her.

At the same time, her job approval rating is among the lowest that Field has measured for her since she was first elected to the Senate in 1992: 43 percent of registered voters disapprove of her performance while 42 percent approve. Among likely voters, 48 percent disapprove and 42 percent approve.

…

“It’s a reflection of the effectiveness of a Republican strategy to characterize Sen. Boxer as everything that’s wrong with the government,” said Larry Berman, a professor of political science at UC Davis. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., another longtime Democrat facing a tough re-election challenge, faces a similar predicament, Berman said.

As I mentioned above, the job of characterizing Senator Boxer as “everything that’s wrong with the government” becomes a lot easier when Boxer herself takes a position on the marijuana initiative that large numbers of both her base and independents understand as being “something that’s wrong with the government”.

So here’s a question I haven’t heard asked, let alone answered, throughout the contentious debate over who pays cost overruns on the Big Bore tunnel.

If, for example, the tunnel boring machine gets stuck, as happened with Brightwater, and if the contractor is unable to get it moving again, as happened with Brightwater, and if we’re forced to bring in a new contractor at an expense of hundreds of millions of dollars above the original bid, as happened with Brightwater… who is going to write the checks?

Am not asking who will ultimately pay for the cost overruns; that’s what everybody is fighting over. But rather, who will pay the new contractor, in the short term, to complete the job?

Will the state, who is responsible for digging the tunnel, fork over the cash, and then attempt to collect from Seattle taxpayers later? Or, at the point when cost overruns become an actual reality, will the state halt work on the project until Seattle somehow comes up with the cash? I mean, obviously, no contractor is going to start a multi-hundred million dollar job on promises that they’ll be paid eventually… you know, once the city and the state and the original contractor finish years of litigation.

With the legislature insisting that the city is responsible, and the city insisting that the cost overrun provision is unenforceable, and the governor insisting that there won’t be any cost overruns — and the whole project under-bonded by more than half — isn’t there a potential cash flow problem here should the worst happen? And isn’t this the sorta thing we should settle before we sign all the contracts?

I’m just askin’.

For a guy running as “a new kind of Republican,” and railing against a Republican opponent who “is part of the establishment, having been recruited by the D.C. power brokers,” you’d think Clint Didier might have found a more personal and, I dunno, this-Washingtonish return address for his fundraising envelopes.

Oh, and by the way Clint, if you’re wasting your money sending expensive, six-piece, full-color mailers to the kinda Seattle liberals who would immediately hand it over to me for public ridicule, your “new kind of Republican” Beltway direct mail house might want to buy themselves a more targeted list.

This is the sort of stuff that happens along militarized borders. I’m just sayin’.

The Seattle Times’ Jim Brunner reports that real estate speculator and Republican senatorial wannabe Dino Rossi “pulled in $1.4 million during his first month in the race.” On the surface, not too shabby. But… technically, it was Rossi’s first five weeks in the race, and if you’re looking at fundraising trends for evidence of voter enthusiasm, let alone the ability of a candidate to compete in the looming air war, that extra week makes quite a difference.

An additional $1.4 million a month from July 1 through November 2 would bring Rossi’s totals to about $7 million, a hair more than Sen. Patty Murray’s current $6.8 million cash on hand, though far short of her $11.5 million total. That said, Sen. Murray has picked up her fundraising pace since Rossi entered the race, hauling in an additional $1.6 million during the recently ended quarter, and, well, it takes money to make money, so a sizable chunk of Rossi’s monthly haul inevitably goes out the door in fundraising costs. Thus, while Rossi is certainly gaining ground on the incumbent — starting from zero, how could he not? —even $1.4 million per month would leave him at a substantial dollar disadvantage.

But Rossi isn’t really hauling in the bucks at a pace of $1.4 million a month, now is he?

Remember, Rossi famously boasted, and the media faithfully reported, that he raised over $600,000 in his first official week of campaigning, the first six days of which actually fell in the month of May. No doubt there was some pent up pro-Rossi excitement… and despite the campaign finance laws, no doubt a bunch of big donors were lined up in advance. But once he picked all the low hanging fruit, Rossi’s fundraising numbers clearly trended down, only bringing in an additional $800,000 during the month of June.

Extrapolate that number over the four remaining months of the campaign, and Rossi only raises $4.6 million total. Then figure in his fundraising costs plus Murray’s future haul, and that’s enough to buy Rossi a race in which he gets himself outspent by a better than two to one margin. Not so hot for a candidate whose name ID and fundraising prowess are his two biggest qualifications.

And according to Real Clear Politics, Rossi’s relatively anemic results are not from lack of trying:

[H]e basically admitted that because he started so late, his campaign organization is currently in a mad dash to cut into Senator Patty Murray’s huge fundraising advantage.

And a mad dash that first week was. Unfortunately for him, a senate campaign is a marathon, and in this and other respects, Rossi’s starting to look awfully damn tired.

Please join us tonight for another Tuesday evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by earlier and join some of us for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 328 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

Per Joel Connelly’s suggestion in the comment threads, I’ve added to my gallery of prophets by drawing a cartoon of myself.

Note that unlike the previous two cartoons, I’m ignoring my own thirst, while offering a bowl of water to my dog, Feisty. Because I love dogs, even more than Jesus does.

I didn’t pay much attention when Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris’s suggestion of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” took off and became an Internet phenomenon, because I’m not a cartoonist, and frankly, the whole Muhammad cartoon thing was so 2006. That is, I didn’t pay much attention until yesterday, when Norris’s lark apparently earned her a spot on an Islamist terrorist hit list.

And so, as a staunch defender of free speech, no matter how inappropriate or offensive, I feel it is my duty to stand with Norris by posting a Muhammad cartoon of my own. And I urge all small “d” democrats to stand with me too. I mean, what are they going to do… kill us all?

Now granted, I’m not much of a graphic artist, but I did the best I could. And while I have no idea what Muhammad looks like, I know it’s hot in the desert, so for the sake of realism I’ve drawn him enjoying a cold, fizzy beverage. I’m guessing, seltzer. And it’s very refreshing. That’s why Muhammad is smiling.

Oh, and that dog in the picture, I know Muslims think dogs are unclean or something, so I want to be absolutely clear that this is not Muhammad’s dog. It’s just some dirty street mongrel that keeps following Muhammad around, trying to grab his seltzer, which might explain why he’s not too keen on dogs. In fact, had I drawn him feet, Muhammad would probably kick the dog. But I like dogs, so I didn’t. (I just thought I’d explain the whole dog thing, so that you wouldn’t think I’m being culturally insensitive.)

Anyway, the point is, it’s just a fucking cartoon for chrisakes, so Anwar al-Awlaki should just get a life. And, just to prove that I’m an equal opportunity blasphemer, and have nothing in particular against Islam, here’s a cartoon of Jesus drinking a Slurpee™:

And yes, I drew Jesus with feet, because he strikes me as the kinda guy who probably liked dogs.

During our several days of 80-plus degree heat last week, a single cherry tomato ripened. And nearly midway through July, that has been the extent of our tomato harvest thus far.

To be fair, the harvest generally doesn’t begin in earnest for another two to three weeks, but the ultra-early varieties I plant (Stupice, Sungold, and the Sweet Million above) usually produce a scattering of offerings by now. More disturbing, while the foliage is lush, very little fruit has set thus far; only three clusters between my two, always reliable Stupice plants, a couple clusters on the Sweet Million, and the first hint of fruit on the Sungold and Yellow Pear. My Ispolin, a Siberian beefsteak variety I’m experimenting with, has tons of flowers, but only a single, thumbnail-sized fruit.

Unless it’s hot and dry in August and September, this is shaping up to be a pretty crappy tomato year in Seattle. Depressing.

Google bad. Make them give us money.

Fox News personality Judge Andrew Napolitano on Bush and Cheney:

They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I’d like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you’re under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It’s a moral crime.

It’s not a coincidence that Fox News didn’t put people like Napolitano on TV give Napolitano his own show until after we had a Democrat inhabiting the White House.

UPDATE: A commenter pointed out that Napolitano was occasionally on Fox News in the past, but he didn’t have his own show until 2009. I’ve updated the original post accordingly.

UPDATE 2: In fact, Freedom Watch was created in February 2009 and began airing on Fox Business Channel in 2010. The timing was not a coincidence.

The Washington State Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review to Goldmark v. McKenna, Commissioner for Public Lands Peter Goldmark’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Attorney General Rob McKenna fulfill his statutory duty to provide legal counsel.

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to take up my case with the Attorney General,” Goldmark said in an official statement. “It is a critical constitutional question of whether or not the Attorney General has the discretion to make policy for issues under the purview of another statewide elected official.”

This marks the second time in as many weeks that the Court has rejected McKenna’s claim of broad discretionary powers. Oral arguments are scheduled to be held November 18, the same day as those for Seattle v. McKenna, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes’ petition seeking to compel McKenna to withdraw from the lawsuit challenging health care reform.

In granting review of the two related cases, and scheduling to hear them on the same day, the Washington State Supreme Court apparently believes the constitutional issues raised by the Attorney General’s unprecedented claim of extra-statutory powers are a pretty big deal… but so far our local media disagrees. Huh.