HorsesAss.Org

Speaking of conservative Republican hypocrisy, check out the Seattle Times’ profile of Tea Party senatorial candidate Clint Didier:

A former NFL player turned farmer, Didier has repeatedly called the federal government “a predator.” He vows to oppose the “Marxist utopia” he says Democrats want to create — “where everyone is taken care of from womb to tomb.”

But Didier himself has cashed in on one big government aid program. He has received nearly $273,000 in federal farm subsidies since 1995, according to a database of U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidies maintained by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

In fact Didier’s entire way of life, and that of his parents, was made possible by that federal predator and the massive irrigation and hydro-electric projects that came out of the New Deal era. “Without water from the Grand Coulee, we would be nothing more than a desert,” Didier acknowledges, but that doesn’t stop him from trying to stop government from making the kind of investments that might lift other families out of poverty.

It’s amazing. Nobody has benefited more from government investment and subsidies than farmers like Didier, yet come tax day, all they can do is bitch.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) and his congressional aide Tracy Jackson discuss the virtues of abstinence-only sex education, and what makes this video unintentionally hilarious, instead of, you know, just plan boring, is that Rep. Souder, one of those “family values Republicans,” just resigned after it was revealed that he and Jackson were having an affair.

I guess he should’ve known better, but as Woody Allen famously said, “The heart wants what the heart wants…” or more accurately, the penis. Kinda demonstrates in a nutshell the problem with abstinence-only sex education. I mean, if a pudgy, middle-aged, holy roller with a family and a political career to protect, can’t abstain from sex outside of marriage, what can we honestly expect of a hormone-enraged teenager?

In his resignation statement, Souder complains about “the poisonous environment of Washington D.C.,” but in the end, the thing that poisoned both his career and his marriage was his own hypocrisy.

Clark County Commissioner Tom Mielke and other state Republicans are grumbling about Dino Rossi’s endless dawdling, but not me. No, I urge Rossi to take a much time as he wants.

Kittitas County Republican Party chair and crazy-ass blogger Mathew Manweller (known around these parts as “the nutty professor“), defends his man by insisting that Rossi still has “a week or so” to make his decision before “the milk is going to sour,” but there are still 23 days before the June 10 filing deadline and I hope Rossi makes every one of them count.

In fact, why should a state leader like Rossi live his life by other people’s schedules? Screw the deadline… he could still run in the August primary as a write-in candidate, and I say he should reserve that right, just in case Sen. Patty Murray’s numbers plummet between now then. Good things come to those who wait. Lamentations 3:25, and all that.

Yeah, sure, I suppose Rossi’s Hamlet-like indecisiveness must be pretty frustrating to the field of Republican extras longing for their moment in the spotlight, but Hamlet was a noble character, so I applaud the role Rossi has chosen to play. Of course, by the end of Hamlet, just about everybody ends up dead, but it sure does make for some entertaining theater.

– The Q13 Fox news director who declined to air the recent police brutality video has resigned.

– 40 years of failure in the drug war. Now that legalization appears to be around the corner, this is where the next battle is likely to occur.

– A mysterious disease has infected the poppy harvest in Afghanistan, although I’m not on board with any wild conspiracy theories involving Joe Biden, who helped introduce this bill in 2006.

– Dominic Holden catches another Seattle Times reporter failing to do her job properly when covering a drug bust.

– Ezra Klein on the gap between young liberal Jews and older Zionists.

– As a fairly frequent Facebook user, I’ve been trying to follow the backlash against the company over its privacy concerns. One thing I certainly agree with the anti-Facebook camp about is that the application is buggy – as hell. It’s probably the buggiest web interface I’ve ever used, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the security is just as bad. But what I’m not sure I fully grasp yet is the actual threat posed by having the information we put on Facebook shared with third parties.

I deal with issues like this in my day job (I’m an IT manager at a financial services company), so I tend to see a distinction between the importance of keeping something like financial information private and not letting a marketing person determine which demographics are most likely to say they like The Jonas Brothers and Lost. If Facebook is not properly securing user passwords, or collecting enough information from people that identity theft becomes easy for a hacker, that’s one thing (and that may be true, but I haven’t seen that alleged yet). But I tend not to put anything on Facebook that I wouldn’t say out loud on a Metro bus. Someone who had access to my profile could learn a bit about me, but I don’t see how they’d have anything of any real value besides a few data points for doing large scale analytics.

Maybe I’m just different from most people in that respect. It doesn’t bother me much if people I don’t know see my pictures, but others probably do. Facebook very blatantly defaults to having things public rather than the other way around. But I think we should recognize that this approach is why Facebook succeeded. When people began setting up their networks, it was remarkably easy to find your friends and get hooked up with people you haven’t seen in years. A community web site that tried harder to protect people’s privacy just wouldn’t have taken off the way Facebook did.

State Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Dogs in Bars) unexpectedly announced his retirement today, setting in motion a sudden reshuffling of the legislative races in his 46th Legislative District.

State Rep. Scott White, a first-term Democratic incumbent quickly announced that he would run for Jacobsen’s senate seat, with the instant backing of much of the Democratic establishment. Meanwhile, political newcomer David Frockt, who had been challenging Jacobsen, will switch races and go after White’s newly vacated state House seat.

Dizzying.

With so little time remaining before the June 10 filing deadline, I’m guessing White might end up running unopposed, and certainly unopposed by any serious challenger. Frockt, on the other hand, I’d be surprised if he didn’t draw an opponent or two now that he’s in a race for an open seat. Perhaps Gerry Pollet, who bitterly contested White for the seat in 2008? Perhaps some energetic, young activist type?

Should be interesting.

Authorities don’t yet know what sparked this weekend’s tragic shooting by an off duty Pierce County deputy of his in-laws and himself. But we do know what enabled the shootings:  a gun.

I’m not pointing this out as an argument for gun control. The guy was a police officer after all, so it’s kinda unrealistic to expect him not to have a weapon.

But I would argue that this tragedy once again points out that generally, guns do not make us safer. Had this man not had easy access to a weapon, he would not have shot his in-laws or himself. He might still have gotten physically violent, but the result would likely not have been nearly as tragic.

I mean, honestly, how many shootings do we read of that are the result of horrible accidents or crazed crimes of passion? And how many are legitimate acts of self defense?

So own a gun if you want. It’s your 2nd Amendment right, the current Supreme Court tells us, and both hunting and target shooting can be reasonable pastimes, and even downright fun. Just know that your number one risk factor for being involved in a shooting is to own gun.

My friend Carla at Blue Oregon faced an interesting quandary over the weekend. Land use is her issue in the wonky/passionate way that tax restructuring is mine, and she thought she’d found her dream candidate for Washington County Commission:

I’ve been very supportive of the candidacy of Greg Malinowski, a farmer in District 2 who very much reflects my own concerns about Washington County. Malinowski has been an ardent defender of farmland and is extremely knowledgeable about county decisions and their impact on the community. Greg is very thoughtful and smart on this issue as well.

Then she caught wind of the soon to be released Oregon Family Council’s Voter Guide, in which Malinowski had filled out the questionnaire checking anti-choice and anti-marriage equality positions. As Carla described it, the news hit her “like a punch in the stomach.”

As it turns out, she finally had a chance to meet with Malinowski on Sunday, and came away comfortable with his positions, which while a touch inarticulate, come across as neither particularly anti-choice nor anti-marriage equality. Chalk it up to being a political novice or perhaps just not fully understanding the issues, but his values appear to be in the right place.

Still, Carla’s quandary raises a broader question about the limits of both litmus tests and political pragmatism.

For example, as Carla points out, while land use is by far the most pressing issue facing the county, there was no record of abortion services or marriage equality ever coming before the commission. So wouldn’t it be the pragmatic thing to support a candidate who was good on land use, no matter how repugnant you might find his stance on reproductive rights?

Maybe. But electoral politics is a lot more complicated than that, and a county commission win could also be a stepping stone to higher offices where these other issues would surely come into play. So wouldn’t it be equally pragmatic for Carla, a staunch defender of both reproductive and marriage rights, to take the long view, and withdraw her support, rather than help to launch the political career of a social conservative?

Not so simple is it?

We heard the argument from both Susan Hutchison and Dino Rossi, for example, that abortion shouldn’t be an issue in races for offices that have no impact on abortion policy: “I’m not running for the Supreme Court, nor do have an appointment there,” Rossi famously retorted during the governor’s race. But both Hutchison and Rossi have been named as possible U.S. Senate candidates, an office from which they could have a huge impact on the issue. Furthermore, these values are often a proxy for a larger set of values that impact policy decisions in numerous and often nuanced ways.

And most of us would agree that there are some litmus tests that are absolutely justified, regardless of the candidate’s other qualifications. For example, Carla noted “how difficult it is to find people who have the depth and breadth of knowledge on land use” and who won’t hand out zoning permits “like they’re bubble gum.” Yet most voters on either side of the land use issue would have zero quandary rejecting a candidate, no matter how knowledgeable, if he were, say, an avowed white supremacist.

So yeah, there are litmus tests in politics, and they are completely defensible, even if that means that we sometimes end up with the otherwise less qualified candidate. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and all that. But the same holds true in defense of pragmatism, for example, supporting a Blue Dog Democrat in a conservative district where a true progressive couldn’t possibly prevail. Or perhaps even supporting an anti-choice county commissioner who would do a kick-ass job on the issues that matter most at the local level. Perhaps.

In the end, Carla didn’t have to make a choice, because Malinowski turned out not to be as anti-choice as she briefly feared. But had she been forced to, she would have been justified either way.

The Seattle Times editorial board insists that “Seattle must move forward on tunnel now,” despite concerns that current legislation would leave Seattle on the hook for cost overruns from the portion of the project being built by the state. We simply can’t afford to delay any further, argues the Times, not even to fix and/or clarify an unfair and possibly unenforceable provision that could cost local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

And yet, when it comes to the salaries and benefits of unionized King County government employees, it is suddenly the interests of taxpayers that is the cause of urgency, with the Times arguing that there just isn’t time to study the comparative wages of government workers with those in the private sector:

Governments have a tendency to study matters to death. A study feels like a delay tactic, a way of hoping healthier revenues return and the heat vanishes from the need to reduce worker costs.

See the difference? Big, expensive highway project worth billions of dollars of private contracts — the most expensive alternative of any Viaduct replacement option proposed — and the Times throws caution to the wind, local taxpayers be damned. But the livelihoods of unionized, government workers… well, we just can’t afford to take the time to study if they really are as pampered and overpaid as the Times implies. (Or perhaps, we can’t afford to learn the results?)

So yeah, it’s hard to believe that the virulently anti-labor Times truly has the taxpayers’ interests at heart in demanding union concessions, when it seems so eager to hang us out to dry on tunnel cost overruns.

Congrats to the Columbia City Bakery for being featured on the front page of the New York Times web site this morning. And while the Times lauds it for its incredible pastries, they also bake what I believe to be the best bread in Seattle.

No neighborhood is truly livable without a really great local bakery, and since ours is just a few blocks from a light rail station, I invite those of you who aren’t so lucky to hop on a train and share it.

Last week’s contest was won by Ken Oplinger, who correctly identified that the picture was of Faisal Shahzad’s home in Bridgeport, Connecticut (and thanks to mlc1us for providing the link).

As always, the contest picture is related to something in the news and can be facing east, west, north, or south. Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Matthew 22:21
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Discuss.

Very good news for state Sen. Craig Pridemore, running in WA-03 for the seat currently held by retiring Rep. Brian Baird, D-WA. (Props to Publicola.)

You kind of wonder if this will end the “Denny Heck is the frontrunner” stuff once and for all. What do I know, I’m just a sometimes-blogger, but you’d think Pridemore will be able to compete on the airwaves and also do the kind of grass-roots campaigning that wins elections.

The American Prospect raises the existential question for Dino Rossi and his closest advisors:

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Cornyn has a had a pretty tough year recruiting and protecting his candidates. They just keep running into trouble — from Charlie Crist fleeing the Republican Party in Florida and Bob Bennett’s primary loss in Utah to John McCain’s Arizona primary challenge and the Kentucky Rand Paul insurgency overwhelming the GOP’s chosen standard-bearer. So if you’re a Republican considering a run for Senate and Cornyn says, “I told him we will do whatever it takes to help him and that’s a fact,” do you take that to the bank?

That’s the question facing perennial Washington state GOP candidate Dino Rossi, who is mulling over a challenge to sitting Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.

And I’d wager the answer is “no.”

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are really only two possibilities here: either Rossi has already made his decision, or he hasn’t. If he’s made his decision, then he’s decided not to run, because there’s absolutely nothing to gain from delaying his campaign any further, while there’s not much to lose from keeping his name in the headlines. And if he’s still undecided, I’m guessing a large part of the process has to do with working out the logistics of raising enough money to be competitive.

Rossi raised about $11.6 million during his 2008 gubernatorial bid, and even assuming he could match that total in roughly half the time — averaging about $70,000 a day between now and the election — that would still leave him well short of Sen. Murray’s likely total… maybe by as much as $5 million. And that’s assuming he can take Cornyn’s promise to the bank.

So thanks, American Prospect, for raising that very important question. But as for the rest of piece, well, you really ought to do your research:

While Murray isn’t particularly vulnerable, in a tough anti-incumbent year and with a candidate like Rossi, who has come within 133 votes of winning the state’s gubenatorial seat, Republicans might have an opportunity to exploit.

Of course, that 133 vote margin was way back in 2004; Rossi lost by 194,614 votes in a 2008 rematch, after voters had the opportunity to get to know the two candidates better. Maybe you just confused “2004” with “2008” — after all, they both have “200” in them — but I’d argue that the more recent election is the more relevant one.

Except the Tea Party candidate will stay in the race no matter what happens in the primary. So will a self-funding millionaire conservative candidate. That doesn’t spell an easy chance for Rossi.

Yeah, um, except we have a top-two primary here in Washington state, so nobody will be on the November ballot other than the top-two vote getters. So while I love that whole Tea-Party-and-self-funded-millionaire-candidates-as-obstacles meme, and would absolutely love to run with it… well… if wishes were horses, and all that.

Moreover, Democrats are already doing everything they can to make Rossi the next Dan Coates — Coates, the former Indiana senator returning to run for Evan Bayh’s open seat, hit early troubles by slighting his old state and with his work as a Washington lobbyist. Thus far, they’ve been hitting him for not paying $20,000 in back taxes and his connections to a shady bank.

I’m confused by that last sentence. Does “him” refer to Rossi or Coates? Or both? (Factually, it does apply to Rossi, but that’s not so clear from your vague use of the objective personal pronoun.)

Rossi has had two heartbreakingly close statewide elections in the last two cycles.

“Two heartbreakingly close” elections? Really?

Surely 2004’s 133-vote margin was a heartbreaker (no doubt Rossi still believes he actually won), but the 194,614-vote, 6.5% margin in 2008… not so much. That’s about the same percentage of the national vote by which Barack Obama beat John McCain, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody describe that race as close, heartbreakingly or otherwise.

So yeah, while I agree with the American Prospect that Rossi should question whether Cornyn can help him all that much in a U.S. Senate bid, Rossi first has to answer the question of whether he can actually help himself. And based on his 2008 performance, the evidence isn’t all that convincing.

Right around the same time yesterday that State Auditor Brian Sonntag was telling reporters he would run for governor should there be a special election to replace Gov. Gregoire, I was telling a Republican friend of mine that I would actually vote for Dino Rossi should it come down to a contest between the two. Really.

The way I figure it, as long as we’re getting a conservative Republican who hangs with teabaggers, cavorts with Tim Eyman and endorses Susan Hutchison, we might as well get one who openly embraces the Republican Party label (or at the very least, the Grand Old Party Party label). That way, I can vilify the new governor coherently, and without constantly having defend my party from being branded with his anti-tax, anti-transit, anti-Democratic policies.

So yeah, in the hypothetical event of a Rossi v. Sonntag contest, I’m voting for Rossi. Though I’m guessing I’ll have to get myself pretty damn drunk to fill out that ballot.