HorsesAss.Org

On the subject of the future of daily newspapers, a reader sent me a link to a video of me recorded after a panel discussion at the 2008 Netroots Nation. I’d forgotten I’d given this particular interview, but I can’t disagree now with anything I said then.

Susan Hutchison and her top staffers appeared genuinely shocked and angered by yesterday’s Washington Poll which showed her trailing Dow Constantine by a double-digit margin.

Leading in the polls for months, Hutchison has behaved in recent weeks as if she were in the driver’s seat, prompting one political insider to question whether her campaign has been conducting any tracking polls at all. As I mentioned yesterday, the Washington Poll isn’t the only one to have recently shown Constantine jumping to a lead, and surely Hutchison’s own internal polling would have shown that trend as well.

Assuming they’ve been spending money on internal polling, like any well-run campaign in a tight race would.

I’ve been meaning to take a closer look at the the Seattle Times’ post-PI circulation numbers, but Crosscut’s Chuck Taylor has done much of the hard work for me.

But here’s what we know for sure: Today’s Seattle Times average weekday circulation of 263,588 is, by my calculations, 52,085 less — 16.4 percent less — than the 316,673 combined circulation of both papers a year ago.

So while the Times is touting a circulation gain of “an amazing 32.6 percent” and that “84 percent of the non-duplicated daily P-I subscribers are now Times subscribers,” the bigger picture of print newspaper circulation in Seattle is somewhere short of amazing, unless you’re talking about an amazing drop.

And I’d add to that analysis a reported 6-percent drop in circulation for the Times’ Sunday edition, revealing that the paper’s steady decline in readership (at least of the print variety) shows no signs of ebbing.

So what’s the solution? The Times’ braggadocio over its relative success in retaining P-I readers aside, it’s done nothing to address the long term problems that are eating away at its core business, and it can be fairly argued that its continued cutbacks in staff and coverage will only speed its decline. In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if a morning paper, delivering yesterday’s news, isn’t as much an anachronism in the age of the Internet as the afternoon paper became during the heyday of TV evening newscasts. I’m not saying that there isn’t a rationale for a print edition, but timely delivery of actual news ain’t it.

To survive in print as a daily newspaper, the Times and other papers like it are going to have to re-imagine the medium, not simply in terms of the technology of content delivery, but in terms of the content itself. For in the end, whatever the market forces, readers are giving up their subscriptions because they just don’t find their local fish-wrappers a compelling enough product to be worth the price.

The P-I’s closure may have delayed the inevitable, but it does nothing to make it any less so.

I’ve been saying for some time that the day Boeing moved its corporate headquarters to Chicago was the day the decision to ultimately move production out of the Puget Sound region became final. Amongst other things, Boeing execs and board members didn’t want to be bad corporate citizens; so they decided to give up their local citizenship.

So I’d be awfully surprised if Boeing doesn’t set up its second 787 assembly line in South Carolina, despite the fact that with 767 production coming to an end, its got the facility and the trained workforce in Everett already available to churn out both 787s and 777s on the same line. As Danny Westneat points out in the Seattle Times, Boeing appears intent on pursuing a cheap labor strategy Washington state simply isn’t able to accommodate. Nor should it.

Take away the heat, all the union-bashing or management second-guessing as Boeing now appears ready to move a major piece of its plane-building operations to South Carolina. At the core of this breakup drama is a cold statistic: 14.

As in $14. Per hour.

That’s the average pay of the local line workers who are building the fuselage of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner in a Charleston, S.C., plant.

Average pay of a Boeing Machinist around here? $28 an hour. Now, these pay averages aren’t directly comparable, say people in the know. Many of Boeing’s workers in South Carolina are younger or less experienced (the plant is only 4 years old). So the average pay there tilts lower.

Still, the average pay at Costco stores around Seattle is $17 an hour. According to PayScale, a Seattle company that tracks wages, the average for a hairstylist in Seattle is $18.24 an hour.

So Boeing right now is paying less to build airplanes in South Carolina than we pay for cutting hair or shelving 3-pound jars of olives.

How can we compete with that?

Of course, we can’t compete with that if Boeing insists that labor costs are the bottom line value in its production decisions, as it apparently has.

Ironically, when Boeing does announce the new line in South Carolina, Danny’s colleagues on the Times’ editorial page will no doubt lambast the unions for driving Boeing away, oblivious to the fact that their own union-busting rants, and that of their publisher, helped grease the skids for Boeing’s union-busting strategy. But it’s hard to blame labor for the loss of high wage jobs that wouldn’t remain high wage if the union were to accede to the demands that Boeing ultimately wants.

No, none of this really makes much economic sense. But who needs to make sense when you have a globalist, free market ideology to fall back on?

Brian:

I respectfully request that you endorse the robust public option and get on board with what would be a significant and meaningful improvement in the lives of ordinary Americans.

Your ideas about reforming the tax system and the health care system at the same time, as expressed in your recent Seattle Times op-ed, have found no traction nationally or in the district.

Now is the time to act. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Your friend,

Jon

Please join us tonight for some politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Festivities take place at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning about 8:00 pm. Or show up earlier for some dining liberally.

And feel free to bring along your favorite book of liberal propaganda…

Not in Seattle? With 339 other chapters of Drinking Liberally, there is sure to be one around your corner.

A new KING-5/SurveyUSA poll to be released today shows R-71 passing by a 50-43 margin, while Tim Eyman’s vindictive I-1033 is failing 50-38. The poll was of 561 likely and actual voters; further details and cross tabs are not yet available.

These results are largely in line with the Washington Poll released this morning, which showed similar results, if by different margins.

Update [Darryl]: Over at Hominid Views, I’ve conducted a series of Monte Carlo analyses on the Washington Poll and the Survey USA poll, both separately and combined. The Readers Digest Condensed results:

• I-1033: 99.7% probability of failing (using the combined SUSA/WA Poll polls)
• R-71: near-100% probability of passing (using combined polls)
• KC Exec: 98.1% probability that Constantine wins (WA Poll only)
• Seattle Mayor: 89.9% probability of a Mallahan win (WA Poll only)

The full analytical details, in all of their geeky glory, are given here.

A new Washington Poll released today shows Democrat Dow Constantine leading Republican Susan Hutchison 47-34 in the race for King County Executive.

This is a reversal of previous publicly released polls, but is consistent with two private polls I’ve heard word of over the past week. It will be interesting to see if SurveyUSA, which has consistently shown Hutchison in lead, finds a similar reversal in their final survey, which I believe is due to be released later today.

The Washington Poll also shows Referendum 71 passing by a 57-38 margin, while Tim Eyman’s incredibly idiotic Initiative 1033 fails 40-49.

I’d say all of that is good news.

Susan Hutchison will run for the U.S. Senate. (As a Republican, silly.)

If elected executive, who would Susan Hutchison appoint to the Sound Transit board? Erica’s got the scoop.

Once again, isn’t it ironic that it is Darcy Burner, not Dave Reichert, who is playing the bigger role in our national health care debate? According to The Hill:

The head of a not-for-profit organization affiliated with House Democratic liberals plans to raise $1 million next year to give liberals an edge in public policy battles with the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Darcy Burner, the executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, a nonprofit education and advocacy organization, has played a behind-the-scenes role in the healthcare debate, applying constant pressure on Democratic leaders to keep the public option on the negotiating table.

[…] The renamed group, which includes an educational wing organized under section 501(c)3 of the tax code and a 501(c)4 advocacy wing, has served as an important bridge between House liberals and outside groups such as MoveOn.org, US Action, People For the American Way and the AFL-CIO. It has also worked with influential liberal blogs such as Daily Kos and OpenLeft to provide updates of internal Democratic deliberations and keep up a drumbeat of demand for the public option.

But, you know, don’t expect any coverage of Darcy’s efforts in the Seattle Times, because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to dismiss her as inexperienced should choose to run for office again.

Those who have criticized my relentless attacks on Susan Hutchison as a Bible-thumpin’, evolution-denyin’, partisan right-wing Republican, have generally missed the point.

I do not argue that any of her beliefs or affiliations, however extreme, should disqualify Hutchison from holding public office. “No religious test shall ever be required…” and all that. That’s a good thing.

I just insist that Hutchison be honest about it, and barring that, that the press hold her accountable.

Take for example the video above, in which I compare and contrast Hutchison’s effort to minimize her contribution to Mike Huckabee, with her obvious infatuation with the most prominently Evangelical of the 2008 presidential candidates. When asked about her $500 contribution to Huckabee during a KCTS debate, Hutchison could’ve just said that she supported his candidacy, and explained the reasons why. But she didn’t.

Instead, she attempted to explain it away:

Well, when I was a journalist, as you know, we don’t contribute to political campaigns. And so when I ended my career, I started to respond to all of those messages that we got in the mail, or phone calls.

And one of them was from a friend of mine who said, “Let’s go hear Mike Huckabee speak… he’s a popular governor from Arkansas,” and at that point nobody had really heard much about him. And she said “He’s got innovative ideas.” And this friend of mine has done a lot of politicking, and so I said, “Okay, I’ll go with you to that lunch,” and I wrote the check. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the lunch, and so, that is the extent of my check writing for Mike Huckabee.

To anybody who watched the KCTS debate, the impression she gave was clear. 1) Journalists “don’t contribute to political campaigns,” so Hutchison was new to the world of partisan politics. 2) Like most everyone else, she hadn’t heard much about Huckabee at the time. And 3) she wrote the check merely at the request of a friend who spoke highly of Huckabee, and invited her to hear him speak. When Hutchison says “that is the extent of my checking writing for Mike Huckabee,” she clearly intends to leave the impression that this was the extent of her involvement with Huckabee as well.

But all three of these impressions simply aren’t true.

First of all, KIRO-TV ended Hutchison’s “journalism” career way back in 2002, while the Huckabee luncheon wasn’t until November 15, 2007. That’s a full five years of responding to all those messages and phone calls, so she couldn’t possibly have been the partisan political novice she makes herself out to be at the time.

In fact, according to PDC and FEC reports, Hutchison started giving to political campaigns as early as September of 2003, with a $500 contribution toward the reelection of President George W. Bush; by 2005, she had become a regular contributor to Republican candidates and causes. Indeed, by the time Hutchison wrote her $500 check to Huckabee, she had already written 23 checks totaling $12,500, to 16 different campaigns and committees… Republican all.

So the image of Hutchison as a naive check-writing newbie? That’s misimpression number one, especially considering her entire career since leaving KIRO had been writing checks on behalf of billionaire Charles Simonyi.

As for the impression Hutchison leaves that she didn’t know much about Huckabee at the time, well the video clips above speak for themselves, but here’s the timeline. The Huckabee luncheon was on Nov. 15, 2007, and her check is recorded on Nov. 19. Yet on Sept. 27, 2007, nearly two months earlier, Hutchison can be seen lauding Huckabee before a packed house at the conservative Washington Policy Center’s annual dinner, an event she’s been emceeing for years:

“As you know, if you’ve been here before, our speakers inform, inspire and predict the future. Anyone who was here last year is not surprised that Mike Huckabee is performing well in the presidential race for the Republican primary.”

Hutchison is talking about the 2006 annual dinner, at which Mike Huckabee was the featured speaker, and she, as usual, was the master of ceremonies. So… even though she implies that she didn’t know much about Huckabee in November of 2007 at the time she wrote him a $500.00 check, she had in fact personally met the man, and had been “informed and inspired” by him, a full year earlier, in 2006… a speech she fondly recalled in September of 2007 at the following year’s dinner.

That’s just plain deceptive.

And finally, that politically involved friend Hutchison refers to… the one who invited her to hear Huckabee speak, and who allegedly gushed about his “innovative ideas”…? That was almost surely Sarah Rindlaub, “one of Hutchison’s closest political allies,” a Washington Policy Center board member.

And the lunch itself? An Evangelicals for Huckabee endorsement event, sponsored by Joe Fuiten and twenty other conservative pastors.

Again, Hutchison has the right to associate with and contribute to anybody she wants, but the public has just as much a right to know about it. And therein lies my biggest complaint with the way Hutchison has run her campaign, and the way the press has covered it.

Knowing the facts, anybody watching Hutchison’s efforts to minimize her support for Huckabee simply wouldn’t find her credible. Yet most voters don’t know the facts, and for that I hold our local media complicit.

UPDATE:
TVW is playing its games again, filing takedown notices with YouTube for what clearly amounts to fair use. So I’ve reposted via Vimeo.  So there.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
TVW has apparently had my video pulled from Vimeo, so I’ve replaced the embed with one from LiveLeak. I’m willing to play this game as long as they are.