HorsesAss.Org

Correction: Think Progress has issued an update:

The Minneapolis Star Tribune quoted more of Schaffer’s words and it turns out he was defending Social Security. “I’m on Social Security and I’ve got Medicare,” said Schaffer, 70, before entering the auditorium. “I have socialized medicine. I wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world.”

UPDATE–Here is the fuller passage from the Star-Tribune:

Among more than 100 people who waited in line for over an hour to get into the event was St. Francis City Council Member LeRoy Schaffer, who was decked out in a tuxedo with a black top hat. Schaffer, who has become controversial for comments that led his fellow council members to censure him, dismissed the claim of some Republicans that the Democratic plans amount to socialized medicine.

“I’m on Social Security and I’ve got Medicare,” said Schaffer, 70, before entering the auditorium. “I have socialized medicine. I wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world.”

UPDATE 2–The original Roll Call article that Think Progress linked to does not appear to have been updated as of about 3:15 PM PDT. It’s a very different quote (see my original post below.)

Here is the original post I wrote:

Roll Call reports on a town hall meeting held in the district of Michelle Bachmann, R-MN-06.

LeRoy Schaffer, a St. Francis city council member, dressed in a tuxedo and top hat for the occasion. Shaffer got visibly emotional asking Bachmann about the future of health care and the role of special interests in Washington.

“I’ll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism,” Schaffer said, before being booed by the crowd.

As the saying goes, it burns, it really burns.

This isWe all know what the insurance industry wanted: a debate so off the rails that you can’t even begin to reason with ignorant fools, so widespread and hysterical are the lies streaming down the right wing puke funnel. I suppose we can forgive the ignorant, who are luckily just a vocal minority, but we can’t forgive nor back down from the cynical corporate royalists who pay for the noise machine.

Now that August is nearly over, and what an August it has been, it would be entirely appropriate for the left to stage a series of peaceful political actions this fall and winter aimed directly at certain for-profit insurance companies and their astro-turfing operations that are known to be bad actors in all this. I’m not arguing for any specific tactic, and I’m not sure that the old “hey hey, ho ho” thing works any more, so some thought and creativity would have to go into it.

One lesson from this month, though, is that obnoxious, uncouth behavior combined with unprincipled distortions seems to work, at least in the short term. It’s actually an old lesson the right has demonstrated time and again in the last decade, from the Brooks Brothers riots in Florida through the lie-up to war and now the Guns of August health care “debate.”

Lesson duly noted, although we can make our case without the unprincipled distortions. But I’m all for uncouth, and I say we go into insurance executive’s offices and eat with our mouths open and blow our noses into our sleeves, it’s an appropriate and fitting response to this month. It would also be at the same intellectual level as the health baggers, so it seems appropriate. (And you know they would then start complaining that we’re not addressing the issues!)

The left has more than a few assets in Hollywood and elsewhere who could be quite effective at shaming the health care robber barons. Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken should go on a nationwide tour. Hell, there should be an army of Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chickens.

And maybe I’m dreaming here, but that big personality whose name also start with “O” might want to think about helping out again. That would pretty much pass the public option right there, because nobody can stop her, Rosie is awesome.

Yeah, I’m just one little blogger at a state blog, so we’ll see, it’s just an idea. I don’t exactly have a direct line to well, much of anyone.

As always the right wants a bare-knuckle fight, so if people actually want health care reform they’re going to need to be willing to wrestle with pigs. Who have human knuckles. You know what I mean.

Get the chicken suits dry-cleaned.

(Props to Think Progress on the Bachmann article above.)

I suppose I could hurl invective at Carl while revoking his posting privileges for daring to contradict me on the front page of my own blog, but… conflict makes for better reading, and I have always given my co-bloggers explicit instructions to write whatever they want. And, apart from the headline, he didn’t really contradict me all that much.

So I thought I’d just take this opportunity to explore the possibility of a Murray for Mayor write-in campaign a little further, while laying out my own take on the candidates and the current state of the campaign.

First of all, my main problem with Mallahan is not really Mallahan himself, but the fact that I’m kinda offended by the very premise of his campaign. No, I don’t think being a corporate executive should disqualify one from office, even here in granola-crunching Seattle, and in fact I do think that his years as a T-Mobile exec make for an impressive bullet point on his resume… but not in and of itself.

This is a man with no recent record of public service, who from his public comments appears not very knowledgeable about the majority of issues facing Seattle, and who has clearly not put much thought into the challenges of running city government, at least not prior to throwing his hat into the ring. Hell, he hasn’t even voted consistently in recent years. Running government more like a business may make for good campaign rhetoric in the post-Reagan era, but government is not a business. Folks can tease Tim Burgess all they want after the fact about passing up what might have been an easy path into the mayor’s office, but at least he seemed to realize that he needed a little more seasoning on the council before taking on the task. Mallahan apparently lacks this sort of self-awareness, in that “hey, I’m a successful wealthy guy, I can do anything” mode that seems to afflict so many of our region’s nouveaux riche.

I don’t doubt Mallahan is a smart, capable guy, and I don’t question his motives. But I don’t know that he has the skills or the management philosophy necessary to be an effective mayor, and he’s said and done nothing to assure me that he does. And that’s where pumping his own money into his campaign really works against him in my book.  Had he come out of nowhere to raise the money and profile necessary to knock an incumbent mayor out in the primary, I would have been impressed by his political prowess. But he didn’t. He bought himself into frontrunner status, which is not a knock in itself, but which shows me absolutely nothing about his political skill and determination.

McGinn on the other hand has proven himself everything that Mallahan has not. He’s a lifelong activist with a couple of big victories to his credit, who ran a surprisingly successful, grassroots sleeper of a primary campaign that certainly shows his political chops. It also doesn’t hurt in my book that I agree with him on most major issues (his proposal to take over the school district is painfully stupid on so many levels, but, well, you can’t have everything), and unlike Mallahan, I have absolutely no question about where McGinn stacks up in terms of values.

But… and this is a huge but… I have very real concerns about McGinn’s ability to work and play well with others.

Back in June when I wrote about the surprising lack of support for McGinn and his fellow Sierra Clubee Mike O’Brien from their colleagues in the region’s broader environmental coalition, I got a lot of public and private push-back from the community assuring me that no, they really do like and support Mike… O’Brien. But McGinn, not so much. And on primary election night when news flashed about McGinn’s unexpected standing at the top of the polls, the sentiment I heard from many of his fellow environmental leaders was more along the line of “oh well, I guess we kinda have to endorse him,” rather than the outright enthusiasm one might have expected.

It’s not that his colleagues dislike him (well, some of them do); from all accounts McGinn is a great guy. It’s just that they don’t particularly like working with him.

It is ironic then, that after kicking out a mayor largely because voters couldn’t stand his allegedly abrasive, unilateral style, we might replace him with man with a reputation for having an equally abrasive and unilateral style. Combine that with McGinn’s total absence of any significant executive experience managing large enterprises… not even running a department at a wireless phone company, for whatever that is worth… and, well, I’m understandably wary. And, like Mallahan, McGinn’s lack of legislative experience doesn’t bode well for his ability to wade through the process oriented pool of molasses that is our city council.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the notion of citizen legislators. But a citizen executive with little real government experience under his belt is a much more troublesome concept.

That brings us to Ed Murray.

I personally like Ed, and think he’s been one of our most effective state legislators, but I’m certainly no fan boy. If this were a race to succeed US Rep. Jim McDermott, a seat Murray clearly covets, I doubt I’d be in his camp, as I’d prefer being represented by someone with a less cautious and run-of-the-mill political style. (For example, I’m a huge Barney Frank fan.)

But exactly the same qualities that turn me off in terms of Murray’s congressional aspirations help make him perhaps the most qualified politician on the local scene today to serve as mayor. Mayor Nickels, as much as I like and respect him, hasn’t exactly had a rapport with either the council or Olympia, and unlike McGinn and Mallahan, Murray has the skills, experience and personal relationships to help turn this around, and fast. And while there are certainly issues on which I disagree with Murray, and others on which I desperately wish he’d take a leadership role, there’s no question that his values fit squarely with those of a majority of Seattle voters.

So in my mind, in a three-way race between Murray, Mallahan and McGinn (hey… what a great name for an Irish law firm), it’s a no brainer. And if Murray’s name was actually on the ballot, I’m pretty damn confident that money, endorsements and votes would flow his way.

But of course, Murray’s name won’t be on the ballot, so… should he run a write-in campaign?

If Murray truly believes that neither Mallahan nor McGinn is qualified to be mayor, and can make a compelling case in that regard, and he believes he can raise enough money to be competitive, and he’s willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make this a serious challenge, and in doing so he’s willing to put his reputation and credibility on the line… why the hell not? Even if he’ll likely lose, which, considering the daunting challenge of mounting a write-in campaign, he probably will.

Some have suggested that running as write-in would make Murray some kind of spoiler or poor sport, but that’s a load of crap. Our system envisions and allows for write-in campaigns, while making them exceedingly difficult, as they should be. So there’s nothing unfair or anti-democratic about it. And if either McGinn or Mallahan (or both) can’t draw more votes than a goddamn write-in, then they certainly don’t deserve to be mayor.

And as for whether such a potential folly might hurt Murray’s future aspirations, if he runs a good, compelling, honest campaign, I don’t see how it could. If anything, it would only enhance his visibility and name ID across WA-07 in advance of a future congressional campaign, perhaps even setting him up as the frontrunner I’ve always assumed he imagines himself to be. And if the same labor and business sources who funded that recent poll are willing to put up the money to help Murray do that, more power to him. (Perhaps quite literally.)

Politics is a tough, tough business, and if Mallahan and McGinn choose to whine about Murray launching a nearly-Quixotic write-in challenge, well that would only prove to me my suspicions that they’re not up to the task.

As both a veterinarian and former elk rancher, Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell must be pretty familiar with manure. So why can’t he seem to avoid stepping in it even deeper?

After criticizing Gov. Butch Otter for not buying the first grey wolf hunting tag that went on sale, he responded to an audience question about “Obama tags” by saying “Obama tags? We’d buy some of those.”

Of course, when criticized for, you know, threatening the life of the president, Rammell excused himself in typical wingnut fashion, by claiming it was just a “joke.” And now, I suppose to reinforce the point, he sends out the following Tweet this morning:

Obama hunting tags was just a joke! Everyone knows Idaho has no jurisdiction to issue tags in Washington D.C.

Ha, ha.

I remember a news story from my youth, when after President Reagan was shot, a university student wrote in a school paper that he wished Hinckley had succeeded, only to find himself dragged out of his dorm room by armed federal agents in the middle of night. Hell, I remember during the Bush administration when just wearing an anti-war t-shirt to a Bush rally was enough provocation to get you arrested.

But Obama? No tags necessary, for in the land of the free and home of the wingnuts, it’s apparently always open season on Democratic presidents.

Goldy and I believe the exact opposite thing about the possibility of Ed Murray running for Mayor. While I would absolutely support Ed if he decided to mount a write in campaign, I hope he sits it out. I voted for McGinn in the primary, although “for” is probably too strong a word: I voted against that self funded asshole, Mallahan. I wouldn’t say it was the strategic decision described here, McGinn did make the best case for the next 4 years, and was the least reflexively corporate whore of the pack.

Mike McGinn would definitely be a better mayor for the environment, and for public transportation than Mallahan. Less concretely, he would not feel the same sense of entitlement as someone who bought his way into the office. The liberal position ought first and foremost be to beat back Mallahan, and the polling shows Ed Murray in second right now to Mallahan; he’s probably taking away more votes from McGinn. Although you can ask the right questions and get Murray up to first, that won’t be how the write in ballot is worded.

So while I hope he sits this one out, I’ll also gladly support Senator Murray if he does make the foolhardy decision to run. While I don’t always agree with him, Ed Murray is one of the few politicians I trust in this state to have people’s best interest at heart, and he’s the only member of the Seattle delegation in Olympia I’d be sad to see lose a primary. He has been a real champion for education and for public transit, two things that the delegation is bad at in general. Of course his work on gay rights has been outstanding.

In November, I’d hate to both have Mallahan as mayor and to say I didn’t do everything to elect an actual liberal, so if Murray runs, I’ll do my damndest to get him into office. If not, it’s McGinn all the way. Still, I’d like to have someone to vote for, not just someone to be against.

The Spokesman-Review reports that prosecutors allege a Spokane man threatened a Colorado doctor’s family not long after the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

A man said people from Utah were going to travel to Colorado to kill the family of William Hern, founder of the clinic and one of the few doctors in the country known to perform late-term abortions.

Authorities traced the June 23 phone call to Spokane.

Two days earlier, The Spokesman-Review had published a front-page story detailing Hern’s practice, Boulder Abortion Clinic, and the increase in business he’d seen since Tiller’s murder.

Prosecutors say Donald Hertz, 70, made the threat after he read that story, said Hertz’s lawyer in Spokane, Russell Van Camp.

And before anyone excuses this as just the rash bluster of some old coot, let’s remember that the asshole who walked into the Holocaust Museum with guns blazing was 88 years old.

What we are witnessing in this country is the sad end result of decades of right-wing lunacy. Here’s a little factoid from the S-R story that leaves you shaking your head. (emphasis mine)

A retired real estate developer and insurance salesman with no criminal record, Hertz was taken into federal custody Wednesday morning and appeared in U.S. District Court in Spokane that afternoon.

He’s not in custody now but is scheduled to appear in federal court in Denver next month. Van Camp said he’ll try to move the case to Spokane.

Good thing he wasn’t wearing a pro-Constitution t-shirt at a Republican rally, they might have locked him up while he awaits further legal proceedings. I mean, did this guy even have to post bail? Wouldn’t want to trouble the old gent too much.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5QaIRZuf1I[/youtube]

As a blogger, I’m thrilled by the possibility that Sen. Ed Murray might launch a write-in campaign for Seattle Mayor, and welcome the news that a new poll shows him right in the mix.  I mean, what a great story.

As a voter, not particularly enthralled with either Mike McGinn nor Joe Mallahan, I’m definitely intrigued.

But as a political observer, I’m still a bit dubious, especially now that Seattle Times editorial columnist Joni Balter is urging Murray to jump in. I’m already concerned about whether there might be a massive disconnect between the political establishment and the electorate in regards to the acceptability of the two mayoral finalists, and uber-establishment Balter’s endorsement, well, that can only be viewed as a giant red flag.

Still, as much as I hate to agree with Joni Balter… I agree with Joni Balter: Run, Ed, run! I’m not exactly sure if you’ll get my vote, but it would certainly make covering the race a helluva lot more fun.

From The Plum Line:

In case you missed it, the RNC sent a mailing, obtained by a local paper in Washington State and now rocketing around the political world, that contained the following loaded question:

“It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person’s political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?”

RNC spokesperson Katie Wright concedes to me that the question was a foul-up, though she says there are still legit reasons for Americans to worry about privacy.

And they sent the mailer to Washington state, where we don’t have political parties voter registration by party.

UPDATE (Goldy):
The Washington Independent has obtained a copy of the survey from 64-year-old Raymond Denny of La Center.

You can view the whole survey here.

You start imagining warning stickers at certain dark corners of the Internets and the YouTubes that read like this:

warning: the national Communo-Fascist Government wishes to inform You that reading this Web Site may have Unintended side affects upon your Ability to capitolize, punctuate and other righting skills.

Today’s release of R-71 data has the total signatures examined at 117,069 (85.0% of the total). There have been 13,815 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.80%.

The invalid signatures include 11,178 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,477 duplicates, and 1,160 that did not match the signature on file. There are 56 pending signatures. With 1,477 duplicates, we expect a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the petition.

The V₂ estimator gives the projected number of valid signatures as 121,129, a surplus of 552 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate for the total petition is now expected to be 12.03%.

A few more details can be found after the fold.
[Read more…]

A right wing blogger named Pamela Geller, who is known for her extreme anti-Muslim views, has claimed that “Yelling Marine” David Hedrick is a frequent reader of her blog, Atlas Shrugs. Hedrick has drawn national attention, including appearances on Fox Noise, for his condemnation of Baird.

Geller also claimed that Hedrick recently sent her a box of assorted military-type swag. From Atlas Shrugs on Aug. 22, the same day that a YouTube video surfaced of Hedrick berating Baird at a town hall earlier that week:

That great American is a regular Atlas reader, David Hedrick, who recently sent me such a great box with CFSOCC-A (Combined Forces, Special Operations Component Command – Afghanistan) stuff: tee shirt, baseball cap, patches and Don’t Tread on Me stuff.

There’s some interesting comments in the thread, including some that appear to come from Hedrick’s father, which would tend to support Geller’s claim that the younger Hedrick is a reader/swag sender. If, of course, it’s true, which on the Internets you can never know for sure.

The entire breadth and scope of Geller’s um, anti-jihadism or whatever it is cannot be detailed here. But just before last year’s presidential election she did publish an incredibly lengthy screed, apparently written by another author, that bears the rather unwieldy all-caps title “HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?.”

And today, in a column at NewsMax objecting to Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to investigate abuse of detainees, Geller makes the wild claim that the Obama administration is creating a “stateside army” disguised as a community service corps. What’s interesting to me about that is that a similar accusation was made by an audience member at Baird’s town hall, although not by Hedrick.

If it is true that Hedrick is actually a devotee of Geller, it could throw some immediate cold water on the rash of enthusiasm that has been generated by his outburst against Baird. Today The Columbian profiled Hedrick in an above-the-fold front page story. It’s only natural that flattering attention might cause someone to think about running for office, so I think this bit is understandable.

What will Hedrick do with his newfound notoriety?

“If I can spread this message, I’ll do it as long as I can,” he said.

After thinking over that question, he called back to say, “If Brian Baird votes for this bill, and if we don’t have a true constitutional conservative libertarian candidate that runs against Baird in the next election, I am considering running against him myself.”

It would be interesting for The Columbian, and other outlets, to ask this potential candidate and sudden national spokesman for the anti-health-care-reform movement about his views on a variety of subjects, perhaps starting with the basic question of what he thinks of Atlas Shrugs and Pamela Geller.

If Geller isn’t telling the truth about Hedrick being a fan who sent her military swag, or if she is fabricating comments from Hedrick’s parents, she needs to be stopped.

– I just finished reading David Neiwert’s new book The Eliminationists. It’s a very timely book, especially with all of the ridiculous comparisons people are making to Nazi Germany these days. Very few people seem to know the reality of what fascism was and how it came to power. At its core, it was a movement about cultural purity and national renewal. It was fed largely by a militant opposition to modern democratic ideals, civil liberties, and multiculturalism. The idea that it’s comparable to modern American liberalism is a notion so absurd that it really doesn’t even warrant serious discussion, yet it remains a constant theme on talk radio and even cable news. David is careful not to use the term fascist too broadly to describe the elements in our society that tend to exhibit traits similar to what bubbled to the surface in Italy and Germany in the early 20th century, but his book is a must-read for Americans who really want to understand that time in history and to be mindful of what could happen here.

– The idea of boycotting Whole Foods over CEO John Mackey’s somewhat clueless op-ed is probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard from progressives since they confused Don Imus with David Duke. For a good rebuttal to Mackey, Ezra Klein has a nice analogy here comparing markets for food with how we should approach health care by integrating public assistance with free market competition. But even though I don’t agree with Mackey’s ideas, he really wasn’t being an ass. If I boycotted every company with a CEO who bought into goofy libertarian groupthink, I’d quickly die of either starvation or boredom.

– On Sunday, The Seattle Times’ Ryan Blethen wrote the following:

Journalists have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. This is never done lightly and must be backed up with fact. What we do can alter somebody’s life for better or worse. Almost every professional journalist is careful not to abuse this right of free speech.

There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.

I’m surprised that Goldy hasn’t responded to this yet (and maybe he still will), but I wanted to point out one thing. Everyone – not just journalists – have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. For some reason, though, I always thought that journalists had an obligation to do it. I’d always thought that journalists exist to expose the corrupt, to explain the elusive, and to tell the truth in a world where many powerful people find comfort in lies. Journalists are supposed to be unpopular to the powerful, not their spokespersons. Maybe if the Times actually understood how profoundly they’re failing in their role as journalists, it would be easier to understand why so many bloggers are trying to fill the gap.

– Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s against their Constitution to arrest people for the personal use of cannabis. This is following the long-awaited decriminalization of drugs in Mexico, something that Bush Administration officials had actively prevented them from doing in the past.

– I haven’t written about it much, but I’m very concerned about the overuse of Tasers in what should be normal law enforcement activities. That said, I have no problem with repeatedly Tasering the people at TLC who brought us Police Women of Broward County.

A great American statesman has passed away. (Please be respectful; we will delete all inappropriate comments.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOi8eDkTTE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I wasn’t able to post these results yesterday, but today’s batch of R-71 data has been released. The number of signatures examined is now 110,288, (about 80.1% of the total signatures). There have been 12,983 invalid signatures found, for an uncorrected rejection rate of 11.77%.

The invalid signatures include 10,580 that are not found in the voting rolls, 1,314 duplicates, and 1,089 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 44 signatures “pending” that I am simply ignoring.

Great big caveat: A new third-stage check is now being conducted using the most current voter database on signatures not found in the older database. They have made it through volume 220 of the 510 completed volumes. This means that some of the 10,580 “not found” signatures will be found in the next few days.

The 1,314 duplicate signatures suggest a duplication rate of about 1.82% for the total petition.

Using the V₂ estimator, and ignoring the third-stage check, the number of valid signatures is projected to be 121,070, giving 493 signatures over the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate should end up at 12.07%. Of course that third stage check will likely add another 500 valid signatures to the total, making qualification highly likely and the rejection rate lower.

Here is a crude history of the projected totals since August 11th. The vertical bars give 95% confidence intervals for the projected number of signatures. The red line shows the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.

For some unexplained reason, the rejection rates were increasing through the 20th (leading to a decreased projected number of signatures). The third-stage checking started on the 20th, and I would have expected to see a decreasing rejection rate from that, leading to in increase in the number of valid signatures projected for the petition. Instead we see a flat line for the past three analyses. Perhaps an increasing rejection rate is being canceled by the third-phase check. Who knows.

Whatever the reason, if there are no last minute surprises left to perturb the pattern, R-71 will qualify for the fall ballot.