HorsesAss.Org

Gee, that Doug Sutherland… he sure is friendly:

Speaking to a female reporter about forest certification, Sutherland made an unprompted analogy, “You have to do things in logical sequence: you wouldn’t put your coat on to go outside, then put your underwear on. Well, I don’t know what you do with your underwear.” He laughed.

Yeah, because it’s always funny to ask a female reporter about her underwear.

Considering the recent bad press over his sexual harassment of a young, female DNR employee, you’d think when talking to young women in a professional setting, Sutherland might want to avoid commenting on their underwear.

Clearly, Sutherland has a pattern of inappropriate behavior that would make most voters uncomfortable.  Whether enough voters are aware of this, we’ll find out on Tuesday.

What time Friday do you think the bin Laden tape will show up?

Word coming out of the Dino Rossi deposition during the lunch break was that Rossi and his attorney have been totally obstructionist throughout the first half of the proceedings, refusing to answer many of attorney Knoll Lowney’s questions.  I assume that if this behavior continues through the afternoon, Lowney will ask Judge Kallas to impose sanctions, which may include additional hours of deposition.  We’ll see.

One of my favorite right wing maneuvers involves pleas for “civility” in politics. Once the righties figure out the nastiness isn’t working and they are likely to lose, some of them start insisting that the problem is a lack of civility. It’s all so utterly predictable, it strikes me as funny.

Case in point: Columbian reporter Michael Andersen has an article today about a Clark County businessman named Andrew Deal who has set up a web site urging civility in politics. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, and never mind the same dude did the same thing four years ago, to not much effect if the truth be known.  But Deal makes a claim in today’s article that bears some scrutiny:

“Four years ago, the story was about how 58 percent of the population was worried that we’d end up in court again,” said Deal, who organized a similar event in 2004. “This time, it’s 60 percent of people think that widespread voter fraud is likely.”

And now let’s go to The Google and see what we find regarding that claim about voter fraud. Hmmm. The top hit is from, of all things, Fox Noise on Oct. 22:

Most Americans think there will be extensive voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. A FOX News poll released Wednesday shows 60 percent think it is either “very” likely, 28 percent, or “somewhat” likely, 32 percent, there will be widespread fraud in voting this year, and 35 percent think it is unlikely.

Yeah, um, okay. Since a lot of the article is about bashing ACORN, it’s pretty hard to take it seriously.

And that, my friends, is how unsubstantiated right wing bullshit gets catapulted out into the wider world, following a direct line from Drudge to Fox Noise and on down.

What’s hilarious, or pathetic actually, is that Deal’s firm, CGI Productions, is listed as being responsible for “web application development” at the bottom of the Clark County Republican Party web page.

That would be the same Clark County Republicans who, in January, felt free to post the infamous “Obama is a Muslim” smear on their web site.

I guess “civility” is all about being nice to Republicans, and letting them hate and lie to their little hearts’ content.

Both SurveyUSA and Strategic Vision released new polls yesterday showing Gov. Chris Gregoire with a two point lead over Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

SurveyUSA shows Gregoire leading 50-48, well within their margin of error, yet finds Gregoire holding a more comfortable 53-46 lead amongst the 54% of respondents who said they’ve already voted.  Strategic Vision, considered by most observers to be a Republican polling firm, shows Gregoire leading 49-47, but doesn’t provide any crosstabs.

Considering the late stage of this race and the shitstorm of bad press Rossi is receiving this week, I’d guess these two polls just add to the cautious optimism of the Gregoire camp.  It is rather remarkable how nonvolatile this race has proven, given the unprecedented blitzkrieg of negative advertising.

Congratulations to the Seattle Times editorial board for finally surprising me with an endorsement, choosing Republican Marcia McCraw for lieutenant governor over the incumbent pseudo-Democrat Brad Owen.

But, uh-oh…

Republican Marcia McCraw has a complicated personal story that gives us pause, but she represents an opportunity for an infusion of new ideas and energy.

Now that’s a red flag if I ever saw one… reminiscent of when Joni Balter obliquely attributed David Iron’s mother’s refusal to vote for her own son to a “different family matter,” but refused to explain any further.  Yeah, the Times admits, McCraw has “a complicated personal story,” but don’t you voters worry your pretty little heads with grownup stuff like that.  We’ve endorsed McCraw, and that’s all you really need to know.

So what is so complicated about McCraw’s personal story?  Could the complication have anything to do with McCraw’s 2006 drunk driving conviction, a serious crime that’s killed almost as many political careers as it has innocent victims? (Which raises the question:  when McCraw and her boss Jane Hague go out for drinks after work, who’s the designated driver?)

Is it really possible that the same paper that turned a questionable parsing of the word “and” in Darcy Burner’s Harvard degree into a front page October surprise, has the balls to dismiss McCraw’s drunk driving conviction as shhhh… “a complicated personal story,” and just leave it at that?

Apparently… yeah.

Personally, I can’t bring myself to cast another ballot for Owen, but I’m sure as hell not voting for McCraw either.  But then, I’m not one of those coveted “low information voters” the Times apparently embraces as its target audience.

Via Ari Melber.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 363 electoral votes	Mean of 175 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 376 to 162 electoral votes. Obama would have almost certainly won an election held yesterday.

There were 21 new polls from 17 states released today. In addition, with one week to the election, today is the day that the “current poll window” is scheduled to change from 10 days to 7 days. Both polls and the polling window affect today’s results.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 100,000 times. Obama receives (on average) 363 to McCain’s 175 electoral votes. Obama still has a 100.0% probability of winning an election held today.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early to enjoy the cuisine.

Tonight will be something of a pre-election party. We’ll raise a toast to Alaska’s outgoing Senator—whatever you think of his politics, the man has convictions! Likewise, we’ll raise a toast to Dino Rossi in hopes that he gets himself some convictions.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, McCranium shoud have the scoop on the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Huh.  Looking at these TV news clips of Dino Rossi, I’m kinda noticing a pattern.

More bad news for McCain:

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, to the shock and dismay of Florida Republicans, just moved to extend early voting hours, a move likely to widen the Democrats’ lead under a program on which the Obama campaign has intensely focused.

“He just blew Florida for John McCain,” one plugged in Florida Republican just told me.

That Gov. Crist “blew Florida for John McCain” by making it easier for citizens to cast their votes, tells you everything you need to know about the Republican Party and the electoral strategies on which they’ve long relied.

A couple days after the primary, Dave Reichert pissed off more than a few members of the press by issuing a media advisory promising a “major announcement,” only to produce delusional fringe “Democratic” challenger Jim Vaughn at the podium, offering his enthusiastic endorsement.

Well, since then, Vaughn and his bride Sally Daugherty have been regulars in the comment threads here on HA, leaving increasingly insulting and bizarre commentary, such as this doozy from earlier today:

7. Jim Vaughn spews:

Go Darcy. Go home. Go away. Better yet Go buy a smoke detector and be a responsible parent.

Jim

Classy.

Then, of course, there’s this piece of cogent analysis from a couple days ago:

Goldy your actions do not help the Democratic Party. The difference between you and pigs and hockey moms is not lip stick. Reason being you have your head so far up your ass that the only thing on your lips and coming out of your mouth is a bunch of SHIT.

Vaughn claims to be a Democrat, but what he really is, is a sore loser and an asshole, and I’m guessing, more than a touch crazy.  But since Reichert called a press conference to announce Vaughn’s endorsement, I can only assume that Vaughn speaks for the Reichert campaign.

I suppose that’s bipartisanship, Dave Reichert style.

Dear McPalin and others pushing this absurd nonsense: please define your terms. Here’s a dictionary definition of socialism: (you can go here and look it up at Merriam-Webster yourself if you want.)

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Yeah, we have to resort to publishing the dictionary definition because nobody even knows what kind of socialism we’re all supposedly pushing by hoping for a small adjustment in marginal income tax rates.

Might be a fun thing for people who get paid to write news articles to examine, since the “s” word is being thrown about on the cable tee-vee every five minutes or so.

Are Democrats in favor of the kind of “socialism” that provides very safe luxury automobiles, really fun kids toys and furniture you can put together with a hex wrench, or the kind of socialism where the urban populations are all forcibly removed to the countryside to work on the farms while Culture is Revolutionized?

‘Cause, you know, there’s a difference. If anyone actually cares.

I thought hating on France was idiotic, but hating on Sweden takes things to a whole new level. I’m pretty sure that any day now the McPalin supporters will demand the name of a popular Swedish food item be changed to “Freedom Balls.”

The stupid, it really does burn. Define your terms, McPalin, if you can.

Over at Effin’ Unsound, Lee applies a little logic to some of the illogical arguments being thrown against the I-1000 Death With Dignity initiative:

Think about what happened on 9/11 for a second. If you remember, there were people trapped on the highest floors of the second World Trade Center building who instead of perishing in the inferno behind them, decided to jump to their deaths. Should their death certificates say that they committed suicide?

It’s a great analogy I hadn’t heard before.  The Catholic Church, the main backer of the No campaign, considers suicide to be a mortal sin.  So… did the 9/11 WTC jumpers commit suicide?  Or were they murdered by terrorists?

And if choosing one certain death over another is not suicide in that situation, how is it suicide for the terminally ill?

Underestimate us at your peril…

Here’s what too many people still don’t understand — there’s nothing loony about the netroots. This isn’t fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party. This is fertile territory for the Howard Deans of our party — sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren’t afraid to be Democrats. Why? Because we’re the nation. We’re not clustered in DC and NYC, we’re spread out over all 50 states, and we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards.

We didn’t rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It’s that simple. Howard Dean wasn’t an anomaly. He was our ideal.

Of course, there are fringe elements to every movement, but there is nothing loony about the netroots, which is merely a revitalized, grassroots progressive movement, distinguished by its highly effective use of new technologies to achieve greater efficiencies in organizing, messaging and fundraising.  And while our style and tactics may sometimes come across as unconventional, our political agenda is not.

No, what our critics miss is that the netroots are above all an exercise in political pragmatism, as embodied in our unofficial rally cry:  “More and better Democrats.”  Our emphasis on more Democrats is a simple recognition of reality:  a two party system in which the electoral success of the Democratic Party currently provides the clearest path toward a more progressive political agenda.  And our emphasis on better Democrats is a recognition that in terms of ideology, competence and ethics, our party is far from perfect.

But our motto also represents a pragmatic compromise… an effort to strike a balance between the need to improve the Democratic majority, and the need to expand it.  And that compromise is reflected in the candidates we embrace, on a district by district basis.

How well we’ve managed to strike this balance, we’ll learn in another week.