HorsesAss.Org

With all the focus on the presidential debate, you may be surprised to learn that there was another debate today, this one between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert at Bellevue’s Meydenbauer Center.  Josh was there, and will post a firsthand report here on HA later, but for the moment you can take a gander at the transcript of Andrew’s live blog.

(FYI, I spoke with Andrew briefly and felt confident that Darcy won… not that it means anything if most voters don’t see it.)

UPDATE:
The Times and the P-I have their quick takes on today’s debate.  I was particularly struck by this excerpt from the P-I:

“I still look on myself as Joe Blow from Kent, Washington, a cop who came to Congress,” Reichert said in his closing remarks.

A) He’s been in Congress for two years; it’s time Reichert started running on his congressional record rather than his self-inflated reputation as “the Sheriff,” and B)  I don’t want just some “Joe Blow” representing me in Congress, especially during a time of crisis… I want somebody exceptional, and Reichert has done absolutely nothing to show us that he is anything but just another “Joe Blow.”

Sure, President Bill Clinton may have lied about a blow job, but at least he didn’t fuck the economy.

Oops.  A window into McCain’s post traumatic stress disorder?  Or is this just the sort of mental lapse we should expect from a 72-year-old man undertaking a grueling run for president?

I’ll be on KUOW’s The Conversation today at around 1:15PM, talking about last night’s presidential debate.  94.9 FM… tune in.

No doubt I like the results of SurveyUSA’s post-debate poll of Washington state voters better than that of the first debate, but it still strikes me as a load of bullshit.  Two weeks ago SurveyUSA told us that WA bucked the national trend, with respondents giving McCain a narrow 40%-38% edge on the question of who won the first debate.  After the second presidential debate we’re told that Washingtonians mirrored their national counterparts, handing Obama a decisive 54%-29% victory.

Yeah… whatever.

My problem though is not with the results—I suppose either represents a believable margin—but rather with the sample, which seems to indicate Washington’s citizens are by far the most politically engaged in the nation, with over 63% of WA adults supposedly watching the first debate, and now a stunning 74% of those interviewed claiming to have watched the second.

Wow.  That would be astounding, if true.  But unfortunately for SurveyUSA, Neilsen, whose business it is to measure TV viewership, reports that only about a third of WA households were tuned into the debate last night, up from about 30% for the first contest.  And once again the Seattle-Tacoma market ranks amongst the lowest top-55 markets in the nation.

Of course, Neilsen and SurveyUSA aren’t quite measuring the same thing, but when you look at the rough math I did last time around, it’s clear that these two sets of conflicting results can’t possibly mesh.

Not that this means anything, but it does make one wonder about the dataset for SurveyUSA’s other polls.

So not only has The Columbian endorsed Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire in her re-election bid, but in Vancouver’s 17th Legislative District, traditionally a swing-to-leans-Republican district, all three Democrats have drawn the endorsement of the newspaper as well.

None of the endorsements are especially surprising, but perhaps the one that will draw the most notice elsewhere is the ringing endorsement of political novice David Carrier over long-time Republican state senator Don Benton.

David Carrier for state senator — You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who provides a greater contrast to blustery incumbent Don Benton than Democrat David Carrier, a soft-spoken political newcomer, avid outdoorsman and holder of a doctoral degree in economics from Notre Dame. Carrier is working tirelessly in the campaign. It paid off in the primary when he won 45.6 percent of the votes, a surprising showing against Benton, a 14-year legislator with three terms as state senator.

Voters, though, must have been familiar with those 14 years. He once missed 17 consecutive meetings as a member of the Higher Education Committee. Benton’s bellicose collisions with colleagues raised eyebrows as far back as 2000 when Republican leaders demanded his resignation as state chair. Through the years, he’s become an inveterate “Dr. No,” opposing sensible ideas that draw popular support, such as all-mail voting and abolishing the supermajority for school levies. He is even opposed to the proposal for replacing the decrepit and dangerous Interstate 5 Bridge.

Ouch. It’s kind of too bad the Washington State Labor Council has endorsed Don Benton for state senate in this, of all years. It’s not as if a bridge project would provide prevailing wage jobs or anything.

In the race to replace Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, who was defeated in the primary by Joseph James, it’s also no contest, according to The Columbian. Democrat Tim Probst may never have held office, but the newspaper notes his far superior experience.

Few rookies are better prepared for elected office than Tim Probst. He currently works as leader of a statewide work force training group and has solid experience as state policy analyst, legislative liaison and assistant to Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar in the 1990s. Bolstered by 48.2 percent of the primary votes, Probst has the momentum and the expertise to help 17th district voters forget about Dunn.

And last but not least, incumbent Deb Wallace justifiably garners the endorsement over culture warrior Micheline Doan.

You have to be realistic, of course, about newspaper endorsements. They don’t count at the ballot box, and Republicans never, ever give up, but it’s a sign of the times that Republicans have fielded such poor candidates in a swing suburban district, while Democrats have come up with much better candidates. If the landslide really does happen, it’s going to be very tough sledding for Republicans everywhere.

The New York Times editorial board is appalled by the tone and content of the McCain/Palin campaign.  And it takes an awful lot to appall a New Yorker…

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

It is a sorry fact of the news biz that editorialists too often attempt to balance the transgressions of one candidate by pointing to the transgressions of their opponent, even when there is no reasonable comparison.  But in recent weeks the McCain/Palin campaign has simply slipped too far over to the dark side to make such journalistic equivalency even remotely believable.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

They called the sound man a “nigger” and commanded him to “sit down, boy.”  But then, that’s the sort of visceral response Palin is shooting for.

In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.

But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.

No, probably not.  What we are seeing is the logical conclusion of the Rovian strategies that secured narrow electoral victories by exploiting the cultural tensions in an otherwise closely divided nation.  As the failures of the Bush administration and his Republican Party have become too overwhelming to ignore, and have started to impact the day to day lives of average Americans, large segments of the electorate are shifting to the Democrats, even if only because they are not Republicans.  Thus as the political divide widens, the obvious Rovian response is to turn up the divisive rhetoric in a last ditch effort to keep swing voters in line through their weapons of choice:  fear, anger and hate.

It will be interesting to see how Republicans respond to a second straight cycle of devastating congressional losses, and a likely Obama victory.  It would be best for both them and the nation if they abandon Palin, and the dangerous fascistic streak she clearly embodies.

Last week, the state’s Department of Health finalized their rules on the 60-day limit of medical marijuana allowed for registered patients. They stuck with the initially proposed 24 ounces, but revised the plant count to 15, regardless of the plant’s stage of development. As has been the case throughout, the medical marijuana advocacy community continues to be split on whether this will really protect patients:

Alison Holcomb, the drug-policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said the new rule “is a step in the right direction,” even though it doesn’t begin to address the practical matter of accessing medical marijuana.

“Twenty-four ounces and 15 plants is a heck of a lot clearer than ’60-day supply,’ ” she said. “It gives an average law-enforcement officer a very quick and easy way to determine if they’re in compliance, move on and leave that patient in peace.”

But Douglas Hiatt, an attorney who represents medical-marijuana patients, disagrees. He said he plans to file a lawsuit to have the limits thrown out.

“No one I know is in compliance with the number of plants. No one,” he said. “We will drown in cases if we can’t get this rule stopped and keep it out of the hands of law enforcement.”

From what I’ve seen so far, I tend to think that Hiatt is right. For a patient who requires a larger amount (people who choose to eat it rather than smoke it need more), it might be a challenge for them to grow enough with a 15-plant limit. The real question is how police and prosecutors will deal with any legitimate patients who find that the limits are too restrictive. Here in King County, Dan Satterberg has made it clear that he stands with the patients:

“Having this rule, having some amount … is helpful, but it’s not the end of the analysis,” Satterberg said. “If you’re in King County and you’re dying of cancer, we’re not going to prosecute you if you have 15 plants or 30. If somebody is legitimately ill, we’re not going to prosecute that case, period.”

Unfortunately, other prosecutors around the state are likely to take a different view, as we’ve seen especially in Kitsap County, which has been aggressively going after patients.

I still believe that the bulk of the blame for this situation should go to Attorney General Rob McKenna. He could easily lay out guidelines similar to the ones that his Republican colleague Dan Satterberg has laid out, but instead he’s done nothing to ensure that patients who intend to comply with the state law are protected. If there’s any public figure in this state who should lose their job over this, it’s him. But another Republican is taking a very different stand here, Lieutenant Governor candidate Marcia McCraw. Recently, she released this statement in support of the patients:

I’m a socially liberal republican running for lieutenant governor. I’m a respected lawyer, and, as a lawyer, I respect the law. The people have spoken – with a doctor’s recommendation, marijuana use is legal in Washington for medical purposes. We have to stop the politicians and bureaucrats who are trying to make it impossible to legally grow, possess and use medical marijuana. They are forcing chronically and terminally ill patients to purchase their medicine from illegal drug dealers, and this must stop. You need a strong advocate in Olympia, and I will be that voice.

I’m running against the longest sitting lieutenant governor in the entire nation, a man who has been on the public payroll in Olympia for over 30 years. He has diverted taxpayers’ hard earned dollars to his personal crusade against marijuana. He runs nongovernmental organizations funded with taxpayers’ dollars and lobbyists slush funds that are answerable to no one.

As president of the state senate, the lieutenant governor is the only senate member elected by ALL the people instead of by a particular district. As such, I will use that position to be a spokesman and
lobbyist for the people of Washington, including those who legally use medical marijuana.

I’m Marcia McCraw. Please register to vote now and get your friends and family to register. On November 4 (or before if you vote absentee) please remember to vote for me for lieutenant governor.
You owe it to yourself, your values and your health.

Her opponent, current Lieutenant Governor Brad Owen, has one of the worst track records on drug law reform of any statewide official, and certainly of any Democrat. He initially opposed the voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana. He campaigned against Seattle’s initiative I-75, and he has a long history of making hysterical and unsubstantiated claims about a subject he clearly knows nothing about other than how it can increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing.

I know it’s hard to vote for any Republican this year, but Marcia McCraw will definitely be getting my vote. Want bi-partisan solutions this year to shake up the status quo? Send both Brad Owen and Rob McKenna packing in November and get people into statewide office who put people over politics.

I’m at the Ale House to watch the debate, and I kinda sorta plan to live blog, that is, in between bites of my fish & chips, and assuming the wireless network holds up. But I just want to start out by saying that I absolutely hate this stupid-ass “town hall” format. The first debate, with Jim Lehrer actually asking a few follow up questions, but mostly allowing the candidates to go back and forth at each other, was the best and most informative debate I’ve seen… well… ever. I’m not expecting much substance tonight.

Anyway, I’ll be updating the post with my comments, please share your comments in the thread.

UPDATE (6:08):
John McCain has a secret plain to end the economic crisis. And by the way, when McCain says “we don’t have trust and confidence,” isn’t that dangerously close to Jimmy Carter’s “crisis of confidence”…?

UPDATE (6:12):
McCain thinks the questioner doesn’t even know who Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is, because you know, he’s just a dumb voter. So he needs to explain this all very slowly and very carefully and with very small words.

UPDATE (6:18):
McCain: “Americans are the best importers in the world.” No doubt about that.

UPDATE (6:25):
Question: When McCain says “my friends,” is he referring to Facebook?

UPDATE (6:30):
McCain wants a spending freeze except for defense, veterans affairs and, you know, “other stuff”. How bold.

UPDATE (6:35):
Does it really matter what Obama and McCain actually say? It seems like CNN’s dial test squiggly line goes up when Obama speaks, and down for McCain, pretty much regardless of the content.

UPDATE (6:38):
Really, what is the point of a debate in which the moderator actively prevents the participants from engaging in a substantive discussion. Fuck the rules, Tom.

UPDATE (6:50):
Okay, perhaps I have a fetish on this, but I really wish the candidates would answer the fucking question. “Should health care be a commodity?” That’s a yes or no question. There’s nothing particularly wrong with Obama’s answer except it’s not really one, and I don’t expect McCain to be anymore direct.

UPDATE (6:52):
McCain: “You really have identified one of the main issues facing America…” but I’m not going to answer the question either. Okay, I’ll answer the question for both you: health coverage should not be a commodity.

UPDATE (6:55):
I’m watching CNN’s squiggly lines, and it raises one question: who the hell chooses orange and green as the distinguishing colors when 10% of the men are red green color blind? Thanks a fucking lot.

UPDATE (6:57):
“Is health care a privilege, a right or a responsibility?” Obama answers, “it is a right.” Finally. I direct answer. (And bonus, one I agree with.)

UPDATE (7:01):
According to the dial test audience, Americans like to be told how great we are, but we don’t particularly like it when McCain uses that to attack Obama.

UPDATE (7:04):
Obama needs to use the words “orgy” and “troops” in the same sentence. The dial test audience loves that.

UPDATE (7:12):
McCain: “My hero is Teddy Roosevelt.” Which is a good answer, say, if the question is about the environment or regulation. But when the question is on foreign policy… um… not so much.

UPDATE (7:13):
I disagree with Obama: Tom Brokaw sucks.

UPDATE (7:16):
McCain has a secret plan to catch bin Laden.

UPDATE (7:18):
Have you noticed that sometimes, when McCain finishes his answer, the squiggly lines of go up when Brokaw starts talking? McCain risks coming in third.

UPDATE (7:22):
Dollars to donuts, the pundits won’t be so quick to call this debate one way or the other… until the snap polls come in. Not after being burned in the last two debates. (Shhh… Obama wins.)

UPDATE (7:30):
Brokaw: “We’ve come to the last question.” Millions of American viewers: “Thank God!”

MY IMPRESSION:
This debate sucked, and would have been intolerable without beer. But more importantly, whoever Americans ultimately determine won the debate (shh… Obama), there’s no way McCain did what he needed to do to shake up this race and seize the momentum. Therefore, Obama wins. (Shhh.)

RANDOM OBSERVATION:
CNN this huge panel of what, ten analysts discussing the debate… and they’re all white? Really?

INSTAPOLLS:
CBS: Obama, 39-27. CNN: Obama, 54-30. Only an assassin’s bullet can win this race for McCain.

Join Goldy and me tonight for some politics under the influence, with a special Tuesday presidential debate edition of Drinking Liberally.

The debate begins at 6PM. Folks will start gathering around 5:30PM at our spot, the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E., in Seattle’s Montlake neighborhood.

See ya there!

It was two months ago today, I wrote about McCain’s program to reward trolls for spreading the campaign’s message (or, as Dubya would put it…to “kind-a catapult the propaganda.”

The idea was that the McCain campaign would offer “Today’s Talking Points” to their web-savvy faithful, who would then plaster the “good news” on web sites across the land. The enthusiasm behind the “movement” and the sheer repetition of the message would gradually convert Americans into loyal McCain followers. You know…the same way the Ron Paul campaign was able to win the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans.

So…I stop back two months later, and what do I find? I find that nothing, and I mean nothing has changed on the page in two months. In particular, “Today’s Talking Points” are identical to yesterday’s “Today’s Talking Points” (yes…I checked) and are identical to “Today’s Talking Points” on every one of the dozen or so days I’ve checked the site in the last two months.

Are you surprised? You shouldn’t be. The McCain campaign’s broken (implicit) promise to offer a daily set of discussion points is another symptom of a moribund campaign that will try anything and everything that might offer a quick, low-investment advantage for the campaign. I wonder if anyone has actually received any “reward points” and whether anyone was able to cash in those points for “cool McCain stuff?”

Oh…and one of “Today’s Talking Points” that has remained unchanged for at least 60 “todays” (my emphasis)?

There are serious issues at stake in this election, and serious differences between the candidates. And we will argue about them, as we should. But it should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.

Seriously! That’s what it says!

But then what do you expect from a man who called his wife a “cunt” in front of aids and reporters?

Some of you may have noticed an ad on HA for the “Pickens Plan” for energy independence, an initiative by oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens to wean our nation from foreign oil.  And so I thought this might be a good time to reiterate HA’s advertising policy.

See, despite the fact that Pickens’ investments in wind energy are probably good thing (I think), that doesn’t erase his long history as a financier of right-wing ideologues, and his role as one of the major backers of the Swift Boat smear campaign that likely sunk John Kerry’s presidential prospects.  It also doesn’t detract from his cynical investment of millions of dollars in California’s Prop 10, which would tap CA’s already stressed state coffers to boost his natural gas business.

Pickens is no progressive, and just shouldn’t be trusted.  But I’m happy to take his money nonetheless.

See, here at HA we have a very simple advertising policy:  we’ll take paid ads from pretty much all comers, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike.  We won’t accept ads that amount to blatantly deceptive astroturfing, though I’ve only rejected one thus far.  And we won’t accept ads I find pornographic or patently offensively… but as my regular readers know, that’s a pretty low bar.  Basically, if you have the money, I’ll take your ad.  But if I really don’t like it, don’t be surprised if I go out of my way to trash it.  You know, like this post about the highly questionable ad for the Pickens Plan.

See, not only did Pickens finance the Swift Boat ads, Mentzer Media Services, Inc, the company that placed this web ad, also placed most of the Swift Boat ads as well… a service for which they made millions of dollars.

And so, considering HA’s wall between advertising and editorial, the only responsible course of action was to take Pickens money, and then give a free ad to The General to mercilessly mock it.  So that’s exactly what I did.

Yup, that’s my advertising policy, and I’m sticking to it.

From WaPo:

Now it is less than a month later. Obama appears to be cruising and McCain stumbling. Every shift in campaign tactics by McCain is seen through the prism of an operation in distress. That’s why McCain is on the hot seat for Tuesday’s debate.

Well, okay. It’s seen that way by Beltway reporters and the politically obsessed (guilty as charged, your honor.) But that’s “horse race” campaign coverage, focusing on the tactics and strategy. Nothing against it, actually, but it’s becoming more beside the point right now.

What strikes me is how much interest there is in this election amongst normal people. A lot of folks may be leaning one way or the other, but they’re watching the debates and are genuinely concerned about the economic crisis and who will lead this country. I’ve certainly been a little surprised by some friends and neighbors (both Republican and Democratic) who approached the first two debates with the anticipation usually reserved for football games. (We now live in a country where people make decent snacks for political debates! Yeah!)

When you’ve observed politics closely for a long time, though, debates can be pretty tough to stomach. Platitudes abound, and transparent efforts to score the next “Where’s the beef?” line grow tiresome. So the earnestness with which many voters are viewing this election is refreshing.

Broadly speaking, I think there is an expectation by the public that the candidates will actually say something meaningful tonight about the meltdown. People want to know what these guys are going to do about it, and I’m certain platitudes and evasiveness are not going to be met with much acceptance. Nobody wants to bore the audience to tears with technical discussions, but laying out a long-term, sensible plan for the economy would seem to be within the abilities of at least one of these candidates. You would think.

I suppose it’s likely we may hear the names “Ayers” and “Keating,” but if it gets out of hand people are going to be royally pissed.

Just my $.02.