There’s going to be a press conference at 1pm at the federal building in Seattle to discuss “Operation Green Reaper.” Can someone from the media please ask them whether the “green” in the operation name is supposed to refer to the pot plants they found or to the taxpayer money that was wasted?
Goldy to OKC sportscasters: eat me
If Oklahoma City really is as small as the hearts and minds of its local sportscasters, Clay Bennett is gonna have a helluva tough time making a profit while meeting the payroll of a competitive team. Just take a gander at the neeter-neeter-neeterism that passed for journalism over at KOCO’s Sports Blog in the wake of the NBA approving the Sonics move:
Why does the city of Seattle want to keep the Sonics for two more lame duck seasons? Why wouldn’t the city want to take a huge lump sum payment and keep the Sonics name?
Why? Arrogance.
Seattle leaders and state legislators never really believed the Sonics would leave. Somehow, someway an arena deal would get done. Why would a team and a league abandon the 14th largest TV market in the country? There’s no way the team would leave the greatness of Seattle for the blandness of middle America, right? For some reason the “haves” in Seattle just thought it would all work out, now the city “has not” when it comes to a NBA future.
The city of Seattle wants to drag this thing out, to make it as painful and costly as possible for Bennett. Hopefully, they think, Bennett will sell the team to someone local and the Sonics will stay. Arrogance at its finest. As we say here in Oklahoma, “That ain’t happening.”
Talk about arrogance. Just remember that in a league where money easily trumps a 41-year history of fan loyalty, what goes around comes around.
And then there’s this thoughtful commentary from yet another KOKO sportscaster, who advises lifelong Seattle Sonics fans to just “deal with it.”
I am getting really tired of everyone else from Seattle crying about this move. If you really cared about the Sonics, then why didn’t you buy a ticket or even better yet approve payment on a new stadium?
One fact of life is that there are always consequences for your actions, and Seattle is now learning that lesson. But, so is OKC: It acted by supporting the Hornets. It acted by saying, “Sure, tax me,” to improve the Ford Center, and now they get the NBA.
Sorry, Seattle, but you had your chance and failed.
Now, we Okies get a shot to prove we really are a “Major League City” and can support an NBA franchise. Don’t worry, though: You still have the Seahawks and Mariners.
Yeah, well, I hope all you Okies enjoy paying a one-percent sales tax to build luxury boxes for the wealthy in your five year old Ford Center… a tax that will no doubt expire right around the time Bennett demands yet another new arena or renovation. Neeter, neeter, neeter.
Hillary can’t win
Well, of course, she could win. Shit happens. Scandals. Wars. Terrorist attacks. Assassinations. But barring some paradigm-shifting calamity crushing Barack Obama’s presidential aspirations (or the man himself), Hillary Clinton just can’t win the Democratic nomination.
I know the Clinton fans at DL were cheered by her 9-point victory in Pennsylvania last night, but she can’t win. She can’t catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, and there is absolutely no indication that the remaining superdelegates will sharply break her way, nor any reason that they should. Two weeks from now, when the vote in North Carolina and Indiana is counted, Clinton will be further behind Obama in the delegate race than she was the morning before her big “victory” in Pennsylvania.
I’ve got nothing against Clinton. I like her. I’d enthusiastically support her should she win the nomination. But she can’t.
So given reality, and given the need for Democrats to unite together behind a nominee sometime before the end of August, I’d really like the Hillary boosters here on HA to explain to me why the superdelegates shouldn’t just come out and do their job, and decide this thing once and for all for Obama?
Liberty Mutual Field
Safeco has been a Seattle corporate icon since… well… almost since Seattle has had corporate icons. But no more:
Liberty Mutual will buy Safeco for $6.12 billion in a deal to create the country’s fifth-biggest property insurer. […] Both boards have approved the deal, and the sale is expected to close by the end of the third quarter pending shareholder and regulatory approval.
Of course, the companies don’t mention it in their press release, but no doubt there will be substantial job losses at Safeco’s former headquarters after the firms consolidate their operations. But you know, if wealthy board members can get even wealthier selling out, even at the expense of their loyal employees and the local community that has supported the company for 85 years, well, that’s capitalism.
So… how does “Liberty Mutual Field” roll off your lips?
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Just before 10PM last night, on the final day of Pledge Week, a $100 contribution came in, just sliding the needle past our $6,000 target. A heartfelt thanks to all 119 contributors for your generosity and support.
When I announced the milestone at Drinking Liberally, a fellow blogger exclaimed that they thought I was smoking crack to set such an ambitious target, to which I replied that I wasn’t afraid to fail. Nothing ventured nothing gained, and all that. But I guess I also had faith that the HA community had my back. And you did. 119 donors contributed $6,015 dollars, at an average of over $50.00 per donation, a truly amazing show of support, and while some of the righties may have trouble understanding the sentiment, the simple fact that so many of my readers were willing to show their appreciation in such a generous manner is at least as gratifying as the money itself.
Of course, we didn’t quite reach our 150 donor target, so I’m going to leave up the pledge bar at the top of the right column a little while longer for those of you who still want to chip in five or ten bucks, but I’m done with the fundraising appeals for now. Your contributions have made it possible for me to continue my work improving and expanding HA, and that’s exactly what I’m going to get back to doing after a good night’s sleep. A lot of great new features are coming your way, and I can’t wait to get them out the door.
Again, thank you all for your generous support, and for making HA a regular part of your daily routine.
Things are going too far, folks
To the well-dressed but drunk-as-a-skunk Clinton supporter at the Montlake Ale House on Tuesday night:
Probably not a good idea to drunkenly berate people for not supporting you candidate. When you ask someone what they think is important in the election, and they answer “change,” it’s best not to treat that answer as an attack on your candidate. It implies that you know your candidate isn’t for “change,” which is bad because this is a change election. (At least, that’s what the dozens of talking heads have been saying.)
Personally, I’m mostly happy with either one. While I lean towards Obama, I’m no super fan, and I’m certainly not going to get hammered and yell at strangers at the bar for not supporting him.
I don’t think this extended contest is hurting the party, but it seems to be doing a number on the combatants.
Pennsylvania primary open thread
Of course, the big news coming out of Pennsylvania tonight is that the Philadelphia Flyers just beat the Washington Capitals 3-2 in overtime, to take game seven, and win their series in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. And oh yeah, Hillary Clinton is projected to beat Barack Obama in the primary.
Drinking Liberally
Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.
Tonight we’ll raise a stein to the earth, celebrate Bush’s great achievment, toast (and maybe roast) Will, and…um, maybe watch election returns from that one state back east…oh, what’s its name….
If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.
Hello, Goodbye
I had no idea what I was getting into when I first started blogging four years ago next month. What started as an exercise in forcing myself to write every day, has morphed into an obsession that can produce a half-dozen posts every 24 hours. And while I allowed myself to dream that I might someday earn an audience of a few hundred, I never imagined that thousands of readers would eventually make HA a part of their daily routines.
There is a ton of work and several tons more of pressure in keeping HA relevant, informative and entertaining, and there is absolutely no way I could have continued at this pace without the generous and talented help of my co-bloggers. And over the past year I have particularly come to rely on the increasingly prolific contributions of Will Kelley-Kamp both in keeping HA fresh, and in giving me the occasional breather that I so desperately need.
That is why I am both saddened and proud to announce that Will will be stepping back from HA, at least through November, to take a position as campaign manager for state Rep. Geoff Simpson. Will has more than earned this opportunity, and I have no doubt that he will perform his duties with flying colors. He will retain his blogging privileges here at HA, but neither the time nor the political constraints of a full-time political campaign will permit him to post with much if any frequency.
But as long as we’re saying goodbye to an HA regular, if only temporarily, I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a new co-blogger to the HA stables, Jon DeVore. Jon’s original blog, Columbian Watch, was one of the first political blogs I read on a regular basis (along with Carl’s famously concise Washington State Political Report), and I have long been a fan of his writing. Some of you may remember him as Stilwell, under which name he wrote for a while at NW Progressive Institute. I look forward to his contributions.
Will is incredibly enthusiastic about his new job, not the least which because, unlike blogging, it actually pays. Likewise, I know that there have been some of you in the comment threads who have suggested that I should do the responsible thing and get a real job myself, rather than asking my readers for support. Of course I could, and I’d probably make a pretty penny in the process, but my job here is not done. This is perhaps the most important election year in my lifetime since 1968, and we all know how well that one turned out for the nation. So I have chosen to take what little opportunity I have to make difference, and continue to attempt to do exactly that.
Of course, on this, the final day of my annual Pledge Week, please remember that I can’t keep this up forever. My ability to grow and expand HA to the point where it can eventually earn enough money to support me, relies for the moment on your continued support. Help support local progressive media. Please give today.
Public service pronouncement
The headline in today’s Seattle Times pretty much sums up Dave Reichert’s entire campaign strategy this election: “In Reichert-Burner rematch, questions still loom about Burner’s public-service experience.”
All in all, I suppose it’s a pretty even-handed piece (though it is past time for local journalists to reevaluate the Reichert as “moderate” meme that Daniel has so consistently and thoroughly debunked), but I just flat out reject the premise that Darcy Burner’s lack of “public-service experience” should be treated as a substantial issue in this campaign.
In a nation whose founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature, prior public service has never been a prerequisite for higher office, and is certainly no predictor of success therein. In fact, we have a long honored mythology — particularly in the GOP — surrounding successful businessmen who leave the private sector and enter politics to “give something back,” the most recent local example being the failed US Senate campaign of former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. McGavick was certainly a flawed candidate, but never once did I hear my friends in the legacy media question his lack of “public-service experience.” It simply wasn’t a credible issue.
Burner also achieved success in the private sector before embracing public service, and while she’s no multimillionaire, she honed managerial skills at Microsoft we could surely use more of in Congress, skills she clearly demonstrated in developing and promoting the Responsible Plan. By comparison, Reichert is a career public employee, a beat cop cum paper-pusher who was plucked out of obscurity and appointed Sheriff in what was arguably one of the worst decisions of Ron Sims’ own long career in public service, and who had absolutely zero legislative experience himself, prior to entering Congress. I don’t mean to disrespect police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and other first line responders who put their lives on the line for us every day, but their job experience leaves them no more or less qualified to serve in Congress than most any other profession.
But I take larger issue with this line of attack in that campaigns tend to focus on the job experience of the incumbent, not the challenger, and for obvious reasons. It is fair to question Burner on the issues or on her competency or on her character, but few challengers can ever claim to match the on-the-job political experience of the incumbent, and to legitimize such a direct, unfavorable comparison would amount to little more than a blind defense of incumbency. Reichert, on the other hand, has a two-term record in Congress to defend, a legacy of accomplishments, or lack thereof, that is a legitimate issue of debate. Thus the main question before voters is whether Reichert has adequately performed in office, and if not, whether Burner has the competency and values to warrant an opportunity to serve in his stead. That is the standard by which the media usually covers campaigns because you cannot fault the challenger for lacking experience in the job she seeks.
When consummate Beltway insider Robert Novak says that Reichert “has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress,” you can be sure that he is echoing the opinion of Reichert’s own Republican colleagues. Thus it is not Burner’s experience that is the primary issue in this race — she has apparently excelled at nearly everything she has attempted to achieve in life — but rather the actual experience of Reichert in the job he seeks to retain.
Uniter…not a divider
It’s official. President George W. Bush has united the American people, who have collectively declared him: Worst. President. Ever.
President Bush has set a record he’d presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.
The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.
The title comes at the end of a long downhill slide from having the record highest approval rating in September, 2001. Bush earned that record by ignoring a daily presidential briefing dated 6 August 2001 titled, “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” (Among other things, the memo pointed out, “…FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”)
Besides the USA Today/Gallup poll, there was an ARG poll released today and a Rasmussen poll released Sunday that included presidential approval.
The ARG poll gave Bush 22% approval and 72% disapproval. This isn’t the worst Bush has done in the ARG poll…in February, his approval was a mere 19% and his disapproval was an astounding 77%. But, then, ARG presidential approvals polls seem to be biased against Bush, and ARG, in general, has something of a reputation for quirky (i.e. highly variable) results.
The Rasmussen approval poll (which is now taken weekly instead of daily) has Bush’s approval at 34% and disapproval at 64%. The Rasmussen presidential approval polls have always been biased in favor of Bush relative to other major pollsters (but consistently and reliably so). We can compare Sunday’s results with past performance in the Rasmussen poll. When the April polls are averaged at the end of the month, this is likely to be Bush’s worst performance to date–easily beating the 36% approval and 61% disapproval from last May. Rasmussen points out:
Sometimes it is difficult to keep the ratings in perspective. In February 2005, at the beginning of the President’s second term, the number who Strongly Approved was roughly equal to the number who Strongly Disapproved. Now, three years later, just 13% Strongly Approve while more than three times as many—45%–Strongly Disapprove.
Aggregates of multiple polls (e.g. Prof. PollKatz or Pollster.com) also show Bush at the lowest point of his presidency.
So…we have a lame duck Worst. President. Ever. But consider this: at this point in the second term, Ronald Reagan was hovering around 50% approval and Bill Clinton’s approval was in the low 60%. It isn’t just a “lame duck” effect.
Does Bush’s pathetic approval/disapproval matter? From Rasmussen:
In March, as the President’s Approval Rating slipped, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats remained near the highest levels ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.
Yeah…I guess it does a little. Besides needlessly sending our soldiers to their death and running up enormous debt for an illegal war that was fraudulently foisted upon the American people, besides the erosion of our civil liberties, the invasion of our privacy, and the approval of torture contrary to our treaties, in addition to causing massive (and, quite possibly, permanent) damage to our reputation abroad, it looks like the Bush administration has also made it downright distasteful (or, perhaps, embarrassing) to be a Republican.
Happy Earth Day
So how is founder Denis Hayes choosing to celebrate this 38th Earth Day? By endorsing Darcy Burner:
When it comes to the environment, Darcy gets it! But more than that, she gets what needs to be done, and knows how to get there. She will represent more than merely a vote we can count on and a voice on these issues that are important to each of us – she will take on the tough political battles we need to fight if we are to bring our planet back into balance. She is a true environmentalist.
Rob McKenna’s War on the Sick and Disabled
On Sunday, I met with a group of this state’s registered medical marijuana patients, activists, and attorneys in downtown Seattle. It was the first time meeting many of the folks who I’ve heard about through various emails regarding court dates, trials, and other problems that this community still has to deal with. It’s been ten years since the voters of this state made it clear that we believe their medical choices are valid and should be protected by the law. Despite the intent of that voter initiative, people who have been certified by their doctors to use medical marijuana to help combat a variety of life threatening illnesses and severe disabilities are still being prosecuted across the state. I was overwhelmed by the amount of information shared at the meeting and I want to summarize what I was able take away from it:
Norm Dicks to flip endorsement if Clinton doesn’t win “big”
Speaking before a crowd of about a hundred Democrats at a fundraiser yesterday, U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (WA-06) reportedly said that if Hillary Clinton wins “big” in today’s Pennsylvania primary, he believes the nominating contest will go all the way to the convention, but… if she does not win big — and given the current polling he has no expectation that she will — there would be no way the math could work for her, and he’d flip his endorsement to Barack Obama in order to help end the contest sooner rather than later.
Dicks did not provide details, but he left the impression with attendees that he has discussed this scenario with several of his fellow Congressional superdelegates, and that he is alone in neither his analysis nor his intentions.
So think of Dicks as the canary in the coal mine of the Clinton campaign; if he flips, other superdelegates will likely flip with him. And that would signal the end of Clinton’s presidential ambitions.
Open thread
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 749
- 750
- 751
- 752
- 753
- …
- 1036
- Next Page »
