HorsesAss.Org

Last week, in the wake of the Seattle Times’ endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president, I wrote:

Big deal. Next week they’ll also endorse Sen. John McCain on the Republican side. If the Times really embraces the kind of change they believe Obama represents, they wouldn’t endorse anybody for the Republican nomination, least of all a warmonger whose idea of straight talk is promising crowds “there will be other wars.“

Today, the Times endorsed Sen. John McCain.

No, I’m not a psychic. But the Times’ endorsements have become nearly as predictable as they are utterly dismissive of the intelligence of their readers. Take this beauty for example:

For all his supportive votes and rhetoric on Iraq, he would have the easiest time of any candidate to engineer a reversal of policy.

McCain the Annapolis graduate, McCain the naval aviator, McCain the prisoner of war does not carry the burden of heavily footnoted, nuanced stances on national security and defense policy. He opposes the use of torture by Americans and would close the prison at Guantánamo. Against years of grotesque double-talk from administration hacks, McCain does not equivocate.

For him to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would carry an imprimatur others cannot produce.

Jesus… talk about “grotesque double-talk.” So, let me get this right… “for all his supportive votes and rhetoric on Iraq,” and despite the fact that he is out on the trail telling voters that there will be more wars, and that we’ll be in Iraq for another 100 years, straight-talking McCain, who “does not equivocate” and who does not take “nuanced stances” … “would have the easiest time of any candidate” getting us out of Iraq? Uh-huh.

Yeah, sure, I get their point. If McCain decided to pull us out of Iraq, he would bring unmatched authority to the decision. The problem is, his support for the war has been… well… entirely unnuanced and unequivocal. “For him to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq” sure would “carry an imprimatur others cannot produce,” but it would also be utterly inconsistent with everything he has said for the past five years. The Times lauds McCain for his “capacity… to move in new directions,” but on this, the most important issue in the 2008 election, there is absolutely no indication that he would.

Touting McCain as the Republican most likely to get us out of the war in Iraq is like touting chocolate iced glazed as the variety of donut least likely to make you fat. So don’t be fooled by editorial sophistry; if you want to end this war and bring our troops home, your only choice next November is the Democratic nominee, whoever that might eventually be.

Don’t Ask McCain – video powered by Metacafe

I saw this at the blog of Lew Waters, a local right-winger who has pronounced the GOP dead over McCain’s impending nomination. For the nativists who see increased numbers of Mexican-American families in this country as a threat, McCain’s unwillingness to even discuss the issue will only play into their paranoia, and 2008 will be another milestone in their efforts to destroy their party.

In reporting on Rep. Dave Reichert’s pathetic fundraising quarter (only $236K in 4Q, trailing Darcy Burner $607K to $462K in the all important cash-on-hand number,) I quipped:

“You immediately understand why Reichert is so desperate to get a seat on the House Appropriations committee: trading earmarks for campaign contributions is his only chance of staying on a level playing field.“

Well just so you know it’s not just partisan speculation on my part, the Seattle Times’ Alicia Mundy, who at times appears infatuated with Auburn’s brawny ex-sheriff, picks up on this theme in a Letter from Washington headlined: “Earmarks tiff spells trouble for Reichert.”

He’s in a tough re-election race against Democrat Darcy Burner, and last week Reichert told CQ Today, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that he needs a seat on Appropriations “now,” and that less-vulnerable candidates can wait their turn.

But….

A seat on a secondary “pork” committee might open Reichert to opposition campaign ads claiming that he is an old-style earmarker, while giving him little chance to direct real money back home.

Yeah, well, but when you’re as desperate as Dave, you take what you can get; even trading earmarks to out-of-district companies in exchange for lump sum contributions is a helluva lot easier than doing call time with constituents. But the question for the GOP leadership is not how desperate Reichert is for campaign cash, but rather, is he actually capable of taking advantage of an Appropriation’s seat in the first place? Given his anemic fundraising efforts thus far, one has to wonder what kind of leverage he has with his leadership — has he actually threatened to retire if denied, and would he actually follow through?

In 2006 House Republicans were forced to defend 21 open seats, compared to only 12 for the Democrats, an unbalanced playing field that surely factored into the Dems retaking the House for the first time since the Gingrich revolution of 1994. But in 2008 the GOP’s field position is dramatically worse, a lopsided 28 to 5 disadvantage… and it’s only February 2. Could Reichert make it number 29? That’s what some local pols are wondering, and if so it would be another big blow to Republican efforts to stave off further losses, especially given the DCCC’s $29 million to negative $1 million cash advantage over the NRCC.

It is hard to imagine the personal advantage to Reichert from exiting now versus rolling the dice on even an underfunded campaign, but he wouldn’t be the first Republican incumbent to have squeaked by in 2006, only to bow out this cycle in the face of a strong repeat-challenger. Either way, we’ll know pretty damn soon; the GOP leadership will announce their choice for the open Appropriations seat sometime over the next week or so, by which time we will be about half-way through the current quarter. If Reichert fails to get the post, and his fundraising efforts have failed to improve, that would be the time to choose between slogging on or pursuing a lucrative lobbying career. I wouldn’t bet money on a Reichert retirement, but if it’s gonna happen this cycle, it’s gonna happen now.

Apparently, a lot more than this:

The day James Anthony Williams allegedly stabbed to death a stranger on Capitol Hill, the homeless, mentally ill ex-convict showed up at his probation officer’s office agitated, defensive and, the officer wrote, “barely able to hold himself together.”

[…]

Department of Corrections (DOC) records released Friday show that Williams, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, spiraled into a pit of anger and delusion late last year. He skipped required mental-health appointments and was evicted for threatening his landlord.

[…]

An opportunity to intervene with Williams emerged last summer, after he was charged in Seattle Municipal Court with threatening to “shoot all the caseworkers” at Sound Mental Health and to “lay in wait” to shoot his DOC officer. He spent three months at Western State Hospital for an assessment of whether he was competent to stand trial for misdemeanor harassment charges.

His menacing behavior continued while at Western State. A social worker complained to DOC about Williams’ “intimidating and menacing behavior” toward staff, and about Williams’ claims of having “two personalities and one of them can lead to killing people and maybe he should go to jail,” according to the DOC records released Friday.

He’s a violent, mentally ill man with open disdain for his caretakers, but all of this isn’t enough to get somebody put away so they don’t hurt somebody.

What is this guy, a Husky football player?

Commenting about Goldy’s dismissal from KIRO this week, Mark Gardner at WhackyNation provided the following analysis:

Besides being an embarassing ass on the air, Goldy’s show appealed to a not very valuable demographic: Liberals. Just think how they spend their money (drugs, booze, tatooes and porn, etc.) and how little money they have. Not a very appealing demographic for advertisers.

After several failed attempts in the comment thread at defending his thesis, Gardner then reversed course and said he was only kidding. As an avid reader of WhackyNation, however, I found myself bewildered and unsure of myself. All of this time, I’ve assumed that Gardner, Guzzo, and the nutty professor were serious people presenting serious views. This illusion has been shattered. Now I’m wondering what else I’ve read at WhackyNation that was only in jest.

Was Lou just kidding when he argued that gambling should be outlawed nationwide? What about boxing? Or alcohol?

Was Mark only kidding when he tried to claim that the value of oceanfront real estate was proof that global warming was a hoax?

What about when Lou wrote that Hitler and Mussolini both won the Nobel Peace Prize? Did I miss the punch line?

And back in September, when Lou called for the liquidation of all weapons manufacturers in the world and then 24 hours later defended our right to own guns, which of those two posts was serious and which one was in jest? What about the time he called for a ban on all billboards, but then criticized people who complain about advertising? Can someone from WhackyNation please clarify which of those views was the serious one and which one was for laughs?

When Professor Manweller questioned the intelligence of southern Republicans because they voted for Ron Paul over Rudy Giuliani 2 to 1, I assume he was only kidding because any idiot could have used Google to see that voters in Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada voted that way too.

And I feel dumb that I didn’t consider that when Lou called David Postman a Socialist propagandist that he was just having a little fun with a fellow journalist.

All of this time, Mark, I never realized how much you guys are just a jolly bunch of jokesters. I always thought you were writing stupid post after stupid post because the three of you truly were idiots. Boy do I feel dumb knowing that you’ve only been pretending to be idiots.

I’ve gotten a couple of emails today from friends at KIRO advising that I probably shouldn’t post publicly about my cancellation, and that I shouldn’t talk to the media… not if I don’t want to burn any bridges. Personally, I don’t think anything I’ve written or said could be characterized as vindictive or bitter, and I’ve gone out of my way to express my genuine gratitude to KIRO for the extraordinary opportunity they gave me. Unless some other gig comes along, I hope to have the opportunity to continue doing fill-in work for Dave Ross and others, and I suppose to that end my friends at the station are probably giving me very good advice.

But it’s not advice I can follow. I’m a blogger. That’s what I do. That’s what built my profile, that’s what got me a shot at KIRO, and now that I no longer have a show, that’s really all the platform I have left. To not blog about such a significant event in my life would be counter to the nature of being a blogger. And to not speak truthfully about my take on KIRO and the state of the radio industry would be a disservice to my readers.

So let’s be absolutely clear. I have no hard feelings toward anybody at KIRO, and have absolutely no reason to doubt the word or motives of management. I lament the loss of so many hours of live, local programming — especially my own — and do believe that in the long term, the trend toward syndication is bad for the station and for the community; I said as much on-air when I paid tribute to Frank Shiers after his show was canceled. And I also believe that management undervalued my potential contribution to the station. But I’ve never pretended to be any sort of radio industry expert, so while I regret their decision, there’s really not much I can say to challenge it.

As for what has been written elsewhere — even elsewhere on HA — well, I’ve never been in the censorship business, and I’m not about to get in to it now; if folks at KIRO want to hold me responsible for the words and actions of others, there’s nothing I can do about it. I appreciate the amazing outpouring of support I’ve received thus far, and hope to leverage it in pursuit of another show, on KIRO or elsewhere.

Rick Santorum and Pat Buchanan aren’t the only right-wing wack-jobs that really, really hate John McCain….

(This is an open thread)

Rep. Dave Reichert’s year-end fundraising report just showed up on the FEC website, and man is it pathetic: only $236,612 net contributions for the quarter and $462,828 cash-on-hand at the end of the year. Compare that to Darcy Burner’s $339,495 for the quarter and $607,144 cash-on-hand, and you immediately understand why Reichert is so desperate to get a seat on the House Appropriations committee: trading earmarks for campaign contributions is his only chance of staying on a level playing field.

Two-term incumbents just simply don’t get out-raised, and certainly not by this margin. If he doesn’t turn things around and quick, the NRCC might just be better off cutting their losses and letting him sink or swim on his own.

But enough about me for a moment; let’s talk about another Seattle media entity of interest to nearly as many people: The Seattle Times.

On his blog, Postman writes about a memo from Executive Editor David Boardman directing staff members to refrain from participating in the upcoming presidential caucus and primary, fearing that it might compromise the Federation’s profession’s prime directive: objectivity. Boardman worries that primary list is a public record, as is which party’s ballot one chooses, and that some jerk might look it up: “Count on The Stranger, the Weekly and the political blogs to do just that,” Boardman frets.

Huh. Actually, the thought never occurred to me. Thanks for the idea Dave. Boardman continues:

“In this age of sharply partisan talk shows and blogs, our credibility and impartiality are more precious than ever. They are the capital we have to carry us into the future, the qualities that most separate us from all of the other places readers and Web users can go for news and information.”

Um, actually, what most separates stodgy old media from all us “other places” is that we generally offer our audience a more compelling and entertaining read. If blogs and other online media continue to gain audience at the expense of newspapers, it certainly isn’t because we have some competitive advantage or marketing muscle. So perhaps, maybe, could it be that we simply provide a better product? And if so, wouldn’t the Times be better served by hiring themselves some edgy new columnists rather than trusting that “credibility and impartiality” will eventually win the day? (FYI, I know of a newly unemployed radio host who would jump at the opportunity for a regular column.)

In fact, since journalists do have opinions and partisan leanings, wouldn’t it be more honest to be up front about it and say “Yeah… I’m a Democrat” and then let readers understand your reporting within that context? I’m not saying journalists shouldn’t strive to be objective or impartial — there’s room for both traditional journalism and the advocacy kind that I practice — it’s just that it’s kinda disingenuous to imply that they actually are.

Just a thought.

Opportunity, opportunity/
This is your big opportunity

-Elvis Costello, Opportunity

I snapped this photo during one of my several guest appearances on “The David Goldstein Show.” I was a guest on his very first show. Tom Clendening took a chance on Goldy, and Goldy took a chance on me. For that, I am very thankful.

I’m a longtime radio nerd. I first listened to “The Bill Gallant Show,” which is still the best show on politics I’ve ever heard. I listened for a long time to “The Tom Leykis Show.” That is, until the retards at Entercom decided to change the format of the only FM talk station, “The Buzz.” “Leykis” killed in Seattle, and was the highest rated drive-time show, second only to Mariner’s games. While controversial, he had the most entertaining show on the radio. His feud with the P-I’s Susan Paytner is legendary: She’s yet to flash her boobs for charity.

Lastly, before “The Buzz” went country, they picked up a show from Washington D.C. called “The Don and Mike Show.” It was like nothing I had ever heard in Seattle’s lame media market. They are often described as a “morning show in the afternoon” because they’re funny and do goofy gags.

“The Buzz” eventually dropped D & M, and I’ve always been looking for a way to get a hold of the show. Spokane (you bastards!) have been getting the show for years. It’s, like, the one good thing I like about that place. When “Don and Mike” started podcasting their entrie show, I found it and started downloading it… only to learn that Don Gerronimo (The “Don” of “Don and Mike”) is retiring in only a few months.

I have decided, much to the surprise of the parents, friends, etcetera, not to pursue a career in politics and instead pursue radio. Sitting in on Goldy’s show was fun, but political radio ain’t my thing. Goofball radio, here I come!

And here’s how:

Go to…

www.letterto710kiro.com

…and put your name on the open letter to the KIRO brass. Tell them what you think of their move to replace David Goldstein’s six hours of liberal talk with six hours of… I don’t even know what. Fucking “Meet The Press”? Fucking reruns?

If you give a shit about honest-to-God live and local radio that is unapologetically liberal, sign that letter.

If you think new local talent ought to have a shot in Seattle, sign the letter.

If you’re a conservative and you love telling Goldy how full of shit he is, sign the letter.

Even if KIRO is taking a pass on local liberal talk, let’s show other stations that this is something we want on the air.

UPDATE:
Andrew has a diary up on Daily Kos. Recommend it!

Let’s be honest, my comment threads are generally a sewer, and so it was with some surprise and great appreciation that I read the outpouring of support in the thread on the demise of my show on 710-KIRO. For the most part, even those on the other side expressed empathy, and some even professed to liking the show. I’ve received a number of donations via my PayPal and Amazon Honor System links, plus several emails suggesting I launch an online fundraiser. And I will launch a fundraiser, but not quite yet. Because first I want to ask you to support the work of one of my favorite bloggers, Dave Neiwert of Orcinus.

Dave is perhaps the granddaddy of local bloggers, and has played a critical role nationally in tracking the transmission of right-wing hate speech from the political fringe, through surrogates like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, and into the mainstream media. He has been a role model, mentor and friend to me and other local bloggers, and an invaluable resource to bloggers nationwide.

Bloggers like Dave and I invest an awful lot of time and passion bringing you the kind of news and analysis the corporate media is no longer willing or able to deliver — time and passion that could be spent doing, you know… paying work. We both need your support, but he’s the one with the active fund drive, so if you’re as big a fan of Orcinus as I am, please help him out however you can.

On my trip back east last week, I mentioned that I was heading to Philadelphia’s Drinking Liberally with an old high school friend who’d worked in the mortgage industry for most of the past 10 years. We made it down there, met up with Atrios and the rest of their DL crew, and talked a bit about the Big Shitpile, among other things. Over the years, my friend was definitely in the minority as a Democrat in the mortgage industry. In the past, he’s told me stories about meetings where he could do nothing more than shake his head over how much the standard GOP talking points on economic issues were simply treated as a religion there – as a belief system that could not be questioned. He once told me of a conference where a speaker angrily protested against the idea of giving health care to the children of illegal immigrants, as if doing something like that will somehow unravel the delicate balance that keeps our economy going. My friend just got up and checked out the hotel bar.

As we chatted last Tuesday night at Tangiers, we also talked about Jim Cramer, the host of “Mad Money” on CNBC. Networks like CNBC tend to adhere to the free market orthodoxies, and I’ve always assumed that Cramer follows along in that vein. But I shouldn’t have been so sure:

An impassioned and sometimes fiery Jim Cramer, the investing guru and host of CNBC’s “Mad Money,” said Tuesday night that government deregulation was nothing short of a “covert attempt” to eliminate the federal government’s responsibilities to its citizens.

“Do not be fooled by the sirens of laissez faire,” he told a packed audience at Bucknell University’s Weis Center for the Performing Arts in the continuing national speakers series, “The Bucknell Forum: The Citizen & Politics in America.”

“Ever since the (President) Reagan era, our nation has been regressing and repealing years and years worth of safety net and equal economic justice in the name of discrediting and dismantling the federal government’s missions to help solve our nation’s collective domestic woes,” he said. “We call it deregulation … a covert attempt to eliminate the federal government’s domestic responsibilities.”

…

Before embarking on his talk, titled “The Capitalist Citizen and Democracy,” Cramer warned his audience to not be misled by the persona that hosts his popular CNBC program “Mad Money.”

“This is not a ‘Mad Money’ show, nor is this the man you see at 6 and 11 on TV. This is who I really am. And I’m honored to be given a chance to say who I really am and to give you a talk that is heartfelt and is not about entertainment education or making friends and making money,” said Cramer.

Deregulation
He said that deregulation is the equivalent of saying that “private industry will do it better, that volunteers will do it better, that business if left unfettered will produce so many rich people that they will do it better than the government can.”

Even the best of the nation’s private enterprises, Cramer said, citing companies like Wells Fargo, Pepsi, United Technologies, Google, and Costco, can’t meet those demands.

“You, the next generation of corporate and government leaders, should know and understand the limits of what even the best of capitalism and the marketplace can do to promote the general welfare. As future citizen capitalists you must not embrace the unrequited love of the government of the United States for private enterprise,” he said. “Be wise enough to see that government regulation is a necessary evil.”

Atrios remarks:

Perhaps he should put some of those ideas out there a bit more prominently on his cable show.

I’m not a regular viewer of his show, but his remarks certainly betray the fact that he doesn’t say that stuff on his show because his views are seen as blasphemy within the world of economic cable news. And this trend is certainly parallel to the cable news orthodoxies that still write off those who are too stridently anti-war, even though those people have often been much more accurate in their analyses. Many people see Christianity, or more specifically Evangelicalism, as the religion at the heart of the Republican Party. It’s not, and it’s never really been. The religion at the heart of the Republican Party is the belief that government is at its most responsible when it takes responsibility for nothing and becomes a vessel for the empowerment of big business (even if that involves war). That is the orthodoxy that dare not be questioned. Many people today still buy into the lingering divide from the 60s which paints the counter-culture warrior as the irresponsible counterpart to the Cold Warrior, but today the roles are reversed. Those on the right who still see the current geopolitical reality as being a mirror image of those days are the irresponsible ones, unable to come to grips with the fact that the new orthodoxies that arose in the 80s as America de-regulated and became the sole superpower were not an excuse for us to be absolved of any and all responsibility. And this failure has left us with a number of very big problems that the next President will have to fix.

710-KIRO has canceled my show “for budgetary reasons.” I’m not exactly sure about all the changes to the weekend schedule (I just talked to Bryan Styble, and he too got the ax,) but apparently syndication and reruns better fit the station’s current business model than live, local talk. Ah well.

Coming off a fall book where 710-KIRO weekends placed number three in the market, and a several month streak of jam-packed spot loads, I’d say the weekend shakeup was a bit of a surprise… that is, if Frank Shiers recent fate hadn’t been the handwriting on the wall. Over the past 14 months 710-KIRO has now shed itself of at least 38 44 hours a week of live local programming, and the salaries that go with it. It’s a trend that has been repeated at radio stations throughout the state, and I can’t say it’s one that ultimately better serves the community. For example, I had Gov. Chris Gregoire booked for a half hour this coming Saturday night — where are weekend listeners going to find local programming like that?

Obviously I’m deeply disappointed. I really enjoyed doing the show, and the sudden loss of it leaves me in pretty deep financial doo-doo. It would have been nice to have the opportunity to say goodbye to my audience and thank them for listening, but apparently, that’s not how it works in this business. That said, I remain thankful to 710-KIRO for giving me an opportunity I should have had no expectation of receiving. Special thanks go to former Programming Director Tom Clendening for taking a gamble on me, and to my board operator Chris Powell, who has so generously given of his time to serve as an unpaid, acting producer. It was really great working with (almost) everybody at station. And of course, thanks to everybody for listening.

So go ahead trolls… have at it. You’ve been waiting for the day to rub my face in it, and that day is finally here. Just remember that as you gloat, you’re also talking about a real person with a mortgage to pay and a child to feed, who has sacrificed the better part of the past four years to trying to make a difference, however much you disagree with me on the issues. And, remember that we didn’t just lose a local liberal show… we lost another local show, and that can’t be a positive thing for anybody but the most vindictive amongst you.

As for my readers and listeners, I’m not giving up on the dream of local liberal talk, and neither should you. So if you ever thought about lobbying AM-1090 to put a local host on the air, now might not be a bad time to start.

UPDATE:
Word is that they’ve snuffed Carl Jeffers as well, though I’m no longer privy to company emails, so I can’t confirm. (UPDATE: confirmed.)

Now that John Edwards has quit the race for the Democratic nomination, the big question on everybody’s minds is where will his supporters go, Clinton or Obama? But without a doubt the big winner from Edwards withdrawal is Mike Gravel, who now stands to double or even triple his current delegate count. (Do the math.)

As for where this particular Edwards supporter goes… well… I don’t yet know. I’ve never bought in to the “Hillary can’t win” meme, but I do believe that Obama matches up better against John McCain, and will be better for down ticket candidates like Darcy Burner. And I’m torn between Clinton’s hard-edged political savvy, versus Obama’s potential as a transformational leader. They’re both qualified and I believe they’d both make a good president. And they both appear to be smarter than me, one of the only litmus tests beyond party identification I absolutely apply to presidential candidates.

If you too were an Edwards supporter, I’d love to hear from you in the comment threads as to who you plan to caucus for a week from Saturday.