HorsesAss.Org

Cheer up Dave; you may have had another shitty fundraising quarter, but at least you’re not alone:

Nearly two dozen House incumbents were outraised by their opponents and another dozen candidates established themselves as early frontrunners for newly open seats late last week as fourth quarter financial reports were due.

Among the members on the short end of the fundraising battle in October, November and December were Republican Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.)…

That sure does put Sheriff Dave in great company:

Young raised just $40,000 and spent more than $400,000 in the quarter on unexplained legal fees (he is under federal investigation for his ties to the Veco Corporation), while Democrat Ethan Berkowitz raised $120,000.

The longtime congressman still has almost $1 million in cash, but it is dissipating fast due to more than $800,000 in legal fees in 2007.

With GOP incumbents facing tough battles in places like Alaska and Idaho, it’s shaping up to be one tough year for Republicans.

Um… it’s the Republicans who are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservativism, right?

President Bush is sending Congress a $3 trillion spending blueprint that would provide a big boost to defense and protect his signature tax cuts.

It seeks sizable savings in government health care programs and puts the squeeze on much of the rest of government, but it would still generate near-record budget deficits over the next two years.

In the wake of 9/11, with the nation rallying behind him, President Bush used his political capital to slash taxes on the wealthy and ask Americans to go shopping. And folks wonder why our economy is heading toward a precipice?

I guess it is possible to be both green, and… um… green.

To reduce energy consumption, Costco is installing skylights and solar panels in its massive warehouse clubs. Six stores in California and Hawaii have the solar panels, and seven additional stores are to get them this year.

The installer of the Hawaii panels, California-based REC Solar, says the installations at Costco’s Kauai and Kona stores are Hawaii’s two largest solar arrays.

The panels cost about $745,000 per store, and Costco typically doesn’t make that money back for three to five years. But Sinegal said they’re a sign of the times: “We recognize, like all businesses, that we must continue to conserve and save the planet.”

They’ll make back their money in only three to five years? Solar cells last thirty years or longer, so with that kind of ROI you’d think this sort of investment would be a no brainer.

Oh wait… global warming isn’t real, and it’s obviously in both our economic and security interests to run our nation on imported oil, so what was I thinking?

I hate the Giants and the goddamn New York media elite who hype them. Hope they get their asses kicked.

[UPDATE by Will]

The fact that Eli Manning has found a place with the New York Football Giants is proof positive that retarded people can be productive citizens. Yeeeaaghghh!!!

Tom Brady bangs supermodels, while Eli Manning bangs into closed glass doors. Yeaaahghg!!!

[UPDATE by Will]

I just saw a clip of the Giants back-up QB, Jared Lorenzen. He’s a big boy, coming in at a stunning 285 lbs. When he’s in the huddle, he snacks on summer sausage and cheeze whiz.

[UPDATE by Will]

Wasn’t FOX supposed to do some sort of “football and politics” gimmicky feature? Pols talkin’ sports, while the jocks talk politics? I haven’t seen it yet.

[UPDATE by Will]

It’s Halftime! Superbowl Halftimes last about a week and a half these days.

Favorite commercials thus far:

IRON MAN preview

Justin Timberlake Pepsi ad

“Beer hidden in cheese” beer ad

[UPDATE by Goldy]
Anybody else notice during the last set of downs on the drive in which the Pats went up 14-10, that the Giants had two “injuries” that gave their defense a rest, only to have the player pop up and walk off the field with no limp or ill effect? What a bunch of pussies.

[UPDATE by Goldy]
Fuckin’ Giants. Ah well, it’s only football. And it could be worse. It coulda been the goddamn Cowboys.

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!