HorsesAss.Org

With 24% 25% 26% of the precincts counted, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama 40% 39% to 34% 35% 36%. I suppose it’s still early, and Obama could still squeak out a victory… but either way, Clinton wins. The polling over the past few days predicted a big win for Obama, but as Bill Clinton predicted early in the day, it’s gonna be a lot closer than expected. Nobody’s gonna count Clinton out after tonight.

I’ll be live blogging throughout the night, updating well, whenever I feel like it.

UPDATE 6:39 PM:
Clinton 39%, Obama 36% with 48% of the vote counted. Curiously, in checking for the most up to date results I’ve discovered that the TV network’s websites are lagging significantly behind the broadcasts. Hmm. Intentional?

UPDATE 7:32 PM:
NBC just called it for Clinton. So I guess I should replace the question mark in the headline with an exclamation point, huh?

UPDATE 7:34 PM:
Nick just took the remote away from Andrew.

UPDATE 7:45 PM:

Hillary Clinton	67,828
Barack Obama	62,736
John McCain	52,142
Mitt Romney	43,920
John Edwards	29,126
Mike Huckabee	16,233
Rudy Giuliani	12,146
Ron Paul	11,157
Bill Richardson	8,212
Dennis Kucinich	2,478
Fred Thompson	1,696
Duncan Hunter	723

With about 65% of precincts reporting, the big news tonight is in the race between candidates with hot, much younger wives, where Dennis Kucinich clearly kicks Fred Thompson’s ass.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of political pontification and primary punditry under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

The official event begins at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some of us will show up around 5PM to catch the early returns out of New Hampshire.

Tonight’s theme song: Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney and Wings, with a mash-up of a song by Free. (Definitely not All Right Now, however.)

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.

New Yorker Political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the National Popular Vote plan.

The National Popular Vote plan is the state compact that, if enacted by enough states, would have member states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Essentially, the plan is a constitutional way of creating a national popular vote without the difficulties of amending the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan has been championed by Dr. John R. Koza, who is Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc.

Hertzberg looks at Koza’s research into the “wrong winner” problem, in which the winner of the electoral college vote loses the popular vote (like happened in 2000). Koza uses national head-to-head general election polls and compares them to state head-to-head polls. Hertzberg writes:

A 2000-style disaster for democracy could easily befall us again this year, as Koza has just written an interesting analysis to show.

By compiling state-by-state polling data, Darryl Holman, a University of Washington social scientist, has run eight mock general-election pair-ups between Democratic and Republican candidates, showing who would win and who would lose in the Electoral College if the election were held today. What Koza has done is to compare Holman’s findings with a calculation of what the national popular vote would be, using national polls taken in the same time periods.

Koza’s startling finding: In three out of Holman’s eight head-to-head face-offs, the national popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote—and with it, of course, the mock election.

(Hey…I’m glad someone found those analyses useful!)

Hertzberg provides Koza’s entire analysis.

It is hard to argue in favor of our current system of electing our Presidents via the winner-take-all Electoral College approach. (Well…ignoring the “It’s how we’ve always done it!” argument, anyway.) Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.

One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon. But since the Constitution give the states control over how electors are selected, the National Popular Vote compact (if enacted by enough states to control the majority of the Electoral College votes) would effectively and legally create a popular vote for President. And with no need to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Think of the advantages to this system…. First, candidates will no longer spend the vast majority of their time pandering to a few important swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Right now, a voter in Ohio has far more influence in electing the President than you have. It just shouldn’t be so. In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.

A popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign more broadly so as to reach as many voters as possible. It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!

Finally, a popular vote gets rid of the embarrassing (albeit rare) situation—like we saw in 2000—where the loser of the popular vote ends up being President.

The Washington state legislature is about to take up work on a National Popular Vote bill:

The 10 legislative sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington State include Representatives Joe McDermott, Shirley Hankins, Mark Miloscia, Mike Armstrong, Fred Jarrett, and Tom Campbell and Senators Eric Oemig, Darlene Fairley, Craig Pridemore, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. The House bill is HB 1750 (Status of HB 1750), and the Senate bill is SB 5628 (Status of SB 5628).

If you like the idea of Washington state participating in the compact, contact your Washington state Senator and Representatives. Here is a good place to start.

To learn more about the progress of the compact in other states, visit the National Popular Vote web site.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

At yesterday’s reception following his election as president of the City Council, I asked Richard Conlin what his biggest challenge was for the coming year. He cited renewal of the city’s Pro Parks Levy, first passed in November 2000. When I observed that the mayor had shown little interest in re-upping, Conlin said, “He doesn’t like the idea.” Conlin has made no secret of his desire to see more backbone from the Council, and now his undertaking has a hot-button issue.

You don’t have to look very far around Seattle to see the benefits of the $198.2 million levy. Virtually every city park has gotten some enhancement, whether it be murals, new bathrooms or a near-makeover such as daylighting Ravenna. But the process has been frequently contentious, with open-space advocates, civic activists and neighborhood groups butting heads with Parks Department officials over insidious commercialization, including plastic grass, leasing of public buildings to private entities and favoring money-making organized athletics over more traditional but non-revenue producing uses. Parks policies have proven a flash point for community controversy, including tree-cutting in Occidental Park, concerts in Gas Works Park, field lighting and warehouse-leasing in Magnuson Park, fake grass at Loyal Heights and the notorious Woodland Park Zoo parking garage, where Parks was the city’s partner with the non-profit, private Zoo Society.

In many cases, Parks ran roughshod over citizen opinion and was later found to have violated the law or public process. With the departure of longtime director Ken Bounds early last year and overhaul of the Parks Board, fresh air seems the rule of the day. Renewal of the levy, which Conlin expects to see on the November ballot, is a politically bold but risky move. When I mentioned the contentiousness around Parks, Conlin admitted, “It’s something we’re going to have to work with.” Whether the process heals some still-festering wounds, or merely rubs salt in them, will attest to Conlin’s and the Council’s political adeptness. No one wants to see parks fiscally hamstrung, but the levy could provide a negotiating wedge for the public to ensure a transparent and fair, even if rocky, process for determining parks policies.

The move also could highlight Conlin’s own generally underappreciated political skills. While not committing to any particular office, Conlin already has begun raising funds for a 2009 candidacy that his fans hope will be for the mayor’s office. Backing the levy is a brilliant move in that sense. It will provide a high-profile issue and political test-bed for Conlin. It puts the mayor in a tricky position: If he actively opposes the levy he’ll look anti-civic and hypocritical (“Mr. Green Opposes Public-Space Funding”). If he does a 180 all of a sudden he’ll look like he’s not only flip-flopping but merely following Conlin’s astute lead.

A co-founder of Sustainable Seattle first elected to the Council in 1997 on a strong environment/sustainability platform, Conlin also is in a position to challenge some of the mayor’s inconsistencies of promoting unbridled development while pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At nearly every level, from the cars he drives to the trees he cuts down (while announcing massive stick-tree plantings, natch), the Nickels persona is fraught with hypocrisy. A lapdog media airbrushes Nickels’ flim-flammery, but a resilient City Council led by its new president could embarrass the mayor when called for. Significantly, neither Nickels nor a mayoral proxy was evident at the going-away party for Peter Steinbrueck last month, or yesterday’s swearing-in reception.

Beyond any mayoral implications, though, there’s a sense that with global warming and green initiatives driving much of public policy, especially in Seattle, Conlin’s time has come. Over the year’s he’s been a consistent advocate for the environment and the little guy in city politics. He’s done far more behind-the-scenes maneuvering than he gets credit for. He’s shown an ability to work with a variety of constituencies, including downtown developers, in forging effective compromises. And when he’s been crossed, he hasn’t gotten arrogant or rattled. I’ve never seen Conlin get really mad. But I have seen him get even. In throwing down the gauntlet as Council president and coming to the game with certified green credentials, he’s daring the mayor to practice what he preaches. It’s going to be an interesting next two years.

New Hampshire election officials are predicting record turnout in today’s presidential primary; as of noon EST some districts were already concerned about running out of ballots.

“Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots,” [Deputy Secretary of State Dave] Scanlan said. “We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly.”

[…] According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary.

It also suggests that energized Democrats are turning out in greater numbers than their Republican counterparts, following the same pattern we saw in Iowa. I know my righty trolls have long consoled themselves that the GOP’s fortunes bottomed out in 2006’s big blue wave, but if these trends continue through November, 2008 is gonna be an awfully bad year for Republicans up and down the ticket. Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has the potential to unify his party while attracting independents nationwide. Which Republican candidate can do that?

FYI:
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight as usual at the Montlake Ale House, and I expect a healthy contingent to show up early to watch the results come in.

There was actually a fair amount of news yesterday, even if it will all be forgotten by noon in the avalanche blatherthon of New Hampshire’s primary. It’s hard, channel-surfing, not to get sick to your stomach with the ignorant-to-buffoonish analysis that is supposed to pass for punditry. If we’ve learned anything from the ludicrously bipolar coverage — Hillary’s a lock, no wait, she’s dead! … ‘New Populism’ reigns supreme, er, McCain is King! and on and on — it’s that the pop generalizations just don’t work. No wonder The New York Times ran Sunday’s op-ed piece observing that the news media and TV advertising simply aren’t factoring into electoral decisions any more. It’s word on the street, baby…take it to the bank.

OK, this was supposed to be about yesterday’s headlines, and we’ve got some good ones, even if the material beneath them could use some word off the street as well. Housing prices, as you’ve been reading here on HA since the Fall 2007 days of “can’t happen here” local headlines, have been verified statistically to have hit the wall. Both papers have lead stories, The Times being the better reported while still relying on the impeccably unbiased, rock-solid reliable Windermere Services Co. for the upside. The P-I has a hilarious quote about the market having bottomed out and prices actually on the rise. Maybe they should interview these realtors about the benefits of relaxed marijuana laws. Reality-check that quote with The Times piece: “He wants to sell his Granite Falls home of four years. But he’s feeling ‘very unsure, just like most’ about whether the local residential real-estate market has hit bottom.’

I for one would hereby like to say I am not unsure: PUT DOWN THAT DOOBIE! IT HASN’T HIT BOTTOM! OK????

One clue comes from a conversation I had last week with a Seattle realtor about a North End property:

Realtor: “It’s been sold on contingency.”

Me: “Contingency? Now there’s a term I haven’t heard in awhile.”

Realtor: “Oh yes, it’s coming back.”

I checked a couple of days later. The house is back on the market, guess that contingency didn’t work out (wink wink).

You learn a lot walking the street and talking with folks. It does require passing on the budget meetings and getting out of the damn office.

If more reporters did that, we might not have to rely on state audits to uncover Port corruption. In a world of an aggressive press, there would be daily stories about the need for heads to roll at the Port. Instead a passive media sits on its hands and waits for the Justice Department to do something, so they will have some official source to quote.

What else… With Starbucks stock slowly sinking in the West, the coffee giant canned its CEO and is bringing back none other than icon Howard Schultz to run the operation. With the Sonics no longer a pother, Schultz can now focus on doing for Starbucks what he did for Seattle basketball…no wait, that doesn’t read right. Howard we luv ya! But bringing you back isn’t going to make Peet’s and Herkimer and Zoka and the whole new “greening” slash localization of coffee go away, to say nothing of jittery aging boomer nerves. One word: Tea. It’s the new espresso.

There’s other stuff too, including the Zoo’s insemination of Chai in a story that misspells Alyne Fortgang’s name and could use a hard-nosed followup, but tell you what. I’ll leave them for tomorrow’s headlines, make that headline, reporter. Once again I dodged the elections bullet, but for tomorrow there will always be jaw-droppers like this.

As I wrote last week in declaring my preference for John Edwards, I will enthusiastically support whoever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination for president. This really is a tremendous field of candidates who each bring different strengths to the table, and they each put the Democratic Party in a very good position to win the White House… even Hillary Clinton.

I know that Republicans have long drooled at the prospect of facing off against Clinton, believing she would be by far the easiest Democrat to beat, and I know that there is some polling to back up this conventional wisdom… but I’ve never believed it. In fact, I’ve rolled more than a few eyes in private conversation by suggesting that Americans would actually grow to like Clinton once they got to know her better during the course of a general election campaign. I know it defies what we’ve been told for years, but Hillary Clinton is likable.

This clip of Clinton going off on an emotional tangent, her voice breaking slightly as she explains her personal reasons for putting herself through such a grueling campaign, has elicited howls of derision from her critics. To some it is a show of weakness we cannot afford in a president. To others it is just an act; yet another crass political calculation. But me, I see a rare, unguarded moment in which Clinton reveals herself to be, well, a human being, as complex and nuanced as most any other human being.

No doubt it takes a great deal of narcissism to run for president (as it does to say, blog or do talk radio,) but that doesn’t inherently make one’s motives for running any less genuine. We all have a tendency to vilify the opposition, but as Clinton explains, it is possible to be wrong, but for all the right reasons:

“And we do it, each one of us because we care about our country, but some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some us are ready and some us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven’t really thought that through enough.”

It is fair to disagree with Clinton on the issues, on her experience or on her agenda, but the “Hillary haters” in both parties who attack her motives add absolutely nothing to the debate, and those who expect their own knee-jerk dislike of Clinton to be shared by a majority of Americans are setting themselves up for disappointment should she win the nomination. Contrary to myth, Hillary Clinton is a real person with real emotions, and I have always believed that given the opportunity to know her better, voters would grow to appreciate Clinton and her incredibly broad grasp on the issues. And yes, perhaps, even like her.

According to multiple news reports, Clay Bennett has agreed to sell the WNBA franchise Seattle Storm to a local ownership group, keeping the team in Seattle whatever the final destination of the Sonics. The sale price has not yet been disclosed, but I’d previously heard rumors of a $12 million offer.

It’s a pretty smart business decision for Bennett, not simply because the Storm would have been a guaranteed money-loser in Oklahoma City, but because the sale undoubtedly mutes local opposition to the Sonics’ proposed move. What with the Sonics playing like a bunch of girls these days, why not just stick with the real thing, huh?

I re-read Seattle Times columnist Jim Vesely’s recent column, and I still don’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

Meanwhile, there are ideas about deep tunnels under downtown Seattle; questions of a five-year boring-and-tunneling task right next to UW’s Husky Stadium and the havoc it would bring; the now-uncertain funding of the most distant Sound Transit rail lines; and the near-collapse of the Washington ferry system.

Bluebloods like Vesely and others are apoplectic about losing their prime tailgating spot to Sound Transit construction. The only people with “question” about tunneling near Montlake is the University of Washington, who fear losing the parking revenues from Montlake-area parking during construction. (The UW would never cop to it, but parking is a big, big deal to them. How many governments have their own cash cows?)

B12 is the answer. Instead of a plan B, the region could accomplish a road here, a replacement bridge there, rethink Sound Transit’s most ambitious plans, consolidate the ferries instead of creating new ferry districts run by the counties, join with pension plans for capital to build toll lanes — in short, a list of priorities instead of a list that prioritizes everything.

Using pension plans to finance road construction is the hallmark of the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Center. Would you entrust your retirement with the folks who brought you Intelligent Design? Who are tearing down science and replacing it with their own theocratic world view?

I’m no legacy media whale, but even I can see that idea as the “tightly-coiled dogshit on the lawn” that it is.

Postman reports this morning that Republican Doug Roulstone has dropped his bid to unseat Washington 2nd Congressional District incumbent Rep. Rick Larsen. As Jacob quips in Postman’s comment thread:

“If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make any sound.”

No idea he was even running for Congress, and I am an above average political junkie.

It is a favorite pastime of local Republican trolls and bloggers to disparage and dismiss WA-08 Democratic challenger Darcy Burner as an “airhead” and a “lightweight,” as if repeating it often enough would make it so. But it is instructive to compare the brief political careers of both Burner and Roulstone.

Roulstone is a Navy Captain, a 27-year veteran, a graduate of the US Naval Academy and the former Commanding Officer of the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class, nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I’ve never met Roulstone, but on paper at least he appears to be an accomplished man and a commanding figure… the kind of resume that would seem a perfect match to Republicans’ own self image.

Arguably, Burner’s career accomplishments are less overtly spectacular. Burner, who enjoyed a modest upbringing in rural Nebraska, had to work multiple jobs to earn her way through Harvard University. That same sort of hard work, determination and natural smarts eventually carried her to a senior management position at Microsoft — not exactly equivalent to commanding a supercarrier, but a textbook illustration of the American dream come true, nonetheless.

Both Roulstone and Burner entered their respective 2006 House races as political novices facing well known incumbents in what most experts consider to be swing districts: the Cook Partisan Voter Index rates WA-08 as D+3 and WA-02 as D+2. (By comparison, WA-07 is rated D+30.) At the outset, neither were given much of a chance by local or national pundits, and Roulstone didn’t disappoint, losing to Larsen by a 19-point margin. Burner on the other hand shocked the political and media establishment, raising over $3.2 million and coming within 3 points of becoming the first Democrat ever to win WA-08.

Sure, it was a “wave” election in which Democrats retook both houses of Congress, and that certainly gave an advantage to Burner over Roulstone, but at the same time Burner had to swim against an unprecedented flood of GOP money while weathering the storm of being Karl Rove’s number one target. Adjusting for all the external factors — the strength of their opponents, the partisan leaning of their districts, the electorate’s thirst for change, etc. — only an idiot or a liar would deny that Burner proved herself to be the far superior candidate.

Fast forward to 2008, where Burner is preparing to announce over $600,000 cash-on-hand entering the final 9-months of the campaign, while Roulstone is quietly dropping his bid after an anemic year of fundraising, leaving 2nd CD Republicans in the unenviable position of scrambling to save face.

In many ways our electoral system has become utterly fucking ridiculous, a circus of perpetual campaigning in which money often speaks louder than words or deeds. But while this grueling and sometimes demeaning path toward elected office surely deters many qualified candidates who would otherwise make excellent public servants, it also serves to weed out those would-be office holders who are unwilling or unable to put up with the grueling demands of the office itself. It is undoubtedly an imperfect system, and our media’s (bloggers included) relentless focus on horse-race politics tends to trivialize our most crucial issues, yet it is fair to say that a candidate’s performance on the campaign trail is as good a predictor as any of his or her future performance in office.

Capt. Roulstone had an impressive military career by almost any measure, but as a political campaigner he paled in comparison to the supposedly “lightweight” Burner; that is why she is in the thick of a second competitive race, and he is not. Which is the more demanding profession? In America, our military commanders take their orders from our civilian leaders, and not the other way around.

As the oft maligned and dismissed Sen. Patty Murray — on the verge of becoming one of the most powerful figures in the US Senate — has repeatedly proven, it is not always obvious what traits make one a successful politician… though winning races you’re not supposed to win is surely one of them. Whether Burner is able to pull out an underdog victory against an entrenched incumbent in 2008 remains to be seen, but by the ultimate standard we use to judge all our politicians, she has already proven herself qualified to serve.

Like Goldy, I read the Times goofy-ass editorial about the building that formerly housed a Denny’s in Ballard. It’s editorials like these that would make me cancel my subscription. If I had one.

In the editorial, the paper announces that they don’t find the building all that special:

The Denny’s restaurant building in Ballard is not valuable enough to be saved — at least, not with public money or through a process of involuntary landmarking. Its owner should be allowed to sell the property to developers of housing, which the city needs.

Now, even if you disagree with this statement, it is, at it’s core, a reasonable one to make. We do need more housing, and as historic buildings go, I wouldn’t miss it that much. Maybe that makes me a philistine, but so be it. As googies go, we’ll always have the Space Needle. (On the flip side, while I usually goof on Skip Berger once in a while, I respect the fact that he seems to have single-handedly saved this building. Props.)

Then the Times goes on to make total asses of themselves:

The other problem with landmarking the old Denny’s is the process itself. Involuntary landmarking amounts to a partial taking of the owner’s property without compensation, for reasons that are at bottom political.

That is some stupid-ass reasoning. First off, the landmarking process is a long one. While owners of properties designated for landmark status may technically “lose” some rights to make changes to a building’s structure, they also gain access to all sorts of benefits that aren’t available to non-landmark buildings. Besides, if it weren’t for the landmarking process, how many of these buildings would be dust?

Besides, I don’t know what’s so political about saving landmark buildings. While Seattle liberals are proud to have saved the Pike Place Market, Spokane Republicans proudly show off the recently remodeled Davenport Hotel. While the big money interests in both towns wouldn’t have minded tearing down two old relics, good folks stood against it.

The Seattle Times, and the lazy libertarians who seem to be running the joint, should know better. It’s only a matter of time before their headquarters is designated a landmark for stupidity.

The legislative session starts on the 14th. It’s a short session so that the legislators can campaign for re-election. No major budget decisions. Nothing that hasn’t already gained some traction. So you can limit your expectations. But I won’t; here is what I’d like to see from our legislators:

* A cap and trade system for global warming gases. With our state’s biggest city (and several of our smaller ones) meeting Kyoto already, we ought to be able to make a cap and trade system with some real teeth. It’s my understanding that states can get into the European system if we meet their standards. This should be our goal. We can lead the country and get set up with a new commodity. Good for the environment and good for the local economy if we can make it happen.

* Income tax. Yeah, I know, a state supreme court decision in the 30’s says we can’t have one. We can have up to a 1% income tax, so here’s my proposal: A 1/2% flat tax for incomes between $30,000 and $60,000 and 1% for incomes over $60,000. We take whatever income we get from that tax and reduce the regressive state sales tax by that much.

* The article Lee linked to the other day had a suggestion for a law that will be tough to get through even this legislature, but is worth a shot:

When mothers abandon their unwanted newborns—which happens with alarming frequency—they must decide whether to leave an infant in a Dumpster, where the child is likely to die, or in a public place, where the child’s likelihood of survival is higher but so are the chances that the mother will be seen by witnesses, arrested, and prosecuted. The pandemic of abandoned newborns in the 1990s spawned a popular movement to declare emergency rooms and other medical facilities “safe havens” where mothers could abandon newborns without risking arrest. In 2002, the Washington State Legislature passed such a law.

A law that encourages people to call 911 when someone is overdosing would be grounded in the same impulse: It’s better to save lives than to prosecute every crime. But saving the lives of newborn babies is an easy sell and saving the lives of drug users is not.

But a life is a life to Senator Kline, who introduced legislation that would provide amnesty to people who call 911 to report an overdose. The bill, first introduced in 2005 and reintroduced in 2007 (remaining active in the 2008 session), states, “A person shall not be charged, subject to civil forfeiture, or otherwise prosecuted for a [drug offense] if… the person reported the drug overdose to law enforcement or summoned medical assistance at the time it was witnessed….”

Even the far from perfect law by Senator Kline would be a step in the right direction.

* Marriage Equity. Actually passing it does two things: First it gives gay couples the same recognition as the rest of us. As I told my evangelical cousin at Christmas, “what, do you want them living in sin?” But it also does something nice politically. It gets the issue off the table. Gay people aren’t going to drop the issue until they get full marriage equity, and the evangelical community isn’t going to drop the issue until gay people are all stoned to death, but having the end point puts the issue out of the minds of the rest of voters. So yeah, in the short term there may be some political fall out, but in the longer term it lets us not engage the crazies on the state level.

Anyway, there are a few from me, but I’d love to know what you want.

There are none. At least not locally. At least, not according to the Times and the P-I.

Fuck Mondays.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos with Miss Laura
Daily Kos contributing editor Miss Laura is on the ground in New Hampshire, and she calls in to give us the latest news and analysis as we head into Tuesday’s primary. Is Obama unstoppable? Can McCain pull out a victory? Who won Thursday’s debate? Tune in and find out.

8PM: TBA
Liberal propaganda.

9PM: TBA
The Ballard Denny’s has been designated a historic landmark, prompting the Seattle Times to complain that, well… it’s only a Denny’s. But they don’t stop there, charging that involuntary landmarking is a “taking” of the owner’s property, calling into question our long established historic preservation laws. Crosscut contributing editor Knute Berger joins us for the hour to talk about Ballard’s “Googie” architecture landmark, and historic preservation in general.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Seattle’s Landmarks Preservation Board voted 8-1 to nominate the old Ballard Denny’s for historic preservation, an act the Seattle Times attacks as an involuntary “partial taking of the owner’s property without compensation, for reasons that are at bottom political.” The building opened in 1964 as a Manning’s Cafeteria, and was designed by noted architect Clarence Mayhew. With its swooping roof and sixties-era futuristic look, preservation advocates argue that the building is one of the best remaining examples of “Googie” architecture in the region, a sentiment the Times derides:

It’s an old Denny’s, boarded up.

Huh. I’m agnostic on the issue for the moment, but I wonder if folks at the Times will be so unsentimental the day they board up Fairview Fanny and cease operations as a print publication?