HorsesAss.Org

This Tuesday BBC Radio starts airing a five-part series called Meet the Bloggers, introducing you to the people “who’ve attracted attention in cyberspace by recording their thoughts and impressions on anything and everything.”

I’m pretty impressed with the lineup of bloggers featured over the coming weeks. For example, take a look at the program segment on political blogs:

Programme 4: It’s Political
Tuesday 19 September 2006, 9.30am

A look at Instapundit, one of the biggest “political’ blogs in America, written by law professor Glenn Reynolds from Knoxville, Tennessee, and Horsesass, where local political activist David Goldstein, from Seattle, gives what he calls “the Straight Poop on Politics and the Press’

Yeah that’s right. When the BBC went out looking for a couple of bloggers to represent the right and the left of the political blogosphere, they chose Glenn Reynolds and, um… me. (I know… it’s hard to believe somebody like Reynolds made the cut.)

My segment will be available for streaming after it airs on Sept. 19th, along with a longer version of my interview; I’ll post an update at that time. In the meantime you can read BBC producer Mark Savage’s impressions of meeting us bloggers face to face.

I’d like to perform an experiment, and I’m looking for a couple of volunteers.

First, I need somebody with a good quality, professional “breathalyzer.”

Second, I need an approximately 200-pound man, willing and able to consume eight drinks in a single hour. (Sorry Sandeep, you don’t meet the weight requirement.)

If we can get both of these to this Tuesday’s Drinking Liberally, I’d like to see exactly how many drinks it takes to achieve a 0.17 percent blood-alcohol level, and a general idea of the associated level of impairment. In fact, in the interest of accuracy, I am graciously extending an invitation to Mike!™ McGavick to join us as our test subject.

Send me an email if you can volunteer either or both. Drinks are on me, as is the ride home.

I’ve never really thought of Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida as an Evangelical fundamentalist, but then, it probably takes much of the cognitive dissonance out of stealing a presidential election to tell yourself that you are acting in the name of God.

In a strikingly candid interview in the Florida Baptist Witness, Harris — the presumptive Republican nominee for US Senate — calls “separation of church and state” a “lie,” and berates the notion that this is “a nation of secular laws.”

Uh-huh.

Harris gained notoriety as Florida’s Republican Secretary of State who did her best to rig the 2000 election in favor of gubernatorial brother George W. Bush; for her efforts she was elected to Congress. Now she’s running a quixotic campaign for Senate which threatens to tear the Florida GOP apart. Already trailing Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson by over 30 points, these new comments suggest Harris may pushing for 40.

“If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin […] and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.”

Holy shit.

This is a US Senate candidate folks, and while we all know that there are prominent electeds out there who genuinely believe that us average, non-Christian citizens “don’t know better,” we certainly don’t expect them to come right out in public and say it. Last time I visited my snowbird mother down in Florida, I noticed an awful lot of CWANCs (Citizens Who Are Not Christian) kibitzing over lox and bagels. Some of these CWANCs even tend to be the type of affluent voter attracted to the Republicans’ undeserved reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility… but I’m guessing it’s a bit of a political turnoff to be called an ignorant sinner by an election-stealing, booty-shaking spoiled heiress whose name has become an urban lingo synonym for crazy.

But then, I’m just another one of those godless CWANCs, so I don’t know better.

Andrew at NPI has been down in Olympia this week observing the signature verification process on Tim Eyman’s presumably doomed I-917. Timmy will of course scream foul play if his initiative doesn’t qualify, but Andrew describes the process as “slow and methodical.”

We may not know the final results until the end of September.

I’m sure much of the discussion over Mike!™ McGavick’s surprise revelation yesterday afternoon that he had been arrested on a DUI thirteen years ago will probably focus on whether or not this was a shrewd political move. (The revelation, that is, not the DUI.)

But one thing that seems to have been glossed over in the media coverage thus far is how totally blotto Mike!™ admits to have been at the time:

He told The Associated Press that he registered 0.17 in a blood-alcohol test, well above the legal limit, after he was pulled over. He told the Seattle P-I that he wasn’t arrested and the charge never went on his driving record because it was ultimately dismissed.

“Well above the legal limit”…? Talk about an understatement. 0.17 is more than double the legal blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 percent, and more than halfway towards unconsciousness.

And what does it take to get this incredibly drunk? Well according to every blood-alcohol calculator and chart I checked online, an awful damn lot. For example, using the University of Oklahoma Police Department’s online calculator I plugged in 8 drinks over the course of an hour for a 200 pound man, and I only got up to 0.16 percent. (Perhaps it’s telling that OK’s calculator only goes up to 8 drinks an hour.)

A fluke? Check out charts and calculators here, here, here, and here. In fact, according to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation it takes over 9 drinks in an hour to hit 0.17 percent!

How drunk is this? HealthStatus.com provides the following helpful reference chart:

BAC Level Percentage	Effects
.03 to .12	Feeling of increased confidence, sense of daring. Look flushed or red in face. Trouble with fine actions, such writing.
.09 to .25	Trouble seeing or focusing, slow reactions, sleepy, stumble often or lose balance easily.
.18 to .30	Confusion, dizziness, slurred speech and lack of muscle coordination.
Above .25	Serious health issues, including death.

That’s pretty damn drunk.

I’m sure many of us have reached for our car keys wondering how close we might be to the legal limit; the thought has occurred to me leaving Drinking Liberally, where I typically consume two or three beers over the course of an evening. But 8 or 9 drinks? Since college, I don’t think I’ve had that much to drink in an entire day, and if I’d downed them in a single hour, my dorm mates would have found me face down, head in a toilet. (Okay… they did.)

This was no borderline lapse of judgement. Mike!™ was drunk. And it should have been damn clear to him, his wife and his friends that he was totally unfit to drive.

And while I’m guessing from his admission that this was the only time he got caught, it’s hard to believe that this was the first or only time he ever stumbled behind the wheel of a car. In any case, it certainly wasn’t the first time McGavick got totally shit-faced, as this type of serious drinking requires some serious training.

But then, we shouldn’t expect anything less from such a serious candidate.

UPDATE:
See, this is why we do what we do. The Seattle Times follows up:

But McGavick provided few details about the arrest, prompting Internet discussions about how much he had to drink.

Turns out it was mostly beer at a series of three parties, and the Times also cites the University of Oklahoma Police Department’s online blood-alcohol level calculator.

So let’s see. If it takes 8 or 9 beers an hour (1993 DC lobbyist crowd, I’m guessing Heineken or Becks) how many beers did he have over three or four hours to maintain a 0.17, and how much drunk driving did he do between the parties to get from one to the other? That must have been some evening of binge drinking.

KING-5 TV just released the first head-to-head poll in WA’s 8th Congressional District race between Republican incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner… and I’m guessing both sides are going to claim they’re thrilled with the results.

According to the poll of 609 registered voters conducted by SurveyUSA, Reichert leads Burner 54% to 41% with only 6% undecided.

So if Reichert is leading by an apparently comfortable 13 point margin, why did one longtime Democratic politico ecstatically email me that these numbers are “freakin’ fantastic”…?

I’m guessing the biggest reason for Democrats to get excited is that Burner’s 41 percent is damn impressive considering she entered this race with zero name recognition, and has only just begun to make her first tentative forays into paid media. The poll was conducted 8/22 – 8/23, only a week after Burner made her first, small TV buy; her first direct mail piece is only just now reaching voters.

Much of Reichert’s lead can surely be attributed to a huge advantage in name ID — which must register a stratospheric ninety-something percent for the former sheriff and self-proclaimed Green River Killer catcher. It is also an advantage that is surely exaggerated by the fact that the poll did not screen for “likely voters”; this screen won’t come until after the primary.

Burner supporters can also be buoyed by the crosstabs, which show only 35% support for President Bush, significantly lower than SurveyUSA’s national average. Those who approve of President Bush’s job performance choose Reichert by an overwelming 93% to 4% margin. Those who disapprove choose Burner 66% to 27%.

The task for Burner seems clear. She needs to improve her name ID while persuading voters to identify Reichert with President Bush’s failed policies. Given the time and the resources, both can be achieved, and fortunately for Burner she has plenty of both.

Of course this is only a single poll, and not necessarily one of the most reliable. As I’ve previously pointed out, many respectable news agencies like CNN and the Associated Press won’t even report on robo-polls like SurveyUSA’s. (Let’s face it, nobody really believes that only 6 percent of voters are undecided at this point in the race. Many undecided voters simply hang up on robo-polls.) The fact is, KING-5 contracts with SurveyUSA because it’s cheap.

That said, one thing seems pretty obvious: considering the dynamics of the race and the unique political climate this year, 41 percent in August absolutely puts Burner within striking distance for November. Reichert supporters can take solace in the 13 point margin if they want, but I’m guessing their internal numbers aren’t nearly as comforting, and I guarantee the race will narrow as voters learn more about the candidates.

We’re off to the races.

Both Darcy Burner and Peter Goldmark have shared details of their internal polls (here and here,) yet their opponents, Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris have remained silent.

Hmm. I wonder why?

Via Swing State Project, Amy Walter of Cook Political Report explains:

Publicly released polls taken in individual districts also tell a pretty ugly story for the incumbent party in Congress. Since the beginning of this year, we have seen 38 polls released by Democrats, or Democratic-related groups, while we have seen just five public polls released by Republicans or Republican-related groups. And, when you look at the individual polls, it is easy to understand why Democrats are much more willing to disclose their numbers.

Democrats have released polling taken in 27 districts held by a Republican. Of those, 22 incumbents were under 50 percent of the vote against their Democratic opponent and 10 incumbents were either behind or within the margin of error. Republicans have only released three polls in Republican held seats – two of which showed the Republican under 50 percent (one was Rep. Bob Ney who announced this week that he was not running for re-election).

And with Burner on the air early, pumping up her positives and name ID unopposed, it’s awfully unlikely Reichert’s gonna find a more flattering poll than the one he commissioned in July — and quietly sat on.

In its quest to reach a hipper, younger audience, the Seattle Weekly (editorial motto: “Under New Management”) has started running the syndicated advice column Ask a Mexican.

Hmm.

When I first heard about Ask a Mexican a few months back on NPR’s On the Media, I thought it sounded like an amusing, edgy and oddly informative effort to combat racial stereotypes. But now that I’ve had the chance to read it in the Weekly… not so much.

Maybe it was just an off week. Or perhaps I just couldn’t handle the incongruity of seeing such an un-Brewsteresque column in the pages of the once venerable Weekly. But rather than combatting hateful stereotyping it just struck me as an opportunity for the questioners to luxuriate in it under the guise of enlightened sarcasm.

Writer Gustavo Arellano keeps his sense of humor as he slaps down the questions with snark, wit, and big wallop of reality. But the questions… oy. Questions like “What is it about the word ‘illegal’ that Mexicans don’t understand?” or “Why do Mexicans love public rest rooms so much?” Rather than encouraging dialog, the whole column comes off as an opportunity for sensitive liberals to have a good laugh at the expense of ignorant bigots — all the while giving the bigots a public forum.

But what do I know? The Weekly’s new publishers are successful professionals, after all. I mean… they even have focus groups.

So rather than criticize, I’m choosing to follow their lead and ride the wave of ambiguously self-hating ethnic stereotyping that surely leads to a younger, more lucrative demographic. And so I’m pleased to announce the launch of HA’s newest weekly feature: Ask a Secular Jew Who Married a Shiksa and Lives Near Two Orthodox Synagogues.

Here’s how it works. If you have a question about Jews or Judaism, and you think a secular Jew who married a shiksa and lives near two orthodox synagogues might have the answer, just ask away in the comment thread of this post. I’ll answer one or two of the most ridiculous and blatantly antisemitic questions in next week’s column.

All I ask in return is that you please show a little decorum and follow the rules. For example, I will not answer simple, Jew-baiting death threats. However, if, for example, like one anonymous email correspondent you were to ask “Why don’t you die you Christ-killing, motherfucking jewboy bastard?”… well, that would be acceptable… as long as you remember to include the question mark.

I look forward to your questions, and eventually, a lucrative syndication deal.

The race is tight, so the DCCC has extended its deadline on its “Candidate for Change” poll:

Only a handful of votes are separating the ten great candidates at the top of the list right now — Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Tammy Duckworth, Patty Wetterling, Lois Murphy, Ron Klein, Mary Jo Kilroy, Darcy Burner and Zack Space — but others are well within reach.

So if you haven’t already done so please vote Darcy Burner now… and while you’re there, it certainly couldn’t hurt to write in Peter Goldmark. (That’s what I did.)

The top three finishers will receive the following extra support:

• A fundraising email from Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi or DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel to our list;
• A phone bank run out of the Democratic National Headquarters for their campaign;
• The feature spot on our Web site to get their message out, with a link to their campaign contribution page;
• An online chat with the DCCC community to exchange ideas on the campaign and the future of our country.

This will be a tight race, and every extra little bit of support helps. Plus, this is a great opportunity to show once again that Washington state has one of the strongest netroots movements in the nation.

Speaking of which, the MyDD/DailyKos/Swing State Project August fundraising drive is in full swing, and look which Netroots Endorsed congressional candidate has raised the most money over the past 48 hours. Way to go.

Apparently, the whole blogging craze has pretty much run its course, because other than me there wasn’t a single active, political blogger on the panel last night. (Political bloggers are so July.)

Joining me were non-bloggers Sandeep and Laura, former bloggers Will and Carl, and non-political blogger Gavin. So of course we led off our conversation with the biggest political issue of the day: Snakes on a Plane! No really… tune in and listen to how we cleverly connect this seemingly unrelated topic to Ned Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Other topics of discussion included Mike!™ McGavick’s career path through Washington D.C.’s lucrative revolving door, the Seattle Storm’s imminent move to Oklahoma City after their fan support collapses in the wake of their disappointing playoff loss, the John Bircher behind WA’s estate tax repeal initiative, Will’s manly love for John Edwards, replacing the Viaduct with nothin’, the GOP’s intentional non-grammatical use of the term "Democrat" Party instead of the proper "Democratic" Party, Kyle Taylor Lucas’s strong challenge to faux-Democratic Sen. Tim Sheldon in the primary, and the hypocritical, mean-spirited Rev. Joe Fuiten.

The show is 53:49, and is available here as a 41.1 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski involuntarily retired yesterday when he came in third in his state’s Republican primary, polling just 19 percent of the vote.

So… um… where are all the headlines about crazed, right-wing extremists taking over the Republican Party? My God… the GOP rank and file tossed out an incumbent! Where’s the outrage? Where are the claims that Republican nominee Sarah Palin is the “al-Qaeda candidate”…?

Oh, and another difference between the reaction to this primary and the one in Connecticut:

Murkowski shook Palin’s hand in the middle of a crowd of her supporters.

“Congratulations, you’ve got my support. I’ll do everything to see that you’re elected,” Murkowski told her.

That’s because Murkowski is a Republican. But then, judging from his refusal to honor the will of Democratic voters, so is Joe Lieberman.

Gov. Christine Gregoire’s positive approval ratings hold steady for the second straight month, and Markos is impressed:

Christine Gregoire (D) of Washington continues to impress at 51/45. She began her controversial tenure at 34/58, but she is steadily establishing herself as an effective governor and the people of her state are coming around.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. I’m looking forward to a cool Manny’s and some crisp conversation.

Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in Vancouver and the Tri-Cities. Here’s a full run down of WA’s ten Drinking Liberally chapters:

	Where:	When:	Next Meeting:
Burien:	Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub, 435 SW 152nd St	Fourth Wednesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	August 23
Kirkland:	Valhalla Bar & Grill, 8544 122nd Ave NE	Every Thursday, 7:00 pm onward	August 24
Monroe:	Eddie’s Trackside Bar and Grill, 214 N Lewis St	Second Wednesday of each month, 7:00 PM onward	September 13
Olympia:	The Tumwater Valley Bar and Grill, 4611 Tumwater Valley Drive South	First and third Monday of each month, 7:00-9:00 pm	September 4
Seattle:	Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Ave E	Every Tuesday, 8:00 pm onward	August 22
Spokane:	Red Lion BBQ & Pub, 126 N Division St	Every Wednesday, 7:00 pm	August 23
Tacoma:	Meconi’s Pub, 709 Pacific Ave	Every Wednesday, 8:00 pm onward	August 23
Tri-Cities:	Atomic Ale, 1015 Lee Blvd, Richland	Every Tuesday, 7:00 pm onward	August 22
Vancouver:	Hazel Dell Brew Pub, 8513 NE Highway 99	Second and fourth Tuesday of each month, 7:00 pm onward	August 22
Walla Walla:	The Green Lantern, 1606 E Isaacs Ave	First Friday of each month, 8:00 pm onward	September 1

Peter Goldmark has another diary in the recommended list on Daily Kos today. Help keep it there by recommending his diary now.

While you’re at it, there are a couple other things you can do for Goldmark. Tomorrow is the last day to vote in the DCCC’s “Candidate for Change” contest. Vote for Darcy Burner and write in Peter Goldmark. And then when you’re done, give them both some money.

After only a month on the air and a few weeks on the ground actively campaigning, US Sen. Maria Cantwell has widened her net approval rating from a mere 5 to 6 point margin in June and July to a healthy 17 point margin in August.

At 55% to 38%, Sen. Cantwell not only sits comfortably above the 50 percent approval mark where incumbents want to be, but also matches her highest approval rating over the past year in the monthly SurveyUSA poll. By comparison, both her approval and net approval ratings rank Sen. Cantwell in the middle of the pack amongst senators nationally, and several points above WA’s Sen. Patty Murray, who easily won reelection in 2004.

But a look at the cross tabs is even more instructive. Sen. Cantwell’s approval amongst self-identified “liberal” voters jumped from 60% to 34% in July to 76% to 18% in August… a stunning 32 point increase in net approval margin in only a single month, and the best approve/disapprove numbers she’s scored over the past 15. Sen. Cantwell’s bounce amongst “Democrats” is nearly as pronounced, climbing from a 62% to 31% margin to 73% to 19%.

The conclusion: ninety days before the election, Sen. Cantwell’s base has come home.

According to SurveyUSA, Sen. Cantwell’s approval rating now sits at or above the magic 50% mark amongst both men and women, and in all regions, age groups, education levels and races except Asian. She enjoys 52% approval with independents and 63% with moderates, while her disapproval amongst Republicans and conservatives is significantly softer than her approval amongst Democrats and liberals respectively.

Sure, this is just a single poll in a single month, and a lot can change between now and November, but none of the trends look very good for Republican challenger Mike!™ McGavick right now. His campaign tried to make hay about him “closing the gap” in recent polls, but in truth, it was Sen. Cantwell’s numbers that slid while Mike!™ couldn’t gain enough traction to climb above 40 percent. And the most recent Rasmussen Poll, taken only a week after Sen. Cantwell’s first ads started airing, showed the trend reversing with Sen. Cantwell retaking a double-digit lead. No wonder in its latest “Balance of Power” scorecard of the US Senate, the Republican-leaning Rasmussen listed Sen. Cantwell’s seat as safe Democratic.

Mike!™ has been widely touted as the Republicans best shot at taking down a Democratic incumbent. Hmm. Looking at current trends, that doesn’t say much for the GOP’s prospects this November, huh?